Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation in the EU “Withdrawal Agreement Bill”(WAB)

October 27th, 2019 by Prof. Adam Tucker

In this post, I make a preliminary attempt at assessing the provision made in the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill – or WAB – for the scrutiny of the legislative powers which it delegates to the executive.  My conclusions are not positive.  The scrutiny procedures it seeks to enact are inadequate – so inadequate that it would be a constitutional mistake for Parliament to approve this aspect of the WAB without significant amendment.  At the very least (or so I suggest) the Bill ought to be amended to incorporate the so-called “sifting process” developed for equivalent delegated powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EUWA).  Better still, this should be seen as an opportunity to embrace further incremental improvements on that process.

The scrutiny provisions in the WAB are comparable to – indeed they are partly modelled on – the arrangements initially proposed for delegated legislation under EUWA as originally published.  But in that original form, those proposals did not survive parliamentary scrutiny.  They were widely condemned as an inappropriate transfer of power to the executive, emphatically criticised by multiple parliamentary committee inquiries, and ultimately amended.  In other words, the scrutiny arrangements in WAB are an attempt to revisit an approach to scrutinising delegated legislation which Parliament has already recently rejected and amended.   Enacting them would be a regrettable step backwards in terms of scrutiny of executive legislative activity, and would contradict the considered Parliamentary verdict on this issue elaborated during the passage of the 2018 Act.

At the time of writing, the government’s first programme motion – which proposed an extremely compressed timetable for scrutiny of the Bill – has been rejected by the House of Commons.  But it remains government policy to pursue an extremely fast passage through Parliament for the WAB, certainly fast enough to inhibit thorough scrutiny of its proposals.  With that accelerated context in mind, this post is not comprehensive – I generalise a little, I omit discussion of some important delegations and some nuances, I necessarily speculate on the full substantive importance of some clauses, and I have undoubtedly missed things (particularly but not exclusively connections between various aspects of the overall scheme in the Bill).

Still, the structure of the key elements of the Bill’s approach to delegated legislation is relatively clear.  Alongside many discrete delegations (which I do not discuss here) two significant bundles of delegations can be discerned.  All of the powers in each of these two bundles are “Henry VIII” powers – i.e. they extend to the amendment of primary legislation.  And moreover (because they each rely on the definition of “enactment” in clause 37) all are prospective Henry VIII clauses.  That is, these two main bundles of delegated powers in the WAB both empower the executive to amend primary legislation, including primary legislation passed after the passage of the WAB itself.

The first group, which I will call the Implementation Powers, consists of provisions concerning the domestic regulation of the Implementation Period.  These take the form of insertions by the WAB into EUWA (in particular new sections 8A, 8B and 8C, which themselves take effect alongside and can be used to moderate the application of new sections 7A and 7B).  Now, the substantive scope of the first two of these powers is not necessarily clear on the face of the Act.  Section 8A would empower the executive to modify how provisions of EU law (saved from the repeal of the ECA by section 1A) are read in domestic law. And Section 8B empowers the executive to implement Part 3 of the Withdrawal Agreement, that is the “Separation Provisions” concerning the winding down of the application of EU law in the domestic legal order and the disentanglement at the end of the implantation period, including the regulation of the continued circulation of goods placed on the market before separation, ongoing customs procedures, taxation, intellectual property and police cooperation.  It is hard to confidently anticipate the possible uses of this kind of power.   This substantive opacity of these delegations is comparable to the similar characteristic of EUWA s8.  And as the use of s8 for a remarkably broad range of policy interventions has demonstrated, this kind of substantively opaque delegation has the potential for staggering scope (for discussion and examples, see here and here).  It would be unwise to assume that these powers are tightly constrained by the Treaty they are designed to implement and sensible to anticipate that as the substantive scope of s8A and s8B emerges, they will have the potential to be used in similar ways, and with similar range, to the s8 power.   On the other hand, Section 8C is a remarkable clause whose substantive potential is plain on its face – it delegates to the executive essentially full authority over the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol. Proper scrutiny of that task – which has been at the heart of negotiations throughout, and whose resolution remains delicate – is fundamental to the legitimacy of the withdrawal process.

The scrutiny requirements for the exercise of these Implementation Powers are – consistent with the existing logic of the EUWA – inserted into Schedule 7 of that Act.  Schedule 7’s existing provisions famously (following the amendments secured in Parliament during that Act’s passage) include the “sifting mechanism” through which dedicated committees (in each House) can recommend that some statutory instruments which would otherwise be subject only to negative procedures be upgraded to affirmative procedures.  Whilst those recommendations are not binding, they have generally been followed by the government.  And the institutionalisation of that process has resulted in the development of a parliamentary practice of case-by-case reflection on the appropriate scrutiny level for different instances of delegated legislation and an increasingly sensitive engagement with the underlying question of what kinds of delegated legislation ought to be subject to what kinds of scrutiny.  Unfortunately, the WAB’s insertion into Schedule 7 of scrutiny requirements for the Implementation Powers does not tie into this sifting mechanism.  Instead, it simply repeats precisely the approach which Parliament had previously judged inadequate.  The scrutiny requirements for each of ss8A, 8B and 8C are organised around the simple formulaic presumption (which appears again and again, not just here but throughout the WAB) that instruments be subject to negative procedures unless they amend primary legislation (or, roughly equivalent, what is known in the withdrawal scheme as “principal EU legislation”).  That is, the use of these powers as Henry VIII powers is the primary trigger for affirmative parliamentary scrutiny.  But this is a problematic presumption – the use of delegated powers to amend primary legislation is, of course, an important activity which needs proper scrutiny.  But the prominence of this presumption risks masking the – often equally significant – uses to which delegated legislation can be put without altering primary legislation.  Some other specific substantive uses of these powers do also trigger affirmative scrutiny – in particular, 8C (the NI protocol implementation power) cannot be used to reform public authorities, impose fees, create new criminal offences, create legislative powers, or modify market access rules without parliamentary approval.  But the bulk of legislative activity under these clauses will, under the scheme as published, be subject only to negative procedures in Parliament. In summary: 8A, 8B, and 8C empower the executive to legislate with significant scope in important policy areas, and a substantial proportion of exercises of those power – certainly much higher than under comparable delegations in the EUWA – will not be subject to affirmative scrutiny in Parliament and cannot be upgraded to undergo such scrutiny.

The second significant group of delegated powers, which I will call the Citizens’ Rights powers, are created in WAB clauses 7-14.  They empower the executive to implement the whole range of provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement for citizens’ rights including residence, entry, frontier workers, recognition of professional qualifications, social security coordination, discrimination and employment rights, and the creation and administration of appeals or review mechanisms against some decisions taken in those contexts.  In contrast to the Implementation Powers, this bundle is far from opaque.  The substantive significance of this delegation of legislative power is plain to see; it covers essentially the entirety of one of the broadest, most sensitive and most important policy areas in the withdrawal process.  And, again, whilst they are undoubtedly subject to some constraints in that they are limited to the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, they clearly empower extensive intervention by the government.

The scrutiny requirements for these Citizens’ Rights powers are set out in WAB Schedule 6.  They follow the same formulaic pattern that we saw applied to the Implementation Powers above:  the starting point is that their use as Henry VIII powers is subject to affirmative scrutiny.  The first uses of each of the cl.7-9 powers (which need not be far-reaching) are also subject to affirmative scrutiny.  But other and subsequent exercises of these powers (which certainly could be far-reaching) will be subject only to negative scrutiny, again with no provision made for any mechanism to upgrade the scrutiny given to negative instruments.

The WAB’s provisions for the scrutiny of delegated legislative power are, then, consistently arranged around an inadequate formulaic approach, which guards mainly against the abuse of delegated powers as Henry VIII clauses, but (due to the limitations of the prevailing negative procedures) leaves most other exercises of these powers essentially unscrutinised.  Furthermore, the combination of formulaic criteria with the absence of a sifting mechanism means that the allocation of scrutiny mechanisms to these powers is wholly inflexible – no provision is made to enable the upgrading to affirmative procedures of significant exercises of the delegated powers which would otherwise be subject only to annulment; and it would in effect require subsequent primary legislation to introduce any such flexibility into the scheme.  The range of policy areas to be subjected to this inflexible and inadequate framework – and thus left to the executive shielded from effective Parliamentary scrutiny – is extremely broad. On its face, it encompasses two of the most significant policy arenas of the whole withdrawal process, the Northern Ireland protocol and Citizens’ Rights.  And the Implementation Powers will undoubtedly be used to legislate in other important policy areas.

What amendments ought to be made is, however, an awkward problem given that time pressures are suppressing the usual institutional mechanisms for exploring this kind of problem and carefully proposing alternative approaches.  In normal circumstances (and using the passage of EUWA as a guide) this issue would be tackled, drawing on a wide range of expertise, by multiple parliamentary committees, likely including (in the House of Commons) the Procedure Committee and (in the House of Lords) the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.  And the committees involved in the sifting process under EUWA – the European Statutory Instruments Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the Commons and Lords respectively – might also take the opportunity to share their experiences with that scheme. The probable bypassing of this aspect of the normal legislative process on the WAB is a startling illustration of the scrutiny gap between this Bill and more typically timetabled legislation.

On the substance, the starting point for amendments on this issue must be an acknowledgement that under-scrutiny of delegated legislation is a standing problem in the UK constitution.  Accordingly, statutes delegating significant substantive powers to legislate (like the WAB, but also more generally) should incrementally innovate in order to improve the situation.  Yet as published, the WAB proposes a step backwards.  And even the sifting process in EUWA represented only modest progress.  On the one hand, section 8 instruments are among the best scrutinised in the UK constitution.  But on the other hand, experience has shown that there are still important (but in principle avoidable) limitations on the effectiveness of even that scrutiny process:  far-reaching policy changes are still subject to little or no proper scrutiny even under the sifting mechanism.  So at the very least, WAB should maintain the standards set in EUWA:  the provisions on scrutiny of the Implementation Powers and the Citizen’s Rights powers should be amended in order to bring legislation made under those powers into the regime of the sifting mechanism.  On further examination, this is likely also to be the case for other powers which I have not covered here.  Ideally, amendments would go further still, in the light of the experience of that sifting mechanism. In particular, consideration should be given to making the recommendations of the sifting committees binding (or perhaps, at the very least, more difficult to circumvent) and to ways of enabling them to prompt better informed and more far-reaching debate (where appropriate) on the floor of the House.

The scale of the withdrawal process makes large scale delegation inevitable; its very nature entails a shift of authority towards the executive.  This issue needs careful management – yet the approach to scrutiny taken in the WAB is wholly unsatisfactory.  It was rejected by Parliament last time it was proposed.  It should be rejected again in favour of more intrusive scrutiny techniques.

I am grateful to Mike Gordon, Alexandra Sinclair and Joe Tomlinson who generously commented on earlier drafts of this post at – obviously – very short notice.

Adam Tucker, University of Liverpool

*

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.

US Tries to Reverse Syrian Fortunes with “Baghdadi Raid”

October 27th, 2019 by Tony Cartalucci

The Western media is reporting that US military forces have killed the supposed leader of the so-called “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” (ISIS) in Syria’s northern governorate of Idlib.

Newsweek in its article, “Trump Approves Special Ops Raid Targeting ISIS Leader Baghdadi, Military Says He’s Dead,” claimed:

The United States military has conducted a special operations raid targeting one of its most high-value targets, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), Newsweek has learned. President Donald Trump approved the mission nearly a week before it took place. 

The article also claimed:

Amid reports Saturday of U.S. military helicopters over Syria’s northwestern Idlib province, a senior Pentagon official familiar with the operation and Army official briefed on the matter told Newsweek that Baghdadi was the target of the top-secret operation in the last bastion of the country’s Islamist-dominated opposition, a faction that has clashed with ISIS in recent years.

Newsweek would include “details” of the supposed raid worthy of a Hollywood action movie finale, claiming:

The senior Pentagon official said there was a brief firefight when U.S. forces entered the compound and that Baghdadi then killed himself by detonating a suicide vest. Family members were present. According to Pentagon sources, no children were harmed in the raid but two Baghdadi wives were killed, possibly by the vest detonation.

As with most every claim the Western media or the US military makes without any sort of evidence, this most recent story cannot or shouldn’t be trusted, especially when there’s little to nothing that can be verified about it.

Timing is Everything 

The supposed military operation – unfolding just miles from the Syrian-Turkish border – comes at a time when the prospects of America’s proxy war in Syria have reached all time lows.

First – US proxy forces jointly armed and aided by Turkey as well as other US allies – have been all but eliminated from the battlefield with their remnants residing in Idlib, increasingly encircled by Syrian forces.

Attempts by the US to intervene in Syria directly to oversee the overthrow of the government in Damascus was also thwarted by Russia’s military intervention beginning in 2015.

US forces have most recently retreated from the Syrian-Turkish border in Syria’s northeast, setting the stage for a joint Russian-Turkish agreement that appears poised to see the disarmament of Kurdish militants or their possible integration into Syria’s security forces. The deal also aims at fully restoring Syria’s territorial integrity – fully derailing Washington’s secondary plans to “Balkanize” Syria.

The Russian-Turkish deal comes at a time when US-Turkish relations are particularly shaky, with Ankara realigning itself within a Middle East emerging out from under decades of US hegemony.

Despite alleged ISIS leader al Baghdadi lurking about Syria and Iraq throughout the duration of Syria’s war – why has the US with all its vast resources only now been able to “find” and “eliminate” him? The timing and location couldn’t have been better for the US if the entire incident was staged.

And regardless of whether the US staged the operation or not – the truth about who truly created and directed ISIS throughout the duration of the Syrian war – resigns al Baghdadi’s death ultimately as theater.

The US Created ISIS to Begin With… 

The US has admittedly spent billions of dollars arming militants throughout the duration of the Syrian war.

Articles like Foreign Policy’s, “The Pentagon Is Spending $2 Billion Running Soviet-Era Guns to Syrian Rebels,” or the New York Times,’ “C.I.A. Arms for Syrian Rebels Supplied Black Market, Officials Say,” in headlines alone indicate the extensive nature of US efforts to arm militants fighting against the Syrian government from 2011 onward.

If the US and its allies were providing billions in weapons, equipment, and other forms of support to militants claimed to be “moderates,” who was providing even more weapons, equipment, and other forms of support allowing extremist organizations like ISIS to rise to prominence and even supposedly displace or lure over US-backed militants?

The answer is simple – the US – as it has in all of its other wars of aggression – simply lied. There were never any “moderate” militants. The US deliberately misled the public about the nature of its proxy war in Syria. From the beginning – in fact long before the beginning of the Syrian war – the US was knowingly funneling aid into the hands of extremists with ties to groups like Al Qaeda and its various affiliates.

Far from mere speculation, it was the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) itself in a 2012 leaked memo that admitted, “the West, Gulf monarchies, and Turkey” were behind the rise of a what at the time was being called a “Salafist principality.”

The leaked 2012 report states (emphasis added):

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

To clarify precisely who these “supporting powers” were that sought the creation of a “Salafist” (Islamic) principality” (State), the DIA report explains:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

In other words, the US, its European allies, and its closest allies in the Middle East, sought the rise of a “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State) in eastern Syria, precisely where ISIS eventually manifested itself.

Stories like USA Today’s “The U.S. bought weapons for Syrian rebels — and some wound up in the hands of ISIS terrorists,” sought to incrementally spin how ISIS suddenly found itself awash with weapons and in a dominate position among Syria’s “opposition” alongside other Al Qaeda affiliates like Al Nusra.

In reality – as journalist like Seymour Hersh warned as early as 2007 in the pages of the New Yorker – US plans from the beginning centered around the arming and unleashing of extremists against Syria and its allies.

What is the Meaning of the Baghdadi Raid? 

Thus – at best – a US military operation eliminating the figurehead of ISIS is more akin to liquating one’s own assets rather than any sort of “victory.” Much more likely still – is that the operation is mere theater – with the US seeking relevance and leverage amid the conflict it itself engineered, triggered, and deliberately perpetuated – but now finds itself being evicted from.

While the world waits for evidence – if any evidence even emerges – analysts and interested parties alike would benefit more from looking at how the US plans to leverage and move onward from this supposed “raid” rather than obsessing over the supposed details of it.

One may hope the US uses it as a spectacular finale before fully withdrawing from Syria – including from its oilfields – and allowing the nation and its people to finally and fully restore order while undertaking the long process of reconstruction.

The proximity to Turkey’s border and recent rhetoric coming out of Washington suggests it may be leveraged to prolong the conflict further.

One may also hope diplomatic efforts by Syria’s allies are underway to coax Washington toward adopting the former option instead of the latter.

*

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

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Did John McCain Meet with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Alleged Head of the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, Daesh)?

October 27th, 2019 by Global Research News

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the alleged leader of ISIS is dead.

President Trump confirmed that he was under surveillance and that he had ordered his execution.

“He died like a dog, he died like a coward,”

The President said he watched the operation from the Situation Room but would not give more details of what type of feed it was.

Who is Al Baghdadi, leader of the ISIS? Was he an asset of Western intelligence?

Relevant article first published by GR on December 28, 2015.

***

The visit took place on May 27, 2013.

According to news reports:

Arizona Senator McCain crossed into Syria form Turkey with General Salem Idris, who leads the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, and stayed there for several hours before returning back.

The senator met with assembled leaders of Free Syrian Army units in both Turkey and Syria.

McCain with al-Baghdadi from TV report

Mugshot of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi

According to AP, McCain crossed the border near Kilis, Turkey, and spent two hours meeting with ‘rebel leaders’ near Idlib, Syria. The article further states that McCain made the trip in order to demand “aggressive military action in the 2-year-old Syrian civil war, calling for the establishment of a no-fly zone and arming the rebels”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/john-mccain-syrian-rebels_n_3368036.html

Presidential Spokesman Jay Carney said “the White House was aware in advance of McCain’s plans to travel to Syria. Carney declined to say whether McCain was carrying any message from the administration, but he said White House officials looked forward to hearing about his trip”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/28/john-mccain-syria_n_3346886.html

Here is an ABC News report on the visit, posted to YouTube: it speaks for itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbfsTcJCKDE

McCain’s two-hour visit has garnered a lot of attention because some bloggers claim that two of the rebel leaders seen in the photos that McCain posted to his Twitter account look very much like leaders of the Islamic State: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Muahmmad Noor.

https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/senator-john-mccains-whoops-moment-photographed-chilling-with-isis-chief-al-baghdadi-and-terrorist-muahmmad-noor/

Al-Baghdadi profile

The New York Times, on Sept. 11, 2014 mentioned the blog Socioeconomic History in an article  that attempted to help McCain by simply claiming that the Internet “rumors” were “false”; however the Times didn’t provide any details: only a denial by McCain’s communications director and another denial by the executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a DC lobbying organization led by a Palestinian employee of AIPAC, which arranged the senator’s visit.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article185085.html

(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/world/middleeast/try-as-he-may-john-mccain-cant-shake-falsehoods-about-ties-to-isis.html)

While information about Muahmmad Noor is hard to find, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is the alleged leader of the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, Daesh).

Other blogs have denied that the man seen talking to McCain is al-Baghdadi, pointing to decoy photographs provided afterwards by the US and the Iraqi government.

However, the photographs that McCain posted to his Twitter account and a video published by the IS on July 5, 2014, in which al Baghdadi is leading Friday prayers in Mosul, are eerily alike.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SZJMMdWC6o)

Al-Baghdadi in meeting with McCain

Closeup of al-Baghdadi speaking to McCain 

Not only that, the man in the first photograph of Al-Baghdadi released by the U.S. in 2011 looks identical to the man who met with McCain.

Mugshot of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Closeup of al-Baghdadi outside with McCain

The United States held al-Baghdadi in a military prison in Iraq named Camp Bucca from 2005 to 2009 (or 2010) and then released him, allegedly at the request of the Iraqi government. As he was being turned over to the custody of the Iraqi government, he reportedly told his US military captors, “I’ll see you in New York”. (quoted by Fox News)

http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/06/13/next-bin-laden-isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi

Camp Bucca is worth more attention, as it may have been a recruiting and training center for fighters who would go on to lead the IS.

Right after al-Baghdadi was freed, the Islamic State emerged out of nowhere and rapidly took over important swaths of Iraq and Syria. The U.S. officially designated al-Baghdadi a terrorist on October 4, 2011, and offered the $10 million reward for his capture or killing. This was when the U.S. released its first photograph of its former prisoner.

Subsequently, the U.S. released another mug shot from Camp Bucca, which doesn’t look like the first, partly because the man has glasses and a heavy beard. A really bad photograph released by the Iraqi Interior Ministry, like the second US mug shot, also seems to be a decoy intended to cover up al-Baghdadi’s connections with the U.S. government. It doesn’t appear to be the same man.

The details about al-Baghdadi’s background are as blurry as the Iraqi Interior photograph. He is reported to have been born in Samarra, north of Baghdad, on July 28, 1971. According to an article in The Telegraph, he was a Salafi, who became al-Qaeda’s point man in Qaim in Iraq’s western desert. The article states:

“Abu Duaa was connected to the intimidation, torture and murder of local civilians in Qaim”, says a Pentagon document. “He would kidnap individuals or entire families, accuse them, pronounce sentence and then publicly execute them.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10566001/Meet-al-Qaedas-new-poster-boy-for-the-Middle-East.html

Al-Baghjdadi would be only 43 when he was filmed leading prayers in Mosul in 2014, and 42 when he met with John McCain in 2013. The McCain photos and the Mosul videos show a man of about that age.

Al-Baghdadi in Mosul

Senator McCain has a long relationship with the CIA as the president of the State Department-funded International Republican Institute. The IRI organized the overthrow of Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide in 2004, and has been involved in many other overthrow operations, including the coup in Ukraine.

According to journalist Thierry Meyssan, who is based in Damascus, McCain participated in every color revolution over the past 20 years. Also according to Meyssan, McCain chaired a meeting held in Cairo on February 4, 2011, which NATO had organized to launch the “Arab Spring” in Libya and Syria. The so-called uprising in Syria began shortly afterward. http://www.voltairenet.org/article185085.html

Meyssan’s claim that McCain is intimately involved with CIA-organized overthrows makes lot more sense than the fiction that nobody knows who Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is or how this violent Iraqi al-Qaeda leader ended up meeting of ‘Syrian rebels’ with the senator inside of Syria. The inescapable conclusion is that all of the men at the meeting, including al-Baghdadi are CIA assets, and that IS is a CIA creation.

GR. Editor’s Note: The author of this article has requested that his name not appear due to the sensitive nature of this text.  While GR has verified the sources and evidence presented herewith, the usual disclaimer applies (see below). 

  • Posted in English, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Did John McCain Meet with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Alleged Head of the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, Daesh)?

Video: Russia Deploys Large Number of Troops, Equipment in Northern Syria

October 27th, 2019 by South Front

276 more Russian Military Police officers and 33 additional equipment pieces will be deployed in Syria, Russia’s state media reported. These forces will likely participate in security operations along the Syrian-Turkish border to the east of the Euphrates River.

Additionally to the deployment in Kobane, the Russian Military Police already started carrying out patrols near the city of Qamishly.

On October 24, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Vershinin announced that Kurdish forces had started withdrawal from the border area.

Watch the video here.

Nonetheless, the implementation of the ceasefire is not going without difficulties. On October 24 afternoon, the Syrian Army repelled an attack by Turkish-backed militants near the villages of al-Kozleya and Tell al-Laban in northern al-Hasakah. Clashes between the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and Turkish-backed groups also took place near the villages of Assadiya, Mishrafa and Manajer.

Pro-Turkish sources say that these attacks were conducted in response to ceasefire violations by Kurdish militias. The Turkish Defense Ministry revealed that 5 soldiers were injured in the Syrian province of al-Hasakah on October 24 in a series of attacks by Kurdish forces. However, the official Turkish version claims that its forces do not violate the ceasefire regime.

The SDF are ready to discuss the idea of joining the Syrian military once a political solution is reached in the war-torn country, a spokesman for the Kurdish-led group, Mustafa Bali, told Russian media. Bali claimed that “all parties must recognize that there is a political crisis that needs to be resolved by political means”. This kind of statements is quite different from the language of ultimatums, which the SDF used when US troops were present in northern Syria. This change indicates that a political solution is in fact can be reached.

*

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 Deploys Large Number of Troops, Equipment in Northern Syria
  • Tags: ,

Controlling the Narrative on Syria: Turkish Aggression, Kurdish Independence, and Honouring the White Helmets

October 27th, 2019 by Michael Welch

The Global Research News Hour radio program is hosting a fund-raiser. These funds are necessary in order to improve and expand on the reporting and analysis we produce on a weekly basis to explore in-depth those issues missed by mainstream and even a lot of alternative media. Please consider a donation to Global Research and earmark it as for ‘Global Research News Hour’ or for the ‘radio show.’ Visit the GRNH fund-raising page here. (Tag donation GRNH)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

After nearly eight and a half years of conflict, the Syrian government and the country’s armed forces finally seems to be consolidating a victory over the Islamic State and other opposition forces that had formerly dominated the bulk of the land area of the West Asian country.

By the end of August, the Syrian military forces’ had recaptured a former rebel stronghold – the strategic town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province – a major victory in its efforts to re-establish control of Syrian territory.

Shortly after, at the beginning of October, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that his country’s military would be launching a military assault in the northeast section of Syria, a region controlled by U.S.-backed Kurdish militia. The Trump Administration then announced it would be withdrawing troops stationed in the region in the face of bipartisan outrage and concern that America’s allies in the area, the Syrian Kurds, would be left at the mercy of the attacking Turkish army.

As of this writing, a new peace agreement, secured by Russian President Putin and Turkish President Erdogan, has halted the Turkish offensive.

The larger picture, however, is that Syria, like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya before it, has been targeted by the U.S. for regime change. A sophisticated propaganda apparatus has concealed this agenda of conquest behind the benign aphorism of ‘humanitarian intervention’ – protecting vulnerable freedom loving Syrians from a brutal dictatorial leader.

Consequently, elements of the anti-imperialist Left have accepted the demonization of Assad, and have condemned Trump’s U.S. troop withdrawal even though U.S. Force presence in Syria is illegal. The Kurds, for their part have attracted the sympathies of the American mainstream, as well as the anarchist and feminist Left.

Debunked claims about the use by Assad of chemical weapons against his own people or the ‘heroic’ White Helmets rescuing civilians from the rubble of the Syrian war go unchallenged.

This week’s Global Research News Hour radio program examines and deconstructs some leading pro-war Syrian narratives as the Russia-Turkish peace deal takes effect.

In our first half hour, we hear from Laith Marouf. This political commentator and Middle East analyst provides some historical context for the recent Turkish incursion and the agreement brokered recently to resolve that situation. We next hear from a member of the Syrian diaspora in Canada, Majd Zooda, about the removal of Waseem Ramli from a high profile Syrian representative post in Montreal and what it means for Syrian and non-Syrian Canadians. Finally, we re-air part of an interview by Chris Cook of CFUV’s Gorilla-Radio with Journalist Vanessa Beeley about her August article on Canadian human rights lawyer Irwin Cotler and his championing of the White Helmets.

Laith Marouf is a long time multimedia consultant and producer and currently serves as Senior Consultant at the Community Media Advocacy Centre (www.cmacentre.org) and the coordinator of ICTV, a project to secure a national multi-ethnic news television station in Canada (www.tele1.ca). Laith derives much of his understanding of Middle Eastern Affairs from his ancestral background of being both of Palestinian and of Syrian extraction. He is currently based in Beirut.

Majd Zooda is a Ph.D. Candidate in science education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. She was born in Kuwait but moved to Damascus in 2005 where she lived until 2012 before moving to Canada.

Vanessa Beeley is an independent investigative journalist and photographer. She is associate editor at 21st Century Wire. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 274)

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.

Al Baghdadi: The US Couldn’t Wish for a Greater Ally

October 27th, 2019 by Tony Cartalucci

This article was first published on May 11, 2019

With US-backed militants having already reached the full extent of their gains on the battlefield and now facing incremental but inevitable defeat – the US appeared to be out of time and out of options.

Then suddenly – as if on cue – Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – alleged leader of the so-called “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” (ISIS) was resurrected after US claims he had died years early, and provided the US with the perfect pretext to militarily intervene in Syria anyway.

A July 2014 BBC article titled, “Isis chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi appears in first video,” would claim:

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamist militant group Isis, has called on Muslims to obey him, in his first video sermon. 

Baghdadi has been appointed caliph by the jihadist group, which has seized large swathes of Iraq and Syria.

The sudden wave of violence unleashed by ISIS across Iraq and Syria was on such a scale that only state sponsorship could have accounted for it.

Creating the Perfect Enemy 

In fact – the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) as early as 2012 had even noted (PDF) a Western and Persian Gulf-led conspiracy to create what it called at the time a “Salafist” [Islamic] “principality” [State] precisely in eastern Syria where ISIS would eventually find itself based.

The DIA document would explain (emphasis added):

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

On clarifying who these supporting powers were, the DIA memo would state:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

The goal had been to further isolate the Syrian government in aid of Washington’s ultimate goal of overthrowing Damascus. When growing numbers of extremists failed to do this, the US then used the presence of ISIS as a pretext for a revised version of the direct military intervention Russia had thwarted just a year earlier.

For one year the US posed as fighting ISIS while simultaneously seizing Syria’s oil fields and building an army of militants it had hoped to use to both push ISIS into Syrian government-held territory, and with which to fight the Syrian government itself.

By 2015, Russia began its own military intervention. It immediately targeted ISIS supply lines leading out of NATO-member Turkey – something the US has failed to do up to and including today, isolating the terrorist group within Syrian territory before Russian air power along with Syrian, Iranian, and Hezbollah ground forces encircled and eliminated them along with Al Nusra and other extremist groups everywhere west of the Euphrates River.

On the American-occupied side of the Euphrates, ISIS persisted until just this year and at times was even protected from pursuing Syrian and Russian forces by a US-declared exclusion zone.

It is now clear US efforts to overthrow the Syrian government have failed. It is also clear that Washington’s pretext for illegally occupying Syrian territory is no longer politically tenable.

Just as America’s presence in Syria was becoming increasingly awkward and unsustainable, al-Baghdadi has again emerged – just in time – to grant the US victory in eastern Syria but to also remind the global public that ISIS is still an enduring threat that will require America’s continued presence in the region.

The US response to al-Baghdadi’s reemergence was telling, even complimentary. An AFP/New York Times article titled, “ISIS releases first videotape of Baghdadi in five years, US vows to track down surviving leaders of militant group,” would report:

The United States vowed on Monday (April 29) that it would track down and defeat surviving leaders of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) movement after its elusive supremo Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi appeared to speak in a newly released videotape. 

The US-led coalition against the group will fight across the world to “ensure an enduring defeat of these terrorists and that any leaders who remain are delivered the justice that they deserve”, a State Department spokesman said.

US hegemony requires the US military to maintain a presence around the globe – which in turn requires a perpetual pretext to do so. Just as the US deliberately created ISIS to serve as a pretext for illegally occupying Syrian territory remain there indefinitely – it has and will continue to use ISIS’ convenient expansion worldwide to justify a continued, global US military presence worldwide as well.

Washington Couldn’t Create a more Convenient Villain 

Students of history would be hard pressed to find similar examples of a military or political leader like al-Baghdadi who openly, even eagerly conceded defeat and grant a supposed adversary a massive political victory. So convenient and artificial is al-Baghdadi’s most recent reappearance and all of his alleged activities in the past that many around the globe are questioning the veracity of the video and of al-Baghdadi himself.

Considering America’s own Defense Intelligence Agency has all but admitted the US deliberately created ISIS in the first place – it takes no stretch of the imagination to conclude they created al-Baghdadi as well.

The summation of ISIS’ fighting capacity is drawn from its admitted state sponsors – both Saudi Arabia and Qatar – as admitted by US politicians themselves, the UK Independent would report.

Riyadh, Doha, and in turn, those underwriting both regimes in Washington – are the true “leaders” of ISIS – arming, funding, and directing the terrorist organization – with al-Baghdadi a mere figurehead who emerges when the needs of Western foreign policy and propaganda require.

If the US could create a villain to consistently serve Washington’s interests both in Syria and around the globe, they would have difficulty creating one more ideal than Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

*

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

Tony Cartalucci is Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from NEO

“Le guerre di Siria”: resistenza, istruzioni per l’uso

October 26th, 2019 by Majed Nehmé

“Mentono … e sanno che mentono … e sanno che noi sappiamo che mentono … Eppure continuano a mentire sempre più forte” 

è la frase, scritta da Naguib Mahfouz, che Michel Raimbaud  mette in evidenza nel suo libro “Les guerres de Syrie”.

Non è un caso che il primo capitolo del libro ‘Le guerre di Siria’ di Michel Raimbaud, ex ambasciatore, ex presidente dell’OFPRA, professore di scienze politiche e scrittore, si intitoli – riprendendo la famosa frase di Catone il vecchio “Carthago delenda est” (Cartagine deve essere distrutta) – “Delenda est Syria”: una vecchia ossessione “.  Un vecchio accanimento senza dubbio perchè Catone, che era solito pronunciare questa formula ogni volta che iniziava o terminava un discorso davanti al Senato romano, qualunque fosse l’argomento, aveva anche partecipato alla guerra contro la Siria, al tempo guidata dal re Antioco III° il Grande! Quest’ultimo ebbe l’audacia di ricevere il fuggitivo Annibale nella sua corte e di aiutarlo ad armarsi contro Roma, allora unica potenza egemonica emergente.

 Michel Raimbaud

Perché tanta implacabilità?

Vedendo in questa colonia fenicia una certa emanazione dell’antica Siria, Michel Raimbaud ricorda che dopo oltre due millenni la Siria di oggi sembra essere la Cartagine di questa Roma dei tempi moderni che è l’America, la vecchia ossessione è ancora lì (pagina 26). Riattivata dall’indipendenza, nel dopoguerra, è ancora più rilevante dopo gli anni ’90 che hanno visto l’ascesa degli Hezbollah in Libano con il sostegno attivo della Siria. Questo supporto ha permesso a questo movimento di costringere l’occupante israeliano a ritirarsi, nel 2000, dai territori libanesi che deteneva dal 1978. Un importante punto di svolta geopolitico e una prima negli annali del conflitto arabo-israeliano. Dalla guerra del giugno 1967, Israele non era mai stato costretto a lasciare un territorio arabo occupato senza contropartita, o più esattamente senza capitolazione, come nel caso dei fallaci accordi di pace del 1979 risultanti dai negoziati di Camp David con l’Egitto di Sadat o dal trattato di pace del Wadi Araba del 1994 con la Giordania, o infine gli accordi di Oslo tra Israele e l’Olp nel 1993.  Questo mercato degli inganni ha solo portato a una maggiore occupazione e annessione di territori palestinesi senza che il fantomatico Stato palestinese promesso – in cambio del riconoscimento dello Stato di Israele – vedesse la luce del giorno! La Siria, da parte sua, ha rifiutato categoricamente questi colloqui e contrattazioni sotto la guida degli Stati Uniti, optando per negoziati multilaterali con all’ordine del giorno: pace, pace dovunque, contro la restituzione di tutti i territori arabi occupati in Palestina, Siria e Libano. Ossia, il diritto internazionale contro strategia del fatto compiuto. Il rifiuto dell’establishment sionista di ritirarsi da tutti i territori arabi occupati ha solo rafforzato la determinazione della resistenza libanese, sostenuta dall’Iran ma soprattutto dalla Siria, di liberare il sud libanese occupato. Ciò che fu fatto nel 2000.  Una sconfitta israeliana da una parte e una vittoria del nascente asse di resistenza dall’altra. Questo ritiro senza gloria dell’esercito israeliano fu sentito come un’umiliazione dai generali israeliani. Nel 2006, l’esercito israeliano, apertamente sostenuto dagli Stati Uniti, dai paesi occidentali e dai loro ausiliari arabi (Arabia Saudita, Egitto, Giordania) voleva cancellare questa umiliazione puntando alla distruzione di Hezbollah, primo passo per indebolire la Siria che non aveva lesinato sui mezzi per aiutare la resistenza irachena contro l’occupazione americana della Mesopotamia nel 2003. Fu a sue spese. A parte la distruzione delle infrastrutture civili libanesi, Israele ha dovuto ritirarsi vergognosamente, rassegnandosi ad accettare uno status quo con Hezbollah e non attraversare più il confine terrestre del Libano, anche se una piccola parte del paese dei Cedri, le fattorie di Chaba’a, restò occupato. La parte dei vinti non si limitò al solo Israele, ma si estese all’Arabia Saudita, alla Giordania e all’Egitto che avevano scommesso sulla sconfitta di Hezbollah, preludio alla caduta della Siria, poi dell’Iran, nei dossier dei neoconservatori americani.

Dopo il fallimento del vertice chiamato ‘ultima chanche’ che aveva riunito a Ginevra il presidente Hafez al-Assad, già gravemente ammalato, e il presidente americano Bill Clinton nel marzo 2000, gli Stati Uniti avevano disperato di riportare la Siria all’ovile. Il presidente siriano non aveva ceduto sull’integrità del territorio siriano. Senza il ritiro israeliano da tutto il territorio siriano occupato e una soluzione del conflitto palestinese in conformità con il diritto internazionale, nessuna pace. La Siria non voleva cadere nella trappola di un accordo quadro, come nel caso di Oslo, in cui ogni clausola doveva essere oggetto di infinite discussioni e colloqui bizantini. Anche se gli Stati Uniti avevano promesso alla Siria la bellezza di $ 40 miliardi in cambio della firma di un accordo quadro.

D’ora in poi, la Siria viene nuovamente designata come nemica da sconfiggere.

“Da un quarto di secolo”, scrive Michel Raimbaud, “questo amabile paese figura in primo piano nella lista dell’Asse del Male (nelle parole dell’ineffabile Debeliou, imperatore dei bigotti e capo progettista di massacri seriali). Uno Stato canaglia, uno Stato paria, uno Stato “preoccupante” (a scelta), viene accostato all’Iran, all’Iraq di Saddam, alla Libia di Gheddafi, a Cuba, alla Corea del Nord, all’ex Unione Sovietica e la Russia di oggi, la Cina di sempre. “

Per i neoconservatori è necessario “dissanguare lentamente la Siria”

L’autore cita un articolo premonitore, pubblicato nel febbraio 2000, un mese prima del vertice Clinton-Assad, firmato dal neoconservatore David Wurmser. Quest’ultimo chiede inequivocabilmente di non dare tregua alla Siria, di intrappolarla in un conflitto in cui “sanguinerà lentamente fino alla morte”! Tutto un programma …

‘Le guerre di Siria’ dà al lettore un’analisi storica e geopolitica senza precedenti per la sua chiarezza, la sua profondità geostrategica e il suo spirito di sintesi e dialettica, spiegando senza mezzi termini le vere ragioni dell’accanimento occidentale in generale e degli Stati Uniti in particolare contro questo paese chiave. È in linea con il suo precedente libro geopolitico, “Tempesta sul Grande Medio Oriente”, pubblicato nel 2015, ristampato nel 2017, tradotto in arabo con la prefazione di Richard Labévière. Attraverso la guerra contro la Siria, iniziata nel febbraio-marzo 2011, sulla scia delle mal soprannominate primavere arabe, made in USA, come dimostra il nostro amico Ahmed Bensaada nella sua magistrale indagine “Arabesque$” sul ruolo degli Stati Uniti nelle rivolte arabe (la prima edizione risale al 2011, una seconda edizione ampliata è stata pubblicata a Bruxelles e Algeri nel 2016), Michel Raimbaud rivela una moltitudine di guerre, almeno quindici: una guerra dell’Impero contro gli Stati recalcitranti; una guerra al servizio di Israele; una guerra per il controllo delle vie energetiche; una guerra contro la Russia, la tradizionale alleata (di Damasco ndt), che ha ritrovato, grazie alla resilienza di Damasco, la sua grandezza e il suo ruolo di protagonista nella scena internazionale; una guerra contro l’Iran, l’altro Stato paria, e contro la resistenza libanese, che, grazie in particolare alla Siria, ha somministrato una umiliante sconfitta all’occupante israeliano; una guerra mediatica senza precedenti nella storia e, ultimo ma non meno importante, una guerra contro l’internazionale jihadista sostenuta dalla Turchia, dalle monarchie del Golfo e dall’Occidente, senza tuttavia nascondere la guerra civile stessa.

Autopsia di un “complotto confessato”.

Con prefazione dello scrittore Philippe de Saint Robert, un gollista che fu al centro dell’elaborazione della politica araba della Francia sotto de Gaulle e Pompidou, oggi svanita, il libro è composto da 15 capitoli, densi, ricchi, didattici, e spiega le radici di queste guerre, addita i loro attori, analizza i loro metodi operativi e analizza, alla fine, le vere ragioni della sconfitta di questa vasta impresa criminale. Si va dalla “vecchia ossessione” di distruzione della Siria che ha guidato i passi dei suoi numerosi nemici, allo svolgersi della guerra stessa, alla creazione di un’opposizione esterna, al progetto che i neoconservatori stanno alimentando per l’asservimento della Siria, alla guerra dei media, alla strumentalizzazione del terrorismo per abbattere un potere secolare, alla genesi dell’asse di resistenza e, infine, alla guerra per la pace, la riconciliazione e la ricostruzione.

In tutti i capitoli, l’autore che aborrisce le principali tesi dei media mainstream che si sono distinti nell’arte di mascherare la realtà e di prendere i desideri dei loro sponsor per la realtà, chiama le cose con il loro nome. È uno dei rari geopolitologi che non si sono lasciati intimidire dai media, dagli esperti, dai politologi da operetta che, in una unanimità che non sopporta alcuna contraddizione, avevano profetizzato troppo rapidamente per lo Stato siriano un crollo certo e imminente. Ebbene, sono stati miseramente smentiti. La Siria, dopo nove anni di guerra che è durata più a lungo delle due grandi guerre mondiali messe insieme, è certamente ancora sanguinante, martirizzata, distrutta, assediata, ma ancora in piedi. Senza aspettare la liberazione delle ultime parti ancora occupate del suo territorio dagli Stati Uniti e dai loro ausiliari europei, la Turchia e i suoi burattini, daechisti e qaidisti, sta già iniziando a lavorare.  Ad Aleppo, Homs, Palmyra e ovunque siano stati spazzati via i parassiti terroristi, sono iniziati i cantieri di ricostruzione, senza attendere la revoca delle sanzioni occidentali, che sono criminali oltre che essere controproducenti. Il popolo siriano, che ha stupito il mondo per la sua capacità di resilienza, senza dubbio lo sorprenderà maggiormente per la sua capacità di ricostruirsi e ricostruire il suo paese contando prima di tutto su se stesso ma anche sui suoi alleati (Russia, Cina, Iran …). Vale la pena ricordare che la Siria, sin dalla sua indipendenza, si è costruita e sviluppata senza l’aiuto dell’Occidente, perfino malgrado esso… La diga dell’Eufrate, i principali progetti di ristrutturazione sono stati completati contando innanzitutto sulle capacità e sul dinamismo del popolo siriano stesso con il sostegno dei suoi veri amici dei paesi orientali e dei non allineati.

Questo libro, afferma Michel Raimbaud “fornirà alcune idee, forse rispondendo alle domande di coloro che vorrebbero capire. È anche dedicato agli ‘spiriti forti’ a cui “non la si fa”, agli scettici che dopo tutto questo tempo ‘non si pronunciano’ tra “il massacratore” e “l’opposizione pacifica” che ha preso le armi in Siria, alle “anime belle” normalmente incredule quando si evoca di fronte a loro l’attivismo delle nostre “grandi democrazie”. “Speriamo”, scrive ancora, “che sarà in grado di aumentare la cultura dei fruitori del dibattito televisivo, di alimentare le informazioni degli intervistati del micro-marciapiede. Sarà utile ai manichini tentati dal riciclaggio, agli intellettuali bloccati nel loro schema “rivoluzionario”, ai produttori di notizie rinchiuse nella loro menzogna, a coloro che avranno la memoria che vacilla e fingono di non ricordare molto bene. ”

Il merito di questo libro non si limita all’informazione e all’analisi, alle confutazioni, che mettono le cose in chiaro sulla realtà della guerra contro la Siria. L’immensa qualità di questo libro risiede nel coraggio del suo autore, che attraverso i suoi scritti precedenti e in particolare il suo libro di riferimento sulle questioni geopolitiche di questo conflitto (Tempesta sul Grande Medio Oriente), è stato in grado di opporsi alla follia politico-mediatica e alla cecità collettiva riguardo alla Siria. Dallo scoppio della guerra mondiale contro la Siria nel febbraio-marzo 2011, poche persone stavano scommettendo un copeco sulla possibilità che lo Stato siriano emergesse vittorioso. Noi facevamo parte della redazione di Africa-Asia, questa minoranza che aveva scelto con lucidità, argomentazioni a sostegno, di smentire tutte le “Cassandre”. Michel Raimbaud era uno di questi. Proprio come il nostro amico Richard Labévière, uno dei pochi geopolitici francesi ad aver analizzato a fondo i dettagli della “guerra globale” contro la Siria, in particolare dal punto di vista della lotta contro il terrorismo, e che ha pagato un pesante tributo per il suo impegno per la verità, che aveva messo in guardia in una famosa cronaca pubblicata nel numero di febbraio 2015 di Afrique-Asie con il titolo premonitore: “Terrorismo e diplomazia: diritti contro il muro suonando il clacson”. Fondatore e capo-redattore del quotidiano online Proche et MoyenOrient, è anche uno specialista in relazioni internazionali e in particolare della Siria a cui ha dedicato molti libri, tra cui Le Grand Retournement. Baghdad-Beirut, dove descrive il travisamento della diplomazia francese e il suo cieco allineamento con i neoconservatori americani e annuncia, premonitore (il libro è stato pubblicato nel 2006), la futura guerra globale contro la Siria.

Come non menzionare anche i rari harakiri di chi aveva osato opporsi al linciaggio isterico sulla Siria, come nel caso di Frederic Pichon, autore di “Siria, perché l’Occidente aveva torto”, o Bruno Guigue, che aveva dedicato innumerevoli analisi per stigmatizzare le menzogne e la truffa intellettuale di coloro che si erano costituiti come “siriologhi” (leggi in www.afrique-asie.fr la sua analisi “Disinformazione: le migliori perle dei ciarlatani della Rivoluzione siriana, settembre 2016).

“Le guerre di Siria” appare nel momento in cui l’esito vittorioso, ma così doloroso, del conflitto non è più in dubbio. Le edizioni Glyphe, che hanno avuto il coraggio di pubblicarlo, testimoniano la propria nobiltà di editori, che non esitano a rischiare a costo di offendere i detentori del pensiero unico. Rischiano al servizio della verità e della libertà di espressione; in breve: al servizio della democrazia.

Un libro indispensabile, magistrale. Da leggere e far leggere assolutamente. * Le guerre di Siria , di Michel Raimbaud, prefazione di Philippe de Saint Robert, edizioni Glyphe, Parigi 2019.

Introduzione alla lettura, di Majed Nehmé
trad. Gb.P. per OraproSiria
  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on “Le guerre di Siria”: resistenza, istruzioni per l’uso

Lithium, a Strategic Resource: Here’s Why The US Wants To Break Bolivia To Bits With Hybrid War

October 26th, 2019 by Andrew Korybko

Of relevance to the political crisis in Bolivia, first published by Global Research in August 2016

So I was scanning Telesur’s website the other day and a pretty interesting story caught my eye. It said that Bolivia had begun exporting 10 tons of lithium to China as the start of what the country hopes will flourish into a multimillion-dollar partnership in the near future.

The reason why this is such a big deal and I’m talking about it with you all is because lithium is an integral component of most of our cell phones and electric car batteries, and estimates vary over the size of Bolivia’s deposits, with the article saying that the government says it holds 70% of the global total, while the US retorts that this is just about 7%, or 10x less. Regardless of what the actual number really is, the fact that China – the factory of the world – is able to diversify its imports of this rare earth mineral strengthens Beijing’s supply strain security with this strategic commodity, and it also pairs well with the billion-dollar coltan investment that it made in the Congo a few months back and which I also covered at the time on Context Countdown. Taken together, China is positioning itself for dominance in the cell phone and electric car industries, which will make it a future leader in these industries.

So what Bolivia is doing is very helpful for the emerging Multipolar World Order in general, and since we’re on the topic of the country’s contribution to geopolitics, it’s worthwhile including a few of its other projects that are just as helpful. Russia is deepening its cooperation with the Andean state in the oil, gas, and nuclear energy industries, and Russian representatives have said that they’re interested in military exports to the country and in boosting bilateral commercial trade. Furthermore, China and Bolivia have signed agreements on military cooperation too, particularly for Beijing to send it new armored personnel carriers which it just made good on a few weeks ago.

Everywhere we turn, it seems, it looks like Bolivia is more and more becoming the latest joint project of the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership in helping to construct a multipolar world, but precisely for that reason, we need to watch out for Hybrid War threats against the plurinational state, as Bolivia is officially called. These include the threat of foreign-provoked conflict between the 38 ethnic groups in the country, militarized labor unrest such as the mining strikes that are ongoing right now, transnational drug cartels that operate along the Brazilian and Paraguayan borders, a traditional Color Revolution, and the possibility of a ‘regime reboot’ campaign to promote the divisive Bosnification of Bolivia into an Identity Federation of quasi-independent statelets that the US could more easily divide and rule. Bolivia had better watch out, because the more that it bravely stands up to the US by embracing the multipolar leaders of Russia and China, the bigger the bullseye on its back becomes.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lithium, a Strategic Resource: Here’s Why The US Wants To Break Bolivia To Bits With Hybrid War

Neoliberal Globalization: Is There an Alternative to Plundering the Earth?

October 26th, 2019 by Prof. Claudia von Werlhof

The following is a preview of a chapter by Prof. Claudia von Werlhof in  “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century.”  (2009).

To read more, order the book online. Help us spread the word: “like” the book on Facebook and share with your friends!

***

Is there an alternative to plundering the earth?

Is there an alternative to making war?

Is there an alternative to destroying the planet?

No one asks these questions because they seem absurd. Yet, no one can escape them either. Until the onslaught of the global economic crisis, the motto of so-called “neoliberalism” was TINA: “There Is No Alternative!”

No alternative to “neoliberal globalization”?

No alternative to the unfettered “free market” economy?

What Is “Neoliberal Globalization”?

Let us first clarify what globalization and neoliberalism are, where they come from, who they are directed by, what they claim, what they do, why their effects are so fatal, why they will fail and why people nonetheless cling to them. Then, let us look at the responses of those who are not – or will not – be able to live with the consequences they cause.

This is where the difficulties begin. For a good twenty years now we have been told that there is no alternative to neoliberal globalization, and that, in fact, no such alternative is needed either. Over and over again, we have been confronted with the TINA-concept: “There Is No Alternative!” The “iron lady”, Margaret Thatcher, was one of those who reiterated this belief without end.

The TINA-concept prohibits all thought. It follows the rationale that there is no point in analyzing and discussing neoliberalism and so-called globalization because they are inevitable. Whether we condone what is happening or not does not matter, it is happening anyway. There is no point in trying to understand. Hence: Go with it! Kill or be killed!

Some go as far as suggesting that globalization – meaning, an economic system which developed under specific social and historical conditions – is nothing less but a law of nature. In turn, “human nature” is supposedly reflected by the character of the system’s economic subjects: egotistical, ruthless, greedy and cold. This, we are told, works towards everyone’s benefit.

The question remains: why has Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” become a “visible fist”? While a tiny minority reaps enormous benefits from today’s neoliberalism (none of which will remain, of course), the vast majority of the earth’s population suffers hardship to the extent that their very survival is at stake. The damage done seems irreversible.

All over the world media outlets – especially television stations – avoid addressing the problem. A common excuse is that it cannot be explained.[1] The true reason is, of course, the media’s corporate control.

What Is Neoliberalism?

Neoliberalism as an economic policy agenda which began in Chile in 1973. Its inauguration consisted of a U.S.-organized coup against a democratically elected socialist president and the installment of a bloody military dictatorship notorious for systematic torture. This was the only way to turn the neoliberal model of the so-called “Chicago Boys” under the leadership of Milton Friedman – a student of Friedrich von Hayek – into reality.

The predecessor of the neoliberal model is the economic liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries and its notion of “free trade”. Goethe’s assessment at the time was: “Free trade, piracy, war – an inseparable three!”[2]

At the center of both old and new economic liberalism lies:

Self-interest and individualism; segregation of ethical principles and economic affairs, in other words: a process of ‘de-bedding’ economy from society; economic rationality as a mere cost-benefit calculation and profit maximization; competition as the essential driving force for growth and progress; specialization and the replacement of a subsistence economy with profit-oriented foreign trade (‘comparative cost advantage’); and the proscription of public (state) interference with market forces.[3]

Where the new economic liberalism outdoes the old is in its global claim. Today’s economic liberalism functions as a model for each and everyone: all parts of the economy, all sectors of society, of life/nature itself. As a consequence, the once “de-bedded” economy now claims to “im-bed” everything, including political power. Furthermore, a new twisted “economic ethics” (and with it a certain idea of “human nature”) emerges that mocks everything from so-called do-gooders to altruism to selfless help to care for others to a notion of responsibility.[4]

This goes as far as claiming that the common good depends entirely on the uncontrolled egoism of the individual and, especially, on the prosperity of transnational corporations. The allegedly necessary “freedom” of the economy – which, paradoxically, only means the freedom of corporations – hence consists of a freedom from responsibility and commitment to society.

The maximization of profit itself must occur within the shortest possible time; this means, preferably, through speculation and “shareholder value”. It must meet as few obstacles as possible. Today, global economic interests outweigh not only extra-economic concerns but also national economic considerations since corporations today see themselves beyond both community and nation.[5] A “level playing field” is created that offers the global players the best possible conditions. This playing field knows of no legal, social, ecological, cultural or national “barriers”.[6] As a result, economic competition plays out on a market that is free of all non-market, extra-economic or protectionist influences – unless they serve the interests of the big players (the corporations), of course. The corporations’ interests – their maximal growth and progress – take on complete priority. This is rationalized by alleging that their well-being means the well-being of small enterprises and workshops as well.

The difference between the new and the old economic liberalism can first be articulated in quantitative terms: after capitalism went through a series of ruptures and challenges – caused by the “competing economic system”, the crisis of capitalism, post-war “Keynesianism” with its social and welfare state tendencies, internal mass consumer demand (so-called Fordism), and the objective of full employment in the North. The liberal economic goals of the past are now not only euphorically resurrected but they are also “globalized”. The main reason is indeed that the competition between alternative economic systems is gone. However, to conclude that this confirms the victory of capitalism and the “golden West” over “dark socialism” is only one possible interpretation. Another – opposing – interpretation is to see the “modern world system” (which contains both capitalism and socialism) as having hit a general crisis which causes total and merciless competition over global resources while leveling the way for investment opportunities, i.e. the valorization of capital.[7]

The ongoing globalization of neoliberalism demonstrates which interpretation is right. Not least, because the differences between the old and the new economic liberalism can not only be articulated in quantitative terms but in qualitative ones too. What we are witnessing are completely new phenomena: instead of a democratic “complete competition” between many small enterprises enjoying the freedom of the market, only the big corporations win. In turn, they create new market oligopolies and monopolies of previously unknown dimensions. The market hence only remains free for them, while it is rendered unfree for all others who are condemned to an existence of dependency (as enforced producers, workers and consumers) or excluded from the market altogether (if they have neither anything to sell or buy). About fifty percent of the world’s population fall into this group today, and the percentage is rising.[8]

Anti-trust laws have lost all power since the transnational corporations set the norms. It is the corporations – not “the market” as an anonymous mechanism or “invisible hand” – that determine today’s rules of trade, for example prices and legal regulations. This happens outside any political control. Speculation with an average twenty percent profit margin edges out honest producers who become “unprofitable”.[9] Money becomes too precious for comparatively non-profitable, long-term projects,

or projects that only – how audacious! – serve a good life. Money instead “travels upwards” and disappears. Financial capital determines more and more what the markets are and do.[10] By delinking the dollar from the price of gold, money creation no longer bears a direct relationship to production”.[11] Moreover, these days most of us are – exactly like all governments – in debt. It is financial capital that has all the money – we have none.[12]

Small, medium, even some bigger enterprises are pushed out of the market, forced to fold or swallowed by transnational corporations because their performances are below average in comparison to speculation – rather: spookulation – wins. The public sector, which has historically been defined as a sector of not-for-profit economy and administration, is “slimmed” and its “profitable” parts (“gems”) handed to corporations (privatized). As a consequence, social services that are necessary for our existence disappear. Small and medium private businesses – which, until recently, employed eighty percent of the workforce and provided normal working conditions – are affected by these developments as well. The alleged correlation between economic growth and secure employment is false. When economic growth is accompanied by the mergers of businesses, jobs are lost.[13]

If there are any new jobs, most are precarious, meaning that they are only available temporarily and badly paid. One job is usually not enough to make a living.[14] This means that the working conditions in the North become akin to those in the South, and the working conditions of men akin to those of women – a trend diametrically opposed to what we have always been told. Corporations now leave for the South (or East) to use cheap – and particularly female – labor without union affiliation. This has already been happening since the 1970s in the “Export Processing Zones” (EPZs, “world market factories” or “maquiladoras”), where most of the world’s computer chips, sneakers, clothes and electronic goods are produced.[15] The EPZs lie in areas where century-old colonial-capitalist and authoritarian-patriarchal conditions guarantee the availability of cheap labor.[16] The recent shift of business opportunities from consumer goods to armaments is a particularly troubling development.[17]

It is not only commodity production that is “outsourced” and located in the EPZs, but service industries as well. This is a result of the so-called Third Industrial Revolution, meaning the development of new information and communication technologies. Many jobs have disappeared entirely due to computerization, also in administrative fields.[18] The combination of the principles of “high tech” and “low wage”/”no wage” (always denied by “progress” enthusiasts) guarantees a “comparative cost advantage” in foreign trade. This will eventually lead to “Chinese wages” in the West. A potential loss of Western consumers is not seen as a threat. A corporate economy does not care whether consumers are European, Chinese or Indian.

The means of production become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, especially since finance capital – rendered precarious itself – controls asset values ever more aggressively. New forms of private property are created, not least through the “clearance” of public property and the transformation of formerly public and small-scale private services and industries to a corporate business sector. This concerns primarily fields that have long been (at least partly) excluded from the logic of profit – e.g. education, health, energy or water supply/disposal. New forms of so-called enclosures emerge from today’s total commercialization of formerly small-scale private or public industries and services, of the “commons”, and of natural resources like oceans, rain forests, regions of genetic diversity or geopolitical interest (e.g. potential pipeline routes), etc.[19] As far as the new virtual spaces and communication networks go, we are witnessing frantic efforts to bring these under private control as well.[20]

All these new forms of private property are essentially created by (more or less) predatory forms of appropriation. In this sense, they are a continuation of the history of so-called original accumulation which has expanded globally, in accordance with to the motto: “Growth through expropriation!”[21]

Most people have less and less access to the means of production, and so the dependence on scarce and underpaid work increases. The destruction of the welfare state also destroys the notion that individuals can rely on the community to provide for them in times of need. Our existence relies exclusively on private, i.e. expensive, services that are often of much worse quality and much less reliable than public services. (It is a myth that the private always outdoes the public.) What we are experiencing is undersupply formerly only known by the colonial South. The old claim that the South will eventually develop into the North is proven wrong. It is the North that increasingly develops into the South. We are witnessing the latest form of “development”, namely, a world system of underdevelopment.[22] Development and underdevelopment go hand in hand.[23] This might even dawn on “development aid” workers soon.

It is usually women who are called upon to counterbalance underdevelopment through increased work (“service provisions”) in the household. As a result, the workload and underpay of women takes on horrendous dimensions: they do unpaid work inside their homes and poorly paid “housewifized” work outside.[24] Yet, commercialization does not stop in front of the home’s doors either. Even housework becomes commercially co-opted (“new maid question”), with hardly any financial benefits for the women who do the work.[25]

Not least because of this, women are increasingly coerced into prostitution, one of today’s biggest global industries.[26] This illustrates two things: a) how little the “emancipation” of women actually leads to “equal terms” with men; and b) that “capitalist development” does not imply increased “freedom” in wage labor relations, as the Left has claimed for a long time.[27] If the latter were the case, then neoliberalism would mean the voluntary end of capitalism once it reaches its furthest extension. This, however, does not appear likely.

Today, hundreds of millions of quasi-slaves, more than ever before, exist in the “world system.”[28] The authoritarian model of the “Export Processing Zones” is conquering the East and threatening the North. The redistribution of wealth runs ever more – and with ever accelerated speed – from the bottom to the top. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been wider. The middle classes disappear. This is the situation we are facing.

It becomes obvious that neoliberalism marks not the end of colonialism but, to the contrary, the colonization of the North. This new “colonization of the world”[29] points back to the beginnings of the “modern world system” in the “long 16th century”, when the conquering of the Americas, their exploitation and colonial transformation allowed for the rise and “development” of Europe.[30] The so-called “children’s diseases” of modernity keep on haunting it, even in old age. They are, in fact, the main feature of modernity’s latest stage. They are expanding instead of disappearing.

Where there is no South, there is no North; where there is no periphery, there is no center; where there is no colony, there is no – in any case no “Western” – civilization.[31]

Austria is part of the world system too. It is increasingly becoming a corporate colony (particularly of German corporations). This, however, does not keep it from being an active colonizer itself, especially in the East.[32]

Social, cultural, traditional and ecological considerations are abandoned and give way to a mentality of plundering. All global resources that we still have – natural resources, forests, water, genetic pools – have turned into objects of utilization. Rapid ecological destruction through depletion is the consequence. If one makes more profit by cutting down trees than by planting them, then there is no reason not to cut them.[33] Neither the public nor the state interferes, despite global warming and the obvious fact that the clearing of the few remaining rain forests will irreversibly destroy the earth’s climate – not to mention the many other negative effects of such actions.[34] Climate, animal, plants, human and general ecological rights are worth nothing compared to the interests of the corporations – no matter that the rain forest is not a renewable resource and that the entire earth’s ecosystem depends on it. If greed, and the rationalism with which it is economically enforced, really was an inherent anthropological trait, we would have never even reached this day.

The commander of the Space Shuttle that circled the earth in 2005 remarked that “the center of Africa was burning”. She meant the Congo, in which the last great rain forest of the continent is located. Without it there will be no more rain clouds above the sources of the Nile. However, it needs to disappear in order for corporations to gain free access to the Congo’s natural resources that are the reason for the wars that plague the region today. After all, one needs diamonds and coltan for mobile phones.

Today, everything on earth is turned into commodities, i.e. everything becomes an object of “trade” and commercialization (which truly means liquidation, the transformation of all into liquid money). In its neoliberal stage it is not enough for capitalism to globally pursue less cost-intensive and preferably “wageless” commodity production. The objective is to transform everyone and everything into commodities, including life itself.[35] We are racing blindly towards the violent and absolute conclusion of this “mode of production”, namely total capitalization/liquidation by “monetarization”.[36]

We are not only witnessing perpetual praise of the market – we are witnessing what can be described as “market fundamentalism”. People believe in the market as if it was a god. There seems to be a sense that nothing could ever happen without it. Total global maximized accumulation of money/capital as abstract wealth becomes the sole purpose of economic activity. A “free” world market for everything has to be established – a world market that functions according to the interests of the corporations and capitalist money. The installment of such a market proceeds with dazzling speed. It creates new profit possibilities where they have not existed before, e.g. in Iraq, Eastern Europe or China.

One thing remains generally overlooked: the abstract wealth created for accumulation implies the destruction of nature as concrete wealth. The result is a “hole in the ground” and next to it a garbage dump with used commodities, outdated machinery and money without value.[37] However, once all concrete wealth (which today consists mainly of the last natural resources) will be gone, abstract wealth will disappear as well. It will, in Marx’s words, “evaporate”. The fact that abstract wealth is not real wealth will become obvious, and so will the answer to the question of which wealth modern economic activity has really created. In the end it is nothing but monetary wealth (and even this mainly exists virtually or on accounts) that constitutes a monoculture controlled by a tiny minority. Diversity is suffocated and millions of people are left wondering how to survive. And really: how do you survive with neither resources nor means of production nor money?

The nihilism of our economic system is evident. The whole world will be transformed into money – and then it will disappear. After all, money cannot be eaten. What no one seems to consider is the fact that it is impossible to re-transform commodities, money, capital and machinery into nature or concrete wealth. It seems that underlying all “economic development” is the assumption that “resources”, the “sources of wealth”,[38] are renewable and everlasting – just like the “growth” they create.[39]

The notion that capitalism and democracy are one is proven a myth by neoliberalism and its “monetary totalitarianism”.[40]

The primacy of politics over economy has been lost. Politicians of all parties have abandoned it. It is the corporations that dictate politics. Where corporate interests are concerned, there is no place for democratic convention or community control. Public space disappears. The res publica turns into a res privata, or – as we could say today – a res privata transnationale (in its original Latin meaning, privare means “to deprive”). Only those in power still have rights. They give themselves the licenses they need, from the “license to plunder” to the “license to kill”.[41] Those who get in their way or challenge their “rights” are vilified, criminalized and to an increasing degree defined as “terrorists” or, in the case of defiant governments, as “rogue states” – a label that usually implies threatened or actual military attack, as we can see in the cases of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and maybe Syria and Iran in the near future. U.S. President Bush had even spoken of the possibility of “preemptive” nuclear strikes should the U.S. feel endangered by weapons of mass destruction.[42] The European Union did not object.[43]

Neoliberalism and war are two sides of the same coin.[44] Free trade, piracy and war are still “an inseparable three” – today maybe more so than ever. War is not only “good for the economy” but is indeed its driving force and can be understood as the “continuation of economy with other means”.[45] War and economy have become almost indistinguishable.[46] Wars about resources – especially oil and water – have already begun.[47] The Gulf Wars are the most obvious examples. Militarism once again appears as the “executor of capital accumulation” – potentially everywhere and enduringly.[48]

Human rights and rights of sovereignty have been transferred from people, communities and governments to corporations.[49] The notion of the people as a sovereign body has practically been abolished. We have witnessed a coup of sorts. The political systems of the West and the nation state as guarantees for and expression of the international division of labor in the modern world system are increasingly dissolving.[50] Nation states are developing into “periphery states” according to the inferior role they play in the proto-despotic “New World Order”.[51] Democracy appears outdated. After all, it “hinders business”.[52]

The “New World Order” implies a new division of labor that does no longer distinguish between North and South, East and West – today, everywhere is South. An according International Law is established which effectively functions from top to bottom (“top-down”) and eliminates all local and regional communal rights. And not only that: many such rights are rendered invalid both retroactively and for the future.[53]

The logic of neoliberalism as a sort of totalitarian neo-mercantilism is that all resources, all markets, all money, all profits, all means of production, all “investment opportunities”, all rights and all power belong to the corporations only. To paraphrase Richard Sennett: “Everything to the Corporations!”[54] One might add: “Now!”

The corporations are free to do whatever they please with what they get. Nobody is allowed to interfere. Ironically, we are expected to rely on them to find a way out of the crisis we are in. This puts the entire globe at risk since responsibility is something the corporations do not have or know. The times of social contracts are gone.[55] In fact, pointing out the crisis alone has become a crime and all critique will soon be defined as “terror” and persecuted as such.[56]

IMF Economic Medicine

Since the 1980s, it is mainly the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and the IMF that act as the enforcers of neoliberalism. These programs are levied against the countries of the South which can be extorted due to their debts. Meanwhile, numerous military interventions and wars help to take possession of the assets that still remain, secure resources, install neoliberalism as the global economic politics, crush resistance movements (which are cynically labeled as “IMF uprisings”), and facilitate the lucrative business of reconstruction.[57]

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher introduced neoliberalism in Anglo-America. In 1989, the so-called “Washington Consensus” was formulated. It claimed to lead to global freedom, prosperity and economic growth through “deregulation, liberalization and privatization”. This has become the credo and promise of all neoliberals. Today we know that the promise has come true for the corporations only – not for anybody else.

In the Middle East, the Western support for Saddam Hussein in the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, and the Gulf War of the early 1990s, announced the permanent U.S. presence in the world’s most contested oil region.

In continental Europe, neoliberalism began with the crisis in Yugoslavia caused by the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and the IMF. The country was heavily exploited, fell apart and finally beset by a civil war over its last remaining resources.[58] Since the NATO war in 1999, the Balkans are fragmented, occupied and geopolitically under neoliberal control.[59] The region is of main strategic interest for future oil and gas transport from the Caucasus to the West (for example the “Nabucco” gas pipeline that is supposed to start operating from the Caspian Sea through Turkey and the Balkans by 2011.[60] The reconstruction of the Balkans is exclusively in the hands of Western corporations.

All governments, whether left, right, liberal or green, accept this. There is no analysis of the connection between the politics of neoliberalism, its history, its background and its effects on Europe and other parts of the world. Likewise, there is no analysis of its connection to the new militarism.

NOTES

[1] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 23, 36.

[2] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust: Part Two, New York, Oxford University Press, 1999.

[3] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005, p. 34.

[4] Arno Gruen, Der Verlust des Mitgefühls. Über die Politik der Gleichgültigkeit, München, 1997, dtv.

[5] Sassen Saskia, “Wohin führt die Globalisierung?,” Machtbeben, 2000, Stuttgart-München, DVA.

[6] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 24.

[7] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, 1979, Suhrkamp; Immanuel Wallerstein (Hg), The Modern World-System in the Longue Durée, Boulder/ London; Paradigm Publishers, 2004.

[8] Susan George, im Vortrag, Treffen von Gegnern und Befürwortern der Globalisierung im Rahmen der Tagung des WEF (World Economic Forum), Salzburg, 2001.

[9] Elmar Altvater, Das Ende des Kapitalismus, wie wir ihn kennen, Münster, Westfälisches Dampfboot, 2005.

[10] Elmar Altvater and Birgit Mahnkopf, Grenzen der Globalisierung. Ökonomie, Ökologie und Politik in der Weltgesellschaft, Münster, Westfälisches Dampfboot, 1996.

[11] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview mit Sarah van Gelder, 2006, www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer 0497.html; Margrit Kennedy, Geld ohne Zinsen und Inflation, Steyerberg, Permakultur, 1990.

[12] Helmut Creutz, Das Geldsyndrom. Wege zur krisenfreien Marktwirtschaft, Frankfurt, Ullstein, 1995.

[13] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7.

[14] Barbara Ehrenreich, Arbeit poor. Unterwegs in der Dienstleistungsgesellschaft, München, Kunstmann, 2001.

[15] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.

[16] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women, The Last Colony, London/ New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.

[17] Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization. The Truth Behind September 11th, Oro, Ontario, Global Outlook, 2003.

[18] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.

[19] Ana Isla, The Tragedy of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology Dpt., St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, 2005.

[20] John Hepburn, Die Rückeroberung von Allmenden – von alten und von neuen, übers. Vortrag bei, Other Worlds Conference; Univ. of Pennsylvania; 28./29.4, 2005.

[21] Claudia von Werlhof, Was haben die Hühner mit dem Dollar zu tun? Frauen und Ökonomie, München, Frauenoffensive, 1991; Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly: Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 148-192.

[22] Andre Gunder Frank, Die Entwicklung der Unterentwicklung, in ders. u.a., Kritik des bürgerlichen Antiimperialismus, Berlin, Wagenbach, 1969.

[23] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.

[24] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women, the Last Colony, London/New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.

[25] Claudia von Werlhof, Frauen und Ökonomie. Reden, Vorträge 2002-2004, Themen GATS, Globalisierung, Mechernich, Gerda-Weiler-Stiftung, 2004.

[26] Ana Isla, “Women and Biodiversity as Capital Accumulation: An Eco-Feminist View,” Socialist Bulletin, Vol. 69, Winter, 2003, p. 21-34; Ana Isla, The Tragedy of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology Department, St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, 2005.

[27] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.

[28] Kevin Bales, Die neue Sklaverei, München, Kunstmann, 2001.

[29] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.

[30] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979; Andre Gunder Frank, Orientierung im Weltsystem, Von der Neuen Welt zum Reich der Mitte, Wien, Promedia, 2005; Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale, Women in the International Division of Labour, London, Zed Books, 1986.

[31] Claudia von Werlhof, “Questions to Ramona,” in Corinne Kumar (Ed.), Asking, We Walk. The South as New Political Imaginary, Vol. 2, Bangalore, Streelekha, 2007, p. 214-268

[32] Hannes Hofbauer, Osterweiterung. Vom Drang nach Osten zur peripheren EU-Integration, Wien, Promedia, 2003; Andrea Salzburger, Zurück in die Zukunft des Kapitalismus, Kommerz und Verelendung in Polen, Frankfurt – New York, Peter Lang Verlag, 2006.

[33] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview mit Sarah van Gelder, 2006, www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer 0497.html.

[34] August Raggam, Klimawandel, Biomasse als Chance gegen Klimakollaps und globale Erwärmung, Graz, Gerhard Erker, 2004.

[35] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.

[36] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.

[37] Johan Galtung, Eurotopia, Die Zukunft eines Kontinents, Wien, Promedia, 1993.

[38] Karl Marx, Capital, New York, Vintage, 1976.

[39] Claudia von Werlhof, Loosing Faith in Progress: Capitalist Patriarchy as an “Alchemical System,” in Bennholdt-Thomsen et.al.(Eds.), There is an Alternative, 2001, p. 15-40.

[40] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.

[41] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.

[42] Michel Chossudovsky, America’s “War on Terrorism,” Montreal, Global Research, 2005.

[43] Michel Chossudovsky, “Nuclear War Against Iran,” Global Research, Center for Research on Globalization, Ottawa 13.1, 2006.

[44] Altvater, Chossudovsky, Roy, Serfati, Globalisierung und Krieg, Sand im Getriebe 17, Internationaler deutschsprachiger Rundbrief der ATTAC – Bewegung, Sonderausgabe zu den Anti-Kriegs-Demonstrationen am 15.2., 2003; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.

[45] Hazel Hendersen, Building a Win-Win World. Life Beyond Global Economic Warfare, San Francisco, 1996.

[46] Claudia von Werlhof, Vom Wirtschaftskrieg zur Kriegswirtschaft. Die Waffen der, Neuen-Welt-Ordnung, in Mies 2005, p. 40-48.

[47] Michael T. Klare, Resource Wars. The New Landscape of Global Conflict, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 2001.

[48] Rosa Luxemburg, Die Akkumulation des Kapitals, Frankfurt, 1970.

[49] Tony Clarke, Der Angriff auf demokratische Rechte und Freiheiten, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 80-94.

[50] Sassen Saskia, Machtbeben. Wohin führt die Globalisierung?, Stuttgart-München, DVA, 2000.

[51] Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, 2001; Noam Chomsky, Hybris. Die endgültige Sicherstellung der globalen –Vormachtstellung der USA, Hamburg-Wien, Europaverlag, 2003.

[52] Claudia von Werlhof, Speed Kills!, in Dimmel/Schmee, 2005, p. 284-292

[53] See the “roll back” and “stand still” clauses in the WTO agreements in Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003.

[54] Richard Sennett, zit. “In Einladung zu den Wiener Vorlesungen,” 21.11.2005: Alternativen zur neoliberalen Globalisierung, 2005.

[55] Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly: Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 148-192.

[56] Michel Chossudovsky, America’s “War on Terrorism,” Montreal, Global Research, 2005.

[57] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005; Bennholdt-Thomsen/Faraclas/Werlhof 2001.

[58] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002.

[59] Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die Wahrheit über den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer Buchverlag, 2000; Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die deutsche Verantwortung für den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer Buchverlag, 2000.

[60] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview with Sarah van Gelder, 2006, www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer0497.html.

Electromagnetic and Informational Weapons: The Remote Manipulation of the Human Brain

October 26th, 2019 by Mojmir Babacek

From our archives. This important article first published by GR in August 2004 brings  to the forefront the role of Psychotronic weapons as an instrument of modern warfare.

It should be understood, that Electromagnetic and Informational Weapons are fully operational and could be used by US-NATO in their wars in different parts of the World.   

***

In October 2000, Congressman Denis J. Kucinich introduced in the House of Representatives a bill, which would oblige the American president to engage in negotiations aimed at the ban of space based weapons.

In this bill, the definition of a weapons system included:

“any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)… through the use of land-based, sea- based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations“(15).

As in all legislative acts quoted in this article, the bill pertains to sound, light or electromagnetic stimulation of the human brain.

Psychotronic weapons belong, at least for a layman uninformed of secret military research, in the sphere of science fiction, since so far none of the published scientific experiments has been presented in a meaningful way to World public opinion.

That it is feasible to manipulate human behavior with the use of subliminal, either by sound or visual messages, is now generally known and acknowledged by the scientific community.

This is why in most countries, the use of such technologies, without the consent of the individual concerned, is in theory banned. Needless to say, the use of these technologies is undertaken covertly, without the knowledge or consent of targeted individuals.

Devices using light for the stimulation of the brain constitute another mechanism whereby light flashing under certain frequencies could be used to manipulate the human psychic.

As for the use of sound, a device transmitting a beam of sound waves, which can be heard only by persons at whom the beam of sound waves is targeted, has been reported in several news media.  In this case, the beam is formed by a combination of sound and ultrasound waves which causes the targeted person to hear the sound inside his head. Such a procedure could affect the mental balance of  the targeted individual as well as convince him that he is, so to speak, mentally ill.

This article examines the development of technologies and knowledge pertaining to the functioning of the human brain and the way new methods of manipulation of the human mind are being developed.

Electromagnetic energy

One of the main methods of manipulation is through electromagnetic energy.

In the declassified scientific literature only some 30 experiments have been published supporting this assumption (1),(2). Already in 1974, in the USSR, after successful testing within a military unit in Novosibirsk, the Radioson (Radiosleep) was registered with the Government Committee on Matters of Inventions and Discoveries of the USSR, described as a method of induction of sleep by means of radio waves (3), (4), (5).

In the scientific literature, technical feasibility of inducing sleep in a human being through the use of radio waves is confirmed in a book by an British scientist involved in research on the biological effects of electromagnetism (6). A report by the World Health Organisation (WHO) on nonionizing radiation published in 1991 confirms that:

“many of biological effects observed in animals exposed to ELF fields appear to be associated, either directly or indirectly, with the nervous system…” (2).

Among the published experiments, there are those where pulsed microwaveshave caused the synchronization of isolated neurons with the frequency of pulsing of microwaves. Ffor example, a neuron firing at a frequency of 0.8 Hz was forced in this way to fire the impulses at a frequency of 1 Hz. Moreover, the pulsed microwaves contributed to changing the concentration of neurotransmitters in the brain (neurotransmitters are a part of the mechanism which causes the firing of neurons in the brain) and reinforcing or attenuating the effects of drugs delivered into the brain (1).

The experiment where the main brain frequencies registered by EEG were synchronized with the frequency of microwave pulsing (1,2) might explain the function of the Russian installation Radioson. Microwaves pulsed in the sleep frequency would cause the synchronization of the brain’s activity with the sleep frequency and in this way produce sleep.

Pulsing of microwaves in frequency predominating in the brain at an awakened state could, by the same procedure, deny sleep to a human being.

A report derived from the testing program of the Microwave Research Department at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research states

“Microwave pulses appear to couple to the central nervous system and produce stimulation similar to electric stimulation unrelated to heat”.

In a many times replicated experiment, microwaves pulsed in an exact frequency caused the efflux of calcium ions from the nerve cells (1,2). Calcium plays a key role in the firing of neurons and Ross Adey, member of the first scientific team which published this experiment, publicly expressed his conviction that this effect of electromagnetic radiation would interfere with concentration on complex tasks (7).

Robert Becker, who had share in the discovery of the effect of pulsed fields at the healing of broken bones, published the excerpts from the report from Walter Reed Army Institute testing program. In the first part “prompt debilitation effects” should have been tested (8). Were not those effects based on the experiment by Ross Adey and others with calcium efflux?

British scientist John Evans, working in the same field, wrote that both Ross Adey and Robert Becker lost their positions and research grants and called them “free-thinking exiles” (6). In 1975, in the USA, a military experiment was published where pulsed microwaves produced, in the brain of a human subject, an audio perception of numbers from 1 to 10 (9). Again the possibility to convince an individual that it is mentally ill is obvious. The testing program of American Walter Read Army Institute of Research, where the experiment took place, counts with “prompt auditory stimulation by means of auditory effects” and finally aims at “behavior controlled by stimulation” (8).

Let us assume that the words delivered into the brain were transcribed into ultrasound frequencies. Would not then the subject perceive those same words as his own thoughts?

And would this not imply that that his behavior was being controlled in this way through the transmission of ultrasound frequencies? In this regard, the American Air Force 1982 “Final Report On Biotechnology Research Requirements For Aeronautical Systems Through the Year 2000” states:

“While initial attention should be toward degradation of human performance through thermal loading and electromagnetic field effects, subsequent work should address the possibilities of directing and interrogating mental functioning, using externally applied fields…” (10).

Several scientists have warned that the latest advances in neurophysiology could be used for the manipulation of the human brain.

In June 1995, Michael Persinger, who worked on the American Navy’s project of Non-lethal electromagnetic weapons, published a scientific article where he states:

“the technical capability to influence directly the major portion of the approximately six billion brains of the human species without mediation through classical sensory modalities by generating neural information within a physical medium within which all members of the species are immersed… is now marginally feasible“ (11).

In 1998, the French National Bioethics Committee warned that  “neuroscience is being increasingly recognized as posing a potential threat to human rights“ (12). In May 1999 the neuroscientists conference, sponsored by the UN, took place in Tokyo. Its final declaration formally acknowledges that :

“Today we have intellectual, physical and financial resources to master the power of the brain itself, and to develop devices to touch the mind and even control or erase consciousness…We wish to profess our hope that such pursuit of knowledge serves peace and welfare” (13).

On the international political scene, in the last few years, the concept of remote control of the human brain has become  a matter of international and intergovernmental negotiation. In January 1999, the European Parliament passed a resolution where it called  “for an international convention introducing a global ban on all developments and deployments of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings.“ (14)

Already in 1997, nine states of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) addressed the UN, OBSE and the states of the Interparliamentary Union with the proposal to place at the agenda of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the preparation and adoption of an international convention “On Prevention of Informational Wars and Limitation of Circulation of Informational Weapons” (16), (3).

Informational Weapons

The initiative was originally proposed, in the Russian State Duma, by Vladimir Lopatin (3). V. Lopatin worked, from 1990 to 1995, in sequence, in the standing committees on Security respectively of the Russian Federation, Russian State Duma and of the Interparliamentary Assembly of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), specializing in informational security.(3). The concept of informational weapon or informational war is rather unknown to the world general public. In 1999, V. Lopatin, together with Russian scientist Vladimir Tsygankov, published a book „Psychotronic Weapon and the Security of Russia“ (3). There we find the explanation of this terminology:

 “In the report on the research of the American Physical Society for the year 1993 the conclusion is presented that psychophysical weapon systems…can be used… for the construction of a strategic arm of a new type (informational weapon in informational war)…”

Among many references on this subject, we refer to Materials of the Parliament Hearings “Threats and Challenges in the Sphere of Informational Security”, Moscow, July 1996, “Informational Weapon as a Threat to the National Security of the Russian Federation” (analytical report of the Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation), Moscow, 1996 and a material “To Whom Will Belong the Conscientious Weapon in the 21st Century”, Moscow, 1997. (17).

In 2000 V. Lopatin introduced, after two other authors, the third in order bill on the subject of  “Informational and Psychological Security of the Russian Federation“. Lopotin’s findings were reviewed by the Russian newspaper Segodnya:

“…Means of informational-psychological influence are capable not only of harming the health of an individual, but, also of causing, according to Lopatin, ‘the blocking of freedom of will of human being on the subliminal level, the loss of the ability of political, cultural and social self identification, the manipulation of societal consciousness, which could lead to   the destruction of a sense of collective identify by the Russian people and nation’“ (16).

In the book “Psychotronic Weapons and the Security of Russia”, the authors propose among the basic principles of the Russian concept of defense against the remote control of the human psyche not only the acknowledgement of its existence, but also the fact that the methods of informational and psychotronic war are fully operational (“and are being used without a formal declaration of war”) (18). They also quote the record from the session of the Russian Federation’s Federal Council where V. Lopatin stated that psychotronic weapon can

“cause the blocking of the freedom of will of a human being on a subliminal level” or “instillation into the consciousness or subconsciousness of a human being of information which will trigger a faulty or erroneous perception of reality” (19).

In that regard, they proposed the preparation of national legislation as well as the establishment of legal international norms “aimed at the defense of human psyche against subliminal, destructive and informational manipulations” (20).

Moreover, they also propose the declassification of all analytical studies and research on the various technologies. They warned that, because this research has remained classified and removed from the public eye, it has allowed the arms race to proceed unabated. It has thereby contributed to increasing the possibility of psychotronic war.

Among the possible sources of remote influence on human psyche, the authors list the “generators of physical fields“ of “known as well as unknown nature” (21). In 1999 the STOA (Scientific and Technological Options Assessment), part of the Directorate General for Research of the European Parliament published the report on Crowd Control Technologies, ordered by them with the OMEGA foundation in Manchester (UK) (22,  http://www.europarl.eu.int/stoa/publi/pdf/99-14-01-a_en.pdf ).

One of four major subjects of the study pertained  to the so-called “Second Generation“ or “non lethal” technologies:

 “This report evaluates the second generation of ‘non-lethal’ weapons which are emerging from national military and nuclear weapons laboratories in the United States as part of the Clinton Administration’s ‘non-lethal’ warfare doctrine now adopted in turn by NATO. These devices include weapons using… directed energy beam,…radio frequency, laser and acoustic mechanisms to incapacitate human targets” (23) The report states that „the most controversial ‚non-lethal‘ crowd control … technology proposed by the U.S., are so called Radio Frequency or Directed Energy Weapons that can allegedly manipulate human behavior… the greatest concern is with systems which can directly interact with the human nervous system“ (24). The report also states that „perhaps the most powerful developments remain shrouded in secrecy“ (25).

 The unavailability of official documents confirming the existence of this technology may be the reason why the OMEGA report is referencing, with respect to mind control technology, the internet publication of the author of this article (26 http://www.europarl.eu.int/stoa/publi/pdf/99-14-01-a_en.pdf ).

 Similarly, the internet publication of the director of the American Human Rights and Anti-mind Control Organization (CAHRA), Cheryl Welsh, is referenced by the joint initiative of the Quaker United Nations Office, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, and Programme for Strategic and International Security Studies, with respect to non-lethal weapons (27).

On September 25th, 2000, the Committee on Security of the Russian State Duma discussed the addendum to the article 6 of the Federal law On Weapons. In the resolution we read:

“The achievements of contemporary science… allow for creation of measured methods of secret, remote influencing on the psyches and physiology of a person or a group of people“ (28). The committee recommended that the addendum be approved. The addendum to the article 6 of the Russian Federation law “On Weapons“ was approved on July 26, 2001. It states:

“within the territory of the Russian Federation is prohibited the circulation of weapons and other objects… the effects of the operation of which are based on the use of electromagnetic, light, thermal, infra-sonic or ultra-sonic radiations…“ (29).

In this way, the Russian government made a first step to stand up to its dedication to the ban of mind control technology.

In the Doctrine of Informational Security of the Russian Federation, signed by president Putin in September 2000, among the dangers threatening the informational security of Russian Federation, is listed

“the threat to the constitutional rights and freedoms of people and citizens in the sphere of spiritual life… individual, group and societal consciousness“ and “illegal use of special means affecting individual, group and societal consciousness” (30). Among the major directions of the international cooperation toward the guaranteeing of the informational security is listed „the ban of production, dissemination and use of ‘informational weapon‘ “ (31).

The foregoing statement should be interpreted as the continuing Russian commitment to the international ban of the means of remote influencing of the activity of the human brain.

Similarly, in the above mentioned report, published by the STOA, the originally proposed version of the resolution of the European Parliament calls for:

“an international convention for a global ban on all research and development… which seeks to apply knowledge of the chemical, electrical, sound vibration or other functioning of the human brain to the development of weapons which might enable the manipulation of human beings, including a ban of any actual or possible deployment of such systems.“(32)

Here the term “actual” might easily mean that such weapons are already deployed.

Among the countries with the most advanced military technologies is the USA which did not present any international initiative demanding the ban of technologies enabling the remote control of human mind. (The original version of the bill by Denis J. Kucinich was changed.)

All the same, according to the study published by STOA, the US is the major promoter of the use of those weapons. Non lethal technology was included into NATO military doctrine due to their effort:  “At the initiative of the USA, within the framework of NATO, a special group was formed, for the perspective use of devices of non-lethal effects” states the record from the session of the Committee on Security of the Russian State Duma (28).

The report published by STOA states: “In October 1999 NATO announced a new policy on non-lethal weapons and their place in allied arsenals” (33). “In 1996 non-lethal tools identified by the U.S. Army included… directed energy systems” and “radio frequency weapons” (34) – those weapons, as was suggested in the STOA report as well, are being associated with the effects on the human nervous system.

According to the Russian government informational agency FAPSI, in the last 15 years,U.S. expenditures on the development and acquisition of the means of informational war has increased fourfold, and at present they occupy the first place among all military programs (17),(3).

Though there are possible uses of informational war, which do not imply mind control, the US Administration  has been unwilling to engage in negotiations on the ban on all forms of manipulation of the human brain. This unwillingness might indeed suggest that the US administration intends to use mind control technologies both within the US as well as internationally as an instrument of warfare.

One clear consequence of the continuation of the apparent politics of secrecy surrounding technologies enabling remote control of the human brain is that the governments, who own such technologies, could use them without having to consult public opinion. Needless to say, any meaningful democracy in today’s world could be disrupted, through secret and covert operations.  It is not inconceivable that in the future, entire population groups subjected to mind control technologies, could be living in a “fake democracy” where their own government or a foreign power could broadly shape their political opinions by means of mind control technologies.

Mojmir Babacek is the founder of the International Movement for the Ban of the Manipulation of the Human Nervous System by Technical Means,  He is the author of numerous articles on the issue of mind manipulation. 

Notes

1) Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, 1996, CRC Press Inc., 0-8493-0641-8/96, – pg. 117, 119, 474- 485, 542-551, 565 at the top and third and last paragraph

2) World Health Organization report on non-ionizing radiation from 1991, pg. 143 and 207-208

3) V. Lopatin, V Cygankov: „Psichotronnoje oružie i bezopasnost Rossii“, SINTEG, Russian Federation, Moscow, ISBN 5-89638-006-2-A5-2000-30, list of the publications of the publishing house you will find at the addresshttp://www.sinteg.ru/cataloghead.htm

4) G. Gurtovoj, I. Vinokurov: „Psychotronnaja vojna, ot mytov k realijam“, Russsian Federation, Moscow, „Mysteries“, 1993, ISBN 5-86422-098-1

5) With greatest likelihood as well the Russian daily TRUD, which has organized the search for the documents, Moscow, between August 1991 and end of 1992 6) John Evans: Mind, Body and Electromagnetism, the Burlington Press, Cambridge, 1992, ISBN 1874498008, str.139

7) Robert Becker: “Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life”, William Morrow and comp., New York, 1985, pg. 287

8) Robert Becker: “Cross Currents, teh Startling Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation on your Health”, 1991, Bloomsburry Publishing, London, Great Brittain, ISBN 0- 7475-0761-9, pg. 304, Robert Becker refers to Bioelectromagnetics Society Newsletter, January and February 1989

9) Don R. Justesen, 1975, Microwaves and Behavior, American Psychologist, March 1975, pg. 391 – 401

10) Dr. Nick Begich and Jeane Maning: “Angels Don’t Play This HAARP, Advances in Tesla Technology”, Earthpulse Press, 1995, ISBN 0-9648812–0-9, pg. 169

11) M. A. Persinger: „On the Possibility of Directly Lacessing Every Human Brain by Electromagnetic Induction of Fundamental Algorythms“, Perception and Motor Skills, June1995,, sv. 80, str. 791-799

12) Nature, vol.391, 22.1.1998,str.316, „Advances in Neurosciences May Threaten Human Rights“

13) Internet reference at the site of the United Nations University and Institute of Advanced Studies in Tokyo does not work any more, to verify the information it is necessary to find the document from the 1999 UN sponsored conference of neuroscientists in Tokyo, you may inquire at the address [email protected] 14)http://www.europarl.eu.int/home/default_en.htm?redirected=1 . click at Plenary sessions, scroll down to Reports by A4 number –click, choose 1999 and fill in 005 to A4 or search for Resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy from January 28, 1999

15) http://thomas.loc.gov./ and search for Space Preservation Act then click at H.R.2977

16) Russian daily Segodnya, 11. February, 2000, Andrei Soldatov: „Vsadniki psychotronitscheskovo apokalypsa” (Riders of Psychotronic Apokalypse)

17) See ref. 3), pg. 107

18) See ref. 3) pg. 97

19) See ref. 3), pg. 107

20) See ref. 3), pg. 108

21) See ref. 3) pg. 13

22) http://www.europarl.eu.int/stoa/publi/pdf/99-14-01-a_en.pdf

23) see ref. 22 pg. XIX or 25

24) see ref. 22 pg. LIII or 69

25) see ref. 22 pg. XLVII or 63, aswell pg. VII-VIII or 7-8, pg. XIX or 25, pg. XLV or 61

26) see ref. 22) pg. LIII or 69, note 354

27) http://www.unog.ch/unidir/Media%20Guide%20 CAHRA and Cheryl Welsh are listed at the page 24

28) Document sent by Moscow Committee of Ecology of Dwellings. Telephone: Russian Federation, Zelenograd, 531-6411, Emilia Tschirkova, directrice

29) Search www.rambler.ru , there “poisk” (search) and search for “gosudarstvennaja duma” (State Duma) (it is necessary to type in Russian alphabet), at the page which appears choose “informacionnyj kanal gosudarstvennoj dumy” (Informational Channel of the Russian State Duma), there “federalnyje zakony podpisanyje prezidentom RF” (Federal laws signed by president of the Russian Federation), choose year 2001 and search 26 ijulja, è. N 103-F3 (July 26, 2001, number N 103- F3) , “O vnesenii dopolnenija v statju 6 federalnogo zakona ob oružii” (addendum to the article 6 of the Federal law on weapons)

30) Search www.rambler.ru and then (type in Russian alphabet) “gosudarstvennaja duma”, next “informacionnyj kanal gosudarstvennoj dumy” (informational channel of the State Duma), next search by use of “poisk” (search) Doktrina informacionnoj bezopasnosti Rossii” “Doctrine of the Informational Security of the Russian Federation) there see pg. 3 “Vidy informacionnych ugroz bezopasnosti Rossijskkoj federacii” (Types of Threats to the Informational Security of the Russian Federation)

31) See ref. 30, pg. 19, “Mìždunarodnoje sotrudnièestvo Rossijskoj Federacii v oblasti obespeèenija informacionnoj bezopasnoti” (International Cooperation of the Russian Federation in Assuring the Informational Security”

32) See ref.22, pg. XVII or 33

33) See ref.22, pg. XLV or 61

34) See ref.22 pg. XLVI or 62

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Electromagnetic and Informational Weapons: The Remote Manipulation of the Human Brain

Pillaging the World. The History and Politics of the IMF

October 26th, 2019 by Ernst Wolff

The following text is the forward to Ernst Wolff‘s book entitled : Pillaging the World. The History and Politics of the IMF, Tectum Verlag Marburg, 2014, www.tectum-verlag.de. The book is available in English and German. First posted on Global Research in January 2016

***

No other financial organization has affected the lives of the majority of the world’s population more profoundly over the past fifty years than the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Since its inception after World War II, it has expanded its sphere of influence to the remotest corners of the earth. Its membership currently includes 188 countries on five continents.

For decades, the IMF has been active mainly in Africa, Asia and South America. There is hardly a country on these continents where its policies have not been carried out in close cooperation with the respective national governments. When the global financial crisis broke out in 2007, the IMF turned its attention to northern Europe. Since the onset of the Euro crisis in 2009, its primary focus has shifted to southern Europe.

Officially, the IMF’s main task consists in stabilizing the global financial system and helping out troubled countries in times of crisis. In reality, its operations are more reminiscent of warring armies. Wherever it intervenes, it undermines the sovereignty of states by forcing them to implement measures that are rejected by the majority of the population, thus leaving behind a broad trail of economic and social devastation. 

In pursuing its objectives, the IMF never resorts to the use of weapons or soldiers. It simply applies the mechanisms of capitalism, specifically those of credit. Its strategy is as simple as it is effective: When a country runs into financial difficulties, the IMF steps in and provides support in the form of loans. In return, it demands the enforcement of measures that serve to ensure the country’s solvency in order to enable it to repay these loans.

Because of its global status as “lender of last resort” governments usually have no choice but to accept the IMF’s offer and submit to its terms – thus getting caught in a web of debt, which they, as a result of interest, compound interest and principal, get deeper and deeper entangled in. The resulting strain on the state budget and the domestic economy inevitably leads to a deterioration of their financial situation, which the IMF in turn uses as a pretext for demanding ever new concessions in the form of “austerity programs”.

The consequences are disastrous for the ordinary people of the countries affected (which are mostly low-income) because their governments all follow the same pattern, passing the effects of austerity on to wage earners and the poor.

In this manner, IMF programs have cost millions of people their jobs, denied them access to adequate health care, functioning educational systems and decent housing. They have rendered their food unaffordable, increased homelessness, robbed old people of the fruits of life-long work, favored the spread of diseases, reduced life expectancy and increased infant mortality.

At the other end of the social scale, however, the policies of the IMF have helped a tiny layer of ultra-rich increase their vast fortunes even in times of crisis. Its measures have contributed decisively to the fact that global inequality has assumed historically unprecedented levels. The income difference between a sun king and a beggar at the end of the Middle Ages pales compared to the difference between a hedge fund manager and a social welfare recipient of today.

Although these facts are universally known and hundreds of thousands have protested the effects of its measures in past decades, often risking their lives, the IMF tenaciously clings on to its strategy. Despite all criticism and despite the strikingly detrimental consequences of its actions, it still enjoys the unconditional support of the governments of all leading industrial nations.

Why? How can it be that an organization that causes such immense human suffering around the globe continues to act with impunity and with the backing of the most powerful forces of our time? In whose interest does the IMF work? Who benefits from its actions?

It is the purpose of this book to answer these questions.

The Bretton Woods Conference:

Starting out with Blackmail

While the Second World War was still raging in Europe, in July 1944, the United States invited delegations from 44 countries to the small ski resort of Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The official aim of the conference, held for three weeks in the luxurious “Mount Washington” hotel, was to define the basic features of an economic order for the post-war period and to provide the cornerstones of a system that would stabilize the world economy and prevent a return to the situation that had existed between the two world wars. The 1930s in particular were distinguished by high inflation, trade barriers, strongly fluctuating exchange rates, gold shortages and a decline in economic activity by more than 60 %. Furthermore, social tensions had constantly threatened to break down the established order.

The conference had been preceded by several years of secret negotiations between the White House and Downing Street which had already been working on plans for a new world monetary order since 1940. A recorded comment from the head of the British delegation, the economist Lord Keynes, sheds light on the former elite’s attitude towards the interests and concerns of smaller countries: “Twenty-one countries have been invited which clearly have nothing to contribute and will merely encumber the ground… The most monstrous monkey-house assembled for years.”

It did not take long before their contemptuous attitude rebounded on Lord Keynes and his compatriots. During the course of the conference, it became increasingly clear how much the global balance of power had shifted to the disadvantage of Great Britain. Excessive war spending had turned the country, already severely weakened by the First World War, into the world’s biggest debtor and pushed it to the brink of insolvency. Great Britain’s economy was on its knees and the rise of the liberation movements around the world already heralded the final breakup of its once global colonial empire.

The undisputed victor of the Second World War, however, was the United States. Having become the largest international creditor, it held nearly two-thirds of the world’s gold reserves and commanded half of all global industrial production. In contrast to most European countries its infrastructure was intact and while its delegation engaged in negotiations at Bretton Woods, the US army’s general staff planned a nuclear assault on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to emphasize America’s claim to global dominion.

As a result of this new balance of power, Lord Keynes’ plan for a new economic order was flatly rejected. Representing a country with substantial balance of payments problems, he had proposed an “international payments union” that would have given countries suffering from a negative balance of payments easier access to loans and introduced an international accounting unit called “Bancor” which would have served as a reserve currency.

The US, however, was unwilling to take on the role of a major creditor that Keynes’ plan had foreseen for it. The leader of their delegation, economist Harry Dexter White, in turn presented his own plan that was finally adopted by the conference. This “White Plan” conceptualized a world currency system never before seen in the history of money. The US dollar was to constitute its sole center and was to be pegged to all other currencies at a fixed exchange rate while its exchange relation to gold was to be set at $ 35 per ounce of fine gold. The plan was supplemented by US demands for the establishment of several international organizations designed to monitor the new system and stabilize it by granting loans to countries facing balance of payments problems.

After all, Washington, due to its size and rapid economic growth, had to move ahead in order to obtain access to raw materials and create global sales opportunities for its overproduction. This required replacing the hitherto most widely used currency, the British pound, by the dollar. Also, time seemed ripe for replacing the City of London by Wall Street, thus establishing the US in its new position as the focal point of international trade and global finance.

The gold-dollar peg and the establishment of fixed exchange rates partially reintroduced the gold standard, which had existed between 1870 and the outbreak of World War I – albeit under very different circumstances. By fixing all exchange rates to the US dollar, Washington deprived all other participating countries of the right to control their own monetary policy for the protection of their domestic industries – a first step towards curtailing the sovereignty of the rest of the world by the now dominant United States.

The distribution of voting rights suggested by the US for the proposed organizations was also far from democratic. Member countries were not to be treated equally or assigned voting rights according to the size of their population, but rather corresponding to the contributions they paid – which meant that Washington, by means of its financial superiority, secured itself absolute control over all decisions. The fact that South Africa’s racist apartheid dictatorship was invited to become a founding member of the IMF sheds a revealing light on the role that humanitarian considerations played in the process.

The US government sensed that it would not be easy to win over public opinion for a project so obviously in contradiction with the spirit of the US constitution and many Americans’ understanding of democracy. The true goals of the IMF were therefore obfuscated with great effort and glossed over by empty rhetoric about “free trade” and the “abolition of protectionism”. The New York Herald-Tribune spoke of the “most high-powered propaganda campaign in the history of the country.”

The IMF’s first task was to scrutinize all member states in order to determine their respective contribution rates. After all, the Fund was to exert a long-term “monitoring” function for the system’s protection. The US thus claimed for itself the right to be permanently informed about the financial and economic conditions of all countries involved.

When half a year after the conference the British insisted on an improvement in their favor to the contracts, they were unambiguously made aware of who was in charge of the IMF. Without further ado Washington tied a loan of $ 3.75 billion, urgently needed by the U.K. to repay its war debts, to the condition that Great Britain submit to the terms of the agreement without any ifs, ands, or buts. Less than two weeks later Downing Street gave in to Washington’s blackmail and consented.

On December 27, 1945, 29 governments signed the final agreement. In January 1946, representatives of 34 nations came together for an introductory meeting of the Board of Governors of the IMF and the World Bank in Savannah, Georgia. On this occasion, Lord Keynes and his compatriots were once again left empty-handed: Contrary to their proposal to establish the headquarters of the IMF, which had in the meantime been declared a specialized agency of the United Nations, in New York City, the US government insisted on its right to determine the location solely by itself. On March 1, 1947, the IMF finally took up its operations in downtown Washington.

The rules for membership in the IMF were simple: Applicant countries had to open their books and were rigorously screened and assessed. After that they had to deposit a certain amount of gold and pay their financial contribution to the organization according to their economic power. In return, they were assured that in the case of balance of payments problems they were entitled to a credit up to the extent of their contribution – in exchange for interest rates determined by the IMF and the contractually secured obligation of settling their debts to the IMF before all others.

The IMF finally received a starting capital of $ 8.8 billion from shares of its member states who paid 25 % of their contributions in gold and 75 % in their own currency. The United States secured itself the highest rate by depositing $ 2.9 billion. The amount was twice as high as Great Britain’s and guaranteed the United States not only double voting rights, but also a blocking minority and veto rights.

The IMF was run by a Board of Governors, to whom twelve executive directors were subordinated. Seven were elected by the members of the IMF, the other five were appointed by the largest countries, led by the US. The offices of the IMF as well as those of its sister organization, the World Bank, were set up on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington within walking distance from the White House.

The original statutes of the IMF state that the organization’s objectives were, among others,

  • To promote international cooperation in the field of monetary policy,
  • To facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade,
  • To promote exchange rate stability and assist in the establishment of a multilateral system of payments,
  • To provide member countries facing balance of payments difficulties with temporary access to the Fund’s general resources and under adequate safeguards,
  • To shorten the duration and lessen the degree of disequilibrium in the international balances of payments of member countries.

These official terms make it seem as if the IMF is an impartial institution, placed above nations and independent of political influences, its main objective consisting in running the global economy in as orderly a manner as possible, swiftly correcting malfunctions. This is no coincidence. This impression was intended by the authors and has in fact achieved its desired effect: It is exactly this notion that has been conveyed to the global public for more than six decades by politicians, scientists and the international media.

In actual fact, the IMF has, from the very beginning, been an institution launched by, controlled by, and tailored to the interests of the United States, designed to secure the new military superpower economic world domination. To conceal these intentions even more effectively, the founding fathers of the IMF in 1947 started a tradition which the organization has held to this day – appointing a non-American to the post of managing director.

The first foreigner, selected in 1946, was Camille Gutt from Belgium. As finance minister of his country during World War II, the trained economist had helped the British cover their war expenses by lending them Belgian gold. He had aided the war effort by supplying his government’s allies with cobalt and copper from the Belgian colony of Congo and supporting the US government with secret deliveries of Congolese uranium for its nuclear program. In 1944 he had carried out a drastic currency reform (later known as the “Gutt operation”) that had cost the working population of Belgium large amounts of their savings.

Gutt headed the IMF from 1946 to 1951. During his time in office he largely focused on the implementation and monitoring of fixed exchange rates, thus ushering in a new era of hitherto unknown stability for US and international corporations when exporting goods and purchasing raw materials. He also paved the way for major US banks seeking to deal in credits on an international scale and opened up markets all over the world for international finance capital searching for investment opportunities.

The world’s major political changes after World War II caused considerable headaches for the IMF, because they limited the scope of the organization. Above all, the Soviet Union took advantage of the post-war situation, characterized by the division of the world among the major powers and the drawing of new borders in Europe. Still relying on the socialization of the means of production by the Russian Revolution of 1917, Stalin’s officials sealed off the so-called “Eastern bloc” from the West in order to introduce central economic planning in these countries. The Soviet bureaucracy’s primary objective, however, was not to enforce the interests of working people, but to assure the subordination of the Eastern Bloc under its own interests for the purpose of pillaging these countries. In any case, the fragmentation of Eastern Europe meant that Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and several other markets became blank areas for international financial capital.

The seizure of power by Mao Zedong in 1949 and the introduction of a planned economy in China by the Communist Party deprived Western investors of another huge market and eventually led to the Korean War. Implementing their policy of “containment” of the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence, the US tacitly accepted the loss of four million lives only to deliver a clear message to the rest of the world: that the largest economic power on earth would no longer remain passive if denied access to any more global markets.

The Post-War Boom: The IMF Casts its Net

The post-war years were characterized by the rapid economic growth of all leading industrial nations, referred to as the “Wirtschaftswunder” (“economic miracle”) in Germany. Although IMF lending played only a minor role during this time, the organization’s leadership did not remain inactive. On the contrary: the second IMF chief Ivar Rooth, a former Governor of the Swedish Central Bank and ex-Director of the Basel Bank for International Settlements, set out on a course that was to acquire major significance in the later history of the organization – introducing conditionality, i.e. establishing obligatory requirements for granting loans.

Harry Dexter White had already made a proposal along these lines at the Bretton Woods Conference, but encountered fierce resistance from the British. Meanwhile, however, Britain’s position had continued to deteriorate. Former colonies, mainly in Africa, were fighting for their independence, and in the Middle East the Suez crisis was looming – providing the US with an opportunity to advance its own interests in the IMF more forcefully.

By establishing so-called “stand-by arrangements”, Ivar Rooth added the principle of “conditionality” to the IMF’s toolbox. The granting of loans was now subjected to conditions that went far beyond the specification of loan deadlines and the level of interest rates.

In implementing these measures, which were tightened after Britain’s defeat in Suez led to a rise of tensions in Anglo-American relations, the IMF’s strategists developed a strategy that helped them to cleverly deceive the public. Starting in 1958, they obliged the governments of debtor countries to draw up “letters of intent” in which they had to express their willingness to undertake “reasonable efforts” to master their balance of payments problems. This made it seem as though a country had itself proposed the measures that were actually required by the IMF.

But even that did not go far enough for the IMF. As a next step, loans to be disbursed were sliced into tranches (“phasing”) and thus made conditional upon the respective debtor country’s submissiveness. In addition, the IMF insisted (and still insists) that agreements between the IMF and its debtors should not be considered international treaties and therefore should not be subject to parliamentary approval. Finally, the IMF decreed that any agreements with it were not intended for the public eye and had to be treated as classified information – a scheme that applies to this day.

Conditions were to be continually tightened in the course of the IMF’s history and would prove to be a crucial mechanism for increasing foreign domination of developing countries. They also contributed to the growing power of the IMF, because the World Bank, most governments and the vast majority of international commercial banks from now on only granted loans to those countries which, on the basis of the fulfillment of the IMF’s criteria, had received its “seal of approval”.

In 1956 a meeting was held in Paris that was to win landmark importance for the later development of the IMF. Struggling to repay a loan, Argentina had to sit down with its creditor countries and representatives of the IMF in order to have new conditions dictated to it. The meeting took place in the offices of French Finance Minister Pierre Pflimlin, who also chaired it. It did not remain the only one of its kind. In subsequent years, meetings between IMF representatives, creditors and debtors were held frequently in the same place, gradually developing into fixed monthly conferences that were to become known as the “Paris Club”. A scope of extremely important decisions were taken within this framework – without parliamentary consent and hidden from the eyes of the public. Commercial banks around the world soon recognized the importance of these conferences, and therefore started their own “London Club”, whose meetings usually took (and still take) place simultaneously with those of the Paris Club.

Barely noticed by the global community, the IMF subsequently turned to a field of activity that was to boost its power massively in a relatively short time. The wave of declarations of independence by African states at the beginning of the 1960s marked the beginning of a new era. Countries that had been plundered for decades by colonialism and lay in tatters economically, now had to find their proper place in the world and especially in the world economy under rapidly changing conditions. Their governments therefore needed money. Since most of these countries offered commercial banks too little security due to social tensions, political unrest and barely existing infrastructure, the IMF took advantage of the situation and offered its services as a creditor.

Although most African countries were so poor that they were only granted relatively modest sums, even these had consequences. The maturity dates of interest and principal payments relentlessly ensured that states that had just escaped from colonial dependence were seamlessly caught in a new network of financial dependence on the IMF.

As credit lending required the debtor’s membership in the IMF, the organization, whose founding members had only included three African countries – Egypt, Ethiopia, and South Africa – was joined by more than 40 additional African states between 1957 and 1969. In 1969, 44 out of 115 members were African. Although they made up more than one third of the overall organization, their voting rights that same year amounted to less than 5 %.

Chile 1973:

Embarking upon the Path of Neoliberalism

The beginning of the 1970s marked the end of the post-war boom, a twenty-five year period of economic expansion in which workers in the leading industrial nations had been granted great social concessions and experienced a hitherto unknown improvement of their living standards. It was the internal disintegration of the Bretton Woods system that brought about the end of that period. As a result of rising US investment abroad and escalating military spending – particularly for the Vietnam War – the amount of dollars globally in circulation had continually increased. All attempts by the US government to bring this proliferation under control had failed because US capital had blended with foreign capital and no nation on earth was capable of reining in this massive concentration of financial power.

In 1971, the United States, for the first time in its history, ran a balance of payments deficit. At the same time the imbalance between the global dollar supply and US gold reserves stored in Fort Knox assumed such dimensions that even raising the gold price to $ 38.00 and then to $ 42.20 could no longer guarantee its exchange against an ounce of gold. On August 15, 1971, US President Nixon pulled the brakes and severed the link between gold and the dollar, displaying the typical arrogance of a superpower by not consulting a single ally.

In December 1971, a conference of the G10 group, founded in 1962 by the world’s top ten industrialized nations, decided on an alignment of exchange rates, which brought about a readjustment of the dollar’s value against other currencies. This led to a devaluation of the dollar, ranging from 7.5 % against the weak Italian lira to 16.9 % against the strong Japanese yen. In February 1973, the dollar was devalued again, but it soon became clear that the system of fixed exchange rates could no longer be upheld. In March 1973, the G10 and several other industrialized countries introduced the system of flexible exchange rates to be established by the central banks – without consulting a single country outside the G 10 and despite the fact that the new regime blatantly contradicted article 6 of the founding document of the IMF on fixed exchange rates and monetary stability.

The abolition of fixed exchange rates historically terminated the core tasks of the IMF. The only role left for it was that of a lender in charge of the allocation of funds and their conditionality, entitled to inspect the accounts of applicants and thus exercise direct influence on their policies. However, it was exactly this function for which extremely favorable conditions would soon arise.

In 1973, the members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which had been founded in 1960, used the Yom Kippur War between Egypt and Israel to curb the amount of oil supplied to the West (“oil embargo”) and drastically raise oil prices. This led to a huge increase in the profits of oil companies and oil-producing countries. These gains ended up in commercial banks, which in turn tried to use them for profitable investments. As the global economy slipped into a recession in 1974 / 75 and investment opportunities in industrialized countries dwindled, the lion’s share of the money took on the form of loans to third world countries in Asia, Africa and South America, which – due to their increased expenditures after the rise in oil prices – urgently needed money. The IMF itself responded to the increased credit needs of developing countries by introducing the “Extended Fund Facility” in 1974, from which member countries could draw loans of up to 140 % of their quota with terms of four and a half to ten years.

Although the facility had been specifically set up to finance much-needed oil imports, the IMF – as well as the banks – cared little about what the money was actually spent on. Whether it went straight into the pockets of dictators such as Mobutu in Zaire, Saddam Hussein in Iraq or Suharto in Indonesia – who either squandered it, transferred it to secret foreign accounts or used it for military purposes, in each case driving up the national debt – did not matter to the IMF and the banks as long as they received their interest payments regularly.

However, the situation changed abruptly when Paul Volcker, the new chairman of the US Federal Reserve, raised its prime rate (the interest rate at which commercial banks can obtain money from central banks) by 300 % in order to reduce inflation in 1979. The United States slipped into another recession, which meant that fewer raw materials were needed due to lower economic activity.

For many developing countries the combination of receding demand, falling raw material prices and skyrocketing interest rates meant that they could not meet their payment obligations to international banks. A massive financial crisis loomed. The debt burden of developing countries at the beginning of 1980 amounted to a total of $ 567 billion. A payment default of this magnitude would have led to the collapse of many Western banks and therefore had to be prevented at all costs.

It was at this point that the IMF was given its first great chance to enter the stage as a lender of last resort. While its public relations department spread the news that the organization was working on bail-outs in order to “help” over-indebted countries, the Fund took advantage of its incontestable monopoly position and tied the granting of loans to harsh conditions. In doing so, it was able to draw on two different experiences gained in the preceding years.

Firstly, a CIA-supported military coup in Chile in September 1973 had ended socialist president Salvador Allende’s rule and brought fascist dictator Augusto Pinochet to power. Pinochet had immediately reversed Allende’s nationalizations, but found no remedy against galloping inflation. In an attempt to regain control of the situation, he had turned to a group of 30 Chilean economists (known as the “Chicago Boys” because they had studied at the Chicago School of Economics under Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman) and proposed to them a clearly defined division of labor: He would provide for the suppression of any kind of political and trade union opposition and crush all labor disputes, while they were to carry out a radical austerity program on the basis of neoliberal ideas.

Within a few weeks an extensive catalog of measures was developed. It called for a drastic limitation of money supply, cuts in government spending, layoffs in the public sector, privatization in health care and education, wage cuts and tax increases for working people, while at the same time lowering tariffs and corporate taxes. The program was openly referred to as a “shock therapy” by either side.

Both Pinochet and his partners, who were presented to the public as a “government of technocrats”, fulfilled their side of the agreement to the hilt. While the dictator violently smashed any opposition to the government’s drastic measures and ensured that many political dissidents disappeared forever, the “Chicago Boys” launched a frontal assault on the working population. They drove up unemployment, which had stood at 3 % in 1973, to 18.7 % by the end of 1975, simultaneously pushing inflation to 341 % and plunging the poorest segments of the population into even deeper poverty. The impacts of the program actually aggravated the problem of social inequality for decades to come: In 1980, the richest 10 % of the Chilean population amassed 36.5 % of the national income, expanding their share to 46.8 % in 1989, while at the same time that of the poorest 50 % fell from 20.4 % to 16.8 %.

During his bloody coup, Pinochet had fully relied on the active support of the CIA and the US Department of State under Henry Kis­singer. When implementing the toughest austerity program ever carried out in a Latin American country, the “Chicago Boys” received the full backing of the IMF. Regardless of all human rights violations, IMF loans to Chile doubled in the year after Pinochet’s coup, only to quadruple and quintuple in the following two years.

The IMF’s other experience concerned the UK. Great Britain’s inexorable economic decline over two and a half decades had made the country the IMF’s largest borrower. From 1947 to 1971, the government in London had drawn loans totaling $ 7.25 billion. After the recession of 1974 / 75 and speculative attacks on the pound, it had come under even greater pressure. When in 1976, the British government once again turned to the IMF for help, the United States seized the opportunity to demonstrate their power. Allying themselves with the resurgent Germans, they forced the Labour government under Prime Minister Harold Wilson to limit public spending, impose massive cuts in social programs, pursue a restrictive fiscal policy, and refrain from import controls of any kind. This drastic intervention represented a hitherto unknown encroachment on the sovereignty of a European borrower country, resulting in the fact that no leading Western industrialized country ever again applied for an IMF loan.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pillaging the World. The History and Politics of the IMF

Nikola Tesla on Wireless Technology, Describes a Cell Phone Back in 1926

October 26th, 2019 by Nikola Tesla

“The progressive development of man is vitally dependent on invention. It is the most important product of his creative brain. Its ultimate purpose is the complete mastery of mind over the material world, the harnessing of the forces of nature to human needs.

This is the difficult task of the inventor who is often misunderstood and unrewarded. But he finds ample compensation in the pleasing exercises of his powers and in the knowledge of being one of that exceptionally privileged class without whom the race would have long ago perished in the bitter struggle against pitiless elements. . . .”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Nikola Tesla on Wireless Technology, Describes a Cell Phone Back in 1926

History of World War II: America Was Providing Military Aid to the USSR, While Also Supporting Nazi Germany

October 26th, 2019 by Evgeniy Spitsyn

First published by the Oriental Review and Global Research on May 17, 2015

See Part I: 

Roosevelt’s World War II Lend-Lease Act: America’s War Economy, US “Military Aid” to the Soviet Union By Evgeniy Spitsyn, May 13, 2015

Nonlethal lend-lease aid

Besides weapons, other supplies were also provided under lend-lease. And those figures are absolutely indisputable indeed.

Specifically, the USSR received 2,586,000 tons of aviation fuel, an amount equal to 37% of what was produced in the Soviet Union during the war, plus almost 410,000 automobiles, making up 45% of the Red Army’s vehicle fleet (not counting cars captured from the enemy). Food shipments also played a significant role, although very little was provided during the first year of the war, and the US supplied only about 15% of the USSR’s canned meat and other nonperishables.

This support also included machine tools, railway tracks, locomotives, rail cars, radar equipment, and other useful items without which a war machine can make little headway.

Of course this list of lend-lease aid looks very impressive, and one might feel sincere admiration for the American partners in the anti-Hitler coalition, except for one tiny detail: US manufacturers were also supplying Nazi Germany at the same time …

rockefellerFor example, John D. Rockefeller Jr. owned a controlling interest in the Standard Oil corporation, but the next largest stockholder was the German chemical company I. G. Farben, through which the firm sold $20 million worth of gasoline and lubricants to the Nazis. And the Venezuelan branch of that company sent 13,000 tons of crude oil to Germany each month, which the Third Reich’s robust chemical industry immediately converted into gasoline. But business between the two nations was not limited to fuel sales – in addition, tungsten, synthetic rubber, and many different components for the auto industry were also being shipped across the Atlantic to the German Führer by Henry Ford. In particular, it is no secret that 30% of all the tires produced in his factories were used by the German Wehrmacht.

The full details of how the Fords and Rockefellers colluded to supply Nazi Germany are still not fully known because those were strictly guarded trade secrets, but even the little that has been made public and acknowledged by historians makes it clear that the war did not in any way slow the pace of the US trade with Berlin.

Lend-lease was not charity

There is a perception that lend-lease aid was offered by the US out of the goodness of its heart. However, this version does not hold up upon closer inspection. First of all, this was because of something called “reverse lend-lease.” Even before the Second World War had ended, other nations began sending Washington essential raw materials valued at nearly 20% of the materials and weapons the US had shipped overseas. Specifically, the USSR provided 32,000 tons of manganese and 300,000 tons of chrome ore, which were highly prized by the military industry. Suffice it to say that when German industry was deprived of the manganese from the rich deposits in Nikopol as a result of the Soviet Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive in February 1944, the 150-mm frontal armor on the German “Royal Tiger” tanks turned to be much more vulnerable to Soviet artillery shells than the 100-mm armor plate previously found on the ordinary Tiger tanks.

In addition, the USSR paid for the Allied shipments with gold. In fact, one British cruiser, the HMS Edinburgh, was carrying 5.5 tons of that precious metal when it was sunk by German submarines in May 1942.

The Soviet Union also returned much of the weaponry and military equipment after the war, as stipulated under the lend-lease agreement. In exchange they were issued an invoice for $1,300 million. Given the fact that lend-lease debts to other nations had been written off, this seemed like highway robbery, and Stalin demanded that the “Allied debt” be recalculated.

1012992595Subsequently the Americans were forced to admit their error, but they inflated the interest owed in the grand total, and the final amount, including that interest, came to $722 million, a figure that was accepted by the USSR and the US under a settlement agreement signed in Washington in 1972. Of this amount, $48 million was paid to the US in three equal installments in 1973, but subsequent payments were cut off when the US introduced discriminatory practices in their trade with the USSR (in particular, the notorious Jackson-Vanik Amendment).

The parties did not return to the discussion of lend-lease debt until June 1990, during a new round of negotiations between Presidents George Bush Sr. and Mikhail Gorbachev, during which a new deadline was set for the final repayment – which would be in 2030 – and the total outstanding debt was acknowledged to be $674 million.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, its debts were categorized as either sovereign debt (the Paris Club) or debts to private banks (London Club). The lend-lease debt was a liability owed to the US government and is part of the Paris Club debt, which Russia repaid in full in August 2006.

Direct speech

US President Franklin D. Roosevelt explicitly stated that aid to Russia was money well spent, and his successor in the White House, Harry Truman, was quoted in the pages of New York Times in June 1941 as saying,

“If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible …”

Nikolay Voznesensky (1903-1950)

Nikolay Voznesensky (1903-1950)

The first official assessment of the role played by lend-lease aid in the larger victory over Nazism was provided by the chairman of Gosplan, Nikolai Voznesensky, in his work Voennaya Ekonomika SSSR v Period Otechestvennoi Voiny [Soviet military complex during the Great Patriotic War] (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1948), where he wrote,

“If one compares the quantity of industrial goods sent by the Allies to the USSR with the quantity of industrial goods manufactured by socialist factories in the Soviet Union, it is apparent that the former are equal to only about 4% of what was produced domestically during the years of the war economy.”

American scholars and military and government officials themselves (Raymond Goldsmith, George Herring, and Robert H. Jones) acknowledge that allthe Allied aid to the USSR was equal to no more than 1/10 of the Soviets’ own arms production, and the total quantity of lend-lease supplies, including the familiar cans of Spam sarcastically referred to by the Russians as the “Second Front,” made up about 10-11%.

Moreover, the famous American historian Robert Sherwood, in his landmark book, Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History (New York: Grossett & Dunlap, 1948), quoted Harry Hopkins as claiming the Americans “had never believed that our Lend Lease help had been the chief factor in the Soviet defeat of Hitler on the eastern front. That this had been done by the heroism and blood of the Russian Army.”

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once called lend-lease “the most unselfish and unsordid financial act of any country in all history.” However, the Americans themselves admitted that lend-lease brought in considerable income for the US. In particular, former US Secretary of Commerce Jesse Jones stated that the US had not only gotten its money back via supplies shipped from the USSR, but the US had even made a profit, which he claimed was not uncommon in trade relations regulated by American state agencies.

His fellow American, the historian George Herring just as candidly wrote that lend-lease was not actually the most unselfish act in the history of mankind, but rather an act of prudent egotism, with the Americans fully aware of how they could benefit from it.

51ngzqSD3zL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_And that was indeed the case, as lend-lease proved to be an inexhaustible source of wealth for many American corporations. In fact, the United States was the only country in the anti-Hitler coalition to reap significant economic dividends from the war.There’s a reason that Americans often refer to WWII as “the good war,” as evidenced, for example, in the title of the book by the famous American historian Studs Terkel: The Good War: An Oral History of World War II (1984). With unabashed cynicism he quoted, “While the rest of the world came out bruised and scarred and nearly destroyed, we came out with the most unbelievable machinery, tools, manpower, money … The war was fun for America. I’m not talking about the poor souls who lost sons and daughters. But for the rest of us the war was a hell of a good time.”

Evgeniy Spitsyn is a Russian historian and author.

Source in Russian: Ukraina.ru

Adapted and translated by ORIENTAL REVIEW.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on History of World War II: America Was Providing Military Aid to the USSR, While Also Supporting Nazi Germany

Cocaine, Heroin, Cannabis, Ecstasy: How Big is the Global Drug Trade?

October 26th, 2019 by Global Research News

First published in May 2014

Of relevance to the current debate on Heroin addiction and opioids in the USA.

Narcotics is big business.

90 percent of the heroin consumed in the US comes from Afghanistan

***

refresh if image fails to display

Drug Trade
Source: Top-Criminal-Justice-Schools.net

How Big Is the Drug Trade?

With the recent capture of “El Chapo,” the richest drug cartel leader in the world, let’s take a look at what he was known for — a global drug trade.

It’s a big question.
There’s a world of drugs out there:
Methamphetamine
Amphetamines
Cannabis
Heroin
Opium
Cocaine
Ecstasy
Hallucinogens

And a world of drug users…

Drug Users by Region:

Africa:

Cannabis Users-
Lower estimate-27,680,000
Upper estimate-52,790,000
Average-16,735,000

Opiate Users-
Lower estimate-680,000
Upper estimate-2,930,000
Average-1,805,000

Cocaine Users-
Lower estimate-1,020,000
Upper estimate-2,670,000
Average-1,845,000

Amphetamine Users-
Lower estimate-1,550,000
Upper estimate-5,200,000
Average-3,375,000

Ecstasy users-
Lower estimate-350,000
Upper estimate-1,930,000
Average-1,140,000

The Americas:
North America:
Cannibis Users-
Lower estimate-29,950,000
Upper estimate-29,950,000
Average-29,950,000

Opiate Users-
Lower estimate-1,290,000
Upper estimate-1,380,000
Average-1,335,000

Cocaine Users-
Lower estimate-6,170,000
Upper estimate-6,170,000
Average-6,170,000

Amphetamine Users-
Lower estimate-3,090,000
Upper estimate-3,200,000
Average-3,150,000

Ecstasy Users-
Lower estimate-2,490,000
Upper estimate-2,490,000
Average-2,490,000

Caribbean and South/Central America:

Cannabis Users-
Lower estimate-8,260,000
Upper estimate-10,080,000
Average-9,170,000

Opiate Users-
Lower estimate-1,000,000
Upper estimate-1,060,000
Average-1,030,000

Cocaine Users-
Lower estimate-2,550,000
Upper estimate-2,910,000
Average-2,732,500

Amphetamine Users-
Lower estimate-1,670,000
Upper estimate-2,690,000
Average-2,180,000

Ecstasy Users-
Lower estimate-550,000
Upper estimate-3,031,000
Average-1,790500

Asia:

Cannabis Users-
Lower estimate-31,510,000
Upper estimate-64,580,000
Average-48,045,000

Opiate Users-
Lower estimate-6,446,000
Upper estimate-12,540,000
Average-9,493,000

Cocaine Users-
Lower estimate-430,000
Upper estimate-2,270,000
Average-1,350,000

Amphetamine Users-
Lower estimate-4,430,000
Upper estimate-37,990,000
Average-21,210,000

Ecstasy Users-
Lower estimate-2,370,000
Upper estimate-15,620,000
Average-8,995,000

Europe:

Cannabis Users-
Lower estimate-29,370,000
Upper estimate-29,990,000
Average-29,680,000

Opiate Users-
Lower estimate-3,290,000
Upper estimate-3,820,000
Average-3,555,000

Cocaine Users-
Lower estimate-4,570,000
Upper estimate-4,970,000
Average-4,770,000

Amphetamine Users-
Lower estimate-2,500,000
Upper estimate-3,190,000
Average-2,845,000

Ecstasy Users-
Lower estimate-3,850,000
Upper estimate-4,080,000
Average-3,965,000

Global Numbers:

Cannabis Users-
Lower estimate-128,910,000
Upper estimate-190,750,000
Average-159,830,000

Opiate Users-
Lower estimate-12,840,000
Upper estimate-21,880,000
Average-17,360,000

Cocaine Users-
Lower estimate-15,070,000
Upper estimate-19,380,000
Average-17,225,000

Amphetamine Users-
Lower estimate-13,710,000
Upper estimate-52,900,000
Average-33,305,000

Ecstasy Users-
Lower estimate-10,540,000
Upper estimate-25,820,000
Average-18,180,000

Which equals A LOT of dough

Estimated annual value of global criminal markets in the 2000′s
Cocaine: $88 billion USD
Opiates: $65 billion USD
By comparison, only $1 billion in criminal firearms markets.
That’s 153 times bigger than the criminal firearms trade.
– (And that’s only counting Cocaine and Opiates)

By Value, most drugs originate in 3 nations.

Afghanistan, Colombia, and Peru manufacture a majority of cocaine and heroine.

Top destinations for Afghani Heroin:

  1. Europe
  2. Russian Federation
  3. China
  4. The Americas
  5. Africa

Top destinations for Afghani Opium

  1. Iran
  2. Europe
  3. Afghanistan
  4. Pakistan
  5. Africa

Top destinations for Peruvian and Colombian Cocaine:

  1. North America (40% of global annual users)
  2. EU
  3. South America/Central America/Caribbean
  4. Africa
  5. Asia

Once the money gets rolling…

Cocaine:
Pan-American Route:
With drugs, you pay for risk, as much as the product itself.
1 kilo = $2,000 in Colombia or Peru
1 kilo = $10,000 in Mexico
1 kilo = $30,000 in the U.S.
Or broken up into grams = $100,000 in U.S.

There’s no stopping it.

Even with a wall at the border drug traffickers use:
Catapults (to throw packages over the wall)
Planes (over the wall)
-Cesnas to 747′s.[2]
(747′s can carry 13 tons of cocaine)
(that’s $1.179 billion in cocaine once it’s in America and parceled out)
Boats (around the wall)
Tunnels (below the wall)
Sandbag Bridges (over rivers)

When your trafficking a 100 kilos, a wrecked Cesna, a sunk boat, or a broken tunnel is a cost you can deal with.

The U.S. is the single largest customer base of drugs worldwide.

Estimates for US drug expenditures:[in billions USD]
Cocaine: 28
Heroin: 27
Marijuana: 41
Meth: 13

Former Mexican President Porfirio Diaz–“Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States.” [2]

Colombian and Mexican Cartels take in $18-$39 billion from US sales each year.
$6.6 billion = Mexican Cartel gross revenue.
50% of this is made by the Sinaloa Cartel
Equals $3 billion in revenue.
About 1/2 of Facebook’s revenue
Close to Netflix’s revenue
And that’s just the cartels of two countries.

These are some massive players.
With several drug kingpins landing on Forbes richest in the world list in recent years.

Drug Kingpins:

El Chapo Guzman:[2]
Forbes billionaire list: 2009-2012
Chicago’s Public Enemy No. 1
Notable Achievements:
1st to traffic drugs through tunnel underneath border.
Known for using a catapult to throw drugs over the border.
Had a large pot farm guarded by armed guards in northern Wisconsin.
Escaped from a high security Mexican prison in a laundry basket.
Saw the future with methamphetamine, gave it away for free to establish a customer base.

Zhenli Ye Gon[2]
A Chinese-Mexican businessman believed to have sold precursors of meth to cartels.
And this is a lot of meth.
Meth ingredient seizures at ports:
22 tons in October 2009; 88 tons in May 2010; 252 tons December 2012

Zhenli is a notorious gambler. [2]
Losing so much at a casino that they gifted him a Rolls-Royce.
How much do you have to lose to be given a Rolls-Royce?
$72 million was how much Zhenli lost at one casino that year.

Pablo Escobar:[4]
At his height had a fleet of:
16 planes
1 Learjet
6 helicopters
Boats
Remote control submarines.

Largest load: sent 25 tons of cocaine on a boat.

Spent $2,500 a month on rubber bands to stack money.
Wrote off 10% of income from “spoilage” by rats nibbling at stacks of money.

This is too much money to ignore. In the drug trade, if you can make it, users will always come.

How-big-is-drug-trade

Copyright top-criminal-justice-schools.net, 2014

Citations:

  1. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2012/03/13/billionaire-druglords-el-chapo-guzman-pablo-escobar-the-ochoa-brothers/
  2. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-drug-cartel-makes-its-billions.html?pagewanted=all&_r=3&
  3. https://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2010/World_Drug_Report_2010_lo-res.pdf
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Escobar
  5. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/wausid_results_report.pdf
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Cocaine, Heroin, Cannabis, Ecstasy: How Big is the Global Drug Trade?

College Education in America: “Learning to Be Stupid in the Culture of Cash”

October 26th, 2019 by Luciana Bohne

Incisive and provocative analysis first published by Global Research in August 2003.

You might think that reading about a Podunk University’s English teacher’s attempt to connect the dots between the poverty of American education and the gullibility of the American public may be a little trivial, considering we’ve embarked on the first, openly-confessed imperial adventure of senescent capitalism in the US, but bear with me. The question my experiences in the classroom raise is why have these young people been educated to such abysmal depths of ignorance.

“I don’t read,” says a junior without the slightest self-consciousness. She has not the smallest hint that professing a habitual preference for not reading at a university is like bragging in ordinary life that one chooses not to breathe. She is in my “World Literature” class. She has to read novels by African, Latin American, and Asian authors. She is not there by choice: it’s just a “distribution” requirement for graduation, and it’s easier than philosophy -she thinks.

The novel she has trouble reading is Isabel Allende’s “Of Love and Shadows,” set in the post-coup terror of Pinochet’s junta’s Nazi-style regime in Chile, 1973-1989. No one in the class, including the English majors, can write a focused essay of analysis, so I have to teach that. No one in the class knows where Chile is, so I make photocopies of general information from world guide surveys. No one knows what socialism or fascism is, so I spend time writing up digestible definitions. No one knows what Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” is, and I supply it because it’s impossible to understand the theme of the novel without a basic knowledge of that work – which used to be required reading a few generations ago. And no one in the class has ever heard of 11 September 1973, the CIA-sponsored coup which terminated Chile’s mature democracy. There is complete shock when I supply US de-classified documents proving US collusion with the generals’ coup and the assassination of elected president, Salvador Allende.

Geography, history, philosophy, and political science – all missing from their preparation. I realize that my students are, in fact, the oppressed, as Paulo Freire’s “The Pedagogy of the Oppressed” pointed out, and that they are paying for their own oppression. So, I patiently explain: no, our government has not been the friend of democracy in Chile; yes, our government did fund both the coup and the junta torture-machine; yes, the same goes for most of Latin America. Then, one student asks, “Why?” Well, I say, the CIA and the corporations run roughshod over the world in part because of the ignorance of the people of the United States, which apparently is induced by formal education, reinforced by the media, and cheered by Hollywood. As the more people read, the less they know and the more indoctrinated they become, you get this national enabling stupidity to attain which they go into bottomless pools of debt. If it weren’t tragic, it would be funny.

Meanwhile, this expensive stupidity facilitates US funding of the bloody work of death squads, juntas, and terror regimes abroad. It permits the war we are waging – an unfair, illegal, unjust, illogical, and expensive war, which announces to the world the failure of our intelligence and, by the way, the creeping weakness of our economic system. Every man, woman, and child killed by a bomb, bullet, famine, or polluted water is a murder – and a war crime. And it signals the impotence of American education to produce brains equipped with the bare necessities for democratic survival: analyzing and asking questions.

Let me put it succinctly: I don’t think serious education is possible in America. Anything you touch in the annals of knowledge is a foe of this system of commerce and profit, run amok. The only education that can be permitted is if it acculturates to the status quo, as happens in the expensive schools, or if it produces people to police and enforce the status quo, as in the state school where I teach. Significantly, at my school, which is a third-tier university, servicing working-class, first-generation college graduates who enter lower-echelon jobs in the civil service, education, or middle management, the favored academic concentrations are communications, criminal justice, and social work–basically how to mystify, cage, and control the masses.

This education is a vast waste of the resources and potential of the young. It is boring beyond belief and useless–except to the powers and interests that depend on it. When A Ukranian student, a three-week arrival on these shores, writes the best-organized and most profound essay in English of the class, American education has something to answer for–especially to our youth.

But the detritus and debris that American education has become is both planned and instrumental. It’s why our media succeeds in telling lies. It’s why our secretary of state can quote from a graduate-student paper, claiming confidently that the stolen data came from the highest intelligence sources. It’s why Picasso’s “Guernica” can be covered up during his preposterous “report” to the UN without anyone guessing the political significance of this gesture and the fascist sensibility that it protects.

Cultural fascism manifests itself in an aversion to thought and cultural refinement. “When I hear the word ‘culture,'” Goebbels said, “I reach for my revolver.” One of the infamous and telling reforms the Pinochet regime implemented was educational reform. The basic goal was to end the university’s role as a source of social criticism and political opposition.

The order came to dismantle the departments of philosophy, social and political science, humanities and the arts–areas in which political discussions were likely to occur. The universities were ordered to issue degrees only in business management, computer programming, engineering, medicine and dentistry – vocational training schools, which in reality is what American education has come to resemble, at least at the level of mass education. Our students can graduate without ever touching a foreign language, philosophy, elements of any science, music or art, history, and political science, or economics.

In fact, our students learn to live in an electoral democracy devoid of politics – a feature the dwindling crowds at the voting booths well illustrate.

The poet Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote that, in the rapacity that the industrial revolution created, people first surrendered their minds or the capacity to reason, then their hearts or the capacity to empathize, until all that was left of the original human equipment was the senses or their selfish demands for gratification. At that point, humans entered the stage of market commodities and market consumers–one more thing in the commercial landscape. Without minds or hearts, they are instrumentalized to buy whatever deadens their clamoring and frightened senses–official lies, immoral wars, Barbies, and bankrupt educations.

Meanwhile, in my state, the governor has ordered a 10% cut across the board for all departments in the state – including education.

Luciana Bohne teaches film and literature at Edinboro University in Pennsylvania. Please send your comments/feedback/discussion on this article to [email protected] .

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on College Education in America: “Learning to Be Stupid in the Culture of Cash”

Liberating Assange: A Woeful Lack of Leadership

October 25th, 2019 by Al Burke

For years there has been widespread and growing support for Julian Assange in many parts of the world. This I have learned from a variety of sources, including so-called alternative media, and queries addressed to me in consequence of my own modest efforts to inform (see this and this).

Recently, for example, two correspondents in France inquired if I had any opinion of or additional knowledge relating to an article containing brutal criticism of Julian’s lawyers. Both women expressed what one referred to as ”my frustration and sense of powerlessness” concerning Julian’s predicament.

Such sentiments are far from uncommon, and may in large measure be explained by the sorrowful fact that Julian’s supporters worldwide — who at this point number in the millions and are clearly prepared to contribute time, energy and money — have been left unorganised and poorly informed.

That observation is in no way meant to disparage or trivialise the efforts of individuals like John Pilger, who for years has been conducting an extensive one-man information service, making himself available to all sorts of media for interviews, etc. — while donating large amounts of time and energy that he might devote to more personal matters if there were equally knowledgeable, accessible and responsive additional sources to share the burden. I, for one, have not discovered any.

Discouraging initiative

It was due to my great respect for John Pilger, both for his unflagging support to Julian Assange and for his many journalistic achievements, that I unhesitatingly assented when he earlier this year asked me to help with a project in Sweden.

The objective, at least initially, was to gather a respectable number of endorsements for a statement in support of Julian Assange to be published in Swedish media, commissioned and financed by the WikiLeaks organization. The name-gathering began on 22 May and soon everything was arranged for full-page ads to be published in two leading Swedish newspapers on Monday, June 3rd, with a statement endorsed by over 100 citizens in various walks of life.

But a few days before scheduled publication, WikiLeaks leaders informed John that it had decided not to go ahead with publication ”at this time”. No discussion. No consultation. No explanation. Only some vague noises about publication at some unspecified later date which became increasingly vague and less specific as the days passed. In the end, under mounting pressure from endorsers to act upon their eagerness to openly declare their support of Julian, the statement was published on a website established for that purpose. (More detailed account here.)

To put it mildly, this episode indicated a state of disarray or worse among the presumptive leaders of Julian’s most crucial and well-informed support in London. It also seemed to express a dismal lack of respect for John Pilger, who through the years has contributed so much. And, of course, it demonstrated an utter disregard for all the Swedes who donated their time, energy and good names to the project.

It would be difficult to devise a more effective method for repelling adherents and discouraging initiative.

What’s happening, how to know?

The arbitrary cancellation of the Swedish initiative is one of many signs that a coherent, well-organised campaign in support of Julian Assange is notable by its absence. Much the same can be said of the information available to those who may wish to participate in such campaign. For an uninitiate in Saskatchewan, Sweden or Sri Lanka wanting to learn and help, where to turn for enlightenment?

One obvious place to start, of course, is with the organisation that Julian is world famous for having founded. But a visit to the WikiLeaks website does not have much to say about his persecution. There is nothing about it on the home page at www.wikileaks.org. In the ”News” subsection there are a couple of related articles, the most recent dated June 7 of this year. Those who seek further under the ”About” heading will, toward the end of the page, find this reference: ”Julian Assange’s ongoing detention without charge is best described here”

That’s all there is to learn about the Assange case from the WikiLeaks website.

Not so incidentally, the link to the justice4assange website does not appear to be functioning. When I yesterday and today clicked on that link with both Firefox and Chrome, I got either a blank page or this message: ”Error. Bad request or the file you have requested does not exist. Please wait few minutes and try again.”

Those who know what to do next may be able to access the Justice for Assange website via its home page at https://justice4assange.com — but often first after receiving and complying with the ”Bad request” error message. If they eventually succeed, they are greeted with this sight:

The video is a 37-second excerpt from a statement on 5 February 2016 by Christophe Peschoux, identified only as ”UN working group secretary”.

The group in question is presumably the UNWGAD. Note that the date is Feb. 2016, more than 3½ years ago. Among many other things not mentioned is the far more powerful statement by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture from May of this year.

Beneath the video are some Frequently Asked Questions which include ”When did Assange enter the embassy, and why is he there?”, indicating that the website has not been updated since before Julian’s arrest in April this year.

Otherwise, the site does not appear to be functioning well or at all. Clicking on the section headings in the top menu (Action, Statements, etc.) has no effect, i.e. one remains on the home page. But it does produce some mixed headings in the menu, for example:

These and other problems, including the frequent reappearance of the ” Bad request” error message, render this website of little or no use. Yet it is recommended by WikiLeaks as the source where “Julian Assange’s ongoing detention without charge is best described”.

Defending WikiLeaks — not Julian Assange

Apparently some person(s) decided several years ago that the principal source of information about the Assange case on the Internet should be the website entitled ”Defend WikiLeaks” (not ”Defend Assange”). It may, however, be questioned how widely that is understood or agreed.

I routinely explore a broad range of sources via the Internet for information about Julian Assange and many other subjects, but rarely come across any reference to Defend WikiLeaks.   WikiLeaks’ own website makes no mention of its Defender, but instead links readers to the error-prone site of Justice for Assange.

The Defend WikiLeaks website seems to be equally prone to the “Bad request” error message. Those who succeed in gaining access see this home page:

The top menu clearly indicates that ”Julian” is a subsidiary issue.

There is no photo or other image of Julian on this, the opening page of the section labelled ”Julian” on the Defend WikiLeaks website.

The banner headline seems to suggest that the arrest of Julian was a recent event, not something that occurred over half a year ago.

The 45-second video was apparently produced by the British Labour Party. After a half-second with the puzzling opening image — apparently taken during the arrest of Julian in April — the video segues to a statement in support of Julian recited by an unidentified but presumably Labour politician, accompanied by excerpts from the infamous ”Collateral Murder” video.   WikiLeaks’ own website makes no mention of its Defender, but instead links readers to the error-prone site of Justice for Assange.

In relation to Julian’s current predicament, the relevance of the video and the quote beginning ”Congress shall make no law” is not immediately evident.

The appeal for money is very clear, however.

Visitors — presumably from all over the world and with many different native tongues that are not English — are apparently expected to understand what ”Liveblog” means, and that in this case it involves current news about the Assange case. Those who, for whatever reason, choose to click on the Liveblog link are at risk of being met with the ”Bad request” error message. If and when they do gain access to that page, they will probably find it difficult to navigate — sluggish and erratic, as appears to be the case with navigation within and between most pages of the website.

How much life there is in the Liveblog is open to question; the most recent entry is from October 16, three days ago. The lead headline is ” Julian Assange Arrested, Donate to the campaign now”. Beneath that is a small subhead: ”Arrest info and how else to get involved here”. Clicking on that link opens either the ”Bad request” error message or a page headlined ”Emergency: Julian Assange has been arrested”. That again.

There is some mention of his imprisonment in ”About Julian Assange” — 142 of the 2519 words on that page touch upon the subject. The ”Prison Updates” page contains two entries with a total of 491 words, the most recent dated 30 September 2019.

The section labelled ”Take Action” opens with another appeal to ”Donate”. That is followed by some fairly self-evident suggestions about what one might do to help. It is noted that ”There are numerous local groups and campaigns that have sprouted up in support of Julian Assange around the world”. But no effort has been made to unite them into a coherent force, or even to document them and their activities.

Then there is the question of the website’s visual appeal. Design is a matter of taste, of course. But I am fairly confident that if a random sample of Internet uses were asked to compare this website with just about any other — www.wikileaks.org or www.julian-assange.se, for example — the harsh yellow-blackness of defend.wikileaks.org would not be seen as especially inviting.

Clearly inadequate

Etc., etc.… In short, the website designated by some obscure process to serve as the primary Internet source of information about the Assange case is clearly inadequate. Among other things, I have never before encountered a website that performs so poorly from a purely technical standpoint — more than slightly perplexing, given the technical expertise of those associated with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. The failure to provide vital, up-to-date information is even more perplexing, to indulge in understatement.

Of course, it can be and has been reasoned that there are many other sources available among alternative and even mainstream media, some of which are referenced on the Defend WikiLeaks website. But how to interpret and choose among them?

To take one of countless examples: Some media have recently reported that Julian is in very poor health, others that he is in good health. Which to believe? What is very much needed is an authoritative source, acting on Julian’s behalf, which provides reliable fresh information while resolving the contradictions, confusions and inaccuracies of media and other reports. That would appear to be a precondition for any global campaign to secure his freedom.

Needless to say, such a campaign would be very difficult to organise and coordinate. But difficult tasks have been accomplished before — by Julian Assange, for example. It may well be that those who have been leading current efforts, whoever they are, have been doing their very best. If so, their efforts are to be gratefully acknowledged.

But in a situation like Julian’s, the need for dedicated and effective leadership does not dissipate just because certain individuals are unable to provide it. The time to identify and recruit such leadership is long overdue, and that will no doubt require some blunt and open discussion.

Initial suggestions

By way of imitating such a discussion, here are a few suggestions about what needs to be done:

  • Launch an independent global campaign dedicated solely to the release of Julian Assange from captivity, with an appropriate title such as ”Assange Freedom Now!”
  • Recruit a qualified steering committee to lead and legitimise the campaign. Names like Mairead Maguire, Craig Murray and Ray McGovern come to mind. So does John Pilger’s, of course; but he has already done so much that it seems impertinent to contemplate asking.
  • Establish an adequately staffed and funded campaign headquarters, presumably in London but possibly elsewhere, to carry out tasks including:

Create and constantly maintain an attractive, easily read and technically efficient website to provide continual and authoritative reports on Julian’s current situation and related matters, correct errors in other media, answer reader enquiries, etc.

Develop and maintain a comprehensive list of solidarity groups around the world, document their actions, respond to their requests for information and guidance, etc.

Help plan, organise and execute major actions.

This text was originally posted on nne.se

*

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.

US Reoccupation of Northern Syria? Turkish Aggression Halted?

October 25th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Time and again, things aren’t as they seem, Trump’s ordered withdrawal of US forces from northern Syria the latest example — saying one thing, then going another way, going along with his geopolitical team’s permanent war agenda.

Commenting on the situation in Syria’s north, Trump said “a small number of US troops will remain in the area where they have the oil. And we’re going to be protecting it (sic), and we’ll be deciding what we’re going to do with it in the future (sic).”

He ignored illegal US occupation of sovereign Syrian territory, stealing its resources, committing Nuremberg-level high crimes against the state and its people.

On Thursday, a Pentagon statement said additional (heavily armed) US forces will be sent to northern Syria to “reinforce” control of its oil fields — on the phony pretext of preventing them from “falling back into the hands of ISIS or other destabilizing actors,” controlled by the US not explained.

According to the WSJ, “about 500 US troops,” along with “dozens of battle tanks and other equipment” apparently will be deployed in northern Syria — “a reversal from” Trump’s withdrawal order.

What’s going on? Withdrawal of US forces from Syria appears more illusion than reality. Unknown numbers of Pentagon troops continue to occupy southern Syrian territory near Iraq and Jordan.

Trump’s withdrawal order from the country’s north excluded unclear numbers remaining, including at an illegal Pentagon airbase, one of its platforms for terror-bombing Syrian infrastructure and populated civilian areas.

US forces invaded Syria illegally to stay. Bipartisan dark forces in Washington want endless war on the country continued.

Restoration of peace and stability to US war theaters defeats its imperial aims, served by forever wars, instability and chaos.

The myth persists about combatting the scourge of ISIS created, supported and controlled by the Pentagon and CIA, used as proxy troops in US war theaters.

The October 17 US/Turkish deal in Ankara makes no mention of halting Pentagon/IDF terror-bombing of Syrian targets — to continue at their discretion.

US warplanes, attack helicopters and armed drones continue controlling portions of Syrian airspace, including areas bordering Turkey, Iraq and Jordan — facilitating Israeli strikes on Syrian targets.

Separately on Wednesday, Erdogan told Trump his military offensive in northern Syria ended while his forces continue attacking Kurdish fighters, Syrian troops in the area struck as well.

On Thursday, Syrian media reported attacks by Turkey and its terrorist proxies on government forces, killing some soldiers, wounding others near Tal Tamr, a clear ceasefire breach.

Kurdish YPG fighters reported the same thing, saying a large-scale Turkish offensive on Thursday attacked three northern Syrian villages where their troops are located, adding Ankara is responsible for the “deterioration of the ceasefire process.”

It’s shaky at best because of Erdogan’s revanchist aims and continued illegal US occupation of northern and southern Syrian territory, including its airspace.

According to the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) on Thursday, government troops “confronted…an attack by forces affiliated to the Turkish occupation and its mercenaries of terrorists on Kowzaliyah and Tal Laban in Tal Tamer region in Hasaka north-western countryside,” adding:

“Turkish occupation troops continued their aggression on Syrian territories and occupied al-Manajir village in Tal Tamer region after shelling the area with artillery and heavy weapons.”

The situation in occupied Syria remains fluid. Sporadic clashes between Turkish forces and its jihadist proxies against Kurdish fighters and government troops continue.

Restoration of peace and stability to the country remains unattainable because consensus in Washington rejects the idea — endless wars in multiple theaters supported by the NYT and other establishment media.

Majority Republicans and undemocratic Dems are committed to regime change in Syria, wanting Assad replaced by US-controlled puppet rule.

They want Iran isolated regionally, economic terrorism on the country continuing, aiming to topple its legitimate government.

Time and again, geopolitical know-nothing Trump is manipulated to go along with what dark forces surrounding him want pursued.

It’s not a pretty picture nor encouraging for what may lie 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.

“Exporting Democracy” to Bolivia

October 25th, 2019 by Padraig McGrath

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.

Morales said

“A coup is underway, carried out by the right-wing with foreign support…what are the methods of this coup attempt? They’re not recognizing or waiting for election results, they’re burning down electoral courts, they want to proclaim the second-place candidate as the winner.”

This bears many parallels with Bolivia’s regional geo-strategic partner, Venezuela. Following the clear victory of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro in his 2018 bid for re-election, the US regime-change machine went into fifth gear, with the attempt to install the usurper Juan Guaidó as president through a combination of right-wing extremist violence and quasi-legal subterfuge. Both countries possess extremely valuable natural resource deposits which make them compelling targets for American neo-imperialism in what many American foreign policy thinkers (including, most famously, John Bolton) see as “our hemisphere.”

Morales also stated that one of the strategies of right-wing extremists attempting to disrupt the election was to find ways of rendering the votes of rural and indigenous communities uncountable or otherwise irrelevant. He has always received the overwhelming electoral support of rural and indigenous communities. This is entirely predictable, considering that rural and indigenous communities in Bolivia have been the principal economic beneficiaries of the revolution which has been undertaken since Morales was first elected president in 2006.

It is indisputable that Bolivia’s politico-economic spectrum has an ethnic dimension, just as Venezuela’s does. Both countries are highly multi-ethnic, but the overwhelming majority of right-wing extremists using violence in an attempt to unseat Maduro and Morales have been urban, middle-class and, broadly-speaking “white.” In Bolivia, some of these elements resent the effects of Morales’ revolution, which has been to redistribute wealth to rural and indigenous communities through land-reform, but also through the state-sponsored modernization of agriculture. Poverty has been cut in half since 2006.

The seed-capital for this modernization of agriculture was generated by the nationalization of certain strategic industries, including the country’s natural gas sector, lithium-mining, telecom, public transport, airlines, airports and some manufacturing. The profits generated from these nationalized industries have totalled $74 billion since 2006, money which has been invested in infrastructural development (including renewable energy) and agriculture, both of which have immensely benefitted rural and indigenous Bolivians. Significant investments have also been made in public healthcare and education, both of which the government classifies not as “services,” but as matters of national security.

The next phase in Bolivia’s plan for economic “self-strengthening” will be to seed industrialization, making it possible to create a more value-added economy. High-end processing of natural resources at home is by far preferable to the export of raw materials. It is this development, wherein Bolivia creates its own value-added industrial economy rather than simply continuing as an economic colony for cheap resource-extraction, which threatens US economic interests more than any previous development over the timeline of Morales’ 13-year revolutionary process.

However, more broadly, it is the success of this economic model which poses an immense ideological threat to American imperial interests throughout South America. Unlike Venezuela, Bolivia has a high degree of food-security, making it much more difficult for international agri-business conglomerates to attempt to starve the population into submission in an effort to dissuade them from the revolutionary path. As with Venezuela, 2 of the factors which would make direct US military intervention extremely difficult are Bolivia’s physical geography and logistics. While the US has client-states in the region, none of them have signaled that they would be willing to allow their territories to be used as staging-areas for a US invasion. In the case of Venezuela, the availability of almost 2 million well trained and ideologically committed military reservists is another factor.

Therefore, regarding Bolivia, the Americans are left with no other strategy but to sponsor low-level terrorism, enacted by domestic reactionary elements, which the western media refer to as “civil society organizations.” However, this is combined with quasi-legal methods, insofar as the purpose of the terrorism is to prevent the counting of votes and the certification of election-results. This combination of legal and illegal methods in synthesis has always been a hallmark of fascist movements worldwide, going all the way back to the 1930’s – they use violence to seize power, but always attempt to construct a veneer of legality while doing so. As a methodology, the “quasi-legal coup d’etat” is a historically defining characteristic of fascism.

This attempt to invalidate the election’s results is conducted in coordination with an international component, which then pushes for another election or refuses to recognize the election-result. The US-controlled Organization of American States, headquartered in Washington DC, has stated that there should be a run-off if Morales’ margin of victory in the election’s first round was not more than 10% of the vote. In similar fashion, regarding Venezuela, the OAS voted in April to recognize the “ambassador” chosen by Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s official representative to the organization.

On that basis, we should not be so surprised if the United States and its allies and clients choose to arbitrarily declare that they recognize Morales’ defeated opponent, Carlos Mesa, as president. Mesa’s party (the so-called “Revolutionary Left Front”) sold out to Bolivia’s land-owning class decades ago, and he has spent several years moonlighting in Washington DC-based think-tanks. He’s Uncle Sam’s boy in La Paz. The Bolivian government’s non-compliance with these international quasi-legal diktats would then be used as a pretext for economic terrorism and the imposition of economic sanctions.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Padraig McGrath is a political analyst.

The Neoliberal Ghost of Pinochet Is Finally Being Exorcised from Chile

October 25th, 2019 by Paul Antonopoulos

More than 46 years of initially military imposed neoliberalism has finally exploded into widespread frustration, protest and violence. This neoliberalism culminated in 2017 with twelve businessmen, among them Chilean President Sebastián Piñera, monopolizing at least 17% of the national GDP, demonstrating the huge gap in wealth equity. There is little doubt why the latest protests have exploded violently, with 18 dead so far – Piñera had declared war on his own people to protect his lucrative monopoly racket.

It is without surprise he had declared war. The aggressive neoliberalism that has dominated Chile since the 1973 Chilean coup d’état when socialist President Salvador Allende was killed and eventually replaced by neoliberal Augusto Pinochet, with the backing and blessing of U.S. President Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, the CIA and the so-called “Chicago Boys” neoliberal economic team.

Although the so-called communist threat was defeated in Chile, it was not until 1990 for the kinder face of neoliberalism to return to the country, with the first democratic election taking place since the coup. The return to democracy had not meant any differences to the economic system.

The appearance of GDP growth in the South American country created the mythology of the Chilean miracle, ‘thanks’ to the Chicago Boys, the group of young Chilean economists who studied at the University of Chicago under the adviser to U.S. President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, professor Milton Friedman. They were the so-called economic liberators and advised Pinochet on applying complete free-market policies, essentially to privatize state-owned industries and companies, and to open the economy.

The pernicious globalist model was applied and deemed a miracle because of significant GDP growth. However, this is only to the benefit of shareholders and private companies and does not reflect on the average Chilean experience. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Gini coefficient value, a method to measure wealth distribution, stood at a record 0.50 in 2017, one of the highest inequality coefficients in the world.

This is because the incomes of the richest 10 percent of Chile are 26 times higher than the incomes of the poorest 10 percent of the population. This is partly also due because the of an unfair taxation system that creates a massive tax burden on the poor as Chile’s government earns less from income taxes than any other country in the 35-member OECD. Despite praises of the supposed fantastic economic performance, almost a third of Chilean workers are employed in part-time jobs, with one in two Chileans having low literacy skills, according to the OECD.

And now as Chile literally burns and 18 people are dead, we cannot forget that former president Michelle Bachelet grotesquely dedicated lessons on “human rights” against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Although Piñera apologized, it was not for his declaration of war against the people, but rather for the decades of unresolved problems, followed by an announcement for a new social and economic program.

A reversal of the crippling neoliberal economic system? Highly doubtful and probably more a Band-Aid option.

Neoliberal propagandist Enrique Krauze Kleinbort – accused of the coup attempt to overthrow Mexican President López Obrador – proclaimed that Chile was ‘the role model’ for Latin American economic growth. If the inequality is considered a ‘role model,’ it shows that the oligarchs of Latin America have not realized a growing trend of violent opposition to neoliberalism, as the recent case in Ecuador demonstrates.

The very fact that Piñera attempted to increase transportation and energy costs in Chile demonstrates his lack of knowledge on international outrage to neoliberalism. The French Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) in France began their actions 12 months ago, which also spread across Europe, when neoliberal President Emmanuel Macron attempted to increase gasoline taxes. In 2018, Brazilian truck drivers blocked roads in a demand for a decrease in diesel prices. Mexico in 2017 saw a 20% rise in fuel prices that exploded into riots.

However, the attempted increase in transportation and energy costs was only the spark that lit the fire. As Piñera, the man part of a monopoly over the Chilean economy, was forced to admit this is an explosion after decades worth of frustration, neglect and abuse. Candida Cecilia Morel, the wife of the billionaire Piñera, sent a WhatsApp message that was leaked in the media, in which she comments on the violence and the protests shaking her country – and it certainly does show the disconnect that the elite of Chile have with the common Chilean. The message said that “we are absolutely overwhelmed, it is like a foreign invasion, alien,” and that “we will have to decrease our privileges and share with others.” Her suggestion to decrease “privileges and shares” is a stark reminder of Charles Dickens 1800’s Britain.

With such elitist comments and referring to Chileans as aliens, there is little wonder that there has been little calm despite Piñera’s half-done apology and promises of more neoliberalism with a softer punch.  Although circles close to the Chilean Presidency affirm that the disturbances and destabilization are orchestrated from abroad, it is unlikely to be true. We can of course expect that Venezuela will be the scape goat by some Chilean oligarchs, just as the oligarchs in Ecuador and Colombia do, but there remains little evidence that this is the case.

Rather, as Piñera has had to attest, decades of neoliberalism is the cause of this. However, perhaps inspired by events in Ecuador, it appears that the Chilean people are finally exercising the neoliberal ghost of Pinochet from its country. It appears that the violence will not end unless the Chilean president makes drastic changes to the Chilean economy. Whether he does this or not remains to be seen.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

Clashes in Northeastern Syria Put Turkish-Russian Memorandum at Risk

October 25th, 2019 by Sarah Abed

On Tuesday, exactly two weeks after Ankara launched its cross border military operation “Operation Peace Spring”, in northern Syria east of the Euphrates River, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met in Sochi for what proved to be a lengthy diplomatic discussion that resulted in an agreement that sets the stage for de-escalating tensions in that region.

The Russian-Turkish memorandum published by the Kremlin covers ten mutually agreed upon points. Many of the same issues that were addressed but not resolved by the United States and Turkey during their recent agreements were mentioned.

The agreement begins with reiterating the importance of maintain Syria’s political unity and territorial integrity and the protection of Turkey’s national security as well.

Both parties also confirmed their commitment and emphasized their determination to combating all forms of terrorism and to not allow separatist agendas to prosper, this of course is referring to the US-backed Kurdish militia’s and their so-called self-administration policies which are illegitimate.

The importance of the 1998 Adana Agreement which was created as a security pact between Ankara and Damascus and ensures the PKK will not be allowed to regain momentum in Syria and if it does Turkey reserves the right to carry cross border military operations against them. Although Syria never denounced the pact, diplomatic relations during the conflict were severely damaged and after the PKK was squashed it re-emerged as the PYD, and Turkey views the PYD, YPG, and the newest US created rebranding the SDF all to be Syrian offshoots of the PKK.

Wednesday at noon a new deadline for the Kurdish militias to leave with their weapons started, giving them 150 hours to leave from the 30km Turkish-Syrian border. Syrian border guards along with Russian military police will enter to facilitate the removal of YPG members. After the deadline Russian and Turkish patrols will start in a 10km deep area in the west and the east of the area surrounding the area covered by “Operation Peace Spring” except for Qamishli.

In addition to the YPG elements in the previously stated areas, all Kurdish fighters and their weapons must be removed from Manbij and Tal Rifat. Measures will be taken to prevent infiltrations of terrorist elements.

As for the refugees, joint efforts will be launched to safely and voluntarily return them. Joint monitoring and verification mechanisms will also be established to coordinate and oversee that all parts of this memorandum are effectively implemented.

Both Russia and Turkey will continue to work on finding a lasting political solution to the Syrian conflict within Astana Mechanism and will support the activity of the Constitutional Committee taking place next week.

The issue of ISIS prisoners was also brought up, and the importance of preventing detainees from escaping.

Turkey is accomplishing its goal of removing Kurdish militias from its border by stating they are a threat to its national security. Regardless, it’s operation and support for terrorist factions is illegal and NATO’s pretentious concern is unavailing.

However, there’s another incentive to discontinuing its cross-border military operation, the US lifted sanctions which were imposed on October 14th and this will drastically improve Turkey’s aching economy.

President Trump was up against bipartisan disapproval for his decision to withdrawal US troops and end military support for the Kurdish factions, and he stood his ground. And lest we forget, America’s number one ally in the region, Israel, is the biggest supporter of separatist Kurdish factions in Iraq and Syria, the independent Kurdistan project is conveniently aligned with the Greater Israel project. Standing up to both Capital Hill and Israel is a bold move.

As for the Israeli-Kurdish relationship, not much has changed since I originally reported on their mutually beneficial dealings a few years ago. Israel’s selfish interests in supporting Kurdish independence remain two-fold, oil and to counter supposed “increased Iranian influence” in the region.

President Trump is trying to end what the Obama administration began with their failed “regime change” efforts in Syria. As Trump mentioned, Washington has wasted 8 Trillion dollars in Middle Eastern wars, which brought forth nothing but death and destruction to the region, killing millions and displacing many more millions of innocent people.

Immediately following his lengthy meeting with Erdogan, Putin spoke with his Syrian counterpart Bashar al Assad who expressed support for the memorandum and confirmed Syrian border guards were ready to work with the Russian military police.

The Kremlin reiterated the need for all illegal foreign military presence to leave Syria. Also, the Syrian government needs to regain control of all the oil facilities in northeastern Syria.

Russia wants a broad dialogue to take place between the Syrian government and the Kurds living in northeastern Syria. The constitutional committee in cooperation with the United Nations will also work towards peaceful political process in Syria. US troops are guarding some of the oil fields and President Trump has even suggested that Kurds should move to these oil rich areas.

With the Syrian army establishing 15 observation posts on the Turkish Syrian border east of the Euphrates and the Kurdish militias being forced to move south outside of the “safe zone” and Syrian refugees returning to northern Syria, it’s only a matter of time before the US/Kurdish militias lose their grip on these oil fields. US troops are currently guarding some of them, Trump even insinuated on Thursday that Kurds should move into these oil rich areas.

President Erdogan needs to immediately rein in the so-called Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA) militants which consist mostly of Free Syrian Army terrorists and other factions that merged immediately prior to the “Peace Spring Operation”. Even with the ongoing Turkish-Russian “safe zone” agreement in place, the SNA has launched several attacks south and southeast of Ras al-Ayn while attempting to expand their presence in the area.

This article was originally published by Infobrics

*

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.

Johnson Seeks UK Snap Election to Break No-Brexit/Brexit Deal Impasse

October 25th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

UK Prime Minister Johnson’s do-or-die aim to leave the EU by end of October failed, a snap election is his fallback option.

He’s hoping to regain a parliamentary majority — lost after expelling 21 Tories in September for opposing his Brexit agenda.

On Thursday, he asked MPs to approve a December 12 general election. According to Britain’s Fixed Term Parliaments Act (FTPA), a two-thirds House of Commons majority is needed for approval.

Since taking office on July 23, he sought new elections three times, defeated earlier, Thursday his latest attempt — opposed by Labor.

Party whip Nick Brown said Labor was united against Johnson’s aim for new elections to try forcing adoption of his no-Brexit/Brexit deal if able to win a ruling majority, adding:

Labor will agree to snap elections once leaving the EU without a deal is off the table, party leader Jeremy Corbyn saying:

“Take no-deal off the table and we absolutely support a general election. I’ve been calling for an election ever since the last one because this country needs one to deal with all the social injustice issues – but no-deal must be taken off the table. The EU will decide whether there is an extension…and then we can decide.”

Shadow cabinet official Jon Trickett tweeted:

“Let’s be absolutely clear. Getting rid of this awful Tory government is our top priority. Our troops are ready, the party is fully prepared. Let’s get at them!!”

Pro-Labor Momentum group national coordinator Laura Parker said: Bring it on…(I)n 2017, Momentum’s campaign swung key seats for Labour. This time we’re going to run the biggest people-powered campaign the country has ever seen.”

It’s unclear how many MPs back a snap election without resolution of Brexit or a new referendum.

Current developments followed advancement of Johnson’s no-Brexit/Brexit deal last Tuesday, majority MPs rejecting its timetable, leaving the issue in limbo for further debate and possible revisions.

On October 19 as mandated by law, Johnson sought a Brexit delay from Brussels beyond the current October 31 deadline.

EU officials are considering whether to extend it to January 31, perhaps a shorter or longer period, some extension likely, perhaps announced Friday or early next week.

Unnamed Downing Street sources said if MPs reject a snap election, Johnson will continue campaigning for one, urging public support to try gaining enough parliamentary support.

Separately, Corbyn said Labor isn’t “resisting the chance to have an election. We want an election because we want to take our case to the people of this country but we do not want this country to be in any danger of crashing out of the EU without a deal because of all the damage that will do to jobs, services and trade all over this country.”

New elections are likely ahead once leaving the EU without a deal is ruled out.

A Final Comment

In response to Johnson’s threat to pull the unresolved Brexit deal if Labor rejects a snap election, Brussels may delay offering an extension beyond the October 31 deadline.

Unnamed EU sources said France wants resolution up or down on whether they’ll be a snap election before agreeing to one, the other bloc states ready to grant it to January 31.

Given Brexit impasse with the October 31 deadline fast approaching, EU states will likely extend the deadline no later than early next week.

Note: On Friday, Reuters reported that Brussels agreed in principle to a Brexit delay, announcing to what date delayed until next week.

*

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.

Top Plastic Polluters: Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and PepsiCo

October 25th, 2019 by Greenpeace

Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and PepsiCo are the top 3 most identified companies in global brand audits for the second year in a row, according to a new report “BRANDED Volume II: Identifying the World’s Top Corporate Plastic Polluters.”

Four hundred and eighty-four cleanups in over 50 countries and 6 continents, organised by the Break Free From Plastic movement in September, identified the top polluting companies. The rest of the companies rounding out the top 10 polluters are Mondelēz International, Unilever, Mars, Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, Phillip Morris, and Perfetti Van Melle.

“This report provides more evidence that corporations urgently need to do more to address the plastic pollution crisis they’ve created. Their continued reliance on single-use plastic packaging translates to pumping more throwaway plastic into the environment. Recycling is not going to solve this problem. Break Free From Plastic’s nearly 1,800 member organizations are calling on corporations to urgently reduce their production of single-use plastic and find innovative solutions focused on alternative delivery systems that do not create pollution,” said Von Hernandez, global coordinator of the Break Free From Plastic movement.

This year’s most frequently identified companies in the brand audits – Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and PepsiCo – have offered mostly false solutions to the plastics crisis, underscoring how important it is for voices from beyond the consumer goods sector to demand accountability and call for an end to single-use plastics. The list of top polluters is again filled with some of the world’s most commonly known brands.

“Recent commitments by corporations like Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and PepsiCo to address the crisis unfortunately continue to rely on false solutions like replacing plastic with paper or bioplastics and relying more heavily on a broken global recycling system. These strategies largely protect the outdated throwaway business model that caused the plastic pollution crisis, and will do nothing to prevent these brands from being named the top polluters again in the future,” said Abigail Aguilar, Greenpeace Southeast Asia plastic campaign coordinator.

“The products and packaging that brands like Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and PepsiCo are churning out is turning our recycling system into garbage. China has effectively banned the import of the US and other exporting countries’ ‘recycling,’ and other countries are following suit. Plastic is being burned in incinerators across the world, exposing communities to toxic pollution. We must continue to expose these real culprits of our plastic and recycling crisis,” said Denise Patel, US Coordinator for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA).

*

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.

Sources

  1. This report is published under the responsibility of Greenpeace Philippines: BRANDED Volume II: Identifying the World’s Top Corporate Plastic Polluters. (2019)

  2. 2018 Brand audit report:  Branded: In Search of the World’s Top Corporate Plastic Polluters, volume 1 (2018)

  3. A Greenpeace USA report titled Throwing Away the Future: How Companies Still Have It Wrong on Plastic Pollution “Solutions,”recently called out companies for opting for false solutions.

US Special Forces’ Secrets Fall into Hands of Russians as Kurds Side with Syria

October 25th, 2019 by Joseph Fitsanakis

American defence officials with knowledge of Special Operations Forces activities in Syria are concerned that their secrets may fall into the hands of the Russians, as the Kurds switch their allegiance to the Moscow-backed Syrian government.

IntelNews reports that members of the United States Special Operations Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have had a presence in Kurdish-dominated northern Syria since at least 2012. Following the rise of the Islamic State in 2014, the Americans have worked closely with the Kurds in battling the Islamist group throughout the region.

Throughout that time, US Special Operations Forces have trained members of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a political and military umbrella of anti-government Syrian groups, which is led by the Kurdish-dominated People’s Protection Unit (YPG) militias. Until recently, the SDF and the YPG were almost exclusively funded, trained and armed by the US through its Special Operations Forces units on the ground in northern Syria.

US Special Operations Forces were also behind the creation in 2014 of the SDF’s most feared force, the Anti-Terror Units. Known in Kurdish as Yekîneyên Antî Teror‎, these units have been trained by the US in paramilitary operations and are tasked with targeting Islamic State sleeper cells.

As of last week, however, the SDF and all of its US-trained militias have switched their allegiance to the Russia-backed government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The dramatic move followed the decision of the White House earlier this month to pull its Special Operations Forces troops from northern Syria, effectively allowing the Turkish military to invade the region. According to the American defence news website Military Times, US Pentagon officials are now worried that the SDF may surrender to the Russians a long list of secrets relating to US Special Operations Forces’ “tactics, techniques, procedures, equipment, intelligence gathering and even potentially names of operators”.

One former US defence official told The Military Times that SDF “may be in survival mode and will need to cut deals with bad actors” by surrendering US secrets. Another source described this scenario as “super problematic” and a symptom of the absence of a genuine American strategy in the wider Middle East region. The website also cited US Marines Major Fred Galvin (ret.), who said that Special Operations Forces tend to reveal little about themselves and their capabilities when working with non-US actors. However, this is uncharted territory for them, said Galvin, since “we’ve never had a force completely defect to an opposition like this before”.

*

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

Featured image is from TP

At What Point Do We Admit Brexit Was About Tax Evasion?

October 25th, 2019 by Josh Hamilton

This article was originally published in 2017.

Back in 2015, Britain rejected plans announced by Brussels to combat ‘industrial-scale tax avoidance by the world’s biggest multinationals’.

Britain had built a corporate tax haven for multinationals that included slashing corporation tax from 28 per cent to 20 per cent — new favourable tax regimes for multinationals with offshore financing subsidiaries, and tax breaks for patent-owning companies.

As a result, Britain saw a number of large corporations like Aon, Fiat Industrial, and Starbucks’ European operations set up headquarters in the UK with a small number of staff in order to take advantage of these tax laws …

*

The common tax regulations would have clamped down on offshoring and removed many of these elements of Britain’s competitive tax advantages over other EU member states. Then European Commissioner for Tax, Pierre Moscovici, stated that:

‘The current rules for corporate taxation no longer fit the modern context, as corporate tax planning has become more sophisticated and competitive forces between member states have increased, the tools for ensuring fair tax competition within the EU have reached their limits’.

Earlier in 2015, Conservative, UKIP and DUP MEPs also voted against EU plans to crack down on corporate tax dodging, by making companies report where they make their profits and pay taxes. The plan included a requirement for all member states to agree on a common EU position for the definition of tax havens and for coordinated penalties to be imposed upon countries or territories across the world that are uncooperative in tackling tax evasion.

Then just two weeks ago, the EU revealed that they were set to launch an investigation into a British Government scheme that could help multinational firms pay less tax. The EU believes that the special exemptions for multinationals in Britain do not comply with EU competition rules as they allow them to pay less tax than their domestic-only competitors. So with the release of the Paradise Papers last week, it is useful to examine the relationship that Britain has with tax avoiders and evaders and the UK’s stance on the EU clamp-down on tax dodging tactics.

The crux of the investigation centres around the UK’s ‘controlled foreign company’ (CFC) rules that George Osborne implemented in 2013. It allows a multinational company that resides in the UK to reduce its tax bill by moving some taxable income to an offshore subsidiary (or CFC).

The Conservatives, UKIP, and DUP frequently voted against tax evasion regulation in the European Parliament. The Conservative government pushed back against the EU crackdown on tax evasion by large corporations, and now the EU is investigating Britain’s controlled foreign companies rules that are thought to benefit large multinationals who can push their tax burdens offshore.

CFC reforms are set to become EU law, with all member states required to have anti-CFC tax evasion measures on their books from January 2019. Hard-line Brexiteers and UKIPers are desperate to get out of the EU by 2019, including those who have stood adamantly in opposition to the crackdown on tax evasion.

So I ask, at what point do we admit that tax evasion regulation was a driving force behind Brexit?

*

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: Flag of the Cayman Islands – adopted on 14th May 1958, although the current flag dates from 1999. The territory is a major world offshore financial center and tax haven (Source: Shout Out UK)

Class Struggle in Chile: President Piñera at War with His Own People

October 25th, 2019 by Euan Gibb

Chile has been held up for decades as South America’s clearest example of the stability possible when neoliberal policies are adopted and implemented as if they were religious tenets. The country is now in a situation of open rebellion. This revolt has exploded in Chile exactly as a result of the consequences of those same policies.

President Sebastián Piñera and the Chilean government’s brutally violent repression has led to at least 18 deaths. More than 5000 people have been detained or arrested. There are literally hundreds of videos of frighteningly vicious military and police actions against the Chilean population circulating on social media. The increasingly desperate tactics of curfews, a state of emergency, repression, public denigration of demonstrators as criminals and unashamed violence are bringing more people into the streets every day. Each intensification of repression causes the streets to fill with even more energy the next day. And that energy is already incredible.

Yesterday, more than 20 ports were shut down by dock workers. Today and tomorrow trade unions across the country have called for and are actively organizing a general strike.

This is not about 30 pesos, it’s about 30 years!

How could all of this possibly be a response to a 30 peso (about 4 cents USD) public transport fare hike? Of course it is not. But transport is expensive. A minimum wage worker in Santiago pays as much as 15 per cent of their wage on public transportation if they take a bus or metro twice a day. In a country where more than half the population earns less than the official minimum wage. But of course, any rebellion of this depth and scale requires much more fuel.

Class War from Above

Chile has been the most loyal adherent to the so called ‘class war from above’ neoliberal policies of the Chicago School since the military dictatorship of the 1970s. There are a variety of real and substantive legacies of this era that provide direct fuel to the current rebellion. Thatcher and Reagan’s ‘privatization miracles’ were modelled on the Chilean experiences that were initiated in the Pinochet era.

Almost everything that was public was privatized fully or partially. Similar to the US and many Latin American countries, an actively undermined, weak and fragmented public health system exists in Chile. But those that can afford it pay a significant proportion of their incomes for private health plans in order not be one of the thousands of Chileans that die every year waiting for medical treatment. Similar to Canada, students have to pay high tuition fees to study at universities and they graduate with debt that regularly takes more than a decade for graduates and their families to pay back.

The pension system is completely privatized. In poorly concealed political efforts to replicate the model, economists present Chile’s individually capitalized model of ‘Pension Fund Administrators’ (AFP) as a great success across the region. This system was implemented during the dictatorship. It is managed by private companies that ‘lend’ workers’ pension fund money to themselves! These companies can capture any gains for themselves and pass losses on to workers. The system leaves retired workers in misery. Trade unions and other groups have been running campaigns to change this system for years now. Piñera has proposals currently moving through the senate the give even more resources to these companies.

Residents of Santiago pay some of the highest water bills on the continent and face chronic shortages. The water system was completely privatized under Pinochet. Exactly the model consistently promoted by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Today three quarters of Chileans support the return of the public ownership of water.

The national constitution and labour rights regime in Chile were also created during the military dictatorship. Many unions are weak and fragmented by law. With low levels of negotiating power, hours of work are long, holidays are few and exploitation is intense. The only country with higher levels of inequality in the region is Brazil (Chile competes with Colombia for the title of second place). Exactly the country where the current president is trying to replicate Chilean policies.

Even though the Mapuche (the main group of indigenous peoples in Chile) have never formally ceded to the colonial settler state, the systematic violence directed at these peoples has been unrelenting for centuries and its effects have been exactly those planned. State and private violence against indigenous peoples continues today in a context similar to that of Canada where many indigenous peoples are understood to be inconvenient impediments to very rich ‘natural resources’.

Class War from Below

So the immediate responses of some smart, young and strategic organizers to the public transit fare hike was to organize a ‘jump the turnstiles’ campaign. The campaign took off immediately. The government reaction was to militarize the metro stations and violently repress the movement. When this didn’t work, the police shut down the stations during peak hours. Workers that were returning home, and were barred from the stations, joined the growing demonstrations.

The Santiago police completely lost control at the end of last week when 16 subway stations and the Italian energy multinational Enel’s headquarters were set on fire. Several other public and private buildings and many vehicles have been set on fire including Walmart. The army was mobilized, and a state of emergency declared. A curfew was called. This was understood as particularly outrageous because the legacy of the military dictatorship has never been seriously dealt with in Chile.

While Piñera was giving the orders to intensify repression in the streets, Chile’s National Institute of Human Rights reported a series of abuses and serious violations by the security forces throughout the country. “There are reports of excessive use of force at the time of detention, unfair harassment of children, mistreatment, blows to the face and legs, torture, stripping of women and men, sexual violations, among other violations.” The president’s response was to openly declare that Chile “is at war,” once again inflaming the population. Almost immediately, a top general stated publicly that he was not at war with anyone.

The curfews have been openly defied as thousands of decentralized ‘pot-banging’ demonstrations were happening in working and middle-class neighbourhoods in all of the larger cities of the country. Manifestations of this anger are now being expressed in every region of the country, in both urban capitals and rural areas. Traditional political parties and the old socialist left in Chile have been completely unable to give direction to or provide any kind of leadership to the movements.

Piñera has made a series of increasing concessionary offers since Monday. First announcing the revocation of the fare increase, then, after finally accepting that this was not about transit fares, he has moved quickly to offer a 20 per cent increase to pensions and to include some expensive medical treatments in the public system. All to absolutely no effect. The demonstrations and now general strikes continue to grow in force.

The only response of the state has been repression with almost 10,000 troops now in the streets of cities from the north to the south of the country. The National Institute of Human Rights is now investigating a temporary torture center that the military built in a closed metro station. It seems as if the dictatorship in Chile never really went away. But it is also true that the resistance never disappeared either. The popular rage is consolidating into that courage and confidence that leads to the affirmation that collective action works, even in the most repressive of political moments. The myth that well-implemented neoliberal policies will deliver stability and economic growth is dead. ¡Adelante!

*

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.

Euan Gibb is based in São Paulo, Brazil. He works with the global union Public Services International (PSI).

All images in this article are from The Bullet

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Class Struggle in Chile: President Piñera at War with His Own People
  • Tags:

Iraq Takes International Legal Action to Kick Unauthorized US Forces Out

October 25th, 2019 by Telesur

Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said United States troops withdrawing from northeast Syria do not have permission to stay in Iraq, adding that his government is taking “all international legal measures” in response to their unauthorized entry into the country.

“We have [already] issued an official statement saying that and are taking all international legal measures. We ask the international community and the United Nations to perform their roles in this matter,” the premier said.

The statement comes as U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper arrived in the country on Wednesday in an unannounced visit while reaffirming Tuesday’s statement from the Iraqi military which only allowed transit through Iraq for the U.S. troops.

“All U.S. forces that withdrew from Syria have received approval to enter the Kurdistan region to be transported out of Iraq, however, there is no permission for these forces to stay,” the statement read.

The Iraqi military statement contradicted the Pentagon’s announcement that all of the nearly 1,000 troops withdrawing from northern Syria are expected to move to western Iraq to continue the campaign against the Islamic State group (IS) and to help “defend” Iraq.

In addition, Esper said Tuesday during his visit to Saudi Arabia that the troops will be prepared in Iraq to return to their homeland, without specifying the deadline for their return.

“The goal is not to stay in Iraq endlessly but to withdraw our soldiers and eventually bring them back home,” Esper said at Prince Sultan Air Force Base near Riyadh.

Hundreds of vehicles carrying U.S. troops crossed the Syrian-Iraqi border through the Kurdish region of northern Iraq on Monday, and it is estimated that more than 5,000 troops are currently stationed in that Arab country under a bilateral agreement.

After the end of the war in 2011, the U.S. military presence in Iraq had diminished considerably, a fact that changed in 2014 with the threat of IS.

The U.S. military presence continues to be a sensitive and politicized issue as part of Iraqi society considers it an 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.

Libra and Calibra, Facebook’s Cryptocurrency Project: Mark Zuckerberg Appears Before US Congress

October 25th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

It was never going to be pretty.  The Facebook CEO knew in appearing before the House Financial Services Committee to answer questions on the company’s proposed cryptocurrency that a few sizeable bumps would appear.  As it turned out, much of the questioning had little to do with the Libra currency, along with its digital wallet format known as Calibra.

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exemplified the mood, and the method.  “In order for us to make decisions about Libra, I think we need to kind of dig into your past behaviour and Facebook’s past behaviour with respect to our democracy.”  It was a scene made out of crudely crafted scripts, albeit mildly spiced by convention: the elevated idealist, perhaps a bit sketchy about history, speaking to the sociopathic innovator; AOC versus Robot Zuck.

In any case, the occasion begged a few questions, as does the entire issue of approaching the power of Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg.  To call it a threat to democracy is flabby logic, and distinctly lazy, given the use by Congress of that same company and its own elasticity on matters of fact.

What matters, evidently, is how strong those bonds of use are.  For Ocasio-Cortez, the issue of packing Zuckerberg in the company of the far right somehow explains everything.  “In your ongoing dinner parties with far-right figures, some of whom advance the conspiracy theory that white supremacy is a hoax, did you discuss social media bias against conservatives, and do you believe there is a bias?”  The Facebook CEO remained non-committal.

The line being pushed here, and one that will be revisited with dreary repetition, is the notion of truthful advertising in politics.  For a member of Congress to insist that Facebook “take down lies” or otherwise is a fabulous clash of oxymoronic variables. Once you leave it to Facebook to determine political advertising content, another beast is created, one bolstered by the fictional exercises of the “fact checker”.

Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Penn) attempted to tie a neat bow around the presidency and Facebook, asking Zuckerberg whether Facebook conducted “any business with Trump International Hotel here in Washington, D.C.”  She had noted “public reports of enterprises and even governments doing business with Trump hotels to curry favour with the Donald Trump administration.”  The whiff of conspiracy and foreign intrigue is never far away from the post-2016 Democrat.

This point is supremely feeble, if only demonstrating a certain incredulity towards an obvious fact of US business: If you want things done, or at least done in your favour, its best to be in the good books of the administration.  Even better, keep Congress in your pocket, a practice that companies from Boeing to Chase Bank do with zealous dedication.  Instead of pointing out that obvious point, Zuckerberg preferred a softly, softly approach.  “Congresswoman, I will look into it with my team.”

Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) was enthusiastically grim, suggesting that the digital monster world of Facebook had devastated lives like the Grim Reaper.  “It’s almost like you think this is a joke when you have ruined the lives of many people, discriminated against them.  Do you know what percentage of African-Americans are on Facebook, in comparison to a majority of folks?”  Zuckerberg professed ignorance: Facebook did not ask users to specify their race.

Such exchanges ignore the fundamental point that Facebook is voracious, its reach and keenness to identify what it calls “communities” insatiable.  The chicken and egg problem presents itself: is the company generating a fictional community to control, or merely furnishing pre-existing communities with the means of engagement?

A clue was supplied back in 2015, when Facebook commissioned IPSOS MediaCT to conduct a study on “how African Americans communicate and consume media”.  Of particular interest was the versatile movement between platforms and devices in efforts to “connect to community and sustain culture.”  With some sense of contentment, it was found that Facebook was the “go-to source for connecting with” an extended family comprising immediate members, church groups and close friends.  “Nearly 9 out of 10 African Americans use Facebook to keep up with friends and family, and 7 out of 10 use it to observe what friends and family are doing.”

Much of that reads like deodorised marketing tinged with a dash of the sinister, and should be treated as such, but such encounters as those between Beatty and Zuckerberg look all too much like strawman shows rather than cerebral jousts over policy.

Other axes were brought forth to grind.  Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) levelled a few blows against Zuckerberg for being an “accelerant in many of the destructive” political confrontations across the globe.  (That naughty business of interference, otherwise casual in the policy of the US imperium.)  Republican Rep. Ann Wagner from Missouri got heavy on the issue of online child exploitation while Democrat Rep. William Lacy Clay from the same state trod over ground on discrimination against various communities.

Facebook is an engine for facile, commodified social relations, the product of an asocial being who had to find his understanding of humanity through something called a “social network”.  Its genius lies in mining the confessional, the exposure, the ridiculousness of humans who are garrulous behind the screen and forthcoming on it.  It brings out the voyeur in its users and gives substance a profound shallowness.  Little wonder that politicians both adore and dread the medium, using it one day to promote messages in the illusion of feeling closer to their constituents, and condemning it as being distinctly unprincipled and undemocratic the next.

For one, the manipulation of politics, the buying of votes, the wooing of legislatures, never began, nor will stop, with Facebook.  Facebook is merely the acid manifestation of a long-term problem with managerial democracy, doomed to a slow and cruel death at the hand of amoral apparatchiks.  Cambridge Analytica was not a revolutionary in the field, merely a successor to the public relations creatures that had come into gold with data mining and personality profiling.

Ironically enough, Zuckerberg’s under six-hour hearing absorbed much in the way of questions without giving much away.  But on Libra, the main reason for his showing, he struggled.  How would the company make money from Libra?  How would the external Libra Association be fuelled?  (To date, the 21 companies in the association have yet to fork out the minimum $10 million entry fee, suggesting the possibility of Facebook going alone.)  As Alex Heath noted, “Zuckerberg’s testimony didn’t shed any light on what specific laws Facebook thinks should govern Libra.”  Much more time might have been expended on that instead of lobbing grenades at Big Bad Zuck, lies, identity politics and 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.

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]

Video: How Russian-Turkish ‘Safe Zone’ Deal Shapes Course of Syrian Conflict

October 25th, 2019 by South Front

The military crisis in northeastern Syria started by the Turkish military offensive on Kurdish militias amid the US troops withdrawal deflated.

On October 23, Turkey, Russia and Syria started implementing the ‘safe zone’ agreement reached by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin a day earlier. Units of the Russian Military Police deployed in the border town of Kobani. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the Syrian Army will establish a total of 15 observation posts on the Turkish-Syrian border to the east of the Euphrates. The next steps are the withdrawal of Kurdish YPG units and their heavy weapons from the agreed buffer zone and the start of joint Russian-Turkish patrols.

Meanwhile, the Turkish Defense Ministry announced that Operation Peace Spring in northeastern Syria does not need to be expanded and that there is no need to carry out any new operations because the main goals had been achieved. Turkish sources say that some YPG fighters, that they call “terrorists”, may remain in the area, but do not expect large-scale military actions. Members of the Turkish-backed coalition of militant groups, the Syrian National Army, remain in the captured areas between Tell Abyad and Ras al-Ayn.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry described the Russian-Turkish agreement as a positive move to reach a stability in Syria. The ministry recalled that Iran has always supported political measures to settle the conflict.

Watch the video here.

The United States, that are finalizing the main phase of the troops withdrawal, also seem to be satisfied with the outcome of the situation. During an October 23 press conference, President Donald Trump took a credit for the de-escalation in northeastern Syria, praised the ceasefire and announced that his administration was removing sanctions imposed on Turkey in response to its military action against Kurdish forces. The US President also confirmed that a “small number” of US troops would remain in the area “where they have the oil.”

Actions of Syria, the United States, Russia and Turkey demonstrate that all the key sides of the conflict accept the deal over northeastern Syria and move forward in the direction of a possible political settlement. The separatist faction within the Kurdish political and armed groups of northern Syria suffered a major blow. The only side unhappy with the outcome is Israel that strongly condemned Turkey’s actions and publicly supported the Kurdish separatism in Syria and Iraq as a tool against its never-ending campaign against the expanding Iranian influence. The US military presence in the al-Tanf border area is likely a goodwill gesture of Trump to his Israeli partners.

In the current conditions, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, and therefore Kurdish militias and political factions, have the only option – to be reintegrated into the modern Syria. Moscow already warned them that if they decline to fulfil the safe-zone deal the Russians and the Syrian Army will have to open a way for the Turkish military machine that will crush them.

The YPG-led partisan war against the Damascus government and attempts to push the Syrian Army back from the provinces of Raqqah and Hasakah by military means is unlikely scenario. If the Kurdish leaders attempt to play this scenario, a vast majority of the Syrians, including the so-called ‘moderate opposition’, will consider them to be a bigger threat than ever ISIS.

In the coming months the situation in northern Syria will remain mostly stable. However, after the 2019-2020 winter, it’s expected  that factions affiliated with the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) will step up terrorist activity in northern Syria, mainly the area of Afrin, and Kurdish-populated parts of Turkey Southeastern and Eastern Anatolia Regions. Big Turkish cities, like Ankara, Istanbul, Izmir and Gaziantep, may also become places of strident PKK attacks. The main targets will be personnel and facilities affiliated with the Army, the Gendarmerie General Command and Police. However, even in the event of success, such kind of activity will not force the Erdogan government to make cardinal changes in its policies towards Syria and the PKK-linked groups.

Another point of possible instability is Greater Idlib, where al-Qaeda affiliated militant groups still present along with the Turkish-backed ‘opposition’. The Damascus government and its allies repeatedly stated that the Idlib de-escalation agreement does not include terrorists. So, Ankara will have to neutralize them in its zone of responsibility or the Syrian Army will come to do so, like it was done in northern Hama in August.

*

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

2019 Global Peace Forum on Korea – “Making Connections: Global Challenges, Korea, and Peaceful Coexistence”

October 25th, 2019 by Dr. Kiyul Chung

On September 28, 2019 Global Peace Forum on Korea (2019 GPFK), initially proposed by a nonprofit, educational organization, <Institute for 21st Century International Relations> (21cir), was held throughout the day at Italian Academy of Columbia University in New York City where 2018 GPFK was also held last year at the same time period (September 29-30).

Like last year, we organized 2019 GPFK Organizing Committee (2019 GPFKOC) in mid June.  The 2019 GPFKOC was run by 5 people who also joined the leadership of 2018 GPFK last year.

The 5 Co-chairs represent their following respective organizations: 1) International Peace Bureau (IPB), 2) NCCCUSA (National Council of Churches of Christ in USA), 3) Pax Christi International UN Representative, 4) UMC, Global Ministries, Racial Justice and Human Rights UN Representative, 5) the above-mentioned 21cir.

Since June, the 2019 GPFKOC under its wing ran 3 working subcommittees: 1) Program Subcommittee; 2) Secretariat; 3) Organizing or Outreach subcommittee.

The 2019 GPFKOC as the official host body had organized a daylong global-scale academic conference where we invited about 120 people to join both all day long dialogue and an evening dinner program.

The participants are mostly international scholars, experts, peace activists, government officials (UN Ambassadors), elected parliamentary members, religious leaders, students, etc. from about 15 nations.

However, the majority participants came from US and both Koreas (DPRK and ROK).

The GPFK’s permanent theme from last year’s founding conference, 2018 GPFK, is “Peace and Prosperity for Korea and the World.” However, the GPFKOC came up with a new theme for the 2019 GPFK which was “Making Connections: Global Challenges, Korea, and Peace Coexistence.”

After Opening Ceremony from 9 AM, all together 3 Sessions were carried out throughout the day from 10:30 AM to 5:30 PM. This year we had 5 keynote speakers all together and about 20 panel presentations. At the Opening Ceremony, the first 3 keynote speeches were delivered by scholars from US and both Koreas (DPRK and ROK). The other 2 keynote speeches were made during afternoon hours from Session II and III panel discussions.

The 3 Sessions (The First Session in the morning right after Opening Ceremony and the other 2 Sessions in the afternoon hours until 5:30 PM) had their own sub-themes under the overall theme of 2019 GPFK, i.e., “Making Connections: Global Challenges, Korea, and Peace Coexistence”, as follows:

Session I: The Crisis of the Unipolar World Order

Session II: Korea at the Epicenter

Session III: Towards to Peaceful Coexistence in a Multipolar World.

For the sake of our viewers, we’d like to post a minimized 2019 GPFK Program as in the following:

After all day long discussions and dialogues, together with a time for questions and answers at the end of daytime forum, we had an hour break till 6:30 PM dinner program which lasted for about 3 hours until 9:30 PM late at night.

Like last year, 2019 GPFK also had enthusiastic supports from a couple of very special and honored dignitaries who did help us this year as well. They are former President Jimmy Carter and sitting UN Undersecretary General Rosemary A. DiCarlo from Dept. of Political and Peace-building Affairs (DPPA). Both sent wholeheartedly genuine messages for the success of 2nd GPFK event.

This year we had a very special religious leader from US Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Cardinal Joseph Tobin, Archbishop of Newark Diocese, also sent his warm support message. Another special highlight of the 2019 GPFK was the presence of 3 Honorable UN Ambassadors from both Koreas (DPRK and ROK) who for the first time joined a NGO-sponsored academic event which took place on US soil.

Again for the sake of our readers, at the end of this short introductory remarks, we’d like to publish some of the photos taken throughout the day which we hope may help/assist the readers to understand and/or have some ideas about what’d happened at the 2019 GPFK.

In short, it was a full day of not only lots of dialoguing, learning, challenging, exchanging but also of sharing, dreaming, and envisioning for a better and new ‘peaceful and prosperous Korea and the world.’

However, at dinner time, the participants, seemingly everybody, also celebrated, honored, and appreciated each other in a genuinely respectful way with warm friendship, food and wine while they seemed to have enjoyed both western and eastern music and dance.

Many participants  seemed to have left the celebratory dinner party NOT with pessimistic senses of failure, despair, or dark vision for the future BUT rather with optimistic senses of overwhelming energies, wholehearted feelings of joy, being fully empowered and even a very much hopeful new vision for “Peace and Prosperity for Korea and the World” in near future.

For your information, in the following weeks, we’d like to continually post some of our speakers’ speeches and papers on our media.

Best wishes!

On behalf of 2019 GPFK Organizing Committee

Prof. Kiyul Chung, PhD

Founder/Executive Director, Institute for 21st Century Int’l Relations

*

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.

You may check photos from the Peace Forum here.

This article was originally published on The 21st Century.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 2019 Global Peace Forum on Korea – “Making Connections: Global Challenges, Korea, and Peaceful Coexistence”
  • Tags: , ,

Biden Backer — Former Lockheed Leader — Convinces Joe Biden to Sell-Out

October 25th, 2019 by Eric Zuesse

Bernard Schwartz, a former Vice Chairman and top investor in Lockheed Martin (which is by far the largest seller to the U.S. Government, and also the largest seller to most of America’s allied Governments), is one of Joe Biden’s top donors. CNN headlined, on October 24th, “Biden allies intensify push for super PAC after lackluster fundraising quarter”, and reported that, “Bernard Schwartz, a private investor and donor to the former vice president’s campaign, said he spoke with Biden within the last two weeks and encouraged him to do just that.”

It’s not for nothing that throughout Biden’s long Senate career, he has voted in favor of every U.S. invasion that has been placed before the U.S. Senate. If you are a weapons-maker whose sole market is the U.S. Government and its allies, then you need Senators and House members who will vote in favor of buying the weapons that you are manufacturing. And those same Senators and Congressmen also need to hire, as the U.S. Secretary of State, people such as Hillary Clinton, who likewise was a “super-hawk,” and who negotiated in favor of invasions, by the U.S. and its allies, against whatever nations are instead the targets, which are to be either taken over as U.S. allies, or else invaded with those weapons.

It’s not enough to have as many markets as possible; there also need to be nations against which your products can be used. This serves the ‘patriotic’ function of expanding the empire, not only for your own firm, but also for the U.S. extractive firms such as ExxonMobil, which need this military protection, in order to be able to apply the kind of pressure that will ‘persuade’ foreign leaders to choose them, instead of to choose a foreign competitor, to do the extractions.

Joe Biden has done surprisingly well in the polling thus far, despite poor performance in the debates, and despite having supported every foreign invasion that now the American public think shouldn’t have been done. He is the candidate with the most “experience” — like Hillary Clinton was — and, for the majority of voters (especially in today’s Democratic Party), this means the largest numbers of the worst possible decisions. And, so, he leads the Democratic field today, much like Hillary Clinton did in 2016.

Furthermore, as that CNN article notes:

“Nearly 70% of the individual contributions that Sanders has raised so far came from donors giving $200 or less; Warren has a similar profile, at about 64%. Biden’s share of individual contributions raised from small dollar donors during the course of the campaign stands at roughly 35%.”

And both Sanders and Warren have raised lots more money from small donors than Biden has raised thus far from large ones. This scares people such as Bernard Schwartz. They don’t want their investments to fail.

And moreover:

“The former vice president has relied on maxed-out contributors for 38% of the money he’s raised so far in his presidential bid, according to an analysis of financial disclosure reports, giving the candidate fewer opportunities than many of his rivals to return to loyal donors again for cash as the Democratic primary campaign heats up.” And, so, “the conversations intensified in the wake of a cash crunch for the former vice president’s campaign. He reported last week having less than $9 million in the bank, significantly less than his leading rivals.”

And this is the reason why Biden needs to open up the spigots, now, so as to become enabled to collect the more secret types of money, which aren’t so subject to disclosure and limit rules, and which, increasingly, constitute Joe Biden’s path to the White House.

The CNN article, as propaganda for the Democratic National Committee or the people who fund the Democratic Party, opens in its first sentence by presenting this contest as being already between the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee versus the Republican Party’s Presidential nominee, even though the reality is that it’s between contestants for the Democratic nomination:

“A coalition of top Democratic strategists and donors are intensifying conversations about setting up an outside group to bolster Joe Biden’s presidential candidacy, people familiar with the matter tell CNN, aiming to create a super PAC designed to fight back against a barrage of well-funded attacks from President Donald Trump’s campaign.”

So: they open by falsely characterizing what the Democratic Party’s primaries are actually all about. This is subtly, but fundamentally, deceiving the Party’s voters, regarding the rules of the electoral game in which they will be participating. This is how they had won the nomination for Hillary Clinton in 2016: by making suckers out of a large-enough percentage of the Party’s voters.

Biden is doing remarkably well, considering his appalling record in public office. Here are summaries of the latest polls:

https://politicalwire.com/2019/10/24/buttigieg-jumps-to-second-place-in-iowa/
Buttigieg Jumps to Second Place In Iowa
October 24, 2019 at 8:06 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 261 Comments

A new Iowa State University/Civiqs poll finds Elizabeth Warren leading the Democratic presidential field with 28%, followed by Pete Buttigieg at 20%, Bernie Sanders at 18% and Joe Biden at 12%.
The poll of likely caucus-goers also asked voters to list the candidate they do not want to win the nomination. Biden and Sanders topped this list with Tulsi Gabbard third.

https://politicalwire.com/2019/10/24/new-poll-shows-warren-expanding-her-lead/
New Poll Shows Warren Expanding Her Lead
October 24, 2019 at 6:06 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 147 Comments

A new Quinnipiac poll finds Elizabeth Warren leading the Democratic presidential race with 28%, followed by Joe Biden at 21%, Bernie Sanders at 15%, Pete Buttigieg at 10%, Kamala Harris at 5% and Amy Klobuchar at 3%. No other candidate tops one percent.

https://politicalwire.com/2019/10/23/biden-still-way-ahead-in-south-carolina/
Biden Still Way Ahead In South Carolina
October 23, 2019 at 12:34 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 64 Comments

A new Monmouth poll in South Carolina finds Joe Biden way ahead in the Democratic presidential race with 33%, followed by Elizabeth Warren at 16%, Bernie Sanders at 12%, Kamala Harris at 6%, Tom Steyer at 4%, Pete Buttigieg at 3%, Cory Booker at 2%, Amy Klobuchar at 2% and Andrew Yang at 2%.

https://politicalwire.com/2019/10/23/biden-widens-national-lead/
Biden Widens National Lead
October 23, 2019 at 6:50 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 276 Comments

A new CNN poll finds Joe Biden’s lead in the race for the Democratic nomination for president has rebounded, and now stands at its widest margin since April.

Biden has the support of 34%, followed by Elizabeth Warren at 19%, Bernie Sanders at 16%, Pete Buttigieg at 6%, Kamala Harris at 6%, Amy Klobuchar at 3% and Beto O’Rourke at 3%. [Almost all of Biden’s advantage there comes from his having a crushing 42% from Blacks, whereas all 6 of the next-supported candidates together are favored only by 40% of Blacks — it’s no contest. And it’s exceedingly irrational: “No public policy, in the last half century has been more detrimental to African Americans than mass incarceration, and no law has aided mass incarceration more than Clinton’s 1994 Crime Bill which was drafted and supported by Joe Biden.” And, “Blacks make up nearly 40 percent of the inmates in the nation’s prisons, although they are only 12 percent of the U.S. population.” Biden and Clinton led in the ‘criminalization’ of Blacks’ ‘crimes’. So: are most Blacks simply gluttons for punishment? Or is there a different explanation?]

*

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.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

‘Unacceptable Practices’ in the OPCW’s Investigation of the Alleged Chemical Attack in Douma, Syria on April 7th 2018

October 25th, 2019 by Courage Foundation

The Courage Foundation convened a panel of concerned individuals from the fields of disarmament, international law, journalism, military operations, medicine and intelligence in Brussels on October 15th. The panel met with a member of the investigation team from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the international chemical watchdog. On this basis the panel issued the following statement:

Based on the whistleblower’s extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports, we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018.  We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained conclusion.

We have learned of disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the investigation whilst thwarting their attempts to raise legitimate concerns, highlight irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments —a right explicitly conferred on inspectors in the Chemical Weapons Convention, evidently with the intention of ensuring the independence and authoritativeness of inspection reports.

However belatedly, we therefore call on the OPCW to permit all inspectors who took part in the Douma investigation to come forward and report their differing observations in an appropriate forum of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, in fulfillment of the spirit of the Convention. They should be allowed to do this without fear of reprisal or even censure.

The panel advances these criticisms with the expectation that the OPCW will revisit its investigation of the Douma incident, with the purpose of clarifying what actually happened. This would help to restore the credibility of the OPCW and work towards demonstrating its legally mandated commitment to transparency, impartiality and independence. It is of utmost importance to restore trust in the verification procedures relied upon to implement the prohibitions of the CWC.

Panel members:

José Bustani, Ambassador of Brazil, first Director General of the OPCW and former Ambassador to the United Kingdom and France,

Richard Falk, Professor of International Law, Emeritus, Princeton University; Visiting Professor, Istinye University, Istanbul

Kristinn Hrafnsson, editor-in-chief, Wikileaks

John Holmes, Maj Gen (retd), DSO OBE MC

Dr. Helmut Lohrer, MD, Board member of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and International Councilor of its German Affiliate

Prof. Dr. Guenter Meyer, Centre for Research on the Arab World (CERAW) at the University of Mainz

Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence (retd); member, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (www.samadamsaward.ch)

Read the OPCW statement 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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Unacceptable Practices’ in the OPCW’s Investigation of the Alleged Chemical Attack in Douma, Syria on April 7th 2018
  • Tags: , ,

Burn, Neoliberalism, Burn

October 25th, 2019 by Pepe Escobar

Neoliberalism is – literally – burning. And from Ecuador to Chile, South America, once again, is showing the way. Against the vicious, one-size-fits-all IMF austerity prescription, which deploys weapons of mass economic destruction to smash national sovereignty and foster social inequality, South America finally seems poised to reclaim the power to forge its own history.

Three presidential elections are in play. Bolivia’s seem to have been settled this past Sunday – even as the usual suspects are yelling “Fraud!” Argentina and Uruguay are on next Sunday.

Blowback against what David Harvey has splendidly conceptualized as accumulation by dispossession is, and will continue to be, a bitch. It will eventually reach Brazil – which as it stands continues to be torn to pieces by Pinochetist ghosts. Brazil, eventually, after immense pain, will rise up again. After all, the excluded and humiliated all across South America are finally discovering they carry a Joker inside themselves.

Chile privatizes everything

The question posed by the Chilean street is stark: “What’s worse, to evade taxes or to invade the subway?” It’s all a matter of doing the class struggle math. Chile’s GDP grew 1,1% last year while the profits of the largest corporations grew ten times more. It’s not hard to find from where the huge gap was extracted. The Chilean street stresses how water, electricity, gas, health, medicine, transportation, education, the salar (salt flats) in Atacama, even the glaciers were privatized.

That’s classic accumulation by dispossession, as the cost of living has become unbearable for the overwhelming majority of 19 million Chileans, whose average monthly income does not exceed $500.

Paul Walder, director of the Politika portal and an analyst for the Latin-American Center of Strategic Analysis (CLAE) notes how less than a week after the end of protests in Ecuador – which forced neoliberal vulture Lenin Moreno to ditch a gas price hike – Chile entered a very similar cycle of protests.

Image result for President Sebastian Pinera

Walder correctly defines Chile’s President Sebastian Pinera (image on the right) as the turkey in a long-running banquet that involves the whole Chilean political class. No wonder the mad as hell Chilean street now makes no difference between the government, the political parties and the police. Pinera, predictably, criminalized all social movements; sent the army to the streets for unmitigated repression; and installed a curfew.

Pinera is Chile’s 7th wealthiest billionaire, with assets valued at $2.7 billion, spread out in airlines, supermarkets, TV, credit cards and football. He’s a sort of turbo-charged Moreno, a neoliberal Pinochetist. Pinera’s brother, Jose, was actually a minister under Pinochet, and the man who implemented Chile’s privatized welfare system – a key source of social disintegration and despair. And it’s all interlinked: current Brazilian Finance Minister Paulo Guedes, a Chicago boy, lived and worked in Chile at the time, and now wants to repeat the absolutely disastrous experiment in Brazil.

The bottom line is that the economic “model” that Guedes wants to impose in Brazil has totally collapsed in Chile.

Chile’s top resource is copper. Copper mines, historically, were owned by the US, but then were nationalized by President Salvador Allende in 1971; thus war criminal Henry Kissinger’s plan to eliminate Allende, which culminated in the original 9/11, in 1973.

Pinochet’s dictatorship later re-privatized the mines. The largest of them all, Escondida, in the Atacama desert – which accounts for 9% of the world’s copper – belongs to Anglo-Australian giant Bhp Billiton. The biggest copper buyer in world markets is China. At least two-thirds of income generated by Chilean copper goes not to the Chilean people, but to foreign multinationals.

The Argentine debacle

Before Chile, Ecuador was semi-paralyzed: inactive schools, no urban transport, food shortages, rampant speculation, serious disturbances on oil exports. Under fire by the mobilization of 25,000 indigenous peoples in the streets, President Lenin Moreno cowardly left a power void in Quito, transferring the seat of government to Guayaquil. Indigenous peoples took over the governance in many important cities and towns. The National Assembly was AWOL for almost two weeks, without the will to even try to solve the political crisis.

By announcing a state of emergency and a curfew, Moreno laid out a red carpet for the Armed Forces – and Pinera duly repeated the procedure in Chile. The difference is that in Ecuador Moreno bet on Divide and Rule between the indigenous peoples’ movements and the rest of the population. Pinera resorts to outright brute force.

Apart from applying the same old tactics of raising prices to obtain further IMF funds, Ecuador also displayed a classic articulation between a neoliberal government, big business and the proverbial US ambassador, in this case Michael Fitzpatrick, a former Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere matters in charge of the Andean region, Brazil and the Southern Cone up to 2018.

The clearest case of total neoliberal failure in South America is Argentina. Less than two months ago in Buenos Aires, I saw the vicious social effects of the peso in free fall, inflation at 54%, a de facto food emergency and the impoverishment of even solid sectors of the middle class. Mauricio Macri’s government literally burned most of the $58 billion IMF loan – there’s still $5 billion to arrive. Macri is set to lose the presidential elections: Argentines will have to foot his humongous bill.

Macri’s economic model could not but be Pinera’s – actually Pinochet’s, where public services are run as a business. A key connection between Macri and Pinera is the ultra-neoliberal Freedom Foundation sponsored by Mario Vargas Llosa, who at least boasts the redeeming quality of having been a decent novelist a long time ago.

Macri, a millionaire, disciple of Ayn Rand and incapable of displaying empathy towards anyone, is essentially a cipher, pre-fabricated by his Ecuadorian guru Jaime Duran Barba as a robotic product of data mining, social networks and focus groups. A hilarious take on his insecurities may be found in La Cabeza de Macri: Como Piensa, Vive y Manda el Primer Presidente de la No Politica, by Franco Lindner.

Among myriad shenanigans, Macri is indirectly linked to fabulous money laundering machine HSBC. The president of HSBC in Argentina was Gabriel Martino. In 2015, four thousand Argentine accounts worth $3.5 billion were discovered at HSBC in Switzerland. This spectacular capital flight was engineered by the bank. Yet Martino was essentially saved by Macri, and became one of his top advisers.

Beware the IMF vulture ventures

All eyes now should be on Bolivia. As of this writing, President Evo Morales won Sunday’s presidential elections in the first round – obtaining, by a slim margin, the necessary 10% spread for a candidate to win if he does not obtain the 50% plus one of the votes. Morales essentially got it right at the end, when votes from rural zones and from abroad were fully counted, and the opposition had already started to hit the streets to apply pressure. Not surprisingly, the OAS – servile to US interests – has proclaimed a “lack of trust in the electoral process”.

Evo Morales represents a project of sustainable, inclusive development, and crucially, autonomous from international finance. No wonder the whole Washington Consensus apparatus hates his guts. Economy Minister Luis Arce Catacora cut to the chase: “When Evo Morales won his first election in 2005, 65% of the population was low income, now 62% of the population has access to a medium income.”

The opposition, without any project except wild privatizations, and no concern whatsoever for social policies, is left to yell “Fraud!”, but this could take a very nasty turn in the next few days. In the tony suburbs of southern La Paz, class hate against Evo Morales is the favorite sport: the President is referred to as “indio”, a “tyrant” and “ignorant”. Cholos of the Altiplano are routinely defined by white landowning elites in the plains as an “evil race”.

None of that changes the fact that Bolivia is now the most dynamic economy in Latin America, as stressed by top Argentine analyst Atilio Boron.

The campaign to discredit Morales, which is bound to become even more vicious, is part of imperial 5G war, which, Boron writes, totally obliterates “the chronic poverty that the absolute majority of the population suffered for centuries”, a state that always “maintained the population under total lack of institutional protection” and the “pillaging of natural wealth and the common good”.

Of course the specter of IMF vulture ventures won’t vanish in South America like a charm. Even as the usual suspects, via World Bank reports, now seem “concerned” about poverty; Scandinavians offer the Nobel Prize on Economics to three academics studying poverty; and Thomas Piketty, in Capital and Ideology, tries to disassemble the hegemonic justification for accumulation of wealth.

What still remains absolutely off limits for the guardians of the current world-system is to really investigate hardcore neoliberalism as the root cause of wealth hyper-concentration and social inequality. It’s not enough to offer Band-Aids anymore. The streets of South America are alight. Blowback is now in full effect.

*

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.

Pepe Escobar is an independent geopolitical analyst, writer and journalist.

All images in this article are from Wikimedia Commons

Case Mismanagement in London: Julian Assange, Political Offences and Surveillance

October 24th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

While Australian journalists bonded and broke break in condemning national security legislation that some of them had previously supported, one figure was barely mentioned.  Julian Assange was making his first public appearance since April for a case management hearing at the Westminster Magistrates Court.

Those in attendance were disturbed.  Craig Murray professed to being shaken.

“Every decision was railroaded through over scarcely heard arguments and objections of Assange’s legal team, by a magistrate who barely pretended to be listening.”

His condition had deteriorated: receding hair, premature ageing, lost weight.  Some cognitive impairment seemed to have set in: incoherent trains of thought, a trouble to articulate and recall events.

By the end of the session, we were left with a few points of consideration.  The first, as ever, remains that British justice is, at best, a ceremonial cloak that continues to operate in the shadows of power.  Observe formalities, but do away with the substantive matters.  

The second is an unfolding international dimension that links private security firms, the US intelligence services, and Ecuador in what can only be described as a political effort to eliminate a one of the most recognisable figures of publishing in recent memory.  He must be done away with, mentally and physically eroded as person and being.  Spiritually, he must be snuffed out.

With odds firmly against him, Assange’s defence team were keen to impress district magistrate Vanessa Baraitser on two grounds: that they be granted a preliminary hearing on the issue of whether the extradition might fall foul of the US-UK Extradition Treaty of 2003; and that they be granted a postponement of the February 24, 2020 full extradition hearing.  

The latter point was based on two grounds: Assange’s acute legal isolation in Belmarsh prison and emerging evidence arising from a Spanish investigation currently underway into a surveillance operation on Assange when resident in the Ecuadorean embassy in London. The material gathered there might prove critical to the defence, not least of all its evident illegality. 

When Assange was asked by the magistrate whether he had understood what had transpired, he gave the sort of reply that one would justifiably expect from a bruised, ailing political prisoner. 

“I don’t understand how this is equitable.  This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case and I can’t access my writings.  It’s very difficult where I am to do anything but these people have unlimited resources… They are saying journalists and whistleblowers are enemies of the people.  They have unfair advantages dealing with documents.  They [know] the interior of my life with my psychologist.  They steal my children’s DNA.  This is not equitable what is happening here.”

Magistrate Baraitser was not exactly feeling generous, though she did relent in granting a two months extension to Assange’s defence team, ostensibly to give them time to consult evidence emerging from Spanish investigative proceedings.   

The Spanish angle on this is critical, concerning, in the words of the WikiLeaks press release, “clandestine operations against Assange, his lawyers and doctors and Assange’s family, including at the Ecuadorean embassy.”  These centre on the conduct of David Morales, owner of UC Global SL, a Spanish security company charged with protecting the Ecuadorean embassy in London when Assange was its famous tenant.   

Morales is being investigated by the Audiencia Nacional, Spain’s High Court, for allegedly ordering the surveillance of Assange’s conversations in the embassy, including those with his lawyers, and passing on material to US intelligence services.  Morales, keen on being as comprehensive as possible in this endeavour, specifically requested his team to list “the Russian and American citizens” visiting Assange, material of which was sent to a File Transfer Protocol server in the company’s mother ship location in Jerez de la Frontera.  The storage material there comprises data from phones, details on professions, and matters of nationality.  Rather damnably, employees who worked for Morales’ company have revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency had access to the server.  

The case being presented against Morales is a true cocktail of breaches: privacy violations, the violation of lawyer-client privilege, bribery, misappropriation, money laundering, and the criminal possession of weapons. 

Morales was arrested in Jerez de la Frontera on September 17, but as the investigation is under seal, relevant material had not surfaced till this month. That said, the rather seedy resume of UC Global SL was already common knowledge, with an investigation by El País revealing the existence of a surveillance apparatus created by the company with the specific purpose of targeting Assange.

While Baraitser permitted the defence extra time to incorporate material arising from these revelations, she refused to postpone the date set for the full extradition hearing, scheduled for February 24, 2020.  The matter will, however, be revisited during the December 19 case management hearing. 

What the magistrate did not discuss was the evident intransigence of British authorities who have frustrated efforts by the investigating Spanish Judge José de la Mata to question Assange.  On September 25, the judge sent a European Investigation Order (EIO) requesting a videoconference with Assange, who would be a witness in the case against UC Global SL.  The EIO process, which came into force in Spain in 2018, is designed to ease the laborious processes behind the customary transfer of evidentiary material from one EU state to another.  But the United Kingdom Central Authority (UKCA) has decided to stonewall the application, claiming that “these types of interview are only done by the police” in the UK.  Nor was the request by De la Mata clear, either in grounds or on the assertion of jurisdiction.   

Baffled, De la Mata has pressed the issue in determined fashion, citing previous examples of international cooperation treaties, and noting that restrictions on videoconferencing only apply to the accused, not a witness.  “We also provided a clear context for our case, describing all the events and crimes under investigation.”  On jurisdiction, the matter was also clear: the suspect was Spanish, the victim (Assange) had filed a complaint and the crimes in question (unlawful disclosure of secrets and bribery) were also crimes in the UK.  Quod erat demonstrandum.   

The district magistrate also cold shouldered hearing preliminary arguments as to whether the extradition request was barred by the 2003 US-UK Extradition Treaty.  Lawyers representing Assange noted in their court submission that the Extradition Treaty “was at the time contentious, reducing the number of safeguards that might prevent extradition, in particular safeguards from the UK to the US.”  Despite much weakening on the subject of citizen protections, one section in the treaty remains unaltered.  Article 4(1), retained in the 2007 ratified version, makes the point that, “Extradition shall not be granted if the offence for which extradition is requested is a political offence.”

The US prosecution is positively larded with political implications.  Each of the 18 charges against Assange has, at its core, an allegation of intent, namely to obtain or disclose US state secrets in such a way as to damage the security of the United States.  Given that state of affairs, the defence sought to advance three grounds: that the court had jurisdiction to determine the issue of whether the charges were political in nature; that the court rule that the offences were such, pursuant to Article 4 of the Extradition Treaty, and “for that reason alone, extradition should be refused in the case.”   The magistrate was not so obliging, either in listening to the grounds or giving reasons for her refusal. 

Back in Assange’s home country, the editors of News Corp, Fairfax, the ABC, SBS and The Guardian, held hands in their damning campaign dubbed “The Right to Know”.  Death to cultures of secrecy, they proclaimed.  Onwards transparency warriors.  But as with much in journalism, it is slanted, specific and skewed, ignorant of some of the most far reaching changes in the industry in the last decade.  Assange remains indigestible to their sensitive palettes.  Should he be extradited and convicted, their campaign will come to naught, a mere sliver of after-the-fact protest.   

Perhaps fittingly, Australia has produced two notorious figures associated with journalism.  They lie at two extremes of the information spectrum: Rupert Murdoch (yes, the same man behind News Corp), who continues to traffic in tits-and-bum titillation and demagoguery, influencing elections through such organs of demerit as The Sun; and Assange, who prefers revealing official secrets through WikiLeaks and, his accusers sneer, influencing elections.

At least some Australian politicians have taken the very public step of not only supporting Assange, but suggesting he return to Australia.  It took some time, but this cross-party group have realised that behind the Imperium’s quest to punish the human face of WikiLeaks is a political purpose marked by the ugly, ghastly visage of the national security state.

*

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

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

Featured image is from 21st Century Wire

Apocalypse Now? “War is Profitable”

October 24th, 2019 by Philip A Farruggio

Every high school and college student, and all their parents and grandparents should watch Francis Ford Cappola’s Apocalypse Now Redux. This is the 2001 re-cut and extended version of his 1979 classic of the same name. Set in Vietnam at the height of that war (in reality a ‘civil war’) it tells of a Special Forces assassin sent up river to the area where a renegade US Colonel is operating. His mission, as his superiors instruct him, is to ‘Terminate the Colonel’s command with extreme prejudice!’ Isn’t military lingo marvelous?

We can go on for literally hours discussing the myriad of meanings contained within this film. To this writer there are an abundance of parallels as to what transpired then, in the late 1960s, and now. The Vietnam debacle and our Iraq/Afghanistan debacles blend easily… too easily. Yet, that is not the reason for this column. It is the closing episode of the film, when the Marlon Brando character, Col. Kurtz, finally appears, that gave closure to the entire intent of the story. That being the sad truth of what this Military Industrial Empire is all about. When Col. Kurtz reprimands Captain Willard, the assassin, as being ‘An errand boy, for grocery clerks, to collect a bill’ he puts the whole damn Vietnam disgrace into proper perspective. Much like LBJ and Nixon regarding our presence in Vietnam, Bush Sr. and Clinton regarding Iraq war 1, Bush Jr as to Iraq war 2 and Afghanistan, Obama regarding those two countries plus Libya & Syria, and now Trump regarding Afghanistan and Syria, they were and are All Grocery Clerks!

Who are the errand boys (and girls)? Look no further than both the fruit salad wearing generals, dressed like 1940s movie theater ushers, and of course our fine Fourth Estate or as Paul Craig Roberts named them: Presstitudes. These are the lackeys who do the bidding of the movers and shakers that control this empire. Many of the fruit salad wearing generals become either ‘Security experts’ or television news talk contributors or even authors, earning a shitload of money after they retire. As to the presstitutes, well, many of them are earning seven figures (AKA millions) to continue to echo the company line. They care not about how such a small amount (meaning THEM) of Amerikans are making mega bucks while the majority of the working stiffs who watch, listen or read them make peanuts. Who cares… This is a free market we live in!

During the Vietnam (so called) War, whenever a Huey (helicopter) was shot down, Bell Helicopter replaced it for Uncle Sam to the tune of $ 1,000.000. I don’t know what that would translate into 2019 dollars, but I do know that ONE Apache Helicopter, during our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007, was at a cost to taxpayers of $ 20,000.000. That amount could finance the hiring of 40 firefighters, police officers or school teachers at $ 50,000 a year. Folks, put aside all the rhetoric the Grocery Clerks and Errand boys spit up at you, and realize that War IS PROFITABLE! Sadly, the more this empire focuses our attention on phony wars and regime change , and not on the slow bankrupting of this economy…. Apocalypse Now won’t be a redux, but a reality!

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

Erdogan Wants the Bomb

October 24th, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

“Some countries have nuclear missiles, but the West insists that we cannot have them. This is unacceptable”: this statement by President Erdogan reveals that the crisis goes beyond that which began with the Turkish offensive in Syria. In Turkey, during the Cold War, the United States deployed nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union. In 1962, in the agreements with the USSR for the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy promised to remove these weapons from Turkey, but this was not done.

After the end of the Cold War, about 50 U.S. B61 nuclear bombs (the same as those deployed in Italy at Aviano and Ghedi), directed mainly against Russia, remained in Turkey, at the Incirlik air base. In this way, both the United States and Turkey are in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Within the framework of NATO, Turkish pilots are trained (like the Italian pilots of the Ghedi base) to attack with B61 nuclear bombs under U.S. command. Soon, the B61s will be replaced by the Pentagon also in Turkey (as will be done in Italy and other European countries) with the new B61-12 nuclear bombs, also directed mainly against Russia.

In the meantime, however, following the Turkish purchase of Russian anti-aircraft missiles S-400, the United States removed Turkey from the program of the F-35, which is the main carrier of the B61-12. Turkey was supposed to have purchased 100 F-35 aircraft, of which it was a co-producer.

“The F-35 — declared a White House spokesperson — cannot coexist with the S-400 anti-aircraft system, which can be used to learn the capabilities of the fighter.” (White House.gov, July 17)

That is, Russia can use what it learns through the S-400 system to strengthen the defences against the F-35. By supplying Ankara with the S-400 anti-aircraft missiles, Moscow has managed to prevent the U.S. (at least for now) from deploying 100 F-35s on Turkish territory ready to attack with the new U.S. B61-12 nuclear bombs.

At this point, it seems probable that, among the options considered in Washington, there is that of the transfer of U.S. nuclear weapons from Turkey to another country deemed more reliable. According to the authoritative Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (USA − Oct. 17), “the Aviano air base [in northeastern Italy] may be the best European option from a political point of view, but it probably does not have enough space to receive all of Incirlik’s nuclear weapons.” Space could, however, be provided, given that renovation work has already begun in Aviano to accommodate the B61-12 nuclear bombs.

Against this background there is Erdogan’s declaration that, using the threatening presence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal as his motive, Turkey intends to have its own nuclear weapons.

It’s no easy project, but doable. Turkey has advanced military technologies, supplied in particular by Italian companies, especially Leonardo. It has uranium deposits. It has experience in the field of research reactors, supplied in particular by the United States.

Turkey has started the construction of its own nuclear electronics industry, purchasing some reactors from Russia, Japan, France and China. According to some sources, Turkey could have already procured, on the “black nuclear market,” centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Erdogan’s announcement that Turkey wants to become a nuclear power, interpreted by some as a bluff to give his regime more weight in NATO, should not be underestimated.

Erdogan’s announcement uncovers what is generally hidden in the media debate: the fact that, in the turbulent situation caused by the policies of war, the possession of nuclear weapons plays an increasingly important role, prompting those who do not own them to obtain them.

*

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

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

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

Featured image is from DefenseWorld.net

The Uncertain Aftermath of the Bolivian Elections

October 24th, 2019 by Pablo Solón

Bolivians went to the polls on Sunday, October 20, 2019. According to the country’s electoral system, in order to avoid a second round in presidential elections the leading candidate must secure 51 per cent of the vote, or more than 40 per cent of the vote and a lead of 10 per cent over the second place candidate.

With 83.8 per cent of the quick-count votes verified, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal’s (TSE) website indicated that Evo Morales of the Movement Toward Socialism (MS) was leading with 45.3 per cent, with Carlos Mesa of Citizen Community in second place with 38.2 per cent. It appeared as though there would be a second round. At this point, the TSE inexplicably shut down the live transmission of the quick-count tabulation of ballots after the 83 per cent of votes had been counted. Twenty-two hours later, on Monday evening, the transmission of quick-count results was restarted, with the website now indicating 95.63 per cent of votes counted. The distance between Morales, the front runner, and Mesa, the runner up, had grown significantly over the intervening period. The difference separating the two candidates was now said to be 10.12 per cent according to the quick-count, and this after Morales had announced that once the rural votes were counted he was sure there would be no need for a run-off.

Oppositional protests contesting the results kicked off Monday evening throughout the country, including the torching of several departmental offices of the electoral tribunal, just as MAS supporters simultaneously took to the streets in celebration. It will be days before the detailed count is finished, but the margin of difference in the detailed account appears to be closer, making a run-off election very likely. It would be held on December 15, 2019.

It is useful in this context to take a step back and to consider what is at stake in these elections. One important perspective on this issue is captured below in the conversation I had with former Morales government official, and now left-oppositionist, Pablo Solón in La Paz, Bolivia on August 29, 2019.

Today, Solón is the director of Fundación Solón, an institution established in 1994 by Pablo’s father, the artist Walter Solón Romero, with the intention of “fomenting creativity and the critical perspective of rebellious spirits.” With the passage of time, and the death of Walter in 1999, the artistic foundation became a centre for the interpellation and search for alternatives through art, analysis, and activism with the aim of confronting social and environmental injustices and changing the socio-economic system fundamentally.

***

Jeffery R. Webber (JRW): I am in the offices of the Fundación Solón, in La Paz, Bolivia, with Pablo Solón, the director of the foundation. To start with some personal background – you were the Ambassador to the United Nations during Evo Morales’s first term. What was your role within the administration in that initial period, and how would you characterize the government of Morales during his first term in office?

Pablo Solón (PS): My relation to indigenous and peasant movements stretches back to the decade of the 1990s. Originally, we conceived of the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) as a political instrument of social organizations. The objective was not to construct a political party in the traditional sense, but rather for the social movements, and in particular the peasant and indigenous movements, to have a political arm with which to intervene in elections, but with the social movement always retaining decision-making power, not the party.

In that period, I met Evo Morales. In 2000 the “Water War” against the privatization of water in the city of Cochabamba occurred, and later the “Gas War” and the struggle against the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Here in Bolivia we built a very strong movement that we called the Bolivian Movement of Struggle Against the FTAA, which was coordinated through the Fundación Solón.

In this context, as a result of the Electoral Court refusing to grant legal status to the political wing of the social movements under their initial preferred name, the Political Instrument for Sovereignty of the Peoples, the leaders of the political arm opted to appropriate the already legally existing but politically defunct acronym of the MAS, which had not been a party of the left, but rather an organization with origins in a split from a party with Phalangist characteristics – this is where the name “socialist” in the MAS comes from. It was thus under the banner of the MAS that the political instrument of the social movements intervened in the 2002 national elections.

I was never a member of the party, because we never thought it was necessary. When the MAS won the elections in 2005, Evo Morales invited me to form part of the government. In 2006, I formed part of a team which was charged with advising the government on themes of international politics and I was a representative on the themes of integration and trade. In that period, Bolivia sat in the pro temporepresidency of what was called the United Nations of South America, in which I was Bolivia’s ambassador. In that role I led the negotiation of the agreement which constituted the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR).

I was also in charge of undoing the trade agreement we had with Mexico and negotiating the proposed free trade agreement with the European Union, which obviously did not come to pass because the EU simply wanted us to sign off on whatever they desired. Later, I was the Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations, from 2009 to June, 2011.

JRW: And how would you characterize the first administration of Evo Morales in general terms?

PS: The first phase of the Morales government lasted from his assumption of the presidency in 2006 to the end of 2009. It was a period of heightened polarization and confrontation in Bolivia. At the beginning it was very difficult even to travel to some regions of the country which were in opposition to the government, such as Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, and Sucre. We were almost at the brink of civil war.

The government was able to dismantle that conspiracy through fundamentally democratic mechanisms, convening referenda and elections. Referendums in order to decide if the government would continue in office, as well as the prefects of the departments, which are now called governors. There was also a referendum to approve the new constitution, followed by national elections in 2009.

Support for the government went up in each of these democratic consultations, and for proposals arising from the Constituent Assembly process. It was a period of high polarization which in a sense had a happy ending, because Evo Morales obtained more than two thirds in congress and was re-elected as president in 2009. The resistance and the sabotage of the extremely reactionary oligarchy was defeated.

However, this first government already exhibited some negative elements which would later rise to the surface. The government of the MAS is a government of individuals who when they entered government didn’t have any experience of governing. The overwhelming majority had not played any part in previous governments. They were new to this, lacking experience in state administration and with uneven capacities and training.

One of the mistakes that the government made, for which I am also responsible, was to involve too many leaders from social movement organizations in the administration of the government. We weakened the social organizations through the incorporation of their leaders into the state apparatus.

This was a grave error. We did not consider the importance of maintaining the independence of social organizations from the state. The error was to fail to recognize that within the state we were going to suffer through a process of transformation and that, therefore, there had to be a kind of capable counter-power – not only to exercise control over those of us who were in government, but also to transfer more areas of decision-making and action from the state toward this counter-power of social organizations.

We did precisely the opposite. We built an ever more important cult of personality around the figure of Evo Morales. This allowed him to win the second election overwhelmingly, but it laid the basis for the disaster that would come later.

Once two thirds of congress had been secured, a dynamic of monopolizing all of the institutions of the state began. From the position of the central government, judicial power was monopolized, as was the Comptroller’s Office, and the Human Rights Ombudsman. It was a totally incorrect perspective to see this as the strengthening rather than the weakening of the process of change. The independence and authority between powers of the state ended up being abolished, and there was no counter-power from civil society. Everything fell under control of the power of the executive, and a government extremely personalized around the figure of Evo Morales. After the election of 2009 there was a change of direction in the orientation of the government.

In 2008, Evo Morales put forward 10 commandments which were seen as necessary to save the planet, in which he opposed biofuels, mega-hydroelectric projects, and genetically modified crops. Once he had obtained an absolute majority he did not deepen the original program that we had, but instead sought out pacts with sectors of the opposition, based on serious concessions, and in particular with the agribusiness sector of the eastern lowlands, which had sabotaged his government during the first term. These concessions included everything from allowing genetically modified organisms to promoting biofuels, promoting the export of meat, and not following through on the regulation of the social-economic functions of medium-sized landholdings and business-scale landholdings, which allowed large landowners to preserve their ownership of land.

The sectors that were against the government in the first term began to vote together with the government on almost all the laws having to do with agribusiness. For example, the law on ethanol was approved unanimously in congress, as much by the opposition as by the MAS officialdom. The laws that incentivize the burning of forests (Laws 337, 741, 303, 1171, and others) were approved with the support of the opposition, which expressed the interests of the agribusiness elite of the departments of Santa Cruz and Beni.

JRW: What was the motive, or state rationality, of the pact with the agribusiness elite? Because, in a sense, they had just been defeated in political terms by 2009, so why negotiate, and why on their terms?

PA: The prevailing logic in the government was no longer to advance toward agro-ecology, but rather to guarantee governability and their next re-election. From this perspective it was better to have these sectors on our side, so that they didn’t generate conflicts and instead supported us. In order for this to work you have to give them some of the things they ask for, but they repeatedly ask for more, and, in the end, the government ended up implementing the agribusiness program. How did the “process of change” benefit from this arrangement? There have been three terms of this government and there is a possibility for a fourth one. If one listens to the agribusiness sectors in meat, soy, sugar, and so on, they are very content. They have gained with this government what they were unable to gain previously, including under neoliberal governments.

JRW: So is this the fraction of capital with the most power in the government today?

PS: The government made an alliance with this sector, which provides them with certain benefits, in exchange for continuity in power. They are not two equal partners. This agribusiness sector, ultimately, does not want Evo. It is profoundly oligarchic and racist, but it has been doing good business under this first indigenous government. So, its logic is: we do good business, they are in power. And we continue going forward.

Therefore, in the midst of all of the forest fires occurring in Bolivia at the moment, both actors, the government and the agribusiness oligarchy, have announced with jubilation the first shipment of meat to China. No other government could have done this in the midst of the tragedy of the fires. There are various studies demonstrating the large-scale impact of ranching on forest fires and deforestation. However, the government has prioritized this alliance, thinking that it’s the best way to increase the probability of re-election.

JRW: When and why did you leave your position in the government?

PS: I resigned from being ambassador in New York because my mother was ill. I told Evo Morales that I had to take care of my mother, that one who does not take care of one’s mother cannot care for Mother Earth. But I always maintained a close relationship with him. Although I was no longer in government I went to see him when necessary, without any problems. But we began to part ways, first over genetically modified crops, in 2011; and secondly, the rupture came over the matter of the TIPNIS, the construction of a highway through indigenous territory and a national park. The drop of water that overflowed the glass was the repression over the TIPNIS project in Chaparina on September 25, 2011. At that moment, publicly, I sent a letter to Evo Morales telling him that this was intolerable. Since then, we have never spoken again.

JRW: We are now in a pre-electoral period and you have noted publicly that there are no parties which have a perspective on the environment appropriate to the scale of the ecological crisis. Can you explain the key features of the various party programs and provide a cartography of the electoral contest and the options, in electoral terms, facing Bolivians at the moment?

PS: The opposition to Evo Morales is an opposition focused more on democratic themes than on economic ones. Morales made a mockery of the 2016 constitutional referendum which said no to his re-election. Evo, through the control that he exercises over the constitutional tribunal, illegally modified the constitution with a totally absurd argument that the right of indefinite re-election is a human right.

So we have an opposition that concentrates on these democratic aspects, but in terms of agro-industry, and the agribusiness sector, they do not offer any alternative, with some even advocating the much further strengthening of the existing orientation of the government in this respect. I don’t see any of the political parties wanting a change in the course of action in relation to big agribusiness. Almost all of the party programs give very little importance to the question of nature, they don’t mention the subject of the rights of Mother Earth. The governing party is the only one that mentions them, but as they themselves admit it is only something to promote in international forums, they don’t offer any measures to make it a reality in Bolivia.

The opposition has not made this issue an axis of contention. Citizen Community, the party of ex-president Carlos Mesa, has some important policies in relation to the environment, for example, regarding the generation and distribution of electricity, but when it comes to the eastern lowlands the party prefers not to touch the problem of agribusiness. None of the parties have expressed opposition to mega-hydroelectric projects, much less opposition to Rositas, which is the mega-hydroelectric project that they want to build in Santa Cruz.

JRW: OK, this is your sense of the party terrain. You mentioned earlier that a critical error of the first term of Morales’s rule was the integration of social movement leaders into the state. Turning to the area of social movements, then, what is your take on their power and significance in the current conjuncture?

PS: It’s very poor. We all wanted the government to win a second term in 2009, and to win decisively to put an end to the resistance of the oligarchy. But very shortly after obtaining two thirds in congress the ideology that came to prevail within government circles, of which vice president Álvaro García Linera is the purest expression, said: we don’t accept independent thinkers, there can be no independent thinkers. Here everyone must agree with what Evo Morales and Álvaro García Linera say.

So what they have done is weaken social organizations, transforming them into simple echoes of the government’s line, without a critical or positive position of their own. The social movements are in a much worse state than they were prior to the Water War of 2000. They have less capacity for autonomy, for projecting demands, for self-determination.

Those which have confronted the government have been divided, criminalized, and in some cases incarcerated. Fear has been generalized. Within the government there are many people who disagree with the official line, but they are not going to say this publicly because they will lose their jobs. Anyone who wants to keep their job has to accept the line coming from above. It’s a type of totalitarianism which is distinct from the military dictatorships. There are some cases in which the mechanisms are more perverse, and in others more subtle, designed to keep quiet those who have a different position.

JRW: In the present conjuncture, what is the position of the most important business confederations, such as CAINCO, the Chamber of Industry and Commerce in Santa Cruz? Are they openly supporting some parties more than others? What are the desires of domestic and international capital in these elections?

PS: They are not going to say anything publicly. What they hope is to be able to continue their business no matter who wins. If Evo wins, they’ll continue alongside Evo. If the opposition wins they will go along with it. At the moment they are not involved in any public campaign in favour of one or another candidate, but simply thinking of their pockets.

JRW: But apart from their apparent neutrality, you don’t think they are financing specific parties, that they have a preferred outcome?

PS: Well, they haven’t said anything publicly, so one cannot say with any evidence.

JRW: There is no publicly available financing of particular campaigns?

PS: Public? No. Behind the scenes, all of the parties must be receiving something. For example, Bolivia Says No, the party of Óscar Ortiz, surely has the financial support of agribusiness. Bolivia Says No is the party which most closely represents their interests. Bolivia Says No’s platform is to export the Santa Cruz model to the rest of the country. They want to introduce a new export plan for the Amazon.

The Santa Cruz oligarchy has learned that, first, it has to protect its business interests, and so it is not going to confront the government, especially when they are receiving such benefits. They are not going to campaign openly against the government. Under the table, they might be financing here or there, but they know that Bolivia Says No has no chance of winning these elections. So why would they do it publicly?

JRW: The global crisis of 2008 began to have a serious impact on many parts of South America beginning in 2012, more or less, depending on the country. But Bolivia was something of an exception, insofar as it exhibited higher levels of growth and macroeconomic stability. It’s obvious that the Morales government never loses an opportunity to announce this fact. How do you explain Bolivian economic growth, in contrast, say, to the open crises in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, and elsewhere? Is it going to last, or has the crisis simply not yet arrived in Bolivia?

PS: Here as elsewhere – Brazil, Venezuela – we lived through a boom, in spite of the crisis of 2008, because of the price of commodities, and in particular the oil price continued climbing until 2014. The crisis began that year when the price of oil began to fall.

Until 2014, Bolivia and various other countries in the region, were in ascent thanks to an export model rooted in certain products that enjoyed a high price on the international market. The crisis began in Bolivia when the price of oil fell to almost $40 per barrel, having reached a high of $100 per barrel, and the price of oil impacted upon the price of Bolivian natural gas sales to Argentina and Brazil.

The government was able to accumulate enormous foreign reserves during the boom period. Foreign reserves reached $15-billion. Before the Morales government, Bolivia’s foreign reserves never surpassed $1 or $2-billion.

In order to avoid the repercussions of the crisis, the government began to spend its foreign reserves, and began to take on debt. Today the external debt is around 25 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), and growing. The government also sells national treasury bonds on Wall Street, which is another form of indebtedness. In this way the crisis has been alleviated. The government has controlled the crisis in anticipation of the October elections.

After the elections, whichever party wins there will be an economic austerity package. It is almost impossible to maintain an exchange rate of 6.96 Bolivianos to the dollar, when one looks at the fall of currencies in Argentina and Brazil. The fall has already begun, but it has been tempered momentarily by strong public investment. Unfortunately, these investments by the state have not been in viable productive sectors. There has been a lot of investment in infrastructure. Investments directed toward productive sectors have been very poorly chosen, for example, the sugar mill in San Buenaventura or the urea plant. That is, these investments haven’t generated a new productive economic matrix capable of generating resources in the short term.

The current economy no longer depends primarily on the export of natural gas, as was the case until 2014. Today mining mineral exports are first, and in third place is agribusiness. But the international situation is terrible due to the crash in soy prices. The government maintains this sector with subsidies, but they cannot do so forever. After the elections, we are going to see an increase in gas, diesel, and electric light tariffs.

JRW: Do you think Morales is going to win in the first round? Is there any possibility that he won’t win the election?

PS: I don’t know, because Bolivia is a very volatile country. A month ago, everything suggested that Evo would win in the first round, but today I don’t know. The impact of the ecological disaster of the forest fires will have an effect on his chances. Whether he will recover or not in the coming days and weeks, we don’t know. In any case, no one is going to win in the first round. There’s going to be a second round. Today, I don’t think it’s possible that Evo will win in the first round. But the situation could change – Bolivia is a very dynamic country.

JRW: How do you understand the particular political situation in Bolivia within the wider region’s dynamics? For example, if we look at immediate neighbours, we see the extreme right in power in Brazil, and the possible return of (Kirchner) Fernández-Fernández in Argentina. So if the situation is volatile in Bolivia, this is also true at the regional level. What is the role of Bolivia within this regional scenario?

PS: For the government of Evo Morales the best scenario would be the return of Kirchnerism in Argentina. It would give him oxygen, and the government is supporting the campaign for Kirchnerism’s return. Were Evo to win, the government would likely prolong for a longer period the maintenance of certain subsidies than if a more neoliberal government were to be formed. But there will come a time at which you can’t prolong the subsidies even if you want to, because you haven’t created a new economic structure that would allow you to do so. If Evo wins he is going to implement a package of economic austerity, whether in a gradual or shock manner. I don’t see political options in the region which are proposing the kind of genuine change that would allow us to escape from this vicious circle, between populisms of the right and populisms of the left, which have distinct political discourses, but which in essence combine in supporting an extractivist economic model for export to the detriment of nature.

JRW: In the Brazilian case, Dilma Rousseff introduced an austerity package in 2014, after having campaigned on precisely the opposite political program. In hindsight, we can see that this was a turning point in the process which eventually resulted in Jair Bolsonaro gaining the presidency. So it would seem there are political dangers which accompany the implementation of austerity by progressive governments. If you are correct that in the Bolivian case should Evo win he will introduce austerity measures, what forms will the likely political complexities that follow assume in the immediate aftermath?

PS: If Evo wins, the right will radicalize and if Evo doesn’t win, in five years we will have a similar situation to that in Argentina today. Because if Evo doesn’t win, it will be Carlos Mesa of the opposition who will have to apply the hard measures. As soon as Mesa begins to apply such measures it will be incendiary for the population and supporters of the MAS, and Evo will be seen as a saviour. Essentially, however, there are no structural differences in the programs, whoever wins, in relation to key sectors such as agribusiness.

JRW: What is the strategy, then, for people such as yourself, who are trying to maintain a leftist position independent from that of the government? What to do in the present moment? Should the emphasis be on re-building a movement from below over the medium- to long-term?

PS: I don’t think there is any other alternative. Between the two existing electoral poles there is no alternative. We have to build and rebuild something different, and learn from our mistakes. Because we had very strong movements until 2006, until we arrived in government. So we have to be very self-critical concerning the errors we committed so that the new movements don’t repeat them.

At this point, the dichotomy between the left and right is not essential. We are not talking about building another big boss politician (caudillo) with which to confront Evo Morales or another neoliberal party. We are talking about rebuilding the social fabric of social movements and of new actors so that they can begin to self-govern and self-organize. That kind of movement, today, is very incipient in Bolivia.

Fourteen years ago it wasn’t the case. There was a very mobilized, autonomous, and self-governing movement. To recompose that will be difficult. The worst aspect is that this disarticulation of social movements, of the social subject, was not done by a government of the right, but by a government of the left. The social subject was able to survive despite the repression and brutality of the dictatorships and the policies of neoliberal governments. At certain moments it was severely damaged. But under this government, our own government, a government that we brought to office, a terrible phenomenon has been produced: the Aymara and Quechua indigenous community, which resisted colonization for 500 years, is today very weak because an indigenous government is promoting a very consumerist, developmentalist perspective of western modernity. As a result, Aymara and Quechua communities, and their alternative vision of Living Well (Vivir Bien), is weaker today than before the arrival of this government. It should have been exactly the opposite scenario.

JRW: Changing themes, let’s concentrate for a moment on the catastrophe of the fires in Chiquitania, the tropical savannas of the department of Santa Cruz. In general terms, what is the scale and depth of this ecological crisis, and what does it entail?

PS: Well, in quantitative terms we are talking about a burnt area of 1.8 million hectares [JRW note: now 5.3 million hectares]. The Minister of Defence said yesterday: “But it wasn’t all forest, only 500,000 hectares was forest.” Even with the figure of 500,000 hectares of burnt forest, it’s a catastrophe.

In 2016, a year of high deforestation, almost 300,000 hectares were deforested. Now we are surpassing 500,000 deforested hectares. According to a report on the hotspots generated by NASA satellites, a third of the fires are in protected areas of Bolivia. That’s incredible! Ten per cent of these fires are in untouched, primary forests.

It’s terrible from the perspective of the forests, greenhouse gas emissions, animal life, and ecosystems. These are life systems that are being destroyed. This is going to have impacts on water and rain not only in those zones but in other regions as well. We are accelerating the sixth extinction of life on earth.

JRW: What kind of economic transition, then, is needed in Bolivia?

PS: What the government should have done is what we had originally proposed. When we arrived in government we said we are not going to support agribusiness, we were going to support communitarian agro-ecology which would preserve nature, fundamentally directed toward the local market. But the government, prioritizing re-election, preferred to make agreements with agribusiness and this is the result.

Other options are possible. For example, if one wants to export meat one can do it, but in smaller quantities and within limits – meat produced in an ecological manner, without destroying forests, meat with a high price, directed toward consumer markets that are willing to pay more to preserve forests. In order to do this, it is necessary to totally reorient agricultural activities so that they can exist alongside the forest, rather than being developed at the cost of the forest. Promoting exports of chestnuts, of asaí fruit, in short a series of other products that are in the forests and which can be cultivated without destroying the forests.

From the point of view of lithium, Bolivia also has an opportunity if we develop it in an appropriate manner; likewise, in the case of solar energy, especially given that we are one of the countries with the highest levels of solar radiation.

This would imply a break with the developmentalist model.

*

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.

Jeffery R. Webber is a Senior Lecturer in International Political Economy at Goldsmiths, University of London. In January 2020, he will take up a new position as Associate Professor in the Department of Politics at York University, Toronto. Webber sits on the editorial board of Historical Materialism. His latest book is The Last Day of Oppression, and the First Day of the Same: The Politics and Economics of the New Latin American Left. He is presently working on his next book, Latin American Crucible: Politics and Power in the New Era, which is under contract with Verso.

Pablo Solón is director of Fundación Solón. He is the former Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations and lead negotiator for Bolivia at the December 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen.

Donald Trump: An American Tragedy for the U.S. and the Entire World

October 24th, 2019 by Prof Rodrigue Tremblay

“If this [U.S.] government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know.“ Frank Church (1924-1984), American lawyer and U.S. Senator, chairman of the Church Senate Committee, (in an interview with TV program ‘Meet The Press’, Aug. 17, 1975) 

“I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, and we stole.It was like —we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”Mike Pompeo (1963- ), former CIA director and presently Secretary of State in the Trump administration, (in April 2019, while speaking at Texas A&M University.) 

“I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the ‘Bikers for Trump’ —I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough —until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.“  – Donald Trump (1946- ), 45th American president and American hotel and casino owner, (statement made during an exclusive interview, in the Oval Office, with Breitbart News, published on Wed., March 13, 2019) 

.

The election of New York far right businessman Donald Trump, in November 2016, has turned out to be a tragedy for the United States and also for the world, as more blunders, disasters and catastrophes unfold under his inexperienced, impetuous and incompetent stewardship.

Politically, never in its entire history has the United States ever had a president who openly rejects the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution, i.e. the separation of powers and the idea of co-equal branches of government, and who rejects the core principle of democracy that no one is above the law. This is a dangerous precedent, which is bound to open a Pandora’s Box of ominous things to come. Ever since Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Friday, January 20, 2017, he has talked and behaved as if he has persuaded himself that he is above the law.

Then, there was that long series of chaotic, impulsive, improvised and incoherent policies, as never before seen in modern times. This has been the case not only in economics, public finance and trade—but also in a callously bad diplomacy, which has tarnished the reputation of the United States around the world. The same can be said about Donald Trump’s divisive social policies, which have intensified income and wealth inequalities, and which are, in fact, a throwback to the 1920’s.

Let us review a few of them:

  • Trump’s dangerous fixation with the stock market

The stock market is not the economy. As a matter of fact, most economic recessions and depressions have begun when the stock market was very high or in a bubble, and about to crash, very often due to bad economic, regulatory and monetary policies that led to unchecked speculation, financial crises and financialpanics.

That happened, for example, before the Long Depression of 1873-1879, before the Depression of 1920-21, and before the Great Depression of the 1930’s, and before other serious economic recessions, such as the recent Great Recession of 2007–2009.

This is not a trivial matter. Any fool can push the stock market to unsustainable levels. One has simply to print a lot of money or to go deeply into debt. Some Third World countries still do it, even nowadays. —But when the rest of the economy goes the other way, severe economic consequences do follow. And that will not only damage the U.S. economy but also the world economy.

  • An American problem, which turns out also to be a world problem

If the Donald Trump problem were only a domestic U.S. problem, hope would be that the political and legal systems in the U.S. would be able to manage it. However, the man not only professes to be above American laws, he also talks and acts as if there were no international law. That is why that is an international problem and not only an American problem.

Mr. Trump seems to see himself as some sort of a self-proclaimed ‘king of the world’. On any given day, he might threaten to “totally destroy” and annihilate a foreign country, as he did in reference to North Korea and Afghanistan. On another day, he would declare himself ready to “destroy the economy” of another foreign country, as he did recently regarding the Turkish economy…etc. —This is madness on a high level.

That such an individual in a position of high authority, but with so little mental capabilities and judgment, has surfaced on the international political scene, in the 21st Century, is most astonishing, and somewhat unbelievable.

What is especially scary in Trump’s case is the fact that he surrounds himself with professional sycophants, yes-men and clones of himself. The result is that there is no filter and no safeguards around him, against his impulsive and destructive moves. He thinks and acts as if he were a one-man government.

  • The economic consequences of Mr. Trump 

The private sector of the U.S. economy is one the most resilient and one of the most productive in the world. However, Mr. Trump’s chaotic approach to government and his ill-thought economic policies are bound, sooner or later, to have a very negative impact on the economy. 

Currently, the U.S. manufacturing sector is already in a recession and contracting. The public and military sectors are supported by huge and unsustainable fiscal deficits. Consumers, going deeper and deeper into debt, keep the service sector humming for the time being. All the while the foreign trade sector is in disarray, thanks to the destructive trade wars that the Trump administration has initiated.

One day, this fragile economic structure built on debt and contracting trade flows is going to collapse, and it is not going to be pretty. And if one takes into consideration the important technological changes about to take place in the coming years, as the transport industry is going to be retooled, one could fear that the next economic recession could be much worse, especially if the global economy and financial markets were to be derailed in tandem.

  • The political and social consequences of Mr. Trump 

It is pretty much admitted, by now, that Donald Trump has been an important factor of division among Americans. The antipathy between Republicans and Democrats, for instance, is as intense and more personal as it has ever been in modern times. Moreover, in its studies and surveys, the Pew Research Center has found that partisan polarization and social hostility between groups have risen over the last three years.

No need to go further. The damage Mr. Trump has done is alreadyconsiderable.

Let us only hope that bad does not get worse!

*

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.

World renowned economist Prof  Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, of the book “The New American Empire”, and the recent book, in French La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018. Please visit Dr. Tremblay’s site: http://rodriguetremblay100.blogspot.com/

Dr. Rodrigue Temblay is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Lebanon Protest Movement: Demanding Total Change of State’s Political Framework

October 24th, 2019 by Michael Jansen

Hundreds of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets and squares across Lebanon to call for the fall of the country’s political class, which they accuse of looting the country. They also demand an end to the sectarian model of governance imposed on Lebanon by France, the former colonial power. This gives the presidency to the Maronite Christian community, the premiership to the Sunnis and the post of parliamentary speaker to the Shias, and allocates other offices to figures in the 18 religious communities.

Therefore, when Lebanese call for the fall of the regime, they do not mean ouster of a president, like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and his entourage, but of the political framework of the state. This is a far more dramatic and transformatory demand than the removal of a set of entrenched politicians and will be much more difficult to achieve. Lebanese politicians have done their utmost to prevent rivals from outside the traditional elite from emerging, and the protesters still do not have a recognised leadership which could take power if a new non-sectarian system is installed.

The crowds gathered on last Friday evening, reconvened on Saturday and swelled on Sunday to celebrate the first victory of people’s power, the resignation of four ministers from the right-wing Maronite Christian Lebanese Forces. The portfolios they held are labour, administrative development, deputy prime minister and social affairs. Although their resignations have not been accepted, Prime Minister Saad Hariri sustained a hard blow.

“This is the first domino to fall,” one protester said. The threat of withdrawal by this party, headed by Samir Geagea, is a serious development. The Lebanese Forces is the third largest party in parliament and the largest in the bloc headed by Hariri, who was already in a weak position. It had taken him a year to form his current cabinet following his appointment as premier after the May 2018 parliamentary election.

Hariri sustained what may be an existential blow on Monday, when protesters rejected his package of measures intended to foster economic recovery. These include a 50-per cent cut in salaries and pensions of ministers and former ministers and legislators. Banks are expected to provide $3.5 billion to the government while no new taxes will be imposed on struggling Lebanese, 20 per cent of whom live below the poverty line. Hariri’s economic plan was not really addressed to them but to donors who pledged to provide Lebanon with $11 billion in grants and soft loans. The people were not impressed and returned to the streets in ever-greater numbers.

The demonstrations, which erupted a week ago were triggered by a Cabinet approval of a tax on calls made on messaging services, particularly WhatsApp. Although a mere $0.20 daily, this tax was, for the Lebanese, as they say, “the straw that broke the camel’s back”. Since the cabinet adopted an austerity package in July, the taxes that have been imposed target the middle class and the poor. The rich and super-rich have escaped heavy exactions on their incomes and the political elite has kept corrupt gains. Authoritative Al Nahar daily reported that $350 billion has been stashed away in Swiss banks, prompting protesters to demand the return of the money. Some call for draconian measures like those adopted by Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman: Lock up the politicians until they repatriate millions of dollars banked abroad or empty local accounts of corrupt gains.

Corruption and mismanagement have peaked in Lebanon, which has not recovered economically or rebuilt its infrastructure since the end of the 1975-1990 civil war. Due to the government’s failure to construct adequate electricity plants, Lebanese have to pay for a certain number of hours daily, supplied by the state and expensive power provided by private operators. The same is true of water. With the aim of keeping dollars in Lebanon, banks offer an 8-per cent interest rate on dollars. Higher interest is paid on Lebanese Liras. Instead of investing in industry or services, Lebanese put their money in banks and keep it there. Consequently, investment and consumption have fallen. The economy has stalled. The public debt is nearly 150 per cent of GNP. International donors have conditioned funding on implementation of economic reforms and curbing corruption. If this is to be achieved, there must be a mechanism established to monitor the dispersal of funds and provide transparency so that people know how they are spent. Otherwise, money will disappear and popular demands will not be met.

Although the government has announced the withdrawal of the WhatsApp tax, this action has not satisfied the populace, as the exaction was just one of many designed to soak the middle class and the poor. They face high rents, rising prices for food and fuel and steep school and university fees. The rich remain rich because they have the resources to meet or dodge tax demands or to leave the country. Furthermore, the populace does not trust the political elite to use funds gathered through taxation to improve the situation. Trust has gone. Bitter frustration remains. The ongoing protests are far more serious than those of 2015, when a refuse collection crisis launched mass anti-government demonstrations. These protests served as a warning to the politicians, which they ignored, at their peril. Now they face some 1.3 million angry Lebanese, one-quarter of the population, demanding total change.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lebanon Protest Movement: Demanding Total Change of State’s Political Framework
  • Tags: ,

De um Chile desperto a um Brasil hibernando

October 24th, 2019 by Instituto Humanitas Unisinos

“Onde estão as forças progressistas e os chamados movimentos sociais? Com isso, um governo sem rumo se mantém pela inércia e um presidente incapaz pode andar passeando pelo mundo sem que nada aconteça. Como sair da anomia? Desafio para partidos e entidades opositoras”, escreve Luiz Alberto Gomez de Souza, sociólogo.

“O PT e outras forças tendem a encerrar-se na miopia redutiva de “Lula livre“, outros pensam basicamente em vencer as próximas eleições municipais. Onde propostas de dimensões e ambições ao nível de um país que está sendo sucateado, do pré-sal a privatizações a rodo?”, pergunta o sociólogo, denunciando que “na ausência de alternativas a política parece vegetar numa calmaria anestesiada”.

Eis o artigo.

Impressionante a enorme multidão no centro de Santiago neste 23 de outubro. Para os que vivemos no Chile durante a Unidade Popular, não podemos deixar de recordar o entusiasmo do primeiro de maio de 1972 na Praça Itália. Trata-se agora de um plebiscito de fato, contra uma política neoliberal que foi apresentada entre nós como exemplo pela equipe de Guedes e que naufragou também na Argentina de Macri.

Um tremendo contraste: a reforma de previdência que castiga os mais pobres foi aprovada em Brasília com o assustador silêncio e indiferença das ruas brasileiras. Onde estão as forças progressistas e os chamados movimentos sociais? Com isso, um governo sem rumo se mantém pela inércia e um presidente incapaz pode andar passeando pelo mundo sem que nada aconteça. Como sair da anomia? Desafio para partidos e entidades opositoras.

O PT e outras forças tendem a encerrar-se na miopia redutiva de “Lula livre“, outros pensam basicamente em vencer as próximas eleições municipais. Onde propostas de dimensões e ambições ao nível de um país que está sendo sucateado, do pré-sal a privatizações a rodo? Na ausência de alternativas a política parece vegetar numa calmaria anestesiada.

Na história, às vezes, basta uma fagulha concreta – do preço dos transportes à indignação por uma saúde em decomposição – para despertar forças aparentemente hibernando. Assim com os gilet jaunes na França, entre nós os caras pintadas contra Collor, ou as manifestações de junho de 2013 em São Paulo que as esquerdas não souberam avaliar…

Sempre tratei de manter a esperança numa frente ampla nacional, popular e democrática. No momento atual não posso deixar de expressar uma certa perplexidade.

“A história não caminha ao ritmo de nossa impaciência”, escreveu o poeta espanhol Antonio Machado, ao partir para o exílio no final da guerra civil.

Mas é do Chile que vem o alento com Salvador Allende, em sua última e comovente alocução pelo rádio, despedindo-se de seu povo: “La historia es nuestra, la hacen los pueblos”. E antevia então o que está acontecendo agora nas ruas de Santiago: “Volverá el pueblo a las grandes alamedas”.

Porém entre nós: quando?

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on De um Chile desperto a um Brasil hibernando

Canada’s Seizure, Sale and Disbursement of Iranian Assets Are Acts of a Hooligan and Wrecker of International Law

October 24th, 2019 by Steve Rutchinski

Documents recently filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reveal that some $30 million realized from the seizure and sale of Iranian government assets in Canada have been transferred to American families who filed for compensation under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act 2012. Their claim for compensation began in the U.S. court system but extended to Canada when they realized Canada would follow suit. The properties appropriated and sold were the Iranian Cultural Centre in Ottawa and the Centre for Iranian Studies in Toronto. The transfer of funds to the families only came to light last week.

The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act was passed under the former Harper Conservative government. It was buried in a lengthy omnibus crime bill. Debate in Parliament was limited on the bill, but it is worth noting that the only portion which received all party support was the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, and the theft, sale and disbursement of Iranian assets based on this Act were taken under the Trudeau administration.

Under this Act Iran was deemed to be a “state sponsor” of terrorism. The plaintiffs were thus relieved even of any obligation to do anything other than assert that Iran was responsible for the terror attacks that took the lives of their loved ones.

Many countries maintain lists of organizations deemed to be “terrorist”, but there is only one other country in the world which deems countries as “state sponsors of terrorism” — the United States, which along with Israel, is known to be the biggest perpetrator of war and terror around the world. This shows how the raison d’état of Canada as an entity and its foreign policy is integrated into the United States of North American Monopolies.

Iran has denounced the seizure and sale of Iranian assets in Canada as illegal and in violation of international regulations. Iran also said it will follow up the issue based on international regulations if Canada does not annul its illegal decision and does not compensate Iran for the losses.

Iran has a strong case in this respect. Even the Canadian foreign ministry’s director for Middle East affairs Dennis Horak, recently retired, spoke against the Victims of Terror Act, saying it was a “stupid law” that prevented any diplomatic relations with Iran. Not that Canada under the Liberals wanted to normalize relations.

Even more compelling, in March of this year an International Court in Luxembourg rejected a U.S. request to compensate victims of the Twin Tower attacks by seizing assets from Iran, based on an accusation by an American court that Iran was responsible for the 9-11 attack. The Luxembourg court ruled that the U.S. Court decision was not in accordance with public international law. U.S. request fails to meet international law criteria, the court said.

The same argument applies to Canada’s Victims of Terrorism legislation and its seizure, sale and disposal of Iranian assets. Like the U.S. theft of Venezuelan assets or the UK theft of Libyan assets, Canada is establishing a reputation as a hooligan and wrecker of international law and regulations.

*

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.

Steve Rutchinski is the MLPC Candidate in University—Rosedale.

Featured image is from Tony Seed’s Weblog

Selected Articles: 5G Cell Phone Radiation is Not Safe

October 24th, 2019 by Global Research News

Online independent analysis of US-led wars, rampant corruption, corporate greed, civil rights and fraudulent monetary transactions is invariably relegated to the bottom rung of search engine results.

As a result we presently do not cover our monthly running costs which could eventually jeopardize our activities.

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

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

*     *     *

Syria

Trump and Erdogan Are Alike: Both Are ‘Thin-Skinned’ and Relied on ‘Deplorables’ to Win

By Philip Giraldi, October 24, 2019

The apparent communications problems that have arisen between USPresident Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan are basically due to Trump’s failure to understand that Erdogan is essentially his Turkish counterpart in more ways that the title of the office that they both hold. They rose to power in a similar fashion, based on an understanding that there were large numbers of disenchanted essentially conservative voters, and they continue to rule in an unorthodox fashion that combines a high level of personal sensitivity with a tolerance for corruption plus a tendency to come out with brash misstatements.

Tulsi a Russian Asset? Censored by Google and YouTube

By Stephen Lendman, October 24, 2019

Tulsi Gabbard is the only US anti-war, progressive presidential aspirant. The NYT demeans her  “unorthodox political views.” Powerful interests want her campaign prevented from gaining traction. CIA-connected Google-owned You Tube suppressed her search results. What’s going on is polar opposite how parent company Alphabet campaigned for Hillary in 2016, featuring favorable results, concealing negative ones, manipulating sentiment for her against Trump, a failed scheme as things turned out.

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

By Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, October 24, 2019

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.

The White Helmets: A Terrorist Organization Supported by the Trump Administration

By Dr. Ludwig Watzal, October 24, 2019

The White Helmets are a terrorist affiliate of ISIS and al-Nusra front and not paramedics. A British secret service agent created these pseudo paramedics terrorists with the financial support of Western countries. Great Britain, France, Germany, and the U. S financed this terror organization. They received even an OSCAR award from the terror-supporting Hollywood factory, contracted by Israel and the Pentagon. Except for the Western fawning and corrupt media, the White Helmets are considered a terrorist affiliate and extremely dangerous. They are not paramedics but a ragtag gang of Western financed terrorists.

Vladimir Putin, Syria’s Pacifier-in-Chief

By Pepe Escobar, October 24, 2019

The Russia-Turkey deal establishes a safe zone along the Syrian-Turkish border – something Erdogan had been gunning for since 2014. There will be joint Russia-Turkey military patrols. The Kurdish YPG (People’s Protection Units), part of the rebranded, US-aligned Syrian Democratic Forces, will need to retreat and even disband, especially in the stretch between Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ayn, and they will have to abandon their much-cherished urban areas such as Kobane and Manbij.  The Syrian Arab Army will be back in the whole northeast. And Syrian territorial integrity – a Putin imperative – will be preserved.

U.S. Anti-war Movement Should Stay Focused on Getting U.S. Out of Syria

By Sara Flounders, October 24, 2019

Oct. 20 – The author visited Syria in 2014 and 2015 in small International Action Center solidarity delegations. At that time, no road in the country was safe and one-third of the population was displaced — taking refuge inside Syria or in surrounding countries. The schools, mosques, churches and community centers in Damascus were packed with tens of thousands of desperate refugees. Everywhere, including downtown Damascus, was being shelled.

Chile, September 11, 1973: The Ingredients of a Military Coup. The Imposition of a Neoliberal Agenda

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 24, 2019

Barely a few weeks after the military takeover, the military Junta headed by General Augusto Pinochet ordered a hike in the price of bread from 11 to 40 escudos, a hefty overnight increase of 264%. This “economic shock treatment” had been designed by a group of economists called the “Chicago Boys.” “While food prices had skyrocketed, wages had been frozen.  From one day to the next, an entire country had been precipitated into abysmal poverty.

*

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: Demonstrators at the anti-5G protest in Bern on Friday. (© Keystone / Peter Klaunzer)

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: 5G Cell Phone Radiation is Not Safe

Northern Reindeer that Roamed Taymyr Peninsula Are at the Brink of Extinction

October 24th, 2019 by Olga Gertcyk

More than 40,000 wild reindeer perished since the last count in 2017, said scientists who returned from a major expedition to the Taymyr Peninsula.

The Yenisei group of reindeer has disappeared entirely while the westernmost group living along the Tareya River has dramatically shrunk in size from 44,300 animals in 2017 to only several thousands now.

A research conducted over a territory of 80,000km2 – equal to the area of the United Arab Emirates – concluded that drastic measures are needed to claw back wild reindeer populations in all of Taymyr, northern Evenkia and western Yakutia.

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Poaching, climate change and excessive hunting caused colossal population drop. Pictures: Mikhail Bondar/WWF Russia, Zapovedniki Taymyra

The Taymyr Peninsula sits on the very tip of vast Krasnoyarsk region, facing the Severnaya Zemlya archipelago – and yes this is the fastest warming place on earth.

The air temperature in Taymyr has increased by 1.2C degrees over the past decade, which is above average not only for Russia but for the planet, said Andrey Kiselyov, a leading researcher.

Changing temperature deviates reindeer from their regular migration routes.

A very small number of reindeer walked in known migration corridors across Pyasina and Tareya rivers, this year’s research showed.

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinctionqNorthern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Researchers recommend to either ban hunting for a year or to shorten next hunting season by 1.5 months to give the reindeer time to breed. Pictures: Zapovedniki Taymyra, Mikhail Bondar/WWF Russia

Previously known concentration spots were almost empty, with only smallish herds and individual reindeers registered where usually there were scores of them.

‘Only seven years ago thousands of reindeer were passing through the Lake Ayan hollow. Back then I liked to pour a cup of tea, to come out and to sit on a  tree stump and to watch them slowly wonder along a river. Reindeer were not scared of me, some walked several metres away from me’, said inspector and researcher Vasiliy Sarana from the Putorana nature reserve.

‘Now I drink tea in the house, and look through a cold window at an empty river bank. There are no reindeer passing through Ayan any more’, he added.

Sarana said that only 15 to 20 years ago the number of wild reindeer was 600,000 to one million.

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Urgent measures are needed to claw the population back, experts say. Pictures: Mikhail Bondar/WWF Russia, Zapovedniki Taymyra

There were years of barbaric poaching and hunting which seemingly went unnoticed – or ignored – by local and regional authorities.

Male reindeer were attacked by antler hunters in spring, who axed or sawed them off right as defenceless animals crossed rivers.

Those of reindeers who survived the painful ordeal could not fight for females.

In autumns as reindeers migrated back to winter pastures they were met with group of hunters. In winters people chased them on snow mobiles.

‘If you add hunting quotas for indigenous people and reindeers’ deaths related to climate change to this madness, the losses are catastrophic!’, Vasiliy Sarana explained.

Researchers recommend to either ban hunting for a year or to shorten next hunting season by 1.5 months to give the reindeer time to breed.

Current number of calves is worryingly low at less than 7 per cent, while it has to be a quarter of the population.

The summer 2019 research expedition was supported by WWF Russia. A team of 13 researchers from Taymyr and Central Siberian Reserves in Krasnoyarsk region and Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution in Moscow examined the traditional summer concentration spots from the air, studied reindeer migration routes and put GPS tracking collars on 2 female and 3 male reindeer from the Taymyr 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.

Featured image is from Zapovedniki Taymyra

Trump and Erdogan Are Alike: Both Are ‘Thin-Skinned’ and Relied on ‘Deplorables’ to Win

October 24th, 2019 by Philip Giraldi

The apparent communications problems that have arisen between US President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan are basically due to Trump’s failure to understand that Erdogan is essentially his Turkish counterpart in more ways that the title of the office that they both hold. They rose to power in a similar fashion, based on an understanding that there were large numbers of disenchanted essentially conservative voters, and they continue to rule in an unorthodox fashion that combines a high level of personal sensitivity with a tolerance for corruption plus a tendency to come out with brash misstatements.

One does not expect Trump to actually know anything about Turkey and its history, or, for that matter, about the political trajectory of Erdogan, but the American president’s businessman’s belief that his personal relationship with other countries’ leaders is enough to run a foreign policy is nevertheless seriously flawed. Trump has described Erdogan as a “friend” based on several personal meetings and phone calls, though it is very unlikely that the canny politician Erdogan would describe the relationship in the same manner. Trump’s most recent personal letter to the Turkish leader was reportedly thrown into the waste basket without being read.

Istanbul-born Erdogan, unlike Trump, came from a poor family and first became known as a professional soccer player. Also unlike Trump, he was and is deeply religious. He became a ward politician in Istanbul and was subsequently elected Mayor of the city in 1994 as the candidate of the moderately Islamist Welfare Party. Openly espoused religious parties were at that time illegal under the secular constitution imposed by the military in 1982, so he was stripped of his position by a military tribunal, banned from political office, and imprisoned for four months for the crime of “inciting religious hatred.”

After he was released from prison, Erdogan considered how to get around the ban on religion in politics, co-founding the ostensibly moderate and secular conservative Justice and Development Party known as AKP in 2001. In 2002, AKP won a landslide victory in national elections, but as Erdogan was technically still prohibited from holding office, the AKP’s co-founder, Abdullah Gul, instead becoming Prime Minister, which then led to the Chamber of Deputies’ legislative annulling of Erdogan’s political ban. Erdogan replaced Gul as Prime Minister in 2003. Erdogan led the AKP to two more election victories in 2007 and 2011, before being elected president in 2014, winning again in 2018.

The first years of Erdogan’s prime-ministership were politically moderate as Turkey was still governed under the military imposed constitution. There were promising negotiations for Turkey to enter the European union, foreign investment was encouraged, the economy benefited from measures to free up businesses from state control, and there was considerable state money spent on infrastructure. Behind the scenes, however, Erdogan worked closely with Fethullah Gulen and his Gulen Movement, currently designated as a terrorist organization, to purge the government of secular bureaucrats and army officers using Gulen’s networking and the judicial system, most notably through several show trials of military officers that led to constitutional referenda that both weakened the military’s grip and enabled the legalization of expressions of Muslim piety.

Erdogan was damaged by a series of anti-government protests that began in 2013. His response, like that of Donald Trump, has been to become increasingly authoritarian, claiming that the opposition to him was treasonous. He banned social media, took control of the judicial system, and arrested both journalists and opposition politicians. Opponents responded by going after massive corruption in the administration that included the prime minister’s sons and his chief financial supporters. A file containing recordings of conversations between Erdogan and his son in December 2013, in which he appeared to be providing instructions on how to conceal very large amounts of money, was made public. Erdogan denied that the conversation was genuine, instead calling it an “immoral montage.”

Subsequently, a widely publicized failed military coup in 2016 was blamed on Gulen but was more likely than not allowed to develop by Erdogan himself to provide an excuse for further repression of critics. More than 150,000 civil servants have since that time been fired and replaced by Erdogan loyalists.

In 2017 Erdogan formed an alliance with the far-right National Movement Party (MHP) to promote a constitutional referendum on the form of government. In spite of fierce opposition and considerable electoral fraud, the referendum passed and the new system of government, a presidential system without a prime minister, formally came into place after the 2018 national election, which was won by Erdogan and the new AKP-MHP People’s Alliance.

A currency and debt crisis beginning in 2018 have caused a significant decline in Erdogan’s popularity and led to a loss in the 2019 local elections in which the ruling party lost control of the capital Ankara and largest city and financial hub Istanbul for the first time in 25 years. After the loss, the Turkish government ordered a re-election in Istanbul, in which AKP-MHP lost the election again by an even greater margin. The two successive losses severely damaged Erdogan politically speaking. He had once said that if we “lose Istanbul, we would lose Turkey,” with critics calling the loss the “beginning of the end” for him.

The central point is that, like Trump’s plea to Make America Great Again, Erdogan rose to power by virtue of his realization that the often deeply religious Turkish peasantry, which was increasingly moving to the country’s large cities, was a disaffected pool of voters that had not been tapped emotionally or even practically by any of the major political parties. That that was so was largely due to the fact that the country’s military imposed constitution enshrined the secularism of the nation’s founder Kemal Ataturk and appointed the army as the guarantor of the Ataturk principles. Erdogan was arrested but he subsequently skillfully avoided prosecution during his rise due to his willingness to use language and metaphors that appealed to what he perceived as the devout but largely un-politicized majority. This is not dissimilar to Trump’s appeal to the so-called “deplorables” and it explains why both leaders have core supporters who follow them with a real passion.

Other similarities between the two include a propensity to say things spontaneously that are both absurd and politically damaging, a belief that the chief executive should have no restraint exercised over his policies and positions, sons who are benefitting from their father’s position, and a lack of discretion when using the telephone.

And then there is the style issue – both men are blunt, thin skinned and assertive, unwilling to be upstaged by anyone, which suggests that they have had a tendency to talk past each other either on the phone or in person. This explains the curious misunderstanding of what the Americans and Turks pledged to do over the phone in the aftermath of the partial withdrawal of US troops from the Syrian border region several weeks ago. It also explains why there will be no quick resolution to the problems that both Ankara and Washington have created as Syria struggles to return to something approaching normalcy.

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump and Erdogan Are Alike: Both Are ‘Thin-Skinned’ and Relied on ‘Deplorables’ to Win
  • Tags: ,

Tulsi a Russian Asset? Censored by Google and YouTube

October 24th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Time and again, clear evidence proves democracy in America is pure fantasy — how it’s been from inception, notably today under its money-controlled system, most politicians bought like toothpaste.

One-party rule with two extremist right wings serves privileged interests exclusively at the expense of the general welfare.

Establishment media operate as press agents for dirty business as usual — controlling the message, suppressing alternative views, notably on geopolitical issues, as well as about political aspirants for peace and governance serving everyone equitably. See below.

When speech, press, academic freedoms, and right to dissent are considered threats to national security, free and open societies no longer exist — how things are in the US and other Western societies, totalitarianism the new normal.

Dark forces threaten what just societies hold dear. Rare truth-telling aspirants for high office are vilified and shunned.

Tulsi Gabbard is the only US anti-war, progressive presidential aspirant. The NYT demeans her  “unorthodox political views.” Powerful interests want her campaign prevented from gaining traction.

CIA-connected Google-owned You Tube suppressed her search results.

What’s going on is polar opposite how parent company Alphabet campaigned for Hillary in 2016, featuring favorable results, concealing negative ones, manipulating sentiment for her against Trump, a failed scheme as things turned out.

Last summer, Gabbard sued Google for censoring her campaign by temporarily suspending her advertising account, infringing on her constitutionally guaranteed free expression rights, her campaign saying:

“With this lawsuit, Tulsi seeks to stop Google from further intermeddling in the 2020 United States presidential election,” adding:

“In the hours following the 1st (Dem) debate, while millions of Americans searched for info about Tulsi, Google suspended her search ad account w/o explanation. It is vital to (stop) big tech companies (from manipulating) the outcome of elections.”

“Throughout this period, the campaign worked frantically to gather more information about the suspension.”

“In response, the campaign got opacity and an inconsistent series of answers from Google” — a firm with over a 90% world search engine market share, power letting it manipulate what’s seen or suppressed.

Earlier this month, Hillary surfaced again, falsely accusing Gabbard being “groom(ed) to be (a) third party candidate (as) a Russian asset.”

Gabbard responded strongly, tweeting:

“You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the (Dem) party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain,” adding:

“From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation.”

“We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know. It was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.”

“It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.”

“Hillary & her gang of rich, powerful elite are going after me to send a msg to YOU: ‘Shut up, toe the line, or be destroyed.’ But we, the people, will NOT be silenced. Join me in taking our (Dem party) back & leading a govt of, by & for the people!”

“If you’re sick of the new McCarthyism and warmongering by Hillary and her cohorts, then join our campaign. We need your support. Democrat, Republican, Independent — it doesn’t matter. We need to unite to usher in a govt which is of, by, and for the people!”

“United by love for our country and each other, we will usher in a 21st century government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I will bring to the presidency the soldier’s values of putting service before self — always putting our country’s interest first.”

“@HillaryClinton, your foreign policy was a disaster for our country and the world. It’s time for you to acknowledge the damage you have caused and step down from your throne.”

Retired anti-war/progressive Senator Mike Gravel said

“Tulsi Gabbard has more credibility in talking about peace and proper use of the military than any other candidate literally in American history.”

Separately in a weekend video message, Gabbard slammed Hillary and the “war machine,” trying to “destroy (and) discredit” her anti-war/progressive truth-telling, adding:

“They will not intimidate us. They will not silence us,” urging viewers to join her in “speaking truth to power” — loud, clear and without restraint.

On Tuesday, Gabbard doubled down against Hillary’s “disaster(ous)” pro-war/anti-peace foreign policy agenda, adding:

“It’s resulted in the deaths and injuries of so many of my brothers and sisters in uniform. It’s devastated entire countries, millions of lives lost, refugee crises, our enemy al-Qaeda/ISIS* strengthened.”

“It is long past time for you to step down from your throne so the (Dem party) can lead with a new foreign policy which will actually be in the interests of and benefit the American people and the world.”

Gabbard’s agenda is polar opposite dirty business as usual, why undemocratic Dems as well as establishment conventional and social media want her campaign undermined.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

Johnson’s Withdrawal Agreement – Don’t Believe MSM Optimism

October 24th, 2019 by True Publica

In our article The Brexit Catch 22 we said that the government – “started its own fire, bought no extinguisher and now everyone is engulfed in its flames where a never-ending amount of fuel is added. It’s like being in hell. Every day is the same – more flames.” Don’t believe the press on this latest optimism of a deal being done, just because finally something got agreed. It doesn’t really mean that we are any closer to ending the nightmarish Brexit game of thrones at all – far from it.

And so it is with this week. MPs have voted for the Withdrawal bill to go forward, but that doesn’t mean they all back it – or that the saga is ending any time soon. They wanted more time to scrutinise the highly complicated agreement and related documents – all of which, rolls into hundreds of pages of legal jargon. And, of course, they have every reason not to trust Boris Johnson.

In our article, we provided the statistics that there was no consensus for anything from anyone with regard to Brexit. Not from the Tories, or parliament, House of Lords, or indeed – the general public.

But since a little more scrutiny of those documents has been undertaken in just the last 24 hours – more has emerged of the state of play. And what a state it is.

It now appears that the government, in its desperate desire to get something through, is making promises to both sides of the argument to get a majority on side to vote it through in first place.

The consequence is that some promises are then cancelled out by other promises. It depends on where you’re looking. Either the government is deliberately setting itself up to lie to one side or it is so desperate to prove that dying a ditch is not the preferred outcome – it will literally say anything.

Ian Dunt over at politics.co.uk examines the latest iteration of the Withdrawal Agreement and finds a two-dimensional course of delusional thinking:

“The deal the UK has struck with the EU strikes a bizarre kind of middle point between possible models. There will be two camps in the post-deal landscape: those who want a close relationship with the EU and those who want to cut themselves off completely and pursue a trade deal with the US. But the deal actually blocks off either of those options. Pursuing a genuinely close relationship is made legally impossible. The political declaration rules out membership of the single market or the customs union. This cannot be changed by parliament in the future. Section 13C of the legislation states that ministerial objectives for the future relationship “must be consistent with the political declaration”.

So, the government has conceded loads to the EU model on the one hand, which put into direct conflict the model the USA would put to Britain in a post-Brexit trade deal environment. Trade negotiations with the USA are all but done – except Britain can’t agree to it. This means that scrutiny of this Withdrawal Agreement by parliament is likely to cause a whole new pile of problems for Boris Johnson. Those Labour MP’s who voted it through this time – won’t be so keen when they see what that deal actually portrays as a vision for Britain’s future.

Dunt is more or less saying that Britain has effectively negotiated itself into a corner simply to prove the point that it could get a deal done.

“The UK caved to the EU in each of these areas. The political declaration pledges that it and the EU “should treat one another as single entities as regards SPS measures” – these are the agricultural standards that would block US imports. It also signs up to “common principles in the fields of standardisation, technical regulations, conformity assessments, accreditation, market surveillance” – which indicates membership of European standards bodies – and geographical indications. So the government’s approach seems to close down both camp’s final goals. It would rule out a genuinely close relationship with the EU and rule out a free trade agreement with the US.”

This is what we said some time ago. Brexit is ultimately a trade deal arrangement. They take years to negotiate because both sides want what is best for themselves. Britain has had three and a half years and can’t even agree what it should look like, let alone start the process of negotiating it. For instance, the CETA trade deal between Canada and the EU took nearly eight years to seal and the American/EU deal failed because standards between the two could not be agreed.

This (Johnson’s version) Withdrawal Agreement also has a limit placed on it to do a trade deal with the EU by the end of 2020. That will not be remotely possible, especially with the wretched trench warfare tactics of the free-market jihadists in the ERG – who now egotistically call themselves the ‘Spartans’. They want an American deal at all costs – literally.

By attempting to please some for votes – the deal has closed off both side’s ideal objective. The big problem like all things Brexit is that there will be no consensus on which direction Britain eventually goes. So, only one thing is sure – it divides opinion further and provides yet more ammunition to keep the tribal warfare well and truly alive.

The end result will be much of what we have already seen. More fighting and backstabbing, more disruption, more economic haemorrhaging, more division and at the same time – angering both the EU and the Americans. Can it possibly get worse?

*

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

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

October 24th, 2019 by Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz

The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of “fear mongering” over the advent of wireless technology’s 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.

Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.

Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.

The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.

Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future.

Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”

The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.

Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).

Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.

As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?

Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.

*

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.

Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects since 2009 after he and his colleagues published a review paper that found long-term cell phone users were at greater risk of brain tumors.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe
  • Tags: ,

Ecuador’s Austerity Measures, Repression Based on Media Lies

October 24th, 2019 by Joe Emersberger

Bernie Sanders tweeted an Associated Press article in the LA Times (10/14/19) about Ecuador’s recent protests, in which eight protesters were killed in 11 days. “Economic elites keep pushing austerity worldwide, making life unbearable for working people,” Sanders declared. Unfortunately, that AP piece was itself a good example of how elites push for austerity.

Under the headline “Ecuador Deal Cancels Austerity Plan, Ends Indigenous Protest,” the article claimed that former President Rafael Correa—in office from January 15, 2007, until May 24, 2017—left Ecuador “deeply in debt.” AP’s Michael Weissenstein and Gonzalo Solano said Ecuador’s current president, Lenin Moreno, had agreed to work with indigenous leaders to “reduce Ecuador’s unsustainable budget deficits and public debt.”

In fact, Ecuador’s government does not have a high debt load. The table below shows the Ecuadorian government’s gross debt-to-GDP ratio compared to various other countries that (like Ecuador) cannot issue their own currency. (Ecuador adopted the dollar as its currency in 2000, after its entire financial sector collapsed after decades of imposing the right-wing economic policies that the IMF “recommends” to developing countries; the other countries in the table below are part of the Eurozone.)

Ecuador Debt to GDP Ratio Compared

Source: IMF

Note that Ecuador’s debt to GDP ratio has continued to increase under Moreno, because he has implemented the policies that Ecuador’s elite always liked—and which are the exact opposite of what he promised on the campaign trail in 2017. That said, Ecuador’s public debt is not high now, and was even less so when Correa left office.

Another AP report that was published by the New York Times (10/15/19) stated that Ecuador has a $64 billion public debt and a “budget shortfall” of $10 billion.  The IMF, which is hardly inclined to underestimate these figures, says the government’s gross debt will be $53 billion in 2019 and its budget deficit $37 million. (AP appears to have included in its “shortfall” estimate all the principal and interest due on Ecuador’s foreign bonds this year—which is not how governments calculate their budget deficits. Governments almost always “roll over” their bonds—pay off principal by issuing new bonds.)

Oil prices collapsed in the last quarter of 2014 and stayed low for years. That hurt Ecuador badly because about half its export earnings had been coming from oil. Ecuador was also hit by a massive earthquake in April 2016, the most destructive in decades. A significant rise in the value of the US dollar since mid-2014 also hurt Ecuador’s competitiveness, because Ecuador (unlike countries that have their own currency) cannot devalue to help the prices of its exports stay competitive. Those external shocks did cause an increase in public debt in Correa’s last two and a half years in office.

Ecuador Debt to GDP Ratio Change

Source: IMF

But Correa did not impose austerity measures, nor did he run to the IMF (as Lenin Moreno has) for one of its infamous “structural adjustment” loans, where spending cuts, attacks on workers’ rights, central bank independence and privatization are all part of the “deal.”

By the time Correa left office, poverty was cut by about one-third, and extreme poverty by about one-half. The homicide rate was dramatically reduced. Vast and long overdue improvements had been made to Ecuador’s public infrastructure. Eight hydroelectric plants were built, and roads drastically improved throughout the country. That’s why Lenin Moreno was able to run his successful 2017 presidential campaign as a staunch Correa loyalist (FAIR.org, 2/4/18).

The AP deceptively stated that

Moreno served Correa as vice president before he became president, and the two men went through a bitter split as Moreno pushed to curb public debt amassed on Correa’s watch.

The AP here buries Moreno’s remarkable cynicism. The “bitter split” happened very shortly after the votes were counted in 2017. Within weeks of taking office, Moreno went completely over to the side of the rich and, what amounts to the same thing, the side of the private media barons who had always vilified Correa. Moreno quickly made changes to Ecuador’s public media to ensure that they followed suit. In a nationally televised interview in January 2018, both public and private media journalists reinforced Moreno’s attack lines against his former allies (Counterpunch, 1/21/18).

Armed with that media monoculture, Moreno attacked his former allies with wild allegationsthat the media spread uncritically. That was key to saddling his former allies with criminal charges and investigations. He has accused Correa of spying on him from Belgium (where Correa lives with his Belgian wife) through a hidden camera in Ecuador’s presidential palace, and alleged that Correa improved Ecuador’s roads in order to facilitate drug trafficking.

Moreno knows that no charge is too outlandish, provided it reinforces what the powerful and their media outlets want to hear. Moreno accused WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange of smearing feces on the walls of Ecuador’s embassy in London, where Assange had been granted asylum by the Correa government. One of Moreno’s ministers said she found it suspicious that journalists in Ecuador working for Russian state media covered the recent protests.

It’s important to note that oil prices (chart below) recovered significantly since Moreno took office on May 24, 2017. They have, on average, been about 25% higher under Moreno than they were in Correa’s last two years. Ecuador has not been hit by a major natural disaster since Moreno took office. So why has Moreno, who is supposedly deeply preoccupied with reducing the public debt, increased it instead?

Crude Oil Prices

Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve

He has done it by implementing policies the elite always wanted, for both ideological and self-serving reasons: giving tax cuts to the rich, giving away revenue to transnational oil and mining companies, making it illegal for the government to finance itself internally (therefore forcing it to turn to the private sector) and refusing to impose import tariffs. Incidentally, import tariffs were crucial to Ecuador avoiding austerity or a deep recession during Correa’s last two years in office.

The AP article said that:

Foreign Minister José Valencia told the Associated Press on Sunday that the Moreno administration believed Correa, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and Colombia’s far-left FARC and ELN guerrillas are working to destabilize Ecuador. He offered no proof beyond the fact that a handful of Correa loyalists and some Venezuelan nationals had been detained during the protests.

Surely the fact that a government has arrested some of its political opponents should not be taken as any kind of “proof” of foreign subversion. Among the political arrestees referred to offhandedly by AP as “a handful of Correa loyalists” is Paola Pabón, the governor of of Pichincha, the second-most populous province in Ecuador. Yofre Poma, a member of the National Assembly, was also arrested, as was the former mayor of the canton of Duran, Alexandra Arce, along with Magdalena Robles, an online journalist who supports Correa.

Another sitting National Assembly member, Gabriela Rivandeneira, and former assembly member Virgilio Hernandez took refuge in the Mexican embassy after police broke into their houses.

Unlike President Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, Moreno is not confronting a US-backed opposition that briefly seized power in one military coup and then attempted five others (FAIR.org, 5/20/19). The Western media would be overflowing with outrage over Moreno’s abuses, long before these protests, if he had not tightly embraced Washington’s agenda.

Seven right-wing governments in Latin America immediately backed Moreno’s claim that Venezuela was behind the protests in Ecuador. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on October 11 that the US

supports President Moreno and the government of Ecuador’s efforts to institutionalize democratic practices and implement needed economic reforms.  We are aware and monitoring claims of external actor involvement in these demonstrations.

By “external actor involvement,” Pompeo didn’t mean the IMF, effectively an extension of the US Treasury Department in developing countries. Moreno is jailing elected political rivals and has authorized lethal tactics precisely to impose his deal with that external actor.

*

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 Voice of America

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ecuador’s Austerity Measures, Repression Based on Media Lies
  • Tags: , ,

The White Helmets: A Terrorist Organization Supported by the Trump Administration

October 24th, 2019 by Dr. Ludwig Watzal

The White Helmets are a terrorist affiliate of ISIS and al-Nusra front and not paramedics. A British secret service agent created these pseudo paramedics terrorists with the financial support of Western countries. Great Britain, France, Germany, and the U. S financed this terror organization. They received even an OSCAR award from the terror-supporting Hollywood factory,[1] contracted by Israel and the Pentagon.[2] Except for the Western fawning and corrupt media, the White Helmets are considered a terrorist affiliate and extremely dangerous.[3] They are not paramedics but a ragtag gang of Western financed terrorists.[4]

The White Helmets only come to the “rescue” in ISIS-controlled and run territories. When there were so-called poison-gas attacks, the first on the scene were White Helmets. Just a coincidence? Were they even part of these staged poison-gas attacks by their brothers and sisters from ISIS? Studies have shown no involvement of the Syrian Armey but rather by ISIS and al-Nusra. Up till now, the White Helmets are only present in ISIS-controlled territory. There is not only evidence for the involvement of the White Helmets in staged false chemical and other attacks but also in harvesting organs of pretended rescued, as the Russian-based Foundation of the Study of Democracy presented.

The Trump administration pretense of fighting terrorism; actually, they support this terror group with 4.5 million US-Dollars. It comes to no one’s surprise. Haven’t the U.S created the Syrian terror scene in the first place? Why does Donald Trump follow Obama’s fatal footprints in Syria, instead of eradicating his disastrous legacy in this country? Instead of having shred the Iranian Nuclear Deal, Obama’s main achievement, Trump instead gave in to Israel’s extremist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s pressure and let the deal heading south.

Germany granted these White Helmets terrorist refugee-status in Germany due to the pressure of Israel. In the year 2000, the German government also succumbed to Israel’s influence when the Zionist occupation forces pulled out of Lebanon in a hush-hush operation. Germany had to accept their collaborators from the South Lebanese  Army. The then German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer was an obedient subordinate to Israel and especially to Madeleine Albright, the then U. S. Secretary of State, who showed him future prospects after leaving the office.

The Trump administration went out of its way, saying that the so-called “Syrian Civil Defense” (SCD= better-known as “White Helmets”) did “important and highly valued” work. If the Trump White House would have had a sound crap of contemporary developments, they could have never come up with the statement that these terrorists have “secured more than 115.000 people”. They have been involved in staging terror incidents and then appeared as so-called rescuers.

That the U. S. sticks to its own “baby” shouldn’t surprise anyone. The White Helmets are only a little department of a more extensive terror network that the Western imperial powers created to topple a legitimate ruler of Syria, President Bashar al-Assad. That Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Iranian government and the Lebanese Liberation Organization Hezbollah tipped to this political scam should perhaps only surprise the Americans and their European minions.

Putin and the Turkish President Erdogan, together with President al-Assad, will protect the border to Turkey to prevent the Kurdish militia from committing attacks inside Turkey. Whether this will be a successful undertaking also depends on Israel, which has been supporting the Kurdish struggle for an own state, but out of base motives, which do not serve the real independence of the Kurdish 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.

Dr. Ludwig Watzal is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1]https://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/syria-crisis/1531-white-helmets-oscar.html

[2]https://www.globalresearch.ca/israels-terrorists-white-helmets-receive-award/5676631

[3]https://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-white-helmets-more-dangerous-terrorist-retired-schoolteacher-mesyaf/5676813

[4]https://21stcenturywire.com/2018/10/17/syria-exclusive-vanessa-beeley-meets-the-white-helmets-and-armed-group-leader-in-daraa-al-balad/

Vladimir Putin, Syria’s Pacifier-in-Chief

October 24th, 2019 by Pepe Escobar

The negotiations in Sochi were long – over six hours – tense and tough. Two leaders in a room with their interpreters and several senior Turkish ministers close by if advice was needed. The stakes were immense: a road map to pacify northeast Syria, finally.

The press conference afterwards was somewhat awkward – riffing on generalities. But there’s no question that in the end Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan managed the near impossible.

The Russia-Turkey deal establishes a safe zone along the Syrian-Turkish border – something Erdogan had been gunning for since 2014. There will be joint Russia-Turkey military patrols. The Kurdish YPG (People’s Protection Units), part of the rebranded, US-aligned Syrian Democratic Forces, will need to retreat and even disband, especially in the stretch between Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ayn, and they will have to abandon their much-cherished urban areas such as Kobane and Manbij.  The Syrian Arab Army will be back in the whole northeast. And Syrian territorial integrity – a Putin imperative – will be preserved.

This is a Syria-Russia-Turkey win-win-win – and, inevitably, the end of a separatist-controlled Syrian Kurdistan. Significantly, Erdogan’s spokesman Fahrettin Altun stressed Syria’s “territorial integrity” and “political unity.” That kind of rhetoric from Ankara was unheard of until quite recently.

Putin immediately called Syrian President Bashar al Assad to detail the key points of the memorandum of understanding. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov once again stressed Putin’s main goal – Syrian territorial integrity – and the very hard work ahead to form a Syrian Constitutional Committee for the legal path towards a still-elusive political settlement.

Russian military police and Syrian border guards are already arriving to monitor the imperative YPG withdrawal – all the way to a depth of 30 kilometers from the Turkish border. The joint military patrols are tentatively scheduled to start next Tuesday.

On the same day this was happening in Sochi, Assad was visiting the frontline in Idlib – a de facto war zone that the Syrian army, allied with Russian air power, will eventually clear of jihadi militias, many supported by Turkey until literally yesterday. That graphically illustrates how Damascus, slowly but surely, is recovering sovereign territory after eight and a half years of war.

Who gets the oil?

For all the cliffhangers in Sochi, there was not a peep about an absolutely key element: who’s in control of Syria’s oilfields, especially after President Trump’s now-notorious tweet stating, “the US has secured the oil.” No one knows which oil. If he meant Syrian oil, that would be against international law. Not to mention Washington has no mandate – from the UN or anyone else – to occupy Syrian territory.

The Arab street is inundated with videos of the not exactly glorious exit by US troops, leaving Syria pelted by rocks and rotten tomatoes all the way to Iraqi Kurdistan, where they were greeted by a stark reminder. “All US forces that withdrew from Syria received approval to enter the Kurdistan region [only] so that they may be transported outside Iraq. There is no permission granted for these forces to stay inside Iraq,” the Iraqi military headquarters in Baghdad said.

The Pentagon said a “residual force” may remain in the Middle Euphrates river valley, side by side with Syrian Democratic Forces militias, near a few oilfields, to make sure the oil does not fall “into the hands of ISIS/Daesh or others.” “Others” actually means the legitimate owner, Damascus. There’s no way the Syrian army will accept that, as it’s now fully engaged in a national drive to recover the country’s sources of food, agriculture and energy. Syria’s northern provinces have a wealth of water, hydropower dams, oil, gas and food.

As it stands, the US retreat is partial at best, also considering that a small garrison remains behind at al-Tanf, on the border with Jordan. Strategically, that does not make sense, because the al-Qaem border between Iran and Iraq is now open and thriving.

Map: Energy Consulting Group

The map above shows the position of US bases in early October, but that’s changing fast. The Syrian Army is already working to recover oilfields around Raqqa, but the strategic US base of Ash Shaddadi still seems to be in place. Until quite recently US troops were in control of Syria’s largest oilfield, al-Omar, in the northeast.

There have been accusations by Russian sources that mercenaries recruited by private US military companies trained jihadi militias such as the Maghawir al-Thawra (“Army of Free Tribes”) to sabotage Syrian oil and gas infrastructure and/or sell Syrian oil and gas to bribe tribal leaders and finance jihadi operations. The Pentagon denies it.

Gas pipeline

As I have argued for years, Syria to a large extent has been a key ‘Pipelineistan’ war – not only in terms of pipelines inside Syria, and the US preventing Damascus from commercializing its own natural resources, but most of all around the fate of the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline which was agreed in a memorandum of understanding signed in 2012.

This pipeline has, over the years, always been a red line, not only for Washington but also for Doha, Riyadh and Ankara.

The situation should dramatically change when the $200 billion-worth of reconstruction in Syria finally takes off after a comprehensive peace deal is in place. It will be fascinating to watch the European Union – after NATO plotted for an “Assad must go” regime change operation for years – wooing Tehran, Baghdad and Damascus with financial offers for their gas.

NATO explicitly supported the Turkish offensive “Operation Peace Spring.” And we haven’t even seen the ultimate geoeconomic irony yet: NATO member, Turkey, purged of its neo-Ottoman dreams, merrily embracing the Gazprom-supported Iran-Iraq-Syria ‘Pipelineistan’ road map.

*

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.

U.S. Anti-war Movement Should Stay Focused on Getting U.S. Out of Syria

October 24th, 2019 by Sara Flounders

Oct. 20 – The author visited Syria in 2014 and 2015 in small International Action Center solidarity delegations. At that time, no road in the country was safe and one-third of the population was displaced — taking refuge inside Syria or in surrounding countries. The schools, mosques, churches and community centers in Damascus were packed with tens of thousands of desperate refugees. Everywhere, including downtown Damascus, was being shelled.

Today Syria is rebuilding after eight years of war. More than 1,550 schools have been rebuilt, and in the past month 10,000 teaching jobs were added. But U.S. war planners are still active.

When forces in U.S. ruling circles contend with and denounce each other to justify foreign intervention — as is currently happening in reaction to the announced U.S. pullback from the Kurdish area of Syria — this generates speculation, analysis and confusion in the population, including among anti-war activists. It demands a clear political response.

This confusion takes place because U.S. apologists invent pretexts for the government’s military interventions. They falsely claim it sends troops to defend democracy or to protect the human rights for some group. Rather, U.S. troops are sent to intervene only to protect and expand the strategic or economic interests of U.S. imperialism.

U.S. forces in Syria have brought nothing but misery to that country’s people, including its Kurdish population. The Pentagon was there neither to promote democracy in Syria nor to defend Kurdish self-determination.

Washington has tried to maintain its dominance in the Middle East by inflaming sectarian, national, ethnic and religious differences. In the long war against Syria, where all the people of Syria have suffered, the many statements for or against the Kurds in Syria take the focus off the real culprit — U.S. imperialism.

U.S. out!

Therefore the best response, the only legitimate response, from anti-war forces in the U.S. is to re-raise the most basic demands: U.S. out of Syria! Respect Syrian sovereignty!

This response is the only viable solution to the more than eight years of U.S.-instigated war that have ripped Syria apart, displaced one-third of the population, created millions of refugees and homeless people, and laid waste to large parts of this once relatively prosperous, developing country.

Turkey has been a member of the U.S.-commanded NATO military alliance since 1952 and is the site of many NATO and U.S. military bases, including the major air base at Incirlik. The Turkish regime has played a criminal role in the efforts to dismember Syria.

Vice President Mike Pence’s latest proposal on Oct. 17 to Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is the latest scheme to keep Syria divided. In essence, two members of the NATO military alliance agreed to partition Syria under Turkish occupation.

Their meeting in Turkey was little different from the eight years of U.N.-brokered “peace negotiations” in Paris, Geneva, Vienna or New York.

These meetings of imperialist forces and their collaborators simply repeated that a ceasefire by the armed militias attacking the Damascus government would be possible only if the elected Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, resigned. Then these pirates would decide what regime would lead Syria and what forces and militias would control various regions.

U.S. instigated war on Syria

In 2011, after seven months of U.S./NATO bombing of Libya, U.S. policy makers in the Obama administration, including Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had convinced the Turkish regime and others in the Middle East and in the European Union that they could quickly dismember Syria. The Turkish rulers opened their borders to the invading anti-Damascus forces and served as a major conduit of arms to them.

Eventually 100,000 mercenaries in competing gangs operated inside Syria against the Damascus government. They were backed by different US/NATO/Saudi/Israeli/UAE money and advisers. At the time, the corporate media were predicting that the Syrian government would collapse within six weeks.

But after eight years of massively destructive war, this complex, U.S.-orchestrated effort to dismember Syria has failed.

U.S. advisers and contractors were embedded in numerous mercenary bands, which often fought each other. One by one all were pushed back by Syria’s determined resistance and by assistance, first from Hezbollah militias in Lebanon, then from Iranian advisers, then in 2015, by decisive Russian intervention with air cover.

This assistance was both solidarity and self-interest. Each of these very different political entities identified with Syria’s plight and knew a U.S. “success” in dismembering Syria would make them a target.

Syria’s Kurdish population

Before 2011, the Kurdish population in northern Syria had a form of autonomy, with schools and services in their own language. In 2011, when the U.S.-backed destabilization effort started, Kurdish nationalists set up their own armed People’s Protection Units – YPG.

In 2014, thousands of heavily armed ISIS terrorists swept into Syria, including northern Syria, with unprecedented brutality. The U.S. war strategists used ISIS terror as a convenient and cynical pretext to escalate military operations in Syria and to re-occupy Iraq. The Pentagon began openly bombing the whole region, destroying much of the developed infrastructure in Syria. At this time the Syrian government was fighting for its very survival in Aleppo and Damascus and was in no position to do more.

Washington offered the Kurds a military alliance and U.S. protection from both U.S. bombing and ISIS forces. The armed Kurdish YPG units entered into an alliance, maybe of convenience, maybe of survival, with U.S. imperialism.

Through the war years, the Syrian government, although it had no control over the Kurdish region of northeastern Syria, continued to pay salaries to health workers, teachers and all government officials throughout the country. This was a lifeline for the civilians in the whole region, even where they were under ISIS control.

The Kurdish forces in Syria, while in an alliance with the U.S., nevertheless made it a point to avoid attacking Syrian government forces. Their focus was on defeating ISIS forces.

Now, faced with an abrupt U.S. pullback and a Turkish onslaught, the Kurds have announced that they will seek a negotiated solution with the Syrian government. This seems to be already happening. It is a realistic choice.

Throughout these years of war, many social democrats, academics and anarchists in the imperialist countries have glorified and idealized the Kurdish capital of Rojava as a place of social revolution. Some have described Rojava as the most communist, communal, feminist society in the world. Unfortunately, these forces have counterposed uncritical support for the Syrian Kurds and the Kurdish city of Rojava to support for Syrian sovereignty against imperialist intervention.

Syrian government on unity

During eight years of brutal combat, Syria’s government avoided publicly attacking the Kurds. Groups supporting Syrian sovereignty should take a similar attitude. Syrian officials have also avoided attacking Sunni forces as a religious group or any of the other groups which were swept up into this war by the imperialists’ false promises.

Syria’s position has always been that any Syrian force that lays down arms and stops fighting the Syrian government will be granted amnesty and be welcomed back into Syria. President Assad says in every public statement that Syrians have to consider how to put Syria back together after the war ends.

In sharp contrast, the Syrian government position has always been that all the uninvited foreign-funded forces — including the U.S., NATO, Turkey, ISIS, and tens of thousands of foreign mercenaries operating under many names and funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE — must leave Syria.

Syria’s population of 22 million (5 million live abroad now as refugees) includes Arab, Kurdish, Assyrian, Armenian, Turkoman and Circassian nationalities as well as Sunni, Alawi, Shia, Druze, Yazidi, and Christian religious sects. There are also 1.5 million Palestinian and Iraqi refugees.

Syrian government spokespeople, diplomats and the mainstream Syrian media always assert that Syria is a secular and multi-ethnic, multinational, multireligious country and that the identity and culture of every group must be respected.

The Syrian government has again and again expressed its determination to resolve the problems among the whole mosaic of nationalities and religious groups within Syria, free of foreign interference.

U.S. plans in disarray

Today in Syria, U.S. plans are in complete disarray. Each of its many mercenary armies is defeated. Faced with a new reality on the ground, Turkey is now open to making other deals, possibly with Russia and Iran, which could destabilize NATO. This is why Pence rushed to visit Erdogan.

The Turkish ruling class fears having armed units of Kurds in Syria, because the Turkish army is waging a war against the far larger oppressed Kurdish population in Turkey.

The Kurds are an oppressed nation in Western Asia. Some 20 million people who identify as Kurds – the overwhelming majority of the Kurdish population in the Middle East – live in Turkey, where they are 25 percent of the population. They are denied the use of their own language in schools and services.

The Workers Party of Kurdistan (PKK) is waging a guerrilla struggle against Turkish domination.

There are 1.5 to 2 million Kurds in Syria, where they make up 30 percent of the population in their northeastern region. Even this region is truly a mosaic of different peoples, not only Kurds. There are also 5 to 8 million Kurds living in Iraq and in Iran.

U.S. imperialism has often maneuvered to use for its own interests the movement of Kurds for independence against the governments in the region. And it has just as often abandoned the Kurdish movement.

U.S. wars, invasion, bombing campaigns and sanctions in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen; U.S. sanctions and threats on Iran; U.S. military bases and arms sales to the Gulf monarchies or to Egyptian dictators; and its decades of support for the Zionist occupation of Palestine have destabilized and impoverished Western Asia and North Africa.

U.S. imperialism is an enemy of all human progress.

All those interested in peace, human solidarity and national sovereignty need to refocus the discussion on Syria and more strongly demand: U.S. out!

*

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

This article was originally published on Workers World.

Bangladesh’s Neo-Colonial Bondage to India Is at Risk of Breaking

October 24th, 2019 by Andrew Korybko

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bangladesh’s Neo-Colonial Bondage to India Is at Risk of Breaking

US Agitators in Asia “United” over Hong Kong Chaos

October 24th, 2019 by Joseph Thomas

Despite the chaos created across Hong Kong, the vast majority of the region’s inhabitants do not support the growing violence nor do they benefit from it in any way.

As is typical in other regions of the world the US is meddling, a lack of local support is often remedied by attempting to create links and synergies between various US meddling in different nations.

During the 2011 Arab Spring the US literally imported terrorists and weapons it used in the overthrow of the Libyan government to Syria in an attempt to oust the government there.

In Ukraine, the US and its Ukrainian allies recruited right-wing extremists from around the globe to fill the ranks of “volunteer” Neo-Nazi militias.

Now in Hong Kong, similar synergies and ties are surfacing.

US-Backed Thai Opposition Conspiring with Hong Kong Agitators 

A recent Reuters article titled, “China denounces Thai politicians for show of support to Hong Kong activists,” would report:

The Chinese embassy in Bangkok has condemned Thai politicians for showing support for Hong Kong activists involved in anti-government protests, saying it could harm the relationship between the two countries.

These “Thai politicians” belong to the US-backed opposition led by union-busting nepotist billionaire Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit and his patron, fugitive billionaire and ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra along with their collective political machine.

Reuters would report:

The [Chinese] embassy criticism, in a statement on its official Facebook page late on Thursday, came days after Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong posted a picture on social media with prominent Thai opposition politician Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.

Thanathorn and Wong met at the London-based Economist sponsored “Open Future Festival” held in Hong Kong, Reuters reported. The Open Future Festival and particularly the event held in Hong Kong focuses primarily on contesting China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong.

Reuters also noted that:

Thanathorn said he was not involved with the Hong Kong protests. He also said he respected Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, known as the Basic Law, and supported freedom of expression. 

“I have always supported people’s rights to peaceful self-expression. I wish to see the situation in Hong Kong resolve,” Thanathorn said in a Facebook post.

Thanathorn’s support for the Hong Kong opposition and their demands that the British-instituted “Basic Law” be upheld should come as no surprise.

Thanathorn himself along with is political party “Future Forward” have few well defined policies but those that are involve cancelling joint Thai-Chinese infrastructure projects including high-speed rail projects already under construction, as well as the cancellation of Thai-Chinese military arms deals and cooperation.

Thanathorn’s pro-Western stance is further reflected by the fact that his party hosts several “founding members” drawn from US government-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organisations including “Prachatai” which poses as an “independent media platform” despite being funded and directed out of Washington and being headed by a literal “fellow” of the Washington-based US National Endowment for Democracy, Chiranuch Premchaiporn.

Thanathorn’s pro-Western stance has been rewarded repeatedly through extensive and positive coverage across the Western media as well as political support offered directly by Western embassies in Bangkok. Thanathorn is often accompanied by Western diplomats when summoned by police for his various criminal charges.

Wong’s ties to the US-backed opposition in Thailand didn’t begin with meeting Thanathorn. As early as 2016 Wong attempted to travel to Bangkok to attend activities led by Netiwit Chotipatpaisal who is for all intents and purposes simply a “Thai version” of Wong.

Netiwit has admittedly visited Western embassies and works in tandem with US-funded fronts like “Thai Lawyers for Human Rights” and Thanathorn’s Future Forward Party in their collective efforts to destabilise Thailand politically, undermine the military and constitutional monarchy and roll back Thai-Chinese relations.

Netiwit has repeatedly protested in front of the Chinese Embassy in Bangkok on the anniversary of the Tiananmen unrest.

An article by above mentioned US government-funded media front Prachatai titled, “Student group gathers in front of Chinese Embassy in memory of Tiananmen massacre,” claims:

The student group, calling themselves “Humanity Without Borders”, was led by Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal and Sirin Mungcharoen, both students at Chulalongkorn University. The group placed white flowers in front of a printout of a tank, and observed a moment’s silence in memory of the dead.

While Netiwit is fond of protesting in front of the Chinese Embassy over events that transpired before he was even born, he regularly visits the embassies of the US and UK for dinner parties even as both nations currently and illegally occupy, bomb, drone and otherwise destroy multiple nations around the globe at the expense of tens of thousands of human lives.

Thanathorn, Wong and Netiwit represent the same corrosive form of synergistic foreign-sponsored opposition that has eaten its way through North Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. While they claim they are bound by their dedication to democracy and human rights, the true thread running through all of their movements and agendas is US political support and their troubling hypocrisy for accepting this support.

Thai Government Opposes Thai Opposition’s Meddling in Hong Kong 

Reuters notes that the current Thai government condemned the Thai opposition’s meddling in China’s affairs and considers the Hong Kong unrest an internal affair for Beijing alone to resolve.

In an attempt to undermine the credibility of the Thai government’s statement on Hong Kong, Reuters refers to the 2014 military coup in which the Thai military ousted what Reuters describes as an “elected government.” This is meant to paint the Thai government as a “dictatorship” and depict its recognition of and respect for China’s sovereignty as instead solidarity between it and the “authoritative regime” in Beijing.

Yet in reality the government removed from power in 2014 by the Thai military was openly run by Thaksin Shinawatra who resided abroad as a fugitive and ruled via his nepotist-appointed sister Yingluck Shinawatra. Before the Thai military intervened, the Shinawatras had robbed nearly a million rice farmers and were killing protesters in the streets, all facts repeatedly and intentionally omitted by media organisations like Reuters.

The Reuters article also tries to sidestep US involvement in Hong Kong’s unrest, depicting it instead as merely claims made by Beijing. Yet extensive documented facts and even admissions from US officials confirms the US has spent millions of dollars building up Hong Kong’s opposition and fuelling unrest there.

All About Isolating China 

It takes little effort to find the common denominator between the Thai and Hong Kong opposition and why they feel such affinity for one another. They are united by their US sponsorships and their collective agenda of undermining China’s rise upon the regional and global stage, an agenda originating in Washington itself.

Thanathorn of Thailand’s “Future Forward Party” has specific policies focused on rolling back deepening Thai-Chinese relations while Thai “student activists” like Netiwit openly and regularly protest against China in between dinner dates at the US and UK embassy.

Wong’s efforts to destabilise Hong Kong is a much more obvious and direct effort to target Beijing, its sovereignty over its own territory and its image globally.

Together this army of regional agitators openly cooperates in advancing what is essentially an extraterritorial agenda originating thousands of miles away in Washington. While these opposition figures claim they are dedicated to “democracy,” they seem to forget that democracy is a process of self-determination, not a process of having one’s agenda determined for you in a foreign capital.

While these opposition figures claim to be dedicated to “human rights,” bemoaning claimed offenses carried out by the Chinese government, they click wine glasses at embassy events together with representatives of the worst human rights offenders of the 21st century. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and current US-British support for Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen come immediately to mind.

China may be the target today but Thailand’s government must ensure that the contagion of US-fuelled unrest doesn’t backwash into Thailand itself. Figures like Thanathorn have repeatedly alluded to aspirations of creating chaos similar to that consuming Hong Kong within Thailand. His political allies led by Thaksin Shinawatra have already twice attempted to burn down Bangkok (2009 and 2010) and have killed over 100 people in politically-motivated violence and acts of terrorism from 2006 onward.

Whether we believe or not Thanathorn, Wong and Netiwit truly stand for the principles they claim to represent, one thing is absolutely certain; their counterparts in North Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe who have led Western-backed “pro-democracy struggles” have left a trail of destruction, failed states, war, economic collapse and persistent instability negatively impacting the lives of millions. There is no “success story” for Thanathorn, Wong or Netiwit to cite when advocating others to join their cause across Asia.

China regaining control over Hong Kong will be key to ensuring wider regional stability. Chinese allies like Thailand reining in domestic agitators trying to fuel or support Hong Kong’s unrest will be key to not only restoring stability inside China, but key to preventing the same unrest plaguing Hong Kong from spreading outward to nations like Thailand.

*

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

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

El Salvador: War and Revolution

October 24th, 2019 by Hugo Turner

One of the more horrifying chapters in the history of American imperialism took place in the tiny nation of El Salvador in the 1980’s. At least 75,000 civilians were killed in order to stop a revolution in an impoverished country. They died in massacres, were bombed with napalm, tortured, raped, assassinated and disappeared. They died to preserve a system where one in four babies died before age two from malnutrition or lack of access to medical care. In the 1983 only 6% of the population earned more than $240 a month while satisfying basic needs would have cost $344 dollars a month. A nation of peasants who lived in dire poverty even those with tiny plots of land struggled to survive by growing crops for food. 40% of the population were landless peasants starving while trying to survive as seasonal laborers. Amid so much horror and bloodshed no one even counted all the deaths from poverty and misery. This is the “Freedom” America fought to maintain during the cold war the freedom for a few to get rich off the misery of millions. In El Salvador they were called Oligarchy or  the 14 families although by the 1980’s there were between 40 or 200 rich families. They owned most of the land and ran the banks because their ancestors had stolen all the Indians lands and then founded banks in the 18th and 19th Centuries. They had created an army and police to enforce this unequal order.

The oligarchy, the army, and the Church had traditionally controlled El Salvador, but by the late 1970’s the Oligarchy and the Army had declared war on the Church and the United States was now the third part of the triad. The seeds of the horrors of the 1980’s had been planted in the early 1960’s when special forces some rotating from Vietnam arrived to teach counter-insurgency and the advantages of death squads. CIA agents under USAID cover arrived to train police intelligence units and equip them with computers to make lists of subversives.  By the 1970’s 200 people a year would be murdered union leaders, peasant organizers, teachers, protestors. Yet the masses were increasingly organized and radicalized and as fears of revolution spread the murders began to skyrocket.

The Carter Administration had a contradictory policy on El Salvador. Some in the State department wanted El Salvador to rein in the killing. However they were over ruled (or betrayed their own principles) by ruthless officials like Zbigniew Brzezinski who favored continuing to support brutal dictators to preserve capitalism. With the election of President Reagan contradiction was replaced with ever escalating full-scale support and an escalating bloodbath. Amazingly despite the flood of weapons and advisers coming from the US the revolutionaries of the FMLN managed to fight the massive killing machine to a stalemate. One day after the fall of the Berlin Wall the FMLN Guerrillas launched a massive offensive which the CIA believed was impossible capturing sections of the capital San Salvador. The new President Bush with other conquests in mind (The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Central and Eastern Europe, Panama and Iraq) finally decided to push for a negotiated settlement. The war would end with the left-wing opposition finally able to participate in politics without fear of their lives. Of course the war did not truly end but changed shape into a war on drugs a gang war as the fascist ARENA party ruled the country for 20 years. In 2009 the FMLN would win the elections. Eventually destabilized by tactics similar to what happened in Brazil (a corruption investigation aimed at discrediting the left) they lost elections earlier this year and El Salvador is now once more ruled by a US puppet President Nayib Bukele (image below). The war for Latin America continues a war of liberation from capitalism and imperialism.

Nayib Bukele - 2019 (48342383356) (cropped).jpg

The war in El Salvador had its roots in the 18th and 19th century. Of course before that there were the horrors of the Spanish conquest and the system of forced labor in the colonial era. El Salvador was part of the governate of Guatemala in this period. However in the later phase of Spanish  colonialism the Indians were allowed to live on their communal lands and were ruled through local native rulers as long as they produced their quota of tribute. After independence El Salvador’s liberals decided to change all that they wanted to create huge plantations of cash crops namely coffee and this also required a huge influx of laborers. By destroying the communal land system and privatizing the country they would be able to steal the land they needed. By dispossessing the Indians they would also force them to work for the coffee plantations since they could no longer grow their own food. In 1846 the state coffee plantations were privatized and in 1881 communal lands were abolished. They also passed laws that basically forced Indians to work for the rich landowners.

They created an army and a rural police force to control the countryside with an iron fist. French advisers helped them create a modern army. The whole state was created to enslave and dispossess the majority of it’s own people. Of course in the United States the Army had formed to carry out genocide and steal Indian land while the police had their origins in slave patrols to hunt runaway slaves. Out of the theft and enslavement of El Salvador were born the 14 families who became fantastically wealthy from the plunder. Naturally they viewed their countrymen and women as subhuman brutes who needed to be kept in line. The Indians revolted again and again with 5 major revolts during the 19th century but they were always spontaneous and localized and so easily crushed. The army and police kept the countryside under a constant state of martial law anyone who dared to resist risked murder or imprisonment and the rich landowners treated their employees like slaves.

Jumping forward to El Salvador in the 1930’s another pivotal moment in it’s history.  The last truly free election (possibly until 2009) was in 1931 and President Arturo Araujo was elected he was a mild reformer who allowed labor organizing in the city but not the countryside. The year before in 1930 the revolutionary Agustin Farabundo Marti had returned from an eventful exile. In the United States he had been active in the Anti-Imperialist league before being forced to flee by the New York Police, in Nicaragua he had fought with the revolutionary General Sandino against the US marines waging brutal war on the country that saw the first use of dive bombers. Farabundo Marti had founded the Central American Socialist party and Red Aid. Between 1930-1932 Marti and his comrades would organize the workers and peasants of El Salvador  Marti would be arrested and released a few times. Even the American military attache Major Harris felt the country was ripe for revolution. However the revolutionary forces were still in their infancy.

Hernandez Martinez.jpg

Unfortunately in a pattern that would repeat many times even mild talk of reform proved too much for the oligarchy who began to plot a coup with the military. General Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez (image on the left) seized power early  in 1932. He was nicknamed El Brujo because of his obsession with the occult and was infamous for saying

“It is a greater crime to kill an ant than a man, for when a man dies he becomes reincarnated while an ant dies forever.”

He also claimed

“It is good that children go barefoot. That way they can better receive the beneficial effuvia of the planet, the vibrations of the earth. Plants and animals don’t use shoes”

Despite his strange beliefs he was a ruthless and devious dictator modeling his country on Fascist  Spain, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. In those days El Salvador had no need of American advisers or weapons it relied on the fascist powers to train it’s army and police and to supply weapons paid for with the profit from supplying coffee to the axis. Six weeks after General Martinez coup the peasants rose in an uprising demanding higher wages. Although 100 land owners and their private guards were killed it was relatively bloodless. Although the communists welcomed the uprising and joined it they were not truly responsible. Nonetheless the fascist General Martinez launched and anti-communist red scare and a bloodbath in the countryside.

Farabundo Marti was among the 32,000 victims of what is known as the Matanza which means massacre in Spanish. Some were killed for being blond and thus apparently suspected Russians. The vast majority of the people killed as part of a genocide against the Indians. Anyone wearing Indian dress or speaking an Indian language was killed and after 1932 Indian culture was largely wiped out people were so traumatized they abandoned their distinctive clothes and no longer dared to speak to children in their native language. Farabundo Marti would go on to inspire the revolutionaries of the 1970s and 80’s. General Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez would have a death squad named after him and his Matanza would be used as a model for the dirty war of the 70’s and 80’s.

At the same time he was crushing the peasants General Martinez also had to put down an uprising in the army. They had risen up in protest of his coup and since many were poor peasant conscripts they refused to massacre peasants. General Martinez was able to crush them but although a military man he never trusted the army. Instead he relied on what would later be known as the Security Forces the Police and the National Guard. Ironically the National Guard had been meant as a reform to replace the Army role in the countryside back in 1912. It was quickly transformed into a military/police hybrid charged with terrorizing the countryside more reliable than the army because better paid. He also relied heavily on the police to arrest and kill subversives. He created  fascist paramilitary groups recruited from the rich and modeled on the black shirts the Pro Patria the National Patriotic League and the Liga Roja. During the Matanza he  created Civic Guards which acted as death squads of the rich who hunted the poor for sport. Hunting peasants for sport remained a popular pass time in El Salvador well into the 1970’s.  Those who could afford the membership fees to join the leagues received certificates that put them above the law. Martinez would rule until 1944 when his crushing of a military uprising and execution of it’s leaders who were officers enraged the public and the military the US pressured him into resigning. His successor General Menendez a reformer who promised free elections, and allowed unions to expand, but also authorized the massacre of protestors.  He lasted only 5 months before being overthrown by Martinez’s former chief of the National Police during the Matanza Colonel Osmin Aguirre y Salinas. For the next decades the oligarchs and the military maintained power through fixed elections and the occasional coup. The presidency was handed off from one military man to his hand-picked successor. The people continued to live in poverty and fear.

It was after the fall of Martinez and the end of World War 2 that US influence began to grow in El Salvador and the rest of Latin America. The “Cold War” had begun or rather as the bloody examples of Greece, Korea, Vietnam, El Salvador and many other countries demonstrate calling it World War 3 is more accurate. Through a series of bilateral and multilateral agreements the United States gained increasing control over Latin American militaries. The mutual defense pacts the US signed in Latin America became the model for NATO. As for the new American trained militaries through a long chain of coups they would eventually transform most of Latin America into fascist police states. The most infamous example being the Operation Condor countries of the 1970’s and 1980’s countries like Brazil, Chile, Parguay, and Argentina. Militaries were reorganized to focus on combatting internal subversion rather than national defense. Police were trained to hunt political subversives instead of combatting traditional crime. As we have seen El Salvador was already run along these lines so all America needed to do was provide weapons and training. There was no need to launch coups to overthrow reformers as in Guatemala, no socialist government to be destroyed as in Chile.

In 1960 the example of the Cuban revolution inspired a mass movement to overthrow the latest military installed President Colonel Jose Maria Lemus. By October 26 1960 he was forced to resign replaced briefly by a reformist junta which released political prisoners. The US now obsessed with combatting anyone in Latin America that might be sympathetic to Cuba refused to recognize the new government and a countercoup soon toppled it. Colonel Julio Adalberto Rivera seized power and stole the 1961 elections. The failure of the Bay of Pigs and the escalating war in Vietnam lead the JFK administration to an obsession with counter-insurgency that would have dire consequences for El Salvador, Latin America, and the world. There is a complex backstory discussed in Fletcher Prouty’s “The Secret Team”. In attempting to transfer responsibility for covert operations from the CIA to the military JFK was naively relying on sectors of the military that retained close ties to the CIA like counter-insurgency theorist General Maxwell Taylor or the special forces. The tentacles of the CIA were already inescapable. Whatever the motivations the results were disastrous a massive expansion of Special Forces, restructuring the entire military and National security state to fight Counter-insurgency wars and the creation of AID (replacing the ICA) and it’s branch the Office of Public Safety headed by Byron Engle.  The Office of Public Safety (OPS) would train police worldwide in torture assassination and even terrorism. Decades of mass murder, torture, terrorism, assassinations and coups would follow. Of course such tactics had been a part of US strategy since the beginning of the cold war in places like Greece where fascist death squads terrorized the populace to South Korea and South Vietnam where the military, police and death squads carried out torture and mass murder. In fact they had their roots much earlier in the Philippines at the turn of the century and the military men who carried out that bloodbath had learned their trade by carrying out genocide against American Indians. Thus what took place in the early 60’s during the JFK administration was merely a further institutionalization of this long obsession with counter insurgency warfare.

In Latin America this brutal new reality would be disguised behind the facade of the Alliance for Progress. The Alliance for Progress falsely promised to bring prosperity to Latin America through reform and economic aid to spark development. In reality it was merely a PR stunt to compete with the appeal of Castro’s Cuba. The promised prosperity never arrived. Although the US did pour hundreds of millions in economic aid it did nothing to improve the lives of ordinary people. the money ended up in the hands of corrupt politicians or American corporations. In El Salvador which received the most money as it was intended as a poster child 15 years later the people were actually worse off the wages had declined and the number of landless peasants had tripled. The hidden more effective side of the Alliance for Progress was the determination to train the military and the police to crush any potential revolutions. After JFK was assassinated any pretense of  reform or development aid was abandoned along with the whole Alliance for Progress campaign. The military and police training however would continue.

In El Salvador in the early 1960’s the already brutal police and military were trained to be even more brutal and efficient. A team of special forces advisers many fresh from tours in Vietnam arrived to train the military in the need to create Counter-Guerrilla’s a euphemism for death squads and terrorists. At this time there were no Guerrillas in El Salvador and no civil war. After the fall of General Martinez the military had abolished his fascist paramilitaries. Now the Americans had arrived to advise El Salvador on the need to recreate them. In Colombia in 1962 Special Forces under General William Yarborough also arrived to teach the virtues of death squads and his advice ended up in the public record. He advised the creation of “Civil and Military structures” to “as Necessary execute paramilitary, sabotage and or terrorist activities against known Communist proponents.” General Yarborough unleashed a bloodbath in Colombia that has continued to our own day. In El Salvador things were more secretive but the results were the same the creation of death squads. The main reason for their creation was plausible denial allowing the government to blame death squads for their own crimes. In El Salvador the police and military didn’t even bother to remove their uniforms when kidnapping and killing their victims but their crimes were blamed on shadowy death squads anyways. Plausible denial would extend all the way to Washington and the American media by the 1980’s although the people of El Salvador were not fooled. While pretending it wanted to rein in the death squads America was actually running everything behind the scenes via the CIA, MAP (Military Assistance Program) MTTs ( Military Training Teams the Special Forces advisers)  MILGP (US Military Group), and USAID.

Initially in El Salvador the counter-organization created called ORDEN was used primarily to spy on subversives and compile lists and intimidate voters into voting for PCN the militaries party of choice. It’s members were strongly indoctrinated along fascist lines. It was in the 1970’s that it began to carry out torture kidnapping and assassinations that would escalate throughout the decade. ORDEN was created by the one of the key CIA assets in El Salvador General Jose Alberto “Chele” Medrano in addition to heading ORDEN he was also the head of the brutal  National Guard. In addition to Special Forces teaching Counterinsurgency and the need for Counter-Guerrillas, Counter-Terror, and Counter-Organization the other key element in US strategy was the need to create a massive centralized intelligence apparatus linking the police, military, and ORDEN to a centralized communications apparatus and a computer network to compile lists of subversive’s that would later be used to supply death lists to military police and paramilitary death squads. The CIA and it’s front AID and it’s branch the Office of Public Safety (OPS) were used to construct this network. Although brutal and efficient the police had been using telegraphs now they would have state of the art technology to wage their war on the people of El Salvador. Operating under OPS cover the CIA created a special investigations division in every branch of the police. They were all networked together with SNI later renamed ANSESAL a sort of hybrid of the CIA and NSA based in the presidential palace. Linked with military intelligence, the police intelligence and ORDEN ANSESAL was the center of the counter-insurgency war and the brainchild of the CIA.

El Salvador’s already brutal police which massacred even common criminals were taught to be even more brutal by OPS advisers. The National Police, The Treasury Police, and the Immigration Police would all become notorious for their war crimes. The CIA also created a special investigations unit of the National Guard. Traditionally the military had preferred to let the police and National Guard handle repression. Thanks to US special forces advisers they learned that they too must take an active role which would massively increase the bodycount during the Reagan era. By 1972 the entire security apparatus was complete centralized trained and indoctrinated to carry out the dirty war. El Salvador and other Central American countries were also networked together as part of CONDECA (the Central American version of Condor) with the Americans who were based in Panama. Panama was also where the infamous School of the Americas was based training the El Salvadoran military and the rest of Latin America to carry out torture, assassination and coups.  In turn Central America was only one of the regions covered by the US Military Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) run out of Panama and later Miami, Florida.

In El Salvador by 1972 largely ignored in the rest of the world peasants were being “disappeared” kidnapped tortured and killed their mutilated corpses left out as a warning to others. In addition to the perfection of the apparatus of oppression the 1960’s saw history repeat itself as El Salvador’s oligarchs decided to start growing cotton as a cash crop along the coast those peasants who had been lucky enough to avoid losing their land to the coffee barons in the last century now lost their lands to the new Cotton plantations and the number of landless peasants skyrocketed from 12% to 40% fueling the revolutionary unrest of the 1970’s. A key safety valve to unrest in El Salvador was nearby Honduras which was comparatively much less densely populated. El Salvadoran peasants crossed the border to squat on lands or seek work. In 1969 the Honduran President decided to whip up a wave of anti-immigrant hysteria against these Salvadoran refugees leading to the “Soccer War” after Salvadoran refugees were murdered in riots and thousands were rounded up and deported. El Salvador won the war it’s invasion force was close to capturing the Honduran capital but Honduras barred any more Salvadoran immigrants from entering the country.

1972 was a key year in El Salvador the opposition had united and finally grown strong enough to win an election. The Christian democrats the socialists and even the communist tied parties were united into UNO. However Colonel Molina  stole the election provoking a failed coup in favor of UNO that was crushed. UNO presidential candidate Napoleon Duarte was severely beaten. This provoked a wave of disillusionment with any hope for changing El Salvador by democratic means. By 1973 two revolutionary Guerrilla groups had been formed the FPL and the ERP and more were to follow. The FPL modeled it’s strategy on Vietnam’s Prolonged Peoples’ War (PPW). The ERP drew inspiration from the Cuban (and later Nicaraguan) model of hoping to spark an insurrection via a major offensive. Both groups carried out small attacks on the National Guard, bombed American corporations offices and assassinated war criminals.

In the countryside liberation theology was spreading. It’s origins were steeped in irony in 1968 Pope Paul VI one of the more corrupt and fascist popes spoke in Medellin Colombia later notorious as the home of an infamous CIA supported drug cartel. His message that catholics should work towards social justice unleashed a wave of liberation theology. Since his sinister history was largely unknown he inspired a new generation of idealistic clergy to try to improve the lives of the poor by organizing them as lay believers. In El Salvador Colonel Molina had announced that he would back land reform and the El Salvadoran church became involved in organizing the peasants. Molina angered the Oligarchs who set up ANEP and other right-wing lobby groups to oppose any land reform and so Molina quickly canceled any land reform. The church’s efforts to work for land reform had suddenly become extremely dangerous.

Carlos Humberto Romero.jpg

In 1976 President Molina was replaced by President Carlos Humberto Romero (image on the right) installed by the coffee barons. General Romero had studied Counterinsurgency at the School of The Americas worked in CONDECA and had been involved in expanding the role of ORDEN under Molina and was a key link between the MILGP and the public safety advisers. Under Romero there were ten times as many assassinations  and disappearances doubled. Under Molina around 200 political murders a year took place. Under Romero the numbers would double than triple. In 1977 General Romero issued the Law of Order which made it a crime to organize or criticize the government amounting to a license to kill. Yet the increasing repression only seemed to fuel the revolution during the 1970’s. Teachers, Unions, Students peasants took to the streets in protest risking their lives. In 1975 dozens of students were massacred when the army machine-gunned protestors of a Miss Universe pageant there were 2,000 protestors. The next day 30,000 took to the streets. In the countryside the peasants were organized and demanding their rights inspired by liberation theology and radical school teachers. As the repression increased many were forced to join the guerrillas out of self-preservation once their names were on the death list the only way to stay safe was to take up arms in self-defense. Others joined to avenge their fallen family members, friends or lovers. Many more joined the popular organizations to demand an end to the killing, higher wages, land, free elections, and the right to organize without being killed.

1979 had been the bloodiest year since the Matanza and the country seemed on the verge of revolution. In nearby Nicaragua Somoza had fallen to the Sandinista revolution in July alarming the US, the Salvadoran Military, and the Oligarchy. President Carter was in the White House and had promised to clean up America’s human rights record. His actual record in El Salvador would prove different. At the State department he put former civil rights activist Patricia Derian in charge of the new human rights division she was determined to force El Salvador to reform. She was always over ruled by the State Department Inter-American affairs division under Terrence A Todman which had long worked to turn all of Latin America into a mirror of El Salvador. However even the hint that it’s human  rights record might be examined caused General Romero to renounce military aid. It was a meaningless gesture as the American military mission remained to advise and supervise the ever escalating dirty war. Israel stepped in to take the US place as the main sponsor sending planes guns tanks and 100-200 advisers that would remain in the country throughout the 1980’s. Israeli military advisers operated under the cover of an agricultural assistance program.  However the fall of Somoza inspired the US to back a reformist coup to overthrow General Romero in the hopes of staving off a revolution.

It took place on October 15 1979 and would prove disastrous. It was led by the well-intentioned Colonel Majano and a clique of young officers who wanted land reform and to try war criminals. However to succeed they allied with right-wing military figures on the CIA payroll like Colonel Jose Guillermo Garcia and Col Jamie Abdul Guttierez. The third faction was the civilian opposition that weren’t yet allied with the Guerillas. Opposed to the new regime while secretly allied to the right-wing military were and also on CIA payroll was Major Roberto D’Aubusson who would go on to found ARENA a fascist party inspired by the Nazis, Taiwanese political warfare, Guatemala’s MLN and modeled on the GOP. He was one of ORDEN founder Medrano’s proteges and would use his World Anti-Communist league membership to forge close ties with the American new right. He had trained at School of the Americas, Office of Public Safety’s International Police Academy in Washington DC,  Taiwan’s Political Warfare Academy, he received additional training from the Israeli’s and was a close ally of the “Godfather of the Death Squads” Mario Sandoval Alarcon in Guatemala.

The reformist coup was doomed from the start Colonel Garcia was appointed minister of defense, and instead of halting the repression it began to skyrocket yet again. More people would die in the first month of the coup then in the rest of 1979 combined. The Carter Administration used the coup as an excuse to restore military aid first under the cover of non-lethal aid. It sent Ambassador Robert White to work with the new junta. The civilian opposition demanded an end to the mass murder and civilian control of the military. Minister of Defense Garcia informed them the military would remain in charge on December 26 and on January 3-5 most of the civilians resigned in protest. The former agriculture minister would be brutally murdered while others decided to join the guerrillas or their political wing FDR.

Archbishop Romero had praised the civilians for resigning in protest. For most of his career he had been a conservative who played it safe leading Rome to appoint him to head El Salvador’s church. However he had become increasing radicalized by the militaries repression of the church. His friend the priest Rutilio Grande and another priest were murdered 3 weeks after Romero became Archbishop as was the first priest he had ever ordained. A month after Grande was killed the military attacked the area he had operating in massacring 50 peasants. The only newspapers in the country were right-wing supporters of the government the others had been bombed, their journalists murdered or forced into exile. Romero was the only public voice allowed to criticize the government beloved by the poor of El Salvador and increasing respected worldwide. He had written to Washington begging them not to send military aid and urging them to negotiate peace. He created a legal aid office so that family members of the killed and disappeared could demand justice. The churches legal aid office soon became the key source documenting the ongoing massacre in El Salvador. The military launched it’s own PR campaign with the slogan “be a patriot kill a priest.” because of the churches role organizing peasants and documenting war crimes. On March 4 1980 Romero would be the 11th clergyman murdered by a sniper while giving a memorial mass he became an international martyr. A  When tens of thousands gathered to mourn his death the military opened fire on the crowd with machine guns another of the countless massacres that took place in the capital of San Salvador.  Both catholic and protestant churches in the US would become deeply involved in peace and solidarity work in El Salvador.

Two months after the assassination of Archbishop Romero Colonel Majano arrested D’Aubuisson on May 7 1980 who was busy plotting a coup. D’Aubuisson had been circulating video tapes to military bases branding the government communists and now sought to seize power. When he was arrested along with his co-conspirators documents were seized proving he was behind the assassination of Archbishop Romero. However the arrest ended the career not of D’Aubuisson but of Colonel Majano who lost all real authority although publicly he remained part of the junta until December to please Ambassador Robert White. D’Aubuisson was released in a matter of weeks as the military and Defense Minister Garcia sided with him against Majano. The CIA had been busy buying off all the younger officers and the military made sure they were purged or began to participate in the massacres. For example the next month on June 26 1980 soldiers stormed the National University and killed 50 people.

Jose Napoleon Duarte.png

As Majano’s power waned Christian Democrat Napoleon Duarte (image on the left) had been brought in to provide a facade of civilian participation he had joined the junta in March 1980 and was appointed president in December 14 1980. He would cover up military war crimes and obediently obey the demands of his american advisers. He would lose the Presidency in the 1982 elections when D’Aubuisson’s ARENA party won control of the constituent assembly and Alvaro Magana became president to avoid the PR disaster of a President D’Aubuisson a man former ambassador Robert White called a pathological killer but who was backed by Senator Jesse Helms and a network of new right lobby groups with links to fascists and the CIA like the American Security Council and the Committee on the Present Danger. D’Aubuisson had hired the powerful McCann-Erickson PR firm. The CIA would flood the country with money to insure Napoleon Duarte’s 1984 election victory. The US had Duarte institute disastrous neo-liberal reforms while the military began to escalate the killing in the cities again in 1987-88. The Christian democrats were discredited as corrupt and ineffectual clearing the way for and ARENA victory in 1989 and the election of president Alfredo Cristiani with help from President George H. W. Bush’s PR man Roger Ailes. The elections were largely a PR exercise for the American media in 1982 and 1984 voting was mandatory and failure to vote could get you killed all parties to the left of the Christian democrats were banned and their leaders on death lists. Freeedom of speech and assembly were nonexistent. In 1989 ARENA won by getting rid of mandatory voting relying instead on voter suppression with the poor or internally displaced unable to register , voter intimidation with clear ballot boxes allowing ARENA poll watchers who were often death squad cadres to terrify voters into voting for them. ARENA  also had a well-funded party machine to get out the vote.

On November 4, 1980 Reagan was elected President an event greeted with joy by the oligarchs and the military who celebrated by getting drunk and firing their weapons. Reagan had criticized Carter for being too soft in Central America. Even before the election the Reagan team had promised Guatemala and El Salvador that they would be free to pursue their dirty wars with full US support. Thus his election was a green light to the military in El Salvador to further escalate the dirty war which was already bloodier then ever that year. The first American killed in El Salvador had been back in 1976 a black american Ronald J. Richardson had been arrested and disappeared. The American ambassador at the time was Ignazio Lozano jr had demanded answers. Ironically Carter would replace him with Frank Devine which was seen as a green light to El Salvador’s military to act with impunity. Carter’s reputation for softness had more to do with the rage that ensued when he failed to re-appoint George H. W. Bush to head the CIA then his actual policies like provoking the war in Afghanistan. The new CIA director Stansfield Turner purged some of the more notorious CIA operatives and they launched a PR campaign to destroy Carter in revenge. Between 1946 and 1979 El Salvador had received only 16.7 million dollars in Military aid from the US. In his final year in office Carter would send 10 million in military aid 5 million just before Reagan was inaugurated thanks to Zbiegniew Brzezinski.  Carter had also approved a huge San Lorenzo Dam loan at a time when General Romero was escalating the repression. Ambassador White embodied these contradictions he supported reform and opposed D’Aubusson and ARENA who plotted to kill him. He also opposed the Guerrillas however and in the end signed off on the last-minute military aid despite the wave of high-profile murders that were to follow Reagan’s elections .In other Carter’s concern for human rights was mostly rhetorical in practice the machinery of empire functioned the same old way.

All the same the Salvadoran military decided to use the time between Reagan’s election and inauguration to conduct a shocking wave of killings in which even american’s were targeted. On November 26 1980 they tortured and killed Enrique Alvarez 4 other FDR leaders and a sixth victim eliminating the political wing of the opposition and making any negotiated settlement impossible. Their killings received little international attention. On December 4 1980 the bodies of four american  nuns and lay workers Maura Clarke, Jean Donovan, Ita Ford and Dorothy Kazel were found. Some had been raped and all had been executed after being stopped at a roadblock on the way back from the airport. They were killed for doing charity work in an area that was believed to be sympathetic to the Guerillas. One of them was a personal friend of Ambassador White and the next day aid to El Salvador was suspended. The Carter Administration waited weeks to make a statement and even tried to charge one family thousands of dollars to bring the body of a murdered nun back.

The Reagan administration would top him when Jeane Kirkpatrick who had met with El Salvadoran business leaders promising unlimited military aid days before the murders called the nuns FMLN activists to justify the killing.  Secretary of State Al Haig called them “pistol packing nuns” and claimed they were killed running a roadblock a blatant lie as they were shot execution style at point-blank range. On January 4 1980 more Americans would die this time employees of the CIA/USAID front the AIFLD. The American Institute of Free Labor Development had trained 300,000 union members to wage an anti-communist pro corporate attempt to take over latin american unions and was used to overthrow Goulart in Brazil and Allende in Chile. However even controlled opposition was too much for the El Salvadoran fascists and 2 AIFLD advisers Michael Hammer and Mark Pearlman were gunned down while dining with the head of El Salvador’s land reform Jose Rodolfo Viera who was also killed and was the main target. Hammer was probably CIA and not just working for a CIA front. Many Salvadorans were also killed for joining the AIFLD created union UTC.  In both the AIFLD and the nun murders it was quickly revealed that the murders were ordered by high-ranking Salvadoran military officials their names public knowledge yet throughout the 80’s they would be promoted instead of punished while the Reagan administration pretended that El Salvador was making progress on their cases. As for the murder of El Salvadorans no one was ever charged the military punished drunkenness or lateness mass murder was rewarded. To give one example 90 primary school teachers were killed between January and October 1980. On January 16, 1981 Carter sent 5 million in military assistance despite the dead Americans.  On January 20 1981 Reagan was Inaugurated, On February 1 1981 Ambassador Robert White was fired replaced by Ambassador Deane Hinton who would cultivate a father son relationship with D’Aubuisson. On March 2 1981 Reagan would ask for 25 million in military assistance. Eventually Reagan would pour 6 billion dollars into funding the slaughter in El Salvador and would increase the size of El Salvador’s military from 5,000 to 50,000. Reagan hoped a quick victory in El Salvador would dispel the “Vietnam Syndrome” instead it proved a costly stalemate. In spite of all these weapons and advisers the FMLN would fight on.

During the escalating violence El Salvador’s Guerrilla factions had been united first as the DRU and then as the FMLN thanks to the efforts of Fidel Castro who personally negotiated their merger. As Reagan’s inauguration neared they launched a massive “final offensive” that they hoped might spark a revolution. They failed in that goal but it helped give the Guerrillas valuable combat experience. In 1982 they would launch a daring attack on Ilpongo airbase (later infamous for it’s role as a drugs and weapons smuggling site during Iran/Contra) they managed to severely damage most of El Salvador’s air force. Unfortunately the US simply used this as an opportunity to double the size of the El Salvadoran air force. Despite the flood of weapons for the Salvadoran military the Guerrillas would steadily gain strength in the first half of the war from 1980-1984. Other major victories would be the assault and capture of the supposedly impregnable base at El Paraiso on December 30 1983 and the destruction of the Cuscatlan bridge on January 1 1984. The FMLN controlled between a third and a fifth of the country setting up their own local  government’s in the areas they controlled. Unfortunately these victories would force the military to rely increasingly on airpower to carpet bomb the countryside and the second stalemate phase of the war would last from 1984-1989 with helicopters machine gunning villages and American bombers bombing the countryside. In addition to Air Power US advisers created new forces called PRAL small mobile units that ambushed and terrorized the FMLN in Guerrilla held territory. Since most reporters stayed in the cities this bloodbath received a lot less international attention then the wave of death squad killings in the cities during the 1st half of the war. The FMLN countered this by rebuilding their network of supporters in the cities which had been decimated.

While the Guerrillas were gaining in strength in 1980-1984 the United States was busy with it’s own strategy which involved the creation of rapid response battalions the most infamous being the Atacatl Battallion. They were used to conduct vast search and destroy sweeps meant to clear whole areas believed to be sympathetic to the Guerrillas in 1981-82 they conducted a massive sweep of the Morazan department massacring village after village and forcing the survivors to flee as refugees. This would result in the El Mozote massacre when 1000 men women and children were murdered and journalist Raymond Bonner of the New York Times managed to expose it at the cost of his career. After a brief period as an assistant to Jeane Kirkpatrick at the UN Elliot Abrams had been put in charge of Human Rights at the State Department. Under Reagan all pretense of objectivity had been abandoned and Elliot Abrams job was to cover up the crimes of allies like El Salvador while loudly exaggerating the minor offenses of enemies like Nicaragua. He and the head of the Latin American Division Thomas Enders tried to cover up the El Mozote massacre. Ambassador Dean Hinton worked with Reed Irvine of Accuracy In Media (founded to attack journalists who dared to expose the crimes of the empire) to discredit Raymond Bonner. This in turn was part of a the massive Reagan era “Public Diplomacy” program where CIA veterans worked with PR firms to sell empire to the american public through “Perception Management” in the process destroying investigative journalism. Ironically the El Mozote massacre like the Mai Lai massacre was one of hundreds. Whole areas of the country were targeted by search and destroy sweeps and an American anthropologist would witness the aftermath of the Morazan “sweep” of which El Mozote was merely one episode when he spent weeks fleeing with hundreds of refugees who were repeatedly bombed and strafed week after week as they tried to flee.

The border with Honduras became a killing field as refugees were targeted by both the Honduran and El Salvadoran military. Honduras had become a base for both the dirty wars on El Salvador and Nicaragua. Over 100 special forces advisers operated there to get around limits on the number of advisers allowed in El Salvador. Ambassador Negroponte ruled there as a sort of proconsul as Honduras began to expand it’s own death squad Battalion 316. His work covering for  death squads would later get him appointed Ambassador to Iraq during the occupation while the former head military adviser in El Salvador Colonel James Steele would arrive to set up death squads for the “Salvador Option.” Elliot Abrams would also return to power during the war in Iraq.

The war in El Salvador was planned on the model of Vietnam and would then serve as a model for Iraq. All the major elements of the Phoenix program had been replicated in El Salvador in the 1960’s and 70’s centralized cooperation between the police and military linked by a computer network that would be the model for the internet. By the 1980’s they were openly bragging about the connection and claiming Phoenix aka CORDS would be the blueprint for victory. Counterinsurgency theory was back in vogue also known in the 1980’s as IDAD Internal Defense and Development. They even brought back the architect of Vietnam’s land Reform Ray Posterman of USAID to create the El Salvadoran land reform program although predictably it was never fully implemented. The Vietnam parallels were quite open with El Salvador and it’s CIA and Special forces advisers launching Operation Phoenix. And the Phoenix Programs cover program of CORDS (Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development) was used as the model for El Salvador’s counterinsurgency strategy the NCP (National Campaign Plan) and promoted openly in the press as the key to winning the war. The strategy was clear, (send in the military to conduct bloody sweeps) Hold (Set up Civil Defense militias to keep the populace in line) Build (engage in public works for PR in practice the military preferred to embezzle the money). El Salvador would then be used as the template for the War in Iraq although this was absurd because El Salvador was only “a success” from the ruthless imperial perspective because it allowed the empire to wage a bloody war via a local proxy with minimal loss of american life because their were only a hundred US military advisers and a similar number of CIA men in the country.

In 1989 the war would enter it’s third and final phase. George H. W. Bush was the new President in the US and he had helped ARENA (the party of the death squads and oligarchs) to win the March 1989 elections. He had ignored the chance to peacefully end the war in exchange for a few minor democratic reforms demanded by the FMLN and the Democratic Convergence the new opposition party. Bush also got Congress to agree to still more military aid to El Salvador. Beginning in 1983 the countries of Central America as the Contadora group had been slowly working on a peace plan to end the wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Eventually this would evolve into the Esquipulas. The US worked to sabotage the process even trying to use the NED to defeat the Costa Rican President at election time. In 1984 Duarte had begun talks with the FMLN that never went anywhere thanks to constant US interference. Since 1984 the FMLN had been forced to pursue a defensive strategy to preserve it’s forces from Salvadoran air power and PRAL teams. However it had also been rebuilding it’s network of urban supporters who had been killed or forced to flee in the first half of the war. In 1987-1988 the El Salvadoran military had responded by reactivating the death squads who went to work in a campaign of selective terror targeting the leaders of the popular movements.

The United States and El Salvador believed they were winning the war and that the Guerrillas were incapable of launching any more major offensives. On November 8, 1989 to the shock of the CIA analysts who had declared it impossible the FMLN launched a major offensive the day after the Berlin Wall fell which aimed at capturing the cities and provoking a full-scale revolution. It was either the last great battle of World War 3 or the first battle of World War 4. Gorbachev’s treachery was destroying the Soviet Union but in Latin America the struggle for Communism and Socialism would continue. The FMLN would manage to capture part of the capital San Salvador even occupying the rich neighborhoods. Unfortunately exhausted by 10 years of bloody civil war the people failed to rise in revolution and the military was able to counter-attack forcing the FMLN to retreat. It was a military defeat but a major political victory as it destroyed the illusion that the military was on the verge of victory. The US was forced to allow peace negotiations to go forward. The infamous Atlacatl battallion had created another PR disaster by murdering 6 jesuit priests and two housekeepers causing congress to cut military aid in half although President Bush would later full restore it while the world was distracted by the Gulf War. On January 16, 1992 the El Salvadoran Government and the FMLN finally signed a peace agreement that officially ended the war. The opposition was finally granted the right to participate in politics without being tortured and executed for it.

However despite being allowed to participate the FMLN was forced to compete with a well-funded party trained in PR by corporate specialists. ARENA managed to hold onto power from 1989-2009. They privatized everything and launched a brutal anti-gang war.  This new war predictably had American roots thousands of El Salvadoran gang members had been deported in the 1990’s as part of a racist anti-immigrant wave in the 1990’s and it was probably intended to destabilize El Salvador as the LA gang unit was infamous for it’s many scandals and likely has close ties to the CIA. Just as in El Salvador US police forces have divisions with intelligence functions that liaison with the CIA Red squads, Organized Crime and Gang Units are important partners in the counterinsurgency war at home. However regardless of the motives of sending MS-13 to El Salvador ARENA was able to seize on the issue to become increasingly repressive while gang wars within the country lead El Salvador to become the murder capital of the world for a few years. Given ARENA’s close ties to Taiwan it’s links to the Iran-Contra scandal and reputation for corruption they doubtless had a hand in the drug trade they pretended to fight.

In 2009 the FMLN were finally able to win an election joining the wave of left-wing governments inspired by Venezuela’s example. The first FMLN President was Mauricio Funes. In 2014 FMLN won another election electing President Sanchez Ceren a former Guerrilla leader and member of the Andes 21 teachers union which had been a major target during the dirty war. ARENA threatened a coup after the 2014 victory. However years of struggle had made the FMLN overly cautious and they no longer sought to transform society. President Funes relied on centrist advisers and pursued neo-liberal policies. Despite this fact the FMLN did engage in an ambitious program of reform building hundreds of community clinics, doubling the minimum wage, providing free school supplies, free university education and launching a literacy campaign that taught 330,000 people to read mostly elderly women. They also negotiated a secret gang truce which the media ruined by exposing.

El Salvador’s wealthy right wingers with american advice set out to discredit the FMLN via their control of the media, the legislature and the judiciary. They launched a corruption probe to discredit the FMLN and a scare campaign about crime in the media. Although gang violence was actually declining the media gave the impression it was out of control. The FMLN angered their radical base by refusing to reaffirm their commitment to radical change. The FMLN  suffered a disastrous loss in the 2018 constituent assembly election and in 2019 one of their former centrist allies Nayib Bukele was elected President. ARENA came in second with the FMLN a distant third. Another of the pink tide countries had fallen into the imperial orbit joining Paraguay, Honduras, Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador. Bukele has cultivated close ties with Trump helping him wage war on immigrants inside El Salvador itself and joining his schemes to overthrow the governments of Venezuela and Nicaragua. He plans to privatize the water supply. The struggle for a better world continues in El Salvador, Latin America and worldwide. As I write the people are rising up in Haiti, Chile and Ecuador. Repression is again on the rise across Latin America and sadly the brutal horrors of El Salvador’s dirty war demonstrate the ruthless lengths the empire will go to crush the dreams of peoples of the world in defense of capitalism.

*

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.

Sources

Michael McClintock’s The American Connection Volume one State Terror and Popular Resistance in El Salvador is a masterpiece providing a detailed history of the war into the mid 1980’s. I also highly recommend his book Instruments of State Craft for anyone interested in the US history of terrorism and counterinsurgency.

Weakness and Deceit U.S. Policy and El Salvador by Raymond Bonner provides a detailed and vivid description of the war. Bonner was recalled from El Salvador after exposing the El Mozote massacre and being attacked by the State department and Reagan’s “public diplomacy” propagandists.

The Salvadoran Crucible: The Failure of US Counterinsurgency in El Salvador, 1979-1992 by Brian D’Haeseleer offers a great overview and analysis of the war highlighting the resilience of the FMLN. He also provides a brief history of US counterinsurgency warfare and discusses the “Salvador Option” in Iraq.

The Empire’s Workshop: Latin America The United States and the Rise of the New Imperialism By Greg Grandin is alternately brilliant and criminally naive. It provides background on the economic dimension of what he refers to as the third conquest of Latin America and connects the Reagan administration war in El Salvador with the Bush administration invasion of Iraq.

How Kurdish Independence Underpins Israel’s Plan to Reshape the Middle East

October 23rd, 2019 by Jonathan Cook

This October 2017 article by award winning author Jonathan Cook focusses on the unspoken Israel-Kurdistan relationship.

“There has been co-operation, much of it secret, between Israel and the Kurds for decades. Israeli media lapped up tributes from now-retired generals who trained the Kurds from the 1960s. Those connections have not been forgotten or ended. Independence rallies featured Israeli flags, and Kurds spoke of their ambition to become a “second Israel”.”

***

Palestinians and Israelis watched last week’s referendum of Iraq’s Kurds with special interest. Israeli officials and many ordinary Palestinians were delighted – for very different reasons – to see an overwhelming vote to split away from Iraq.

Given the backlash from Baghdad and anger from Iran and Turkey, which have restive Kurdish minorities, the creation of a Kurdistan in northern Iraq may not happen soon.

Palestinian support for the Kurds is not difficult to understand. Palestinians, too, were overlooked when Britain and France carved up the Middle East into states a century ago. Like the Kurds, Palestinians have found themselves trapped in different territories, oppressed by their overlords.

Israel’s complex interests in Kurdish independence are harder to unravel.

Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the sole world leader to back Kurdish independence, and other politicians spoke of the Kurds’ “moral right” to a state. None saw how uneasily that sat with their approach to the Palestinian case.

On a superficial level, Israel would gain because the Kurds sit on plentiful oil. Unlike the Arab states and Iran, they are keen to sell to Israel.

But the reasons for Israeli support run deeper. There has been co-operation, much of it secret, between Israel and the Kurds for decades. Israeli media lapped up tributes from now-retired generals who trained the Kurds from the 1960s. Those connections have not been forgotten or ended. Independence rallies featured Israeli flags, and Kurds spoke of their ambition to become a “second Israel”.

Israel views the Kurds as a key ally in an Arab-dominated region. Now, with Islamic State’s influence receding, an independent Kurdistan could help prevent Iran filling the void. Israel wants a bulwark against Iran transferring its weapons, intelligence and know-how to Shiite allies in Syria and Lebanon.

Israel’s current interests, however, hint at a larger vision it has long harboured for the region – and one I set out at length in my book Israel and the Clash of Civilisations.

It began with Israel’s founding father, David Ben Gurion, who devised a strategy of “allying with the periphery” – building military ties to non-Arab states like Turkey, Ethiopia, India and Iran, then ruled by the shahs. The goal was to help Israel to break out of its regional isolation and contain an Arab nationalism led by Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Israeli general Ariel Sharon expanded this security doctrine in the early 1980s, calling for Israel to become an imperial power in the Middle East. Israel would ensure that it alone in the region possessed nuclear weapons, making it indispensable to the US.

Sharon was not explicit about how Israel’s empire could be realised, but an indication was provided at around the same time in the Yinon Plan, written for the World Zionist Organisation by a former Israeli foreign ministry official.

Oded Yinon proposed the implosion of the Middle East, breaking apart the region’s key states – and Israel’s main opponents – by fuelling sectarian and ethnic discord. The aim was to fracture these states, weakening them so that Israel could secure its place as sole regional power.

The inspiration for this idea lay in the occupied territories, where Israel had contained Palestinians in a series of separate enclaves. Later, Israel would terminally divide the Palestinian national movement, nurturing an Islamist extremism that coalesced into Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

In this period, Israel also tested its ideas in neighbouring southern Lebanon, which it occupied for two decades. There, its presence further stoked sectarian tensions between Christians, Druze, Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

The strategy of “Balkanising” the Middle East found favour in the US among a group of hawkish policymakers, known as neoconservatives, who came to prominence during George W Bush’s presidency.

Heavily influenced by Israel, they promoted the idea of “rolling back” key states, especially Iraq, Iran and Syria, which were opposed to Israeli-US dominance in the region. They prioritised ousting Saddam Hussein, who had fired missiles on Israel during the 1991 Gulf war.

Although often assumed to be an unfortunate side effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Washington’s oversight of the country’s bloody disintegration into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish fiefdoms looked suspiciously intentional. Now, Iraqi Kurds are close to making that break-up permanent.

Syria has gone a similar way, mired in convulsive fighting that has left its ruler impotent. And Tehran is, again, the target of efforts by Israel and its allies in the US to tear up the 2015 nuclear accord, backing Iran into a corner. Arab, Baluchi, Kurdish and Azeri minorities there may be ripe for stirring up.

Last month at the Herzliya conference, an annual jamboree for Israel’s security establishment, justice minister Ayelet Shaked called for a Kurdish state. She has stated that it would be integral to Israeli efforts to “reshape” the Middle East.

The unraveling of Britain and France’s map of the region would likely lead to chaos of the kind that a strong, nuclear-armed Israel, with backing from Washington, could richly exploit. Not least, yet more bedlam would push the Palestinian cause even further down the international community’s list of priorities.

A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Kurdish Independence Underpins Israel’s Plan to Reshape the Middle East

The Kurds: Washington’s Weapon of Mass Destabilization in the Middle East

October 23rd, 2019 by Sarah Abed

Timely article by Sarah Abed on the Kurdistan-Israeli relationship first posted on Global Research on July 14, 2017

In this three part series, MintPress  and Global Research contributor Sarah Abed analyzes the role that some Kurdish factions have played throughout history in helping major powers create chaos in the Middle East – from the Kurdish uprising in Iraq in the 1960s to the ongoing conflict in Syria today.

SYRIA (Analysis)– Historical accounts of the Kurds have been a subject of mystery and perplexity for years, and have been seldom discussed by major Western media outlets until recently. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the ongoing conflict in Syria, Kurds have been romanticized by mainstream media and U.S. politicians alike to justify a Western interventionist narrative in those countries. Ever since the U.S. invaded Syria, the U.S. and Israel have supported the semi-autonomous Kurdistan, with Israel purchasing $3.84 billion dollars worth of oil from them, a move that could have geopolitical and economic ramifications for both parties.

In 2015, the Financial Times reported that Israel had imported as much as 77 percent of its oil supply from Kurdistan in recent months, bringing in some 19 million barrels between the beginning of May and August 11. During that period, more than a third of all northern Iraqi exports, shipped through Turkey’s Ceyhan port, went to Israel, with transactions amounting to almost $1 billion, the report said, citing “shipping data, trading sources, and satellite tanker tracking.”

The sales are a sign of Iraqi Kurdistan’s growing assertiveness and the further fraying of ties between Erbil and Baghdad, which has long harbored fears that the Kurds’ ultimate objective is full independence from Iraq.

Kurdish fighters from the People’s Protection Units, (Y.P.G), stand guard next to American armored vehicles at the Syria-Turkey border, Apri, 2017. (Youssef Rabie Youssef/EPA)

In 1966, Iraqi defense minister Abd al-Aziz al-Uqayli blamed the Kurds of Iraq for seeking to establish “a second Israel” in the Middle East. He also claimed that “the West and the East are supporting the rebels to create [khalq] a new Israeli state in the north of the homeland as they had done in 1948 when they created Israel. Interestingly enough, history is repeating itself with their present-day relationship – the existence of which is only acknowledged in passing by either side for fear of retribution.

For much of the conflict in Syria, several Kurdish militias have become some of the U.S.-led coalition’s closest allies within the country, receiving massive amounts of arms and heavy weapon shipments, as well as training from coalition members. Kurdish militias also dominate the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the U.S.-backed group best known for leading the coalition-supported offensive targeting the Daesh (ISIS) stronghold of Raqqa.The weapons that the United States has provided Kurdish and Arab fighters in the anti-Islamic State coalition include heavy machine guns, mortars, anti-tank weapons, armored cars and engineering equipment.

In May, U.S. President Donald Trump approved arming Kurdish militiamen in Syria with heavy weaponry, including mortars and machine guns. Within one month of Trump’s approval, 348 trucks with military assistance had been passed to the group, Anadolu added. According to the news agency’s data, the Pentagon’s list of weapons to be delivered to the group includes 12,000 Kalashnikov rifles, 6,000 machine guns, 3,000 grenade launchers and around 1,000 anti-tank weapons of Russian or U.S. origin.

The United States’ shipments included 130 trucks, with 60 cars passing on June 5, and 20 vehicles on June 12, per Sputnik News.

On June 17, Sputnik News reported that the United States is still supplying the Democratic Union Party (PYD) in Syria with ammunition to fight Daesh, delivering 50 truckloads in one day alone, according to Turkish media reports. Earlier in the day, the trucks reached the city of al-Hasakah in northwest Syria.

Both historical and modern day ties between Israel and the Kurds have brought benefits to both sides. In the past, Israel has obtained intelligence, as well as support, for a few thousand Jews fleeing Ba’athist Iraq. The Kurds have received security and humanitarian aid, as well as links to the outside world, especially the United States. The first official acknowledgment that Jerusalem had provided aid to the Kurds dates back to Sept. 29, 1980, when Prime Minister Menachem Begin disclosed that Israel had supported the Kurds “during their uprising against the Iraqis in 1965 to 1975” and that the United States was aware of this fact. Begin added that Israel had sent instructors and arms, but not military units.

Ethnic Kurdish Israelis protest outside the Turkish embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel, July 8, 2010.

The Kurds are the largest group of nomadic people in the world that have remained stateless since the beginning of time. This fact has allowed Western powers to use the “stateless” plight of the Kurdish people as a tool to divide, destabilize and conquer Iraq and Syria, where colonial oil and gas interests run deep.

The U.S.-led coalition of war criminals is using elements of Syria’s Kurdish population to achieve its goal of destroying the non-belligerent, democratic country of Syria, led by its popular, democratically-elected President Bashar al-Assad. Washington seeks to create sectarianism and ethnic divides in a country that, prior to the Western-launched war, had neither.

However, Kurdologists reject this characterization because it does not fit into their account of historical events that attributes a state to them at one point in time. Their estimated population is 30 million, according to most demographic sources. They also reject the idea that they are being used as pawns.

Responding to a question about where the autonomous administration would “draw the line” on U.S. support and the support of other superpowers, the co-leader of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), Salih Muslim Muhammad, stated

“Our guarantee is our mindset. It depends on how much we educate and organize our people. If we defend our morals and ideology, then bigger powers cannot use us as pawns.”

Perhaps no other group of people in modern times has been as romanticized in the Western conscience as the Kurds. Consistently portrayed as “freedom fighters” who are eternally struggling for a land denied to them, the Kurds have been frequently utilized throughout history by other countries and empires as an arrow and have never themselves been the bow.

In today’s case, the Kurds are being used by NATO and Israel to fulfill the modern-day colonialist aim of breaking up large states like Iraq into statelets to ensure geopolitical goals. When nations are divided into smaller statelets, they are easier to conquer by foreign entities. This is a signature move that powerful imperialist nations use for the purpose of colonizing smaller and less influential nations. The Kurds have been utilized as pawns in this “divide and conquer” strategy throughout history and continue to allow themselves to be used by colonial powers.

Ultra-leftist opportunists or real revolutionaries?

In an article written in 2007, NPR senior news analyst Daniel Schorr stated that the Kurds of Iraq have a long history of being used as pawns in regional power struggles. Now, they are finding themselves in the middle of a contest between the United States and Iran for dominance in the Middle East.

In 1973, President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had the CIA instigate a Kurdish uprising in northern Iraq against Saddam Hussein. The United States walked away from the rebellion when Saddam and the Shah of Iran settled their differences, leaving the Kurds to face their own fate. Interestingly, the Kurds seem to have developed amnesia by once again choosing to cooperate with Washington, which has repeatedly used them solely for its own benefit.

In the Gulf War over the Iraqi seizure of Kuwait in 1990, President George H.W. Bush appealed to the Kurds, as well as the Shiites in the south, to rise up in rebellion against Saddam.

A Kurd kisses a picture of United States President George W. Bush during celebrations in the streets of Sulaymaniyah, northern Iraq Wednesday April 9, 2003. (AP/Kevin Frayer)

Victorious in that war, the American military permitted Saddam to retain his helicopter gunships, which he used to retaliate against the Kurds, along with Shiites, by the hundreds. American public opinion eventually forced the administration to establish northern and southern no-fly zones to protect the two populations.

Kurdish loyalty to America has cost them quite a bit, and so it is with a certain narcissism that the Bush administration presumed to tell the allegedly autonomous Kurds what kind of relations they could entertain with other countries in the region, including American rival Iran. But the Kurds appear to be finding themselves in a contest between the U.S. and Iran for dominance in the Middle East yet again.

Andrew Exum, a former top Pentagon Middle East policy official who served as an Army Ranger, stated

”… this decision — to arm a group closely associated with a foreign terrorist organization, and one that has waged a decades-long insurgency against the Turkish state — will likely reverberate through U.S. relations with Turkey for decades to come.”

The Turkish government has long insisted that the Kurdish militia is closely linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a separatist group known as the PKK. That group is listed by Turkey, the United States and Europe as a terrorist organization.

A rough estimate found in the CIA Factbook sets the Kurdish population at 14.5 million in Turkey, 6 million in Iran, about 5 to 6 million in Iraq and less than 2 million in Syria, which adds up to close to 28 million Kurds in what they refer to as “Kurdistan” and adjacent regions.

However, other sources state that there are only about 1.2 million Kurds left in Syria due to the carefully calculated and planned imposed war by NATO and its Gulf Allies. Roughly the same number migrated to Germany during the past six years.

It’s important to differentiate between Kurdish people who have assimilated in the countries they now reside in and reject the idea of establishing an illegal Kurdistan and those who are power hungry and are allowing themselves to team up with the West and Israel to assist in the destabilization of the region. Some Kurdish people in Syria, especially those that reside in areas that are not controlled by the Kurds, such as Damascus, are loyal to the Syrian government and have stated that they voted for Assad in 2014.

This free and democratic election saw Assad win 88.7 percent of the popular vote over the other two nominees. In the beginning of the war in Syria, there were Kurds fighting in the Syrian Arab Army, who received arms and salaries just like their Syrian counterparts. There are a small number that are still in the Syrian Arab Army in the southern Syria.

But in northeastern Syria, many Kurds have defected to the U.S.-led SDF where arms, salaries, and training are provided by the U.S. Syrians consider the Kurds who have remained loyal to Syria as their fellow Syrian brothers and sisters and the descriptions of Kurdish treachery in this article do not apply to them.

The loosely-knit coalition of Syrian rebel groups known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), are armed, trained and backed by the U.S. The group is currently engaged in the early stages of battle in the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, Syria.

Independence and disunity

An important thing to remember is that the ethnic marker “Kurd” refers to speakers of several different related, but distinct, languages. The two most important are Sorani in Iraq and Iran and Kurmanji in Syria, Turkey and smaller contiguous regions in Iraq and Iran. Sorani tends to use Arabic script, while Kurmanji uses Latin script, which shows how different they can be from one another.

Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) is predominantly made up of Sorani speakers, while the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), PYD and other nationalist groups in Syria and Turkey speak Kurmanji. This division naturally maps these divergent political expressions. It is not as simple as superimposing the KRG’s borders over the PYD and PKK-controlled territory.

On the other hand, Turkey does not contest Sorani speakers’ aspirations to the same extent as it does Kurmanji speakers. Encouraging the autonomy of the Iraqi Kurds should not entail the same problems for the Turco-American alliance as encouraging Syro-Turkish Kurdish nationalism would.

The quest for independence is intrinsic to Kurdish identity. However, not all Kurds envision a unified Kurdistan that would span the Kurdish regions of four different sovereign countries. Most Kurdish movements and political parties are focused on the concerns and autonomy of Kurds within their respective countries. Within each country, there are Kurds who have assimilated and whose aspirations may be limited to greater cultural freedoms and political recognition.

Kurd

Kurds throughout the Middle East have vigorously pursued their goals through a multitude of groups. While some Kurds established legitimate political parties and organizations in efforts to promote Kurdish rights and freedom, others have waged armed struggles. Some, like the Turkish PKK, have employed guerrilla tactics and terror attacks that have targeted civilians, including their fellow Kurds.

The wide array of Kurdish political parties and groups reflects the internal divisions among Kurds, which often follow tribal, linguistic and national fault lines, in addition to political disagreements and rivalries. Tensions between the two dominant Iraqi Kurdish political parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) escalated to a civil war that killed more than 2,000 Kurds in the mid-1990s.

Political disunity stretches across borders as well, with Kurdish parties and organizations forming offshoots or forging alliances in neighboring countries. Today, disagreements over prospects for Kurdish autonomy in Syria or Iraqi Kurds’ relations with the Turkish government have fostered tensions that have pitted the Iraqi KDP and its Syrian sister organization, the KDP-S, against the PKK and its Syrian offshoot, the PYD. Still, adversarial Kurdish groups have worked together when it has been expedient. The threat posed by Daesh has led the KDP-affiliated Peshmerga to fight alongside Syrian PYD forces.

Kurdish groups have, at times, bargained with not only their own governments but also neighboring ones – in some cases at the expense of their relations with their Kurdish brethren. The complex relationships among Kurdish groups and between the Kurds and the region’s governments have fluctuated, and alliances have formed and faltered as political conditions have changed. The Kurds’ disunity is cited by experts as one of the primary causes for their inability to form a state of their own.

The Kurds’ illegal, unjustified claims for autonomy

The West claims that the Kurds are one of the most moral and dignified forces in the Middle East fighting against Daesh. But if their focus is on defeating Daesh, as they claim, why are they committing genocide against Syrians in the process? Taking this into consideration, it is hard to justify the West’s persistent claim that armed Kurdish terrorist groups are trying to help Syria. The reality on the ground contradicts these empty compliments, which the West uses to save face while supporting these terrorist organizations. This false narrative was in fact used to arm the Kurds in Syria in order to create instability and division.

U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led Syria Democratic Forces raise their flag in the center of the town of Manbij after driving ISIS out of the area, in Aleppo province, Syria. (ANHA via AP)

It is strange that the Kurds would be so antagonistic towards Syrians, as the country has largely been welcoming for them. For example, reforms were made in Syria in 2012 to benefit the Kurds.

“President Assad issued a decree granting Arab Syrian citizenship to people registered as foreigners in the (governorate of Hassake),” said the SANA news agency.

The measure, which benefited about 300,000 Kurds, came a week after Assad tasked a committee with “resolving the problem of the 1962 census in the governorate of Hassake.”

In January 2015, SANA news reported that then-Syrian Prime Minister Dr. Wael al-Halqi said:

“the Kurds are a deeply-ingrained component of the Syrian society and Ayn al-Arab is part of Syria that is dear to the hearts of all Syrians.”

Al-Halqi’s affirmation came during his meeting with a Kurdish delegation which comprised Kurdish figures. He also urged all to discard violence and spread amity, reiterating that a solution to the Syrian crisis could be achieved “through national dialogue and consolidating national reconciliations,” indicating that dialogue will definitely be “under the homeland’s umbrella away from foreign dictates.”

In 2014, The Civil Democratic Gathering of Syrian Kurds said that the steadfastness of the people of Ayn al-Arab in the face of terrorists was a form of expression of the Syrian Kurds’ commitment to their affiliation to their homeland of Syria. The gathering’s Higher Council of Secretaries said that the steadfastness of Ayn al-Arab was cause for admiration and that attempts to transgress against the territorial integrity of Syria were parts of a plot to cause chaos and division and undermine the resistance axis.

These are just a few examples of the Syrian government’s attempts to unify all of those who live within the country’s borders. But even with these actions of good faith, the SDF has chosen to side with Syria’s enemies rather than work with the Syrian army.

A recent agreement – initiated and brokered by the U.S. between a Free Syrian Army (FSA) faction and the Kurdish-led SDF lays out conditions whereby U.S.-initiated negotiations would allow the FSA faction al-Muatasim Brigade to peacefully take over 11 villages in northern Syria that are controlled by the SDF. The general outlines of this unprecedented agreement were announced on May 10, stating that the U.S.-led coalition had delegated to al-Muatasim the task of being in charge of and administering the designated villages.

View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

Al-Muatasim is known to be a strong ally of the U.S., which is why it was chosen to be in charge of the designated villages. This further proves the point that the U.S., SDF and FSA are still working together. Their cooperation is part of an effort to counter the progress being made by the Syrian Arab Army and its allies.

In Part II of MPN’s Sarah Abed analysis of the Kurds’ role in helping the U.S. and Israel destabilize the Middle East, she will explore more of their ties to Israel and other countries, as well as their links to Daesh.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. Focused on exposing the lies and propaganda in mainstream media news, as it relates to domestic and foreign policy with an emphasis on the Middle East. Contributed to various radio shows, news publications and spoken at forums. For media inquiries please email [email protected].

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Kurds: Washington’s Weapon of Mass Destabilization in the Middle East

Hillary, “Russian Assets” and Realignment. The Dems Morph into Neocons

October 23rd, 2019 by Renee Parsons

As you may have figured out by now, Hillary Clinton, warped by her own self aggrandizement of entitlement, did Tulsi Gabbard and her Presidential campaign against interventionist wars a huge incidental favor.

While the Democrats continue to splinter and spiral out of control on the eve of what promises to be a transformative national election, the Grand Inquisitor seized an opportunity to allege that Gabbard (and Jill Stein) are “Russian assets” and “Putin puppets”.  Since Tulsi is a Major in the US Army Reserves and holds the highest security clearance available, the term ‘asset,’ which is associated with being an agent of a foreign power, carries a level of national security significance.

Believing herself untouchable and immune from any genuine criticism or objective analysis after having successfully evaded prosecution from the nation’s top law enforcement agencies,  HRC went off the deep end dragging the Democratic party further into the ditch.

“She is a favorite of the Russians.  That’s assuming that Jill Stein will give it up which she might not because she is also a Russian asset.”

Clinton’s historic pronouncement came in the mistaken belief that publicly humiliating Gabbard would intimidate the Aloha Girl to silence and seek refuge on her surf board – but that is not how it has played out.

An unexpected bonus proved once again that political strategy has never been Clinton’s strong suite as her malicious comments have brought the anti war alt left with the libertarian alt right together in Gabbard’s defense.  With HRC’s injudicious taunts, the glimmer of an emerging political realignment, one that has been at odds with both the Dem and Republican establishments, has surfaced – probably not exactly what HRC intended.

In response to having received a burst of unprecedented support, Gabbard is about to assure her place on the November debate stage and continues to solidify her credibility as a critic of a corrupt bipartisan political establishment and its endless wars.

“If they falsely portray me as a traitor, they can do it to anyone.  Don’t be afraid.Join me in speaking truth to power to take back the Democrat Party and country from the corrupt elite.”

It is noteworthy that HRCs accusation was to the only candidate who stands in direct opposition to the Queen Bee’s history for the war machine and all of its bells and whistles.  As if to call attention to the contradiction, the entire fiasco has acknowledged what was never meant to be acknowledged:   that one little known Congresswoman from Hawaii would dare to publicly confront the omnipotent HRC with her own demons and malfeasance; thereby elevating the one candidacy that represents a threat to the military industrial complex and its globalist order.

It is no coincidence that the corporate media operates in lock step as an offensive October 12th NY Times article was immediately followed by a CNN commentary as well as other media sycophants, all tagging Gabbard as a Russian asset. Contrary to Journalism 101 on how professional media should conduct themselves, there has been no evidence, no facts, no supporting documentation as they characteristically rely on innuendo and disinformation.

At the last Dem debate and during the kerfuffle with Clinton, Tulsi has stepped up and showed herself to be a candidate the country has been waiting for.  With a powerful inner grit, she did not hesitate to take the Times and CNN publicly to task and then in response called HRC out as a warmonger and dared her to enter the 2020 fray.

There lies a deep truth within Gabbard’s response especially identifying Clinton as the “personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party.” During Clinton’s term as Secretary of State which is little more than a Glorified Global Hustler for the US military industrial complex, the Democratic Party lost its soul, morphing as nefarious neocons in pursuit of raw political and economic power that emanates from a policy of unfettered regime change and interventionist wars.

As Democrats embraced the neocons with no objection to the unrestrained violence, increased military budgets, indiscriminate selling of weapons to bomb a civilian population, then why should the party’s grassroots object to the Tuesday morning assassination list or drone attacks on civilians or creating war in four countries living in peace in 2008? As the party faithful allow themselves to dismiss all the suffering, the death and destruction wrought by US-made weapons as if Amazon and Google toys were an acceptable trade, they lost their conscience and their connection to the basic essence of humanity’s need for peace, love and compassion.

The latest example of the Party’s devotion to war is their opposition to the withdrawal of US troops from Syria as they created the phony debate that the Kurds were worth more American blood or resources.  The Dems have always been more pro-war than they have been given credit for with WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam all initiated and/or expanded under Democrat Presidents.

With no substantiation from the mindless meanderings of a seriously disoriented woman, it is now clear that Clinton’s derangement syndrome of unresolved guilt and denial led the Democratic party to its irrational embrace of Russiagate as the justification for her 2016 loss. In other words, it was Russiagate that protected HRC’s fragile self-esteem from the necessary introspection as Americans were pitted against one another,dividing the nation in a deliberate disruption of civil society in a more acrimonious manner than any time since the 1860’s.  The country has paid a bitter, unnecessary price for a divisive strategy due to Clinton’s refusal to personally accept responsibility for her own failings.

HRC’s most egregious war crimes as Secretary of State include assigning Victoria Nuland to conduct the overthrow of a democratically elected President in Ukraine in 2014 and the ensuing violence and civil war in the Donbass as well as her joyous rapture cackling at the death of Libyan President Qaddafi in 2011. The now infamous video “We came, we saw, he died” showed her to be more than just your average war criminal but a Monster who experiences an aberrant thrill at death and destruction.

Since June, TPTB have done their darnedest to deny Tulsi a spot on the debate stage rigging the qualifying requirements as best they could.  Making it near impossible for the polling firms, which rely on campaign season and their economic connection with the DNC to call the shots in a fair and equitable manner.

As the early primary states loom ahead, the last thing TPTB need is a powerful pro-peace voice resonating with the American public. The message seems clear:  talk of peace is verboten and equates with being a Russia asset and anyone with pacifist tendencies will be publicly chastised and condemned for being a tool of the Kremlin.   None of that has stopped Tulsi Gabbard.

*

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

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31

Selected Articles: Russia-Turkey Deal on Syria

October 23rd, 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. 

*     *     *

Video: Erdogan, Putin Reach ‘Historical Deal’ on Northern Syria

By South Front, October 23, 2019

According to the agreement, Turkey’s Operation ‘Peace Spring’ will continue in a limited area between Tell Abyad and Ras al-Ayn with a depth of 32km. Starting from 12:00 October 23, units of the Russian Military Police and the Syrian Army will be deployed along the rest of the Turkish border to the east of the Euphrates.

The Russian-Turkish Deal on Syria: Who Won and Who Lost?

By Andrew Korybko, October 23, 2019

Presidents Putin and Erdogan reached a deal on Syria that represents a decisive victory for Turkey while being a drastic climbdown for Damascus after President Assad vowed earlier that day that the Syrian Arab Army was “prepared to support any group carrying out popular resistance against the Turkish aggression” only to later “fully support” the Russian-brokered agreement to give Ankara practically all of what it wants once he was informed about the details by his counterpart in Moscow.

As Trump Aids and Abets Turkey’s War Crimes, the UN Must Act

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, October 23, 2019

While the United States and Turkey reached a “ceasefire” agreement on October 17, there are ongoing reports of violations of the deal. A U.S. official told CNN that Turkish-backed forces broke the ceasefire on its first day, saying that they were either acting beyond the scope of Turkish control or Turkey “didn’t care what they did.” Two U.S. officials said the ceasefire “is not holding.” The agreement calls for a five-day ceasefire and requires Kurdish fighters to leave an area of Syria along the Turkish border, in essence, relinquishing control of their territory. The United States would lift the threat of further sanctions on Turkey, and once a “permanent cease-fire” occurs, would remove the sanctions that Trump imposed in the wake of criticism of his abrupt withdrawal from the region.

Why Did Trump Give the Green Light to Turkish Intervention in Northern Syria? Framed by Russia?

By Nauman Sadiq, October 23, 2019

In return for the generous favor of establishing a safe zone along Turkey’s southern border to address its security concerns regarding the Kurds, Turkey would probably allow the Syrian government with the backing of Russia to occupy a few strategic areas in northwestern Idlib Governorate – particularly near the Alawite heartland Latakia, such as Khan Sheikhoun, which the Syrian government has recently liberated from al-Nusra Front, and Marat al-Numan and Jisr al-Shughour – though this hasn’t been stipulated in the agreement and was most likely informally discussed in the Erdogan-Putin meeting.

Islamic State in Asia: ‘Unintentional’ Consequences of Turkey’s Syria Operation

By Paul Antonopoulos, October 22, 2019

Turkey began on October 9 its illegal offensive in northern Syria to expel terrorist organizations, primarily the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and the Islamic State according to Ankara, away from the Turkish border and to establish a safe zone in the northeast of the country to accommodate some of the millions of Syrian refugees currently in Turkey. However, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has raised some interesting questions and warned of the danger of “reverse migration” of foreign terrorists to their home countries as Turkey has completely ignored prisons and camps holding the jihadists.

Putin-Erdogan Meeting Aims to Organise Differences and Shorten the Gap Between Allies

By Elijah J. Magnier, October 22, 2019

In the first week of the month of October the US informed Turkey and Russia of its intention to withdraw from north-east Syria (NES). Turkish President Recep Tayyib Erdogan pulled out a plan prepared over a year ago to move forces into NES and take control of cities like Manbij, Ain al-Arab and Ras al-Ayn: an area 440 kilometres long and 35 kilometres wide. The US central command and the Russian military command, as well as other countries including Syria, were informed of the Turkish intention to move forward to fill in the gap. Turkey believes this incursion into the Syrian territory serves its national security and will relocate millions of Syrian refugees living in Turkey, and those who will move out of Idlib once the liberation of the city is in process.

US Syria Pullout Leaves Troops in North and South

By Stephen Lendman, October 22, 2019

Russia’s intervention in Syria changing the dynamic on the ground, US inability to topple Iran’s government, and effectiveness of Yemeni Houthis against Pentagon/CIA-orchestrated Saudi aggression foiled US/Israeli regional aims. Before withdrawal of unclear numbers of US forces from northern Syria cross-border to Iraq, Pentagon troops controlled around 30% of the country. Unknown numbers of US forces continue to unlawfully control southern Syrian territory near the Iraqi and Jordanian borders, no plans to withdraw them.

*

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: Russia-Turkey Deal on Syria

“Erdogan Stole Syrian Factories, Oil and Wheat and Today He Is Stealing Syrian Land”. President Al-Assad

October 23rd, 2019 by Hamda Mustafa

President Bashar Al-Assad has stressed that the President of the Turkish regime Recep Tayyib Erdogan is a thief who stole the Syrian factories, wheat and oil and today he is stealing Syrian land.

President Al-Assad made the remarks during his meeting with soldiers and officers of the Syrian Arab Army on the front lines in al-Hbeit town of Edlib countryside.

 Military situation on the ground specifies priority

The president affirmed that all the Syrian areas have the same importance, but what specifies priority is the military situation on the ground.

According to SANA, President Al-Assad said that

“Idleb was an advanced outpost for them. The advanced outpost is usually located in the front lines, but in this case the battle is in the east and the advanced outpost is in the west. This is in order to disperse the forces of the Syrian Arab army.”

“We have been saying that the battle for Idleb is essential for ending chaos and terrorism in all the Syrian areas,” President Al-Assad added.

He made it clear that

“when we are exposed to an aggression or robbery we must support each other and join efforts. But, some Syrians didn’t do that, particularly during the early years of the war… We asked them not to count on foreign parties…we told them that your bet should be on the army, the people and the homeland but nobody listened, and now they are counting on the Americans.”

President Al-Assad went on to say that as soon as the Turkish aggression started in the north of the country, we made contacts with the different political and military forces on the ground. We told them that we are ready to support any group that would resist.”

 “This it is not a political decision, it is in fact a constitutional and national duty and if we don’t do that, we don’t deserve this homeland,” the president emphasized.

*

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

Featured image is from Syria Times

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Erdogan Stole Syrian Factories, Oil and Wheat and Today He Is Stealing Syrian Land”. President Al-Assad
  • Tags: , , ,

Russian/Turkish Agreement on Northern Syria

October 23rd, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

When deals are struck, the devil is in the details, along with implementation of what was agreed on by all parties involved.

The historical record is clear. The US, West and Israel can never be trusted. The Russian Federation operates by a higher standard. Its word is its bond, not so for Turkey, especially under lawbreaker/terrorist supporter/human rights abuser Erdogan.

He allied with US aggression on Syria for regime change, three times invaded its territory illegally, his latest aggression begun October 9 — the highest of high crimes, his forces using banned weapons, killing civilians indiscriminately.

Domestically he banned speech, media and academic freedoms, imprisoning or otherwise eliminating critics, including children — what tyranny is all about.

Throughout US-led war on Syria, he called for toppling overwhelmingly popular Bashar al-Assad, wants northern Syrian territory annexed, especially its oil-producing areas.

He supports ISIS, al-Nusra, and other terrorists, earlier conspired with the Islamic State to steal Syrian oil, currently using jihadists as proxy forces in his ongoing aggression and occupation of northern Syrian territory.

On Tuesday, Assad denounced him as a “thief,” adding:

“He has stolen factories, wheat, oil in cooperation with Daesh (ISIS), and today, he steals territory.”

He’s an “actor” in cahoots with US-led aggression.

“The latest of the plays is that he says they have decided to enter Syria. Well, for nine years, he has been trying to enter, but he was not allowed.”

“He said he has notified the Americans that he will enter. You mean you told the Americans?”

“What happened, happened. Despite all the bravado (about Kurdish fighters) that we have heard through the years, that they will fight and whatnot, the Turks have occupied most of the region in just four days, which the Americans have planned.”

Syrian officials earlier warned the Kurds against cooperating with the US, Assad explained.

“We repeated it,” he stressed, adding: “The Americans will sell you out one day” — precisely what happened.

Syria’s priority is “defending against (US-led NATO/Turkish) aggression,” all parts of the country of equal value, he stressed.

Turkish and proxy forces captured and control over 100 northern Syrian villages, along with the border towns of Ras al-Ain and Tel Abyad.

According to observers on the ground, his forces looted homes, shops, and other businesses, along with wheat and barley silos.

Assad vowed to liberate all areas of Syria controlled by US/Turkish-supported terrorists and illegally occupied by Pentagon and Turkish forces.

On Tuesday in Sochi, Russia, Vladimir Putin met with Erdogan on Syria. The Turkish regime communications director Fahrettin Altun claimed an agreement was reached to respect “Syria’s territorial integrity and political unity.”

Erdogan said remaining Kurdish fighters “must leave (a) 30-km zone…150 hours” from Wednesday (after which) Turkey and Russia will begin joint patrolling of the area to the east and to the west of” Syrian territory Turkish forces invaded (except the border city of Qamishli in Hasakah province), adding:

Joint patrols will be carried out within a 10-km area from Turkey’s border. According to Russia’s Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu,

“additional troops (and) equipment will be needed for patrolling since the border is rather extensive and the patrolling should be serious and substantial so that we could avert any serious incidents. Especially since the patrolling will be carried out jointly.”

Sergey Lavrov said Turkey’s cross-border “operation is coming to an end. Now everything will depend on whether the agreements will be adhered to, namely regarding the disengagement of forces and equipment, and the withdrawal of Kurdish military formations,” adding:

“We do not particularly look at the United States and its stance. That stance is quite variable and contradictory, and of course, the coalition led by the United States is in Syria illegally. This is well known.”

Erdogan’s cross-border aggression has nothing to do with combatting terrorists, nothing to do with Turkish security, nothing to do with helping Syrian refugees, everything to do with his revanchist aims.

It’s unclear how Putin handled these and related issues during talks with Erdogan on Tuesday.

Both leaders agreed to respect the 1998 Ankara/Damascus Adana Interstate Agreement on Combating Terrorism — vowing to prevent terrorists in Syria from threatening Turkey.

RT reported that

“Russian military police and Syrian servicemen will be deployed to northeastern Syria, while Turkey’s operation ‘Peace Spring’ will continue in a limited area,” as agreed to by Putin and Erdogan.

On October 9, Erdogan’s cross-border aggression began. He and Putin agreed on letting Turkish forces “temporarily” conduct so-called “counter-terrorism” operations in northern Syria.

At the same time, Russia’s president said unlawfully deployed foreign forces in Syria must leave. Claiming Erdogan shares this view is unsupported by reality on the ground.

Putin also urged Syrian and Kurdish officials to reach accommodation on issues where they differ to help restore peace and stability to the country.

Following talks with Erdogan, he briefed Syria’s Assad on what was discussed, according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, indicating he and Putin concurred on what was agreed on in Sochi.

Russia is an invaluable Syrian ally, the US, NATO, and Israel its mortal enemies.

Erdogan can never be trusted. It remains to be seen whether what was agreed on in Sochi sticks.

Given longstanding US hegemonic aims for regional control, resolution of years of conflict and chaos is far from achieved.

*

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.

Better Relations Between the US and Russia Are Not in the Cards

October 23rd, 2019 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

By now Russians must wonder if the better relations they desire with the US are ever to be.  US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat from Hawaii is the latest peacemaker to be declared “a Russian asset” by Hillary, the DNC, and the presstitutes.

The way the Democrats, the presstitutes, and their Puppet Master—the military/security complex—have it rigged, unless you want to bomb Russia into the stone age, you are a Russian asset.

How, then, can any American leader advocate bringing the dangerous tensions with Russia to an end?

Look what happened to Trump when he declared his intention of “normalizing relations with Russia.”  There is nothing more desperate that needs doing, but it cannot happen.

Two immovable mountains stand in the way.

One is the military/security complex’s need for an enemy in order to justify the military/security complex’s $1,000 billion dollar annual budget and the power that comes with it. Fifty-eight years ago in his last address to the American people,

President Dwight Eisenhower warned that

“we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.  We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Ike’s warning went unheeded, and today, more than a half century later, the military/security complex rules America.

The other immovable mountain is the US world hegemonic ideology of the  neoconservatives who have controlled US foreign policy since the Clinton regime.  The neoconservatives declare the US to be the “indispensible, exceptional” country with the right to impose its will and agendas on the rest of the world.

The collapse of the Soviet Union removed all constraints on Washington’s unilateralism.  There was no longer another global power to get in Washington’s way.  

To keep it this way, neoconservative Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz set out the Wolfowitz Doctrine.  The doctrine states that it is the “first objective” of US foreign and military policy to prevent the rise of Russia or any country capable of serving as a check on US unilateral action.  

Caught offguard by Vladimir Putin, who restored Russian sovereignty from Russia’s status as an American vassal under Yeltsin, the neoconservatives and their Western media whores have launched massive propaganda attacks on Russia in order to demonize, isolate, marginalize, and perhaps overthrow with American-financed NGOs, as happened to Ukraine in the  Maidan Revolution and as the US is currently attempting in Hong Kong against China.

The hegemonic ideology of the neoconservatives and the military/security complex’s need for an enemy preclude any normalization of relations with Russia.

As I and Stephen Cohn have emphasized, the current tensions between the two nuclear superpowers are far more dangerous than during the Cold War.  During the Cold War every American president worked with his Soviet counterpart to reduce tensions.  John F. Kennedy and Khrushchev defused the Cuban missile crisis and removed the US missiles from Turkey.  JFK’s reward was to be assassinated by the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who concluded that JFK was soft on communism and a threat to the national security of the United States.

President Richard Nixon opened to China and negotiated the SALT I Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Leonid Brezhnev. Nixon’s reward was to be politically assassinated with the Watergate orchestration and forced to resign.

President Carter and Brezhnev signed the SALT II Treaty, and Carter was rewarded by the military/security complex throwing its money behind anti-communist Reagan.

President Reagan outmaneuvered the military/security complex,  and he and Gorbachev ended the Cold War.

The George H.W. Bush administration gave assurances to Gorbachev that if the Soviet Union permitted the reunification of Germany, the US would neither incorporate the former Warsaw Pact into NATO nor move NATO one inch to the East.

The Clinton regime reneged on the word of the US Government and moved NATO to Russia’s borders.

Subsequent US regimes—George W. Bush, Obama, Trump—have pulled out of the remaining treaties and agreements and, thereby, elevated the tensions between the nuclear superpowers to the pre-Kennedy era.

The danger of this development is not appreciated.  Nuclear warning systems of incoming ICBMs are notorious for false warnings.  During the Cold War both sides received false alarms of incoming attacks, but neither the Amerians nor the Soviets ever pushed the button in response to the warnings.

Why?  The reason is that both sides understood that they were working to reduce tensions and to build trust.  Both sides understood that in this atmosphere the alarms had to be false.

Today the situation is very different.  Russia and its leadership have been demonized and excoriated by Western politicians and media.  Americans and their vassals in Europe have been taught to hate and fear Russians.  The Russian government has experienced false accusations never before experienced in diplomatic affairs.  Neither side can possibly trust the other.  Add to this the fact that response times are now in the minutes, and you should be able to comprehend that the world can be blown up due to nothing more than a false alarm.

For the ideological neoconservatives and the greed-ridden corrupt American military/security complex to put life on Earth under this kind of risk indicates that neither neoconservatives nor armaments industries are capable of subordining their self-interests to life itself.

Normally, the restrained, non-confrontational responses of Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to American insults and provocative actions would be admirable.  But with the US playing the role of the bully, passive Russian responses to bullying encourage more bullying.  As kids of my generation learned, when confronted with a bully you immediately stand up to him.  Otherwise, he sees you as lacking self-respect and resolve and ups the bullying. The only way to avoid the fight is to stand up to him immediately.

The Russian government’s failure to stand up to Washington’s bullying guarantees more bullying.  Sooner or later the bullying will cross a line, and Russia will have to fight.

A less passive Russian government could do a lot for peace.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Harold Escalona/shutterstock And President Trump By Drop of Light/Shutterstock