The government of Japan intends to intensify negotiations with Russia to resolve the territorial issue and conclude a peace treaty. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe once again reminded about this in his keynote speech at the parliament opening session.

“By solving the territorial issue, we will conclude a peace treaty,” the Prime Minister stressed. “Relying on the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956, we will advance the negotiations to a new level and open up huge opportunities in Japanese-Russian relations.”

Meanwhile, amid the stagnation of Russian-Japanese relations, we see another qualitative increase in Russian-Chinese ties, including the most sensible areas.

Russia is helping China create a Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. This was stated last week by Russian b during a discussion at the 16th annual meeting of the Valdai club.

“This is a very serious thing that will dramatically increase China’s defense capability because only the US and Russia have such a system now,” the President said.

As the media have found out, specialists of the Vympel interstate corporation developing missile and space defense systems, are working to design the Chinese national ballistic missile early warning system. This came from Vympel Director General Sergey Boyev.

Balance of forces

The Russian missile warning system like that of the United States, comprises satellites that monitor rocket launches using infrared sensors, as well as beyond-the-horizon radars that can track any activity in the air and space over the distance of several thousand kilometers. The third, and perhaps the key component of the system is computation centers able to rapidly process a huge amount of information appearing in case of a missile attack and present their findings to the military-political leadership in a very few minutes. And the latter will decide whether to strike back or ward off the attack by missile defense means.

Beijing officially declared an unconditional non-use of nuclear weapons apart from the need to strike back. However, until now, the PRC has never had a full-fledged missile warning system, which could entail China’s being caught flatfooted and result in a disarming blow of the enemy. On the contrary, the deployment of a missile warning system will seriously increase China’s ability for a backstroke or retaliatory strike, and this possibility forms the basis for mutual nuclear deterrence worked out in Soviet-American relations. Nuclear capabilities of China and the United States are equalized. Besides, the military potential of China and Russia on the one hand, and that of the United States and Japan on the other, are becoming increasingly comparable in the Far East as a whole.

Although it seems that cooperation between Moscow and Beijing in this area has been going on for some time, it is now that the Russian President has made it public. The main reason was obviously America’s withdrawal from the INF in August this year. At the same time, the US motivated its decision by the need to  deter China.

A significant part of the US nuclear triad is traditionally aimed at this already. Moreover, China is concerned about the advance of American long-range equipment with high-precision non-nuclear weapons, particularly sea-and air-based cruise missiles. On the other hand, retaliatory attacks by the Chinese missile warning systems may be countered by the strategic missile defense system in Alaska, California (GBI), and more recently in South Korea, as well as missile defense means onboard the warships of both the United States and Japan. Let’s not forget about the striking capabilities of the Aegis Ashore missile defense system Japan plans to deploy in its territory.

At the same time, a ballistic missile early warning system implies the creation of China’s own missile defense system; and while the Russian and Chinese militaries have already conducted two joint missile defense computer simulations, with the third one being prepared, the issue of cooperation in this area may also meet the interests of the two countries’ military and political leadership.

Why does Russia need this?

According to former deputy air defense commander of the Russian Ground Troops Alexander Luzan, Russia considers such cooperation important because in case of creating a single information space and data exchange, Chinese radars will add to better safety of our country from the East. He stressed that Vladivostok and Primorye are protected, while deeper areas are not. “We once tried to place our complexes in Mongolia, but it did not work out very well. Therefore, if the Chinese close this “tongue piece”, it will be very important for Russia,” the expert told the Russian media.

In general, the Kremlin has once again demonstrated its being persistently engaged in expanding the content of its strategic partnership with China, based, among other things, on military interdependence.

*

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 Russia and China Reach New Level of Military Cooperation. China’s Missile Early Warning System

Indonesia is currently in the throes of an environmental emergency. Thousands of hectares of forest are burning across the vast country, causing toxic smoke to be released into the atmosphere. This has led to eerie apocalyptic scenes of deep red skies, deserted streets and people with their faces covered with masks.

Such fires send huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. The last massive outbreak, in 2015, saw the fires emitting more greenhouse gases than the entire US. They’re also a disaster for the orangutans and other wildlife in the forest.

But what about the impact on affected humans? Who is at risk – and how?

Wildfires and haze are not uncommon in Indonesia. Small-scale farmers have traditionally used small and well-controlled fires to clear land for the planting of new crops, but now the fires are getting bigger and more frequently burning out of control.

Partly, this is because the amount of land devoted to commercial production has steadily increased. Carbon-rich peatland forests on the islands of Sumatra and Kalimantan have been extensively cleared to create new plantations, often to produce palm oil. Weak land tenure security has also led to conflicts between local communities and plantation companies, where burning land has become a weapon to exercise pressure. All this has been exacerbated by the El Niño weather phenomenon which in some years has caused extraordinarily dry conditions.

What’s at stake?

So far, more than 35,000 fires have been detected in 2019 in the country and air pollution levels are classified as “hazardous” according to the Air Quality Index (AQI). This year’s fires have been indeed the worst since 2015, when more than 2.5m hectares of land burned, causing a US$16 billion loss – a substantially larger sum than even the reconstruction costs of the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami. But exposure to the wildfires and their subsequent toxic smoke also causes short and long-term damage to human lives.

The smoke generated by burning wood and vegetation contains lots of very fine particles, too small for the human eye to see. These particles can easily lodge deep into the lungs and can pass into other organs or the bloodstream.

To see what mass exposure to this sort of pollution may mean in the longer term, we can look at the effects of massive wildfires in late 1997, which burned more than 5m hectares of land and sent a huge pollution cloud across South-East Asia. Before 2015, these were Indonesia’s biggest fires on record.

Various researchers have analysed data from population surveys taken during and after the fires, and found that the smoke generated by the fires harmed adult health and child survival rates at the time, and led to lower health and educational achievements in the longer-term.

For instance, one study found that exposure to the toxic smoke resulted in significant worsening of physical functioning. These effects were especially prolonged among women aged 30-55 years and older adults.

Other research has found that smoke-contaminated air, soil and food is particularly bad for pre and postnatal health. Toxicants inhaled by the mother interferes with her health, which in turn disrupts foetal nutrition and oxygen flow. One study found that exposure to the Indonesian wildfires of late 1997 lead to more than 15,600 child, infant, and foetal deaths, or a 1.2 percentage point decrease in the survival of the exposed cohorts. Poorer people were worst affected.

A family rides through thick haze in Kalimantan, 2015. Aulia Erlangga/CIFOR, CC BY-NC-SA

Finally, child nutrition and health can be directly impaired through inhaling toxicants or ingesting them in contaminated raw food, and as a result of the temporary lack of adequate care given by unhealthy adult family members.

My own research, published earlier in 2019, is relevant here. I looked at young children aged 12-36 months living in the affected islands of Sumatra and Kalimantan during the 1997 fires, and I compared them with a comparable group of children who lived in areas not affected by the fires.

I found that exposure to the fires resulted in a significantly slower growth rate of about 1mm per month within the three-month period between first exposure to the fires in September 1997 and the final measurement that December. Doesn’t sound like much? Well bear in mind that children that age are growing around 1cm a month, so those that I studied were losing a tenth of their growth rate.

The 1997 haze lasted for just a few months. But a few months is a long time when you are a toddler, and for the cohort I studied the fires happened during a critical period where brain development is more sensitive to nutritional shocks. This then had important repercussions when these children reached school age: on average they delayed enrolment in primary school by six months, and eventually achieved almost one year less of education compared to the group not affected by fires.

It is not yet clear whether 2019’s fires will reach the scale of the disasters seen in 1997 or 2015. But these studies all imply that exposure to the wildfires entails a real risk for human well-being. Previous generations of Indonesian children paid the price – if we are to ensure today’s children don’t suffer similar problems, then action needs to be taken to protect the most vulnerable.

*

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.

Maria C. Lo Bue is Research Associate, Development Economics, United Nations University

Featured image is from Twitter/@mefibiger

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Indonesia’s Huge Forest Fires, Toxic Haze Will Cause Health Problems for Years to Come

The 31st October looms large. Boris Johnson’s career may be ‘dead in a ditch’ or maybe the ‘do-or-die’ strategy produces a deal or possibly something else. One thing is for sure, Britain does not need a specific trade deal with America, other than the one it already has. The proof of that statement comes from a largely unreported but an extensive 2018 cross-Whitehall study of the costs and benefits of Brexit. It estimated, in its own words – “that a US free trade agreement would increase UK GDP by only 0.2 per cent after 15 years“, a tiny fraction of the expected loss of trade from the EU and additional costs of Brexit during that time.

The warnings given to government about Brexit have come thick and fast, especially in the last 12 months where time has allowed more in-depth analysis of the likely effects of Brexit – deal or no-deal. These warnings have come from the most respected organisations and institutions in Britain such as the – Confederation of British Industry, Department for International Trade, Bank of England, The Office for Budget responsibility, and Centre of Economic Performance. Then there have been industry sectors such as financial services, motor, agricultural and even the UK Warehousing Association that have issued warnings of the scale of problems that various forms of Brexit brings.

Two days ago, another warning was issued. This time according to a leaked government document written by civil servants at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The FT has published an article that highlights this warning where Ministers have been bluntly told that the UK’s efforts to strike a US trade deal after Brexit could “severely limit” Britain’s ability to negotiate an equivalent agreement with the EU.

“The document written by civil servants at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggests the US is likely to press the UK to relax measures to protect humans, animals and plants from disease, pests and contaminants ahead of finalising a trade deal. Donald Trump’s administration is pushing for access to the British market for US chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-fed beef, which both fall short of the EU’s so-called sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS). The UK is expected to come under pressure from the US to allow more imports by American agrifoods companies by relaxing rules governing animal welfare and pesticide residue levels, among other things. The leaked document, which was prepared for environment secretary Theresa Villiers last month, outlines the potential consequences of the UK acceding to Mr Trump’s demands for a less stringent approach to SPS standards as Britain seeks free-trade agreements with countries across the world.”

“Any significant movement could have implications for our other [free-trade agreements] or export arrangements, which are based on existing standards,” says the document. “In particular, agreeing to the US asks could severely limit our ability to negotiate an agreement with the EU . . . EU concerns about the risk of non-compliant goods entering its territory would, for instance, be heightened if the UK acceded to US demands on chlorine-washed chicken.” The Defra document also acknowledges that relaxing SPS standards in the UK in order to get a US trade deal could damage public health. “Weakening our SPS regime to accommodate one trade partner could irreparably damage our ability to maintain UK animal, plant and public health, and reduce trust in our exports,” it says.

In certain circumstances it could even lead to the EU imposing a hard border on the island of Ireland to protect the bloc’s single market, adds the paper.

The leaked document also suggests that the Department for International Trade will press Defra to accede to the Trump administration’s demands.

“Defra will come under significant pressure from DIT to accommodate the US’s asks,” it says. “DIT are concerned about the ability for controversial SPS issues to hold up [free-trade agreement] negotiations [with the US].” Brussels has a more conservative approach to environmental and food policy than the US, including on SPS. Liz Truss, trade secretary, said at a fringe event at the Conservative party conference that while she was “proud” of Britain’s high environmental standards she wanted to take “a much more free-market approach”.

In the meantime, the USA is pressing the EU even harder for it to reduce its standards by ramping up the beginnings of its trade war – a trade war that the EU could do without as its economy is stalling, especially with the threat of Brexit and a global economic slow-down becoming more certain.

And like Britain’s warning, the EU has its own report (published in late August) which cautioned of the serious risks of a trade agreement for public health, consumer rights and the environment by doing a deal with the USA.

In “Trading Away Protection” lobby watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory laid out the attempts of US negotiators to launch a renewed attack on EU precautionary measures for the safety of chemicals, food and GMOs, while also explaining that EU negotiators are pushing for US acceptance of EU product approval rules, so-called conformity assessment, which has proved highly flawed in sensitive areas such as medical devices.

The trouble is – it looks like the EU will buckle first under the pressure of fighting on multiple economic fronts. The result is that the spectre of an emerging TTIP style deal has just raised its ugly head once again. These meetings are being held in secret given that public reaction to the last TTIP deal caused waves of protest across the 28 nation trading bloc and America before it was dropped two years ago.

Corporate Europe Observatory trade researcher Kenneth Haar said:

The worst thing that could happen would be both sides getting their way. EU safety standards for chemicals, GMOs, pesticides, and foods would take a massive hit and the US would see some of its product approval systems undermined by a more lax European approach.

“The result could be consumers in the EU being forced to eat non-labelled gene-manipulated foods that have been treated with toxic pesticides, while patients in the US could wind up with unsafe implants. This must not be allowed to happen.

“It is provoking to see EU negotiators once again keeping their moves in the dark. There is even less transparency around the current negotiations than there was around TTIP. While the Commission is consulting in-depth with European corporations, the public is not kept informed in any meaningful way.”

*

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

Featured image is from TP

Adobe is deactivating all user accounts in Venezuela, saying that the action is necessary to comply with an executive order issued by President Donald Trump. The action affects both free and paid accounts.

In an FAQ titled “Adobe compliance with US Executive Order,” the company explained yesterday why it is canceling its Venezuela-based customers’ subscriptions:

The US Government issued Executive Order 13884, the practical effect of which is to prohibit almost all transactions and services between US companies, entities, and individuals in Venezuela. To remain compliant with this order, Adobe is deactivating all accounts in Venezuela.

Adobe appears to be interpreting the executive order more broadly than other companies. Microsoft’s Office 365 and other cloud services are still available in Venezuela, for example. The executive order itself says the US action is targeted at the Venezuelan government and people who provide material support to the regime.

A US government notice states that the order does not affect all commerce between the US and Venezuela.

“US persons are not prohibited from engaging in transactions involving the country or people of Venezuela, provided blocked persons or any conduct prohibited by any other Executive order imposing sanctions measures related to the situation in Venezuela, are not involved,” the notice says. (In this context, a “person” is an individual or an entity such as a corporation or other type of organization.)

Adobe won’t give refunds

Adobe says it has no idea when or if it will reactivate customer accounts.

“Executive Order 13884 was issued with no expiration date—the decision to rescind it rests solely with the US Government,” Adobe wrote. “We will continue to monitor developments closely and will make every effort to restore services to Venezuela as soon as it is legally permissible to do so.”

According to Adobe, the company is not allowed to provide refunds.

“We are unable to issue refunds. Executive order 13884, orders the cessation of all activity with the entities including no sales, service, support, refunds, credits, etc.,” Adobe said.

Adobe is giving users in Venezuela until October 28 to download any content they have stored in their Adobe accounts. Files can be downloaded from Creative Cloud, Lightroom, Document Cloud, and Adobe Spark.

As previously mentioned, Adobe’s action will cut off access to users with either paid subscriptions or free accounts.

“Adobe will no longer provide access to software and services, including free ones, or enable you to make any new purchases,” the company said.

Adobe said it might take the same action in other countries. To comply, Adobe said it is

“ceasing all activity with entities and individuals in Venezuela as well as those who otherwise meet the criteria of Executive Order 13884 or other US sanctions regulations.”

The Trump order

Trump’s executive order, issued on August 5, was titled, “Blocking Property of the Government of Venezuela.” The order was a response to Venezuela’s ongoing presidential crisis following a disputed election held in May 2018.

The US supports Juan Guaidó’s claim to the presidency and describes President Nicolás Maduro as a usurper. The White House said Trump’s executive order is intended to “isolate Maduro’s illegitimate regime from the global financial system and the international community.”

As the Washington Post wrote in August, the Trump order “blocks all property and assets of the government and its officials, and prohibits any transactions with them, including the Venezuelan Central Bank and the state oil company.”

There was disagreement among experts on how wide-ranging the executive order is.

 “This is not an embargo. It does not create penalties for business with Venezuela altogether, it just denies such activities with the government of Venezuela, and it is doubtful there were any of those still extant to be cut off by this action,” former State Department official Richard Nephew told The New York Times in August.

“In theory, a US company can continue to deal with non-governmental companies in Venezuela, and we do not believe the US will be inclined to sanction privately owned Venezuelan companies,” the National Law Review wrote.

However, Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodríguez told the Times that “financial institutions will be cautious not to make dealings with Venezuelan private sector firms, which could be perceived as proxies for the Venezuelan government.”

*

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

Jon Brodkin is Ars Technica’s senior IT reporter, covering the FCC and broadband, telecommunications, wireless technology, and more.

Featured image is from Pixabay

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Adobe Cancels All User Accounts in Venezuela to Comply with Trump Order
  • Tags: , ,

“When we’re in the beginning of an ecological and climate collapse,” said the lawmaker who introduced the measure, “I hope we can re-think our relationship with Nature.”

***

Heralded as the first of its kind in Europe, a proposed constitutional amendment in Sweden seeks to enshrine the rights of Nature to ensure that the creatures, fona, and features of the natural world are protected from exploitation and abuse by endowing them with legal status previously reserved only for humans and select animals.

The proposed amendment to Sweden’s Instrument of Government, the nation’s constitutional document, would secure the Rights of Nature to “existera, blomstra, regenerera och utvecklas“—which translates as “exist, flourish, regenerate, and evolve”—in order to provide the people and government of Sweden the ability to defend and enforce these rights on behalf of Nature.

Introduced by Swedish MP Rebecka Le Moine with the backing of a coalition of national and international groups—including Rights of Nature Sweden, Lodyn, and the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund’s International Center for the Rights of Nature—the change to Swedish law mirrors that of others in the world but, if passed, would set a new precedent in Europe.

“For twenty years, we have been working with the national environmental goals in Sweden. After all this time, we are barely reaching two of them,” Le Moine said in a statement on Tuesday.

“The underlying value in our society is that we are the dominators of this world, and Nature is just a resource for us to use,” she continued. “Economic growth has been the real goal, not a healthy environment. I’m tired of this era, where our arrogant worldview has driven us far beyond the planetary boundaries. Now, when we’re in the beginning of an ecological and climate collapse, I hope we can re-think our relationship with Nature. And for me, it starts with admitting that Nature has rights.”

On its website, the group Rights of Nature Sweden explained the process for having the amendment adopted this way:

A proposed rights of nature amendment to the Constitution could be introduced directly into the Riksdag by Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament may introduce private motions for consideration by the Riksdag. This occurs in the autumn, when the Riksdag opens, during which time Members may propose private motions. Each motion is referred to a parliamentary committee for its review and consideration (a rights of nature amendment possibly would be referred to the Committee on the Constitution, or the Committee on the Environment and Agriculture). The committee then examines the motion and presents a proposal for how the Riksdag should decide before it adopts a position in the Chamber.

As the group also noted, this approach to defending the natural world is hardly new, with legal rights of nature having already been “recognized in laws and court decisions in the United States, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, India, New Zealand, and Colombia.”

Mari Margil, associate director of CELDF’s International Center for the Rights of Nature, championed the proposal and thanked Le Moine for her leadership.

“We need to quickly make a fundamental shift in our relationship with the natural world,” Margil said. “Advancing the Rights of Nature in Sweden’s constitution is an important step forward. We congratulate Parliamentarian Le Moine on taking this politically brave, and necessary, step.”

*

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

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

Featured image is from Peter Lesseur / EyeEm/ iStock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on In European First, Proposed Constitutional Amendment in Sweden Would Enshrine Rights of Nature

British Unions Vote to Boycott Israel

October 9th, 2019 by Glen Davies

“At the moment we’re looking at a people lacking the control that allows them to function as a society — water, the freedom to travel, the basic right to safety,” said Martin Sundram, delegate for the Artists’ Union of England (AUE) at the annual congress of the British trade union movement.

The AUE tabled Motion 75, titled “Palestine: supporting rights to self-determination,” to the conference, stating unequivocally that “Trump’s ‘deal of the century’ is an attempt to destroy core Palestinian rights”.

Representing more than 5.5 million members, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) is the peak British union representative body, equivalent to the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU).

The AUE’s Palestine motion was passed unanimously on September 11, according to the TUC’s report.

The motion affirmed the collective rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to return to their homes, called for a stop to the British arms trade with Israel, and reaffirmed the union movement’s call to boycott companies complicit with the Israeli settlement industry.

Philippa Marsden, executive council member of Unite, Britain’s second-largest union, said:

“Increasing numbers of annexations and the building of illegal settlements has built a string of mini-Gazas across the country. All of us here must redouble our efforts to build solidarity with the Palestinian people.”

Unions and Palestine solidarity

Palestine has long been on the campaign platform of many trade unions around the world. However, it was the shocking mass destruction of the Gaza Strip in the 2008-09 Operation Cast Lead Israeli military offensive that galvanised many in the union movement.

The TUC’s 2009 Congress did not mince words in condemning Israel’s attacks on Gaza, even going so far as to call out Israeli union federation, the Histadrut: “Congress condemns the Histadrut statement of 13 January 2009 in which it backed the attacks on Gaza and calls on the General Council to carry out a review of the TUC’s relationship with Histadrut.”

The TUC also called for an end to the British arms trade with Israel, the suspension of the European Union-Israel Association Agreement and, for the first time, a boycott of Israeli settlement products and divestment from companies association with the Israeli occupation.

The following year, after the international outcry over Israel’s naval attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, in which 10 Turkish activists were killed, the TUC condemned Israel’s “deadly assault on activists on the Mavi Marmara” and its ongoing blockade of Gaza.

The TUC again excoriated the Israeli Histadrut federation for its May 2010 statement “which sought to justify the Israeli action” and encouraged its member unions, employers and pension funds to boycott and divest from companies involved in the Israeli settlement industry and occupation.

Over the following decade, the British union movement built its Palestine solidarity campaign around calls to end Britain’s arms trade with Israel and support for the non-violent Palestinian civil society call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS).

Support for the boycott call grows

The grossly disproportionate Israeli attacks on Gaza in 2009 and on the Freedom Flotilla in 2010, the ongoing Israeli blockade of Gaza, the ever-expanding Israeli settlement drive and a moribund peace process, were among many factors that spurred international trade unions into action on Palestine.

In 2009, dockworkers from the Maritime Union Western Australia branch and the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union called for a boycott on the servicing of Israeli-registered ships at their ports.

Following the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident and the 2014 Operation Protective Edge Israeli military offensive against Gaza, many unions and communities established picket lines at ports around the world to protest the docking of Israeli ships.

A broad coalition of Palestinian unions issued a statement in 2011 calling on unions around the world to support the call for BDS against Israel until it complies with international law.

Trade unions in Brazil urged a military embargo and succeeded in cancelling a state contract with Israeli arms manufacturer, Elbit Systems.

In Norway, unions supported consumer boycotts of Israeli settlement products and urged their government pension fund to divest from companies operating in the Israeli settlements.

An innovative initiative of establishing “apartheid-free zones” was mounted in Spain. A network of 34 European unions pledged to “take effective action … for holding our governments and the EU as a representative body accountable.”

The New Zealand peak union body endorsed the BDS campaign in late 2009.

The response in Australia

In Australia, the ACTU issued condemnations of Israeli attacks, as did dozens of individual Australian unions.

The outrage was enough to see about 27 Australian unions join the Palestinian BDS call, endorsing boycotts of the Israeli settlement industry, arms embargoes or super fund divestment.

These included the peak national bodies of the Australian Education Union (AEU), the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU), the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union (CFMEU), and the Electrical Trades Union (ETU), as well as state-based Trades and Labour Councils.

Like much of the British union movement, solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine features in many Australian union campaigns.

At its 2018 triennial congress, the ACTU called for Palestinian self-determination within a two-state solution.  However, the “two-state solution” mantra has virtually disappeared as Israel lurches further to becoming “a right-wing society that has no problem with apartheid”.

The Australian union movement is yet to find its legs on serious, coordinated mobilisations around active solidarity with their Palestinian union colleagues.

Early admirable actions by the WA dockworkers have not been carried through to other sectors. The ACTU is yet to come out as strongly as its British, NZ and other international counterparts on actions to hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law and human rights abuses against the Palestinian people.

At the TUC Congress, Ben Jamal, director of the British Palestine Solidarity Campaign said: “The message from every major union was clear.

“We understand the seriousness of the assault on the collective rights of the Palestinian people being mounted by Israel with the support of Trump and far-right allies.

“We will ramp up our collective response and reaffirm our support for a policy of boycott and divestment.”

There is power in the union saying “an injustice to one is an injustice to all”. The time is now for Australian unions to step up for Palestine.

[Learn more at Australian Unionists Supporting Palestine or on Twitter @auspalestine).]

*

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 Bullet

Who Are the Real Friends of the Troops?

October 9th, 2019 by Jacob G. Hornberger

Ever since the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it has been an article of faith that Americans should thank the troops for their service in those two countries.

Yet, with the exception of libertarians and few leftists, the fact is that during the two decades of death, injury, suffering, destruction, and out of control federal spending and debt that threatens to send the government into bankruptcy, the overwhelming majority of Americans never openly demanded that the U.S. government bring the troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq.

There certainly haven’t been any massive antiwar protests, like there was with the Vietnam War. Instead, this time around there has been a mindset of deference to the authority of the Pentagon and the CIA to protect national security, especially after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Through it all there has been this incessant desire to thank the troops for their service. You see it airports, where people go out of their way to thank the troops for their service. You see it at baseball games, where the public-address announcer asks people to stand and thank the troops for their service. You see it in churches all across America, where ministers exhort their congregations to pray for the brave troops who are serving our nation overseas.

This all seems very strange to me because the people who feel the need to thank the troops for their service never seem to ask what the service consists of? It’s almost like it doesn’t matter. One gets the distinct feeling that so long as an American thanks the troops for their service, their duty is done. Leave it to U.S. officials to decide what the service is and whether the service should continue. All that matters is that we thank the troops for their service.

Service in Iraq

Let’s examine Iraq. What exactly was the service that the troops performed in Iraq for which people thank them? Was it a meritorious service? For some reason, many people who thank the troops for their service never ask those questions. They consider them irrelevant. Those are matters for the Pentagon and the CIA to determine, they say. Regardless, we just need to keep thanking the troops for their service.

Nonetheless, there are two reasonable possibilities for what the service consisted of in Iraq: one, the troops were sacrificing themselves to protect the freedom of the American people, and, two, they were sacrificing themselves to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. I think most Americans who go out of their way to thank the troops for their service in Iraq subconsciously settle on one or both of these two rationales for thanking them.

Yet, both rationales for invading and occupying Iraq and wreaking death and destruction across the country have always false and fallacious, which is perhaps why people don’t like thinking about them.

It was undisputed that Iraq never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. That made the United States the aggressor power in the conflict, and it meant that Iraq was the defending nation. Under international law and the principles set forth at the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal, the United States was the nation that was involved in criminal conduct when it invaded and occupied Iraq, killing and injuring thousands of Iraqis in the process, none of whom had ever attacked the United States.

The illegality of the invasion was aggravated by the fact that President George W. Bush, who ordered the troops to invade Iraq, never secured the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war on Iraq. That made the war illegal not only under international law but also under our own system of government.

Thus, the service the troops performed in Iraq never had anything to do with protecting our freedoms here at home because our freedoms were never threatened by one single Iraqi or by the Iraqi government. Under international law and the law of the U.S. Constitution, the service in which the president had his troops engaged in Iraq was criminal in nature.

The Pentagon called its invasion and occupation of Iraq “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” which implied the second rationale for thanking the troops for their service — that they were bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. Once again, it needs to be pointed out that international law and the U.S. Constitution do not authorize the U.S. government to invade and occupy a country with the aim of bringing freedom to the citizenry, especially when lots of the citizenry are going to have to be killed and maimed in the process of bringing freedom to them.

Moreover, there was never a chance that the Iraqi people were going to be freed, given that the particular governmental structure that the Pentagon and the CIA were going to establish in Iraq after overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s dictatorial regime. The type of government that the Pentagon and the CIA established was never going to be a limited-government republic, which is a type of governmental structure that is consistent with freedom. Instead, the plan was to establish a national-security state type of government, which is a totalitarian type of governmental structure. That necessary meant another crooked and corrupt dictatorial regime in Iraq, no different in principle from that of Saddam Hussein.

In other words, the U.S. government, operating through the troops, ousted one dictatorial regime and simply replaced it with another. The idea though was that since the new one would supposedly be pro-U.S., that would mean, by definition, that the Iraqi people would then be free — well, at least those who survived the invasion and occupation.

As we are now seeing in Iraq today, the Iraqi government is killing Iraqi citizens for protesting the crookedness and corruption of the dictatorial regime that the Pentagon and the CIA installed into power. That is not exactly the model for free society. Quite the contrary! The Iraqi government that the Pentagon and the CIA installed into power is nothing more than Saddam Hussein type of dictatorial regime.

Read this article, entitled Love and War, that appeared in the October 3, 2019, issue of the Washington Post. It’s a moving and emotional account by a widow whose husband lost in leg in Iraq owing to a bomb that exploded near him. He returned to the United States, got addicted to painkillers, suffered from PTSD, and later died of a drug overdose. His widow thinks, however, that what he really died of was “isolation and loneliness.” The article points out that since the start of the Iraq War in 2001, 52,000 American servicemen have been wounded in action, many of whom are too disabled to work.

What was their sacrifice for? For “freedom”? Don’t make me laugh. No matter how much people thank that widow and those 52,000 troops for their service, it cannot cover up the fact that their sacrifice was for nothing. That’s why we libertarians, who opposed the war from the start and continually demanded that the U.S. exit Iraq and bring the troops home, were always much better friends to the troops than those who mindlessly thanked them for their service while doing nothing to bring them home from the U.S. government’s deadly and destructive imperialist venture in Iraq.

*

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

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas.

Featured image is from SouthFront

Six Decades of Aggression Toward Cuba

October 9th, 2019 by Ronald Suárez Rivas

On his bed in the intensive care unit of Pepe Portilla Pediatric Hospital, where he has lived the last two years and seven months, King Dennys Santiesteban shows me his collection of toy dinosaurs.

He assures me that the fiercest is the Tyrannosaurus Rex, and that there are really big ones that they only eat grass.

At six, he tells me that he already knows how to read and write, thanks to the dedication of his grandmother and the doctors who care for him day and night, but admits that his greatest wish is to return home.

The disease he suffers requires him to remain attached to a mechanical ventilator, so without one at home, he stays here.

Dr. Liliana María Cueto explains that these are very expensive devices, only manufactured by capitalist corporations.

“If the equipment has any component from the United States, it isn’t sold to our country,” she says.

Liliana points out that, if there is one area which the U.S. blockade impacts every day, it is public health.

“We feel the lack of medications, such as first-generation antibiotics and equipment with some component of U.S. origin. The firms that produce them are afraid to sell to us, or if they do, they don’t supply us with spare parts.”

Nonetheless, Cuban doctors are committed to defending life and fighting disease. After more than half a century of resistance, it has almost become normal for a country in which most of its inhabitants were born under the effects of the blockade.

But nothing more cruel and anachronistic than this genocidal policy, supported by more than a dozen administrations in the White House.

Beyond the enormous figures describing the damage done to our economy and the negative impact on development, each and every Cuban has had a personal experience with the blockade – be it an unavailable medicine, a closed plant, equipment that could no longer be repaired because a U.S. firm bought the factory where it was produced…

The examples have multiplied recently, with the obsessive aggressiveness of the Trump administration.

The drastic reduction of services offered at the U.S. embassy in Havana, ​​greatly complicating procedures Cubans must follow to travel to the United States; the activation of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act; further restrictions on travel to the island by U.S. citizens; limits on remittances; fines on companies that allegedly violate the blockade; increased subversive projects; sanctions to prevent the arrival of fuel to the country, meant to generate chaos and discontent, are just some of the measures adopted by the President and his minions.

With incredible cynicism, they have said that these actions are intended to “free the Cuban people from suffering,” as if each and every measure is meant to cause exactly the opposite.

A statement released by the U.S. embassy in Havana, this past September 6, shamelessly states that the escalation in Treasury Department regulations to tighten the blockade will deny Cuba access to foreign currency “as part of our support for the Cuban people.”

But life goes on in Cuba, with the conviction that there are peoples who do not surrender, and sacred principles, like human dignity and love for the homeland, that will always be worth fighting for.

Hostile US Measures Imposed on Cuba Since June of 2017

June 16, 2017

Principal changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba made by Donald Trump:

  • Increased restrictions on travel to Cuba for U.S. citizens, by reducing the number of categories of travel permitted with a general license, as opposed to a specific permit from the Treasury Department.
  • Reinforcement of the blockade via the Helms-Burton Act of 1996.
  • Repeal of Presidential Policy Directive issued by President Barack Obama in 2016, which stated that the blockade was an obsolete burden for the Cuban people and an impediment to U.S. interests.3 de e 2018

September 29, 2017

Then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced a significant reduction of diplomatic staff at the U.S. embassy in Havana and withdrew all family members, on the grounds that there had been “attacks” on U.S. officials in Cuba, which had impacted their health.

October 3, 2017

The U.S. government, in an unjustified move, ordered 15 officials at the Cuban embassy in Washington to leave the country, allegedly since U.S. diplomatic personnel in Havana had been reduced and the Cuban government had not taken the necessary steps to prevent further “attacks.”

November 9, 2017

The State Department published a list of 179 Cuban entities with which U.S. citizens were not allowed to conduct direct financial transactions. The list includes the ministries of Armed Forces and the Interior; the National Revolutionary Police; state enterprises; the Mariel Special Development Zone and Havana container terminals; dozens of hotels throughout Cuba; travel agencies; and stores.

December 22, 2017

Washington moves its immigration office in Cuba to Mexico.

January 10, 2018

The United States issues travel advisory instructing its citizens to reconsider trips to Cuba.

January 23, 2018

The United States creates a Cuba Internet Task Force, announced on January 23 by the State Department, opening the doors to a return to failed Cold War policy.

March 2018

Washington releases funds for subversion in Cuba and the border wall with Mexico. The budget approved by the United States Congress includes 20 million dollars for subversion in Cuba.

March 29, 2018

The United States announces that, beginning April 1, the immigrant visa process for Cubans will once again change, to be conducted now at the U.S. embassy in Georgetown, Guyana. Due to these unilateral measures, since September of 2017, the U.S. consul in Havana is virtually paralyzed and only offers emergency services.

September 10, 2018

President Donald Trump extends the Trading with the Enemy Act’s application against Cuba for another year.

May 2, 2019

The Trump administration activates Title III of the Helms-Burton Act.

June 5, 2019

The Treasury Department will no longer permit group educational and cultural trips known as “people to people.”

September 2019

The United States Department of the Treasury modified the Asset Control Regulations for Cuba to impose new sanctions on our country, basically, adding further restrictions on remittances and bank transactions. U.S. President Donald Trump again renews the application of the Trading with the Enemy Law to Cuba, for another year.

*

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 Ricardo López Hevia

On October 7, US forces started withdrawing from their positons along the border with Turkey, in northern Syria. The US military had permanent garrisons in Tel Abyad, Tel Musa, Tel Hinzir and Tel Arqam. They were abandoned.

On October 6, the White House released a statement saying that Turkey will soon carry out its “long-planned operation” into northern Syria. According to the statement, US forces will not “support or be involved in the operation” and “will no longer be in the immediate area”.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, mostly consisting of Kurdish armed groups, blamed the US for not “fulfilling their responsibilities” and “allowing the region to return to the battlefield”. The SDF leadership fears a Turkish military action in the area because Ankara sees its Kurdish armed formations as terrorist organizations linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party.

Watch the video here.

According to pro-SDF sources, the Kurdish-dominated group already started deploying reinforcements to the border area between the towns of Ras al-Ayn and Ayn al-Arab.

The irony of the situation is that just a few weeks ago the US convinced the SDF to remove fortifications in the border area providing the SDF security guarantees. After this, the US gave a green light to a Turkish military operation in northern Syria.

After the US troops withdrawal, President Donald Trump threatened that “if Turkey does anything that” he, in his “great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits,” he “will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey”. Nonetheless, it is yet to be seen how this kind of twitter diplomacy will work in practice.

Local sources indicate that Turkish-backed militant groups in the province of Aleppo were already placed on a high alert preparing for a possible military action.

*

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

Support South Front in its endeavors.

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

The globalised industrial food system that transnational agri-food conglomerates promote is failing to feed the world. It is responsible for some of the planet’s most pressing political, social and environmental crises.

Whether it involves the undermining or destruction of what were once largely self-sufficient agrarian economies in Africa or the devastating impacts of soy cultivation in Argentina, localised, traditional methods of food production have given way to global supply chains dominated by policies which favour agri-food giants, resulting in the destruction of habitat and peasant farmer livelihoods and the imposition of a model of agriculture that subjugates remaining farmers and regions to the needs and profit margins of these companies.

Many take as given that profit-driven transnational corporations have a legitimate claim to be custodians of natural assets. There is the premise that water, seeds, land, food, soil, forests and agriculture should be handed over to powerful, corrupt transnational corporations to milk for profit, under the pretence these entities are somehow serving the needs of humanity.

These natural assets (‘the commons’) belong to everyone and any stewardship should be carried out in the common interest by local people assisted by public institutions and governments acting on their behalf, not by private transnational corporations driven by self-interest and the maximization of profit by any means possible.

Common ownership and management of these assets embodies the notion of people working together for the public good. However, these resources have been appropriated by national states or private entities. For instance, Cargill captured the edible oils processing sector in India and in the process put many thousands of village-based workers out of work; Monsanto conspired to design a system of intellectual property rights that allowed it to patent seeds as if it had manufactured and invented them; and India’s indigenous peoples have been forcibly ejected from their ancient lands due to state collusion with mining companies.

Those who capture essential common resources seek to commodify them – whether trees for timber, land for real estate or agricultural seeds – create artificial scarcity and force everyone else to pay for access. Much of it involves eradicating self-sufficiency.

Traditional systems attacked

Researchers Marika Vicziany and Jagjit Plahe note that for thousands of years Indian farmers have experimented with different plant and animal specimens acquired through migration, trading networks, gift exchanges or accidental diffusion. They note the vital importance of traditional knowledge for food security in India and the evolution of such knowledge by learning and doing, trial and error. Farmers possess acute observation, good memory for detail and transmission through teaching and storytelling. The very farmers whose seeds and knowledge have been appropriated by corporations to be bred for proprietary chemical-dependent hybrids and now to be genetically engineered.

Large corporations with their seeds and synthetic chemical inputs have eradicated traditional systems of seed exchange. They have effectively hijacked seeds, pirated germ plasm that farmers developed over millennia and have ‘rented’ the seeds back to farmers. Genetic diversity among food crops has been drastically reduced. The eradication of seed diversity went much further than merely prioritising corporate seeds: the Green Revolution deliberately sidelined traditional seeds kept by farmers that were actually higher yielding and climate appropriate.

Across the world, we have witnessed a change in farming practices towards mechanised industrial-scale chemical-intensive monocropping, often for export or for far away cities rather than local communities, and ultimately the undermining or eradication of self-contained rural economies, traditions and cultures. We now see food surpluses in the West and food deficit areas in the Global South and a globalised geopoliticised system of food and agriculture.

A recent article on the People’s Archive of Rural India website highlights how the undermining of local economies continues. In a region of Odisha, farmers are being pushed towards a reliance on (illegal) expensive genetically modified herbicide tolerant cotton seeds and are replacing their traditional food crops.

The authors state that Southern Odisha’s strength lay in multiple cropping systems, but commercial cotton monoculture has altered crop diversity, soil structure, household income stability, farmers’ independence and, ultimately, food security. Farmers used to sow mixed plots of heirloom seeds, which had been saved from family harvests the previous year and would yield a basket of food crops. Cotton’s swift expansion is reshaping the land and people steeped in agroecological knowledge.

The article’s authors Chitrangada Choudhury and Aniket Aga note that cotton occupies roughly 5 per cent of India’s gross cropped area but consumes 36 to 50 per cent of the total quantum of agrochemicals applied nationally. They argue that the scenario here is reminiscent of Vidarbha between 1998 and 2002 – initial excitement over the new miracle (and then illegal) Bt cotton seeds and dreams of great profits, followed by the effects of their water-guzzling nature, the huge spike in expenses and debt and various ecological pressures. Vidarbha subsequently ended up as the epicentre of farmer suicides in the country for over a decade.

Choudhury and Aga echo many of the issues raised by Glenn Stone in his paper ‘Constructing Facts:Bt Cotton Narratives in India’. Farmers are attracted to GM cotton via glossy marketing and promises of big money and rely on what are regarded as authoritative (but compromised) local figures who steer them towards such seeds. There is little or no environmental learning by practice as has tended to happen in the past when adopting new seeds and cultivation practices. It has given way to ‘social learning’, a herd mentality and a treadmill of pesticides and debt. What is also worrying is that farmers are also being sold glyphosate to be used with HT cotton; they are unaware of the terrible history and reality of this ‘miracle’ herbicide, that it is banned or restricted in certain states in India and that it is currently at the centre of major lawsuits in the US.

All this when large agribusiness concerns wrongly insist that we need their seeds and proprietary chemicals if we are to feed a growing global population. There is no money for them in traditional food cropping systems but there is in undermining food security and food sovereignty by encouraging the use of GM cotton and glyphosate or, more generally, corporate seeds.

In India, Green Revolution technology and ideology has actually helped to fuel drought and degrade soils and has contributed towards illnesses and malnutrition. Sold under the guise of ‘feeding the world’, in India it merely led to more wheat in the diet, while food productivity per capita showed no increase or actually decreased. Nevertheless, there have been dire consequences for the Indian diet, the environment, farmers, rural communities and public health.

Across the world, the Green Revolution dovetailed with an international system of chemical-dependent, agro-export mono-cropping and big infrastructure projects (dams) linked to loans, sovereign debt repayment and World Bank/IMF directives, the outcomes of which included a displacement of the peasantry, the consolidation of global agri-food oligopolies and the transformation of many countries into food deficit regions.

Often regarded as Green Revolution 2.0, the ‘gene revolution’ is integral to the plan to ‘modernise’ Indian agriculture. This means the displacement of peasant farmers, further corporate consolidation and commercialisation based on industrial-scale monocrop farms incorporated into global supply chains dominated by transnational agribusiness and retail giants. If we take occurrences in Odisha as a microcosm, it would also mean the undermining of national food security.

Although traditional agroecological practices have been eradicated or are under threat, there is a global movement advocating a shift towards more organic-based systems of agriculture, which includes providing support to small farms and an agroecology movement that is empowering to people politically, socially and economically.

Agroecology

In his final report to the UN Human Rights Council after a six-year term as Special Rapporteur, in 2014 Olivier De Schutter called for the world’s food systems to be radically and democratically redesigned. His report was based on an extensive review of recent scientific literature. He concluded that by applying agroecological principles to the design of democratically controlled agricultural systems we can help to put an end to food crises and address climate-change and poverty challenges. De Schutter argued that agroecological approaches could tackle food needs in critical regions and could double food production in 10 years. However, he stated that insufficient backing seriously hinders progress.

And this last point should not be understated. For instance, the success of the Green Revolution is often touted, but how can we really evaluate it? If alternatives had been invested in to the same extent, if similar powerful and influential interests had invested in organic-based models, would we now not be pointing to the runaway successes of organic-based agroecological farming and, importantly, without the massive external costs of a polluted environment, less diverse diets, degraded soils and nutrient deficient food, ill health and so on?

The corporations which promote chemical-intensive industrial agriculture have embedded themselves deeply within the policy-making machinery on both national and international levels. From the overall bogus narrative that industrial agriculture is necessary to feed the world to providing lavish research grants and the capture of important policy-making institutions, global agri-food conglomerates have secured a perceived thick legitimacy within policy makers’ mindsets and mainstream discourse. The integrity of society’s institutions have been eroded by corporate money, funding and influence, which is why agroecology as a credible alternative to corporate agriculture remains on the periphery.

But the erosion of that legitimacy is underway. In addition to De Schutter’s 2014 report, the 2009 IAASTD peer-reviewed report, produced by 400 scientists and supported by 60 countries, recommends agroecology to maintain and increase the productivity of global agriculture. Moreover, the recent UN FAO High Level Panel of Experts concludes that agroecology provides greatly improved food security and nutritional, gender, environmental and yield benefits compared to industrial agriculture.

Writer and academic Eric Holtz-Gimenez argues that agroecology offers concrete, practical solutions to many of the world’s problems that move beyond (but which are linked to) agriculture. In doing so, it challenges – and offers alternatives to – plunder which takes place under a prevailing system of doctrinaire neoliberal economics that in turn drives a failing model of industrial agriculture.

The scaling up of agroecology can tackle hunger, malnutrition, environmental degradation and climate change. By creating securely paid labour-intensive agricultural work, it can also address the interrelated links between labour offshoring by rich countries and the removal of rural populations elsewhere who end up in sweat shops to carry out the outsourced jobs: the two-pronged process of neoliberal globalisation that has devastated the economies of the US and UK and which is displacing existing indigenous food production systems and undermining the rural infrastructure in places like India to produce a reserve army of cheap labour.

The Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology by Nyeleni in 2015 argued for building grass-root local food systems that create new rural-urban links, based on genuine agroecological food production. It went on to say that agroecology should not become a tool of the industrial food production model but as the essential alternative to that model. The Declaration stated that agroecology is political and requires local producers and communities to challenge and transform structures of power in society, not least by putting the control of seeds, biodiversity, land and territories, waters, knowledge, culture and the commons in the hands of those who feed the world.

It involves prioritising localised rural and urban food economies and small farms and shielding them from the effects of rigged trade and international markets. It would mean that what ends up in our food and how it is grown is determined by the public good and not powerful private interests driven by commercial gain and the compulsion to subjugate farmers, consumers and entire regions.

There are enough examples from across the world that serve as models for transformation, from the Oakland Institute’s research in Africa and the Women’s Collective of Tamil Nadu to the scaling up of agroecological practices in Ethiopia.

Whether in Europe, Africa, India or the US, agroecology can protect and reassert the commons and is a force for grass-root change. This model of agriculture is already providing real solutions for sustainable, productive agriculture that prioritise the needs of farmers, citizens and the environment.

The above article is an updated version of a previous article by Colin Todhunter.

 *

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Right Kind of Green: Agroecology. The Agri-Food Conglomerates are Failing to Feed the World
  • Tags:

In recent months US President Trump has pointed repeatedly to his role in making the American economy the “best ever.” But behind the extreme highs of the stock market and the official government unemployment data, the US economy is primed for a 1929-style shock, a financial Tsunami that is more influenced by independent Fed actions than by anything that the White House has done since January 2017. At this point the parallels between one-time Republican President Herbert Hoover who presided over the great stock crash and economic depression that was created then by the Fed policies, and Trump in 2019 are looking ominously similar. It underscores that the real power lies with those who control our money, not elected politicians.

Despite proclamations to the contrary, the true state of the US economy is getting more precarious by the day. The Fed policies of Quantitative Easing and Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) implemented after the 2008 crash, contrary to claims, did little to directly rebuild the real US economy. Instead it funneled trillions to the very banks responsible for the 2007-8 real estate bubble. That “cheap money” in turn flowed to speculative high-return investment around the world. It created speculative bubbles in emerging market debt in countries like Turkey, Argentina, Brazil and even China. It created huge investment in high-risk debt, so called junk bonds, in the US corporate sector in areas like shale oil ventures or companies like Tesla. The Trump campaign promise of rebuilding America’s decaying infrastructure has gone nowhere and a divided Congress is not about to unite for the good of the nation at this point. The real indicator of the health of the real economy where real people struggle to make ends meet lies in the record levels of debt.

Today, fully a decade after the unprecedented actions of three presidents, the US economy is deeper in debt than ever in its history. And debt is controlled by interest rates, interest rates ultimately in the hands of the Fed. Let’s look at some signs of serious trouble which could easily put the economy in a severe recession by this time in 2020.

Ford Motor, GE

On September 25 the corporate bond debt of Ford Motor Co., which unlike GM refused government nationalization in 2008, has just been downgraded to “junk” status by Moody’s, who said Ford faces “considerable operating and market challenges…” It affects $84 billion in company debt.

Junk rating means than most insurance companies or pension funds are banned from holding the risky debt and must sell. Before Moody’s rated Ford bonds at the lowest just prior to junk, BBB. The problem is that over a decade of Fed low interest rates, corporations have taken greater debt risks than ever, and the share of BBB-rated or “at risk of junk” bonds today has risen to more than 50% of all US corporate bonds outstanding. At the start of the crisis in 2008 BBB-rated bonds were only a third of the total. That amounts to more than $3 trillion of corporate debt at risk of downgrade to junk should the economy worsen, up from only $800 billion a decade ago. Ten years of unprecedented ultra-low fed interest rates are responsible. Moody’s estimates that at least 47 other multi-billion US corporations are vulnerable to junk downgrades in a sharp economic downturn or with rising interest rates. The most mentioned are the aerospace and electrical conglomerate GE which among other things makes jet engines for troubled Boeing.

Corporate debt in the USA today is a ticking time bomb, and the Fed controls the clock. Today total corporate debt exceeds $9 trillion, an all-time high, a rise of 40% or $2.5 trillion since 2008 according to the St. Louis Fed. With the ultra-low Fed interest rates since 2008, companies have doubled the debt outstanding but debt cost has risen only 40%. Now in recent months the Fed has been raising interest rates directly and indirectly via Quantitative Tightening. The most recent token .25% rate cut does little to change the grim outlook for the US bond market, the heart of the financial system.

Ford among other problems is being hit hard by the global downturn in the auto sector. In the USA car dealers have become so desperate to sell cars as consumers are choking on record levels of personal debt that they have recently offered 8-year car loans. For the past two years the Fed has been slowly ratcheting interest rates higher. The predictable result has been rising default on household debts, especially car loans. As of April, 2019 a record 7 million Americans were 90-days or more behind in car loans, some 6.5% of all auto loans. More than 107 million Americans have car loans today, up from 80 million in 2008 and an historic record. The rise in defaults parallels the Fed monetary tightening graph.

Both Ford and GM are announcing thousands of job layoffs as the economy slows and consumer debt reaches dangerous levels. Ford is cutting at least 5,000 jobs and GM 4,400 in US operations. Tens of thousands more layoffs are deemed likely in coming months if the economy worsens.

Then the private US Institute for Supply Management just reported that its index of manufacturing industry contracted to the weakest since June 2009, the depth of the economic crisis a decade ago. In the survey companies cited uncertainties related to the China trade war of Trump as the major factor behind depressed hiring and business activity. Trump then attacked the Fed for not moving fast enough to lower rates.

One indicator of the precarious state of the USA real manufacturing economy is the deepening recession this year in the trucking industry, the sector that moves goods through the country. In September 4,200 truck drivers lost their jobs as freight rates plunged owing to lack of goods traffic. In the first six months of 2019 around 640 trucking companies went bankrupt, three times the number a year before when Fed rate impacts were still low and trade war consequences far less clear. In June trucking loads were down more than 50% in June compared with June 2018 in the trucking spot market. Rates also dipped by as much as 18.5% over that same period.

The volume of freight shipped by all modes in the US has been sinking dramatically. Freight shipments within the US by truck, rail, air, and barge fell 5.9% in July 2019, compared to July 2018, the eighth month in a row of year-over-year declines, according to the Cass Freight Index for Shipments, which excludes bulk commodities such as grains. This decline, along with the 6.0% drop in May, were the steepest year-over-year declines in freight shipments since the Financial Crisis of 2008.

Dodgy Home Loans?

Far from realizing the lessons of the US sub-prime housing debt crisis leading to the global crisis of 2007-2008, the banks have quietly moved back into making dodgy loans. Moreover, the two quasi-government mortgage lending guarantee agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in worse shape than during the 2007 sub-prime real estate crisis.

Nonetheless in March, 2019 the President signed a Memorandum calling for steps to end the ten-year Government conservatorship of the two agencies. However, as several officials recently testified, “The U.S. housing finance system is…Worse off today than it was on the cusp of the 2008 financial crisis.” That, despite $190 billion of taxpayer bailout to the two agencies. By a Congressional directive Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are allowed to hold a loss buffer capital reserve of combined $6 billion. However they own or guarantee almost $5 trillion in mortgage securities. Many of those mortgages are of dubious or dodgy credit quality like before 2007, as banks look for higher interest rate yields. If the overall economy worsens in the coming year in the run-up to November 2020 elections, home mortgage defaults could soar. It has been estimated that

if just 0.12% of Fannie and Freddie’s mortgages go bad (about one-tenth of 1%), it would wipe them out completely. They’d have no capital left. And without a government bailout, they might cease to exist altogether. That could quickly lead to a new mortgage loan crisis.”

The key to the US economy is debt and debt is at an all-time high for US Government, whose deficit is rising annually at more than $1 trillion, for corporations with record debt and for private households where home mortgage debt, student loan debt and car loan debt all are at record high levels. Student loan debt reached $1.46 trillion by January 2019, with serious delinquency rates much higher than any other debt type. Mortgage debt accounted for $9.12 trillion. Total private household debt was a record $13.5 trillion. If we add to this precarious economic debt the situation in American agriculture where farmers face the worst crisis since the early 1980’s, it is clear that the economic miracle of the Trump era is far from stable.

To wit, one of the most noted features of recent US economic growth, the US shale oil recovery of 2018 that made America the world’s largest oil producer, has all but flattened out this year as world oil prices fall sharply. The fall is threatening many US shale oil producers many of whom borrowed by issuing blow investment of high interest yield junk bonds in hopes of a recovery from the price collapse after 2014. Even an attack on Saudi oil infrastructure and threats of war in Iran and Venezuela have not stopped the price slide in oil in recent weeks. If oil prices continue to fall below $55 a barrel a new wave of bankruptcies and closings in the US energy sector will follow, most likely in 2020 just in time for the US elections.

From 1927 to 1929 the Fed deliberately created then burst a stock bubble using interest rates. Republican President Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff act in 1930 to defend American industry, resulting in a trade war that was blamed along with Hoover for the Great Depression that was brought on by an economy bloated with debt and easy money during the Roarin’ Twenties boom. Hoover was blamed and lost re-election to Democrat FDR with his New Deal. Behind all were the actions of the Federal Reserve, the real power. Soon it will be clear if 2020 will be a modern era repeat of the Hoover script, this time with a Democrat whose “New Deal” will likely be green.

*

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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Featured image is from NEO


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Will the Federal Reserve Make Trump a New Herbert Hoover? Is the US Economy Primed for a 1929-style Shock?

For the town of Totnes, England, the 5G rollout will have to wait. Over 1,600 residents signed a petition for a moratorium based on a belief that 5G is not safe for human health.

One local resident named Rosi Gladwell claims she’s suffering from the effects of radiation. At night, Gladwell sleeps in a copper sleeping bag to prevent electromagnetic rays from entering her body.

The town temporarily conceded to Gladwell and the other vocal residents’ wishes, but the decision might not stand for the longterm. Totnes district council is hard at work developing a committee that ignores the town’s concerns, according to 9News.

“I don’t think we will get anywhere with it,” town mayor Jacqui Hodgson said on the ban.
“Our concern is there will be a much higher blanket of radiation all around us. “There hasn’t really been any assessment carried out to prove it’s safe to health and the environment.
“As a town council, we have very little powers, but we can at least stand up for our community and say what we believe.”

It isn’t just England that’s concerned over 5G, cities, and towns all over the United States have become increasingly concerned with 5G’s potential health impacts. Last year, Portland officials attempted to block 5G rollouts. A group of activists and residents in Encinitas, California recently protested 5G’s impending installations.

The United States government says that 5G is safe and that no scientific evidence of health risks exists. But some groups around the country continue to disagree. In California, residents in a smaller town outside of Sacramento claim a Sprint 5G tower increased childhood cancer instances. Sprint was eventually forced to shut down the tower.

5G is the latest social battleground that’s sweeping the globe. More and more countries are rushing to install it because they don’t want to fall behind in the technological arms race. 5G will substantially increase download times and improve capabilities in the health and military sectors. No country wants to be left behind, which is creating a grind between government officials and 5G activist groups.

*

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 PrepForThat

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on England Town Bans 5G Rollout Amidst Growing Health Concerns

Tracking Foreign Interference in Hong Kong

October 9th, 2019 by Pepe Escobar

Lawrence YK Ma is the executive council chairman of the Hong Kong Legal Exchange Foundation and director of the China Law Society, the Chinese Judicial Studies Association and the Hong Kong Legal Exchange Foundation. He also finds time to teach law at Nankai University in Tianjin.

Ma is the go-to expert in what is arguably the most sensitive subject in Hong Kong: He meticulously tracks perceived foreign interference in the Special Administrative Region (SAR).

In the West, in similar circumstances, he would be a media star. With a smirk, he told me that local journalists, whether working in English or Chinese, rarely visit him – not to mention foreigners.

Ma received me at his office in Wanchai this past Saturday morning after a “dark day” of rampage, as described by the SAR government. He wasted no time before calling my attention to a petition requesting a “United Nations investigation into the United States’ involvement in Hong Kong riots.”

He let me see a copy of the document, which lists the People’s Republic of China as petitioner, the United States of America as respondent nation and the Hong Kong Legal Exchange Foundation as ex parte petitioner. This was submitted on Aug. 16 to the UN Security Council in Geneva, directed to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

In the document, Issue II deals with “funded, sponsored and provided supplies to any organizations, groups, companies, political parties or individuals” and “trained and frontline protesters, students and dissidents.”

Predictably, the US National Endowment for Democracy is listed in the documentation: its largest 2018 grants were directed to China, slightly ahead of Russia.

The NED was founded in 1983 after serial covert CIA ops across the Global South had been exposed.

In 1986, NED President Carl Gershman told the New York Times:

“It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA. We saw that in the ‘60s, and that’s why it has been discontinued.”

As the Times article explained about the NED:

In some respects, the program resembles the aid given by the Central Intelligence Agency in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s to bolster pro-American political groups. But that aid was clandestine and, subsequent Congressional investigations found, often used planted newspaper articles and other forms of intentionally misleading information. The current financing is largely public – despite some recipients’ wish to keep some activities secret – and appears to be given with the objective of shoring up political pluralism, broader than the CIA’s goals of fostering pro-Americanism.

Soft power at work

So it’s no secret, all across the Global South, that under the cover of a benign umbrella promoting democracy and human rights, the NED works as a soft-power mechanism actively interfering in politics and society. Recent examples include Ukraine, Venezuela and Nicaragua. In many cases, that is conducive to regime change.

The NED’s board of directors includes Elliott Abrams, who was instrumental in financing and weaponizing the Contras in Nicaragua, and Victoria Nuland, who supervised the financing and weaponizing of militias in Ukraine that some but not all experts have described as neo-fascist.

The NED offers grants via various branches. One of them is the National Democratic Institute, which has been active in Hong Kong since the 1997 handover. These are some of the grants offered by the NED in Hong Kong in 2018.

At least one Hong Kong-based publication took the trouble of studying the NED’s local connections, even publishing a chart of the anti-extradition protest organizational structure. But none of the evidence is conclusive. The most the publication could say was,

“If we analyze the historical involvement of NED in Occupy Central and the sequence of events that took place from March in 2019, it is highly possible that the Americans may be potentially involved in the current civil unrest via NED – albeit not conclusive.”

Issue III of the petition sent to the UN deals with “coordinated, directed and covertly commanded on-ground operations; connived with favorable and compatible local and American media so as to present biased new coverage.”

On “coordination,” the main political operative is identified as Julie Eadeh, based at the US Consulate after a previous Middle East stint. Eadeh became a viral sensation in China when she was caught on camera, on the same day, meeting with Anson Chan and Martin Lee, close allies of Jimmy  Lai, founder of pro-protest Apple Daily, and protest leaders Joshua Wong and Nathan Law in the lobby of the Marriott.

The US State Department responded by calling the Chinese government “thuggish” for releasing photographs and personal information about Eadeh.

The NED and Eadeh are also the subjects of further accusations in the petition’s Issue IV (“Investigation of various institutions”).

All in the Basic Law

Ma is the author of an exhaustive, extensively annotated book, Hong Kong Basic Law: Principles and Controversies, published by the Hong Kong Legal Exchange Foundation.

Maria Tam, a member both of the Hong Kong SAR Basic Law Committee and of China’s National People’s Congress, praises the book’s analysis of the ultra-sensitive interpretation of the Basic Law, saying “the common law system has remained unaffected, its judicial independence remaining the best in Asia”, with Hong Kong firmly placed – so far at least – as “the third most preferred avenue for international arbitration.”

In the book, Ma extensively analyzes the finer points of the China containment policy. But he also adds culture to the mix, for instance examining the work of Liang Shuming (1893-1988) on the philosophical compatibility of traditional Chinese Confucianism with the technology of the West. Liang argued that China’s choice, in stark terms, was between wholesale Westernization or complete rejection of the West.

But Ma really hits a nerve when he examines Hong Kong’s unique role – and positioning – as a vector of the China containment policy, facilitated by a prevailing anti-communist sentiment and the absence of a national security law.

This is something that cannot be understood without examining the successive waves of emigration to Hong Kong. The first took place during the Communist-Nationalist civil war (1927-1950) and the Sino-Japanese war (1937-1945); the second, during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1977).

Ma significantly quotes a 1982 poll claiming that 95% of respondents were in favor of maintaining British rule. Everyone who followed the 1997 Hong Kong handover remembers the widespread fear of Chinese tanks rolling into Kowloon at midnight.

In sum, Ma argues that, for Washington, what matters is to “make China’s island of Hong Kong as difficult to govern for Beijing as possible.”

Integrate or perish

Anyone who takes time to carefully study the complexities of the Basic Law can see how Hong Kong is an indivisible part of China. Hundreds of millions of Mainland Chinese now have seen what the black bloc brand of “democracy” – vandalizing public and private property – has done to ruin Hong Kong.

Arguably, in the long run, and after an inevitable cleanup operation, the whole drama may only strengthen Hong Kong’s integration with China. Add to it that China, Macau, Singapore, Malaysia and Japan have separately asked Hong Kong authorities for a detailed list of black bloc rioters.

In my conversations these past few days with informed Hong Kongers – mature businessmen and businesswomen who understand the Basic Law and relations with China – two themes have been recurrent.

One is the weakness of Carrie Lam’s government, with suggestions that the outside non-well-wishers knew her understaffed and overstretched police force would not be up to the task of maintaining security across town. At the same time, many remarked how the response from Washington and London to the Emergency Regulations approval of the anti-mask law was – surprisingly – restrained.

The other theme is decolonization. My interlocutors argued that China did not “control” Hong Kong; if it did, riots would never have happened. Add to it that Lam may have been instructed to do nothing, lest she would mess up an incandescent situation even more.

Now it’s a completely new ball game. Beijing, even discreetly, will insist on a purge of anyone in the civil service who would be identified as anti-China. If Lam just continues to insist on her beloved “dialogue,” she may be replaced by a hands-on CEO such as CY Leung or Regina Ip.

Amid so much gloom, there may be a silver lining. And that concerns the Greater Bay Area project. My interlocutors tend to believe that after the storm ends and after carefully studying the situation for some months, Beijing will soon come up with a new plan to tighten Hong Kong’s integration to the mainland’s economy even more.

The first step was to tell Hong Kong’s tycoons to get their act together and be more socially responsible. The second will be to convince Hong Kong’s businesses to reinvent themselves for good and profit as part of the Greater Bay Area and the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative.

Hong Kong will thrive only if plugged, not unplugged. That may be the ultimate – profitable – argument against any form of foreign sabotage.

*

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

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: More than a million Hong Kongers joined marches in June to oppose a China extradition law. But some say the US is quickly backing the protests. Photo: Don Ng/ EyePress

L’F-35 nell’agenda segreta di Pompeo a Roma

October 8th, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

Il caccia stealth F-35 si rende invisibile non solo ai radar ma anche alla politica: nei comunicati degli incontri del segretario di stato Usa Mike Pompeo a Roma non ce n’è traccia. Il Corriere della Sera rivela però che Pompeo ha richiesto all’Italia di pagare gli arretrati sui caccia acquistati e di sbloccare l’ordine per un ulteriore acquisto, ricevendo da Conte l’assicurazione che «saremo fedeli ai patti».

L’Italia ha acquistato finora 14 caccia F-35 dalla statunitense Lockheed Martin, 13 dei quali, già consegnati, sono «completamente finanziati». Lo ha precisato al Senato il 3 giugno l’allora ministro della Difesa Elisabetta Trenta (M5S), annunciando altri acquisti che porteranno il totale a 28 caccia entro il 2022. L’Italia si è impegnata ad acquistarne 90, con una spesa prevista in circa 14 miliardi di euro. A tale spesa si aggiunge quella del continuo aggiornamento del software (l’insieme dei programmi operativi) del caccia su cui la Lockheed Martin mantiene l’esclusiva: solo per quello dei velivoli finora acquistati l’Italia deve già spendere circa mezzo miliardo di euro. 

L’Italia non è solo acquirente ma fabbricante dell’F-35, quale partner di secondo livello.  La Leonardo (già Finmeccanica) – la maggiore industria militare italiana, di cui il Ministero dell’economia e delle finanze è il principale azionista con una quota di circa il 30% – gestisce la linea di assemblaggio e collaudo degli F-35 nello stabilimento Faco di Cameri (Piemonte), da cui escono i caccia destinati all’Italia e all’Olanda. La Leonardo produce anche le ali complete per aerei assemblati negli Usa, utilizzando materiali prodotti negli stabilimenti di Foggia (Puglia), Nola (Campania) e Venegono (Lombardia). Il governo USA ha selezionato lo stabilimento di Cameri come centro regionale europeo per la manutenzione e l’aggiornamento della fusoliera. 

L’occupazione alla Faco è di circa un migliaio, di cui molti precari, appena un sesto di quella preventivata. Le spese per la realizzazione dello stabilimento e l’acquisto dei caccia sono di gran lunga superiori all’importo dei contratti stipulati da aziende italiane per la produzione dell’F-35. E non va dimenticato il fatto che, mentre i guadagni vanno quasi interamente nelle casse di aziende private, le spese escono dalle casse pubbliche, facendo lievitare la spesa militare italiana che ha già raggiunto i 70 milioni di euro al giorno. 

Il segretario di stato Mike Pompeo, negli incontri col presidente Mattarella e il premier Conte, ha sottolineato la necessità per l’Italia e altri alleati europei, di  «aumentare i loro investimenti nella difesa collettiva della Nato». Sicuramente, negli incontri riservati, tale richiesta è stata fatta da Pompeo con toni non diplomatici ma perentori. Sicuramente, mentre il Dipartimento di stato loda l’Italia perché «ospita oltre 30 mila militari e dipendenti del Pentagono in cinque basi maggiori e oltre 50 sub-installazioni», Mike Pompeo ha chiesto, negli incontri riservati, di poter installare in Italia altre basi militari (magari in cambio di qualche alleggerimento dei dazi Usa sul parmigiano italiano).

Sicuramente, nell’agenda segreta di Pompeo, rientrava anche la messa a punto per il prossimo arrivo in Italia delle nuove bombe nucleari Usa B61-12, che sostituiranno le attuali B-61. Una nuova arma nucleare progettata in particolare per i cacciabombardieri F-35A, sei dei quali, appartenenti all’Aeronautica italiana, hanno ricevuto in ottobre l’attestato Nato di piena capacità operativa.

Mike Pompeo a Roma non si è occupato solo di cose materiali, come l’F-35 e il parmigiano. In un simposio in Vaticano ha tenuto il 1° ottobre una orazione su «Dignità Umana e Fede nelle Società Libere»: ha affermano che  «gli Stati uniti sono arrivati un po’ dopo San Pietro,  ma da sempre hanno protetto la libertà religiosa»  e, con essa, la «dignità  umana»; ha accusato Cina, Cuba, Iran e Siria di  reprimere tali libertà. Parole pronunciate, con sullo sfondo una grande croce, da un sant’uomo che, al momento di divenire capo della Cia, dichiarava al Congresso che avrebbe considerato «la reintroduzione del waterboarding e di altre misure di interrogatorio potenziato», ossia della tortura. 

Manlio Dinucci

   

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on L’F-35 nell’agenda segreta di Pompeo a Roma

Trump Regime Escalates Economic War on China

October 8th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

The US is a declining empire, the more aggressive and widespread its malign activities, the sooner its fall from grace will arrive.  Vaunted Pentagon forces failed to defeat Taliban fighters in Afghanistan after 18 years of trying, nor Syrian resistance after nearly nine years, or Yemeni Houthis after five years.

Forty years of war on Iran by other means failed to return the country to US client state status — Trump regime economic terrorism no more successful than earlier toughness by his predecesors.

***

The US notably met its match against Russia and China, especially united. Attacking either country would be madness, assuring vast US homeland destruction and millions of casualties — perhaps turning Washington, New York, and other cities to smoldering rubble.

Trump’s economic war on China failed. Instead of normalizing relations with Beijing, he escalated toughness, making resolution of bilateral differences all the harder.

Earlier he blacklisted nearly 150 tech-related Chinese enterprises, including firms involved in producing aviation related products, semiconductors, engineering, as well as other high-tech products and components.

Claiming these enterprises act “contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States” is cover for wanting corporate America to have a leg up on Chinese competition.

Blacklisted companies are barred from purchasing US technology without Washington’s permission, tech giant Huawei and its affiliate companies most prominent on its so-called “entity list.”

On Monday, Trump’s Commerce Department added 28 Chinese public security bureaus and enterprises to its blacklist.

The action has nothing to do with alleged Chinese mistreatment of its Muslim population, everything to do with US economic war on the country, an effort doomed to fail before initiated.

The smartest US policymaking guys around are outwitted and outmatched by their Chinese counterparts, taking a longterm approach in dealings with the US and other countries.

According to the South China Morning Post, additions to the US blacklist include “the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region People’s Government Public Security Bureau, 19 subordinate government agencies and eight commercial firms…”

Targeted enterprises include “Zhejiang Dahua Technology, IFLYTEK Co, Xiamen Meiya Pico Information Co and Yixin Science and Technology Co.”

The world’s leading human rights abuser on a global scale over a longer duration than any other nation in world history arrogantly accused China of these abuses while ignoring it own.

On October 10, Sino/US talks are set to resume in Washington after 12 failed rounds since spring 2018.

They’ll take place against the hostile backdrop of more Chinese entities added to the Trump regime’s blacklist and US tariffs on $250 billion worth of its imports scheduled to rise from 25 – 30% on October 15, policies Beijing strongly opposes.

Chances for achieving a breakthrough this time are virtually nil — because talks have nothing to with the trade imbalance favoring China.

They have everything to do with longstanding US aims to marginalize, weaken, and isolate Beijing, along with wanting its development as an economic, technological and military power undermined.

On Tuesday, China’s official People’s Daily broadsheet said upcoming talks could go three ways: reaching a “fair” deal, continuing talks “while retaliating,” or discussions achieving nothing like earlier.

“We will strive for a good outcome, but will also not force it,” the broadsheet stressed, adding:

The Trump regime continues unacceptable anti-China “maximum pressure” tactics.

Beijing readied “sufficient and appropriate” response plans if talks collapse — without further elaboration.

*

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.

When Boris Johnson used his first three speeches as UK Prime Minister to flag up his desire to “liberate” GMOs as part of Brexit, we warned that this meant his priority was doing a trade deal with Donald Trump at any cost. Johnson, we said, was “simply dancing, puppet-like, to Trump’s tune”.

Now a Cabinet source has told the Brexit-supporting Sun newspaper that Johnson is scrapping a commitment by his predecessor, Theresa May, to stick to European Union rules on the environment, safety standards (that would include GMO foods and crops, as well as pesticides) and workers’ rights.

“The level-playing-field promise has to go, and Boris is very clear about this,” the ministerial source told the Sun. “It would seriously restrict our ability to deregulate and to do trade deals with other countries.”

The Independent has reported EU officials as saying,

“British negotiators are particularly keen to jettison EU restrictions on genetically modified foods – a key demand of American trade negotiators.”

One EU official with knowledge of the Brexit talks also told The Independent that

“US trade officials appeared to have been in contact with British negotiators and told them standards would need to be slashed if there was any chance of a US trade deal.”

This has also been the message from US agribusiness, with the head of the American Farm Bureau recently making clear that the UK must accept US food standards as part of any future trade deal with Washington.

De-regulation could “irreparably damage public health”

Meanwhile an internal ministerial briefing leaked from within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has confirmed the concerns about a Brexit trade deal with the US leading to a push to weaken food standards in the UK. The document was drawn up by top Defra advisers who are clearly worried that the Department for International Trade is willing and ready to remove safeguards on issues like animal welfare and pesticide residue levels. The document warns that weakening current UK standards to “accommodate” the US could “irreparably damage… public health”.

The Minister heading up the Department for International Trade, Liz Truss, is known to have had “off the record” meetings about weakening UK regulations with some of the right-wing US pressure groups that have driven Trump’s radical programme of deregulation.  And last week at a Conservative party conference fringe event, Truss said that while she is “proud” of Britain’s high environmental standards, she wants to take “a much more free-market approach”. Since then she has tweeted that scrapping EU protections is “vital for giving us the freedom and flexibility to strike new trade deals and become more competitive”.

Unsurprisingly, the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, has branded Johnson’s latest Brexit proposals a “Trump deal Brexit” which would “rip away the standards” that protect workers, “our environment and… our consumers”. He also said the proposals “would slash food safety standards, exposing us to — among other things — chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef, currently banned under EU standards.”

Broken promises

What is so striking is the contrast between the current Brexit proposals and the previous claims of leading Brexiteers, like Michael Gove, who in his “Green Brexit” speech last year said,

“We can ensure… in the economic partnership that we plan to forge with the EU… that the highest ethical and environmental standards are upheld.”

Gove, who was in charge of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the time, also vowed to uphold UK food standards post-Brexit and promised that they would not be sacrificed in order to get a trade deal. He even went as far as to say that the UK would accept US food standards “over my dead body”.

Now – with Gove in charge of preparing for a No-Deal Brexit as a leading member of Johnson’s cabinet – the only thing that is dead are Gove’s promises. Deregulation to adopt the US’s dire food and environmental standards would be possible either with the latest Johnson Brexit proposals or with the No-Deal Brexit that many believe to be the true goal of Boris Johnson and his supporters.

*

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

China-U.S. Relations: From Trade War to Hot War?

October 8th, 2019 by Dr. Leon Tressell

70 years ago in April 1949 the last Western military action took place on Chinese territory. The Amethyst Incident’ saw Chinese Red Army troops fire on a British warship sent to remove UK embassy staff from the Chinese capital. At this time Chinese communist forces, on the verge of victory in their civil war against the armies of Chiang Kai Shek, feared a counter-attack by Western imperialism.

The motive for this attack on British forces lay in the century old enmity that the Chinese population felt towards foreign troops that had enforced the robbery, humiliation and exploitation of the unequal treaty system on their country during the 19th and 20th centuries.

In his account of the ‘Amethyst Incident’, historian Mark Felton, has noted that:

“The British certainly underestimated the degree of ingrained hostility towards them harboured by Communist troops who looked on the British and other foreigners as having abused, robbed and cheated China for over a hundred years for their own profit and power. The Communists did not want to see ‘imperialist’ ships on the Yangtze.’’

Robert Bickers in his acclaimed two volume history of China’s relations with the West, Out Of China: How The Chinese Ended The Era Of Western Domination, states that Chinese public opinion applauded the attacks upon the British navy, ‘for the foreigners who had kicked the Chinese around for 100 years had finally got what they deserved’.

This military encounter between Chinese and Western military forces over 70 years ago may seem obscure to most people in the 21st century. However, it helps shed light on the current trade war between China and the United States.

Understanding of China’s suffering under Western domination in the 19th and 20th centuries gives us insights into the clash that underpins the trade war: the attempt by the U.S. empire to maintain its hegemonic position over the world economy against the rapidly rising power of China. It also helps us analyse longer term perspectives for the U.S.-China relationship: can they resolve their economic, and geo-political differences through negotiation or will the current cold war escalate to a military conflict in the future?

U.S.-China Trade War and the global economy

The trade war appears dead locked with little prospect in sight of any kind of resolution to this conflict. Yet financial markets appear to have placed a lot of hope on some kind of deal being brokered at the upcoming trade talks on October 10-11.

President Trump claims that America is winning the trade war and that the US is inflicting economic pain on China that will force Beijing to the negotiating table. His claims are accompanied by threats of further action such as delisting Chinese companies from U.S. stock markets. The trade war, that Trump initiated, has inflicted damage on both countries and the wider global economy.

In China manufacturing has taken a considerable hit from the trade war with car sales declining for 14 out of the last 15 months. In the first six months of 2019 car sales fell by 13% compared to the same period in 2018. Meanwhile, in the U.S., Moody’s Analytics has estimated that the trade war has already cost the U.S. 300,000 jobs which could rise to 450,000 jobs by the end of this year if no deal is reached.

The IMF estimates that the current phase of the trade war will knock 0.8% off global GDP as it has undermined business confidence and helped reduce investment and global trade. Both the IMF and Moody’s Analytics have stated that if the trade war continues with no deal it has the potential to push the slowing global economy into recession by Q4 of 2020. The trade war has also precipitated large declines and rallies in global stock markets over the last year as they react to the jaw boning of politicians on both sides with their threats and talk of a deal.

All the evidence that the global economy is slowing down and heading towards recession, from inverted yield curves to weakening economic growth, is being dismissed by politicians and mainstream economic pundits. They point to the bull market in the U.S. stock market and state that further interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve together with a trade deal with China will push financial markets further to make new all-time new highs for the year.

This hopium based analysis has already got one of its desired goals namely further interest rate cuts by the Fed. Meanwhile, the ECB has already gone all in and announced a rate cute and stimulus through a renewal of its bond buying programme that was so unsuccessful the last time it was tried.

However, the other central premise of this bull market analysis looks increasingly unlikely to happen any time soon. The “hope’’ that the U.S. can bully and cajole China into a trade deal that infringes upon its economic sovereignty is based on a complete lack of understanding of how China views the world. Having said that, it appears markets are willing to accept any kind of deal even a sticking plaster one that lifts some tariffs but doesn’t resolve any of the fundamental issues between the two nations.

China’s outlook on international relations, including the current trade war with the U.S., has been fundamentally shaped by its experiences of Western domination in the 19th and 20th centuries. The degradation, exploitation and violence that China suffered during this period, referred to in China as the Century of Humiliation, still fundamentally shapes its foreign policy and how it relates to the American empire that is trying to stifle its economic development.

In a previous article on this subject I explained how the U.S. feels seriously threatened by China’s rapid development of its high tech industrial sector and the associated challenge to American domination of the global economy. Actions such as the Made In China 2025 Initiative and the One Belt and Road projects are seen as major threats to American domination of global trade. The U.S. also perceives both projects as a serious threat to its position as a world leader in advanced technology and its attempts at full spectrum military dominance of the planet,

China’s colonial past still resonates with the present 

The protests in Hong Kong have led Beijing to change the emphasis of its domestic propaganda. Increasingly, the message of state propaganda, which is very tech savvy has, “more aggressively stirred up nationalist and anti-Western sentiment using state and social media.’’

A variety of different sources from journalists based in China to youtube bloggers in the country suggest that this propaganda is having success in stirring up nationalist sentiment and so shoring up support for the one party CCP (Chinese Communist Party) controlled state. State propaganda over the summer of 2019 has increasingly harped upon the struggle China waged against America during the Korean War and used imagery and rhetoric from the “Resist America, Aid Korea” campaign 1950-53.

On May 19 the Global Times ran an editorial which noted,

 “The trade war with the U.S. at the moment reminds Chinese of military struggles between China and the U.S. during the Korean War.”

The problems that China is currently having with Hong Kong are partly linked to its past of colonial domination by the West. After its triumph in the civil war in 1949 the CCP carried out a social and economic revolution in China. This saw the introduction of a centrally planned command economy along the lines of Stalinist Russia with no democratic participation by the masses. Rebuilding its shattered economy after the massive loss of life and economic destruction caused by the Japanese occupation (1937-1945) and the civil war against the Western supported forces of Chiang Kai-Shek was a mammoth task for the CCP.

Historian Robert Bickers has noted that the new government of China had its hands full preventing an economic collapse and famine while simultaneously trying to consolidate its grip on power. This situation allowed Chiang Kai-Shek to withdraw his defeated forces to the island of Taiwan which had been occupied by American forces since 1945. Taiwan was still under Japanese sovereignty until 1952 when the Treaty of San Francisco took effect. This allowed the military dictator Chiang Kai-Shek to remain in control of Chinese territory in contravention of the promise made to China in 1943 by the Allied powers in the Cairo Declaration that envisaged the return of Taiwan to Chinese control.

Besides Taiwan, the new CCP government in Beijing was de facto forced to accept that Hong Kong and Macao would remain in British and Portuguese hands respectively. So even after the momentous struggles of the Chinese people to resist Japanese occupation and their defeat of the U.S. sponsored dictatorship of Chiang Kai-Shek whose soldiers, “were drunks, brutes, rapists and murders,’’[1] they were forced to accept that parts of their country would remain under Western control.

It is no wonder that many Chinese people remained wary of the West throughout the remainder of the 20th century.

To compound matters further China was involved in major confrontations with the U.S. and its Western allies during the Cold War.

From 1950-53 hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops fought against the Americans during the Korean War with Chinese losses estimated at over 180,000 men, that included Mao’s son. Meanwhile, during the Vietnam War over 300,000 Chinese troops were stationed in North Vietnam to deter an American invasion of the Communist North.

The cumulative impact of this colonial past has been to fundamentally shape the outlook of both the CCP controlled state and the Chinese population. Since 1949 the CCP controlled state has revealed a determination to build up the country’s economic and military strength to a point where it can never be dominated by the West again. This outlook has largely been accepted by the Chinese population acutely aware of the country’s ‘Century of Humiliation’ at the hands of Western powers and Japan.

Chinese Revolution of 1949 used to bolster Xi’s oligarchic regime

The 70th anniversary of the Chinese revolution, that swept away the comprador capitalism of Chiang Kai-Shek and expropriated the rotten feudal system, that caused mass impoverishment of the peasantry, has been used by President Xi to bolster support for his oligarchic regime.

In his address to the Chinese people he spoke on the same spot from which Mao had declared the People’s Republic of China on 1 October 1949. President Xi played on the collective historical memory of how the Revolution of 1949 ended China’s instability under a U.S. sponsored regime that left the country impoverished, destitute and divided. President Xi said that the Revolution of 1949:

“… marked the end of more than one hundred years of national humiliation and misery the country had suffered since modern times. The Chinese people managed to stand up on their feet and embark upon a great journey of national rejuvenation. Over 70 years the Chinese have been united as one people. Through hard work and perseverance we have scored unparalleled achievements.’’

Xi also played upon nationalist sentiment stirred up by the current trade war with the United States when he declared:

“Today a socialist China is standing in the east of the world and there is no force that can shake the foundation of this great nation. No force can stop the Chinese people and the Chinese nation from forging ahead.”

Later in his speech Xi recognised that the stability of his regime rested on its ability to meet the material needs of China’s 1.3 billion population.  He stated that one of the key tasks of his government was to ‘meet the people’s aspirations for a better life’.

This brings us back to the current trade war with the United States as Xi’s ability to maintain current living standards is dependent upon the future success of the Made In China 2025 initiative and the Belt and Road infrastructure project. Equally critical is warding off American attempts to thwart its economic and technological development through the current trade war.

Prospects for a U.S.-China Trade Deal

The current trade war will never be fully resolved until Washington drops its key demands for China to make structural reforms to its economy that would infringe on its national sovereignty. These American demands include:

  • Reducing the state’s share in the overall economy from 38% to 20%.
  • An enforcement mechanism for any trade deal that would put power in American hands to effectively police China’s economy.

Closing state-controlled factories at American insistence is not an option that Xi could pursue. Neither could he agree to allowing the U.S. have a veto over China’s compliance with any U.S.-China trade deal without losing support from the Chinese people. If Xi agreed to such American demands it would feed into strongly held memories of the Century of Humiliation when Western powers dominated and controlled its economy through the unequal treaty system. Xi is never going to agree to American demands that would undermine the CCP’s grip on power.

Having said this, Trump is beginning to realise that China cannot be bullied into submission on the key issues that led him to launch the trade war in the first place. As 2020 looms with a re-election campaign only a year away it would be no surprise to see Trump come to a compromise deal with China where a limited trade deal is agreed upon.

This could involve the removal of certain tariffs or all tariffs, China agreeing to purchase more U.S. agricultural products and allowing greater access for U.S. investors into China’s domestic market. Meanwhile, the U.S. would continue letting its chip makers and soft ware companies sell to strategically important Chinese companies such as Huawei.

Lance Roberts, chief editor of the Real Investment Report, sums this possibility up nicely with the observation:

“For Trump, he can spin a limited deal as a ‘win’ saying ‘China is caving to his tariffs’ and that he ‘will continue working to get the rest of the deal done.’ He will then quietly move on to another fight, which is the upcoming election, and never mention China again. His base will quickly forget the ‘trade war’ ever existed.

Kind of like that ‘Denuclearization deal’ with North Korea.”

A short-term trade deal concluded in the autumn that would remove some or all tariffs and give U.S. companies some certainty over the future direction of trade policies. It would give stock markets an undoubted boost.

J.P. Morgan’s chief equities strategist Lakos Bujas has estimated that a short term trade deal could boost the S&P500 Index to new highs for the year of 3,200-3,300.

Whereas, a failure to get any kind of limited deal or an escalation from current levels of hostility would impact very negatively upon financial markets sending the S&P500 Index to 2,500.

This would be disastrous for a president facing re-election, who claims credit for the current highs in financial markets which he boasts are indicative of how strong the underlying U.S. economy is.

The future of U.S.-China relations in the 21st century

If the U.S. and China come to a limited trade deal over the next period it won’t change the fundamentals of their adversarial relationship. The United States has been the world’s hegemonic economic power since the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944. It has dominated global trade through the dollars use as the world’s reserve currency and been an economic powerhouse in the field of advanced technologies.

Now China has come along and upset the apple-cart by challenging American dominance of the global economy. This kind of existential struggle has been played out many times throughout history when dominant powers face competition from rising nations. The Greek historian Thucydides explained this simply, “It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.”

Over the last 500 years alone there have been 16 cases where a hegemonic power has been challenged by a rising power. In 12 cases the irreconcilable contradictions between the hegemony and challenger led to war breaking out.

The last century witnessed the titanic struggle between the Soviet Union and the United States that came desperately close to nuclear war and led to a series of highly destructive proxy wars being fought all around the planet.

The United States like so many other hegemonic empires in the past from the Romans to the British Empire have bankrupted themselves fighting wars to cling onto their position as top dog.

The U.S. sees China as an existential long-term threat to its economic and military dominance which won’t be resolved up by any limited trade deal that maybe concluded this autumn.

Randall Schriver, the assistant defence secretary for Indo-Pacific security affairs, made this point clearly when speaking on the 70 anniversary of the Chinese Revolution at the Brooking s Institute:

“We feel we are in competition because fundamentally we have different visions, different aspirations and different views of what regional security architecture should look like. Globally, China seeks to shape a world consistent with its authoritarian model and national goals.’’

He expressed American unease at China’s rapidly expanding economic and military capabilities:

“The department views military developments in China as seeking to erode U.S. military advantages. They are working to become the pre-eminent power in the Indo-Pacific while simultaneously making plans to expand its presence and sustain its capabilities farther from Chinese shores.”

Scriver acknowledged that the American empire can no longer assume its vast military will intimidate rising states away from a clash with the U.S. It now finds itself back in the same position it had during the Cold War where it now has to expect a fight from a powerful opponent:

“Instead of expecting to dominate an opponent, our armed forces are learning to expect to be contested throughout a fight, while achieving the political objectives set for them. “

At the end of World War Two the U.S. dominated the global economy in a way that no other nation has ever done in human history. The many advantages it had, such as the dollars dominance of global trade, are being challenged by China as it seeks to secure markets, raw materials and energy sources to secure the living standards of its 1.3 billion people.

Scenarios facing the American Empire

The United States ruling class faces several choices at this crucial juncture in history. Having dominated the 20th century the U.S. now faces a powerful rising challenger in the 21st century that is relentlessly pursuing an economic strategy that will leave the United States in its shadow unless it takes decisive action now.

Several possible courses of action are outlined below.

It can try to come to a comprehensive long term resolution of its differences with China that would effectively divide the world into two zones of economic influence: the Western zone led by the U.S. and supported by its NATO allies and an eastern zone led by China and supported by Russia.

The other option it faces is to try and combat the rising economic power of China through increased economic warfare such as comprehensive sanctions on key sectors of China’s hi-tech industry, blocking China from the SWIFT system of global payments, forcing U.S. companies to divest from China. Such measures, of course, would push political tensions between the two powers to dangerously high levels. These could result in proxy wars being fought or at worst a conventional conflict that would rapidly escalate to nuclear war.

Of course, none of this may come to pass and we may just see a drift in American policy as its political class struggle to resolve pressing domestic problems. As Ray Dalio has commented unless the U.S. deals with its huge wealth inequalities over the next period then it faces a period of intense class conflict that may threaten the capitalist system itself with overthrow.  Domestic turbulence in the United States, crippling its ability to act inchecking Beijing, would de facto let China emerge as the world’s largest economy that would dominate global trade.

The economic and geo-political conflict between China and the United States will increasingly dominate global affairs over the next few decades. The American Empire faces difficult choices either to confront, acquiesce or accommodate the rising power of its Chinese rival.

*

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] quote from Robert Bickers, Out Of China: How The Chinese Ended The Era Of Western Domination, 2018, Penguin Books.

The Johnson government has taken another desperate turn to hold on to power and is doing so in such a fashion that it could threaten the British nation-state will all sorts of implications for a very long time. These threats to Britain’s neighbours are serious and could take years to recover from.

Many people may have seen but not recognised just how serious some social media or news headlines have been on this. Robert Peston from ITV News explains.

Downing St has tonight said explicitly that EU governments which oppose a Brexit delay will be rewarded by Boris Johnson, and that if the EU approves a delay Johnson will do his damnedest to sabotage the functioning of the EU, pending Brexit. This is the most explosive…

The excerpt above is from a note sent to James Forsythe of The Spectator by an official of Number 10 Downing Street. The actual text relevant in this response reads as follows:

We will make clear privately and publicly that countries which oppose delay will go the front of the queue for future cooperation — cooperation on things both within and outside EU competences. Those who support  delay will go to the bottom of the queue. [This source also made clear that defence and security cooperation will inevitably be affected if the EU tries to keep Britain in against the will of its government] Supporting delay will be seen by this government as hostile interference in domestic politics, and over half of the public will agree with us.

We will also make clear that this government will not negotiate further so any delay would be totally pointless.  They think now that if there is another delay we will keep coming back with new proposals. This won’t happen. We’ll either leave with no deal on 31 October or there will be an election and then we will leave with no deal.

‘When they say ‘so what is the point of delay?’, we will say “This is not our delay, the government is not asking for a delay — Parliament is sending you a letter and Parliament is asking for a delay but official government policy remains that delay is an atrocious idea that everyone should dismiss. Any delay will in effect be negotiated between you, Parliament, and the courts — we will wash our hands of it, we won’t engage in further talks, we obviously won’t given any undertakings about cooperative behaviour, everything to do with ‘duty of sincere cooperation’ will be in the toilet, we will focus on winning the election on a manifesto of immediately revoking the entire EU legal order without further talks, and then we will leave. Those who supported delay will face the inevitable consequences of being seen to interfere in domestic politics in a deeply unpopular way by colluding with a Parliament that is as popular as the clap.

Those who pushed the Benn Act intended to sabotage a deal and they’ve probably succeeded. So the main effect of it will probably be to help us win an election by uniting the leave vote and then a no deal Brexit. History is full of such ironies and tragedies.

The governments’ position has now been openly stated – that any EU member country that opposes an extension will be given preferential treatment ahead of others. But more importantly, threats were then made that any member state not opposing an extension will be treated as interfering in Britain’s politics, and will, therefore, be regarded as a hostile state. This threat includes national security via defence and security cooperation. The threat goes further – that Britain will then do anything it can to destabilise the EU project more widely and that it will wash its hands of any further discussion on the subject of Brexit.

Official government policy is such that Britain will now fully back, support and cooperate with any EU state, say Estonia (population 1.3m/GDP equivalent to Leicester in the UK) and at the same time block cooperation with France, Germany, Italy etc, who will not veto the Brexit extension. Britain will also attempt to bring down the EU. The implications of these threats are very wide-ranging, and will not be forgotten when Britain does finally need to start negotiating with the EU27 for a trade deal.

So far, no EU member state has come forward to back the veto – meaning the EU27 as a whole is acting as a hostile state to the current British government and that Britain.

Even if these threats are only partially true, the damage being done to relationships built up since the last World War and especially over the last 50 years with our European partners is immense. Under Johnson, Britain is literally burning bridges as it dashes for isolationism and the country could easily be regarded as something of a rogue state by some EU27 heads of state when the fallout of Brexit finally lands somewhere.

I leave that thought to you!

*

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.

In an interview with DW Brasil, former Brazilian ambassador to Beijing, Marcos Caramuru, revealed the great interest Chinese companies have in potential infrastructure work in Brazil. Even with Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro showing initial hostility towards China during his 2018 election campaign, his opinion appears to have changed given the huge sums involved in bilateral relations and the opportunities the Asian country can provide the economic struggling Latin American Giant.

Bolsonaro is commonly known as the ‘Tropical Trump’ for his open admiration of the U.S. President and his shared ideas and beliefs. Therefore, it was unsurprising that he said

“The Chinese are not buying in Brazil… They are buying Brazil,” in the pre-election campaign.

Global Times speculated that “it’s inconceivable the new Bolsonaro government would give up on the Chinese market.” It also left a note of caution for the Brazilian leader who made another major antagonism towards China: “His trip to Taiwan during the presidential campaign caught the ire of Beijing. If he continues to disregard the basic principle over Taiwan after taking office, it will apparently cost Brazil a great deal … The Chinese island won’t bring any more benefits to Brazil, which Bolsonaro and his team must be aware of.”

Marcus Vinicius Freitas, a visiting professor at the China Foreign University in Beijing, explained that:

“When the Chinese look at Brazil they actually see an amusement park where everything still needs to be done.”

His assessment is in reference to the huge developmental and infrastructural opportunities that Brazil has, with many sectors remaining underdeveloped despite the domineering position Brazil has over the wider Latin American region.

“There is no doubt that China has a menu of options for Brazil,” he added, citing Chinese technologies in road, subway, rail, viaduct and airport construction that could be of interest to Brazil.

There are also additional opportunities from agribusiness to commodities, the most attractive sector for Chinese capital is infrastructure and major works, especially in the area of ​​gas, oil, renewable energy which will ensure growth on a sustainable and significant basis for the Brazilian economy.

However, despite the significant economic relationship between the two countries and the opportunities China can provide Brazil, it had not stopped Bolsonaro from aggravating Beijing. Therefore, it would be assumed that Bolsonaro would submit to Trump’s every demand in the midst of the U.S. president’s trade war with China. However, this has proven not to be the case with Brazil’s Vice President Hamilton Mourão saying in June that his country does not plan to ban Huawei from providing 5G equipment to telecoms in his country, signalling that Bolsonaro has said one thing during the election campaign, but acted in another way while president.

This would suggest that Bolsonaro’s government is following a different path than initially anticipated and the Brazilian president is not a complete U.S. puppet as often said by his critics. Although Trump told Bolsonaro during the latter’s visit to the White House earlier this year that Huawei was a security threat, the Brazilian Vice President emphasized that Brazil has no reason to distrust Huawei and that his country needs the Chinese technology to help its continued development.

As Beijing has been calling for a resolution to the Trump-initiated trade war, China’s ambassador to Brazil, Yang Wanming, accused the United States of bullying and lobbying its trading partners, affecting the entire global economy. He explains that the U.S. ruined market confidence, increased the risk of global recession and endangered emerging economies like Brazil.

And in this scenario, it would be important for Brasilia and Beijing to defend international cooperation and multilateralism. China’s GDP grew by ‘only’ 6.2% in the second quarter of 2019, which is the lowest economic growth recorded since 1992. This so-called economic ‘slowdown’ has served as a successful bait to trigger Western media.

As a result, Trump declared that his tariff war with China was working and said his protectionist measures had led to the exodus of companies from the Asian giant. However, if the measures were so successful Trump would not continue to threaten his partners from trading with China. The Bolsonaro government has seen that in this situation, siding with the U.S. is not in its interests.

Although Bolsonaro will continue to take on a very pro-Trump stance in Latin American affairs, especially against Cuba and Venezuela, he has demonstrated that he is unwilling to embroil Brazil in international issues besides those relating to Israel, serving the interests of the powerful Christian Evangelical lobby in the South American country.

In fact, an argument can be made that Brazil benefits from the ongoing trade war between the two Great Powers. China has continually been placing large orders of Brazilian soybeans, choosing the South American country to fill the supply gap after stopping U.S. purchases. Chinese buyers are increasingly looking for Brazilian soybeans.

China halted U.S. soybean imports as tensions between Beijing and Washington increased and turned to Brazil. For now, Brazil has been able to respond to China’s demand, but its supply is running low and Beijing is at risk of failing to meet its needs. With any end to the trade war, it is unlikely that China will revert and make the U.S. its most important soy purchaser, providing an opportunity for Brazil to consolidate its own position.

Whether it was through a sudden realization, or whether it was from internal pressures from Brazil’s powerful agricultural industry and other important advisers, Bolsonaro has certainly done a 180 towards his China rhetoric. With the status of Brazil’s role in BRICS questioned by experts last year because of Bolsonaro’s initial hostility towards China and his vivid support for Trump, his Foreign Minister Ernesto Araújo has fully embraced his country’s chairmanship of the organization. This demonstrates that no matter the motivating reason, Bolsonaro has certainly changed his China policy from hostility to openness and welcomeness as the Asian country can drastically improve Brazil’s economic situation.

*

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 Is China “Buying Brazil”? Has President Bolsonaro Changed His Aggressive Anti-China Stance?
  • Tags: , ,

Compensating for Forest Loss or Advancing Forest Destruction?

October 8th, 2019 by World Rainforest Movement

The government of India, hand-in-hand with companies and conservationist NGOs, keeps pushing to expand their control over forests and evict forest-dependent communities. The February 2019 Supreme Court eviction order and a proposal for amendments to the colonial Indian Forest Act from May 2019, among others, seek to put an end to the 2006 Forest Rights Act (FRA), a landmark law that recognizes many rights of Adivasis (indigenous peoples) and other traditional forest dwelling communities in India.

Many forest areas have been unilaterally declared National Parks and Tiger Reserves in the past few decades without the consent of the hundreds of communities that inhabit those forests. These communities are particularly vulnerable. The threat also stalks communities who do not live in the Parks or Reserves per se but need access to those because the forests provide livelihoods and fulfil a host of other needs.

In parallel, a scheme called the Compensatory Afforestation in India – a method of licensing deforestation in one place by claiming to ‘compensate’ for the destruction elsewhere – is accelerating both, the destruction of forests by big corporations and the appropriation of community land for the supposed compensation. Revisions to the scheme make it obligatory for a company applying for a license to destroy a forest, a so-called ‘forest clearance’, to compensate for the loss of that forest. A company can compensate either by setting up and maintaining tree plantations or by making a payment to the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAMPA).

Implementing guidelines for the Compensatory Afforestation Fund marked the turning point from mere compensation payments to compensation offsets, where the payment or tree planting is expected to be equivalent to the forest that will be destroyed. The court ruling requested payments to represent the ‘net present value’ of the forest to be destroyed. This value is to be calculated by quantifying the ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘goods’ that the forest (now called ‘natural capital’) has been providing before it is destroyed. The Forest Department was supposed to use the funds to “restore” forests. Instead, either there is no compensation because there are no plantations or communities face loss of land for CAMPA-funded tree plantations or evictions. Plantations are also coming up as buffers around protected areas from which people have already been evicted or threatened with imminent eviction.

This scheme, though, continues and extends from an earlier process of licensing deforestation (forest diversion) institutionalized under the Indian Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980. However, similar processes of pushing a neoliberal de-regulation of environmental, forest and land-related laws for allowing companies to offset their deforestation with another equivalent forest or plantation are emerging in many places. This is proving to be disastrous for forest dependant populations and the forests they depend upon.

The study “India: Compensating for Forest Loss or Advancing Forest Destruction?” looks at several projects in which deforestation in one location has been combined with seizure of land for supposedly ‘commensurate’ afforestation in another location. Examples describe some of the sectors that have benefited most from state permissions to deforest. They include mining (Durgapur), hydropower (Subansiri and Teesta) and irrigation (Polavaram).

Government agencies primarily target land over which communities hold customary rights or where the land question is disputed. These customary rights will generally be restricted when land is turned into a Compensatory Afforestation area because land used for such measures has to be reclassified as forest, under Forest Department control. It’s worth noting that this classification allows turning these areas into tree plantations, which further jeopardizes community livelihoods due to the widely documented social and ecological devastation these plantations cause for forest-dependent communities. This re-classification also undermines the Forest Rights Act, a central piece of legislation passed in 2006 to protect the rights of forest-dependent communities, strengthen their decision-making power over customary land and thereby promote forest conservation. Re-classification by contrast, strengthens the Forest Department’s control over community forests and conflicts abound.

Projects that have faced intense, prolonged community resistance or public controversy are discussed in the study. In the cases of Subansiri, Teesta and Polavaram the particular focus of struggle has been over forest rights and implementation of the Forest Rights Act of 2006; the communities affected are largely forest-dependent adivasis (indigenous peoples). At Durgapur, meanwhile, both mining and the afforestation that supposedly ‘compensates’ for the associated forest destruction have caused socio-ecological harm.

The paper also shows that unencumbered land on the scale needed to implement the Compensatory Afforestation promises already pending does not exist and taking land under customary use will lead to further conflict and violence with forest communities and tribal rights holders.

 *

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 Compensating for Forest Loss or Advancing Forest Destruction?

Boris Johnson’s claims that the UK is ‘on the verge of creating commercially viable miniature fusion reactors for sale around the world’ has left scientists and industry experts baffled – as it is still decades off.

***

During his big conference speech Johnson trumpeted the technological achievements of British science, telling the audience:

“I know they have been on the verge for some time, it is a pretty spacious kind of verge, but now we are on the verge of the verge.”

But this left those familiar with the UK’s fusion programme nonplussed.

The Joint European Torus (JET) fusion facility in Oxfordshire is certainly close to the verge. Following the government’s notification to leave the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) after Brexit, as part of the Article 50 process, the European Union and the UK Atomic Energy Authority committed to a €100-million package to fund the reactor only until 2020.

JET is a Europe-wide facility located in Culham in Oxfordshire. It is collectively used by all European fusion laboratories under the EUROfusion consortium.

The Culham Centre is currently working on experiments to help build a bigger fusion facility, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in southern France. The UK is a partner in the development of ITER, but the France-based plant does not plan to achieve first plasma until 2025 and full fusion power until 2035.

Johnson’s claims about the imminent commercialisation of nuclear fusion by British scientists has left experts scratching their heads. The day after the prime minister’s speech, the government announced £220 million over the next four years towards the design of a future commercially viable fusion power station.

The design of the new facility, to be known as the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (STEP) will not be complete until 2024. Industry experts believe that while the UK’s tokamak experiments in fusion have led to breakthroughs in the field, all eyes are on ITER as the first viable fusion power plant, and thereafter to China which is expected to build a scaled-up version of ITER and drive down the cost for successful commercialisation.

Speaking to Research Fortnight magazine, Jim Watson, director of the UK Energy Research Centre at University College London said,

“the implication that fusion is ‘on the verge’ of providing a lot of energy for us is wrong. As many people have pointed out—even the fusion programme’s own website—it is several decades away.”

The magazine also quoted Arttu Rajantie, a theoretical physicist at Imperial College London, who said,

“Johnson’s speech completely missed the point about why Culham and the UK have a global lead in fusion research,” the project would “not be there without European collaboration”.

“Big science projects like this are only possible if scientists from different countries work together. Even if the UK could somehow replace the lost European funding—which I doubt—it would never be able to replace the benefits of European collaboration if it decides to go it alone,” he said.

*

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.

Selected Articles: US-China Telecom Warfare

October 8th, 2019 by Global Research News

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

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

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

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

*     *     *

Israelis Were ‘Saddened’ to Have to Kill Gaza Protesters, to Avert ‘Bloodbath’

By Philip Weiss, October 08, 2019

The tragedy of the shootings was that American liberal Jews cannot comprehend Israel’s response, Gordis says. He cites a Forward headline, “Israel’s Choice to Shoot Palestinians Should Horrify–But Not Surprise Us,” and says it reveals a misperception of Israeli Judaism. American Jews think of Judaism as a universal religion, but for Israelis, Judaism is a Jewish nation centered in Israel whose survival is at stake if any credibility is given to the right of return of Palestinian refugees. (There is never any sense in Gordis’s account that Palestinians, who make up 20 percent of Israel, have any voice in how Israel treats Palestinians.)

The US-Brokered Taliban-India Prisoner Swap Is a Pretty Big Deal

By Andrew Korybko, October 08, 2019

The US-brokered Taliban-Indian prisoner swap might lead to the resumption of the Afghan peace process but the deal also carries with it somewhat uncomfortable optics for Pakistan since it was likely agreed to during US peace envoy Khalilzad’s “ice-breaking” meeting with the Taliban in Islamabad last week.

US-China Telecom Warfare: Myanmar Turns to China’s Huawei Despite US Pressure

By Joseph Thomas, October 08, 2019

The current government of Myanmar is headed by State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy political party. Suu Kyi and and her party are virtual creations of the US and British governments benefiting from decades of political support and untold millions in financial aid. Suu Kyi also serves as the figurehead of an extensive network of fronts funded out of Washington and London posing as nongovernmental organisations.

US Impeachment Campaign Escalates with Claim of Second Whistleblower

By Patrick Martin, October 08, 2019

Like the first whistleblower, the additional witness or witnesses were said to be intelligence officials. At least one has been interviewed by Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who declared the initial complaint against Trump, over his efforts to get the president of Ukraine to provide derogatory material on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, to be “credible” and “urgent.”

Trump Escalated Wars He Inherited

By Stephen Lendman, October 08, 2019

Throughout most of Obama’s war in Syria, now Trump’s, the US used Kurdish YPG fighters as a Pentagon proxy force against the nation’s sovereign independence and territorial integrity, Republicans and undemocratic Dems want eliminated. Time and again, the US uses allies for its imperial interests, then betrays them, Syrian Kurds perhaps the latest group to learn this lesson the hard way. The White House announced that it will neither support or be involved in Turkey’s planned cross-border offensive against Syrian Kurdish fighters.

Can the US Starve Hezbollah of Funds?

By Elijah J. Magnier, October 08, 2019

Lebanese Hezbollah is a quasi-state actor, with 73 members of parliament and 18 members of the council of ministers in its camp. Its legitimacy is ensured by the legislative and executive authorities, along with a significant part of the security forces and the majority of the Shia that represent a bit less than a third of the population. Both President Michel Aoun and the pro-US Prime Minister, the dual nationality holder (Lebanese and Saudi) Saad Hariri, reasserted very recently Lebanon’s right to retaliate against Israel for sending two suicide drones into a suburb of Beirut, violating the cessation of hostilities agreed within the UN resolution 1701 following the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006.

*

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-China Telecom Warfare

Trump Escalated Wars He Inherited

October 8th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Trump is no peacenik, far from it. He’s the latest in a long line of US warrior presidents — waging endless wars of aggression, and by other means, against nonbelligerent states threatening no one.

He’s the US liar-in chief, time and again saying one thing, then going another way, long ago proving he can never be believed or trusted.

Candidate Trump falsely said

“I was against (Middle East wars). And I was against (them) very early. And we shouldn’t have been in there. And I think it is probably perhaps the worst mistake we have ever made.”

He called Afghanistan and Libya wars mistakes, after supporting them earlier.

He complained about wasting trillions of dollars, turning the Middle East into a mess, instead of using the funds spent to rebuild America.

“(W)e don’t have the money because it’s been squandered on so many (wrong) ideas,” he said.

In January, he vowed to pull US forces out of Syria. They remain, illegally occupying about 30% of the country’s northern and southern territory.

He vetoed legislation to end US involvement in Yemen. He supports increased spending for militarism, wars, weapons development to unprecedented levels, and America’s global empire of bases — used a platforms for endless wars against invented enemies.

Permanent war is longstanding US policy under both right wings of the one-party state, Trump following in the footsteps of his predecessors.

Permanent occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria are planned. US military forces came to stay. The same goes elsewhere under US installed puppet regimes it controls.

US dark forces didn’t permit Trump’s election to get “out of these ridiculous wars,” as he falsely claimed.

They demand no change in the nation’s permanent war agenda. He lied claiming he rebuilt a “depleted” military.

With all categories included, the US spends as much or more on militarism and warmaking than all other countries combined — a machine used for mass slaughter, destruction and intimidation.

Trump lied, or perhaps doesn’t know, claiming “(w)e quickly defeated 100% of the ISIS caliphate” — a scourge the US created and supports, along with al-Qaeda, and likeminded terrorist groups, used as proxy forces in all US war theaters.

Throughout most of Obama’s war in Syria, now Trump’s, the US used Kurdish YPG fighters as a Pentagon proxy force against the nation’s sovereign independence and territorial integrity, Republicans and undemocratic Dems want eliminated.

Time and again, the US uses allies for its imperial interests, then betrays them, Syrian Kurds perhaps the latest group to learn this lesson the hard way.

The White House announced that it will neither support or be involved in Turkey’s planned cross-border offensive against Syrian Kurdish fighters.

US forces in the country are being redeployed away from the Turkish border, leaving Ankara free to wage aggression on the Kurds uncontested by the Pentagon.

Betraying them is no surprise. Abandoning allies when no longer needed, wanted, or when other objectives take precedence is longstanding US practice.

Virtually nothing Trump says or does surprises. On Monday, he tweeted:

“If Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate” its economy.

Bilateral relations have been strained for years, notably since the 2016 aborted coup attempt to topple Erdogan, US dirty hands likely behind it.

Erdogan is at odds with Washington over its support for Kurdish fighters in northern Syria. He’s upset over being treated as both a NATO ally and Eurasian adversary by the US.

While playing the Russia and US cards simultaneously, he’s increasingly shifting his allegiance East, away from the West – another body blow to Washington’s imperial agenda.

His chief advisor Yalcin Topcu earlier said

“(i)t is time to reconsider our membership in NATO…an organization that shows its hostile attitude to its member in every way,” calling its behavior “brutal and dishonorable.”

Despite heavy US pressure and threats, Turkey bought Russian S-400 air defense systems. Erdogan said he’ll continue buying Iranian oil and gas, ignoring US sanctions

He’s furious over the Trump regime’s ban on selling F-35s to Ankara in response to his S-400 purchase. His Foreign Ministry denounced the move, saying it “shows (a) hostile (US) attitude to its (alliance) member in every way.”

Turkey’s military in NATO is second largest to US force strength. If Erdogan withdraws over strained relations with Washington, it’ll be a major blow to US regional and global aims, notably by pushing Turkey closer to Russia.

*

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 US-brokered Taliban-Indian prisoner swap might lead to the resumption of the Afghan peace process but the deal also carries with it somewhat uncomfortable optics for Pakistan since it was likely agreed to during US peace envoy Khalilzad’s “ice-breaking” meeting with the Taliban in Islamabad last week.

***

Last week’s informal meeting between the Taliban and US peace envoy Khalilzad in Islamabad was a lot more important than just a symbolic “ice-breaking” following Trump’s decision to unexpectedly call off peace talks just days before he planned to secretly host the Taliban last month after it’s since been revealed that Washington brokered a Taliban-Indian prisoner swap whereby 11 fighters were released from American custody in exchange for three Indian engineers. This exchange proves that not only is there a political will on both sides to cut pragmatic deals with one another in the spirit of restarting the frozen peace process, but also that the US will exploit this opportunity to advance India’s regional interests as well despite the ongoing trade tensions between them that are being manipulated by both as they try to clinch a better forthcoming trade deal.

India is, after all, one of the US’ main “Lead From Behind” proxy partners for “containing” China through the Pentagon’s so-called “Indo-Pacific” strategy, so it makes sense that it wants to remain within its good graces in that security-centric respect by symbolically ensuring the release of some of its prisoners. Importantly, the prisoner swap took place in the run-up to President Xi’s rumored informal visit to India later this month that’s being commenced in an attempt to revive the “Wuhan spirit” that briefly characterized their relationship following the aforementioned eponymous informal summit in spring 2018, so the exchange could also be a sly attempt by the US to remind India of the potential perks it could stand to lose if it enters into another rapprochement with China at this very sensitive international time right in the middle of the “trade war“.

Another important point to make is that this event marks the beginning of indirect US-facilitated contact between the Taliban and India even though New Delhi had previously sworn never to negotiate with what it still vehemently considers to be a “terrorist group” (NOTE: Russia also regards the Taliban as “terrorists” but nevertheless still negotiates with and hosts them from time to time). This could represent an attempt by India to rethink its failed Afghan strategy as it tries to secure its long-term interests there following the US’ eventual withdrawal and the Taliban’s likely ascent to power in the aftermath. What India’s after in Afghanistan is simple enough, and it’s both to use the country as “strategic depth” for continuing its Hybrid War on CPEC while simultaneously taking advantage of its transit potential to expand its influence in Central Asia.

The first-mentioned is self-explanatory and just refers to Indian intelligence services using Afghanistan as a springboard for waging unconventional war in Pakistan’s border regions while the second relates to reaching mutually beneficial deals with the Taliban to protect India’s trade routes through the country and onward to the rest of the region in order to indirectly “contain” China’s economic influence via the planned eastern branch of the Chabahar Corridor. Neither of those strategies are that successful nowadays, but that nevertheless won’t stop India from trying to advance them if it has the chance. The aforementioned policies are obviously against Pakistan’s interests, which is why the country might understandably feel somewhat uncomfortable that Khalilzad might have mildly promoted both objectives while meeting with the Taliban on its territory last week.

That’s not to say that those possible outcomes were the only reason why he visited the global pivot state and had his “ice-breaking” meeting with the Afghan fighters, but just that this “goodwill” quid pro quo towards possibly restarting the peace talks does indeed look like a symbolic victory of sorts for India, though that still doesn’t mean that the immediate consequences were at Pakistan’s expense. Approached from a different angle, it could be said that this was a necessary “compromise” by all sides — the US and the Taliban for swapping prisoners, India for entering into indirect contact with the group despite previously promising never to do so, and Pakistan for letting this deal be brokered on its territory — in order to move past last month’s impasse and make some degree of progress, whether on restarting the peace talks or returning some prisoners.

For all that’s known, this event might just be a “one-off” that doesn’t lead to any follow-up progress in any respect, but it should still be regarded as a big deal at least for now because of the potential that it has to shape the future situation along the lines that were previously touched upon. To wrap it all up, not only might this lead to the thawing of the frozen peace process and possibly even more US-brokered indirect contact between India and the Taliban (in pursuit of the previously mentioned goals that were discussed above), but the timing is also suspect because it could be interpreted as sending a signal to India not to reconcile with China during President Xi’s rumored upcoming informal visit. All told, this unexpected development certainly caught many by surprise, and it proves that all parties still have a trick or two up their sleeves this late in the game.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Baby You’re a Rich Man
The Beatles

How does it feel to be
One of the beautiful people
Now that you know who you are
What do you want to be
And have you traveled very far
Far as the eye can see

How does it feel to be
One of the beautiful people
How often have you been there
Often enough to know
What did you see when you were there
Nothing that doesn’t show

Baby you’re a rich man
Baby you’re a rich man
Baby you’re a rich man, too

You keep all your money in a big brown bag
Inside a zoo, what a thing to do

The song lyrics resonate some 50+ years later for the state of our nation. If ever there was a well developed country so overwhelmingly controlled by the ‘Less than 1/4 of One Percent’ it is us. Millionaires, Mega Millionaires and even a few Billionaires run our corporations, our media and of course our politics. The average working stiff needs not to see the figures and statistics to know this… we sense it! Having a billionaire in the White House only confirms this truth.

The whole lot of these super rich must have their bodyguards, chauffeurs, heavily secured gated communities and mansions, and of course the local police who look upon them as royalty.

Why all this? Well, like the 2004 Tony Scott film Man on Fire, Amerika today is like that film’s Banana Republic south of usreplete with kidnappings of spouses and children, in need of armed bodyguards and high end security. The super rich refuse to sense that what they are doing is against any such religion they may adhere to… if they can even worship any God other than mammon. 

Mark 10:17-25 17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good-except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.'” 20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.” 21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” 

Yes, the Super Rich are doing just that, at alarming rates. Here is a tidbit published just one week ago (September 30th 2019) on facts most of our working stiffs won’t ever read or hear from their mainstream media:

By NICOLELYN PESCE

For the past two years, publicly held corporations have had to disclose the ratio between the compensation of their CEOs and the median compensation of their employees under the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform act. And while few American CEOs pocketed more than 40 or 50 times their worker pay back in the 1960s and 70s, according to the Institute for Policy Studies’ new “Executive Excess 2019” report, nearly 80% of S&P 500 firms paid their CEO more than 100 times their median worker pay last year.

In fact, it would take the typical worker at one of the 50 public companies with the widest pay gaps an entire millennium to earn what their CEO makes in a single year. The latest report by the Institute for Policy Studies, which has researched executive compensation for 25 years, found that the median CEO pay at these 50 companies averaged $15.9 million last year, while the median worker earned just $10,027.

In fact, 10% of workers at S&P 500 firms (in 49 companies) earned less than the $27,005 poverty line for a U.S. family of four last year. That means at least 3.7 million employees at these companies didn’t earn a living wage to keep a family out of poverty. But the median 2018 CEO pay at these 49 places was $12.3 million.

Driving in my car at just before 8 AM I was in heavy traffic alongside many working stiffs slugging through the pouring rain. One wonders how those folks would react when receiving the aforementioned info above? The Super Rich and their embedded in empire political and media lackeys love to spill out the mantra of ‘ Oh that’s just class warfare **** from the Left”. Perhaps it is time for more working stiffs to answer back ‘ No, this is simply class consciousness and it’s sure about time for that!’

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Baby You’re a (Super) Rich Man! Mega Millionaires Run Our Corporations and our Politics

US Plans Permanent Occupation of Syrian Territory?

October 8th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

International law is clear and unequivocal. No nation may interfere in the internal affairs of others.

No foreign military of proxy force may occupy another country’s territory. No nation may attack another state without Security Council authorization — permitted only in self-defense, never preemptively for any reasons.

As a signatory to the UN Charter, international laws of war and related ones are automatically US constitutional law under its Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2).

Both right wings of the US one-party state repeatedly and egregiously flaunt international, constitutional, and US statute laws, pertaining to war and related geopolitical issues — the international community doing nothing to hold it accountable.

Many of its member-states partner in its wars of aggression, by other means, and/or other illegal actions against targeted nations.

All sovereign independent countries the US doesn’t control are on its target list for regime change — by brute force if other methods face.

Along with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, China, Somalia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Donbass (Ukraine), and Occupied Palestine, Syria is in the eye of the US storm.

Its troops and proxy jihadists illegally occupy around 30% of its territory. Under both wings of its war party, the US came to Syria to stay, seeking another imperial trophy, wanting Iran isolated regionally, aiming to replace its legitimate government with US-controlled puppet rule.

All of the above is what the scourge of imperialism is all about. US rage for unchallenged global dominance is humanity’s greatest threat — at home and abroad.

Deceptive headlines falsely claim Trump intends withdrawing from Syria, a sampling:

NYT: “Trump Throws Middle East Policy Into Turmoil Over Syria…vow(ing) to withdraw American forces…”

Washington Post: “Trump withdrawing US from Syria…”

WSJ: “Trump’s Call to Leave Syria Draws Fire From GOP Allies”

Fox News: “Trump defends decision to withdraw troops from Syria”

CNN: Trump ignores his own warning in Syria…dec(ides) to remove the remaining American troops…”

AP News: “Trump defends decision to abandon Kurdish allies in Syria”

Reuters: “ ‘Buckle up:’ Abrupt Syria policy shift is sign of Trump unchained”

Haaretz: “Trump defies Pentagon, withdraws from Syria: Israel caught by surprise at Trump’s decision”

Countless other headlines and reports are similar — no Western ones explaining Obama’s war, now Trump’s, nothing about illegal US occupation of Syrian territory, a flagrant breach of international and US constitutional law.

Fact: The US came to Syria to stay, Pentagon forces and proxy jihadists operating from around 18 bases in the country’s north near Turkey’s border and south near Iraq and Jordan.

Fact: Trump is redeploying US forces in Turkey away from Turkey’s border, not withdrawing them from the country as falsely reported.

A White House statement said the US will neither support or be involved in Turkey’s planned cross-border offensive against Syrian Kurdish fighters — US proxies against Damascus.

What’s coming is naked aggression by any standard, part of President Erdogan aim to annex Syrian territory, especially its oil-producing areas.

On Tuesday, Turkey’s war ministry said

“(a)ll preparations for the (cross-border) operation have been completed…ahead of a long-planned…operation.”

On the same day, Turkish Hurriyet News reported that the Pentagon “shut Turkey off on Oct. 7 from the air space in northeastern Syria, taking a series of actions that reduce the possibility that Turkish jets could support a planned military operation there,” adding:

US troops were redeployed away from the “security mechanism area between Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ayn in (Syria’s) north.”

An unnamed State Department official said two small Pentagon detachments were moved “a very short distance” away from positions near Turkey’s border, adding:

“There’s no change to our military posture in the northeast,” including Pentagon control of its airspace.

On Monday, Turkish warplanes reportedly struck Kurdish forces in northern Syria in al-Hasakah province.

On Tuesday, the Syrian Arab News Agency said

“the Turkish regime’s army on Monday evening launched an assault on a number of areas in Hasaka northeastern countryside,” adding:

No casualties were reported, “material damages” alone. Turkey’s Anadolu news agency said Turkish warplanes struck Kurdish elements in northern Iraq’s Gara region, denying a Syria offensive was launched.

On Monday after meeting with his Iraqi counterpart Mohamad Ali Alhakim, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the following:

“We have a common position on Syria. It is necessary to complete the rout of the terrorists groups in that country.”

“We agreed to continue focusing on these issues of Syrian settlement in the Astana process, which was recently joined by Iraq as an observer.”

“We have common views on ways of deescalating tensions in the Persian Gulf area.”

He said nothing about illegal US occupation of northern or southern Syrian territory. Nor did he address Turkey’s planned cross-border aggression along areas bordering both countries.

Note: On Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif tweeted:

“US is an irrelevant occupier in Syria—futile to seek its permission or rely on it for security.”

“Achieving peace & fighting terror in Syria will only succeed thru respect for its territorial integrity & its people.”

“Adana provides framework for Turkey & Syria—Iran ready to help.”

In 1998, both countries adopted the Adana Interstate Agreement on Combating Terrorism — Damascus vowing to prevent terrorist elements in its territory from threatening Turkey.

Endless US-led aggression in Syria for regime change continues because bipartisan hardliners in Washington oppose restoration of peace and stability to the country.

Trump is captive to dark forces controlling him in charge of US geopolitical aims  — continuing on his watch without letup.

*

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 Southeast Asian state of Myanmar, despite pressure from Washington, has decided to work with Chinese telecom company Huawei to develop its national 5G communication network.

The move by Myanmar is just one among many by the entire region to build ties with China despite extensive efforts by the US and some Western European nations to encircle and isolate Beijing economically, politically and even militarily.

If ever there was an indicator of just how real the delcine of US primacy was particularly in Asia, it is this steady march of joint progress being made between the nations of Asia and China.

US State Department-funded media platform Voice of America (VOA) in its article deceptively titled, “Myanmar to Keep Huawei Despite Security Concerns,” would complain:

Myanmar has decided to keep using Chinese technology company Huawei to develop its new mobile communications system. 

The decision comes despite national security concerns about Huawei by the United States and some other countries.

Huawei Technologies is currently working on building the next generation in wireless technology in countries around the world. The development of 5G has caused tensions between the United States and China. U.S. officials have long suspected the Chinese government could use Huawei network equipment to help carry out spying activities. Huawei has rejected such accusations. 

It is only well into the third paragraph that the VOA article begins to admit “security concerns” regarding Huawei are in reality simply accusations made up by the United States and based on nothing resembling evidence or documented impropriety.

VOA finally admits that beyond alleged concerns regarding “national security,” the US has targeted Huawei because it conflicts with US “foreign policy interests.”

In other words, Huawei is outcompeting US corporations abroad and rather than look inward at the shortcomings of American industry and fixing them, the US is instead attacking Huawei politically through accusations and economically through sanctions.

Spot the Difference: Real Spying vs. Accusations of Spying 

For those wondering what genuine concerns over security should be based on, the BBC in its 2014 article titled, “Edward Snowden: Leaks that exposed US spy programme,” covers irrefutable, documented evidence of the US government abusing its monopoly over telecommunication networks to carry out unprecedented spying at home and abroad.

The scandal broke in early June 2013 when the Guardian newspaper reported that the US National Security Agency (NSA) was collecting the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans. 

The paper published the secret court order directing telecommunications company Verizon to hand over all its telephone data to the NSA on an “ongoing daily basis”. 

That report was followed by revelations in both the Washington Post and Guardian that the NSA tapped directly into the servers of nine internet firms, including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, to track online communication in a surveillance programme known as Prism.

Of course, the revelations made public by Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing went far deeper than Prism, involving invasive US spying efforts carried out with the help of not only telecommunication companies, but also software makers and even US-based hardware manufacturers.

MIT Technology Review in its article, “NSA’s Own Hardware Backdoors May Still Be a “Problem from Hell”,” would reveal:

Revelations that the NSA has compromised hardware for surveillance highlights the vulnerability of computer systems to such attacks.

In 2011, General Michael Hayden, who had earlier been director of both the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, described the idea of computer hardware with hidden “backdoors” planted by an enemy as “the problem from hell.” This month, news reports based on leaked documents said that the NSA itself has used that tactic, working with U.S. companies to insert secret backdoors into chips and other hardware to aid its surveillance efforts.

The US is thus guilty in reality of everything it is baselessly accusing Huawei of and serves as another example of the sort of “American exceptionalism” that has poisoned the globe’s perception of America.

Dirty Tricks vs. Real Competition 

Myanmar’s continued trajectory into China’s economic and political orbit is particularly embarrassing for the United States.

The current government of Myanmar is headed by State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy political party. Suu Kyi and and her party are virtual creations of the US and British governments benefiting from decades of political support and untold millions in financial aid. Suu Kyi also serves as the figurehead of an extensive network of fronts funded out of Washington and London posing as nongovernmental organisations.

These include groups that sabotage joint Myanmar-China infrastructure projects under the guise of upholding “human rights” or addressing “environmental concerns.”

Despite the artificial nature of Suu Kyi’s political rise, or perhaps because of it, her government is subject to much more fundamental forces than US meddling and rhetoric. Despite the finely honed tools of political interference Washington wields, Myanmar is still driven primarily by basic economic forces, as are all nations are.

While Washington has invested immense amounts of time, money and energy in manipulating the political landscape of foreign nations, it has severely neglected the basic fundamentals of any nation’s power including its own.

With no alternative to China’s manufacturing might, its ability to build massive continental-spanning infrastructure projects and its offer to lift all of Asia up with it as it ascends upon the global stage, even Washington’s most carefully crafted proxies end up succumbing to what is simply a better offer made by Beijing minus the constrictive conditions that come with any partnership made with Washington.

The story of the United States’ decline is one of neglected fundamentals. Until the US addresses these basic fundamentals, no amount of political meddling or military aggression can compensate for this decline.

Whether it is China’s Huawei offering better telecommunication solutions to Southeast Asia, or cheaper and more effective military hardware or a more appealing regional architecture that recognises the primacy of national sovereignty, until the US is able to offer a similar or better offer, it will continue to lose even in places like Myanmar where its investments and meddling have been most extensive.

One final dimension to this latest setback in Washington’s war on Huawei is that Huawei’s growing fortunes in the region regarding 5G technology will provide it with the time and clout needed to overcome some of Washington’s most damaging tactics including cutting Huawei off from Google’s Android operating system used by smartphones around the world.

Huawei is already launching smartphones using its own opensource operating system and as time goes by, it will likely begin displacing Google’s previously undisputed market share in Asia first, and globally next.

Huawei may have been outcompeting US corporations, but it was America’s own decision to play dirty that ultimately backfired and now threatens to displace the few remaining areas of expertise the US excelled in.

More Dirty Tricks Expected

The US will continue firing shots at China, and in response to Myanmar’s steady drift into Beijing’s orbit, the US will likely turn up its campaign of sowing instability within Myanmar itself.

Watching the US media turn on Aung San Suu Kyi whom they themselves for years helped christen as the patron saint of democracy and human rights on a level of reverence nearing that of that other notorious CIA creation, the Dalia Lama, is a warning to all who are eager servants of Western special interests. Suu Kyi’s future always was one in which she would be required by Washington to work against not only Myanmar’s best interests but her own as well.

Myanmar choosing Huawei was in the nation’s best interests. Myanmar working with China to develop badly needed national infrastructure is also in the nation’s best interests.

China’s role in mediating disputes along its border with Myanmar between the nation’s central government and separatist groups in an attempt to preserve Myanmar’s national unity is also much in Myanmar’s best interests.

It is an approach to resolving the conflicts contrasting greatly with the US’ tactics of defending separatist demands and perpetuating the destructive ethnic divisions purposefully cultivated when Myanmar was the British colony of Burma to keep the nation divided, weakened and susceptible to Western coercion.

Nothing the US has offered Myanmar comes even remotely close to fulfilling the nation and its people’s genuine needs or best interests and it is no wonder why Myanmar has pivoted toward Beijing despite the current government’s deep, decades-long ties to Washington.

The US will continue its current tactics, but this Eastward trend will continue for Myanmar and across the rest of Southeast Asia. The only question is how much damage the US will cause before the region fully escapes out from under the shadow of European colonisation and America’s self-appointed task of trying to reassert Western primacy over the region.

*

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

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-China Telecom Warfare: Myanmar Turns to China’s Huawei Despite US Pressure
  • Tags: , ,

Can the US Starve Hezbollah of Funds?

October 8th, 2019 by Elijah J. Magnier

Over the years, researchers have copied and parroted inaccurate declassified US intelligence reports on Hezbollah’s sources of income around the world. These documents claim Hezbollah lives off selling smuggled cigarettes and illegally copied CDs or on income generated by selling drugs in Latin America and around the world. The US also accuses Hezbollah of profiting from commercial or business projects abroad and of having bank accounts worldwide. These claims were pretexts for the US to impose sanctions on the group and confiscate foreign accounts that, in reality, did not belong to Hezbollah. When all attempts to curb Hezbollah’s finances failed, a few options remained to the US government.

One was to prevent Khums (tithes, a religious obligation referring to one fifth, or 20%, of acquired wealth at the end of a fiscal year) paid by Shia immigrants from reaching Hezbollah. Another was to impose heavy sanctions on Iran, Hezbollah’s main ally and financial provider. And the last was to impose sanctions on Shia individuals and banks in Lebanon dealing with Hezbollah ministers or members of parliament or other wealthy Shia with close ties to the organisation.

The objective was to push Shia society -which represents a third of the entire Lebanese population – to distance itself from Hezbollah. The US aims to break the policy of unity approved by the parliament, the council of ministers and the President, which calls for the solidarity of “the Army, the People and the Resistance” against any Israeli aggression on Lebanon. Can the US succeed in undermining the status of Hezbollah in Lebanese society, and in neutralising its finances?

Lebanese Hezbollah is a quasi-state actor, with 73 members of parliament and 18 members of the council of ministers in its camp. Its legitimacy is ensured by the legislative and executive authorities, along with a significant part of the security forces and the majority of the Shia that represent a bit less than a third of the population. Both President Michel Aoun and the pro-US Prime Minister, the dual nationality holder (Lebanese and Saudi) Saad Hariri, reasserted very recently Lebanon’s right to retaliate against Israel for sending two suicide drones into a suburb of Beirut, violating the cessation of hostilities agreed within the UN resolution 1701 following the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006. The Lebanese officials referred to Hezbollah when expressing “Lebanon’s right to retaliate” and waved this card in the face of international community representatives who were trying to convince the Lebanese of the validity and effectiveness of a “soft response” to Israel.

Notwithstanding the domestic legitimacy that protects Hezbollah’s existence and operation, is it possible for the US to impoverish Hezbollah, and how?

According to the latest visitor to Lebanon, Israeli-born US Treasury Under-Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker, Iran “provides $700 million a year to Hezbollah”, that is around $60 million monthly. If we assume this figure is correct, the quasi-state actor families and militants are spending tens of millions of dollars monthly in Lebanon, boosting its economy. Hezbollah pays “Huquq” (a term indicating payment of salaries) to its tens of thousands of members and provides full medical coverage to its members and their families. It invests money locally on artificial wells – to combat the scarcity of drinking water – and on other basic infrastructure needs the local government has failed to provide for decades. Lack of government attention, services and lack of protection for its population have given Hezbollah fertile ground to replace the Lebanese government role in many areas.

Hezbollah’s budget has been provided by Iranian crude oil for months. Iran considers Hezbollah not only as part of its national security but as an inseparable member of its body. Therefore, the US will need to close the tap of every single oil well in Iran to stop income from reaching Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Iran has managed to sell hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil daily despite the harsh US sanctions. Hezbollah takes its share of oil and sells it in the market at low prices. If Hezbollah receives $700 million yearly, it needs between 1.2 million barrels of oil per month to cover all expenses. That is an easy task to undertake since Hezbollah is present in Syria and Iraq, enjoying support among officials and among the population.

Even if falling short, the money Hezbollah is bringing to Lebanon – slightly less than one billion dollars per year – is contributing to the Lebanese economy. The country is suffering an acute financial crisis due to decades of corruption and the turbulent domestic economic system, which does not protect local industry and agriculture. Lebanon over-relies on tourism, a limited sector, and one that is easily affected by rumours of war in the region.

The US is now targeting the Lebanese banking system, one of the rare systems still working in the country. It has closed two major banks so far and imposed harsh measures on internal procedures and money transfers and has requested the closure of accounts related to individuals connected to Hezbollah in any way. The US administration is actually running the Lebanese banking system from Washington. The Central Bank of Lebanon is totally obedient to any US request, fearing a devaluation of the local currency or the collapse of Lebanese banks if targeted by the US.

Regardless of this grim picture, since the declaration of Hezbollah’s first memorandum in 1985 and its first unification in 1992, the Huquq has reached Hezbollah regularly, and never missed one single payment even if sometimes delayed for between four to six months.  Hezbollah continues to increase the number of recruits among its ranks. It is still paying Huquq (salaries) even if in some months these payments are divided into several instalments throughout the month or even delayed for a month or two.

The members of the organisation are not considered as employees in a bank or in any other civilian company to regulate payment of salaries. On the other hand, many Lebanese companies, including the ones owned by the Prime Minister, have closed their doors, refrained from paying their employees and dismissed their employees for lack of job opportunities in the country.

Hezbollah is a group fighting for its survival and for the protection of a society that would otherwise be unable to defend itself, its family members, and its wealth in the face of Israel’s many wars and the violation of its sovereignty. Hezbollah found fertile ground because it operates in the absence of any action by the Lebanese authorities against the Israeli occupation.

Since the liberation of Lebanon’s territory from Israeli occupation, Lebanese officials have relied on Hezbollah’s military capability in negotiations with US officials when defending the land and water rights of Lebanon. Hezbollah’s sophisticated military apparatus is also a deterrent to prevent Israel from further attacking Lebanon and to discourage a fourth war against the country.

It is inevitable that both Iran and Hezbollah be suffering the consequences of the US’s aggressive sanctions. Hezbollah used to get around 70% of its financial needs from Iran and the remaining 30% from Lebanese immigrants who volunteered to transfer their Khums to Lebanon.

Today, Hezbollah has taken its distance from these immigrants and rejected their donations in order to prevent any US aggressive action against them. The US administration considers any donor or any affluent Shia who transfers money to his family back in Lebanon as a potential Hezbollah member, eligible for prison. With the Lebanese family composition, most Shia families have relatives – a brother, a cousin or a family member – within the organisation. That doesn’t mean every single family member is a Hezbollah operative – but the West refuses to accept the complexity of the issue, apparently ,“as a matter of convenience”.

The US administration is attempting to create a split between Hezbollah and Lebanese society. The first measure was to try to strangle the Shia community in Lebanon and turn it against Hezbollah: to no avail. The bond is too strong to be seriously affected by such meddling. The US seems unaware that Hezbollah members and their families are not a foreign body but represent almost a third of the local population. Many of these depend today on Hezbollah, financially.

The US aims to teach the Lebanese a lesson for standing behind Hezbollah, particularly in the Lebanese-Israeli territorial and water dispute. The US administration would lift all sanctions on Lebanon if an agreement were reached with Israel whereby Lebanon gives up part of its oil-rich blocks on the borders.

The US administration tried to blame Syria for the current Lebanese financial crisis, accusing the Levant of absorbing the region’s dollars to the detriment of Lebanon. But Washington is unaware that Syria has an excess of foreign currency due to the billions of dollars its Gulf allies (Saudi Arabia and Qatar) and Israel have spent to destabilise the country. Jihadists and rebels exchanged their dollars for the Syrian Lira, boosting the Syrian Central Bank’s wealth in dollars. Notwithstanding the fact that the Americans are exerting all sorts of pressure on Jordan and Iraq to keep their borders closed to Syrian goods, in consequence of the Lebanese production Syria supports Hezbollah financially, advancing dollars to its strategic ally in cash when in need. This is another obstacle to the US’s efforts to impoverish Hezbollah.

Lebanon has received visits from Marshall Billingslea, the US assistant secretary of the Treasury, head of the office of terrorism and financial crimes, David Schenker, US assistant secretary for near eastern affairs, David Hill, the under-secretary for political affairs, Ambassador David Satterfield, acting assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, and Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State. They all apparently advocated “fighting Hezbollah and its influence on Lebanon”. In reality, they all discussed first and foremost the security of Israel and how a solution can be reached to meet Israel’s demands in the disputed maritime area. There are between 500 to 600 square kilometres Israel claims as its own maritime borders that Lebanon controls and considers its own. The US is ready to disregard Hezbollah’s activities and lift all sanctions if a satisfactory deal is reached with Israel, said sources within the group of Lebanese decision makers and negotiators who met US officials over recent months.

Billingslea said recently that “Hezbollah is a cancer and therefore should be starved[of energy]. It is the duty of the Lebanese political system to unite against Hezbollah and the threat it represents to democracy and to the safety of the Lebanese government”. The US official overlooks the fact that Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and the political system!

The US official said that “the US and its allies are not responsible for taking upon themselves the responsibility for stopping Hezbollah; it is up to the Lebanese people to protect democracy in their country”.

Billingslea may well be unaware that the vast majority of the Lebanese population stands by Hezbollah. There is no doubt there are Lebanese within the political system who are powerless but loyal to the US. Hezbollah speaks and acts in the name of those who voted for it during the last Parliamentary democratic elections.

No ruler among Trump’s allies in the Middle East represents a true democracy. Perhaps the US official aims to transform Lebanon into a system more comparable to its neighbours. US pressure on Lebanon to bow to Israel’s interests is far from democratic. Billingslea’s incoherent narrative betrays even more of the US’s fragile aims and objectives in Lebanon.

Washington is showing little creativity in trying to curb Lebanon and many of its wealthy people, rather than attacking Hezbollah directly or even Iran, its financier.

Hezbollah is aware that the US and its allies are trying to win in a time of relative peace what they failed to achieve in their war on Lebanon (2006) and on Syria (from 2011 to date), in order to curb the “Axis of the Resistance”. The strength of this Axis has been demonstrated in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. US pressure on Lebanon may well backfire and spark an ugly and unexpected situation that even Washington may not be ready or willing to face. Hezbollah is contemplating ways to respond to the US and its allies. How can it defend the Shia Lebanese, however unrelated to Hezbollah, who pay the price for US interference?

*

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: Shutterstock/Gabirelle Pedrini. Hezbollah’s supporters at Liberation Day, Bint Jbeil, Lebanon, 25 May 2014.

Video: Idlib Militants Retreating to Turkish Border

October 8th, 2019 by South Front

On October 5, the Russian Aerospace Forces carried out airstrikes on positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham near the town of Ballisa and Agr Hilltop in southern Idlib. The strikes eliminated at least 9 militants and became a logical continuation of the recent increase of intensity of strikes by the Syrian Air Force in northwestern Hama and northern Lattakia.

In the period from October 3 to October 6, Syrian helicopters delivered over 30 strikes on positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Turkistan Islamic Party, Ajnad al-Kavkaz, Horas al-Din and other al-Qaeda-linked groups. Additionally, on October 6, rocket and artillery systems of the Syrian Army shelled militants near al-Zainah, located west of the militant stronghold of Jisr al-Shughur.

The Syrian-Russian strikes in the southern part of the Idlib zone, and the loss of underground infrastructure in the towns of Khan Shaykhun and al-Lataminah liberated by the Syrian Army in August forced Idlib militants to adapt their approach.

According to videos appearing online, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is transferring its weapons depots, including those containing Grad rockets and mortar shells, to the border with Turkey. One of locations of militants’ weapon depots is the Bab al-Hawa border crossing. Radicals hope that their weapons and ammunition depots will be safer closer to positions of the Turkish military.

Watch the video here.

Syria and Russia are constructing a permanent bridge between the eastern and western banks of the Euphrates in western Deir Ezzor. Syrian personnel are working under the supervision of Russian engineers. Russian Special Forces troops are deployed to secure construction works. The bridge is set to be completed by the end of October.

Russia’s NTV TV channel reported that the bridge will be used to improve the humanitarian situation in the area and provide aid to people remaining on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, most of which is controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces.

Tensions between the US and Turkey are once again growing over the situation in northeastern Syria. On October 5, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that his country is not satisfied by the implementation progress of the ‘safe zone’ agreement with the US and Ankara is ready to launch a military operation to fight “terrorists” in northeastern Syria.

Turkey sees Kurdish militias, which are the core of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, as terrorist groups. The Turkish-US ‘safe zone’ agreement was intended to address Turkish security concerns removing US-backed Kurdish militias from the border with Turkey. However, it seems that Washington is not hurrying up to do so. This behavior is setting ground for further tensions in the region.

*

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

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

The deepening conflict over the impeachment of President Donald Trump is a struggle between factions of the capitalist ruling class and its governmental apparatus. The fight is fundamentally over which side will exercise control over the state and government with all the power and wealth that confers.

The announcement of an impeachment inquiry was made by Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi on September 24. It followed the revelation that a “whistleblower” complaint had been filed in regard to a July 25 phone call between Trump and the president of Ukraine. The “whistleblower” was later identified as a CIA operative, but the complaint is widely understood to be a collective product of numerous intelligence agents.

There is no “progressive” side in this struggle. As was the case of Nixon in 1974, the very structure of impeachment focuses all attention on what is going on inside the so-called “hallowed halls” of Congress, relegating popular movements to the sidelines.

The Trump regime is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-environment, anti-labor, anti-homeless and more. Every day, Trump’s functionaries are carrying out assaults on hard-won people’s rights and the planet itself.

Yet instead of resisting these attacks, the Democratic party leadership in Congress is focusing all of its energy on impeaching Trump, on the grounds that he solicited foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election. The Democrat leaders see this as a kind of line of least resistance, and one that doesn’t require challenging the corporate interests that are represented by and fund both of the major capitalist parties.

What actually happened on the phone call

In a July 25 phone call with recently elected president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump first complains that European Union countries are not doing enough to help Ukraine while the United States is providing support. Then he suggests that Zelensky help in an investigation of Crowdstrike, the private cyber security company that told the FBI that it was the Russians who hacked the Democratic Party National Committee servers in 2016.

Since the Mueller report was released in August 2019 and concluded that there was no evidence of conspiracy between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russia, both Trump and Attorney General William Barr have embarked on an international campaign to uncover the origins of the Russia-Trump collusion hoax. The transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call released by the White House on September 25 records Trump saying to Zelensky,

“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it.”

After inquiring about Crowdstrike, Trump asks Zelensky to help in an investigation into Hunter Biden and his father, former Vice-President Joe Biden.

“The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution [related to the corporation that gave Hunter Biden a seat on its board of directors — ed.] and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”

The Democrats decided to launch a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump, on the eve of a presidential election, based on this call.

The Democrats didn’t object when Trump was twisting the arm, bullying and threatening other heads of state to stop buying oil from Iran or recognizing the elected government of Venezuela or importing natural gas from Russia. But we are told that his “bullying” of Zelensky constitutes an intolerable and impeachable abuse of authority. It is an abuse of authority but so was the Obama Administration’s covert and overt operations to topple the democratically elected government in Ukraine in 2014.

Trump’s request for an investigation of the Bidens’ conduct in Ukraine is clearly an abuse of authority but not likely to lead to Trump’s ouster, barring more explosive revelations. Were Trump to be impeached by a majority vote in the House of Representatives, he would then face trial before the Senate. There a two-thirds majority, 67 senators, would have to vote for conviction. There are 53 Republican and 47 Democratic senators at present.

Trump, the Bidens and Ukraine

In his July 25 phone conversation with Zelensky, Trump spoke in the style of an imperial ruler addressing a colonial subject. The subject fawned mightily, lavishly praising the ruler and assuring him that he had stayed at Trump Tower when he was in New York.

How did the government in Kiev, 5,000 miles from Washington D.C., become a U.S. dependency?

The real answer, entirely absent from mainstream media coverage, is a searing indictment of Biden and other operatives of the national security apparatus during the Obama administration for crimes in Ukraine that far exceeded “conflicts of interest” or bullying.

In February 2014, State Department personnel worked together with right-wing and outright fascist elements to overthrow the elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, after months of increasingly violent demonstrations in Kiev, the Ukrainian capital. Yanukovich’s “crime” was seeking to to maintain a neutral position between Russia and the Western imperialist powers, a position that was entirely unacceptable to Washington.

The United States was seeking to continue the eastward march of NATO by bringing in Ukraine. Many former eastern European socialist countries and Soviet republics had already been incorporated into the U.S.-led alliance, but adding Ukraine would have been of particular importance, putting NATO bases and missiles in close proximity to Russia’s western heartland.

The U.S. commander-on-the-ground of the regime change operation was Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, working closely with then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. Nuland openly boasted that the United States had spent $5 billion bringing “democracy” to Ukraine. Appointed to oversee the coup and its aftermath on behalf of President Obama was none other than his vice president, Joe Biden.

Following are excerpts from a taped phone call between Nuland and Pyatt a few weeks before the coup that took place on February 24, 2014. The subject of the call was who Washington was selecting to be the new leader of Ukraine following the planned coup.

Victoria Nuland: What do you think?

Geoffrey Pyatt: I think we’re in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you’ve seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we’re trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you’ll need to make, I think that’s the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader]. And I’m glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I’m very glad that he said what he said in response.

Nuland: Good. I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.

Pyatt: Yeah. I guess … in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok, the other opposition leader, a neo-Nazi] and his guys and I’m sure that’s part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.

Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the … what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in … he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.

Regarding the attempt by the European Union, a U.S. “ally,” to negotiate an end the stalemate in Kiev, Nuland says, “F___ the EU.” Listen to the recording here or below.

After the coup and with the backing of the United States, Yatseniuk did indeed become the new President of Ukraine.

Biden continued to play a key role in the country after the coup. In August 2016, he described to Atlantic magazine how he had the country’s equivalent of Attorney General removed a year earlier:

“He described, for example, a meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko—whom he calls ‘Petro’—in which he urged Poroshenko to fire a corrupt prosecutor general or see the withdrawal of a promised $1 billion loan to Ukraine. ‘Petro, you’re not getting your billion dollars,’ Biden recalled telling him. ‘It’s OK, you can keep the [prosecutor] general. Just understand—we’re not paying if you do.’ Poroshenko fired the official.”

Just a few months after the 2014 coup, Biden’s son, Hunter, was added to the board of directors of a major Ukrainian gas company, Burisma, on which he “served” for the next five years. Despite having no background in the energy industry nor Ukraine, Hunter Biden was paid $50,000 per month. He resigned from the board when his father announced his presidential candidacy in 2018.

As the impeachment crisis heats up, the Trump administration and the Democrats are accusing each other of corruption. Both are right.

Just as the Nixon impeachment hearings in 1974 turned lifelong segregationists like Sen. Sam Ervin of North Carolina into liberal heroes, the Trump impeachment hearings are already having as similar effect. Now reactionaries are being elevated like House Intelligence Committee chair, Adam Schiff, a staunch supporter of Israel, the Iraq war, the U.S.-Saudi war on Yemen, the blockade and travel ban on Cuba, the CIA, NSA, etc. The unlikely (barring explosive new revelations) conviction of Trump would bring about the elevation of the extreme right-wing Mike Pence to the presidency.

For the people’s movement, impeachment offers a road map to nowhere.

*

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: Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who they brought to power in the 2014 coup. Then-Secretary of State John Kerry stands in the background. Photo: U.S. Department of State, June 4, 2014

News from inside is that collective punishment is being rolled out across the state. Under the guise of their new “Violence Reduction Initiative” the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (PA DOC) has begun punishing all inmates “associated” or on the same tier if there is a fight or someone is accused of a violent act. K. Brittian Facility manager at SCI Frackville responded to Bryant Arroyo’s grievance by stating that “Facility Manager/Designees [are authorized to] …utilize lock downs as a response to critical incidents…disorder, a threat to security or an inability to maintain orderly control of inmates.” This reason for denying Bryant’s grievance misses the point, it waves “security” as a red flag to obscure the unconstitutional action of punishing someone for something they did not do. This is not the “some” evidence standard, this is the NO EVIDENCE standard. Furthermore, the sanctions go far beyond reimposing order and locking folks down The sanctions are targeted specifically at innocent individuals, continue far beyond the lock down, and escalate. With no due process and no grievance appeals allowed. Mail and visits are rights that involve access to the courts and additional constitutional protections.

Following any violent incident, any inmate or many inmates (who often have little knowledge of the incident in question) can lose phone calls, basic (necessary) commissary, recreation and yard time, access to the law library, mail, work, and more.

Collective punishment is immoral. It is unconstitutional and dangerous and it does not work. It is a tool in a repressive regime to get compliance. It is inhumane and brutal.

As a fascist stick in the prison guards’ toolkit. It offers the guards and prison officials unlimited and unaccountable latitude for selective enforcement and the targeting of specific prisoners.

The policing industry is endorsing this program, which means we will soon see this not just where it’s already started in Washington, Maryland, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania, but all across the nation—if we don’t respond.

If someone on Bryant Arroyo’s or Mumia Abu-Jamal’s tier throws a punch, and their whole tier can be locked down. Well this happened recently, and ironically the guys who threw the punch were given a semblance of “due process”: they could grieve their 2 days in the hole. But Mumia and Bryant could not. They were not allowed to challenge the “collective punishment” given to the whole block. This threat looms over every person in these prisons, every day.

History has proven that often the targets of prison officials are the jailhouse lawyers, community leaders, and the folks that are outspoken and organized.

Our correspondents are the most vulnerable in the face of these repressive policies. Prison Radio correspondent Bryant Arroyo shares with us what it is like to live in these conditions:

“Every day I’m in a state of impending lock down. We’re anxious all the time. The mood is very tense and it’s become dangerous for both inmates and staff alike.. ..It’s gotten to the point where if you see a fight might be about to break out, you grab your towel and head to the shower because you don’t know when your next chance will be.”

His room had been turned upside down by guards during the last lock down, based on a fight he wasn’t even aware of.

As we have come to expect, these same brave men and women in prison are taking the lead in exposing these unconstitutional practices.

In addition to talking to us and organizing inside their tiers, Mumia Abu-Jamal and Bryant Arroyo have both filed inmate grievances. Mumia’s came after he was subjected to a lock down for events of which he had no knowledge whatsoever: he argued that collective punishment is unconstitutional by its “inherent nature” as a violation of both the 8th and 14th amendments. From the letter:

“Collective punishment is anathema to US law, as it is a government process that punishes others who have not participated in the event giving rise to said government action. PA DOC cannot institute a policy based on an unconstitutional theory or practice. Period.”

“The [Eighth] Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Chief Justice Earl Warren Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)

“The relief requested is to grant my legitimate grievance by abolishing this dysfunctional, collectively punitive, officially oppressive, unconstitutional policy which directly affected the ‘actually-innocent’ inmates by broadly and arbitrarily/capriciously misapplying the policy to everyone.” —Bryant Arroyo, Prison Radio correspondent at SCI Frackville PA.

This past month after he filed his grievance Bryant Arroyo’s commissary through JPAY was frozen. He could no longer get stamps to send us copies of his research. If you can we ask you to send him a money gram. MoneyGram has a contract with the PA DOC and he can get funds that way. Bryant Arroyo Inmate number CU1126. PA DOC code 3209. JPAY will also accept money orders for Bryant if made out and sent to JPAY with is name and number on the memo line. JPAY 717 Market St. Ste 423 Lemoyne, PA 17043-1581.

Also when Prison Radio sent copies of the grievances to other inmates also filing complaints the prison censors rejected the mail, saying that the paper copy of the grievance was a prisoner’s “personal property” could not be shared. This information needs to be widely distributed so these decisions can be immediately and effectively appealed. We are filed a grievance on the blocking of legal documents being copied and sent to other inmates.

We can and must support folks inside when they are standing up for their rights.

*

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

Featured image is from Prison Radio

The conflict between President Trump and congressional Democrats escalated over the weekend, with attorneys for the CIA officer who triggered an impeachment inquiry declaring that there were other “whistleblowers” coming forward to provide testimony in support of his allegations against Trump.

Like the first whistleblower, the additional witness or witnesses were said to be intelligence officials. At least one has been interviewed by Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who declared the initial complaint against Trump, over his efforts to get the president of Ukraine to provide derogatory material on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, to be “credible” and “urgent.”

Andrew Bakaj, the lead attorney for the first whistleblower, tweeted Saturday,

“I can confirm that my firm and my team represent multiple whistleblowers.”

Mark Zaid, another attorney for the first whistleblower, said the second intelligence official had firsthand knowledge of some of the allegations made in the initial complaint.

A second whistleblower, whether he or she made an independent complaint or merely bolstered the first whistleblower, would mark a further intensification of the efforts by sections of the national security apparatus either to remove Trump outright or to shift US foreign policy in a direction even more hostile to Russia.

The most direct expression of the role of the intelligence apparatus in the Democratic Party impeachment drive was the appearance Sunday of former CIA Director John Brennan on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” The CIA director under Obama now receives a fat paycheck as “senior national security and intelligence analyst” for the television network.

Brennan was asked by host Chuck Todd to “assess the stability of the American government” as the CIA would assess another country. Brennan answered,

“We would look at it as a very corrupt government that is under the sway, right now, of this powerful individual who has been able to just corrupt the institutions and the laws of that country.”

“I think it’s no longer, you know, a democracy,” Brennan continued, referring to Trump as “an autocrat,” and concluding, “there’s just tremendous political instability here … which is consuming the government now. And it’s not able to take care of the issues that it needs to address, whether it be on the domestic front or the national security or the foreign policy front.”

This is a remarkable declaration by an official who is one of the most bloodstained figures in recent American history. Brennan directed drone missile assassination strikes from the Obama White House before returning to the CIA to oversee its worldwide operations of murder, political subversion and plots against democracy. With the support of the Obama White House, he sought to suppress the Senate investigation into the torture program run by the CIA during the George W. Bush administration.

Brennan is voicing the views of powerful sections of the military-intelligence apparatus, which oppose Trump not only on specific foreign policy decisions in relation to Russia and the Middle East, but regard his administration as too erratic and too much driven by narrow personal and political considerations to effectively advance the interests of American imperialism as a whole.

While Trump is appealing to racism and anti-immigrant bigotry and seeking to mobilize sections of the police and military and outright fascists in his defense, his Democratic Party opponents are operating on a completely right-wing basis, working as the front men for a section of the national security apparatus.

Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, a Democratic senator and presidential candidate, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, cited her trips to Ukraine with two Republican warmongers, Lindsey Graham and the late John McCain. She repeated the litany of the US foreign policy elite since the 2014 US-backed ultra-right coup in Ukraine, saying,

“they need our country by their side as they deal with a foreign entity, as in Russia, that shot planes down over their country, that’s annexed Crimea in their own country. They need us. And President Trump knows that.”

The handful of Republican senators who have distanced themselves from Trump have also done so on a right-wing basis. Three Republicans criticized Trump’s public appeal on Thursday for the Chinese government to investigate the activities of Biden and his son Hunter, who has extensive business operations in China. In making this statement in front of the television cameras, Trump was doubling down on his bullying of the Ukrainian government for an anti-Biden probe, carried out secretly in a July 25 phone call to President Zelensky.

Senator Mitt Romney said Trump’s appeal was “wrong and appalling,” and Susan Collins of Maine called it “a big mistake” and “completely inappropriate.” Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska resorted to outright redbaiting.

“Americans don’t look to Chinese commies for the truth,” he told the Omaha World-Herald. “If the Biden kid broke laws by selling his name to Beijing, that’s a matter for American courts, not communist tyrants running torture camps.”

Other Republican senators followed the lead of Marco Rubio of Florida, another vicious anti-communist, who claimed that Trump’s invitation to China was merely a joke—presumably like Trump’s musings about extending his time in office, serving three or four terms, in defiance of the US Constitution, or his claims that his political opponents are guilty of treason.

Nowhere in the US political establishment, either Democratic or Republican, is there any genuine opposition to Trump’s real crimes: his attacks on immigrants (including the most recent revelation that he wanted US agents to shoot refugees who attempted to cross the border), his building up of a personalist, authoritarian regime, and his continuous favors to big business, from scrapping regulatory enforcement to gargantuan tax cuts.

There were further developments this weekend on the legal front. A federal judge in Washington ordered the White House to preserve records of Trump’s “meetings, phone calls, and other communications with foreign leaders,” acting in a lawsuit filed by several groups last May that charged the administration was failing to follow the Presidential Records Act, which governs the official records of the US chief executive.

The lawsuit is not directly related to impeachment, but the records ordered preserved could be subject to subpoena by the House of Representatives and used against Trump in a future impeachment or Senate trial.

Top Republican leaders acknowledged that the House is likely to vote in favor of impeachment. Trump himself said as much Friday, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a video released by his reelection campaign, boasted,

“The way that impeachment stops is with a Senate majority with me as majority leader.”

He claimed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is “in the clutches of a left-wing mob that finally convinced her to impeach the president.”

Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the number two Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the invective from the White House against committee Chair Adam Schiff and Speaker Pelosi was unwarranted because the charges against him were emanating from White House staffers, not Congress.

Appearing on the CBS program “Face the Nation,” Himes said,

“His problem is not with the Democrats. It’s not with people like me. We’re sort of sitting here watching the information flow out of the White House … professionals who are in the Oval Office, who are in the situation room, are watching what is happening and finally saying, ‘My God, this cannot happen anymore.’ And they are coming forward either as whistleblowers or… leaking.”

In substance, Himes is correct: it is the “professionals,” i.e., the military-intelligence officials, who are driving the impeachment investigation, which Pelosi embraced only reluctantly, fearful that a full-blown political crisis in Washington could destabilize the US political system as a whole.

Even more significant was the warning on the same program by Bob Woodward, the former Watergate journalist who is completely plugged in to the concerns of the military-intelligence apparatus. Woodward is old enough to remember years like 1968, when the American political landscape was thrown into turmoil by political assassinations and other forms of violence. He said,

“The Democrats need to be really careful about how they let this play out… suppose something happens… I mean, let’s hope it’s not a bloody 2020.”

*

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.

China is planning to invest $280 billion in Iran’s oil, gas, and petrochemical sectors that are being affected by US sanctions, according to Petroleum Economist magazine.

The energy affairs magazine quoted a senior source who was linked to the Iranian Oil Ministry, as stating that this enormous investment represents a key point in a new agreement between the two countries. This was confirmed during Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s visit to China in late August, to present a roadmap for the strategic comprehensive partnership agreement, which concluded in 2016.

According to the magazine, Beijing also pledged to invest $120 billion in Iran’s oil sector and industrial infrastructure.

This vast amount will be disbursed during the first five years of the agreement’s entry into implementation, with possible additional investments in subsequent similar periods, if both parties agree.

In return, Iran will grant Chinese companies the priority right to participate in tenders for any new, frozen or incomplete projects to develop oil and gas fields, as well as all petrochemical projects, including the provision of technology and staff to implement these projects.

This comprises the deployment of up to 5,000 Chinese security officers in Iranian territories to secure Chinese projects, as well as the involvement of other staff and resources in securing oil, gas or petrochemical exports from Iran to China, including those across the Gulf, the source explained.

The agreement also permits China to purchase oil, gas and petrochemical products at low prices, with the right to delay the payment of these prices for two years in the Chinese national currency (Yuan) or other “easy currencies” with which Beijing makes profits, through its projects in Africa and the former Soviet republics, without resorting to transactions in USD.

According to the source, this agreement grants China a total discount of around 32 per cent on all oil, gas, and petrochemical products from Iran.

This plan also emerged during the course of China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, in which Beijing intends to take advantage of the low-cost labour force available in Iran, to establish factories to be supervised by Chinese prominent companies.

In return, the new agreement enables Tehran to strengthen its partnership with Beijing, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and raise the level of production in three of its largest oil and gas fields, in addition to China’s approval to increase the volume of oil imports from Iran.

The source stressed that the main points of the new agreement will not be publicly announced, although they represent a significant shift in the balance of power in the world’s oil and gas sectors.

*

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.

77 Groups Join to Counter Trump Administration Attack on “Science Advice”

October 7th, 2019 by Union of Concerned Scientists

Political appointees in the Trump administration are already starting to eliminate science advisory committees, following a presidential executive order earlier this year directing agencies to reduce the total number of advisory committees by a third. This effort to undermine science advice has drawn strong opposition from the science community and a wide range of groups across civil society.

In a new letter, 77 of these groups are telling the White House to rescind this destructive executive order and restore science advice. The signers include a broad range of institutions, including major universities, scientific societies, public health experts, civil rights advocates, unions, farmers’ organizations, and groups focused on ethics and transparency in government.

The letter argues that federal advisory committees provide vital information to policymakers in a cost-effective way—and that we can’t make good decisions about public health and safety without considering the best independent science. It also notes that advisory committees provide an avenue for public input and comment into policy.

The signers argue that the executive order is a short-sighted measure that will force agencies to halt important work for the sake of hitting an arbitrary target. They call the effort to slash advisory committees “a threat to a vital independent source of information and deliberation.”

Quotes from organizations that have signed on to the letter:

“This executive order is a blunt instrument that will damage our ability to make smart, effective policies. It’s the latest example of a pattern across this administration of excluding science from government to the detriment of public health. It’s not just the scientists offering up their time to serve the public who will be hurt by these cuts—it’s communities across the country who deserve to benefit from policy based on evidence. The President needs to revoke this thoughtless executive order.” – Genna Reed, lead science and policy analyst for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists

“For decades, federal advisory committees have been key to ensuring our federal agencies sail to success in a sea of scientific and technological breakthroughs. Limiting or eliminating them would be akin to setting sail across the ocean without any electronic navigation tools or even a sextant and a compass. We are very likely to get lost, sail around in circles, or even run aground as a result. I hope the president will rescind the Executive Order on Evaluating and Improving the Utility of Federal Advisory Committees before we find ourselves in extremis like this.” – Rear Admiral (Ret.) Jonathan White, president and CEO of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership

“As biologists and health care experts who work with patients daily, nurses join with our colleagues in the scientific community to demand that this administration rescind the executive order gutting the existence of federal advisory committees and value the essential advice that we provide to ensure government decisions are made based on fact and for the public good. Lives are at stake.” – Irma Westmoreland, vice president of National Nurses United and an RN at the Veterans Health Administration

“Policy related to human health—whether we are considering the influences of genetics, food and agriculture, the workplace, the ambient environment, or pharmaceuticals—must be based on current science. Economic interests must be tempered by scientific knowledge, not the other way around.” –  Linda Forst, MD, MPH Senior Associate Dean, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago

“Federal advisory committees provide valuable stakeholder feedback to guide federal policies and programs that cannot, and should not, be underestimated. Eliminating scores of advisory committees without sound rationale serves to undermine the vital work federal agencies are tasked by Congress to do, including supporting beginning and disadvantaged farmers, furthering agriculture and food systems research, and informing the statistical needs of U.S. agriculture. Instead, we call upon the Administration to uphold the invaluable role of science and public input in policy decision-making.” –  Nichelle Harriott, Policy Specialist, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

“Federal advisory committees are an essential tool in our work to ensure that the federal government is responsive to the needs of marginalized communities. The Executive Order on Evaluating and Improving the Utility of Federal Advisory Committees will arbitrarily remove the voice of stakeholders from decision-making and degrade our ability to participate in our democracy.” –  Meghan Maury, Policy Director at the National LGBTQ Task Force

*

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 Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 77 Groups Join to Counter Trump Administration Attack on “Science Advice”

The Chinese Communist Party-backed “Global Times” was absolutely correct in publishing an analysis last month warning that “China Should Remain Alert To Indian-South Korean Security Cooperation” because New Delhi is attempting to leverage its newfound military ties with Seoul for zero-sum grand strategic purposes as part of its unofficial US-encouraged policy of “containing” the People’s Republic.

***

India surprised many observers when it failed to reach a widely reported military logistics pact with Russia following Modi’s visit to the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok as President Putin’s guest of honor early last month but instead ended up clinching one with South Korea of all countries shortly thereafter. It was thought that Russia would be the next in line after the US and France to enter into such a close security pact with India as part of the country’s “multi-alignment” policy of “balancing” between the world’s Great Powers, but it can be argued in hindsight that the agreement with South Korea is equally — if not more — strategic. That would explain why it caught the attention of the Chinese Communist Party-backed “Global Times” newspaper after assistant research fellow with the Center of Northeast Asian Studies at the Jilin Academy of Social Sciences Ma Weiying published an intriguing analysis about how “China Should Remain Alert To Indian-South Korean Security Cooperation“.

The author elaborated on the increasingly close military ties between those two countries that most observers weren’t aware of and pointed out how India’s “Act East” policy apparently prioritizes South Korea as its pivot in Northeast Asia. Ma also mentioned how India is “balancing” its relationship with that country and its nearby Japanese rival following their recent historical and trade tensions over the summer, which altogether helps to make New Delhi’s regional strategy more wholesome. Still, the researcher doesn’t believe that South Korea has any intent to leverage this relationship to “contain” China, though India is a totally different story given its recent attempts to do just that with some ASEAN nations. It’s because of India’s multilateral military engagement with a few of those states that Ma is worried that it might try doing something similar with South Korea in accordance with the US’ “Indo-Pacific” vision for “containing” China, which would therefore represent “a potential threat to China’s peripheral security.”

That assessment is correct for even more reasons than the author might have realized when writing their piece. It’s not a coincidence of timing that India reached an agreement to create the Vladivostok-Chennai Maritime Corridor (VCMC) just before signing the military logistics pact with South Korea since these two developments are part of the same strategic whole of ensuring a regular naval presence along these Sea Lines Of Communication (SLOC) that could provocatively see the country’s warships patrolling through the South China Sea and up the Chinese coast. Instead of receiving military logistics support from Russia, which could uncomfortably give off the optics of Moscow being “complicit” in facilitating a policy that ruffles Beijing’s feathers, India will rely on South Korea instead. Even in the event that a military logistics pact is concluded with Russia sometime in the coming future, it would simply be the second regional country to reach such an agreement with India after South Korea and therefore not be suspected by China of any ulterior motives.

In fact, South Korea also might not be suspected of the same either because it probably just agreed to this in order to secure a larger share of India’s arms market and isn’t exactly aware of its partner’s intentions in exploiting this deal for the indirect purpose of “containing” China. Giving credit where it’s due, it was a rather brilliant move on India’s part to pursue such a pact with South Korea since it proves that its strategists are capable of quickly exploiting regional developments such as the South Korean-Japanese split over this summer in order to portray themselves as that dispute’s much-needed “neutral” third-party “balancer”, which perfectly corresponds with the implied precepts of the new Non-Aligned Movement (Neo-NAM) that Russian strategists envision it and India leading across the 21st century. Russia can retain “plausible deniability” of any involvement in India’s grander “balancing” plans along China’s southern waters and eastern shores since South Korea has surprisingly come to serve as its navy’s regional point of entry while Russia’s role is strictly economic for now.

India’s extremely close strategic relationship with the US raises suspicions among some that it’s acting as America’s “Trojan Horse” in Asia and could therefore advance its partner’s aims in various regions such as this one by acting as the “good cop” for indirectly recruiting other countries like South Korea into the Quad-led “Indo-Pacific” policy for “containing” China. At the same time and looked at from the reverse perspective, intensifying strategic ties with India could lead to indirect inroads with the US and further Russia’s vision of a “New Detente” between the two for example, the same as it could enable South Korea to look better in America’s eyes at Japan’s possible expense given their existing tensions. That said, these “balancing” benefits don’t extend to China since it can’t use India against the US or vice-versa because those two are playing on the same strategic side in this paradigm, which is why it’s understandably troubling when China sees that India’s navy will soon be able to receive military logistical support from a country right on its eastern doorstep.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld 

The last four days have shown that the ongoing US-Iran war is acutely affecting the whole region. This is now evident in Iraq where more than 105 people have been killed and thousands wounded in the course of demonstrations that engulfed the capital Baghdad and southern Shia cities including Amara, Nasririyeh, Basrah, Najaf and Karbalaa. Similar demonstrations could erupt in Beirut and other Lebanese cities due to the similarity of economic conditions in the two countries. The critical economic situation in the Middle East offers fertile ground for uprisings that lead to general chaos.

Iraq has special status due to its position, since the 2003 US occupation of the country, as both an Iranian and as a US ally. Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi up to now has armed himself with article 8 of the constitution, seeking to keep Iraq as a balancing point between all allies and neighbouring countries, and to prevent Mesopotamia from becoming a battlefield for conflicts between the US and Iran or Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Notwithstanding the efforts of Baghdadi officials, the deterioration of the domestic economic situation in Iraq has pushed the country into a situation comparable to that of those Middle Eastern countries who were hit by the so-called “Arab Spring”.

Fuelled by real grievances including lack of job opportunities and severe corruption, domestic uprisings were manipulated by hostile foreign manipulation for purposes of regime change; these efforts have been ongoing in Syria since 2011. Baghdad believes that foreign and regional countries took advantage of the justified demands of the population to implement their own agenda, with disastrous consequences for the countries in question.

Sources within the office of the Iraqi Prime Minister said

“the recent demonstrations were already planned a couple of months ago. Baghdad was working to try and ease the situation in the country, particularly since the demands of the population are legitimate. The Prime Minister has inherited the corrupt system that has developed since 2003; hundreds of billions of dollars have been diverted into the pockets of corrupt politicians. Moreover, the war on terror used not only all the country’s resources but forced Iraq to borrow billions of dollars for the reconstruction of the security forces and other basic needs.”

“The latest demonstrations were supposed to be peaceful and legitimate because people have the right to express their discontent, concerns and frustration. However, the course of events showed a different objective: 8 members of the security forces were killed (1241 wounded) along with 96 of civilians (5000 wounded) and many government and party buildings were set on fire and completely destroyed. This sort of behaviour has misdirected the real grievances of the population onto a disastrous course: creating chaos in the country. Who benefits from the disarray in Iraq?”

The unrest in Iraqi cities coincides with an assassination attempt against Iran’s Soleimani. Sources believe that the

“assassination attempt against the commander of the Iranian IRGC-Quds Brigade Qassem Soleimani is not a pure coincidence but related to events in Iraq”.

“Soleimani was in Iraq during the selection of the key leaders of the country. He has a lot of influence, like the Americans who have their own people. If Soleimani is removed, those who may have been behind the recent unrest may think it will create enough confusion in Iraq and Iran, allowing room for a possible coup d’état carried out by military or encouraged by foreign forces, Saudi Arabia and the US in this case. Killing Soleimani, in the minds of foreign actors, could lead to chaos, leading to a reduction of Iranian influence in Iraq”, said the sources.

The recent decisions of Abdel Mahdi made him extremely unpopular with the US. He has declared Israel responsible for the destruction of the five warehouses of the Iraqi security forces, Hashd al-Shaabi, and the killing of one commander on the Iraqi-Syrian borders. He opened the crossing at al-Qaem between Iraq and Syria to the displeasure of the US embassy in Baghdad, whose officers expressed their discomfort to Iraqi officials. He expressed his willingness to buy the S-400 and other military hardware from Russia. Abdel Mahdi agreed with China to reconstruct essential infrastructure in exchange for oil, and gave a $284 million electricity deal to a German rather than an American company. The Iraqi Prime Minister refused to abide by US sanctions and is still buying electricity from Iran and allowing the exchange of commerce that is bringing large amounts of foreign currency and boosting the Iranian economy. And lastly, Abdel Mahdi rejected the “Deal of the Century” proposed by the US: he is trying to mediate between Iran and Saudi Arabia and therefore is showing his intention to keep away from the US objectives and policies in the Middle East.

US officials expressed their complete dissatisfaction with Abdel Mahdi’s policy to many Iraqi officials. The Americans consider that their failure to capture Iraq as an avant-garde country against Iran is a victory for Tehran. However, this is not what the Iraqi Prime Minister is aiming at. He is genuinely trying to keep away from the US-Iran war, but is confronted with increasing difficulties.

Abdel Mahdi took over governance in Iraq when the economy was at a catastrophic level. He is struggling in his first year of governance even though Iraq is considered to have the fourth largest of the world’s oil reserves. A quarter of Iraq’s over 40 million people live at poverty level.

The Marjaiya in Najaf intervened to calm down the situation, showing its capacity to control the mob. Its representative in Karbalaa Sayyed Ahmad al-Safi emphasises the importance of fighting corruption and creating an independent committee to put the country back on track. Al-Safi said it was necessary to start serious reforms and asked the Parliament, in particular “the biggest coalition”, to assume its responsibility.

The biggest group belongs to Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr, with 53 MPs. Moqtada declared – contrary to what the Marjaiya hoped – the suspension of his group from the parliament rather than assuming his responsibilities. Moqtada is calling for early elections, an election where he is not expected to gather more than 12-15 MPs. Al-Sadr, who visits Saudi Arabia and Iran for no strategic objective, is trying to ride the horse of grievance so he can take advantage of the just requests of the demonstrators. Moqtada and the other Shia groups who rule the country today, in alliance with Kurds and Sunni minorities, are the ones to respond to the people’s requests, and not hide behind those in the street asking for the end of corruption, for more job opportunities, and improvement of their conditions of life.

Prime Minister Abdel Mahdi doesn’t have a magic wand; the people can’t wait for very long. Notwithstanding their justified demands, the people were “not alone in the streets. The majority of social media hashtags were Saudi: indicating that Abdel Mahdi’s visits to Saudi Arabia and his mediation between Riyadh and Tehran have not rendered him immune to regime change efforts supported by Saudi,” said the source. Indeed, Iraq’s neighbours gave strong indications to the Prime Minister that Iraq’s relation Iran is the healthiest and the most stable of relations with neighbouring countries. Tehran didn’t conspire against him even if it was the only country whose flag was burned by some demonstrators and reviled in the streets of Baghdad during the last days of unrest.

The critical economic situation is making the Middle East vulnerable to unrest. Most countries are suffering due to the US sanctions on Iran and the monstrous financial expenditure on US weapons. US President Donald Trump is trying hard to empty Arab leaders’ pockets and keep Iran as the main scarecrow to drain Gulf finances. The Saudi war on Yemen is also another destabilising factor in the Middle East, allowing plenty of room for tension and confrontation.

Iraq seems headed for instability as one aspect of the multidimensional US war on Iran; the US is demanding support and solidarity from Gulf and Arab countries to stand behind its plans. Iraq is not conforming to all US demands. The Iraqi parliament and political parties represent the majority of the population; regime change is therefore unlikely, but neighbouring countries and the US will continue to exploit domestic grievances. It is not clear whether Abdel Mahdi will manage to keep Iraq stable. What is clear is that US-Iran tensions are not sparing any country in the Middle East.

*

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

Selected Articles: Pathways to Peace

October 7th, 2019 by Global Research News

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

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

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

*     *     *

Pathways to Peace

By Mairead Maguire, October 07, 2019

We need to offer new hope to a humanity suffering under the scourge of militarism and war.  People are tired of armaments and war. People want Peace.  They have seen that militarism does not solve problems, but is a part of the problem.  The Global Climate crisis is added to by the emissions of US military, the greatest polluter in the World.  Militarism also creates uncontrollable forms of tribalism and nationalism.  These are a dangerous and murderous form of identity and about which we need to take steps to transcend, lest we unleash further dreadful violence upon the world.  To do this we need to acknowledge that our common humanity and human dignity is more important than our different traditions.   We need to recognize our life and the lives of others (and Nature) are sacred and we can solve our problems without killing each other.

Trump’s Stonewalling of Impeachment Inquiry Is an Impeachable Offense

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, October 07, 2019

During the call, Zelensky indicated he wanted to buy Javelin anti-tank missiles from the U.S. Trump then replied, “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” After asking Zelensky to look into CrowdStrike (a cybersecurity firm that investigated the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee), Trump asked Zelensky to investigate alleged improprieties by presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son in Ukraine. Trump has accused then-Vice President Biden of urging the removal of a corrupt prosecutor to hinder an investigation of a Ukrainian gas company for which Hunter Biden was serving on the board. Biden has been cleared of any wrongdoing by Ukrainian authorities.

John Lennon vs. the Deep State: One Man Against the ‘Monster’

By John W. Whitehead, October 07, 2019

The official U.S. war against Lennon began in earnest in 1972 after rumors surfaced that Lennon planned to embark on a U.S. concert tour that would combine rock music with antiwar organizing and voter registration. Nixon, fearing Lennon’s influence on about 11 million new voters (1972 was the first year that 18-year-olds could vote), had the ex-Beatle served with deportation orders “in an effort to silence him as a voice of the peace movement.”

The Real Venezuela: Dignified, Indivisible and Truthful

By Nino Pagliccia, October 07, 2019

Much media effort has been put in creating the illusion that the legitimate Venezuela is the one “ruled” by a self-appointed (read, unelected) interim (read, for an undefined term) president that presides with no army, no cabinet, no judicial and no recognized congress. His name is hardly recognized in Venezuela were it not for the unrelenting promotion by his major supporter, the United States government.

The Dem-CIA Impeachment. Remove Trump from the Oval Office

By Renee Parsons, October 07, 2019

Trump’s response to the Dem-initiated furor was to release the White House transcript of the phone call which the CIA operative claimed was on ‘lock down’ by the White House to prevent its distribution.  Here is the only portion of that conversation that discussed the Biden Ukraine connection which is clearly asking the Ukraine President to conduct their own investigation.  Read the transcript and decide for yourself if there is political pressure, a quid pro quo or a violation worthy of impeachment – or is it all a Big Fat Nothing Burger?


Climate and the “Little Green Women and Men”

By Peter Koenig, October 06, 2019

The Little Green Women and Men (LGWM) are us, humanoids, especially those living in the west, believing we command Mother Earth. Well, no wonder, there is a group among us, who claims to be “God’s Chosen People” – and they act it all the way. So much so, that they and their influence on LGWMs, have almost managed to dominate all the women, men and resources of Mother Earth.

Brexit: A Symptom of Harmful Neoliberal Measures Which Have Undermined the EU

By Shane Quinn, October 06, 2019

The seemingly never-ending spectacle of Britain’s attempted exit from the European Union is part of a broader malaise affecting this association of European states. The EU is in growing difficulty and much of this is unfortunately due to its own making. The EU has become destabilised from within through a not altogether dissimilar manner to the Soviet Union, whose economy had been stagnating from the 1970s under Leonid Brezhnev’s inflexible policies, before the complete collapse eventually arrived in December 1991.

*

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

Global Research: Committed to Curbing Disinformation…With Your Help!

October 7th, 2019 by The Global Research Team

In a “post-truth” “fake news” era, it is important now more than ever to have a reliable news source that delivers the critical analysis that is ignored or manipulated by the mainstream media. 

Global Research is committed to curbing the tide of disinformation and stimulating public engagement and understanding through our activities.

At this juncture in our history, we all have decisions to make regarding the roles our lives will play in the struggle for social justice and peace. Global Research gives you some of the important tools to make these decisions based on fact and real understanding.

The service we provide may be free, but there are very real costs associated with it. For several months now we have been struggling to make ends meet. We are on course to get back on track during the next 12 months, but not without the help of our readers! To support us in this endeavor, please make a donation or become a member of Global Research now.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


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

Click to view our membership plans


Browse our online book store here


THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING INDEPENDENT MEDIA!

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Global Research: Committed to Curbing Disinformation…With Your Help!

Pathways to Peace

October 7th, 2019 by Mairead Maguire

I am very happy to be with you all at this conference.  I would like to thank David Swanson and World Beyond War for organizing this important event and also all those attending for their work for peace.

I have long been inspired by the American Peace activists and it is a joy to be with some of you at this conference.   A long time ago, as a teenager living in Belfast, and social activist, I was inspired by the life of Dorothy Day, of the Catholic Worker.  Dorothy, a nonviolent Prophet, called for an end to war and the money from militarism, to be used to help alleviate poverty.   Alas, if today Dorothy (RIP) knew that one in six individuals in the USA is in the Military-Media-Industrial-Complex and armament costs continue to rise daily, how disappointed she would be.  Indeed, one third of the USA military budget would eliminate the entire poverty in the USA.

We need to offer new hope to a humanity suffering under the scourge of militarism and war.  People are tired of armaments and war. People want Peace.  They have seen that militarism does not solve problems, but is a part of the problem.  The Global Climate crisis is added to by the emissions of US military, the greatest polluter in the World.  Militarism also creates uncontrollable forms of tribalism and nationalism.  These are a dangerous and murderous form of identity and about which we need to take steps to transcend, lest we unleash further dreadful violence upon the world.  To do this we need to acknowledge that our common humanity and human dignity is more important than our different traditions.   We need to recognize our life and the lives of others (and Nature) are sacred and we can solve our problems without killing each other.    We need to accept and celebrate diversity and otherness.  We need to work to heal the old divisions and misunderstandings, give and accept forgiveness and choose nonkilling and nonviolence as ways to solve our problems.

We are also challenged to build structures through which we can co-operate and which reflect our interconnected and inter-dependent relationships.  The vision of the European Union founders to link countries together economically unfortunately has lost its way as we are witnessing the growing militarization of Europe, its role as a driving force for armaments, and the dangerous path, under the leadership of the USA/NATO towards a new cold war and military aggression with the building up of battle groups and a European army.  I believe the European countries, who used to take initiatives in the UN for peaceful settlements of conflicts, particularly allegedly peaceful countries, like Norway and Sweden, are now one of the USA/NATO’s most important war assets.

The EU is a threat to the survival of neutrality and has been drawn into being complicit in breaking international law through so many illegal and immoral wars since 9/ll.  I therefore believe NATO should be abolished, and the myth of military security replaced by Human Security, through International Law and implementation of Peace Architecture.  The Science of Peace and implementation of Nonkilling/Nonviolent Political Science will help us transcend violent thinking and replace a culture of violence with a culture of nonkilling/nonviolence in our homes, our societies, our world.

Also the UN should be reformed and should actively take up their mandate to save the world from the scourge of war.    People and Governments should be encouraged to evoke moral and ethical standards in our own personal lives and for Public Standards.  As we have abolished slavery, so too we can abolish militarism and war in our world.

I believe if we are to survive as the human family, we must end Militarism and War and have a policy of general and complete disarmament.  In order to do so, we have to look at what is sold to us as   the driving forces for militarism and war.

Who are the real beneficiaries of war?   So to begin we are sold the wars under democracy, the fight against terrorism, but history has taught us wars proceeded the fight against terrorism.  Greed and Colonialism and seizing of resources proceeded terrorism and the fight for so called democracy proceeded terrorism by thousands of years.  We now live in an age of Western Colonialism disguised as a fight for freedom, civil rights, religious wars, right to Protect.

Under the premises we are sold the opinion that by sending our troops there and facilitating this, we are bringing democracy, rights for women, education, and for the more slightly astute of us, for those of us who see through this war propaganda, we are told that this has benefits for our countries.  For those of us who are slightly more realistic about our countries goals in these countries we see an economic benefit for cheap oil, tax revenues from companies expansion into these countries, through mining, oil, resources in general and arms sale.

So at this point we are questioned morally for the good of our own country, or for our own morals.   The majority of us do not own shares, in Shell, BP, Raytheon, Halliburton, etc., Shares that skyrocketed (including Raytheon) three fold since the Syrian proxy war began.  The major US military firms are:

  • Lockheed Martin
  • Boeing
  • Raytheon
  • BAE Systems
  • Northrop Grumman
  • General Dynamics
  • Airbus
  • Thales

The General Public do not benefit from the massive tax expenditure incurred by these wars.  In the end these benefits are funnelled towards the top.  Shareholders benefit and the top l% who run our media, and the military industrial complex, will be the beneficiaries of war.   So we find ourselves in a world of endless wars, as large arms companies, and the people who benefit the most have no financial incentives for peace in these countries.

Irish Neutrality

I would first like to address all Americans and thank the young soldiers and all Americans and give them my deepest condolences as I am truly sorry so many soldiers, and civilians, have been injured or killed in these US/NATO wars.     It is with great regret that the American people have paid a high price, as have the Iraqi, Syrians, Libyans, Afghans, Somalis, but we must call it what it is.  America is a Colonial Power, much like the British Empire.   They may not plant their flag or change the currency but when you have 800 USA bases in over 80 countries and you can dictate what currency someone sells their oil in and when you use the economic and financial banking system to cripple countries and you push which leaders you wish to control a country, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Venezuela, I feel it is Western Imperialism with a modern twist.

In Ireland we suffered our own Colonialism for over 800 years.  Ironically, it was the American/Irish that put pressure on the British Empire to give the Republic of Ireland its freedom.  So as Irish people to-day we must question our own morals and look to the future and wonder how our children will judge us.  Were we the people who facilitated the mass movement of weapons, political prisoners, civilians, through Shannon Airport, to facilitate Imperial powers to slaughter the people in far off lands, and for what end so that Google, Facebook, Microsoft, will continue to provide jobs in Ireland?   How much blood of women and children, has been spilt overseas?  How many countries have we, by facilitating USA/NATO forces going through Shannon Airport, helped to destroy?  So I ask the people of Ireland, how does this sit with you?

I have visited Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Syria and seen the devastation and destruction caused by military intervention in these countries.  I believe it is time to abolish militarism and solve our problems through International Law, mediation, dialogue and negotiations.  As an allegedly neutral country it is important that the Irish Government ensures that Shannon Airport is used for civilian purposes and not used to facilitate US military occupations, invasions, renditions, and war purposes.  The Irish people strongly support neutrality but this is being negated by the use of Shannon airport by US Military.

Ireland and the Irish people are much loved and respected around the world and seen as a country that has contributed much to the development of many countries, particularly through education, health care, arts and music.  However, this history is endangered by the Government’s accommodating the US Military in Shannon Airport also by its participation in NATO-led forces such as ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) in Afghanistan.

Ireland’s neutrality places it in an important position and arising out of its experience in peace making and conflict resolution at home, it could be a Mediator in General and Complete Disarmament and conflict resolution, in other countries caught in the tragedy of violence and war. (It also has an important role in upholding the Good Friday agreement and helping with the restoration of the Stormont Parliament in the North of Ireland.)

I am very hopeful for the future as I believe if we can reject militarism in its entirety as the aberration/dysfunction it is in human history, and all of us who no matter what area of change we work in, can unite and agree we want to see a demilitarized unarmed world.  We can do this together.  Let us remember in human history, people abolished slavery, piracy, we can abolish militarism and war, and relegate these barbaric ways into the dustbin of history.

And finally let us look to some of the Heroes of our times.  Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, to mention a few.  Julian Assange is currently being persecuted by British authorities over his role as a publisher and author.  Julian’s ground breaking journalism exposing government crimes during Iraqi/Afghan war has saved many  lives, but cost him his own freedom and perhaps his own life.  He is being tortured psychologically and psychically in a British prison, and threated with extradition to USA to face a Grand Jury, simply by doing his job as a journalist exposing the truth.  Let us do all we can we work for his freedom and demand he will not be extradited to USA.   Julian’s father said after visiting his son in hospital in Prison, ‘they’re murdering my Son’.  Please ask yourself, what can you do to help Julian get his freedom?

*

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 Saturday, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that preparations have been made for a unilateral cross border air and land military operation in the next day or two, in northern Syria, east of the Euphrates River. Erdogan expressed his frustration with Washington’s lack of adherence to a September 30th deadline to establish a thirty-kilometer-deep safe zone on Syria’s northern border.

In response to Erdogan’s threat, the US-backed Kurdish militia group known as The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) stated that they are ready to respond to an unprovoked Turkish attack with an all-out war if necessary.

Sandwiched between the Turkish-backed Free Syrian army and their affiliates and the US-backed Kurdish militias are Syrian civilians who are at risk of losing their homes, land, and lives. They are opposed to both entities and want the war to end.

Erdogan has made this same threat to target Kurdish militias on Syria’s northern border numerous times over the past year. Each time Washington strongly condemns any sort of unilateral military operation that could put US troops and their Kurdish militia allies in harm’s way. Then at the eleventh-hour placates Turkey by agreeing to help protect their national security by establishing a safe zone on the Syrian border or creating a “peace corridor” for Syrian refugees to return from Turkey to Syria. Wash, rinse and repeat every few weeks.

In August, an agreement between the United States and Turkey was made to establish the safe zone and peace corridor on Syria’s northern border. Some People’s Protection Units Kurdish YPG fighters removed their posts and left the safe zone area. Three Turkish/US joint patrol operations have taken place since August.  But Turkey still feels that not enough has been done and there are disagreements between the two regarding, depth, who should oversee the safe zone, and who needs to be removed from it. Turkey isn’t satisfied with a 10-15 km safe zone; they want 30 km and to be in total control of it.

It’s worth noting that the Syrian government has been vocal in their opposition to the creation of a Turkish safe zone or peace corridors on its land as well as joint patrol operations. Damascus knows that Turkey’s true intentions are expansion and changing the demographics and forcing the return of millions of Syrian refugees to areas in northern Syria where they do not originate from.

On the surface, establishing a safe zone for refugees might not seem like much of an issue. Especially if one thinks of Syria in the same terms as the United States and considers Aleppo, Damascus, Homs, Al Hassaka etc. as just states within a united country. But it is an issue, and there are major differences in tribes, religion, ideologies, political affiliations and loyalties that are not being taken into consideration.

Now, this isn’t to say that Syrians are incapable of peacefully coexisting, they can and have, but forcing entire populations to shift creating huge demographical changes on Syrian soil is problematic and if Turkey is truly worried about their national security they can establish a safe zone on Turkish land to protect themselves but they do not have a right to encroach on Syrian land.

In addition to the safe zone and peace corridor, Turkey has consistently demanded that the United States end their alliance with the Kurdish militias in Syria, the YPG and SDF who they consider to be an extension of the Kurdish Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) whom they have been at war with for over three decades.

Rather than cut ties to make their NATO ally happy, the United States has continued to support Kurdish militias since 2015, even assisting in a name change from YPG to SDF to disassociate them from the Turkish PKK.

Earlier this week another large convoy of US military trucks destined for the SDF made its way into northeastern Syria from Iraq.

If Turkey does carry out their alleged cross border military operation it will be the third of its kind in as many years. Just a few days ago, fragmented Turkish-backed militia groups including the Free Syrian Army merged into one with roughly 60,000 fighters, in preparation for this military operation.

The US is caught between supporting their Kurdish militia allies and supporting Turkey, their NATO ally. If US President Donald Trump truly wants to withdraw US troops from Syria like he has publicly stated numerous times, then he should use this opportunity as a perfect excuse.  Pulling US troops would of course anger the Kurdish militias who the United States has supported for the past four years with weapons, funds, military equipment, intelligence etc. but it would cause the SDF to try to work things out with the Syrian government and army and unite with them.

Turkey has drawn out a detailed plan for resettling two million Syrian refugees in the safe zone and many are concerned that once these Turkish loyalists have resettled on Turkey’s border, Ankara will claim ownership on Syria’s northern region. Turkey’s plan would cost roughly $27 billion and Turkey is not planning on footing the entire bill and has asked for other nations to assist funds to carry out its plan.

Turkey’s plan includes establishing 140 villages, 10 towns, a Turkish university with three faculties including an Islamic Sciences faculty in Azaz, an Education Faculty in Afrin and an Economics and Administrative Sciences faculty in Al Bab. Each village would have 1,000 homes which would house 5,000 people. Each town would have 6,000 homes and house 30,000 people. The project would have a total of 200,000 homes to house an estimated 1 million people.

Turkey is attempting to repeat across northern Syria what they accomplished in Afrin during the Olive Branch operation. They drove out the Kurdish population and replaced them with Turkish aligned Syrian refugees, changing the demographics.

*

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 Turkey’s Safe-zone and Refugee Peace-corridor in Syria Is a Cover for Encroachment and Territorial Expansion
  • Tags: , , ,

As three committees of the House of Representatives proceeded with the impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump, the president tweeted, “I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP.” Encyclopedia Britannica defines coup d’etat as “the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group.”

On the contrary, Congress is fulfilling its constitutional responsibility to investigate allegations that could constitute impeachable offenses — that is, high crimes and misdemeanors. Indeed, during its early history in England, impeachment was called “the most powerful weapon in the political armoury, short of civil war.”

Impeachment is mentioned six times in Articles I, II and III of the Constitution. The “sole Power of Impeachment” resides in the House of Representatives. Impeachment is like an indictment. It requires a simple majority of voting House members. The case then moves to the Senate for trial. It takes two-thirds of the senators to convict the president and remove him from office.

The grounds for impeachment are not limited to criminal offenses.

“Unlike a criminal case,” the 1974 Judiciary Committee report says, “the cause for the removal of a President may be based on his entire course of conduct in office. In particular situations, it may be a course of conduct more than individual acts that has a tendency to subvert constitutional government.”

Alexander Hamilton characterized impeachable offenses as political, writing in Federalist No. 65 that they “proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

There is abundant evidence of abuse of power and obstruction of justice by Trump. Both are impeachable offenses.

Evidence of Abuse of Power

Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Michael Atkinson determined in August that a whistleblower complaint against Trump raised an “urgent concern” and “appears credible.”

The whistleblower wrote:

In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had been trying to secure a meeting with Trump. The whistleblower’s complaint says “multiple U.S. officials told me that the Ukrainian leadership was led to believe that a meeting or phone call between the President and President Zelensky would depend on whether Zelensky showed willingness to ‘play ball’ on the issues” Giuliani was raising.

Trump attacked the whistleblower’s credibility, tweeting that “its 2ND HAND description of the call is a fraud!” However, the complaint is corroborated by the summary of the July 25, 2019, phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

About a week before that call, Trump had ordered his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to delay nearly $400 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine, without explanation.

During the call, Zelensky indicated he wanted to buy Javelin anti-tank missiles from the U.S. Trump then replied, “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” After asking Zelensky to look into CrowdStrike (a cybersecurity firm that investigated the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee), Trump asked Zelensky to investigate alleged improprieties by presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son in Ukraine. Trump has accused then-Vice President Biden of urging the removal of a corrupt prosecutor to hinder an investigation of a Ukrainian gas company for which Hunter Biden was serving on the board. Biden has been cleared of any wrongdoing by Ukrainian authorities.

The call summary quotes Trump telling Zelensky,

“Whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”

The ellipses indicate that some text was omitted from the summary.

Additional evidence of Trump pressuring Zelensky to investigate the Bidens and 2016 election in exchange for military assistance to Ukraine and a Zelensky visit to Washington has emerged.

On October 3, during his interview with House investigators, Kurt Volker, former State Department envoy to Ukraine, produced a cache of text messages that document a quid pro quo exchange. In a text sent on the morning of the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky, Volker texted Zelensky’s aide:

“heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

On August 9, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland texted Volker:

“I think potus [President of the United States] really wants the deliverable.”

Sondland mentioned that Zelensky may hold a news conference and announce his intent to investigate.

On September 9, U.S. Charges D’affaires in Ukraine William B. “Bill” Taylor texted Sondland,

“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Taylor complained that the decision to withhold congressionally approved military assistance to Ukraine had already led to a “nightmare scenario.”

“Impeachable misconduct entails a president’s serious abuse of power and a serious abuse of public trust,” University of North Carolina Law professor Michael Gerhardt told the Los Angeles Times. “President Trump’s call did both of those things. It was an abuse of power because he used his position to benefit himself and not the country. It was a breach of trust because Americans trust their president not to engage in self-dealing, either through steering businesses to line their own pockets or through conspiring with or coordinating with foreign powers to intervene in American elections.”

Abuse of power was one of the articles of impeachment filed against Nixon, for, among other things, conspiring to cover up his role in the Watergate break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

Evidence of Obstruction of Justice

In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Joseph Maguire admitted that Inspector General Atkinson reached a “sound conclusion” that the whistleblower was credible and acted in good faith.

“I believe the whistleblower did the right thing and followed the law every step of the way,” Maguire told the committee.

But instead of forwarding the complaint to Congress as required by the Whistleblower Protection Act when the Inspector General finds the complaint raises an “urgent concern,” Maguire went to the White House and the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Overseen by Attorney General William Barr, himself implicated in the scandal, the OLC determined that the whistleblower’s complaint did not raise an “urgent concern” and advised Maguire that he had no duty to send the complaint to Congress. Although the White House was considering invoking executive privilege, in the face of public outrage, Trump decided to release the complaint.

The whistleblower also alleged a cover-up of the transcript of the July 25 call:

White House officials told me that they were “directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials. Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.

Moreover, the White House and Giuliani are resisting the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Reform committees’ subpoenas for witnesses and documents pursuant to the impeachment inquiry. Such stonewalling could also provide evidence of obstruction of justice, as Rep. Adam Schiff, Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Eliot Engel, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Rep. Elijah Cummings, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, wrote in a statement:

Secretary [of State Mike] Pompeo was reportedly on the call when the President pressed Ukraine to smear his political opponent. If true, Secretary Pompeo is now a fact witness in the House impeachment inquiry. He should immediately cease intimidating Department witnesses in order to protect himself and the President.

Any effort to intimidate witnesses or prevent them from talking with Congress—including State Department employees—is illegal and will constitute evidence of obstruction of the impeachment inquiry. In response, Congress may infer from this obstruction that any withheld documents and testimony would reveal information that corroborates the whistleblower complaint.

On September 30, Trump quoted evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress, who invoked the possibility of civil war if Trump is removed from office.

“If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal,” Trump tweeted.

As Harvard Law professor John Coates told Newsweek, that tweet could provide “an independent basis” for impeachment. Threatening civil war if Congress proceeds with the constitutional process of impeachment and removal from office is quintessential obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of justice was one of the articles of impeachment filed against both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Nixon resigned before being impeached. Clinton was impeached by the House for lying under oath to cover up his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, but was acquitted in the Senate.

Trump Lashes Out

Trump was surprised at the firestorm surrounding the Ukraine call. “It’s a joke,” he said. “Impeachment for that?” Trump couldn’t understand why impeachment was now being pursued. “I thought we won,” he said of the Mueller report’s findings. “I thought it was dead, it was dead.”

But it is not surprising that Trump, who cannot abide any criticism without launching a defensive tweetstorm, would strike out at members of Congress participating in the impeachment investigation. Indeed, Trump accused Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff of treason on Twitter. Although the crime of treason requires giving aid or comfort to the enemy during war time, Trump often accuses his political opponents of treason.

Reacting to the whistleblower’s complaint, Trump harkened back to the “old days” when spying led to execution.

“I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistle-blower the information? Because that’s close to a spy,” he told the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”

Playing to his right-wing, gun-loving, immigrant-hating, evangelical base, Trump also tweeted that the investigation of his alleged abuse of power is “intended to take away the Power of the People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!”

Perhaps most disturbing is Trump’s threat to remain in office beyond the constitutionally limited two terms. He told a closed meeting of the U.S. Mission to the UN, “We’re looking good for another four years and then if we want to, another four and another four.”

Trump is taking a page from the playbook of Nixon, who infamously said, “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” But nobody – not even the president – is above the law.

What’s Next?

As the House committees continue to issue subpoenas for their impeachment investigation, we can expect stonewalling by the White House.

“When the House opens an impeachment inquiry, it wields extraordinary constitutional powers and serves as the ultimate check on a rogue president. It can therefore overcome virtually any executive branch privilege or immunity,” Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe wrote in The Guardian. “Otherwise, the president could commit high crimes and misdemeanors and defeat accountability by simply defying all efforts to discover his wrongdoing.”

After the three committees do their work, they will forward the results to the House Judiciary Committee, which will then take the lead. It can hold its own hearings, which were pivotal in the Nixon impeachment investigation. James Reston Jr. wrote in The New York Times about the “power of the televised [Watergate] hearings of the House Judiciary Committee” in 1974. “Far from being politically divisive, they proved a dignified and appropriate response to egregious presidential misconduct — enough to persuade seven out of the committee’s 17 Republicans to vote in favor of at least one of the articles of impeachment.”

The Judiciary Committee will determine the scope of the inquiry. In proposing articles of impeachment to the full House of Representatives, the committee could limit the investigation to Ukrainegate. Or it may include other matters, which seem to emerge on a daily basis.

On October 3, a defiant Trump publicly called on China to investigate Biden, telling reporters, “China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.” That exhortation came only moments after Trump mentioned forthcoming trade talks with China, saying, “if they don’t do what we want, we have tremendous power.” Trump and Barr “have now solicited assistance in discrediting the president’s political opponents from Ukraine, Australia, Italy and, according to one report, Britain,” The New York Times reported.

There is another whistleblower complaint that alleges senior Treasury officials are secretly pressuring senior IRS officials about the audit of Trump’s tax returns. House investigators are also examining allegations that conservative groups and at least one foreign government have tried to secure favors from Trump by booking rooms at his hotel but not using them. These “ghost bookings” could violate the Emoluments Clause. And the Mueller report detailed obstruction of justice by Trump during the Russia investigation.

Once the House votes for impeachment, which is likely, the case will move to the Senate. Majority leader Mitch McConnell has stated he has no choice under the rules but to take up the matter. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial. But the Senate may instead pass a motion to dismiss and avoid a trial entirely. During the Clinton impeachment proceeding, Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd’s motion to dismiss was defeated along party lines and a five-week trial ensued. Republicans have the votes in the Senate to dismiss the case. But they will have to answer to public opinion, which increasingly favors impeachment.

Questions that remain to be answered include: What will be the scope of the impeachment inquiry? Will Trump be impeached, and if so, what will happen in the Senate? How will impeachment affect the 2020 election? Will Mike Pompeo, William Barr and Vice President Mike Pence, who is now being implicated in the scandal, be impeached and/or prosecuted for their roles in Ukrainegate?

Stay tuned.

*

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

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.

Featured image is from TruePublica

“You gotta remember, establishment, it’s just a name for evil. The monster doesn’t care whether it kills all the students or whether there’s a revolution. It’s not thinking logically, it’s out of control.”—John Lennon (1969)

John Lennon, born 79 years ago on October 9, 1940, was a musical genius and pop cultural icon.

He was also a vocal peace protester and anti-war activist and a high-profile example of the lengths to which the Deep State will go to persecute those who dare to challenge its authority.

Long before Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning were being castigated for blowing the whistle on the government’s war crimes and the National Security Agency’s abuse of its surveillance powers, it was Lennon who was being singled out for daring to speak truth to power about the government’s warmongering, his phone calls monitored and data files illegally collected on his activities and associations.

For a while, at least, Lennon became enemy number one in the eyes of the U.S. government.

Years after Lennon’s assassination it would be revealed that the FBI had collected 281 pages of files on him, including song lyrics. J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI at the time, directed the agency to spy on the musician. There were also various written orders calling on government agents to frame Lennon for a drug bust.

“The FBI’s files on Lennon … read like the writings of a paranoid goody-two-shoes,” observed reporter Jonathan Curiel.

As the New York Times notes,

“Critics of today’s domestic surveillance object largely on privacy grounds. They have focused far less on how easily government surveillance can become an instrument for the people in power to try to hold on to power. ‘The U.S. vs. John Lennon’ … is the story not only of one man being harassed, but of a democracy being undermined.”

Indeed, all of the many complaints we have about government today—surveillance, militarism, corruption, harassment, SWAT team raids, political persecution, spying, overcriminalization, etc.—were present in Lennon’s day and formed the basis of his call for social justice, peace and a populist revolution.

For all of these reasons, the U.S. government was obsessed with Lennon, who had learned early on that rock music could serve a political end by proclaiming a radical message. More importantly, Lennon saw that his music could mobilize the public and help to bring about change. Lennon believed in the power of the people. Unfortunately, as Lennon recognized:

“The trouble with government as it is, is that it doesn’t represent the people. It controls them.”

However, as Martin Lewis writing for Time notes:

“John Lennon was not God. But he earned the love and admiration of his generation by creating a huge body of work that inspired and led. The appreciation for him deepened because he then instinctively decided to use his celebrity as a bully pulpit for causes greater than his own enrichment or self-aggrandizement.”

For instance, in December 1971 at a concert in Ann Arbor, Mich., Lennon took to the stage and in his usual confrontational style belted out “John Sinclair,” a song he had written about a man sentenced to 10 years in prison for possessing two marijuana cigarettes. Within days of Lennon’s call for action, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered Sinclair released.

What Lennon did not know at the time was that government officials had been keeping strict tabs on the ex-Beatle they referred to as “Mr. Lennon.” Incredibly, FBI agents were in the audience at the Ann Arbor concert, “taking notes on everything from the attendance (15,000) to the artistic merits of his new song.”

The U.S. government, steeped in paranoia, was spying on Lennon.

By March 1971, when his “Power to the People” single was released, it was clear where Lennon stood. Having moved to New York City that same year, Lennon was ready to participate in political activism against the U. S. government, the “monster” that was financing the war in Vietnam.

The release of Lennon’s Sometime in New York City album, which contained a radical anti-government message in virtually every song and depicted President Richard Nixon and Chinese Chairman Mao Tse-tung dancing together nude on the cover, only fanned the flames of the conflict to come.

The official U.S. war against Lennon began in earnest in 1972 after rumors surfaced that Lennon planned to embark on a U.S. concert tour that would combine rock music with antiwar organizing and voter registration. Nixon, fearing Lennon’s influence on about 11 million new voters (1972 was the first year that 18-year-olds could vote), had the ex-Beatle served with deportation orders “in an effort to silence him as a voice of the peace movement.”

Then again, the FBI has had a long history of persecuting, prosecuting and generally harassing activists, politicians, and cultural figures. Most notably among the latter are such celebrated names as folk singer Pete Seeger, painter Pablo Picasso, comic actor and filmmaker Charlie Chaplin, comedian Lenny Bruce and poet Allen Ginsberg.

Among those most closely watched by the FBI was Martin Luther King Jr., a man labeled by the FBI as “the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country.” With wiretaps and electronic bugs planted in his home and office, King was kept under constant surveillance by the FBI with the aim of “neutralizing” him. He even received letters written by FBI agents suggesting that he either commit suicide or the details of his private life would be revealed to the public. The FBI kept up its pursuit of King until he was felled by a hollow-point bullet to the head in 1968.

While Lennon was not—as far as we know—being blackmailed into suicide, he was the subject of a four-year campaign of surveillance and harassment by the U.S. government (spearheaded by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover), an attempt by President Richard Nixon to have him “neutralized” and deported. As Adam Cohen of the New York Times points out,

“The F.B.I.’s surveillance of Lennon is a reminder of how easily domestic spying can become unmoored from any legitimate law enforcement purpose. What is more surprising, and ultimately more unsettling, is the degree to which the surveillance turns out to have been intertwined with electoral politics.”

As Lennon’s FBI file shows, memos and reports about the FBI’s surveillance of the anti-war activist had been flying back and forth between Hoover, the Nixon White House, various senators, the FBI and the U.S. Immigration Office.

Nixon’s pursuit of Lennon was relentless and in large part based on the misperception that Lennon and his comrades were planning to disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention. The government’s paranoia, however, was misplaced.

Left-wing activists who were on government watch lists and who shared an interest in bringing down the Nixon Administration had been congregating at Lennon’s New York apartment. But when they revealed that they were planning to cause a riot, Lennon balked. As he recounted in a 1980 interview,

“We said, We ain’t buying this. We’re not going to draw children into a situation to create violence so you can overthrow what? And replace it with what? . . . It was all based on this illusion, that you can create violence and overthrow what is, and get communism or get some right-wing lunatic or a left-wing lunatic. They’re all lunatics.”

Despite the fact that Lennon was not part of the “lunatic” plot, the government persisted in its efforts to have him deported. Equally determined to resist, Lennon dug in and fought back. Every time he was ordered out of the country, his lawyers delayed the process by filing an appeal. Finally, in 1976, Lennon won the battle to stay in the country when he was granted a green card. As he said afterwards, “I have a love for this country…. This is where the action is. I think we’ll just go home, open a tea bag, and look at each other.”

Lennon’s time of repose didn’t last long, however. By 1980, he had re-emerged with a new album and plans to become politically active again.

The old radical was back and ready to cause trouble. In his final interview on Dec. 8, 1980, Lennon mused,

“The whole map’s changed and we’re going into an unknown future, but we’re still all here, and while there’s life there’s hope.”

The Deep State has a way of dealing with troublemakers, unfortunately. On Dec. 8, 1980, Mark David Chapman was waiting in the shadows when Lennon returned to his New York apartment building. As Lennon stepped outside the car to greet the fans congregating outside, Chapman, in an eerie echo of the FBI’s moniker for Lennon, called out, “Mr. Lennon!”

Lennon turned and was met with a barrage of gunfire as Chapman—dropping into a two-handed combat stance—emptied his .38-caliber pistol and pumped four hollow-point bullets into his back and left arm. Lennon stumbled, staggered forward and, with blood pouring from his mouth and chest, collapsed to the ground.

John Lennon was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. He had finally been “neutralized.”

Yet where those who neutralized the likes of John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy and others go wrong is in believing that you can murder a movement with a bullet and a madman.

Thankfully, Lennon’s legacy lives on in his words, his music and his efforts to speak truth to power. As Yoko Ono shared in a 2014 letter to the parole board tasked with determining whether Chapman should be released: “A man of humble origin, [John Lennon] brought light and hope to the whole world with his words and music. He tried to be a good power for the world, and he was. He gave encouragement, inspiration and dreams to people regardless of their race, creed and gender.”

Sadly, not much has changed for the better in the world since Lennon walked among us.

Peace remains out of reach. Activism and whistleblowers continue to be prosecuted for challenging the government’s authority. Militarism is on the rise, with local police dressed like the military, all the while the governmental war machine continues to wreak havoc on innocent lives across the globe. Just recently, for example, U.S. military forces carried out drone strikes in Afghanistan that killed 30 pine nut farmers.

For those of us who joined with John Lennon to imagine a world of peace, it’s getting harder to reconcile that dream with the reality of the American police state.

Meanwhile, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, those who dare to speak up are labeled dissidents, troublemakers, terrorists, lunatics, or mentally ill and tagged for surveillance, censorship, involuntary detention or, worse, even shot and killed in their own homes by militarized police.

As Lennon shared in a 1968 interview:

“I think all our society is run by insane people for insane objectives… I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal means. If anybody can put on paper what our government and the American government and the Russian… Chinese… what they are actually trying to do, and what they think they’re doing, I’d be very pleased to know what they think they’re doing. I think they’re all insane. But I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That’s what’s insane about it.”

So what’s the answer?

Lennon had a multitude of suggestions.

“If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there’d be peace.”

“War is over if you want it.”

“Produce your own dream…. It’s quite possible to do anything, but not to put it on the leaders…. You have to do it yourself. That’s what the great masters and mistresses have been saying ever since time began. They can point the way, leave signposts and little instructions in various books that are now called holy and worshipped for the cover of the book and not for what it says, but the instructions are all there for all to see, have always been and always will be. There’s nothing new under the sun. All the roads lead to Rome. And people cannot provide it for you. I can’t wake you up. You can wake you up. I can’t cure you. You can cure you.”

“Peace is not something you wish for; It’s something you make, Something you do, Something you are, And something you give away.”

“If you want peace, you won’t get it with violence.”

And my favorite advice of all: “Say you want a revolution / We better get on right away / Well you get on your feet / And out on the street / Singing power to the people.”

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

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

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) recently published a video entitled “Journalism is not a crime.” It boldly states that “you can’t kill the truth,” that “everyone deserves access to information,” that “it’s vital to hold governments to account” and that “freedom of expression underpins all human rights.”

It therefore begs the question: why the hell is Julian Assange languishing in solitary confinement in Belmarsh high security prison, particularly now that he has served his sentence for breaching bail conditions?

He was due to be released on September 22, but district judge Vanessa Baraitser told him that in her view she had “substantial grounds” for believing that if she released him, he would “abscond again.” Consequently, she said Assange’s status in jail would change “from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition.”

An obvious fact was ignored by the judge, which was that as one of the most well-known individuals on the planet, the chances of Julian Assange absconding anywhere are virtually zero. The decision to continue to detain him is a stain on Britain’s reputation and shows up the FCO’s video as a complete fraud.

The charges brought against him in the US include “computer misuse” and the “unauthorised disclosure of national defence information.” But these charges are incongruous, because what he revealed were war crimes by the US and the appalling abuse of state and corporate power. By disclosing this information, he performed an international public service and he should be venerated and celebrated, not demonised and denounced for his efforts on our behalf.

When Assange was dragged from the Ecuadorian embassy, Slavoj Zizek wrote:

“Assange characterised himself as the spy of and for the people: he is not spying on the people for those in power, he is spying on those in power for the people.”

It is therefore little wonder that the establishment on both sides of the Atlantic want to shut him up and deliver a warning to anyone else who dares to shine a light on their dirty dealings.

Assange risked everything to expose the misuse of power, which has resulted in him being subjected to a systematic, and deeply sinister, smear campaign ever since for his efforts on our behalf.

Having been the subject of a smear campaign myself, I certainly empathise with him, however the sheer scale and volume of the vile slurs thrown at him are of a completely different magnitude.

But as the FCO itself has said, you can’t kill the truth. Step forward Fidel Narvaez, a former diplomat who worked in the Ecuadorian embassy during the period that Julian Assange sought refuge there. In an article for The Grayzone he refuted the lies being peddled about the years Julian Assange was forced to live in the embassy. These ranged from ludicrous accusations about meddling in the last US presidential election to lurid assertions about smearing faeces on the walls.

He is now awaiting an extradition hearing, which if he loses could see him sentenced to 175 years in captivity. In other words, he would have to live out the rest of his natural life in a US jail because he told the truth about war crimes.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, eminent journalist John Pilger described the conditions in which Julian Assange is currently being held as “barbaric” after visiting him in Belmarsh. He tweeted that

Julian is “isolated, denied proper exercise, access to the library, a laptop, he cannot prepare his defence. He is even denied calls to his US lawyers. His UK lawyer wrote to the governor on June 4. Silence. How lawless.”

Jeremy Corbyn is absolutely right to say any attempt to extradite Julian Assange to the US should be opposed by the British government. But predictably the Tories take the opposite view and the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, willingly signed an extradition request to the US.

There have been a number of rallies outside Belmarsh, but we need to do more to raise the profile of this case, which has huge ramifications for all of us. That is why I tabled an early day motion (EDM) this week opposing any extradition and condemning the on-going mistreatment and imprisonment of Julian Assange.

The motion highlights the fact that the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has stated that his treatment appears to contravene the principles of necessity and proportionality envisaged under human rights standards.

It also refers to the broader consequences for media freedoms, freedom of speech and civil liberties in the UK, and calls on the government to release him and offer compensation for his mistreatment. I would like to see every backbencher in the House of Commons signing the EDM and would urge readers to ask their MPs to sign EDM 2746.

This is one battle for democratic accountability that we absolutely must not lose. If ever there was a time to invoke Pastor Niemoller’s piercing poem — “First They Came” — it is now. If we don’t speak up for Julian Assange to prevent this monstrous misuse of the judicial system, who will dare to speak up for us in the future?

*

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.

There is a lot more corruption and crimes against humanity happening that people are not aware of. The hidden torture of unconsenting citizens leading us into modern day slavery. The CIA has taken control of the Military-Industrial complex and are using military weapons on civilians worldwide, to silence whistleblowers and dissent.

One of these weapons is a microwave beam that can be fired at civilians from satellites, called a Vircator. It is very precise and can cause excruciating pain. There are people in your country that are being targeted, right now. They are called Targeted Individuals.

We at TargetedJustice.com are a non-profit civil rights organization. Our goal is to bring about awareness, expose and stop the use of directed energy weapons on innocent citizens worldwide. Targeted Justice is looking to inform and share information with media and journalists so that we can work together to put a stop to this corruption and torture. To give a voice to the people enduring these horrible crimes and save the future of humanity so that more may not fall victim.

We will be holding a rally in Washington D.C. October 18-22 and meeting with members of Congress. On Saturday October 19th we will be rallying in front of the White House. We invite you to join us, to see and meet with Targeted Justice as well as other targeted individuals.

They would like to say we are mentally ill, it is an easy way to hide it. Please do your research but know there is alot of propaganda out there to discredit what is actually happening. We have two thousand members at Targeted Justice. This is not only happening here but is a global problem. Nobody is immune.

*

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.

A man wearing tracksuit bottoms, a hoodie and an untucked shirt slouches into a Tory Party conference. He is tall, balding and in his mid-forties. 

His every move is filmed or photographed by a platoon of cameramen as he’s followed by an entourage of loyal retainers.

It’s a well-documented contemporary phenomenon that powerful men in politics and business flout dress codes as a statement that they are much more important than how they’re dressed. But Dominic Cummings, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s strategist and senior adviser, is different.

Destructive agenda

His slovenly dress is not merely expressing contempt for the grey suits and traditional country tweeds of Tory MPs and party members. He’s deliberately showing contempt for the British Conservative Party itself.

And not just that: he’s sending out a statement that he holds Britain in contempt too, including his attitudes towards its institutions, its values, its rule of law and its parliamentary democracy.

To further his cause, he can rely on the support of an army of client journalists who crowd around him for access and information. They tend not to ask difficult questions about his ultimate objectives or who funds him.

Large sections of the British media share much of his destructive agenda, craving access and information. In return, Cummings receives their protection.

Above all, Johnson relies on him absolutely. Britain is run this autumn by a tiny gang inside Downing Street – a gang that came together in the dishonest Vote Leave campaign, which drove the Brexit vote.

Crucial to this is Michael Gove, the cabinet minister in charge of Brexit preparations. The leader may be Johnson, but the architect is Cummings. Many judge that Johnson is his useful tool or puppet.

A party transformed

I have attended every single Conservative Party conference since 1992. This one is the only one where I’ve felt scared.

The Conservative Party I have supported almost all my adult life scarcely exists anymore. Johnson, in his speech to party activists this week, spoke of a One-Nation Toryism, laying claim to a tradition that dates back to his predecessor, Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, 150 years ago.

But the party he leads is not One Nation. It’s turning fast into an English national party that is venomously opposed to everything Conservatism has traditionally stood for.

It’s against the rule of law, disagreeing with the Supreme Court judges who humiliated Johnson by declaring that his decision to shut down Parliament for five weeks was unlawful. It is hostile to the tradition of parliamentary democracy, which in Britain dates back nearly 350 years, to the constitutional settlement set in train with the 1688 Glorious Revolution.

Johnson constantly refers to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act, which ruled out a no-deal Brexit, as the Surrender Act.

In other words, he is suggesting that the MPs who voted for it are traitors or collaborators with foreign powers. Twenty-one Tory MPs have been stripped of the Tory whip and others have left in despair.

Chaos and disruption

It breaks my heart. The Conservative Party used to celebrate the British values of good humour, decency, rule of law, tolerance and a certain gentle eccentricity.

Johnson’s Conservative Party speaks with one voice. There was no debate at this week’s conference. There were none of the divisions and arguments that dominated Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party conference a week earlier.

The conference’s refrain was: “Get Brexit done” – but the truth is that you can’t just “get Brexit done” by leaving the European Union on 31 October, as Johnson says he is determined to do. Such a move will lead to a fresh period of chaos, as Britain seeks to achieve new trading arrangements with the EU – a process that will take years and cause enormous chaos and disruption to the British economy.

Almost all serious businessmen are appalled by this course of action. But the Conservative Party is no longer the party of business. It’s becoming the party of anger and resentment.

Downing Street has been accused by former ministers of inciting violence. Johnson started this in Parliament last week, when he suggested that the best way MPs could avoid death threats and other forms of abuse was to carry out Brexit.

There were more examples in Manchester. James Cleverly, the Tory chairman, said that there would be violence in the streets if Brexit does not happen.

This is dangerous and dishonest. For all of the acrimony and bitter disagreement over Brexit, there has been no civil disorder on the British streets. But ministers this week were talking it up by introducing the idea into popular discourse. It almost feels as if they want violence to happen in order to push Brexit through.

Engineering an election

Parliament can stop Johnson leaving the EU without a deal on 31 October. Johnson says that he badly wants a deal with Europe. On this point, I believe him. He knows the dangers of No Deal.

This week, the British government unveiled details of its plans to solve the problem of the Irish border after Brexit. It proposes that Northern Ireland stay in the European single market for goods but leave the customs union, meaning there would need to be customs checks around the UK border with the Republic of Ireland.

Many experts who have examined the proposals say that they are unworkable. I am not so sure. I believe it’s entirely possible that Johnson will strike a deal when he meets European ministers at the EU Council meeting on 17 October, meaning Britain will leave the EU by the end of the month.

The EU does not want to risk Johnson using his failure to strike a deal to engineer an election.

Although the case for an election in the event of an EU extension is overwhelming – Johnson now leads a minority government and cannot press through legislation – the election will be ugly.

In his campaign, Johnson will mobilise “the people” against what Tories now call the “Remainer establishment”: judges, MPs, Parliament, big business, the British civil service. In other words, the British state as currently constituted, and its supporters in the private sector. If Johnson wins, he will have a free hand.

We are approaching a climactic moment in the long Brexit crisis that began when former prime minister David Cameron announced a referendum five years ago. The shape of the United Kingdom, for decades to come, may be decided during the next three weeks.

*

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 Oborne won best commentary/blogging in 2017 and was named freelancer of the year in 2016 at the Online Media Awards for articles he wrote for Middle East Eye. He also was British Press Awards Columnist of the Year 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. His books include The Triumph of the Political Class, The Rise of Political Lying, and Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK Brexit Crisis: Destructive Agenda Which Could Shape Britain for Decades to Come

After more than 10 years of battling Monsanto’s “bogus” drought tolerant maize project, the African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) has welcomed the decision by the Minister of Agriculture, Ms Thoko Didiza, upholding the decision by the Executive Council: GMO Act and the appeal board to reject Monsanto’s application for the commercial cultivation of its triple-stacked “drought-tolerant” GM maize seed.

This landmark decision is a win for the ACB and other civil society organisations on the continent that have resisted the introduction of these GM varieties in South Africa, Mozambique, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania.

The Minister’s decision was made following the failure of the GM varieties to increase yield under drought conditions during repeated field trials in South Africa.

The Minister concluded what the ACB and independent biosafety experts have been saying for the last decade: that “the drought tolerance gene in the MON87460 x MON89034 x NK603 maize event did not provide yield protection in water-limited conditions”.

The stacked event, MON87460 x MON89034 x NK603, combines Monsanto’s so-called drought tolerance trait, with their older and increasingly futile herbicide tolerance and insecticidal traits.

Contrary to promises made by Monsanto, yield benefits were inconsistent and in some trials even showed lower yields than conventional maize. The decision also reveals that insect resistance data was insufficient since it came from only one trial site for only two planting seasons.

Significantly, the Minister and the Appeal body rejected attempts by Monsanto to claim that their drought tolerant trait was effective based merely on differences in maize kernel characteristics, despite lack of yield benefits, which in itself is not indicative of efficacy of a trait.

Mariam Mayet, Director of the ACB, said,

“The data exposes the twisting and manipulation of science by Monsanto to promote sales of their ineffective, reductionist GM products for complex environmental, political and socio-economic challenges, such as climate change and poverty.

“The ACB has been exposing the lack of evidence of drought-tolerance sine 2008, calling on Monsanto to prove the efficacy of this trait. But, as confirmed by the South African decision making bodies, Monsanto completely failed to provide scientific data to substantiate their claims.”

Backed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, traits such as drought-tolerance are being peddled as the latest Western biotechnology solution to climate change and hunger eradication under the Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project.

The WEMA project is being implemented in South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Mozambique, and purports to offer the GM drought-tolerant maize to smallholder farmers in Africa as a “climate smart” solution to abiotic stresses such as drought.

The ACB is in the process of appealing an earlier government’s decision to approve the single drought tolerant trait MON87460. It remains to be seen if Monsanto will withdraw from the appeal case now that its project has been dealt such a death blow.

*

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.

Dying Wildlife on a Warming Planet

October 7th, 2019 by Meena Miriam Yust

If fish decline, so does a food source for humans and the water birds that feed on fish, and as insect pollinators decline, so do our crops and the plants around us.

***

The emaciated polar bear, a sorry remnant of magnificence, raiding garbage cans in an iconic, even infamous photo, is one consequence of global warming. As the September (2019) National Geographic cover story displays depressingly, Arctic ice collected over winter is sparser, thinner, and now disappears completely during summer in parts of Canada. If the effects of global warming are staring us in the face, then only the woefully or willfully ignorant—like Trump—can ignore them.

One more aspect of warming on Arctic ice has been reported recently.  As we know, two-thirds of an iceberg lies under water.  As sea water warms, melt increases and scientists have made measurements to discover that submerged parts of icebergs and glaciers entering the sea are melting significantly more than was previously believed, contributing to rising sea levels.

Researchers are warning that permafrost collapse in the Arctic is releasing nitrous oxide, methane, and carbon dioxide.  The store is vast: nearly 1,600 billion tonnes of carbon lies trapped in the frozen soils of the permafrost region as a result of decaying organic matter over millennia.  That is almost double the quantity in the atmosphere.

The environmental costs of global warming appear in yet other unexpected ways.  A new paper in Science reports the threat to coral reef reproduction.  Free-spawning marine species synchronize spawning as a way to ensure reproduction.  In this way the gametes developed are so numerous that some escape their predators, ensuring species survival.  Global warming is now affecting this reproductive synchrony, threatening coral reef recovery.

Rising ocean temperatures impact fish, plankton and crustaceans, in turn affecting the creatures that feed on them.  So now sea birds, like the puffin, are struggling to stay alive.  These are striking birds with black and white plumage, bright orange legs and feet, and, during the mating season, orange beaks.  This past May, it was estimated that between 3,150 and 8,500 puffins starved to death in the Bering Sea, their emaciated bodies washing ashore on the Pribilof Islands, some 300 miles west of mainland Alaska.  Prior to the mass deaths, there was a documented period of elevated sea surface temperatures in the eastern Bering Sea according to scientists.  The unfortunate result was a shift in zooplankton composition and in forage fish distribution, both food sources for the puffin.

In Iceland, too, puffins are in trouble.  Researchers discovered that thousands of puffin chicks had died from starvation in the summer of 2018.  It turns out rising ocean temperatures have pushed cold-water fish farther north leaving the baby pufflings with little to eat.  The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has categorized the Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica) as vulnerable on its red list.

Rising ocean temperatures are also affecting food availability and the habitat of many Arctic creatures, including the walrus, polar bear, gray whale, arctic fox, and ice seal.  Some are starving to death, some wandering long and far in search of food.  Polar bears rely on sea ice to hunt seals at their breathing holes.  When the sea is not covered in ice, breathing holes become unnecessary as the seals can come up anywhere for air, and are no longer easy for polar bears to snatch up.  The World Wildlife Fund has reported a 40% drop in number of the southern Beaufort Sea polar bears between 2001 and 2010.   Worse still, scientists forecasting global polar bear populations estimate a high probability that 30% of polar bears worldwide will be gone by 2050.

Declining sea ice is also harming seals. Baby harp seals lie on the ice during their fragile first few weeks of life.  Without a thick and stable span of ice, seal pups may drown or be crushed by broken ice.  In 2007, a then surprising 75 percent plus of pups died due to thin ice conditions; in 2010, nearly all.  “Some years, when there’s poor ice in a given pupping ground, essentially all of the pups don’t make it,” says Duke marine biologist David Johnston.  As temperatures continue to rise, seal survival becomes precarious.

The Pacific walrus population is in decline with only 129,000 animals left.  Due to climate change, the floating summer ice that walruses used to haul themselves upon to rest is now way up north.  Consequently the animals are swimming ashore and taking to land in huge numbers.  Unfortunately their feeding grounds are far away from shore, forcing a 250 mile round trip.  In addition to exhaustion from traveling long distances and food scarcity, walruses also face threats from being on the beach in vast crowds.  In 2014, 35,000 walruses were seen together on the shore near Point Lay, Alaska.  The animals, which can weigh as much as 1.5 tons, can be frightened easily by loud noises like airplanes, causing stampedes and mass deaths by trampling, especially of young calves – as many as 500 in one incident.  If ice continues to diminish, their future looks bleak.

Then there are the gray whales.  Their favorite crustacean is the amphipod – a small flat morsel with segments and antennae resembling a grasshopper.  These lipid-rich crustaceans are devoured by whales in bulk.  Over the past 30 years, as currents have warmed and sea ice has melted, amphipod populations have declined in the Bering Sea whale feeding area.  As a result, gray whale mothers and babies have had no choice but to swim north through the Bering Strait and far into the Arctic Ocean in search of an alternate food supply.  They are so hungry they are eating krill and mysid shrimp, but as it takes an enormous quantity to match the calories of lipid-rich amphipods, the whales remain hungry.

The North Atlantic right whale, a species federally classified as endangered, is also affected by the rising ocean temperatures.  The Smithsonian reports that right whales eat more than 2,000 pounds each day, mostly copepods.  Their favorite copepod, the Calanus finmarchicus, has dramatically declined because some of the deep waters of the north Atlantic have warmed almost 9 degrees Fahrenheit since 2004, forcing right whales to migrate elsewhere in search of food.  Several right whales have been found dead in Canadian waters in recent months, and a sixth dead whale was found in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in July of this year.  The steep rise since 2010 in the deaths of these whales from shipping vessel strikes as well as entanglement with fishing gear is attributed to the animals moving into new and unexpected areas where speed restrictions for vessels are not in place.  With some 400 right whales left (out of 500 in the early 2000s) and about 100 breeding females, the species may face extinction if these trends continue.  Researchers are hoping to use satellite technology to detect whales in new territory, allowing for faster responses in moving fishing nets and large vessels.

Creatures large and small face threats from melting ice.  Lemmings are like hamsters of the tundra—small, furry rodents with faces and whiskers as adorable as the childhood pet.  In winter, northern Norway lemmings burrow under the snow for insulation and protection from prey.  During good snow seasons, they reach population peaks and their young prosper.  But in Norway in recent years, rising temperatures are causing repeated thawing and icing periods resulting in poor snow conditions for the lemmings.  The resulting altered and reduced population cycles mean lemmings are no longer reaching population peaks.

The arctic fox relies on lemmings as a primary food source, and scientists believe lemming decline has contributed to sharp declines and breeding failures in the arctic fox population of Norway.  Arctic foxes also face threats from the red fox, a larger more aggressive animal, which historically lived south of the arctic fox habitat.  Due to climate change and warming of the Arctic, however, the red fox is encroaching on arctic fox areas.  Warming is also converting the tundra to shrublands, a habitat the red fox desires.  The poor arctic fox faces loss of habitat, decreased food availability, increased competition for food, and possible displacement by the red fox.  And with the Arctic continuing to warm, these changes will only become more extensive.  Small wonder then that the arctic fox often has to travel long and hard to find food.  One female captured all our hearts as it traveled 3,500 km from Norway to Canada in 76 days, its remarkable journey including 1,512 km on sea ice.

These few examples demonstrate the impact of global warming on diverse forms of life—from coral reefs and lemmings to the right whale. We learn that changes in plankton and tiny crustaceans can starve a giant whale and diminishing ice cover can cause polar bears to lose their primary food source, and we begin to register the intimate interconnectedness in the web of life. Human well-being too is tied to this chain of life.  If fish decline, so does a food source for humans and the water birds that feed on fish, and as insect pollinators decline, so do our crops and the plants around us.  A study suggests that 40% of insect species are in decline.  And the U.S. and Canada have lost three billion birds since 1970.  In this anthropocene age, humans are not rapacious owners but stewards of our planet, holding it in trust for succeeding generations.  It is what the young led by Greta Thunberg are forcefully making clear to their elders.

*

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.

Meena Miriam Yust is an attorney based in Chicago, Illinois.  Educated at Vassar College and Case Western Reserve University School of Law, she published a draft Migratory Insect Treaty with commentary in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law.

Arshad M Khan is a retired professor and occasional commentator.

Featured image: Mickey Faulkner/Flickr/cc

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dying Wildlife on a Warming Planet

The Real Venezuela: Dignified, Indivisible and Truthful

October 7th, 2019 by Nino Pagliccia

All those wondering who is in charge in Venezuela, should stop reading the biased and confusing corporate media and should look at who represents the country at the United Nations. The UN is not a perfect institution but it is one that is clear on the issue of membership despite powerful attempts at obfuscating that clarity.

Much media effort has been put in creating the illusion that the legitimate Venezuela is the one “ruled” by a self-appointed (read, unelected) interim (read, for an undefined term) president that presides with no army, no cabinet, no judicial and no recognized congress. His name is hardly recognized in Venezuela were it not for the unrelenting promotion by his major supporter, the United States government.

As we are still grappling with an old geopolitical world model that has left us with divided regions and countries, North vs. South, East vs. West, and Western vs. the rest, now we can add a new type of division, Real vs. Virtual. The “virtual” illusionary Venezuela defined above has no territory that controls, and its supporters have a programmatic agenda that is only based on negating, ignoring and disregarding the reality that surrounds them in the hope that it will go away.

At the UN General Assembly last September there was no ambiguity. The legitimate government of President Nicolas Maduro of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was represented by its Vice President Delcy Rodriguez despite a reported attempt to prevent her from addressing the 74th UNGA. Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza, Vice Foreign Minister Carlos Ron, and Venezuela’s Ambassador to the UN Samuel Moncada were also part of the Venezuelan delegation.

An undetermined group of delegates walked out of the hall as Rodriguez approached the podium to give her speech. The simultaneous action showed a deliberate intent and possibly prior agreement. More importantly, to a keen observer it showed contempt not against the speaker, as suggested, but against the ideal of an institution that is supposed to be a forum for voicing official positions, disagreements, reclamations and ideologies for the whole world to hear, consider and build upon.

Those delegates were free to walk out and we know that eventually they will end up reading Rodriguez’s speech. However, in the context of the United Nations this was more a statement that they did not accept the spirit of the UN Charter and opted to temporarily exclude themselves from that institution. In doing so, they negated, ignored and disregarded the reality and legitimacy of the United Nations. They superimposed their attitude towards Venezuela on the institution of the UN.

In contrast, Delcy Rodriguez made reference to the UN as the “sacred enclosure for public international law”, and recognized the UN as the space for direct communication without the mediation of compromised media. During her speech she invoked several times the UN Charter by affirming that the unilateral coercive measures (sanctions) imposed by the US on several nations are against the UN Charter. They are indeed. Only “between 2015 and 2019 the US government has imposed more than 350 unilateral coercive measures against Venezuela” including individuals and institutions.

Delcy Rodriguez is a powerful communicator. She has been instrumental in defending Venezuela as the country’s representative at the OAS against the repeated attempts of the organization’s Secretary General to condemn Venezuela for violating the Democratic Charter. Her solid and convincing arguments prevented a majority vote against Venezuela albeit unwittingly forced the creation of the “Lima Group” as a splinter group of that body.

Eventually, Venezuela decided to withdraw from the OAS but the government has consistently defended and abided to the charters of all the international bodies it belongs to. It has become a trademark of the Venezuelan delegates to flag the organization’s Charter whenever they refer to it. In fact, Rodriguez, flagging the UN Charter booklet in her right hand, made her final point, “Venezuela asks for an investigation over all the infamous violations of the UN Charter by the United States.”

In her speech, Rodriguez effectively addressed the US financial system as the root cause of induced economic crisis in the world:

“There is a new kind of terror or state terrorism imposed on people that does not use bombs but banks and financial institutions that can simply reach for a key on the keyboard in our digital era.” “It is the [US] Treasury Department the Economic Pentagon that militarizes the international relations…to impose regime changes”.

She added that between 2015 and 2018 Venezuela has lost $130 billion that could have been used to satisfy the needs of the population through the “Bolivarian socialist model.”

The Venezuelan Vice President addressed credibly all major issues that affect the Bolivarian socialist model, but perhaps she achieved the greatest score in credibility when she convincingly refuted the accusations of Colombian President Ivan Duque that Nicolas Maduro was directly responsible for his “support for criminal and narcoterrorist groups operating in Venezuela to attack Colombia.” To make his point Duque produced photo “evidence” during his speech at the UNGA. The photos were immediately proven to be taken in Colombia instead. The abrupt dismissal of the Colombian intelligence chief who provided the photos fully confirms one of a long history of lies to discredit the Maduro government.

As Rodriguez said, Venezuela is “dignified and indivisible.” We believe that what distinguishes the real Venezuela from its imaginary illusion created by the US are precisely those qualities in addition to being truthful.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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.

It has been more than fascinating if not totally absorbing to watch the chain of events unfold over recent days with the Democrats in open cahoots with the CIA.  Their joint goal is to remove the implacable Donald Trump from the Oval Office as two-time former Dem presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has suddenly emerged from the Swamp for a few media appearances.

While the problematic candidacy of former veep Joe Biden plods on despite evidence of facilitating a family corruption scandal (also known as influence peddling) and a dementia that confirms he is unable to fulfill the duties of the presidency.

Image on the right: Joe and Hunter Biden (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Image result for hunter biden

The Democrats latest frenzied attempt to oust Trump was the result of an assertion by a CIA operative embedded in the White House that the President ‘pressured’ Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky in a July 25th phone call to investigate allegations of misconduct by former veep Joe Biden and his son Hunter and their association with Burisma, Ukraine’s largest energy provider.  The alleged whistleblower alleged that Trump’s pressurewas ‘to solicit interference from a foreign country’ for political gain which would constitute abuse of his office thereby justifying an impeachment inquiry.

Before the Dems whipped themselves into a froth of anticipation, they might have checked out the ‘Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Agreement” signed by President Bill Clinton with the Ukraine government in 1999.  Spelling out a ‘broad range of cooperation in criminal matters,” the Agreement is internationally binding, still in force and indicates that Trump was acting within his Constitutional authority in his conversation with Zelensky.  You would think that would be the end of the matter, right?

Trump’s response to the Dem-initiated furor was to release the White House transcript of the phone call which the CIA operative claimed was on ‘lock down’ by the White House to prevent its distribution.  Here is the only portion of that conversation that discussed the Biden Ukraine connection which is clearly asking the Ukraine President to conduct their own investigation.  Read the transcript and decide for yourself if there is political pressure, a quid pro quo or a violation worthy of impeachment – or is it all a Big Fat Nothing Burger?

The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.  Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look in it…”

Contents of that phone call then became the subject of an extensive nine-page whistleblower Complaint filed on August 12th, the filing of which came at about the same time as Intel Inspector General Michael Atkinson changed the standard to allow for second hand tattling.

What is stunning is that the alleged whistleblower admits in his lengthy Complaint, that none of the information provided is first hand or personally obtained knowledge but rather informal via second and possibly third hand sources.  The speculative, hypothetical nature of the Complaint “not as a direct witness” therefore makes the entire document legally indefensible in addition to its factual errors.  Surely, IG Atkinson understood that when he allowed such a flawed, legally insubstantial document to be filed, a document based on hearsay, gossip, rumor, innuendo and/or word of mouth, that such a document would be inadmissible in any court proceeding.  End of Story, right?

And then, voila!, a second whistleblower with first hand knowledge has just stepped forward and is being interviewed by the same IG who accepted the first legally flawed document.

The impeachment efforts were further undermined by the inept manipulations of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif), Israeli proxy extraordinaire who appears to have lied about his level of knowledge and/or involvement, created his own version of Trump statements as well as what amounts to a Brady violation of withholding of evidence from Republicans on the Intel Committee in violation of Committee rules.

It is all almost too good a story with a too perfect cast of characters to be anything less than a great political theatre as a coup generated by the US intel community throws all legitimacy to the wind in its last ditch effort to impeach a sitting President for …well, we’re not quite sure exactly what the “misdemeanor and high crime” (Section 4, Article 2 of the Constitution) charges might be since the Dems are not following the Constitutional impeachment procedures.

So far, the Democrats have failed to adhere to basic due process rights with no debate or vote on the Floor of the House of Representatives regarding potential Articles of  Impeachment.  After which, the House Judiciary Committee would prepare formalized charges for Committee consideration and hold a public hearing.

Instead there is a lot of hot air and grandstanding with the Intelligence Committee holding behind-closed-door-interviews as if there is some dire national security threat at stake which the American public should not be privy to.  In addition, the Intelligence Committee has no legislative role to bring impeachment charges but, alas, all of the above would require the Dems to provide facts of an impeachable offense.

In other words, it is time for the Democrats to put up or shut up and get on with the business of running the country – if they have the ability to do so remains in question.

Enter HRC, not widely regarded as a friend of the rule of law, who sought to relieve the House of their Constitutional prerogative by suggesting

“If the impeachment provision in the US Constitution will not reach the offenses charged here then perhaps that 18th Century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th Century paper shredder.”

It should be shocking that Clinton finds nothing sacrosanct about ‘abandoning’ the Constitution to a paper shredder.   It should make every American fearful of what a Clinton Administration might look like as she suggests that if the crime doesn’t fit the law, then change the law to fit the crime.

While the American public earnestly awaits the next chapter of Ukraine-gate, Biden warned Trump “you’re not going to destroy my family” although the former VP and son are doing a pretty good job of that without help from the often hapless Trump.

In 2012, the 42 year old Hunter Biden, with no prior military experience, was one of six recruits selected to serve as a Reserve Officer in the Navy’s Direct Commission Officer Program.  He sought two waivers; one because of his age and a second because of a previous drug charge years earlier.  In May, 2013, Biden was commissioned as an Ensign in the Navy’s Public Affairs Division in Norfolk, Virginia.  By June, he tested positive for cocaine and was dishonorably discharged in February, 2014.

By May, 2014, Hunter Biden was appointed to a seat on the Board of Directors for Burisma Holdings Ltd., Ukraine’s largest gas company and as a graduate of Yale Law School, he was in charge of its legal department for a cool $50,000 a month.  Biden joined Devon Archer another American new to the Burisma Board who also serves with Biden at Rosemont Seneca, a private equity firm.

Meanwhile, Burisma’s owner oligarch was under examination by Ukraine investigators after which, at Joe’s urging, the lead prosecutor was fired and the case dropped.  At a January Council on Foreign Relations meeting, Biden related threatening the government of Ukraine with the loss of a $1 billion loan guarantee in March, 2016:

I got the commitment from Poroshenko and Yatsenyk that they would take action against the state prosecutor and they didn’t. We’re not going to give you the billion dollars. I’m going to be leaving here in six hours and if the prosecutor’s not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch, he got fired and they put in place someone who was solid.

In addition, “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Benefits Family and Friends” revealed that the younger Biden traveled to China during an official state visit aboard Air Force Two in December, 2013 with his father, VP Joe Biden.  That trip occurred several months after Hunter Biden failed the Navy’s drug test but before he was discharged.  The younger Biden was accompanied by Devon Archer and James Bulger, nephew of gangster Whitey Bulger when he met with Chinese State Bank officials.  A week later, Biden secured a $1.5 billion investment for Rosemont Seneca Partners, a hedge fund the younger Biden partnered with John Kerry’s stepson and Archer. It is not known if Archer and Bulger traveled aboard Air Force Two as part of the US delegation.

In 2014, after Hunter Biden joined the Burisma Board, Chris Heinz who had been a partner at Rosemont Seneca, left the equity firm and ended his business relationshipwith the younger Biden.   In early 2019, Hunter Biden left the Burisma Board.

*

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

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Once again, the American voter has dutifully begun their quadrennial march to futility at the hands of another election cycle full of false prophets. None seem to realize or remember that the monocracy that they hold so sacrosanct is not- and has not been- a democracy for decades. Yet these societal lemmings, known as “voters,”again prepare to exert their media controlled, fact adjusted opinions at the polls while singing joyfully the praises of their one chosen new demagogue and praying that this timetheir candidate will, post-election, actually represent them from the Oval Office of American despair.

For far too long voters, political pundits and presidential opponents during each presidential election cycle have never asked that single most important campaign question: The one question that distills the essence of America’s fundamental and terminal societal and political problem. This question is never asked because the answer would immediately reveal, for all of America’s disenfranchised voters to understand clearly, who are the true masters of all potential candidates: Those grinning so menacingly at us throughout the many so-called DNC debates. Their master is not, has not, nor for more than fifty years never been the American voter.

Yes. One simple all-important question.

The cumulative results of the correct answer to this question are shown across America today. After repeated four year cycles of a full set of only the wrong questions, the voter in 2020 is once again faced with a Hobson’s choice within a pack of arguably the worst qualified presidential candidates – ethically, socially and politically – in US history.

And…then there’s Trump.

One question would indeed reveal the uselessness of each debate’s political charade of portended democracy, so… this question is never asked and the voter will again swim upstream in a renewed delusional quest for Hope and Change… once again.

*

To understand the importance of this one vital never asked question, political memory is first required. Considering the many past POTUS elections and the ultimately poor results by the people’s choice when reviewed some four years hence, these current populist media offerings on stage across the country must be compared to that of previous presidents of a bygone time: Those presidents who actually had the one, the vital, the all-important tool that should be- and is no longer– a requirement for any American president.

For nearly fifty years now, all American presidents have been miserable failures in bringing their electoral promises to bare with regards to the voter’s interest instead of their donors’. One basic reason is that all these modern-day presidents did not have, nor take the time to accumulate, the presidential tool of power necessary to bring a populist president’s will to bare. This vital presidential tool is what former Nixon General Council, Charles “Chuck” Colson, very accurately described when featuring this true meaning of real political power on his office wall:

If you get them by the balls…their hearts and minds will follow.”

What Colson was implicitly defining is that which no American president has had available to the American voter since before the Carter administration brought its four years of tepid, useless and failed sweater politics to the White House. This pure crystalline nut of political power past is best summed up in two similarly all-powerful – and long-forgotten– words: Political Capital.

No post-Nixon president ever again had within his political quiver real Political Capital to offer the American voter. The power that gets things done… regardless of the corrupt corporate whims of the US congress.

Political Capital. A POTUS without out Political Capital has absolutely nothing to offer the American voter.

Nothing! Except for a bright white smile.

The Populist Power of Political Capital…Long, Long Ago.

Image result for lyndon johnson

Lyndon Baines Johnson, 36th US President, got what he wanted. Or else.

LBJ was a progressive to his core and made not one god damn apology for it. He was going to change America for the better. He said so. And he did. As he noted to White House staffer, Bill Moyers during his first days in the White House,

“You know, when I went into that office tonight and they came in and started briefing me on what I have to do, do you realize that every issue that is on my desk tonight was on my desk when I came to Congress in 1937?”

The real problem, to Johnson, was obvious. So, while standing in front of that exact same American problem, Johnson, in his first State of the Union address to US Congress in 1964, declared his “unconditional war on poverty.” Words? Yes. But Johnson had the Political Capital to win that war.

Before politics, Johnson had already cut his teeth on the realization of the endemic poverty and social and racial inequality in rural Texas, a societal poverty that far transcended the south and the mid-west of middle America. Johnson had personally seen, and thus abhorred, the true condition of America, one documented in 1962 by author and social activist Michael Harrington in his book, “The Other America.” His book documented that upwards of a quarter of the US population—lived in a “system designed to be impervious to hope.” That “Other America” was:

…populated by the failures, by those driven from the land and bewildered by the city, by old people suddenly confronted with the torments of loneliness and poverty, and by minorities facing a wall of prejudice. Trapped in a national ghetto, a modern poor farm for the rejects of society and of the economy.”

These words, after fifty years of failed presidents, still ring all too true again today. Why?

America’s condition then disgusted Johnson. To this battle, he informed congress collectively, “The richest nation on Earth can afford to win it. We cannot afford to lose it.” Johnson detested the hypocrisy of those congressional politicians who allowed the status quo of inequality to continue. Johnson would, after three decades, grab congress.. by the balls!

And then Johnson would squeeze. Hard!

Johnson was a student, prodigy and product of real DNC power of long ago. Not talk. Power. As LBJ biographer Robert A. Caro, documented in Master of the Senate,

“…he worked himself, worked himself. He had made up his mind to be President, and he was demonic in his drive.”

Johnson, like many political aspirants today, also started from humble roots in the heart of America. Unlike today’s oft-repeated political cabal, Johnson never sold-out. He did not forget where he came from and its lessons which he had studied in person. Johnson well understood the power of Political Capital, the vital need to attain it, and how to use it to effect his goals. Johnson’s goals for America were visionary. When Johnson first coined the phrase “Great Society”for the first time in a speech at Ohio University on May 7, 1964, he described his vision in part as “a society where no child will go unfed, and no youngster will go unschooled.” To a soulless US congress already in the throes of a military and corporate take over, his words were political anathema, revolutionary and, hence, vehemently opposed by Republicans and many democrats across the aisles of both the House and Senate. As the public and these congressional miscreants would come to find out- clearly– Johnson had the tools and the will to finish the job. And his campaign promises.

The fact that Johnson’s Great Society did achieve the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and Voting Rights Act in 1965; the very success full Head Start program; Medicare and Medicaid; 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, among many other pieces of populist legislation was a testament to his political integrity. The fact that he achieved these staggering accomplishments in the face of daily demonstrative opposition by Democrats and Republicans alike is a testament to his personal political power: his Political Capital.

When advised not to waste congressional goodwill on so hopeless a cause as American civil rights, Johnson barked

“What the hell’s the presidency for?”

Indeed.

*

To this end Johnson took no prisoners and rarely accepted compromise. He did not have to. He was finally President of the United States of America. “We have talked long enough … about civil rights,’ President Johnson had said. ‘It is time … to write it in the books of law… to embody justice and equality in legislation.” What gave Johnson the presidential power to smite his congressional opponents on the way to his- and America’s last– American societal victory? The sledgehammer of all truly powerful, truly populist presidents long since forgotten: “Political Capital.” Robert Caro summarized this power from long ago:

“Few emotions are more ephemeral in the political world than gratitude: appreciation for past favours. Far less ephemeral, however, is hope: the hope of future favours. Far less ephemeral is fear, the fear that in the future, favours may be denied.”

What cumulatively defines the power-or the weakness- of a president, that can give him the Political Capital to bring his congressional opposition to their knees? For Johnson, it was the deals, the arrangements, the backdoor understandings, the quid-pro-quo and back-slaps of six terms (12 years) in the House followed by twelve years in the US Senate, and of course a sadly truncated Vice-Presidency. In short: favours owed, multiplied by congressional seniority accumulated.

Political Capital.

Johnson indeed took careful note of all favours given, knowing that the effect of his Political Capital was contingent on his timely demand for these favours thus returned when demanded. So, when ultimately gaining the office he had sought all his life, he now had the true assets of power from which to force the changes he had already dedicated his political career to. He was the President. He could now use that accumulated power. And he would use it, not for himself, not for the whims of his donors. For the people of America.

The results were historic. The Johnson administration’s education bill began a progression that saw increased federal funding for public schools grow from just $2.7 billion in 1964 to $14.7 billion by 1971. The result was that between 1965 and 1968, the number of black students in the South who attended majority-white schools rose from roughly 2.3 per cent to almost 23.4 per cent. That ratio would continue to climb over the following two decades until it peaked at 43.5 per cent in 1988.

The Great Society did not stop at education. Immediately after, Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law in 1965. When meeting expected resistance Johnson chose another hammer blow: the White House dispatched more than a thousand inspectors to visit hospitals directly and ensure they were complying with Title VI. So, 7,000 facilities swiftly acquiesced and another 5,500 fell into line after inspection. When the Voting Rights Act met similar racist congressional opposition, LBJ instructed his Sec. Of Health, Education and Welfare, Joseph Califano, Jr., to ensure that the US Justice Dept. “immediately mounted an all-fronts attack on poll taxes and literacy tests.” Four days later—the ink barely dry—federal examiners descended on 12 counties in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Georgia. By the following January, they added more than 90,000 voters to the rolls in those jurisdictions alone.

LBJ is presumably blaspheming very loudly from his grave at the fraudulent facade of populist democracy that the DNC has become since the beginning of Obama’s reign as America’s Nubian president in blackface. In Johnson’s times, and that of presidents before him, a president had no compunction at all in using their built-up personal Political Capital to take even the most powerful congressional opponent to the White House woodshed. With Johnson, this might be the power of his very firm handshake or his penetrating hawk-like stare. Perhaps a brief whisper in a congressional hallway or cloakroom discussion, or the power of honest emphatic presidential oration before the full Congress. Observed Caro in The Passage of Power,

Lyndon Johnson’s sentences were the sentences of a man with a remarkable gift for words, not long words but evocative, of a man with a remarkable gift for images, homey images of a vividness that infused the sentences with drama.”

Those words were easy for Johnson because unlike the political wannabees of today, he believed to his core in what he said. Continues Caro, “President Kennedy’s eloquence was designed to make men think; President Johnson’s hammer blows are designed to make men act.”

Yes…congressmen!

For those who ran afoul of Johnson, there might be a summons to “the smoke-filled room” with the likes of Sam Rayburn, who himself was pure DNC power personified and Johnson’s mentor over the decades of his own accumulated power. Rayburn, like Johnson, was an odd power broker by today’s standards in that he held himself to a higher standard than most of his peers and truly believed in his obligation to the public. He once commented, “There are no degrees in honorableness. You either are… or you aren’t.

Words that the US voter should have heeded a very long time ago.

Rayburn was elected House Majority Leader in 1937. He led the House Democrats from 1940 to 1961 and served as Speaker of the House from 1940 to 1947, 1949 to 1953, and 1955 until his death in 1961. In twenty-five concurrent terms in the US House; Rayburn was clean. He took no bribes and examples of his turning back tendered bribes and illegal donations are numerous. No one could so much as buy him lunch. Rayburn refused not only speaking fees but travel expenses for out-of-town speeches. Hosts who attempted to press donations or speaking fees checks upon him quickly realized they had made a mistake. Comments Caro, “Rayburn would say, ‘I’m not for sale’ – and then he would walk away without a backward glance.”

Compare that to today’s Congress that receives a free healthcare package that their constituents can only dream of and who have provided themselves as the only enforcement body- not the judiciary- when caught in violations of law that would normally see any other American eating prison food for a considerably long time. Hence, the criminals are running the jail.

Rayburn was twenty-six years the senior of LBJ and by the time Johnson entered the House Rayburn already had twenty-four years of his own in congress to grab real power. He once said, ” I like power, and I like to use it.” And use it he did. Quietly. Historian Anthony Champagne, a Rayburn biographer, views the Speaker as a “bridge between the northern and southern members”of the Democratic Party in bringing collective national DNC power to bare.

Unlike Johnson, Rayburn preferred to work quietly in the background and successfully used his power of persuasion and charisma to get his bills passed. He refused to sign the Southern Manifesto and was influential in the construction of U.S. Route 66 the nation’s first trans-America highway. The brash Johnson would become the perfect persona to take on Rayburn’s tutelage and bring a face of accumulated DNC national power and a demand for social change before the public. It is doubtful that Johnson would have reached the pinnacle of US power had Rayburn not taken him on as his understudy.

However, for congressmen who had dispatched their obligation to the American people wholesale, in these times of LBJ and the Great Society, what many a lowly senator or congressman learned to dread most was: the phone call. The president calling.

In Austin, TX is the LBJ museum, a must stop for all who have fond memories of the days when America was indeed “Great” and defined its greatness by the overall well-being of all its people by providing them with a positive future and led worldwide by this example at the height of what Tom Brokaw coined – in his 1998 book of the same name – “The Greatest Generation.”

On the far side of the first floor of the museum’s public gallery, almost hidden among the dozens of other interesting exhibits about LBJ, is one very small, seemingly simple exhibit often easily missed. For those who wish to understand true presidential power- the power of Political Capital- this exhibit is the most illustrative of Johnson’s character, conviction and his knowledge of his own inherent, crushing, unchallengeable presidential power.

Here in the museum, sitting innocuously in front of a glass partition behind which shows a large simple black and white picture of Johnson leaning back on his chair in the oval office while speaking into his phone from his chair in the Oval Office, there sits on its hook a single black, old fashioned ’60s dial telephone and receiver. The same one in the picture. It sits there, hoping to be picked up. One then listens- and then hears- some of Johnson’s many phone solicitations with congressional opponents regarding the votes he needed to pass legislation within his Great Society.

But these calls are not negotiations. They are diktats… from the US president.

Showing the kind of long gone presidential power so desperately needed today, Johnson concludes one call, his voice slowly rising, “Senator… Yes, Senator… I can appreciate your position. Yes. But I will tell you this, Senator…” and here Johnson’s voice takes on a suddenly nasty tone, “as your president if I do not get your vote for this important bill…NOTHING… from your state will ever cross my desk again!” Then there is a click… and silence. Johnson has hung-up. No good-bye. Just pure power. And… Johnson got the senator’s vote.

That’s Presidential Power. That’s Political Capital!

So, back then, in the offices of the US Congress, when the phone rang…and it was the president calling…?

What might have Johnson’s full legacy and the current condition of today’s American political, social, and economic landscape have become if Johnson had not inherited JKF’s Vietnam along with Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and listened to a pack of pro-war jackals such as Secretary of State Dean Rusk and National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, who convinced Johnson to gradually escalate U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. This decision destroyed him personally and also his presidency.

Today, few remember the domestic accomplishments of Johnson in a once long ago great America and his iron will in sincerely using his Political Capital for the greater good. For all of the American people.

All that is remembered now, sadly, are those 58,209 body bags.

Presidential Impotence in the Modern American Monocracy.

History will not judge Barack Obama well. His legacy will ultimately be an indictment of how quickly a president can convert the voters dreams of Hope and Change into Despair and Disillusion. He is also the working model of comparison of today’s political reality of practical presidential weakness compared to those by-gone times when the will of the voter was still of concern.

The conversation will begin with: Was Obama merely politically inept or, rather, an utter charlatan, sell-out and opportunist in the vein of the amoral Bill Clinton? As described in an article written by this author within Obama’s first 100 days, “Bill Clinton v Obama: A Continued Crisis of Leadership,” Obama, once he became president with the persona of the former, when thus discovering that he had no Political Capital whatsoever to work with, he next gladly opted for the political expedience of the later.

American voters in ’08 had already also forgotten and violated one of the basic tenets of Dr M. L. King; electing a president primarily due to “the colour of his skin,”instead of first examining the true “content of his character.” Regarding Obama, this was a fatal mistake.

Within days of his inauguration, and having nothing in his pocket of political value, all this president could do was to barter and compromise with his adversaries. And then make excuses for his ongoing weakness and failure. LBJ would have been horrified. When Obama did so his adversaries immediately smelled weakness; a weakness that the Republicans exploited again and again to their advantage. This furthered the degradation of any meaningful promises of social changes that had swept Obama to power with a populist mandate for social change similar to Johnson. But Obama had no conviction for his own platform or the American people whatsoever. It took him no time to violate his promise of leaving lobbyists out of his cabinet, instead packing it with special Zio-corporate interests that were free to whisper in his ear at will. Hence, once he received his Nobel Peace Prize, he started five additional wars that served only Corporate Zionist influence, not American foreign policy.

It should be remembered that Obama was a man with barely three years of political experience as an Illinois US senator after beating Republican Alan Keyes in 2004. After flashing his award-winning smile during his speech at the DNC convention of the same year, Obama soon abandoned Illinois for his presidential ambitions proving that he was already no more than a Geechy dancing for his masters.

This meant that Obama had virtually no experience in congress and no time to build up any political Capital to offer the voter in 2008. As such this political operative of the status quo, once elected, almost immediately threw away a veto-proof 60 vote majority in the Senate and the impetus of a House packed with temporarily enthusiastic freshmen who had yet to find out for themselves what their president already knew was their true personal political value within congress: Selling out the voter to this same status quo.

Once Obama lost the 60 seat majority he effectively lost his only Political Capital for the next seven years. Obama failed to appreciate the essence and necessity of Political Capital and his subsequent tenure became a litany of cave-ins and tepid compromises to the Republicans that always took ever more away from the US public. His campaign promises too quickly turned to presidential manure. In power politics, the powerful feed on the weak. Period. From the moment Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts senate seat, which had been handed over temporarily to Martha Coakley due to Ted Kennedy’s illness, was taken by the republicans in the form of Scott Brown, the Obama years would become the antithesis of his promised Hope and Change. What was peculiar to this DNC tragedy is that Obama did not fully apply his personal effort to keep this vital seat in play for the benefit of his promised agenda. Why?

This would be a theme of the eight years of Obama weakness, for this failed president – as should have been easily predicted – subsequently had no true political power at all. No political capital. His presidency, as with every candidate offered in 2020, was doomed to failure before the final November vote was counted. What Obama did have to display was a winning smile, a smile that fooled the public once again in 2012… a smile so similar to the smiles seen today just prior to 2020.

Recognizing opportunity, Israel quickly chummed these new presidential waters of weakness within days of the February ’09 inauguration by announcing another seizure of sovereign Palestinian land for more of their “settlements.” Obama, having regularly assured voters that he supported a two-state solution and America’s leadership for same, now used the only remaining tool in his already emptied political toolbox to affect his US muscle. He forced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop these settlements- by bribing him with a billion-plus dollar’s worth of brand new F-16 fighter jets. For free. The subsequent result was of course also predictable to anyone but Obama: Netanyahu accepted the bribe and stopped the settlements. However, within the month Netanyahu re-authored the settlements – merely in a different location. As if Israel needed more free US weaponry, and despite being utterly used, Obama whimpered in protest, but still gave Bibi his jets.

Next, Obama failed to get his first intended liberal US Supreme court nominee approved by the republicans. George Mitchell, who himself had twenty-five years as the US senator from Maine- six as Senate Majority Leader- was extremely respected on both sides of the aisle. Mitchell had a voting record that was certainly more in keeping with Obama’s promised platform. This, House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell were not willing to allow. The worst part of this failure was that Mitchell was considered a shoo-in for confirmation, yet Obama -not even 100 days into his brand of Hope and Change- still could not manage to bring Mitchell for confirmation.

And so… Sonia Sotomayor was born.

Due to a corporate US health care national monopoly and its congressional collusion for massive world record profits, Obama correctly touted a “Public Option” as promised and necessary for competition in order to effectively bring costs down in a nation with the highest per-capita spending. As Obama plied for votes with multiple enticements to congresspersons and senators, he was still a few votes short. But in Montana, a senate vote was available for purchase as well as a congressional one in Idaho. Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont ) and Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who both understood political capital – and their president’s implicit weakness – told this impotent president exactly what the mortita would be for their vote: they wanted to kill something. Wolves.

Despite bringing wolves in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming back from the brink of near extinction over the previous forty-plus years by having them placed on the Federal Endangered Species Act list, Tester and Simpson wanted to kill wolves. For sport. For fun. These two barbarians did not care at all that the provisions of the Act which protected the wolves also far over-compensated all US farmers and ranchers for any loss due to a very occasional hungry wolf attack on livestock. No human has been attacked by wolves in the US in well over 100 years, but Tester and Simpson saw just the right time to get what they wanted. So, as to their president, they went in for the kill.

Obama, growing daily more desperate to show an already deeply disappointed America any example of his personal success, needed those two votes, no matter what. And so, the mortita was thus paid. The majestic wolves in all states were left to be slaughtered like so many Palestinian children to an Israeli sniper or an innocent US citizen in faraway Afghanistan to an Obama approved extrajudicial US hellfire rocket assassination.

Today, the howl of the wolf rarely sings in the valleys of Montana or Idaho.

The Public option was also dead; just as dead as the dreams of Hope and Change. All that would be left of his trendy populist promise of universal healthcare was the huge gift of 40 million new mandated universal healthcare subscribers doomed to higher premiums, higher deductibles, and less competition and sentenced to a required higher percentage of an already reduced family budget. Meanwhile, the Healthcare corporations got even higher profits and tax advantages and new loopholes to exploit their profits even further. Here Obama’s stewardship of his supposedly signature piece of legislation was conspicuously missing as his “Obamacare” continued to be watered down during the machinations of Congress.

This was confirmed by, Wendell Potter who spent 20 years working for CIGNA and Humana and was the main media contact for top-level executives. Summed up Potter in his tell-all book about the Obamacare negotiations, “We played Obama like a fiddle!”

This statement was apparently accurate as is the implicit indictment of Obama’s failure to marshall his congress. This was bolstered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -whose real skill for decades, like Obama’s, has been to fool the voter that she is not, in reality, a champion of the corporations that sponsor her. Said Pelosi before the surreptitious congressional vote, “We have to pass it so we can read it.” This, from the current opposition leader of the House and who knew full well at that time that the 10,000-page bill, instead, had been authored, edited and pre-approved by the Health Care lobby!

So…the wolves would die in vain: Obama Care would pass but without the promised public option. The advent of TARP, NDAA, Guantanamo, etc., al., had yet to be added to what would become a very lengthy list of the indictment of Barack Obama. History will judge him, not by what all that he lost, but far worse by…what might have been.

Hope and Change?

Rubbish!

From the America of Plenty…to an America with Nothing, or…1960 Redux?

The metrics showing that Congress today cares not for the public good- except every two-four-or-six years- becomes another lengthy indictment. A 2014 report by Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin I. Page of Northwestern University titled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens tabulated the results of congressional legislation from 1981 to 2002. Concluded the authors:

“Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts.”

Johnson and Nixon existed in a far different time socially and, more importantly, economically. America in these times still had something left to give its public from its collective tax base, before beginning the decades’ long plot to strip its societal obligations bare for the sake of the rich becoming richer. America is still a wealthy nation, but today all that wealth is in the pockets of the least number of Americans in history. The tool to this social pillaging has been the paid minions in congress that were ordered to provide legislation that effectively made corporate tax evasion legal.

America, under the false and repeatedly re-named and repeatedly discredited and failed Keynesian supply-side economic model- once called “Trickle-Down Economics” – has not as promised trickled anything but the crumbs of their stolen American apple pie back to the public. Yet always the rich want more. But even Nixon to a lesser degree than Johnson, increased, not negated, Federal social responsibility.

Nixon was anything but a populist. But he would have been branded a “Commie” today. He was a Republican at a time when there was still a polar difference between the two parties and the voter: Republicans took. Democrats gave. But that was a very long time ago. Nixon, however, still managed to squeeze from his congress the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and also sign amendments to the 1967 Clean Air Act calling for reductions in automobile emissions and bring to fruition the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act, the 1973 Endangered Species Act, and the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act.

Today these hallmarks of the presidency of “Tricky Dick,” Nixon have- like the many societal achievements of LBJ- been gutted to the bone if not endemically vilified in the minds of the congress’ of today and in the minds of their political captives, the American voter.

But Nixon had his own Political Capital and like Johnson was willing to use it even if this was only to be re-elected. The American voter under Nixon was not then completely conditioned to accept political failure from their president each and every time, as it is the case today, so a few public treats were afforded the public even from a man as politically corrupt as Nixon.

Fifty years later, it’s perfectly legitimate to ask whether Johnson’s vision still exists in a country in which fewer workers enjoy employer pensions and health care, 31 per cent of children live in single-parent families (up from 12 per cent in 1960), household wages have long been stagnant, and inequality has reverted to levels we have not seen since the eve of the Great Depression.

That was an era under Johnson and Nixon when increasing numbers of middle-class and working-class employees enjoyed previously unimaginable benefits, like annual cost-of-living adjustments to their wages and salaries, employer-based health insurance, paid vacations and private pensions.

However, Nixon, like Johnson, and unlike the America of today had a tax base then of funds to spend, not merely via taking on additional US debt. As of this writing US sovereign debt stands at $21,606,948,183,180 which requires a yearly interest payment- at current historically low Fed rates- of $540 billion which exceeds all US discretionary spending except that for the military. Of course, military spending just grew again to a base budget of at $576 billion that exceeds $700 Billion all-inclusive or 59% of the entire US discretionary budget.

Meanwhile, Amazon, GE, GM, Apple and other companies paid tax rates measured not in percentages…but in fractions.

In 1967, the transition to Nixon at the height of Johnson’s tenure with the Vietnam war, US debt stood at a paltry $66 billion in today’s dollars before Nixon took this figure to $260 billion by 1972. Either amount is less than US interest payments now. At the height of the war in 1968, the military budget was $ 449 billion.

So in terms of America’s fiscal health Johnson and Nixon had money to spend. Today, America is not flat broke: It’s utterly bankrupt.

No Answer? No Vote!

The American voter now seems to suffer from a strange political Stockholm Syndrome regarding their congressional and presidential captors past, present and future. America’s current day rabid enthusiasm for the next fruitless election cycle carried on by this 2020 impotent cadre of political cadavers shows this delusional symptom clearly.

A synopsis of the democratic presidential field [to be offered for consideration in the next article] should in itself be pause for serious concern and certainly bolster the argument presented herein. Not one of them has any greater potential political asset other than fellating the Zio-Corporate lobby better than their opponents and thus receiving the greatly desired media support and the only path to the White House. This one successor next hopes for the necessary massive corporate people-person donations that will, once combined, equal victory.

But for who?

As these presidential contenders continue their quest to avoid eventual attrition during the many scripted media debates and whirlwind stump speeches, it is now time that the most important political question in any US presidential election to finally be asked.

At the next debate each of these political Messiahs, whether it be Sanders, Biden, Warren, Harris,etc., must this time be looked straight in the eyes by the panel of talking head MSM moderators-and by every single American watching-and then one by one, as they stare smiling so brightly and so full of promises, be asked this one simple all-important presidential question:

What Political Capital – what specific political presidential hammer do you possess- that will force an utterly corporately controlled US congress to pass anything- anything- you are offering the American voter.”

But this question will not be asked. If so, it would shock the smiles of the faces of all these DNC stage actors and reveal them for what they are and the fraud they intend to again perpetrate within their particular brands of this election cycle of impossible Hope and Change.

But better, it would immediately shock to the core the American voter who until that very moment was again so hopefully praying that this time- yes, please this time-that this time any one of these false prophets- thus fully exposed before their eyes- will be face slapped from their affliction and realize that their real prison captors have always been right in front of them.

And then all voters, across the length and breadth of a manipulated and sedated America will -themselves- finally provide the correct answer, the most important answer, the only answer, to the most important presidential questionthat no one ever wants to ask:

Why am I fucking voting in the first place?!”

 

*

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

Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 180 in-depth articles over the past eight years for news agencies worldwide. Many have been translated and republished. On-scene reporting from important current events has been an emphasis that has led to his many multi-part exposes on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, Keystone XL Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Erdogan’s Turkey and many more. He can be reached at: live-on-scene ((at)) gmx.com. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Most Important Presidential Election Question (That No One Ever Asks!)

Iraq Protests: Spontaneous or Made in the USA?

October 7th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Time and again, when peaceful protests turn violent in various countries, US dirty hands are involved.

There’s no ambiguity about months of protests in Hong Kong, US dirty hands all over them, local elements involved having met with Trump regime and congressional officials, as well as a US consular one in the city.

Nearly a week of violent protests in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, killing over 100, injuring thousands, security forces among the dead and wounded, bear similarity to the US-orchestrated late 2013/early 2014 color revolution in Ukraine.

The Euromaidan uprising was and remains all about replacing independent democratic governance with pro-Western fascist rule — controlled by the US.

Russia and then-Ukrainian President Yanukovich were falsely blamed for sniper shootings of protesters and police, killing around 100 people, injuring hundreds more.

Then-Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet said

“there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new (putschist) coalition.”

“All the evidence shows” they were shooting at people from both sides. They targeted police and protesters.

Kiev Dr. Olga Bogomolets reported the same thing, citing photos for proof. Paet called her evidence “quite disturbing.”

Snipers were likely CIA-recruited neo-Nazi hitmen. Shots came from one or more buildings overlooking the Maidan.

Snipers with automatic weapons were inside. Eyewitnesses saw them leaving the area’s Philharmonic Hall, carrying military-style bags used for sniper and assault rifles with optical sights.

Former Ukrainian Security Service head Aleksandr Yakimenko confirmed what happened, planned well in advance he said, adding:

Elements involved “carried out everything that they were told by their leadership – the United States.” Maidan leaders practically lived at Washington’s embassy, he stressed.

The battle for Ukraine’s soul was lost, Washington gaining an imperial trophy bordering Russia.

Is what’s going on in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq similar to US-orchestrated Hong Kong protests and the Obama regime’s coup in Ukraine?

Long-suffering Iraqis have legitimate grievances, notably rampant corruption, high unemployment, impoverishment affecting millions, the nation’s youths notably affected, and lack of essential to life public services.

This is unacceptably going on in the oil-rich country with the world’s fifth largest reserves, its ruling authorities serving privileged interests and themselves exclusively, subjecting ordinary people to neoliberal harshness.

Therein lies the root cause of what’s going on. Extreme violence causing thousands of casualties, along with setting dozens of public and private buildings ablaze, storming others, raises red flags — a scenario appearing like dirty hands behind it.

Iraq’s interior ministry spokesman Saad Maan denied security forces were using live fire on protesters, adding “malicious hands” are targeting ordinary Iraqis, police, and other government forces.

Over the weekend, US-installed prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi’s cabinet issued a decree, including over a dozen intended reforms, notably land distribution, increased welfare payments for needy families, 100,000 new housing units, and benefits for the unemployed — if follow-through actually occurs and makes a difference.

Individuals killed were declared “martyrs,” their families granted special benefits.

Iraqi ruling authorities are allied with the US and Iran, its split loyalty riling Trump regime hardliners, wanting Baghdad allied with their war on the Islamic Republic by other means, along with their overall regional agenda.

They’re reportedly furious over Mahdi blaming Israel for terror-bombing sites in Iraq, opening the al-Qaem crossing between the country and Syria, along with expressing interest in buying Russian S-400 air defense systems and other military hardware from the country, partnering with China to construct essential infrastructure in exchange for oil, and choosing a German company over a US one for an electricity project.

The Trump regime is especially angry over normalized Iran-Iraq relations. Baghdad is notably dependent on Tehran for natural gas and electricity. Both countries share a common border.

Mahdi has tried to stay neutral to avoid greater regional conflict, rather than ally with the US, Israel and the Saudis against Iran. All of the above leaves him vulnerable to regime change by the US.

Iranian leader Khamenei tweeted the following on Sunday:

“Iran and Iraq are two nations whose hearts & souls are tied together through faith in God, love for Imam Hussein and the progeny of the Prophet (PBUH).”

“This bond will grow stronger day by day. Enemies seek to sow discord but they’ve failed and their conspiracy won’t be effective.”

Various Arab media sources and independent observers believe the Trump regime is behind days of violent protests in Iraq, internal elements enlisted as proxies to serve its interests by destabilizing the country.

A statement from PM Mahdi’s office said the following:

“(D)emonstrations were already planned a couple of months ago. Baghdad was working to try and ease the situation in the country, particularly since the demands of the population are legitimate.”

“The prime minister has inherited the corrupt system that has developed since 2003. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been diverted into the pockets of corrupt politicians” — and the West not mentioned.

“(T)he (US) war on terror used not only all the country’s resources but forced Iraq to borrow billions of dollars for the reconstruction of the security forces and other basic needs.”

“The latest demonstrations were supposed to be peaceful and legitimate because people have the right to express their discontent, concerns and frustration.”

“However, the course of events showed a different objective: 16 members of the security forces were killed along with tens of civilians, and many government and party buildings were set on fire and completely destroyed.”

“This sort of behavior has misdirected the real grievances of the population onto a disastrous course: creating chaos in the country. Who benefits from the disarray in Iraq?”

What’s going on is likely connected to a failed plot to kill Quds Force commander of Iran’s IRGC General Qassem Soleimani, a key figure in the country’s counterintelligence operations.

The US seeks unchallenged regional control, part of what years of war on Iraq, Syria, and Yemen is all about.

Other US aggression in Central Asia, north Africa, and economic terror war on Iran remain ongoing for the same reason.

A Final Comment 

According to the Lebanon-based Arabic-language al-Akhbar broadsheet, the Trump regime planned ongoing violence and chaos in Iraq months earlier.

An unnamed Iraqi security source said US preparations were made for a “hot fall” in the country, adding:

The US and Saudis may have similar tactics planned in Iran and Lebanon.

*

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: Demonstrators are seen in Basra, Iraq, on July 19, 2019. During the protest, demonstrators assaulted journalist Ayman al-Sheikh. (Reuters/Alaa Al-Marjani)

The US under both right wings of its war party is militantly hostile toward nations it doesn’t control.

It’s longstanding aim throughout the post-WW II era is to transform them into client states under pro-Western puppet regimes — eliminating their sovereign independence, gaining control over their resources and populations.

The US has been hostile toward North Korea since the peninsula was divided post-WW II — a nonbelligerent nation threatening no one, its nuclear/ballistic missile deterrent solely for self-defense.

Throughout DPRK history, it never preemptively attacked another country. In June 1950, it responded defensively to belligerent South Korean cross-border provocations, its legitimate right.

Orchestrated by the US, it was all about seeking a pretext for war, waged by Harry Truman, not North Korean leader Kim Il-sung, turning much of the country to smoldering rubble, killing millions, mostly defenseless civilians.

Banned weapons were used like in all US wars of aggression, including incendiary, cluster, and radiological munitions, along with chemical and biological agents.

Research conducted by Professor Stephen Endicott revealed that US aircraft “dropped strange objects, including live spiders, flies, bees, snakes, fleas (with bubonic plague), ticks, dead rats, and mosquitos encased in US military tubes” on North Korea.

Since 1991 US aggression on Iraq, illegal depleted uranium (DU) has been and continues to be used in all its wars.

The 1907 Hague Convention banned use of any “poison or poisoned weapons.”

DU munitions are radioactive, chemically toxic and poisonous. Developing, stockpiling, transferring, and use of chemical and biological agents is strictly prohibited by international law — unlawfully used by the US in all its war theaters.

Since the uneasy 1953 armistice on the Korean peninsula was agreed on, the US waged dirty war on the DPRK by other means.

It remains ongoing because Washington needs enemies to unjustifiably justify pursuit of its hegemonic aims. Since none existed earlier or now throughout the post-WW II era, they’ve been invented — unfairly demonizing North Korea one of many examples.

Despite its genuine good faith outreach to the US and West for normalizing relations, fruition never happened.

Nor is it conceivable with the most hawkish ever US regime in power, militantly hostile toward all sovereign independent states, waging wars of aggression in multiple theaters, economic terrorism against Iran and Venezuela, and unwillingness to negotiate with North Korea in good faith.

Two Kim Jong-un/Trump summits failed over unacceptable/one-sided US demands — offering nothing in return but empty promises.

That’s where things now stand. If past is prologue, things are going nowhere because the US doesn’t negotiate in good faith.

US history is clear – a record of breached treaties, conventions and other deals, Washington agreeing to one thing, then going another way – why it can never be trusted.

Candidate Trump vowed to be non-interventionist in relations with other countries. Instead, he escalated wars he inherited and wages terror war on Iran and Venezuela by other means — intended to crush their economies and immiserate their people, his actions flagrantly illegal.

Bolton is gone. Likeminded right wing extremist Robert O’Brien succeeded him as national security advisor. Militantly hardline Pompeo and his likeminded henchmen remain.

These figures assure continuation of the Trump regime’s all take and no give in dealings with North Korea — leaving things at impasse, likely as long as DJT remains president with little prospect for positive change when new leadership succeeds him.

Reportedly, February Hanoi summit talks broke down over unacceptable US demands for Pyongyang to transfer its nuclear weapons and bomb fuel to the US, offering no concessions in return as a show of good faith.

The Trump regime also demanded full dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear infrastructure, ballistic missiles, launchers, related facilities, and elimination of chemical and biological weapons if any exist in the north — empty promises alone offered in return to be broken like countless times before.

On Saturday in Stockholm, Sweden, North Korean and US representatives held face-to-faces talks for the first time since Hanoi summit negotiations broke down February over unacceptable Trump regime demands.

Norway’s Dagens Nyheter broadsheet reported that DPRK delegation head Kim Myong-gil said the following:

“We are disappointed that the United States did not put anything on the negotiation table. Now the United States has the responsibility to continue the negotiations,” adding:

“We clearly expressed our position. The suspension of nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile tests, the demolition of a nuclear test site in the north of the country, the return of the remains of US soldiers.”

“We were the first to take steps to denuclearize and build confidence. If the United States sincerely responds to this, then we can move on to the next stage, of a serious discussion of denuclearization measures.”

Talks in Sweden broke down “entirely because the US has not discarded its old stance and attitude.”

In Hanoi, Kim reportedly asked Trump for partial sanctions relief alone, wanting only ones affecting North Korea’s economy lifted — as a US good will gesture.

Trump refused, insisting on full compliance with his regime’s unacceptable one-sided demands, refusing even a modest good faith gesture in return.

Bilateral talks were suspended following the failed summit. At the time, DPRK Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui blamed Trump regime officials for the breakdown, saying:

“We have no intention to yield to the (one-sided) US demands in any form, nor are we willing to engage in negotiations of this kind,” adding:

Pompeo and Bolton “created the atmosphere of hostility and mistrust and, therefore, obstructed the constructive effort for negotiations between the supreme leaders of North Korea and the United States.”

Choe quoted Kim saying:

“For what reason do we have to make this (65-hour) train trip again? Choe added: “I want to make it clear that the gangster-like stand of the US will eventually put the situation in danger.”

“We have neither the intention to compromise with the US in any form nor much less the desire or plan to conduct this kind of negotiation.”

On October 4, Time magazine reported that “Trump is prepared to offer Kim a three-year suspension of United Nations sanctions on textile and coal exports if Pyongyang agrees to dismantle its main nuclear facility at Yongbyon and halt its production of highly enriched uranium” — citing unnamed US officials.

On October 2, Vox.com reported the same thing. If true, why did Saturday talks in Stockholm break down with no progress cited by DPRK delegation head Kim Myong-gil.

Two weeks ago, Trump said he could meet with Kim Jong-un “soon.”

If his regime offers no meaningful good faith gestures, further summit talks if held will fail like twice before.

*

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: President Donald J. Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un sign a joint statement | June 12, 2018 (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan will arrive in Beijing on Tuesday and he will likely try to coordinate with China over the Kashmir issue to gain strong Chinese backing. It is likely that China will also be asked by Khan to assert pressure on India after New Delhi repelled Article 370 of the Indian constitution that ensured the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. Kashmir has been a cause of division between Pakistan and India as Britain had not determined the final status of the region during decolonization in 1947. The region is now being ruled dividedly by China, India and Pakistan. 

Although the date has not been specifically confirmed, according to media reports from India and Pakistan, Imran Khan will arrive in Beijing on October 8, which will be his third visit to China this year alone. The timing of this is critical as Chinese President Xi Jinping will visit India on October 11.

As Pakistan has become a key state of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Khan will hope he has some leverage to gain stronger support from Beijing for the Kashmir region, which Islamabad says it should rightfully administer in its entirety, or at least the Indian portion. Khan will also be hoping that Beijing can help push Pakistan’s position in the international arena, and will be emphasizing Pakistan’s commitment to the BRI.

Pakistan hopes to increase trade with China by at least $10 billion a year, which is of critical importance for the economic stabilization of the country as it has been experiencing a financial crisis. Therefore, Khan will be urging China to help develop Pakistan’s agricultural and industrial sectors. With China investing $100 billion to Pakistan through various means such as the Dwadar Port project, Khan will also want China to develop mining and other infrastructure.

Islamabad has failed to gain significant support for its Kashmir cause, which has also meant limited opportunities for international trade as states do not want to risk the significant advantages they can benefit from India’s rapid economic growth and development. But the BRI’s expansion into Pakistan has provided much needed international relief and support. However, does this mean that Beijing will strongly back Pakistan over the Kashmir sovereignty issue?

It is unlikely that Beijing will want to risk further worsening its difficult relations with New Delhi, and therefore may opt to remain neutral or soft on the Kashmir issue as both China and India have much to gain by improved relations and an increase in trade. It will then be critical for Khan to emphasize that Pakistan is China’s primary ally in the South and Central Asian regions. However, the undeniable fact is that Xi’s visit to India is not primarily to assert pressure against India over the status of Kashmir but to find some ways to reach a common resolution and agreement.

Tensions are so bad between China and India that in August, according to Indian media, the National Federation of Traders of India (CAIT) called for boycotts of Chinese goods and demanded a high tariff of 300% to 500% on Chinese goods. CAIT pointed out that “China needs to know the consequences of supporting Pakistan” on the initiative to discuss Kashmir in the United Nations. CAIT believes that “China has listed itself in a list of potential enemies of India’s national security.”

So, with some Indians already believing China strongly sides with Pakistan over the Kashmir issue, Xi perhaps may not want to further antagonize Indian emotions and may lower the importance of this issue on the agenda if his key focus is economic benefits.

According to Article 370 of the previous Constitution of India, people outside Kashmir could not live, work and own their own property in the region. Although the local population of Kashmir is mainly comprised of pro-Pakistan Muslims, this constitution protected the interests of the local people. This is why India’s behaviour is mainly to strengthen the Indian government’s control over the region by changing the demographics of the Indian-controlled portion of the Kashmir region. This is to increase the number of Hindus while shrinking the Muslim population.

This is currently the core issue for India, and domestic affairs takes precedence over foreign affairs for New Delhi. That is why Xi will most likely not take a strong position against India’s Kashmir policy on behalf of Pakistan. Although Khan will lobby Islamabad’s position on Kashmir to Xi on the eve of his India visit and attempt to convince him to take on an active position against New Delhi, the Chinese president is unlikely to adopt this position and focus his agenda on economic development.

*

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Because the Israeli government refuses to be a party either to the international nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the internationally agreed Chemical Weapons or Biological Weapons Conventions (CWC) (BWC), means that unlike the vast majority of UN Member States including America, Britain, China, Russia, France and Germany etc., the state of Israel is uniquely able to mount a nuclear/chemical attack upon any country in the Middle East (or Europe), at any time, without warning.

Israel is, of course, the only undeclared nuclear-weaponised state in the world and is estimated by US scientists to have up to 400 nuclear weapons plus substantial stocks of banned chemical weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  Furthermore, the Israeli state is NOT a member of either NATO or the EU.

Frighteningly, it now has a second-strike capability through its nuclear-armed cruise missiles that can be delivered by land, submarine-launched or aircraft. That fact alone makes it, arguably, the most dangerous state on the planet with the ability to destroy and contaminate whole swathes of Europe and the Middle East, for more than a generation.

However, instead of meeting this threat with a national defence planning campaign, the U.K. government exports military equipment to the Netanyahu Likud administration to assist in its potential for regional military domination.

Why? That is a question that must remain unanswered for there is no valid explanation for a British government helping to further arm a potential future enemy that is the only undeclared nuclear state in the world and which already has a fleet of German-built, Dolphin-class submarines armed with nuclear cruise missiles plus its Jericho series of intermediate to intercontinental range ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

The status quo would appear to be both political and military madness.

There can be but one explanation: the powerful influence of the friends of Israel lobby at Westminster – and, of course, that of its sister lobby, AIPAC, in Washington.

And, it is noted here that at least one member of the current British cabinet of Boris Johnson, has been established in the public domain as a known collaborator with the hard-Right, settler-controlled, Netanyahu government.

*

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

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on If 4 Nuclear WMD Are More than Adequate for Israel’s Defence – Why Is It Armed with an Estimated 400?

When earlier this year Tesla’s Elon Musk said the company could soon have batteries lasting for over one million miles, many probably took it as yet another grand promise with less substance than realism requires. Now it seems Musk may have not been exaggerating.

Last month, Wired reported on a paper by researchers from Dalhousie University in Canada, which detailed a battery that “should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 1 million miles.”

The researchers from Dalhousie University have an exclusive agreement with Tesla, and two months ago they reported that they had designed battery cells with higher energy density without using the solid-state electrolyte that many believe is a necessary condition for enhanced density. What’s more, the battery cell that the team designed demonstrated a longer life than some comparable alternatives.

This second paper builds on that, it seems. It details a “moderate-energy-density lithium-ion pouch cell chemistry” that, according to the authors, should serve as a benchmark for other researchers. Those other researchers will probably appreciate it because “cells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 1.6 million kilometers (1 million miles) and last at least two decades in grid energy storage.”

Two decades of grid energy storage sounds almost better than the 1 million miles in an EV as demand for energy storage—the Holy Grail of renewables—garners growing attention. But back to EVs.

Range and battery durability—and cost—are the biggest obstacles to mass EV adoption. On the one hand, drivers want to know their car won’t die midway to their destination because its range is too short. On the other, they also want to know the battery will last.

Realistically speaking, no car needs a battery that can last for a million miles, simply because few people keep their cars for that long. Most cars have exhausted their useful life at about 200,000 miles, according to the Observer’s Harmon Leon. Yet it does sound impressive, and what’s even more impressive is that, according to the researchers, the new battery cell only loses a tenth of its energy density over this extended lifetime, which makes it more efficient than existing batteries.

And here’s what’s even more impressive. The paper is open to anyone interested in reading about how this new and improved battery works. Why? Because, as one former member of the Dalhousie University team told Wired, Tesla patented an even superior battery before the paper came out. The carmaker announced it had received a patent for a battery very similar to the one described in the paper, with team leader Jeff Dahn listed as one of its inventors.

So, it seems it’s true. Tesla has made a battery capable of lasting a million miles even if other components of the car might not be able to survive that long. Now all it needs to do is make this battery cheap enough to turn it into something that is actually usable in a car. This may take a while given that most carmakers have yet to make current batteries more affordable to bring down the price of an EV enough to motivate more people to buy one.

*

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.

Irina is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing on the oil and gas industry.

The Trump administration today dismissed protests and made a formal decision to open 725,500 acres of public lands and mineral estate across California’s Central Coast and the Bay Area to new oil and gas drilling and fracking.

The public lands the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has earmarked for leasing are in the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Stanislaus.

“This reckless move is the toxic convergence of Trump’s climate denial, loyalty to the oil industry and grudge against California,” said Clare Lakewood, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Turning over these spectacular wild places to dirty drilling and fracking will sicken Californians, harm endangered species and fuel climate chaos. We’ll fight tooth and nail to make sure it doesn’t happen.”

The move will end a more than five-year-old moratorium on leasing federal public land and mineral estate in the state to oil companies.

The BLM has not held a single lease sale in California since 2013, when a judge ruled that the agency violated the law when it issued oil leases in Monterey and Fresno Counties without considering the risks of fracking. The ruling responded to a suit brought by the Center and the Sierra Club challenging a BLM decision to auction off about 2,500 acres of land in those counties to oil companies.

“The Trump administration is putting California’s communities and our climate at risk as they prioritize fossil fuel industry profits over our public lands and the health and safety of our families,” said Sierra Club campaign representative Jenny Binstock. “We will continue to use every tool at our disposal to push back against this irresponsible decision and to protect our public lands from fracking.”

Fracking is an extreme oil-extraction process that blasts toxic chemicals mixed with water underground to crack rocks. According to the BLM, about 90 percent of new oil and gas wells on public lands are fracked.

A 2015 report from the California Council on Science and Technology concluded that fracking in California happens at unusually shallow depths, dangerously close to underground drinking water supplies, with unusually high concentrations of toxic chemicals.

In 2016 Monterey County voters passed Measure Z, which bans fracking, new oil and gas wells and new waste-injection wells. San Benito County voters have also passed a ballot measure banning fracking. Alameda County has passed an ordinance banning fracking, and Santa Cruz County has passed an ordinance banning fracking and all other oil and gas development.

*

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

 

The Netherlands Government is resisting an effort by Dutch victims’ families to find out why Ukraine’s Government, on 17 July 2014 — when the Malaysian airliner MH17 was shot down while flying over Ukraine’s civil-war zone — this passenger-plane had been guided by Ukraine’s air-traffic control to fly through, instead of around (as it instructed other airliners), the war-zone.

On 1 October 2019, now more than five years after 196 Dutch nationals had died from that incident, Holland’s RTL News headlined (as autotranslated into English) “Cabinet considers research into Ukraine’s role in disaster MH17”, and reported that

“The cabinet will examine whether further research is possible on the role of Ukraine in the disaster with flight MH17,” [because]

“A proposal … for the investigation received the support of all Parties present in the second chamber” of Holland’s parliament.

See Dutch original source RTL article on MH17 here (October 1) 

Second October 1 RTL article 

This news-report said that,

“So far, the cabinet has not taken any steps against Ukraine. As far as we know, nothing is happening behind the scenes.” Furthermore: “Last year, the Netherlands, together with Australia, decided to make Russia as a country liable. For the liability of Ukraine, according to the cabinet, there was ‘no evidence’ and also ‘no research needed’.” (emphasis added)

Moreover, Dutch Foreign Minister Stefan Blok said that: 

We don’t see any reason for an investigation” into that, because “The government is trying to maintain its relationship with Ukraine,” and “because then both the airspace of Ukraine and that of Russia should be looked at,” and because “there are still no indications that Ukraine can also be held liable.”

But actually, from the very start of that investigation, there was a secret agreement not to blame Ukraine for anything having to do with the incident.

This agreement is kept secret from the Dutch people. Blok, in resisting to investigate why the MH17 was guided over the civil-war zone, was simply adhering to the secret agreement that Netherlands had signed with Ukraine on 8 August 2014. 

If he were to agree to the families’ demand, he still would be obligated, by The Netherlands August 8, 2014 agreement with Ukraine, to find Ukraine not to have perpetrated the downing. But the families don’t know this.

As I reported back on 24 August 2014, a secret agreement had been signed on August 8th between Netherlands, Ukraine, Belgium, and Australia, that Ukraine would have veto-power over any finding that their official “Joint Investigation Team” (“JIT”) would issue regarding the shoot-down of the MH17.

Malaysia was excluded from the Team, but was finally admitted, after agreeing to their secret terms — including not to blame Ukraine. Russia’s RT headlined on 20 November 2014 “Dutch government refuses to reveal ‘secret deal’ into MH17 crash probe” and revealed that the Dutch Government was refusing to comply with its own Freedom of Information law by keeping this agreement secret.

On 14 June 2016, the website “What Happened to Flight MH17” headlined “The vague role of Malaysia in the Joint Investigation Team” and reported that the JIT had actually been officially formed on 7 August 2014, and noted that, “In the limited number of public communications by JIT it is not mentioned what the role of Malaysia is in the criminal investigation.” (Malaysia, unlike those other four nations, isn’t a member of America’s core anti-Russia alliance, which includes NATO and Australia, but is instead a neutral nation and therefore considered untrustworthy by the others.) Subsequently, on 21 July 2019, John Helmer and Max van der Werff revealed that Malaysia’s Government rejects the ‘findings’ by the JIT (which, with no reservations, blame Russia for downing the MH17), but that Malaysia isn’t violating the 8 August 2014 secret agreement, since Malaysia isn’t saying Ukraine did it. Instead, Malaysia is saying that further investigations are needed, and that Malaysia possesses the black boxes and other crucial evidence.

Update

The present report is an update regarding the entire matter of the shoot-down on 17 July 2014 of the MH17 Malaysian airliner over the breakaway Donetsk region of Ukraine. The additional facts which will be reported here regarding the MH17 incident shock me.

I knew that U.S. President Barack Obama had become desperate for something to happen that would persuade German Chancellor Angela Merkel to endorse added sanctions against Russia regarding Ukraine, but I had no idea, until now, as to what direct involvement, if any, he had had in the actual setting-up of the MH17 shoot-down.

All of the source-evidence for the following can be clicked-through-to here by the reader, and this is important to do, for any reader who is skeptical (as all ought to be) and who wants to see source-evidence, for any assertion that seems outlandish. It’s important especially because the case which will be presented here stuns even me, who had voted three times for Obama, first in his 2008 primary against Hillary Clinton, then once again in his 2008 general election contest against Republican John McCain; and then, finally, once more, yet again, in his 2012 general election contest against Republican Mitt Romney (who, incidentally, right now, is arguing for Trump’s impeachment and replacement by Mike Pence; and who is famous for having said, in his 2012 campaign against Obama, that “Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe”).

I knew that Obama was the lesser of two evils, but I now recognize that I had had no idea of how evil that actually was. Here I shall report what I now know. This extensively documented reconstruction, of the MH17 incident and of how it came about, seems to me to disprove the fundamental Western ‘historical’ narrative about contemporary international relations, and to signal the necessity for a fundamental rewrite of the mainstream view of world history in our era. At the very least, it disproves that view — the mainstream view or ‘history’ of our time. Whatever the truth might be, it certainly cannot be anything even approximating that ‘historical’ mainstream. Mainstream recent ‘history’ is, now more clearly than ever before, a sinister and carefully orchestrated myth, as will be demonstrated here in what follows. 

The essential background information regarding the MH17 must be presented at the start, and it’s accurately portrayed in an 11-minute video. The first-ever news-report to display and assemble in an easily comprehensible way all of the crucial facts constituting the background context that’s necessary in order to understand the MH17 event and what caused it, was an 11-minute video compilation, which was uploaded to youtube on 12 March 2014, and which you can see here.

It’s 100% true, nothing at all deceptive in any way, and it still remains, in my opinion (after my seeing it around 50 times and considering it from a multitude of different perspectives), absolutely a masterpiece, the only perfect public-affairs video that I have ever seen. Beyond that essential background information to the MH17 event, now follows (and entirely within that factual background-context), a summary in more detail, focusing in, or zooming onto, the MH17 event itself, more closely: 

This will be a summary, which — since it might seem incredible to anyone who doesn’t already know the evidence — will immediately be followed by the evidence, all clickable here to each source (though not necessarily via only a single click). The first sentence of the summary will summarize the essential background information to the MH17 event — meaning here only information on the background that’s essential in order to be able to understand the context in which the information that is to be newly introduced here regarding the MH17 event will fit into that bigger picture — and this opening sentence will therefore itself be linked to more-detailed summaries of key aspects of that background part, each aspect of which itself contains links to all of the source-evidences there regarding that aspect of the deepest background, so that the full background will be accessible from the links that are provided here, and the new information, which is to be provided at the end, will be entirely understandable within the context of that full background. 

Here, then, is the overall summary, including the heavily-linked opening sentence regarding this event’s deep background:

President Obama not only perpetrated the February 2014 bloody coup in Ukraine which he had started by no later than 2011 to plan and placed into operation on 1 March 2013 inside the U.S. Embassy in Kiev (months before the democratically elected Ukrainian President whom he was to overthrow decided for Ukraine not to accept the EU’s offer of membership), but Obama and his NATO were so determined to reverse the coup’s resulting breakaway, from Ukraine, of Ukraine’s two most anti-nazi districts, Crimea and Donetsk, that Obama and his NATO then set up the shoot-down of the MH17 airliner by Obama’s newly-installed nazi Ukrainian government, with the objective being to promptly blame it against Russia. Obama was, at that time, in early July 2014, desperate for there to be a pretext on which the European Union would join the U.S. in greatly hiking sanctions against Russia regarding Ukraine.

What the most-recent information will show is this: Obama and his NATO were intending to use this false accusation against Russia as a pretext not only to hike anti-Russia sanctions but ultimately to invade both Donetsk and Crimea and risk WW III in order to coerce those two regions back again into Ukraine — now to become (like the rest of Ukraine) under the control of the U.S. regime.

The reasons why that plan failed (was aborted) were, first, that Malaysia’s Government held in international law the unchallengeable right of ownership over the airliner’s black boxes; and, second, that there was especially one member of NATO, Angela Merkel, who refused to risk WW III and to join into Obama’s extremely psychopathic scheme, since it risked the whole world over his determination to grab the entirety of Ukraine.

Obama always refused to proceed forward with a geostrategic plan if it was strongly opposed by at least one core ally — in this particular instance, he knew enough not to drive Germany to abandon NATO and to ally with Russia (especially since Russia itself was his actual target in his coup to take over Ukraine). By declining to move forward without Merkel, all of those immediate risks to the world were avoided.

Furthermore, Malaysia’s holding the black boxes was especially a problem for Obama and NATO, because any preparation for a U.S.-NATO invasion of Donbass and Crimea would spark Malaysia to go public with what it already knew about the U.S.-NATO lies regarding the MH17 incident. Obama possessed no ability to prevent that response from Malaysia. Not only Germany, but also Malaysia, possessed power in this situation, and Obama, fortunately, yielded to it. (Of course, the great worry about Trump is that if he gets into a similar situation, he might move forward regardless.) 

Also noteworthy — especially for Dutch citizens and the families of the passengers on that airliner — the Netherlands Government had been one of the largest financial backers of the February 2014 U.S.-planned overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected President.

For example, it was the largest single donor, listed at $793,089, to Hromadske TV, which was the leading station that advocated for forcing that President out of power. Whereas the U.S. Government had organized and ran the overthrow, and spent far more on it (over $5 billion) than did any other nation or individual, the U.S. was only the second-largest donor to that station, at $399,650.

So: Holland’s government had a significant investment in the post-coup regime, even before that post-coup regime shot down the MH17 plane and thereby slaughtered its 283 passengers, of whom 196 were Dutch. This is yet another reason why the Dutch Government’s heading this investigation in which Ukraine — another member — should be a suspect but is instead a juror, nullifies any rational authority to its ‘findings’.

One of my more important early news-reports regarding the MH17 case was the 24 August 2014 “MH-17 ‘Investigation’: Secret August 8th Agreement Seeps Out”, which article, referenced near the opening of the present article, documented that the secret agreement amongst the 4-party official MH17 ‘investigative’ team — Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, and Ukraine — gave each one of those governments an absolute veto over any public announcement or ‘finding’ from the ‘investigation’, so that if Ukraine, which was a prime suspect in the incident, were to disapprove a ‘finding’, then the team wouldn’t be allowed to issue it. This is like giving a murder-suspect veto-power over the investigation into the murder. It shows how poisoned that whole official ‘investigation’ was, even at its very start. This is important to understand.

Another especially relevant news-report from me was the 7 June 2015 “Obama Sidelines Kerry on Ukraine Policy”, which noted that Obama supported the position of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, who favored the U.S. backing an all-out invasion of Crimea and Donbass by Ukraine, and that Obama rejected the position of her boss, John Kerry, the Secretary of State, who opposed that policy.

“Kerry, for his part, now faces the decision as to whether to quit … or else for Kerry to stay in office and be disrespected in all capitals for his staying on after having been so blatantly contradicted by his subordinate.”

This wasn’t the only instance when Obama trashed Kerry’s work: he likewise did it when Kerry favored the U.S. agreeing with Russia that, in a Syrian-war cease-fire, not only ISIS but also Al Qaeda-led forces in Syria could continue to be bombed. Russia was bombing both, but Obama refused to accept a ceasefire in which Russia would be allowed to continue its bombing of Al Qaeda, not only of ISIS. It was the ultimate humiliation of Kerry, and effectively ended his career in government.) This displays Obama’s profound hatred of Russia. 

My last major report on MH17 was on 31 December 2018, “MH17 Turnabout: Ukraine’s Guilt Now Proven”. That presents conclusive checkmate against the U.S.-NATO case blaming Russia for MH17 (that case being run by the Netherlands Government, which simply ignores its case having become disproven by that evidence). 

Here’s the more-recent report, what I did not previously know, which comes from the great independent Western journalist living in Moscow, John Helmer; and presented here are the highlights from his report — a report that fills-in crucial additional details of the same historical narrative that I have previously documented regarding the MH17 incident

*

[The John Helmer article was previously posted by Global Research]

“MH17 Evidence Tampering Revealed by Malaysia – FBI Attempt to Seize Black Boxes; Dutch Cover-Up of Forged Telephone Tapes; Ukrainian Air Force Hid Radar Records; Crash Site Witness Testimony Misreported”  by John Helmer, 27 July 2019

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Netherlands-Ukraine “Secret Agreement” Regarding the July 2014 Shoot Down of Malaysian Airlines MH17
  • Tags: , ,


Climate and the “Little Green Women and Men”

October 6th, 2019 by Peter Koenig

The Little Green Women and Men (LGWM) are us, humanoids, especially those living in the west, believing we command Mother Earth. Well, no wonder, there is a group among us, who claims to be “God’s Chosen People” – and they act it all the way. So much so, that they and their influence on LGWMs, have almost managed to dominate all the women, men and resources of Mother Earth.

Humanoids, LGWMs, are easily manipulated. They have chosen to be green, because “green” is IN. They are ‘little’, because in the big scheme of things, as compared to Mother Nature, for example, they are diminutive. Very. Yet, they pretend to command the climate. Green parties all over the western world are multiplying fast; almost like the legendary grain on a chessboard. They are called green but they come in all shades, from brown to green to red, and everything in between. In Germany the Greens have become so popular that during the next elections they may catch up to 30 % of the votes.

Question is: What will they do when they come to real power, when they are in Government, confronted with the interests of big business? Will they bend over, cave in – as did the Socialist parties throughout Europe during the last half of the 20th Century?

Today, one has to be green to belong.

Who is green, (pretends) fighting for the environment, for the protection of the environment – which is good, per se. But fighting for the environment is not a linear affair, as they, the LGWMs, are made to believe – and many of them believe, as “science” tells them to believe. When they believe, they create a comfort zone for themselves, where guilt disappears. They don’t question anymore. THE authority, called “science”, tells them the “facts” to believe. And if they do, they are almost absolved from guilt.

Almost – because to be really absolved in our western ultra-capitalist world, only money can really absolve you. So, they – or we, collectively, whether we believe in the propaganda or not (fortunately some of us don’t), will be asked to pay – to pay environmental fees and taxes of all kinds and shapes. To be more attractive they may be called ‘climate taxes’ – for using fossil fuel, for buying plastic, for flying in airplanes, for consuming no end – and-so-on. Hardly anybody asks what will be done with this new tax money.

As it cannot stop climate from changing, it will most likely end up in private banks, mostly Wall Street banks, where the billons collected will grow into speculative multi-trillions-dollar bubbles. And we know what eventually happens with bubbles. We all remember the Carbon Funds – which apparently are not dead yet, but will rather be resuscitated in this new fervor to fight climate change.

Stamped by our western Judeo-Christian guilt culture, we truly believe from the bottom of our hearts that paying a climate tax will free us from environmental responsibilities and put us back into our comfort zones. We then comfortably and guiltlessly continue driving our huge gas guzzling, CO2-emitting SUVs. That’s why the corporate manipulators – BIG-BIG money and their media tells us every day, the Climate Armageddon is coming. So, we pay, to postpone it.

It was coming already at the first UN-sponsored Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of 1992 which was extended to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, an international treaty that commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on scientific consensus that

(1) global warming is occurring and

(2) it is extremely likely that human-made CO2 emissions have predominantly caused it.

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997, by 192 nations. The Protocol entered into force on 16 February 2005.

But despite all the warnings of Armageddon, nothing has happened. Even if mankind was responsible for the CO2 production that changes climate – mankind, or rather the LGWMs have ignored it. Climate Armageddon is still written all over the walls. But it moves from wall to wall, further into the future, as nobody seems to be interested in preventing it.

After Kyoto followed Copenhagen, the next UN-sponsored Climate Change Conference, also called the Copenhagen Summit, in December 2009. Similar discourse, and new targets were set and propagated; billions of dollars were pledged by governments – but few paid-in, mostly because already then it was not quite clear who should administer the funds and who should invest in what and where to stop the climate from changing. Copenhagen also coined the 350-slogan. It stands for 350 ppm (parts per million) of carbon dioxide (CO2) which has been identified as the safe upper limit to avoid a climate tipping point. As of today, there is a climate NGO called 350.org.

In 2019, CO2 is expected to pass the 410-ppm level. 

As per the New Scientist (25 January 2019)  , Carbon dioxide levels will soar past the 410 ppm milestone in 2019. We will pass yet another unwelcome milestone this year. The average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is likely to rise by 2.8 parts per million to 411 ppm in 2019 – passing 410 ppm just a few years after first passing the 400 ppm mark.

No stopping of climate change is happening – and Armageddon is moving on.

What this climate movement doesn’t seem to understand, or those that manage it do not want the world to know that climate is a complex structure of ever shifting values and natural phenomena; that climate is influenced by many factors which are all inter-related and orders of magnitude more important than what man can ever contribute.
There is the sun with its constantly changing eruptions and radiation emissions, perhaps the most important influence; then the oceans, while they absorb CO2, they also emit CO2 – and most important according to a 30-year NASA study  the oceans themselves change temperatures in natural intervals of roughly ten years, which is called El Niño in the Pacific and the Nrth Atlantic Oscillation in the Atlantic. They are responsible for large-scale weather patterns, also orders of magnitude larger than what man could ever create. In addition, there are the volcanos around the world, many of which are active. A massive eruption of one of them, i.e. Iceland, the Philippines, Italy, Hawaii – may produce a multiple of CO2 levels of what man produces in one year.

And we should also be aware of what is not much talked about, that the US Air Force, the US Navy, the University of Alaska and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), have developed since the sixties a weather control-program that functions with electromagnetic waves emitted in the Ionosphere, altering ionospheric temperatures to create specific weather patterns. The intention is to weaponize the weather so as to control entire regions by weather, floods, droughts, hurricanes… you name it.

Weather warfare has a long history; Earlier technologies were applied during the Vietnam war, when it was capable to prolong and enhance the Monsoon season, so as to make the paths the Vietcong used to transit from the North to the South were made impassable. That is really man-made.

The program used to be called HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) and was stationed in Alaska. It has now nominally been dismantled, but continuous more clandestinely to be sophisticated enough, to allow the US to control the world’s weather by 2030, according to the Pentagon.

Talking about military and climate – the wars and conflicts mostly inspired by the US and carried out by the Pentagon, NATO or their mercenary proxies, cause more than half of the man-made CO2 emissions. This is a fact that may never be discussed in these UN-sponsored climate conferences – a strict rule imposed by Washington.

These are just a few climate-influencing elements, the composite of which is much larger than each one acting linearly on its own, because they are all inter-related, they are all acting holistically and dynamically – in other words, not predictably – and with a power orders of magnitude larger than CO2 by itself, let alone man-made CO2 which is but a tiny fraction of all greenhouse gases produced by nature. And these ever-occurring climate changes, are well controlled by nature, as NASA’s Earth Observatory found out by studying the oceans for over 30 years (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon). They are kept in balance by our Mother Earth, no matter how much we would like to influence them.

Nuclear War vs Climate

Notice this: We are today threatened by nuclear war, a nuclear war that could wipe out mankind within a few days – yet we talk and demonstrate for climate change prevention, mand-made CO2 reduction. Public Icon, the Swedish teenager, Greta, and her followers, the Friday for the Future kids and those that call themselves “Extinction Rebellion”, took to the streets in so-called climate strikes by the hundreds of thousands throughout the world.

Seriously, imagine – the use of CO2 producing fossil fuel and an industrial agriculture infesting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the engine for 90% of the world’s economy – and let’s not forget the CO2 produced by wars and hostilities around the globe – all of which is also the engine for huge corporate profits! –

Does anyone seriously believe that hundreds of thousands, or even millions, demonstrating against climate change – will have an iota of influence on corporate behavior and profit oriented growth policies?

These kids – the LGWMs – are dreaming. Most of them anyway. Some of their leaders are directed by the same corporations they pretend to fight and to demonstrate against. Generally, the LGWM movement doesn’t have a clear agenda, other than talking loosely and abstractly about CO2 reduction. But they don’t really know how to go about it and what this means, what steps need to be taken and by whom, what implications and consequences this would have for our today’s civilization and every-day life, yes, theirs too, the climate kids’ every-day life. Thy have no program of what has to change; they just believe the change has to come from ‘outside’, i.e. the politicians.

No idea either that these same politicians are captured by the same industrial, financial and specifically the war industrial complex and that this highly capitalist money-making machinery also commands the propaganda apparatus on which they drive and thrive.

These climate folks managed to organize a special UN Climate event preceding the 2019 UN General Assembly, during which the most powerful and obnoxious representatives of nations and heads of states, notably of the US of A, talked aggression no end to those countries that do not bend to their orders and do not want to submit their people and natural resources for exploitation and profit of the western elite. In the special firing line are the usual condemned and sanctioned – but almost the only true sovereign countries left on this globe – Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea – and of course Russia and China.

Instead of seeking peace, the essence of the UN Charter, the UN has become a forum for war declarations and climate change. If ever man wants to make a true contribution to climate change – it can only be done by PEACE, through peaceful cooperation and solidarity among nations across the globe.

The LGWM movement has to wake up to a reality which is not propaganda based and has to do with our behavior, with our entire attitude, with our socioeconomic system – with a turbo-capitalist system that is growth based with ever larger profit margins. The system to survive has to expand every day, every year – it induces extreme consumerism, thrives on fashion trends – and on generation of massive waste, most of which is not biodegradable, but accumulates and – yes, influences our ambiance, living conditions – and eventually being part of a holistic world, also influences the climate.

We are living in a throw-away society, driven by an industrial apparatus that uses obsolescence as a tool for consumerism and growth, to generate more profit, no matter how much more non-renewable resources will have to be sacrificed and wasted – ending up as waste, rotting away, polluting the air we breathe, the soil we use to grow our food and the water – the all-important water, without which no life is possible.

To slow down and eventually stop the rapid decline of our existence on this lovely and generous planet, we ALL have to contribute in solidarity to PEACE. A life in peace is a sine qua non for improving our planets environment – and thereby our sheer living conditions, quality of life – and foremost to bring about more societal equality, less poverty a better distribution of wealth. All of this requires a massive awakening, an awakening towards a consciousness that is immune to egocentricity to fake propaganda – that is 180 degrees opposite to the current selfie-culture.

In the 1950s, I’m old enough to remember, we wrote letters to our friends and relatives, shopped in corner grocery stores, bought beverages in recycled glass bottles, filled our staple food from bulk containers into recycled paper bags, and wrapped fresh vegetables into newspapers (not plastic), went to public phone booths to call our girlfriends, walked, or biked to school, and if at all, our parents had small cars, no SUVs, prepared our sandwiches for school, used the same cloths for years, talked with each other eye-to-eye, enjoyed nature.

Today, nature is the same in the city or the countryside, because we stumble through nature wherever we go watching the little screen of an obsolescence disposable smartphone, with which we chat, smile and also make some phone calls. Then, in the post WWII fifties, our lives were more modest and happier. Then, we consumed less than what Mother Earth could sustainably provide us with. In the 1960s we started exceeded that threshold. Today, we, in the west, use three to four times what nature can give us (Africa about 0.6) – and that for sure will not go on forever.

Perhaps we have to think about jumping forward to a life style of the fifties and that consciously and conscientiously – and we won’t have to worry about 350-ppm CO2 as the limit for sustainable climate, because it will happen naturally and climate change will continue to happen naturally, as it always did for 4 billion years of our planet’s existence – and never bothered us. And most importantly, we have to learn to consciously remind ourselves that we are a solidary peaceful society, and we have to consciously disconnect from MSM, turn off our ears to the ever blaring and lying media propaganda lyrics. Consciousness is our integrity and base for social cohesiveness.

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; 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. 
Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
First published by the New Eastern Outlook – NEO

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 
Climate and the “Little Green Women and Men”

An Open Letter to “Science and Global Security”

October 6th, 2019 by Rick Sterling

Dear Editors at Science and Global Security,

“Science and Global Security” (SGS)  has been publishing technical articles on arms control and related issues since 1989. I urge you not to succumb to political censorship.

Recently it was announced you are withholding publication of an article titled “Computational Forensic Analysis for the Chemical Weapons Attack  at Khan Sheikhoun on 4 April 2017”. The article presents evidence that a crater in the road in the town of Khan Sheikhoun (Syria) could have been caused by an “improvised rocket-propelled  artillery round with a high explosive warhead” rather than an aerial bomb dropped by a Syrian plane. The paper was authored by seven scientists from prominent universities and laboratories in the USA and China and based on advanced modelling techniques and computer simulations.

According to the article “Scientists clash over paper that questions Syrian government’s role in sarin attack” a campaign to stop you from publishing the analysis was launched by Gregory Koblentz.  He is a political scientist not an engineer or physical scientist.  His criticism of the article is because of the conclusion.

The political bias of Koblentz is clear from his article titled “Syria’s Chemical Weapons Kill Chain”. It accuses the Syrian government of using chemical weapons and speculates on the chain of command. It distorts the findings of the UN report on the attack of August 21, 2013. Actually, the UN lead investigator, Ake Sellstrom,  suggested  that it was a “fair guess” that the rockets carrying the sarin travelled 2 kilometers. This would have put the launch firmly in opposition held territory, directly contradicting Koblentz’s assertions that the Syrian government was to blame.

Facts and Investigations

You may not be aware of the following facts:

  • The report of the Joint Investigative Mechanism was not definitive about the crater. On page 7/33 it says, “the Mechanism assessed that the crater was most probably caused by a heavy object travelling at a high rate of velocity, such as an aerial bomb with a small explosive charge… The Mechanism also examined whether an IED could have caused the crater. While this possibility could not be completed ruled out, the experts assessed that that scenario was less likely…..” (highlight added).
  • Some of the most proven investigative journalists have concluded that the incident was staged by the opposition. For example, the late Robert Parry wrote an article titled “Did Al Qaeda Dupe Trump on Syrian Attack”. He noted that “Buried deep inside a new U.N. report is evidence that could exonerate the Syrian government in the April 4 sarin atrocity.”  As Parry wrote, “More than 100 patients would appear to have been exposed to sarin before the alleged warplane could have dropped the alleged bomb and the victims could be evacuated, a finding that alone would have destroyed the JIM’s case against the Syrian government. But the JIM seemed more interested in burying this evidence of Al Qaeda staging the incident …”
  • Seymour Hersh is another proven journalist. His research confirmed that no chemical bomb was used at Khan Sheikhoun. The Russians had even informed the US military ahead of time that they would be bombing an important meeting of groups that even the US defined as “terrorist”. Hersh’s conclusions are outlined in the article “Hersh’s New Syria Revelations Buried from View”.
  • Yet another proven journalist, Gareth Porter, did a detailed investigation including confidential interviews with scientists with close ties to the OPCW.  His in depth report is titled “Have We Been Deceived Over Syrian Sarin Attack? Scrutinizing the Evidence …”.  Among many points he debunks the notion that the crater could have been caused by a chemical weapons bomb which is designed to release chemicals and NOT burn them in a large explosion.
  • Finally, yet another proven journalist, Robert Fisk, has written about bias at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). One year after the incident at Khan Sheikhoun, another chemical weapons incident happened in Syria. In his article titled “The Evidence We Were Never Meant to See About the Douma Gas Attack” Robert Fisk reports,

“there has emerged disturbing evidence that in its final report on the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime in the city of Douma last year, the OPCW deliberately concealed from both the public and the press the existence of a dissenting 15-page assessment of two cylinders which had supposedly contained molecular chlorine …The OPCW officially maintains that these canisters were probably dropped by an aircraft – probably a helicopter, presumably Syrian – over Douma on 7 April 2018. But the dissenting assessment, which the OPCW made no reference to in its published conclusions, finds there is a ‘higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft.’ It is difficult to underestimate the seriousness of this manipulative act by the OPCW.”

Why SGS Should Publish the Article

On the SGS website you question “the value of publishing the article given the sensitive and contested issue of the use of chemical weapons in Syria.” That is precisely the reason that you SHOULD publish the article, to be relevant and contribute to important public debate.

Global security is being threatened by claims and counter-claims about weapons of mass destruction. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was based on such claims. The “intelligence community” was certain but wrong. Now, in Syria there are similar claims and counter-claims. Two nuclear armed countries, the US and Russia, are involved.

The US has already attacked Syria on the basis of media reports to the approval  of people like Gregory Koblentz. The pattern of aggression on the basis of dubious or false evidence is very dangerous and could lead to much greater conflict.

Political censorship does not serve science or global security.  Publish the article.

*

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.

Rick Sterling is a journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. He can be contacted at [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on An Open Letter to “Science and Global Security”
  • Tags:

Americans were horrified to hear that Trump wanted to have US forces at the US-Mexico border to charge migrants with bayonets or shoot them in the legs. Michael D. Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis at the New York Times reported that Trump wanted US forces to fire on migrants as they sought to come into the country, aiming for their legs so as to injure but not kill them. Trump has denied that he urged these courses of action, but the Washington Post was able to confirm the conversation with staffers (who objected that these steps would be illegal and who simply disregarded Trump’s instructions. Among those who pushed back was then Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who is said to have insisted that US troops not “interact” with the migrants in any way.)

The Jupiter-sized blind spot of US media, however, managed to report on all this with horror without mentioning that this procedure, of shooting people massing on the border in the legs has over the past 18 months become the routine Israeli policy, so routine that the deaths and injuries inflicted by Israeli army snipers on largely peaceful Gaza Palestinian protesters no longer make the news for the most part in the United States.

Oh, you can find the carefully, clinically worded wire service reports on the Internet if you look for them, but they seem never to come on US cable “news” and if they appear in newspapers at all they are buried in back pages. Reuters reported on September 6, for instance,

    “Israeli forces shot and killed two Palestinian teenagers including a 14-year-old during protests along the Gaza-Israel border on Friday, Palestinian health officials said. They named the dead as Khaled Al-Rabai, 14, and Ali Al-Ashqar, 17. Seventy protesters were wounded, 38 of them by live fire, medical officials said.”

But here is the long version of the past two weeks of Israeli mayhem against the protesters, via the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

And, note these absolutely horrific numbers from Electronic Intifada:

    • “More than 210 Palestinians, including 46 children, have been killed during Great March of Return protests since their launch in early 2018. Some 9,200 others have been wounded by live fire, including 1,900 children.

At least 1,200 of those injured will require limb reconstruction, according to the World Health Organization.”

Israeli military PR people say that in the course of the past 18 months, some molotov cocktails, grenades and improvised explosive devices were lobbed at Israeli troops massed at the border from the direction of the protesters. There have also been occasional rockets fired from Gaza at Israel, but not by the protesters, and most of those rockets land harmlessly in the desert (they are more or less 8th grade chemistry experiments, lacking any sophistication or range, though they do occasionally manage to cause damage and have over two decades killed a handful of Israelis, which is also a war crime). The rockets are not connected to the Great March of Return protests, with the latter being mostly peaceful.

The fact is, then, that almost all those nearly 10,000 persons shot by live fire by Israeli professional snipers have been unarmed civilians posing no threat to anyone. This includes the 46 children killed and the 1,900 children carefully targeted by the snipers. They have high-powered scopes and the pattern of injuries proves that they are deliberately hitting those children, and targeting their legs.

The Israeli military doctrine is now that Palestinians can be shot like dogs whether they pose an immediate danger or not, if they simply stand near the Israeli barbed wire that herds Palestinians in Gaza into the world’s largest open-air prison. Some 70% of Gaza’s families were kicked out of their homes by militant Zionist militias in 1948, and many of the Palestinians there could walk home to their former houses (now occupied by settler colonialists who never paid a dime in reparations) in an hour or two.

In February of this year, an independent Commission of Inquiry established by by the United Nations Human Rights Council, pointed out that shooting protesters who pose no danger is a war crime.

A systematic pattern of war crimes amounts to a crime against humanity, according to the 2002 Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court, ratified by most of the countries in the world.

The Statue says,

“For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack…” It goes on to mention murder, “Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”

The notorious thug Binyamin Netanyahu, now on trial for corruption, implicitly threatened reprisals against the International Criminal Court if it ever took up Israeli actions. Given the rah-rah attitude of the US Congress toward far right wing Israeli governments, and given that the US provides substantial funding to the United Nations Organization, Netanyahu’s threat was anything but idle. The US senate also threatened the ICC over this issue, at the urging of the Israel lobbies.

So the ICC may be intimidated, focusing instead on seedy deposed African dictators, but if an objective court of law were to take up Israel’s policy of sniping at will at innocent harmless civilians in Gaza, the country’s officials who ordered the sniping would certainly be convicted of crimes against humanity.

The Israeli army and government are now officially worse that the worst elements of the Trump administration, who told our president “no” when he wanted to do to Central American migrants what Israel is doing to the people they turned into homeless refugees.

*

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: Razan al-Najjar, the 21 year old Gaza medic killed by an Israeli sniper on June 1, treating an injured man, undated photo from Palestine Live on twitter.