The crisis in Syria has taken a new direction with the Turkish invasion into Syria ostensibly to push back the Kurdish peoples. The US has added to this crisis by its indifference toward the Kurds after using them as a proxy force in its battle against ISIS.

The US role in Syria, in the greater Middle East, has been destructive throughout this century. The invasion and occupation of Iraq have left destruction and chaos. The illegal bombing of Libya and the brutal murder of former prime minister, Muammar al-Gaddafi, has created a failed state. The alliance with Saudi Arabia in the war against Yemen has resulted in mass murder and destruction. The ongoing conflicts with Iran through illegal unilateral coercive measures (sanctions), regime change attempts, threats of war and military skirmishes create more instability in the region. And, the ‘special relationship’ with Israel has allowed the continued ethnic cleansing and land theft from the Palestinians and has been a US tool for instability in the region. The never-ending war in Afghanistan continues to cause destruction as the US remains even though it has been defeated.

All of these actions have resulted in more than a million deaths and mass migration which has not only impacted the region but Europe, causing political instability and the advance of right-wing, anti-immigrant forces.

It is time for the US to get out of Syria and out of the Middle East. The Middle East was better off, more stable and wealthier before the disastrous US actions of this century. The illegal US wars have also cost the US trillions of dollars for no benefit for the United States. US policy has not served any positive purposes but has caused instability, conflict and destruction. It is time for the US to get out of the Middle East.

Mobilization against war protest in Vancouver, Canada.

Syria: A Major Defeat for the US and a Geopolitical Game Changer

The bi-partisans in Washington, DC and the foreign policy establishment are furious at Donald Trump for pulling out of the Kurdish region of Syria and allowing Turkey to invade the area. These groups were united when the US goal was removing President Assad from power, but with the culmination of this failed policy, there is political division. Seven years of murderous war have been destructive and accomplished little.

Pepe Escobar describes Syria as the biggest defeat for the CIA since Vietnam. It is a significant defeat, but US losses in Iraq and Afghanistan are in the running for the worst defeat since Vietnam. He describes Syria “as a massive geopolitical game-changer” that strengthens Assad in Syria as he retakes control of northeast Syria, Russia as a guarantor for Syria and key player in the victory over US regime change, and Turkey which is getting protection from the Kurds. The losers are the United States and Kurds, although something might be developed for the Kurds in Syria.

The US contribution to the current chaos and destruction is bi-partisan and precedes Trump. While the brutal attacks by Turkey in Syria in are being blamed on Trump,  in reality, they go back to President Obama. Max Blumenthal reportsin The Grayzone that “many [of the Turkish fighters] were former members of the Free Syrian Army, the force once armed by the CIA and Pentagon and branded as ‘moderate rebels.’” Blumenthal cites a research paper published this October by the pro-government Turkish think tank, SETA, “Out of the 28 factions [in the Turkish mercenary force], 21 were previously supported by the United States, three of them via the Pentagon’s program to combat DAESH. Eighteen of these factions were supplied by the CIA ….”  Further, the leader of this force is Salim Idriss, hosted John McCain when the late senator made his infamous 2013 incursion into Syria.

The Turkish attack in Syria has been filled with ugly extreme violence including beheadings that are causing outrage. They include mercenaries sawing the heads off of Kurdish fighters they had killed, a Syrian Kurdish legislator pulled from her car by the militiamen and executed along with her driver, unarmed Kurdish captives filmed as they were murdered, the vandalism of the corpse of a female Kurdish fighter, the deliberately freeing of ISIS captives from unguarded prisons, and a video message, one of the invading fighters promised mass ethnic cleansing if Kurds in the area refused to convert to his Wahhabi strain of Sunni Islam.

Ajamu Baraka points out that the US created “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) were the good guys when they were part of overthrowing Assad, but now have been turned into the “Turkish supported FSA,”  especially after the gruesome graphic videos of the Turkish invasion emerged. In reality, Baraka points out “many of us knew, along with the CIA and most of the honest foreign policy community, that the FSA was always al-Qaeda’s Syria operation in the form of Jabhat al-Nusra and other jihadist militias.”

Blumenthal concludes:

“Left out of the coverage of these horrors was the fact that none of them would have been possible if Washington had not spent several years and billions of dollars subsidizing Syria’s armed opposition.”

These recent events need to be viewed through the context of fifty years of on-again, off-again coups and regime change campaigns have failed. Timber Sycamore, the regime change project of the Obama administration, was a “secret” plan authorized by Obama which allowed the CIA to arm terrorists in Syria. Timber Sycamore, included Saudi Arabia, Qatari, Jordan and Turkey working with the US, officially began in late 2012 and ended in failure in 2017. The secret program included training future ISIS members as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting Bashar al-Assad. The US was duplicitous and used terrorism as a tool as documented in the book “The Management of Savagery”.

When Obama’s regime change strategy failed, the US switched to occupying one-third of Syria, including the oil region. In January, Secretary of State Tillerson announced the US was creating a de facto Kurdish State including one-third of Syria with a 30,000-strong force of Syrian Defense Force (SDF) troops, with US air support, and eight new US bases. In April 2018, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley announced that the US planned to maintain its illegal presence in Syria.

Obama’s effort to dominate Syria was rooted in the Bush-era. In 2001, former NATO commander Wesley Clark was on record as stating that Syria was on a list of targeted nations to be toppled by the US and in 2002, former Secretary of State John Bolton said in a speech titled “Beyond the Axis of Evil” that Syria was among a handful of nations the US was targeting. The 2011 protests in Syria, which the US media claimed were to remove Assad, were quickly manipulated by the US and foreign powers who sought to destabilize Syria. CIA-backed Muslim Brotherhood assets were in place to snipe at both police and protesters when the demonstrations broke out and Saudia Arabia provided weapons to aid regime change.

Caitlan Johnstone points to more evidence that Syria was not an organic uprising but a foreign regime change effort from the beginning:

“The former Prime Minister of Qatar said on television that the US and its allies were involved in the Syrian conflict from the very beginning. A WikiLeaks cable and a declassified CIA memo both show the US government plotting to provoke an uprising in Syria exactly as it occurred, years before it happened. Former Foreign Minister of France Roland Dumas stated that he was informed that the UK was engineering an uprising in Syria two years before the violence erupted.”

But, even the Obama era regime change goal needs to be put in the context of fifty years of on-again, off-again efforts by the US to put in place a government the US could control. The US has a long history of trying to control Syria dating back to the 1940s. The first coup attempt by the CIA after it was created was in Syria in 1949. Controlling Syria has been a consistent policy objective. CIA documents from 1986 describe how the US could remove the Assad family. Obama’s policy carried out a long-established goal of US foreign policy to dominate Syria.

In January Trump called for withdrawal from Syria which was met with a firestorm of opposition and he was outmaneuvered by war hawks in his administration and Congress. There continues to be resistance to withdrawal today. The US is not leaving Syria, but merely moving troops from Northeast Syria to other areas. David Macilwain reports

 “The truth of US intentions – to remain in Eastern Syria until they are driven out militarily – has now been emphasized by US Defence secretary Mark Esper. At a press conference where he confirmed the US intention to withdraw 1000 troops from Syria, when asked whether this meant from all of Syria he simply repeated what he had said –’from Northern Syria.’”

In March 2018, Trump tweeted that the US would soon be withdrawing from Syria, one month later Secretary of Defense Mattis told Congress the US was not withdrawing testifying “We are continuing the fight, we are going to expand it and bring in more regional support.” Each of Trump’s efforts to get out has been opposed by bipartisan war hawks.

It is past time for the US to leave Syria and end its longterm desire to dominate the country. People in the United States and around the world must insist on the US obeying international law which means, the US must leave Syria as it has no legal grounds for being in that sovereign nation.

The Rojava Cantons direct democracy governance without a state. Still from video

Kurds in Syria Negotiate Their Future With Damascus

Kurds are often regarded as “the largest ethnic group without a state.” With the US withdrawal from the Kurdish area of Syria, the Kurds must negotiate their future with Damascus. The Kurds in Syria are now working with Damascus to repel the Turkish invasion and negotiating their future.

In mid-2012, Assad’s forces largely withdrew from the Kurdish area, and the battle against ISIS was left to the Kurdish militias: the YPG (People’s Protection Units) and the YPJ (Women’s Defense Forces), the autonomous women’s militias. When the Free Syrian Army failed, the US funded the Syrian Kurdish militias known as the Peoples Protection Unit with a new name, Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).  The Kurdish never targeted the Syrian government but focused on ISIS. Now, the Syrian Kurdish militias have come to an agreement to work with Damascus to combat the Turkish invasion.

The Kurdish, Rojava cantons are a liberated area in Syria led by socialist-feminists and a population that makes decisions through local councils. Their economy is based on a cooperative model with thousands of co-ops, but private businesses are allowed. The co-ops are initiated and controlled by the communes, i.e. the community assembly structures. Their basic principle is the participation of everyone in production. In the words of a minister of economics: “If a single loaf of bread is manufactured in Rojava, everyone will have contributed to it.”

Their governing model is direct democracy governance without a state, built on local assemblies. There are multiple levels with neighborhood councils, District Councils and a People’s Council for the entire region. And there is also ‘Democratic Self-Administration’ which is a more conventional government structure of legislative and executive bodies as well as municipal administration. These bodies are not limited to Kurds but open to all religions and races. Women hold 40 percent of leadership positions at all levels. Three leftist enclaves making up an area slightly smaller than the state of Connecticut.

Some see Rojava’s governance without hierarchy, patriarchy or capitalism as a model for the future of the Middle East and beyond, and as an antidote to capitalism. It is the Communalist Model of Democratic Confederalism an adoptation of the ideas of the Zapatistas in Chiapas and the work of Murray Bookchin.

In Turkey, Kurds remain part of Turkey and “have formed a political party (Peoples Democratic Party – HDP) which unites progressives of all ethnicities.  In the 2015 Turkish election, HDP emerged as the third most popular party and stopped Erdogan’s election domination.”  The HDP opposes Turkey’s invasion of Syria.

Turkey is concerned that the Kurds will use the territory they’ve captured to establish an independent Kurdish state for the region’s 25 to 35 million Kurds, roughly 15 million of whom reside in Turkey. Four percent of Kurds reside in Syria, approximately 1.6 million people. Kurds are the fourth largest ethnic group in the region after Arabs, Persians, and Turks. After the Ottoman Empire’s defeat in World War I they were not granted a homeland.

The Syrian and the Kurds must determine the future of the Kurdish areas. Peace activists and popular movements around the world should be in solidarity with the Kurdish peoples desire of a semi-independent territory. The Kurdish population exists over multiple countries. A contiguous Kurdish state is an impossible dream and negotiation will be required by each population in the country where they reside.

US Out of Syria Internationalist protest in NYC (Internationalist photo).

US Out of Syria and Out of the Middle East

We agree with the US Peace Council which demands “the US peace movement to organize a united national campaign in support of the Syrian people and demand the total withdrawal of all occupying forces from Syria. Leave Syria to the Syrian People!”

The movement’s first demand must be the US out of Syria and out of the Middle East because the US is not leaving Syria or the region. Reports indicate between 200 and 300 U.S. troops will remain at the southern Syrian outpost of Al-Tanf and 1,000 troops will shift leaving Syria and going into western Iraq adding to the than 5,000 troops the US has in Iraq, US forces may conduct operations in Syria from Iraq. On October 11, the US announced it was sending an additional 1,800 troops to Saudi Arabia. An additional 14,000 US troops have been deployed to the Middle East since spring, including more than 6,000 who are part of a naval strike group. The US is fighting in at least seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Niger, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.

We must also be in solidarity with the Kurdish people and call for an end to the Turkish invasion of Syria. The Turkish invasion is already backfiring and people mobilizing against the invasion will lead to its retreat. Syria will need to ensure there are no threats to Turkey from Syria.

And, the US must accept immigrants from Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan where migration crises have been caused by US wars. Rebuilding nations destroyed by the United States is a costly endeavor that the US owes to the region. These countries do not want the US meddling in their efforts so retribution must be made through the United Nations without any US strings attached.

*

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

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

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. 

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

*     *     *

Tulsi Gabbard Is Right, and Nancy Pelosi Wrong. It Was US Democrats Who Helped Cultivate the Barbarism of ISIS

By Jonathan Cook, October 21, 2019

Islamic State, or Isis, didn’t emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. And I’m not even referring to the mountains of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming Isis – just as their predecessors in Washington, in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.

Fifty Years Ago Today, US Soldiers Joined the Vietnam Moratorium Protests in Mass Numbers

By Derek Seidman, October 21, 2019

Millions turned out across the United States in a historic day of action. Nothing else so conveyed the breadth of the antiwar movement. Life magazine described the Moratorium as “a display without historic parallel, the largest expression of public dissent ever seen in this country.” With the Moratorium, wrote Fred Halstead, “the antiwar movement for the first time reached the level of a full-fledged mass movement.”

Peace Restored in Ecuador. But Is Trust Restored?

By Nino Pagliccia, October 21, 2019

The tipping point has been decree 883 that forced a series of measures such as removal of subsidies for gasoline and diesel fuels deregulating their price, which caused a price increase of 20 percent up to more than 100 percent. Other costs were in turn affected together with everything that relies on transportation like food. Additional aspects of the decree included the elimination of import duties and the lay-off of thousands of public employees. This was viewed as part of a set of austerity measuresimposed on the country by the IMF, which Ecuadoreans referred to as “paquetazo” (big package). In exchange, the Moreno government was to receive more than $4 billion from the IMF at t

Ecuadorean General Strike Wins Concession on Fuel Subsidies

By Abayomi Azikiwe, October 21, 2019

The government of Lenin Moreno, adhering to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditionality, announced the new economic program which resulted in the sharp rise in the price of diesel by 100% and petroleum by 30%. These price increases happened over night making it impossible for many working people and farmers to pay for their household expenses. These hyperinflationary trends also resulted in the rise in food prices and the cost of transportation. The Moreno government initially rejected the demands of the unions and mass organizations saying that fuel subsidies had cost the country over $60 Billion.

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

By Peter Koenig, October 21, 2019

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

US Interventions in Canada – A Brief History

By Larry Romanoff, October 20, 2019

The US has always maintained a dream of annexing Canada and expanding the American homeland empire to include the entire length and breadth of the North American continent. The ambition to take territorial control of Canada has existed since before the founding of the US and has not measurably diminished since then. The US has invaded Canada five times, the last attempt involving plans to bury most of Canada in poison gas. In the 1970s the US launched an extensive program of propaganda and violence intended to fragment and dismember Canada as a prelude to swallowing it, and is again trying to absorb Canada today through its misbegotten “Fortress America” scheme. A forcible military option disappeared from the radar for some time, but could easily reappear in the future especially as the US begins to increasingly covet Canada’s fresh-water resources.

The Road to Damascus: How the Syria War Was Won

By Pepe Escobar, October 20, 2019

Starting in 1963, the Baath party, secular and nationalist, took over Syria, finally consolidating its power in 1970 with Hafez al-Assad, who instead of just relying on his Alawite minority, built a humongous, hyper-centralized state machinery mixed with a police state. The key actors who refused to play the game were the Muslim Brotherhood, all the way to being massacred during the hardcore 1982 Hama repression.

*

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: US Democrats Helped Cultivate the Barbarism of ISIS

There is something profoundly deceitful in the way the Democratic Party and the corporate media are framing Donald Trump’s decision to pull troops out of Syria.

One does not need to defend Trump’s actions or ignore the dangers posed to the Kurds, at least in the short-term, by the departure of US forces from northern Syria to understand that the coverage is being crafted in such a way as to entirely overlook the bigger picture.

The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s meeting this week with Trump, who is described as having had a “meltdown”. Explaining why she and other senior Democrats stormed out, the paper writes that “it became clear the president had no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East”.

Hang on a minute! Let’s pull back a little, and not pretend – as the media and Democratic party leadership wish us to – that the last 20 years did not actually happen. Many of us lived through those events. Our memories are not so short.

Islamic State, or Isis, didn’t emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. And I’m not even referring to the mountains of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming Isis – just as their predecessors in Washington, in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.

No, I’m talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington’s local client states, the US created a giant void of governance at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State – and they didn’t care.

Overthrow, not regime change

You don’t have to be a Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar Assad apologist to accept this point. You don’t even have to be concerned that these so-called “humanitarian” wars violated each state’s integrity and sovereignty, and are therefore defined in international law as “the supreme war crime”.

The bigger picture – the one no one appears to want us thinking about – is that the US intentionally sought to destroy these states with no obvious plan for the day after. As I explained in my book Israel and the Clash of Civilisations, these haven’t so much been regime-change wars as nation-state dismantling operations – what I have termed overthrow wars.

The logic was a horrifying hybrid of two schools of thought that meshed neatly in the psychopathic foreign policy goals embodied in the ideology of neoconservatism – the so-called “Washington consensus” since 9/11.

The first was Israel’s long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steroids, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that sucked out all the local population’s energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they could export to non-compliant states in the region.

The second was the Chicago school’s Shock Doctrine, as explained in Naomi Klein’s book of that name. The chaotic campaign of destruction, the psychological trauma and the sense of dislocation created by these overthrow wars were supposed to engender a far more malleable population that would be ripe for a US-controlled “colour revolution”.

The recalcitrant states would be made an example of, broken apart, asset-stripped of their resources and eventually remade as new dependent markets for US goods. That was what George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton really meant when they talked about building a New Middle East and exporting democracy.

Even judged by the vile aims of its proponents, the Shock Doctrine has been a half-century story of dismal economic failure everywhere it has been attempted – from Pinochet’s Chile to Yeltsin’s Russia. But let us not credit the architects of this policy with any kind of acumen for learning from past errors. As Bush’s senior adviser Karl Rove explained to a journalist whom he rebuked for being part of the “reality-based community”: “We’re an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality.”

The birth of Islamic State

The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region’s finest public health services.

One can argue about the initial causes of the uprising against Assad that erupted in Syria in 2011. Did it start as a popular struggle for liberation from the Assad government’s authoritarianism? Or was it a sectarian insurgency by those who wished to replace Shia minority rule with Sunni majority rule? Or was it driven by something else: as a largely economic protest by an under-class suffering from food shortages as climate change led to repeated crop failures? Or are all these factors relevant to some degree?

Given how closed a society Syria was and is, and how difficult it therefore is to weigh the evidence in ways that are likely to prove convincing to those not already persuaded, let us set that issue aside too. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the bigger picture I want to address.

The indisputable fact is that Washington and its Gulf allies wished to exploit this initial unrest as an opportunity to create a void in Syria – just as they had earlier done in Iraq, where there were no uprisings, nor even the WMDs the US promised would be found and that served as the pretext for Bush’s campaign of Shock and Awe.

The limited uprisings in Syria quickly turned into a much larger and far more vicious war because the Gulf states, with US backing, flooded the country with proxy fighters and arms in an effort to overthrow Assad and thereby weaken Iranian and Shia influence in the region. The events in Syria and earlier in Iraq gradually transformed the Sunni religious extremists of al-Qaeda into the even more barbaric, more nihilistic extremists of Islamic State.

A dark US vanity project

After Rove and Cheney had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington’s policy had engineered.

The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria.

This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before their absolute rule, became the west’s chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building their state on parts of Syria.

Again, let us ignore the fact that the US, in helping to destroy a sovereign nation, committed the supreme war crime, one that in a rightly ordered world would ensure every senior Washington official faces their own Nuremberg Trial. Let us ignore too for the moment that the US, consciously through its actions, brought to life a monster that sowed death and destruction everywhere it went.

The fact is that at the moment Assad called in Russia to help him survive, the battle the US and the Gulf states were waging through Islamic State and other proxies was lost. It was only a matter of time before Assad would reassert his rule.

From that point onwards, every single person who was killed and every single Syrian made homeless – and there were hundreds of thousands of them – suffered their terrible fate for no possible gain in US policy goals. A vastly destructive overthrow war became instead something darker still: a neoconservative vanity project that ravaged countless Syrian lives.

A giant red herring

Trump now appears to be ending part of that policy. He may be doing so for the wrong reasons. But very belatedly – and possibly only temporarily – he is seeking to close a small chapter in a horrifying story of western-sponsored barbarism in the Middle East, one intimately tied to Islamic State.

What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should have no credibility on the matter to begin with.

But their claims that Trump has “no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East” is a giant red herring they are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.

First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like it – was inevitably going to fill. Then, it allowed those seeds to flourish by assisting its Gulf allies in showering fighters in Syria with money and arms that came with only one string attached – a commitment to Sunni jihadist ideology inspired by Saudi Wahhabism.

Isis was made in Washington as much as it was in Riyadh. For that reason, the only certain strategy for preventing the revival of Islamic State is preventing the US and the Gulf states from interfering in Syria again.

With the Syrian army in charge of Syrian territory, there will be no vacuum for Isis to fill. The jihadists’ state-building project is now unrealisable, at least in Syria. Islamic State will continue to wither, as it would have done years before if the US and its Gulf allies had not fuelled it in a proxy war they knew could not be won.

Doomed Great Game

The same lesson can be drawn by looking at the experience of the Syrian Kurds. The Rojava fiefdom they managed to carve out in northern Syria during the war survived till now only because of continuing US military support. With a US departure, and the Kurds too weak to maintain their improvised statelet, a vacuum was again created that this time has risked sucking in the Turkish army, which fears a base for Kurdish nationalism on its doorstep.

The Syrian Kurds’ predicament is simple: face a takeover by Turkey or seek Assad’s protection to foil Turkish ambitions. The best hope for the Kurds looks to be the Syrian army’s return, filling the vacuum and regaining a chance of long-term stability.

That could have been the case for all of Syria many tens of thousands of deaths ago. Whatever the corporate media suggest, those deaths were lost not in a failed heroic battle for freedom, which, even if it was an early aspiration for some fighters, quickly became a goal that was impossible for them to realise. No, those deaths were entirely pointless. They were sacrificed by a western military-industrial complex in a US-Saudi Great Game that dragged on for many years after everyone knew it was doomed.

Nancy Pelosi’s purported worries about Isis reviving because of Trump’s Syria withdrawal are simply crocodile fears. If she is really so worried about Islamic State, then why did she and other senior Democrats stand silently by as the US under Barack Obama spent years spawning, cultivating and financing Isis to destroy Syria, a state that was best placed to serve as a bulwark against the head-chopping extremists?

Pelosi and the Democratic leadership’s bad faith – and that of the corporate media – are revealed in their ongoing efforts to silence and smear Tulsi Gabbard, the party’s only candidate for the presidential nomination who has pointed out the harsh political realities in Syria, and tried to expose their years of lies.

Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don’t care about Syria, or its population’s welfare. They don’t care about Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power – and the personal wealth and influence it continues to bestow 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.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

US Syria Pullout? A Saigon Moment?

October 21st, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

The 1972 Church/Case amendment ended congressional funding for US military operations in Southeast Asia — except for withdrawal of Pentagon forces, subject to release of prisoners of war.

In June 1973, congressional legislation ended all funding after August 15. After escalating Southeast Asia war to Cambodia and Laos, wanting it ended was a key reason why US dark forces sought Nixon’s removal from office.

Threatening entrenched military/industrial/security and other interests marked him for removal — Trump targeted the same way now. Dems, CIA elements, and supportive media also want revenge for winning an election he was supposed to lose.

On April 30, 1975, US forces completed their withdrawal from the rooftop of its Saigon embassy, ending over a decade of aggression against a nonbelligerent state threatening no one.

The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution authorized war without declaring it, based on a false flag incident.

All wars are based on Big Lies and deception. Truth and full disclosure would destroy pretexts for launching them.

Congress can end all US wars of aggression today the way lawmakers acted in the 1970s by cutting off funding without which they can’t be waged.

Congressional profiles in courage are few and far between — Tulsi Gabbard the only anti-war/progressive presidential aspirant for world peace, stability and social justice in either wing of the one-party state.

The vast majority of House and Senate members support endless US wars. Since the Clinton co-presidency’s rape of Yugoslavia, countless trillions of dollars were spent for militarism, warmaking, and the Pentagon’s global empire of bases, used as platforms for war if ordered — at the expense of vital homeland needs and eroding social justice.

The US came to all its war theaters to stay — directly the way Douglas MacArthur ran Japan from 1945 – 1951, by installing puppet regimes serving its interests, or a combination of both strategies as in Afghanistan and Iraq, their people exploited and otherwise abused.

According to US war secretary Mark Esper, Pentagon forces in northern Syria aren’t coming home. They’re being redeployed cross-border to (occupied) Iraq.

US troops illegally occupying and controlling southern areas in Syria near the Iraqi and Jordanian borders remain in place.

Esper falsely claimed that redeployed US forces to Western Iraq will protect the country and combat ISIS, saying:

The plan “is to help defend Iraq (sic) and…to perform a counter-ISIS mission (sic) as we sort through the next steps. Things could change between now and whenever we complete the withdrawal, but that’s the game plan right now.”

Asked if US special forces will remain in Syria after the northern cross-border redeployment, Esper said it’s an option to be discussed with US (imperial) allies, adding: “(W)e have to work through those details.”

Since Bush/Cheney’s 2003 Iraq aggression, US forces continue to illegally occupy and exploit the country, a puppet regime serving its interests.

Along with al-Qaeda, its al-Nusra offshoot in Syria, and likeminded terrorist groups, the US created ISIS, supporting the scourge as proxy troops it pretends to combat — backed by Pentagon-led terror-bombing, including destruction of vital infrastructure in Syria and elsewhere.

Since Obama launched aggression on Syria in early 2011, US plans for wanting overwhelmingly popular Bashar al-Assad replaced by pro-Western puppet rule remain unchanged.

It’s part of a greater US/NATO/Israeli strategy to redraw the Middle East map, what the scourge of imperialism is all about, including horrendous human rights abuses against affected populations.

The road to Tehran runs through Damascus. In August 2011, Michel Chossudovsky explained the following:

“The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (falsely)  categorizes Syria as a ‘rogue state,’ as a country which supports terrorism,” adding:

“A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign (‘regime change’) including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government.”

“An extended Middle East Central Asian war has been on the Pentagon’s drawing board since the mid-1990s.”

“As part of this extended war scenario, the US-NATO alliance plans to wage a military campaign against Syria under a UN sponsored ‘humanitarian mandate.’ ”

Things haven’t gone as planned, mainly because of Russia’s September 2015 intervention at the request of Damascus to aid its military combat US-supported terrorists.

Moscow’s involvement changed the dynamic on the ground, preventing Washington from gaining control of Syria and isolating Iran regionally.

Most of the country was liberated from US-supported terrorists, Idlib province controlled by thousands of al-Nusra jihadists the main exception.

US tactics for controlling Syria changed because of Russia’s involvement, not its war party’s imperial objectives — aiming for unchallenged regional control by replacing sovereign governments in the Syrian Arab Republic and Iran with pro-Western puppet regimes, similar to US control of Afghanistan and Iraq.

That’s where things now stand. Russia foiled the best laid US plans. Yet bipartisan policymakers in Washington support endless war, rejecting restoration of peace and stability to Syria and other US war theaters.

Trump falsely claimed he’s “(b)ringing soldiers home” from Syria. Around 3,000 more are heading to Saudi Arabia, increasing the Pentagon’s regional footprint.

Note: The US/Turkey deal announced last week includes no restrictions on Pentagon-led NATO/IDF terror-bombing of Syrian sites.

It’s further evidence of endless US-led war in Syria — begun nine years ago next March with no near-term prospect for resolution.

A Final Comment

There are world’s apart differences between US 1960s/70s Southeast Asia war and its involvement in Syria today.

Notably, there were hundreds of thousands of Pentagon forces involved in Vietnam combat, thousands returned home in body bags, reported by US media — especially by CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite.

On February 27, 1968 at the end of his nightly newscast, he editorialized on air for three minutes against the war, ending his anti-war commentary, saying:

“(I)t is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out…will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people…This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.”

At the time, Lyndon Johnson said if he lost Cronkite, he lost middle America. Shortly afterwards, he announced that he wouldn’t seek reelection in November 1968.

No Walter Cronkites in the US report on air or in print today, a major difference between earlier and now.

The main difference between both eras is how Washington wages wars — earlier with US combat troops on the ground in large numbers through Bush/Cheney’s 2003 Iraq aggression.

Since then, ISIS and other terrorists serve as US proxy forces, small numbers of Pentagon troops supporting them, along with terror-bombing by US and allied warplanes.

In addition, reporters are embedded with US troops in various venues, their war reporting amounting to Pentagon press releases.

*

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.

Today marks the fiftieth anniversary of the October 15, 1969 Moratorium, perhaps the most important US protest during the war against Vietnam.

Millions turned out across the United States in a historic day of action. Nothing else so conveyed the breadth of the antiwar movement. Life magazine described the Moratorium as “a display without historic parallel, the largest expression of public dissent ever seen in this country.” With the Moratorium, wrote Fred Halstead, “the antiwar movement for the first time reached the level of a full-fledged mass movement.”

The Moratorium’s organizers urged people across the country to dedicate October 15 to protesting the war. With the hawkish Nixon in the Oval Office, and with the war showing no end in sight, antiwar forces needed to make a powerful statement that would jolt the political climate in the United States.

When October 15 came, some two million people across two hundred cities took part. There were the expected huge demonstrations — a quarter-million people each in New York City and Washington, DC, and another hundred thousand in Boston, for example. But the scope of antiwar sentiment was also reflected in the many local expressions the Moratorium took across the nation. As one historian described it:

Everywhere, black armbands; everywhere, flags at half staff; church services, film showings, teach-ins, neighbor-to-neighbor canvasses. In North Newton, Kansas, a bell tolled every four seconds, each clang memorializing a fallen soldier; in Columbia, Maryland, an electronic sign counted the day’s war deaths. Milwaukee staged a downtown noontime funeral procession. Hastings College, an 850-student Presbyterian school in Nebraska, suspended operations. Madison, Ann Arbor, and New Haven were only a few of the college towns to draw out a quarter of their populations or more.

Throughout 1969, Nixon had tried to paint the growing antiwar movement as the fringe of the Left. But the Moratorium proved that that the movement was undeniably mainstream, a core pole of American life, able to influence the terms of political debate over the war.

But to understand the true extent of the Moratorium, we must look closely at an oft-overlooked group of participants: the US soldiers serving in the military’s ranks who were made to fight the war.

Police halt an effort to throw a casket over the White House fence protesting the Vietnam War October 15, 1969 as part of the Moratorium Against the War. Washington Area Spark / Flickr

Hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of GIs actively took part in Moratorium actions, both in October 1969 as well as in further Moratorium protests later in the year. Some attended off-base demonstrations. Many signed their names to public statements against the war. Others wore black armbands. Some educated and organized fellow troops in solidarity with the Moratorium. Dozens wrote letters to antiwar papers and groups to express their sympathy with the protests. And many worked alongside civilian allies to take their antiwar stance.This is history that flies in the face of popular memory, shaped and politicized by right-wing myths, that pit Vietnam War–era soldiers against the antiwar movement, posit that peace protests at home demoralized troops in Vietnam, or claim that protesters spit upon GIs.

The history of GI protest during the Vietnam War — and the affinity that many soldiers felt with the Moratorium actions — tells another story. Many troops were part of the antiwar movement. The horrible war they were fighting, and the harassment and racism they endured from the military brass, was hurting their morale. And civilian antiwar organizers viewed them with sympathy and solidarity, offered various forms of support, and, most of all, worked tirelessly with them to try to end the war.

This all may seem to be remote history at this point, but it’s still deeply relevant. The construction of the mainstream memory of the Vietnam War in the United States has been a deeply political and ideological process. Conservative efforts to define the Vietnam War–era US soldier as “spit upon” and “stabbed in the back” by antiwar protesters have gone hand in hand with manufacturing popular consent for war-making over the past half-century.

But the history of GI resistance during the Vietnam War — and during the Moratorium — tells another story that challenges these militarist narratives: that soldiers weren’t pitted against the antiwar movement. Many were part of it.

The GI Movement

Active-duty GIs had been protesting the war as early as 1965, and by 1969, that protest had evolved into a full-on movement. The GI movement — as it was called — was an effort by active-duty soldiers and veterans, working closely with civilian allies, to organize troops to oppose the war, resist the military brass, fight racism, and protect GI civil liberties. While often local, sporadic, and decentralized, the resistance that made up the GI movement was loosely tied together by common symbols, narratives, organizing vehicles, and outside support.

Thousands of soldiers plugged into and participated in the GI movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They signed petitions, joined antiwar marches, and donned peace symbol necklaces. They formed their own soldier antiwar groups with names like GIs for Peace, the American Servicemen’s Union, and Movement for a Democratic Military. They flocked to off-base antiwar coffeehouses and circulated hundreds of subversive newspapers deep into the military’s ranks.

And all this was just the more organized expression of a much larger reservoir of disobedience and rebellion throughout the ranks of the armed forces — leading, for example, journalist John Pilger to film a 1970 documentary on US soldiers in Vietnam titled The Quiet Mutiny, and a famed Marine colonel to declare the “collapse of the armed forces” in the pages of the Armed Forces Journal in June 1971. (For more background on the GI movement, see the new book, Waging Peace in Vietnam: US Soldiers and Veterans Who Opposed the War, as well as David Cortright’s Soldiers in Revolt, David Parsons’ recent book on GI coffeehouses, and the documentary Sir! No Sir!).

A crucial factor in building the GI movement was the solidarity between dissident soldiers and the antiwar civilians who helped them organize. This is important, because the history of the GI movement dispels the notion that the antiwar movement hated soldiers. Rather, many peace activists sympathized with the plight of US troops and helped organize them to end the war.

They fundraised for the GI movement, offered legal help, and aided in the staffing of coffeehouses and the production of GI papers. Some tensions may have existed between antiwar civilians and GIs, but their relationship was far from what scholar Jerry Lembcke has called the “spitting image,” the myth that peace activists spit on US soldiers, would have us believe. Rather, the spitting image was a trope that was mobilized after the war for conservative political gain and to serve a revived American militarism.

By the time the October 15, 1969 Moratorium rolled around, then, GIs were not only increasingly seen as a crucial constituency within the wider antiwar movement, but they had already succeeded in organizing themselves into their own loose antiwar movement that stretched across the globe.

The October Moratorium

via History Workshop UK.

In the leadup to the October Moratorium, civilian antiwar groups like the Student Mobilization Committee (SMC) and the Vietnam Moratorium Committee (VMC) sought to recruit GIs into the action. For example, Jerry Lembcke cites a memorandum that the VMC sent widely to GI antiwar newspapers that read:

We are eager to have servicemen join our national campaign to maximize public pressure for peace. We are writing for your help in getting GIs to participate in a ‘recurring moratorium’ on “business as usual.”

The memo gave suggestions for actions GIs could take, such as holding on-base meetings to discuss GI rights, sending letters to elected officials, and holding fasts during the day of the Moratorium. The VMC also offered legal help to soldiers that made the decision to protest, since this could invite punishment from the military brass.

GIs across the world answered the call to participate in the October Moratorium. Some joined or held stateside protests. For example, seventy-five soldiers stationed at Fort Carson participated in a protest in Colorado Springs, while around 150 soldiers at Fort Sam Houston signed a petition to protest on base. When their request was denied, they held their protest in downtown San Antonio. Hundreds of other GIs elsewhere also took part in Moratorium events.

These dissident troops made their antiwar stance known to the wider movement. For example, twenty-three GIs at Fort Sam Houston signed a Western Union Telegram sent to the New Mobilization Committee that read:

WE THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBERS OF COMPANY E 4TH BN US A MTC FORT SAM HOUSTON TEXAS SUPPORT YOUR EFFORTS IN BRINGING ABOUT A SPEEDY END TO THE WAR IN VIET NAM PS AND LOTS MORE WHO COULD NOT AFFORD TO LIST.

But GIs didn’t just protest stateside. They also joined the Moratorium from Vietnam.

“In the foothills south of Danang,” wrote the the New York Times, “about 15 members of a platoon of the Americal Division wore black armbands as they marched on patrol. ‘It’s my way of protesting,’ one soldier told a reporter. ‘We wanted to do something, and this was the only thing we could think of.’”

The high stakes of the war for these GIs was not lost in the Times’s reporting. “Before the day was out,” the article said, “four of the protesting soldiers had been wounded by Vietcong booby traps.”

Historian Tom Wells writes that another half-dozen troops “donned armbands at the gigantic Tan Son Nhut air base.” Wells also quotes draft resister Michael Ferber, who visited with some US psy-war troops in Vietnam before the protest:

Between drags of “unbelievable” Cambodian grass, the GIs “wanted to know all about the Moratorium,” Ferber recalled. “They were all against the war … I was amazed that morale had degenerated to that extent.”

Lembcke also writes that Life reporter Hal Wingo interviewed around a hundred GIs around the time of the October Moratorium. One of them was Private Jim Beck of the Army’s 101st Division. His brother had been killed in Khe San, and Beck had gone to Vietnam to seek revenge, but he told Wingo “[t]he demonstrators are right to speak up because this war is wrong and it must be stopped.”

Another soldier Wingo who spoke to was PFC Chris Yapp. “I think the protesters may be the only ones who really give a damn about what’s happening,” Yapp told Wingo.

Wingo observed that many GIs in Vietnam did not view the antiwar movement as “anti-soldier”; just the opposite. “Many soldiers regard the organized antiwar campaign in the US with open and outspoken sympathy,” Wingo wrote; and he noted that “the protests in the US are not demoralizing troops in the field.”

Lembcke quotes a letter from one servicemember, Sergeant James C. Ruh, who expressed his support for the October 15 Moratorium and blasted the notion that the antiwar movement was hurting troop morale.

“It has been argued by people, such as Vice President Agnew, that the peace demonstrations are demoralizing and dispiriting to those fighting in Vietnam and therefore should not take place,” wrote Ruh. But he found “nothing to be further from the truth”:

In my own infantry company, which I believe to be fairly representative, the Moratorium has wide support. It was, in fact, very much a morale builder. The men are intelligent enough to realize that the peace demonstrations are on their behalf. They realize that the greater the pressure kept on President Nixon, the sooner they’ll get home. Even more importantly, the fewer will be their friend who do not return.

Ruh also criticized the argument that that “unless you’ve been to Vietnam, you don’t know what is really going on there, and have no right to criticize it,” and turned it on its head while invoking the October Moratorium:

While this is an obviously fallacious argument, being there does add a personal perspective to the situation, which makes many of your men fighting in Vietnam the biggest critics of the war. They can see what is going on, not what is screened through the media. While many wore armbands for the October 15 Moratorium, they are for the large part prevented from demonstrating their feelings on the war. They can give only moral support to the Peace Moratorium, and hope that it is successful.

It’s significant that both Wingo and Sgt. Ruh bring up the relationship between GI morale and the antiwar movement. While pro-war forces claimed the movement was demoralizing soldiers in Vietnam, GIs often saw the existence of the peace movement as a morale booster. It was the horrible war itself, the careerist military brass above GIs, and the racism that many soldiers endured, that was hurting morale.

Beyond October

While October 15 saw the height of the Moratorium protests, similar actions, as well as GI participation in them, continued throughout 1969.

Civilians antiwar organizers intensified their outreach efforts to GIs for the follow-up Moratorium on November 15, while GIs themselves stepped up their protest efforts in the days after the October action. For example, an October 20 on-base meeting of GIs at Fort Lewis, organized by the American Servicemen’s Union, was raided by military police, leading to thirty-five arrests.

On October 28, a captain stationed in Long Binh wrote the Moratorium Day Committee, and after praising the October Moratorium and criticizing his own “cowardice” in failing to protest the war, he declared:

It is time, however belated … that the members of the Armed Forces stood up, raised their voices, and informed the world that they are at one with both the method and the goal of the Vietnam Moratorium. The Moratorium transcends politics. They very humanity of my race is threatened, and no longer can I sit back and laud people who raise their voices without adding mine. This I do now!

Nor was the captain just making a verbal declaration. He was starting to organize. He included a petition with over eighty troop signatures under the heading: “We, the undersigned, agree in spirit with the Vietnam moratorium and urge the immediate and total withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops from SE Asia.” He even included a follow up letter: “You may use both the petitions and my personal letter in whatever way you see fit … Inform all those who will listen that American troops can and should be supported only through support for the Moratorium.”

But perhaps the most significant GI antiwar expression was a November 9, 1969 full-page antiwar ad, published in the New York Times, and signed by an astounding 1,366 active duty GIs from across eighty bases and ships, including nearly two hundred stationed in Vietnam.

The ad was sponsored by the GI Press Service, a “news bulletin and information center” for GI antiwar newspapers that was overseen by the Student Mobilization Committee. The SMC had a “GI task force,” coordinated by ex-GI and Young Socialist Alliance member Allen Myers, that edited the ad.

The ad’s message was clear: it was a bold and direct statement against the war and a call to support the November 15 Moratorium. “We are opposed American involvement in the war in Vietnam,” it read. “We resent the needless wasting of lives to save face for the politicians in Washington. We speak, believing our views are shared by many of our fellow servicemen. Join Us!” The ad also carried a message for supporters of antiwar GIs:

GI’s, as American citizens, have the constitutional right to join these demonstrations. In the past, however, military authorities have often restricted servicemen to their bases, thus effectively preventing them from participating in demonstrations against the war. We ask you to write to the President and your representatives in Congress to demand that GI’s not be prevented from participating in the November 15 demonstrations.

Some GIs organized within their military units to turn out support for both the Times ad and the November Moratorium. David Cortright was stationed at Fort Hamilton, New York, at the time. Despite the threat of reprisals, thirty-five out of sixty soldiers in his unit signed added their names, and a dozen Fort Hamilton troops attended the Moratorium protest in DC, along with hundreds of other GIs.

Cortright recalled that the ad had a “dramatic impact” and helped to “build momentum” for the November Moratorium. Indeed, GI participation on November 15 may have surpassed that of the October protests. Over 200 GIs led the DC protest, which numbered around a quarter-million.

There were also more local expressions of Moratorium organizing. For example, troops at Fort Bliss, who had organized a vibrant chapter of GIs for Peace, held a prayer meeting at a chapel. Francis Lenski, who was stationed at Fort Bliss, recalls another GI action.

“During the lead up to the Moratorium demonstrations,” Lenski said, “members of GIs for Peace decided to make a statement against the war that all of El Paso would see.” He went on:

Located on the side of the Franklin Mountains facing El Paso and Fort Bliss were some hollow drums, painted white by students from a local school. We decided to adapt those drums for another purpose. Working mostly under the cover of darkness, we relocated them to form the shape of the peace sign, filled them with fuel, and set them ablaze. The fiery scene above the city and environs spoke for itself (and us) and was the talk of the town and base for days to come.

Meanwhile, evidence of GI sympathy with and direct participation in the November Moratorium, expressed through letters, poured into the offices of protest organizers. One soldier stationed in Georgia, probably at Fort Benning, wrote to a Moratorium organizer declaring: “I desire to help in any manner I can in the cause of peace and especially on November 13, 14, 15.” He went on, expressing his deep desire to organize against the war:

Saving face is not worth the price, 40,000 + live. I desire to do anything I can to help end this American tragedy and useless killing. The Columbus, Ga. area is in need of some organization and information. There are many others, who like myself would like to work for peace but are ignorant as to just what we can do. Many of us have wives who are eager to do their part and who are better able to fully participate because of their civilian status. Any information and advice and/or material you could send will be greatly appreciated.

Another servicemember wrote to the VMC from his ship, the USS Sanctuary. “Those of us stationed aboard this ship who support your efforts and goals would like to participate in events on November 15, 1969,” he announced. He said that he and his shipmates planned “to wear black armbands,” though they had no plans to disrupt “the normal routine on board the ship,” seemingly in fear of reprisal.

Yet another soldier wrote the Cleveland Area Peace Action Council to express regret that he had “little way of supporting the Movement” from Vietnam, where he was stationed, but he sent $16 for the group to “send someone to DC who can’t afford it” on November 15. This GI explained his donation by saying he “would like to do my share for my country via the Movement.”

Historian Richard Moser cites Dave Blalock, a communications specialist stationed at Camp Long Thanh North, to show how the Times ad inspired GI protest in Vietnam around the November Moratorium. “One night we were sitting around the barracks in Vietnam” said Blalock, “and passing around this full-page ad in the New York Times that a guy had just come back from R & R in Hawaii had clipped out.”

Blalock recalled that everyone started saying “Why don’t we do something on this date, November 15,” and the GIs “came to a decision that we’re going to wear black armbands and we’re going to refuse to go out on patrol.” He continued:

The next day we went around … and put out the word … It seemed like everybody was doing it … The morning of the 15th we wake up at about five in the morning, and instead of playing the military shit, they put Jimi Hendrix’s “Star-spangled Banner” on …

So we went to formation with our new commanding officer. The former CO was blown away … he was killed, fragged … So we went out in morning formation and we’re all wearing black armbands. It was like 100 percent of the enlisted men. .. Including some of the war doctors and the helicopter pilots. The CO comes out as says … “I think we’re going to give you guys a day off.” He was real slick with it.

(Blalock’s full account can also be read in Waging Peace in Vietnam: US Soldiers and Veterans Who Opposed the War.)

These are just a few examples among many others, revealed in interviews, firsthand accounts, the GI underground press, and in letters that soldiers sent to antiwar groups and GI papers of the extent of soldier sympathy with and participation in the Moratorium protests.

The momentum from the November 15 continued to propel GI protest in the weeks that followed. For example, fifty marines from Camp Pendleton led an antiwar protest in Los Angeles days after the November Moratorium, while a few hundred GIs from Fort Bliss led an antiwar march the following Saturday in El Paso, Texas.

And while the Moratorium tapered off by the end of 1969, there were some last gasp attempts to carry out December activities. GIs participated in them. Penny Lewis notes that a thousand marines staged a Moratorium march in Oceanside, California, near Camp Pendleton, on December 14, 1969, while Cortright writes that two hundred soldiers at Fort Bragg also protested in a December action.

One soldier from the Army’s 33rd Signal Battalion wrote to an antiwar GI paper on New Year’s Eve, 1969, to request copies. He declared: “I have close to 500 names of G.I.’s that want to read it and become a part of the Peace things that are happening with the moratorium committee.” He noted that a single copy of an antiwar paper “can travel through 20 and 30 people in one day.” Another soldier from the Army’s 199th Infantry Brigade wrote to the VMC on December 13, 1969. His moving letter read:

For the past seven months I have served in Vietnam in an infantry company. During that time I have come to know the war in terms so personal and so filled with incredulity and sorrow that it is difficult for me to express my feelings about it without becoming either emotional or angry.

My country has let me down. It has sent me here to fight an impossible war; it has witnessed the death of my friends with nothing but vague talk of “commitments” and “silent majorities”; and refused to admit it. It is statistically freighting that the United States could commit 40,000 American lives to so unnecessary a war, but to those of us who must fight this war it is an almost unbearable reality.

I’m hoping that in the coming year our leaders will have the courage and humanity to extricate us from this senseless bloodbath. Too many men, good men, men who deserved to life, have been sacrificed already.

He ended his letter with an authorization from the VMC to “print this letter in full or in part in the N.Y. Times.”

Even into 1970, some GIs still wrote to the Moratorium committee with antiwar missives. A marine wrote a letter to an antiwar paper on behalf of his fellow troops. “We are active as possible here,” he declared. “59 Marines and 1 corpsman signed our petition for Xmas moratorium and we have more planned for this month.

Legacy

Remembering the antiwar efforts of GIs during the Moratorium days, and the GI movement more broadly, isn’t just an exercise in historical memory. The Vietnam War–era GI movement left an important model of resistance for later generations of antiwar soldiers and veterans, including up to the present.

Some scholars have also argued that the huge extent of soldier protest, defiance, and disobedience played a role in bringing the war to an end. The history of the GI movement also discredits the trope of a civilian antiwar movement that hated and spit upon soldiers.

Finally, remembering the history of GI protest during the US war on Vietnam is politically important, because it pushes back against popular narratives surrounding the war and soldiers that have been used to serve elite, militarist aims.

As I wrote for Monthly Review in 2016, the construction of historical memory is a deeply ideological process through which different political interests contend to shape our “common sense” about the past. Conservative and militarist forces have sought to define cultural icons like “the soldier” in ways that will benefit their own political agendas. This has been particularly trueregarding the memory of the Vietnam War.

However, the history of GI protest during the Vietnam War, the actual widespread examples of soldier resistance that have been largely erased from popular memory, pushes back against efforts to link the memory of US troops from the war with disdain for antiwar politics and support for war and militarism today.

Rather, soldiers themselves — in huge numbers, from the United States to Vietnam, often in solidarity with civilians peace activists — were actively involved in the antiwar movement or strongly supported it. For many, the antiwar movement and antiwar politics didn’t demoralize them; rather, this was their movement and their politics. A half-century since the October Moratorium, which GIs participated in and supported, this is history worth remembering.

*

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.

Derek Seidman is a power researcher and historian who lives in Buffalo, New York. He works as a research analyst for the Public Accountability Initiative and littlesis.org.

Featured image: Vietnam War protestors march at the Pentagon in Washington, DC on October 21, 1967.
Photo credit: Frank Wolfe / LBJ Library / Wikimedia

Peace Restored in Ecuador. But Is Trust Restored?

October 21st, 2019 by Nino Pagliccia

After ten people were reported killed on the streets of Ecuador, together with about 2,000 people injured and a large number imprisoned, an agreement was reached between the Lenin Moreno government and protesters against a controversial Decree 883 that had the footprint of the neoliberal austerity policies of the IMF.

For the time being the “dialogue” that lead to the derogation of the decree has defused the danger of an escalation of the general strike that was looming over the Moreno administration. But for how long?

It was a matter of time before the situation in Ecuador reached the point of political tension experienced in the last few weeks. The people of Ecuador have massively organised protests in rejection of the economic policies taken by the Lenin Moreno government at the beginning of October; protests that have been met by government  imposed military curfew and repression.

The tipping point has been decree 883 that forced a series of measures such as removal of subsidies for gasoline and diesel fuels deregulating their price, which caused a price increase of 20 percent up to more than 100 percent. Other costs were in turn affected together with everything that relies on transportation like food. Additional aspects of the decree included the elimination of import duties and the lay-off of thousands of public employees. This was viewed as part of a set of austerity measures imposed on the country by the IMF, which Ecuadoreans referred to as “paquetazo” (big package). In exchange, the Moreno government was to receive more than $4 billion from the IMF at the same time that it exonerated corporations from paying a similar amount in overdue taxation. 

The reaction has been immediate led by thousands of indigenous people from all provinces of Ecuador represented, among other groups, by the Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador, CONAIE (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador). This is important to emphasise because there has been an obvious attempt to discredit this genuine movement suggesting that Rafael Correa was behind it with the intention of triggering a coup. CONAIE made it a point to distance themselves from Correa.

Support for Moreno came promptly and more directly from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and a group of former Latin American presidents who issued a declaration denouncing “foreign-induced acts of people’s violence” naming  specifically Venezuela’s “dictatorship” and its “ally” the FARC. All in the attempt to politicise a genuine popular reaction and, in so doing, defend the sole culprits, the Lenin Moreno administration plus the IMF.

Lenin Moreno won the presidential elections of 2017 for the centre-left PAIS Alliance Party. He was Correa’s vice president and was considered the natural choice for the continuation of what was mostly a progressive government with a considerable support by Ecuadoreans.

However, after he became president Lenin Moreno soon started showing signs of straying from the previous administration, which was seen by many as a betrayal of everything he was elected for. It is not clear if his was a planned deceit or if there were any contributing circumstances including political pressure. But his quick turn around that initially came as a surprise, showed an aggressive motive with accusations of corruption of former president Rafael Correa.  He appointed several judges in the judiciary that would have ensured a prosecution. Consequently, Correa opted to leave the country becoming an opposition voice against his former vice president. Moreno’s appointments would also guarantee that he could not be prosecuted since after all he was part of the Correa administration for ten years. He soon established close ties with Washington that included purchases of military equipment and granting rights to “U.S. anti-drug overflights to land in the environmentally sensitive Galapagos Islands.”

The deal reached last October 13 between Lenin Moreno’s government and leaders of the indigenous people, represented by CONAIE’s president Jaime Vargas, was mediated by the UN and the Catholic church. Decree 883 was revoked and a commission to include indigenous reps will write a new proposal to replace it. This was quite a change of position from the embattled Moreno of a few days prior who had emphatically announced that he would not withdraw the decree. But the deepest moral divide was noted when Moreno shockingly stated in an interview: “with all respect for human life, but I believe that the dignity of a state is much more than that.” The lack of sensitivity for indigenous people’s dignity was not ignored by the protesters who stated that the lost lives would rest on his conscience.

Street celebrations followed the announcement of the deal that was seen as a major victory not only for indigenous people but also for all Ecuadoreans. It was certainly a victory for peace. But this needs to be a cautious celebration. Has trust been restored? Can Ecuadoreans rely on a government that betrayed them since the elections of 2017? Only time will tell.

*

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

Nino Pagliccia is an activist and freelance writer based in Vancouver. He is a retired researcher from the University of British Columbia, Canada. He is a Venezuelan-Canadian who follows and writes about international relations with a focus on the Americas. He is the editor of the book “Cuba Solidarity in Canada – Five Decades of People-to-People Foreign Relations” (2014). He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Monday marks the thirteenth day since Turkey began its third cross border military operation in Syria ironically named “Operation Peace Spring”. In the past two weeks civilian and militant lives on both sides have been lost, a large exodus has taken place, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a resolution that opposes US troop withdrawal, a five-day ceasefire was brokered between Turkey and the United States, and Kurdish militias have withdrawn from the “safe-zone”.

On Wednesday, there was overwhelming bipartisan approval for a measure that opposes President Trump’s U.S. forces withdrawal from Syria. The resolution was introduced by Reps. Michael McCaul, Republican from Texas and Eliot Engel, Democrat from NY and it calls on the White House to put forth a plan for the “enduring defeat” of Daesh and demand that Turkey cease its military operations in Syria.

The measure which passed 354-60 with four members voting present and all sixty of the nays coming from Republican’s stated,

“An abrupt withdrawal of United States military personnel from certain parts of Northeast Syria is beneficial to adversaries of the United States government, including Syria, Iran and Russia.”

It’s absurd that there’s outrage about ending a war and allowing Syria to handle its own domestic affairs. However, nothing of the sort happened when Nobel Peace Prize winner and former US President Barack Obama was bombing seven countries and creating some of the wars that President Trump has inherited including Syria. Bipartisan support for carrying on with endless wars is mind-boggling.

On Thursday, a ceasefire was brokered between the United States and Turkey. This pause was meant to for the Kurdish militias to dismantle their posts and retreat from the 32km “safe zone” and in response the US would not impose any new sanctions on Turkey. However, there’s a lesser mentioned point that prompted the ceasefire and that’s the entrapment of US/UK Coalition Joint Special Operations Task forces in northern Syria. It was necessary for hostilities to cease long enough for them to withdrawal out of harm’s way.

Washington and Turkey do not want the Kurdish militias to work in conjunction with the Syrian Arab Army, but for different reasons. The US would rather see them stay independent from the SAA and keep them as an ally in case US troops return. Remember northeast Syria is advantageous to the US because they can keep an eye on Iran and protect Israel plus there’s oil. Turkey would like to see the Kurdish militias dissolved along with any separatist Kurdish hopes and dreams of establishing an independent Kurdistan on its border.

Ankara has made it clear that if the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) plans on protecting the YPG/SDF that this will be considered an “act of war”. The Turkish administration is worried that the SAA will enter Manbij, Ayn al-Arab, and Qamishli to protect the Kurdish militias, but that wouldn’t be in the Syrian governments best interest.

There’s been some disagreement among the Kurdish militias as to where they need to be withdrawing from, Turkey is demanding that they entirely vacate the 32km border, and not just some of their posts. If the Kurdish militias entirely withdrawal from Turkey’s “safe zone” by the ceasefire deadline, what excuse will Ankara have to continue their military operation? None.

In the past week or so Syrian troops have made significant progress in regaining territory previously occupied by Kurdish militia’s in northern Syria, and Russia tried to broker negotiations between the Kurdish militias and the Syrian government.

Turkey’s stated goals are to fight the terrorist organizations on their southern border, create a safe-zone, and a “peace corridor” for the resettlement of 1-2 million Syrian refugees. They have stated that they are not looking to land grab or encroach but if we know anything about Turkey’s politics it’s that surprises lie behind every corner, much like the United States.

It’s no coincidence that the 120-hour ceasefire ends on Tuesday, and that’s precisely when President Erdogan will be going to Russia to meet with President Vladimir Putin. President Putin has taken on the role of negotiator and is usually the most level-headed adult in the room when it comes to the Syria conflict and dealing with Turkey, Syria, the Kurdish militias, and yes even the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia along with other players.

I assume the seasoned politician serving his fourth term in office will handle the Sochi meeting on Tuesday with Turkey, in the same polite and diplomatic manner we’ve grown accustomed to.

There were some questions as to whether the ceasefire will continue till then, due to violations on both sides. Turkey defense ministry stated on Sunday that one of their soldiers was killed and that the Kurdish militias violated the ceasefire over 20 times in the past three days. The SDF is stating that 16 of their fighters have been killed. Also, as part of the agreement between the US and Turkey, an 86- vehicle Kurdish convoy left Ras al-Ayn toward the town of Tal Tamr this weekend.

On Sunday, hundreds of trucks carrying almost 500 US personnel were seen withdrawing troops near Al Hasakah to Iraq’s border. It’s also been noted that US troops are destroying their own airfields and equipment before fleeing.

It appears that out of the supposed 1,000 US troops that about 500-700 will be sent to Iraq and about 200-300 will remain in Syria to perform what a senior US official referred to as a “counter Daesh mission”. Back in December President Trump had said he wanted to bring all 2,000 troops back home, and now it doesn’t seem like any of them will be coming back home anytime soon.

*

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.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research. For media inquiries please email [email protected].  

Indigenous Rising in Ecuador and International Solidarity

October 21st, 2019 by Kasim Tirmizey

While many Canadians were celebrating Thanksgiving weekend, events in Ecuador generally did not catch media attention. After 11 days of an indigenous-led national general strike and state repression, an agreement was achieved by both parties on the night of October 13th that reversed one aspect of the paquetazo (package) of austerity measures. Those events seem very disconnected with the rhythms of life in Canada, but in many ways there are significant connections. Further, while the general strike has been called off, there is an important need to build or revitalize movements of international solidarity at the contemporary conjuncture.

From October 3rd to 13th tens of thousands of people under the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) organized a national general strike. This action centered on paralyzing the country’s capital, Quito, but protests, blockades, and occupation of public spaces and government buildings occurred across multiple sites in the country. Such an intensive and extensive movement was possible because of the widespread mobilization among the country’s various indigenous nations.

The general strike was called in response to austerity measures taken by the Ecuadorian government as part of conditionalities of signing a $4.2-billion loan with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Government reforms included the removal of subsidies on gasoline prices (Decree 883), that temporary contracts be renewed with a 20% reduction in wages, and public employees be no longer given 30 days of vacation but 15 days. An anti-austerity movement coalesced through the leadership of the CONAIE and brought together student, feminist, environmental justice, and labour movements. In addition, there have been solidarity actions across the world, including La Paz, Buenos Aires, Valencia, Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao, México, Paris, Montreal and New York. Actions in several places included protests outside of the offices of Ecuadorian embassies and consulates.

Cracking Down on Protesters

The Ecuadorian state, under president Lenin Moreno, responded to these protests by declaring a state of exception, which gave significant liberty to the armed forces to repress protesters and censor media critical of the government. From the 3rd to 13th of October, 1192 protesters were detained, 8 were killed, and 1340 injured.1 It has to be remembered that the state repression was unprecedented when considering the immediate past. The previous national indigenous uprisings of 1990, 1994, 1997, and 2000 did not witness such brute force. In the present struggle, this has included the military and police terrorizing indigenous men, women, and children who received refuge in Quito’s universities by throwing tear gas bombs. The armed forces invaded indigenous communal territories in the middle of the night and rounded up their leadership. In multiple cases protesters were beaten, tortured, and trampled upon.

During the dialogue between the CONAIE and the government, Miriam Cisneros, the presidenta of the Sarayaku community in the Amazon, spoke with strength directly to the President:

Photo of Miriam Cisneros, president of the community of Sarayaku. Translation: “I don’t feel alone because this struggle has been alongside the mestizo, afro, and indigenous communities. We have struggled together. We demand that our sisters detained in the prison be liberated, and that our leaders no longer be persecuted when this is over.” Photo Credit: CONAIE.

“Our brothers and sisters have died. This means that our president [of Ecuador] has sent men with arms to kill when we come as a non-violent movement. We have left our children in the jungle [to come to Quito] without knowing that they are eating well. Instead, we have passed 12 days on the streets, Mr. President. […] Our sisters have suffered by being stepped on and beaten by the police and military. Last night when we were staying at the Casa de la Cultura,2 they were not compassionate with us, Mr. President. Doesn’t it hurt you to know that the military and police comes to confront women and children? This is what I have come to tell you as an Amazonica woman, Mr. President. I hope that these assassinations remain in your conscious.”

The power of the general strike was first felt when the government temporarily shifted the seat of its power from Quito to Guayaquil, an important commercial port city that has in the recent past been dominated by conservative forces. And then on October 13th, the government agreed to meet the demand of the CONAIE to remove Decree 883. While much of the Ecuadorian media has focused on the question of the removal of gasoline subsidies for consumers, the CONAIE has emphasized that this movement goes beyond the question of gasoline prices as such.

The national general strike was provoked by IMF conditionalities and this frames the recent direct actions. The movement is confronting how government reforms will further exasperate unequal social relations into the future. On the seventh day of the national general strike the CONIAE wrote:

“The capitalist class sells our homeland and is pro-imperialist, they want to secure the loans of the International Monetary Fund so that their debts and economic crisis is paid by the working class, the indigenous people, and the popular sectors.

“This fight is not only about the conditions of today, nor is it just about the price of gasoline. Our struggle is to prevent that they mortgage our future, such that our next two and three generations will pay with more hunger and poverty for what we didn’t stop today.”3

Austerity and Dispossession

The neoliberal project represented in the austerity paquetazo is also a colonial project. It is difficult not to think about these actions without remembering that 527 years ago on October 12th was the beginning of colonialism in the Americas.4 Contemporary social stratification is a product of historical processes of organizing society based on racial categories (e.g. white, mestizo, indigenous, black). These processes are still ongoing, but through less explicit mechanisms. During the national general strike, the Ecuadorian government and a section of the white elite and mestizo middle class delegitimized the movement through racist discourse. For example, Jaime Nebot, the mayor of Guayaquil, questioned why indigenous people were invading the cities when their place in society were the highlands (paramo). The general image in Ecuadorian society was that the “indian,” the “savage,” had no place in urban civilized life and their presence was an unnecessary inconvenience.

Jaime Vargas, president of CONAIE. “The country is being governed by the Right and the IMF”. Photo Credit: CONAIE.

But, the issue is more then just words, as this discourse develops consensus around social organization on the basis of racial hierarchies. Indigenous people’s experience of neoliberalization has been the loss of land and environmental damage through further mining and oil exploration in their territories against their consent. The CONAIE has emphasized that at issue is the liberalization of the economy for the benefit of national and transnational capital that includes the ongoing dispossession of indigenous peoples. During the dialogue process with the government, CONIAE president Jaime Vargas emphasized that “the country is being governed by right-wing forces and the IMF.” All efforts are being made by the current government to maintain the rate of profit of the capitalist class by violently reducing the compensation received for the labour of indigenous people, peasants, and workers. Just as neoliberalization is part of a colonial-capitalist project, this indigenous-led movement against the IMF and the Ecuadorian government is anti-colonial and anti-capitalist.

The CONAIE outlined in a recent report how displacement, dispossession, and exploitation are the mechanisms for violently accumulating more by compensating people less:

“The Government has launched permanent public campaigns to position the so-called ‘benefits’ of mining and extractivism among corporate media, such as El Comercio and Televistazo, and with the support of government institutions. This is all the while advancing the dispossession of the territories and suffering among the population. This includes, but is not limited to the following:

  1. The imposition of the oil concession of block 28 in the province of Pastaza.
  2. Conflicts over the start of mining in the subtropical zones of the Cotopaxi and Bolívar provinces, in Intag (on the border between the provinces of Imbabura and Pichincha) and in Río Blanco (Molleturo, Azuay province).
  3. The beginning of the exploitation phase of mining concessions in the Cordillera del Cóndor and Shuar territory.
  4. The abuses by the shrimp companies in the area of the Gulf of Guayaquil and on the Puná Island against their workers and against the adjacent communes that were previously stripped of their territories.
  5. The persecution of labour leaders in the banana sector and the covering up the abuses committed among workers on large landholdings (haciendas).”5

The Moreno government was able to convince international funding institutions to provide Ecuador with a loan by demonstrating that the country was open for mining exploitation by foreign companies. The IMF advised the Ecuadorian government to change their tax regime to favour mining companies.6

Acción Ecológica, an Ecuadorian environmental justice NGO, has argued that:

“The agreement with the IMF implies that the country’s debt will be financed through mining and petroleum exploitation, thus exasperating the extractivist model, aggravated by economic measures that generate greater poverty to the Ecuadorian people and destroying nature.”7

As part of the IMF austerity package, the Ministries of Production and Agriculture announced that import tariffs would be reduced between 50 and 100% for 200 products that include raw materials and capital goods for the agricultural sector. While this appears as providing benefits to small-scale peasants by reducing the cost of agricultural inputs, the reality is that this liberalization only benefits capital-intensive, large-scale, and export-oriented agro-businesses, and transnational agricultural and food corporations. The effect of this measure is that the government is subsidizing capitalist agriculture.8

The Local Struggles and International Solidarity

The indigenous-led anti-austerity movement forced the government to revoke the executive decree removing petroleum subsidies. This is indeed a major victory given that peasants and workers would have otherwise seen an increase in the cost of living. It also reversed a trend that forced working people to pay for the country’s debt and subsidize national and transnational capital. Yet, the other aspects of the austerity paquetazo remain intact. Acción Ecológica has argued that what is behind the austerity measures are the expanding mining, petroleum and agro-business frontiers. They call for struggling against this expansion to get at the root of the austerity project.9

In this sense, the struggle is not over. Indigenous communities in the Amazon continue to resist the expansion of the frontiers of petroleum exploitation. Banana workers continue to fight for better working conditions. The struggle continues since the IMF package enables the continued dispossession and exploitation of working people by national and transnational capital. Given the international connections that are embedded in the IMF package, a corresponding international response of solidarity with the struggles of indigenous people, workers, and peasants is necessary. In the Canadian context, given that the country’s mining companies are significant players in Ecuador and are set to benefit from the IMF package, it is imperative for international solidarity groups in Canada to make these links.

The uncontrolled military force that repressed the national general strike is a signal of the increasing authoritarian character in defense of imperialist interests and capitalist development in the region, from Brazil to Colombia. It should be remembered that the recent authoritarian neoliberal moment builds upon the history of colonialism. That there was little global denunciation of state violence is another reason why movements for international solidarity need to organize.

Acknowledgments: I want to thank Gladys Calvopiña for feedback and comments. The cited texts are my own translations from Spanish. All errors are my own.

*

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.

Kasim Tirmizey is a teacher, writer, and activist. He currently teaches at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. He has lived in Ecuador where he was involved with different social organizations including Acción Ecológica.

Notes

  1. Defensoria del Pueblo Ecuador. “Séptimo Informe Ejecutivo personas detenidas Paro Nacional – Estado de Excepción – Octubre 2019.”
  2. The Casa de la Cultura (House of Culture) is a national cultural center in the heart of Quito. The center gave refuge to the CONAIE and its members during the national general strike.
  3. CONAIE. 2019. “Boletin de 10 de Octubre 2019.”
  4. Yupanqui, Véronica Yuquilema. 2019. “12 de Octubre, Día De La Resistencia,” La Línea de Fuego, October 12, 2019.
  5. CONAIE. 2019. “Jornada Progresiva de Lucha.”
  6. Francescone, Kirsten. 2019. “Canadian Mining Companies Part of the Problem as Repression of Indigenous and Social Movements Escalates in Ecuador,” Mining Watch Canada.
  7. Acción Ecológica. 2019. “Serie Subsidios #6: FMI: Deuda, Extractivismo, y Violencia.”
  8. Acción Ecológica. 2019. “Serie Subsidios #4: La Reducción Arancelaria A Las Importaciones Agrícolas Beneficiará Al Agronegocio.”
  9. Acción Ecológica. 2019. “Ante Las Medidas Tomadas Por El Gobierno De Lenin Moreno.”

Featured image: A scene from the women’s march of October 12th in Quito as part of the national general strike. Photo Credit: Cynthia Domínguez Alcivar.

Trump’s Disgraceful Letter to Erdogan

October 21st, 2019 by Prof. Alon Ben-Meir

There is no wonder that every person and news outlet that saw Trump’s letter to Turkey’s president Erdogan thought it was a joke. When it was confirmed that the letter was indeed authentic, bewilderment and disbelief struck everyone who read it, as no US president has ever written such a disgraceful letter which will be remembered in infamy.

Trump starts the letter by stating,

“Let’s work out a good deal!”

Yes, a good deal, just like another shady real estate transaction based on a wicked quid pro quo. Only a psychopath would forget that he gave Erdogan the green light to invade Syria to kill, destroy, and pillage the same Syrian Kurds who were America’s most trusted allies in the fight against ISIS and suffered more than 10,000 casualties. Throughout the war they remained steadfast as an ally, believing that the US would always watch their back, but they were crushingly disappointed.

“You don’t want to be responsible for slaughtering thousands of people,” Trump goes on to say in his infamous letter.

Since when has Erdogan ever been concerned about slaughtering anyone that stood in his way, especially the Kurds whom he hates with a vengeance and has been planning for more than two years to attack and massacre—men, women, and children.

Then Trump stated that

“I don’t want to be responsible for destroying the Turkish economy – and I will. I’ve already given you a little sample with respect to Pastor Brunson.”

First, Trump tells Erdogan to go ahead and wreak havoc on our allies, but then warns Erdogan that he will destroy the Turkish economy if Erdogan does not heed his demand. Well, if this isn’t the nature of a mentally disturb individual, then I don’t know what is.

Trump then proceeds by saying that

“I have worked hard to solve some of your problems.”

The question is, what has Trump worked so hard on with Erdogan when the two hardly ever see eye-to-eye? There is one exception though. Trump envies the Turkish dictator who has been ruling his country with an iron fist; subjugating, jailing, pillaging, and purging his own people with absolutely no qualms and no misgivings. Yes, Trump would love to rule over the US and terrorize the Democrats to submission just like Erdogan, if he only had his way.

“Don’t let the world down”, Trump continues.

What is that supposed to mean? Erdogan has let down the US, all NATO member states, and every institution Turkey is a member of or has any affiliation with. Erdogan is a criminal and has committed crimes against humanity. But then, what is there to say? Erdogan, after all, is a byproduct of the Ottoman Empire, which committed genocide against the Armenians as well as against the Greeks, but he conveniently denies that, albeit the historic records are irrefutable.

Trump goes on to say that

“General Mazloum is willing to negotiate with you, and he is willing to make concessions that they would never have made in the past.”

What is there to negotiate? Erdogan has been given a free hand all along. He has been killing his own Kurds for decades; he defied Trump previously by buying the Russian S-400 air defense system; he is interfering in the internal affairs of many countries, especially in the Balkans and the Middle East; and he is ignoring his Western allies, showing them his middle finger with a smirk on his face.

Now Trump dispatches his Secretary of State Pompeo and Vice President Pence to cajole Erdogan and beg him to agree to a ceasefire while granting him everything he wished for. With the green light given by Trump, Turkey invaded northeastern Syria with the purpose of establishing a “safe zone” for displaced Syrians, but more importantly to push out the Kurdish fighters who are viewed by Ankara as a security threat. In the main, however, Ankara’s goal is to prevent the establishment of an independent Kurdish state in Syria that could evoke a renewed drive by Turkey’s Kurdish minority to seek independence.

Just think about what actually happened. Here you have the President of the US, no less, pleading for cessation of hostilities instead of demanding, in no uncertain terms, that Erdogan pulls out his forces immediately from Syria or face dire consequences. Erdogan, however, seems to take Trump for granted, feeling assured that the straw man in the White House will not take any punitive action not only because he lacks strategic thinking but because of his cowardice.

Trump stated that Pence and Pompeo scored a victory, when in fact it was Erdogan who emerged victorious. Erdogan succeeded in outmaneuvering Trump at every turn, with the US caving into everything Erdogan wanted. Trump ceded ground in Syria, including US military bases, and also agreed to lift the sanctions. The ceasefire may have stopped the killing of the Kurds, but no ceasefire will erase the US’ betrayal of them. The price that the US will end up paying will be hard to imagine.

Next Trump goes on to say that

“History will look upon you favorably if you get this done the right and humane way. It will look upon you forever as the devil if good things don’t happen.”

Will history ever look at Erdogan favorably? The so-called man whose despicable personality supersedes only his ruthlessness and brutality? Erdogan, who took pleasure in the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds, personifies the devil itself and is simply incapable of doing anything, as Trump puts it, “the right and humane way”.

Finally, Trump preaches to Erdogan, saying

“Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool!”

Well, Trump is simply looking at himself in the mirror. He is the one who tries to play the tough guy, and he is the real fool who occupies the White House.

“I will call you later.”

This is how Trump ends the letter. Call Erdogan for what, just to tell him ‘Don’t worry, I still believe that my decision to pull out our troops from Syria was the right decision. You, Erdogan, just go ahead and do what you need to; just don’t make too much noise and don’t brag about it. Leave the bragging to me.’

*

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. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. [email protected] Web: www.alonben-meir.com.

Featured image is from American Herald Tribune

Ecuadorean General Strike Wins Concession on Fuel Subsidies

October 21st, 2019 by Abayomi Azikiwe

After days of mass demonstrations and work stoppages, the Ecuadorean people have illustrated their revolutionary tradition in the ongoing battle against the imposition of austerity.

Beginning on October 3, people responded angrily over the withdrawal of fuel subsidies which had been in place for four decades.

The government of Lenin Moreno, adhering to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditionality, announced the new economic program which resulted in the sharp rise in the price of diesel by 100% and petroleum by 30%. These price increases happened over night making it impossible for many working people and farmers to pay for their household expenses.

These hyperinflationary trends also resulted in the rise in food prices and the cost of transportation. The Moreno government initially rejected the demands of the unions and mass organizations saying that fuel subsidies had cost the country over $60 Billion.

An additional series of labor and tax measures were specifically designed to make Ecuador eligible for a $4.2 Billion loan from the IMF. As part of the austerity package, a 20% cut in salaries for public sector workers was enacted along with the reduction in vacation time from 30 to 20 days annually.

These huge price increases and reduction in pay proved to be the spark which ignited broad sectors among the working class and peasantry into action. With a minimum wage of only $394 per month, the material impact of the IMF imposed policy would drive many more people into abject poverty.

On the first two days of the austerity program, October 3 and 4, unions representing workers in the taxis, buses and trucking sectors went on strike blocking roads and consequently paralyzing the entire country. After talks with the government, the transport unions called off their strike after October 4.

Nonetheless, hundreds of thousands of others representing the Indigenous people, students, mass organizations and local transportation workers, entered the streets demanding that the IMF imposed measures be revoked. These demonstrators blocked traffic prompting clashes with police resulting in the deaths of eight people, 1,300 injuries and the arrest of over 1,100 others.

The mass resistance continued during the week of October 7 even after Moreno had declared a national security emergency. The administration was forced to move its operations outside the capital of Quito to Guayaquil due to the intensity of the clashes between the workers, farmers and youth against the security forces.

Members of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) led the demonstrations in Quito where they blocked streets along with the entry into key government buildings therefore choking off the ability of the state to conduct its normal business. After intense confrontations with the police, there was extensive property damage and arson.

Moreno was forced to hold direct talks with CONAIE. The alliance of Indigenous nationalities refused to negotiate until the government reinstated the fuel subsidy program.

Indigenous groups have grievances which extend beyond the recent price increases. They are opposed to the extraction of natural resources from their traditional lands which have created tensions with successive governments over the last decade.

Mario Melo, an attorney leading the Human Rights Center at Catholic University in Quito, told the Guardian newspaper that:

“The indigenous movement has been a powerful actor in Ecuador since the 1990s.” Demonstrations and mass unrest led by Indigenous people have been pivotal in the removal of several Ecuadorean presidents, including Abdalá Bucaram in 1997, Jamil Mahuad in 2000 and Lucio Gutiérrez in 2005. (See this)

After the announcement of the reversal of the fuel policy (Decree 883) imposed due to the IMF measures, members of CONAIE and others stayed in the capital to assist with the cleanup of the damage caused during the unrest. Nonetheless, the underlying causes of the austerity program adopted by Moreno will continue until there is a fundamental shift in the overall posture of the current government.

Moreno Betrays the Progressive Shift in Domestic and Foreign Policy

Lenin Moreno served as Vice President under the former President Rafael Correa. The Correa government had embarked upon a left-leaning and non-capitalist path of development which placed emphasis on the needs of the workers and farmers inside the country.

Under the banner of the Proud and Sovereign Fatherland Alliance (PAIS), Correa was able to implement reforms related to the renegotiation of foreign debt to the IMF and the World Bank along with the enhancement of social welfare benefits for the working class and poor people of the country. Correa also brought Indigenous and African populations into the administrative apparatus of the state.

This country of 16 million people relies largely on the production of petroleum and agricultural products. During the PAIS period, Ecuador joined the Alliance of Bolivarian Nations (ALBA) and maintained close ties with Venezuela and Bolivia.

During the Correa administration there was a deliberate shift away from the political, economic and military orbit of United States imperialism. In September 2010, an attempted coup against Correa led by the police failed with the majority of the National Assembly and the military siding with the PAIS government. Although the U.S. claimed it had no involvement in the coup attempt and recognized Correa as the legitimate leader, these developments followed a similar pattern in other regional states such as Honduras (2009) and Paraguay (2012), where right-wing governments were installed while President Barack Obama was in office.

When Moreno ran for office to succeed Correa he had pledged to continue the same policy trajectory. However, within a matter of days it became obvious that Moreno would not be true to his campaign promises.

Not only was the policies of the Correa government repudiated, the former president has been accused of kidnapping an opposition politician. He is currently living in Belgium and has expressed an interest in reentering Ecuadorean politics.

Correa pronounced his support for the demonstrations demanding that the Moreno administration resign. Moreno has accused Correa of being behind the unrest along with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Regional Implications of the Ecuadorean Crisis

Of course Washington and Wall Street have been at war with the revolutionary tide of change throughout Latin America. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela now under the presidency of Nicolas Maduro has been a target of successive U.S. administrations where several coup attempts have been carried out dating back to the tenure of President Hugo Chavez in 2002 and extending to the most recent efforts aimed at regime-change on April 30, 2019.

Venezuela has been subjected to draconian sanctions emanating from the White House and the Congress. Diplomats assigned to the U.S. by Caracas have been withdrawn due to the machinations of the administration of President Donald Trump.

However, Venezuela has maintained its unity and sovereignty amid these attacks. Support for the United Socialist Party (PSUV) continues among the key elements of Venezuelan society.

In addition to Venezuela, sanctions and destabilization plans are continuing against the Republic of Cuba. Havana has withstood nearly six decades of a blockade by the U.S.

The struggle in Ecuador is a manifestation of the class and national struggles of the people who want genuine independence and sustainable development. The move away from socialist-orientation to a conservative neo-liberal approach will only further inflame the broad discontent among the masses in Ecuador.

In relationship to its foreign policy reversals, Ecuador under Moreno withdrew from ALBA and is consciously moving to build relations with the Trump administration. The U.S. has provided intelligence and military support to the Moreno regime.

Moreover, Moreno has recognized Juan Guaido, the Washington-backed opposition figure in Venezuela, whom the Trump administration unsuccessfully attempted to install as president in a failed coup attempt in April. With the inability of the opposition in Venezuela to gain any stature internationally among progressive governments within South America, the U.S. has escalated its sanctions policy against Caracas.

Another major element of the foreign policy of Moreno is the withdrawal of diplomatic immunity for Australian journalist Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, who was protected in the Ecuadorean embassy in London for several years. When Moreno took office he allowed the British police to enter the embassy and arrest Assange who could be extradited to the U.S. to possibly face a long prison term or the death penalty for espionage.

These developments in Ecuador are a reflection of the continuing role of the U.S. and other imperialist states in the internal affairs of Latin American nations. Although the imperialists have nothing to offer to the people of the region other than austerity, exploitation and instability, the ruling class in the U.S. will inevitably continue its centuries-old policy of seeking hegemony throughout the entire western hemisphere.

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author

That national interests determine foreign relations is the received norm and has been operating, especially under Western hegemony, forever. Hence, the inability of Western foreign relations experts to perceive of a win-win configuration of the Chinese kind in Africa and Asia. And, nothing has changed. American imperialism today, is no less about its own interests. This premise denies the possibility that the recent US withdrawal from Northeast Syria is anything but self-interest. That reports suggesting American troops are still in the oil rich areas east of the Euphrates signals this unequivocally. Ultimately, this could be the spanner in the works for the so-called win-win-win-win arrangement in Syria. The US withdrawal has four beneficiaries, Syria obviously, Russia now the undisputed power in the region, Turkey to vanquish the Kurds with little resistance and the US itself, falsely claiming it has eliminated ISIS and so is victorious, a claim undisputed by the resistance powers if it serves to get rid of the US. 

But America is more than just its oil interests. Is it mere coincidence that Trump is bringing home the troops to Saudi Arabia, so to speak? Whether as a mercenary army or otherwise the implications of American military build-up in Saudi Arabia coming so soon after the damage to the Saudi oil installations reducing the country’s production by half, and the capture of Saudi military brigades within her borders by the Houthis, is nothing short of alarming vis-a-vis Saudi security. At the end of the Second World War Roosevelt and the Saudi King, Al—Saud came to an agreement that the US would protect the Saudi monarchy in return for cheap oil and the perpetuation of the oil trade in US dollars. 

What if the Kingdom is defeated? At the end of the Second World War Roosevelt and the Saudi King, Al—Saud came to an agreement that the US would protect the Saudi monarchy in return for cheap oil and the perpetuation of the oil trade in US dollars. 

Firstly, therefore, given the longstanding security arrangements between the kingdom and Washington, the vulnerability of Saudi Arabia equates in most minds with the failure of the United States military defensive hardware, to protect. THAAD or no THAAD the missiles got through with astounding accuracy. On the surface Washington refuses to believe that it was the Houthis of Yemen despite claims by them. The fact remains more needs to be done for Saudi security irrespective of whether it was Iran or the Houthis who mounted the attack. 

Saudi security is actually everybody’s concern. It is no exaggeration to assume that the destruction of Saudi oil production capacity can affect the world economy. Crippling Saudi oil facilities means the world’s biggest supplier is off the market. Oil prices would go through the roof. Indeed the world economy is very dependent on oil but at what price per barrel? When barrels of oil are priced too high, it makes production uneconomic. When global oil-based production — these are more than many — cannot accommodate the impossibly high price of oil in their cost of production, economies around the world are affected resulting in economic slowdowns if not recessions. 

There is also the recent disclosure of how the US and Saudi Arabia are joined at the hip, more or less. According to a Bloomberg report by Andrea Wong, in 1974 the US Treasury Secretary, William Simon was tasked by President Richard Nixon to “neutralize (sic) crude oil as an economic weapon and find a way to persuade a hostile kingdom to finance America’s widening deficit with its new-found petrodollar wealth”. There was no room for failure because it “would jeopardise America’s financial health.” Simon sold “the idea that America was the safest place to park their petrodollars” in US government debt. 

“The basic framework was strikingly simple. The US would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide the kingdom military aid and equipment. In return, the Saudis would plow (sic) billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending.” 

But the arrangement was kept a secret at the request of the then Saudi monarch and until the recent disclosures, it has stayed a secret for four decades. The total US debt owned by the Saudi government represents 20 per cent of the kingdom’s $587 billion worth of foreign reserves. Keeping the Saudi kingdom afloat then is of immense importance under the current circumstance where Riyadh is running a deficit and may be forced to liquidate its assets. In fact, the article goes on to say that the US debt held by Saudi Arabia could be larger if they are holding it through offshore financial centres, “which show up in the data of other countries.” Bloomberg speculates that the worry is that the kingdom may even use its “outsize position in the world’s most important debt market” as a weapon. Because Saudi Arabia led the oil embargo which sent the American economy into a tailspin in 1974 which, in turn, sent Simon to the kingdom. 

Fulfilling its position as guarantor of Saudi’s security then becomes an imperative of paramount importance when the Saudi war with Yemen is at its most threatening to Riyadh. There is much talk that the kingdom is doomed. Defeating the Houthis then is very much a US interest. American boots are stomping the sands of Saudi Arabia. The acquiescence of the Pentagon to Trump’s troop withdrawal from Syria and increasing the number of US troops in Saudi Arabia by 1,800 and military hardware bespeaks an underlying urgency that is creating a consensus in the Trump Administration. The last time Trump announced a withdrawal in Syria his Defence Secretary resigned. That consensus is to defeat the Houthis. An escalation of the war on Yemen then is very likely. 

The main purpose of the escalation would be to safeguard the Saudi position and consequently secure US interests in the most important oil-exporting region of 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.

Askiah Adam is executive director of the International Movement for a JUST World (JUST).

“I don’t want to be the best President in the history of Bolivia, I want to be the President of the best Bolivia in history.”

So proclaimed Evo Morales in a pre-election rally a few days before general elections, today, 20 October 2019. At the same time, Evo declared that ever since the Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional (TCP – Plurinational Constitutional Tribunal) in November 2017 rejected an appeal by the opposition that he could run for a fourth term for President, and approved his candidacy for 20 October elections, US interference on a daily basis was rampant. 

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

The Bolivian Minister of the Presidency, Juan Ramón Quintara, referring to the US attempts to sabotage the elections, mentioned a few days ago on a Bolivian public TV channel,

“There is not one day the US is not interfering in Bolivian political internal affairs.” He added, warning his compatriots, “In the last 50 years the United States has put its dirty hand in the Bolivian electoral process. Today the interference is worse than ever. For this reason, brothers Bolivianos, be aware and don’t allow your vote being highjacked by foreign meddling.”

This is in total disrespect of international law, of international diplomacy and ethics. But what to expect from the only rogue state on our “Mother Earth”? Not to mention the flagrant, aberrant and hardly hidden corruption going on in the current and previous US governments for the last at least 100 years, and the Pentagon’s and White House’s constant interference in elections around the world. It is amazing that anybody would still go for these lies – spread by an emperor who is wheezing on his last breath.

Evo Morales is running for the fourth time with his Vice-President, Álvaro Marcelo García Linera, on the MAS Party (MAS – Movimiento al Socialismo), the Movement for Socialism, for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency of Bolivia. The MAS was created in 1998 by Evo Morales. According to the latest polls, Evo has just under 40% of people’s support, against about 22% of Carlos Mesa, the strongest opponent, who is running second, from the right-wing Civic Community party.

According to Bolivian’s Constitution, with 40% of the votes, the candidate wins in the first round. Evo could indeed, win the election in the first round. However, if he gets less than 40%, they are headed for a second-round run-off election. That’s usually where the dangers lay – that’s where US interference is the most ferocious, in elections worldwide, where they want the winning candidate defeated. Washington spends untold millions in smearing the winning candidate and promoting “their” candidate. And often they are successful.  Examples abound. One of the most flagrant one is the 2016 Presidential election in Peru, when in the first round the second candidate from the Socialist Party, the most likely overall winner, was pushed back by election fraud to third place, and the right-wing US-supported candidate was made second – and “won” in the run-off. Today he is under house-arrest, awaiting trial for corruption, linked to illegal business arrangements with the US.

If Evo Morales does not receive the 40% necessary to win the first round, compliments of US interference, it would be the first time in his four runs for President that he would be forced into a second round. He won both the 2009 and 2014 elections with a landslide first round, 61% and 64% respectively.

AlJazeera reports from La Paz, today, in the early morning hours of Election Day, that millions of Bolivians are expected to “cast their ballots amid a climate of uncertainty as President Evo Morales seeks a controversial fourth term.”

Why controversial? – Because the 2009 Constitution allows a President to serve only two terms. But Evo argued that his first term didn’t count because it took place before the new Constitution entered into effect. So, why a fourth term? – Evo realizes that his opposition, especially under his chief contender, Carlos Mesa, would reverse the socioeconomic achievements (see below) of the last 13 years.

Mesa would return the country to the IMF austerity dictate of which Bolivia has been free for 13 years – a main reason for Evo having been able to carry out social reforms, not only benefitting all of Bolivia’s “plurinational” indigenous people, but also to advance Bolivia in macro-economic terms, i.e. renegotiating and partially nationalizing Bolivia’s gas contracts, reducing foreign debt and amassing huge foreign exchange reserves.

Evo is observing closely what is happening in neighboring Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru and Ecuador. It is clear, leaving the elections free without his candidacy, Washington’s dirty hands would manipulate the elections – as they have “successfully” done in the countries mentioned before – to bring in a US favorable candidate, i.e. Carlos Mesa – and the country would be cooked. It is not difficult to foresee such a disaster, just watch what is happening in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Peru, where poverty and unemployment, and related crime, is rampant.

For a bit of history – Carlos Mena was Vice-President under President Sánchez de Lozada, called “Goni” (August 2002 to October 2003), a businessman, educated by the neoliberal School of Economics of the University of Chicago. Sánchez de Lozada was a built-in representative of Washington, who spoke Spanish with a strong English accent, representing blatantly US over Bolivian interests. He was forced out of office in 2003 by people’s protests over the so-called ‘Bolivian Gas Conflict’ (“Goni” was practically giving away Bolivia’s huge natural gas reserves to foreign petrol corporations, mostly US, for a pittance).

The bloody confrontations forcing Goni to flee the country to the US, claimed the lives of 59 protesters, soldiers and policemen. Goni was succeeded by his Vice-President, Carlos Mesa, who followed in Goni’s footsteps, continuing Goni’s policies on Bolivia’s natural gas. Carlos Mesa, after less than 2 years in office, was also forced to resign in 2005, under incessant people’s demonstrations and protests.

New elections at the end of 2005 brought in Evo Morales, who was presiding over the country from the beginning of 2006 to this day. – Watch also the documentary, “Our Brand is Crisis”, depicting how Sanchez de Lozada was made to win the 2002 elections over Evo Morales, by a special US propaganda team – see this.

A look at Bolivia’s socioeconomic achievements should further convince anybody who thinks for the people, that Evo did very well, insisting on his candidacy for the 2019 elections. The Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, finds that Bolivia’s remarkable gains have been largely the result of wise policy choices, rather than just a “commodities boom”.

Bolivia was the fastest growing economy in Latin America over the past five years, about 5.2% on average (double the Latin-American average) and was able, under Evo Morales, to reduce poverty by 42% and extreme poverty by 60% since 2006, when Evo took office. The country also ended 20 years of IMF “rule”, by Evo’s eviction of the infamous Bretton Woods institution.

Other remarkable achievements include:

  • A 50% increase in real terms of per capita GDP in 2018, over 2005;
  • From 2006 – 2011 the government revenues from hydrocarbon increased seven-fold to US$ 4.95 billion, mostly from nationalization and associated policy changes. This was the driving force for the Government’s reaching macroeconomic stability and achieving its socioeconomic targets;
  • Unemployment has dropped from 7.7% to 4.4.% in 2008 – and has remained stable through 2018;
  • Public investments have increased along with Bolivia’s economic growth; Bolivia has the highest public investment as a percentage of GDP of the region;
  • Overall investments have reached almost 22% of GDP on average per year over the past 5 years;
  • In 2010 Bolivia has started applying a policy of “quantitative easing” to purchase state-owned financial instruments, i.e. bonds and similar debt certificates. At the end of 2018, the Central Bank’s balance sheet showed 44% were invested in public assets, a 12% increase since 2010.

Lots of challenges remain, as Bolivia still figures as the poorest country in South America, followed by Guyana, Paraguay, Ecuador and Peru. Evo knows that his job is far from finished – and American forced “regime change” is certainly not in order.
Viva Bolivia! Viva Evo!

*

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

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

Trump claimed that “we’ve taken control of the oil in the Middle East” as a result of his greenlight to Turkey to invade Syria.

As usual, no one could understand what he was talking about. Syria and Turkey are not oil states, though Syria was doing 400,000 barrels a day before the 2011 revolution. The world produces about 100 million barrels a day and big producers like Saudi Arabia, Russia and the US itself put out between 9 and 12 million barrels a day. Syria’s prewar production is more than matched by the fracked Bakken fields in North Dakota, which produce over a million barrels a day.[1]

So Trump has not actually taken control of any oil at all by letting Turkey into northeast Syria.

But there is a sense in which he has done the opposite. Likely one of the many goals of the US presence in northeast Syria was to prevent the Syrian regime from recovering the oil and gas fields there (and most such Syrian fields are in the northeast). The ISIL “caliphate” had taken many of these facilities in 2014 and used to sell crude to the Syrian regime and smuggle it to Turkey, as a source of income.

And then the US bombed many of the oil and gas facilities as the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) took them back away from ISIL. Most of them were probably too damaged to provide much income to the Kurds subsequently, but perhaps some of them did.

Although 400k barrels a day is a drop in the bucket in world oil market terms, given that the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad is an economic basket case, getting back those oil and gas fields would be, over time, a godsend. Or in this case Trumpsend.

The Kurds have thrown in the towel and invited Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian Arab Army and its Russian ally back into the northeast, which has 90% of Syria’s oil and 45% of its natural gas.

The Russian channel Sputnik reports in Arabic that a Syrian government spokesman has announced that all the oil and gas fields of Homs, Hama and Raqqa are now in the hands of the Syrian government again and that investments are being made to bring them back online. It will take a lot of work to do so, given extensive war damage.

The Syrian Arab Army and Russian troops entered Raqqa, the former ISIL capital, just a few days ago, after the Kurdish YPG withdrew to concentrate on defending its northern lines against Turkey. Despite the resurgence of some slight ISIL terrorism activity in eastern Syria, the Damascus regime seems eager to reassert itself there, especially given the likelihood of recovering oil and gas fields.

The Russian press is speculating that Russian companies will be the ones to develop and benefit from these recovered fields.

A Russian government spokesperson said Friday that Moscow is completely confused by US aims in Syria. I guess so. They can’t figure out why Trump gave them and Assad this gift of recovered oil fields, which could eventually strengthen the Damascus regime.

*

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

[1] The first draft of this post misstated the situation at Bakken, saying “well” instead of “field.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Yamazaki, Shoot Emperor Hirohito!” Okuzaki Kenzo’s Legal Action to Abolish Chapter One (The Emperor) of Japan’s Constitution

Ed Vulliamy (The Guardian, Opinion, 12 October 2019) was quick to join the chorus of attacks on Peter Handke, this year’s winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, as “an apologist for genocide within living memory at the heart of Europe”.

But, in the years since Mr Vulliamy and others entrenched a view of the 1990s Balkan conflicts that survives to this day, a canon of evidence has emerged to support a different interpretation.

We (the Balkan Conflicts Research Team) are an informal collective of more than 30 researchers, authors, journalists, academics, lawyers, NGO officials and others.   Over the last 20 years and more, we have exchanged, discussed and analysed all the information we can lay a hand on.

We began by accepting much of the official narrative.  Gradually we realised we should not have done so because we could find  little or no hard evidence to support it.

Two years ago we began to take a very hard look at the Hague war crimes Tribunal for Yugoslavia.  By the time it closed in December 2017, it had become the bulwark supporting the official narrative of the Balkan wars. The long sentences handed down to  those charged with war crimes (virtually all of them Serbs) were seen as the final proof.

Surely this UN-created international criminal court could only have reached such verdicts on the basis of compelling, hard evidence which had been properly tested in exacting proceedings?  That was not the case. We found that the crucial evidence to support the ICTY’s convictions was virtually untested: raw forensic and DNA evidence was merely reported to the court, not made available for independent expert analysis;   intercepts of Bosnian Serb radio communications were provided in almost all cases as transcripts because the original recordings had been ‘destroyed’; and crucial witness testimony was  overwhelmingly from “protected” witnesses who gave evidence anonymously and by remote link so they could not be seen in the court.  On top of this, academic estimates have concluded that the vast majority of all evidence heard in ICTY trials was hearsay.

To make matters worse, we found conclusive evidence that deliberate steps were taken to ensure that the International Commission for Missing Persons, a body set up by President Bill Clinton in 1996 to gather factual evidence for the ICTY, would never have to make available the raw evidence it had gathered for peer review by anyone.  Laws passed in Bosnia in 1998 and Croatia 2002 gave the ICMP, an organisation with a staff more than 90% made up of Bosnian Muslims, absolute immunity from any attempt to subpoena its its raw data.

Even the ‘breakthrough’ methodology the ICMP claimed to have developed to identify nearly 7,000 bodies recovered after the fall of Srebrenica could not be prised out of them.  This was by far the quickest and most complete DNA identification process ever carried out – and this despite the recovered bodies decaying in the earth for at least 5 years before exhumation.  Yet defendants were denied their absolute right to have access to all this material    and test it comprehensively.

Mr Vulliamy has always denigrated the views of those who, unlike him, had not seen events from the front line.  The Balkan conflicts proved to be dangerous for journalists: those who worked there certainly showed courage. Being there, however, was not necessarily a way to  understand what was happening. Few western journalists spoke Serbo-Croat. The majority of their information came from official spokesmen and stringers.

When the UN finally reported on the Bosnian camps, the story they told was far removed from furore that followed the reports made by Mr Vulliamy and the ITN team in 1992.  The UN concluded that all sides had run camps, mainly as reception centres for people who had no access to food in their area. These camps were rough and ready and it was likely that, again on all sides, there had been abuses.  But this was not remarkable in a conflict; if anything the UN concluded it was at a level slightly below the average. Just before his death, Bosnian Muslim President Alija Izetbegovic surprised Bernard Kouchner and Paddy Ashdown by telling them there had been no death camps in Bosnia.

To call anyone who challenges the official version of the conflicts a “genocide apologist” is a stock response for those unprepared to discuss the facts – a brick wall intended to make it impossible to bring truth to the surface.  We believe that Peter Handke’s expressed views on this sad chapter of Balkan history are sincere and well founded – and much closer to the mark than those of his critics.

*

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 Srebrenica Project.

Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995.

Vote on Johnson’s No-Brexit/Brexit Deal Delayed

October 20th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

A rare Saturday session was held to resolve Brexit up or down. 

Not so fast. Forty months after Brits narrowly voted to leave the EU on June 23, 2016, the issue remains unresolved. More on Saturday’s below.

***

Johnson struck a no-deal/Brexit deal with Brussels Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn called worst than Theresa May’s betrayal of the public trust, rejected by MPs three times.

Johnson and EU leaders pretended to resolve the Irish backstop Brexit sticking point by unacceptably redefining it.

Britain, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland want an open Irish border, without customs checks or other impediments for commerce and people to move freely throughout the island territory — what the April 1998 Good Friday Agreement set in place, a hard border eliminated.

Johnson and Brussels squared the circle by fudging a backstop, Northern Ireland to follow EU rules, especially on goods, its rules applying for commerce between all Irish territory and remainder of Britain.

Johnson’s scheme is a reworking of Theresa May’s unacceptable deal, making it worse, elements of what was agreed unclear by not resolving them.

The deal pretends to free Britain, including Northern Ireland, from the customs union, leaving it free to negotiate trade deals with other countries like the US.

Johnson claims he got Brexit despite what he and the EU agreed on wasn’t what Brits voted for — a clean break with no wrinkles complicating things and creating unacceptable uncertainties about how post-Brexit will play out for ordinary Brits.

The deal also lets Northern Ireland opt out after four years, another complication. The flawed deal is opposed by Labor, Lib Dems, the Brexit party, Scottish National party, Northern Ireland DUP MPs, and perhaps some Tories.

It’s all about selling out ordinary Brits for privileged interests, including by permitting intensified neoliberal harshness.

According to Republic of Ireland national broadcaster RTE television, a leaked copy of Johnson’s deal with Brussels includes customs clearance sites from five to 10 miles on either side of Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border.

It also includes tracking devices on trucks to monitor traffic digitally on both sides of the Irish border in real time. It lets Northern Ireland adhere to EU agriculture regulations.

On Saturday, MPs passed an amendment Johnson opposed. It delays Brexit for a later date — until legislation is passed on its fine print and how it’s to be implemented.

Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act of 2019, the so-called (Hilary) Benn Act (September 2019), Johnson is mandated to seek a new withdrawal date of January 31, 2020 no later than Saturday — kicking the can down the road again with uncertainty about what awaits next year.

He remains defiant, saying “I will not negotiate a delay with the EU, and neither does the law compel me to do so,” adding:

“I will tell our friends and colleagues in the EU exactly what I have told everyone else in the last 88 days that I have served as prime minister — that further delay would be bad for this country, bad for the European Union, and bad for (Britain’s) democracy” for its privileged few alone at the expense of the vast majority of its people.

Saturday’s up or down vote on Johnson’s deal was rescheduled for Tuesday. He said he’ll introduce new legislation, a further complication.

Corbyn said “(h)e can no longer use the threat of a no-deal crash out to blackmail members to support his sell-out deal.”

As of Saturday, things remain uncertain, the next Brexit chapter to unfold when parliament votes on Tuesday as things now stand.

If the above sounds complicated, it surely is because the devil is in details yet to be worked out and explained.

Note: On Saturday, tens of thousands marched in London for a second Brexit referendum.

Given 40 months and counting without resolution of the first one, it’s unclear what a rerun would accomplish.

*

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

There are some people — whereby I do not know how many — who recall the key elements of British colonial rule. I was fortunate enough not to live under it. My grandfather had no great admiration for the country where he was born, despite the almost rabid Anglophilia to be found in the most surprising places.

I still find it bizarre that in a country whose monarchy was ended in 1918, many people still say “the Queen” as if they were still subjects of Hanover under Britain’s George III. That at least was the last point at which some of my compatriots could legitimately claim that the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is their Queen.

Perhaps as an hypothetical exercise or a thought game, it would be amusing to imagine that Elizabeth II by the grace of God, Queen (by virtue of an ancient papal dispensation) Defender of the Faith, of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and her Commonwealth Realms, were also “our Queen”. That would leave the question why “our queen” is not Margarethe of Denmark or was not the Queen of the Netherlands?  Strangely enough my compatriots do not call the occupant of the slave-built mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC, USA “our president” — although that person has more direct control over our country than Her Britannic Majesty.

If we assume that the Federal Republic of Germany is nothing of the sort but a covert member of the Commonwealth, a secret vassal of the House of Battenberg (aka Windsor), then perhaps we should ask what the statements delivered to the Lords and members of the House of Commons in London actually mean for those passionate, deluded, or perhaps just mistaken subjects of British imperial rule?

Let us imagine something else, just for fun. Some Catalonians have just been sentenced to gaol for six or more years on account of their actions in support of independence of Catalonia from Spain. Never mind the problems that such an independence would present (EU membership, financial obligations, currency and other aspects of national rule), the verdicts and sentences have provoked considerable discontent in Barcelona, the virtual nation’s capital. One official has pointed out that this is a political problem and judges are appointed to resolve issues in the criminal code not political questions. This implies that the only recourse to those condemned for their political actions is to appeal beyond the scope of Spanish criminal law. But to whom? The Spanish monarchy was ended in 1931 with the establishment of the Second Spanish Republic. That republic was overthrown by the fascist Francisco Franco with the active assistance of Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy as well as the passive and partially active support of His Britannic Majesty, the Roman Catholic Church, the clerico-fascist president of the Irish Free State, the president of the Portuguese Council of Ministers, and internationally active corporate interests.

The dictator (El Caudillo, also by the grace of God if the coins minted during his rule are to be believed) Francisco Franco declared the defunct Spanish monarchy restored and imposed it upon Spain and its non-Castillian provinces. Regardless of the objective merits — seen in practical international power context — of Catalonian independence, it was certainly no less credible than the various “independence” movements supported by NATO to destroy Yugoslavia. So to whom should Catalonians submit for justice in their struggle — executive clemency from the pretenders who occupy a defunct throne “Franco gratia”?

Returning for a moment to the Battenbergs and the New Yorker Etonian who serves as their First Lord of the Treasury. The Queen’s Speech — the formal proclamation of HM Government at the State Opening of Parliament — focuses on two elements, for obvious reasons. The first is the effort by a segment of the British imperial elite to remove itself from the perceived strictures of the European Commission — the so-called “Brexit”. The second is the extension of British police powers under the pretext that the great prudish kingdom is threatened by foreign (non-white) criminal invaders and sexual offenders (are people like the deceased Jeffrey Epstein and his meanwhile invisible partner, the daughter of Robert Maxwell, suicide and notorious defrauder of a major British media group, also included?)

In the briefing document, issued by No. 10 as commentary to the Queen’s Speech, the First Lord of HM Treasury, stresses the end of “free movement” and a return to the Stormont regime in Belfast.

This interesting choice of words betrays the real attitude of the Churchill fanatic from New York. Those who recall Stormont could be forgiven for thinking more of Bloody Sunday than Good Friday.

With Mr Johnson’s adoration of one of Britain’s most repugnant 20th century imperialists, it requires little imagination to ask if Mr Johnson does not dream of Ireland as it was under his idol — of Para- occupied Catholic neighbourhoods, of Orangeman death squads and maybe even the Black and Tans.

Whether in Madrid or London (don’t look too close at Brussels or The Hague) monarchy holds its ugly, condescending head with a paper-thin democratic mask made by its corporate marketing legions. The contempt in which true democrats and socialists are held by these imperialists has never been very well concealed. It has taken the willing and constant servility of those who adopt foreign dynasties and stuff themselves on pomp and pageantry to maintain the illusions that nonetheless break in the slightest breeze of spontaneous self-respect.

*

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 Dissident Voice.

Dr T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket between the cradles of Heine and Saramago. He is also the author of Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa

Featured image is from Dissident Voice

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Stop Press: The Queen’s Screech: Britain, Spain and Other Illnesses

Destination Afghanistan was known as the big easy back in the halcyon days of the late 1960s. Hippies from throughout the affluent West hitchhiked to the capital, Kabul, where crash pads and hashish were cheap, and the locals were tolerant. Life appeared to be mellow in the scenic shadow of the Hindu Kush Himalayans. That was then.

Now Afghanistan is engulfed in year 18 of the forever US war with no end in sight. The war has gotten so old – the longest in US history – that the Pentagon PR flacks changed the code name from Operation Enduring Freedom to Operation Freedom’s Sentinel to spruce up its image.

Half of Kabul is now in rubble. Music, education for girls, and cultivation of opium poppies are prohibited in areas controlled by the former US-allied Taliban. US-backed warlords in the rest of this devastated land supply the majority of the world’s illicit heroin, visiting a plague of drug addiction on nearby Iran, China, and Russia – official US enemies – and on the ghettoes, rural wastelands, and hipster dens of the West. US attempts at “reconstruction” of Afghanistan have cost $117 billion, eclipsing the price tag of the entire Marshall Plan for Europe.

So why is the US still in Afghanistan? The official explanation has something vaguely to do with the arch villain Osama bin Laden from Saudi Arabia who was last holed up in Pakistan before reportedly being assassinated by US special forces and unceremoniously dumped into the sea eight years ago.

Max Blumenthal’s The Management of Savagery provides a far more cogent explanation for the US wars in Afghanistan along with Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, and Syria with Iran on the to-do list (and may be on the war list by the time this article gets posted). Savagery reads like a real-life whodunit tracing the shadowy back channels of the CIA, FBI, DIA, and NSA piping jihadists around the greater Middle East to create chaos only to find their assets turning against them. Besides being well written, the analysis of the maturation of the neoliberal imperial project by the world’s sole remaining superpower illuminates the current bi-partisan consensus for militarism.

The politics of chaos 

The collapse of the Soviet Union left a geopolitical power vacuum and an opportunity for the US to more aggressively exert its imperial will. The ensuing politics of chaos produced some strange bedfellows: “human rights” thinktanks with Gulf monarchies, anti-Semites with Zionists, the US security state with jihadists, and neoconservatives with establishment liberals.

Bin Laden, according to Savagery, had a master plan to create “full chaos” in the greater Middle East, which he believed would precipitate the collapse of local regimes so that the culture of jihad could supersede them. Dovetailing this scenario was the neocon plan for regime change in regional states not subservient to US dictates and Israeli expansion. “In the global war bin Laden envisioned,” Blumenthal reports, “these [US] foreign policy fanatics would make the perfect partners.” Leading the charge were neocon Republicans like John Bolton and Elliot Abrams with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), later to be joined by liberal Clinton Democrats.

Both foreign jihadists and domestic militarists needed a precipitating incident, what the PNAC envisioned as a “catastrophic and catalyzing event.” That came with 9/11. Blumenthal finds credence that the US government likely had some foreknowledge of the attacks, but accuses some Truthers of inadvertently running interference “for the imperialist power they claimed to disdain” by “omitting any historical discussion of the American government’s relationship with the forces directly implicated in the attacks.”

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force was passed just five days after 9/11 as a joint resolution of Congress with only one dissenting vote. “Congress thus voluntarily abdicated its constitution authority and,” according to Blumenthal, “gave its blessing to America’s forever war.” The Patriot Act followed a month later, “granting the executive branch unprecedented wartime powers to investigate and prosecute Americans.”

The neocons and the alt-right have been able to mainstream anti-Muslim politics in the US. Meanwhile the liberal “responsibility to protect” (R2P) doctrine has created popular support for forever war “by weaponizing the discourse of human rights to justify the use of force against governments that resisted the Washington consensus.” The R2P liberals achieved what the right could not.

“In the era of Russiagate, when so many liberals cling to institutions like the FBI and NATO as guardians of their survival,” Blumenthal explains, “the dastardly record of America’s national security mandarins has been wiped clean.” The forever warsare “marketed to the Western public as clinical exercises in freedom-spreading” with a “dual layer patina of patriotic hoopla [for the right] and humanitarian goodwill [for the liberals].”

The refugee crises coming out of the Middle East, generated by the forever wars and accompanying economic sanctions (more accurately, illegal unilateral coercive measures), have consequently fueled xenophobia both in the US and abroad. This, in turn, has fostered an ascendant wave of rightists. “Trump’s election,” Blumenthal contends, “would not have been possible without 9/11 and the subsequent military interventionism conceived by the national security state.”  The national security state did not arise with Trump, but “has maintained a steady continuity between successive administrations.”

Unwanted refugees are not the only inconvenient byproduct of the forever wars in the greater Middle East. The US security state’s alliance with jihadists to overthrow the Soviet-friendly government in Afghanistan – a pattern which is has been repeated in each subsequent Middle Eastern misadventure – has created a “disposal problem” of what to do with these US-armed combatants.

For Americans, the tragedy of 9/11 was just the most dramatic example of the “disposal problem.” “The plague of international jihadism that the United States helped to unleash through its covert interventionism in Cold War-era Afghanistan,” Blumenthal warns, “was to expand and metastasize…”

The neoliberal imperial project, a symbiotic association of liberal “military humanism” and rightwing straight-up militarism, is now showing signs of undoing according to Blumenthal:

“Through covert operations and overt invasions, America’s national security state had destabilized entire regions, from the Levant to North Africa, unleashed a migration crisis of unprecedented proportions onto Europe and spurred an inevitable right-wing backlash that was unraveling the neoliberal consensus they sought to protect.”

Critical reviews

In a critical review of Savagery, Louis Proyect finds himself “in agreement” on Afghanistan and Libya but not on Syria. Proyect rejects the analysis that the purpose of the US is or ever was regime change of the Assad government in Syria: “with the regime still intact, it might be obvious that this was never the goal.”  Proyect dismisses what otherwise the purpose of the US war effort might be with a “let’s leave that aside.” In contrast, regime change is the central thesis of Blumenthal’s book.

Proyect accuses Blumenthal of being “one of Assad’s biggest supporters on the left,” though a reading of Savagery would suggest Blumenthal is not an apologist for the governments targeted by the US for regime change. In an interview after his recent visit to Syria, Blumenthal commented: “Whether or not Syria is a dictatorship or a police state; I would not dispute that at all.” Rather, the focus of Savageryis on the policies and actions of the US and its allies, the deleterious effects it has had on the people of the region, and the blowback it has had at home.

A critique in the Times Literary Supplement, from a liberal “humanitarian imperialism” point of view, kvetches:

“It is easy to blame the United States for many of the world’s ills: easy because of the availability of evidence. It is also easy to overstate your case, with misleading or one-sided examples – the trap that Max Blumenthal falls into in The Management of Savagery.

Which raises the question of why, given “the availability of evidence,” the TLS and its co-conspirators in the corporate media unerringly fall into the opposite trap of being sycophants of the Empire? Why have they failed to connect the dots, as Blumenthal has, and shown “how America’s national security state fueled the rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and 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.

Roger D. Harris is a human rights activist who recently visited Syria for an international conference on the impacts of economic sanctions by the US and its allies on over 30 countries in the world.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Greater Middle East Project of Chaos: The Management of Savagery

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines Tested on 4-6 Year-olds

October 20th, 2019 by helenlobato.com

I have often feared that in the end babies and young children would be given the dangerous and increasingly unpopular HPV vaccines.

I suspect that time is fast approaching.

GlaxoSmithLine (GSK) the manufacturer of Cervarix has recently conducted a trial of its two valent HPV vaccine on healthy 4-6 year old female children in Latin America.

The study involving girls from Colombia, Panama and Mexico was published in the current edition of the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 

Here is the stated rationale for injecting such young children with HPV vaccines:

The burden of human papillomavirus (HPV) diseases is high in Latin America. HPV vaccines licensed from 2006 onwards offer protection against most HPV-related cancers, especially when introduced into national immunization programs.

Barriers to optimal vaccine uptake are, however, lowering the impact of adolescent HPV vaccination programs. Immunization of children might overcome these barriers and be a strategy of choice for some countries.

Where have I heard this rationale before?  The same excuse was used for the introduction of the hepatitis B vaccine for babies and young children.

According to the National Vaccine Information Center

The primary reason that the CDC recommended hepatitis B vaccination for all newborns in the United States in 1991 is because public health officials and doctors could not persuade adults in high risk groups (primarily IV drug users and persons with multiple sexual partners) to get the vaccine.

Rates of HPV vaccination

Similarly the rates of the uptake of HPV vaccines are not as good as the manufacturers of Cervarix and Gardasil would want with the US experiencing low rates as reported by ScienceDaily

Only about 16 percent of U.S. adolescents have been fully vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV) by the time they turn 13, despite national recommendations that call for vaccination at 11 to 12 years of age.

And in Japan coverage rates for the HPV vaccine have plummeted from 70 percent in 2013 to less than 1 percent today. They are also lower than desired in Ireland where health authorities have expressed alarm at the falling rates of vaccination estimated as a 50% uptake for the first dose in 2016–17.

Expansion of the customer base

On October 5 2018 the FDA approved Gardasil 9 for use in women and men aged 27 through 45 years. The fact is there is a declining US market for Gardasil. Increasingly people are learning about the real adverse effects and long term injury resulting from this vaccine program. According to Vaers, the Vaccine adverse event recording system there have been 510 reported deaths following HPV vaccines and over 62,000 reported adverse events. But expansion of the HPV vaccination program seems on the cards again as witnessed by the recent study done on very young girls.

There were 148 girls in the study. 74 received  2 doses of Cervarix vaccine at Day 0 and Month 6. The control group were given 1 dose of Priorix vaccine at Day 0 and 1 dose of Infanrix vaccine at Month 6.

There was no inert placebo. The control group were given Priorix (MMR) and Infanrix (DTPa).  It is common for vaccine manufacturers not to use saline placebos in their safety and efficacy studies. By comparing one vaccine to another vaccine and in this case with Infanrix which contains 500 mcgs of aluminium, chances are the vaccine being trialed does not look as bad as it really is. On the other hand if a normal saline placebo was used then we would really see a much higher rate of adverse events in the vaccine than in the control group. But then this is the way the manufacturers have set it up. It is corrupt.

There are no laws governing the contents of placebos.

The World Health Organization states that using a vaccine (rather than an inert substance) as a placebo creates a “methodological disadvantage” and also notes that it may be “difficult or impossible” to assess vaccine safety properly without a true placebo.

And yet this is how they conduct vaccine trials. They do not use true placebos and in the original Gardasil trials the participants in the control arm were given the aluminium adjuvent (amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate) that is used in the vaccine.

As it turned out more than half of the very young girls in the Cervarix group got a medically significant condition not related to common ailments. That is 38 out of 74 girls.
MSCs include AEs prompting emergency room or physician visits that are not related to common diseases or routine visits for physical examination or vaccination, or serious adverse events (SAEs) that are not related to common diseases.

See: ClinicalTrial

Study conclusion:

Vaccination of girls 4–6 years of age with 2 doses of AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine induced high immune response that translated to antibody plateau sustained for 30 months after the second dose. The vaccine showed an acceptable safety profile in this young population. These results suggest that pediatric HPV vaccination might be a valuable strategy to overcome limitations of some adolescent immunization programs.

This is a very flawed vaccine. There is no proof that HPV causes cervical cancer or any of the other HPV cancers. These are little children and even if there was a valid reason to give this vaccine, the effect of the vaccine would have worn off well before they were sexually active. Gardasil was fast-tracked through the FDA, a process usually reserved for life threatening diseases to fill an unmet and urgent medical need. Improved living conditions had already reduced the incidence of cervical cancer significantly in Western countries.

To think they could give it to small children and even babies is abhorrent.

*

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 Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines Tested on 4-6 Year-olds
  • Tags: ,

Analyzing a sequence of public statements by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky regarding Crimea and Donbass made over any length of time, it immediately becomes clear that he is attempting to master the political art of sending mixed signals. He has very little choice but to do so, considering that he must simultaneously attempt to balance the (conflicting) foreign policy agendas of the United States, Germany and France respectively with the potentially explosive tendencies of Ukrainian nationalists.

We might recall that Zelensky’s predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, found himself hamstrung quite early on in his tenure, unable to consolidate power to an extent that might enable him to wrest control of the Donbass policy from the political extremists on the Verkhovna Rada’s parliamentary committee on law-enforcement. Being genuinely fearful of the nationalists (fearful concerning his own personal safety), Poroshenko ended up capitulating shamelessly to the nationalist agenda, finally attempting to portray himself as the nationalist-militarist candidate in his disastrous bid for re-election.

In attempting to make predictions about Zelensky’s trajectory, we need to bear this point in mind – Poroshenko’s turn to the nationalist political constituency was by default. The main reason for it was his inability to consolidate power. In 2014, he had been the centrist candidate. Time will tell whether or not Zelensky proves to have more resolve or courage.

For the moment, Zelensky finds himself being forced to repeat the same mantras regarding “Russian aggression,” and “recovering all occupied Ukrainian territories,” for example in his speech to the United Nations General assembly on September 25th. Speaking in Kiev the previous day, Zelensky discussed the possibility of the continuation of dialogue through the Normandy Four format, involving the governments of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine. He told reporters

“We want to leave this meeting with certain results on a specific timeframe for the war to be over and our territories to be returned.”

On October 2nd, Zelensky proposed drafting a concept of transitional justice for Crimea and Donbass, which he said should deal with “legal aspects of re-integration of temporarily occupied territories.”

Utterly unrealistic, and he knows it, but what else do you expect him to say? What else can he say?

We might ask if this denial of practical realities is best explained by a nuanced negotiating-strategy, or if Zelensky simply finds himself caught in an impossible domestic political and geo-political catch 22 wherein he can’t think of anything else to say. Both explanations are probably part of the mix.

Zelensky’s reference to “re-integration” would inevitably draw chuckles from many people in my own country of origin, the Republic of Ireland. Prior to a 1999 referendum which enabled its amendment, Article 3 of the 1937 Irish constitution began with the deliberately provocative phrase “Pending the re-integration of the national territory,” which alluded to the territorial status of Northern Ireland.

Of course, it was wishful thinking, but it served a practical purpose, insofar as it eventually became a bargaining-chip which could be traded to hammer out the Good Friday Agreement.

So is Zelensky’s reiteration of the official Ukrainian position regarding the territorial status of Donbass and Crimea part of a long-term, attemptedly hard-nosed negotiating-strategy, or is it best explained by the possibility that Ukrainian nationalists give him no room for tactical manoeuvre whatsoever? Zelensky’s announcement on October 1st that he had signed the Steinmeier Formula, a roadmap to ending the conflict in Donbass, prompted immediate protests in Kiev, with nationalists shouting “No to capitulation!”

Further complicating Zelensky’s difficulties is the point that there is currently a divergence between US policy and the positions of France and Germany on issues such as conditions for Ukraine’s recognition of the legitimacy of elections in Donbass, the timing of Ukraine’s resumption of control of the Russia-Ukraine border as per the Minsk II accord, etc.

If anything, this need for Zelensky to simultaneously juggle the conflicting concerns of so many great powers simply confirms the fact which is at the root of the Ukrainian crisis which began to gestate with the “orange revolution” in 2004/2005, and continues to the present day.

The fundamental root of the crisis, as yet again demonstrated by Zelensky’s current diplomatic catch 22, is simply that Ukraine’s history and geography make it impossible for Ukraine to be a genuinely independent country.

At least, in this regard, the Normandy Four discussions are a pragmatic approach, creating a format through which the major European powers can collectively consult concerning the future of Ukraine. This is tacit recognition of the practicalities of Ukraine’s status as a “limitrophe” territory.

During his October 10th marathon press-conference, Zelensky at times admitted the weakness of his position. At one point, he stated “If there are some negotiations between the U.S. and Russia about Ukraine without Ukraine’s participation, this is a bad signal.” Regarding accusations that his attempts to conduct meaningful negotiations concerning Donbass through the Normandy Four format and the Steinmeier formula constituted “treason,” he answered “When some people call this treason, I think treason is to prevent me from executing my presidential duties and promises to stop the war, to limit the number of those killed to zero.”

It would be overly simplistic to see Zelensky as merely a passive figure, helplessly pushed around by historical forces. He has been dealt an exceedingly bad hand, the same hand which any Ukrainian president would find themselves holding, but he’s playing it as well as he possibly can. One level on which he’s attempting to optimize the strategic value of the cards at his disposal is through his skilled use of legalistic language. His references to “re-integration” are certainly a “fictio juris,” but not only – in using this legalistic language, Zelensky is attempting to diffuse the nationalist threat while at the same time changing the tone (and therefore, gradually, also the content) of Ukraine nationalist discourse.

*

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.

Padraig McGrath is a political analyst.

One of the trilogy’s most memorable scenes was in pre-liberated Cuba where mafia dons are seen carving up a cake representing the country.

The Hyman Roth character explains that “all of you will share” in plundering the island state in collaboration with its ruling authorities, adding:

“These are wonderful things that we’ve achieved in Havana, and there’s no limit to where we can go from here.”

“This kind of government knows how to help business to encourage it…(W)e have now what we have always needed —real partnership with the government.”

Cuba’s strongman despot Fulgencio Batista was like Nicaragua’s Anastasio Somoza, a figure Franklin Roosevelt called “a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.”

The characterization applied to Batista, today to all despots serving US interests and their own at the expense of peace, equity and justice.

Since early 2011, Obama’s war on Syria, now Trump’s, using ISIS and likeminded jihadists as proxy Pentagon/CIA foot soldiers continues.

It’s gone on endlessly because bipartisan US hardliners reject restoration of peace and stability to the country and others the US attacked aggressively.

They want all nations not controlled by the US transformed into vassal states, Assad and other independent leaders replaced by pro-Western puppet rule.

War in Syria is also about isolating Iran regionally, ahead of a similar scheme against its ruling authorities.

What’s going on in the Middle East post-9/11 is part of a US-led NATO/Israeli plot to redraw the Middle East map, carving up nations for easier control, looting their resources and exploiting their people.

Tactics include endless wars and chaos in one country after another, serving US imperial interests. Peace and stability defeat its aims.

Russia’s intervention in Syria four years ago changed the dynamic on the ground, most of the country liberated from the scourge of US-supported ISIS and other terrorists, Idlib province the key remaining battleground.

Infested with thousands of heavily armed US-supported al-Nusra jihadists, they’re holding around three million civilians hostage as human shields, defeating them requiring protracted struggle that’s winnable.

The greater issue is occupation of northern Syria by US and Turkish forces, its south bordering Iraq and Jordan by Pentagon troops.

As long as Syria is occupied by foreign forces, liberation remains unattainable.

The illegitimate October 17 US/Turkish deal leaves troops from both countries occupying and controlling Syrian territory — a flagrant international law breach, a scheme Damascus rejects.

It includes redeploying US forces in northern areas largely or entirely cross-border to Iraq and perhaps Jordan, unknown numbers remaining in Syria — thousands more sent to Saudi Arabia, increasing the Pentagon’s regional military footprint.

As portrayed in the Godfather trilogy, the US and Turkey agreed to carve up Syria’s north, ruling authorities of both countries wanting control over its oil-producing areas.

Damascus has no intention of relinquishing any of its territory to foreign occupiers, war likely to continue until all parts of Syria are liberated.

On Friday, Bashar al-Assad met with Kremlin special representative for Syria Alexander Lavrentiev and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin.

Discussing the latest developments on the ground, notably Turkish aggression and Erdogan’s deal with the Trump regime, Assad stressed that Syria’s liberation depends on halting Ankara’s offensive and freeing the country from foreign occupiers.

Russian officials affirmed support for Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity, what the Kremlin backed throughout the war, along with restoration of peace and stability to the country.

On Saturday, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported that Turkish terror-bombing and cross-border shelling continue for the second day following Thursday’s deal in Ankara, saying:

“(R)esidential neighborhoods in Ras al-Ayn and targeted places of worship from mosques, churches and monasteries, which caused the people fleeing the targeted areas” were struck, adding:

A “SANA reporter said that eight civilians were martyred and about 25 others were injured in the ongoing Turkish aggression on Syrian territory in and around Ras al-Ayn city despite the announcement of the Turkish regime reaching an agreement with Washington…”

“(G)roups of the Turkish occupation forces and their mercenaries infiltrated into Ras al-Ayn city and the surrounding villages and attacked with medium and light weapons the people in the villages of Lazka, Abah, Mraikiz, Bab al-Khair and Sheikh Hussein Tomb in Ras al-Ayn countryside.”

“The Turkish regime is launching offensive on a number of villages and towns in the countryside of Hasaka and Raqqa, which resulted in the martyrdom and injury of hundreds of civilians, including children, women and workers in the service sectors, and considerable material damage to service facilities, vital infrastructure such as dams, power and water plants.”

On Saturday, Southfront said the “northeastern Syria ceasefire is collapsing.” Turkish forces continue to attack sites, at least 28 civilians killed or injured.

AMN News said “Turkish forces (are) advanc(ing) (on a) key border city despite (Thursday’s) ceasefire” agreement, attacking Kurdish YPG fighters.

Hardline US and Turkish regimes can never be trusted, time and again agreeing to one thing, then going another way.

Is this what’s now playing out in Syria? What follows Thursday’s deal remains very much uncertain.

If past is prologue, there’s little reason for optimism.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The Road to Damascus: How the Syria War Was Won

October 20th, 2019 by Pepe Escobar

What is happening in Syria, following yet another Russia-brokered deal, is a massive geopolitical game-changer. I’ve tried to summarize it in a single paragraph this way: 

“It’s a quadruple win. The U.S. performs a face saving withdrawal, which Trump can sell as avoiding a conflict with NATO ally Turkey. Turkey has the guarantee – by the Russians – that the Syrian Army will be in control of the Turkish-Syrian border. Russia prevents a war escalation and keeps the Russia-Iran-Turkey peace process alive.  And Syria will eventually regain control of the entire northeast.”

Syria may be the biggest defeat for the CIA since Vietnam.

Yet that hardly begins to tell the whole story.

Allow me to briefly sketch in broad historical strokes how we got here.

It began with an intuition I felt last month at the tri-border point of Lebanon, Syria and Occupied Palestine; followed by a subsequent series of conversations in Beirut with first-class Lebanese, Syrian, Iranian, Russian, French and Italian analysts; all resting on my travels in Syria since the 1990s; with a mix of selected bibliography in French available at Antoine’s in Beirut thrown in.

The Vilayets

Let’s start in the 19th century when Syria consisted of six vilayets — Ottoman provinces — without counting Mount Lebanon, which had a special status since 1861 to the benefit of Maronite Christians and Jerusalem, which was a sanjak (administrative division) of Istanbul.

The vilayets did not define the extremely complex Syrian identity: for instance, Armenians were the majority in the vilayet of Maras, Kurds in Diyarbakir – both now part of Turkey in southern Anatolia – and the vilayets of Aleppo and Damascus were both Sunni Arab.

Nineteenth century Ottoman Syria was the epitome of cosmopolitanism. There were no interior borders or walls. Everything was inter-dependent.

Ethnic groups in the Balkans and Asia Minor, early 20th Century, Historical Atlas, 1911.

Then the Europeans, profiting from World War I, intervened. France got the Syrian-Lebanese littoral, and later the vilayets of Maras and Mosul (today in Iraq). Palestine was separated from Cham (the “Levant”), to be internationalized. The vilayet of Damascus was cut in half: France got the north, the Brits got the south. Separation between Syria and the mostly Christian Lebanese lands came later.

There was always the complex question of the Syria-Iraq border. Since antiquity, the Euphrates acted as a barrier, for instance between the Cham of the Umayyads and their fierce competitors on the other side of the river, the Mesopotamian Abbasids.

James Barr, in his splendid “A Line in the Sand,” notes, correctly, that the Sykes-Picot agreement imposed on the Middle East the European conception of territory: their “line in the sand” codified a delimited separation between nation-states. The problem is, there were no nation-states in region in the early 20th century.

The birth of Syria as we know it was a work in progress, involving the Europeans, the Hashemite dynasty, nationalist Syrians invested in building a Greater Syria including Lebanon, and the Maronites of Mount Lebanon. An important factor is that few in the region lamented losing dependence on Hashemite Medina, and except the Turks, the loss of the vilayet of Mosul in what became Iraq after World War I.

In 1925, Sunnis became the de facto prominent power in Syria, as the French unified Aleppo and Damascus. During the 1920s France also established the borders of eastern Syria. And the Treaty of Lausanne, in 1923, forced the Turks to give up all Ottoman holdings but didn’t keep them out of the game.

Turkish borders according to the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923.

The Turks soon started to encroach on the French mandate, and began blocking the dream of Kurdish autonomy. France in the end gave in: the Turkish-Syrian border would parallel the route of the fabled Bagdadbahn — the Berlin-Baghdad railway.

In the 1930s France gave in even more: the sanjak of Alexandretta (today’s Iskenderun, in Hatay province, Turkey), was finally annexed by Turkey in 1939 when only 40 percent of the population was Turkish.

The annexation led to the exile of tens of thousands of Armenians. It was a tremendous blow for Syrian nationalists. And it was a disaster for Aleppo, which lost its corridor to the Eastern Mediterranean.

Turkish forces under entered Alexandretta on July 5, 1938.

To the eastern steppes, Syria was all about Bedouin tribes. To the north, it was all about the Turkish-Kurdish clash. And to the south, the border was a mirage in the desert, only drawn with the advent of Transjordan. Only the western front, with Lebanon, was established, and consolidated after WWII.

This emergent Syria — out of conflicting Turkish, French, British and myriad local interests —obviously could not, and did not, please any community. Still, the heart of the nation configured what was described as “useful Syria.” No less than 60 percent of the nation was — and remains — practically void. Yet, geopolitically, that translates into “strategic depth” — the heart of the matter in the current war.

From Hafez to Bashar

Starting in 1963, the Baath party, secular and nationalist, took over Syria, finally consolidating its power in 1970 with Hafez al-Assad, who instead of just relying on his Alawite minority, built a humongous, hyper-centralized state machinery mixed with a police state. The key actors who refused to play the game were the Muslim Brotherhood, all the way to being massacred during the hardcore 1982 Hama repression.

Secularism and a police state: that’s how the fragile Syrian mosaic was preserved. But already in the 1970s major fractures were emerging: between major cities and a very poor periphery; between the “useful” west and the Bedouin east; between Arabs and Kurds. But the urban elites never repudiated the iron will of Damascus: cronyism, after all, was quite profitable.

Damascus interfered heavily with the Lebanese civil war since 1976 at the invitation of the Arab League as a “peacekeeping force.” In Hafez al-Assad’s logic, stressing the Arab identity of Lebanon was essential to recover Greater Syria. But Syrian control over Lebanon started to unravel in 2005, after the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, very close to Saudi Arabia, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) eventually left.

Bashar al-Assad had taken power in 2000. Unlike his father, he bet on the Alawites to run the state machinery, preventing the possibility of a coup but completely alienating himself from the poor, Syrian on the street.

What the West defined as the Arab Spring, began in Syria in March 2011; it was a revolt against the Alawites as much  as a revolt against Damascus. Totally instrumentalized by the foreign interests, the revolt sprang up in extremely poor, dejected Sunni peripheries: Deraa in the south, the deserted east, and the suburbs of Damascus and Aleppo.

Protest in Damascus, April 24, 2011. (syriana2011/Flickr)

What was not understood in the West is that this “beggars banquet” was not against the Syrian nation, but against a “regime.” Jabhat al-Nusra, in a P.R. exercise, even broke its official link with al-Qaeda and changed its denomination to Fatah al-Cham and then Hayat Tahrir al-Cham (“Organization for the Liberation of the Levant”). Only ISIS/Daesh said they were fighting for the end of Sykes-Picot.

By 2014, the perpetually moving battlefield was more or less established: Damascus against both Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS/Daesh, with a wobbly role for the Kurds in the northeast, obsessed in preserving the cantons of Afrin, Kobane and Qamichli.

But the key point is that each katiba (“combat group”), each neighborhood, each village, and in fact each combatant was in-and-out of allegiances non-stop. That yielded a dizzying nebulae of jihadis, criminals, mercenaries, some linked to al-Qaeda, some to Daesh, some trained by the Americans, some just making a quick buck.

For instance Salafis — lavishly financed by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait — especially Jaish al-Islam, even struck alliances with the PYD Kurds in Syria and the jihadis of Hayat Tahrir al-Cham (the remixed, 30,000-strong  al-Qaeda in Syria). Meanwhile, the PYD Kurds (an emanation of the Turkish Kurds’ PKK, which Ankara consider “terrorists”) profited from this unholy mess — plus a deliberate ambiguity by Damascus – to try to create their autonomous Rojava.

A demonstration in the city of Afrin in support of the YPG against the Turkish invasion of Afrin, Jan. 19, 2018. (Voice of America Kurdish, Wikimedia Commons)

That Turkish Strategic Depth

Turkey was all in. Turbo-charged by the neo-Ottoman politics of former Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, the logic was to reconquer parts of the Ottoman empire, and get rid of Assad because he had helped PKK Kurdish rebels in Turkey.

Davutoglu’s Strategik Derinlik (“Strategic Depth’), published in 2001, had been a smash hit in Turkey, reclaiming the glory of eight centuries of an sprawling empire, compared to puny 911 kilometers of borders fixed by the French and the Kemalists. Bilad al Cham, the Ottoman province congregating Lebanon, historical Palestine, Jordan and Syria, remained a powerful magnet in both the Syrian and Turkish unconscious.

No wonder Turkey’s Recep Erdogan was fired up: in 2012 he even boasted he was getting ready to pray in the Umayyad mosque in Damascus, post-regime change, of course. He has been gunning for a safe zone inside the Syrian border — actually a Turkish enclave — since 2014. To get it, he has used a whole bag of nasty players — from militias close to the Muslim Brotherhood to hardcore Turkmen gangs.

With the establishment of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), for the first time Turkey allowed foreign weaponized groups to operate on its own territory. A training camp was set up in 2011 in the sanjakof Alexandretta. The Syrian National Council was also created in Istanbul – a bunch of non-entities from the diaspora who had not been in Syria for decades.

Ankara enabled a de facto Jihad Highway — with people from Central Asia, Caucasus, Maghreb, Pakistan, Xinjiang, all points north in Europe being smuggled back and forth at will. In 2015, Ankara, Riyadh and Doha set up the dreaded Jaish al-Fath (“Army of Conquest”), which included Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda).

At the same time, Ankara maintained an extremely ambiguous relationship with ISIS/Daesh, buying its smuggled oil, treating jihadis in Turkish hospitals, and paying zero attention to jihad intel collected and developed on Turkish territory. For at least five years, the MIT — Turkish intelligence – provided political and logistic background to the Syrian opposition while weaponizing a galaxy of Salafis. After all, Ankara believed that ISIS/Daesh only existed because of the “evil” deployed by the Assad regime.

The Russian Factor

Russian President Vladiimir Putin meeting with President of Turkey Recep Erdogan; Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov standing in background, Ankara, Dec. 1, 2014 Ankara. (Kremlin)

The first major game-changer was the spectacular Russian entrance in the summer of 2015. Vladimir Putin had asked the U.S. to join in the fight against the Islamic State as the Soviet Union allied against Hitler, negating the American idea that this was Russia’s bid to restore its imperial glory. But the American plan instead, under Barack Obama, was single-minded: betting on a rag-tag Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a mix of Kurds and Sunni Arabs, supported by air power and U.S. Special Forces, north of the Euphrates, to smash ISIS/Daesh all the way to Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor.

Raqqa, bombed to rubble by the Pentagon, may have been taken by the SDF, but Deir ez-Zor was taken by Damascus’s Syrian Arab Army. The ultimate American aim was to consistently keep the north of the Euphrates under U.S. power, via their proxies, the SDF and the Kurdish PYD/YPG. That American dream is now over, lamented by imperial Democrats and Republicans alike.

The CIA will be after Trump’s scalp till Kingdom Come.

Kurdish Dream Over

Talk about a cultural misunderstanding. As much as the Syrian Kurds believed U.S. protection amounted to an endorsement of their independence dreams, Americans never seemed to understand that throughout the “Greater Middle East” you cannot buy a tribe. At best, you can rent them. And they use you according to their interests. I’ve seen it from Afghanistan to Iraq’s Anbar province.

The Kurdish dream of a contiguous, autonomous territory from Qamichli to Manbij is over. Sunni Arabs living in this perimeter will resist any Kurdish attempt at dominance.

The Syrian PYD was founded in 2005 by PKK militants. In 2011, Syrians from the PKK came from Qandil – the PKK base in northern Iraq – to build the YPG militia for the PYD. In predominantly Arab zones, Syrian Kurds are in charge of governing because for them Arabs are seen as a bunch of barbarians, incapable of building their “democratic, socialist, ecological and multi-communitarian” society.

Kurdish PKK guerillas In Kirkuk, Iraq. (Kurdishstruggle via Flickr)

One can imagine how conservative Sunni Arab tribal leaders hate their guts. There’s no way these tribal leaders will ever support the Kurds against the SAA or the Turkish army; after all these Arab tribal leaders spent a lot of time in Damascus seeking support from Bashar al-Assad.  And now the Kurds themselves have accepted that support in the face of the Trukish incursion, greenlighted by Trump.

East of Deir ez-Zor, the PYD/YPG already had to say goodbye to the region that is responsible for 50 percent of Syria’s oil production. Damascus and the SAA now have the upper hand. What’s left for the PYD/YPG is to resign themselves to Damascus’s and Russian protection against Turkey, and the chance of exercising sovereignty in exclusively Kurdish territories.

Ignorance of the West

The West, with typical Orientalist haughtiness, never understood that Alawites, Christians, Ismailis and Druze in Syria would always privilege Damascus for protection compared to an “opposition” monopolized by hardcore Islamists, if not jihadis.  The West also did not understand that the government in Damascus, for survival, could always count on formidable Baath party networks plus the dreaded mukhabarat — the intel services.

Rebuilding Syria

The reconstruction of Syria may cost as much as $200 billion. Damascus has already made it very clear that the U.S. and the EU are not welcome. China will be in the forefront, along with Russia and Iran; this will be a project strictly following the Eurasia integration playbook — with the Chinese aiming to revive Syria’s strategic positioning in the Ancient Silk Road.

As for Erdogan, distrusted by virtually everyone, and a tad less neo-Ottoman than in the recent past, he now seems to have finally understood that Bashar al-Assad “won’t go,” and he must live with it. Ankara is bound to remain imvolved with Tehran and Moscow, in finding a comprehensive, constitutional solution for the Syrian tragedy through the former “Astana process”, later developed in Ankara.

The war may not have been totally won, of course. But against all odds, it’s clear a unified, sovereign Syrian nation is bound to prevail over every perverted strand of geopolitical molotov cocktails concocted in sinister NATO/GCC labs. History will eventually tell us that, as an example to the whole Global South, this will remain the ultimate game-changer.

*

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

Pepe Escobar, a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong Kong-based Asia Times. His latest book is “2030.” Follow him on Facebook.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Road to Damascus: How the Syria War Was Won
  • Tags: ,

Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring once again drew wide attention not only to the so-called Kurdish question, but also to attempts by Ankara to create a unified Syrian opposition as an alternative to the Assad government. According to official Turkish statements, the goal of the operation is to secure the southern Turkish border defeating “the terrorism” and allow up to 2 million of refugees to return to their homes. Nonetheless, there are no doubts that the operation, like previous military actions in the provinces of Aleppo, Lattakia and Idlib, will be used by Turkey to expand its own influence.

The Turkish-based Syrian Interim Government headquartered and Turkish-affiliated militant groups would be used as a tool of projecting Turkish military and political influence in the area. The Syrian National Army (SNA) are a brand of militant groups participating in the northeastern Syria offensive. Turkey’s Operations Olive Branch and Euphrates Shield demonstrated that the main goal of such groups is to serve as cannon folder on first line of the battle, while aircraft, battle tanks, artillery and special forces units of the Turkish Armed Forces do the main work. This allows Ankara to pretend that its actions in Syria are not military occupation, but a move needed to return the territory to the moderate Syrian opposition that opposes the ‘illegitimate regime’ of President Bashar al-Assad.

In the area of Greater Idlib, Turkish-backed factions formed the National Front for Liberation in May 2018, which was promoted as a moderate opposition coalition that would limit the influence of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other al-Qaeda-linked groups. Despite claiming to have 70,000 fighters (sic), the coalition immediately lost a struggle for power to its al-Qaeda counterparts and became a subordinate to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. In 2018 and 2019, groups from the National Front for Liberation repeatedly participated in al-Qaeda operations against the Syrian Army.

Watch the video here.

In northern Aleppo, Ankara was more successful because the SNA formed in December 2017 operates only in the Turkish Army area of operations and much more depends on the logistical and supply infrastructure created by Turkish special services. Since its creation, the SNA has included 30 groups with lofty names like the Army of Elite or the First Brigade Command and a very few trained personnel. Despite this, the formation, according to different estimates, includes from 15,000 to 25,000 fighters. Its members participated in Operation Olive Branch and successfully continued receiving salaries ($300-400 per month) after it. Now, they are involved in the operation in northeastern Syria.

Just a few days ahead of the start of Operation Peace Spring, Turkey attempted to unite the National Front for Liberation and the Syrian National Army. On October 4, the groups even released a statement claiming that they had merged. A few hours after the release, fierce clashes between the groups erupted over properties seized in the Afrin area. This put an end to the unification efforts at least for now.

Another problem is that the Turkish-based Syrian Interim Government and especially its Defense Ministry have no real influence on SNA detachments because it had no levers of influence over funds, weapons, ammunition or even orders that they receive. The full control over these sides of the SNA life allows Ankara to successfully manipulate them, when these groups are needed to some military action. At the same time, this approach undermines attempts to create a unified command to manage these groups because commanders of these groups are constantly engaged in an internal struggle for control over weapons and money flow from their Turkish backers.

This explains why immediately after the end of the active phase of Operations Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch, the SNA dispersed into competing armed groups mostly concerned by looting properties in the seized areas and protecting racketeering of local business and markets. Therefore, the Turkey-controlled part of northern Syria was turned into a safe haven for drugs and weapons trafficking, and organized crime. Turkey’s iron hand once again turned competing gangs into a united force under the SNA brand for Operation Peace Spring. However, as soon as, the active phase of operation ends, the Turkish-controlled part of northeastern Syria will experience consequences similar to those faced by territories captured by Turkish-led forces in 2016-2018.

*

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

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

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

A month ago president Donald Trump spoke of his desire to “avoid” war with Iran, as anxieties simmer between the United States and this large, diverse Middle East country. It is likely that the Trump administration is sincere in its hope to steer clear of a full-scale military conflict against Iran, as bitter memories of the debacle in Iraq remain prominent in Washington.

Yet there may also be other factors lurking in the background for the present denigration of Iran, that go almost unmentioned. Trump himself is quite likely exploiting the tensions with Tehran for political purposes, in a bid to boost his chances for re-election in November 2020.

Concocting images of fierce enemies abroad is an old ploy utilised by politicians in order to improve one’s popularity, or to win over fearful, uncertain voters with an election on the horizon. Similar stratagems were used by past US presidents, from Ronald Reagan and his supposed concerns over the Nicaraguan Sandinistas that were “just two days’ drive from Harlingen, Texas”; to George W. Bush and how “the murderous tyrant” Saddam Hussein “must not be permitted to threaten America and the world”. Trump’s tactics would seem to be working. Despite the enormous liberal media campaign against him, his approval ratings are slightly higher at this stage by comparison to predecessor Barack Obama during his first term in office.

In the meantime, unlike Iraq or Nicaragua, Iran represents a far greater obstacle to the United States. Trump’s cabinet, like those before it, is surely aware of the challenge that Iran poses to Washington. Geographically for example, Iran is among the most mountainous of all the nations on earth and its highest peak, Mount Damavand, stands at over 5,500 metres tall. Mount Damavand, a potentially active volcano which erupted most recently seven thousand years ago, is located just over 40 miles from Tehran. Iran’s capital is home to more than eight million people, and is a city which itself stands at mountain altitude above sea level.

As with China, Iran comprises one of the world’s oldest human civilisations, dating thousands of years into history. Nor is Iran easily intimidated by Washington, and has consistently pursued policies independent of America during the past 40 years. This has been a continued source of concern in the White House. Iran is a country of especially high importance, due in part to its location at the centre of the world’s greatest energy producing areas. Iran in addition contains the second biggest known gas reserves on earth, and the fourth largest quantities of oil.

When the Iranians look around beyond their boundaries, they are ringed by US forces. There are at least 45 American military bases almost surrounding Iran, positioned around the Persian Gulf and further east. These US bases are situated in Persian Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait, in which there are tens of thousands of American soldiers permanently stationed. There are further American bases erected in Afghanistan, a country bordering Iran to the east, along with almost 15,000 US troops.

Despite the fact that Iran has developed ties with Iraq, the United States also retains military installations on Iraqi soil, through which there around 5,500 American soldiers present.

It has been claimed by Western politicians, like US vice president Mike Pence, that Iran is a major threat to “peace and security”. Yet who is really threatening whom here? Iran’s arms expenditure is much smaller by comparison to Western allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel, not to mention a tiny fraction that of Washington’s. These realities are often overlooked, however – but US intelligence has reported to Congress, in the US capital, that the Iranian arms outlay is continually low by Middle East standards.

US aspirations regarding Iran are to continue in applying heavy pressure against the clerical leadership of Tehran, and especially the Iranian people, in the hope of bringing about critical destabilisation. This is the principal reason underlining the continued US sanctions implemented on Iran. These economic measures are designed to weaken the foundations of Iranian society, stoke dissatisfaction and unrest among Iran’s populace, finally resulting in regime change. Much of the same thinking has been behind Washington’s 60 year embargo of Cuba.

Due to years of the above policies, the Iranian people have become increasingly embittered against America. According to a December 2018 study conducted by IranPoll, more than 80% of Iranians have an “unfavourable view” of the United States.

Iran is not a particularly poor or underdeveloped country. The Human Development Index (HDI) places Iran in 60th position among the countries of the world – which puts Iran just outside the “very high human development” bracket. According to the Human Development Index, the overall living standards in Iran are higher than in major states like Turkey (64th), Brazil (79th), China (86th) and India (130th).

Were the United States to regain control of Iran, it would be a massive boost to American power in the Middle East, and thereby reverse some of their decline elapsing since 1949 with “the loss of China”. President Trump has been increasing America’s military presence in the Persian Gulf, by dispatching greater numbers of US soldiers to the territory. The continued ramping up of tensions could result in some unforeseen incident that may spark a confrontation which would spread. The repercussions of an all-out conflict between America and Iran could literally destroy the Middle East.

Amid all of the Western commentary expounded on Iran over the years, there is an element of truth to the claims that Iran is something of a threat – not to world peace of course. Iranian ambitions are clearly a threat to American hegemony in the Middle East. Tehran has provided assistance to Bashar al-Assad in Syria, a figure that the United States desired to have ousted, and whom Washington views as a long-time ally of both Russia and Iran.

US hopes in Syria have since been dashed with Assad having practically won the war, mainly because of Russian and to a lesser extent Iranian support. Russia and Iran are now the dominant players dictating policy in Syria, with Turkey moving into northern Syria to destroy the Kurdish factions there. Though not as vital a country as Iran, Syria is still a strategically important state that shares frontiers with Israel, Iraq and Turkey, among others.

Iran has furthermore been supporting the Houthi Islamic movement in Yemen, who are in opposition to the US-backed Saudi autocracy, in what has been a brutal civil war directed by Riyadh and made possible with Western arms and funding. Saudi Arabia has been an American ally for many decades, and was described by the US State Department in 1945 as “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history”. Saudi Arabia is a huge oil nation, and today is the largest producer of this lucrative substance on the planet.

Iran is also mistrusted by Washington due to its backing of Hezbollah, the Islamist militant group based in nearby Lebanon to the west. Hezbollah is a long-time opponent of Israel, another key US ally, and is an organisation that was established as a result of the destructive 1982 Israeli invasion of neighbouring Lebanon. Hezbollah eventually drove the Israelis from Lebanon, and the group is by now an integral part of Lebanese society. Hezbollah has been acting as a deterrent to another Israeli attack on Lebanon.

Tehran has likewise been providing financial support for Hamas, the Palestinian association regarded as “a terrorist group” by the US, Israel and the EU. Akin to Hezbollah, Hamas was founded (in 1987) as a response to Israel’s expansionist foreign policy acts, in this case the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Worryingly from the US and Saudi viewpoints, Iran retains relations with mineral-rich Qatar across the Persian Gulf, in the form of commercial and cultural ties, while the two countries share access to natural gas fields. Qatar holds a southern border with the Saudis, who frown very strongly indeed at their relationship with Iran. One of the main factors behind the recent diplomatic crisis between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, was Riyadh’s dismay at its neighbour’s enduring links to Iran.

The United States strongly maintains its desire to hold sway over the Middle East, an ambition which again dates to the Second World War. Dwight D. Eisenhower, America’s famous general and future president from 1953, described the Middle East as “the strategically most important part of the world”; in other words, a region that America must dominate if she is to preserve her position as the planet’s undisputed top power.

Another of Washington’s core concerns regarding Iran, a Shi’ite-majority country, is the spread of its influence to neighbouring states also rich in resources. Since the Iraq invasion 16 years ago, Tehran has capitalised on the growing strength of the Shi’ite presence in Baghdad by developing closer ties with Iraq – which was a serious defeat for US policy in the Middle East. There are also fears in Washington regarding the possibility that Tehran could increase relations with the Shi’ite minority in eastern Saudi Arabia, where most of the Saudi oil reserves are located.

*

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

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iran Is Almost Encircled by at Least 45 American Military Bases. Who is Really Threatening Whom
  • Tags: ,

On October 16 and 17, the Russian Aerospace Forces were conducting airstrikes on positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in northern Lattakia and southern Idlib. According to local sources, the most intense strikes took place near Tahtaya, Kafar Sijnah and Rakaya Sijneh.

After Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring started in northeastern Syria on October 9, Idlib militant groups carried out several attacks on positions of the Syrian Army in the southern part of the de-escalation zone. Most likely, militants believed that the Turkish incursion into Syria would draw attention of the Syrian Army and allow Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to capture at least several villages in southern Idlib.

The Syrian Air Force and the Russian Aerospace Forces responded to these attempts with precise strikes on positions of radicals.

ISIS is another group that decided to take some advantage of the Turkish actions. On October 17, the terrorist group announced that its units had freed a an unspecified number of women affiliated with the group from a HQ of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the village of Mahmudli in western Raqqa.

Watch the video here.

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, about 14,650 ISIS members remain in 7 detention camps in the area controlled by the SDF. Additionally, there are 8 camps for displaced persons, including relatives of ISIS terrorists. The number of people kept in these camps may reach 120,000.

Turkey’s Defense Minister Hulusi Akar warned that “terrorist groups” (i.e. Kurdish militias) are planning to stage a chemical weapons provocation to accuse the Turkish Army of using chemical weapons in northeastern Syria. In previous years, Ankara repeatedly accused the Damascus government of conducting chemical attacks. In those cases, Turkey was not very interested in talking about some terrorists’ involvement or ‘preplanned staged attacks’.

Turkish-led forces continue their advance along about 120km long chunk of the border. Especially intense fighting is ongoing in the town of Ras al-Ayn, a part of which still remains contested.

The deployment of the Syrian Army around these area is aimed at preventing a further advance by Turkish-led forces. Just recently, the SDF handed over the Kobani border crossing to government troops. Therefore, if the SDF-Damascus deal is implemented, the Turkish presence will be limited to the border area from Tell Abyad to Ras al-Ayn.

On October 17, the US and Turkey agreed on a temporary ceasefire in northeastern Syria. According to the agreement, Kurdish forces have to withdraw from the 32km-deep area within 120 hours. If this is done, the Turkish military operation will not be resumed.

*

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Assad Troops Deploy on Border Amid 120-hour Ceasefire
  • Tags:

Celebrity Protesters and Extinction Rebellion

October 20th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Benedict Cumberbatch. Olivia Colman. Fine actors. They believe in Extinction Rebellion, or perhaps, rebelling against the prospect of extinction. The environment thing, humanity as a damnably scandalous, ecologically damaging species. But they also believe in taking sponsorship from the very same entities who are doing their best (or worst) to engage in matters of existential oblivion. So the circle of contradiction, even hypocrisy, is complete.

The matter has come to the fore over overt expressions of support for XR’s two-week effort of disruption in London by the entertainment set. Severable notable sites have received the attention of the climate change protest group. The Treasury building has been sprayed with fake blood. The London Underground train system has been disrupted. Protestors have glued themselves to trains, to floors and even mounted trains. Roads to Westminster were blocked, sit-ins staged at City Airport. Over a 1,700 arrests have been made.

Phil Kingston was one such figure, not exactly a rabble rouser or hardened rioter. The 83-year-old glued his hand to the side of a carriage at Shadwell and was concerned for his grandchildren. “I’m also very concerned about what’s happening in the poorer parts of the world who are being hit hardest by climate breakdown.” Being Christian, he expressed concern about “God’s creation being wrecked across the world.” Kingston was also jointed by a rather eclectic sampling: a vicar, an ex-Buddhist instructor, and a former GP.

The incident, which involved aggressive scuffling between commuters and the protesters, was acknowledged in a statement from the movement as something divisive. “In light of today’s events, Extinction Rebellion will be looking at ways to bring people together rather than create an unnecessary division.” Others were keen to pick holes in the rationale of the protest: Why, for instance, get at an electric train? Within XR, things are far from uniform.

Such protestors were a rather humble lot, but it did not take long for the bigger fish to join the shoal. Cumberbatch added his voice of support, his grin flashing as it was snapped by cameras in front of the Extinction Rebellion hearse blocking traffic to Trafalgar Square. Behind him were the conspicuous words hovering with spectral, foreboding promise: “Our future.”

The criticism of this was not far behind. Cumberbatch is the very conspicuous “brand ambassador” for MG in India. (Previously, Jaguar counted him among their celebrity proponents.) The MG GS sports a particularly thirsty engine, and the actor is featured in an advertisement doing rounds in one on, of all places, Trafalgar Square. MG India’s Hector SUV has also boasted Cumberbatch’s smooth persona.

Academy award winner Colman has also found herself at odd between protest and brand. Having openly expressed her support for the movement, questions were asked by some of the more barbed wings of the British press whether there might be a clash between being on a British Airways inflight video, and disrupting flights.

Over the summer, Oscar winning actress Dame Emma Thompson was also ribbed for flying from Los Angeles to London to participate in an Extinction Rebellion protest. Her explanation to BBC Radio 4 was that the objects of her job, and being a protester, might not always converge. “It’s very difficult to do my job without occasionally flying, although I do fly a lot less than I did.”

Those bastions of supposed establishment wisdom, such as The Spectator, were chortling and derisive. Toby Young was keen to highlight how purchasing vegan baguettes at Pret a Manger was inconsistent with anti-capitalist protest.  He also expressed, at least initially, concern at how law enforcement authorities had, generally speaking, been models of restraint before XR enthusiasts. Had there been “a group of Catholic nuns protesting about changes to the Gender Recognition Act, the riot squad would have been straight with the tear gas.” For Young, it was good to laugh at these modern millenarians infused with the spirit of apocalyptic terror.

The issue of celebrity encrustation, however, was bound to come by and find voice. And the engine room of entertainment turns the moral message, however hypocritical, into entertainment. Bite the hand that feeds you and call it a show. Having anticipated the rage, the celebrity big wigs have turned vice into a virtue. An open letter with a hundred names or so, from Sir Bob Geldof to Sienna Miller, took to the barricades and distribution channels with an open letter of affected contrition. “Dear journalists who have called us hypocrites. You’re right. We live high carbon lives and the industries that we are part of have huge carbon footprints.”

What matters is the broad church of hypocrisy. “Like you – and everyone else – we are stuck in this fossil-fuel economy and without systemic change, our lifestyles will keep on causing climate and ecological harm.”

Those behind the letter stressed the speed of change as their concern. “Climate change is happening faster and more furiously than was predicted. Millions of people are suffering, leaving their homes and arriving on our border as refugees.” Children, through the voice of Greta Thunberg, had also called upon “the people with power and influence, to stand up and fight for their already devasted future.” (Rather cocksure are these celebrities, they, who wield such, as yet unmeasured influence.)

Unlike those critical journalists, the signatories cannot help but be just a touch smug. There was “a more urgent story that our profiles and platforms can draw attention to. Life on earth is dying. We are living in the midst of the 6th mass extinction.”

Much, and in some cases too much, can be made about the celebrity activist who undercuts the argument. “None of us,” explained Sarah Lunnon of Extinction Rebellion, “is perfect.” The argument is still worth making, and publicity still worth having. Unfortunately for the likes of Cumberbatch, the gravity of such messages can be obscured by the person as label. In revolution, becoming a label is not only counterproductive but deadly.  Protestors like Kingston can just hold their head that much higher.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Julia Hawkins/Flickr

First published September 20, 2018

You don’t have to be a genius sometimes to just ‘connect the dots’. Since 2012 Big Pharma ads for prescription drugs, especially on the boob tube, has risen by 62%. You cannot channel surf without seeing a myriad of ads pushing almost every drug out there, for almost every condition (Thank God for the law making these Big Pharma predators notify the suckers of the side effects).

Meanwhile, let’s just mention one statistic from just on state, Arizona, where 949 people died from opioids in one year, 2017. Here’s the interesting kicker: This was a 109 % increase since 2012.

Duh, am I just paranoid or is there something going on here? Let’s see, the legal drug pushers bombard us all with ‘ Drugs help you ‘ ads day and night on all our channels. While this is going on, more and more Americans are swallowing opioids , most of the time by prescription. Of course, once they are hooked on these minor league narcotics, they resort to getting them black market if the availability is threatened by legal means.  We all know that one of the largest industries in states like mine, Florida, is these ‘ Pain clinic mills ‘ where corrupt MDs sell their souls for the easy money. Opioid addicts drive from surrounding states, resembling the depression era Dust Bowl refugees heading for greener pastures.

In essence, what those bombarding Big Pharma ads have done is legitimatized drug use for what ails us. Yes, there are some life saving drugs needed for some extreme conditions, but they are in the minority. Big Pharma runs the show, as they did a few years ago when they pushed the shit out of those opioid painkillers. Our ‘bought and paid for’ Two Party/One Party politicians did nothing at the time to curb this horror. Now they all, including this Johnny come lately president, jump on the bandwagon. Meanwhile, few out there can see the connection I just made between oversaturation of drug ads on television and opioid addiction.

The endless propaganda of ‘ Drugs are good’ makes it easier for troubled Americans, many in actual physical or emotional pain, to go for the opioid. Imagine if we had real affordable and comprehensive health care. Maybe many in physical and of course emotional pain could get the therapy needed to help alleviate things.

While on the subject of drugs, especially legal ones, let’s not forget the best one of them all, THE ELECTION DRUG. During the turbulent 60s, millions of Americans took to the streets of their towns and cities and peacefully protested our involvement in Vietnam ( I won’t call it a ‘War’, except it being a civil war between the Vietnamese people).

This in fact got the politicians’ attention. The threat of being voted out of office or not getting in office made many of them follow the temperature of the masses.

Sadly, when the Bush/Cheney gang prepared for their illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq, there was ( Yes ) a myriad of protests worldwide on one February day… and that was really it.

Even after the invasion and occupation of Iraq, we who stood on that street corner each and every Tuesday afternoon were lucky, in our town of 55k, to attract 20 folks each week. Why? Well, the Two Party/ One Party syndicate kept hammering home the point that change comes via the ballot box. ” Just wait and vote” we were all told. Sadly, the only media driven choices were from that same syndicate, and both sides kept voting to increase the spending on phony wars and occupations. Mr. ‘Hope and Change’ himself presided over the biggest military spending of all time!

*

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

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

Over the past years, the usage of improvised armed unmanned aerial vehicles by various armed groups and paramilitary formations has become an inherent part of conflicts in the Middle East.

First reports about the usage of such unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in Syria and Iraq started appearing in the second half of 2016. During the battle for Iraq’s Mosul (October 16, 2016 – July 20, 2017), ISIS was using UAVs and groups of UAVs for disturbing fire along the frontline and attacks on pro-government formations behind the frontline on a regular basis.

Initially, militants employed slightly upgraded commercial drones, like the DJI Phantom, that could  be bought via the Internet. These drones cost 500-1,000 USD, have a range of up to 1km and can carry and drop small strike elements like grenades, or IEDs. At the same time, ISIS started developing their own improvised armed UAVs in specially established workshops. However, the terrorist group’s self-proclaimed Caliphate collapsed earlier than it was able to launch a serial production of these weapons. In the end of 2017, the center of UAV production and employment moved to Syria. This time the main party responsible for improvised attack UAV production and employment appeared to be al-Qaeda-linked groups in Greater Idlib. They mostly employ these UAVs in attempts to cause damage to Russian and Syria military infrastructure located behind the frontline. Russia’s Hmeimim Airbase in the province of Lattakia became the main target of these efforts.

Watch the video here.

On September 27, 2019 the Russian Defense Ministry reported that for the past two years, air defense and electronic warfare systems deployed at Hmeimim Airbase have shot down or disabled 118 unmanned aerial vehicles. 58 of these UAVs have been neutralized since the beginning of the year 2019.

A majority of UAVs have been launched from the southern part of the Idlib de-escalation zone, in particular the towns of al-Lataminah and Khan Sheikhun where workshops for assembling UAVs and UAV launch sites were found. After the liberation of these towns by the Syrian Army in August, the intensity of UAV attacks on the Russian airbase decreased, but has not fully ceased. Furthermore, militant groups continue to modernize their UAVs and UAV employment approaches.

The most recent UAV attacks on Hmeimim Airbase took place on August 11 and September 3. The August attack involved six UAVs: five attack UAVs and a control UAV. The attack UAVs carried striking elements with explosives, while the control UAV was used to direct them toward targets. An armed UAV can carry up to 10 striking elements fastened to its wings.

The September attack involved two UAVs that approached the air base from different directions. One came from the direction of the Mediterranean Sea. According to a Russian military spokesperson, Major-General Igor Konashenkov, the UAV was apparently “launched from a vessel.”

Moscow says that militants are actively modernizing their UAVs. The main priority of these modernization efforts are navigation and control systems. UAV striking elements’ release systems have also been modernized. The technical characteristics of UAVs and employed schemes of their construction demonstrate that militants have begun their serial production.

The Russian side noted that an employment of such equipment requires serious technical training of operators. Major-General Konashenkov said that Russia is concerned that some third party is supplying militants with military technologies related to the UAV production.

UAVs employed by Idlib militants in 2019 are quite different from commercial quadcopters with attached projectiles popular in the previous phases of the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. They are used in swarm formations, when a control UAV is used to direct UAVs equipped with striking elements, and approach targets via complex trajectories maneuvering by means of height and azimuth. Some UAVs are equipped with air pressure measurement units. This indicates that UAVs are capable of transferring and receiving data about their height and coordinates.

The newest UAVs are equipped with two fuel tanks and have the range of 250km and the service ceiling of 4.5km. The previous variant of UAVs had a single fuel tank and the range of 120km. Besides that, militants employ electric-powered UAVs with the range of 50km. UAVs are made of plastics and wood allowing them to have a smaller radar cross-section, thus increasing their chances to avoid detection by air defense systems.

Since the start of the Russian military operation in Syria in 2015, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other militant groups have been seeing Russian personnel, equipment and aircraft deployed in the war-torn country as high-priority targets. Militants have repeatedly attacked Hmeimim Airbase with rockets and UAVs. Most of them have been successfully repelled by air defense systems deployed there.

The most successful, and therefore widely known attack on Hmeimim, took place on December 31, 2017. According to an initial version of the event appeared on January 3, 2018 in Russian media, a combined mortar and UAV attack destroyed four Su-24 attack aircraft, two Su-35S multi-role fighters and an An-72 transport aircraft and may have killed or injured 9 servicemen. On January 4, 2018, the Russian Defense Ministry commented on the incident denouncing reports about any equipment damage, but confirming a mortar attack and the death of two personnel. According to the Defense Ministry, “a mobile militant subversive group” was behind the attack. Nonetheless, photo evidence appeared online indicates that at least one aircraft, the Su-24 attack aircraft with the tail number ‘29’, was damaged. No aircraft were destroyed. The incident likely took place because of negligence on the part of some units of Syrian and Russian security forces assigned to secure the perimeter of the base. Just a few days later, air defenses deployed at Hmeimim Airbase and the Tartus naval facility repelled a large-scale UAV attack intercepting 13 armed UAVs.

In response to a constant threat of UAV and rocket attacks, the Russian military boosted active and passive protection measures needed to protect its air group. The perimeter security was strengthened and permanent aircraft hangars were constructed. The air defense regiment was reinforced.

In the coming years, the layered air defense consisting of long-range and short-range complexes and electronic warfare systems had demonstrated their effectiveness. The core of the air defense is the S-400 long-range air defense system, the TorM2 anti-aircraft missile system and the Pantsir-S1 short-to-medium range surface-to-air missile/gun system. The Russian military says that the established air defense allows it to strike all types of aerial targets at a range of up to 250 km.

The Pantsir-S1 appeared to be extremely capable of striking small-size UAVs and fast-speed shells of factory-produced and improvised multiple launch rocket systems employed by militants. An additional protection against UAV attacks is provided by EW systems like the Krasukha.

The Syrian conflict demonstrated that even limited military UAV technologies in the hands of illegal armed groups pose a serious threat that cannot be addressed without the employment of complex active and passive security measures.

The further proliferation of these technologies became almost inevitable after some ‘third party’ had supplied Idlib militant groups with them. Chances that such UAVs could be used against civilian targets somewhere around the world have been growing.

*

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Terrorists’ Air Force: Improvised Attack Drones in Syria and Iraq
  • Tags: , , ,

This article was first published on World Water Day, 22 March 2018.

Author’s Update, March 24, 2019: Today is World Water Day 2019 – and the situation has become much worse.

Today, Jair Bolsonaro, is Brazil’s President, pushed in by Washington, a fascist with no respect for human life, as long as it is not his own, or that of his cronies, and even less respect for the environment, the beautiful planet earth which gives us all life. 

Under his leadership, not only water is being privatized, but all of Amazonia is up for grabs -that’s what Bolsonaro says and wants to make sure the corporate thieves understand. Rain forest can indiscriminately logged and destroyed, water can be captured and privatized, by major water giants to the detriment of people -and ultimately of peoples’ lives.

So, what Nestlé and Coca Cola have been “negotiating” behind closed doors a year ago at the ‘fake’ Water Conference in Brasilia, was just the beginning – the sell-out of the Guarani Aquifer, the world’s largest, underground freshwater storage. It is said to hold enough water to supply every human being over the next 200 years with 100 liters of water per person – including projected population growth.

Once the giant water corporations – those that privatize even city water in poor countries, Veolia, Suez (French), ITT Corporation (US), United Utilities (UK) – and more – get a hold of these underground water reservoirs, in the case of the Guarani, more than 70% underlays Brazil -the world water supply is doomed.

Stay alert and stop this theft of impunity of a public good, our most precious element for survival – WATER.

***

Today, 22 March 2018, marks World Water Day. It is also the week, when the 8th World Water Forum (WWF-8) convenes, 18 to 23 March 2018, in Brasilia. It is no coincidence, for sure, that Brazil was chosen for this noble WWF – about the water equivalent to the political and corporate elites, represented at the WEF – World Economic Forum, in Davos. The two are intimately related, and interlinked, as we will see.

The WWF is organized by the World Water Council, just another layer to confuse who is who in the circus of water elitists attempting to control a vital source of life – freshwater. The WWF prides itself with an honorable mission statement:

“To promote awareness, build political commitment and trigger action on critical water issues at all levels, to facilitate the efficient conservation, protection, development, planning, management and use of water in all its dimensions on an environmentally sustainable basis for the benefit of all life”.

There you have it. Nestlé, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, Dow Chemicals and other transnationals with strong water interests, Veolia, Suez (French), Thames (UK), Bechtel (US), Petrobras and a myriad of others, join together with the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), different UN bodies, and many multi- and bilateral donors, so-called development institutions – as well as dozens more ultra-liberal organizations, NGOs and corporations, pretending to work for the good of humanity; for the good of hundreds of millions of people who persistently are deprived of affordable potable water by an onslaught of water privatization (Organizers and supporters of the WWF).

Another layer of this prominent international water forum is the World Bank-created Water Resources Group (WRG). Its chief purpose is to pursue the Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG-6), “Clean Water and Sanitation”. The WRG’s leadership is composed of an interwoven group of individuals and institutions, such as the head of  the WEF, leadership of Nestlé, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, Dow Chemicals, the UN (UNDP) … and the Global Water Partnership (GWP), yet another layer within the maze of the global water mafia, created by the usual ‘suspects’, World Bank, UN (UNDP), and a number of  multi- and bilateral development agencies, whose priority focus is on water, i.e. the Swiss, the Swedes, the Dutch…

And not to forget – also present at the WWF is the International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre (IGRAC), part of UNESCO, based at the IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, whose mission is sharing information on worldwide groundwater resources, in view of protecting them, and focusing mainly on transboundary aquifer assessment and groundwater monitoring.

By and large, the WWF is the sum of this tremendous non-transparent, complex colossus of institutions and technocrats that is gradually taking over control of the global freshwater resources. This is happening under our eyes and under a seemingly anodyne promotion logo – PPP = Public Private Partnership which means in reality, the Public puts at disposal of the Private sector its publicly funded and publicly-owned infrastructure and water resources, to be exploited for profit at the detriment of the very public, who paid for the infrastructure and whose life depends on this vital resource, water.

Privatization of freshwater resources is a crime, but it’s the name of the game. Just look who is prominently represented in the World Bank-created Water Resources Group – it’s IFC, the International Finance Corporation, the private sector development branch of the World Bank Group.

The result of these multiple and often repetitive meetings and gathering is largely zero – safe for a litany of recommendations and resolutions whose implementation hardly ever see the light of the day. Imagine the tremendous annual cost of running this multi-agency sham; mostly business class travel, food and lodging (five-star accommodations), of the high-level technocrats crisscrossing the globe from one conference to another! – Millions and millions of dollars per year. How many people could be served with drinking water and safe sanitation for this amount of money?

The WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) estimates (July 2017) that “some 3 in 10 people worldwide, or 2.1 billion, lack access to safe, readily available water at home, and 6 in 10, or 4.5 billion, lack safely managed sanitation.” – This, out of a world population of about 7.4 billion.

The Guarani Aquifer (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Maude Barlow, chairperson of the Council of Canadians and of World Water Watch, and author of “Blue Gold” (2002), “Blue Covenant” (2007), and of “Blue Future: Protecting Water for People and the Planet Forever” (2013), refers in the latter to the WEF 2010 which under the aegis of the WRG was launching a platform of public-private partnership, to help engage mainly developing country governments in ‘reforming’ the water sector, i.e. putting it into the hands of private water corporations. Many of these countries have no choice, if they want to continue receiving “development” funds from the World Bank and Co. Barlow is also the founder of the Blue Planet Project, seeking to protect vital water resources, like the Guarani Aquifer for future generations.

Flashback to the World Economic Forum in Davos (January 2018). Brazilian President Temer attended this year’s WEF. Temer, a corrupt criminal, should be in prison rather than running a most wonderful country, Brazil, into the ground. Literally. His only purpose to be in Davos was to tell this elite forum about his intention to sell out and privatize his country, foremost water resources.

How did such a dishonest person become president of Brazil? – Washington, who else, put him there. Against all odds. The dark Zion-handlers representing the US financial sector removed an honest Dilma Rousseff and replaced her with Michel Temer, at that time an indicted crook. The indictment was lifted as he was supposed to be made President. It is still beyond me how this could happen, as Dilma had the entire military on her side and could have called a state of emergency to halt the parliamentary ‘regime change’ charade, instigated by the US. She didn’t. Somebody must have threatened her.

By now we know how Washington manipulates elections and other political processes around the world – by the shady methods of Cambridge Analytica (CA), a ‘marketing’ consultancy that steals personal data from internet, foremost from facebook, to target specific segments of a population with specific messages to influence their opinion. By their own account, CA methods have been applied in over 200 cases around the globe within the last 3 to 4 years, to influence elections and other political processes, including in Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Colombia, the UK (Brexit), Germany, France and many more. This is true meddling in other countries’ sovereign affairs, by the one and only rogue state of this globe, the United States of America. And they are talking about Russian meddling in the 2016 US Presidential Elections!

Stealing by stealth is one of the neoliberal crimes we haven’t quite understood yet, let alone mastered. Hindsight is always 20/20. This article hopes to contribute to foresight.

*

Brazil, with about 8,200 km3 annually renewable freshwater, ranks number one with about one eighth (1/8) of the world’s total renewable freshwater resources which are estimated at 45,000 km3. The Amazon Basin holds about 73% of all of Brazil’s freshwater. Renewable freshwater is the composite of annually sustainable surface and groundwater recharge combined (recharge by precipitation and inflow from outside). The second most water-abundant country is Russia with 4,500 km3 / year, followed by Canada, Indonesia, China, Colombia, US, Peru, India – all with renewable water resources of between 2,000 and 3,000 km3 / year.

Amazon River Basin (the southern Guianas, not marked on this map, are part of the basin) (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

By Continent, the Americas have the largest share of the world’s total freshwater resources with 45 percent, followed by Asia with 28 percent, Europe with 15.5 percent and Africa with 9 percent. This scenario immediately points to Africa’s vulnerability. Africa is clearly the most vulnerable Continent from a water resources – survival – point of view. Africa is also home to about 60% of the world’s remaining and known available natural resources; resources the west covets and goes to war for.

Is it, therefore, a coincidence that the 8th WWF is held in Brazil? – I don’t think so. Especially not with Temer going to Davos, where the cream of the crop of the world’s corporate, finance and institutional elite meets, to offer Brazil’s water resources for privatization.

*

We are talking about privatizing the largest single underground renewable freshwater reservoir in the Americas, arguably in the world, the Guarani Aquifer which underlays 1.2 million square kilometers – km2 (about the size of Texas and California combined), of which 71% is under Brazil, 19% under Argentina, 6% under Paraguay, and 4% under Uruguay.

The Guaraní aquifer was discovered in the 1990s. It is named after the indigenous people who have inhabited the area for centuries. The Guarani holds an estimated 46,000 km3 of freshwater (not to confound with the annual renewable freshwater, of which Brazil has about 8,300 km3 – see above). The current Guarani’s extraction rate is a little over 1 km3 per year, while the potential recharge rate is between 45 km3 and 55 km3/year, meaning that there is so far no risk of over-abstraction. This could however, change quickly.It is said that the Guaraní could supply the world population for the next 200 years with 100 liters per capita per day.

About 30 million people inhabit the Guarani region. In the Brazilian section of the Guaraní, some 500 to 600 cities are currently supplied with Guaraní water – how many of these municipal supplies are already privatized?

In late February 2018, Blue Planet founder, Maude Barlow, tweeted,

“Terrifying! Coke and Nestle want to buy up the Guarani Aquifer! Must be stopped!!!”.

As Mint Press reports

“A concerted push is underway in South America that could see one of the world’s largest reserves of fresh water soon fall into the hands of transnational corporations such as Coca-Cola and Nestlé. According to reports, talks to privatize the Guarani Aquifer – a vast subterranean water reserve lying beneath Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay – have already reached an advanced stage. The deal would grant a consortium of U.S. and Europe-based conglomerates exclusive rights to the aquifer that would last over 100 years.”

Under such concession arrangements, quantities to be abstracted are usually unlimited, which would leave the entire aquifer in the hands of those private corporations which are part and parcel of the Temer negotiated deal.

The article adds,

“In Brazil, intense lobbying has been underway since at least 2016 to tap into the aquifer. These efforts fell under the spotlight late last month [in January 2018] at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where private talks were reported between Brazil’s President Michel Temer and a range of top executives with interests in the aquifer, including Nestle CEO Paul Bulcke, Anheuser-Busch InBev CEO Carlos Brito, Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey, and Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris.”

The article further mentions,

“As leading Brazilian water-rights activist Franklin Frederick noted in Brasil de Fato, these companies belong to the 2030 Water Resources Group (2030WRG), a transnational consortium that includes AB Inbev, Coca-Cola, Dow, Nestle and PepsiCo. 2030WRG bills itself as ‘a unique public-private-civil society collaboration’ and hides its intention to privatize developing nations’ water supplies by claiming to ‘facilitate open, trust-based dialogue processes to drive action on water resources reform in water-stressed countries in developing economies’ and ‘close the gap between water demand and supply by the year 2030’.”

Already in September 2016, Reuter reported that Brazil – Temer – “launched a multibillion-dollar plan to auction off oil, power rights and infrastructure concessions.” And the Correio do Brasil retorted that this “privatizing wrath” could extend to the Guarani Aquifer. A senior official at the National Water Agency (ANA) has revealed that the Guarani aquifer will appear on the list of public goods to be privatized.

Barlow, in a Conference in Florianapolis, Brazil, already in November 2011, said, the biggest concern for humanity is the potential for the Guarani to become controlled by private interests. She added, corporations have already preferential access to these waters.

“You are sitting atop a vast reserve of water in a very thirsty world, a reserve that is not only vital to the health and future of this region but to all of humanity. It is a treasure that must be protected by governments on behalf of the people and the ecosystems of the region.”

Recent studies point to an even larger underground water reservoir system, the “underground ocean” of Amazonia. It is projected to hold 160 trillion m3 (160,000 km3) of freshwater, underlaying mainly Brazil, but also Venezuela, Peru, Colombia and Ecuador. Studies are still ongoing and it might be too soon to draw definite conclusions. However, these gigantic water reserves under Latin America plus the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS) which is the world’s largest known fossil aquifer of an estimated 150,000 km3 of non-renewable groundwater, must be protected for humanity.

The NSAS is located under the Eastern end of the Sahara Desert. It stretches over 2 million km2 and spans four countries in North and Central Africa, Libya, Sudan, Chad and Egypt.

Back to the WWF in Brasilia, where the “water mafia” is convening as this article goes to print, and while in São Lourenço, Minas Gerais, 600 “Women Without Land” occupy Nestlé’s Brazil headquarters, since 6 AM Tuesday morning, 20 March. Nestlé, the Swiss food and water giant, declared water number one in its field of business expansion. Nestlé controls already more than 10% of the world market of bottled water. The “Women without Land” denounce Temer’s policy of handing out their precious water resources to international corporations. Aware of the ongoing WFF, they warn of further concession contracts being negotiated on the sidelines of this forum.

One of the leaders said,

“Imagine you are obliged to buy your water in bottles to quench your thirst. This is what they want these transnational corporations, officially debating improved water management in Brasilia, when in reality they are negotiating concessions of our water at fire-sales prices.”

We, the People, the 99% of this globe, have the moral obligation to stand up against this globalized, neofascist clandestine onslaught to privatize and steal our vital water resources – humanity’s survival. Water is Life. If we don’t have the foresight to stand up now, to stop this criminal privatization of OUR, humanity’s water resources – humankind may be doomed.

*

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

First published in April 2014

There is no greater natural resource on this earth than water. As the sustenance of all life, water keeps every living and breathing organism, every plant, every animal and every human being on this planet alive. In the same way that without air to breathe, without water we humans cannot sustain life for more than a few days.

Due to global warming, widespread drought and increasingly polluted water systems, the projected availability of clean freshwater in years to come to meet the rising demands of a growing global population is among the most daunting human challenges of this century. By 2015 a 17% increase in global water demand is projected just for increasing agriculturally produced food. By the same year 2025, the growing global population will increase water consumption needs by a whopping 40%. While oil played the keenly critical role during the twentieth century, water is being deemed the most valued precious natural resource of the twenty-first century.

As such, several years ago the United Nations declared access to clean drinking water a universal human right. Conversely, willfully denying it is considered a serious human rights violation that denies life itself. And any calculated decision denying people their universal right to life is nothing short of a murderous, shameful crime against humanity.

Despite the human air pollution that has long been dirtying our lungs, while also causing global warming, climate change and increasing catastrophic natural disasters, not to mention the growing global health hazard for us humans, the very thought of making clean air a precious commodity that can opportunistically be packaged and sold by the same corporations that have been ruining our air, that very notion would instantly be criticized, scorned and ridiculed.

Yet that is exactly what has been happening for the last thirty years now all over this planet with the earth’s preciously dwindling freshwater drinking supply. The World Bank has been financing global privatization of the earth’s water supply making clean water that is so necessary for survival an unaffordable private commodity for the poorest people on earth to even access. They are literally dying of thirst and disease because of greedy psychopathic corporate profiteers once again placing theft and greed over human welfare and life itself.

But then that is the globalist agenda – thinning the human herd down from near seven billion currently to as low as just half a billion. That means 13 out of 14 of us alive today according to their diabolical oligarch plan simply must die within the next few years. And what better way to rapidly kill off the human population than taking full ownership and control over the earth’s limited diminishing water supply.

More people on this planet are dying presently from waterborne disease from dirty water than are dying from all wars and violence worldwide combined. Every hour 240 babies die from unsafe water. 1.5 million children under five years of age die every year from cholera and typhoid fever due to unsanitary water conditions. These incredibly sad, alarming facts illustrate just how significant and critical a clean freshwater supply is to staying alive on this planet. Taking control over the earth’s clean water supply is achieved by turning water into a privately owned commodity that only the largest corporations and banks control. Simply making water unaffordable and thereby inaccessible to the poorest people on the planet is one extremely effective, albeit most sinister way to reduce the so called overpopulation problem.

Three primary ways that the human population decreases significantly every year is death caused by starvation and malnutrition (including lack of drinkable water) at between seven to eight millionpeople, diseases that kill between two to three million (with mounting threats of infectious diseases becoming pandemics) and upwards of near a half million dying each year from war.

Behind closed doors oligarchic globalists periodically meet and discuss what is best for humanity and the planet according to them and their megalomaniacal self-interests. For many years now this all important topic of water privatization and control as a convenient and most effective means of addressing the overpopulation problem has been regularly tabled for discussion… along with related topics like geo-engineering, GMO’s, vaccines, overuse of antibiotics, planned wars over oil and water, devising global policies designed to increase political destabilization, poverty and undermine economies, nuclear radiation and a host of other means for culling the human population.

Time Magazine reported how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been financing research at the University of North Carolina among 78 others to develop ultrasound infertility contraception techniques to sterilize male sperm. At a 2010 TED conference Bill Gates spoke openly of depopulating the total of 6.8 billion people living on earth by up to “10 to 15%” using both of his heavily funded vaccine and contraception programs that will render much of the global population infertile. Meanwhile, billionaire Ted Turner went even further, offering his public opinion to decrease the world population by 70% down to “two billion.” It too is on tape.

Calls to begin sterilizing the human population began surfacing back in the mid-1970’s with Henry Kissinger as former Secretary of State and high ranking Bilderberg member in his declassified National Security Council document (1974) entitled “The Implications of World-wide PopulationGrowth on the Security and External Interests of the United States.” This document emphasized highest priority given to implementing birth control programs targeting thirteen Third World nations mostly in South America. Extraordinary resources were allocated through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) pushing the carrot stick of additional financial aid to countries willing to enact sterilization and depopulation programs.

More overt evidence of the callous contempt that globalist oligarchs have toward us 99%-ers is captured in a statement written by Prince Phillip, Queen Elizabeth II’s husband in the forward of his book, “I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus” to reduce the human population. It seems readily discernable that an explicit globalist agenda for a New World Order openly propagated with repeated references by President Goerge Bush senior includes depopulation through various means, water control through privatization just one of many in the power elite’s arsenal.

Humans have been dying from lack of clean water for a long time now and will only continue dying at an even greater frequency if the plan to privatize water continues to unfold unchecked and without opposition. Fortunately forces have been mobilizing to combat water privatization. Just last week on the heels of the World Bank annual convening in Washington DC for several days ofconferencing, an international coalition of anti-privatization water rights groups from India and America sent a formal message calling on the World Bank to end its destructive practice of privatizing water around the world under the guise of developmental progress. The Bank’s DC meetings had been touting lies and disinformation in an attempt to paint a glowing report showcasing the so called efficacy and successes that turning water rights over to the private sector have accomplished in recent years. The World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) as the planet’s largest funding source for water privatization provides loans and financing to Third World nations for private water management companies to take charge of municipal, regional and national water rights.

The director of a global advocacy group called Corporate Accountability International, Shayda Naficy, pointed out that 75% of expenses for running a water utility company should go to infrastructure. In nation after nation private companies have placed the priority of making a profit over the need to invest in necessary infrastructure to connect and adequately service water customers. In efforts to maximize cost efficiency as well as profits, water prices invariably go up and fast become out of reach for poorest customers. Cutting off the water supply to thousands of low income families unable to pay for their rising costs has become the all too frequent inevitable result. The World Bank’s 34 percent failure rate for all private water and sewerage contracts between 2000 and 2010 far surpasses its single digit failure rates in the telecommunications, energy and transportation industries.

Critics maintain that the public sector is far more accountable to its public constituents than private sector businesses that only answer to its board of directors to show sufficient profits. Corruption becomes commonplace. Additionally, a conflict of interest exists when the IFC acts as both a money lender and consultant to foreign municipalities in assigning no bid contracts to favored private water utility companies.

To best illustrate typical scenarios where water privatization is either not working or already proved a failure deserve close examination. The good news is that in recent years people in various parts of the world have been mobilizing successful efforts and campaigns to stop water privatization in their own backyards. Presently in a number of regions in India, citizens are banding together to confront and fight the myriad of problems with water privatization in their country.

Recently in Nagpur, central India’s largest city where the country’s first municipal partnership with a private utility company is being played out, major tensions have erupted. Three years ago the city signed a 25-year contract with Veolia Water to supply the city of 2.7 million residents with 24 hour-7-days a week water service. Instead unforeseen delays driving up prices manyfold along with unfair water distribution and frequent service breakdowns have led to widespread angry protests in the streets and charges of corruption. City officials point to a series of serious contract violations. Again cutting corners by refusing to invest in the needed infrastructure appears to be the primary cause for this failed project. The Corporate Accountability International’s 2012 report called “Shutting the Spigot on Private Water: The Case for the World Bank to Divest” cites a number of similar cases where privatization has proven ineffective.

Bold and empowered citizens in Bolivia in the year 2000 made headlines around the globe when they were victorious in kicking out privatized water there in the form of the Bechtel, the fifth largest private corporation on the planet. Impassioned protestors in Bolivia’s third-largest city managed to oppose Bechtel’s increasing prices and demanded that the company abandon its hold on their city’s municipal water supply, eventually driving the powerful scandalous giant out of the country. Though big business efforts to buy and control water rights in many Latin American nations have each had their turn in nations like Equator and Brazil, only Chile water services are privatized. Ultimately local residents virtually everywhere privatization has attempted to take hold has been met with such strong resistance from consumers who realize their private utility company has failed miserably in delivering quality service at affordable prices.

The story is always the same. That is why advocacy groups like Corporate Accountability International is proactively working toward educating governments and citizens worldwide to ensure water remains under the public domain. The exhaustive and expensive legal process of ending long term contracts and successfully removing privatized foreign corporations once established in a city, state or country is formidable. It is obviously in the best interests of people around the world to ensure privatization of their water supply never gets a local foothold in the first place.

Nestlé corporation’s marketing campaign targeted wealthy Pakistanis in Lahore, and its brand of bottled water ‘Pure Life’ became a status symbol for the rich. To bottle its product, Nestlé busily dried up local underground springs that subsequently caused the village poor unable to buy the bottled water stolen from their springs to end up consuming contaminated water. Nestlé went on to extracting water from two deep wells in Bhati Dilwan village, forcing them to turn to bottled water. A similar story emerged from Nigeria where a single bottled water exceeds the average daily income of a Nigerian citizen. Nestlé is notorious for draining local water supplies used to bottle its water brands, then charge unaffordable prices to the local population whose clean water supply was stolen from them.

Corporate Watch released a report exposing some of the unethical and illegal practices that Nestlé has long been committing around the globe, completely disregarding public health concerns while destroying natural environments to ensure huge annual profits of $35 billion just from water bottle sales alone. In Brazil’s Serra da Mantiqueira region where the groundwater is rich in mineral content containing medicinal properties, over-pumping has depleted its valuable water resources and caused permanent damage to the natural environment. and long-term damage.

Nestlé has also allegedly been involved in human trafficking of child slave labor. A BBC investigative report claimed that “hundreds of thousands of children in Mali, Burkina Faso and Togo were being purchased from their destitute parents and shipped to the Ivory Coast to be sold as slaves to cocoa farms.” Yet Nestlé likely bought the cocoa from the Ivory Coast and Ghana knowing it was produced using child slaves.

Finally, Nestlé owns or leases fifty spring sites throughout America. Nestlé controls a third of the domestic market for bottled water in the US. The company is notorious for unlawful extraction of spring water while engaging in price-gouging and reeking havoc in numerous communities. An example of the trouble Nestlé typically causes is Colorado where 80% of the citizens of Aurora were opposed to Nestlé’s presence, fully aware of the company’s terrible reputation for damaging communities and natural environments. Yet the city council voted in favor 7 to 4 to let the devastation begin and over the next decade Nestlé extracted 650 million gallons of precious Arkansas River valley water that went into its Arrowhead Springs brand of bottled water. For years the embattled townspeople of Aurora fought to rid the company predator from destroying their precious aquifers. Additionally, the plastic non-biodegradable bottles are major pollutants that stay toxically intact for a full millennium.

The cumulative grave effects of privatizing water as a global commodity are appalling. The underprivileged residents of Jakarta, Manila and Nairobi pay 5 to 10 times more for water than those living in high-income areas of those same cities. People living in the Third World slums even pay more for water than upscale New Yorkers and Londoners. This kind of unfairness and inequity is obscene. Women in places in Africa where privatized water is beyond their limit walk miles to obtain dirty water from rivers and then too often die along with their children from contamination and disease. Asian farmers are losing their livelihoods if they are unable to receive state funded irrigation. The human suffering caused globally by wealthy private corporations from North America and Europe exploiting people from Third World nations for pure profit is nothing less than pure psychopathic evil.

Taking on global privatization of water for the well being and greater good of the people is but an example of the monumental work that needs to be done. Only if informed, caring and committed human beings collectively come together worldwide to take a global stand against this gravest of life and death issues facing humanity can this oligarch agenda be stopped dead in its tracks. As global human rights activists it is up to us to end the global corporate malevolence and malfeasance from further damaging and afflicting our planet like never before. With the recent formal finding that Americans no longer live in a democracy but an oligarchy, as if we did not already painfully know, it becomes even more “formally” imperative now that we as ordinary citizens of the world take the vested interest in preserving life on our only planet before it becomes too late. It is high time we take back our planet once and for all from the oligarchic corporatocracy bent on insidiously making our earthly home increasingly uninhabitable for all life forms.

Mass extinction of plant and animal species that have thrived on this planet for millions of years is silently, invisibly taking place every single day right before our eyes. At ever-perilous stake now is our own human species as well as all living species inhabiting this earth, suffering at the hands of national governments that have corruptly co-opted with the banking cabal-owned transnational corporations and for too many decades been systematically destroying the richly diverse natural ecosystems of all earthly life forms on an unprecedented scale.

Since governmental co-opting with global fortune 500 corporations has been polluting and poisoning the earth’s skies, its waters, food sources and seeds for so long, global theft and destruction has us humans and all life forms teetering now on the brink of complete self-annihilation and extinction, human-induced for the first time on a massive never before seen scale. It is time to hold the oligarchy in the form of corporations responsible for all the damage they have reeked on this earth. No more grotesque “Abama-nations” of bank and Wall Street bailouts at taxpayer expense. Since the 99% in debt to the hilt have been squeezed dry, while the 1% have made this planet nearly unlivable as the only ones filthily richly profiting from their plundering this earth, the transnationals are the sole entities with the financial capital and means to clean up the very mess they created. It is only fair then that after an entire century of mucking the planet up at our expense, that they now need to finally be held accountable for repairing the destruction they directly caused and obscenely profited from.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former Army officer. His written manuscript based on his military experience examines leadership and national security issues and can be consulted at http://www.redredsea.net/westpointhagopian/After the military, Joachim earned a masters degree in psychology and became a licensed therapist working in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now focuses on writing. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Privatization of Water as an Owned Commodity Rather Than a Universal Human Right

Holocaust to Resistance, My Journey

October 20th, 2019 by Suzanne Berliner Weiss

An excerpt from Holocaust to Resistance: My Journey by Suzanne Berliner Weiss (pp. 45-47). Weiss’s book, released this month by Fernwood Publishers, tells of her eight decades of engagement with the movement for social justice. Her book launch will take place Friday, October 18, at 7 p.m., at Friends House, 60 Lowther Ave. (St. George Station), Toronto.

***

When I arrived from war-scarred France (1950), I thought the United States, my new home, was a land of liberty, freedom, love, and comfort. I entered grammar school and began to learn its true nature. It tore my heart.

Louis Weiss, my adoptive father, was proud to have sung as a young man in the opera chorus in a performance of Boris Godunov in Moscow, Russia.

Russia! At school, the word was spoken with hate and fear. Often, my parents invited their “progressive” friends over, and I got to listen to their chatter. They didn’t mention Russia but spoke of the Soviet Union with respect. When I asked questions, they used guarded terms. “Progressives” were the good people, and as for those who were “against us,” that was everyone else.

My parents covered many books in the apartment with brown paper against the inquisitive eyes of maintenance men, visitors, and housekeepers. On buses and subways there were signs warning “foreigners” to register with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). In school, a fellow student warned me, “You’re lucky that you’re from France. Otherwise, we could send you back.” To be perceived as an immigrant was decidedly hazardous, I thought.

At school I heard that “our enemies” were among us – the communists. Mom explained it differently: There was persecution of “progressives.” Some of them were in jail, some in hiding. She confided that before my arrival she and Dad had hidden a couple in their apartment at the request of the Communist Party. “You must be careful to protect me from losing my job,” Mom explained. When she and Dad talked with their friends about world events, it was with hushed voices. “Don’t tell your schoolmates anything about this,” she counselled.

Mom and Dad allowed me to listen in on their discussions of the news, as they focused on the opinions expressed in the radical newsletter I.F. Stone’s Weekly, which they spread out on the table. In 1956, the tone of these discussions changed. A secret speech by Soviet Communist Party leader Nikita Khrushchev, leaked to the daily press, revealed many of the crimes of Joseph Stalin, who had died three years earlier.

This news weighed heavily on my parents, who had been loyal to Stalin. They discussed the situation anxiously with their friends. I recalled how, when Stalin died in 1953, Mom had gazed at his image and said, “What a kind face. He was so good to the people.” I had wondered how you can tell kindness by looking at a face. But now it turned out that much of the anti-Soviet propaganda in the US media, decrying the stifling of civil liberties there, had in fact been true. Jewish doctors and scientists had been murdered. “I must look at things with new eyes,” Dad declared.

I respected his honest response; it created some much-needed common ground for us.

A Wave of Fear and Repression

The atmosphere was different when we visited Aunt Dorothy. There was open discussion in her house. Friends who gathered there were upset and angry about the persecution of progressives and communists orchestrated by Senator Joseph McCarthy. They spoke of people they knew who had lost their jobs. Ben Gold’s furriers’ union was in danger of destruction, they murmured. It was he, Dad told me, who had written Shmulek in France to open the road to my adoption. Aunt Dorothy was unnerved and Mom and Dad were fearful.

When the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) came to Newark, its blows struck the family of Aunt Dorothy. Robert Lowenstein, the teacher of Dorothy’s daughter, Joan, was summoned. He refused to give names of progressive associates and was therefore fired from his job, leaving his family in desperate straits. Dorothy’s husband Hy, angry over the incident, courageously hired Lowenstein to work in his combined pharmacy, soda fountain, and liquor store. I was very happy to hear of Hy’s principled stand.

My Cousin’s Bold Stand

After her high school graduation, Joan went to Antioch College, where she was involved in radical activities. She and her partner at the time attended the World Youth Festival in 1955 in Warsaw, the capital of the Polish People’s Republic. The theme of the festival was For Peace and Friendship – Against the Aggressive Imperialist Pacts.

Much to Dorothy’s dismay, Joan was subpoenaed to appear before the HUAC. Mom and Dad spoke of this with alarm. Joan took the Fifth Amendment’s constitutional safeguard against self-incrimination. For that, she was ordered to surrender her passport, but she refused, and her audacious stand made the media. “I got regular visits from the FBI from then on. But I didn’t let them in my apartment,” she told me. I was proud of Joan’s boldness and strength.

Senator McCarthy’s outrageous anti-communist accusations turned up a large proportion of Jewish people, and it was widely suspected in our circles that he was hunting Jews more than communists. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, a Jewish couple with a “progressive” background, were hauled into court, tried over a two-year period, and found guilty of giving secrets to the Soviet Union. On Friday evening, June 19, 1953, Mom, Dad, and I were in the car listening to the radio when we heard that the Rosenbergs had been executed in Sing Sing prison. I was stunned. How could this happen in America? “America is for peace, liberty, and justice,” Mr. Berman [my guardian in France until 1950], had told me. Tears flooded my eyes. It was evident that Mom and Dad felt as I did. “Can you believe the government killed them?!” Mom cried.

*

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.

Suzanne Weiss is a Holocaust survivor based in Toronto, Canada. She is a member of the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (CAIA) and Not In Our Name: Jewish Voices Opposing Zionism. She blogs at suzanneberlinerweiss.com.

Featured image is from The Bullet

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Holocaust to Resistance, My Journey

This article addresses the alleged interference of unnamed “foreign powers” in Canada’s elections as well as the historical process of US interference, including a secret US Military Invasion of Canada formulated in the 1930s.

***

In 1934, War Plan Red was amended to authorize the immediate first use of poison gas against Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax if it could not be captured.  …  

“In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania. (February 11-13, 1935, hearings of the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, on Air Defense Bases (H.R. 6621 and H.R. 4130. This testimony was to have been secret but was published by mistake. See the New York Times, May 1, 1935, p. 1.

***

US-Canada relations have not been an issue for meaningful debate in the 2019 Canada elections campaign. Ottawa complies with Washington’s foreign policy agenda. None of the major parties has addressed the issue in the course of the election campaign.

A “fake initiative” was launched by the Trudeau government to identify “foreign intervention” in our electoral process without acknowledging that the only country which has actively intervened in our politics is the United States.

And that means that Canada’s participation in US led wars is not an issue for debate by the leaders of major of political parties.

***

Are the Russians coming to disrupt our elections scheduled for October 21st? Back in July, Canada’s Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould  intimated that Canada’s 2019 elections could be the target of interference by foreign powers.

While Ottawa did not explicitly point its finger at the Kremlin, the official statement and media reports intimated that it could be Russia (and possibly China) because Vladimir Putin had allegedly interfered in favor of Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential elections.  And apparently Moscow had also intervened in the French elections. 

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP were said to be “monitoring foreign threat activity in Canada and around the world”.

“At this time, we haven’t seen direct threats to the 2019 general election,” the official said.

CSIS continues to observe hostile foreign actors “taking steps to position themselves to clandestinely influence, promote or discredit certain messages, candidates or groups during the campaign,” the official added. (CBC, July 09, 2019)

Three months prior to the October 2019 Elections,  the Trudeau government issued a “Cabinet Directive on the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol” (CEIPP) to “protect Canada’s Democratic Institutions”  against unnamed foreign powers
.

The Cabinet Directive on the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol sets out the ministers’ expectations with respect to the general directions and the principles to guide the process for informing the public during the writ period of an incident that threatens Canada’s ability to have a free and fair election. Consult the document here

In the event of a threat by a foreign power to disrupt the election, a top level national security panel “will inform the prime minister”,  (see Global News, July 9, 2019)

Russia Dirty Tricks? 

With some exceptions, Canada’s media has remained silent on the matter. According to a recent “authoritative”  CTV  report  the Kremlin is once again up to “Dirty Tricks”, intent upon manipulating Canada’s elections. Which party are they going to support?

In an attempt to stop foreign interference during the 2019 Canadian federal election, Canada’s top security agencies are monitoring the web 24/7. Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), works hand in hand with a largely secret organization, Communication Security Establishment (CSE), …

….  Former Russian troll Vitaly Bespalov thinks the Russians have already come up with new ways to meddle with our political views. After being implicated for interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, they have to be more creative as Canadians get ready to go to the polls.

“So now I think they are going to invent some other schemes of influencing the audience. It will be done in a different way. No need to look for trolls on Facebook, they will find a new way.”

 

Intervention of an Unnamed Foreign Power: The United States of America

There is ample of evidence of foreign interference by an “unnamed foreign power”, which has barely been mentioned in the course of the election campaign.

In Canada’s history, as well as during the mandate of the Justin Trudeau’s government, the United States of America (rather than “unnamed foreign powers”) has intervened in what is euphemistically called  “America’s Backyard”, i.e. a nation state inside America’s sphere of influence.

And I am not referring to former president Obama’s recent statement in support for Justin Trudeau.

 

 

Washington is on record of having interfered in elections  in 45 countries according to political scientist Dov H. Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.  

While Canada is not mentioned in Don H Levin’s study, the history of US interference in Canada’s internal affairs goes far beyond the process of meddling in Canadian elections.

Canadian farmers are acutely aware of how the Trump administration in 2017 imposed without real negotiation, a complete overhaul of trade and investment relations leading to the formation of the so-call United States, Mexico, Canada USMCA trade agreement which is intended to replace NAFTA.

Politicians in the Trudeau government were coopted. The economic impacts of this agreement on Canada’s economy are potentially devastating.

But there is much more in our history which has a direct bearing on national sovereignty and democracy in Canada. While US interventionism is part of our history, US-Canada relations are not an issue for debate in the election campaign.

Flashback to 1930…

America’s Plan to Invade Canada

While the US plan to Annex Canada in 1866 (a de facto act of war formulated as a Bill by the US Congress) is on record, most Canadians are unaware that the US in the late 1920s had formulated a detailed plan to invade Canada, entitled “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red”. The plan was approved by the US War Department under the presidency of Herbert Hoover in 1930.

It was updated in 1934 and 1935 during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was withdrawn in 1939 following the outbreak of the Second World War. (The full text of the 1935 Invasion Plan is in Annex)

This insidious military agenda which was intent on ultimately annexing Canada to the US as well as disabling the British Empire, involved the planned bombings of four major cities: Vancouver, Montreal, Quebec City and Halifax.

And guess who was assigned to oversee these bombings: General Douglas MacArthur (image left, 1940s), who was US Army chief of staff (1930-37). MacArthur’s mandate coincided with  the release of the 1930 and 1935 invasion plan of Canada. As we recall MacArthur was subsequently put in charge of leading the bombing raids against Japan during World War II. (See Floyd Rudman)

The 1935 plan to invade Canada consisted of a 94-page document “with the word SECRET stamped on the cover.” It had been formulated over a period of over five years (See full text in Annex).

In February 1935, the [US] War Department arranged a Congressional appropriation of $57 million dollars to build three border air bases for the purposes of pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields. The base in the Great Lakes region was to be camouflaged as a civilian airport and was to “be capable of dominating the industrial heart of Canada, the Ontario Peninsula” (from p. 61 of the February 11-13, 1935, hearings of the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, on Air Defense Bases (H.R. 6621 and H.R. 4130). This testimony was to have been secret but was published by mistake. See the New York Times, May 1, 1935, p. 1.

In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania. The war game scenario was a US motorized invasion of Canada, with the defending forces initially repulsing the invading Blue forces, but eventually to lose “outnumbered and outgunned” when Blue reinforcements arrive. This according to the Army’s pamphlet “Souvenir of of the First Army Maneuvers: The Greatest Peace Time Event in US History” (p.2). ( Professor F.W. Rudmin Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Comments on “War Plan Red”,

One of the updates to the 1930 invasion plan was the use of chemical weapons against civilians:

In 1934, War Plan Red was amended to authorize the immediate first use of poison gas against Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax if it could not be captured.” (Ibid)

It is worth noting that in the course of World War II,  a decision was taken by the War Department to retain the invasion plan on the books. War Plan Red was declassified in 1974.

Raiding the Icebox. How the US Media Trivializes History

The Washington Post, which casually dismissed the historical significance of “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red”, nonetheless acknowledged the aggressive nature of the proposed military endeavor:

“A bold plan, a bodacious plan, a step-by-step plan to invade, seize and annex our neighbor to the north. …First, we send a joint Army-Navy overseas force to capture the port city of Halifax, cutting the Canadians off from their British allies.

Then we seize Canadian power plants near Niagara Falls, so they freeze in the dark.

Then the U.S. Army invades on three fronts — marching from Vermont to take Montreal and Quebec, charging out of North Dakota to grab the railroad center at Winnipeg, and storming out of the Midwest to capture the strategic nickel mines of Ontario.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy seizes the Great Lakes and blockades Canada’s Atlantic and Pacific ports.  … “(Raiding the Icebox; Behind Its Warm Front, the United States Made Cold Calculations to Subdue Canada, by Peter Carlson, Washington Post, 30 December 2005, emphasis added)

The original documents pertaining to the invasion of Canada including “War Plan Red” and “Defence Scheme No. 1.” are in the archives of the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pa.  (url link no longer functional)

The  plan is detailed. It involves both military as well an intelligence components. According to historian John Major “War, Plan Red” also consisted in “a series of possible pre-emptive American campaigns to invade Canada in several areas and occupy key ports and railways before British troops could provide reinforcement to the Canadians…”

Concluding Remarks Concerning US Interference

While the 1935 invasion of Canada Plan was never carried out, historically “the military threat of an invasion plan served to oblige Canada to ultimately surrender to US political and economic pressures.”

In recent history, this hegemonic objective was achieved in 2002 with the creation of US Northern Command (NorthCom).

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. US Northern Command’s jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.

Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that:

“NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – ‘is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'”

NorthCom’s stated mandate is to “provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need.”(Canada-US Relations – Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR),


ANNEX

The complete text of the 1935 Invasion of Canada can be consulted here  (Introduction by Prof Floyd Rudmin, Queens University) See below
See also Michel Chossudovsky, America’s Plan to Annex and Invade Canada
 and America’s Plan to Invade Canada 
US Invasion of Canada Plan 
 .
Full-text reproduction of the 1935 plan for a US invasion of Canada prepared at the US Army War College, G-2 intelligence division, and submitted on December 18, 1935.
 .
The following is a full-text reproduction of the 1935 plan for a US invasion of Canada prepared at the US Army War College, G-2 intelligence division, and submitted on December 18, 1935. This is the most recent declassified invasion plan available from the US archival sources. Centered pagination is that of the original document.
 .
The spelling and punctuation of the original document are reproduced as in the original document, even when in error by present-day norms. This document was first identified by Richard Preston in his 1977 book, “The Defence of the Undefended Border: Planning for War in North America 1867-1939” (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.)
 .
Preston’s reference citation (p. 277) identified this to be archived at the US Military History Collection, Carlisle Barracks, Pa., coded AWC 2-1936-8, G2, no. 19A. It was located by the US National Archives and supplied on microfilm.
 .
                       SUPPLEMENT NO. 3

                             TO

                 REPORT OF COMMITTEE NO. 8

                          SUBJECT:

      CRITICAL AREAS OF CANADA AND APPROACHES THERETO
      _______________________________________________
 .

                        Prepared by:

                     SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 3

               Major Charles H. Jones, Infantry, Chairman.
               Lt. Col. H.W. Crawford, Engineers.

  I. Papers Accompanying.
     ___________________
  1. Bibliography.                      (Omitted, filed in Rec.Sec.)
  2. List of Slides.                                "
  3. Appendices (1 and 2).                          "
  4. Annexes. (Incl. A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,K, and L)      "

  II. The Study Presented.
      ___________________
       Determine under the geographical factor, the critical areas in
 Crimson (Canada) and the best approaches thereto for Blue.  A critical
 area is assumed to be any area of such strategic importance to either
 belligerent that control thereof may have a material bearing on the out-
 come of the war.

 III. Facts bearing on the study.
      __________________________
   1. General Considerations:
       An area in Crimson territory may be of strategic importance from
 the viewpoint of tactical, economic, or political considerations.  In the
 final analysis, however, critical areas must be largely determined in the
 light of Red's probable line of action and Crimson's contribution to that
 effort.
   2. Geographical Features of Canada.
   a. Location and extent.  The location and extent of the Dominion of
   _
 Canada is shown on the Map herewith (see Exhibit A).  It comprises the
 entire northern half of the the North American continent, excepting only
 Alaska and the coast of Labrador, a dependency of the colony of New-
 foundland.
       The principal political subdivisions are those located along the
 border of the United States.  These from east to west are:
       (1) The Maritime Provinces:
            Prince Edward Island.
            Nova Scotia.
            New Brunswick.
       (2) Quebec.
       (3) Ontario.
       (4) The Prairie Provinces:
            Manitoba.
            Saskatchewan.
            Alberta.


                                   -41-

       (5) British Columbia.
       Newfoundland, while not a part of the Dominion of Canada, would
 undoubtedly collaborate in any Crimson effort.
   b. Topography. (Slide 14852)
   _
      The great area in eastern Canada underlain by rocks of Precambrian
 age is known as the Canadian Shield.  Its northern boundary crosses the
 Arctic archipelago; the eastern boundary lies beyond Baffin Island and
 Labrador, and reaches the depressed area occupied by the St. Lawrence, a
 short spur crossing this valley east of Lake Ontario to join the Adirondack
 Mountains of New York.  The southern boundary runs from this spur west to
 Georgian Bay thence along the north shore of Lake Huron and Lake Superior,
 thence northwest from the Lake of the Woods to the western end of Lake
 Athabaska.  Its average elevation does not exceed 1500 feet.  The greatest
 known elevations are in the eastern part of Baffin Island and along the
 coast of northern Labrador.  Peaks of the Torngat Mountains of Labrador
 have elevations of between 4000 and 5000 feet.  The coast is one of the
 boldest and most rugged in the world, with many vertical cliffs rising
 1000 to 2000 feet high.  Occasional exceptions occur in which there are
 reliefs of several hundred feet, as in the hills along the north shore of
 Lake Huron and Lake Superior.  The area is dotted with lakes, large and
 small, and of irregular outline.  A lowland of considerable extent
 stretches for some distance into Ontario and Manitoba from Hudson Bay.
      Extending south and west form the Canadian Shield, between the Ap-
 palachian Mountains on the east and the Cordilleras on the west, lies the
 Great North American plain.  The northeastern portion of this plain called
 the St. Lawrence lowlands occupies southern Ontario, south of a line ex-
 tending from Georgian Bay to the east end of Lake Ontario; eastern Ontario
 lying between the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers, and that part of Quebec
 lying adjacent to the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec.
      The plain west of the Canadian Shield, known as the Interior Plains,
 stretches northward to the Arctic Ocean between a line approximately join-
 ing Lake Winnipeg and Lake Athabasca, Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake
 on the east, and the foothills of the Rocky Mountains on the west.
      That part of the St. Lawrence Lowlands lying in the eastern angle of
 Ontario, and in Quebec south of Montreal and extending down the St. Law-
 rence is comparatively flat and lies less than 500 feet above sea level.
 On the lower St. Lawrence it is greatly narrowed by the near approach of
 the Appalachian system to the Canadian Shield.  The part lying adjacent to
 Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron is of less even surface, has its greatest
 elevation of over 1700 feet south of Georgian Bay and slopes gently to
 the Great Lakes.
      The Interior Plains region is in general rolling country with broad
 undulations and a slope eastward and northward of a few feet per mile,
 descending from an elevation of 3000 to 5000 feet near the mountains on the
 west to less than 1000 feet at the eastern border.  The rolling character
 of the area is relieved by several flat topped hills, by flat areas that
 formed the beds of extensive lakes, and by deep river valleys.
      The Appalachain and Arcadian regions occupy practically all that part
 of Canada lying east of the St. Lawrence, with the exception of the lowlands
 west of a line joining Quebec City and Lake Champlain.  The Applachain
 region is a continuation into Quebec of three chains of the Applachain
 system of mountains.  The most westerly of these ranges, the Green Mountains
 of Vermont, stretches northeast into the Gaspe peninsula, where it forms
 flat topped hills some 3000 feet high.  The Acadian region, which includes

                                  -42-

 New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island is an alternation of
 upland with hills and ridges rising 2500 feet and higher.  Adjacent to the
 Bay of Fundy is a series of ridges rising in places to 1200 feet.  Between
 these two New Brunswick uplands, which converge toward the southwest is a
 lowland forming the whole eastern part of the province.  This lowland ex-
 tends east to include Prince Edward Island, the western fringe of Cape
 Breton Island and the mainland of Nova Scotia north of the Cobequid moun-
 tains, which have an elevation of 800 to 1000 feet.  South of the Cobequid
 Mountains lies a long narrow lowland stretching from Chedabucto Bay to
 Minas Basin, and along the Cornwallis Annapolis valley between North and
 South Mountains.  South of this lowland is a highland sloping to the Atlantic
 Coast.  The northern part of Cape Breton Island is a tableland 1200 feet
 high with its central part rising to an elevation of over 1700 feet.
      The Cordelleran region, a mountainous area bordering the Pacific
 extends from the United States through Canada into Alaska and embraces
 nearly all of British Columbia and Yukon and the western edge of Alberta
 and the Northwest Territories.  The eastern part of the Cordillera is occu-
 pied by the Rocky Mountains, with peaks rising to 10,000 feet and 12,000
 feet.  They extend northwest and fall away towards the Liard River.  The
 western part of the Cordillera is occupied by the Coast Range and the
 mountains of Vancouver and Queen Charlotte Islands.  The Coast Range rises
 to heights of 7000 to 9000 feet. Between the Rocky Mountains and the Coast
 Range lies a vast plateau 3000 to 4000 feet high and cut by deep river
 valleys.
   3. Population.
      According to the census of 1931, the total population on June 1, 1931
 was 10,376,786, of whom 5,374,541 were males.  The inhabited areas of the
 Dominion are essentially confined to a narrow strip along the United States
 boundary, generally south of the 56th parallel of latitude west of the Lake
 Winnipeg, and south of the 49th parallel of latitude east of Lake Superior.
 Approximately 10% of the total population are found in the Maritime provinces,
 61%  in Quebec and Ontario, 23% in the Prairie Provinces and 6% in British
 Columbia.
      Of the present population, 51.86% are of British descent, 28.22%
 French, and the remainder of widely scattered nativity.
   4. Climate.
      The climate of southern Canada is comparable to that of the northern
 tier of the states of the United States.  The west coast of British Columbia
 tempered by the Pacific Ocean is mild and humid.  The prairie provinces
 generally experience extreme cold weather from November to March, with heavy
 snow fall.  The climate of southern Ontario, the St. Lawrence Valley and the
 Maritime Provinces is much milder that that of the prairie provinces, but
 freezing temperatures are general between the end of November and the first
 of April, and the ground is usually covered with between one and three
 feet of snow.  Any extensive military operations in Canada between November
 1st and April 15th would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
   5. Communications.
   a. Railways.
   _
      There are only two railway systems in Canada, both crossing Canada
 east and west from the Atlantic to the Pacific.  These lines generally
 parallel the United States border, in some instances crossing through the
 United States.


                                -43-

      (1) The Canadian national Railways system (See inclosure B) belonging
 to and operated by the government, has eastern terminals at Halifax, N.S.,
 Portland, Maine (Grand Trunk), and through the Central Vermont, at Boston,
 New London and New York.  Western terminals are Vancouver and Prince Rupert
 B.C.  An extension from Cochrane, Ontario, to Moosonee, Ontario on James
 Bay, was completed by the Province of Ontario in July 1932, to connect with
 water routes to Churchill, Hudson Bay and with the northern route to Europe.
      (2) The Canadian Pacific system (see inclosure C) has its eastern
 terminus at Saint John, N.B. and it western terminus at Vancouver, B.C.
 As indicated by the systems maps, there are numerous branch lines serving
 the industrial and farming areas of the Dominion, and connecting lines ty-
 ing in with various railroads of the United States.
      From a military viewpoint, these railroads provide excellent trans-
 portation facilities for Blue, if invasion of Crimson is decided upon, and
 being located in close proximity to the border are, from the Crimson view-
 point, very liable to interruption.  This is particularly true at Winnipeg
 some 60 miles north of Blues border, through which both transcontinental
 systems now pass.  This fact probably encouraged Canada to construct the
 railroad from The Pass, Manitoba and develop the port at Churchill.
      Complete details concerning all railroads of Canada are contained in
 Appendix No. 1.
   b. Highways.
   _
      In recent years Canada has greatly increased and improved her road con-
 struction and while there are enormous stretches of country, particularly
 in the northern portion of the Dominion, with few or no roads, the southern
 portion is well served with improved roads.  A number of transcontinental
 motor roads are under construction or projected, the most important being
 the "Kings International Highway" from Montreal to Vancouver, via Ottawa,
 North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Winnipeg, MacLeod, Crow's Nest Pass,
 Fernia and Cranbrook.  Another highway is being constructed from
 Calgary to Vancouver.
      The principal roads in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces
 are shown on Inclosure D, herewith.  Roads in the Prairie Provinces and
 British Columbia are shown on inclosure E.
      The majority of improved roads are classified as gravel; macadam and
 concrete construction amounting to only 7870 miles out of a total of some
 95,000 miles improved.  Gravel roads will require extensive maintenance
 under heavy motor traffic, especially during the spring.
   c. Water Transportation.
   _
      (1) Inland Waterways.
           The Great Lakes, with the St. Lawrence River, is the most im-
 portant fresh water transportation system in the world.  At the present
 time it affords a draft of 21.0 feet over all the Great Lakes and through
 the Welland Canal into the St. Lawrence.  From the Atlantic Ocean to Mon-
 treal, the present head of ocean navigation on the St. Lawrence, a draft
 of 30.0 feet is available, adequate for the great majority of ocean shipping.
 For some distance above Montreal the present channel has an available depth
 of only 14.0 feet.
          The inland waterway is of prime importance to the economic life
 of both the United States and Canada for the transportation of bulk com-
 modities, especially for the movement of wheat from the western plains to
 shipping centers on the eastern seaboard; of iron ore from the mines in
 Minnesota to foundaries along Lake Ontario; and for coal from  the mines of
 Pennsylvania and West Virginia to Ontario, Quebec and the northwest.


                                  -44-

          The locks at Sault Ste. Marie, the boundary channels between Port
 Huron and Detroit and to a lesser degree the Welland Canal are the critical
 points on this waterway and effective control of such areas is vital to
 Blue.
          Navigation on the Great Lakes is generally closed by ice from
 about the end of November to the first of April.
          The St. Lawrence River is ordinarily ice bound for a similar period,
 but somewhat later about early in December to the latter part of April.
 While there are a number of Canadian lake ports of importance, Montreal is
 the only one which would not be automatically closed by Blue control of the
 Lakes.  Montreal is also an important ocean port and will be considered
 along with other deep sea ports.
      (2) Ocean Shipping.
          The Dominion of Canada owns and operates a cargo and passenger
 carrying fleet consisting of some 57 cargo vessels and 11 passenger ships.
          The principal ocean ports and the magnitude of Canadian ocean
 traffic is indicated by the following tabulation:

 A. Number and tonnage of sea-going vessels entered and cleared at the
 principal ports of Canada. (For year ending March 31, 1934.)

                            SEA-GOING VESSELS
          PORT       arrived      departed    TOTAL TONS (REGISTERED)
          ____       _______      ________    _______________________
 Halifax, N.S. *        1259        1484            7,540,990
 Yarmouth, N.S.          535         519            1,102,191
 St. John, N.B. *        684         688            2,924,822
 Montreal, Quebec *     1078         907            7,266,569
 Quebec, Que.  *         397         308            3,388,829
 Prince Rupert, B.C.    1141        1155              251,881
 Vancouver, B.C. *      2332        2137           11,705,775
 Victoria, B.C.         1927        1938            8,874,481
 New Westminster, B.C.   678         700            3,123,606

                         IMPORTANT SECONDARY PORTS.

 Churchill, Man. *        15          15              132,000
 Three Rivers, Que        79          79              424,560
 Windsor, N.S.            56          69              201,032

 Note: The above figures do not indicate amount of commerce; Register tons
                         ______
 are gross tons. (Namely cubical contents in cubic feet divided by 100)
 less deductions for crews space, stores, etc.

          A brief description of the above ports to indicate size, avail-
 able depths and important terminal facilities is included in Appendix No.
 2.
          While the above tabulation lists the principal ports, it should be
                                               _________
 realized that there are a large number of less desirable ports having
 available depths at low water of from 20 to 30 feet and provided with satis-
 factory terminal facilities, which can be used in an emergency for landing
 troops or supplies.  Examples of this class of harbors are:
                  Pictou, N.S.
                  Sydney, N.S.
                  Canso, N.S.
                  Gaspe', Quebec
                  Sorel, Quebec


                                  -45-

      The port of Montreal, favorably located at the head of ocean naviga-
 tion on the St. Lawrence and the foot of inland navigation of the Great
 Lakes, is a natural shipping and railroad center.  The port of Quebec is
 less favorable situated economically being more than 100 miles northeast
 of Montreal.  Strategically, however, Quebec controls the commerce of Canada
 moving to or from the Atlantic seaboard.  Its possession by Blue would
 interrupt eastern rail and water communication between England and the Mari-
 time Provinces and the rest of Canada.
      The port of Halifax is one of the best harbors on the Atlantic Coast
 and the principal winter port of Eastern Canada.  The harbor has been ex-
 tensively developed by the Dominion government as a modern ocean terminal
 and naval base.  It is fortified, though much of the armament is obsoles-
 cent.  In case of war with Red, Halifax would become of prime importance
 to Red as a naval base and as a debarkation point for overseas expeditions
 in case Blue controlled the St. Lawrence.  However, the routes available
 for a Red advance from Halifax into northeastern United States or towards
 Quebec and Montreal are quite difficult.
      The port of Saint John, New Brunswick is similar in many respects to
 the port of Halifax.  It is open throughout the year and equipped with the
 most modern terminal facilities, including one of the largest drydocks in
 the world.  It is an important shipping center for grain and dairy products.
 Due to the proximity of the port to the United States border and the fact
 that the principal rail connections (C.P. Ry.) passes through the state of
 Maine, the port would be of little use to Crimson or Red, at least in the
 early stages of war, provided Blue made any effort to control this area.
      The port of Vancouver, B.C. came into prominence with the opening of
 the Panama Canal, providing an alternate route to that of the transcontinental
 railroads for grain, dairy, lumber and the other products of western Canada
 to Europe.
      The port of Victoria, on Vancouver Island, is similarly situated,
 but due to the absence of rail connection with the mainland is more concerned
 with passenger and mail traffic than with bulk commodities.  Esquimalt, two
 miles west of Victoria, and the only Canadian naval base on the west coast,
 is equipped with a large modern drydock, and affords good anchorage for the
 largest vessels.  Consequently this area is of prime importance to Crimson.
 With the closing of the Panama Canal to Red traffic and the presence of
 Blue naval forces based on Honolulu, its commercial value is largely des-
 troyed.  Assuming that Blue controls the St. Lawrence and cuts Crimson's
 eastern communication with Red, the areas importance is enhanced, although
 it remains a decidedly unsatisfactory outlet.  If Red should win control of
 the Pacific steamship lanes, the area becomes of first importance to Red.
 All factors considered, it must be controlled by Blue.
      The port of Prince Rupert is a first class harbor with modern terminal
 facilities and excellent and extensive anchorages.  It becomes of extreme
 importance to Crimson, if and when they are denied the use of the southwest
 British Columbia ports, although, as in the case of Vancouver, it affords
 a most unsatisfactory and hazardous route to Europe.  Physical occupation
 of Prince Rupert harbor by Blue is not vital, but closing the port to ocean
 traffic should be effected.
      The port of Churchill, Manitoba now offers a good harbor and limited
 but modern terminal facilities, affording a back door to the Prairie Provin-
 ces and, by way of Moosonee, Ontario, and the Temiskaming and Northern
 Ontario Railroad, with central and western Ontario.  Hudson Bay and James
 Bay are open to navigation only about 4 months of the year, but this condition
 is partially offset by the fact that the distance from the Prairie Provinces


                                 -46-

 to Europe, via Churchill is from 500 to 1000 miles shorter than the rail-
 water route via Montreal.  In case Red is denied the use of the Atlantic
 or Pacific ports, or both, Churchill will afford an outlet for grain and
 meat products from Ontario, Manitoba and Sasketchewan and an inlet for mili-
 tary supplies and troops from Europe unless the northern trade route through
 Hudson Strait is controlled by the Blue fleet, and this is improbable.
   d. Air Transportation (Civil).
   _
      During 1933 there were 90 commercial aircraft operators in Canada.
 Their activities included forest file patrols, timber cruising, air photo-
 graphy, transportation of passengers, express and mail, etc.
      To encourage a more widespread interest and knowledge of aviation
 the Department of National Defense, since 1928, has issued two light air-
 planes and made certain grants to each of 23 flying clubs and a large air
 terminal has been built at St. Hubert, seven miles south of Montreal and
 a terminal airdrome at Rimouski, Quebec for the reception of trans-atlantic
 mails.
      At the close of 1934 there were 101 air fields of all types, 368
 civil aircraft and 684 licensed pilots in Canada.  Some details of airports
 in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are given in a letter from the Office of
 the Chief of Air Corps, herewith. (See inclosure F)
   e. Telephone and Telegraph.
   _
      (1) Cables.
          Six transoceanic cables have termini in Canada, five on the Atlantic
 and one on the Pacific.  The Atlantic cables are landed at Halifax, though
 several of them are routed through Newfoundland.  The Pacific cable lands
 at Vancouver from whence a cable also leads to the United States.
      (2) Radio.
          A transoceanic commercial radio beam service is carried on by a
 station at Drummondville, Quebec, with Australia, Great Britain and the
 United States.  In 1932 a direct radio telephone circuit with Great Britain
 was opened through the medium of this beam station.
      (3) General.
          Canada is well supplied with local telephone, telegraph and radio
 service.
          Interruption of Canada's trans-oceanic telegraph and radio service
 will seriously handicap Red-Crimson cooperation.
   6. Other Economic Factors.
   a. Agriculture.
   _
      Agriculture, including stock raising and horticulture, is the chief
 single industry of the Canadian people.  Canada is not only self-sustaining,
 as far as food is concerned, but has a large excess for export.  Food pro-
 duction is varied and so distributed throughout the dominion that each
 section is practically self-sustaining and cutting her off from the outside
 would would mere serve to deny her people certain luxuries, such as
 coffee, tea, sugar, spices and tropical fruit.
      The Maritime Provinces are noted for their fruit and vegetable crop,
 particularly for the oat and potato crops of Prince Edward Island and New
 Brunswick and apples in Nova Scotia.  Quebec and Ontario are mixed farming
 communities with the Niagara peninsula specializing in fruit.  Manitoba,
 Saskatchewan and Alberta are the principal wheat producing centers, with
 other grains and stock raising of increasing importance.  The rich valleys
 of British Columbia produce apples, other fruit and vegetables.


                                  -47-

   b. Forests.
   _
      The principal forests are in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario,
 Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.  The manufacture of lumber, lath,
 shingles and other products such as paper pulp, is the second most important
 Canadian industry.
   c. Mineral Resources.
   _
      Canada is one of the greatest mineral producing countries of the world.
 Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and the Yukon Ter-
 ritory contain the chief mining districts.  The following summary notes
 pertinent facts concerning minerals of primary military importance.
      Aluminum.  Aluminum was the 16th ranking Canadian export in 1934.
 Large quantities of bauxite, the principal source of supply were imported
 from the United States.
      Coal.
          There are enormous deposits of coal in Canada, largely in Nova
 Soctia and New Brunswick, in the east and in Alberta, Saskatchewan and
 British Columbia in the west.  Due mainly to the distance of the fields from
 the manufacturing and industrial centers, about 50% of the coal consumed
 is imported from the United States, via the Great Lakes.  Statistics for
 the calendar year 1933 show:
          Produced:
            Nova Scotia               6,340,790 tons
            New Brunswick               314,681  "
            Manitoba                      3,036  "
            Saskatchewan                903,776  "
            Alberta                   4,748,074  "
            British Columbia          1,484,653  "
            Yukon Territory                 638  "
          Imported:
            From United States        8,865,935 tons
            From United Kingdom       1,942,875  "
          Total - - - - - - ............................22,265,235 tons.
 (see slide 14855)
          In case of war with the United States, Canadas coal imports from
 this country would be cut off and her railroads and industrial activities
 seriously handicapped.  If Blue controlled the Quebec area and Winnipeg,
 Canada's railroads and industries dependent upon "steam power" would be
 crippled.
      Copper.
          The world production of copper in 1933 was (in short tons):
            Canada        149,992      Mexico         43,900
            Rhodesia      144,954      Peru           28,000
            Belgian Congo  73,409      Spain and )
            Chile         179,200      Portugal  )    34,720
            Japan          75,459      United States 196,190
          Canada's production was distributed approximately as follows:
            Province                   Tons
            ________                   ____
            Quebec                     35,000 Eastern Townships
            Ontario                    72,700 Sudbury area
            Manitoba                   19,000 Flin Flon
            Saskatchewan                1,600
            British Columbia           21,600 Western Manitoba


                                  -48-

      Iron and Steel.
         Canada ranks seventh among the nations as a producer of iron and
 steel but only a small percentage of her production is derived from domestic
 ores, in view of the abundant supply of higher grade ores in Newfoundland
 and Minnesota.  The Wabana section of Newfoundland contains the largest
 known single deposit of iron ore in the world.  There are large iron ore
 deposits in Quebec, northern Ontario and British Columbia but for various
 reasons they are handicapped for blast furnace treatment.  Iron and steel
 are produced in Nova Scotia (Sydney) and in Ontario.  Iron ore is obtained
 from the Mesabi Range in Minnesota, via the Great Lakes and from Newfound-
 land. (See slide 14856)  The bulk of iron and steel products, however, are
 imported, principally from the United States and the United Kingdom.
      Lead.
          Lead is obtained in Canada largely from deposits in British Columbia,
 the largest porting being exported to England.
      Nickel.
          The world production of nickel in 1933 was about 50,736 tons, of
 which about 82% originated in the Sudbury district, north of Georgian Bay
 in Ontario.  The remainder came chiefly from New Caledonia (Fr.).  A new
 deposit of nickel was recently discovered in northern Saskatchewan but has
 not yet been worked.
          Nickel is necessary to industry and indispensable in war.  Control
 of the Sudbury mines, in case of war, is therefor of vital importance.
      Petroleum.
          The production of crude oil or petroleum in Canada during 1934
 amounted to 1,417,368 barrels, principally from the Turner Valley field in
 Alberta.  A small amount is also obtained from wells near Monkton, New
 Brunswick and in southwest Ontario, between Lake Huron and Lake Erie.
 Considerable quantities are also imported from the United States.
      Zinc.
          Canada ranks fourth among the worlds producers of zinc.  Her out-
 put in 1934 totaled 298,579,531 pounds.  The principal producing mines are
 located in the Kootenay district of British Columbia and near Flin-Flon
 in northwest Manitoba.  Approximately 2/3 of the zinc exported goes to Great
 Britain.
   d. Manufacturing.
   _
      (1) General.
          Canada is the second largest manufacturing country in the British
 Empire, with Ontario and Quebec the most important industrial centers.  The
 relative standing of the various provinces during 1933, based on the value
 of products manufactured, was approximately as follows:
                 Ontario             $1,000,000,000.
                 Quebec                 650,000,000.
                 British Columbia *     146,500,000.
                 Manitoba                91,000,000.
                 Alberta                 55,000,000.
                 Nova Scotia             53,000,000.
                 New Brunswick           45,000,000.
                 Saskatchewan            36,000,000.
                 Prince Edward Island     3,000,000.
        *Includes Yukon Territory


                                  -49-

          The principal industries ranked according to gross value of
 products (1932) are:
           Pulp and Paper                 $123,415,492.
           Central Electrical Stations     117,532,081.
           Non-ferrous metal smelting      100,561,297.
           Slaughtering and meat packing    92,366,137.
           Flour and food mills             83,322,099.
           Butter and Cheese                80,395,887.
           Petroleum Products               70,268,265.
           Bread and other bakery product   51,244,162.
           Cotton yarn and cloth            51,197,628.
           Printing and publishing          50,811,968.
           Clothing factory, women's        44,535,823.
           Automobiles.                     42,885,643.
           Rubber goods.                    41,511,556.
           Hosiery and knitted goods        40,997,210.
           Sawmills.                        39,438,057.
      (2) Munitions.
          (a) Aircraft.
              There are at present six firms manufacturing aircraft as
 follows:
                Canadian-Vickers...............Montreal, Que.
                De Haviland....................Toronto, Ont.
                Curtis Reid....................Cartierville, Que.
                Fairchild......................Longueuil, Que.
                Boeing.........................Vancouver, B.C.
                Ottawa Car Mfg. Co.............Ottawa, Que.
              Aero engine factories have been established by:
                Armstrong-Siddeley Motors Co. at Ottawa, Que.
                Aero Engines of Canada at Montreal, Que.
                Canadian Pratt-Whitney Aircraft Co. at Longueuil, Que.
          (b) Miscellaneous.
                During the World War Canada demonstrated her ability to
 divert her peace time industries to the production of munitions, when she
 manufactured and exported large quantities of shells, fuses, cartridge
 cases, explosives, gun forgings, machine guns and small arms ammunition.
 This production could not be obtained in case of war with Blue but some
 munitions could be produced if her factories were free to operate and raw
 materials were available.  The government arsenal at Lindsey, Ont., is
 equipped to produce small arms ammunition and the arsenal at Quebec manu-
 factures some small arms and artillery ammunition.
   e. Commerce.
   _
      Analysis of Canada's industry and resources indicate that she has a
 sufficiency or surplus of certain raw materials but a deficiency of others.
 The more important of these materials are as follows:
      (1) Sufficiency or surplus;
          Arsenic, asbestos, cadmium, cobalt, copper, feldspar, fish oil,
 fluospar, foodstuffs, furs, gold, graphite, gypsum, lead, leather, magnesium,
 mica, nickel, silver, talc, wood and zinc.
      (2) Deficiency;
          Aluminium, antimony, bauxite, barytes, camphor, chromite, coal,
 cotton, flax, hemp, iron, jute, kaolin, manganese, mercury, nitrates,
 phosphate, petroleum, opium, quinine, rubber, silk, sugar, sulphur, tea,
 tin, tobacco and wool.


                                  -50-

   7. Combat Estimate.
   a. All matters pertaining to the defense of Canada are under a Department
   _
 of National Defense (Act of Jan. 9, 1923) with a minister of National De-
 fense at the head.  A Defense Council has been constituted to advise the
 Minister.
   b. The Navy has an authorized complement of 104 officers and 812 men, a
   _
 large majority serving under 7 year enlistments.  In addition certain spec-
 ialists are loaned from the British Royal Navy.  The Reserve consists of
 from 70 to 113 officers and from 430 to 1026 men recruited from sea-faring
 personnel.
      The ships of the Royal Canadian Navy are:

 Built    Class     Displacement  Name          Location     Status   Armament
 1931  Destroyer     1337 tons    Saguenay    Halifax, N.S. In comm.  4-4.7"
 1931     "          1337  "      Skenna      Esquimalt,B.C. "   "    4-4.7"
 1919     "           905  "      Champlain   Halifax, N.S.  "   "    3-4"
 1919     "           905  "      Vancouver   Esquimalt,B.C. "   "    3-4"
 1918  Mine Sweeper   360  "      Armentieres Esquimalt,B.C. "   "
 1918   "     "       360  "      Festubert   Halifax, N.S.  " reserve
 1918   "     "       360  "      Ypres       Halifax, N.S.  "   "

   c. Army.
   _
      (1) Personnel: Estimated Strength (by G-2):
                            Organized Forces.
                            ________________
                                          Active        Reserve     Total
                                          ______        _______     _____
 Permanent Active Militia                   403                      403
      Officers                              403                      403
      Men                                  3300                    3,300
 Non Permanent Active Militia
      Officers                                           6,911     6,911
      Men                                               44,962    44,962

 Reserves, Non-active
      Officers                                          10,000    10,000
      Men                                               30,000    30,000
                                                     __________________
   Total Organized                        3,703         91,873    95,576 *
 Note: The Canada Year Book, 1935, pp 1114, gives permanent and non-permanent
 active militia 1934:
      Permanent Officers and men---------    3,760
      Non-permanent officers and men-----  135,184
                                           _________
                                   Total   138,941
      The latest information concerning the distribution of the active militia
 is shown on the accompanying map. (Incl. G)
      (2) It is probable that the Non-permanent Active Militia can be brought
 to a strength of 60,000 at M plus 15 and to full strength of 126,000 in M
 plus 30 days.  (Note: This estimate is approximately twice that of G-2,
 First Army.) New troops will begin to appear in 180 days at the rate of
 50,000 monthly.
   d. Air Service.
   _
      The Royal Canadian Air Force operates under a directorate in the office
 of the Chief of Staff of the Army.
           Strength (Dec. 1, 1934)
                Active:
                  Officers          117
                  Men               664
                Reserve:
                  Officers           38
                  Men               236
                                  _____
                          Total   1,055


                                   -51-

      The equipment consists of some 84 combat planes with probably 20 on
 order. (G-2 estimate)  The Armaments Year Book, League of Nations, gives
 a total of 166 planes of all kinds and the Statesman Year Book, 1935 gives
 189 planes of all kinds.  It is probable that about one squadron of pursuit
 and one squadron of observation could be organized for immediate service.
   e. Comment.
   _
      The location of Canada's industry and population along a narrow extent
 front facing the northern United States border and her relatively weak
 military and naval forces, widely dispersed, will necessitate a defensive
 role until Red forces are landed.  The promptness and effectiveness of
 British aid must depend upon suitable debarkation points on Canada's east
 coast.  The West Coast does not favor overseas operations unless Red controls
 the Pacific, and even then is too remote from critical Blue areas.
   f. Red Reinforcements.
   _
      Various estimates have been made of the size, composition, and time of
 placing Red reinforcements in Canada.  In any such estimate, the time factor
 is of prime importance but depends on an unknown quantity, viz, "the period
 of strained relations."
      The following estimate is considered conservative:
                    Probable Enemy Forces in Canada
                    _______________________________
                                   Empire
 Days after       Crimson      (Less Crimson)                 Total
   M Day      men      Div.     Men        Div.        Men         Divisions
    15      25,000      5       ---        ---       25,000            5
    30      50,000      5       ---        ---       50,000            5
    60      50,000      5       126,000*    8       176,000           13
    90      50,000      5       203,000    13       253,000           13
   120      50,000      5       238,000    16       288,000           21
   150      50,000      5       255,000    16       305,000           21
   180      90,000      6       255,000    16       345,000           22
 *Under certain conditions this force might be landed in Canada by 30 M.

                                Air Forces.
                                __________
      Red has available at once 48 squadrons of 10 to 12 planes each.  The
 following forces can probably be landed in Canada as indicated.
                       10 M         13 squadrons.
                       30 M         30 squadrons.
                       60 M         41 squadrons.
                       90 M         56 squadrons.
                      120 M         74 squadrons.
   f. Conclusion.
   _
      Crimson cannot successfully defend her territory against the United
 States (Blue).  She will probably concentrate on the defense of Halifax
 and the Montreal-Quebec line in order to hold bases of operation for Red.
 Important secondary efforts will be made to defend her industrial area and
 critical points on her transcontinental railroad lines.

   8. Areas of Strategic Importance.
      Analysis of the above data and discussion indicates certain areas which
 would become of considerable military importance in the event of war with
 Red; namely,
   a. The Halifax Monkton St. John area, sometimes called the Martime
   _
      Province area.
   b. The Montreal Quebec area, sometimes called the St. Lawrence Area.
   _


                                   -52-

   c. The Great Lakes Area.
   _
      (1) Niagara River Area.
      (2) Sarnia-Windsor Area.
      (3) Sault Ste. Marie Area.
      (4) Sudbury Area.
   d. Winnipeg Area.
   _
      (1) Winnipeg City and vicinity.
      (2) Churchill, Manitoba Area.
   e. Vancouver-Victoria Area.
   _
      (1) Ports of Vancouver and Victoria, area.
      (2) Prince Rupert area.
   f. The reasons why these various areas are strategically important may be
   _
 briefly summarized as follows:
      (1) Halifax Monkton St. John Area. (Maritime Province)
          The port of Halifax is the key point in the area, for while the
 port of St. John affords excellent facilities for an overseas expedition,
 it is so close to the United States border that uninterrupted use by Red
 cannot be expected.  At Monkton, the peninsula connecting Nova Scotia and
 the mainland narrows to 14 miles.  With Halifax in possession of Crimson,
 this area affords the best defensive position to prevent any advance west-
 ward by Red.
          (a). Control of Halifax by Blue would:
               1. Deny Red the only ice free port on the east coast and the
               _
 only ports, other than the St. Lawrence River ports, suitable as an overseas
 base.
               2. Deny Red a prepared naval base on the east coast, from which
               _
 to operate against Blue naval forces or commercial shipping.
               3. Disrupt transoceanic submarine cable service between Crimson
               _
 and Red (except from Newfoundland) and between Crimson and the West Indies.
               4. Deny Red the use of certain air bases from which to operate
               _
 against northeastern United States.
          (b) The control of Halifax by Blue, renders the Port of St. John
 and the Monkton area of secondary importance. Failing to secure Halifax
                                               _______
 control of the Monkton area by Blue would:
 ___________________________
               1. Deny Red the use of St. John Harbor.
               _
               2. Cut the lines of communication between the port of Halifax
               _
 and St. John and the remainder of Canada.
               3. Place Blue directly across the only line of advance (by
               _
 Red) from Halifax, on the shortest possible defensive line.
               4. Deny Red the use of certain air bases from which to operate
               _
 against northeastern United States.
               5. Give Blue the use of various small air fields at Monkton
               _
 and St. John.
      (2) Montreal - Quebec Area (St. Lawrence River Area).
          The ports of Montreal and Quebec, while ice bound about four months
 of the year, still afford the best overseas base both as to facilities and
 location.  In addition the area is of great commercial importance in that
 it controls all lines of communication, by land, sea and wire between in-
 dustrial and agricultural centers of Canada and the eastern seaboard.  While
 Montreal has the larger and more commodius harbor and terminal facilities,
 Quebec, due to its physical location, is the key point of the area.
         Control of this area by Blue would:
         (a) Deny the use of all good St. Lawrence River ports to Red.
         (b) Cut all Canada, west of Quebec, viz. industrial, and agricult-
 ural centers from the eastern seaboard.


                                   -53-

          (c) Deny Red and Crimson and make available to Blue, the principal
 air bases in eastern Canada.
          (d) Deny Crimson coal and iron from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland as
 well as all imports via the Atlantic.
      (3) The Great Lakes Area.
          This area comprises several critical points:
          (a) Niagara River crossings and Welland Canal.
          (b) The waters connecting Lake Huron and Lake Erie.
          (c) The great industrial area of Canada - that part of Ontario lying
 between Lake Huron and Lakes Erie and Ontario.
          (d) The waters connecting Lake Superior and Lake Huron, including
 the Soo Locks.
          (e) The Sudbury nickel-copper mines.
      Control of the Great Lakes waterway is vital to Blue, for the transporta-
 tion of iron ore, coal and grain and such control will necessitate occupation
 of a bridgehead covering the narrow boundary waters at and near the Soo
 Locks and in the Detroit Area.  The bridges over the Niagara River and the
 Welland Canal, connecting Lake Erie and Lake Ontario are of importance to
 Blue for occupation of the Important industrial area of the Niagara-Ontario
 peninsula.  The Welland Canal would become of importance as a line of communi-
 cation if Blue seized the peninsula.  While control of that area is of
 importance in crippling Crimson industry, it is probably of greater importance
 in denying the enemy Crimson and Red, a most convenient base for operations
 against highly industrialized areas in the United States.
      (4) Winnipeg Area.
          Winnipeg is the nerve center of the transcontinental railroad
 system.  Control by Blue will effectively separate eastern and western
 Canada and block transportation on men, grain, coal, meat and oil to the
 east.  The completion of the Canadian National Railroad to Churchill
 Manitoba on Hudson Bay and the development of the port at Churchill provide
 an alternate route to Europe via Moosonee, Ont., and the Tem. and Ont.
 Ry. to northeast Ontario.  While the water route through Hudson Bay is only
 open about four months of the year, and the ports are supplied by single
 track railroads, a considerable amount of traffic could be developed in an
 emergency.
      (5) Vancouver - Victoria Area.
          As pointed out above, the ports in this area are of secondary im-
 portance only under the conditions, which may reasonable be assumed.  How-
 ever, the area has certain military importance, due to the naval base at
 Esquimalt, and is a possible outlet for the Canadian plan provinces and
 western Canada.  Its control by Blue would deny the enemy any base or outlet
 on the West Coast; simplify the problem of protecting our shipping in the
 Puget Sound area; and interrupt cable communication with the far east.
          While Prince Rupert, B.C. has an excellent harbor and terminal
 facilities with good rail connections leading east, naval blockade of this
 port would be readily possible, once the Vancouver - Victoria area was in
 Blue control.

   9. Routes of Approach to the Areas of Strategic Importance.
   a. Halifax - Monkton - St. John Area (Maritime Provinces) (Incls. D & H).
   _
      Three possible routes of approach are considered, viz:
      (1) Via water from Boston or New York to Halifax or vicinity.
      (2) Via water from Boston or New York to ports in Western Nova Scotia
 and thence overland to Halifax.


                                   -54-

      (3) From Eastern Maine, via St. John and/or Fredericton to Monkton -
 Amherst - Truro to Halifax.
   b. Discussion of Routes of Approach to the Halifax - Monkton  - St. John
   _
 (Maritime Province) Area.
      (1) The distance by water from Boston to Halifax is 370 miles and from
 New York 600 miles, or in time about 30 or 50 hours respectively.  The
 Port of Halifax is fortified and would undoubtedly be mined.  A frontal
 attack would require a large force and would involve undesirable delays.
 Other developed ports of Nova Scotia on the Atlantic are too distant from
       _________
 Halifax and involve a long advance after a landing is effected and this
 advance would be over difficult terrain.
          A number of undeveloped bays along the east shore offer favorable
 conditions for landing operations and of these, St. Margarets Bay, the near-
 est, being some 16 miles by road west of Halifax, appears satisfactory.
 Deep water, with a minimum depth of 7 fathoms extends nearly to the head of
 the Bay, not far from Hubley and French Village, which are on an improved
 road and on the railroad from Yarmouth to Halifax.  The bay is protected
 from all winds and seas, except those from the south and is of sufficient
 size to harbor any fleet required for the expedition.  Tidal range is the
 same as at Halifax, 6 to 6 1/2 feet.  There are numerous small but adequate
 boat and barge landings on the west, north and east shore of the bay, from
 whence improved roads lead to the main highway.
          The highway Hubbard - French Village - Hubley - Halifax is 18
 feet wide, of macadam, with east grades and with concrete bridges capable
 of carrying heavy artillery and tanks.  The railroad is single track,
 standard gauge and parallels the road.  It has rather heavy grades and is
 of light construction.
          Rocky wooded hills rise rather steeply to a height of 200 to 400
 feet all around St. Margarets Bay, but the roads are within the 50 foot
 contour and the terrain between the roads and the water is greatly rolling.
 The main highway French Village - Halifax, runs through low rocky hills
 and movement off the roads by wheeled vehicles would be practically im-
 possible.
      (2) The ports on the western shore of Nova Scotia off the Bay of Fundy
 are subjected to extremely high tides - 20 to 25 feet, and generally afford
 only limited terminal facilities and have depths generally inadequate for
 docking transports.  Tidal currents are strong.  From Windsor, on the Avon
 River, to Halifax, there is one improved road and a branch of the Canadian
 Northern Railroad.  The distance is about 50 miles, with high ground and good
 defensive positions in the center of the island.  As a route of approach to
 Halifax it is considered inferior to the route from St. Margarets Bay.
      (3) The All Land Route via Eastern Maine.
          This route involves an advance from the Maine border of approximately
 320 miles over difficult terrain.  The St. Johns River, rising near the border
 of northern Maine, flows south just east of the Maine - New Brunswick border
 to Woodstock, thence generally southeast through Fredericton to St. John.  It
 is navigable from the mouth to the falls some distance above Woodstock, N.B.
 The average tidal range at St. John is 20 1/2 feet, decreasing up stream.  The
 river is crossed by a highway and a railroad bridge at Fredericton, each
 nearly 1/2 mile long.  Two other bridges, a cantilever railroad bridge and a
 suspension bridge span the river about one mile above the city of St. John.
 There are numerous ferries operating alone the river.  It is apparent that
 the St. John River is a serious obstacle to any advance overland from
 Maine.  While the St. John could be bridged, such operations would
 result in considerable delay.


                                  -55-

          The railroad and road nets available are shown on Inclosures B,
 C and D.  They are reasonably adequate for a force of the size probably
 required for this operation.
      (4) Conclusion.
          If Halifax is to be captured without the use of large forces and
 expenditure of considerable time and effort, it must be accomplished promptly
 before Red reinforcements can be landed or Crimson organize for its defense.
 Any advance overland from Maine would eliminate all elements of surprise and
 make the capture extremely difficult - a major operation.
          An overseas expedition is one of the most uncertain of military
 operations, and with the Red fleet on guard in the North Atlantic, with
 Red's immediate military objective the retention of a base in eastern
 Canada for future operations against Blue, a joint operation against Halifax
 must be promptly and perfectly executed to assure any hope of success.  This
 route is considered the best but existing conditions at the time, may make
 this route impracticable, and the all land route necessary.
   c. The St. Lawrence Area. (Quebec - Montreal)
   _
      The only practicable routes of advance for Blue, into this area, are
 from northern New York, New Hampshire and Vermont and from northwest Maine.
 (See map) (Incl. K)
      (1) Rivers.
          (a) The St. Lawrence River flanks the left side of all routes of
 approach to Quebec.  From Montreal to Three Rivers it flows through an
 alluvial plain, with the south bank 25 to 75 feet above the river.  Below
 Three Rivers the banks increase steadily in height to Quebec, where they are
 140 to 175 feet high. The normal rise and fall of the river above the tidewater
 is 10 feet but this maybe doubled by ice jams.  Tidal range reaches a
 maximum of 18 feet at Quebec, and practically disappears at Richelieu Rapids
 40 miles above Quebec. The river above Quebec is obstructed by ice from
 November to April but ice breakers can get through.  The river from Quebec
 to Montreal, generally about 1/2 to 2 miles wide (except at Lake St. Peter)
 is navigable on a 30' draft to Montreal.  The distance from Quebec to Mon-
 treal is 160 miles.
              In the area south of the St. Lawrence, between Quebec and Mon-
 treal, are several rivers of importance which will naturally influence any
 plans for an advance on Quebec, viz:
                          Richelieu River
                          St. Francis River
                          Nicolet River
                          Becancour River
                          Chaudiere River
                          Etchemin River
              Other streams will create obstacles of lesser importance.
          (b) The Richelieu River flows north from Lake Champlain to enter
 the St. Lawrence about 35 miles north of Montreal.  It is navigable on a
 6 1/2 foot draft throughout its length.
          (c) The St. Francis River rises in St. Francis Lake some 50 miles
 northwest of Jackman, Maine.  It flows southwest to Lennoxville, Quebec,
 where it turns sharply northwest to flow into the St. Lawrence (Lake St.
 Peter).  Headwaters are controlled.  The regulated flow is some 3000 feet
 per second or more, with an average fall of 6.6 feet per mile. It is not
 fordable below Sherbrooke.


                            -56-

          (d) The Nicolet River rises in Nicolet Lake, 8 miles west of Lake
 Alymer, and flows generally northwest to empty into the St. Lawrence at the
 east end of Lake St. Peter.  The average low water flow is about 2000 feet
 per second. Banks in the upper reaches - hilly wooded terrain - are steep
 and from 200 to 500 feet higher.  The average fall is about 21 feet per mile
 but there are a number of dams.  From Arthabaska to Lake St. Peter the stream
 flows through a flat open country, with banks 25 feet high or less, except
 for a gorge starting about 4 miles north of St. Clothilda and ending 3 miles
 from Lake St. Peter.  The river is not a serious obstacle but there are many
 swampy areas between it and the Becancour River.
          (e) The Becancour River rises about 5 miles northwest of Lake St.
 Francis and flows north, then southwest, then northwest to enter the St.
 Lawrence a few miles below Three Rivers, Que.  The lower reaches of the
 river, below the vicinity of Lyster, Que, flows through generally flat country
 of gentle slope.  The stream averages 300 to 400 feet wide and is fordable
 at few places.  From Maddington Falls to within 3 miles of the St. Lawrence
 the river flows through a narrow gorge 100 to 250 feet below the surrounding
 flat country.  The river is not a serious obstacle to an advance on Quebec,
 by reason of the general direction of flow in its lower reaches and the
 characteristics of the country.
          (f) The Chaudierre River rises in Lake Megantic, about 45 miles
 west of Jackman, Maine and flows generally north into the St. Lawrence, op-
 posite Quebec.  From Lake Megantic to Hersey Mills, it flows swiftly between
 steep banks in a narrow valley.  The adjacent terrain is rugged and heavily
 timbered.  From St. George to Valley Junction the valley widens materially
 and the country is less rugged.  Below Valley Junction the river flows through
 gentle undulating country between relatively low banks.  The Chaudiere is a
 strong swift stream with an average discharge of over 4000 feet per second.
 The width varies from 200 feet at St. George to 400 feet or more in the lower
 reaches.  From St. Maxine to the St. Lawrence it is 600 to 1500 feet wide.
 This river must be considered a serious obstacle.
          (g) The Etchemin River rises in Lake Atchemin and flows northwest
 into the Chaudiere.  It is 200 to 300 feet wide in the lower reaches, with
 banks generally high and steep.  It forms a considerable obstacle.
      (2) Terrain.
          The southerly portion of the area bordering on the United States,
 east of the Richelieu River, is hilly verging on mountainous (up to 3000').
 The Notre Dame Mountains extend the Green Mountains of Vermont in the form
 of a series of ridges, gradually decreasing in elevation from Lake Champlain
 northeast to the meridian of Quebec, thence northeast parallel to the St.
 Lawrence.  From the St. Lawrence the terrain rises smoothly and gradually
 toward the southeast to the foothills of the Notre Dame Mountains.  On the
 line Montreal Sherbrooke a serious of eight hills (wooded) rise sharply
 to heights varying from 800 to 1500 feet or more above the surrounding
 country.
          In general the hills of the Quebec theatre are wooded, those below
 the 500 foot contour and east of the Becancour River sparsely, while west
 of the river there are densely forested areas at intervals.
      (3) Roads.
          The main roads to Montreal lead north from Plattsburgh, New York and
 Burlington, Vermont.  Quebec may be reached via routes No. 1 and 5, through
 Sherbrooke, Que; via route No. 3 along the south bank of the St. Lawrence;
 or via Montreal and the north bank of the St. Lawrence.  The latter is the
 longest route and undoubtedly the most difficult.  Another route is available
 from Jackman, Maine, via route No. 23 through Valley Junction.  The road
 net available is shown on inclosure No. "D" and "K."


                                   -57-

      (4) Railroads.
          The railroads available are shown on inclosures "B" and "C."  They
 are entirely adequate for any probable movement against this area.
      (5) Discussion of routes.
          (a) Northern New York - Vermont to Montreal
               Roads: No. 9 from Plattsburgh to St. Lambert and South Mon-
 treal.  Distance 69.2 miles, all paved.
                      No. 7 from Burlington, Vt., via St. John, Que. to
 St. Lambert or South Montreal.  Distance 94.2 miles, all paved.  There is
 a bridge across the Richelieu River at St. Johns.  There are two highway
 bridges across the St. Lawrence at Montreal.
              Railroads: Delaware and Hudson - Albany to Montreal.
                         New York Central - Malone to Montreal.
                         Rutland and C.P. - Burlington to Montreal.
                         Central Vermont and C.N. Montpelier to Montreal.
              Comments: The terrain is favorable and no physical barrier
 to the advance as far as the St. Lawrence, except the crossing of the Rich-
 elieu River, for a force moving from Vermont.  An advance on Quebec from
 Montreal is possible, but offers the longest route, with many rivers per-
 pendicular to the line of advance (down the St. Lawrence) which offer
 excellent defensive positions.
          (b) Northern Vermont and New Hampshire to Quebec.
                Physical features: The Richelieu River on the west and the
 Chaudiere and Etchemin Rivers on the east tend to delimit the zone of advance.
              Roads:
                No. 5 - Newport, Vt. to Sherbrook then No. 7 to Valley
 Junction to the highway bridge on the St. Lawrence and to Quebec, or via
 No. 23 from Scott Junction to Levis, Que and the ferry to Quebec.  Distance
 212.5 miles from Newport, Vt.  All improved road, mostly gravel.  Some of
 the road through the hilly country is paved.  No. 5 from Sherbrooke via
 Victoriaville is an alternate route.
                No. 23, Jackman, Maine - Valley Junction - Levis.  This dis-
 tance is 109 miles.  The road is improved and about 50% paved.  It is the
 shortest route.  It crosses the Chauderie and Etchemin Rivers. There are
 numerous alternate routes and connecting roads.
                Railroads:
                   Canadian Pacific - Newport to Quebec.
                   Canadian Pacific - Jackman via Megantic to Quebec.
                   Canadian National - Portland, Me., via Sherbrooke to Quebec.
                Comments:
                   While the terrain in this sector is hilly verging on the
 mountainous, with several defiles and river crossings, it offers the short-
 est and best route of advance on Quebec.

    d. The Great Lakes Area.
    _
        This area must be considered under the following subdivisions, as the
 routes of approach vary, and approach must be made from all of these direc-
 tions.
            The Buffalo - Niagara River Area.
            The Port Huron - Detroit Area.
            The Sault St. Marie or Soo Locks - Sudbury Area.
       (1) The Buffalo - Niagara River Area.
             Bridges cross the Niagara River at Buffalo (Peace Bridge);
 at Niagara Falls (suspension Bridge) and the (lower Arch Bridge) and at
 Lewiston, New York. "      "   "


                                -58-

           Roads: The road net approaching the Niagara River from the
 United States and leading across the river into southern Ontario and through
 Hamilton to Toronto and Montreal, is one of the best along the inter-
 national boundary and is entirely adequate for any probably movement.
           Railroads: The Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National rail-
 roads have a network of railways connecting Buffalo with Toronto and points
 east.  Branch lines lead to all important parts of the Niagara peninsula.
           Comment: The crossings over the Niagara River should be promptly
 secured to assure a line of advance into the Niagara Peninsula of Ontario.

      (2) The Detroit - Port Huron Area.
           This area has much the same characteristics as the Buffalo
 Niagara River Area but beyond securing the crossings over the boundary
 waters, sufficient area to cover the Great Lakes water routes against
 Crimson interference is essential.
           Crossings:
              Ambassador Bridge - Detroit - Windsor.
              Two tunnels (one railroad) Detroit - Windsor.
              Numerous ferries.
           Railroads and roads: There is an excellent railroad and road net
 available for any advance eastward from Detroit and Port Huron.
           Comment: The Ontario Peninsula is of great industrial importance
 to Canada and a military area of great strategic value, as a base for air
 or land operations against the industrialized areas between Chicago and
 Buffalo.  Any Blue operations should advance via Buffalo - Niagara Falls and
 Port Huron - Detroit simultaneously.

      (3) Sault Ste. Marie - Sudbury Area.
           The best route of approach to the Sudbury area, about 200 miles
 east of the Soo, is obviously via Sault St. Marie, along the north shore
 of North Channel.  An operation along this route, automatically covers the
 Soo.  The Canadian Pacific railroad and one good gravel road leads east
 from the Soo.  These provide ample facilities for supply of the probable
 force required.  The southern flank of this line is protected by North
 Sound and the north flank by rough heavily wooded terrain entirely devoid
 of roads or other communications suitable for the movement of armed forces.

      (4) Winnipeg Area.
            The main route from the United States to Winnipeg is north
 from Grand Forks and Crookston through Emerson.  A main road follows the
 west bank of the Red River, from Emerson into Winnipeg.  A good hard sur-
 face road from Grand Forks and one from Crookston furnishes a suitable
 road net south of the border.  There are several secondary roads on both
 sides of the border to supplement the hard surface roads.
            The Canadian Pacific has two main lines extending north from
 the border, one leading from Fargo through Gretna along the west bank of
 the Red River, and one from Thief River Falls, through Emerson along the
 east bank of the Red River.  The Canadian Northern has a line from Grand
 Forks through Emerson Junction to Winnipeg on the west bank of the Red
 River and another line connecting with Duluth and extending through
 Warroad to Winnipeg.
            The best and only practicable route of approach is obviously
 north from Grand Forks and Crookston.  The terrain is flat and open and
 offers no natural obstacles to an advance.


                                     -59-

            Churchill, on Hudson Bay, has rail connection by the Canadian
 National system at Hudson Bay Junction about 325 miles northwest of Winni-
 peg.  The best and only route of approach to cut this line is along the
 railroad from Winnipeg.

      (5) The Vancouver Area (Vancouver - Victoria) (See Incl. E & L) (Omitted)
            The best practicable route to Vancouver is via Route 99 through
 Bellingham, a distance of 55 miles and over a paved highway, through wooded
 and farming country.  A secondary and longer route lies about 15 miles fur-
 ther to the east running through Sumas to strike the highways running east
 from Vancouver at the meridian of Mission City.
             The Grand Trunk Railroad extending from Vancouver to Seattle fur-
 nishes a satisfactory rail service.
             Victoria and Esquimalt, on the island of Vancouver can be reached
 by water only.  Ferry service is maintained between Vancouver and Nanaimo on
 the east shore of the island, some 50 miles north of Victoria and between
 Vancouver, Burlingham and Port Angeles and Victoria.  The best route of ap-
 proach is by water from Port Angeles, Washington.

  IV. Conclusions:
      ___________
   a That the critical areas of Canada are:
   _
          (1) The Halifax-Monkton-St.John Area (The Maritime Provinces).
          (2) The St.Lawrence Area (Quebec and Montreal).
          (3) The Great Lakes Area.
          (4) The Winnipeg Area.
          (5) The Vancouver Area (Vancouver and Victoria).

    b. That the best routes of approach to these areas are:
    _
    To  (1) By joint operations by sea from Boston.
        (2) From Northern New Hampshire-Vermont area.
        (3) (a) From Sault St. Marie and the Soo Locks Area.
            (b) From Port Huron - Detroit Area.
        and (c) From the Buffalo-Niagara Falls Area.
        (4) From Grand Forks-Crookston through Emerson.
        (5) Along Puget Sound through Everett and Bellingham, supported
               by an attack by water in Puget Sound.

    V. Recommendations.
       _______________
          None.

   VI. Concurrences.
       ____________
          The committee concurs in the foregoing conclusions.

                                       CHARLES H. JONES
                                       Major, Infantry,
                                    Subcommittee Chairman.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Interference by Unnamed “Foreign Powers” in Canada’s Elections? The Invasion of “America’s Backyard”

First published on May 9, 2019

Ever since ‘the wrong result’ occurred at the referendum launched by then Prime Minister David Cameron, a fiasco of unprecedented proportions has been taking place in British politics. It is a depressing and, owing to the pathos, a tragi-comical spectacle.

However, there is nothing comical about the direction things are moving in, but there is something tragic. The UK is being hijacked from within and without, simultaneously. The pretext for this dissolution of everything that holds the country together as an Independent Nation State is the collusion between leading figures in the British Civil Service and leading figures in the European Commission. That collusion is symptomatic of the technocratic march towards an ever more centralised European Super State.

Because of the complexity of the surface Brexit story, which plays-out it’s contortions on the front pages of UK press day after day, I’m going to concentrate only on the key issues that remain largely hidden due to this orchestrated media smoke screen.

Britain’s civil service once held the reputation of being largely true to its traditional role of  transcribing into law the decrees of State. British Civil Servants acted out of a long established tradition to make their priority ‘the representation of the people’. The institution, which essentially acts as the first call in public administration, is historically structured to be independent of government.

However, in recent decades, as the pressure of the ‘corporate will’ has gained an ever stronger influence over government policy, the civil service also fell victim to internal slippage – and a tendency to keep a covert ear open to the corporate cabal. As most of us know, the interests of Big Money and Big Banking are essentially united in wanting to expand their empires into ever more powerful dictatorships – and this makes them central to driving the ambitions of A New World Order in which purely material power gives those at the helm the authority to act as despots. Certain civil service operatives have recently started believing that they also have a right to a stake in a position at the top of this authoritarian pyramid.

After Prime Minister Cameron’s political demise, Theresa May placed herself as the chief architect in negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU. She had behind her the 17.2 million UK citizens who had called for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, demanding an exit strategy to be settled and put in place without delay. May was not new to the politics of power, as head of The Home Office she was also in charge of national security and familiar with the workings of MI5 and MI6. Now, as Prime Minister, she inclined to listen to the voices of those dealing with international relations and foreign strategy, rather than the elected members of parliament to whom she is expected to report and consult.

Those ‘remainers’ who see the key power base of the future as an expanding centralisation programme centred around a supranational body of technocrats based in Brussels, put out a heavily financed call – that to quit the EU would be a disaster. Particularly for the economy, they claimed. Who are these figures? No doubt big-time financial henchmen who back the technocratic institutional road to power as the surest way to achieve their hegemonic goals.

Brussels had already produced the perfect template for technocrats to assume absolute authority. The EU has, since its inception, been a project to covertly create a federation run by unelected civil servant-style bureaucrats, cleverly disguised as an economic instrument for uniting Europe around common financial interests. Its early leaders include Walter Hallstein a leading ex Nazi who envisioned the European Union as a direct extension of the Third Reich: A Fourth Reich. The Bilderbergers were then responsible for concocting the poisoned formula that is intended to eventually do-away with nation states altogether, putting in their place a supranational authoritative body with total control over all aspects of civilian and military life.

With ‘Stay’ (remainer) voices shrilly supported by the majority of the mainstream British press – owned by just one or two well known media magnates – the dream of the UK being hard wired to the heart of the Fourth Reich was given enough impetus to present a direct challenge to the will of the British people, who had voted 52% to 48% to quit the European Union. A project conferred upon them by Prime Minister Edward heath back in 1973, with no consultation process being involved.

Theresa May has become a kind of mesmerized zombie within this high stakes battle for the fate of the British Isles. Her heavy reliance on the Cabinet committee and closed ears to parliament, has isolated her from the supposed ‘democratic process’ which is meant to be relied upon to resolve such a situation. Furthermore, she has shown a clear deficit in patriotism in her dealings with Donald Tusk (President of the European Council)  and Jean-Claude Juncker (President of the European Commission), who have made it clear that the UK will not be allowed out of fortress Brussels except on terms that suit the grandiose plans of the federal superstate.

Since these terms already involve the UK being (by treaty) locked into all regulatory controls emanating from Brussels, both before and after any ‘withdrawal’, it looks like game, set and match to Brussels regardless of what gets ‘agreed’ and signed up to on paper.

Whoever is pulling the strings that see Theresa May constantly pinging to and fro’ between London and Brussels on her supposed ‘negotiations’ with Tusk and Juncker, has got a plan which, if enacted, will play a critical role in bringing about the end of the UK as an independent Nation State’. That plan is called ‘EU Military Unification’.

Military Unification follows the edicts of the New World Order script by establishing a ‘One European Army’ able to exert its military influence at the behest of the technocrats in charge of EU home and foreign policy. Its stated aim is to bolster NATO in counterbalancing the ‘aggressive’ powers of Russia and China – which are always conveniently painted as ‘aggressors’ in spite of the fact that no evidence is available to validate this label.

But the under-text of this ‘military unification programme’ is considerably more sinister than the by now standard vilification of the Eastern super powers. It is coldly designed to strip the UK of its military strength by subsuming its army, navy and air force into a ‘One European Army’ under the command of foreign military personnel. And, at the time of writing, it looks as though the high command of this army will be headed by German Generals; although France is also pushing hard for the number one spot.

The sheer travesty of this EU heist for technocratic control of another Country’s military defence capabilities, is electrifying. It is at once both deeply sinister and alarming and suggests that the Fourth Reich is indeed close to becoming operational in Europe. Yet it cannot become so without the UK military – since the UK has the largest and best trained army in Europe.

Suddenly the whole game freezes into one starkly strategic ambition: to render the UK – and it will be true of other nations too once the precedent is set – a vassal state under the dictatorship of a despotic centralised regime moving ever closer to the totalitarian New World Order model planned by secret societies and carefully disguised elite clubs of hegemonic 21stcentury empire builders.

Already the forerunner of full ‘EU military unification’ is to be seen in action. In France, there have been many claims that foreign military police have been drafted in by Macron in order to take a strong line with Yellow Vest protesters. The reasoning is that, being outsiders, they will be able to be more brutal with French nationals without feeling bad about it. What a sick idea. But in taking such a line one can see how a European military/police unification process can be used to suppress individuals – in any part of Europe – attempting to  kick back against oppressive leadership.

Back in London, Mark Sedwell, head of the British Civil Service, sits in an ornate regal chair in Westminster – and with a wry smile declares himself to be ‘King of the United Kingdom’. The Prime Minister recently authorised Sedwell’s present position as head National Security Advisor, head of the Cabinet Office and head of the Civil Service. If one ever needed proof that civil service boffins are shedding their traditional roles as ‘answering to the will of the people’ and are instead occupying the front line of UK policy makers – this is surely conclusive evidence. Civil Servants, according to Brian Guerrish, lead presenter of UK Column News “are the new oligarchs.”

The United Kingdom is in deep trouble. Brexit is a sham. A deception of the highest order. The Country’s very own Prime Minister is involved in an act of treason, selling the nation she was elected to defend and to direct according to the will of the people. While down the road at Buckingham Palace, the Queen of England, titular head of ‘Her Majesty’s Armed Forces’ and sworn defender of the United Kingdom as an Independent Nation State – sits passively on the side lines – seemingly unmoved by the fact that her kingdom is being auctioned-off and rendered impotent, right in front of her eyes. Rendered impotent and defenceless.

You might imagine that The Queen of England would, by now, have called the Prime Minister to the Palace and told her – in  no uncertain terms – that this is a bridge too far. But no. All is silent. Eerily so.

Back in parliament, MP’s of both the ruling Conservative party and the opposition Labour Party, also remain tight lipped when questioned if they are aware that the nation’s military defence is being disbanded in favour of a realignment with an EU military unification programme.  Are they playing ignorant – or are they actually ignorant?

Using the infamous technique of divide and conquer, citizens of the United Kingdom are being goaded into ‘taking sides’. Neither ‘solution’ (to leave or to stay) reflect much clarity of thought. This is due to the fact that a significant majority cannot comprehend the details of the spurious arguments the national press put forward. Not surprisingly, since there is a great pall of obfuscation being deliberately injected into the whole process in order to produce the sort of chaos which will allow the the hidden government or ‘deep state’ as it is known in the USA – to sneak through its strategic agenda for achieving a further turning of the screw in the direction of a One World dictatorship.

As if to compound the Huxleyan agenda, the very same cabal is pushing 5G WiFi forward as the ‘solution’ for a one world electromagnetic microwave grid to survey and influence the behaviour and health of every single person on the planet. This ubiquitous ‘silent weapon’ is to be the power source for ‘the smart internet of everything’ and precursor of a robotic age in which microwaving and mind controlling of populations is callously and indiscriminately performed in the name of the maintenance of ‘law and order’.

However there is resistance to universal despotism. Growing resistance. Growing in direct response to all attempts being made to snuff it out. The great Brexit deception is being exposed for what it is as more and more people witness the hard edged controlling hand of the EU at work against any non conformist elements making a stand for another way of doing things. Witness the EU at work in support of Macron’s imperialist leadership of France; in the suppression of of an independent Basque State; in the cold economic suffocation of Greece and the blocking of the new government of Italy and its reassertion of the values of Nation Statehood.  Witness also continuing EU support for US led military invasions of foreign countries and the backing of US troop and armament installations in Poland and other Eastern European Countries.

Those who can think are increasingly on the side of a ‘peoples resistance movement’ and initiatives that expose the top down heavy-handed militarisation of once democratic countries. We are witnessing a remarkable global upsurge of humanitarian calls for a completely new paradigm of socio-economic and environmental reform – a revolution in the way that the wealth of the planet is shared and distributed, including an end to brutal imperialistic wars that are destroying everything of value and sanctity on this precious planet.  The top down New World Order design model envisaged by Bush, Cheney, Blair et al. with its post 9/11 hegemonic charge into the Middle East and beyond, is teetering on the brink.  While the emergence of a diametrically opposing ‘new world order’ is fermenting a bottom up resurgence of people power that, once it reaches critical mass, will depose the old criminal order once and for all. It comes down to a race against time.

As regards the UK’s future in or outside the European Union, I’ll leave you with the telling words of professor Gwythian Prins “The people have chosen the outer world. The officials and the May cell have chosen military EU. This is absolutely the wrong choice. It is therefore an inescapable fact that the Orwellian non withdrawal documents pose a real and present threat to UK national security in the most fundamental way possible.”

Brexit is undoubtedly a huge wake up call for a very large number of individuals in the UK, in Europe and beyond. What is playing-out is highly significant in all respects. It comes down to a case of accepting indefinite slavery to an empire building totalitarian technocracy or finding the strength of imagination and purpose to create and uphold a society of responsible, community conscious, independent and freedom loving individuals, able to set a just and sane course for humanity as a whole. Let us make sure that our voices and actions are fully aligned with the latter outcome.

*

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

Julian Rose is an international activist, writer, organic farming pioneer and actor.  In 1987 and 1998, he led a campaign that saved unpasteurised milk from being banned in the UK; and, with Jadwiga Lopata, a ‘Say No to GMO’ campaign in Poland which led to a national ban of GM seeds and plants in that country in 2006. Julian is currently campaigning to ‘Stop 5G’ WiFi. He is the author of two acclaimed titles: Changing Course for Life and In Defence of Life and is a long time exponent of yoga/meditation.  His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must  Come Through’ comes out in June. See Julian’s web site for more information and to purchase his books www.julianrose.info

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Are We Witnessing the End of the United Kingdom as an Independent Nation State?

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

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Over the course of five weeks of campaigning, politicians from 6 major political parties have put forward their platforms and tried to explain to Canadians why they deserve to be sent to Ottawa as opposed to their partisan rivals.

As is typically the case, foreign policy got short shrift during the election. The Munk debate on foreign policy, named after its founder, the notorious far-right global mining magnate Peter Munk, was cancelled due to Prime Minister Trudeau’s decision not to participate.

Much of the discourse during the campaign saw substantive policy discussions displaced by questions about ‘moral leadership.’ One example: embarrassing 18 year old photographs of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in ‘black/brown face’ during his time as a school teacher evoked questions about his hypocrisy and sensitivity on issues of racial injustice.

Where there was discussion of actual policy, the topics mostly centred around climate change mitigation strategies, job creation, deficits, and what to do about a controversial Bill in the francophone province of Quebec restricting public employees from adorning themselves with symbols of their religious faith while on the job.

Complicating any public discussion on foreign policy, however, was mainstream media long-standing reporting and commentary, ignoring Canada’s exploitive and imperialistic roles abroad. They, the major media, participate in the demonization of the governments of Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad and Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro, while failing to challenge political leaders on Canadian support for the more anti-democratic behaviour of governments in Haiti and the Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Democracy in the broadest sense of the term, is supposed to mean power of, by and for the people. A necessary prerequisite of democratic choices is reliable information on which responsible decisions can be made.

With less than 48 hours to go before Canadians go to the polls to elect their next government (as of this writing) the Global Research News Hour endeavours to do a little fact-checking and explore some of the important foreign policy issues not being discussed in the lead-up to election day.

In the first half hour, we are joined by activists Yves Engler and Ken Stone. Over the course of a 20 minute conversation, they discuss Canada’s policy in Syria and the Middle East. They also talk about the unquestioned devotion by all the major political parties to increased military spending. As well, they also elaborate on their involvement, during the campaign, in something called the ‘disruption network’ which confronts politicians in all political parties on their platforms and their records.

In the second half hour, writer, lecturer and author Arnold August, who is currently on a multi-city tour, speaks specifically about Canada’s hostile approach to Venezuela under the Trudeau Liberals, as well as its changing engagements with Cuba.

Finally, writer / researcher Joyce Nelson provides her assessment of the little discussed Canada Infrastructure Bank, and its role in securing the privatization of public infrastructure, particularly water an wastewater services in municipalities and First Nations communities across the country.

Yves Engler is a Montreal based political activist and writer specializing in dissident perspectives on Canadian foreign policy. He has authored close to a dozen books over the last decade. His most recent book is Left, Right — Marching to the Beat of Imperial Canada. More of Engler’s articles can be found at the site yvesengler.com. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Ken Stone is a veteran antiwar activist, a former Steering Committee Member of the Canadian Peace Alliance, an executive member of the SyriaSolidarityMovement.org, and treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War [hcsw.ca]. Ken is author of “Defiant Syria”, an e-booklet available at Amazon, iTunes, and Kobo. He lives in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Arnold August is a Canadian journalist and lecturer, the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion and Cuba–U.S. Relations: Obama and Beyond. He collaborates with many web sites, television and radio broadcasts based in Latin America, Europe, North America and the Middle East. His trilingual website: www.arnoldaugust.com.

Joyce Nelson is an award-winning freelance writer and researcher. She  writes regularly for The Watershed SentinelCounterpunch, and Global Research among other publications. She has authored 7 books including Beyond Banksters: Resisting the New Feudalism, from 2016 and its 2018 sequel, Bypassing Dystopia: Hope-filled Challenges to Corporate Rule. Her most recent article for Global Research is Privatizing Canada’s Water Infrastructure Should be an Election Issue.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 273)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (alternativecurrentradio.com)

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 3pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada’s Elections Campaign 2019: The Issues Nobody is Talking About

Canada is to become the second country after Uruguay to legalize the recreational use of cannabis. Adults will be able to purchase cannabis from “federally licensed producers”.  At present, Canada has according to the BBC “one of the highest rates of  cannabis use” Worldwide. “Canadians spent an estimated C$5.7bn ($4.6bn; £3.5bn) in 2017 alone on combined medical and recreational use – about $1,200 per user. The bulk of that spending was on black market marijuana.” (BBC, October 14, 2018).

Legalization kills the black market. Who is going to benefit? Ellen Brown analyses the corporate interests behind the legalization of Marijuana. It’s a multibillion corporate bonanza. In the US, the push has come from Big Pharma and Big Ag with Bayer-Monsanto in the lead. 

***

California’s “Adult Use of Marijuana Act” (AUMA) is a voter initiative characterized as legalizing marijuana use. But critics warn that it will actually make access more difficult and expensive, squeeze home growers and small farmers out of the market, heighten criminal sanctions for violations, and open the door to patented, genetically modified (GMO) versions that must be purchased year after year. 

As detailed in Part I of this article, the health benefits of cannabis are now well established. It is a cheap, natural alternative effective for a broad range of conditions, and the non-psychoactive form known as hemp has thousands of industrial uses. At one time, cannabis was one of the world’s most important crops. There have been no recorded deaths from cannabis overdose in the US, compared to about 30,000 deaths annually from alcohol abuse (not counting auto accidents), and 100,000 deaths annually from prescription drugs taken as directed. Yet cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled substance (“a deadly dangerous drug with no medical use and high potential for abuse”), illegal to be sold or grown in the US.

Powerful corporate interests no doubt had a hand in keeping cannabis off the market. The question now is why they have suddenly gotten on the bandwagon for its legalization. According to an April 2014 article in The Washington Times, the big money behind the recent push for legalization has come, not from a grassroots movement, but from a few very wealthy individuals with links to Big Ag and Big Pharma.

Leading the charge is George Soros, a major shareholder in Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company and producer of genetically modified seeds. Monsanto is the biotech giant that brought you Agent Orange, DDT, PCBs, dioxin-based pesticides, aspartame, rBGH (genetically engineered bovine growth hormone), RoundUp (glyphosate) herbicides, and RoundUp Ready crops (seeds genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate).

Monsanto now appears to be developing genetically modified (GMO) forms of cannabis, with the intent of cornering the market with patented GMO seeds just as it did with GMO corn and GMO soybeans. For that, the plant would need to be legalized but still tightly enough controlled that it could be captured by big corporate interests. Competition could be suppressed by limiting access to homegrown marijuana; bringing production, sale and use within monitored and regulated industry guidelines; and legislating a definition of industrial hemp as a plant having such low psychoactivity that only GMO versions qualify. Those are the sorts of conditions that critics have found buried in the fine print of the latest initiatives for cannabis legalization.

Patients who use the cannabis plant in large quantities to heal serious diseases (e.g. by juicing it) find that the natural plant grown organically in sunlight is far more effective than hothouse plants or pharmaceutical cannabis derivatives. Letitia Pepper is a California attorney and activist who uses medical marijuana to control multiple sclerosis. As she puts it, if you don’t have an irrevocable right to grow a natural, therapeutic herb in your backyard that a corporation able to afford high license fees can grow and sell to you at premium prices, isn’t that still a war on people who use marijuana?

Follow the Money to Uruguay

Monsanto has denied that it is working on GMO strains. But William Engdahl, author ofSeeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, presents compelling circumstantial evidence to the contrary. In a March 2014 article titled “The Connection Between the Legalization of Marijuana in Uruguay, Monsanto and George Soros”, Engdahl observes that in 2014, Uruguay became the first country to legalize the cultivation, sale and consumption of marijuana. Soros is a major player in Uruguay and was instrumental in getting the law passed. He sits on the board of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), the world’s most influential organization for cannabis legalization. The DPA is active not only in the US but in Uruguay and other Latin American countries. Engdahl writes:

Studies show that Monsanto without much fanfare conducts research projects on the active ingredient in marijuana, namely THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), in order to genetically manipulate the plant. David Watson of the Dutch company Hortapharm has since 1990 created the world’s largest collection of Cannabis seed varieties. In 1998, the British firm GW Pharmaceuticals signed an agreement with Hortapharm that gives GW Pharma the rights to use the Hortapharm cannabis for their research.

In 2003 the German Bayer AG then signed an agreement with GW Pharmaceuticals for joint research on a cannabis-based extract. In 2007, Bayer AG agreed to an exchange of technology with . . . Monsanto . . . . Thus Monsanto has discreet access to the work of the cannabis plant and its genetic modification. In 2009 GW Pharmaceuticals announced that it had succeeded in genetically altering a cannabis plant and patented a new breed of cannabis.

Monsanto could have even greater access to the Bayer/GW research soon. In March 2016, Monsanto approached the giant German chemical and pharmaceutical company Bayer AG with a joint venture proposal concerning its crop science unit. In May, Bayer then made an unsolicited takeover bid for Monsanto. On May 24th, the $62 billion bid was rejected as too low; but negotiations are continuing.

The prospective merger would create the world’s largest supplier of seeds and chemicals. Environmentalists worry that the entire farming industry could soon be looking at sterile crops soaked in dangerous pesticides. Monsanto has sued hundreds of farmers for simply saving seeds from year to year, something they have done for millennia. Organic farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to prevent contamination of their crops by Monsanto’s GMOs.

In Seeds of Destruction, Engdahl quotes Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon’s Secretary of State. Kissinger notoriously said, “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” Engdahl asserts that the “Green Revolution” was part of the Rockefeller agenda to destroy seed diversity and push oil- and gas-based agricultural products in which Rockefeller had a major interest. Destruction of seed diversity and dependence on proprietary hybrids was the first step in food control. About 75% of the foodstuffs at the grocery store are now genetically manipulated, in what has been called the world’s largest biological experiment on humans.

Genetic engineering is now moving from foodstuffs to plant-based drugs and plant-based industrial fibers. Engdahl writes of Monsanto’s work in Uruguay:

Since the cultivation of cannabis plants in Uruguay is allowed, one can easily imagine that Monsanto sees a huge new market that the Group is able to control just with patented cannabis seeds such as today is happening on the market for soybeans. Uruguay’s President Mujica has made it clear he wants a unique genetic code for cannabis in his country in order to “keep the black market under control.”

Genetically modified cannabis seeds from Monsanto would grant such control. For decades Monsanto has been growing gene-soybean and GM maize in Uruguay too. George Soros is co-owner of agribusinesses Adecoagro, which planted genetically modified soybeans and sunflowers for biofuel.

Other commentators express similar concerns. Natural health writer Mike Adams warns:

[W]ith the cannabis industry predicted to generate over $13 billion by 2020, becoming one of the largest agricultural markets in the nation, there should be little doubt that companies like Monsanto are simply waiting for Uncle Sam to remove the herb from its current Schedule I classification before getting into the business.

In a 2010 article concerning Proposition 19, an earlier legalization initiative that was defeated by California voters, Conrad Justice Kiczenski noted that criminalization of cannabis as both industrial hemp and medical marijuana has served a multitude of industries, including the prison and military industry, the petroleum, timber, cotton, and pharmaceutical industries, and the banking industry. With the decriminalization of cannabis, he warned:

The next stage in continuing this control is in the regulation, licensing and taxation of Cannabis cultivation and use through the only practical means available to the corporate system, which is through genetic engineering and patenting of the Cannabis genome.

AUMA: Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

Suspicions like these are helping to fuel opposition to the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), a 2016 initiative that would rewrite the medical marijuana laws in California. While AUMA purports to legalize marijuana for recreational use, the bill comes with so many restrictions that it actually makes acquisition more difficult and expensive than under existing law, and makes it a criminal offense for anyone under 21. Critics contend that the Act will simply throw access to this medicinal wonder plant into the waiting arms of the Monsanto/Bayer/petrochemical/pharmaceutical complex. They say AUMA is a covert attempt to preempt California’s Compassionate Use Act, Proposition 215, which was passed in 1996 by voter initiative.

Prop 215 did not legalize the sale of marijuana, but it did give ill or disabled people of any age the right to grow and share the plant and its derivatives on a not-for-profit basis. They could see a doctor of their choice, who could approve medical marijuana for a vast panoply of conditions; and they were assured of safe and affordable access to the plant at a nearby cooperative not-for-profit dispensary, or in their own backyards. As clarified by the 2008 Attorney General’s Guidelines, Prop 215 allowed reimbursement for the labor, costs and skill necessary to grow and distribute medical marijuana; and it allowed distribution through a “storefront dispensing collective.” However, the sale of marijuana for corporate profit remained illegal. Big Pharma and affiliates were thus blocked from entering the field.

At the end of 2015 (effective 2016), the California state legislature over-rode Prop 215 with MMRSA – the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act of 2015/16 – which effectively rewrites the Health Code pertaining to medical marijuana. Opponents contend that MMRSA is unconstitutional, since a voter initiative cannot be changed by legislative action unless it so provides. And that is why its backers need AUMA, a voter initiative that validates MMRSA in its fine print. In combination with stricter California Medical Association rules for enforcement, MMRSA effectively moves medical marijuana therapy from the wholistic plant to a pharmaceutical derivative, one that must follow an AUMA or American Pharmaceutical Association mode of delivery. MMRSA turns the right to cultivate into a revocable privilege to grow, contingent on local rules. The right to choose one’s own doctor is also eliminated.

Critics note that of the hundreds of millions in tax revenues that AUMA is expected to generate from marijuana and marijuana-related products, not a penny will go to the California general fund. That means no money for California’s public schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, roads and other infrastructure. Instead, it will go into a giant slush fund controlled by AUMA’s “Marijuana Control Board,” to be spent first for its own administration, then for its own law enforcement, then for penal and judicial program expenditures.

Law enforcement and penalties will continue to be big business, since AUMA legalizes marijuana use only for people over 21 and makes access so difficult and expensive that even adults could be tempted to turn to the black market. “Legalization” through AUMA will chiefly serve a petrochemical/pharmaceutical complex bent on controlling all farming and plant life globally.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, Founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com. She can be heard biweekly on “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown” on PRN.FM. ellen Brown is a frequent contributor to Global Research

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The War on Weed: Monsanto, Bayer, and the Push for “Corporate Cannabis”

When US forces rape and destroy nonbelligerent nations threatening no one, it’s called humanitarian intervention, responsibility to protect, and democracy building — notions Washington’s power elites abhor.

When victimized nations defend themselves lawfully against Pentagon terror-bombing and atrocities by ISIS and likeminded jihadists used as US proxy foot soldiers, they’re wrongfully condemned for aggression — notably by establishment media, operating as imperial press agents.

The Obama and Trump regimes respectively supported Turkey’s 2016 and 2018 aggression in Syria — Operations Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch, both flagrantly illegal under international law.

Aggression committed by other countries is only OK with Washington when serving its interests — notably when Israel smashes defenseless Palestinians, rapes Lebanon, and terror-bombs Syria, along with conducting targeted assassinations.

Throughout much of Obama’s war on Syria, now Trump’s, the Pentagon and CIA used Kurdish YPG fighters in the country’s north as proxy foot soldiers against Damascus.

They were supplied with heavy weapons, related equipment, logistical support, intelligence, and air cover for aggression, supporting Washington’s imperial aims, along with their own self-interest against Syria’s sovereign independence and territorial integrity.

When Turkey’s Erdogan launched so-called Operation Peace Spring in northern Syria days earlier, his third cross-border aggression since 2011, the Trump regime OK’d it, then expressed opposition along with congressional members for political and strategic reasons.

The US has a long history of abandoning support for allies to higher priorities, Kurds victimized time and again, early October their latest betrayal, pushing them to ally with Damascus against a common Turkish foe.

Turkey is a NATO member, its alliance with Washington uneasy at best. A rupture could happen any time over US actions Erdogan rejects, Russia the beneficiary if things turn out this way.

Trump and his handlers are trying to have things both ways, criticizing Turkey’s cross-border adventurism while stopping short of harsh actions to stop it — notably by continuing to sell Ankara weapons and munitions used for warmaking.

Neither DJT, his geopolitical team, or congressional leaders give a hoot about ordinary people anywhere, including at home.

Trump’s Wednesday letter to Erdogan showed he wants bilateral differences smoothed over, relations between both countries kept firm, saying:

“Let’s work out a good deal. You don’t want to be responsible for slaughtering thousands of people” — what the US, NATO, and Israel do in all their wars of aggression, accountability by the world community never forthcoming.

Republicans and undemocratic Dems have no compunction about mass slaughter and destruction committed against targeted nations.

They’re responsible for millions of casualties post-9/11 alone, their numbers growing daily as endless US wars of aggression continue in multiple theaters.

Separately on Wednesday, Speaker Pelosi and other undemocratic Dems had a stormy White House meeting with Trump, the first one since announcing their politicized Ukrainegate/witch-hunt impeachment inquiry.

It ended with both sides insulting each other, seeking political advantage, more evidence of what Paul Craig Roberts calls “today’s Amerika,” Washington’s “insane asylum” — governance all about enforcing might over right at home and abroad.

On the same day, undemocratic House Dems joined by scores of Republicans passed a nonbinding resolution (354 – 60) — condemning Trump’s withdrawal of US troops from northern Syria.

Unmentioned was Obama regime-launched war of aggression on the Syrian Arab Republic, raging since early 2011 — with no resolution in prospect because both right wings of the US war party reject peace, stability, equity and justice everywhere.

Achieving it defeats their imperial aims. Endless hot wars and by other means further them, what the US permanent war agenda is all about.

At home it includes force-fed neoliberal harshness, transferring wealth from ordinary people to privileged ones, controlling the message, censoring speech, media, and academic freedoms, along with police state crackdowns on nonbelievers.

All of the above reflect the disturbing state of today’s America.

Never beautiful or the land of the free and home of the brave, today’s USA is unsafe and unfit to live in for the vast majority of its people – exploited and otherwise mistreated to benefit its privileged class exclusively.

*

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 Aggression Only OK for US If Led by the Pentagon and Partners

Radiofrequency Radiation: The Invisible Hazards of “Smart” Meters

October 19th, 2019 by Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri

This incisive article by the late Dr. Ilya Perlingueri was first published in August 2011

“The Seletun Scientific Statement recommends that lower limits be established for electromagnetic fields and wireless exposures, based on scientific studies reporting health impacts at much lower exposure levels. Many researchers now believe that existing safety limits are inadequate to protect public health because they do not consider prolonged exposure to lower emission levels that are now widespread. Current US…standards for radiofrequency and microwave radiation from wireless technologies are entirely inadequate. They were never intended to address this kind of exposure from wireless devices that now affect over 4 billion people.” The Seletun Scientific Statement, Feb. 3, 2011

Do You Have a New “Smart” Meter?

Over the past year-and-a-half, various power companies have been removing the analogue [disc-like] meters placed on your homes, apartments and businesses, and installing what they call their new “Smart” Meters. This is part of the larger plan throughout the US and Canada where these meters have already been installed. “According to the Edison Foundation, more than 8 million Smart Meters have been deployed by electric utilities in the US and nearly 60 million should be in place by 2020.”(1)

In Canada, 2 million of these meters are planned. “BC Hydro has a $930-million rollout of ‘Smart’ Meters” installation that began on July 4.(2)

The US nationwide program is

“driven, in part by funding for the Smart Grid Program approved as part of the American Recovery[sic] and Reinvestment Act [AARA] of 2009.”(3)

“There is great concern because exposure to microwave and radiowave radiation from these meters in involuntary and continuous. The transmitting meters may not even comply with FCC ‘safety’ standards. …These standards [are totally outdated and] were not designed to protect a diverse population from non-thermals effects of continuous exposure to microwave and radiowave radiation. Therefore, these ‘safety’ standards were not designed to protect the public from health problems under the circumstances which the meters are being used.”(4)

As Marti Oakley has just written, the best way to look at what’s happening is to:

“follow the money. In late October 2009, the [US] Department of Energy announced the $3.4 billion in stimulus grants under AARA. Award selections were announced for 100 smart grid projects that are intended to lead to the rollout of approximately 18-million smart meters, 1-million in-home energy management displays, and 170,000 smart thermostats, as well as numerous advanced transformers and load management devices.”(5)

Smart-grid projects are supposed to “meet strict cyberspace guidelines”(6); but that has not happened, because greed trumped everything else: our health, safety, precaution, and any remnants of law. Government corruption is endemic, while Wall Street behind-the-scenes manipulation and the bankers theft of trillions of taxpayer dollars is ignored. White-collar crime is rarely prosecuted, because (1) there are few honest people left in government; and (2) those in charge are part of the bigger problem. All Precaution was thrown out in the race to compete for millions of fiat dollars. Without an informed and educated public and with the mass media compliant to elite and secret plans, no one is told the truth.

There has been no public discussion on the known biological hazards, both to humans and our pets, with these new meters. There has been no testing of these meters for any kind of safety. However, utilities Public Relations “spin” includes that: they will cut power costs to consumers, thus lowering your monthly bills; help customers reduce power consumption during peak times; and the meters can be read anytime, via a planned new “grid” in the works for the entire country that will use these meters. Utility companies insist these meters are safe.

“Smart” Meters are a new type of electronic device that monitors electricity, natural gas, and water usage via radio frequency (RF or rf) in an invisible but dangerous range, between 2.4GHz [GigaHertz] and 5.8Ghz. This corresponds to the electrical signals frequency used to produce radio waves. The worldwide digital wireless communications network is based upon this. RF has both an electric and magnetic components both of which can cause damage.

Malfunctioning Meter Problems

In many areas, customers were given no notice that their meters would be changed, or the new meter was put in a day after a brief notice was sent. In all cases, customers were never notified of the dangers involved with these new so-called “Smart” Meters. It was a “done deal” behind closed doors. No one was given any choice about keeping an old analogue meter. According to educator Susan Brinchman, Director of San Diego, CA’s www.electrosmogprevention.org, almost 98% of San Diego has already had these meters installed in home, apartments, and businesses. Here are some of the “Smart” Meter problems already being reported where they have been installed:

  • *Radiofrequency interference that causes malfunctioning of wireless equipment, such as Wi-Fi and Netflix (7)
  • *Radiofrequency interference that causes malfunctioning of medical and critical-care equipment, such as pacemakers, wireless insulin pumps, pain pumps, ventilators, and baby monitors *Radiofrequency spikes causing appliances to break or malfunction, such as garage doors that won’t open or close properly
  • *Cyber-security breaches [e.g., illegal access to 179,000 accounts at Hydro Toronto]
  • *Excessive billing and inaccurate readings *Interception of personal identity information (electronic eavesdropping) *Safety risks: Electrical fires and explosions(8)

“Smart” meters have not been tested by Underwriters Laboratories and do not carry the “UL” label, required for electronic devices. With their 116-year record and having developed more than 1,000 standards for safety, why is UL certification missing on these meters?

The EMR Policy Institute further notes that

“components of Smart Meters are out of compliance with the National Electric Code (NEC) because they trip the Ground Fault Interrupters and Arc Fault Interrupters, creating a fire hazard. …Un-intentional re-radiation of RF/MW signal (with its higher energy) on the electrical wires may overload wires, particularly in poorly grounded or ungrounded homes, or homes with older wiring or faulty wiring.”(9)

In addition, several types of PG&E [Pacific Gas and Electric] meters with a “switching mode power-supply” (SMPS) “emit sharp spikes of millisecond burst constantly, 24/7.” They have been measured “to emit spikes of up to 50,000Hz and higher. These spikes are known as “dirty electricity,” the subject of physician and epidemiologist Dr. Sam Milham’s new book, “Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization.”(10) Dr. Milham documents a relationship between the high frequency found on buildings and cancer [now at an all-time epidemic high where 1 out of every 2 person will develop it]. Another term for dirty electricity is electrical pollution. Dr. Milham calls that the “universal carcinogen, and ‘Smart’ Meters and oxymoron.”

See his interview: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci5GGqEPeCE

See also: “The Dark Side of Smart Meters”: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ionX4ckX8e8

Hertz, abbreviated Hz, is a unit to measure Alternating Current (AC), sound and ocean waves, and electromagnetic waves. It is an internationally recognized measurement equal to 1 cycle per second: e.g., 1,000 cycles per second = 1,000 Hz. It is well known in scientific community that over 33 Hz, these invisible waves of energy damage many aspects of our biology and our ability to think clearly.

In a excellent and informative Brainwave Chart, “Think of Energy, Frequency and Vibration,” done by Bevolution in Denmark, it is clear what this invisible energy does to all living things:

http://www.bevolution.dk/pdf/BrainwavemodelBevolutionGB.pdf

These new meters can be read any time via their continuous wireless linking to the cell-towers. They can detect all your household usage of appliances, lights, etc. This information can be shared with and/or sold to other companies, so you no longer have any privacy. It is a spying device. These meters are not secure. They also can be hacked into, so it is possible for someone to know if you are not home (by lack of power usage). There are also “collector” meters used to gather and transmit RF/microwave radiation signals from various surrounding buildings and then “retransmit RF information for somewhere between 500-5,000 homes or buildings.” In addition, the utility company now also has the ability to control your own usage. Via these new meters, the power company can shut off your home usage, your block or community, or city usage without notifying you. What excuse will people be given, if power is shut off without any notification to customers? Do you remember the Enron debacle, and the enormous overcharging of millions of Californians?

As part of the placement of a nationwide “smart grid,” there are additional plans to have individual power transmitters built into in all new appliances to measure the energy use of each one (washing machines, clothes dryers, dishwashers, etc.). This means that in every home or apartment there may be dozens of power transmitters for kitchen and laundry appliances that will send energy use, via wireless radio frequency, back to the “Smart” Meter. In addition to a complete lack of safety, are these power transmitters part of untested nano-technology? Are consumers told at point-of-purchase that a new appliance has a power transmitter in it? A consumer must be willing to have these new appliances constantly transmitting power usage to the utility company. Or, they may be mandated via federal legislation.

Where is there any legal federal mandate for any of this? Marti Oakley’s August 15 article notes: “THERE IS NO FEDERAL SECURITY MANDATE FOR SMART METERS, according to George W. Arnold the national coordinator for smart-grid interoperability at the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST]. This agency of the US Department of Commerce is said NOT [author emphasis] to be involved in regulations but is only tasked with promoting standards among industries. While both the 2005 and 2007 faux energy bills were codified into public laws, NO part of them creates a federal law pertaining to individual consumers or dictating that the public must be forced to comply with provisions of SMART grid. Contrary to the bleating of manufacturers and utility talking heads, who claim there is no “op out,” the fact is you, the consumer must be offered the meter, or request a meter ‘OPT IN.’ No one can be forced to comply with an unrevealed contract between private corporations, and to which you were never a party and had no knowledge of.”(12)

So far, “Smart” Meters have not been “optional” in most areas around the US and Canada. This is another illegal invasion of our privacy, health, and safety. However, in northern California more than 44 municipalities, including eight counties, “have criminalized the installation of, banned or taken resolutions out against ‘smart’ meters.” In Maine, Central Maine Power Company [CMP], has a $200-million meter project [half of it funded by the federal government] and plans to install 600,000 new meters throughout the state. CMP was taken to court because numerous people became ill, once a new digital “Smart” Meter was installed. A landmark legal decision was made on May 25, 2011, “that represents the first time any [US] state had ordered an electric utility to permit customers the choice to op out of a smart meter program.” Did the attorneys handling this case not know that there was no federal mandate?

Now, Mainers can choose to “op out” but it will cost them to do so. This entire program revolves around money, not around any safety. The Portland Press Herald reported that “if smart meters are banned and the [Maine] program is abandoned…CMP would lose its federal grant and be required to pay back $22 million…and remove the more than 157,000 digital meters already installed. The cost would be borne by all customers” who did not request them in the first place.(13)

In a Letters to the Editor, an irate CMP customer wrote on August 15:

“It comes as somewhat of a shock considering easements have not been passed down through deeds. Without warning, notice, or knowledge that soon we would be a buzzing, humming community of power stations, wires, eyesores, broken promises, diminished property values and broken lands, CMP marches in with smiles as it steals. We…suggest, CMP, you alter your title to Central Maine Cover-up. We think that the next time you barge into someone’s community you have the common decency to inform the residents that you will soon be turning their backyards into industrial wastelands.”(14)

Last February, Connecticut’s Attorney George Jepson sent out a press release urging Connecticut Light and Power Company [CL&P] not “to replace existing electric meters with advanced technology [that] would be very expensive and would not save enough electricity for its 1.2 million customers to justify the expense. …The pilot results showed no beneficial impact on total energy usage…and the savings that were seen in the pilot were limited to certain types of customers and would be far outweighed by the cost of installing new meters.”(15) This press release was ignored.

However, increasingly, city councils and county supervisors are becoming more responsive to valid and serious consumer complaints to reduce constant exposure (24/7/365) to the invisible dangers of RF and EMF [electromagnetic frequency]. These can be documented as causing a variety of health problems for humans and all other animals (from our pets, to farm and wild animals). This constant pulsing of high frequencies, in addition to the RF function, is causing not only interference with other electric and electronic equipment in many homes with smart meters installed, but also is causing havoc with biological systems in its field exposure.”(16)

Health Problems and Damage Many experts are speaking out of the dangers of RF/EMF exposure. Medical journals and scientific reports show that there is DNA damage, cell mutation, degenerative diseases, and damage to vision and clear-thinking (short-term memory and speech are affected).(17)

The protective Blood Brain Barrier has been breached; and there are numerous studies that show that “exposure to low levels pulsed or continuous microwave radiation has been reported to affect neurotransmitter metabolism…” while other studies suggest that “RF radiation can alter the electrical activity of the brain” and changes cognitive function and behavior. Although there has been very little reported in mainstream media, there is extensive information available information on the Internet.

In a recent community TV program, Joshua Hart, Director of Stop Smart Meters! was interviewed on July 24 about the issues. He noted it is now a public health emergency since these were installed. He said: “There has been insufficient privacy protection…and violation of civil liberties.

There is a clear expression of democratic opposition to this program”:

http://communitytv.org/blog/kenknobler/vftv-7-24-11-pg-e-smart-meters

Health problems, due to constant exposure of RF radiation, already reported include: migraines, nausea, vomiting, vision impairment, ringing in the ears (tinnitus), muscle spasms and nerve pain, heart palpitations, chest pain, and sleeplessness caused by intense bursts (pulsing) of radiofrequency radiation that has recently been classified as a “possible carcinogen” by the World Health Organization —in the same category as lead, engine exhaust, and DDT.

Other physical problems relate to people who have metal in their bodies: dental metals (such as silver-mercury amalgams or gold inlays); or wear metal jewelry or metal eyeglasses (the metal intensifies the RF). People with pacemakers, prosthetic devices, and wireless insulin pumps have had medical problems due to RF interference.

Most medical professionals and veterinarians have no training in RF/EMF health-related damage. So, often symptoms can be mis-diagnosed. Some people, such as those who have MCS [Multiple Chemical Sensitivity], are aware of these dangers. However, this is a massive experiment on all living beings without any informed consent. This is not “sensitivity” but a chronic and invisible poisoning to the entire population. Susan Brinchman says “there was no public warning of the health dangers with these new meters that have an unsafe technology. This exposes everyone all the time. There is no escape from electrosmog.”

Here are comments by some of the top authorities: Dr. Martin Blank, Associate Professor, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University: “Cells in the body react to EMF’s as potentially harmful, just like any other environmental toxins, including heavy metals and toxic chemicals. The DNA in living cells recognizes electromagnetic fields at very low levels of exposure [not covered by current outdated laws]; and produces a biochemical stress response. The scientific evidence tells us that our safety standards are inadequate, and that we must protect ourselves from exposure to EMF due to power lines, cells phones and the like, or risk the known consequences. The science is very strong and we should sit up and pay attention.”

Prof. Olle Johansson, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, and co-author of the Bioinitiative Report’s section on the Immune System: “Cancer may be the least important effect [of RF/EMF exposure]. Other effects may be much more important…for instance, the impact on the Immune System which his supposed to protect you against whatever bacteria, microbes, or molecules that enter your body; effects on fertility…effects on various mental functions; including short-term memory. You have concentration capacity decreases after microwave radiation.”

See: www.youtube.com/watch?v-cczGVhd63pM

Dr. David Carpenter, Professor, Environmental Health Sciences, and Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, School of Public Health, University of Albany, State University of NY: “We need to educate decision-makers that ‘business as usual’ is unacceptable. The importance of this public health issue cannot be underestimated.”

See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7L21XOC2wA

We are up against the collusion of corporations and governments. In new posting at SmartMetersDangers.org, So CA Edison is regarding the city of Irvine, CA, as a “living laboratory” for using unsuspecting citizens as experimental laboratory subjects. So CA Edison was awarded $39,621,208 from the US DoE [Department of Energy]. The grant notes: “Thus, the project will literally provide a living laboratory for accurately assessing the interoperability of, and interaction between, all of these various Smart Grid technologies and systems working at the same time. The ISGD [Irvine Smart Grid Demonstration] will be deployed in the City of Irvine, and ideal demonstration site typical of most heavily populated areas of Southern California in climate, topography, environmental concerns and public[sic] policy issues.”(18)

What You Can Do

This is an unsafe technology, where we all are experimental lab subjects being used for dangerous levels of invisible but constant RF/EMF exposure. There is already an enormous public health threat to all of us. It is urgent for people to become informed. We must do this peacefully and COLLECTIVELY.

Here are things you can do:

1. Read up on RF/EMF exposure. Do your homework and become well-informed about these dangers. (See NOTES below.)

2. Write to the CPUC [California Public Utilities Commission]. A public meeting is planned for September 14 in San Francisco. Letters can be sent to:  www.electrosmogprevention.org/joinus.html

3. Join together and have public meetings. Demand of public officials that analogue meters be restored at no charge to customers. Where “Smart” meters have not been installed, demand that analogue meters be kept at no charge to customers. In some states, customers are charged up to $500 to op-out; while other power companies are charging a monthly rate to keep analogue meters.

4. People should flood ALL public officials with letters, as this is another way of harming us; and it is a complete invasion of our privacy.

With our economy in chaos and funding of all social services slashed, there are several other news items of note:

1. Thousands of meter readers will be or are already out of work, with these “smart” meters installed. With jobs off-shored and millions of Americans out of work, where will these people find jobs?

2. On June 13, the US Department of Agriculture [USDA] announced that it had a goal of “investing $250 million in smart grid equipment deployment in rural America over the next 12 months.” (Newsroom-magazine.com) Is this tax-payer money? Why are they investing in dangerous technology? Why is there no public discussion?

3. Sempra Energy just posted its second quarter profits. According to PRNewswire (on Aug. 9): “Sempra Energy’s earnings through the first six months of 2011 were $769 million, compared with $328 million in 2010.

4. For the “first six months of 2011, SDG&E (a subsidiary of Sempra Energy) earned $160 million, up from $158 million in the same period last year.”

There is a long history of deception in this country. Much of it involves our being uninformed experimental laboratory subjects for illegal testing of drugs and other products that have caused enormous harm to us. Remember the thalidomide scandal? Or, Toxic Shock Syndrome? Or the most recent one: the 2009 H1N1 Vaccines scam? None of the various “flu” vaccines were ever independently tested for safety. There were numerous reports that the H1N1 “flu” was geo-engineered. With Orwellian scare tactics, and no supporting evidence of any real “pandemic,” millions of doses were “forced” on hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Many children died. I know personally of the one-year-old grandson of a friend who was given an H1N1 vaccine and died two days later. There was no informed consent. No one was ever prosecuted.

Evidence piled up that the WHO pushed for a [false] “Level 6” Pandemic listing when there was no pandemic. What was at stake was billions of dollars for various drug companies to market a variety of unsafe and untested vaccines. Michel Chossudovsky reported on what happened behind the scenes, “Manipulating Data to Justify a Worldwide Public Health Emergency”: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14901

The corporate bottom line is all about profits. The Precautionary Principle [“first do no harm”] and our well being and safety are not included in that. We are all expendable for the bottom line. How much longer do we want to keep silent for continuous harm, lies, and deceit?

NOTES:

1. “The Benefits[sic] of Smart Meters.” California Public Utilities Commission: www.cpuc.ca.gov/energy/Demand+Response.htm

2. See: www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/smart-meters-and-grids-in-communities-governments,25,0

3. “Transmitting Smart Meters Pose a Serious Threat To Public Health”: www.electricalpollution.com/smartmeters.html

4. “See Ref. 4 above.

5. Marti Oakley. “Smart Meters: No Federal Mandate.” Aug. 15, 2011: http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/smart-meters-no-federal-mandate/#more-17629

6. See Ref. 5 above.

7. “Smart Meter Interference.” www.ve3ncq.ca/wordpress/?page_id-10

8. EMR Policy Institute: www.emrpolicy.org  June 5, 2011 Report, p. 2.

9. See Ref. 8 above.

10. See: www.sammilham.com

11. Brainwave Chart: www.bevolution.dk/pdf/BrainwavemodelBevolutionGB.pdf

12. Marti Oakley…See Ref. 5 above. Dr. Arnold previously was V-P for Lucent Technologies Bell Laboratories.

13. Tux Turkel. “CMP: Smart meter bills come with huge costs.” April 5, 2011: www.pressherald.com/news/cmp-smart-meter-bills-come-with-huge-costs_2011-04-05.html

14. Dara Leigh Roberts. Letters to the Editor: “CMP’s attitude disdainful about customer’s interests.” Portland Press Herald: Aug. 15, 2011.

15. www.ct.gov/lib/ag/press_releases/2011/020811clpmeters.pdf

16. “New Critical Problem with ‘Smart’ Meters: The Switching-Mode Power Supply (SMPS).” March 30, 2011: http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=2180

17. Important studies include: J. Phillips et al. “Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage. Pathophysiology (2009) Vol. 16, Issue 2: 79-88; M. Dämvik and O. Johansson. “Health Risk Assessment of Electromagnetic Fields: A Conflict between the Precautionary Principle and Environmental Medicine Methodology.” Reviews on Environmental Health (2010) Vol. 25, No. 4: 325-333; A. Frangopoulou et al. The Seletun Scientific Statement. “Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendation, and rationales.” Rev Environ Health (Oct.-Dec. 2010) Vol 25, No. 4: 307-317; A. Kosowsky et al. “Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism.” JAMA. Aug. 1, 2011: http://jama.ama_assn.org/content/305/8/808.abstract; R. Baan et al. “Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.” Lancet Oncology. (June 22, 2011) Vol. 12 Issue 7: 624-626; O. Johansson. “Electrohypersensitivity: state-of-the-art of a functional impairment.” Electromagn Biol Med. (2006) Vol. 25, No. 4: 245-258.

18. “Irvine, CA is Living Laboratory for Smart Grid”: www.smartmeterdangers.org/index.php/smartmeter-facts/95-living-lab]

Other Important Reports: 1. The Seletun Scientific Statement, Feb. 3, 2011: http://vimeo.com/180188440 2. The Bioinitiative Report: www.bioinitiative.org  3. “Health Impacts of Radio Frequency Exposure from Smart Meters.” Final report, April 2011. California Council on Science and Technology. ISBN-13: 978-1-930117-42-6 Also available online. One of the conclusions of this report is: “There is no evidence that additional standards are needed to protect the public from smart meters.” Despite its recent publication, this report is VERY outdated and did not use current research on the significant health dangers. 4. The 2003 EU-REFLEX four-year Study found that “after being exposed to electromagnetic fields, the cells showed significant increase in DNA damage which could not always be repaired by the cell…and damage was also seen in the next generation of cells.” See, “EU REFLEX Project Report”: http://omegatwoday.net/stories/436261

ORGANIZATIONS: 1. www.elecrosmogprevention.org  2. www.smartmeterdangers.org  3. www.emfsafetynetwork.org  4. American Coalition Against Smart Meters: www.causes.com/594297 5. In Canada: www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/smart-meters-and-grids-in-communities-governments,25,0

Educator and environmental writer Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri is the author of the highly acclaimed book, “The Uterine Crisis.” London’s “The Ecologist” calls this book “an inspiration.”

The United States of America emerged victorious from the Second World War, and came out stronger than any other country in the world. The allies- notably the Soviet Union- won the war but emerged much weaker. They needed to reconstruct their countries and rebuild their economies, with the US demanding huge retrospective payments for its support. The US became a superpower with nuclear bomb capability and an imposing power of dominance. Industrial countries rebuilt in what the Germans called their Wirtschaftswunder and the French les Trentes Glorieuses, the thirty years of post-war prosperity. Meanwhile the US leveraged its prosperity to spread its hegemony around the world. US power was enhanced with the beginning of Perestroikaand after the fall of the Soviet Union. In the new millennium the US establishment declared the “War on Terror” as justification to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, while attempting to subdue Hezbollah in Lebanon, changing the régime in Libya and attempting to destroy Syria, all with the goal of reshuffling and forming a “New Middle East”.

In the Levant, the US has dramatically failed to reach its objectives, but it has succeeded in waking Russia from its long hibernation, to challenge the US unilateral hegemony of the world and to develop new forms of alliance. Iran has also challenged the US hegemony incrementally since the 1979 “Islamic Revolution”. Iran has planned meticulously, and patiently built a chain of allies connecting different parts of the Middle East. Now, after 37 years, Iran can boast a necklace of robust allies in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan- who are all ready, if necessary, to take up arms to defend Iran. Iran, in fact, has greatly benefited from US mistakes.  Through its lack of understanding of populations and leaders around the world, it has universally failed to win “hearts and minds” in every Middle Eastern country where it imposed itself as a potential ally.

The arrival of President Donald Trump to power helped US allies and the anti-US camp to discover, together, the limits and reach of US sanctions. Russia and China took the lead in offering a new, softer model of an alliance, which apparently does not aim to impose another kind of hegemony. The offer of an economic alliance and partnership is especially attractive to those who have tasted US hegemony and wish to liberate themselves from it by means of a more balanced alternative.

During this period of Trump’s ruling, the Middle East became a huge warehouse of advanced weapons from varied sources. Every single country (and some non-state actors) has armed drones- and some even have precision and cruise missiles. But superiority in armaments by itself counts for very little, and its very balance is not enough to shift the weight to one side or another. Even the poorest country, Yemen, has done significant damage to oil-rich Saudi Arabia, a country highly equipped, militarily, and with the most modern US hardware in the Middle East.

US President Trump was informed about the evident failure to change the régime in Syria and the equal impossibility of dislodging Iran from the Levant. He most probably aimed to avoid the loss of lives and therefore decided to abandon the country that his forces have occupied for the past few years. Nonetheless, his sudden withdrawal, even if so far it is partial (because he says, a small unit will remain behind at al-Tanf, to no strategic benefit since al-Qaem border crossing is now operational) – came as a shock to his Kurdish and Israeli allies. Trump proved his readiness to abandon his closest friends & enemies overnight.

Trump’s move offered an unexpected victory to Damascus. The Syrian government is now slowly recovering its most important source of food, agriculture and energy. North-East Syria represents a quarter of the country’s geography. The northern provinces have exceptional wealth in water, electricity dams, oil, gas and food. President Trump has restored it to President Bashar al-Assad. This will also serve Trump’s forthcoming election campaign.

Assad trusts that Russia will succeed in halting the Turkish advance and reduce its consequences, perhaps by asking the Kurds to pull back to a 30 km distance from the Turkish borders to satisfy President Erdogan’s anxiety. That could also fit the Turkish-Syrian 1998 Adana agreement (5 km buffer zone rather than 30 km) and offer tranquillity to all parties involved. Turkey wants to make sure the Kurdish YPG, the PKK Syrian branch, is disarmed and contained. Nothing seems difficult for Russia to manage, particularly when the most difficult objective has already been graciously offered: the US forces’ withdrawal.

President Assad will be delighted to trim the Kurds’ nails. The Kurds offered Afrin to Turkey to prevent the Syrian government forces controlling it. The Kurds, in exchange for the State of their dreams (Rojava), supported US occupation and Syria’s enemy, Israel. Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu bombed hundreds of targets in Syria, preferring ISIS to dominate the country and pushing Trump to give him the Syrian-occupied Golan Heights as a gift- although the US has no authority over this Syrian territory.

Hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, millions of refugees were driven from their homes and hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on destroying Syria. Nonetheless, the Syrian state and President Assad have prevailed. Notwithstanding the consequences of the war, Arab and Gulf countries are eager to return to Syria and participate in reconstruction. Whoever rules Syria, the attempt to destroy the Syrian state and change the existing régime has failed.

Russia is one of the most successful players here, on numerous fronts, and is now in a position President Putin could only have dreamed about before 2015. Numerous analysts and think tanks predicted Moscow would sink into the Syrian quagmire, and they mocked its arsenal. They were all wrong. Russia learned its lesson from the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. It offered air and missile coverage and brilliantly cooperated with Iran and its allies as ground forces.

President Putin skillfully managed the Syrian war, striking a balance and creating good ties with Turkey, a NATO ally- even after the downing of his jet by Ankara in 2015. Russia wanted to collaborate with the US but was faced with an administration with persistent “Red-Soviet” phobia. Moscow proceeded without Washington to solve the Syrian war and defeat the jihadists who had flocked to the country with support from the West (via Turkey and Jordan) from all over the world.

Russia showed off its new arsenal and managed to sell a lot of its weapons. It has trained its Air Force using real battle scenarios, fought alongside the Syrian and Iranian armies, and a non-state actor (Hezbollah). It defeated ISIS and al-Qaeda 40 years after its defeat in Afghanistan. President Putin has distinguished himself as a trustworthy partner and ally, unlike Trump- who abandoned the Kurds, and who blackmails even his closest ally (Saudi Arabia).

Russia imposed the Astana process instead of Geneva for peace talks, it offered countries to use their local currencies for commerce rather than the dollar, and it is dealing pragmatically with Iran and Saudi Arabia, and with Assad and Erdogan. The Americans, by their recklessness, showed themselves incapable of diplomacy.

Moscow mediated between the Syrian Kurds and the central government in Damascus even when these had been under US control for years. Putin behaved wisely with Israel even when he accused Tel Aviv of provoking the killing of his officers, and stayed relatively neutral in relation to the Iran-Israel struggle.

On the other hand, Tel Aviv never thought Syria would be reunited. Today Damascus has armed drones, precision and cruise missiles from Iran, supersonic anti-ship Russian missiles- and has survived the destruction of its infrastructure and so many years of war.

Israel has lost the prospect of a Kurdish state (Rojava) as an ally. This dream has gone now for many decades to come and with it the partition of Syria and Iraq. The “Deal of the Century” makes no sense anymore and the non-aggression deal with the Arab states is a mirage. Everything that Trump’s close advisor, Prime Minister Netanyahu, wanted has lost its meaning, and Israel now has to deal with the Russian presence in the Middle East and bear the consequences of the victory achieved by Assad, the Russians, and the Iranians.

After the Kurds, Israel is the second biggest loser– even if it has suffered no financial damage and no Israeli lives have been lost in combat. Netanyahu’s ambitions can no longer be used in his election scenario. Israel needs to prepare for living next door to Assad, who will certainly want back Syria’s Golan- a priority for Damascus to tackle once domestic reconstruction is on its way. He has been preparing the local resistance for years, for the day when Syria will recover this territory.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Winners and Losers in the Turkish Attack on Syria. Russia is the Most Successful Player
  • Tags: , ,

The Syrian Debacle Is Actually Well Planned Chaos

October 18th, 2019 by Brandon Smith

For many years now I have focused a considerable amount of analysis on the subject of Syria, with an emphasis on the country’s importance to the global elites as a kind of geopolitical detonator; the first domino in a chain of dominoes that could lead to a war involving international powers. I believe this war will develop on multiple fronts, most importantly on the economic front, but it could very well turn into a shooting war involving numerous actors.

Syria is so important, in fact, that the establishment has been careful to smother all discussion about what is really going on there in a fog of propaganda. And make no mistake, BOTH Republicans and Democrats as well as eastern and western governments are participating in the lies and misdirection.  Obviously, the first and most important lie is a multi-sided one, and we can’t continue forward until it’s dissected – I am speaking of the lie of US involvement in the region.

Lie #1: The US Has Legitimacy In The Original Syrian Conflict

First, most people reading this should know by now that US covert intelligence agencies (among others) were the force behind the “revolution” in Syria against the Bashar al-Assad. The majority of the fighters coming into the region were trained and equipped in Jordan in camps run by western agencies. The program was called “Operation Timber Sycamore” and was launched in different stages from 2011-2013.

It’s clear according to the evidence that the Arab Spring and the conflict in Syria were products of global establishment meddling in the area. Weapons were funneled from the Libyan crisis into the hands of “rebels” that infiltrated Syria, and equipment directly provided by the US found its way into the hands of groups that would eventually become what we now know as ISIS. The Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, John Bolton and many others were intimately involved in Timber Sycamore. The war in Syria was entirely engineered from behind the scenes.

The bottom line:  The US has no legitimacy there.

In the Liberty Movement we talk about this conspiracy fact often, but I don’t think many people consider the wider implications. Was the purpose merely to overthrow Assad? Was it about installing a government that was hostile to Russia? Was it to lure Iran into a vulnerable position? Was it all about oil? The answer is no to most of these questions. These are surface explanations that do not satisfy the facts on hand. There is far more to Syria than meets the eye.

Lie #2: The Original Conflict In Syria Is The Current Conflict

Let’s distill this down to some primary facts: The US and other nations created ISIS and deliberately destabilized Syria. The establishment then tried to convince the American public to support the use of military forces in the region to back the insurgents and the civil war they created. This initial plan failed.

Then, the establishment used the terror groups they created in Syria as an argument for why the US needed to send troops into Syria. This plan partially succeeded, but failed overall to generate public support for wider US involvement.

Kurdish tribes in northern Syria were then forced to defend themselves against the spread of the ISIS plague. The Kurds fought bravely to defend their homes from the terror threat that western agencies had conjured, losing 11,000 fighters in the process. They seem to be the only innocent people involved in the entire affair. They joined the US as allies under the assumption that the US goal was to destroy ISIS. This was NOT the US goal. Not under Obama, nor under Trump. The real goal has always been to use ISIS as an excuse to maintain a US presence in Syria (we will get to why in a moment).

Today, the war has shifted once again. This time, Turkey is invading Syria with claims that the Kurds present an existential danger. The reality is that the Turkish government has sought to erase all Kurdish culture from Turkey and Northern Syria since the 1970’s, including banning the Kurdish language and Kurdish dress and Kurdish names. Even the words “Kurd” and “Kurdish were eventually banned. The Kurds responded by forming the PKK and calling for a sovereign Kurdish state which would allow them to live without oppression. The Kurds did not turn to direct action until the 1980’s after many years of totalitarian subjugation.

The Turkish invasion today is made possible by the rather convenient surprise pull-back of US forces from the northern border. Now, there is yet another excuse for wider involvement in Syria. The US is not out of the war; the war is just getting started. Each time the Syrian problem starts to fade and it looks like it will be resolved, something else happens which triggers another explosion of fighting. This is not a coincidence.

Lie #3: The Trump Administration Is Pulling US Troops Out Of Syria

This is not happening, and anyone who believes Trump is actually ending US involvement has been duped. It’s also not the first time we’ve heard promises from Donald Trump on an end to the wars in the Middle East.

Over a year ago Trump proclaimed that he would be pulling the troops out of Syria, yet, only a week later it was determined that they would remain. Recently Trump made the claim again, and only days later the Pentagon admitted that US troops were only going to be shifted back from the border while the Kurds, our former allies, would be attacked by Turkish forces. Turkey’s military spokesman has said that they will “correct the demographics changed by the YPG (Kurdish defense units much like citizen militias) in Northeast Syria”. In other words, the goal is ethnic cleansing, and as the Armenian genocide teaches us, the Turks are no strangers to ethnic cleansing.

Trump is not the only world leader to pull this kind of stunt, either. Vladimir Putin did the same thing in 2016, announcing an end to military action by Russia in Syria and a removal of troops, only to keep Russian forces there and well entrenched. The Russian presence has done little to prevent a flurry of Israeli air strikes against Syria, nor have they acted to prevent the Turkish invasion, so we must question what exactly Russia is still doing there as much as the US?

These constant fake-outs on a Syrian withdrawal are meant only for the general public as a way of pacifying concerns, and it seems to be working. To this day many people still believe that Trump had pulled US troops out of Syria (or is withdrawing them right now) and Putin pulled Russian troops out after “defeating ISIS”. None of this ever happened. If you tell a big lie enough times the uneducated masses will start to adopt it as the truth.

Lie #4: The International Community Is Sincerely Worried About A Kurdish Genocide

Wow, it truly warms my heart to witness the sudden international outpouring of support for the Kurds in Syria. Establishment rags like the Washington Post and the New York Times, the EU government, the Israeli government, even Trump himself are all announcing their support for the Kurds and admonishing Turkish actions. They are all ready to enforce sanctions or even go to war in the name of defending the Kurdish people. How noble…

The truth is, none of these agents of despair have any concern for the Kurds, and they will do nothing to save them until it’s too late. Later, they will act, but not to save any remaining Kurds. A Kurdish genocide is only a means to an end. And here we start to see the entire reason for the Syrian crisis unfold…

Lie #5: The Kurds Are Not Our Concern, Or, They Are “Getting What They Deserve”

On the flip side of the paradigm, I’m seeing the Trump cult making some outlandish arguments (as they always do) to rationalize the president’s bizarre and abrupt policy actions. The first argument claims that “it’s about time” that a president “stood against the deep state” and ended US involvement in Syria, and we should let Turkey and the Kurds sort out their own mess. I would repeat the fact that Trump is not leaving Syria or any other nation in the Middle East with a US military presence. He is only pulling troops back and leaving the door open to Turkish attack.

I would also point out once again that it is not “their mess”, it is a mess created by western governments including the US.

The Kurds lost tens of thousands of fighters battling ISIS, and the Turkish incursion into Syria seems to be taking advantage of their weakened defenses. This is a situation the US created. The Turkish invasion is a DIRECT result of the destabilization of Syria, and Trump’s pullback from the northern border was the icing on the cake.  It acted as a form of permission by the US that Turkey could now do whatever they wanted (for a time).

I am also seeing the narrative that the Kurds are “getting what they deserve”.

Some argue that the Kurds were stupid for trusting the US government as an ally and now they are reaping the consequences. This is hardly a valid assertion. Punishing the victims of a con for being conned is not the American way. At least, it shouldn’t be the American way. Also, the Kurds are not the real target of this disinfo campaign; conservatives are the target, and they’re falling right into the trap.  I believe this is a propaganda narrative designed to make conservatives sound like sociopaths.

Trump’s claim that the Kurds were “not really our allies” as they “did not help us during WWII”, and that they were only defending their homes rather than supporting our efforts against ISIS shows an insane (but calculated) disinformation campaign designed to make conservatives look monstrous and untrustworthy. If Trump was really against the “deep state” he would not try to tarnish the image of our only legitimate allies in the region.

Finally, another narrative being spread around is that because the Kurds have a socialist form of governance, they deserve to be wiped out. I would remind the people making this claim that the Kurds are not trying to force their political ideologies on anyone, and Turkey’s Erdogen is a classic totalitarian who has tightened his grip on the nation using every trick in the book, including a false flag coup attempt. Socialists or not, the Kurds don’t deserve ethnic cleansing.

Yes, the US should not have been in Syria in the first place, but then again, we ARE in Syria, and it doesn’t look like we’re leaving, so if we’re going to be there we might as well do some good with our presence and act as a deterrent to an obvious Turkish attempt to erase the Kurds (our allies who fought a terrorist threat the US GOVERNMENT FUNDED) from the area.   Of course, it’s too late for that now…

What Is Really Going On In Syria?

If you’re not buying the mainstream narrative, you might be wondering why Donald Trump would suddenly abandon the Syrian border allowing Turkey to invade? You also might be wondering why he would then immediately threaten to “crush” Turkey with economic sanctions and place “thousands of US troops” on the ground if his goal was to end US involvement in Syria? The answer is in the macro-picture. That is to say, we have to ask the most important of all questions – Who benefits?

As I’ve mentioned in previous articles, geopolitical events are being exploited by the globalist establishment as distraction and cover for their controlled demolition of the economy. They need scapegoats for the implosion of the Everything Bubble, an implosion they started in 2018 with liquidity tightening policies that has now accelerated into a full-blown financial crisis.  The Turkish invasion of Syria may be the pinnacle distraction event.

With engineered chaos in Syria, Trump’s globalist handlers can achieve a historic level of chaos while avoiding direct culpability.  What do we get when we combine all the elements listed above along with lies on both sides of the political paradigm? Well, we get a rationale for war.  We also get yet another event which makes Trump look like a bumbling villain and conservatives look like fools or soulless robots.

By extension, any tensions with Turkey suggest the beginning of the end for NATO. As I predicted in January of 2019, it appears that Turkey, a key component of the western alliance, is about to exit. This furthers the globalist goal of the deterioration of the west; the decline of the old world order making way for their “new world order” in which Eastern powers will play a larger role in conjunction with certain European elements. This is a dynamic globalists like George Soros have publicly and proudly discussed in the past.

The Kurds may also be a direct target of the globalist agenda.  In a declassified CIA document titled ‘The Kurdish Minority Problem’, the agency indicated that the establishment has seen the Kurds as an unknown factor (which they don’t like) that is fiercely independent (which they really don’t like) as far back as the 1940’s.  The CIA suggests that the Kurds are an uncontrolled element that could make establishment goals in the region difficult to achieve.

In the 1970’s the US manipulated the Kurds into actions against Iraq, which was amassing forces against the Shah of Iran and threatening to invade Kurdish occupied lands.  Once the Shah was removed from power by Iranian revolt, the US abandoned support for the Kurds.  The Iraqi government used the opportunity to attempt genocide against them using chemical weapons sold to them by the US government.  History does indeed seem to repeat.

I suggest that because the Kurds are a tribal force of millions that might oppose the globalist agenda in the Middle East, they may have been slated for erasure, and this latest event is merely one of a long series of events designed to kill off the Kurds.  Or, at the very least, killing the Kurds is a bonus for the establishment.

Beyond the Kurdish issue, a renewed Syrian crisis and EU opposition to Erdogen could lead to another flood of Muslim migrants into Europe. The last time this happened it sent the EU into an economic and political tailspin. It also opens the door to more fear in Europe and provides extra cover for a financial crash there.

And, ultimately, the Turkish invasion provides a perfect excuse to draw a number of opposing camps into a single place in close proximity, The possibilities for the globalists are endless. The Kurds are turning to Assad for aid and protection from Turkey. Iran is a military ally of Assad. Russia is still heavily involved in the area, and so is the US and Israel. I think anyone with any intelligence can see where this is headed.

If the globalists are successful in turning Syria into the center of the world by encouraging a Turkish invasion with a US troop pull back from the border, they would be killing multiple birds with one stone.

They get a renewed rationale for wider US military involvement within the year.  They get increased economic uncertainty as major powers fight over the dynamics of the region.  They get a scapegoat for the crash of the Everything Bubble as the potential for wider economic or kinetic war rises.  They get a scapegoat in Donald Trump and his conservative supporters, who will not only take the blame for the economic crisis, but also any tragedy that befalls the Kurds.  And finally, they get a rationale for the end of NATO, which would be the next step in ending the old western world order.

This clears the path for the introduction of a fully global and completely centralized new world order; a world without economic or national borders in which the elites govern openly rather than from behind the curtain.

One “mistake” (or false flag) could ignite a conflagration between the nations involved. This is why the EU, the Russians, the Israelis and Trump all suddenly care so much about the Kurdish plight. They CREATED the Kurdish plight, and now they are going to use it to turn Syria into a massive powder keg. Syria is an artificially manufactured “linchpin”, as DARPA would call it. It is designed to provide catastrophe while maintaining plausible deniability for the establishment. Trump’s actions in Syria may seem random, but they make perfect sense when we understand that he is serving a greater agenda. The US “withdrawal” is not a withdrawal, it is a prelude to a bigger conflict which benefits the globalist cabal.

*

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

On Thursday in Ankara, Turkish President Erdogan met with Mike Pence and Pompeo, a joint statement by both sides issued following talks. See below. 

Trump regime hardliners want their imperial agenda in Syria continued, notably aiming to undermine Russian efforts to restore peace and stability to the country, along with preserving and protecting its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Turkey is playing the US and Russia cards simultaneously, Erdogan wanting all he can get both countries to agree to that serve his revanchist interests.

Agreements only work when fair, equitable, and all parties fulfill their obligations. US and Turkish regimes can never be trusted.

Their Thursday agreement on Syria has no international law legitimacy. They’re unlawful occupying powers, wanting control over the republic and its people.

Thursday’s agreement is all about continuing their illegal occupation and control of Syrian territory, wanting the country partitioned, its sovereignty lost — a flagrant  international law breach.

Turkey will allegedly suspend cross-border aggression for five days, a senior Ankara official saying: “We got exactly what we wanted out of the meeting.”

The US and Turkey agreed on what they called an “orderly withdrawal” of Kurdish YPG fighters from northern Syrian territory Erdogan wants for a so-called “safe zone.”

His scheme is all about a cross-border land grab — unrelated to security concerns or sovereign Syrian rights, including for its Kurdish citizens.

If things go as illegally agreed on, the temporary ceasefire will continue along territory bordering Syria and Turkey, US aggression continuing elsewhere in the country, notably in Idlib province, largely controlled by US-supported al-Nusra terrorists.

The US wants continued occupation and control over parts of Syrian territory. Both Ankara and Washington want control over Syria’s oil-producing areas.

Thursday’s agreement has nothing to do with restoring peace and stability to the country, notions US and Turkish regimes reject — why endless war rages with no prospect for near-term resolution.

Southfront reported that Turkish forces are solidifying their illegal control over seized Syrian territory.

Here’s what the US and Turkey unlawfully agreed on.

1. Officials of both countries invented Turkish security concerns that don’t exist.

The US operates the same way to justify its wars of aggression — phony pretexts invented to pursue them.

2. The US and Turkey agreed on coordinating their actions to facilitate pursuing their imperial aims.

3. They agreed to observe NATO Charter notions that a so-called threat to one member-state will be addressed and countered by them all.

4. Pledging “to uphold human life, human rights, and the protection of religious and ethnic communities” belies how ruling regimes of both countries operate at home and abroad.

5. They agreed to continue combatting the scourge of ISIS Washington and Ankara support.

6. Claiming they’ll “target…terrorists and their hideouts, shelters, emplacements, weapons, vehicles and equipment” is polar opposite how they’ve operated throughout the war.

7. The same goes for falsely saying they’ll “ensure safety and well-being of residents of all population centers in the safe zone controlled by the Turkish Forces (safe zone) and reiterated that maximum care will be exercised in order not to cause harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure.”

All of the above are Big Lies, proved throughout years of war by no-holds-barred aggression against Syria and the fundamental rights of its long-suffering people.

8. So is saying “(b)oth countries reiterate their commitment to the political unity and territorial integrity of Syria and UN-led political process, which aims at ending the Syrian conflict in accordance with UNSCR 2254.”

Since unanimously adopted by Security Council members on December 18, 2015, endless US-led war raged.

It continues endlessly, both right wings of the US war party rejecting restoration of peace in Syria because it undermines their imperial aims in the country, regionally and elsewhere.

Endless conflicts and chaos serve US hegemonic aims. Peace, stability, equity and justice defeat them.

9. The US and Turkey “agree on the continued importance and functionality of a safe zone” — that has nothing to do with Turkish safety or security, everything to do with US/Turkish imperial aims.

10. The US agreed to let Turkish forces occupy and control Syrian territory they illegally seized, a flagrant international law breach, what Damascus won’t ever agree to.

11. Turkish aggression will pause, Washington and Ankara agreeing on pursuing their hegemonic aims cooperatively.

12. If Trump regime hardliners succeed in getting Erdogan to go along with their demands, sanctions ordered by Trump will be rescinded.

13. Officials of both countries agreed to work cooperatively “to implement all their goals…”

On Friday, Turkish cross-border shelling continued. Dems objected to the agreement, part of their politicized war on Trump.

GOP Senator Lindsey Graham said he’s “ready to (work) with (Trump) to build” on Thursday’s agreement.

At the same time on Thursday, he and Senator Chris Van Hollen introduced sanctions legislation on Turkish banks, military transactions, and energy sector activities — relating to its cross-border incursion and purchase of Russian S-400 air defense missiles.

The measure states that sanctions “will remain in place until the (White House) certifies to Congress that Turkey has halted attacks against the Syrian Kurdish community, has withdrawn from all locations that they didn’t occupy prior to the October 9, 2019 invasion, and is not hindering counterterrorism operations against ISIS” — the scourge Washington and Ankara support.

Damascus clearly rejects what was unlawfully agreed on yesterday. “Of course we cannot accept it,” Assad’s geopolitical advisor Bouthaina Shaaban stressed, adding:

“As for the term a ‘security zone,’ it is incorrect. What Turkey really implies is a zone of occupation.”

Kurdish official Aldar Khalil said “(w)e welcome the truce.” Erdogan’s aims to control northern Syrian territory are unchanged.

According to Foreign Minister Cavusoglu, Ankara continues pursuing its objective to (unlawfully) establish a 32-km-deep so-called “safe zone” from the Euphrates River to the Syrian/Iraqi border, including its oil producing areas — controlled by Turkish troops.

Tass quoted Russian UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia, saying:

“The Turkish side tells us that they will respect the territorial integrity of Syria, and that the ultimate goal is to ensure sovereignty and the integrity of Syria.”

That’s clearly not so as long as Turkish forces unlawfully occupy and control Syrian territory. The same goes for illegal US occupation.

Erdogan, Pence, and Pompeo agreed on carving up and controlling Syrian territory — ignoring what the UN Charter and other international laws prohibit.

What’s unclear is how the agreement will be enforced given strong opposition from Damascus.

It also calls for Kurdish fighters to relinquish their heavy weapons, leaving them defenseless if agree to this stipulation.

On October 22, the day the ceasefire expires, Putin and Erdogan are scheduled to meet in Sochi to discuss Syria.

Russian military police are deployed between Turkish and Syrian forces, aiming to prevent clashes between them.

How things play out ahead remain very much uncertain. Moscow and Damascus want Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity preserved and protected.

US/Turkish aims are polar opposite, conflict and chaos in parts of the country likely to continue with no near-term end-game in sight.

At the same time, the US failed to prevent Russia from being a key power broker in determining what lies ahead in Syria.

Note: On Friday morning, Press TV reported that Turkish terror-bombing killed civilians in northeast Syria today, adding:

“(S)poradic clashes continue despite a ceasefire agreed (on) between Ankara and Washington” — that has no legitimacy.

*

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.

Death, Bloodshed, and Misery in Yemen

October 18th, 2019 by Kathy Kelly

Writing about his visit to the world’s largest weapons bazaar, held in London in October, journalist Arron Merat describes reading the slogan emblazoned above Raytheon’s stall: “Strike With Creativity.” Raytheon manufactures Paveway laser-guided bombs—produced in factories in the United States and the United Kingdom—fragments of which have been found in the wreckage of schools, hospitals, and markets across Yemen. 

How, I wonder, can a weapons manufacturer that causes such death, bloodshed, and misery lay claim to creativity?

Consider the Raytheon weapons now demolishing Yemen. Fragments of Raytheon and other U.S.-manufactured weapons dot blast sites where Yemeni survivors collect body parts and scattered bits of clothing, which are needed to compile lists of the dead.

In September, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia hit a detention center in the Dhamar governorate, in the northern highlands of Yemen with seven airstrikes that killed at least 100 people and “pulverized” the area, according to Bethan McKernan, reporting for The Guardian. “It took five days to remove all the bodies impaled on metalwork ripped from the walls in the blasts,” she wrote.

After the attack, McKernan interviewed Mustafa al-Adel, a twenty-two-year-old security guard employed at the site. His brother, Ahmed, also a guard, was among those killed. Adel pointed to a blanket, visible on the second floor of a building where the guards had slept. “You can see Ahmed’s blue blanket up there,” said Adel. “There were 200 people here but now it’s just ghosts.”

Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Saudi-led coalition bombarding and blockading Yemen have killed tens of thousands of people, wrecking the country’s already enfeebled infrastructure and bringing Yemen to the brink of a famine that may kill millions. President Donald Trump signaled additional support for Saudi Arabia on October 11 when the U.S. military announced it would send thousands more troops to the kingdom, bringing the number of U.S. troops there to 14,000.

For people in the United States to understand why Yemenis would join together to resist the Saudis requires a deepening awareness of how financial institutions, in attempting to gain control of valuable resources, have pushed farmers and villagers across Yemen into debt and desperation. Isa Blumi writes about this sordid history in his 2018 book, Destroying Yemen: What Chaos in Arabia Tells Us about the World.

Blumi details how Yemen’s society, largely independent and agrarian, became a guinea pig for International Monetary Fund (IMF) “development projects” which, based on strikingly colonialist theories of modernization, crushed grassroots institutions, and amounted to “cost-effective ways of prying Yemen’s wealth out of its peoples’ hands.”

Local development associations, for example, were formed during the 1970s to help people cooperatively determine what crops they would grow and how they would use the profits. But U.S. Agency for International Development “experts” pressured these groups to instead produce “cash crops strictly meant for export.”

“After all,” Blumi writes, “with the right kind of cash crop and the use of American labor-saving technology, pesticides and fertilizers included, Yemen’s villagers were no longer needed in the fields. Alternatively, they could work in cities in sweatshops producing clothes for a global market . . . or the soon booming oil and gas projects.”

Blumi’s book documents the fiercely stubborn creativity with which, decade by decade, Yemenis kept surprising the West, exploring and pursuing countermeasures to resist its exploitative control, and risking the West’s destructive anger.

When farmers desperate for cash went to work in Saudi Arabia, for instance, “they consistently sent remittances home to families that saved the cash and invested in local projects, using local bank transfers.” Imams and village leaders encouraged people to resist imperialist “modernization” projects, knowing that the West’s preferred “modern” role for them was as wage slaves with no hope of developing a better future.

The “Huthi” movement began when Husayn al-Huthi, an opponent of Yemen’s dictatorial (and Western-allied) Saleh regime, tried to defend the water and land rights of locals in the Sa’adah province in northwestern Yemen. Sharing what was then a porous and informal border with the KSA, they often found themselves in disputes with Saudi border patrols. They also resisted ‘structural adjustment’ demands by the International Monetary Fund to privatize some of Yemen’s best farming and grazing land. When the dictator Saleh made criminal concessions to the KSA, al-Huthi and his followers persisted with protests. Each new confrontation won over thousands of people, eventually spreading beyond Sa’adah.

Blumi cites numerous instances in which Yemen’s economic assets were pillaged, with Saleh’s approval, by “well-heeled global financial interests.”

In 2008, an extremely wealthy member of the bin Laden family aimed to build a bridge across the mouth of the Red Sea from Yemen to Djibouti. The project could generate hundreds of billions for investors, and quicken the process of exploitative modernization; but it would also require building railways and roads where there are only villages now. People living along the coastline of the Red Sea would be in the way.

Since 2015, fighting has been concentrated in this area, called the Tihama. Control of the coastline would also allow financial takeover of potentially profitable Yemeni fisheries. Blumi says billions of dollars of annual income are at stake, noting with irony that a war causing starvation is being waged, in part, to gain control over food assets.

A recent United Nations report says that Yemen is now “on course to become the world’s poorest country,” with 79 percent of the population living beneath the poverty line and 65 percent deemed “extremely poor.” The Yemen Data Project estimated in March that 600 civilian structures on average are damaged or destroyed monthly in Yemen, mostly by airstrikes.

“Staple food items are now on average 150 percent higher than before the crisis escalated,” says a 2019 report by the Norwegian Refugee Council. “Teachers, health workers and civil servants in the northern parts of the country haven’t been paid for years,” according to the same report.

Here in the United States, news commentators discussing the Trump impeachment story liken the breaking developments to “bombshell after bombshell.” In Yemen, real bombshells, made in the United States, kill and maim Yemeni civilians, including children, every day.

*

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.

Kathy Kelly ([email protected]) co-coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence.

Featured image is from The Progressive

In what has been deemed a boost for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a Brexit deal has finally been agreed with the EU, just a fortnight before the UK’s planned withdrawal date of 31st October. It was unclear right till the very last minute whether a deal could be achieved, with differences over issues such as the Irish border question having prevented another draft agreement from being reached for months. Yet Johnson stood defiant at the press conference with EU Commission President Jean Claude Juncker in Brussels on Thursday, calling it a ‘very good deal’ and ‘a reasonable and fair outcome’ after all the intense negotiations of recent weeks.  He said: ‘Now is the moment for us to come together’ to pass a Brexit deal.  Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar hailed the deal as ‘unique’ as it respected the specific history and geography of the island of Ireland.

There are several key points of this deal which set it apart from the previous agreement reached by former Prime Minister Theresa May earlier this year. The first is the status of Northern Ireland, which under this deal would remain part of the customs territory of the UK, instead of being in the EU as previous drafts had proposed. Yet the situation is not altogether black and white, as in legal terms, Northern Ireland will still be effectively within the EU. If goods are, for example, passed from Belfast to Dublin, the UK will still be required to collect tariffs and excise duties on these items on behalf of the EU. The most important aspect of this set-up however is perhaps the fact that there will be no checks at the land border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Instead checks will take place at Irish ports, therefore not provoking any tensions on the border between north and south.

The Irish border question was a real obstacle to a deal being passed by the UK parliament in the past. This time the withdrawal agreement proposes that the Northern Ireland assembly must provide democratic approval for the deal in the form of a majority vote. However, the Northern Irish DUP has said it will not vote for such a deal as it ‘undermines the integrity of the union’ and also would, it claims, harm the Northern Ireland economy; and it is far from the only party to take this stance.

The reality is that, despite the celebratory atmosphere in Brussels on Thursday, Boris Johnson is likely to hit the same brick wall as Theresa May did when he brings the deal back to Westminster for a vote on Saturday. The Liberal Democrats, SNP and Labour party have already said they will not vote such a deal through, and even some arch Brexiteers such as Nigel Farage have already termed it as not being ‘Brexit enough’, saying ‘we will not be making our own laws in our own country” and that the treaty “binds us in to other commitments”. Commentators are already number crunching to estimate just how many Westminster politicians are likely to vote for the deal, and so far it’s not looking good. There have been suggestions that a clause could be attached to the draft agreement stipulating a second referendum, but it’s unlikely that Johnson would do this as it would be deemed a further delay to his ‘come what may’ Brexit date of October 31st.

As it stands, Johnson should have around 259 votes for the deal, but he needs around another 60 to get it over the line. This would involve securing the votes of the 28 Conservative Eurosceptic ‘Spartans’ who rejected Theresa May’s deal, plus some of the Tory rebels who lost the Tory whip, along with some Labour MPs. But the chances of winning over enough are slim. Already several have indicated that they consider this deal to be even worse than the one proposed by Theresa May.

Jean Claude Juncker for his part has indicated that ‘no prolongation’ to the Brexit negotiation period would be necessary with such a deal in place. Therefore, at this stage it is unclear whether an extension period would be granted by the EU if this deal is rejected by Westminster MPs. The fact is, that Brexit fatigue has long set in for the EU. This puts further pressure on Westminster to pass Johnson’s proposal or face the dreaded No Deal Brexit, for which preparations are being made in any case. Already many are complaining about the lack of time given to them to analyse the 600 page withdrawal agreement which they are due to vote upon on Saturday and the fact that there has been no time to create economic forecasts based on the withdrawal proposals.

And so on the day Boris Johnson finally achieved what was thought impossible – a Brexit deal with the EU – it is still too early to celebrate.  Britain is no closer to a Brexit deal than it was yesterday and a No Deal scenario is still very much on the horizon.

*

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.

Johanna Ross is a journalist.

Did you watch the Democrat debate? I didn’t. I haven’t had cable television and access to the alphabet propaganda networks for well over a decade. I suppose I could have watched it on the web, but why bother? The outcome was predictable. 

For instance, it was predictable the candidates had no intention of addressing the forever wars engineered by the ruling elite. That is a strict no-go zone. Ask Tulsi Gabbard what happens when a hopeful dwells too closely on war and its consequences. The war party propaganda media have relentlessly attacked her. 

And yet, we can’t trust Tulsi to follow through. On Wednesday, virtually every member of the House of Representatives, both Republican and Democrat, supported a resolution to condemn Trump’s decision to move troops out of Syria. Here is the final roll call. 

Scroll down to the bottom of the document. Those not voting include Gabbard and Elijah Cummings. Mr. Cummings had an excuse—he was in the hospital, awaiting death. But what about Tulsi? She didn’t vote “nay” on this bill, more than likely due to its deceptive wording—manufactured outrage over Turkey’s decision to invade northern Syria and massacre an unknown number of Kurds. 

Do you really think the Demopublican war party cares about the Kurds? Of course not. The resolution is another anti-Trump stunt designed to tarnish the self-proclaimed stable genius as we slip and slide into the election season. 

Tulsi opted out, realizing if she voted against the bill she would be ruthlessly pilloried by the war propaganda media, not that it really matters—they have gone after her for months now, even though she carts around the same identity demagoguery as her fellow Democrats.

If we really want to know what the Dem side of the Demopublican party favors, it might be instrumental to read a Julian Zelizer op-ed posted at CNN. 

Mr. Zelizer enumerates what he considers top priorities for the red and blue serpentine hydra navigating the murky water of the swamp. 

What should immigration policy look like in the 21st century? How would they define the limits of presidential power? Will internationalism continue to be a priority—in terms of policy and institutions—over the next decade? What are the steps that need to be taken to curb the devastating effects of climate change? How can the federal government start to reverse the growing economic inequality that defines our country? How can we begin a new phase of the civil rights movement that deals with institutional racism? What are the key goals in the pursuit of women’s full equality? How can we do more to ensure that people are not discriminated against because of their sexuality? What is the proper role of government in taxing and regulating the economy?

Did you see anything in there about ending the wars? Neither did I. Instead, we are subjected to unabashed veneration of war crimes. 

The history of great leadership revolves around moments when US presidents have been able to tackle these sorts of challenges. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman defeating the forces of fascism and participating in the establishment of institutions such as the United Nations and NATO that entrenched liberal alliances…

Nazism—not fascism per se, which is alive and well within the state—was primarily defeated by Russia, not FDR (who, it can be argued, lied America into a war it overwhelmingly wanted nothing to do with) or Truman (who is the only human to have presided over nuking hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians). 

As a nation, it is clear that we are in desperate need of great leaders. We face an enormous number of problems and crises that keep going unaddressed from one administration to the other. The debates should offer a first forum for voters to hear what a potential president has to say about how we can get out of these messes.

No, as a nation, we need to reject what the ruling corporate elite designates as “great leaders,” modeled on the aforementioned war criminals. 

The reason “problems and crises… keep going unaddressed from one administration to the other” is simple—first, there is very little difference between leaders selected by the state, and second the ruling elite thrive on crises, most manufactured in Hegelian ordo ab hoc (order out of this) fashion, a very effective method of emotionally manipulating the plebs and gaining consensus for war, torture, mass surveillance, and rampant violations of international law.

Finally, and somewhat comically, liberal Democrats are expressing their outrage that supposed liberal lesbian Ellen DeGeneres yucked it up with “conservative” war criminal George W. Bush during an NFL game in Texas. 

Of course, as framed by the corporate media, this incident had nothing to do with Bush’s neocon wars of mass destruction, but rather LGBT issues that are of far more importance to liberals than the ongoing wars that have killed well over a million innocent people and destroyed entire nations. 

DeGeneres would have us follow her “lessons in kindness.” However, her version of soft and squishy (and highly selective) kindness seems to be tailored for those who sit in exclusive boxes at football games played in stadiums paid for by taxpayers. She can forgive Bush for his support of anti-LGBT legislation while completely ignoring he is one of the vilest war criminals in recent memory. 

*

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 scenario agreed on behind the curtains through months of confidential exchanges, often one-on-one, between the Russian and Turkish leaders regarding north-eastern Syria is entering a critical phase of implementation on the ground with the agreement between the Kurds and the Assad regime.

We have a complex scenario where on the one hand the Turkish army and the Syrian opposition units loyal to Ankara are relentlessly continuing their southward offensive expanding control over Syria’s border regions populated by the Kurds. According to Turkish President Recep Erdogan, 1000 sq.kms. of territory previously under Kurdish control have been “liberated”.

On the other hand, following up on the agreement with the Kurds, the first columns of Syrian government forces have moved into the north of the country toward the Turkish border.

Prima facie, Damascus is challenging the Turkish offensive — as it should — and, in principle, a confrontation can ensue. But things are never really quite what they appear on the surface in Syria.

A clash between the Turkish and Syrian forces is simply out of the question. That is not how the game is being played. A Turkish Defence Ministry statement on Monday disclosed that the military chief Gen. Yasar Guler and his Russian counterpart Gen. Valery Gerasimov were in contact on the phone and discussed the “security situation in Syria and recent developments.”

No further details have been divulged but the picture that emerges is that Russia proposed and Turkey agreed that Russian units will be patrolling between Turkish and Syrian forces in northern Syria after the withdrawal of the US troops from the area.

Accordingly, Moscow’s Defense Ministry has revealed that its military police in the Kurdish town of Manbij have begun patrolling along the Syria-Turkey border and interacting with Turkish authorities. Russian troops entered Manbij town with the Syrian government forces on Monday.

More importantly, through Russian mediation, Ankara and Damascus will prefer to agree on dividing the zones of control in northern Syria. That is to say, things are broadly moving in the direction of what the Adana Agreement of 1998 (over the Kurdish question) between Turkey and Syria had envisaged, namely, that the security of the Syrian-Turkish border will be a bilateral affair between Ankara and Damascus.

In the given situation, Turkey’s imperative need is to prevent a contiguous “Kurdistan” emerging on its borders. The so-called “safe zone” aimed at frustrating the US plans to create a Kurdistan in Syria akin to what it succeeded in creating in Iraq in the Saddam Hussein era.

Arguably, there could be congruence of interests between Ankara and Damascus on this score. (Tehran too has common interests with its two neighbours in this regard.)

Indeed, for Damascus all this is a bonanza insofar as the “deliberate withdrawal” (as Pentagon put it), or, more accurately, the inevitable eviction of the US troops in the northern regions of Syria triggered by the Turkish incursion, enables it to reoccupy parts of the northeast regions, especially those parts that are well-endowed with water resources and hydrocarbon reserves, which the American military had designated as its exclusive zone.

For President Bashar al-Assad, this is a great leap forward in the fulfilment of his pledge to reclaim control of entire Syria. (See the Euronews commentary Damascus is looking stronger than ever’: What next for Syria as Kurds join forces with Assad?)

As for the Kurds, they have nowhere to go but to settle with Damascus. They are simply no match for the highly professional Turkish army.

Clearly, the Turkish incursion and impending offensive against Kurds has made continued American military presence in northern Syria untenable and Russia has leveraged the situation to bring about the agreement between Kurds and Damascus.

Having succeeded in this endeavour, Russians have taken Turks into confidence. Unsurprisingly, President Recep Erdogan is nonchalant about the agreement between the Kurds and Damascus and has shrugged off the Syrian troop movements close to Turkey’s borders. He evasively referred to Vladimir Putin’s assurances.

In the final analysis, the Americans are paying a heavy price for being clever by half — stringing Turkey along in the recent years while methodically consolidating the ground for the creation of an autonomous Kurdistan on its borders, apart from arming and training the Kurdish militia to shape up as a regular army.

Turkey operations in Syria map

Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring in Northern Syria has reportedly advanced to a 1000 square kilometers area

Erdogan gave a long rope to the Americans to hang themselves, literally. When he struck, the contradictions in the US policy got exposed overnight — the game plan to balkanise Syria and overthrow Assad; the Faustian deal with a terrorist group that has been bleeding a NATO ally; and the geopolitical agenda to severe Iran’s axis with Syria and the Levant.

Suffice to say, with the eviction of the US forces from northern Syria, the Turks have achieved something that Russia and Iran (and Damascus) all along wished for but couldn’t attain. From this point onward, Russia and Iran will prevail upon Ankara to reconcile with Damascus.

The US has belatedly understood that Turkey has summarily terminated its 8-year old intervention in Syria to overthrow the Assad regime. The vitriolic reaction by Trump and US defence Secretary Mark Esper (here and here) is self-evident.

But the threat of US sanctions will not deter Erdogan, as the spectre of Kurdistan on its borders threatened Turkey’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and there is no scope for compromise when national security is under threat. By the way, the Turkish domestic opinion is overwhelmingly supportive of Erdogan.

Turkey was uncharacteristically patient with the US, hoping that the latter would give up the nexus with YPG (Kurdish militia) once the fight against ISIS got over. It is not Trump so much as the Pentagon who is responsible for the breakdown in trust between Turkey and the US. Like on most foreign policy issues, Washington had two policies on Syria — Trump’s and the US security and defence establishment’s.

The US has no locus standii under international law to keep a permanent military presence in Syria and when Trump first announced the troop withdrawal, it should have been implemented. But, instead, the Pentagon undercut Trump’s decision, whittled it down and finally ignored it altogether.    

Erdogan knows that the US will huff and puff but will get used to the “new normal” in Syria. Europe won’t have an alibi, either, as Russians will never allow the ISIS to surge in Syria. Trump is reportedly deputing V-P Mike Pence to travel to Turkey seeking a “negotiated settlement” — whatever that may mean in tackling the fait accompli that Erdogan has created.

*

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.

It is very popular these days to talk and write about the “trade war” between the United States and China. But is there really one raging? Or is it, what we are witnessing, simply a clash of political and ideological systems: one being extremely successful and optimistic, the other depressing, full of dark cynicism and nihilism?

In the past, West used to produce almost everything. While colonizing the entire planet (one should just look at the map of the globe, between the two world wars), Europe and later the United States, Canada and Australia, kept plundering all the continents of natural resources, holding hundreds of millions of human beings in what could be easily described as ‘forced labor’, often bordering on slavery.

Under such conditions, it was very easy to be ‘number one’, to reign without competition, and to toss around huge amounts of cash, for the sole purpose of indoctrinating local and overseas ‘subjects’ on topics such as the ‘glory’ of capitalism, colonialism (open and hidden), and Western-style ‘democracy’.

It is essential to point out that in the recent past, the global Western dictatorship (and that included the ‘economic system) used to have absolutely no competition. Systems that were created to challenge it, were smashed with the most brutal, sadistic methods. One only needs recall invasions from the West to the young Soviet Union, with the consequent genocide and famines. Or other genocides in Indochina, which was fighting its wars for independence, first against France, later against the United States.

*

Times changed. But Western tactics haven’t.

There are now many new systems, in numerous corners of the world. These systems, some Communist, others socialist or even populist, are ready to defend their citizens, and to use the natural resources to feed the people, and to educate, house and cure them.

No matter how popular these systems are at home, the West finds ways to demonize them, using its well-established propaganda machinery. First, to smear them and then, if they resist, to directly liquidate them.

As before, during the colonial era, no competition has been permitted. Disobedience is punishable by death.

Naturally, the Western system has not been built on excellence, hard work and creativity, only. It was constructed on fear, oppression and brutal force. For centuries, it has clearly been a monopoly.

*

Only the toughest countries, like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea or Cuba, have managed to survive, defending they own cultures, and advancing their philosophies.

To the West, China has proved to be an extremely tough adversary.

With its political, economic, and social system, it has managed to construct a forward-looking, optimistic and extraordinarily productive society. Its scientific research is now second to none. Its culture is thriving. Together with its closest ally, Russia, China excels in many essential fields.

That is precisely what irks, even horrifies the West.

For decades and centuries, Europe and the United States have not been ready to tolerate any major country, which would set up its own set of rules and goals.

China refuses to accept the diktat from abroad. It now appears to be self-sufficient, ideologically, politically, economically and intellectually. Where it is not fully self-sufficient, it can rely on its friends and allies. Those allies are, increasingly, located outside the Western sphere.

*

Is China really competing with the West? Yes and no. And often not consciously.

It is a giant; still the most populous nation on earth. It is building, determinedly, its socialist motherland (applying “socialism with the Chinese characteristics” model). It is trying to construct a global system which has roots in the thousands of years of its history (BRI – Belt and Road Initiative, often nicknamed the “New Silk Road”).

Its highly talented and hardworking, as well as increasingly educated population, is producing, at a higher pace and often at higher quality than the countries in Europe, or the United States. As it produces, it also, naturally, trades.

This is where the ‘problem’ arises. The West, particularly the United States, is not used to a country that creates things for the sake and benefit of its people. For centuries, Asian, African and Latin American people were ordered what and how to produce, where and for how much to sell the produce. Or else!

Of course, the West has never consulted anyone. It has been producing what it (and its corporations) desired. It was forcing countries all over the world, to buy its products. If they refused, they got invaded, or their fragile governments (often semi-colonies, anyway) overthrown.

The most ‘terrible’ thing that China is doing is: it is producing what is good for China, and for its citizens.

That is, in the eyes of the West, unforgiveable!

*

In the process, China ‘competes’. But fairly: it produces a lot, cheaply, and increasingly well. The same can be said about Russia.

These two countries are not competing maliciously. If they were to decide to, they could sink the US economy, or perhaps the economy of the entire West, within a week.

But they don’t even think about it.

However, as said above, to just work hard, invent new and better products, advance scientific research, and use the gains to improve the lives of ordinary people (they will be no extreme poverty in China by the end of 2020) is seen as the arch-crime in London and Washington.

Why? Because the Chinese and Russian systems appear to be much better, or at least, simply better, than those which are reigning in the West and its colonies. And because they are working for the people, not for corporations or for the colonial powers.

And the demagogues in the West – in its mass media outlets and academia – are horrified that perhaps, soon, the world will wake up and see the reality. Which is actually already happening: slowly but surely.

*

To portray China as an evil country, is essential for the hegemony of the West. There is nothing so terrifying to London and Washington as the combination of these words: “Socialism/ Communism, Asian, success”. The West invents new and newer ‘opposition movements’, it then supports them and finances them, just in order to then point fingers and bark: “China is fighting back, and it is violating human rights”, when it defends itself and its citizens. This tactic is clear, right now, in both the northwest of the country, and in Honk Kong.

Not everything that China builds is excellent. Europe is still producing better cars, shoes and fragrances, and the United States, better airplanes. But the progress that China has registered during the last two decades, is remarkable. were it to be football, it is China 2: West1.

Most likely, unless there is real war, that in ten years, China will catch up in many fields; catch up, and surpass the West. Side by side with Russia.

It could have been excellent news for the entire world. China is sharing its achievements, even with the poorest of the poor countries in Africa, or with Laos in Asia.

The only problem is, that the West feels that it has to rule. It is unrepentant, observing the world from a clearly fundamentalist view. It cannot help it: it is absolutely, religiously convinced that it has to give orders to every man and woman, in every corner of the globe.

It is a tick, fanatical. Lately, anyone who travels to Europe or the United States will testify: what is taking place there is not good, even for the ordinary citizens. Western governments and corporations are now robbing even their own citizens. The standard of living is nose-diving.

China, with just a fraction of the wealth, is building a much more egalitarian society, although you would never guess so, if you exclusively relied on Western statistics.

*

So, “trade war” slogans are an attempt to convince the local and global public that “China is unfair”, that it is “taking advantage” of the West. President Trump is “defending” the United States against the Chinese ‘Commies’. But the more he “defends them”, the poorer they get. Strange, isn’t it?

While the Chinese people, Russian people, even Laotian people, are, ‘miraculously’, getting richer and richer. They are getting more and more optimistic.

For decades, the West used to preach ‘free trade’, and competition. That is, when it was in charge, or let’s say, ‘the only kid on the block’.

In the name of competition and free trade, dozens of governments got overthrown, and millions of people killed.

And now?

What is China suppose to do? Frankly, what?

Should it curb its production, or perhaps close scientific labs? Should it consult the US President or perhaps British Prime Minister, before it makes any essential economic decision? Should it control the exchange rate of RMB, in accordance with the wishes of the economic tsars in Washington? That would be thoroughly ridiculous, considering that (socialist/Communist) China will soon become the biggest economy in the world, or maybe it already is.

There is all that abstract talk, but nothing concrete suggested. Or is it like that on purpose?

Could it be that the West does not want to improve relations with Beijing?

On September 7, 2019, APreported:

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow compared trade talks with China on Friday to the U.S. standoff with Russia during the Cold War…

“The stakes are so high, we have to get it right, and if that takes a decade, so be it,” he said.

Kudlow emphasized that it took the United States decades to get the results it wanted with Russia. He noted that he worked in the Reagan administration: “I remember President Reagan waging a similar fight against the Soviet Union.”

Precisely! The war against the Soviet Union was hardly a war for economic survival of the United States. It was an ideological battle, which the United States, unfortunately won, because it utilized both propaganda and economic terror (the arms race and other means).

Now, China is next on the list, and the White House is not even trying to hide it.

But China is savvy. It is beginning to understand the game. And it is ready, by all means, to defend the system which has pulled almost all its citizens out of misery, and which could, one day soon, do the same for the rest of 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.

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are China and Ecological Civilization with John B. Cobb, Jr., Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter. His Patreon. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Stansberry Churchouse

The Russian Masterpiece in Syria: Everyone Wins

October 18th, 2019 by Federico Pieraccini

“Moscow and Damascus have always maintained they are against any form of partition or illegal foreign presence in Syria.”

Moscow has managed to maintain contacts with all parties in the conflict, even in spite of its stance against partition and illegal foreign presence. Trilateral talks between Iran, Turkey and Russia occurred in Astana at Moscow’s urging. Putin managed to bring together in Sochi the Syrian government and opposition groups to discuss the future of Syria. In Geneva, Moscow mediated between Damascus and the international community, shielding Syria from the diplomatic skulduggery of the US and other enemies of Syria.

Turkey, solely as a result of its defeat in Syria, now finds itself in active dialogue with Moscow and Tehran. As Ankara experiences worsening relations with Washington and other European capitals, Moscow saw a great opportunity to bring Turkey closer to Damascus.

Russia’s operation was complicated and required a lot of patience; but thanks to negotiations supervised by Russia, together with the bravery and courage of Syrian soldiers, almost all of the terrorist pockets scattered around Syria have been progressively overcome.

Other than the Idlib province, the main problem for Damascus lay with the US occupation in the northeast of the country, under the pretext of protecting the Kurds (SDF) from the “Assad regime”, as well as to “fight Daesh”.

Erdogan currently finds himself boxed in, squeezed in by a collapsing economy, threatened by his allies (the purchase of the Russian S-400 system irritated many in Washington and in NATO): he desperately needs to present some kind of victory to his base.

This may be the primary reason behind Erdogan’s decision to move into Syria under the pretense that the YPG is a terrorist organization linked with the PKK — proceeding to create a buffer zone on the border between Syria and Turkey and declaring “mission accomplished” to boost popularity ratings.

With Trump, he is desperate to shift attention away from the impeachment proceedings (a hoax), and similarly needs to present some kind of victory to his base. Why, what better way to do this than with a mini withdrawal of US troops from Syria, leaving the Kurds to their destiny (Trump’s care factor regarding SDF is minimal, as they are more connected to his political opponents in the Democratic Party), while claiming victory over Daesh for the umpteenth time in recent months?

Trump, with a handful of tweets directed against the Pentagon’s “crazy spending” and America’s past wars, finds himself and his base giving each other high fives on their commitment to the doctrine of “America First”.

Erdogan and Trump have also solved the embarrassing internal conflict within NATO between Turkey and the US, probably reestablishing personal relationships (the tough talk from the White House notwithstanding).

The agreement between the Kurds (SDF) and Damascus is the only natural conclusion to events that are heavily orchestrated by Moscow.  The deployment of Syrian and Russian troops on the border with Turkey is the prelude to the reconquest of the entirety of Syrian territory — the outcome the Kremlin was wishing for at the beginning of this diplomatic masterpiece.

Washington and Ankara have never had any opportunities to prevent Damascus from reunifying the country. It was assumed by Moscow that Washington and Ankara would sooner or later seek the correct exit strategy, even as they proclaimed victory to their respective bases in the face of defeat in Syria. This is exactly what Putin and Lavrov came up with over the last few weeks, offering Trump and Erdogan the solution to their Syrian problems.

Trump will state that he has little interest in countries 7,000 miles from the homeland; and Erdogan (with some reluctance) will affirm that the border between Turkey and Syria, when held by the Syrian Arab Army, guarantees security against the Kurds.

Putin has no doubt advised Assad and the Kurds to begin a dialogue in the common interests of Syria. He would have no doubt also convinced Erdogan and Trump of the need to accept these plans.

An agreement that rewards Damascus and Moscow saves the Kurds while leaving Erdogan and Trump with a semblance of dignity in a situation that is difficult to explain to a domestic or international audience.

Moscow has started joint patrols with the Syrian Arab Army on the borders with Turkey for the purposes of preventing any military clashes between Ankara and Damascus. If Ankara halts its military operation in the coming days, Damascus will regain control of the oil fields.

The world will then have witnessed one of the greatest diplomatic masterpieces ever conceived, responsible for bringing closer the end of the seven-year-long Syrian 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.

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Russian Masterpiece in Syria: Everyone Wins
  • Tags: ,

The Syrian Arab Army is deploying at Ayn Al-Arab, the tip of the Syrian northern borders with Turkey, its vanguards arriving in Raqqa, the city which US forces obliterated quite deliberately and claimed it had been liberated it from its own ISIS terrorists.

Ayn Al Arab is in Aleppo’s northeastern countryside 30 kilometers east of Euphrates River and 125 kilometers northeast of Aleppo. The arrival of the SAA in this city cuts Erdogan’s plan to create his borders-long so-called ‘Safe Zone’ where he wanted to Israelize the presumed region by replacing the people of the border cities and towns with anti-Islamic Muslim Brotherhood terrorists loyal to him from Al-Qaeda FSA groups and their affiliates of ISIS, Turkmens, and Uighur.

The city of Ayn Al-Arab is in the center of the presumed zone, and with the SAA entering the city of Raqqa the ‘East of Euphrates’ NATO criminals Trump and Erdogan was also the area the Kurds wanted to Israelize as well because it’s rich with oil, gas, water, and rich agriculture land. Now the SAA moved ‘East of Euphrates’ 30 kilometers east.

The Syrian state during 8.5 years was fighting on over 400 open fronts the world’s most vicious human garbage sponsored by the world’s superpowers spearheaded by the USA and its two United Nations Security Council and NATO lackeys Britain and France, and the world’s super-rich like the Gulfies, Germany, and others. This is the first time in 5 years it enters its Raqqa Province.

Kurdish separatist Kurdish SDF militias who occupied Ayn Al Arab renamed it to Kobane after the name of a German railway company that existed there early last century.

Erdogan is due in Moscow on October 22nd, after receiving the US vice president Pence and his delegation within 24 hours, who is coming to Turkey under Trump’s threats of destroying the country’s economy if they cannot forge an agreement or redraw the limits of the Erdogan forces invasions of northern Syria. The US might be withdrawing its troops from parts of the country it occupied terrorized with all sorts of criminal tactics and tried to divide into cantons based on sectarian and ethnic lines, will not leave easily without trying to gain any political achievement, it’ll be interesting to see how Erdogan will get out of the mess he put himself in and dragged his country to.

*

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 in July 2019.

B’Tselem investigation published today proves a soldier fired live ammunition, hitting ‘Abd a-Rahman a-Shteiwi, 9, in the head. A-Shteiwi was injured last week while playing in the entrance to a home in Kafr Qadum during the weekly demonstration in the village. Now hospitalized in critical condition, he is the latest victim of the reckless open-fire policy that allows soldiers to use live fire even when neither they nor anyone else is in any danger.

At about 1:30 PM on Friday, 12 July 2019, the regular weekly demonstration against the closure of the main access road from Kafr Qadum to the regional capital Nablus took place. The military blocked the road in the early 2000s, following the expansion of the adjacent settlement of Kadum. Since then, residents have been forced to use a bypass road that lengthens the journey by about half an hour.

During the demonstration, a few dozen youths threw stones at a number of soldiers deployed along the ridge on the outskirts of the village, several dozen meters from the demonstrators. The soldiers fired rubber coated metal bullets at the protestors, but, in a departure from previous practice in Kadum protests, this time, they also fired a large number of live rounds in the air.

At a distance of about 200 meters from the main protest, about ten protestors threw stones at four soldiers who were a few dozen meters away from them, on another hill on the same ridge. About 100 meters away from this group, further down the road, a resident of Kafr Qadum was sitting under an olive tree with his two 10-year-old children. Opposite them, about 10 meters away, ‘Abd a-Rahman a-Shteiwi, 9, was sitting at the entrance of one of the homes on the edge of the village playing with a piece of wood.

At about 2:20 PM, as the main demonstration, some 200 meters away from ‘Abd a-Rahman a-Shteiwi, began to disperse, a soldier fired a live bullet. It hit boy’s head and he immediately fell to the ground. The resident who was sitting nearby and a young man who was in the area evacuated the boy to an ambulance waiting some 50 meters away down the road. ‘Abd a-Rahman was taken unconscious to Rafidia Hospital in Nablus and underwent head surgery. Two days later, on 14 July 2019, sedated and ventilated, he was transferred to the intensive care unit at Sheba Hospital in Tel Hashomer.

In its statements to the media, the military denied that soldiers used live fire, and even rejected any responsibility for the incident. A response the military released claimed that the soldiers had used “various crowd-control methods” and that “a report was received of an injured boy aged around ten.” However, 9-year-old A-Shteiwi’s injury is a direct result of the open-fire policy implemented by the military in the Occupied Territories. This policy illegally and without any justification permits the use of live fire against Palestinians who are not endangering anyone. The policy remains in force despite the fact that it has resulted in hundreds of Palestinian deaths and thousands of injuries.

The military prides itself on regulations restricting the circumstances in which live fire may be used, while at the same time claiming that the law enforcement system will take action against soldiers who violate the regulations. However, these statements are hollow and meaningless. In many cases, the open-fire regulations are completely disregarded. Meanwhile, the law enforcement system is actually a whitewashing system intended to create the illusion of investigations. A-Shteiwi is the latest victim of this policy, but unless it is changed, it is only a matter of time before the next victim is added to the list.

*

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 family of the boy

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Contrary to Israeli Military Statement: 9 Year Old Child Abd a-Rahman Was Shot in the Head with Live Ammunition
  • Tags: ,

Greek-U.S. relations have entered “a new era” with U.S. Secretary of State stating earlier this month that he has “come to Greece to expand the partnership that’s already at the best level it has ever been.” He followed up this statement in a tweet, saying “A strong and prosperous Greece is good for the Greek people and good for America.”

Why? Well during Pompeo’s trip to Greece, he finalized a new deal with the newly-elected Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis for the U.S. to open 3 new military bases in the Aegean country, but most importantly, a naval presence in the port in Alexandroupolis. The port is strategically located close to the Turkish-controlled Dardanelles that connects the Aegean/Mediterranean Seas via also the Bosporus with the Black Sea, and therefore Russia. Therefore, Pompeo is ecstatic as Greece has now been firmly placed in the U.S. camp and has willingly become a NATO stronghold in the eastern Mediterranean.

It is likely that the U.S. is also ‘rewarding’ Greece for its continued and strengthening economic ties with Israel. The Greece-Cyprus-Israel pipeline, GRISCY, has likely pleased Washington, especially as all three states are anti-Turkish and it helps further secure Israel’s place in the region. Andrew Korybko argues that GRISCY is the U.S.’ key to containing multipolarity in the eastern Mediterranean. He continued to explain that the U.S. could try to thwart TurkStream’s possible expansion to Greece en route to Italy, continue cracking down on oligarchic holdings in Cyprus, and try to weaken the Russian-“Israeli” Strategic Partnership, as well as potentially cut off Moscow’s “Levantine Line” trade route between Crimea, Syria, the Sinai, and Eritrea in the event of a crisis.

With Turkish-Russian relations strengthening, the U.S. has turned to Greece as its Plan B to blockade the Russian Navy in the Black Sea as the Dardanelles spills open into the northern Aegean Sea, where there are thousands of islands, making it a naval labyrinth with limited manoeuvrability. With Greece having a respectable Navy and backed by a U.S. naval base, if ever Washington needed to illegally blockade the Dardanelles, it would be able to do without a likely amount of success.

This is a major security concern for Moscow, leading to Russian Ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, to warn Greece that the U.S. might abandon it just as it had recently done with the Kurds in Syria, correctly adding that the recent military base deal in Greece was a mistake.

“I think this is wrong, but this is my personal opinion. Of course, you need to ask the Greek side why they made such a decision. But I do not rule out the possibility that they did so amid tensions between the United States and Turkey. However, this does not mean that this decision is well weighed for the future,” he said.

However, a reason why Greece has done this should be simply known to Chizhov, with Athens on a daily basis reporting Turkish air violations in its territory, Turkey threatening to invade Cyprus as recently as August, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan delivering a speech last month in front of a map that had Greece’s eastern Aegean islands under Turkish control.

When quizzed about the Turkish invasion in northeastern Syria and the US decision to abandon the Kurds, Chizhov commented:

“We had warned the Kurds that the Americans will abandon them. And here, […]  I can personally warn the Greeks about it, that they will have the same fate as the Kurds.”

However, this is an unfair comparison considering Greece is a country with full state functions unlike the stateless Kurds. This prompted the Greek government’s national security adviser, Alexander Diakopoulos, to state a day later that

“the U.S. bases will not remain in Greece forever. Nowadays, nothing lasts forever.”

Although what he says could be true if a truly anti-American government came to power, something that could be a possibility considering that only 36% of Greeks view the U.S. favourably according to 2018 Pew survey, it remains unlikely since every political party that has come into power turned out to be pro-U.S. despite some pre-election rhetoric.

Although the rhetoric by the Russian and Greek officials was friendly in nature, it does demonstrate that sides are being drawn, even if unwillingly in Moscow’s view, between Turkey and Greece and their relations with the Great Powers. Although Turkey is the most important member of the anti-Russian NATO alliance because of its critical strategic position, delicate and impressive diplomacy by Russian President Vladimir Putin has not only meant the strengthening of relations with his Black Sea neighbour, but has returned the question on whether Turkey will or should leave NATO.

Although both officials were disingenuous with their comments, it remains to be seen whether a war of words will erupt between the two Christian Orthodox countries, however it is unlikely in the short term. Although the current Greek government has not expressed any anti-Russian sentiment, Athens continues to pivot closer to Washington as U.S. officials claim they will protect Greek sovereignty.

Greece’s alliance with the U.S. is not anti-Russian in its view, but rather a guarantee of protection in case armed hostilities breakout with Turkey. However, Greece’s constant search for security because of Turkey’s escalated aggression in recent years has provided the perfect opportunity for the U.S. to exact revenge on Turkey for its purchase of the Russian S-400 system.

The Aegean is becoming increasingly volatile between Greece and Turkey, and the U.S. is leveraging these hostilities to its advantage in a double move to secure a Plan B in strangling the Russian Navy in the Black Sea if needed, and punishing Turkey for its increasing relations with Moscow. Therefore, Russia as the most sensible player has the potential influence to calm the situation between Turkey and Greece, and therefore also secure its sea passages.

With Greece being the original ancient Eurasian civilization and Russia being a giant Eurasian power, commonalities between the two countries can easily be made. Although U.S. military bases are here to stay in the foreseeable future, there is every potential that a new government can emerge in Athens that will expel all U.S. military presence in the country, as indirectly said by Diakopoulos. Therefore, Russia must be ready to take every opportunity that could be opened from this.

*

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 a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-Greece-US: Lines Being Drawn by the U.S. in the Eastern Mediterranean, against Turkey and Russia?
  • Tags: , ,

Serbia Is Surrendering to Greater Albania

October 18th, 2019 by Andrew Korybko

The geopolitical project of “Greater Albania” received unprecedented support from an extremely unlikely source after Serbia surprisingly surrendered to the policy of passport-free travel for its Albanian and Macedonian neighbors by 2021 as part of an entirely voluntarily initiative that Belgrade believes will boost its prospects of one day joining the EU but which dangerously risks undermining its sovereignty even further with time to the point where the patriotic slogan of “Kosovo is Serbia” might monstrously transform into “Serbia is Albania”.

Regional observers of the Balkans long feared that a multi-national conflict was brewing as a result of the US-backed geopolitical project of “Greater Albania” that threatens the territorial integrity of Serbia and the Republic of (“North”) Macedonia, which is why everyone was surprised when both of the countries most directly affected by this plot simply surrendered to it last week by agreeing to a policy of passport-free travel between all three. It was long suspected that Macedonian premier Zoran Zaev, who came to power after a long-running US-backed Color Revolution, was going to sell his country’s interests out to its Albanian neighbor after already doing so with its Greek and Bulgarian ones, but many thought that Serbia would at least put up some principled resistance instead of rolling over and legally allowing more Albanians to invade its sovereign territory after they already succeeded in de-facto detaching the Serbs’ civilizational cradle of Kosovo and Metohija from the rest of the state.

Apologists will implore the domestic and international audience to applaud this move as a much-needed pragmatic step to avoid the larger regional war that so many observers had feared, but the fact of the matter is that there was no pressing reason for Serbia to allow Albanians passport-free travel by 2021, which wasn’t a 1914-like ultimatum. Instead, Belgrade simply undertook this entirely voluntary step because it believes that it will boost its prospects of one day joining the EU even though Brussels never demanded anything of the sort from Serbia (which is the actual surprise in this story). President Vucic is a diehard europhile who earnestly wants to do everything in his power to incorporate Serbia into the EU, which includes tacitly “recognizing” Kosovo as an “independent state” per the bloc’s long-standing prerequisite to joining. It’s with that anti-constitutional goal in mind that his decision to go ahead with the passport-free policy begins to make more sense since it’s designed to pressure his people into accepting what he’d portray as a fait accompli by then.

It should be said that while many Alt-Media voices have done excellent work in raising awareness about the geostrategic ends that the US seeks to advance by coercing Serbia into “recognizing” Kosovo, few have dared to draw attention to the interests that Russia has in this as well because it’s too “politically incorrect” for most people to handle. The author elaborated on the Kremlin’s behind-the-scenes strategic calculus in his piece earlier this year about how “Russia Might Return To The Balkans In A Big (But Controversial) Way“, which relied upon three expert analyses from Russia’s highly influential and well-connected Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) think tank to prove that Moscow wouldn’t really mind all that much if Serbia went along with the West’s plans because it seems to have resigned itself to realizing that they’re probably irreversible without the political will to make unacceptable sacrifices to change (which might not even be successful in that scenario). Therefore, the tacit Russian position seems to be to redirect the strategic dynamics instead, if at all possible.

This understanding also explains why Moscow recognized the Republic of Macedonia’s anti-constitutional name change despite previously pledging not to, so it follows that it would also respect the will of Serbia’s internationally recognized government as well no matter how unconstitutional of a move it may undertake regarding Kosovo. Outspoken patriotic political analyst Anna Filimonova warned that Russia’s interests-driven approach to the issue risks losing the enormous soft power that it commands in Serbia in her 2018 piece about how “Russia Is Losing The Serbian People” (in Russian) because of its unwillingness to take into account extremely strong domestic public opposition to Vucic’s Kosovo plans in order to avoid losing state-level contracts that serve as the contemporary basis for its influence in the Balkan country, though her words will probably fall on deaf ears because modern-day Russia broke with its Soviet predecessor’s policy of “people’s revolutions” long ago and now deals mostly with inter-elite relations on the state level, not interpersonal ones.

As jarring as this might be for some people, it’s simply the most accurate reflection of reality as it objectively exists, which in and of itself doesn’t have any value component added to it unless an individual personally wants to attach one. The same goes for Vucic’s policy of passport-free travel for Albanians and Macedonians by 2021 (the latter of which will likely be Macedonian Albanians), which in and of itself is pragmatic in a political vacuum if looked at solely from the socio-economic perspective, though this approach is actually very dangerous from the standpoint of international security because it risks encouraging more illegal Albanian migration that could then be exploited to make Kosovo-like territorial demands against the state with time. Not only that, but it’s also irresponsible from a political position as well because the author’s twopart article series in 2015 about how “‘Greater Albania’ Is A Myth To Preserve The Country’s Unity” explained why there’s no need to appease this fascist-era geopolitical project, which is being advanced to prevent Albania from falling apart.

Even so, Vucic is willing to risk losing even more of his country’s sovereignty in the future as a result of the long-term demographic consequences that this capitulation could foreseeably cause simply because he believes that it’s the secret to fast-tracking Serbia’s membership in the EU by indirectly facilitating Belgrade’s “recognition” of Kosovo. It’s difficult to imagine why this wouldn’t happen by the time that policy enters into force since the Kosovo Albanians might already have.

Albanian citizenship at that point and therefore make this a fait accompli anyhow after receiving the Belgrade-approved right to travel back and forth from the occupied province to the rest of Serbia without experiencing any difficulties at the line of control. In other words, the Albanian invasion of Kosovo will proceed even deeper into the Serbian heartland than ever before as the Hybrid War on Serbia presses on, resulting in the worst-ever nightmare scenario that would send chills down the spine of any true Serbian patriot, and that’s the slogan of “Kosovo is Serbia” monstrously transforming into “Serbia is Albania”.

*

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 also published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

Gabbard deserves praise for being anti-war and on the right side of other major issues.

Her “vision for America” includes world peace over endless US wars, no longer “supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.” 

She supports Medicare for all and other social justice policies over neoliberal tyranny harming most Americans.

Political rhetoric is one thing, following through another entirely. Time and again, candidates promise one thing, then go another way if elected — notably true of the Clintons, Bush/Cheney, Obama, Trump, and congressional leadership, betraying the public trust in office time and again.

That said, Gabbard alone among US presidential aspirants wants “trillions of dollars on regime change wars in the Middle East” and elsewhere ended.

She calls for using the nation’s resources for “affordable housing, (fixing) aging infrastructure…invest(ing) in education, healthcare, and so much more.”

Her Stop Arming Terrorist Act prohibits direct and indirect US support for ISIS and other jihadists.

She opposes Trump’s trade war with China, his regime’s economic terrorism on Iran and Venezuela, his JCPOA  pullout, along with US interventionist policies against any sovereign state.

She’s against legislation that “restrict(s) freedom of speech by imposing legal penalties against those who participate in the BDS movement.”

She called all anti-government forces in Syria and elsewhere terrorists, not moderate rebels, stressing “(t)hat is a fact.”

She said “issues of war and peace” are central to her campaign, describing herself as an anti-war/anti-Trump progressive.

Undemocratic Dems, other US dark forces, and establishment media consider her unfit for high office for being anti-war/pro-social justice.

Unfairly denied participation in September’s Dem debate, she was one of 12 party aspirants in the October 15 one, her remarks alone noteworthy Tuesday night.

She slammed the NYT/CNN lying machines. Calling them neither neutral or objective, she accused them of disigracefully “smear(ing) and call(ing) (her) a traitor.”

CNN, the most distrusted name in television propaganda masquerading as news, shamefully called her “a puppet for the Russian government.”

The channel and other US establishment media operate as press agents for imperial wars, Wall Street, and other corporate interests.

They’re unapologetically hostile to peace, equity, justice, and journalism the way it should be.

In an article updated on Wednesday, the NYT shamefully accused Gabbard of “injecting chaos in the (Dem party) primary” process, supporting “isolationist foreign polic(ies),” adding:

“(A)n array of alt-right internet stars, white nationalists…anti-Semites…and Russians have praised her.”

The above and volumes more like it is typical Times disinformation and fake news. In virtually all its editions, the NYT feature “news that’s” unfit to read.

Gabbard’s agenda is progressive and anti-war — notions the Times, CNN, and other establishment media abhor.

They collectively threaten fundamental freedoms just societies cherish.

Tune them out! Avoid their on air and print rubbish! Follow credible independent media exclusively, mainly online, the only way to be informed.

Some of Gabbard’s Tuesday night remarks were as follows:

“(H)yperpartisan (calls for impeaching Trump) began shortly after (his) election. (A)s unhappy as that may make us (Dems), he won that election in 2016.”

To her discredit, she supports the politicized impeachment inquiry, a Ukrainegate spinoff from the failed Russiagate scam.

At the same time, she said if House impeachment isn’t followed by removal from office by Senate members, it’ll “further (deepen) the divides in this country that we cannot afford.”

The real divide is between privileged Americans and vast majority of others, exploited and otherwise mistreated so monied interests can benefit — fascist tyranny wrapped in the American flag.

Gabbard: A “universal basic income is a good idea to help provide that security so that people can have the freedom to make the kinds of choices that they want to see.”

“(B)ad trade deals (like NAFTA harm ordinary Americans, compromising their ability to) provide for their families.”

“(W)hat we need to do is look at how we can best serve the interests of (all) the American people” — not just the privileged few.

She strongest remarks were as follows, denouncing Turkish “slaughter of the Kurds,” calling it “another negative consequence of the regime change war that we’ve been waging in Syria,” adding:

“Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime change war in Syria that started in 2011, along with many in the mainstream media, who have been championing and cheerleading this regime change war.”

“Not only that, but the New York Times and CNN have also smeared veterans like myself for calling for an end to this regime change war.”

“Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I’m a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears.”

“This morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I’m an asset of Russia. Completely despicable.”

“As president, I will end these regime change wars by doing two things — ending the draconian sanctions that are really a modern-day siege the likes of which we are seeing Saudi Arabia wage against Yemen, that have caused tens of thousands of Syrian civilians to die and to starve, and I would make sure that we stop supporting terrorists like al-Qaida in Syria who have been the ground force in this ongoing regime change war.”

“I’d like to ask Senator Warren if she would join me in calling for an end to this regime change war in Syria, finally.”

Warren, Sanders, Biden, and other undemocratic Dems are on the wrong side of most major issues, their voting records belying their rhetoric.

Gabbard slammed Buttigieg’s support for endless regime change wars, saying:

“(W)hat you’re saying, mayor Pete, is that you would continue to support having US troops in Syria for an indefinite period of time to continue this regime change war that has caused so many refugees to flee Syria, that you would continue to have our country involved in a war that has undermined our national security, you would continue this policy of the US actually providing arms in support to terrorist groups in Syria, like al-Qaida, HTS, al-Nusra and others, because they are the ones who have been the ground force in this regime change war? That’s really what you’re saying!”

It’s what he, Biden, Warren, Sanders and the others are saying — talking peace while supporting endless wars of aggression, including Israeli state terror against Palestinians, Gabbard the only real peace candidate.

The real question needing to be asked and answered is “(w)ho is fit to serve as our commander-in-chief,” Gabbard stressed, adding:

“This is the most important responsibility that the president has. What Donald Trump has been doing in Syria, and what we have just seen with him, inviting Turkey to come in and slaughter the Kurds, show what an unfit president looks like.”

“It highlights how critical it is that we have a president and commander-in-chief who is ready on day one, bringing experience and understanding in foreign policy and national security.”

“Bringing the experience that I have, both serving in Congress now for nearly seven years, serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, serving on the Armed Services Committee, subcommittees related to terrorism and upcoming threats, serving on the Homeland Security Committee, the experience that I have as a soldier, serving for over 16 years in the Army National Guard, deploying twice to the Middle East, being able to serve in different capacities, joint training exercises, training the Kuwait National Guard.”

“I understand the importance of our national security. I am prepared to do this job, to fulfill this responsibility as commander-in-chief on day one.”

CNN co-host Erin Burnett cut Gabbard off from asking the other Dem candidates where they stand on war and peace and what credentials do they have to serve as commander-in-chief — saying: “We’re going to take (a) break now.”

Note: Establishment media NYT and CNN co-sponsored Tuesday’s “debate,” wrecking its legitimacy except for Gabbard’s remarks.

What’s needed are real debates, , hosted by apolitical independent organizations, not scripted ones, featuring slogans and one-liners over solutions, along with promises made to be broken by most aspirants if elected.

Independent candidates should either be invited to participate or given equal nationally televised airtime to air their views.

The US is a one-party state with two right wings, Gabbard an exception to the rule — why she has virtually no change of being Dem standard bearer in November 2020.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The Birth of a New English State?

October 18th, 2019 by Mike Wayne

The right’s New Jerusalem: The birth of any new nation-state typically requires revolutionaries. And the British and Unionist Conservative Party is today the (perhaps surprising) political agent of a potentially new English nation-state. For this is not a Conservative party that is interested in conserving anything, least of all the conditions for keeping the United Kingdom’s constituent parts together. The threat of a no-deal Brexit is looming, support is growing in Scotland for independence, and in Northern Ireland the prospects of a Border Poll that could lead to a United Ireland are accelerating. Even in Wales, support for independence is rising.

Boris Johnson’s rhetoric around the so-called ‘surrender bill’ designed to stop a Halloween no-deal crash-out is pitched squarely at an England still trapped in the last reel of a Second World War movie. And it could play well with the electorate. A hard Brexit of some sort before or after the presumably imminent General Election could see the constituent parts of the British state peel away, leaving the English state standing alone. And the New English state will not be pretty.

English nationalism does not have anything of the progressive potential which smaller nationalisms fighting against larger oppressive political units can often have. English nationalism is the larger oppressive nationalism. It has, I think, four key features.

Firstly, England has a strong centralised state, around which it has wrapped a supra-national political unit called Britain – including Wales and Scotland and the United Kingdom, which included the whole of Ireland from 1801 until 1921 and now Northern Ireland. This wrap-around state construction was designed to stop Scotland and Ireland being a place where European enemies could launch intrigues and attacks. So English nationalism taps into centuries of distrust directed at European powers and is itself a power-hoarding apparatus.

Secondly, English nationalism demands a muscular military presence able to project itself internationally as befits a country with an imperial legacy that it cannot quite leave behind. Britain’s Imperial adventures around the world meant that its conservative political culture never really saw itself as a European power, but as a world power. England solved the problem of not being able to dominate Europe directly due to its own geographical position and the relative strength of other powers (Spain, France and eventually Germany), by conquering territories elsewhere that could not withstand its military and economic power.

Thirdly, English nationalism depends on powerful ideological resources around British exceptionalism. For example, an island nation protected by the sea and the White Cliffs of Dover with an unbroken political order that has avoided internal revolution or external invasion for hundreds of years. Central to this appeal to deep historical continuity is also the constitutional monarchy – which reconciles tradition and freedom, hierarchy and liberty. This exceptionalism and constitutional monarchy became all the more pronounced following the French revolution where attempts at radical change could be said to lead to tyranny. However, conservative gradualism is just one of many conservative moral-cultural reflexes that have been liquidated by neo-liberalism.

Finally and most importantly, England is the heartland of a historic commitment to a brutal free-market political economy. This last point is crucial for understanding recent history. English nationalism is the means by which conservatism displaces the anger and discontent which its own economic policies produce, onto a series of scapegoats. EU Brussels bureaucracy and inward migration from the EU are only the latest in a long line of such scapegoats. However, conservative English nationalism has yet to acquire any lucidity about is its own fraught and contradictory relationship with the British state and the political forces mobilising English nationalism which themselves remain, formally at least, committed to ‘the Union’.

Thatcherism forged the template for the contemporary English nationalism that we see today in the Brexit crisis. Thatcherism flaunted an aggressive foreign policy (the war in Ireland, the Falklands war, a virulent anti-communism and pro-nuclear policy) that invoked the imperial past, aggressive militarism, unstinting Atlanticism, and a hefty dose of xenophobia and racism to wash it all down.  Alongside the aggressive foreign policy was a new authoritarian populism (the term coined by Stuart Hall) that attacked social democratic rights and civil society institutions as the preserve of elites who thought they knew better than ‘the people’ (understood as consumers not citizens). How familiar that sounds today, from Michael Gove’s dismissal of ‘experts’ in 2016, to Johnson’s framing of the forthcoming election as one between Parliament vs the People.. And of course, Thatcher herself was deeply Eurosceptic, seeing in it, as today’s Brexiters do, a threat to the conservative national identity from where they draw some of their powerful ideological wellsprings (the British legislature, the British judiciary, the British army, etc).

English nationalism was reforged by Thatcherism in order to extricate itself from the British social democratic project. While successful at a domestic level, in the late 80s and 90s, it was unable to extricate itself from the EU project. The right had historically viewed with antipathy a continent which it regarded as having been bypassed by conservatism on the way to building a global empire. Thatcher’s anti-EU stance was an important factor in her being deposed, of course. But today it’s returning – unfinished business that now threatens not just the remnants of British social democracy but the British state itself.

“Thatcher’s anti-EU stance was an important factor in her being deposed, of course. But today it’s returning – unfinished business that now threatens not just the remnants of British social democracy but the British state itself.”

Thatcherism had never really disappeared, it just lost its leading position within governing elite circles. Tony Blair’s tenure as Prime Minister grafted a new set of political and cultural options onto a broadly similar neo-liberal political economy. But the paradox is that the pursuit of that broadly similar political economy sowed the seeds for the Thatcherite version of the same project to be resurrected (on steroids). As inequalities deepened during the Blair years and then culminated in the post-crash austerity project enforced by the Conservative-Lib-Dem coalition government, so deep resentments against Westminster seethed. And it was Thatcherite nationalism (stretching across the ERG wing of the Conservative party and into an ascendant UKIP) that was best placed to capitalise on this. They have the best displacement mechanisms that can transform economically generated pain into various cultural consolations. This is because they have the cultural reference points and images most deeply embedded in the major institutions. It is their rhetoric that strikes the emotional chords most powerfully (‘Take Back Control’). Against these displacement mechanisms, neo-liberal liberalism (stretching from Cameroonian Conservatives, across the Lib-Dems and deep into the ranks of the Parliamentary Labour party) has no answer, at least within England. At the same time, the neo-liberal liberals may have torpedoed the only political project that could have offered an alternative in the forthcoming election, namely Corbyn’s alt-left Labour party.

“The Thatcherite revolution transformed Britain but at the cost of opening up fault lines that led to the 2014 Referendum on Scottish independence. The second Thatcherite revolution, if it transpires in the form of a hard Brexit, will likely lead to a second (and successful) independence poll for Scotland. From there the dominoes are likely to fall, with Northern Ireland and even Wales (in time) going.”

Angela Merkel recently warned of the dangers posed by Britain if it were to become a ‘Singapore-on-the Thames’ free market economy on the edge of Europe, attracting investment by undercutting the EU’s floor in standards and regulations.

Merkel and other European leaders are acutely aware that the neo-liberal extremists are even more committed to the market abandoning social responsibilities than the EU is. Yet this is not a vision that has much traction outside of England and pursuing it threatens to unwind the supra-national political construct that the English state once wrapped around itself. It may be a case of unintended consequences. It may be consequences that the English nationalists do not believe will really happen. How, they might think, would anyone want to leave a country graced with the likes of Johnson, Rees-Mogg and Priti Patel at the helm?

It may be that in the end, as polling indicates, they and their party members do not really care. Conservative English nationalism is the content that is slowly bursting through the political form of the British state, liquidating its apparently most cherished construct. Unlike Scotland, England’s leaving will travel further and faster in the very direction that is causing the problems in the first place. The New Right’s Jerusalem, if it comes to pass, will consume itself and everyone in 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.

Mike Wayne is a Professor of Media at Brunel University and author of England’s Discontents: Political Cultures and National Identities Pluto Press 2018. This article also appeared at openDemocracy.

Featured image is from TP

The U.S. Armed Forces are not withdrawing from the eastern Euphrates River Valley region of Deir Ezzor or its plethora of oil fields, a military source in Damascus told Al-Masdar News.

According to the source, the U.S. Armed Forces won’t withdraw from these areas because of Iran’s presence in eastern Syria and the reality that Damascus would again have access to Deir Ezzor’s vital oil fields.

He would add the U.S.’ two largest military bases in Syria are in eastern Syria near some of the country’s largest oil fields like Al-‘Umar.

Damascus has wanted the Al-‘Umar and Conoco oil fields to be returned to their government; however, with the U.S.’ large military presence in the eastern countryside of Deir Ezzor, they have found themselves blocked from these critical petrol supplies.

Furthermore, with the ongoing sanctions against the Syrian government, the U.S. administration sees the return of these oil fields to Damascus as a benefit to the state and their allies like Iran.

Syria has been under an economic siege for several years now, leaving much of the country in dire need of resources like medicine, gas, et al.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Military Unlikely to Withdraw from Eastern Syria and Its Oil Fields
  • Tags: ,

UBI promoter Andrew Yang may be the first candidate for president running under a major party banner to advocate it, but he is certainly not the first in history.

The idea of UBI has been around at least since Thomas More included it in his 16th century Utopia and Thomas Paine, the author of Revolutionary War tract Common Sense, wrote of it as a bedrock ideal of social justice.

In our own era, UBI was mentioned favorably by conservative economist Milton Friedman and civil rights champion Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It also drew the attention of President Richard Nixon. and morphed into today’s Earned Income Credit.

But Andrew Yang is faced with the same question as every other economic reformer, which is how are we going to pay for it? The answer is always the same: income redistribution through taxing the rich. But no matter how much that might appeal to our sense of fairness, it has never worked.

The problem is that the income redistribution argument always assumes a well-cooked and scrumptious pie—the economy—that can readily be divided however we like. So it’s just a matter of which socioeconomic class has the power to decide. But the big scrumptious pie analogy itself has rarely been challenged.

The fact is that in a world of competing nation states, one country’s prosperity has always been at the expense of others. Competition among nations for a favorable balance of trade led to World Wars I and II, when Germany began to outpace Great Britain. Today the American empire that came out of these wars feverishly tries to maintain its dominance by control of the world’s financial system through enforcing the role of the dollar as the international reserve currency and the basis of oil trading.

Meanwhile, the U.S. sovereign debt continues to skyrocket. Not to mention domestic household and business debt, including student loan debt, at levels that collectively can never be repaid. National income, including the income of the very rich, is far less than the long-term liabilities, always payable with interest.

So again, where is the money going to come from for UBI or any other social program that can resolve the ongoing collapse not only of workers’ income but of the entire American middle class?

What we have steadfastly refused to face during the modern era is that no capitalist economy has ever succeeded in providing sufficient income through paid employment to support its population. Private enterprise has one goal: maximize income and minimize expenses, including labor costs. Thus the people who work for the private sector will never have enough money to buy what they produce. Class war is a given. Also, the race to maximize production results in long-term waste of resources, even perhaps global warming.

The U.S. did not emerge from the Great Depression until it first became the “arsenal of democracy” for Great Britain and France, then built its own war machine to fight in Europe and the Pacific. But Germany also had to use military rearmament as the convenient tool to regain its own prosperity after the devastation of World War I. Both sides unabashedly used war as a means to support their domestic economies.

Does this sound familiar? In the U.S. today, our own private sector is woefully inadequate to assure prosperity, especially with so many jobs outsourced abroad. So to compensate, we have maintained a huge military-industrial complex that from an economic standpoint is nothing but corporate welfare on a massive scale. Throw in government employment at the federal, state, and local levels, along with all the economic activity in the manufacturing and service sectors that feed directly off the spending power of public employees, and the myth of unabashed capitalism vanishes.

Boom times come only when the government spends. And since taxation totally fails to support such a system, government debt constantly grows. Always trying to keep one step ahead of economic collapse is a privately-owned and managed financial system, headed by the Federal Reserve, with its own army of employees kept busy shuffling numbers.

Then as every possible job is taken over by automation, which is the ultimate cost-cutting measure, consumer purchasing power falls even further, and disaster looms. This is the situation Andrew Yang is trying to address.

But it was figured out in the 1920s by a Scottish engineer name C.H. Douglas. In a series of books, Douglas explained the structural elements that ensure a perpetual gap between a nation’s income and its GDP. The main cause of the gap is savings, particularly retained earnings by businesses that need to invest for the future. Economist John Maynard Keynes saw the same thing. Keynes’s solution was government deficit spending, which helped bring us to where we are today.

But Douglas saw the gap between income and production as a positive, an indicator of a nation’s economic prosperity. So he proposed that an amount equivalent to the gap be issued to the public as an annual National Dividend. The system he proposed was called Social Credit. Douglas’s ideas are alive today among researchers in Great Britain and elsewhere. If applied worldwide the disastrous standoff among nations and blocs for supremacy and survival would change rapidly because the tensions created by unjust and untenable monetary structures would find relief other than through war and conquest.

I learned of Douglas’s ideas when I worked in the Carter White House in 1979-80 and immediately saw their applicability. Much later, I retired from the government in 2007, after spending the last 20 years with the U.S. Treasury Department. I wrote a book entitled We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform, where I traced the history of the debt-based monetary system and explained how Douglas’s Social Credit would solve the underlying problems. I also have spoken on the subject at the Public Banking Institute and other venues.

I believe Social Credit, aka UBI, would do the job, if implemented as a dividend and not through taxation. I hope Andrew Yang is listening.

*

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

Richard C. Cook is a retired federal government analyst. He is also the author of the definitive account of the Challenger disaster, “Challenger Revealed.” He may be reached at [email protected].

In Ecuador, the fight against IMF austerity measures is far from over. Just a few hours after my article was published on Sunday, 13 October, Ecuador  – and the IMF’s Killing Spree – President Lenin Moreno declared the infamous Decree 883 was canceled, i.e. the astronomical price increases for fuel were reversed, the (police) state of emergency and curfew were called off. He wanted to put an end to the 11 days of protests with police and military induced violence.

The police, supported by the army carried out repression during the protests, like they have not been seen in Ecuador’s recent history, claiming at least 7 death, about 1,340 injured and more than 1,100 arrested. The streets of Quito were an absolute chaos; destruction, fire, tear gas, smoke.

Austerity measures, other than an exorbitant hike in fuel prices, included shrinking government spending, laying off 23,000 state employees, privatization of social services and infrastructure – and more – all linked to the IMF loan of US$ 4.2 billion. These measures were apparently also “canceled”. At least, so it looked and sounded at the outset.

This seeming victory was achieved largely thanks to the indigenous movement, the Conaie (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador) – an umbrella organization of indigenous groups across Ecuador.They have relentlessly fought for their rights and against the ferocious abrogation of all the social benefits they acquired – finally – during the ten years of Rafael Correa’s socialist government – which served, and still serves, as an example for much of Latin America.

Not the indigenous groups, or anybody else of the Ecuadorian people – were consulted about the IMF loan. The basic IMF deal was already brokered in January 2019, when Lenin Moreno met Madame Lagarde, at that time still head of the IMF, at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. There were just some “minor issues” that Moreno had to resolve before he could sign this horrendous debt onto Ecuador’s books.

One of the “issues” was a request by the US via its extended arm, the IMF – to expel Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, to bring him closer to extradition to the US, where he may face the death penalty, or Guantanamo, for having said and published the truth about the atrocious war crimes committed by the United States. And neo-Nazi, Moreno, complied. Julian Assange is now slowly degenerating by torture and disease in a UK maximum security prison. And the world says nothing. Not even our “Peace Loving’ UN system. All is quiet. Not to molest the Chief-in-Tyrant, sitting on his cardboard throne in Washington.

Just a few days after British police dragged Julian Assange out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, the 4.2-billion-dollar loan / debt deal was signed. No coincidence. Assange was holed-up by self-imposed asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, for almost seven years, for justified fear of being “renditioned” to the US or another torturing US ally.

Now, when all the austerity measures were to be cancelled, by nullifying Decree 883, why did Moreno assemble a team of advisers to work out a new decree? Who are these advisers? People from the IMF, from the US Treasury – or simply “Fifth Columnists”, trained and funded by NED (National Endowment for Democracy)? – Why isn’t the decree and with it all IMF-imposed austerity simply canceled? Full stop?

In any case, Sunday night, Conaie reported that a “commission” was set up to “draft the decree that replaces it 883 – that this does not end until the agreement is fully implemented”.

Who is part of this commission and what exactly is the commission drafting? Will the commission prepare a new decree with new conditions? None of this is clear at this point. Is Conaie prepared to make conditions that in the long-rung could be disastrous? Does Conaie know that the empire never gives up, i.e. the IMF – as long as they have their dirty fingers in Ecuador with 4.2 billion dollars? No compromise, please, Conaie!

If anything, the new “decree” should include a clause requesting full cancellation of the IMF loan. Otherwise, the IMF will not let go, will come back in one form or another to grab Ecuador’s resources. That is the US doctrine, never depart from a goal – and it is extended through the IMF, the World Bank and through other financial institutions over which the US Treasury has control. This is modern warfare through a financial handle on a country, stealing accumulated social capital and natural resources by strictly enforced austerity programs – causing famine, disease, desperation, and death. See recent examples, Greece, Ukraine, Argentina.

Of course, it takes two to tango, and without a corrupt government on the other side, the IMF can do nothing.

What will happen to the protest leaders? Is this being covered by the new decree? The front men and women of a revolution that shook the country for eleven days? Many of the leaders, and others, are incarcerated as political prisoners and should be freed.

A new decree to replace the old one, Decree 883, smells like a rat; like a new deception is being prepared and the apparent “victory” is just a make-believe for the moment – to reinstate order in Quito and the country. Instead of crushing Ecuadorians with a bulldozer, i.e. the Decree 883 that attempted to shove all the IMF austerity measures down the throat of the Ecuadorians at once, it may come piecemeal, little by little, so the immediate impact will be less noticeable and eventually the sour bites are sliding better down the throat of Ecuadorians – so Moreno may expect. This would not be the first time that a Government weasels its way out of protests: Stop the “killer measures” for now, and reintroduce them later, slowly in a different format.

Conaie’s leaders are concerned about this. They have said so. They would like to know what the new decree contains, and want to have a say in its drafting, before they definitely call off their protests. What they really want, is the resignation of Lenin Moreno. That’s what they should aim for, because this man has already proven several times in only two years of presidency that he is a liar, cannot be trusted, and sells the people and their natural resources for the benefit of a small Ecuadorian elite and their foreign partners, mostly US oil corporations. Even if he were to cave in now, Moreno will come back, if allowed to stay in power, to neoliberalize the country. That’s his compact. That’s the premise under which he has been made president.

And, what nobody talked about, nor are there any reports in either mainstream or progressive news – is, what will happen with the US$ 4.2 billion IMF loan? – Why is it not cancelled? Is the cancellation of this loan going to be part of the new decree? Ecuador doesn’t need the loan. With a debt – GDP ratio of 40%, there is definitely no need whatsoever to call for IMF’s “help”. As proportion of GDP, Ecuador’s debt is only two-thirds of that of Germany.

Instead of foreign loans, Ecuador’s Government could call in the outstanding debt of about US$ 4.5 billion from fines, unpaid interests and other overdue fees from corporations and Ecuadorian oligarchs – so the government could recapitalize her treasury with own, interest free money. But instead, Moreno “forgave” the debt of the oligarchs, when contracting the IMF loan. That in itself is telling a lot. President Moreno used to be Correa’s Vice President, running on the same Platform, the center-left PAIS Alliance, turned tables less than a year into his presidency, destroyed the PAIS Alliance and betrayed his compatriots miserably.

Canceling an IMF loan is relatively easy. There is no law that would prevent Ecuador from withdrawing from the IMF deal, at no penalty. This has happened many times before. All that’s needed are politicians with a people-oriented mentality – a people’s friendly attitude – and the country would be rid of this debt and rid of the dictate of the IMF.

Conaie may consider insisting on two objectives before calling off the protests and moving back to their lands: One, canceling the IMF loan of US$ 4.2 billion, and two, suspending the Parliament and President Moreno of his functions; calling-in a caretaker government and planning new elections within 3 months; elections, in which Rafael Correa might again run for President.

*

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

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

Most Popular Articles This Week

October 18th, 2019 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Most Popular Articles This Week

“Voices from Syria”: Syria’s War for Humanity

October 17th, 2019 by Mark Taliano

Global Research Publishers bring you “Voices from Syria”, an important book by Mark Taliano. The book is available for order on our online store.

Click HERE to order.

Mark Taliano is an author and independent investigative reporter who travelled to Syria with the Third International Tour of Peace to Syria in 2016. In this book, he combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes mainstream media narratives about the dirty war on Syria.


**Voices from Syria** – Print Edition

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Pages: 128 (Includes 1 new chapter)

Year: 2017

List Price: $17.95

Special Offer: $9.95 

Click to order


PREFACE:

The Syrian Arab Republic (Syria) is an ancient holy land surrounded by terrorist-sup-porting countries that want to destroy it. These countries, in turn, are supported by the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The secular government of Syria is led by Bashar al-Assad, its elected President. al-Assad is progressive and forward-looking. The terrorists invading and occupying parts of the country are neither progressive nor forward-looking, and most Syrians are happy to be rid of them. Many Syrians are critical of al-Assad for being too soft on the terrorists. They have dubbed him Mr. Soft Heart.

Al-Assad has earned the support of most Syrians by providing for them and by protecting them. Healthcare and education, including higher education, are free in Syria. Before the externally orchestrated and perpetrated war on Syria started, Syria was one of the safest countries in the world to visit.

Now that the West has injected terrorists into the country and imposed illegal sanctions on Syrians, the war-torn country and its people are mostly defiant. The future of the country is theirs to decide, as per international law, and they will not be colonized. Their defiance comes easily thanks to the Western-supported, illegal “opposition” that confronts them.

Image: Author Mark Taliano

None of the “opposing” terrorists are moderate. They slaughter Christians, minorities, and Muslims alike. They seek a blank slate upon which to impose their extremist Wahhabi ideology, and they seek to erase both Syria’s history and its people.

Historical memory teaches us that the West’s use of proxy mercenaries is not new. The West has destroyed a series of countries in quick succession since 11 September 2001 (9/11), including but not limited to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, all by design, and always aided and abetted by mercenary ground troops.

But Syria has strong institutions and strong allies. It will be victorious, to the benefit of Syrians and humanity.

This book presents the story of Syria and Syrians as they struggle valiantly against NATO terrorism.

The narrative contradicts mainstream messaging, as it must. The West and its agencies could never garner public support for their genocidal campaigns if the truth emerged and was acknowledged by a broad base.

Truth leads to peace, but the governing polities that manipulate us and contaminate the public mindset enrich themselves through war, mass slaughter, and propaganda campaigns. Truth and justice are their unstated enemies.

This book aims to shed light on truth, justice and governing lies, with a view to expanding the reach of global peace and destroying the cancer of terrorism.

We initially recount the story of Syria as told by Syrians, unfiltered by mainstream media propaganda. We see and hear the trauma lived by defiant, heroic Syrians, and we discover that this ancient, holy land will surely survive the current barbarian invasion to rise again as a beacon of civilization, hope, and dignity.

The externally orchestrated war is being resolved internally – by Syrians, for Syrians –and the solutions are often the fruit of genuine democratic processes, in contrast to the processes masquerading as democracy in the West. Syria insists on being a sovereign nation.

We subsequently elaborate upon the real story of Syria and the drivers behind the current war, in which the US-led Empire is using terrorist proxies to advance its reach, contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of Syrians.

The alternative to Syria’s elected government is genocidal despotism and sharia law. The (non-existent) “moderates” cannot be separated from the “extremists” because all of the mercenary terrorists share the same goals and the same ideologies.

The predictable result of engineered deception is that domestic Western populations re-main deceived and politically passive. The truth is inverted and large swaths of our populations remain deluded. Whereas the West and its allies support all the terrorists invading Syria, our domestic populations think that we are fighting terrorism. This is the great fraud of the “Global War on Terrorism.”

Between 15 and 23 September 2016, I travelled to war-torn Syria because I sensed years ago that the official narratives being fed to North Americans across TV screens, in newsprint and on the internet were false.

The invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya were all based on lies; likewise for Ukraine. All of the post-9/11 wars were sold to Western audiences through a sophisticated network of interlocking governing agencies that disseminate propaganda to both domestic and foreign audiences.

But the dirty war on Syria is different. The degree of war propaganda levelled at Syria and contaminating humanity at this moment is likely unprecedented.

I had studied and written about Syria for years, so I was not entirely surprised by what I saw. What I felt was a different story.

Syria is an ancient land with a proud and forward-looking people. To this ancient and holy land we sent mercenaries, hatred, bloodshed and destruction. We sent strange notions of national exceptionalism and wave upon wave of lies.

As a visitor I felt shame, but Syrians welcomed me as one of them. These are their stories; these are their voices.


**Voices from Syria** – PDF Edition

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order


Excerpt from Foreword by Michel Chossudovsky:

We bring to the attention of our readers Mark Taliano’s Book entitled Voices from Syria. In contrast to most geopolitical analysts of the Middle East, Mark Taliano focusses on what unites humanity with the people of Syria in their struggle against foreign aggression. Taliano talks and listens to the people of Syria. He reveals the courage and resilience of a Nation and its people in their day to day lives, after more than five years of US-NATO sponsored terrorism and more than two years of US “peacemaking” airstrikes which have largely targeted Syria’s civilian infrastructure.

Taliano refutes the mainstream media. The causes and consequences of the US-led war on Syria, not to mention the extensive war crimes and atrocities committed by the terrorists on behalf the Western military alliance are routinely obfuscated by the media. He is committed to reversing the tide of media disinformation, by reaching out to Western public opinion on behalf of the Syrian people. Voices from Syria provides a carefully documented overview of life in Syria, the day to day struggle of the Syrian people to protect and sustain their national sovereignty.


Special: Voices from Syria + The Dirty War on Syria (Buy 2 books for 1 price!) 

Author Name: Mark Taliano / Tim Anderson

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-1-6 / 978-0-9737147-8-4

Year: 2017 / 2016

Pages: 128 / 240

List Price: $41.90

Special Price: $19.95

Click to order


Voices from Syria is also available via Amazon here

German language print version also available here

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Voices from Syria”: Syria’s War for Humanity

Damascus, December 2018. Two great independent journalists sit down together:

 Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley 


Eva Bartlett
: ‘when I arrived on the 29th (of December 2018) I was told that, aside from yourself (gestures to Vanessa Beeley), I was the only other western journalist in Syria. And it struck me not so much as surprising, in fact it’s more expected, that corporate media journalists could very well be here, but they’re not.’ 

Vanessa Beeley: ‘Well, there’s been silence in the media about what is effectively a victory for Syria, for the secularism of Syria against extremism and persecution and tyranny.’ 

***

In April 2017 I made my first trip to Syria because of these two inspiring women. Having been awakened to the bias, distortion and outright lies of the corporate media for
many years I had found others who shared my anger and frustration and had done my best through online campaigning an
d writing to challenge those who dare call them journalists but who obediently, enthusiastically and willfully amplify the narrative fed them by their official sources. Their stenography has abetted the murderous wars that have killed, literally, millions of innocent people and it is no slander to accuse these media criminals of having blood on their hands. And when it comes to Syria, the blood stains on those corporate journalists’ hands can never be washed away.

I didn’t trust mainstream media reports, of course, when they first talked of an ‘uprising’ in Syria and a ‘brutal’ crackdown by the government, but thanks to Vanessa Beeley (image right) and Eva Bartlett (image leftand their, sometimes, life-risking efforts to bring the truth out of Syria, I realised just how poi
soned the dark pool of propaganda against this sovereign nation actually was, and as time went on it was brought home to me, as I watched corporate journalists reporting from Beirut before introducing the latest White Helmet fictional production, that as an independent journalist myself, I simply had to go to Syria and report first-hand on what I found there. My co-editor at BSNewsMike Raddie, made the first journey for our website, in 2016 when I had been unable to join him, but in 2017 we both made the trip which was to change my life.

Damascus in April 2017 was still being shelled from Ghouta (the civilian death toll being now 11,000 deaths) and the district of Bab Touma where we were staying had been targeted, as both Vanessa and Eva have reported. So it was with a strange kind of joy that we drove through the Old City gate, guarded by Syrian Army soldiers, to arrive at our hotel. It was exhilarating knowing I was finally here! And the next morning, when the sound of an explosion in the near distance woke me up, there was a surreal sense that I had passed through into a parallel reality. But this was life for the people of Damascus: the waiters and waitresses glided back and forth throughout breakfast as the booms continued and in the streets people were going about their business much as you see here in this video I shot last year as we walked back to our hotel through Bab Touma.

That well-worn phrase ‘an indomitable spirit’  became infused with deeper meaning as I walked the streets of Damascus, Aleppo and Homs in 2017. The affect upon me of our visit to East Aleppo talking to residents who’d had children murdered by the terrorists is beyond my powers of description to fully convey, but it left a mark on my soul that will never be erased. In Homs, too, we met those who had suffered this most unimaginable of horrors, igniting a special kind of anguish within me fueled by the fact that the Syrian people are suffering at the hands of my own government which meant an involuntary apology hovered on my lips during my encounters. However, we were met everywhere with a moving understanding, being told more than once that ‘people are not their governments’, a sentiment I wrote about last year from Damascus where we happened to be when the UK, US and France bombed in ‘retaliation’ for the ‘Assad chemical attack’ in Douma, which was, of course, another despicable propaganda exercise.

We also returned to Aleppo last year, a city that has found a very special place in my heart, and to see it rising again with bustling cafes and building work everywhere I felt uplifted by the sheer resilience and bravery of a people who have resisted an imperial onslaught that has ravaged and devoured so many other nations.

The Syrian people have given up their sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters to be martyred in a battle for all our survival; how tragic then that news consumers in the West do not know what a debt they owe. George Orwell couldn’t have written anything more sinister and Goebbels himself could not have devised a more nefarious propaganda strategy than the one to which Syria has been subjected. I have seen time and again in my everyday life how those who are happy to be spoon fed their news by corporate sources react on command to the ‘trusted’ information they absorb. But these willfully ignorant citizens in Western countries carry a responsibility for the carnage in Syria and they must learn – they will learn in the end – that there was no fence to sit on when crimes of this magnitude were being committed by their governments. I once read that western populations are the most ignorant and apathetic in the world and I have to agree.

How could corporate journalists get away with their lies if they were consistently held to account by an awakened audience? This is the job of every responsible citizen, not just a few independent activists like myself who have taken up the pen in order to expose the rotten nexus that is setting the world aflame for profit and power. It has to stop. And Syria has been the field upon which the endgame has played out, testing every one of us to stand up and declare our allegiances. Thoreau wrote in 1849 that slavery called upon every person to declare their opposition to it and to act upon that moral stance even if it meant imprisonment. He stated that the issue divides nations, communities, families, and even the individual, separating ‘the diabolical in him from the divine.’ And so it is with Syria.

This conflict has tested even seasoned media activists and found them wanting: Media Lens have refused to support Vanessa Beeley, a journalist embodying everything they have pleaded for in their books and online output for almost twenty years. They could not bear the heat of the fire that Vanessa lives with every day for even a moment, and so they have helped to suppress the voices of Syrians, ironically aiding the very forces they have railed against for so long. They folded when it truly mattered, unlike their ally John Pilger who publicly and unequivocally declared his support for Vanessa from the start without hesitation.

When the truth is at stake our actions tell us who we really are.

And for the independent journalist that means knowingly devoting yourself to a path that will never bring the material rewards or accolades of a corporate career.

But what price integrity? What price truth? We fund ourselves with part-time jobs or much appreciated donations and we have, in reality, something a corporate hack will never know – freedom.

And no amount of money in the world can buy that. I have crowdfunded my upcoming trip to Syria and I’m incredibly grateful to everyone who helped me reach my target so that I can now go. Support for journalism that counters the mainstream’s lies is never more vital than in this historical moment. The voices of the Syrian people must be brought out for the world to hear.

There are just a few days left before my funder closes and every penny beyond my target will be used to that end. Thank you.

Support Alison at Alison Banville’s crowdfunder 

 

*

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 Truth About Syria.”How Could Corporate Journalists Get Away with Their Lies…”
  • Tags:

Video: Syrian Army Entering Kobani and Raqqa

October 17th, 2019 by South Front

On October 16, units of the Syrian Army entered the city of Raqqah for the first time since 2014. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) has controlled the city since 2017, when they with help from the United States seized it from ISIS. The Syrian Army reportedly established several observation posts in the area and continued deployment within the SDF-held area.

According to pro-government sources, government troops are also preparing to enter the Omar oil fields. A day earlier, on October 15, Syrian troops and Russian Military Police units started patrolling the contact line between Turkish-backed forces and the SDF near Manbij.

On October 16, US-led coalition forces withdrew from the Kharab Ashk military base where dozens of US and French troops had been deployed. US-led forces burned the base in order to destroy equipment that they were not able to evacuate.

Watch the video here.

The Turkish Army and Turkish-backed militants are developing their offensive on SDF positions. They captured thirteen villages west of Tell Abyad and made another attempt to secure Ras al-Ayn. According to pro-SDF sources, 49 Turkish-backed militants were killed in an SDF counter-attack in the town. SDF units employed US-supplied military equipment. Pro-Turkish militants captured a Humvee armored vehicle near the town.

There are also reports that the SDF and the Syrian Army jointly recaptured the villages of al-Ahras, al-Rihaniyah and Manajir from Turkish-led forces south of Ras al-Ayn. Nonetheless, this was a tactical development involving Turkish proxies only. It is not likely that government forces and the SDF will carry out large-scale joint operations attacking positions of the Turkish Army. The main reason is that such an attack may lead to a large-scale escalation in the region and even a limited open conflict between Syria and Turkey.

*

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

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

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

On October 7, 2019, the U.S. President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of American troops from northeast Syria, where the contingent alongside Kurdish militias controlled the vast territories. Trump clarified that the decision is connected with the intention of Turkey to attack the Kurdish units, posing a threat to Ankara.

It’s incredible that the Turkish military operation against Kurds – indeed the territorial integrity of Syria has resulted in the escape of the U.S., Great Britain, and France. These states essentially are key destabilizing components of the Syrian crisis.

Could this factor favourably influence the situation in the country? For instance, after the end of the Iraqi war in 2011 when the bulk of the American troops left the country, the positive developments took place in the lives of all Iraqis. According to World Economics organization, after the end of the conflict, Iraq’s GDP grew by 14% in 2012, while during the U.S. hostilities the average GDP growth was about 5,8%.

Syria’s GDP growth should also be predicted. Not right away the withdrawal of U.S., French, British, and other forces, but a little bit later after the end of the Turkish operation that is not a phenomenon. The Turkish-Kurdish conflict has been going on since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire when Kurds started to promote the ideas of self-identity and independence. Apart from numerous human losses, the Turks accomplished nothing. It is unlikely that Ankara would achieve much in Peace Spring operation. The Kurds realize the gravity of the situation and choose to form an alliance with the Syrian government that has undermined the ongoing Turkish offensive.

Under these circumstances, Erdogan could only hope for the creation of a narrow buffer zone on the Syrian-Turkish border. The withdrawal of the Turkish forces from the region is just a matter of time. However, we can safely say that the Turkish expansion unwittingly accelerated the peace settlement of the Syrian crisis, as the vital destabilizing forces left the country. Besides, the transfer of the oil-rich north-eastern regions under the control of Bashar Assad will also contribute to the early resolution of the conflict.

It remains a matter of conjecture what the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia agreed on during the high-level talks. Let’s hope that not only the Syrians, but also key Gulf states are tired of instability and tension in the region, and it’s a high time to strive for a political solution to the Syrian problem.

*

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 Could Turkish Aggression Boost Peace in Syria? Has Triggered Exit of US, Britain and France
  • Tags: ,