I expected much more from a book speaking for Israel, something to truly engage the mind and require some concerted thought.  Unfortunately I was disappointed and found myself reading one person’s personal journal about endless speechwriting written and using only the standard Israeli hasbara narrative which is essentially a narrative out of context.

“Speaking for Israel” is essentially two intertwined books.  The first is the longer story about the job of speechwriter itself, and Aviva Klompas spends most of her time telling the reader about how short the timelines were, how many revisions had to be made, and she does it rather repetitively speech after speech.  The second book, much shorter, actually tries to look at the UN and its anti-Israel bias and the many resolutions and statements that go against Israel.

The first book on speech writing can be summed up fairly shortly.  At least for the position that Ms Klompas found herself in, her speech writing talents amounted to creating aphorisms using derisory humour and sarcastic kitsch for an audience not wanting to address real issues in either their historical or current geopolitical context.

Narrative and context

The second book is also summed up in short terms.  First off it is probably needless to say that someone vetted to  write speeches for Israel at the UN obviously accepts the Isreali narrative.  And that is it, in short form – if you are familiar with what the usual Israeli narrative  and their usual turn of phrasing, there is nothing new in this work.

That narrative includes denouncing terms such as apartheid, ethnic cleanising, occupying entity or occupation.  It includes the biblical narrative as the Jewish birthplace and homeland.  All Palestinian actions against Israel are “terror” actions, and all actions going the other way are from the “most moral army in the world.”  For the latter, the emphasis is on Hamas and its thousands of rockets, and the terror thus perpetrated on Israeli citizens, and indeed, children.

For contemporary events Kompas several times reminds the reader about  how “volatile and dangerous” the region is at the same time reminding that Israel is the only democracy in the region….and all this information, slim as it is, is taken wholly  out of the larger historical and contemporary geopolitical context of both the Middle East and the rest of the ‘western’ world.

Regardless of the details of either the speechwriter’s daily efforts, or of the out of context narrative, the overall purpose of the book appears to be asking:  Why pick on Israel when there are so many other nasty countries and events in the world that the UN needs to pay attention to?  That is actually a reasonable question and it revolves back to all that missing context.

Context – and why Israel is “picked on”

To start with, the history of Jewish Zionism is consistent on its requirements for removing the indigenous Palestinians from as much of the land as possible.  This was recognized by the original philosophers Theodor Herzl and Ze’ev Jabotinsky; it continued on through the arguments of David ben Gurion; was expressed by the destruction of towns and villages under Plan Dalet even before the war of independence in 1948 and continuing afterwards; further expulsions were made during the Israeli initiated 1967 war; it was furthered by Ariel Sharon’s massacres in Sabra and Shatila during the Lebanon war; and is ongoing today through military restrictions, house demolitions, seizure of farmland, and the creation of many settlements in occupied territory.

This history is well recorded in Israeli archives and has been written about by many Israel historians and public figures.  Works written by Ilan Pappe, Taya Rinehart, Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Miko Peled, Shlomo Sand, and see most recently Seth Anziska’s “Preventing Palestine” (Princeton University, 2018) and many others cover this history of dispossession.

It is that history included in context that highlights the militarized actions leading to ethnic cleansing and occupation of Palestinian lands.  But another big miss is anything to do with Great Britain, the U.S. (in particular), and other western nations in the creation and sustenance of Israel for their own purposes.  Many of those purposes are written about by the above mentioned authors.

Israel was originally accepted as a means to remove the Jewish population from Europe, to serve as an “outpost” of western hegemonic influence in the Middle East, and to satisfy the demands of the Christian right wing evangelists of the Anglo-American empire.  Israel has received billions in financial assistance, and billions of dollars worth of military equipment.  The combined factors of the oil riches of the region and then the U.S. abandonment of the gold standard for the petro-dollar, military security in the region became a dominant factor of U.S.foreign policy – and Israel well serves U.S. purposes in all these areas.

Israel holds a tremendous amount of power over the U.S. – not in the military sense as its nuclear weapons are mainly to protect itself in an ultimate Samson option if Israel’s existence is ever really threatened – but by the workings of its lobby group AIPAC which controls Congress through intensive lobbying and financial donations, through various societies and organizations built to support Israel, and by the general bias of the domestic media.  The U.S. accepts its role through it military and financial support, its acquiescence to the Israeli narrative (remember the USS Liberty?), and its need to control the oil resources of the region for its own financial stability.

This “volatile and dangerous region” is thus made in contemporary history by all these factors.  Denied independence after the collapse of the Ottoman empire, recolonized by European nations, subjected to military interventions all along the way (especially significant for this work, the attacks against Iran), it is no surprise the region is in turmoil.  That turmoil is furthered by the U.S./Saudi backing of “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan who later morphed into al-Qaeda and thus ISIS.  To this day the U.S. supports indirectly these no longer “freedom fighters” along with their cohorts Israel,  Saudi Arabia, and their Gulf allies in order to further U.S. imperial hegemonic desires in the region.

It is that combination of alignment within the U.S.empire and the historical reality of a colonial settler nation using military violence against an indigenous people in an already neo-colonized area that creates the target on Israel’s back.

Israel will continue to exist, most likely as an apartheid state.  It is the major military power in the region with its not so secret nuclear arsenal and a highly militarized state apparatus.  The two state solution is dead, and was never truly alive.  A truly democratic state would provide equal rights in all areas for all inhabitants of the country, one factor that denies Israel the right to call itself a democracy just because it holds elections once in a while.

So yes, there are problems in other regions of the world, but Israel just happens to be – by action and location – in the centre of the global geopolitical network fighting for empire and armageddon.  There is much more that can be argued without rewriting many histories that are already available to genuinely interested and critical thinking reader.  Aviva Kompas’ book, “Speaking for Israel” will not do the trick.

*

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.

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Speaking for Israel”: A Speechwriter Battle’s Anti-Israeli Opinions at the United Nations

New ‘Red’ Bloc: Russia -China Alliance

October 2nd, 2019 by South Front

On October 1, China celebrated the 70th Anniversary of the Founding of the People’s Republic of China. This analysis is designed to provide a broader perspective to the Chinese-Russian military cooperation at the moment.

***

For starters, one should note that the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China are not in any formal military alliance providing for a form of common defense such as NATO for example. They are, however, in a longstanding collective security arrangement exemplified by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as well as a number of bilateral treaties and agreements governing mutual relations.  This includes the delineation of a mutual border to eliminate territorial disputes.  Such disputes have, in the past, been a perennial source of conflict between Russia and China, occasionally erupting into outright warfare, most recently in the form of the Amur River border clashes of the late 1960s.

As far as collective defense is concerned, the two countries have a shared interest in the form of preventing further encroachment upon their security and economic interests in their respective border buffer areas. For Russia, that area is Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and friendly states of the Middle East such as Syria. For China, it’s the South China Sea, Myanmar, Hong-Kong, and, to a certain extent, Central Asia as well. While the geography of conflict is almost entirely non-overlapping for the two countries, the identity of security concern sources is virtually identical—it’s the United States and, more broadly, NATO, along with a loose array of regional allies interested in establishing a lasting Anglo-Saxon hegemony on a planetary scale. Russia and China, on the other hand, for rather obvious and understandable reasons, are disinterested in being part of a world order built on the Washington-centric principle.

The histories of the two countries are replete with examples of aggression by Western powers believing themselves to be the bearers of some historic mission. The current edition of “American Exceptionalism” does not differ essentially from earlier episodes, not in ultimate aim or in the combination of military and non-military approaches towards imposing one’s will on non-Western political actors. Instead, Russia and China are in agreement that the ideal world order would be multipolar, rather than unipolar or even a bipolar one. It is with that aim, which actually closely resembles the vision of world order reflected in the institutional design of the UN Security Council—a multipolar world populated by 5 major powers which maintain order in their own respective spheres of influence and do not seek self-aggrandizement at the expense of other major powers.

Such military cooperation as exists between Russia and China is intended to further that objective. It is not more extensive than its current form for two reasons. Reason one is that both Moscow and Beijing still hold out the possibility of Washington coming to its senses after it realizes the limits of its power and acknowledges that it cannot dictate its will to other major powers.

For historic and cultural reasons, this belief is rather stronger in Moscow than Beijing. Reason two is that neither Moscow nor Beijing wishes to become the other’s satellite or even overly dependent upon the other. Russia needs markets for its defense products to underwrite the development of future technologies and to lower the cost of weapon system procurement.  It does not need China to become entirely self-sufficient in that realm or to start competing with Russia in other markets. China wants advanced weapon systems to parry the build-up of advanced weapons all along its periphery.  It does not want to be overly dependent upon Russia which could, after all, undergo a political reorientation toward the West and away from China. One of the aims of the regime change push against Russia of the past decade was precisely that: once Russia becomes a US satellite, China’s position becomes far less tenable.

This has largely been a one way street—Russia sells to China, but does not buy from China—for the past several decades. There is also a discernible pattern—China acquires a Russian weapon system, copies it, and then puts it into production and service. This approach has not always worked. If it did, China would not be continually procuring advanced Russian combat aircraft for example.  China is, however, self-sufficient in small arms, armored vehicles, artillery, missiles and rocketry, and most naval needs, with many of even today’s advanced Chinese systems (e.g. main battle tanks) still bearing recognizable signs of their Soviet origin.

Whether these Chinese weapons are as capable as Russian or Western equivalents is another question. China’s leadership clearly believes they are good enough and, moreover, has to contend with its own “military industrial complex” and its desire to master the mass production of weapons.  China’s priorities do include the development of an indigenous technological base through a combination of internal investments and acquisition of technologies from abroad. The foreign sources of technologies include the West, but also Russia (through industrial espionage) and even former Soviet republics where components of the Soviet military-industrial complex still reside. China’s efforts to acquire Ukraine’s Motor Sich and its legacy Soviet technologies is a case in point.

Watch the video here.

However, there are reasons to believe China’s indigenous weapons still lag behind those of Russia. This is particularly pronounced in the aerospace realm, where the Su-35 remains the most advanced air combat fighter in the PLAAF’s inventory, in spite of the existence of numerous PRC-designed fighter aircraft. China’s industry has struggled with the design of jet engines suitable for gen. 4++/5 fighters of which capabilities such as “super-cruise” are demanded. It is also debatable whether China’s industry can replicate the performance of Russia’s phased array radars or electronic warfare systems. That the Su-35 represents superior capability to Chinese designs was evident in the Russia-China negotiations concerning the purchase of such systems. China was initially interested in procuring only a small batch of the fighters, suggesting an interest in not so much re-equipping the PLAAF but in “cloning” the aircraft or its components. Ultimately Russia prevailed upon China to purchase a substantial quantity of the aircraft.

The situation in other realms is likely not different. In head-to-head Tank Biathlon contests under controlled conditions and with highly trained crews, China’s Type 96B did not display superiority over Russia’s T-72B3, even though it’s of a newer design. It is also interesting that while Russia’s naval shipbuilding is struggling to meet the Russian Navy’s demand for new construction and refurbishment of existing ships China’s naval industry, by contrast, is churning out major surface combatants by the dozen. Russia has not placed orders for any ships in Chinese shipyards.

Finally, there is a striking absence of joint weapon system development even though the security needs of the two countries overlap. Instead, we see parallel development of weapons with similar capabilities in both countries. This is likely due to Russia’s fear of compromising its superior technological know-how in joint development efforts with China.

While Russia and the PRC have held joint exercises on land, air, and sea, and the Chinese military is a regular participant in Russia’s annual Army Games, to the point of bringing its own equipment, these exercises still have a mostly political rather than military character. They are intended to demonstrate Moscow and Beijing’s solidarity on a broad range of political issues rather than to develop procedures for joint military action. It appears that both Moscow and Beijing seek to preserve their own freedom of action. Thus military engagement between the US and China in the Pacific would not automatically provoke a Russian response, and, likewise, a US-Russia clash in the Black Sea or Mediterranean would not necessarily draw in China’s military. Instead, the joint exercises are intended to impress upon third parties the possibility of a joint Russian-Chinese military action at some point in the future where urgent national interests dictate it.  They certainly are laying the groundwork for a future expansion of military cooperation through the establishment of stable and persistent military-to-military contacts, but the leap into a military alliance has yet to be made.

The Russia-China relationship is symptomatic of a future multipolar world order where alliances between major powers will be shallow and situational. Indeed, a deep alliance integration is only possible where one member of the alliance clearly dominates all other members, as in the case of NATO, or where the allies are so deeply integrated in the political and economic sense that military integration is a logical next step. The discussions concerning a “European Army” are an example of that latter pattern of military cooperation. Since Russia and China are very likely to dominate one another, or to become economically very highly interdependent, the current level of cooperation will continue unless a dire military threat emerges in the future. Current US military modernization policies are clearly intended to pose that level of threat to both countries to which they would almost certainly attempt to deflect through advancing their cooperation to the next level. At the same time, both Moscow and Beijing still believe Washington has not irreversibly crossed the Rubicon of great power conflict.

*

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.

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 New ‘Red’ Bloc: Russia -China Alliance
  • Tags: ,

Counting the Dead Through the Fog of War in Afghanistan

October 2nd, 2019 by Nicolas J. S. Davies

During one week in late September, U.S.-led forces killed at least 70 civilians in two incidents in Afghanistan. A U.S. drone strike on September 19th killed at least 30 farmers harvesting pine nuts in Nangarhar province. Then on September 23rd, at least 40 civilians, including women and children, were reported killed in a combined U.S.-Afghan attack on a village in Taliban-controlled territory in southern Helmand province.

These massacres gained some attention from the international media. But, as with mass shootings in the U.S., the way they were reported obscures the reality that these are just the bloodiest incidents in daily, systematic violence that kills thousands of people day in day out in Afghanistan and other U.S. war zones, with little Western media attention or public awareness. This is as true of the violence of endless war as it is of endemic domestic gun violence in the U.S. 

In a rare and commendable effort to break through the corporate media silence and resulting public apathy, the BBC set out to track the violence of the war in Afghanistan in more detail for a single month. For the full month of August, it sent out reporters to different parts of the country, including some Taliban-held areas, and compiled their individual reports into a data-set and a published report to paint a more complete picture of life and death in America’s longest war. 

The BBC counted an average of 74 men, women and children killed each day, a total of 2,307 people killed in the month of August, with another 1,948 people wounded.

The report broke down the numbers of people killed both by who they were and by how and where they were killed. The BBC classified the dead as 1,007 anti-occupation fighters (Taliban, Al Qaeda and IS), 675 government troops and police, 496 civilians and 3 U.S. troops. 

The BBC was able to broadly identify how 2,089 of them were killed: 844 in armed clashes; 515 in air strikes; 255 by snipers or targeted killings; 249 in explosions; 118 by shelling; and 108 in ambushes. 

The killing documented by the BBC spanned every part of Afghanistan, with the largest numbers killed in Kabul; nearby Ghazni province (the bloodiest of all, with 232 people killed in 66 attacks); and Balkh province around Mazar-e Sharif in the north. 

Mohibullah, from Uruzgan province, who brought his brother to the main hospital in Kandahar with a bullet in his shoulder, angrily told the BBC, “Whenever there’s an operation in our area, ordinary people can’t move anywhere. If they do, American or Afghan forces shoot them. They drop bombs wherever they want. All the houses around us have been destroyed.” 

While the BBC report reveals a more comprehensive view of the daily slaughter in Afghanistan than most media reports, it is still an incomplete picture. The BBC counted only the lowest confirmed number of people killed in each incident, dropping conflicting reports of higher casualties, and, as the report said, “hundreds of reports were excluded and the true number of attacks and casualties could be much higher.”  

The BBC also noted that Afghan government forces treat their own casualty figures as secret and refused to confirm them, while the Taliban rejected the BBC’s count of its casualties as “baseless allegations” and government propaganda. The U.S. military has a long and sordid history of counting civilians it kills as enemy combatants, from Vietnam to its current wars, so the Taliban’s response is likely to be at least partially correct. 

But at least the BBC tried to systematically report war-deaths from around the country in real time. The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) has published regular reports on civilian casualties since 2007, but they have been more fragmentary and incomplete. They include only confirmed minimum numbers of civilian deaths in incidents investigated by the UN human rights office in Kabul, and only the ones for which it has been able to complete its investigations. 

Fiona Frazer, the current UN human rights chief in Afghanistan, told the BBC that

“more civilians are killed or injured in Afghanistan due to armed conflict than anywhere else on Earth.”  But she added that, “Although the number of recorded civilian casualties are disturbingly high, due to rigorous methods of verification, the published figures almost certainly do not reflect the true scale of harm.” 

The tragedy of Afghanistan is only obscured and compounded when UNAMA’s reports, which are based on UN investigations of only a fraction of the killings taking place across the country, as Frazer acknowledged, are cited by journalists and academics around the world as if they were actual estimates of the total number of civilians killed in the war.  

The number of combatants killed in Afghanistan is also largely unknown and ignored. The international media were surprised when President Ghani revealed in January 2019 that 45,000 Afghan troops and police had been killed since he took office in September 2014. If the BBC’s finding that government troops and police were about a third of the people killed in August 2019 was also true for the period Ghani referred to, total Afghan war deaths for those 52 months would have been about 130,000 to 140,000.

It is considered good journalistic and academic practice to cite the lowest confirmed numbers of deaths in armed conflicts, as the BBC did in its report, and as other journalists do in accounts of drone strikes, air strikes and other U.S. military operations.  But when this practice is applied to numbers of deaths in an entire war, journalists, academics and UN and government officials also have a duty to make it clear that these are only minimum confirmed numbers and to give readers some idea what proportion of actual deaths they are likely to represent. 

The war in Iraq is the only one of America’s recent wars for which more comprehensive epidemiological mortality studies have been conducted.  As in wars in other countries, these studies found a scale of war deaths that is many times higher than widely published figures based on compilations of media reports, hospital records, human rights investigations and other “passive” sources.   

Les Roberts, the lead author of the first Iraqi mortality study published in 2004, and of commonly referenced studies in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), told me that serious epidemiological studies usually find that passive sources have only revealed between 5% and 20% of actual war deaths in conflict zones.   

But the U.S. and U.K. governments and the corporate media did their best to “rubbish” the epidemiological studies conducted in Iraq in 2004 and 2006. This left the public so confused that opinion surveys in both the U.S. and the U.K. found that average citizens believed only 10,000 Iraqis had been killed in the war, even after the Lancet medical journal published the epidemiologists’ estimate of 600,000 violent deaths.  

As the Saudi-led war in Yemen has provoked growing worldwide outrage, U.K.-based ACLED (Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project) has stopped simply reporting the casualty figures published by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN, which are based on surveys of hospitals in Yemen. ACLED has instead compiled its own reports of war deaths from the beginning of the war in 2015 to the present, and its figures are now widely accepted by international media in place of the much lower UN figures.  As of June 2019, ACLED counted 91,600 war deaths in Yemen.  That does not include deaths from preventable diseases and food shortages in the resulting humanitarian crisis, which, as UNICEF has reported since December 2016, kill at least one child every ten minutes. 

But like the BBC’s August death count in Afghanistan, ACLED’s figures from Yemen are probably still only a fraction of the actual number of people killed. Passive reporting is still just passive reporting. ACLED cannot detect every Saudi air strike or every firefight in remote areas of Yemen any more than the BBC’s reporters could detect every air strike or night raid on remote villages in Taliban-held regions of Afghanistan. 

Just as a scientific mortality study was needed to reveal that about 3,000 people died as a result of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, only comprehensive mortality studies can produce reliable estimates of the true scale of the slaughter in America’s endless wars. Such studies are sorely needed for Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Pakistan. 

Absent such studies, the BBC’s August survey in Afghanistan and ACLED’s reports on Yemen are among the most reliable reports available, but they should be referenced or cited with the clear understanding that what they report are confirmed minimum numbers of people killed.  The question they leave unanswered is: what fraction of the true numbers of people killed do these reports represent?   

The considerable experience of epidemiologists in war zones around the world, including in Iraq, suggests approximate answers to that question, as I have explained in my reporting on these questions over the past fifteen years. This has led me to conclude that the true death toll inAmerica’s post-9/11 wars is not in the tens of thousands, nor even in the hundreds of thousands, but in the millions.    

The terrible reality that is hidden in plain sight is that America’s wars are far more deadly and destructive than widely published figures would suggest. It is therefore up to journalists, academics, activists and citizens to grasp this reality and to respond appropriately, by calling clearly and firmly for: an end to these wars; a genuine accounting of their human cost; criminal prosecutions of U.S. officials responsible for illegal attacks on foreign countries and other war crimes; and the payment of war reparations to the people and countries they have damaged or destroyed.

*

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. 

Nicolas J S Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. He is a researcher with CODEPINK and a widely published independent journalist.       

Featured image is from Rare Historical Photos

The world still remembers the 2017 Candle-Light Revolution in which 17,000,000 Korean people fought peacefully and culturally on the streets, for several months, against the deep-rooted corruption culture developed and enforced under the 60- year conservative government’s rule.

In the evening of September 28 of 2019, 2,000,000 people of all walks of life, all ages and all segments of the society came down to the street and shouted  

“We are Moon Jae-in!” The people were crying out that they were with President Moon Jaen-in in the fight for the survival of democracy

“We are Cho Kuk!” “Let us fight for the reform of the corrupted Prosecutor Office!”

The people were shouting that they were with Cho Kuk, the newly appointed Minister of Justice, for the Reform of the Supreme Prosecutors Office (Prosecution) 

They have cried out: “Let us reform the rotten media!” The Korean media have shown bluntly how they have been a part of the corruption culture; the people could no longer tolerate it.

The present candle-light demonstration started only a few weeks ago with 2,000, then 100,000 and now as many as 2,000,000. 

They were angry; they were very angry; they will do it again next Saturday (October 5) with perhaps 3,000,000 people.

What is going on in the country of morning calm?

It is no longer a country of calm; it may have to go through a long period of fight for the survival of democracy and a cleaner society. 

This second candle-light demonstration is, perhaps, a beginning of the final stage of cutting off the deep roots of corruption affecting every corner of the Korean society for last 60 years under the conservative government.

This paper deals with the following.

First, I will trace back the origin and the dreadful evolution of the corruption culture in Korea.

Second, I will discuss how the liberal government of Moon Jae-in has been trying, for last two years, to clean up the corruption culture.

Finally, I will say a few words about the future course of actions Korea should take to be free from the corruption culture.

  1. Origin and Evolution of the Corruption Culture in South Korea

The origin and the evolution of the corruption culture may be explained by the lack of legitimacy of the conservative government on the one hand, and on the other hand, the dictatorial violation of human rights and abuse of power committed in order to perpetuate the illegitimate government.

Korea was “liberated” from Japanese harsh colonial abuse of power which lasted for 35 years. But, was it really liberation? In 1945, the US army came with no knowledge about Korea and ruled the country for three years with the collaboration of former Japanese officials and, especially former Korean officials who had collaborated with Japan for the brutal oppression of the Korean people and, in particular, for capturing and killing Korean patriots who fought against Japan.

In fact, Korea was not liberated in 1945 from Japan; Japan continued to rule Korea along with U.S. and pro-Japan Koreans.

Syngman Rhee established in 1948 the first Korean government after three years of US military government. Most of the ministers and high ranking officials of Rhee’s conservative government were former Korean officials served under the Japanese colonial rules.

Moreover, about 70% of police force was former Korean police men worked for the Japanese government. These officials and police personnel feared greatly the Korean patriots, because they did the dirty work of capturing, torturing and killing them.

These pro-Japan Koreans (tchin-il-pa) murdered Kim Koo, the president of the Korea provisional government which fought against Japan.

In 1948, a committee investigating the traitors was established in order to investigate and punish those who collaborated with Japan. Unfortunately, the pro-Japan police attacked the office of the committee and destroyed all the documents on pro-Japan and anti-Korea activities of the traitors.

As a result, no “traitor” was caught and punished. It is possible that Korea is the only country in the world which could not punish the traitors who collaborated with the enemy in war time.

Koreans were impressed with the way France, the Netherland and other countries caught the traitors and punished them.

So, the government of Rhee had little legitimacy because it was run by former officials of the Japanese colonial government. The lack of legitimacy has made Rhee’s government to regard the people as “enemy” and protect itself from the ordinary Korean people; it chose a series of dictatorial measures.

First, it amended the constitution to assure long-period presidency.

Second, it used the brutal police force and the army to massacre a few hundred thousand innocent people in Jeju Island and elsewhere under the pretext of their being “red”.

The expression “red” meant a dirty word and it meant “communist” or “sympathizer of communism”. These poor people were farmers, factory workers, old people, young people, women, children who had nothing to do with ideology; their only concern was to find breads to eat twice a day, if lucky.

Third, Rhee’s government took away freedom of press, the right to form labour union and committed major violation of human rights.

Fourth, it stole and shared tax payers’ money among the closely knit pro-Japan groups in order to strengthen their internal cohesion, solidarity and monopolize their power for good.

This pattern of oppressing the people in order to monopolize power and wealth was repeated by Park Chung-hee who snatched power by military Coup d’État (1962), Chun Doo-hwan who appointed himself as president through an illegal “electoral council” (1981), Lee Myong-bak (2008) and Park Geun-hye (2012) who stole powe by illegal rigged presidential elections.

The lack of legitimacy of the conservative government has led to dictatorship of various forms and the spread of corruption into the very fabrics of the Korean society.

Dictatorship means the monopoly of power; the monopoly of power leads inevitably to the abuse of power; the abuse of power invites necessarily corruption. This has been the sad history of post-war Korea under the conservatives.

Despite the dictatorial policy of the conservative government, Korea has produced the Han River economic miracle and saved democracy.

This was possible owing to the courage and wisdom of the Korean people.Koreans are patient and they endure the abuse of power by the vested interest groups for long time, but when time comes, they fight back and win.  

In fact, Korean people led by young students took the street and fought bravely against the evil of dictatorship. We remember the huge protest against Rhee’s government on 16th of April 1960, the bold street demonstration against Park Chung-hee’s government on the 16th of October 1979, the bloody street fight against the dictator Chun Doo-hwan on the 18th of May, 1980 and the effective demonstration to amend the constitution in June 1987.

In each of these protests, several hundred thousand people joined and some times, more than million people joined; many of them were murdered.

But, they have succeeded in making all of the six presidents of pro-Japan conservative governments to pay for their crimes; they all ended their presidential terms in tragic manners.

Syngman Rhee was chased by students; he escaped on board of US CIA plane, Park Chung-hee was assassinated by his own CIA director, Chun Doo-hwan and his successor Rho Tae-uk were put in prison, Lee Myong-bak is waiting for the Supreme Court ruling for possible 15-year free room-and-board in prison; Park Geun-hye got 25 year prison life.

Thus, none of the presidents of the conservative governments has finished in normal way the presidential terms. Each one of them was accused for violation of human rights, abuse of power and corruption.

The courage and determination of the Korean people has succeeded in punishing the conservative presidents, but the roots of corruption they have planted is so deep and so widely spread that the fight against the resulting injustice, unfairness and abuse of power and privileges must go on.

The corruption of Park Guen-hye was perhaps the most devastating case in the annals of the Blue House corruption. She made major decisions in the areas of politics, economics and foreign relations on the basis of the opinion of a woman, her long-time friend, Choi Soon-Sil, who had nothing to do with government affairs. This was a grave crime.

Park had illegal dealing with the business world, especially with the Samsung Group. She received tens of millions of dollars as bribe in exchange of facilitating the succession of Samsung Group control by Lee Jae-yong.

Choi Soon-sil (in prison for 20 years) is suspected for having intervened, on the regular basis, in the nominations of ministers, deputy ministers, members of the National Assembly, judges and other persons of power for possible huge rewards.

The corruption culture has three characteristics.

First, the people have lost confidence in the Blue House (the government); the government has lost its authority.

Second, since the upstream (the government) is rotten, inevitably the downstream (the people) cannot avoid from being rotten also.

Third, the society has lost public ethics in such way that illegal behaviour can be transformed into “legal” behaviour by paying a fee (bribes)

Fourth, the corruption culture kills the economy and the survival of the country as a viable country becomes uncertain.

Well, the people had enough; 17,000,000 people came down to the Kwang-hwa-moon square for eight months in the period, 2016-2017, spent countless evenings sitting on icy square’s cement floor, getting soak wet on rainy days and asked Park Geun-hye to leave the Blue House. They won; they sent her to prison for 25 years.

And they put Moon Jae-in in the Blue house in 2017.

  1. Anti-Corruption policy of the government of Moon Jae-in

As soon as he took over the government, Moon declared a war against the corruption culture. The target of this war may be grouped as follows: the Blue House, military establishment, the police, the public corporations, previous crimes neglected by the police, the business sector and the Prosecution.

The corruption of the Blue House was dealt with success by putting in jail two responsible presidents, Lee Myong-bak and Park Geun-hye  and punishing the individuals involved in the Blue House corruption and crimes.

However, the embezzlement of tax payers’ money amounting billions of dollars connected with the infamous 4-River projects and the Natural Resources Diplomacy remain to be investigated.

The corruption of the military is deep rooted, but the most alarming was the case where the Defence Security Command (ki-moo-sa) originally designed to supervise anti-patriotic behaviour of the military personnel has committed the crime of harassing civilians who may say or act against the conservative government.

What is really alarming is that it prepared even a military coup d’Etat to eliminate those citizens who would be against the government of Park Guen-hye in case where her impeachment would fail.

Moon has dissolved the organization. The commander who was responsible is hiding somewhere in the U.S.

The corruption of the police is being investigated by a newly appointed police chief and a committee designed to look into the matter.

One of the troubling cases of corruption of the public corporations is the illegal hiring of children of members of the National Assembly, high ranking government officials and other people of power. The practice of such hiring is so widely spread that the government has decided to make major investigation..

There are numerous crimes committed in the past which were not properly investigated properly by the previous conservative government and the Prosecution.

There was the case where a beautiful movie star killed herself after being raped times after times by numerous individuals including the owner of a large news paper, lawyers, bankers and other “society leaders”.

The Prosecution did not investigate properly possibly because of possible bribes.

There are other cases of violent crimes and violation of human rights which were not fully investigated. Some of the large Christian church leaders suspected to have committed such crimes have not been properly investigated.

Moon’s government has established a special committee to re-examine these cases, but it has not been able to get full cooperation of the Prosecution.

The business sector is as much corrupted as the public sector. Apart from the practice of bribery, the Chaebols often violate human rights of their employees.

The abuse of power and illegal imports of luxury goods for personal use of the family of Korea Air was a typical case of “kap-jil” or the verbal or physical violence against the employees. The founder of the Korea Air, his wife, his son and his two daughters were all found to be guilty of mistreating hired employees.

Through the sustained efforts to destroy the corruption culture since two years, the Moon government has been able to reveal that the real force behind the corruption and illegal activities of the establishment was the Prosecution.

The Prosecution in Korea monopolizes not only the accusation procedure but also indictment process; it supervises the police work. It is said that the Korean Prosecution is the most powerful judicial institution in the world.

To fight the corruption, one had to penalize the offender. But, it is the Prosecution which can prosecute offender. The sad reality is that it is difficult to bring the Prosecution to the court, because the court makes its ruling on basis of the information presented by the Prosecution.

Thus, the prosecutors are almighty; they could prevent the corruption, but they don’t do it, because they are themselves corrupted. It is now clear that without the reform of the Prosecution, the corruption will win over honesty, justice and decency.

President Moon Jae-in knows how and why it is so difficult to reform the Prosecution. Moon was one of the chief aids for President Rho Moon-hyun (2003-2008) who was machinated by the Prosecution into suicide. The Korean Prosecution can kill a president of the country.

Those prosecutors who participated in the machination of President Rho’s suicide had all big promotion and are leading luxury life.

President Moon had to find a superman to undertake the reform of the Prosecution.

Moon picked Professor Cho Kuk who has been studying Prosecution all his life. President Moon appointed Cho first in 2017 as the chief aid responsible for civic affairs, a position handy for observing how the Prosecution operates.

The president appointed Cho Kuk a month ago as Minister of Justice who can play a key role in the reform of the Prosecution

The appointment of Cho stirred up violent protest by the opposition part, Hangook-Dang (LKP), the media, the conservative establishment. In fact, they were panicked by the thought that Cho might succeeds. But the most powerful protest came from the Prosecution itself.

Why? It is obvious to them that if Cho succeeds with his Prosecution reform, the whole network of corruption will be destroyed and they can no longer live above the law; they can no longer abuse power and privileges; they can no longer steal tax payers’ money 

The reform proposed by Cho has two parts. The first part is the priority right given to the police to accuse the suspect based on the autonomous investigation, although the Prosecution will be given the right to conduct supplementary investigation, if necessary.

Second – this is the most important- there will be an institution which can investigate high ranking officials and, especially the prosecutors.

As far as the conservatives – especially the conservative party LKP- are concerned, Cho’s plan means a death sentence; they cannot rely any more on the Prosecution to cover up their crimes. As far as the Prosecution is concerned, Cho’s plan means the end of the gold mines filled with bribery money and unlimited power.

The Prosecution has launched a total war against Cho. The Prosecutor’s first tactic was to find vulnerable spots in Cho’s personal life such as real estate speculation, unlawful moving of house for his kids’ school, doubtful investments and so on.

It failed; Cho has passed the investigation with flying colour.

Having found no faults in Cho, the Prosecution has decided to harass Cho’s wife who is a university professor. Nothing came out. Then, Cho’s son and his daughter were made the target of merciless accusation with no justifiable reasons

The Prosecution has made Cho’s family life miserable and humiliating with no justifiable reasons hoping that Cho would give up his appointment under the pressure put on his innocent family.

Cho has no intention of doing so, because his job will determine the very survival for Korea as a decent clean country.

Koreans have found out to what extent the Korean media are under- developed, non professional and dishonest. They published what the Prosecution told them; they do not know and they are not interested to know how to verify the reliability of information given by the Prosecution.

The Korean media are also very corrupted. They write what the information sources tell them to write in exchange of articles favourable to the information sources or and bribe money This practice is found in the business world, the research institutes, government agencies and schools and everywhere in the society.

We need a reform of the media as much as we need the reform of the Prosecution.

  1. Summary

To sum up, Korean people have found out that neither the political parties nor the media can really cope with the corruption crisis; they have concluded that only the people themselves can do something about it.

The fight against the Prosecution is by no means easy, because under the present law it has all the power. In the final analysis, only the ordinary people can do the job.

In fact, the street protest of 2,000,000 people which took place on the 28th of September seems to have made the Prosecution to wake up and re-examine its position.

The director of the Prosecution, Yoon Suk-yul said, after having watched the event, that he would undertake the reform as demanded by the people.

But, I doubt his sincerity. Even if he is, I am not sure if the prosecutors will follow him.

In the coming Saturday (October 3), 3,000,000 people are expected to show their force and their support to President Moon and Minister of Justice, Cho Kuk.

It is possible that Cho Kuk can keep his job and launch the reform of the prosecution.

But optimism is to be avoided, for the conservative establishment has money, a lot of money hidden around the world. Nobody knows how much, but it could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars.

The conservatives can buy media and supporters for their greed, but they cannot bribe the mass of the ordinary people. The ordinary people are the true master of the society.

*

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

Professor Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics and co-director of the East Asia Observatory (OAE) of the Study Center for Integration and Globalization (CEIM), Quebec University in Montreal (UQAM). He is Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Truth In Media‘s journalist Ben Swann interviewed RFK, Jr. about California’s newly passed mandatory vaccine law which has sparked controversy as it effectively removes all medical exemptions in CA, putting thousands of medically-fragile children at risk of vaccine injury.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Robert F Kennedy Jr. on California’s Newly Passed Mandatory Vaccine Law

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes… known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” — James Madison

Eventually, all military empires fall and fail by spreading themselves too thin and spending themselves to death.

It happened in Rome.

It’s happening again.

At the height of its power, even the mighty Roman Empire could not stare down a collapsing economy and a burgeoning military. Prolonged periods of war and false economic prosperity largely led to its demise. As historian Chalmers Johnson predicts:

The fate of previous democratic empires suggests that such a conflict is unsustainable and will be resolved in one of two ways. Rome attempted to keep its empire and lost its democracy. Britain chose to remain democratic and in the process let go its empire. Intentionally or not, the people of the United States already are well embarked upon the course of non-democratic empire.

The American Empire—with its endless wars waged by U.S. military servicepeople who have been reduced to little more than guns for hire: outsourced, stretched too thin, and deployed to far-flung places to police the globe—is approaching a breaking point.

War has become a huge money-making venture, and America, with its vast military empire and its incestuous relationship with a host of international defense contractors, is one of its best buyers and sellers. In fact, as Reuters reports, “[President] Trump has gone further than any of his predecessors to act as a salesman for the U.S. defense industry.”

Under Trump’s leadership, the U.S. military is dropping a bomb every 12 minutes.

This follows on the heels of President Obama, the so-called antiwar candidate and Nobel Peace Prize winner who waged war longer than any American president and whose targeted-drone killings resulted in at least 1.3 million lives lost to the U.S.-led war on terror.

Most recently, the Trump Administration signaled its willingness to put the lives of American troops on the line in order to guard Saudi Arabia’s oil resources. Roughly 200 American troops will join the 500 troops already stationed in Saudi Arabia. That’s in addition to the 60,000 U.S. troops that have been deployed throughout the Middle East for decades.

As The Washington Post points out, “The United States is now the world’s largest producer — and its reliance on Saudi imports has dropped dramatically, including by 50 percent in the past two years alone.”

So if we’re not protecting the oil for ourselves, whose interests are we protecting?

The military industrial complex is calling the shots, of course, and profit is its primary objective.

The military-industrial complex is also the world’s largest employer.

America has long had a penchant for endless wars that empty our national coffers while fattening those of the military industrial complex.

Aided and abetted by the U.S government, the American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope, one dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth.

Although the U.S. constitutes only 5% of the world’s population, America boasts almost 50% of the world’s total military expenditure, spending more on the military than the next 19 biggest spending nations combined. Indeed, the Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.

Unfortunately, this level of war-mongering doesn’t come cheap to the taxpayers who are forced to foot the bill.

Having been co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent government officials, America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $32 million per hour.

In fact, the U.S. government has spent more money every five seconds in Iraq than the average American earns in a year.

With more than 800 U.S. military bases in 80 countries, the U.S. is now operating in 40 percent of the world’s nations at a cost of $160 to $200 billion annually.

Despite the fact that Congress has only officially declared war eleven times in the nation’s short history, the last time being during World War II, the United States has been at war for all but 21 of the past 243 years.

It’s cost the American taxpayer more than $4.7 trillion since 2001 to fight the government’s so-called “war on terrorism.” That’s in addition to “$127 billion in the last 17 years to train police, military and border patrol agents in many countries and to develop antiterrorism education programs, among other activities.” That does not include the cost of maintaining and staffing the 800-plus U.S. military bases spread around the globe.

The cost of perpetuating those endless wars and military exercises around the globe is expected to push the total bill upwards of $12 trillion by 2053.

The U.S. government is spending money it doesn’t have on a military empire it can’t afford.

As investigative journalist Uri Friedman puts it, for more than 15 years now, the United States has been fighting terrorism with a credit card, “essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local governments, and by countries like China and Japan.”

War is not cheap, but it becomes outrageously costly when you factor in government incompetence, fraud, and greedy contractors.

For example, a leading accounting firm concluded that one of the Pentagon’s largest agencies “can’t account for hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of spending.”

Unfortunately, the outlook isn’t much better for the spending that can be tracked.

Consider that the government lost more than $160 billion to waste and fraud by the military and defense contractors. With paid contractors often outnumbering enlisted combat troops, the American war effort dubbed as the “coalition of the willing” has quickly evolved into the “coalition of the billing,” with American taxpayers forced to cough up billions of dollars for cash bribes, luxury bases, a highway to nowhere, faulty equipment, salaries for so-called “ghost soldiers,” and overpriced anything and everything associated with the war effort, including a $640 toilet seat and a $7600 coffee pot.

A government audit found that defense contractor Boeing has been massively overcharging taxpayers for mundane parts, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in overspending. As the report noted, the American taxpayer paid:

$71 for a metal pin that should cost just 4 cents; $644.75 for a small gear smaller than a dime that sells for $12.51: more than a 5,100 percent increase in price. $1,678.61 for another tiny part, also smaller than a dime, that could have been bought within DoD for $7.71: a 21,000 percent increase. $71.01 for a straight, thin metal pin that DoD had on hand, unused by the tens of thousands, for 4 cents: an increase of over 177,000 percent.

That price gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire is a sad statement on how little control “we the people” have over our runaway government.

There’s a good reason why “bloated,” “corrupt” and “inefficient” are among the words most commonly applied to the government, especially the Department of Defense and its contractors. Price gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire.

It’s not just the American economy that is being gouged, unfortunately.

Driven by a greedy defense sector, the American homeland has been transformed into a battlefield with militarized police and weapons better suited to a war zone. Trump, no different from his predecessors, has continued to expand America’s military empire abroad and domestically, calling on Congress to approve billions more to hire cops, build more prisons and wage more profit-driven war-on-drugs/war-on-terrorism/war-on-crime programs that pander to the powerful money interests (military, corporate and security) that run the Deep State and hold the government in its clutches.

Mind you, this isn’t just corrupt behavior. It’s deadly, downright immoral behavior.

Essentially, in order to fund this burgeoning military empire that polices the globe, the U.S. government is prepared to bankrupt the nation, jeopardize our servicemen and women, increase the chances of terrorism and blowback domestically, and push the nation that much closer to eventual collapse.

Making matters worse, taxpayers are being forced to pay $1.4 million per hour to provide U.S. weapons to countries that can’t afford them. As Mother Jones reports, the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Finance program “opens the way for the US government to pay for weapons for other countries—only to ‘promote world peace,’ of course—using your tax dollars, which are then recycled into the hands of military-industrial-complex corporations.”

Clearly, our national priorities are in desperate need of an overhauling.

As Los Angeles Times reporter Steve Lopez rightly asks:

Why throw money at defense when everything is falling down around us? Do we need to spend more money on our military (about $600 billion this year) than the next seven countries combined? Do we need 1.4 million active military personnel and 850,000 reserves when the enemy at the moment — ISIS — numbers in the low tens of thousands? If so, it seems there’s something radically wrong with our strategy. Should 55% of the federal government’s discretionary spending go to the military and only 3% to transportation when the toll in American lives is far greater from failing infrastructure than from terrorism? Does California need nearly as many active military bases (31, according to militarybases.com) as it has UC and state university campuses (33)? And does the state need more active duty military personnel (168,000, according to Governing magazine) than public elementary school teachers (139,000)?

The illicit merger of the global armaments industry and the Pentagon that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us against more than 50 years ago has come to represent perhaps the greatest threat to the nation’s fragile infrastructure today.

The government is destabilizing the economy, destroying the national infrastructure through neglect and a lack of resources, and turning taxpayer dollars into blood money with its endless wars, drone strikes and mounting death tolls.

This is exactly the scenario Eisenhower warned against when he cautioned the citizenry not to let the profit-driven war machine endanger our liberties or democratic processes:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

We failed to heed Eisenhower’s warning.

The illicit merger of the armaments industry and the government that Eisenhower warned against has come to represent perhaps the greatest threat to the nation today.

What we have is a confluence of factors and influences that go beyond mere comparisons to Rome. It is a union of Orwell’s 1984 with its shadowy, totalitarian government—i.e., fascism, the union of government and corporate powers—and a total surveillance state with a military empire extended throughout the world.

This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the growth of and reliance on militarism as the solution for our problems both domestically and abroad bodes ill for the constitutional principles which form the basis of the American experiment in freedom.

After all, a military empire ruled by martial law does not rely on principles of equality and justice for its authority but on the power of the sword. As author Aldous Huxley warned: “Liberty cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war footing, or even a near-war footing. Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of the central government.”

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Guns for Hire: No, the U.S. Government Shouldn’t be Using the Military to Police the Globe

Há setenta anos, em 1º de Outubro de 1949, Mao Tsé Tung proclamava,na porta de Tien An Men,  o nascimento da República Popular da China. O aniversário é comemorado hoje, com um desfile militar, em frente à porta histórica de Pequim. Da Europa ao Japão e aos Estados Unidos, a comunicação mediática de destaque, apresenta-o como uma ostentação de força de uma potência ameaçadora. Praticamente ninguém recorda os dramáticos acontecimentos históricos que conduziram ao nascimento da Nova China.

Desaparece, assim, a China reduzida ao estado colonial e semi-colonial, subjugada, explorada e desmembrada, desde meados do século XIX, pelas potências europeias (Grã-Bretanha, Alemanha, França, Bélgica, Áustria e Itália), pela Rússia czarista, pelo Japão e pelos Estados Unidos.

Exclui-se o sangrento golpe de Estado, efectuado em 1927, por Chiang Kai-shek – apoiado pelos anglo-americanos (mais tarde, na década de 1930, apoiado também por Hitler e Mussolini, aliados do Japão) – que extermina grande parte do Partido Comunista (nascido em 1921) e mata centenas de milhares de operários e camponeses.

Não se fala da Longa Marcha do Exército Vermelho que, iniciada em 1934, como uma  retirada desastrosa, é transformada por Mao Tsé Tung, num dos maiores empreemdimentos político-militares da História.

Esquece-se a guerra de agressão contra a China desencadeada pelo Japão, em 1937: as tropas japonesas ocupam Pequim, Shangai e Nanquim, massacrando, nesta última cidade, mais de 300.000 civis, enquanto mais de dez cidades são atacadas com armas biológicas.

Ignora-se a narrativa da Frente Unida Anti-Japonesa, que o Partido Comunista constitui com o Kuomintang: o exército do Kuomintang, armado pelos EUA, por um lado, luta contra os invasores japoneses, por outro lado, embarga as áreas libertadas pelo Exército Vermelho e faz com que se concentre contra eles, a ofensiva japonesa; o Partido Comunista, que cresceu de 40.000 para 1,2 milhões de membros, de 1937 a 1945, lidera as forças populares numa guerra que desgasta, cada vez mais, o exército japonês.

Não se reconhece o facto de que, com a sua Resistência que custou mais de 35 milhões de mortes, a China contribui decisivamente para a derrota do Japão que, vencido no Pacífico pelos EUA e na Manchúria pela URSS, se rende, em 1945, após o bombardeio atómico de Hiroshima e Nagasaki.

Esconde-se o que acontece imediatamente após a derrota do Japão: segundo um plano decidido em Washington, Chiang Kai-shek tenta repetir o que havia feito em 1927, mas as suas forças, armadas e apoiadas pelos EUA, encontram-se perante  o Exército Popular de Libertação, com cerca de um milhão de homens e uma milícia de 2,5 milhões, escorados por um vasto apoio popular.

Cerca de 8 milhões de soldados do Kuomintang são mortos ou capturados e Chiang Kai-shek foge para Taiwan, sob a proteção dos EUA.

Tudo isto, numa síntese extrema, é o percurso que leva ao nascimento da República Popular da China, há 70 anos. Uma História pouco ou nada tratada nos nossos livros escolares, baseada numa visão restrita eurocentrica do mundo, cada vez mais anacrónica. Uma História propositadamente apagada por políticos e formadores de opinião porque traz à luz os crimes do imperialismo, colocando no banco dos réus, as potências europeias, o Japão e os Estados Unidos: as “grandes democracias” do Ocidente que se autoproclamam juízes supremos com o direito de estabelecer, com base nos seus cânones, quais os países que são e quais os que não são democráticos.

No entanto, já não estamos, na época das “concessões” (áreas urbanas sob administração estrangeira) que essas potências tinham imposto à China, quando, no parque Huangpu, em Shangai, era “vedada a entrada a cães e a chineses”.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Foto : Cerimônia da Fundação China (1949), Pintura de Dong Xiwen 1953, Óleo sobre tela Museu Nacional Chinês, Pequim

Artigo original em italiano :

70° della Rpc: la cancellazione della storia

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on O 70º Aniversário da República Popular da China: A Anulação da História

Selected Articles: Climate Change and the Green New Deal

October 1st, 2019 by Global Research News

In spite of online censorship efforts directed against the independent media, we are happy to say that readership on globalresearch.ca has recently increased. We wish to thank all of you who share our articles far and wide.

We cover a diversity of key issues you would be hard pressed to find on any other single online news source. This is truly independent news and analysis, a dying breed.

Our costs have increased and our revenue has gone down over the past year. We are running a monthly deficit. Help us keep the independent voice alive by becoming a member or making a donation today!

Click Here to Consult Global Research’s CLIMATE CHANGE DOSSIER (Several Hundred Articles)

*     *     *

Climate Is Changing, Relations of Exploitation Are Not

By Enzo Pellegrin, October 01, 2019

The climate, but not only the climate, is undergoing changes resulting from the pollution of production methods and economic development. This was previously said by both the international scientific community and by other politicians and scientists who had spoken to the United Nations several times, without the mainstream media ever having given them the proper echo. 

Climate and the Money Trail

By F. William Engdahl, September 25, 2019

The very mega-billionaires behind the globalization of the world economy who have wreaked so much damage to our environment are the leading backers of the “grassroots” climate movement. Is it pangs of guilty conscience, or could it be a deeper agenda of the financialization of the very air we breathe and more?

US

Weather Warfare: Beware the US Military’s Experiments with Climatic Warfare

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 24, 2019

Rarely acknowledged in the debate on global climate change, the world’s weather can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons. Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to manipulate the climate for military use. Environmental modification techniques have been applied by the US military for more than half a century. US mathematician John von Neumann, in liaison with the US Department of Defense, started his research on weather modification in the late 1940s at the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined’.

Global Warming and the Ozone Layer: What’s More Dangerous, CO2 or Nuclear War?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 29, 2019 

While climate activists express their concern regarding the nefarious impacts of global capitalism on climate, including those pertaining to militarization (and defense spending), the scientific analysis of climate under the auspices of the IPCC  largely focusses on a single variable: Carbon Dioxide (CO2), i.e. the impact of increased emissions of CO2 derived from fossil fuels (including fracking) on average global temperature.

Greta Thunberg and Big-Biz’ Climate Charade

By Tony Cartalucci, September 29, 2019

And just like the “war on terror” where the US was caught in fact arming and funding the very terrorists they were supposed to be fighting – all as a pretext to advance otherwise indefensible wars of aggression, “Fridays for Future” is supported by and being advanced for the very worst environmental offenders on Earth to advance an agenda that allows for otherwise indefensible and unpopular policies – many of which will be easily delayed or redirected in the West while forced on developing nations.

New York City, Rockefeller Center, Christmas, Angels, Trumpets | CGP Grey (CC BY 2.0)

The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan

By The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, September 24, 2019

Who is funding the “Protest Movement”. “Beginning in the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became leading advocates of the global warming agenda. … In their Sustainable Development Program Review, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund boasts of being one of the first major global warming activists, citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 establishment of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.” (excerpt from Report)

The Climate Action Summit Fiasco

By Dr. Arshad M. Khan, September 29, 2019

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres wanted a commitment to the higher ambition of limiting global warming to 1.5C instead of 2C.  He got excuses, and of course no promise of net zero by 2050 from any major polluter.  Net zero implies balancing carbon emissions with carbon removal.  He also wanted a commitment to no new coal plants beyond 2020. Instead China, India and Turkey will be shamelessly expanding coal power well beyond that date.

Toronto Climate Strike: Let a Hundred Posters Bloom. Corporate Society Gone Mad

By Eric Walberg, September 29, 2019

The culmination of Toronto’s Global Climate Strike on Friday September 27, 2019 made history. 20,000 demonstrators flooded downtown Toronto with a dazzling array of colourful, often witty, some devastating posters, vowing to stay the course in the battle with corporate society gone mad in a race to destroy the planet.

Green New Deal and the Climate Movement. Trojan Horses for the Billionaire Class?

By Michael Welch, Naomi Wolf, and Cory Morningstar, September 29, 2019

To be certain, human-induced climate disruption is a reality acknowledged by the vast majority of climate science experts, and therefore a legitimate focus of public concern. Aggressive measures are certainly called for to address an environmental catastrophe posing a clear and present threat to humans and to all life on Earth.

Climate Change

Dr. Gottschalk’s “World War II Heat Bump”: Did the War Contribute to Air Pollution and Global Warming?

By Ian Baldwin, September 25, 2019

On January 19, 2017 a New York Times front-page story, “For Third Year, the Earth in 2016 Set Heat Record,” featured a complex NOAA chart showing multiple global temperature readings taken from 1880 to 2016.  Studying the front-page chart, Harvard physicist Dr. Bernard Gottschalk noticed an intriguing anomaly, a brief but suggestive ‘bump’ in temperatures that coincided with WW2 (1939-1945).

*

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: Climate Change and the Green New Deal

70° della Rpc: la cancellazione della storia

October 1st, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

Settanta anni fa, il 1° ottobre 1949, Mao Zedong proclamava, dalla porta di Tien An Men, la nascita della Repubblica popolare cinese. L’anniversario viene celebrato oggi con una parata militare, di fronte alla storica porta a Pechino.  Dall’Europa al Giappone e agli Stati uniti, i grandi media la presentano come una ostentazione di forza di una potenza minacciosa. Praticamente nessuno ricorda le drammatiche vicende storiche che portarono alla nascita della Nuova Cina.

Scompare così la Cina ridotta allo stato coloniale e semicoloniale, sottomessa, sfruttata e smembrata, fin dalla metà dell’Ottocento, dalle potenze europee (Gran Bretagna, Germania, Francia, Belgio, Austria e Italia), dalla Russia zarista, dal Giappone e dagli Stati uniti.

Si cancella il sanguinoso colpo di stato effettuato nel 1927 da Chiang Kai-shek – sostenuto sia dagli anglo-americani che da Hitler e Mussolini, alleati del Giappone – che stermina gran parte del Partito comunista (nato nel 1921) e massacra centinaia di migliaia di operai e contadini.

Non si fa parola della Lunga Marcia dell’Esercito Rosso che, iniziata nel 1934 quale disastrosa ritirata, viene trasformata da Mao Zedong in una delle più grandi imprese politico-militari della storia.

Si dimentica la guerra di aggressione alla Cina scatenata dal Giappone nel 1937: le truppe nipponiche occupano Pechino, Shanghai e Nanchino, massacrando in quest’ultima oltre 300 mila civili, mentre  oltre dieci città vengono attaccate con armi biologiche.

Si ignora la storia del Fronte unito antigiapponese, che il Partito comunista costituisce con il Kuomintang: l’esercito del Kuomintang, armato dagli Usa, da un lato combatte gli invasori giapponesi, dall’altro sottopone a embargo le zone liberate dall’Esercito rosso e fa sì che si concentri contro di esse l’offensiva giapponese;  il Partito comunista, cresciuto da 40 mila a 1,2 milioni di membri, guida dal 1937 al 1945 le forze popolari in una guerra che logora sempre più l’esercito nipponico.

Non si riconosce il fatto che, con la sua Resistenza costata oltre 35 milioni di morti, la Cina contribuisce in modo determinante alla sconfitta del Giappone il quale, battuto nel Pacifico dagli Usa e in Manciuria dall’Urss, si arrende nel 1945 dopo il bombardamento atomico di Hiroshima e Nagasaki.

Si nasconde cosa avviene subito dopo la sconfitta del Giappone: secondo un piano deciso a Washington, Chiang Kai-shek tenta di ripetere quanto aveva fatto nel 1927, ma le sue forze, armate e sostenute dagli Usa, si trovano di fronte l’Esercito popolare di liberazione di circa un milione di uomini e una milizia di 2,5 milioni, forti di un vasto appoggio popolare.

Circa 8 milioni di soldati del Kuomintang vengono uccisi o catturati e Chiang Kai-shek fugge a Taiwan sotto protezione Usa.

Questo, in estrema sintesi, è il percorso che porta alla nascita della Repubblica popolare cinese 70 anni fa. Una storia scarsamente o per niente trattata nei nostri testi scolastici, improntati a una ristretta visione eurocentrica del mondo, sempre più anacronistica. Una storia volutamente cancellata da politici e opinion makers perché porta alla luce i crimini dall’imperialismo, mettendo sul banco degli imputati le potenze europee, il Giappone e gli Stati uniti: le «grandi democrazie» dell’Occidente che si autoproclamano giudici supremi col diritto di stabilire, in base ai loro canoni, quali paesi siano e quali non siano democratici.

Non siamo però più all’epoca delle «concessioni» (aree urbane sotto amministrazione straniera) che queste potenze avevano imposto alla Cina, quando al parco Huangpu a Shanghai veniva «vietato l’ingresso ai cani e ai cinesi».

Manlio Dinucci

Foto : Cerimonia della China Foundation (1949), Pittura di Dong Xiwen 1953, Olio su tela Museo nazionale cinese, Pechino

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on 70° della Rpc: la cancellazione della storia

We have a president who has taken the term ‘Low Base’ to a new level. When he did a ‘pass’ on the Charlottesville white supremacy, Neo Nazi march and street battles that ensued the next day, he gave indirect legitimacy to such a mindset. The ‘rot’ from such passive reaction (whether or not deliberate) continually trickles down throughout our citizenry. A few cases in point:

The other day this writer had lunch with two 70 something acquaintances. These are both polite at all times  white guys. One is a semi retired pilot, who before that, many years ago, owned a small auto body repair shop. The other acquaintance is a retired top level management guy with an MBA in accounting. Over lunch the subject, reluctantly on my part, having known that both guys are way to the right of me politically, got to just that, politics. They both felt that there is no real ‘white supremacy movement’ now in our country. They thought that the shooting of unarmed black people by cops was terrible, but… it is an ‘overreaction’ by the ‘liberal’ press (where is that, in Scandinavia?) They also felt that, to some extent, the poor, especially blacks, have to learn to ‘work harder to improve their lot economically’. Institutional Racism simply did not exist to the extent that the ‘Left’ played it up. “People , white or black, who work in Wal-Mart are there because they never got the education afforded them by the system… due to their own choices” said the pilot.

(Please note: Thus, it is always the fault of the victim that is the cause of their demise. Remember the age old comment given about a woman who was gang raped and beaten: ” She shouldn’t have dressed so provocatively! “)

Then we somehow found ourselves discussing the South and  slavery vs. segregation. When I made a comment that the Civil War was mostly about slavery, my other acquaintance, who  reminded us that he had ‘studied in depth’ the Civil War, bore in with “No, it was not really about slavery. It was about ‘states rights'” I was able to land a ‘Yeah, the state’s rights to have slaves’. The two fellows finished our discourse (thankfully as the checks arrived) with the usual ‘Blacks nowadays complain too much about being abused’. They then coupled that with a knockdown of many Black leaders (politicians and preachers) who mostly are full of ****. Well, my only retort was that the same can be said for most white leaders as well.

I took a TUMS when I got home.

That was the other day. Now this was what occurred today, at the health club. I was on the treadmill next to two fellow gym mates, both super nice guys. One guy, a white 81 year old former steel worker from Ohio, and the other one a white 65 year old former factory worker from Florida. The two of them dislike Trump immensely and think he should be impeached. The subject got to some of Trump’s misgivings, and I immediately brought up the Charlottesville incident. When I made the point of what the marchers said, in reference to the 1930s Nazi marches and what they shouted: ‘Blood and Soil’ and ‘Jews will not replace us’, my two gym mates agreed it was not right. Yet, I did not visibly see or hear or sense a level of outrage like my own about those marchers. The former factory worker then made the comment that it was not right for the government to take down the memorials to Confederate leaders and war heroes.” They should have the right to honor their people, the ones who fought hard for their cause” he said. I then reminded him that the ’cause’ they were fighting for was slavery, a terrible and immoral act. The other gym mate joined in by saying that “That was long ago, when this was an acceptable part of their Southern culture. Besides, companies have been using fruit pickers like slaves forever.” When I told him that

A) The slaves were captured like animals, chained, sold and made to work with no recourse or rights;

B) The terrible treatment of working stiffs is reprehensible, yet at least the fruit picker still could get up and leave in protest (or maybe join in UNION with others to stop this ****).

His retort, and here is the subtle way racism drips onto our faucet of character: “Well, it was their own people in Africa that sold them into bondage, and as far as mistreatment of both the slave and the fruit picker, at least the slaves got fed and housed.”

Now, where is that TUMS?

*

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].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Understanding Racism and Social Inequality in America … The Rot Runs Down

Climate Is Changing, Relations of Exploitation Are Not

October 1st, 2019 by Enzo Pellegrin

If ever there was a need, the “institutional” demonstrations of last Friday in Italy confirmed an environmental data, on which a large part of the mainstream media invests resources for controlling public opinion for at least twenty years. Earth’s climate is changing.

This is confirmed, in order of importance: by the world’s most powerful governments, by governmental organizations, by the so-called non-governmental organizations, by governments aligned with the world’s most powerful governments. In the deck also enters the Italian government, which has “institutionalized” the manifestations for the climate with a circular of the Ministry of Education, who invited the teachers to accept the justification of absence for participation in “Friday for Future”. Last but not least, the organizations of the governmental and pro-governmental Italian parties, which tried to lead the demonstrations on Friday through their youth organizations.

The climate, but not only the climate, is undergoing changes resulting from the pollution of production methods and economic development. This was previously said by both the international scientific community and by other politicians and scientists who had spoken to the United Nations several times, without the mainstream media ever having given them the proper echo. 

Fidel Castro Ruz, in 2007 recalled that:

“Energy is conceived as any commodity… The land and its products, rivers, mountains, forests and woods are the victims of an uncontrollable robbery. Food, of course, has not escaped this infernal dynamic. Capitalism transforms into commodities everything that reaches it at hand […] The use of food to produce energy is a monstrous act. Capitalism is ready to practice mass euthanasia to the poor, especially for those who live in the south, because that is where the greatest reserves of bio meet – mass of the planet, necessary for the manufacture of biological fuels” (Fidel Castro, granma, 3.07).

Fidel Castro had already identified capitalism’s social responsibility in the environmental disaster at the 1992 United Nations Conference, called the “Earth Summit”:

“An important biological species – mankind – is in danger of disappearing due to the rapid and progressive elimination of its natural habitat and we are becoming aware of this problem when it is almost too late to prevent it”.  ..

“Consumer societies… consume two-thirds of all metals and three-quarters of the energy produced around the world; they poisoned the seas and rivers… They saturated the atmosphere with gases, altering climatic conditions with the catastrophic effects of which they already begin to suffer… Tomorrow it will be too late to do what we should have done so long ago”. (Fidel Castro, Speech to the Earth Summit)

At the “Earth Summit” of that day, 154 Nations signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez Frias also declared “let us not save the climate if we do not change the system!” and in the recent UN-forum, Bolivia’s President Evo Morales repeated what he has been saying publicly for at least five years. The real culprit of climate change is capitalism. A few minutes on google would be enough to realize this.

In their precious book What every environmentalist needs to Know about capitalism, published in monthly Review Press, Fred Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster note that:

“Climate change… is just one of the many rifts caused by the crossing of planetary boundaries”. Capitalism, they say, “recognizes no limits to its expansion: there is no profit, no amount of wealth and no amount of consumption that is too much or enough”. (See this).

What is the difference between the characters we mentioned and the mainstream trend with which governments and media power tried to influence the enthusiasm generated by the Friday for Future strikes?

The small and not insignificant difference lies in the identification of the real culprit of environmental disasters.

Chavez, Castro, Morales, Bellamy Foster, Magdoff and the left-wing eco-socialists, such as Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky and Ian Angus, identified the culprit in the capitalist production system, in its incessant search for new markets, new goods and new possibilities of profit,  in its production anarchy, in its tendency not to be able to conceive planetary limits or barriers to the development of profits.

Ian Angus, commenting on a report on the climate issue published by the National Academy of Science in 2018,  writes that: “The linear increases applied to the current socioeconomic system are not sufficient to stabilize the Earth system. Large, rapid and substantial transformations are likely to be required.”. (See this)

The logical consequence of those cultural movements was a renewed and widespread spirit of anti-capitalism. Again in 2018, W. T. Whitney Jr.  author of the US magazine mltoday.com acknowledged that

“According to the latest surveys, young people today are attracted to socialism. (The New Socialists, The New York Times, August 26, 2018) Concerned about climate change, they are ripe to assimilate the teachings of the Marxist movement. They will realize that half measures are not enough. [… ] The main point is that, since capitalism has contributed to the advancement of climate change, resistance to climate change must be anti-capitalist and primarily socialist. Since the stakes are high and the survival of humanity depends on it, we need a kind of socialism whose theory and practice aims to dismantle rather than reform capitalism.” (See this)

The “institutional sponsors”, governmental, non-governmental, party sponsors, in short, the mainstream that has become tense in the climate issue, have instead a completely different leit-motiv: the system has nothing to do with it, individual behaviour must be improved and encouraged. A new green capitalism must supplant the old, dirty and backward capitalism in production. New “green markets” must replace old markets deemed dirty.

Old individual behaviors must be taxed. In particular, production which sells new environmentally friendly goods should be encouraged.

It is not by chance that the mainstream incorrectly constructs the main issue around carbon dioxide emissions in order to index the latest arrivals of capitalist production: China, India, Asian countries, former underdeveloped countries.

The issue of climate/CO2 production can therefore be exploited by several parties to achieve precise policy objectives.

In some environmental activism, we discover competing interests of the old US/NATO military and industrial complex, interested in hindering new competitors in today’s global scenario. China and Russia.

Yet, as Zoltan Zigedy recalled in 2015, “A factor forgotten by most of the environmental movement, including the “left-wing movement for climate” is the role of imperialism in fomenting the environmental crisis. According to Wikipedia: “The US Department of Defense is one of the largest single energy consumers in the world, responsible for 93% of the US government’s fuel consumption in 2007… In 2006, the Department of Defense used almost 30,000 gigawattora (GWh) of electricity, at a cost of about 2.2 billion dollars. The Department of Defense’s electricity consumption would provide enough electricity to power more than 2.6 million American homes. In electricity consumption, if it were a country, the Ministry of Defence would occupy the 58th position in the world, consuming little less than Denmark and little more than Syria (CIA World factbook, 2006). The Department of Defense uses 4.6 billion US gallons [17.4 billion litres]… of fuel per year, an average of 12.6 million gallons [47.7 million litres]… of fuel per day.” Count the hundreds of military bases – outposts of imperialism – which devour resources that could be better employed in a war for the protection of the environment. Add to the total the continuous pollution, the destruction of natural and man-made structures, the dispossession of land and the deterioration of the waters that accompany the endless use of devastating weapons. [… ]Pentagon estimates on the production and maintenance of a single weapon system – the F35 – though reduced to over $750 billion – are a huge environmental cost that nobody talks about.” (See this)

What is never highlighted is that the capitalist system is integrated and profit-based: the search for new markets cannot be separated from fundamental rules:

  • the search for profit must arise from any capital investment
  • the pursuit of profit implies that the capitalist is not free to produce only what is necessary, but is obliged to produce everything can be sold, as well as to find ways of convincing to buy as much as possible its goods.

Capitalism, therefore, does not stop on its own, and never stops.

Every barrier to its progress (workers’ rights, health and environmental legislation) is seen as an obstacle to trade. If trade is geared to low-CO2 production, it is geared to outstripping competitors in other markets, not to shrink.

Thus, if attention to environmental issues risked influencing the younger generations to move towards the construction of a socialist system, adequate media and hegemonic counter-offensive actions had to be put in place to silence this aspect, to put it in the background. Working into the opposition movements to neutralize the most dangerous aspect: anti-capitalism.

This explains the environmental activism of the world’s powerful governments: careless if not complicit with criminals when it is the uncomfortable environmentalists who struggle, the anticapitalists of many developing countries or poor rural and indigenous communities, in Brazil, Colombia and India.

Instead, they are careful to direct gently and in a sneaky way the protest on harmless tracks, within the movements in the developed countries.

A veil of conformism crosses one of the fundamental contradictions of our world: the incompatibility between capitalism and the planet.

It’s true that the Earth’s climate is changing.

It is equally true that they are not changing the productive relationships of exploitation of man over man, and of capitalist man over the planet.

It’s even more true that the climate is changing, precisely because the relationships of exploitation do not change.

A skilful hegemonic technique is trying to separate these two real factors, hiding the direct responsibility of capitalism.

This little provocation can be used against anesthesia dispensers as a slap in the face that awakens from artificial sleep: if efforts to reduce emissions are successful, What good is a clean world if the majority of human beings continue to live in exploitation? What is the use of a free CO2 Country if a temp worker doesn’t have a decent wage to give birth to the children he dreams running in the new Eden?

The climate is changing.

The exploitative relationships are not.

We must activate class struggle on the second point.

This is the news.

*

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.

Enzo Pellegrin is a criminal lawyer and a militant of the Communist Party in Italy. He usually writes on the website www.resistenze.org and on his blog “boraest” (www.boraest.com).

Featured image is from Julia Hawkins/Flickr

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Climate Is Changing, Relations of Exploitation Are Not

Empowerment: A Solution for Inequality in Rural Morocco

October 1st, 2019 by Victoria Burns

How the practice of empowerment has the potential to be the key for reducing the negative impacts of alienation and inequality among women in rural regions of Morocco.

***

“We do not speak in front of others because we are ignorant and uneducated.”

“I do not love myself.”

“I do not feel confident in myself.”

Imagine feeling this way about yourself.

Now imagine hearing this from your mother, sister, or daughter, and knowing that the negative self-conception that they hold within themselves is due to social and cultural constraints beyond their control.

In Morocco as well as additional Middle East North African (MENA) countries, this mentality is one that both damages and at times defines the self-image of women and girls.

Empowerment is defined by the Oxford American College Dictionary as the power given to someone to do something, and the process of becoming stronger and more confident; gaining agency. In action, it is the solution to alienation, and the source self-realization among these women.

A poor self-image can influence one’s outlook on life, and potentially prevent one from realizing and achieving one’s interests. However, as a result of circumstance, the perception that these women and girls in the Agerzrane village hold within themselves is not unreasonable nor unfathomable.

This village located in the High Atlas Mountains is difficult to travel to and from even by car, which is not a common possession. There are no social safety nets in proximity, including law enforcement and healthcare services. Most women have not completed school past the primary level due to the absence of a high school in the area and the great distance of about 40 kilometers of travel that would be required to reach the middle school. Even those that do attend school do not experience an immediate return on their investment in themselves, deterring them from returning to school.

The rate of illiteracy is high in rural areas, but even higher among women. Of the 35 million people in Morocco, 22% of the people in urban areas are illiterate while rural areas have a much higher rate of 41%. Through a gendered lens, 40% of women are unable to read and write, while less than 20% of men are unable to do the same. This statistic among women impedes their potential for progress, perpetuates a lack of social and economic mobility, and contributes to damaging self-image. The High Atlas Foundation, a Moroccan-American NGO, with the help of the Moroccan government, is taking the initiative to mitigate these negative self-conceptions that create and bolster social and cultural constraints. Through the IMAGINE methodology, women led by women spend four transformative days reevaluating their worth and potential with the support of each other as they explore their goals for all areas of life: emotions, relationships, work, money, body, spirituality, and sexuality.

Participation in these empowerment workshops cultivates a change in the way these women view themselves, their lives, and their agency to make meaningful decisions that shape their futures. In fact, 100 percent of the women in the individual post-training evaluations said they saw an improvement in themselves.

“My self-confidence has increased. My personal power has increased.”

“I have to reach for my dreams despite difficulties.”

“There is no impossible.”

Through learning to adopt a positive mindset, women are experiencing a change for the better in their self-conceptions. They are more conscious of the impact that ‘adoptive’ thinking has on their decisions; they know how to affirm themselves when they are plagued with doubt and uncertainty, and they believe in their ability to set and actualize goals. Going back to school, joining a cooperative, or striving for self-fulfillment are no longer impossible or unattainable ideas.

“If you do not love yourself, you would not love others.”

“”I accept myself.”

“I feel like I have value.”

By putting their own needs and desires first, they will enjoy their lives, be better able to take care of their loved ones, and be positioned to be great role models.

A necessary element for the success of these empowerment workshops is familial and/or spousal support. Without the support of her father, or her husband, none of these women would be able or willing to attend these empowerment workshops. It is vital for Moroccan men to participate in understanding the importance of a positive self-concept for the women they love. Empowering women and mitigating gender inequality result in increased female participation in the informal job sector, increased and targeted economic productivity, and an increase in literacy of women and children.

Furthering these successes through the implementation of men’s empowerment workshops by similar non-governmental organizations could be the next step for ensuring the empowerment and positive self-perception of Moroccan women. These workshops could include segments detailing the responsibility of men to dismantle the systems that oppress the women in their lives, how those systems oppress men as well, the importance of women’s empowerment, and the steps Moroccan men can take to be active allies to Moroccan women.

*

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.

Victoria Burns and Lailah Said are both development interns at the High Atlas Foundation and undergraduate students from Seton Hall University and the University of Virginia, respectively.

Featured image: High Atlas Foundation trainer Ibtissam Niri facilitates an IMAGINE empowerment workshop among girls and women in the Agerzrane village. (Source: HAF)

U.S. Foreign Aid for Dictators

October 1st, 2019 by Jacob G. Hornberger

Notice something important about the hoopla regarding President’s Trump withholding of U.S. foreign aid to Ukraine while he was requesting Ukrainian officials to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden for possible corruption: Nobody in Washington, D.C., or within the establishment press is questioning the concept of foreign aid itself. Foreign aid has become such an established and accepted way of inducing foreign regimes to comply with the dictates of U.S. officials that the thought of ending it entirely doesn’t even enter the minds of Republicans, Democrats, or member of the mainstream media.

But questioning foreign aid itself is precisely what the American people should be doing. Not only does foreign aid contribute to the out-of-control federal spending and debt that is hanging over the American people (with the debt now at $22.6 trillion and climbing), it also constitutes one of the most evil and immoral practices of the U.S. government.

Case in point: Egypt. Notwithstanding the fact that the country is governed by one of the most brutal military dictatorships in the world, the U.S. government delivers $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt’s military dictatorship every year.

Like the United States, Egypt’s government is based on the concept of a national-security state, which is a type of governmental system in which a vast and permanent military-intelligence establishment plays a major role in society. In Egypt, that role is much more pronounced and predominant than it is here in the United States. Here in the United States, the power and influence that the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA wield are indirect and often hidden. In Egypt the military-intelligence establishment wields direct control of the government and the economy.

To get a sense of how Egypt’s national-security state operates, think back to the national-security state system of Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who U.S. national-security state officials helped install into power in 1973. Pinochet was an unelected military dictator who ruled Chile with an iron fist. His forces rounded up tens of thousands of people who were considered to be threats to “national security” and tortured, raped, or killed them.

Egypt’s military dictator, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who, like Pinochet, took power in a coup, holds a presidential election, but everyone knows that it is a sham. For all practical purposes, el-Sisi stands in the same position as Pinochet — as an unelected dictator.

Moreover, el-Sisi is every bit as brutal as Pinochet was. For example, in the past couple of weeks demonstrations have broken out in Egypt against the corruption within el-Sisi’s dictatorial regime. El-Sisi’s forces have immediately gone into action to ensure that things do not get out of hand. So far, they have arrested some 2,000 protestors. According to an article in Aljazeera,

In Cairo, security forces closed off entrances to Tahrir Square, the hub of the 2011 uprising that toppled former leader Hosni Mubarak. There was a heavy police presence around the square and at some junctions in the city centre…. At Cairo’s Al-Fateh mosque, a starting point for protests in 2011, dozens of police, some in uniform and others in plain clothes with masks and large guns, stood near the exit as prayers finished. At least 20 security vehicles were stationed around the mosque or patrolling nearby. Security forces also stepped up their presence in main squares in major cities and plainclothes police have been checking motorists’ and pedestrians’ mobile phones for political content…. In a brief statement on Thursday, Egypt’s Ministry of Interior warned it would “confront any attempt to destabilise social peace in a firm and decisive way.”

Moreover, Egypt’s criminal-justice system mirrors that of the Pentagon and the CIA in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — indefinite detention, torture, denial of due process of law, denial of effective assistance of counsel, and denial of trial by jury.

There is also the economic aspect of Egypt’s national-security state. The economic system is based on the concept of socialist central planning, with the military-intelligence establishment doing the planning. Not surprisingly, this socialist system has brought economic impoverishment to Egyptian citizens, while enriching the regime’s military-intelligence personnel. Dismal economic conditions and corruption within the regime are partly what is motivating the protesters.

Guess who is enabling this tyranny and socialism. Yes, the U.S. government, with its $1.3 billion in annual delivery of military armaments, which, like all U.S. foreign aid, is nothing more than a bribe to ensure that el-Sisi remains loyal to the U.S. government. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, those military armaments provide Egypt’s tyrants with the ability to suppress or deter dissent within the country. They also provide a means by which the military-intelligence establishment is able to use domestic tax revenues to feather their own nests.

The U.S. government’s partnership with and support of Egypt’s regime should not surprise us. Since the U.S. government was converted from a limited-government republic to a national-security state after World War II, U.S. officials have demonstrated an affinity for foreign national-security states. That’s why they installed Pinochet, a military general, into power. Twenty years before their Chilean regime-change operation, U.S. national-security state officials destroyed democratic systems in Iran and Guatemala and replaced them with national-security states and tyrants. Before the Persian Gulf War, the U.S. government partnered and allied with Saddam Hussein and his national-security state in Iraq. In the 2003 Iraq war, the U.S. government made certain that Iraq continued with a national-security state type of governmental system, albeit one with an elected pro-U.S. dictator. It did the same in Afghanistan after it invaded that country.

Just a few days ago, President Trump expressed the sentiment of America’s national-security state when he called el-Sisi a “great leader.” Trump, of course, has also expressed a love for the brutal, unelected communist dictator of North Korea’s national-security state.

Americans who are looking to Washington, D.C., to put America on the right track are looking in the wrong direction. The American people need to look inward, into themselves, into their consciences. That is the only way for people to recognize the moral and economic debauchery of foreign aid and, for that matter, the entire national-security state form of governmental structure. Once a critical mass of Americans comes to that realization, we will be on our way toward restoring sound moral, political, and economic principles to our land.

*

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.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics.

Featured image is from World Socialist Web Site

When former Attorney-General Jody Wilson-Raybould declined Hassan Diab’s request for an independent and transparent public inquiry into his wrongful and harrowing extradition to France, he, along with his lawyer, and countless others, feared that justice would not be served. Hassan Diab – the Alfred Dreyfus of the 21st century, who, thanks to the collaborative work of French and Canadian prosecutors, languished in Fleury-Mérogis prison for more than three years only to be released without charge – saw the writing on the wall. The “external review1 that Jody Wilson-Raybould had ordered, in lieu of a public inquiry, would constitute a whitewashing exercise. Indeed, when this very report, authored by Murray Segal, former deputy Attorney-General of Ontario, was finally released in July 2019, Dr. Diab’s deepest dread was confirmed.

Fielding questions at a press conference, Dr. Diab aptly described Mr. Segal’s external review as a form of Orwellian propaganda, a self-justificatory discourse that translates the misdeeds and defects of state institutions into legitimate, worthy, and time-honoured practices. Like much defensive political rhetoric, the report bears the hallmarks of damage control. Indeed, Mr. Segal’s review is nothing short of a desperate, though futile, measure to tart up Canada’s grotesquely unjust extradition law and to quell the disaffection with the justice system that many Canadians have shown in learning of Dr. Diab’s nightmarish extradition. Revelations in 2018 of its scandalous underpinnings were doubly shocking. Prosecutors, both here and abroad, suppressed exculpatory fingerprint evidence that would have saved Dr. Diab a decade of torment. These persons actively worked to see him both extradited and convicted on the flimsiest of handwriting samples.

Lessons Learned

The lessons learned from the now iconic Diab case are clear: Canada’s extradition law gravely jeopardizes every citizen’s liberty. An innocent man or woman can be sought for extradition on the grounds of secret intelligence, both unsworn and undemonstrated [9:58-10:55]; s/he can be subsequently extradited to a foreign state, wrested from family, friends, and gainful employment, merely on trumped-up charges. For the extradition law wields extravagant powers. It grants state prosecutors license to make sensational accusations with but shreds of hearsay and it affords them the right to legitimately2 withhold exculpatory evidence while denying the “person sought” any opportunity for self-defense. The law typically disallows alibis. And while its advocates insist otherwise,3 the entire extradition process retains the aspect of a criminal trial. In the Diab case, not only did the extradition process resemble a criminal trial, it proved much worse.

Most Canadians pondering these facts would be horrified. They would instantly demand that the extradition law be radically reformed and that those persons who applied its rules in the Diab case be denounced. But courtesy of a narrowly defined mandate, one focused almost exclusively on legal rules, Mr. Segal’s task was lightened considerably. The terms stipulated in the mandate afforded him the wiggle room to manoeuvre out of an invidious position: i.e., having to expose the viciousness of the Canadian extradition law and thus shaming the very institution that hired him to write the report. By bracketing out the question of human justice, the mandate allowed Mr. Segal to adhere solely to the technicalities of the law,4 eschew its profound iniquities, and downplay, if not deny, the wanting ethics of senior litigators. For it was their overweening complicity with French prosecutors that led to Dr. Diab’s wrongful extradition and, this, on appallingly weak grounds.

Covering Up Injustice

Despite all this, Mr. Segal’s prefatory comments reveal a degree of disquiet. He is conscious that many Canadians have been outraged by the Diab affair. Its notoriety has spread far and wide. To reverse this public perception would not be easy. Even his final recommendations5 disclose the impossibility of fully covering up, rationalizing or dispelling the suspect conduct of the Attorney General’s lawyers. To placate the public, he distracts from the gravity of the issue by chalking it up to misunderstanding: “It is my sense,” he writes, “that many of the criticisms and frustrations with both the extradition process and the role of IAG counsel in the Diab case were the results of misperceptions about Canada’s extradition law.” “Canadians,” he argues, do “not have a good or accurate view of what extradition is, the laws governing the process…”6

Regardless of intent, the tone here is irritatingly condescending. For while Canadians may not be fully apprised of every detail in the extradition law, they have gleaned enough from the Diab affair to smell the noxious whiff of injustice. But impervious to the public’s ethical intelligence, Mr. Segal, with these opening remarks, defines the thrust of his patch-up job. For, by his own admission, if less bluntly put, this is what his report represents: an attempt to restore “public confidence in the administration of our extradition and mutual legal assistance obligations.”7 Ergo: “We Canadians and our state institutions are just fine. Let’s pat ourselves on the back and return to business as usual.”

Orwellian Propaganda

Mr. Segal’s report recalls the self-promotional discourse spouted by a Ministry of Propaganda, to quote Dr. Diab’s poignant reference [5:03-5:07]. Even the designation “external review” betrays an inverted logic, an Orwellian double speak. For what appears to be an arm’s length investigation into ‘what went wrong’ – i.e., how Hassan Diab was extradited to France on thoroughly unreliable evidence – is, in fact, an internal investigation, followed by a report that reads as ‘what went right.’ A handful of purely technical recommendations for improvement are offered. These are geared notably to protecting state prosecutors from future public criticism; no recommendation is made to protect the “person sought” from the hazardous pitfalls of Canada’s current extradition law.

In other words, the report lays out and upholds the extradition rules and procedures applied by litigators working in the International Assistance Group (IAG), a body of lawyers in the Department of Justice, who, according to Mr. Segal, “vigorously” and “justifiably” advanced France’s case against Dr. Diab. But while these lawyers followed legal rules and procedures, on ethical grounds they failed utterly. Overly eager to satisfy France’s request for extradition, they destroyed ten or more years of an innocent man’s life.

Still, by Mr. Segal’s account, the lawyers’ work proved successful and Dr. Diab’s discharge from France’s maximum-security prison was (not withstanding some irksome challenges) the only glaring setback in ‘what went right.’ He calls this reversal “troublesome.” “Having a Canadian citizen sit in a foreign jail for over three years,” he writes, “only to be released is troublesome…we expect that Canadians extradited to foreign countries will not sit in jail for lengthy periods of time without facing trial.”8 “Troublesome” is not a word one might associate with Dr. Diab’s ordeal. “Horrific” and “devastating” are more apposite qualifiers. Clearly, Mr. Segal’s word choice has nothing to do with Dr. Diab. Rather, it reflects (contrary to the joy of so many) the disappointment that prosecutors must have felt on January 12, 2018 when Dr. Diab was released from Fleury-Mérogis prison.

Defending the Indefensible

The Segal report devotes one hundred and twenty four pages to defending the extradition law and to pleading the case of IAG litigators. Meanwhile, it consigns Dr. Diab’s victimization at the hands of the Department of Justice to virtual darkness. Streaked with inconsistencies and factual errors [12:58-14:06], the report refers to Dr. Diab’s ordeal as “a journey.” Instead of acknowledging the extreme duress to which Dr. Diab and his family were subjected, Mr. Segal proffers sympathy to the IAG lawyers, portraying them as ‘victims’ of public misperception. To that end, he invokes legal precedent and procedure to defend an indefensible extradition law and treats the conduct of IAG counsel as an “understandable” human error; he is satisfied that lawyers in IAG, who withheld exculpatory evidence that would have saved Diab ten years of personal torment, were acting ethically.9

Only an Orwellian logic can present wrongful doings as righteous deeds, can construe willful misrepresentation as fair and lawful. When prosecutors who stifle exculpatory evidence (for fear that their case will otherwise implode)10 are deemed ethical, professional, and law-abiding actors, we can have little or no confidence in our justice system. Under such conditions, the words “ethics,” “professionalism,” and “law” – words Mr. Segal uses to describe the IAG lawyers – are empty shells, travesties of truth.

A Crying Injustice

In adhering to former Attorney-General Jody Wilson-Raybould’s mandate, Mr. Segal answered the primary question of the external review. Did the litigators follow the rules? The answer was “yes.” But by following the rules and by upholding a flawed extradition law, these litigators did the wrong thing. They deployed an egregiously unethical law to the detriment of an innocent man. They should never have implemented this defective law without first seeing it radically refurbished, and not least in the matter of exculpatory evidence. For any law that tolerates non-disclosure of such evidence, any law that denies the “person sought” the right to present powerful and corroborated evidence of innocence is abhorrent and contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So while Mr. Segal’s external review is intended to dispel the public’s so-called misperceptions, and bolster confidence in Canada’s extradition law, it risks, in fact, opening up a Pandora’s box. Those reading the report will discern, even amid its layers of “justifications,” the crying injustice of the Extradition Act. And they will call ever more forcefully and persistently for a truly transparent and public inquiry, with full subpoena power and cross-examination of witnesses – the kind that Dr. Diab and his supporters have been demanding all along. Only this can guarantee that the Diab affair will never again rear its ugly head.

*

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.

Michelle Weinroth is a writer and teacher living in Ottawa.

Notes

  1. Murray Segal, Independent Review of the Extradition of Dr. Hassan Diab, May 2019.
  2. Ibid, 28; 100-102.
  3. Ibid, 28; 75.
  4. Ibid, 78.
  5. Ibid, 101-102.
  6. Ibid, 16.
  7. Ibid, 112.
  8. Ibid, 30.
  9. Ibid, 14.
  10. Ibid, 54.

Featured image is rom The Canadian Press

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Justice Dies in the Darkness”: The Hassan Diab Illegal Extradition to France
  • Tags: ,

The problem with the current imbroglio over Ukraine is that the discussion does not begin where it should. Here is the timeline: the United States decided to make a serious effort to bring about regime change in Ukraine under the Obama Administration after that country’s election on June 2010 returned Viktor Yanukovych, who sought closer ties with Russia rather than Europe, as president. The White House claimed that the election results were fraudulent, even though international observers disagreed, and decided to intervene. The job was given to noted Democratic Party-linked neoconservative Victoria Nuland, who had been appointed Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in May 2013. One might recall that she and other intense Russophobes like Senator John McCain would appear in Kyiv in late 2013 after the Maidan protests began, handing out cookies and giving advice to dissidents, suggesting that the United States would support a popular uprising. The uprising did indeed come in February 2014, to include still mysterious snipers who shot into a crowd of demonstrators, and Yanukovych was forced to step down.

Nuland immediately stepped into the void. On February 4, 2014, a Russian intercepted recording of a phone call between Nuland and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, that took place a week earlier was published. In their phone conversation, Nuland and Pyatt considered how they would arrange for their candidate Arseniy Yatsenyuk to become the new prime minister after the government collapse. They discussed specifically what would have to be offered to other candidates to have them step aside and set up a meeting with a number of political leaders to make arrangements. Their conniving was successful and Yatsenyuk became prime minister of Ukraine on February 27, 2014. During the phone discussion, Nuland famously dismissed the European Union as a possible mediator for the Ukrainian government transition saying, “Fuck the EU.”

One might reasonably suggest that U.S. involvement with Ukraine, which amounted to an intervention that makes even the most toxic interpretations of so-called Russiagate pale in insignificance, began under Barack Obama and it was a neocon project. Ukraine, in a dramatic shift, became dependent on support from Washington while also turning its back on Moscow, a development that the Kremlin accurately saw as an existential security threat, leading to the annexation of Crimea and the simmering conflict between Kyiv and Moscow that continues to this day.

Joe Biden just happened to be Vice President while all of this was happening and, from the start, he reportedly took an interest in what was developing in Ukraine. Enter Joe’s son Hunter who somehow in early 2014 became a member of a “high profile international board” to oversee the largest natural gas producer in Ukraine, Burisma Holdings. Hunter received compensation of $50,000 a month, for a total of in excess of $3 million by the time he resigned in April 2019. As Hunter Biden contributed little or nothing but his name to Burisma there was even concern expressed among the Obamas that the whole thing smacked of a conflict of interest at a minimum.

Then the story gets murky. In March 2016 Joe Biden connived at the firing of the country’s top prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who was accused of blocking corruption investigations. President Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, however, claim that the firing was instead motivated by a desire to protect Hunter by stopping any investigation into corruption at Burisma Holdings. There is a testimony that goes both ways, but there have been credible denials that the Vice President’s son was actually being investigated.

In mid-July 2019, Trump froze $391 million in military aid shortly before a July 25th telephone conversation with new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump may have suggested to Zelensky that aggressively advancing investigations of corruption in his country would benefit the bilateral relationship. An intelligence community official, possibly CIA, serving in the White House subsequently turned whistleblower and went public with his or her largely hearsay account of the phone call, which led to demands that records of it be turned over to Congress. After a partial summary transcript of the conversation and associated documents were released by the White House, on September 24ththe U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump over the issue of his possibly having used foreign aid to Ukraine to damage Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign.

First of all, it should be understood that the impeachment will likely be a replay of that of Bill Clinton. The House, where there is a solid Democratic majority, will recommend impeachment, but the Senate, which must vote by a two-thirds majority to actually carry out the expulsion from office, is unlikely to do so because it is controlled by the GOP.  That is, of course, only true as long as there are not fifteen plus Republican Senators willing to vote with the Democrats to get rid of Trump and have Vice President Mike Pence as president, which is unlikely but possible.

Given that the impeachment will likely fail, it is interesting to note other aspects of the story, which are playing out currently. First of all, the drama began with the whistleblower complaint by a staffer from the intelligence community. Intelligence officers seconded to the NSA or White House are normally regarded as spies for their parent organizations with good reason. There are credible independent reports that the U.S. intelligence agencies recently modified their whistleblower procedures to permit complaints based on second hand rather that direct access to alleged illegal behavior. This is significant, as it appears that the White House whistleblower did not have any direct contact with the activity that was the source of the complaint and it further might lead one to believe that we are experiencing yet another Deep State coordinated assault on Donald Trump.

The Republicans are claiming that there was no actual quid pro quo in the phone conversation and that there is nothing actionable as illegal activity in terms of what was discussed. The Democrats claim, on the contrary, that the message regarding Biden was clear even if it was not explicit. Reading the partial text as presented in its clearly edited form, it is possible to support either side depending on one’s inclinations, but it is clear that the Democrats are already overplaying their hand. House Intelligence Committee head Adam Schiff is considering demanding all records on all Trump’s phone calls with foreign heads to state to determine if there was any damage to national security.

The real question will be how the impeachment product is sold and how the public will regard the activity. The emerging narrative will determine how Senators vote and also on the 2020 election. And it has to be noted, of course, that no matter what happens, Joe Biden and son will come out smelling bad, two more entitled wealthy men exploiting public office to become even richer even if they did not actually break any laws.

And there are other considerations. Foreign aid is, in fact, frequently used to compel other governments to act in ways that are considered desirable by Washington. So even if Trump suggested something about aid linked to other behavior it would not be unprecedented. What is unprecedented is that the target of the request may have been a senior politician of an opposition party, but Trump could plausibly argue that that is coincidental and that the real target was the pervasive corruption in Ukraine.

And there is also a problem with the whistleblowing itself. Paul Craig Roberts has observed that under the statute allowing intelligence agency whistleblowing, 50 USC sec. 3033, the complaint has to involve “intelligence activity,” which was not the case with the phone call. Also, under the statute the “whistleblowing must concern either a person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One cannot use this statute to whistle blow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority over….” Not included under DNI authority are the president’s phone calls to foreign heads of state.  So, the intelligence agency whistleblower was not even acting legally.

The involvement of the leadership of the intelligence community in certifying a whistleblower complaint that was not legitimate under its own statutory obligations again suggests a Deep State hand. And, of course, there is a long history of attempts to first vilify candidate Trump and then destroy his presidency from inside after he was elected and inaugurated. One need only cite the names of former Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey and former Director of National Intelligence head James Clapper, all of whom conspired against Donald Trump.

Finally, even if we Americans are witnessing a Deep State operation to free itself of Trump, there is certainly plenty of blame to go around for how the president has been handling the issue. One wishes that he would keep his mouth shut and let the facts speak for themselves. Lashing out in the ubiquitous tweets and labeling opponents as “treasonous” or as “spies” while hinting at the death penalty for their sins and raising the specter of civil war in America is not likely to generate much broad-based support for an embattled leader. But this has been Donald Trump’s problem all along and if he persists, he might find that former friends have decided to keep their distance from him, which could very well lead to his downfall.

*

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 Infowars

Many may have hitherto been led to believe that the Houthis were a ragtag armed force lacking in sophistication. Many, seeing the drone and missile attacks on Saudi oil plants, may have declared it to be a false-flag attack carried out by Riyadh to boost Aramco’s market value; either that or it was an operation carried out by Iran or even Israel. On Saturday September 28, the Houthis put paid to such speculation by confirming what many, like myself, have been writing for months; that is, that the asymmetrical tactics of the Houthis, combined with the conventional capabilities of the Yemeni army, are capable of bringing the Saudi kingdom of Mohammed Bin Salman to its knees.

The Yemeni army’s missile forces are able to carry out highly complex attacks, no doubt as a result of reconnaissance provided by the local Shia population within the Kingdom that is against the House of Saud’s dictatorship. These Houthi sympathisers within Saudi Arabia helped in target identification, carried out reconnaissance within the plants, found the most vulnerable and impactful points, and passed this intelligence on to the Houthis and Yemeni army. These Yemeni forces employed locally produced means to severely degrade Saudi Arabia’s crude-oil-extraction and processing plants. The deadly strikes halved oil production and threatened to continue with other targets if the Saudi-conducted genocide in Yemen did not stop.

On Saturday 29 the Houthis and the Yemeni army conducted an incredible conventional attack lasting three days that began from within Yemen’s borders. The operation would have involved months of intelligence gathering and operational planning. It was a far more complex attack than that conducted against Aramco’s oil facilities. Initial reports indicate that the forces of the Saudi-led coalition were lured into vulnerable positions and then, through a pincer movement conducted quickly within Saudi territory, the Houthis surrounded the town of Najran and its outskirts and got the better of three Saudi brigades numbering in the thousands and including dozens of senior officers as well as numerous combat vehicles. This event is a game changer, leaving the US, Mike Pompeo and the Israelis and Saudis unable to lay the blame on Iran as all this took place a long way from Iran.

The large-scale operation was preceded by Yemeni rocket artillery targeting Jizan airport, with 10 missiles paralyzing any movements to and from the airport, including denying the possibility of air support for the encircled troops. The Houthis also hit the King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh in a key operation that targeted Apache helicopters, forcing them to leave the area. Nearby military bases were also targeted so as to cut off any reinforcements and disrupt the chain of command. This led to the Saudi forces fleeing in disorganization. Images shown by the Houthis show a road in the middle of a valley on the outskirts of Najran with dozens of Saudi armored vehicles trying to flee while being attacked from both sides by Houthi RPGs together with heavy and light weapons. Visual confirmation of the debacle can be seen in the number of casualties as well as in the number of prisoners taken. Images show lines of Saudi prisoners walking under Yemeni guard towards prison camps. This is something extraordinary to behold: the Saudi army, the third largest purchaser of weapons in the world, getting comprehensively walloped by one of the poorest countries in the world. The numbers say it all: the Houthis were able to control more than 350 kilometers of Saudi territory. Given that the Saudi military budget is almost 90 billion dollars a year, this achievement is made all the more extraordinary.

Houthi forces employed drones, missiles, anti-aircraft systems, as well as electronic warfare to prevent the Saudis from supporting their troops with aviation or other means to assist their trapped men. Testimony from Saudi soldiers suggest that efforts to rescue them were half-hearted and of little effect. Saudi prisoners of war accuse their military leaders of having left them prey to their opponents.

The Yemeni army and the Houthis were within less than 10 days able to inflict a devastating blow to both the credibility of US defense systems and the Saudi military. They did this by employing creative methods suitable for the objective at hand.

They initially revealed the internal vulnerability of the Kingdom through such a level of penetration into Saudi Arabia that they were able to conduct internal reconnaissance through the assistance of infiltrators or local collaborators so as to know exactly where to hit the oil installations for maximum effect and damage.

They subsequently demonstrated their technical and cyber capabilities through an asymmetrical operation employing drones of various types as well as electronic warfare to blind the US Patriot system’s radars, in the process halving Saudi Arabia’s oil production for a period of time Aramco is yet to determine.

Finally, the most surprising and astounding aspect of these recent events is this most recent Yemeni ground operation that was carried out in hostile territory and succeeded in surrounding three brigades consisting of thousands of men and their equipment. Thousands of Yemeni soldiers loyal to Ansarullah (Houthis) took part in this successful operation, supported by drones, ground-attack aircraft and air-defense batteries. Such capabilities are ordinarily better associated with well-trained and well-equipped militaries rather than militaries coming from the Third World.

The Houthis issued a clear message to Riyadh when they hit its oil installations. They effectively let it be known that they had the means and capability to damage the Kingdom irreparably, leading ultimately to the overthrow of the House of Saud.

The Yemeni army spokesman announced, after hitting the Saudi oil facilities, that they would stop all offensive actions using drones and missiles, leaving it up to Riyadh to decide whether things stopped there and they sat down at the negotiating table to end the conflict, or whether Saudi Arabia was in the mood for more of the same treatment.

Mohammed bin Salman would no doubt have received manifold reassurances from the Americans, explaining away the failure of the Patriot systems and assuring him that more American assistance was on the way; and that it would, moreover, be impossible to come to an agreement with the Houthis, especially given that they are considered to be a proxy of the Iranians (a debunked lie); not to mention, of course, the huge loss of prestige that would befall the Saudis, Israelis and Americans were such a capitulation to occur.

There is already talk in Riyadh of receiving new supplies of the THAAD system (similarly useless against Houthi asymmetrical warfare) and other very expensive American air-defense systems. It is too bad for the Saudis that the US has nothing like the Pantsir and the Russian BUK systems, which allow for a multi-layered air defense, ideal for defending against small, low-flying drones and missiles that are difficult to intercept with such systems as the Patriot and THAAD.

Instead of starting peace talks to stop the ongoing genocide in Yemen and being hit again by the Houthis in response, Mohammed bin Salman and his advisors seem to have seen it fit to commit further war crimes in Yemen.

Faced with such intransigence, the Houthis went ahead with a new attack even more devastating for Saudi morale and discombobulating for Western policy-makers. Thousands of men and their equipment were either killed, wounded, or taken captive in a pincer movement reminiscent of the DPR and LNR’s actions in Ukraine in 2015 where Kiev’s forces was similarly surrounded and destroyed.

Usually such pincer movements require thorough reconnaissance to determine where best to surround the enemy. Furthermore, air support and air-defense systems would be necessary to ward off American and Saudi responses. In addition to all this, troops and their equipment are needed together with the necessary training for such assaults that require coordination as well as quick and effective execution of orders. All these requirements were met as a result of the excellent preparation and knowledge of the terrain by the Yemeni army and the Houthis.

If the attack on Saudi oil facilities had such an impact, then the even more dramatic attack of this last Saturday will have forced Mohammed bin Salman and his American allies to face a very harsh reality. Saudi Arabia, it will now need to be recognized, does not have the capacity to defend its borders from Yemen, leaving the Houthis and the Yemeni army free to enter Saudi territory at will while showing little regard for the opinion and feelings of the Saudis and Americans.

This is a triple checkmate for the Houthis against Riyadh. Firstly, they showed that they had enough local support within Saudi Arabia to have ready internal saboteurs in the event of an all-out war with Iran or Yemen. Then they showed they have the capacity to cripple Saudi Arabia’s oil production. Ultimately, Yemen’s conventional forces could redraw the boundaries between Saudi Arabia and Yemen in the latter’s favor should Yemeni leaders decide to invade and occupy a strip of Saudi territory to secure a buffer zone, given that Saudi forces have been violating Yemen’s sovereignty and massacring civilians willy nilly for the last five years.

It bears reflecting on the significance of these events. The third-biggest arms spender in the world is incapable of defeating the poorest Arab country in the world. It is, moreover, incapable of protecting its national interest and borders from this impoverished Arab country. The Houthis are showing to the world what a poor but organized and motivated armed force can do using asymmetrical methods to bring one of the best-equipped militaries in the world to its knees. This conflict will be studied all over the world as an example of how a new means of warfare is possible when technological and cyber capabilities are democratized and available to those who know how to use them appropriately, as the Houthis have shown with their use of drones and electronic warfare.

With the Houthis enjoying a high level of leverage, through a combination of missile capabilities, the holding of many prisoners of war, and saboteurs spread throughout Saudi Arabia (apropos, a strange fire occurred in Jeddah on Sunday at the Al-Haramain railway station), it may be time for Riyadh to accept the tragic consequences of this useless war and sit down at the negotiating table with Ansarullah.

Washington and Tel Aviv will try in every way to prevent such negotiations. But if Mohammed bin Salman and his family wish to save their kingdom, it is better to start talking to the Houthis immediately. Otherwise it is only a matter of time before another attack by Ansarullah leads to the complete collapse and ruin of the House of Saud and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

*

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.

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Three Saudi Brigades Annihilated in Devastating Houthi Offensive in Saudi Arabia
  • Tags: , ,

2016 Revisited: Electronic Balloting Favored Clinton, Paper Balloting Sanders

October 1st, 2019 by Dr. Roldolfo Cortes Barragan

Investigators call it “strange patterns in data”— that saw Hillary Clinton win primaries with electronic ballots, and Bernie Sanders victorious in paper ballot states.

The most preferable method is hand-counted paper ballots, next most preferable are paper ballots scanned by some sort of machine.”

Rodolfo Cortes Barragan holds a PhD in cognitive psychology from Stanford University. He and a colleague conducted a study that turned up strange patterns in presidential electoral results in 2016. I spoke to him about the study.

***

Ann Garrison: Rodolfo, what were the results of your study of returns in the 2016 presidential election?

Rodolfo Cortes Barragan: We saw irregularities in vote patterns. For example, everyone knew that there were discrepancies between most exit polls and reported polls. However, we found that there were more discrepancies in states with strictly electronic voting machines. Clinton won 65%, Bernie Sanders 35% in those states. In states with paper ballots, Clinton won 49%, Sanders 51%. Voting methods vary from state to state and from county to county within states. You can go to Verified Voting  to see a map of the methods used across the US. Results are most reliable in Oregon, Massachusetts, and Vermont. The absolute worst is Louisiana. Their strictly statewide electronic voting could be considered a form of voter suppression.

AG: And did you conduct that research alone or were you working with someone else?

RCB: I collaborated with Axel Geijsel, a cognitive psychologist in the Netherlands.

AG: Can you explain how you went about collecting data?

RCB: All the data we reported is publicly available. We simply merged it all together and noticed strange patterns.

AG: Did you also look into results in the states that choose delegates at caucuses rather than statewide elections? (In 2016, eight states held caucuses rather than statewide polls: Iowa, Alaska, Nevada, North Dakota, Kansas, Wyoming, Hawaii, Kentucky—Republican only, Maine, and Washington—Democratic only. For an explanation of how caucuses work, see Business Insider . The process is not identical from state to state).

RCB: We did not look into caucuses because there is no publicly available data, but it’s a lot more difficult to rig a caucus than a primary. A caucus is done out in the open—people engage with one another and everyone can see the outcome. People are counted visually as standing on one side of the room or the other.

It’s a lot more difficult to rig a caucus than a primary.”

Occasionally, there are accusations of unfair die—meaning an unfair coin toss or other unfair means of resolving a tie by chance.  Some said that coin tosses for Clinton were unfair in Iowa, but there’s no publicly available data that could prove that.

AG: In 2016, however, violence erupted after a yay/nay voice vote was held at the Nevada State Democratic Convention because Clinton had been awarded 20 delegates to the national nominating convention, Sanders 15. Sanders issued a critical statement reported by Rolling Stone, in “WTF Happened at the Nevada Democratic State Convention? ”:

“According to various reports, Sanders supporters yelled, threw chairs and booed Clinton surrogate Barbara Boxer, incensed by a process they saw as rigged in Clinton’s favor. Clinton backers responded by calling for the disruptive Sanders delegates’ arrests.

“Sanders went on to denounce the way the Nevada state convention was conducted, saying [Party Chair Roberta] Lange should at the very least have held a head-count rather than a yay/nay voice vote, and accusing her of refusing to acknowledge motions from the floor or accept any petitions for amendments, in violation of the rules. Sanders also protested the disqualification, ‘en mass,’ of 58 of his delegates.

“’These are on top of failures at the precinct and county conventions,’ Sanders said, ‘including trying to depose and then threaten with arrest the Clark County convention credentials chair because she was operating too fairly.’”

With regard to the violence, Sanders said he doesn’t condone any violence, but that someone had fired a shot through the window at his Nevada campaign headquarters while he was inside, and that the hotel his staff were staying in had been robbed and ransacked.

The Clinton campaign claimed that there were no irregularities, and condemned the violence at the state convention.

RCB: Yeah, that was the most raucous caucus in recent memory. It was like Nevada reverted to the Wild Wild West.

AG: Did you make any effort to share your national or statewide results with the national Democratic Party, state parties, or press?

RCB: We know that Bernie Sanders’ press secretary saw our results, as well as the results of other analysts suggesting fraud, but we did not hear him comment or complain about them. Comedian Lee Camp reported our findings on RT’s Redacted Tonight .

AG: Do you see any electoral reform taking place anywhere that might produce results more worthy of voters’ confidence?

RCB: No, the country has not moved to where it should be moving: 100% hand-counted paper ballots. The UK uses that method and reports results in good time, but officials tell us that for some reason we can’t.

AG: Both parties are likely to claim Russian interference at the ballot box if they don’t get the results they want this time. Can anything like that be readily proven or disproved?

RCB: We can’t prove who hacks anything, because, as Wikileaks’ Vault 7 release showed, the CIA has figured out ways of covering their tracks and hiding the true origin of hacks, and it’s likely that other intelligence agencies have developed the same deceptive technology. However, we can look for strange patterns in data—like Clinton’s majority win in states with electronic balloting and Bernie’s in states with paper ballots and stark differences between exit polls and reported polls.

AG: Why do you yourself continue to run for office, knowing how corrupt our elections are?

RCB: I think we need to think about local context. I’m running in Los Angeles County. We have never had an election fraud scandal, though we have had some terrible processes like poll workers not being trained well. We have some of the safest elections in the country, and our paper-based, hand-counted model should be instituted nationally.

The most preferable method is hand-counted paper ballots, next most preferable are paper ballots scanned by some sort of machine since there is a paper trail that can be hand-counted if a candidate with standing demands it. The least preferable method is of course purely digital voting. Votes are often tallied or scanned and tallied by machines built by unregulated private corporations . We need 100% hand-counted paper ballots nationwide.

*

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. Roldolfo Cortes Barragan is a Green Party candidate for Congress in California’s District 40, where he grew up. District 40, the most polluted in California, is majority LatinX. He can be reached on his campaign website, https://rodolfo2020.com/ , or on Twitter @RodolfoCortesB.

Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize  for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. She can be reached at ann(at)anngarrison.com 

Video: Syrian Army Prepares to Resume Idlib Advance

October 1st, 2019 by South Front

The Syrian Army and its allies are preparing to resume ground operations against radical militants in Greater Idlib, according to pro-government sources.

Over the past few days, helicopters of the Syrian Air Force have carried out multiple airstrikes on positons of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other al-Qaeda-linked groups in northern Lattakia and northwestern Hama. Especially intense airstrikes were reported near Kabani and across the al-Ghab Plains.

Meanwhile, Idlib militant groups are working to prevent evacuation of civilians from the area. They see the local population near the frontline as a useful tool of defending their military positions, often located near civilian infrastructure objects. Since the start of September, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has repeatedly shelled the Abu al-Duhur humanitarian corridor opened by the Syrian Army.

Aleppo governor Hussain Diab even told reporters that radicals had executed at least 5 people that were trying to cross to the government-controlled territory.

Watch the video here.

Russian air defense and electronic warfare systems shot down and intercepted over 100 hostile unmanned aerial vehicles near Hmeimim airbase in the past two years, the Ministry of Defense of Russia announced on September 27. Militant groups operating in Greater Idlib launched most of these drones.

On September 26, unidentified aircraft carried out a new series of airstrikes on positions of Iranian-backed forces near the eastern Syrian city of al-Bukamal, on the border with Iraq. This was the third airstrike on the area in September. These attacks are often attributed to Israel. Nonetheless, these actions did not help Tel Aviv to put an end to Iranian military presence in the border area.

Additionally, the Iraqi government announced that the al-Bukamal crossing located on the Deir Ezzor-Baghdad highway will be soon reopened.

On Septmeber 27, ISIS cells ambushed a Syrian Army vehicle with an IED near the town of al-Sukhna in the province of Homs. At least two soldiers were killed in the attack. Earlier, a similar attack targeted a pick-up truck of pro-government militia Liwa al-Quds near Palmyra. After reopening of the al-Bukamal crossing, Damascus and Iranian-backed forces will likely focus on eliminating the remaining ISIS cells in the desert.

*

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.

Support South Front in its endeavors.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Syrian Army Prepares to Resume Idlib Advance
  • Tags: ,

The recent merging of the peaceful campaigns for self-determination referenda in Kashmir and Khalistan presents the only realistic solution to India’s separatist issues there, and the international community should facilitate their democratic goals and take steps to ensure that India doesn’t carry out a bloodbath against them.

***

The Kashmir and Khalistan self-determination movements recently merged into a single campaign called “Kashmir2Khalistan” inspired by the close coordination between the two following the Sikhs For Justice‘s (SFJ) alliance with the Kashmiris in carrying out the global protests on India’s “Independence Day” last month and the enormous ones in Houston and New York during Modi’s visits there. This represents both a tactical and strategic decision by both intended to convince the international community to support the democratic referenda that they’re pursuing. The Kashmiri cause is comparatively better known but has hitherto lacked the organizational finesse of the Khalistani one that’s necessary for successfully lobbying their interests across the world, so the first-mentioned is able to receive organizational assistance through this alliance while the second one receives more international attention as a result. Seeing as how both the Kashmiris and Sikhs have been subjugated to Indian state terrorism for decades that’s denied them their UN-enshrined right to self-determination (mandated in the case of the Kashmiris through roughly a dozen UN resolutions on the matter), it makes sense for these kindred causes to finally unite in jointly advancing their shared agenda.

The author explained in an earlier piece how “1984 Punjab Was The Template For 2019 Kashmir“, which elaborated a bit on the history of the Khalistani struggle and how India’s brutal attempt to quell it was the precedent for what’s currently taking place in Kashmir following the country’s unilateral “Israeli”-like annexation of this UN-recognized disputed territory. Punjab never had the same international status as Kashmir did, but that doesn’t mean that it’s people haven’t suffered any less. India’s 1984 “Operation Blue Star” saw the state attack the holiest shrine of the world’s fifth-largest religion after popular separatists sought shelter there at the time, after which the government-backed death squads terrorized Punjab for months during “Operation Woodrose” as they sought to exterminate Sikh separatists and any civilians accused of supporting them. The response to this ethnic cleansing campaign was the assassination of Indira Gandhi by two of her Sikh bodyguards, which then triggered nationwide pogroms against the Sikhs that caused many of them to flee the country, a trend which still continues to this day and is responsible for their large diaspora in the West.

It’s little wonder then that so many Sikhs, both those who fled their homeland after those hellish events and the ones who remained during its climax in the 1990s, so strongly support the SFJ’s Referendum 2020 campaign, just like the Kashmiris at home and abroad insist that their people be given their right to hold a plebiscite on their future political status too after suffering so much at the hands of Indian occupying forces over the years as well. The Kashmiri and Khalistani causes are therefore sister struggles whose people have a lot in common relative to their shared relationship to the Indian state, which is why it was only natural for them to team up after India annexed Kashmiri simultaneously with preparing for an intensified crackdown against the Sikh community following the upsurge of support over the summer for the SFJ’s Referendum 2020 campaign. The timing couldn’t have been more perfect either because of what was at the time the upcoming commemoration of Indian “Independence Day” and the “Howdy Modi” spectacle in Houston. By joining forces, the Kashmiris and Khalistanis were able to inflict significant soft power damage to India.

The highly publicized protests that both groups collectively carried out served to erode India’s international reputation as the self-professed “world’s largest democracy” by getting people to think twice about the veracity of that slogan after it became undeniable that a critical mass of minorities are extremely dissatisfied with the status quo there. With the pro-Khalistan Sikhs’ assistance, the Kashmiris were able to better organize their efforts to draw attention to the humanitarian crisis unfolding in their homeland, while the Khalistan supporters received unprecedented international media coverage that provoked India into intensifying its infowar attacks against them. Indian Mainstream Media is now chock full of unproven but ultimately defamatory allegations purporting that the Khalistani cause is nothing more than a “Pakistani-backed terrorist front” just like they claim that the Kashmiri one is, but these desperate accusations only reveal how afraid India is of the grassroots support that both movements are receiving, as well as ominously hinting that a more forcefulcrackdown is being prepared against the Sikhs on a similar Kashmiri-like “anti-terrorist” basis.

It’s therefore incumbent on the international community to not only take action to avoid a possible bloodbath in Indian-Occupied Kashmir such as the one that Pakistani Prime Minister warned the UN about during his speech last week, but to also take similar moves in Indian Punjab to ensure that nothing of the sort transpires there in the run-up to next year’s planned plebiscite either. It’s impossible to ignore the Khalistani cause after it paired with the Kashmiri one and organized highly effective protests over the past two months that drew global attention to their shared plight, so it’s high time for the international community to put pressure on India to allow the SFJ’s plebiscite to take place along with the Kashmir’s long-overdue one too. At the very least, they should hold India to account for its human rights violations through credible sanctions threats and demand that it allow UN observers into both regions in order to assess the true state of the humanitarian situations there. As the cliched saying goes, “it’s better late than never”, and the same holds true in these two cases since the Kashmiris and Sikhs deserve justice after everything that they’ve suffered in pursuit of self-determination.

*

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

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Europe Subservient to US Imperial Interests

October 1st, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

On most geopolitical issues, Europe is subservient to a higher power in Washington under both right wings of its war party.

It’s most apparent by joining its war machine on demand, targeting nonbelligerent countries the US doesn’t control, wanting them transformed into vassal states.

On all things Iran, Europe pretends to want normal relations, yet goes along with hostile US actions, especially on trade, breaching the landmark JCPOA agreement by failure to buy Iranian oil, gas, and other exports.

The so-called EU Instrument for Supporting Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), a financial transactions mechanism to conduct normal trade with Iran, announced in January, became operational in June.

It’s woefully short of its alleged purpose. What’s supposed to be an oil for goods mechanism is only for what the Trump regime hasn’t sanctioned, failing to cover exports of Iranian oil, gas, petrochemicals, and other products.

Even facilitating food, medicines, and medical equipment transactions isn’t working as pledged.

Iranian officials consider INSTEX as scandalous as the oil for food program imposed on Iraq — from 1995 under the Clinton co-presidency through Bush/Cheney’s 2003 aggression.

Inhumane UN-approved sanctions on Iraq were responsible for about 1.5 million deaths, on average about 7,000 monthly, including 5,000 children under age-five.

If Iran is mistreated the same way longterm, a similar catastrophe could happen.

The JCPOA was and remains all about normalizing Western economic, financial, and trade relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran — in return for assuring its authorities won’t pursue nuclear weapons development they abhor, never wanted, and call for eliminating everywhere.

Europe’s failure to observe its JCPOA obligations, allying with the Trump regime’s hostile anti-Iran agenda, including falsely blaming Tehran for involvement in striking Saudi oil facilities on September 14, not a shred of evidence suggests it had anything to do with, shows neither the US or its European allies can be trusted.

JCPOA viability hangs by a thread. The INSTEX trade mechanism, bypassing dollar transactions, is more smoke and mirrors than a workable way to facilitate European trade with Iran.

On Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif addressed the issue, saying:

“If these days you see that the Europeans are getting a little closer to the US and becoming its allies (against Tehran), it’s not because they saw us in a weak spot, but because they have failed to withstand the US,” adding:

“For the past five months, Europe has been trying to give us credit in return for the sale of the Iranian crude oil to make the country stay in the JCPOA, but it has not been able to do even this little job because it is not even allowed by its master to spend its own money for its own security.”

Instead of observing international law, abiding by its JCPOA commitments, and maintaining normal diplomatic, economic, financial, and trade relations with nonbelligerent Iran threatening no one, Europe bowed to the Trump regime’s hostile anti-Iran agenda.

On Monday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi addressed a report about Brussels warning Tehran that the EU will formally withdraw from the JCPOA if Tehran pulls back further from its voluntary commitments.

It’s permitted by the deal’s Articles 26 and 36 if other signatories breach their obligations — precisely what happened.

Mousavi:

“I have no idea about the European Union’s threat, but if it means that they want to use the reduction mechanism, it would be illegal.”

“If they want to carry out the snapback (mechanism), such a measure is already dead, because we had expected compensatory measures for ourselves and for them in the JCPOA.”

The “snapback” provision refers to reimposing nuclear related sanctions on Iran if found to be in noncompliance with JCPOA provisions, which isn’t the case.

Taking this step legally requires Security Council approval, what veto power by Russia and China can prevent.

If Europe follows the US by illegally reimposing nuclear related sanctions on Iran, it’ll breach the letter and spirit of the deal, what the Trump regime already did, a flagrantly unlawful action.

Mousavi:

“It would be a ridiculous and wrong measure for (Europe) to take compensatory measures in response to our compensatory measures, and we advise them not to do so.”

Zarif stressed that the snapback provision “does not apply to Iran at all,” adding:

“Our reasoning is absolutely clear, but the Europeans are making instrumental use (of the JCPOA), as they themselves know that this mechanism has no credibility and have announced that (their recent moves) do not mean using the snapback mechanism.”

Reportedly, eight more EU countries joined Britain, France and Germany, agreeing to be part of the dysfunctional INSTEX trade mechanism with Iran.

It’s a meaningless gesture by excluding Iranian exports of oil, gas, and related products.

Normalizing economic, financial, and trade relations with Europe was why Tehran agreed to the JCPOA. Without normalization, the deal is meaningless.

*

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.

Should Trump have pursued justice even though the outcome could have politically helped him, or should he have neglected his legal responsibilities to do so because of the same?

***

The Ukrainegate scandal was sparked by Trump asking his newly elected counterpart in the country to look into accusations of corruption by former Vice President and current Democratic frontrunner Biden related to the latter’s 2016 openly acknowledged threat to withhold $1 billion in aid unless the supposedly inefficient state prosecutor who was also coincidentally investigating his son’s company there was dismissed. The recently released “whistleblower” complaint makes it abundantly through publicly verifiable and meticulously collected evidence that Trump and his team were aware of the accusations against his rival and were seeking to find out whether or not they were true. Therein lies the ethical dilemma, however, because some argue that Trump was right in pursuing justice by asking Zelensky to investigate those rumors even though the outcome could have politically helped him while others believe that he should have neglected his legal responsibilities because of the same.

The first-mentioned perspective is that Trump has a legal obligation to look into the corruption claims and that failing to do so would be a dereliction of his presidential duties. This is even more so the case because of his campaign pledge to “drain the swamp” and hold elected officials (whether currently serving or previously in such a position) to account. Along the same line, Trump wants to get down to the bottom of the fake Russiagate scandal too, so it makes sense why he’d ask his counterpart about Crowdstrike and the DNC’s servers. Once again, the outcome of these inquiries could very well have a positive political effect for him if it’s indeed concluded that some foul play had transpired. Fearing this, the “whistleblower” (who some suspect is actually a partisan Democratic sympathizer) rushed to file an official complaint in order to preempt that scenario and turn the dynamics around against Trump in a last-ditch measure to prevent him from discrediting the Democrats.

The second view, however, is altogether different. Its proponents assert that Trump should have ignored the claims about Biden’s corruption (however credible they are and despite the former Vice President himself bragging that he used $1 billion in aid as leverage for meddling in Ukraine’s political affairs) specifically because the outcome of any investigation could have helped him. Although the “whisteblower” documents the instances where Trump and his team publicly commented on these claims and showed that they were aware of them, supporters of this version of the story say that he should have pulled the good ‘ole “hear no evil, see no evil” argument and looked the other way. To them, it’s evidently more important that this issue not be legally raised again by a foreign country because of the discrediting effect that it could have on the Democrats, so justice should be forgotten and the entire scandal swept under the rug.

The ethical dilemma is that both sides really do have their respective points. Trump has a right to request an additional investigation by Ukraine into the seemingly separate but possibly interconnected accusations of corruption against Biden and his son, but it’s also true that he must have known that any evidence that emerges in support of those claims would have a powerful political impact at home in the context of the upcoming elections. Had Biden not been portrayed by the Mainstream Media as the Democratic frontrunner, then there probably wouldn’t have been any ethical questions at play (whether real, imagined, or exaggerated), but that’s obviously not the case so any such discussion is purely theoretical at this point. As it stands, however, it’s extremely difficult to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Trump had corrupt intentions by inquiring about Biden’s admitted blackmail and Ukraine’s former anti-corruption investigation into his son’s company.

Barring any completely unforeseen development that results in the discovering of a so-called “smoking gun” proving the aforementioned, the move by the Democrats to impeach Trump is nothing more than pre-election political spectacle. His opponents probably believe that the mere move to begin impeachment proceedings against him will have a similar effect on the electorate as Comey’s reopening of his investigation into Hillary whereby voters will automatically assume some degree of guilt on his part and therefore judge him at the polls. That said, while both situations do have some structural similarities, they’re mostly entirely different from one another for a variety of reasons and are therefore incomparable. Still, that apparently hasn’t dawned on the Democrats, who are desperate to repeat the Clinton context against Trump as the ultimate form of revenge, though this risky gambit might just be their final undoing because of the high chance that it backfires on 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 OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The Operational Strategic Commander of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (Ceofanb), Remigio Ceballos revealed the airspace violations through his Twitter account. 

***

The Venezuelan government denounced Sunday discovery of more than 54 spy planes of the United States in the country’s airspace throughout September.

The Operational Strategic Commander of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (Ceofanb), Remigio Ceballos revealed the airspace violations through his Twitter account.

“Operation Venezuela Sovereignty and Peace. Commander Ceofanb AJ Remigio Ceballos denounced the detection of more than 54 exploration aircraft from the U.S. during the month of September,” said the tweet.

He said the devices were detected “by the radars of the Comprehensive Aerospace Defense Command.”

URGENT | Operation #VenezuelaSovereigntyandPeace. Cmdte CEOFANB AJ @CeballosIchaso denounced the detection of more than 54 exploration aircraft from the US during the month of September, which were detected by the radar of the @CODAI_FANB. #29Sep#HappySunday

The state-run Venezuelan News Agency (AVN) reported that this is the fourth time in one year that the government revealed such violations of its airspace by the United States.

On July 22, authorities of the Venezuelan capital Caracas claimed a U.S. spy plane made an incursion into its airspace, while on July 19, a Russian-made Sukoi SU-30 aircraft intercepted and expelled another U.S. aircraft from the Venezuelan airspace.

Also on Aug. 1, the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) detected a U.S. aviation EP3 device.

*

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.

Yemen Is Now Saudi Arabia’s “Vietnam War”

October 1st, 2019 by Paul Antonopoulos

Something does not appear right in Saudi Arabia. Although the Wahhabi Kingdom has a technological, demographical and economical advantage over Yemen, it has completely failed to break the Yemeni resistance, headed by the Houthi-led Ansarullah Movement. The Ansarullah Movement has not just been on the defensive against Saudi Arabia’s advancements, but has also taken the fight directly to them despite the Kingdom controlling the seas and the high skies.

On September 14, the Yemeni Resistance attacked a Saudi Aramco oil facility, causing billions of dollars in damage that will take months to completely fix. However, it is the capture of thousands of Saudi soldiers, including high-ranking officers, and mercenaries that has consolidated the idea that Saudi Arabia is experiencing its own so-called “Vietnam War.”

Although Saudi Arabia has the fifth biggest military budget in the world, ahead of even Russia, France and the United Kingdom, it has not been able to dislodge the Ansarullah Movement from power. With Saudi Arabia dropping bombs indiscriminately in Yemen, including on mosques, markets, schools, hospitals, wedding parties and funeral processions, the country has become the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis. Even Ansarullah leader Abdul-Malik Badreddin al-Houthi has visibly lost a significant amount of weight over the course of the war as over 10 million Yemenis are starving or on the verge of starvation.

Saudi Arabia’s state budget is fuelled by oil and the Aramco company is in the six largest corporations globally, with annual revenue of around $350 billion recently, about the GDP of Denmark. Yemen is far off from Saudi Arabia in every developmental metric, but yet, they have not been able to dislodge the Ansarullah Movement from the Yemeni capital of Sana’a.

Saudi Arabia has mobilized about 150,000 of its soldiers and mostly Sudanese mercenaries, and has used hundreds of jets with U.S.-provided weapons to attack Yemen and its infrastructure because of their defiance in not being subjugated to Riyadh’s demands. Saudi officials also went on a diplomatic mission to include Morocco, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Sudan in their war against Yemen. This was all in an effort to remove what Riyadh believes to be an Iranian proxy on its border, an allegation both the Ansarullah Movement and Tehran deny.

Ansarullah have not just remained passive as the Saudi-led coalition began its aggression, and utilized rockets and drones to attack directly into Saudi Arabia’s southern regions, despite the Kingdom possessing the U.S.-made Patriot Missile Defense System. Although Saudi Arabia has air and naval superiority, it cannot convert this control into successes on the ground, and rather has relied on mercenaries, to fight its war against the Ansarullah Movement.

One is not motivated to unnecessarily die for the sake of money, but are willing to take the risk of dying, two very different things. It is for this reason, on Saturday, the Ansarullah Movement captured over a thousand soldiers from the Saudi Coalition, mostly low-ranking soldiers and Sudanese mercenaries, but also some high-ranking officers, when they were surrounded and ambushed. The mercenaries are willing to fight for money, but not die in vain, which is why they surrendered en masse when flanked by the Ansarullah fighters.

Well, comparisons with Vietnam can certainly begin to be drawn now. It is much deeper than the analogy of David and Goliath, as by all means, the odds should be further into Riyadh’s favor rather than Goliath’s was against David.

Saudi Arabia has used all their political leverage in the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council, invested billions into a costly war that it had no reason to intervene in and suffered a dramatic defeat. How could the Ansarullah Movement with limited resources and on the verge of starvation do this? It was concluded by Riyadh that the only explanation for this embarrassment is that Iran orchestrated the attack against Aramco and captured the thousands of soldiers. This bares resemblance to when the U.S. refused that the Vietnamese were defeating them, and credited the Vietnamese victory directly to the Soviet Union and China, rather than the Vietnamese people.

Riyadh diverting attention away from the Ansarullah movement helps them save face as they can accredit the victories to a rival anti-U.S. and anti-Israel regional power, Iran. Therefore, this can help legitimize a U.S. intervention in Yemen as Saudi-Iranian relations are traditionally poor over theocratical, geopolitical and economic reasons.

More importantly, it could bait Washington to justify military aggression against Iran. However, for the U.S. and Israel, the possibility of waging a “proxy conflict” between Saudi Arabia and Iran would be preferable with their limited intervention. This is a risky gambit as Saudi Arabia produces about 15% of crude oil globally, and can significantly influence the world economy.

Although it would be in Saudi Arabia’s interest to avoid being bogged down in an endless war that drains its resources and manpower, as the U.S. had experienced in their invasion of Vietnam, there is little suggestion that it will disengage from what is the Arab world’s poorest country.

Simply comparing the military budgets of Saudi Arabia and/or the U.S.’ with Yemen or Iran, is not enough to predict a final outcome of this conflict, as Saudi Arabia is learning the hard way with the continued setbacks. With over a thousand soldiers and mercenaries captured, it shows Riyadh has a fighting force lacking motivation and willingness. This is completely opposite to the Ansarullah Movement that believes its engaged in an anti-imperialist struggle.

If Saudi Arabia is to avoid further economic risk and military embarrassments, it would be in the primary interest of Saudi Arabia to disengage in Yemen and accept its losses on this front in the wider Saudi-Iranian geopolitical rivalry. Just as the U.S. finally found the sense to withdraw from Vietnam after a long 18 year involvement that resulted in nearly 60,000 American deaths, Riyadh now must find its sense, much quicker than Washington’s policy towards Vietnam, and accept the situation in Yemen is untenable and unwinnable.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is director of the Multipolarity research centre.

Featured image is from Felton Davis | CC BY 2.0

The Freud-Einstein Correspondence of 1932: Theories of War

October 1st, 2019 by Norrie MacQueen

At the end of 1931 the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation [IIIC], a League of Nations agency, invited Albert Einstein to initiate an exchange of letters with a fellow ‘leader of intellectual thought’ on a subject ‘calculated to serve the common interest of the League of Nations and of intellectual life’.[1]  Einstein selected Sigmund Freud as his correspondent and the question he wished to explore with him was, simply and ambitiously, ‘is there any way of delivering mankind from the scourge of war?’.[2]

Although occupying dominant positions in their respective fields, the two had had little to do with each other up to that time and such previous contact as there was had hardly amounted to a meeting of great minds.  At a brief meeting a few years before, Freud had found Einstein personally agreeable but lacking in any real knowledge of psychology.[3]  Later, a short correspondence took place from which, according to Freud, Einstein’s ‘complete lack of understanding for psychoanalysis became evident’.[4]  Yet despite what he felt to be his would-be collaborator’s limitations, Freud agreed to be involved in the project.  Though Freud would later dismiss the undertaking as ‘tedious and sterile’[5], the prospect of reaching a wider audience for psychoanalysis than had hitherto been available may well have persuaded him to participate.

The tone of the letter he wrote to the IIIC Secretary, Leon Stenig, accepting the invitation was perhaps less than enthusiastic but it does not suggest any serious misgivings: ‘I have indulged in as much enthusiasm as I am able to muster at my age [76] and in my state of  disillusionment … your hopes and those of Einstein for a future role of psychoanalysis in the life of individuals and nations ring true and of course give me great pleasure …  Thus practical and idealistic considerations induce me to put myself and all that remains of my energies at [your] disposal’.[6]  Accordingly, Einstein initiated the correspondence at the end of July 1932 and Freud replied two months later.  The letters were published by the League of Nations the following March simultaneously in English, French and German under the title Why War?  In Germany however, where Hitler had come to power two months previously, circulation of Warum Krieg? was banned.

Fortuitously, the project coincided with that later period in Freud’s life when his interests were widening into new areas of philosophical and sociological speculation.  By the end of the 1920s he had, as he put it, returned to the ‘cultural problems’ which had concerned him in his youth.[7]  In 1930 he had published his major statement on psychoanalysis and society, the 30,000 word essay Civilization and its Discontents.  The ideas put forward in this – on the process of civilization and its repressive effect on the instinctual drives – form the basis of the Why War? correspondence and represented Freud’s final position on civilization, aggression and conflict.

Einstein’s own letter betrays something of the liberal dilemma of the period as the ‘idealist’ position on international relations, widespread among progressive thinkers in the 1920s, began to lose ground to the ‘realism’ which would dominate the coming decades.  The decisive challenges to collective security as a peacekeeping mechanism – in Abyssinia and Central Europe – remained in the future but the recent Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the absence of any effective collective response to it had been a clear pointer to the limitations of security through international organization.  For Einstein the ‘ill-success, despite their obvious sincerity, of all the efforts made during the last decade to reach this goal [of collective security], leaves us no room to doubt that strong psychological factors are at work which paralyse these efforts’.[8]  In his view, which was a fairly typical one on the liberal left at the time, the immediate problem was the baleful symbiosis between the arms manufacturers and power-hungry politicians.  This ‘ruling class [had] the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb’.  But still this did not provide a complete explanation for the periodic explosions of international conflict:

How is it that these devices succeed so well in rousing men to such wild enthusiasm, even to sacrifice their lives?  Only one answer is possible. Because man has within him a lust for hatred and destruction.  In normal times this passion exists in a latent state, it emerges only in unusual circumstances; but it is a comparatively easy task to call it into play and raise it to the power of a collective psychosis.  Here lies, perhaps, the crux of all the complex of factors we are considering, an enigma that only the expert in the lore of human instincts can resolve.[9]

The question he wished Freud to address was whether psychoanalysis could offer any hope that the individual might become proof against these destructive urges.

Freud’s reply consisted of an exploration of two basic psychoanalytic themes: civilization as a process which progressively repressed the instinctual drives biologically present in the human organism; and aggression as a product [though an indirect and partially controlled one] of these instinctual drives.  The prospects for a future free of war would depend on the outcome of this elemental struggle between the process of civilization and the innate instinctual impulses.

Basic Premises: Civilization and Instinct

In outlining to Einstein his view of civilization as repressor of the instincts, Freud was reiterating a theme which had its origins in the earliest stages of psychoanalytic thinking.  In May 1897 in a letter to his friend Wilhelm Fliess, Freud had observed that ‘civilization consists in progressive renunciation’.[10]  Twelve years later he remarked, in the context of a paper by Alfred Adler on the psychology of Marxism, that ‘our civilization consists in an ever-increasing subjection of our instincts to repression’.[11]  Freud’s conjectures on the origins of civilization were first outlined in Totem and Taboo published in 1913 in which he asserts that civilization began when the young males of the ‘primal horde’ rebelled against the dominant, female-monopolising patriarch.  The rebellion was possible only by collective action and this could not be achieved without the relinquishment of instinctual gratification by those involved.

The new ‘civilization’ which then came into being was, therefore, built on the repression of hitherto untrammelled instincts and conditioned by the collective guilt over the parricide involved in its creation.  It consolidated itself by the introduction of prohibitions [or taboos] which further suppressed the instinctual drives, one of the first and most significant being an insistence on exogamy which protected the community against any repetition of the original oedipal revolt.[12]  In his letter to Einstein, Freud follows the development of civilization  through to the emergence of the concepts of ‘law’ and ‘right’.  Right, he suggests, ‘is the might of the community.  It is still violence ready to be directed against any individual who resists it …’.[13]  In this way the anger of the primal horde, disciplined through the renunciation of instinctual gratification and sharpened by guilt, had evolved into the sanctions of society against those who flout its rules.

The degree of control which civilization could exert over the instincts was, however, open to question.  The process operated through the agency of the intellect and the instinctual drives, surging up from the unconscious, could only be suppressed by continuous struggle.  Freud had considered this problem in the early part of the First World War when many of the comforting assumptions held by Europeans about both human and political behaviour which had developed in the relative peace of the preceding decades were being overturned.  Despite his own initial enthusiasm for the Austro-German cause [which in fact was in marked contrast to the anti-war position of Einstein][14]  he took a characteristically pessimistic view of the psychological origins of the conflict.  In a letter written in December 1914 to a former colleague from his period in Paris, the Dutch non-analytical psychologist Frederic Van Eeden, Freud argued that the war confirmed two theses of psychoanalysis. Firstly, destructive impulses are kept in check by the intellect but constantly seek opportunities to express themselves and, secondly, the intellect is a weak guardian, easily overcome by the emotions which open the way for the revolt of the instincts:

Psychoanalysis has concluded from the dreams and parapraxes [mental slips] of healthy people, as well as from the symptoms of neurotics, that the primitive, savage and evil impulses of mankind have not vanished in any of its individual members, but persist, although in a repressed state, in the unconscious … and lie in wait for opportunities of becoming active once more.  It has further taught us that our intellect is a feeble and dependent thing, a plaything and tool of our instincts and affects … If you will now observe what is happening in this wartime, all the cruelties and injustices for which the most civilized nations are responsible, the different way in which they judge their own lies and wrongdoings, and those of their enemies, at the general lack of insight which prevails – you will have to admit that psychoanalysis has been right in both its theses.[15]

This theme was pursued the following year in an article Freud wrote for the psychoanalytic journal Imago.  In ‘Thoughts for the Time on War and Death’ he exhibits the disillusion of his Weltanschauung:

We had expected the great world-dominating nations of the white race upon whom the leadership of the human species has fallen, who were known to have world-wide interests as their concern, to whose creative powers were due not only our technical advances towards the control of nature but the artistic and scientific standards of civilization – we had expected these peoples to have succeeded in discovering another way of settling misunderstandings and conflicts of interest [that they] would have acquired so much comprehension of what they had in common, and so much tolerance for their differences, that ‘foreigner’ and ‘enemy’ could no longer be merged … into a single concept.[16]

But, he insists, in the psychoanalytic view people ‘have not sunk so low as we feared because they had never risen so high as we believed’. They were in fact merely withdrawing ‘for a while from the constant pressure of civilization … to grant a temporary satisfaction to the instincts which they had been holding in check’.[17]  His colleague Karl Abraham, on reading the proofs of the article, pointed to the similarities between war and certain totemic orgies in which behaviour is sanctioned by the community which at other times would be regarded as intolerable.[18]  Freud agreed with the observation and indeed the article contains one quite suggestive passage in this respect in which he speculates that ‘the state has forbidden to the individual the practice of wrongdoing, not because it desires to abolish it, but because it desires to monopolize it …’.[19]  An interesting question arises here of the relationship between ‘civilization’, ‘community’ and ‘the state’.  In the Imago essay he implies that the state and civilization are antipathetic to each other as the former is ready to exploit for its own purposes the instinctual drives which the latter is attempting to repress.  It will be recalled, however, that in his theory of the origins of society outlined in Totem and Taboo and later in Why War? itself, he suggests that society is the product of civilization [through renunciation of the instincts] and, implicitly, that the modern state has developed from the early rule-making collective.  This evident contradiction remains unresolved in his later writings.[20]

In his letter to Einstein, Freud’s conclusion on the relationship between the process of civilization and the phenomenon of war is boldly stated: ‘whatever fosters the growth of civilization works at the same time against war’.  The two most important psychological characteristics of the process were ‘a strengthening of the intellect, which is beginning to govern instinctual life, and an internalization of the aggressive impulses’.[21]  Ultimately, however, ‘civilized’ people are not pacific by intellectual conviction but because they ‘are obliged to be for organic reasons’.[22]  The repressive process of civilization has, in his view, brought about a phylogenetic change in those subjected to it.  The ‘civilized’ human is, in short, biologically different from the ‘uncivilized’.

There can be detected here a fundamental change in Freud’s position from the time of the First World War.  A central thesis of both the Van Eeden letter and the Imago article was that the intellect was an ineffectual brake on the instincts when once the emotions were brought into play.  Civilization was a fragile construction subject to recurrent collapse through wars unleashed by the freeing of instinctive impulses.  By the time of the Einstein letter, however, civilization has become a biological process whose subjects are not merely armed against instinctual impulses but constitutionally invulnerable to them.

The key to this revision is to be found in 1920 when Freud produced an entirely new theory of instincts replacing that which had governed psychoanalytic thought hitherto.  Prior to this date the structure of the instincts was seen as a duality between, on the one side, the libidinal impulses of sexuality and on the other that of the drive for self-preservation.  From 1920, however, a new bipolarity was postulated with the life instinct [or ‘eros’] opposed by a death instinct.  This revised structure had far-reaching consequences both for clinical practice and for sociological speculation.  At this point therefore it is necessary to shift attention from Freud’s views on civilization as an anti-instinctual process and look more closely at the nature of the instincts in question.  Most importantly, Freud’s views on the relationship between these instincts and human aggressiveness must be examined.  This, it will be recalled, was the second dominant theme of the Why War? correspondence.

The ‘Final’ Theory: Aggression and the Death Instinct

If the generality of Freud’s views on civilization and its repressive effect on instinctual impulses have a somewhat commonplace sound to late twentieth century ears, it is in part because of the impact that psychoanalytic thinking has had on the collective intellect.  The more thoroughly yesterday’s insights become integrated in today’s systems of thought then the less startling they appear in reiteration.  The second, related, theme in Freud’s letter to Einstein – that of aggression as a product of an inherent death instinct –  is much less familiar.  Partly this is due to its relative complexity but it is also because of its failure to find favour with either subsequent psychological theorists or the broader public.[23]

Although Freud’s ideas on aggression underwent a number of fundamental changes, one constant feature was that at no time did he see it as a primary instinct in its own right.  Aggression was always viewed as either a component or an affect of another dominating drive.  In 1909, when Alfred Adler began to explain anxiety as the product of suppressed primary aggression, Freud could not ‘bring [himself] to assume the existence of a special aggressive instinct alongside of the familiar instincts of self-preservation and sex, and on an equal footing with them’.[24]  At this time Freud was still in the first of three more or less distinct phases of his thinking on aggression and the instincts.  The first two of these belong to the period in which the duality of sex and self-preservation held sway.  The third, on which his Why War? letter was based, belongs to the post-1920 period when the duality was redrawn as one between the life and death instincts.

Image result for Studies on Hysteria

In 1895 in their early presentation of psychoanalytic theory, Studies on Hysteria, Freud and his collaborator Josef Breuer saw aggression simply as a natural adjunct to male sexuality.[25]  Ten Years later in Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality Freud expanded on this by suggesting that male sexuality requires an element of aggression in order to overcome resistence from the sex object.  Aggressiveness therefore was a ‘component instinct’ of the primary sexual one.[26]  In this phase then aggression was placed firmly on the sex side of the polarity and, in a dialectical process, its expression was opposed by the self-preservative instinct.  The ‘pleasure principle’ – which sought the reduction [through satisfaction] of the psychic tension  [or ‘unpleasure’] generated by the sex instinct – was modified by the ‘reality principle’ which was associated with the drive for self-preservation.  In 1915 the second phase began.  Although the same instinctual duality was maintained, aggression had now passed across from the libidinal instinct to become an affect the of the self-preservative one.  In Instincts and their Vicissitudes Freud argued that aggression was an early ego-reaction to the inflow of unwelcome stimuli.  The ego, according to this latest view, protected the psyche by adopting an aggressive posture towards what it interpreted as the hostile encroachments of the outside world during the process of infantile development.[27]

The major watershed in Freud’s thinking on the relationship between the instincts and aggression, however, came with the publication of Beyond the Pleasure Principle in 1920.  Sex and self-preservation were now no longer opposed to each other but united on one side of a new duality as the component parts of eros or the life instinct.  This was opposed by a new postulation – that of a primary death instinct.  The existence of the death instinct was posited on the basis of the already familiar principle of tension reduction which had hitherto explained the drives of the independent sex instinct.  The tension reduction theory was neither new nor exclusively psychoanalytic.

Freud, though, now forced it to a new extreme.  The return to ‘constancy’ which was the underlying aim of tension-reduction must ultimately, he argued, involve a return to the ‘pre-living’ condition.  After the emergence of living matter on earth ‘the tension which then arose in what had hitherto been an inanimate substance endeavoured to cancel itself out.  In this way the first instinct came into being: the instinct to return to the inanimate state’.[28]  The ‘pleasure principle’ then  could be said to have given way to the ‘nirvana principle’.  And, what was more, the new primary instincts were not merely behavioural constructs but physically present within each living cell.[29]  If civilization was itself a biological process, as suggested in Why War?, then the instincts which it was its function to repress must accordingly provide an organic focus for its activity.

At this point, of course, an obvious objection arises: if such a death instinct does indeed occupy all living matter then all life must be bent on self-destruction and suicide would be the ultimate instinctual achievement.  According to Freud, however, the death instinct is confronted by its antithesis, eros.  The erotic instinct acts to divert it from its self-destructive purpose by a process of ‘externalization’.  Therefore, outwardly directed aggression ‘is the derivative and the main representative of the death instinct’.[30]  The hypothesis was outlined for Einstein in these terms:

As the result of a little speculation, we have come to suppose that this instinct is at work in every living creature and is striving to bring it to ruin and to reduce life to its original condition of inanimate matter.  Thus it quite seriously deserves to be called a death instinct, while the erotic instincts [sic] represent the effort to live.  The death instinct turns into the destructive instinct when, with the help of special organs, it is directed outwards onto objects.  The organism preserves its own life, so to say, by destroying an extraneous one. … If these forces are turned to destruction in the external world, the organism will be relieved and the effect must be beneficial.  This would serve as a biological justification for all the ugly and dangerous impulses against which we are struggling.  It must be admitted that they stand nearer to Nature than does our resistance to them.[31]

Image result for Civilization and its Discontents

If, though, the self-destructive aspect of the death instinct is neutralized by externalization in the form of aggression, the question must be posed: why is conflict not perpetual?  How is peace achieved even in the intervals between wars?  Freud offers an implicit answer to this in Civilization and its Discontents by returning to his characterization of civilization as repressor of the instincts.  The outwardly directed destructiveness is partially re-internalized by the process of civilization: ‘aggressiveness is introjected … it is, in point of fact, sent back to where it came from – that is, it is directed towards [the] ego’.  There it is taken over by the super-ego and ‘is ready to put into action against the ego the same harsh aggressiveness that the ego would have liked to satisfy upon other, extraneous individuals’.[32]  In this way civilization appears to protect itself not merely by the long-term process of repression of the instincts but also by the more immediate expedient of distorting their primary expression.

In Why War? Freud appears not altogether to have abandoned the earlier phases of his thinking on aggressiveness and the instincts.  He suggests, for example, that some of the externalized aggression is put to the service both of sexual acquisition and self-preservation [views expressed respectively, it will be recalled, in 1905 in Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality and in 1915 in Instincts and their Vicissitudes].[33]  In the new formulation, however, this is evidently seen as a marginal process in which eros, now combining the one-time opposing libidinal and self-preservative instincts, ‘co-opts’ some of the force of its antagonist which has already been redirected outwards.

Briefly then, Freud’s ‘mature’ theory sees aggression as an outward directing of the death instinct effected, in the interests of self-preservation, by the life instinct.  In turn, ‘civilization’ must cope with this released destructiveness and does so by introjecting it back into the individual [after the life instinct has expropriated a portion of it for its own uses].  On being re-internalized the aggression does not, however, return to its source in the unconscious – the id – to resume its primal drive towards inanimacy.  Instead it becomes located in the super-ego [the seat of the ‘conscience’] where it is used to punish the ego for any transgressions of the behavioural rules acquired in infancy.  In this way civilization bends the individual’s aggression to its own ends – and in so doing demonstrates its fundamental antipathy towards the free expression of the instinctual impulses.

Einstein’s purpose in the Why War? correspondence was not merely to determine Freud’s interpretation of the phenomenon of war; he wished also to elicit from psychoanalysis proposals for its elimination.  In this, perhaps, lies one explanation of Freud’s underlying distaste for the project.  Neither psychoanalysis as a general theory nor Freud as its originator had ever demonstrated much capacity for social prescription.  Freud, although never politically active, might loosely be described as on the ‘Hobbesian right’.[34]  The anti-utopianism implicit in his work is frequently expressed as opposition to the currently most popular model, Soviet communism.  In Why War? the communist view – that aggression derives from material deprivation and will become extinct once all such needs are satisfied – is dismissed as an illusion.[35]  Nevertheless, as the object of the exercise was to provide answers, Freud does his best with the fundamentally unpromising material provided by the psychoanalytic world-view.  In places, the price even of this limited optimism is the contradiction of aspects of his previous writings.

According to Freudian theory, the death instinct operates through division and fragmentation while eros is concerned to unify into ever greater wholes.  As he put it in Civilization and its Discontents, ‘civilization  is a process in the service of eros, whose purpose is to combine single human individuals, and after that families, then races, peoples and nations into one great unity’.[36]  Thus, he concludes in Why War?, ‘anything that encourages the growth of emotional ties between men must operate against war’.  ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ is cited as a difficult but nevertheless necessary aspiration in this respect.[37]  As the process of civilization advances the instinctual urges will be further repressed.  War as an expression of the externalized death instinct ought therefore to become both less frequent and less destructive.[38]  This argument was in fact presented in a more tentative form in 1915 in ‘Thoughts for the Times on War and Death’ when Freud, abhorring the obliteration of ‘all moral acquisitions’ in wartime, hoped that this might be changed by ‘later stages of development’.[39]

Here, however, we can detect a considerable inconsistency in Freud’s hypothesis.  If, as he maintains throughout his work, civilization continually strives to repress instinctual life as a whole, then both the death instinct and its opposite, eros, must be equally subject to the process.  How then can eros act as the handmaiden of civilization as he suggests?  Eros although the enemy of the death instinct is also the source of the sex drive and therefore ought properly to be subject to repression by the process of civilization as well.  Indeed, one of Freud’s concerns in Why War? is that part of the price of civilization was an impairment in the sexual functioning of its beneficiaries as the libidinal aspect of the life instinct was repressed.  His fear was that this might ‘perhaps be leading to the extinction of the human race [because] uncultivated races and backward strata of the population are already multiplying more rapidly than highly cultivated ones’.  The biologically ‘uncivilized’ were numerically stronger than the ‘civilized’ as a result of their unrepressed life instinct.  They were therefore in a better position to bring about the apocalypse through the exercise of their similarly unrepressed death instinct.[40]

Despite this laboured and self-contradictory search for an acceptably optimistic prognosis, the more familiar Freudian pessimism prevails.  Whatever the theoretical feasibility of his proposals, the march of history may well bring them to nothing.  The struggle of civilization to repress the instincts which create aggression and war must be carried out within a certain timescale with annihilation as a constant and increasing risk.  in Freud’s view, the outcome of this struggle is far from predetermined: ‘an unpleasant picture comes to mind of mills that grind so slowly that people may starve before they get their flour’.[41]

The Limits of Speculation

We have already pointed up some immanent contradictions in Freud’s position – such as the unresolved ambiguity between civilization, community and state and the inconsistencies in his thinking on the repressive action of civilization on the life instinct.  The arguments outlined in Why War? have, however, been challenged at a more fundamental level from two separate directions.  Firstly, the entire edifice of Freud’s position is based on speculation unsupported [and indeed unsupportable] by empirical evidence.  This is true both for his general theory of instincts and for his postulation of the death instinct in particular.  Secondly, even if we are willing to accept these speculative hypotheses as providing a valid aetiology of human aggression, we are still faced with the problem of its eventual expression: literally, why war?  This latter question of course is the crux of the matter as far as any possible Freudian contribution to International Relations theory is concerned.  No explanation is offered for the manifestation of aggression in the specific form of conflict between states.

Throughout his writings Freud’s view of instincts betrayed a typically Germanic partiality to the notion of dialectic dualism.  Despite changes in the nature of the poles [sex versus self-preservation giving way to life versus death] the bipolar structure was maintained.  But what grounds other than theoretical symmetry are there for accepting such a duality?  Its existence is asserted purely by intellectual fiat.  Freud’s resistance to a polymorphic view of multiple primary instinctual drives comes in part from the intellectual tradition in which he developed.  It was hardened, no doubt, by his characteristically fierce defensiveness in the face of the ‘dissidence’ of the early schismatics like Adler, Stekel and Jung  who came to question his architecture of the instincts, its theoretical elegance notwithstanding.  At no time does Freud provide any evidential case against, for example, the existence of a multiplicity of co-existing primary instincts.

Even if we accept Freud’s bipartite structure of the instincts we are still confronted by the problem of their nature. The concept of the death instinct is one which has found little support from subsequent generations of psychoanalytic theorists.  Even orthodox Freudians, who as a group are not remarkable for their willingness to diverge from the original writ, have tended to gloss the idea of a primary death instinct by reference to vaguer concepts such as ‘the destructive drive’ and are more ready to accept non-instinctual factors such as frustration in the generation of aggression.[42]

Among the less orthodox neo-Freudians only the ‘right wing’ British school associated with the theories of Melanie Klein has retained the concept in anything like its original form while it has been most vigorously rejected by the sociologically-oriented ‘left wing’ schemes such as those of Karen Horney and Erich Fromm.[43]  For the latter the implications of a death instinct are reactionary and defeatist.[44]  And, in common with other commentators from outside psychoanalysis, they argue that a major problem with the concept – even as speculation – is that the only indications of its existence are to be found in its consequences.[45]  The reality of the construct is extrapolated from its secondary manifestations.  Violence exists as a verifiable phenomenon, it’s instinctual base however does not.

The death instinct  is presented by Freud as the ultimate expression of the principle of tension reduction, the inherent tendency of all psychic activity to aim at the relief of the ‘unpleasure’ of stress.  The basic notion of tension reduction has, however, been convincingly challenged.  It has been shown in animal studies, for example, that in certain circumstances subjects will actively seekthe stimulus of tension – and not merely as a contrived preliminary to its cathartic relief [the concept of ‘forepleasure’] as Freudians would suggest?[46]  And, even if the tension reduction model is valid, does the postulation of a death instinct as its vehicle constitute a logical conclusion or merely a reductio ad adbsurdum?  Prior to 1920 Freud’s ‘pleasure principle’ was based on the reduction of tension to ‘constancy’ resulting in a ‘stable degree of excitation’.  The drive to inanimacy [the ‘nirvana principle’ on which the death instinct operates] has no more scientific legitimacy than the earlier formulation and considerably less support from contemporary psychology.[47]

Beyond these questions surrounding Freud’s theories on the origins of aggression, there are others to be raised concerning its forms.  From objects to the failure to distinguish between the various manifestations of aggressiveness whatever its source.  What determines why externally directed aggression should express itself in one type of behaviour rather than another?  Sadism, destructiveness, mastery and the will-to-power are all different expressions of human aggression which, he suggests, must be considered separately.  Even if they do derive from the same redirected death instinct, Freud provides no elaboration of the process of differentiation which occurs in the course of externalization.[48]  In other words, there is no effective attempt to integrate instinctual behaviour with its social manifestations.  Although Fromm’s concern here is with individual psychopathology, it hints at the problem of political expression touched on earlier.  What is the connection between human aggression and international war and what determines that the former should be expressed in the form of the latter?

The Freudian scheme is supremely subjective; it is concerned wholly with the individual and the psychic origins of his or her behaviour.  In contrast to some of his contemporary ‘depth’ psychologists and many of his subsequent revisers, Freud had no great interest in the teleology of behaviour – the social ends which it sought to achieve.[49]  Consequently, orthodox psychoanalysis has had little to contribute to social psychology.  Freud’s level of analysis was the individual, not the social system within which he or she interacted with others.  This lacuna obstructs the making of connections between the instinctual theory of the origins of aggression and its political expression in war.  As one writer has observed, ‘there is always the missing link in these fascinating speculations … between the fundamental nature of man and the outbreak of war’.[50]  It is the failure to provide this link in the letter to Einstein which makes Why War? a particularly inapt title for the published exchange.

Aggression and War: Inferring a Link

In various places in his writing, Freud does in fact touch on such ‘political’ subjects as group behaviour and the nature of leadership.  While ‘social psychology’ in the sense of the operation of social ‘systemic’ pressures on the individual has no significant place in the Freudian scheme, the role of the individual in shaping the ‘system’ is given some consideration.  Is there anything in this aspect of Freud’s work which might allow the connections between instinctual aggression and its manifestation in warfare to be made, so to speak, on his behalf?

In 1914 in his essay On Narcissism Freud wrote of the ‘ego-ideal’, which was the conceptual predecessor of the conscience-wielding super-ego.  As well as its individual side it had social manifestations as ‘the common ideal of a family, a class or nation.’[51]  Loyalty to [and by extension, one must suppose, violence on behalf of] the state was interpreted in terms of the oedipal relationship formed between infant and father in early childhood  development.  In later life the nation might displace the father but it too exerts an unconscious influence over the individual.

Image result for Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego

This draws its force from two characteristics of the oedipus complex: fear of punishment and the need for approval.  The theme was developed further in 1921 in Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego.  Here Freud suggests that all groups in society are unconscious echos of the ‘primal horde’ first described in Totem and Taboo.  And, the ‘leader of the group is still the dreaded primal father [who] is the group ideal which governs the ego in the place of the ego-ideal’.[52]  This basic structure is, however, adaptable in its social manifestations.  The primal father might be represented not by a leader but by an ideology.  Similarly, the love relationship with the ego-ideal might take a negative form and the group would then cohere through shared hatred of a particular object or belief.[53]  Here, perhaps, a mechanism for the differentiation of aggressiveness suggests itself.  A ‘constructive’ focus for the externalization of aggression may be provided for the group through this ‘negative’ ego-ideal.

Freud expanded on the political implications of group cohesion a few years later in his treatise on religion, The Future of an Illusion, where he referred to the ‘narcissistic satisfaction’ provided by a cultural ideal which had the effect of combatting intra-cultural conflict.  Here he suggests that a positive ego-ideal in the form of ‘national’ identity can combine with its negative form – hatred of the outsider:

This satisfaction can be shared in not only by the favoured classes but also by the suppressed ones, since the right to despise the people outside it compensates them for the wrongs they suffer within their own unit.  No doubt one is a wretched plebeian, harassed by debts and military service; but, to make up for it, one is a Roman citizen one has one’s share in the task of ruling other nations and dictating their laws.  This identification of the suppressed classes with the class who rules and exploits them is, however, only part of a larger whole.  For, on the other hand, the suppressed classes can be emotionally attached to their masters; in spite of their hostility to them they may see in them their ideals; unless such relations of a fundamentally satisfying kind subsisted, it would be impossible to understand how a number of civilizations have survived so long in spite of the justifiable hostility of large human masses.[54]

The ego-ideal in a cultural form therefore is seen as a force operating in the interests of political cohesion.  It does so through the enhancement of group – or national – identity.  The first stage is the displacement of the oedipal relationship from the father to the political unit.  This is then reinforced through contrast with the ‘non-group’ [or non-national] outsider.  Freud in fact refers to this tendency, although only tangentially, in Why War? when dismissing the utopian claims of Soviet communism;  the Russians themselves, he observed, ‘are armed today with the most scrupulous care and not the least important of the methods by which they keep their supporters together is hatred of everyone beyond their frontiers’.[55]

Where might we locate the point of contact between the primary death instinct and this process of oedipal displacement?  The death instinct, according to Civilization and its Discontents, is first externalized as aggression and then partly introjected back to the psyche where it is put at the disposal of the super-ego.  The super-ego, it will be recalled, was originally characterized as the ego-ideal.  Both concepts represent the displacement of the oedipal relationship from the father.  Freud argued, as we have seen, that this displacement may take the form of national or ideological identification.  Or, it may manifest itself in a negative form as a communal hate-object.  In these circumstances, the introjected aggression commanded by the ego-ideal/super-ego might be said to undergo a process of externalization once more – this time expressed collectively; in short, as war.  This secondary externalization which is socially legitimised  might then be said to take command of that ‘natural’, unfocussed aggression which had not been introjected to the super-ego.  The co-option of this ‘free-floating’ aggression by the super-ego might be explained by the Freudian concept of ‘cathexis’ – the concentration of psychic energies into one channel.

But, of course, there is an clear danger of going too far in such attempts at integration.  We must be wary of making such theoretical connections in Freud’s name.  The conceptual platform on which this type of theoretical extension must be built is, as we have observed, itself rather insecure.  Having questioned the intellectual basis of the original theory, such an exercise is of doubtful legitimacy both in itself and also in its tendency to repeat the type of unsupportable speculation around which fundamental objections to the Freudian view have been based.

In addition to criticisms of the basic premises and the internal logic of the theory, others have been made from the perspective of International Politics as a field of study – the main one on which the hypotheses impinge.  The idea of a monistic explanation of such a central concept as war has long been unacceptable to students of International Relations.  As one scholar of Freud’s social theory has complained, ‘plunging below war, psychology turns up varieties of “aggression” as if these somehow subsume diplomatic history and the development of modern weapons’.[56]  Generally speaking, the sub-systemic, sub-state microcosmic level of analysis is little considered in contemporary International Relations theory.

The prevailing orthodoxies of British and American thought on International Politics have differed in focus and methodology but have been generally united in their commitment to collectivities [whether states or ‘systems’] as the basic levels of analysis.  Freudianism, with its rejection even of the dynamic dimension of social psychology, is non-collective and microcosmic to the ultimate degree.[57]  On grounds both of its mono-causal nature and its unit of analysis, therefore, the psychoanalytic theory of war finds little favour in its second half-century.

All this notwithstanding, however, the Freudian ‘presence’ in late twentieth century social thought is pervasive – both as a significant orthodoxy in its own right and as the starting point for subsequent and, for many, more credible revisions. Moreover, historically the decade of the 1930s was clearly one of immense significance for the whole question of inter-state conflict and its avoidance.  Psychoanalysis was one of the most significant intellectual movements of the period.  The Why War? correspondence brought these historical and intellectual concerns together by attempting to elicit an answer to the former from the theories of the latter.  However unsatisfactory the results of the exercise and however much the central theories involved have been superseded by modification and revision, it remains one of considerable significance in the history of European ideas in the inter-war period.

*

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 was originally published on academia.edu.

Notes

[1]  James Strachey, Editor’s Note to Why War? [1933], The Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Standard Edition [London 24 volumes 1953-74] [hereinafter SE] Volume XXII [1964], p.197.

 2  Ibid, p.199.

 3  ‘He is cheerful, full of himself and agreeable.  He understands as much about psychology as I do about physics and we had a very pleasant talk’.  Quoted in Ernest Jones, Sigmund Freud: Life and Work [Volume III] The Last Phase: 1919-1939 [London 1957], p.139.

 [4]  Ibid, p.164.

 [5]  Ibid, p.187.

 [6]  Quoted in William Clark, Freud: the Man and the Cause [New York 1980], pp.485-86.

 [7]  An Autobiographical Study [1925/1935 Postscript], SE XX [1959], p.72.

 [8]  Why War?, p.200.

 [9]  Ibid, p.201.

[10]  Quoted in Jones III, p.359.

[11]  Ibid, p.360-61.

[12]  Totem and Taboo [1913], SE XIII [1953], pp.141-46.

[13]  Why War?, p.205.

[14]  Ernest Jones, his official biographer, observed: ‘Freud’s immediate response to the declaration of war was an unexpected one.  One would have supposed that a pacific savant of fifty-eight would have greeted it with simple horror, as so many did.  On the contrary, his first response was rather one of youthful enthusiasm, apparently a reawakening of the military ardours of his boyhood’.  Sigmund Freud: Life and Work [Volume II] Years of Maturity 1901-1919 [London 1967], p.192.

[15]  Letter to Frederic Van Eeden [1914], SE XIV [1957], pp.301-02.

[16]  ‘Thoughts for the Times on War and Death’ [1915], SE XIV pp.276-77.

[17]  Ibid, p.285.

[18]  Jones II, p.415.

[19]  ‘Thoughts for the Times on War and Death’, p.279.

[20]  It is certainly true that Freud found little to admire in the political processes of the state.  In the Freudian view, as represented by Philip Rieff, ‘the state holds no promise of elevating human nature, except through irrational and transient enthusiasms; in general, the state epitomizes the worst elements of human desire’.  ‘Psychology and Politics: the Freudian Connection’, World Politics, Vol.7 No.2 [January 1955], p.299.  Yet it is difficult to reconcile this distaste with the implied acceptance of the state as the institutional embodiment of the civilization process.

[21]  Why War?, pp.214-15.

[22]  Ibid, p.214.

[23]  Several writers from within psychoanalysis have provided accounts of varying usefulness of Freud’s theories of the instincts and aggression.  The most concise is that given by the editor of the Standard Edition of the Collected Works, James Strachey, in his introduction to Civilization and its Discontents [1930], SE XXI [1961], pp.ix-xiii.  Another orthodox Freudian examination is offered by Rose Edgcumbe in her chapters on ‘The Death Instinct’ and the ‘Aggressive Drive’ in Humberto Nagera [ed], Basic Psychoanalytic Concepts on the Theory of Instincts [London 1970], pp.67-70 and 71-79.  Perhaps the most exhaustive and challenging exploration is that by the Marxist neo-Freudian Erich Fromm in ‘Freud’s Theory of Aggressiveness and Destruction’ which forms an appendix to The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness [London 1974], pp.439-78.

[24]  Analysis of a Phobia in a Five Year-Old Boy [‘Little Hans’] [1909], SE X [1955], p.140.  This was at the time of the final conflict between Freud and Adler which ended with the latter’s departure from the Vienna circle.  It is perhaps reasonable to suppose that Freud’s deep resentment against his one-time collaborator helped to confirm rejection of the concept of an autonomous aggressive instinct.

[25]  Studies on Hysteria [1895], SE II [1955], p.246.

[26]  Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality [1905], SE VII [1953],pp.157-58.  Freud argued here that sadism was the consequence of the disordering of the relationship in which the aggressive component usurped the primary position.

[27]  Instincts and their Vicissitudes [1915], SE XIV, p.137.

[28]  Beyond the Pleasure Principle [1920], SE XVIII [1955], p.38.

[29]  Ibid, p.40.

[30]  Civilization and its Discontents, p.122.

[31]  Why War?, p.211.

[32]  Civilization and its Discontents, p.123.  Freud was able to ‘locate’ the process in this way as a result of the formulation of his structural theory in The Ego and the Id [1923], SE XIX [1961], pp.19-39.  Here he introduced the now widely familiar tripartite concept of the psyche.  The ‘id’ was the seat of the instincts and the successor to the earlier concept of the unconscious; the ‘ego’, a term already widely used to describe the conscious self, was now defined more closely as an excrescence of the id which mediates between it [the id] and the outside world; the ‘super-ego’ is the portion of the psyche which assimilates parental prohibitions and acts, approximately, as conscience.

[33]  ‘The instinct for self-preservation is certainly of an erotic kind, but it must nevertheless have aggressiveness at its disposal if it is to fulfil its purpose.  So, too, the instinct of love, when it is directed towards an object, stands in need of some contribution from the instinct for mastery if it is in any way to obtain possession of that object’.  Why War?, pp.209-10.

[34]  Freud’s own political outlook and his view of himself as ‘a liberal of the old school’ is discussed by Paul Roazen in Freud and his Followers [London 1975], pp.518-19.

[35]  Why War?, pp.211-12.

[36]  Civilization and its Discontents, p.122.

[37]  Why War?, p.212.  In the earlier work however the same precept is seen as not merely difficult but impossible – and ridiculed by Freud in consequence.  Civilization and its Discontents, pp.109-11.

[38]  Why War?, pp.213-14.

[39]  ‘Thoughts for the Times on War and Death’, p.288.

[40]  Why War?, p.214.

[41]  Ibid, p.213.

[42]  Not even that most loyal of his followers, Ernest Jones, could summon up much enthusiasm when he dealt with that part of Freud’s theory in his official biography; Jones III, pp.297-300.

[43]  The terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ here are meant in a figurative rather than an explicitly political sense following the usage of J.A.C. Brown in his Freud and the Post-Freudians [Harmondsworth 1964], p.129.  Both Horney and Fromm were however on the political left as well.

[44]  As Karen Horney puts it, ‘If man is inherently destructive and consequently unhappy, why strive for a better future?’; New Ways in Psychoanalysis [London 1939], p.132.  Interestingly, some support for the death instinct is offered from the left by Marcuse who sees it at work in the psychic destructiveness of modern industrial capitalism and thus takes up the unlikely position of defender of Freudian orthodoxy against its progressive critics; Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization[Boston 1955], pp.270-73.

[45]  See, for example, Alasdair MacIntyre’s critique of the Marcusian position in this respect in Marcuse [London 1970], p.50.

[46]  See Leonard Berkowitz, Aggression: a Social-Psychological Analysis [New York 1962], pp.9-11 for an account of the experimental evidence against the ‘nirvana principle’.

[47]  Fromm discusses Freud’s changing position on the principle of tension reduction in TheAnatomy of Human Destructiveness, pp.472-478.

[48]  Ibid, p.470.

[49]  This concentration on the aetiology of neurosis – and particularly on its sexual basis – was of course a major factor in Freud’s break first of all with Adler and then with Jung.  The social ‘purposes’ of neurotic behaviour were later explored by analysts such as Fromm, Horney and Harry Stack Sullivan in the 1930s and 1940s.  As a result, the Adler school, during its subsequent decline, insisted that this group was neo-Adlerian rather than neo-Freudian.  See, for example Heinz L. Ansbacher and Rowena R. Ansbacher, The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler, [London 1958], pp.16-17.

[50]  Werner Levi, ‘On the Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace’, Journal of ConflictResolution, Vol.4 No.4 [December 1960], p.415.  Levi points out that what ‘these [psychological] explanations fail to do is to indicate how these human factors are translated into violent conflict involving all citizens, regardless of their individual nature, and performed through a highly complex machinery constructed over a period of years for just such a purpose’.

[51]  On Narcissism [1914], SE XIV. p.101.

[52]  Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego [1921], SE XVIII, p.127.

[53]  Ibid, p.100.  As one of Freud’s most ‘political’ works, Group Psychology and the Analysis ofthe Ego has attracted the attention of a number of political theorists.  See for example Paul Roazen, Freud: Political and Social Thought [London 1969], pp.226-32 and  Philip Rieff, ‘Origins of Freud’s Political Thought’, Journal of the History of Ideas, XVII [April 1956], pp.235-249.

[54]  The Future of an Illusion [1927], SE XXI, p.9.

[55]  Why War?, p.212.

[56]  Philip Rieff, ‘Psychology and Politics’, p.305.

[57]  The decade after the end of the Second World War appears to have been something of a high-water mark for applications of psychoanalytic thought to political theory with major works by T.W. Adorno, Harold Laswell and Herbert Marcuse bringing Freudian insights to such questions as authority and alienation.  By the mid-1960s however the Freudian vogue seemed largely to have passed.

Look at this CNN online frontpage in the evening of September 24, 2019. It may well come to be seen in the future as an indicator of the beginning of the end.

Earlier that same day, Britain’s highest court ruled PM Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament unlawful and in the evening, the US House launched an impeachment inquiry against President Trump.

These are huge matters. They are not momentary crises.

It is entire systems approaching existential breakdown – and not because of foreign adversaries but because of their own morally corrupt actions and policies – or system fatique: systems so worn out and tired (of itself, too) that they don’t have the energy needed for re-vitalization.

The two most important Western leading societies in contemporary history – a former Empire and the present one – increasingly look like failed states, failed societies, and failing their own ideals and laws.

What we see is a decay of morals, an erosion of democracy and a downward spiraling chaos with an end but no solution in sight.

The nuclear dimension

We see two leaders with dangerous narcissistic traits who are increasingly cornered and who have at their disposal enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world – destroy humanity – many times over. Two leaders who surely believe that their button is larger than anybody else’s.

Their personal ethical standards are clearly below the acceptable for elected leaders with great responsibilities. Telling lies, deceiving, antagonizing, ridiculing, threatening, playing hurt, etc. are main tools in their tool boxes. Further, tendential megalomania (“I can get away with everything because I am who I am”) as well as psycho-political projection of their own dark sides on others is obvious.

What should one think of the way Mr Trump handled the speech at the UN by environmental activist Greta Thunberg and how he needs to mock her and, thereby, the issues she speaks about?

What could personalities like Trump and Johnson be willing to do if and when they see that the game – their incredible, unconstitutional and arrogant game – is over?

The speculative parallel isn’t direct, or perfect, but one may anyhow ask oneself: What could we imagine that Hitler would have done there in the last hours in his bunker in Berlin had he had access to nuclear weapons?

The Soviet Union’s empire dissolved with nuclear weapons. But its last leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, was an intelligent, wise, visionary and moral last man. Neither Trump nor Johnson is.

How come democracies have decayed to the extent that humanity’s fate can be decided by such kakistocratic people (kakistocracy = a system of government which is run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens)?

The third crisis

These years, the talk is of two major civilizational crises. The first is spoken comparatively much of, climate change or better, environmental collapse. The other – the risk of major war, including nuclear war by politics, human or technical failure – is spoken woefully little about.

The third global crisis is seldom considered on par with, or related to, the first two, namely everything pertaining to democracy: the lack of vision, leadership, genuine democracy, people’s empowerment and trustworthy media as well as the decay into increasing authoritarianism particularly in the West.

The West has no Mikhail Gorbachev to oversee the dissolution of an entire system. Not one even close to his caliber – a caliber lesser minds such as Bill Clinton chose to not work but lie to, cheat and humiliate back then.

Rather, there are too many intellectual and moral dwarfs – shortsighted and immature – among Western leaders. And those of the EU have failed miserably in developing an alternative to the US, if they ever tried. If you can’t do that in these times, you never will.

The Rest of the world needs somebody decent to talk with in the West. But what’s their phone number to paraphrase Kissinger? One, Angela Merkel, has lost because she was decent.

Take the two main 2015 cases. First, of the nuclear deal (JCPOA) with Iran and the continuation of the sanctions. The EU has not been able to stand up and honour its commitments but have, cowardly and submissively, obeyed US demand/threats to accept US law also on their own sovereign territory – the so-called secondary sanctions.

And thereby causing millions of innocent Iranians’ suffering.

Secondly, take the miserable handling of 1,5 million asylum seekers in late 2015, the proportionally small burden of whom could not be shared among the 29 EU countries’ 410 million citizens. They were suffering people the far majority of whom came from countries destroyed by the West itself.

Those to dots are never connected because someone wants wars and intervention and self-aggrandizement to continue no matter how self-destructive and counter-productuve it evidently is (producing also more terrorists).

The new better world being born out of this crisis

The West’s decline and decay is Western, it does not mean that the whole world is in decline. But Western media, politics and much security and international relations research is extremely navel-gazing and lacks macro perspective in time and space. As people sitting inside boxes tend to.

Fortunately, however, it’s simple sociological dialectics that something new is being born out of the old that dies. While some go down, others go up.

Thus, there is reason for hope if you look at all humankind. But – yes! – may the Western “leadership” through the US Empire soon be over. And may it be over with a whimper rather than with a bang.

A new world is taking shape. The West, of course, is in denial because it won’t be a world in which it dominates.

The West has become a grumpy old and bitter man. When did you last hear something benign, constructive and visionary come out of a mouth in Washington? No, it’s threats, wars, demonisation, intimidations, sanctions, withdrawal, paranoid siege mentality, wall-building and militarism. Without end.

It’s power games, personality fights; it’s muddling through, intriguing, damage limitation and crisis (mis)management. How many seconds a day do you think Mr Trump or Mr Johnson has to discuss the long-term future, to shape policies, to listen – truly listen – to advisers, read a book or think through alternatives.

The Titanic crew also didn’t talk about changing course. If you think they did, listen to President Trump’s speech at the UN also on September 24. His worldviews are outdated, to put it diplomatically. And there are enemies all around. Only enemies. Bad guys in contrast to his good, great God’s own country.

The future world is one in which the West will either be one among many partners or become what is usually called “underdeveloped” – a Museum of the West’s militarist hubris, exceptionalism and visionless fake democracy. (See Gandhi’s prophetic words above about Western democracy being diluted fascism).

If you are Number 34 in a ranking order, you have 33 to look up to and learn from. If you are Number 1 (or believe you are), you learn from no one, you stop listening and you master, teach, threaten. And kill because – well, might is right.

In the global classroom, the West continues to teach, threaten and grade the Rest, unable to see and understand why the pupils are leaving. It’s no longer the role model and its teachings have less and less relevance for the better, future world being born.

All Empires fall. The US Empire will too.

Look at its second-to-none warfare, militarism and killing machine, its domestic poverty, it globally weakening economic influence, its overreach and declining management capacity, its lack of legitimacy (not to speak of the absence of admiration) in the eyes of the world’s people. Look at its failed vision and lack of new ideas, its increasing reliance on one power scale – the military, its addiction to violence – from the single revolver to nuclear weapons.

Does anybody really believe that such a system is sustainable over time and is the right role model – leader – of the Rest? If so, the reality check is closing in.

And no new Empire will appear.

No one is that crazy to believe it is their mission to rule the future humanity of billions of people according to one set of ideals and do so by the use of a Bible and a Sword.

The Occident has become an Accident. To itself and to the Rest.

*

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 The Deepening Decay of the West – and the Brighter Post-West Future
  • Tags:

Much ink has been spilt in textbooks describing situations where autocratic states can behave badly.  They abuse rights; they ignore international law and they ride roughshod over conventions.  Liberal democracies may boast that they follow matters to the letter of the law, and make sure that citizens are given their fair and just cause in putting forth their cases.  The practice suggests all too glaringly that the opposite is true. 

The English legal tradition, with its historically brutal punishments, adoration of the fetish known as the rule of law, and a particular tendency towards a miscarriage of justice, has found a rich target in Julian Assange.  Behind the stiffness of procedure and the propriety of convention, cruelties are being justified with grinding regularity.

On September 22, Assange would have been released from HMP Belmarsh, a maximum security centre whose reputation betrays much in the way the authorities wish to handle the publisher.  The 50-week jail term imposed for skipping bail was a mild matter relative to others serving life sentences in the prison, but a statement had to be made both to those wishing to emulate Assange and Britain’s cousins across the Atlantic.  But that term of imprisonment was never meant to be genuinely observed in the scheme of things; its termination merely being a point in a broader scheme of ongoing detention.  It was a mere hiccup in a conversation which involves US power.  The Washington security establishment is salivating for its quarry, and Britain is playing minder.

This means keeping him in indefinite detention, or at least till US authorities make their case, however unconvincing.  At the Westminster Magistrates court hearing on September 13, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser was short and sharp.

“You have been produced today because your sentence of imprisonment is about to come to an end.  When that happens your remand status changes from serving prisoner to a person facing extradition.” 

The District Judge explained how she had given Assange’s lawyer “an opportunity to make an application for bail on your behalf and she has declined to do so, perhaps not surprising in light of your history of absconding in these proceedings.”  In that explanation, a cosmos of meaning can be discerned.  Any application for bail would have been futile in any case, given that the judge had made up her mind.  “In my view I have substantial ground for believing if I release you, you will abscond again.” 

The judge was also being more than a touch disingenuous.  The hearing could not, in any genuine way, be described as a bail hearing, despite being represented as such.  It was, in fact, a technical hearing, meaning that the magistrate had effectively refused bail even before a formal request by the defence.  Such tendencies towards premature adjudication do not do the legal profession proud. 

The curious reference to “these proceedings” suggested a continuum of prosecution against Assange conflating both Swedish and US attempts to extradite him.  His punishment for skipping bail was not connected to the current US case, at least directly, but avoiding the extradition to Sweden in an attempt to question him over allegations of sexual assault. 

To the judicial officer, it was all the same picture of reason, the same cheek shown in avoiding the inevitable.  Never mind that Assange exercised his rights to asylum, that the reason he fled to the Ecuadorean embassy in 2012 was based on a genuine, and now proven fear, that he could be extradited to the United States to face charges with a cumulative prison time of 175 years.  Best bang him up in the cells as a warmer for the US effort, which is set to gather steam for a February extradition hearing.

While Britain continues its immolating ritual in how it leaves the European Union, there are murmurings of protest keeping the matter of Assange’s fate alive.  On Saturday, a modest protest took place outside Belmarsh, sporting the staple banners: “Don’t shoot the messenger”; “Free, free Julian Assange”; “Hands off Assange”.

Labour MP Chris Williamson was on hand to address those gathered.

“Here we have a situation where someone who we should be celebrating is facing solitary confinement, which is tantamount to torture taking place on British soil.  This cannot be allowed to stand.”

Williamson’s rationale is based on a traditional suspicion of the overreach of US power, and not a view shared by the mainstream plodders in British politics. “We have a moral duty to fight for Julian Assange, whose only crime is to expose war crimes by the US and the abuse of state powers.” 

Williamson has also made the observation that his country has become rather slapdash with its application of legal principle, despite taking some historical pride in defending human rights.  “Britain is increasingly behaving like a tin-pot dictatorship in its dealing with him.”  While Assange suffers, British politicians, notably those in Camp Brexit, see only one dictatorship: the EU.  Their idea of the Sceptred Isle remains pure.

There are accounts about Assange’s failing health that jab and trigger the occasional splash of publicity.  Assange’s father, John Shipton, has described how, during a visit in August, his son looked “a bit shaky, and is suffering from anxiety.  He has lost a lot of weight.  It is very distressing, and the intensity of his treatment has increased over the past year.”

The UN Special Rapporteur, Nils Melzer, has also issued stirring assessments of Assange’s detention, with its compounding cruelties.  “In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political prosecution, I have never seen a group of democratic states gang up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.  The collective punishment of Julian Assange must end here and now.”  Sadly, and depressingly for publishers, the process continues, wearingly and destructively.

*

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. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Medium

The Sickness of American Foreign Policy

September 30th, 2019 by Eric Zuesse

The Military-Industrial Complex runs US foreign policies. What passes for international ‘news’ reporting in the United States media was supremely represented by the instance of those ’news’ media stenographically reporting the Government’s lies about ’Saddam’s WMD’, even after it was unarguably clear that those were just blatant lies from the President and his Administration.

America’s media were merely passive megaphones for the regime’s lies. Instead of disproving the regime’s lies — as they could have done if they were journalistic, instead of propagandistic, media — they merely reported the lying government’s assertions. It was like 1984 “Big Brother”; and it still is, as today’s 2019 USA.

In between 2003 and now, the regime invaded Libya and Syria and Yemen, on the basis of lies that in some respects were even more blatant. The same groups of billionaires control the US ‘news’ media today as controlled the media in 2003; and they continue, in their ‘news’-media, the same stenographic ‘reporting’ — propaganda by their Government, regarding which nations are the latest targets, for the masses to hate and fear, as being our nation’s ‘enemies’.

These are the lands suitable for US weapons and bombs to destroy. These ‘news’-media simply ‘justify’ what are, in fact, international war-crimes: US-and-allied invasions, of nations that never had invaded the US.

There’s always the Big Lie that the hate-target is only ‘the tyrant’, and not the nation. But it’s the targeted nation that gets strangulated by America and its allies imposing ‘sanctions’ that are really economic blockades (such as against Venezuela and Iran today, but formerly against Iraq before we invaded and destroyed it); and, then, if that doesn’t bring down the targeted Government, a coup is attempted; and, then (if no coup results), paying and arming ‘rebels’ (such as Al Qaeda in Syria) to overthrow the targeted nation’s Government; and, then, missiles and bombers are used, in order to destroy the infrastructure.

It’s no better now than it was then, in 2003 in Iraq, and later in Libya, Syria, and so much else. There has been no change, except in the identities of the nations for Americans to hate and fear, and overthrow. And especially under Trump, refugees are being banned to immigrate from the countries the US regime has destroyed. He’s “making America great again,” like his predecessor Obama had insisted that “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation.”

Every other nation — including Libya and Syria and Yemen — is consequently “dispensable,” in that view. America’s voters tolerate, or even respect and re-elect, such vile leaders as this.

How, then, should the citizens of other countries feel about America?

And yet, the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama as President is overwhelmingly respected around the world, notwithstanding his having destroyed, or participated in destroying, Libya and Syria and Yemen, whereas as soon as the obviously uncouth Trump came into office and ever since then, Trump has been widely despised throughout the world — as all three US Presidents during this Century thus far, reasonably ought to be.

The public responds more to surfaces than to reality. Thus, though the reality of Obama was overall as horrendous as the reality of Trump, the reputations of those two Presidents could hardly be more different from one another.

The deeper reality of the United States is Big Brother, which was born in the United States when FDR died in 1945, and it has grown larger ever since then — and especially since 2001. America’s voters are kept ignorant of the ongoing and bipartisan ugliness of its Government’s bipartisan imperialistic (or “neoconservative”) foreign policy.

After all, the motivation behind it is to ‘protect human rights’ and ‘spread democracy’ in other countries (if you can believe the liars). How ‘nice’ is that (while the bombs are dropping and the target-country is being economically strangled)? And so, the US, as policeman to the world, has become an insult to the UN that FDR had been so proud to design and establish.

The US regime’s hatreds are bipartisan because all of this hate comes actually from America’s billionaires (the masters of America’s top brands) who control America’s international corporations and who are America’s political mega-donors; and these billionaires are of two types, Republican and Democratic; and both types of American billionaires are neoconservatives — champions of US imperialism — because extending the American empire is very profitable for America’s international corporations. That’s what it’s really all about.

Here’s one example:

On 25 July 2017, the US House of Representatives voted 419 to 3 to expand America’s economic blockades against “the Governments of Iran, the Russian Federation, and North Korea”, via “Sanctions”, which are a device that has become the US regime’s typical first step toward an ultimate military invasion. They always produce suffering amongst the targeted nation’s population, and far less so against the targeted nation’s leaders.

Yet sanctions and coups and invasions are done because of the US Government’s ‘humanitarian’ concern for the attacked nation’s people, and in order to install ‘democracy’ there. How can a militaristic regime function if it’s not constantly lying, like that? It can’t. That’s why it continually lies.

Iran, Russia and North Korea are the enemies authorized in this virtual declaration of war against all three nations.

This bill, which passed the House by 419 to 3, became voted 98 to 2 in the US Senate, and was then signed into law by US President Donald Trump, on 2 August 2017. It was a triple farce (and “farce” here is a euphemism for fraud). Here’s just a bit of the evidence for that:

The case against Iran

The US regime constantly refers to Iran as “the foremost state sponsor of terrorism”, which it never has been even close to being, and which phrase describes the US regime itself far more than it does Iran. But did Iran ever invade America? Of course not!

However, Americans actually did become enemies of Iran when our Government overthrew Iran’s progressive and democratically elected Government, in July and August of 1953, and the US regime at that time had the full cooperation of the UK regime, and of Iran’s own mullahs, in that coup d’etat, which installed the US regime’s chosen brutal dictator, the Shah, to rule there. But did Iran ever even threaten America? No, not even threaten.

The US regime constantly threatens Iran, and Iran’s Government would need to be idiots to take lightly these threats by the US regime — the same regime that had installed the brutal Shah in 1953. Yet the US regime has the nerve to continue, and even to intensify, these threats, and even to blame Iran’s suffering economy on Iran’s own Government (which America’s billionaires want to replace), instead of on America’s Government (those billionaires’ own government) and on this regime’s allies, and on the strangulating economic sanctions which this US team leads, and imposes, against Iran.

The case against Russia

The US regime overthrows governments routinely, and doesn’t just propagandize in those targeted countries so as to influence their elections; but when the Obama regime’s frame-up against Russia as having supposedly acted in collusion with Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016, as having constituted a merely possible excuse for the failure of Obama’s chosen successor to win the US Presidency, even the Special Prosecutor’s efforts to find evidence that might be able to convict Trump on such a charge after he leaves office, drew only blanks. There was no such evidence, of any such collusion, the Special Counsel Robert Mueller reluctantly admitted.

Actually, there does exist statistically overwhelming evidence to the exact contrary — that, as the definitive scientific analysis of the evidence reluctantly reported:

What is most striking about the data in this table is that Donald Trump actually slightly under-performed the model’s predictions in all three states. He did about one point worse than predicted in Michigan, about two points worse than predicted in Pennsylvania, and between two and three points worse than predicted in Wisconsin. There is no evidence here that Russian interference, to the extent that it occurred, did anything to help Trump in these three states.

In other words: the single predictive model that has a flawless record of predicting Presidential winners, and which was the only model that predicted Trump to beat Hillary in 2016, showed Trump winning the three toss-up states by slightly higher margins than he actually did win them.

If there was any influence upon the electoral outcome that came from a factor (such as from Russian influence) that was not being considered in this model, then that factor ended up benefiting Hillary, not Trump. That’s the exact opposite of the Obama-engineered hypothesis, which falsely alleges that ‘Trump is Putin’s stooge’.

And, now, the Trump regime is trying to establish a convictable case against Trump’s predecessor, Obama, for having tried to frame Trump (and Russia) for Hillary’s loss in 2016. (There’s considerable evidence that Obama did try to frame Trump, and Russia’s Government, for that loss.

And the US Government — even under Trump — has been trying to keep this information secret, unless and until House Democrats become serious about ‘impeaching Trump’. If they won’t try to impeach him, then he won’t try to convict Obama for treason.) (What? Democrats want Mike Pence to become President? Not really: it’s all just a show, for stupid voters in their own Party — and they obviously think that there are plenty of those.

Rooting for Pence to become President is apparently very popular amongst Democratic Party voters. Perhaps many Republican Party billionaires are even hoping that those Democratic idiots will get what they want. Is this democracy in action, or just a threatened counter-coup to punish the Democratic Party’s prior coup-attempt against the Republican President?)

The case against North Korea

So, Iran didn’t ever invade America, nor did Russia. What about North Korea, then? Did North Korea ever invade America? No, neither did that alleged ‘enemy’ of America. But America did invade North Korea during the Korean War. Have you ever seen the 764-page

“REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMISSION FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS CONCERNING BACTERIAL WARFARE IN KOREA AND CHINA”?

It documents America’s biological warfare program against North Korea in 1952. You probably haven’t even heard about it, because the US regime managed to keep it hidden from the public until just this year, and because America’s ‘news’-media continue to blacklist its existence so as to continue the ‘justification’ for the US regime’s still-ongoing efforts to conquer North Korea. But look at it here, as soon as its 764 pages have finished loading into your computer. Now that the US regime is increasing its threats against both North Korea and China, the Governments in those countries recently released this document to the public, and thereby are challenging the US propaganda-media to allow the publics in the US and its vassal nations to see it — to see real history about this matter, not just propaganda (such as the US is the world’s champion of).

This massive historical document opens:

On the 22nd. Feb. 1952, Mr. Bak Hun-Yung, Foreign Minister of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and on the 8th. March, Mr. Chou En-Lai, Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China, protested officially against the use of bacteriological warfare by the USA. On the 25th. Feb., Dr. Kuo Mo-Jo, President of the Chinese People’s Committee for World Peace, addressed an appeal to the World Peace Council.

At the meeting of the Executive Committee of the World Peace Council held at Oslo on the 29th. March, Dr. Kuo Mo-Jo, with the assistance of the Chinese delegates who accompanied him, and in the presence of the Korean representative, Mr. Li Ki-len, placed the members of the Committee, and other national delegates, in possession of much information concerning the phenomena in question. Dr. Kuo declared that the governments of China and (North) Korea did not consider the International Red Cross Committee sufficiently free from political influence to be capable of instituting an unbiassed enquiry in the field. This objection was later extended to the World Health Organisation, as a specialised agency of the United Nations. However, the two governments were entirely desirous of inviting an international group of impartial and independent scientists to proceed to China and to investigate personally the facts on which the allegations were based. They might or might not be connected with organisations working for peace, but they would naturally be persons known for their devotion to humanitarian causes. The group would have the mission of verifying or invalidating the allegations. After thorough discussion, the Executive Committee adopted unanimously a resolution calling for the formation of such an International Scientific Commission.

Ultimately, as Jeffrey S. Kay recently explained in his superb article at Global Research introducing this document to US-and-allied publics:

Written largely by the most prestigious British scientist of his day, this report was effectively suppressed upon its release in 1952. Published now in text-searchable format, it includes hundreds of pages of evidence about the use of US biological weapons during the Korean War, available for the first time to the general public.

Back in the early 1950s, the US conducted a furious bombing campaign during the Korean War, dropping hundreds of thousands of tons of ordnance, much of it napalm, on North Korea. The bombardment, worse than any country had received up to that point, excepting the effects on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wiped out nearly every city in North Korea, contributing to well over a million civilian deaths. Because of the relentless bombing, the people were reduced to living in tunnels. Even the normally bellicose Gen. MacArthur claimed to find the devastation wreaked by the US to be sickening.[1]

The massive document itself authenticates numerous reports of the US flying planes over North Korea and dropping containers of fleas, clams, and other creatures, that were tested and verified as being contaminated with plague and cholera. For example, on pages 24-26 are described several such incidents. Typical was one in which “the Commission had no option but to conclude that the American air force was employing in Korea methods very similar to, if not exactly identical with, those employed to spread plague by the Japanese during the second world war.”

Furthermore, one expert “gave evidence to the effect that he had urged the Kuomintang government to make known to the world the facts concerning Japanese bacterial warfare, but without success, partly, he thought, as the result of American dissuasion.”

In other words: the US regime not only protected and hired ‘former’ Nazis to use against the USSR, but it did the same with Japan to use against China and North Korea. This 1952 operation against North Korea was perpetrated by the regime under US President Harry S. Truman — the former Vice President who had been forced onto FDR’s final ticket by that Party’s top donors in order to get a war started against the Soviet Union and thereby keep their enormous government contracts continuing after WW II.

Right after FDR died, Truman got fooled by Churchill and Eisenhower into starting the Cold War against the Soviet Union; and this 1952 international war-crime against China and North Korea was part of that.

Conclusion

Okay, then: When will US President Trump, and the 419 members of the US House, and the 98 members of the US Senate, eat crow and come clean about what they actually represent? (It’s certainly not democracy.)

Congress is very partisanly split over domestic issues, because Republican and Democratic billionaires are split about them, but America’s billionaires are united in their support for US imperialism; and, so, the members of Congress, and Presidential candidates, are, too.

When do you see near 100% support in Congress for a domestic policy? Never even close to that. But for American aggressions, it’s virtual unanimity. The billionaires are solidly for aggression; and, so, their Government is, too. Virtually all politicians who are elected to national office are psychopaths. Otherwise, they’ll get nothing from the billionaires, and therefore won’t win public office.

Americans are supposed to trust such a government. Well, of course, the billionaires can trust it, because they bought it.

And that’s the sickness, and slickness, of American foreign policy.

It’s just a global scam, which destroys millions of people, and creates misery for hundreds of millions, all in the name of ‘defending America’, and of ‘protecting human rights’ and ‘defending democracy’, around the world.

*

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

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.

Early last year, the Swiss Propaganda Research center (SPR) published information cementing into place something many of us already know—the “mainstream” corporate media is controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations.

“It is no secret that over the last 4 decades, mainstream media has been consolidated from dozens of competing companies to only six,” writes Matt Agorist of The Free Thought Project. “Hundreds of channels, websites, news outlets, newspapers, and magazines, making up ninety percent of all media is controlled by very few people—giving Americans the illusion of choice… Top journalists and executives from all major media companies are integrated into the CFR.”  

Peter Dale Scott’s American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan documents the connection between the CFR, the CIA, the national security state, and Wall Street banksters. 

“[Frank] Wisner and [Allen] Dulles (the latter even when not in the government) were powerful because of their central position in the New York overworld of law, banking, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the New York Social Register,” writes Scott. 

“In its first years the CIA, like OSS before it, was dominated internally by the aristocratic elements of the New York overworld. All seven of the known deputy directors of the CIA at the time came from the same New York legal and financial circles, and no less than six of these seven (including both Dulles and Wisner) were listed in the New York Social Register as well.”

Charles Burris writes:

[O]ur nation does indeed have, like its British cousins across the pond, an Establishment, complete with its own theological canon and doxology of statecraft and spy craft. Its “Vatican” is the Council on Foreign Relations.  Its primary source of treasure and alms has been the Morgan and Rockefeller financial empires, which created the Fed, the great enabler of the Welfare-Warfare State.  Many of its elite seminarians have studied at Ivy League institutions such as Harvard, Princeton, or Columbia; some in particular, at Yale where they were initiated into Skull and Bones.

This cabal of financial “overlords,” as Scott might have it, congregated at the CFR, is responsible for the “news” we consume daily, often without question or suspicion. 

“The narrative created by CFR and its cohorts is picked up by their secondary communicators, also known the mainstream media, who push it on the populace with no analysis or questioning,” writes Agorist. 

The plan to control the thoughts and opinions of the masses through media came to fruition in 1915. Congressman Oscar Callaway pointed this out two years later. His remarks were published in the Congressional Record of February 9, 1917, page 2947:

In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.

The CIA’s effort to consolidate and expand this hold on media tightened in the 1950s under what has become known as Operation Mockingbird. This effort to control information was later admitted in a CIA document. 

“Although it is a document outlining their desire to become more open and transparent, the deception outlined by various whistleblowers (example) requires us to read between the lines and recognize that the relationships shared between intelligence agencies and our sources of information are not always warranted and pose inherent conflicts of interest,” writes Arjun Walia. 

How many of us actually read between the lines? Not many, although the number is growing as it becomes obvious a hidden elite and its national security state apparatus—the CIA, the Pentagon, the NSA, and associated contractors and supposed NGOs—is skewering the “news” to provide various pretexts for endless war and mass murder that enrich the elite and their top-level cronies. 

The torture of Julian Assange and the mistreatment of whistleblowers and genuine investigative journalists—the latter grew considerably under the “Change and Hope” phony Barack Obama—sends a strong message: if you reveal the secret crimes of the state and its financial overlords, you will pay a heavy price. 

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author

The Legacy of President Jacques Chirac: The Art of Being Vague

September 30th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The tributes have been dripping in heavy praise: former French president Jacques Chirac and mayor of Paris, the great statesman; the man who said no to the US-led war juggernaut into Iraq; the man loved for being loved.  Many of these should have raised the odd eyebrow here and there. “We French have lost a statesman whom we loved as much as he loved us,” claimed current French president Emmanuel Macron.

When greatness is tossed around as a term in French commemorations, there is always a sense of merging the corporeal flesh with the non-corporeal state.  The person thereby “embodies” France, inhabiting that rather complex shell that passes for a state. But the comparisons are all too loose and ready, showing an awkward accommodation. 

Eulogies are often the poorly chosen instruments to express the mood of an occasion rather than the reality of a life.  Given the crises facing the European Union, the pro-European sentiment of Chirac was cause for nostalgia. (He had encouraged a United Europe of States rather than a United States of Europe, moving France away from the Gaullist credo of self-sufficiency.) 

“Europe is not only losing a great statesman, but the president is losing a great friend,” claimed Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission in a statement. 

Former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt saw his Europhilia and interest in Europe as the making of the man, “the real statesman that we will miss.”

Terms of amity were also reiterated by former French President François Hollande, whom Chirac had described in previous political battles as “Mitterrand’s labrador”. 

“I know that today, the French people, whatever their convictions, have just lost a friend.” 

Smaller figures of history were also effusive in their praise: Boris Johnson, current British prime minister flailing in the Brexit imbroglio, expressed his admiration for that “formidable political leader who shaped the destiny of his nation in a career that spanned four decades”; one term UK prime minister John Major also doffed his cap. 

Where Chirac excelled without question was in his role as political hypocrite (a kinder term would be political gymnast, or a weathervane, as he was sometimes associated with).  Mayor of Paris for a touch under two decades, two stints as prime minister and two presidential terms suggest ample opportunity to master it.  It also suggests shifts, adjustments and moving across hardened political divisions, the pragmatist rather than the polemicist.

His costumery in that regard could be exquisite.  He could readily give the “le bruit et l’odeur” address in 1991 yet become the anti-racist option in the 2002 election, in which shell-shocked progressives were urged to vote for the crook rather than the fascist, Jean-Marie Le Pen.  In foreign affairs, he did something memorable: fabricate the image of France as suspicious of war and interventions, a peaceful state above reproach and self-interest.  This enabled him to lead the anti-war effort against Iraq mounted by the United States and Britain in 2003. 

The populist jab is worth noting for its current relevance: the terror of an overcrowded Europe, the fear of tax-payer funded marauders – often of the swarthy persuasion – that has been played upon from Nigel Farage in Britain to Viktor Orbán in Hungary.  Imagine, posed Chirac, the humble French worker with his wife who sees next to his council house a father with three or four spouses with some twenty children all supported by welfare.  “If you add to that the noise and the smell, well the French worker, he goes crazy.”

He was also a creature of a brand of politics that would wear against the regulations.  Mountainous ambition will do that to you, and the rust on Le Bulldozer was bound to be discovered at some point.  In 2011, he was handed a two-year suspended sentence on two counts of embezzling public funds, something he did during his time as Paris’s mayor.  The specifics centred around the creation of fake jobs at his RPR party and suggested no grand scheme of self-enrichment.  Even after his conviction, Chirac the amiable, Chirac the admired, was a theme pressed home by his lawyer, Georges Kiejman.  “What I hope is that this ruling doesn’t change in any way the deep affection the French feel legitimately for Jacques Chirac.”  Kiejman had little reason to worry. 

While hardly virtuoso, he advanced the uncomfortable question of French complicity in Nazi crimes, the otherwise great untouchable subject of post-war identity.  The measure was significant, sinking, at least in some way, the notion that the French republic somehow retained its purity in abolition during German occupation and Vichy rule.  That rule had resulted in a mutant political creation and monster; France the Republic could not be blamed, having ceased to exist.  As former French President François Mitterrand claimed, rather unconvincingly, “In 1940, there was the French state, this was the Vichy regime, it was not the Republic.”  Mitterrand, as with many in his position, did not feel an urging to join the French resistance till 1943; prior to that, he had been a civil servant in Vichy.

On July 16, 1995, Chirac noted how “the criminal folly of the occupiers was seconded by the French by the French state.”  In July 1942 in the Vel’ d’Hiv roundup, 13,000 Parisian Jews were arrested by 4,500 French police in preparation for their murderous end in Auschwitz. “France, the homeland of the Enlightenment and of the rights of man, a land of welcome asylum, on that day committed the irreparable.”  The country had broken “its word, it handed those who were under its protection over to their executioners.”

 Court historians will be kept busy wondering about the man’s ideologies and beliefs.  They will ponder legacies left, and things unachieved.  Structural and social divisions, for instance, remained unaddressed.  With Chirac, appearances and demeanour had their distorting effects.  Chirac, wrote French journalist Anne-Élisabeth Moutet, sported a “forceful manner” that concealed “terminal policy indecision”.  While leaving no lasting legacy, he had one up over the current, struggling leader.  Despite being a chateau-owner, in the pink as far as the bourgeoisie was concerned, and married to an aristocrat, he had the common touch.  For Professor Pascal Perrineau of the Paris School of International Affairs, he was a president who jogged and rode a Vespa, and appreciated for that fact.  His lasting skill, however, was to immortalise the art of being vague in politics.

*

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

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. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Legacy of President Jacques Chirac: The Art of Being Vague
  • Tags:

EPA leaders have now irreparably damaged the agency’s process for setting health-based air pollution standards. That’s why scientists are taking matters into their own hands. To ensure that independent science informs the particulate matter standards and beyond, the very particulate matter review panel that EPA Administrator Wheeler disbanded last year will reconvene.

Convening the scientists the Trump administration dismissed

In Washington DC on October 10-11—exactly one year to the day since the particulate matter review panel was disbanded—its members will meet again. The Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel, which self-organized days after being disbanded, includes 20 of the experts set to inform the next particulate matter standard before they were cut off. Notably, this group has more than double the number of experts currently reviewing the EPA standards, since EPA leaders disbanded the panel last October. It was one of the administration’s first moves that derailed the longstanding EPA process for ensuring that independence science informs ambient air pollution standards. The Independent Panel has already advised EPA twice since December regarding the science of particulate matter air quality.

Hosted by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the independent panel will come together to do what the EPA has thus far failed to: Conduct a full review of the EPA’s assessment of the science, with a breadth of experts from the most important scientific disciplines. They will deliberate on what we know and don’t know about particulate matter’s link to human health and welfare effects. And importantly, they will discuss the policy question at the heart of it all: Given the current science, what level of pollution will protect public health with an adequate margin of safety—the question that the Clean Air Act mandates EPA to answer and use to set pollution standards.

The panelists have undergone an ethics review to ensure that the panel is independent. In fact, the ethics review is being conducted by the very same (now retired) EPA staff member who cleared the panel’s ethics review before it was disbanded. (Chris Zarba was the EPA Scientific Advisory Board Staff Director until last year and is now working with the Environmental Protection Network). UCS is hosting the meeting, but the panelists’ deliberations will be independent, the panel will publicly report its advice directly to EPA, and panelists are accepting no honoraria for the meeting.  (For the record, UCS doesn’t take positions on ambient air quality standards and criteria, only advocates that independent science advice be followed.)

We will ensure the process tracks as closely as possible to what the EPA should be doing to ensure independent science informs air pollution standards. Contrary to EPA’s plans for its upcoming Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee meeting, we will include a public comment period within the meeting in order to ensure the public has an opportunity to inform the EPA process. The meeting will be held in Washington, DC, will be open the public, and will be livestreamed. Additional meeting details can be found on the event’s website.

The nation deserves a process that ensures science and public input inform the air pollution standards that affect us all. We are going to make it happen.

A need for independent science

For decades—under both Republican and Democratic administrations—the EPA has followed a long-standing science-based process for setting health-based ambient air pollution standards. This process has reliably ensured the nation’s ambient air pollution standards protect public health and welfare. The process has worked remarkably well over the years, even in the face of outside pressures to set weaker standards than the science suggests.

But the Trump Administration has taken a wrecking ball to this process (Full timeline here). First, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced the process would be abbreviated, with faster timelines, less review, and shorter documents than have been necessary in the past to ensure science-based standards. Then the administration nixed the Particulate Matter Review Panel and failed to convene an Ozone Review Panel. These pollutant-specific review panels have for decades augmented the seven-member Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to ensure leading experts on a given pollutant had a seat at the standard-setting table. This process ensured that the latest science could be accurately incorporated into EPA decisions that affect public health, with panels consisting of 10-20 people, largely from academic institutions, who largely donate their time and expertise to inform the agency. And it is a bargain for taxpayers. They deliberate in public and can fully engage with the seven-member committee to ensure sufficient expertise to have robust discussion of the many scientific disciplines and technical issues involved in reviewing the standards.

After EPA disbanded the Particulate Matter Review Panel, CASAC members told EPA they needed it back but Administrator Wheeler refused to listen. To save face and avoid having to reconvene the panel they themselves disbanded, the administration came out with a laughable workaround. This summer, the administration announced it would hire a “pool” of consultants that could be individually contacted on key questions science advisors asked them. The selection of these consultants was made by the Administrator with no public review of the selections.  It appears that this highly controlled written Q&A will allow little to no discussion between the committee and consultants, and no interface with the public.

But the who and how of the consultant pool is lacking. The breadth of expertise on the consultant list does not go far enough to enhance the expertise that CASAC is missing (and has acknowledged they need) and the list leans toward individuals who consult for industry rather than top academic experts who regularly publish in the field. In an unusual move, the October 24 CASAC meeting will also detach the public comment period in a separate teleconference two days prior.

This is a far cry from the open discussion that typically occurs among the science advisors, the review panel, and the public. We cannot allow such a sham process to proceed unanswered. The public’s health is at risk.

Holding EPA leaders accountable to science-based standards

Reconvening a disbanded pollutant review panel breaks new ground. Nothing like this has ever been done before. Indeed, nothing like this has ever been necessary. But we live in unprecedented times. The stakes are high. Particulate matter is responsible for more death and sickness than any other air pollutant in the US. If the EPA fails to set a standard that aligns with our scientific understanding of particulates and health, then the public’s health is at risk. Americans deserve to have a standard that protects them from the harmful effects of particle pollution. And we cannot get there unless robust science advice informs the EPA administrator’s decision. The Trump EPA has proven it cannot be trusted with this responsibility. That’s why we’re stepping up.

*

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.

Gretchen Goldman is research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS.

Featured image is from UCS

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Restoring Scientific Analysis in U.S Air Pollution Standard-Setting. We’re Putting It Back.
  • Tags: ,

After the Soviet collapse, Russia  maintained strong and time-tested relations with African countries, and of course, the Soviet Union had played an important role during the decolonisation of Africa. The African continent comprises a diverse collection of countries, each with its own set of development setbacks and challenges. The political culture and investment climate are, in fact, diverse but are important forces in the economy.

According to several development reports, Africa is one of the fastest growing regions in the world: the average annual GDP growth rate reaches from 3.5% to 5% on the continent. The reports have strongly encouraged African leaders to prioritise sustainable development as a step towards raising the living standards of millions of impoverished population and further guide against the revival of neo-colonialism, the destructive attitude towards the resouces in Africa.

In this economic cooperation between the two regions as well as Russia’s role in sustainable development in Africa and expectations from the forthcoming summit in Sochi, Russia.

***

Kester Kenn Klomegah: African leaders and business people will be in Sochi for the first Summit. What are the perceptions and attitudes toward this new dawn in the relations? How do the political and business elites interpret the benefits of the new relationship for both Africa and in Russia?

George Nyongesa: The impending Russia-Africa Summit is a timely and opportune congregation given current global events involving Africa’s traditional partners – the US’ recent years’ protectionist policy, China’s trade wars with the US, Brexit from the European Union – all of which directly impact Africa’s economic reality. For African leaders and business people, the utility and strategic importance of the Russia-Africa Summit is tied to how aptly it addresses this immediate reality and outlines future prospects.

To-date the US, European Union, China, India and Japan have partnered with African leaders to pursue development goals for mutual benefit. Accordingly, these partners have long articulated their engagement plans for Africa through comprehensive frameworks such as the US-Africa Leaders’ Summit and Power Africa Initiative, the European Union-Africa Summit, the Forum for China Africa Cooperation, the India-Africa Summit and Tokyo International Conference for African Development. The first Russia-Africa Summit therefore signals the dawn of deeper and stronger relations between Russia and Africa as Russia takes on a more active presence.

At Sochi, African leaders and business community will be looking to understand the proposed Russian framework for political and economic cooperation going forward, particularly long-term cooperation that takes into account Africa’s risk profile and the current competitive landscape for those seeking to invest. The business community will be keen to identify in-roads and opportunities for African businesses to grow and thrive in Russia vis-a-vis Africa’s development priorities on Agenda 2063, SADC’s industrialisation strategy and AfCFTA platform.

KKK: During the parliamentary conference held in July, the Chairman of the State Duma stressed that “it is necessary to prevent the revival of neo-colonialism, the destructive attitude towards the African resources.” How would you explain neo-colonialism by foreign players in Africa? What countries are the neo-colonizers in your view?

Image on the left is George Nyongesa

GN: Neo-colonialism could be viewed as the renewed interest and methods employed from western and eastern countries in relation to exploitation and management of Africa’s rich resources – both from an economic and political paradigm. Traditionally, Western aid for African development has been laced with conditionalities tagged to defending human rights and promoting good governance via anti-corruption campaigns. This approach has seen compliant countries favored and non-compliant ones sanctioned by such Western nations. The interference with independent states has widely been castigated as neo-colonialism in many quarters. The alternative development model offered under the Belt and Road Initiative has facilitated the rise of China to displace the West as Africa’s largest development partner.

With the entire African continent (save for one country) signed up to BRI, Western countries’ worries about China expansionism has escalated. In this regard, BRI has been hit with accusations of debt trap diplomacy as far as its roll out in Africa. This is because the projects are run by Chinese businesses and where African nations struggle to repay the debt, then China is primed to step in and run the projects. The warning is that these seemingly friendlier loan terms could foster unsustainable debt and economic drain on African economies.

Outside of the economic dynamic, China has been accused of supporting authoritarian governments by its loan terms, and that in default situations, China’s remedies result in significant geopolitical expansion for China. To counter the growing Chinese influence, the United States has itself set up an African focused development agency that facilitates American businesses to flourish in developing Africa. These hegemonic tussles make for the neo-colonial danger that sees these development partners prosper to the exclusion of Africa itself.

KKK: In fact, Africa needs investment in infrastructure, agriculture and industry, to create employment for the young graduates. What role can Russia play here, we are referring to Sustainable Development Goals?

GN: Africa’s regional development priorities are largely articulated by the African Union’s Agenda 2063, the SADC’s Industrialisation Strategy and Roadmap, 2015-2063 and the implementation of the recently adopted African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Briefly, these priorities include industrialisation for economic and technological transformation; competitiveness; and regional integration. Africa is keen to shift away from industrialisation powered by increased labour and capital investment, to one powered by efficient resource deployment in production processes. AfCFTA particularly presents a significant consolidated voice for African states to negotiate economic and trade opportunities in e-commerce, technology transfers, manufacturing growth, scholarship and training; and infrastructure financing. Additionally, each of Africa’s 54 states have nationally articulated development priorities. These development goals have been designed as steps in pursuit of the attainment of the Millenium Development Goals.

Towards achieving these goals China has offered as much as US$60 billion, Japan US$32 billion, and India US$25 billion, while large investment funds have also come from the United States and the European Union. Similarly, Russia could design a funding vehicle focused on supporting Africa’s development priorities, particularly industrialisation and trade facilitation, for mutual benefit. Russia could further share knowledge on its own steps towards the MDGs and train professionals with the relevant skills for development projects. Such training could either be by the rollout of inter-university student exchange programs or the collaboration amongst academia to teach relevant skills in local curriculum in vocational institutions.

KKK: With trade specifically, there are surging competition, rivalry and trade wars in Africa, and recently the adoption of African continental free trade. What is your interpretation of all these and how profitable could it be for corporate Russian exporters?

GN: Russia has progressively engaged Africa on bilateral basis at country level, as well as through regional blocs such as AU and SADC, at continental level. The adoption of the largest trade agreement since the WTO, the AfCFTA, signals the exponential potential of Africa as a trading bloc, going forward. The intention of AfCFTA is to provide a significant consolidated voice for African states to negotiate economic and trade opportunities in e-commerce, technology transfers, manufacturing growth, scholarship and training; and infrastructure financing. It is anticipated that there will be an additional 1.3 billion people in Africa by 2050. This is a massive market for Russian corporates to explore if they can leverage mutually beneficial engagement at the AfCFTA level.

KKK: In your expert view, what are the key challenges and problems facing Russian companies and investors that wanted business operations in Africa?

GN: Africa’s active business development partners have been the United States, European Union, China, India and Japan, but less so Russia. As such, there’s limited shared knowledge on the value proposition of development and business collaboration between the two. Additionally, the absence of an articulated collaboration framework has meant that African and Russian policy makers are yet to design appropriate collaboration channels and tools that would facilitate mutually beneficial investment and ease of doing business. Related gaps include the prevailing language and cultural barrier that is, as yet, to be actively addressed. These, coupled with other prevailing hurdles to doing business in Africa such as limited infrastructure, high local unemployment rates, semi-skilled workers and protection of local industries, have hindered the set up of local business operations by Russian companies and investors.

KKK: On the other hand, why the presence of African companies on the Russian market is extremely low? Why Russia is not attractive to African exporters? Under the circumstances, what should be done to improve the current situation, a two-way trade?

GN: The African perception of Russia and vice versa has largely been painted by other Western powers that are active on the African continent. That public persona is not one that has been enticing for African exporters. As such, Africa’s knowledge of the opportunities in trading with Russia is significantly limited. Opportunities for driving up trade relations between Russia and Africa include the facilitation of trade expos that create a platform for investors and businesses from both parties to interact and understand the opportunities and challenges to their export and import businesses. In addition, continued interaction between Russia and Africa, such as through exchange programs for students, or business cultural trips, will facilitate the chipping away at the language and cultural barrier that in turn hinders easy trade. If both Russia and Africa are able to showcase the available market for each other’s products, then trade engagement is likely to increase.

KKK: Could we finally talk about media cooperation between Russia and Africa, social platforms and the use of soft power as important instruments for strengthening the relations? What are your suggestions to these aspects in the existing relations between the Russia and Africa?

GN: As part of Russia’s desire to adopt a comprehensive strategic roadmap for a more integrated cooperation and to find effective ways of improving public diplomacy in Africa, the Russian government is supporting a pilot programme organised for African media groups for a two-year period from 2018 to 2020. The utility of this approach is to develop a cohort of champions that will facilitate a positive post-Soviet economic and cultural narrative, as well as demystify Russia for Africa’s political, business and general population. Through this, Russians and Africans will be able to leverage soft power to build trust from shared experience, shift towards normalisation of relations through increased familiarity, set the stage for increased reciprocity such as Russia granting accessibility for African correspondents to match Russia’s increased media presence in Africa. In a nutshell, there will be an avenue for demystification and contextualisation (getting to know the truth about each other through moderated content) and so help counter any negative public persona, share cultural experiences and begin to wear down language barriers.

*

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 Russia Insider

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The African Great Game: Russia Playing the Catchup, The Role of China
  • Tags: ,

Leonard Cohen: Songs of Longing for “Social Beauty”?

September 30th, 2019 by Dr. Robert Rennebohm

I recently watched Marianne and Leonard, a documentary film about Leonard Cohen, the great Canadian poet and musician. The film, directed by Nick Broomfield, focuses on Leonard’s relationship with Marianne Ihlen, but also dwells extensively on Cohen’s depression, drug and alcohol abuse, and other life struggles.

While watching the movie, I got the impression that Leonard, throughout his life, knew that something profoundly important and necessary was missing, not only in his own life, but in the lives of many, if not most.

Leonard did not seem to understand, though, what, exactly, was missing; what was wrong; what was making him feel so profoundly sad, for himself and for society as a whole; what the source of his profound sense of yearning was.  He searched for answers, but failed to discover the cause or remedy for the individual and collective sickness of the soul that he deeply sensed.

Through his poetry and music, however he succeeded marvelously in expressing his deep sense of unresolved longing.  At the same time, in the same songs, he also expressed a sense of hope, even jubilation, that great goodness might be possible.  As one listens to “Anthem,”2for example, one notes this mixture of two opposites: on the one hand, it seems to express a profound sadness for suffering souls who are desperately longing for meaningfulness; on the other hand it expresses an exhilarating hope for imagined goodness. Both are expressed, simultaneously, which is an interesting and unusual accomplishment.

Both Leonard and his admiring audiences and fans have always seemed to sense that he was beautifully and movingly expressing something profound and important.  Leonard deserves great credit for caring to express, and being able to so beautifully and humbly express, both his deep despair and his great hope, simultaneously, in the same song.

What was it that Leonard yearned for, desperately searched for, and seemed to never fully understand or find?  I would suggest that, perhaps, it was Social Beauty for which he so deeply longed. (Please see an explanation of Social Beauty at the end of this essay.)  I don’t think he ever recognized that a paucity of Social Beauty might have been a major cause of his sadness and disappointment.  Neither he, nor those around him (nor the director of this movie, for that matter) seemed to understand that the root cause of their sickened souls may well have been a paucity of Social Beauty in their lives, and the lives of most.

In his desperate attempts to deal with his longing, Leonard delved into all kinds of unsuccessful “searching” experiences and behaviors: LSD and other drugs, “free love,” “loving everyone,” trying Buddhism, relying on the adulation of adoring fans and the exhilaration of concert performances.  None of these searchings worked, probably because they missed the point.  They did not address the probable root cause of the profound emptiness and disappointment he appeared to feel.  Instead, his searchings (except for his Buddhist experience, perhaps) proved to be destructive substitutes that served only to partially and superficially assuage his pain.

As much as he loved and appreciated Marianne, she, by herself, could not satisfy his yearning for Social Beauty. No single person can.  She could have helped him much more, if she had understood what, exactly, he was missing—but she, too, did not realize that a paucity of Social Beauty was a likely source of most people’s sickened souls.

So, the movie depicts a tragic story of a complex man who, to his great credit, was deeply aware that something was missing, something was wrong, not only in his life but in the lives of most people, and who cared to beautifully share that concern through his gifted musicianship; but who did not understand what, exactly, was missing.  As a result, he succumbed to one failed search after another, never figured out the root cause of his (and society’s) sadness, never received help in doing so, and never found what he was missing. Nor did his friends, including Marianne. Unfortunately, the director of the movie also missed this point.

Returning to Leonard’s marvelous music, perhaps the reason it is so much appreciated is that it powerfully expresses a profound, though vague, yearning for Social Beauty—a yearning that so many of us share. While listening to his song “Hallelujah,” for example, consider the possibility that it is profoundly expressing both a sad longing for Social Beauty and the exhilaration we might feel if we could experience more Social Beauty.  Especially in K.D. Lang’s singing of this song, some of the “hallelujahs” sound like cries of deep anguish; while other “hallelujahs” sound like cheers of sheer joy.  Some of her “hallelujuas” sound cold and broken; others feel warm and hopeful.  As you listen to the song “Democracy is coming to the USA,3” think of it as a wishful expression of hope that Social Beauty might soon be coming to the USA.

I think Leonard’s music appealed because he so movingly tapped into people’s (largely unrecognized) longing for Social Beauty, while simultaneously providing an exhilarating glimpse of how Social Beauty could feel.  Leonard, Marianne, their talented but confused friends, and the director of the movie, probably did not fully understand this.

In short, Leonard seemed to be suffering, more than anything else, from a deep unfulfilled yearning for Social Beauty—-unfulfilled because Western culture is so short on Social Beauty and so long on its powerful opposite.  In other words (since Big Pharma likes to make up new diagnostic labels and give them abbreviations), we could say that Leonard was suffering from Social Beauty Deficit Disorder (SBDD), not to mention the PTSD that current western culture also creates. Big Pharma would prefer to treat SBDD with some sort of mind-altering pill; but the better treatment would be to publicly discuss how we could democratically create more Social Beauty and democratically decrease its opposite.   Whether he realized it, or not (probably not), maybe that is what Leonard’s songs (subconsciously, on his part) were asking us to do.

Poor Leonard.  He knew something was profoundly wrong; but he could not clearly identify cause or solution, and, sadly, no one effectively helped him. He cared deeply. Despite his SBDD, or probably because of it, he at least created wonderful music that expressed both the current dearth of Social Beauty and the exhilarating potential for future creation of more of it.

But, Leonard’s angst is not the most important story here.  His is one cautionary tale that introduces us to a much bigger, more important story—which is that most people in the USA (and elsewhere in Western cultures) appear to be suffering from SBDD to one extent or another, mostly to a huge extent.  SBDD appears to be epidemic—much more epidemic than even the enormous opioid crisis, which is most likely just an extreme manifestation of SBDD.  Pathological societies—ones that produce so little Social Beauty and create so much of its opposite—breed pathological individual and collective behaviors. For the sake of all who suffer from SBDD, perhaps we should democratically create new social arrangements that generate Social Beauty (for example, create vast Public Activity, comprehensive Public Economies, and uplifting Public Cultures), while we democratically disassemble the old mean social arrangements that have been generating the opposite of Social Beauty.  That would be a far better tribute to the late Leonard Cohen than is the movie Marianne and Leonard.  (Leonard died in November, 2016.)

Social Beauty[1]

Social Beauty refers to social arrangements, and the effects generated by those arrangements, that increase expression and practice of the best capacities of our human nature—e.g., our capacities for kindness, empathy, compassion, altruism, creativity, and the arts. Such social arrangements generate high levels of individual and collective Human Spirit, high feelings of gratitude for Life, Nature, and each other, including gratitude for opportunities to contribute to the well-being of others.  These arrangements are reflections of a deep love and respect for Humanity and the Earth; and these arrangements beget even deeper and more practiced love and respect.  These arrangements and the social activities and effects associated with them, are things of Social Beauty, and they increasingly generate further Social Beauty.  They encourage, support, create, and give practice to escalating levels of individual and collective kindness, dignity, grace, calmness, confidence, and competence.

These social arrangements, the social activities associated with them, and the effects generated by them, move our hearts and minds via the senses and emotions, as well as intellectually. Like great music, great visual art, and Nature’s beauty, they deeply touch and stir our humanity.  They inspire, motivate, deepen, heal, awaken, empower, and liberate; they up-regulate feelings of gratitude, caring, and love.  They increase consciousness, address profound social longings, enhance the meaningfulness of life, provide clarity, enliven imagination and conscience, and give us confidence in ourselves and Humanity.  These arrangements and activities teach us what it means to be human; they transform people, individually and collectively, as all increasingly participate in the creation of ever-more Social Beauty.

The Opposite of Social Beauty

The opposite of Social Beauty are the social arrangements, social activities, and the effects generated by them, that increase expression and practice of the worst capacities of our human nature—e.g., our capacities to be selfish, mean, callous, ungrateful, uncaring, untrusting, and spiteful.  The opposite of Social Beauty are mean social arrangements that degrade us, individually and collectively, suppress us, seduce us, exploit us, depress us, discourage us, and crush our souls. These “mean arrangements of man” (as Victor Hugo would call them), and the activities and effects associated with them, represent the opposite of Social Beauty.  They are reflections of a lack of deep love and respect for Humanity and the Earth, or at least inadequately practiced love and respect; and they increasingly beget further lack of love and respect. These mean social arrangements are extraordinarily powerful; they have the characteristics of malignancy, and as such, they are difficult to disassemble.

Excerpts from Leonard Cohen’s “Anthem”[2]

Ring the bell that still can ring,

Forget your perfect offering,

There is a crack, a crack in everything,

That’s how the light gets in.

Excerpts from Leonard Cohen’s “Democracy is Coming to the USA” (but substituting Social Beauty for Democracy)”[3] 

It’s coming through a hole in the air,
From those nights in Tiananmen Square,
It’s coming from the feel that this ain’t exactly real,
Or, its real, but it ain’t exactly there. 

From the war against disorder,
From the sirens night and day,
From the fires of the homeless,
From the ashes of the Gay, 

Social Beauty is coming…to the USA.

Its coming from the sorrow in the street,
The holy places where the races meet,
From the homicidal bitchin’
That goes down in every kitchen,
To determine who will serve and who will eat, 

From the wells of disappointment
Where the women kneel to pray,
For the grace of God in the desert here,
And the desert far away, 

Social Beauty is coming… to the USA.

It’s here the family’s broken,
And its here the lonely say,
That the heart, it’s got to open,
In a fundamental way, 

Social Beauty is coming… to the USA.

Sail on, Sail on,
O mighty ship of state,
To the shores of need,
Past the reefs of greed,
Through the squalls of hate, 

Sail on, Sail on, Sail on….

I’m sentimental, if you know what I mean,
I love the country, but I can’t stand the scene,
And I’m neither left or right,
I’m just staying home tonight,
Getting lost in that hopeless little screen, 

But I’m stubborn as those garbage bags,
That time cannot decay,
I’m junk but I’m still holding up,
This little wild bouquet. 

Social Beauty is coming…to the USA…to the USA….

*

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 flickr

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Leonard Cohen: Songs of Longing for “Social Beauty”?
  • Tags:

Become a Member of Global Research – Receive Free Books!

September 30th, 2019 by Global Research

At Global Research, our mandate is to increase awareness on the broadest possible level while maintaining full independence in our reports and analyses. Our commitment is to make our articles and videos available to the broadest possible readership, on a non-commercial basis, without the need for a login for paid subscribers. This is why you will never have to pay to access the important articles and videos that our contributors are tirelessly preparing because they believe that truth – not war – is the way to peace.

We, on the other hand, do have to pay in order to provide you with this service. In fact, for several months now, we have been unable to cover our monthly running costs. Please help us reverse our deficit by subscribing to a recurring membership (receive free books!) or by making a donation. Details below:

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans


Thank you for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

The entire Trump presidency has been a sequence of “watch this space” moments.  Dismissals and political executions; attacks and distractions; gestures of deal making and promises of apocalypse. Perhaps it was high time for another bit of material to be added to this sprawling tapestry of mayhem.  The elements seemed to form the basis of a badly told joke: a Ukrainian president, a US president and a whistleblower walked into a bar, and…? 

Coming on the heels of another juicy sample from President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who had testified before the House Judiciary Committee on efforts by Trump to recruit him to halt the Russia probe, a rumour was filtering through: a whistleblower from the intelligence community, it seemed, had been irate about the president’s conduct.

The letter, written by the whistleblower in August this year, is positively pungent.  President Trump, it argues, “is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 US election.  The interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals.”  Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, and US Attorney General William Barr also feature. 

The letter does have a qualifying note.  The author admits that what is being conveyed is in the realm of hearsay, the tittle tattle of agency talk.  “I was not a direct witness to most of the events described.”  Credibility has been assumed, however, because the pattern emerging in various accounts seem consistent: we share, because we care.

Central to the complaint is the July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.  The subject of the conversation: Democratic presidential contender and former vice president Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, Hunter Biden.  The allegation: that Zelensky and Ukrainian sources were essentially being urged to conduct an investigation into the conduct of the Bidens for Trump’s own electoral delectation.  Then came the efforts by the White House to prevent any discussion of the call from getting out.   

For all that, the letter itself forms an already rusting arsenal of claims based on information that is already in the public domain.  As the Washington Post suggests, “if it continues to be relied upon as evidence of justifying impeachment, Democrats will have to make some hard choices about how to proceed.”

No matter.  The whistleblower has become a well-timed sensation of deliverance for the Democratic caucus.  The ecstatic thrill shown by Democrats lies in sharp contrast to the pre-Trump era, when those inclined to disclose secrets or classified information were sneered at as irresponsible and unpatriotic.  The Obama administration made a habit of resorting to the 1917 Espionage Act against those daring to blow the whistle.  Standing at eight prosecutions, it came to more than double those of all previous presidents combined. 

In all the fuss, it was easy to ignore those remarkable words endorsed by the Continental Congress in its approved resolution of July 30, 1778: “It is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all other inhabitants thereof, to give the earlier information to Congress or any other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanours committed by any officers or persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge”.

When considered together, be it the tactical or careless leak, or the well intentioned disclosure of sensitive information, inconsistency prevails.  At points, such activities have drawn savage retribution from the state.  On other occasions, the activity has been left unpunished, suggesting the inconstancy and unevenness of approaches to information.  Lamentably, they also suggest favouritism, malice and convenient exploitation. 

The case of General David Petraeus, for instance, was deemed a misdemeanour, despite disclosing notebooks to his biography scribbling mistress containing “classified information regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings and [his] discussions with the President of the United States of America.” 

The March 6, 2015 letter to the US Department of Justice from Abbe David Lowell, the attorney representing Stephen Kim, one of the unfortunates charged and convicted for providing national defence information to a person without authorisation to receive it, outlined the asymmetrical nature of information disclosure in the security environment.  Lowell contrasted his client’s situation with that of the General.  “Despite the nature of the information and these intentional false statements [from Petraeus] the [Department of Justice] is not only permitting but is actively recommending that General Petraeus plead guilty to a misdemeanour.” 

Lowell had suggested that the act of disclosure be treated as a misdemeanour regarding the mishandling or retention of classified material.  Besides, his client, in discussing US ignorance of North Korea’s military capabilities with Fox News, had not intended to harm his country. This was dismissed out of hand: Kim had lied to FBI agents, which more or less sealed the matter.  But as Lowell explained with pertinent sharpness, the decision to permit the general “to plead guilty to misdemeanour demonstrates more clearly than ever the profound double standard that applies when prosecuting so-called ‘leakers’ and those accused of disclosing classified information for their own purposes.” 

The situation now is one of sublime convenience.  The elections are next year.  The Democratic contenders look more like sandpit debaters than clear-eyed candidates.  But the whistleblower’s revelations are heralded as the stuff of gold dust; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, usually reluctant in the matter, has announced the beginnings of the inquiry. 

The anger shown by Trump at the whistleblower’s disclosure is being treated as abnormally sinister.  It has been noted, for instance, that the president is willing to reward anybody keen to divulge who furnished the information to the whistleblower with a bounty of $50,000.  But the US security establishment is famed for targeting the careless and the noble when it comes to revealing what is rotten in a state.  The question to ask is what makes this particularly whistleblower the exception that proves the rule?  The answer, in all likelihood, is the politics of convenience rather than the nobility of patriotism.

*

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]

Syrians under the occupation of US illegals and their terrorist SDF are continuing public protests against the illicit militia that burns agricultural fields, appropriates or bombs homes, kidnaps Syrian children for criminal training in military camps. In a recent chaotic situation, four SDF terrorists were killed in a possible grenade bombing of a ‘militia center.’

The SDF terrorists, acting under the protection of its US creators have previously torched wheat fields when Syrian farmers refused to capitulate to their mafiosi – type tax demands. More recently, this gang has begun destroying agricultural lands to dig trenches near to the border with terrorist Erdogan’s Turkey (reminder that most of the 350k foreign human detritus invaded Syria through the Turkish border, and not one lost a leg to the almost 200k landmines not cleared, despite Turkey joining the Mine Ban Treaty in 2003).

The US has been dumping convoys of military trucks and weapons into its regions of criminal occupation on a regular basis, since August, for increased arming of its mini SDF militia. Currently, these thugs are engaged in violent mayhem in Hasaka, Raqqa, and Deir Ezzor countryside.

Protests in Deir Ezzor against SDF - Archive

To date, the largest number of Syrians abducted by the Trump regime thugs in one day, was 30, certainly a distorted way to honor 9/11 martyrs.

US Americans currently endure crumbling infrastructure, mass homelessness & related outbreaks of diseases in urban centers (e.g., Hep A in Philly), drug addiction, substandard public transit, closure of hospital universities (e.g., Hahnemann University Hospital, also Philly).

They suffer the indignity of crowd-funding to help defray health care costs.

Nonetheless, they have been made into well-behaved creatures, currently made to argue over which partisan team is more corrupt related to activities in the post-Maidan Ukraine (which cost US taxpayers $5 billion bipartisanly). They are completely unaware of the hundreds of millions of their tax monies being dumped to fund and arm terror against Syria.

Over recent months, the US-created, US protected gang of thugs has engaged in various attempts at strategic depopulation of the indigenous Syrian population:
  • Attempting to blow up Christian churches (perversely ignored by various Christian organizations, including the Vatican)
  • Sadistically burned Syrian wheat fields to the ground
  • Signed an illegal agreement to sell stolen Syrian oil to an Israeli-American ‘businessman’ (involved in the theft of artifacts from the Eliyahu Hanav Synagogue, ostensibly protected as a UNESCO World Heritage site)
  • Has closed down dozens of public and vocational schools in areas of the Syrian Arab Republic that it occupies under the protection of the Trump regime military

As the Pavlovian, Mockingbird training of the American populace includes mandatory geopolitical memory deficits, the author asks them to try to consider why the SDF is no longer featured prominently in NATO media, as it was during the Obama administration.

In the early days of the foreign war of terror against Syria, the Obama State Department gave frequent press conferences in which the criminal attacks against the State by the YPG would be cheered. Given the YPG is ‘military arm’ of the PKK which is actually on the US terror list, United States Special Forces Commander Gen. Raymond A. Thomas declared the name change was required (the various flags of the many armed terrorists against Syria, here. They include photos of US-approved terrorists with US-unapproved terrorists.)

The re-marketed, YPG-cum-SDF Obama regime creation was such a hit with western colonial serfs that they missed the fact that Obama actually put together a NATO wetworker run SDF — advertised as a ‘minority’ fighting against the also the US – created ISIS terrorists.

This charming gentleman, Brace Belden — who told media that he was a teen drunk and druggie — is not Kurdish, nor is he Syrian. He is an American who assisted in the obliteration of al-Raqqa. The fifth column known as ‘Hollywood‘ is making a movie about him. It is unlikely that anyone will notice the colonial aggression, aggression and impunity, and by the time it is in theaters, American colonial serfs will probably have managed to disassociate, completely, that the Trump regime has continued and accelerated the atrocities against Syria, begun during the Obama regime, and which normalized SDF terror attacks against Syrian farms, schools, churches, homes….

The American Empire may change flags of its terrorist militias on the ground, in Syria, but they are all the same, despite the occasional infighting.

Syria’s Tabqa Dam has been under US occupation since February 2013. Officially, though, the FSA branch of al Qaeda ”liberated” it from the Syrian government, after which the ISIS branch of al Qaeda magically liberated it from the FSA when arriving to seek a most bizarre sanctuary, after which it was re-re-liberated by the US’s updated YPG terrorists, the SDF.

Let us be mindful that as Trump is facing the impeachment inquiry, the Pentagon and the ISW charity think tank threaten to revive ISIS, Secretary Lied, Cheated, Stole Pompeo barks threats at Syria, and State Department POX Morgan Ortagus has been tweeting propaganda that Syria must release Austin Tice.

Tice is the former Marine who illegally entered Syria, and who chose to embed himself with the FSA al Qaeda branch. Somehow, Ortagus — and various MSM — have managed to ignore Tice’s last tweet, 12 August 2012, which was “hands down, best birthday ever.” One might wonder if the FSA slipped a roofie into the whiskey they got him for that pool party (no mention of whose home the FSA had expropriated, nor if the owners were murdered or simply evicted) and sold him to ISIS, as may have happened to another American illegal, Sotloff.

austin-tice-last-tweet

austin-tice-paranoia-tweet

The anti-Syria propaganda by the Trump regime has increased around the UNGA meetings. One the occasions the western media are not drowning their audiences in impeachment stories, they slip in short reports on the threats to the Syrian Arab Republic.

These NATO media do not report on the Syrians protesting against the crimes of the SDF. These media also ignore President Assad’s promise:

syria

*

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

All images in this article are from Syria News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syrians Continue Protests Against US-Owned SDF Terrorists
  • Tags: , ,

A personal note: Throughout his tenure, I’ve been a sharp Trump critic for numerous legitimate reason.

He escalated wars of aggression  inherited from Bush/Cheney and Obama, continuing the rape and destruction of nonbelligerent states threatening no one.

He’s waging economic terrorism on Iran and Venezuela, causing pain and suffering to their people.

All of the above are Nuremberg-level high crimes of war and against humanity.

He’s hostile to unwanted aliens from the wrong countries, notably Muslims, Latinos and Blacks — proving he’s America’s racist-in-chief.

He broke virtually every positive campaign and inaugural address pledge, serving privileged interests exclusively, exploiting ordinary people — his tax cut for the rich and continuing neoliberal harshness the clearest examples.

His trade war with China has nothing to do with trade, everything to do with wanting its economic, industrial, and technological development undermined.

His no-peace/peace plan is all about serving Israeli interests exclusively, abandoning Palestinian rights altogether.

His outreach to North Korea was and remains head-fake deception, making unacceptable demands in return for empty promises.

Instead of rapprochement with Russia, he escalated sanctions war and other hostile actions.

There’s nothing redeeming about a figure who time and again says one thing, then goes another way, whose serial lying shows nothing he says is credible, who can never be trusted because of his unacceptable actions.

That said, judge him based on cold hard facts, not politicized attacks, wanting his triumph over Hillary delegitimized.

The Russiagate witch hunt, cooked up by John Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, was exposed and debunked as a colossal hoax.

The same goes for fake news about nonexistent Russian US election meddling.

Yet it’s the Big Lie that still won’t die, even though the Mueller witch hunt failed to uncover an illegal or improper Trump team connection to Moscow or any evidence of Kremlin interference in the US political process — because none exists to prove either phony accusation.

Ukrainegate is a Russiagate spinoff, concocted because Plan A for undemocratic Dems to muddy him for political advantage failed.

Both schemes are clear proof that Washington’s deeply corrupted political process is too debauched to fix.

The CIA/Dem-enlisted character assassin/so-called “whistleblower” is a spinoff from the DNC/Hillary campaign’s Christopher Steele dodgy dossier about Trump.

It contained spurious accusations without evidence, unverified rubbish alleging misconduct and collusion between Trump, his campaign, and Russia during the presidential campaign – including phony claims of Russian US election interference.

It was politicized character assassination fake news.

The same goes for claims by an unidentified anti-Trump CIA/Dem-recruited hired gun — unjustifiably justifying an impeachment inquiry.

The scheme is solely for political advantage ahead of 2020 presidential and congressional elections — supported by the NYT, CNN, and other anti-Trump media.

It’s no more likely to remove him from office than the failed Russiagate scheme. Aiming to make him unre-electable, it may backfire by improving his chances.

The so-called whistleblower’s accusations are based hearsay, not cold hard facts of wrongdoing based on credible evidence.

Ukrainegate reveals Joe Biden’s culpability for forcing Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin from office over an investigation of his son Hunter’s dubious dealings as a Ukrainian Burisma Holdings board member.

In a sworn statement ignored by US establishment media, Shorkin accused Biden of “directly manipulat(ing) the political leadership of Ukraine on false pretexts…”

The CIA and undemocratic Dems want Trump held accountable over nothing — burying information about Biden’s wrongdoing, abusing the power of his office in dealings with a foreign government.

He publicly admitted blackmailing Ukraine’s government in remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations, saying:

“If the prosecutor general is not fired, you’re not getting the money” — referring to a US billion dollar loan guarantee for Kiev.

Biden added:

“Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time (sic).”

The investigation of Hunter Biden’s involvement with Bursima Holdings’ dubious dealings was dropped. VP Biden’s blackmail threat did the trick.

Weeks after the Obama regime’s February 2014 coup in Ukraine, replacing democratic governance with Nazi-infested putschist rule, Hunter Biden joined Bursima Holdings’ board when the gas company was being investigated for corruption and tax evasion.

He was offered a high-paying figurehead position, protection money for the firm — solely because his father was US vice president, able to influence Ukrainian policies, precisely what happened.

Will Tulsi Gabbard, Warren, Sanders, and/or other Dem presidential aspirants use this credible dirt and other damaging revelations about Biden to discredit him.

He’s vulnerable to legitimate muddying, potentially able to knock him out of contention if this strategy is used.

Ukrainegate points dirty fingers at him, not Trump. Dems handed him red meat to aid his reelection campaign.

They likely shot themselves in the foot twice — over the Russiagate and Ukrainegate scams, both schemes without anti-Trump/anti-Russia credibility.

*

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 TruePublica

Wannabe sultan Erdogan covets expanding Turkey’s borders to include oil-rich northern Iraqi and Syrian territory. 

Combatting Kurds in Syria, posing no cross-border threat, is part of his annexation scheme — what Damascus officials condemn and won’t tolerate.

In cahoots with US aggression in Syria, including aid to ISIS and likeminded terrorists, Erdogan is pursuing his long-planned land grab, Russia doing nothing to deter what demands universal condemnation.

Press TV, Reuters, the Jerusalem Post, and other media reported that he intends spending $27 billion for constructing scores of villages and 10 towns in northern Syria, including 200,000 residences.

His unlawful land grab involves stealing it from its rightful owners, breaching the country’s sovereignty more than already on the phony pretext of constructing a large scale “safe zone” from the Euphrates River to the Iraqi border.

He aims to control 250 miles of northern Syrian territory bordering Turkey, 20 miles deep into its sovereign land.

Claiming it’s to resettle one to two million Syrian refugees now in Turkey is a ruse. Ending aggression by the US and its imperial partners, including Ankara, is the only way to ensure their safety, facilitating their return home.

Erdogan turned international law on its head, claiming establishing a cross-border “safe zone” justifies Turkish occupation of northern Syrian territory.

Press TV said Turkey’s scheme is to “carv(e) out a patch of land in the Arab country for itself.”

Erdogan wants Syrian refugees prevented from returning home to Aleppo and other areas he wants them excluded from — wanting them resettled in territory controlled by the US and its terrorist foot soldiers.

He wants northern Syria demographically changed from historically Kurdish to territory housing Turkish-supported Syrian refugees.

The project if undertaken will take years to complete, along with greatly taxing Turkey’s financial ability to pursue it without foreign funding.

Reuters said he “called on France and Germany to provide additional financial aid for the project.”

In his UN address, he said “I call on all countries to support our efforts regarding Syria” — no matter the flagrant breach of international law.

Damascus slammed what it called Erdogan’s “blatant aggression,” a flagrant breach of Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity — what the UN Charter and other international laws prohibit.

In August, the Trump and Erdogan regimes agreed to establish, “coordinate, and manage the implementation of the safe zone” in northeastern Syria.

At the time, a Damascus statement said the unlawful scheme “exposed the US-Turkish partnership in the aggression against Syria, which serves the interest of the Israeli occupation entity and the Turkish expansionist ambitions,” adding:

“Syria calls on the international community and the UN to condemn the US-Turkish flagrant aggression which constitutes a dangerous escalation and poses a threat to peace and security in the region and the world and hinders all positive efforts for finding a solution to the crisis in Syria.”

Longstanding US/Israeli plans call for redrawing the Middle East map — partitioning Syria part of the scheme.

If implemented, Erdogan’s land grab will make resolution of endless war in Syria more unattainable than already.

Russian involvement is key to preserving Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity, what it stressed numerous times it supports.

It involves preventing Turkish annexation of sovereign Syrian territory, what it failed to do so far, and may not to strengthen political and economic ties to Ankara.

Note: On Sunday, Press TV reported that US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (infested with terrorists) “kidnapped hundreds of people in” northern Syria, adding:

“(T)he terrorists continue to perpetrate criminal and abusive practices against ordinary citizens in areas under their control.”

Damascus is committed to liberate its territory controlled by these elements.

Restoration of peace and stability to the country is unattainable without eliminating their presence, along with ending unlawful US/Turkish occupation of its territory.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey’s Erdogan Plans Annexation of Northern Syrian Territory
  • Tags: , ,

The British political crisis continues, with the latest developments consolidating the hard right takeover of the Tory Party and Government that began with the Brexit referendum in 2016 and is now leading to the development of a potentially mass neo-fascist movement. This is taking place against the backdrop of similar developments across Europe and beyond.

The suspension of Parliament – a key stage in the UK process – has been defeated but Boris Johnson’s trajectory remains on track. The unanimous verdict of the Supreme Court, announced on Tuesday 24th September, was that Boris Johnson and the Tory government had acted unlawfully in proroguing parliament from the 9th September to the 14th October. It was for most an unexpected verdict and represented a deepening of the split within the establishment. The judiciary, or at least its most significant component, had sided with parliament against the government.

The most obvious and immediate effect was that parliament returned on 25th September and did not enter a recess for the Tory Party conference. This was a significant setback for the strategy of Johnson and his special advisor Dominic Cummings, and an opportunity for the Labour Party – not through their own efforts but through an individual’s legal challenge backed by other opposition parties.

The first instinct of the Johnson cabal has been to double down and attack the judiciary through the Tory press and in parliament. Johnson’s key ally Jacob Rees-Mogg has also attacked the judges calling their verdict a ‘constitutional coup’. No doubt this will harden their base in the Tory party, the Home Counties and the Northern leave areas, but it also creates a serious problem for them.

An important section of the ruling class are not yet disposed to attack the judiciary in this way and recognise the dangers for their class in the Cummings strategy. Moreover the re-opening of parliament makes the no-deal manoeuvres of the Tory government less likely to succeed. This strengthens the position of the Brexit party which is waiting in the wings. Cummings had hoped to undercut the Brexit party with a general election in the wake of a 31st October Brexit leading to a Johnson victory. The verdict of the judiciary therefore makes a Tory/Brexit Party electoral coming together more likely. It’s unlikely that the Tories now could win a majority in a general election without some kind of deal with the Brexit Party. In the old industrial areas there are sections of the electorate that would never vote Tory but are already willing to vote for Farage and co. Objectively, Brexit and the Brexit party are the mechanisms to split the working class and prevent a left alternative – Labour – coming to power

Johnson was at the UN in New York when the Court judgement was announced, but before he came back to London he met publicly and privately with Trump. No doubt yesterday’s strategy – for how to handle parliament – would have been discussed and Trump is in no doubt that some kind of alliance between Farage and Johnson is necessary.

Johnson was forced to return to parliament and gave an aggressive performance in the House of Commons last night in which it became clear exactly what the labour movement – and indeed wider society – is facing. There was outrage at the insult to the memory of murdered MP Jo Cox – Johnson said the best way to honour her (she was a Remainer) was to deliver Brexit – and the taunting of MPs as traitors and surrender merchants. Today neo-fascists across social media have claimed him as their own and it is absolutely clear that he is building a base amongst the neo-fascists and far right. Wider sections of the population are now open to far right arguments.

Notwithstanding Johnson’s attempts to turn it to his advantage, the Supreme Court decision has been very significant as a mainstream blow to Johnson’s disgraceful anti-democratic actions. Of course it does little to alter the fundamentals – economic and political crisis and the shift to the right in British politics. Although it may be true that the mass of the population do not hold judges, politicians or parliament in great esteem we are not yet at the stage where there is a widespread support for dispensing with bourgeois democracy. Those who do wish to do that largely hail from the far right. The verdict has the effect of moving the Johnson cabal further out of the political and establishment mainstream; they will harden a base around them but they are more clearly identifiable for what they actually are. The crucial next step for the left is to confidently press forward, further isolate them and diminish and defeat their base.

Can the Labour Party do this, given its current failure to give a clear lead on key issues? At this week’s Labour Party conference, the atmosphere was relatively low energy, fractious and insular until the decision was announced from the Supreme Court. The conference had started with a ham-fisted bureaucratic manoeuvre to try and get rid of Deputy Leader Tom Watson and was swiftly followed by news of a senior policy advisor’s resignation. The Another Europe is Possible’s (AEIP) anti-Brexit position was lost because the conference was persuaded that it was a Trojan horse for the Blairite right in the party, who also back remain but on a different basis to the left Remainers, like AEIP. Corbyn’s ‘we aren’t either leavers or remainers but socialists’ line won in the hall. The problem with this is that an election campaign conducted on an anti-austerity basis is going to crash into the brick wall of Brexit. In effect it will be a one-issue election and to ignore that reality will be catastrophic.

The great danger is that the labour and trade union movement is proceeding as if nothing much has changed and this underpinned the support for the conference motion which essentially advocated sitting on the fence – the leadership’s preferred Brexit outcome at conference. There is a misguided belief that the coming election is going to be a reprise of 2017 where Labour broke Theresa May’s majority. Labour has now a much more radical policy programme than 2017 but is in a much weaker political position with poor showings in the opinion polls. At least part of this is because it doesn’t have a clear position on opposing Brexit.

So the decision of the judiciary has deepened the split in the ruling class and hardened up the no deal far right around Johnson and Farage. This is very dangerous politically, but it also opens up political space for Labour – which it is vital that it does not squander – and it creates space for political work from the radical left too. Over the past few weeks we have seen massive protests against Johnson’s closure of parliament – under the slogans ‘Stop the Coup’ and ‘Defend Democracy’; these were largely either spontaneous or organised by the anti-Brexit left.  At the same time we have seen huge protests, including extensive civil disobedience, on the issue of climate change. Young people have led the struggles here as elsewhere, and now other movements are joining forces to support them. So this is a period of intensive mobilisation across Britain, with sharper political divides – and a greater risk to our rights and democracy – than have been seen perhaps since the General Strike of 1926. The Labour Party and the radical left must rise to the challenge, in the interests of us all, for much is at stake. We are entering a struggle for the future: not just of this country but across the world. It is a struggle for humanity as a whole – for social justice, equality and economic democracy, to meet the needs of all peoples.

*

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 Britain’s Political Crisis: Problems and Possibilities for the Left
  • Tags:

Global Research, like many independent voices all over the globe, is feeling the effects of online measures set up to curtail access to our website, and by consequence, hinder our finances. We sail on despite the unpredictable currents and unfavourable forecasts. We can’t steer this ship alone however, we need your help!

We would be greatly indebted to you for any donation large or small. Can you contribute to help us meet our monthly running costs? Make no mistake, we intend to be here for years to come, but for the time being we ask for your help to stay afloat as we ride the storm out. Here’s how you can help:

*     *     *

Unified Action to Fight Deforestation

By Nicole Polsterer, September 30, 2019

Jair Bolsonaro defied his critics at the UN General Assembly in New York this month – as expected – denouncing those maintaining that his policies have fanned the flames of the Amazon fires.

Houthis Claim Ambush of Saudis Killed Hundreds

By Kurt Nimmo, September 30, 2019

The ambush follows on the heels of a claimed Houthi missile and drone attack on Saudi Arabia’s Aramco’s Abqaiq facility and the Khurais oilfield earlier this month.

The Majority of Jews, 8 Million, Have No Wish to Live in a Conflicted Israel

By Hans Stehling, September 30, 2019

Out of a global Jewish population of 14.8 million, over 54% do not, and presumably have no wish to live in the hard-Right, Likud-dominated, settler-controlled, extremist state that is today’s Israel.

The Untold Story of the Trump-Ukraine ‘Scandal’: The Routine Corruption of US Foreign Policy

By Joe Lauria, September 30, 2019

The most crucial aspects of the Trump-Ukraine “scandal,” which has led to impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, are not being told, even by Republicans.

The Disaster of Negative Interest Rates

By Ellen Brown, September 30, 2019

The dollar strengthened against the euro in August, merely in anticipation of the European Central Bank slashing its key interest rate further into negative territory.

The ‘Hong Kong Human Rights & Democracy Act’ Will Intensify the Hybrid War on China

By Andrew Korybko, September 30, 2019

As if the ongoing “trade war” wasn’t an intense enough Hybrid War against China as it is, the US might soon pass the so-called “Hong Kong Human Rights & Democracy Act” in order to take its asymmetrical aggression even further and institutionalize it as the “new normal” for at least the next three decades.

The Bee: “The Most Important Living Being on the Planet”

By Physics and Astronomy Zone, September 30, 2019

Bees around the world have disappeared up to 90% according to recent studies, the reasons are different depending on the region, but among the main reasons are massive deforestation, lack of safe places for nests, lack of flowers, use uncontrolled pesticides, changes in soil, among others.

*

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: IBAMA operation against illegal loggers in the Brazilian Amazon, courtesy of IBAMA.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Bee: “The Most Important Living Being on the Planet”

Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC), China has achieved the dream of the millennium, marched toward national rejuvenation, and led one-fifth of the world’s population to approach the center of the global stage, said the article titled “Striving to create a miracle in human history.”

The article pointed out that China made a massive success in the economic field and became the most stable and prosperous economy in the world. In just several decades, the country has finished what took developed countries several hundred years to complete.

It has fully proved that the Communist of China (CPC) plays a crucial role in leading the country and the people to make new advances unseen in the century and supporting the nation to manage its own affairs well. It also shows the world that the CPC and the Chinese people are fully confident to provide a Chinese solution for the exploration of a better social system for all humankind.

Shanghai (Photo/Pudong Times)

The main points of the article are summarized as follows:

Seventy years is merely a fleeting instant in the history of human development. However, the Chinese people have created a magnificent miracle with 70 years of hard work. Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the CPC has led the people to create a miracle of rapid economic development and a miracle of long-term stability and guided the country to stand up and become vibrant and influential.

The past 70 years is a historical process in which the ancient civilization pursued the dream of the millennium and marched toward national rejuvenation. It is also a process for China to lead one-fifth of the world’s population toward the center of the global stage.

Chairman Mao Zedong described China’s national industry as incapable of producing a plane, a tank, a car or a tractor. Besides, there were doubts that the CPC did an excellent job in making military strategies and political strategies, but performed poorly in the aspect of developing the economy. Some even asserted that the victory of the CPC would not last long.

Reform and opening-up was a game-changing move in making China what it is today. It enables the country to liberate the mind and break institutional barriers that hinder its development, replace the highly centralized planned economic system with a socialist market economy full of vigor, become an open economy from a closed and semi-closed one, and put its economy on a fast track of development.

From 1952 to 2018, China’s GDP jumped from 67.9 billion yuan to 90 trillion yuan, an increase of 174 times. The GDP per capita increased from 119 yuan to 64,600 yuan, an increase of 70 times.

China has risen to the second-largest economy in the world, the number one trader of goods, holder of the world’s most substantial foreign exchange reserve and home to the longest high-speed mileage and largest banking system in the world.

In one day, China’s GDP increases by 246 billion yuan, trade of goods by $12.6 billion. In one day, 140 million parcels are delivered and sent, and 76,000 vehicles are manufactured in China.

These achievements were beyond imagination in the past.

Today, China is one of the world’s 20 top players in terms of innovation and is home to more than 100 million market entities. With a strong determination to pursue high-quality development with unceasing efforts, the country has become full of innovation momentum, and everyone aspires to become better.

US economist Jeffrey Sachs said that China is a very successful story in the world of economy.

From stressing that youth is the hope of the nation, to yearning for rebirth and reconstruction of the nation and calling for national rejuvenation, generations of our predecessors have fought for the country.

Those who could not stand on their own feet cherish most the joy of being able to stand up; those who were impoverished aspire to become wealthy; those who are marching toward rejuvenation are most confident to become strong and healthy.

China, which contributed 30 percent to global economic growth for years in a row, has become the primary stabilizer and source of power for world economic growth. The country, which has managed to lift 700 million impoverished rural people out of poverty, or 70 percent of the total world impoverished population, has created a miracle in global poverty reduction.

China, which has been through ups and downs in the past 70 years, is still full of energy to swim against the tide in the new era. The country, having a long history, embraced modern civilization along its development course. The country, which has undergone many vicissitudes, carries the dream of rejuvenation with it while making strides toward a better future.

With a burning passion to strive for what it pursues China has experienced the joy of handling crises successfully. With the spirit of never retreating in the face of setbacks, the country has made epic accomplishments.

The grand rejuvenation of the nation, which carries the exploration of people with high ideals in the past more than a century and gathers together aspirations of millions upon millions of people, is like a sun shining in all its splendor.

For many people, what is amazing about the dramatic changes in China is that they are enormous in terms of scale. China has a population of nearly 1.4 billion, which is much bigger than the total population of all other major countries in the world before its rise. Besides, China made these achievements in a very short time. In just several decades, China has finished what took developed countries several hundred years to complete.

While making considerable achievements in a short time, China has also maintained long-term social stability, and let vitality of economic and social development come out in an orderly manner. In this way, it has struck a balance between vigor and order, and between development and stability.

The principles of historical development have indicated that a country experiences social contradictions and risks while it is in the process of modernization.

China was compared to a “compressed capsule” on the way of modernization, as it had been through many changes in a short time while meeting and solving all kinds of contradictions and problems. A tiny issue will be maximized in China, given its huge size.

From this perspective, China’s capacity to maintain stability is as important as its capability to create a development miracle. It should be valued that the country, even after undergoing complicated and drastic economic and social changes, remains a stable society in the long run. After thorough research on China’s development, a foreign scholar pointed out that the correct economic strategies and the stable political system of China are the secrets of China’s continuous economic growth.

With effective social governance and good social order, today’s China can deliver a better sense of gain, happiness, and security to its people. The country is hailed by foreign guests as one of the safest countries in the world and the most stable and prosperous economy in the world by foreign media.

Looking back on Chinese history, stability seemed intertwined with chaos, and unity was usually followed by separation. For thousands of years, China had witnessed more turbulent days than peaceful ones, not to mention prosperous times. The long-term turmoil and frequent wars had caused people to suffer.

As a result, whether the country can maintain lasting peace and order has become the essential criterion for people to decide whether the regime and system are good enough.

From such a historical perspective, it is a miracle that China has maintained long-term stability for the past 70 years.

Amazed at the miracle, some western scholars said that whoever could explain China’s success deserved a Noble Prize. Some even claimed that China is an exception of all the rules.

What are rules at any rate? Rules are the intrinsic connections between things and the constant and deep-seated truths of the changing and empirical world. They determine the inevitable trend of the world’s development.

(Photo/Pudong Times)

As Friedrich Engels said, the course of history is governed by the general rules of history, and the problem is to discover these rules.

Development is like a long river composed of tributaries and reaches. Only by understanding and grasping the laws of the development of human society, which is the “long river”, the rules of the development of our own country, which is the “tributary”, and the principles of the historical stage, which is “the reach”, can we swim with the historical trend and rush forward.

In the past 70 years, the CPC has continuously deepened its understanding of the law of its governance, the building of socialism and the development of human society, which is how the Chinese miracle has been made.

It is generally acknowledged by international observers on China affairs that the CPC has made continuously incredible achievements with a magical power to overcome the difficulties.

Over the past 70 years, China has encountered blockades and containment from the outside as well as impetuous and rash decisions from within. The country has been challenged by significant disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and epidemics and by international turmoil like financial crises and trade frictions.

It is under the strong leadership of the CPC that China has been able to survive a series of risks and challenges, overcome difficulties and obstacles, and steer a steady course in the right direction.

The leadership of the CPC enables China to concentrate resources to accomplish large undertakings and organize and carry out various tasks effectively. The CPC has led the Chinese people into a new stage of development, proving that its leadership is the key to doing well China’s own affairs.

The CPC is a party of Marxism and the people and has always exercised its power in the interests of the people. It believes that the Party and the people are interdependent like fish and water, considers public opinions the most important thing in politics and people’s support the greatest strength in its governance.

It is a proven fact that the CPC is a political party in the interests of the country and the people, instead of in the interests of itself.

The miracle in China is a mirror of the 70-year-long tireless practice and investigation of the ruling political party in China.

The CPC firmly believes that only by finding a way that actually suits the country can China’s problems be addressed.

While introducing the market economy system, it did not undergo the radical “shock therapy” following the so-called Washington Consensus. Instead, it has taken a road of gradual reform, which not only let the market play the decisive role in allocating resources but also let the government play its functions in effectively curbing the cyclical ups and downs of the market economy. In this way, China has maintained stable growth on the whole.

In rural land reform, the CPC did not simply privatize the land. It introduced the household responsibility system and encouraged the separation of farmland ownership rights, contract rights, and management rights.

China promoted human-centered urbanization, creating conditions for peasants to settle in the cities and avoiding slums in the urban areas.

For the past 70 years, the miracle has witnessed the ceaseless experiment and innovation of a Chinese Marxist party.

To understand the Chinese miracle, it is necessary to understand socialism and the practice of the CPC on building socialism.

A former foreign ambassador to China once said that China had an urban population of more than 300 million, basically equaling the total population of Europe, and the country’s rural population which stood at over 800 million was also equivalent to that of Africa. So China was Europe and Africa combined, the former ambassador said.

Based on such national conditions, the CPC creatively put forward the theory of the primary stage of socialism. It has been completely clear about this fundamental dimension of the national context and based its work on this most important reality—the primary stage of socialism.

It also has been fully committed to the Party’s primary line as the source that keeps the Party and the country going and that brings happiness to the people.

From 1949 to 2018, the average per capita disposable income of Chinese residents increased 59.2 times factoring in inflation, and the average life expectancy also rose to 77 from 35. These drastic changes happening to the life of the Chinese people have well defined the people-oriented philosophy that China has always been upholding.

If China’s development is considered a unique “Chinese path,” then its development goals and continuously improved livelihood over the past 70 years are demonstrating to the world the “Chinese value” – also the value of socialism.

Since 70 years ago, socialism with Chinese characteristics has showcased strong vitality and enormous advantages by adhering to Party leadership, the people running the country, law-based governance and democratic centralism. During this period, China’s development reflected the essence of socialism and enriched the connotation of socialism.

The development miracle created by socialism with Chinese characteristics is telling the world that socialism can also be a leading player in human development practices, and the CPC and Chinese people will make unremitted efforts to achieve this goal.

A piece of information about the building of the pilot demonstration area of socialism with Chinese characteristics in Shenzhen attracted colossal attention in August this year. From a special economic zone to today’s pilot demonstration area, Shenzhen’s development is an epitome of the Chinese miracle.

There is no precedent for a massive country like China to achieve modernization, and a new path which suits itself must be made. To understand the Chinese miracle, one must understand the Chinese path and how the country perceives the development laws of human society.

China was considered a weak country a century ago, and such weakness was at materialistic, systematic as well as spiritual levels. However, the country has evolved from a world factory to a world market, and then a world platform as it is releasing stronger and stronger spillover effect. Also, the Chinese philosophy that propels China’s development is also now expected to drive the development of the entire world.

Entering the new era, the glorious Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era has attracted attention from the globe for its broad vision, marvelous political wisdom, and remarkable strategic foresight.

Today, the CPC has stepped into a new realm thanks to its understanding, mastering and applying of the three laws of dialectical materialism, namely the unity and conflict of opposites, the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes, and the negation of the negation.

American scholar Ross Terrill said in his book “Xi Jinping’s China Renaissance” that Xi is completing the three leading ideals of Chinese governance — the governance of the ruling party, nation, and the global community.

Even those who hyped the so-called “end of history” theory started “correct” their views given the new miracles that are springing up in China.

Chinese voices are now widely heard on multiple international conferences, and Chinese development mode is becoming central topics.

A Mozambican consultant from the country’s finance ministry who studied at the Institute of South-South Cooperation and Development three years ago noted that he wanted to find a development path that suited his own country by learning from China’s development model.

Forty years ago, China’s per capita income was less than even 1/3 of those in the sub-Saharan countries, while today, many African countries are learning from China in an attempt to find a development path of their own.

This is a representative story from the time, and it is not about only Chinese, but also the entire human being. This is how foreign media has described Chinese development.

Such voices resonate with Xi’s remarks that the CPC and Chinese people have every confidence in their ability to provide a Chinese solution to aid the exploration of a better social system for humanity.

The national rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is not only the manifestation of improved comprehensive national strength but also the rise of a civilization that carries rich connotation.

Facing the rising tides of anti-globalization, trade protectionism and populism, China firmly believes that to channel the waters in the ocean back into isolated lakes and creeks is simply not possible. With confidence, it welcomes each country aboard the express train of China’s development, proposes to joint construct the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), shares its development experiences with the world and shoulders the responsibility to protect free trade, multilateralism and economic globalization.

Chinese miracles prove that economic globalization is an irreversible trend of history, and peace and development remain an aspiration held dear by all of mankind. Only by jointly building a community with a shared future for humanity can the world embrace a bright future. Such a perception of the development law would only help to make a massive contribution to the development of human society.

The CPC is the most opening and inclusive political party in history. The Marxism it believes in is the essence of the human spirit, and socialism it commits to is a common aspiration of human society.

Since the reform and opening up, the CPC has been actively learning from the remarkable civilizations created by global people and has been applying what they learn by its own national conditions.

Looking into the future, the CPC, which is determined to strive for human progress, will keep promoting China’s development and creating more opportunities for the world, explore the laws of human progress and share the experiences with the world, and take more responsibilities to make more contribution to humanity.

Xi had an inspection tour in Guangdong province last October and visited an exhibition that was opened to celebrate accomplishments pertaining to Guangdong’s development during the past 40 years since the reform and opening up.

During the visit, the Chinese president remarked that coming to Shenzhen, his first destination for inspection after the 18th CPC National Congress, he wanted to declare to the world that China will never drag its feet on reform and opening-up, and the country is sure to show the world impressive new achievement in the future.

What he said once again indicated the firm belief, faith, and confidence of the CPC, as well as China’s ambition for development.

*

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.

Note

Right after having published this article, BBC posted this which illustrates the point.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on October 1, 1949: China’s Miracle – as seen by the Official China Itself
  • Tags:

Cuba versus “The Blockade”. Losses and Damages Over Six Decades

September 30th, 2019 by Ana Laura Palomino García

Granma International shares facts and figures from Cuba’s report, presented by Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, on Resolution 73/8 of the United Nations General Assembly

***

The significant negative impact of measures recently adopted by the U.S. to tighten the blockade is not reflected in the following account, since this escalation occurred after the time period analyzed.

Overview

  • Losses April 2018-March 2019: 4,343,600,000 dollars
  • Damages accumulated over six decades of this policy, at current prices: 138,843,400, 000 dollars
  • Total quantifiable harm caused by the blockade has reached more than: 922,630,000,000 dollars (depreciated as compared to the price of gold)
  • Damages caused by exclusion from to U.S. market: 163,108 659
  • Damages caused by use of intermediaries in purchases and higher prices in distant markets: 173,210,916
  • Damages due to increased costs for shipping & insurance: 72,160,602
  • Potential export income lost: 2,343,135,842
  • Higher financing costs due to national risk rating: 47,290,204
  • Prohibitions on use of the U.S. dollar: 85,139,436
  • Other: 12,535,892
  • Total: 2,896,581,555

Health

The damage caused by sanctions on Cuba in the field of health is unquestionable. This hostile policy obstructs the acquisition of technology, raw materials, reagents, diagnostic tools, equipment and spare parts, as well as medicines for the treatment of serious diseases like cancer- Between April 2018 and March 2019, damages in this sector amounted to $104,148,178, a figure that far exceeds last year’s estimate of $6,123,498.- Relatives of patient JCHC, with medical history number 68100309926 at the Hermanos Ameijeiras Clinical-Surgical Hospital, who died on June 15, 2018 due to spongiform cardiomyopathy with terminal heart failure, can never forget that if circulatory support had been available from an Impella device, produced by the U.S. company Abiomed, the life of JCHC could have been saved.- The import-export company Medicuba S.A. made requests to 57 U.S. providers to acquire supplies necessary for health. To date, 50 of these have not responded.- Several U.S. companies were contacted for the purchase of novel cancer drugs. Thus far none has responded.- The U.S. corporation Bruker was unsuccessfully contacted for the purchase of spectrophotometers, devices used in laboratories for the analysis of substances and microorganisms.

Photo: José Manuel Correa

Food and Agriculture

The consequences of the blockade in this sector, of vital importance to any nation, have been estimated at a value of 412,230,614 dollars.

Food processing companies import approximately 70% of their raw materials from different markets, including Spain, Brazil, etc. The blockade prevents access to the U.S. market, which is more convenient in terms of prices, proximity, and the wide range of materials and equipment available to modernize production.

Havana Club, one of the most prestigious rum makers in this sector, was denied potential earnings of $41,300,000 by the blockade.

Education, Sports and Culture

The University of Sancti Spíritus was not allowed to purchase 20 Smart Brailler typewriters and auditory accessories from the Perkins company, essential to the training of special education teachers.

January 23, 2019, the French bank Société Générale de París retained a bank transfer of 7,474 euros from Equatorial Guinea to Cuba, compensation for professional educational services provided.

Purchases of sports equipment required by official regulations of international federations have been restricted.

The 22nd edition of the Terry Fox Run in Cuba could not be held this year, with the director of this International Foundation informing organizers that the fund could no longer help with the event or continue to support cancer research here.

The Caribbean Baseball Federation has been unable to establish with the U.S. a legal way to pay the prizes won by our players.

The financial persecution of Cuba has made it impossible to collect payment for services provided by the Cubadeportes agency, both for the technical assistance and commercialization of activities in Cuba.

Of 37 artistic companies that could have promoted their work in the United States, only 24 have obtained permission to enter that country.

Tourism

In the tourism industry, damages amount to 1.383 billion dollars. If the blockade did not exist, studies indicate that 35% of all visitors to Cuba annually would be from the United States.

The Cubatur travel agency suffered monetary-financial losses of at least $497,800.

The Havanatur company suffered damages due to the refusal of correspondent banks to process payments; the closing of bank accounts in third countries; the retention of funds; and the cancellation of credit card transactions.

Photo: Julio Martínez Molina

Biopharmaceutical Industry

The Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB) reports revenues not received from potential exports to the U.S. of Heberprot-p, the only medication of its kind for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Projecting that if only 5% of U.S. patients with this condition used Heberprot-p annually, income from its export would have reached a value of $103 million in 2018.

The Import-Export Company Farmacuba experienced difficulties in acquiring raw materials for the production of medicines.

The Oriente Pharmaceutical Laboratory Company, affiliated with BioCubaFarma, reported shortages of Vitamin A for its Nutriforte multivitamin, as a result of the blockade, thus limiting production by 78,694,200 tablets.

The delivery of printed aluminum foil for Nicotinamide in the month of March 2019 was affected, and it is possible that production of Dipirona and Alprazolam will be limited in September and October for this reason.

Transportation

Total damages in this arena during the analyzed period exceeded 170 million dollars, an increase of more than 69 million with respect to the previous report.

The Caterpillar supplier in the Netherlands prohibited the Dutch company Damen – main supplier of Caterpillar and Cummings spare parts for the Damex shipyards in Santiago de Cuba – from selling its products to Cuba, necessary for the repair and maintenance of pilot boats and tugs.

Cubana de Aviación is unable to use the services of the company ATCO, which is responsible for publishing the air fares of more than 500 airlines.

The Spanish airline Air Europa (UX) refrained from specifying the “Shared Code Agreement” and fulfilling its commitment to Cubana Airlines.

Industry

The blockade’s impact on Cuban industry caused losses of 49 million dollars, which could have been used to acquire necessary raw materials.

The construction sector continues to face serious difficulties in acquiring more efficient, lightweight technologies that require less energy and materials.

The chemical industry state enterprise group, GEIQ, was unable to acquire spare parts or replace machinery.Communications, Information Technology & Telecommunications.

The economic damages caused to the communications system are estimated at more than 55 million dollars. Cuba’s telecommunications company Etecsa continues to feel the greatest impact.

The blockade policy limits the Cuban people’s access to content available on the Internet.

Cuba is denied access to official information from top-of-the-line technology sites, making professional development and distance training difficult.

The blockade obstructs access to high-performance brands and equipment from leaders in the telecommunications industry.

Energy and Mines

Damages in this area amount to 78,336,424 dollars, an increase of more than 18 million over the last period analyzed.

Cuba’s national electrical company continues to face very limited access to spare parts for Bazan engines, manufactured by the Spanish company Navantia.

The British Compair Consortium, upon becoming part of a U.S. group, cut all relations with projects using its technology in Cuba for the centralized management of compressed air.

In September and November of 2018, two contracts were signed with General Electric International for the additional supplies of turbines at the Antonio Guiteras Thermoelectric Power Plant and for modernization of the Pico Santa Martha Power Plant. However, on February 5, 2019, a notification was received from the U.S. Centennial Bank, stating that, given the activation of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, financing for these two contracts would not be granted.

Foreign Trade

Total damages caused by the U.S. blockade in the area of foreign trade were valued at 2,896,581,555 dollars, given an increase in incidents that hinder the conducting of international commercial activity.

The greatest effect was evident in lost income from exports of goods and services, reaching 2,343,135,842 dollars. The decreased number of U.S. travelers visiting the island during this period had a significant impact.

Damages caused by the geographical relocation of commerce are estimated at over 1.020 billion dollars, which represents a growth of 18% with respect to the previous period.

The effects of Cuba’s inability to access the U.S. market were valued at 163,108,659 dollars.

The negative impact of being obliged to use commercial intermediaries and the consequent increase in prices was estimated at 173,210,916 dollars, reflecting an increase of 189% as compared to the last period analyzed.

*

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.

As if the ongoing “trade war” wasn’t an intense enough Hybrid War against China as it is, the US might soon pass the so-called “Hong Kong Human Rights & Democracy Act” in order to take its asymmetrical aggression even further and institutionalize it as the “new normal” for at least the next three decades.

***

American lawmakers are on the path to approving the so-called “Hong Kong Human Rights & Democracy Act” (HKHRDA) after the proposed bill passed the House and Senate Foreign Relations Committees earlier this week, thus putting the US and China on a collision course that can only serve to complicate their ongoing talks on ending the “trade war“. As if that aforementioned manifestation of Hybrid War wasn’t intense enough, the HKHRDA will take this asymmetrical aggression even further through targeted sanctions against individuals (presumably all of which would be government and law enforcement officials) accused of carrying out “human rights” and “democracy” violations in Hong Kong as well as involvement in using the autonomous region as a backdoor for evading the US’ export control laws given the administrative unit’s separate trade status with Washington. China vowed to respond if the proposed law enters into force, but it’s difficult to imagine what it could do to inflict similar damage to the US’ interests like its rival is poised to do to theirs.

The HKHRDA encourages the continuation of increasingly violent and terrorist-prone actions by a cadre of Western-linked radical “protesters” and “rewards” them by collectively punishing the peaceful majority of the population by threatening to curtail the city’s special trade privileges with the US if an annual review of the “human rights” and “democracy” situation there results in American officials supposedly finding “evidence” that any of those two or export controls were violated. In other words, a statistically small number of rioters can end up holding the entire autonomous region of over 7 million people hostage because the authorities’ legal response to their illegal behavior could trigger the US’ threatened economic consequences against the whole population there. The reason for such a deliberately disproportionate reaction is to ensure that the flames of separatist sentiment continue to burn for at least the next three decades ahead of the 2047 expiration of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration that stipulated the existence of the “one country, two systems” model for half a century following Hong Kong’s formal handover to the People’s Republic in 1997.

American strategists believe that the HKHRDA is all that’s needed to catalyze a self-sustaining cycle of unrest there that would eventually lead to an outflow of wealth and educated residents (many of whom tend to be liberal-leaning wherever in the world they may be) that ultimately results in the city losing its unique socio-cultural and economic identity. This in turn would contribute to further radicalizing the most “nationalist”-inclined members of the population into potentially making an Alamo-like “last stand” to provoke the “hoped-for” (from an American perspective) Tiananmen Square 2.0 intervention that was narrowly averted for the time being by the Chief Executive withdrawing the fugitive bill and agreeing to hold talks with select members of the community. The US was expecting that course of action all along to serve as the tripwire for pressuring the EU into cutting its growing trade ties with China and sanction it, thus facilitating their return the American economic fold and improving the prospects of reviving the stalled Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) on terms more favorable to those that Trump is seeking.

In addition, worsening unrest in Hong Kong could possibly serve to inspire copycat Hybrid War campaigns in the mainland’s megacities along the lines of what the author first envisaged in his 2016 forecasting exercise titled “Greater Eurasia Scenarios: China“, although that might be more difficult to pull off the longer that it takes because of the central authorities’ planned nationwide rollout of the so-called “social credit system” and other surveillance means for preemptively thwarting such Color Revolution attempts. The US is so focused on Hong Kong not just because of its potential role as a catalyst in setting off a chain reaction of challenges for the Communist Party elsewhere in the country, but also as revenge against them for “reneging” on the “gentlemen’s agreement” that was struck in the last half of the Old Cold War. Kissinger’s masterful success in wooing China to the US’ side against the USSR led to the UK being ordered to “reward” it with future control over Hong Kong with the expectation that China would then be co-opted into the US-led global system.

That plan dramatically backfired after the unsuccessful 1989 Tiananmen Square Color Revolution attempt designed to topple the Communist Party there simultaneously with the Eastern Bloc’s led to China committing itself to undermine the same US-led global system from within prior to eventually capturing control of it following the country’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 and then climaxing during what was widely expected to be Clinton’s victory in the 2016 elections. Trump’s “surprise” win changed all of that, with the incumbent President admitting earlier this week at the UN that the liberal-globalist plot to co-opt China failed and that the People’s Republic must now therefore be contained after taking advantage of the rules within the US-led system. Against this backdrop, it makes sense why Hong Kong has become a flashpoint in the New Cold War and the US is so fiercely targeting it with Hybrid War since it regards the autonomous region as a catalyst for triggering larger chain reactions of Color Revolution unrest across the country at large but also as revenge for “reneging” on the “gentlemen’s agreement” between the two after the Tiananmen Square events.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

There will be no deal between Iran and the US as long as President Donald Trump is unwilling to lift his aggressive sanctions against the “Islamic Republic”. Washington and Riyadh’s top leaders have asked Pakistan  and  Iraq  to mediate with the Tehran leadership to ease tensions and stop the attacks that are jeopardising the turbulent peace in the Middle East.  Iran’s answer is clear: all attacks are deniable and its only request has not changed. Iran wants  all sanctions lifted and will then be ready to sit around the table offering more concessions to world leaders to make sure no nuclear bomb is prepared in any nuclear site in the country. 

But that is not really what Trump and his Israeli allies want. The nuclear deal is not the real issue – Iran believes – because the International Atomic Agency already has the necessary access and has acknowledged on many occasions that Iran’s programme – despite its breach of the JCPOA – is not  headed towards the fabrication of nuclear weapons. Two points are essential for Trump and Israel, identified by the US as “destabilising behaviour”. These are the Iranian missile  programme, and Iran’s allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan. The US implicitly recognises that Iran is a proven and recognised regional power- and thus wants to pull its teeth out.

When President Barack Obama signed off on the nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), it was because his sanctions against Iran, and those of his predecessors, never worked. The agreement he negotiated would have delayed  any Iranian military nuclear programme, if it existed, for another 15-20 years. He also tried to put on the table the Iranian missile programme and containment of Iran’s allies in the Middle East but was met with clear rejection  from Iran. The “Islamic Republic” leadership was adamant that only the nuclear issue could be discussed, and nothing else. The deal was agreed between parties with no trust in each other but who nevertheless agreed to “sort out” their differences and conflicts.

Today Trump believes he can twist Iran’s arm with his “maximum pressure” and severe sanctions to force its leaders to the table and negotiate the two taboo topics. Iran informed those mediators seeking to ease the situation of its readiness to stop its missile programme if the world disarms Israel of all its nuclear bombs and if every country in the region becomes missile free. Otherwise, Iran will never give up its advanced missile programme, which enables the country to defend itself against any attacks and violations of its airspace—as, for example, happened with the US drone downed  this summer.  Moreover, for Iran to cease or continue supporting its allies in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan is not a matter of choice. It is part of its ideology, its constitution, its very existence.

Iranian decision-makers said:

“If we stop support for Palestine, Israel will annex the West Bank and wipe Gaza from the map while the world stands watching, applauding Israel’s right of self-defence! If we stop support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel will confiscate the disputed water and land borders and walk into Lebanon any time it wishes to. The Lebanese Army is not allowed to be armed with deterrent weapons to stop hundreds of violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty every single month by Israel. If we do not support Syria, the Golan Heights will be lost forever and Israel and the US will have a foothold in north-east Syria for good. If Iraq is left alone, it will be divided into three parts as was the case in 2014 when ISIS occupied a third of the country. All these countries will be crushed by US hegemony and subjected to Israel’s will and arrogance.”

What Trump doesn’t want to understand is that Iran’s missile programme represents the right hand of the country; its allies are its left hand. The entire body cannot survive if they are amputated, so it will naturally reject the process. Iran refuses to become the “toothless shark” the US and Israel want Iran to make of it.

The absence of trust  between Iran and the US is all-pervasive. Trump has changed his mind about many agreements and has shown much aggression since he took office. Among both his allies and enemies, many are seriously thinking about – and some are already acting in this direction – detaching themselves from any relationship with the US, from its currency, and from doing any business with them. The US can no longer be considered a viable partner for peace for the following reasons: it offers what doesn’t belong to it (the Golan Heights and Jerusalem), and its foreign policy is unstable, with an inexperienced President and similarly inadequate advisors leading the country. It was the US that revoked the nuclear deal and imposed typically harsh sanctions on Iran: this sparked such serious tension in the Middle East that it has driven the region to the edge of the abyss.

Iran is also showing how incompetent Trump and his team really are, and how unwilling he is to defend Arab countries. He is merely interested in drying up their money and resources.

US leaders will not be able to calm the situation in the Middle East and meet with Iranian officials until sanctions are not lifted, or unless France and other EU members are allowed to open lines of credit for Iran to use (again leading to lifting the US sanctions).

It is difficult for Trump to withdraw the sanctions because that will mean a visible victory for Iran and a defeat for the US and its Middle Eastern allies. It will also indicate that all he has done in the last year or so against Iran was ineffectual. This will be an opening for his political enemies to embarrass him while he is seeking to be re-elected for another term. Iran won’t give him the satisfaction of taking pictures shaking President Hassan Rouhani’s hand for nothing. Iran will not give up its missile programme, nor its allies in whom Iran has heavily invested since 1982.

The situation will remain the same; pressure will continue to mount in the Middle East unless Trump takes his hand off the trigger and allows Iran to export its oil. The initiative that would help Trump to come down from the tree he has climbed up does not exist! Iran will not be coerced into giving up its missile programme and its allies. Trump and his allies have been upstaged and outclassed.

*

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 Iranian Presidency/Anadolu Agency


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US Wants Iran to Become a “Toothless Shark”: Its Allies and Missile Programme to be Swept Off the Table
  • Tags: , ,

For the first time in 35 years, I am not packing my bag to travel to the Tory party conference tomorrow. The party I joined as a student and first campaigned for in the 1979 general election is suffering a convulsion that makes it — for now at least — unrecognisable to me. Gone is the relaxed, broad-church coalition, united by a belief in free-trade, open markets, fiscal discipline and a fear of the pernicious effects of socialism, but tolerant of a wide range of social and political opinion within its ranks. In its place is an ideological puritanism that brooks no dissent and is more and more strident in its tone.”

These are the words of former Chancellor Phillip Hammond. In this article for The Times, Hammond admits that Boris Johnson is going all out, at all costs, do or die, for a no-deal Brexit because he is financially supported by disaster capitalists who now want a return on their investment.

This is what happens when you have unprotected sex with cocaine jammed prostitutes from the hedge-fund industry that get their real highs from the chaos they cause. Taking money from these people and from the far-right American Jihadists of the free-market contaminates the political and economic ecosystem of the state. It’s like the plague – once it arrives, you can’t easily get rid of it without extreme strategies.

Accusations that dark money is infiltrating the Boris Johnson snap election campaign are rife. The UK’s most senior civil servant is now under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit. Johnson’s own sister, a person close to him, has said exactly that.

Johnson is backed by speculators who have bet billions on a hard Brexit – and there is only one option that works for them: a crash-out no-deal that sends the currency tumbling and inflation soaring,” Hammond wrote in the Times.

Guto Bebb, a former Tory minister who was thrown out of the party for opposing a no-deal Brexit, said:

The dubious financiers who supported the ‘leave’ campaign and the prime minister’s leadership campaign are betting against Britain. The PM should put the interests of the country first rather than facilitating a financial bonanza for a few.”

Anna Soubry, the leader of Change UK, said:

This week’s events are damning evidence that Boris Johnson has no moral compass. It gives me no pleasure to believe that Johnson is in hock to all manner of people and in particular those who don’t give a toss about the livelihoods of our constituents but simply get even more rich gambling on our children’s future.”

Finally, the mainstream media have opened their eyes. TruePublica has published dozens of stories about dark money, corruption, hedge-funds, bankers and foreign state actors, most particularly American ones involved in the architecture of this disaster. But it doesn’t end there. Think tanks and front charities funded by right-wing extremists from the USA have plans to plunder and exploit Britain. And here we are, 30 something days until the do-or-die date when Johnson collapses the last vestige of political normality and only now the MSM are getting really worried about what comes next.

Boris Johnson’s push towards a no-deal Brexit is a “free lunch” for hedge funds and currency traders trading off the collapse of the pound, the former chairman of Goldman Sachs’ Asset Management Sir Jim O’Neill said.

As Business Insider wrote – ‘However, Baron O’Neill (no connection), who advised David Cameron’s government, said that his former colleagues in the industry saw the push to a no-deal Brexit as a “chance to make some money.”

An example of this is Crispin Odey, the pro-Brexit Conservative donor, who has reportedly waged a £300m bet against some of Britain’s biggest businesses on the implication their share prices will crash after Brexit.

The multimillionaire hedge fund tycoon’s company, Odey Asset Management, is understood to have taken out “short” positions on at least 16 firms including Royal Mail and Intu, the shopping centre owner. Hundreds of millions is piling into such bets.

The conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons states:

“Given that service in parliament is a public trust … members are expected … to fulfil their public duties with honesty and uphold the highest standards so as to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interests, and maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of each member and in the House of Commons.

Do you see any of that in Boris Johnson? Phillip Stevens from the FT says there’s none of that expectation in Johnson anywhere in sight – “There is not a soul in the long corridors of Whitehall who believes the prime minister is telling the truth” – and he means about anything. Stevens goes on to say that – “The lying reveals a profound disdain for the traditions, institutions and laws that sustain Britain’s parliamentary ecosystem. Whitehall officials say rules of proper behaviour are simply torn up.”

In July this year, well before the MSM decided that Brexit really was going to end in tears I wrote about how dark money was infiltrating the Johnson campaign:

“I said all along that democracy had been subverted and the evidence is there to support it. I said all along that Theresa May would be a danger to democracy and usher in something worse and that has happened. I said all along that America sees Britain as a morsel to be exploited. This is a project that has costs hundreds of millions, probably billions. We’ll never find out because dark money, off-shored laundered money and dodgy money – has funded this trajectory of national failure that places Britain in America’s exploitative lap. But it’s payback time and Johnson walking through the door at No10 is a significant victory towards that aim. The two worst Prime Ministers of modern times, David Cameron and Theresa May are about to be replaced by another. Britain’s democracy has been bought just like the man about to lead it.”

Finally, the penny is dropping in the national media. They are uttering those same words as Britain heads for its no-deal Brexit. The headlines are starting to drum up some concern:

In one month’s time, we’ll find out if Boris Johnson is bluffing his hand or really will crash the economy over the proverbial cliff. But no-one should be in any doubt – any politician, any government or other entity that plots to pit the government against the monarchy, the state against the people, or now, as is the big worry, civil society against itself in street violence, should be quickly rounded up and dealt with.

The state rounds up non-violent anti-fracking and environmental protestors and now classifies them as terrorists. The state is passing laws that treat whistleblowers and journalists who break those stories that are very definitely in the public interest as foreign spies as well – with threats of lengthy prison sentences. And now, the state is actively involved in parliamentary plots to close down dissenting voices in Britain’s own house of representatives, has abandoned its electoral watchdog and accused its supreme court judges of bias, hinting that both should be broken up. Whatever you voted for, this is not the answer. The current trajectory that the disaster capitalists are funding, is that even worse is yet to come.

It was Milton Friedman, the American economist who received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his research on consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and the complexity of stabilization policy that once said: “Only a crisis, actual or perceived, creates real change.” That has been the plan all along – crisis.

*

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

Unified Action to Fight Deforestation

September 30th, 2019 by Nicole Polsterer

Jair Bolsonaro defied his critics at the UN General Assembly in New York this month – as expected – denouncing those maintaining that his policies have fanned the flames of the Amazon fires.

Brazil’s President declared:

“We all know that all countries have problems. The sensationalist attacks we have suffered due to fire outbreaks have aroused our patriotic sentiment.”

This echoed his repeated claim that the fires in the world’s largest tropical rainforest were being used as an “excuse” to attack his government by countries who want to “control” the Amazon and get their hands on its riches, and that the G7 nation’s offer of $20 million to help tackle the fires was colonialism by another name.

Brazilian vanguard

The idea that outsiders are using the fires to undermine Brazil’s sovereignty resonates with Bolsonaro’s core constituency. But it ignores key facts.

First, it is Brazilians – among them, the one million Indigenous Peoples who call the Amazon home – who are suffering from the fires’ impact, and it is Brazilians who are in the vanguard of fighting them.

Second, while clear policy choices by the Bolsonaro government have increased the deforestation which has driven the fires, the European leaders criticising him are also complicit, as their countries are often importing the products that are grown on recently deforested land.

At the end of August, Fern and 25 other NGOs highlighted this in an open letter to the President-elect of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and other EU leaders.

The letter pointed out that European consumption is intimately linked to the current disaster in the Amazon – as well as the global increase in deforestation.

This is because of EU producers’ voracious appetite for agricultural products, including from Brazil. The fires in the Amazon were started by landholders wanting to improve grass cover in cattle pastures, or to burn felled trees in preparation for crops. Much of what they produce is for export.

New chapter

This week in New York, world leaders have the chance to write a new chapter in alleviating the crisis that is affecting the world’s forests – which, after all, has global consequences.

It’s a path that does not impinge on other countries’ sovereignty: international regulatory action.

After all, voluntary commitments by companies, however well-meaning, do not work in isolation. This was the conclusion of those Member States and companies who signed the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF), which saw dozens of countries and more than 50 of the world’s biggest companies committing to end deforestation by 2020, a deadline which they admit they will fail to meet. National and international laws will be needed, as all the evidence shows.

The need for EU governments to take collective action was made by Frans Timmermans, First Vice President of the European Commission, on Sunday in New York at an event to mark the fifth anniversary of the NYDF.

“When it comes to deforestation, no one gets to say that this is not our business too. Forests are a global public good. When healthy we all benefit, when burning we all suffer,” he said.

The EU is considering developing legislation to rid its supply chains of deforestation and human rights abuses, and others should follow suit: on 23 July it released a communication committing itself to measures to “increase supply chain transparency and minimise the risk of deforestation and forest degradation associated with commodity imports in the EU.”

But it qualified how it wanted to do this, emphasising it wanted to engage in a ‘partnership approach’.

Partnership approach

The communication states that within bilateral dialogues with major consumer and producer countries it would:

Share experience and information on the respective policy and legal frameworks; and identify joint activities to inform policy developments based on an advanced understanding of the impacts of deforestation and forest degradation”.

While these sound vague, the EU has in the past shown itself to be capable of turning a partnership approach into reality  – principally through its flagship measures to address illegal logging, where they chose to hardwire partnership into the core of their approach by negotiating Voluntary Partnership Agreements with timber-producing countries.

The strength of these agreements is that they aren’t imposed from outside, but evolve within the countries themselves through wide consultation with a variety of parties, including civil society and forest communities.

Such an approach should be the template for the EU’s approach to ending the deforestation and human rights abuses in its agricultural supply chains. It could also set an example for the rest of the world.

As the 2020 commitments approach fast, now is the time for unified, ambitious – and constructive – international action to combat deforestation. And Regulation must be at their core.

*

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.

Nicole Polsterer is a sustainable consumption and production campaigner at the forests and rights NGO, Fern

Featured image is from Transcend Media Service

Palestinian Rights: Israeli Army Forcibly Evicts Nonviolent Demonstrators at the Dead Sea

September 30th, 2019 by Popular Struggle Coordination Committee

Today, over 100 activists came together at the northern banks of the Dead Sea to reclaim Palestinian rights to land and its natural resources amidst the deepening Israeli occupation of the West Bank. After decades of apartheid and colonialization, and amidst the ongoing threats of full annexation, the demonstration was led by Palestinian activists from across the West Bank and included Israeli and international human rights defenders.

The activists arrived at 10:30am at the site of a former Dead Sea hotel and restaurant, near the illegal Israeli settlements of Kalya and Almog, with signs calling for a reclamation of Palestinian sovereignty over its land and resources. According to a statement released by the Popular Struggle Coordination Committee (PSCC), the activists came together to protest “being deprived of our rights to our land, water and natural resources as a colonized people.”

Joined by Israeli and international solidarity activists, the PSCC “aims to reclaim Palestinian access to water for basic drinking needs, agriculture and livelihoods, and recreation, in the face of colonization.” In response to this non-violent demonstration, dozens of Israeli soldiers forcibly evicted the activists, arrest attempts were made, and one Palestinian activist was detained. Even after eviction, the Israeli army set up checkpoints along the road, to ID Palestinian demonstrators as they left the site.

For decades, Israel’s illegal settlement regime has exploited Palestinian natural resources and threatens the right of the Palestinian people to basic water needs. While the World Health Organization recommends 100 liters of water per person per day, Palestinians receive an average of 80 liters /day, while Israelis, including in settlements, receive an average of 280 liters/day. As today’s use of force demonstrates, Israel’s concerted efforts to maintain its control over Palestinian land and its natural resources comes at the expense of Palestinian rights to development, health, and adequate standards of living.

Thus far in 2019, Israel has demolished water related infrastructure across the West Bank and continues to deny Palestinians the right to repair existing water networks, dig wells, or carry out any work to achieve basic water access. Over 60 Palestinian springs have been taken over by Israeli settlements, and Palestinians have no access or legal allocations to the Jordan River or the Dead Sea. These bans are compounded with the on-going illegal policy of land confiscation, settlement expansion, property demolition, and wall construction.

The PSCC further notes that

“the systematic restrictions on our access to our own land, natural resources and water, including the Dead Sea and the Jordan River, has dealt a heavy blow to the agriculture sector, which is one of the main pillars of Palestinian economy and heritage.”

As youth from over 200 nations led a strike this month, demanding urgent actions on climate change, today’s demonstrators called on global leaders to join the Palestinian struggle for water justice, as communities lacking the basic access to land and water security are more vulnerable to the effects on climate change in the region. In this context, the action demonstrated a Palestinian reclamation of water resources to not only meet basic needs for drinking, agriculture, and livelihoods, but also for rights to this critical resource for generations to come. The PSCC also drew attention to the environmental concerns of Israel’s water policies, noting that “when Israel denies us access to our water resources in the Jordan Valley, it effects not only the Palestinian livelihood, but also has detrimental effects on the environment, as the Dead Sea is shrinking by 1 meter/year.”

Joining Palestinian activists from across the region were Israeli and international activists who are supporting Palestinian efforts to reclaim and remain on their lands in recent years.

Sahar Vardi from Jerusalem said,

“I am standing here in solidarity with my Palestinian partners because it is our duty, as Israelis, to resist these policies of resource theft, which are done in our names. At a time where Israeli politicians say that they will annex Area C, even further depriving Palestinians from their lands and resources, and in places like here, at the Dead Sea, we have no time to waste. It is our responsibility as Israelis to resist this in our actions and not just with words. It is also the responsibility of the international community to move from words to action, and sanction human rights violations and breaches of international law.”

Dana Mandler, a member of All That’s Left: Anti-Occupation Collective in Jerusalem said,

“We come together because we believe in justice, equality and freedom for all. Water is a basic right and Palestinians must have that right – full access and agency over water resources – guaranteed.”

The PSCC concludes its statement by noting that

“our resistance represents a refusal to allow the perpetuation of the reality of the segregation walls, violence, and discrimination to stand in our way. We will tirelessly continue to march forward together, rebuilding, where the occupation destroys, preserving life, where the occupier shatters it, and planting, where the settler-colonial regime razes and uproots. “

After decades of apartheid and colonialization, the nonviolent demonstration today was an act of resistance against the threat of annexation, made by Israeli leaders and its global defenders, by enacting Palestinian sovereignty over its borders and its environment. Organizers are calling on those who stand in solidarity around the world to hold decision-makers responsible, and for those who can, to join the struggle for Palestinian rights to its land and the water that flows above and beneath its surface, so that basic needs of its people are met.

*

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.

Houthis Claim Ambush of Saudis Killed Hundreds

September 30th, 2019 by Kurt Nimmo

It is being reported Houthi fighters, aka Ansarallah, have pulled off a major military offensive against Saudi troops in northern Yemen. 

.

.

.

.

The ambush follows on the heels of a claimed Houthi missile and drone attack on Saudi Arabia’s Aramco’s Abqaiq facility and the Khurais oilfield earlier this month.

There is no way to tell if this ambush really happened as the Houthis claim. The video shows very few uniformed soldiers, yet plenty of men dressed in traditional Yemeni clothing. 

On the other hand, photos posted to social media show what appear to be Saudi soldiers in military uniforms. 

EFpDzYnUEAE5T_G

Other reports claim the majority of the captured soldiers are Pakistani. 

Pakistani Gen. Raheel Sharif is currently serving as the Commander-In-Chief of the so-called Islamic Military Alliance. If it indeed turns out the Saudis suffered a major defeat, it is likely Sharif will be sent packing to Islamabad. 

EFpMDCTUEAIB8v8

Sec. Of State Mike Pompeo has yet to release a statement blaming Iran for the embarrassing incident. He may be busy, though, preparing for battle following a subpoena issued by House Democrats itching to impeach Donald Trump.

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author

Third Israeli Election Likely over Impasse?

September 30th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Netanyahu’s Likud finished second to Gantz/Lapid’s Blue and White party in September 17 rerun elections.

President Rivlin broke precedent by choosing Netanyahu to form a coalition government, showing partisanship in breach of his mandate to serve interests of the state, not favoritism of one party over another.

Through Saturday, things are deadlocked, Netanyahu unable to cobble together a 61-seat ruling coalition. Likud won 32 seats, barely more than 26% of the vote, one less than Blue and White.

Reportedly on Friday, Gantz rejected Netanyahu’s demand to form a Likud-led unity government with Blue and White and two religious fundamentalist parties, leaving him in power as prime minister.

A Blue and White statement said the following:

“It is clear that the stance taken in setting these two preconditions is aimed at dragging the state of Israel into a third round of elections, in line with the interests of the prime minister.”

Netanyahu has two key objectives — remaining prime minister, along with avoiding indictment and prosecution on fraud, bribery, and breach of trust charges, following an early October hearing.

Failure on both counts will likely end his political career and personal freedom, leaving office defrocked and disgraced.

His key reelection strategy was and remains keeping Israel safe from nonexistent threats — none from Palestinians, Syria, or Lebanon’s Hezbollah except in self-defense if attacked.

Countless billions of dollars given national security interests in the West and Israel is a hoax for their self-enrichment, along with mass deception about barbarians at the gate, requiring a strong national defense against them.

On Sunday, Israeli media reported that Netanyahu will likely tell Rivlin he’s unable to form coalition governance, according to unnamed Likud party sources.

In its latest edition, Haaretz said Netanyahu may tell Rivlin “he is giving up efforts to build a government within a few days if (Blue and White’s) negotiation team remains adamant in its refusal to accept a plan proposed by Rivlin as a basic guideline for talks” — leaving Netanyahu empowered as prime minister Gantz rejects.

On Friday, negotiations between representatives of both parties broke down with no agreement. Further talks scheduled for Sunday aren’t likely to fare better.

A Blue and White statement said Likud negotiators demanded B & W “agree to a government with Netanyahu at the helm as prime minister” head of minority rule.

B & W rejected the demand, explaining the Likud team knew in advance its diktat was unacceptable, showing its “intention to send Israel to a third election, as the prime minister desires” — a way for him to stay in power with things unresolved.

His reported strategy involves heading coalition rule, seeking Knesset legislation granting him immunity from prosecution, along with another measure, preventing Israel’s Supreme Court from overturning it.

Rivlin is likely to give Gantz a mandate to form a new government if Netanyahu fails. Far-right Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu is the wild card.

Its eight seats can swing things for either major party. He remains neutral, refusing to join a Netanyahu coalition with religious fundamentalist parties.

Nor will he ally with Gantz as long as Joint (Arab) List is part of his ruling coalition — even though Arab MKs are powerless, having no say over Israeli policies.

As of Sunday, things are at impasse, another election next year most likely unless a party allied with Netanyahu or Gantz breaks ranks, shifting allegiance in return for control over one or more key ministries.

Wanting Netanyahu’s toxic grip on Israel ended, Haaretz editors said the following:

“Netanyahu and his proxies’ absurd attempts at posturing concern to heal the wounds of the people are a cynical smoke screen, behind which lies the fear of another election.”

“Gantz and the rest of the opposition members must not fall into this wretched trap.”

“They must remember exactly why they received 57 Knesset seats: to end the insanity, deceit and confusion of the Netanyahu era.”

No matter who heads Israeli coalition rule, conditions for Occupied Palestinians and Arab citizens remain intolerable — terrorized by apartheid viciousness, notably in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and especially in besieged Gaza.

In the week following Israel’s September 17 elections, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) reported the following Israeli abuses:

“Israeli forces wounded 125 (nonviolent) Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank” — including dozens of children, two women, two paramedics and a journalist.

“Israel carried out 110 incursions into the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem, and raided civilian houses, attacking and enticing fear among residents in addition to shooting(s) in many incidents” — 124 Palestinians threatening no one arrested, including 14 children.

“Israeli forces raided the office of ADDAMEER Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association in Ramallah and sized a number of laptop(s) and other equipment” — the third such unlawful incident this year alone.

The IDF conducted three belligerent cross-border incursions into Gaza, terrorizing residents, making arrests.

In the Occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, Israeli forces stole a construction vehicle, destroyed a residential house, destroyed the foundation and retaining wall of another home, along with walls of a third residence.

“Israeli settlers carried out 6 attacks (on) Palestinian civilians and their property in the West Bank,” said the PCHR.

An Al-Haq documentary calls Gaza “uninhabitable.” The PCHR said intolerable Strip conditions continue, suffocating illegal siege in its “14th consecutive year, without any improvement to the movement of persons and goods and ongoing isolation of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank and the rest of the world,” adding:

The West Bank “is divided into separate cantons with key roads blocked by the Israeli occupation since the Second Intifada and with temporary and permanent checkpoints, where civilians’ movement is restricted and others are arrested.”

Militarized occupation maintains virtual open-air imprisonment for millions of persecuted Palestinians, terrorized Gazans suffering most.

Since Israel’s 1948 creation, the world community failed to hold it accountable for high crimes of war and against humanity too grievous to ignore.

Horrendous Palestinian victimization continues with no resolution of their suffering under brutalizing conditions, aiming to break their will to resist.

It hasn’t happened in over 70 years, over 53 years under apartheid occupation. Nor is it likely ahead.

Palestinians continue struggling for their soul to end decades ruthless/illegal Israeli occupation.

A Final Comment

On Sunday, the Jerusalem Post reported that Netanyahu and Gantz will meet again “on Wednesday evening in a last-ditch attempt to form a unity government,” adding:

A Likud spokesman said Sunday morning talks with Likud and B&W negotiating teams ended “without any progress.”

There’s little chance of agreement ahead because Netanyahu won’t bend on relinquishing his grip on Israel as prime minister.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Out of a global Jewish population of 14.8 million, over 54% do not, and presumably have no wish to live in the hard-Right, Likud-dominated, settler-controlled, extremist state that is today’s Israel.

These population figures, recently published in the American Jewish Year Book, are instructive because they prove that Netanyahu’s claims to speak for the worldwide Jewish Diaspora, are demonstrably false.

But that should not come as any surprise to us about a failed politician desperately trying to avoid prosecution for alleged bribery and corruption during his term in office as Prime Minister.

Many Jews around the world, in New York, London, Paris and other centres of Jewish life, find the Netanyahu political influence both in Israel and outside, a shocking example of racist, even Fascist, political ideology – and are acutely ashamed by his actions.

The reports of heavily-armed IDF soldiers shooting young Palestinian protesters dead at the Gaza border, are repulsive and appalling to many thousands of observers worldwide, both Jewish and Gentile, who believe in human and civil rights for everyone – even protesting Palestinian schoolchildren with their mothers and fathers.

These observers of Netanyahu’s politics know full well that in addition to flouting U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 that demands the repatriation of all illegal settlers in the Occupied Territories back to their homes in Israel, the continued blockade of essential goods against 1.8 million in Gaza is a shocking stain on the claimed democratic principles of the Israeli state under Netanyahu’s influence.  The sooner he is gone and a true democratic leader elected, the better will be the future for both Jew and Arab in the land of Palestine and within the international Holy City of Jerusalem.

We can but hope that the international community of nations will come to a consensus that will condemn the illegal settlements and annexations and take concrete steps to bring about a long overdue equity to the indigenous peoples of Palestine.

*

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

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Majority of Jews, 8 Million, Have No Wish to Live in a Conflicted Israel
  • Tags:

The most crucial aspects of the Trump-Ukraine “scandal,” which has led to impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, are not being told, even by Republicans.

Trump was very likely motivated by politics if he indeed withheld military aid to Ukraine in exchange for Kiev launching an investigation into Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden, though the transcript of the call released by the White House between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelinsky does not make certain such a quid-pro-quo.

But what’s not being talked about in the mainstream is the context of this story, which shows that, politics aside, Biden should indeed be investigated in both Ukraine and in the United States.

We know from the leaked, early 2014 telephone conversation between Victoria Nuland, then assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and Geoffrey Pyatt, then U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, that then Vice President Biden played a role in “midwifing” the U.S.-backed overthrow of an elected Ukrainian government soon after that conversation.

That’s the biggest crime in this story that isn’t being told. The illegal overthrow of a sovereign government.

As booty from the coup, the sitting vice president’s son, Hunter Biden, soon got a seat on the board of Ukraine’s biggest gas producer, Burisma Holdings. This can only be seen as a transparently neocolonial maneuver to take over a country and install one’s own people. But Biden’s son wasn’t the only one.

Image on the right: Left to right: Kerry, post-coup president Petro Poroshenko, Pyatt and Nuland, June 2014. (State Dept.)

A family friend of then Secretary of State John Kerry also joined Burisma’s board. U.S. agricultural giant Monsanto got a Ukrainian contract soon after the overthrow.  And the first, post-coup Ukrainian finance minister was an American citizen, a former State Department official, who was given Ukrainian citizenship the day before she took up the post.

After a Ukrainian prosecutor began looking into possible corruption at Burisma, Biden openly admitted at a conference last year that as vice president he withheld a $1 billion credit line to Ukraine until the government fired the prosecutor. As Biden says himself, it took only six hours for it to happen.

Exactly what Biden boasted of doing is what the Democrats are now accusing Trump of doing, and it isn’t clear if Trump got what he wanted as Biden did.

Threats, Bribes and Blackmail

That leads to another major part of this story not being told: the routine way the U.S. government conducts foreign policy: with bribes, threats and blackmail.

Trump may have withheld military aid to seek a probe into Biden, but it is hypocritically being framed by Democrats as an abuse of power out of the ordinary. But it is very much ordinary.

Examples abound. The threat of withholding foreign aid was wielded against nations on the UN Security Council in 1991 when the U.S. sought authorization for the First Gulf War. Yemen had the temerity to vote against. A member of the U.S. delegation told Yemen’s ambassador: “That’s the most expensive vote you ever cast.” The U.S. then cut $70 million in foreign aid to the Middle East’s poorest nation, and Saudi Arabia repatriated about a million Yemeni workers.

The same thing happened before the Second Gulf War in 2003, as revealed by whistleblower Katharine Gun (who will appear Friday night on CN Live!). Gun leaked an NSA memo that showed the U.S. sought help from its British counterpart in signals intelligence to spy on the missions of Security Council members to get “leverage” over them to influence their vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

In 2001 the U.S. threatened the end of military and foreign aid if nations did not conclude bilateral agreements granting immunity to U.S. troops before the International Criminal Court.

More recently, the U.S. used its muscle against Ecuador, including dangling a $10 billion IMF loan, in exchange for the expulsion of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from its London embassy.

This is how the U.S. conducts “diplomacy.”

As former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali wrote:

“Coming from a developing country, I was trained extensively in international law and diplomacy and mistakenly assumed that the great powers, especially the United States, also trained their representatives in diplomacy and accepted the value of it. But the Roman Empire had no need for diplomacy. Nor does the United States. Diplomacy is perceived by an imperial power as a waste of time and prestige and a sign of weakness.”

This fundamental corruption of U.S. foreign policy, which includes overthrowing elected governments, is matched only by the corruption of a political system that exalts partisan political power above all else. Exposing this deep-seated and longstanding corruption should take precedence over scoring partisan scalps, whether Biden’s or Trump’s.

*

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.

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Sunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at  [email protected] and followed on Twitter @unjoe .

Endless US War in Yemen

September 30th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Yemen is Washington’s war, ongoing for nearly 18 years, the heaviest fighting since March 2015. 

The Saudis are used as the main US strike force against the country and its long-suffering people, intermittently throughout the conflict, largely in most recent years.

The US, Britain and France are the kingdom’s main suppliers of heavy weapons, munitions, and other military assistance.

Israel is involved in the war. So are US, UK, and French special forces, operating in Yemen on the ground.

US drone war on the country has been ongoing throughout years of conflict, begun by Bush-Cheney.

According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Obama greatly escalated what his predecessor regime began, adding:

US drone wars in all its conflict theaters increased to an unprecedented level under Trump – notably in Yemen, a six-fold increase over 2016.

The UK-based human rights group Reprieve reported that illegal US drone wars expanded exponentially under Trump.

“(E)ven individuals not considered to pose a ‘continuing and imminent threat’ can be targeted for death without trial” under a secret US assassination program, the group reported – involving murder by drones, conventional warplanes, and/or special forces operations, as well as by proxy jihadist fighters.

The program was begun by Obama’s CIA chief John Brennan, a so-called “disposition matrix” or “kill list” — targeted assassinations continued by Trump.

According to Reprieve,

“(t)he CIA’s own leaked documents concede that the US often does not know who it is killing, and that militant leaders’ account for just 2% of drone-related deaths.”

The vast majority of victims are defenseless civilians in harm’s way — in Yemen, Syria, and other US war theaters.

Note: Trump earlier banned disclosure of civilian deaths by US drone terror-bombings.

Resolution of conflicts in all US war theaters are unattainable because bipartisan hardliners in Washington reject restoration of peace and stability in targeted countries.

In Yemen, Ansarullah Houthis proved they’re a formidable fighting force, using sophisticated weapons and munitions, combatting Saudi aggression in self-defense.

Their explosive-laden drones and missiles struck strategic targets deep into kingdom territory numerous times, key infrastructure targets hit.

The September 14 attack on the Saudi’s Abqaiq refinery (the world’s largest) and Khurais oil field was the latest example of its capabilities, more major strikes vowed if Saudi aggression continues.

Not a shred of credible evidence suggests Iran was involved in striking key Saudi oil facilities this month or other attacks on kingdom territory — nor Persian Gulf, Hormuz Strait and Sea of Oman incidents it was falsely accused of.

Intermittently throughout years of fighting, ceasefires were proposed and breached by the Saudis and its coalition partners.

Washington calls the shots in Yemen. Riyadh most likely wants out of the conflict because of its enormous cost and significant damage to kingdom infrastructure — its oil facilities vulnerable to further Houthi strikes.

Earlier this month, the Houthis again proposed a halt in fighting. Riyadh agreed rhetorically, then continued striking Yemeni targets.

On Thursday, Southfront reported the most recent ceasefire violations, Saudi warplanes terror-bombing the port city of Hudaidah and other areas.

On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Riyadh “agree(d) to a partial ceasefire in Yemen, say people familiar with the plans.”

The Journal falsely claimed the move followed what it called “the Houthis’ surprise declaration of a unilateral cease-fire in Yemen last week” — failing to explain numerous earlier Houthi overtures to halt fighting rejected by the Saudis because of US pressure for conflict to continue.

Houthis are justifiably dubious about the latest Saudi-proposed halt in fighting, the movement’s co-leader Mohammed Ali al-Houthi saying:

“Yemen will only accept a comprehensive cessation of aggression and lifting of the siege”— by the US, Riyadh and their imperial partners.

“Houthi officials said Friday that the Saudi-led coalition had recently carried out more than two dozen airstrikes in two of the four provinces where the truce is supposed to curtail attacks,” the Journal reported.

Partial ceasefires are especially deceptive — invitations to escalate fighting at the discretion of aggressor forces, unjustifiably justified by invented pretexts, a US specialty.

Is restoration of peace and stability in Yemen more likely now than earlier?

As long as hardliners in Washington want war, ending it is off the table.

If Riyadh halts its involvement, US drone war will surely continue as long as Houthis control most or all Yemeni territory — elements Washington doesn’t control.

Both right wings of the US war party want pro-Western puppet rule installed in Yemen.

They’re intolerant of sovereign independent Houthi rule, elements not bending to their will, why prospects for conflict resolution are dim.

*

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 Yemen Press

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Endless US War in Yemen

The Disaster of Negative Interest Rates

September 30th, 2019 by Ellen Brown

President Trump wants negative interest rates, but they would be disastrous for the U.S. economy, and his objectives can be better achieved by other means.

The dollar strengthened against the euro in August, merely in anticipation of the European Central Bank slashing its key interest rate further into negative territory. Investors were fleeing into the dollar, prompting President Trump to tweet on Aug. 30:

The Euro is dropping against the Dollar “like crazy,” giving them a big export and manufacturing advantage… And the Fed does NOTHING!

When the ECB cut its key rate as anticipated, from a negative 0.4% to a negative 0.5%, the president tweeted on Sept. 11:

The Federal Reserve should get our interest rates down to ZERO, or less, and we should then start to refinance our debt. INTEREST COST COULD BE BROUGHT WAY DOWN, while at the same time substantially lengthening the term.

And on Sept. 12 he tweeted:

European Central Bank, acting quickly, Cuts Rates 10 Basis Points. They are trying, and succeeding, in depreciating the Euro against the VERY strong Dollar, hurting U.S. exports…. And the Fed sits, and sits, and sits. They get paid to borrow money, while we are paying interest!

However, negative interest rates have not been shown to stimulate the economies that have tried them, and they would wreak havoc on the U.S. economy, for reasons unique to the U.S. dollar. The ECB has not gone to negative interest rates to gain an export advantage. It is to keep the European Union from falling apart, something that could happen if the United Kingdom does indeed pull out and Italy follows suit, as it has threatened to do. If what Trump wants is cheap borrowing rates for the U.S. federal government, there is a safer and easier way to get them.

The Real Reason the ECB Has Gone to Negative Interest Rates

Why the ECB has gone negative was nailed by Wolf Richter in a Sept. 18 article on WolfStreet.com. After noting that negative interest rates have not proved to be beneficial for any economy in which they are currently in operation and have had seriously destructive side effects for the people and the banks, he said:

However, negative interest rates as follow-up and addition to massive QE were effective in keeping the Eurozone glued together because they allowed countries to stay afloat that cannot, but would need to, print their own money to stay afloat. They did so by making funding plentiful and nearly free, or free, or more than free.

This includes Italian government debt, which has a negative yield through three-year maturities. … The ECB’s latest rate cut, minuscule and controversial as it was, was designed to help out Italy further so it wouldn’t have to abandon the euro and break out of the Eurozone.

The U.S. doesn’t need negative interest rates to stay glued together. It can print its own money.

EU member governments have lost the sovereign power to issue their own money or borrow money issued by their own central banks. The failed EU experiment was a monetarist attempt to maintain a fixed money supply, as if the euro were a commodity in limited supply like gold. The central banks of member countries do not have the power to bail out their governments or their failing local banks as the Fed did for U.S. banks with massive quantitative easing after the 2008 financial crisis. Before the Eurozone debt crisis of 2011-12, even the European Central Bank was forbidden to buy sovereign debt.

The rules changed after Greece and other southern European countries got into serious trouble, sending bond yields (nominal interest rates) through the roof.  But default or debt restructuring was not considered an option; and in 2016, new EU rules required a “bail in” before a government could bail out its failing banks. When a bank ran into trouble, existing stakeholders–including shareholders, junior creditors and sometimes even senior creditors and depositors with deposits in excess of the guaranteed amount of €100,000–were required to take a loss before public funds could be used. The Italian government got a taste of the potential backlash when it forced losses onto the bondholders of four small banks. One victim made headlines when he hung himself and left a note blaming his bank, which had taken his entire €100,000 savings.

Meanwhile, the bail-in scheme that was supposed to shift bank losses from governments to bank creditors and depositors served instead to scare off depositors and investors, making shaky banks even shakier. Worse, heightened capital requirements made it practically impossible for Italian banks to raise capital. Rather than flirt with another bail-in disaster, Italy was ready either to flaunt EU rules or leave the Union.

The ECB finally got on the quantitative easing bandwagon and started buying government debt along with other financial assets. By buying debt at negative interest, it is not only relieving EU governments of their interest burden, it is slowly extinguishing the debt itself.

That explains the ECB, but why are investors buying these bonds? According to John Ainger in Bloomberg:

Investors are willing to pay a premium–and ultimately take a loss–because they need the reliability and liquidity that the government and high-quality corporate bonds provide. Large investors such as pension funds, insurers, and financial institutions may have few other safe places to store their wealth.

In short, they are captive buyers. Banks are required to hold government securities or other “high-quality liquid assets” under capital rules imposed by the Financial Stability Board in Switzerland. Since EU banks now must pay the ECB to hold their bank reserves, they may as well hold negative-yielding sovereign debt, which they may be able to sell at a profit if rates drop even further.

Wolf Richter comments:

Investors who buy these bonds hope that central banks will take them off their hands at even lower yields (and higher prices). No one is buying a negative yielding long-term bond to hold it to maturity.

Well, I say that, but these are professional money managers who buy such instruments, or who have to buy them due to their asset allocation and fiduciary requirements, and they don’t really care. It’s other people’s money, and they’re going to change jobs or get promoted or start a restaurant or something, and they’re out of there in a couple of years. Après moi le déluge.

Why the U.S. Can’t Go Negative, and What It Can Do Instead

The U.S. doesn’t need negative interest rates, because it doesn’t have the EU’s problems but it does have other problems unique to the U.S. dollar that could spell disaster if negative rates were enforced.

First is the massive market for money market funds, which are more important to daily market functioning in the U.S. than in Europe and Japan. If interest rates go negative, the funds could see large-scale outflows, which could disrupt short-term funding for businesses, banks and perhaps even the Treasury. Consumers could also face new charges to make up for bank losses.

Second, the U.S. dollar is inextricably tied up with the market for interest rate derivatives, which is currently valued at over $500 trillion. As proprietary analyst Rob Kirby explains, the economy would crash if interest rates went negative, because the banks holding the fixed-rate side of the swaps would have to pay the floating-rate side as well. The derivatives market would go down like a stack of dominoes and take the U.S. economy with it.

Perhaps in tacit acknowledgment of those problems, Fed Chairman Jay Powell responded to a question about negative interest rates on Sept. 18:

Negative interest rates [are] something that we looked at during the financial crisis and chose not to do. After we got to the effective lower bound [near-zero effective federal funds rate], we chose to do a lot of aggressive forward guidance and also large-scale asset purchases. …

And if we were to find ourselves at some future date again at the effective lower bound–not something we are expecting–then I think we would look at using large-scale asset purchases and forward guidance.

I do not think we’d be looking at using negative rates.

Assuming the large-scale asset purchases made at some future date were of federal securities, the federal government would be financing its debt virtually interest-free, since the Fed returns its profits to the Treasury after deducting its costs. And if the bonds were rolled over when due and held by the Fed indefinitely, the money could be had not only interest-free but debt-free. That is not radical theory but is what is actually happening with the Fed’s bond purchases in its earlier QE. When it tried to unwind those purchases last fall, the result was a stock market crisis. The Fed is learning that QE is a one-way street.

The problem under existing law is that neither the president nor Congress has control over whether the “independent” Fed buys federal securities. But if Trump can’t get Powell to agree over lunch to these arrangements, Congress could amend the Federal Reserve Act to require the Fed to work with Congress to coordinate fiscal and monetary policy. This is what Japan’s banking law requires, and it has been very successful under Prime Minister Shinzō Abe and “Abenomics.” It is also what a team of former central bankers led by Philipp Hildebrand proposed in conjunction with last month’s Jackson Hole meeting of central bankers, after acknowledging the central bankers’ usual tools weren’t working. Under their proposal, central bank technocrats would be in charge of allocating the funds, but better would be the Japanese model, which leaves the federal government in control of allocating fiscal policy funds.

The Bank of Japan now holds nearly half of Japan’s federal debt, a radical move that has not triggered hyperinflation as monetarist economists direly predicted. In fact, the Bank of Japan can’t get the country’s inflation rate even to its modest 2 percent target. As of August, the rate was an extremely low 0.3%. If the Fed were to follow suit and buy 50% of the U.S. government’s debt, the Treasury could swell its coffers by $11 trillion in interest-free money. And if the Fed kept rolling over the debt, Congress and the president could get this $11 trillion not only interest-free but debt-free. President Trump can’t get a better deal than that.

*

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

This article was first posted on Truthdig.com.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of DebtThe Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age.  She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, manufacturer of the Reaper drone, has recently been awarded a US Air Force contract to demonstrate the  ‘Agile Condor’ artificial intelligence system with the MQ-9 Reaper drone.  According to General Atomics President David R. Alexander,

a“The Agile Condor project will further enhance RPA [remotely piloted aircraft] effectiveness by specifically allowing a MQ-9 to surveil a large area of operations, autonomously identify pre-defined targets of interest and transmit their locations.”

This type of capability represents a tangible step further towards the development of autonomous weaponised drones able to operate without human input – flying killer robots, in other words.  From identifying targets without the need for a human decision to destroying those targets is a very small step which could be achieved with existing technology.

The Agile Condor system is intended to send information back to a human analyst. There’s no intention for it to be used in an autonomous mode, and current US military policy on autonomous weapons is that there should always be ’appropriate levels of human judgement’ over the use of force.  However, there is no guarantee of such a restrained approach to autonomous weapons in the future, by the US or any other nation (or indeed by an non-state group). The danger is, as we detail in  our report on the development of autonomous military drone (see below), lethal autonomous weapons (LAWS) are likely to develop though step-by-step upgrades in technological capability.

Agile Condor is a high-performance computing system which uses AI techniques to enable on-board processing of large quantities of data from the drone’s sensors – for example video footage, synthetic aperture radar imagery, or infra-red camera imagery.  The system is mounted in a pod which can be fitted to the drone, and has been designed for installation in a variety of configurations including sea-based, ground based, and fixed-site weapon systems as well as on aircraft.

The demonstration flights which General Atomics will be undertaking will be used to experiment with the Agile Condor system to optimise AI and machine learning techniques for finding, identifying, and tracking targets.  It’s possible that they will include ‘training’ of the AI system to identify potential targets, with human operators confirming whether the computer has made a correct decision in order to refine and improve its performance.

In due course the Air Force Research Lab anticipates using the system to enable real-time processing of data during intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions.  A video (below) prepared by SRC Corporation, which manufactures the Agile Condor pod, shows a drone using AI processing to identify an insurgent who is preparing to attack a military convoy.  An alert is sent to a ground commander, and as a result of the signal the convoy is diverted; the insurgent surrenders; and everyone lives happily ever after.

AI technology of this type enables thousands of hours of video footage to be processed autonomously – only targets of potential interest would be flagged up to commanders.  Another benefit of the on-board processing capability is expected to be a dramatic reduction in the satellite bandwidth needed to pass data between the drone and the ground.  With much of the work of handling and analysing data from the drone’s sensors conducted on board the aircraft, far less information would need to be transmitted to the ground station, reducing the costs of satellite capacity.

Hans Vreeland, a former targeting officer in the US Marines, has written recently about how AI can transform intelligence analysis when used alongside existing hardware and sensor capabilities.  According to Vreeland: “Currently, both information collection and processing are manual, labor-intensive endeavors. AI can relieve human operators of much of that burden, performing the same tasks better and faster.”

Vreeland is enthusiastic about the potential of AI systems such as Agile Condor which can analyse data from sensors and flag up situations of potential concern.  “If we had autonomous drones programmed to search specified areas and identify activity by fusing several sensor inputs”, he writes, “and if we had had the ability to process the information at the edge with Project Maven  [a US military project to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to process drone video footage], it would be difficult to overstate the increase in the amount of activity that we could have collected and analyzed”.

Vreeland is one of a long, long line of writers arguing that technology will make war better. “AI has paradigm-shifting potential to be a force-multiplier, provide better information to commanders, and quicken the operational tempo,” says Vreeland. “In other words, it will provide more better outcomes faster, a recipe for success in combat”.

Adding new capabilities to an existing platform is not a novel step for the military.  The history of the Predator drone shows that drones have evolved in incremental steps to incorporate new technology and undertake new missions.  The RQ-1 Predator entered service with the US military and was used for unarmed reconnaissance operations over the former Yugoslavia from 1995 onwards.   The role of the Predator first began to extend into combat operations when the drone was fitted with a laser designator, allowing it to illuminate targets for guided missiles fired from conventional aircraft.  In 2001 the drone was modified to fire Hellfire missiles, enabling it to undertake armed strikes on its own.  The MQ-9 Reaper, a larger version of the Predator which entered service in 2007, can now be fitted with a much broader range of weapons than the RQ-1.  General Atomics is continuing to make improvements to the MQ-9 and increase its range of automated features as it remains in service.

As we have shown in our ‘Off The Leash’ study into the development of autonomous drones, killer robots are likely to evolve in a similar manner, through small, step-by-step upgrades in technological capability.  The extent to which increased autonomy might raise concerns will depend upon the level of human control over ‘critical functions’ required to select and attack targets.  Intelligence gathering and analysis is on the borderline of being a critical function: in itself, it is a non-lethal function, but on the other hand it is an essential part of the process of identifying and tracking a target.

The Agile Condor modification to the Reaper crosses a line.  It is an important enabling technology which could allow a decision on lethal strikes to be taken by the drone itself, with no human intervention, and is a significant step towards the development of an autonomous weapon system.  To control and prevent the development of such ‘killer robots’, we need to rapidly develop an international legal instrument to prevent the development, acquisition, deployment, and use of fully autonomous weapons and ensure that humans are always in control of lethal force decisions.

Before it’s too late.

*

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

The world’s biggest supplier of burgers has been fuelling the destruction of the Amazon rainforest by sourcing cattle from ranches linked to deforestation – and British companies are still buying thousands of tonnes of its beef.

Marfrig, a Brazilian meat company that has supplied McDonald’s, Burger King and other huge fast food chains around the world, bought cattle from a farm using deforested land in a part of the Amazon currently ravaged by forest fires. One of the key causes of those fires is farmers clearing land for eventual beef pasture.

The company boasts of its green credentials and recently offered $500m in bonds aimed at environmentally conscious investors. Marfrig claims that none of the cattle it buys come from farms involved in deforestation and that it is the only beef company that can guarantee this.

Yet research by Repórter Brasil, working with the Bureau and the Guardian, traced cattle that the company purchased this year back to a farm that had grazed cows in an area of illegally felled rainforest.

Our investigation has also revealed the full extent of the UK’s involvement in the Amazon crisis. Nearly £1bn worth of beef supplied by Marfrig and two other meat giants which have been accused of deforestation — Minerva Foods and JBS — was directly imported to the UK in recent years.

Unprecedented research to be published today claims that the supply chains for exported beef from these three companies are between them linked to up to 500 square kilometres of deforestation every year.

Responding to our findings, Neil Parish, MP, chair of the Commons environment, food and rural affairs select committee, said:

“This investigation shows the importance of supply-chain transparency, from farm to fork. We must think more carefully about the environmental impact of food and the greater degree of control we have with British made products. I’m sure British consumers will not want to be contributing to deforestation in the Amazon.”

Bill McKibben, the veteran environmental campaigner, told the Bureau:

“It’s hard to know what’s worse — companies that don’t acknowledge our environmental crisis at all, or those that … do so and then don’t live up to the promises they make.”

In January, inspectors from Ibama, Brazil’s environmental watchdog, found cattle from Limeira Ranch grazing on illegally deforested land inside a protected region, the Triunfo do Xingu Environmental Protection Area in Pará state. The region has been devastated by the largest number of forest fires in Brazil this year.

The land where the cattle were found had been placed under an official embargo — which prohibits grazing — three years before, due to illegal felling. Embargoes are imposed for environmental violations and serve both as a punishment and protective measure to allow land to recover.

For breaking the embargo, the ranch was fined R$ 1.19m ($300,000) this year. Despite this, documents obtained by Repórter Brasil show that 144 cattle from Limeira Ranch were subsequently supplied to a Marfrig abattoir in Tucumã, also in Pará. The company also bought cattle from the ranch on multiple occasions in late 2018. There is no evidence that the cattle Marfrig purchased were raised on illegally deforested land.

In response, Marfrig did not dispute that the ranch had broken an embargo at the time of the purchase, but said that official checks it carried out using Ibama data at the time had given the ranch the all-clear.

A spokeswoman for Marfrig said:

“Ibama issued a negative certificate assuring that on that date nothing was against the supplier … That’s the only way companies — not just Marfrig — can look for official information in real time.”

The company added that it had stopped buying from the ranch as soon as it learnt of the fine. According to documents seen by the Bureau, Ibama had publicly listed the fine on its website two weeks before the cattle purchase.

Ten years ago Marfrig committed “not to purchase any livestock originating from deforested or conservation areas”, and said in 2017 that it was tightening up its protocols for cattle purchases, adopting a system that “blocks, rather than permits, cattle purchases in the case of any doubts”.

This July Marfrig launched a controversial “transition” bond designed to tap into the growing sustainable investment market. Like “green bonds”, which allow environmentally friendly firms to raise cash, bankers have designed transition bonds for companies with the potential to clean up their practices to fund that change.

However, there is no single definition of a “sustainable transition”. Experts have suggested that the absence of minimum standards could leave the bonds open to exploitation by greenwashers – businesses seeking to exaggerate their environmental commitments.

Joshua Kendall, senior environmental analyst at Insight Investment, said that while the Marfrig bond showed credible sustainable objectives and a commitment to improvement, he had not invested. In his opinion,

“it doesn’t go far enough beyond ‘business as usual’ spending. It also lacks indicators that would give us a sense of whether or not it has made improvements,” he said.

Limeira Ranch is not the only deforestation case that can be linked to Marfrig. According to new figures from Trase — a supply-chain initiative run by the Stockholm Environment Institute and NGO Global Canopy — Marfrig’s beef exports could be linked to up to 100 square kilometres of deforestation a year in Brazil.

Trase also calculated figures for JBS, the world’s biggest meat company, and Minerva Foods, another large global supplier of Brazilian beef. JBS beef exports could be linked to up to 300 square kilometres of deforestation per year, and Minerva Foods linked to up to 100 square kilometres, the research says.

JBS and Minerva both said they did not buy cattle from farms in deforested areas and that they had systems in place to block non-compliant suppliers.

The Trace research mapped supply chains for beef from international markets back to the specific areas of Brazil where the cattle were raised. By cross-referencing these chains with official data on new pastures, deforestation and cattle numbers, the researchers calculated a potential deforestation “risk” — presented as an area in sq km — associated with companies and even specific international markets.

Overall, up to 5,800 sq km of forest — an area four times the size of Greater London — is being felled in the Amazon and other areas annually to be converted into pasture used for cattle farming, according to the Trase report.

How it ends up on your plate

The Bureau has established that Marfrig, along with Minerva Foods and JBS and their subsidiaries, has shipped at least 147,000 tonnes of beef to the UK in the past five years – enough to make 170m burgers a year.

That much meat is worth £1bn. Much of it was canned corned beef destined for supermarkets and other retailers, as well as frozen meat imported for wholesalers and manufacturers.

From there it could end up in hospital dinners, ready meals and fast food, through a chain of little-known catering and food production companies. The Bureau has identified several of these chains, including one that ends with the Ministry of Defence.

Brazilian canned beef from Marfrig or JBS has been found by the NGO Earthsight at Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, Aldi, Lidl and Asda. The Bureau has also found JBS-produced canned beef at the Co-op. That can was marked with a stamp showing the beef had come from Brazil.

But the link is not always so clear, and it can be impossible for consumers to always know if their food is from companies linked to the destruction of the Amazon. JBS canned beef is also sold to NHS Supply Chain, which manages the sourcing and supply of food across the health service, including at hospital trusts.

Weddel Swift, part of the Randall Parker Food group, is hardly a household name, but it supplies meat products to caterers, wholesalers and retailers. The company has bought £30m worth of Brazilian beef since 2015 from Minerva. The group told the Bureau that only 1.5% of its sales had come from Brazil and that it has only imported £240,000 worth of beef this year. Weddel Swift also said it believes Minerva is a responsible beef producer.

Earthsight discovered that beef from Minerva was being supplied to the Ministry of Defence, but the department could also be feeding soldiers JBS beef as well. Vestey Foods, which holds the catering contract for Armed Forces personnel on active deployment in the UK, buys Brazilian beef from JBS.

The MoD said it did not directly contract with Minerva or JBS, and added that it was working with suppliers “to address any concerns surrounding the recent link between sourcing beef from Brazil and deforestation.”

It is impossible to trace specific cans of Brazilian corned beef or a supermarket cottage pie directly back to fields burned out of the Amazon rainforest. Many retailers insist their supply chains contain only sustainable beef, but continue to bolster the profits of businesses which have been linked to deforestation.

Toby Gardner, the Trase director, said that all those involved in the Brazilian beef chain needed to act:

“Buyers, whether traders, processors, retailers, need to demand and invest in transparency systems that can guarantee they are sourcing from areas that have not been recently deforested, whilst at the same time working to support producers’ shift to more sustainable and at the same time more productive systems.”

In a statement to the Bureau, Minerva Foods said:

“100% of Minerva’s purchases come from zero-deforestation areas … Our sustainability department blocks any suppliers that are not compliant … which effectively means that Minerva can’t buy any animals coming from these suppliers.”

The company also said all of its cattle procurements were completed after checks on the supplier ranches using public government databases on embargoed areas. It said it has blocked more than 2,000 cattle suppliers who were found not to be in compliance with standards.

JBS told us:

“We have a zero deforestation policy in the Amazon and prohibit cattle from deforested farms in the region from entering our supply chain … To date, more than 7,000 potential suppliers have been blocked from our system.”

They added that a recent audit found 100% of their cattle purchases were in compliance with their responsible sourcing policies.

Responding to the findings on behalf of supermarkets Aldi, Sainsbury’s, Asda and The Co-op, Leah Riley Brown, of the British Retail Consortium, said:

“Illegal deforestation is completely unacceptable, and retailers are collaborating to tackle deforestation and drive greater uptake of certified sustainable products in their supply chains.”

Burger King said:

“Our goal is to eliminate deforestation within our global supply chain, and we are working toward this” and that all their suppliers were required to comply with their sustainability and forest protection policies.

McDonald’s said it aimed to eliminate deforestation from its global supply chains by 2030 and that it had “made a commitment not to purchase raw material from any farm in the Amazon … linked with deforestation”.

NHS Supply Chain said:

“We are committed to procuring products responsibly and sustainably and actively work with our suppliers on important issues such as sustainability.”

*

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

Andrew is an award-winning investigative journalist specialising in food and farming issues.

Alexandra Heal joined the Bureau in 2018 after completing an MA in Investigative Journalism at City University in London.

André Campos is a Brazilian journalist specialising in supply chain investigations linked to human rights and environmental crimes

Featured image is from Peakpx

Video: Failures of the IPCC “Scientific Climate Team”

September 29th, 2019 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Failures of the IPCC “Scientific Climate Team”

First published on January 31, 2014

Today a good deal of what qualifies as propaganda is much more subtle than overt. When an entire civilization or way of life is to be significantly altered the tried-and-true method of “repeating a lie until it becomes truth” needs to be done over a period of many years and in a multitude of varying ways to take hold and change the very assumptions and beliefs of a people.

This process is especially vital for reaching a given society’s more elite demographic—the opinion leaders who perceive themselves as “smarter than the average bear” and thus impervious to simple appeals and indoctrination.

A case in point is the agenda backed by powerful global elites and recognizable under names such as “climate change” and “sustainability.” The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, released on September 27, 2013, came replete with an assemblage of legitimizing features along these lines (“scientific,” “scholarly,” “authoritative,” “peer reviewed,”). Also termed the “Climate Bible,” journalists and policymakers alike regard it as “authoritative” and “the gold standard” of climate science. The public is told that the official body’s findings are now clearer than ever: “human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”[1]

Among the most vociferous agitators for the IPCC’s climate change orthodoxy are the foundation-funded, tax-exempt, progressive-left media that sit alongside the bevy of similarly tax-exempt, foundation-funded environmental organizations that together uphold and publicize the theory of CO2-based anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change (ACC).[2] Self-professed as “independent,” “investigative,” even “educational,” the so-called “alternative media” turn a blind eye to seriously scrutinizing the highly questionable IPCC’s “scientific” review of the climatological literature and its implications for the array of ambitious programs and policies stealthily introduced throughout the industrialized world, many of which are seldom subject to popular plebiscite. Think “smart grid” and “smart growth.”

Logical questions from such apparently independent organs might include, “How does the IPCC produce its findings?” and “Who benefits?” Instead, there is an almost knee-jerk response on behalf of progressive-left editors and readerships to trust and support the UN group’s purportedly objective and meticulous review of the peer-reviewed climatological literature.

Between August and December 2013 such progressive outlets published dozens of articles and commentaries whole-heartedly touting the IPCC report. For example, Truthout.org posted 25 articles, Alternet.org ran 40, MotherJones.com circulated 38, and DemocracyNow.org featured 11.

These were often presented with bleak headlines accenting the urgent appeals found in the IPCC publicity. For example, “International Scientists Warn Climate Deniers Are Enabling Earth’s Suicide” (Truthout, 9/13/13), “6 Scary Conclusions in the UN’s New Climate Report” (Mother Jones, 9/27/13), “Greenhouse Gas in Atmosphere Hits New Record: UN,” (Alternet, 11/1/13), and “’Africa is Being Pushed Closer to the Fire’: Africans Say Continent Can’t Wait for Climate Action” (Democracy Now! 11/22/13).

Uncritical advocacy of the IPCC’s anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming extended beyond headlines to media criticism. In December, for example, the progressive Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) observed that corporate controlled network newscasts routinely failed to link “extreme weather” to “global warming.” “In the first nine months of 2013,” FAIR observes,

there were 450 segments of 200 words or more that covered extreme weather: flooding, forest fires, tornadoes, blizzards, hurricanes and heat waves. But of that total, just a tiny fraction–16 segments, or 4 percent of the total–so much as mentioned the words “climate change,” “global warming” or “greenhouse gases.[3]

What is left unmentioned is that fact that all of these “extreme weather” incidents have one common denominator that FAIR and corporate and progressive media alike consistently overlook: the sun. As University of Winnipeg climatologist Dr. Tim Ball explains (here at 35:00), the IPCC’s “terms of reference” through which the body proceeds to generate its findings exclude the sun and its many demonstrable atmospheric effects as factors in the warming and cooling of the earth’s climate. It is thus no wonder that at best fringe or nonexistent causes of “climate change”–such as minuscule alterations in atmospheric gases–are pointed to with great alarm by the IPCC and its proponents.

Despite far more unambiguous and compelling scientific explanations the notion that “carbon emissions” are the foremost cause of natural climactic events has become something of a religion, and this is especially the case on the progressive-left, where adherents mechanically accept the curious agenda and its ostensibly “scientific” basis while vehemently condemning non-believers as “climate deniers.”

As Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise has documented in her important 2011 exposé, the IPCC’s scholarly personnel is in fact heavily weighted toward what are often third-or-fourth-rate scientific talent whose eco-political stances are strictly in accord with the IPCC’s “research” agenda pushing anthropogenic climate change. IPCC authors often include climatology graduate students and even environmental activists from organizations such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund—indeed, figures with little-if-any scientific training but with clear agendas to promote.

LaFramboise further found that one third of the literature reviewed and cited by the IPCC in its 2007 report was–contrary to IPCC chief publicist Ragendra Pachauri’s pronouncements–not even peer-reviewed, and in many cases included citations of promotional literature devised and distributed by environmental activist organizations.

These unethical and compromising relationships are not difficult to explain if one is to recognize the IPCC for what it in fact is—a powerful political organization with the overarching objective of manufacturing consent and achieving transnational policy harmonization around the largely discursive construct of anthropogenic carbon-centric climate change.

The fact that the IPCC is capable of forthrightly carrying out one of the greatest scientific frauds in human history, setting long range governmental policies while enlisting allegedly intellectual sophisticates and “progressive” news media as its most devoted foot soldiers, is no small-scale feat. It is, rather, an immense achievement in modern propaganda and thought control that only hints at the powerful forces behind a much more far-reaching agenda.

Notes

[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Human Influence on Climate Clear: IPCC Says,” Geneva Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization. The notion of “a 97% consensus” has itself become a common mantra for climate change fear mongering and grounds for labeling someone a “climate denier.” Yet there is limited evidence of any such consensus concerning ACC among climatologists. The oft-cited 2009 American Geophysical Union survey alleging a 98% consensus among scientists on ACC cannot sustain even modest scrutiny. See Larry Bell, “That Scientific Global Warming Consensus … Not!” Forbes.com, July 7, 2012. Another study held up as “proof” of scientific consensus, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” asserts only carefully qualified claims along these lines. “A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself,” the authors point out, “the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.” The brief paper assesses “an extensive data set of 1,372 climate researchers” to conclude that the scientific expertise and prominence of those who accept the IPCC’s ACC tenets surpass those who remain “unconvinced.” This begs the question, To what degree are the requisites of foundation funding related to espousing IPCC/ACC opinion? William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2010.

[2] James F. Tracy, “The Forces Behind Carbon-Centric Environmentalism,” Global Research, November 12, 2013.

[3] “TV News and Extreme Weather: Don’t Mention Climate Change,” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, December 18, 2013. It might be added that corporate media and progressive-left counterparts uniformly fail to consider other possible causes of such unusual weather events, such as geoengineering and similar “environmental modification techniques” acknowledged by the US military and undertaken in many industrialized countries. See, for example, Michel Chossudovsky, “Climate Change, Geoengineering, and Environmental Modification Techniques,” Global Research, November 24, 2013.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Climate Change and the Magnificent Achievements of Eco-Propaganda

Selected Articles: Trump’s Impeachment

September 29th, 2019 by Global Research News

In spite of online censorship efforts directed against the independent media, we are happy to say that readership on globalresearch.ca has recently increased. We wish to thank all of you who share our articles far and wide.

We cover a diversity of key issues you would be hard pressed to find on any other single online news source. This is truly independent news and analysis, a dying breed.

Our costs have increased and our revenue has gone down over the past year. We are running a monthly deficit. Help us keep the independent voice alive by becoming a member or making a donation today!

*     *     *

Annals of Impeachment: From Nixon’s “Smoking Gun” Tape to Trump Zelensky Summary

By Juan Cole, September 29, 2019

Trump went on to withhold $250 million in military aid from Ukraine, which Congress appropriated, and many suspect the suspension of aid was a way of pressuring Zelensky to look into Hunter Biden.

Annexation of Kashmir: Pakistan Just Warned the World About the 21st Century’s Munich Moment

By Andrew Korybko, September 29, 2019

Pakistani Prime Minister Khan warned the world that India’s annexation of Kashmir is akin to Nazi Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland and might even lead to a nuclear war if New Delhi proceeds to follow in the Fuhrer’s footsteps and attack its neighbor.

Greta Thunberg and Big-Biz’ Climate Charade

By Tony Cartalucci, September 29, 2019

Just like the “war on terror” was a fraudulent campaign aimed at very real terrorists – Greta Thunberg’s “Fridays for Future” climate movement is a fraudulent campaign aimed at the very real environmental damage being done around us.

The Climate Action Summit Fiasco

By Dr. Arshad M. Khan, September 29, 2019

No one could fail to be touched by the fear (for the future) and urgency in Greta Thunberg’s young voice as she broke down while addressing world leaders on the last day of the UN Climate Summit.  The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Special Report on the oceans showed a worse prognosis, the patient is clearly worse.

Green New Deal and the Climate Movement. Trojan Horses for the Billionaire Class?

By Michael Welch, Naomi Wolf, and Cory Morningstar, September 29, 2019

During the week from September 20-27th, an estimated 6 million people in thousands of towns and cities around the world, took part in “climate strikes” intended to spur world leaders into action around the mitigation of climate change.

Syria

Turkey Gives the US a Deadline in Syrian ‘Safe-zone’

By Steven Sahiounie, September 27, 2019

hile most of Syria struggles to recover from 8 years of bloody conflict, Idlib is left as the last hot-spot.  The population in Idlib today includes foreign terrorists following the tenets of Al Qaeda.  The terrorists have wives and children, and while they may be seen as innocent, they remind us of the ISIS wives and children now in the Al Hol “concentration camp”, who is seen to be the seeds of the next ISIS resurgence.

5G Cell Phone Transmission Across Poland: Prime Minister Morawiecki Did not Sign the Global 5G Appeal

By Julian Rose, September 27, 2019

This week, according to the parliamentary schedule, Mateusz Morawiecki will lead his government into presenting a new Act that will annul the existing law on ‘acceptable levels’ of Electro Magnetic Frequencies (EMF) in order to introduce microwave frequency transmission levels 10 to 100 times more intense than current levels.

*

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 Disney-ABC Television Group/flickr/cc

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Trump’s Impeachment

On August 5, 1974, Nixon was forced by the Supreme Court to release the smoking gun tape in which he and his chief of staff H. R. Haldemann had a conversation, in the course of which Nixon could be heard acknowledging his knowledge of the burglary of the Democratic National Committee office files in the Watergate building and the bugging of those offices, and discussing ordering the CIA to lean on the FBI to stop its investigation of the break-in. This tape caused his support among a majority of Republicans in Congress to collapse, making it clear that he would be impeached, and so he resigned.

Nixon did not need to steal the DNC files (which he probably did order, but certainly tried to cover up)– he likely had been well-placed to win reelection. He was just so paranoid that he was sure that the Democrats were conspiring against him and he had to know how.Nixon tried to set in train a break-in at the liberal Brookings Institution and his aide Chuck Colson suggested they firebomb it so that its files could be stolen and it could be wiretapped. (The planned bombing did not take place. But when we used to chant against the “mad bomber in the White House,” we had no idea how right we were).

Nixon was a habitual crook, but he at least retained some notion of what normal people would think of him if they knew who he really was. He at least tried to cover it up.

Trump and his cronies are so far gone that they actually thought that staffers’ summary of his July conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky would exonerate him. Instead, it has so many Nixonian smoking guns that it single-handedly provoked a smog alert on Capitol Hill.

I edited down the summary a little, and it is clear that Trump began by holding out a carrot (how much we are doing for Ukraine), and then urged him to look into the (untrue conspiracy) theory that Hillary Clinton’s emails were on a server in Ukraine (“crowdstrike”).

Trump went on to withhold $250 million in military aid from Ukraine, which Congress appropriated, and many suspect the suspension of aid was a way of pressuring Zelensky to look into Hunter Biden.

And then Trump wanted to reignite the investigation of the Burisma Holdings natural gas company, on the board of which Hunter Biden served. That investigation had begun years before and went nowhere, and was shelved.

Trump and his fellow conspiracy theorists are convinced that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of prosecutor general Viktor Shokin because he was too energetically looking into Burisma and its CEO. It was the opposite. Shokin, despite his own protestations, was known to have dropped the ball on that and many other investigations, and the European Union, the IMF and the US all wanted him gone.

So Biden would have had to be trying to get Hunter’s company in trouble if he pushed out the do-nothing Shokin. Actually Burisma and Hunter were not the issue. Hunter himself was never under investigation, and the company had long since announced the end of the investigation and its willingness to repay any taxes it still was held to have owed. Biden wasn’t acting on his own behalf but rather was a messenger of the international community in pushing for Shokin’s ouster.

Rudy Giuliani was lobbying for the restart of the Burisma investigation before Zelensky was elected, last spring, and then tried to get his hooks into the new president. Giuliani thinks that Biden will be the Democratic standard-bearer, and that Trump can do to him what he did to Hillary Clinton by spinning crazy conspiracy theories that are amplified by Bob Mercer and Vladimir Putin’s St. Petersburg troll farms on social media, and which might tip the election to Trump.

Zelensky is a comedian and actor who starred in a popular TV show, playing the president of the Ukraine. So he is a neophyte (sort of like Trump) and perhaps easily manipulated.

Here’s the edited summary, which clearly shows that Trump solicited the interference of a foreign power in a US election (which is illegal) and that he held US aid over Zelensky’s head in exchange for a kind of oppo research, which is a form of buying a thing of value for the election and is also illegal.

A smoking gun.

*

UNCLASSIFIED

Declassified by order of the President
September 24, 2019

MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

SUBJECT: Telephone Conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine

PARTICIPANTS: President Zelenskyy of Ukraine

Notetakers: The White House Situation·Room

DATE, TIME July 25, 2019, 9:03 – 9:33 a.m. EDT
AND PLACE: Residence

The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific job. The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn’t given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It’s a fantastic achievement. Congratulations . . .

President Zelenskyy: [spelling error sic] Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.

The President: Well it’s very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you . . .

President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 100% . . .

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it, if that’s possible.

President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine . . .

The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.

President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all, I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.

The President: Well, she’s going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It’s a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people.

President Zelenskyy: I would like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States . . . I would like to thank you very much for your support.

The President: Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we’ll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.

President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you better . . .

The President: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time.

President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much Mr. President.

The President: Congratulations on a fantastic job you’ve done. The whole world was watching. I’m not sure it was so much of an upset but congratulations.

President Zelenskyy: Thank you Mr. President bye-bye.

— End of Conversation —

*

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 Informed Comment

Trump and Johnson’s populism have shaken the old Establishment, and raised some very interesting questions about who is and who is not nowadays inside the Establishment and a beneficiary of the protection of the liberal elite. Yesterday two startling examples in the news coverage cast a very lurid light on this question, and I ask you to consider the curious cases of Hunter Biden and Brendan Cox, two of the most undeserving and unpleasant people that can be imagined.

The BBC news bulletins led on the move to impeach Donald Trump for, as they put it, his efforts to get the President of Ukraine to undermine a political opponent. To be plain, I think Trump was quite wrong to get personally involved in this, but please park the entire subject of Donald Trump to one side for the next ten minutes.

What I find deeply reprehensible in all the BBC coverage is their failure to report the facts of the case, and their utter lack of curiosity about why Joe Biden’s son Hunter was paid $60,000 a month by Burisma, Ukraine’s largest natural gas producer, as an entirely absent non-executive director, when he had no relevant experience in Ukraine or gas, and very little business experience, having just been dishonorably discharged from the Navy Reserve for use of crack cocaine? Is that question not just little bit interesting? That may be the thin end of it – in 2014-15 Hunter Biden received US $850,000 from the intermediary company channeling the payments. In reporting on Trump being potentially impeached for asking about it, might you not expect some analysis – or at least mention – of what he was asking about?

As far as I am aware, the BBC have not reported at all the other thing Trump was asking Zelensky about – Crowdstrike. Regular readers will recall that Crowdstrike are the Clinton linked “cyber-security” company which provided the “forensic data” to the FBI on the alleged Russian hack of the DNC servers – data which has been analysed by my friend Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, who characterises it as showing speeds of transfer impossible by internet and indicating a download to an attached drive. The FBI were never allowed access to the actual DNC server – and never tried, taking the DNC’s consultants word for the contents, which itself is sufficient proof of the bias of the “investigation”.

Crowdstrike also made the claim that the same Russia hackers – “Fancy Bear” – who hacked the DNC, hacked Ukrainian artillery software causing devastating losses of Ukrainian artillery. This made large headlines at the time. What did not make any MSM headlines was the subsequent discovery that all of this never happened and the artillery losses were entirely fictitious. As Crowdstrike had claimed that it was the use of the same coding in the DNC hack as in the preceding (non-existent) Ukraine artillery hack, that proved Russia hacked the DNC, this is pretty significant. Trump was questioning Zelensky about rumours the “hacked” DNC server was hidden in the Ukraine by Crowdstrike. The media has no interest in reporting any of that at all.

It is plain in that case that Trump is the media’s villain and the Bidens, father and son, are therefore heroes being protected by the Establishment media. Now let us look at the case of Brendan Cox.

Boris Johnson’s behaviour in the Commons two nights ago was reprehensible. Watching the unrepentant and aggressive braying of the Tory MPs, I was genuinely concerned about the consequences for democracy should these empowered right wingers ever get a majority. Johnson has removed the social restraint which used to cloak their atavistic instincts.

This Tory display also very much reinforced what I have been saying for years, that we will not gain Scottish Independence through a repeat of 2014. We were allowed a referendum with only moderate cheating by the British state purely because they believed there was no chance we could win. They have been disabused. There will never be a Section 30 order an an agreed referendum again. We will have to seize Independence by means which the British state will deem unlawful. Anybody not prepared to do that is not serious about Independence.

I digress. Johnson’s behaviour is appalling and he is at an interesting stage where the Establishment and its media is unsure whether to embrace or repudiate him, the calculation depending on whether they think he will win, and on the impact of Brexit on their personal financial interests. But as with Trump, I ask you to set aside your judgement on Johnson and not think of him for a moment.

Yesterday BBC news programmes brought us repeated appearances of Brendan Cox to comment on Boris Johnson and other MP’s parliamentary behaviour. This Brendan Cox:

One such allegation was that Cox pinned a co-worker to a wall by her throat while telling her ‘I want to fuck you’. Cox left the organisation before being subjected to scrutiny on this and other allegations. However, another woman, a senior US official who met him at a Harvard University event, made similar allegations against him, ‘of grabbing her by the hips, pulling her hair, and forcing his thumb into her mouth’ ‘in a sexual way’. In contrast to Assange’s treatment, and despite a social-media furore, for nearly three years there was largely a media blackout on the story. At last, in February 2018, a right-wing tabloid broke the embargo and reported the allegations, and other news organisations had to follow suit. Finally, ‘Cox apologised for the “hurt and offence” caused by his past behaviour’ and announced he was withdrawing from public life.

I strongly recommend you to read that last linked article. Cox is very much on the wavelength of the Establishment media, a full member of the New Labour neo-liberal elite who shuttled between jobs in the Labour Party and in high paying neo-liberal propaganda organisation Save the Children. Cox was personally pocketing £106,000 a year plus expenses from donations to the “charity”. A serial unfaithful sexual aggressor, his wife’s murder sees him recast by the media as the grieving survivor of a perfect marriage. Precisely his strongest political supporters – Jess Phillips, Stella Creasy etc – are Julian Assange’s bitterest opponents due to far flimsier, hotly denied and less attested sexual allegations than those against Cox. But neo-liberals get a free pass from the modern feminist movement (cf Bill Clinton).

Boris Johnson’s behaviour was a dsgrace. But that is no reason for the BBC rehabilitation of the “retired from public life” sexual predator.

The fascinating thing is the binary, good versus evil, narrative which is being pursued in the liberal media. Trump and Johnson are bad. Therefore Hunter Biden and Brendan Cox must be good. The truth, of course, is much more complex than that. I am afraid to say that if you want an excessive simplification, a more accurate one would be that the entire political elite on all sides are self-serving and venal.

There is a more interesting story inside that, where significant portions of the public have lost respect for the Establishment, due in large part to the vast and increasing wealth gap in society, but this disillusion has been battened on by populist charlatans, and particularly directed against immigrants. This feels like an extremely unstable phase in society and politics. But instability brings the possibility of radical change, which is indeed much needed. We must all work for good from it.

*

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

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Heroes, Villains and Establishment Hypocrisy: Trump and Johnson Populism

Is Greece Becoming a Weaponized Anti-Russian Small Power?

September 29th, 2019 by Paul Antonopoulos

According to an exclusive report published by Greek online media Rizospastis this week, within the framework of the “Greece-USA Mutual Defense Cooperation Agreement,” Washington and Athens have agreed to expand and increase U.S. military installations in the Mediterranean country. This comes off the recent U.S. announcement that it wants to privatize the port of Alexandroupolis near the strategic Dardenelles.

U.S.-Turkish relations have traditionally been strong because of Ankara’s submissiveness to Washington’s demands in the framework of NATO, but have soured in recent years because of the U.S.’s support of the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the Syrian extension of the Turkey-based Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) that Ankara, and hypocritically Washington, consider as a terrorist organization. Because of Washington’s support for what Ankara considers a terrorist organization, it has only pushed Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan closer to NATO’s main adversary, Russia, where the two countries now work in committees to find peace in Syria and have significantly increased economic and military ties.

Greece however has at times been renegade in NATO, especially during the breakup of Yugoslavia where food, oil, and arms were transported from Greece into Serbia in violation of the UN embargo; Greece was the only European Union state to back Belgrade’s position that Serbian forces had only entered Bosnian territory in response to their provocations; Greece voted against NATO air strikes on Serbian positions; the Aegean country refused any use of the NATO air base in Preveza on the Ionian Sea; and, Athens refused to supply Greek troops to the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. NATO plans were also leaked directly to Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladić so frequently that NATO allies ceased sharing NATO military plans with the Greek authorities, according to Professor C. Wiebes’ report to the Dutch government, titled Intelligence en de oorlog in Bosnie 1992-1995. There was also the famous case of the Greek Captain of the Themistocles warship, Marinos Ritsoudis, who was awarded by the Serbian Orthodox Church the Order of Emperor St. Constantine for refusing his orders to join NATO’s war against Serbia in 1999, and with the support of all his sailors returned the ship back to her port.

Greece was the only European country researched by Pew in a 2013 study where favorable views towards Russia prevailed (63% favorable vs. 33% unfavorable), demonstrating that Moscow could have a real ally within the NATO bloc where the majority of civilians look at Russia favourably and where the political, military and intelligence apparatuses of the state have significantly defied NATO before. However, in a strange oddity, it is Greece pivoting strongly towards the U.S. while Turkey strongly pivots towards Russia. This is despite the fact that according to a November 2018 INR poll, less Turks view Russia favourably compared to the Greeks at 51% and more Turks view Russia unfavourably compared to the Greeks at 43%, and also the fact that Turkey is directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of tens of Russian soldiers in Syria.

Because Turkey violates Greece’s maritime and air space on a daily basis; makes continued threats to invade the rest of Cyprus; Erdoğan weeks ago made a speech in front of a map that shows Greece’s eastern Mediterranean islands occupied by Turkey; the Turkish government removed the inhabited Greek island of Kastellorizo from online maps to claim sovereignty over oil and gas reserves; and making continued threats to flood Greece again with illegal immigrants, Greece has major security concerns that has been ignored by both Washington and Moscow, until now.

It is an odd choice that Greece would pivot towards the U.S. to address its security concerns since only 36% of Greeks view the U.S. favourably, but it has only been the U.S. that has offered boosted security. With Russia increasing its relations with Turkey, Greece is left at the mercy of the U.S. to guarantee its security from external aggression, even if that external threat is from a fellow NATO member. It was inevitable that with the successful recent election of neoliberal President Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Greece would become closer with Washington that was mostly resisted by the previous left-wing Syriza government. The Syriza administration period also represents a missed opportunity for Moscow to increase military ties with Greece to ensure its Mediterranean access.

U.S.  Secretary of Defense Mark Esper presented to Congress last week a list of 127 plans to expand, renovate or build new U.S. military infrastructure and bases abroad, many of which are in Greece. This suggests that the U.S. is fortifying Greece as a means to block Russia in the Black Sea, the location of Russia’s only ice-free ports, if it ever had too. With U.S.-Turkish relations souring, and the latter controlling the Dardanelles that connects the Black Sea to the Aegean/Mediterranean Seas, the U.S. is now turning to Greece as Plan B to contain Russia in the Black Sea if it was ever needed.

Although the narrow Dardanelles spills open into the northern Aegean Sea, when considering there are thousands of islands in the Aegean, it makes the sea a naval labyrinth with limited manoeuvrability. The Greek Navy however has thousands of years of experience in navigating these waters, winning famous battles such Salamis in 480 BC, despite having inferior numbers to the Persians but having knowledge of the islands and currents. This is not to ignore the obvious differences in ancient and modern naval warfare, but it is to emphasize that the landscape and environment always influences battles, even in the age of robotic and drone warfare.

With Greece spending the second highest amount of GDP out of the all NATO states on its military, making it a Small Power in the Eastern Mediterranean and Balkan regions, the country has a formidable Navy and Air Force superior to Turkey’s, and perhaps formidable enough to be able to block Russia with U.S. assistance in a hypothetical situation. Despite the favorable views the majority of Greeks have towards Russia, the new Greek government does not only tolerate the U.S. plans, but encourages them. Therefore, Greece in its endless efforts to completely ensure its security from Turkish aggression, is also becoming a U.S.-supported Small Power that could be weaponized against Russia. However, there is also little evidence that the new Greek government is anti-Russian, or would willingly back U.S. aggression against Russia, despite the increased U.S. military presence in Greece, which in Athens’ view, is aimed against Turkey, but of course Washington also has its eyes on Russia.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is director of the Multipolarity research centre.

Featured image is from InfoBrics