Identity Politics: A Control Mechanism Exploited by the Ruling Elite

September 9th, 2019 by Kurt Nimmo

There will not be a Peasants’ Revolt like the one in 1381. We don’t have a Jack Straw, John Ball, or Wat Tyler to lead and guide us. Those revolutionaries were betrayed by officers of Richard II—Richard was 14 at the time—who agreed to eliminate serfdom and heavy taxation on the commoners. The concessions were ignored and the rebels ended up with their heads piked on London Bridge. 

Now we have few if any leaders willing to expose themselves to the vicious retribution of the state. No longer are heads removed from bodies, hoisted up on pikes, and paraded around London as a warning to others. 

Instead, leaders or presumptive leaders are brought down by legal and extralegal means. In the 1960s, it was decided leaders and activists like Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, and even the President of the United States and his brother should be assassinated. The state is a master of subterfuge, manipulation, torture, murder. 

In the 14th century, leaders of revolts were tortured, flayed, starved, beaten, and decapitated in a very public way. Now everything happens mysteriously behind the scenes. Murdered opponents are portrayed by the state’s propaganda media as victims of accidents (Michael Hastings) or suicides (Gary Webb). An untold number of others are defamed—engaged in, as the FBI tells us, terroristic conspiracy theories—and have careers ruined, reputations slandered, their homes attacked by violent thugs in masks. 

The state no longer requires heads on pikes—or drawn and quartered bodies—to frighten the people into submission. 

The American people are not yet on the verge of starvation like the serfs and peasants of medieval Europe. The middle class—known as the “middling sort” in the 17th century—is ready for a postmortem in the early 21st century. The “middling” commoners were useful in building wealth and creating widespread prosperity after World War II. It would be whittled away and stolen by the elite in the following decades.

The average middle-class citizen (not realizing an economic gain since the 1970s) is not a revolutionary. He’s a deeply brainwashed and trained not to think outside of the political parameters established by the state. Since the unfortunate election of Donald Trump, this demand for conformity and consensus (for war, theft, mass murder) has taken on absurd proportions with the inexplicable rise of what we call the Left and its revised communist class conflict doctrine of identity based on race and gender. 

The Identity Left is not actively opposed to war and a bankster theft economy that moves all wealth upward to the financial class and the ruling elite. Because taxation cannot possibly raise enough money to pay for endless wars and numerous government schemes, including socialism for corporations and banks, most of us have become debt slaves apparently not overly concerned about the fact our children will be forced at gunpoint to pay for the wars and “bailouts” of a financial class that has socialized loss. The parasitic ruling elite controlling the political arrangement never talk about this debt. Instead, they create a media blizzard of social and political irrelevance to distract us. 

Meanwhile, over on the “New Right,” much energy and time are spent trolling and trading barbs and punches with the Identity Left. Both sides battle for control of the state (or rather the illusion of control) and savor the ability to punish their enemies. 

The Identity Left now influences the state and its institutions, in particular, educational institutions and the corporate propaganda media. Transnational corporations parrot identity absurdities while media trains modern serfs how to think about class, race, sex, and behavior. 

This has nothing to do with liberation, in fact, it is the opposite—according to the cultural Marxist Identity crowd, all white people are evil and all men are sexual predators, thus the response must be reverse racism, sexism, and mob violence, increasingly encouraged and supported by the state.

Gary Allen hit the nail squarely on the head way back in 1971.  

If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of superrich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.

Same can be said for the Identity movement. It is not a program to emancipate “minority communities at risk,” the “downtrodden,” or end sexist behavior and normalize homosexuality (and pedophilia), but is rather an effort to destroy social norms and impose authoritarian control. This process is much easier when the population is divided along artificial lines and swimming in a cesspool of decadence, perversion, and moral ambiguity. 

The Identity movement is so caught up in its irrational and disruptive ideology it does not realize it is being played. 

The ruling elite has no intention of sharing the wealth or correcting perceived inequalities. It is engineering the ultimate control mechanism. It is paying lip service to the most radical and potentially violent activists—active violence in the case of Antifa—not for the sake of social justice, but the opposite. 

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author

Two Days Before 9/11: The Assassination of the Leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance Ahmad Shah Massoud

September 9th, 2019 by Paul Wolf

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

This article was originally published on Global Research in September 2003.

It happened two days before September 11, 2001, media reports presented these two events: 9/11  and 9/11 as totally unrelated.

***

On September 9, 2001, two days before the cataclysmic attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Ahmad Shah Massoud, commander of the United Front guerrilla opposition to Afghanistan’s Taliban regime, was assassinated in the Afghan town of Khvajeh Baha od Din by two Arab men posing as journalists. Both of the assassins died — one in the attack itself, blown up with his own bomb along with Massoud, and the other, it seems, was shot while trying to escape shortly afterwards.(1)

Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. (2) That seems logical enough. Massoud’s United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud’s murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means — suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud’s death.

Last March [2003], a Belgian court indicted thirteen suspects on charges related to the murder, including the theft and sale of fraudulent passports found on the bodies of the assassins, allegedly linking them, and the assassination generally, to al Qaeda. (3) Yet nothing further has been reported since March, and the news media of the world seem to have forgotten about it.

Poster of Massoud in Kabul, 2013 (Source: CC BY 2.0)

But Massoud’s assassination is important for several reasons. First of all, Ahmad Shah Massoud has [2003] become the national hero of Afghanistan. There are pictures of him everywhere in Kabul and Herat where I visited, at least — on streetcorners, government buildings, and the dashboards of cars. The second anniversary of Massoud’s death was celebrated last week in the national stadium, in a ceremony attended by practically every senior member of the government. (4) Massoud has become an abstract symbol of the defeat of the Taliban, the defeat of the Soviet Union, and of the Afghan “resistance” generally. The French have even commissioned a series of Ahmad Shah Massoud postage stamps. Just before his death, Massoud had made a whirlwind tour of Europe, including Paris, to drum up support for his anti-Taliban campaign.

Image on the right: Ahmad Shah Massoud (right) with Pashtun anti-Taliban leader Abdul Qadir (Afghan leader) (brother of Abdul Haq) (left) in November 2000 (Screenshot from a documentary film about the anti-Taliban resistance made by the Afghan Ariana Films, via Wikimedia Commons)

Notably, the US kept Massoud and his resistance at arm’s length, perhaps because they were receiving weapons from Iran, with logistical aid from Russia and the Central Asian republics. According to a Human Rights Watch report on the regional weapons trade, one Iranian shipment seized in Kyrgyzstan in 1998 contained ammunition for T-55 and T-62 tanks, antitank mines, 122mm towed howitzers and ammunition, 122mm rockets for Grad multiple launch systems, 120mm mortar shells, RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades and small arms ammunition. (5) Although of Russian design, the Human Rights Watch investigators were unable to determine whether the arms and ammunition were manufactured in Russia or somewhere else.

At the time, the Taliban were being supported by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence service (ISI), an instrument of American influence since the campaign against the Soviets in the 1980s. The ISI has often been described as a free-wheeling, rogue agency, yet it has maintained a close relationship with American intelligence and Pakistan has remained a close American ally — before, during and after President Musharraf’s military coup.

Although Massoud had cast his lot with Russia and Iran, he was no stranger to the US State Department. According to United Front veterans I interviewed, (6) Massoud met on several occasions with Robin Rafael, the American Deputy Foreign Minister for the East, between 1996 and 1998. Apparently, Commander Massoud was extremely angry after his final meeting with Rafael, who’d suggested in the meeting that his best option might be to surrender to the Taliban. At the time, Massoud’s forces had retreated into the rugged Panjshir valley, and the Taliban controlled some 95% of Afghanistan. According to the story, Massoud threw his pakul — a distinctive Afghan hat — onto the table and pointed at it, announcing that as long as he controlled a territory that big, he would never surrender. Considered arrogant by his enemies, supporters describe Massoud as an independent Afghan nationalist incapable of taking orders from foreigners. Massoud would never have allowed foreign bases on Afghan soil, according them.

Bob Woodward, in his insider account of White House deliberations following September 11th, writes that on September 13th, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet advised the President and the National Security Council that Massoud’s assassination had severely fractured the United Front, “but with the CIA [paramilitary] teams and tons of money, the Alliance could be brought together into a cohesive fighting force.”

“All right,” the President said. “Let’s go. That’s war. That’s what we’re here to win.” (7)

Tenet was right: by the time the US invaded in October, most of Massoud’s former commanders and allies were on the CIA payroll.

The Shanghai Alliance

The geopolitics of Central Asia did not begin on September 11, 2001. They were set into motion on September 9th, though. As the popular figurehead of the exiled Rabbani government, Massoud was in frequent contact with the heads of foreign states, including, it is claimed, those attending the Shanghai Five meetings. Since the Shanghai alliance has barely been mentioned in the western press, or in any books about Afghanistan or 9/11, some background on this organization is in order.

In April 1996, the Presidents of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan met for the first time in Shanghai, China to address their common concerns over border security, and the threat of Islamic fundamentalists from Afghanistan moving into Central Asia, Russia, and the western Xinjiang region of China. (8) This meeting resulted in the signing of a military agreement addressing border security among the members. (9) One year later, the five heads of state met again, signing another agreement on the mutual reduction of military forces in the border areas. (10) Beginning in 1998, the five countries held annual summit meetings, in an alliance known informally as the “Shanghai Five.” (11)

On June 15, 2001, Uzbekistan joined the group. (12) The the Declaration of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization was signed, (13) committing its members’ security organizations to cooperate to “prevent, expose and halt … three hostile forces … terrorism, separatism and extremism.” (14)

China’s concern with Central Asian “terrorism” originates in the separatist Uighur groups in its western Xinjiang region, who advocate the territory’s independence under the name of East Turkistan. The Uighurs are a muslim group populating the neighboring countries of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan as well. (15) According to Alim Seytoff, president of the Uighur American Association, under Chinese pressure, Kazakhstan, Kirgyzstan and Uzbekistan have been suppressing the Uighur dissidents in their respective countries and sending them back to China. (16) The Xinjiang region also contains China’s biggest untapped reserves of natural gas and oil. (17)

Russia, fighting its own war against Islamic separatists in Chechnya, also has strategic interests in the Central Asian republics. Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have fought Islamic movements within their borders, believed to have been organized abroad. While in power from 1996-2001, the Taliban, with the help of the ISI, set up dozens of jihadi training centers in remote areas of Afghanistan. One such center, run by the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), an organization allegedly engaging in terrorist bombings, and having had clashes with Uzbek security forces, was believed to be training militants from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Xinjiang, China. (18) Afghanistan was also the home of Osama Bin Laden‘s al Qaeda organization, training Arabs from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, and Algeria, (19) seen by Russia as a serious threat to regional stability.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev, Chinese President Jiang Zemin, Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev, and Tajik President Emomali Rahmon, at one time the leaders of the Shanghai Five. (Source: CC BY 4.0)

In June of 2002, the SCO heads of state met again in St. Petersburg, Russia, to sign the Charter for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. (20) They also agreed to establish an anti-terrorism agency in the region. (21) In its meeting last May in Moscow, the SCO decided to set up a permanent secretariat based in Beijing, and locate the anti-terror center in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan. The leaders set January 1, 2004, as the deadline for the SCO to function with a permanent secretariat in Beijing. (22) The SCO’s joint statement also declared that the “war against terrorism should be pursued on the basis of international law” – a clear reference to US military action in Iraq. (23)

The SCO also held meetings last week in Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, announcing that the new anti-terror center, called the SCO Regional Antiterrorism Structure, would be located in Tashkent instead of Bishkek. (24) American policy analysts expect the anti-terror center to function as a joint coordinating center for the SCO and the Commonwealth of Independent States, an association of former Soviet republics formed after the dissolution of the USSR. (25)

This is not the only indication of increased Sino-Russian military cooperation. Earlier this year, Russia and China signed the “Treaty on Good-Neighborly Relations, Friendship and Cooperation,” providing for increased Russian arms sales to China and the training of Chinese officers in Russian military schools. (26) Beginning August 6, 2003 the original Shanghai Five, including China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan held their first joint anti-terror military exercises, called Cooperation 2003, in Kazakhstan and China, (27) involving about 1000 personnel. (28)

Uzbekistan did not participate in the exercises. Uzbekistan was designated by Washington as a “strategic partner” in 1995, (29) and in the spring of this year, signed an agreement with the US providing for the use of military bases and facilities, and the stationing of US troops in Uzbekistan. (30) Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan all hosted US forces during the Afghan war. (31)

It also appears that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization may be expanding soon to include several countries in Southeast Asia. After meeting last month with Wu Bangguo, chairman of the standing committee of the National People’s Congress of China, Philippine Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. announced that the Philippines would be joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, along with Indonesia and Malaysia. Last year, the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia made a separate agreement to exchange intelligence and conduct joint border patrols and training programs. (32) Later, Cambodia and Thailand signed this accord. (33)

The next meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization will be held on September 23rd of this year in Beijing. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Kazakh Prime Minister Daniyal Akhmetov, Kyrgyz Prime Minister Nikolai Tanayev, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, Tajik Prime Minister AkilAkilov and Uzbek Prime Minister Utkur Sultanov are all expected to attend. (34) Chinese news agencies have not confirmed whether Philippine or other Southeast Asian leaders will be invited.

Massoud and the SCO

What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own “war on terrorism” in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.

The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early “Shanghai Five” meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known — the meetings were held behind closed doors — but his attendance speaks for itself.

All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there’s no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden’s organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.

The “Sino-Russian” alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary Mujahideen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all likihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.

*

Notes

1. A detailed account of Massood’s assassination can be found in The Lion’s Grave: Dispatches from Afghanistan, by Jon Lee Anderson.

2. For one example, see “Afghan Leaders Pay Tribute to Guerrilla Leader,” The Washington Post, Sept. 10, 2003.

3. “Major Terror Trial in Belgium,” CNN.com, May 21, 2003.

4. “Afghan Leaders Pay Tribute to Guerrilla Leader,” op cit, Sept. 10, 2003.

5. “Afghanistan: Crisis of Impunity: The Role of Pakistan, Russian and Iran in Fueling the Civil War,” Human Rights Watch, July 2001. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/

6. Interviews with United Front veterans in Kabul, June 2003. The veterans did not hold government jobs or owe allegiance to any Northern Alliance commanders working with the US, or to any regional commanders now in power.

7. Bush at War, by Bob Woodward, 2002, p. 51.

8. “Preventing Another ‘Great Game’ in Central Asia,” Center for Defense Information, January 2001, http://www.cdi.org/asia/fa011201.htm .

9. “Shanghai Cooperation Organization develops steadily,” Xinhua, Sept 4, 2003 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-09/04/content_1063025.htm

10. Id.

11. “U.S. Intervention in Afghanistan: Implications for Central Asia ,” by Robert M. Cutler, Foreign Policy in Focus, November 21, 2001. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/ShanghaiCO.html#p6

12. “`Shanghai Five’ expands to combat Islamic radicals,” by John Daly, Janes Terrorism and Security Monitor, 19 July 2001. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/ShanghaiCO.html#p7

13. Xinhua, op cit, Sept 4, 2003

14. “Bloc Including China, Russia Challenges U.S. in Central Asia: Members Agree to Combat Militant Islamic Groups And Share Intelligence,” by Andrew Higgins, The Wall Street Journal, 06/18/2001. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/ShanghaiCO.html#p8

15. Id.

16. “China’s Report on Xinjiang Region Questioned,” by Stephanie Mann, The Voice of America, 29 May 2003. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/ShanghaiCO.html#p4

17. Janes Terrorism and Security Monitor, op cit, 19 July 2001.

18. “A Shanghai forum with India?” by M.K. Dhar, The Pioneer, July 19, 2000. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/ShanghaiCO.html#p9

19. Id.

20. Xinhua, op cit, Sept 4, 2003

21. Id.

22. “SCO warned about unilateral action,” Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network, 5/29/2003. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/ShanghaiCO.html#p5

23. “Central Asia wary of US’s widening reach. Grouping sees US interests as posing challenges; will boost security and economic cooperation,” by David Hsieh, The Straits Times, June 14, 2003. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/ShanghaiCO.html#p1

24. “Uzbekistan: Foreign Ministers Of Shanghai Cooperation Organization Converge In Tashkent,” by Charles Carlson, Radio Free Europe , Sept. 5, 2003 http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/09/05092003174355.asp

25. Foreign Policy in Focus, op cit, November 21, 2001.

26. Id.

27. “Foreign Observers Attend Chinese War Games for the First Time,” The People’s Daily, August 26, 2003. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200308/26/eng20030826_123063.shtml

28. Xinhua, op cit, Sept 4, 2003

29. Foreign Policy in Focus, op cit, November 21, 2001.

30. Id.

31. The Straits Times, op cit, June 14, 2003.

32. “RP, China to Push Formation of Asian Anti-Terror Alliance,” by Paolo Romero, STAR, September 1, 2003. http://www.newsflash.org/2003/05/hl/hl018695.htm

33. “R.P., China push new pact vs terrorism,” ABS-CBN News, August 31, 2003. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_body.asp?section=National&oid=32145

34. “PMs of SCO to hold second summit,” English Eastday (China) Sept. 11, 2003 http://english.eastday.com/epublish/gb/paper1/1022/class000100004/hwz159535.htm

US Media Propaganda. Drawing “Liberals” and “Leftists” into the CIA’s Orbit. NPR

September 8th, 2019 by Edward Curtin

Back in the 1960s, the CIA official Cord Meyer said the agency needed to “court the compatible left.”  He knew that drawing liberals and leftists into the CIA’s orbit was the key to efficient propaganda.  Right-wing and left-wing collaborators were needed to create a powerful propaganda apparatus that would be capable of hypnotizing audiences into believing the myth of American exceptionalism and its divine right to rule the world.  The CIA therefore secretly worked to influence American and world opinion through the literary and intellectual elites.

Frances Stonor Saunders comprehensively covers this in her 1999 book, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA And The World Of Arts And Letters, and Joel Whitney followed this up in 2016 with Finks: How the CIA Tricked the World’s Best Writers, with particular emphasis on the complicity between the CIA and the famous literary journal, The Paris Review.  By the mid-1970s, as a result of the Church Committee hearings, it seemed as if the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. had been caught in flagrante delicto and disgraced, confessed their sins, and resolved to go and sin no more.  Then in 1977, Carl Bernstein wrote a long piece for Esquire– “The CIA and the Media” – naming names of journalists and media (The New York Times, CBS, etc.) that worked hand-in-glove with the CIA, propagandizing the American people and the rest of the world.  It seemed as if all would be hunky-dory now with the bad boys purged from the American “free” press.  Seemed to the most naïve, that is, by which I mean the vast numbers of people who wanted to re-stick their heads in the sand and believe, as Ronald Reagan’s team of truthtellers would announce, that it was “Morning in America” again with the free press reigning and the neo-conservatives, many of whom had been “converted” from their leftist views, running things in Washington.

So again it is morning in America this September 6, 2019, and the headline from National Public Radio announces the glad tidings that NPR has named a new CEO. His name is John Lansing, and the headline says he is a “veteran media executive.”  We are meant to be reassured.  It goes on to say that Mr. Lansing, 62, is currently the chief executive of the government agency, The U.S. Agency for Global Media, that oversees Voice of America, Radio and Television Marti, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, among others.  We are furthermore reassured by NPR that Lansing “made his mark in his current job with stirring defenses of journalism, free from government interference.”The announcement goes on to say:

Lansing has earned an advanced degree in political agility. At the U.S. Agency for Global Media, Lansing championed a free press even as leaders of many nations move against it.

‘Governments around the world are increasingly cracking down on the free flow of information; silencing dialogue and dissent; and distorting reality,’ Lansing said in a speech he delivered in May to the Media for Democracy Forum. ‘The result, I believe, is a war on truth.’

He continued:

‘Citizens in countries from Russia to China, from Iran to North Korea, have been victimized for decades. But now we’re seeing authoritarian regimes expanding around the globe, with media repression in places like Turkey and Venezuela, Cambodia and Vietnam.’

So we are reassured that the new head of NPR, the chief of all U.S. propaganda, is a champion of a free press.  Perhaps NPR will soon enlighten the American public by interviewing its new head honcho and asking him if he thinks Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, by exposing America’s war crimes, and Edward Snowden, by exposing the U.S. government’s vast electronic surveillance programs of its own citizens, deserve to be jailed and exiled  for doing the job the American mainstream “free press” failed to do. What NPR failed to do. Perhaps they will ask him if he objects to the way his own government “interfered” in the lives of these three courageous people who revealed truths that every citizen of a free country is entitled to. Perhaps they will ask him if the U.S. government’s persecution of these truthtellers is what he means by there being “a war on truth.”  Perhaps they will ask him if he thinks the Obama and Trump administrations have been “distorting reality” and waging a war on truth.

Perhaps not. Of course not.

Don’t laugh, for the joke will be on you if you listen to NPR and its sly appeal to “liberal” sensibilities.  If you are wondering why we have had the Russia-gate hoax and who was responsible (see/hear Russia expert Prof. Stephen Cohen here) and are now involved in a new Cold War and a highly dangerous nuclear confrontation with Russia, read Lansing’s July 10, 2019 testimony before the House Appropriations Sub-Committee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs: “United Sates Efforts to Counter Russian Disinformation and Malign Influence.” 

Here is an excerpt:

USAGM provides consistently accurate and compelling journalism that reflects the values of our society: freedom, openness, democracy, and hope. Our guiding principles—enshrined in law—are to provide a reliable, authoritative, and independent source of news that adheres to the strictest standards of journalism….

Russian Disinformation.  And make no mistake, we are living through a global explosion of disinformation, state propaganda, and lies generated by multiple authoritarian regimes around the world. The weaponization of information we are seeing today is real. The Russian government and other authoritarian regimes engage in far-reaching malign influence campaigns across national boundaries and language barriers. The Kremlin’s propaganda and disinformation machine is being unleashed via new platforms and continues to grow in Russia and internationally. Russia seeks to destroy the very idea of an objective, verifiable set of facts as it attempts to influence opinions about the United States and its allies. It is not an understatement to say that this new form of combat on the information battlefield may be the fight of the 21st century.

Then research the history of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Voice of America, Radio and Television Marti, etc.  You will be reassured that Lansing’s July testimony was his job interview to head National Propaganda Radio.

Then sit back, relax, and tune into NPR’s Morning Edition.  It will be comforting to know that it is “Morning in America” once again.

*

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.

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

You Don’t Need a Weatherman… Junior Bush On the Morning of 9/11

September 8th, 2019 by Philip A Farruggio

Taken from one of Bob Dylan’s songs, Subterranean Homesick Blues, this lyric “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” is fitting for what went down on 9/11/01 in that classroom in Sarasota, Florida.

If you recall, Junior Bush was on a scheduled visit to an elementary school in Sarasota, Florida on the morning of September 11th, 2001. When he arrived at the school, before entering Ms. Daniels’ classroom Junior Bush was told that a plane had crashed into one of the Twin Towers. It is said that he exclaimed “They’d better check that pilot’s license” as he readied to begin his visit. While reading to the children some time after, Bush’s chief of staff Andrew Card whispered in his ear that a 2nd plane had crashed into the other tower. Researcher David Ray Griffin then offers this:

On the one hand, the Secret Service, which has the responsibility for protecting the president from any possible threat to his life, should have assumed, once it was clear that terrorists were going after high-value targets, that the president might have been one of those targets. As one article put it, “Bush’s presence made… the planned reading event a perceived target,” because “the well-publicized event at the school assured Bush’s location that day was no secret.” On the other hand, people observed that the Secret Service had not acted accordingly. The day after 9/11, Canada’s Globe and Mail commented: “For some reason, Secret Service agents did not bustle [Bush] away.”

The background for this comment was explained by Philip Melanson, the author of a book about the Secret Service. “With an unfolding terrorist attack,” Melanson said, “the procedure should have been to get the president to the closest secure location as quickly as possible.” That this indeed would have been standard operating procedure is illustrated by the fact that, as soon as the second strike on the World Trade Center was seen on television, one agent said to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill: “We’re out of here. Can you get everybody ready?”

But this agent’s decision was obviously overridden by some higher-level Secret Service agent, as Bush was allowed not only to remain in the classroom for seven or more minutes, but also to remain at the school for another twenty minutes. He was even allowed to deliver a television address to the nation, thereby letting everyone know that he was still at the school.

This behavior seemed especially reckless in light of reports, issued at the time, that as many as eleven planes had been hijacked. The Secret Service should have feared that one of those planes was bearing down on the school at that very moment. The Secret Service’s behavior, however, suggested that it had no fear that the school would be attacked.

The Secret Service’s failure to hustle Bush away seemed even stranger in light of the reports that Vice President Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and several congressional leaders were quickly taken to safe locations. Should not protecting President Bush have been an even higher priority? As Susan Taylor Martin of the St. Petersburg Times put it on July 4, 2004: “One of the many unanswered questions about that day is why the Secret Service did not immediately hustle Bush to a secure location, as it apparently did with Vice President Dick Cheney.”

How many of you have seen countless films about how the Secret Service reacts when they feel a president is in any way in danger? In the film In the Line of Fire when the president is at an event and a balloon pops, they rush him out like gangbusters!

On September 11th, as David Ray Griffin explained, the whole world knew that Junior Bush was in Sarasota at that school. Yet, even after a 2nd plane crashed into the tower, they let him sit there for at least seven minutes and then for some time after at the school.

Translation: Those in the ‘know’ must have felt that the president was as safe as a could be that morning. Of course, then, in perhaps a PR move, they rushed him onto his plane and took him for a ride all over the country… after they allowed him to be a target at that school.

One needs not to study (as this writer has for over 16 years) all the multitude of inconsistencies and actual facts that those in the 9/11 Truth movement have uncovered. Just this one simple little incident must show anyone with ‘half a brain’ that something was rotten on that Tuesday morning. There is NO way that the highly professional Secret Service would allow what transpired to occur… ever!!

*

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].

Featured image is from ae911truth.org

Papua New Guinea New Leader James Marape’s Ambitious Vision: Make His Country “The Richest Black Christian Nation on Earth”?

September 8th, 2019 by Andrew Korybko

The new Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea (PNG) recently elaborated on his vision to make his country “the richest black Christian nation on earth” through a combination of fairer resource deals with transnational corporations and a renewed focus on the agricultural sector, but the success of his ambitious plans will largely rest on his ability to “balance” between the West and China, as well as making unprecedented progress on the socio-economic development of the mostly tribal hinterland.

***

The new Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea (PNG) only entered office a few months ago after a long-running political scandal led to the resignation of his predecessor but he’s already making waves with his ambitious vision of turning this resource-rich but poverty-stricken island country into “the richest black Christian nation on earth”. James Marape made his Trump-like nationalist proclamation in late July during his visit to Australia, which was his first foreign trip since assuming his position, where he also spoke about his plan of one day “participating with Australia looking after smaller island nations”. He aims to achieve this through a combination of fairer resource deals with transnational corporations and a renewed focus on the agricultural sector, but the success of his vision will largely rest on his ability to “balance” between the West and China, as well as making unprecedented progress on the socio-economic development of the mostly tribal hinterland.

Marape’s predecessor, Peter O’Neill, was regarded as extremely close to China, though he was also at the same time responsible for laying the basis of his successor’s “balancing” act by agreeing to allow the US and Australia to jointly operate a naval base in the northern island of Manus. PNG’s new leader emphasized his more visibly neutral position by recently stating that his country is “friends to all, enemies to none” and that “every businessman and woman is welcome in our country, and the Chinese investors will not receive any special treatment and preference, just like Australian investors will not receive any special favour or treatment.” That’s a very pragmatic approach and one that’s much-needed if he hopes to make good on his bold promise because he can’t do it without cooperating equally with both “sides” of the New Cold War. Australia is a long-standing strategic partner while China is a much more recent one, but investment from both is crucial to Marape’s plans.

PNG’s resource riches have been more of a curse than a blessing over the years after corrupt governments proved themselves incapable of fairly distributing the billions of dollars of wealth that have poured into this comparatively small country of roughly eight million people, but Marape wants to change all of that by using some of that revenue to fund an agricultural revolution that would turn his nation into “the food basket of Asia”. To do that, however, he must first make serious strides in improving the socio-economic situation of the millions of people who still live in tribal societies there where “most fights are still about women and pigs“. Tribal warfare recently intensified after an horrific massacre of women and children in July that observers worry might plunge the mountainous heartland into a renewed round of tribal warfare that could hold the country back from the advances that it so desperately needs to make.

If the security situation stabilizes and the writ of the state finally extends into the interior in a noticeable way unlike the present (where it’s only relevant as far as selling land to transnational corporations and electing figurehead representatives to parliament), then one of the first tasks will be to promote an inclusive national narrative that binds together the country’s disparate tribes, hence Marape’s embrace of race and religion as the foundation for this. Concurrent with that, PNG will need to seamlessly transition the locals from their tribal societies into the global market economy, which explains his emphasis on their traditional industry of agriculture instead of anything much more culturally disruptive like their large-scale employment in urban factories for example. Still, what Marape envisions for his people is a profound paradigmatic shift that will be difficult to pull off without the right resources, prior planning, and political will.

It’s here where the West (mostly Australia in this case) and China can help. PNG is being reconceptualized by American strategists as a pivotal geopolitical battleground in the New Cold War, which is why the US will be jointly operating a naval base with Australia there in the coming future, but it’s also partnered with the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) being spearheaded by the People’s Republic. If Marape successfully “balances” between the West’s “Indo-Pacific” strategy and China’s BRI, then PNP could conceivably reap the benefits of improved market access for his country’s forthcoming agricultural exports from both, as well as more infrastructural investment to help with the tribal interior’s socio-economic development. Should he can manage to do that, then he stands the best chances yet of turning this terribly impoverished country into “the richest black Christian nation on earth”, though it’ll still take a lot of time for Marape to pull off this miracle.

*

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 Eurasia Future.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Papua New Guinea New Leader James Marape’s Ambitious Vision: Make His Country “The Richest Black Christian Nation on Earth”?
  • Tags: ,

Will China Invest in Iran’s Transport and Industrial Infrastructure? There are Reasons to be Skeptical

September 8th, 2019 by Andrew Korybko

Petroleum Economist recently published a report citing an unnamed senior Iranian source who alleged that China will invest $120 billion in the Islamic Republic’s transport and manufacturing infrastructure and even deploy 5,000 security personnel to the country to protect those projects, but there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about those sensationalist claims which will very likely be proven false with time.

***

Alt-Media is celebrating Petroleum Economist’s sensationalist report about China and Iran as a supposedly “game-changing” development in the New Cold War after an unnamed senior Iranian source told the publication that the People’s Republic will invest $120 billion in the Islamic Republic’s transport and manufacturing infrastructure and even deploy 5,000 security personnel to the country. The article conforms to the wishful thinking confirmation bias of its intended audience, hence why it’s being portrayed as a huge deal. If it proves to be true, then that would certainly be the case, but there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about what’s put forth in the article, with the main points to ponder being articulated below:

Sources Aren’t Always Sincere

There aren’t any reasons to doubt that a senior Iranian source really did share some sensationalist claims to Petroleum Economist (as they’d have been utterly irresponsible to have published what they did if they received it from an anonymous email address for example and were unable to verify the source’s identity), but the art of information warfare is such that sometimes actual sources deliberately “leak” false information, which in this case might have been intended to deter an American-“Israeli” strike on the country by making both aggressors wonder whether China would intervene in response in order to protect its future investments.

Look Who Was “Leaked” To

The audience should take a look at who the senior Iranian source decided to “leak” this sensationalist information to — an apolitical energy-centric news site most probably followed only by those interested in that sphere instead of a internationally renowned Alt-Media outlet like RT that would have been a better “transmitter” to the global mainstream –with it most likely being the case that the said source knew that more reputable outlets wouldn’t report on what Petroleum Economist described as “many of the key specifics of [the road map for the China-Iran comprehensive strategic partnership] not released to the public” without verifying.

Compare The Claims With Facts

It’s extremely improbable that China would invest $120 billion in Iranian transport and manufacturing infrastructure and thus double the investment that it’s already made in the Belt & Road Initiative‘s (BRI) flagship project of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (which isn’t even yet fully completed) during the tough economic times provoked by the so-called “trade war“, and it would also be an unprecedented break in Chinese military policy to deploy troops (let alone on that scale) to another country for the purpose of defending BRI investments when its existing strategy is to depend on its partners’ militaries to that end.

Consider The Implications

If those two scandalous details of the report turned out to be true, then they would imply that China inexplicably places a larger importance on future Iranian transport and manufacturing projects than on the ones associated with the $60 billion that it’s already invested in the much closer and populous global pivot state of Pakistan, as well as suggesting that the Iranian military is so incompetent in ensuring security within its own borders that it must rely on 5,000 troops from halfway across Eurasia who have no experience operating in the country in order to protect a slew of future projects there.

Mixing Fact With Fiction

The most effective infowar products mix fact with fiction in order to create an alternative reality that plays to either its target’s wishful thinking fantasies or their worst nightmare scenarios, with it more than likely being the case that the sensationalist claims about China investing $120 billion in Iran’s transport and manufacturing infrastructure and deploying 5,000 troops there will be proven false with time while the less “sexy” details contained in the article about the preferential treatment that the People’s Republic will receive from its partner’s energy industry might actually be true to a large extent.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will China Invest in Iran’s Transport and Industrial Infrastructure? There are Reasons to be Skeptical
  • Tags: ,

Video: US Seeks to Destabilize Southern Syria

September 8th, 2019 by South Front

The US is seeking to reanimate insurgency in southern Syria. According to the pro-militant Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a number of Free Syrian Army commanders that fled Syria in 2018 are now working to form a new militant group, the Army of the South, to attack “Iranian militias” in the region. The allegedly closed U.S. Military Operation Center in Jordan will reportedly support the new group.

Over the past few months, the security situation in southern Syria became more complicated with an increasing number of IED attacks and assassinations aimed against the Syrian Arab Army (SAA).

The SAA uncovered loads of weapons during a search operation in the newly-captured town of al-Lataminah in northern Hama. The discovered weapons included several mortar cannons of different calibers, at least two Grad 122mm rockets, RPG-18 and RPG-26 anti-tank rocket-propelled grenades as well as a RPO-A thermobaric rocket launcher.

Watch video here

Militants of Jaysh al-Izza, a close ally of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, apparently left behind these weapons. The group’s members fled the town last month following a successful attack by the SAA.

On September 5, the Russian Defense Ministry denied recent reports claiming that several Russian service members were killed in a blast near the town of Jurin in northwestern Hama. These false claims were first published by Vedomosti business daily before being picked up by multiple Russian and Syrian media outlets.

Such reports appear to be a part of new propaganda wave aimed against the SAA and Russia. Such propaganda campaigns are often being launched amid important military or diplomatic developments in Syria, and the Middle East in general.

*

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

Support South Front in its endeavors.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: US Seeks to Destabilize Southern Syria

Trump Administration Goes after State Governments for Protecting the Environment. Collision course with California

September 8th, 2019 by Don Anair

The Trump administration has been on a collision course with California, and it appears that collision is imminent. An administrative action to undermine the authority granted to the state by the Clean Air Act to protect its citizens from vehicle pollution appears to be imminent. This illegal attack is not just harmful for the nation’s most populous state—it is an attack on the 13 states and the District of Columbia that follow California’s lead and, ultimately, the entire country. The American auto industry and the American public will be worse off as a result.

California’s laws to reduce pollution from cars and trucks have long been a target of the Trump administration. Along the way various officials have given lip service to a commitment to negotiate with California and the desire to maintain a national program. Yet the administration ended the supposed negotiations despite Congress members from their own party telling them to go back to the negotiating table.  There may be no surer sign that the administration negotiated with CA in bad faith than a deal that California and several automakers agreed to weeks ago. Fed up with an intransigent administration proposing actions that will undermine their businesses, BMW, Ford, Honda and VW agreed to a compromise agreement with California.

So it comes as little surprise that despite opposition from the regulated industry to a roll back and overwhelming public support for more efficient vehicles, the Trump administration is launching a direct attack on California’s long held authority to clean up vehicle pollution.

Trump legal strategy = throwing spaghetti at a wall

Successfully attacking California’s long held legal authority will be no easy task. The Trump administration has struggled to find a compelling argument for why California, and other states that follow it, cannot protect their citizens from vehicle pollution. They’ve come up with every excuse in the book and then some to claim California can’t do what it has done for decades.

They have claimed that California does not have an immediate and pressing need to reduce global warming emissions, when extreme heat, wildfires, drought, and sea level rise prove that California is at the front lines and needs action NOW.

They have claimed that eliminating tailpipe pollution via electrification, a critical step in the state’s fight against poor air quality, is somehow equivalent to setting fuel economy standards (it’s not).

They have claimed, incomprehensibly, that it is not possible to meet the zero-emission vehicle requirements of the state’s standards when manufacturers are both ahead of schedule and promising even more options.

The states will be fighting this in court…and so will we.

State leadership has been critical to protecting the environment, driving innovation in the auto industry, and bringing new clean car technologies to world from catalytic converters to electric vehicles. California’s laboratory for clean air technology and policy innovations has not only led to cleaner air across the US but across the globe. American automakers and technology companies have benefited from this leadership by being at the forefront of global automotive trends.

Fortunately, the Clean Air Act is crystal clear about the unique authority granted to California to be a leader. Unfortunately, this action by the administration will guarantee years of lawsuits and create enormous uncertainty for the industry at a time when the industry is navigating unprecedented technology disruption – from electric drivetrains to self-driving technology.

The states will be fighting this injustice in court, and we will be joining them in that fight—the stakes are too high to let this administration, not just ignore its responsibilities to protect this country, but to run roughshod over the longstanding environmental laws that are meant to protect us from such reckless behavior.

*

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.

Don Anair is research and deputy director of the UCS Clean Vehicles Program, is a vehicle engineer and an expert on diesel pollution, advanced vehicle technologies, and alternative fuels.

Featured image is from UCS

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Administration Goes after State Governments for Protecting the Environment. Collision course with California

What if President Trump Is in “Cognitive Decline”? No, Seriously

September 8th, 2019 by Steve Almond

For the past few days, our president — back at work after a busy August spent golfing and rage tweeting — has been making stuff up about Hurricane Dorian, the deadly storm currently battering the Southeast.

Late-night comedians have been roasting Donald Trump for his lies, including Seth Meyers, who aired a segment this week about Trump’s meteorological ignorance.

The segment is supposed to be funny, obviously. But as I watched Trump repeat the exact same phrase about various “Category 5” storms — sounding each time as if he was uttering this phrase for the first time — I felt a familiar sense of dread.

I remembered the same experience in dealing with my late mother, who struggled with cognitive decline for years before her death.

To be clear: nobody knows for sure if our sitting president is experiencing cognitive decline, which is why so many psychiatrists and mental health experts have called for him to be tested.

What I do know is that if you examine the Trump presidency through the lens of cognitive decline, some of its more bewildering aspects start to make a lot more sense.

Observers — particularly those troubled by the cruelty of his regime — tend to view Trump as lazy, incompetent, demagogic and mendacious. But it seems increasingly possible that the president’s behavior is also a function of his desperate attempts to mask serious cognitive struggles.

Anyone who has dealt with a friend or relative in cognitive decline can tell you that the person in question almost never admits to their struggles. Instead, they go to elaborate lengths to hide their impairment.

Maybe the reason our president is reported to spend up to nine hours per day engaged in “unstructured executive time” isn’t just because he’s lazy. Maybe he’s trying to duck parts of the job he can’t handle. Maybe the reason he doesn’t read anything — including briefings — is because he can’t absorb or retain complex concepts.

Maybe the reason his unscripted speech is so often incoherent and littered with vagaries (relying on placeholder words such as  “thing” and “they”) is because he cannot summon the specific vocabulary he wants to use.

Maybe the reason Trump seeks out friendly media outlets and rallies is because he can only function in venues that feel safe and familiar, where no one will expose his struggles, where he can ramble and repeat the same slogans and stories and still receive applause.

In her own way, my own mother employed similar forms of subterfuge. She sought out familiar environments, and routines. As she struggled to track conversations, her responses became more confused and confusing. And the more cognitive function she lost, the more irritable and defensive she became.

Which brings us back to Trump and his increasingly defensive behavior.

What many of us don’t understand about cognitive struggles is the tremendous shame people feel. Particularly people — like Trump — who are in constant danger of being exposed.

Perhaps the reason he makes such a point of bragging about his big brain and his amazing memory is because he’s racked with doubts about both. Perhaps part of the reason his lies are so frequent and brazen — consider the whopper he told about why he skipped the climate change meeting at the G7 — is because he doesn’t have enough executive function to orchestrate his lies.

I say none of this lightly.

Trump is unfit for office based on his personal corruption, his disloyalty to the Constitution and his documented crimes.

All of these offenses are predicated on the notion that Trump is, in fact, in control of his faculties. But what if he isn’t?

That may sound like a partisan question, but it’s really a medical one. Simply put: a person in cognitive decline — whether Democrat or Republican — shouldn’t control the nuclear codes. We should all agree on that. And you can be sure that if a Democratic president behaved in the ways Trump does, Republicans would be howling for a thorough cognitive evaluation.

But think about this in a more personal way: If a loved one of yours began behaving as Trump does, would you be concerned about them? Would you want them evaluated, just to be sure?

*

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

Steve Almond’s new book, “Bad Stories: What the Hell Just Happened to Our Country,” is now available. He hosts the Dear Sugars podcast with Cheryl Strayed.

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What if President Trump Is in “Cognitive Decline”? No, Seriously
  • Tags:

Boris Johnson Trips: Duvets, Toothbrushes and the House of Lords

September 8th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

In 2017, MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Tory creature trapped in cold storage, suggested that the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union was tantamount to fighting the battles of Agincourt, Waterloo and Trafalgar, a true statement of British strength.  (Much inconsistency there, but let him ride with it.) 

“This is Magna Carta, it’s the Burgesses coming at Parliament, it’s the great reform bill, it’s the bill of rights, it’s Waterloo, it’s Agincourt, it’s Crecy.  We win all of these things.”

Those things are not looking quite so victorious at the moment, stalling and falling as they are.  Prime Minister Boris Johnson, like his predecessor, is finding the House of Commons unruly, incapable of placation.  He has lost every vote so far, failing to get the trigger by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act to propel the country towards a speedy election.  In response to that loss, Johnson appeared at the West Yorkshire Police Headquarters intending to crow about being “strong on crime” in front of a gaggle of police officers.  Before asking the EU for an extension, he would “rather be dead in a ditch.”

He is also finding the House of Lords a tough proposition.  Everyone is talking about ways that Brexit will not happen, rather than how it will happen. In order to effectuate the former, the need to take, again, the begging bowl to Europe to seek an extension past the October 31 date of departure is becoming pressing.

On Wednesday night, reports were filtering through that the House of Lords was determined to stay and debate for as long as it was required on the fate of a backbench bill seeking to block a no-deal Brexit.  Some had even arrived with duvets and toothbrushes, anticipating a lengthy battle in the chamber.  Richard Newby, the Liberal Democrats leader in the Lords, was relieved that it did not come to that.  “I don’t think carrying through 24 or 48 hours as we have been doing in a sort of pathetic attempt to set a new Guinness world record… would do anybody any favours.”

At 1.30 Thursday morning, peers were informed that the bill tabled by Labour’s Hilary Benn would be returned to the lower house the following day by 5pm, scuppering any new attempts at a filibuster.  (Such behaviour is precisely the sort that has gotten the conservative magazine, The Spectator, worried: pack the Lords, it suggests, with leavers, and we would not have this disagreeable nonsense.)  On Monday, the bill will again be voted on in the Commons and, if passed, duly become law with royal assent.

Johnson, through a spokesman, has expressed a desire to reject the bill’s force, requiring him to seek yet another extension on Brexit till January 31 if October’s European Council summit fails to secure a deal or Parliament’s consent for a no deal.  “The PM will not do this. It is clear the only action is to go back to the people and give them the opportunity to decide what they want: Boris to go to Brussels and get a deal, or leave without one on 31 October.”

The debate, the angst, and the anger, is taking place in a sealed vacuum, one that sees Europe and the European Union in the most abstract of terms.  The United Kingdom remains psychically and spiritually estranged from the continent, a point that is also shown by the Remainers: Europe is only relevant as a commissariat to transact with, an assemblage of destinations rather than a set of ties.  Well and good to get a vote to force Boris with his Begging Bowl to front up to the EU, but in the minds of most officials, the deal is done and dusted, on the table awaiting implementation.  The rest is a carnival of despair marked by a parody akin to students who refuse to submit their assessments on time, though a worrying one for those in Brussels who fear that a successful exit might spell the end of the EU compact.

Such conditions breed foolishness, satire, and caricature.  The trivial becomes arresting, compelling and disproportionately significant. A politician’s posture and demeanour –  how that person behaves in the House – exceeds the interests of all others, including the mechanics of one of the most important processes in several generations.  Where expertise on process is required, clownish expounding is preferred.

The delightfully hysterical reaction to Rees-Mogg himself is a case in point.  The leader of the House of Commons has taken to becoming a bit of furniture, spreading out on the front bench, quite literally, the sort of behaviour that would not have been out of place from a Head Boy at a public school.  This horrified conservative grandee Sir Nicholas Soames, former defence minister of the realm, and grandson of Winston Churchill considers that:

“[Rees Mogg] is in serious danger of believing his own shtick.  He is an absolute fraud, he is a living example of what a moderately cut double-breasted suit and a decent tie can do with an ultra-posh voice and a bit of ginger stuck up his arse.”

Even as the ship sinks, it is important to keep up appearances.

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Boris Johnson Trips: Duvets, Toothbrushes and the House of Lords

No-deal Brexit Warnings Report – A ‘Social Catastrophe’ Awaits Us, “A Slow Train of Economic Chaos”

September 8th, 2019 by True Publica

‘Project Fear’ was used to criticise the campaign being run by ‘Britain Stronger in Europe’, supporters of the UK remaining in the European Union. Ironically, it was Boris Johnson who reintroduced the term after the governments’ original use of it to attack the Scottish Independence movement two years earlier. Johnson put forward claims that the pro-EU campaign was guilty of scaremongering, saying that “the agents of Project Fear” were trying to “spook” the British public into voting against British withdrawal from the European Union.

But now, the sheer weight and scale of warnings from the country’s best experts of what will likely happen in a no-deal Brexit have now completely dwarfed any opposite reaction of its impact when Britain loses the equivalent of 70 international trade deals at the stroke of mid-night 31st October. If the warnings are to be believed, the following day will unleash a slow train of chaos that the public is unprepared for. There will be silence as nothing notable happens straight away but as each week rolls into months the unfolding catastrophe will become apparent. Any politician or organisation saying that these warnings are some sort of reverse styled ‘Project Fear’ are conspiracy theorists – because the facts as we are presented with them are not on their side.

In preparation, the government has published over 100 “technical notices” outlining the practical effects of no-deal – from driving licences to drugs. Brexit readiness started at just over £2 billion, was then increased to £4billion, Boris Johnson has added another £2.1 billion and the Chancellor approved another £2billion in the spending review last week. A huge propaganda campaign – the biggest since WW2 to encourage the public to prepare for a chaotic exit has just been launched. No-deal planning is now costing over £8.3bn.

Meanwhile, 3,500 troops plus army reservists are now “held at readiness,” in case martial law is declared if things get nasty. The surveillance agencies are on heightened alert – and security services will be monitoring what they are calling the ‘battle rhythm.’ The supermarket chains and pharma giants were told to stockpile food and medicine.

In analysing online news results, TruePublica found that 53 per cent of Brexit related news is now against a no-deal Brexit, 37 per cent of Brexit news stories were neutral and just 10 per cent were defending Boris Johnson’s Brexit agenda. The government petitions website now has a ratio of 10 to 1 against Brexit with more than 10 million signatures declared in 17 overall petitions.

These are the current no-deal warnings, some may have been updated, but collectively, they paint an alarming overall picture.

Economic chaos

The Confederation of British Industry warns – that a no-deal Brexit is “a tripwire into economic chaos that could harm our country for years to come.”

Over the longer term, the Bank of England originally warned the economy could be 8 per cent smaller by 2035 after a no-deal Brexit than if it stayed in the EU. On 4th Sept, the governor revised down his warnings down to 5.5 per cent due to increased preparedness. He also stated unemployment would double and that inflation would double to 5.5%.

And while the warning is reduced it should not be forgotten that this fall in GDP still represents nearly 90 per cent of the fall experienced in the previous financial crisis triggered in 2008. That recovery was the longest and slowest since the 1930s and to add another one without the usual 10 to 15 years growth cycle normally expected, would devastate household incomes.

In the meantime, the bank’s governor has also warned Brexit will “turn foreign investors off British assets.”

Foreign investment collapse

Figures from the Department for International Trade showed that investment in the UK by overseas firms has collapsed. The number of new projects in the UK fell 14% in just the last 12 month period of 2018-19. In that same time period, there was a 24% fall in the number of jobs created. The same report highlighted that there was an even sharper drop in the number of existing jobs which have been secured by further investment in the UK.

Business investment collapse

The rising threat of no-deal Brexit has set Britain on course for the biggest decline in business investment since the financial crisis, the Confederation of British Industry has warned. And according to the ONS, overall business investment has already fallen for four consecutive quarters last year. That is a double the required timeframe to count as being in a technical recession. The reason – fears over Brexit.

Company bankruptcies

The Bank of England and Treasury warns the UK will be worse off under all Brexit scenarios. But in a no-deal Brexit, the BoE warns that Britain will see a substantial amount of company bankruptcies after suffering a “real economic shock.”

Lost productivity

The Brexit process has cut the productivity of British companies by between 2% and 5% since the 2016 vote to leave the European Union, according to a research paper published by the Bank of England last Friday. However, last week the FT reported a causal link has been established between Brexit and lower investment, which they say has already reached 5 per cent.

Recession

The Office for Budget responsibility (OBR) has warned that a no-deal Brexit would plunge Britain into a recession that would shrink the economy by 2%, push unemployment above 5% and send house prices tumbling by around 10%. All that in the space of just one year. The OBR’s report also shows that even in the most benign version of a no-deal exit there would be a very significant hit to the UK economy, a very significant reduction in tax revenues and a big increase in our national debt – “a recession caused by a no-deal Brexit.”

Lost per capita income

The latest research published by the Centre of Economic Performance has analysed the effects of trading with the EU on WTO terms. It warns that after 10 years this would reduce the UK’s per-capita income by between 3.5% and 8.7% with other credible analyses coming to much the same conclusion. The upper end of this analysis falls into line with the Bank of England’s forecast.

Lost competitiveness

The CBI also warns in no uncertain terms that Brexit will be -“the slow puncture of the UK’s lost competitiveness. Unless and until a new trade deal is forged, the UK would face tariffs on 90% of its total EU goods exports, by value. Our manufactured goods will become less competitive and businesses will be tied up in new red tape. The EU will apply double testing in areas from children’s toys to high-viz jackets. Services providers, from broadcasting to insurance, who account for 80% of the UK economy will be forced to shift operations to Europe to maintain market access.”

Job losses

Unemployment has already risen by 31,000 in the second quarter of this year as business investment and confidence evaporates. The Bank of England predicts a further 34,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2019.

But in a no-deal post-Brexit world the predictions are dire. Overall, the EU is expected to lose around 1.2 million jobs but the UK, inevitably, would suffer the most out of all EU member states with 525,000 job losses, according to a report and study published in Personnel Today. Even the Business Secretary has warned that a no-deal Brexit would lead to the loss of “many thousands” of jobs without saying what that means.

Business relocations

Since Brexit was always a threat to businesses trading inside the EU, many companies have now either warned they are relocating, prepared for it or already moved critical parts of business activity – mainly to Germany, France and The Netherlands. Some the biggest names are; Jaguar LandRover, Airbus, Nissan, Honda, Michelin, Schaeffler, Aviva, Dyson, Panasonic, P&O, Phillips, Rolls Royce, Sony, Toyota, Unilever and Ford.

Financial services asset transfers

The financial services industry warned Brexit would cause a considerable reaction from its trading regime. The result is that they have collectively already moved £1 trillion in financial assets – around 12 per cent of total assets in the UK to Europe. They include – HSBC, Barclays, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, UBS and Lloyds of London.

Stockpiling – No capacity left

The UK Warehousing Association (UKWA) stated “there is no space left” and Peter Ward its CEO has warned that the port of Dover is ‘catastrophically’ unprepared for a no-deal Brexit. Ward has also warned that irrespective of what the government or its agencies have said, there is no such thing as ‘frictionless trade’ after Brexit and that a tiny little detail like ports not having enough plug in points to power temperature-controlled vehicles is a real problem. UKWA is helping to advise UK businesses involved in cross border trade with a total of 300,000 trading partners.

Supermarket chains – Sainsbury’s, Asda and Tesco have warned that an October no-deal exit is “as bad as it gets”. Tesco boss Dave Lewis told the BBC that while it had stockpiled some goods ahead of the original March Brexit deadline, it would be more difficult this time with warehouses because they were already – “full of things getting ready for Christmas so there will be less capacity“.

Inflation

The BoE has warned the government that a disorderly exit from the EU would prompt another fall in the value of the pound, leading to higher prices and a drop in real incomes. The latest estimates from the BoE state that in a no-deal Brexit, inflation will double to 5.5 per cent.

Currency

Image on the right: 6 Sep 2014 00:00 UTC – 5 Sep 2019 04:30 UTC GBP/USD close:1.22378

Since March this year – just six months, Sterling has depreciated 12% against the JPY, 9% against the USD, and nearly 8% against the EUR. In fact, every G10 and major EM currency has gained against GBP over this period. The ‘markets’ are now moving towards no-deal – and the warnings are getting more stern – “sterling appears very vulnerable on two additional and interrelated fronts: economic data developments and central bank stance. On balance, we think there is further room for sterling to depreciate against majors (USD, EUR, JPY and CHF) in the weeks ahead, amid a confluence of negative factors.”

National Health Service

A “no-deal” Brexit will push the NHS “to the brink” as the service prepares for next winter, the BMA warns. In a briefing paper published on 2 September, the association describes how a departure from the European Union without an agreement could have “catastrophic” consequences for doctors, patients, and services at a time when the NHS is already struggling to cope with rising demand. The paper demands that the government urgently answer more than 40 questions on how crashing out of the EU on 31 October will affect crucial areas such as the NHS workforce.

Household incomes and savings

The Resolution Foundation has published warnings about the resilience of households to deal with the coming Brexit recession. To cope with the downturn that followed the financial crisis of 2008, low- and middle-income families drew down on their limited savings and now nearly 60 per cent of this group have nothing put aside. Additionally, the social security safety net cushioned the impact of that recession on lower-income households. For example, for the poorest 10th of the population, the fall in income from employment was more than offset by a boost from the tax and benefit system. That very system has been largely dismantled through Universal Credit and already causing considerable hardship.

The DWP has been asked to publish secret analysis that reveals the impact of different Brexit outcomes on poverty levels, wages and low-income households in the UK. The DWP confirmed that it does hold some of the analysis but that it would not publish any of the findings “as it was not in the public interest to do so”.

Rising inflation puts further pressure on household incomes, especially if unemployment rises as that will cause wages to stagnate.

Farming

The four main farm unions in the UK have written to MPs warning that a no-deal Brexit could have “severe impacts” on farm businesses, the food industry and a “fragile” rural economy.

In addition, the head of the National Farmers’ Union warns that UK farmers would have third-party status and would face high tariffs to sell their goods into Europe. “We’d be priced out of the market,” she said, claiming that the result for UK farmers would be “catastrophic.” “Forty per cent of our lamb goes to Europe, for just one example. We’re not going to suddenly start eating more lamb here. If we don’t have that export market, what happens to it?”

Some experts have predicted that 25% or more of farmers could go out of business in the first year – and although this seems overstretched, academics say government plans to replace farm subsidies after Brexit could mean that up to one in four of England’s least profitable farms could go bankrupt in around a year.

Ireland

A no-deal Brexit will have “an immediate and severe impact on almost all areas of economic activity”, the acting governor of the Central Bank of Ireland has warned. Ireland is expected to lose over 50,000 jobs.

Northern Ireland

The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), has warned a no-deal Brexit could become a motivating factor for extremists in the event of a disorderly exit. The counter-terror chief warns of a year-long upsurge in dissident republican support and violence.

Something like one-quarter of all MI5 none administration based personnel are now concentrated on terror-related activity focused on the NI border.

Scotland

The Scottish First Minister has warned that a “catastrophic” no-deal departure would cost 100,000 jobs in Scotland and “plunge the economy into recession”.

Ruth Davidson’s resignation is evidence that she has given up the fight to save the union and believes it won’t hold. Although she cited family reasons in her decision to leave the job, her distaste for Johnson was no secret. In her role, she was the most influential voice for Scotland remaining a part of the U.K. at a time when support for Scottish independence has risen amid widespread opposition to Brexit. Davidson, who appeared on the 2018 TIME 100, campaigned successfully to keep Scotland inside the United Kingdom during the Scottish independence referendum in 2014.

Even the Financial Times is mourning the loss of the union – its headline was unambiguous – “Brexit has become the enemy of the UK union” and it stresses that the union is done.

Wales

The Welsh government has warned that it could be the worst affected region in the country. Over 60% of Welsh exports went go the EU. “The economic costs will be catastrophic“. Wales is set to lose £7 billion a year by 2034, the equivalent to the annual public spending on hospitals, GP surgeries and other health services in the country. Welsh farmers have threatened to storm parliament as a ‘catastrophic failure‘ of their industry is also expected. Wales is a net beneficiary of EU membership, receiving about £680 million in EU funding each year. There are 14 critical warnings for Wales in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

EU assists member states

The EU has announced it could declare no-deal Brexit a major natural disaster. The move would allow members to draw on emergency fund for floods, fires and earthquakes to reduce the economic impact of reduced economic activity.

As for Ireland – the country that will be most directly affected – the EU has said it will provide a huge cushion against the effects of Brexit. A senior EU diplomat told The Times newspaper that the bloc would “spend whatever was necessary” – a “multi-billion pound aid package” to support Ireland.

Property prices

The expected fall in inward investment and confidence in the property market is expected to see house price falls of around 6 per cent one year after a no-deal Brexit with warnings of a 20 per cent fall in subsequent years. The Office of National Statistics reported recently that London house prices had now fallen 4.4% in May year on year, the largest yearly fall since the 2009 crisis, as investment confidence drains away. This may be good for prospective first-time buyers, but little use if the consequent lending squeeze and increased deposit requirements stall the entire housing market and locks out most FTB’s.

Organised crime and terrorism

One little discussed consequence of no deal are warnings that the UK will immediately lose access to EU databases and other forms of cooperationincluding the European arrest warrant, the Schengen information system and Europol. This will hinder policing and security operations in a world where data is key to solving crime. Nor is it inconceivable, as the head of the National Crime Agency has also warned – that we will witness a rise in organised criminal activity, as gangs seek to profit from this disruption. He has also warned that Brexit itself could also lead to an increase in bribery and corruption as British companies enter into new markets around the world and has now asked the government to triple its funding to cope.

National debt

Source: ukpublicspending.co.uk

A no-deal Brexit would blow a £30 billion annual hole in the public finances as the economy shrinks and tax receipts collapse, driving the national debt above £2 trillion for the first time, the government’s budget watchdog has warned.

In all, a no-deal would add about £30billion a year to government borrowing, the OBR said – or, put another way, £577 million a week. OBR forecasters said their stress test was “by no means a worst-case scenario.”

Questions

In a no-deal post-Brexit world, where so much has subsequently gone wrong, who on earth would want to be a politician, especially a politician that either backed no-deal or didn’t fight against it as the country spirals?

When people die on the streets of Northern Ireland or when violence spills over on to the mainland – who will answer the questions as to why the Good Friday Agreement was abandoned for an ideology?

When the union falls apart, likely to start with Scotland who will answer those questions about why borders are being erected to separate the two countries as a result of an unproven, unworkable theory?

The London (England) riots erupted in 2011 with the loss of five lives, over £200 million in property damage and 3,000 arrests. If worse were to happen, as is expected, who will answer the questions to those people who have suffered losses?

When businesses go bust, assets are liquidated by the banks and hard-working people including some of Britain’s budding entrepreneurs are thrown onto the streets, who will be answerable to their losses?

With household and personal debt now higher than just prior to the 2008 financial crisis – who will pay for the job losses that lead to evictions and repossessions in a country where the housing crisis already sees a homeless person dying on the streets of Britain every 19 hours?

When food banks and charitable services become overwhelmed (already at breaking point) – who will help and protect those most vulnerable to the impending crisis that only last month saw nearly 90,000 British children being sustained on emergency three-day food parcel supplies?

When the NHS is overwhelmed by a perfect storm of people suffering from delays of medical supplies that the NHS itself will be suffering, and be suffering additional critical staff shortages, who will pay the consequences of their misery or worse?

Who would want to be the Northern Ireland secretary, the business secretary, at the home office, in charge of the military, health or housing when all these warnings develop into real-world tragedies? Who would want the job of negotiating trade deals with other countries who understand Britain’s hand is so weak, negotiations will be totally one-sided? Who would want to run a country, where citizens were told by a political elite so detached from society that a no-deal Brexit was somehow affordable when it was never affordable to at least half of the population?

*

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

All images in this article are from TP unless otherwise stated

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on No-deal Brexit Warnings Report – A ‘Social Catastrophe’ Awaits Us, “A Slow Train of Economic Chaos”
  • Tags:

Strangelove Redux: US Experts Propose Having Artificial Intelligence (AI) Control Nuclear Weapons

September 8th, 2019 by Matt Field

Hypersonic missiles, stealthy cruise missiles, and weaponized artificial intelligence have so reduced the amount of time that decision makers in the United States would theoretically have to respond to a nuclear attack that, two military experts say, it’s time for a new US nuclear command, control, and communications system. Their solution? Give artificial intelligence control over the launch button.

In an article in War on the Rocks titled, ominously, “America Needs a ‘Dead Hand,’” US deterrence experts Adam Lowther and Curtis McGiffin propose a nuclear command, control, and communications setup with some eerie similarities to the Soviet system referenced in the title to their piece. The Dead Hand was a semiautomated system developed to launch the Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal under certain conditions, including, particularly, the loss of national leaders who could do so on their own. Given the increasing time pressure Lowther and McGiffin say US nuclear decision makers are under,

“[I]t may be necessary to develop a system based on artificial intelligence, with predetermined response decisions, that detects, decides, and directs strategic forces with such speed that the attack-time compression challenge does not place the United States in an impossible position.”

In case handing over the control of nuclear weapons to HAL 9000 sounds risky, the authors also put forward a few other solutions to the nuclear time-pressure problem: Bolster the United States’ ability to respond to a nuclear attack after the fact, that is, ensure a so-called second-strike capability; adopt a willingness to pre-emptively attack other countries based on warnings that they are preparing to attack the United States; or destabilize the country’s adversaries by fielding nukes near their borders, the idea here being that such a move would bring countries to the arms control negotiating table.

Still, the authors clearly appear to favor an artificial intelligence-based solution.

“Nuclear deterrence creates stability and depends on an adversary’s perception that it cannot destroy the United States with a surprise attack, prevent a guaranteed retaliatory strike, or prevent the United States from effectively commanding and controlling its nuclear forces,” they write. “That perception begins with an assured ability to detect, decide, and direct a second strike. In this area, the balance is shifting away from the United States.”

History is replete with instances in which it seems, in retrospect, that nuclear war could have started were it not for some flesh-and-blood human refusing to begin Armageddon. Perhaps the most famous such hero was Stanislav Petrov, a Soviet lieutenant colonel, who was the officer on duty in charge of the Soviet Union’s missile-launch detection system when it registered five inbound missiles on Sept. 26, 1983. Petrov decided the signal was in error and reported it as a false alarm. It was. Whether an artificial intelligence would have reached the same decision is, at the least, uncertain.

One of the risks of incorporating more artificial intelligence into the nuclear command, control, and communications system involves the phenomenon known as automation bias. Studies have shown that people will trust what an automated system is telling them. In one study, pilots who told researchers that they wouldn’t trust an automated system that reported an engine fire unless there was corroborating evidence nonetheless did just that in simulations. (Furthermore, they told experimenters that there had in fact been corroborating information, when there hadn’t.)

University of Pennsylvania political science professor and Bulletin columnist Michael Horowitz, who researches military innovation, counts automation bias as a strike against building an artificial intelligence-based nuclear command, control, and communications system.

“A risk in a world of automation bias is that the Petrov of the future doesn’t use his judgment,” he says, “or that there is no Petrov.”

The algorithms that power artificial intelligence-systems are usually trained on huge datasets which simply don’t exist when it comes to nuclear weapons launches.

“There have not been nuclear missile attacks, country against country. And so, training an algorithm for early warning means that you’re relying entirely on simulated data,” Horowitz says. “I would say, based on the state-of-the-art in the development of algorithms, that generates some risks.”

Mostly, Horowitz thinks the United States wouldn’t develop an artificial intelligence-based command, control, and communications system because, even if there may be less time to react to an attack in this era than in earlier decades, the government is confident in the military’s second-strike capability.

“As long as you have secure-second strike capabilities, you can probably absorb some of these variations in speed, because you always have the ability to retaliate,” he says.

Lowther and McGiffin point out that a second strike means there’s already been a first strike somewhere.

The "Doomsday Machine" in the movie Dr. Strangelove shares some similarities with a system the Soviet Union actually set up. Photo via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

The “Doomsday Machine” in the movie Dr. Strangelove shares some similarities with a system the Soviet Union actually set up. Photo via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

There is some precedent for the system proposed by the War on the Rocksauthors, who have served in government or in the military in nuclear-weapons-related capacities. In the fictional world of Hollywood, that precedent was established in Stanley Kubrick’s nuclear satire Dr. Strangelove and called the “Doomsday Machine,” which author Eric Schlosser described this way for The New Yorker:

“The device would trigger itself, automatically, if the Soviet Union were attacked with nuclear weapons. It was meant to be the ultimate deterrent, a threat to destroy the world in order to prevent an American nuclear strike. But the failure of the Soviets to tell the United States about the contraption defeats its purpose and, at the end of the film, inadvertently causes a nuclear Armageddon. ‘The whole point of the Doomsday Machine is lost,’ Dr. Strangelove, the President’s science adviser, explains to the Soviet Ambassador, ‘if you keep it a secret!’”

About two decades later, satire became closer to reality with the advent of the Soviet Union’s semiautomated Dead Hand system, formally known as Perimeter. When that system perceived that the Soviet military hierarchy no longer existed and detected signs of a nuclear explosion, three officers deep in a bunker were to launch small command rockets that would fly across the country initiating the launch of all of the Soviet Union’s remaining missiles, in a sort of revenge-from-the-grave move. The system was intended to enhance deterrence. Some reports suggest it is still in place.

The possibility that taking humans out of the loop might lead to an accidental launch and unintended nuclear war is a main element in US Naval War College Prof. Tom Nichols’ harsh characterization of the Dead Hand system in a 2014 article in The National Interest: “Turns out the Soviet high command, in its pathetic and paranoid last years, was just that crazy.”

But Lowther and McGiffin say a hypothetical US system would be different than Dead Hand because “the system itself would determine the response based on its own assessment of the inbound threat.“ That is to say, the US system would be better, because it wouldn’t necessarily wait for a nuclear detonation to launch a US attack.

*

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: A US missile test. Photo via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

The US Economic War on France

September 8th, 2019 by Terje Maloy

“France does not know it, but we are at war with America. Yes, a permanent war, a vital war, an economic war, a war seemingly without dead. Yes, they are very hard the Americans, they are voracious, and they want an undivided power over the world. It’s an unknown war, a permanent war, apparently without death and yet a war to the death.“ François Mitterrand, French president 1981-1995

And moreover, France is clearly losing this war. Officially, the United States and France are allies through the NATO military pact. When they in partnership instigate wars and regime changes around the world, they share the spoils. But when we look at “the hands, not the mouth”, we can plainly see a long term US project to subjugate France as a great power. With the recent French leadership ideologically tied to a dead end neoliberalism, French corporations, some of them once world leaders in their field, are being picked off one by one.

So while France is one of the most ruthless powers in the world against smaller and poorer countries, she has in turn problems when being attacked by a bigger fish.

Lawfare Through the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

In 1977, the United States introduced a law with insidious consequences, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. With the declared best of intentions, to prohibit United States companies from influencing foreign officials with any personal payments or rewards, i.e. bribes, the law has taken on a life of its own. With the clause in the law that the corruption does not require a physical presence in the US, the federal government has used its muscles to claim extraterritorial jurisdiction over all foreign companies doing any of their business transactions with US means; In particular this is the use of the US dollar as a means of trading, in practice used in all international business transactions. The frequency in the use of this law has markedly gone up for each decade since it was introduced.

If one looks at the remarkable list below, it is hard to maintain that this is not part a hostile strategy to subjugate a foreign power:

  • Alstom, ($772 million, more on this incredible story later in the article)
  • Technip (fined $300 million over Brazil, Iraq bribes)
  • Total, ($398 million, 2013)
  • Societe Generale, ($1.3 billion to settle allegations of breaching US unilateral sanctions in 2018)
  • BNP Paribas (fined $ 9 billion in 2014 for failing to comply with the US embargo on Cuba and Iran)
  • Crédit Agricole, ($800 million, 2015)
  • The nuclear power company Areva (tbd, a whopping $24 billion mentioned!)
  • Alcatel ($137 million, 2010)
  • The most recent case under investigation is the European Airbus corporation (investigation still in progress)

In addition we have things such as:

  • Big agricultural losses because of sanctions war with Russia
  • Non-delivery of Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia (full refund to Russia + $2 billion in damages)
  • Huge losses for French car makers, banks, oil companies because of sanctions on Iran 2012
  • Huge losses for French car makers, banks, oil companies because of new sanctions on Iran 2016-

This is by no means a complete list, but in total, more than $40 billion have been extracted in fines from European companies, often French companies (Germany being the other big punching bag), for breaches of unilateral US law or sanctions. Most of these cases have in common that they never happened anywhere near US soil.

The Incredible Alstom Case

In September 2015, after a real political-judicial thriller, the American company General Electric took control over the energy division in the French engineering company Alstom, thus creating one of the worst strategic setbacks in 150 years of French industrial history.

A decade ago, Alstom was one of France’s national champions. It’s boiler division was the world’s leading supplier of turbines for nuclear power plants, and the company was one of the market leaders in services such as in nuclear plant maintenance More than 30% of nuclear power plants operating today use Alstom-made equipment, including the large majority of the ones in France.

Alstom had achieved significant technological advantages over its main competitors, German Siemens or Japanese Hitachi (which later merged with General Electric). Not only the «Arabelle» turbines, which will equip future nuclear power plants using French reactors, but also power plants based on Russian VVR reactor technology, thanks to at a joint venture with Rosatom. These turbines are essential to enable France to continue to be able to offer comprehensive nuclear power plant deals based on French technology for export, without having to ask for Washington’s approval.

In December 2014, the French company is notified by the US Department of Justice to pay a record fine of 772 million dollars for corruption charges in Asia. At the same time as this judicial process, Alstom is bought by the American corporation General Electric, winning over the German competitor Siemens (also convicted for corruption by US courts just before, but that is a different story).

In the United States, the fusion between big companies and the state goes deeper than in most countries. Corporate profits and the government’s pursuit of dominance over all rival powers are seen as two sides of the same coin. For example, the US government injected $139 billion into General Electric in 2008 to save the company from the subprime crisis. And when the company later set eyes on Alstom’s boiler division, the long reach of the US justice system was used to further both corporate and strategic aims.

Frederic Pierucci’s Story

Until 2013, Frederic Pierucci was an executive officer at Alstom. After finally being released from jail in September 2018, he is now telling his incredible story (Figaro interview) in the book «The American trap» (English edition Nov. 2019).

On April 14, 2013 he was arrested by the FBI when he arrived in New York, by order of the US Department of Justice: “I was stopped when I arrived at JFK in April 2013, before they passed chains around my feet and hands, like a prisoner of organized crime.”

The prosecutor’s office informs him that Alstom has been under investigation for three years for violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (FCPA), that the company so far hasn’t cooperated and that they now have lost patience.

As soon as I refuse to be a mole for the American justice system, they refuse my release the next day. A release on bail that had been granted to Bernard Madoff or OJ Simpson … It’s pure intimidation: a magistrate refuses my release on bail, the marshals put chains around my hands and feet and transfer me in an armored van to one of the worst US high security prisons, Wyatt in Rhodes Island.

Why him? Pierucci explains:

“I get arrested because I am close to Patrick Kron, CEO of Alstom. But above all for another reason: I had been appointed to lead the boiler division of Alstom and the public strategy was to create a 50/50 joint venture by marrying the division I headed with that of our great Chinese competitor Shanghai Electric. And as the boss of the Alstom Boiler Division, I led the transfer of our headquarters to Singapore and was appointed to lead the future alliance. But this rapprochement with the Chinese did not at all please our great American competitor General Electric who had coveted Alstom for ages…

In August 2012, I arrive in Singapore; in November 2012 I am indicted, without my knowing it. Because the DOJ was afraid that if I knew of my indictment, I would take refuge in France and escape them. So they waited until I arrived in the United States, and I fell into the mouth of the wolf on April 14, 2013.”

Pierucci is abandoned by his own bosses and colleagues, who try to save their own skin.

“But from the moment I’m arrested and imprisoned, [Alstom CEO] Patrick Kron understands that he must cooperate, because he is next on the list and he too risks ending up in US high security jails next to psychopaths and other hit men. Therefore, from a status of non-cooperation with the US Department of Justice, it has moved to a status of full cooperation with this same department….Patrick Kron understands that the only solution for him to get by is simple: sell Alstom to General Electric. And he made contact with them via his loyal lieutenant, Gregoire Poux-Guillaume, in the summer of 2013.

It was only after a year in prison that Pierucci realized that his continued incarceration was related to this acquisition, when it was on TV that GE planned to buy Alstom, and that DOJ has no intention of letting him go. He is used as a means to keep up the pressure on the Alstom leadership.

Then, on December 19, 2014, a shareholders’ meeting was held in Paris: the shareholders voted to sell Alstom to General Electric, on the recommendation of the board. On both sides of the Atlantic, everything is synchronized. The DOJ’s deal with Alstom is signed the same day the shareholders approve the sale of 70% of Alstom to General Electric. General Electric, the US company, bought the energy division of the French corporation for 12.35 billion Euros (8.35 billion Euros after tax deductions). Interestingly, at the at the time the offer was made, the amount of the fine was still unknown, since it would not be revealed until six months later, at the end of December. Pierucci points out:But what boss can get his board to sign such a blank check without knowing the amount of the fine, which could vary several hundred million? [the press talks of up to $1.5 billion] To know even an estimate, one had of course to participate in negotiations between Alstom and the DOJ. Despite this, Jeffrey Immelt, the boss of General Electric says that he will pay …

For the next few years, Pierucci goes in and out of jail. Notably he is stuck incommunicado there in 2017 even though he is eligible to be transferred and serve the last part of the sentence in France. He meets all the criteria, but the DOJ refuses the transfer. Because at the same time, a parliamentary commission of inquiry on the acquisition of Alstom by General Electric opens in Paris and the DOJ did not wish to see me questioned by our deputies.

Pierucci is devastating in his judgement:

The dismantling of the Alstom group with the complicity of the French state and some high political leaders at the time who, instead of preserving this industrial jewel from General Electric’s predation, preferred to give in to American pressure by selling one of the pillars of our energy independence that France had taken half a century to build and which was the envy of many of our foreign competitors.

The Leadership Is Well Rewarded for the Magically Disappearing Sovereignty

What was the role of Emmanuel Macron – appointed minister of finance in August 2014 – in the sale? It is worth remembering that Macron was chosen a ‘Young Leader’ in 2012 by the French-American Foundation, four years before he became president. The Young Leader program has as its stated purpose togroom foster “a strong network of transatlantic leaders… The program takes small groups of carefully selected up-and-coming leaders in government, business, media, military, culture, and civil society” […] we see the ‘magic’ in the connections that are formed.”  While Macron realized what was going on with Alstom, having stated: “On a personal note, I was myself convinced of the causal link between this investigation and the decision of Mr. Kron, but we have no evidence …” he also said, when he worked as presidential advisor in 2014 that “it is not legitimate that we intervene, we are not in a controlled economy, we are not in Venezuela”.

Alstom CEO Patrick Kron left the company with a bonus of 4 million Euros and a retirement cap of 10 million Euros, and is now head of the private equity fund “Truffle Capital”. Despite pleading guilty in December 2014 to having paid 75 million dollars in bribes, no investigation has been opened against him in France. Kron denies he ever was pressured.

Another central actor in this intrigue, Hugh Bailey, was Emmanuel Macron’s industrial affairs advisor when he oversaw the sale of Alstom’s Energy business to General Electric. He was appointed general manager of General Electric France on April 22, 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.

This article was originally published on Midt i fleisen.

Terje Maloy is a Norwegian/Australian blogger and translator. This article is Creative Commons 4.0 for non-commercial purposes. 

All images in this article are from the author

Venezuelan Usurper Guaido to be Charged with High Treason?

September 8th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Nicolas Maduro is Venezuela’s democratically elected and reelected president — an indisputable hard truth Trump regime hardliners want erased. The Bolivarian Republic’s electoral process is “the best in the world,” Jimmy Carter earlier explained.

It’s scrupulously open, free and fair, affirmed by independent monitors every time elections are held — polar opposite the money controlled US system. One party with two right wings wins every time, what political dirty business as usual is all about — fake democracy, never the real thing, a notion the US ruling class abhors.

If voting changed anything in the US it would be banned. The nation’s founders created a system to be run exclusively of, by, and for its “rich, well-born and able,” John Adams explained.

Alexis de Tocqueville was wrong. Hypocrisy, not democracy, defines how America is governed – an increasingly totalitarian plutocracy, oligarchy and kleptocracy.

Rule of the people always meant its privileged class. The Constitution’s general welfare clause (Article I, section 8) applies to them exclusively — at the expense of most others.

Democracy in America is fake, elections farcical when held. The world’s richest nation doesn’t give a hoot about its ordinary people, exploiting them for profit.

The supreme law of the land deters no US president or sitting government from doing whatever they please, inventing reasons as justification. Ordinary people have no say over how the country is run — for powerful interests at their expense.

Venezuelans have the real thing — democracy the way it should be, a model for other nations to emulate. It’s why dark US forces want it eliminated, plotting for tyrannical pro-Western puppet rule to replace it.

Guaido is the latest in a long line of US-designated puppets, a usurper in waiting if Trump regime hardliners prevail over Bolivarian equity and justice.

Most Venezuelan resources are used for social benefits — a system Republicans and undemocratic Dems want eliminated.

Planned long in advance by his US handlers, Guaido, a political nobody artificially elevated to prominence illegally, self-declared himself interim Venezuelan president last January.

Nothing in Venezuela’s Constitution permits it. Article 233 was illegally used, stating the following:

“The President of the Republic shall become permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the approval of the National Assembly; abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote.”

“When an elected President becomes permanently unavailable to serve prior to his inauguration, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. Pending election and inauguration of the new President, the President of the National Assembly shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic.”

Nothing stated above applies to Maduro, his legitimacy as Venezuela’s president affirmed judicially. The Trump regime’s attempt to replace him constitutes a flagrant breach of international and US constitutional law.

No nation may legally interfere in the internal affairs of others, how the US operates worldwide, seeking control over other countries, their resources and populations — what the scourge of imperialism is all about.

Most world community nations reject Guaido’s illegal power grab, his coup attempt supported by right-wing Latin American and European regimes, as well as several others — pressured, bullied, and/or bribed to go along with the flagrant breach of international and Venezuelan constitutional law.

Over eight months since Guaido’s unlawful self-declaration, Maduro remains Venezuela’s legitimately elected president.

Until now, his government failed to hold Guaido accountable for sedition and treason, the highest of high crimes against the state.

On Friday, Venezuelan Attorney General Tarek Saab said the following:

“We have initiated an investigation (into) an illegal negotiation behind the country’s back (by Guaido) that intends to withdraw the historical claim our country has on the territory of Essequibo. The facts imply a crime of treason.”

Preceding his remarks, Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez accused Guaido of being part of a “criminal organization” — aiming to hand Bolivarian territory and resources to foreign corporations, including ExxonMobil.

In April, Guaido’s parliamentary immunity was lifted. He faces various charges, including “usurping the functions of the president.”

On Thursday, Maduro asked prosecutors to charge him with treason, urging “(t)he Public Ministry and the Attorney General’s Office have to act expeditiously because pretending to deliver the Essequibo is a crime of treason to the Fatherland.”

Maduro urged Venezuelans to defend the nation’s “legitimate and non-renounceable” territorial rights over the Essequibo region.

Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino defended his country’s claim to the territory, saying:

“The Sun of Venezuela is born in the Essequibo.”

The territory is located in southeastern Venezuela. It’s rich in oil and other natural resources. It links the Caribbean Sea with the Orinoco River.

Venezuelan authorities have audio recordings between illegitimate Guaido envoy to Britain Vanessa Neumann and his “outside advisor” Manuel Avendano to “deliver the Essequibo” to ExxonMobil and other corporate interests, Rodriguez saying:

“The criminal organization headed by Juan Guaido had initiated concrete actions to illegally appropriate Venezuela’s assets, financial resources, Venezuelan gold, Venezuelan debt, to enrich themselves and to serve transnational interests.”

It’s Venezuelan territory. In 1899, a US/UK grand theft scheme handed it to Guyana.

In 1966, weeks before country became independent from Britain, the Treaty of Geneva stipulated that Venezuela, the UK, and then-British Guiana would resolve Venezuela’s claim that the “Arbitral Award of 1899 about the frontier between British Guyana and Venezuela is null and void.”

What’s likely next? Will Guaido be formally charged with treason, arrested, jailed and prosecuted?

He was guilty of the highest of high political crimes against the state by illegally self-declaring himself interim president in January — attempting to illegally usurp power in cahoots with the Trump regime.

Accountability for his criminal actions is long overdue!

*

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.

Could Brexit Leave the UK Vulnerable to Pressure from U.S. Hawks? Titanic Shift in Global Alliances

September 8th, 2019 by Barbara Boland

By unyoking London from Europe, a no deal Brexit would unleash a titanic shift in global alliances that could strengthen Washington’s hand and help it achieve its “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran.

That’s an ironic turn of events for populists in the United Kingdom, who support Brexit because it will allow the British people to determine their own fate.

But for some in Washington, Brexit represents a golden opportunity to negotiate with a United Kingdom unencumbered by Europe. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo admitted as much when he was asked whether our relationship with the UK will be strengthened by Brexit.

“I think it’s the case,” Pompeo said Thursday on the Hugh Hewitt Show. “We’ll have a clear line with [the UK]. We won’t have the EU as a middleman that has put constraints on our capacity to do lots of good things across not only the economic sector but the security sector and the diplomatic sector as well.  … I’m confident that that very special relationship will continue to grow.”

Note that Pompeo specifically mentioned “the security sector” when listing how Brexit will help the U.S. That’s of particular importance now because the Trump administration has been pressuring European nations to back its withdrawal from the Iran deal and reimpose sanctions on Iran. So far, they have been reluctant to do so.

In recent months, the U.S. has claimed that Iran was responsible for attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz and the downing of an American surveillance drone. At Washington’s urging, the British Royal Navy seized an Iranian oil tanker entering the Mediterranean. The U.S. then unsuccessfully maneuvered to prevent the UK from releasing the vessel.

After the government of then-prime minister Theresa May missed two deadlines to negotiate an exit deal with the EU, Prime Minister Boris Johnson was elected on a promise that he would finally deliver on the June 2016 referendum and withdraw the UK from the European Union, deal or no deal.

Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament last Wednesday makes the current Brexit deadline of October 31 look inevitable, because he has effectively reduced his opponents’ ability to reverse the referendum via legislation by running out the clock.

Brexiteers have long argued that London will have far greater freedom to negotiate its own trade pacts after it leaves the 28-nation European Union. But they may be in for a surprise: if Britain leaves the EU without a deal, it will likely find itself more susceptible to American leverage.

That’s because, without an agreement, the UK will need to quickly secure a trade deal with the U.S. That deal is likely to come with strings attached—Washington may request that Britain take a harder line against Iran, or cooperates with efforts to squeeze Chinese telecom giant Huawei, which the U.S. deems a national security risk.

While it’s still unclear how Johnson will navigate foreign policy, there are early indications that London will toe Washington’s line.

In early August, Johnson’s government agreed to join the U.S. in Operation Sentinel, a mission that’s supposed to provide freedom of navigation for commercial shipping and “deter provocations” in the Strait of Hormuz, according to U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.

“The UK is determined to ensure her shipping is protected from unlawful threats and for that reason we have today joined the new maritime security mission in the Gulf,” British Defense Minister Ben Wallace told reporters.

“The mission will see the Royal Navy working alongside the U.S. Navy to accompany merchant vessels through the Strait of Hormuz,” the British government claimed in a statement, adding that British forces will play a “leading role” in the operation.

The UK also called for other governments to cooperate, labeling it a “truly international problem.” In a sign that may presage trouble, the mission is already being “rebranded” in the hopes of encouraging more participation. So far, only Australia and Bahrain have joined in support.

The possibility that Brexit will force London will give in to Washington on foreign policy is being seriously considered by multiple European diplomats, British politicians, and foreign policy experts at the core of Brexit and Iran policymaking.

Undoubtedly aware of how Brexit will increase Washington’s leverage, notorious Iran war hawk and Trump national security advisor John Bolton voiced the administration’s full-throated support of even a no-deal Brexit, adding that “we are prepared to proceed as rapidly as the Brits are.”

While Parliament is recessed, there is a small window wherein Johnson’s government could assist in deescalating tensions with Iran. The UK could attempt to convince the Islamic Republic not to drastically exceed their agreed-upon uranium enrichment levels. That’s what France and Germany are urging.

But if there’s an irreparable break in talks with the EU, it’s much more likely that Britain will find herself even more deeply wedded to the “special relationship” with the United States—with all that entails for foreign policy.

*

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.

Barbara Boland is The American Conservative’s foreign policy and national security reporter. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC.

Featured image is from TruePublica

Devastation of Bee Colonies in America: Trump’s EPA Said this Bee-killing Insecticide Is Safe, Now Beekeepers Are Suing

September 8th, 2019 by Earth Justice

Today, beekeepers, represented by Earthjustice, sued Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for allowing sulfoxaflor, a bee-killing pesticide linked to a nation-wide honeybee die-off, back on the market. The lawsuit comes as beekeepers around the country lost over 40 percent of their colonies this last year.

Touted as a “next generation neonicotinoid,” sulfoxaflor is like other bee-killing neonicotinoid insecticides: it is systemic, meaning it is absorbed into the growing plant, making it toxic to insects for many days thereafter. When foraging honeybees bring back to the hive pollen and nectar tainted with sulfoxaflor, the effect on the entire colony can be catastrophic.

“Honeybees and other pollinators are dying in droves because of insecticides like sulfoxaflor, yet the Trump administration removes restriction just to please the chemical industry,” said Greg Loarie, Earthjustice attorney. “This is illegal and an affront to our food system, economy, and environment.”

EPA first approved sulfoxaflor in 2013, but thanks to a lawsuit brought by Pollinator Stewardship Council, the American Beekeeper Federation, and Earthjustice, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision. The Court ruled EPA failed to obtain reliable studies regarding the impact of sulfoxaflor on honeybee colonies.

In 2016, EPA re-approved sulfoxaflor subject to significant restrictions to reduce the risk to honeybees and other pollinators. On July 12, 2019, without any public notice, the Trump administration removed these restrictions on sulfoxaflor and approved a host of new uses for the bee-killing insecticide.

“It is inappropriate for EPA to solely rely on industry studies to justify bringing sulfoxaflor back into our farm fields,” said Michele Colopy of Pollinator Stewardship Council. “Die-offs of tens of thousands of bee colonies continue to occur and sulfoxaflor plays a huge role in this problem. EPA is harming not just the beekeepers, their livelihood, and bees, but the nation’s food system.”

Pollinators’ ecological service in the country is valued at $200 billion every year, according to government data, and more than 80 percent of plants worldwide need pollinators to survive.

Sulfoxaflor is produced by Corteva formerly Dow AgroSciences. Sulfoxaflor can kill adult bees at low doses, and when brought back to the hive it can impair the colony’s ability to breed, forage, fight disease and survive the winter, scientists say.

Earthjustice is representing beekeeper Jeff Anderson, the Pollinator Stewardship Council, and the American Beekeeper Federation.

Read the legal document.

*

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 CHRIS JORDAN-BLOCH / EARTHJUSTICE

Financial Warfare: Mastercard Blocks Two Venezuelan Banks as Inflation Rises

September 8th, 2019 by Ricardo Vaz

US-based financial services company Mastercard has cut service to two Venezuelan banks sanctioned by the Donald Trump administration.

Effective this past Wednesday, clients of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces Bank (BANFANB) and the Agricultural Bank of Venezuela have been cut off from Mastercard’s international payment platform.

The move comes just weeks after a US executive order freezing Venezuelan government assets in the United States and prohibiting all dealings with the Venezuelan state and its associated entities. The decree authorizes Mastercard, Visa, and other financial service firms to continue activities in Venezuela until March 22, 2020. Mastercard has yet to issue a public statement regarding its unilateral decision.

For its part, BANFANB issued a statement Wednesday accusing Mastercard of committing a “flagrant violation of our clients’ human rights.”

The state bank further announced that as of Wednesday evening it had succeeded in reconnecting its credit cards to 60 percent of the Venezuelan banking system.

The Agricultural Bank of Venezuela has yet to issue a public statement.

Earlier this year, the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) likewise sanctioned Venezuela’s Central Bank and three other state banks.

In response to Mastercard’s pull-out, Venezuela’s National Superintendence of Banks held meetings Wednesday with banking and financial service representatives to discuss progress in building an independent financial infrastructure. Several payment platforms are under development, including the Suiche Nacional and the C2P, while a biometric payment system is currently in a trial period.

Mastercard’s decision came on the heels of a Chinese oil contractor halting expansion work in Sinovensa, a joint venture between Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA and its Chinese counterpart, China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC). China Huanqiu Contracting and Engineering Corporation, an affiliate of the CNPC, reportedly notified Sinovensa it was suspending work from September 3, citing US $52 million in unpaid invoices.

Sinovensa had recently announced plans to expand a crude blending facility by 57 percent, to a total output of 165,000 barrels per day (bpd). The joint venture is located in Venezuela’s Orinoco Oil Belt. At the time of writing there has been no official confirmation from PDVSA or the CNPC.

Venezuela’s oil industry has seen output decline sharply in recent months as a result of corruption, brain drain, a lack of maintenance and mismanagement, and especially US sanctions.

An oil embargo imposed in late January blocked all imports of Venezuelan oil by US refineries, leading output to fall by over a third in February and March. The embargo was expanded in August to all sectors of the Venezuelan economy, with the US Treasury also threatening secondary sanctions against foreign companies that trade with Caracas.

The latest measures have resulted in the CNPC cancelling three oil shipments in August, reportedly worth around 5 million barrels. A joint venture involving US oil giant Chevron is likewise in danger, with a sanctions waiver due to expire in October.

The fallout from the latest sanctions coincided with a report from the opposition-controlled National Assembly that monthly inflation was 65.2 percent in August.

According to the legislative body’s finance commission, inflation crept back above the 50 percent hyperinflation threshold for the first time since February. The country had previously suffered 16 consecutive months of hyperinflation. The Venezuelan Central Bank released figures in May after a three-year hiatus, likewise dating the end of hyperinflation in March, but no further statistics have been released since.

August’s price rises came alongside an over 100 percent devaluation of the bolivar, both in the black market and the official exchange rate. The Venezuelan Central Bank lifted foreign exchange controls in May, allowing banks to set up “exchange tables,” but the measure has not deterred the continued devaluation of the official currency.

The liberalization of exchange controls, alongside a constriction of the quantity of bolivars in circulation, have been credited for the slowdown of inflation in the first half of 2019. However, some economists have warned that the measures have led to a contraction of demand, resulting in longer-term stagnation.

*

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.

Ricardo Vaz reporting from Lisbon and Lucas Koerner from Venezuela.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Financial Warfare: Mastercard Blocks Two Venezuelan Banks as Inflation Rises
  • Tags: ,

The Courage of Saying No: Children, Rebellion and Greta Thunberg

September 8th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

There is something to be said of wariness when it comes to revolutionary voices.  As Albert Camus argued in that beautiful tract of illumination and contradiction, The Rebel, “All modern revolutions have ended in the reinforcement of the power of the state.” But he also argued that humankind were the only creatures refusing to be what they are, a permanent self-deluding bunch bound to cause various neuroses.  The true rebel, then, is the one who says no, and can maintain credibility even as he risks becoming an ideologue, another dogmatist.

When children find themselves in the saddle, things get a bit more complicated.  Hypocrisy and power are seemingly adult games: the supposedly innocent child is discouraged from expressing views and opinions.  When they do, the accusation of hijacking, innocence gone wrong, and manipulation, is bound to be made: behind the child lies an adult Svengali, or at least something approximating to him.

The seventeen-year old Greta Thunberg has found herself plonked into the saddle of historical protest, making the case that any response undertaken thus far to deal with climate change has been woefully inadequate.  It began in Sweden last year when, as a schoolgirl, she began protesting outside the parliament in Stockholm, claiming that her country’s climate change laws hardly amounted to “a green paradise”.  This spawned a global children’s protest movement.

Her dissatisfaction struck a high note in her address to those gathered at the COP24 gathering at Katowice in December 2018.

“You only speak of green eternal economic growth because you are too scared of being unpopular.  You only talk about moving forward with the same bad ideas that got us into this mess, even when the only sensible thing to do is to pull the emergency brake.  You are not mature enough to tell it like it is.”

The maturity of saying no; the maturity of admitting to an environmental degradation so profound as to be existential.

The response to Thunberg has, in some quarters, been regrettably dreamy and praiseworthy, ignoring the more strident feature of the message.  Radical, even species defying alterations are needed; the brake to be applied with conviction.

Fine to protest; fine to make waves; but structural change of an unprecedented order is required.  For Camus’s rebel, the danger here is that is a theorem, or idea, may end up needing the police to enforce it.  To date, the authoritarian element is lacking in the enforcement mechanisms in the climate change structure: states have been left to their own devices in cutting emissions.

Then comes the argument, one straight out of the Cold War manual, that the young Swede is a front and a product of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex, manufactured on the assembly line of engineered protest.  For the Japanese-born sculptor Hiroyuki Hamada, the NPIC targets “those who were not given skills and knowledge to truly think for themselves which are designed to serve the ruling class.”  Hamada is suggesting a vicious circle: the children are caged by the system that demands its own set of rules to be abided by; they are rendered ignorant, lobotomised.  Can we, then, trust them, and by implication such movements as Thunberg’s Friday for Future?

Hamada’s bleak circularity is similarly found in such views as Christopher Caldwell, senior editor at The Weekly Standard and contributor to such market friendly outlets as the Financial Times.  Her approach, suggested Caldwell, was distinctly “at odds with democracy.”  Those of Thunberg’s age “have not seen much of life. Her world view might be unrealistic, her priorities out of balance.” The shabby tactic here is typical: leave it to the experienced ones who made the mess to begin with.  They know better.

The political reactions have also varied in temper, veering between praise and scorn.  On a visit to France in July to address the French National Assembly, Thunberg bore the brunt of various, less than sympathetic viewpoints of National Rally (RN) MPs and various Republicans (LR).  MEP Jordan Bardella of RN was scolding of Thunberg’s gloominess, effectively denying her any necessary agency.  Children were not be used to “exhibit a fatalism to try to explain to all people that the world is finished, that everything is going to catch fire and that nothing is possible.”

Republicans MP Guillaume Larrivé demanded a boycott of Thunberg’s speech, claiming that an intelligent battle was needed against global warming, one helped by scientific progress and political courage, not “apocalyptic gurus”.   Colleague Julien Aubert also chipped in.  “Don’t count on me to applaud a prophetess in shorts, a Nobel Prize for Fear.”  The planet, yes; green business, no.

Thunberg’s response?

“This is just hilarious.  I have never once met a climate activist who was in this for money.”

Playing on the matter of youth in her address, she managed a few keen blows of her own.

“Some people have chosen not to come here today, some have chosen not to listen to us.  And that is fine.  We are, after all, just children.”

In Canada, similarly bilious reactions have followed.  People’s Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier gave Thunberg the warmest of greetings with mighty claims that she was “mentally unstable”, “autistic”, “obsessive-compulsive”, suffering eating disorders, depression and lethargy.  The fuming protests that followed encouraged him to qualify his remarks, calling Thunberg a “brave young woman who has been able to overcome her problems and deserves our admiration for that.”  Look, instead, to the people behind Thunberg.

“I wanted to show that the choice of influential groups and the media to make her a spokesperson for climate alarmism is not innocent.”

Very little is ever mentioned that Thunberg is perfectly entitled to express her views, however they might grate with the sages, technocrats and the elected.  The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was a document that went some way to lifting children out of legal oblivion.  Behold, then, such sections as Article 13, which grants the child “the right to freedom of expression” which covers the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information an ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any media of the child’s choice.”  The usual caveats are tagged on the end, limiting the right in instances of reputation, protection of national security, public order, public health or morals.

The danger for Thunberg is that for any figure of mass appeal: the fatal nature of trendiness and the brief spell of a fashion.  For all her self-commanding purity, she risks becoming the decent face of an establishment keen to assimilate her, giving her an ecological sexing up.

Temptations are being thrown her way.  This month, it was announced that she was a winner at the GQ awards in London, sharing top billing with David Beckham, Iggy Pop, Nicole Kidman and Kylie Minogue. The award for Thunberg was given the title appropriate to such events: the Game Changer Award.  Becoming the decent face of environmental protest is the last thing she should want; best be obscene and heard.

While it is all fine for preachy politicians or mainstream newspaper contributors to hector students who walk out of class for being unconscientious, take issue with times of protest (by all means protest, but do so outside school hours), and lecture them for lacking experience, it is also not a fitting statement about the state of affairs that led to such angst.   The world may be entering its penultimate phase, at least in a climatic sense, but that hardly bothers the short-term parliament where the vested, constipated interest precedes the universal, bleak message.  By all means be critical of Thunberg and appreciate the limitations of the rebel.  She, at least, has the courage to say no.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

Portents of 21st Century Global Warming

September 7th, 2019 by Dr. Andrew Glikson

Global Research has decided to publish different perspectives and competing viewpoints regarding Climate Change, with a view to promoting debate and critical analysis.

***

“We will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization as we know it”…

“Now we probably don’t even have a future anymore, because that future was sold so that a small number of people could make unimaginable amounts of money. It was stolen from us every time you said that the sky was the limit, and that you only live once. You lied to us. You gave us false hope. You told us that the future was something to look forward to. And the saddest thing is that most children are not even aware of the fate that awaits us. We will not understand it until it’s too late. And yet we are the lucky ones. Those who will be affected the hardest are already suffering the consequences. But their voices are not heard.” Greta Thunberg

Introduction

The extreme GHG and temperature rise rates since the mid-1970th raise questions over linear climate projections for the 21st century and beyond. Under a rise of CO2-  equivalent reaching +500 ppm  and 3.0Wm-2  relative to 1750, the current rise rates of CO2 by 2.86 ppm  per  and recent global temperature rise rate (0.15-0.20°C per decade) since 1975 are leading to an abrupt shift in state of the terrestrial climate and the biosphere. By mid-21st century at >750 ppm CO-e climate tipping points indicated by Lenton et al. 2008 and Schellnhuber 2009 are likely to be crossed. Melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets has increased by a factor of more than 5 since 1979–1990. As the ice sheets and sea ice melt the albedo flip between reflective ice surfaces and dark infrared-absorbing water results in significant increase of radiative forcing and complete removal of Arctic sea ice would result in a forcing of about 0.7 Wm−2 (Hudson, 2011). The  confluence of climate events, including a breach of the circum-Arctic jet stream boundary and a polar-ward migration of climate zones at a rate of 56-111 km per decade, induce world-wide extreme weather events including bushfires, methane release from Arctic permafrost and sediments. For a climate sensitivity of 3±1.5°C per doubling of atmospheric CO2, global warming has potentially reached between +2oC to +3oC above mean pre-industrial temperatures at a rate exceeding the fastest growth rate over the last 55 million years. As ice melt water flow into the oceans temperature polarities between warming continents and cooling tracts of ocean would further intensify extreme weather events under non-linear climate trajectories. The enrichment of the atmosphere in GHG, constituting a shift in state of the terrestrial climate, is predicted to delay the onset of the next glacial state by some 50,000 years.

A. GHG and temperature rise

The paleoclimate record suggests that no event since 55 million years ago, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), when global temperatures rose by more than +5 to  +8oC over a period of  ~20,000 years, with a subsequent warming period  of up to 200,000 years, has been as extreme as atmospheric disruption since the onset of the industrial age about 1750 AD (the Anthropocene), accelerating since 1975. During this period greenhouse gas levels have risen from ~280 ppm to above >410 ppm and to 496ppm CO2-equivalent (Figure 1), the increase of CO2 reaching near-47 percent above the original atmospheric concentration. However linear climate change projections are rare in the recent climate history (Figure 2) and linear future climate projections may not account for the effects of amplifying feedbacks from land and oceans. Given an Anthropocene warming rate faster by ~X200 times than the PETM (Figure 3), linear warming trajectories such as are projected by the IPCC may overlook punctuated tipping points, transient reversals and stadial events.

Figure 1. Growth of CO2-equivalent level and the annual greenhouse gas Index (AGGI[1]). Measurements of CO2to the 1950s are from (Keeling et al., 2008) and from air trapped in ice and snow above glaciers. Equivalent CO2amounts (in ppm) are derived from the relationship between CO2concentrations and radiative forcing from all long-lived greenhouse gases.

According to NOAA GHG forcing in 2018 has reached 3.101 Wm-2 relative to 1750 (CO2=2.044Wm-2; CH4= 0.512 Wm-2; N2O = 0.199Wm-2; CFCs = 0.219Wm-2) with a CO2-equivalent of 492 ppm (Figure 1). The rise in GHG forcing during the Anthropocene since about 1800 AD, intensifying since 1900 AD and sharply accelerating since about 1975, has induced a mean of  ~1.5oC over the continents above pre-industrial temperature, or >2.0oC when the masking role of aerosols is discounted, implying further warming is still in store.

According to Hansen et al. 2008 the rise in radiative forcing during the Last Glacial Termination (LGT –18,000 -11,000 years BP), associated with enhancing feedbacks, has driven GHG radiative forcing by approximately ~3.0 Wm-2 and a mean global temperature rise of ~4.50C (Figure 2), or, i.e. of similar  order as the Anthropocene rise since about 1900.  However the latter has been reached within a time frame at least X30 times shorter than the LGT, underpinning the extreme nature of current global warming.

Figure 2 (Hansen et al. 2008). Glacial-temperature and GHG forcing for the last 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core, with the time scale expanded for the Anthropocoene. The ratio of temperature and forcing scales is 1.5°C per 1 W/m2. The temperature scale gives the expected equilibrium response to GHG change including slow feedback surface albedo change. Modern forcings include human-made aerosols, volcanic aerosols and solar irradiance.

The CO2- equivalent levels and radiative forcing levels constitute a rise from Holocene levels (~280 ppm CO2) to >410 ppm compared with Miocene-like levels (300-600 ppm CO2), at a rate reaching 2 to 3 ppm/year, within a century or so, driving the fastest temperature rise rate recorded since 55 million years ago (Figure 3).

Figure 3. A comparison between rates of mean global temperature rise during: (1) the last Glacial Termination (after Shakun et al. 2012); (2) the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, after Kump 2011); (3) the late Anthropocene (1750–2016), and (4) an asteroid impact. In the latter instance temperature due to CO2 rise would lag by some weeks or months behind aerosol-induced cooling

Considering the transient mitigating albedo effects of clouds, seasonal land surface albedo, ice albedo, atmospheric aerosols including sulphur dioxide and nitrate, the potential rise of land temperature could have reached -0.4 to -0.9 Wm-2 in 2018, masking approximately 0.6 to 1.3oC potential warming once the short lived aerosol effect is abruptly reduced.

B. Accelerated melting of the ice sheets

The fast rate of the Anthropocoene temperature rise compared to the LGT and PETM (Figure 3) ensues in differences in terms of the adaptation of flora and fauna to new conditions. The shift in state of the Earth’s climate is most acutely manifested in the poles, where warming leads to weakening of the jet stream boundaries which are breached by outflow of cold air fronts, such as the recent “Beast from the East” event,and penetration of warm air masses.

As the poles keep warming, to date by a mean of ~2.3oC, the shrinking of the ice sheets per year has accelerated by a factor of more than six fold (Figure 4). Warming of the Arctic is driven by the ice-water albedo flip, where dark sea-water absorbing solar energy alternates with high-albedo ice and snow, and by the weakening of the polar boundary and jet stream.

Greenland. The threshold of collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, retarded by hysteresis[2], is estimated in the range of 400-560 ppm CO2, already transgressed  at the current 496 ppm CO2equivalent (Figure 4). The Greenland mass loss increased from 41 ± 17 Gt/yr in 1990–2000, to 187 ± 17 Gt/yr in 2000–2010, to 286 ± 20 Gt/yr in 2010–2018, or six fold since the 1980s, or 80 ± 6 Gt/yr per decade, on average.

Antarctica. The greenhouse gas level and temperature conditions under which the East Antarctic ice sheet formed during the late Eocene 45-34 million years ago are estimated as ~800–2000 ppm andup to 4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial values, whereas the threshold of collapse is estimated as 600 ppm CO2 or even lower.  The total mass loss from the Antarctic ice sheet increased from 40 ± 9 Gt/yr in 1979–1990 to 50 ± 14 Gt/yr in 1989–2000, 166 ± 18 Gt/yr in 1999–2009, and 252 ± 26 Gt/yr in 2009–2017. Based on satellite gravity data the East Antarctic ice sheet is beginning to breakdown in places (Jones 2019), notably the Totten Glacier (Rignot et al., 2019), which may be irreversible. According to Mengel and Levermann (2014) the Wilkes Basin in East Antarctica contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 3–4 meters.

Figure 4. (A) New elevation showing the Greenland and Antarctic current state of the ice sheets accurate to a few meters in height, with elevation changes indicating melting at record pace, losing some 500 km3of ice per-year into the oceans; (B) Ice anomaly relative to the 2002-2016 mean for the Greenland ice sheet (magenta) and Antarctic ice sheet (cyan). Data are from GRACE; (C) the melting of sea ice 1978-2017, National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NCIDC)

C. Migration of climate zones 

The expansion of warm tropical zones and the polar-ward migration of subtropical and temperate climate zones are leading to a change in state in the global climate pattern. The migration of arid subtropical zones, such as the Sahara, Kalahari and central Australian deserts into temperate climate zones ensues in large scale droughts, such in inland Australia and southern Africa. In the northern hemisphere expansion of the Sahara desert northward, manifested by heat waves across the Mediterranean and Europe (Figure 5)

Figure 5 (A) Migration of the subtropical Sahara climate zone (red spots) northward into the Mediterranean climate zone leads to warming, drying and fires over extensive parts of Spain, Portugal, southern France, Italy, Greece and Turkey, and to melting of glaciers in the Alps. Migration, Environment and Climate Change, International Organization for Migration Geneva – Switzerland (GMT +1); https://environmentalmigration.iom.int/maps

Figure 5 (B) Southward encroachment of Kalahari Desert conditions (vertical lines and red spots) leading to warming and drying of parts of southern Africa. https://environmentalmigration.iom.int/maps

D. Climate extremes

Since the bulk of terrestrial vegetation has evolved under glacial-interglacial climate conditions, where GHG range between 180 – 300 ppm CO2, Global warming is turning large parts of Earth into a tinderbox, ignited by natural and human agents. By July and August 2019, as fires rage across large territories, including the Amazon forest, dubbed the Planet’s lungs as it enriches the atmosphere in oxygen. When burnt the rainforest  becomes of source of a large amount of CO2(Figure 6B), with some 72,843 fires in Brazil this year and extensive bushfires through Siberia, Alaska, Greenland, southern Europe, parts of Australia and elsewhere, the planet’s biosphere is progressively transformed. As reported:

‘Climate change is making dry seasons longer and forests more flammable. Increased temperatures are also resulting in more frequent tropical forest fires in non-drought years. And climate change may also be driving the increasing frequency and intensity of climate anomalies, such as El Niño events that affect fire season intensity across Amazonia.’

Extensive cyclones, floods, droughts, heat waves and fires (Figure 6B) increasingly ravage large tracts of Earth. However, despite  its foundation in the basic laws of physics (the black body radiation laws of Planck, Kirchhoff’ and Stefan Boltzmann), as well as empirical observations around the world by major climate research bodies (NOAA, NASA, NSIDC, IPCC, World Meteorological Organization, Hadley-Met, Tindale, Potsdam, BOM, CSIRO and others), the anthropogenic origin, scale and pace of climate change remain subject to extensively propagated denial and untruths.

Figure 6.(A) Extreme weather events around the world 1980-2018, including earthquakes, storms, floods, droughts. Munich Re-insurance. (B) A satellite infrared  image of South America fires (red dots) during July and August, 2019, NASA.

E. An uncharted climate territory

Whereas strict analogies between Quaternary and Anthropocene climate developments is not possible, elements of the glacial-interglacial history are relevant for an understanding of current and future climate events. The rise of total greenhouse gas (GHG), expressed as CO2–equivalents, to 496 ppm CO2-e (Figure 1),within lessthan a century represents an extreme atmospheric event. It raised GHG concentrations from Holocene levels to the range of the Miocene (34–23 Ma) when CO2level was between 300 and 530 ppm. As the glacial sheets disintegrate, cold ice-melt water flowing into the ocean ensue in large cold water pools, a pattern recorded following peak interglacial phases over thelast 450,000 years, currently  manifested by the growth of cold regions in north Atlantic Ocean south of Greenland and in the Southern Ocean fringing Antarctica (Figure 7).

Warming of +3oC to +4oC above pre-industrial levels, leading to enhanced ice-sheet melt, would raise sea levels by at least 2 to 5 meters toward the end of the century and, delayed by hysteresis, likely by 25 meters in the longer term. Golledge et al. (2019) show meltwater from Greenland will lead to substantial slowing of the Atlantic overturning circulation, while meltwater from Antarctica will trap warm water below the sea surface, increasing Antarctic ice loss. Whereas the effect of low-density ice melt water on the surrounding oceans is generally not included in many models, depending on amplifying feedbacks, prolonged Greenland and Antarctic melting and consequent cooling of surrounding ocean sectors as well as penetration of freezing air masses through weakened polar boundaries may have profound effect on future climate change trajectories (Figure 8).

Figure 7(A)Global warming map (NASA 2018). Note the cool ocean regions south of Greenland and along the Antarctic. Credits: Scientific Visualization Studio/Goddard Space Flight Center; (B) 2012 Ocean temperatures around Antarctica (NASA 2012).

Climate projections for 2100-2300 by the IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report, 2014 portray predominantly linear to curved models of greenhouse gas, global temperatures and sea level changes. These models however appear to take limited account of amplifying feedbacks from land and ocean and of the effects of cold ice-melt on the oceans. According to Steffen et al. (2018)

 “self-reinforcing feedbacks could push the Earth System toward a planetary threshold” and “would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene”.

Amplifying feedbacks of global warming include:A.

A. The albedo-flip of melting sea ice and ice sheets and the increase of the water surface area and thereby sequestration of CO2. Hudson (2011) estimates a rise in radiative forcing due to removal of Arctic summer sea ice as 0.7 Watt/m2, a value close to the total of methane release since 1750.

B. Reduced ocean CO2 intake due to lesser solubility of the gas with higher temperatures.

C. Vegetation desiccation and burning in some regions, and thereby released CO2 and reduced evaporation and its cooling effect. This factor and the increase of precipitation in other regions lead to differential feedbacks from vegetation as the globe warms (Notaro et al. 2007).

D. An increase in wildfires, releasing greenhouse gases (Figure 6).

E. Release of methane from permafrost, bogs and sediments and other factors.

Linear temperature models appear to take limited account of the effects on the oceans of ice melt water derived from the large ice sheets, including the possibility of a significant stadial event such as already started in oceanic tracts fringing Greenland and Antarctica (Figure 7) and modelled by Hansen et al, (2016). In the shorter to medium term sea level rises would ensue from the Greenland ice sheet (6-7 meter sea level rise) and West Antarctic ice sheet melt (4.8 meter sea level rise). Referring to major past stadial events, including the 8200 years-old Laurentian melt and the 12.7-11.9 younger dry as event, a protracted breakdown of parts of the Antarctic ice sheet could result in major sea level rise and extensive cooling of southern latitudes and beyond, parallel with warming of tropical and mid-latitudes (Figure 8) (Hansen et al.. 2016). The temperature contrast between polar-derived cold fronts and tropical air masses is bound to lead to extreme weather events, echoed among other in Storms of my grandchildren (Hansen, 2010).

Figure 8. (A) Model Surface-air temperature (oC) for 2096 relative to 1880–1920 (Hansen et al 201 6). The projection betrays major cooling of the North Atlantic Ocean, cooling of the circum-Antarctic Ocean and further warming in the tropics, subtropics and the interior of continents; (B) Modeled surface-air temperatures (°C) to 2300 AD relative to 1880–1920 for several ice melt rate scenarios, displaying a stadial cooling event at a time dependent on the ice melt doubling time (Hansen et al., 2016). Courtesy Prof James Hansen.

Within and beyond 2100-2300 projections (Figure 8A, B) lies an uncharted climate territory, where continuing melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, further cooling of neighboring sectors of the oceans and climate contrasts with GHG-induced warming of land areas (Figure 8A), ensue in chaotic climate disruptions (Figure 8B). Given the thousands to tens of thousands years longevity of atmospheric greenhouse gases (Solomon et al., 2009; Eby et al 2009), the onset of the next ice age is likely to be delayed on the scale of tens of thousands of years (Berger and Loutre, 2002) through an exceptionally long interglacial period (Figure 9).

These authors state:

‘The present day CO2 concentration (now >410 ppm) is already well above typical interglacial values of ~290 ppmv. This study models increases to up to 750 ppmv over the next 200 years, returning to natural levels by 1000 years. The results suggest that, under very small insolation variations, there is a threshold value of value of CO2 above which the Greenland Ice Sheet disappears. The climate system may take 50,000 years to assimilate the impacts of human activities during the early third millennium. In this case, an “irreversible greenhouse effect” could become the most likely future climate. If the Greenland and west Antarctic Ice Sheets disappear completely, then today’s “Anthropocene” may only be a transition between the Quaternary and the next geological period.’

Figure 9. Simulated Northern Hemisphere ice volume (increasing downward) for the period 200,000 years BP to 130,000 years in the future, modified after a part of Berger and Loutre 2002. Time is negative in the past and positive in the future. For the future, three CO2scenarios were used: last glacial-interglacial values (solid line), a human-induced concentration of 750 ppm (dashed line), and a constant concentration of 210 ppm inducing a return to a glacial state (dotted line).

As conveyed by leading scientists “Climate change is now reaching the end-game, where very soon humanity must choose between taking unprecedented action or accepting that it has been left too late and bear the consequences” (Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber)…“We’ve reached a point where we have a crisis, an emergency, but people don’t know that … There’s a big gap between what’s understood about global warming by the scientific community and what is known by the public and policymakers”( James Hansen).

Climate scientists find themselves in a quandary similar to medical doctors, committed to help the ill yet need to communicate grave diagnoses. How do scientists tell people the current spate of extreme weather events, including cyclones, devastating islands from the Caribbean to the Philippine, floods devastating coastal regions and river valleys from Mozambique to Kerala, Pakistan and Townsville, and fires burning extensive tracts of the living world can only intensify in a rapidly warming world? How do scientists tell the people that their children are growing into a world where survival under a mean temperatures higher than +2 degrees Celsius (above pre-industrial temperatures) is likely to be painful and, in some parts of the world, impossible, let alone under +4 degrees Celsius projected by the IPCC?

F. Summary and conclusions

  1. The current growth rate of atmospheric greenhouse gas is the fastest recorded for the last 55 million years.
  2. By the mid-21st century, at the current CO2 rise rates of 2 to 3 ppm/year, a CO-e level of >750 ppm is likely to transcend the climate tipping points indicated by Lenton et al. 2008 and Schellnhuber 2009.
  3. The current extreme rise rates of GHG (2.86 ppm CO2/year) and temperature (0.15-0.20°C per decade since 1975) raise doubt with regard to linear future climate projections.
  4. Global greenhouse gases have reached a level exceeding the stability threshold of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which are melting at an accelerated rate.
  5. Allowing for the transient albedo-enhancing effects of sulphur dioxide and other aerosols, mean global temperature has reached approximately 2.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures.
  6. Due to hysteresis the large ice sheets would outlast their melting temperatures.
  7. Land areas would be markedly reduced due to a rise to Miocene-like sea levels of approximately 40±15 meters above pre-industrial levels.
  8. Cold ice melt water flowing from the ice sheets into the oceans at an accelerated rate is reducing temperatures in large tracts in the North Atlantic and circum-Antarctic.
  9. Strong temperature contrasts between cold polar-derived and warm tropical air and water masses are likely to result in extreme weather events, retarding habitats and agriculture over coastal regions and other parts of the world.
  10. In the wake of partial melting of the large ice sheets, the Earth climate zones would continue to shift polar-ward, expanding tropical to super-tropical regions such as existed in the Miocene (5.3-23 million years ago) and reducing temperate climate zones and polar ice sheets.
  11. Current greenhouse gas forcing and global mean temperature are approaching Miocene Optimum-like composition, bar the hysteresis effects of reduced ice sheets (Figure 4A).
  12. The effect of high atmospheric greenhouse gas levels would be for the next ice age to be delayed on a scale of tens of thousands of years, during which chaotic tropical to hyperthermal conditions would persist until solar radiation and atmospheric CO2 subsided below ~300 ppm.
  13. Humans will survive in relatively favorable parts of Earth, such as sub-polar regions and sheltered mountain valleys, where gathering of flora and hunting of remaining fauna may be possible.

*

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

Dr Andrew Glikson, Earth and Paleo-climate science, Australia National University (ANU) School of Anthropology and Archaeology, ANU Planetary Science Institute, ANU Climate Change Institute, Honorary Associate Professor, Geothermal Energy Centre of Excellence, University of Queensland. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] The index uses 1990 as a baseline year with a value of 1.  The index increased every year since 1979. https://www.co2.earth/annual-ghg-index-aggi

[2] where a physical property lags behind changes in the effect causing it

UK House of Lords Members Block No-Deal Brexit

September 7th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

 

Overnight Thursday, majority House of Lords members voted to require Boris Johnson to ask Brussels for a Brexit delay until end of January if a deal isn’t reached by October 19 — blocking his no-deal Brexit aim by October 31.

Approval of the measure by Queen Elizabeth is expected early next week, likely Monday. The House of Lords Twitter account called it “a formality.”

What Johnson called a “surrender bill” is about to become the law of the land.

The vote was his fourth parliamentary defeat v. no meaningful triumphs since becoming prime minister in late July.

His tenure is shaky, perhaps to be short-lived. Remarks like saying he’d “rather be dead in a ditch” than delay Brexit may hasten things.

He staked his premiership on delivering Brexit with or without a deal by October 31, “do or die.” The latter won out once Queen Elizabeth approves the House of Lords measure.

Johnson hoped his five-week parliamentary suspension (from next week to Oct. 14), wanting little time for debate, would let him to ram through a no-deal Brexit. His plan backfired, at least so far.

Majority Commons MPs blocked his no-deal Brexit aim. Lords members followed suit, voting to make the scheme illegal.

Their measure requires Johnson to ask Brussels for a Lisbon Treaty Article 50 extension. It states the following:

“1. Any (EU) Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.”

Johnson’s aim to leave the EU by October 31, with or without a deal, was thwarted legislatively.

His five-week suspension of parliament is being challenged judicially by legal campaigner Gina Miller.

A Scottish court ruled against her. So did London’s high court. From September 17 – 19, Britain’s supreme court will hear arguments for and against Johnson’s parliamentary suspension.

Miller considers the lengthy prorogation order an abuse of power, adding the following:

“We feel strongly that parliamentary sovereignty is fundamental to the stability and future of our country and is therefore worth fighting to defend.”

“As our politics becomes more chaotic on a daily basis, the more vital it is that parliament is sitting.”

“We are therefore pleased that the judges have given permission to appeal to the supreme court on the grounds that our case has merit.”

“All of us here today, my legal team who have worked tirelessly over the last few weeks and I, feel we have no other option but to appeal this judgment to the supreme court. An appeal ‘leapfrog’ date has been set for 17 September.”

“Today we stood up for everyone. We stood up for future generations. We stood up for our representative democracy, and tried to stop those who would wreck our (unwritten) constitution.”

“To give up now would be a dereliction of our responsibility to help protect our elected representatives – our eyes and ears that sit in Westminster – who protect our rights and give each of us a voice.”

“It is not right that they should be bullied or shut down – especially at this most momentous of times in the history of our United Kingdom. My legal team and I will not give up the fight for democracy.”

Over three years after UK voters approved Brexit by a 52 – 48% majority, it’s unclear how things will turn out.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK House of Lords Members Block No-Deal Brexit

The United States: A Nation on Suicide Watch

September 7th, 2019 by John Stanton

“The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan required major shifts in national resources from civilian to military purposes and contributed to the growth of the budget deficit and public debt. Through FY 2018, the direct costs of the wars will have totaled more than $1.9 trillion, according to US Government figures.

Pollution is a serious issue. The United States (US)  is a “large emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels; deals with water pollution from runoff of pesticides and fertilizers; has limited natural freshwater resources in much of the western part of the country that require careful management.

Deforestation; mining; desertification; species conservation; and invasive species (the Hawaiian Islands are particularly vulnerable) are widespread.

Long-term problems for the US include stagnation of wages for lower-income families, inadequate investment in deteriorating infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, energy shortages, and sizable current account and budget deficits.”

“The onrush of technology has been a driving factor in the gradual development of a “two-tier” labor market in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits.

But the globalization of trade, and especially the rise of low-wage producers such as China, has put additional downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on the return to capital. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. Since 1996, dividends and capital gains have grown faster than wages or any other category of after-tax income…

In December 2017, Congress passed and President Donald TRUMP signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which, among its various provisions, reduces the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%; lowers the individual tax rate for those with the highest incomes from 39.6% to 37%, and by lesser percentages for those at lower income levels…

The new taxes took effect on 1 January 2018; the tax cut for corporations are permanent, but those for individuals are scheduled to expire after 2025. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) under the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the new law will reduce tax revenues and increase the federal deficit by about $1.45 trillion over the 2018-2027 period.”

***

Are those the words of some left wing liberal publication or fake news from the mainstream media or conspiracy tinfoil hats?

No, they are excerpts from the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) 2019 World Factbook, an unflinching look at all the planet’s nations and their political systems, military expenditures, resources and internal and transnational troubles. 

We’re Number One! We’re Number One!

Yes, indeed, the US has real problems, not imagined, as Republicans, Democrats and those with “Star Spangled Eyes” like to claim otherwise. “The US is the greatest country in history with the world’s most powerful military. God Bless America!” they shout out or proclaim after every speech.

Perhaps at one point in history’s past the nation had a shot to be the greatest of all time, at least in this solar system. Maybe that could have come after WW II, or the end of the Vietnam War, or even the largely successful Civil Rights movement. But now the country and its people are delusional in thinking that “everything’s groovy”.

What’s to worry about? Gas prices are low, the National Football League season is underway and the Major League Baseball playoffs are just around the corner. What fun to watch these sporting events as military aircraft fly overhead and 20-something millionaires run around the baseball diamond or up and down the football field in stadiums, by the way,  largely financed by the public. Who cares about lead infused water in Newark, New Jersey; Flint and Detroit, Michigan; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania?

And what can be said about the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Where’s the victory to put in the US “Win” column? The American public has largely forgotten these tragic conflicts save those whose families have made a sacrifice. But sacrifice for what? Testing out new equipment, technology and war fighting doctrine? The War on Terror has siphoned off cash badly needed for US infrastructure repairs and has taken the lives of thousands of Americans.

Yes, it is correct that there has been no repeat of the 911 attacks, but the US is dealing with its own home grown terrorist problem: active shooters. Is the US military going to start hunting them down here like they do Islamic State terrorists in the Middle East and Africa?

Hell on Earth

At any rate, the only maniacs who want US personnel to remain in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, three hell-holes created, in part, by the US, are zealous military leaders,  defense contractors/suppliers, corrupt officials the US has propped up in the three countries, and black market operators eager to steal American weapons and sell them to the Taliban or groups like the Islamic State.

Oh, and let’s not forget that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (the Baron Harkonenn of the US government) and his boss President Donald Trump who are eager for war with Iran (which borders Iraq and Afghanistan, among other nations). That push has already started with the US exiting from the nuclear accord with Iran (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) in May 2018. The Trump administration has since unleashed punishing economic sanctions, and has adopted a blind-support policy for Israel and the bloodthirsty Saudis who would like nothing better than to have the US go to war with Iran. Yes, lets “do Iran” if not by direct military action then through subterfuge and dicey intelligence likely to be used to justify an ill-advised invasion.

The attack-Iran crowd has been singing the same old tune for at least 40 years now and it should have long ago been dust-binned. But here we are, again, moving toward the precipice of conflict.

According to the National Iranian American Council,

“The past 40 years in U.S.-Iran relations have been riddled with missed opportunities. While the Iranians and Clinton administration failed to initiate serious dialogue after Mohammad Khatami’s election, the George W. Bush administration pocketed Tehran’s assistance after the U.S.invasion of Afghanistan, put the country in its “axis of evil,” and ignored its offer for a grand bargain. Under the Trump administration, however, we are likely witnessing the greatest missed opportunity in four decades: a failure to capitalize on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, aka the Iran nuclear deal.”

War planners in the US have already sorted through all the airstrike contingencies and have plans, classified of course, for air/missile strikes. But you need not wait for the day when the aircraft and missiles take to the skies over Iran and the talking heads from left, right and center media rant and rave about a brand new war, or retired generals show up to blather about this and that weapon system. Prepare yourself now. Be an educated armchair warrior by reviewing Anthony Cordesman’s “Options in Dealing with Iran’s Nuclear Program. It addresses the use of conventional and nuclear weapons by the US and Israel.

What’s the Frequency Kenneth?

It is  commonplace for Americans to lionize US military leaders and look to them as calming voices, counterweights to warmongering government officials and their advisors. Ironic, isn’t it? Can we look to our divine US military leaders to change the current thinking of the war hawks in the administration, Congress and the think tanks that dot the Washington, DC Metro region?

Nope.

Consider this review by William Bacevich, a decorated combat veteran, of the newest US Central Command boss, Marine Corps General Kenneth McKenzie. McKenzie’s area of responsibility (AOR) includes Iran.

“General Kenneth McKenzie became the twenty-fourth commander of CENTCOM (more formally known as United States Central Command). On May 8, at an event sponsored by the Institute for the Perpetuation of War and the Promotion of Regime Change, more formally known as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), he outlined his plans for building on the legacy of his 23 predecessors.  None of those predecessors, it should be acknowledged, succeeded in accomplishing his assigned mission. Nor, I’m willing to bet, will he.

The essence of that mission, according to General McKenzie himself, is to promote stability. “A stable Middle East underpins a stable world,” he announced, and “our steady commitment to our allies and partners provides a force for stability.” As to how the region became unstable in the first place, he offers no opinion, leaving listeners with the impression that previous exertions by CENTCOM forces in invading, occupying, bombing, and otherwise spilling blood throughout his Area of Responsibility (AOR) had nothing to do with the absence of stability existing there today…This much seems clear: To listen to McKenzie, Iran is the ultimate source of all evil. To cite just one example, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the general charges that “at least 600 US personnel deaths in Iraq were the result of Iran-backed militants.” This was indeed nefarious, and one is hard-pressed to think of a comparable episode in recent military history, although US support for Saddam Hussein pursuant to his war of aggression against Iran might fill the bill.”

Don’t Bogart that Joint My Friend

How are we faring in that other Long War, the War on Drugs?

The Office of National Drug Control and Policy’s (ONDCP) 2019 National Drug Control Strategy document describes the massive US local, state, and federal machinery set up to defeat drug trafficking organizations from getting their products to US streets and into the bodies of American citizens.

“The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program provides assistance to law enforcement agencies operating in areas determined to be critical drug-trafficking regions of the United States. HIDTAs provide an umbrella to coordinate Federal, state, local, and tribal drug law enforcement agencies’ investigations, and act as neutral centers to manage, de-conflict, analyze, provide intelligence, and execute drug enforcement activities in their respective regions. With the recent inclusion of Alaska, the first new HIDTA in 17 years, the 29 regional HIDTAs now include designated areas in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. The regional HIDTAs bring together more than 21,000 Federal, state, local, and tribal personnel from 500 agencies through 800 enforcement, intelligence, and training initiatives, all designed to disrupt illicit drug trafficking and dismantle criminal and drug trafficking organizations.”

The US military, of course, plays a key role in the US War on Drugs, supporting HIDTA’s among other activities. Take, for example, US Southern Command’s (SOUTHCOM) role in the Joint Interagency Task Force-South (JIATF-South).  A 2005 briefing by former US Coast Rear Admiral Jeffrey Hathaway shows that no less than 14 agencies worked, and likely still do, chasing down illicit drugs in the SOUTHCOM AOR. These include the National Security Agency; the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines; the US Coast Guard,  and the National Reconnaissance Office, among others. According to one of Hathaway’s slides, every step involved in JIATF-South operations from interdiction to prosecution leads to intelligence. That is an interesting point. So 14 years later and all the intelligence collected has led to what, exactly?

Let’s revisit the CIA’s 2019 World Factbook for a read on how the War on Drugs effort is going.

The US is the “world’s largest consumer of cocaine (shipped from Colombia through Mexico and the Caribbean), Colombian heroin, and Mexican heroin and marijuana; a major consumer of ecstasy and Mexican methamphetamine; a minor consumer of high-quality Southeast Asian heroin; an illicit producer of cannabis, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, hallucinogens, and methamphetamine. It is also a money-laundering center.”

Great!

This piece could go on and on citing data from a myriad of sources showing, among other things, the 500% growth rate of the US prison population, income inequality according to the Gini Coefficient which sees the US (41.5) right near Iran (40), or that one in six children in the US live in hunger. But, hey! The stock market is up, unemployment is down, and the dollar menu at McDonald’s is fabulous.

The forever wars on Drugs and Terror, or the trumped up wars to come; income equality; homelessness; hunger, infrastructure collapse and the fracturing of US society into tribes is clearly a nationwide social, political and cultural sickness: perhaps mental illness. Even the Internet/World Wide Web, once viewed as a global unifying/liberating force for change/good has become what is termed the Splinternet, reflecting large in-group fanaticism, censorship and a polarization of political beliefs. It is now polluted with advertisements just as radio and television are.

But there’s still time left on the clock to change the direction of the country. Who or what will do that and when it will happen I’m not sure. But I take heart in Robert F. Kennedy’s insight below that there are many who long to make “life worthwhile” for everyone in America, once again.

“For Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product…if we should judge the United States of America by that—counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman’s rifle and Speck’s knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”

*

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.

John Stanton is a Virginia based writer. Reach him at [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

Robert Mugabe’s Legacy: Revolution, Amity and Decline

September 7th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Robert Mugabe is the sort of figure that always caused discomfort.  He was a permanent revolutionary, becoming, in time, the despotic ruler who frittered away revolutionary gain.  He played multiple roles in international political consciousness.  As Zimbabwe’s strongman, he was demonised and lionised in equal measure for a good deal of his time in power.  His role from the 1990s – Mugabe, the West’s all-too-convenient bogeyman and hobgoblin – tended to outweigh other considerations. In the end, even his supporters had to concede that he had outstayed his welcome, another African leader gone to seed.

In 2008, Mahmood Mamdani noted the generally held view in publications ranging from The Economist to The Guardian that Mugabe the Thug reigned.  Yes, he had helped in laying waste to the economy, refusing to share power with a more vocal and present opposition, and created an internal crisis with his land distribution policy.  But this did little to explain his longevity, his recipe of partial coercion and consent, the teacher-visionary and the bribing mob leader.  “In any case, the preoccupation with his character does little to illuminate the socio-historical issues involved.”

The obsession with character – one of Mephistophelian bargain and decay – is found in both the literature and the popular culture depicting Mugabe.  The stock story is this: he taught in Ghana in 1963, a key figure in the nationalist movement split in what was then Rhodesia, becoming secretary general of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU).  The Shona dominated ZANU was formed from the original Ndebele ethnic minority dominated Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU).

Prison followed in 1964; Mugabe fled to Mozambique in 1974 though not before a spell of imprisonment at the hands of Zambia’s Kenneth Kaunda (his escape was probably engineered by Zambians); by 1977, he had assumed control of the organisation, though Mozambique’s President Samora Machel never quite trusted him, taking a leaf out of Kaunda’s book in detailing the mischief maker, albeit briefly.  Military victory was sought against the Smith regime in what was then white-controlled Rhodesia, and it was with some reluctance that Mugabe found himself a signatory to the British-sponsored settlement in 1979, one assisted by Lord Carrington, Kaunda, the Commonwealth Secretary General, Shridath Ramphal, and, ironically enough, white apartheid South Africa.

On becoming leader, he was deliciously accommodating in his rhetoric, despite having entertained the prospect of confiscating land owned by whites a la Marx-Lenin and wishing to hold white leaders to account in war crimes trials.  In his national address in 1980, he spoke of the bonds of amity; he wished for bygones to be bygones.  “If you were my enemy, you are now my friend.  If you hated me, you cannot avoid the love that binds me to you and you to me.”

Initially, Mugabe the progressive shone through: healthcare and education programs were expanded; literary rates and living standards rose; white farmers were reassured that mobs would not be knocking on their doors.  Whites were included in a mixed cabinet; heads reappointed in the army, the police and the Central Intelligence Organisation. But he had his eye on dealing with rivals.

In 1983, former members of ZAPU’s military outfit attacked targets in Matabeleland.  The result was uncompromisingly bloody: anywhere upwards of 20,000 civilians killed; many more tortured, maimed, tormented.  In four years, ZAPU had been defeated, absorbed into the ZANU-PF structure.  The extinguishment of such rivalry paved the way for a Mugabe presidency and near-absolute rule.

By the 1990s, economic conditions were biting.  Real wages fell; the International Monetary Fund demanded domestic readjustments to the economy.  Economic stagnation kept company with increasingly repressive policies against journalists, students and opponents.  Calculatingly, Mugabe propitiated war veterans by awarding them generous pensions in 1997.  Then came the next threat: the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) led by Morgan Tsvangirai.

In February 2000, a national vote on a redesigned draft constitution, the progeny of ZANU-PF, proposed British compensation for land; absent that, white farms would be seized without due compensation.  Its defeat by a narrow margin saw Mugabe step up his campaign, featuring farm occupations and the sponsorship of veterans to assist in invasions of farms owned by white farmers.  Mugabe was returning to an old platform.

The prevailing psycho-portraiture for such behaviour is never consistent.  One variant finds its culprit in a decision Mugabe made in 1996.  Secretary Grace Marufu, 41 years Mugabe’s junior, became his wife, considered within certain circles a less than worthy replacement for Sally, who died in 1992.  Wilf Mbanga, editor of The Zimbabwean newspaper spared no punches, seeing in Marufu a lever pulling, power hungry creature akin to Lady Macbeth.  “He changed the moment Sally died, when he married a young gold-digger.”

His former home affairs minister, Dumiso Dabengwa, pinpointed a different year when the great compromiser and negotiator changed: 2000.  There are no gold-digging suggestions, merely political manipulations filtered with a bit of paranoia.  “He held compromising material over several of his colleagues and they knew they would face criminal charges if they opposed him.”

Overwhelmingly, the narrative is of the great hope that failed, the rebel who trips.  This echo of the good man gone bad is detectable in celluloid, with the fictional state of Matobo in The Interpreter, featuring as its political backdrop a bookish schoolteacher who defeated a white-minority regime but fouled up matters by turning into a tyrant.  “The CIA-backed film,” suggested the then acting Minister for Information and Publicity, Chen Chimutengwende, “showed that Zimbabwe’s enemies did not rest.”

Mugabe was every bit the contradiction of the colonial-postcolonial figure, supported one day as the romantic revolutionary to be praised, reviled as the authoritarian figure to condemn, the next.  The revolutionary to be feted was a motif that continued through the 1980s, despite signs that the hero was getting particularly bloodthirsty.  A string of honours were bestowed like floral tributes to a conquering warrior: an honorary doctorate of laws from the University of Massachusetts in 1984, despite the butchering of the Ndebele; an honorary doctorate from the University of Edinburgh (subsequently revoked in July 2007); a knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II in 1994.

Accounts such as Martin Meredith’s Our Guns: Robert Mugabe and the Tragedy of Zimbabwe, point to the aphrodisiac of power, violence as currency, the cultivated links with the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Laurent Kabila, and the creation of a crony state. The DRC connection softened the blows of international sanctions, at least to some extent, keeping rural voters in clover and the security forces content.  Such arrangements, involving a juggling of loot and measuring out the spoils, is rarely indefinite.

The narrative of the power mad creature runs through as a counter to the liberal thesis that Mugabe started with promise, and went sour.  This would have been tantamount to suggesting that Lenin insisted on changing the world through even-tempered tea ceremonies and soft voiced mediation, only to endorse revolutionary violence at a later date.  James Kirchick, oft fascinated by the wiles of demagoguery, saw the strains of brutality early: Mugabe’s time in prison, as with other revolutionaries, led to a certain pupillage with power, a sense of its necessity.  Degrees in law and economics were earned via correspondence from the University of London, a way to pass carceral time for subversive actions against the white Smith regime in 1964.  All that time, he nursed Marxist-Leninist dreams.

As leader of the movement to oust the white regime, Mugabe was not sparing with his use of violence.  In this, he differed from the founder of the ZANU founder Ndabaningi Sithole, who renounced terrorism and subversion after his 1969 sentence for incitement.  Nor was he averse to internal suppression: his cadres had to be trustworthy in the cause.

Over time, the distance between Mugabe the ruler, and the Zimbabwean citizenry, grew.  International sanctions, applied with much callousness, bit.  Hyperinflation set in.  The state was left bankrupt.  Food shortages in 2004 did not sway him.  “We are not hungry,” Mugabe told Sky News.  “Why foist this food upon us?  We don’t want to be choked.  We have enough.”

In November 2017, a coup by senior military personnel was launched in terms that seemed almost polite, a sort of dinner party seizure.  Mugabe was placed under house arrest; his ZANU-PF party had decided that the time had come.  The risk of Marufu coming to power was becoming all too real, though this femme fatale rationale can only be pushed so far.  There were celebrations in the streets.  Thirty-seven years prior, there were similar calls of jubilation for the new leader. Left with his medical ailments, Mugabe died at Gleneagles Hospital, Singapore on Friday, farewelled by his successor President Emmerson Mnangagwa as “an icon of liberation, a pan Africanist who dedicated his life to the emancipation of his people.”  The muse of history can be atrociously fickle.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Robert Mugabe’s Legacy: Revolution, Amity and Decline

The 5G Network: Southeast Asia Ignores US War on Huawei

September 7th, 2019 by Joseph Thomas

The Western media has begun complaining about Southeast Asia’s collective decision to move forward with 5G network technology from Chinese telecom giant Huawei despite US demands that nations ban all Huawei products.

These demands are predicated on clearly fabricated security threats surrounding Huawei technology. The US itself is a global leader of producing hardware with hidden backdoors and other security flaws for the purpose of spying worldwide.

Instead, the US is clearly targeting the telecom giant as part of a wider campaign to cripple China economically and contain its ability to contest US global hegemony.

Media Disinformation Serves the War on Huawei 

Articles like Reuters’ “Thailand launches Huawei 5G test bed, even as U.S. urges allies to bar Chinese gear,” in title alone confounds informed readers.

The article’s author, Patpicha Tanakasempipat, fails to explain in which ways the US is “allies” with any of the nations of Southeast Asia, including Thailand. The history of US activity in Southeast Asia has been one of coercion, interference, intervention, colonisation and protracted war.

As US power has faded, it has resorted to “soft power,” with its most recent “pivot to Asia” being accompanied by several failed attempts to overthrow regional governments and replace them with suitable proxies.

Considering this, and a complete lack of suitable US alternatives to Huawei’s products, there is little mystery as to why the region as a whole has ignored US demands regarding Huawei.

The article claims:

Thailand launched a Huawei Technologies 5G test bed on Friday, even as the United States urges its allies to bar the Chinese telecoms giant from building next-generation mobile networks.

Huawei, the world’s top producer of telecoms equipment and second-biggest maker of smartphones, has been facing mounting international scrutiny amid fears China could use its equipment for espionage, a concern the company says is unfounded.

Patpicha fails categorically to cite any evidence substantiating US claims. She also fails categorically to point out that there is in fact a glaring lack of evidence behind US claims, just as many other articles across the Western media have predictably and purposefully done.

Vietnam, the Outlier 

The one exception in Southeast Asia is Vietnam. It has sidestepped considering Huawei in favour of US-based Qualcomm and Scandinavian companies Nokia and Ericsson. While the Vietnamese government said its decision was based on technical concerns rather than geopolitics, a Bloomberg article quoted the CEO of state-owned telecom concern, Viettel Group, who claimed:

We are not going to work with Huawei right now. It’s a bit sensitive with Huawei now. There were reports that it’s not safe to use Huawei. So Viettel’s stance is that, given all this information, we should just go with the safer ones. So we choose Nokia and Ericsson from Europe.

The same article would also cite supposed experts who claim Vietnam seeks closer ties with the US in countering China’s growing stature upon the global stage, and ultimately folded to US demands because of this.

This however is unlikely. Vietnam – among all of Southeast Asia’s nations – is not an “ally” of Washington.

The US waged a bloody war against Vietnam at the cost of 4 million lives. The nation still bears the burden of chemical warfare through persistent birth defects as well as swaths of land covered in unexploded ordnance. To this day the US maintains a stable of opposition groups it funds to pressure and coerce the Vietnamese government. The US also invests in groups fanning anti-Chinese sentiment inside Vietnam.

Considering this, Vietnam, by spurning Huawei at the moment, is more likely cynically playing the US and China off one another with this particular move aimed at currying leverage over Beijing and favour with Washington, while at other junctures, Vietnam has made moves to gain leverage over Washington while cultivating closer ties with Beijing.

Not Just Thailand

The same Bloomberg article would note:

Vietnam’s decision to shun Huawei appears to make it an outlier in Southeast Asia, where other countries such as the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia are open to deploying Huawei’s technology.

The irony of this is that the Philippines in particular has been touted by Washington as one of its key partners in provoking China over its claims in the South China Sea. Not only has Manila repeatedly sabotaged or undermined Washington’s efforts in the South China Sea deciding to bilaterally deal with Beijing instead and without US help, it is now openly ignoring US demands to dump Huawei technology.

Malaysia has been another target of US political interference. There were hopes in Washington that after the last Malaysian elections, victorious parties backed by Washington would cut growing ties with Beijing. This did not happen. While some Malaysian-Chinese deals were renegotiated, they continued to move forward nonetheless.

By ignoring US demands that Huawei products be banned and by moving forward with Huawei technology for national 5G infrastructure, Malaysia affirms again that Asia’s future will be determined in Asia by the nations residing there, not by Washington thousands of miles away.

While the US remains a potent geopolitical hegemon with a powerful military and economy, and the means to inflict punishment on nations opposing its agenda across the globe, it is still a hegemon in decline.

The US is not losing to China because it hasn’t been ruthless enough or because its “allies” are not cooperating. It is not losing to China because of anything in particular China is doing to the US. The US is losing because of fundamental flaws in what is an entirely unsustainable and indefensible foreign policy.

Until it fixes those fundamental flaws and adopts a more appropriate foreign policy, it will continue to lose out to competitors like China. Its tech giants like Apple and Qualcomm will continue to lose out to competitors like Huawei. No amount of coercion, threats or acts of malice can change the fact that at a fundamental level, the US has no competitive edge and its power stems more from momentum than from any remaining driving strength.

While nations bide their time for this momentum to diminish, Beijing, Moscow and the capitals of other developing and emerging global powers continue building an alternative global order based on a multipolar balance of power and the primacy of national sovereignty… a global order where, for example, one nation does not get to decide who the rest of the world works with to build their respective telecom infrastructure.

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

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The 5G Network: Southeast Asia Ignores US War on Huawei

Treadmill of Magic Seeds and Broken Promises: Dismantling the Myth of Bt Cotton Success in India

September 7th, 2019 by Colin Todhunter

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Treadmill of Magic Seeds and Broken Promises: Dismantling the Myth of Bt Cotton Success in India

Washington’s “Maximum Pressure” Campaign against Iran. “Unorthodox Tactics” Include Piracy, Bribery and Extortion

September 7th, 2019 by Sarah Abed

Washington is intensifying its “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran with the addition of unorthodox tactics including piracy, bribery, and extortion

 Over the past few months, US Special Representative for Iran, Brian Hook the head of the Iran Action Group, has been personally writing emails and texts to over a dozen ship captains around the world, to make them an offer they can’t refuse.

According to The Financial Times, a letter which included a bribe and threat was received by Indian national, Akhilesh Kumar, the captain of the beleaguered Iranian oil tanker Adrian Darya 1. Kumar was offered millions of dollars to sail the ship to a country which would impound the vessel on Washington’s behalf. The letter warned that there would be dire consequences if he didn’t accept the offer. Kumar ignored the email and just two days later they imposed sanctions on him and added him to the Treasury Departments Specially Designated Nationals list banning him from entering the US. The Adrian Darya 1 was blacklisted too.

This is just the latest attempt by the US to seize the Adrian Darya 1, an Iranian tanker which the US alleged was transporting oil to Syria breaching EU and U.S. sanctions. Previously this tanker has been sieved by British commandos off Gibraltar and was held there for a few weeks but then released after Iranians guaranteed that it wouldn’t breach EU sanctions. The US has also accused the ship of money laundering and terror financing and has warned its allies that giving aid to this ship will put them at risk. To Washington’s dismay, Gibraltar would not hand over the ship. Currently, it is somewhere in the eastern Mediterranean, with it’s signaling devices turned off.

Five months ago, the US unilaterally declared Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terror organization at the request of Israel, other nations however did not adopt the designation. A US State Department spokeswoman recently stated, “We have conducted extensive outreach to several ship captains as well as shipping companies warning them of the consequences of providing support to a foreign terrorist organization.”

At a press conference earlier this week Hook announced, “Today, the United States government is intensifying our maximum pressure campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Hook added, “We are announcing a reward of up to $15 million for any person who helps us disrupt the financial operations of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] and Qods [Jerusalem] Force.”

What Hook is referring to is the Rewards for Justice program which was established over thirty years ago to pay ordinary people large sums of cash to provide information to disrupt “terror networks”. On their website it states,

“The U.S. Department of State’s Reward for Justice Program is offering a reward of up to $15 million for information leading to the disruption of the financial mechanisms of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its branches, including the IRGC-Qods Force (IRGC-QF). The IRGC has financed numerous terrorist attacks and activities globally. The IRGC-QF leads Iran’s terrorist operations outside Iran via its proxies, such as Hizballah and Hamas.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted “Having failed at piracy, the US resorts to outright blackmail- deliver us Iran’s oil and receive several million dollars or be sanctioned yourself. Sounds very similar to the Oval Office invitation I received a few weeks back. It is becoming a pattern”. Adding the hashtag BTeamGangsters and attaching screenshots of an article titled “US Offers Cash to tanker captains in bid to seize Iranian ships”. He also described the US Treasury as “nothing more than a jail warden” in another tweet.

In addition to the Rewards for Justice (bounty) program, Washington is issuing sanctions against an alleged “oil for terror” network, which it alleges is run by the IRGC. This latest sanction package targets sixteen companies, nine individuals, and six oil tankers which they allege are supplying Iranian oil to Syria.

“Regime change” although explicitly denied by Trump, remains the ultimate goal in Iran for the State Department and Hooks comments on Wednesday are a clear indication, “Today’s announcement is historic. It’s the first time that the United States has offered a reward for information that disrupts a government entity’s financial operations,” Hook explained. “We’ve taken this step because the IRGC operates more like a terrorist organization than it does a government.”

Washington set this downward spiral in motion when President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal last year. Iran was in compliance with agreement terms and obligations during that time and just recently starting scaling back on its commitments after urging EU nations for an entire year to try and save the agreement or at the bare minimum secure sanction’s relief.

On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani gave Europe a two-month deadline before continuing to gradually reduce commitments under the JCPOA. “Europe has another two-month deadline for negotiations, agreement, and a return to its commitments,” Rouhani stated at a cabinet meeting.

France recently suggested that it would provide Tehran with a $15 billion credit line if the US granted sanction waivers, and in return Iran would comply with JCPOA, but clearly Washington is not interested in providing any waivers or relief.

Iran refers to the Washington’s sanctions as “economic terrorism”, illegal and unjustified under international law.  Tehran has also warned European countries that if they allow this to continue it will not end with Iran, other nations will be bullied by the United States unless something is done to end this cycle of abuse.

On Friday, Javad Zarif Iran’s Foreign minister tweeted in support and solidarity with Cuba and stated that US Economic terrorism against Cuba, China, Russia, Syria, Iran deliberately targets civilians while trying to achieve illegitimate political objectives through intimidation of innocent people. Zarif noted that the US’s rouge behavior now includes piracy, bribery and blackmail.

This article was first published on  Info-Ros and  the Rabbit Hole 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington’s “Maximum Pressure” Campaign against Iran. “Unorthodox Tactics” Include Piracy, Bribery and Extortion

Malaysia’s Prime Minister Mahathir: Insufficient Evidence to Blame Russia for MH17 Crash over Eastern Ukraine

September 7th, 2019 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Malaysia’s Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad casts doubt on the controversial Dutch JIT investigation pertaining to the July 2014 crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 over Eastern Ukraine.
In an interview with Sputnik News at the Vladivostok East Asia Economic Summit, Mahathir stated that there is insufficient evidence to blame Russia for the MH17 Malaysian Airlines crash.

According to PM Mahathir, some of the findings of the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) do not seem “quite right”.

“Yes, that [Russia’s guilt] is our doubt…. I am seeing this as an observer from the outside, and some of the findings made [by the JIT] did not sound to me and many people in Malaysia as being quite right”

“I am not doubting their truthfulness. But there are certain things that they claim — it is difficult for us to accept… Identifying the missile – yes. The area where it happened – that can be verified. But identifying the actual firing, by whom [it was performed], that would be very difficult in the usual circumstances”  (Sputnik News, September 4, 2019)

Mahathir was visibly concerned with the political nature of the accusations directed against Russia.

Immediately after the MH17 plane crash on July 17 2014, prior to the conduct of a preliminary investigation, Secretary of State John Kerry and US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power pointed their finger at Moscow without a shred of evidence. In turn,  the allegations directed against Russia were used to justify the imposition of sweeping economic sanctions  against the Russian Federation.

According to President Obama (hours after the tragedy):

“… the downing of MH17 should be “a wake-up call” to Europe to get serious about confronting Russia over Ukraine after EU leaders have proved reluctant to impose tought sanctions.” (Telegraph, July 18,2019)

The Wall Street Journal reports (July 18, 2014) that “Obama is getting his wish and Brussels is now weighing new sanctions”:

European governments, jolted by the downing of a passenger plane over eastern Ukraine that killed nearly 300 people, are contemplating a major expansion of sanctions on Russia as early as next week.

European Union leaders decided in recent days to expand the penalties to a broad new category of people and companies. But the apparent shooting down of a plane carrying more than 200 EU citizens has intensified a desire to act quickly and forcefully, including sanctions against oligarchs with ties to the Kremlin.

In Brussels, some diplomats described the incident as a game-changer. “It would have major consequences if it was certain it came from the rebels— major consequences,” said one official. (WSJ, July 18, 2014)

On July 22, 2014, The European Union decided to expand its sanctions blacklist against Moscow including Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.

EU foreign ministers decided to “draw up further broad measures including an arms embargo and financial restrictions on Russian businesses, … following the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17.” (Guardian, July 22, 2014)

Almost immediately after the incident, the US and its European allies claimed that Russia “Did it” without presenting any evidence that Russia was responsible for the tragedy. These allegations were used by Washington and Brussels as a pretext to introduce sanctions against Moscow, while Russia repeatedly denied the accusations.

Mahathir Meets Putin on Sideline of Vladivostok Summit

It is unclear whether the issue of MH17 was discussed by Prime Minister Mahathir and Russia’s President Putin in a meeting behind closed doors on the sidelines of the Vladivostok Economic Summit.

“Dr. Mahathir Mohamad is not ruling out discussing the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 shoot-down at his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin…” .

 “Well, if the matter is mentioned, then of course,” said the prime minister in an interview with the Sputnik news agency.

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Malaysia’s Prime Minister Mahathir: Insufficient Evidence to Blame Russia for MH17 Crash over Eastern Ukraine

Video: Prime Minister of Malaysia Dr. Mahathir Speaks at the Vladivostok Summit

September 6th, 2019 by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad

Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad spoke at a plenary session of the 5th Eastern Economic Forum 2019 in Vladivostok, Russia on Thursday.

Malaysia was taking part in the forum for the first time.

Other leaders who attended the plenary session were Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Mongolian President Khaltmaa Battulga, and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Over 7,000 participants from more than 60 countries have gathered at the annual event, which will end on Friday.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Prime Minister of Malaysia Dr. Mahathir Speaks at the Vladivostok Summit

China’s Challenge to American Power?

September 6th, 2019 by Shane Quinn

By the year 1918, Great Britain’s once far-reaching empire was crumbling, with the rate of British decline increased by her hugely expensive and unnecessary involvement in World War I. The United States, meanwhile, was taking over Britain’s mantle as the planet’s strongest nation.

America would not reach the status of a true global power until resumption of hostilities during World War II. Come the summer of 1945, with the Axis powers in ruins and defeated, America had become by far the most powerful country in history, possessing about 50% of the world’s wealth. 

The high point of US supremacy would not last for long, however. America’s decline began not in recent years, as is sometimes thought, but in fact seven decades ago. During early October 1949, America “lost China to communism” when Mao Zedong successfully led a revolution against the Western-backed leader Chiang Kai-shek and his supposedly nationalist party, the Kuomintang.

In December 1949, Chiang Kai-shek along with thousands of his followers fled to the island of Taiwan, located a few hundred miles off China’s south-eastern coast.

US president Harry Truman had refused to send American army personnel to bolster Chiang Kai-shek’s increasingly corrupt and unpopular regime. President Truman wrote as early as November 1945 that, “We are not mixing in China’s internal affairs”, from a direct military viewpoint at least.

China’s takeover by communist factions was viewed as a catastrophe by political figures in Washington. They also feared close collaboration between China and the USSR, which could inflict untold harm on American interests in the eastern hemisphere.

China is situated in a strategically vital area of east Asia – with Russia lying northwards, resource-laden central Asia to the west, Korea and Japan to the east. China is also a state rich in valuable deposits like coal, natural gas, aluminium and magnesium. Western business had flourished in China during the years before World War II, much to the detriment of the Japanese.

Politicians in the Republican Party, like Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, strongly criticized president Truman for America’s supposedly soft attitude on China. George Kennan, (image right ) the well respected American diplomat, produced a more convincing argument when he said that China’s impending exit from America’s sphere of influence was due to “tremendous, deep-flowing indigenous forces which are beyond our power to control”.

With Mao Zedong taking charge in China, Truman promptly cut off diplomatic relations with a country whose population in 1949 consisted of 550 million people, then comfortably the world’s largest. 

From the late 1940s, America’s lack of control in China was indeed a heavy blow to US strategic planners. Advancing into the 21st century, China’s growing power has increasingly alarmed those in the American capital.

China’s economy is now the second largest in the world (behind America), and it has grown in size many times over since Mao Zedong’s death in 1976. Beijing’s financial muscle has spread further through establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

The SCO was founded in Shanghai on 15 June 2001 and its headquarters are in Beijing. SCO members consist of important states such as Russia, India and Pakistan, along with Eurasian countries like Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The SCO’s influence stretches across central and southern Asia, massive areas flowing in natural resources that Washington has long since coveted.

The SCO’s expansion is a significant challenge to the American global financial order, dominated since 1945 by Washington-based organizations like the IMF and World Bank. There are suggestions too that the SCO could become a rival of NATO.

Also a threat to American influence is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, founded in 2015, and which is developing facilities in the Asian-Pacific regions. Even more worrying from an American perspective, this Chinese-run multilateral bank has attracted traditional US allies like Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and Australia, in defiance of Washington’s wishes.

Possible US-led attempts to sever China’s oil supply routes, such as through the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, would be highly unlikely to succeed. The vitally important Strait of Hormuz lies astride Iran, an enemy of the West, and elsewhere Oman and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). These three countries are in addition members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

The trade war between America and China has been ongoing for a year, and is becoming more entrenched. We can but hope it never descends to an armed conflict, as that could well escalate to nuclear war, which neither Washington nor Beijing wants, or the world.

The US-China trade battle can only result in negative consequences for both nations, along with wider sections of international commerce. Much of America’s infrastructure and state services are in disrepair, due to years of state under-funding, while spending on the American military remains extremely high and is rising.

States like Michigan, Indiana and West Virginia endure severe poverty rates, because of government mismanagement and industrial decay. The tariff duel with China will result in even worse living standards for American citizens residing in these de-industrialized zones.

Although China has lifted millions from poverty this century alone, the country still has huge challenges before it. China has growing levels of income inequality along with an aging and shrinking work force. During the Mao Zedong years, China’s education and health services were of superior quality, resulting in a death rate that was then much lower; but this progress has reversed with the capitalist reforms of the past 35 years.

As China continues to be the world’s undisputed coal burner, and one of the biggest oil consumers, her greatest problem is surely with regard to the environment. China and her cities have suffered from particularly high pollution levels relating to smog and other poisonous chemicals, resulting in health consequences for millions of China’s urban inhabitants. Over the past two generations, large segments of Chinese wetlands and forests have been lost, and almost 30% of mainland China now consists of desert – though extensive reforestation efforts have been underway.

With its 1.4 billion people, China is easily the biggest greenhouse gas producer in the world. China’s greenhouse emissions are about twice as large as America in second place, but historically and on a per capita basis (per person) America is far clear with a much smaller population of 327 million. Chinese carbon emissions are climbing again and in 2018 they increased by 4.7%, while last year America’s carbon dioxide levels rose by 3.4%.

China’s government, along with the US, would be well advised to shift away immediately from fossil fuel reliance towards renewable energy. This may have negative impacts on their economies in the short-term, but with much greater benefits for all concerned into the future. As global emissions are now at a record level, the Chinese and American governments must tackle this planetary problem if they wish to safeguard our globe.

Despite some gloomy predictions from Western media and scholarship, America will continue to be the world’s leading power for years to come. Through the decades America has boasted the largest array of armed forces on earth, and this will not change anytime soon.

In 2018, Washington spent hundreds of billions of dollars on its military, with the Donald Trump administration sparking a renewed arms race in the process. The US military outlay is at least three times greater than China which occupies second place. Last year, America spent 10 times as much on arms by comparison to Russia.

During November 2011, then president Barack Obama announced when on a visit to Australia that, “The United States is a Pacific power, and we are here to stay”. President Obama’s comments were intended as a signal to China, a country he identified as the greatest threat to American hegemony.

Since Obama’s remarks in 2011, about 66% of America’s army apparatus has been relocated eastwards to Asia-Pacific regions. This military build-up has constituted the largest gathering of forces witnessed since 1945. China is currently surrounded by 400-plus American military bases, reaching from Australia northwards through the Pacific to Japan, the Korean peninsula, across central Asia towards India and Afghanistan.

The remarkable range of US bases are holding advanced aircraft, warships, drones, etc. This equipment is stationed in these territories mainly with the Chinese in mind, but also with an eye on the Russians further north.

American forces were present too in the Pacific a century ago, as they competed with Japanese interests, with conflict inevitably occurring between the two nations. There is a much smaller chance of war breaking out between the US and China. Like America, China is a nuclear power and Beijing possesses around 260 nuclear weapons, ensuring that the stakes for combat have never been higher. The possibility remains, however small, of an accident or unforeseen incident unfolding that could lead to terrible consequences.

Since 2013, China’s president Xi Jinping has spent vast sums of money on Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which is a modernized version of the Silk Road, an ancient network of trading routes that disappeared in the 15th century. The Belt and Road Initiative involves a Chinese-led infrastructural program spanning thousands of miles of land area, increasing Beijing’s scope and including investments in over 150 countries. These developments must be of serious concern to the Americans.

Nonetheless, American warships continue sailing unhindered through the South China Sea in “freedom of navigation” exercises. The most recent incident took place late last week, when an American guided-missile destroyer sailed within a dozen miles of “disputed islands” in the South China Sea, in which trillions of dollars of trade flows through, provoking an angry response from Beijing.

For 75 years, the US Navy has enjoyed free and easy access across the enormous Pacific Ocean, also known as the “American lake”. Last month, China rejected requests from Washington that American warships be allowed to dock in Hong Kong, a former British colony in south-eastern China. We can take note that these tensions are occurring in the eastern hemisphere, and not within sight of American coastlines, which is revealing in itself.

America retains key allies in east Asia like South Korea and Japan, two countries in close proximity to China. On the Japanese island of Okinawa, situated about 1,000 miles south of Tokyo, America has 32 army bases alone equipped with advanced aircraft, warships, missiles, and home to thousands of American soldiers.

Prior to World War II, the US represented a growing power with few inhibitions. In the 21st century, the global outlook is a different one. America is no longer the coming power, but a declining one, though it remains a gradual regression rather than a steep fall. Today, America owns about 23% of the world’s wealth and its economy is still appreciably stronger than China’s, particularly when compared on a person-to-person basis.

Some of America’s decline has been self-inflicted, such as a result of the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq, that inflicted great harm on this already suffering country and the surrounding region. The Iraq invasion resulted in America losing influence in the mineral-rich Middle East, as Iraq thereafter developed closer relations with neighbouring Iran, a most unwanted outcome for Washington.

China represents a bigger threat to American power in comparison to the Empire of Japan before it. China has more economic clout than the Japan of the 1930s. Beijing has expanded her influence much further than the Japanese were able to do so, as Chinese investments flood across Eurasia, and even into some parts of Europe and Africa. The Japanese suffered from a lack of access to raw materials, something which does not affect China to anything like the same degree.

Yet those forecasting that China will soon overtake America as the globe’s strongest power are overestimating Chinese potential. America remains the earth’s dominant nation by a considerable distance. The US controls great areas of the Western hemisphere, and still holds some sway along east Asia and in the Pacific. Most of all, the US military reigns supreme on both sides of the world.

The Chinese have uncomfortable issues inside their very borders: In Hong Kong for instance. American institutions have been financially backing the protests in Hong Kong, through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization headquartered in Washington and funded by the US government.

Hong Kong, a diverse place with over seven million people, remains an important territory for Beijing. If China cannot control the areas near or within her boundaries, how can she possibly increase her hold on the wider world? Hong Kong is furthermore a lucrative commercial centre, with broad access to Western financial markets, that China wishes to have firm control of.

Beijing has concerns too over political unrest in far-west China, and also on the island of Taiwan, situated just over 400 miles east of Hong Kong. In June 2019, Taiwan requested large arms purchases from America, including more than 100 tanks and 250 advanced missiles.

In July 2019, the Trump administration approved a potential $2.2 billion arms sale to Taiwan. China’s foreign ministry said that the deal “grossly interferes in China’s internal affairs” – as too does another arms agreement hammered out last month, in which the US bids to sell dozens of its F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan for $8 billion. The United States is attempting to cut off China’s oxygen supplies as best it can. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China’s Challenge to American Power?

Looking Back to Move Forward: The First Pan-African Cultural Festival in Algeria, 1969

September 6th, 2019 by Abayomi Azikiwe

Fifty years ago this year from July 21-31, 1969 in the capital of Algeria, thousands of people gathered for a groundbreaking Pan-African Cultural Festival (PACF).

Official delegations were sent to the manifestation from over 30 independent and contested nations on the African continent. A strong contingent of artists, intellectuals, journalists and political activists from the United States were also in attendance.

This ten day extravaganza had been in the making for two years after it was mandated by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1967. The location of Algeria was significant in light of the protracted armed struggle waged against French colonialism by the people of this North African state beginning in 1954 and extending to 1961.

Algeria gained its independence in 1962 under the vanguard armed organization turned political party, the National Liberation Front (FLN), whose charismatic leader President Ben Bella exemplified the emerging youthful and foresighted figures shaping the progressive currents within the post-World War II period. The formation of the Conference of Independent African States and the All-African People’s Conference in April and December of 1958 respectively in Ghana under the presidency of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, had laid the framework for the OAU, established in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on May 25, 1963.

However, the African independence movements which gained strength after 1945 were not of the same political orientation. Ideological and philosophical divergence would surface based largely upon the class character of the individuals and organizations involved in the struggle.

Image on the right: Pan-African Cultural Festival in Algiers during July 1969 at the Afro-American Center hosted by the Black Panther Party International Section.

In many respects the PACF of 1969 was designed to emphasize the anti-colonial, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist character of the independence and post-independence movements and parties. The invitations extended to the African American delegates were based upon the notions of revolutionary Pan-Africanism and Proletarian Internationalism.

Just three years prior to the PACF, there had been a First Festival of the Negro in the Arts held in Dakar, Senegal convened in April 1966. The then President Leopold Senghor was an artist as well as a politician. He embodied the cultural philosophy of Negritude, which had been synchronized by Martinique-born Aime Cesaire through his poetry and discourse.

Dr. Frantz Fanon, also of Martinique, a French colonial territory in the Caribbean, had been influenced by Cesaire in his early years. Fanon, who was trained in psychiatric medicine in Lyon after fleeing the Vichy fascist regime on the island and later being enlisted in the Free French Forces, broke with the Negritude approach while working in Algeria during the revolutionary war of liberation.  Fanon would join the FLN and served the movement as a journalist and diplomat.

The Dakar festival of 1966 came in the immediate aftermath of the United States engineered military and police coup against the Convention People’s Party (CPP) government of Nkrumah in Ghana. If not widely known and appreciated at the time, the Festival was encouraged by the U.S. and the imperialist nations, particularly France, which had formerly colonized Senegal.

Subsequent revelations from the period documented the role of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the U.S. State Department in selecting and shaping the character of the African American delegation which attended the Dakar gathering in April 1966. As far as the West was concerned, African culture should be celebrated if it is done within the social and political context of imperialist domination under the existing world capitalist divisions of labor and economic power. Senghor and the Negritude ideologues were committed to an independence policy that closely allied itself with imperialism. In essence it was anti-communist and rejected an ideological approach based upon historical and dialectical materialism.

The African American intellectual and cultural imagination had been heavily intertwined with yearnings for a return to the homeland on the continent. The early institutions formed by Africans in North America during slavery were reflective of this phenomenon. A cursory examination of this history points to the African Baptist Church, African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME), Free African Society, etc. Emigration back to Africa and other geo-political regions of the globe was a recurrent pattern in the intellectual and political culture of the formerly enslaved people of the Americas, North and South.

Consequently, the role of writers, artists and other involved in intellectual work was of concern to the colonial and neo-colonial powers based in the West. The ideological struggle within the cultural spheres was a hallmark of the two Congresses of Negro Writers held in Paris in 1956 and Rome during 1959. African and African American public intellectuals such as Richard Wright, James Baldwin, Frantz Fanon, Leopold Senghor, Aime Cesaire, Horace Mann Bond, J. Price-Mars, George Lamming, Cheikh Anta Diop and others participated in these conferences to debate the place of culture in the liberation process. (See this)

A striking limitation of the First Congress in Paris in 1956 was the absence of women making any significant intellectual contribution. African American artist Josephine Baker who lived in Paris was recognized as a patron of the gathering. There are existing photographs of women in attendance in France.

This omission of women’s involvement in the discourse was recognized and commented on by African American novelist and essayist Richard Wright.  Chirstiane Diop, the wife of Presence Africaine journal founder and Congress architect Alioune Diop, was key organizer of the events, however, she remains obscured in regard to intellectual contributions to the confab. Wright, the then Paris-based author, stressed during the Congress:

“I don’t know how many of you have noticed it – there have been no women functioning vitally and responsibly upon this platform helping to mold and mobilize our thoughts. This is not a criticism of the conference, it is not a criticism of anyone, it is a criticism that I heap upon ourselves collectively… In our struggle for freedom, against great odds, we cannot afford to ignore one half of our manpower, that is, the force of women and their active collaboration. Black men will not be free until their women are free.” (See this)

An outcome of the two Congresses of Negro Writers in Paris and Rome was the founding of the Society of African Culture (SAC). The U.S. component, known as the American Society of African Culture (ASAC), would later become embroiled in controversy due to reports of funding and manipulation by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department. (See this)

Black Power, Black Panthers and the Casbah

Pan-African Cultural Festival in Algeria during July 1969 with joint press conference hosted by the Black Panther Party and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

At the opening parade of the PACF on July 21, there was an impressive display of cultural expressions from throughout the continent. Delegations from the Republic of Guinea-Conakry, Congo-Brazzaville, Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO), Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU), the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC), the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), the Southwest Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) and many others marched through the main thoroughfares of Algiers.

Although Fanon had passed away from Leukemia at the age of 36 in 1961 at a hospital in the U.S., his writings had gained monumental influence during the mid-to-late years of the decade. African American radicals and revolutionaries viewed his book “The Wretched of the Earth” as the subtitle suggested, A Guide to the Black Revolution Sweeping the World Today.”

The Black Panther Party by July 1969 was under severe attack at the aegis of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the Justice Department. Hundreds of its cadres were indicted and imprisoned on largely trumped up criminal charges. Other members were assassinated or driven into exile including Minister of Information Eldridge Cleaver.

Cleaver was a well-known best-selling author by 1968. His book “Soul on Ice” had generated enormous attention by the literary community and the general public. The articles and essays which made up the book had been written and some were published while he was an inmate at Folsom Prison in California.

After observing the Black Panther Party for Self Defense (BPPSD), its previous name, led by Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale, confront police officers on the streets of Oakland he committed himself to the organization. He played a leading role in the Black Panther newspaper while at the same time serving as a contributing writer for Ramparts, a left-wing magazine which opposed the U.S. war in Vietnam and supported the Black Power movement.

As a result of the police shooting which resulted in the death of 17 year old Bobby Hutton in Oakland on April 6, 1968, Cleaver was jailed for several months. After being released, he was charged with violating his conditions of parole and threatened with being imprisoned again. All the while in the same year, he was nominated to run for president on the newly-formed Peace and Freedom Party ticket. After the 1968 elections, rather than be incarcerated, Cleaver fled the U.S. to Canada and then Cuba. He remained in Cuba for several months and was later invited to Algeria to open up an International Section for the BPP in the capital of Algiers.

According to the recollections of his then wife, Kathleen Neal Cleaver, formerly of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), who said:

“I’d met Eldridge Cleaver, the information minister of the Black Panther Party, at a student conference on black liberation held in Nashville over the Easter weekend of 1967. We fell in love and by Christmas we were married. In late November 1968, Eldridge fled imprisonment in the wake of a gun battle between Black Panthers and Oakland police, and by the time I set out to join him I was seven months pregnant. Determined to be with my husband when our first child was born, I headed off for Havana, but discovered en route that the place we would meet was Algiers instead. Half a year after his clandestine departure from the United States, Eldridge Cleaver, celebrated author of Soul on Ice and fugitive revolutionary, was enthusiastically welcomed to Algiers on the eve of the Pan-African Cultural Festival.” (See this)

The Panthers through their propaganda declared that they were the vanguard of the Black Revolution in the U.S. Others organizations and entities had also recognized them as such. Their widespread coverage in the national news media began in May 1967 when they marched on the California State Capitol building in Sacramento with arms to protest the debate surrounding the Mulford Act, which would ban the public brandishing of weapons. The bill was targeted against the Panthers and the African American community in general. Later in October of the same year, Newton would be wounded, arrested and charged with the gunning down of two white police officers, one fatally, in Oakland. An international campaign demanding his release gained currency across the U.S., Europe, Africa and Asia.

Growing media attention, the rapid growth of the organization nationally during 1968 and the frequent clashes with law-enforcement agencies in various cities, contributed to the notion of the Panthers opening up an armed struggle against the state. The organization emerged during the advent and growth of urban rebellions led predominately by African Americans during the period of 1964-68.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the Algerian government would invite the BPP to open up an office in this North African nation. During the PACF of 1969, an “Afro-American Center” was set up on a major thoroughfare in Algiers where posters of Newton, Cleaver and other Panthers were on prominent display along with the art work of Minister of Culture Emory Douglas.

Kathleen Cleaver in the previously cited article went on to note that:

“On July 17, every seat inside la Mutualité, the auditorium where his press conference took place, was filled. Students, revolutionaries, Arabs, Europeans, Africans, and Black Americans all applauded Eldridge’s arrival, acknowledging his presence in Algiers as a symbolic triumph over America’s racist power. I felt electricity surge through the crowd when I walked onto the stage with Eldridge and his interpreter who translated his words into French. The charisma and authority in his voice, added to his imposing physical presence, brought an unexpected element into the excitement generated by the upcoming festival. Being in Africa, for him and the entire movement he represented, held deep significance for our fight for black liberation within America.”

Image below: ALGERIA. Algiers. Pan-African Festival. North Africa. ALGERIA. Algiers. 1st Panafrican Cultural Festival. Stokely CARMICHAEL (Leader of the Black Power) and Eldridge CLEAVER (a leader of the Black Panthers). Hotel St. George. Wednesday, July 23, 1969

Nonetheless, there were sharp ideological and political divisions that had surfaced in the BPP during 1968-69. Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Ture) had initiated the Black Panther independent politics concept during his field operations in Alabama in 1965-66. The Lowndes County Freedom Organization (LCFO) was formed during this period as an independent political structure outside the framework of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The Black Panther was utilized as the symbol of the LCFO.

The successes of the organizing work in Lowndes County and other areas of Alabama set the stage for a statewide Black Panther Party as early as the beginning months of 1966. This approach to organizing attracted the attention of other activists across the U.S. resulting in the formation of several Black Panther organizations in various cities such as New York, Detroit, Cleveland, etc. Obviously these efforts influenced Newton and Seale along with others in California to set up separate branches of the Black Panther Party in Southern and North California. By 1968, the Newton and Cleaver grouping had declared dominance and became known as the “official BPP” on a national level. Carmichael, the former Chair of SNCC, H. Rap Brown (now known as Jamil Al-Amin), James Forman and others were drafted as leading officials in the Oakland-based BPP during 1967-1968. Carmichael was appointed as Honorary Prime Minister, Brown as Minister of Justice and Forman given the title of Foreign Minister, since he had served as the first International Affairs Director for SNCC after May 1966.

However, disagreements and misunderstandings arose in 1968-69 leading to the former SNCC leaders departing from the BPP based in Oakland. Carmichael sought to publically distance himself from the Panthers and issued a letter of resignation which was published on July 4, 1969. For the previous six months, it was announced by his then wife Miriam Makeba, a world famous singer and concert performer from the-then apartheid South Africa, noting Carmichael and her had relocated to the Guinea-Conakry.

In evaluating these schisms in the Black Panther movement it is imperative to take strong consideration of the FBI’s counter-intelligence program (COINTELPRO) which devoted enormous resources aimed at destroying the BPP along with other radical, revolutionary and even more liberal and moderate organizations. The BPP was infiltrated by informants from the federal government, local law-enforcement agencies and even military intelligence.

The aim of the COINTELPRO operations directed against the BPP were to frame leaders for criminal offenses; to provoke violence between local police agencies and the Panthers; sew divisions among the organization and other groups to the point of violence; and to destroy the credibility of the Panthers and other revolutionary groups among African American youth, community members and within the organization itself prompting disaffection and demoralization. (See this)

Carmichael and Makeba were in Algiers for the PACF. Makeba’s stunning performance in a concert at the Festival was well received by the audience. Carmichael met with Eldridge Cleaver during the period in which he and Makeba were in Algiers. Later Cleaver would issue his own public letter to Carmichael suggesting that his resignation came a year to late and that he was not up to the job of serving in the leadership of the BPP.

Other African American cultural, journalistic and political forces were in Algiers for the PACF. A concert was delivered by saxophonist and Jazz composer Archie Shepp where musicians such as pianist Dave Burrell, trombonist Grachan Moncur III, Alan Silva on bass, Sunny Murray on drums, Clifford Thornton on cornet and poet Don L. Lee (later known as Haki R. Madhubuti) contributed on stage along with Tuareg percussionists and vocalists. A report on the Archie Shepp concert based upon a documentary film on the PACF directed by William Klein, recounted the words spoken by an African American poet at the opening of the performance which emphasized:

“’We are still Black and we have come back. Nous sommes revenus [‘We have returned’]. We have come back and brought back to our land, Africa, the music of Africa. Jazz is a Black Power! Jazz is a Black Power! Jazz is an African Power! Jazz is an African music! Jazz is an African music! We have come back!’ proclaimed African American poet Ted Joans as he stood before an audience in the overcrowded streets of Algiers, Algeria, at the First Pan-African Cultural Festival in July 1969. He continued the poem, emphasizing his French phrases to ensure the largely Francophone African crowd would understand him: ‘Nous sommes revenus. Nous sommes les Noirs Americains, les Afro-Americains, les Africains des Etats-Unis. Mais, le premier chose, nous sommes Africains.’ [‘We have returned. We are Black Americans, Afro-Americans, Africans of the United States. But foremost, we are Africans.’]1 Next to Ted Joans was an animated and commanding Archie Shepp, pacing across the stage playing his saxophone. Riding over and through Shepp’s melodies were the rhythms of the Algerian Tuareg musicians who stood nearby, beating at their drums. The audience responded with uproarious applause and spurred on what was to become a classic jazz recording, Archie Shepp’s Live at the Pan-African Festival. Shortly after the performance, Shepp was interviewed about the experience by the Algerian national newspaper, El Moudjahid. He described the moment’s meaning in personal and political terms: ‘In my opinion, jazz is the music of all the long-lost Africans in America.’” (See this)

Social Scientist and journalist Dr. Nathan Hare attended the PACF and wrote an extensive article published in the first issue of Black Scholar released in November 1969. Hare had been hired as the first Chair of a Black Studies Department established at San Francisco State College (SFSC) in 1968. A protracted struggle over the independence of the department and other issues impacting African Americans, Chicanos, Asians and radical whites resulted in the longest student strike in U.S. history.

After the resignation of two presidents at SFSC and the appointment of Japanese American academic S.I. Hayakawa, Hare was terminated from his position as Chair of Black Studies in early 1969. Later the same year after attending the PACF, he along with Robert Chrisman and Allen Ross, started the Black Scholar journal.

Musicians Nina Simone of the U.S. and Oscar Peterson of Canada attended and performed at the PACF. Julia Wright, the daughter of legendary novelist Richard Wright then living in Paris, aligned with the BPP as the director of the Afro-American Center in Algiers.

Algeria, Africa and Pan-Africanism Today: 2019

Looking back on the First Pan-African Cultural Festival of July 1969 raises questions related to the status of national liberation, anti-capitalism and revolutionary transformation at the conclusion of the second decade of the 21stcentury. Since 1969 many of the liberation movements which participated in the PACF have won their independence.

There have been the socialist-oriented policies enacted over a period of years from the 1960s to the 1980s in Mozambique, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Congo-Brazzaville, Tanzania, Madagascar, Ethiopia, Benin, Guinea-Conakry, Somalia, Egypt, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Algeria, Ghana, Mali, etc. These policies ranged from the nationalization of industries, expulsion of U.S. and other imperialist military bases, formations of self-help collectives, state-owned farms, the creation of import substitution firms aimed at reducing demand for foreign products, founding mass organizations concerned with the plight of women, youth, workers, intellectuals and artists.

The continuing domination by international finance capital of global markets involving the extraction and pricing of commodities, ownership of the means of production, the deliberate destruction of ecosystems impacting water supplies, agriculture, livestock and technological innovation, hampers the capacity of African states to achieve sustainable development. A crisis in European socialism beginning in the late 1980s and resulting in the collapse of the COMECON sector, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), a civil war fueled by imperialist interventions in the former Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia and its dissolution, has had negative consequences for African Union (AU) member states from the perspective of having narrower access to alternative terms of trade different from those of the West and the political support provided to progressive governments on the continent.

Nonetheless, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) over the last 40 years emerged as the second largest economy in the world. This has been done under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC) which took power in this Asian state 70 years ago.

At present Beijing has greatly expanded its political and economic relations with Africa. The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) has been in existence for two decades holding periodic conferences where agreements are discussed and ratified.

State-run Chinese publications run articles on a regular basis dealing with African affairs in addition to various aspects of relations between the PRC and AU member-states. China on principle refrains from intervention in the internal affairs of African governments. All military and intelligence operations are conducted in partnership with the respective administrations.

In contrast the U.S. has intensified its military and intelligence programs in Africa. The U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) was formerly launched in 2008 under President George W. Bush, Jr. This separate structure focusing exclusively on the continent, its islands and waterways, was strengthened and enhanced under the Democratic administration of former President Barack Obama. Since the assumption of office by President Donald Trump there has been almost no change in Washington’s approach to Africa. AFRICOM remains on the continent building air strips, training national military forces in purported counter-terrorism preparedness, establishing drone stations for the purpose of surveillance and offensive strikes on targeted organizations, the monitoring of waterways under the guise of preventing piracy in order to allow the ostensible free flow of goods through strategic shipping lanes.

Algeria in 2019 has been characterized by large-scale demonstrations by students and professionals demanding reforms related to the electoral process and allegation of financial corruption. Former President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, ailing and ageing, was forced from office due to political pressure from demonstrators.

There appears to be a predominant emphasis on ending corruption and FLN control of the state by the demonstrators without any definitive alternatives being proposed. Of course, North Africa and other regions have witnessed the mass demonstrations in Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria in 2010-11. However, these protests and general strikes have not changed the fundamental class relationships domestically and internationally within countries where they have occurred and beyond.

If the workers, farmers, youth, revolutionary intellectuals and artists are to learn anything from the so-called “Arab Spring” events of 2010-11, it is that there is a distinct demarcation related to rebellion and revolution. The term revolution is utilized in many cases to signify civil disorder, mass protests and the occupation of space critical to the maintenance of the status-quo. Understanding this profound distinction one could hardly argue that transformative revolutionary processes have taken place in Egypt and Tunisia.

If there is any confusion related to Cairo and Tunis, it would have to be crystal clear based upon an objective assessment of developments emanating from the rebel attacks, CIA interventions, Pentagon and NATO bombings and the imposition of western-backed pliant regimes in neighboring Libya. The actual counter-revolution against the Jamahiriya in Libya exemplified by the blanket bombing of the country for seven months from March to October 2011; the assassination of longtime leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi; several failed attempts to concoct United Nations mandated regimes; and the funding of militias allied with the CIA, makes an irrefutable case that imperialism is only capable of causing instability, massive carnage, population displacement and the fostering of further rightward political culture in the leading centers of the capitalist world.

African unity remains on the agenda of the AU through its regular summits and permanent commission in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. There is the 2063 Agenda which in theory is aimed at the complete integration of economies, cooperation on various political fronts along with the creation of an effective African Standby Force. During 2018-19, there was the launching of an African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) which furthers the AU agenda by committing in principle to eliminate tariffs and other barriers to economic exchange among African states.

Despite these laudable efforts, as this author wrote in another article earlier this year (2019):

“Nevertheless, the presence of western military forces within AU member states represents the antithesis of the progressive and revolutionary currents of Pan-Africanism emanating from the First All-African Peoples Conference of December 1958 in Ghana right through to the armed resistance phase to colonialism, the founding of the Organization of African Unity, the predecessor to the AU, and the burgeoning class struggle against a comprador elite propped up by international finance capital. Under the present circumstances, the imperialists are firmly positioned to stifle any economic development planning, which views the dominance of the world capitalist system as the major obstruction to Africa making a decisive turn in the direction of its rightful trajectory towards continental unification based upon the interests of the majority of its people.” (See this)

As it relates to the plight of Africans in the U.S., there has been the expansion of representation within municipal, state and governmental legislative structures over the last 50 years directly stemming from the gains of the Civil Rights, Black Power and Pan-African movements. A person of African descent, former President Barack Obama, was elected to two terms of office in 2008 and again in 2012. Notwithstanding this symbolic victory over institutional racism which is still quite prevalent in the 21stcentury in the U.S., the fundamental conditions of African Americans, Latinx, Asian, Indigenous, Middle Eastern, women and other oppressed and working class people has in fact worsened.

The foreign policy negative effectuation of the Obama presidency proved disastrous in regard to the prosperity and well-being of Africa. The destruction of Libya and a concomitant destabilization of the entire North Africa region have led to the human trafficking of millions. This African, Arab and Asian migration tide across the Mediterranean, compounded by the overall lethargy of the world capitalist system, has fueled the rise of neo-fascist parties and politicians in Europe as well as the U.S.

Obama took no specific policy initiatives to improve the social conditions of African Americans who as a result of the Great Recession beginning in 2007, lost more than half of their household wealth through foreclosures, job losses, the decline in real wages and the rapid gentrification of urban areas. Police and vigilante killings of African Americans under the Obama administration sparked several limited rebellions along with mass demonstrations against this genocidal violence, coined by the corporate media as the “Black Lives Matter” movement.

Absent the consolidation of anti-racist sentiment which arose during the period of 2013-2016, the character of the struggle remains largely spontaneous. In the U.S. today there is nothing remotely resembling the BPP or SNCC. The political imperatives of the African American people are rudimentary in relationship to the building of mass and vanguard organizations whose objectives are the revolutionary uprooting of national oppression, gender discrimination, capitalism and imperialism.

These subjective weaknesses among the nationally oppressed and proletariat by no means guarantees the stability of capitalism. The imposition of tariffs by Washington against the PRC and other states is a reflection of the uncertainty of the future of imperialism as an exploitative system. Bourgeois economists are predicting another recession originating on Wall Street. The question becomes: what will the U.S. ruling class and capitalist state do in response to this inevitability?

The massive bailout of the capitalist system from 2008 to the present to the tune of $10 trillion or more in resources has drained the capacity for much needed rebuilding of infrastructure and the lifting of social wages for the nationally oppressed, farmers and the working class as a whole. Rising annual federal deficits provide an ominous preview to the potential collapse of governmental agencies rendering them incapable of responding to environmental catastrophes and a potential for the rapid rise of unemployment and poverty.

Africans in the U.S. and around the world have virtual no alternatives to revolutionary organization and the seizure of political power on an international scale. The lessons of the PACF of 50 years ago portend much for this contemporary crisis.

*

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

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

All images in this article are from the author; featured image: Pan-African Cultural Festival in Algiers during July 1969 showing the FRELIMO delegation at the opening parade.

Video: Syrian Army Prepares Security Operation in Western Aleppo

September 6th, 2019 by South Front

Late on September 3, Idlib militants carried out an attack on Russia’s Hmeimim Airbase with armed unmanned aerial vehicles. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the airbase’s air-defense forces intercepted all the UAVs. The attack caused no casualties or damage at the airbase.

The attack took place just a few days after the start of the ceasefire in the Idlib zone on August 31. It demonstrates that despite diplomatic efforts by the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance, Idlib militant groups are not very interested in a real de-escalation in the region.

On September 4, the Suqour al-Sham Brigades accused Russian special forces of attacking positions of its fighters near Ejaz in southern Idlib. The militant group said that two its members were killed and seven others were injured.

Watch the video here.

Last week, at least sixteen militants of the Ahrar al-Sham Movement were killed in southern Idlib in a similar mysterious development. That militant groups also blamed the Russians.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies are preparing to launch a military operation to secure Aleppo’s city center, according to reported in local media. Several units of the SAA and 1,500 Iranian-backed fighters will reportedly take part in the operation that would target militants’ positions in the districts of al-Zahra and al-Rashidin, north and northwest of the city.

Over the past year, militants in al-Zahra and al-Rashidin have fired hundreds of rockets and mortars on Aleppo’s city center, killing and injuring dozens of civilians. They even attacked the city with chlorine gas last November.

The SAA is expanding its infrastructure at the T4 airbase in the province of Homs, according to reports and satellite images appearing online. The images show that the length of the airbase’s southern runway is being expanded from 3,200 m to 3,750 m. A third runway is also apparently being built.

Pro-Israeli sources link this development with the growing Iranian presence in the country. Iran uses the T4 airbase as one of the sites involved in drone operations across Syria.

*

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

Support South Front in its endeavors.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Syrian Army Prepares Security Operation in Western Aleppo
  • Tags: ,

“Peace” at Home on the Western Front, Exporting Terrorism Abroad: Social Antagonisms and the Contradictions of Capitalism

September 6th, 2019 by Janelle Velina

‘Freedom of speech’ continues to be a very complicated subject matter that remains unresolved, especially in the context of geopolitics. To further complicate matters, very few realize that Liberalism (not to be confused with ‘leftism’) is actually the current world-dominating philosophy, and that it is Capitalism’s default standard when it is “business as usual” and there is no significant threat of socialism arising during times of economic crises.

If anything, liberalism is the more ‘effective evil’ in silencing the global masses in the face of U.S. foreign policy’s wars of imperialist intervention. 

In a recent video called, “The New YouTube Purge,” Jason Unruhe raises a key point which contradicts a popular American right-wing narrative that there is a “leftist bias” in Western mainstream media and on social media, with the implication that there is a “left-wing threat”.

However, as pointed out by Unruhe, there is no credible threat to the system coming from the Western left whose vigor significantly decreased by the 1970s, with many having fallen into the liberal trappings of identity politics. At around the 2:15-minute mark in the video he states that there is actually no “leftist bias” or a bias against the right; but rather, there is a liberal bias that is embedded in the current climate of social media censorship-blitz:

“There is not a conspiracy against conservatives to censor them. Now that’s what they really believe in this case. But let’s really look at what’s going on. Capitalism needs things to function as smoothly as possible in order to make money; in other words: social anxieties and antagonisms “down”, purchasing “up”. Now there are certain barriers to that, certain contradictions within capitalism that creates the problems that run antagonistic to this desire for “smooth sailing”.”

While it is true that high-profile conservative media personalities are being censored on social media, it is not because of an overarching government conspiracy against the right. It is also not an issue of correct or incorrect ideas. After all, capitalism is built upon inequality, and one cannot expect true equality under such a system in regard to ideas or anything else. In order for the capitalist-imperialist system to function properly, the capitalists need to maintain consumer spending in the countries that comprise the imperialist core.

Not only do the capitalists need to maintain consumer spending, but they also need to avoid anything that might hinder “business as usual”, such as workers’ strikes, large-scale protests, or any other kind of popular mobilization that might threaten the established system. This includes both right-wing and left-wing mobilizations, although the right is considerably stronger at present, at least in the U.S.

Despite all the brutal violence and terrorism perpetrated by the imperialists and their proxies, the ruling class needs to maintain a positive, peaceful image of the capitalist system, especially in the imperialist countries, in order the keep the system running smoothly.

Therefore, the capitalists must place constraints on speech, especially through social media, to maintain a veneer of tolerance and acceptability, and to prevent the spread of non-mainstream right-wing or left-wing ideas which may threaten the system.

The capitalists must prevent not only the rise of radicalism in the imperialist core, but also any domestic terrorist activity that does not fit within their agenda. When American right-wing pundits such as Stephen Crowder “go too far” with some of their racist comments, they get de-monetized on Youtube not because the capitalists want a truly equitable and just world, nor because right-wingers are a threat to the system in the same way that the Bolsheviks were to the tsarist regime. The capitalist class considers such comments to be problematic because they are outside the boundaries of acceptable and “peaceful” speech within the imperialist core. By limiting speech that is outside the limits of mainstream acceptability, including both right-wing and left-wing speech, the capitalist ruling class effectively kills any attempts toward creating class consciousness, economic justice, international solidarity, or positive change in general.

With that said, there are, of course, certain right-wing sentiments that the capitalist class and liberal media are willing to tolerate — just not on Western soil; and certainly not on American soil today, in spite of it being the “belly of the beast” (to borrow Che Guevara’s words) and having been built on a foundation of slavery and the genocide of its indigenous populations. Right-wing terrorism abroad is not only exported and funded by Western powers against countries targeted by U.S. foreign policy, but it is also glorified and celebrated in Western mainstream media.

In fact, many of the loudest voices championing the Banderite neo-Nazi Svoboda party in Ukraine and the numerous Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist proxy forces attempting to destabilize Syria have been liberals (as well as several sections of the Western “left”). For all their bluster about the American “alt-right”, liberal pundits and anti-Trump U.S. politicians alike appear to be tone deaf to their own hypocrisy in supporting right-wing terrorism against Ukraine, Syria, and Venezuela.

One would be correct to say that the Svoboda representatives or supporters and the Wahhabist and Salafist anti-Assad forces are much less likely to be at the receiving end of the social media censorship blitz. Besides, both U.S.-backed ultra-conservative forces have been rebranded as “revolutionaries” and “moderate rebels” in Western media. Moreover, both sets of reactionaries have taken to Twitter and Facebook several times to openly boast about their exploits or to express outright hatred, all without facing the same liberal condemnation as the American right wing.

One such notorious example is the White Helmets, the “humanitarian” front group of Al Qaeda in Syria, who are infamously marketed as the “Syrian civil defense” in Western media and were awarded an Oscar in 2017. In a widely circulated and highly graphic June 2017 video on Twitter, the White Helmets were caught on camera parading the mutilated bodies and severed heads of Syrian soldiers (who were taken as prisoners of war by the “rebels”) as trophies, as well as dumping and disposing of them. One member even bragged to the camera and held up a bloodied severed head so that the camera could get a close-up of it.

This was not the first time that these so-called “peace-bearing first aid responders” participated alongside the various terrorist groups in the torture, beheadings, or executions of Syrian civilians and captured Syrian Arab Army soldiers. Despite the numerous atrocities committed by these NATO-sponsored terrorist groups — which also include stealing and hoarding food and water supplies from civilians in “rebel”-held territory, in addition to some of the most gruesome acts of violence — few of them have ever seen any of their social media pages suspended.

In some cases, these reactionary forces who represent complete backwardness would go on to become Facebook policy managers, such as former Ukrainian government official and long-time Svoboda party member Kateryna Kruk. Kruk is a hardline ultra right-wing nationalist who is unabashedly anti-Russia and has openly cheered on fascistic acts of street violence and terrorism on social media several times.

This is nothing more than a blatant move to further cement Facebook’s censorship campaigns, on behalf of U.S. interests, against Russia as well as against anti-imperialist voices — especially those who criticize the U.S.-led proxy wars against countries such as Syria and Ukraine.

The Svoboda party, which took over Ukraine in 2014 with the help of a U.S.-backed coup, is essentially a rebranding of the openly neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine; both past and present incarnations of the party are inspired by Stepan Bandera and his Nazi-collaborationist movement. The party is overtly fascist (in the literal and in every meaningful sense of the oft-misused word) and makes no effort to hide its racist, anti-Semitic, and xenophobic sentiments both online and offline. White supremacist banners and Confederate flags can be seen draped inside of Kiev’s City Hall, and the neo-Nazi militia wing of the party can often be seen sporting a skinhead style of dress as well as glorifying street violence and pledging to defend Ukraine’s “ethnic purity”.

And after toppling a statue of Lenin — which Western liberals and anarchists cheered on — the militias hoisted a Nazi SS banner that included white power symbols. They even destroyed memorials dedicated to Ukrainians who died while fighting against Nazi-German occupation during World War II. Yet, in spite of all the mounting evidence that shows that the party actively targets ethnic minorities, the Svoboda party continues to enjoy support from the U.S. and its allies, being hailed as having brought “democracy” to Ukraine.

These cases of Western-sponsored right-wing terrorism in Syria and Ukraine are just some examples of the “out of sight, out of mind” and “not in my backyard” mentality of the capitalist class.

More importantly, the double standard by which right-wing terrorism is condemned (and rightly so for the most part) when it happens on Western soil but not when it happens in Syria, Ukraine, or Venezuela, is in keeping with the imperialist objectives of Washington and Wall Street. Namely, right-wing terrorist proxy forces — whether they be Jabhat al Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria), the Svoboda party, or Juan Guaido and his supporters — representing complete backwardness, have the potential to push back economic development in the countries in which they are propped up through their acts of sabotage, which works in favour of the American Empire as it seeks to eliminate competition and/or those who are not friendly towards U.S. capital interests.

Therefore, these highly reactionary forces’ methods are not cause for concern for the United States as long as the acts of sabotage and terrorism align with its geopolitical aims. This line of thinking is not unlike that of Richard Nixon who, as Caleb Maupin wrote, was willing to “unleash Milton Friedman against the people of Chile in 1973 following the military coup,” but “would not unleash the nightmare of neoliberalism on America’s middle class.”

Although the social media giant has a liberal bias with a particularly obvious lean towards the Democratic Party, it is no accident that Facebook would hire a representative of the Svoboda party. As a matter of fact, the Atlantic Council, a NATO think tank, is heavily involved in helping to shape Facebook policy and is one of the “fact-checkers” used by the social media company; it ultimately decides what kind of speech is allowed and what isn’t. Hence why anti-imperialist voices are primarily silenced, because Facebook serves and ultimately reflects U.S. capital interests which have a global monopoly. Facebook, along with other social media giants such as Twitter and Instagram, functions as a highly influential tool since it often acts as an unofficial policy arm of Washington on the internet. Furthermore, this is not the first time that the U.S. and other Western powers have colluded (albeit covertly) with fascists, as prior to joining the united front against the Axis powers in World War II, both the American and British ruling classes largely saw Nazism as a bulwark against the Soviet Union and communism.

After WWII, the CIA employed numerous former Nazi officials as spies against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Not to mention, the United States and its allies violated the 1945 Potsdam agreement by siding with the reactionary German factions that wanted to partition Germany, leading to the creation of the puppet government of West Germany — which included several ex-Nazi officials in positions of power and would be invited to become a NATO member. They also violated the agreement by re-arming West Germany. With these historical events in mind, one may understandably find it puzzling that U.S. officials such as the late Republican Senator John McCain and liberal favourites such as Barack Obama would condemn the violent clashes that took place in Charlottesville in the summer of 2017 involving right-wing extremists. However, there is historical context to that phenomenon as well, which is rooted in American Supremacy. Namely, World War II historical revisionism by the United States has always manifested itself by attempting to diminish or erase the major contributions, achievements, and immense sacrifices of the Soviet Union — while the U.S. exaggerates the role it played by portraying itself as the “heroes” who carried the full weight of the war, even if they were the latecomers and had made business deals with the Nazis prior to (and in some cases, during) joining the Allies in combat. The fact that it was the Soviet Union that defeated the Nazis threatens the myth of America as a liberating force — a myth that is needed in justifying U.S. imperialism; hence the reason for the U.S. lionizing and exaggerating its role in WWII.

While the Western far right is a public relations inconvenience, “pink-washing” has actually been a long-running strategy of the imperialists to manipulate the public as they began to realize that expressions of hardline, openly reactionary ideas were starting to become marketing liabilities. As Maximilian Forte says in his book, Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa:

“Few recognized that liberal imperialism was the driving force in new American conquests even under putative conservatives such as George W. Bush, and thus many did not recognize ‘neoconservatism’ whose ideological principles and goals are that of a ‘new’ liberal imperialism: direct intervention, regime-change, nation-building, counterinsurgency, pacification, aid, development. The hard-line conservatives in the U.S. instead proclaim that America is a republic, and not an empire. Others clearly disagree. The result is the creation of a renewed hierarchy that not accidentally mirrors old ethnocentric theories of ‘cultural evolution’ from the nineteenth century and some of the racial typologies of the time: the West, white, developed, and superior has the right to intervene in Africa, and Africa has the ‘right’ to be intervened in, and should be barred from even intervening in its own affairs. We are not dealing with coincidences and accidents, not at this level of expenditure and obsessive strategizing: the U.S. military’s new Africa Command (AFRICOM), the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA), the work of the USAID, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) with its nearly exclusive focus on Africa—none of these things are ‘accidents.’”(p. 18)

Indeed, capitalism needs to constantly adapt to changes in material conditions in order to survive and preserve itself; naturally, that includes the need to expand beyond national borders through imperialism. Over the years since the height of the Cold War, that also included making imperialism more palatable to the Western masses and giving it a “humanitarian” veneer. And so today, many of the “social justice movements” such as the “Stop Trump” movement are, somewhat ironically, nothing more than large displays of pro-imperialist American chauvinism that ultimately stand in defense of the U.S. political establishment, as they sympathize with militant racialists in Ukraine and with Islamic fundamentalists attempting to overthrow the secular leftist government of Syria. Perhaps the only real difference between these groups and the more traditionalist right wing is that the former is in favour of a “multicultural” and “intersectional” imperialism, while the latter favours a white supremacist imperialism.

It may seem paradoxical that the capitalists would be financing the “Stop Trump” movement, as well as the crack-down on “hate speech” on social media, while funding reactionary forces of backwardness abroad at the same time.

By directing liberals and other would-be leftists into the “Stop Trump” movement, the capitalists effectively reinforce a pro-imperialist ideology among such a crowd by shifting the focus away from the imperialist system and onto a single, unlikable individual while avoiding any acknowledgement of the imperialist atrocities carried out by Democrats such as Barack Obama.

One could even say that “left” and “right” are barely distinguishable in the West today considering how lacking the former is in pursuing class struggle. But more importantly, and as recent history shows us, social “peace” within the domestic core of the imperialist nations is profitable under capitalism, while global peace is not. It is clear that there is an antagonistic contradiction here, considering that both peace and war cannot exist at the same time, and that “humanitarian intervention” is nothing more than a euphemism for imperial conquest meant to put the “social justice warrior” conscience at ease.

The notions of “free speech” are indeed full of contradictions, considering that freedoms are inherently contradictory. As Lenin once said, “‘Freedom of the press’ in bourgeois society means freedom for the rich systematically, unremittingly, daily, in millions of copies, to deceive, corrupt and fool the exploited and oppressed mass of the people, the poor.”

Thus, the underlying issue for communists is who is being heard and who is being silenced, and how, for instance, imperialist wars are being framed; it is not so much of an issue of “bias” — of course Western mainstream media will be on the side of U.S. imperialism and will reflect the dominant ideology of capitalism. After all, and simply put, “ideology” is a way of organizing ideas; it is not “biased” or “untrustworthy” opinions made by fringe groups, as mainstream media would like us to believe. In any case, it is always the victims of imperialism whose voices are hardly heard above the noise of Western war propaganda; by extension, the global masses will continue to be silenced when the capitalist class is allowed to drown them out. Only by organizing to support the united front against imperialism and working to establish socialism in the exploited nations will the voice of the people ever be heard.

*

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 Leading Light Communist Organization.

Janelle Velina is a Toronto-based political analyst, writer, and an editor and frequent contributor for New-Power.org and LLCO.org. She also has a blog at geopoliticaloutlook.blogspot.com.

Sources

Adra, Zen (2016, July 19). Warning: +18 Video. Aleppo rebels behead a child. Al-Masdar News. Retrieved from: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/aleppo-rebels-behead-a-child/

Anderson, Tim (2018, November 5). War and The Myth of ‘Neutral’ Reporting. American Herald Tribune. Retrieved from: https://ahtribune.com/culture-media/2596-war-myth-of-neutral-reporting.html

Bartlett, Eva (2017, August 24). Syria War Diary: What Life Is Like Under ‘Moderate’ Rebel Rule. MintPress News. Retrieved from: https://www.mintpressnews.com/syria-war-diary-what-life-is-like-under-moderate-rebel-rule/231201/

Beeley, Vanessa (2017, June 21). WHITE HELMETS: Severed Heads of Syrian Arab Army Soldiers Paraded as Trophies – Endorsed by Channel 4. 21st Century Wire. Retrieved from: https://21stcenturywire.com/2017/06/21/white-helmets-severed-heads-of-syrian-arab-army-soldiers-paraded-as-trophies-endorsed-by-channel-4/

Blumenthal, Max (2014, February 2014). Is the U.S. Backing Neo-Nazis in Ukraine? AlterNet. https://www.alternet.org/2014/02/us-backing-neo-nazis-ukraine/

Forte, Maximillian (2012). Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa. Montreal: Baraka Books.

Gowans, Stephen (2009, October 25). Democracy, East Germany and the Berlin Wall. What’s Left. Retrieved from: https://gowans.blog/2009/10/25/democracy-east-germany-and-the-berlin-wall/

Gowans, Stephen (2014, October 28). Washington’s Moderates— From Nazis to Violent Sunni Muslim Fundamentalists. What’s Left. Retrieved from: https://gowans.blog/2014/10/28/washingtons-moderates-from-nazis-to-violent-sunni-muslim-fundamentalists/

Jay, P. & Kuznick, P. (2019, June 6). D-Day: How the US Supported Hitler’s Rise to Power. The Real News Network. Retrieved from: https://therealnews.com/stories/d-day-how-the-us-supported-hitlers-rise-to-power

Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich (2002). How to Guarantee the Success of the Constituent Assembly: On Freedom of the Press. Lenin Collected Works: Volume 25 [Marxists Internet Archive version]. (Original work published 1917). Retrieved from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/28.htm

Lichtblau, Eric (2014, October 26). In Cold War, U.S. Spy Agencies Used 1,000 Nazis. The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/us/in-cold-war-us-spy-agencies-used-1000-nazis.html

Maupin, Caleb (2017, May 2). Syria, Linda Sarsour & The New Left & New Right. MintPress News. Retrieved from: https://www.mintpressnews.com/syria-linda-sarsour-the-new-left-new-right/227441/

Maupin, Caleb (2018, May 22). The Geopolitics of Impeachment: Recalling Nixon in the Trump-era. New Eastern Outlook. Retrieved from: https://journal-neo.org/2018/05/22/the-geopolitics-of-impeachment-recalling-nixon-in-the-trump-era/

Mottas, Nikos (2016, November 10). The Berlin Wall and the bourgeois lies. In Defense of Communism. Retrieved from: https://www.idcommunism.com/2016/11/the-berlin-wall-and-bourgeois-lies.html

Norton, Ben (2019, June 4). Facebook’s new public policy manager for Ukraine is nationalist hawk who volunteered with fascist party during US-backed coup. The Grayzone. Retrieved from: https://thegrayzone.com/2019/06/04/facebook-public-policy-manager-ukraine-kateryna-kruk/

Rollinson, Curwen Ares (2019, June 26). Censorship Coming From ‘The Left’? Not So Fast – New Zealand’s ANZ Bank’s Rebuke Of Maria Folau Sheds Light. Fort Russ News. Retrieved from: https://www.fort-russ.com/2019/06/censorship-coming-from-the-left-not-so-fast-new-zealands-anz-banks-rebuke-of-maria-folau-sheds-light/

RT (2016, October 10). Over 50% of W. Germany’s senior justice ministry officials in 1950-70s were ex-Nazis – govt report. RT. Retrieved from: https://www.rt.com/news/362296-germany-ex-nazi-justice/

RT (2017, June 23). White Helmets member caught on camera disposing of Syrian soldiers’ mutilated bodies (GRAPHIC VIDEO). RT. Retrieved from: https://www.rt.com/news/393809-white-helmets-mutilated-bodies/

RT (2018, May 18). As NATO nears 70th birthday, behavior since ’91 shows it’s never been a defensive alliance. RT. Retrieved from: https://www.rt.com/news/427097-nato-europe-defense-expansion/

Tressell, Leon (2019, June 22). Red Army’s Operation Bagration Not D-Day Landings Broke Back of German Fascism During Summer of 1944. SouthFront. Retrieved from: https://southfront.org/red-armys-operation-bagration-not-d-day-landings-broke-back-of-german-fascism-during-summer-of-1944/

Unruhe, Jason (2015, February 20). Silencing the Enemy to Hear the People: Towards a Correct View of Freedom of Speech. Maoist Rebel News. Retrieved from: https://maoistrebelnews.com/2015/02/20/silencing-the-enemy-to-hear-the-people-towards-a-correct-view-of-freedom-of-speech/

Unruhe, Jason (2019, June 7). The New YouTube Purge [Video file]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l7X05Wfnqs

Velina, Janelle (2019, March 30). Afghanistan, the Forgotten Proxy War. LLCO.org. Retrieved from: https://llco.org/afghanistan-the-forgotten-proxy-war/

Webb, Whitney (2017, August 15). Right Wing Extremists Condemned In Charlottesville, Funded And Armed In Ukraine And Syria. MintPress News. Retrieved from: https://www.mintpressnews.com/right-wing-extremists-condemned-charlottesville-funded-armed-ukraine-syria/230897/

Featured image: Left photo: 2016 video footage in the Syrian district of Aleppo, several months before liberation, of a group “moderate rebels” mocking a kidnapped 10-12 year old Palestinian boy moments before they beheaded him on camera. Right photo: members of the ultra-right Svoboda party holding a 2017 torch rally commemorating the anniversary of the Ukrainian offensive, led by the Nazi-allied organization of Stepan Bandera against the Red Army. (Source: LLCO)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Peace” at Home on the Western Front, Exporting Terrorism Abroad: Social Antagonisms and the Contradictions of Capitalism

New U.N. Report Highlights US, UK, France War Crimes in Yemen Since 2014

September 6th, 2019 by Sarah Abed

The second largest sovereign state in the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen, has been ravaged by war, deliberate starvation, and cholera for over four years. A 274 page U.N. report released on Tuesday, highlights the human rights situation including violations and abuses since September 2014.

According to the report, which took two years to complete, the United States, France, and Britain may be complicit in war crimes for their involvement in the war in Yemen by not only supplying the weapons being used by the Saudi and United Arab Emirate coalitions, but also providing them with intelligence and logistics support.

The report details the findings of the Group of Eminent International and Regional Experts on Yemen. It was submitted as a supplement to A/HR/42/17. U.N. investigators are recommending that all states impose a ban on arms transfers to the warring parties in order to prevent them from being used to commit serious violations and war crimes.

“It is clear that the continued supply of weapons to parties to the conflict is perpetuating the conflict and prolonging the suffering of the Yemeni people,” Melissa Parke, an expert on the independent U.N. panel, told a news conference. Parke continued, “That is why we are urging member states to no longer supply weapons to parties to the conflict.”

The report states,

“The Group of Experts reiterates that steps required to address the human rights and international law violations in Yemen have been continually discussed, and there can no longer be any excuses made for failure to take meaningful steps to address them. The best way to protect the Yemeni population is to stop the fighting by reaching a political settlement which includes measures for accountability.”

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are two of the largest purchasers of U.S. British and French weapons. These weapons are being used to fight against the homegrown Houthi movement which controls Yemen’s capital. The report states,

“The legality of arms transfers by France, the United Kingdom, the United States and other States remains questionable, and is the subject of various domestic court proceedings.”

According to the U.N. report, Saudi and UAE coalitions are killing civilians in air strikes, and deliberately denying them food. The report put blame on all sides of the conflict, saying that no one has clean hands.

Kamel Jendoubi, chairperson of the Group of Experts on Yemen a creation of the U.N. Human Rights Council stated,

“Five years into the conflict, violations against Yemeni civilians continue unabated, with total disregard for the plight of the people and a lack of international action to hold parties to the conflict accountable.” He also stated “This endemic impunity—for violations and abuses by all parties to the conflict—cannot be tolerated anymore.”

Jendoubi concluded,

“Impartial and independent inquiries must be empowered to hold accountable those who disrespect the rights of the Yemeni people. The international community must stop turning a blind eye to these violations and the intolerable humanitarian situation.”

Allegations of torture, rape, and murder of suspected political opponents detained in secret facilities by Emirati and affiliated forces have been received by the U.N. panel.

A secret list was sent by an independent panel to U.N. human rights chief, Michelle Bachelet, identifying “individuals who may be responsible for international crimes” the U.N. report states.

In the appendix, was a separate list identifying more than 160 “main actors” among Saudi, Emirati and Yemeni government and Houthi officials.

Concerns have been raised as to the impartiality and legitimacy of a Joint Incidents Assessment Team set up by Saudi Arabia to review alleged coalition violations, after it failed to hold anyone accountable for air strikes that killed civilians.

The U.N. report comes just a few days after a recent airstrike by the Saudi-led military coalition on a detention center in Yemen on Sunday, killed more than 100 people. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said the attack may have amounted to a war crime. The coalition said it was targeting a drones and missiles facility but instead they leveled a building being used as a prison, in the city of Dhamar.

“The location that was hit has been visited by ICRC before,” Franz Rauchenstein, its head of delegation for Yemen, told AFP from Dhamar. “It’s a college building that has been empty and has been used as a detention facility for a while.” Rauchenstein continued, “What is most disturbing is that (the attack was) on a prison. To hit such a building is shocking and saddening – prisoners are protected by international law.”

The remaining forty survivors are being treated in hospitals in the city south of the capital Sanaa for their injuries.

Last Thursday, airstrikes hit Yemeni government forces heading to Aden a southern port city, to fight UAE backed separatists. At least 30 troops were killed according to a government commander. The UAE has been known to arm and train separatist militias in southern Yemen. For weeks now, a rift between Saudi and UAE proxies has further complicated matters and civilians are paying the price.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers launched a new effort to end the U.S. government’s involvement in the Saudi-led assault on Yemen, shortly after the latest attacks. Lawmakers are also calling on the Senate to not remove an amendment to the annual defense policy legislation which would prohibit the U.S. from cooperating with Saudi airstrikes. Sanders stated, “We must use Congress’s power of the purse to block every nickel of taxpayer money from going to assist the Saudi dictatorship as it bombs and starves civilians in Yemen.”

Unfortunately, even with the release of this new U.N. report, the likelihood that nations perpetrating war crimes against innocent Yemeni civilians will be held accountable is highly unlikely.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. For media inquiries please email [email protected].

Trump’s Anti-Iran “Blood Money” Offer: “$15 Million for Any Person Who Helps Us Disrupt the Financial Operations of Iran’s IRGC-Qods Force”

September 6th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

According to Christian scripture, bribe money is blood money, a longstanding US specialty — followed by toughness when offers are rejected.

Bribery for political, economic, military, and/or other purposes reflects a corrupt society — what characterizes US public and private sectors than any other countries worldwide.

Countless trillions of dollars down a black hole of waste, fraud and abuse, along with its money-controlled electoral process, assuring dirty business as usual always wins, reflect it.

On September 4, State Department envoy for regime change in Iran Brian Hook said the following:

“Today (the Trump regime) is intensifying our maximum pressure campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” adding:

“First, we are announcing a reward of up to $15 million for any person who helps us disrupt the financial operations of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and Qods Force.”

He falsely called Iran’s military “a terrorist organization,” More on this below.

He lied accusing Iran’s IRGC-Qods Force of “sow(ing) chaos and sectarian violence” — a US, NATO, Israeli specialty, not how Iran operates.

He turned truth on its head, accusing Iran of “running an illicit petroleum shipping network,” falsely claiming it’s “mov(ing) hundreds of millions of dollars worth of illicit oil…used to fund terrorism.”

Iran’s sales of oil, gas, and other products to foreign buyers are entirely legal. US “maximum pressure” war by other means on the country flagrantly violates international and its own constitutional law.

Time and again, both extremist right wings of the US war party designate nations, entities, organizations, and individuals they don’t control as “terrorists.” Its key NATO partners and Israel operate the same way.

Note: The Islamic Republic of Iran’s military is solely for national defense, never used preemptively against another nation.

Yet Trump regime hardliners falsely designated Iran’s IRGC-Qods Force a terrorist organization — which it is NOT.

US, NATO, and Israeli militaries practice state terrorism by waging endless war on humanity.

At the behest of the Jewish state, the US State Department falsely designated Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations. The same goes for labeling Iran’s military the same way.

Longstanding US hostility toward Iran is all about its sovereign independence, unwillingness to subordinate its sovereignty to US interests, opposition to Washington’s war on humanity, support for fundamental Palestinian rights, and wanting control over its vast hydrocarbon resources.

Iran’s military is solely involved in preserving and protecting the nation from hostile external or internal attacks and threats, its actions strictly defensive. Its involvement in Syria is advisory, aiding Damascus combat US-supported terrorists.

Last Friday, the Trump regime unlawfully sanctioned Iran’s Adrian Darya 1 super-tanker captain Akhilesh Kumar — after he rejected a multi-million dollar bribe by ignoring the blood money offer to betray his employer.

Hook turned truth on its head, saying Kumar was sanctioned “for providing material support to a terrorist organization.”

Separately according to Press TV and Reuters, Russia and India are committed to maintaining trade relations with Iran — a joint Putin/PM Modi statement saying in part:

“The sides acknowledge the importance of full and efficient implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear program for ensuring regional and international peace, security and stability.”

Press TV reported that

Russia and India “said their decision to respect ties with Iran was in full compliance with international rules and would strengthen a nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, known as the JCPOA, which has suffered since the United States withdrew from the agreement last year and began imposing sanction on Iran.”

Both “countries have used alternative mechanisms to circumvent (US) sanctions and to continue trade with Iran.”

Days earlier, Russia said it intends investing around $10 billion in Iran’s oil sector.

From Moscow, Iran’s Energy Minister Reza Ardakanian said talks on Russia’s investment “will begin in the near future” — with no further elaboration on what project(s) Moscow will invest in.

Press TV explained that

“India, Iran’s second top buyer of oil before the sanctions, has diversified its trade cooperation with Tehran, mainly thanks to a financial mechanism that enables importers and exporters to settle their payments through local currencies,” adding:

“India has also been involved in a series of large-scale infrastructure projects southeast of Iran as it seeks greater access through the country to markets in Afghanistan, Central Asia and Europe.”

The Islamic Republic of Iran has withstood 40 years of US efforts to transform the country into a vassal state.

Trump regime hardliners are unlikely to achieve what their predecessors failed to accomplish.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: Trump reinstate sanctions against Iran (White House photo by Shealah Craighead)

150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s Anti-Iran “Blood Money” Offer: “$15 Million for Any Person Who Helps Us Disrupt the Financial Operations of Iran’s IRGC-Qods Force”
  • Tags: , ,

September 11, 2001: The Fight for 9/11 Truth, Science and Justice 18 Years Later

September 6th, 2019 by Global Research News

Global Research will be publishing a series of important 9/11 Truth articles in the course of the next few days leading up to the 18th anniversary commemoration of  9/11 attacks. 

Follow us on Global Research.

Our archive contains an important selection of articles pertaining to 9/11 and America’s “War on Terrorism” 

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org), the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry (LCfor911.org) and other groups and individuals active in the fight for 9/11 Truth and Justice are planning public actions and events timed with the anniversary of the September 11th 2001 attacks.

What follows are just a few events being held in centres in the U.S. as well as in Zurich, Switzerland supported by ae911truth.org and/or by LCfor911.org.

Front and Center: 9/11 Grand Jury Investigation (New York)

September 7, 2019
3:00 PM to 7:00 PM Eastern Time
The Unitarian Church of All Souls
1157 Lexington Avenue at East 80th Street

Hosted by the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry and featuring AE911Truth Founder Richard Gage, AIA, 9/11 family member Bob McIlvaine, Franklin Square Fire Commissioner Christopher Gioia, NSA whistleblower William Binney, media critic Mark Crispin Miller, and more.
http://LCfor911.org
View Poster

15th Annual 9-11 Truth Film Festival: Deconstructing a Myth with Truth

September 11, 2019

3:00PM to 10:00PM Pacific Time

Pacific Time Grand Lake Theatre 3200 Grand Avenue, Oakland

Keynote speaker: Mickey Huff of Project Censored

Host: Bonnie Faulkner, producer of the Guns and Butter radio show.

Live video streamed and archived at https://www.noliesradio.org/filmfestival

9/11 Perspectives: Public Master Class on the Events of September 11, 2001 (Zurich)

Featuring (via live feed) Richard Gage, AIA, Daniele Ganser, Dr. Niels Harrit, Mick Harrison, and more.

September 11, 2019
1:00 PM to 7:30 PM Central European Time
Stauffacherstrasse 60, 8004 Zurich
https://11september.eu/911perspectives
View Poster

News Conference: First Responders Urge Congress to Reopen 9/11 Investigation (Washington, D.C.)

A news conference featuring Franklin Square Fire Commissioners Christopher Gioia and Joseph Torregrossa, 9/11 family members Bob and Helen McIlvaine, Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry President David Meiswinkle, and Richard Gage, AIA.

September 11, 2019
10:00 AM
The National Press Club
4th Estate Room
529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor
Washington, DC 20045
Livestream: Visit AE911Truth.org at the scheduled time.

DC Political Action Afternoon (Washington, D.C.)

Delivering our educational materials and the Bobby McIlvaine Act to every member of Congress.

September 11, 2019
1:00 PM to 5:00 PM
Meet at the steps of the West Front Side of the U.S. Capitol at 1:00 PM.
At 1:30 PM we’ll fan out in groups to all six congressional office buildings.

9/11 Truth Update Presentation (Washington, D.C.)

Dinner from 6:30 PM to 7:30 PM followed by presentations and Q&A with Richard Gage and Fire Commissioner Christopher Gioia.

September 11, 2019
6:30 PM
Le Mirch Indian Restaurant
1736 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, D.C. Near Dupont Circle Metro
RSVP at Eventbrite

Gaddafi vs the West: Two Revolutions on the Wrong Side of History

September 6th, 2019 by Garikai Chengu

Sunday marked half a century since Muammar Gaddafi‘s Libyan revolution, which led to the overthrow of the American-backed King Idris.

In Libya’s 1969 revolution, Muammar Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi’s socialism had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent.

The Western-backed counter revolution of 2011 has resulted in Libya becoming a failed state and its economy is in shambles. President Obama said that his worst mistake as President of the United States was Libya; and “failing to plan for the day after” toppling Gaddafi.

The two revolutions that have occurred in Libya over the last 50 years could not be more diametrically opposed.

Gaddafi’s demise has brought about all of the nation’s worst-case scenarios: Western embassies have all left, the south of Libya has become a haven for terrorists, and the northern coast a center of mass migrant trafficking. Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia have all closed their borders with Libya. This all occurs amidst an environment of rampant assassinations, rape and torture that complete the picture of a state that is failed to its core.

In 2011, the West’s objective was clearly not to help the Libyan people, who already had the highest standard of living in Africa, but to oust Gaddafi, install a puppet regime, and gain control of Libya’s natural resources.

People who think that the West’s intervention in Libya was just another oil grab are mistaken. Broadly speaking, for America, the military intervention was mainly about arms; for Italy, its oil and natural gas; and for France, its water.

Given that Libya sits atop the strategic intersection of the African, Mediterranean and Arab worlds, control over Libya has always been a remarkably effective way for Western nations to project power into these three regions and beyond.

France’s support for the 2011 revolution was primarily driven by her interest in a commodity more precious than oil: water. Water promises to be to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th century. Water will be the precious commodity that determines the wealth and fate of nations.

Unlike oil, there are no substitutes or alternatives for water. Nature has decreed that the supply of water is fixed. Meanwhile demand rises inexorably as populations grow and enrich themselves. Population growth, climate change, pollution and urbanization are relentlessly combining, such that demand for fresh water will outstrip supply by 40 per cent by 2040.

Libya sits on a resource more valuable than oil, the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer, which is the world’s largest underground source of fresh water. The fossil water aquifer system was formed approximately 20,000 years ago and contains 150,000 cubic kilometres of fresh water. Gaddafi had invested $25 billion in the Great Man-Made River Project, a complex 4,000-km long water pipeline buried beneath the desert that could transport two million cubic metres of water per day. Such a monumental water distribution scheme was on course to turn Libya, a nation that is 95 per cent desert, into a self-sustainable, arable oasis.

Today, France’s global mega-water corporations, like Suez, Ondeo and Saur, control more than 45 per cent of the planet’s water market, which is already a $400 billion global industry. For France, the 2011 revolution in Libya was about gaining control of and privatizing Libya’s astounding water resources.

Months before President Obama began dropping bombs on Libya, the Central Intelligence Agency warned of “…future ‘hydrological warfare’ in which rivers, lakes and aquifers become national security assets to be fought over…” or controlled through proxy armies and client states. The regime change revolution in Libya was a major instance of imperialist hydrological warfare.

Now that Libya’s water profits are flowing to the West, unsurprisingly, western parts of Libya are running out of drinkable water. Due to corporate greed and neglect, two thirds of the nation’s key water conduits are no longer functioning. Mostafa Omar, a UNICEF spokesman for Libya, estimates that, in future, some four million Libyan people might be deprived of access to safe drinking water which could result in an outbreak of hepatitis A, cholera, and other diarrheal illnesses, despite having the world’s largest aquifer underneath their homes.

For Italy, support for the 2011 revolution was fuelled by a thirst for oil and gas from the nation’s former colony. Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa and under Gaddafi, 85 per cent of its exports were to Europe. Prior to Gaddafi, King Idris let Standard Oil essentially write Libya’s petroleum laws. Mr. Gaddafi put an end to all of that. Money from oil proceeds was deposited directly into every Libyan citizen’s bank account. Unsurprisingly, Italian oil companies have stopped this noble practice.

Libya’s oil is very important to Italy because of its proximity, the ease of its extraction, and the sweetness of its crude. Most refineries in Italy and elsewhere are built to deal with sweet Libyan crude, they cannot easily process the heavier Saudi crude oil that has replaced the Libyan production shortfall.

Libya has natural gas reserves of over 52.7 trillion cubic feet and vast areas are still to be surveyed. With assured supplies available from Libya, Italy has become less dependent on supplies from Russia, which, on the energy front, is increasingly flexing its muscles and thumbing its nose at mainland Europe. Italian oil giant, Eni, just bought a controlling stake in British Petroleum’s Libyan assets and has a deal with Libya’s regime to extract 760 million cubic feet of natural gas daily.

With the spoils of war from Libya’s water market being enjoyed by the French, and the oil and natural gas largely going to the Italians, consequently, America backed the 2011 revolution for another market: arms.

The New York Times reported in June 2019 that American heavy weapons were found in an American-backed rebel armoury in Libya. The New York Times stated that the “markings on the missile crates identify their joint manufacturer, the arms giants Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, and a contract number that corresponds with a $115 million order for Javelin missiles”. Libya is now a bonanza for American arms dealers and home tothe world’s largest loose arms cache.

From oil to water, and from arms to natural gas, the 2011 revolution in Libya has raked in billions of dollars for the West and only wrought misery and endless civil war for Libyans.

Gaddafi’s revolution fifty years ago was completely different.

For over 40 years, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi’s rule, Libyans not only enjoyed free health-care and free education, but also interest-free loans and free electricity.

Now thanks to NATO’s ouster of Gaddafi, electricity black outs are a common occurrence in once-thriving Tripoli, the healthcare sector is on the verge of collapse as thousands of Filipino health workers flee the country, and institutions of higher education across the East of the country are shut down.

One group that has suffered immensely from the Western-backed 2011 revolution is the nation’s women. Unlike many other Arab nations, women in Gaddafi’s Libya had the right to education, hold jobs, divorce, hold property and have an income. Even the UN Human Rights Council praised Gaddafi for his promotion of women’s rights.

When Gaddafi took control in 1969, very few women went to university. Just before the US Air Force began bombing Libya in 2011, more than half of Libya’s university students were women. One of the first laws Gaddafi passed in 1970 was an equal pay for equal work law.

After the 2011 revolution, the new “democratic” Libyan regime is clamping down on women’s rights. The new ruling tribes are strongly tied to patriarchal traditions. Also, the chaotic nature of post-intervention Libyan politics has allowed free reign to extremist Islamic forces that see gender equality as a Western perversion.

Contrary to popular belief, Libya, which Western media routinely described as “Gaddafi’s military dictatorship”, was in actual fact a democratic state.

Under Gaddafi’s unique system of direct democracy, traditional institutions of government were disbanded and abolished, and power belonged to the people directly through various committees and congresses.

Far from control lying in the hands of one man, Libya was highly decentralized and divided into multiple, small communities that were essentially “mini-autonomous States” within the State. These autonomous States had control over their districts and could make a range of decisions including how to allocate oil revenue and budgetary funds. Within these mini autonomous States, the three main bodies of Libya’s democracy were Local Committees, Basic People’s Congresses, and the Executive Revolutionary Councils.

The Basic People’s Congress (BPC), or Mu’tamar shaʿbi asāsi, was essentially Libya’s functional equivalent of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom or the House of Representatives in the United States.

However, Libya’s eight hundred Basic People’s Congresses were not comprised merely of invariably wealthy elected representatives who made laws on behalf of the people; rather, the Congress allowed all Libyans to directly participate in this process.

In 2009, Mr. Gaddafi invited the New York Times to Libya to spend two weeks observing the nation’s direct democracy. The New York Times, that is highly critical of Gaddafi’s democratic experiment, conceded that in Libya, the intention was that “everyone is involved in every decision. People meet in committees and vote on everything from foreign treaties to building schools.”

Far from being a military dictatorship, Libya under Gaddafi was Africa’s most prosperous democracy.

In the West’s version of “democracy” in Libya today, the militias variously local, tribal, regional, Islamist or criminal have recently formed two warring factions. Libya now has two governments, both with their own Prime Minister, parliament and army, fuelling perpetual civil war and destroying all chance of an actual democratic state.

Clearly, Gaddafi’s revolution created one of the 21st century’s most profoundly successful experiments in economic democracy. In stark contrast, the 2011 Western-backed counter revolution may indeed go down in history as one of the greatest social and military failures of the 21st century.

*

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.

Garikai Chengu is an Ancient African historian. He has been a scholar at Harvard, Stanford and Columbia University. Contact him on [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

Congress Aims “Honest Ads” at the Alternative Media

September 6th, 2019 by Kurt Nimmo

Lee E. Goodman, the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, completely misses the point in an op-ed posted at The Hill. 

Goodman says a bill working its way through Congress, the Honest Ads Act, will fail to target the real danger to democracy, Russia, the off-and-on perennial evildoer since the establishment of the national security state in 1947. 

“When Congress returns to business next week, it will take up legislative responses to foreign meddling in American elections. Front and center will be the Honest Ads Act, a bill severely restricting the First Amendment rights of American citizens and media companies but barely impacting foreign meddlers,” Goodman writes. 

Using what is historically known as “active measures,” Russians have attempted to influence American public opinion and election outcomes over many decades. So foreign meddling is not new.  

What is new are the technological tools—the internet and social media—that facilitate the dissemination of foreign propaganda. Foreign meddlers no longer need to spread their political propaganda on American soil; they can communicate directly to Americans from computers as far away as, say, St. Petersburg, Russia.

No word about meddlers working for the US government. Back in 2013, the Smith-Mundt Act was amended and the State Department began using its foreign propaganda—Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, (both CIA ops) and other networks—to influence US audiences. 

The US is notorious for its meddling in foreign elections and cranking out propaganda to effectuate neoliberal political and economic objectives around the world.

The US initiated numerous propaganda efforts, including the Pentagon Military Analyst Program, the Bush administration’s Video News Release program, America’s Army video game series, the Cuban Twitter ZunZuneo and, of course, the constant deluge of propaganda churned out by the corporate media and transmitted around the world. 

The bill suffers from several inescapable flaws. It would apply only to paid ads—but, in 2016, most Russian propaganda was posted on free social media platforms. It would apply only to the largest media platforms—those with more than 50 million unique monthly visitors, which covers Twitter, Facebook and the New York Times but leaves thousands of other platforms viewed by hundreds of millions of Americans open to foreign propaganda. It would be only a matter of time before other highly visited advertising platforms are swept into the law.

So, watch out, Drudge: Congress will come for you next.

Mr. Goodman, unfortunately, can’t see the forest for the trees (and considering he’s an establishment Republican, he isn’t allowed to).

The push to circumvent constitutionally protected speech on the internet has little to nothing to do with Russia or any other foreign adversary. It’s about a diverse and popular alternative media daily providing counter-arguments and dispelling lies and fabrications put out by the state and its corporate stenographers. This cannot be allowed to continue. 

I predict far more draconian efforts to squelch the opposition. 

The Alex Jones Precedent. This is an ongoing show trial designed to send the message that exposing the true nature of false flag operations will not be tolerated by the state.

Jones is locked in a legal battle with the families of the victims at Sandy Hook. They say his Sandy Hook commentary resulted in harassment and death threats.

This case has zero legal standing. Jones didn’t threaten the plaintiffs or their families. The First Amendment protects—or did when it was functional—his right to say whatever he wants about Sandy Hook or anything else. Calling someone a “crisis actor” is not defamation. it’s part of a tactic to take down a head high up on the alternative media totem. 

However, we now live in a fact-free culture. Millions of Americans believe the entirely preposterous Russia-gate election collusion fairy tale simply because the government said without evidence it existed and is responsible for Donald Trump in the White House.

The Mueller investigation went nowhere. It didn’t find evidence of collusion. All it found was a  predatory social media ad company in Russia using the same marketing tactics as hundreds of American companies.   

Now the government tells us conspiracy theorists and white nationalists are terrorists or wanna-be terrorists.

The feds tried to float this narrative during the Obama years. It recycled a Bush administration Homeland Security report on white supremacy and the threat of radicalized veterans. Janet Napolitano, then secretary, took a lot of flak after the government document was leaked. 

The SPLC and other fear-mongering outfits kept up the heat over the ensuing years and with several suspiciously timed mass shooting events we are now in a position where the government may actually confiscate firearms from law-abiding American citizens categorized by the psychiatry business in partnership with the state as mentally defective. Trump is falling for this ruse. 

The FBI’s COINTELPRO 2.0 may entrap a handful of “white nationalist” patsies using similar techniques used since 9/11 on gullible and mentally ill Muslims. The state’s political police force, the FBI, will deliver. It will provide the fodder required for a propaganda campaign initially rolled out some months ago. 

“Honest Ads” is not about providing transparency for consumers. It’s another step in the ongoing construction of a technological police and surveillance state.

The Honest Ads Act would conscript the resources of media companies and foist upon them law enforcement responsibilities that the FBI and other national intelligence agencies failed at in 2016. But here’s the catch: If media companies fail to detect foreigners disguised with false American identities, they will be punished as lawbreakers. They are drafted to be both law enforcers and criminals in one bill. 

Faced with going to prison, Mark Zuckerberg and all the other CEO darlings of social media corporations will understandably work overtime to memory-hole those responsible for even modest criticism of the government.

It doesn’t matter if that criticism is based in Russia, the US, or the North Pole. The platforms will be sanitized of all contrary narratives. Nothing less is acceptable if our rulers plan to once again monopolize narratives and steer civic discussion. 

Since 9/11, we have witnessed the full contour of an authoritarian state in our midst. In the past, the state and the corporate media—the latter subverted soon after the establishment of the national security state—was remarkably capable of passing off lies and false flags for the purpose of shaping public perception and strengthening belief in official fairy tales. 

Now they’re in trouble. Huge numbers of people no longer take government propaganda at face value. Less than 20 percent of Americans trust the government. Millions voted for Trump because he promised MAGA. The state lost control of its rigged election farce. It now spends our tax money on social media covert ops run by the Pentagon, as we discovered the other day.  The coming battleground is the 2020 election. 

I realize this has become an obsession at the expense of other equally important topics. If the state is successful, there may soon no longer be a place for discussion and counter-narratives. 

If telling the truth is criminal—for instance, the entire Russia-gate farce was cooked up by an outraged and entitled Hillary Clinton, DNC gangsters, and the CIA with tools such as Fusion GPS—then it is entirely possible many of us will be attacked in COINTELPRO fashion. 

Not with big headlines like Alex Jones and a cast of “New Right” others, but subtly behind the scenes, be it by strangling monetary sources or blacklisting individuals from social media participation and possibly the inability to host a website. 

Mostly, it will be the fear factor. When the hammer is about to come down, a lot of people change their behavior. 

The plan is to whittle the alternative media down to a manageable size and disrupt what is left with COINTELPRO subversion operations. 

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author

Trump Regime Training Paramilitaries to Attack Venezuela?

September 6th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Washington wants Bolivarian Venezuela transformed into a US vassal state — to eliminate its social democracy and gain control over its vast oil reserves, the world’s largest.

On Wednesday, the Trump regime earmarked over $120 million for Colombia.

Masquerading as “humanitarian assistance” for Venezuelans in the country, what’s planned may be something similar to US Central American paramilitary wars in the 1980s.

Edward Herman once explained that if US imperial aims go unchallenged, its ruling authorities will “continue to escalate violence (against targeted nations) to preserve military mafia/oligarch control” — state terrorism on a global scale.

If the Trump regime intends waging a cross-border paramilitary war on Venezuela, the toll could be horrendous.

In the 1980s, over 50,000 were slaughtered in El Salvador, more than 100,000 in Guatemala, over 200,000 in the country earlier and since the 1990s, thousands more in Nicaragua.

Mass slaughter was compounded by torture, rapes, mutilations, disappearances, and assassinations — on the phony pretext of combatting communism.

Today US Latin America regime change tactics are directed against Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela’s social democracy, a notion its hardline ruling authorities abhor and want eliminated everywhere.

On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said

“alleged Venezuelan refugees (are) receiving training (in Colombia) to provoke violent acts in Venezuela,” adding:

Many were “transferred to a British military base in Guyana, but the truth is that these are people who came to receive training and integrate sabotage and spy groups.”

Guyana and Venezuela share a common border. US and UK troops are in the neighboring country on the phony pretext of aiding its government.

According to US Air Force General Andrew Croft,

“Guyana is going to become a larger player in this region, both economically and politically in the future, so it’s important that we are closely tied with them,” adding:

“What we leave is an enduring, physical presence in addition to the partnerships that we build.”

“Guyana sits is in a strategic location on the north edge of South America and on the Caribbean.”

“That’s what makes it important. Also, as political change happens in the nation and they become more aligned with us, it’s important for us to make those personal relationships not only through the embassy, but also through the military and the Guyana defense force, which is currently about 3,000 strong with the intent to nearly double it in the upcoming years.”

US and UK troops in Guyana are involved in Trump regime efforts to replace Venezuelan social democracy with US-controlled fascist puppet rule.

Zakharova stressed that US forces in nations bordering Venezuela are all about “caus(ing) destabiliz(ing) and violent acts” cross-border.

On Wednesday, Venezuelan President Maduro said the US is plotting a new conspiracy against the Bolivarian Republic from neighboring Colombia, adding:

“Yesterday, I declared the orange alert level for all branches of the Armed Forces…to protect the sovereignty and peace of Venezuela.”

“And the military forces are already being deployed (to the Colombian border). Now, we are going to deploy our rocket air defense system from 10 September to 28 September.”

Days earlier, Maduro said large-scale military drills will be held near Venezuela’s border with Colombia to protect against hostile cross-border actions.

In late August, the Trump regime established a so-called Venezuela Affairs Unit (VAU) in Bogota, Colombia.

Its mission is all about aiming to oust legitimate Venezuelan President Maduro, wanting hardline/anti-democratic US-controlled puppet rule replacing him.

Several cross-border attacks were foiled, including an attempt to detonate an explosive at the Justice Palace in Caracas.

On Thursday, Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez accused Trump regime-designated puppet/usurper in waiting Guaido of transferring Venezuelan bonds to the US and other nations, adding:

“The Venezuelan people know who Juan Guaido is. He does not (represent) a political project. (He’s a front man for) a criminal group.”

In July, Venezuela’s Minister of Communication Jorge Rodriguez said two Guaido security guards were seized, trying to sell stolen National Guard weapons ahead of the failed April 30 coup attempt.

The above offenses and many others beg the question. Why hasn’t Venezuela held Guaido accountable for his lawless actions — notably sedition and treason against the state?

*

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.

What Happened on the Planes on September 11, 2001? The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls. The 9/11 Commission “Script” Was Fabricated

September 6th, 2019 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

This article was first published on August 10, 2004 under the title More Holes in the Official Story: The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls, it was published  (Chapter XVIII) in my book entitled “America’s War on Terrorism”, Global Research, Montreal, 2005. Some of the hyperlinks (2001-2004 references) pertaining to some of the quotations are unfortunately no longer active.

Cellphone communication from aircrafts above 10000 feet was an impossibility in 2001. The transmission technology was simply not available in 2001.

The narrative of what happened on the planes was largely based on phone conversations by passengers with loved ones. Did those conversations actually take place?

Michel Chossudovsky, September 6, 2019

***

“We Have Some Planes”

The  9/11 Commission’s Report provides an almost visual description of the Arab hijackers. It depicts in minute detail events occurring inside the cabin of the four hijacked planes.

In the absence of surviving passengers, this “corroborating evidence”, was based on passengers’ cell and air phone conversations with their loved ones. According to the Report, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) was only recovered in the case of one of the flights (UAL 93).

Focusing on the personal drama of the passengers, the Commission has built much of its narrative around the phone conversations. The Arabs are portrayed with their knives and box cutters, scheming in the name of Allah, to bring down the planes and turn them “into large guided missiles” (Report, Chapter 1).

The Technology of Wireless Transmission

The Report conveys the impression that cell phone ground-to-air communication from high altitude was of reasonably good quality, and that there was no major impediment or obstruction in wireless transmission.

Some of the conversations were with onboard air phones, which contrary to the cell phones provide for good quality transmission. The report does not draw a clear demarcation between the two types of calls.

More significantly, what this carefully drafted script fails to mention is that, given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8000 feet:

“Wireless communications networks weren’t designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they’re surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They speculate that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground (See this)

Expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry casts serious doubt on “the findings” of the 9/11 Commission. According to Alexa Graf, a spokesman of AT&T, commenting in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks:

“it was almost a fluke that the [9/11] calls reached their destinations… From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude” (See this)

New Wireless Technology

While serious doubts regarding the cell calls were expressed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, a new landmark in the wireless telecom industry has further contributed to upsetting the Commission’s credibility. Within days of the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in July, American Airlines and Qualcomm, proudly announced the development of a new wireless technology –which will at some future date allow airline passengers using their cell phones to contact family and friends from a commercial aircraft (no doubt at a special rate aerial roaming charge) (see this)

“Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006. Earlier this month [July 2004], American Airlines conducted a trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls.” (WP, July 27, 2004)

Aviation Week (07/20/04) described this new technology in an authoritative report published in July 2004:

“Qualcomm and American Airlines are exploring [July 2004] ways for passengers to use commercial cell phones inflight for air-to-ground communication. In a recent 2-hr. proof-of-concept flight, representatives from government and the media used commercial Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) third-generation cell phones to place and receive calls and text messages from friends on the ground.

For the test flight from Dallas-Fort Worth, the aircraft was equipped with an antenna in the front and rear of the cabin to transmit cell phone calls to a small in-cabin CDMA cellular base station. This “pico cell” transmitted cell phone calls from the aircraft via a Globalstar satellite to the worldwide terrestrial phone network”

Needless to say, neither the service, nor the “third generation” hardware, nor the “Picco cell” CDMA base station inside the cabin (which so to speak mimics a cell phone communication tower inside the plane) were available on the morning of September 11, 2001.

The 911 Commission points to the clarity and detail of these telephone conversations.

In substance, the Aviation Week report creates yet another embarrassing hitch in the official story.

The untimely July American Airlines / Qualcomm announcement acted as a cold shower. Barely acknowledged in press reports, it confirms that the Bush administration had embroidered the cell phone narrative (similar to what they did with WMDs) and that the 9/11 Commission’s account was either flawed or grossly exaggerated.

Altitude and Cellphone Transmission

According to industry experts, the crucial link in wireless cell phone transmission from an aircraft is altitude. Beyond a certain altitude which is usually reached within a few minutes after takeoff, cell phone calls are no longer possible.

In other words, given the wireless technology available on September 11 2001, these cell calls could not have been placed from high altitude.

The only way passengers could have got through to family and friends using their cell phones, is if the planes were flying below 8000 feet. Yet even at low altitude, below 8000 feet, cell phone communication is of poor quality.

The crucial question: at what altitude were the planes traveling, when the calls were placed?

While the information provided by the Commission is scanty, the Report’s timeline does not suggest that the planes were consistently traveling at low altitude. In fact the Report confirms that a fair number of the cell phone calls were placed while the plane was traveling at altitudes above 8000 feet, which is considered as the cutoff altitude for cell phone transmission.

Let us review the timeline of these calls in relation to the information provided by the Report on flight paths and altitude.

Gate C19 at Boston’s Logan International Airport was the boarding gate of United Flight 175 on September 11, 2001. The American flag was added to memorialize the site. (Source: Public Domain)

United Airlines Flight 175

United Airlines Flight 175 departed for Los Angeles at 8:00:

“It pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14.”

The Report confirms that by 8:33, “it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet.” According to the Report, it maintained this cruising altitude until 8.51, when it “deviated from its assigned altitude”:

“The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it.”

And one minute later at 8.52, Lee Hanson receives a call from his son Peter.

[Flight UAL 175] “At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.

Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cell (i.e it was not an air phone). Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the plane was still at high altitude at 8.52. (Moreover, Hanson’s call could have been initiated at least a minute prior to his father Lee Hanson picking up the phone.)

Another call was received at 8.52 (one minute after it deviated from its assigned altitude of 31,000 feet). The Report does not say whether this is an air phone or a cell phone call:

Also at 8:52, a male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco, reaching Marc Policastro. The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane. The call lasted about two minutes, after which Policastro and a colleague tried unsuccessfully to contact the flight.

It is not clear whether this was a call to Policastro’s cell phone or to the UAL switchboard.

At 8:58, UAL 175 “took a heading toward New York City.”:

“At 8:59, Flight 175 passenger Brian David Sweeney tried to call his wife, Julie. He left a message on their home answering machine that the plane had been hijacked. He then called his mother, Louise Sweeney, told her the flight had been hijacked, and added that the passengers were thinking about storming the cockpit to take control of the plane away from the hijackers.

At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:

It’s getting bad, Dad—A stewardess was stabbed—They seem to have knives and Mace—They said they have a bomb—It’s getting very bad on the plane—Passengers are throwing up and getting sick—The plane is making jerky movements—I don’t think the pilot is flying the plane—I think we are going down—I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building—Don’t worry, Dad— If it happens, it’ll be very fast—My God, my God.

The call ended abruptly. Lee Hanson had heard a woman scream just before it cut off. He turned on a television, and in her home so did Louise Sweeney. Both then saw the second aircraft hit the World Trade Center.50 At 9:03:11, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center. All on board, along with an unknown number of people in the tower, were killed instantly.”

American Airlines Flight 77

American Airlines Flight 77 was scheduled to depart from Washington Dulles for Los Angeles at 8:10… “At 8:46, the flight reached its assigned cruising altitude of 35,000 feet.”

At 8:51, American 77 transmitted its last routine radio communication. The hijacking began between 8:51 and 8:54. As on American 11 and United 175, the hijackers used knives (reported by one passenger) and moved all the passengers (and possibly crew) to the rear of the aircraft (reported by one flight attendant and one passenger). Unlike the earlier flights, the Flight 77 hijackers were reported by a passenger to have box cutters. Finally, a passenger reported that an announcement had been made by the “pilot” that the plane had been hijacked….

Refer to caption

Three frames from the security camera video of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. (Source: Public Domain)

On flight AA 77, which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, the transponder was turned off at 8:56am; the recorded altitude at the time the transponder was turned off is not mentioned. According to the Commission’s Report, cell calls started 16 minutes later, at 9:12am, twenty minutes before it (allegedly) crashed into the Pentagon at 9.32am:

” [at 9.12] Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane.”

According to the Report, when the autopilot was disengaged at 9:29am, the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and some 38 miles west of the Pentagon. This happened two minutes before the crash.

Most of the calls on Flight 77 were placed between 9.12am and 9.26am, prior to the disengagement of automatic piloting at 9.29am. The plane could indeed have been traveling at either a higher or a lower altitude to that reached at 9.29. Yet, at the same time there is no indication in the Report that the plane had been traveling below the 7000 feet level, which it reached at 9.29am.

At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. [using an airphone]

(Report p 7, see this)

United Airlines Flight 93

UAL flight 93 was the only one of the four planes that, according to the official story, did not crash into a building. Flight 93 passengers, apparently: “alerted through phone calls, attempted to subdue the hijackers. and the hijackers crashed the plane [in Pennsylvania] to prevent the passengers gaining control.” (See this). Another version of events, was that UAL 93 was shot down.

Flight 93 crash site (Source: Public Domain)

According to the Commission’s account:

“the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.”70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft….”

At least ten cell calls are reported to have taken place on flight 93.

The Report confirms that passengers started placing calls with cell and air phones shortly after 9.32am, four minutes after the Report’s confirmation of the plane’s attitude of 35,000 feet. In other words, the calls started some 9 minutes before the Cleveland Center lost UAL 93’s transponder signal (9.41) and approximately 30 minutes before the crash in Pennsylvania (10.03)

“At 9:41, Cleveland Center lost United 93’s transponder signal. The controller located it on primary radar, matched its position with visual sightings from other aircraft, and tracked the flight as it turned east, then south.164 “

This suggests that the altitude was known to air traffic control up until the time when the transponder signal was lost by the Cleveland Center. (Radar and visual sightings provided information on its flight path from 9.41 to 10.03.)

Moreover, there was no indication from the Report that the aircraft had swooped down to a lower level of altitude, apart from the 700 feet drop recorded at 9.28. from a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet:

“At 9:32, a hijacker, probably Jarrah, made or attempted to make the following announcement to the passengers of Flight 93:“Ladies and Gentlemen: Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining sitting.

We have a bomb on board. So, sit.” The flight data recorder (also recovered) indicates that Jarrah then instructed the plane’s autopilot to turn the aircraft around and head east. The cockpit voice recorder data indicate that a woman, most likely a flight attendant, was being held captive in the cockpit. She struggled with one of the hijackers who killed or otherwise silenced her.

Shortly thereafter, the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones. These calls between family, friends, and colleagues took place until the end of the flight and provided those on the ground with firsthand accounts. They enabled the passengers to gain critical information, including the news that two aircraft had slammed into the World Trade Center.77…At least two callers from the flight reported that the hijackers knew that passengers were making calls but did not seem to care.

The hijackers were wearing red bandanas, and they forced the passengers to the back of the aircraft.80 Callers reported that a passenger had been stabbed and that two people were lying on the floor of the cabin, injured or dead—possibly the captain and first officer. One caller reported that a flight attendant had been killed.81 One of the callers from United 93 also reported that he thought the hijackers might possess a gun. But none of the other callers reported the presence of a firearm. One recipient of a call from the aircraft recounted specifically asking her caller whether the hijackers had guns.

The passenger replied that he did not see one. No evidence of firearms or of their identifiable remains was found at the aircraft’s crash site, and the cockpit voice recorder gives no indication of a gun being fired or mentioned at any time.

We believe that if the hijackers had possessed a gun, they would have used it in the flight’s last minutes as the passengers fought back.82 Passengers on three flights reported the hijackers’ claim of having a bomb. The FBI told us they found no trace of explosives at the crash sites. One of the passengers who mentioned a bomb expressed his belief that it was not real. Lacking any evidence that the hijackers attempted to smuggle such illegal items past the security screening checkpoints, we believe the bombs were probably fake. During at least five of the passengers’ phone calls, information was shared about the attacks that had occurred earlier that morning at the World Trade Center. Five calls described the intent of passengers and surviving crew members to revolt against the hijackers. According to one call, they voted on whether to rush the terrorists in an attempt to retake the plane. They decided, and acted. At 9:57, the passenger assault began. Several passengers had terminated phone calls with loved ones in order to join the revolt. One of the callers ended her message as follows:

“Everyone’s running up to first class. I’ve got to go. Bye.” The cockpit voice recorder captured the sounds of the passenger assault muffled by the intervening cockpit door. Some family members who listened to the recording report that they can hear the voice of a loved one among the din.

We cannot identify whose voices can be heard. But the assault was sustained. In response, Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt the assault. The recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts, and breaking glasses and plates.

At 10:00:03, Jarrah stabilized the airplane. Five seconds later, Jarrah asked, “Is that it? Shall we finish it off?” A hijacker responded, “No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off.” The sounds of fighting continued outside the cockpit. Again, Jarrah pitched the nose of the aircraft up and down.At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said, “In the cockpit. If we don’t we’ll die!” Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled,“Roll it!” Jarrah stopped the violent maneuvers at about 10:01:00 and said, “Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!” He then asked another hijacker in the cockpit,“ Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?” to which the other replied, “Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.” The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said, “Pull it down! Pull it down!” The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them. The airplane headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the right.

The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting “Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest. ”With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes’ flying time from Washington D.C. Jarrah’s objective was to crash his airliner into symbols of the American Republic, the Capitol or the White House. He was defeated by the alerted, unarmed passengers of United”

The Mysterious Call of Edward Felt from UAL 93

Earlier coverage of the fate of UAL 93 was based in part on a reported cell call from a passenger named Edward Felt, who managed to reach an emergency official in Pennsylvania. How he got the emergency supervisor’s number and managed to reach him remains unclear.

The call was apparently received at 9.58 am, eight minutes before the reported time of the crash at 10.06 am in Pennsylvania:

“Local emergency officials said they received a cell phone call at 9.58 am from a man who said he was a passenger aboard the flight. The man said he had locked himself in the bathroom and told emergency dispatchers that the plane had been hijacked. “We are being hijacked! We are being hijacked!” he was quoted as saying. A California man identified as Tom Burnett reportedly called his wife and told her that somebody on the plane had been stabbed. “We’re all going to die, but three of us are going to do something,” he told her. “I love you honey.”

The alleged call by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.

It is worth noting that Glenn Cramer was subsequently gagged by the FBI.” (See Robert Wallace`s incisive analysis published in Sept 2002 by the Daily Mirror, (see this).

Ironically, this high profile cell call by Ed Felt, which would have provided crucial evidence to the 9/11 Commission was, for some reason, not mentioned in the Report.

Image on the right: Jules Naudet filmed the impact of Flight 11 as it crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

A high-rise tower covered by debris on two of its faces. In the lower left corner is a similar building.

American Airlines Flight 11

Flight 11 took off at 7:59. Just before 8:14. The Report outlines an airphone conversation of flight attendant Betty Ong and much of the narrative hinges upon this airphone conversation

There are no clear-cut reports on the use of cell phones on Flight AA11. According to the Report, American 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8.46.

Concluding Remarks

A large part of the description, regarding the 19 hijackers relies on cell phone conversations with family and friends.

While a few of these calls (placed at low altitude) could have got through, the wireless technology was not available. On this issue, expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry is unequivocal.

In other words, at least part of the Commission’s script in Chapter 1 on the cell phone conversations, is fabricated.

According to the American Airline / Qualcomm announcement, the technology for cell phone transmission at high altitude will only be available aboard commercial aircraft in 2006. This is an inescapable fact.

In the eyes of public opinion, the cell phone conversations on the Arab hijackers is needed to sustain the illusion that America is under attack.

The “war on terrorism” underlying the National Security doctrine relies on real time “evidence” concerning the Arab hijackers. The latter personify, so to speak, this illusive “outside enemy” (Al Qaeda), which is threatening the homeland.

Embodied into the Commission’s “script” of 911, the narrative of what happened on the plane with the Arab hijackers is therefore crucial. It is an integral part of the Administration’s disinformation and propaganda program. It constitutes a justification for the anti-terror legislation under the Patriot acts and the waging of America’s pre-emptive wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.

*

Annex

The 9/11 Report’s Footnotes on the Cell Phone Conversations

70. On FDR, see NTSB report,“Specialist’s Factual Report of Investigation—Digital Flight Data Recorder” for United Airlines Flight 93, Feb. 15, 2002; on CVR, see FBI report,“CVR from UA Flight #93,” Dec. 4, 2003; Commission review of Aircraft Communication and Reporting System (ACARS) messages sent to and from Flight 93 (which indicate time of message transmission and receipt); see UAL record, Ed Ballinger ACARS log, Sept. 11, 2001. At 9:22, after learning of the events at the World Trade Center, Melody Homer, the wife of co-pilot Leroy Homer, had an ACARS message sent to her husband in the cockpit asking if he was okay. See UAL record,ACARS message, Sept. 11, 2001.

71. On FDR, see NTSB report,“Specialist’s Factual Report of Investigation—Digital Flight Data Recorder” for United Airlines Flight 93, Feb. 15, 2002; on CVR, see FBI report,“CVR from UA Flight #93,” Dec. 4, 2003; FAA report,“Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events: September 11, 2001,” Sept. 17, 2001; NTSB report, Air Traffic Control Recording—United Airlines Flight 93, Dec. 21, 2001.

72.The 37 passengers represented a load factor of 20.33 percent of the plane’s seating capacity of 182, considerably below the 52.09 percent for Flight 93 on Tuesdays in the three-month period prior to September 11 (June 11–September 4, 2001). See UAL report, Flight 93 EWR-SFO load factors, undated. Five passengers holding reservations for Flight 93 did not show for the flight.All five were interviewed and cleared by the FBI. FBI report,“Flight #93 ‘No Show’ Passengers from 9/11/01,” Sept. 18, 2001.

73. INS record,Withdrawal of Application for Admission for Mohamed al Kahtani,Aug. 4, 2001.

74. See FAA regulations,Admission to flight deck, 14 C.F.R. § 121.547 (2001);UAL records, copies of boarding passes for United 93, Sept. 11,2001.One passenger reported that ten first-class passengers were aboard the flight. If that number is accurate, it would include the four hijackers. FBI report of investigation, interview of Lisa Jefferson, Sept. 11, 2001;UAL record, Flight 93 passenger manifest, Sept. 11, 2001.All but one of the six passengers seated in the first-class cabin communicated with the ground during the flight, and none mentioned anyone from their cabin having gone into the cockpit before the hijacking.Moreover, it is unlikely that the highly regarded and experienced pilot and co-pilot of Flight 93 would have allowed an observer into the cockpit before or after takeoff who had not obtained the proper permission. See UAL records, personnel files of Flight 93 pilots. For jumpseat information, see UAL record,Weight and Balance Information for Flight 93 and Flight 175, Sept. 11, 2001;AAL records, Dispatch Environmental Control/Weekly Flight Summary for Flight 11 and Flight 77, Sept. 11, 2001.

75. Like Atta on Flight 11, Jarrah apparently did not know how to operate the communication radios; thus his attempts to communicate with the passengers were broadcast on the ATC channel. See FBI report,“CVR from UA Flight #93,” Dec. 4, 2003.Also, by 9:32 FAA notified United’s headquarters that the flight was not responding to radio calls.According to United, the flight’s nonresponse and its turn to the east led the airline to believe by 9:36 that the plane was hijacked. See Rich Miles interview (Nov. 21, 2003); UAL report, “United dispatch SMFDO activities—terrorist crisis,” Sept. 11, 2001.

76. In accordance with FAA regulations, United 93’s cockpit voice recorder recorded the last 31 minutes of sounds from the cockpit via microphones in the pilots’ headsets, as well as in the overhead panel of the flight deck. This is the only recorder from the four hijacked airplanes to survive the impact and ensuing fire.The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found,and the CVR from American Flight 77 was badly burned and not recoverable. See FBI report,“CVR from UA Flight #93,”Dec. 4, 2003; see also FAA regulations, 14 C.F.R. §§ 25.1457, 91.609, 91.1045, 121.359; Flight 93 CVR data. A transcript of the CVR recording was prepared by the NTSB and the FBI.

77. All calls placed on airphones were from the rear of the aircraft. There was one airphone installed in each row of seats on both sides of the aisle.The airphone system was capable of transmitting only eight calls at any one time. See FBI report of investigation, airphone records for flights UAL 93 and UAL 175 on Sept. 11, 2001, Sept. 18, 2001.

78.FAA audio file, Cleveland Center, position Lorain Radar; Flight 93 CVR data; FBI report, “CVR from UA Flight #93,” Dec. 4, 2003.

79. FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from Todd Beamer, Sept. 11, 2001, through June 11, 2002; FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from Sandy Bradshaw, Sept. 11, 2001, through Oct. 4, 2001.Text messages warning the cockpit of Flight 93 were sent to the aircraft by Ed Ballinger at 9:24. See UAL record, Ed Ballinger’s ACARS log, Sept. 11, 2001.

80.We have relied mainly on the record of FBI interviews with the people who received calls. The FBI interviews were conducted while memories were still fresh and were less likely to have been affected by reading the accounts of others or hearing stories in the media. In some cases we have conducted our own interviews to supplement or verify the record. See FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham,Sandy Bradshaw,Marion Britton,Thomas Burnett, Joseph DeLuca,Edward Felt, Jeremy Glick,Lauren
Grandcolas, Linda Gronlund, CeeCee Lyles, Honor Wainio.

81. FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from Thomas Burnett, Sept. 11, 2001; FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from Marion Britton, Sept. 14, 2001, through Nov. 8, 2001; Lisa Jefferson interview (May 11, 2004); FBI report of investigation, interview of Lisa Jefferson, Sept. 11, 2001; Richard Belme interview (Nov. 21, 2003).

82. See Jere Longman, Among the Heroes—United Flight 93 and the Passengers and Crew Who Fought Back (Harper-Collins, 2002), p. 107; Deena Burnett interview (Apr. 26, 2004); FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from Jeremy Glick, Sept. 11, 2001, through Sept. 12, 2001; Lyzbeth Glick interview (Apr. 22, 2004). Experts told us that a gunshot would definitely be audible on the CVR. The FBI found no evidence of a firearm at the crash site of Flight 93. See FBI response to Commission briefing request no. 6, undated (topic 11).The FBI collected 14 knives or portions of knives at the Flight 93 crash site. FBI report, “Knives Found at the UA Flight 93 Crash Site,” undated.

83. FBI response to Commission briefing request no. 6, undated (topic 11); FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from Jeremy Glick, Sept. 11, 2001, through Sept. 12, 2001.

84. See FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from United 93.

85. FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from United 93. For quote, see FBI report of investigation, interview of Philip Bradshaw, Sept. 11, 2001; Philip Bradshaw interview (June 15, 2004); Flight 93 FDR and CVR data.At 9:55:11 Jarrah dialed in the VHF Omni-directional Range (VOR) frequency for the VOR navigational aid at Washington Reagan National Airport, further indicating that the attack was planned for the nation’s capital.

waronterrorism.jpgby Michel Chossudovsky
ISBN Number: 9780973714715
List Price: $24.95
click here to order

Special Price: $18.00

In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”.  Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.

According to Chossudovsky, the  “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

A US-Taliban Peace Deal Would Redefine the Regional Balance of Power

September 6th, 2019 by Andrew Korybko

The tentative peace deal that the US is negotiating with the Taliban would redefine the regional balance of power if it’s officially promulgated, thus continuing the ongoing trend of Great Power realignment in Eurasia.

It’s been widely reported that the tentative peace deal that the US is negotiating with the Taliban will see the removal of 5,000 American troops from Afghanistan and the closure of five military bases (at least in the first phase) in exchange for the armed group (formally recognized as terrorists by Russia and many other countries) promising not to allow their territory to be used by international terrorists such as Daesh. Should this pact be officially promulgated, then it would redefine the regional balance of power and continue the ongoing trend of Great Power realignment in Eurasia. Before analyzing the implications of this possible move, it must first be pointed out that there’s supposedly significant opposition to the agreement within the American government itself, with Time reporting that Pompeo refused to sign it because of concerns that he has that it would legitimize the Taliban as a US-recognized political force in the country despite the organization declining to bestow the same recognition on the Kabul government that they’ve sworn to overthrow.

It’s unclear whether Pompeo’s concerns are sincere or if they’re just self-interested political positioning ahead of his possible candidacy in the 2024 elections in the event that the full US military withdrawal that it’ll likely eventually lead to is as destabilizing for Afghanistan as Obama’s one from Iraq was and he wants to distance himself from it in advance. Another detail that deserves mentioning is that former Secretary of Defense Mattis recently revealed in his memoirs that he regards Pakistan as the “most dangerous country” in the world, even though the global pivot state greatly facilitated the progress that’s been made thus far on brokering peace in Afghanistan and its leader was warmly received by Trump over the summer. The US’ “deep state” divisions had previously been between its diplomatic and military wings yet now it appears as though they’re on the same page in opposition to the President’s peace push, but Trump’s “going rogue” to get it done anyhow, likely emboldened per his style to think that he must be doing something right if he’s received this much pushback.

If Trump signs the deal and it expectedly receives important endorsements from regional powers like Russia, China, Pakistan, and Iran (all of which and others the Taliban expect to serve as “international witnesses” to the accord), then he can have the “face-saving” pretext necessary to withdraw his troops even further and pass his decision off as a necessary one in the interests of peace, which he hopes will help him extricate his country from this ultra-expensive but ultimately failed campaign and therefore possible win re-election next year. He’s also on record as saying that more immediate stakeholders such as India, Pakistan, Russia, Afghanistan (meant in this context to be the Kabul government), Iran, Iraq, and Turkey will probably have to intervene in the US’ wake in order to ensure that Daesh doesn’t take advantage of the situation, which can be interpreted either as a pragmatic admission of America’s defeat in this seemingly never-ending war or a Machiavellian maneuver to embroil his rivals in this quagmire.

Whatever his true intentions may be, going forward with the tentative Taliban peace deal would radically change the regional balance of power. The armed group would likely take over Kabul sooner than leader and officially return to power, thus reducing the effectiveness of India’s exploitation of the country as a springboard for carrying out its Hybrid War on CPEC and therefore enabling Pakistan to concentrate more of its military-strategic focus on defending its eastern border. Nevertheless, Indian influence might not be totally removed from Afghanistan in the scenario of a Taliban takeover because Russia has some sway over the group after hosting it for peace talks several times and its Foreign Minister recently said that Moscow is closely coordinating with its new global partners in New Delhi on this matter, so its possible that they might join forces to dangle the carrot of sustainable economic development through an eastern branch of their jointly pioneered North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) in order to retain some Indian influence in the country.

India brazenly defied the US’ CAATSA sanctions threats this week by agreeing to jointly producemilitary equipment with Russia on top of proceeding apace with its deal to purchase the S-400s, and the Vladivostok-Chennai Maritime Corridor that they’re creating will have serious security implications for China if it’s accompanied by a forthcoming logistics pact that sees the Indian navy regularly patrolling this future trade route that traverses through the South China Sea and up China’s eastern coast. While Russia and India maintain that their bilateral relations aren’t aimed against any third parties, it might have been the case that their game-changing moves were predicated on the belief that it’s necessary to preemptively “balance” the predictable expansion of Chinese-Pakistani influence in Afghanistan following the eventual American withdrawal that would thus secure CPEC and correspondingly place India at a major strategic disadvantage given its refusal to accept the Belt & Road Initiative‘s (BRI) flagship project due to its maximalist approach towards the Kashmir Conflict.

As the cliched saying goes, “every action has an equal and opposite reaction”, and Russia’s “proactive balancing” with India against China and Pakistan is no different, likely resulting in the counter-response of China doubling down on its commitment to CPEC and Pakistan opening the doors for its partner to “counter-balance” India in Afghanistan as well. In addition, the US might interestingly gravitate closer to Pakistan too out of desire to “balance” the de-facto Russian-Indian alliance after New Delhi defied Washington’s CAATSA sanctions threats, which could curiously put the US and China on the same page regarding the need to support the global pivot state. The world’s superpowers might thus be in tacit agreement over this geostrategic necessity even if they remain at odds over their so-called “trade war“, but should their economic disagreements eventually be overcome, then it can’t be discounted that they might even coordinate their efforts in this respect. As such, it’s clear that the regional balance of power will definitely be redefined if the US-Taliban peace deal succeeds.

*

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

America’s “Ministry of Truth” Has Unleashed the Military to Fight “Disinformation”

September 6th, 2019 by Mac Slavo

The dystopian times warned about by George Orwell in his iconic book, 1984 are upon us. The United States has just unleashed DARPA (The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and the Pentagon, as their own Ministry of Truth in order to control and manipulate the information Americans are privy to.

The Pentagon has unveiled an initiative to fight “large-scale, automated disinformation attacks” by unearthing deep-fakes and other polarizing content with the eventual goal of rooting out so-called “malicious intent” entirely. You had better get your thinking in line with the Pentagon and DARPA, or things could get ugly quickly.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is seeking software capable of churning through a test set of half a million news stories, photos, and audio/video clips to target and neutralize potentially viral information before it spreads. In DARPA jargon, the aim is to “automatically detect, attribute, and characterize falsified multi-modal media to defend against large-scale, automated disinformation attacks.”  “Polarizing viral content,” however, includes inflammatory truths, and the program’s ultimate goal seems to be to stamp out dissent. – RT

The authoritarianism and control the government believes they have over others is unbelievable. But unfortunately, too many people are perfectly fine with others manipulating their own thoughts and behaviors.

The desired software will not just identify a particular meme as inauthentic. It will identify the source of that meme, the alleged intent behind it, and predict the impact of its spread. According to the Pentagon, they just want to even the playing field between the “good guys” (who they say is good, like politicians) and the “bad guys” (those who are sowing discord and bucking authoritarianism by dissenting.)  The Pentagon’s targets aren’t limited to deepfakes either. That’s just the bogeyman-of-the-month being used to justify this unprecedented military intrusion into the social media and news realm, or information at all. If the program is successful after four years of trials, it will be expanded to target all “malicious intent” – that should send chills down the spine of any journalist who’s ever disagreed with the political establishment’s narrative.

The U.S. government has quickly transformed themselves into the U.S.S.A. without very many noticing and the mainstream media will play along in order to make sure the slaves stay in line without asking questions.

But perhaps the worst part about all of this is that the government itself, including the Pentagon, has an extensive history of running fake social media profiles to collect data on persons of interest, including through the NSA’s JTRIG information-war program revealed in the Snowden documents. Agents regularly deploy reputational attacks against dissidents using false information. Fake identities are used to cajole unsuspecting individuals into collaborating in fake FBI “terror” plots, a phenomenon which might once have been called entrapment but is merely business as usual in the post-9/11 U.S.SA.

All of this begs the question: how will DARPA determine the “intent” behind any meme or bit of information? Will they punish journalists who push fakes for the political establishment? Probably not. This is where the “impact” and “intent” fields come in handy for them: fakes from “trusted sources” will be let through, while fakes and real stories designed to “undermine key individuals and organizations” (dissent and those who seek freedom from the political class) will be terminated before they have an impact on the thoughts of others. When “disinformation” is redefined to include all potentially polarizing stories that don’t conform to the establishment narrative, reality is discarded as so much fake news and replaced with Pentagon-approved pablum.

This should be enough to terrify anyone who has ever disagreed with the government.

In 1984, London is a grim city in the totalitarian state of Oceania where Big Brother is always watching you and the Thought Police can practically read your mind. Winston Smith is a man in grave danger for the simple reason that his memory still functions. Drawn into a forbidden love affair, Winston finds the courage to join a secret revolutionary organization called The Brotherhood, dedicated to the destruction of the Party. Together with his beloved Julia, he hazards his life in a deadly match against the powers that be.

Lionel Trilling said of Orwell’s masterpiece,

“1984 is a profound, terrifying, and wholly fascinating book. It is a fantasy of the political future, and like any such fantasy, serves its author as a magnifying device for an examination of the present.”

Though the year 1984 now exists in the past, Orwell’s novel remains an urgent call for the individual willing to speak truth to power.

*

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 SHTFplan.com

The Geopolitical Implications of a No Deal Brexit

September 6th, 2019 by Johanna Ross

Brexit may seem like an inherently British affair, as the rest of the world has looked on with wry amusement and disbelief for the last three years at the continual wrangling over the issue, breathing a sigh of relief that such chaos is taking place in a country other than theirs; but we should be under no illusion that there will be significant geopolitical consequences for a United Kingdom which leaves the European Union without a deal.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson may have indicated recently during his meetings with European leaders that his preference is to secure a withdrawal agreement with the EU, but actions speak louder than words, and all other indicators suggest that the PM has long been intent on a No Deal Brexit. First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, was one of the first to comment on the fact that this was the case, as she met with Johnson in the first days of his premiership last month. Back then she made it absolutely clear that Johnson’s priority was not getting a deal with the EU:

“In reality he is really pursuing a no-deal Brexit because that is the logic of the hardline position that he has taken”.

Unlike his predecessor, Theresa May, Johnson has been a Brexiteer since before the 2016 referendum, and is a staunch believer in the benefits of leaving the European project. Explaining his position prior to the Brexit vote, he spoke of how Brexit  was about taking back control of Britain’s democracy and how the Leave campaign had attracted liberal spirits such as himself who were effectively rebelling against an increasingly authoritarian organisation. He spoke of the ‘erosion of Britain’s democracy’. Ironically however, the very thing he was accusing others of doing before, is what his critics have been accusing him of doing in the last few days. For the announcement last week of the suspension of parliament till 14th October, for which the PM received the Queen’s permission, has been widely viewed as an attempt to prevent politicians from stopping a No Deal Brexit. Accused of staging a coup d’etat and being a ‘dictator’’, Johnson has been criticised of creating a constitutional crisis in the UK and sacrificing Britain’s democracy.

And who benefits from crashing out of the EU in such a way one may ask? Well none other than US President Donald Trump, with whom Johnson met just over a week ago. As Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott recently put it:

‘the key beneficiary of this project is Donald Trump and the interests he represents, and the project has his full backing.’

Indeed, Johnson  had Trump’s blessing long before he became Prime Minister, with the US President openly supporting his candidacy. It seems the lucrative trade deal the two have spoken of has long been in the making and this explains why for Johnson, trying to engineer some kind of trade deal with the EU that is unlikely to be passed anyway by Parliament, is just unnecessary hassle.

However there are more factors at play here. If any deal was to be forged with the EU, it would involve the UK aligning itself to European regulations and tariffs to some degree. This would not carry favour with the US. Trump needs a No Deal Brexit to ensure that the US will be calling all the shots when it comes to a trade deal. Johnson knows this which is why the government is planning for that very scenario – hence the leaked documents of Operation Yellowhammer several weeks ago outlining the contingency plans in place for such a situation.

And yet one would be naive to think the ‘special relationship’ would stop at trade. By being largely dependent on a Trump deal would mean the UK would be even more under the US’ thumb when it came to, for example, foreign policy. It would be foolish to think that the UK could somehow afford, given such a state of affairs to pursue an entirely independent foreign policy. We have seen how Trump has dealt so far with China and Iran when they haven’t played ball. The UK would be forced to align itself geopolitically to the hawkish approach of John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. There could be no more sitting on the fence. We already saw with the UK’s seizure of the Iran-bound oil tanker in July that the nation is already supporting the US in its provocative policy towards Iran. And although it may now be trying to find a middle ground between US and EU policy at present, after Brexit, it would be foolish to think that Britain wouldn’t realign its foreign policy to suit its new trading partners. We only have to look at the effort put into maintaining its relations with Saudi Arabia, a country known for its human rights abuses, but a major buyer of UK weapons to realise that effectively, money talks.

Therefore if Johnson succeeds in engineering this No Deal Brexit, it will have serious repercussions not just for domestic life in the UK, but on the global balance of power, as a Trump-Johnson alliance could prove to be a definitive force to be reckoned with.

*

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 TruePublica

The Revolution in Military Affairs

September 6th, 2019 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Clarity Press has just published a new book by Andrei Martyanov, The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs.

Martyanov’s book is, in a way, two books. One is about the revolution in military affairs that has left the United States behind.  The other is about the self-medicating and propagandistic version of reality that Americans mistake for reality.  Martyanov convinced me that the Pentagon’s war planners need to upgrade their understanding of war and how to conduct one, but I found more interesting the fake reality supported by controlled explanations from which Americans seem unable to escape that is described in the other part of his book.  It turns out that it is not only the insouciant general population but also the ruling elites themselves who are locked in The Matrix.

Slogans masquerade as ideas.  The media is devoid of integrity.  Fantasies such as Russiagate,  Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Iranian nukes, Russian invasions, Venezuela represented as “a threat to American national security,” Western Democracy in which voters decide nothing, self-regulating financial markets—really the fantasies are endless, and they leave America as the blind man of the world. 

Martyanov concludes that “the unipolar world is over,” but the neoconservatives don’t know it or don’t accept the fact; that “American liberalism—a euphemism for imperialism” has run its course; that the race and gender splits fomented by Identity Politics and the economic split between the 1 and 99 percenters has left the United States as an unstable polity with unstable policies. 

A country with instability on the American scale tends to unleash wars, and wars have been the sole activity of the US in the 21st century, leaving “a trail of destruction, suffering, refugee camps and death on an industrial scale.”  Consequently, the rest of the world is organizing to put a halt to Washington’s aggression and violent overthrow of countries. 

With America unable to produce leadership, handicapped by inferior weapons systems, and left behind by the revolution in military affairs, the neoconservatives drowning in their own arrogant hubris could easily foment a conflict that will leave America in ruins.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Welcome to the Indo-Russia Maritime Silk Road

September 6th, 2019 by Pepe Escobar

There’s no way to follow the complex inner workings of the Eurasia integration process without considering what takes place annually at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok.

BRICS for the moment may be dead – considering the nasty cocktail of economic brutalism and social intolerance delivered by the incendiary “Captain” Bolsonaro in Brazil. Yet RIC – Russia-India-China – is alive, well and thriving.

That was more than evident after the Putin-Modi bilateral summit in Vladivostok.

A vast menu was on the table, from aviation to energy. It included the “possibility of setting up joint ventures in India that would design and build passenger aircraft,” defense technologies and military cooperation as the basis for “an especially privileged strategic partnership,” and a long-term agreement to import Russian crude, possibly using the Northern Sea Route and a pipeline system.”

All that seems to spell out a delightful revival of the notorious Soviet-era motto Rusi-Hindi bhai bhai (Russians and Indians are brothers).

And all that would be complemented by what may be described as a new push for a Russia-India Maritime Silk Road – revival of the Chennai-Vladivostok maritime corridor.

Arctic to the Indian Ocean

Chennai-Vladivostok may easily interlock with the Chinese-driven Maritime Silk Road from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean and beyond, part of the Belt and Road Initiative. Simultaneously, it may add another layer to Russia’s “pivot to Asia”.

The “pivot to Asia” was inevitably discussed in detail in Vladivostok. How is it interpreted across Asia? What do Asians want to buy from Russia? How can we integrate the Russian Far East into the pan-Asian economy?

As energy or trade corridors, the fact is both Chennai-Vladivostok and Belt and Road spell out Eurasia integration. India in this particular case will profit from Russian resources traveling all the way from the Arctic and the Russian Far East, while Russia will profit from more Indian energy companies investing in the Russian Far East.

The fine-print details of the Russia-China “comprehensive strategic partnership” as well as Russia’s push for Greater Eurasia were also discussed at length in Vladivostok. A crucial factor is that as well as China, Russia and India have made sure their trade and economic relationship with Iran – a key node of the ongoing, complex Eurasian integration project – remains.

As Russia and India stressed: “The sides acknowledge the importance of full and efficient implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear program for ensuring regional and international peace, security and stability. They confirm full commitment to Resolution 2231 of the UN Security Council.”

Most of all, Russia and India reaffirmed an essential commitment since BRICS was set up over a decade ago. They will continue to “promote a system of mutual transactions in national currencies,” bypassing the US dollar.

One can easily imagine how this will go down among Washington sectors bent on luring India into the Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy, which is a de facto China containment mechanism.

Luring Chinese capital

In terms of Eurasian integration, what’s happening in the Russian Far East totally interlocks with a special report on China’s grand strategy across the Eurasian heartland presented in Moscow earlier this week.

Vladivostock harbor. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Vladivostock harbor. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

As for Russia’s own “pivot to Asia,” an essential plank of which is integration of the Russian Far East, inevitably it’s bound to remain a complex issue. A sobering report by the Valdai club meticulously details the pitfalls. Here are the highlights:

– A depopulation phenomenon: “Many well-educated and ambitious young people go to Moscow, St. Petersburg or Shanghai in the hope of finding opportunities for career advancement and personal fulfillment, which they still do not see at home. The overwhelming majority of them do not come back.”

– Who’s benefitting? “The federal mega projects, such as the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean oil pipeline, the Power of Siberia gas pipeline or the Vostochny Cosmodrome produce an increase in gross regional product but have little effect on the living standards of the majority of Far Easterners.”

– What else is new? “Oil and gas projects on Sakhalin account for the lion’s share of FDI. And these are not new investments either – they were made in the late 1990s-2000s, before the proclaimed “turn to the East.”

– The role of Chinese capital: There’s no rush towards the Far East yet, “in part because Chinese companies would like to mine natural resources there on similarly liberal terms as in Third World countries, such as Angola or Laos where they bring their own workforce and do not overly concern themselves with environmental regulations.”

– The raw material trap: Resources in the Russian Far East “are by no means unique, probably with the exception of Yakutian diamonds. They can be imported from many other countries: coal from Australia, iron ore from Brazil, copper from Chile and wood from New Zealand, all the more so since the costs of maritime shipping are relatively low today.”

– Sanctions: “Many potential investors are scared off by US sanctions on Russia.”

The bottom line is that for all the pledges in the “comprehensive strategic partnership,“ the Russian Far East has not yet built an effective model for cooperation with China.

That will certainly change in the medium term as Beijing is bound to turbo-charge its “escape from Malacca” strategy, to “build up mainland exports of resources from Eurasian countries along its border, including the Russian Far East. The two recently built bridges across the Amur River obviously could be of help in this respect.”

What this means is that Vladivostok may well end up as a major hub for Russia and India after all.

*

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

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TASS through en.kremlin.ru

The Desperate Call for the Good Friday Agreement to be Protected in US-UK Trade Talks

September 6th, 2019 by True Publica

The Police Service of Northern Ireland counter-terror chief warns of year-long upsurges in dissident republican support – a motivating factor for extremists in the event of a disorderly exit. Chief Constable Barabara Grey said –

“anxiety levels had risen since Boris Johnson became prime minister promising to leave the UK “do or die” with or without a deal.”

It is the third recent warning from senior police on the island over the impact of a no-deal Brexit.

Simon Byrne, the new chief constable of the PSNI, warned Brexit could become a “trigger and a fuelling point” for more people to join extremist groups. Last week, the former deputy head of the PSNI Drew Harris who is now the Garda commissioner in the Republic of Ireland, warned that six decades of cooperation in law enforcement across Europe would “fall away” after Brexit.

People are genuinely frightened in both Ireland and Northern Ireland at the prospect of a no-deal Brexit and what that might bring.

It is clear Westminister will do nothing, however, to help clarify the situation – the UK’s Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) joins with a range of civic and business groups in writing an open letter to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker in the US House of Representatives, on the need to protect the NI peace settlement during US-UK trade talks.

As US Vice President Mike Pence continues his visit to Ireland and the UK, a consortium of civic and business organisations from across Northern Ireland have called on US legislators to protect the 1998 Belfast / Good Friday Agreement in their decisions relating to the post-Brexit US-UK relationship.

Civic leaders from across various sectors Northern Ireland have written an open letter welcoming the recent affirmations from the Vice President and from Speaker Nancy Pelosi – as President of the Senate and Speaker in the House of Representatives respectively – of the United States’ intention to respect and uphold the 1998 Agreement.

The letter is signed by a range of civil liberty groups, community organisations, trade unionists and representatives of businesses across Northern Ireland and is addressed to Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.

Speaker Pelosi has made several statements in which she has affirmed that there will be ‘no chance’ of a US-UK Free Trade Agreement if the 1998 Agreement is compromised.

Her statements have been echoed by other US representatives, including Democrat Congressman Richie Neal (Chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means) and Republican Congressman Pete King (member of United States House Committee on Financial Services).

A delegation from the consortium is travelling to Washington in mid-September to raise their concerns with Speaker Pelosi and other senior US politicians from across the two parties in Congress.

The President of the Londonderry Chamber of Commerce, Brian McGrath, explained the context for the letter,

“The letter expresses a sense of escalating danger in Northern Ireland, which is set to suffer the worst effects of a no-deal or a ‘hard’ Brexit”.

And yet the means of full democratic representation are currently limited. He noted,

“As of today, Northern Ireland has been without a fully functioning regional government for 960 days.”

Brian Gormally, CAJ Director, said,

“Our letter sets out the main conditions for peace which must be protected through the process of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and its future trade agreements.”

He summarized these conditions as coming under four headings:

“The normalisation of security arrangements, the economic stability and investment essential to embedding peace and providing stability for future generations, the equal rights and non-discrimination of citizens here, and the importance of cross-border cooperation. These are the pillars to peace here.”

The letter underlines the importance of the international dimensions to the peace process as well as to Brexit. In light of this, the signatories call on Congress to scrutinise any future trade deal with the UK very carefully, to ensure full compliance with the 1998 Agreement.

The full text of the letter is available here: Pelosi letter Sept 19

Signatories to the letter:

Centre for Cross Border Studies
Children’s Law Centre
Committee on the Administration of Justice
Community Foundation for Northern Ireland
Disability Action Northern Ireland
Federation of Passenger Transport NI
Freight Transport Association (Northern Ireland)
Human Rights Consortium
Londonderry Chamber of Commerce
Manufacturing NI
Mineral Products Association NI
Newry Chamber of Commerce
Newry & Mourne Co-operative & Enterprise Agency
Northern Ireland Committee, Irish Congress of Trade Unions
Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action
Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association
Northern Ireland Retail Consortium
Retail NI
UNISON Northern Ireland
Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers
Women in Business NI

*

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

Car Manufacturers Caught in Crossfire of Trump’s Trade War

September 6th, 2019 by Mike "Mish" Shedlock

The global repercussions of Trump’s trade wars have a new casualty: US and European car manufacturers.

The telegraph reports European Carmakers are Caught in the Crossfire of Trump’s Trade War.

But it’s not just European manufacturers. The US will take a huge hit as well.

China has been the most frequent target of Trump’s ire. At the start of the month he fired another Twitter salvo in the trade war between Washington and Beijing.

From September 1, $300bn (£247bn) of imports from China would be hit with a surprise “small additional 10pc tariff,” Trump threatened. “This does not include the $250bn already tariffed at 25pc,” he added. The news caused the S&P index to fall almost 2pc in just a few minutes.

A few weeks later Beijing responded. Retaliatory tariffs of 10pc on US imports would similarly begin at the start of this month. But it also warned that in December the import duty on US-built cars would jump from the current 15pc to 40pc – reimposing a threatened 25pc hike that had been put on hold as tensions cooled last year. The warning put the global car industry squarely in the firing line.

“The car industry is complex with supply chains crossing borders and components moving between countries many times,” Professor David Bailey, a car expert at Birmingham University, says. “That’s before you take into account foreign-owned plants producing cars for export around the world*. Tariffs are a very blunt instrument and using them has unintended consequences*.”

US Impact

  1. The BMW plant in Spartanburg, South Carolina, opened in 1994 and since then the 11,000 people whose jobs it offers or supports have produced 4m cars.
  2. The Mercedes site in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, has 3,800 direct employees and supports 10,000 more jobs, and the plant has churned out 3.2m vehicles since opening in 1997.
  3. “BMW and Daimler are two of the largest exporters of vehicles from the US to China,” says Ellinghorst. “A 25pc tariff would cause $1.7bn of extra costs for the two of them, split fairly evenly.”
  4. Volvo may be another victim. The company which is owned by China’s Geely opened its first US plant, in Ridgeville, South Carolina last year. Ian Henry of Auto Analysis added: “There’s also been stories of Volvo supplying some models made in China from its European factories to the US to avoid tariffs, with the shortfall in Europe made up with cars built in China being transported by rail.”
  5. Evercore says that of the US manufacturers, Ford and Fiat Chrysler, which respectively export 40,000 and 10,000 American-built cars to China annually, face an extra $320m and $80m in costs.
  6. Tesla, which is expected to sell about 45,000 vehicles in China in the coming year, faces a $620m bill. However, Elon Musk’s electric car company is building a plant in Shanghai which will allow it to dodge tariffs when it opens next year.

Source: Mish Talk

Truly Idiotic

BMW, Volvo, Mercedes, and Daimler all produce cars in the US for export to China. That slowdown is in addition to the direct hit on GM and Ford.

Elon Musk will avoid tariff retaliations by building cars in China.

If you think this is truly idiotic, you are not the only one.

The article concludes

“For all Trump’s rhetoric about making America great again and protecting the country’s industrial base, his current tactics risk causing huge damage.”

Major Supply Chain Disruptions

Two days ago I commented Major Supply Chain Disruptions Coming: Thank Trump

I stand corrected.

Major supply chain disruptions are already here.

ISM and PMI Reports

The ISM and PMI reports were miserable, not just in the US, but globally.

I commented US Manufacturing Recession Begins: ISM Contracts First Time in 3 Years.

Here are a couple of items that caught my attention.

  1. Deteriorating demand conditions, especially across the automotive sector, were linked to subdued client demand.
  2. External demand also weighed on new business growth, as new export orders fell at the quickest pace since August 2009, linked by many firms to trade wars and tariffs.

Deteriorating Automotive Sector

Last Friday, I noted Personal Income Up 0.1%, Spending Up 0.6%, sarcastically commenting “What’s the Problem?”

Here is the contradictory line from the BEA report that caught my eye in advance of the ISM and PMI reports.

“Within goods, recreational goods and vehicles was the leading contributor to the increase.”

I commented “Auto and SUV sales have not been strong. I smell revisions.”

Gross Distortions

The economic reports appear to be grossly distorted, way more than usual.

Little of this ties together.

On July 7, I commented Dealers are Bumper-to-Bumper With SUVs: More Coming as Sales Decline

On August 5, CNBC reported Car dealers struggle to sell 2018 new-car inventory to make room for 2020 cars.

As dealerships look to sell off cars from the 2019 model year to bring in 2020′s shiny new models, they’re running into a problem. They still have cars from 2018 clogging up their lots.

Even if vehicles are a “leading contributor” to increased consumer spending as the BEA says it won’t last.

Auto sales figures are out later today.

*

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.

Biden Claims that He Voted for Iraq War and Then “Immediately” Opposed It

September 6th, 2019 by Jonathan Turley

For those of us who opposed the war resolution on Iraq, the later spins by presidential candidates John Kerry and Hillary Clinton left us incensed. At the time, many of us criticized the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq as a blank check to President Bush that jettisoned the responsibilities given to them by the Framers. When they voted for the war, it was popular and that seemed the only determinative factor. When thousands died or were wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, they followed the polls in belatedly opposing their own prior positions. Kerry and Clinton later insisted that they were tricked about the resolution despite such objections in the press. Now we can add presidential candidate Joe Biden who is raising objections over his insistence that he never really supported the war and that he “immediately” opposed it.

In a NPR interview, Biden said that he was misled on the war but then opposed it. First, he recounted a story that Bush’s people have flatly denied. He says that he went to the Oval Office and was expressly told that Bush had no intention to invade:

“[Bush] looked me in the eye in the Oval Office. He said he needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program. He got them in and before you know it, we had ‘shock and awe.’”

However, Biden’s insistence that he “immediately” has been challenged across the media. Nevertheless, Biden continues to maintain:

“That moment it started, I came out against the war at that moment.”

Biden is on record (and videotape) supporting the war before and after the passage of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. When the invasion was being planned and reported publicly, Biden told Face the Nation that “If the covert action doesn’t work, we better be prepared to move forward with another action, an overt action. And it seems to me that we can’t afford to miss.”

More importantly, months after the invasion, Biden told CNN:

“I, for one, thought we should have gone in Iraq.” Later than that, he said at a hearing “I voted to go into Iraq, and I’d vote to do it again.”

Still later, he expressly stated that “we have always known” about the war in Iraq, namely that troops “would have to stay there in large numbers for a long period of time.” He also stated publicly (again after the invasion) that “[c]ontrary to what some in my party might think, Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with sooner rather than later. So I commend the president. He was right to enforce the solemn commitments made by Saddam. If they were not enforced, what good would they be?”

Biden has been challenged on the veracity of other stories or factual assertions that he has used on the campaign trail. That has been a long-standing problem with Biden. However, this is about his record in supporting an unnecessary and unwarranted war that costs thousands of lives and ultimately over a trillion dollars. Like Kerry and Clinton, Biden cast the popular rather than the right vote. No level of revision of history will change the cost of that war for thousands of families or the country.

These denials and revisions are precisely why the Framers wisely insisted on declarations of war — a constitutional requirement that has been effectively removed from the Constitution by our politicians.

*

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.

What Is the True Unemployment Rate in the US?

September 6th, 2019 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

A reader of this blog recently asked an important question: what do I think is the actual unemployment rate in the US today, not the media’s 3.8% that is almost always quoted. Here’s my reply as to why I calculate the real, actual unemployment at minimum to be 10%-12%.

“The real unemployment rate is probably somewhere between 10%-12%. Here’s why: the 3.8% is the U-3 rate, per the labor dept. That’s only for full time employed. What the labor dept. calls the U-6 includes what it calls discouraged workers (those who haven’t looked for work in the past 4 weeks. Then there’s what’s called the ‘missing labor force’–ie. those who haven’t looked in the past year. They’re not calculated in the 3.8% U-3 unemployment rate number. Why? Because you have to be ‘out of work and actively looking for work’ to be counted. The U-6 also includes what the labor dept. calls involuntary part time. But it should include the voluntary part time as well, but doesn’t (See, they’re not actively looking for work even if unemployed). But the involuntary part time is itself under-estimated. It counts only those involuntarily part time unemployed whose part time job is their primary job. It doesn’t count those who have second and third involuntary part time jobs. The labor dept. also misses the 1-2 million workers who went on social security disability (SSI) because it provides better pay, for longer, than does unemployment insurance. That number rose dramatically after 2009 and hasn’t come down much (although the government and courts are going after them). The way the government calculates unemployment is by means of 60,000 monthly household surveys but that survey also misses a lot of workers who are undocumented and others working in the underground economy in the inner cities (about 10-12% of the economy according to most economists and therefore potentially 10-12% of the reported labor force in size as well. The labor dept. just makes assumptions about that number (conservatively, I may add). But it has not real idea of how many undocumented or underground economy workers are actually employed since these workers do not participate in the labor dept. phone surveys, and who can blame them. The SSI, undocumented, underground, etc. are what I call the ‘hidden unemployed’.

Finally, there’s the corroborating evidence about what’s called the labor force participation rate. It has declined by roughly 5% since 2007. That’s 6 to 9 million workers who should have entered the labor force but haven’t. The labor force should be that much larger, but it isn’t. Where have they gone? Did they just not enter the labor force? If not, they’re likely a majority unemployed, or in the underground economy, or belong to the labor dept’s ‘missing labor force’ which should be much greater than reported. The government has no adequate explanation why the participation rate has declined so dramatically. Or where have the workers gone. If they had entered the labor force they would have been counted. And heir 6 to 9 million would result in an increase in the total labor force number and therefore raise the unemployment rate.

All these reasons–-i.e. only counting full timers in the official 3.8%; under-estimating the size of the part time workforce; under-estimating the size of the discouraged and so-called ‘missing labor force’; using methodologies that don’t capture the undocumented and underground unemployed accurately; not counting part of the SSI increase as unemployed; and reducing the total labor force because of the declining labor force participation-–together means the true unemployment rate is definitely over 10% and likely closer to 12%. And even that’s a conservative estimate perhaps.”

*

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.

Jack Rasmus is author of the forthcoming book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, October 1, 2019, of which the preceding material is an excerpt. His website is https://kyklosproductions.com and twitter handle, @srjackrasmus. He hosts the Alternative Visions radio show on the Progressive Radio network weekly, podcasts available are available at http://alternativevisions.podbean.com.

Israeli Officials Consider Attacking Iran, Believing Trump Won’t Oppose It

September 6th, 2019 by Jason Ditz

The New York Times may have referred to it as “The Secret History of the Push to Strike Iran,” but it’s hardly a secret that Israeli and US hawks have been angling for a war against Iran for decades.

Trying to advance a war narrative is a high priority for the hawks, and recent reports suggest that the Netanyahu government is once again actively considering just unilaterally attacking Iran without US permission.

That may seem like a very bold move, but some in the cabinet are arguing it really isn’t, saying Trump’s determination to be the most pro-Israel president ever means he’s probably not do anything to actively oppose Israeli aggression.

In recent history, of course, US policy has been to ignore Israeli aggression, or outright endorse it internationally. Israeli officials had reason to believe that President Obama would resist an attack however during their last major run-up to an attack, in 2012, which they ultimately called off.

Timing may be the key to any immediate attack. Israel faces elections in just two weeks, and Netanyahu’s recent attacks on “Iranian proxies” across the region were already seen as a bid for a last minute bump. He may believe, with polls still showing him trailing, that a direct attack is the next step.

The history of Israel’s foreign policy in recent years, indeed decades has been heavily Iran-centric, both with the various governments playing up Iran as an existential threat, and lobbying heavily to keep the US from making any positive diplomatic efforts.

This long-time acrimony is no secret to Iran, either, which is why Iran has spent the past decades building up its air defenses and potential retaliation in the event the long-threatened attack happens.

*

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.

Jason Ditz is news editor of Antiwar.com.

150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

9/11, Drug Money, Oil Resources and the Invasion of Afghanistan: Michael Ruppert Refutes the Official 9/11 Story

September 5th, 2019 by Michael Welch

“What I’m saying … is that the Bush Administration knew the attacks were going to take place, and made a conscious decision that the casualty levels were acceptable to secure access to Central Asian oil for the major oil companies and for the U.S. economy, and to secure control of the drug trade.”

– Michael C. Ruppert, March 14, 2002 roundtable (from this week’s program.)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

As Canadian journalist and media critic Barrie Zwicker explained in his 2006 book Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11, mainstream journalists throughout Canada and the Western world failed spectacularly in their role to critically examine the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 and its consequences. [1]

Pertinent questions as to ulterior motives for a deadly military invasion of Afghanistan, or about the failure to scramble military aircraft to intercept the hijacked airplanes when they veered off course were never asked in the prominent newspapers, television networks and other major media organs of the day. Any skeptical inquiry of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the months immediately following the attacks was confined to ‘limited hang-outs’ along the lines of the CIA ‘never getting its act together’ and ‘controversies’ about the crime possibly being ‘blow-back’ from America’s oppressive policies in the Middle East and elsewhere. [2]

One national broadcaster in Canada, however, proved to be an exception to this trend. VISION TV is a Canadian cable and satellite specialty channel based in Toronto reaching an estimated 10 million homes. It was largely due to Zwicker’s influence as VISION TV’s resident media critic that the provocative discussion featured on this week’s show ever made it to the public airwaves.

On the evening of March 14, 2002, the network broadcast a round table on the 2001 terrorist attacks on a special installment of VisionTV Insight: Mediafile. This discussion would include one of the few appearances in Canadian media by U.S. based investigative journalist Michael C. Ruppert.

Ruppert was, along with Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalization, one of the very first figures in the world to intelligently refute the official story of the September 11th attacks. He had outlined his key arguments in a hard hitting monthly newsletter called From The Wilderness, as well as on his online site fromthewilderness.com. He had also given a series of talks across the United States and Canada detailing his problems with the official story.

The conversation featured in this week’s Global Research News Hour radio program as it debuts its eighth regular broadcast season sees Ruppert face critical, albeit respectful push-back from at least two of the panelists. The discussion delved not only into the unanswered questions mentioned above, but also put them into the context of America’s imperial conquest of oil resources, and the role of drug money, including the proceeds of Afghanistan’s illicit opium trade, in financing the global economy. Questions relating to the vulnerability of Canadian sovereignty, the anti-democratic nature of ‘anti-terrorism’ legislation, and the role of journalists in the face of these developments likewise rise to the fore.

The audio of this conversation and video of the discussion had been discarded by the network years ago, and has since been recovered and restored. The show is being rebroadcast on the Global Research News Hour radio program with the full consent of VISION TV, whom we warmly thank for their generosity in this regard.

An online link to some of the recovered video footage of the conversation can be found here or watch right below.

https://youtu.be/uWc9G9p3fcw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Screenshot of March 2002 programme 

Michael Craig Ruppert (1951-2014) is a former investigative journalist and the publisher/editor of the now defunct From The Wilderness newsletter and website. A former LAPD officer and CIA whistle-blower, Ruppert had broken numerous stories related to government corruption, illegal U.S. covert operations, the reality and impact of Peak Oil, and perhaps most famously, the evidence of U.S. conscious complicity in the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. He is author of the Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil (2004) and A Presidential Energy Policy: Twenty-five Points Addressing the Siamese Twins of Energy and Money (2009) which was reworked into a follow-up volume Confronting Collapse: The Crisis of Energy and Money in a Post Peak Oil World (2009). Ruppert was featured in the 2009 documentary film Collapse and hosted The LifeBoat Hour on the Progressive Radio Network until his tragic death by suicide in April 2014. Ruppert is a past guest of this radio program and has had articles re-posted to Global Research. A complete archive of his FTW articles can be found at FromTheWilderness.net.

Peter Hullett Desbarats, OC. (1933-2014) was a Canadian author, journalist and playwright. From 1981 to 1997 he served as the Dean of Journalism at the University of Western Ontario. He also served as one of the commissioners of the Somalia Inquiry convened to investigate Canadian military violence against Somalian civilians in the early 1990s.

Ronald George Atkey, PC, QC. (1942-2017) was a lawyer, law professor and former Canadian Federal cabinet minister. From 1984 to 1989 he served as Chairman of Canada’s Security Intelligence Review Committee which oversaw the activities of the newly established Canadian Security Intelligence Service. A lecturer on national security law and international terrorism, he was appointed Amicus Curiae to the Arar Commission in 2004, where he played a role testing government requests made on the grounds of national security confidentiality.

Phyllis Creighton is an award-winning peace campaigner having been active with many justice and peace organizations over the course of 3 decades, including Science for Peace, Project Ploughshares, Canadian Voice of Women for Peace, the International Peace Bureau and the Toronto Raging Grannies. She is also an ethicist who has served on the Health Canada board on reproductive technologies.

Rita Shelton Deverell, C.M., Ed.D. is a theatre artist, playwright, independent television producer/director, a founder of and executive producer with Vision TV, and was the first woman to lead a journalism program in Canada as acting Director of the University of Regina’s Journalism School in the 1980s. A former occupant of Nancy’s Chair in Women’s Studies at Mount St. Vincent University, her many honours include two Geminis, the Black Women’s Civic Engagement Leadership Award, and membership in the Canadian Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame. She is also recipient of the 2005 Order of Canada.

Be sure to check out Global Research’s dossier on 9/11:

THE 9/11 READER. The September 11, 2001 Terror Attacks 

(Global Research News Hour Episode 267)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (alternativecurrentradio.com)

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 3pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time.

Notes: 

  1. Barrie Zwicker (2006), ‘Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11’, pg. 141-178
  2. ibid., 161

Mona from the Corner: Set Aside Political Differences, Converge in Harmony for Truth and Justice

September 5th, 2019 by Philip A Farruggio

She’s a little lady, 70 something, with this cute, addictive smile. Drives an old bomb of a car, replete with Peace and End the Occupation type stickers on it. She’s a nurse, still works, doing home care for very ill folks with that special Mona type TLC.

I first met her at a progressive discussion event my friends and I organized back in ’03.

Many of us were disgusted with the government’s hog wash version of 9/11 and the insuring illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. We wanted to rally our community (those few who took the time to really care about such things in ’03) to speak out. Tiny, quiet Mona joined our monthly group of concerned citizens, acknowledging her ‘lack of depth’ on what was happening. Yet, she quickly added, that her  inner self told her what was right and what was wrong. She became a regular member of our group.

When Michael Moore’s new film, Fahrenheit 911, was opening in Daytona, rumors spread that Bush supporters in this area were going to hold a protest outside the theater. I asked if anyone would join me in a counter demonstration. Mona raised her hand. We met outside the theater in the parking lot. She had told me that her daughter would accompany her, as this was the first time in both their lives that either of them had demonstrated. Mona was scared! What if? What if the Bush supporters got physical? What if a fight broke out? Here was this little lady going against ….. what and who? At the parking lot, at our allotted time to meet, Mona walked slowly towards me. Where was her daughter? “She stayed in the car….. she’s frightened. So am I, but I gave my word. Let’s do it!” We did, and the Bush lovers protest never occurred (when does it?). Mona proudly held her sign, smiled a lot, and made a greater impression on the moviegoers than I ever could.

There are a bunch of folks who have been standing on the same corner in Port Orange, my town, each and every Tuesday. Some, like Mona, have been there from the beginning, which is now almost 3 and 1/2 years. She stands there, with her Honk for Peace sign, or whatever else she may decide to hold, and waves at the cars. Always that smile, that… well, that Mona Lisa half smile her namesake wore. She raises her hand as if to say to all who pass “Hey, here I am, because I care!“. The others, those who come and stand with Mona, they care too. Enough to put aside political differences (not all are Democratic Party loyalists) and converge in harmony for truth and justice. And Mona? Well, she’s the glue, the non judgmental glue, that keeps it all together.

This writer has strayed from that corner recently, with my differences with the mainstream Democrats overpowering and frustrating my efforts. Then, while recently driving in our local shopping center, I spot Mona, walking to her car. “When are you coming back? We miss you on the corner.” If only there were more Monas in this community. Because of her I will be back!

*

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].

Featured image is from Rise Up Times

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mona from the Corner: Set Aside Political Differences, Converge in Harmony for Truth and Justice

The Official Story of the Collapse of WTC Building 7 Lies in Ruins

September 5th, 2019 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

A research team at the University of Alaska’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, led by Dr. Leroy Hulsey, Dr. Zhili Quan, and Professor Feng Xiao, Department of Civil Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, released yesterday for public comment their findings from a four-year study of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001. This is the first scientific investigation of the collapse of the building. Here is the conclusion:

“The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.”

Notice three things: (1) it has taken 18 years to get a real investigation of the destruction of a building blamed on Muslim terrorists, (2) the only way “near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building” can occur is through controlled demolition, and (3) this remarkable finding is not reported in the presstitute media.

In other words, the study is assigned to the Memory Hole. This is the way The Matrix operates. This is why you need this website.  The only purpose of print and TV news is to program you so that you insouciantly go along with the agendas of those who rule you. Those who sit in front of TV news, listen to NPR, or read newspapers are programmed to be mindless automatons.

Note this resolution of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District

Whereas, the attacks of September 11, 2001, are inextricably and forever tied to the Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department;

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, while operating at the World Trade Center in New York City, firefighter Thomas J. Hetzel, badge #290 of Hook and Ladder Company #1, Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department of New York, was killed in performance of his duties, along with 2,976 other emergency responders and civilians;

Whereas, members of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department were called upon to assist in the subsequent rescue and recovery operations and cleanup of the World Trade Center site, afflicting many of them with life-threatening illnesses as a result of breathing the deadly toxins present at the site;

Whereas, the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District recognizes the significant and compelling nature of the petition before the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York reporting un-prosecuted federal crimes at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and calling upon the United States Attorney to present that petition to a Special Grand Jury pursuant to the United States Constitution and 18 U.S.C. SS 3332(A);

Whereas, the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries—not just airplanes and the ensuing fires—caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day;

Whereas, the victims of 9/11, their families, the people of New York City, and our nation deserve that every crime related to the attacks of September 11, 2001, be investigated to the fullest and that every person who was responsible face justice;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District fully supports a comprehensive federal grand jury investigation and prosecution of every crime related to the attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as any and all efforts by other government entities to investigate and uncover the full truth surrounding the events of that horrible day.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published.

World Systems and Capitalism: Immanuel Wallerstein’s Legacy

September 5th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

“The dead albatross that hangs around our neck is our legacy of arrogance, racism.  And we must struggle to atone, to reconstruct, to create a different historical system.”  So wrote the late sociologist and thinker Immanuel Wallerstein in unequivocal tones of repentance on Europe’s legacy, its “oldest disgrace.”

Wallerstein was one of those refreshing types in an increasingly restrictive academy, the big picture sort rich with colour, engaged in splashing out portraits of historical development.  Dreary minutiae and specialism was not for him even if he could play the game when needed, and his quest in sociology and history was a bold commitment to seek “a more egalitarian world and a more libertarian one.”

Within his work, the theme of inequality marks the gap between the Third World and the West. Only a transformation of the world-system itself, one dealing with “its division of labour and allocation of rewards” would rectify it. We still await that particular idea of orderly distribution on earth to be realised.

The Wallerstein method is the vision: the world-system seen as an integrated, interdependent whole.  “There are not, and cannot be multiple capitalisms because capitalism is a singular structure that is the defining feature of the modern world-system.”  It simply would not do to use a case study system of specific economies in understanding socioeconomic development; nor would it suffice to discern a pattern of magic in the pure realms of statistics, applied comparatively.  What was needed was a new “unit of analysis” that refused to stop at the defined borders of societies.

The theoretical device best suited, he argued, was seeing development in the context of the centre (Northern Europe, North America, Australasia) and peripheral areas, with the former the engine for pushing the global capitalist system.  Four different categories emerge: the core, semi-periphery, periphery and external.  Considering the world-system from this perspective enabled a view of multiple, global polities, rather than a single one, while also understanding the transnational division of labour, one distinctly unequal in nature: the core, marked by capital intensive production and specialist skills, the peripheral marked by low-skill, labour-intensive production and raw material extraction.

World-systems analysis, accordingly, was not so much a theory as “a protest against neglected issues and deceptive epistemologies”.  Moving towards a world “substantively rational” could only be undertaken with eyes wide open to intellectual and political challenges.  “We can only struggle uneasily with both challenges simultaneously, and push forward as best we can.”

In The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century (1974), he charted the demise of feudalism before urgings of capitalist growth, defining capitalism as “production for sale in a market which the objective is to realise for profit”.  The feudal economy had been exhausted; climate had exerted its pull on agriculture; epidemics had taken their toll. Growth became premised on Europe’s territorial expansion, the deployment of commercial enterprises backed by state machinery, and the flow of goods from the periphery to the centre.

Capitalism effectively de-territorialised meaningful state boundaries, and did not necessitate the creation of a political empire in a strict sense.  As Wallerstein posited,

“the techniques of modern capitalism and the technology of modern science, the two being somewhat linked as we know, enabled this world-economy to thrive, produce, and expand without the emergence of a unified political structure.”

Three other volumes on this theme followed, coming out in 1980, 1989 and 2011.  More bracing scholarship could also be found in such essay collections as Geopolitics and Culture (1991), The Politics of World-Economy (1984) and The Capitalist World-Economy (1979).

Some of his broader concepts can be found in the reflections of the neat introduction to World-Systems Analysis.  In the 1950s, he recalls, there was interest in Cold War categories: the totalitarian and the democratic; the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.  For him,

“the most important thing happening in the twentieth-century world was the struggle to overcome the control by the Western world of the rest of the world.”

His critics deployed the usual devices in attempting to qualify, if not dismiss his work.  In using systems as his benchmark he risked being all too simplistic, however vast his reading suggested.  The fall back position was often empirical: Was he correct in his use of evidence, his reading of historical events?  Snootily, and typically within the usual disciplinary foxholes, he might have used historical sources, but was no historian.  In the words of Stanley Aronowitz, Wallerstein “is asking questions about social structure rather than offering plausible explanations for the causes of particular events.”

And in his scheme lurked Karl Marx not so much as ghost as conductor, a point many were bound to take issue with. Marxist critics argued that too dominant a role was being attributed to trade rather than class interaction.  Those like Robert Brenner argued that the unit of analysis was itself at fault, preferring the nation-state as the appropriate level.  But unlike others of the Left, Wallerstein remained dedicated to the big-ticket issues: understanding economic inequality, identifying the predations of capitalism. Terms such as “epistemic violence” and the impenetrable jargon of the modern postcolonial oeuvre were distracting sideshows.

In his last days, he penned what he himself termed his “last commentary ever.”  He had written 500, and that was enough.  In it, he still held out hope of the possibility of “a transformatory use of a 1968 complex… by someone or some group.”  He conceded that predictions on this score were speculative at best.  Further “by-paths” of development might be followed, or not.  “I have indicated in the past that I thought the crucial struggle was class struggle, using class in a very broadly defined sense.”  There “a 50-50 chance that we’ll make it to transformatory change, but only 50-50.” By most measures, such odds look rather good.

*

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

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

JCPOA Commitments: Iran will Increase its Nuclear R & D

September 5th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

In response to Britain, France, Germany, and the EU’s continued failure to fulfill their mandated JCPOA obligations, Iranian President Rouhani said his government will increase its nuclear R & D beginning September 6.

It’s the third rollback of its voluntary commitments, permitted by JCPOA Articles 26 and 36, Rouhani saying:

“We took the first step in reducing our commitments, and gave the P4+1 a two-month deadline. Then we went ahead with the second phase, giving them another two-month deadline.”

“In the four-month period, we held negotiations with the P4+1, including the European Union and the three European countries in particular.”

Beginning Friday,

“the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) will be obliged to immediately start research and development on whatever technical needs the country has, and set aside all R&D commitments stipulated in the JCPOA.”

“R&D on various new centrifuges and whatever the country may need for uranium enrichment” will be pursued.

“A major part of negotiations with the P5+1 (Russia, China, the US, the UK, France, and Germany) was focused on the R&D timing… All the R&D timings in the JCPOA to which we committed ourselves will be fully lifted as of Friday.”

“We will carry out whatever we need technically…under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and within a peaceful framework.”

Steps taken by Iran are reversible if Europe fulfills its obligations, what it failed to do since the Trump regime’s illegal May 2018 JCPOA pullout — a hostile act, wanting the landmark nuclear deal killed.

It’s doomed if Europe remains in noncompliance — saying one thing to Iran while observing unlawful US “maximum pressure” tactics, acting as its vassal.

On Tuesday, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Seyyed Abbas Araqchi said the following:

“Our return to the full implementation of the nuclear accord is subject to the receipt of $15 billion over a four-month period. Otherwise the process of reducing Iran’s commitments will continue,” adding:

“Iran has repeatedly stated that it will return to the full implementation of the JCPOA only when it can freely sell its oil and fully access its oil revenues.”

French President Macron proposed offering Iran a $15 billion credit line to facilitate its oil sales.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves le Drian said the idea is “to exchange a credit line guaranteed by oil in return for (Iran reversing its voluntary JCPOA pullback), security in the Gulf, and the opening of negotiations on regional security and a post-2025 (nuclear program).”

The idea depends on Trump regime approval, he added, what’s highly unlikely.

On Wednesday, the Financial Times (FT) said

“US officials have played down the idea of Washington backing a French proposal to give Iran a $15bn credit line, as the (Trump regime) ramps up its ‘maximum pressure’ campaign on Tehran.”

On the same day, White House envoy for regime change in Iran Brian Hook said the following:

“We did sanctions yesterday. We did sanctions Friday. We did sanctions today. There will be more sanctions coming,” adding:

“We can’t make it any more clear that we are committed to this campaign of maximum pressure, and we are not looking to grant any exceptions or waivers.”

Rouhani told Macron that

“Europe has to either buy oil from Iran or provide Iran with the equivalent of selling oil as a credit line guaranteed by Iran’s oil revenues, which in some sense means a pre-sale of oil.”

Major differences remain between Iran’s legitimate rights and European policies toward the country, Rouhani added.

If Britain, France, Germany, and the EU were serious about saving the JCPOA, they’d have fulfilled their mandatory obligations long ago.

Failure to act responsibly shows they side with the Trump regime against Iran — while pretending otherwise.

Like the White House, they can never be trusted — operating more as US colonies than sovereign independent countries, partnering with hostile US actions against all nations on its target list for regime change.

A Final Comment

According to the FT, Brian Hook tried to bribe Iran’s Adrian Darya 1 super-tanker captain Akhilesh Kumar, saying:

He offered Kumar millions of dollars.

“With this money you can have any life you wish and be well-off in old age.”

“If you choose not to take this easy path, life will be much harder for you.”

Kumar ignored him. Trump’s Treasury Department sanctioned him. Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif slammed the attempted bribe, tweeting:

“US has told the captain of Iranian oil tanker that deliver us Iran’s oil and receive several million dollars or be sanctioned yourself.”

“This sounds very similar to the Oval Office invitation I received a few weeks ago.”

“(H)aving failed at piracy, the (Trump regime) resorted to blackmailing.”

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Raialyoum

Video: “Mighty Israeli Army” Abandoned Military Facility after Hezbollah Anti Tank (ATGM) Strike

September 5th, 2019 by South Front

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) abandoned their military facility at Avivim in Upper Galilee, which had been targeted by Hezbollah anti-tank guided missile strike. According to a released video, IDF troops left behind at least 2 pieces of military equipment and multiple personal possessions, including ammunition.

The escalation at the Lebanese-Israeli contact line happened on September 1 after IDF shelled unidentified targets at Shebaa Farms. After the incident, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared a de-facto victory saying that Israel “acted with a combination of decisiveness and sagacity” and its forces achieved all of their “goals”. However, at the first look, the abandoned facility does not seem to be a sign of the victory. Probably, this was a tactical retreat.

On September 3, FoxNews and ImageSat Intl. came with a new report on Iranian presence in Syria. According to the report citing “multiple Western intelligence sources” and showing satellite imagery, Iran has established a new military base near al-Bukamal and “has plans to house thousands of troops at the location”. The report came with a common speculation that the supposed base could be use to house Iranian precision-guided missiles.

Watch the video here.

The situation at the Syrian-Iraqi border has been for a long time a part of the fearmongering campaign by mainstream media that started after the US-led coalition appeared to be unable to separate Syria and Iraq by capturing the border area employing its proxies. The main point of this campaign is that Iran will use the established ground link to supply its allies in Syria and Lebanon with weapons and equipment.

In Syria, forces of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (that are the core of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces) shelled positions of Turkish-backed armed groups near Azaz and Mari. Pro-Turkish forces responded with a series of limited artillery strikes.

The situation at the contact line between the Syrian Army and militants in southern Idlib remains calm.

*

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

Support South Front in its endeavors.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: “Mighty Israeli Army” Abandoned Military Facility after Hezbollah Anti Tank (ATGM) Strike
  • Tags: , ,

The End of the “Greater Middle East Project”: The Case of Kurdistan

September 5th, 2019 by United World International

Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential elections has had dire implications for the American “Greater Middle East” project which has guided US foreign policy in the Middle East since it was first put forward in 2003. Trump’s reorientation toward internal US problems (migration, economy, protectionism), the emergence of new geopolitical rivals (China and Iran) and the turning point being reached in the war against Daesh in Syria have resulted, more or less, in a new balance of powers in the Middle East. While the situation is still rather chaotic, one fact is certainly clear: the Americans have lost their dominant position.

On top of all of this, following the events of July 2016, Turkey, one of the central players in the Middle East, headed for geopolitical rapprochement with Russia and began to distance itself from the United States. Turkish authorities accused Washington of having played a role in the attempted coup, driving a wedge in the relationship of the long-time allies. Up to this point, Turkey, together with Israel, were seen as outposts for pushing US foreign policy interests in the Middle East. However, contradictions began to emerge over the US’ reliance on the Kurdish separatists, who are locked in a state of open conflict with the Turkish government. As a result of disagreements over this issue, America began to lose one of its most important regional partners. After the coup attempt, hostilities between Turkey and the West escalated even further: Turkey openly discussed the possibility of a withdrawal from NATO, the West countered by threatening Turkey’s ongoing EU integration process.

Unsuccessful negotiations between Washington and Ankara over the extradition of accused coup leader Fethullah Gulen only complicated matters further, as did disputes over Turkey’s detention of Pastor Andrew Branson. The contradictions eventually reached their sharpest point as the US attempted to dissuade, and ultimately, threaten Turkey over their purchase of Russian S-400 missile defense systems.

In parallel with these processes, Saudi Arabia and Qatar began to adjust their foreign policy accordingly. Realizing that the West could no longer fully control the situation in the region, Qatar began to seek support from Russia, which had successfully shown the strength of its influence in Syria.

Qatar, being a traditional ally of Turkey (predominantly via the Muslim Brotherhood), began to follow Turkey’s lead, even improving relations with Iran. Saudi Arabia, a regional adversary of Qatar, was forced to follow a similar strategy… of course, not in terms of improving relations with Iran (their main regional adversary) but by establishing ties with Russia. This is evidenced in Riyadh’s attempt to buy S-400s from Moscow against Washington’s wishes.

Thus, the United States has lost most of its regional partners, with only the invariable Israel remaining a part of the Greater Middle East project. Trump has bent over backward to keep this relationship secure, even if it means finally destroy Washington’s relations with the Islamic world altogether and instead rely on the Kurds… a plan as obvious as it is failed.

Revising the Greater Middle East Strategy

The Greater Middle East project was the guiding light of US foreign policy strategy in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia for decades. As of 2011, the project grew to include the Arab nations of North Africa and Syria in particular. On a project map designed by J. Kemp and R. Harkavy, the Republic of Turkey and Kazakhstan were also included.

The project aimed to spread and deepen “democracy” in the region. The plan had two sides: the official one, which was supposed to contribute to a rise in power for states led by pro-Western reformers (initially completely unrealistic) and the unofficial one, which was to actively destabilize existing Islamic regimes, support color revolutions, riots and even bring about regime change.

Creating controlled chaos has always been a central goal of the project. This goal was realized in Libya and Iraq, but its implementation in Syria was disrupted by the effective policy of Russia and Syria’s alliance with Iran and Turkey. In addition to these major powers, Hezbollah played a critical role in disrupting Washington’s plans.

However, the plan also involved the creation of a wider arc of instability – from Lebanon and Palestine to Syria, Iraq, the Persian Gulf and Iran – right up to the Afghanistan border, where NATO garrisons are located. The levers of the project were numerous: large-scale financial investments in the economies of the Middle Eastern countries, support for extremist groups, information warfare, alongside open provocations and false-flags operations. During the implementation of the project, many Middle Eastern countries underwent “color revolutions” backed by Western operators who induced controlled chaos and exploited social media networks in order to use various countries’ social, political, religious, ethnic and economic problems against them. During the “Arab Spring”, this strategy led to regime change in 3 states: Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, while Libya and Syria were left in a state of civil war.

The US and EU were never completely unified over the project. At one G8 summit, the Greater Middle East project was criticized by French President Jacques Chirac, arguing that Middle Eastern countries do not need this kind of forcibly exported “democracy.”

The strategy for “spreading democracy” in the region had essentially become thinly , if at all, veiled US intervention in the domestic political life of Middle Eastern states. Military assaults began in Afghanistan, Iraq, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan and Syria. However, the results were less than favorable for most, resulting in floods of refugees, including representatives of terrorist organizations. Western Europe was forced to face the brunt of the backlash for Bush and Obama’s Middle Eastern adventures. The globalists and neoconservatives were united in their efforts, and although their destructive goals were achieved, the majority of Americans did not even understand why these costly and brutal operations were being prioritized.

Trump properly grasped the mood of voters and promised to curtail the Greater Middle East project. After coming to power, he at least began to move in that direction: in December 2018, he decided to withdraw all American troops from Syria.

Project Implementation Opportunities

After the wave of color revolutions and the Arab spring, some states in the Middle East realized the real threat posed by America’s evolving strategy. Before their eyes, centralized and well-ordered states were turning into ruins. It was not just a change of leadership: the very existence of entire countries was threatened. Hence, many leaders concluded the need for a new emphasis on sovereignty. For example, Turkey, an important player in the region, focused on geopolitical interaction with Russia and China, reorienting itself toward the Eurasian axis which caused a crisis in relations with the United States (the purchase of the S-400s from Russia led the United States to refuse to sell Turkey F-35 fighter jets as previously agreed).

The region around Syria was gradually cleared of extremist groups, with the remaining militants relegated to the province of Idlib and the south-east of the country. When Imran Khan became Prime Minister, Pakistan also moved further away from the United States and began to develop pro-Chinese policies while establishing strategic relations with Russia.

Looking at all of these factors, we can conclude that the Greater Middle East project has already been curtailed.

However, the American strategy only partly depends on who runs the White House. That’s why it’s important to understand the role of the so-called Deep State in US politics. The Deep State has its own logic and direction, something which Trump needs to take into account. Due to the Deep State’s influence, America continues to take advantage of a number of complex problems for the region, one critical example being its tactic of fomenting conflict through support for the forces fighting for an independent Kurdistan. This conflict in particular is shaping  up to be the “last battle” of the Greater Middle East project.

The Kurdish Map

The Greater Middle East project, according to Ralph Peters and Bernard-Henri Levy (the plan’s most important European propagandists), involves the creation of an independent “Free Kurdistan” which includes a number of territories in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. The creation of a single state entity through the unification of the 40 million Kurds residing in these countries could lead to a number of serious problems.

The idea of ​​creating an independent Kurdish state openly and clearly began to emerge at the end of the 19th century (the first Kurdish newspaper in Kurdish began to circulate in Cairo in 1898). At the end of the 19th century, the Kurdish people seemed as though they might actually embrace Turkey. The founder and first president of the Republic of Turkey, Kemal Atatürk, was positively greeted among the Kurds – some Alevite groups interpreted the role of Atatürk as Mahdi, the last successor of the prophet Muhammad. However, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds did not receive their desired autonomy, which began to cause problems.

Historically, the “Kurdish map” has always been an ace-up-the-sleeve of various geopolitical powers striving for influence in the Middle East: Woodrow Wilson first supported the creation of an independent Kurdish state after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the US again supporting Kurdish forces in the 1970s in an attempt to overthrow the Iraqi Ba’ath party… in 2003, it used the Kurds to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The Iranians used the Kurds against Iraq in the 70s as well, while in more recent times the Syrians have tried to use the Kurdish issue against Turkey. Israel has strongly supported the Kurdistan project in order to weaken the Arabic States.

The fragmentation of the Kurds who live in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey, as well as in the Caucasus, is one of the reasons why it is currently impossible to build a single Kurdish state. The Kurdish people have historically been prone to clan and political fragmentation. There are several factors which strongly separate the various groupings of Kurds.

One complication to the formation of an independent Kurdistan is linguistic fragmentation – Soran is spoken in eastern Iraq and Iran, while Kurmanji is spoken by Syrian, Iraqi and Turkish Kurds. Some Kurds in Iraq speak yet another dialect – Zaza.

Religious issues also hinder the unification of Kurdish tribes and clans into a single state: the majority of Kurds are Sunnis (with a large number of Sufi tariqas),  while Zoroastrian styled Yazidism is less widespread. Meanwhile, In Iran, Kurds are mainly followers of Shia Islam. Yazidism is considered the Kurdish national religion, but it is too different from orthodox Islam and even from the rather syncretic Sufi Tariqas.

Yazidism is prevalent mainly among the northern Kurds – Kurmanji.

New year celebrations in Lalish, 18 April 2017. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The Religion is a mixture of Zoroastrianism (manifested in the doctrine of the seven Archangels and a special attitude to fire and the sun, along with a strong caste system) with the Sufi teachings of Sheikh Abi ibn Musafir. The unexplored and closed sources of the Yazidi religion strongly complicate the Kurdish factor. The Muslim nations surrounding them often characterize the Yazidi Kurds as worshipers of Shaitan. Shiite-style Kurds (mainly residing in Iran) are a separate group, difficult to reduce to the Shiite branch of Islam as such, and are more approximately a Zoroastrian interpretation of it. Interestingly, Shiite Kurds believe that the Mahdi should appear among the Kurds, suggesting a degree of ethnocentrism.

Another important factor in assessing the chances of creating an independent Kurdistan is their cultural specificity in the Iranian context: the Kurds, unlike other Iranian peoples, maintained a nomadic lifestyle far longer than others.

We can conclude that building a unified Kurdistan is essentially a utopian idea: the rich diversity of the religious, linguistic and cultural codes would be impossible obstacles in building a traditional nation-state… and this is without taking into account the stiff opposition to the project from other states in the region, including Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. For these countries, the implementation of the Greater Kurdistan project would actually mean the end of territorial integrity and a fundamental weakening of their sovereignty, and perhaps even their complete collapse (particularly given the fact that other ethnic minorities would likely want to follow the Kurdish path).

Although an independent state might be a pipe-dream, Turkey’s current tactical ally, Russia, could play a positive role in solving and regulating the Kurdish issue by other means. Being neutral in the conflict, despite historically positive relations with the Kurds, Russia could act as a mediator and guarantor of Kurdish rights while fighting to maintain the territorial integrity of existing states. Russia could assist in providing the Kurds with the possibility of cultural unification, protection and the development of their identity, but this implies the concept of a cultural and historical association rather than a political one. This association could grant the Kurds a certain degree of autonomy while preserving the territorial borders of the states in which they live.

In Iraq, a solution to the Kurdish issue is possible through the construction of a tripartite confederation between the Shiite majority, the Sunnis (with the rejection of Salafism and extremism and with the Sufis playing a predominant roe) and the Kurds (mainly Sunnis). It is also necessary to take into account Assyrian Christians, Yezidis and other ethnic-religious minorities of Iraq.

At present, Iraqi Kurds have the maximum autonomy and prerequisites for the implementation of the Kurdistan project under the leadership of Masoud Barzani. The origins of the relative independence of Iraqi Kurdistan are in American operations during the 2000s. It was during this period that Iraqi Kurds gained a maximum degree of autonomy. At the moment, Iraqi Kurdistan has its own armed forces, currency and even its own diplomats. Its main income comes from oil sales. Interestingly, the per capita GDP in Iraqi Kurdistan is quite high and exceeds that of Iran and Syria.

Moreover, in September 2017, the autonomous region’s leadership held a vote on secession from Iraq – 92.73% voters voted in favor of creating an independent Iraqi Kurdistan. Erbil’s plans in this direction have been met with negativity both in Iraq and in Turkey (despite Erdogan’s partnership with Barzani).

However, the situation in Iraq has its own difficulties and complications – the Barzani clan controls only half of the region, the second part of Iraqi Kurdistan, including the capital located in Sulaymaniyah, is controlled by the Talabani clan (the “Patriotic Union of Kurdistan” party is subordinate to it). Conditional partnerships have been established between the Barzani clan and the Talabani clan, but their orientations differ due to their diverging political priorities: this also manifests itself in terms of foreign policy: The Talabani clan is focused on Iran while the Barzani clan is focused on Turkey. This situation shows that even in the strongest part of Kurdistan there are heavy internal contradictions which make state-hood impossible.

In Turkey, the project faces several particularly sharp problems, a notable one being the ruling circle’s strong views on the Kurdish issue. Erdogan came to power in part by playing on the Kurdish factor (in efforts such as the Western-supported Kurdish–Turkish peace process), but, as relations with the West worsened, he began to return to a national Kemalist course, which traditionally takes a tough anti-separatist position, seeing any compromises with separatists as weakening Turkey’s national unity. As a result, Erdogan is now pursuing a policy of suppressing the movement for Kurdish autonomy – the PKK has responded in turn by carrying out terrorist attacks and issuing ultimatums.

The most stable situation for the Kurds in the Middle East is the one in Iran. The Kurds there live in four provinces – Kurdistan, Kermanshah, Western Azerbaijan and Ilam.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

The second seed of the Kurdish state is a network of associations of followers of the partisan leader Abdullah Ocalan, a left-wing politician, and the mastermind/creator of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. Ocalan’s teachings are about creating a special political union of Kurds in the spirit of “democratic confederalism”. This project promotes the creation of a virtual Kurdish state, based on socialist ideas. The center of this teaching is currently Syrian Kurdistan (Rojava), which has raised strong concerns from Turkey who sees the Syrian Kurds as an integral part of the PKK. Consequently, Erdogan’s policy is based on the uncompromising political rejection of the Syrian Kurds political formations, which is why he is preparing for military operations in northeastern Syria.

In Ocalan’s ideas, we find the interesting postmodern political project of creating a post-national virtual state called a “confederation” which relies on disparate associations, clans and tribes rather than a formal nation. This network-based society surprisingly coincides in its general features with postmodern theories in international relations, promoting the end of the era of nation-states and the need for a transition to a virtual structure of power. In philosophical terms, the idea is inspired by left-wing French postmodernists, in particular, the Deleuzian concept of the “rhizome” – a scattered mushroom in which there is no center, but everything is still connected in a network. The idea is manifested in the Kurdish anarcho-communist project which combines leftist ideas, postmodern philosophy and feminism. Representatives of anarchist communities inspired by globalist financier George Soros also have sympathy for the idea of a virtual rhizomatic state.

The main enemies of Ocalan’s project are Turkey and Syria (in Syria, the followers of Ocalan are based in the North – they call themselves the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria). Support for the Syrian Kurds has also come from the US government… for several years, they have sent financial assistance to the Kurds to fight Daesh terrorists. In the Western media, far more attention was paid to the Kurd’s fight against Daesh than the actual large-scale victories of the Syrian and Turkish armies.

Israel is betting heavily on the Kurds in its regional policy since the Israelis are well aware that a Kurdish state would be a fundamental problem for all of their regional opponents (Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria). Although the Kurds are Muslims, and therefore hardly enthusiastic about Israeli policy toward Palestine, the pragmatic interests of Kurdish nationalism often outweigh confessional solidarity.

Following the recent strengthening of Assad’s position in Syria, Iran’s tough opposition to US policy and Turkey’s geopolitical reversal toward multipolarity, America is also increasingly putting its money on the Kurds, literally and figuratively. In 2019, the Ministry of Defense allocated $300 million to support Kurdish forces in the war against Daesh. The United States, according to UWI sources, continues to supply arms to Kurdish militants from the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) today, using them as a weapon in the struggle to overthrow Assad. A report by the Carnegie Foundation notes that Kurdish groups in Syria and Iraq that successfully conducted operations against Daesh are “key US allies.” In the Western media, the Kurds are usually portrayed as “peacekeepers.”

The Americans (who are well aware of the difficulties involved) believe that the process of trying to build a Kurdish state will weaken or destroy their Middle Eastern rivals. After all, the creation of a free Kurdistan would entail the territorial division of Syria, Iran, Iraq and Turkey, creating a wide-ranging but controlled chaos.

An Alternative to the Greater Middle East Project

It has become apparent that the Kurdish issue needs to be resolved in the framework of a new project, an alternative to the globalist’s Greater Middle East strategy. It is important to create an alternative project that could rely on Ankara, while taking into account the interests of Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus. It should be Moscow, and not Washington (at least, not the American deep state) that plays the central mediating role. The project should work to preserve the territorial integrity of existing nations and even strengthen their overall sovereignty… at the same time, it is extremely important to take into account the diversity of peoples in the Middle East, and the Kurds in particular. Within this new political framework, the Kurds should have certain powers and guarantees – but at the same time, they must not be allowed to be exploited by globalist forces looking to destabilize the region to their own advantage.

In the context of the transformation of the Middle East, powers should reorient themselves towards cooperation with the Eurasian pole. China and Russia could become the key players in resolving the Kurdish issue, ensuring a balance between real Kurdish interests and the countries seeking to maintain their territorial integrity. The only way out of the current Kurdish impasse is finding a strict, consistent and integrated approach to solving the problem of Kurdish identity.

*

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

All images in this article are from UWI unless otherwise stated

“The Christian Gospel for Americans: A Systematic Theology”

September 5th, 2019 by Elizabeth Woodworth

 

It is intended to clearly ground America in its founding identity, and to reset its priorities accordingly.

(The word “gospel” refers to the teachings of Christ. It comes from the old English word god, meaning “good,” and spel, meaning “news, a story,” which was translated from the Latin word for good news, “evangelion.”)

The early primary Christian doctrines are listed in Griffin’s Introduction and each contains good news about the nature, purpose, and justice of the creator.

Later, and not central to the original gospel, came the “bad news” (appearing in secondary and tertiary doctrines), some of which contradicts the essential gospel that God is love.

Having read this book several times, I believe that it does a superb job, in plain English, of what it set out to do:

  1. to provide a theology specifically for Americans in the 21st century, a theology justified and needed by America’s overwhelming economic, military, and cultural power; and by “the tensions that exist between the American image of itself as a Christian nation and its actual behavior.”
  2. to understand America in light of what the gospel calls people to do, rather than to interpret the gospel for the convenience of America;
  3. to encourage the revision of Christian thinking to clearly express the good news contained in the gospel’s primary doctrines;
  4. to offer a Christian theology which, like philosophy, seeks to provide an all-inclusive worldview, using evidence and reason that is consistent with the facts of our experience;
  5. to emphasize that at the center of Christianity is the morality of how an individual or a community lives. This morality is based on the words of Jesus: “do to others as you would have them do to you, for this is the law and the prophets.”

Unfortunately, this central moral tenet has been increasingly violated by America’s dark foreign policy under the guise of “American Exceptionalism.”

A theology for America, Griffin says, must deal with this darker side, showing that the American Empire resembles the Roman Empire that crucified Jesus – Jesus, who had resisted economic injustice and foreign imperialism as demonic power opposing the Reign of Divine Values that he proclaimed.

Thucydides stated that “if we cease to rule others, we are in danger of being ruled ourselves.” From this fear emerged the international war system and imperialism, unrestrained by any central moral authority such as a global democracy.

Anyone who ever doubts the unrestrained atrocities and regime changes the US has performed in at least 30 countries, including

Afghanistan, Brazil, Chile, the Congo, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala, Hawaii, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Laos, Libya, Panama, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Syria, Ukraine, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia,

should read “Chapter Eleven: The American Empire.” This scholarly research is not to be found in American school curricula.

Thus, never-ending wars, promoted domestically by symbols of victory and glory, have institutionalized violence and demonic power as virtuous, especially in the United States. A new theology is needed to extricate America from the grips of a much greater demonic power than that which governed Rome.

The Bible authors dealt with “the politics of fallen creation” – in other words, the politics of demonic power – the same power that now drives America’s “humanitarian” ideology expressed through foreign imperialism, nuclear weapons, environmental degradation, and climate destruction.

This rampage cannot continue without the support of the people.  American citizens and their clergy need a sound, internally consistent, systematic theology upon which to ground both their own ethical behavior and the behavior they require of their governments.  Griffin’s is the theology they need.

He confronts the science versus religion issue in a fascinating chapter showing that some scientists – former atheists – have been overwhelmed by the exceedingly precise ratios between the elements on Earth that are required for life. These scientists are now saying that the universe was “fine-tuned for life,” thus implying a “fine-tuner” (or divine creator).

For all who have been concerned about the failure of certain traditional Christian teachings to accommodate science, this gift of integrated new theological thinking has risen to meet the challenge.

Better yet, it conveys the positive essence and divine values of Christianity. As such it is a foundational guide for citizens and clergy who wish to deepen their understanding of the original gospel, and to actively promote a peaceful, sustainable existence.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “The Christian Gospel for Americans: A Systematic Theology”

JCPOA (Nuclear) Negotiations with Iran Are a Test of the EU’s Geopolitical Credibility

September 5th, 2019 by Padraig McGrath

On September 4th, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said that Iran would give the EU a further 60 days to come back into compliance with its economic commitments under the JCPOA before Iran would initiate a third phase of withdrawal from its own obligations under the deal. On September 29th, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Iran has been enriching uranium to a purity of 4.35%, which marginally exceeds the limit of 3.67% stipulated under the terms of the JCPOA.

Furthermore, Iran has at this point exceeded the stockpile of 300 kilograms of nuclear fuel which was agreed upon in 2015. These measures are quickly reversible, but likewise, Iran also has the technical capacity to very quickly implement any decision to further suspend its commitments. The Iranian government has said that it has the technical capacity to resume production of 20% enriched uranium within 48 hours, were it to take such a decision.

The stumbling-block in the negotiations is that, with the United States having withdrawn from the JCPOA and re-imposed sanctions on Iran following Donald Trump’s assuring office as US president in 2017, the EU finds compliance with its own JCPOA-obligations extremely difficult, as European banks fear being hit by sanctions themselves if they un-freeze Iranian assets or facilitate transactions relating to Iranian oil-exports. US federal law states that, ultimately, all dollar-denominated banking-transactions worldwide ultimately have to pass through the US banking-system. Therefore, the strategic advantage conferred on the US by dollar-hegemony is not simply that it artificially inflates the value of the dollar, but also that it brings all dollar-denominated transactions worldwide under US legal jurisdiction.

In an attempt to find a workaround, French president Emanuel Macron has proposed that the EU should extend a $15 billion letter of credit to Iran, which would be guaranteed by Iranian oil-exports, thereby compensating Iran for losses of revenue owing to US sanctions. The Iranians have already rejected the first version of this offer, wherein this $15 billion package was classified as a loan rather than as a letter of credit. The distinction is crucial, as classifying the $15 billion package as a letter of credit would prevent the western powers from trapping Iran in a vice-grip composed simultaneously of an oil-embargo in addition to the obligation to service debt. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has explained that such a letter of credit would in effect be a pre-sale of oil.

However, the crucial weakness in this solution is that it will still require a waiver from the US government, which seems improbable considering Trump’s intransigence and US National Security Advisor John Bolton’s opposition to the plan.

Although, in the interests of fairness, we should extend some credit to President Macron for his diplomatic initiatives in an effort to find a way out of the impasse, the situation which exists still amounts to a very serious test of the EU’s credibility as a distinct negotiating-entity. The principal EU negotiator in the talks which led to the 2015 JCPOA-deal, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, has shown extreme weakness and passivity since the American withdrawal in 2017. Having worked hard to hammer out the terms of a deal, she has subsequently done absolutely nothing to defend it.

The net result is that the EU is currently in violation of its JCPOA-obligations because it has folded in the face of US economic bullying. What exactly is the point of bothering to negotiate with the EU if it is incapable of maintaining an independent policy on foreign relations, finance or security?

Another question thrown up by this diplomatic shambles is, considering that the number of countries worldwide being targeted by unilateral US economic sanctions is ever-increasing, when do we hit a tipping-point wherein this increasingly trigger-happy US policy, hitting the sanctions-button on reflex, has an accelerating effect in de-dollarization as a global process?

Banking-systems are dependent on a certain minimal level of systemic trust. How can the US hope to maintain its financial role in the world economy if everybody else is continuously reminded that their dollar-denominated assets worldwide can arbitrarily be frozen or seized at any time?

Already, the four largest banks in the world are Chinese. The only factor which has so far delayed China’s assumption of the role of the world’s banker is that the Chinese government has not yet decided to make the Yuan a more easily tradable currency. Further preparation is still required before the Chinese decide to flick that switch. Once they eventually do, it’s game over for the Dollar.

It is understandable that the Chinese have not yet decided to make the Yuan as tradable as other reserve-currencies, but their principal concern is not fears of vulnerability to speculators and raids. The capitalization of China’s state-owned financial institutions is such that, together, they could easily mobilize enough volume to defend the Yuan’s value against raids, or for that matter to suppress its value, any time they needed to.

I believe that the preparation which the Chinese government most centrally has in mind prior to any decision to make the Yuan fully tradable is the completion of the fibre-optic component of the Belt and Road Initiative. The strategic importance of these fibre-optic pipelines is the most under-emphasized aspect of Belt and Road. Once this physical infrastructure is in place, it will be possible to entirely circumvent American efforts toward virtual piracy in the form of unilateral sanctions. That will have a transformative effect on the world economy. The erosion of dollar-hegemony has been very gradual over the past 15 years, but if we are to see a sudden acceleration, a tipping-point, then that will be it.

It is quite probable that, in anticipation of this, odes to the Petro-Yuan are already being written in Farsi.

*

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

Featured image is from Iranian Presidency/Anadolu Agency

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on JCPOA (Nuclear) Negotiations with Iran Are a Test of the EU’s Geopolitical Credibility
  • Tags: , ,

The Amazon Fire Crisis Has Been 500 Years in the Making – as Brazil’s Indigenous People Know Only Too Well

September 5th, 2019 by Darren Reid

São Paulo – the largest city in the Americas – was recently plunged into darkness in the middle of the day due to smoke from the Amazon rainforest burning more than 2,700km (1,700 miles) away.

These fires have brought global attention to the forests of South America, but the crisis surrounding them has deep roots. To understand what is happening in the Amazon today, it’s necessary to understand how deeply exploitation of the forest, and the Indigenous peoples who live within it, are ingrained in the global economy.

The first Portuguese explorers arrived in Brazil on April 22 1500. The region didn’t at first appear to offer the gold or silver that was to make Central America a tempting target for colonisers, but it did present a more obvious asset: vast forests with a seemingly inexhaustible supply of timber.

The region’s Brasilwood trees produced a valuable red dye, and with the colour red in fashion in the French court, Brazil’s forests quickly became a target for profit-minded Europeans. Brasilwood was so prevalent before colonisation that it lent its name to the country. But after centuries of overharvesting, these trees are now a highly endangered species.

Indigenous peoples were initially incentivised to help harvest timber in exchange for European goods. But eventually the native peoples were enslaved and made to destroy the forests which had provided the wood for their homes and the game and plants for their diet.

Once cleared of trees, land was turned into plantations to grow labour-hungry cash crops such as sugar, encouraging the enslavement of yet more Indigenous people. When they proved too few in number, vast numbers of people were taken from Africa and forced into slavery alongside them.

Global economy, local cost

The Mata Atlântica, a vast tropical forest which stretched down the east coast of the country and well into its interior, was an obvious target for the seafaring colonisers, who needed to ensure the materials they harvested could be easily transported to overseas markets.

But the environmental cost of this process was massive. As much as 92% of the Mata Atlântica has been destroyed over the past 500 years, erasing the places in which hundreds of distinct cultures evolved over the preceding millennia. Vast numbers of species disappeared along with it.

Indigenous people in the Peruvian Amazon were enslaved by rubber barons into the 20th century. Walter Hardenberg/Wikipedia

In the 19th century, the British cleared yet more forest to establish rubber plantations. Despite officially being keen to encourage the abolition of slavery, the British-owned Peruvian Amazon Company violently forced Indigenous people into servitude. The anthropologist Wade Davis would later comment that

The horrendous atrocities that were unleashed on the Indian people of the Amazon during the height of the rubber boom were like nothing that had been seen since the first days of the Spanish Conquest.

The American industrialist Henry Ford founded a rubber-producing town deep in the Amazon rainforest in 1928. He hoped to “develop that wonderful and fertile land” to produce the rubber his company needed for car tires, valves and gaskets. Fordlândia, as it became known, was abandoned in 1934.

Fordlândia required the Ford Motor Company to ‘develop’ significant areas of rainforest. The Henry Ford Collection

By the middle of the 20th century, the size of the Indigenous population first encountered by the Portuguese had shrunk by 80-90%. Meanwhile, the global demand for beef accelerated the destruction of South American forests to free up new grazing land.

Global brands, such as McDonalds, have been linked with Brazilian beef, half of which is produced on lands which were once rainforest. Just as demand for sugar and rubber fuelled historic slavery, the global appetite for beef drives deforestation and displaces Indigenous people today.

New frontiers

The current crisis in the Amazon began with illegal gold miners, loggers, and farmers setting fires to clear lands for new enterprises. This process has been promoted and celebrated by the government of Jair Bolsonaroand the country’s powerful agribusiness sector. Already dislocated people face an increasingly grave situation. This is especially true for uncontacted groups who’ve yet to cultivate biological resistance to the diseases which outsiders can introduce, or develop the cultural experience necessary to navigate today’s complex political landscape.

Members of the Kaingang, a people displaced by the destruction of the Mata Atlântica. Their name can be translated as ‘owners of the forest’. Darren Reid, Author provided

Many of Brazil’s Indigenous cultures are completely oriented around their forests. In the modern era, their belief systems endure in groups such as the Kaingang, a part of the Gê peoples who occupied the southern parts of the Amazon rainforest and lived throughout the Mata Atlântica. They must actively nurture and protect these beliefs in the face of tremendous outside pressure.

Unlike in the US, dense forests and unmapped locations, not to mention uncontacted peoples, ensure continuity between the earliest days of European colonisation and modern Brazil.

Indigenous peoples have shown remarkable strength and resilience against more than 500 years of colonialist attack. But they remain vulnerable to an insatiable global economy which profits from the destruction of South American forests and the people who live within them. The recent fires are simply the most recent chapter in a much longer story.

*

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.

 is a Senior Lecturer, American History and Popular Culture, Coventry University

Featured image is from End of the American Dream

Now It’s Official: US Visa Can be Denied if You (or Even Your Friends) Are Critical of American Policies

September 5th, 2019 by Philip Giraldi

There have been several interesting developments in the United States government’s war on free speech and privacy.

First of all, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP), which is responsible for actual entry of travelers into the country, has now declared that it can legally access phones and computers at ports of entry to determine if there is any subversive content which might impact on national security.

“Subversive content” is, of course, subjective, but those seeking entry can be turned back based on how a border control agent perceives what he is perusing on electronic media.

Unfortunately, the intrusive nature of the procedure is completely legal, particularly as it applies to foreign visitors, and is not likely to be overturned in court in spite of the Fourth Amendment’s constitutional guarantee that individuals should “…be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Someone at a port of entry is not legally inside the United States until he or she has been officially admitted. And if that someone is a foreigner, he or she has no right by virtue of citizenship even to enter the country until entry has been permitted by an authorized US Customs and Border Protection official. And that official can demand to see anything that might contribute to the decision whether or not to let the person enter.

And there’s more to it than just that. Following the Israeli model for blocking entry of anyone who can even be broadly construed as supporting a boycott, the United States now also believes it should deny admittance to anyone who is critical of US government policy, which is a reversal of previous policy that considered political opinions to be off-limits for visa denial. DHS, acting in response to pressure from the White House, now believes it can adequately determine hostile intent from the totality of what appears on one’s phone or laptop, even if the material in question was clearly not put on the device by the owner. In other words, if a traveler has an email sent to him or her by someone else that complains about behavior by the United States government, he or she is responsible for that content.

One interesting aspect of the new policy is that it undercuts the traditional authority of US Embassies and Consulates overseas to issue visas to foreigners. The State Department visa process is rigorous and can include employment and real property verification, criminal record checks, social media reviews and Google-type searches. If there is any doubt about the visa applicant, entry into the US is denied. With the new DHS measures in place, this thoroughly vetted system is now sometimes being overruled by a subjective judgment made by someone who is not necessarily familiar with the traveler’s country or even regarding the threat level that being a citizen of that country actually represents.

Given the new rules regarding entering the United States, it comes as no surprise that the story of an incoming Harvard freshman who was denied entry into the United States after his laptop and cellphone were searched at Boston’s Logan Airport has been making headlines. Ismail Ajjawi, a 17-year-old Palestinian resident of Lebanon, was due to begin classes as a freshman, but he had his student visa issued in by the US Embassy in Beirut rejected before being flown back to Lebanon several hours later.

Ajjawi was questioned by one immigration officer who asked him repeatedly about his religion before requiring him to turn over his laptop and cell phone. Some hours later, the questioning continued about Ajjawi’s friends and associates, particularly those on social media. At no point was Ajjawi accused of having himself written anything that was critical of the United States and the interrogation rather centered on the views expressed by his friends.

The decision to ban Ajjawi produced such an uproar worldwide that it was reversed a week later, apparently as a result of extreme pressure exerted by Harvard University. Nevertheless, the decisions to deny entry are often arbitrary or even based on bad information, but the traveler normally has no practical recourse to reverse the process. And the number of such searches is going up dramatically, numbering more than 30,000 in 2017, some of which have been directed against US residents. Even though permanent resident green card holders and citizens have a legal right to enter the United States, there are reports that they too are having their electronic media searched. That activity is the subject of an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security that is currently working its way through the courts. The ACLU is representing 10 American citizens and a legal permanent resident who had their media searched without a warrant as required by the Fourth Amendment.

It is believed that many of the arbitrary “enforcements” by the CBP are carried out by the little-known Tactical Response Team (TRT) that targets certain travelers that fit a profile. DHS officials confirmed in September 2017 that 1,400 visa holders had been denied entry due to TRT follow-up inspections. And there are also reports of harassment of American citizens by possible TRT officials. A friend of mine was returning from Portugal to a New York Area airport when he was literally pulled from the queue as he was departing the plane. A Customs agent at the jetway was repeatedly calling out his birth date and then also added his name. He was removed from the line and taken to an interrogation room where he was asked to identify himself and then queried regarding his pilot’s license. He was then allowed to proceed with no other questions, suggesting that it was all harassment of a citizen base on profiling pure and simple.

My friend is a native-born American who has a Master’s degree and an MBA, is an army veteran and has no criminal record, not even a parking ticket. He worked for an American bank in the Middle East more than thirty years ago, which, together with the pilot’s license, might be the issue these days with a completely paranoid federal government constantly on the lookout for more prey “to keep us safe.” Unfortunately, keeping us safe has also meant that freedom of speech and association as well as respect for individual privacy have all been sacrificed. As America’s Founding Father Benjamin Franklin once reportedly observed, “Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety will wind up with neither.”

*

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

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Now It’s Official: US Visa Can be Denied if You (or Even Your Friends) Are Critical of American Policies
  • Tags:

West’s “Fake News” Begins to Backfire

September 5th, 2019 by Joseph Thomas

Western special interests have used the term “fake news” as a pretext for widening censorship, particularly across US-based social media networks like Facebook and Twitter as well as across Google’s various platforms.

In a move of political judo, many nations are citing the threat of “fake news” to in turn deal with media platforms, often funded and supported by the US and Europe, operating within their borders and often targeting sitting governments to either coerce or unseat them in pursuit of Western interests.

A recent example of this is in Thailand where the government has announced plans for measures to combat what is being called “fake news.”

A Bangkok Post article titled, “Digital Economy and Society Ministry outlines fake news crackdown,” would report:

The Digital Economy and Society Ministry (DE) is seeking to counter fake information shared online through the Line app because urgent issues could potentially incite mass public misunderstanding.

The article also makes mention of the Thai government’s plans to approach tech-giants like Facebook, Line and Google, urging each to establish offices in Thailand for the specific purpose of confronting “fake-news.”

Facebook and Google already have a well-oiled process of identifying and removing content both platforms deem “fake news” or “coordinated, disingenuous behaviour,” but this is a process that focuses solely on deleting narratives from their networks that challenge US interests. Both platforms, as well as Twitter, are more than happy to otherwise allow false narratives aimed at governments around the world to flourish with impunity.

The offices the Thai government seeks to establish are described as a shortcut for the Thai government to contact these foreign tech companies and spur them into action. However, similar arrangements have already been tried with mixed results and ultimately, with large foreign tech-giants like Facebook, Google and Twitter enjoying net influence over Thailand’s information space at the Thai government’s and the Thai people’s expense.

Genuine Cooperation and Non-Interference Requires Thai Leverage 

Google’s adherence to Chinese conditions for operating within Chinese territory resulted not from Google’s good will, but from China’s sufficient leverage over the tech-giant. China maintains its own tech corporations which dominate China’s information space. China’s Baidu is an equivalent to Google. Weibo is a Chinese equivalent to Twitter. And RenRen is a Chinese version of Facebook. All three dominate their respective target markets within China.

SHARE

China doesn’t need Google. Google needs China. And because of this leverage, China is able to bend Google to conform to its conditions while operating within China. At any time China can remove what little of Google’s business remains there because of this fact.

For smaller nations like Thailand, tech-giants like Google face little to no competition. They are able to exert influence over Thailand’s information space with virtual impunity. The Thai government may “ask” for cooperation, but lacking any indigenous alternative, requests for cooperation lack the sufficient leverage necessary to receive it in full.

Thailand’s latest plans will likely backfire if not linked to serious efforts to establish Thai versions of Google, Facebook, Twitter and other platforms operated by foreign tech giants currently dominating Thailand’s information space.

Such efforts have been hinted at.  In 2017 there were talks between the Thai and Russian governments regarding Russian assistance to develop local Thai alternatives to US-based social media platforms.

So far, no tangible progress has been made. But should concrete plans be rolled out alongside requests that foreign tech giants concede control of Thai information space to the Thai government, the threat of local alternatives displacing foreign social media platforms just as they did in China or Russia could give Bangkok the leverage it needs to have its requests met.

The West’s Surreal Hypocrisy 

In the wake of Thailand’s announcement  to fight “fake news,” Western media platforms began decrying the proposed plans.

The Diplomat’s article, “‘Fake News’ and Thailand’s Information Wars,” would attempt to claim:  

Identifying what is considered “fake news” has become a political weapon for authoritarian consolidation after the 2014 military coup. The regime has relentlessly accused its critics of spreading false information while claiming that it is the only official source of true facts.

The author, Janjira Sombatpoonsiri, appears entirely unaware the term “fake news” was first coined in the West specifically for this purpose and the tech-giants Thailand proposes to lean on to enforce its own definition of “fake news” have already scoured their networks of tens of thousands of accounts in a politically-motivated censorship campaign propped up by claims of fighting “fake news.”
Janjira also complains that the Thai government’s proposal puts first and foremost US-backed political parties like Future Forward at risk. She never mentions Future Forward is a political proxy of foreign interests and glosses over its links to political parties guilty of mass murder, street violence and terrorism. She also attempts to imply US designs for primacy over Asia is a threat imagined by Thailand’s current government and its supporters despite a half century of US policy papers, US-led wars and standing armies placed in the region proving just how real this threat is.

If a campaign aimed at confronting “fake news” was ever really needed, it is for parties like Future Forward, the foreign special interests it works for and the networks of violence and terrorism it works with.

As Asia Rises, Western Influence in Physical and Information Space will Wane

Thailand is not alone. Other nations across Southeast Asia have already passed laws regarding what they define as “fake news,” much of which targets US-funded media platforms seeking to influence regional public perception, policy and economic decisions.

Reuters in its article, “Thailand asks tech firms to set up centers against ‘fake news’ in Southeast Asia,” would note:

Other Southeast Asian governments have also recently made efforts to exert more control over online content and taken a tough stance against misinformation. 

Singapore passed an anti-fake news bill in May, forcing online media platforms to correct or remove content the government considers to be false. 

Vietnam said its cybersecurity law, which was passed last year and banned posting anti-government information online, would guard against fake news. 

Whether or not Thailand’s current plans succeed, what is certain is that the balance of power in the region is shifting. Nations once powerless to compete against US economic, political, military and information supremacy are now moving individually and in unison to chip away at US hegemony in the region.

Thailand will eventually develop its own alternatives to Facebook, Twitter, Google and others which will not only be a benefit to Thai national security, but also to the Thai economy. Much of Thailand’s nearly 70 million strong population is online (including 46 million on Facebook alone) and keeping the money generated by their online activity inside Thailand’s borders can only be a positive thing.

It’s not a matter of if but of when US-based tech giants lose their grip on information space abroad. The only question that remains is how much damage they’ll be able to do in each respective country, including Thailand, before that grip loosens.

*

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