Read Unit One and Two here.

President Assad is not now and never was a brutal dictator who gasses his own people. In fact, in a classic case of “reverse projection”, NATO terrorists are the brutal dictators who gas Assad’s own people.

Imperialists and their agencies embed simplistic war propaganda memes into the collective consciousness of the masses through constant repetition of fake evidence. The fake evidence is fabricated by fake “NGO’s”.

In fact, Syrians have always been strongly supportive of President Assad. In a classic case of “admission against interest”, even a NATO survey demonstrated this. According to Voltaire.net

The study shows that 70% of Syrians support President Bashar al-Assad, 20% adopt a neutral position and 10% support the “rebels.”

Empire weaponizes “NGO’s” to sell fake “humanitarian wars”. Earlier, for example, we explored the case of the Western state-funded White Helmets, which serve to feed war propaganda into the Western news chains. But there is a whole spectrum of fake NGO’s — all interlinked. (For example, the White Helmets are sources of war propaganda for Amnesty International and Syrian Observatory for Human Rights)

By Prof. Tim Anderson

By Prof. Tim Anderson

By Prof. Tim Anderson

Imperialists and their agencies suppress real evidence and amplify fake news stories. War propaganda is a vital component of hybrid warfare, and it is, therefore criminal.

*

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

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


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Bolivian President Evo Morales‘ decision to abide by the “recommendation” of the US-backed OAS that his country hold another election represents serious backtracking on his pro-sovereignty stance under heavy Hybrid War pressure following the mutiny of several police forces across the nation and the military’s refusal to restore law and order amidst several weeks of rioting.

Bolivian President Evo Morales stayed true to his word that he’d abide by the “recommendation” of the US-backed OAS following the conclusion of their audit on last month’s election by calling for another vote in the coming future. The organization alleged that it was “statistically unlikely” that he won a little more than 10% of the vote and narrowly avoided a second round of elections, claiming that there was “clear manipulation” of the process at play. President Morales’ decision to heed their “advice” represents a serious backtracking on his pro-sovereignty stance under heavy Hybrid War pressure after the mutiny of several police forces across the nation and the military’s refusal to restore law and order amidst several weeks of rioting. Had he been able to count on the armed forces’ support in quelling the disturbances, he wouldn’t have had to tacitly acknowledge that his latest re-election was possibly “fraudulent”, which therefore throws his legitimacy as the current head of state into doubt.

It’s somewhat understandable that he’s taken the position that he did because the US and its regional allies likely had a preplanned sanctions scheme that they were ready to roll out had he refused to comply with their de-facto demand, one which might have resulted in Bolivia’s top trading partner, Brazil, blockading the country and immediately triggering an economic crisis at home to compound the ongoing political one. Furthermore, the “opposition’s” threats to shut down the border and stop traffic along some of the country’s main roads could have worsened this scenario and brought Bolivia to a standstill. Nevertheless, there isn’t any guarantee that his opponents won’t be emboldened by his backtracking if they believe that he’s doing so from a position of weakness and that they only need to increase the pressure for a little longer in order to compel him to resign. After all, they can always argue that his current tenure isn’t legitimate since he’s sitting in office after a “suspicious” vote that he himself recognizes might have been “fraudulent” since he decided to hold another election after the last one was found by the US-backed OAS to have supposedly been rigged.

There are several key variables that will determine the course of forthcoming events. The first is whether or not the “opposition” will de-escalate their Hybrid War campaign against President Morales. If they follow his lead and start backtracking on their demands that he resign, then it would be a sign that they want to return to the status quo “ante bellum” prior to the “disputed” vote. On the other hand, they might just press forward with those same demands and insist that he must resign before the next vote takes place and that a “caretaker government” assume control of the state in the interim to ensure that the forthcoming elections are conducted in a “free and fair” environment, one that would probably be overseen by US-backed OAS “representatives”. The “opposition” might also decline to participate in the vote if President Morales runs for re-election, arguing that the Supreme Electoral Court carried out an “illegal” and “corrupt” act by reversing the results of the 2016 referendum where his initiative to run for a fourth term was narrowly defeated.

In other words, the “opposition” might move forward with their plans to “purge” the country’s “deep state” (military, intelligence, diplomatic, and administrative bureaucracies) of what they’d portray as “Morales’ loyalists” as a prerequisite to their participation in the next elections, and they could conceivably receive either the OAS’ or a US-backed regional “coalition of the willing’s” support in this respect (possibly expressed through the threat of sanctions if President Morales doesn’t submit). Their campaign of Hybrid War pressure would continue unabated in this scenario since they’d know that they can rely on different dimensions of support from their external patrons. Not to be forgotten, another key variable is the reaction of President Morales’ mostly indigenous supporters to all of this, since they’re the ones who stand to lose the most if the “opposition” seizes power (whether by “democratic” means, a military coup, or through a Color Revolution) and rolls back the hard-earned socio-political rights that they obtained during the incumbent’s 14-year-long tenure.

There are way too many identity conflict variables — in the political, ethnic, and regional domains — at play to assume that the Hybrid War on Bolivia will resolve itself “peacefully” in any realistic scenario. The “best-case” one would be that the “opposition” desists its destabilization campaign and allows another election to be held without first demanding a “deep state” purge. President Morales might once again win in the first round, though, possibly even with a larger majority than before, but that outcome would almost certainly be alleged to be “fraudulent” once more by his opponents no matter how transparent the electoral process is at that point. It goes without saying that the destabilization cycle would commence once more in that scenario. The second relevant one is that the vote goes to a second round, but again, the “opposition” probably won’t concede defeat if President Morales comes out on top, so recent events would simply repeat themselves until the forces behind them get what they want.

Looking forward, the Hybrid War on Bolivia is still far from over despite President Morales backtracking in practice on his principled pro-sovereignty rhetoric. He appears to recognize just how dangerous the dilemma that he’s been forced into is ever since the military tacitly took the side of the “protesters” and several of his police forces across the nation mutinied against him over the weekend. He also knows that any further escalation of the regime change campaign against him will probably cause a civil war to break out between his supporters and the “opposition”, so he’s doing his best as a responsible head of state to avert that disastrous scenario to the best of his ability, even if it might ultimately be in vain. The dynamics are against him and he’s been forced onto the defensive, with it appearing extremely unlikely that he’ll be able to reverse this trend, especially not without the military’s support. It looks like President Morales is hoping that the “best-case” scenario of the several that were analyzed in this piece will transpire, but he’d be wise to also simultaneously prepare for the worst-case ones that seem much more probable at the moment.

*

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 Bolivia’s President Evo Morales Is Backtracking Under Heavy US Pressure
  • Tags: ,

Significant Progress Toward Political Settlement in Syria?

November 12th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Last month, Russia’s Foreign Ministry claimed progress was made toward “promoting (a) political settlement in conformity with the resolutions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254.”

In mid-September, Sergey Lavrov said

“(t)he war in Syria has really come to an end. The country is gradually returning to a normal, peaceful life,” adding:

“Some hotspots of tensions remain in the territories that are not controlled by the Syrian government, such as Idlib and the eastern bank of the Euphrates.”

Around the same time, Putin and Netanyahu met in Moscow. Commenting on what was discussed, Lavrov said the following:

“(T)he Israelis fully agree with us (on the importance of) ensur(ing)  real, in practice, not only in words, respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic,” adding:

“(W)e on our part highlighted the issues of assisting the Syrian authorities and the Syrians on the whole in their returning to peaceful life.”

“We, in my opinion, found understanding from our Israeli counterparts on these issues.”

On Saturday, Lavrov claimed significant progress was made toward achieving a political settlement in Syria.

Reality on the ground is vastly different from the above-expressed optimism.

Endless US war (in its 9th) rages in parts of the country with no prospect for near-term resolution — because bipartisan US hardliners reject restoration of peace and stability to the Syrian Arab Republic.

Idlib province remains infested with tens of thousands of heavily armed US-supported al-Nusra and other jihadists.

US anti-Russia, anti-Syria, anti-Iran propaganda is relentless. On Friday, Pompeo’s spokeswoman falsely accused Russian and Syrian aerial operations in Idlib of “caus(ing) numerous casualties among civilians and humanitarian workers (sic), and damage to hospitals and civilian infrastructure in Idlib and other areas of northwest Syria (sic),” adding:

“These attacks…hit a school, a maternity hospital, and homes, killing 12 and injuring nearly 40 (sic).”

The above accusations apply to US, NATO, Israeli operations — not how Russian and Syrian forces operate.

Establishment media repeat the above fabrications and similar ones with disturbing regularity — their propaganda reports some of the worst in modern memory.

Followers of their disinformation have no idea of reality on the ground — Syria and its people victims of Washington’s imperial scourge, its high crimes of war and against humanity.

On the same day, Pompeo falsely accused Iran of concealing “undeclared nuclear materials,” adding: “(W)e are alarmed at Iran’s lack of adequate cooperation.”

Fact: No country is more heavily monitored, none more cooperative with the IAEA and its inspectors — polar opposite how the US and Israel operate, no one permitted near their nuclear and other sites declared off limits to foreign observers.

According to Syrian and independent media, fierce clashes continue in northern parts of the country between Turkish occupation forces and the Syrian Arab Army.

Southfront reported that Turkish drones killed and injured Syrian civilians, Kurdish media saying:

“A drone of the Turkish aggressor targeted a gathering of al-Hishah locals while they were harvesting cotton, adding new crime to the crimes of the Turkish occupation.”

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said (US-supported) jihadists in Idlib province violated the ceasefire around 600 times in October — an average of nearly 20 times daily.

US war secretary Mark Esper said Pentagon troops “will respond with overwhelming military force against any group that threatens the safety of our  (occupying) forces.”

Asked whether the Pentagon’s mission includes denying Syrian and/or Russian forces access to oil producing areas, Esper said: “The short answer is yes.”

The US “mission” is all about illegally controlling strategic parts of the country indefinitely, maintaining a state of war, looting Syrian oil, preventing restoration of peace and stability, along with the ultimate aim of regime change — wanting pro-Western puppet rule replacing Syria’s sovereign independence.

The “mission” has nothing to do with combatting the scourge of ISIS and likeminded jihadists the US created and supports, using their fighters as proxy troops, supported by Pentagon terror-bombing.

It has nothing to do with supporting Syrian Kurds, co-opted then betrayed in pursuit of greater priorities.

In late October, Russia’s Foreign Ministry released satellite images, showing scores of tanker trucks involved in smuggling looted Syrian oil — “under the strong protection of the US,” what its Defense Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov called “international state-sponsored banditry.”

The US wants Damascus prevented from using the country’s oil revenues, diverting them to US private interests and the CIA to help finance its diabolical operations.

Last week, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin said Moscow will not cooperate with the US scheme to steal Syrian oil, adding:

“(I)t’s up to the Syrian people to manage their natural resources, including oil.” US actions aim to boost its “illegal presence” in the country.

During her weekly press conference, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova denounced “Washington’s illegal and unlawful actions” in Syria, adding:

US occupation of its territory and resource theft continues “while using the (phony) pretext of fighting ISIS to cover up its criminal activities.”

“(T)he Americans are smuggling oil from Syria valued at over $30 million a month, and are set to stay there for the foreseeable future.”

Idlib’s de-escalation zone is “a hotbed of (US-supported) international terrorism.”

“The overall situation in Syria is” far from becoming normalized because of US rage to control the country, its resources and population.

Endless war continues in its 9th year. Restoration of peace and stability to the country remains unattainable because the US rejects conflict resolution in all its war theaters.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Significant Progress Toward Political Settlement in Syria?

The least expectations of all hardworking families are simple and noble. They want to raise their children to be educated, content and prosperous in a safe environment. This is a universal aspiration. From Baghdad to Boston, working families share the same hopes and expectations; only the degree of suffering separates them. When one part of a body is in strain, the whole body reacts in complexity. People around the world are responding to their particular problems in different ways. A farmer in Ecuador is confronted with the question of life and death while an American farmer is facing an uncertain and gloomy future. In other words, on the different levels, they all are suffering.

In the U.S., for many the “American Dream” meant to be secure and prosperous. America was the “land of milk and honey” and the “American Dream” was the immigrants’ dream. Today that dream has transformed into a nightmare. If one is poor in the U.S., he or she -one way or another- lives in the state of constant fear. This fear is real and it is rooted in an economical system that classifies people based on their class; the socio-economic status, race and gender. Logically, this fear is much more intense for those who are labeled as poor immigrants with or without a clear “legal status”.

In general, the poor and low-income families in the U.S. regardless of their race are suffering. The United Nations special report on the extreme poverty and human rights in the United States of America declares that

“about 40 million live in poverty, 18.5 million in extreme poverty, and 5.3 million live in Third World conditions of absolute poverty”.

In every major city, the number of homeless people is on the rise. This reality in the U.S. with the most powerful economy in the world is absolutely shocking. Why is the strongest economy in the world hopelessly entangled with the problems such as “homelessness” or is unable to provide basic necessities such as “clean water” to her citizens?

These days, it is not unusual to observe the growing number of American citizens who sleep on the pavements near luxury high-rise buildings in the major cities! There must be something rotten in the very core of a social system which increases its wealth without diminishing its misery. Indeed the problem lies in an economic system of exploitation – that is the Capitalist system.

From its inception, the U.S. grew as an unjust economic system. What is unprecedented today is the widest gap between wealth and poverty. Roughly in the last 3 decades the top 1% gained from $8.4 trillion to $29.5 trillion in wealth.  This intense inequality has exposed the extreme nature of racism and chauvinism of the U.S. government. Although today the ultra-right wing politicians, officials and the so-called political analysts boldly propagate racism and xenophobia more than ever; nonetheless it is vital to concentrate on the roots of the problem not the outcome.

Slavery in the U.S. did not originate from racism; rather racism necessitated the justification of the exploitation of slaves. Today “Black Lives Matter” and “Me Too” – so-called movements – are confusing the roots of an economical exploitation with its byproducts, racism and chauvinism. A good doctor seeks to find the actual cause of a patient’s medical problem through the apparent symptoms. In the U.S. like any other Capitalist countries, the exploitation of working people is the cause of the problem; racism and chauvinism are the symptoms.

However, this simple difference between the actual cause and symptoms of any problem in the U.S. is not clear for many activists. Their valuable energy, dedication and determination are acted out as daring but politically blindfolded! They carry different flags, from pseudo-Socialists to Antifa small groups in hope to “wake up” the majority. In reality they have become tools for distraction and obstacles in the revolutionary path. Their gurus who they worship emphatically usually are the Capitalist functionaries at best. It is unbelievable but true that the so-called “Socialists” or “Communists” find their salvation in the Democratic Party! They are so feeble that they worship Mrs. Gabbard or Mr. Sanders as their saviors of the working people! These small groups of activists against the power of the working people believe in the “alternative facts”! They still believe that the outmoded Capitalist system is reformable, if only the right politicians are in charge! Meanwhile as “progressives” they support the online censorship and are totally silent about the unjust incarceration of innocent whistleblowers and true journalists such as Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning.

The profound disparity between wealth and poverty is shaping the future of the United States of America.  This unbalanced and unjust distribution of wealth undeniably has reached the point of an explosive and unstable stage. This means the grand ideology of planters and merchants in 17th century in creating a Republic no longer serves the interest of the entire “1%” in the United States of America.

This is a unique situation which demands a new system of operation. A system that either embraces one form of barbarism or releases the powerful forces of the “99%” in creating a just and revolutionary social and economical organization in benefit of the majority. The outcome of revolution and counter-revolution will determine the future of the United States of America. Today, the three branches of the U.S. government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) are disharmonious and as result are inefficient to administrate a functional government.

For the financial elite, the functionality and not the descriptive formality of the government is the main concern.  Support for Fascism in Germany – a new form of a Capitalist government- rose rapidly in 2 years. In September 1930 election, the insignificant Nazi Party votes increased up to 700 percent! On January 30th, 1933, the financial German elite appointed Hitler as Chancellor and the leader of Germany. Of course for these drastic changes to take place; the reactionary elements in Germany were projecting themselves for long time and were ready to seize the moment in the right time.

Today, in the U.S. the same Fascistic elements are finding their voice and opportunity to implement the American style of Fascism. The Presidency of Mr. Trump has opened a new method of governance, an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. The White House has intensified its willingness to undermine the idea of separation of powers by the looming “impeachment” saga. President Trump in many ways has made it clear that he is prepared to utilize violent forces against his political opponents. On many occasions, Mr. Trump has projected that any attempt to replace him will start a “civil war” in the U.S.

For the working families, the animosity and out of control hostility of the Democratic and Republican parties toward each other is worrisome. The 2016 election put Mr. Trump, a conman with a Fascistic agenda in the White House. President Trump from the start created a support base for himself against those who he claims “hate America”.

On January 23rd, 2016 in Iowa, Mr. Trump as a professional conman projected himself as the most trusted leader among his followers by saying:

“… my people are so smart… I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any votes.”

Since then, he has created an informal “Fifth Ave. Club” with hardcore members. He has tapped into the desire of the neglected middle class.  A group of people who desperately seek to be associated with the glory of the wealthy minority in America just like the medieval peasants who worshiped their glorious Kings and Queens in Europe. They look up to Mr. Trump as their “God’s Chosen Leader” with a wisdom to “Make America Great Again”.

Right after 2016 election, the Democratic Party in opposition to the new political reality played its own dirty tricks. They tirelessly did everything to defame Mr. Trump as a “Russian asset” while supporting him wholeheartedly on the tax cut for the rich and increasing the military budget. The Democrats in essence were in agreement with President Trump to limit the democratic rights and govern as a police state in the name of “National Security”. After the failed “Mueller Report”, the Democrats ignited the “impeachment” saga in hope to occupy the White House soon without the American people’s participation. They want a peaceful congressional coup d’état, a transformation of power without inciting the working people.

As the impeachment saga flares up each day, the hard-working families in the U.S. are witnessing a transformation of their government from “democracy” to an unknown future. If the Democratic Party leadership succeeds in their impeachment drive, then the military wing of the ruling class will be in power which is eager to drag the nation to a dangerous military confrontation with their long time “adversaries” such as Russia. A triumphed Democratic Party after the impeachment battle will give the warmongers a unique opportunity to advocate a military solution as the only solution to the American problem.

With this strategy, the party of war will demand the unconditional support and obedience from the working people by attacking their democratic rights in the name of “National Security”. A period that dissidents will be labeled as “Russian asset” and McCarthyism is unleashed for vicious persecutions and witch-hunt.  On the other hand, if the impeachment effort is failed, the American people would witness a period of extreme “rule of law and order” by a despotic President. A dark period in the American history that millions of conscious people will be either silenced, imprisoned or simply perish by harsh political repression and the American style of Fascism.

Fascism is a word that has been used many times from “left” or “right” to describe a demon that they loathe. But Fascism has its own concrete political definition. Mr. Trump is representing a version of Fascism in America. The rise of Mr. Trump and Trumpism to power in the U.S. is forming in different political and economical circumstances than Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany or Franco in Spain. Trumpism is a premature newborn of Fascism. Mr. Trump was elected as president – of course not by the popular vote – now he wants to take this opportunity and reign as an absolute leader. The main obstacle against Mr. Trump’s personal adventure and Trumpism is the American Labor. The majority of working people in the U.S. are ready to combat any form of reactionary rules. They are on the rise again after decades of setbacks that they have had to endure since President Reagan came to power.

However, despite the Fascistic minded President with his incompetent GOP representatives and the illusive Democratic leadership, the American people are fighting independently for their own rights as workers, farmers, teachers, students, immigrants and minorities in general. The rise of the 99% in the U.S. at this level is extraordinary. Understanding the new wave of working people resistance in the U.S. requires an investigation of the social, political and economic backdrop.

The major Capitalist countries are either experiencing recession or moving into it. The U.S. economy as the most powerful world economy also is not immune from this crisis. Even the most optimistic American economists admit that the U.S. economy is either at “risk” or on the “edge” of recession. Joshua Green of Bloomberg Business Week points out that

“The real peril facing Donald Trump’s presidency… is the possibility that the current mood of economic pessimism could intensify and push the country into a full-blown recession”.

Certainly Mr. Trump’s trade war has ended any hope to “achieve global economic stability” that the Capitalists around the world had hoped in the last G20 gathering. In the U.S., the real economy is undermining the rise of the stock market. The financial elites are nervous in anticipating another crisis even more severe than 2008. President Obama following President Bush, facing the 2008 economic crisis, stood on the back of working people in America to bailout the failing banks.

The commercial media at that time praised Mr. Obama as a hero and savior who turned around the recession! However in 2019, the U.S. economy is facing yet another recession but this time under the leadership of a chaotic White House and without a pretentious hero Like Mr. Obama. This peculiar situation gives the American workers and farmers a chance to turn around the pending recession into a stage of a new prosperous economy- this prospect is only possible if a conscious and revolutionary leadership wins the trust of the majority of the working people in the U.S.

Workers and farmers -with or without impending recession- already are resisting the 1% austerity measures, fighting for living wages and social conditions. They recognize their struggle is a global phenomenon. Millions of working people around the world from Chile, Haiti, Catalonia, France, UK, Hong Kong, Algeria, Lebanon, Ecuador, Morocco, Egypt, Russia, Iraq and many others are on streets defying the status quo in their countries. They are fighting back not in days but in weeks and months which is a new phenomenon in the class struggle. American auto workers and teachers already have joined this international movement despite of their conspirator union bosses. An uncompromising leadership of the productive forces in America – the workers and farmers- is the only power that is able to combat and defeat the destructive forces of the focal fascistic leadership of the Republican Party and the illusive Democratic Party.

However the most catastrophic scenario that is facing humanity in general, beside the serious consequences of the climate change is the inevitability of the third and final nuclear world war. Without a robust war industry, the U.S. economy will collapse in an instant. Fighting for PEACE is and should be the foremost concern for all democratic minded people.

*

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

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

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Whither the United States of America? The “American Dream” has Become a “Nightmare”

These remarks were delivered by the author at the November 7-9 Workers in Solidarity and Education (WISE) Conference sponsored by the Labor Studies Center at Wayne State University in Detroit.

***

I am honored to once again participate in the Workers in Solidarity & Education (WISE) Conference sponsored by Wayne State University and its Labor Studies Center.

It is always a pleasure as well as a challenge to present ideas to union members in the current period. The working class in the United States and internationally is undergoing tremendous changes in the way the labor market is structured, impacting the way our employment tasks are carried out and the degree to which we are compensated in the production process.

Of course the capitalist system is inherently exploitative and oppressive. If we look back on any period in U.S. history it has been categorized by the struggle between those who are part of the ruling class and the people.

As an agricultural society molded through the expropriation of the land of the Indigenous people, the kidnapping and forced exploitation of African labor, the conquering of areas now known as America, and the ongoing imperatives by the ruling class to extract as much surplus value out of workers as possible, there was born an industrial society which during the 20thcentury surpassed all other economies in recorded history. Nonetheless, the question became in the 19thand 20thcenturies as to what would be the role of the working class, the rural proletariat and the intellectual strata in regard to its approach to overcoming class exploitation, national oppression and gender inequality.

We are still facing these questions today at the conclusion of the second decade of the 21st century. As we move forward into the future many aspects of our existence are becoming even more uncertain. Issues of job security, conditions of employment, workplace safety, environmental degradation and consequent climate change are upon us with an increasing sense of urgency.

Surely it is not enough just to go to work every day while those social changes taking place both inside and outside our places of employment are determining whether we will be able to earn a living in the not too distant future and under what circumstances. Although these questions have philosophical implications, they are by no means abstract and devoid of reality.

Many atmospheric and geological scientists are saying the earth is literally burning up before our eyes. In the state of California where some of the most expensive real estate is to be found any place in the U.S. and the world, many people are awaiting the destruction of their homes, schools and jobs. Homelessness is a reality for hundreds of thousands while the current government in Washington is in a state of denial. The dysfunctionality of the political administration of the capitalist state is so obvious that we can often marvel at the degree to which certain world powers boast about their purported supremacy over other forms of governance.

The so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution is upon us. The potential for a labor market structure where there are fewer hours and less manual labor should be considered an advantage for all concerned. Nevertheless, without social planning such a scenario has actually lowered real wages and fostered widespread uncertainty in regard to how we can make a decent living, maintain health for ourselves and families and rebuild a sense of community and social cooperation.

Our Mission and its Significance

Dr. Frantz Fanon, a psychiatrist who was born in 1925 in the French Caribbean territory of Martinique, in his last work entitled “The Wretched of the Earth”, begins the book with these profound words:

“Each generation must, out of relative obscurity, discover its mission, fulfill it, or betray it.”

Fanon served in the French resistance forces against the Nazis during World War II and would later train as a physician. He was deployed to work for the colonial power of France in the-then colony of Algeria located in North Africa. Although he was ostensibly considered to be a part of the French governmental system he soon realized that the plight of the Algerian people under colonialism was analogous to that of the situation of Africans in his own country in the Caribbean.

Soon enough he switched sides during the Algerian independence movement joining the National Liberation Front (FLN) to fight for the independence of this oppressed nation which had been under French occupation since 1830. Fanon only lived to be 36 years old. However, in his brief years as a professional and political activist made a tremendous contribution to human freedom.

Our organization, the Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice (MECAWI) and later the Moratorium NOW! Coalition to Stop Foreclosures, Evictions and Utility Shut-offs, were formed in 2002 and 2008 respectively. We see our mission as being clearly related to the quote cited above from Fanon. We have defined our mission as one of eradicating injustice, social inequality and the lack of self-determination.

The Pentagon budget of the U.S. is the largest of all military expenditures by all combined states throughout the globe. Our slogan became during the initial phases of the Afghanistan and Iraq military interventions by the U.S., under the-then President George W. Bush, Jr., was “Money for Our Cities, Not for War.” We recognized the link between the thirst for war, the profit-making obsession by the ruling class and the declining standards of living for the people of the U.S., particularly those of us who live in majority African American municipalities such as Detroit.

Imperialist war is also tinged with racism and national oppression. Most people will not voluntarily accept domination by external or even internal elements. The security of the capitalist system is based upon its military dominance and capacity to dictate the terms of economic organization within society and the character of international trade. Under imperialism, which V.I. Lenin described as the highest stage of capitalism known as international finance capital, it is the banks which determine the trajectory of production and therefore the character of social relations within the labor market.

Moratorium NOW! Coalition and the Housing Question

It was only a few years after the expansion of the Pentagon war machine that we witnessed the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression during the period of 1929-1941. The work of MECAWI was transformed significantly as it scrambled to address the burgeoning housing crisis of 2007 and early 2008.

The city of Detroit was one the earliest municipalities negatively impacted by the fallout from racist sub-prime predatory lending. Detroit was the city where the majority of families owned their homes, including and especially African Americans. This was an important asset which distinguished the city from other urban areas in the U.S.

For this very reason the city was targeted in the predatory loan strategy aimed at maximum profitability for the financial institutions. Many of the homes were over assessed in value so the owners could be offered loans far in excess of the actual marketability of the houses. It would only be a matter of a few years that these schemes collapsed. Insurance on the overinflated mortgage value of the homes made it far more profitable for the banks to foreclose than to keep people in their communities.

When the world capitalist system was on the verge of collapse in late 2008, the Bush administration came to the Congress to ask for a bailout. The initial payment was $700 billion to the banks and large insurance firms such as AIG. Later two of the big three auto companies were placed into bankruptcy with huge bailouts for General Motors and Daimler-Chrysler. Workers suffered tremendously through layoffs, pay and benefit cuts, the closing of plants and dealerships. The Great Recession institutionalized the two and three tier pay scales in auto production. Workers within the automotive industry have still not recovered despite the recent strike at General Motors which lasted for six weeks.

Moratorium NOW! Coalition called for an immediate halt to all foreclosures and evictions. The rallying cry was “bailout the people, not the banks.” The banks should pay for the crisis they created and the workers and oppressed people must be empowered to redress the exploitation which they had been subjected to by capital.

Stemming from the housing crisis was the imposition of municipal bankruptcy through emergency management. Moratorium NOW! Coalition intervened in the Detroit bankruptcy both in the courtroom and outside in the streets. The mission was to change the narrative by placing the onus of responsibility on the banks which had literally destroyed the city.

The Housing Question is not new to the capitalist system of the 21st century. Frederick Engels wrote on these issues during the mid-19th century in Germany and Britain. Engels describes the insecurity of the working class and the scarcity of suitable housing along with the incessant rising rents and forced removals at the aegis of capital. However, even though in Detroit there are still tens of thousands of abandoned vacant housing structures, the issue of quality housing and access to utilities and water make the writings of Engels relevant for our activism today. Therefore, it is not possible to speak about the housing crisis or the mass water shutoffs without apportioning blame on finance capital. Absent of the seizure of the resources which rightfully belong to the proletariat can these issues be adequately addressed and resolved. (See this)

*

These remarks were delivered by the author at the November 7-9 Workers in Solidarity and Education (WISE) Conference sponsored by the Labor Studies Center at Wayne State University in Detroit.

The conference attended by hundreds of labor union members, officials, educators and journalists, was held at the Greektown Casino Hotel in the downtown area. Abayomi Azikiwe spoke to a day-long course on Civil Rights, Labor History and Social Unionism.

According to description of the conference:

“The Labor Studies Center at Wayne State University has created the WISE (Workers in Solidarity & Education) conference series that is committed to the teaching and learning of workers through innovative and advanced labor education programs. Our WISE educational events focus on empowering workers by strengthening highly sought after skills including leadership, communication and strategic planning.  WISE@Wayne conferences will also provide the space for workers from various industries, occupations, experiences and backgrounds to connect through common struggles and identify effective strategies that build solidarity and power in their workplaces, unions and 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.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

From November 1-3 more than 1,350 delegates from 86 countries representing 789 organizations, came to Havana to participate in the Anti-imperialist Conference of Solidarity, for Democracy and Against Neoliberalism. Delegates traveled from all continents, particularly from Latin America and the Caribbean.  The conference was organized by the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples (ICAP), Central Organization of Cuban Trade Unions (CTC), along with the Cuban Chapter of Social Movements and the Continental Conference for Democracy and against Neoliberalism.

This historic conference took place at a decisive moment for all progressive forces that resist neoliberal policies as it becomes increasingly clear on the intention on the part of the United States to reconquer Latin America and take over all its natural resources aided by servile oppressive governments and local oligarchs.

José Ramón Machado Ventura, second secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba and Esteban Lazo Hernández, president of the National Assembly of People’s Power and the Council of State presided over the opening plenary.

In a moving opening presentation, with songs and verses, the children of Cuba’s National Theater group, “La Colmenita” inaugurated the Conference embracing with love and tenderness all of those in attendance.  Also present at the conference were renowned intellectuals and writers like Ignacio Ramonet, Atilio Boron, Stella Calloni, Abel Prieto, Omar Gonzalez, and Pedro Calzadilla.

Fernando Gonzalez Llort, President of ICAP and one of the Cuban Five welcomed participants.

“We will be able to face the most challenging adversities. Neither with asphyxiation nor with laws will they be able to get a single concession from the Cuban people, who do not surrender and will continue with their principles of solidarity with the world” he said.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla started his speech by saying:

“You can feel in this room the deep expression of our peoples and solidarity with Cuba…There will be no sustainable development without the right to the development of the countries of the South, nor can it be without social justice.”

Bruno also referred to how in the present time lies become habitual, intolerance grows and the imposition of supremacist ideas appears.

“The intention is to impose a totalitarian model that destroys cultures.”

During the second day of the Conference, a special event about the struggle to free the beloved former President of Brazil, Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva Lula took place with the participation of a large delegation from his homeland, who were presented with boxes of thousands of petitions signed by Cubans demanding Lula’s freedom.

Other constant and heartfelt expressions of support of countries in struggle, including the independence of Puerto Rico, echoed in the convention center along with pronouncements in solidarity with the right to self-determination of the peoples of Palestine and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. The second-day delegates participated in 6 different commissions. Solidarity with Cuba and other Just Causes took place at the Latin America School of Medicine (ELAM). Other commissions met at the Palace of the Convention, the site of the conference.

At ELAM arriving buses from the conference were greeted by lines of medical students in their white coats. After a welcoming, plenary delegates divided up by region to develop proposals for action against the blockade. The talents of students were on display at the end of the day with music, dance and poetry.

At the same time at the Palace of the Convention rooms filled with people participating in the commissions including 1) The People in the Face of Free Trade and Transnationals, 2) Decolonization and Cultural Warfare. Strategic Communication and Social Struggle, 3) Youth: Strategies and Continuity in Struggles, 4) Democracy, Sovereignty and Anti-imperialism, and 5) Integration, Identities and Common Struggles.

The Decolonization and Cultural Warfare, Strategic Communication and Social Struggle commission was moderated by Pedro Calzadilla, Historian and General Coordinator of the Network in Defense of Humanity, and Omar González, Writer and journalist, and Coordinator of the Cuban chapter of the Network in Defense of Humanity. Among the panelist were Abel Prieto Jiménez, Director of the Martiano Program Office and President of the José Martí Cultural Society and Ignacio Ramonet, Spanish and French, Sociologist, writer and journalist.

The third and last day brought endless emotions as participants heard a declaration of Solidarity with the Cuban Revolution and a final declaration of the Anti-Imperialist Conference including proposals for an action plan that includes establishing a common communication strategy as a weapon of action for the coming months.

Participants were nurtured by three days of positive energy to return to their respective places and continue the struggle for a better world. But the symbolic culmination of the 3 day experience was the presence at the closing ceremony of Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez and Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro Moros.

President Maduro spoke first, and brought applauses and loud chanting from delegates when he shouted,

“We hear him, we feel him, Fidel is present here!”

He talked with optimism of the future…

”with the strong resistance we’ve had, we can say today, towards the end of 2019, that a new geopolitical situation is developing in the region and a new wave is rising to face neoliberalism.”

He talked about the situation in Bolivia saying

“Evo Morales is going to resist and triumph over the fascist threat of the Bolivian Right. The Venezuelan President said that the deadline of the opposition was not set just against Evo but against the Bolivian people.

He also talked about the United States Administration and described them and the regional right as being stupid for blaming him and Raul for the events in Brazil, Chile and Ecuador.

“No! it is only the IMF that is the one to be blamed, together with its neoliberal recipients. The ones they are blaming are searching for alternatives to face those wild neoliberal policies of hunger and misery.”

“If there is anything we learned from Chavez, it was to be brave. I always remember how brave Chavez was when he came to Cuba. He came to Cuba to support Fidel during the worst time of the special period. “More than a few told Chavez; don’t go to Cuba or you will lose credibility! They were in the midst of the special period and Chavez said, “Fidel is the light for the Continent. I’m going!” And here he was 25 years ago. A dose of courage is needed to pave the ways of truth.”

“In Venezuela with courage we united the revolutionary processes that began with Bolivar and Marti. And that was followed by the unity between Fidel and Chavez. It’s necessary to take those paths of courage and dare to debunk myths, blackmail, and lies.”

Maduro finished his talk to a thunderous applause when he said,

“Good and better times are rising in Latin America. Let’s have enough spiritual strength to continue pushing in our century and then no one will be able to take it from us.”

Following President Maduro, Cuban President Miguel Diaz Canel spoke. He described the discourse of Trump “as aggressive and dismissive of all those who do not share his approach. The decisions that he makes affect millions on Twitter with the most abhorrent behavior. He talks about socialism without the slightest idea of ​​what it means. And orders the end of any process or political program that intends to overcome prevailing injustice, as if he held the course of history in his hands.”

“He is not the first emperor to try this. And surely he will not be the last to fail. Because history can only be changed by the people. Fidel said many times that the lie was the main adversary to defeat in politics and that telling the truth is the first duty of every revolutionary. This is one of our fundamental missions as practitioners of revolutionary politics. The first enemy to cut down is the lie and even more so, the imperialist lie.”

He addressed all delegates by saying:

“In your beautiful Declaration of Solidarity with the Cuban Revolution, you have written: “The peoples of the world need the example of Cuba”, and he recalled Marti’s statement that maintains its relevance: “Whoever rises today with Cuba rises for all time.” Thanks for saying it and doing it! He continued, “You have called today for unity among political forces and the social and popular movements of the left, to continue to raise consciousness, generate ideas, and organize for the struggle”.

“We see this struggle in the battle for the truth. We must defeat the lies on which wars of all kinds against our peoples are launched: informing, persuading, mobilizing, marching with the poor of the earth, who have grown tired of lies and abuse. Proposing and creating programs that respond to the most pressing demands of workers, students, farmers, intellectuals, and artists.”

“In memory of Fidel and Chávez, two of the greats of Our America, whom we were fortunate to meet, listen to, and follow in the most altruistic practice of solidarity, we look to their work as a guide for the new, challenging times that await us. I believe we all feel that great avenues are opening up, where free men now walk to build a better society. A better world is possible and urgently necessary! Let us fight for it!”

Venezuela and Cuba are at the center of the most vicious attacks and lies by US imperialism and their lackeys, and the significance of having the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution and the current presidents of both countries together on the same stage was not lost on the audience. The powerful speeches of both presidents sent a message of strength to the struggling people of the world and at the same time a message of defiance to the neo liberal policies of the Empire of the North. Despite all the attacks and attempts at economic strangulation that both countries are having to endure, here they were standing strong, without fear, surrounded by cheering allies.

To view more photos from the conference, click here.

*

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

Featured image is from Bill Hackwell

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hundreds Stand Tall in Solidarity with the People of Latin America at Havana Conference
  • Tags:

President Morales resigned under duress following the military’s “request” that he do so after the US-backed OAS alleged that it uncovered evidence supposedly proving that his recent re-election was rigged, but the military coup won’t end the Hybrid War on Bolivia even in the unlikely “best-case” scenario that it ends the cycle of violence in the country because the structural-institutional consequences of this ongoing campaign will inevitably lead to a reversal of the socio-economic rights that were bestowed upon the majority-indigenous population and therefore risks returning millions of people to their prior position as slaves to the neoliberal-globalist system.

The Beginning Of The End?

The Hybrid War on Bolivia has thus far succeeded in removing the country’s democratically re-elected and legitimate head of state after President Morales resigned under duress following the military’s “request” that he do so, with this coup being made possible only because US intelligence had already co-opted the armed forces and therefore ensured that this outcome was a fait accompli even before it was officially announced. On the surface, it might appear as though the Hybrid War is over after it achieved its most visible victory of carrying out regime change in this lithium-rich and geostrategically located state smack dab in the center of South America, but the fact of the matter is that this campaign is far from over for several very important reasons.

The Civil War Already Started

The first one is the most obvious, and it’s that there might be some uncertain degree of physical resistance from (“former”) President Morales’ mostly indigenous supporters, whether in the form of street protests or possibly even a nascent insurgency that could represent the tangible beginning of a national liberation movement to liberate the country from the US-backed military-oligarchic yoke that it’s suddenly been returned under after 13 years of freedom. The military preemptively sought to offset this scenario just prior to the coup by commencing what Reuters reported was “air and land operations to ‘neutralize’ armed groups that act outside the laws”, which in the country’s political context could only have been a euphemism for beginning operations against President Morales’ mostly indigenous supporters and not their right-wing opponents allied with the armed forces who were rioting throughout the country for several weeks already.

This is an important detail that many observers missed amid the fast-moving events that transpired on Sunday but one which crucially reveals that the military went rogue even before demanding President Morales’ resignation by launching operations against what are presumably his supporters despite not legally having the authority to do so. In hindsight, this means that not only did a military coup occur, but that it was preceded by what was arguably the unofficial onset of a low-level civil war whereby the armed forces went outside the legal chain of command (considering that they had yet to demand his resignation at the time) in order to “confront the people” despite previously denying that they had any such intention. This dramatic move came after the “opposition” seized state media in the capital, the homes of President Morales’ sister and two of his governors were torched Saturday night, and an allied mayor was lynched in the streets by the “opposition” a few days prior.

Morales On The Lam

It’s little wonder then that President Morales implored his countrymen during his resignation speech to “stop attacking the brothers and sisters, stop burning and attacking” since he feared for his supporters’ lives after what had recently just taken place, especially seeing as how he would have already had knowledge of the military’s ongoing operation against them that was commenced earlier that same day. Knowing this, he fled the capital before they could capture him and potentially carry out a Gaddafi-like regicide while serving a so-called “warrant” for his arrest (on the presumable basis of something having to do with electoral or another form of alleged “corruption”) and relying on what would have been the unsubstantiated claim that he “resisted” or was “armed” in order to “justify” killing him in cold blood just like their predecessors did to the famous Che Guevara a little over half a century ago.

If they don’t succeed in capturing him soon, the US-backed armed forces might even request American and/or Brazilian “anti-terrorist” assistance after possibly claiming that he and his supporters are connected to Iran’s IRGC and/or Colombia’s FARC considering President Morales’ close ties with the Islamic Republic and vehement support of socialism, respectively. They could also “justify” their request for a direct military intervention by reminding the region of his alliance with Venezuelan President Maduro and alleging that the latter is somehow involved in President Morales’ so-called “terrorist” and possibly even “drug-trafficking” activities. The deck is therefore stacked against him and his supporters even in the event that they resort to waging a national liberation campaign, which would be entirely within their legal rights after external forces took control of the state by proxy and commenced the ongoing low-level civil war.

Institutionalizing Neoliberal Slavery

That’s the worst-case scenario, but the “best-case” one isn’t much better, which would see the US-backed right-wing forces rapidly reversing the socio-economic rights that President Morales bestowed upon the majority-indigenous population throughout his 13 years in office without having to fight an intense civil war first. In other words, his supporters would simply surrender and allow the process to unfold without any physical resistance, which seems extremely unlikely but could nevertheless still occur if the campaign of terror presently being waged against them succeeds in scaring the population into submission. It should be taken for granted that some members of the riotous mobs will team up with the US-backed military in order to form death squads that will kill anyone who resists, beginning with members of his government (both currently serving and those who recently resigned in order to protect their families after their loved ones were at credible risk of being harmed) and their supporters who might take to the streets in protest against this illegal seizure of power.

Either way, the grand strategic outcome that the coup plotters are pursuing is to purge all state structures of socialists in order to more easily impose a hyper-neoliberal regime as soon as possible, with the only question being whether the population actively resists this “lustration” or not. Some of the most likely structural-institutional consequences would be the granting of fiscal (and possibly even political) autonomy to the gas-rich “opposition” strongholds of the so-called “Media Luna” lowlands where most of the mestizos live and the drastic reduction of taxes on foreign mining firms operating in the indigenous-populated highlands, which could altogether serve to deprive President Morales’ mostly indigenous supporters of the resources needed to subsidize their socio-economic programs. The end result would naturally be that millions of people risk returning to their prior position of undignified servitude that they toiled under prior to President Morales’ ascent to office.

“The Latin American Libya”

Acutely aware of the future that awaits them if the military coup succeeds in stripping them of their hard-earned socio-economic rights and institutionalizing their status as slaves to the neoliberal-globalist system supported by their country’s oligarchy and its American/Brazilian backers, it wouldn’t be surprising if the “worst-case” scenario transpires of President Morales’ mostly indigenous supporters waging a full-fledged national liberation insurgency.

That, however, also dangerously carries with it the high risk that the state will “simplify” its “counter-insurgency” strategy by siccing death squads on anyone of native Bolivian heritage (especially in the rural areas), therefore leading to ethnic cleansing against them or even genocide if this strategy is taken to its “logical” conclusion. As such, it’s way too early to say that the Hybrid War on Bolivia is over just because President Morales was forced to resign under duress since this campaign will never truly end given the literally fascist outcome that it’s aiming to indefinitely perpetuate of informally returning the indigenous population to noeliberal slavery. Considering the dynamics at play, Bolivia might soon become known as the “Latin American Libya”, and the consequences could easily spread throughout the rest of South America just as Libya’s spread throughout Africa.

*

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

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

Revaluing Capitalism for the Long-Term?

November 11th, 2019 by Dr. Kyle Bailey

In the wake of the 2007–08 financial crash, the mainstream debate has not focused on the choice between socialism or barbarism, but rather on ‘reinventing capitalism’.

Faced with a populist ‘other’ ranging from ‘Trump and Brexit’ to the popular but as-yet-ill-defined ‘socialism’ of Corbyn and Sanders, the liberal bourgeoisie in the Atlantic heartland of the global political economy has sought to reassert its waning hegemony by way of a resurgent capitalist internationalism. They fear that neoliberal globalization’s intensifying legitimation crisis will lead the growing masses ‘left behind’ by economic stagnation, social inequality, and environmental injustice to ‘scapegoat’ the capitalist system by embracing the ‘totalitarianism’ of the radical left or extreme right.

In response, a leading fraction of the capitalist class has cohered around a hegemonic project of economically ‘long-term’, socially ‘inclusive’, and ecologically ‘sustainable’ capitalism as the apparent solution to the system’s multidimensional and overdetermined organic crisis.

Economically ‘long-term’ means empowering ‘non-financial’ corporate executives and their managerial cadres against ‘the capitalist threat to capitalism’ posed by financial short-termism. Socially ‘inclusive’ means responsibility to multiple stakeholders, rather than just to shareholders. And ecologically ‘sustainable’ means something like a Green New Deal for global neoliberalism.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Finance-led Accumulation

The broad contours of this project can be gleaned by examining the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and finance-led industrial restructuring under neoliberalism.

With a lineage dating to 19th century corporate giants like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford – the so-called ‘Foundations of the American Century’ – and Lever, Boots, and Cadbury in the UK, CSR has more recently been associated with the ‘Third Way’ project of neoliberal capitalist globalization with a ‘human face’.

Following the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization, and the European Union, alongside growing US – emerging markets integration, the period from 1992 until 2007 saw a second wave of institutional restructuring in the capitalist world system designed to ‘lock in’ the neoliberal economic reforms of the 1980s.

Whereas the finance-led industrial restructuring of the 1980s enabled multinational corporations (MNCs) to restore profitability by defining their ‘core’ competences and divesting from non-core businesses, this new wave of restructuring prioritized expanding what remained of the core through new investments, the emulation of US corporate governance practices, and the restructuring of corporate supply chains.

In contrast to traditional CSR and philanthropy, which target areas outside the corporate core, finance-led restructuring has seen the growing integration of CSR and sustainability initiatives into the core operations of MNCs. Intended to augment the core capabilities of particular firms, integrated CSR remains grounded in the ‘practical realities’ of big business. The less autonomy CSR initiatives acquire from the core operations, the better.

The Road from Rio

Understanding the evolution of integrated CSR requires examining how capitalist states have sought to incorporate MNCs, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and UN agencies into flexible and networked forms of multistakeholder ‘global governance’ congruent with the reproduction requirements of the post-Fordist global economy, and thus to organize them into social forces capable of assuming greater responsibility for reproducing and legitimizing neoliberal capitalist globalization.

Firstly, as the UN struggled to retain its legitimacy in a ‘post-Westphalian’ world, it called for ‘global partnerships for sustainable development’ with all sectors of civil society in the run-up to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. With the Cold War officially over, this expanded notion of development as entailing an ethical commitment to nature and society provided a renewed Malthusian justification for Western foreign policy interests and a global system of market-based inequality as the only means of forestalling global resource depletion and the ‘tragedy of the commons’.

Secondly, faced with a growing ‘anti-globalization’ backlash, a high-profile group of MNCs went beyond defensive posturing and ‘greenwash’ in order to actively shape the CSR reform agenda ‘from above’. Among them were industrial giants like BP, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Ford, IKEA, Migros, Rio Tinto, Shell, Tata, Toyota, and Unilever, as well as banks, institutional investors, accountancy and auditing firms, and credit rating agencies engaged in ‘socially responsible’ investing, reporting, and certification.

Seeking more legitimate ties with governments, NGOs, trade unions, universities, and UN agencies, business organizations such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) cultivated notions of ‘corporate citizenship’, ‘stakeholder value’, and ‘partnership’ as the basis for rebranding themselves as major public international organizations and NGOs rather than as private ‘merchants’.

A key milestone in this process of forging ‘win-win’ solutions through public – private and business – NGO partnerships was the creation of the UN Global Compact with big business. Announced at the 1999 World Economic Forum meeting by Kofi Annan – whom Perry Anderson once described as the ‘academically dim son of a manager for Unilever in colonial Ghana’ – the Compact remains the world’s largest voluntary CSR initiative, having been pitched as a ‘coalition to make globalization work for all’.

Thirdly, disillusioned with the inability of capitalist states to curb environmental destruction after Rio, NGOs seized the apparent ‘opportunities’ afforded by neoliberal globalization and the ‘retreat of the state’ by embracing market-based, voluntary strategies for regulating corporate behaviour.

The neocolonialist World Wildlife Fund led the way constructing multistakeholder global partnerships for sustainable development, including the Forest Stewardship Council launched with B&Q in 1993, the Marine Stewardship Council co-founded as a joint venture with Unilever in 1996, and the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil established with Swiss retailer Migros in 2003.

Surpassing mere co-optation by big business, this strategic shift reflected the growing corporatization of NGO activism, blurring the boundary between NGOs and MNCs in a similar way to the emergence of ‘activist companies’ such as The Body Shop.

More fundamentally, it presupposed the broad shift from ‘producer’ to ‘consumer’ politics inaugurated by the Reagan–Thatcher counter-revolution’s smashing of the labour movement. Whereas producer politics expressed the collective power and organization of the working class, the advent of consumer politics marked its effective decomposition, disorganization, and atomization.

These three sets of examples serve to illustrate how the ongoing dialectical interactions among corporations, NGOs, and public agencies have transformed the interests and identity of each while leaving capitalist social relations fundamentally unaltered.

From Rio to Paris

Faced with new social, political, and market pressures after the financial crisis, in our post-Occupy world even the CEOs of the largest corporations admit that capitalism has lost legitimacy and needs to be ‘saved from itself’.

Perhaps the most articulate spokesperson for this fraction of capital is Paul Polman, who championed a supposedly long-term, multistakeholder, and inclusive form of capitalism while CEO of Unilever from 2009–2019, representative of big business on the UN High Level Panel which devised the Sustainable Development Goals in 2012, Chair of the WBCSD from 2012–2017, and, since 2018, as Chair of the ICC and Vice-Chair of the Global Compact.

Arguing that capitalism requires a ‘new [socially embedded] corporation’ in order to ‘evolve’ and ‘focus on the long-term’, Polman abolished quarterly earnings guidance for shareholders and implemented the ten-year Unilever Sustainable Living Plan, currently the most ambitious example of integrated CSR yet undertaken by a large firm. In 2014, he stated, without irony, that Unilever is ‘the world’s biggest NGO… The only difference is, we’re making money so we are sustainable’.

Polman is also a leading member of two groups promoting ‘long-term capitalism’.

The Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism began as an initiative of the neoconservative Henry Jackson Societyco-chaired by Dominic Barton – the UK-based Global Managing Director of McKinsey and key long-term economic strategist to the Trudeau government – and Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild – a New Jersey-born Democratic Party insider who married into the Rothschild banking dynasty after being introduced to Sir Evelyn de Rothschild by Henry Kissinger at the 1998 Bilderberg conference and spent her honeymoon being hosted by the Clintons at the White House. Motivated by a ‘progressive’ anti-communism, the Coalition aims to empower corporations to better articulate the ‘long-term value’ they create for shareholders and stakeholders. Its first conference, co-hosted by the City of London in 2014, included companies accounting for over $30-trillion in investable assets – one third of the global total – and speeches by Bill Clinton, Christine Lagarde, Mark Carney, Larry Summers, Arianna Huffington, and HRH The Prince of Wales.

A week after Kraft Heinz’s aborted hostile takeover of Unilever in February 2017, ten CEOs representing the Coalition gathered at Unilever House on London’s Victoria Embankment to launch the Embankment Project for Inclusive Capitalism, which seeks to formulate new metrics for measuring and reporting long-term value creation related to non-financial performance, ‘intangible’ assets, and social and environmental impacts.

Focusing Capital on the Long-Term was formed in 2013 as an outgrowth of collaboration between Barton and Mark Wiseman – the President and CEO of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board created in 1997 to reorient the Canadian Pension Plan toward financial markets. FCLT Global decries the problems of quarterly capitalism and seeks to ‘change the investment strategies and approaches of the players who form the cornerstone of our capitalist system: the big asset owners’. In 2018, Wiseman left CPPIB to join his wife at BlackRock – Unilever’s largest shareholder – which, like the CPP, is heavily invested in the military and fossil fuels.

So-called ‘sustainable finance’ is also central to the Green New Deal, which, for big business at least, promises to reboot and relegitimise a stagnant world economy through the roll out of new green technology and infrastructure. Just as MNCs sought to hegemonize the Rio process, so too have they sought to shape the post-crisis reform agenda before, during, and after the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan Advisory Council includes the former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, as well as Avaaz founder Ricken Patel, Forum for the Future co-founder Jonathan Porritt, Kavita Prakash-Mani from WWF Markets, and Harvard’s John Ruggie – another Democratic Party insider and the intellectual architect of the UN Global Compact.

Chaired by Polman and including Figueres among its 27 ‘visionary’ leaders and CEOs, Richard Branson’s B Team is united under the slogan of ‘People, Planet, Profit’. The Team is managed by Avaaz co-founder and former McKinsey consultant Jeremy Heimans – a purveyor of ‘hollowed out’ activism in the guise of his ‘New Power’ methodology for ‘flexible’, ‘networked’, and ‘leadership’ mass-movement building.

Under Polman’s chairmanship, the WBCSD elaborated principles for carbon pricing and trading, announced its support for carbon capture and storage, and led the Natural Capital Coalition’s international consortium for the creation of a Natural Capital Protocol, which aims to conserve and enhance the world’s ‘natural capital’.

The WBCSD is also a driving force behind the We Mean Business coalition. Launched one week before the New York People’s Climate March in 2014, We Mean Business is a united front made up of Business for Social Responsibility, Carbon Disclosure Project, CERES, The B Team, The Climate Group, The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders’ Group, and the WBCSD. The coalition calls for world leaders to agree a market-based plan for fighting climate change and claims the Paris Agreement will unlock over $13-trillion in new investment.

And there’s more to come. Next year’s WEF Annual Meeting will focus on stakeholder capitalism and the Paris agreement. Complementing the Business Roundtable’s recent statement redefining the purpose of a corporation as promoting ‘an economy that serves all Americans’ rather than just shareholders, the WEF’s governing bodies – which include the likes of B Team member Marc Benioff, Mark Carney, Chrystia Freeland, Al Gore, Christine Lagarde, and Ursula von der Leyen, as well as BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and Royal DSM Chairman and Unilever Advisory Director Feike Sybesma – will also publish a universal ‘ESG scorecard’ to update its 1973 ‘Davos Manifesto’.

Conclusion

In an era of renewed class conflict marked by growing support for as-yet-ambiguous socialist alternatives, this new ‘progressive capitalism’ is seen by the ruling class as the last, best hope for restoring confidence in the system. Appealing to societal fairness and responsibility rather than economic acquisitiveness and aspiration, it aims to redefine neoliberalism as a progressive, dynamic force for reform in response to its own crisis – a nostalgic ‘technocratic populism’ that mobilizes the masses behind the CEOs, managers, and ‘experts’ who apparently know best.

Although typically presented in crypto-Polanyian fashion as an effort to impose limits on the capitalist market by ‘re-embedding’ unsustainable finance in nature and society, those preaching the CSR gospel are in fact the fiercest advocates of abolishing all such limits. Their goal is to cement a renewed class alliance within the power bloc – a new form of finance capital – in which asset owners, asset managers, and industrial corporations collectively reshape capital markets in the name of subordinating labour, nature, and society to the financialized logic of global capital accumulation.

Moreover, big business’ strategy of colonizing the ‘public’ world of governments, NGOs, and international organizations has blurred the boundary between the public and private spheres. By seeking to ‘stakeholderise’ every conflict, MNCs embrace their critics in what Guardian journalist George Monbiot describes as ‘a dialogue that is open in the sense a lobster pot is open, breaking down critical distance and identity until no one knows who they are any more’. In this way, the new inclusive capitalism functions first and foremost to pre-empt, co-opt, and neutralize demands for more radical transformation advocated by labour and social movements – a strategy consciously designed to split the left by giving ‘progressives’ the ideological ammunition they need to embrace the system.

If the left today is to advance beyond ‘Third Way’ social democracy’s embrace of financialized global capitalism, it therefore cannot settle for a more or less progressive capitalism that merely compensates those ‘left behind’ by neoliberalism at the margins, but must pose genuine worker-centred socialist alternatives – a dual social and ecological revolution that fundamentally transforms the exploitative capitalist system which generates these inequalities, degradations, and oppressions in the first 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.

Kyle Bailey is a PhD candidate in the Department of Politics at York University in Toronto.

Featured image: Christiana Figueres, former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, at the launch of ‘We Mean Business’ at the NYC Climate Week in 2014. Source: The Bullet

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Revaluing Capitalism for the Long-Term?
  • Tags:

Selected Articles: Coup Plot in Bolivia against Evo Morales

November 11th, 2019 by Global Research News

Our objective at Global Research is to recruit one thousand committed “volunteers” among our more than 50,000 Newsletter subscribers to support the distribution of Global Research articles (email lists, social media, crossposts). 

Do not send us money. Under Plan A, we call upon our readers to donate 5 minutes a day to Global Research.

Global Research Volunteer Members can contact us at [email protected] for consultations and guidelines.

If, however, you are pressed for time in the course of a busy day, consider Plan B, Consider Making a Donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member

*     *     *

World Leaders, Organizations Condemn Coup Against Evo Morales in Bolivia

By Telesur, November 11, 2019

Cuba’s government was also quick to reject the coup as President Miguel Diaz-Canel urged for “the world to mobilize for the life and freedom of Evo.” Mexico’s President Andres Manuel Lopez Obradorpraised Morales’ decision to put the people first over his mandate.

This comes as Morales was forced to resign Sunday after senior army and police chiefs called on him to do so following weeks of right-wing unrest and violence against his Oct. 20 elections victory, in what his government has called a coup by opposition forces in the country.

PSL Statement: We Condemn Military Coup; US Hands Off Bolivia

By Party for Socialism and Liberation, November 11, 2019

The Party for Socialism and Liberation strongly condemns the military coup in Bolivia, and extends our solidarity to the Bolivian people who are struggling to defend the massive gains won under the leadership of President Evo Morales in the face of this counter-revolution. U.S. imperialism is clearly the sponsor of the coup and we are outraged at this crime against Bolivian sovereignty and democracy.

The goal of the coup is to restore the absolute authority of the Bolivian elites who rule as clients of the United States. They despise the country’s Indigenous majority and want to eviscerate the rights of the working class.

Bolivia: President Evo Morales Resigns Amid Right-Wing Coup

By Telesur, November 11, 2019

The resignation comes after Morales proposed a dialogue process with the opposition parties but was rejected and even accepted the Organization of American States’ (OAS) call for new elections.

However, due to strong violent onslaughts against militants and leaders of the Movement To Socialism (MAS), intimidation of journalists, burning of residences and betrayal of political allies and members of the National Police, Morales and his Vice President decided to leave the government in order to prevent more violence.

U.S.-backed coup Deposes Evo Morales in Bolivia

By Marco Teruggi, November 11, 2019

As of 4 p.m. EDT on Nov. 10, President Evo Morales has resigned his office in Bolivia, pushed out by a counterrevolutionary coup d’état backed by Washington. After part of the police force joined the counterrevolutionary gangs and the heads of the Armed Forces advised him to resign, Morales took this step as the best of bad choices after consultation with the Bolivian Workers Confederation (COB) and other supporters of his government.

This has all happened in the 24 hours since Marco Teruggi wrote the article below, which was first published Nov. 9 by TeleSur, translated by Resumen Latinoamericano’s North America bureau and edited by Workers World.

Trump

US Coup Plot to Oust Bolivia’s Evo Morales

By Stephen Lendman, November 10, 2019

Evo Morales was and remain’s Bolivia’s first indigenous president since elected in December 2005, taking office in January 2006.

In October, he was reelected for the third time, defeating challengers Carlos Mesa and Chi Hyun Chung, his popular support topping theirs combined.

His victory margin over lead challenger Mesa exceeded 10% to avoid a runoff.

“Exporting Democracy” to Bolivia

By Padraig McGrath, October 25, 2019

On October 23rd, Bolivian president Evo Morales gave a press-conference in which he stated that a right-wing coup d’etat was underway in the country. With victory practically assured in the first round of the presidential election, the returning incumbent claimed that widespread right-wing extremist violence was being used in an attempt to interfere with vote counting and certification of the election’s results.

Bolivia’s Presidential Election: Violence and Terror All Over the Country

By Edu Montesanti, October 23, 2019

The election process was peaceful last Sunday. But on the following day, a foreseen terror started. No matter the election results. Mesa incited street mobilizations, leading to violence at vote-counting stations: opposition protesters have burned ballots, buildings where counting was taking place, and Electoral Courts across the country.

As the Organization of the American States (OAS) and the Washington regime have questioned the legitimacy of the election results leading to the reelection of Evo Morales, several international observers have praised the legitimacy and transparency of the Bolivian electoral process.

Bolivia at the Crossroads: Choosing Between Continued Success or Handover to US Hegemony

By Peter Koenig, October 21, 2019

The United States has not stopped trying to change public opinion with false propaganda and making incredibly ludicrous promises to the population. For example, US Embassy people – maybe Fifth Columnists on US payroll, promised the population of the poor Yungas region of Bolivia, new and asphalted roads, if they didn’t support Evo Morales in the upcoming elections. There are also flagrant lies circulating, that Evo and his families had stolen hundreds of millions of dollars and deposited them in a secret account in the Bank of the Vatican.  Similar lies as are being spread about Nicolas Maduro, the Castro family, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, the leaders of Iran and Syria and many more, who oppose the dictate of Washington.

*

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

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Coup Plot in Bolivia against Evo Morales

World leaders and organizations expressed Sunday their solidarity with former Bolivian President Evo Morales under the hashtag #ElMundoconEvo (the World with Evo) and strongly condemned the right-wing coup which forced Morales to resign.

“I just heard that there was a coup d’état in Bolivia and that comrade Evo was forced to resign. It is unfortunate that Latin America has an economic elite that does not know how to live with democracy and the social inclusion of the poorest,” former Brazilian President and Leader of the Workers’ Party (PT) Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said.

The historic Brazilian leader’s message was echoed by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro who “categorically condemned the consummated coup d’etat against the brother president Evo,” adding that

“the social and political movements of the world declare mobilization to demand the preservation of the life of the Bolivian Indigenous people victims of racism.”

Cuba’s government was also quick to reject the coup as President Miguel Diaz-Canel urged for “the world to mobilize for the life and freedom of Evo.” Mexico’s President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador praised Morales’ decision to put the people first over his mandate.

This comes as Morales was forced to resign Sunday after senior army and police chiefs called on him to do so following weeks of right-wing unrest and violence against his Oct. 20 elections victory, in what his government has called a coup by opposition forces in the country.

“I decided to resign from my position so that Carlos Mesa and Luis Camacho stop abusing and harming thousands of brothers … I have the obligation to seek peace and it hurts a lot that we face Bolivians,” the former president of Bolivia said in a press statement.

Argentina’s President-elect Alberto Fernandez tweeted said that the “institutional breakdown in Bolivia is unacceptable. The Bolivian people must choose as soon as possible, in free and informed elections, their next government.

Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera also said that he was resigning from his position. The two leaders said that they would be handing their resignation letters to the country’s National Assembly.

Soon after the president of the Senate also quit thus breaking the Constitutional line of succession. As the country plunges into further chaos, international solidarity continues to be shared for Morales and his government.

“To see Evo who, along with a powerful movement, has brought so much social progress forced from office by the military is appalling. I condemn this coup against the Bolivian people and stand with them for democracy, social justice, and independence,” British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn tweeted Sunday.

Social movements and organizations also shared their messages of support and condemnation to the internationally repudiated coup in Bolivia.

Brazil’s Landless Workers Movement energetically demanded “dictatorship never again,” as the called for the people to decide Bolivia’s future. While the Argentinian human rights movement of the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo sided with Morales’ and his former vice president.

“We stand in solidarity with the people of Bolivia in these hours of suffering and demand the continuity of the transparent and unrestricted electoral process,” the progressive Group of Puebla issued a statement adding that they “demand that the International Human Rights Bodies guarantee the clarification of the acts of violence committed, the trial and punishment of those responsible, and the restoration of order, peace, social life, and democracy in 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.

PSL Statement: We Condemn Military Coup; US Hands Off Bolivia

November 11th, 2019 by Party for Socialism and Liberation

The Party for Socialism and Liberation strongly condemns the military coup in Bolivia, and extends our solidarity to the Bolivian people who are struggling to defend the massive gains won under the leadership of President Evo Morales in the face of this counter-revolution. U.S. imperialism is clearly the sponsor of the coup and we are outraged at this crime against Bolivian sovereignty and democracy.

The goal of the coup is to restore the absolute authority of the Bolivian elites who rule as clients of the United States. They despise the country’s Indigenous majority and want to eviscerate the rights of the working class.

The coup also has a clear regional significance. Progressive and revolutionary forces have been on the march over the past year. President López Obrador’s new government in Mexico committed itself to non-interference in the sovereign affairs of the nations of Latin America. Venezuela defeated the U.S.-backed coup attempt of Juan Guaidó. An uprising in Ecuador forced the government to flee the capital city and cancel an IMF-imposed austerity package. An ongoing rebellion in Chile has brought historic crowds into the streets and put the right wing government of Sebastian Piñera on the defensive despite vicious repression by the police and military. The right wing government in Argentina was voted out of office in favor of the progressive Alberto Fernández-Cristina Fernández presidential ticket. And immediately preceding the Bolivian coup, wrongfully imprisoned ex-President Lula was freed.

The Bolivian ruling class and their military are following the dictates of the U.S. government, which has worked overtime to turn back the leftwing tide sweeping Latin America.

Upon assuming the presidency in 2006, President Morales nationalized the country’s oil and gas wealth. This wealth was used to meet the needs of the people and promote economic development. Morales’ Movement for Socialism (MAS) drew its support from the working class of Bolivia, whose population is majority Indigenous, and transformed Bolivia from one of the poorest countries in the world to the fastest-growing economy in the region. Evo Morales is the first Indigenous President in the history of Bolivia, and his presidency has posed a challenge to the racist ruling elite by empowering the Indigenous majority culturally and economically.

The battle in Bolivia and all of Latin America continues between the forces that want to empower the people and those that want to restore the power and wealth of the elite. People in the United States can play an important role in this intense struggle by pressuring our imperialist government to end its war on the people in Latin America and the Caribbean. U.S. hands off 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.

Gaza Specialist Doctors Emigrate Due to Israel Siege

November 11th, 2019 by Middle East Monitor

More than 120 highly qualified Palestinian doctors emigrated from the Gaza Strip in 2018 and 2019, pushing the Ministry of Health to close medical departments in hospitals.

According to a report published by Amad.ps on Saturday, the Palestinian doctors who left their posts in Gaza highlighted the pressure of working under the 12-year Israeli siege imposed on Gaza.

On Facebook, Surgeon Adnan Radi wrote:

“The first skilled and most qualified specialist of heart surgery Mohammad Nassar left Gaza, pushing us to close the Department of Cardiac Surgery.” He described this as a “catastrophe.”

Ahmed Shatat, an official at the doctors’ affairs division in Gaza hospitals, said doctors travel aboard to look for “better opportunities” because they “do not have regular salaries” in Gaza as a result of Israel’s actions.

“Qualified doctors do not feel they have a bright future that matches their qualifications in the besieged Gaza Strip where they have low and irregular salaries,” Shatat said.

He stated that the problem is not with the emigration of the new graduates, but of the “skilled doctors whose emigration poses a serious danger to the health care system.”

Journalist Sama Hassan wrote on her Facebook:

“I do not expect doctors who leave Gaza to find a better life, but they would find a regular salary and have work security.”

She hailed the efforts of Gaza doctors but reiterated that they are looking for some kind of safety and stability.

“They have served patients and the wounded in the most difficult times,” she said, “but they have spent the best years of their life studying and getting the best skills and experience so they want to get some gains in order to have a secure and stable life for themselves and their families.”

Retired specialist of general health Yousef Musa said:

“The emigration of skilled doctors is a dangerous indicator because the Ministry of Health is forced to look for alternatives.”

He noted that the sole alternative is treatment abroad and this is very expensive and exhausts a large per cent of its budget.

*

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 10 Highest Paying Jobs in Oil & Gas

November 11th, 2019 by Julianne Geiger

Make no mistake: Oil and gas companies may be doing some serious cost-cutting and slimming-and-trimming to stay competitive after the shale boom binge, but when it comes to employment, it’s still one of the best industries to hit up for a job.

Jobs are booming, just as much as U.S. oil and gas production is.

US oil production has increased from 11.7 million bpd at the start of 2019 to 12.6 millionby the end of October, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Natural gas production has risen as well, to 99.1 Bcf/d at the end of October—95 Bcf/d of which is from dry natural gas—up from 91.3 Bcf/d this time last year for total US natural gas production.

Those gains have translated into more oil and gas industry jobs.

US Oil and Gas Employment

The United States Traditional Energy and Energy Efficiency Sectors in 2018 employed 6.7 million Americans in 2018, according to the US Energy and Employment Report 2019, with nearly 1.5 million directly employed by the oil and gas industry, and another 1.2 million workers employed by the power generation sector, which includes all types of power generation, including oil and gas.

Employment in the oil and gas extraction and support services, specifically, was at its highest level in 2018 since the fall of 2014—the next most recent high.

And those jobs? None too shabby if you’re interested.

America’s energy independence push has resulted in a new high for US oil and gas workers. In fact, the energy and utility sectors have the highest median salary of any industry in the S&P 500.

Who’s Who in Energy

If you’re looking to make some cash in the oil and gas industry, you won’t have to look far. The oil industry is having a heck of a time recruiting a skilled workforce, and ExxonMobil, Phillips66, and Anadarko—all Texas based—have been more than willing to pony up the cash.

ExxonMobil’s median pay, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, came in at $171,375. Phillips66’s median pay was $196,407, according to a Wall Street Journal survey.

Compared to America’s overall median wage for advanced degree holders of $77,324, that’s downright generous. But what oil and gas jobs are the best?

Top Paying Oil and Gas Jobs

Pay isn’t everything, but it sure is something. And if you can’t woo employees with good corporate citizenship or your climate friendliness, you had better pony up the cash. So what jobs are oil and gas companies sinking the most money into in its quest to acquire good talent?

The list of annual salaries below, developed from the Global Talent Energy Index, is based on employees with six years of experience in the oil and gas industry:

#10 Production Engineer $125,600. Production engineers mostly carry petroleum engineering degrees and are responsible for designing and selection well equipment to get it to the production stage post-drilling. They also monitor the well while it is flowing to make sure the well is efficient and still commercially viable.

#9 Project Engineer $126,846. Project Engineers ensure that the design, construction and major maintenance projects are safely completed, and completed within budget. They review progress reports and proposed construction changes, as well as monitoring and communication project progress to stakeholders.

#8 HSE Manager $126,874. Health, Safety, and Environmental managers develop and implement organizational safety programs. They review and keep updated HSE policies, as well as conduct risk assessments and create precautionary measures. Requirements include a BA in occupational health, safety management or environmental science.

#7 Mechanical Engineer $127,828. Mechanical engineers support plant equipment, and design, develop, install, and maintain equipment that is used for processing oil and gas, with a focus on safety, reliability, quality, and sustainability.

#6 Geophysicist $128,965. A geophysicist studies the physical aspects of the earth in order to determine what lies beneath the surface of the earth.

#5 Drilling Engineer $129,944. This position manages rig staff and is responsible for assessing and maintaining wells, ensuring safety measures are implementing, and is generally responsible for the financial and technical operations of drilling for oil or gas.

#4 Reservoir Engineer $137,156. Reservoir Engineers draw on geology and fluid mechanics knowledge to find petroleum in underground reservoirs. They also assess the amount of petroleum reserves underground. Typically they have a degree in petroleum engineering.

#3 Construction Manager $145,000. CMs are responsible for delivering construction in compliance with HSE requirements and the schedule. They work closely with the project manager in leading teams to manage and control construction projects.

#2 Drilling Supervisor $148,476. Drilling supervisors are in charge of the drill operations and make sure drilling is completed on time. Unlike most of the other top jobs in the oil and gas industry, drilling supervisors often do not need a bachelor’s degree. However, years of experience are usually required. Some employers prefer degrees in drilling technology or mechanical engineering.

#1 Project Manager $157,795. The top paying job in the oil and gas industry is the Project Manager, and it’s no wonder. The PM is tasked with ensuring that an entire project from start to finish is on track, in budget, to specifications, and within safety guidelines. The PM also ensures that communication is flowing between groups. Essentially, the PM is the glue that holds an entire operation together—and companies are willing to pay for the best.

Top Paying Petrochemicals Jobs

The petrochemicals industry doesn’t get as much love as the oil and gas industry, but it is said to be the oil and gas industry’s future. Like the traditional oil and gas industry, petrochemicals are a booming business, although the salaries are not quite as high.

The top paying job in petrochemicals is that of the Process Engineer, which pays on average for a six-year veteran $123,400 per year. Quality Assurance Manager comes in at #2, which pays $122,190 per year. Other top jobs in the petrochemicals sector are Construction Manager (#3) at $117,856 per year, Mechanical Engineer (#4) at $111,630, and Chemical Engineer (#5) $98,636.

Top Paying Jobs in Renewables Sector

The renewables sector has something the other energy-related jobs don’t: they are appealing to the millennial generation. And as such, they tend to have an easier time with talent acquisition of doe-eyed job seekers looking to be excellent citizens.

And it’s good that they feel good about their jobs, because on average, they’re going to make less money.

The top paying job in the renewables sector is Construction Manager, at $118,730. The number two slot is held by the HSE Manager at $102,997, followed by Mechanical Engineer at $92,822.

Top Paying Jobs in the Nuclear Sector

We hear a lot about oil and gas here in the United States, but the US is also the world’s largest producer of nuclear power, according to the World Nuclear Association, producing more than 30% of the world’s total nuclear generation of electricity.

About 20% of the United States’ total electrical output comes from nuclear power, and despite a near 30-year slump for new builds, two new nuclear facilities are now in the works. In total, the US has 98 functioning nuclear power reactors spread across 30 states.

But the nuclear sector may find it difficult to attract new talent. The reputation the segment has, the technical nature of the work required, and the fact that the skills needed are specific to just nuclear are all working against the industry.

But there are great opportunities here, with the current nuclear workforce over the age of 55 representing a third of all workers in this sector, leaving the door open for the next generation—if they are interested.

So how do jobs in this segment measure up? Somewhere near the bottom of the pile, it would seem, but salaries are on the rise.

The top paying job in the nuclear sector is that of the Construction Manager at $118,565. Coming in second is the Nuclear Engineer, at $108,250 per year, with Electric Engineer in fourth place at $103,160.

Going forward, IHS predicts that by 2025, just the unconventional oil and natural gas value chain and energy-related chemicals activity will support 3.9 million jobs.

The United States accounted for 98% of all global oil production growth in 2018, and the EIA is expecting crude oil production in the US to reach 13.2 million barrels per day next year. Add to that the fact that the US is expected to retain its spot as the number one oil consumer of the world, US job growth for the oil and gas sector is expected to see more gains going forward.

*

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.

Julianne Geiger is a veteran editor, writer and researcher for Oilprice.com, and a member of the Creative Professionals Networking Group.

A DC foreign-policy apparatchik who oversaw Congress’ Syria Study Group proclaimed that the US military “owned” one-third of Syrian territory, including its “economic powerhouse,” then outlined a sadistic strategy for preventing reconstruction of the “rubble.”

***

Despite President Donald Trump’s order of a partial withdrawal of troops from Syria, the United States’ regime-change war against the country continues in broad daylight.

At a US government-funded think tank at the forefront of shaping Washington’s interventionist designs, an American official succinctly laid out the continued-regime change strategy.

Dana Stroul, a longtime US diplomat who oversaw a congressionally mandated study of Syria, outlined the four-pronged plan for what she called the “new phase” of the war:

  • US military occupation of Syria’s “resource-rich” “economic powerhouse”;
  • “Diplomatic isolation” of the Syrian government;
  • Economic sanctions against Damascus and its allies; and
  • “Preventing reconstruction aid and technical expertise from going back into Syria.”

It is beyond debate that this approach will lead to massive suffering, privation, and even the deaths of masses of Syrian. But when Stroul presented it before a panel, the potential impact on civilians was was not even mentioned once.

This disturbing plan was articulated on October 31 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a militaristic think tank funded by the US government and its allies, along with the arms industry, fossil fuel corporations, and banks. In April, The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal exposed a secret meeting at CSIS where US and Latin American officials mulled a military invasion of Venezuela. Though it was open to the public, the think tank’s recent meeting on Syria was no less militaristic.

Titled “Syria in the Gray Zone,” the panel featured the two co-chairs of the Syria Study Group, a bi-partisan working group appointed by Congress to draft a new US war plan for Syria. One co-chair was chosen to represent the Republican Party, and the other to represent the Democratic Party, but both marched in lockstep agreement in support of continued war on Syria, and their views were virtually indistinguishable.

Both of the congressionally appointed co-chairs also happen to work at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israel think tank that grew out of the AIPAC lobbying juggernaut. Their Syria Study Group was a collection of hardline interventionists from pro-Israel and Gulf monarchy-funded DC think tanks, as well as Mark Kirk, the former Republican senator who was one of the all-time greatest recipients of funding from Israel lobbying outfits.

Dana Stroul, the Democratic co-chair of the Syria Study Group, is a longtime US government operative who has spent years drafting Middle East policy. While serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, she oversaw US weapons sales and foreign aid for the State Department and Washington’s soft-power arm, the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

In her speech at CSIS, Stroul sketched out the ongoing regime-change strategy, summarizing the points made in the Syria Study Group final report in September.

US military ‘owns’ one-third of Syria, ‘the rest is rubble’

Dana Stroul reluctantly acknowledged that “there’s limited appetite domestically here” for more US intervention in Syria. But she noted that the American regime-change war is far from over.

Resorting to classically colonial rhetoric, Stroul casually noted that “one-third of Syrian territory was owned via the US military, with its local partner the Syrian Democratic Forces.”

She made it a point to stress that this sovereign Syrian land “owned” by Washington also happened to be “resource-rich,” the “economic powerhouse of Syria, so where the hydrocarbons are… as well as the agricultural powerhouse.”

Neocolonial-style military occupation occupation was to be complimented by a political siege of the Syrian government, Stroul explained.

Calling for the “political and diplomatic isolation of the Assad regime,” Stroul urged the US to continue “holding the line on diplomatic isolation, preventing embassies from going back into Damascus.”

She then advised ramping up of the “economic sanctions architecture.”

Finally, Stroul proposed leveraging reconstruction aid as a tool against the Syrian government.

Noting that the US government’s humanitarian aid and “stabilization assistance” for Syria has gone to its ally, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the northeast, Stroul urged the US to keep the rest of the country in ruins until it achieved its goal of regime change.

“The rest of Syria though is rubble,” Stroul stated. “And what the Russians want and what Assad wants is economic reconstruction. And that is something that the United States can basically hold a card on, via the international financial institutions and our cooperation with the Europeans.”

Emphasizing that Washington’s goal in has been to block reconstruction by Damascus, Stroul insisted, “We should hold a line on preventing reconstruction aid and technical expertise from going back into Syria.”

‘The conflict is not over; it’s entering a new phase’

President Trump’s Syria policy largely mirrors the sadistic strategy outlined by Stroul at the Syrian Study Group.

In October, Trump ordered a partial withdrawal of US troops from northeastern Syria, inspiring a chorus of outrage in official Washington. He ultimately left hundreds of soldiers to occupy Syria’s oil and gas-rich region, to starve the Syrian government of funding needed for reconstruction efforts.

“We’re keeping the oil. I’ve always said that – keep the oil,” Trump explained. “We may have to fight for the oil. It’s ok. Maybe somebody else wants the oil, in which case they have a hell of a fight. But there’s massive amounts of oil.”

Trump added,

“We should be able to take some also, and what I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly.”

At the CSIS panel, Dana Stroul argued that even with the US military presence in flux, “the other forms of leverage remain compelling.”

“If we’re going to hold the line on the diplomatic isolation, on moving forward with the economic sanctions architecture, and holding the line on reconstruction aid, perhaps those things could still be compelling,” she said.

“Because in our view, what our assessment was was that the conflict has not changed; the conflict is not over; it’s entering a new phase,” Stroul added.

The Republican co-chair of the Syria Study Group Michael Singh,who is also a fellow at the pro-Israel WINEP think tank, echoed Stroul’s argument. “We still have leverage,” he said. Although Trump’s proposed withdrawal has weakened it.

“I’ve been critical the decision to withdraw; I think it was the wrong decision,” Singh explained. “But I think that case can be overstated. I don’t think that Russia, the Assad regime, Iran, now have sort of an easy path to victory, or even an easy path to consolidating control, whether in northeast Syria or elsewhere.”

Transcript

A transcript of Stroul’s comments at the CSIS panel follows below:

“We argued in our recommendation section that, taken as a whole, even though in the United States, there’s limited appetite domestically here or on the hill to match the level of resources or even diplomatic investment of the Iranians and the Russians in Syria, that the United States still had compelling forms of leverage on the table to shape an outcome that was more conducive and protective of US interests.

And we identified four. So the first one was the one-third of Syrian territory that was owned via the US military, with its local partner the Syrian Democratic Forces. Now this was a light footprint on the US military, only about a thousand troops over the course of the Syria Study Group’s report, and then the tens of thousands of forces, both Kurdish and Arab, under the Syrian Democratic Forces.

And that one-third of Syria is the resource-rich, it’s the economic powerhouse of Syria, so where the hydrocarbons are, which obviously is very much in the public debate here in Washington these days, as well as the agricultural powerhouse.

But we argued that it wasn’t just about this one-third of Syrian territory that the US military and our military presence owned, both to fight ISIS and also as leverage for affecting the the overall political process for the broader Syrian conflict. There were three other areas of leverage.

One is political and diplomatic isolation of the Assad regime… So holding the line on diplomatic isolation, preventing embassies from going back into Damascus.

Two is the economic sanctions architecture. So some of this is part of the maximum-pressure campaign of the Trump administration on Iran, but there’s a whole suite of both executive and congressional sanctions on Syria and Bashar al-Assad, both for human rights abuses in Syria and to the backers of Assad for their activities in support of him in Syria.

And three was reconstruction aid. So the United States remains the overall largest single donor of humanitarian aid to Syrians both inside Syria and refugees outside of Syria. And there was some stabilization assistance in the part of Syria that was liberated from ISIS and controlled via the Syrian Democratic Forces in northern-eastern Syria.

The rest of Syria though is rubble. And what the Russians want and what Assad wants is economic reconstruction. And that is something that the United States can basically hold a card on, via the international financial institutions and our cooperation with the Europeans.

So we argued that absent behavioral changes by the Assad regime, we should hold a line on preventing reconstruction aid and technical expertise from going back into Syria.

So now in the past month it looked like one of the most compelling forms of leverage, which was this US military presence, was taken off the table quite fast. Now … the news suggests that maybe that military presence will stay for some period of time.

And the problem with this is no matter what the US military presence is or isn’t, at this point a lot of the the PR damage is done. So if you’re trying to get allies and partners in Europe or otherwise to work with our US military in completing the fight against ISIS, most countries are going to be unwilling or hesitant to contribute more than they already have, because they can’t plan on the United States. Because this is like the third time that decisions have come out of Washington in a rather unplanned manner about whether or not the US military is staying.

Mike and I have argued recently that the other forms of leverage remain compelling, if resourced effectively and prioritized at the highest levels of the US government.

So if we’re going to hold the line on the diplomatic isolation, on moving forward with the economic sanctions architecture, and holding the line on reconstruction aid, perhaps those things could still be compelling, because in our view, what our assessment was was that the conflict has not changed; the conflict is not over; it’s entering a new phase.”

*

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.

Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor of The Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with editor Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.

Featured image is from The Grayzone

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Congressional Panel Outlines Next Phase of Dirty War on Syria: Occupy Oil Fields and Block Reconstruction
  • Tags: , ,

On Friday, former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was released from prison, pending resolution of his appeal against charges he and his legal team call phony.

Brazilian Judge Danilo Pereira ordered his release in response to a request by his defense team. His Twitter account released a video of his release holding a banner with supporters saying: “Lula innocent.” Separately he tweeted: Lula free.”

He’s Brazil’s most popular political figure, dubiously convicted in July 2017 of accepting an alleged $1.2 million bribe from Brazilian construction company OAS in exchange for helping the firm obtain government contracts — charges he denied.

Convicting and imprisoning him was and remains all about preventing him from seeking reelection last year.

If allowed to run, he likely would have handily defeated US-supported hardline, pro-business, anti-populist Jair Bolsonaro.

In 2016, US dark forces conspired with Brazilian fascists to wrongfully impeach and remove democratically elected President Dilma Rousseff from office.

Tyranny replaced democracy, continuing under Bolsonaro, implementing a wish list for markets and investors begun under Rouseff’s illegitimate successor Michel Temer.

At the time of Lula’s conviction, his lead attorney Valeska Texeira Zanin Martin said

“(n)o credible evidence of guilt has been produced, and overwhelming proof of his innocence blatantly ignored,” adding:

“This politically motivated judgement attacks Brazil’s rule of law, democracy and Lula’s basic human rights. It is of immense concern to the Brazilian people and to the international community.”

Bank and real estate records proved Lulu’s innocence, she stressed. Prosecutor Henrique Pozzobon virtually admitted long knives were out to get Lula, saying: “We don’t have to prove…We have conviction.”

Lula was acquitted of “imputations of corruption and money laundering involving the storage of presidential stock for lack of sufficient proof of materiality.” Other dubious charges against him remain outstanding.

Martin vowed to prove Lula’s innocence on all charges against him, adding she intends getting them all reversed.

His Friday release pending resolution of his appeal came after spending 580 days in prison — to smooth the way for continuation of fascist rule in Brazil.

If unable to reverse dubious charges against him, he’ll be re-imprisoned to serve out the remainder of his eight year/10 month sentence.

Interviewed last April in prison, he denounced the Temer and Bolsonaro regimes, saying:

“I’ve never seen a (Brazilian) president salute the American flag. I’ve never seen a president go around saying: ‘I love the United States, I love it!’ ”

“You should love your mother.  You should love your country. What’s all this about loving the United States?”

“Does anyone really think the US is going to favor Brazil? Americans think of themselves first, second, third, fourth, fifth – and if there’s any time left over, they think about Americans. And these Brazilian lackeys go around thinking the Americans will do anything for us.”

“(W)e can’t have (a) country being run governed by a bunch of lunatics (and US) lackeys…The country doesn’t deserve this and above all the people do not deserve this.”

Unless exonerated, Lula can be barred from seeking elected office again. His tenure as president from 2003 — 2010 was no paragon of progressive governance.

But it was a far cry from fascist rule under Temer and Bolsonaro, serving privileged interests at the expense of ordinary people, exploited to benefit them — at the same time, returning Brazil to US colonial status.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Brazil’s Lula Released While Appealing Imprisonment on Dubious Charges
  • Tags: ,

Bolivian President Evo Morales was forced to resign Sunday after senior army and police chiefs called on him to do so following weeks of right-wing unrest and violence against his Oct. 20 elections victory, in what his government has called a coup by opposition forces in the country. 

“I decided to resign from my position so that Carlos Mesa and Luis Camacho stop abusing and harming thousands of brothers … I have the obligation to seek peace and it hurts a lot that we face Bolivians, for this reason, so I will send my letter of resignation to the Plurinational Assembly of Bolivia,” the former president of Bolivia said in a press release.

Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera also said that he was resigning from his position. The two leaders said that they would be handing their resignation letters to the country’s National Assembly.

Since both President and Vice Presiden resigned, the president of the Senate, a position held by Adriana Salvatierra of the MAS party was supposed to assume the post but she later issued her resignation as well as the president of the Chamber of Deputies.

Currently, the line of succession is broken in Bolivia.

Morales and Garcia Linera will stay in Chimore in the central Department of Cochabamba to work with the people.

“We will come back and we will be millions as Tupac Amaru II said,” Morales declared.

The resignation comes after Morales proposed a dialogue process with the opposition parties but was rejected and even accepted the Organization of American States’ (OAS) call for new elections.

However, due to strong violent onslaughts against militants and leaders of the Movement To Socialism (MAS), intimidation of journalists, burning of residences and betrayal of political allies and members of the National Police, Morales and his Vice President decided to leave the government in order to prevent more violence.

In the interview with teleSUR’s correspondent in Bolivia Freddy Morales, the former president said the decision to call new elections was to preserve the peace in Bolivia “so that we do not confront the Bolivian family,” while calling on the opposition protesters to end the strikes and remove roadblocks in order to not harm the economy of the country.

*

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.

Boris Johnson’s 19 New Powers Will Kill Democracy

November 11th, 2019 by True Publica

Boris Johnson’s amazing Brexit deal, which has turned out to be a worse deal than the bad deal rejected three times via Theresa May has not just been discredited – it has been blown completely out of the water.

Part of the worse bits than Theresa May’s deal was that Boris Johnson decided that his powers as a Prime Minister should in fact extend to that of an authoritarian by way of giving himself executive powers without the need of parliament to scrutinise or challenge him. This was the real reason for cramming the date of the election in so tightly and then have parliament dissolved so that scrutiny was made as difficult as possible.

For example – the EU customs arrangements within Johnson’s new Withdrawal Agreement Bill (WAB) are allowed to be routinely updated. In Para 23, it says that – “any such updates will be able to take effect without the need for further domestic legislation.” Little things like that leave the door wide open to agreeing to all sorts of things later without debate. This one example and the others with it have been called Henry VIII powers.

In our article of 29th October, we wrote:

“Let’s assume Johnson wins (the election) with a workable majority. He has granted himself something known as “Henry VIII powers.”. They’re named after Henry VIII because he was the first person in Britain to use them (in the 1540s). What they did was let him change laws without passing new ones. In essence – a Henry VIII power enables a minister to amend an Act of Parliament without needing another Act of Parliament. Normally this is done by issuing regulations. This is more than just controversial as it reduces the government’s accountability to Parliament. In other words – it gives the government executive powers over the scrutiny of Parliament (representative democracy). While MPs can amend Acts, they can’t do that to regulations.”

It is worth mentioning that in the WAB, Johnson has not granted himself one of these powers but 19 and then left just a few days for this to be challenged.

However, it turns out that peers in the House of Lords were doing a bit of overtime where this power grab by Johnson has been inspected and dissected. They were not happy and said so – but in reality, do not have the ability to do anything about it right now.

David Hencke is an investigative journalist, named ‘Political Journalist of the Year’ in 2012. He was the journalist that uncovered and reported the cash-for-questions scandal, Peter Mandelson’s secret loans and other such political wrong-doing.

Hencke writes about this dissection of Johnson’s WAB report by peers –

The report draws attention to the ramping up of the so-called Henry VIII powers under the Northern Ireland protocol to allow ministers to change or repeal laws without parliamentary legislation. It also points out that there is no provision in the law for any consultation procedures with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly during negotiations with the EU for a new trade deal. Each body will simply be informed about the progress of the negotiations.”

Another such power spotted are new rules allowing ministers to alter criminal sentences and change charges by any public body without a debate in Parliament – unless MPs and peers spot the change and demand a debate. Imagine a power like that in the hands of people like Jacob Rees-Mogg.

The WAB report states:

“There is no restriction on… powers being used to impose or increase taxation or fees, make retrospective provision, create a relevant criminal offence (i.e. with a penalty exceeding two years imprisonment), establish a public authority, amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any subordinate legislation made under it, or amend or repeal the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 2006 or the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”

What the WAB does, if enacted into law by way of Boris Johnson becoming PM with a decent majority is this – the effective end of democratic principles. Take for instance, how terror laws started in 2000, meant to apprehend killers and murderers – ended up with the BBC using them quite legally to locate and fine TV licence fee dodgers. Fast forward to now and much harsher penalties being considered by ministers on Extinction Rebellion protestors as reportedby The Telegraph on 11th October.

Brexit is a trajectory that is spiralling downwards and if anything will give far too much power to the wrong people. Was this not the whole idea in the first place – taking back control? The problem is the ultras will have it, the so-called Brexit Spartans will have it, Dominic Cummings will have it, and they are funded by billionaires and corporate interests.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

Russian Connections in Albion: The ISC Report

November 11th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The UK election campaign has kicked off, and merrily confused are the major candidates.  The chaotic scene was made a touch more interesting with the refusal on the part of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to clear the release of a report by the intelligence and security committee on claimed Russian interference in British politics.

This did not impress the committee’s chairman Dominic Grieve, the Labour Party and the Scottish National Party.  Shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornbury, speaking in the Commons on Tuesday, wondered what the government had “to hide”.  In the absence of an explanation, the suggestion was that No 10 was cooking something smelly, and behind well sealed doors.

News outlets have been left to speculate about the delay.  The suggestion that the findings could damage the Conservatives is top of the list.  “We know the report looks at a wide range of Russian activity – ranging from traditional espionage to subversion – and not just in the UK,” suggests Gordon Corera of the BBC.  We also know that the report draws from figures within the intelligence community – MI5, MI6, GCHQ – and a number of selected experts.

But the scale of such interference, in terms of cyber infiltration and electoral meddling, has been questioned.   This has not filled such individuals as Paddy McGuinness, former deputy national security adviser, with much confidence.  Reforms in terms of transparency and the handling of data by political parties, he insists, should be of utmost importance.

Ones hypothesis doing the Whitehall crawl is the idea that the Kremlin has its paws over various notable Conservatives.  This point was already being made last year when it was revealed that Sergey Nabolin of the Russian embassy had been keeping company with members of cabinet at London’s Hurlingham Club in 2014 at one of those rather expensive shindigs.  (Nabolin, it had been noted, had gone so far as to call Johnson “our good friend”.)  The next year, Nabolin’s diplomatic visa was revoked. Much handwringing ensued.

The exploits of Nabolin were noted by Paul Staines in The Spectator.  He networked vigorously – though that could hardly be held against a person from the embassy, whose job it is to find the places, the spots, and the pulses of life in the host country.  But the Hurlingham Club was another matter. “The security is extremely tight, and the guest list closely vetted, because guests mingle with the PM and cabinet ministers.”  There was an unmistakable sense that Russian money was washing through, and that the link with the Conservatives was but as element of the entire picture.

The Sunday Times has made the claim that nine Russian business people who have donated money to the Conservative Party have been named in the ISC document.  These include Alexander Temerko, whose previous employment includes a stint in the Kremlin’s defence ministry.  Over the last seven years, his wallet has brought forth some £1.2 million for the Conservatives.

Johnson, it must be said, has also enjoyed himself at various gatherings with Russians of note.  While flying the British flag as foreign secretary, he spent time at an Italian villa with Evgeny Lebedev playing host.  This might not have seemed that strange: Johnson had been an editor of The Spectator magazine; Lebedev runs the Evening Standard.  But this has not stopped the tittering.  The obvious point here is that politicians, notably the foreign minister, are bound to do this sort of thing, though post-2016 politics is filled with association and innuendo.  To meet is to be complicit.

Johnson’s senior advisor, Dominic Cummings, has also made it into the ring of speculation.  Between 1994 and 1997, he spent time in Russia, though not much is known of his stint.  Nothing to get too excited about, but the point has drawn Thornbury’s interest, who has pressed the government with certain queries by letter.  “I would assume that – given the seniority of  his position and the influence it gives him over decision-making at the top of government – that he was subject to the highest level of developed vetting (DV) and that – as a result – he is able to study ‘top secret’ intelligence and attend meetings on the UK’s military and security operations overseas.”  If history is an aid to anything in this regard, such vetting processes are bound to count for little: class and education speak volumes, substance, less so.  (The quibbler is bound to suggest that Oxford doesn’t do a good line in industrious traitors the way Cambridge does.)

Grieve is concerned that the letter of convention is not being followed with regards the report.  “The protocols are quite clear.  If the prime minister has a good reason for preventing publication he should explain to the committee what it is, and do it within 10 days of him receiving the report. If not, it should be reported.”

Chancellor Sajid Javid, in responding to this battle of formalities, is making the claim that normal process is being observed; nothing here to see, move on.  But he is obviously being charged with the task of deflecting any claims that a Tory-Russian nexus of influence exists.  He stressed the point on the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme.  “When it comes to party donors, whether it is the Conservative Party or any other party, there are very strict rules that need to be followed and of course we will always follow those rules.”

Such an assertion is fairly meaningless, returning back to the basics of a gentleman’s old school understanding.  They might give us money, but don’t worry yourselves about it, dear electors: this is money without influence.  “I’m sure as sure as I can be,” insists Javid.  “I’m absolutely sure in terms of our party and I am very confident about how we are funded and we are very transparent about that.”  The ISC report might well suggest a different story and, Russia or not, donations do buy influence in politics, however gauged.

*

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]

Pentagon officials asserted Thursday U.S. military authority over Syrian oil fields because U.S. forces are acting under the goal of “protecting Americans from terrorist activity” and would be within their rights to shoot a representative of the Syrian government who attempted to retake control over that country’s national resource.

The comments came from Pentagon spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman and Navy Rear Admiral William D. Byrne Jr. during a press briefing in which the two men were asked repeatedly about the legal basis the U.S. is claiming to control Syrian oil fields.

The briefing came less than two weeks after Defense Secretary Mark Esper said,

“That’s our mission, to secure the oil fields” in the Deir ez-Zor area of eastern Syria.

President Donald Trump‘s comments before and after that remark —

“We’re going to be protecting [the oil], and we’ll be deciding what we’re going to do with it in the future,” and “The oil… can help us, because we should be able to take some”— were seized on by critics who claimed Trump was suggesting violating international law by plundering another country’s resources and openly saying the U.S. was pursuing war for oil.

Hoffman, in his comments Thursday, gave a different message—that “the revenue from this is not going to the U.S. This is going to the SDF,” referring to the Kurdish-led and U.S.-allied Syrian Democratic Forces, who are battling ISIS. Byrne claimed that the U.S. has been waging the oil field control mission alongside SDF and that the goal was to prevent ISIS from obtaining the oil revenue.

But, as one reporter pointed out, ISIS fighters “have no armor. They have no aircraft.”

“Do they have the capability to actually seize the oil fields?” the reporter asked. “And isn’t this really about Russia and Syria seizing those oil fields?”

Hoffman replied that the goal was “to prevent a resurgence” of ISIS which would be facilitated if the terrorist group had access to the oil revenue.

When the Pentagon officials were pressed on whether “U.S. troops have the… authorization to shoot if a representative of the Syrian government comes to the.. oil fields and says, ‘I am here to take property of these oil fields,'” Byrne said, “our commanders always retain the right and the obligation of self-defense when faced with a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent.”

The officials were reminded by a reporter that “the government of Syria is still, based on international law… [the] recognized legitimate government.” Hoffman said, “Everyone in the region knows where American forces are. We’re very clear with anyone in the region in working to deconflict where our forces are. If anyone—we work to ensure that… no one approaches or has—shows hostile intent to our forces, and if they do, our commanders maintain the right of self-defense.”

Hoffman later said that the oil field mission couldnt be separated from the fight to defeat ISIS. Operations in “Syria are done under the commander-in-chief’s authorities to—with regards to protecting Americans from terrorist activity.”

Pressed again by a reporter about the “legal basis for… the United States military to take and control the natural resources inside the boundaries of another country,” Hoffman responded, “the legal basis for this comes under the commander-in-chief’s authority for us to be conducting counter-terrorism efforts against D-ISIS. And I —I get your point when you’re trying to decouple the ISIS issue from the Syria issue, but it is not a decoupled issue.”

Later Hoffman was asked by a reporter if “President Trump [has] legal authority to take over these oil fields or is the United States stealing the oil?”

Hoffman repeated his stance that the operations were a part of the effort to defeat terrorists and stopping “ISIS from obtaining the oil fields is an effort to prevent them from obtaining revenue so that they can fund their terrorist operations globally.”

The Pentagon official also appeared to push back against the notion that the mission to control the oil fields is new. “Just to be clear, we’ve been in this area with the same mission of preventing ISIS from getting those oil fields for the last four years. This is not a new mission. Everybody seems to be—believe that that has changed. That is not —that is not the case.”

U.S. forces may also stay with that effort for years to come, Hoffman suggested.

“We’re committed to [the defeat of ISIS], and we’re committed to staying in the region,” he said. “We’re committed to, in this particular case, having troops in Syria in a way that helps us continue the D-ISIS mission as long as we believe it’s necessary.”

Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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

Featured image is from SANA

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pentagon Claims US Authority to Shoot Any Syrian Govt Official Who Tries to Take Control of Syrian Oil
  • Tags: , ,

An interfaith organisation which has frequently attacked Jeremy Corbyn over allegations of antisemitism and which has described the Labour Party as a “Stalinist cult” is receiving support from the UK’s Home Office.

Faith Matters receives funding through a Home Office counter-extremism programme, Building a Stronger Britain Together (BSBT), which offers grants and other assistance including social media training to help recipient organisations to “amplify” their work.

The organisation has regularly used its Twitter account to attack Corbyn, both directly and by retweeting critical articles.

A number of those attacks have related to Corbyn’s handling of complaints of antisemitism within the party which have beset Labour since he was elected leader in 2015, but are by no means limited to that topic.

It has also posted and shared content suggesting that Corbyn is:

  • sympathetic to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
  • supportive of governments and organisations responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims
  • considered a threat to national security by British intelligence agencies

The Home Office’s funding for Faith Matters appears to raise fresh questions about political attacks on the leader of the official opposition by organisations benefiting from government support.

Last year, the foreign office faced questions from Labour over its support for a Scottish-based think tank, The Institute for Statecraft, which was found to have shared material critical of Corbyn on its Twitter feed.

Speaking in parliament about that case at the time, Emily Thornberry, Labour’s foreign affairs spokesperson, said: “It is a cardinal rule of public life in our country that official resources should not be used for political purposes.”

The head of the Institute for Statecraft was subsequently reported to have written to Corbyn to apologise for “mistakes” made by the organisation.

‘Democracy, free speech, mutual respect’

Faith Matters describes itself as “a vehicle to enable faith communities to reduce conflict using conflict resolution tools” and says that it works on “integration, cohesion, hate crime and countering extremism projects”. Its work has included providing “counter-messaging projects” and it lists government agencies among its stakeholders, according to public records filed by the organisation.

The organisation is named as a recipient of support from the BSBT programme in a list published by the Home Office.

“The BSBT programme is built on a foundation of shared values, including democracy, free speech, mutual respect and opportunity for all,” the Home Office says in guidance for applicants.

It also says that organisations must be transparent about support they receive through the programme and would likely be required to acknowledge it on their websites.

According to a Home Office evaluation published last month, more than £9m ($11.5) in grant support has been awarded to recipients since BSBT was launched in 2016, while in-kind communications support had been provided for 115 projects which had created 373 “products” to date.

In-kind support is delivered by advertising agency M&C Saatchi and includes “support to develop communication materials or training in social media”.

Middle East Eye contacted Fiyaz Mughal, the director of Faith Matters, to ask what support the organisation had received through the BSBT programme.

In his response, Mughal refused to engage with the issues which MEE had raised, which included legitimate questions about the use to which Faith Matters puts public funds.

After MEE followed up with further queries, Faith Matters took the extraordinary step of publishing a pre-emptive article on its website attacking both MEE as well as individuals at the organisation.

Bizarrely, Faith Matters suggested that for MEE to ask questions about a potential conflict of interest (namely, that Faith Matters is a recipient of government money yet mounts political attacks on the opposition leader) amounted to peddling a “conspiracy theory”.

Faith Matters said it had used BSBT funding to “counter far-right and online extremism and promote civil society and democratic engagement to young people”.  It said it had chosen not to highlight that funding because members of its staff had been subjected to “threats, intimidation and abuse”.

It said it had not received social media training or assistance in counter-messaging from the Home Office.

Defending its attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and Labour, Faith Matters said it “has been and will continue to be critical of the poor way in which antisemitism has been tackled within the Labour Party and the way that Jeremy Corbyn has linked up with groups who have a very poor track record of relationships with communal Jewish organisations”.

Faith Matters also stated that it had been equally strident in attacking the Conservatives over their approach to problems of Islamophobia within the party, including past comments by Boris Johnson.

It is the case that Faith Matters and Mughal spoke out against Johnson’s comments in a newspaper column in August 2018 in which he compared Muslim women who wear the veil to “letter boxes” and “bank robbers”, and it has backed calls for an investigation into Islamophobia in the Conservative Party.

But an analysis of Faith Matters’ tweets since it was listed by the Home Office as a recipient of BSBT support in February 2018 demonstrated that it has tweeted about Labour and Corbyn more than 200 times, while tweeting less than 40 times about the Conservatives, Johnson and Theresa May, his predecessor as party leader and prime minister.

Either way, Faith Matters has not explained how its concerns about Labour and alleged antisemitism can possibly justify unrelated, purely political attacks on Corbyn with no conceivable relevance to the antisemitism issue, such as tweets describing a “Stalinist cult of Corbyn”.

Muslims Against Anti-Semitism

Faith Matters is also linked to another campaign group called Muslims Against Anti-Semitism (MAAS) which has been highly critical of Corbyn.

In September 2018, it sent copies of a book by the former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks to Labour MPs after Sacks had described Corbyn as an antisemite and compared him to Enoch Powell, a Conservative politician who was accused of fuelling racism against immigrants in his so-called “rivers of blood” speech in 1968.

Labour called the comments “absurd and offensive”.

While 30 Labour MPs were sent a copy of Sacks’ “Not in God’s Name: Confronting Religious Violence”, Corbyn was also sent another Sacks book entitled “Lessons in Leadership”.

Faith Matters said MAAS did not receive any government funding.

Corbyn ‘utter poison’

Mughal, the founder of both Faith Matters and MAAS, has also written opinion articles and been quoted in stories attacking Corbyn.

In March, Mughal was quoted in an interview with the Telegraph newspaper describing Corbyn as “utter poison”, telling the newspaper that he believed the politician had refused to meet him because of his links with Jewish groups.

A Labour spokesperson told the paper that the party was not aware of any request from Mughal to meet Corbyn. MEE asked Mughal to clarify whether he had made a request and to whom it was directed. Mughal did not respond.

And in an opinion article in Israel’s Haaretz newspaper in July, Mughal questioned Corbyn’s track record of pro-Palestinian activism, suggesting that “years of imbibing the conspiracy theories of the far left as well as political Islamists” had “led him into the realms of virulent conspiracism in relation to Israel”.

Another article retweeted by Faith Matters last month was a comment piece by Azeem Ibrahim published on the Spectator website under the headline “Is Jeremy Corbyn a friend of all Muslims?”

In a tweet thread promoting the article, Ibrahim, who is a Faith Matters patron, wrote: “I estimate that Corbyn has openly supported regimes and groups that have killed over 690,000 Muslims (the most conservative estimate).”

In another tweet, Ibrahim suggested that Corbyn had not supported Palestinians in the Yarmouk refugee camp fighting against the Syrian government during the country’s civil war because he supported Assad as an “anti-imperialist”.

Faith Matters commented:

“This is SO important. When Palestinians were massacred in the Yarmouk camps by Assad forces, was there a peep from Corbyn? Not a thing.”

In fact, however, Corbyn has put his name to a number of parliamentary early day motions condemning the Syrian government since 2011 including motions in 2013 and 2014 specifically highlighting the plight of Palestinians and Syrians under attack and besieged in Yarmouk and other areas.

Mughal and Faith Matters have had close links to successive Conservative-led governments. In 2012, Mughal set up the Tell MAMA project which monitors anti-Muslim hate crime with government funding.

He currently sits on a panel of experts advising the Home Office-appointed Commission for Countering Extremism, and was a member of former prime minister David Cameron’s Extremism Task Force and an advisor to former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg on preventing radicalisation and extremism.

MEE also asked the Home Office for details about the support it had provided to Faith Matters.

A spokesperson said:

“The Building a Stronger Britain Together programme allows independent organisations to administer vital projects to tackle extremist narratives that can spread through communities.

“All groups undergo strict due diligence prior to being given funding and the support they receive is kept under constant review.”

*

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 5G Roll Out of 20,000 Telecom Satellites. Cosmic Junk

November 11th, 2019 by Richard Gale

For years, scientists have warned about the dangers of enormous amounts of debris orbiting our planet. Aside from wrenches and other tools used by astronauts, plastic bags, and yes even a toothbrush, according to the federally-funded Areospace organization, the greater dangers are obsolete spacecraft, portions of damaged and disabled satellites, rocket fragments, flywheels, and nuclear reactor cores that have broken up or collided with various other objects. Yet even a screwdriver traveling at an average of 17,500 mph, with an impact velocity of 21,000 mph, can be very destructive if it were to crash into a satellite, rendering it inoperable. And this simply adds to more useless junk, now estimated at 128 million small bits of debris under 1cm and the 34,000 larger pieces, floating above our heads. Imagine being hit with a piece of space scrap the size of a sugar cube is “equivalent of standing next to an exploding hand grenade.”

A Business Insider story about space debris noted that the US government already tracks 23,000 objects regularly, including China’s bus-size Tiangong-1 space station that incinerated in orbit. In February of 2011, a Russian military satellite collided with an American Iridium commercial satellite. The former disintegrated into hundreds of thousands of pieces of debris while the latter spun out of control. Approximately 2,000 of these larger objects are being tracked regularly. Three thousand large objects from the Chinese anti-satellite weapon FY-1C, which the Chinese military deliberately blew up, also have to be routinely monitored. As more and more satellites, space stations, rocket and missile remains, and a variety of other orbiting technologies are shot into space, the more frequent these accidents will occur.

This has raised serious concerns among space agencies that we may be heading towards the creation of a “debris belt” that might lead to a critical climax known as a Kessler Syndrome event.  The Kessler Syndrome, named after Donald Kessler, a scientist at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, who warned about such an event in a 1978 paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, refers to the exponential increase in space junk leading to a tipping point that would in turn trigger a cascade of collisions between orbiting objects. This could make lower orbital space inaccessible for hundreds of years. In addition, it would dramatically impair, and likely disengage, telecommunication operations, weather forecasting, interfere with airline and GPS navigation, and military and national security surveillance and operations. There are no international treaties in place to deal with this crisis nor concerted collaborative efforts to limit the further trashing of space. In the meantime the US government spends enormous amounts of money simply monitoring 24/7 potential collisions and to maneuver functioning satellites out of harm’s way.

Since the launch of the first satellite, the Soviet Union’s Sputnik in 1957, there have only been 8,378 satellites lofted into the heavens thus far. That may not seem to be many over the course six decades, nevertheless the threats posed by space debris is becoming an issue of growing concern as satellite launches steadily increase annually. According to the UN’s Office for Outer Space Affairs, there were slightly under 5,000 satellites in the Earth’s orbit at the start of 2019. However the Union of Concerned Scientists estimated that only 1,957 of these are actually operative. In other words, over 75 percent of orbiting satellites are revolving clutter.

If some space scientists are worried today about the potential of a Kessler Syndrome cascade, the implementation of 5G technology, the global installation of the “internet of things,” is going to accelerate the probability of this catastrophe astronomically.

Speaking before a 5G conference in Oslo last October, United Nation’s staff member Claire Edwards warned of the 5G efforts to dramatically colonize the lower orbital space with a minimum of 20,000 5G satellites by 2022.  Without our governments’ and the Big Telecom Industry’s impatience to engulf the planet in 5G, and with the full support of the military and intelligence complexes, there would be absolutely no need for this kind of expansive satellite colonization of the Earth’s lower orbit.

Orbiting technologies and satellites are not only threatened by collisions with high velocity cosmic junk. Additional threats, which humans have absolutely no control over, are solar activities such as solar winds, coronal holes, coronal mass ejections or CMEs and solar flares. During the 2003 geomagnetic storm, “10 percent of the world’s satellite fleet suffered malfunctions.” In a Scientific American article, “Solar Storms: Effects on Satellites,” a super solar storm could cause years’ worth of damage and wear on a satellite within a few hours. The article states, “a recurrence of the 1859 solar superstorm would be a cosmic Katrina, causing billions of dollars damage to satellites, power grids and radio communications.” Financial Times estimated the cost of a plasma storm would be in the trillions and knock out our most critical satellite systems. Such a massive coronal mass ejection from the sun’s thermonuclear reactor, known as a Carrington Event and containing up to 10 billion tons of solar plasma, gas and magnetic radiation, would kill the 5G internet. It could be the end game for years before becoming operable again.

The type of satellite that connects signals to your cell phone is a Low Earth Orbit satellite or LEO. These are the most susceptible to impact with space debris.  Professor Richard Horne from the British Antarctic Survey, a scientific research project that relies on satellite-generated measurements for monitoring climate changes at the southern pole, has warned that the negligence in the commercial satellite sector, which is betting on gigantic profits from the 5G Dream, could have serious consequences. “People are trying to use more commercial off-the-shelf components,” says Prof. Horne, “rather than components made to operate in space.” He continues, “many systems have not been tested in a major [solar] storm so there is a lot of uncertainty about what might happen.”

Elon Musk’s SpaceX is planning to install 12,000 satellites alone, including 1,585 in low earth orbits (LEO) and 7,518 positioned at very low earth orbits (VLEO). He expects to control 50 percent of all internet traffic. Last month, SpaceX widened its ambitions to seek permission to launch an additional 30,000 satellites thereby raising the commercial space industry’s total to 53,000 — twenty-six times more than now orbiting the Earth. The Institute of Electric and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) estimates that the combined mass of Musk’s adventure will be ten times greater than the International Space Station. SpaceX is betting on the uncertain promise that when these Tesla Model-3 automobile sized VLEO satellites reach their final days, they will burn up during their descent through the atmosphere before reaching the Earth’s surface. The science shows otherwise. Much debris will remain in addition to reaching the Earth’s surface.

Besides satellites being damaged and inoperative from space clutter and solar storm events, satellites are not immortal. They have a limited lifespan. An LEO satellite’s average life is between 5-8 years above our atmosphere. In other words, starting in another eight years, all of these satellites will need to be replaced, further adding to the ocean of electronic waste. In addition., during the course of their life in orbit, many will malfunction or be damaged and need to be replaced. We have already trashed our oceans, so what is preventing us from doing the same in space?

Furthermore, despite what pro-5G voices wish us to believe, the roll out and ongoing maintenance of the 5G global blanket is not green and climate friendly. The steady launch of thousands of suborbital rockets will “create a persistent layer of black carbon particles in the northern stratosphere that could cause potentially significant changes in the global atmospheric circulation and distributions of ozone and temperature,” according to a paper released by the Aerospace Corporation. This will likely deplete the ozone by 1 percent and the polar ozone layer by as much as 6%. The report concludes that “[A]fter one decade of continuous launches, globally averaged radiative forcing from the black carbon would exceed the forcing from the emitted CO2 by a factor of about 10 to the fifth power.” Back in 1991, Aleksandr Dunayev at the Russian Space Agency was quoted by the New York Times, if there are “about 300 launches of the space shuttle each year [it] would be a catastrophe and the ozone layer would be completely destroyed.” And for several years, even with Musk’s Falcon Heavy rocket potentially carrying 100 satellites for a single launch, this would still exceed Dunayev’s calculations. In other words, 5G is going to have a perilous carbon footprint at a time when we must drastically reduc our greenhouse gas emissions.

Although there are no conclusive directly caused risks to human health or the environment from orbiting telecom satellites, the entire 5G network will require millions of base stations and an estimated 200 billion transmitting objects blanketing the nations that sign on to this monstrous technological experiment. The number of EMF transmitting objects is expected to increase to over a trillion several years after full deployment. The human and environmental health risks of EMF emitting 5G base stations and transmitters have been reported extensively. Eight years ago the World Health Organization had already classified wireless as a Group 2B carcinogen and further medical evidence continues to pile up. There are now over 10,000 studies supporting the evidence of genetic and cellular damage to humans, animals, insects and plants, a variety of cancers, cardiovascular disease, neuropsychiatric disorders, reproductive dysfunction, and general EMF hypersensitivity symptoms such as chronic headaches, learning difficulties, sleep problems, fatigue and depression, etc.

Government telecommunication departments and the private telecom industry have absolutely no credible independent scientific studies in their arsenal to deny the volumes of evidence against wireless EMF risks; therefore, they follow the all-too-common game of pathological denialism and generate propaganda to attack and denounce 5G’s critics as conspiracy alarmists. The International Appeal to Stop 5G now has over 176,000 signatures from scientists, academics, and medical and environmental organizations’ advocates representing 208 nations and territories. Yet no precautionary measures, which are recognized by many international laws and treaties, are being followed.

The full assault of 5G is dependent upon the satellite programs from companies such as SpaceX, OneWeb, Boeing, Iridium, Telesat Canada and Amazon collaborating in league with the telecom giants. The commercial space industry is an intricate factor in the 5G infrastructure estimated to be worth $32 billion. The wolves following behind 5G’s trashing of space is the recent appearance of a space debris removal industry, which is expected to be valued $2.9 billion by 2022. Key corporate vendors in this emerging business include Airbus, Astroscale, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. In our dystopian civilization, where one technological disaster leads to the creation of another for-profit industry, this is called job growth. Clearly, all the pieces are being put into place for a 5G deep state, a powerful edifice committed to the massive surveillance of every person and human activity.

*

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.

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including The War on Health, Poverty Inc and Silent Epidemic.

A general strike and mass rebellion has erupted in Chile where the administration of President Sebastian Pinera has failed to quell the widespread discontent among the workers and youth.

The president announced in early November that his government would lift the curfew in certain areas, raise the minimum wage, reshuffle the cabinet and investigate those within the police and military accused of brutality. However, this has not resulted in the lessening of violence utilized by the state apparatus against working class and impoverished youth in their ineffective efforts to end the unrest.

Chilean society has suffered extreme inequality since the advent of neo-liberal policies emanating from the United States engineered coup of September 1973 when the-then President Salvadore Allende was overthrown and assassinated.

Military rule under General Augusto Pinochet ushered in extreme right-wing economic policies imposed by Washington and Wall Street. The so-called “Chicago Boys”, graduates from the University of Chicago, Department of Economics, drafted social plans which entrenched the priorities of the capitalist class both externally and domestically.

In recent weeks the degree of unrest has prompted the Pinera regime to cancel two international conferences, one on economic development and another on climate change, due to the inability of the state security forces to guarantee the well-being of the delegates. In addition, corporate interests have been severely impacted due to the rebellion.

The Chilean Football Federation called off a friendly match with Bolivia scheduled for November 15. In addition, the Copa Libertados Club Championship Final for November 23 may not take place either unless there is a settlement between the government and the people.

President Pinera, a billionaire, has refused to resign despite calls for him to leave by broad sections of the population. The leader in a recent interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) accepted some responsibility for the economic crisis. However, he noted that the problems inside the country were not of his making and has been growing over the last three decades. (See this)

Pinera defended his decision to declare a state of emergency while at the same time saying he would investigate allegations of police brutality. Reportedly some 6,800 businesses were damaged due to property destruction and arson.

Since the beginning of the demonstrations over the Metro (subway) fare increases in mid-October, it has been reported that 20 people have died and more than 2,000 injured. So far some 800 allegations of abuse by the security forces are being investigated by human rights organizations. These victim and eyewitness accounts include crimes such as torture, sexual assault and beatings by the authorities.

In the early phase of the unrest the Metro stations became a target of disgruntled riders when dozens of them were damaged and firebombed. Demonstrators were responding to the rate increase of 3.7% in October. Overall the price of Metro fares has gone up by 100% over the last twelve years. (See this)

These protests over fare increases illustrated the inherent inequality and class divisions within Chilean society. Soon other sectors of the working class and youth poured into the streets.

Accounts claims that 1.2 million people have participated in the demonstrations and rebellion. Nonetheless, the government seemed adamant that it will remain in power irrespective of broad dissatisfaction with its policies.

On November 4, tens of thousands of people rallied at the Plaza de Italia in the capital of Santiago, a center of resistance to the government. The workers and youth stated clearly that “this is not over.” Opponents of the government were determined to continue the demonstrations even though a state of emergency had been enacted.

When the protesters began to march towards the presidential palace, clashes erupted with the security forces. Police fired tear gas and used water cannon in an attempt to disburse the crowd.

Reports indicated that demonstrators engaged in further property damage and one police officer was struck by a Molotov cocktail. Demonstrations and rebellions spread to other cities such as Vina del Mar, Valparaiso and Concepcion.

A group of physicians and nurses have mobilized to provide medical care to those injured in the unrest. Calling themselves “Healthcare for the Streets”, the doctors and nurses are seen pushing shopping carts in areas around the Plaza de Italia providing assistance to those being attacked by the police and military units.

Neo-liberal Policy Entrenched in Chile After the 1973 Washington-backed Military Coup

When Allende came to power in Chile in 1970 with a popular mandate to initiate socialist-oriented reforms in the economy, the U.S. administration under the-then President Richard Nixon, sought to undermine the government. Many of the trade agreements between Chile and the U.S. were curtailed to explicitly prevent Allende from stabilizing the society.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Richard Helms met directly with Nixon to enact a policy that would “make the economy scream.” A drastic decline in the importation of energy resources and spare parts for industrial usage rendered large segments of the productive capacity of Chile inoperative.

After the military seizure of power on September 11, 1973, the dominant view promoted by the corporate media in the U.S. was that Chile underwent an “economic miracle” directed by University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman. The monetarist policy of neo-liberalism reduced state spending, forced more workers into poverty and provided incentives for multi-national corporations to continue their plunder of the country.

These policies were implemented through the dictatorial leadership style of Pinochet which crushed all opposition to the conservative economic programs. The period during 1973-1990 under Pinochet heightened the social contradictions in Chile by placing the interests of international finance capital ahead of the workers, farmers and youth.

Friedman authored a book entitled “Capitalism and Freedom” (1962) yet the most intensive adoption of his theories was carried out by a military regime which was installed at the aegis of the CIA through the violent overthrow of a democratically elected administration under Allende. The actual history of Chile provides a real life example of the origins and outcomes of neo-liberal thinking.

Regional Aspects of the Chilean Crisis

Throughout South America and the Caribbean there has been the proliferation of instability over the recent period. Ecuador experienced an uprising where many workers, youth, indigenous groups and farmers rejected the sharp turn to the right by the present government of Lenin Moreno.

Venezuela has been battling constant attempts by the administration of President Donald Trump to remove the Socialist Unity Party (PSUV) dominated government in Caracas. The imposition of draconian sanctions and a trade blockade is designed to starve the country into submission while simultaneously attempting to turn the masses against President Nicolas Maduro. So far this years-long policy perpetuated by successive administrations in Washington has failed to dislodge the revolutionary government of the Bolivarian Republic.

The recent elections in Argentina highlight the escalating class struggle and its international dimensions. Argentine voters elected a left of center government as a repudiation of the perennial economic crises inside the country for nearly two decades.

In Bolivia, the revolutionary government of President Evo Morales, won re-election in the first round, avoiding a run-off poll.  Yet right-wing elements have sought to foment unrest aimed at the nullification of the choice made by the Bolivian masses.

A recently-held anti-imperialist conference in the Republic of Cuba from November 1-3 exposed the actual role of imperialism throughout the region and indeed internationally. Cuba has been under a U.S. blockade for nearly six decades. (See this)

According to an article published by Granma International, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba (PPC), in describing the anti-imperialist gathering in Havana of well over a thousand delegates from throughout Latin America, the Caribbean and the world, it stated that:

“Fernando González Llort, President of the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples, welcomed participants and devoted his first remarks to Fidel, recalling that the Cuban people have not been defeated despite 60 years of hostility from the United States.”

This same report went on to further quote the official by emphasizing:

“González said that it was a pleasure to share this space with left organizations at a time when the United States is attempting to distort Cuba’s altruistic mission and international health collaboration, and reaffirmed that Cuba will never betray its friends.”

There is no viable alternative in Chile and throughout the continent and the Caribbean which relies on U.S. imperialism for ideological and material support. The interests of the ruling class in Chile coincide with that of Wall Street and Pentagon.

In order for the social gains made by the masses of people within the region to continue there must be a concerted struggle waged against imperialism. These struggles over the economic deprivation brought about by world capitalism should be broadened into a united effort to eradicate the imperatives of U.S. foreign policy which seeks to dominate the people of the region.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

The United States of America, Israel and Saudi Arabia are fed up with Iran and its allies in the Middle East. But despite waging war against Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, by inviting the Iraqi government to dilute al-Hashd al-Shaabi, by attempting to submit Gaza and to curb the Houthis in Yemen, it was not possible to break the strong alliances of Iran spread throughout the Middle East.

Moreover, through democratic elections, Iran’s allies in Lebanon and Iraq managed to be part of the Parliament and have ministers in the cabinets of their respective countries. Also, in Syria, Iran’s strong ally President Bashar al-Assad is still leading the country notwithstanding years of war, and the attempts, through foreign and domestic intervention, to remove him from power. But civilian protestors- with legitimate demands against corruption and wealth mismanagement of the elite in Iraq and Lebanon throughout the years – are causing havoc in these countries, shaking the stability and therefore putting Iran and its allies on alert. Meetings are continuously held by the “Axis of the Resistance” to evaluate the situation, the possible threats, and the degree of involvement of foreign powers in the streets in attempting to curb this Axis.

In Lebanon, following two weeks of protests covering the entire country, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri offered his resignation and became a caretaker, leading a cabinet which has also resigned. This move has calmed protestors for a few days but it is not certain that this will satisfy Lebanon’s hungry, jobless youths and those contesting corruption. They are expecting their demands to be dealt with within the medium and long term as well. At the same time, the escalating national debt has to be reckoned with.

It is not clear that a new government will come into being this month, or even in the months to come. Hariri discussed his plans with main political parties stating his will to form a technocrat cabinet. His aim is to respond to some of the protestor’s demands but also to remove the strong Christian member of the parliament (MP) and Minister of foreign affairs Gebran Bassil, who leads the largest group of MPs in the country. Hariri’s demand was contested because “a political leader (he is leading a large political party) cannot lead a non-political cabinet unless it is mixed governance between politicians and qualified technocrats”. Other options have been put on the table, for example, to ask Hariri to form a politico-technocrat government to bring the country out of the actual impasse.

Domestic and international complications are enormous, crucially affecting the success or failure of any future Lebanese government. The US administration in particular (as announced by the State Department) is waiting just around the corner to impose further sanctions on Lebanon and in particular on the Hezbollah allies. Also, Bassil, the President’s son-in-law and a strong ally of Hezbollah, is looked upon by the US State Department as a persona non grata due to his explicit support of Washington’s declared enemy. Hezbollah, a Shia political group, struck an alliance with the strongest Christian political group in the country. This alliance is highly disturbing to all Hezbollah’s enemies because it gives the Iranian ally a non-sectarian dimension and international support via the Christians of Lebanon. The US is left with a small Christian ally, Samir Geagea, who years ago was the closest Israeli ally and has become the dearest supporter of Saudi Arabia. Geagea’s men are spread around the streets of Lebanon, preventing civilians from reaching their businesses and asking for Hezbollah to lay down its arms.

This is pushing Hezbollah to hold its allies close, sharing with them a common destiny, and consolidating its domestic hold over the political arena of the country. Thus, the question to clarify here is whether the future holds a successful government to come, or (which is most likely) a political vacuum.

Generally speaking, the harshest criticism towards Hezbollah, Iran’s ally in Lebanon, and towards its most powerful armed corps, comes from the mainstream media, who find it appear attractive to associate Iran and its allies with every event. In reality, only a very few voices, in the streets of Lebanon, are heard against Hezbollah. These mainly come from areas under the “Lebanese Forces” leader’s control, Samir Geagea, on the US and Saudi Arabia pay-roll with a clear objective to boost his image. Geagea’s ministers offered their resignation from the first day of the protests to enable him to distance himself from the government that he was part of in the last years. He was left, alone, to depart from the cabinet. His men are closing the streets of important sections of the main roads in the Christian-dominated areas to improve his negotiating conditions in any future cabinet.

What is unusual is the role of the Lebanese Army and its commander in chief General Josef Aoun, a relative to the actual president Michel Aoun. In fact, the army is under the code of Emergency no.3, allowing it to intervene to protect the country from internal and external threats. Sources within the military command said: “General Aoun is under US pressure: they “invited” him not to use the army against protestors even if these close the main roads linking the entire country from the south to the north and the east. Delegations from the US embassy visited the General on a regular basis to make sure the country was “under the protestors’ command” rather than that of the security forces. The behaviour of the Army chief is embarrassing the President, a Hezbollah all. It aims to indicate that the President’s mandate is unstable because of his political choices and his links to Hezbollah which would pave the way for the commander in chief of the army to become a president in the future”.

Informed sources in Beirut believe the closures of the road links between the south of Lebanon and Beirut and the Bekaa Valley and Beirut (Shia strongholds) are not innocent moves. The aim is to bring Hezbollah onto the streets and trigger a new civil war in the country, destabilising it for years to come.

Hezbollah seems very much aware of this plan and its negative potential.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

The cat is out of the bag. The UK is potentially complicit in a war crime. With typical insouciance the U.S. military dropped this bombshell by tweet and apparently without realizing the implications for U.S. partners:

.

.

.

OIR is Operation Inherent Resolve, which is the name behind which the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS cloaks its military activities. (Think NATO wearing a thobe.) CJTFOIR is the Combined Joint Task Force for Operation Inherent Resolve.

If, as per the spokesman’s statement, the forces being redeployed to Syria’s oil-producing areas are Inherent Resolve forces, it follows that those troops are doing so in the name and under the aegis of the Coalition. Simple. Ah yes, but awkward for the British government to admit – awkward for practical, political and legal reasons.

In practice, if this is a Joint Task Force Operation as we are told by the U.S. spokesman, it would be next to impossible for the deployment in Deir Ez Zor province to be taking place without some input from the senior UK officers embedded with the U.S. military in the Coalition Joint Task Force headquarters (the Deputy Commander is a British general) and active in carrying out Operation Inherent Resolve.

Politically this matters because hitherto all the opprobrium leveled at President Trump for allegedly ‘looting’ Syria’s oil has spared other participants in Inherent Resolve, including the UK, France, and Germany. How awkward it might be for Boris Johnson, facing an election, to find himself tarred with yet another Trump brush to put alongside Trump’s alleged grab for the UK National Health Service.

Legally this matters because if Trump puts into practice his promise to seize Syrian oil production, that will constitute, according to authoritative legal experts, a violation of international law against ‘pillaging’ enshrined in the Fourth Geneva Convention and thus constitute a war crime. Any party complicit in pillaging, and that would surely include other parties in the Joint Task Force, even if only headquarters staff and not boots on the ground, could also be culpable. The British government might find itself challenged in a UK court even if no international court could be found willing to act.

A nightmare for British government lawyers

This is the stuff of nightmares for British government lawyers.

Parliament is already alerted. The independent peer Baroness Cox prompted the following exchange with a government minister by putting down a tricky parliamentary question.

UK Parliament Syria inquiry

We can take that as an embarrassed ‘yes’.

Lord Ahmed, an FCO Minister, gave a similarly evasive answer to another question asked by Baroness Cox:

UK Parliament Syria inquiry 2

You can picture Lord Ahmed squirming.

It gets worse.

The British government may soon find itself complicit in harboring and funding terrorists because of Inherent Resolve’s involvement in pillaging Syria’s oil.

The U.S. says it will work with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to ‘safeguard vital infrastructure’ and will route proceeds of oil sales to the SDF to pay for its role, described as being anti-ISIS. What this overlooks is that the oilfields are not in Kurdish areas, which are mainly in the north, near the Turkish border, but in southern Deir Ez Zor province, which is dominated by Sunni Arabs who formed a core constituency for ISIS. This area is not far from Raqqa. The nominally SDF forces in the area, with which the U.S. will have to work, are mainly Arab and notoriously marbled with ISIS fighters. This part of the SDF has been described as ‘SDF by day, ISIS by night’. Not that they will not make excellent guards. These fighters, far from attacking the U.S., will likely be delighted to find the U.S. not only creating a safe haven for them but funding them as well.

Aiding terrorism, committing war crimes: a prospect to make any UK politician gulp. No wonder the parliamentary answers were evasive, even more so than usual with the grand yet nebulous ‘Global Coalition’. (In answer to another awkward question asking how many ISIS the Coalition had killed or detained in Syria in the last two years the FCO claimed implausibly that the government ‘does not hold this information’, no doubt to avoid having to acknowledge that the number is tiny and that the main purpose of the Coalition is to deny territory to Assad.)

With the UK Parliament already on alert, how long will it be before Congress wakes up to this scandal-in-the-making?

*

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 Ford is a former British Ambassador to Syria and Bahrain, he also served as a UN expert on refugees.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

M S Swaminathan is often referred to as the ‘father’ of India’s Green Revolution. In 2009, he said that  no scientific evidence had emerged to justify concerns about genetically modified (GM) crops, often regarded as stage two of the Green Revolution.

In a December 2018 paper in the journal Current Science, however, it was argued that Bt insecticidal cotton (India’s only officially approved commercial GM crop) is a failure and has not provided livelihood security for mainly resource-poor, small and marginal farmers. 

The paper attracted a good deal of attention because, along with scientist P C Kesavan, Swaminathan was the co-author.

They concluded that globally both Bt crops and herbicide-tolerant crops are unsustainable and have not decreased the need for toxic chemical pesticides, the reason for these GM crops in the first place. Attention was also drawn to evidence that indicates Bt toxins are toxic to all organisms.

Kesavan and Swaminathan mounted a general critique of the GM paradigm. They noted that glyphosate-based herbicides, used on most GM crops in the world, and their active ingredient glyphosate, are genotoxic, cause birth defects and are carcinogenic. They also asserted that GM crop yields are no better than that of non-GM crops.

The authors concluded that genetic engineering technology is supplementary and must be need based. In more than 99% of cases, they said that time-honoured conventional breeding is sufficient.

In fact, Kesavan and Swaminathan argued that a sustainable ‘Evergreen Revolution’ based on a ‘systems approach’ and ‘ecoagriculture’ would guarantee equitable food security by ensuring access of rural communities to food.

Part of the pushback against Kevasan and Swaminathan has come from Dr Deepak Pental, developer and promoter of GM mustard at Delhi University. He responded to their piece with an article in September 2019, again in Current Science. 

He argued that Kesavan and Swaminathan have unequivocally aligned themselves with overzealous environmentalists and ideologues, who have mindlessly attacked the use of GM technology to improve crops required for meeting the food and nutritional needs of a global population that is predicted to peak out at 11.2 billion. Pental added that the two authors’ analysis of modern breeding technologies is a reflection of their ideological proclivities.

By resorting to such statements, Pental was drawing on industry-inspired spin: criticisms of GM are driven by ideology not fact and GM is required to ‘feed the world’. Both assertions are baseless but are employed time and again across the globe by the pro-GM lobby in an attempt to discredit inconvenient scientific findings and campaigners who forward valid criticisms.  

In response to Pental, Andrew Paul Gutierrez, Peter E. Kenmore and Aruna Rodrigues hit back with a piece in a November 2019 edition of the same journal, ‘When biotechnologists lack objectivity’. In it, they argue: 

“The need to counter Pental is critical because of his influence as part of a lobbying force for unbridled legislation for GE technologies and as a purveyor of scare tactics that food security in India will be compromised without them.”

They continue:

“We question his failure to consider whether genetically modified crops (GMOs) are safe for human and ecological health, increase yield and quality, are rigorously tested using proper risk assessment biosafety protocols, and whether biosafety research level (BRL) mechanisms for GMOs field testing under various programmes are being implemented? These are the major themes of our rebuttal.”

The authors indicate the adverse impacts on human health of GMOs and associated agrochemical inputs and the very real risk of gene flow and other ways by which non-GM crops and seeds can be contaminated by their GM counterparts:

“Genetic contamination is of special concern in India which has rich genetic diversity of crops/plants, and yet there are ongoing efforts to release GMO herbicide tolerant mustard (Brassica juncea) in India, which is a centre of diversity and domestication of over 5,000 wild and domesticated varieties of mustard and the wider ‘family’ of brassicas that includes 9,720 accessions… We must question why regulators would ever consider approval of GMOs of native species (e.g. of Desi cottons, brinjal eggplant, mustard, rice, among others).”

As alluded to in the above extract, India has a wealth of plant species that have evolved and been adapted over millennia. The country has good-quality traditional seeds which are ideally suited for local soils, climates and pests. And these seeds are less resource intensive. We must therefore question why Pental’s GM mustard is being pushed so hard when it does not out-yield certain mustard species that India has already.

While touching on serious conflicts of interest within regulatory bodies, the authors also discuss Bt cotton and GM mustard, the commercialisation of which is currently held up due to a public litigation case with Aruna Rodrigues acting as lead petitioner.

They provide data to highlight the myth of Bt cotton success in India. However, GM promoters continue to peddle the story of Bt cotton success and aim to drive the full-scale introduction of GM crops into Indian agriculture on the back of this false narrative.

The authors explain that the current GM Bt cotton hybrids in India were indeed developed as a ‘value capture’ mechanism that enabled the seed industry to side-step intractable legal intellectual property rights: the interests of poor farmers were sacrificed for corporate commercial benefit.

In the article, data is also presented for GM mustard and the authors argue that it shows no yield advantage and its testing and evaluation have involved protocol violations.

In India, various high-level reports have advised against the adoption of GM crops. Appointed by the Supreme Court, the ‘Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report’ (2013) was scathing about the prevailing regulatory system and highlighted its inadequacies and serious inherent conflicts of interest. The TEC recommended a 10-year moratorium on the commercial release of all GM crops.

Kesavan and Swaminathan, in their piece. also criticised India’s GM regulating bodies due to a lack of competency and endemic conflicts of interest and a lack of expertise in GM risk assessment protocols, including food safety assessment and the assessment of environmental impacts. They also questioned regulators’ failure to carry out a socio-economic assessment of GM impacts on resource-poor small and marginal farmers and called for “able economists who are familiar with and will prioritize rural livelihoods, and the interests of resource-poor small and marginal farmers rather than serve corporate interests and their profits.”

As we have seen with the push to get GM mustard commercialised, the problems described by the TEC persist. Through her numerous submissions to the Supreme Court, Rodrigues has asserted that GM mustard is being pushed for commercialisation based on flawed tests (or no tests) and a lack of public scrutiny. In effect, she argues, there has been unremitting scientific fraud and outright regulatory delinquency. It must also be noted that this crop is herbicide-tolerant (HT), which, as stated by the TEC, is wholly inappropriate for India with its small biodiverse, multi-cropping farms.

Rodrigues has for a long time contended that GM ‘regulation’ in India occurs in a system dogged by serious conflicts of interest: funders, promoters and regulators are basically one and the same. She argues that agricultural institutions and numerous public sector scientists working within these bodies along with a powerful lobbying force are joined at the hip in pushing for GM.

GM Silver bullet misses the target

If the pro-GM lobby is genuinely concerned about ‘feeding the world’, it should really be questioning why the world already produces enough to feed 10 million people but over two billion are experiencing micronutrient deficiencies (of which over 800 million are classed as chronically undernourished); why we are seeing rising rates of obesity, diabetes and a range of other health-related conditions; and why, post-Green Revolution, the range of crops grown has narrowed and the nutrient content of food and diets has diminished.

The answers lie with the practices, processes and toxic inputs that are integral to the prevailing model of chemical-intensive, industrial agriculture and the dynamics of the globalised capitalist food system. Throughout the world, this model has become tied to agro-export mono-cropping (often with non-food commodities taking up prime agricultural land), sovereign debt repayment and World Bank/IMF ‘structural adjustment’ directives, the outcomes of which have included a displacement of a food-producing peasantry, the consolidation of rapacious global agri-food oligopolies and the transformation of many countries into food deficit areas.

Global food insecurity and malnutrition are therefore not the result of a lack of productivity.

As for India, although it fares poorly in world hunger assessments, the country has more than enough food to feed its 1.3 billion-plus population and with appropriate policy support measures could draw on its own indigenous agroecological know-how to do so.

Where farmers’ livelihoods are concerned, the pro-GM lobby says GM will boost productivity and help secure cultivators a better income. This too is misleading and again ignores crucial political and economic contexts. For instance, to gain brief insight into the nature of India’s agrarian crisis and why farmers are leaving the sector, let us turn to renowned journalist P Sainath who says:

“The agrarian crises in five words is: hijack of agriculture by corporations. The process by which it is done in five words: predatory commercialisation of the countryside. When your cultivation costs have risen 500 per cent over a decade, the result of that crisis, that process in five words: biggest displacement in our history.

Little surprise, therefore, that even with bumper harvests, Indian farmers still find themselves in financial distress.    

India’s farmers are not experiencing financial hardship due to low productivity. They are reeling under the effects of neoliberal policies, years of neglect and a deliberate strategy to displace smallholder agriculture at the behest of the World Bank and global agri-food corporations. And people are not hungry in India because its farmers do not produce enough food. Hunger and malnutrition result from various factors, not least poor food distribution, lack of infrastructure, (gender) inequality and poverty.

However, aside from putting a positive spin on the questionable performance of GM agriculture, the pro-GM lobby, both outside of India and within, has wasted 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.

*

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.

Three Deep State Confessions on Syria

November 11th, 2019 by Brad Hoff

First, all the way back in 2005 — more than a half decade before the war began — CNN’s Christiane Amanpour told Assad to his face that regime change is coming. Thankfully this was in a televised and archived interview, now for posterity to behold.

Amanpour, it must be remembered, was married to former US Assistant Secretary of State James Rubin (until 2018), who further advised both President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Next, a surprisingly blunt assessment of where Washington currently stands after eight years of the failed push to oust Assad and influence the final outcome of the war, from the very man who was among the early architects of America’s covert “arm the jihadists to topple the dictator” campaign.

Myself and others long ago documented how former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford worked with and funded a Free Syrian Army commander who led ISIS suicide bombers into the battlefield in 2013.

Amb. Ford has since admitted this much (that US proxy ‘rebels’ and ISIS worked together in the early years of the war), and now admits defeat in the below recent interview as perhaps a reborn ‘realist’.

And finally, not everyone is as pessimistic on the continuing prospects for yet more US-led regime change future efforts as Robert Ford is above. Below is an astoundingly blunt articulation of the next disturbing phase of US efforts in Syria, from an October 31 conference at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

“The panel featured the two co-chairs of the Syria Study Group, a bi-partisan working group appointed by Congress to draft a new US war plan for Syria,” The Grayzone’s Ben Norton wrote of the below clip.

With images now circulating of Trump’s “secure the oil” policy in effect, which has served to at least force pro-interventionist warmongers to drop all high-minded humanitarian notions of “democracy promotion” and “freedom” and R2P doctrine, etc… as descriptive of US motives in Syria, the above blunt admissions of Dana Stroul, the Democratic co-chair of the Syria Study Group, are ghastly and chilling in terms of what’s next for the suffering population of Syria.

America is not finished, apparently, and it’s likely to get a lot uglier than merely seizing the oil.

*

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.

Brad is a native Texan and US Marine veteran who after leaving the military began wandering around the Middle East, eventually making Syria his second home. He’s authored multiple stories for his blog Levant Report which gained international attention. Find his writing at Antiwar.com, SOFREP, Foreign Policy Journal, The Canary (UK), and others.

Featured image is from TruePublica

U.S.-backed coup Deposes Evo Morales in Bolivia

November 11th, 2019 by Marco Teruggi

Update by Workers World

As of 4 p.m. EDT on Nov. 10, President Evo Morales has resigned his office in Bolivia, pushed out by a counterrevolutionary coup d’état backed by Washington. After part of the police force joined the counterrevolutionary gangs and the heads of the Armed Forces advised him to resign, Morales took this step as the best of bad choices after consultation with the Bolivian Workers Confederation (COB) and other supporters of his government. 

This has all happened in the 24 hours since Marco Teruggi wrote the article below, which was first published Nov. 9 by TeleSur, translated by Resumen Latinoamericano’s North America bureau and edited by Workers World. 

Although superseded by Nov. 10 events, Teruggi’s article still presents the forces in action in the landlocked country of 11.6 million people, a majority of whom are Indigenous.

Workers World joins those progressive forces all around Latin America and the world who are condemning the U.S.-backed counterrevolutionary coup, including the governments of Venezuela and Cuba, and also Lula da Silva of Brazil, who was released from prison just days earlier. 

***

These are the days and hours of the coup offensive in Bolivia. The attempt to overthrow President Evo Morales is gaining strength, territory and its capacity for action. It’s like an announced bullet that arrives from the front and has a date: before Nov. 12.

That day the country will know the result of the audit in which the Organization of American States is participating to see if there was any fraud in the Oct. 20 elections that gave Morales and his MAS party a victory in the first round. Those who are in the leadership of the coup want an outcome before that day, and they believe they can make it happen.

They have several elements in their favor. In the first place, they have a mobilized social base that believes it can win, is heterogeneous, and gathers accumulated discontents by holding exclusive racist discourses and public events in the conservative/colonial country. That base has strength in the cities of Santa Cruz, Cochabamba, Potosí [in the east], and in La Paz — the final objective of the assault [and the administrative capital].

Secondly, shock troops — groups for confrontation — have accumulated strength from the east to La Paz. Their movement followed the direction of the coup’s strength: the city of Santa Cruz acts as a strategic rearguard in the center of the country. It is in this area where [the right wing] carried out the most violent attacks, and La Paz is the point where state power is concentrated.

These groups are in the process of mobilizing and moving toward La Paz, where some have already carried out siege actions surrounding the government palace on previous nights. One of the objectives of the offensive is to succeed in gathering together all the different elements of opposition [to the MAS government] and to reinforce the mobilization with sectors coming from different points in the country to La Paz.

Thirdly, [there is] the leadership of Fernando Camacho, who went from heading the Santa Cruz Civic Committee to setting up his base of operations in La Paz and projecting an image of national leadership. His speeches seek to distance himself from all acts of racism, separatism and coup d’état, in an attempt to shift the accusations away from him and to bring in other sectors of society.

The expansion of these three factors seeks to unleash, through an escalating offensive, the outbreak of three others. The first goal they aimed at, and that has been achieved in part, is influencing the Bolivian National Police. The images of riots on Friday night and Saturday morning [Nov. 9] showed how a sector of the police have been influenced to join the coup process.

The second target is the Bolivian Armed Force, a central element for a coup d’état to be successful, which up until noon Saturday [Nov. 9] has shown no public sign of a possible internal breakdown.

The third target is the popular sectors, which for the moment are playing no part in the mobilization demanding the dismissal of Evo Morales. But some groups, like the Association of Coca Producers of the Yungas or mining sectors, have been present at the [reactionary] mobilizations.

The calculation of this set of factors, interconnected and projected with the greatest force, has created a scenario in which the coup leadership claims that the departure of Evo Morales is the only possible solution and that this will take place in a matter of hours or days.

Within this leadership, in a lesser capacity, is Carlos Mesa, who came in second in the presidential vote on Oct. 20, and has been able to align himself with the narrative of those who are giving the ultimatum. Along with Camacho, Mesa rejects the OAS audit but leaves some room for maneuver in case of the defeat of the coup attempt.

Up to now, Morales seeks to avoid confrontation

The government’s objective, both that of President Morales and the social movements that support him, seems to be to contain the escalation of the coup until the result of the audit. Within this framework, [pro-Morales] mobilizations have taken place almost daily, led by different organizations, such as the Bolivian Union of Workers and the Bartolina Sisa Women’s Confederation.

The president’s call has been to defend the results of the election, the process of change — democracy — without opening the doors to the scenario of confrontation that the rightists are trying to generate. This means Evo [Morales] has rejected the rightists’ attempt to increase acute violence, which would lead to wounded and dead people.

This is a complex and increasingly unstable scenario. The outcome of the audit could lead to different conclusions. The United States has made clear from the outset that its position is that the result of Oct. 20 was invalid. Washington has claimed that the path of the audit decided by the OAS should be followed. That means, to a large extent, whatever the U.S. itself decides.

The government has stated that the outcome of the audit will be binding and that it would be willing to call for a second round [of elections] if that emerges as the result. In that case there could be a division within the opposition between those who would be willing to participate in the election and those who would not. Would Carlos Mesa accept [a new election] and retreat from speaking in favor of the coup?

There are still many hours and days until Nov. 12 in the [rightist] offensive framework that is accumulating strength and capacity for destabilization. The government, [and] the process of change [represented by Morales and MAS], still has cards to play to contain and de-escalate the situation.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S.-backed coup Deposes Evo Morales in Bolivia

Most of what Donald Trump says and tweets can be ignored. His advisers and cabinet will make all final decisions regardless of what the stable genius says he will do—for instance, leaving Syria. 

The US military isn’t going anywhere despite Trump declaring he will bring the troops home. The troops aren’t going anywhere so long as Bashar al-Assad remains in power. 

Tump now says he wants to steal Syria’s minuscule reservoir of oil and give it to the Kurds, possibly as a consolation prize for abandoning them to Erdogan and Turkey. 

Once again, the Oval Office Ignoramus shows off his colossal stupidity. 

Trump says they have been fighting over there for a thousand years, a patently false statement. Under the Ottoman Empire, the Arabs and Muslims of the Middle East lived in relative peace, were allowed to manage their own affairs, and worship as Muslims, Christians, and Jews. 

It wasn’t until the British and the French went in there after the First World War that the fighting began in earnest. It picked up considerably after the state of Israel was established and the Zionists began ethnic cleansing Palestinians while provoking their Arab neighbors. 

Instead of reducing the number of troops as promised, Trump approved an expanded “military mission,” supposedly to “secure” Syrian oil. 

The Donald is completely irrelevant. 

“At a US government-funded think tank at the forefront of shaping Washington’s interventionist designs, an American official succinctly laid out the continued-regime change strategy,” writes Ben Norton for The Grayzone. 

The “think tank”—the neocon infested Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is funded by clueless American taxpayers. 

Both of the congressionally appointed co-chairs [of CSIS] also happen to work at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israel think tank that grew out of the AIPAC lobbying juggernaut. Their Syria Study Group was a collection of hardline interventionists from pro-Israel and Gulf monarchy-funded DC think tanks…

In other words, the CSIS is working closely with Israel to formulate US foreign policy in the Middle East. Israel has worked to undermine Syria for over sixty years and the US, a relative newcomer in the gambit to undermine Syria, has pursued the goal of undermining the nation for over 25 years. 

Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have a document revealing how the US worked with Israel over the decades to destabilize Syria. The CIA, through the American legation in Syria, engineered a Syrian coup in 1947. It’s said the CIA’s Damascus station chief, Miles Copeland, was also behind the coup. Copeland wrote about his role in his 1969 book, The Game of Nations: The Amorality of Power Politics. 

It was about oil, notes James A. Paul in his book, Human Rights in Syria. 

In the late 1940’s, U.S. policymakers grew alarmed when the Syrian government, bowing to public pressure, refused to let a U.S. oil company build a pipeline through its territory. Washington also found the strong anti-Western sentiment and the large Communist party in the country ominous. Concerned that Syria was ‘drifting leftward’, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) laid plans to overthrow its three-year old civilian government.

In 1957, the CIA and MI6 planned to assassinate top Syrian military leaders and use the Iraq Army to intervene in the country. The CIA organized Operation Straggle and Operation Wappen to overthrow the Syrian government, the latter organized by Kermit Roosevelt. He previously engineered a successful coup in Iran. The papers of British Defense Minister Duncan Sandys corroborate the coup plan and the involvement of the two intelligence agencies. The assassination plot was approved by then British PM Harold Macmillan. 

“In the document drawn up by a top secret and high-level working group that met in Washington in September 1957, Mr Macmillan and President Eisenhower were left in no doubt about the need to assassinate the top men in Damascus,” The Guardian reported in 2003. 

The men targeted were Abd al-Hamid Sarraj, head of Syrian military intelligence; Afif al-Bizri, chief of the Syrian general staff; and Khalid Bakdash, leader of the Syrian Communist party.

The disastrous “civil war” in Syria that began with the “Arab Spring” multi-nation targeted color revolution in 2011 was engineered by the US and the Gulf emirates. WikiLeaks made this known when it released a document revealing how the US-funded and trained the Syrian “rebels,” more accurately described as murderous Wahhabi jihadist terrorists. (See Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2013: U.S. has secretly provided arms training to Syria rebels since 2012.) 

The corporate media in the US and Europe worked tirelessly to put a “humanitarian” spin on this declaration of war against a nation that did not and does not pose a threat to America, although it does stand in the way of corporate and Israeli designs for the region. 

Trump’s campaign promise to put an end to “nation-building” and foreign interventions was undercut when he declared “to the victor belongs the spoils. You take the oil—you don’t just leave it.” He later said the US would not be stealing oil—in this instance, from Iraq—but would be “reimbursing” itself for the cost of the invasion and destruction of the country.

After declaring he would take Syria’s oil, the president was once again “corrected” by the Pentagon. It said the US wouldn’t keep and profit from stolen Syrian oil. It would instead hand it over to the Kurds. 

As should be expected, the corporate media is not underscoring the fact taking oil from Syria and Iraq is pillage under international law. From the International Committee of the Red Cross: 

The prohibition of pillage is a long-standing rule of customary international law already recognized in the Lieber Code, the Brussels Declaration and the Oxford Manual. Pillage is prohibited under all circumstances under the Hague Regulations. Pillage is identified as a war crime in the Report of the Commission on Responsibility set up after the First World War, as well as by the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg) established following the Second World War. The Fourth Geneva Convention also prohibits pillage. Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault,” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

I bet Trump is not even vaguely aware of these long-standing prohibitions. His predecessors in the Obama and Bush administrations selectively ignored international law. Bush-era neocons—demonstrated most recently by Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton—have taken an extreme position on the prosecution of war criminals in the international court. 

It is quite natural for the US government to steal foreign assets. It did this with Iran after the Islamic Revolution. Corporate media spun the story to make it appear Obama gave Iran billions of dollars, no strings attached. This is one example of the recent use of the Big Lie. Others are numerous. 

The elite and its political class in both the US and the EU believe they are not beholden to treaties and laws. The United States is the exceptional nation. It decides what laws and protocols will be honored and which will be violated. 

Although this has been the case for some time, the arrival of the neocons during the Reagan, Bush, and Bush II years pushed this rejection of responsibility for mass murder and looting to new extremes. 

Dick Cheney and the neocons are adamant. The engineered murder of a million and a half humans and the destruction of Iraq is a positive achievement. 

It shouldn’t come as a surprise Donald Trump would make such a brazen mafioso-like threat to the national sovereignty of the Syrian people. The Bush neocons set the pattern for making publicly displayed belligerence a cornerstone of US diplomacy. It is on full display in pathological fashion during this administration. 

*

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

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

Featured image is from Al-Masdar News

On November 6, the commander-in-chief of the Syrian Democratic Forces, Mazloum Abdi, announced that the Kurdish-led group was resuming its “joint program of work” with the US-led coalition. According to him, the goal of this effort is to combat ISIS and secure “the infrastructure” of northeastern Syria.

The irony is that this “infrastructure” is the US-occupied oil fields. Therefore, the SDF declared its support to the US-led effort to exploit Syrian natural resources. Most likely, the group’s leadership sees this as a needed step to gain US support in its separatist efforts.

On November 7, an intense fighting between the SDF and Turkish-led forces erupted near the town of Ayn Issa in northern Raqqah. Initially, pro-Turkish militants seized the villages of Issa and Sharaqiq killing several SDF members. However, later, they were pushed back by a SDF counter-attack.

Watch the video here.

Meanwhile, the Syrian Army reinforced its positions near the village of Bab al-Khair in northeastern al-Hasakah with additional troops and heavy weapons. The newly-deployed forces included dozens of service members and several T-55AMV battle tanks.

At least 20 airstrikes hit militant positions near the towns of Hass, Benin, Maarzita, Ma’aret Hurmah, Sarjah, Kafar Roma, Sheikh Mustafa and Ma`arat al-Nu`man in southern Idlib. Pro-militant sources reported that 3 militants were eliminated.

On the same day, Hayat Tahir al-Sham announced that its members had allegedly targeted a Syrian military helicopter over the village of Kbani. Several sources confirmed that helicopters of the Syrian Air Force carried out airstrikes on Kabani and its vicinity in the morning. However, there were no other reports confirming HTS claims.

Three months ago, HTS shot down a Su-22 warplane over southern Idlib with an anti-aircraft missile of unknown type. Then, several sources speculated that Turkey was supplying Greater Idlib militants with such advanced weapons.

Russia has obtained an advanced Israeli interceptor missile, Chinese news outlet Sina reported on November 6.

In July 2018, two interceptor missiles were fired by the David’s Sling missile defense system in an attempt to intercept some Syrian missiles. The Israeli military destroyed one of the interceptors midair, while another one did not hit its target and landed in Syrian territory allegedly without suffering any major damage. The Syrian Army reportedly recovered this interceptor and transferred to the Russian side.

*

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: Russia Captured Advanced Israeli Interceptor Missile
  • Tags: , ,

Billionaire US Presidential Aspirant Michael Bloomberg?

November 10th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

What the US needs most of all is peace, equity and justice leadership, serving all Americans, not just its privileged few the way both right wings of the one-party state run things.

Reportedly billionaire businessman, former New York City mayor, Michael Bloomberg may enter the presidential race as an undemocratic Dem aspirant.

On Friday, he filed papers to run in the March 3 Alabama Dem primary, one of 14 so-called “super Tuesday” contests.

His action contradicts earlier ruling out a run for the nation’s highest office last March. Is a formal announcement otherwise forthcoming?

His advisor Howard Wolfson said

“(w)e now need to finish the job and ensure that Trump is defeated. But Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well positioned to do that.”

He considers Biden’s performance underwhelming, expressing concern about Sanders’ and Warren’s populist rhetoric, their record in office belying their campaign pledges.

Forbes magazine estimated Bloomberg’s net worth at $52.4 billion as of November 2019, making him the world’s 9th most wealthy individual — easily able to self-finance a presidential run if he enters the contest.

On November 7, the NYT reported that he’s “actively preparing to enter the presidential race,” a final decision not yet made, adding:

He “prepared to enter presidential races before…only to pull back,” though never before filed papers to run in a Dem primary.

Do Americans need another anti-populist billionaire as head of state and commander-in-chief of its armed forces?

Bloomberg’s dubious record as New York mayor was “an extraordinary record of progress” for the city’s privileged class at the expense of its vast majority.

His strategy may be to convince voters that a self-made, problem-solving (billionaire) businessman is the right choice to lead the nation.

Like Trump, he didn’t become super-rich by being a good guy, notably as New York mayor ignoring the public welfare in deference to privileged interests.

An earlier article explained that New York is one of America’s poorest large cities, the wealth disparity of its residents one of the nation’s most extreme.

Unemployment, underemployment, and poverty are among the nation’s highest, its high cost of living making things harder for millions struggling to get by.

Most city workers lack pensions. Many earn sub-subsistence wages. Poverty and deprivation are extremely high. It rose annually during Bloomberg’s tenure.

City homelessness more than doubled on his watch. Many others live in overcrowded substandard dwellings.

Hard times forced large numbers to live with families or friends. Unaffordable rental prices created crisis conditions.

Bloomberg did nothing to address these and other key issues affecting ordinary people in the city hardest.

Unprecedented social polarization worsened on his watch. New York’s top 20% earns 40 times more than the bottom one-fifth. It’s top 1% earns infinitely more.

Bloomberg waged war on labor. Onerous tax burdens were imposed. Over $1 billion in public worker concessions were demanded.

Massive layoffs affected thousand of teachers, hundreds of firefighters, and many other city workers.

Dozens of senior and day care centers were closed. Public wages were frozen or minimally increased, benefits cut.

At the same time, Wall Street got trillions of dollars in federal bailout funding. Its executives earn millions of dollars annually in pay, bonuses, and perks.

Throughout his tenure, Bloomberg implemented numerous financial sector tax giveaways. Ordinary city residents got tax increases.

He and then-police commissioner Raymond Kelly persecuted city Blacks and Latinos, intensifying racist stop and frisk practices.

He was elected and reelected the old-fashioned way, anointed by party bosses and Wall Street, outspending challengers multiple times over, drowning out opposition voices.

A right-wing extremist, he’s part of the problem, a member of the US aristocracy, its pro-war, pro-business, pro-neoliberal, anti-populist agenda, trampling on the rights of ordinary people at home and abroad — a hostile agenda he supports.

*

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 Flickr

Homeland Insecurity. “Perpetual War”

November 10th, 2019 by Philip A Farruggio

Well, once again we have Veterans Day upon us. With it comes the preponderance of overt militarism and military propaganda. Tune into any sporting event on the boob tube and you get the camouflaged soldiers and ROTC students (if a college game) staring into the camera. After all, aren’t we at war, and have been for so long that the late great Gore Vidal named it ‘Perpetual War’?

What in the hell reason can the Pentagon and our War Economy have for making them dress in camouflage!? Isn’t that for when they are in the battle zones? Or perhaps they are getting us all ready, we the suckers… sorry,  we the voters, for when the **** becomes too toxic and they declare martial law? Am I just a cynic or conspiracy nut, or is that not too far on the horizon? They already want to clamp down, legislatively, on street protest, which, in case you Neo Cons out there forgot, was what Ben Franklin labeled  dissent as “The lifeblood of democracy”.

It is bad enough that the Neo Cons and what should be labeled the real Deep State did when they came up with the term Homeland after 9/11. They most likely wanted to use the term Fatherland but Joey boy Goebbels already patented it to give Hitler’s suckers.. sorry, voters, something to rally behind. It worked… in spades!

So, the Bush/Cheney Cabal and their handlers needed to get us in line, replete with  a sea of flags hanging from our garages and lapels, as they did their Shock and Awe destruction of Iraq. Don’t forget John Yoo and Jay Bybee’s authorship, with Fredo Gonzales’s sign off, on the legitimatizing of torture, with their ‘End Run’ of the Geneva Accords. Just as with the carpet bombing of Iraq and the illegal occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan, the ‘Colors of camouflage’ spontaneously generate throughout the world. Doesn’t matter if it’s a Bush , an Obama or now a Trump in the White House… Perpetual War continues at taxpayer and innocent civilians’ expense!

Is that the only purpose of this column? No, it just helps to explain why the precious ‘Safety Net’ that was stronger for so many generations is now shredded each and every day. Take the news stories about the homeless tent cities that ‘color in gray’ the landscapes of major metropolitan cities, and even smaller towns nationwide. Recently the city of Las Vegas, with a Democratic mayor and city council, passed an ordinance banning those tent cities of the homeless. Now, only a moron would disagree that many of those folks are in need of mental health aid. The remainder are either too broke to afford the higher costs of housing, and or are substance abusers in need of rehabilitation and counseling. Can’t happen folks! No funding! Yet, many of we suckers… sorry, voters, keep supporting the increases in those camouflaged uniforms. Perhaps Uncle Sam could sign up the lot of them and put them in camouflage. At least then they would have great medical care and psychological counseling, three squares a day and a clean bed to sleep in… all on your dime!

Isn’t Perpetual War great? Jay Bybee became a US Circuit court judge: John Yoo teaches at the U. of California at Berkeley; Fredo Gonzales is the Dean of Belmont University College of Law and teaches Constitutional law. Where is the outrage!? Or is Amerika some Woody Allen film?

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn , NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his work posted on sites like Global Research, Greanville Post, Off Guardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image is from Flickr

On November 7, 2019, the National Court of Justice of Ecuador ratified the preventive detention of former president Rafael Correa, along with a number of his former officials. Immediately after the court rendered its decision for pretrial detention, Correa rejected accusations of bribery, illicit association and contributions to his political campaign between 2012 and 2016, while he was the leader of Alianza Patria Altiva i Soberana (PAIS). Correa founded Alianza PAIS in 2006, as a democratic socialist political party with an objective to achieve economic and political sovereignty, and foment a social and economic revolution in the nation, which came to be known as The Citizens’ Revolution (La Revolución Ciudadana).

During his presidency, which lasted from January 15, 2007 to May 24, 2017, Correa introduced a brand of 21st century socialism to Ecuador, with a focus on improving the living standards of the poorest and most vulnerable segments of the population. His presidency was part of ‘the revolutionary wave’ in Latin America, referred to as ‘Pink tide’, where a number of left-wing and socialist governments swept into power throughout the continent during the 2000s, including Cristina Néstor Kirchner and Fernández de Kirchner in Argentina, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil, Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. All of these governments were opposed to neo-liberal economic policies and American imperialism.

While he was president, Correa raised taxes on the rich and cut down on tax evasion, and increased public investment on infrastructure and public services, including publicly-funded pensions, housing, free health care and education. His government ended up building many schools in different parts of the nation, particularly the countryside, and provided students with nearly all of the materials needed to further their studies. President Correa also more than doubled the minimum wage, which contributed to significantly reducing socioeconomic inequality. In 2018, a World Bank report explained that:

Ecuador has made notable improvements in reducing poverty over the last decade. Income poverty decreased from 36.7 percent in 2007 to 21.5 percent in 2017. In addition, the share of the population living in extreme poverty fell by more than half, from 16.5 percent in 2007 to 7.9 percent in 2017, representing an average annual drop of 0.9 percentage points. In absolute numbers, these changes represent a total of 1.6 million individuals exiting poverty, and about one million exiting extreme poverty over the last decade.[i]

Furthermore, the unemployment rate fell from an ‘all time high of 11.86 percent in the first quarter of 2004’ to ‘a record low of 4.54 percent in the fourth quarter of 2014’[ii]. The World Bank also reported that Ecuador posted annual economic growth of ‘4.5 percent during 2001-2014, well above the average for the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region of 3.3 percent. During this period, real GDP doubled and real GDP per capita increased by 50 percent.’[iii]

On October 1, 2016, Correa announced the nomination of Lenín Boltaire Moreno Garcés, who served as his vice president from 2007 to 2013, as his party’s candidate for the 2017 presidential election at the conference of Alianza PAIS. Moreno was elected president, and it was expected that he would continue and build on Correa’s left-wing economic policies. However, within a few months of winning the election, president Moreno began to dismantle many of the social, economic and political reforms enacted by Correa during his decade as president. Contrary to Correa’s government, many of the domestic policies pursued by president Moreno included reducing public spending, weakening worker rights, and providing significant tax cuts to the rich and large corporations. In other words, president Moreno has gradually shifted Ecuador’s left-wing policies to the political centre-right.

Moreno’s presidency also shifted Ecuador’s foreign policy stance, giving it a more neo-liberal and pro-American orientation. When Correa’s socialist government was in power, Ecuador enjoyed close diplomatic and economic relations with Venezuela, and was more independent of American hegemony. For example, president Correa closed a US military base in Manta, Ecuador when Washington’s lease expired in 2009. Prior to that, in 2007, Correa stated:

We’ll renew the [Manta air] base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami — an Ecuadorean base…if there’s no problem having foreign soldiers on a country’s soil, surely, they’ll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States.[iv]

Subsequently, on September 18, 2009, he also said:

As long as I am president, I will not allow foreign bases in our homeland, I will not allow interference in our affairs, I will not negotiate our sovereignty and I will not accept guardians of our democracy.

Contrary to Correa, the US-Ecuador military relationship has expanded under the Moreno government ‘through training, assistance, and the reestablishment of an Office of Security Cooperation at the U.S. Embassy in Quito.’[v]Ecuador and the US have also signed deals for the purchase of weapons and other military equipment, and agreed to cooperate more closely in the areas of security, intelligence, and counter-narcotics.

In 2011, president Correa expelled US ambassador Heather Hodges from Quito. Subsequently, in 2014, his government expelled the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) from the country, where it had been operating since 1961 as part of John F. Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress (AFP)[vi]. USAID regularly exercises ‘soft power’ in Latin American nations in order to help the US establish itself as an ‘international police power’[vii]. In May 2019, Moreno’s government announced that USAID would return to Ecuador.

President Correa also became renowned for providing Wikileaks founder Julian Assange with political asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy in 2012 to prevent his arrest and possible extradition to the US. However, shortly after his election, there were indications that Moreno might be willing to hand him over to authorities in the UK. In addition to calling Assange an ‘inherited problem,’ a ‘spoiled brat’ and a ‘miserable hacker’, Moreno accused him of repeatedly violating his asylum conditions and of trying to use the embassy as a ‘centre for spying’[viii]. Then, on April 11, Assange’s political asylum was revoked, which allowed him to be forcibly removed from the Ecuadorian Embassy by British police.In response, Correa called Moreno ‘the greatest traitor in Ecuadorian and Latin American history’ for committing ‘a crime humanity will never forget’[ix].

President Correa’s government supported the integration of South America countries into a single economic and political bloc. However, since Moreno came to power, Ecuador has distanced itself from the Venezuelan government, and withdrew from the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas[x](ALBA) in August 2018, as well as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) in September 2019. UNASUR was established by 12 South American countries in 2008to address important issues in the region without the presence of the United States. Currently, only five members remain: Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela. The other seven members, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Paraguay, agreed to create the Forum for the Progress of South America (PROSUR) in March 2019. The goal of this alternative organization is to achieve the right-wing agenda in Latin America, as its members support neo-liberal austerity measures and closer ties with Washington. It could be said that PROSUR aligns well with the goals and objectives of the Monroe Doctrine.

Another major shift in president Moreno’s political stance pertains to lawsuits brought against Texaco/Chevron by the Correa government to obtain compensation for environmental damages caused when the operations of Texaco (acquired by Chevron in 2001) dumped 16 billion gallons of toxic wastewater in the Amazon region of Ecuador between 1964 and 1992, affecting more than 30,000 Indigenous people and Campesinos in the area. ‘Chevron left 880 pits full of crude oil which are still there, the rivers are still full of hydrocarbon sediment and polluted by the crude oil spills in Amazonia, which is one of the most biodiversity rich regions in the world’[xi], and ‘the damage has been left unrepaired for more than 40 years’[xii]. To raise public awareness about this environmental disaster, president Correa’s government established an international campaign called the ‘Dirty Hand of Chevron’. In 2011, the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court ordered Chevron to pay $9.5 billion in compensation for social and environmental damages it caused.

In September 2018, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), an agency of the United Nations based in the Hague, Netherlands, ruled that the Ecuadorian court decision against Chevron was illegal, because it was an outcome of fraud, bribery, and corruption. The PCA ‘also ruled that Ecuador will have to pay economic compensation’[xiii]to Chevron. ‘The amount has not been established yet, but Chevron requested that Ecuador assume the US$9.5 billion’ awarded to affected communities by the Ecuadorean court.[xiv]Following the PCA decision, the government of president Moreno announced that:

the state will sue former President Rafael Correa and his government officials if Ecuador lost the international arbitration process.[xv]

In this matter, president Moreno also accused Correa of ‘failing to defend the country’s interests correctly and spending money on “The Dirty Hand of Chevron” campaign, which according to the government sought to “manipulate national and international public opinion.”’[xvi] In reality, president Moreno supports the PCA decision, thereby prioritizing the interest of Texaco/Chevron over those of his own citizens. In fact, his government has been attempting to nullify the Constitutional Court ruling against Chevron. In response, former president Correa has accused the Moreno government of ‘doing homework ordered by (the United States Vice President Mike) Pence’. Even some of Moreno’s own cabinet ministers condemned the PCA ruling and expressed their support for Ecuador’s Constitutional Court for defending of the country’s nationals interest and the rights of the people of the Amazon.

Correa exhibited a hostile attitude towards the Bretton Woods Institutions during his presidency. He sought to renegotiate Ecuador’s external debt of US$10.2 billion, which he called ‘illegitimate’ because ‘it was accrued during autocratic and corrupt regimes of the past. Correa threatened to default on Ecuador’s foreign debt, and ordered the expulsion of the World Bank’s country manager’[xvii], which was carried out on April 26, 2007. His government also opposed the signing of any agreements that would permit the IMF to monitor Ecuador’s economic plan. As a result of such actions on the part of Correa’s government, ‘Ecuador was able to renegotiate its debt with its creditors and redirect public funds towards social investments.’[xviii]

To the contrary, Moreno has enthusiastically embraced the IMF during his short time as president. On March 1, 2019, Ecuador’s central bank manager, Verónica Artola Jarrín, and economy and finance minister, Richard Martínez Alvarado,submitted a letter of intent to the IMF requesting a three-year $4.2 billion Extended Fund Facility (EFF) agreement. An EFF allows the IMF to assist countries that are facing ‘serious medium-term balance of payments problems.’ More precisely, EFF is designed to:

to provide assistance to countries: (i) experiencing serious payments imbalances because of structural impediments; or (ii) characterized by slow growth and an inherently weak balance of payments position. The EFF provides assistance in support of comprehensive programs that include policies of the scope and character required to correct structural imbalances over an extended period.[xix]

The IMF agreement signed in March allowed Ecuador to borrow $4.2 billion. However, as is always the case, the IMF agreement was not without conditionalities, as it required the Ecuadorian government to implement a series of neo-liberal economic reforms. According to IMF statements, these reforms aim to transform Ecuador’s fiscal deficit into a surplus, reduce the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio, and increase foreign investment. On March 11, 2019, Christine Lagarde, former Managing Director of the IMF, claimed that:

The Ecuadorian authorities are implementing a comprehensive reform program aimed at modernizing the economy and paving the way for strong, sustained, and equitable growth.[xx]

On March 11, 2019, Christine Lagarde also explained that:

Achieving a robust fiscal position is at the core of the authorities’ program, which will be supported by a three-year extended arrangement from the IMF. The aim is to reduce debt-to-GDP ratio through a combination of a wage bill realignment, a careful and gradual optimization of fuel subsidies, a reprioritization of capital and goods and services spending, and a tax reform. The savings generated by these measures will allow for an increase in social assistance spending over the course of the program. The authorities will continue their efforts to strengthen the medium-term fiscal policy framework, and more rigorous fiscal controls and better public financial management will help to enhance the effectiveness of fiscal policy.[xxi]

Protecting the poor and most vulnerable segments in society is a key objective of the authorities’ program. In this context, the authorities plan to extend the coverage of, and increase the nominal level of benefits under the existing social protection programs. Work is also underway to improve the targeting of social programs.[xxii]

Ecuador’s participation in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) represents another point of contention between Correa and the Moreno government. Ecuador was a member of OPEC from 1973 and 1992. After a period of absence, it rejoined the organization in 2007 after Correa became president of the country. However, on October 1st, president Moreno announced that Ecuador would once again end its membership in OPEC effective January 1, 2020. Given Moreno’s penchant for implementing neo-liberal economic policies, this decision was likely based on the notion that freeing the country from the burden of having to abide by quotas would bring fiscal sustainability to Ecuador. This is evidenced by the fact that Ecuador contacted OPEC to request permission to produce above its quota in February 2019, though it was never confirmed whether a response was received[xxiii]. While increasing production in its Amazonian oil fields would likely bring more foreign investment to Ecuador and open up new markets, it would also lead to serious conflicts between the Moreno government and the indigenous people living in the area, who are strongly opposed to oil extraction.

In addition to announcing Ecuador’s departure from OPEC, president Moreno also selected October 1stas the date to introduce Decree 883, a series of economic measures that included ending longstanding subsidies for fuel, the removal of some import tariffs, and cuts to the benefits and wages of public employees. In particular, the elimination of fuel subsidies, which had been in place for 40 years, was instituted in order to meet IMF requirements to keep the $4.2 billion programme on track, and to satisfy international investors. The EFF agreement between the IMF and the Ecuadorean government also called for thousands of public employees to be laid off, the privatization of public assets, the separation of the central bank from the government, cutting public expenditures, and raising taxes over the next three years. IMF representatives claim that these types of reforms bring more foreign direct investment into the economy.

In fact, a close examination of the neo-liberal economic reforms recommended by the IMF in many countries reveals that they are almost identical, meaning that they do not take the diverse needs and realities of each country into account; rather, they are driven by the interests of the countries and other stakeholders that provide the funds. Generally, the IMF’s recommendations[xxiv]consist of cutting deficits, liberalizing trade, privatizing state-owned enterprises, reforming the banking and financial systems, increasing taxes, raising interest rates, and reforming key sectors. However, countless studies have revealed that these types of reforms, have raised the unemployment rate, created poverty, and have often preceded recessions. On October 2, 2019, the IMF issued a press release on Ecuador stating that:

The reforms announced yesterday by President Lenin Moreno aim to improve the resilience and sustainability of Ecuador’s economy and foster strong, and inclusive growth. The announcement included important measures to protect the poor and most vulnerable, as well as to generate jobs in a more competitive economy.

The authorities are also working on important reforms aimed at supporting Ecuador’s dollarization, including the reform of the central bank and the organic code of budget and planning.

IMF staff will continue to work closely with the authorities to improve the prospects for all Ecuadorians. The second review is expected to be submitted to the Executive Board in the coming weeks.[xxv]

President Moreno’s decision to end the subsidies on fuel led to the prices of diesel and petroleum increasing by 100% and 30%, respectively, overnight, which directly contributed to significantly raising the costs of public transportation. In response, protests erupted against Moreno’s austerity measures on October 3rd, featuring students, unions and indigenous organizations. They declared an indefinite general strike until the government reversed its neo-liberal adjustment package. Moreno’s initial response was to reject the ultimatum and state that he would ‘not negotiate with criminals.’

The following day, on October 4, 2019, president Moreno declared a state of emergency under the pretext of ensuring the security of citizens and to ‘avoid chaos.’ Nonetheless, the protests continued and intensified to the point that the government was forced to relocate to city of Guayaquil because Quito had been overrun by anti-government protestors. However, this attempt to escape the protestors proved ineffective as taxi, bus and truck drivers blocked roads and bridges in Guayaquil, as well as in Quito, which disrupted transportation nationwide.

In the following days, thousands of demonstrators continued to demand the reversal of austerity measures, as well as the resignation of the president. However, Moreno remained defiant, refusing both demands under all circumstances. Subsequently, Ecuador’s main oil pipeline ceased operations after it was seized by indigenous protesters. Petro-Ecuador was concerned that production losses could reach 165,000 barrels a day. Indigenous protesters also occupied two water treatment plants in the city of Ambato. Meanwhile, violent clashes between protesters and police resulted in seven deaths, about 2,000 injuries, and over 1,000 arrests. Eventually, Moreno’s government was forced to back down and make concession with the well-organised protesters.

On October 13, president Moreno agreed to withdraw Decree 883 and replace the IMF-backed plan with a new proposal, involving negotiations with the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) and other social groups. The following day, president Moreno signed Decree 894, which reinstated the cancelled fuel subsidies. However, on October 23, CONAIE released a statement informing the public that ‘it paused talks with President Lenin Moreno because of the government’s “persecution” of the group’s leaders [Jaime Vargas] since a halt to violent anti-austerity protests.’[xxvi]

It is unlikely that president Moreno would be willing to give up on his austerity policies or start the process of cancelling the IMF loan, given his apparent commitment to helping the US realize the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine. Many of the reforms and policies that his government has introduced will help keep Ecuador firmly entrenched in America’s backyard for years to come.

This is not a new development, as history has revealed that, for more than a century, ‘in Latin America there are more than enough of the kind of rulers who are ready to use Yankee troops against their own people when they find themselves in crisis’ (Fidel Castro, Havana 1962). However, the eruption of protests in response to Moreno’s neo-liberal reforms suggests that he faces an uphill battle, as his fellow Ecuadorians do not appear to share his enthusiasm for selling his country to external creditors and foreign influences. Although Moreno has managed to successfully drive Rafael Correa out of Ecuador, the former president’s opposition to capitalism and imperialism remain strong among the population.  

*

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.

Global Research contributor Dr. Birsen Filip holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Ottawa. 

Notes

[i] http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/835601530818848154/pdf/Ecuador-SCD-final-june-25-06292018.pdf

[ii] https://tradingeconomics.com/ecuador/unemployment-rate

[iii] http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/835601530818848154/pdf/Ecuador-SCD-final-june-25-06292018.pdf

[iv] https://uk.reuters.com/article/ecuador-base/ecuador-wants-military-base-in-miami-idUKADD25267520071022

[v] https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-ecuador/

[vi] ‘AFP was a 10-year, multibillion-dollar aid program targeting Latin American countries, whereas USAID sought to support economic growth and progress in the agriculture and health care services sectors, while also promoting democratic institutions and democratic forms of governance. The impetus for the establishment of the AFP and its involvement in Latin American countries, in conjunction with USAID, was the success of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, which culminated in the overthrow of the oppressive regime led by Fulgencio Batista, who ruled the country as a dictator with full US backing. This led to the Americans losing their considerable influence over the island. More importantly, this outcome made the US leadership paranoid that other countries situated in their “backyard” might follow Cuba’s example and revolt against US-supported dictators and regimes, nationalize businesses and resources, and establish closer ties with the Soviet Union. Washington used the AFP and USAID as mechanisms by which to improve trade ties with Latin American countries with the ultimate objective of preventing the spread of communism in the region.’  https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-flower-industrys-impacts-on-colombia-on-mothers-day/5640156

[vii] https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-flower-industrys-impacts-on-colombia-on-mothers-day/5640156

[viii] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/14/assange-tried-to-use-embassy-as-centre-for-spying-says-ecuadors-moreno

[ix] https://www.rt.com/news/456229-correa-slams-moreno-assange-arrest/

[x] To counter the influence that the US exercised over Latin American economies, Chávez proposed the creation of an alternative economic agreement that was anti-imperialist in nature. In 2004, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) was established, initially funded by Cuba and Venezuela.

[xi] https://www.stopcorporateimpunity.org/21st-may-the-global-antichevron-day-of-action-is-coming/

[xii] https://www.stopcorporateimpunity.org/21st-may-the-global-antichevron-day-of-action-is-coming/

[xiii] https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Arbitration-Tribunal-Rules-Against-Ecuador-Favors-Chevron-20180907-0011.html

[xiv] https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Arbitration-Tribunal-Rules-Against-Ecuador-Favors-Chevron-20180907-0011.html

[xv] https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Arbitration-Tribunal-Rules-Against-Ecuador-Favors-Chevron-20180907-0011.html

[xvi] https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Arbitration-Tribunal-Rules-Against-Ecuador-Favors-Chevron-20180907-0011.html

[xvii] https://www.telesurenglish.net/analysis/Ecuadors-Citizens-Revolution-A-Shift-in-Foreign-Policy-20150107-0029.html

[xviii] https://www.telesurenglish.net/analysis/Ecuadors-Citizens-Revolution-A-Shift-in-Foreign-Policy-20150107-0029.html

[xix] https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2016/08/01/20/56/Extended-Fund-Facility

[xx] https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/03/11/ecuador-pr1972-imf-executive-board-approves-eff-for-ecuador

[xxi] https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/03/11/ecuador-pr1972-imf-executive-board-approves-eff-for-ecuador

[xxii] https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/03/11/ecuador-pr1972-imf-executive-board-approves-eff-for-ecuador

[xxiii] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-opec/ecuador-to-quit-opec-in-2020-in-search-of-bigger-export-revenue-idUSKBN1WG4KB

[xxiv] The IMF’s original mandate was to promote international monetary cooperation, facilitate the development of international trade, and support the stability of exchange rates in order to restore economies, prevent recessions, and create full employment and economic growth. However, the IMF’s mandate has been noticeably transformed over time. In particular, many of the activities of the IMF during the Cold War Era designed to counteract the spread of socialist regimes. For example, the IMF was willing to provide financial assistance to underdeveloped countries as long as they implemented policies that secured the conditions of free-market economics. During the 1980s, the IMF began forcing its highly-indebted members to adopt Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) that detailed the neo-liberal economic reforms that would have to be implemented as conditions for receiving loans.

Loans provided by the Bretton Woods Institutions have been contingent upon recipient countries adopting major neo-liberal economic reforms aimed at restructuring their economies in a manner that prioritized making loan repayment at a specified time. The implementation of SAPs is required for a developing nation to be eligible to receive financial assistance from not only the IMF, but also from a number of other donor sources. In other words, a loan will only be approved if a government adopts the IMF recommendations laid out in its SAPs and respects the deadlines for their implementation. Furthermore, after the loan agreement has been approved, the IMF reserves the right to interrupt the disbursements at any time if the government does not respect the precise deadlines for implementing the specified reforms.

[xxv] https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/10/02/pr19362-ecuador-imf-statement-on-ecuador

[xxvi] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-protests/ecuadors-indigenous-group-says-government-talks-on-hold-due-to-persecution-idUSKBN1X22ST

Featured image is from The Grayzone

US Coup Plot to Oust Bolivia’s Evo Morales

November 10th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

The late William Blum documented how Washington toppled numerous sovereign governments, assassinated legitimate leaders, and removed others by coup d’etats.

Along with endless wars of aggression and by other means against nations threatening no one, that’s what US hegemonic rage for unchallenged global dominance is all about.

Nations unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to US interests are on its target list for regime change.

Blum explained that US policies are “worse than (most people) imagine” or understand. They include virtually every form of lawlessness in pursuit of its geopolitical aims — notably aggression, economic terrorism, pressure, bullying, intimidation, and manipulating foreign elections.

When their outcomes elect or reelect the “wrong” leaders, they’re targeted for removal by foul means.

Evo Morales was and remain’s Bolivia’s first indigenous president since elected in December 2005, taking office in January 2006.

In October, he was reelected for the third time, defeating challengers Carlos Mesa and Chi Hyun Chung, his popular support topping theirs combined.

His victory margin over lead challenger Mesa exceeded 10% to avoid a runoff.

James Petras earlier explained that no president in Bolivian history “secured consecutive electoral victories (now four), and ruled democratically for such an extended period of time…with political stability” as Morales.

Calling him “the world’s most conservative radical…or the most radical conservative,” Petras explained that his domestic and foreign agendas combine “radical rhetoric and…orthodox economic policies,” adding:

“The most striking aspect of (his rule) is his rigor and consistency in upholding orthodox economic policies –right out of the handbook of the international financial organizations.”

His independence and anti-imperialist rhetoric made him a prime US target for removal.

Petras: He “launched a series of anti-imperialist manifestos against US intervention in Venezuela; repeatedly denounced the US blockade of Cuba; opposed the US backed military coup in Honduras’ and defended Argentina’s claim to the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands.”

He “joined the radical regional bloc, ALBA, initiated by President Chavez and supported ‘regional integration’ which excluded the US. He denounced the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) as a ‘neo-liberal project’.”

He “praised Edward Snowden and his revelations; denounced NSA spying and…denounc(ed) European collaboration with the US Empire.”

He achieved “an unprecedented decade of political and social stability and a growth rate between 4% and 6%” — 4.2% in 2018.

He’s “a master, without peer in Latin America, at justifying orthodox, reactionary policies with radical rhetoric” — combining service to business interests with populist rhetoric, denouncing imperialism while “embrac(ing) neo-liberal economic orthodoxy.”

Petras called him a “genius…political manipulator” — no “social revolutionary” or government of Bolivia’s working class.

He’s been Latin America’s “most successful democratic capitalist ruler…” Yet hardliners in the US want him replaced, what the post-election coup plot against him is all about, CIA dirty hands all over it.

Days earlier, Telesur reported that “Radio Education Network of Bolivia (Erbol) leaked 16 audios, involving opposition leaders who are calling for a coup d’etat against” Morales — the plot orchestrated and coordinated from the US embassy in La Paz, the executive and legislative seat of government, Sucre the judicial branch seat.

Leaked audios mention contacts between GOP hardliners Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, as well as undemocratic Dem Bob Menendez with Bolivian opposition leaders.

They also call for setting government buildings ablaze, organizing nationwide strike actions, and other disruptive tactics— right out of the CIA’s playbook, including violent street protests.

Morales denounced what’s going on, telling supporters in La Paz Tuesday of a coup plot against him, adding backers of the electoral result turning out in large numbers is “not in defense of (him) but of the people themselves,” mobilized to defend democracy from dark forces wanting it eliminated.

He invited the international community to audit election results, saying: “Let them come here. Let them know how much they have earned.”

“We never lie or hide.” The world community has an “obligation to respect our Political Constitution of State. They have to respect the will of the Bolivian people.”

No evidence suggests lead opposition figure Mesa’s accusation of “massive fraud” — what the US falsely claims time and again when democratic elections chose the “wrong candidate” — notably Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro, his successor.

Trump regime hardliners want the US-controlled Organization of American States (OAS), headquartered in Washington, to conduct an election results audit to be able to falsely claim fraud despite no evidence suggesting it.

They and ruling right-wing regimes in Argentina (before succeeded by President-elect Fernandez on December 10), Brazil and Colombia called for a new election if an audit doesn’t affirm the anti-Morales result they want.

On Friday, he said

“I would like to tell you, brothers and sisters, as well as entire Bolivia and the whole world. I will not give up (the presidency). We have been elected by the people, and we respect the constitution.”

He’s in the US crosshairs, wanting pro-Western puppet rule replacing him.

Numerous US plots using varying tactics are playing out against other sovereign independent governments on its target list for regime change.

That’s what the scourge of US imperialism is all about, seeking global dominance by whatever it takes to achieve its objectives — the rule of law and human toll of no consequence.

*

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 Passing of Fidel, Three Years Later

November 10th, 2019 by Prof Susan Babbitt

Fidel Castro, dead three years this month, resisted US power in a way that could be learned from. I don’t mean the Revolution. It began earlier. Castro insisted on that. Thus, the old flag and anthem were retained. The country was not renamed.

It was respect for history: of dead ends. Cintio Vitier refers to the law of the “callejón sin salida”, [i] referring to events in 1878, 1898 and 1933. That law inspired the “law of the impossible”: in poetry, art and literature.[ii] It wasn’t an “impossible dream”. It wasn’t a dream.

It was deeper, broader, and the idea is ancient.

When Castro said, “Y todo lo que parecía imposible fue posible” [iii] (all that seemed impossible was possible), he drew on tradition.  It’s philosophical, but not one we teach.

The “law of the impossible” is about the seemingly impossible becoming actionable, which requires ideas, which generate expectations. What you see – with your own eyes – can be (rationally) dismissed if  unexpected. It gets explained away. But if it becomes plausible, it merits explanation.

This part is known in philosophy, intellectually.[iv]

The point is taken further in Hans Fallada’s Alone in Berlin. Resistance to Hitler is implausible. And indeed, Otto and Anna, who resist, are unsuccessful. They are caught. They die. Politically, they fail.

Otto is told: “You must have known you had no chance! It’s a gnat against an elephant. I don’t understand it in a sensible man like you!” Otto’s answer: “No, and you will never understand it either. You see, it doesn’t matter if one man fights or ten thousand; if the one man sees he has no option but to fight, then he will fight, whether he has others on his side or not”.

The important part of the exchange is the “No, and you will never understand it either.” It’s about acting for truth when results are uncertain, indeed, unlikely, but also, importantly, when that truth is humanness. The “law of the impossible” is humanness at risk and you can’t know that law if you don’t believe in humanness.

Fallada refers to “integrity” but that term is problematic, currently, because truth is problematic. There’s no fuzziness in this regard, though, in anti-imperialist traditions. Brazilian philosopher, Paulo Freire, for example, refers to “authentic humanity” and says it’s impossible that it not be detected.

He doesn’t defend the idea of truth about that impossibility. It’s presupposed in the struggle he lived: against dead ends. Experience of such truth made it plausible. If one knows dehumanization – dead ends –  there is, as Otto says, no option.

When Otto and Anna are tried, the Nazi judge “could see recognition in the faces of the spectators in the courtroom”. At all costs, he “wanted to strip the accused of that recognition”.

It makes resistance plausible for others. But he fails. And powerful imperialist liberal ideology hasn’t stripped Cuba of recognition. It’s a fact. In Nazi prison, Reichardt, an orchestra  conductor, tells Otto, “It would have been better if we’d had a good plan …. As it was we all acted alone, we were caught alone, and every one of us will have to die alone. But that doesn’t mean that we are alone”.

Herein lies the ancient part of the idea: essential interdependence. It’s not just ancient. Vitier uses the word “earthy” (teluricidad) to link Cuban thinkers who defied dead ends of imperialism. It’s how they knew slavery was wrong. It was a “sentimiento de la justicia”,[v] feeling not theory.

That question of how to know something becomes urgent when what needs to be known is hard to know, seemingly impossible. But one must think there is something to be known.

When Anna urges Otto to stop distributing his postcards, Otto says, “Who wants to die. Everyone wants to live, everyone – Even the most miserable worm is screaming for life! I want to live too. But maybe it’s a good thing, Anna, … to think of a wretched death, and to get ready for it. So that you know you’ll be able to die properly, without moaning and whimpering. That would be disgusting to me …”

Anna agrees. To “die properly” is an implausible idea in the happiness-obsessed North. But it’s been rediscovered by scientists in the US: doctors.[vi] They argue, compellingly, that a certain way of understanding the human condition limits medicine. It’s a way of understanding that denies vulnerability. It denies interdependence. Dr. Arthur Kleinman calls it “reciprocity”

He says “being present’ is how scientists identify aspects of a problem that are unexpected. It advances medicine. But it’s submission, giving up: of expectations for success, for example.  Dr. Adam B. Hill says medicine can’t accept, in theory or practise, human brokenness.

It makes care implausible. The very idea  is implausible because care is connection. It’s a way of thinking that involves service and sacrifice. And it’s irremediably contrary to “political fictions” like the “self-made man” of liberalism. Kleinman says such fictions are “fundamentally wrong”. He’s brave.

In 1953, at trial, Castro said,

“To those who will say I am a dreamer let me quote the words of [José] Martí, ‘A true man does not seek the path where advantage lies, but rather the path where duty lies, and this is the only practical man . . . because he who has looked back on the essential course of history . . . knows that, without a single exception, the future lies on the side of duty.’”

Fallada tells Otto and Anna’s story (based on real events) because it sows seeds for the future. Cuba’s story is urgent for this same reason, and many do tell it. But they tell a political story, never the philosophical.

Castro should have added that looking properly at history requires sacrificing expectations: about who does philosophy, for example. It seems impossible. The intellectual superiority of the North is part of identity, like slavery was. Seeing it as “law of the impossible” – humanness at risk – is real resistance.

*

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.

Susan Babbitt is author of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014). She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[i] No exit. In Ese sol del mundo moral (Editorial Félix Varela, 1996) 151

[ii] ibid

[iii] July 26, 1971.

[iv] E.g. Hilary Putnam, “The analytic and the synthetic” (1975).

[v] José de la Luz y Caballero, 1862

[vi] Arthur Kleinman, Soul of Care (2019); Adam B. Hill, Long Walk out of the Woods (2019).

Despite being a “rabid anti-Franquista” for many years, the Cuban leader Fidel Castro would develop some grudging respect for Spain’s Fascist dictator, General Francisco Franco.

Following Castro’s 1959 ousting of the American-backed tyrant, Fulgencio Batista, Washington ordered all Latin American and European nations to ostracize revolutionary Cuba. With the Caribbean island facing near-total isolation, and with worse deprivations to come, Castro noted that Franco “was the only one who didn’t bend to Washington’s demand”. It would prove an unlikely lifeline for the new Cuba.

Castro said,

“Franco didn’t break off relations. That was a praiseworthy attitude that deserves our respect and even, at that point, our gratitude. He refused to give in to American pressure. He acted with real Galician stubbornness. He never broke off relations with Cuba. His attitude in that respect was rock-strong”.

Franco was himself born in the Atlantic coastal town of El Ferrol, Galicia, in north-west Spain. During the Spanish-American War of 1898, Spain’s forces were routed by America in the decisive Battle of Santiago de Cuba – a naval conflict on Cuba’s southern coast, sealing America’s victory in the war.

As the battle neared its end, an entire Spanish squadron was destroyed by the Americans, which Castro highlights was “from El Ferrol” (Franco’s birthplace). Over 340 Spanish sailors were wiped out, and almost two thousand captured, while the US suffered just a single casualty. It was one of the greatest humiliations in Spanish history and ensured Cuba’s transfer from one imperial power (Spain) to another (America) – coined “the liberation of Cuba” by Western scholars.

Castro expounded that the defeat

“was a terrible blow to the military’s pride, and to all of Spain’s pride. And it happened when Franco was a boy in El Ferrol. Franco must have grown up and read and heard all about that bitter experience, in an atmosphere of despondency and thirst for revenge. He may even have been present when the remains of the defeated fleet were returned, the soldiers and officers who’d been humiliated and thwarted. It must have left a profound mark on him”.

It may explain the potential disregard in which Franco held America. This despite him enjoying support from certain US businesses during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) – like the Texas Oil Company, and automobile manufacturers Ford, Studebaker, and General Motors, who in total provided 12,000 trucks to Franco’s men, with fuel supplies.

Though officially protected by the US from 1953 on (Pact of Madrid), Franco’s Spain never gained membership of the American-run military alliance NATO – despite neighboring Portugal being among the first countries to join NATO in 1949, under the right-wing Antonio Salazar dictatorship. Spain only acceded to NATO in 1982, almost seven years after the Fascist autocrat’s death.

Nor did Franco ever set foot in the US, or grace the sacred halls of the White House, unlike other dictators (the Shah, Suharto, Pinochet, etc.). In Madrid, Franco met presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon – while in 1972 he saw Ronald Reagan in the Spanish capital when the latter was Governor of California, but never returned the favor on any occasion.

Elsewhere, Franco would have been aware that most white Cubans themselves are of Spanish extraction. Castro’s father, for example, was born in Galicia, the same Spanish territory as Franco.

As a result, Castro’s sound defeat of US-backed forces during the Bay of Pigs invasion (April 1961) – and later resistance to American terror – is likely to have been viewed by Franco, which Castro remarked, as “a way to secure Spain’s revenge”, while having “restored the Spaniards’ patriotic sentiments and honor”, after the disasters of the Spanish-American War. “That historical, almost emotional element, must have influenced Franco’s attitude”.

Despite repeated criticism of Franco’s policies, Castro was somewhat reliant upon him, admitting that “nobody was going to make me break them off [relations]”. Franco was easily the largest importer of not only Cuban tobacco, but also of rum and sugar. Had Franco severed ties as the Americans demanded, the Cuban Revolution’s future would have been thrown into further doubt.

Moreover, in return, Franco sold trucks, machinery, and other commodities such as fruit to Cuba – while Spain’s national airline continued its routine operations from Madrid to Havana, the only then such flights between western Europe and Cuba. In late 1963, the new American president, Lyndon B. Johnson, threatened Franco with legislation which would cut aid to nations assisting Castro’s government. Again, the intimidation was rebutted.

Franco, known as El Caudillo [the Leader], had long been noted for his obstinance. Decades before, despite heated demands from Adolf Hitler for Spain to enter the Second World War – including a famous meeting between the dictators in October 1940 at Hendaye, south-western France – Franco declined his German counterpart’s overtures. This was at a time when Hitler, known for his persuasive methods, was at the pinnacle of his power, with much of mainland and northern Europe under his control.

Franco’s refusal to commit seriously to the war enraged Hitler, who had provided crucial military aid to Franco during the Spanish Civil War, along with Benito Mussolini. Unable to pin Franco down, Hitler said he would “rather have three of four teeth pulled” than meet him once more; and Indeed, they would never see each other again.

The Nazi dictator, addressing Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel and Armaments Minister Albert Speer, further denounced Franco in January 1943 as, “a fat little sergeant who couldn’t grasp at my far-reaching plans”.

Hitler remarked that,

“during the civil war the idealism was not on Franco’s side, it was to be found among the Reds. Certainly they pillaged and desecrated, but so did Franco’s men, without having any good reason for it – the Reds were working off centuries of hatred for the Catholic Church, which always oppressed the Spanish people. When I think of that I understand a good many things”. (Hitler’s comments were recounted by Speer in December 1950 at Spandau prison, West Berlin).

Franco’s main commitment to the German military effort comprised of dispatching “the Blue Division” to the Eastern Front, in June 1941 (as the war continued its numbers rose to 45,000 troops).

However, by the mid-1940s, Hitler’s “far-reaching plans” lay in ruins, and Franco’s refusal to weigh fully in behind the Germans surely saved his neck. As Castro discerned of Franco, “He was unquestionably shrewd, cunning – I don’t know whether that came from his being Galician; the Galicians are accused of being shrewd”.

Franco’s near four-decade rule, until his death in November 1975, was also one of bloodshed and repression, particularly in the early years. Franco had said in 1938, “One thing I am sure of, and which I can answer truthfully… wherever I am there will be no Communism”. He ruthlessly followed through on such a declaration with policies responsible for killing up to 400,000 people, as Spanish Republicans and other left-leaning activists were massacred by Francoite forces.

As Castro noted of the Spanish despot, “the number of people he killed, the repression he imposed… his name is associated with a tragic period in Spain’s history”.

*

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 Global Village Space.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Global Village Space

The Secret of Cuba’s Success: International Solidarity

November 10th, 2019 by Nino Pagliccia

Once again the international community represented at the United Nations General Assembly on November 7 has spoken and voted to reject overwhelmingly the financial and economic blockade (embargo) imposed by the United States against Cuba through unilateral sanctions. The US blockade has been imposed in an escalating progression over the last 57 years with the most damaging rapid increase in the last few months under the Trump administration. Yet, Cuba thrives socially and internationally, if not economically. Despite the undeniable negative impact of the blockade on the population, by and large the majority of Cubans are confidently committed to resisting and enduring. But what motivates that courageous resilience and the international support for Cuba?

The UN vote was on a resolution presented by Cuba based on its report titled “Necessity of Ending the Economic, Commercial and Financial Embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba”. The vote resulted in 187 in favor of ending the US blockade of Cuba, 3 (US, “Israel” and Brazil) against, and 2 (Colombia and Ukraine ) abstained.

This is not the first time that such a vote has taken place and therefore it should not catch us by surprise. A similar vote has been called for the last 28 years where Cuba has received majority support. In 2018 only two nations voted against, the United States and “Israel”.

The reason for Cuba’s persistent international denunciation of the US-driven blockade is that it is illegal, unfair and harmful to all Cubans. In just one year from April 2018 to March 2019 it has brought losses to Cuba for US$4.3 billion.

The Obama administration had eased restrictions on remittances and travel to Cuba, which led the way to reopening embassies in Washington and Havana in 2014 and to Obama’s visit to Havana in 2016. With the exception of the embassies that remain open, the Trump administration has reversed those policies and added more. In 2018, former US National Security Advisor John Bolton included Cuba in what he called the “Troika of tyranny” together with Venezuela and Nicaragua. But more threatening has been the activation for the first time since 1996 of the section Title III of the Helms-Burton Act that allows Cuban-Americans and US citizens to sue Cuban companies and potentially foreign companies in US courts for “trafficking” in properties legally nationalised by the Cuban government. Most nations have accepted compensation, the US has refused.

Unfortunately, there are no consequences for any of the US actions, or following such an overwhelming international condemnation, which speaks to the ineffectiveness of a dysfunctional United Nations as a balancing force for the maintenance of fairness and justice for those nations that are unable to defend themselves from aggressive and threatening nations. The UN cannot even defend effectively its own Charter that is trampled daily.

It would be tempting to focus our criticism on the institutional inadequacy of the UN in enforcing accountability for the members’ actions even in clear cut cases as the illegal US sanctions on Cuba, or on the dozens of other cases around the world for that matter. However, we choose to focus on the positive outcome of the vote because this is a success story that is not happening by accident and it is important to understand the secret of Cuba’s success.

I have asked myself many times, how has this small nation survived actions of terrorism, invasions, ostracism from sister nations, sanctions and other interferences since 1959 and more severe ones since the early 1990s, and still managed to politically defeat the most powerful country in the world for almost 60 years? Besides the many political arguments that can be brought to bear, for me there is one factor that stands out. One factor that has a stronger human  element and a lesser political one: international solidarity.

Solidarity is a notion that is frequently used by people on the left of the political spectrum. In fact, in some case it may have a rebellion connotation, which may explain why rightwing politics seldom use the word. Cuba has made solidarity a central piece of its foreign policy as stated on its website, that is grounded in respect, genuine cooperation, and shared aspirations; it embraces causes rather than self-interests, and is capable of producing long-lasting connections that are stronger and more meaningful than diplomatic ties. It is a relation where people, rather than ideology, are at the centre of policies.

Examples of Cuba’s people-oriented international relations are shown by its readiness to be part of regional institutions that promote cooperation over competition like ALBA and CELAC, but perhaps its single most valuable international solidarity contribution is provided by the medical missions of around 50,000 doctors to about 67 countries in the most remote areas of the world. The first Cuban medical brigade was sent to Argelia in 1963. But the most outstanding medical collaboration as an expression of solidarity and internationalism happened in 1998 after hurricane Mitch hit Central America, especially Honduras and Guatemala. To be clear, in some cases for Cuba it is also a source of revenue for the services it provides. For instance, in the case of Venezuela, Cuba is remunerated with much needed oil in a fair cooperative exchange.

The World Health Organization has praised the Cuban primary health care system as fundamental to providing good healthcare, and criticism of the Cuban medical cooperation has been defended.

The Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Rodriguez, has harshly denounced at the UN the upsurge of US hostile aggression and made a special mention of the lies about the medical international cooperation used to sabotage and “attack a program based on genuine conceptions of South-South cooperation.”

Ultimately nations are on their own fighting back political aggression, however, there is such thing as international solidarity that can be used as an effective counteroffensive. To the extent that solidarity is  a unifying concept that provides cohesive strength as in the case of Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia among other nations, the US has only one tool to break people’s unity, and that is the use of lies through its controlled corporate media. We have seen numerous examples of that.

However, as the UN vote has just shown, lies don’t always work. 187 nations (out of 193 UN member States) have supported Cuba (and by implication condemned the US). Many of those nations have likely received Cuba’s solidarity through its medical missions and understand the meaning of cooperation.

*

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.

Nino Pagliccia is an activist and freelance writer based in Vancouver. He is a retired researcher from the University of British Columbia, Canada. He is a Venezuelan-Canadian who follows and writes about international relations with a focus on the Americas. He is the editor of the book “Cuba Solidarity in Canada – Five Decades of People-to-People Foreign Relations” (2014). He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Secret of Cuba’s Success: International Solidarity
  • Tags: ,

Nearly 300 protestors in Iraq have been killed, and 9,800 wounded since protests began on October 1.  Security forces have cracked down on protestors while using live ammunition, rubber bullets, and tear gas.  The protests have been held in various locations across the country, but have been absent in the North.  The protestors are demanding an end to systematic government corruption which will need a rewrite of the constitution and new leadership, including a new parliament.  Iraq has the world’s second-largest reserves of crude oil, while the protestors have complained of poverty conditions, and lack of basic public services.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, is a cleric in Shia-majority Iraq. His representative said in a sermon after Friday prayers in the holy city of Karbala,

“The biggest responsibility is on the security forces. They must avoid using excessive force with peaceful protesters.”

Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi presented a reform plan to address the demands of protesters, but he cautioned that change takes time and has offered to resign.  President Barham Salih offered to hold new elections, but these leaders may not be in touch with the demands of the people: they want the old governmental system to be dismantled and a new  system put in its place, which prevents political parties, their winning candidates, the civil servant department heads, and their sectarian armed militias from draining the country’s wealth.

A banner in downtown Baghdad read:

“To the whole world, to the United Nations, to the European Union, to the Security Council, to the Arab League: They stole my country and killed our young men and destroyed our Iraq.”

In March 2003 the US attacked and invaded Iraq.  The only reason was for regime change, to remove a Sunni secular leader, and replace him with a Shite leader who was supposed to represent the majority of the 35 million population.

Saddam Hussein had been a very vocal critic of ‘Israel’ and had threatened them.  Most experts agree that the US foreign policy on the Middle East is written in Tel Aviv, and a document named “A Clean Break” commissioned by Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, and written by Richard T. Perle, found its way onto the desk of Pres. George W. Bush.  The plans to invade Iraq went into action with Richard T. Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board.  In the first 3 years of the war, 655,000 Iraqis had been killed.  The US destroyed a country that had been run by a violent and abusive dictator, and the country never recovered.

Iraq never became a prosperous country, with democratic leaders, and public services accessible to all.  After the US rape of the country, they imposed a constitution and system of government doomed to fail and which would promote sectarian hatred and which has kept the country in poverty and hopelessness, and the recent protests are the direct result of the war 16 years ago.

The chaos produced from “Desert Storm” and the subsequent 2003 US invasion, regional countries, including the US, have entered Iraq for their benefit, both political and economical.  Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the US have been throwing fuel on the fire in Iraq.  The US and Saudi Arabia are allied on one side, pitted against Iran on the other, as they pull in opposite directions in a ‘tug-of-war’.  Iran utilizes Iraq as a path for their Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus highway, which supports the resistance movement.  The Saudi-US alliance wants to prevent the support of the resistance movement.

The corrupt Iraqi government system is the cause of the mass protests, and until the governing elite reform the system the country will continue to be in chaos. The protestors do not blame individual politicians for being greedy and corrupt.  This issue is systematic and not the classical scenario of the corrupt politician who is filling his pockets with money siphoned off from bribes and favors.  No, this is a broad systematic flaw, which affects every sect and every party, and is made possible by a defective constitution and a faulty parliament.  This is politically sanctioned corruption which goes far beyond the President, Prime Minister and Speaker of the Parliament.

This goes all the way down to the civil servants and party bosses.  When each new government is elected, the winning parties sit down and divide the ‘cake’ among themselves, and all the various sects participate.  Iraq is very sectarian, but regardless of which sect you look at, they all participate in the ‘dividing the spoils of war’ mentality.   The sectarian system is underpinned by an agreement among the political parties that the presidency is reserved for Kurds, the premiership for Shia Arabs, and the post of speaker of parliament for Sunni Arabs.  The US is among the most secular, free and democratic nations on earth, and yet left Iraq destroyed, and without any semblance of democracy, which they profess to have delivered to Iraq on the back of the bombs.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a political commentator. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iraqi Protestors: They Demand Basic Services and an End to Corruption
  • Tags: ,

Syria, War Propaganda and the “White Helmets”

November 10th, 2019 by Mark Taliano

Read Unit One here.

The Western public’s perceptions of the war in Syria are based on an unprecedented campaign of war propaganda. Why? Because the imperial war against Syria consists of Supreme International War Crimes.

“Non Governmental Agencies”, which are actually government and foundation-funded agencies play a key role in the war propaganda. The White Helmets are embedded with the terrorists — al Qaeda/ISIS and affiliates.

So, who are these White Helmeted “saviours” and what do they do? By their own admissions, they conduct false flag chemical weapons operations. By their own admissions, they are terrorists. By their own admissions, they are actors. They also have been implicated in criminal organ harvesting and myriad assorted criminal activities in Syria. Click here to listen to what former White Helmets operatives admit to doing.

There is no shortage of evidence which demonstrates their crimes: see this.

Al Qaeda leader Abu Jaber praises the White Helmets as “hidden soldiers of the revolution” here:

Watch the Pierre LeCorf investigative video below:

*

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

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


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria, War Propaganda and the “White Helmets”

The situation for independent media has changed significantly over the past few years, and not for the better. Despite this, in the face of large corporations attempting to censor our content and curtail our traffic and revenue, we are still here – largely thanks to you, our core readership.

Your feedback tells us that Global Research continues to be a vital source of information in today’s rapidly changing world. We thank you, and pledge that we will continue to deliver the cutting-edge research and insight that you have come to rely on.

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!):

*     *     *

The School of the Americas

By Larry Romanoff, November 09, 2019

An integral part of America’s brutal colonisation of undeveloped nations is the little-known US Army “School of the Americas” located in Fort Benning, Georgia, which trains Latin American military officers and soldiers to subvert their governments and kill hope in their own countries.

This so-called university, also known as the “School of Dictators”, has produced thousands of dishonorable graduates linked to terror, torture, massacres and military death squads. The US initially placed the school in Panama, but in 1984 it was moved to the US Army base at Fort Benning, Georgia. It is generally considered as America’s main base for its continuing de-stabilization of Latin America, though the US Congress was quick to note that “Human rights training is part of the program of the School of the Americas.”

Never Again? Can We Stop the War When Big Business Profits from it?

By Michael Welch, Ajamu Baraka, and Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, November 09, 2019

November 11th marks Remembrance Day in the British Commonwealth countries. Also known as Veterans’ Day (U.S.) and Armistice Day, falling as it does on the anniversary of the Armistice that ended the First World War, this day is intended to inspire reflection on the sacrifice of soldiers who died on the battlefield while serving their country in one of the major global conflicts.

An indelible part of Remembrance Day memorials in Canada is the wearing of the red poppy, in turn inspired by the poem ‘In Flanders Fields’ by John McCrae, the Canadian poet and physician who served as a medic during World War I. As detailed by former Globe and Mail editor Richard Doyle in a November 1984 article, the iconic phrase “take up our quarrel with the foe” appearing in the final stanza was not likely intended as a reference to the German or Austrian armies, but rather to the spirit of war itself. The torch represents the will to realize an end to war, a motivation for many Allied soldiers on the front.

Is the Run on the Dollar Due to Panic or Greed?

By Ellen Brown, November 09, 2019

What’s going on in the repo market? Rates on repurchase agreements (“repo”) should be around 2%, in line with the fed funds rate. But they shot up to over 5% on September 16 and got as high as 10% on September 17. Yet banks were refusing to lend to each other, evidently passing up big profits to hold onto their cash – just as they did in the housing market crash and Great Recession of 2008-09.

Since banks weren’t lending, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York jumped in, increasing its overnight repo operations to $75 billion; and on October 23 it upped the ante to $120 billion in overnight operations and $45 billion in longer-term operations.

Geneva Is Key to Syria’s Recovery

By Steven Sahiounie, November 09, 2019

The political solution to the Syrian conflict is the task at hand for the constitutional committee that has been meeting in Geneva since October 30.  The co-chairs are Ahmad Kuzbari from the Syrian government and Hadi Albahra from the opposition.  The Mini-Committee continued activities on Wednesday for the fourth successive day at the UN headquarters in Geneva while working towards amending the constitution for Syria, which is seen as the roadmap to recovery. The 45-member committee equally divided between the Syrian government, the opposition and civil society will hold a four-hour session per day. The full committee consists of 150 members: 50 each representing the Syrian government, the opposition, and civil society. The political solution is necessary before the US and EU sanctions against Syria are lifted, western embassies reopen in Damascus, and reconstruction funds are pledged to rebuild Syria.

A “Blue Dot” Barely Visible from China’s “New Silk Roads”

By Pepe Escobar, November 09, 2019

Chinese President Xi Jinping six years ago launched New Silk Roads, now better known as the Belt and Road Initiative, the largest, most ambitious, pan-Eurasian infrastructure project of the 21st century.

Under the Trump administration, Belt and Road has been utterly demonized 24/7: a toxic cocktail of fear and doubt, with Beijing blamed for everything from plunging poor nations into a “debt trap” to evil designs of world domination.

The Vaccine Deep State. Impacts of Aluminum Adjuvants in Vaccines

By Richard Gale and Dr. Garry Null, November 08, 2019

Who coined the term anti-vaccine or anti-vaxx? The derogatory term “anti-vaxxer,” which has been championed by the media and the medical industry’s experts who function as the media’s talking heads, are merely people who question the efficacy and safety of a heavy-loaded vaccination schedule for children. And this does not represent a small group of dissident individuals and parents. Rather it represents hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, of people in the US alone.

Mao Zedong

China’s Vision for the Future: “Give Peace a Chance”

By Peter Koenig, November 08, 2019

China’s vision for the future is “Give Peace a Chance”. It is also the title of one of John Lennon’s most prominent songs. It became the anthem for the anti-war movement, at the time of the US-waged war against Vietnam. John Lennon was a peace activist. No wonder he was ostracized, considered enemy number one by the US establishment, was followed and surveyed by the FBI – and was eventually assassinated. October 9, 1940 is his birthday.

*

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

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: China’s Vision for the Future: “Give Peace a Chance”

On the Global Research News 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)

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

– John McCrae, In Flanders’ Fields [1]

November 11th marks Remembrance Day in the British Commonwealth countries. Also known as Veterans’ Day (U.S.) and Armistice Day, falling as it does on the anniversary of the Armistice that ended the First World War, this day is intended to inspire reflection on the sacrifice of soldiers who died on the battlefield while serving their country in one of the major global conflicts.[2][3]

An indelible part of Remembrance Day memorials in Canada is the wearing of the red poppy, in turn inspired by the poem ‘In Flanders Fields’ by John McCrae, the Canadian poet and physician who served as a medic during World War I. As detailed by former Globe and Mail editor Richard Doyle in a November 1984 article, the iconic phrase “take up our quarrel with the foe” appearing in the final stanza was not likely intended as a reference to the German or Austrian armies, but rather to the spirit of war itself. The torch represents the will to realize an end to war, a motivation for many Allied soldiers on the front.[4]

Unfortunately, the stanza quoted above would come to be understood as pro-war propaganda and even a recruiting tool luring more patriots to the killing fields. [5]

For many, this author included, the previous understanding of war itself as the enemy is what motivates an observance of Remembrance Day and animates a commitment to eradicate military violence in all its forms from the face of the Earth. And not just during the 11th hour of the 11th day of each year, but during every waking hour of the day, 365 days a year.[6][7]

A necessary step in such a process is undermining the narratives around war, including the idea that ‘our boys’ are fighting on the side of freedom, democracy and decency.

On this week’s Global Research News Hour radio program, we will examine the bitter realities behind the military projects of the past and present as missions to restore the peace, and ways in which we, the mass of humanity, can collectively hold high that torch and collectively conquer the ‘foe’ that is warfare.

In the first half hour of the program, Canadian historian Dr. Jacques Pauwels provides some historical background on what is to many, the most defensible war effort of the 20th century. In this conversation, Dr. Pauwels details how, far from championing the peace in World War II, U.S. industrial interests and the U.S. government supported the Nazis and helped create the menace that had to be extinguished at tremendous cost to the soldiers and civilians alike on all sides.

In our second half hour, we welcome Ajamu Baraka to the program. Mr. Baraka, an award-winning American peace and human rights activist lays out some of the history of the anti-war movement in the United States going back to the Vietnam period. He outlines the importance of rooting all of our progressive struggles in an understanding of colonialism and imperialism and details some of the sophisticated ways in which the ruling class has thwarted and sabotaged the once robust antiwar movement. Mr. Baraka has talks planned in 5 Canadian cities from November 11th to November 16th. The schedule of events is listed on this page.

Dr. Jacques Pauwels, Canadian historian and author of the 2000 book The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War. He is also the author of The Great Class War of 1914-1918 (2016). His articles appear regularly on the Global Research website.

Ajamu Baraka is an award-winning writer, speaker and social activist. He is the National Organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace, based in the United States. He is also an executive member of the U.S. Peace Council, and was the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Green Party in the 2016 U.S. election. He was also one of the founding members of the US Human Rights Network (USHRN) in 2003. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

(Global Research News Hour Episode 276)

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. John McCrae, (December 8, 1915), In Flanders Fields, Punch Magazine
  2. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/armistice-day-remembrance-day-and-veterans-day-whats-the-difference-a6730081.html
  3. https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/a-day-of-remembrance/intro
  4. Richard J. Doyle (November 9, 1984), ‘In Flanders Fields: poem of poppies and peace’, The Globe and Mail; www.consciencecanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/doyle.doc
  5. John Barber (November 16, 2015), ‘The case against In Flanders Fields’, The Toronto Star; thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/11/16/the-case-against-in-flanders-fields.html
  6. https://vowpeace.org/white-poppy-campaign/
  7. https://www.consciencecanada.ca/?page_id=244
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Never Again? Can We Stop the War When Big Business Profits from it?

The Canadian Peace Congress, in cooperation with a number of local peace and anti-imperialist organizations, is pleased to announce the upcoming tour of Ajamu Baraka from November 11-16, 2019. During his visit, Mr. Baraka will visit five urban centres across Eastern Canada – Hamilton (Nov. 11); Toronto (Nov. 12-13), Ottawa (Nov. 14); Montréal (Nov. 15);and Halifax (Nov. 16).

Ajamu’s Scheduled meetings

Monday, Nov. 11 – HAMILTON – 7:00 pm at the New Vision United Church, 24 Main St. W., Hamilton

Wednesday, Nov. 13 – TORONTO – 7:30 pm – Noor Cultural Centre, 123 Wynford Dr., Toronto (just north of Eglinton Ave., near Don Mills Rd.)

Thursday, Nov. 14 – OTTAWA – 7:30 pm – McNabb Community Centre, 180 Percy St.

Friday, Nov. 14 – MONTREAL – 7:00 pm – Association of Greek Workers Hall / Association des Travailleurs Grecs de Montréal, 5359 Ave du Parc, Montréal.

Saturday, Nov. 16 – HALIFAX – 2:00 pm at the Halifax North Public Library, 2285 Gottingen St, Halifax,

_____________________

ABOUT AJAMU

Ajamu Baraka is a well-known writer, speaker and social activist. He is the National Organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace, based in the United States. He is also an executive member of the U.S. Peace Council, and was the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Green Party in the 2016 U.S. election. He was also one of the founding members of the US Human Rights Network (USHRN) in 2003.

Ajamu is the recipient of the 2019 Serena Shim Award for “Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism”. In previous years, this award has also been conferred upon Rick Sterling, Julian Assange, Max Blumenthal, Vanessa Beeley, Eva Bartlett, and Sharmine Narwani, among other outstanding independent journalists.

He also recently received the US Peace Memorial Foundation’s 2019 Peace Prize for his “bold antiwar actions, writings, speeches, and leadership, an inspiring voice against militarism.” He joins previous US Peace Prize recipients David Swanson, Ann Wright, Veterans For Peace, Kathy Kelly, CODEPINK Women for Peace, Chelsea Manning, Medea Benjamin, Noam Chomsky, Dennis Kucinich, and Cindy Sheehan.

Ajamu’s speeches and interviews are available widely on-line.

Ajamu is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Consult the Archive of his writings here

Here is a link to Ajamu’s interview with Telsur during his recent visit to Venezuela earlier this year – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qenS_JBQs6Y.

 

Here is a snippet of his interview with “Democracy Now” during the 2016 U.S. election campaign – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1buaFxFGD2I

The title of Mr. Baraka’s presentations will be “Defeating the US / EU / NATO Axis of Domination: A Global De-Colonial Imperative”. Details of Ajumu’s tour to Eastern Canada will be posted here shortly, including venues and times for his public meetings in each city.
__________________

The Canadian Peace Congress is extremely honoured to host Ajamu Baraka’s visit to Eastern Canada, and we encourage all friends, supporters and progressive-minded activists to share and promote this tour! For more information, please write – [email protected]

Is the Run on the Dollar Due to Panic or Greed?

November 9th, 2019 by Ellen Brown

What’s going on in the repo market? Rates on repurchase agreements (“repo”) should be around 2%, in line with the fed funds rate. But they shot up to over 5% on September 16 and got as high as 10% on September 17. Yet banks were refusing to lend to each other, evidently passing up big profits to hold onto their cash – just as they did in the housing market crash and Great Recession of 2008-09.

Since banks weren’t lending, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York jumped in, increasing its overnight repo operations to $75 billion; and on October 23 it upped the ante to $120 billion in overnight operations and $45 billion in longer-term operations.

Why are banks no longer lending to each other? Are they afraid that collapse is imminent somewhere in the system, as with the Lehman collapse in 2008?

Perhaps, and if so the likely suspect is Deutsche Bank. But it looks to be just another case of Wall Street fattening itself at the public trough, using the funds of mom and pop depositors to maximize bank profits and line the pockets of bank executives while depriving small businesses of affordable loans.

Why the Repo Market Is a Big Deal   [Repo = Repurchase agreements, “transactions that amount to collateralized short-term loans, often made overnight.”]

The repo market allows banks and other financial institutions to borrow and lend to each another, usually overnight. More than $1 trillion in overnight repo transactions collateralized with U.S. government debt occur every day. Banks lacking available deposits frequently go to these markets to fund their loans and finance their trades.

Legally, repos are sales and repurchases; but they function like secured overnight or short-term loans. They work like a pawn shop: the lender takes an asset (usually a federal security) in exchange for cash, with an agreement to return the asset for the cash plus interest the next day unless the loan is rolled over. The New York Fed currently engages in two types of repo operations: overnight repurchase agreements that unwind the next business day, and 14 day repurchase agreements that unwind after 14 days.

The Fed re-started its large-scale repo operations in September, when borrowing rates shot up due to an unexpectedly high demand for dollars. The Fed said the unusual demand was due largely to quarterly tax payments and Treasury debt settlements. Other factors proposed as contributing to the cash strains include regulatory change and, a decline in bank reserves due to “quantitative tightening” (in which the Fed shrunk its balance sheet by selling some of its QE acquisitions back into the market), as well as unusually high government debt issuance over the last four years and a flight into U.S. currency and securities to avoid the negative interest rate policies of central banks abroad.

Panic or Calculated Self-interest?

The Fed’s stated objective in boosting the liquidity available to financial markets was simply to maintain its “target rate” for the interest charged by banks to each other in the fed funds market. But critics were not convinced. Why were private capital markets once again in need of public support if there was no financial crisis in sight? Was the Fed engaged in a stealth “QE4,” restarting its quantitative easing program?

The Fed insisted that it wasn’t, and financial analyst Wolf Richter agreed. Writing on Wolfstreet.com on October 10, he said the banks and particularly the primary dealers were hoarding their long-term securities in anticipation of higher profits. The primary dealers are the 24 U.S. and foreign broker-dealers and banks authorized to deal directly with the U.S. Treasury and the New York Fed. They were funding their horde of long-term securities in the repo market, putting pressure on that market, as the Fed said in the minutes for its July meeting even before repo rates blew out in mid-September. Richter contended:

They’d expected a massive bout of QE, and perhaps some of the players had gleefully contributed to, or even instigated the turmoil in the repo market to make sure they would get that massive bout of QE as the Fed would be forced to calm the waters with QE, the theory went. This QE would include big purchases of long-term securities to push down long-term yields, and drive up the prices of those bonds ….

Prices were high and yields were low, a sign that there was heavy demand. But the dealers were holding out for even higher prices and even lower yields. … Massive QE, where the Fed buys these types of Treasury securities, would accomplish that.

But that’s exactly what the Fed said it wouldn’t do.

What the Fed was doing instead, it said, was to revive its “standing repo facility” – the facility it had used before September 2008, when it abandoned that device in favor of QE and zero interest rate policy. But it insisted that this was not QE, expanding the money supply. Overnight repos are just an advance of credit, which must be repaid the next day. While $165 billion per month sounds like a lot, repo loans don’t accumulate; the Fed is just making short-term advances, available as needed up to a limit of $165 billion.

In Wall Street on Parade on October 28, Pam and Russ Martens pointed to another greed-driven trigger to the recent run on repo. The perpetrator was JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the U.S., with $1.6 trillion in deposits. Quoting David Henry on Reuters:

Publicly-filed data shows JPMorgan reduced the cash it has on deposit at the Federal Reserve, from which it might have lent, by $158 billion in the year through June, a 57% decline. … [T]he data shows its switch accounted for about a third of the drop in all banking reserves at the Fed during the period.

This $158 billion drawdown in JPMorgan’s reserve account is evidently what necessitated the Fed’s $165 billion in new repo offerings. But why the large drawdown?

Henry attributed it to regulatory changes the increased the bank’s required reserves, but according to the Martens, something more was involved. “The shocking news,” they write, is that “According to its SEC filings, JPMorgan Chase is partly using Federally insured deposits made by moms and pops across the country in its more than 5,000 branches to prop up its share price with buybacks.” Small businesses are being deprived of affordable loans because the liquidity necessary to back the loans is being used to prop up bank stock prices. Bank shares constitute a substantial portion of the pay of bank executives.

According to Thomas Hoenig, then Vice Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), in a July 2017 letter to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee:

[If] the 10 largest U.S. Bank Holding Companies [BHCs] were to retain a greater share of their earnings earmarked for dividends and share buybacks in 2017 they would be able to increase loans by more than $1 trillion, which is greater than 5 percent of annual U.S. GDP.

Four of the 10 BHCs will distribute more than 100 percent of their current year’s earnings, which alone could support approximately $537 billion in new loans to Main Street.

If share buybacks of $83 billion, representing 72 percent of total payouts for these 10 BHCs in 2017, were instead retained, they could, under current capital rules, increase small business loans by three quarters of a trillion dollars or mortgage loans by almost one and a half trillion dollars.

Hoenig was referring to the banks’ own capital rather than to their deposits, but the damage to local credit markets is even worse if deposits are also being diverted to fund share buybacks. Banks are not serving the real economy. They are using public credit backed by public funds to feed their own private bottom lines.

The whole repo rigmarole underscores the sleight of hand on which our money and banking systems are built, and why it is time to change them. Banks do not really have the money they lend. To back their loans, they rely on their ability to borrow from the reserves of other banks, generated from their customers’ deposits; and if those banks withhold their deposits in the insatiable pursuit of higher profits, the borrowing banks must turn to the public purse for liquidity. The banks could not function without public support. They should be turned into public utilities, mandated to serve the interests of the people and the productive economy on which the public depends.

*

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 first posted on Truthdig.com.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of DebtThe Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age.  She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com

Geneva Is Key to Syria’s Recovery

November 9th, 2019 by Steven Sahiounie

The political solution to the Syrian conflict is the task at hand for the constitutional committee that has been meeting in Geneva since October 30.  The co-chairs are Ahmad Kuzbari from the Syrian government and Hadi Albahra from the opposition.  The Mini-Committee continued activities on Wednesday for the fourth successive day at the UN headquarters in Geneva while working towards amending the constitution for Syria, which is seen as the roadmap to recovery. The 45-member committee equally divided between the Syrian government, the opposition and civil society will hold a four-hour session per day. The full committee consists of 150 members: 50 each representing the Syrian government, the opposition, and civil society. The political solution is necessary before the US and EU sanctions against Syria are lifted, western embassies reopen in Damascus, and reconstruction funds are pledged to rebuild Syria. 

Those representing the Syrian government are a cohesive and unified group; however, the group representing the Syrian opposition is extremely varied in their ideology and it is difficult for them to speak with one voice. Some of those opposed to the Syrian government from the outset of the conflict were secular, liberal dissidents living abroad in western countries; however, the Syrian Islamists, especially the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, established close relationships early-on with the US State Department, and the Americans preferred supporting the faction following Radical Islamic political ideology rather than the secular, liberal dissidents.

The current opposition has been overrun by radicals aspiring to a Syrian Sunni State, and the groups affiliated with Al Qaeda and Ahrar al-Sham, which left the non-radicals feeling marginalized.  It was the Obama administration that gave its full support to the Islamists, but it was the Trump administration that shut off that support; however, the US insisted the Syrian Islamists be represented in the Geneva talks while excluding the Kurds at the request of Turkey.

Last week, UN special envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen delivered the Code of Conduct approved by the Syrian opposition and the Syrian government which stipulates that the negotiating parties “show respect and tact toward members and refrain from inflammatory speeches and personal attacks”.  In his opening remarks, he said, “I know that it is not easy for all of you to be here together in this room.”  Despite the opposing side’s deep divisions of ideologies, they all have a similar goal to amend the constitution which can begin the healing process.

Opposition sources said their delegation has submitted a working paper of the proposals presented last week, adding that the civil society representatives presented a range of proposals orally during Wednesday’s meeting.  The Committee will attempt to arrive at its decisions by consensus; however, if that fails they may resort to a majority of 75 percent of votes.

There is no Kurdish representation in the constitution committee.  In a recent interview with the Kurdish General Mazloum Abdi, he said,

“Definitely, the Kurdish issue is an essential one and the rights of Kurds have to be ensured in the Syrian constitution.” He added, “We are here and will stay until there is a solution in Syria, and all [ethnic and religious] groups in Syria reach a deal and agree on a constitution and establishment.”

The Syrian Democratic Forces and allied militias, composed of mainly Kurds, have more than 100,000 soldiers and had been US allies previously in the fight to defeat ISIS which occurred in Syria.

The diplomatic gymnastics among Presidents Assad, Putin, Erdogan, and the Kurds are in high gear. The Turkish foreign minister has said Turkey would retreat from all occupied areas if the Syrian government would assure the Kurdish self-administration project was dismantled, and the Kurdish militias were dissolved and integrated into the Syrian Arab Army.  Talks could begin on the eventual return of the 3.6 million Syrian refugees in Turkey to their original communities, thus avoiding a ‘safe-zone’ in northeast Syria, which Erdogan had planned as a Sunni non-Kurdish plantation.  President Putin’s backchannel diplomacy between Damascus and Ankara is ongoing.

In last week’s interview, President Assad said he did not expect the Kurds “to hand over their weapons immediately,” adding that while the Syrian state would exert control in the northeast,

“Our policy should be gradual and rational and should take the facts into account.”

The current military maneuvers and confrontations in northeast Syria are the beginning of the end of the Syrian conflict, as each of the various players involved on the ground will make deals based on negotiated settlements.  To keep one foot in the door, Trump ordered his military to re-invade Syria from Iraq, to occupy the oil well at Deir Ez Zor. General Mazloum Abdi believes the US move has nothing whatsoever to do with oil or profits from oil.  He said,

“There was a new [power] balance here. The Americans want to stay here to take part in the balance.”

Idlib and the northeast may be returned to the control of the central government in Damascus, and with a possible new constitution in place, and future elections scheduled under UN observation, Syria may once again return to the peace and security that has been missing since 2011.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Geneva Is Key to Syria’s Recovery
  • Tags: ,

How do we know that the War on Syria was pre-planned by imperial powers? Consider the following:

.

.

.

Still not convinced? Check out this admission from the former Minister of Foreign Affairs for President Mitterand.

General Flynn admitted that arming terrorists and the creation of a “Salafist Principality” was a “willful decision”.

The willful decision was outlined in this 2012 DIA document:

General Wesley Clark admitted that it was all pre-planned.

All sorts of Establishment figures have admitted that the West’s allies finance ISIS.

John Kerry admitted that the West was using ISIS.

Former U.S Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, worked closely with the terrorists.

*

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

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


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The War on Syria was Pre-Planned. ISIS Was Financed by the US and its Allies
  • Tags:

Syrian and Russian warplanes carried out more than 40 airstrikes on militants’ positions in southern Idlib, northern Lattakia and southwestern Aleppo. According to pro-government sources, the resumed airstrikes were a response to the recent offensive actions by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its Turkish-backed allies near the town of Kbani. Pro-militant media outlets as always claimed that the strikes hit civilian targets only.

Local sources report that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other radical groups are currently deploying additional artillery pieces and military equipment in northern Lattakia. So, a new round of escalation could be expected in the area soon.

The Russian military reinforced its positions near the town of Ayn Issa, where a coordination center with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) had been established. The deployed reinforcements included several military vehicles and dozens of trucks loaded with ammunition and equipment.

Watch the video here.

Meanwhile, reports appeared that Russian forces established a military garrison near the Qamishli airport. Pro-militant sources claimed that this is a part of ongoing efforts to use the facility as an airbase for operations in northeastern Syria. Nonetheless, this is unlikely. Apparently, the Russians were there in the framework of the efforts to propel a reconciliation process between the SDF and the Damascus government.

US President Donald Trump has approved an expanded military mission to ‘secure’ Syrian oil, the Associated Press reported on November 6 citing “US officials”. The decision allegedly came after a last Friday meeting between Trump and his defense officials. The details of the plan is still being worked out. Nonetheless, even without this decision, the US is already building up forces in oil-rich areas in eastern Syria. So, the key question is how many US personnel and how many US-linked private military contractors will be deployed there.

*

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: Russia Setting Up Military Bases Across Northeastern Syria. To Undermine US Mission to Appropriate Syria’s Oil?

Chinese President Xi Jinping six years ago launched New Silk Roads, now better known as the Belt and Road Initiative, the largest, most ambitious, pan-Eurasian infrastructure project of the 21st century.

Under the Trump administration, Belt and Road has been utterly demonized 24/7: a toxic cocktail of fear and doubt, with Beijing blamed for everything from plunging poor nations into a “debt trap” to evil designs of world domination.

Now finally comes what might be described as the institutional American response to Belt and Road: the Blue Dot Network.

Blue Dot is described, officially, as promoting global, multi-stakeholder “sustainable infrastructure development in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world.”

It is a joint project of the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation, in partnership with Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation.

Now compare it with what just happened this same week at the inauguration of the China International Import Expo in Shanghai.

As Xi stressed:

“To date, China has signed 197 documents on Belt and Road cooperation with 137 countries and 30 international organizations.”

This is what Blue Dot is up against – especially across the Global South. Well, not really. Global South diplomats, informally contacted, are not exactly impressed. They might see Blue Dot as an aspiring competitor to BRI, but one that’s moved by private finance – mostly, in theory, American.

They scoff at the prospect that Blue Dot will include some sort of ratings mechanism that will be positioned to vet and downgrade Belt and Road projects. Washington will spin it as a “certification” process setting “international standards” – implying Belt and Road is sub-standard. Whether Global South nations will pay attention to these new ratings is an open question.

The Japanese example

Blue Dot should also be understood in direct comparison with what just happened at the summit-fest in Thailand centered on the meetings of East Asia, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

The advent of Blue Dot explains why the US sent only a junior delegation to Thailand, and also, to a great extent, why India missed the RCEP train as it left the pan-Asian station.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is still between a rock – Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy – and a hard place – Eurasia integration. They are mutually incompatible.

Blue Dot is a de facto business extension of Indo-Pacific, which congregates the US, Japan, Australia – and India: the Quad members. It’s a mirror image of the – defunct – Obama administration Trans-Pacific Partnership in relation to the – also defunct – “pivot to Asia.”

It’s unclear whether New Delhi will join Blue Dot. It has rejected Belt and Road, but not, finally and irrevocably, RCEP. ASEAN has tried to put on a brave face and insist differences will be smoothed out and all 16 RCEP members will sign a deal in Vietnam in 2020.

Yet the bottom line remains: Washington will continue to manipulate India by all means deemed necessary to torpedo – at least in the South Asian theater – the potential of Belt and Road as well as larger Eurasia integration.

And still, after all these years of non-stop demonization, the best thing Washington could come up with was to steal Belt and Road’s idea and dress it up in private bank financing.

Now compare it, for instance, with the work of the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia. They privilege the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific, an original Indonesian idea, instead of the American version. The institute’s president, Hidetoshi Nishimura, describes it as “a guideline for dialogue partners” and stresses that “Japan’s own vision of the Indo-Pacific fits very well with that of ASEAN.”

As much as Nishimura notes how “it is well known that Japan has been the key donor and a real partner in the economic development of Southeast Asia throughout the past five decades,” he also extols RCEP as “the symbol of free trade.” Both China and Japan are firmly behind RCEP. And Beijing is also firmly stressing the direct connection between RCEP and Belt and Road projects.

In the end, Blue Dot may be no more than a PR exercise, too little, too late. It won’t stop Belt and Road expansion. It won’t prevent China-Japan investment partnerships. It won’t stop awareness all across the Global South about the weaponization of the US dollar for geopolitical purposes.

And it won’t bury prevailing skepticism about the development project skills of a hyperpower engaged on a mission to steal other nation’s oil reserves as part of an illegal Syrian 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.

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Dwindling US Hegemony in South East Asia in Favor of China

November 8th, 2019 by Paul Antonopoulos

The 2019 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit held in Thailand earlier this week has given a signal of how the regional order is beginning to change. The ASEAN platform serves as a biannual conference between 10 Southeast countries, with Papua New Guinea and East Timor having observer status. ASEAN focusses on issues of the economy, politics and security. China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and the United States all have a kind of status as partners of ASEAN, but are not formally members.

ASEAN has proven to be a powerful platform that represents collectively over 650 million people and trillions of dollars. Therefore, it was extremely curious that the U.S. did not participate in the summit in a serious manner. Washington had only sent low ranking representative to Thailand, leading to criticisms from ASEAN members. The dissatisfaction expressed by the ASEAN countries is a symmetrical reaction to Washington’s attitude that is likely to continue to exist in the future.

ASEAN felt offended that Washington had only dispatched Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien‘s to Thailand when considering that other countries sent their top officials. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang were all in attendance.

Although the summit hosted an ASEAN-U.S. meeting, only the leaders of host Thailand, Laos and Vietnam attended it. The leaders of the other seven member states decided to ignore the meeting as this was the second year in a row Trump decided to not attend the summit, a far cry from when former U.S. President Barack Obama upgraded ties with the organization in 2011.

The ASEAN-U.S. meeting expectedly ended in a complete failure despite Thailand, Vietnam and Laos committing to this platform by sending their leaders. However, why did these three countries represent themselves with their leaders despite being snubbed by Trump? It is not for any pro-U.S. reasons, but rather to maintain diplomatic professionalism as Thailand hosted the summit, Vietnam will assume the presidency of ASEAN next year, and Laos is currently responsible for ASEAN-U.S. relations.

Ross attempted to alleviate ASEAN anger by stating that:

“The Trump administration is extremely engaged in and fully committed to this region.”

This sounds exactly as it does – unconvincing, and more like an excuse. Most of the ASEAN leaders, through their actual actions, hinted that they would not accept such a disdainful attitude towards their summit.

The Obama administration upgraded Washington’s relationship with ASEAN to a strategic partnership and had a very clear set of guidelines and measures. The relations were very close at the time between Washington and ASEAN, something that has been reversed since Trump took office. This can spell bad news for Trump as ASEAN countries have clearly stated that they do not choose to stand idly by and maintain a neutral attitude in the strategic game between China and the U.S. This is crucial as Southeast Asian countries have in recent decades carefully balanced diplomacy between China and the U.S. and gained major benefits from this.

If Trump has suffered a diplomatic defeat in Thailand, then China has certainly made a breakthrough in a priority area of ​​its foreign economic diplomacy. The Chinese Premier highlighted during ASEAN that his country is “willing to work with all parties to continue to negotiate and resolve problems.” This is unsurprising as China continue to prove itself to be an initiator of Asian integration, especially through the Belt and Road Initiative.

ASEAN members occupy a special position because of its geographical location, making it not only the starting point of the BRI, but also an important military bridgehead for various maritime tactical missions in China to ensure the safety of domestic merchant ships, tankers, overseas property and citizens.

China has built seaports in Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia and Brunei, and billions of dollars in railway paving projects in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia and Thailand, along with a deep-water port project with a special economic zone, that is to be built in Myanmar. This new network attracts a large amount of capital, but it requires flexible and modern state management.

Despite differing opinions on the BRI within ASEAN, China’s total investment in Southeast Asia continues to grow as it did in the past: in the first half of 2019, China’s total investment had reached $11 billion. This is especially crucial for undeveloped countries in the region like Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos, while for more developed countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand, the BRI is accelerating industrialization. Effectively this means that China wields great economic influence in the region at a time that Southeast Asians believe that Trump snubbed them.

By significantly developing Southeast Asia and actively attending ASEAN summits with high-level representation, China will only improve its image in the region. This is especially crucial as Trump has proven that Washington has no active desire to engage in platforms aimed at planning and developing Southeast Asia’s future, unless it is conducted through platforms organized and initiated by the U.S. This will prove not to be popular as Southeast Asians would prefer to engage in platforms created by them and for them, with active participation of growing global and regional powers like China, Russia, India and Japan. The Southeast Asian snub will undoubtably impact negatively on Washington’s Indo-Pacific Strategy as it loses favour with states that are more-or-less neutral in the Great Power struggles between the U.S. and China.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies and a frequent contributor to Global Research

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Who coined the term anti-vaccine or anti-vaxx? The derogatory term “anti-vaxxer,” which has been championed by the media and the medical industry’s experts who function as the media’s talking heads, are merely people who question the efficacy and safety of a heavy-loaded vaccination schedule for children. And this does not represent a small group of dissident individuals and parents. Rather it represents hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, of people in the US alone.

We might consider mainstream news sources, such as the New York Times, once a highly respected newspaper, now becoming a propaganda vehicle for “manufacturing consent”.  In his book Public Opinion, political journalist Walter Lippmann, coined the expression “the manufacture of consent,” which was later further elaborated upon by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky in their critically acclaimed book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media published in 1988. They define the mass corporate media as “effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions and self-censorship, and without overt coercion.” Herman and Chomsky’s insights remain every bit as relevant today for understanding the hidden motivations in today’s media to promulgate the official medical establishment’s vaccine doctrine and to demonize its opponents as they were over three decades ago for manufacturing consent to get Americans’ support behind the Cold War.

Image result for Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

The media refuses to accept that those who have been vaccine damaged, or who have children who will suffer for the remainder of their lives from adverse vaccine events, have a legitimate right to speak their truth rather than being labeled as hysterical or crazy. All of these individuals and parents were pro-vaccine until they or their child became vaccine-injured. Similarly we saw the New York Times manufacturing consent for accepting falsehoods that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. And this was true across the mainstream outlets including the Washington Post, Fox, MSNBC, CNN and others.  The Times fabricated that rationale to the public on behalf of the neo-cons in the Bush administration who were determined to have a war. None of the journalists publishing these lies have taken responsibility nor lost a night’s sleep because their fakery led to the death of millions.

Similarly the CDC and the media, which has drunk the vaccine regime’s Kool Aid, is attempting to cast a net around those who oppose their authority by labeling them anti-vaxxers.  It is not unlike being opposed to our invasions in Iraq, Libya and Syria and then being accused of being undemocratic and opposed to freedom because that is the moniker the government promoted to initiate its wars and foment regime change.  The logic is completely reversed in order to generate and execute a faux public consensus.

Unlike the theatrical charade of America’s political discourse, when narrative directly impacts government-supported private financial interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry sales, then open freedom of speech and debate are smothered. According to Herman-Chomsky,

“the smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow a very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views.”

This strategy works, according to Herman-Chomsky, when people believe they are actively engaged in the democratic process. However, for controversial issues that directly discredit industries that economically rely upon science, such as genetically modified crops, agricultural pesticides, and pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, the public has no voice. Rather opposition is ridiculed and consent is manufactured in the shadows and through a wide network of media and internet resources to reach the public’s ears.

There is perhaps no other area of so-called scientific progress that has relied upon more deceptive and misleading research and a distortion of facts and statistics than in modern medicine’s religious belief in vaccines as a miracle to protect the world’s population from infectious diseases.  The distortion and exclusion of scientific evidence, the reliance upon cherry-picked studies and blatant corruption behind the vaccine research to further vaccination campaigns and compliance inquisitorial assaults on the medical voices of reason who demand honest and open dialogue about vaccine safety and efficacy has turned into a media war.

Popular scientific consensus has yet to tackle the growing uncertainty gap to identify the most probable causes of childhood neurological disorders and increasing rates in asthma, allergies and autoimmune conditions, including the role that toxic vaccine ingredients such as adjuvant aluminum compounds may play in these epidemics. According to Dr. Stephanie Seneff at MIT, the autism rate can be projected to reach 1 in 2 boys in the next five years.  Unfortunately the Vaccine Deep State is silent over this urgent debate. And even with all the scientific evidence, the mass media continues to parrot the CDC’s mantra that there is no further debate to be pursued as to whether vaccines contribute to neuro-developmental disorders.

If you have read the opinion pieces in the New York Times, Washington Post or listen to television commentators, you will be left with the impression that there are no evidence-based facts to offer a legitimate challenge to the assumption that all vaccines are effective and safe. Nevertheless there is a large group of board certified pediatricians, immunologists, toxicologists and research scientists who have reviewed volumes of peer-reviewed literature to support their criticisms of what the media wants us to believe. But you will never see anyone from this group cited in mainstream publications or invited on multimedia.  Rather, the media has created the illusion that only a small group of activist parents and renegade physicians oppose vaccines. In turn, they are attacked with the unfounded charge that they put society’s health at risk.

One recent example occurred in Israel. Prof. Yehuda Shoenfeld is one of the most respected immunologists in Israel who now heads a center for autoimmune diseases at Sheba Medical Center, Israel’s largest hospital. He is also a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and serves on the editorial board of dozens of medical journals.  Some regard him as “one of the most prominent world experts in autoimmunity.” But now he is being viciously attacked by a group of Israeli doctors who accuse him of being a danger to public health because he has questioned vaccine safety.  This group wants Dr. Shoenfeld silenced because he has written extensively on the role of aluminum adjuvants leading to a condition he has called “autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants” or ASIA. Not surprisingly, much of the assault against Dr. Shoenfeld is being fueled by the Vaccine Deep State in the US, primarily by two of the media’s pro-vaccine poster children, Dr. Paul Offit at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and his partner in vaccine propaganda law professor Dorit Reiss at the University of California. Reiss also blogs her opinions to discredit anti-vaccine voices for the Times of Israel and has contributed to fomenting opposition to Dr. Shoenfeld.  She is also one of the leading legal supporters for California’s regressive vaccine mandates.  Both Offit and Reiss are advocating for Dr. Shoenfeld’s removal from his hospital position and his sitting on medical journal boards.

Dr. Shoenfeld is an example of what happens to any scientist, physician and even journalist who questions vaccination. Therefore, how can we trust anything written about vaccines in the mainstream media? That is the conundrum.

We can ask journalists six basic questions to determine their journalist integrity and honesty.

1) Have you interviewed the leading vaccines critics within the medical community?

2) Have you honestly investigated the scientific literature to review the toxicological evidence about vaccines’ harmful effects?

3) Have you reviewed the actual transcripts of the CDC’s senior immunologist Dr. William Thompson who provided evidence that the MMR is associated with autism yet this was systematically covered up by the agency.

4) Have you reviewed Robert Kennedy Jr’s release of the Simpsonwood meeting transcripts that provided conclusive evidence that the CDC’s own research showed a vaccine mercury-autism connection and this too was intentionally concealed from Congress and the public

5) Have you reviewed the politics behind the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and the subsequent Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to understand how the pharmaceutical industry received a pass to avoid being held legally accountable for vaccine injuries.

6) Have you interviewed and sought documentation from any of the following medical doctors and researchers Drs. Suzanne Humphries, Nancy Banks, Brian Hooker, Lucija Tomljenovic, Lawrence Palevsky, Christopher Exley, Tetyana Obukhanych, among many others  Each of these individuals were pro-vaccine before that found reason to explore the actual published science.

This is only the beginning of what needs to be done before citing or interviewing any the most ardent pro-vaccine advocates such as Paul Offit, Senator Richard Pen or Dorit Reiss. And we have yet to find any mainstream journalist whatsoever who has made an effort to investigate any of the above.

To sustain the nation’s vaccination rates, to preserve corporate profits, and to keep Americans convinced that vaccines will protect their children from infectious illnesses, the CDC requires a dynamic marketing and public relations apparatus.

The tentacles of the government’s health agencies are not only wrapped around the mainstream media but also the entertainment industry.

Unknown to the general public and many in the medical profession is the existence of the CDC’s sophisticated public relations operations. Tax dollars are spent to train journalists to defend  the federal agencies’ and pharmaceutical industry’s national and state vaccine agendas.

This broad network of journalists are employed by mainstream media companies, magazines and newspapers, and freelancers and provide the CDC with a virtual army of publicists to propagandize its message. Threats, fear mongering, and outright hatred written towards vaccine opponents are commonplace in the mainstream journalism’s narratives. What they all share in common is a glaring ignorance or denial of an enormous body of scientific literature that calls the CDC’s lies and deception about vaccine safety into question.

One vehicle for manufacturing consent is the CDC-Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ) joint fellowship program. Scores of health editors, writers and reporters throughout the nation’s leading media corporations and publications—MSNBC, NPR, New York Times, Reuters, the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle to name a few on the fellowship’s webpage—have passed through the CDC’s Atlanta campus for a week’s worth of intense instruction in national public health policy. According to the AHCJ’s fellowship information, journalists are indoctrinated in conventional federal health policies regarding epidemiology, global disease prevention, pandemic flu preparedness, vaccine safety and autism. They also receive training in “navigating databases such as the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey and CDC publications” to assist their research and writing. Afterwards journalists return to their publications to propagandize the CDC’s ideological talking points to increase vaccination compliance and receive notices and pre-written scripts about stories to report for their news outlets.

The CDC’s close relationship with the media has been in place for at least two decades. For example, during the 2004 National Influenza Vaccine Summit, then director of Media Relations at the CDC and spokesperson for the National Immunization Program, Glen Nowak, presented the agency’s “Seven Step Recipe for Generating Interest In and Demand for Flu Vaccination.” His Powerpoint presentation outlines a concise public relations campaign, along a timeline covering the flu season, for journalists and media agencies to follow for the sole purpose of increasing flu vaccination rates. The outline includes specific periods during the flu season when the media is recommended to induce and increase public fears about the pending dangers of influenza and even possible death.

In defense of the CDC’s PR efforts, Nowak publicly stated on National Public Radio that the vaccine

“manufacturers were telling us [CDC] that they weren’t receiving a lot of orders of vaccine for use… It really did look like we needed to do something to encourage people to get a flu shot.”

Five years later, during the H1N1 swine flu non-epidemic, we observed and reported how the CDC’s flu propaganda storyline recommendations continue to be put into practice to the letter by the New York Times, Washington Post and almost every large television news network.[1]

These operations are not limited to news firms. There is another organization that has remained relatively hidden from the public’s eye that targets the entertainment world: Hollywood Health and Society (HHS). HHS is headquartered at the Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communications. According to its website, HHS “provides entertainment industry professionals with accurate timely information on health storylines.”  It delivers consultation, writers and scripts for television, Hollywood films and documentaries. And who offers this expert consultation? HHS’ top funders, including the CDC, the National Cancer Institute, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the world’s largest private financial source for vaccine development and propaganda the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

HHS’s mission states:

In partnership with our funding agencies, we offer several resources, including quick facts, briefings and consultations with experts, case examples, panel discussions about timely health issues, a quarterly newsletter with health updates called “Real to Reel,” and an expanding list of tip sheets written specifically for writers and producers. Tip sheets are available on the CDC website, as well as the NCI website. The broad range of topics includes influenza, toxic mold, smallpox, cancer, autism, motor vehicle crashes, obesity, adolescent health issues, antibiotic resistance, clinical trials and much more.

Unbeknownst to many, even the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) has publicly come to the defense of the vaccine manufacturers and continues to publish articles that denigrate vaccine hesitancy. During the misperceived Swine Flu threat in 2009, the Council took an active role to breed public fear about the epidemic that never happened in order to push more flu vaccines. The organization’s Global Health program has worked closely with Bill Gates’ Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI).  More recently CFR member Claire Felter has taken the World Health Organization’s talking points to charge the “anti-vaccination movement” with “threaten[ing] to undo years of progress made against a range of preventable diseases.”

As with the major players in any Deep State, hypocrisy often runs rampant. Embracing a strong anti-China position regarding that nation’s Communist government, the CFR has challenged the Chinese government’s legitimacy after riots over the administration of “substandard” vaccines that turned violent. Yet, at no time do we find the CFR raising questions about the exponential rise in autism and childhood neurological disorders in the US and our government’s utter neglect and failure to honestly investigate the causes behind this epidemic that is destroying more families than recent measles outbreaks ever could.

This undoubtedly raises the question, why in the world is the CFR involved in the vaccine business? Besides the CFR’s commitment to the WHO’s global health agenda, among the Council’s corporate members are three of the five largest pharmaceutical companies, each a major force in the vaccine industry.

Over the years, the CFR has functioned as an effective incubator for forging alliances between large multinational corporations and governmental and multilateral agencies.  Obama’s cabinet, for example, was packed with CFR members, who contributed to the signing of the DARK Act to squash states’ efforts to label Genetically Modified foods.

For those who are vaccine-hesitant, one of the most frustrating concerns is legislative complacency at every level of the government — the White House, Congress, and throughout the nation’s federal health agencies — to make concerted efforts to invest in the most serious questions of the vaccine safety debate.  Although many Trump supporters believed that once president he would address the plight of parents with vaccine-injured children, it came as no surprise that he would back-peddle 180 degrees.  In the aftermath of the measles outbreak, Trump adopted the Vaccine Deep State’s agenda when he told CNN,

“They [children] have to get the shots. The vaccinations are so important. This is really going around now. They have to get their shots.”

There is utter silence in Washington about the long-term consequences of where the American population is headed as more and more vaccines get added to the CDC’s vaccine schedule. Scientific denialism is rampant and  the nation’s vaccination policies are criminally medieval, based upon faith rather than reason. This includes efforts to fund independent studies to confirm or negate many of the more disturbing conclusions found in much of the peer-reviewed literature. Among them are:

1)  The role of rising toxic levels of aluminum adjuvants in fully vaccinated children with neuro-development disorders compared to unvaccinated children. The Vaccine Deep State categorically denies that aluminum in vaccines has any role. More disturbing, our federal health officials have been fully warned by experts in this field. In his How to End the Autism Epidemic, attorney JB Handley provides excerpts of letters sent by three of the top researchers in aluminum toxicity to the CDC, FDA and National Institutes of Health:

Prof. Christopher Exley (Keele University in the UK): “I am an expert in the field of aluminum adjuvants and aluminum toxicity. I have been working in this field for more than 30 years during which time I have written in excess of 150 peer-reviewed scientific publications on this subject… I solemnly declare that more research on the role of aluminum adjuvant in vaccines and neurological disorders, including ASD, is essential and urgently required.”

Dr. Romain Gherardi (University of Paris): “I am an expert in the field of aluminum adjuvant toxicity in humans and animal models. I have been working in this field since the initial description of aluminum vaccine-induced macrophagic myofascitis in 1998. Since that time I have written 40 peer-reviewed scientific publications and one book on this subject. I strongly support the contention that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines may have a role in the etiology of autism spectrum disorder.”

Dr. Christopher Shaw (University of British Columbia): “We have studied the impact of aluminum adjuvants in animal models of neurological disease, including autism spectrum disorder… These studies and the broader existing literature regarding aluminum toxicity lead almost invariably to the conclusion that aluminum in any chemical form is always neurotoxic when administered in humans. Further I am convinced that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines may contribute to neurological disorders across the lifespan… it is my belief that the CDC’s claim on its website that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism” is wholly unsupported.”

2) The CDC and FDA do not require vaccine makers to test vaccines against scientifically viable placebo controls with an inert substance such as saline solution. Rather all clinical trials test the vaccine against a false-placebo that includes toxic ingredients such as aluminum adjuvant, polysorbate 80, genetically modified yeast that had never been tested separately for safety, etc, minus the viral component. The exception is Gardasil which tested the vaccine against 2 placebos, one being saline. However, their final results provided to the FDA for licensure combined the two placebos to mask the increase in adverse effects.

3) After many petitions, and even recommendations from Congressional subcommittees convening to study the autism epidemic, the CDC continues to refuse to fund independent studies comparing the quality of health between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Clearly, if there was nothing to hide and vaccines are perfectly safe, this would be a slam dunk study to silence vaccine opposition. Such studies have been done independently and outside the Vaccine Deep State.  The non-profit group Generation Rescue in collaboration with the notable opinion poll organization, SurveyUSA, completed a survey of 11,817 households, representing over 17,600 children to compare the rates of various neurological disorders, as well as asthma and childhood diabetes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children.  For all vaccinated boys from 4-17 years, there were increases of 155 percent for neurological disorders, 224 percent for ADHD, and 61 percent for autism among the vaccinated. For all boys and girls, there was a 120 percent increase in asthma among those vaccinated.

4)  An entire reevaluation of the herd immunity theory is urgent. The herd theory, the belief that if a sufficient percent of a population is vaccinated then a given infectious disease can be eradicated, has never been scientifically confirmed to be valid.

Swedish television reported that in 2014 the Council of Foreign Relations accidentally released a report identifying those developed countries with the highest rates of disease outbreaks. The Council’s report found that the most highly vaccinated populations are also those with the greatest number of outbreaks for those same infectious diseases.  This was especially the case for measles, mumps, rubella, polio and pertussis outbreaks.  The US, Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, and Japan—each with the highest number of mandated vaccines—led the list of nations. The Office of Medical and Scientific Justice, which analyzed the report, concluded that the Council’s report clearly suggests the theory of “herd immunity” is failing or was flawed to begin with.  Given the repeated incidences of infectious outbreaks in populations with 94% or more vaccine compliance, and the emergence of new viral strains, the concept of herd immunity should be forgotten. The Office offers several possibilities to explain the report: 1) vaccines are increasingly becoming ineffective and causing “immune dysfunction,” and 2) “vaccine antigen responses” may be reprogramming viruses while weakening the immune systems of the most vaccinated individuals.

Earlier, a far greater blow against the efficacy of the measles vaccine came when Dr. Gregory Poland, Editor in Chief of the journal Vaccine and founder of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group, published a surprising statement that the measles vaccine has a poor record of efficacy. Despite the high 95-plus percent measles vaccination compliance of children entering kindergarten, and the CDC’s propaganda that the vaccine has defeated the virus, measles outbreaks are rising. Dr. Poland does not believe this is due to unvaccinated individuals but rather the failure of the vaccine.

Another example is in Mississippi, with the highest vaccination rate in the country. The state has shown significant increases in whooping cough cases, with only 9% of those infected being unvaccinated.  Across the nation, the most highly infected are those who have received three or more pertussis shots and boosters. Several years ago the Australian government’s National Center for Immunization and Research of Vaccine Preventable Diseases found that the pertussis vaccine’s effectiveness is waning far more rapidly than expected.

5) The life-threatening failures of the FDA fast-tracking pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. The pharmaceutical industry loves fast-tracked approvals because the necessary clinical trials do not require any long-term clinical effects from human trials. Only studies on “surrogate markers” are reviewed; these are short-term observations on whether there is any sign of a drug or vaccine being effective. Besides, such trials are invariably far cheaper than larger long-term studies so there is considerable cost savings. Last year set a record with 73 percent of newly approved drugs having been fast-tracked. There are many dozens of examples of these drugs eventually being removed from the market or being given black box warnings for severe risks noted only after the products’ release.

The National Women’s Health Network conducted a study to record the rates of drug makers completing the necessary efficacy and safety trials following their drugs being fast-tracked through the regulatory system. The study’s conclusions were that 58 percent of fast-tracked products only had a follow up clinical trial(s) after five or more years delay. Some didn’t have any follow up studies performed.

The worst case of a vaccine being fast-tracked is Merck’s HPV vaccine Gardasil. Rushing this vaccine through the regulatory hurdles is an example of gross neglect. During the clinical trials 2.3 percent of the girl enrollees came down with autoimmune illnesses up to seven months after receiving the vaccine. Seventeen girls died; nevertheless without any compelling evidence the CDC states none of these deaths were due to the vaccine. Gardasil was fast-tracked nonetheless without further investigations. According to Robert Kennedy Jr’s calculations, one hundred times more Gardasil recipients are “more likely to suffer serious adverse events from the vaccine than they are to be protected from cervical cancer.” In addition, Kennedy observed,

“Many of these diseases were serious diseases—blood lymphatic diseases, anemia, endocrine diseases, autoimmune diseases, G.I., Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, vaginal infections musculoskeletal injuries, arthritis, neoplasm, Hodgkin’s disease, neurological diseases, psychiatric diseases, depression, reproductive and breast disorders, menstrual irregularities, and pain. Over 3 percent of the girls—1 in 30—in both groups required surgical and medical procedures.”

6)  The epidemic of industry conflicts of interest in studies relied upon by the CDC’s vaccine advisory bodies for setting its vaccination schedule and policies. The pharmaceutical industry spent its largest amount in a single year on lobbying in 2018, $228 million. There are over 1,400 Big Pharma lobbyists in Washington and over 64 percent of these are former government employees.

The CDC is essentially being controlled by the drug industry. Health Impact News reported that former CDC head Julie Gerberding, who was in charge of the agency between 2002 to 2009 when the thimerosal-autism controversy was at its height and during the period Merck’s Gardasil was fast-tracked for approval, started to systematically overhaul the entire agency upon her arrival. During her tenure many of the CDC’s senior scientists resigned. The opened positions were promptly filled with people holding close ties to the vaccine industry.  After Obama fired Gerberding, she shortly thereafter found herself as president of Merck’s vaccine division.  Merck manufactures 14 of the 17 vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule and 9 of the 10 vaccines recommended for adults.

7)  The CDC is essentially a corporation profiting from the vaccine business. Robert Kennedy Jr has called the CDC “a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry.” According to Dr. Frank Anders, former Command Surgeon of the US Army Special Operations Command in Africa, “the power and money these pharmaceutical companies wield [on the FDA and CDC] is awesome.”[2]

It is estimated the agency earns over $4 billion from vaccines. According to the website Law Firms, the members on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices cumulatively own 56 vaccine-related patents; the CDC itself owns over 20 patents that are licensed out to private companies. Kennedy notes that “Congressman Dave Weldon has pointed out that the primary metric for success across the CDC is how many vaccines the agency sells and how successfully the agency expands its vaccine program—regardless of any negative effects on human health.”

The push to mandate the HPV vaccine ignores the statistics in other nations that clearly show an increase in cervical cancer since the introduction of the vaccine. The vaccine was introduced in Australia and the UK in 2006 and 2008 respectively; in both nations, cancer rates have increased substantially. Back in 2006, the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee warned that the vaccine might increase the risk of cervical lesions and cancer. That warning has come true; a VARBPAC report estimates a 44 percent greater likelihood of cervical lesions among Gardasil recipients.

Efforts to legislate bills for implementing the HPV vaccine started almost immediately after the vaccine was approved, according to a University of Virginia study on the history of HPV legislation. This included a large publicity campaign to make parents fearful of the risks of cervical cancer, public financing, and attempts through the American Legislation Exchange Council (ALEC) to get the vaccine admitted into state’s required vaccination schedules. Similarly, a Harvard investigation into the Gardasil vaccine’s maker Merck’s role in immunization policy-making uncovered that the company was in fact drafting the legislation to mandate the vaccine. It also made special efforts to target women legislators and physicians to assist in consumer marketing campaigns. Merck’s lobbying activities in Washington have always been among the most aggressive on K Street.  Virginia was one of the first states to enact a statewide school entry mandate for the HPV vaccine; yet five years later, a Medical University of South Carolina analysis found that the mandate had no impact whatsoever on overall compliance.

8) Gross malfeasance and potential crimes committed by the CDC to cover-up and destroy documentation showing an autism-vaccine association. The most egregious example was exposed by the CDC’s senior immunologist Dr. William Thompson who released thousands of pages of confidential documents to Congress proving that the agency concealed and shredded research data showing that the MMR vaccine increased rates of autism among African American boys. The CDC’s influence and power over the Congress has prevented this case from reaching a congressional investigation.

Recently the US’s National Vaccine Program has released a new strategic report to initiate a National Adult Immunization Plan as part of its Healthy People 2020 objectives. One of the barriers the Program faces is overcoming legal barriers at the state levels and the growing skepticism about vaccine safety and effectiveness. If implemented, this would be a national policy that would override the individual state laws, for example laws for medical, religious and philosophical exemption. The ramifications of such a Plan at the federal level could be catastrophic and have an enormous adverse economic impact. It has the potential to enforce vaccination compliance through applying for a drivers license or a passport, receiving welfare benefits or Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Supporters of the Plan are a literal who’s who of the Vaccine Deep State, including 20 federal health agencies, the Department of Defense, Homeland Securities, the Department of Justice, Veterans Affairs, and a multitude of non-government stakeholders in the vaccine industry, academic institutions, professional medical associations, community and patient advocacy organizations, insurance providers, and the mainstream media.  In other words, if this become law at the federal level every American adult will be subjected to a series of mandatory vaccines.

Google, as well as its co-collaborator Wikipedia — a primary source of medical misinformation — will inevitably play a critical role in Vaccine Deep State’s efforts to implement the CDC’s immunization strategy. This includes employing Google’s Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) to manufacture consent through behavior modification. This would be parallel to the mainstream media that is already controlled by the Vaccine Deep State. In fact, this effort, according to Sayer Ji at GreenMedInfo, is already underway. Google’s manipulation of search terms generates “suggestions” to users that “anti-vaxxers are burdening the economy” and “HPV vaccines are safe for your child.”

For an investigative journalist, who may sincerely care about exposing truthful stories on important health issues, Wikipedia’s treatment of vaccination is also engaged in manufacturing consent. Jimmy Wales deludes himself into believing he and his organizations represent truth in the war against fake news. Contrary to all of the science and facts presented above in this article, none of which can be successfully edited into Wikipedia’s pages, the encyclopedia is another player in the Vaccine Deep State. At this moment, California, New York and other states are aggressively stripping away our Constitutional freedoms in order to mandate vaccines under the ruse that it serves the public good. The science supporting the evidence that vaccine efficacy is waning, that many of the infectious outbreaks being reported include a high percentage of fully or partially vaccinated persons, and that vaccines are contributing to many of the epidemics ravaging American children is categorically ignored. We expect our politicians, public health officials and the media to be deeply concerned about whether something we put into our body may be potentially lethal. Since according to the Supreme Court’s own terminology, every vaccine is “unavoidably unsafe,” should we not be demanding a moratorium on all future vaccine mandate proposals and repeal those already in effect, until such time that independent gold standard clinical trials are conducted. In effect we are demanding that the cautionary principle be applied to vaccines. As we have shown above, such trials have never been performed on any vaccine currently in the CDC’s immunization schedule. Nor have any comprehensive studies been conducted to compare the overall health between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Of course, for the Vaccine Deep State to reach its goals, efforts for truth-finding are anathema because it will inevitably prove its propaganda erroneous and very likely illegal.

Deep states are in effect totalitarian. Totalitarian regimes are more than structures of governance ruled over by narcissistic, psychopathic despots. These states appoint very bright and charismatic people into high positions of authority in order to keep the regimes’ propaganda and lies alive for an uninformed public.  They also require an obedient mass media apparatus of indoctrinated or crony journalists and writers who can counter and discredit oppositional voices and groups on rapid notice in order to manufacture consent. Sadly this is the state of today’s American medical establishment that no longer tolerates vaccination dissention and alternative science that challenges its cherished dogma.  And this is most clearly observed in   federal protection of bad vaccine science. This suppressive edifice that shares all the characteristics of an institutional deep state is unlikely to disappear anytime in the near future.  Only an informed and better educated citizenry motivated to express public indignation will lead to efforts to hold every federal health official accountable.

The Vaccine Deep State poses very serious threats because its serves private interests instead of the public. It is irrational and bases its agenda more on wishful-thinking than sound evidence-based medicine. Dr. Emmett Miller is one of the original pioneers in Mind-Body Medicine. In his book, Our Culture on the Couch, he writes, “One of the remarkable facts about the human brain, is that when it finds itself faced with two equally varied but seemingly incompatible interpretations or perceptions it tends to suppress one of the interpretations to make it invisible — then take the other interpretation as the ‘truth’. Then, rather than deal with cognitive dissonance,” Dr. Miller says, “it will rationalize and defend its position to the point of absurdity.” Hence the entire concept of vaccine effectiveness and safety as the first course of disease prevention is itself an example of Dr. Miller’s cognitive dissonance. They suppress the truth and fully support the lie.

*

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.

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including The War on Health, Poverty Inc and Silent Epidemic.

Notes

 [1]  Richard Gale and Gary Null. “The Public Relations Machine for the Vaccine Complex.” Progressive Radio Network, October 7, 2009

 [2] see Gale R, Null G “Vaccination: Federal Health Agencies Continue to Deceive Americans” Global Research. November 13, 2009

The Globalization of Poverty: What Is Neoliberalism?

November 8th, 2019 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

In these unprecedented economic times, the world is experiencing as a whole what most of the so-called “developing” countries have experienced over the past several decades. For a nuanced examination of the intricacies of the global political-economic landscape and the power players within it, pick up your copy of:

The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order
by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky takes the reader through an examination of how the World Bank and IMF have been the greatest purveyors of poverty around the world, despite their rhetorical claims to the opposite. These institutions, representing the powerful Western nations and the financial interests that dominate them, spread social apartheid around the world, exploiting both the people and the resources of the vast majority of the world’s population.

As Chossudovsky examines in this updated edition, often the programs of these international financial institutions go hand-in-hand with covert military and intelligence operations undertaken by powerful Western nations with an objective to destabilize, control, destroy and dominate nations and people, such as in the cases of Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

To understand what role these international organizations play today, being pushed to the front lines and given unprecedented power and scope as ever before to manage the global economic crisis, one must understand from whence they came. This book provides a detailed, exploratory, readable and multi-faceted examination of these institutions and actors as agents of the ‘New World Order,’ for which they advance the ‘Globalization of Poverty.’


The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order

Global Research Price: $19.00
CLICK TO BUY

PDF Version: $9.50
Sent directly to your email – cut on mailing expenses!
CLICK TO BUY

Kindle Version: Available through Amazon

Ordering from Canada or the US?
Find out about our special bulk offers for North American customers!
3 copies for $45.00 | 10 copies for $125.00 | 1 box = 30 copies for $319.50

Special offers on combined book purchases for this title (click covers for more info):

                                                                


Reviews:

“This concise, provocative book reveals the negative effects of imposed economic structural reform, privatization, deregulation and competition. It deserves to be read carefully and widely.”
– Choice, American Library Association (ALA)

“The current system, Chossudovsky argues, is one of capital creation through destruction. The author confronts head on the links between civil violence, social and environmental stress, with the modalities of market expansion.”
– Michele Stoddard, Covert Action Quarterly

CLICK HERE FOR A SPECIAL INSIDE LOOK AT THE PREFACE

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca. He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Globalization of Poverty: What Is Neoliberalism?

I’m in Homs on my sixth visit to this vibrant city since May 2016 as an independent, self-funded activist and social media amateur journalist.

Since peace and stability have been restored and life is returning, the “professional news media” is absent. As usual, they miss the real story.

But they were here en masse when the US and allies were sponsoring numerous “rebel” armed groups – you know the headchopping mercenary jihadis that the “professional” journalists proclaimed as “freedom fighters”.

Like the Omar Farouk Brigade whose commander cannibalized a Syrian soldier killed defending his homeland from the terrorist hordes armed and funded by the “leaders of the free world.”

Like the US created and supported Free Syrian Army that US Ambassador Robert Ford made sure got American money, advanced weapons, and intelligence that was just a front to get the money, weapons and intelligence to al Qaeda here (called al Nusra in Syria).

Like the terrorist group’s Marie Colvin was sent to white wash as “heroic resisters” who kidnapped and butchered thousands of civilians. Colvin was killed here. Many thousands of people in Homs were slaughtered by those armed groups Colvin was a propagandist for.

Ah, but those days are gone. The bombs – mortars, suicide bombers, car bombs etc by the “rebels” ripping school children, shoppers, all the people apart, as well as the shelling by the legitimate army of the legitimate government of the sovereign nation of Syria in their efforts to defeat the terrorist proxies paid to destroy their country – are gone.

The kidnappings have gone. Gone are the days when you could be grabbed off the street and held for ransom. And while your family struggled to sell everything they had to pay the ransom, the “freedom fighters” would be torturing you. If your family couldn’t raise the money, well you’d be carved up and the pieces of your body left in the main roads.

Gone are the snipers, the “freedom and democracy” sharp shooters stationed in tall buildings who targeted people on the roads in cars and buses or trying to walk to work.

All gone. And so are the “real” journalists.

But the real story those real journalists are missing is here, right now, in Homs. That’s the story of what happened after the Syrian Army liberated this place.

Half the city’s buildings are gone and so are many of its people.

The ones who remain though, who have returned, who have worked so hard while suffering so much to revive their futures are the ones I’ve come to learn from in my beloved Homs.

To paraphrase the old antiwar song, “Where have all the flowers gone” here is my version:

Where have all the journos gone
Long time passing
Gone to sell the next war every one
When will they ever learn
When will they ever learn?

*

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 Eva Bartlett

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria: Where Have All the “Professional” Journalists Gone?
  • Tags: ,

The global Sikh community is celebrating the opening of the Kartarpur Corridor on 9 November that will create an international pilgrimage route from India to the nearby Gurdwara Darbar Sahib Kartarpur in Pakistan where the founder of the world’s fifth-largest religion passed away, which will open just in time to commemorate the 550th anniversary of Guru Nanak’s death and is occurring in the context of this community’s rising political consciousness that’s increasingly taking the form of peaceful Khalistani separatism from Indian Punjab through the Sikhs For Justice’s planned referendum on this issue next year.

An event of historic religious significance will take place on 9 November when the Kartarpur Corridor opens in South Asia, which will enable members of the global Sikh community to travel along an international pilgrimage route from India to the nearby Gurdwara Darbar Sahib Kartarpur in Pakistan where the founder of the world’s fifth-largest religion passed away. It’s extremely important for Sikhs, the majority of which live in India, to be able to more freely do so because this year marks the 550th anniversary Guru Nanak’s death. There had hitherto been obvious bureaucratic obstacles that hindered movement across the border between nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan following the bloody partition of the British Raj, but both countries realized that it’s for the greater good that they put aside their differences in this respect in order to facilitate the religious practices of the global Sikh community by constructing a corridor that can enable them to easily travel back and forth en mass during this holy time.

This monumental event is supposed to be purely apolitical and undertaken for selfless reasons, but India has already tried spoiling the festive mood by previously alleging that the Kartarpur Corridor will be abused by Pakistan to encourage Khalistani separatism from Indian Punjab. The reason for such claims is that the state regards the rising political consciousness of the global Sikh community over the past year and its manifestation through the Sikhs For Justice‘s (SFJ) planned referendum on the independence of Indian Punjab as Khalistan to be part of an elaborate Pakistani plot to undermine the country from within. This conspiracy theory completely disregards the fact that the Khalistani cause itself was most powerfully fueled by India’s deadly “Operation Blue Star” assault on the religion’s holiest shrine of the Golden Temple 35 years ago in 1984, which was followed by the “Operation Woodrose” “clean-up efforts” that saw the extrajudicial killing of many Sikhs and ultimately climaxed in the nationwide anti-Sikh pogrom at the end of the same year after Indira Gandhi’s assassination.

Nevertheless, India still claims that Pakistan has a secret hand in the recent revival of the Sikhs’ political consciousness, refusing to take any responsibility for its own role in historically provoking this separatist reaction through its counterproductive actions over the years. These allegations have since been used to “justify” granting eight states the authority to utilize the “Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act” for quelling Sikh separatism, especially against the SFJ that was banned earlier this year, which could set into motion a chain of events that might ultimately lead to the imposition of the feared “Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act” in part or all of Indian Punjabahead of next year’s planned referendum. India doesn’t seem to have learned its lesson that cracking down on the peaceful expression of a religious minority’s desire for self-determination usually ends up intensifying those same sentiments that the state wants to snuff out, and its latest “good cop, bad cop” ploy of removing many figures from its blacklist is too little too late to make much of a difference at this point.

It would be ideal if India stopped obsessing over this issue that its Ambassador to the US described as “bogus” just as recently as last month, but it seems that its official statements on the matter purposely downplay Khalistan’s popular appeal among the Sikh community in the country since its actions speak otherwise by showing just how seriously the state regards this separatist campaign. As such, it can’t be discounted that India will selectively investigate and possibly even harass some of the pilgrims after they return from their trip through the Kartarpur Corridor on the basis that they’re “Pakistani-backed separatists” who could have even come into contact with fighters from the so-called “terrorist camp” that their country’s media alleged earlier in the week is located nearby in the same border district. This scenario forecast isn’t meant to deter Sikhs from paying their respects to Guru Nanak, but just to point out that it’s very conceivable that India might exploit their travels in order to advance what it claims are its “national security interests”.

In any case, the inauguration of the Kartarpur Corridor is still an historic event that should be celebrated by both the global Sikh community and the rest of the world at large. It took a lot of political will for both countries to come together in creating it, even though India has attempted to spoil the mood by politicizing it several times in the past. There’s no doubt that the political consciousness of the Sikhs will continue to rise in the coming future, especially among those who take advantage of this opportunity to conduct their sacred pilgrimage, though that of course doesn’t mean that they’ll automatically support the Khalistani cause because of it. India, however, appears to think differently, yet wisely realized that it had no choice but to continue its commitment to this project to the point of completion since stopping it on any invented pretext would have inflamed the same separatist sentiment that it’s trying its hardest to suppress. As such, the opening of the Kartarpur Corridor despite the heavy odds against it is a victory for every Sikh regardless of political affiliation.

*

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

“[T]here is no friendship when nations are not equal, when one has to obey another and when one only dominates another.” Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India Closing Speech at the Asian-African Conference, Bandung, 1955

Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA), the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and Millennium Challenge Compact (MCC) are agreements integral to US national security and self-defense strategies, whose goal is “American Self-Preservation,” an ideology incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations and international law. 

MCC, crude and dogmatic alignment with US National Security Strategy

A clarification of MCC’s role in America’s national security and ‘self-defense’ strategies is required. The alignment is crude and dogmatic, designed to advance US influence globally and secure allies and partners by imposing upon developing countries, mostly those branded “failed states,” fundamental political, legal and economic reform of the state apparatus and a ‘rule of law’ that benefits US interests in the long-term.

MCC’s central role was ‘codified’ in the 2002 NationalSecurity Strategy of US President George W. Bush, which for the first time contained the controversial doctrine of ‘pre-emptive’ war. It elevated development aid to the level of defense and diplomacy as one of the three pillars of the global “War on Terror.” The current President’s 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) links US military strategies to the imperative of political and economic reform, claiming consolidation of its “military victories” were made possible only by “political and economic triumphs built on market economies and fair trade, democratic principles, and shared security partnerships”.

One of the most novel and coercive features of MCC is the ‘pre-emptive’ method used to administer aid – it “will reward countries that have demonstrated real policy change and challenge those that have not to implement reform.” Before receiving aid, the country must successfully pass 16 eligibility criteria devised by the Bush Administration ranging from civil liberties to ‘days to start a business.’ In a March 2018 speech on US-Africa relations, the then US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, described the coercive essence of MCC that goes far above and beyond the particular project targeted. Referring to a $524 million compact signed with Cote d’Ivoire to improve its education and transportation sectors, Tillerson declared,

This was only possible after the country had implemented policies to strengthen economic freedom, democratic principles, human rights, and to fight corruption. Spurring reforms before a dollar of U.S. taxpayer money is even spent is the MCC’s model.”

The 2017 National Security Strategy reaffirms MCC as a coercive tool to bring “fragile” and developing countries under America’s influence to counter Russia and China, by achieving radical transformation of the recipient State, based on free-market principles, privatization, and good governance: “We already do this through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which selects countries that are committed to reform and then monitors and evaluates their projects.” MCC is “a model to achieve greater connectivity” in the so-called Indo-Pacific. 

It is notable that unlike the MCC of the Bush era, the Trump Administration will no longer provide MCC “assistance” in the form of “grants,” but “loans.”

American self-preservation and the right of self-defense

The US-Sri Lanka ‘defense’ agreements, which logically flow from the infamous US-led Human Rights Council resolution 30/1, are explicit recognition by the Ranil Wickramasinghe regime of America’s global leadership and its hegemonic status, which commit the country to a global unilateral system for America’s ‘self defense’.

The US view of ‘self-defense’ is rooted in ‘self-preservation’ and not on some reciprocal relationship between equal subjects of international law, but on combatting a threat to its own interests. It is based on the ideology of ‘American Exceptionalism’ that arrogates to itself exclusive prerogatives and special responsibilities for global governance, which continue to guide US national security and defense strategiesThe US President’s 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) and the 2019 Indo-Pacific Strategy Report (IPSR), both affirm US global leadership “is grounded in the realization that American principles are a lasting force for good in the world.”

The notion of American Exceptionalism was best expressed by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright,

If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future.

In May 2015, the then US Secretary of State, John Kerry, claimed America’s leadership of the ‘Indo-Pacific’ “because we have a strong economy and an ability to be able to project”. It is the worldview of a global hegemon that sees itself destined by divine providence for full-spectrum domination – air, maritime, land, outer space, and cyberspace, and full-spectrum force (2017 NSS).

Historically, “self-preservation” and “self-defense” was used by Nazi Germany to occupy neutral Belgium, neutral Norway, neutral Netherlands, neutral Denmark, neutral Luxembourg, and Poland.

Doctrine of pre-emptive, preventive wars

The 2002 US National Security Strategy (NSS) under President Bush introduced the controversial doctrine of pre-emptive and preventive war, using the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a pretext, which provided the new enemy in the form of terrorism. The existence of terrorists, described as “the unknown unknown,” by the then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, served to justify a unilateral right to pre-emptive and preventive use of force in ‘self-defense’ against states even before an “armed attack” occur. The US argument was an act of violence by the terrorists amounted to an “armed attack.”

In Afghanistan, for 18 years, the US continues to claim self-defense, extending the right to preventing the return to power of the Taliban. Such unilateral intervention is expressly forbidden by the UN Charter and unequivocally rejected by both the International Court of Justice and the Security Council.

The US justifies the illegal act by an abusive interpretation of “the right of self-defense” in Art. 51 of the UN Charter, the only exception in the Charter to the use of unilateral force. Contrary to US claims, however, self-defense under the Art. 51 is permitted only under narrowly defined conditions: (a) it is an “armed attack”; (b) the armed attack actually “occurs,” and is not just an imminent or potential “threat”; (c) the state using force was the object of an attack on its own territory, not elsewhere, as a sine qua non; (d) it is a temporary right “until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”; (e) it is proportional; (f) it does not affect the authority and primary responsibility of the Security Council; (g) it must be at the request of the victim; (h) the victim must request assistance from the state claiming to act in collective self-defense.

Committing Sri Lanka to the logic of war, not the logic of peace

The 2018 US National Defense Strategy that translates into military terms the strategic objectives outlined in the US President’s 2017 National Security Strategy is based on the indefensible illogical logic that “the surest way to prevent war is to be prepared to win one,” which is antipodal to the logic that drives the UN collective security system – that war must be prevented at all costs to achieve international peace and security. The documents are replete with bellicosity –enhancing  “joint lethality,” “credible combat-forward posture,” “forward force manoeuvre,” “forward deployment”… It is a clarion call to war, but not to any kind of war. It will be a more lethal war – more deadliness, more carnage and more destruction, to be fought together “with a robust constellation of allies and partners.

It must be recalled that ACSA, SOFA, and MCC are part and parcel of the US concept of a “Free and Open Indo Pacific” (FOIP), a sinister security system whose objective is to impose on countries of two distinct regions and Oceans, a single US-led geographic and geopolitical order founded on rules determined by Washington. The concept not only excludes China from the region as a hostile existential threat to US interests, but is aimed at putting in place “a networked security architecture” under US leadership “to fight and win” a war against China. China as principal adversary is named in the 2017 National Security Strategy, the Pentagon’s 2018 National Defense Strategy, and 2019 Indo-Pacific Strategy Report.

By entering into such US ‘self-defense’ agreements in the context of big power rivalry and the threat of war, the Ranil Wickramasinghe regime is committing Sri Lanka to the logic of war, not the logic of peace, a partner in crime that poses a grave threat to regional and international peace and security and drags Sri Lanka into a war not of its own making.

This warmongering vision of the ‘global’ order is shared by the ruling UNF Presidential candidate Sajith Premadasa as reflected in his 2 October exchange with foreign diplomats at which he outlined his foreign policy objectives not in terms of Sri Lanka’s national interests, but in terms of Washington’s FOIP strategy:“open trade,” “freedom of navigation,” “air and maritime connectivity,” “rules-based world order,” and “violent extremism”.

However, it was unequivocally rejected by Sri Lanka’s opposition party leaders, by letter of 9 August 2019 addressed to the Secretary General of Indian Ocean Rim Association, demanding that the UN Charter-based rule of law be restored in the Indian Ocean by, inter alia, implementing the UN Declaration of the Indian Ocean as Zone of Peace, which designates the Indian Ocean, for all time, as a zone of Peace, together with the airspace above and the ocean floor subjacent thereto.

The Declaration, it must be recalled, was adopted at the initiative of Sri Lanka, joined by Tanzania, backed by the Non-Aligned Movement. While preserving free and unimpeded use of the zone by the vessels, whether military or not, for all nations in accordance with international law, it called on the “great powers” to eliminate from the Indian Ocean “all bases, military installations and logistical supply facilities, the disposition of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction and any manifestation of great power military presence… conceived in the context of great power rivalry,” and halt “further escalation and expansion of their military presence in the Indian Ocean.” The Declaration also calls on littoral and hinterland States, the Permanent Members of the Security Council and other major maritime users of the Indian Ocean to enter into consultations to ensure that, inter alia, “warships and military aircraft would not use the Indian Ocean for any threat or use of force against any littoral or hinterland State.”

Threat to peace and security

Sri Lanka is committing itself not to defending its own national interests, its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, but to combatting threats to “US prosperity and security,” which are named in NSS and NDS as the “revisionist powers” China and Russia, the “rogue regimes” North Korea and Iran, and ‘transnational terrorism.’ None of the countries mentioned pose a threat to Sri Lanka’s national interests. On the contrary, Sri Lanka has excellent relations with all four countries within the framework of the United Nations and close bilateral ties with China, Russia and Iran.

However, the ‘defense’ agreements involve the use of Sri Lanka’s territory, airports, harbours, defense installations, and infrastructure, for transport of military equipment, training and joint operations with Sri Lankan forces, and other activities, known and unknown, to “enhance joint lethality” in preparation for an act of aggression against one or more friendly states in the ‘Indo-Pacific’. In doing so, Sri Lanka will find itself a partner in crime and potential target of reprisal or retaliation, posing a grave threat to Sri Lanka’s security.

It was not so long ago that British occupied Ceylon was targeted by Japanese bombs, during World War II, characterized by the independence movement as an imperialist war, which resulted in the panicked fleeing of civilian population to India by boat. The Japanese military raids also took place on an Easter Sunday, in 1942.

The threat to Sri Lanka’s security will not only come from outside. When US forces are permitted to freely roam the land, in their vehicles, without permission, armed, in uniform and with impunity, Easter Sunday type carnage or protests against US occupation could result in Sri Lanka itself becoming America’s military target in the name of “self-defense”.

Bilateral agreements, inherently unequal 

The so-called “partnership” entered into with Washington is not between equals.

Bilateral agreements between a global hegemonic power and a small developing country heavily indebted to international capital markets dominated by the power and highly dependent on its market for exports, are inherently unequal.

Since the Bush Administration’s ‘War on Terror,’ which coincided with emerging powers challenging US hegemony, it has increasingly resorted to preventive and pre-emptive unilateral interventions imposing decisions on weaker states or to bilateralism with significantly weaker states to establish US-led collective defense systems (or “collective self-defense” systems), which allow Washington to modify international norms and rules or impose decisions not in accordance with international law, thus, retaining its hegemonic status.

ACSA, SOFA and MCC are pre-existing institutional arrangements that are an integral part of the US national security and national defense strategies designed for ‘American Self-Preservation’ to achieve strategic US goals and objectives“grounded in the realization that American principles are a lasting force for good in the world” (US National Security Strategy, 2017). ‘American Self-Preservation’ is rooted not on reciprocal relationships between equal subjects of international law, but on combatting a threat to its own interests. Its sheer hegemonic power makes the principle of reciprocity impracticable in bilateral negotiations with weaker states such as ours, and it is illusory to believe that ACSA, SOFA and MCC can be “re-negotiated” or “amended” for “mutual benefit.”

Historically, bilateralism is associated with the commercial policies of Hitler’s Germany; it is inherently discriminatory in contrast to the system of collective security based on the UN Charter. The US shift to bilateralism is also reflected in its free trade and economic agreements as an important tool to coerce or reward potential allies and partners to support its geopolitical agenda.

International collective security v. US-led collective ‘self-defense’

Washington’s unilateral vision of a US-led global order for ‘American Self-Preservation,’ justified by a divine mission, is diametrically opposed to the universally recognised international order under the UN Charter, based on sovereign equality and international cooperation, respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of states.

Contrary to the US-led collective system for America’s self-defense, the universally recognised collective security system under the UN Charter seeks to prevent war – not make war – to achieve permanent universal peace based on equal rights and justice for all, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The UN collective security system is a system without military alliances. It is based on multilateralism, the duty to cooperate, and respect for the principle of sovereign equality of States. It expressly prohibits war, as it does the use of force or the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state and all forms of foreign interference and intervention in its internal affairs, including by the United Nations. The Charter expressly prohibits any unilateral or preventive action outside of the UN framework.

The primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security lies with the Security Council, with member States agreeing that it acts on their behalf in carrying out its duties. Despite being at the highest level of the international legal hierarchy, the Security Council is required to act in accordance with the Charter, and not violate fundamental norms of international law, customary international law, and treaties, in the accordance with the UN Charter.

The generally binding international law obliges states to resolve any dispute that may endanger international peace and security through peaceful means, firstly by parties seeking a solution through “negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice”. Any member State or non-member may bring such a dispute to the attention of the Security Council or the General Assembly. Legal matters should be brought before the International Court of Justice of which all UN members are ipso facto parties.

The role of regional arrangements is strictly limited to efforts toward pacific settlement of local disputes before referring them to the Security Council. Regional arrangements are forbidden from taking enforcement measures unless authorised by the Security Council.

The use of armed force in the case of collective action is only permitted under the authority and supervision of UN Security Council, and only once it has determined the existence of  “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression” and that other measures would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate to “maintain or restore international peace and security“.

Non-Aligned Movement and Friendly Relations

The Non-Aligned Movement, of which Sri Lanka is a founder member, has contributed in no small measure to developing the universally recognised principles on which friendly relations and cooperation among states must be based, including the landmark UN Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, which is viewed as an authentic interpretation of the Charter.

The Movement recognised that State sovereignty, sovereign equality and international cooperation are fundamental features of an international order that would permit weaker states to exercise greater leverage over their former colonial masters, and, toward this end, focused every effort to enhancing the role of multilateralism, promoting a new international economic order based on justice and equality, and strengthening the collective security system based on the UN Charter.

The identity of the Non Aligned Movement is not determined by the existence of Great Power rivalry. It reflects the aspirations of newly independent states for an independent stand, based on a shared history and a positive perception of their own identity and views. It is essentially an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist alliance to defend their collective interests, protect their freedom and dignity, prevent the restoration of Western domination, support the struggles of peoples still under foreign domination and occupation, promote the right to development, and advance universal peace.

Their experience had shown that wars and alien domination result only in exploitation, oppression, death and destruction, not peace nor development nor social progress. At all cost, a return to Western domination, recolonisation, and war had to be prevented, and the ambitions of the most influential founders of the Movement was to unite the newly independent states to bring their collective weight to bear on the side of international peace, against war. The Movement opposed military alliances and collective ‘defense’ pacts with Great Powers, especially in the context of rivalry between them, since they would be designed to serve Great Powers interests and allow them to intervene in their internal affairs. Such pacts would only bring them closer to war and destruction, and strengthen the forces of war, not peace.

Jnehru.jpg

India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, speaking at the 1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung, energetically opposed US-led collective defence pacts in Asia and the Middle East, including the short-lived anti-Communist Southeast Asia Treaty Organization(SEATO), primarily aimed against China. He argued membership in such pacts would only result in demeaning oneself to a role of “camp-follower of others” and “hangers on,” and lead to the loss of “freedom and individuality”: “It is most degrading and humiliating to any self-respecting people or nation. It is an intolerable thought to me that the great countries of Asia and Africa should come out of bondage into freedom only to degrade themselves or humiliate themselves in this way.” 

The Non-Aligned Movement and the principles on which it is based remain valid in a world that continues to be dominated by wars of aggression, foreign occupation and domination, unilateralism, coercion, intervention and interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, and in which the victims are from the global south and the perpetrators, the US and its Western allies.

Sri Lanka’s decision to go to war if necessary for the preservation of America against an emerging power identified with the developing world, and the threat this poses to the interests of friendly nations and to the multilateral collective security system that the Movement is committed to strengthening, will result in the loss of Sri Lanka’s credibility and its increasing isolation from the majority in the United Nations.

An isolated country is more vulnerable and easy prey to a global hegemon.

International agreements incompatible with UN Charter are null and void

International agreements that are incompatible with the international obligations of the State under the Charter of the United Nations and impede the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of the United Nations, in accordance with the Charter, are null and void under international law. Besides, secret treaties are incompatible with the UN Charter and unenforceable.

ACSA, SOFA, and MCC violate Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and undermine its ability to fulfil its international obligation to protect its population and ensure respect for a broad range of their individual and collective rights: the right to determine the system best suited for their needs and aspirations; the right to exercise permanent sovereignty over their wealth and resources, including maritime resources; their economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights; the right to development; the right to a clean and safe environment; and, the fundamental right to peace and to be free from war.

Sovereignty and its international corollary, sovereign equality of states, are non-derogable peremptory norms of general international law that form the basis of the United Nations Charter, which is akin to a world Constitution. An international treaty that violates sovereignty is null and void and, hence, non-negotiable.

In the event of conflict between a State’s obligations under the Charter, which it is duty bound to fulfil in “good faith,” and its obligations under any other international agreement, Article 103 of the Charter, the supremacy clause, stipulates that it is their obligations under the present Charter that prevail. Subsequent treaties must conform to the Charter and are invalid if they impede the achievement of its purposes and principles, including its provisions concerning international peace and security, friendly relations among states, international cooperation, promotion of human rights and development.

Under Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, “A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.” The Vienna Convention is a restatement of pre-existing law that the International Court of Justice applies as generally applicable international law having reached the level of customary international law.

Toward a new era of peace and prosperity in Sri Lanka and internationally

MCC, ACSA, and SOFA are incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, as developed in the landmark UN Friendly Relations Declarationand in other international instruments, in accordance with the Charter. If Sri Lanka is to pursue an independent foreign policy that is in conformity with its international obligations, it cannot ignore those principles.

There can be no benefit to Sri Lanka from a bogus “partnership” that involves surrender of territory, institutions, infrastructure and resources to a foreign power to perpetrate acts of aggression against third states, thus also becoming a partner in crime and a potential target for reprisals. There can be no benefit to Sri Lanka from its armed forces’ involvement in hostile acts against friendly nations for ‘American Preservation’ There can be no benefit to Sri Lanka from fanning existing bilateral hostilities that may lead to regional conflagration and pose a threat to international peace and security. There can be no benefit to Sri Lanka if another terrorist attack in Sri Lanka with alleged international links turns the US forces against our own people.

If there is to be change rather than continuity, every effort must be made to restore Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and promote peace, development, and social justice, unequivocally rejecting externally imposed agendas to transform Sri Lanka into a permanent aircraft carrier for Washington’s hegemonic wars in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Western dominance must not be allowed to re-enter through the back door, taking the country and the region into war, not peace, and into “full spectrum domination”.

TheUN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Alfred de Zayas, in his full report based on six years of work on the mandate, underlined the importance of international efforts to peace:

In a context of increasing confrontation and competition among world powers, we must re-centre peace as a unifying multilateral objective, and we must ensure that propaganda for war and sabre-rattling are banned.

*

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 National Review

Somehow I’d ended up on a plastic mattress in a tiny prison cell wearing the infamous orange jump suit. I’d been arrested once before in Egypt during the revolution as a journalist, but now I was in Wisconsin, America, where freedom of speech is enshrined in the constitution. I’d considered myself safe there.  

I had been arrested whilst filming a small, peaceful protest by mainly Indigenous Ojibwe people against the construction of a new oil pipeline. I was working on a documentary film on America’s struggle for clean water.

Controversial pipelines

Enbridge’s Line 3 will carry 760,000 barrels per day of tar sands oil from Canada, across the American border to a refinery on Lake Superior, Wisconsin.  Almost as much oil as the controversial Keystone XL.

The oil will then flow through the ageing Line 5 pipeline that sits on the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac – a volatile water way connecting two of America’s Great Lakes – Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, a fifth of the world’s fresh surface water. Line 5 was built to last fifty years.  It is now sixty-six years old.

Experts say that if the pipeline ruptures, spewing oil into the fresh waters of the Great Lakes, the results will be catastrophic.  Worst-case-scenario modelling undertaken by the Graham Sustainability Institute at the University of Michigan predicts an oil spill could impact over one-thousand kilometres of shoreline and create an oil patch on the lake two hundred kilometres squared in just five days. If it happens in winter when the lake is frozen over, little is known how that would affect a spill nor how a clean-up operation would or even could take place.  Enbridge state this is purely hypothetical since it’s so unlikely.  But with statistics like these it’s no wonder that Enbridge wanted to stamp out any opposition to their new pipeline.

The protest came on the heels of the movement for clean water against the Dakota Access Pipeline, in which Enbridge are investors. At the height of that movement ten thousand people had camped out in the proposed oil pipeline pathway in Standing Rock for almost a year.

So, despite the fact that on that chilly morning in Wisconsin there were only fifteen peaceful protestors holding placards and one man chained to a digger machine, six were arrested and charged.  Five protesters and myself, a journalist filming the protest.  I had become one of a growing number of journalists to be arrested and harassed in America, which has slumped to 48th in the Press Freedom Index, below Botswana and Romania.

Disease and genocide 

My journey here began on the Navajo Native American reservation, which spans the states of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.

I had heard that this First Nations’ community were also dealing with water contamination. Almost 40 percent of people here live below the poverty line and have no running water.

Nothing prepared me for what I saw. Whole communities were living amidst piles of radioactive waste from the historic uranium mining that fuelled the Cold War arms race from the 1940s to the 1980s.

When the bottom fell out of the uranium market, the mining companies declared bankruptcy and left behind open pit mines, which filled with rainwater. Children swam in them and the sheep – the food staple of the Navajo – drank the water.  So did the people.

The first signs were in the livestock. Helen Nez, now an elderly lady, told me that her sheep were born with deformities, some without eyes.  Not knowing the reason, she continued to water her flock at the open pit.

Tragically Nez drank there herself while she was pregnant and two of her children were born with a DNA depleting disease.  “I told the doctors over and over again that we live in the midst of a uranium mine, but nobody listened to me” says Nez wiping tears from her eyes.

Instead the white doctors at the local clinic told her it was because Indians practice inbreeding and chased her and her sick child out of the hospital.  The disease – labelled Navajo Neuropathy – has since been shown to be the result of exposure to uranium. Nez’s daughter Euphemia was later taken to the University of New Mexico Hospital where Dr Russell Snyder confirmed the illness was related to exposure to uranium, but that she had no chance of survival. Her two children died painful deaths prematurely.

Nez believes this is part of the genocide the Navajo and other Indigenous Americans have been subjected to by the US government. “My vision is that one day someone will be held responsible”, says Nez.

Uranium exposure

There has been some clean up on the Navajo Nation. Most recently the Tronox Inc. bankruptcy settlement has provided almost $1 billion to clean up about 50 abandoned uranium mines in and around the Navajo Nation.

But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) say there’s 523 abandoned mine sites and with more than one mine at each site, perhaps over 1000 abandoned mines and additional piles of waste, left blowing in the wind.  For the wells and springs contaminated with uranium, there’s no cleanup.

Armed with a geiger counter to measure radiation, and some training in using it from Nuclear Engineering Professor Kim Kearfott, I set out to take my own readings in and around the reservation.

At a number of sites I detected extremely high levels.  But it was at one of the main entrances to the Grand Canyon National Park, at an abandoned uranium mill in Cameron Arizona, where I shocked Professor Kearfott – maxing out her geiger counter at over 5000 mR/hr – levels she said are much higher than those recorded in evacuated areas around Chernobyl.

Back at her Michigan lab Professor Kearfott explained:

 “When uranium is mined it is brought up to the surface and poses a cancer risk. At the levels we’re talking about here you’ll start to see kidney disease before you would likely see the effects of radiation.  Also lung cancer, bone cancers and leukemias.  If you ingest uranium you have internal exposure. We become more radioactive when we inhale it, eat it or drink it in water.”

Abandoned mines

Professor Kearfott explained that, in 24 hours spent at that one site, I had been exposed to the equivalent of a year’s maximum dose of radiation for a nuclear worker.

But when I met Jon Indall from the Uranium Producers of America, he told me the mine waste left on the reservation wasn’t very radioactive. In fact, he went further and told me, with a chuckle, that even with enriched uranium “you could eat it, we wouldn’t really advise you to do that, but it’s not terribly dangerous.”

As a uranium industry spokesman, he must have known what he was saying was nonsense but perhaps, if I were an ordinary citizen or legislator ruling on allowing more uranium mining, I might not know any better.

There is an estimated ten to fifteen thousand abandoned uranium mines across the Western United States and no one knows what condition they are in.  Professor Kearfott spoke of one such abandoned mine that she had located in a school yard on the Lakota reservation in South Dakota. It has dangerously high radiation levels. She tells me that it’s situations like that that keep her up at night.

There’s been no comprehensive investigation or health assessment on the Navajo reservation. “We don’t even have cancer screening”, declares Janene Yazzie, a young Navajo woman from the town of Sanders. It took a Tommy Rock, a Navajo PhD student who undertook his own water tests in 2015 as part of his final paper, to prove what Sanders’ residents had long suspected – their water was contaminated with uranium at twice the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards.

Janene helped Tommy mobilise the community for water testing, but she is no bystander. Janene and her family live in Sanders. Her little boy, Solaris, has drunk contaminated water from the school fountains.

Janene attended that same school and is left wondering whether the ovarian cancer she had in her early twenties was caused by the water.  Tests undertaken by Dr Cheryl Dyer, an expert in reproductive physiology, found that uranium contaminated water, at levels similar to that found on the Navajo reservation, acted like estrogen.

Reading my blank face Dyer explained:

“What that means is it gave the rats gynecological cancers, like uterine and ovarian cancer. Given some of the health problems that are well-known on the reservation – young high school age girls having hysterectomies and so forth – it makes you think is there a link between this exposure to uranium in your drinking water to health problems that result maybe decades later”.

Contaminated water

In that spring of 2015, around the same time residents in Sanders, Arizona proved that their water was contaminated, so did residents in Flint, Michigan, on the other side of the country.

In her little office in a church basement, Flint community organiser Nayyirah Sharrif told me:

 “Immediately after the switch the water changed. It would come out looking like chicken broth or dark liquor. Sometimes it would smell like poop.”

It’s a cold snowy day in 2016, but the church is busy and a line of people are waiting outside. This is not a scene of the faithful, but rather of the desperate. The church gives out free bottled water, which is precious because residents’ tap water is contaminated with lead and bacteria.

The City of Flint had been put under a financial manager by Michigan’s State Governor Rick Snyder, who decided to take Flint off the Detroit water system, which draws water from Lake Huron, and instead hook them up to the Flint river.

Water was now treated at the local Flint plant, despite independent engineering reports saying the plant would not be able to adequately treat the water without a multi-million-dollar upgrade.

Elin Betanzo, a former EPA water quality expert instrumental in uncovering the Flint water crisis, said:

 “The last time the Flint water treatment plant was operated for providing the community with drinking water on a full time basis was either in the late 50s or early 60s. The Safe Drinking Water Act came after that in 1991. So the Flint water treatment plant was never operated up to today’s standards.”

Socioeconomic status

The foreman at the water plant warned that people would die if the switch in water systems went ahead. But it April 2014 they did it anyway.

The river water was corrosive and began to dissolve the lead in the water pipes, contaminating the water with lead.  Lead stunts children’s brain development, leading to lower IQs.

Flint doctor Laura Carravallah tells me:

 “I’m encouraged that all of the kids have Medicaid, but it only lasts for five years. This is not a five-year problem. People who have brain damage due to lead are going to have ongoing challenges.”

As a doctor, she says she feels ashamed of what happened on her watch, and her powerlessness to stop it.

Carravallah continued:

“We know that socioeconomic status is the most important indicator of health, with education coming right along behind, and yet we don’t attend to those things in this country. This is a big problem and I think that the Flint water crisis has highlighted for people just a flavour of the result of that might be if we let this inequality continue”.

Unchecked power

The effects of chronic low level lead exposure on adults are less well studied. Numerous Flint residents complained to me about seizures, black outs, foggy thinking, joint ache and lethargy since the water switch.  The fertility rate dropped in Flint and there was an increase in foetal deaths and miscarriages, over the same period.  Deadly bacteria called legionella is known to have killed twelve people, but doctors think the actual numbers could be closer to one hundred and ninety – numbers of pneumonia deaths doubled during the water switch and some of these victims may have had legionella.

Diane Young and her family are holding a birthday celebration at the grave of her daughter, who would have been thirty today.  In between hushing her two grandchildren, whom she now cares for, she tells me how her daughter, Shyonda Robertson, was at first misdiagnosed with pneumonia: “By the time doctors realised she had Legionnaires she was in a coma. She was having 150 seizures a day.” Diane’s daughter died shortly after contracting the disease, when the doctors could not revive her and turned the ventilators off.

How could this have happened in one of the richest democracies in the world?

Curt Guyette, an investigative journalist who broke the story of the water contamination, said:

 “Michigan’s emergency manager is what’s technically known as a receivership law and it is the most extreme law of its type in the United States. This law allows the state to take over financially struggling cities, stripping all the authority of duly elected local officials.

“They have ultimate unchecked power. One thing that the law specifies that they cannot do is miss a bond payment, which I think is crucial to the real purpose of the law. So, they can take away healthcare from retirees and whatever is necessary to balance the books.”

Racist policy 

In the midst of the crisis, the General Motors plant complained to the state that the river water was corroding their car parts. They were switched back onto the Detroit water system – no more corrosion.

But when people marched down to city hall with jugs of brown water and bags filled with their hair that was falling out they were ignored. Guyette said: “If anyone wants to know what running government like a business looks like, I tell them to come to Flint.”

The emergency manager law has only ever been enacted in majority black cities. For Nayyirah Sharrif, this is a clear indication that the law is a racist policy tool:

“There hasn’t been in a poor white city that’s received an emergency manager yet. And we have a bunch of them. That’s very disheartening and it just feels like some areas aren’t deserving of full democracy. Now we pay the highest rates in the country for water, that now we can’t use and it’s poisoned people and it’s killed people”.

Flint residents would often angrily question why no officials had been jailed for the Flint water crisis.  So I went to meet water lawyer Noah Hall, an expert adviser to Michigan’s now former Attorney General, Bill Schuette, on the state’s criminal investigation.

Wasn’t it is a crime to have known the water was contaminated and was harming people?

“That’s not necessarily a crime, no.  The environmental laws in the United States do not prohibit pollution, poisoning, and the loss of human life due to unsafe water. Quite the opposite.  It’s an accepted cost of doing business.”

Hall went on to explain how the law works:

“The amount of pollution that is allowed under the environmental laws is determined through a methodology that begins fundamentally with valuing a human life in dollars. And if in doing that math the result is that the cost of preventing the pollution is more than the system values the human life, then the pollution is permitted”.

Naively I thought that children must be highly valued in this equation. I was wrong.

“Children are undervalued. It works in reverse, so that the child’s life that’s going to be lost in 20 years is worth far less than a life that day, according to the system”.

Profits over people

What ties these stories together is poverty, environmental racism and a system that prioritises profits over people.

Academic studies have shown that African Americans are more likely to live near landfills and industrial plants. More than half of the nine million people living near hazardous waste sites are people of colour and a quarter of the most toxic waste dumps are on Native land.

But what also unites the Flint and Navajo stories is how the communities organised, worked with independent scientists to conduct their own water tests and prove the authorities wrong.

Overuse, contamination and climate change are posing an existential threat to clean water across the world. According to the United Nations, by 2030 demand for clean water will outstrip supply by 40 percent. As Maud Barlow of Food and Water Watch states: “There simply will not be enough drinking water for everyone and it will be segregated to those who can afford it.”

Chemicals

It’s not only heavy metals that pose a danger to water quality.

Former EPA water quality expert Elin Betanzo explained: “Lead and copper are the only regulated contaminants that we sample for in customers’ homes. And it’s actually more straightforward because you know it’s in the pipe, compared to a whole variety of contaminants that might be in the source water.

“Any chemical that is produced anywhere either goes into our air emissions and deposits in our surface water bodies or it runs off the pavement or land, such as fertiliser run off. So literally any chemical in the world could be in our source water.”

What might be the impact of this exposure to our health and that of future generations? Dana Dolinoy, the NSF International Chair of Environmental Sciences at the Michigan School of Public Health, answered:

 “When you’re exposed to chemicals via what we eat or the air we breathe or the water that we drink then they can affect our biology. But if you go on to become pregnant or a male who goes on to become a dad later in life, those cells can be transmitted to the next generation our children and potentially to the following generations. And there’s various different molecular ways that these exposures can be inherited across generations.”

This is why I was far from my home in London making a film about water contamination and the fight for water rights in America, because, like climate change, it matters to all of us.

Social responsibility? 

So what happened to my charges?  The oil pipeline company demanded $85,000 in compensation from a protest of fifteen people.

Enbridge are the biggest oil pipeline company in North America and bring a lot of money into the state of Wisconsin. They say they’ve paid $42.8 million in 2018 in tax revenues and employed 279 Wisconsin-based workers.

The company also take on responsibilities of cash strapped states, providing equipment and vehicles to the emergency services in the states where they operate. Whilst this could be seen as corporate social responsibility, does it also give them undue influence?

Eventually I was fortunate enough that a high profile First Amendment lawyer, Henry Kaufman, was willing to take on my case. As soon as he got involved, the Wisconsin District Attorney, who, until then, wouldn’t return any of my previous lawyer’s phone calls, was promising to sort out my case.

The criminal charges were dropped and I accepted a civil trespass charge, so my nightmare went away.  But journalists are facing an unprecedented crackdown, especially when covering civil dissent of state or corporate policies.

My documentary ‘Thirst For Justice’ is an exploration of the fight for safe drinking water for everyone, is nominated for Best Feature Documentary and Best UK Feature at London’s Raindance Film Festival.  If you would like to organise a screening in your community please get in touch or keep in touch via facebook.

*

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.

Leana Hosea is a multimedia investigative journalist for the BBC and director of the documentary ‘Thirst For Justice’.

Featured image is from The Ecologist

2012 was a big year for black holes. Or, rather, for our understanding of them. First, Scientific American published a moderately terrifying paper titled “Black Holes are Everywhere” and then a team of researchers at Princeton University numerically solved the Einstein-hydrodynamic equations in order to determine that black holes are, in fact, way easier to create than previously thought.

Their findings showed that the formation of a black hole requires considerably less energy than previous calculations suggested. Meanwhile, perhaps at least partly because of these revelations, concern over the world-destroying possibility–no matter how unlikely–of a man-made particle collider opening up an Earth-swallowing black hole has remained omnipresent in the larger conversation around atomic research.

The “Ultrarelativistic Black Hole Formation” study from Princeton University, published in 2013, developed new computer models which they utilized to show that the formation of a black hole would actually require less than half the energy — 2.4 times less, to be precise — than previous research had determined. The study reports that the researchers found that “the threshold for black hole formation is lower (by a factor of a few) than simple hoop conjecture estimates, and, moreover, near this threshold two distinct apparent horizons first form postcollision and then merge.”

Credit: W. E. East and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2013)

As a report at Phys.org explains,

“Researchers know that it is theoretically possible to create black holes because of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity—particularly the part describing the relationship between energy and mass—increasing the speed of a particle causes its mass to increase as well.”

This is what drove the Princeton researchers to form a computer model based on Einstein’s original hydrodynamic equations. The model “provides a virtual window for viewing what happens when two particles collide—they focus their energies on each other and together create a combined mass that pushes gravity to its limit and as a result spawns a very tiny black hole. That result was expected—what was surprising was that the team found that their model showed that such a collision and result would require 2.4 times less energy than has been previously calculated to produce such a tiny black hole.”

And our galaxy is positively chock-full of them. It’s not just the famous supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, but scores of smaller black holes as well. Scientific American’s “Black Holes are Everywhere” tells readers that “most of the holes in our galaxy are perhaps 4 or 5 solar masses, and they’re teeny, with horizons of only about 12 km in radius. But there have to be tens of thousands of them, the inevitable remnants of the short lives of huge stars.”

This news fed into fears that “Mad Scientists Performing Universe-Breaking Experiments” were flying a bit too close to the sun (so to speak) by conducting experiments at the European Organization for Nuclear Research’s (CERN) Large Hadron Collider (LHC) with the potential to open up microscopic black holes with potentially disastrous consequences. These concerns surfaced before the LHC — an underground accelerator which forms a ring with a diameter of 5 miles near Geneva, Switzerland — was ever switched on. A 2008 report from NASA succinctly titled “The Day the World Didn’t End” tells readers that bringing the accelerator online “did not trigger the creation of a microscopic black hole. And that black hole did not start rapidly sucking in surrounding matter faster and faster until it devoured the Earth, as sensationalist news reports had suggested it might.”

The fear around these larger-than-life experiments was so potent and widespread that CERN has an entire page on their website dedicated to the Frequently Asked Question “Will CERN generate a black hole?“ and even the Princeton scientists addressed it in their academic report, noting that even with the new calculations finding that black holes require much less energy to open up than previously thought, opening up a black hole big enough to collapse the earth would still require billions of times more energy than the LHC is capable of generating. What’s more, even if and when a black hole did open up in the collider, it would disappear just as quickly thanks to an effect called Hawking radiation.

Source: https://science.nasa.gov/ 

While fears of the Armageddon-causing potential of these microscopic black holes may have been overblown, however, the fact that the particle can open up these tiny black holes was then and remains now an absolute truth. Even CERN’s FAQ page concedes that “The LHC will not generate black holes in the cosmological sense. However, some theories suggest that the formation of tiny ‘quantum’ black holes may be possible.” Of course, the page goes on to reassure concerned readers that “the observation of such an event would be thrilling in terms of our understanding of the Universe; and would be perfectly safe.”

Nevertheless, there are still some scientists who think we are right to be worried about these experiments that are probing the boundaries of physics. Just last year the well-respected (not to mention knighted) British scientist Sir Martin Rees published a warning to take fears around the LHC seriously in his book “On the Future.” As paraphrased by NBC’s science news site MACH, “the particles crashing about inside an accelerator could unleash bits of ‘strange matter’ that shrink Earth into a ball 300 feet across. In another [scenario], the experiments could create a microscopic black hole that would inexorably gnaw away at our planet from the inside. In the most extreme scenario Rees describes, a physics mishap could cause space itself to decay into a new form that wipes out everything from here to the farthest star.” Rees himself recognizes that these scenarios are extremely unlikely, but in the author’s own words, “given the stakes, they should not be ignored.”

And now that the Event Horizon Telescope has successfully captured the first-ever image of a black hole, scientists are dreaming up ever more radical future experiments. Let’s just hope that as scientists continue to push against the limitations of human knowledge and ability the headlines continue to read “The Day the World Didn’t End.” Or that we continue to have headlines at all.

*

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

Haley Zaremba is a writer and journalist based in Mexico City.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Breaking Open a Black Hole: The World’s Most Dangerous Experiment
  • Tags:

New Chapter in Greek-Russian Relations?

November 8th, 2019 by Paul Antonopoulos

The Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias met with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Moscow on November 6 amidst a string of events that have complicated relations between the two countries. Following official visits to Cyprus, Israel and the United States, Dendias has now visited Russia in an effort to re-energize Greek-Russian relations after many years of difficulty. 

Angering Moscow, the Foreign Minister of the former Syriza administration, Nikos Kotzias, had expelled Russian diplomats in July 2018 on the allegations they were interfering in Greek affairs, and another two diplomats were barred from entering Greece on the allegation they were trying to undermine the Macedonian name negotiations between Greece and North Macedonia. Athens-Moscow relations also became stagnant because of the Greek recognition of the schismatic Ukrainian Orthodox Church autocephalous in October 2018, the announcement of opening new U.S. military bases in Greece only weeks ago, and because of the recognition of Juan Guaidó as the Venezuelan President after the previous Greek government backed Nicolás Maduro.

From the Greek perspective, Moscow’s insistence on supporting North Macedonia in the Macedonian name dispute was a major source of animosity since the Slavic Balkan country gained its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. However, an even more important fact is Moscow’s expanding and growing military relations with Turkey. The growing relations between the two Eurasian countries come as it was revealed days ago that Turkey has violated Greek air space 3,950 times from January 1 to October 29 of this year, with violations continuing daily. This is the highest number of Turkish air violations since 1985, outnumbering the 3,705 violations in 2018 and 3,317 violations in 2017.  In addition to the daily military violations, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan makes continued threats to invade the rest of Cyprus, a few months ago made a speech in front of a map that shows Greece’s eastern Mediterranean islands occupied by Turkey, and continues to threaten to flood Greece again with illegal immigrants.

Despite the continued Turkish aggression against not only Greece, but also Syria and Iraq, the Russian sale of the powerful S-400 missile defense system to Turkey coupled with offers to sell other advanced military hardware like the Su-35 fighter jet, has been a reason why Athens was pushed closer towards Washington to their drive to ensure their own security.

Although the growth of Russo-Turkish relations is not aimed against Greece from Moscow’s perspective, it is undeniable that the strengthening of the Turkish military also weakens Greek security, the country’s primary security concern amidst real and continued aggression. Greece has become Washington’s Plan B to contain Russia in the Black Sea if Turkey is insubordinate in any hypothetical war between the Eurasian Giant and NATO.

The Greek perspective is that with the opening of U.S. military bases in its territory, it can better secure itself from any Turkish aggression. The Greek perspective is that the military bases are not aimed against Russia but rather Turkey. This is an incredibly naïve argument to make as it surely would have been known to political and military planners in Athens that the U.S. military bases, in Washington’s perspective, are aimed against both Turkey and Russia.

It is this very search for security that Greece and Russia have unintentionally weakened and undermined each other for their own respective reasons and interests. Greece has effectively become an American puppet, despite its insistence that it is not, while Moscow has strengthened Greece’s primary adversary in Russia’s search for security, trade and regional coordination.

However, with the new Greek administration prioritizing a visit to Moscow, this confused and unintentional adversarial relationship between the two Christian Orthodox countries may lead to a change in the political course of Greece, especially with the Dendias describing Wednesday’s meeting with Lavrov as “very friendly.” The meeting emphasized on two points according to the Greek minister: the promotion of bilateral ties and fostering closer cooperation and mutual understanding on regional and international issues.

It is this emphasis on cooperating and understanding each other better in regional issues that Dendias announced “a new chapter” in Greek-Russian relations has been made. A 2013 study found Greece was the only European Union country where favorable views towards Russia prevailed (63% favorable vs. 33% unfavorable). A 2018 Pew poll also found that only 36% of Greeks view the U.S. favourably. A 25-country December 2018 Pew poll found that Greece was only one of four countries surveyed where majority of opinions on Russian President Vladimir Putin was positive, accounting for 52% of people polled. Although this is a significant decrease from the 2013 poll, it does not factor in how the Russian sale of the S-400 to Turkey affected Greek opinions towards Russia and its president.  This demonstrates that Moscow could have a real ally within the NATO bloc where the majority of civilians look at Russia favourably. Although Russia is increasing its relations with Ankara, Turkey is a volatile and unreliable partner, especially as a souring of relations can rapidly diminish Russian popularity in Turkey. A November 2018 poll found that only 51% of Turks view Russia favourably. This figure comes despite relations being at their best ever level in Russian-Turkish history.

So not only does Russia have a good reputation in Greece, even when they are arming Turkey with weapons that can easily be turned against Greece according to the Greek perspective, the U.S. has a bad reputation in Greek history. Washington, for example, backed and supported Nazi sympathizers during the Greek Civil War in the post-World War II period, as well as the Greek military junta and all its negative consequences. Russia however is linked to Greece’s independence from the Ottoman Empire, and is a country that inherited much from Greek culture and religion.

As Greece has recently submitted itself entirely to U.S. hegemony, Washington is actively working with Greece because they do not want to let it get out of their influence. Although Greece accepted three new U.S. military bases in the country, Russia has proven to be masters at patience and diplomacy. Despite the intense situation Ankara and Moscow found themselves in after Turkey downed a Russian jet in Syria in 2015, leading to the murder of the pilot by Turkish-backed terrorists, Russia has successfully emboldened and encouraged Turkey to defy NATO. Although Greek and Russian relations have a long way to go to be fully normalized, Moscow has demonstrated that it has the ambitions of making new friends, especially if they can turn them against NATO.

Given this, it is very critical for Moscow to begin slowly pulling Athens towards cooperation with other Eurasian countries within Russia’s zone of influence to help reduce Greece’s dependency on Globalist powers, like the U.S. and European Union. With the majority of Greeks viewing the U.S. negatively, and Germany having destroyed Greece economically through the EU platform, Russia has ample opportunities to make headway in the Aegean country.

The serious economic dependence on which Greece found itself because of so-called European integration should be slowly overcome by expanding economic, business, cultural, religious and political relations with Russia. This is in order for Greece to end its dependency on the West and to truly become sovereign and independent. It is for this reason that the Greek Foreign Minister emphasized to Lavrov that because Greece is one of the oldest NATO and EU members, it will do what it can within its power to convince its European counterparts to lift the sanctions on Russia.

To help alleviate the unintended hostilities between Athens and Moscow, the two foreign ministers on Wednesday also created the Greece-Russia 2020-22 Consultation Program, which provides for regular contacts at both the official and the political level between the two countries. The Greek Foreign Minister also promised to convey the invitation to the Greek Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, to attend the 75th anniversary of victory in World War II in Moscow. This led Dendias to enthusiastically invite Putin to attend the 200th anniversary of Greek independence from the Ottoman Empire in 2021.

It appears that Wednesday’s meeting between Greece and Russia was highly successful in creating new means of dialogue, particularly around issues of economy and regional security. Whether this will be the beginning of Moscow pulling Athens away from NATO like it has successfully done with Turkey, remains to be seen. But at the very minimum, the improvement of relations between the two countries will also undermine Washington’s newfound position in Greece while also finding a new EU member to represent some of Russia’s frustrations.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Time and again, Israel’s high court upholds human and civil rights abuses committed by the state.

In 2006, the court upheld its targeted assassinations policy, claiming they’re OK when no other choices exist to protect against dangers to national security — that don’t exist it failed to say.

The policy contravenes Israeli law, the laws of war, and human rights law. Time and again, Israel falsely calls legitimate self-defense by Palestinians “terrorism,” unjustifiably justifying its lawless actions, most often upheld by its high court.

In Public Committee against Torture in Israel et al v. the Government of Israel et al (1999), Israel’s Supreme Court banned the practice it earlier OK’d, ruling “psychological pressure (and) a moderate degree of physical pressure” are permissible.

Israel’s 1987 Landau Commission condemned harsh interrogations amounting to torture, but approved the practice to obtain evidence for convictions in criminal proceedings, saying these tactics are necessary against “hostile (threats or acts of) terrorist activity and all expressions of Palestinian nationalism.”

Despite calling the 1984 UN Convention against Torture “absolute (with) no exceptions and no balances,” Israel’s high court OK’d coercive interrogations in three cases.

It permitted violent shaking, painful shackling, hooding, playing deafeningly loud music, sleep deprivation, and lengthly detainments.

Loopholes in the high court’s 1999 ruling OK’d abusive practices amounting to torture despite banning the practice.

It notably allowed physical force in so-called “ticking bomb” cases, giving Israeli interrogators and others wide latitude on their actions.

The court effectively ruled both ways, approving torture and other abusive practices despite banning it.

International law is clear and unequivocal on this issue, banning it at all times, under all circumstances with no allowed exceptions.

In 2015, Israel’s Supreme Court rejected a petition by human rights groups and political movements that called for overturning the Anti-Boycott Law.

At the time, the Global BDS Movement and Coalition for Women for Peace called the bill “one of the most dangerous anti-democratic laws promoted” by Knesset members, adding:

“Boycott is a nonviolent, legal and legitimate means to promote social and political aims that are protected in civil rights of freedom of expression, opinion and assembly. The bill constitutes a fatal blow to all these civil rights.”

The police state law punishes entities or individuals that call for boycotting Israel, or an economic, cultural, or academic boycott of its illegal settlements.

According to the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, Israel’s Supreme Court “ignored the chilling effect of this law, and missed the opportunity to tell legislators that there are limits to their anti-human rights actions. This law encourages discrimination against the Arabs in Israel.”

The 2012 Nakba Law “harms both the freedom of expression and the civil rights of Arab citizens, even before its implementation.”

“Because the law’s formulation is so broad and vague, many institutions have already begun and will self-censor in order not to risk incurring penalties.”

Israel’s high court upheld the law, falsely claiming it “does not raise difficult and complex questions.”

It violates Arab history, culture, heritage, and the right to express, teach, or disseminate it freely.

Arab intellectual Constantin Zureiq earlier called the Nakba “the worst catastrophe in the deepest sense of the word, to have befallen the Arabs in their long and disaster-ridden history.”

Compromising their ability to publicly denounce what happened compounds the high crime against them.

Speech, press, and academic freedoms in Israel are gravely endangered. In 2017, legislation was enacted that banned foreign nationals who support BDS from entering the country.

Last April, Israel’s Jerusalem district court ruled against Human Rights Watch’s Israeli office director Omar Shakir, a US citizen, ordering him deported for supporting the global BDS movement, his lawful free expression right.

HRW appealed the ruling, petitioning Israel’s Supreme Court to overturn the injustice. It got an injunction to let Shakir stay in the country until the high court heard his case.

On Tuesday, the court ruled against him, Shakir tweeting:

“Breaking: Israeli Supreme Court upholds my deportation over my rights advocacy. Decision now shifts back to Israeli gov; if it proceeds, I have 20 days to leave…(W)e won’t be the last.”

Critic of Israeli human rights abuses Amnesty International said

“the court has made it explicitly clear that those who dare to speak out about human rights violations by the Israeli authorities will be treated as enemies of the state.”

Israel’s Supreme Court ruled against free expression. Without it, all other rights are jeopardized.

Compromising speech, press, and academic freedoms is the hallmark of totalitarian rule — the new normal in the US, other Western societies and Israel, affirmed by its high court.

Is is just a matter of time before Western ones rule the same way?

Is digital democracy in the West and Israel endangered?

Are abuses against Chelsea Manning, other whistleblowers, Julian Assange, and other independent journalists prelude for much more severe crackdowns against fundamental freedoms ahead?

*

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 IMEMC

Syria: “U.S. Get Out!”

November 8th, 2019 by UNACpeace.org

The United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) stands in solidarity with the long-suffering people of Syria.  We oppose all foreign occupation of Syrian territory.  Syria belongs to the Syrians.

The current Turkish incursion into northern Syria is in violation of Syrian sovereignty. So is the continued U.S. intervention.

Turkey has been an ally of the U.S. in its regime change program in Syria.  Both countries are in Syria against the wishes of the Syria government and have caused great destruction in the region.

The U.S. claim that it is in Syria to fight ISIS, is fiction. Recent U.S. involvement started in 2011 with the CIA program called “Timber Sycamore,” which was geared to overthrow the Syrian government and replace it with a government friendlier to Washington and Wall Street. This program supplied money, weapons and training to internal and external forces fighting the Assad government.  ISIS wasn’t formed in Syria till around 2014, years after the U.S. regime change program started.  Washington used ISIS as their reason to expand U.S. bombing and destruction.

Syria requested assistance from Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, then from Iran and Russia to aid their resistance to the U.S. orchestrated destruction. This determination defeated U.S. plans.

President Trump in early October tweeted that he would be withdrawing U.S. forces from Northern Syria where they have been working with the Kurdish SDF (Syrian Defense Forces) to maintain the occupation of the northeastern region of Syria, the home of most of Syria’s oil and grain production.  Trump claimed to have come to an accommodation with Turkish President Erdogan.  Immediately thereafter, Turkish soldiers crossed the border and began to attack the Kurds,

These actions caused a great debate in the U.S. Many politicians, who wanted the U.S. to stay in Syria, claimed that Trump had abandoned the Kurds.

The U.S. is no friend of the Kurds and has betrayed their interests over and over again throughout the last century and was never a protector of their interests.

Syria’s population of 22 million includes Arab, Kurdish, Assyrian, Armenian, Turkoman and Circassian nationalities as well as Sunni, Alawi, Shia, Druze, Yazidi, and Christian religious sects. Based on decades of past U.S. military intervention in the region there are 1.5 million Palestinian and Iraqi refugees in Syria and 5 million Syrian refugees outside of Syria.

The Syrian government is determined to maintain and rebuild Syria as a secular, multi-ethnic, multinational, multi-religious country that respects the identity and culture of every group, free of foreign interference.

U.S. strategists have always tried to maintain dominance in the Middle East by divide and conquer tactics of inflaming sectarian, national, ethnic and religious differences.

We oppose Turkish aggression in the region and demand that Turkish and U.S. forces leave Syrian territory where they never were invited by the Syrian government.  As Turkish forces move into Syria, the Kurds have opened negotiations with the Syrian government and the Syrian Arab Army moved todefend the border towns where Kurds live.

It is in the interest of the Kurdish and non-Kurdish Syrian people for the US, Turkey and their supported mercenaries from around the world to leave the country.  It is only under these circumstances that the Kurdish people and the Syrian government can work to solve the problems of the Kurds in Syria.

As the Syrian government wins back more and more of their territory from foreign aggressors, it is calling for refugees to come home.  They are offering amnesty and assistance for all those returning.

In numerous recent tweets, President Trump confirmed that U.S. will not actually leave Syria. They will refocus on the oil producing area of Syria to supposedly “protect the oil.”  “We’re keeping the oil,” “I’ve always said that — keep the oil. We want to keep the oil, $45 million a month. Keep the oil. We’ve secured the oil.” Trump asserts that the U.S. will decide what to do with Syria’s oil in the future. He has implied that maybe Exxon should be given the oil

Clearly the theft of oil is for U.S. corporate profit and to deprive Syria of the means to rebuild.

U.S. and EU Sanctions keep Syria from importing essential supplies to repair and re-build Syria.  Sanctions also prevent Syrians from importing or exporting oil.  Without oil, the country cannot re-build.

The plan for U.S. troops to occupy the oil fields is to prevent Syria from being energy sufficient, as they were before 2011.

The theft of Syrian oil and the continued sanctions on Syria must be condemned by our movement and by the entire world.

We demand:

U.S., NATO, Turkey, Israel and all foreign invading forces leave Syria!

End the sanctions against Syria!

U.S. stop the theft of Syrian oil!

Let the Syrian people go home!

*

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 Liberty Nation

Ontario’s environment minister, Jeff Yurek, plans to announce the provincial government’s decision on water bottling permits by mid-December. The announcement comes after the government’s extension of a moratorium on new and expanded permits, put in place by the Liberal government in 2017. Doug Ford‘s government extended the moratorium until January 1, 2020.

Activist groups like Guelph-based Wellington Water Watchers (WWW) want Yurek to require all permits to take water for bottling to undergo an environmental assessment process. According to WWW, the current review process for water bottling permits is inadequate.

WWW also believes the scope of the current review process utilized by the Ministry of the Environment is too narrow and fails to recognize water as a public trust; does not guarantee Indigenous consent consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP); disregards the increasing threat of climate change; inadequately assesses the cumulative impact of water taking on groundwater; ignores the environmental impact of discarded plastic bottles; and neglects the health risks of microplastics in drinking water.

In addition, the Environmental Registry of Ontario limits public participation to a 90-day online consultation. This process prevents face-to-face discussion between members of the public and political representatives.

WWW is calling on the Ontario government to suspend the current review process for applications to renew water bottling permits to allow for a full public debate on the social and environmental impacts of water bottling and to ensure the government requires environmental assessments of all applications to renew permits to take water for bottling.

WWW is hosting four information sessions in November to focus “all eyes on Nestlé” and its corporate mandate. Representatives from groups affected by Nestlé water extraction in France, Brazil and the United States will speak about their experience protecting water from bottling in their communities.

Speakers at all four events include Bernhard and Renee-Lise Schmitt, founders of Collectif Eau 88 in Vittel, France, and Franklin Frederick, Brazilian political and environmental activist now living in Switzerland.

Collectif Eau 88 has been fighting for the agricultural life of Vittel since Nestlé corporation began purchasing land surrounding the town’s wells to establish rights to the water. The price of land increased to levels that put it out of reach for young farming families.

Nestlé eventually offered the land back to farmers free of charge, but required farmers to follow complex rules that prevented their accessing water beneath the land. Farmers were expected to truck in water to irrigate their crops and keep livestock alive.

Lax local laws in Vittel meant Nestlé has been able to draw 800 million litres of water annually for the past 30 years. The aquifer has been unable to replace the 3.5 centimetres of water removed annually, and both locals and Nestlé agree that the groundwater will be drained from Vittel’s aquifer within the next 20 years.

Image: SumOfUs/Flickr

Source: SumOfUs/Flickr

Initially, the French government considered building a pipeline from a neighbouring community to bring water to the citizens of Vittel. That plan would have allowed Nestlé to continue draining the aquifer. However, on October 1, the French government announced it would limit Nestlé’s water extraction in Vittel and plans to cancel the water pipeline. The French government also imposed a moratorium on all pending applications by Nestlé.

The persistent opposition of Collectif Eau 88 is responsible for this partial victory. The government has signalled it will prioritize drinking water for residents. Water currently withdrawn from the aquifer will be reduced by at least one trillion litres per year, which means Nestlé will have to reduce its water mining. Ongoing consultations between the French government and Collectif Eau 88 will result in a strategy to ensure the aquifer remains sustainable.

Nestlé’s global plan involves buying land and building bottling plants in economically depressed areas. These are typically rural communities where the potential for jobs incentivizes communities to overlook environmental consequences. In the end, many of the jobs created are temporary, as the extraction process is mechanized.

Brazilian water activist Franklin Frederick arrived in Switzerland several years ago as part of an assignment by the Catholic Church in Sao Paulo to secure the support of Catholic and Protestant churches in Switzerland in a campaign against Nestlé water bottling operations back home. Frederick discovered Nestlé and the Swiss government were collaborating and working against non-profits opposed to Nestlé’s water extraction and bottling operations.

To learn more about the impacts of Nestlé’s privatization of water attend one of the following WWW information sessions:

  • Monday, November 11, Waterloo, The Atrium, Renison University College, 240 Westmount Rd. N., 7 to 9 p.m. (RSVP here)
  • Tuesday, November 12, Toronto, Wilson Hall Lounge, 2nd Floor Wilson Hall at New College, 40 Willcocks St., Toronto, 7 to 9 p.m. (RSVP here)
  • Wednesday November 13, Hamilton, St. Joseph’s Church Hall, 280 Herkimer St., 7 to 9 p.m.  (RSVP here)
  • Thursday, November 14, Guelph, Trinity United Church, 400 Stevenson St. N., 7 to 9 p.m. Additional international speakers will present at this event only. (RSVP Here)

All four events will be live-streamed on Facebook. For more information email: [email protected]

*

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.

Doreen Nicoll is a freelance writer, teacher, social activist and member of several community organizations working diligently to end poverty, hunger and gendered violence.

China and US Agree on Phased Tariffs Rollback?

November 8th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

According to US and Chinese media, negotiators of both countries agreed to partially roll back tariffs.

Spokesman for China’s Commerce Ministry Gao Feng said the following:

“If the phase-one deal is signed, China and the US should remove the same proportion of tariffs simultaneously based on the content of the deal,” adding:

“This is what (both sides) agreed on following careful and constructive negotiations over the past two weeks.”

“Economic and trade teams from both sides have been in constant communication. We hope to resolve our issues of core concern in an equal and mutually respectful manner.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, “the White House and US trade representative had yet to respond to the Chinese side’s announcement” — as of Thursday morning.

Until Washington officially comments on what’s going on and details of what’s reportedly agreed on are explained, it’s unclear precisely what tariffs will be rolled back, when, and under what conditions.

On Friday, the Journal said “there were conflicting reports from within the Trump administration as to whether there was a firm commitment to reduce tariffs,” adding:

“One US official concurred that the two sides plan to roll back tariffs as part of an initial trade pact…Others disputed that a formal rollback plan had been agreed on.”

The Journal said there are no details as to whether the US would reduce the tariff rate, or remove tariffs entirely.”

On Fox News Business, senior Trump regime trade advisor Peter Navarro said:

“There is no agreement at this time to remove any of the existing tariffs as a condition of the phase one deal.”

According to Gao, it’s unclear where or when an agreement will be signed. Positive signals from representatives of both countries unraveled before.

On Thursday, the South China Morning Post reported that a Sino-US deal signing is “missing from (President) Xi Jinping’s itinerary” — creating uncertainty about what’s agreed on.

Whatever it may be leaves irreconcilable differences between both countries unchanged — with scant prospect ahead of resolving what’s been unresolvable.

Beijing has many issues with unacceptable US policies, including Trump regime initiated trade war with tariffs up to 25% on $360 billion worth of Chinese imports its ruling authorities want removed entirely.

The Wall Street Journal cited international studies Professor Shi Yinhong stressing that whatever is agreed on can only work if terms are clear and both sides fulfill their obligations. There’s nothing simple about accomplishing it.

The Journal: Shi “expressed skepticism that negotiators had completed terms for a phase-one deal: US deliberations on rolling back existing tariffs, for example, are probably an effort to extract additional concessions from Beijing,” adding:

Major bilateral differences are expected to continue unresolved “for decades, whatever the prospects for a near-term agreement.”

According to China’s central bank advisor Liu Shijin, bilateral “frictions are not just about trade.” Many key disagreements “haven’t yet” been addressed.

Reportedly there’s no timeline for rolling back tariffs, no information on how things will proceed other than rescinding is supposed to happen in phases.

Given longstanding strained bilateral relations, the only certainty ahead is continued friction and uncertainly on how events will play out.

*

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.

China’s vision for the future is “Give Peace a Chance”. It is also the title of one of John Lennon’s most prominent songs. It became the anthem for the anti-war movement, at the time of the US-waged war against Vietnam. John Lennon was a peace activist. No wonder he was ostracized, considered enemy number one by the US establishment, was followed and surveyed by the FBI – and was eventually assassinated. October 9, 1940 is his birthday.

“Give Peace a Chance” is the key motto for China’s peace philosophy throughout her 70-years Revolution, often against challenging situations, especially in the last decade with almost permanent aggressions of one kind or another by the United States and their coopted allies in Europe. China is a tremendous challenge for the west, not only because of her sheer size and economic and technological advances, but also because China seeks peaceful cooperation and development around the globe.

The West does not seek Peace. Peace is bad for business. War is good and profitable, as such renown mainstream journals as the Washington Post have openly propagated in their op-ed columns time and again. Anecdotally, both world wars were initiated in the west. This is the premise under which the permanent western aggressions against the east, especially the leadership of the east, China and Russia, are being waged.

The motto of non-aggression and Peace – a Tao doctrine – prevails in China’s foreign policy as the top principle, as of this date. And there is no indication that China will depart from this Peace dogma which has brought her internal stability, international recognition – and has made China over the last decades to one of the world’s foremost economies, as well as a leader in technological and environmental advances. This, despite constant western castigating for pirating western technology and destroying the environment. The demonization is like a propaganda tool to deviate the world’s attention from western capitalist disasters around the world. But China moves on, undisturbed, generously, with a vision for a common future for mankind all mankind, not just China.

On 1 October, China celebrated the 70th Anniversary of her Revolution. China’s vision began with the Chinese Revolution,when China’s leader of the Communist Party, Mao Zedong, declared the Independent People’s Republic of China on 1 October 1949, succeeding the Republic of China (1912). In fact, China’s Revolution already began just after the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), at the end of WWII, with the Chinese Civil war (1945 – 1949), also called the War of Liberation.

The International Forum on “China’s 70-Year Development and the Construction of the Community with a Shared Future for Mankind”– 5-6 November in Shanghai, is part of the celebration. It is a forward-looking event with a Chinese vision for the future. To better grasp that vision for the future, here is a quick look at the past.

History with Foresight

Visionary Chairman Mao Zedong wanted to finally free the people of China from hundreds of years of western colonization and oppression, from the calamities of Opium Wars I and II (British imposed 1839-1842, and 1856-1860) and engaged the Chinese Communist Party (CPC – Communist Party of China) in an all-out confrontation with the Kuomintang (KMT), or the second phase of the Civil War (1945 – 1949).  The KMT, also called the Nationalist Party, was led by General Chiang Kai-shek, who succeeded KMT’s founder, Sun Yat-sen, after his death in 1925.

Chiang Kai-shek had the support of the United States, whose main objectives were stopping the “spread” of communism and maintaining continuous access to China’s riches, mostly in the form of natural resources, but also by exploiting the Chinese labor force. Washington ordered Chiang to break all relations with the Soviet Union – and to eliminate the threat of a communist leadership in China. This led to a lingering on and off conflict from the 1920s onwards between KMT and the CPC (also considered the first phase of the Civil War).

Hostilities began shortly after the foundation of the KMT in 1919 which was ‘helped’ by the United States. While Mao and his Communist Party emerged as the winner of the Civil War in 1949, Chiang Kai-shek and his followers took over the Chinese Province of Taiwan, where Kuomintang is still the ruling party. China’s non-aggression against the occupation of Taiwan is one of the many demonstrations of China’s peaceful diplomatic approach to conflict.

The current President of the Republic of China, as Taiwan calls itself, although it is a part of China, is Tsai Ing-wen, a politician and professor, in office since 2016. He caters entirely to the interests of Washington and the west in general, even vying to buy independently – and totally illegally – weapons from the US. While part of the PRC, Taiwan enjoys a certain autonomy, again compliments of China’s non-belligerent approach to conflicts.

Today, Taiwan is still recognized by 14 countries out of 193 UN members as the official representative of China. This, despite the fact that the UN declared the People’s Republic of China already in 1971 as the official representative of China with one of the five permanent seats in the UN Security Council (UNSC). Countries recognizing Taiwan as official China, still bending over to please Washington, are becoming fewer and fewer, as China is emerging as the number one economy of the world; call it socioeconomy, because China’s advancements are not just measured by the western standards of linear economic growth, but promote distributive growth, encompassing also vast improvements of people’s quality of life.

Mao’s victory brought a new era to the Chinese people. With what he called the Great Leap Forward (1958 – 1962), Mao and the CPC led a social and economic campaign converting the rural agrarian areas into a socialist industrialized economy through communal farming or agricultural cooperatives. This 4-year effort was constantly attacked and disrupted by infiltrated anticommunist saboteurs at a high social and monetary cost for China. But it served as a learning phase. China’s flamboyant rise to the second (by some accounts the first) world economy, proved that the lessons helped defeat US interference then and today.

The ten-year Cultural Revolution (1966 – 1976) was Mao’s sociopolitical movement aiming at cleaning socialist China from infiltrated capitalist elements and influences. Then, and to some extent still today, China was full with so-called Fifth Columnists, a term coined during the Spanish Civil war, when General Franco’s Nazi-party, the “Falange”, were able to defeat the legitimately elected Republicans, because the “Falange” had what they called a “Fifth Column” clandestinely embedded among the Republican defense forces in Madrid. Today Fifth Columnists are everywhere. They come in all shapes and forms, including disguised as western NGOs, in every country that Washington and its western allies want to dominate and provoke ‘regime change’.  It was clear that the west, predominantly the emerging US empire, wanted to disrupt Mao’s revolution; they would not let China flourish under her own political, communist values and believes.

Foreign meddling in China’s Revolution came at a huge cost for China. As a consequence, Mao’s revolutions are often portrayed by the west as failures, the usual western tarnishing the success of other nations, of other socioeconomic systems, in order to hide the west’s own disastrous failures. From a Chinese and humanitarian perspective, Mao’s Revolutions have drastically improved the public education and health system, have eradicated endemic deadly diseases inherited from the western dominated colonial and KMT times – and, foremost, poverty was largely eradicated. As of these days, about 750 million people have been lifted out poverty. Alleviation of poverty was an emphasis under both of Mao’s Revolutions. These Revolutions also taught valuable lessons to Chinese scholars and future leaders – and have drastically advanced China towards food self-sufficiency which she reached by 2018.

It is thanks to these lessons that, after Mao’s death in 1976, his successor, Deng Xiaoping, led China through a far-reaching economic reform, including elements of a market economy, however always under central government control – a principle that is maintained as of today. Deng called the new Chinese economic model “socialism with Chinese characteristics”, a principal that continues today. He helped develop China into the world’s fastest-growing economy, improving the lives of hundreds of millions of citizens. Deng also masterminded the return of Hong Kong from a UK colony to China in 1997, and Macau from Portugal in 1999. The transition was completed by Deng’s successor, Jian Zemin.

Deng retired in 1992. His successor, Jian Zemin, had several high-ranking positions in previous governments and was President of the PRC from 1993 – 2003. Jian opened China further for foreign investments and trade. He visited the US in 1997, where he met with President Clinton. Jian followed a non-confrontational foreign policy, like his predecessors, strengthened relations with western partners, especially the United States – and maintained at home an economic annual growth of at least 8%. This led to an explosion of wealth, but also initially to a less than optimal distribution of wealth, most of which concentrated along China’s eastern shores, risking conflicts with the lesser developed Chinese “hinterland”.

Hu Jintao followed Juan Zemin as China’s Paramount Leader from 2002 to 2012. Hu, as a rather modest leader, along with his Premier, Wen Jiabao, and his Vice-President, Xi Jinping, continued the policy of economic growth and development, achieving more than a decade of double-digit growth, however shifting the economy gradually more to non-consumption growth, fostering, instead, socioeconomic equality, aiming at building a “Harmonious Socialist Society”.

Hu was seeking a prosperous China, free of internal social conflicts and pursued internally and externally a “peaceful development policy” – with ‘soft power’ meaning a diplomatic approach to foreign policy issues, that was never confrontational. During Hu’s rule China increased its influence in Africa and Latin America, laying the groundwork for future closer relationships with these regions. Hu was also known for shared and consensus-based leadership. Hu was succeeded in 2013 by Xi Jinping.

The Vision

Enter the era of President Xi Jinping. He is a lawyer, chemical engineer, philosopher – and visionary. On 7 September 2013, President Xi Jinping gave a speech at Kazakhstan’s Nazarbayev University, in which 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-AD 24).

Referring to this epoch of more than 2,000 years 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.”

Xi’s vision may be shaping the world of the 21st Century. He designed and engineered the Belt and Road Initiative, loosely modeled according to the Ancient Silk Road, soon after assuming the Presidency in 2013. He launched this ground-breaking “project”, a fabulous idea to connect the world with transport routes, infrastructure, industrial joint ventures, teaching and research institutions, cultural exchange and much more. 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”.

During the 19th National Congress in 2017, BRI was included in the Chinese (CPC) Constitution as an amendment to promote the BRI’s objective of “shared interests” and “shared growth” which are major political objectives for China. This amendment to the Constitution for raising international cooperation through a multifaceted socioeconomic development endeavor is unique in China’s history. It fits precisely the theme of the present Forum, “The Construction of the Community with a shared Future for Mankind”.

The BRI is a global development strategy adopted by the Chinese Government, eventually with investments in 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, energy exploration, cultural exchange and integration facilities, education and research institutions – as well as trade among connected countries; and, unlike WTO (World Trade Organization), BRI is allowing nations to benefit from their comparative advantages, creating win-win situation. 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 probable success of the program indicates, however, already today that it will most likely 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 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 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 the 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, of which at least half of the EU membership.

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’, 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 attempt 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.

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 (see map, above).

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.

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.

Water resources, life depends on them. If these resources are not properly managed, by, say, one or several parties taking advantage of the other users, a conflict is born. Often such conflicts can become violent. BRI may turn this source of potential hostilities around into a source for peace. Water is among the most shared resources on earth, and as such it may serve as an instrument for peaceful connectivity.

The Chinese government calls the Silk Road Initiative “a bid to enhance regional connectivity and embrace a brighter future”. With freshwater resources rapidly diminishing for ready use in the public domain, because of industrial and human pollution and privatization, management of water resources and transboundary water in particular, may be constructed into a “Shared Future for Mankind.” The Belt and Road Initiative may provide the guiding principles for this shared future of life’s essential resource – water.

Today, “Give Peace a Chance” is more relevant than ever. And China is a vanguard in promoting peaceful development across the globe. During the Cuban Conference “For a World in Equilibrium” of January 2019, one of the Chinese representatives said very unequivocally in his presentation, “we are building bridges between people and nations to connect the world peacefully”. Undoubtedly, he is right and was referring to President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative, or the New Silk Road.

The same can unfortunately not be said about the West which is, instead, building walls, predominantly the US, followed by her European vassals, either physical walls, or walls by conflicts, wars and – walls by “economic sanction”, by which they strangle and kill people en masse. Whenever a government does not share the US neoliberal doctrines, or refuses to bend to their dictate and efforts to plunder a country of natural resources, it is first subject to atrocious sanctions, then to military intervention with the goal of regime change. All that is possible, because the western world is run by the fiat dollar system, under which all international transactions have to transit through an American bank, foremost a Wall Street bank. That’s how they block transfers, confiscate and steal money in banks all over the world.

In Venezuela sanctions started soon after President Hugo Chavez was elected as President in 1998. They were severely enhanced under Obama in 2014, and President Trump squeezed the country even more in 2017. In August 2019 Trump tightened the noose of economic strangulation to the maximum, “the most that any country has been sanctioned”, he proudly proclaimed, blocking and confiscating government accounts, including national reserve accounts and gold all around the western world. They are seizing Venezuelan assets in the US and internationally, intercepting ships and otherwise interrupting trade, for example blocking crucial medication and food stock from entering the country, while also threatening sanctions on countries that are trading with Venezuela.

According to Venezuelan officials, the financial losses since 2017 amount to at least 130 billion dollars. These funds represent goods and services, the absence of which compromises not only wellbeing but real lives of Venezuelans. The 130 billion dollars could amply supply food and medication for Venezuelans to live well and for hospitals to function with the necessary medication and equipment. In addition, the US was directing mercenaries and members of the government opposition to sabotage the countries electric system, which caused days, in some regions weeks of black-outs, a disaster for hospitals depending on electricity for refrigeration and lighting of operating theaters. Indeed, a recent study by the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), in Washington, concluded that sanctions of the US and their European allies may have cost the lives of up to 40,000 Venezuelans. But Venezuela will not cave in and will survive, largely thanks to the support from China and Russia.

At this time could also be mentioned the 60 years blockade of Cuba, the US instigated wars on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Vietnam, the civil wars in Central America, Central Africa, the hostilities towards North Korea – and of course the constant aggressions vis-à-vis China and Russia – and much more. All for eradicating any “threat” of socialism that might spread as a positive alternative to boundless turbo-capitalism which is currently running the western world.

But enough about the west and its drive for world hegemony in flagrant disrespect of international law and Human Rights. It just goes to illustrate a few examples to juxtapose the west and the east, foremost China in alliance with Russia, whose approach is a multipolar socioeconomic development scheme, generous and peaceful, connecting people through trade and through BRI.

“The future is in the East” – so goes a progressive axiom. It is also my strong believe. By the East is meant China, Russia, most of Central Asia; now all represented by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), or the Shanghai Pact. SCO is a Eurasian political, economic, and security alliance, the creation of which was announced on 15 June 2001 in Shanghai, China by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The Pact was signed in June 2002 and entered into force in September 2013. SCO’s headquarters are in Beijing

Today, the SCO counts 8 members, including the member India and Pakistan. Iran and Mongolia are on a “waiting list”, on the verge of becoming members. Turkey, already a dialogue partner, is increasingly vying gaining SCO access, either through association or full membership. And this, despite the conflict it may create with Turkey’s NATO partners, mainly the US. Clearly, were Turkey to join the SCO, exit from NATO would be imminent – and disastrous for NATO, perhaps he stumbling block that would bring NATO down. Especially, since popular anti-NATO pressure from Italy to Germany, Greece, Spain and Portugal is steadily growing. Turkey is also the most strategically located NATO partner between East and West; between Europe and Asia, controlling the Bosporus, access to the Black Sea.

The SCO has also several observer and dialogue partners which eventually, it is assumed, may become full-fledged SCO members. The SCO is also called the alliance of the east and is considered a security pillar in more ways than one: SCO members account for almost half of the world population and for about one third of the world’s economic output. In other words, this eastern alliance is politically and economically autonomous and to a large extent detached from the western dollar based “sanction-prone” economy.

The SCO, a visionary Chinese initiative of the early 2000s, was overlaid and expanded in 2013 by another brilliant Chinese Initiative, the BRI. May also be added to this powerhouse another association of countries, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), primarily a trading partnership. The members are located in central and northern Asia, and include Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia. The treaty was formally established in January 2015.

This block of eastern countries and associations is seeking against all odds, a multi-polar world, a world of Peace and Prosperity for All – a big challenge given the current socioeconomic disequilibrium – but feasible with mutual respect and a will to cooperate, to apply the forces of synergy and solidarity, as is inherent in the Belt and Road approach. The stakes are high. As Russia’s Foreign Minister, Mr. Lavrov pointed out during the 74th UN General Assembly, in September 2019: “The West ignores reality by trying to prevent the formation of a multi-polar world by imposing its narrow “liberal” rules on others.” But, he added, “Western dominance is on the wane, ‘we’re liberals, so everything’s allowed’ just isn’t working anymore.” These words are the basis for a strong pillar and union of eastern associations.

Outlook and Vision

Economy

China has registered during the past decades a phenomenal economic growth rate, at times exceeding 12% per year. Today it has been on purpose reduced to about 6%, so as to allow a better distribution of the growth benefits, and also spread wealth more horizontally to create greater equality of wellbeing.

In figures and facts:

China’s GDP measured in US-dollars amounts to $14.2 trillion (nominal; 2019 est.), which corresponds to $27.3 trillion in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP; 2019 est.). This corresponds to US$ 10,153 / capita, in nominal term (2019 est.), to US$ 19,520 / capita measured by PPP.

Compare this with the US GDP of US$ 21.345 trillion in nominal terms (2019 est.) and $64,767 / per capita (2019 est.) This makes China the world’s second largest economy in nominal terms, expected to exceed the US by 2026. However, when comparing the two GDPs by their PPP values, China is number one; having surpassed the United States in 2016.

Measured by PPP, China is already today de facto the world’s largest economy, because the only figures that have any significance in economic production and consumption, are those that reflect the output’s purchasing power.

Examples of Economic Efficiency

New Airport in Beijing: In only 4 years China built by far the world’s largest airport in Beijing, Daxin International Airport. It was ready for China’s 70th Birthday on 1 October 2019, when it was inaugurated by President Xi Jinping. It has been operational the week after inauguration. This airport, an architectural wonder, covers some 700,000 m2 (almost 100 football fields) and carries passengers by fast train in 20 minutes to the center of Beijing. It is expected to accommodate in 2021 already 45 million passengers and can easily be expanded to receive and serve 100 million passengers as the need requires. This airport is a sign that China is capable of realizing extraordinary achievements – it signals a visionary future.

China’s Rapid Urbanization: When in 2017, Beijing was faced with a housing shortage for low-wage migrant workers, they built 100,000 low-rent apartments in twelve months. The speed of China’s infrastructure development, the rapid urbanization, providing millions of new subsidized housing for migrant workers, is a model that has worked and is being replicated throughout China. In fact, pays off socially and economically. People who do not have to worry about shelter, are healthier and live and work better. China has been building homes for a million people–the entire housing stock of San Francisco – every month since 1950. This policy aims at and creates wellbeing among the workers, among the people – and is at the same time a solid tool for China’s economic development – and people’s happiness. China’s successful and rapid housing development is being closely watched by Australia, as her major cities, Sydney and Melbourne face similar problems.

Trade

China has been the world’s largest exporter of goods since 2009. Official estimates suggest Chinese exports amounted to about $2.1 trillion in 2017. The total annual value of the country’s exports equates to approximately $1,500 for every Chinese resident. Since 2013, China has as well become the world’s largest trading nation.China is also a significant importer and accounts for about 10% of total global imports, i.e., about US$ 1.7 trillion, leaving China as a net exporter with a trade surplus of about US$ 400 billion. – Trade war with the US– see below.

Monetary Policy

China’s Yuan, is a solid currency, backed by China’s economy and by gold. In 2017 the Yuan was admitted into the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) basket of reserve currencies, which constitute the SDR – or Special Drawing Rights. The SDR basket consists of five currencies and their respective weights are: US-Dollar $41.73%, Euro 30.93%, Renminbi (Chinese Yuan) 10.92%, Japanese Yen 8.33%, British Pound 8.09%. The Yuan is clearly undervalued in the SDR basket, as it is rapidly replacing the dollar as reserve currency. Treasurers around the globe realize that the US-dollar is fiat money, backed by nothing, whereas the Yuan is a solid currency, based on a solid economy, plus backed by gold.

The decline of the US dollar as a world reserve currency means that the US dollar hegemony is fading. This is inadmissible for the US. Therefore, Washington along with the major western allies are considering to abandon the key reserve role of the dollar and replacing it with some kind of an SDR, in which the dollar would maintain a prominent role, but its Ponzi-scheme characteristics would no longer be openly visible.

The current US debt to GDP ratio is about 105%. However, what the General Accounting Office calls “unmet obligations” amounts to about 700% of GDP (net present value – 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”. This is a dangerous pyramid, or Ponzi-scheme, of which most governments are aware, and yet many of them hold on to the dollar as key reserve currency. With the yuan rising, this may change rapidly. In fact, the conversion from dollar to yuan as reserve currency has already started.

Regarding the western foreseen reserve basket to “save” the dollar, it is not clear yet what the other currencies and their respective weight in the new “Reserve SDR” would be, but let’s assume the same five currencies. The Yuan, if still in the reserve basket would probably still be under-valued. If so, this might be a good reason for China to exit the Reserve SDR and continue with the Yuan by its own economic and monetary value as a reserve currency. The Yuan has made its reputation of stability and does no longer need the backing of a (western coined) SDR to prove its strength as a reserve currency.

The War on Tariffs

In June 2018, US President Trump started an unprovoked Trade War with China, then expanded it to other countries, including his European allies. But it is most ferocious with China. As usual, China’s response was not hostile. Retaliation, yes; but still an approach of seeking negotiations and compromise. In reality, the US market for China may be important, but not that important to be humiliated as was the case with the American bulldozer approach to impose not just tariffs, but tariffs that were nothing but a new form of economic sanctions.

The real meaning and purpose behind these tariffs was not reducing China’s exports in the first place, but harming the Yuan, as it was gaining strength and, as mentioned before, gradually taking over the US-dollar’s role as world reserve currency. Some 20 years ago the US dollar accounted for more than 90% of all reserve assets in nations’ treasuries around the globe. Today, that percentage has shrunk to less than 60% and is fading rapidly. Much of the lost territories by the US dollar was made up by the Chinese Yuan. And as the importance of the Yuan rises, the US hegemony of the world’s economy, resources and people will fade. This does not go down in Washington without a fight.

Future Economic Growth

China, in the near future, will most likely keep to a “modest” growth rate, around 5% to 7%, concentrating on horizontal distributive growth, with a focus on improved public wellbeing for all, universal access to affordable housing, basic infrastructure, water supply, sanitation, public transportation, rural higher education, as well as internal cultural exchange and harmonization. Two areas of economic development, ”horizontal growth”, may be singled out; (i) Artificial Intelligence (AI), and (ii) Environmental Improvement.

Technological Innovation

China is a Power House of new technologies and no doubt the world’s number one in Technological Innovation. Just to mention a few, not in order of priority:

  • Rapidly progressing robotization of construction and manufacturing, as well as of medical interventions, like surgeries and localized cancer treatment;
  • 3-D construction of serving a myriad of sectors, including manufacturing in the medical sector, medical equipment, human body replacement parts, production of construction materials – and more. China predicts in 20 to 30 years everybody (in China) will have access to individualized 3D building capacity;
  • Face recognition technology, making traditional ID and bank account access cards obsolete and identity protection more secure;
  • High-speed train systems, a domain where China has bypassed Japan and is the world’s number one; i.e. the high-speed railways Shanghai Maglev and Fuxing Hao CR400AF/BF;
  • A new generation of garbage recycling – into building material, fertilizers, fuel as a source of energy – and more;
  • Architecture and building efficiency, only two examples, (i) the new Beijing Daxin International Airport, the world’s largest, built in just 4 years, with a capacity of more than 100 million passengers per year – and a superb architecture; (ii) the “Birds Nest” – the stadium for the 2008 Summer Olympics which will also be used for the 2022 Winter Olympics; it was built in less than 5 years and is an architectural masterpiece, and
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) – see below.

China’s ambition: Everything is possible – and China has already proven that it can be done.

Artificial Intelligence (AI).China is also moving rapidly towards leadership in Technical Innovation for Artificial Intelligence, with plans to invest considerable resources into research. In 2017, the State Council (CCP) issued a “Next Generation Intelligence Development Plan”, including a US$ (equivalent) 2.1 billion AI industrial park. By 2025 the State Council predicts China to be a leader in AI research and predicts that China’s AI core industry will be worth some US$ 60 billion, amounting to about US$ 700 billion equivalent, when accounting for related industries. By 2030, the State Council expects China to be the global leader in development of AI.

Environmental Improvement. China has made leaps in improving her environment, by far exceeding efforts of western countries. China’s environmental policies are developing BRI at home and abroad in shades of green. New parks with trees and areas for recreation are emerging in every major city in China. According to an expert at the School of Regulation and Global Governance of the Australian National University, Beijing has improved its air quality by 30% in the last five years.

A study of the University of Chicago demonstrates that Chinese cities have reduced the concentrations of fine particulates in the air on average by 32 % between 2014 and 2018.

The Chinese people and government are putting utmost importance to protecting the environment and ecosystems. Green development makes for improved public health, but is also attractive for investments.

China has a three-year “green” plan to improve air quality and tighten regulations. Air quality is one of the key environmental issue besetting China. In that sense, the government is accelerating the electrification of vehicles and has pledged that by 2030 all new cars will be powered by electricity.The government is also tackling drinking water quality and shortages, as well as improving urban and rural sanitation. These are longer-term propositions. Cost estimates for China’s overall environmental programs are not readily available but may easily reach into hundreds of billions of US-dollar equivalents over a ten-year period.

Conclusion

A few years ago, China, Russia and other SCO countries have started trading among themselves in their local currencies with a non-western monetary transfer system, using mostly the Chinese Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS). It is out of control of the western SWIFT transfer system, thereby escapes the sanctions regime of the US. Gradually, the SCO and associated countries are detaching themselves from the western dollar-based fiat system.

In terms of trading, the SCO countries, mainly China, control most of the Asian markets, even making rapid inroads into Japan and Australia, and are evermore present in Latin America and Africa. Before long Europe will see the light and turn eastwards. It would be a wise decision. Dealing first within the confines of the huge Eurasian landmass, including the Middle East and parts of Africa – has been the logical way of trading since the Ancient Silk Road, more than 2,000 years ago.

China has a great visionary future that had already begun 70 years ago, and was enhanced six years ago with President Xi Jinping’s launching of the Belt and Road Initiative. BRI will continue spanning the globe for the next at least 50 to 100 years, spreading development in a multi-polar world, stressing equality and wellbeing for all. BRI investments may be counted in the multi-multi trillions and will be funded by China and the participating countries, with a socio-economic return that cannot be expressed in sheer monetary terms, as investments will also bring unfathomable social benefits, poverty reduction, improved health, higher and better education and, generally improving people’s wellbeing.

The bright side of this initiative, is the Chinese philosophy of non-aggression, of diplomacy to resolve conflicts and of promoting peaceful economic coexistence and development around the globe.

China’s determination to develop with a “green” economy, a “green” BRI and a horizontal distributive growth that emphasizes equality and inclusion is a landmark model for the world to embrace. It is a model to construct a Community with 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’s Vision for the Future: “Give Peace a Chance”
  • Tags: