The entire system of policing in the United States is in crisis. Police murdering civilians has become a too common nightmare across the United States. The police murders of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, Eric Garner in New York City, Walter Scott in Charleston, SC, Tamar Rice in Cleveland OH, Freddie Gray in Baltimore, MD, Laquan McDonald in Chicago, IL and so many more have spurred a movement to transform policing.

The power relationship between police and the community is out of balance. Militarized policing of black and brown communities resembles an occupying force. While many police departments use the slogan “protect and serve,” in too many communities, people do not feel protected or served. They feel threatened, harassed and abused by police.

The relationship between police and the people needs to change. While there have been some positive reforms like police body cameras, special units to investigate police and increased prosecutions of police, these are insufficient. The most promising transformational change is to put in place community control of police through a democratically-elected police accountability board.

Screenshots showing the police conflict and killing of Eric Garner.

The Crisis

The constant police killings and shootings often caught on video and shared on social media have created a movement to transform policing. Associated Press described it, writing: “The videos — and the outrage that followed — helped ignite the most powerful civil rights movement since the 1960s.” The widespread police violence has become a national racial justice issue.

Police violence has been a reality in the United States from the start. The poster to the right could be carried today, but it is more than 50 years old. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said in the I Have A Dream Speech, “We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.” Police violence has been part of centuries of oppression of Black people in the United States since they were first brought to the continent as slaves.

Slavery and racism are intertwined with policing, as Gary Potter Ph.D. wrote in The History of Policing in the United States:

“The genesis of the modern police organization in the South is the “Slave Patrol” (Platt 1982). The first formal slave patrol was created in the Carolina colonies in 1704 (Reichel 1992). Slave patrols had three primary functions: (1) to chase down, apprehend, and return to their owners, runaway slaves; (2) to provide a form of organized terror to deter slave revolts; and, (3) to maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to summary justice, outside of the law, if they violated any plantation rules. Following the Civil War, these vigilante-style organizations evolved in modern Southern police departments primarily as a means of controlling freed slaves who were now laborers working in an agricultural caste system, and enforcing “Jim Crow” segregation laws, designed to deny freed slaves equal rights and access to the political system.”

The 1929 Illinois Crime Survey found that although blacks made up just five percent of the population, they constituted 30 percent of the victims of police killings. Police violence has been the spark for uprisings in black communities. Newark had one of the deadliest riots when in 1967 police officers beat a black cab driver leading to an insurrection where 26 people died over four days of unrest. The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders investigated the causes of major uprisings concluding: “police actions were ‘final’ incidents before the outbreak of violence in 12 of the 24 surveyed disorders.”

The 1991 video of the bloody beating of cab driver Rodney King showed police brutality on television. Police hit King more than 50 times with their batons. When they were acquitted, the verdict led to an uprising that lasted six days, killing 63 people and injuring 2,373. The National Guard, US Army, and Marines were deployed in the community.

Today, the widespread acts of violence cannot be claimed to be isolated incidents of one bad apple. This violence is documented by the media like The Guardian and non-profit organizations like The Marshall ProjectMore than 1,100 people per year are killed by the police — more than four times the number of people lynched or executed by capital punishment in the worst of years —  about one person every eight hours.

Police departments have become a violent occupying force in communities of color and against people exercising their political rights at protests. Police departments with military-grade equipment have become the norm in US cities. Images of police officers in helmets and body armor riding through neighborhoods in tanks accompany stories of protests, including when people protest against police violence.

Putting People in Control of the Police

In 2012, about 100 people met in Chicago to develop a plan for community control of the police. Now, 60,000 people have signed petitions and there are 19 members of the Chicago City Council, 40 percent of the council, who support it. This weekend, 1,000 people attended the re-founding of the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression where the centerpiece of discussion was democratic control of the police.

We interviewed Frank Chapman, who has been involved in the work in Chicago to create a Civilian Police Accountability Council (CPAC) from the beginning, on our radio show.  Chapman puts the issue into context describing how for a brief period after the Civil War, communities controlled their police. But the reversal of Reconstruction ended that. He says that communities getting control of police should be recognized as central to black liberation.

Chapman explains how they have organized to build support for the issue with grassroots activism, holding community meetings, going door-to-door and tabling, gathering signatures and electing people to the city council.

The centerpiece of the Chicago bill is democratic community control. The bill for a Civilian Police Accountability Council gives broad powers to the elected council. These powers include complete control of the police:

  1. Appoint a Superintendent of Police;
  2. Adopt rules and regulations for the governance of the Department of Police of the city;
  3. Serve as a board to hear disciplinary actions for which a suspension for more than the 30 days expressly reserved to the Superintendent is recommended, or for removal or discharge involving officers and employees of the Police Department in the classified civil service of the city;
  4. Promulgate rules, regulations, and procedures for the conduct of the CPAC’s investigations consistent with the requirements of collective bargaining agreements, due process of law and equal protection under the law;
  5. In those instances where CPAC’s investigation indicates that a member of the Department of Police has committed a crime, petition the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to convene a Grand Jury if one is not already convened, and present CPAC’s findings of criminal activity to the Grand Jury to get an indictment for Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 242;
  6. Review, approve and submit to the City of Chicago the annual budget of the Department of Police;
  7. Provide required educational opportunities for CPAC members to become familiar with citizens’ United States and Illinois constitutional rights, learn law enforcement oversight techniques, and undergo victims’ assistance, sexual assault and domestic violence certification training;
  8. Establish officers, committees, and subcommittees for the effective conduct of CPAC business;
  9. Protect the rights guaranteed to the citizens of Chicago by the United States and Illinois Constitutions;
  10. Review and sign off on all complaint investigations;
  11. Review and sign off on all new Department of Police policies and special orders;
  12. Disallow the use of the Department of Police by outside law enforcement agencies to commit crimes;
  13. Negotiate and approve contracts with the police unions.
  14. Remap the City of Chicago police districts as needed as determined by the CPAC.

When asked what the difference is between the elected council and the increasingly common Civilian Police Review Boards, Chapman responds: “Accountability.” By being democratically elected, the Chicago model holds the council and the police accountable. Review boards chosen by the government too often include people who are friends or allies of the police.

Democratic control is essential

This November 4, the city of Rochester, NY passed a referendum creating a Police Accountability Board with 75 percent of voters supporting it. Between 2001 and 2016, citizens filed 923 allegations of excessive force. The Chief of Police sustained 16 of these allegations, only 13 led to discipline.

The board will be able to independently investigate civilian complaints, subpoena information for its investigations, and determine whether individual officers have committed misconduct. It will also create disciplinary guidelines, with an opportunity for input from the Chief of Police and the police union. If the board finds, after a hearing, that an officer has committed misconduct, the Chief of Police is required to impose discipline consistent with disciplinary guidelines. The board will also recommend changes to the Police Department’s policies, practices, and training. The police union is expected to file suit to stop this board from taking effect.

The board will be composed of nine unpaid Rochester residents: one appointed by the Mayor and eight appointed by the City Council; four of the Council’s appointees will be nominated by a coalition of community organizations, the Police Accountability Board Alliance. The potential Achilles Heel of this new law is the lack of democratic control by the people.

As a result of a November 2001 referendum supported by over 76 percent of the electorate, Miami created the Civilian Investigative Panel (“CIP”). Voters sought oversight because of a series of suspicious police shootings, throwdown guns and officers lying to grand juries. The CIP only makes recommendations to the police and has weak powers granted to its 13 members. They have lost their fight to be able to subpoena police officers due to the state’s Law Enforcement Bill of Rights. This approach has been judged as a failure. Sixteen states have a Law Enforcement Bill of Rights, which gives extra protection to police under investigation and makes it impossible for police to be judged by anyone but other police officers.

Lessons from the experience with police oversight include the importance of the democratic selection of oversight boards, not boards appointed by elected officials, clear powers that are not merely advisory for the board and, in states where relevant, confronting the Law Enforcement Bill of Rights.

Cities are spending large shares of their budgets on police at the expense of social services, health care, infrastructure, and other needs. Oakland spent 41 percent of the city’s general fund on policing in 2017. Chicago spent nearly 39 percent, Minneapolis, almost 36 percent, and Houston 35 percent. A recent study documents how a living wage, access to holistic health services and treatment, educational opportunity, and stable housing are far more successful in reducing crime than police or prisons.

Democratic community control of the police transforms the power dynamic between police and citizens. Black communities policing the police in their neighborhoods to confront the long term racist roots of policing in the United States. Community control of police needs to become the unified goal of movements seeking to end police violence, create police who serve the community and liberate black communities.

*

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

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

All images in this article are from Popular Resistance except the featured image

“China’s 70-Years Development and the Construction of a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind”. This is the title of an International Conference, organized by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) which I was privileged to attend from 5-7 November 2019 in Shanghai. It is a reflection on China’s Anniversary of 70 years Revolution, her most remarkable achievements, with a joint look into the future – the future of China, linking up with the rest of the world. The “link” was clearly presented and seen as the New Silk Road, President Xi Jinping’s “bridge-building” Belt and Road Initiative. Representatives from over 140 countries and international organizations presented their vision on how they might cooperate with China for a shared future. The result is a rich palette of ideas and potential opportunities for cooperation.

Members of the Chinese Leadership had these words to open the International Forum:

“The year 2019 marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. The achievements of China’s development over the past 70 years show that we must remain committed to the path of peaceful development and pursue a mutually beneficial strategy of opening up. Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, China has made positive contributions to promoting global openness, connectivity, mutual benefit and common development, and has played an important role for the world peace and stability. At present, in order to cope with the uncertainty in globalization, we should positively explore ways to construct an open world economy, elaborate measures to build consensus among international community, and provide intellectual support for building of the community with a shared future for mankind.

The conference was extremely constructive by all contributions, presenting ideas in pursuit of harmonious “win-win” situations in cooperation with China. This is precisely the concept behind China’s drive for building bridges between countries and designing joint ventures; no coercion, no subjugation – they have to be equally beneficial for all partners. This is the secret to harmony and to a peaceful coexistence. This concept follows the thousands of years old teachings of Tao – which are still, and will remain – China’s philosophy in directing her foreign policy.

In that sense, one may have observed that the often-brutal challenges that China is facing from the United States in particular and the west in general, got a bit short-changed in the discussions. Participants did not want to harp on the negative “encounters” that China is confronting – almost permanent aggressions, a smear campaign, false accusations, conflict provocations, sanctions in the form of trade and tariffs; in short, an emerging ever-growing economic war. While not to focus on adversity is a positive omen, yet, it presents the myriad of good ideas under a veil of a dreamlike reality.

Clearly though, China’s ever-peaceful search for harmony instead of hostility, will give her the upper hand, eventually, avoiding violent confrontation. What the west does not understand, does not want to understand, is that China follows a non-aggression policy – and yes, I’m repeating myself – emanating from the ancient, thousands of year-old Tao philosophy of harmony and peace.

The “Shared Future for Mankind” Forum run in parallel with the giant 2019 Chinese International Import Expo (CIIE), also in Shanghai, where about 67 countries were exhibiting their key export goods. In total, 180 countries and regional, as well as international organizations, 3,800 enterprises and 250 corporations of the Forbe’s 500 list were participating. The Expo had a wide range of products and gadgets to offer, from watches to drones, to smart kitchens and self-driving cars and Artificial Intelligent (AI) in the form of smart robots, so smart, one was compelled to ask, who is in charge me or the robot.

What resonated throughout the conference is the remarkable progress China has made in her 70 years of revolutionary existence, progress, physical and sociological, no other countries have achieved in recent history. China started on 1 October 1949 at ground zero – miserable poverty, famine, epidemic diseases, education and health services were few and far in between and of low quality, essential medication was largely absent – all the result of centuries of western and Japanese colonization, exploitation and esclavisation.

From that abysmal level, thanks to Chairman Mao’s two-pronged Revolution, starting with what he called The Great Leap Forward (1958 – 1962), a Communist Party of China (CPC) led social and economic campaign converting rural agrarian areas into a socialist industrialized economy through communal farming and agricultural cooperatives. As was to be expected, this 4-year effort was constantly attacked by infiltrated anticommunist saboteurs at a high social and economic cost for China. “The Great Leap” was followed by the ten-year Cultural Revolution (1966 – 1976), aiming at cleansing China from infiltrated, foreign paid capitalist elements and influences.

These capitalist assets had only one goal: Breaking the revolution and its spirit at an early stage and returning China to the western usurpers. They definitely did not want China to flourish under her own political, communist values and believes. Lest China might become an example for the rest of the world to the detriment of western oligarchs and colonialists.

Foreign meddling in China’s early stages of Chairman Mao’s Revolution, as well as now, bears a huge cost for China. Therefore, portraying China’s Revolution as a failure, was a typical western lie-propaganda campaign. It also served to hide the west’s own disastrous economic and geopolitical failures around the globe. Propaganda converts lies to the truth in complacent societies. This is what’s happening today more than ever in the west.

From the perspective of the Chinese reality, Mao’s Revolution and the subsequent evolution have improved life in China like no other movements or reforms in China’s recent history. It created a public education and health system, eradicating analphabetism, as well as deadly endemic diseases. Alleviation of poverty being a prime-focus of Mao’s Revolution, it has lifted about 800 billion people out of poverty, thereby generating a better equilibrium in the nation’s wellbeing. It laid the groundwork for Chinese scholars to advance China towards food self-sufficiency – which she attained in 2018.

Today, China’s progress in research, science and technology keeps advancing at an incredible speed. Advancements include transport infrastructure, public transportation systems, like high-speed Maglev (magnetic levitation) trains that have largely surpassed European and even Japanese systems in speed, punctuality and comfort.Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being promoted and advanced through a newly developed US$ 2.1 billion AI industrial park. AI is already today used in manufacturing, in ports’ loading facilities, as well as in medicine, even in surgery. AI is also used in 3D printing. It is expected that within 15 – 20 years the vast majority of Chinese will have access to 3D printing. In other words, they will have the possibility to invent and produce new tools and products, as well as building, modifying and repairing their own homes home-based infrastructure – and, of course, much more.

To summarize China’s progress, the observations of a high-ranking Beijing University Professor may be indicative. When he first experienced London’s ‘tube’ (subway) system in the early sixties, he thought this was a dream for China. Fifty years on China’s underground transport system in urban agglomerations has largely surpassed the one of major western cities, in speed ease of access, cleanliness and discipline.

The focus of a “Shared Future for Mankind” Forum was, of course President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), potentially the bridge that spans the world. The BRI has become essentially China’s Foreign Policy guiding vehicle. And rightly so. Because it could indeed propel the world towards more harmony, more peaceful cooperation – cooperation with socioeconomic benefits for all. BRI has currently some 160 members-countries and international organizations and is steadily growing, including in what might well be considered ‘adversary’ countries, like many in Europe.

While for some strange reasons, Europe, the EU, still seems to be obliged to follow Washington’s dictate, there is an increasing awakening, namely that the most logical and most beneficial way for all to do business is across the huge transcontinental area of Eurasia – which also includes the Middle East, where BRI, through joint ventures, could become an instrument for conflict resolution. After all, hundreds of years before the British Empire moved across the Atlantic to North America, gigantic Eurasia was the normal trading ground for adjacent as well as more distant countries. Russia and the Far East were linked up with Western Europe. Today, going back to this principle, would be a giant step forward – away from ever-belligerent and coercive relations with an aggressive and destructive Anglo-American empire. We may eventually get there.

Indeed, in the context of BRI, economic growth was also on the table. China’s rapid decline from years of 11% and 12% growth to now 5% to 7% was a concern. Is China’s economy going into a slump, is it failing – what happens? – Was a worrying question, if not spoken then inferred by innuendo. The response is rather simple. China’s rapid and enormous growth was mostly accumulating along the eastern, highly urbanized shores, creating a development gap with the Chinese eastern countryside.

A planned reduction of growth allows for a more even distribution, a more horizontal than vertical growth, meaning addressing more social and locally focused development, something China can do, because her public banking system works for the benefit of the people not for some far-away shareholders – and it is less bound to the use of natural resources. Mind you, a 5% or even 4% growth is still a multiple of the west’s average. Besides, growth is a linear western capitalist indicator, focused on ever-more capital accumulations for ever-fewer people and corporations.

China today is the world’s second largest economy in absolute GDP terms (US$ 14.3 trillion, 2019 est.), projected to bypass the US (US$ 21.3 trillion, 2019 est.) by 2025, or earlier. But measured by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), China is already today the world’s number one economy. Indeed, PPP is the only meaningful indicator. What counts in the end is how much can you buy in your country with your economic output. Everything else is (almost) irrelevant.

In addition, China is practicing a stable and secure monetary policy. Unlike western currencies, the Yuan is backed by a solid economy and by gold. In 2017 the Yuan was officially admitted into the basket of the IMF’s SDR (Special Drawing Right) which contains the US-dollar (41.73%), Euro (30.93%), Chinese Yuan (10.92%), Japanese Yen (8.33%) and the British pound (8.09%). By having been admitted into the SDR basket, China has become officially a reserve currency and is actually rapidly replacing the dollar as a world reserve currency. The world increasingly recognizes that the dollar is, like its younger cousin, the euro, is but fiat money, meaning based on nothing, other than debt, because it is indiscriminately printed or computer generated as needed, amounting to a colossal pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

The current US debt to GDP ratio is about 105%. However, what the US General Accounting Office calls “unmet obligations” amounts to more than 700% of GDP (net present value of total outstanding obligations discounted to today’s value). According to former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, responding to a journalist’s question, “we will never pay back our debt; we will just print new money”.

The gigantic amount of US-dollars flooding the world, estimated at more than 50% of total convertible money, compares to less than 3% of the Chinese Yuan. No matter, treasurers around the globe increasingly realize that a Yuan-based reserve is worth more than one based on fiat US-dollar nominated assets.

In conclusion, this first of its kind CASS-organized Conference provided for an excellent stock-taking and for a vision ahead. It presented many ideas and offered myriad opportunities for networking among think-alikes and potential partners. What is, however, key to success is that this effort does not stand alone, that there will be a follow-up to monitor and register what may have emerged of the ideas and proposals put forward at the Forum and how new initiatives may be solidified.

While the west remains stagnant, self-centered and self-concerned, China, and with her, her eastern allies, Russia, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), open up to new ideas, to the world in general. They offer to connect — the west could learn a tremendous amount of wisdom from China. But, of course, this may not be written or said aloud. The dominant west would never admit such truth, for it would require the west to abandon a never-ending war economy and to also seek peace and harmonious relations in a multi-polar world – to attain a Shared Future for Mankind.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China Is Building a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind
  • Tags:

Popes Against Nuclear Weapons

November 25th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The Vatican comes with its ills, contradictions and blatant hypocrisies in the field of moral theology and human existence, but on the issue of atomic and nuclear weapons, the position has been fairly consistent, if marked by gradual evolution.  On February 8, 1948, Pope Pius XII held an audience with members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.  “What misfortunes,” he asked, “should humanity expect from a future conflict, if it should prove impossible to arrest or curb the use of ever newer and more surprising scientific inventions?”

The Second Vatican Council through its 1965 document Gaudium et spes deemed the arms race “one of the greatest curses on humanity and the harm it inflicts on the poor is more than can be endured”.  Using nuclear weapons exceeded “the limits of legitimate self-defence”, and would constitute a “crime against God and against humanity itself.  It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.”  Pope Paul VI would subsequently give his approval to the Nuclear Arms Non-Proliferation Treaty, making nuclear disarmament a matter of highest moral urgency.

But attitudes to nuclear weapons were always chained to the Cold War orbit and the old dilemmas of self-defence.  In November 1980, with the election of US President Ronald Reagan, Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit expressed genuine terror at the prospect of a pro-bomb enthusiast in the White House.

“We’ve just elected a President who has stated his conviction that we can have superiority in nuclear weapons, an utter impossibility.  We have a Vice-President who has clearly stated that one side could win a nuclear war and that we must be prepared to fight one and to win it.”

But the concern on the part of US bishops, expressed through The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response, was influenced by an admixture of interference and moderation on the part of The Vatican.

Pope John Paul II was keen to keep things cordial with Reagan, preferring revisions to be made to the original drafts of the pastoral.  While the pontiff kept up public relations appearances by visiting Hiroshima and meeting with the Hikabusha, the mutilated and maimed survivors of the world’s first atomic blast, he was also mindful of the big power game and Reagan’s initial hard line against the Soviet Union.

The Catholic Church was also at odds in how best to reconcile dealing with nuclear weapons, given the Cold War language of evil so heartily promoted by Reagan, with its multi-barbed opposition to godless communism.  The US-Soviet struggle, moralised Reagan at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida was nothing less than a fight “between right and wrong and good and evil.”  The final text of The Challenge of Peace affirmed the Catholic view that a sovereign state might well engage in self-defence, but that could only ever happen in accordance with the limits of just-war theory.

The current pontiff Pope Francis has layered his comments in line with a growing body of thought suggesting that the use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances, including their possession, would be illegal.  Nuclear boffins see him as “unusually active compared to his predecessors in nuclear diplomacy.”

To use such weapons, he reasoned in his November 2017 address to the symposium “Prospects for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons and for Integral Disarmament” would result in “catastrophic humanitarian and environmental effects”.  Having such weapons encouraged a fallacious, dangerous logic.  They were tactically futile, wasteful and could be used by mistake.

Pope Francis also noted the moves by the United Nations to draft a binding instrument that would prohibit the use of nuclear weapons, resulting in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  Through a conference in 2017, the General Assembly voted to adopt the Treaty by a vote of 122, with one abstention, and one against.  (A truly “historic” vote, claimed the pontiff, one that “filled a significant judicial lacuna”.)

The text considers “that any use of nuclear weapons would be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, in particular the principles and rules of international humanitarian law.”  Outlined prohibitions include undertakings never to, “Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”.

Such views align with the long held view of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), though not those of the International Court of Justice, which maintains the position that the use of nuclear weapons may be permissible in “extreme circumstances of self-defence.”  In the aftermath of the group being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, ICAN Executive Director Beatrice Finn reiterated the position that,

“Nuclear weapons are illegal.  Threatening to use nuclear weapons is illegal.  Having nuclear weapons, possessing nuclear weapons, developing nuclear weapons is illegal, and they need to stop.”

As with John Paul II, Pope Francis made a trip to Japan to reiterate his position.  In Nagasaki’s Atomic Bomb Hypocentre Park, he dismissed nuclear deterrence as viable, claiming that peace was inconsistent with the “fear of mutual destruction or the threat of total annihilation.”  Nuclear weapon stockpiles were symbols of squandered wealth even as “millions of children and families live in inhumane conditions”.  Before a gathering at Hiroshima’s Peace Memorial Park, he spoke of the annihilation of “so many men and women, so many dreams and hopes” in the aftermath of the “incandescent burst of lightning and fire”.

Whatever reservations critics and observers might have of The Vatican and its foreign policy, the current pontiff’s concerns should be filed along those of other states agog before what looks like a spike of interest in military experimentation.  The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty has been canned by the Trump administration; the Russian response, after initial indignation, has been one of resigned adaptation.  The stalled denuclearisation issue over the Korean Peninsula is likewise something setting regional powers on edge.  But the efforts to deem the very possession of such weapons of indiscriminate mass murder illegal continue their momentum.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Evidence Talks: US Government Propelled Coup in Bolivia

November 25th, 2019 by W.T. Whitney Jr.

A coup on November 10 removed the socialist government of Bolivian President Evo Morales. The U.S. government made preparations and orchestrated the final stages of the coup. It was in charge. In power for almost 14 years, Morales and Vice President Álvaro García Linera had won elections taking place on October 20. The two leaders would each have been serving a fourth term in office.

Evidence of the U.S. crime appears below.  It’s about money, U.S. influence within the Bolivian military, and U.S. control of the Organization of American States (OAS):

1. For many years the Santa Cruz Civic Committee and its proto-fascist Youth Union received funding from the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy. According to analyst Eva Golinger some years ago, the USAID provided $84 million to Bolivian opposition groups.

U.S. Embassy officials conspired with and paid the “civic committees” of Bolivia’s four eastern departments. Representing the European- descended elite of Bolivia’s wealthiest region, these groups promoted racist assaults. They concocted a separatist movement and tried to assassinate Morales. In response, the Bolivian government expelled the U.S. ambassador, Drug Enforcement Agency, and U. S. Agency for International Development.

2. Bolivian armed forces commander in chief Williams Kaliman Romero on November 10 “suggested” that Morales resign. That was the coup de grace. Within three days, Kaliman himself resigned and moved to the United States. Sullkata M. Quilla of the Latin American Center for Strategic Analysis explains that Kaliman and other military chiefs each had received $1 million and that top police officers received $500,000 apiece. U.S. Chargee d’affaires Bruce Williamson allegedly arranged for monetary transactions that took place in Argentina’s Jujuy Province under the auspices of Governor Geraldo Morales. The story first appeared on the website www.Tvmundus.com.ar.

3. Money flowed freely prior to Morales’s departure. Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations Sacha Llorenti – a Morales supporter – reported that, “loyal members of [Morales’s] security team showed him messages in which people were offering them $50,000 if they would hand him over.”

4. According to the respected Argentinean journalist Stella Calloni, Ivanka Trump arrived in Jujuy on September 4-5 ostensibly to honor a small group of women entrepreneurs. Some “2,500 federal agents” and Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan accompanied her. At the same time, Governor Gerardo Morales was informed that the United States would be delivering $400 million supposedly to pay for improvements to a big highway in Argentina. Cattaloni suggests that a freight train running through Jujuy en route to Santa Cruz, the center of anti- Morales plotting in Bolivia, was transporting military equipment to opposition groups.

There’s media speculation as to how Governor Morales may have facilitated the transfer of U.S. money to Luis Camacho, leader of the coup and head of the Santa Cruz Civic Committee. He may have done so in Santa Cruz, where he visited on September 4, or in Jujuy Province where Camacho may have showed up later that day or the next.

5. According to analyst Jeb Sprague:

“At least six of the key coup plotters are alumni of the infamous School of the Americas, while [General] Kaliman and another figure served in the past as Bolivia’s military and police attachés in Washington.”

For decades, Latin American military personnel have received training and indoctrination at that U.S. Army school now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

Sprague notes also that the top commanders of police that mutinied had received training at the Washington-based Latin American police exchange program known by its initials in Spanish as APALA.

6. The OAS played a crucial role in the coup. Votes were being tallied on October 20 when the OAS, having audited preliminary results, announced that they showed irregularities. The U.S. government echoed the findings and street protests intensified. On October 24 the Supreme Electoral Tribunal declared first-round victories for Morales and García Linare. Protests mounted. The government, under stress, requested another OAS audit.

The OAS made its conclusions public on November 10, earlier than expected:

The OAS couldn’t “validate the results of this election [and called for] “another electoral process [and] new electoral authorities.”

This was the tipping point. Morales convoked another election but shortly thereafter General Kaliman forced him to resign.

The OAS findings were false. Walter Mebane and colleagues at the University of Michigan, having examined voting statistics, indicated that fraudulent votes in the election were not decisive for the result. The Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research performed its own detailed study and reached the same conclusion.

The OAS served as U.S. handmaiden. Headquartered in Washington, the organization took shape under U.S. auspices in 1948 with the assigned task of protecting Latin America and the Caribbean from Communism. More recently the OAS, under Secretary General Luis Almagro’s guidance, has spearheaded U.S. efforts to expel President Nicolas Maduro’s progressive Venezuelan government.

Paradoxically, Almagro in May 2019 gave Morales the go-ahead for a fourth presidential term. That was despite a referendum having been defeated that would have allowed the extra term. Almago’s intention may have been to lull Morales into cooperating with OAS overview of the election results.

7. Other signs of U.S. coup preparations are these:

  • Prior to the October 20 elections President Morales charged that U.S. Embassy officials bribed rural residents to reject him at the polls. They traveled, for example, to the Yungas region on October 16 with pay-offs to disaffected coca farmers.
  • According to Bolpress.com, the National Military Coordinator (Coordinadora Nacional Militar), an organization of reserve military officers, received and distributed money sent from the United States to create social crisis prior to October 20. The United States also used embassies in Bolivia and the evangelical church as facades to hide its activities. Mariane Scott and Rolf A. Olson, U.S. Embassy officials in La Paz, met with counterparts in the embassies of Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina to coordinate destabilization efforts and to deliver U.S. financing to opposition forces inside Bolivia.
  • Weapons shipments from the United States arrived at the Chilean port of Iquique on their way to the National Military Coordinator group inside Bolivia.
  • The State Department allocated $100,000 to enable a company called “CLS Strategies” to mount a disinformation campaign through social media.
  • The CIA station in La Paz assumed control of Bolivia’s Whatsapp network in order to leak false information. More than 68,000 fake anti-Morales tweets were released.
  • In mid-October “political consultant” George Eli Birnbaun arrived in Santa Cruz from Washington with a team of military and civilian personnel. Their job was to support the U.S. – preferred presidential candidacy of Oscar Ortiz and to destabilize the country politically after the elections. They provided support for Santa Cruz Civic Committee’s youth organization – specialists in violence – and supervised the U.S. – financed “Standing Rivers” NGO, engaged in spreading disinformation.
  • Sixteen audio recordings of the plotters’ pre-election conversations were leaked and showed up on the internet. Several of the voices mentioned contacts with the U.S. Embassy and with U.S. Senators Ted Cruz, Robert Menendez, and Marco Rubio. Sprague reports that four of the ex-military plotters on the calls had attended the School of the Americas.

This presentation focuses entirely on the evidence. In a criminal investigation, evidence is central to determining guilt or innocence. Considerations of motive and context are of lesser importance, and we don’t deal with them here. But when and where they are attended to, they would logically fall into categories that include the following:

1. A socialist experiment was showing signs of success and capitalists of the world were facing the threat of a good example.

2. A people once held hostage by colonial powers was able to claim sovereign independence and in that regard had endeavored to retain much of the wealth provided through natural resources, lithium in particular.

3. Throughout its existence the Morales government, headed by an indigenous president, was up against anti-indigenous prejudice, racist in origin, and social-class divisions.

4. All the while, that government was the target of hostility, plotting, and episodic violence at the hands of the entitled classes.

So the evidence is clear. It points to a controlling U.S. hand in this coup d’état. The U.S. government bears heavy responsibility. There were Bolivian instigators, of course, but the U.S. plotters fall within the range of our own political processes. That’s why our accusing finger points at them.

In this instance, the U.S. government, as is its custom, disregarded international law, morality, respect for human life, and common decency. To stifle popular resistance the U.S. government evidently will stop at nothing, other than force in the hands of the people. What kind of force remains to be seen.

*

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.

W.T. Whitney Jr. is a political journalist with a focus on Latin America and health care issues. He is a Cuba solidarity activist who formerly worked as a pediatrician.

Featured image is from Peoples Dispatch

Facing increased resistance to its rule, the new “coup” gov’t in Bolivia is purging any potential threats to its authority, including teleSUR and other alternative media.

***

Facing increased resistance to its rule, the new “transition” government of Jeanine Añez in Bolivia has begun to purge and censor potential threats to its authority, including in the media. TeleSUR, an international media network that began as a collaboration between left-wing Latin American nations, including deposed President Evo Morales’ Bolivia and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, and which espouses an openly leftist and anti-imperialist outlook, received confirmation that it would be taken off the airwaves as part of what the government calls a “reorganization” of the airwaves. TeleSUR openly opposed the U.S.-backed military coup d’état that installed Añez as head of state earlier this month.

New Communications Minister Roxana Lizárraga announced that this was part of the “dismantling of the propaganda apparatus of the dictatorial regime of Evo Morales,” claiming that Morales’ “militants who misused the state media system” are being “withdrawn.”

TeleSUR was originally conceived as a counterweight to Western-dominated media system and attempted to bring the voices of working-class Latin Americans to the fore. It also offers an alternative to local mainstream media, overwhelmingly owned and controlled by Latin American elites who have been particularly hostile to progressive governments such as Morales.’

This is the latest episode in a general assault on the media, as the Añez administration attempts to gain control over Bolivia’s means of communication. Multiple journalists have been shot, while Al-Jazeera correspondent Teresa Bo was tear-gassed in the face live on air at point-blank range by riot police as she stood alone, away from the protests, talking to the camera. Last week Lizárraga appeared on television announcing she would persecute any journalists involved in what she called “sedition,” noting that she already had a list of “troublesome” individuals and outlets. Bolivia TV was also taken off the air earlier this week.

In its efforts to neutralize dissent, the Añez administration has found a keen and enthusiastic ally in the local mainstream press.  In a shocking moment captured on film, local media harassed an independent journalist, detaining him and handing him over to the armed forces. The local press has largely endorsed the events and celebrated Morales’ demise, presenting the situation as a democratic transition rather than as a coup.

The crackdown extends beyond media, as the new government has effectively declared the deposed Movement to Socialism (MAS) party illegal, arresting MAS officials and forcing others into hiding or exile in what new government minister Arturo Murillo called a “hunting” down of political opponents. “They’re drowning the Bolivian people in blood,” declared deposed Vice-President Álvaro García Linera from Mexico, where he was granted asylum.

Añez has granted security forces immunity from all crimes committed during the “re-establishment of order.” Those same forces reportedly carried out massacres in the city of Cochabamba and the town of Senkata, just south of the country’s capital, La Paz.

Tens of thousands of demonstrators, many carrying the Wiphala flag, a symbol of indigenous identity, marched to La Paz alongside the coffins carrying the victims of the Senkata massacre, demanding the resignation of Añez and an end to the bloodshed. The march stretched out for miles. MintPress News cameras captured the events.

Once the march came into contact with security forces in the capital, it was met with a barrage of tear gas, and downtown La Paz was engulfed in smoke as tens of thousands of Bolivians were gassed during rush hour. Mourners were forced to abandon the coffins of their loved ones in the street as fumes overcame them.

“La Paz, 5:30 pm. They’re gassing commuters and protesters alike. Can only imagine how many people will wander into the path of the police & military with the Bolivian media’s under-reporting. I saw mothers with infants gassed, they were not part of the procession,” reported one TeleSUR journalist on the scene.

From exile in Mexico, former President Morales denounced the attack on the funeral procession. “The de facto government of Añez does not respect the dead in their coffins, nor forgive their relatives, women and children marching peacefully in support of life and democracy”, he said. “We condemn the violence against our brothers and sisters.”

Morales won an unprecedented third term in office on October 20, gaining 47% of the vote in the presidential elections. However, opposition parties cried foul, claiming that there were election irregularities, an accusation repeated by the Organization of American States and the U.S. government. On November 10, military generals appeared on television and demanded Morales resign. As he fled to Mexico, the military selected Jeanine Añez – whose right-wing Democrat Social Movement Party received 4% of the vote – as President. Añez, a strongly conservative Christian, declared that Bolivia’s indigenous majority was “satanic” and promised to bring Christianity back to the government. The White House strongly supported the events, “applauding” what it saw as a significant and positive moment for democracy. On the other hand, Democratic Presidential candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard have condemned it.

*

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

Alan MacLeod is a MintPress Staff Writer as well as an academic and writer for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. His book, Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting was published in April.

Featured image is from OneWorld

Bolsonaro Dismisses Amazon Deforestation as ‘Cultural’

November 25th, 2019 by Olivia Rosane

Despite confirmation this week that the deforestation rate in the Amazon rainforest is at its highest in more than a decade, far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro refuses to take the problem seriously.

When confronted with findings from Brazil‘s National Institute for Space Research (INPE) that deforestation between August 2018 and July 2019 was at its highest rate since 2008, Bolsonaro wrote them off as inevitable.

“Deforestation and fires will never end,” Bolsonaro told reporters in Brasilia Wednesday, according to The Washington Post. “It’s cultural.”

Former INPE researcher and member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences Carlos Nobre told Folha De S. Paulo that there had been a persistent culture of deforestation in Brazil since the arrival of the Portuguese. He noted that during the military dictatorship that governed Brazil from the 1960s to the 1980s, land donated by the government was cleared in order to obtain agricultural loans from the Bank of Brazil.

But cultural doesn’t mean unchangeable. The Washington Post noted that a high deforestation rate in the 1990s declined when Brazil’s environmental agency IBAMA began to actively fight illegal mining and logging in the forest. Bolsonaro, however, campaigned on a promise to open the Amazon to development, and critics say he has weakened enforcement. Despite a year marked by environmental catastrophes including record fires in the Amazon and a devastating oil spill, IBAMA handed out its lowest number of fines since 2000 from January to September of Bolsonaro’s first year in office.

“About 90 percent of the destruction of the forest occurs illegally,” Marcio Astrini, public policy coordinator at Greenpeace Brazil, told The Washington Post. “Therefore, the only cultural aspect of deforestation in the Amazon is the culture of forest crime, which the government does not seem to want to confront.”

Bolsonaro’s remarks also ignore other cultures in Brazil that rely on the forest for their way of life: the region’s indigenous communities that are also threatened by Bolsonaro’s pro-development rhetoric. Indigenous forest guardian Paulo Paulino Guajajara was murdered by illegal loggers earlier this month, and advocates say the blame ultimately lies with Bolsonaro’s promises to open indigenous reserves to industry.

“President Bolsonaro wants to destroy the indigenous peoples of Brazil. His racism and hate encourage miners and loggers to invade our territories and kill our people. Well, I’ve got news for him – we love our lands much more than he hates us, and we will never allow him to destroy us, or the forests we have protected for so long,” Sonia Guajajara, the Executive Coordinator of the Association of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB), said at a protest this month reported by Survival International.

Bolsonaro’s remarks contradict other members of his government, who have pledged to tackle deforestation following the release of the latest INPE figures.

Environment Minister Ricardo Salles promised to fight illegal forest clearing, and Institutional Security Minister General Augusto Heleno Pereira echoed that commitment during an interview in Brasilia, Bloomberg News reported Thursday.

“We are already preparing a stronger policy to contain fires,” Heleno said. “Everybody is convinced we must tighten enforcement.”

*

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.

Conspiracy and Silence from the Organization of American States

November 25th, 2019 by Elson Concepción Pérez

It is time for the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean to stand together and say NO to coups and their sponsors in the Organization of American States (OAS).

***

An organization created to protect the interests of the United States, funded and supported by its sponsor in Washington, it has shown its claws in the planning, organizing, and carrying out the coup in Bolivia. This is the OAS.

The organization has not said a word following President Evo Morales’s ousting. Condemning what happened would be too much to ask. Calling for dialogue would have been the appropriate step, but they never did it. Taking action to ensure the respect for human life, and the lives of the President, Vice President and other officials, was never on their agenda. Even worse, Secretary General Luis Almagro, and members of the OAS’s illegal appendage known as the Lima Group, have kept a conspiratorial silence, perhaps waiting for a sign from the U.S. State Department.

As difficult as it may be to understand, there are still some governments in Latin America, such as those in the Lima Group, who not only belong to this harmful organization but lend themselves to these malicious plans to overthrow governments and end social projects that benefit millions of poor citizens in our countries.

I must admit that I mistakenly thought I would come across a statement by the OAS on the internet condemning the events in Bolivia – if only for appearances – but to my frustration, I found nothing.

While the honorable and sympathetic government of Mexico, aware of the need to take a position in defense of peace in Bolivia, has called for an urgent meeting of the organization, on the other hand, the government of Peru only called for new elections in the neighboring nation and for the OAS to accompany the entire process.

I think the time has come – perhaps it should have been a long time ago – for Latin American peoples to all stand up and denounce the OAS, assert dignity, ethics and the desires of our nations, and condemn the maneuvers of an organization which serves its U.S. masters, disregarding the interests of the peoples it is supposed to represent.

I repeat: it is time to, one and for all, get rid of this obstacle that has caused so much damage to the independence and development of our peoples. It is time to unmask before the world characters such as OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro, who organizes conspiracies to carry out coups, like the in Bolivia against a constitutional President, democratically elected, beloved by his people, a role model of work and dignity.

Moreover, this organization should be condemned for leaking information on its audit of the Bolivian elections, which should have gone public on November 12 and, suspiciously, appeared during the dawn hours of the 9th.

What was the purpose of this leak? Clearly to create uncertainty, and trigger chaos and violence.

These actions deserve punishment, if there are laws to judge such miserable people in this world.

Plus, the leaked information was written in ambiguous and unconvincing language.

I imagine that Evo, always honorable and dignified, soon realized what it meant for his country, Latin America, and the world to have trusted a discredited OAS to, first, observe the elections, and secondly, conduct the audit.

It is not too late though. Now is the time for the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean to stand together and say NO to coups and their sponsors in the OAS.

Let us not wait any longer to act. Those who have been beaten in Bolivia, those who have lost their eyes in Chile, indigenous peoples, former combatants and other people killed every day in Colombia; those who are murdered or wounded in the favelas of Brazil for the crime of demanding employment and food, and the millions driven to poverty and extreme poverty in the Argentine led by Macri, all of these people are calling for action and the only way to do so is together, with dignity and courage. These are key elements. And the OAS lacks all of them.

Fidel Castro on the OAS

“What do the Yankees want? Do they want to say that we defy the OAS? If they want to say it, wonderful, let them say what we say: that they have the OAS as an instrument to prevent revolutions in America.”- Speech by Fidel Castro in the closing session of the First Latin American Youth Congress, 6 August 1960.

“The Organization of American States completely lacks the moral authority and the right to judge and sanction Cuba.” – Speech by Fidel Castro on the 11th Anniversary of the Moncada assault, July 26, 1964.

“Our position is that this organization has been an instrument for imperialist penetration and dominion over Latin American.

Our position is that someday, we, the Latin American peoples, should stand united to become a human community worthy of respect in the world, to bring our forces together so we are no longer what we are today, the victims of aggression. Is it a sewer or not? Is it a cesspit or not? Is it the Ministry for Yankee colonies or not? Historically, this organization embodies the imperialist oppression of our peoples and when they are free, this organization will disappear. We won’t need an OAS when there is a community of Latin American peoples.” – Fidel Castro in a press interview, December 4, 1971

“Is there really a human rights commission within that rotten institution? Yes, there is, I answer myself.  And just what is its mission?  To evaluate the human rights situation in OAS member countries?  Is the U.S. a member of this institution?  Yes, it is one of the most honorable members. Has the government of the United States ever been condemned?  No, never.

Not even the crimes of genocide that Bush committed, taking the lives of millions of people?  No!  Never!  How could this injustice be committed?  Not even the tortures at the Guantánamo Base?  As far as we know, not a single word.” – Reflection by Fidel Castro, “Once again, the Rotten OAS,” May 8, 2009.

Raul Castro on the OAS

“We will never forget that the OAS – the Organization of American States – founded by the United States during the second half of the last century, at the beginning of the Cold War, has only served interests which contradict those of Our America.

This organization, rightly described as the “Ministry of colonies” of the United States by the Foreign Minister of Dignity, compañero Raúl Roa García, sanctioned Cuba, and was ready to offer support and recognition to a puppet government, if the mercenary invasion at Playa Girón had been successful. The list of actions it took against the nascent Cuban Revolution, and other revolutionary and progressive governments, is interminable.

Despite the fact that we have never encouraged other countries to abandon this organization, I must reiterate what was expressed in Brazil, some years ago now, paraphrasing José Martí, that before Cuba returns to the OAS, ‘the ocean of the North will join the ocean of the South, and a serpent will be born from the egg of an eagle.’” Central Report to the Seventh Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba, presented by the First Secretary of the Central Committee, Army General Raul Castro Ruz. Havana, April 16, 2016.

Diaz-Canel on the OAS

“The inter-American system has reactivated mechanisms of such odious memory for the region as the Reciprocal Assistance Treaty (TIAR) and the demoralized OAS, which has been consolidated as an instrument of political pressure for the United States and oligarchies that defend neoliberalism (…) Yes, the OAS is a very ugly thing. And very cynical.

Their “concerns” do not touch the depths of anger felt by the people rising up against neoliberalism, faced with pellet guns, gases, and lead bullets for protesting peacefully.” – Speech by President of the Republic of Cuba Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, in the closing session of the Anti-imperialist Meeting of Solidarity, for Democracy and Against Neoliberalism at the Havana Convention Center, November 3, 2019.

*

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

Featured image: The people of Bolivia take to the streets to demand respect for their right to sovereignty. Photo: El País

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Conspiracy and Silence from the Organization of American States
  • Tags: ,

The 70 Years of NATO: From War to War: NATO Is Born from the Bomb

November 25th, 2019 by Comitato No Nato No Guerra

The Following text is Section 1  of

The 70 Years of NATO: From War to War,

by the Italian Committee No War No NATO

*

First published by Global Research in April 2019

Documentation presented at the International Conference on the 70th Anniversary of NATO, Florence, April 7, 2019

In the course of the next two weeks, Global Research will publish the 16 sections of this important document, which will also be available as an E-book.

*
Contents 

1. NATO is born from the Bomb
2. In the post-Cold War, NATO is renewed
3. NATO demolishes the Yugoslav state
4. NATO expands eastward to Russia
5. US and NATO attack Afghanistan and Iraq
6. NATO demolishes the Libyan state
7. The US/NATO war to demolish Syria
8. Israel and the Emirates in NATO
9. The US/NATO orchestration of the coup in Ukraine
10. US/NATO escalation in Europe
11.  Italy, the aircraft carrier on the war front
12. US and NATO reject the UN treaty and deploy new nuclear weapons in Europe
13. US and NATO sink the INF Treaty
14. The Western American Empire plays the war card
15. The US/NATO planetary war system
16. Exiting the war system of NATO

***

1. The events that gave birth to NATO begin when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, not to defeat Japan, now at the end, but to come out of the Second World War with the greatest possible advantage, especially over the Soviet Union. This was made possible by the fact that, at that time, the United States was the only country that possessed nuclear weapons.

2. Just a month after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in September 1945, the Pentagon calculated that it would take about 200 nuclear bombs to defeat an enemy the size of the USSR.

 

On March 5, 1946, Winston Churchill’s speech about the “Iron Curtain” officially started the Cold War. Soon after, in July 1946, the USA carried out the first nuclear tests in the atoll of Bikini (Marshall Islands, Pacific Ocean) to confirm nuclear bombs’ effectiveness on the disarmament of a group of ships and thousands of guinea pigs. More than 40,000 US military and civilians participated in the operation that included over 250 ships, 150 aircraft and 25,000 radiation detectors.

3. In 1949, the US nuclear arsenal rose to about 170 nuclear bombs. At this point the United States surely had enough bombs to attack the Soviet Union within a short period of time. That same year, however, the United States’ plan to preserve its monopoly on nuclear weapons failed.

On August 29, 1949, the Soviet Union carried out its first experimental nuclear explosion. A few months earlier, on April 4, 1949, when Washington knew that the Soviet Union was about to have the nuclear bombs and was about to start the nuclear arms race, the United States created NATO. During the Cold War, the Alliance under US command included 16 countries: United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, German Federal Republic, Great Britain, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Turkey. Through this alliance, the United States maintained its dominance over European allies, using Europe as the front line against the Soviet Union.

4. Six years after the formation of NATO, on May 14, 1955, the Warsaw Pact was born, which included the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the German Democratic Republic, Romania, Hungary and Albania. (The Warsaw Pact continued from 1955 to 1968.)

5. As the nuclear confrontation between the US and the USSR began, Britain and France, both members of NATO, moved to also equip themselves with nuclear weapons. The first to succeed was Great Britain, which in 1952 carried out an experimental explosion in Australia. NATO’s advantage increased further when, on November 1st of the same year, the US detonated its first H (hydrogen) bomb. In February 1960, NATO countries with nuclear weapons rose to three when France detonated its first nuclear bomb in the Sahara.

6. While the nuclear arms race was in full swing, the missile crisis in Cuba exploded in October 1962. After the armed invasion of the island by CIA-backed exiles in April 1961 failed, the USSR decided to provide Cuba with medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles. The United States carried out the naval blockade of the island and put their nuclear forces on alert. Over 130 intercontinental ballistic missiles were ready for launch, and 54 bombers with onboard nuclear weapons were added to the 12 bombers that the Strategic Air Command always kept in flight 24 hours a day, ready for nuclear attack. At the time, the United States had more than 25,500 nuclear weapons, to which about 210 were added, while the USSR had about 3,350. The crisis, which took the world to the threshold of nuclear war, was defused by the Soviet decision not to install the missiles in exchange for a US commitment to lift the blockade and respect the independence of Cuba.

7. At the same time, China moves towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons and, in October 1964, explodes its first uranium bomb and, in less than three years, its first H-bomb.

8. Hand in hand with the growth of its arsenal, the Pentagon developed detailed nuclear war operational plans against the USSR and China. An 800-page dossier – made public in 2015 by the US National Archives – contains a list (until then classified) of thousands of targets in the USSR, Eastern Europe and China that the US was preparing to destroy with nuclear weapons during the Cold War. In 1959, the year to which the “target list” refers, the US had more than 12,000 nuclear warheads and the British had 80, while the USSR had about a thousand, and China had none up to that point. Due to having superior transportation (bombers and missiles), the Pentagon considered a nuclear attack to be feasible.

9. Paul Johnstone, a Pentagon nuclear war planner and analyst for two decades (1949~1969), has revealed that at the time of the Cold War, there was the conviction among US strategists that the United States would suffer serious damage and have millions of deaths, but it would continue to exist as an organized and viable nation, and it would prevail, while the Soviet Union would not be able to do so.

10. Between the late 60s and early 70s, the US had about 9,000 nuclear weapons deployed outside its territory: about 7,000 in European NATO countries and 2,000 in Asian countries (South Korea, Philippines, Japan). Besides these, they have 3,000 weapons aboard submarines and other naval units, which can be launched at any time from advanced positions against the Soviet Union and other countries. The USSR, which has no advanced bases outside its territory near the United States (to which it can approach, however, using nuclear submarines), tried to prove that, if attacked, it could launch a devastating retaliation. To confirm this fact, in a test conducted on October 20, 1961, the most powerful hydrogen bomb ever experienced, the 58-megaton “Zar”, equivalent to almost 4,500 Hiroshima bombs, was detonated. At the same time, the Soviet Union prepared a space weapon: a missile that, if put in orbit around the Earth, could strike the United States at any moment with a nuclear warhead.

11. At this point the United States, facing a difficult position, proposed to the Soviet Union a treaty on the peaceful use of space. Thus, in January 1967, the Treaty on outer space was signed, which forbids the placing of nuclear weapons in the Earth’s orbit, on the Moon or on other celestial bodies, or, in any case, to place them in extra-atmospheric space.

12. Immediately afterwards, in July 1968, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed. The United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union promote it, worried by the fact that other countries want to enter the circle of nuclear powers. Article 1 states:

“Each of the military nuclear States undertakes not to transfer nuclear weapons to anyone”.

Article 2 states:

“Each of the militarily non-nuclear States, which is a Party to the Treaty, undertakes not to receive from anyone nuclear weapons or other explosive nuclear devices, nor control over such weapons and explosive devices, directly or indirectly”.

The nuclear powers undertook to pursue negotiations on a Treaty establishing general disarmament under international control (Article 6). Italy signed the NPT in 1969 and ratified it in 1975.

13. While the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union try to prevent other countries from entering the nuclear club with the non-proliferation Treaty, of which five members belong in 1968, a sixth country infiltrates the circle of nuclear powers, succeeding not only in enter it but, once inside, become officially invisible: the stone guest is Israel. At the same time that the Non-Proliferation Treaty was opened for signature in 1968, Israel is already secretly deploying its first nuclear weapons. In the 1970s and 1980s, South Africa, India and Pakistan also began to build nuclear weapons. In 1986 the world arsenal rose to its highest level: around 65,000 nuclear weapons.

14. It is at this stage that Europe was being turned into the front line of nuclear confrontation between the two superpowers. Between 1976 and 1980 the USSR deployed ballistic missiles of intermediate range on its territory. Based on the fact that from the Soviet territory they could hit Western Europe, starting in 1983, NATO decided to deploy US mid-range nuclear missiles in Europe: 108 Pershing II ballistic missiles in Germany and 464 cruise missiles that could be launched from the ground, distributed between Great Britain, Italy, West Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands.

15. In less than 10 minutes from a launch, the US Pershing 2 deployed in Germany could hit Soviet bases and cities, including Moscow, with their nuclear warheads. At the same time, the US cruise missiles deployed in Comiso and other European bases, flying at subsonic speeds at a distance from the ground of a few tens of meters along the contour of the terrain, could escape radar and hit the Soviet cities. In turn, the SS-20 deployed in Soviet territory could hit the bases and cities of Western Europe in less than 10 minutes from launch.

16. In Italy, in the mid-1980s, in addition to 112 nuclear warheads on cruise missiles deployed in Comiso, there were other US nuclear weapons for a total estimated number of about 700. They were made up mostly of atomic demolition mines, nuclear projectiles artillery and short-range nuclear missiles, intended for use in Italy. This indicates that Italy is considered by the Pentagon to be a simple pawn to be sacrificed, a nuclear battlefield to be turned into a radioactive desert.

17. During the Cold War, from 1945 to 1991, a nuclear arsenal accumulated in the world, which in 1980s probably reached 15,000 megatons – the equivalent of more than a million atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima. It is as if every inhabitant of the planet were sitting upon 3 tons of TNT. The power of the nuclear arsenal exceeds 5,000 times that of all the explosive devices used in the Second World War. For the first time in history, a destructive force was created that could erase from the face of the Earth, not once but repeatedly, the human species and almost every other form of life.

*

Sections 2-16 of the 70 Years of NATO, From War to War, forthcoming on Global Research

This text was translated from the Italian document which was distributed to participants at the April 7 Conference. It does not include sources and references.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The 70 Years of NATO: From War to War: NATO Is Born from the Bomb
  • Tags: ,

Julian Assange Tortured with Psychotropic Drug

November 25th, 2019 by Kurt Nimmo

Important article first published by Global Research on May 8, 2019

Retired USAF lieutenant colonel Karen Kwiatkowski writes in an article posted at Lew Rockwell’s website that Julian Assange is receiving the same treatment as suspected terrorists while in captivity at “Her Majesty’s Prison Service” at Belmarsh. 

The FBI, Pentagon, and CIA are “interviewing” Assange. Kwiatkowski writes:

Interviewing is the wrong word.  I’d like to say doctoring him, because it would be more accurate, except that word implies some care for a positive outcome.  Chemical Gina has her hands in this one, and we are being told that Assange is being “treated” with 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate, known as BZ. 

BZ is a powerful drug that produces hallucinations.

“Soldiers on BZ could remember only fragments of the experience afterward. As the drug wore off, and the subjects had trouble discerning what was real, many experienced anxiety, aggression, even terror,” the New Yorker reported. “…The drug’s effect lasted for days. At its peak, volunteers were totally cut off in their own minds, jolting from one fragmented existence to the next. They saw visions: Lilliputian baseball players competing on a tabletop diamond; animals or people or objects that materialized and vanished.”

Assange is being chemically lobotomized prior to being extradited to the United States to stand trial on bogus computer hacking charges that—and the corporate media won’t tell you this—passed the statute of limitations three years ago (see 18 U.S. Code § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States).

Forget about the statute of limitations. The US government has long violated both domestic and international law. It is a rogue nation led by an ignorant clown who opened the back door and ushered in neocon psychopaths notorious for killing millions. In normal times, these criminals would be in the dock at The Hague standing trial for crimes against humanity. But we don’t live in normal times.  

The message is clear: if you expose the massive criminal enterprise at the heart of the US government, you will be renditioned, chemically tortured (a favorite of Chemical Gina, now CIA director), chewed up and spit out until you’re a babbling mental case like David Shayler (who believes he is the Second Coming of Christ). Shayler, a former MI5 agent, made the mistake of exposing the UK’s support of terror operations in Libya. Shayler spent three weeks at Belmarsh after a conviction for breaching the Official Secrets Act. He emerged from prison broken and delusional. 

I seriously doubt most Americans care about the chemical torture of Julian Assange. On social media, liberals and so-called progressives, along with their “conservative” counterparts, celebrate Assange’s arrest, confinement, and torture. Members of Congress have called for his execution, while one media talking head (teleprompter script reader) demanded the CIA send a hit team to London and assassinate Assange. 

Americans are similar to the propagandized and brainwashed citizens of Nazi Germany. Most went along with Hitler right up until the end when their cities lay in smoldering ruins and their once proud country was carved up, half of it given over to the communists. They set up the Stasi to deal with East Germans who were not following the totalitarian program.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Wired

First published on November 6, 2019

“What happens to Julian Assange and to Chelsea Manning is meant to intimidate us, to frighten us into silence. By defending Julian Assange, we defend our most sacred rights. Speak up now or wake up one morning to the silence of a new kind of tyranny. The choice is ours.”—John Pilger, investigative journalist

All of us are in danger.

In an age of prosecutions for thought crimes, pre-crime deterrence programs, and government agencies that operate like organized crime syndicates, there is a new kind of tyranny being imposed on those who dare to expose the crimes of the Deep State, whose reach has gone global.

The Deep State has embarked on a ruthless, take-no-prisoners, all-out assault on truth-tellers.

Activists, journalists and whistleblowers alike are being terrorized, traumatized, tortured and subjected to the fear-inducing, mind-altering, soul-destroying, smash-your-face-in tactics employed by the superpowers-that-be.

Take Julian Assange, for example.

Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks—a website that published secret information, news leaks, and classified media from anonymous sources—was arrested on April 11, 2019, on charges of helping U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning access and leak more than 700,000 classified military documents that portray the U.S. government and its military as reckless, irresponsible and responsible for thousands of civilian deaths.

Included among the leaked Manning material were the Collateral Murder video (April 2010), the Afghanistan war logs (July 2010), the Iraq war logs (October 2010), a quarter of a million diplomatic cables (November 2010), and the Guantánamo files (April 2011).

The Collateral Murder leak included gunsight video footage from two U.S. AH-64 Apache helicopters engaged in a series of air-to-ground attacks while air crew laughed at some of the casualties. Among the casualties were two Reuters correspondents who were gunned down after their cameras were mistaken for weapons and a driver who stopped to help one of the journalists. The driver’s two children, who happened to be in the van at the time it was fired upon by U.S. forces, suffered serious injuries.

This is morally wrong.

It shouldn’t matter which nation is responsible for these atrocities: there is no defense for such evil perpetrated in the name of profit margins and war profiteering.

In true Orwellian fashion, however, the government would have us believe that it is Assange and Manning who are the real criminals for daring to expose the war machine’s seedy underbelly.

Since his April 2019 arrest, Assange has been locked up in a maximum-security British prison—in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day—pending extradition to the U.S., where if convicted, he could be sentenced to 175 years in prison.

Whatever is being done to Assange behind those prison walls—psychological torture, forced drugging, prolonged isolation, intimidation, surveillance—it’s wearing him down.

In court appearances, the 48-year-old Assange appears disoriented, haggard and zombie-like.

“In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law,” declared Nils Melzer, the UN special rapporteur on torture.

It’s not just Assange who is being made to suffer, however.

Manning, who was jailed for seven years from 2010 to 2017 for leaking classified documents to Wikileaks, was arrested in March 2019 for refusing to testify before a grand jury about Assange, placed in solitary confinement for almost a month, and then sentenced to remain in jail either until she agrees to testify or until the grand jury’s 18-month term expires.

Federal judge Anthony J. Trenga of the Eastern District of Virginia also fined Manning $500 for every day she remained in custody after 30 days, and $1,000 for every day she remains in custody after 60 days, a chilling—and financially crippling—example of the government’s heavy-handed efforts to weaponize fines and jail terms as a means of forcing dissidents to fall in line.

This is how the police state deals with those who challenge its chokehold on power.

Make no mistake: the government is waging war on journalists and whistleblowers for disclosing information relating to government misconduct that is within the public’s right to know.

Yet while this targeted campaign—aided, abetted and advanced by the Deep State’s international alliances—is unfolding during President Trump’s watch, it began with the Obama Administration’s decision to revive the antiquated, hundred-year-old Espionage Act, which was intended to punish government spies, and instead use it to prosecute government whistleblowers.

Unfortunately, the Trump Administration has not merely continued the Obama Administration’s attack on whistleblowers. It has injected this war on truth-tellers and truth-seekers with steroids and let it loose on the First Amendment.

In May 2019, Trump’s Justice Department issued a sweeping new “superseding” secret indictment of Assange—hinged on the Espionage Act—that empowers the government to determine what counts as legitimate journalism and criminalize the rest, not to mention giving “the government license to criminally punish journalists it does not like, based on antipathy, vague standards, and subjective judgments.”

Noting that the indictment signaled grave dangers for freedom of the press in general, media lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., warned,

“The indictment would criminalize the encouragement of leaks of newsworthy classified information, criminalize the acceptance of such information, and criminalize publication of it.”

Boutrous continues:

[I]t doesn’t matter whether you think Assange is a journalist, or whether WikiLeaks is a news organization. The theory that animates the indictment targets the very essence of journalistic activity: the gathering and dissemination of information that the government wants to keep secret. You don’t have to like Assange or endorse what he and WikiLeaks have done over the years to recognize that this indictment sets an ominous precedent and threatens basic First Amendment values…. With only modest tweaking, the very same theory could be invoked to prosecute journalists for the very same crimes being alleged against Assange, simply for doing their jobs of scrutinizing the government and reporting the news to the American people.

We desperately need greater scrutiny and transparency, not less.

Indeed, transparency is one of those things the shadow government fears the most. Why? Because it might arouse the distracted American populace to actually exercise their rights and resist the tyranny that is inexorably asphyxiating their freedoms.

This need to shed light on government actions—to make the obscure, least transparent reaches of government accessible and accountable—was a common theme for Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who famously coined the phrase, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

Writing in January 1884, Brandeis explained:

Light is the only thing that can sweeten our political atmosphere—light thrown upon every detail of administration in the departments; light diffused through every policy; light blazed full upon every feature of legislation; light that can penetrate every recess or corner in which any intrigue might hide; light that will open up to view the innermost chambers of government, drive away all darkness from the treasury vaults; illuminate foreign correspondence; explore national dockyards; search out the obscurities of Indian affairs; display the workings of justice; exhibit the management of the army; play upon the sails of the navy; and follow the distribution of the mails.

Of course, transparency is futile without a populace that is informed, engaged and prepared to hold the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law.

For this reason, it is vital that citizens have the right to criticize the government without fear.

After all, we’re citizens, not subjects. For those who don’t fully understand the distinction between the two and why transparency is so vital to a healthy constitutional government, Manning explains it well:

When freedom of information and transparency are stifled, then bad decisions are often made and heartbreaking tragedies occur – too often on a breathtaking scale that can leave societies wondering: how did this happen? … I believe that when the public lacks even the most fundamental access to what its governments and militaries are doing in their names, then they cease to be involved in the act of citizenship. There is a bright distinction between citizens, who have rights and privileges protected by the state, and subjects, who are under the complete control and authority of the state.

Manning goes on to suggest that the U.S. “needs legislation to protect the public’s right to free speech and a free press, to protect it from the actions of the executive branch and to promote the integrity and transparency of the US government.”

Technically, we’ve already got such legislation on the books: the First Amendment.

The First Amendment gives the citizenry the right to speak freely, protest peacefully, expose government wrongdoing, and criticize the government without fear of arrest, isolation or any of the other punishments that have been meted out to whistleblowers such as Edwards Snowden, Assange and Manning.

The challenge is holding the government accountable to obeying the law.

Almost 50 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in United States v. Washington Post Co. to block the Nixon Administration’s attempts to use claims of national security to prevent The Washington Post and The New York Times from publishing secret Pentagon papers on how America went to war in Vietnam.

As Justice William O. Douglas remarked on the ruling, “The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”

Almost 50 years later, with Assange being cast as the poster boy for treason, we’re witnessing yet another showdown, which pits the people’s right to know about government misconduct against the might of the military industrial complex.

Yet this isn’t merely about whether whistleblowers and journalists are part of a protected class under the Constitution. It’s a debate over how long “we the people” will remain a protected class under the Constitution.

Following the current downward trajectory, it won’t be long before anyone who believes in holding the government accountable is labeled an “extremist,” is relegated to an underclass that doesn’t fit in, must be watched all the time, and is rounded up when the government deems it necessary.

Eventually, we will all be potential suspects, terrorists and lawbreakers in the eyes of the government

Partisan politics have no place in this debate: Americans of all stripes would do well to remember that those who question the motives of government provide a necessary counterpoint to those who would blindly follow where politicians choose to lead.

We don’t have to agree with every criticism of the government, but we must defend the rights of allindividuals to speak freely without fear of punishment or threat of banishment.

Never forget: what the architects of the police state want are submissive, compliant, cooperative, obedient, meek citizens who don’t talk back, don’t challenge government authority, don’t speak out against government misconduct, and don’t step out of line.

What the First Amendment protects—and a healthy constitutional republic requires—are citizens who routinely exercise their right to speak truth to power.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the right to speak out against government wrongdoing is the quintessential freedom.

Be warned: this quintessential freedom won’t be much good to anyone if the government makes good on its promise to make an example of Assange as a warning to other journalists intent on helping whistleblowers disclose government corruption.

Once again, we find ourselves reliving George Orwell’s 1984, which portrayed in chilling detail how totalitarian governments employ the power of language to manipulate the masses.

In Orwell’s dystopian vision of the future, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.”

Much like today’s social media censors and pre-crime police departments, Orwell’s Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the other government agencies peddle in economic affairs (rationing and starvation), law and order (torture and brainwashing), and news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda).

Orwell’s Big Brother relies on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary.

Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

This is the final link in the police state chain.

Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry—mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all—our backs are to the walls.

From this point on, we have only two options: go down fighting, or capitulate and betray our loved ones, our friends and ourselves by insisting that, as a brainwashed Winston Smith does at the end of Orwell’s 1984, yes, 2+2 does equal 5.

As George Orwell recognized, “In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri

First published by Waking Times, posted by Global Research in May 2014, this article provides a historical viewpoint. It is of particular relevance in relation to the Monsanto-Bayer merger. Monsanto-Bayer is relentlessly pushing the Worldwide adoption of glyphosate, which is carcinogenic.

Recent articles on Global Research have documented the devastating impacts of Glyphosate on human health.

***

Of all the mega-corps running amok, Monsanto has consistently outperformed its rivals, earning the crown as “most evil corporation on Earth!” Not content to simply rest upon its throne of destruction, it remains focused on newer, more scientifically innovative ways to harm the planet and its people.

1901: The company is founded by John Francis Queeny, a member of the Knights of Malta, a thirty year pharmaceutical veteran married to Olga Mendez Monsanto, for which Monsanto Chemical Works is named. The company’s first product is chemical saccharin, sold to Coca-Cola as an artificial sweetener.

Even then, the government knew saccharin was poisonous and sued to stop its manufacture but lost in court, thus opening the Monsanto Pandora’s Box to begin poisoning the world through the soft drink.

toxiclove1920s: Monsanto expands into industrial chemicals and drugs, becoming the world’s largest maker of  aspirin, acetylsalicyclic acid. This is also the time when things began to go horribly wrong for the planet in a hurry with the introduction of  their polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

“PCBs were considered an industrial wonder chemical, an oil that wouldn’t burn, impervious to degradation and had almost limitless applications. Today PCBs are considered one of the gravest chemical threats on the planet. Widely used as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, cutting oils, waterproof coatings and liquid sealants, are potent carcinogens and have been implicated in reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders. The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state.”(1)

Even though PCBs were eventually banned after fifty years for causing such devastation, it is still present in just about all animal and human blood and tissue cells across the globe. Documents introduced in court later showed Monsanto was fully aware of the deadly effects, but criminally hid them from the public to keep the PCB gravy-train going full speed!

1930s: Created its first hybrid seed corn and expands into detergents, soaps, industrial cleaning products, synthetic rubbers and plastics. Oh yes, all toxic of course!

1940s: They begin research on uranium to be used for the Manhattan Project’s first atomic bomb, which would later be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese, Korean and US Military servicemen and poisoning millions more.

The company continues its unabated killing spree by creating pesticides for agriculture containing deadly dioxin, which poisons the food and water supplies. It was later discovered Monsanto failed to disclose that dioxin was used in a wide range of their products because doing so would force them to acknowledge that it had created an environmental Hell on Earth.

1950s: Closely aligned with The Walt Disney Company, Monsanto creates several attractions at Disney’s Tomorrowland, espousing the glories of chemicals and plastics. Their “House of the Future” is constructed entirely of toxic plastic that is not biodegradable as they had asserted. What, Monsanto lied? I’m shocked!

“After attracting a total of 20 million visitors from 1957 to 1967, Disney finally tore the house down, but discovered it would not go down without a fight. According to Monsanto Magazine, wrecking balls literally bounced off the glass-fiber, reinforced polyester material. Torches, jackhammers, chain saws and shovels did not work. Finally, choker cables were used to squeeze off parts of the house bit by bit to be trucked away.”(2)

Monsanto’s Disneyfied vision of the future:

1960s: Monsanto, along with chemical partner-in-crime DOW Chemical, produces dioxin-laced Agent Orange for use in the U.S.’s Vietnam invasion. The results? Over 3 million people contaminated, a half-million Vietnamese civilians dead, a half-million Vietnamese babies born with birth defects and thousands of U.S. military veterans suffering or dying from its effects to this day!

 Monsanto is hauled into court again and internal memos show they knew the deadly effects of dioxin in Agent Orange when they sold it to the government. Outrageously though, Monsanto is allowed to present their own “research” that concluded dioxin was safe and posed no negative health concerns whatsoever. Satisfied, the bought and paid for courts side with Monsanto and throws the case out. Afterwards, it comes to light that Monsanto lied about the findings and their real research concluded that dioxin kills very effectively.

A later internal memo released in a 2002 trial admitted

“that the evidence proving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence as residues in the environment is beyond question … the public and legal pressures to eliminate them to prevent global contamination are inevitable. The subject is snowballing. Where do we go from here? The alternatives: go out of business; sell the hell out of them as long as we can and do nothing else; try to stay in business; have alternative products.”(3)

Monsanto partners with I.G. Farben, makers of Bayer aspirin and the Third Reich’s go-to chemical manufacturer producing deadly Zyklon-B gas during World War II. Together, the companies use their collective expertise to introduce aspartame, another extremely deadly neurotoxin, into the food supply. When questions surface regarding the toxicity of saccharin, Monsanto exploits this opportunity to introduce yet another of its deadly poisons onto an unsuspecting public.

1970s: Monsanto partner, G.D. Searle, produces numerous internal studies which claim aspartame to be safe, while the FDA’s own scientific research clearly reveals that aspartame causes tumors and massive holes in the brains of rats, before killing them. The FDA initiates a grand jury investigation into G.D. Searle for “knowingly misrepresenting findings and concealing material facts and making false statements” in regard to aspartame safety.

During this time, Searle strategically taps prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld, who served as Secretary of Defense during the Gerald Ford and George W. Bush  presidencies, to become CEO. The corporation’s primary goal is to have Rumsfeld utilize his political influence and vast experience in the killing business to grease the FDA to play ball with them.

A few months later, Samuel Skinner receives “an offer he can’t refuse,” withdraws from the investigation and resigns his post at the U.S. Attorney’s Office to go work for Searle’s law firm. This mob tactic stalls the case just long enough for the statute of limitation to run out and the grand jury investigation is abruptly and conveniently dropped.

1980s: Amid indisputable research that reveals the toxic effects of aspartame and as then FDA commissioner Dr. Jere Goyan was about to sign a petition into law keeping it off the market, Donald Rumsfeld calls Ronald Reagan for a favor the day after he takes office. Reagan fires the uncooperative Goyan and appoints Dr. Arthur Hayes Hull to head the FDA, who then quickly tips the scales in Searle’s favor and NutraSweet is approved for human consumption in dried products.This becomes sadly ironic since Reagan, a known jelly bean and candy enthusiast, later suffers from Alzheimers during his second term, one of the many horrific effects of aspartame consumption.

Searle’s real goal though was to have aspartame approved as a soft drink sweetener since exhaustive studies revealed that at temperatures exceeding 85 degrees Fahrenheit, it “breaks down into known toxins Diketopiperazines (DKP), methyl (wood) alcohol, and formaldehyde.”(4), becoming many times deadlier than its powdered form!

The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) is initially in an uproar, fearing future lawsuits from consumers permanently injured or killed by drinking the poison. When Searle is able to show that liquid aspartame, though incredibly deadly, is much more addictive than crack cocaine, the NSDA is convinced that skyrocketing profits from the sale of soft drinks laced with aspartame would easily offset any future liability. With that, corporate greed wins and the unsuspecting soft drink consumers pay for it with damaged healths.

Coke leads the way once again (remember saccharin?) and begins poisoning Diet Coke drinkers with aspartame in 1983. As expected, sales skyrocket as millions become hopelessly addicted and sickened by the sweet poison served in a can. The rest of the soft drink industry likes what it sees and quickly follows suit, conveniently forgetting all about their initial reservations that aspartame is a deadly chemical. There’s money to be made, lots of it and that’s all that really matters to them anyway!

In 1985, undaunted by the swirl of corruption and multiple accusations of fraudulent research undertaken by Searle, Monsanto purchases the company and forms a new aspartame subsidiary called NutraSweet Company. When multitudes of independent scientists and researchers continue to warn about aspartame’s toxic effects, Monsanto goes on the offensive, bribing the National Cancer Institute and providing their own fraudulent papers to get the NCI to claim that formaldehyde does not cause cancer so that aspartame can stay on the market.

The known effects of aspartame ingestion are: “mania, rage, violence, blindness, joint-pain, fatigue, weight-gain, chest-pain, coma, insomnia, numbness, depression, tinnitus, weakness, spasms, irritability, nausea, deafness, memory-loss, rashes, dizziness, headaches, seizures, anxiety, palpitations, fainting, cramps, diarrhoea, panic, burning in the mouth. Diseases triggered/mimmicked include diabetes, MS, lupus, epilepsy, Parkinson’s, tumours, miscarriage, infertility, fibromyalgia, infant death, Alzheimer’s… Source : U.S. Food & Drug Administration.(5)

Further, 80% of complaints made to the FDA regarding food additives are about aspartame, which is now in over 5,000 products including diet and non-diet sodas and sports drinks, mints, chewing gum, frozen desserts, cookies, cakes, vitamins, pharmaceuticals, milk drinks, instant teas, coffees, yogurt, baby food and many, many more!(6) Read labels closely and do not buy anything that contains this horrific killer!

Amidst all the death and disease, FDA’s Arthur Hull resigns under a cloud of corruption and is immediately hired by Searle’s public relations firm as a senior scientific consultant. No, that’s not a joke! Monsanto, the FDA and many government health regulatory agencies have become one and the same! It seems the only prerequisite for becoming an FDA commissioner is that they spend time at either Monsanto or one of the pharmaceutical cartel’s organized crime corps.

1990s: Monsanto spends millions defeating state and federal legislation that disallows the corporation from continuing to dump dioxins, pesticides and other cancer-causing poisons into drinking water systems. Regardless, they are sued countless times for causing disease in their plant workers, the people in surrounding areas and birth defects in babies.

With their coffins full from the massive billions of profits, the $100 million dollar settlements are considered the low cost of doing business and thanks to the FDA, Congress and White House, business remains very good. So good that Monsanto is sued for giving radioactive iron to 829 pregnant women for a study to see what would happen to them.

In 1994, the FDA once again criminally approves Monsanto’s latest monstrosity, the Synthetic Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), produced from a genetically modified E. coli bacteria, despite obvious outrage from the scientific community of its dangers. Of course, Monsanto claims that diseased pus milk, full of antibiotics and hormones is not only safe, but actually good for you!

 Worse yet, dairy companies who refuse to use this toxic cow pus and label their products as“rBGH-free” are sued by Monsanto, claiming it gives them an unfair advantage over competitors that did. In essence, what Monsanto was saying is “yeah, we know rBGH makes people sick, but it’s not alright that you advertise it’s not in your products.”

 The following year, the diabolical company begins producing GMO crops that are tolerant to their toxic herbicide Roundup. Roundup-ready canola oil (rapeseed), soybeans, corn and BT cotton begin hitting the market, advertised as being safer, healthier alternatives to their organic non-GMO rivals. Apparently, the propaganda worked as today over 80% of canola on the market is their GMO variety.

A few things you definitely want to avoid in your diet are GMO soy, corn, wheat and canola oil, despite the fact that many “natural” health experts claim the latter to be a healthy oil. It’s not, but you’ll find it polluting many products on grocery store shelves.

 Because these GM crops have been engineered to ‘self-pollinate,’ they do not need  nature or bees to do that for them. There is a very dark side agenda to this and that is to wipe out the world’s bee population.

 Monsanto knows that birds and especially bees, throw a wrench into their monopoly due to their ability to pollinate plants, thus naturally creating foods outside of the company’s “full domination control agenda.” When bees attempt to pollinate a GM plant or flower, it gets poisoned and dies. In fact, the bee colony collapse was recognized and has been going on since GM crops were first introduced.

To counter the accusations that they deliberately caused this ongoing genocide of bees, Monsanto devilishly buys out Beeologics, the largest bee research firm that was dedicated to studying the colony collapse phenomenon and whose extensive research named the monster as the primary culprit! After that, it’s “bees, what bees? Everything’s just dandy!” Again, I did not make this up, but wish I had!

During the mid-90s, they decide to reinvent their evil company as one focused on controlling the world’s food supply through artificial, biotechnology means to preserve the Roundup cash-cow from losing market-share in the face of competing, less-toxic herbicides. You see, Roundup is so toxic that it wipes out non-GMO crops, insects, animals, human health and the environment at the same time. How very efficient!

 Because Roundup-ready crops are engineered to be toxic pesticides masquerading as food, they have been banned in the EU, but not in America! Is there any connection between that and the fact that Americans, despite the high cost and availability of healthcare, are collectively the sickest people in the world? Of course not!

 As was Monsanto’s plan from the beginning, all non-Monsanto crops would be destroyed, forcing farmers the world over to use only its toxic terminator seeds. And Monsanto made sure farmers who refused to come into the fold were driven out of business or sued when windblown terminator seeds poisoned organic farms.

This gave the company a virtual monopoly as terminator seed crops and Roundup worked hand in glove with each other as GMO crops could not survive in a non-chemical environment so farmers were forced to buy both.

Their next step was to spend billions globally buying up as many seed companies as possible and transitioning them into terminator seed companies in an effort to wipe out any rivals and eliminate organic foods off the face of the earth. In Monsanto’s view, all foods must be under their full control and genetically modified or they are not safe to eat!

 They pretend to be shocked that their critics in the scientific community question whether crops genetically modified with the genes of diseased pigs, cows, spiders, monkeys, fish, vaccines and viruses are healthy to eat. The answer to that question is obviously a very big “no way!”

You’d think the company would be so proud of their GMO foods that they’d serve them to their employees, but they don’t. In fact, Monsanto has banned GM foods from being served in their own employee cafeterias. Monsanto lamely responded “we believe in choice.” What they really means is “we don’t want to kill the help.”

It’s quite okay though to force-feed poor nations and Americans these modified monstrosities as a means to end starvation since dead people don’t need to eat! I’ll bet the thought on most peoples’ minds these days is that Monsanto is clearly focused on eugenics and genocide, as opposed to providing foods that will sustain the world. As in Monsanto partner Disney’s Sleeping Beauty, the wicked witch gives the people the poisoned GMO apple that puts them to sleep forever!

2000s: By this time Monsanto controls the largest share of the global GMO market. In turn, the US gov’t spends hundreds of millions to fund aerial spraying of Roundup, causing massive environmental devastation. Fish and animals by the thousands die within days of spraying as respiratory ailments and cancer deaths in humans spike tremendously. But this is all considered an unusual coincidence so the spraying continues. If you thought Monsanto and the FDA were one and the same, well you can add the gov’t to that sorry list now.

The monster grows bigger: Monsanto merges with Pharmacia & Upjohn, then separates from its chemical business and rebrands itself as an agricultural company. Yes, that’s right, a chemical company whose products have devastated the environment, killed millions of people and wildlife over the years now wants us to believe they produce safe and nutritious foods that won’t kill people any longer. That’s an extremely hard-sell, which is why they continue to grow bigger through mergers and secret partnerships.

Because rival DuPont is too large a corporation to be allowed to merge with, they instead form a stealth partnership where each agrees to drop existing patent lawsuits against one another and begin sharing GMO technologies for mutual benefit. In layman’s terms, together they would be far too powerful and politically connected for anything to stop them from owning a virtual monopoly on agriculture; “control the food supply & you control the people!”

 Not all is rosy as the monster is repeatedly sued for $100s of millions for causing illness, infant deformities and death by illegally dumping all manner of PCBs into ground water, and continually lying about products safety – you know, business as usual.

The monster often perseveres and proves difficult to slay as it begins filing frivolous suits against farmers it claims infringe on their terminator seed patents. In virtually all cases, unwanted seeds are windblown onto farmers’ lands by neighboring terminator-seeded farms. Not only do these horrendous seeds destroy the organic farmers’ crops, the lawsuits drive them into bankruptcy, while the Supreme Court overturns lower court rulings and sides with Monsanto each time.

At the same time, the monster begins filing patents on breeding techniques for pigs, claiming animals bred any way remotely similar to their patent would grant them ownership. So loose was this patent filing that it became obvious they wanted to claim all pigs bred throughout the world would infringe upon their patent.

The global terrorism spreads to India as over 100,000 farmers who are bankrupted by GMO crop failure, commit suicide by drinking Roundup so their families will be eligible for death insurance payments. In response, the monster takes advantage of the situation by alerting the media to a new project to assist small Indian farmers by donating the very things that caused crop failures in the country in the first place! Forbes then names Monsanto “company of the year.” Sickening, but true.

 More troubling is that Whole Foods, the corporation that brands itself as organic, natural and eco-friendly is proven to be anything but. They refuse to support Proposition 37, California’s GMO-labeling measure that Monsanto and its GMO-brethren eventually helped to defeat.

Why? Because Whole Foods has been in bed with Monsanto for a long time, secretly stuffing its shelves with overpriced, fraudulently advertized “natural & organic” crap loaded with GMOs, pesticides, rBGH, hormones and antibiotics. So, of course they don’t want mandatory labelling as that would expose them as the Whole Frauds and Whore Foods that they really are!

 However, when over twenty biotech-friendly companies including WalMart, Pepsico and ConAgra recently met with FDA in favor of mandatory labelling laws, this after fighting tooth and nail to defeat Prop 37, Whole Foods sees an opportunity to save face and becomes the first grocery chain to announce mandatory labelling of their GMO products…in 2018! Uh, thanks for nothing, Whore.

 And if you think its peers have suddenly grown a conscience, think again. They are simply reacting to the public’s outcry over the defeat of Prop 37 by crafting deceptive GMO-labelling laws to circumvent any real change, thus keeping the status quo intact.

 To add insult to world injury, Monsanto and their partners in crime Archer Daniels Midland, Sodexo and Tyson Foods write and sponsor The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009: HR 875. This  “act” gives the corporate factory farms a virtual monopoly to police and control all foods grown anywhere, including one’s own backyard, and provides harsh penalties and jail sentences for those who do not use chemicals and fertilizers. President Obama decided this sounded reasonable and gave his approval.

 With this Act, Monsanto claims that only GM foods are safe and organic or homegrown foods potentially spread disease, therefore must be regulated out of existence for the safety of the world. If eating GM pesticide balls is their idea of safe food, I would like to think the rest of the world is smart enough to pass.

As further revelations have broken open regarding this evil giant’s true intentions, Monsanto crafted the ridiculous HR 933 Continuing Resolution, aka Monsanto Protection Act, which Obama robo-signed into law as well.This law states that no matter how harmful Monsanto’s GMO crops are and no matter how much devastation they wreak upon the country, U.S. federal courts cannot stop them from continuing to plant them anywhere they choose. Yes, Obama signed a provision that makes Monsanto above any laws and makes them more powerful than the government itself. We have to wonder who’s really in charge of the country because it’s certainly not him!

There comes a tipping point though when a corporation becomes too evil and the world pushes back…hard! Many countries continue to convict Monsanto of crimes against humanity and have banned them altogether, telling them to “get out and stay out!”

The world has begun to awaken to the fact that the corporate monster does not want control over the global production of food simply for profit’s sake. No, it’s become clear by over a century of death & destruction that the primary goal is to destroy human health and the environment, turning the world into a Mon-Satanic Hell on Earth!

 Research into the name itself reveals it to be latin, meaning “my saint,” which may explain why critics often refer to it as “Mon-Satan.” Even more conspiratorially interesting is that free masons and other esoteric societies assigned numbers to each letter in our latin-based alphabet system in a six system. Under that number system, what might Monsanto add up to? Why, of course 6-6-6!

 Know that all is not lost. Evil always loses in the end once it is widely exposed to the light of truth as is occurring now. The fact that the Monsanto-led government finds it necessary to enact desperate legislation to protect its true leader proves this point. Being evicted elsewhere, the United States is Monsanto’s last stand so to speak.

Yet, even here many have begun striking back by protesting against and rejecting GMO monstrosities, choosing to grow their own foods and shop at local farmers markets instead of the Monsanto-supported corporate grocery chains.

 The awakening people are also beginning to see they have been misled by corporate tricksters and federal government criminals poisoned by too much power, control and greed, which has resulted in the creation of the monstrous, out-of-control corporate beast.

 Notes

(1,3) http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/company-history.shtml
(2) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto
(4,5) http://www.pfnh.org/article.php?id=65

Concerns of Medical Doctors About the Plight of Mr. Julian Assange

November 25th, 2019 by Doctors for Assange

More than 60 eminent medical doctors have issued an open letter calling for urgent action to protect the life of imprisoned WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

The doctors warn there may be serious consequences if Mr Assange is not moved from Belmarsh Prison. They are requesting he be transferred to a university teaching hospital where he can be assessed and treated by an expert medical team:

“Were such urgent assessment and treatment not to take place, we have real concerns, on the evidence currently available, that Mr Assange could die in prison. The medical situation is thereby urgent. There is no time to lose.”

Their letter is addressed to UK Home Secretary Priti Patel and has been copied to Shadow Home Secretary Dianne Abbott.

Dr Lissa Johnson PhD, Clinical Psychologist (Australia) said…

“Given the rapid decline of his health in Belmarsh Prison, Julian Assange must immediately be transferred to a university teaching hospital for appropriate and specialised medical care. If the UK Government fails to heed doctors’ advice by urgently arranging such a transfer on medical grounds, there is a very real possibility that Mr Assange may die.

“As it stands, serious questions surround not only the health impacts of Mr Assange’s detention conditions, but his medical fitness to stand trial and prepare his defence. Independent specialist medical assessment is therefore needed to determine whether Julian Assange is medically fit for any of his pending legal proceedings.

“Consistent with its commitment to human rights and rule of law, the UK Government must heed the urgent warning of medical professionals from around the world, and transfer Julian Assange to an appropriately specialised and expert hospital setting, before it’s too late.
“Due to the climate of intimidation and fear surrounding Julian Assange, a number of doctors have insisted on anonymity before examining Julian Assange over the years, fearful of negative consequences to their reputations and careers.

“The signatories to this open letter refuse to be silenced and are standing openly alongside the numerous medical and human rights authorities who have called, repeatedly and urgently, for the dangerous medical neglect of Julian Assange to end.”

Read the open letter here.

*

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

Featured image is from Medium

Political Background 

The House Impeachment Inquiry Hearing has dominated the news in the U.S. for the past few weeks as if the whole world is on the edge of its seat following this saga. However, these TV shows are nothing more than an insignificant and unmanageable family feud among the 1% in the U.S. which is reaching its climax in public.

We should bear in mind that while the hearings were airing, working people around the world including American people (Auto Workers and Teachers) were and still are on the street day in and day out, resisting neoliberal economic austerity measures and demanding for their democratic rights!

Both the Republican and Democratic parties and their witnesses for the impeachment inquiry are in agreement that the role of the U.S. government in Ukraine was and is to advance “democracy” and moreover to clean up the “corruption” in that country! This is a repulsive display of hypocrisy.

The House Intelligence Committee and their witnesses mislead the American people about Ukraine by concealing the actual role of the U.S. government in the 2014 coup in that country which brought the most corrupt and reactionary elements to the power. Furthermore, at the same day, even the same hours that the “corruption” in Ukraine through the impeachment inquiry hearings was publicly argued, in secret the U.S. State Department and CIA in coordination with their operatives in Bolivia were directing the most corrupt elements in Bolivia to conduct a coup against the democratically elected President of that country.

Indeed, these days, the halls of the US Congress are filled with the smell of deception and dishonesty.

True peace activists and democratic minded people would seek the truth about Ukraine and Bolivia based on historical facts and would listen to the people of these countries and their demands.

Those who find themselves – one way or another – caught up either in the camp of pretentious Democrats or shameless Republicans are helping only the 1% elite and their deceitful politicians.

The fact is that neither Joe Biden nor Trump’s agents in Ukraine (including the president’s legal counsel Giuliani), could not under any circumstances operate without corrupt (US sponsored) Ukrainian elements in that country. The same is true in relation to recent developments in Bolivia.

The U.S. government, regardless of the White House occupant, is always been in the business of buying corrupt politicians in vulnerable countries (with payoffs financed by US tax revenues). The ultimate objective is to install puppet regimes which will support the interests of US corporations.

Ukraine and Bolivia are only two cases in the long list countries which in recent history have been the object of  a US sponsored “regime change”.

The intervention of U.S. special forces, diplomats or intelligence ops in foreign countries is not intended to promote or safeguard “Democracy”. Quite the opposite: Their tasks are to destabilize independent governments and undermine social movements which are struggling to protect the country’s national sovereignty.

The U.S. government simply by imposing economic sanctions, political pressures or military intervention dictates its imperial rules. The central core of U.S. foreign policy is “regime change”- that is replacing sovereign governments with  obedient and corrupt regimes which enable U.S. corporations to plunder the rich resources of these countries with  impunity.

U.S. foreign policy as the world has clearly witnessed in Iraq (under GWB a Republican) or Libya (under Obama a Democrat) was never meant to promote “democracy”. True democracy is based on the will of the majority who produce wealth, not those who plunder and accumulate wealth.

In capitalist countries, those who manage and appropriate the wealth are in a constant contradiction with those who create wealth; therefore, logically the task of building a democratic society will be solely the task of those who produce the wealth – that is the working people.

What we have heard from U.S. diplomats repeatedly about Ukrainian “corruption” during the impeachment inquiry hearings actually are the stories of the corrupt corporations and individuals who are “creations” of the U.S. / E.U.

The “corrupt company” which paid $50,000 monthly salary to the son of (former) Vice President Biden or the “corrupt businesses” that were beneficial to the unusual and secretive mission by Mr. Giuliani in Ukraine did not exist prior to the U.S. sponsored 2014 coup.

The Ukrainian working people had no place either in Mr. Giuliani’s or Mr. Biden’s business deals. The Ukrainian workers and producers have never been considered as part of any equation by U.S. diplomats.

Dealing with the most corrupt elements and entities in a foreign country is in the interest of U.S. imperialism. it is justified by Washington under the label “For the sake of National Security”. To understand corruption in Ukraine, one must follow the footsteps of US foreign policy, i.e. the vital role played by former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the late Senator John McCain. 

A quick study of the events in Ukraine clearly shows that these two U.S. “representatives” were instrumental in reviving the Ukrainian fascists’ residue and installing them in high governmental positions.

The long history of the struggle of the working people in Ukraine and Bolivia is key to understand these two countries. One must patiently unravel the century-old layers of the imperialists’ agonizing domination and follow the role of the U.S. imperialism after World War II.

The theatrical tragedy which has been displayed by Mr. Schiff and Mr. Nunes has failed to amaze American working families. Both Democrats and Republicans’ narratives about Ukraine are misleading. These gentlemen who have been humiliating each other for days are only competing to show who could serve the interests of the American elite better.

If any politician is really interested in fighting corruption should shed light on the Detention Centers here in the United States. Nothing can be more rotten and corrupt than a fascistic and sick policy of an administration that separates children from their parents and locks them up in the facilities in which the terrified children are systematically and deliberately abused. Democrats could have easily impeached President Trump and convict him over his immigration policy and the dreadful conditions that his administration has created for more than 10,000 children in the U.S. detention centers. Of course, Democrats are well aware that any inquiry in this regard also opens the files of Mr. Obama’s mistreatments of the migrant children who were kept in cages during his presidency.

So for now, let’s briefly INVESTIGATE the factual history of Ukraine and Bolivia against the distorted narratives.

Ukraine

For centuries, Ukraine with its rich land, natural resources and its unique geographical location (as the gate of Europe) has been battered by the most powerful armies and also victimized by authoritarian leaders such as Stalin and Hitler. The history of Ukraine is a catastrophic and painful history of mankind. In 1941, the German army machine-gunned about 34,000 Jews (the Babi Yar massacre) and another 50,000 Jews were slaughtered in Odessa.

The Ukrainian fascists (as the most vicious terrorists’ organization in that country who were savagely killing Jews, communists and terrorizing other minorities in Ukraine during the German occupation) never died out after WWII.

As a matter of fact, the notorious Ukrainian fascist leader Stepan Bandera (image below) was resuscitated as a hero by the U.S. Puppet President Yushchenko after the coup. So considering this catastrophic history, the U.S. as the voice of “democracy” should have been against all fascists and rightwing parties who boldly and demonstratively were proud of their fascistic heritage in Ukraine. But U.S. main goal after the collapse of the Soviet Union was to create a new regime in Ukraine to bring the NATO forces closer to the border of Russia.

About this policy, Professor Michel Chossudovsky in his article “Three Years Ago: The U.S. has Installed a Neo-Nazi Government in Ukraine” points out that

“Washington has chosen to spearhead Neo-Nazis into positions of authority. Under a ‘regime of indirect rule’, however, they take their orders on crucial military and foreign policy issues –including the deployment of troops directed against the Russian federation– from the US State Department, the Pentagon and NATO.”

Also in the same article, he raises a valid question:

“The Neo-Nazi party also controls the judicial process with the appointment of Oleh Makhnitsky of the Svoboda party [a far-right Nationalist Party] to the position of prosecutor-general of Ukraine. What kind of justice will prevail with a renowned Neo-Nazi in charge of the Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine?”(1) (emphasis added)

However, the facts of the Odessa massacre in 2014, and the role of the trained fascist operators with the support of the U.S. government expose the fictitious debate over the “corruption investigation” in Ukraine. In this regard, on May 3rd, 2014; Mike Head on WSWS.org writes:

“In what can only be described as a massacre, 38 anti-government activists were killed Friday after fascist-led forces set fire to Odessa’s Trade Unions House, which had been sheltering opponents of the US- and European-backed regime in Ukraine. According to eye-witnesses, those who jumped from the burning building and survived were surrounded and beaten by thugs from the neo-Nazi Right Sector. Video footage shows bloodied and wounded survivors being attacked (2).

The atrocity underscores both the brutal character of the right-wing government installed in Kiev by the Western powers and the encouragement by the US and its allies of a bloody crackdown by the regime to suppress popular opposition, centred in the mainly Russian-speaking south and east of Ukraine. As the Odessa outrage occurred, US President Barack Obama, at a joint White House press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, explicitly endorsed the military offensive being carried out by the unelected Kiev government against protesters occupying official buildings in eastern Ukraine.” …

“In part, the US operation seems directed at preventing an autonomy referendum planned by anti-Kiev opponents on May 11. In addition, a Ukrainian presidential election, scheduled for May 25, is seen by the Western powers as a means of lending legitimacy to the coup government in Kiev. The most widely-promoted presidential candidate, billionaire oligarch Petro Poroshenko, advocates NATO membership for Ukraine and the subordination of the country to the dictates of the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.” …

Also Oliver Stone in his a powerful film “Ukraine on Fire” exposes the role of the U.S. in destabilizing that region. This carefully researched documentary unravels the complex issues about Ukraine in simple terms. (3)

Here’s the trailer of Ukraine on Fire:

Bolivia

The case of Bolivia in regard to its natural resources is very similar to Ukraine.

According to estimates, a large share of the world’s lithium reserves are in Bolivia. However, for decades in Latin America, the question of liberation from Colonialism and U.S. domination has been played out in different forms.

The leadership in Venezuela today or in Bolivia before the “resignation” of Evo Morales have presented a form of “Socialism” that in reality is entangled by the visible and invisible capitalist economic cords.

Although Evo Morales as a popular leader succeeded in rejecting the IMF and (direct) U.S. political interference in Bolivia, he and his MAS Party- the Movement toward Socialism, were vulnerable to the (US supported) rightwing and corrupt forces in Bolivia which were ready to strike at any moment.

This fact came to the fore right after the recent presidential election in Bolivia.

On October 20, the election result was clearly in favor of Evo Morales against his closest challenger, Carlos Mesa. Furthermore, President Morales won 47.1 percent of the vote against Mr. Mesa’s who secure only 36.5 percent.

This fact according to the Bolivian election laws did not acquire a runoff since the total vote was over 40 percent.

However, long before the election, the CIA and rightwing fascist and racist elements were preparing for a Coup d’état against the democratically elected President.

The anti-government demonstrations were organized around the demand that President Morales should step down. The coup plan was in full swing. Just like the 2014 coup in Ukraine, fascist elements with the support of the U.S. attempted to destabilize the country violently. They burned the offices of the electoral authorities and attacked the demonstrations of the indigenous people who were out on the street in defense of President Morales. Tanya Wadhwa of PeoplesDispatch.org reports that:

“In the Vinto municipality, one of the most disturbing attacks took place. An opposition mob, armed with sticks and stones and explosives, attacked the mayor’s office in Vinto in the Cochabamba department. The attackers set fire to the city hall and Assaulted mayor Patricia Arce, of the MAS party.”; “Arce was dragged down the street and forced to walk barefoot several kilometers. The attackers cut her hair and sprayed red paint on her body. They also abused and insulted her and forced her to say that she would leave office.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. controlled Organization of American States (OAS) without any explanation questioned the legitimacy of the election and promised to “issue a report with recommendations ahead of a second round” election!

That was the “legal cover” for the ongoing coup which resulted in the forced “resignation” of President Morales and ultimately his asylum in Mexico. Finally, the anti-indigenous rightwing Senator Jeanine Áñez played the comical part of the coup by proclaiming herself as the President of the Senate (!) and then was unconstitutionally installed as the “interim president”!

On November 11, 2019, President Trump issued a statement regarding the resignation of President Evo Morales and stated:

“… These events send a strong signal to the illegitimate regimes in Venezuela and Nicaragua that democracy and the will of the people will always prevail. We are now one step closer to a completely democratic, prosperous, and free Western Hemisphere.” But the U.S. is not “one step closer” to its complete dominance which it once enjoyed in Latin America in the ’50s. On the contrary, these days, the strength, determination and resistance of the workers and farmers in Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Haiti and even Bolivia after the U.S. coup seems is gaining momentum in confronting the repressive capitalist states. These continuous uprisings under a conscious leadership that has no illusion in a system that puts profit over people will be victorious on an international platform.

*

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

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

Notes

(1) https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554

(2) https://www.rt.com/news/156480-odessa-fire-protesters-dead/

(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkoOGQnj_aE  “Ukraine on Fire”, the full story.

Images in this article are from the author except the featured image and the image of Stepan Bandera

The Lies About Assange Must Stop Now

November 24th, 2019 by John Pilger

Newspapers and other media in the United States, Britain and Australia have recently declared a passion for freedom of speech, especially their right to publish freely.  They are worried by the “Assange effect”.  

It is as if the struggle of truth-tellers like Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning is now a warning to them: that the thugs who dragged Assange out of the Ecuadorean embassy in April may one day come for them.

A common refrain was echoed by the Guardian last week. The extradition of Assange, said the paper, “is not a question of how wise Mr. Assange is, still less how likable. It’s not about his character, nor his judgement. It’s a matter of press freedom and the public’s right to know.”  

What the Guardian is trying to do is separate Assange from his landmark achievements, which have both profited the Guardian and exposed its own vulnerability, along with its propensity to suck up to rapacious power and smear those who reveal its double standards.

The poison that has fueled the persecution of Julian Assange is not as obvious in this editorial as it usually is; there is no fiction about Assange smearing faeces on embassy walls or being awful to his cat.

Instead, the weasel references to “character” and “judgement” and “likeability” perpetuate an epic smear which is now almost a decade old.  Nils Melzer, the United Nations Rapporteur on Torture, used a more apt description. “There has been,” he wrote, “a relentless and unrestrained campaign of public mobbing.”  He explains mobbing as “an endless stream of humiliating, debasing and threatening statements in the press”. This “collection ridicule” amounts to torture and could lead to Assange’s death.

Having witnessed much of what Melzer describes , I can vouch for the truth of his words. If Julian Assange were to succumb to the cruelties heaped upon him, week after week, month after month, year upon year, as doctors warn, newspapers like the Guardian will share the responsibility.

A few days ago, the Sydney Morning Herald’s man in London, Nick Miller, wrote a lazy, specious piece headlined, “Assange has not been vindicated, he has merely outwaited justice.”  He was referring to Sweden’s abandonment of the so-called Assange investigation.

Miller’s report is not untypical for its omissions and distortions while masquerading as a tribune of women’s rights. There is no original work, no real inquiry: just smear.

There is nothing on the documented behaviour of a clutch of Swedish zealots who hi jacked the “allegations” of sexual misconduct against Assange and made a mockery of Swedish law and that society’s vaunted decency.

He makes no mention that in 2013, the Swedish prosecutor tried to abandon the case and emailed the Crown Prosecution Service in London to say it would no longer pursue a European Arrest Warrant, to which she received the reply: “Don’t you dare!!!” (Thanks to Stefania Maurizi of La Repubblica)

Other emails show the CPS discouraging the Swedes from coming to London to interview Assange – which was common practice – thus blocking progress that might have set him free in 2011.

There was never an indictment. There were never charges. There was never a serious attempt to put “allegations” to Assange and question him – behaviour that the Swedish Court of Appeal ruled to be negligent and the General Secretary of the Swedish Bar Association has since condemned.

Both the women involved said there was no rape.  Critical written evidence of their text messages was wilfully withheld from Assange’s lawyers, clearly because it undermined the “allegations”.

One of the women was so shocked that Assange was arrested, she accused the police of railroading her and changing her witness statement. The chief prosecutor, Eva Finne, dismissed the “suspicion of any crime.”

The Sydney Morning Herald man omits how an ambitious and compromised politician, Claes Borgstrom, emerged from behind the liberal facade of Swedish politics and effectively seized and revived the case.  

Borgstrom enlisted a former political collaborator, Marianne Ny, as the new prosecutor. Ny refused to guarantee that Assange would not be sent on to the United States if he was extradited to Sweden, even though, as The Independent reported, “informal discussions have already taken place between the US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources.” This was an open secret in Stockholm. That libertarian Sweden had a dark, documented past of rendering people into the hands of the CIA was not news.  

The silence was broken in 2016 when the United Nations Working Party on Arbitrary Detention, a body that decides whether governments are meeting their human rights obligations, ruled that Julian Assange was unlawfully detained by Britain and called on the British government to set him free.

Both the governments of Britain and Sweden had taken part in the UN’s investigation, and agreed to abide by its ruling, which carried the weight of international law. The British foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, stood up in Parliament and abused the UN panel.

The Swedish case was a fraud from the moment the police secretly and illegally contacted a Stockholm tabloid and ignited the hysteria that was to consume Assange. WikiLeaks’ revelations of America’s war crimes had shamed the hand-maidens of power and its vested interests, who called themselves journalists; and for this, the unclubbable Assange would never be forgiven.

It was now open season. Assange’s media tormenters cut and pasted each other’s lies and vituperative abuse. “He really is the most massive turd,” wrote the Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore. The received wisdom was that he had been charged, which was never true. In my career, reporting from places of extreme upheaval and suffering and criminality, I have never known anything like it.

In Assange’s homeland, Australia, this “mobbing” reached an apogee. So eager was the Australian government to deliver its citizen to the United States that the prime minister in 2013, Julia Gillard, wanted to take away his passport and charge him with a crime – until it was pointed out to her that Assange had committed no crime and she had no right to take away his citizenship.

Julia Gillard, according to the website Honest History, holds the record for the most sycophantic speech ever made to the US Congress. Australia, said she to applause, was America’s “great mate”. The great mate colluded with America in its hunt for an Australian whose crime was journalism. His right to protection and proper assistance was denied.

When Assange’s lawyer, Gareth Peirce, and I met two Australian consular officials in London, we were shocked that all they knew about the case “is what we read in the papers”.

This abandonment by Australia was a principal reason for the granting of political asylum by Ecuador. As an Australian, I found this especially shaming.

When asked about Assange recently, the current Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, said, “He should face the music”. This kind of thuggery, bereft of any respect for truth and rights and the principles and law, is why the mostly Murdoch controlled press in Australia is now worried about its own future, as the Guardian is worried, and The New York Times is worried. Their concern has a name: “the Assange precedent.”

They know that what happens to Assange can happen to them. The basic rights and justice denied him can be denied to them. They have been warned. All of us have been warned.

Whenever I see Julian in the grim, surreal world of Belmarsh prison, I am reminded of the responsibility of those of us who defend him. There are universal principles at stake in this case. He himself is fond of saying: “It’s not me. It’s far wider.”

But at the heart of this remarkable struggle – and it is, above all, a struggle – is one human being whose character, I repeat character, has demonstrated the most astonishing courage. I salute him.

This is an edited version of an address John Pilger gave at the launch in London of In Defense of Julian Assange, an anthology published by Or Books, New York.

 See also:   www.dontextraditeassange.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Lies About Assange Must Stop Now

It was Naples, not Rome, which was the centre of National Unity and Armed Forces Day on 4 November [1], when five battalions paraded along the Caracciolo Sea Front.

But the most important point of the event was the area reserved for the inter-forces exhibition, which for five days welcomed mostly young people and children on the Piazza del Plebiscito. Visitors were allowed to climb aboard a fighter-bomber, fly a helicopter with a flight simulator, admire a Predator drone, climb into a tank, follow a course of training with military instructors, and then go to the port to visit an amphibious assault ship and two frigates (FREMM). It was a huge “War Fair”, put together for one specific reason – recruitment.

70 % of the young people who want to sign up live in the Mezzogiorno region, especially in Campania and Sicily, where youth unemployment reaches 53,6 %, compared with the EU average of 15,2 %. The only organisation which offers them a “stable” job is the army.

However, after selection, the number of recruits proves to be inferior to what is considered necessary. The armed forces need more personnel, because they are currently engaged in 35 operations in  22 countries, from Eastern Europe to the Balkans, from Africa to the Middle East and Asia. These are “peace missions” carried out above all in areas where NATO, under US command,  and with the active participation of Italy, sparked wars which have demolished entire states, and destabilised entire regions.

The maintenance of the armed forces and the necessary munitions – such as the Italian F-35’s deployed by NATO in Iceland, and demonstrated by the RAI on 4 November – costs the annual sum of approximately 25 billion Euros of public money. In 2018, Italian military expenditure climbed from 13th to 11th world position, but the USA and NATO are applying pressure for a further increase, dependent above all on the escalation against Russia.

Last June, the Conte government “released” 7,2 billion Euros to be added to military expenditure. In the month of October, during a meeting between the Prime Minister and the Secretary General of NATO, the Conte II government reaffirmed its engagement to increase military spending by approximately 7 billion Euros as from 2020 (La Stampa, 11 October 2019). Thus Italy is progressing from a military expenditure of about 70 million Euros per day to that of about 87 million Euros per day. This is public money subtracted from fundamental productive investments, particularly in regions like Campania, aimed at reducing unemployment, beginning with youth unemployment.

The « investments » made in Naples are very different. The city has adopted a growing role as the headquarters of some of the most important command centres of the USA and NATO.

The headquarters of the US Command of Naval Forces in Europe is settled at Naples-Capodichino,  under the orders of a US admiral who also commands US Naval Forces for Africa and the Allied Joint Force (JFC Naples) with a headquarters in Lago Patria (Naples). Every two years, JFC Naples takes command of the NATO Response Force, a joint force for military operations in the “zone of  responsibility” of the Allied Supreme Commander in Europe, who is always a US General, and “outside of this zone”.

Since 2017, the headquarters at Lago Patria has housed the NATO Hub of Strategic Direction for the South, centre of Intelligence – in other words, espionage – concentrated on the Middle East and Africa.

The Sixth Fleet is under the command of Naples, with a base in Gaeta, which – according to US Vice-Admiral Lisa Franchetti – operates “from the North Pole to the South Pole”.

This, then, is the role of Naples in the framework of NATO, defined by President Mattarella, in his message of 4 November, as an “alliance to which we have freely chosen to contribute, for the protection of peace in the international context, to safeguard the weak and the oppressed, and to support human rights”.

*

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

This article was originally published on Il Manifesto. Translated from Italian by Pete Kimberley.

Award winning author Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on November 4: See Naples and Die. NATO-US Command Headquarters Settle in Naples
  • Tags: ,

On November 23, WikiLeaks accused the OPCW “of doctoring (its Douma, Syria) chemical weapons report.”

It published email information from an OPCW whistleblower, a member of its fact finding mission to Douma, expressing “his gravest concern over intentional bias introduced to a redacted version of the report he co-authored.”

More on this below.

***

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) operates as a pro-Western imperial tool.

It serves US/NATO interests — polar opposite its mandated obligations “to achieve…a world…free of” chemical weapons.

The organization lost its legitimacy. It should be disbanded and replaced by independent chemical watchdog groups — beholden solely to upholding Chemical Weapons Convention provisions, free from external influence and control.

The OPCW’s so-called Fact Finding Mission (FFM) doctored its March 2019 report on the alleged April 7, 2018 Douma, Syria CW incident — that never happened, falsely saying the following:

“Regarding the alleged use of toxic chemicals as a weapon in Douma (Syria)…evaluation and analysis…of information gathered by the FFM (delaying its visit to the site for 11 days) provide(s) reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon has taken place on April 7, 2018.”

“This toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.”

The so-called incident was fake, a US/NATO-staged false flag, Syria wrongfully blamed for a victimless nonevent.

No one in Douma died, was hospitalized, or became ill from exposure to chemical or other toxins.

Local eyewitnesses and medical personal debunked the falsified narrative. Russian technical experts found no evidence of chemical or other toxins in soil samples and other analysis of the site.

Yet the OPCW FFM falsely claimed what didn’t happen. At the time, Russia slammed the “fabricated” account of the alleged incident.

Damascus said the OPCW’s report “d(id) not differ from the previous mission reports filled with distorted facts” — falsely blaming Syria for CW incidents staged by US-supported terrorists.

Throughout years of US-launched aggression in Syria, using ISIS and likeminded jihadists as imperial foot soldiers, supported by Pentagon-led terror-bombing since 2014 — not a shred of credible evidence ever suggested use of banned chemical or other toxins by Syrian Arab Republic forces against anyone.

On Saturday, based on email information supplied by an OPCW whistleblower, WikiLeaks slammed “a redacted version of (its Douma) report…misrepresent(ing) the facts” on the ground, adding:

The whistleblower said “this misrepresentation was achieved by selective omission, introducing a bias which undermines the credibility of the report.”

Material was redacted “at the behest of the Office of the Director General.” The alleged incident was based on reports by (al-Qaeda-connected White Helmets) that were present in Douma at the time.”

They falsely said Syrian aircraft dropped cylinders containing toxins on Douma.

The OPCW falsely claimed to find the presence of “chlorine, or another reactive chlorine-containing chemical” at the incident’s alleged site.

Chlorine is the major ingredient of widely used household bleach.

“One piece of evidence, which was shown on news networks across the world, was a video said to show victims being treated in a hospital in the aftermath of the attack in Douma.”

“The symptoms shown were, however, not consistent with what witnesses reported seeing that day. A detailed discussion of this was apparently omitted from the redacted version of the OPCW report.”

The condition of so-called cylinders in Douma were “not consistent with having been dropped from the air…”

Fabricated “physical evidence, including (alleged) bodies of the deceased (and hundreds) seriously affected by a weaponized chemical gas (is) no longer available.”

WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsson said information provided by the OPCW whistleblower “casts doubt on the integrity of the OPCW,” adding:

“Although the whistleblower was not ready to step forward and/or present documents to the public, WikiLeaks believes it is now of utmost interest for the public to see everything that was collected by the Fact Finding Mission on Douma and all scientific reports written in relation to the investigation.”

A member of the panel formed to review OPCW claims about the alleged Douma incident, former OPCW director general Jose Bustani, said the following:

“The convincing evidence of irregular behavior in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had,” adding:

“I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing.”

Established on April 29, 1997, Bustani served as the OPCW’s first director general.

As Bush/Cheney regime’s under secretary of state for arms control and international security affairs in 2002, John Bolton orchestrated Bustani’s removal as OPCW director general before his term expired — because he wasn’t serving US interests by fulfilling his mandated obligations.

Reportedly at the time, he urged Saddam Hussein to join the OPCW and permit unrestricted inspections of purported CW storage areas.

If he succeeded, it would have been an added obstacle to phony Bush/Cheney WMD claims used as a pretext for naked aggression. Iraq’s US-installed puppet regime joined the OPCW in 2009.

The panel formed to review OPCW claims about the alleged Douma incident called upon the organization to let “all inspectors who took part in the Douma investigation to come forward and  (explain) their differing observations in an appropriate forum of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention,” WikiLeaks reported.

Note: The OPCW’s Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) June report on the April 4, 2017 Khan Sheikhoun CW incident was fabricated.

“(C)onfirm(ation) (of) the use of sarin, a nerve agent, at the 4 April incident in Khan Sheikhoun in Syria” was falsified.

The JIM conducted its so-called fact-finding mission in absentia – never visiting Kahn Sheikhoun, not getting a firsthand, on-the-scene account of events from reliable sources.

At the time, Syria’s Foreign Ministry slammed OPCW conclusions it called “fabricated (and) misleading…(likely) written and prepared in advance by certain circles that are hostile to Syria.”

Sources the JIM cited were connected to US and UK intelligence. Syria eliminated its entire CW stockpile. No evidence suggests otherwise.

Time and again, US-supported terrorists used these weapons, falsely blamed on Damascus every time.

The OPCW is complicit with US aims to blame Syria for CW incidents it had nothing to do with — cooking the books to falsely claim otherwise.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

This article was originally published in July 2019

In explosive investigation, Haaretz reports that Israeli defence officials have been sealing off historical files about the mass expulsion of Palestinians in 1948

***

Israel’s Ministry of Defence has been systematically sealing archival documents for at least a decade to conceal evidence of the Nakba, the mass expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, Haaretz has revealed.

A secretive security department in the defence ministry has overseen the ongoing project, taking historic files and putting them away in vaults. In some cases, historians cited documents in their work that later disappeared, Haaretz reported.

Yehiel Horev, former head of the department which goes by the Hebrew acronym Malmab, told Haaretz that it made sense to hide the details of what happened in 1948 because the documents could “generate unrest” among Palestinians in Israel.

When asked why files were removed that had already been highlighted by researchers and others, Horev said the objective was to undermine the credibility of history written about the era.

Papers on Israel’s nuclear project and the country’s foreign relations were also reportedly transferred to vaults.

Some of the sealed documents reveal details of looting, massacres of Palestinians, forcible expulsion, and demolition of villages by Israeli militias, based on interviews with Israeli generals and soldiers who fought in the 1948 war, Haaretz reported.

A book by Israeli historian Benny Morris – The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 – referred to one of the documents, quoting details of a massacre in the Palestinian village Safsaf in Galilee, based on notes written about a 1948 briefing given by the former chief of staff of the Haganah, the Israeli army’s predecessor.

According to what Morris published, the notes said: “Safsaf 52 men tied with a rope. Dropped into a pit and shot. Ten were killed. Women pleaded for mercy. [There were] three cases of rape. Caught and released. A girl of 14 was raped. Another four were killed.”

This document, along with others, has disappeared from the Israeli archive, after Malmab’s team censored them, according to Haaretz.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Zionist Rewriting of History of Palestine by Israel’s Ministry of Defense
  • Tags: , ,

As the public comment period for a new natural gas power plant drew to a close last month, several state lawmakers filed comments urging the Wisconsin Public Service Commission to approve the project. The lawmakers’ letters, however, appear to have originated from Dairyland Power Cooperative, one of the utilities looking to construct the power plant, according to emails obtained by the Energy and Policy Institute. 

“You may have already submitted a letter of support to the PSC, which we appreciate. We would ask that you resubmit those letters at this time, as new submittals are now needed to make the comment an official part of the project docket,” wrote Nathan Franklin, external and member relations representative for Dairyland to undisclosed recipients. “If you have not yet submitted your comments, we ask that you do so at this time. Comments are due by Friday, October 25. A sample letter template is attached…”

Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud

View entire document on DocumentCloud.

Wisconsin State Senators Howard Marklein (R), Jennifer Shilling (D), Jeff Smith (D), Tom Tiffany (R), Patrick Testin (R), and State Representatives Jill Billings (D), Steve Doyle (D), Jodi Emerson (D), Mary Felzkowski (R), Loren Oldenburg (R), and Nancy VanderMeer (R) each signed their names to various letters submitted to the PSC.

The lawmakers urged the PSC to sign off on the Nemadji Trail Energy Center (NTEC), which is a 550-625 MW merchant natural gas plant proposed to be built in Superior, Wisconsin, by both Dairyland Power Cooperative and Minnesota Power, an investor-owned utility company that is a subsidiary of ALLETE. Dairyland supplies electricity to nearly 260,000 customers across Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois – including the Freeborn-Mower, Eau Claire Energy, and MiEnergy cooperatives, which sell electricity to customers.

The companies are seeking a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Wisconsin PSC. Wisconsin regulators have to determine only if the site is appropriate and meets environmental standards, whereas Minnesota regulators also had to determine if the plant is the cheapest, cleanest way Minnesota Power can meet energy needs for its ratepayers. Last October, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission voted 3-2 to approve Minnesota Power’s stake in the project, despite opposition from consumer groups, industrial consumers, and environmental advocates. The administrative law judge also recommended the PUC reject the gas plant. “Minnesota Power has failed to establish that approval of these affiliated interest agreements is consistent with the public interest because it has failed to demonstrate that the underlying 250 (megawatt) NTEC purchase is needed and reasonable,” wrote Judge Jeanne Cochran.

Dairyland Cooperative is not alone in manufacturing support for the project in front of regulators.

Last month, the Star Tribune reported that Superior city councilors unanimously approved a resolution in support of the NTEC project. The Council passed the resolution days before the Wisconsin PSC held public hearings in Superior on October 28th and 29th.

Councilor Dan Olson introduced the resolution, which came from the president of the Northern Wisconsin Building and Construction Trades Council. Olson wanted it added to the agenda and passed in response to a “negative DNT [Duluth News Tribune] article and before public hearing at the end of the month,” according to emails provided to the Energy and Policy Institute. Olson is an international representative at the Laborers International Union of North America (LiUNA) and a member of Laborers Local 1091.

Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud

View entire document on DocumentCloud

Several days before Olson added the NTEC resolution to the council’s agenda, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) commented in the NTEC docket. DNR found in its investigation that “there was not a sustainable source of groundwater to meet the stated needs of the [NTEC] project.”

Both Duluth News Tribune’s Jimmy Lovrien and Wisconsin Public Radio’s Danielle Kaedling reportedon DNR’s investigation and comments.

Clean Wisconsin’s Katie Nekola told Kaedling, “This is a terrible site for a huge power plant. DNR is concerned that NTEC would deplete the groundwater in the area by pumping about (3) million gallons of water each day — more than the entire City of Superior uses.”

The public officials’ support for the NTEC project stands in sharp contrast to the dozens of individuals who attended public hearings last month and the hundreds of customers who submitted comments into the docket.

For instance, Randall and Karen Nevala, who live close to the utilities’ preferred site for the plant, wrote to the PSC about their concerns about pollution, noise, and the water required for the plant. “We live here year-round at a location very close to the identified preferred site (Site 1) for the proposed project, just one house from 31st Avenue East and approximately 0.35 miles from the identified preferred site for the proposed power plant. We are not in favor of the project and urge you not to approve it.”

And during the October 28 public hearing, Rene Ann Goodrich, who identified herself as a tribal member of the Bad River Band of Chippewa Lake Superior Ojibwa, attended to voice her concernsabout the lack of tribal input into the plant’s Environmental Impact Statement.

Cheaper and Cleaner Options

Since the early stages of the project, the utilities have justified the $700 million gas plant as a tool to deploy more renewable energy.

“We’re trying to diversify our portfolio into things other than coal, and that is wind, solar, hydro and certainly gas,” Rob Palmberg, Dairyland’s vice president of strategic planning, told Midwest Energy News last year. Palmberg said the gas plant would allow the utility to “fill the valleys when we don’t have the wind blowing and sun shining.”

The template Dairyland provided to state lawmakers also included that talking point:

Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud

View entire document on DocumentCloud

The state lawmakers who submitted comments to the PSC either directly copied that phrase or slightly altered the language.

Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud

View entire document on DocumentCloud

Letter to PSC from Senator Testin and Representative VanderMeer.

Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud

View entire document on DocumentCloud

Letter to PSC from Senator Tiffany and Representative Felzkowski.

Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud

View entire document on DocumentCloud

Letter to PSC from Representative Oldenburg.

However, energy analysts have refuted this industry talking point on several occasions.

Sierra Club expert witness Michael Goggin, Vice President at Grid Strategies, filed rebuttal testimony in the WPSC docket to explain that increasing renewable energy generation does not justify adding a combined cycle gas plant:

“Across large regions such as the MISO footprint, changes in the fleetwide output of many wind and solar plants are gradual and predictable, even at very high renewable penetrations … If anything, investing in a resource like [a combined cycle gas generator] will only harm renewables by precluding the development of more flexible resources like battery storage in the near future.”

In the Minnesota PUC docket, Minnesota Power similarly argued that NTEC is needed to integrate high levels of renewable energy. Michael Jacobs, a senior energy analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists and an expert witness for several clean energy organizations and environmental groups in the case, said Minnesota Power’s methodology in proving the need for NTEC is “fatally flawed.” Jacobs further pointed out that the utility “used distinctly less favorable cost numbers compared to other IRPs from the same time” in regards to the declining costs of battery storage.

In September, Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) reports analyzed the need for natural gas infrastructure projects in two reports titled, “The Growing Market for Clean Energy Portfolios” and “Prospects for Gas Pipelines in the Era of Clean Energy.” RMI found that wind, solar, and energy storage technologies are cost-competitive with new natural gas power plants. The RMI analysts conclude that since renewables are cost-competitive and will become cheaper, gas projects being built now may become stranded assets.

Sierra Club recently used RMI’s methodology and algorithm to compare the costs of specifically building the NTEC power plant to a clean energy portfolio, and did the same with Xcel Energy’s plan to switch from coal to gas at the Becker power plant. Sierra Club found that the clean energy portfolio is a cheaper option than either gas plant by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Environmental Groups Appeal Minnesota PUC Decision

After the Minnesota PUC voted 3-2 to approve Minnesota Power’s portion of the NTEC cost and energy supply last year, Sierra Club, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and the Union of Concerned Scientists, along with Honor the Earth, appealed the decision.

On October 10, the Minnesota Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on their appeal. The groups argued that the PUC did not conduct an environmental review required by the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). The PUC contends that MEPA rules do not apply because the NTEC plant was not a project developed by Minnesota Power, since the utility plans to buy power from an affiliated company constructing the plant with Dairyland Cooperative. The PUC also said that MEPA rules do not apply because the physical construction is in Wisconsin.

However, the environmental groups argue MEPA rules should have been followed by the PUC regardless of where the physical activity is happening, since a Minnesota agency is involved in the project’s development. The groups also told the court that even though Wisconsin is undertaking an environmental review, the PUC should have reviewed and analyzed an impact statement before making a decision.

The court has 90 days from October 10 to make a ruling.

*

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.

Matt Kasper is the Research Director at the Energy & Policy Institute. He focuses on defending policies that further the development of clean energy sources. He also frequently focuses on the companies and their front groups that obstruct policy solutions to global warming. Before joining the Energy & Policy Institute, Matt was a research assistant at the Center for American Progress where he worked on various state and local policy issues, including renewable energy standards. His work has appeared in The Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other outlets.

Three previous U.S. administrations all ignored the gross power asymmetry between the Palestinians under occupation and the Israeli occupiers—an imbalance compounded by the fact that as the chief mediator in negotiations, the U.S. is also the primary military, economic, and diplomatic supporter of the occupying power.

***

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s announcement this week that the United States will no longer accept the international consensus on the illegality of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank should come as no surprise. Indeed, both Republicans and Democrats have been pushing for such a move for decades.

In fact, the illegality of the settlements couldn’t be clearer. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention—to which both Israel and the United States are signatories—prohibits any occupying power from transferring “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” United Nations Security Council resolutions 446, 452465, 471, and 2234 have explicitly recognized the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to Israeli-occupied territories, as does a landmark 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice.

The Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations also all recognized the illegality of these settlements when Israel’s colonization drive began in the 1970s. The Reagan Administration was the first to stop referring to the settlements as illegal, but still opposed their expansion.

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush insisted on a settlement freeze as a condition to granting a controversial $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel. In response, leading members of Congress—including most candidates for the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination—attacked Bush from the right by calling on the President to grant the loan guarantee unconditionally. He eventually capitulated, though insisting that the United States cut the amount of the loan guarantee granted in two-billion-dollar increments over the subsequent five years by the equivalent amount Israel paid for settlement construction.

It was under the Clinton Administration that U.S. support for Israeli settlements became apparent, increasing aid to Israel by the same amount deducted from the loan guarantee, thereby using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the settlements’ expansion, and undermining efforts by Israeli peace activists and the international community to freeze settlement expansion.

When the Oslo Accords were signed in September 1993 and the Palestinians pressed to address the settlements issue immediately, Clinton insisted that it be delayed as a “final status issue” thereby enabling Israel to create “facts on the ground”—or footholds—by building more and more settlements, even as the peace process slowly moved forward.

To the shock of much of the international community, the Clinton Administration also insisted that the Fourth Geneva Convention and the four U.N. Security Council resolutions addressing the settlements issue were suddenly no longer relevant, vetoing two otherwise unanimous new resolutions calling on Israel to cease its settlement activities. In 1998, the Clinton Administration and Congress approved additional aid to Israel to build “bypass roads” and security enhancements for Israeli settlers in the occupied territories.

Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s proposed boundaries of a future Palestinian state unveiled at the July 2000 Camp David summit excluded most of the new and expanded settlement blocs developed during the previous years by incorporating them into an enlarged Israel. They divided the Palestinian West Bank into four noncontiguous regions, but the Palestinians recognized that such a fractured mini-state would be unviable and therefore rejected the proposal. This failure by the United States to demand Israel live up to its international legal obligations and cease its settlements expansion was therefore largely responsible for the collapse of the peace process and the rise of extremist Palestinian groups like Hamas.

During George W. Bush’s administration, despite explicit calls in the Mitchell Plan, the Zinni Plan, and the much vaunted “Roadmap for Peace” for Israel to freeze settlement expansion, both the Bush Administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress failed to press Israel to comply. They instead blamed the Palestinians exclusively for the failure of the peace process as increasingly large swaths of West Bank territory was being seized for still further settlements expansion.

In 2004, President Bush and an overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress endorsed rightwing Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon’s convergence plan in which Israel would annex virtually all of the settlements into Israel, leaving the Palestinians with only a series of small non-contiguous cantons in the West Bank along with the impoverished Gaza Strip.

That same year, the International Court of Justice reiterated the illegality of the settlements in a ruling that would have been unanimous save for the U.S. judge. The decision was roundly condemned by the Bush Administration, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, and an overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress. (The ruling enjoined the United States and other signatories to “ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law,” thereby making the U.S. rejection of the ruling itself a violation.)

The Obama administration was more critical of the settlements, but was reluctant to explicitly call them illegal. In 2011, in its only U.N. Security Council veto, blocked a resolution reiterating the illegality of the settlements and calling for a construction freeze. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted, “We have consistently over many years said that the United Nations Security Council—and resolutions that would come before the Security Council—is not the right vehicle to advance the goal.”

The Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations have all held that the question of Israeli settlements is not a legal question as determined by the World Court, the United Nations, or established legal conventions, but by whatever the Israelis and Palestinians agree upon themselves.

This ignores the gross asymmetry in power between the Palestinians under occupation and the Israeli occupiers. The imbalance is compounded by the fact that the United States—the chief mediator in the negotiations—also serves as the primary military, economic, and diplomatic supporter of the occupying power.

As the 2016 Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton argued that the Obama Administration pushed too hard in the early years of the administration to get Israel to suspend settlement construction.  As a Senator, she had visited a major Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank in a show of support. The 2016 Democratic Party platform refused to condemn or even mention the Israeli occupation and settlements, instead praising what it referred to as Israel’s values of “democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism.”

That must have come as quite a surprise to Palestinians living in the West Bank, who live under an apartheid-like situation where Israeli settlers live in modern Jewish-only towns connected by Jewish-only highways on confiscated Palestinian land. To make way for setttlement expansion and their related infrastructure, the Israelis have destroyed thousands of Palestinian homes, uprooted orchards, own most of the aquifer, and control Palestinians’ movement within the territory.

Also in 2016, a bipartisan majority in Congress passed a trade bill that formally defined “Israel” as including Arab territories recognized by the international community as under foreign belligerent occupation. This was done to dissuade potential U.S. trading partners from boycotting products made in illegal settlements or discourage their companies from supporting the Israeli occupation. Congress also passed a bipartisan customs bill with similar language in support of those doing business with individuals or entities operating from the illegal settlements.

Lara Friedman of the liberal Zionist group Americans for Peace Now argued that such efforts are “not about defending Israel at all” but rather about “shielding Israeli settlements from pressure” and “seeking to codify in U.S. law the view that there is no distinction between Israel and Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.”

In addition, several states have passed laws designed to punish companies and individual contractors who refuse to purchase products from illegal Israeli settlements.

In December 2016, the United States was the only member of the Security Council that refused to support a resolution reiterating the illegality of Israeli settlements and calling for a freeze in their expansion. Unlike five years earlier, however, President Obama refused to veto the resolution however, prompting intense criticism from President-elect Trump.

In response, as the first foreign policy vote of the new Congress in January, a majority of House Democrats joined Republicans in passing a resolution siding with Trump against Obama in condemning the refusal to veto the resolution and calling opposition to Israel’s illegal settlements “anti-Israel.”

As a result, the Trump Administration’s decision this past week is not a dramatic shift in U.S. policy, but simply the culmination of decades of bipartisan support for Israeli settlement expansion and the Israeli occupation.

*

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.

Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco. A regular contributor to The Progressive, he serves as an Editorial Fellow at the Tikkun Institute.

Featured image: Marines run to cover during a military training exercise at the National Training Center in Israel, 2018.

Hunger Games: Food Abundance and Twisted Truths

November 24th, 2019 by Colin Todhunter

The world already produces enough food to feed 10 billion people but over two billion are experiencing micronutrient deficiencies (of which 821 million were classed as chronically undernourished in 2018). However, supporters of genetic engineering (GE) crops continually push the narrative that GE technology is required if we are to feed the world and properly support farmers. 

First of all, it must be stressed that there is already sufficient evidence to question the efficacy of GE crops; however, despite this, conventional options and innovations that outperform GE crops are in danger of being sidelined in a rush by powerful, publicly unaccountable private interests like the Gates Foundation to facilitate the introduction of GE into global agriculture; crops whose main ‘added value’ is the financial rewards accrued by the corporations behind them.   

Secondly, even if we are to accept that at some stage GE can supplement conventional practices, we must acknowledge that from the outset of the GMO project, the sidelining of serious concerns about the technology has occurred and despite industry claims to the contrary, there is no scientific consensus on the health impacts of GE crops.

Both the Cartagena Protocol and Codex share a precautionary approach to GE crops and foods, in that they agree that GE differs from conventional breeding. There is sufficient reason to hold back on commercialising GE crops and to subject each GMO to independent, transparent environmental, social, economic and health impact evaluations.  

To evaluate the pro-GMO lobby’s rhetoric that GE is needed to ‘feed the world’, we first need to understand the dynamics of a globalized food system that fuels hunger and malnutrition against a backdrop of food overproduction. As Andrew Smolski describes it: capitalism’s production of ‘hunger in abundance’.  

Over the last 50 years, we have seen the consolidation of an emerging global food regime based on agro-export mono-cropping (often with non-food commodities taking up prime agricultural land) and linked to sovereign debt repayment and World Bank/IMF ‘structural adjustment’ directives. The outcomes have included a displacement of a food-producing peasantry, the consolidation of Western agri-food oligopolies and the transformation of many countries from food self-sufficiency into food deficit areas. 

As long as these dynamics persist and food injustice remains an inherent feature of the global food regime, the rhetoric of GM being necessary for feeding the world is merely ideology and bluster. Furthermore, if we continue to regard food as a commodity in a globalized capitalist food system, we shall continue to see the comprehensive contamination of food with sugar, bad fats, synthetic additives, GMOs and pesticides and rising rates of diseases and serious health conditions, including surges in obesity, diabetes and cancer incidence, but no let-up in the under-nutrition of those too poor to join in the over-consumption. 

Looking at India as an example, although it continues to do poorly in world hunger rankings, the country has achieved self-sufficiency in food grains and has ensured there is enough food available to feed its entire population. It is the world’s largest producer of milk, pulses and millets and the second-largest producer of rice, wheat, sugarcane, groundnuts, vegetables, fruit and cotton.  

Farmers therefore produce enough food. It stands to reason that hunger and malnutrition result from other factors (such as inadequate food distribution, inequality and poverty). It is again a case of ‘scarcity’ amid abundance. The country even continues to export food while millions remain hungry.

While the pro-GMO lobby says GE will boost productivity and help secure cultivators a better income, this too is misleading as it again ignores crucial political and economic contexts; with bumper harvests, Indian farmers still find themselves in financial distress.

India’s farmers are not experiencing hardship due to low productivity. They are reeling from the effects of neoliberal policies, years of neglect and a deliberate strategy to displace smallholder agriculture at the behest of the World Bank and predatory global agri-food corporations. It’s for good reason that the calorie and essential nutrient intake of the rural poor has drastically fallen.

And yet, the pro-GMO lobby wastes no time in wrenching these issues from their political contexts to use the notions of ‘helping farmers’ and ‘feeding the world’ as lynchpins of its promotional strategy.

Agroecological principles

Many of the traditional practices of small farmers are now recognised as sophisticated and appropriate for high-productive, sustainable agriculture. These practices involve an integrated low-input systems approach to agriculture that emphasises, among other things, local food security and sovereignty, diverse nutrition production per acre, water table stability, climate resilience and good soil structure. Agroecology represents a shift away from the reductionist yield-output industrial paradigm, which results in enormous pressures on health and the environment.

A recent FAO high-level report called for agroecology and smallholder farmers to be prioritised and invested in to achieve global sustainable food security. Smallholder (non-GMO) farming using low-input methods tends to be more productive in total output than large-scale industrial farms and can be more profitable and resilient to climate change.

Despite the fact that globally industrial agriculture grabs 80 per cent of subsidies and 90 per cent of research funds, smallholder agriculture plays a major role in feeding the world. At the same time, these massive subsidies and funds support a system that is only made profitable because agri-food oligopolies externalize the massive health, social and environmental costs of their operations. 

These corporations leverage their financial clout, lobby networks, funded science and political influence to cement a ‘thick legitimacy’ among policy makers for their vision of agriculture. In turn,  World Bank ‘enabling the business of agriculture’ directives, the World Trade Organization ‘agreement on agriculture’ and trade related intellectual property rights help secure their interests.  

In the meantime, supporters of GMO agriculture continue to display a willful ignorance of the structure of the food system which produces the very problem it claims it can resolve. The pro-GMO scientific lobby arrogantly pushes its ideological agenda while ignoring the root causes of poverty, hunger and malnutrition and denigrating genuine solutions centred on food sovereignty

*

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.

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hunger Games: Food Abundance and Twisted Truths
  • Tags: ,

Late on November 20, the Syrian Army launched an OTR-21 Tochka missile at a weapon depot of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham near the town of Khan, located close to the Turkish border. As always, pro-militant sources immediately claimed that the strike caused civilian casualties only. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, 16 civilians, mostly women and children, died when the missile hit the refugee camp. Pro-government sources said that the ammo depot, which was the main target of the strike was located near the camp.

Like most areas in northern Idlib, Khan is controlled by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and other al-Qaeda-affilated groups. The terrorist group and its allies are known for storing weapons in civilian areas and near key infrastructure objects across entire Greater Idlib. Recently, the moved most of their weapon depots to the border with Turkey trying to rescue them from airstrikes and the advancing Syrian Army.

Mainstream media outlets prefer to ignore the systematic use of civilians in Idlib as human shields by militant groups.

On November 21, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham claimed that its forces had repelled an attack by the Syrian Army on Ard al-Zurzur. Militants claimed that many Syrian Army troops were killed. Pro-government sources deny any casualties.

The Russian Military Police expanded its patrol area in northeastern Syria and started works to turn the Sarin base abandoned by US forces into own control point. The Sarin airstrip is already used by Russian helicopters involved in patrol operations.

Israel’s ImageSat International released a group of satellite images showing the alleged impact of the November 20 Israeli strike on supposed Iranian targets in Syria. The released images show the damage caused at the Mezzeh airbase known for hosting the Syrian Army’s 4th Division and the so-called Glass House building at Damascus International Airport, which Israel claims hosts an Iranian intelligence HQ.

*

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

We call upon Global Research readers to support South Front in its endeavors.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Syrian Army Uses Tactical Ballistic Missiles against Al Qaeda Militants Weapons’ Depots

Is Vietnam Taking Action against the US Dollar?

November 24th, 2019 by Timothy Alexander Guzman

Vietnam, a historically resistant nation against foreign interventions like the one that started in the Gulf of Tonkin is soon to be in another type of war, a currency war. U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened Vietnam with tariffs in the past and it has made the Vietnamese business community uneasy. In early August, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) published ‘Donald Trump’s ‘real threat’ of Vietnam tariffs sends ripples of anxiety through Southeast Asian nation’ based on the threat made by Donald Trump against Vietnam and keep in mind that in July, Trump had imposed tariffs on Vietnam’s steel imports.

However, the article began with Steven Yang, the owner of Foshan Jietai Furniture who exports to the U.S., the E.U, Canada, Hong Kong and other parts of Asia. Yang had been planning to increase his exports to the U.S. but Trump “imposed anti-dumping duties of up to 1,731 per cent on Chinese-made mattresses.” It was reported that “Yang quickly took to WeChat and shared an expletive-laden post attacking Trump, then contacted an agency in Vietnam to start the relocation process.” Yang was to start production in Vietnam by the end of August, but Trump’s economic policies made it rather difficult. “Now, however, he is cursing Trump again – with the US President turning his ire on the Southeast Asian country, which has been the destination of choice for many manufacturers leaving China, driving up its trade surplus with the US.”Trump’s trade war has many Vietnamese factories worried according to the SCMP:

This has led to mounting speculation that Vietnam could be the next battleground in Trump’s trade war after he last month described the country as “almost the single worst abuser of everybody”. Indeed, in July, Washington imposed duties of more than 400 per cent on steel imports from Vietnam, saying that some metal was being shipped from South Korea and Taiwan to the US via Vietnam to avoid the respective steel tariffs.

There is a fear that other products will be next, and those who have invested heavily in Vietnamese factories are growing more worried by the day. “If Trump imposes tariffs on all Vietnamese goods, I can only say I am completely out of luck,” said, Yang, who will still need to import up to 70 per cent of his raw materials from China. “I know the percentage is not low, but I don’t think there will be problem for me to get the made in Vietnam label”

The SCMP article says that

“US customs authorities are also wary of transshipment, where Chinese manufacturers export to Vietnamese ports, only to then ship them on to America claiming they are made in Vietnam despite little or in some cases no change taking place to the products.”

Vietnam is also concerned since it does trade with China and others in the region

“mounting speculation that Vietnam could be the next battleground in Trump’s trade war after he last month described the country as “almost the single worst abuser of everybody.”

The story continued

“Indeed, in July, Washington imposed duties of more than 400 per cent on steel imports from Vietnam, saying that some metal was being shipped from South Korea and Taiwan to the US via Vietnam to avoid the respective steel tariffs.”

There is a growing fear throughout Vietnam that other factories that produce products for exports can also face the prospect of U.S. imposed tariffs.

“If Trump imposes tariffs on all Vietnamese goods, I can only say I am completely out of luck,” said, Yang, who will still need to import up to 70 per cent of his raw materials from China.

“I know the percentage is not low, but I don’t think there will be problem for me to get the made in Vietnam label.” The possibility that Washington’s-imposed tariffs is growing by the day as US-China tensions remain high effecting trade among neighboring countries in South-East Asia “Trump’s volatility, combined with Vietnam’s soaring surplus, has made further tariffs a very real prospect, according to those familiar with the matter. The US deficit with the Southeast Asian nation is almost US$40 billion, and has been steadily rising as it becomes a more attractive destination for production.”

Two high-level executives are convinced that Vietnam can be hit with tariffs under the Trump Administration. One of them is Frederick Burke, one of the managing partners at Baker & McKenzie’s Vietnam office said that

“I do hear from the back rooms that tariffs are not off the table completely. If something does not really change with this US$40 billion trade surplus, I would not rule it out. It’s a real possibility.” The other is an executive director for Southeast Asia at the US Chamber of Commerce is John Goyer who shared the same view, “I think it would be very unwise to ignore the threat of tariffs,” he continued “I believe it is a real threat – there is a real possibility that this administration could slap tariffs on Vietnam.”

According to the SCMP:

Those companies who are legitimately manufacturing in Vietnam are concerned that their exports to the US could be killed by companies engaging in transshipment. As with Yang, many have fled China due to rising costs and tariffs, and have established full production facilities in Vietnam, to the extent that its trade infrastructure – ports, roads and airports – are groaning under the weight of the jump in exports

The article ended with a clear message that Vietnam will not take any chances, especially with a sitting U.S. president slapping sanctions and tariffs all around the world

“If Trump imposes tariffs on all products made in Vietnam, we will all get into trouble,” said Li Weihua, a Chinese businessman whose company, Gaocheng Furniture, makes products in Vietnam to export to the US. “But I don’t think he will slap the tariffs on in the near future.”

So Vietnam is taking action against the U.S. dollar and will soon join the De-Dollarization club according to one of Vietnam’s leading economics and business newspapers ‘Vietnam Investment Review’(VIR) who published a convincing article on de-dollarizing the Vietnamese economy, the title says it all, ‘Vietnam implementing de-dollarization policy’. The article begins with a description of what is happening within the banking and business community in Vietnam:

Since October, Vietnamese and foreign commercial banks are no longer allowed to provide mid- and long-term foreign currency loans. Experts believe this is an essential move towards reducing foreign currency mobilisation, boosting the country’s exports, encouraging derivatives products as risk-hedging tools, and implementing the country’s de-dollarisation policy

Vietnam has been trying to free itself from the USD for some time, most recently the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) “has been trying to reduce the number of transactions conducted in US dollars, either for domestic payments or foreign trade.” The SBV made its move last April on short-term loans as explained by the VIR “short-term loans used for outward remittances for imported goods or services for business and production for domestic demand have been stopped” and on October 1st, the SBV then published their plans to slowly de-dollarize:

Most recently, Circular No.42/2018/TT-NHNN dated October 1 revealed that the SBV would prohibit foreign currency loans to importers in both the mid- and long-term. This decision applies for domestic and international lenders. The SBV aims to reduce the proportion of foreign currency in total outstanding debts below 7.5 per cent next year, and below 5 per cent in 2030

The move to de-dollarize continues to resonate around the world as the U.S. global economic empire is now facing stiff competition from its eastern counterparts and creating enemies with its weapon of choice, the US dollar with its imposed tariffs and sanctions. Vietnam, a country whose present political reality is a direct result of Western interventions including the most devastating war in its history against the U.S. will find alternative markets and eventually drop the U.S. dollar at some point in time. “Economist Hieu believed the advantages of de-dollarisation would outweigh disadvantages, saying that it is necessary to stabilise the forex market and exchange rate.” Hieu represents the facts that Vietnam would eventually use other alternative currencies such as the Chinese Yuan and others. “The trend is likely to continue because the infrastructure for transactions in alternative currencies is improving,” Hieu stressed, “The exchange rate is stable, foreign currency reserves are high, and the SBV can balance the foreign currency position, so it is high time to restrict and stop offering foreign currency loans.”

VIR also interviewed Tharabodee Serng-Adichaiwit of the Bangkok Bank Vietnam who explains that one of the main reasons of Vietnam’s currency instability is due to the U.S. dollar, but the SBV managed to de-dollarize the economy resulting in stabilizing the Vietnam Dong (VND):

From my observations, SBV has done a very good job to de-dollarise the economy in the past 5-6 years, as we can witness that the USD does not have the same impact on the Vietnamese economy as it did in the past. The SBV policy has prevented Vietnam from facing a financial crisis that happened in Thailand in 1998. Furthermore, the VND has been the main means of payment and has also become one of the most stable currencies in the region” he explained

That means Vietnam will continue to slowly de-dollarize its economy, unless there are more threats made by Trump which will make the Vietnamese people extremely nervous, then they will accelerate the de-dollarization process at a faster pace. The majority of the Vietnamese people do not trust the American government, they should know, they can still remember the Vietnam war, and many still suffer from the aftermath, but only this time it’s different because it’s a currency war.

*

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

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from the author

On December 12, UK general elections will be held — a referendum on progressive change v. continued Tory-led neoliberal harshness, along with whether most Brits still support leaving the EU.

Labor’s Jeremy Corbyn called next month’s elections “a once in a generation chance to build a country for the many, not the few.”

On Friday, London’s Telegraph said Tories lead Labor “by more than 10 points” — based on a Savanta ComRes poll conducted on November 18 and 19.

It shows Tories lead Labor by a 42 – 31% margin, Lib Dems with 15% support, the Brexit Party with 5%.

On Tuesday, Reuters reported a “dead heat” in a YouGov snap poll after Corbyn and Tory Prime Minister Boris Johnson debated Tuesday on national television.

A second Channel 4 debate scheduled for Sunday was cancelled after Johnson refused to participate, producer Louisa Compton, saying:

“Gutted we’ve had to cancel a planned Leaders debate on Channel 4 for this Sunday. Jeremy Corbyn had agreed to take part but, after many weeks of intense discussion, we were unable to secure agreement from Boris Johnson’s team.”

As of now, Channel 4 will host a December 8 debate, featuring “representatives” of seven major parties taking questions from an audience of undecided voters — except about Brexit.

It’s unclear if Johnson will participate in further debates. On Wednesday, Corbyn discussed his “manifesto of hope” at Birmingham City University, explaining the following:

His plan is all about reversing years of neoliberal harshness.

“Over the next three weeks, (Tories and others supporting their anti-populist agenda) are going to tell you that everything in this manifesto is impossible,” adding:

“Because they don’t want real change. Why would they? The system is working just fine for them. It’s rigged in their favor. But it’s not working for you.”

“If your wages never seem to go, up and your bills never seem to go down, if your public services only seem to get worse, despite the heroic efforts of those who work in them, then it’s not working for you.”

That’s why many Brits gave up on politics, saying: “They’re all the same.”

“Not anymore,” Corbyn stressed. “The billionaires and the super-rich, the tax dodgers, the bad bosses and the big polluters – they own the Conservative Party. But they don’t own us.”

Corbyn’s “Labor Party Manifesto 2019” calls for radical “real change” from the neoliberal status quo, saying:

December 12 elections “will shape our country for a generation. It is your opportunity to transform our country, so that it works not just for a few, but for all of us. It is a chance to deliver…real (progressive) change Britain needs.”

It calls for hiking taxes by 82.9 billion pounds ($106.6 billion at the current exchange rate) — the increase paid for by Britain’s super-rich, corporations, and taxing capital gains and dividends at income tax rates, added revenues to go for the following:

1. increased National Health Service spending

2. free higher education tuition

3. funding foster homes for disabled children

4. re-opening SureStart Centers to “giv(e) children the best possible start in life” by offering childcare, early education, health and family support, along with community outreach and development

5. free broadband for all UK residents by 2030

6. replacing the House of Lords with a Senate as an elected body — a political change

7. pro-peace and stability foreign policy — a shift from supporting endless wars

The manifesto allocates newly raised revenues as follows:

1. 5.6 billion for SureStart and aiding disabled children in foster homes

2. 5.5 billion for free meals for primary-grade students and related spending

3. 4.7 billion for skills and lifelong learning

4. 13.6 billion to abolish higher education tuition

5. 6.9 billion for the National Health Service

6. 10.8 billion for free personal and social-related care

7. 7. 9 billion to scrap the hugely unpopular bedroom tax, increase bereavement support payments, an allowance for jobseekers, greater maternity and paternity rights pay, restoration of pension credits and housing benefits, along with increasing pension benefits for UK expats

8. 2.6 billion to reduce TV license and broadband fees

9. 6.1 billion for adult social care and aiding the homeless

10. 5.3 billion for increased public sector pay

11. 10.3 billion for increased public spending in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales

12. 2.5 billion for the national youth service, peace fund, increased firefighter pay, and justice reform

“How can any government claim it cares about our country when it cares so little about (ordinary) people who live here,” said Corbyn.

He hopes his manifesto for progressive change will help Labor defeat Tories on December 12 and make him prime minister.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), also called the New Silk Road, is based on a 2,100-year-old trade route between the Middle East and Eastern Asia, called the Silk Road. It wound its ways across the huge landmass Eurasia to the most eastern parts of China. It favored trading, based on the Taoist philosophy of harmony and peaceful coexistence – trading in the original sense of the term, an exchange with “win-win” outcomes, both partners benefitting equally.

Today, in the western world we have lost this concept. The terms of trade are imposed always by the ‘stronger’ partner, the west versus the poorer south – the south where most of the natural resources are lodged. Mother Earth’s assets have been and are coveted by the west – or north – for building and maintaining a lifestyle in luxury, abundance and waste. This trend has lasted for centuries of western colonialism: Exploitation, loot, esclavisation and rape of entire peoples of the Global South by the Global North, to use the current soothing World Bank lingo.

The New Silk Road, or BRI, is Chinese President Xi Jinping’s brainchild. It’s based on the same ancient principles, adjusted to the 21st Century, building bridges between peoples, exchanging goods, research, education, knowledge, cultural wisdom, peacefully, harmoniously and ‘win-win’ style. On 7 September 2013, Xi presented BRI at Kazakhstan’s Nazarbayev University. He spoke about “People-to-People Friendship and Creating a better Future”. He referred to the Ancient Silk Road of more than 2,100 years ago, that flourished during China’s Western Han Dynasty (206 BC to 24 AD).

Referring to this epoch of more than two millenniums back, Xi Jinping pointed to the history of exchanges under the Ancient Silk Road, saying,

“they had proven that countries with differences in race, belief and cultural background can absolutely share peace and development as long as they persist in unity and mutual trust, equality and mutual benefit, mutual tolerance and learning from each other, as well as cooperation and win-win outcomes.”

President Xi’s vision may be shaping the world of the 21st Century. The Belt and Road Initiative is designed and modeled loosely according to the Ancient Silk Road. President Xi launched this ground-breaking project soon after assuming the Presidency in 2013. The endeavor’s idea is to connect the world with transport routes, infrastructure, industrial joint ventures, teaching and research institutions, cultural exchange and much more. Since 2017, enshrined in China’s Constitution, BRI has become the flagship for China’s foreign policy.

BRI is literally building bridges and connecting people of different continents and nations. The purpose of the New Silk Road is “to construct a unified large market and make full use of both international and domestic markets, through cultural exchange and integration, to enhance mutual understanding and trust of member nations, ending up in an innovative pattern with capital inflows, talent pool, and technology database”. BRI is a perfect vehicle for building peacefully a World Community with a Shared Future for Mankind – which was the theme of an international Forum held in Shanghai, from 5-7 November, a tribute to China’s 70th Anniversary of her Revolution and achievements – with a vision into the future.

BRI is a global development strategy adopted by the Chinese Government. Already today BRI has investments involving more than 150 countries and international organizations – and growing – in Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East and the Americas. BRI is a multi-trillion investment scheme, for transport routes on land and sea, as well as construction of industrial and energy infrastructure and energy exploration – as well as trade among connected countries. Unlike WTO (World Trade Organization), BRI is encouraging nations to benefit from their comparative advantages, creating win-win situations. In essence, BRI is to develop mutual understanding and trust among member nations, allowing for free capital flows, a pool of experts and access to a BRI-based technology data base.

At present, BRI’s closing date is foreseen for 2049 which coincides with new China’s 100th Anniversary. The size and likely success of the program indicates, however, already today that it will most probably be extended way beyond that date. It is worth noting, though, that only in 2019, six years after its inception, BRI has become a news item in the West. Remarkably, for six years BRI was as much as denied, or ignored by the western media, in the hope it may go away. But away it didn’t go. To the contrary, many European Union members have already subscribed to BRI, including Greece, Italy, France, Portugal – and more will follow, as the temptation to participate in this projected socioeconomic boom is overwhelming.

Germany, the supposed economic leader of Europe, is mulling over the benefits and contras of participating in BRI. The German business community, like business throughout Europe, is strongly in favor of lifting US-imposed sanctions and reconnecting with the East, in particular with China and Russia. But official Berlin is still with one foot in the White House – and with the other trying to appease the German – and European – world of business. This balancing act is in the long run not sustainable and certainly not desirable. At present BRI is already actively involved in over 80 countries, including at least half of the EU members.

To counteract the pressure to join BRI, the European Union, basically run by NATO and intimately linked to Washington, has initiated their own ‘Silk Road’, attempting to connect Asia with Europe through Japan. In that sense, the EU and Japan have signed a “free trade agreement” which includes a compact to build infrastructure, in sectors such as energy, transport and digital devices. The purpose is to strengthen economic and cultural ties between the two regions, boosting business relations between Asia and Europa. It is an obvious effort to compete with or even sideline China’s BRI. But it is equally obvious that this response will fail. Usually initiatives taken in ill-fate are not successful. And China, non-belligerent China, is unlikely to challenge this EU-Japan competitive approach.

In another approach to counter BRI, The U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), and Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), launched on 4 November the Blue Dot Network (BDN), an initiative supposedly run entirely by private actors, funded by private banking, intended to bring together governments, the private sector, and civil society “to promote high-quality, trusted standards for global infrastructure development in an open and inclusive framework.”

It is not clear how the BDN will interact with or counteract BRI. Anything run entirely by the private sector, especially western private banking, is no good omen for the country their “development effort” touches. Such investments’ objectives are primarily shareholder profits, not socioeconomic development benefitting the countries where they plan to invest. No competition for China’s BRI. Again, non-aggressive China is unlikely to react.

China’s New Silk Road is creating a multipolar world, where all participants will benefit. The idea is to encourage economic growth, distributed in a balanced way, so as to prioritize development opportunities for those most in need. That means the under-developed areas of western China, eastern Russia, Central Asia, Central Europe – reaching out to Africa and the Middle East, Latin America, as well as to South East Asia and the Pacific. BRI is already actively building and planning some six to ten land and maritime routes, connecting Africa, the Middle East, Europe and South America.

The expected multi-trillion-dollar equivalent dynamic budget is expected to be funded by China, largely, but not exclusively, by the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB), by Russia – and by all the countries that are part of BRI and involved in singular or multi-country projects. The long-term return on these massive investments in people’s wellbeing is an exponential multiple of the original investments and cannot be limited to numerical economics, as social benefits of wellbeing cannot be defined by linear accounting.

Implementing BRI, or the New Silk Road, is itself the realization of a vision of nations: Peaceful interconnectivity, joint infrastructure and industrial development, as well as joint management of natural resources. For example, BRI may help with infrastructure and management advice resolving or preventing conflicts on transboundary water resources. There are some 263 transboundary lake and river basins, covering almost half the earth’s surface and involving some 150 countries. In addition, there are about 300 transboundary aquifers serving about 2 billion people who depend on groundwater.

The Chinese government calls the Silk Road Initiative “a bid to enhance regional connectivity and embrace a brighter future”. Today, John Lennon’s “Give Peace a Chance” is more relevant than ever. And China is a vanguard in promoting peaceful development across the globe. BRI, China’s foreign policy flagship, is clearly an initiative towards world Peace.

*

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

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

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

Featured image is from NEO

I am writing from Bolivia just days after witnessing the November 19 military massacre at the Senkata gas plant in the indigenous city of El Alto, and the tear-gassing of a peaceful funeral procession on November 21 to commemorate the dead. These are examples, unfortunately, of the modus operandi of the de facto government that seized control in a coup that forced Evo Morales out of power.

The coup has spawned massive protests, with blockades set up around the country as part of a national strike calling for the resignation of this new government. One well-organized blockade is in El Alto, where residents set up barriers surrounding the Senkata gas plant, stopping tankers from leaving the plant and cutting off La Paz’s main source of gasoline.

Determined to break the blockade, the government sent in helicopters, tanks and heavily armed soldiers in the evening of November 18. The next day, mayhem broke out when the soldiers began teargassing residents, then shooting into the crowd. I arrived just after the shooting. The furious residents took me to local clinics where the wounded were taken. I saw the doctors and nurses desperately trying to save lives, carrying out emergency surgeries in difficult conditions with a shortage of medical equipment. I saw five dead bodies and dozens of people with bullet wounds. Some had just been walking to work when they were struck by bullets. A grieving mother whose son was shot cried out between sobs: “They’re killing us like dogs.” In the end, there were 8 confirmed dead.

The next day, a local church became an improvised morgue, with the dead bodies–some still dripping blood–lined up in pews and doctors performing autopsies. Hundreds gathered outside to console the families and contribute money for coffins and funerals. They mourned the dead, and cursed the government for the attack and the local press for refusing to tell the truth about what happened.

The local news coverage about Senkata was almost as startling as the lack of medical supplies. The de facto government has threatened journalists with sedition should they spread “disinformation” by covering protests, so many don’t even show up. Those who do often spread disinformation. The main TV station reported three deaths and blamed the violence on the protesters, giving airtime to the new Defense Minister Fernando Lopez who made the absurd claim that soldiers did not fire “a single bullet” and that “terrorist groups” had tried to use dynamite to break into the gasoline plant.

It’s little wonder that many Bolivians have no idea what is happening. I have interviewed and spoken to dozens of people on both sides of the political divide. Many of those who support the de facto government justify the repression as a way to restore stability. They refuse to call President Evo Morales’ ouster a coup and claim there was fraud in the October 20 election that sparked the conflict. These claims of fraud, which were prompted by a report by the Organization of American States, have been debunked by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a think tank in Washington, D.C.

Morales, the first indigenous president in a country with an indigenous majority, was forced to flee to Mexico after he, his family and party leaders received death threats and attacks–including the burning of his sister’s house. Regardless of the criticisms people may have of Evo Morales, especially his decision to seek a fourth term, it is undeniable that he oversaw a growing economy that decreased poverty and inequality. He also brought relative stability to a country with a history of coups and upheavals. Perhaps most importantly, Morales was a symbol that the country’s indigenous majority could no longer be ignored. The de facto government has defaced indigenous symbols and insisted on the supremacy of Christianity and the Bible over indigenous traditions that the self-declared president, Jeanine Añez, has characterized as “satanic.” This surge in racism has not been lost on the indigenous protesters, who demand respect for their culture and traditions.

Jeanine Añez, who was the third highest ranking member of the Bolivian Senate, swore herself in as president after Morales’ resignation, despite not having a necessary quorum in the legislature to approve her as president. The people in front of her in the line of succession – all of whom belong to Morales’ MAS party – resigned under duress. One of those is Victor Borda, president of the lower house of congress, who stepped down after his home was set on fire and his brother was taken hostage.

Upon taking power, Áñez’s government threatened to arrest MAS legislators, accusing them of “subversion and sedition”, despite the fact that this party holds a majority in both chambers of congress. The de facto government then received international condemnation after issuing a decree granting immunity to the military in its efforts to reestablish order and stability. This decree has been described as a “license to kill” and “carte blanche” to repress, and it has been strongly criticized by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The result of this decree has been death, repression and massive violations of human rights. In the week and a half since the coup, 32 people have died in protests, with more than 700 wounded. This conflict is spiraling out of control and I fear it will only get worse. Rumors abound on social media of military and police units refusing the de facto government’s orders to repress. It is not hyperbole to suggest that this could result in a civil war. That’s why so many Bolivians are desperately calling for international help. “The military has guns and a license to kill; we have nothing,” cried a mother whose son had just been shot in Senkata. “Please, tell the international community to come here and stop this.”

I have been calling for Michelle Bachelet, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and former president of Chile, to join me on the ground in Bolivia. Her office is sending a technical mission to Bolivia, but the situation requires a prominent figure. Restorative justice is needed for the victims of violence and dialogue is needed to defuse tensions so Bolivians can restore their democracy. Ms. Bachelet is highly respected in the region; her presence could help save lives and bring peace 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.

Medea Benjamin is the co-founder of CODEPINK, a women-led peace and human rights grassroots organization. She has been reporting from Bolivia since November 14.

Featured image is from RT/Youtube

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “They’re Killing Us Like Dogs” – A Massacre in Bolivia and a Plea for Help
  • Tags: ,

Donald J. Trump and The Deep State

November 24th, 2019 by Prof Peter Dale Scott

First published by WhoWhatWhy and Global Research at the outset of the Trump Administration  in February 2017

When the uninitiated think of the “Deep State,” they tend to imagine a group of men getting together in a room, smoking cigars and plotting world domination. But the Deep State is not one coordinated network of people controlling the government from the shadows. 

Instead, it refers to individuals and groups that have the resources to shape the direction of the world to their benefit and don’t hesitate to make use of them. At times, the interests of different factions of the Deep State collide. That often happens when the direction of the world is rapidly changing, as is the case now after the election of Donald Trump. 

Nobody knows this better than Peter Dale Scott, the foremost expert on the US Deep State. Below, you will find a new introduction to the paperback version of The American Deep State: Big Money, Big Oil, and the Struggle for U.S. Democracy, Updated Edition (copyright 2017), (with permission of the publisher, Rowman & Littlefield. All rights reserved). 

Peter Dale Scott is a former Canadian diplomat, Professor of English at the University of California, Berkeley, co-founder of the Peace and Conflict Studies program at Berkeley, poet, and 2002 recipient of the Lannan Poetry Award. 

His political books include Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993), The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (2007), The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11 and the Deep Politics of War (2008), American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan  (2010), The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy (2014) and  Dallas ’63: The First Deep State Revolt Against the White House (2015). A complete bibliography can be found on his website at http://www.peterdalescott.net.

***

On February 3, 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported President Trump’s plans to pave the way for a broad rollback of the recent financial reforms of Wall Street.[1] Although no surprise, the news was in ironic contrast to the rhetoric of his campaign, when he spent months denouncing both Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton for their links to Goldman Sachs, even when his campaign’s Financial Chairman was a former Goldman Sachs banker, Steve Mnuchin (now Trump’s Treasury Secretary).

Trump was hardly the first candidate to run against the banking establishment while surreptitiously taking money from big bankers. So did Hitler in 1933; so did Obama in 2008. (In Obama’s final campaign speech of 2008, he attacked “the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street.”[2] But it was revealed later that Wall Street bankers and financial insiders, chiefly from Goldman Sachs, had raised $42.2 million for Obama’s 2008 campaign, more than for any previous candidate in history.)[3]

However, Trump’s connections to big money, both new (often self-made) and old (mostly institutional) were not only more blatant than usual; some were also possibly more sinister. Trump’s campaign was probably the first ever to be (as we shall see) scrutinized by the FBI for “financial connections with Russian financial figures,” and even with a Russian bank whose Washington influence was attacked years ago, after it was allegedly investigated in Russia for possible mafia connections.[4]

Trump’s appointment of the third former Goldman executive to lead Treasury in the last four administrations, after Robert Rubin (under Clinton) and Hank Paulson (under Bush), has reinforced recent speculation about Trump’s relationship to what is increasingly referred to as the deep state. That is the topic of this essay.

But we must first see what is really meant by ‘the deep state”.

What Is Meant by the Deep State?

Since 2007, when I first referred to a “deep state” in America, the term has become a meme, and even the topic of a cautious essay in The New York Times.[5] Recently it has been enhanced by a new meme, “the ’deep state’ versus Trump,” a theme that promoted Donald Trump as a genuine outsider, and entered the electoral campaign as early as August 2016.[6]

Trump reinforced this notion when he expressed opposition to America’s international defense alliances and trade deals that both traditional parties had long supported, as well as by his promise to “drain the Washington swamp.” It was encouraged again post-election by Trump’s longtime political advisor Roger Stone, formerly of the Washington lobbying firm Black, Manafort, Stone, and Kelly, once a major feature of that swamp.[7]

But those who saw the election as a contest between outsider Trump and a “deep state” tended to give two different meanings to this new term. On the one hand were those who saw the deep state as “a conglomerate of insiders” incorporating all those, outside and inside the traditional state, who “run the country no matter who is in the White House…and without the consent of voters.”[8] On the other were those who, like Chris Hedges, limited the “deep state” to those perverting constitutional American politics from the margin of the Washington Beltway — “the security and surveillance apparatus, the war machine.”[9]

But both of these simplistic definitions, suitable for campaign rhetoric, omit the commanding role played by big money — what used to be referred to as Wall Street, but now includes an increasingly powerful number of maverick non-financial billionaires like the Koch brothers. All serious studies of the deep state, including Mike Lofgren’s The Deep State and Philip Giraldi’s Deep State America as well as this book, acknowledge the importance of big money.[10]

It is important to recognize moreover, that the current division between “red” and “blue” America is overshadowed by a corresponding division at the level of big money, one that contributed greatly to the ugliness of the 2016 campaign. In The American Deep State (p. 30), I mention, albeit very briefly, the opposition of right-wing oilmen and the John Birch Society “to the relative internationalism of Wall Street.”[11] That opposition has become more powerful, and better financed, than ever before.

It has also evolved. As I noted in The American Deep State, (p. 14), the deep state “is not a structure but a system, as difficult to define, but also as real and powerful, as a weather system.” A vigorous deep state, like America, encompasses dynamic processes continuously generating new forces within it like the Internet — just as a weather system is not fixed but changes from day to day.

The Current Divisions in America and Its Wealth

Three days before the inauguration of Donald Trump, “Frontline” on PBS began a two-part program, “Divided States of America,” documenting how the polarization of American public opinion has contributed to both stagnation in Washington and widespread popular anger, on both the left and the right, against the traditional two-party system.

The Frontline show failed to address the major role played by money in aggravating this public division. For example, it followed many popular accounts in tracing the emergence of the tax-revolt Tea Party to the apparently spontaneous call on February 19, 2009, by CNBC reporter Rick Santelli in Chicago, for a “tea party,” in response to President Barack Obama’s expensive bailouts.[12]

However, this event (on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, a deep state institution) was not only staged, it had been prepared for in advance. A domain name, chicagoteaparty.org, had been registered for it in 2008, before Obama had even been elected.[13] Jane Mayer has conclusively demonstrated the role in the funding groups behind the Tea Party played by the brothers Charles and David Koch, who in 2014 were two of the ten richest people on earth, worth a combined $32 billion as owners of the largest private oil company in America.[14]  (Today their wealth is estimated at $84 billion.)

More important, as Mayer pointed out,

the Tea Party was not “a new strain” in American politics. The scale was unusual, but history had shown that similar reactionary forces had attacked virtually every Democratic president since Franklin Roosevelt. Earlier business-funded right-wing movements, from the Liberty League [of the 1930s] to the John Birch Society to [Richard Mellon] Scaife’s [anti-Clinton] Arkansas Project, all had cast Democratic presidents as traitors, usurpers, and threats to the Constitution. The undeniable element of racial resentment that tinged many Tea Party rallies was also an old and disgracefully enduring story in American politics.[15]

The Kochs’ lavish funding of the Tea Party, along with anti-tax candidates and climate-change deniers, was only one more phase in what I described in 1996 as

an enduring struggle between “America Firsters” and “New World Order” globalists, pitting, through nearly all of this [20th] century, the industry-oriented (e.g. the National Association of Manufacturers) against the financial-oriented (e.g. the Council on Foreign Relations), two different sources of wealth.[16]

A decade later Trump has revived the slogan of “America First!”, and vowed to reconsider both NATO and multilateral trade. Both factions are still there today; but, as we shall see, both now have international connections.

American Politics and the Increase in Wealth Disparity

Mayer’s helpful overview overlooks the alarming increase in wealth disparity since 1980 and especially in the last decade. Ten years ago, when I published The Road to 9/11, I noted that 225 billionaires owned as much as the bottom fifty percent of people in the world, and I repeated Kevin Phillips’ warning that

As the twenty-first century gets underway, the imbalance of wealth and democracy in the United States is unsustainable….  Either democracy must be renewed, with politics brought back to life, or wealth is likely to cement a new and less democratic regime— plutocracy by some other name.[17]

In 2010, only three years later, that indicator of disparity had risen up the pyramid from 225 billionaires to 43; and today the figure has shrunk still further to eight.[18]

As The New York Times reported in October 2015, just 158 families supplied half of the early money that had already poured into the 2016 campaign, and 138 of these families supported Republican candidates. Sixty-four of these 138 families made their fortunes in finance, mostly in hedge funds, private equity or venture capital. A further seventeen families were wealthy from energy, mostly oil and gas. What both these two groups were seeking was lower taxes and also deregulation: repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act reforming Wall Street, and (according to the Times) a lifting of the 40-year-old ban on export of US oil.[19]

Many were also “tied to networks of ideological donors who, on the left and the right alike, have sought to fundamentally reshape their own political parties” — on the one hand the twice-yearly anti-tax seminars hosted by the Kochs, and on the other “the Democracy Alliance, a network of liberal donors who have pushed Democrats to move aggressively on climate change legislation and progressive taxation.”[20]

Once again, a division in the American public was being fomented and funded by an old division within Big Money — roughly speaking, between those Trilateral Commission progressives, many flourishing from the new technologies of the global Internet, who wish the state to do more than at present about problems like wealth disparity, racial injustice and global warming, and those Heritage Foundation conservatives, many from finance and oil, who want it to do even less.

We see this ideological split even among the top eight US super billionaires in 2016, four of whom (Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Larry Ellison) have made their fortunes from the Internet and want the present US to progress more or less along its recent course. Warren Buffett (once number one, now number three) endorsed Hillary Clinton early on, “while calling for increased taxes on the country’s highest wage earners.”[21] Deeply dissatisfied with the status quo were numbers seven and eight, the Koch brothers, who “have fortunes largely drawn from fossil fuels,” and have “poured money into fighting solar.”[22]

The Kochs assembled a donor network of fellow mavericks, many of whom were distinguished by private ownership of their businesses, and many (Jane Mayer pointed out) “had serious past or ongoing legal problems.”[23] In early 2015 their organization revealed that it would spend $889 million leading up to the 2016 presidential contest. As USA Today reported, this unprecedented sum, “unrivaled for an outside organization, represents more than double the nearly $400 million the Republican National Committee (RNC) raised and spent during the 2012 presidential election cycle.”[24] This huge organized flow of outside funds has contributed greatly to the weakening of party discipline in Congress, especially among Republicans.

Throughout the campaign, the Kochs and Trump (whose chief backer was another maverick billionaire, Robert Mercer) were apparently at arm’s length from each other. Vanity Fair suggested in September that at that time the Kochs were “in direct opposition to the Mercers,” in a “civil war that threatens to tear the party apart” — even though, starting around 2011, the Mercers had been donating “at least $1 million a year to the Koch network.”[25]

Whatever the tensions, it was clear after the election that Trump in his transition team had “surrounded himself with people tied to the Kochs.”[26] Soon the Trump nominee for Education Secretary was Betsy DeVos, another major billionaire contributor to the Koch donor list. (Betsy’s brother Erik Prince, famous as the founder and owner of the notorious private army Blackwater, was quietly advising the Trump transition team on matters related to intelligence and defense.)[27]

And Trump’s CIA Director is Mike Pompeo, formerly a Koch-sponsored congressman “who was so closely entwined with the climate-change denying Koch brothers that he was known as the ‘congressman from Koch.”[28] (The new administration has reportedly instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the climate change page from its website.)[29]

Since his election, Trump has attacked the U.S. intelligence agencies for leaking information, and reporters as being among “the most dishonest human beings on Earth.” But while attacking the Washington establishment, he is clearly reflecting the dissident big money faction of the deep state, no longer as marginal as it was in the era of the John Birch Society and later Goldwater.[30]

As the campaign and pre-inaugural preparations progressed, it became clearer that Trump, no stranger to the world of big money, had brought the old big money camp into his campaign, as well as the new. In January 2017 Trump nominated to be his SEC Chairman Jay Clayton, a Sullivan & Cromwell partner who in the past has represented Goldman Sachs and other big banks in Wall street superdeals.[31]

Clayton is the fourth former Goldman-related Trump nominee for the new administration, all of them chosen under the eyes of Trump’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, himself a former Goldman banker who moved on to become a Tea Party coordinator and executive director at the alt-right Breitbart News. (Bannon once promised to build “an insurgent, center-right populist movement that is virulently anti-establishment.”[32] It took only 10 days in the White House to make it clear that Bannon had “rapidly amassed power in the West Wing, eclipsing chief of staff Reince Priebus.”) [33]

Undoubtedly Trump entered politics as a maverick real estate investor and TV star, funding the early stages of his campaign himself. But as his campaign grew, he came to reach out more and more to Wall Street financing, notably from Robert Mercer, the co-CEO of hedge fund Renaissance Technologies,[34] Then Trump named as his campaign’s Finance Chairman Steve Mnuchin, formerly of Skull and Bones and Goldman Sachs.[35]

As many predicted, Mnuchin later became Trump’s nominee for Treasury Secretary, which could make him the third former Goldman executive to lead Treasury in the last four administrations, after Robert Rubin and Hank Paulson. In addition, Trump has named Gary Cohn, former president of Goldman Sachs, as his chief economic advisor and Director of the National Economic Council.[36]

In short, Trump did not challenge but preserved the status of what Jeffrey Sachs has called

the Wall Street-Washington complex, which has steered the financial system toward control by a few politically powerful Wall Street firms, notably Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and a handful of other financial firms.[37]

Meanwhile, just as Trump expanded his financial base to all elements of big money, so Wall Street, as it always does, ensured it had good connections to both of the final candidates. After Mnuchin joined the Trump campaign, Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs announced in October 2016 his support of Hillary Clinton.[38]

All of this complexity calls for further reflection on the nature of the deep state.

Turkey and the International Deep State

To survey the more serious accounts of the “deep state in the United States,” it is useful to begin with their summary in Wikipedia under this title: as a “state within a state, which [authors] suspect exerts influence and control over public policy, regardless of which political party controls the country’s democratic institutions.”

Citing five different authors, (including myself) Wikipedia expands this definition to include the military–industrial complex, intelligence community, Wall Street, plutocrats, “big oil,” the mainstream media, national security officials, and Silicon Valley.[39]

All five authors see two essential components to the deep state. On the one hand is big money. On the other are the extra-constitutional Washington Beltway agencies like CIA that Wall Street originally campaigned for and staffed, along with the government-oriented industries that these agencies and the Pentagon work with and outsource to.[40]

Besides myself, Philip Giraldi and Mike Lofgren have also recognized that “the term was actually coined in Turkey, and is said to be a system composed of high-level elements within the intelligence services, military, security, judiciary, and organized crime.”[41] A more precise definition is that of Hugh Roberts:

The notion of the deep state … originated in Turkey, where it connoted not merely the secretive apparatuses of the state such as the police and intelligence services but above all the shady nexus between them, certain politicians and organised crime.[42]

But I may be the only author showing the extent to which the Turkish deep state, when first exposed in 1996, both overlapped with the American deep state and revealed its dark underside.

The Turkish term “deep State” (deren devlet) was coined after the so-called Susurluk incident, a 1996 car crash whose victims included the deputy chief of the Istanbul Police Department, a Member of Parliament, and Abdullah Çatlı, an international heroin trafficker and killer recruited by the Turkish police for “special missions” and paid in heroin while he was officially being sought by the Turkish authorities for murder.[43]

We see in the Susurluk incident three features of the Turkish deep state, unmentioned by Lofgren, that not only resemble the American deep state but are actually a significant component of it (and still of major importance today).

The first is that it was partly international: Abdullah Çatlı was part of a death squad chiefly recruited from the ranks of the Turkish OHD (Ozel Harp Dairesi – Special Warfare Department). The OHD had originally been set up with US encouragement as the Turkish branch of NATO’s Operation Gladio, a stay-behind force in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion. Diverted and renamed Counter-Guerrilla to suppress the Kurdish resistance movement, the OHD troops continued to be trained in the US and to use US counterinsurgency manuals.[44]

Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Minestrone / Wikimedia, David Benbennick / Wikimedia and Abdullah Çatli / Twitter.

The second is that the international deep state connection revealed at Susurluk was partly criminal: the sanctioned para-state activities with Çatlı were financed by billions of dollars in profits from drug smuggling; just as the CIA in Laos and elsewhere utilized a protected drug traffic to finance its covert operations in Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Afghanistan.[45] Çatlı, a convicted drug trafficker with a special Turkish passport, was himself part of this post-Gladio international network:

Çatlı, according to Yalçın and Yurdakal, visited Miami in 1982 in the company of a known Gladio agent (and Italian neo-Nazi) and was considered to be “under the protection” of the CIA.[46]

(The Gladio agent was Stefano delle Chiaie, who had his own connections to state-sponsored terrorist activities in Italy, to the World Anti-Communist League or WACL, and more specifically to death squads working for the Operation Condor murder operation in Latin America, sponsored by the right-wing dictatorships in the region.[47] The CIA had its own shadowy connections to all three, as well as to Gladio.)

The third feature of the Susurluk event is that it was and remains a largely inscrutable intelligence-related event, or what in this book I call a “deep event,” like similar events in the United States, such as the John F. Kennedy assassination. Nearly all western accounts of the car crash overlook the claim that it was not an accident but an intended assassination.[48] Moreover the Turkish deep state was later suspected in the Turkish coup attempt of Ergenekon in 2007,[49] and its one-time parent, the US deep state, in the failed military coup of July 2016.[50] Both of these coup attempts reveal elements of what I mean by deep events.

Not just in Turkey, but also in the United States, respected authors have linked the deep state to what I call (pp. 98, 119) “structural deep events,” unsolved mysterious events that affect the political system of the country.[51] As I write, there have been a series of charges that, if substantiated, would seem to link Trump not only to an element of the American deep state, but also to an element of the Russian deep state.

Trump and the International Deep State

The first charge against Trump was the CIA-backed claim that Russian intelligence agencies hacked organizations affiliated both with Hillary Clinton and with the Democratic Party, and that the hacks were apparently “designed to benefit Donald Trump’s presidential aspirations in one fashion or another.”[52] (Politico also reported that “Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.”)[53]

A second charge against Trump, closely related, was that

as major banks in America stopped lending him money following his many bankruptcies, the Trump organization was forced to seek financing from non-traditional institutions. Several had direct ties to Russian financial interests in ways that have raised eyebrows. What’s more, several of Trump’s senior advisors have business ties to Russia or its satellite politicians.[54]

In May 2016 the Washington Post and Buzzfeed charged specifically that

Trump’s top adviser, Paul Manafort, has spent much of his recent career working for pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, and doing complex deals for an oligarch with close ties to Putin.…  Manafort … has, according to court documents, managed tens of millions of dollars for Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch denied entry to the U.S. reportedly for ties to organized crime, but so close to Vladimir Putin that top Russian officials fought (unsuccessfully) to get him a visa.[55]

On the eve of the new Trump presidency The New York Times reported that

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort… and Roger Stone.[56]

In January 2017 Buzzfeed leaked the source of these charges: a private intelligence report transmitted by the CIA to Trump.[57] This report, by former British intelligence Christopher Steele, did not as released mention Deripaska at all, but contained instead an unexplained discussion of Deripaska’s bankers, the Alfa Group, along with its founders Mikhail Fridman and Pyotr Aven.

Just before the election The New York Times reported that

For much of the summer, the F.B.I. … scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, … and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank….

F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. … But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.[58]

The next day the Jewish paper Forward raised a question, not yet answered, about Alfa Bank’s principal owner, the philanthropist oligarch Mikhail Fridman, listed as #73 on the Forbes list of the world’s billionaires in 2016 (once #20), and the second wealthiest Russian:

Is a Russian Jewish oligarch with Israeli citizenship and close ties to both Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu running a secret cyber-communications channel between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russian authorities? [59]

The various speculations about the Trump link to Alfa and Fridman, whether innocuous or shady, justify a closer look at the charges about Alfa’s influence two decades ago, when Alfa’s dubious clout in Washington included protection from both senior Democrats like Richard Burt of Kissinger McLarty Associates and also senior Republicans like Dick Cheney.[60] As The Guardian reported in 2002, Alfa’s 1990s clout in Washington was demonstrated when its oil company, Tyumen,

was loaned $489m in credits by the US Export-Import Bank after lobbying by Halliburton…. The [Clinton] White House and State Department tried to veto the Russian deal. But after intense lobbying by Halliburton the objections were overruled on Capitol Hill [which then was Republican controlled]…. The State Department’s concerns were based on the fact that Tyumen was controlled by a holding conglomerate, the Alfa Group, that had been investigated in Russia for mafia connections.[61]

Veteran newsman Knut Royce (a major contributor to three Pulitzer Prize-winning stories) reported the details:

Under the guidance of Richard Cheney, a get-the-government-out-of-my-face conservative, Halliburton Company over the past five years has emerged as a corporate welfare hog, benefiting from at least $3.8 billion in federal contracts and taxpayer-insured loans.

One of these loans was approved in April by the U.S. Export-Import Bank. It guaranteed $489 million in credits to a Russian oil company [Tyumen, owned by Alfa] whose roots are imbedded in a legacy of KGB and Communist Party corruption, as well as drug trafficking and organized crime funds, according to Russian and U.S. sources and documents.

[Two reports, one by “a former U.S. intelligence officer,” and one by the Russian FSB] claim that Alfa Bank, one of Russia’s largest and most profitable, as well as Alfa Eko, a trading company, had been deeply involved in the early 1990s in laundering of Russian and Colombian drug money and in trafficking drugs from the Far East to Europe….

The FSB report, too, claimed that the Alfa Group’s top executives, oligarchs Mikhail Fridman and Pyotr Aven, “allegedly participated in the transit of drugs from Southeast Asia through Russia and into Europe.”[62]

This impression is reinforced by the statements and actions of Michael Flynn, Trump’s new national security advisor. Flynn has made several appearances on Russia’s RT network, where he has often argued “that the US and Russia should be working more closely together on issues like fighting ISIL and ending Syria’s civil war.” In June 2016 Flynn attended an RT gala dinner in Moscow, seated just two seats away from Putin. [63] And in December Flynn reportedly met with far-right Austrian political party leader Heinz-Christian Strache, whose Freedom Party had recently signed a cooperation deal with Putin’s United Russia Party. [64]

President Vladimir Putin, Igor Sechin, Chairman of the Board of Rosneft (left) and Rex Tillerson, Chairman of ExxonMobil signed an agreement on joint development of petroleum reserves in Western Siberia, June 2012. Photo credit: President of Russia / Wikimedia (CC BY 3.0)

 

An even closer friend of Putin in Trump’s team, ironically, is former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, his Secretary of State.[65] In fact Tillerson, through Exxon’s development of Russian oilfields, “has deep ties to Russia, dating back to the Boris Yeltsin administration.”[66] As Julian Borger told the Guardian,

Putin… bestowed the Order of Friendship on Tillerson in 2013. The Wall Street Journal reported: “Friends and associates said few US citizens are closer to Mr. Putin than Mr. Tillerson.”[67] The 64-year-old Texas oilman spent much of his career working on Russian deals, including a 2011 agreement giving Exxon Mobil access to the huge resources under the Russian Arctic in return for giving the giant state-owned Russian oil company, OAO Rosneft, the opportunity to invest in Exxon Mobil’s operations overseas. ….The 2011 Exxon-Rosneft agreement was frozen when sanctions were imposed on Russia in 2014, following the annexation of Crimea and covert military intervention in eastern Ukraine. Exxon Mobil estimated the sanctions cost it $1bn and Tillerson has argued strenuously for the measures to be lifted.[68]

The $500 billion Exxon-Rosneft exploration deal, allegedly “the biggest oil deal ever,” was so huge that the Wall Street Journal reported in 2014 that its temporary cancellation “put Exxon at risk.”[69]

Trump’s criticisms of Obama’s sanctions on Russia were one powerful reason for Exxon to prefer Trump in the 2016 election.[70] But Trump was also attractive for his promises of deregulation:

President Trump will “absolutely” be a boon to Exxon and the rest of the oil industry, Fadel Gheit, an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co., said in a telephone interview. “The industry hasn’t asked for a hand up from Washington, but instead has said, ‘Get off our backs.’ Less regulation means less burden” on oil explorers.[71]

And Trump clearly will continue Exxon’s longtime history of opposition to measures to control global warming.[72] (When still CEO, Tillerson ended Exxon’s two decades of strenuous climate change denial, and came out for a carbon tax. But skeptics, including The New York Times, suspected this was merely a skillful means of defeating the more viable “cap-and-trade” carbon proposals that were then being debated in Congress, and ultimately defeated.)[73]

My book The American Deep State documents the leading role played by Exxon behind the elections of the oil-friendly presidents Eisenhower in 1952, and Reagan in 1980 (below, pp. 18-20, 27-28). It is not surprising that Exxon in 2016 should have helped propel yet another former television performer into the White House.

The “Party of Davos” and the “New New International Order”

In short, the Trump team connections to the Russian state and deep state — both overt (through Exxon) and covert (through Manafort and Alfa) would appear to link Trump to a shady larger network or networks connected also to the same Washington swamp he promised to drain. Such networks led me in the Preface to the French edition of this book to talk of

a supranational milieu of the super-rich, just eighty of whom are now said to own nearly as much as the 3.5 billion people who occupy the bottom half of the world’s income scale.[74] Thanks to the enormous increase in global wealth in recent years, the “global power elite” who meet annually at Davos now have far more influence on how the world will be governed than those who meet annually at the United Nations General Assembly.

Those at Davos do not need to give instructions to the American deep state, which is already structured around responsiveness to the requirements of extreme wealth in Wall Street and elsewhere. And some of them are members of what have been called “shadow elites, those whose influence stems from illicit or unconventional means.”[75]

Naomi Klein, ascribing Trump’s victory to the neoliberalism of the Democrats and of Davos, has written of the rise of the Davos class, a hyper-connected network of banking and tech billionaires, elected leaders who are awfully cosy with those interests (neoliberal policies), and Hollywood celebrities who make the whole thing seem unbearably glamorous.[76]

And before becoming the Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor in the Trump White House, Steve Bannon, while executive chair of Breitbart News, had said in a speech at the Vatican that working men and women in the world were “tired of being dictated to by what we call the party of Davos.”[77]

Trump has just chosen an ambassador to the European Union, Ted Malloch, a professor “well-known for his pro-Brexit and anti-EU views,” positions consistent “with Trump’s longstanding anti-EU and anti-NATO biases.” Reporting this, Salon notes also that “some American foreign policy watchers are concerned that he is also motivated by his close ties to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.”[78]

The Trump attack on the “party of Davos,” the status quo of the world superclass, is likely to continue.[79] On January 26, Trump announced “he would strike numerous bilateral trade deals, as opposed to multilateral accords like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”[80]

This approach, which by itself could please China as well as Russia, seems to reflect a coherent effort to replace the old consensus of the “party of Davos”, with what the right-wing Drudge Report approvingly called the “new, new world order”.[81]

The  “New, New World Order” may be said to represent the mavericks of the international deep state, eager to dispense with the regulations of the old insiders. But they are still part of the nexus of uncontrolled big money, even if drawn more from the under-reported shady underside of that superclass.

As I write after just one week of Trump in office, it already seems clear that we can expect a “Trump revolution,” one that will almost certainly attempt to reflect and repeat the major features (deregulation, anti-abortion measures, a defense spending buildup, tax cuts for the rich, and deficit financing) of the Reagan revolution before it. And it should not be too surprising if the Trump revolution, just like the Reagan revolution before it, turns out to have been not just financed, but partly plotted, at the levels of the American and the international deep state.[82]

Personal Postscript

As I write this new Introduction in January 2017, the involuntary response to Trump’s election from many of my friends in both political parties has been anger, hatred, or despair. Many, like Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post, have charged that “Donald Trump is a fascist.”[83] From such alienation, millions of people protested worldwide, the day after Trump’s inauguration, in what was perhaps the world’s first global political action. This was a welcome step towards shaping a global active public opinion.

It is true that Trump, like Hitler, campaigned against big bankers while quietly taking money from them. But the infant Weimar Republic Hitler overthrew, jerry-built amid the ruins of post-war Germany, cannot be compared to the constitution and civil polity of America, among the oldest and hardiest in the world.

I say below (p.99) that America is also exceptional

for its percentage of citizens who are incarcerated, for its disparity in wealth and income between rich and poor (a ratio exceeded among large nations only by China), and for its indiscriminate use of lethal power abroad.

From the beginning, America has been embroiled in major divisions, arising chiefly from its amazing diversity. But it is also the leader among world powers in its ability to process and transcend, however imperfectly, these divisions.

As so many times before in US history, we are entering another period of divisions and protests. But a successful protest of the nonviolent kind I hope for in this book (see below, pp. 164, 181-90) must be one inspired by deeply critical love of this flawed country, not by hatred.

References

[1] Michael C. Bender and Damian Paletta, “Donald Trump Plans to Undo Dodd-Frank Law, Fiduciary Rule,” Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-moves-to-undo-dodd-frank-law-1486101602. Cf.

[2] R.G. Ratcliffe, “Obama’s final campaign speech of 2008,” Houston Chronicle, October 27, 2008, http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2008/10/obamas-final-campaign-speech-of-2008/.

[3] Eugene Kiely, “Obama, “White House ‘Full of Wall Street Executives’?” Factcheck.org, March 1, 2012.

[4] Eric Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers, “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia,” New York Times, October 31, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html (FBI); “Cheney Firm Won $3.8bn Contracts from Government,” Observer, July 21, 2002, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/21/globalisation.georgebush. See below.

[5] Anand Giridharadas, “Examining Who Runs the United States,” New York Times, September 15, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/us/examining-who-runs-the-united-states.html?_r=0. I believe the first to apply the Turkish term “deep state” (derin deret) to U.S. politics was the Swedish writer Ola Tunander (Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11 [Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007], x, 244, 270, 384).

[6] Michael Covel, “The Deep State V. Trump,” Daily Reckoning, August 25, 2016, https://dailyreckoning.com/deep-state-v-trump/: “Donald Trump has the establishment scared out of their establishment minds.”

[7] Ryan Lizza, “Roger Stone Versus the ‘Deep State’”, New Yorker, January 20, 2017, http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/roger-stone-versus-the-deep-state. Stone has been described as a “political provocateur” who “helped choreograph the… riot which shut down the Bush v. Gore recount in Miami-Dade County” (Jeffrey Toobin, “Bad Old Days,” New Yorker, May 2. 2016, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/02/the-political-provocateur-roger-stone-talks-trump. During the campaign, Stone and fellow provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart together promoted the divisive notion  “how the general election will almost certainly be hijacked by acts of voter fraud” — by Democrats (Ken Meyer, :Roger Stone Says There Will Be a ‘Bloodbath’ if Election is Stolen From Trump,” Medaite.com, August 2, 2016, http://www.mediaite.com/online/roger-stone-says-there-will-be-a-bloodbath-if-election-is-stolen-from-trump/. Their politics of division is shared by Steve Bannon, who “is so dominated by a desire to wage war and vanquish his enemy that he cannot think clearly about damage wrought by his destructive, polarizing approach” (Conor Friedersdorf, “The Radical Anti-Conservatism of Stephen Bannon,” Atlantic, August 25, 2016, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/the-radical-anti-conservatism-of-stephen-bannon/496796/).

[8] Covel, “The Deep State V. Trump.” Cf. John W. Whitehead, “The Deep State: The Unelected Shadow Government Is Here to Stay,” Rutherford Institute, November 10, 2015, https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_deep_state_the_unelected_shadow_government_is_here_to_stay: “The Deep State…is comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes right now.”

[9] “Chris Hedges on How the ‘Deep State’ Will Influence the Trump Presidency,” Truthdig, Jan 17, 2017, http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_the_deep_state_will_influence_the_trump_presidency_20170117. In this camp are Glenn Greenwald, who equates the “deep state” with “the intelligence community,” and Eric Margolis, who equates it with “the massed national security apparatus” (Glenn Greenwald, “The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer,” The Intercept, January 11, 2017, https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/; Eric Margolis, “Trump Versus the Deep State,” The Unz Review, January 13, 2017, http://www.unz.com/emargolis/trump-versus-the-deep-state/.

[10] Mike Lofgren, The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government (New York: Viking, 2016); Philip Giraldi, “Deep State America,” The American Conservative, July 30, 2015, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/deep-state-america/.

[11] Peter Dale Scott, The American Deep State (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), 30I later wrote in Dallas ’63: “In The American Deep State I devoted only a few lines to the oppositional faction of right-wing Texas oilmen and the John Birch Society, opposed to the relative internationalism of Wall Street. In this [book] we shall see that under Kennedy their opposition was so deeply embedded that America was, for a while, ruled by a dyadic deep state” (Peter Dale Scott, Dallas ’63: The First Deep State Revolt Against the White House [New York: Open Road Media, 2015], 191).

[12] “Divided States of America,” Part 1, Frontline, PBS, January 17, 2017. Cf. Jane Mayer, Dark MoneyThe Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right(New York: Doubleday, 2015), 165-68.

[13] Rick Ames and Yasha Levine, “Exposing The Rightwing PR Machine: Is CNBC’s Rick Santelli Sucking Koch, The Exiled, February 27, 2009, http://exiledonline.com/exposing-the-familiar-rightwing-pr-machine-is-cnbcs-rick-santelli-sucking-koch/; Chris Douglas, “The Tax That Started the Tea Party,” FrumForum. September 3, 2010, http://www.frumforum.com/the-tax-that-started-the-tea-party/. Cf. Peter Dale Scott, “POEM: To the Tea-Party Patriots: A Berkeley Professor says Hello!,” GlobalResearch, November 2, 2010, http://www.globalresearch.ca/poem-to-the-tea-party-patriots-a-berkeley-professor-says-hello/21727; reprinted in Peter Dale Scott, Tilting Point (San Luis Obispo, CA : Word Palace Press, 2012), 42.

[14] Jane Mayer, “Covert Operations: The Billionaire Brothers Who Are Waging a War Against Obama,” New Yorker, August 30, 2010, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations; Mayer, Dark Money, 167-68, 193. In 2014 the Koch brothers were tied for sixth place among the world’s wealthiest, with $40.7 billion each. Combined, their net worth is $81.4 billion, which was higher than the highest-ranking individual on the list — Microsoft founder Bill Gates, at $77.8 billion (Louis Jacobson, “Harry Reid says Koch brothers are richest family in the world,” Politifact, April 2, 2014, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/apr/02/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-koch-brothers-are-richest-family-w/). Chris Douglas observes, “Until the Bush tax cuts, the estate tax stood at 55%.  As a result of the tax cuts initiated by the Bush administration, by 2010, it was zero.  Unless Congress acts, it will return full-force to 55% in 2011. To understand the impact on the Koch family, consider that some reports place the wealth of the Koch brothers at $36 billion dollars [in 2010; four years later Forbes estimated it at $81 billion], their company second at times only to Cargill as the largest privately held company in America. To the Koch family, a 55% estate tax means they must contemplate a corporate re-organization, the result of which would conceptually be to go public and sell off 55% of their shares in order to pay the tax or, more likely, that they would donate the majority of shares to a charitable foundation.   Either way, the estate tax at 55% would entail a transformation of Koch Industries and a diversification of ownership, with ramifications for the family’s long term control” (Chris Douglas, “The Tax That Started the Tea Party”).

[15] Mayer, Dark Money, 167. Cf, Nella Van Dyke and David S. Meyer, eds., Understanding the Tea Party Movement (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub. Company, 2014), 100.

[16] Peter Dale Scott, “Bringing It All Together: The New Releases and How They Help Us Converge on the Heart of the Case,” The Fourth Decade, Vol. 4, #1, November, 1996; republished at http://www.assassinationweb.com/scotte.htm. Of the eleven businessmen at the 1958 founding meeting of the John Birch Society, many, including the founder Robert Welch, were former members of the National Association of Manufacturers (Terry Lautz, John Birch: A Life [New York: Oxford University Press, 2016]. 225). One was William J. Grede, who served as president of the National Association of Manufacturers in 1952. Still another was Fred Koch, father of Charles and David Koch (Jeff Nesbit, Poison Tea: How Big Oil and Big Tobacco Invented the Tea Party and Captured the GOP [New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2016], 30; Van Dyke and Meyer, Understanding the Tea Party Movement, 100). Charles and David Koch also joined the John Birch Society.

[17] Kevin Phillips, Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich (New York: Broadway Books, 2002). 422; quoted in Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11[Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007], 3, cf. 254.

[18] “World’s Eight Richest as Wealthy as Half Humanity, Oxfam Tells Davos.” Reuters, January 16, 2016, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-davos-meeting-inequality-idUSKBN150009.

[19] “From Fracking to Finance, a Torrent of Campaign Cash,” New York Times, October 10, 2015,

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/wealthy-families-presidential-candidates.html#donors-list. Much of the petroleum wealth was probably also aimed at preventing climate change regulations.

[20] “From Fracking to Finance, a Torrent of Campaign Cash,” New York Times, October 10, 2015.

[21] Amy Chosick, “Warren Buffett Endorses Hillary Clinton and Calls for Higher Taxes on Wealthy,” New York Times, December 16, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/16/warren-buffett-endorses-hillary-clinton-and-calls-for-higher-taxes-on-wealthy/?_r=0.

[22] Sarah Jaffe, Necessary Trouble: Americans in Revolt (New York: Nation Books, 2016), 265. None of the eight endorsed Trump, who pointedly distanced himself from the Kochs during the campaign.

[23] Mayer, Dark Money, 17.

[24] Fredreka Schouten, “Koch brothers set $889 million budget for 2016, USA Today, January 27, 2015, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/26/koch-brothers-network-announces-889-million-budget-for-next-two-years/22363809/.

[25] Abigail Tracy, “The Brewing Billionaire Feud at the Heart of the G.O.P.,” Vanity Fair, September 7, 2016, http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/robert-rebekah-mercer-charles-david-koch-republican-party.

[26] Kenneth P. Vogel and Eliana Johnson, “Trump’s Koch Administration,” Politico, November 28, 2016, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-koch-brothers-231863

[27] Jeremy Scahill, “Notorious Mercenary Erik Prince Is Advising Trump from the Shadows,” The Intercept, January 17 2017, https://theintercept.com/2017/01/17/notorious-mercenary-erik-prince-is-advising-trump-from-the-shadows/: “In July [2016], Prince told Trump’s senior adviser and white supremacist Steve Bannon, at the time head of Breitbart News, that the Trump administration should recreate a version of the Phoenix Program, the CIA assassination ring that operated during the Vietnam War, to fight ISIS.”

[28] Mayer, Dark Money, 15, 276.

[29] Valerie Volcovici, “Trunp Administration Tells EPA To Cut Climate Page from Website: Sources,” Reuyers, January 25, 2017, http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15906G?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews.

[30] On page 5 of this book, I refer to a formerly “minority element in our political economy [that now] finances and dominates both parties, and indeed is now also financing threats to both parties from the right, as well as dominating our international policy. As a result, liberal Republicans are as scarce in the Republican Party today as Goldwater Republicans were scarce in that party back in 1960.” Today I would no longer define this element as “the military-industrial complex,” but the trend has become even more clear.

[31] Matt Taibbi, ‘Trump Nominee Jay Clayton Will Be the Most Conflicted SEC Chair Ever,’ Rolling Stone, January 5, 2017, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/trump-pick-jay-clayton-to-be-most-conflicted-sec-chair-ever-w459289. Clayton’s wife Gretchen is a wealth management advisor at Goldman Sachs.

[32] Conor Friedersdorf, “The Radical Anti-Conservatism of Stephen Bannon,” Atlantic, August 25, 2016.

[33] Josh Dawsey, Eliana Johnson and Annie Karni, “The man behind Trump? Still Steve Bannon,” Politico, January 29, 2017, http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/donald-trump-steve-bannon-234347.

[34] “How One Family’s Deep Pockets Helped Reshape Donald Trump’s Campaign By Nicholas Confessore Aug. 18, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/robert-mercer-donald-trump-donor.html?_r=0

[35] Bloomberg BusinessWeek, August 31, 2016, https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-31/steven-mnuchin-businessweek When Mnuchin was Financial Chairman of the Trump campaign, his counterpart at the RNC was Lew Eisenberg, his father’s old partner at Goldman Sachs.

[36] Pam Martens and Russ Martens, “Here’s How Goldman Sachs Became the Overlord of the Trump Administration,” Wall Street on Parade, January 9, 2017, http://wallstreetonparade.com/2017/01/heres-how-goldman-sachs-became-the-overlord-of-the-trump-administration/

[37] Jeffrey D. Sachs, The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity(New York: Random House, 2011), 117.

[38] Zeke Faux, “Goldman CEO Blankfein ‘Supportive’ of Clinton for Pragmatism,”

Bloomberg, October 22, 2016, https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-22/goldman-ceo-blankfein-supportive-of-clinton-for-pragmatism.

[39] “Deep state in the United States,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States. The five authors are Philip Giraldi, Bill Moyers, David Talbot, Mike Lofgren, and myself.

[40] Scott, The American Deep State, 14-15, 30-35, etc.) The Pentagon, unmentioned by Wikipedia, is hard to classify. Although the Department of Defense is part of the official state and headed by a cabinet member, it contains within it the NSA, which simultaneously reports to the Director of National Intelligence. Other Pentagon agencies, such as DIA and JSOC, also deserve to be classified with the deep state.

[41] Mike Lofgren, The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government (New York: Viking, 2016), 5. I see no further references in Lofgren’s book to organized crime; his notion of the deep state focuses primarily on the Beltway agencies.

[42] Hugh Roberts, The Hijackers.” London Review of Books, July 16, 2015, http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n14/hugh-roberts/the-hijackers, a review of Jean-Pierre Filiu, From Deep State to Islamic State: The Arab Counter-revolution and Its Jihadi Legacy (Oxford : Oxford University Press, [2015]).

[43] Jean-Louis Briquet; Gilles Favarel-Garrigues; Roger Leverdier, eds. Organized Crime and States: The Hidden Face of Politics (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). 43-44; Peter Dale Scott, American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010), 19-20. Çatlı “is reckoned to have been one of the main perpetrators of underground operations carried out by the Turkish branch of the Gladio organisation and had played a key role in the bloody events of the period 1976-80 which paved the way for the military coup d’état of September 1980” (“Turkey’s pivotal role in the international drug trade, Le Monde diplomatique, July 1998).

[44] Desmond Fernandes and Iskender Ozden, “United States and NATO inspired ‘psychological warfare operations’ against the ‘Kurdish communist threat’ in Turkey”. Variant. 12, https://web.archive.org/web/20060614080445/http://www.variant.randomstate.org/12texts/Fernandes.html; Daniele Ganser, NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe(New York: Frank Cass, 2005), 241.

[45] Hakan Aslaneli and Zafer F. Yoruk, ‘Traffic Monster’ reveals state-mafia relations”. Hürriyet, November 7, 1996; Scott, American War Machine, 4-6, etc.

[46] Ryan Gingeras, Heroin, Organized Crime, and the Making of Modern Turkey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 228; citing Soner Yalçın and Doğan Yurdakul, Reis: Gladio’num Türk Teriçisi (Istanbul: Doğan Kitapeilik, 2007), 152-56.

[47] Scott, American War Machine, 20; cf.p.30: In Italy “Stefano delle Chiaie was eventually accused of involvement in the Piazza Fontana and Bologna bombings as well as the Borghese coup.” The Condor Operation (about which I will say more) was responsible for the 1976 murder in Washington of former Chilean diplomat Orlando Letelier.

[48] HRFT Human Rights Foundation of Turkey Human Rights Report – TİHV, en.tihv.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2015/…/Ra1998HumanRigthsReport.pdf, 39. In addition, no one has yet fully explained why one of the fake passports found in Çatlı’s possession was in the name “Mehmet Özbay”, an alias used fifteen years earlier by Mehmet Ali Ağca, the Turk who in 1081 attempted to kill Pope John Paul II (Peter Dale Scott, American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan [Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010], 19; Ryan Gingeras, Heroin, Organized Crime, and the Making of Modern Turkey [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014], 228.

[49] Dexter Filkins. “The Deep State,” The New Yorker, March 12, 2012, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/03/12/the-deep-state: “Prosecutors maintain that Ergenekon is the deep state itself—not merely a cabal of reactionary officers within the military but a shadow government that aims at making Turkish democracy permanently unstable.”

[50] Tim Arango and Ceylan Yeginsu, “Turks Can Agree on One Thing: U.S. Was Behind Failed Coup,” New York Times, August 2, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/world/europe/turkey-coup-erdogan-fethullah-gulen-united-states.html?_r=0.

[51] On page 47 I speak of “a deep event, by which I mean an event predictably suppressed in the media and still not fully understandable.”
[52] “Donald Trump’s Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia.” Time, August 16, 2016, http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

[53] Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern, “Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire…. Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton,” Politico, January 11, 2017, http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446: “A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia.”

[54] Ibid.

[55] “Trump Adviser’s Ties Raise Security Questions,” BuzzfeedNews, May 6, 2016, https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/manafort-russia?utm_term=.htL7NyLEDb#.elgKkM63xN, linking to “Inside Trump adviser Manafort’s world of politics and global financial dealmaking” (Washington Post, April 26, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-business-as-in-politics-trump-adviser-no-stranger-to-controversial-figures/2016/04/26/970db232-08c7-11e6-b283-e79d81c63c1b_story.html?utm_term=.db8349a4a754). These charges should not be confused with the more sensational Buzzfeed leak in January 2017 of a private intelligence report shown by the CIA to Trump (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.ppJ6nP7KJA#.hrE3zm5pPx). This report, by former British intelligence Christopher Steele, did not as released mention Deripaska, but contained instead an unexplained discussion of the Alfa Group, whose connections to Halliburton when run by Dick Cheney are discussed by me in American War Machine, 187.

[56] “Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates,” New York Times, January 19, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html. For a critique of Manafort’s and Stone’s responses to the charges, see Joseph Cannon at http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2017/01/busted-on-inauguration-day.html. In addition to the charge that Russian officials helped Trump, Politico has also claimed that “Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton” (Ukrainian Efforts to Sabotage Trump Backfire,” Politico, January 11,2017, http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446.

[57] https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.ppJ6nP7KJA#.hrE3zm5pPx.

[58] Eric Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers, “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia,” New York Times, October 31, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html.c f. Geoffrey Smith, “Meet the Russian Bank with Ties to Donald Trump,” Fortune, November 2, 2016, http://fortune.com/2016/11/02/donald-trump-alfa-bank/.

[59] Larry Cohler-Esses, “Is Jewish Oligarch the Cyber Link Between Donald Trump and Russia?” Forward, November 1, 2016, http://forward.com/news/world/353170/is-a-russian-israeli-oligarch-running-a-covert-cyber-channel-between-trump/.

[60] Scott, American War Machine, 187: “Diligence’s chief transnational  connection  in  Russia  is  Alfa  Bank.  The chairman of Diligence from 2001 to 2007 was former U.S. ambassador and arms negotiator Richard Burt, of Barbour, Griffith and Rogers and McLarty Kissinger Associates. Burt, a neoconservative who once called the SALT agreement “a favor to the Russians,” is also on the Alfa Bank’s Senior Advisory Board in Moscow.

[61] “Cheney Firm Won $3.8bn Contracts from Government,” Observer, July 21, 2002, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/21/globalisation.georgebush; quoted in Scott, American War Machine, 187. In 2003 the Alfa Group of investors formed a 50-50 joint venture with BP, called TNK-BP. A dispute in 2011 between Mikhail Fridman and BP led Rosneft, blocked in its plans to develop its Arctic oilfields with BP, to agree to a deal on the same Arctic acreage with ExxonMobil instead (Guy Chazan and John Thornhill, “Mikhail Fridman: The Alpha oligarch,” Financial Times, March 5, 2015, https://www.ft.com/content/b47de3d4-c325-11e4-ac3d-00144feab7de). See below.

[62] Knut Royce and Nathaniel Heller, “Cheney led Halliburton to feast at federal trough,” Center for Public Integrity [CPI]. August 2, 2000 Updated: 12:19 pm, May 19, 2014; https://www.publicintegrity.org/2000/08/02/3279/cheney-led-halliburton-feast-federal-trough. Alfa sued CPI for libel over the release of the Royce report, but in 2005 the suit was dismissed. Federal Judge John D. Bates wrote “No claim is made that the defendants fabricated the assertions in the CPI article. Nor are the allegations of organized mob ties and drug trafficking so inherently improbably [sic] that actual malice can be presumed” (“Libel case over mafia-Halliburton link dismissed,” Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press, October 4, 2005, http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/libel-case-over-mafia-halliburton-link-dismissed).

[63] Michael Cowley, “The Kremlin’s Candidate,” Politico. May/June 2016, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-russia-today-rt-kremlin-media-vladimir-putin-213833.

[64] Natasha Bertrand, “A far-right Austrian leader who just signed a pact with Putin says he met with Trump’s national security adviser in New York,” Business Insider, December 20, 2016, http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-putin-trump-austria-far-right-2016-12.

[65] I say “ironically,” because Exxon, until the 1960s, joined the other big oil majors in plotting to exclude the Soviet Union from international oil markets. This change is characteristic of how increasing globalization has changed the international deep state.

[66] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2016/12/13/trump-taps-exxonmobil-ceo-putin-ally- rex-tillerson-to-be-secretary-of-state/#46e49c726a55

[67] Cf. Bradley Olson, “Rex Tillerson, a Candidate for Secretary of State, Has Ties to Vladimir Putin,” Wall Street Journal, December 6, 2016, https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-candidate-for-state-has-close-ties-to-vladimir-putin-1481033938.

[68] Julian Borger, “Rex Tillerson: an appointment that confirms Putin’s US election win,” Guardian, December 13, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/11/rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state-trump-russia-putin .

[69] Daniel Gilbert, “Sanctions Over Ukraine Put Exxon at Risk: Deal With Russia’s Rosneft to Drill in Arctic Is Crucial to Oil Company,” Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2014, https://www.wsj.com/articles/sanctions-over-ukraine-put-exxon-at-risk-1410477455. The deal was originally made by Rosneft with BP, but the BP deal was blocked by a successful legal challenge from a company controlled by Mikhail Fridman. See above.

[70] An Exxon link to the Trump campaign surfaced in June 1916, when Paul Manafort, then the campaign chairman, hired leading Exxon lobbyist Jim Murphy to be the campaign’s national political director (Melissa Cronin, “This lobbyist denied climate change for ExxonMobil. Now he’ll do it for Trump,” Grist.org, June 7, 2016, http://grist.org/climate-energy/this-lobbyist-denied-climate-change-for-exxonmobil-now-hell-do-it-for-trump/).

[71] Joe Carroll, “Exxon CEO-in-Waiting to Inherit Rex Tillerson’s Mixed Legacy.” Bloomberg, December 12, 2016, 4:55 PM PST December 13, 2016, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-13/exxon-s-ceo-in-waiting-to-inherit-rex-tillerson-s-mixed-legacy.

[72] Farron Cousins, “Republican Attorneys General Met Secretly with Exxon Lobbyists to Stop Climate Change Investigations,” Desmog, September 30, 2016, https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/09/30/republican-attorneys-general-met-secretly-exxon-stop-climate-change-investigations.

[73] John Schwartz, “Tillerson Led Exxon’s Shift on Climate Change; Some Say ‘It Was All P.R.’”, New York Times, December 28, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/business/energy-environment/rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state-exxon.html.

[74] Patricia Cohen, “Oxfam Study Finds Richest 1% Is Likely to Control Half of Global Wealth by 2016,” New York Times, January 19, 2015. By an earlier estimate, “In 2010, the wealth of the world’s eleven million super-rich individuals stood at $43 trillion, or 70 percent of global gross domestic product” (Financial Times, May 6, 2012, 4).

[75] David Rothkopf, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009), 289; cf. xx.

[76] Naomi Klein, “It was the Democrats’ embrace of neoliberalism that won it for Trump,” Guardian, November 9, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-sealed-americas-fate. Cf. Andrew Ross Sorkin, “Dealbook: What to Make of the ‘Davos Class’ in the Trump Era,” New York Times, January 16, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/business/dealbook/world-economic-forum-davos-trump.html: “The World Economic Forum — an annual gathering of global policy and business leaders…  known as the ‘Davos class.’ It is this group of so-called plutocrats that largely failed to anticipate — and may have even unconsciously generated — the seeping anti-establishment movement across the globe.

[77] Matt Clinch, “The ‘party of Davos’ wakes up to the new, new world order,” CNBC, Januaty 9,  2017 http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/09/davos-wakes-up-to-the-trump-new-world-order.html.

[78] Matthew Rozsa, “President Trump’s United Nations, European Union ambassadors send early message, shock waves,” Salon, January 27, 2017, http://www.salon.com/2017/01/27/president-trumps-united-nations-european-union-ambassadors-send-early-message-shock-waves/.

[79] The “party of Davos” is a target of a new book by Hugh Hewitt (The Fourth Way: The Conservative Playbook for a Lasting GOP Majority (New York: Simon & Schuster, January 2017).

[80] “Trump says plans lots of bilateral trade deals with quick termination clauses,” Reuters, January 26, 2017, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-trade-idUSKBN15A2MP?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews.

[81] Clinch, “The ‘party of Davos’ wakes up to the new, new world order,” CNBC, January 9, 2017.

[82] See Scott, The American Deep State, 101–08.

[83] Michael Kinsley, “Donald Trump is actually a fascist,” Washington Post, December 9, 2o16, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-is-actually-a-fascist/2016/12/09/e193a2b6-bd77-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.09661e9af547

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Donald J. Trump and The Deep State

On the Global Research News Hour we do our best to cover a wide spectrum of topics from the environmental crisis to economic and geopolitical analysis to debunking war pre-text narratives.

We welcome listener support to maintain and improve the quality of our regular broadcasts. Please consider a donation. Go to Global Research’s main donation page and tag your gift ‘GRNH.’

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

 Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

“The President of the United States is a transient official in the regard of the warfare conglomerate. His assignment is to act as master of ceremonies in the awarding of posthumous medals, to serve when needed as a salesman for the military hardware manufacturers and to speak as often as possible about the nation’s desire for peace. He is not free to trespass on the preserve of the war interests nor even to acknowledge that such an organism exists.” – Jim Garrison (May 27, 1969) [1]

The murder of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963 is widely recognized as a pivotal moment in U.S. history.

It was the first assassination of a U.S. president in the television age. The death of Kennedy enabled Cold Warriors within Washington to pursue their pillaging of the African, South American and Asian continents with substantially less resistance. But perhaps just as significantly, it marked an important chapter in a long-standing power struggle between big moneyed interests in America along with their intelligence operatives, and recognizable constitutional government, made up of representatives elected by the people and accountable to the public.

It was in direct response to inconvenient questions around the first Kennedy assassination that the CIA weaponized the term ‘conspiracy theory,’ a thought-stopping ad-hominem attack intended to disarm truth-seekers challenging the crimes that a controlled media fail to thoroughly investigate.

The existence of Wall Street overlords acting in tandem with military-intelligence figures as a kind of shadow government or ‘Deep State’ to appropriate the foreign policy and war-making apparatus of a country puts in doubt any assertions of America as a properly functioning democracy with power overseen and exercised by duly appointed representatives.

There have been several examples of similar State Crimes Against Democracy deliberately concealed and covered up so as to protect unaccountable elites. The assassinations of John Kennedy’s brother Robert, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X, as well as the (false flag) terrorist attack known as 9/11 being among the more famous examples.

Against this backdrop, we witness the spectacle of President Trump having his authority challenged in an exhaustively publicized impeachment proceeding. Considering documented war crimes and other malfeasance committed by presidents spanning the last half century, one wonders why the particular allegations against Trump are being pursued so relentlessly, and not others. At the end of the day, impeachment or no, will the people end up with a marginally more accountable government, or will the unaccountable power behind the throne have been reinforced by this 21st Century Kabuki theater?

This week’s episode of the Global Research News Hour radio program is as much an attempt to view the current impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump through the lens of ‘deep politics’ as an anniversary commemoration of the assassination of one of America’s most popular presidents. We have taken the liberty to reach out to two authoritative scholars of events like the Kennedy assassinations and 9/11 to get their insights into what the Trump impeachment drama might mean from the stand-point of entrenched unaccountable power within the USA.

In our first half hour. We hear from writer, researcher and frequent guest Mark Robinowitz. He discloses his thoughts about how and why earnest investigators into clandestine operations implicating the Deep State get side-tracked and typically fail to achieve the changes in the political and legal system that should, in a fair world, spring from revelations of truths implicating high officials.

In our second half hour, legendary ‘Deep State’ researcher and author Professor Peter Dale Scott joins us to describe some of the characteristics all of these events have in common, he locates the commonalities between Trump and former Presidents Nixon and Kennedy, and tracks the evolution of the National Security State’s grip on power since that fatal shooting in Dallas 56 years ago.

Mark Robinowitz is a writer, political activist and ecological campaigner. He manages the sites oilempire.us and jfkmoon.org which look into the Deep Political events and how they intersect with politics, economics and ecology. He is based in Eugene, Oregon.

Peter Dale Scott is a former Canadian diplomat, Professor of English at the University of California, Berkeley, co-founder of the Peace and Conflict Studies program at Berkeley, poet, and 2002 recipient of the Lannan Poetry Award. His political books include American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan  (2010), The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy (2014) and  Dallas ’63: The First Deep State Revolt Against the White House (2015). He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. His website is http://www.peterdalescott.net.

(Global Research News Hour episode 278)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

 Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (alternativecurrentradio.com)

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 3pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time.

Notes:

  1. Interview with Jim Garrison, District Attorney for Parish of Orleans, Louisiana. File Reproduced at the National Archives and released June 7, 2004; 200https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/garrison-interview-05-27-1969.pdf

The Kennedy Assassination, November 22, 1963: 56 Years Later

November 23rd, 2019 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

This article was first published on November 21, 2013. 

Today November 22, 2019 is the 56th anniversary of the assassination of JFK

Why was he assassinated?

He favored peace over war.

The normalization of relations with the Soviet Union.

***

November 22, 2013, is the 56th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.  The true story of JFK’s murder has never been officially admitted, although the conclusion that JFK was murdered by a plot involving the Secret Service, the CIA, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been well established by years of research, such as that provided by James W. Douglass in his book, JFK And The Unspeakable, published by Simon & Schuster in 2008.  Ignore Douglass’ interest in the Trappist monk Thomas Merton and Merton’s prediction and focus on the heavily documented research that Douglass provides.

Or just turn to the contemporary films, taken by tourists watching JFK’s motorcade that are available on YouTube, which show clearly the Secret Service pulled from President Kennedy’s limo just prior to his assassination, and the Zapruder film that shows the killing shot to have come from President Kennedy’s right front, blowing off the back of his head, not from the rear as postulated in the Warren Commission Report, which would have pushed his head forward, not rearward. 

I am not going to write about the assassination to the extent that the massive information permits. Those who want to know already know. Those who cannot face the music will never be able to confront the facts regardless of what I or anyone else writes or reveals.

To briefly review, the facts are conclusive that JFK was on terrible terms with the CIA and the Joint Chiefs. He had refused to support the CIA organized Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.  He had rejected the Joint Chiefs’ “Operation Northwoods,” a plan to commit  real and faked acts of violence against Americans, blame Castro and use the false flag events to bring regime change to Cuba.  He had rejected the Joint Chiefs case that the Soviet Union should be attacked while the US held the advantage and before the Soviets could develop delivery systems for nuclear weapons. He had indicated that after his reelection he was going to pull US troops out of Vietnam and that he was going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces. He had aroused suspicion by working behind the scenes with Khrushchev to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis, leading to claims that he was “soft on communism.”  The CIA and Joint Chiefs’ belief that JFK was an unreliable ally in the war against communism spread into the Secret Service.

It has been established that the original autopsy of JFK’s fatal head wound was discarded and a faked one substituted in order to support the official story that Oswald shot JFK from behind. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and President Johnson knew that Oswald was the CIA’s patsy, but they also understood, as did members of the Warren Commission, that to let the true story out would cause Americans to lose confidence in their own government at the height of the Cold War.

Robert Kennedy knew what had happened. He was on his way to being elected president and to holding the plotters accountable for the murder of his brother when the CIA assassinated him. A distinguished journalist, who was standing behind Robert Kennedy at the time of his assassination, told me that the killing shots came from behind past his ear.  He submitted his report to the FBI and was never contacted.

Acoustic experts have conclusively demonstrated that more shots were fired than can be accounted for by Sirhan Sirhan’s pistol and that the sounds indicate two different calibers of firearms.  

I never cease to be amazed by the gullibility of Americans, who know nothing about either event, but who confidently dismiss the factual evidence provided by experts and historians on the basis of their naive belief that “the government wouldn’t lie about such important events” or “someone would have talked.”  What good would it do if someone talked when the gullible won’t believe hard evidence?

Secret Service pulled from JFK’s limo

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/james-huang/must-watch-video/

Zapruder film

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufvmHYqfdbU (Preview

James W. Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, Simon & Schuster, 2008

Operation Northwoods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Kennedy Assassination, November 22, 1963: 56 Years Later

Today, November 22, 2019, we commemorate the passing of JFK.

Why was he killed?

He opposed the Deep State?

He was opposed to waging war on Cuba.

He favored dialogue rather than war with the Soviet Union.

***

Several of the more intriguing files released in the President John F. Kennedy assassination files have little to do with specific aspects of the assassination. Instead, they involve covert operations that were contextually related to possible theories that were initially entertained by investigators.

A special group of military generals and CIA officials met to discuss “sabotage operations” in Cuba on September 6, 1962. The group discussed “agricultural sabotage.”

General Marshall Carter suggested introducing “biological agents which would appear to be of natural origin” to destroy crops.

“General [Marshall] Carter emphasized the extreme sensitivity of any such operation and the disastrous results that would flow from something going wrong, particularly if there were obvious attribution to the U.S.,” according to top secret minutes from the meeting. Carter believed that, if subtle, such sabotage would succeed.

McGeorge Bundy, a national security adviser, was confident that any sabotage could be “made to appear as the result of local Cuban disaffection or of a natural disaster, but that we must avoid external activities such as release of chemicals, etc, unless they could be completely covered up.”

Over 2,800 files were released in the evening on October 27, as a result of the JFK Records Act from 1992. The law—passed after Oliver Stone’s “JFK” film—established a collection of “assassination records” at the National Archives and required all records be released no later than 25 years later.

But at the last moment, even though the CIA and FBI had plenty of time to prepare for this release, President Donald Trump allowed the agencies to invoke “national security” and put the 50 to 60 year-old files through yet another review. Parts may be censored, and the rest of the files may not be seen until April 26, 2018.

One report drafted by Phil Buchen, who served as White House counsel for President Gerald Ford, for a commission into CIA activities addresses the agency’s involvement in assassination plots of foreign leaders. It notes the commission was denied access to papers of special groups or special operating groups.

“The investigation is not complete with regard to the question of who, if anyone outside the CIA, authorized or directed the planning of any assassination attempts against foreign leaders. However, with particular reference to the plans directed against Fidel Castro, the investigation is sufficiently complete to show that plans were undertaken by the CIA.”

According to the report, the CIA discussed plans to assassinate Castro if he was visiting the United States. The CIA shipped arms from the U.S. to “persons in the Dominican Republic, who sought to assassinate Generalissimo Trujillo.”

The commission struggled to uncover evidence of CIA involvement in the assassination of Congo leader Patrice Lumumba in 1961. However, it confirmed the agency considered an assassination plot.

According to a “case officer,” who failed to keep his appointment to testify before the commission, Richard Bissell, the CIA deputy director of plans, “asked him to go to the Congo and there murder or arrange for the murder of Lumumba, and the case officer said that he told Bissell that he refused to be a party to such an act.”

The CIA also considered assassinating President Sukarno of Indonesia. Bissell told the commission the agency identified an “asset who it was felt might be recruited for this purpose.” But the plan never reached a point where the CIA thought it was “feasible.”

U.S. officials considered using members of the Mafia to kill Castro. In September 1960, a “syndicate member” from Chicago, Sam Giancana, was contacted.

“An arrangement was made through Giancana for the CIA intermediary and his contact to meet with a ‘courier’ who was going back and forth to Havana. From information received back by the courier, the proposed operation appeared to be feasible and it was decided to obtain an official agency approval in this regard.”

“A figure of one hundred fifty thousand dollars was set by the agency as a payment to be made on completion of the operation and to be paid only to the principal or principals who would conduct the operation in Cuba.”

When the CIA advised Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy of this plan involving Giancana, he apparently wanted the CIA to consult the Department of Justice before they took such actions again. He was concerned that Giancana could not be prosecuted anymore because he “could immediately bring out the fact that the United States government had approached him to arrange for the assassination of Castro.”

Another document prepared by Buchen contains further details on anti-Castro plots. It contains details of “Operation Bounty,” which was to establish a “system of financial rewards, commensurate with position and stature, for killing or delivering alive known communists.

Leaflets, delivered by air, would contain names of Communist leaders. The next round of leaflets would “revise the names by job, i.e. cell leader, informer, party members, etc. They would contain the “amount of reward, how, and where it may be collected.” One final leaflet would indicate a reward of two cents if someone delivered the body of Castro.

General Edward Lansdale, a deputy assistant secretary for special operations, distributed an “action plan” in February 1962 that called a “special target” operation that could include “gangster elements” attacking police. “CW agents” [chemical weapons] should be fully considered.

There was a plan known as Task 33, a “Plan for Incapacitation of Sugar Workers,” that was completed in February. “Task as assigned was to develop a plan for incapacitating large sections of the sugar workers by the covert use of BW [biological weapons] or CW agents.”

part of the Task 33 plan previously kept secret was released showing Lansdale proposed putting a majority of sugar workers out of action during the remainder of the harvest by introducing “non-lethal BW, insect-borne” agents. The Navy would conduct the biological attack. (Lansdale noted Robert Edwards at Fort Detrick, Maryland, and Cornelius Roosevelt at the CIA would provide biological weapons information for the suggested operation.)

Plans for military intervention, or a coup, always depended upon the belief within the U.S. government that a pretext could be created. As one top secret stated,

“If we announced incident going in; that we were moving in to restore order and hold free elections and that we would withdraw from Cuba as soon as the new government advised that they had the capability to maintain order without further assistance,” it could probably be successful.

The U.S. government did not think such covert operations would negatively impact world public opinion. Officials found the Soviet Union threat to be so severe that if they did not at least contemplate these actions in Cuba they may allow the Soviets to setup military bases in Cuba. Were that to happen, officials were prepared for World War III.

While the essence of planned operations against Castro and Cuba were known, the files offer vivid representations of flagrant and immoral disregard U.S. officials had for international law, sovereignty and human life. They reflect secrets the CIA and FBI were most intent on keeping from the public as long as possible.

Published in partnership with Shadowproof

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on JFK Files: US Officials Plotted Destruction of Cuban Crops with Biological Agents

This is probably the most difficult piece I’ve ever had to write, at least about the Labour Party. My feelings about Corbyn and the Labour Party are on record, here, here, here and here, to name a few. The Labour Party is a party of Imperialism and always has been since its inception, well over a century ago. Even its high point in 1945, with the creation of the welfare state, occurred through pressure from below and just as today, capitalism was bankrupt and in crisis. The Labour government, in return for the Welfare state, saved capitalism from revolution (or collapse). The gains made during that critical period following WWII lasted about thirty years before the lords of capital started taking back what ‘we’ had tried to take from them and by 1975 we were clearly not equipped to resist. In part, the Labour Party was directly responsible, in fact it was party to the attacks on the Welfare state and the working class.

But is this election different? Can we expect a Corbyn-led government to turn back the tide? Can we even expect an attempt at turning back the tide? Frankly, I don’t think we have much choice, after all, what else is there? The left, such as it is, is bankrupt and devoid of revolutionary ideas so the Labour Party, at this critical juncture, is all we have.

Does Corbyn have a socialist programme? Of course not. At best it’s a rehash of 1945 but minus most of the reformist stuff, so the same old social democracy then, the one that was effectively neutralised ages ago. But desperate times require desperate measures.

The question is, if by some chance we do get a Labour government on December 13, what kind of government will it be? What kind of space will Corbyn and his (not very reliable) team be able to carve out of our rank neoliberal, Victorian times? In a word, what are we voting for and what are the chances of getting any of Corbyn’s diluted reforms, carried through?

If Labour’s 2017 election manifesto is anything to go by (not the leaked, draft manifesto), then we may see some minor changes for example, ending zero hours contracts and maybe a rollback of some of the NHS privatisation. But the real question to ask is whether even these limited reforms will be possible in the current climate? The hysterical climate of fear that’s been created about Corbyn’s alleged views on pretty much everything he touches now or has in the past, makes it virtually impossible for a Corbyn-led government to function as it would want to.

Of course, the first hurdle would be the size of the Labour majority. To be potentially effective, it will have to be able to survive alliances in opposition and given the politics of the Lib-Dems, the Greens and the SNP, anything is possible, especially getting stabbed in the back.

Politics, such as it is, is so poisonous, so corrupt and driven by personal ambition and sheer greed for power and/or money, that frankly, will it make any difference to most of us which party gets elected? Well that’s the hope isn’t it, that Corbyn will attempt at least to reverse or ameliorate the worst of the neoliberal destruction of the gains made since 1945. That’s what inspired so many to support Corbyn and put an end to this reactionary attack on the working class and the gains that have been made.

All of my lefty/liberal friends are desperate for a Labour victory, the thought of more Bojo and the backward and reactionary Tories is more than they can bear and who can argue with that!

Capitalism is in crisis, a crisis like no other, compounded by the environmental catastrophe that capitalism has unleashed on our planet. So you would think that extraordinary times would demand extraordinary measures.

So where does the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn sit in all this mess? In a way, they’re all of a kind. Everyone is in denial about something. Corbyn’s earnestness, his sincerity in the face of the atrocious red-baiting and slander he has put up with contrasts with the ‘cosiness’ of Extinction Rebellion and the almost masochistic enjoyment in how it deals with the arrests of its members. In contrast, Corbyn turns the other cheek whenever these slanderous lies are hurled at him.

In the name of maintaining “party unity” with the Blairites, he has presided over the NEC’s expulsion of Livingstone, Jacqui Walker and Marc Wadsworth. Just last week, while Corbyn stayed silent, Chris Williamson was told by the party’s pro-Corbyn NEC that he would not be able to stand as an MP in his Derby North constituency. Williamson, like Sultana, had merely pointed out that the anti-Semitism campaign is “proxy wars and bullshit”—the “weaponisation of antisemitism for political ends.” – ‘Corbyn refuses to fight ramped-up bogus “anti-Semitism” witch-hunt’, WSWS, 12 November 2019

Are we to ignore Corbyn’s vacillations simply in order to get Labour elected? It’s the lack of response by Corbyn over the witch hunt against him and other anti-Zionists that raises questions about Corbyn’s ability, once in power, to pursue the agenda that has made him so popular. Many who support Corbyn, will no doubt put these questions to one side, just as Corbyn, in pursuit of ‘party unity’, ignores the Israeli-funded attacks made on him but frankly, it doesn’t give me much confidence in Corbyn’s ability to ‘stay the course’ once elected.

We live, or try to, by rules that no longer apply. Labour’s nostalgia about 1945 exemplifies the paradox. And it’s arguable that the left as whole, lives by rules that probably have never applied. Much is wishful thinking and wishful thinking, just like moralising, will get us nowhere.

Somehow, thinking about who (or what) to vote for on December 12, seems ludicrous, yet just as with the totally unnecessary Brexit Referendum, ludicrous votes do serve a purpose, of a sort anyway. They give us the illusion of control over events, when it’s obvious that the opposite prevails. We are neither informed nor equipped with the necessary knowledge or skills to do much of anything, let alone possess the political will to see things through.

But in spite of this, you would think that choosing between Corbyn and Johnson would be a no-brainer for any decent, progressive person, and you would be correct. Clearly, if you put Corbyn next to Johnson it’s obviously a no-brainer except of course (I think I said this in 2017), you’re not voting for Corbyn, you’re voting for the Labour Party. It’s a Labour Party that’s divided between its base and its superstructure. In reality, there are two Labour Parties and it’s a bit of irony that the superstructure, the Parliamentary Party and the Party’s bureaucracy are firmly a part of the political class that runs (or pretends to) the country but it’s supported by the base, the Constituency Party and its tens of thousands of members, and these two entities couldn’t be further apart.

So really the question a would-be Labour voter needs to ask is what to expect from a Labour government with Corbyn at its (titular) head but in reality, run by the same old political elite? What could we expect it to do when confronted with for example, some of the quite radical proposals passed at the Labour Party conference in September?

The Grassroots

It was obvious, to me at least, that Corbyn’s best bet for moving the Labour Party to the left and away from its Blairite, neoliberal reality, was to mobilise the tens of thousands that grassroots organising had brought onboard with Corbyn as its figurehead. After all, the Labour Party was suddenly the biggest political party in Europe! But it created a dilemma for the Labour Party bureaucracy and the majority of the PLP. Mobilising the Constituency Labour Parties would have created a mass base with which to challenge the power of the bureaucracy and the PLP. But this never happened. Instead, the Right mounted a disinformation campaign using the ‘anti-semitism’ tag (amongst others, notably the ‘unelectable’ tag), to vilify and marginalise Corbyn and others on the left of the Labour Party in the eyes of the public. How successful the campaign has been will no doubt be revealed come election time.

The second objective should have been to dump the right-wing MPs by changing the selection rules for candidates but again, this wasn’t done either. The Blairites maintained their control of Parliamentary Party and the Party’s bureaucracy. They write (and therefore enforce) the rules.

Then came the coup de grace, Momentum, a key tool for reaching the marginalised and the young who never voted, and primarily the work of John Lansman, Corbyn’s former election agent, was taken ‘in-house’. No longer could it reach out to potential supporters unless you first joined the Labour Party. The key tool that mobilised the thousands who joined the Labour Party was effectively sidelined. The centre reasserted control.

Yet what choice do I have? The alternative is to abstain as there’s no other party worth voting for as far as I’m concerned. So assuming a Labour victory, what are the chances of a grassroots mobilisation bringing pressure to bear on a Labour government to enact even a few of the policies voted for at the Labour Party conference?

Back in 2017 in a piece I wrote about the then snap general election, I quoted from a piece on the WSWS Website which highlighted the contradictions between what Corbyn wanted as laid out in his draft manifesto and what the final, published manifesto stated. By the time the real power in the bureaucracy had finished ‘editing’ Corbyn’s draft, very little was left of the original. Opposition to Austerity had been watered down to some reforms but leaving the body of Austerity in place. So too with Corbyn’s opposition to Trident nuclear weapons and his ‘reluctance’ to start a nuclear conflagration.

I’m minded to say, this time, so what? Yes, the arguments WSWS presents are true, the Labour Party is an imperialist party but can Corbyn, if supported by a grassroots movement, move beyond its imperialist past and its Blairite present? Is the situation so dire that Corbyn, aka the Labour Party is all we have got and we’ll just have to make the best of a bad bunch?

Maybe it’s the last chance we have to halt the headlong rush into barbarism but only if we mobilise the masses of Corbyn supporters, which of course, if successful, runs the risk of splitting the Labour Party in two which, just like the Conservative Party, has passed its sell-by date and splitting the Labour Party could be the best thing we’ll ever do for British politics.

*

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, Investigating Imperialism.

Featured image is from Global Justice

Is the Middle East Beginning a Self-Correction?

November 22nd, 2019 by Alastair Crooke

“Two years, three years, five years’ maximum from now, you will not recognize the same Middle East”, says the former Egyptian FM, Arab League Secretary General and Presidential Candidate, Amr Moussa, in an interview with Al-Monitor.

Mousa made some unexpected points, beyond warning of major change ahead (“the thing now is that the simple Arab man follows everything” – all the events). And in reference to the protests in Iraq, Moussa says that Iraq is in “a preparatory stage for them to choose their way as Iraqis — emphasizing that “the discord between Sunni and Shia is about to fade away.”

The present regional turbulence, he suggests, is [essentially] a reaction to the US playing the sectarian card – manipulating “the issues of sect and religion, et cetera, was not only a dangerous, but a sinister kind of policy”. He added however, “I don’t say that it will happen tomorrow, but [the discord between Sunnis and the Shi’a fading away], will certainly happen in the foreseeable future, which will reflect on Lebanon too.”

What we are witnessing in Iraq and Lebanon, he adds,

“are these things correcting themselves. It will take time, but they will correct themselves. Iraq is a big country in the region, no less than Iran, no less than Turkey. Iraq is a country to reckon with. I don’t know whether this was the reason why it had to be destroyed. Could be. But there are forces in Iraq that are being rebuilt … Iraq will come back. And this phase – what we see today, perhaps this is the — what can I say? A preparatory stage?”

Of course, these comments – coming from a leading Establishment Sunni figure – will appear stunningly counter-intuitive to those living outside the region, where the MSM narrative – from Colombia to Gulf States – is that the current protests are sectarian, and directed predominantly at Hizbullah and Iran. Certainly there is a thread of iconoclasm to this global ‘Age of Anger’, targeting all leaderships, everywhere. In these tempestuous times, of course, the world reads into events what it hopes and expects to see. Moussa calls such sectarian ‘framing’ both dangerous and “sinister”.

But look rather, at the core issue on which practically all Lebanese demonstrators concur: It is that the cast-iron sectarian ‘cage’ (decreed initially by France, and subsequently ‘corrected’ by Saudi Arabia at Taif, to shift economic power into the hands of the Sunnis), is the root cause to the institutionalised, semi-hereditary corruption and mal-governance that has infected Lebanon.

Is this not precisely articulated in the demand for a ‘technocratic government’ – that is to say in the demand for the ousting of all these hereditary sectarian Zaim in a non-sectarian articulation of national interests. Of course, being Lebanon, one tribe will always be keener for one, rather than another, sectarian leader to be cast as villain to the piece. The reality is, however, that technocratic government exactly is a break from Taif – even if the next PM is nominally Sunni (but yet not partisan Sunni)?

And just for clarity’s sake: An end to the compartmentalised sectarian constitution is in Hizbullah’s interest. The Shi’i – the largest minority in Lebanon – were always given the smallest slice of the national cake, under the sectarian divide.

What is driving this sudden focus on ‘the flawed system’ in Lebanon – more plausibly – is simply, hard reality. Most Lebanese understand that they no longer possess a functional economy. Its erstwhile ‘business model’ is bust.

Lebanon used to have real exports – agricultural produce exported to Syria and Iraq, but that avenue was closed by the war in Syria. Lebanon’s (legal) exports today effectively are ‘zilch’, but it imports hugely (thanks to having an artificially high Lebanese pound). All this – i.e. the resulting trade, and government budget deficit – used to be balanced out by the large inward flow of dollars.

Inward remittances from the 8 – 9 million Lebanese living overseas was one key part – and dollar deposits arriving in Lebanon’s once ‘safe-haven’ banking system was the other. But that ‘business model’ effectively is bust. The remittances have been fading for years, and the Banking system has the US Treasury crawling all over it (looking for sanctionable Hizbullah accounts).

Which brings us back to that other key point made by Moussa, namely, that the Iraqi disturbances are, in his view, “a preparatory stage for them to choose their way as Iraqis … and that will reflect on Lebanon too”.

If the ‘model’ – either economically or politically – is systemically bust, then tinkering will not do. A new direction is required.

Look at it this way: Sayyed Nasrallah has noted in recent days that other alternatives for Lebanon to a US alignment are possible, but have not yet consolidated into a definitive alternative. That option, in essence, is to ‘look East’: to Russia and China.

It makes sense: At one level, an arrangement with Moscow might untie a number of ‘knots’: It could lead to a re-opening of trade, through Syria, into Iraq for Lebanon’s agricultural produce; it could lead to a return of Syrian refugees out from Lebanon, back to their homes; China could shoulder the Economic Development plan, at a fraction of its projected $20 billion cost – and, above all it could avoid the ‘poison pill’ of a wholesale privatisation of Lebanese state assets on which the French are insisting. In the longer term, Lebanon could participate in the trade and ‘energy corridor’ plans that Russia and China have in mind for the norther tier of the Middle East and Turkey. At least, this alternative seems to offer a real ‘vision’ for the future. Of course, America is threatening Lebanon with horrible consequences – for even thinking of ‘looking East’.

On the other hand, at a donors’ conference at Paris in April, donors pledged to give Lebanon $11bn in loans and grants – but only if it implements certain ‘reforms’. The conditions include a commitment to direct $7 bn towards privatising government assets and state property – as well as austerity measures such as raising taxes, cutting public sector wages and reducing social services.

Great! But how will this correct Lebanon’s broken ‘business model’? Answer: It would not. Devaluation of the Lebanese pound (almost inevitable, and implying big price rises) and further austerity will not either make Lebanon again a financial safe-haven, nor boost income from remittances. It is the classic misery recipe, and one which leaves Lebanon in the hands of external creditors.

Paris has taken on the role of advancing this austerity agenda by emphasising that only a cabinet acceptable to the creditors will do, to release crucial funds. It seems that France believes that it is sufficient to introduce reforms, impose the rule of law and build the institutions – in order to Gulliverise Hizbullah. This premise of US or Israeli acquiescence to this Gulliverisation plan – seems questionable.

The issue for Aoun must be the potential costs that the US might impose – extending even to the possible exclusion of Lebanese banks from the dollar clearing system (i.e. the infamous US Treasury neutron bomb). Washington is intent more on pushing Lebanon to the financial brink, as hostage to its (i.e. Israel’s) demand that Hizbullah be disarmed, and its missiles destroyed. It might misjudge, however, and send Lebanon over the brink into the abyss.

But President Aoun, or any new government, cannot disarm Hizbullah. But Israel’s newly ambiguous strategic situation (post – Abqaiq), will likely hike the pressures on Lebanon to act against Hizbullah, through one means or another. Were Aoun or his government to try to mitigate the US pressures through acquiescence to the ‘reform’ package, would that be the end to it? Where would it all end, for Lebanon?

And it is a similar conundrum in Iraq: The economic situation though, is quite different. Iraq has one-fifth of the population of neighbouring Iran, but five times the daily oil sales. Yet the infrastructure of its cities, following the two wars, is still a picture of ruination and poverty. The wealth of Iraq is stolen, and sits in bank accounts abroad. In Iraq, it is primarily the political model that is bust, and needs to be re-cast.

Is this Moussa’s point – that Iraq presently is in the preparatory stage of choosing a new path ahead? He describes it as a self-correcting process leading out from the fissures of sectarianism. Conventional Washington thinking however, is that Iran seeks only a Shi’i hegemony for Iraq. But that is a misreading: Iran’s policy is much more nuanced. It is not some sectarian hegemony that is its objective, but the more limited aim to have the strategic edge across the region – in an amorphous, ambiguous, and not easily defined way – so that a fully sovereign Iraq becomes able to push-back against Israel and the US – deniably, and well short of all-out war.

This is the point: the end to sectarianism is an Iranian interest, and not sectarian hegemony.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is the Middle East Beginning a Self-Correction?

NYT’s “Leaked” Chinese Files Story Covers for Terrorism

November 22nd, 2019 by Tony Cartalucci

The New York Times has once again exposed itself as an organ of US special interests operating under the guise of journalism – contributing to Wall Street and Washington’s ongoing and escalating hybrid war with China with a particularly underhanded piece of war propaganda.

Its article, “‘Absolutely No Mercy’: Leaked Files Expose How China Organized Mass Detentions of Muslims,” at face value attempts to bolster allegations made primarily by the United States that China is organizing unwarranted and oppressive “mass detentions” of “Muslims” in China’s western region of Xinjiang.

But just by investigating the quote in the headline alone reveals both the truth behind what is really happening in Xinjiang, why Beijing has reacted the way it has, and that the United States, including its mass media – is deliberately lying about it.

Ten paragraphs into the NYT article, the quote “absolutely no mercy” appears again – only this time it is placed within proper context. It was the response Beijing vowed in the aftermath of a coordinated terrorist attack in 2014 that left 31 people dead at China’s Kunming rail station.

NYT

Source: NEO

The NYT would write (emphasis added):

President Xi Jinping, the party chief, laid the groundwork for the crackdown in a series of speeches delivered in private to officials during and after a visit to Xinjiang in April 2014, just weeks after Uighur militants stabbed more than 150 people at a train station, killing 31. Mr. Xi called for an all-out “struggle against terrorism, infiltration and separatism” using the “organs of dictatorship,” and showing “absolutely no mercy.”

The NYT – which has actively and eagerly promoted every US war in living memory – would unlikely flinch at the notion of the US showing “absolutely no mercy” against “terrorism, infiltration, and separatist,” yet it demonstrates a particular adversion to it in regards to Beijing just as the prominent newspaper has done regarding Syria and its now 8 year struggle against foreign-funded terrorism.

Despite claiming to have “400 pages of internal Chinese documents” – the most damning allegations made by Washington and indeed the NYT itself – are still left unsubstantiated.

This includes claims that “authorities have corralled as many as a million ethnic Uighurs, Kazakhs and others into internment camps and prisons over the past three years.”  No where in the NYT article is evidence derived from these documents to substantiate that claim.

Dubious Origins 

Like much of what the US media holds up as “evidence” to bolster establishment narratives – the “leaked files” come with it doubts over their provenance, translation, and the context and manner in which they are being presented to the public. There are also the lies of omission deliberately presented by the NYT and others covering this recent “leak” that need to be considered.

The NYT itself admits (emphasis added):

Though it is unclear how the documents were gathered and selected, the leak suggests greater discontent inside the party apparatus over the crackdown than previously known. The papers were brought to light by a member of the Chinese political establishment who requested anonymity and expressed hope that their disclosure would prevent party leaders, including Mr. Xi, from escaping culpability for the mass detentions.

Regardless – nothing appearing in the NYT article is actually a revelation of any kind. China has made its policies clear regarding terrorism and separatism in Xinjiang. Like every other nation on Earth – China refuses to tolerate violent terrorism and the extremist ideology used to drive it. These policies – when presented out of context as the NYT has deliberately done – appear heavy-handed, oppressive, unwarranted, and authoritarian.

If presented together with the very real violence, terrorism, and foreign-sponsored separatism emanating from Xinjiang – the policies take on an entirely different and understanble light.

Terrorism in Xinjiang is Real, But Omitted When Reporting Beijing’s Counter-terrorism Efforts

The Western corporate media itself has even repeatedly covered deadly terrorism carried out by a minority of extremists among China’s Uyghur population. However – they do so in the most ambiguous way possible – and refuse to mention it when subsequently covering Beijing’s attempts to counter it.

For example, CNN in a 2014 article titled, “China train station killings described as a terrorist attack,” would report:

A day after men armed with long knives stormed a railway station in the southwest Chinese city of Kunming, killing dozens of people and wounding more than 100, authorities described what happened as a premeditated terrorist attack. 

The article also admits that Xinjiang is beset with “frequent outbreaks of violence,” in reference to waves of violent terrorism carried out by Uyghur separatists, but falls far short of qualifying just how bad this violence has been.

The BBC would extensively elaborate on what CNN meant by “frequent outbreaks of violence” in a 2014 article titled, “Why is there tension between China and the Uighurs?,” reporting that (emphasis added):

In June 2012, six Uighurs reportedly tried to hijack a plane from Hotan to Urumqi before they were overpowered by passengers and crew. 

There was bloodshed in April 2013 and in June that year, 27 people died in Shanshan county after police opened fire on what state media described as a mob armed with knives attacking local government buildings

At least 31 people were killed and more than 90 suffered injuries in May 2014 when two cars crashed through an Urumqi market and explosives were tossed into the crowd. China called it a “violent terrorist incident”. 

It followed a bomb and knife attack at Urumqi’s south railway station in April, which killed three and injured 79 others. 

In July, authorities said a knife-wielding gang attacked a police station and government offices in Yarkant, leaving 96 dead. The imam of China’s largest mosque, Jume Tahir, was stabbed to death days later. 

In September about 50 died in blasts in Luntai county outside police stations, a market and a shop. Details of both incidents are unclear and activists have contested some accounts of incidents in state media.

Some violence has also spilled out of Xinjiang. A March stabbing spree in Kunming in Yunnan province that killed 29 people was blamed on Xinjiang separatists, as was an October 2013 incident where a car ploughed into a crowd and burst into flames in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square.

While the NYT also references deadly terrorism in Xinjiang – it does so in a muted, secondary fashion, attempting to decouple it from Beijing’s motivations for pursuing policies with “absolutely no mercy” in response.

One need not imagine what would follow if such violence took place on US or European soil or the polices demonstrating “absolutely no mercy” that would undoubtedly follow not only domestically, but across the globe against nations perceived – or claimed – to have been involved.

The September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington D.C. precipitated a now 20 year long “War on Terror” which has evolved into multiple ongoing wars, military occupations, and covert operations across scores of nations. The US Department of Defense’s own newspaper, Stars and Stripes, in a recent article titled, “Post 9/11 wars have cost American taxpayers $6.4 trillion, study finds,” would admit (emphasis added):

American taxpayers have spent some $6.4 trillion in nearly two decades of post-9/11 wars, which have killed some 800,000 people worldwide, the Cost of Wars Project announced Wednesday. 

The numbers reflect the toll of American combat and other military operations across some 80 nations since al-Qaida operatives attacked the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington in 2001, launching the United States into its longest-ever wars aimed at stamping out terrorism worldwide.

By comparison, China’s attempts to rehabilitate extremists through education and employment is a far cry from America’s global war – in which as many have died, as the US claims China is “detaining.”

This is before even considering that out of the 80 nations the US is waging war and killing people in – the one nation from which the majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from – Saudi Arabia – has not only been spared, but is sold record-breaking amounts of US weapons and hosts US troops to protect it from regional states it openly attacks with legions of armed extremists espousing the same toxic ideology that motivated the 9/11 hijackers.

The US Sponsors Xinjiang Unrest 

Worse still, the US has been repeatedly caught jointly-sponsoring the very strain  of extremism allegedly behind the 9/11 attacks in its various proxy and regime-change wars beforehand and ever since.

Not surprisingly, there is also evidence that the US is fueling the violence in Xinjiang itself as well as recruiting extremists from the region to fight in US proxy wars abroad – most notably in Syria. These militants are then returned to China with extensive experience in terrorism.

US State Department-funded and directed Voice of America (VOA) in an article titled, “Analysts: Uighur Jihadis in Syria Could Pose Threat,” would admit (emphasis added):

Analysts are warning that the jihadi group Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) in northwestern Syria could pose a danger to Syria’s volatile Idlib province, where efforts continue to keep a fragile Turkey-Russia-brokered cease-fire between Syrian regime forces and the various rebel groups. 

The TIP declared an Islamic emirate in Idlib in late November and has largely remained off the radar of authorities and the media thanks to its low profile. Founded in 2008 in the northwestern Chinese region of Xinjiang, the TIP has been one of the major extremist groups in Syria since the outbreak of the civil war in the country in 2011. 

The TIP is primarily made up of Uighur Muslims from China, but in recent years it also has included other jihadi fighters within its ranks.

Uyghur recruits have been trafficked through Southeast Asia where – when discovered, detained, and deported back to China – are followed by protests from the US State Department.

When Thailand refused to heed US demands that Uyghur recruits be allowed to move onward to Turkey – where they would be armed, trained, and sent into Syria – a deadly bomb would detonate in Bangkok killing 20. The bombing was linked to the Turkish terrorist organization, the Grey Wolves, co-sponsored by the US for decades to augment NATO’s unconventional warfare capabilities.

The US government’s own National Endowment for Democracy (NED) openly funds fronts operating out of Washington D.C. espousing separatism with the NED’s webpage detailing its funding of these groups even including the fictional name of “East Turkestan” used by separatists who reject the official designation of Xinjiang which resides within China’s internationally-recognized borders.

The inclusion of the term “East Turkestan” implies US support for separatism as well as the very real, ongoing deadly terrorism demonstratably used to pursue it.

And more than just implicitly supporting separatism, US government support in the form of NED money is admittedly provided to the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) which exclusively refers to China’s Xinjiang province as “East Turkistan” and refers to China’s administration of Xinjiang as the “Chinese occupation of East Turkistan.” On WUC’s own website, articles like, “Op-ed: A Profile of Rebiya Kadeer, Fearless Uyghur Independence Activist,” admits that WUC leader Rebiya Kadeer seeks “Uyghur independence” from China.

WUC and its various US-funded affiliates often serve as the sole “source” of allegations being made against the Chinese government regarding Xinjiang. As the US does elsewhere it lies to fuel unrest in pursuit of its geopolitical agenda, allegations regarding Xinjiang often come from “anonymous” sources based on hearsay and lacking any actual physical evidence.

The US State Department’s “Radio Free Asia” network even maintains a “Uyghur Service” which pumps out daily accusations aimed at stirring domestic tension within China, and smearing China’s image internationally. RFA allegations are uncritically repeated by other Western corporate media networks in an attempt to bolster the impact of this propaganda.

US Gaslighting on a Global Scale 

The US through its policies and propaganda – including this most recent NYT article – accuse Beijing of “repression” for responding to very real, admitted, and extensively documented deadly terrorism plaguing China.

At the same time, the US pursues a global war spanning 80 nations and resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands, destroying entire countries, and displacing or otherwise destroying the lives of millions.

While citing “terrorism” as a pretext for its global aggression, it is simultaneously fueling the very armed extremism it claims it is fighting against. This includes the very real terrorism the NYT attempted to downplay to maximize the propaganda value of its “leaked files” story – despite other Western media networks covering this terrorism for years.

Not only is this US policy disjointed, deceitful, and deadly – it is incredibly dangerous. It is essentially a low-intensity version of what the US has been doing in Syria and had previously done in Libya leading to the North Africa nation’s destruction.

It is all but a declaration of war against China – not through direct military intervention – but through armed proxies, propaganda, and a deliberate, concerted effort to sow instability, division, and strife across Chinese society.

Coupled with economic warfare aimed at crippling China’s economy – Beijing finds itself a nation under siege. The fact that it has not responded to this very real, demonstratable existential threat with a fraction of the violence and global-spanning destruction the US has employed to fight its fictional “War on Terror,” is the best proof of all that the dystopian authoritarian regime the NYT tries to portray Beijing as – is as fictional and nonexistent as journalism is at the NYT’s office.

*

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

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Yuri M. Kozlov, the Russian Trade Representative in Pakistan, suggested that Russia and Pakistan establish a “reliable and mutually acceptable banking system”, which strongly hints at Moscow’s desire to improve its commercial trade ties with Islamabad in order to lay the basis for N-CPEC+.

Business Recorder reported earlier this week that Yuri M. Kozlov, the Russian Trade Representative in Pakistan, suggested that Russia and Pakistan establish a “reliable and mutually acceptable banking system” during a meeting with the President of the Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce & Industry, which comes just weeks after the two countries resolved their Soviet-era trade dispute that now legally enables Moscow to invest in the South Asian state. This proposal strongly hints at Russia’s desire to improve its fledgling commercial ties with Pakistan, which has enormous economic potential by virtue of its geostrategic location as the global pivot state and the fact that it host the flagship project of China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI), the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Russia therefore has a natural economic interest in wanting to tap into this lucrative opportunity, both in purchasing low-cost but high-quality goods from its new partner but also to export its own comparatively high-tech products there and/or use it as a base of operations for Russian companies to sell their wares further abroad along the New Silk Road.

None of that can happen without the establishment of a “reliable and mutually acceptable banking system”, so Mr. Kozlov’s proposal should be interpreted as the building block for more robust economic relations between both sides. It’s important to note that Business Recorder’s report also said that he suggested that the two parties conduct trade in national currencies, which demonstrates that Moscow has long-term strategic economic interests in Pakistan that it envisages ultimately improving the strength of both the ruble and rupee with time. Mr. Kozlov drew attention during his meeting to the two megaprojects that Russia is negotiating with his host state, the $2 billion North-South gas pipeline between Karachi and Lahore and the $3 billion Iran-Pakistan pipeline, both of which could prospectively come together to lay the basis for what the author previously described as E-CPEC+, the forecasted CPEC-parallel pipeline connecting Russia’s offshore Iranian gas deposits and possibly also others’ with China. These projects are strategically important, but the Russian-Pakistani economic partnership requires much larger commercial trade ties in order to benefit more people.

Therein lays the logic behind Mr. Kozlov’s banking proposal and the author’s suggested megaproject of N-CPEC+, which is the creation of a trade corridor through post-war Afghanistan linking Pakistan with Russia via Central Asia. This represents the most reliable and cost-effective logistics route between the two countries, one which would complement Russia’s Greater Eurasian Partnership by establishing a new economic axis in the supercontinent by strengthening integration between all of the transit states. Furthermore, it would also contribute to sustaining stability in post-war Afghanistan by giving its people an unprecedented opportunity to participate in this promising trade corridor. In addition, N-CPEC+ would accomplish President Putin’s stated goal of integrating the Eurasian Union with BRI, seeing as how the former would be indirectly linked with the latter’s flagship project of CPEC, which would also fulfill his vision of establishing an Arctic-Indian Ocean corridor that he recently described during his speech at the Valdai Club in early October. Altogether, the strategic logic underpinning N-CPEC+ is self-evident, hence why Russia’s Trade Representative in Pakistan is proactively taking the necessary steps to bring it about, slowly but surely.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Moscow’s Russia-Pakistan Banking Proposal Hints at Big Things to Come
  • Tags: ,

Clearing the FOG (forces of greed) hosts Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers interviewed Chip Gibbons, an expert on Constitutional Law and the legal and policy counsel for Defending Rights and Dissent about a recent right to protest victory in Washington, DC plus his new report, “Still Spying on Dissent: The enduring problem of FBI First Amendment Abuse.” You can read and download the report here. This report, which finds that people are being investigated for their political opinions, is part of a new campaign to hold the FBI accountable and stop its widespread surveillance and infiltration of social movements. You can listen to the entire interview and the week’s news analysis on Clearing the FOG.

Interview

Clearing the FOG (CtF): Before we get into your new report, let’s talk about the recent victory over an effort by the Trump Administration to stifle protest in Washington DC. Can you tell us about that?

Chip Gibbons (CG):  Late last year, the National Park Services asked for comments on new proposed rules that would have severely curtailed the ability to protest on public lands, national parks. One of the elements of the proposed rules that got the most attention was the so-called protest tax that would have allowed the National Park Service to charge protesters for the cost of policing or cleaning up of demonstrations. There was also concern that they were going to eliminate the deemed granted rule, which is that if you don’t hear back from the National Park Service within a certain period of time when you apply for a permit, your permit request is deemed granted.

A hundred and forty thousand people submitted comments about this proposal opposing it. Eighty civil society groups, including Popular Resistance and Defending Rights and Dissent, labor unions, and civil rights groups submitted comments opposing it. It was just announced this week that the Park Service was withdrawing the proposed rule change. That’s a pretty big victory because, at the end of the day, democracy is about more than just voting. It’s also about freedom of expression and assembly and that includes the right of people to come together in a common cause.

The National Park System is not only a custodian of our parks, but they also play a crucial role in facilitating democracy. Under international law, the right of free expression is interpreted as recommending that governments only require notice, not permits, for political demonstrations because as the previous rapporteur for the United Nations on Free Speech and Assembly said, “A right is not a right if it has to be granted.”

CtF: We really want to ask you about this new report that you authored for Defending Rights and Dissent. It’s about the FBI’s monitoring of social movements. Can you tell us about it?

CG: The report is called “Still Spying on Dissent: The enduring problem of FBI First Amendment abuse,” and it focuses on FBI surveillance or monitoring of social movements, protests, and civil society activity since 2010. It’s based on information that was already in the public domain. A number of journalists have filed FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests and a number of activists have reported being visited at their homes by the FBI.

A very interesting development was when Walmart was brought before the National Labor Relations Board for unfair labor practices, it was revealed in discovery that they contacted the FBI JTTF, Joint Terrorism Task Force, about Occupy protesters. This is information that’s been in the public domain, but the point of the report was to compile it all in one place. When you put all of the incidents we know about together in one place in detail, a picture starts to emerge of a systemic problem of surveillance in the United States. After covering that, the report steps back and puts it in the context of the FBI’s history since 1908 of spying on dissent.

The other thing is that in a number of cases what we know actually raises further questions, which is why it would be very helpful for somebody with subpoena power like Congress to actually step in and do their own investigation of this matter. A number of times when people received FOIA documents, they were redacted to the point of being unintelligible. We know that different people have filed FOIA requests about the same information and have gotten different responses. There’s some evidence to suggest the FBI is wrongfully withholding information when they’re subjected to FOIA requests. And when you hear stories about activists being visited at their homes, the question is what investigation is that part of?

What we know is very disturbing and it is cause for concern but just as important is what we don’t know. That’s why Congress needs to make sure we know more.

CtF: We don’t really know the extent of the FBI’s infiltration and monitoring of social movements. The Church Committee hearings exposed widespread government and FBI surveillance in the past. Do you think we’re really at that stage again where it’s so widespread that we need to have a series of Congressional hearings focusing on FBI surveillance of political activity in the United States?

CG: I absolutely do think so. I mean the Church Committee is the example that usually gets cited. The Church Committee was a select committee investigation into bad acts by the intelligence community in general. It talked about assassinations and about CIA tricks overseas, but the committee also talked about the use of intelligence to infringe on people’s rights domestically. A lot of people don’t know this, but the FBI is not only a law enforcement agency, but it’s also an intelligence agency. So, there is some information in it about the FBI’s use of its domestic intelligence powers to violate American’s constitutional rights.

In the late 80s, there was another investigation done by the Senate Intelligence Committee with some input from the Senate Judiciary Committee into what the FBI was doing when they were spying on opponents of Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. It came out in the 1980s that the FBI had been spying on the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador. There are a number of ways this came to light, my favorite of which is that they didn’t pay their informant and he complained. The Senate had an investigation, not a hearing, but an actual investigation. They released a report. People at the time felt like it was a bit of a whitewash but compared to the types of oversight we have of the FBI today, it certainly was an improvement.

In 2006, it came out that the Bush Administration was spying on a bunch of groups and that led Congress to ask the DOJ Inspector General to study the matter. They released their report on the Bush-era FBI spying in September of 2010. That’s why we choose 2010 as our starting date because there’s been no real oversight since then. Just four days after the report was released, the FBI raided the homes of anti-war and solidarity activists in the Midwest. The report showed that the FBI has loose guidelines.

When the Bureau of Investigation was created in 1908, it was created while Congress was on recess and to this day it has no statutory charter. After the Church Committee, there were some efforts to impose a charter on it, but Congress instead allowed the Attorney General to write guidelines in lieu of a Charter. As you can imagine, conservative attorney generals like those in the Reagan Administration and the Bush Administration rewrote the guidelines to be less restrictive and less protective of civil liberties.

Since the time period covered in the OIG report, the FBI’s guidelines have actually gotten even looser. George Bush’s lame-duck attorney general Michael Mukasey promulgated the current guidelines, which created a new category of investigations called assessments that allow the FBI to investigate people using very intrusive techniques when there’s no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing or national security threat, just an “authorized law enforcement purpose.” That’s the first time since the Church Committee the FBI was allowed to investigate people absent facts that suggested they were engaged in either a national security threat or in criminal wrongdoing. The other type of investigations allowed in the guidelines are literally called predicated investigations and that means they have a factual predicate. So, an assessment is an investigation without a factual predicate to suggest any wrongdoing at all.

CtF: So in the “land of the free” people can be investigated simply because of their political opinions. You mentioned that they use intrusive techniques to surveil activists. Can you talk about what some of those are?

CG: The biggest problem is human intelligence or confidential informants. There’s a lot of focus contemporarily on sort of the high-tech surveillance that the NSA does or all these sorts of spy tools that local police departments are acquiring and that’s very scary. And I think just as analogous when people talk about the FBI of the pre-Church Committee era, there’s a lot of fixation on illegal wiretaps and stuff like that.

Most of the surveillance the FBI does is through human intelligence. That’s either an undercover officer or confidential informant. You can have the best encryption in the world, but if the person that you’re sending the message to is reporting everything back to the FBI, it’s not very helpful. This is not to say that we shouldn’t be concerned with bulk surveillance and all this technology that is sucking up all our information. We should be terrified of it.

We also should not lose sight that the FBI is still using the tried and true old methods as well. And increasingly what we see is that these confidential informants go well beyond gathering information and they actively engage as agents provocateurs meaning that they come up with terror plots and they entice people into participating in them. Then the FBI turns around and arrests them and that allows the FBI to sort of over-exaggerate the threat of terror as well. If they say they’re arresting all these terrorists, that implies there’s some sort of further need for security.

When Donald Trump issued the first executive order authorizing the Muslim ban, the courts asked about the purpose. The second executive order used two terror plots supposedly involving refugees as justification for it, but in both cases, those plots were the product of FBI agents provocateurs. In one of the cases cited by Trump’s executive order, a judge found it to be an example of “imperfect entrapment,” which is different than perfect entrapment. That is an affirmative defense and bars your conviction. Imperfect entrapment is just an argument for a lesser sentence. A judge said this was imperfect entrapment and Trump then turned around and cited that as justification for a repressive policy.

CtF: Right after the Occupy Movement was winding down in 2012, there were a few cases of relatively young men who were vulnerable and they were entrapped into making it look like they were going to commit violent acts. In the past, the FBI would go after leaders of movements, but in this case, they went after the low-hanging fruit and then made headline cases out of it. Can you talk about that?

CG: I believe the case you are referring to is Occupy Cleveland where there were a number of young men sort of on the margins. They had issues and an FBI informant enticed them into participating in this plot to blow up a bridge on May Day. Obviously, that’s horrible, you shouldn’t blow up civilian bridges. But there was no such plot and the FBI announced the arrests right on the eve of Occupy Cleveland’s major May Day demonstration, which was supposed to have revived the movement in Cleveland that had sort of gone into hibernation during the winter. So they had to cancel the march given the negative publicity. So, they completely decimated the resurrection of Occupy Cleveland by creating this fake terror plot and then being able to defame the movement.

CtF: Can you give us a sense of the kind of groups targeted by the FBI?

CG: It’s the same groups the FBI has always targeted. It’s peace and solidarity groups, environmental groups, racial justice groups and economic justice groups. We know the FBI has this ridiculous threat assessment called “Black Identity Extremism”, which argues that perceptions of racism, police violence and social injustice in the African-American community could lead to retaliatory lethal violence against police. The argument is that if you’re rightfully angry or rightfully concerned about the racism or police brutality you’ve been on the receiving end of in our society and you want to speak out against that, that’s a precursor to violence. That’s a really insidious logic because it treats not only First Amendment protected speech as a precursor to criminality but rightful and legitimate concern about injustice as a precursor to doing a criminal act.

CtF: That’s such circular reasoning. Police commit violations of people’s rights, especially racist violations. The community is aware of it. And because you are aware of it, you’re a suspect for potential violence yourself and therefore under surveillance by the FBI.

CG: They use that logic repeatedly. There was a recent document that Yahoo! News got a hold of from an FBI office in Arizona where they mentioned that because of people being angry at children being put in concentration camps and the abuse of migrants that there could be an increased likelihood of armed confrontation between anarchists and the federal government. It’s totally insidious. It just treats First Amendment protected speech as a reason to be suspicious of someone as willing to commit a crime. When they single out these groups, oftentimes the FBI and their own files admit there’s no indication that anyone is planning on engaging in violence, but an unknown person at an unknown point in the future could.  So, the FBI has very clearly embraced this logic that certain points of view are inherently suspicious and that they should be monitored and investigated.

MF: One of the major groups that have been targeted by the FBI is the Muslim Community. Can you talk about that?

CG: Another really insidious thing the FBI does when it uses these confidential informants is it oftentimes sends them to the Muslim Community without any specific targets.

There’s a very notorious case where the FBI engaged in something called Operation Flax where they sent an informant into a mosque in Orange County. The mosque actually reported the informant to the FBI because he was acting rather ridiculously and the informant came forward and said that he had asked the FBI, “Who is my target ?” and they said, “Oh the target will come to you.” So what you’re talking about is a sort of dragnet suspicion-less surveillance. They asked this informant to infiltrate a Southern California mosque to gather personal information such as email addresses, cell phone numbers, and political and religious views. He was even encouraged by the FBI to enter into sexual relations with Muslim women in order to gather intelligence.

There’s an ongoing lawsuit about this surveillance. The FBI has tried to have it dismissed under the State Secrets Doctrine. It doesn’t look like they’re going to get away with that, but it still highlights the problem of this suspicion-less surveillance. Another famous case is the Newburgh Four.

The informant goes into this mosque and he’s not targeting anyone in particular, as far as we know. We have no idea why the FBI picked Newburgh for this particular type of surveillance. He eventually encounters the person he entices into this fake plot in a parking lot. So, they’re just going into Muslim communities where no one is suspected of any crime and just surveilling them and then trying to invent crime.

The FBI clearly views the Muslim community as a fifth column, which is why they are subjecting them to this awful suspicion-less surveillance.

CtF: In Robert Mueller’s era as FBI director, he did a lot of that kind of activity in the Muslim community, yet people look at Mueller as a great hero because he investigated Trump for Russiagate.

CG: There’s an entire OIG report on Robert Mueller’s FBI counterterrorism investigation of domestic advocacy groups, like Greenpeace, PETA, and the Catholic Workers. The last major attempt at oversight, the report released in 2010, coincides with Robert Mueller’s time at the FBI. Robert Mueller is not a hero.

CtF: You are a constitutional law expert, Chip. Can you talk about the state of our constitutional freedoms in the United States right now? How would you assess our rights to protest and to free speech?

CG: In terms of the FBI’s political surveillance, the courts have made it very difficult to challenge it. There’s a very important case in the 1970s where people who were protesting the Vietnam War in DC were spied on by the US Military and they tried to sue, Laird v. Tatum. They tried to sue the military for spying on them and the Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 decision refused to hear the case on the merits; therefore, never ruling whether or not they had a First Amendment complaint.

In order to be able to have standing to sue, you have to show that you suffered a harm and that the court can remedy that harm. The Supreme Court reasoned that the idea that if the military creates a dossier on you with your picture and tracks you because of your First Amendment protected activity, that if you might not want to engage in that activity, then that’s a self-subjective chill. You’re doing the harm to yourself. There are instances where people have gotten over that hurdle, but it’s extraordinarily difficult to challenge political surveillance in the courts.

What’s really needed is for Congress to act. Over the years, there have been a number of fine pieces of legislation proposed to impose limits on the FBI. I think those limits should be part of an overarching charter. We’re talking stuff like forbidding the FBI from investigating First Amendment protected activity unless there are facts indicating a violation or likely violation of the federal criminal code and that they have to weigh the magnitude of the crime against the threat to free speech, which you know isn’t a terribly radical suggestion. It’s actually quite moderate. Also, any sort of FBI charter needs to be judicially enforceable, meaning that if the FBI does break the charter and spies on you, you have a remedy in terms of both declaratory and injunctive relief. So, the courts can say this spying broke the charter and the FBI has to stop it. Those would be positive steps forward.  Congress needs to have an investigation into why the FBI is doing what it’s doing.

CtF: If you add the attacks on journalism with Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Max Blumenthal, there are so many attacks on our freedoms. When they know a protest is being planned, like Occupy, how early do you think the FBI starts infiltrating and investigating protesters?

CG: Well, with Occupy, we don’t have to speculate because we know from the documents that were released the FBI began monitoring Occupy Wall Street in August of 2011. That’s a month before the protests began. Before the very first protester ever set foot in Zuccotti Park, the FBI was on the case. I don’t know in every instance how with-it the FBI is. The FBI is not always the most with-it people when you look at some of these documents they’ve released. It’s not unlikely before a protest or a movement happens for the FBI to start investigating or monitoring it. That’s clearly what happened in Occupy.

There are other cases where they’re sort of late to the picture. There’s a very disturbing example that we talk about in this report that involves By Any Means Necessary, which is a civil rights group, a racial justice group. They were doing a counter-protest of the Traditionalist Workers Party, which is right-wing, white supremacist, and fascist. The counter-protesters, the racial justice protesters, were stabbed. They were attacked. And the FBI instead of investigating the fascists who committed a crime, investigated By Any Means Necessary. What’s very fascinating is that the FBI gets the name of the racist group wrong. They think it’s the Ku Klux Klan. So, you have these FBI documents where the FBI says things like the Ku Klux Klan is a group that some people perceive as having a white supremacist agenda. They end up investigating the civil rights group as part of a counter-terrorism investigation and for possibly violating the civil rights of the Ku Klux Klan.

I’ve seen FBI documents where they’re describing the relationship between different activist groups, groups that I’m familiar with, and it’s like wow. On the one hand, the degree of surveillance is so terrifying but on the other hand, it’s like you guys are also kind of really out of it.

CtF: It’s not just the FBI. That’s just one agency. There are over 30 police agencies in Washington DC. The New York City Police Department is the size of an army. The US has been increasing the number of police officers since the Clinton era. He added more than a hundred thousand police to the streets in his era. How does the FBI work with local and state law enforcement?

CG: The FBI as a police force isn’t actually that large. The NYPD has more police than there are FBI agents, at least that used to be the case. What we increasingly see is that local police are working for the FBI in these so-called Joint Terrorism Task Forces. And in the Joint Terrorism Task Force, local law enforcement, and in some cases other federal agents are assigned to them, carry out their day to day missions as JTTF officers and they do this under the purview of the FBI. In most cases, they follow the FBI’s own guidelines.

There’s been a lot of pushback against this recently because, in a number of cases, states have laws on the books governing local police conduct and those laws are more stringent than the FBI’s own guidelines. So, in theory, the local police by following the FBI’s guidelines could be breaking state law. San Francisco rewrote their memorandum of understanding with the FBI mandating that local police have to follow local laws even when they’re acting as FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force agents. They then turned around and broke away from the Joint Terrorism Task Force completely. Portland also left that.

There’s been some controversy recently with some of these federal task forces, not just the Joint Terrorism Task Force, but some of the DEA ones, where they don’t allow their agents to wear body cameras. I believe this may have changed but they weren’t allowing the agents to wear body cameras. So, in cities or states where it was the law that police had to wear body cameras, they weren’t doing so when they were acting as Federal Task Force agents. Local officials rightfully got upset by that.

More and more, the FBI is turning local police into their foot soldiers.

CtF:  There are ways to deal with informants, infiltrators and agents provocateurs. On our Popular Resistance website, we have a class on how social transformation occurs and at least one class is on these issues. This report is very helpful for people to know what kind of tactics they use, how widespread it is and what to expect, but beyond that, there are other things people can do to build their movement in a way that handles this pretty well. How can people who care about this issue get more involved? Is there anything that they can do concretely?

CG: We have repeatedly called on Congress to investigate the FBI. We had a major campaign in 2016 where something like a hundred and thirty-seven groups, including Popular Resistance, and 88,000 people signed our petition to ask the Senate and House Judiciary committees to hold hearings about FBI surveillance of Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and pipeline protesters. We are gearing up to relaunch that campaign in light of the report.

If people want to read the report, it’s on our website at rightsanddissent.org/FBI- spying/. On that page, there is an action you can take. In the coming weeks, we’re going to be using this report as an organizing tool and trying to build pressure around this issue of FBI political surveillance.

This is the time to put the pressure on Congress to use this moment to try to look into what’s going on and actually come up with some tangible solutions. The first attempt to check the FBI political surveillance was in 1924. Harlan Fiske Stone read a report by the ACLU about the FBI doing political spying. He was so concerned by it, he made J Edgar Hoover meet with Roger Baldwin, the head of the FBI. Stone did not know that Hoover was spying on Roger Baldwin and the ACLU. He put into place a regulation that the FBI had to stick to investigating violations of the criminal code and he asked Hoover, can you show us anywhere where it’s illegal to be a communist? Hoover found ways to get around that.

The FBI is very good at finding reasons to spy on people. But then in the 30s, there was a whole bunch of national executive orders from Roosevelt that gave the FBI very broad national security powers. So, this isn’t a new issue, but you know some of the ideas that have been proposed over the last almost 100 years are still very good ideas.

*

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.

Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

The Trump impeachment hearings give the illusion that voters in the United States have a choice between two different political parties: the Democrats and Republicans. The daily impeachment hearings dominate news headlines. Meanwhile, politicians of both parties have unanimously passed the Hong Kong Human Rights And Democracy Act revealing how both wings of the American elite share the same visceral fear of China’s challenge to the American empire.

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, sums up nicely the flagrant hypocrisy of the American political elite with her declaration:

“The Congress is sending an unmistakable message to the world that the United States stands in solidarity with freedom-loving people of Hong Kong and that we fully support their fight for freedom. This has been a very unifying issue for us.”

The Hong Kong Democracy Act threatens China with sanctions if human rights are in Hong Kong are curtailed in any way. How ironic considering the United States stands full square behind the ongoing coup in Bolivia that recently removed the democratically elected President Evo Morales.

There are over 150 pieces of legislation awaiting Congressional approval that all aim to counter the growing power of Chinese capitalism. On the economic front these range from the China Technology Transfer Control Act to the Defending America’s 5G Future Act and Fair Trade With China Enforcement Act. Meanwhile, on the geo-political front we have the Tibetan Policy And Support Act and Uyghurs Human Rights Policy Act. If implemented these would massively ramp up the economic and geo-political tensions between the two superpowers.

If Trump approves the misnamed Hong Kong Democracy Act he will put in jeopardy any ‘phase 1’ trade deal deal with China. Wall Street investors fear that this political attack upon China could endanger the trade deal which they have been on tenterhooks for since last year.

Despite all of his aggressive bluster, Trump is desperate for a trade deal with China as the 2020 election inches nearer. As I have outlined previously, the trade war, that Trump started back in spring 2018 when he bragged that winning trade wars was easy, poses a significant threat to the rapidly slowing global economy. Without the unprecedented and gigantic money printing of global central banks this year the world economy would already be in recession.

If Trump approves the Hong Kong Democracy Act it will clearly signal a major escalation of policy towards China. The Chinese one party state, having stoked up nationalist feeling amongst its population during the trade war, will find it very difficult to sign any ‘phase 1’ trade deal with the U.S. after such a blatant attack upon its sovereignty.

Not surprisingly, the Chinese government reacted with anger to news that the U.S. Congress had passed the Hong Kong Democracy Act. A Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said that the act undermined both countries interests in Hong Kong. Geng warned the U.S.:

“We urge the U.S. to grasp the situation, stop its wrongdoing before it’s too late, prevent this act from becoming law (and) immediately stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs and China’s internal affairs. If the U.S. continues to make the wrong moves, China will be taking strong countermeasures for sure.’’

Meanwhile, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi warned U.S. Defence Secretary William Cohen, during a meeting last Wednesday, that the act represented “a naked interference in China’s internal affairs,” which China would not tolerate.

The hubris of the United States knows no bounds as it launches such an overt attack upon its major rival. I don’t recall China lecturing the United States as its police forces violently crushed the Occupy Wall Street movement during the autumn of 2011.

The clock is ticking for the United States as more and more countries put increasing effort into trade deals that don’t use the U.S. dollar. This de-dollarisation is viewed very negatively by Washington as it threatens its ability to print huge quantities of money that finance its huge war machine used to police American interests around the world. More and more countries resent the use of the dollar as a weapon against any state not pursuing policies favourable to American corporations.

The American empire is aware that it has to act over the next period to contain China before initiatives such as the Made In China 2025 and the Belt and Road projects decisively swing the balance of economic power in Beijing’s favour.

The U.S. still has time to seek a rapprochement with China as urged by foreign policy guru Henry Kissinger on his visit to Beijing last year. He warned that there is a risk of “destroying hopes for the new world order,” if the two superpowers cannot come to some mutually beneficial agreement on trade.

The Hong Kong Democracy Act and the 150 pending pieces of anti-China legislation in Congress suggests that the American empire is moving towards confrontation towards China which poses great dangers in the volatile period ahead.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Opens Up Another Front in Its Cold War Against China as Congress Passes the “Hong Kong Democracy Act”
  • Tags: , ,

Bolivia is currently in turmoil after President Evo Morales was deposed in a U.S.-supported coup d’état on November 10. The new coup government forced Morales into exile, began arresting politicians and journalists while pre-exonerating security services of all crimes committed during the “re-establishment of order,” effectively giving them a license to kill all resistance to their rule. Dozens have died and massacres of indigenous protesters have occurred in the city of Cochabamba and the small town of Senkata.

In confusing and alarming situations such as these, millions of people around the world look to international human rights organizations for leadership and guidance. However, far from standing up for the oppressed, Human Rights Watch has effectively endorsed the events. In its official communiqué, it refrained from using the word coup, insisting Morales “resigned”, its Americas Director José Miguel Vivanco claiming the President stepped down “after weeks of civil unrest and violent clashes” and does not even mention opposition violence against his party or the role of the military in demanding, at gunpoint, that he resign. Therefore, Morales mysteriously “traveled to Mexico,” in the organization’s words, rather than fleeing there to escape arrest. Instead, it tacitly endorses the new government, advising it to “prioritize rights.”

Human Rights Watch Director Kenneth Roth went further, presenting the elected head of state fleeing the country at gunpoint as a refreshing step forward for democracy, claiming that Morales was “the casualty of a counter-revolution aimed at defending democracy…against electoral fraud and his own illegal candidacy,” noting that Morales had ordered the army to shoot protesters.

Roth also described the coup approvingly as an “uprising” and a “transitional moment” for Bolivia, while presenting President Morales as an out-of-touch “strongman.”

New self-declared President Jeanine Añez, whose party received 4% of the vote share in the October elections, has already expelled hundreds of Cuban doctors, broken off ties to Venezuela and pulled Bolivia out of multiple international and intercontinental organizations and treaties. She describes the indigenous majority of Bolivians as “satanic” and insists they should not be allowed to live in cities, instead, being sent to the desert or the sparsely populated highlands. Añez declared that she is “committed to taking all measures necessary to pacify” the population.

Human Rights Watch described the law giving Bolivian security forces complete impunity to kill dissenters as a “problematic decree,” as if Añez had used racially insensitive language, rather than was ordering a massacre. In its statement, it noted that “nine people died and 122 were wounded” during the Cochabamba demonstration, leaving its readers completely in the dark about who died and who was responsible for the killing.

A long history of double standards

Human Rights Watch was originally established in 1978 as Helsinki Watch, an American organization dedicated to exposing the crimes of Eastern Bloc countries and monitoring their compliance with the Helsinki Accords. Since its establishment, it has consistently been criticized for being an agent of U.S. foreign policy, employing former U.S. government officials in key positions, and for displaying bias against leftist governments unfriendly to the United States.

For example, a 2008 report on human rights violations in Venezuela authored by Jose Vivanco was immediately panned by hundreds of academics and Latin American scholars, claiming the “grossly flawed” document “did not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility.” Indeed, Vivanco openly stated his biases, revealing that he wrote the report “because we wanted to demonstrate to the world that Venezuela is not a model for anyone.”

In contrast, Human Rights Watch was relatively silent on the Honduran coup d’état that deposed leftist President Manuel Zelaya, and the repression that came after, effectively carrying water for U.S.-backed regime change. As Bernie Sanders’ Communications Director Keane Bhatt wrote:

Human Rights Watch’s deep ties to U.S. corporate and state sectors should disqualify the institution from any public pretense of independence.”

Likewise, Amnesty International’s image as a defender of human rights hides a dark past of being effectively a front organization for Western governments. As MintPress News revealed earlier this year, one co-founder of the organization, Peter Benenson was an avowed anti-communist with deep ties to the British Foreign and Colonial Offices, propping up the Apartheid regime of South Africa at the British government’s request. Another co-founder, Luis Kutner, was an FBI asset who was involved in the government’s assassination of Black Panther leader Fred Hampton. Kutner went on to form an organization called “Friends of the FBI”, dedicated to countering and combating criticism of the Bureau.

Therefore, while some may be surprised by its response to the Bolivia crisis, Human Rights Watch’s applause of the U.S.-backed right-wing coup against a democratically elected leftist head of state may not be an aberration or a mistake, but it performing its actual purpose in reinforcing U.S. hegemony by condemning any leftist challengers in America’s “backyard.”

*

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 a MintPress Staff Writer as well as an academic and writer for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. His book, Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting was published in April.

Featured image: Jeanine Anez receiving the presidential sash from a representative of the Bolivian military (photo: EFE)

The Desolation of Yemen. The Forgotten War

November 22nd, 2019 by Daniel Larison

[Ignored by much of the Western media], The Jerusalem Post reports on the worsening humanitarian crisis in Yemen:

“There is nothing that shows any improvement,” Hisham Al-Omeisy, an independent Yemeni political analyst, told The Media Line. “The only thing that is visible in the media is that there is less coverage.”

Perhaps this is due to conflict fatigue or because the protests in places like Lebanon and Iraq have become the topic du jour. Whatever the reason, the Yemen conflict, now being called the “forgotten war,” is in danger of becoming even more forgotten when it comes to the human cost.

Olivia Headon, Yemen spokeswoman for the UN’s International Organization for Migration (IOM), says that conditions for 3.6 million people displaced by the conflict have worsened in the past half year because of the weather.

“We have had really heavy rain, which has caused people who are already displaced by conflict to be displaced by floods,” Headon said. “This is still the largest humanitarian crisis in the world.”

The war on Yemen has been “forgotten” more times than I can count. It has been common to describe the war and humanitarian crisis this way, because it suggests that the problem is simply outside neglect rather than complicity in causing the disaster. Unfortunately, the U.S. government and other Western governments have not ignored or forgotten Yemen. On the contrary, they have paid it the worst kind of attention possible by providing arms and support to the Saudi coalition’s interminable military campaign. Yemen would be much better off if the Saudi coalition’s arms suppliers and patrons had forgotten all about it, but the opposite has been true.

Yemen has been the world’s worst humanitarian crisis for almost as long as the war has been going on. The numbers of people at risk from starvation and disease continue to horrify as they grow ever larger. This year’s cholera epidemic has now spread to more than 750,000 cases. The World Health Organization has warned that Yemen’s devastated health care system cannot cope with the rampant spread of disease fueled by the conditions created by the war:

The World Health Organization warns disease outbreaks are flourishing in Yemen and many people are dying from a lack of health care and serious shortages in supplies and personnel.

Yemen’s economy is in tatters and its health care system in a state of near total collapse after more than five years of conflict. The WHO says about half of Yemen’s health facilities are functioning but are suffering from serious shortages of medicine, equipment and staff.

Consequently, it says health teams are unable to respond quickly to disease outbreaks and epidemics, which are thriving. For example, the WHO says a cholera outbreak in January is still ongoing and so far, has infected more than three-quarters of a million people and killed nearly 1,000.

In addition to the spread of cholera, there has also been an outbreak of diphtheria that has affected many hundreds more. Malaria and dengue fever have been spreading as well. Tens of thousands of cancer patients cannot receive treatment because of the terrible conditions and the unaffordable costs:

“Another challenge, of course, are the non-communicable diseases. An estimated 35,000 cancer patients amongst which 10% are children, and more than one million people who suffer from non-communicable diseases will no longer receive life-saving treatment. Also, a total of 7,000 renal patients were in need of weekly sessions in 2019,” he said.

The war has made it increasingly difficult to deliver essential supplies to isolated parts of the country, and Save the Children warns that thousands more children are being cut off from their food supplies:

An estimated 17 000[1] children living in hard to reach areas in Yemen– cut off by war –are at increased risk of severe acute malnutrition and death if issues with aid access are not urgently resolved, Save the Children reveals today.

Currently, 75 districts in Yemen are ‘hard to reach’ according to the UN definition – areas that humanitarian actors cannot regularly access for the purpose of sustained humanitarian service delivery[2]. More than 4.4 million people live in hard to reach areas, including almost 2,2 million children. 80 percent of these areas face crippling food shortages (IPC4)[3], which is one step away from famine. By comparison, half of the accessible districts face that level of food insecurity.

A further 121 000 [4] children under five in these hard to reach areas are already moderately malnourished, and are at risk of sliding into severe malnourishment. Children in these areas are much less likely to receive life-saving goods like medicines and therapeutic foods with only 35 [5] percent of these children having received the support they needed by September 2019.

The widespread starvation and spread of preventable disease should make Yemen’s humanitarian crisis one of the world’s top stories every week, but except for a couple brief surges in interest over the last few years virtually no one writes about what is happening to the people of Yemen. It almost never shows up in television reports, and it is a surprise when it comes up in our political debates. The burden is heaviest on the young and the vulnerable:

Swangin explained that some 12.3 million children there are now dependent on foreign aid.

“Almost the entire population of Yemen under 18 now requires some sort of humanitarian assistance to be able to survive,” he said. “Each day of the conflict makes the humanitarian situation worse.”

Millions of people are starving thanks to policies supported by our government, and the man-made famine that is unfolding barely registers here. Hundreds of thousands suffer from preventable and treatable diseases, but their health care facilities have been destroyed and damaged and their supplies of essential medicine and equipment have been strangled. The people of Yemen have been condemned to years of living in hell, and our government has played a significant role in sending them there. They will need substantial assistance to recover from the disaster that has befallen them over the last five years:

“Even if the conflict stops, we will still have the humanitarian crisis. Just because fighting stops doesn’t mean that everyone is going to be able to go home straight away or have access to employment like they did before,” she said. “They will still need support from the international community.”

The U.S. has been involved in helping to wreck and starve Yemen, and it is incumbent on our government to do what it can to stop causing more harm and to help repair the damage that our policy has caused.

*

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

Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, World Politics Review, Politico Magazine, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter.

Featured image: Rubble aftermath of a Saudi airstrike on a Yemeni neighborhood in 2015. Almigdad Mojalli/Voice of America

U.K. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders have both sent messages of solidarity to the recent anti-IMF protests in Ecuador, which have succeeded in forcing the government to scrap a controversial austerity decree.

“Let’s give a shout out to those people in Ecuador that are standing up against what the IMF are doing to their economy and their people,” said leftist opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, whilst at a rally with supporters, in anticipation of an upcoming election.

Progressive presidential candidate Bernie Sanders also celebrated the movement in Ecuador.

 “I applaud Ecuador’s Indigenous-led grassroots movements who stood up to repression and blocked the IMF’s austerity agenda. Economic elites keep pushing austerity worldwide, making life unbearable for working people. The U.S. should stop supporting this,” Sanders said in a tweet.

Both Sanders and Corbyn have fiercely opposed austerity drives in their own countries. With Sanders highlighting growing inequality in the U.S. and calling for universal, publicly funded healthcare.

Meanwhile, Corbyn has made nationalization of public utilities and investment in public housing a central theme in the run-up to a possible election that many are expecting to be held after the due date for Britain’s withdrawal from the EU on Oct. 31

The anti-austerity movement in Ecuador, led by Indigenous groups, succeeded in forcing the government to scrap decree 883 which withdrew fuel subsidies, and which protesters say would have triggered a huge rise in the cost of living. The decree was issued as part of an economic package in line with recommendations from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as part of a $4 billion-loan deal.

However, though the government was forced to back down on the decree, they have doubled down on accusations that former leftist President Rafael Correa had orchestrated the uprising and has begun arresting the leaders of his party.

*

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 Long Coup in Ecuador

November 22nd, 2019 by Fabio Resmini

Elected on a progressive platform, the Moreno government has resorted to the politicization of justice and the militarization of politics to repress its former allies and constituents.

***

Ecuador is facing some of its darkest days. The country is trapped with a highly unpopular president who has betrayed his mandate and proved his willingness to shed blood to implement a conservative economic agenda. Last October, the Moreno government unleashed a wave of repression to stifle widespread opposition to IMF-dictated policies.

Since taking office and after forcing a split within the ruling party Alianza País, Lenín Moreno has handed the state back to the powerful left-outs of Rafael Correa’s government. He used his mandate to subvert democratic institutions, persecute the opposition, and bring back the old neoliberal model to Ecuador, all in the name of the descorreización of the country. This has gained him the support of big business, the right-wing sector, the private media, and the U.S. government, who are not willing to let him go easily.

The Rule of Unconstitutionality

To push forward its agenda, the Moreno government has often disregarded the constitution. The first instance was the referendum held in February 2018 without the approval of the Constitutional Court, which kick-started the purge and ad hoc designation of state authorities, including the Attorney General and the Constitutional Court itself.

The capture of the judiciary did not rid the political system of all the obstacles to a neoliberal restoration. For this reason, the agreement signed with the International Monetary Fund was riddled with unconstitutional details. Apart from contradicting domestic regulations on monetary policy and fiscal deficit, the agreement bypassed the Assembly and the Constitutional Court. This violates articles 419 and 438 of the constitution and deprives the agreement of any democratic legitimacy.

The Moreno government employed unconstitutional measures to meet the protests against the economic policies imposed by the IMF. The state of exception that the government declared on October 3 and October 8 presented a number of serious legal flaws. Most importantly, it lacked constitutional backup for four days. This legal vacuum exposed the citizenry to a worrisome state of defenselessness and gave the government leeway to crack down on the protesters.

Repression, Militarization of Politics, and Delegitimization of Protests

For 12 days, Ecuador witnessed extensive repression by state forces. Official numbers of the Ombudsman Office talk about eleven dead, 1,340 wounded, and 1,192 arrested—96 of which were below 15 years of age. Eighty percent of all detentions was said to be arbitrary and illegal. Data on missing persons was not made available.

Brutality from the police and the armed forces was systematic and widespread. Repression targeted hospitals, universities, and shelters, where children and elders were resting at night. Armed forces used live ammo, grenades, and expired tear gas bombs. Citizens have denounced torture, illegal detentions, and trials in military quarters. The night of October 11, explosions around the El Arbolito park, where the vast majority of protesters gathered, were heard all over northern Quito. The next day, the exasperated population took to the streets in all neighborhoods and the government called a curfew at 3 PM. When the protesters defied the measure, the level of state violence increased. Protesters were shot at and some reported the presence of snipers. All of this while the government insisted that it was open to dialogue.

The official narrative centered on the denial of the reasons of the protests and the normalization of state violence. The president on different occasions accused Correa, Maduro, the ELN, the FARC, and the Latin Kings—a former gang that evolved into a legalized cultural organization in Ecuador—of being behind the demonstrations in an attempt to overthrow the government. Anti-Correa propaganda was transmitted on mandatory nationwide broadcast with the double aim of reducing the protests to acts of vandalism and blaming the opposition of golpismo.

Various actors used media exposure to directly threaten the population and call for more heavy-handed use of force. Minister of Defense Oswaldo Jarrín on national television warned that the armed forces would use lethal weapons and reminded everyone that they had experience in war-like scenarios. One journalist from the TV channel Teleamazonas reinforced this narrative and asked for the use of the whole military arsenal to quash the protests.

Politicians close to the government added fuel to the fire. Former presidential candidate and banker Guillermo Lasso, defeated by Moreno in the 2017 elections, complained of the excessive softness of the police and armed forces in dealing with the protesters. Similarly, former Guayaquil mayor Jaime Nebot and current mayor Cynthia Viteri resorted to war-like racist rhetoric to call for the defense of the city from a supposed invasion.

The Media Siege

Throughout the protests, traditional media outlets combined echoing of the official discourse with blatant censorship. The blackout on the events was near complete, and the scant coverage obscured anti-government, anti-IMF socioeconomic nature of the protests. While the country was in turmoil, TV channels offered entertainment programs. There have been various instances of journalists in the streets abruptly cutting off the interview when citizens expressed views not aligned with the government.

The government also cracked down on the few outlets detailing the protests. Public radio Pichincha Universal was pulled off-air and all its equipment was confiscated on accusations of inciting unrest. The next day, it was shut down and forced to retransmit the programming of the government’s public radio. The radio station had been denouncing harassment before. Telesur’s signal was also cut off without notice during curfew in Quito on October 12. The government had also been accused before of harassing other non-aligned outlets, such as Ecuadorinmediato.

The siege was partly broken by the excellent work of digital outlets such as Voces, Wambra, La Kolmena, KolectiVOZ, and many others, who helped disseminate information about the protests online. They are now the target of government harassment. Furthermore, the activist group critical of the government, La Kolmena, has also experienced anonymous threats. Unable to censor social media and limit the influence of independent media participation, the government appeared to engage in the disruption of mobile internet in crucial moments of the mobilizations.

Correista Witch Hunt

The sociopolitical chaos and the ensuing truce have given the government the chance to further damage the correista opposition. Selective political persecution of the previous government began two years ago with the removal from office and incarceration of vice-president Jorge Glas through faulty process. Since then, other important figures such as Rafael Correa, former minister Ricardo Patiño, and legal adviser Alexis Mera have been put on trial with various accusations.

Hours after Moreno reached an agreement to end the protests, Paola Pabón, governor of the province of Pichincha—where Quito is located—was taken into custody. The police raided her house at dawn without court order, and she was incarcerated without any evidence supporting detention. She was later accused of supporting armed rebellion together with two assistants. The offices of the Pichincha government were also raided a few days later. The Attorney General formulated the same charges against former congressman Virgilio Hernández.

Other political figures of the opposition were detained during the mobilizations and another seven of them, including former President of the Assembly Gabriela Rivadeneira, have received asylum in the Mexican embassy.

These cases demonstrate a lack of respect for due process. The Attorney General’s office is currently tweeting pictures of the supposed evidence found in police raids in complete violation of the principle of objectivity and the presumption of innocence. Through its Twitter account, the Attorney General’s office has also announced that it is working together on these cases with the U.S. Embassy in Quito.

The activism of the Attorney General against corruption, disruption of public service, and incitement to violence has been focused on the opposition. The evidence for corruption against Moreno and the block of public transit ordered by Guayaquil mayor Cynthia Viteri have not yet led to charges.

The Government That Won’t Fall

Considering the betrayal of its mandate and massive popular rejection, it is striking how the Moreno government has managed to hang onto power. This is all the more unusual in a country like Ecuador, where—before Correa’s tenure—presidential removal was routine.

This, however, is a different story. While in the past presidents were removed largely as a result of oligarchic infighting with limited redistributive consequences, this time the oligarchy is united behind Moreno. The restoration of the old economic model benefitting the few, largely dismantled by Correa during his presidency, is now at stake.

In addition, Moreno has found an important ally in the U.S. government. The permission to use the Galapagos Islands as a U.S. military airfield, the finishing blow to UNASUR, the delivery of Julian Assange, and the agreement with the IMF were all appreciated in Washington. Most importantly, the United States knows that the return of Correa would mean losing their influence in the country.

For these reasons, Correa is still considered a threat. He is yet to be defeated at the polls and received a high level of endorsement in the last provincial and municipal elections. That is why the constitutional solution to the crisis—the so-called muerte cruzada with anticipated elections—was always available but never pursued.

Moreno is now doing the dirty work with tax waivers and reckless economic reforms accompanied by extensive repression and annihilation of correista forces. He is unlikely to run again and therefore has no political capital to safeguard. Moreno is disposable, but in the middle of this process of reform and repression, absolutely irreplaceable. His fall would mean going to elections while the extinction of correismo is far from over.

*

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.

Fabio Resmini is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. In his doctoral research, he examines the communication policy challenges of left-wing governments in Latin America.

Featured image: Protesters marching during protests on 9 October (Todos Noticias/Wikimedia)

Following Evo Morales’ democratic reelection on October 20, a CIA-orchestrated coup d’etat unconstitutionally replaced him with hard-right, political nobody senator Jeanine Anez.

Article 169 of Bolivia’s Constitution states:

“In case of impediment or definitive absence of the president of the State, he will be replaced in office by the Vice President and, in his absence, by the President of the Senate, and in the absence of this by the President of the Chamber of Deputies. In the latter case, new elections will be called within a maximum period of ninety days.”

Nothing in Bolivia’s Constitution permits a senator to self-declare herself president. Nothing in international or Bolivian law permits fascism over democratic freedoms.

Anez and her Bolivian backers have no legitimacy. Straightaway, she announced a pre-selected cabinet of hard-right, anti-populist ministers — charged with eliminating challenges to their rule and re-establishing fascist tyranny over governance serving all Bolivians equitably.

In days, they reversed positive changes Morales and his Movement for Socialism (MAS) party instituted since January 2006.

MAS politicians, independent journalists, human rights workers, and activists for equity and justice have been harassed, intimidated, arrested or threatened with arrest.

By illegitimate presidential decree, Bolivia’s military and police were authorized to use brute force, including live fire and mass arrests against protesters for democratic freedoms over fascist rule, stating:

“The @CIDH Alert for Supreme Decree No. 4078 on FF.AA. in Bolivia, dated November 15, 2019. The Decree intends to exempt FF.AA. personnel from criminal responsibility that participate in the operations for reestablishment and stability of the internal order.”

An opposition statement said

“(i)n Bolivia, things are not well and will not likely improve because now Bolivia’s (coup d’etat) president Jeanine Anez has signed a decree that exempts the military from criminal responsibilities caused by the exercise of repression against citizens.”

A Bolivian student group denounced police state “raids on homes of People’s Congress” activists.

National Confederation of Indigenous Female Farmers spokesperson Maribel Avalos said the coup d’etat regime is “repress(ing) us…but the people are united” against it.

Dozens have been killed, hundreds injured, over 1,000 arrested. Weeks of blood in the streets mark the aftermath of Anez’s power grab, a self-declared, unelected, coup d’etat president with no legitimacy — installed by the CIA to serve US interests.

Coup d’etat interior minister Arturo Murillo said the prosecutor’s office established a “special apparatus” to charge and arrest MAS lawmakers with “subversion and sedition” if unwilling to switch allegiance from Morales to the coup regime.

Twitter supports it, permitting establishment of tens of thousands of fake accounts backing it, set up in days following Anez’s usurpation, spreading fake news of events in the country.

Anez may prohibit MAS participation in new elections when held. Morales tweeted:

“The putschist government of…Anez plans to suspend the Plurinational Legislative Assembly.” Pro-Morales members hold a two-thirds majority.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International (AI) failed to call what’s going on in Bolivia a coup.

HRW’s Americas director Jose Miguel Vivanco said Morales stepped down “after weeks of civil unrest and violent clashes,” ignoring his toppling.

HRW director Kenneth Roth tweeted:

“Bolivia”s Evo Morales was ‘the casualty of a counter-revolution aimed at defending democracy (sic) against electoral fraud & his own illegal candidacy (sic).”

“The army w/drew its support because it was not prepared to fire on people (sic) in order to sustain him in power.”

He “was so determined ‘to remain in power he made the classic strongman’s mistake of losing touch with the street (sic).’ ”

“He finagled an end to term limits (sic). ‘He then claimed victory in a dubious election last month (sic). That triggered the uprising.’ ”

“The most important thing now in this transitional moment for Bolivia (sic) is ensuring that authorities reestablish the rule of law and protect fundamental rights (sic), including to protest peacefully and to vote in transparent, competitive, and fair elections (sic).”

CIA-orchestrated blood in the streets followed post-October 20 2019 elections, Morales democratically triumphing over his leading opponent.

Independent Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) analysis revealed a free, fair and open process, no electoral fraud and irregularities as the Washington-based, US imperial tool Organization of American States (OAS) falsely claimed.

In cahoots with their corporate donors and Washington, HRW and Amnesty International (AI) support US imperial interests over peace, equity and justice.

Despite weeks of CIA-orchestrated blood in the streets, HRW and AI failed to call events in Bolivia a coup d’etat.

On Tuesday, HRW said:

“The priority (in the country) should be to ensure that the fundamental rights of Bolivians, including to peaceful protest and other peaceful assembly, are upheld.”

Post-election last month, AI falsely blamed Morales’ government for CIA-orchestrated violence following his reelection triumph, saying:

“(T)he Evo Morales administration must guarantee the Bolivian people’s right to peaceful protest (sic),” adding:’’

“(T)he Bolivian authorities’ response to the demonstrations has been deeply alarming and has shown contempt for human rights.”

HRW and AI ties to corporate donors and US imperial interests destroy their phony pretext of independence and impartiality.

Belatedly on November 19, a month after anti-Morales coup d’etat violence erupted, HRW said the following:

The Anez regime “adopted and announced alarming measures that run counter to fundamental human rights standards,” HRW’s America’s director Vivanco, adding:

“We are extremely concerned by measures taken by Bolivian authorities that appear to prioritize brutally cracking down on opponents and critics and give the armed forces a blank check to commit abuses instead of working to restore the rule of law in the country.”

On November 18, AI’s Americas director Erika Guevara-Rosas said the following:

“The grave human rights crisis that Bolivia has experienced since the elections of 20 October has been aggravated by the intervention and action of the security forces,” adding:

“Any message giving carte blanche for impunity is extremely serious. The disastrous historical precedents of intervention by the Armed Forces in the region require maximum observance and commitment to respect and protect human rights.”

Neither statement explained weeks of CIA-orchestrated coup d’etat violence, installing fascist tyranny over democratic rule in Bolivia.

On Wednesday, Morales said the following:

“The mobilized people’s resounding demand is that the dictatorship should step down,” adding:

“That means we finish our term, and in exchange we won’t be a candidate (in the next election). If it’s a matter of peace, so no more lives are lost, no problem, I renounce” my candidacy.

The coup d’etat Anez regime “is…not a transition government. With repression, they are killing our people. They are traitors to our country.”

“My great wish is to return quickly to Bolivia…I have been told from people in a position to know that the Americans don’t want me back…Why do the gringos fear an Indian?”

He’s in contact with Bolivian allies, getting countless messages of support, urging him to return.

“Evo, come help pacify us,” he said, noting messages he received.

Trump regime hardliners will go all-out to prevent his return. Bolivia is Washington’s latest imperial trophy if able to keep it.

The country’s history of resisting tyranny offers hope of restoring democratic 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.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Behind Back Doors

The Impeachment Crisis and American Imperialism

November 22nd, 2019 by Patrick Martin

Wednesday’s public hearing on the impeachment of President Trump featured the US ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, who testified that, contrary to the White House narrative, there had been a “quid pro quo” in Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

Trump, Sondland said, offered military aid and an invitation to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to visit the White House in return for an announcement by Zelensky of an investigation into the activities of the Democratic National Committee in Ukraine in 2016 and the role of Hunter Biden. Biden was paid $50,000 a month by a large Ukrainian gas company while his father, then the vice president, was point man for Ukrainian policy in the Obama administration.

Sondland’s appearance was trumpeted by the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee and most of the media as a “smoking gun” against Trump. Sondland was even compared to John Dean, the White House counsel whose testimony against Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal paved the way to Nixon’s resignation to avoid certain impeachment.

The testimony of John Dean, however, was part of the uncovering of a major attack on the democratic rights of the American people. The break-in at the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate complex, carried out by ex-CIA agents working for Nixon, was the outcome of a protracted campaign of political spying and repression directed against Vietnam War protesters, the former military official Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, and other political opponents.

There are no such issues of democratic rights in the conflict between Trump and the Democrats, who are acting as the political front men for the CIA and other sections of the national security apparatus. The significance of Sondland’s testimony lies not in what he revealed about Trump, but in his account of the everyday relationship between American imperialism and Ukraine, a small, dependent nation that has been turned into a vassal state by successive administrations in Washington.

The president of Ukraine is told by American diplomats exactly what words he must use and what promises he must make to appease his overlord in Washington. When President Zelensky offers to have his chief prosecutor make a statement along the lines demanded by Trump, he is told that he himself must make the statement, and it must be televised so that he is on the record. He is told to jump, and exactly how high.

In that respect, there is no difference whatsoever between Trump’s conduct in 2019 and the actions of his Democratic nemesis, Vice President Biden, in 2016. Biden traveled to Ukraine and told its government that Washington was withholding $1 billion in promised aid until certain actions were taken, including the firing of a corrupt national prosecutor. Biden even boasted in a US television interview that within six hours of his delivering that ultimatum the Ukrainian president had sacked the official.

Apologists for the Democrats and Biden will insist that Biden was carrying out official US government policy, in the interests of US “national security,” whereas Trump was looking out for his personal interests, seeking dirt on a potential election rival. This argument is questionable even on its own terms, since the prosecutor whose firing Biden demanded had control over the corruption investigation into the gas company Burisma, which was lavishly paying Biden’s son.

But there is a more fundamental issue: What was the “national security” interest that Biden was upholding? Why is the United States supplying vast quantities of military aid and weaponry to Ukraine? It is part of the effort by American imperialism, carried out over two decades, to turn Ukraine into an American puppet state directed against Russia.

For all the claims by the Democrats that they are shocked by Trump seeking “foreign interference” in the 2020 presidential election, every presidential election in Ukraine since 2004 has been characterized by massive foreign interference, particularly by the United States. One US official boasted in 2013 that Washington had expended more than $5 billion on its operations to install a pliable anti-Russian regime in Kiev.

Detaching Ukraine from Russia has been a key US foreign policy objective since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Ukraine and Russia were the two largest components of the USSR. They share a land border of more than 2,000 kilometers and economies that were once closely integrated. Thirty percent of the Ukrainian people speak Russian as their first language, including the vast majority of the population of Crimea and the eastern Ukrainian region now controlled by pro-Russian forces.

In both World War I and World War II, German imperialism made the seizure of Ukraine, with its rich soil and proximity to the oilfields of the Caucasus, a key strategic objective. The largest number of Soviet Jews massacred as part of the Holocaust were killed in Ukraine, in atrocities such as Babi Yar, the ravine outside Kiev where 34,000 Jews were machine-gunned, and Odessa, where 50,000 Jews were slaughtered.

American imperialism is seeking to do what German imperialism failed twice to accomplish: use Ukraine as a launching pad for political subversion and military violence against Russia. Behind the backs of the American people, with little or no public discussion, the US government has been shipping large quantities of arms and other war materiel to Ukraine, in an operation that brings with it the increasing danger of a direct US military collision with Russia, a conflict between the two powers that between them deploy most of the world’s nuclear weapons.

The impeachment hearings have focused on anti-Trump witnesses who are themselves key participants in this reactionary foreign policy, and who speak in the Orwellian language of American imperialism. They define “democracy” in Ukraine in terms of the degree to which Ukraine’s government agrees to serve as an instrument of American foreign policy. They hail the so-called “Revolution of Dignity” in which an elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown because he was viewed as an obstacle to the anti-Russia campaign. They salute fascistic figures like Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, sponsor of the notorious Azov Battalion, which marches under modified swastikas and celebrates the Ukrainians who collaborated with the Nazis in World War II.

Nothing of this political reality is so much as hinted at in the coverage of the impeachment hearings by either the pro-Trump or anti-Trump corporate media. On the contrary, the presumption is that the foreign policy of the United States government is aimed at the promotion of freedom and democracy and opposed to Russia because Russian President Vladimir Putin is a tyrant.

The role of US imperialism in Ukraine, however, is only one example of the depredations of American imperialism throughout the world, in which countless tyrants and fascists—like Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Brazilian President Jair Bolsanaro—are aligned with the CIA, the Pentagon and the State Department.

Nor is the cavalier attitude of the US government to Ukrainian sovereignty an exception. There is no difference between Washington’s role in Ukraine in 2014, its intervention against the Rajapakse government in Sri Lanka in 2015, its backing for the abortive military coup in Turkey in 2016, or its support for the overthrow of Evo Morales in Bolivia today.

Weaker nations whose rulers get in the way of American imperialism will pay the price, and in some cases, as in Iraq, Venezuela, Syria and Libya—all countries where oil wealth is a major consideration—the result can be invasion, occupation, military coup or a combination of all three.

Washington has its hands around the throats of the Ukrainian people. The issue is not whether this stranglehold is being used for improper “personal” ends by Trump, as the Democrats allege, rather than for the purposes laid down by the national security establishment. The issue is the intervention of the American and international working class to free the Ukrainian people, and the population of the world, from the deadly grip of Wall Street and the Pentagon.

*

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

Featured image is Gordon Sondland from Wikimedia Commons

Lies Which the West Manufactures and Then Consumes

November 22nd, 2019 by Andre Vltchek

After my work in the Middle East had finished, at least for the time being, I was waiting for my flight to Santiago de Chile. In Paris. I could count on a few ‘free’ days, processing what I had heard and witnessed in Beirut. Day after day, for long hours, I sat in a lounge, typing and typing; reflecting and typing.

As I was working, above me, France 24 television news channel was on, beaming from a flat screen.

The people around me were coming and going: West African elites on their wild shopping sprees, shouting unceremoniously into their mobile phones. Koreans and Japanese doing Paris. Rude German and North American beefy types, discussing business, laughing vulgarly, disregarding ‘lower beings’, in fact everyone in their immediate radius.

No matter what was happening in my hotel, France 24 was on, and on, and on. Yes, precisely; for 24 hours, recycling for days and nights the same stories, once in a while updating news, with a slightly arrogant air of superiority. Here, France was judging the world; teaching Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, about themselves.

In front of my eyes, above me, on that screen, the world was changing. For many months I had been covering the nightmarish riots of the treasonous violent ninjas in Hong Kong. I was all over the Middle East, particularly Lebanon, and now I was on my way to my second home, Latin America, where socialism has kept winning elections, but was getting beaten, even terrorized, by the corrupt and crooked Western empire.

All that France 24 kept showing, I have been habitually witnessing with my own eyes. And more, much more, from many different angles. I have filmed it, written about it, and analyzed it.

In many countries, all over the world, people have been sharing their stories with me. I have seen barricades, photographed and filmed injured bodies, as well as tremendous revolutionary enthusiasm and excitement. I have also witnessed betrayals, treasons, cowardice.

But in the lounge, in front of the television set, everything appeared pretty groovy, very classy, and comforting. The blood looked like a well-mixed color, the barricades like a stage of the latest Broadway musical.

People were dying beautifully, their shouts muted, theatrical. The elegant anchor in a designer dress was beaming benevolently, whenever people on the screen dared to show some powerful emotions, or were grimacing in pain. She was in charge, and she was above all of this. In Paris, London and New York, powerful emotions, political commitments and grand ideological gestures, were made outdated, already a long time ago.

During just the few days that I spent in Paris, many things have changed, on all the continents.

The Hong Kong rioters were evolving; beginning to set on fire their compatriots simply because they dared to pledge their allegiance to Beijing. Women were unceremoniously beaten, with metal bars, until their faces were covered in blood.

In Lebanon, the big clenched fists of the pro-Western regime-change Otpor were suddenly at the center of the anti-government demonstrations. The economy of the country was collapsing. But the Lebanese ‘elites’ were burning money, all around me, all around Paris and all around the world. Poor Lebanese Misérables, as well as the impoverished middle class, were demanding social justice. But the rich of Lebanon were mocking them, showing. They had it all figured out: they have robbed their own country, then left it behind, and now were having a great ball here, in the “City of Lights”.

But to criticize them in the West has been taboo; forbidden. Political correctness, the mighty Western weapon used to uphold the status quo, has made them untouchable. Because they are Lebanese; from the Middle East. A good arrangement, isn’t it? They are robbing their fellow Middle Easterners, on behalf of their foreign masters in Paris and Washington, but in Paris or London, it is taboo to expose their ‘culture’ of debauchery.

In Iraq, the anti-Shi’a and therefore anti-Iranian sentiments have been dispersed, powerfully and clearly, from abroad. The second big episode of the so-called Arab Spring.

Chileans have been fighting and dying, trying to depose a neo-liberal system, forced down their throats ever since 1973 by the Los Chicago Boys.

The Bolivian socialist government, successful, democratic and racially inclusive, has been overthrown, by Washington and Bolivian treasonous cadres. People have been dying there, too, on the streets of El Alto, La Paz, and Cochabamba.

Israel was at it again, in Gaza. Full force.

Damascus was bombed.

I went to film the Algerians, Lebanese and Bolivians; people who were pushing for their agendas at the Place de la Republique.

I anticipated the horrors that were waiting for me, soon; in Chile, Bolivia and Hong Kong.

I was writing, feverishly.

While the television set was humming.

People were entering and leaving the lounge, meeting and separating, laughing, shouting, crying and making up.

Nothing to do with the world.

The outbursts of indecent laugher erupted periodically, even as the bombs were exploding on the screen, even as the people were charging against the police and the military.

*

Then, one day, I realized that nobody really gives a damn. Like that; so simple.

You witness what happens, all over the world; you document it. You are risking your life. You are getting engaged. You get injured. Sometimes you come close, extremely close, to death.

You do not watch TV. Never, or almost never. You appear on the television, yes; you supply stories and images. But you never watch the results; what emotions your work, your words and images, truly evoke. Or do they evoke any emotions at all? You only work for the anti-imperialist media outlets, never for the mainstream. But for whomever you work for, you have no clue what the facial expressions your reports from the war zones are arousing. Or what emotions any war zone reports stir.

And then, you are in Paris, and you have some time to watch your readers, and suddenly you understand.

You get it: why so few are writing to you, support your struggle, or even fight for the countries being destroyed, decimated by the empire.

When you look around, observing people who are sitting in a hotel lounge, you clearly realize: they feel nothing. They want to see nothing. They understand nothing. France 24 is on, but it is not a news channel, which it was intended to be, many years ago. It is entertainment stuff, which is supposed to produce sophisticated background noise. And it does. Precisely that.

Same as the BBC, CNN, Fox and Deutsche Welle.

*

As the legitimately elected socialist President of Bolivia was being forced into exile, tears in his eyes, I got hold of the remote control, and switched channel to some bizarre and primitive cartoon network.

Nothing changed. The expressions on the faces of some twenty people around me did not change.

If a nuclear bomb would have exploded on the screen, somewhere in the Sub-Continent, no one would pay any attention.

Some people were taking selfies. While I was describing the collapse of the Western culture on my MacBook. All of us were busy, in our own way.

Kashmir, West Papua, Iraq, Lebanon, Hong Kong, Palestine, Bolivia and Chile were on fire.

So, what?

Ten meters away from me, an American businessman was shouting into his phone:

“Are you going to invite me back to Paris in December? Yes? We have to discuss details. How much am I getting per day?”

Coups, uprisings, riots, all over the world.

And that plastic, professional smile of the lady, the news announcer, in her blue and white retro designer dress; so confident, so French, and so endlessly fake.

*

Lately, I keep wondering whether the inhabitants of Europe and North America have any moral right to control the world.

My conclusion is: definitely not!

They do not know, and they do not want to know. Those who have power are obliged to know.

In Paris, Berlin, London, New York, individuals are too busy admiring themselves, or ‘suffering’ from their little, selfish problems.

They are too busy taking selfies, or being preoccupied with their sexual orientation. And of course, with their ‘business’.

That is why I prefer to write for Russian and Chinese outlets, to address people who are scared like myself, anxious about the future of the world.

The editors of this magazine, in faraway Moscow, are; they are anxious and passionate at the same time. I know they are. I, and my reports, are not some ‘business’ for them. People whose cities are smashed, ruined, are not some sort of entertainment in the editorial room of NEO.

In many Western countries, people have lost their ability to feel, to get engaged, and to fight for a better world.

Because of this loss, they should be forced to give up their power over the world.

Our world is damaged, scarred, but is tremendously beautiful and precious.

It is not a business, to work for its improvement and survival.

Only great dreamers, poets and thinkers can be trusted, fighting for it, steering it forward.

Are there many poets and dreamers amongst my readers? Or do they look, do they behave, as those guests in the hotel lounge in Paris, in front of the screen beaming France 24?

*

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.

Andre Vltchek is philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He’s a creator of Vltchek’s World in Word and Images, and a writer that penned a number of books, including China and Ecological Civilization. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Controlling your mind is key

as we head deeper into the 21st century. The mind is the new frontier – and from a military standpoint the new battleground – as governmental-military-corporate organizations become enmeshed with each other to push the same AI (Artificial Intelligence) driven agenda of a NWO (New World Order). Research is feverishly underway with the aim of completely understanding and decoding the brain, with the idea that such an understanding will lead to many ‘useful’ benefits (but not for the average person), such as governments being better able to control their citizens without threats or force, and military forces being better able to defeat their enemies without firing a single shot. Do you realize you and your mind are being targeted? And, on the other hand, do you realize you can harness the power of your mind to achieve your potential, including lifting yourself out or poverty, creating deep and strong relationships, and fulfilling your dreams?

Broad Mind Control

Mind control is a term with broad and specific meanings. In the broad sense, it refers to the widespread propaganda and programming (mostly doled out by the MSM [Mainstream Media]) that aims to brainwash people by limiting their perception of Who They Are and what reality is. The idea of this broad mind control is always to manipulate and disempower the individual, so that his/her attitudes and behavior come into alignment with what the Controllers want. It is said that Americans are the most propagandized people on Earth.

Specific Mind Control

In the narrow or specific sense, mind control refers to the projects started by the Nazis and continued by the CIA that sought to influence and control people’s minds to the point where they would become programmable robots, rendering themselves with docility into the hands of their manipulators. This would include doing whatever they were told and in some cases not even remembering it, because the programming involved splitting up the person’s mind into different ‘altars’ or personalities which were tightly compartmentalized in their brains. Each altar had no idea of the existence or actions of the other altars. A handler would then use certain triggers to activate a particular altar and bring it to the front, in order to get the mind-controlled victim to perform certain actions. In this way, mind-controlled assassins were created and used in major political assassinations, such as with Robert Kennedy and the dazed and confused Sirhan Sirhan. Mind-controlled sex slaves (e.g. Cathy O’Brien, Brice Taylor, Arizona Wilder, Cisco Wheeler, Svali, Kathy Collins and many more) have also been a common theme. The CIA’s notorious MK Ultra began in 1953. It is stated that it was shut down in 1973. When it was later declassified, the public learnt there were an incredible 149 sub-projects!

Advanced Overt Mind Control: Neuralink, BMIs, Nanochips, Neuro-enhancement

If you think the CIA, the government and other military agencies had a change of heart and suddenly stopped their mind control research, think again. Mind control continues today and has become even more advanced. Big Tech corporations like Google (Alphabet) and Facebook, which are not really private companies but rather a fusion of government-military-intelligence money/direction with corporate execution, are investing millions of dollars into developing technologies that can read your thoughts and devices which make a computer mouse and typing obsolete. They want to access your thoughts and make it so your brain is directly connected to a computer, to the internet and to AI (Artificial Intelligence). The USG under Obama launched the BRAIN initiative, estimated to cost $6 billion over a decade ($4.5 billion to the NIH alone). Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and founder of the Neuralink Corporation, is developing a device (like a neural lace) which he claims will basically read your mind. Dr. James Giordano (who worked at the DoD and DARPA) reveals all the areas the military is exploring – and it’s scary. In his own words, this includes stuff like neuroimaging, cyber-linked neurocog manipulation, directed energy devices, implantable BMIs (Brain-Machine Interfaces), nanoneurotechnologicals, nanochips and the neuro-enhancement of soldiers. Yes, he actually admitted the existence of directed energy devices – DEW was used on 9/11 and in other crimes such as the engineered fires in Paradise, California.

Advanced Covert Mind Control: V2K, Dream Hacking, Forced Speech, Synthetic Telepathy, EEG Cloning/Heterodyning, Cybernetic Hive Mind

These things are the admitted, overt brain research, and when it comes to exposing the conspiracy, there’s always one thing we are told and another thing that is actually happening. The covert brain research is even more shocking. Ex-CIA officer turned whistleblower Dr. Robert Duncan, an engineer who built many of these systems, has for years exposed numerous covert current mind control techniques. He confesses that he worked on the V2K (Voice to Skull) ‘Voice of God’ weapon, which had 4 different techniques that can pipe voices into people’s heads. This was used in the Iraq War against the Iraqi soldiers (“Lay down your guns, this is Allah”). He reveals how dreams can be hacked and people can be made to speak (forced speech). He also exposes how the following area are being researched and weaponized: remote mind reading, synthetic telepathy, cybernetic hive mind experimentation (multiple people sharing the same mental ‘space’), the existence and use of a technology for remotely ‘cloning’ or copying thoughts, emotions & other states (e.g. intense pain) onto a target (EEG cloning or EEG heterodyning). He also confirms that people can be targeted and tracked remotely via their energy signature or ‘brain print’.

Targeted Individuals

More and more people are blowing the whistle about how they are being attacked via electronic harassment and stalking. This is the remote assault on victims (known as TIs or Targeted Individuals) using frequency or directed energy weapons and other mind control technology to bombard people with invisible attacks. These TIs are made to feel certain emotions and think certain thoughts which are not their own. Sadly, these TIs may initially think they are crazy, and unfortunately many people around them do when they report it, however it is a very real phenomenon. Calling people crazy, forcing them to do a psychiatric evaluation or having them locked up all old tricks that have been used by governments worldwide to silence political opponents and dissidents.

In a nutshell, the overall point is this: control someone’s mind, control their perception and control their reality, because perception creates reality. Mind control is a tool of a very few psychopathic manipulators to control the whole of humanity.

Controlling Your Mind and Taking Back Your Power

So that’s the bad news – and it’s better to be aware of it than blindly ignorant of it just hoping it will go away. Far from going away, it’s expanding and increasing. So what can you do in the face of all of that? Yes, you can be aware of it, and yes, you can take some steps to protect yourself against it. However I want to highlight how most of us don’t use our brains to anywhere near the full potential. What if you took the full journey from mind control to controlling your mind? After all, if you don’t control yourself, eventually someone outside of you will control you; likewise, if you don’t control your mind, someone else will control it.

So, here’s the good news. Controlling your mind is a choice. You have the power to expand your consciousness and use the untapped potential of your own mind – intentionally, for your own good. You can learn to harness the amazing capacity of your mind and emotions to create the life you want. How? There is ancient knowledge, wisdom and a host of techniques which explain how to do this. The theme of controlling your mind has many facets, however in this article, for the sake of brevity, I will touch on just a couple. Firstly, there is the nature of the mind itself, spewing out thought after thought. Many spiritual traditions emphasize the importance of meditation, inner silence and full immersion in the now/present moment. This is training to reign in the so-called monkey mind so that you control it, rather than allowing it to control you.

Intention + Emotion = Creation

Secondly, there is a formula for creating or manifesting in this life. The formula is very well known to the Secret Societies that underpin the NWO and run the world. It is Intention + Emotion = Creation. Like any piece of knowledge or technology, it is neutral; it can be used for good or evil. If you use it for good, it’s White Magic; if you use it for evil, it’s Black Magic.

The key idea is to get clear on what you want, release any negative thoughts around it (e.g. it’s impossible, I’m unworthy etc.), make it specific and achievable, then focus on it. Then you bring your emotions into it: imagine feeling grateful for whatever it is. Imagine the feeling of already having it. Make this ‘imagining’ into a deep trust and knowing that what you want to create already exists and is yours for the taking. It works! This kind of magic power lies within each and every human, regardless of age, gender, race, religion or income bracket. And, it does not at all have to be limited to material things. Perhaps you wish to exercise your power on manifesting material things first, but after awhile you may find it is more fulfilling to create and manifest non-material things, such as loving relationships with your children, parents, romantic partners, relatives and friends, or non-tangible things such as having more love, harmony, time and fun in your life. The sky is the limit with what you can manifest.

Apply these principles in your own life by controlling your own mind and watch what happens! Use the power of your emotions to supercharge your vision, then watch as it springs into life. You don’t need to focus on what the Controllers are doing; being aware of it is enough; focus instead on what you can do to control and expand your own mind, for that is where your power lies. The power of your will and consciousness is more than the power of their mind control technology.

Mind => Perception => Reality

The mind is the source of our perception, and perception is the source of our reality. When we change our perception, we automatically change our reality. People are already waking up and doing this, realizing they are infinite consciousness using the body-mind as a vehicle for experience. Once we perceive ourselves as divine and deserving of love, freedom, abundance, peace and more as our birthright, we win the mind battle.

Work on Controlling your Mind – or Someone Else will Control It for You

Remember: control yourself or someone else will control you; control your mind or someone else will control it. The NWO agenda is to narrow the allowable, acceptable and ultimately POSSIBLE range of human thought, so that it becomes illegal, unthinkable and ultimately IMPOSSIBLE to think or do anything other than what the State wants you to think or do. However, humanity is 7.8 billion strong. A relative handful of manipulators cannot control your mind unless you willingly acquiesce and give your mind away. Think critically. Question everything. Read from a wide variety of sources. Investigate the origin and funding of those sources – many are connected to the NWO in some way, e.g. via Big Pharma, the Military Industrial Complex, Zionism, etc. all of which have massive lobbies and control over the MSM. Always check the facts! Don’t rely on organizations to do your fact-checking for you. Everything is a mind game. You can take back your mind and perceptual sovereignty to rise above the control and achieve freedom and prosperity.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Freedom Articles.

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and FB.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mind Control or Controlling Your Mind – Which Do You Choose?
  • Tags:

Through the Yellow Looking Glass: Australia’s China Wars

November 22nd, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

This year, China as “Intimidating Monster” has become the popular motif in Canberra circles.  Australian government members Andrew Hastie and Senator James Paterson have become vigorous moral, if hollow enthusiasts.  Their criticism of China has led to the revocation of visas to the country, something that has given reason to flash their plumage for the Australian electorate.  How dare China do what Australia has done a countless number of times to those they do not regard as passing a character test?

Senator Eric Abetz, chair of the Senate foreign affairs committee, has accepted the findings of an independent China tribunal that genocide is being committed against the Falun Gong.  “Genocide – in relation to Falun Gong – is something that might be an appropriate description.”  The brush, suggests the senator, is broad, including “Buddhists, Uighurs, house Christians and indeed criminals”, all of whom have been targets for organ harvesting.  

A somewhat different perspective is offered by Paul Keating, the last Australian prime minister to have the vision bug and see Australia as something a bit better than a spacious annex of US power.  He proved to be in fine tongue-lashing form on Monday.  Speaking at the Australian newspaper’s strategic forum, he suggested that, “The Australian media has been recreant in its duty to the public in failing to present a balanced picture of the rise, legitimacy and importance of China.”  The China image being preferred was one of “side plays dressed up with cosmetics of sedition and risk.”

The language of sedition and risk had a distinct genealogy: China, he posed, had become modern code for the “communism” of old, seamless substitute.  Particularly irritating to Keating were those “do-gooder” hacks scrounging on the selected titbits delivered by security agencies.  They, he argued, were not only shaping the narrative on China but caging it.  It was pious, indulgent, self-serving. It ignored the obvious point that powerful states tended to be “rude and nasty”, not to mention selfish, hardly a qualification of exclusion.

As for dealing with authoritarian powers, this was a normal and immutable facet of foreign policy.  To avoid engaging China for not being a model democracy was a principle doomed to failure.  It would “have cost us the Second World War – for Europe had no chance of being liberated singularly from the West.  Twenty-six million Russians died defeating Nazism in the brutal battles across the northern European plain.”

Keating, as ever, is hard to ignore.  His premise rings powerfully: Australia’s political classes have been hijacked by the security wonks, jam packed with “phobias” and “effectively running the foreign policy of the country.”  An elementary lesson on the politics of governance, he felt, was in order.  “The reason we have ministries and cabinets is that a greater and collective wisdom can be brought to bear on complex topics – and particularly on movements of tectonic importance.”  It was a process, he argued, that was “not working in Australia.”

How then, to deal with a boisterous, strapping China?  Not, suggests Keating, to encourage menacing behaviour, but discourage notions of strategic encirclement, a theme so common in the glacial language of Cold War confrontation. “Closer US political and commercial links with the countries of the region should help establish a web of self-reinforcing, cooperative ties over time, should assuage Chinese concerns that a structure is being built with the express purpose of Chinese strategic containment.”  This is wishful thinking, given the evident narrative from Canberra, boosted by Washington’s enthusiasm, that a firmer line is required.

The China fear factory, however, has its devotees.  Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott counts himself among them, drumming up the containment argument before various regional fora with regular insistence.  To the India Foundation in New Delhi, Abbott insisted that Australia had “put too many eggs into the China basket”. The word preferred is not that of “containment” so much as “constrainment”, suggesting that Beijing had become an unruly patient escaping the ward of orderly international relations.

Australian governments had gone about successfully cultivating the relationship with Beijing but any further engagement, suggested Abbott, would be dangerous. 

“The often-glossed-over reality is that it’s hard for Australia to be a meaningful strategic partner to a country that thinks it can bully its neighbours on the basis of confected territorial claims that it refuses to submit to arbitration and tires to resolve unilaterally in its favour.” 

One would think, on consulting such views, that Abbott might be referring to the United States, a country inclined, notably during various stages of its history, to unilaterally puncture holes in the international system as deemed fit.  Talk about any rule-based order is only relevant from the perspective of those who set those rules.  The makers are often the breakers.  From international human rights conventions to the International Criminal Court, the US imperium remains selective and aloof while retaining a rather tarnished crown as protector of the muddled free world.

Abbott continues the theme, again showing how interchangeable the logic of great power politics can be to middle or small powers.  “It’s hard for any country to be [anything] other than a client, or  a strategic competitor, with a country that still regards itself as the ‘middle kingdom’ and that has now dropped the mask hiding its strength and biding its time”. 

It was important, therefore, to encourage counter balances.  India, for instance, would in a half-century “be much more prosperous and no less democratic; every bit as strong as China, in fact, but far less overbearing.  I hope that Australia will be a key partner in India’s rise.”

Both Keating and Abbott have points of merit.  Australia cannot afford to be paranoid; nor can it afford to be unquestioning in its relations with China.  Dollars should not dull and drug strategic common sense.  But this is an area where balance is never assured.  Righteous hypocrisy is in abundant supply: Australia will continue to export its fossil fuels to China and receive its students while releasing gobbets of dislike and disdain – an all too familiar process.  It will also tolerate foreign interference when needed, something done over the decades since the Australian politicians cast their eyes to that ample bosom across the Pacific.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Through the Yellow Looking Glass: Australia’s China Wars
  • Tags: ,

Most Popular Articles This Week

November 22nd, 2019 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Most Popular Articles This Week

Opposition leader and former Defense Minister Lieutenant Colonel Gotabaya Rajapaksa won the first round of elections and will become Sri Lanka’s next president, thus returning his family to power after his brother Mahinda’s 2005-2015 presidency.

The latter was narrowly defeated in the January 2015 elections and attributed his surprise loss to foreign meddling, stating in March 2015 that

“It was very open, Americans, the Norwegians, Europeans were openly working against me. And RAW” (India’s foreign intelligence agency). He also added that “I asked the Indians, ‘Why are you doing this? It’s an open secret what you are doing.’ I had assured them that I would never allow the Sri Lankan soil to be used against any friendly country, but they had other ideas.”

His successor’s rule coincidentally saw Sri Lanka moving much closer to India, though the country didn’t pivot away from China like some analysts feared would happen at the time. Nevertheless, elements of President Sirisena’s administration politicized some of the island’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) investments, which contributed to the hostile information warfare narrative that attempted to falsely portray Sri Lanka as a “victim” of a so-called “debt trap” and therefore raise global doubts about the long-term strategic intentions of BRI.

There’s no greater refutation of that manufactured narrative than Gotabaya’s recent election since his brother was responsible for Sri Lanka’s strategic partnership with China that resulted in at least $7 billion dollars’ worth of BRI investments. His people voted for him not just because they want a strong leader who has a proven track record of security successes after he decisively ended the quarter-century-long civil war in 2009 (which is reassuring for them after last Easter’s Daesh terrorist attacks), but also because of his family’s ties with China.

Former President Mahinda’s vision was to make Sri Lanka a key node on the New Silk Road in order to assist its post-civil war recovery, though that strategy was thrown into uncertainty following President Sirisena’s reluctance (possibly under foreign pressure) to fully carry through with it. There was also a creeping perception among many people that Sri Lanka’s “recalibrated” foreign policy vector was turning it into other countries’ “junior partner”, especially after the US requested changes to its current “Status Of Forces Agreement” (SOFA).

An allegedly leaked copy of these proposed revisions was published by the press over the summer and claimed to show that American servicemen on the island would be granted immunity akin to the type that diplomats have per the Vienna Convention. This is extremely controversial when keeping in mind that such legal guarantees had previously been abused by American servicemen in Japan so much that the host state demanded changes to the original terms of their pact in order to finally prosecute some of those criminals.

It’s unclear at this moment whether Gotabaya will go through with the proposed SOFA revisions or not, but it’s abundantly clear that he and his brother will reprioritize their country’s commitment to BRI in order to return Sri Lanka to its path of prosperity in becoming one of the world’s most geostrategic trade and logistics hubs with time. This development isn’t aimed against India or the US, but would actually aid their long-term interests by ensuring stability in this formerly civil war-torn state, thus making it a better partner for all.

Proper development cannot occur without proper security measures first being in place, and it’s unfortunate that the previous government rolled back some of former President Mahinda’s security initiatives which in hindsight made the island vulnerable to Daesh’s worst-ever terrorist attack last Easter. Gotabaya plans to ensure that the security of all his compatriots is assured, after which all Sri Lankans can then begin reaping the benefits of further BRI investments.

The Rajapaksa’s return to power will therefore contribute to the stabilization of the Indian Ocean Region and enable the island nation to regain its previously lost role as one of the world’s most promising trade hubs.

*

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.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sri Lanka Elections: Return of Rajapaksa the Presidency, Would Unleash Full Benefits of China’s BRI for Sri Lanka
  • Tags: , , ,

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.

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

*     *     *

Syria

Leaked Memo Shows the U.S. Still Does Not Understand Turkey’s Syria Operation

By Paul Antonopoulos, November 21, 2019

An ‘internal memo’ that was intentionally leaked has blasted U.S.President Donald Trump’s decision for the U.S. military to withdraw from Syria, or more accurately, relocate from northern Syria to the oilfields in the east, as well as his complacency as Turkey commits “war crimes and ethnic cleansing” against the Kurdish minority.

Trump’s New Policy on Israeli Settlements Is Illegal and Self-Serving

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, November 21, 2019

Thumbing his nose at the Geneva Convention, the Rome Statute, the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice, Donald Trump decided that Israel’s unlawful construction of Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territory is lawful. This policy change is part of Trump’s pattern of seeking to legalize illegal Israeli practices. It panders to Israel at the expense of the Palestinians while aiming to burnish Trump’s bona fides with his Christian Zionist base. Christian Broadcasting Network quoted Jack Graham, pastor of the megachurch Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas, as saying that the Trump administration “once again has demonstrated why evangelical Christians have been unwavering in their support.”

The Schiff Committee Finds No Impeachable Offense against Donald Trump

By Renee Parsons, November 21, 2019

After several days of unremarkable testimony by assorted State Department functionaries the Democrats continue to struggle with ferreting out a legally defensible impeachable offense to warrant the three ring circus currently being conducted by Rep. Adam Schiff, Chair of the House Intel Committee.

On a railroad through the Intel Committee, the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump’s alleged attempt at a Quid Pro Quo (QPQ), Dems are no closer to a sure-fire ‘we got him now’ piece of evidence than when the inquiry began as they shift gears to widen the probe into  “bribery’ and/or ‘extortion,’ whichever shoe fits.

China-Bolivia – A Lithium Deal, No More?

By Peter Koenig, November 21, 2019

China has by far the largest lithium market. China produces already today the most electric cars, about 1 million in 2018, and will at least triplicate their production by 2025 – and in the following decade or two, demand is expected to increase exponentially.

Bolivia has the world’s largest – by far – known lithium reserves. A long-term win-win contract between China and Bolivia was under preparation since early 2019 and being negotiated as a 51% Bolivia – 49% China share-arrangement, with manufacturing of batteries and other lithium-related products foreseen in Bolivia – added value, job creation in Bolivia – with an initial investment of US$ 2.3 billion – was about to be signed, when the US-instigated Bolivian military coup occurred. It was immediately followed with the usual US-style intimidating, violent and murderous oppression, particularly directed at protests by indigenous people.

Chicago Teachers Union Ratifies Contract in the Aftermath of 11 Day Strike

By Abayomi Azikiwe, November 21, 2019

The strike also was joined by members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) which reached a tentative agreement prior to the teachers. A division of SEIU represents thousands of security guards and teachers’ assistants in Chicago Public Schools system.

An October 30 tentative agreement between the CTU and the city administration was agreed upon by the executive board ending the strike paving the way for a return to classes for 350,000 students on November 1. The deal created the conditions for schools to open fully staffed since the SEIU said it would not return to work until the city administration reached an agreement with the CTU.

Impeach the Government: Rogue Agencies Have Been Abusing Their Powers for Decades

By John W. Whitehead, November 20, 2019

To allow the President or any rogue government agency or individual to disregard the rule of law whenever, wherever and however it chooses and operate “above the law” is exactly how a nation of sheep gives rise to a government of wolves.

To be clear: this is not about Donald Trump. Or at least it shouldn’t be just about Trump.

Video: The Madness of Putting 53,000 5G Satellites in Space

By Claire Edwards, November 20, 2019

Elon Musk has now applied to the Federal Communications Commission for permission to launch a further 30,000 satellites into Earth orbit, bringing the current total to 53,000 (October 2019). With the issues of space debris and weaponization being the two major issues of concern at the UN year after year, this is a mad enterprise, especially when NATO intends to declare space a domain of warfare in December 2019.

We stand at the brink of extinction if we do not stop the madness.

*

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

Featured image is a White House photo

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: No Impeachable Offense against Donald Trump. Schiff Committee

Anti-Corbyn Propaganda on Full Blast as UK Election Nears

November 21st, 2019 by Johanna Ross

With less than a month to go before the UK general election, all efforts are being made by political parties to further their agendas. Naturally each side is launching attacks on the other, but perhaps the most virulent campaign is that of the Conservatives towards Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party. Their malicious accusations, particularly regarding allegations of widespread anti-semitism in the Labour party, which are without any proper foundation, have been propagated more or less since Corbyn came to power.

The anti-Corbyn propaganda reached its peak last week with an article in The Guardian entitled: “Concerns about anti-semitism mean we cannot vote Labour”. Signed by 24 ‘celebrities’, the piece stated that Jeremy Corbyn was

‘steeped in association with anti-semitism’ and that the opposition leader had ‘a long history of embracing antisemites as colleagues’.

And yet a Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into antisemitism in the UK in 2016 found

“no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party”.

Furthermore, Labour’s own investigation the same year ruled that the party was not “overrun by anti-Semitism or other forms of racism”. Some party members did resign over matter – but this equated to as little as 0.08% of the membership – hardly a widespread issue it seems.

We therefore have to ask ourselves, why is it that we, the British people, are constantly being bombarded with information that the Labour party, and leader Jeremy Corbyn himself is anti-semitic? One can only deduce that it is pure propaganda being promoted by the Conservative party, because the fact is, there is very little to attack the Labour leader on. His policies genuinely have the potential to become extremely popular with the electorate, some of which are truly revolutionary and would nourish what is a nation starved of welfare provision after years of Tory austerity. Free broadband internet for all, raising the minimum wage to £10 an hour, nationalising public services – including rail, bus and Royal Mail – and creating a state-run pharmaceutical organisation: what is not to like? Britain is now a society steeped in injustice, with record levels of poverty and homelessness and despite Johnson’s attempt to compete with Corbyn on welfare with talk of also raising the minimum wage, he simply can’t undo the years of Tory austerity and the damage it has done to the lives of millions of ordinary working Brits.

Yet the Tory propaganda machine is on full blast. On Wednesday, after the ITV leaders’ debate where Corbyn and Johnson went head to head, it emerged that the Conservative press office twitter account was changed to the title ‘factcheckUK’ during the course of their exchange. The fact that it was temporarily changed during the one-hour programme was clearly an attempt to mislead the public into thinking that this was an unbiased, impartial media outlet offering commentary on the Labour leader’s performance. It’s video entitled: ‘factcheckUK verdict: Boris Johnson is winner of the leader’s debate’ demonstrates a clear aim to deceive the public.

But we should not be surprised that a Johnson government is prepared to go to such lengths to mislead and dupe the electorate. Under the current Prime Minister’s leadership, such deception is an everyday occurrence it seems, to the extent that one of the questions put to Johnson at the debate on Tuesday night was about ‘trust’ and whether indeed he could be trusted. The PM has been caught out lying, whether consciously or not, on so many occasions, and was engaged in this even before he took office. In the run up to the EU referendum he was one of many claiming that the UK would save around £350 million a year by leaving the EU.

It is easy to lose count of the number of times he has lied since becoming PM. He said the Conservatives were building 40 new hospitals – this has been shown to be untrue. He keeps repeating that there will be 20,000 new police officers to tackle crime; misleading considering his party have taken 21,000 police officers off the streets in recent years. His propensity to be untruthful does not go unnoticed, and frequently makes headlines: ‘For nine extraordinary minutes, Boris Johnson stood next to his bus and lied and lied and lied without stopping’ and ‘PM Makes String of False Claims in BBC Interview’. And it’s a sad state of affairs when you almost except the Prime Minister not to tell the truth: ‘Johnson’s Brexit would devastate business; the CBI must be hoping he is lying’, Simon Jenkins writes in The Guardian.

And yet propaganda, it seems, works. For despite the woes of ordinary working Brits, they are still prepared to vote Conservative, for one reason or another at the ballot box. Personally, I find it difficult to work out why. One candidate is offering real solutions to the everyday strife facing working people, and another is promoting further uncertainty under Brexit  and a continuation of the status quo when it comes to social provision. And yet people seem to be taken in by the glossy, slick packaging of the Conservative manifesto and Johnson’s buffoonish, amiable personality. ‘He’s one of the boys, isn’t he?’ one Leave voter told Sky News recently. I shuddered in disbelief. One of the boys? How many average blokes in Britain have attended Eton and the Bullingdon Club? And yet people speak about him as if he joins the locals for a pint after work at the pub.

It’s time for people to waken up and smell the coffee come December 12th. For people’s livelihoods are at stake.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist.

Our relationship with China just went from bad to worse, and most Americans don’t even realize that we just witnessed one of the most critical foreign policy decisions of this century. The U.S. Senate just unanimously passed the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019”, and the Chinese are absolutely seething with anger.

Violent protests have been rocking Hong Kong for months, and the Chinese have repeatedly accused the United States of being behind the protests. Whether that is true or not, the U.S. Senate has openly sided with the protesters by passing this bill, and there is no turning back now.

The protesters in Hong Kong have been waving American flags, singing our national anthem and they have made it exceedingly clear that they want independence from China. And all of us should certainly be able to understand why they would want that, because China is a deeply tyrannical regime. But to the Chinese government, this move by the U.S. Senate is essentially an assault on China itself. They are going to argue that the U.S. is inciting a revolution in Hong Kong, and after what the Senate has just done it will be very difficult to claim that is not true.

The Chinese take matters of internal security very seriously, and the status of Hong Kong is one of those issues that they are super sensitive about. China will never, ever compromise when it comes to Hong Kong, and if the U.S. keeps pushing this issue it could literally take us to the brink of a military conflict.

And you can forget about a comprehensive trade agreement ever happening. Even if a Democrat is elected in 2020, that Democrat is going to back what the Senate just did. That is why it was such a major deal that this bill passed by unanimous consent. It sent a message to the Chinese that Republicans and Democrats are united on this issue and that the next election is not going to change anything.

And the trade deal that President Trump was trying to put together was already on exceedingly shaky ground. “Phase one” was extremely limited, nothing was ever put in writing, and nothing was ever signed. And in recent days it became quite clear that both sides couldn’t even agree about what “phase one” was supposed to cover

A spokesperson for China’s Commerce Ministry said earlier this month that both countries had agreed to cancel some existing tariffs simultaneously. Trump later said that he had not agreed to scrap the tariffs, lowering hopes for a deal.

“They’d like to have a rollback. I haven’t agreed to anything,” the president said.

On Tuesday, Trump was visibly frustrated by how things are going with China, and he publicly warned the Chinese that he could soon “raise the tariffs even higher”

President Donald Trump threatened higher tariffs on Chinese goods if that country does not make a deal on trade.

The comments came during a meeting with the president’s Cabinet on Tuesday. The U.S. and China, the world’s two largest economies, have been locked in an apparent stalemate in trade negotiations that have lasted nearly two years.

“If we don’t make a deal with China, I’ll just raise the tariffs even higher,” Trump said in the meeting.

Unfortunately, raising tariffs isn’t going to fix anything at this point.

In fact, Trump can raise tariffs until the cows come home but it isn’t going to cause the Chinese to budge.

That is because on Tuesday evening everything changed.

When they passed the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019” by unanimous consent, the U.S. Senate essentially doused our relationship with China with kerosene and set it on fire. The following comes from Zero Hedge

In a widely anticipated move, just after 6pm ET on Tuesday, the Senate unanimously passed a bipartisan bill, S.1838, showing support for pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong by requiring an annual review of whether the city is sufficiently autonomous from Beijing to justify its special trading status. In doing so, the Senate has delivered a warning to China against a violent suppression of the demonstrations, a stark contrast to President Donald Trump’s near-silence on the issue, the result of a behind the scenes agreement whereby China would allow the S&P to rise indefinitely as long as Trump kept his mouth shut.

As we reported last week, the vote marks the most aggressively diplomatic challenge to the government in Beijing just as the US and China seek to close the “Phase 1” of their agreement to end their trade war. The Senate measure would require annual reviews of Hong Kong’s special status under U.S. law to assess the extent to which China has chipped away the city’s autonomy; in light of recent events, Hong Kong would not pass. It’s unclear what would happen next.

I am finding it difficult to find the words to describe what this means to the Chinese.

We have deeply insulted their national honor, and our relationship with them will never be the same again.

Many will debate whether standing up to China on this issue was the right thing to do, but in this article I am trying to get you to understand that there will be severe consequences for what the U.S. Senate just did.

There isn’t going to be a comprehensive trade deal, the global economy is going to suffer greatly, and the Chinese now consider us to be their primary global adversary.

Shortly after the Senate passed the bill, a strongly worded statement was released by the Chinese government. The following excerpt comes from the first two paragraphs of that statement

On November 19th, the US Senate passed the “Hong Kong Bill of Rights on Human Rights and Democracy.” The bill disregards the facts, confuses right and wrong, violates the axioms, plays with double standards, openly intervenes in Hong Kong affairs, interferes in China’s internal affairs, and seriously violates the basic norms of international law and international relations. The Chinese side strongly condemns and resolutely opposes this.

In the past five months, the persistent violent criminal acts in Hong Kong have seriously jeopardized the safety of the public’s life and property, seriously trampled on the rule of law and social order, seriously undermined Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability, and seriously challenged the bottom line of the “one country, two systems” principle. At present, what Hong Kong faces is not the so-called human rights and democracy issues, but the issue of ending the storms, maintaining the rule of law and restoring order as soon as possible. The Chinese central government will continue to firmly support the Hong Kong SAR Government in its administration of the law, firmly support the Hong Kong police in law enforcement, and firmly support the Hong Kong Judiciary in punishing violent criminals in accordance with the law, protecting the lives and property of Hong Kong residents and maintaining Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability.

For a long time I have been warning that U.S. relations with China would greatly deteriorate, and this is the biggest blow that we have seen yet.

The U.S. and China are now enemies, and ultimately that is going to result in a tremendous amount of pain for the entire planet.

*

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.

Michael Snyder is a nationally-syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including Get Prepared NowThe Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters. His articles are originally published on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Relations with China Were Just Destroyed, and Nothing Will Ever Be the Same Again

Video: Israel Conducts Wide-scale Strikes on Syria

November 21st, 2019 by South Front

On November 20, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) announced that they had carried out “wide-scale strikes” on the “Iranian Quds Force” and the Syrian Armed Forces in Syria. The IDF claimed that the strikes were carried out in response to 4 rockets, which were reportedly launched from Syria at targets in northern Israel on November 19. The IDF’s Iron Dome intercepted these rockets over the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

Commenting on the November 20 attack, the IDF claimed that it destroyed “a number” of Syrian air defense batteries because they did not refrain from responding to Israeli strikes. The IDF provided almost no details regarding the impact of its attack. However, photos and videos of the ground show that it successfully hit civilian buildings in southwest and west of Damascus. At least 2 civilians were killed and several others were injured.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its Turkish-backed allies repelled an attack by the Syrian Army on the town of Misherfah in southern Idlib. According to pro-militant sources, the army suffered “notable casualties”. However, no precise number was provided. The army attack on Misherfah demonstrates that government forces are not going to halt their anti-terrorist efforts in the area.

On November 19, Asayish, a security force, of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), apologized for the ‘unfortunate incident’ with a Russian patrol in northeastern Syria. To be clear, this ‘unfortunate incident’ was an attempt by SDF supporters to burn a Russian vehicle with petrol bombs.

According to the Asayish statement, the group will work to prevent further attacks on Russian personnel in the region from Kurdish ‘activists’. The statement followed remarks by the Turkish foreign minister that Ankara is not satisfied with the implementation of the safe zone agreement and is ready to resume its offensive in northeastern Syria.

*

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

We call upon Global Research readers to support South Front in its endeavors.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Israel Conducts Wide-scale Strikes on Syria
  • Tags: ,

Professor Chossudovsky’s most recent book describes America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 reality whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine —coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.

There is an intimate relationship between the Globalization of War and the Economic Crisis.  This “Long War against Humanity” is carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history. It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

Michel Chossudovsky views “economic conquest” as an integral part of the US military agenda. The US military and intelligence apparatus consults with Wall Street and the Texas oil conglomerates. Conversely the IMF and the World Bank are in permanent liaison with the Pentagon and the US State Department.

The Globalization of War, by Michel Chossudovsky

America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine —coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.

This “Long War against Humanity” is carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history.

It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy”.


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

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 pages with complete index

Global Research Price: US* $15.00 + shipping & handling
(List price: US $24.95)

CLICK TO ORDER

Also available in PDF format: CLICK HERE

This title is also available via Amazon

*For payment in $CAD please use the Donorbox payment option on the product page.


The Global Economic Crisis, Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, Editors 

In all major regions of the world, the economic recession is deep-seated, resulting in mass unemployment, the collapse of state social programs and the impoverishment of millions of people. The meltdown of financial markets was the result of institutionalized fraud and financial manipulation. The economic crisis is accompanied by a worldwide process of militarization, a “war without borders” led by the U.S. and its NATO allies.

This book takes the reader through the corridors of the Federal Reserve, into the plush corporate boardrooms on Wall Street where far-reaching financial transactions are routinely undertaken.

The complex causes as well as the devastating consequences of the economic crisis are carefully scrutinized with contributions from Ellen Brown, Tom Burghardt, Michel Chossudovsky, Richard C. Cook, Shamus Cooke, John Bellamy Foster, Michael Hudson,  Tanya Cariina Hsu, Fred Magdoff,  Andrew Gavin Marshall, James Petras, Peter Phillips, Peter Dale Scott, Bill Van Auken, Claudia Van Werlhof and Mike Whitney.


The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century, Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, Editors (Paperback)

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-3-9

Year: 2010

Pages: 416 pages with complete index

Global Research Price: US* $18.00 + shipping & handling
(List price: US $25.95)

CLICK TO ORDER

Also available in PDF format: CLICK HERE

This title is also available via Amazon

*For payment in $CAD please use the Donorbox payment option on the product page.


Click below to browse our other titles:

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Globalization of War and the Global Economic Crisis. Is There a Relationship?

Lawsuit Launched to Save 274 Species From Extinction Crisis

November 21st, 2019 by Center For Biological Diversity

In one of the largest lawsuits ever launched under the Endangered Species Act, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a formal notice today of its intent to sue the Trump administration for failing to decide whether 274 imperiled animals and plants across the country should be federally protected. Decisions for these species are years overdue.

Among the species in today’s legal filing are wolverines in the Rockies, a “jumping” slug in the Pacific Northwest, moose in the Midwest, a western bumblebee that has declined by 84 percent, Venus flytrap plants in the Carolinas, and a tiny freshwater fish that flips stones with its nose to find food. (A full list is below.)

In 2016 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a workplan to address a backlog of more than 500 species awaiting protection decisions, including those in today’s notice, but the Trump administration has kept the agency from completing decisions for dozens of species every year. Today’s notice seeks to ensure that all the remaining species in the workplan that are still awaiting protection get decisions as soon as possible.

American wolverine, courtesy Audrey Magoun USFWS FPWC.JPGImage: American wolverine, courtesy Audrey Magoun/USFW 

“Scientists around the world are sounding the alarm about the extinction crisis, but the Trump administration can’t be bothered to lift a finger for hundreds of species that are in serious trouble,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center. “Every day protections are delayed is a day that moves these fascinating species closer to extinction.”

Earlier this year the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, known as IPBES, warned governments around the world that 1 million species are now at risk of extinction because of human activity. IPBES scientists said that urgent actions are needed to avert mass extinction in the coming decades.

Meanwhile the Trump administration has only protected 19 species under the Endangered Species Act — the lowest of any administration at this point in the presidential term. By comparison, during the Obama administration, 360 species were protected under the Endangered Species Act. Under Clinton 523 species were protected, while 232 species were protected under George H.W. Bush, 62 species under George W. Bush, and 254 under Reagan.

“The Trump administration’s hostility toward wildlife is appalling,” said Greenwald. “The Endangered Species Act has saved 99 percent of species under its protection, and it can save these plants and animals too, but only if they get the protection they need.”

The 274 species occur across the lower 48 states and include birds, butterflies, fish, mammals and more. All of the species face serious threats to their survival, ranging from habitat destruction to climate change to disease.

“The extinction crisis is an emergency of epic proportions, and habitat loss is playing a huge role,” Greenwald said. “If we’re going to have any real shot at saving these species, we need to protect more of the land and water in this country that they need to survive.”

Click here to view a table of the 274 species awaiting protection decisions.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 1.6 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lawsuit Launched to Save 274 Species From Extinction Crisis

The developing story about how the US intelligence and national security agencies may have conspired to influence and possibly even reverse the results of the 2016 presidential election is compelling, even if one is disinclined to believe that such a plot would be possible to execute. Not surprisingly perhaps there have been considerable introspection among former and current officials who have worked in those and related government positions, many of whom would agree that there is urgent need for a considerable restructuring and reining in of the 17 government agencies that have some intelligence or law enforcement function. Most would also agree that much of the real damage that has been done has been the result of the unending global war on terror launched by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, which has showered the agencies with resources and money while also politicizing their leadership and freeing them from restraints on their behavior.

If the tens of billions of dollars lavished on the intelligence community together with a “gloves off” approach towards oversight that allowed them to run wild had produced good results, it might be possible to argue that it was all worth it. But the fact is that intelligence gathering has always been a bad investment even if it is demonstrably worse at the present. One might argue that the CIA’s notorious Soviet Estimate prolonged the Cold War and that the failure to connect dots and pay attention to what junior officers were observing allowed 9/11 to happen. And then there was the empowerment of al-Qaeda during the Soviet-Afghan war followed by failure to penetrate the group once it began to carry out operations.

More recently there have been Guantanamo, torture in black prisons, renditions of terror suspects to be tortured elsewhere, killing of US citizens by drone, turning Libya into a failed state and terrorist haven, arming militants in Syria, and, of course, the Iraqi alleged WMDs, the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history. And the bad stuff happened in bipartisan fashion, under Democrats and Republicans, with both neocons and liberal interventionists all playing leading roles. The only one punished for the war crimes was former CIA officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou, who exposed some of what was going on.

Colonel Pat Lang, a colleague and friend who directed the Defense Intelligence Agency HUMINT (human intelligence) program after years spent on the ground in special ops and foreign liaison, thinks that strong medicine is needed and has initiated a discussion based on the premise that the FBI and CIA are dysfunctional relics that should be dismantled, as he puts it “burned to the ground,” so that the federal government can start over again and come up with something better.

Lang cites numerous examples of “incompetence and malfeasance in the leadership of the 17 agencies of the Intelligence Community and the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” to include the examples cited above plus the failure to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the domestic front, he cites his personal observation of efforts by the Department of Justice and the FBI to corruptly “frame” people tried in federal courts on national security issues as well as the intelligence/law enforcement community conspiracy to “get Trump.”

Colonel Lang asks

“Tell me, pilgrims, why should we put up with such nonsense? Why should we pay the leaders of these agencies for the privilege of having them abuse us? We are free men and women. Let us send these swine to their just deserts in a world where they have to work hard for whatever money they earn.”

He then recommends stripping CIA of its responsibility for being the lead agency in spying as well as in covert action, which is a legacy of the Cold War and the area in which it has demonstrated a particular incompetence. As for the FBI, it was created by J. Edgar Hoover to maintain dossiers on politicians and it is time that it be replaced by a body that operates in a fashion “more reflective of our collective nation[al] values.”

Others in the intelligence community understandably have different views. Many believe that the FBI and CIA have grown too large and have been asked to do too many things unrelated to national security, so there should be a major reduction-in-force (RIF) followed by the compulsory retirement of senior officers who have become too cozy with and obligated to politicians. The new-CIA should collect information, period, what it was founded to do in 1947, and not meddle in foreign elections or engage in regime change. The FBI should provide only police services that are national in nature and that are not covered by the state and local jurisdictions. And it should operate in as transparent a fashion as possible, not as a national secret police force.

But the fundamental problem may not be with the police and intelligence services themselves. There are a lot of idiots running around loose in Washington. Witness for example the impeachment hearings ludicrous fact free opening statement by House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff (with my emphasis)

“In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation’s embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin’s desire to rebuild a Russian empire.”

And the press is no better, note the following excerpt from The New York Times lead editorial on the hearings, including remarks of the two State Department officers who testified, on the following day:

“They came across not as angry Democrats or Deep State conspirators, but as men who have devoted their lives to serving their country, and for whom defending Ukraine against Russian aggression is more important to the national interest than any partisan jockeying…

“At another point, Mr. Taylor said he had been critical of the Obama administration’s reluctance to supply Ukraine with anti-tank missiles and other lethal defensive weapons in its fight with Russia, and that he was pleased when the Trump administration agreed to do so

“What clearly concerned both witnesses wasn’t simply the abuse of power by the president, but the harm it inflicted on Ukraine, a critical ally under constant assault by Russian forces. ‘Even as we sit here today, the Russians are attacking Ukrainian soldiers in their own country and have been for the last four years…’ Mr. Taylor said.”

Schiff and the Times should get their facts straight. And so should the two American foreign service officers who were clearly seeing the situation only from the Ukrainian perspective, a malady prevalent among US diplomats often described as “going native.” They were pushing a particular agenda, i.e. possible war with Russia on behalf of Ukraine, in furtherance of a US national interest that they fail to define. One of them, George Kent, eulogized the Ukrainian militiamen fighting the Russians as the modern day equivalent of the Massachusetts Minutemen in 1776, not exactly a neutral assessment, and also euphemized Washington-provided lethal offensive weapons as “security assistance.”

Another former intelligence community friend Ray McGovern has constructed a time line of developments in Ukraine which demolishes the establishment view on display in Congress relating to the alleged Russian threat. First of all, Ukraine was no American ally in 2014 and is no “critical ally” today. Also, the Russian reaction to western supported rioting in Kiev, a vital interest, only came about after the United States spent $5 billion destabilizing and then replacing the pro-Kremlin government. Since that time Moscow has resumed control of the Crimea, which is historically part of Russia, and is active in the Donbas region which has a largely Russian population.

It should really be quite simple. The national security state should actually be engaged in national security. Its size and budget should be commensurate with what it actually does, nothing more. It should not be roaming the world looking for trouble and should instead only respond to actual threats. And it should operate with oversight. If Congress is afraid to do it, set up a separate body that is non-partisan and actually has the teeth to do the job. If the United States of America comes out of the process as something like a normal nation the entire world will be a much happier place.

*

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

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

Featured image is from rouzer.house.gov

An ‘internal memo’ that was intentionally leaked has blasted U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision for the U.S. military to withdraw from Syria, or more accurately, relocate from northern Syria to the oilfields in the east, as well as his complacency as Turkey commits “war crimes and ethnic cleansing” against the Kurdish minority.

The author of the memo, diplomat and former ambassador to Bahrain, William V. Roebuck, took every opportunity to lambast Trump as he faces impeachment 12 months before the next U.S. presidential elections. Roebuck questioned whether the U.S. could have prevented the Turkish military operation in northern Syria by increasing military patrols, sanctions and threats, but conceded that “the answer is probably not,” citing Turkey’s membership in NATO and its large army against the small American presence in the region. “But we won’t know because we didn’t try,” Roebuck added.

The New York Times claims that Roebuck’s memo was delivered to the State Department’s special envoy on Syria, James F. Jeffrey, and to dozens of officials focusing on Syria in the State Department, White House and Pentagon. However, the entirety of the 3,200-word memo failed to mention Ankara’s motivation in conducting this operation.

The Syrian perspective is that this is part of a project for a Greater Turkey. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu emphasized in an October interview that Turkey is not interested in territorial expansionism, stating

“Russia is concerned about some sensitive issues, such as territorial integrity and the unity of the country [Syria]. We are also worried. If we look at all the joint statements of Turkey, Russia and Iran, we emphasize it.”

Although it may sound conspiratorial, this statement would have done little to alleviate this fear as Turkey has controlled large swathes of northern Syria since 2016 without any process to negotiate the return of these regions to Syrian government administration. In conjunction, Damascus would also remember the 1939 Turkish annexation of its Hatay province, Turkey’s invasion of neighboring Cyprus in 1974, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan invoking an early 20th-century irredentist document that claims northern Syria, northern Iraq, most of Armenia, the entirety of Cyprus, much of Bulgaria and Greece’s northern and eastern Aegean islands as under Turkish sovereignty.

Although territorial expansionism may be a motivating factor for many in the Turkish political and military leadership, it would be a secondary motivating factor. What Roebuck’s memo failed to mention is that Turkey’s Syria policy today is motivated by security concerns.

In an academic article titled “Turkey’s interests in the Syrian war: from neo-Ottomanism to counterinsurgency,” I first made the argument that Turkey’s initial interests in Syria was to expand its influence, and perhaps territory. What was not envisioned by the Turkish leadership was the re-emergence of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Syria, recognized as a terrorist organization by Turkey, Syria and the U.S., but not by Russia. The PKK in Syria fight under the banner of the People’s Protection Units (YPG), who comprise the majority of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

Washington confusingly recognizes the PKK as a terrorist organization, but has directly funded, armed and supported the YPG in Syria. Ankara makes no distinction between the PKK and the YPG, and this has been a primary source of recent hostilities between Turkey and the U.S. Although Syria once supported the PKK against Turkey, it has recognized the group as a terrorist organization since 1998, initially easing the tense relations between Damascus and Ankara, with Erdoğan even describing his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad as his “brother.”

Former Turkish Foreign Minister (2009–2014), Ahmet Davutoglu, adopted a “zero problems with neighbors” policy that saw his country strengthen economic and political ties with the Islamic World by lifting visa restrictions and taking a larger active role in critical Islamic issues like the fallout between the Palestinian Hamas and Fatah groups, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Syria and Israel. However, this new doctrine was taken to the test when the Syrian war began in 2011, with Ankara immediately contradicting the “zero problems with the neighbours” policy by supporting terrorist organizations and getting itself into disputes and hostilities with not only Syria, but also Iraq, Greece, Cyprus and Armenia.

The Arab Spring changed the status quo in the Middle East and provided an opportunity for Turkey to engage in power projections within a new regional order where Ankara would be the center of power. However, what Ankara had not calculated is that by abandoning the “zero problems with neighbors” policy and flooding Syria with tens thousands of terrorists, it was creating the very conditions for the PKK to return to Syria after a more than 20-year hiatus under the guise of protecting Syria’s Kurds.

Essentially, the project for a Greater Turkey has become secondary in the case of Syria, with Ankara’s current focus on what it calls a counterterrorist operation against the PKK/YPG, after they created the very conditions for them to return to Syria. Although Trump has whole teams dedicated to Syria, it appears that Washington refuses to acknowledge Turkey’s security concerns, just as Roebuck’s memo demonstrates.

The rise of the YPG brought questions of Kurdish independence or autonomy in northern Syria, which can also find justification for an autonomous or independent Kurdish state in eastern Turkey as the PKK, militarily and politically, has struggled for decades to achieve this. A Kurdish push for independence or autonomy in northern Syria not only threatens Turkey’s desire to illegally annex this region, but destabilizes Turkey as the Kurds can make a greater push for independence or autonomy in eastern Anatolia.

As Turkey strengthens its relations with Russia, the question remains whether the country will formally leave NATO or not. It is unlikely that the U.S. will push for Turkey’s expulsion from NATO as it has the second largest military in the alliance and occupies one of the most strategic spots on the planet.

Although the U.S. has turned to Greece as its Plan B to contain Russia in the Black Sea in any hypothetical war, Washington would know there is a great possibility that the next general election in Turkey could see Erdoğan out of power and replaced by a more Washington-friendly leader. Not only is Erdoğan’s popularity diminishing because of the economic crisis and his unpopular Syria policy, but the highly popular ex-economy minister Ali Babacan and ex-Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu have both recently left Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) to establish their own respective political parties, which will only further weaken AKP who have lost over 840,000 members in one year alone.

The U.S. would be hoping that by continuing to apply military, diplomatic and economic pressure against Turkey, the tense situation in Turkey will see Erdoğan’s popularity diminish, and the return of a  pro-U.S. leader. The difficult economic situation, the millions of refugees and the increased terror attacks in Turkey can all be directly attributed to Erdoğan’s Syria policy, and the U.S. will continue to use these means to pressure Turkey until it conforms to Washington’s desires and reverse its strengthened ties with Russia.

Many within Washington are unsatisfied with Trump’s Turkey policy and feel that they are not utilizing their advantages to pressure Erdoğan. Roebuck’s memo however appears to be a potential gamechanger as it has critically expressed opposition to Trump’s policy at a formal, and now public, level.

Roebuck publicly revealed that Turkey’s military operation in northern Syria is “spearheaded by armed Islamist groups on its payroll” who are committing what can “only be described as war crimes and ethnic cleansing.” The same jihadist forces utilized by Turkey are no different to the ones the U.S. supported against Assad, who not only ethnically cleansed Kurds, but also Shi’ites, Alawites, Antiochian Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians.

Roebuck also suggested that the U.S. must maintain relations with Turkey. As Turkey is at a crossroads with its political leadership, Washington knows there is a strong possibility that Erdoğan might not be around by the time the next general election is scheduled in 2023, although it appears likely that these elections will take place years earlier. With Roebuck’s ‘leak,’ it is likely that Trump will start receiving stronger domestic political pressure to deal with Turkey in a much tougher way and continue to make every destabilizing effort to remove Erdoğan and have him replaced with a pro-U.S. leader.

*

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.

Thumbing his nose at the Geneva Convention, the Rome Statute, the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice, Donald Trump decided that Israel’s unlawful construction of Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territory is lawful. This policy change is part of Trump’s pattern of seeking to legalize illegal Israeli practices. It panders to Israel at the expense of the Palestinians while aiming to burnish Trump’s bona fides with his Christian Zionist base. Christian Broadcasting Network quoted Jack Graham, pastor of the megachurch Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas, as saying that the Trump administration “once again has demonstrated why evangelical Christians have been unwavering in their support.”

“The timing of this was not tied to anything that had to do with domestic politics anywhere in Israel or otherwise,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed, denying that the change in policy was designed to benefit Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who’s locked in a tight battle for political survival.

Rabbi Alissa Wise, acting co-executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace, said,

“It’s hardly a surprise that on the eve of Netanyahu’s indictment and Trump’s impeachment proceedings we suddenly have the Trump administration throwing the Geneva Convention and international consensus out the window and shamelessly pandering to the right-wing and evangelical base.”

Walking in lockstep with Netanyahu, Trump also illegally declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel. And three months after he illegally recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, Netanyahu named a new — and illegal — settlement under construction, “Trump Heights.”

On November 18, Pompeo announced the end of the United States’s 41-year policy of considering Israeli settlements to be unlawful.

“The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law,” Pompeo declared.

In 1978, the Carter administration adopted the position detailed in a letter written by State Department Legal Advisor Herbert Hansell. It concluded that

“the establishment of the civilian settlements in [the occupied Palestinian] territories is inconsistent with international law.”

Hansell’s letter cited Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring “parts of its own civilian population into the territories it occupies.” The letter stated that just because territory comes “under the control of a belligerent occupant,” it “does not thereby become its sovereign territory.”

After the 1967 war, Israeli military forces occupied Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. The narrative that Israel acted in self-defense when it attacked Egypt, Jordan and Syria and seized those Palestinian territories is a false one.

Security Council Resolution 242, passed in 1967, specifies “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” In 2016, the Council reiterated that language in Resolution 2334, which condemned Israel for the establishment of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem. The Resolution says that the building of settlements “has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.”

The United States abstained from Resolution 2334. Barack Obama allowed it to pass by not vetoing it. Just before Trump took office, he tried unsuccessfully to keep the resolution from reaching the Council floor. In addition to pandering to his evangelical base, Trump is reversing still another Obama achievement. Pompeo admitted that the new policy is a rejection of Obama’s failure to veto Resolution 2334.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the “settlements have been established in breach of international law.” The Court cited the Security Council’s characterization of Israel’s policy of establishment of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory as a “flagrant violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court considers an occupying power’s direct or indirect transfer “of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” to be a war crime.

Over 600,000 Israelis live in settlements in the occupied West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem. About 3 million Palestinians live there.

Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian negotiator and secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organization, condemned the Trump administration’s “unceasing attempts to replace international law with the ‘law of the jungle.’” He called on the global community to resist the new U.S. policy.

“Israel’s colonial-settlement enterprise perpetuates the negation of the Palestinian right to self-determination,” Erekat said.

“Israeli settlements in occupied territory are illegal,” Bernie Sanders tweeted. “This is clear from international law and multiple United Nations resolutions. Once again, Mr. Trump is isolating the United States and undermining diplomacy by pandering to his extremist base.”

Trump has made explicit what has long been implicit: The United States directly enables Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and oppression of the Palestinians. As journalist Ali Abunimah tweeted, the U.S. proclamation that Israeli settlements do not violate international law “is merely a shedding of the fiction that the U.S. has ever opposed Israel’s land-theft colonies. It changes nothing but makes clear to all that the U.S. and Israel are partners in crime.”

*

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.

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.

Featured image is from Another Day in the Empire

What originally began as an expression of legitimate outrage at the Mideast country’s dysfunctional government and endemic corruption quickly transformed into a Color Revolution aimed at carrying out regime change in Lebanon through the removal of Hezbollah from its government, the threat of which makes this a defining moment for the Resistance because its supporters’ loyalty is being tested to the core.

Lebanon is undoubtedly in the throes of an ongoing Color Revolution that’s already succeeded in securing the resignation of Prime Minister Hariri in response to large-scale protests against the Mideast country’s dysfunctional government and endemic corruption, sparked as they were by a proposed tax on WhatsApp calls that served as the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. The unrest has been condemned by two key members of the Resistance, Ayatollah Khamenei and Hezbollah leader Nasrallah, who warned against the participants becoming useful idiots in the US, “Israel“, and the GCC’s plot against their homeland. The first-mentioned tweeted that “I recommend those who care in #Iraq and #Lebanon remedy the insecurity and turmoil created in their countries by the U.S., the Zionist regime, some western countries, and the money of some reactionary countries. The people have justifiable demands, but they should know their demands can only be fulfilled within the legal structure and framework of their country. When the legal structure is disrupted in a country, no action can be carried out”, while the second urged his supporters to stay away from the scene of the disturbances and emphasized how much the government’s fall could destabilize their fragile country.

Nevertheless, the situation still remains unresolved despite Hariri’s resignation, and ever-louder demands have made within Lebanon and through some Alt-Media outlets that Hezbollah should leave the government in order to resolve the crisis. The Resistance group, which functions as a socio-political and military force, had nothing to do with the trigger event that sparked this explosion of unrest, though the very fact that it’s now increasingly being targeted for removal from its elected positions in the government proves that there are forces that had intended for this to be the outcome all along when they encouraged the unfolding of events there. It shouldn’t be forgotten that US Secretary of State Pompeo ominously hinted at an ultimatum being made to Lebanon during his visit there in March when he thundered that “Lebanon faces a choice; bravely move forward as an independent and proud nation or allow the dark ambitions of Iran and Hezbollah to dictate your future”, which strongly suggests that the US at the very least tacitly has a hand in guiding developments to that aforementioned end. What’s so disturbing about the latest narrative twist is that it appears to have the support of a critical mass of protesters, including those who have outwardly supported Hezbollah prior to this moment but evidently harbored deep feelings of antipathy towards it that are only now being publicly expressed through this “anti-corruption” “populist” pretext.

It’s impossible to accurately generalize every one of these supposed Resistance supporters feels this way, though sharing some plausible explanations could nevertheless still help to make sense of this previously unexpected trend. Hezbollah’s military might is appreciated by most patriotic Lebanese after it liberated their country from “Israeli” occupation in 2000 and prevented a second such occupation in 2006, though some look suspiciously upon its social activities because they wrongly interpret them through a sectarian lense. In addition, the group’s involvement in fighting terrorism in Syria side-by-side with the IRGC reinforced the weaponzied fake news perception among some that Hezbollah is just an “Iranian proxy”. These growing doubts about the group’s long-term strategic intentions might not have been able to be publicly expressed in such a direct way without risk of receiving accusations that the person voicing such views is unpatriotic, hence why they may have hitherto been outwardly supportive of Hezbollah despite internally cultivating hatred towards the organization and waiting for the “opportune” moment to express it in a way that couldn’t be as easily framed as part of a self-serving sectarian agenda on their part. That chance arrived when the proposed WhatsApp tax served as the catalyst for large-scale protests against the government as a whole, during which time it became “acceptable” among some to attack Hezbollah for its supposedly “corrupt” alliance with certain political forces.

It should be said at this point that Hezbollah is a responsible stakeholder in Lebanon’s stability and therefore understands the need to make tactical decisions in pursuit of the larger strategic end of preventing external forces from driving wedges between the country’s cosmopolitan socio-religious groups, hence why it’s entered into the certain political partnerships that it’s had out of its interest in working within the legal system to carry out responsible reforms to the best of its ability. These noble intentions have been deliberately misportrayed by those who have wanted to remove Hezbollah from the government for some time already as part of their never-ending campaign to delegitimize it, after which they believe that it’ll become more susceptible to the joint US-“Israeli”-GCC Hybrid War against it. A similar modus operandi is being pursued in nearby Iraq, where Resistance forces also hold considerable sway within the government but are plagued by the same accusations of allying themselves with corrupt figures, which is being used by agenda-driven forces to misportray them as “guilty by association” despite the reason for these tactical partnerships being the same as Hezbollah’s. Even worse, the similar events in both countries are being described by Mainstream Media as a “new Arab Spring“.

There’s no question at this point that legitimate anti-corruption protests have been hijacked for regime change ends aimed at removing Resistance forces from power in those countries, especially since both the Ayatollah and Nasrallah touched upon this in their recent statements on this topic, though there are still those who outwardly profess to support the Resistance’s broader mission but refuse to stop participating in the unrest there. This represents a true moment of reckoning for the Resistance that will ultimately separate its true supporters who have faith in this movement’s leaders from the opportunistically fraudulent ones who betrayed the cause as soon as they “conveniently” saw the “publicly plausible pretext” to do so. It doesn’t help any either that many Alt-Media outlets that used to have Resistance-friendly editorial lines are portraying the protests in a positive light despite the Iranian and Hezbollah leaders warning against the credible risk that they could spiral out of control and end up advancing the strategic goals of the Resistance’s enemies, which further confuses the audience at large who can’t countenance how or why this is happening, preferring instead to put their faith in those media forces instead of the leaders whose movement they had previously professed to support. As the situation remains unresolved, it’s anyone’s guess what will happen next, but it certainly doesn’t look good.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

The Worst Is Over for Oil Markets

November 21st, 2019 by Nick Cunningham

Some analysts see the world dodging a recession next year, which provides some upward room for oil prices.

Last week, the IEA warned last week that “the hefty supply cushion” building up in the first half of 2020 will cause OPEC+ problems as the group tries to balance the oil market. Part of the reason for another potential surplus is the steep drop in demand growth this year, forcing oil forecasters to make multiple downward revisions to their projections.

“With consumption growth of just 830 thousand b/d YoY in 2019, global oil demand has easily expanded at the lowest rate since the global financial crisis 10 years ago,” Bank of America Merrill Lynch said in a note.

The slowdown was particularly concentrated in industrial sectors, which have been hit hard by the trade war.

“The manufacturing downturn in 2019 has been so pronounced that we think it could aptly be labeled as the third global industrial recession in the past 10 years, following the activity drops witnessed in 2012 and 2016,” the bank said.

Or, put more succinctly, “The world has just lived through an industrial recession,” Bank of America concluded, and oil prices really only held up because of massive supply outages in 2019. The industrial slowdown spread around the world.

Take India, for example. The “weak picture for the manufacturing and industrial” sectors of the Indian economy continue, JBC Energy said in a note on Monday, which have hit diesel sales.

“The 120,000 b/d (7%) y-o-y contraction was greater than even the demonetization-driven downside from January 2017,” JBC Energy said. “With bitumen sales also low, it appears activity in Indian manufacturing and construction is waning.”

But there are some reasons to think that things could turn around. While a lot still depends on the outcome of the U.S.-China trade war and the “partial deal” that the market still believes is likely, recent streams of data have tamped down fears of a recession.

“Looking into 2020, we expect an improvement in cyclical demand conditions as manufacturing PMIs seem to have stabilized and in some cases appear to be turning positive,” Bank of America said.

Part of the reason for more optimism is that corporations with global supply chains have held back on purchases over the past year, in large part because of the trade war, and have whittled away at inventory. The strategy seemed to be an attempt to wait out tariffs in the hopes of a negotiated breakthrough. That makes sense at the individual company level, but it hit manufacturers hard as sales and activity dropped. However, companies will now have to restock in 2020, Bank of America says. That could help steady the economy.

Meanwhile, if the U.S. and China can indeed agree to a partial trade deal, that would “further help boost industrial activity and confidence in the global economy,” Bank of America said, and “any signs of improvement on the trade front could add upward pressure to cyclical energy and metals prices.” The removal of some tariffs could both push down the dollar and raise commodity prices.

Still, a comprehensive breakthrough in the trade war is going to be extremely difficult, and the two sides have been far apart on the big issues. The partial deal, such as it is, would only suspend tariffs in exchange for China buying large sums of agricultural goods.

But even the partial deal has run into trouble. The Trump administration has hyped a $50 billion purchase from China for U.S. agricultural goods, a figure that some say is “not possible.” So, it’s worth noting that even a very narrow and modest agreement has become a challenging prospect, to say nothing of more structural differences between the two countries.

In short, while the tone has softened and both sides have signaled that negotiations are proceeding to a conclusion, the U.S.-China trade war is far from finished.

In fact, right on cue, doubts began to resurface on Monday. CNBC said that the “mood in Beijing about a trade deal is pessimistic due to U.S. President Donald Trump’s reluctance to roll back tariffs.” Beijing may instead decide to sit and wait, betting that Trump’s standing continues to deteriorate in the face of an impeachment inquiry.

“It looks like this is by no means a done deal,” Matthew Miskin, a market strategist at John Hancock Advisors in Boston, told Bloomberg.

*

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

Nick Cunningham is an independent journalist, covering oil and gas, energy and environmental policy, and international politics. He is based in Portland, Oregon. 

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Worst Is Over for Oil Markets
  • Tags:

Welche Rolle spielt der Internationale Währungsfonds (IWF) bei den zahlreichen gegenwärtigen Protesten in Südamerika? Eine große, aber keine gute – so das Fazit von Peter König, der über zwanzig Jahre lang als Ökonom für die Weltbank tätig war.

Im Interview mit Maria Janssen beleuchtet der Schweizer Wirtschaftswissenschaftler die ökonomischen Hintergründe der Ereignisse in Südamerika und kommt zu dem Schluss, dass die Umsetzung der Konzepte des IWF (auch als IMF – International Monetary Fund – bezeichnet) noch nie zu einem besseren Lebensstandard für die Masse der Bevölkerung geführt hat.

Im Gegenteil sei der IWF ein Kriegsinstrument der USA und diene dazu, ressourcenreiche Länder in die Verschuldung zu treiben, um deren Rohstoffe ungehindert ausplündern zu können.

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Video:”Der IWF ist ein Kriegsinstrument der USA” – Ökonom Peter König zu Protesten in Südamerika

Following revelations of grave flaws in its Syria reporting, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons must allow whistleblowers’ evidence to be heard at the coming OPCW Conference of States Parties. That’s the message from the following public figures who have signed an Open Letter to OPCW permanent representatives.

José Bustani, Ambassador of Brazil, first Director General of the OPCW and former Ambassador to the United Kingdom and France.

William Binney, a former technical director at NSA

George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury

Noam Chomsky, Emeritus Professor, MIT

Alain Chouet, former chief of the Security Intelligence Service within the French external intelligence service (DGSE)

Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Professor Emeritus, former head Research group Cross-cultural Injury Epidemiology, Karolinska Institute. Chair Swedish Doctors for Human Rights – SWEDHR

Anne Gazeau-Secret, former French Ambassador, The Hague

Katharine Gun, former GCHQ (UKGOV), Whistleblower

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Officer and Former Senior Investigator, US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Annie Machon, former MI5 Officer, UK Security Services

Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and presidential briefer; co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) and of Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence; former Army Infantry/Intelligence officer.

John Pilger, Journalist and documentary film maker

Theodore Postol, Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology and National Security, MIT

Scott Ritter, UNSCOM Weapons Inspector 1991-1998

Coleen Rowley, retired FBI agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel, 9-11 whistleblower and a 2002 Time Magazine Person of the Year

Hans von Sponeck, former UN Assistant Secretary-General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator (Iraq)

Oliver Stone, Film Director, Producer and Writer.

Courage Foundation Panel Members:-

Richard Falk, Professor of International Law, Emeritus, Princeton University; Visiting Professor, Istinye University, Istanbul

Kristinn Hrafnsson, editor-in-chief, Wikileaks

John Holmes, Maj Gen (retd) DSO OBE MC, former director of Special Forces, British Army

Dr. Helmut Lohrer, MD, Board member of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and International Councilor of its German affiliate

Prof. Dr. Günter Meyer, Centre for Research on the Arab World (CERAW) at the University of Mainz

Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence; member, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence

And with support of members of the OPCW Douma Fact-Finding Mission


Open Letter to Permanent Representatives of States Parties

cc: Office of the Director General, OPCW

Dear Permanent Representative,

We are writing in order to bring to your attention the recent meeting of the Courage Foundation Panel held in October 2019 and to ask for your support in taking action at the forthcoming CSP aimed at restoring the integrity of the OPCW and regaining public trust. The Courage Foundation is an international organisation that supports those who risk life or liberty to make significant contributions to the historical record.

The Courage Foundation Panel heard testimony and saw documentation from an OPCW official who was a member of the team investigating the alleged chemical weapon attack in Douma, Syria, April 2018. The panel, comprised of eminent individuals including José Bustani (the first Director General of the OPCW), Professor Richard Falk (Professor of International Law at Princeton and former UN Special Rapporteur) and Dr Helmut Lohrer (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War), was unanimous in finding that ‘unacceptable practices’, involving suppression of information aimed at reaching a ‘preordained conclusion’, had occurred during the Douma investigation. Substantive concerns were raised regarding the credibility of the report, specifically with respect to toxicology and ballistics assessments, as well as the use and interpretation of witness testimonies. Suppression of internal debate and questioning within the investigation team appears to have been systematic. The full statement and accompanying analytical points can be found at https://couragefound.org/?s=OPCW and https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/.

The deliberations of the Courage Foundation Panel occurred against the backdrop of existing public controversy following the leaking in May 2019 of an engineering report authored by OPCW official Ian Henderson which reached very different conclusions from the official final OPCW report. In this regard, the Courage Foundation Panel noted that little consideration had been given in the final OPCW report to alternative hypotheses on how the alleged chlorine munitions came to be found in the two apartment buildings.

In view of the current disclosures, and the questions inevitably raised with respect to the integrity and credibility of OPCW FFM investigations, the Panel has called on the OPCW to ‘permit all inspectors who took part in the Douma investigation to come forward and report their differing observations in an appropriate forum of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention’.

We believe this request is eminently reasonable and indeed an essential step toward both establishing the truth of what happened in Douma and restoring public trust in the OPCW. If the organization is to faithfully implement the Chemical Weapons Convention, proper accountability and transparency of process are now required.

We hereby call on you to support the Panel’s request and facilitate efforts to allow all members of the FFM team to speak freely and without risk of censure at an appropriate forum.

Yours Sincerely,

José Bustani, Ambassador of Brazil, first Director General of the OPCW and former Ambassador to the United Kingdom and France

William Binney, former technical director at NSA

George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury

Noam Chomsky, Emeritus Professor, MIT

Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Professor Emeritus, former head Research group Cross-cultural Injury Epidemiology, Karolinska Institute. Chair Swedish Doctors for Human Rights – SWEDHR

Anne Gazeau-Secret, former French Ambassador, The Hague

Katharine Gun, former GCHQ (UKGOV), Whistleblower

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Officer and Former Senior Investigator, US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Annie Machon, former MI5 Officer, UK Security Services

Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and presidential briefer; co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) and of Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence; former Army Infantry/Intelligence officer

John Pilger, Journalist and documentary film maker

Theodore Postol, Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology and National Security, MIT

Scott Ritter, UNSCOM Weapons Inspector 1991-1998

Coleen Rowley, retired FBI agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel, 9-11 whistleblower and a 2002 Time Magazine Person of the Year

Hans von Sponeck, former UN Assistant Secretary-General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator (Iraq)

Oliver Stone, Film Director, Producer and Writer

Courage Foundation Panel Members:-

Richard Falk, Professor of International Law, Emeritus, Princeton University; Visiting Professor, Istinye University, Istanbul

Kristinn Hrafnsson, editor-in-chief, Wikileaks

John Holmes, Maj Gen (retd), DSO OBE MC

Dr. Helmut Lohrer, MD, Board member of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and International Councilor of its German affiliate

Prof. Dr. Guenter Meyer, Centre for Research on the Arab World (CERAW) at the University of Mainz

Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence (retd); member, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence

This letter is supported by members of the OPCW Douma Fact-Finding Mission

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on OPCW Must Come Clean: Grave Flaws in Syria Report. Open Letter To States’ Representatives

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: An Interview with John Shipton, Father of Julian Assange