Global Research

On June 25, Canada’s Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism announced that the Trudeau government’s new anti-racism strategy would include the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The Co-Chair of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) proudly noted that

“the IHRA definition also explicitly recognizes that anti-Zionism – that is the delegitimization and demonization of the Jewish state – is a clear and unequivocal expression of antisemitism.”

While the adoption of this definition is as yet only ‘symbolic and declaratory,’ it can form the basis for attacks on Palestinian solidarity at various levels. The funding of NGOs that are critical of Israel may be threatened. Public institutions will be pressured to deny meeting facilities for events that take the Palestinian side. It is also quite possible that this initiative could be taken further and the expression of anti-Zionist views actually be treated as a form of hate crime.

Misuse of Antisemitism

This latest move is part of the Canadian component of a concerted international drive to weaponise the false allegation of antisemitism in the service of Israel. In 2009, the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (CPCCA) was formed, comprised of former and sitting MPs from each party. It issued its report in 2011 and the focus was on combating the so called ‘new antisemitism’ of those who challenge Israel. Independent Jewish Voices (Canada) described the whole initiative as an ‘attempt to attack free speech and silence criticism of the Israeli government’s oppressive and illegal policies’ and ‘to label criticism of Israel and its behaviour, as well as organized efforts to change them, as anti-Semitic and to criminalize both.’

The BDS Movement has also been attacked by governments in Canada, with resolutions condemning the boycott effort coming from both the federal parliament and the provincial legislature in Ontario. The Al Quds Day Rally in Toronto has faced concerted efforts to undermine it, with the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, asserting last year that

“Our government will take action to ensure that events like Al Quds Day… are no longer part of the landscape in Ontario.”

Toronto’s Mayor, John Tory, took a similar position and Liberal MP, Michael Levitt, Chair of the Canada-Israel Parliamentary Group, urged the City and Province

“to hold the organisers accountable for this hateful event.”

Independent Jewish Voices (Canada) has produced an excellent report that shows how the IHRA definition is being used to further the attack on Palestinian solidarity, insufficient attention is paid to very real forms of antisemitic hate crime. The Israeli government and its supporters are aggressively using this document as a key tool in their efforts to ‘suppress – and even criminalize – criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights.’

If the effort to intimidate and suppress support for the Palestinians, especially when it is expressed as clear and forthright anti-Zionism, is being challenged with such escalating ferocity, this largely reflects a certain note of desperation on the part of Israel’s apologists. The BDS Movement has made gains and the general mood has shifted against the Zionist state. At the same time, Israel’s political leadership is racing to the right with the support of the Trump Administration and dispensing with polite fictions about a peace process, as they move to brutally complete the colonial project.  The pretence of a liberal democracy seeking a just resolution is no longer viable. The accusation of antisemitism against international supporters of a free Palestine is really all that’s left in the toolbox. So, while fascists in Eastern Europe pose a real threat to Jewish communities and US nazis march through the streets chanting, ‘Jews will not replace us,’ fire is focused on the left and life long anti-racists, like Jeremy Corbyn, are labelled as hatemongers. Moreover, the goal of the attack is no longer merely character assassination. The IHRA definition is being put forward as one that should inform the work of police and prosecutors. They prepare the ground to arrest those they can’t intimidate into silence.

Labour and the IHRA Definition

The Labour Party’s acceptance last year of the IHRA definition, with all of the examples included, was desperately unfortunate. As an effort by some on the left to appease the right and achieve peace, it was a predictable failure and only emboldened the attackers to go further with their cynical misuse of antisemitism. However, it also had the most serious implications for international Palestinian solidarity. Precisely because the prestige of the Corbyn leadership is so considerable and it is looked to with such hope in many other countries, the retreat had a damaging effect. We can expect the Liberal Party of Canada, fully complicit in the oppression of the Palestinians, to readily accept the IHRA definition but, for Labour to do this, even as the document is being used to attack solidarity movements in country after country, was massively unhelpful.

For obvious historical reasons, the position that a left led party in Britain takes on an anti-colonial struggle is a decisive question. Leftists in the country from which the Balfour Declaration was issued have a particular responsibility to the Palestinians.

Though he was not the first Zionist politician to make this gesture, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, stood before the Security Council in April of this year and waved a bible in his hand as he declared that “this is our deed to our land.” That anyone can suggest that an ancient religious text should be used to decide affairs of state and international relations in the 21st Century is quite astounding yet no Western leader would even consider questioning these theatrics. If, however, Danon’s bible promised, not a part of the Middle East, but a portion of Western Europe, the Zionist claim to self-determination would have gone nowhere. When Zionism emerged in the 19^th Century, as an adjunct of European colonialism, no one spoke in code. Everyone understood that the plan was for a settler colony that would serve as a garrison of Western interests. It would be, as Theodor Herzl put it,

“a sector of the wall of Europe against Asia, we shall serve as the outpost of civilization against barbarism.”

Herzl’s wall is standing today. It was erected by ethnically cleansing the bulk of the Palestinian population, creating vast numbers of refugees and establishing an Apartheid regime for those who could not be removed. Last month, Netanyahu ventured the opinion that,

“If Israel wasn’t here, the Middle East would collapse.”

By that, of course, he means that the US led domination of the entire region would be called into question and he is far from wrong.

The nature and role of the State of Israel is such that we can’t be content to be critical of its excesses and worst aspects. The seventh of the ‘contemporary examples of antisemitism’ listed in the IHRA definition speaks of ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.’ The dispossession of the Palestinians can’t possibly be considered the exercise of a right to self-determination and Israel, a colonial settler state, is a fundamentally racist endeavour. Zionism is not a religion or an ethnicity but a political ideology and its propositions are questioned or rejected by many Jews, while they are supported by leaders of Western powers who are, for the most part, not Jewish.

As Israel seeks to crush Palestinian resistance, complete the colonial project and become an impregnable fortress of Western interests in the Middle East, a frank and clear anti-Zionism is at a premium. When Palestinians join the Great March of Return to the Gaza fence, it is not enough to accuse the IDF of using excessive force. We must declare that the Palestinians do, indeed, have a right of return and to live in a free, democratic and secular Palestine. If they can show such courage and pay such a price, surely we can face down and refute the lies and slanders and show our solidarity and support for the Palestinians is non negotiable.

*

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 Clarke became an organiser with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty when it was formed in 1990 and has been involved in mobilising poor communities under attack ever since.

Featured image: Free Palestine protest at Parliament Hill, Ottawa, July 2014. Photo: Flickr/Tony Webster

Global Research has over 50,000 subscribers to our Newsletter.

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

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

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

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

*     *     *

Iran Declares War on the USA’s Covert Influence in Iraq

By Elijah J. Magnier, July 11, 2019

When US officials visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi, they had two requests: first, to close all commerce and financial exchanges with Iran to strangle the Iranian economy and bring it to its knees. The second was to neutralise the Iraqi groups (known as Hashd al-Shaabi) which sympathise with Iran and carry a similar ideology.

Brexit: British Lorries to be Turned Back at Dover by Shipping Companies

By Pölös Zsófia, July 11, 2019

British lorries that do not have proper documentation will not be able to reach France after a no-deal Brexit because shipping companies will not allow them to board their ships in Dover.

Ongoing Atrocities in Syria. Missile Attacks Directed against Civilians

By Miri Wood, July 11, 2019

On 9 July, another 7 children were blown up by landmines planted by terrorists in the Dablan area of Deir Ezzor. This follows the murder of 3 children by landmine explosions on 5 July, in Jobar neighborhood of Damascus.

Debunking the Indo-Pacific Myth

By Pepe Escobar, July 11, 2019

Shanahan made a big deal of Indo-Pacific when he hit the 18^th Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last month, picking up on his introduction to the Pentagon report to stress the “geopolitical rivalry between free and repressive world order visions” and demonizing China for seeking to “reorder the region to its advantage”.

Video: Prospects of War in the Persian Gulf Region

By South Front, July 11, 2019

After a series of suspicious attacks on oil tankers on May 12 and June 13, the United States blamed Iran without providing any hard evidence. The diversions were given as the reason for the strengthening of the American military presence in the region.

How to Pay for It All: Central Banking Asia Style

By Ellen Brown, July 11, 2019

The problem, as Stuart Varney observed on FOX Business, was that no one had a viable way to pay for it all without raising taxes or taking from other programs, a hard sell to voters. If robbing Peter to pay Paul is the only alternative, the proposals will go the way of Trump’s trillion dollar infrastructure bill for lack of funding.

“Wars Come About As a Result of Lies.” Selected Radio Shows

By Michael Welch, July 10, 2019

The Global Research News Hour radio show is on a summer hiatus. Broadcasters are welcome and encouraged to air the following repeat broadcasts, or sample from our vast archives here.

*

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

When US officials visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi, they had two requests: first, to close all commerce and financial exchanges with Iran to strangle the Iranian economy and bring it to its knees. The second was to neutralise the Iraqi groups (known as Hashd al-Shaabi) which sympathise with Iran and carry a similar ideology. 

The Iraqi Premier is aware he is being pushed into the heart of two minefields, Iranian and American, and therefore he cannot just walk straight into these fields. He has decided to reject the first US demand because Iraq has religious, commercial and energy bonds with Iran. He is refusing to transform Iraq into a US-Iran battlefield where no winner can be expected to stay on his feet, including Iraq. He wants to force the US administration to back down and agree to provide Iraq with waivers to buy Iranian gas and keep commercial exchange flowing.

What were Abdel Mahdi’s reasons for responding to US pressure? He did not want to have the Americans on his back or turn the country upside down. Therefore, though he refused to satisfy US officials in their first request, he did take account of the latter, seeking to avoid a potential coup d’état and a possible US manoeuvre to allow the return of the terrorist group “Islamic State” (ISIS). The Prime Minister issued Diwani Order (decree) no. 237 “to organise Hashd al-Shaabi, where all factions close their headquarters and have the option to either join the armed forces or engage in political activity (unarmed). Any faction acting secretly or publicly bypassing these instructions is forbidden. Compliance with the ultimatum is required by the 31 of July”.

The US administration was satisfied with this move, but…

The agitated situation in the Middle East makes it difficult for Iraq to maintain a balanced position, especially since the belligerents are the US (with its military forces stationed in the country), and Iran ( a neighbour). It seems there is little room for compromise. Iran understands Baghdad’s desire to avoid Iraq becoming a war theatre, so long as the cannons can be kept inside the warehouses (because in the case of a military confrontation all limits will disappear); Iran wants to see Iraq stable and prosper: nonetheless Iran will not remain idle in the face of any US hits, and will respond vigorously.  The merger of Hashd al-Shaabi has its pros and cons: but Iran cannot turn a blind eye to this event and allow it to become a US victory.

The advantages related to the Prime Minister’s decree 237 are principally the fact that members of Hashd will enjoy equal rights and services (indemnity, social protection and medical care), just like any other members of the armed and security forces. The negative aspects are numerous.

Firstly, it is a US request and as such represents a blatant intrusion into Iraqi domestic affairs: it is the imposition of the US administration’s policy on a sovereign country. However, the enemies of the US are not necessarily the enemies of Iraq.

There is a reason to believe that Hashd is being targeted precisely because of its essential contributions to Iraqi and regional security, made possible in part because many groups in Hashd are in harmony with Iran.

Many US and western analysts take it upon themselves to regularly and harshly criticise Hashd, ignoring the fact that it was Hashd that saved Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East)  from ISIS when all other “security” forces were on the run. The US objective in imposing this reform was to cripple all Iranian friends and allies in Iraq and divide Mesopotamia into Kurdistan, Shiistan and Sunnistan.

Hashd fought against ISIS effectively, and some groups supported Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and were partially responsible for the failure of the US-sponsored regime-change war in Syria.

Hashd members have firm ideological commitments (the Christian Babylon Hashd, the Sunni Hashd al-Ashaaer and Shia Hashd al-Shaabi) and thus stand as a firewall between the government of Baghdad and the US lobby which influences many Iraqi politicians.

Finally, Hashd can stop any attempt at a coup d’état against Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi or any other Prime Minister ruling the country, if carried out by a military wing within the Iraqi Army.

Iraq never forgets how the US stood idle when ISIS occupied 40 per cent of the country (all of Anbar, Nineveh, Salahuddin and parts of Diyala and Baghdad) and the US administration watched from afar, refusing to deliver weapons that had already been paid for and scheduled. Kurdistan Leader Masoud Barzani, who welcomed the ISIS occupation of Mosul, was the first to praise Iran’s intervention to arm Kurdistan (and Baghdad) when ISIS turned its guns against Kirkuk and Erbil.

In 2014, the Obama administration saw ISIS was stopped at the gates of Baghdad when the Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Sistani called for the creation of a “Popular Gathering”, the translation of “Hashd al-Shaabi” from the Arabic language.

I witnessed how at this time Baghdad, Najaf and Karbala became empty with the population panicking, particularly when daily rumours of ISIS breaking into Baghdad were constant, demoralising both the security forces and the population at large.

ISIS supporters in the Anbar tribes cruelly killed all Iraqi opponents while on a disorganised run from Mosul and other parts of Nineveh and Salahuddin provinces: over 1700 Shia cadets were slaughtered, and Sunni security forces were executed with a bullet in the head. Its vicious blood-thirsty reputation preceded its advance towards Iraqi cities, creating amplified fear and terror among Iraqis.

ISIS reached Abu Ghraib indeed and was shelling Baghdad airport from a close distance. Baghdad was almost empty, and ISIS could have occupied it in no time. Hashd, roughly armed, protected Baghdad.

I also witnessed how Saraya al-Salam (the Moqtada al-Sadr militia) took upon itself the protection of Samara along with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Lebanese Hezbollah. This was the moment when the US finally made the first move to have its share of the cake and started to train Army Counter Terrorism units and to provide the weapons already paid for by Iraq.

Inevitably, when embedded within a foreign army, US officers can quickly identify elements or officers willing to collaborate. The memory lingers of the Lebanese Colonel head of the Special Forces school Mansour Diab, who, during his training course in the US, was turned into an agent and then delivered to Israel as his handler–as he confessed when arrested. This is how the US wove its spider’s web within the Iraqi military institution- to the point that Bret McGurk wanted to promote an Iraqi officer to lead the government when Iran imposed Adel Abdel Mahdi. McGurk identified a Shia group that might promote this Iraqi officer but failed in his attempt. Therefore, it is not surprising to witness division within the Army since the Shia took power from the Sunni President Saddam Hussein.

However, the events of the last few days were not something that Iran could allow to pass without reacting. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo requested that Iraq dilute Hashd al-Shaabi within the security forces and that the Army eliminate its identity and existence. This move pushed Iran to declare a “silent war” on the US. It is an intelligence war, directly linked to the overwhelming tension between the two countries, and triggered by Trump’s unilateral decision to revoke the nuclear deal.

Iran decided to release one of its protected secrets, the presence of a technology shared with its allies in Iraq and Lebanon: monitoring, tapping and listening to WhatsApp.

During recent repeated visits to Iraq, I noticed top leaders of the country, in the political and military echelons, using WhatsApp freely. They believed messages could be monitored, and intelligence services could identify who is calling whom without having access to voice call content. However, they were unaware that this tapping technology was available to the Israelis, to the Americans and all European countries. Many Arab states prevent the use of WhatsApp in their countries for lack of access to all its features. All my attempts to convince them that their beliefs about tapping capabilities were incorrect failed.

The US seems unaware that Iran’s allies in Iraq have acquired this capability (similar to that of Hezbollah in Lebanon). Those Iraqi-US dual nationals who work with the US intelligence service in Iraq provided false security information to local agents who believed their communication system was protected.

This is how one of the leading US agents, Brigadier General Mahmoud al-Fallahi, commander of Anbar Army and responsible for the borders with Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, was caught while passing on sensitive and compromising information to the CIA in Iraq. Al-Fallahi has the names of many Iraqi officers who are willing to collaborate to overthrow the Iraqi government and eliminate Hashd al-Shaabi, the main obstacle to US plans in Iraq, according to sources within the Iraqi government.

The high-ranking Iraqi officer al-Fallahi delivered to the CIA agent all coordinates of the location of Hizballah-Iraq at al-Qaem, on the borders with Syria, the locations and armament of “Kataeb Imam Ali”, the logistics, command and control positions, the weapons, food and gasoline supplies and the names of commanders of Nujabaa, Kataeb Sayyed al-Shuhada’ and Hezbollah-Iraq.

Last year, Israeli jets bombed Hashd al-Shaabi on the borders with Syria causing dozens of fatalities. Sources within the intelligence community believe the reason for hitting Hashd on the borders with Syria could be to help divert attention away from the movement of groups or troops in the area during the bombing.

The US officials who asked Abdel Mahdi to get-rid of Hashd forwarded “proof” that the drone which was responsible for targeting the Aramco pipeline in Saudi Arabia last month departed from Iraq, not Yemen as the Houthis claimed. This is how Pompeo forwarded his case to put pressure on the Iraqi Prime Minister.

However, the Iraqi Prime Minister disregarded the role of the Peshmerga in Kurdistan. The Kurdish Army receives instructions from Kurdistan province, not from the Iraqi political leadership in Baghdad. The Peshmerga attacked and killed members of the Iraqi Army while refusing to deliver Kirkuk and their positions on the borders with Turkey in order to protect hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil smuggled into Turkey daily. Baghdad pays the salary of the Peshmerga whose loyalty is far from being exclusive to Adel Abdel Mahdi. Moreover, the Peshmerga and Kurdistan enjoy the full support of US forces, unlike Hashd al-Shaabi. However, Haidar Abadi significantly failed to include the Peshmerga within the Iraqi army and today Adel Abdel Mahdi ommited to include the Kurdish militia (Peshmerga) in his 237 Decree.

The Iraqi Prime Minister is forcing the wrong door by supposing he can dilute Hashd al-Shaabi. Abdel Mahdi does not have enough political support from the political parties to implement this US wish. Moreover, the Iraqi Prime Minister lacks the fortitude to start a domestic fight or trigger a storm, or even a partition within the security institutions.

However, he is showing weakness, faced by a US administration that is itself used to acting without caring about the consequences and which certainly does not mind seeing Iraq heading towards a dark tunnel. The US military presence in Iraq no longer holds the power it used to in 2003. Today Iraq is much stronger and organised, and can turn the US forces’ presence into a “hell on earth” situation.

The ex-prime Minister Haidar Abadi gave unlimited concessions to the US military in Iraq, providing them with legal authority that crippled Iraqi sovereignty and limited Iraqi capabilities. Abadi allowed trainers from the US (and other Europeans and partners) widespread influence within the Iraqi military and security institutions.

However, Iraq is not willing to be under US control and is therefore ready to fight back against US influence as necessary. Sources within the Iraqi leadership said “the US is untrustworthy. Iran executed hundreds of high-ranking officers when the revolution took over because the British and the Americans had infiltrated the Army. Hashd, by exposing a major US asset within the Iraqi Army (Mahmoud al-Fallahi) is hitting the US lobby within the Army. There are many more US agents, and we have robust proof of their destructive role against their nationals”.

“The US administration is considered the enemy of the people for many in the Middle East, including the Iraqi people. Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi must clean up the Army and the security forces. The list of traitors is long and will come to full daylight in due course”, said the source.

It is a battle of brains and intelligence. A battle the US believed it was winning by hitting Iran in Iraq apparently above the belt. The US was unaware that Iran is ready and is already hitting back below the belt. This kind of war is a silent one- and the next episode is still to come!

*

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 the author except the featured which is from Shutterstock

The Trump administration is obsessively spinning the concept of a “free and open Indo-Pacific”. Apart from a small coterie of scholars, very few people around the world, especially across the Global South, know what that means since the then incipient strategy was first unveiled at the 2017 APEC forum in Vietnam.

Now everything one needs to know – and especially not know – about the Indo-Pacific is contained in a detailed Pentagon report.

Still: is this an act, or the real deal? After all, the strategy was unveiled by “acting” Pentagon head Patrick Shanahan (the Boeing guy), who latter committed hara-kiri, just to be replaced by another, revolving door, “acting” secretary, Mark Espel (the Raytheon guy).

Shanahan made a big deal of Indo-Pacific when he hit the 18^th Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last month, picking up on his introduction to the Pentagon report to stress the “geopolitical rivalry between free and repressive world order visions” and demonizing China for seeking to “reorder the region to its advantage”.

In contrast, all the benign Pentagon yearns for is just “freedom” and “openness” for a “networked region”; calling it the New Pentagon Silk Road wouldn’t be far fetched.

Anyone remotely familiar with “Indo-Pacific” knows that’s code for demonization of China; actually, the Trump administration’s version of Obama’s “pivot to Asia”, which was in itself a State Dept. concoction, via Kurt Campbell, fully appropriated by then Secretary Hillary Clinton.

“Indo-Pacific” congregates the Quad – US, Japan, India and Australia – in a “free” and “open” God-given mission. Yet this conception of freedom and openness blocks the possibility of China turning the mechanism into a Quintet.

Add to it what hawkish actor Esper told the Senate Armed Services Committee way back in 2017:

“My first priority will be readiness – ensuring the total Army is prepared to fight across the full spectrum of conflict. With the Army engaged in over 140 countries around the world, to include combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, training rotations to Europe to deter Russia, and forward deployed units in the Pacific defending against a bellicose North Korea, readiness must be our top priority.”

That was 2017. Esper didn’t even talk about China – which at the time was not the demonized “existential threat” of today. The Pentagon continues to be all about Full Spectrum Dominance.

Beijing harbors no illusions about the new Indo-Pacific chief they will be dealing with.

Surfing FONOP

“Indo-Pacific” is a hard nut to sell to ASEAN. As much as selected members may allow themselves to profit from some “protection” by the US military, Southeast Asia as a whole maintains top trade relations with China; most nations are participants of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB); and they will not shrink from enjoying the benefits of Huawei’s 5G future.

Actually even the other three in the Quad, as much as they are not linked to BRI, are having second thoughts on playing supportive roles in an all-American super production. They are very careful about their geoeconomic relations with China. “Indo-Pacific”, a club of four, is a de facto late response to BRI – which is indeed open, to over 65 nations so far.

The Pentagon’s favorite mantra concerns the enforcement of “freedom of navigation operations” (FONOP) – as if China, juggling the countless tentacles of global supply chains, would have any interest in provoking naval insecurity anywhere.

So far, “Indo-Pacific” has made sure that the US Pacific Command was renamed US Indo-Pacific Command. And that’s about it. Everything remains the same in terms of those FONOPs – in fact a carefully deceptive euphemism for the US Navy to be on 24/7 patrol anywhere across Asian seas, from the Indian to the Pacific, and especially the South China Sea. No ASEAN nation though will be caught dead performing FONOPS in South China Sea waters within 12 nautical miles of rocks and reefs claimed by Beijing.

The rampant demonization of China, now a bipartisan sport across the Beltway, on occasion even more hysterical than the demonization of Russia, also features proverbial reports by the Council on Foreign Relations – the establishment’s think tank by definition – on China as a serial aggressor, politically, economically and militarily, and BRI as a geoeconomic tool to coerce China’s neighbors.

So it’s no wonder this state of affairs has led Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on a recent, frenetic Indo-Pacific related tour, including Quad members India and Japan and possible associates Saudi Arabia, UAE and South Korea.

Geopoliticians of the realist school do fear that Pompeo, a fanatic Christian Zionist, may be enjoying under Trump a virtual monopoly on US foreign policy; a former CIA director playing warmongering top “diplomat” while also “acting” as Pentagon head trampling other second string actors who are not under full employment.

His Indo-Pacific roving was a de facto tour de force emphasizing the containment/demonization not only of China but also Iran, which should be seen as the major US target in the Indo/Southwest Asia part of the club. Iran is not only about strategic positioning and being a major BRI hub; it’s about immense reserves of natural gas to be traded bypassing the US dollar.

The fact that the non-stop demonization of Iran and/or China “aggression” comes from a hyperpower with over 800 military bases or lily pads spread out across every latitude plus a FONOP armada patrolling the seven seas is enough to send the hardest cynic into a paroxysm of laughter.

The high-speed train has left the station

In the end, everything under “Indo-Pacific” goes back to what game India is playing.

New Delhi meekly opted for not buying oil from Iran after the Trump administration lifted its sanctions waiver. New Delhi had promised earlier, on the record, to only respect UN Security Council sanctions, not unilateral – and illegal – US sanctions.

This decision is set to jeopardize India’s dream of extending its new mini-Silk Road to Afghanistan and Central Asia based on the Iranian port of Chabahar. That was certainly part of the discussions during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Bishkek, when full members Putin, Xi and Modi, plus Rouhani – as the head of an observer nation – were sitting at the same table.

New Delhi’s priority – embedded deep in the Indian establishment – may be containment of China. Yet Putin and Xi – fellow BRICS and SCO members – are very much aware that Modi cannot at the same time antagonize China and lose Iran as partner, and are deftly working on it.

On the Eurasian chessboard, the Pentagon and the Trump administration, together, only think Divide and Rule. India must become a naval power capable of containing China in the Indian Ocean while Japan must contain China economically and militarily all across East Asia.

Japan and India do meet – again – when it comes to another more geoeconomically specific anti-BRI scheme; the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC), which so far has had a minimal impact and stands no chance of luring dozens of nations across the Global South away from BRI-related projects.

The chessboard now clearly shows Indo-Pacific pitted against the three key hubs of Eurasia integration – Russia-China-Iran. The definitive unraveling of Indo-Pacific – even before it starts gaining ground – would be a clear commitment by New Delhi to break apart the US sanctions regime by restarting purchases of much-needed Iran oil and gas.

It won’t take much for Modi to figure out that taking a second role in a Made in USA production will leave him stranded at the station eating dust just as the high-speed Eurasia integration train passes him by.

*

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 Navy.mil

I can’t get no satisfaction
I can’t get me no satisfaction
And I try and I try and I try t-t-t-t-try try
I can’t get no I can’t get me no
When I’m riding in my car
And a man comes on the radio
He’s tellin’ me more and more
About some useless information
Supposed to fire my imagination
I can’t get no uh no no no
Hey hey hey that’s what I say
I can’t get no satisfaction

When I’m watchin’ my tv
And a man comes on to tell me
How white my shirts could me
But he can’t be a man ’cause he does not smoke
The same cigarettes as me 

Those are some of the lyrics from the Rolling Stones 1964 hit song. This writer remembers that summer of ’64 as if it was yesterday (Such is the dilemma of we baby boomers – remembering the far past and sometimes forgetting where we left the cup we just drank from). Walking through the myriad of beach blankets at Manhattan Beach, Brooklyn, listening to that song blasting out like a symphony from the many transistor radios that covered the beach. To a 15 year old Satisfaction was about the uber commercialism that existed then as it surely does now.

Now, in America 2019 the lyrics mean that and much more. The man on the radio telling more and more ‘useless information supposed to fire my imagination’ can easily be the bogus propaganda that this embedded in empire media shovels out about the ‘Terror threat’ caused by the enemies of the day, Iran and North Korea. One has THE BOMB and the other apparently wants it. Why, you ask, should Iran want it? Well, to answer that one must first realize that the one who has THE BOMB will NEVER  be invaded by us. Thus, all those nations who have it can be a bit more reasonably assured of NOT being invaded by us. That could very well change as the Petro Dollar fades from prominence and the Chinese get even more financially powerful, oh and … become more aligned economically with the Russians. The Deep State puling Bolton and Pompeo’s strings may become too desperate to stand quietly in the wings.

The part of the Stone’s song about ‘How white my shirts could be but he can’t be a man cause he doesn’t smoke the same cigarettes as me’ is evident. In 1964, as is the case today, the media is bombarded with useless commercials repetitiously telling the suckers what to buy and use… even when they really do NOT need them! Of course today, with the FCC allowing more frequent and longer commercials, AND with Big Pharma saturating us with medical products and procedures that perhaps 55 years ago would NOT have even allowed in the marketplace… the mesmerizing is at the highest level ever!!!

This empire continually sells phony wars like soap. Yet, most of the populace buys it hook, line and sinker! They got the suckers to tie those yellow ribbons on trees and on car stickers when we illegally attacked Iraq the first time around. They gave their phony war the name Desert Storm and had many of our soldiers come home with what they called Gulf War Syndrome.

Was it from the myriad of injections the military pumped into the men before we landed, or was it more ominous from the clouds of (????) that our weapons systems caused those men to inhale in the desert winds? Either way, the truth of it all was that both gulf wars were about oil and control of the Middle East by our empire… period! If the fools who kept (and keep) supporting those who lead this war machine actually studied the real history about Saddam Hussein, they would find out that he was our empire’s gangster. Matter of fact, it was our CIA that actually put this guy in power originally! When he stopped following orders 100% (like with his dispute with Kuwait over oil drilling, and… history shows that Kuwait was most likely angle drilling Iraqi oil) Saddam had to go. Oh , wait! No, not yet in 1991. They kept him in power, just caged him a bit, so as to keep his country from becoming another fanatical Islamic nightmare, and keeping the Kurds in check – a people who had been getting **** by Turkey and Iraq for generations.  

After going through the worst foreign policy decision (War on Iraq 2) since the Vietnam debacle, the Neo Cons who run things (controlling both political parties) gave us the Libya disgrace under Obama and Mrs. Clinton, plus the Syrian misadventure begun under those two and followed up by this carnival barker president. All I can say is ” I (still) Can’t Get No Satisfaction”.

*

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].

9 July was a particularly lethal day for Syrians in their homeland. As is their tendency, the choreographs of the warmongering, military industrial complex media have busily diverted eyes on the undiplomatic row between Trump and newly resigned British ambassador; have directed eyes to the Epstein child trafficking indictment; have nearly saturated eyes in the emotional porn baths related to refugees and immigrants housed in ICE detention centers.  

In spite of western colonialist disdain for actual Syrians (while cheering support for foreign snipers, rapists, and perpetrators of femicide), life — and death — persist in this Levantine republic.

On 9 July, another 7 children were blown up by landmines planted by terrorists in the Dablan area of Deir Ezzor. This follows the murder of 3 children by landmine explosions on 5 July, in Jobar neighborhood of Damascus. To date, the UN has only given lip service to the horrors of landmines, in last year’s signing of the MoU in Syria’s capital; it did not report on this meeting. It is no accident that the UN does not condemn landmines in Syria; doing so would be cause for NATO media to report on these countless atrocities which have given birth to the need for Smart Prosthetics for Syria children who have lost hand, foot, leg, arm to these weapons of terror.

Last night, the NATO and western colonialists beloved armed terrorists unleashed several missiles and mortars from the northern Ghab plains and Jabal al Zawya, targeting Jourin and Ayn Salimo. Three civilians were murdered and 6 more were injured. The Syrian Arab Army fired back, causing fatal casualties among unreported numbers of foreign-armed savages.

There was a bit of good news on 9 July. The Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela held the 208th anniversary celebration of independence from Spanish colonizers, at the Dama Rose Hotel. H.E. Jose Biomorgi discussed the alliance of the two countries in the ongoing resistance against neo-imperialists.

H.E. Jose Biomorgi addresses the gathering of dignitaries celebrating his country’s independence from Spain, at the Dama Rose Hotel in Damascus.

Among the dignitaries attending the important event was Dr. Najah al Attar, Syria’s vice-president. Contrary to the frothing of the rabid hyenas at the UN — who plot to appoint their choices of women in political positions — Syria has an almost 10,000 year history of women in leadership roles.

Venezuelan Independence Day is celebrated in Damascus. VP Dr. al Attar, second from left.

In other good news of yesterday, the Syrian Arab Army used guided missiles to blow up weaponized vehicles of Nusra/HTS takfiri — still on all the western terror lists — along with an undisclosed number of human-resembling pathogens — in the region of southern Idlib countryside.

Also, yesterday — American illegal, criminal liar, supporter and propagandist for terrorists who kidnap children from hospitals and cut their heads off for the camera, friend of Saudi savage on the US SDN list, and ugly American who flaunts his colonialism with the arrogance of war pimp Lindsey Graham — mercenary Bilal Abdul Kareem uploaded an almost 16 minute video to YouTube, in which he interviewed two Saudi terrorists.

How strange that YouTube which has censored Syrian channels — including SANA English — has no problem giving voice to Saudi terrorists…in Syria.

The most heinous news of 9 July from Syria was completely ignored by the western media: The criminally insane savages,  who kidnapped and slaughtered 11 Syrian soldiers monstrously again demonstrated their hideous propensities.

These monsters cut off the head of 23 year old Syrian Arab Army soldier Ibraheem Ahmed Barri. They then used his stolen phone to upload his severed head as a new profile photo for Facebook (Facebook, with its never-ending “community standards” allowed this horror for at least 6 hours).

These vile demons then sent photos to his mother, using Martyr Barri’s stolen cell phone.

Nine of the eleven soldiers slaughtered in northern Lattakia by the killers armed and funded by NATO states & Gulfie dictatorships.

*

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: Ibraheem Ahmed Barri, 23, was one of 11 SAA soldiers kidnapped & slaughtered by Qatari & Erdogan’s thugs in Lattakia countryside, 9 July, while defending their homeland within its legal borders; all images in this article are from Syria News

Since Donald Trump has been in office, Iran and the United States have faced the worst crisis in their relations since the fall of the pro-American Shah regime in 1979. The situation escalated in early May, when US sanctions came into full force. Tehran’s leaders made a number of harsh statements against America and its main ally in the region, Israel, after which an increase in pro-Iranian formations near American positions was noticed. At the beginning of May, Iran partially suspended the fulfillment of its obligations under the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – the 2015 nuclear deal] and abandoned the restrictions pertaining to enriched uranium and heavy water. In addition, Iran made it clear that, in the case of an escalation in tensions, it is able to destabilize oil supplies throughout  the Persian Gulf.

After a series of suspicious attacks on oil tankers on May 12 and June 13, the United States blamed Iran without providing any hard evidence. The diversions were given as the reason for the strengthening of the American military presence in the region. By tightening the pressure on the Islamic Republic, the United States aims to create the conditions necessary for the building of the anti-Iranian Middle Eastern strategic alliance (MESA) – a military bloc similar to NATO, for which America now expects loyalty and support from its local allies.

Iran is a major irritant to the two key American allies in the region – Saudi Arabia and Israel. Therefore, after the attacks, both countries immediately joined in the US accusations against Iran.

Israel is worried about Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Iranian military forces on the border with Syria. At the Herzliya Conference on July 1 Mossad chief Yossi Cohen said that in light of shared opposition to Iran and ‘Islamist terror groups’ a potentially one-time-only window of opportunity had opened for Israel to achieve a regional peace agreement. The work is already in progress. Yossi Cohen said that Jerusalem was to open a foreign ministry office in Muscat amid warming relations with Gulf nations. Further, Israeli Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz made a rare visit to Abu Dhabi, which does not have official ties with Israel, for a two-day UN climate meeting. While there, he met with an unnamed Emirati official to discuss bilateral ties as well as the Iranian threat.

Saudi Arabia, in particular, is worried about Iran’s regional activities as represented by the Ansar Allah movement (the Houthis) in Yemen. On June 12, the Houthis launched a cruise missile at Abha international airport in southern Saudi Arabia. The Houthis also carried out successful raids in the southern Saudi province of Asir on June 17 and 18. In the course of the advance, they destroyed at least 11 vehicles of Saudi forces and captured loads of weapons. Saudi warplanes and attack helicopters carried out several airstrikes on Houthi positions in southern Asir in an attempt to repel the attacks. However, the airstrikes were not effective.

After the Khashoggi case, the US Senate resolutions to stop support for the war in Yemen and the Stockholm truce agreement under Hodeida, it is unlikely that many are willing to go to war. Therefore, the Saudis are trying to draw international attention to Iran. The Crown Prince said that the Kingdom supported the re-imposition of US sanctions out of the belief that the international community needed to take a decisive stance against Iran. A senior UK official said an unnamed Saudi intelligence chief and the Kingdom’s senior diplomat Adel al-Jubeir pleaded with British authorities to carry out limited strikes on Iranian military targets. According to the official, the failed Saudi lobbying efforts took place only a few hours after Donald Trump had aborted a planned attack on Iran on June 22. On May 30, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman went on an anti-Iran tirade during an emergency meeting of Arab leaders hosted in Mecca. He urged the use of all means to stop the Iranian regime from regional interference.

The UAE has its own vision. Despite anti-Iranian statements made jointly with Saudi Arabia during the past three regional summits, the Emirates are not rushing to blame Iran for these attacks. UAE minister of state for foreign affairs Anwar Gargash stated that there is not enough evidence that Iran was responsible. Even after Iran hit an American drone on June 20, the Emirates continued to call for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis through negotiations. Anwar Gargash stressed that the crisis in the Gulf region requires collective attention. At the end of June, four Western diplomatic sources reported that the UAE had reduced troop levels in Yemen, where they are fighting the Houthis at the side of the Saudi Arabia, as the exacerbation of tensions threatens their own homeland security. An anonymous high-ranking Emirati official confirmed this information, but cited other reasons for the movement of troops. Responding to a question about whether tensions with Iran are behind this step, he said the decision was more connected with the cease-fire agreement in Hodeida in accordance with the UN-led peace pact, reached in December.

In turn, Oman offered its mediation services in deescalating US-Iranian tensions. On June 12 Oman’s minister of state for foreign affairs Usuf bin Alawi visited Iraq. Spokesman Ahmad Sahhaf said that bin Alawi discussed solutions for regional challenges and added that Iraq had become a pivotal country because of its strategic relations with both Iran and the United States.

A week later, a similar visit was paid by Kuwait‘s Emir Sheikh Sabah Al Ahmad Al Sabah. He met with Iraqi President Barham Salih and Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi. The leaders called for “wisdom and reason” in dealing with tensions in the region to avoid an escalation leading to clashes. Kuwait’s Permanent Representative to the UN Mansour Al-Otaibi did not mention who might be behind the attacks and called for an unbiased investigation into the matter, instead of jumping into hasty and baseless conclusions.

Despite its anti-Iranian sentiment, Bahrain fears Iran’s threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 30 percent of all exported world crude oil passes. Bahrain along with Qatar and Kuwait can supply oil for export only through this strait, since these countries have no other access to the sea. On June 15, at the summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA), Foreign Finance Minister Khaled bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa urged to refrain from measures that could undermine confidence and security on the main energy routes.

Although some Gulf countries do not like the regional activities of Iran, none of them want a real war. Three recent regional summits showed the differences between the countries of the Persian Gulf. In final statements, the Arab states expressed complete solidarity in opposing Iran, condemning all the recent attacks in the region, and supported any further Saudi Arabian actions to defend its territory. Thus, Jordan’s Ambassador Sufian Al-Qudah, stated that “any targeting of the security of Saudi Arabia is aimed at the security of Jordan and the entire region”. Making a thinly veiled threat, he also stated that Amman supports all measures taken by the Kingdom to maintain its security and to counter terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.

The meetings were supposed to show Tehran the unity of the Arabs and their readiness for decisive actions, but this did not work out. The wording of all three outcome documents varied in their rigidity with the expansion of the members of the meeting. For example, Kuwait and Oman did not participate in the formulation of the final GCC communiqué at all.

At the Arab League meeting, no mention was made of the attacked ships in the communique  and in order to condemn Iran the UAE even had to include the topic of disputed islands. The entire final part was focused on the Houthis rocket attack on Saudi Arabia, so the aggression against one of the countries was formally condemned. With the expansion of the number of participants the contradictions about their complaints against Iran were growing. The shelling of Saudi territory by Yemeni resistance forces is a compromise issue, since none of the participating countries wants to be attacked. The OIC summit brought total disappointment to the supporters of the anti-Iranian bloc: it was no longer possible to adopt all these resolutions there.

As for Qatar, along with Kuwait and Oman it is not only not participating in the aggressive anti-Iranian rhetoric, but it is also beginning to express dissatisfaction with the efforts of Saudi Arabia and the UAE to dominate the region. Many expected that the attendance of Qatar at the summits was a sign of improved relations between Doha and the other Gulf states. But it was more a message that the blockade will not prevent Qatar from participating in region-wide meetings. In the aftermath of the summits, Qatari Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani said that “no concrete steps” had resulted and questioned the unity called for by the other countries amid the ongoing blockade.

The achievement of a tough pan-Arab condemnation of Iran, which John Bolton had insisted on, failed even despite all the guarantees of protection he gave during his visits to the KSA and the UAE on the eve of the summits.

This desire of the United States to strengthen anti-Iranian sentiment is connected to the fact that the growing tensions allow Washington to increase military spending. As for foreign policy, the United States would be justified in continuing their anti-Iran and pro-Israel policy, as well as in strengthening its presence in the Middle East. The growing threat to maritime security will lead to increased logistics costs for key oil consumers. This situation directly affects China, one of the key consumers of oil, and European countries with large industrial potential, such as Germany.

However, many countries in the region understand that the United States will not be able to protect them in the case of a serious conflict. Bolton couldn’t please his Arab friends with the resumption of US military assistance to the forces of the Arab coalition, which had been frozen due to humanitarian concerns and the Khashoggi case. The US Senate approved 22 resolutions, which proscribe the United States from concluding weapons deals with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries without the prior approval of Congress. Bolton made it clear that the Arabs shouldn’t rely on the participation of US troops in the fight against the Houthis. Before Trump, the United States could easily unleash wars “for democracy”, but now the consequences of the war with Iran cannot be predicted, and even the United States cannot be confident of victory.

In the case of an attack, Iran could destroy vital facilities in the Persian Gulf, such as oil refineries, hydropower plants and desalination systems. The new military doctrine of Iran adopted in 1988 aims to transfer the war to enemy’s territory. For example, Iran could use Syria, Lebanon and Gaza as a launching pad to strike Israel, similar to the way it uses Yemen against Saudi Arabia.

As mentioned above, some countries are worried that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are trying to dominate in the region. A fully-fledged war could lead to a repartition of influence and the rise of the pro-Iranian Shi’a, which would collapse the oil-rich Sunni monarchies. As a result the world might be overcome by an economic crisis, perhaps even more global than all the previous ones.

Thus, in the short term both sides are likely to continue to slide into a sluggish confrontation until something happens that could move the conflict off the ground. Trump will not make major adjustments in his policy toward Iran. Firstly, because of fears of image loss on the eve of the presidential election 2020. Secondly, because of the position of his closest allies in the region.

The Islamic Republic, for its part, will not meet the US halfway. Iran sees any concessions as a potential threat to its survival. Remembering what happened to Saddam Hussein after he agreed to the US disarmament requirements, the Iranian leadership will never make the same mistake. Despite mutual threats, neither will the United States deploy a full-scale war, nor will Iranian units strike at the regional positions of the Americans. A war will begin only if one of the parties crosses the red line, but so far no side is ready to do so. Therefore, it is still premature to talk about the new Gulf War.

*

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

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

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

The Democratic Party has clearly swung to the progressive left, with candidates in the first round of presidential debates coming up with one program after another to help the poor, the disadvantaged and the struggling middle class. Proposals ranged from a Universal Basic Income to Medicare for All to a Green New Deal to student debt forgiveness and free college tuition. The problem, as Stuart Varney observed on FOX Business, was that no one had a viable way to pay for it all without raising taxes or taking from other programs, a hard sell to voters. If robbing Peter to pay Paul is the only alternative, the proposals will go the way of Trump’s trillion dollar infrastructure bill for lack of funding.

Fortunately there is another alternative, one that no one seems to be talking about – at least no one on the presidential candidates’ stage. In Japan, it is a hot topic; and in China, it is evidently taken for granted: the government can generate the money it needs simply by creating it on the books of its own banks. Leaders in China and Japan recognize that stimulating the economy is not a zero-sum game in which funds are just shuffled from one pot to another. To grow the economy and increase GDP, demand (money) must go up along with supply. New money needs to be added to the system; and that is what China and Japan have been doing, very successfully.

Before the 2008-09 global banking crisis, China’s GDP increased by an average of 10% per year for 30 years. The money supply increased right along with it, created on the books of its state-owned banks. Japan under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been following suit, with massive economic stimulus funded by correspondingly massive purchases of the government’s debt by its central bank, using money simply created with computer keystrokes.

All of this has occurred without driving up prices, the dire result predicted by US economists who subscribe to classical monetarist theory. In the 20 years from 1998 to 2018, China’s M2 money supply grew from just over 10 trillion yuan to 180 trillion yuan ($26T), an 18-fold increase. Yet it closed 2018 with a consumer inflation rate that was under 2%. Price stability has been maintained because China’s Gross Domestic Product has grown at nearly the same fast clip, by a factor of 13 over 20 years.

In Japan, the massive stimulus programs called “Abenomics” have been funded through its central bank. The Bank of Japan has now “monetized” nearly 50% of the government’s debt, turning it into new money by purchasing it with yen created on the bank’s books. If the US Fed did that, it would own $11 trillion in US government bonds, four times what it holds now. Yet Japan’s M2 money supply has not even doubled in 20 years, while the US money supply has grown by 300%; and Japan’s inflation rate remains stubbornly below the BOJ’s 2% target. Abe’s stimulus programs have not driven up prices. In fact deflation remains a greater concern than inflation in Japan, despite unprecedented debt monetization by its central bank.     

China’s Economy: A Giant Ponzi Scheme or a New Economic Model? 

Critics have long called China’s economy a Ponzi scheme, doomed to collapse in the end; and for 40 years China has continued to prove the critics wrong. According to a June 2019 report by the Congressional Research Service:

Since opening up to foreign trade and investment and implementing free-market reforms in 1979, China has been among the world’s fastest-growing economies, with real annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth averaging 9.5% through 2018, a pace described by the World Bank as “the fastest sustained expansion by a major economy in history.” Such growth has enabled China, on average, to double its GDP every eight years and helped raise an estimated 800 million people out of poverty. China has become the world’s largest economy (on a purchasing power parity basis), manufacturer, merchandise trader, and holder of foreign exchange reserves.

This massive growth has been funded with credit created on the books of China’s banks, most of which are state-owned. Even in the US, course, most money today is created on the books of banks. That is what our money supply is – bank credit. What is different about the Chinese model is that the Chinese government can and does intervene to direct where the credit goes. In a July 2018 article titled “China Invents a Different Way to Run an Economy,” Noah Smith suggests that China’s novel approach to macroeconomic stabilization by regulating bank credit represents a new economic model, one that may hold valuable lessons for developed economies. He writes:

Many economists would see this approach as hopelessly ad hoc, haphazard, and interventionist — not the kind of thing any developed country would want to rely on. And yet, it seems to have carried China successfully through several crises, while always averting the catastrophic financial crash that outside observers have been warning about for years.

Abenomics, Helicopter Money and Modern Monetary Theory

Noah Smith has also written about Japan’s unique model. After Prime Minister Abe crushed his opponents in October 2017, Smith wrote on Bloomberg News, “Japan’s long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party has figured out a novel and interesting way to stay in power—govern pragmatically, focus on the economy and give people what they want.” He said everyone who wanted a job had one; small and midsize businesses were doing well; and the BOJ’s unprecedented program of monetary easing had provided easy credit for corporate restructuring without generating inflation. Abe had also vowed to make both preschool and college free.

Like China’s economic model, Abenomics has been called a Ponzi scheme, funded by central bank-created “free” money. But whatever it is called, the strategy has been working for the economy. Even the once-dubious International Monetary Fund has declared Abenomics a success.

The Bank of Japan’s massive bond-buying program has also been called “helicopter money” — a policy in which the central bank directly finances government spending by underwriting bonds – and it has been compared to Modern Monetary Theory, which similarly posits that the government can spend money into existence with central bank funding. As Nathan Lewis wrote in Forbes in February 2019:

In practice, something like “MMT” has reached a new level of sophistication these days, exemplified by Japan. . . . The Bank of Japan now holds government bonds amounting to more than 100% of GDP. In other words, the government has managed to finance itself “with the printing press” to the amount of about 100% of GDP, with no inflationary consequences. [Emphasis added.]

Japanese officials have resisted comparisons with both helicopter money and MMT, arguing that Japanese law does not allow the government to sell its bonds directly to the central bank. As in the US, the government’s bonds must be sold on the open market, a limitation that also prevents the US government from directly monetizing its debt. But as Bank of Japan Deputy Governor Kikuo Iwata observed in a 2013 Reuters article, where the bonds are sold does not matter. What is important is that the central bank has agreed to buy them, and it is here that US banking law diverges from the laws of both Japan and China.

Central Banking Asia-style

When the US Treasury sells bonds on the open market, it can only hope the Fed will buy them. Any attempt by the president or the legislature to influence Fed policy is considered a gross interference with the sacrosanct independence of the central bank.

In theory, the central banks of China and Japan are also independent. Both are members of the Bank for International Settlements, which stresses the importance of maintaining the stability of the currency and the independence of the central bank; and both countries revised their banking laws in the 1990s to better reflect those policies. But their banking laws still differ in significant ways from those of the US.

In Japan, the Bank of Japan is legally free to set interest rates, but it must cooperate closely with the Ministry of Finance in setting policy. Article 4 of the 1997 Bank of Japan Act says:

The Bank of Japan shall, taking into account the fact that currency and monetary control is a component of overall economic policy, always maintain close contact with the government and exchange views sufficiently, so that its currency and monetary control and the basic stance of the government’s economic policy shall be mutually compatible.

Unlike in the US, Prime Minister Abe can negotiate with the head of the central bank to buy the government’s bonds, ensuring that the debt is in fact turned into new money that will stimulate domestic economic growth; and he is completely within his legal rights in doing it.

The leverage of China’s central government over its central bank is even stronger than the Japanese prime minister’s. The 1995 Law of the People’s Republic of China on the People’s Bank of China states:

The People’s Bank of China shall, under the leadership of the State Council, formulate and implement monetary policies, guard against and eliminate financial risks, and maintain financial stability.

The State Council has final decision-making power on such things as the annual money supply, interest rates and exchange rates; and it has used this power to stabilize the economy by directing and regulating the issuance of bank credit, the new Chinese macroeconomic model that Noah Smith says holds important lessons for us.

The successful six-year run of Abenomics, along with China’s decades of unprecedented economic growth, have proven that governments can indeed monetize their debts, expanding the money supply and stimulating the economy, without driving up consumer prices. The monetarist theories of US policymakers are obsolete and need to be discarded.

“Kyouryoku,” the Japanese word for cooperation, is composed of characters that mean “together strength” – “stronger by working together.” This is a recognized principle in Asian culture and it is an approach we would do well to adopt. What US presidential candidates from both parties should talk about is how to modify the law so that Congress, the Administration and the central bank can work together in setting monetary policy, following the approaches successfully modeled in China and Japan.

*

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

This article was first posted under another title on TruthDig.com.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder and chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books, including Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age (June 2019), Web of Debt, and The Public Bank Solution.  She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Public awareness of the brutal repression against immigrants seeking entry to the United States, the reasons for their migration, and terrorism against immigrants living in the US are reaching levels that make them hard to ignore. The current immigration crisis is self-created and bi-partisan. Although the Trump administration’s rhetoric is extreme, it reflects policies that have developed over a long period of time.

Under Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a person has “the right to leave any country, including his or her own, and to return to his or her country at any time.” Until the twentieth century, immigrants were welcomed into the United States. Immigrant and slave labor built many of the institutions and much of the infrastructure in the US.

It was after World War I, when migration to the US increased, that the government began to use quotas and exert more control over immigration. That control has become increasingly excessive, especially from the 1990’s until today. The US’ borders are highly militarized, which has adverse impacts on border communities, and immigrants have been criminalized, which has lead to raids, detention and deportations that rip families and communities apart. This crisis will only be corrected if people demand new policies based on human rights and respect for the self-determination of all peoples.

The Immediate Crisis

People are fleeing Central America in large part due to US policies that have installed violent, repressive governments as well as corporate trade agreements that benefit US transnational corporations while exploiting workers. People are fleeing north for survival. Subjected to abuse at home, migrants are met at the border with more abuse.

The abuse includes people seeking asylum being held in detention camps while they await trial. It includes children being separated from their parents and sometimes held in cages, often without basic necessities and with young children taking care of even younger children. Corporations are profiting from child detention while children die, like this seven-year-old girl, or this eight-year-old on Christmas Day. Homeland Security’s own Inspector General has issued a report decrying the overcrowding and other poor conditions of immigrant detention facilities including feeding people rotten, foul-smelling and spoiled food.

Some have described these detention camps as concentration camps. While these are not the mass death camps of Hitler’s Germany, they meet the definition of concentration camps: a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities. Immigrants call the caged areas “dog kennels” and the cold rooms where they stay “iceboxes.”

These camps are run by government officials who have been caught making racist and vile comments on a private Facebook group with about 9,500 members. They “joked about the deaths of migrants, discussed throwing burritos at Latino members of Congress visiting a detention facility” and posted a photo of a father and his 23-month-old daughter lying face down in the Rio Grande saying, “I HAVE NEVER SEEN FLOATERS LIKE THIS.”

The US has a long history of concentration camps domestically and as part of imperial wars. It is a shameful history and some deny that the immigrant detention prisons are concentration camps. Those of us who can see the reality must face-up to another truth: our responsibility. Many have wondered how the concentration camps in Nazi Germany were able to exist in a modern, developed nation. Now we must ask ourselves two questions: How can these camps exist in the United States? What can we do to close them and liberate those being imprisoned?

We know from the history of concentration camps in the US and around the world that we must act to close these camps. We cannot be complicit by not taking action. This is not merely about the 2020 election and removing Trump from office, it is about rapidly building a national consensus that these are unacceptable and people mobilizing to do all they can to close the camps.

This week, President Trump is taking his racist, anti-immigrant policy from the border to raids against immigrants across the country. Trump announced these raids two weeks ago, then delayed implementing the mass arrests. Communities across the nation have organized to protect their friends, neighbors and family members who are threatened by this attack. We applaud sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with ICE, churches that will house people threatened by immigration raids and people offering legal services to those who are arrested.

Bill Clinton announces his “tough on crime” agenda during the 1992 presidential campaign at the state prison at Stone Mountain, Georgia, the spiritual home and 1915 birthplace of the second Ku Klux Klan. 

The Long-Term Reality Of Abusive Immigration Policies

The concept of the “illegal immigrant” comes from a 1929  law that made it illegal to enter the United States. The law made border crossings a criminal offense that became felonies with subsequent violations. The law was based in racism, authored by a segregationist Democratic Senator from South Carolina, Coleman Blease who opposed the education of Black people, advocated lynching, and criticized First Lady Lou Hoover when she invited Jessie De Priest, the wife of Chicago congressman, to the traditional tea by new administrations for congressional wives. Her husband, Oscar De Priest, was the first Black person elected to Congress since Reconstruction.

On the Senate floor, Blease said the First Lady should remember it is the “White” House. He then read the racist poem “N****** in the White House.”  The poem was excised from the Congressional Record by unanimous agreement due to protests from Republican senators. Blease also sought to make marriage between people of different races a federal crime. The roots of today’s immigration policies originated with white supremacists like Blease.

President Bill Clinton made this racist law much worse in 1996. Clinton, a southern corporate Democrat, signed the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996. These laws increased the severity of immigration violations by expanding the list of crimes that could increase jail sentences and fast-tracked deportations.

The Clinton laws laid the foundation for mass deportations under subsequent presidents. Bush, the Compassionate Conservative, more than tripled federal immigration prosecutions to 15,424 by 2003. In 2005, he incarcerated immigrants in federal jails when detention bed space in state facilities had become overcrowded. Illegal crossings declined significantly by 2008 but still, half the federal criminal docket was of immigrants crossing the border. The Bush administration intertwined local police with federal immigration enforcement by making more than 70 agreements allowing local police to enforce immigration laws. This is a continuing problem that results in immigrants not reporting crimes to the police.

President Obama remains the “Deporter-In-Chief” as he doubled the number of federal immigration prosecutions despite the fact that border crossings dropped by roughly half from 2009 to 2016. The result, the first Black president has the legacy of locking up more people of color on federal criminal charges than any other president in history. Immigration prosecutions topped 91,000 in 2013―28 times the number of such prosecutions in 1993. The Obama administration deported over 1.2 million people, the most of any president in US history. President Trump has come nowhere near the number of annual arrests and deportations of the Obama era.

The biggest difference with the Trump administration is the open cruelty of Trump and other administration officials in justifying their “zero tolerance” and family separation policies. The separation of young children from their parents is government-sponsored child abuse. The inhumane conditions in the migrant detention camps are violations of international human rights laws.

Stopping the Abuse of Immigrants and the Deportation Machine

People are organizing to confront this crisis, such as blocking access to immigrant prisons or mobilizing to stop their construction. Below are some examples of actions people are taking. We hope it spurs you and the people in your community to act because this crisis must be confronted with direct action.

There were nationwide Close the Camps protests across the country on July 2. Workers have walked off of jobs of employers providing services to the camps. People are also trying to donate diapers and toys to camps where children are held, but are being rejected.  On Friday, July 12, 2019, Lights for Liberty: A Vigil to End Human Concentration Camps will bring thousands of people to locations worldwide to protest the inhumane conditions faced by migrants.

There have been interfaith protests at ICE offices and people risking arrest at the borders. People are blockading immigrant detention centers not just along the border but around the country, and are facing jail sentences for doing so. Youth are protesting local governments who have agreements to work with ICE. Students are marching to protest the detention of fellow students.

Immigrants who are held in the camps are fighting back by engaging in hunger strikes sometimes resulting in forced feeding through nasal tubes. Immigrants who are targeted build community and defense committees to fight back against ICE.

Others are working to help migrants survive. The group “No More Deaths” is providing food and water to people crossing the border. This week, federal prosecutors announced they will retry Scott Warren, a border-aid worker accused of providing water to migrants, on three felony charges. In a prior prosecution, the jury was deadlocked and refused to convict him.

Also this week, 240 civil rights and immigrant rights groups wrote the leadership of the House of Representatives to decriminalize border crossings, roll-back the Clinton-era laws, stop entangling local police in immigration prosecutions and end detention without bail. The letter lays out some of the problems. The demands will not be won by negotiation with the power structure but by building power so the political elites have no choice but to end this crisis.

Organizations like RAICES are on the front lines providing free and low-cost legal and social services to immigrant children, families, and refugees. Lawyers are fighting for the due process rights of immigrants, rights that are often denied. The National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights has developed a list of national, state and local Immigration Hotlines to report raids, seek help if being detained or at risk of being deported and report missing migrants. Download a PDF of IMMIGRATION HOTLINES here. There is also the National Immigration Detention Hotline created and managed by Freedom for Immigrants.

While we work to confront the current crisis, we also must build a national consensus for systemic change in immigration policy. This includes ending criminalization and militarization of the borders and replacing them with open borders modeled after the EU to uphold the basic human right of freedom of movement. Open borders would be an economic benefit as they would add $78 trillion to the world economy. Migration is also a benefit to the US economy.

The US must end its regime change operations in Latin America, as well as trade policies designed for corporate profits, and institute a Latin American Marshall Plan. US neo-colonial, imperialist interventions and corporate trade policies are root causes of desperate mass migration. We can end the self-created border crisis and replace it with policies based on respect for human rights and self-determination and cooperation to build an economy that works for 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.

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

All images in this article are from PR

“When we understand that wars come about as a result of lies peddled to the British public and the American public and the publics all over Europe and other countries then who are the war criminals? It is not just leaders, it is not just soldiers, it is journalists; journalists are war criminals. And while one might think that that should lead us to a state of despair, that the reality that is constructed around us is constructed by liars, is constructed by people who are close to those that they are meant to be policing, it should lead us also to an optimistic understanding because if wars can be started by lies, truth can be started, peace can be started by truth.”

– Julian Assange (Oct. 8, 2011)

As Peter Phillips reminded listeners in a recent interview, we live in a world where a relatively small portion of the global population, satisfies their ambitions and appetites and maintains control at the expense of the vast majority. That minority of the opulent secure their grip on power not only through dominating the means of production, but also the propaganda and public relations apparatus relied affecting communities and whole countries.

The Centre for Research on Globalization, and the Global Research News Hour radio program have striven for years to provide an independent and alternative news source on which the public can rely to disrupt the narratives enabling violence, destitution and the ransacking of the planet.

In order to stay independent of the military-industrial-media complex, it is vital that we rely on the assistance of our audiences. Please consider  taking out a recurring membership or making a donation today.

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

Click to view our membership plans

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING INDEPENDENT MEDIA!

The Global Research News Hour radio show is on a summer hiatus. Broadcasters are welcome and encouraged to air the following repeat broadcasts, or sample from our vast archives here.

Thanks again to our faithful listeners and supporters. And a very special thanks to the various community and internet stations (listed below) who carry the show.

Cold War 2.0: The Russian Peace ‘Threat’ and America’s Addiction to War

With guests Dmitry Orlov and Ron Ridenour.

Given that the U.S. appears to be just as self-serving and law defying as Russia is accused of being, what is the reality behind the unrelenting anti-Russian propaganda campaign? That question is at the heart of this week’s installment of the Global Research News Hour.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Originally aired September 28, 2018

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Left, Right — Marching to the Beat of Imperial Canada: A Conversation with Yves Engler

In a previous book, A Propaganda System — How Government, Corporations, Media and Academia Sell War and Exploitation, Engler examined the architecture of Canada’s public relations scheme which disguises the true role of Canada internationally, describing an interlocking network of academic institutions, government departments, think tanks, and media heavyweights which have worked to conceal the true nature of Canadian power.

His latest book Left, Right — Marching to the Beat of Imperial Canada, builds on this analysis, revealing how and why prominent left wing organizations who traditionally challenge corporate power domestically, including labour organizations, and the left of centre New Democratic Party (NDP) have apparently become complicit in reinforcing this misleading portrait of Canada as ‘The Peaceable Kingdom.’

This week’s Global Research News Hour radio program devotes most of the hour to an overview of Engler’s thesis as he begins his cross-Canada book tour.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Originally aired October 5, 2018.

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Conspiracy and Cover-up: The Secret Origins of World War One

With guests Gerry Docherty and Rick Rozoff.

Whoever leaked the British Ambassador to the US’ diplomatic telegrams to London did so with the intent that the resultant tiff that it predictably provoked with Trump would probably make Boris Johnson win the Tories’ leadership vote with a landslide.

The Tories are presently in the process of voting for their next leader to replace outgoing PM May, with ballots having been sent to the party’s members over the weekend, which uncoincidentally also saw the strategic leaking of the British Ambassador to the US’ diplomatic telegrams to London. Sir Kim Darroch reportedly informed his superiors that Trump is “inept”, his government “uniquely dysfunctional”, and even touched upon various gossip related to the so-called “knife fights” that are supposedly causing “vicious infighting and chaos” in the White House. Trump responded by tweeting that the US will no longer deal with Sir Kim, while a British spokesman defended their government’s ambassador for his “honest, unvarnished assessments” even though they also made it clear that his views didn’t officially represent London’s.

I have been very critical about the way the U.K. and Prime Minister Theresa May handled Brexit. What a mess she and her representatives have created. I told her how it should be done, but she decided to go another way. I do not know the Ambassador, but he is not liked or well….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 8, 2019

In any case, the timing of this scandal strongly suggests that it was done in order to ensure that Trump’s friend Boris Johnson wins his party’s leadership election and ends up succeeding PM May. He was already the favorite by a long shot after receiving more than double the votes that second-place finisher Jeremy Hunt did during the fifth and penultimate round of voting, but anything could happen by the time that the ballot closes by 22 July so his secret supporter (and/or whoever is behind this individual) probably wanted to do something to guarantee that their political idol would succeed no matter what. Anyone with even the slightest familiarity with Trump’s personality would know that those diplomatic telegrams would infuriate him, especially the reference to “knife fights” that make it seem like the White House is a dangerous as the streets of London.

Instead of being about domestic issues and especially the spectre of Brexit, relations with the US are now suddenly front and center of the Tories’ leadership contest after this strategically timed leak provoked Trump to initiate a superficial crisis with the UK. Truth be told, no matter how unflattering Sir Kim’s portrayal of the White House might be, it’s nevertheless his own impression as influenced by personal experiences and/or hearsay from fellow diplomats and in-country nationals, the latter of which could be people who casually shared their observations with him and his team through small talk at cocktail parties and the like or from informants recruited by the UK’s intelligence agencies to pass along interesting information and insight. Even so, Trump’s ego won’t allow him to accept that someone hostile to him is the UK’s top diplomat in his country.

That’s why he responded the way that he did, but knowing how wily he can be in spite of the “stupid” stereotype that’s associated with him, Trump likely had in the back of his mind that this scandal (which could have very possibly even caused by the CIA/NSA or a US intelligence asset inside the UK Embassy) could likely ensure that his friend Boris Johnson wins the Tories’ leadership election by the end of this month since party voters would understandably see him as the only man capable of getting US-UK relations back on track after this affair. The American President already attempted to interfere in the domestic political affairs of the UK last year when he proudly said that Boris would “make a great Prime Minister”, which was likely motivated by their ideological commonalities pertaining to Brexit and the overall rise of EuroRealist forces in Europe.

Considering this, one can actually describe the British Ambassador’s diplomatic telegram leaks as an effort to “hack” the ongoing election by influencing the 0.2% of the nation that will vote on the UK’s next Prime Minister, pressuring them to put aside their views on domestic issues and Brexit in order to unite around Boris as the only one of the two who could resolve this scandal if he wins. Transatlantic ties with the US are exceptionally important for the post-Brexit UK, and there’s no political force in the country more interested in expanding them than the Tories, so it makes sense that they might feel compelled to overwhelmingly throw their support behind Boris (like they probably were already poised to do anyhow) just to make sure that the so-called “Special Relationship” remains in tact after the diplomatic leaks that were suspiciously timed to coincide with the vote.

*

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

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

Chinese Vice President Wang Qishan told the audience at this year’s World Peace Forum that “development is the key to resolving all issues”, remarking in the run-up to his conclusion that “China’s development can’t shut out the rest of the world” and “the world’s development can’t shut out China”. International media interpreted his remarks as a jab against Trump’s protectionist economic policies and the aggressive trade war that he’s waging in an effort to reroute the global supply chain away from China, but his words are much more important than the reactive rhetoric that they’re being presented as.

In fact, Vice President Wang’s comments are visionary because they represent a completely new model for resolving the world’s many conflicts, one which could realistically be applied through China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI). To explain, the previous approach to resolving international problems has been the use of force or the threat thereof, something that the US has over-relied on since World War II and especially since the end of the Cold War. Washington has also started waging hybrid wars against targeted states whereby it uses informational and economic means to undermine targeted states in order to extract concessions from them.

The American approach has destabilized the world, made it a more dangerous place, and negatively impacted the developmental prospects of the millions of people victimized by this policy, but China has now created a model for counteracting all of those consequences and repairing the damage the the US is responsible for. The end goal of BRI is to build a community of shared destiny in which all countries have an equal stake in maintaining the emerging multipolar world order that’s being pioneered by the new trade routes that China is constructing, which can imbue their people with a sense of optimism for themselves and future generations.

This is immensely important because certain at-risk demographics such as some ethnic and religious minorities are less likely to be influenced by extremist ideologies if they truly believe that they have a chance to succeed in the existing system, therefore reducing the likelihood of them committing terrorist acts in an effort to radically change the status quo that they’re so dissatisfied with. Of course, there will always be some irredeemable radicals who aren’t positively influenced by the visible development taking place all around them, but the majority of dissatisfied and at-risk individuals aren’t blind to the many opportunities that this entails for them.

As a case in point, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has brought so many benefits to the host state’s previously underdeveloped region of Balochistan that the founder of the “Baloch Liberation Front” Dr. Jumma Khan Marri disowned the separatist cause that he previously fought for and launched the Overseas Pakistani Baloch Unity (OPBU, nowadays rebranded simply to PBU) organization last year for peacefully reintegrating his wayward compatriots back into the national fold. He even went on record as crediting CPEC for inspiring him to lay down arms because he said that it has given the Baloch hope for their future.

The precedent trailblazed by Dr. Jumma could prospectively be applied in Myanmar’s Rakhine State through the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) if the government worked together with the region’s Rohingya minority to replicate the success that the Baloch have achieved in Pakistan through CPEC, which could in turn inspire local militants to also abandon their armed campaign against the state as long the developmental needs that they were fighting for are properly met. The same can be said for the many militant groups in India’s Northeast if New Delhi made progress on the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) Economic Corridor.

BRI’s economic integration of peripheral minority groups into the national fabric can facilitate their assimilation into society and consequently increase the odds that political solutions can be found to their armed conflicts. That’s what Vice President Wang was implying when he said that “development is the key to resolving all issues” and why he pointed out the impossibility of isolating China’s development from the rest of the world’s. The socio-political benefits derived from BRI’s worldwide network of Silk Road economic connectivity are a key component of the new international system and are thus indispensable for ensuring global stability.

*

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 Oriental Review.

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: Chinese Vice President Wang Qishan delivers a speech at the opening of World Peace Forum at Tsinghua University, in Beijing, China, July 8, 2019 (Source: OR)

Israel’s 1947-48 Nakba against the Palestinian people was and remains one of history’s great crimes — what Ilan Pappe called “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” in his book by this title.

Establishment of the Jewish state came at the expense of the Palestinian people, their descendants and refugee population.

The final master plan’s goal aimed to create a state with maximum Jews and minimum Arabs — by any means, including mass murder of defenseless people.

Around 800,000 Palestinians were forcibly driven from their homeland, many thousands slaughtered in cold blood.

The six-month campaign beginning in late 1947 destroyed 531 villages and 11 urban neighborhoods in cities like Tel-Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem.

According to Nuremberg Principles, ethnically cleansing people from their land is a high crime against humanity.

Israeli accountability was never forthcoming for mass-murder; destruction of homes, villages, crops and other property; countless atrocities; showing no mercy to defenseless men, women, children.

Nuremberg-level crimes were  expunged from official Israeli historiography, replaced by the myth that Palestinians left voluntarily, fearing harm from invading Arab armies.

A Palestinian shared memories of that nightmarish experience, saying the following:

“I cannot forget three horror-filled days in July of 1948. The pain sears my memory, and I cannot rid myself of it no matter how hard I try.”

“First, Israeli soldiers forced thousands of Palestinians from their homes near the Mediterranean coast, even though some families had lived in the same houses for centuries.”

“My family had been in the town of Lydda in Palestine at least 1,600 years. Then, without water, we stumbled into the hills and continued for three deadly days.”

“The Jewish soldiers followed, occasionally shooting over our heads to scare us and keep us moving. Terror filled my eleven-year-old mind as I wondered what would happen.”

“I remembered overhearing my father and his friends express alarm about recent massacres by Jewish terrorists. Would they kill us, too?”

“We did not know what to do, except to follow orders and stumble blindly up the rocky hills. I walked hand in hand with my grandfather, who carried our only remaining possessions-a small tin of sugar and some milk for my aunt’s two-year-old son, sick with typhoid.”

Survivors remember the horror of Deir Yassin. On April 9, 1948, soldiers representing the soon to be announced Israeli state entered the village violently. They machine-gunned houses randomly. Many inside were slaughtered.

Remaining villagers were assembled and murdered in cold blood. Among them were children, infants, the elderly and women, some raped before slaughtered. Estimates placed the death toll at up to 120.

An eyewitness recounted the horror as follows, saying:

“I was (there) when the Jews attacked…(They) closed on the village amid exchanges of fire with us.”

“Once they entered the village, fighting became very heavy in the eastern side and later it spread to other parts, to the quarry, to the village center until it reached the western edge.”

“The Jews used all sorts of automatic weapons, tanks, missiles, cannons. They enter(ed) houses and kill(ed) women and children indiscriminately. The (village) youths…fought bravely.”

Fighting killed dozens more. Many other villages met the same fate. It was well planned, systematic slaughter — a pattern Israel followed throughout its history with much more powerful and banned weapons.

According to a Haaretz investigative report, Israel’s ministry of war’s secretive security department (Malmab) has been tasked with making the Nabka disappear, saying:

Its teams have been scouring Israel’s archives and removing historic documents…conceal(ing) (them) as part of a systematic effort to hide evidence of the Nakba.”

Haaretz learned Malmab (a Hebrew acronym) “concealed testimony from IDF generals about” about mass slaughter of Palestinians and destruction of their towns and villages, as well as dispossession of Bedouins during Israel’s first 10 years of statehood.

Former security department head Yehiel Horev told Haaretz he began the project to erase Israel’s ugly past — even though detailed information about the Nakba has been published.

His aim and others involved was and continues to be an effort to reinvent history, a common practice in many countries with disturbing pasts authorities want expunged from the public record — notably burying the historical record of horrific mistreatment of Black African slaves and Native Americans by US ruling authorities.

Documents on Israel’s nuclear weapons development and hostile relations with regional countries, along with on the Nabka, are concealed in vaults.

Haaretz’s detailed account is titled “Burying the Nakba: How Israel Systematically Hides Evidence of 1948 Expulsion of Arabs” — historical documents concealed from public view.

Along with burying Israel’s ugly past, Malmab aims to undermine the credibility of published documents.

History the way it should be published and taught isn’t pretty. The truth is there for historians seeking it.

Pappe’s “Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,” and Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” reveal the public record citizens of these countries, and everyone else, have a right to know.

*

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.

CNN’s Jake Tapper’s anti-Donald vendetta, amplified by the Trump Derangement Syndrome, demonstrates just how disingenuous a corporate script-reader can be. 

It’s true, Bolton wasn’t on the Trump neocon team during the campaign, but this is largely irrelevant. 

From the very beginning of his campaign, the worst sort of neocon psychopaths were pulling the strings and moulding Trump into the Zionist-directed marionette he is today. 

This is ahistorical nonsense. Bolton and Netanyahu didn’t “lure” Trump into pulling out of the Iran deal; POTUS campaigned on pulling out of the Iran deal. https://t.co/RupEY17JbT

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) July 9, 2019

I wrote about this in Donald Trump’s War On Islam, a small ebook written during the campaign. In the book, I document how Trump took advice from Frank Gaffney, a fanatical neocon responsible for a number of anti-Iran demonstrations.

Tapper, of course, can see no further than his teleprompter. In fact, Trump was a big fan of John Bolton during the election and it can be argued much of his foreign policy pronouncements were influenced by this dangerous psychopath. 

In early August [2016] Trump told the Hugh Hewitt Show he would name John Bolton as his secretary of state. “I think John Bolton’s a good man,” Trump told the radio show host. “I watched him yesterday, actually, and he was very good in defending me in some of my views, and very, very strong. And I’ve always liked John Bolton. Well, we are thinking about it, Hugh. I will say that. We are thinking about it. I mean, the negative is what I told you. But we are seriously thinking about it.”

Following his election victory, Trump considered appointing John Bolton as secretary of state. 

Soon after the election, I wrote for Newsbud:

There are a number of people under consideration for secretary of state. Most notable on the list is John Bolton, George Bush’s combative recess appointed ambassador to the United Nations. He is now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the neocon think tank responsible for drumming up support for Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq. He is also involved with the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Council for National Policy, and the Gatestone Institute, an organization at the forefront of anti-Muslim propaganda. He is a former board member of the Project for the New American Century, another neocon organization that pushed for the 2003 invasion of Iraq…

In March 2105 Bolton penned an op-ed for The New York Times calling for bombing Iran. “The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran,” he wrote.

Tapper, of course, didn’t address the core argument of Zarif’s tweet. Namely, that under the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and the “world powers” —the US and its servile European partners—there is not a prohibition on uranium enrichment. The same is true in regard to the NPT and UNSCR 2231. 

In Trump’s neocon bizarro world, however, such agreements are null and void. Bolton, Pompeo, Pence, et al, don’t play by international rules, that is unless the rules benefit the US and in the case of Iran, Israel. 

None of this, however, matters to Jake Tapper, the State Department, and Pentagon script-reader par excellence. Zarif’s tweet was merely another opportunity for Tapper to dump on Trump and skirt the real issue at hand. 

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Christopher Halloran via Shutterstock

The graphic image of Turkey pivoting away from NATO towards the Russia-China strategic partnership was provided, in more ways than one, by Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan visiting Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing right after the G20 in Osaka.

Turkey is a key hub in the emerging New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative. Erdogan is a master at selling Turkey as the ultimate East-West crossroads. He has also expressed much interest in joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), led by Russia-China, whose annual summit took place in Bishkek a few days before Osaka.

In parallel, against hell and high water – from threats of sanctions by the US Congress to NATO warnings – Erdogan never budged from Ankara’s decision to buy Russian S-400 defense missile systems, a $2.5-billion contract according to Rostec’s Sergei Chemezov.

The S-400s start to be shipped to Turkey as early as this week. According to Turkish Minister of Defense Hulusi Akar, their deployment should start by October. Much to Washington’s ire, Turkey is the first NATO member state to buy S-400s.

Xi, as he welcomed Erdogan in Beijing, stressed the message he crafted together with Putin in their previous meetings in St Petersburg, Bishkek and Osaka: China and Turkey should “uphold a multilateral world order with the United Nations at its core, a system based on international law.”

Erdogan, for his part, turned up the charm – from publishing an op-ed in the Global Times extolling a common vision of the future to laying it out in some detail. His target is to consolidate Chinese investment in multiple areas in Turkey, directly or indirectly related to Belt and Road.

Addressing the extremely sensitive Uighur dossier head on, Erdogan deftly executed a pirouette. He eschewed accusations from his own Foreign Ministry that “torture and political brainwashing” were practiced in Uighur detention camps and would rather comment that Uighurs “live happily” in China. “It is a fact that the peoples of China’s Xinjiang region live happily in China’s development and prosperity. Turkey does not permit any person to incite disharmony in the Turkey-China relationship.”

This is even more startling considering that Erdogan himself, in the past decade, had accused Beijing of genocide. And in a famous 2015 case, hundreds of Uighurs about to be deported from Thailand back to China ended up, after much fanfare, being resettled in Turkey.

New geopolitical caravan

Erdogan seems to have finally realized that the New Silk Roads are the 2.0 digital version of the Ancient Silk Roads whose caravans linked the Middle Kingdom, via trade, to multiple lands of Islam – from Indonesia to Turkey and from Iran to Pakistan.

Before the 16th century, the main line of communication across Eurasia was not maritime, but the chain of steppes and deserts from Sahara to Mongolia, as Arnold Toynbee wonderfully observed. Walking the line we would find merchants, missionaries, travelers, scholars, all the way to Turko-Mongols from Central Asia migrating to the Middle East and the Mediterranean. They all formed the stuff of interconnection and cultural exchange between Europe and Asia – way beyond geographical discontinuity.

Arguably Erdogan is now able to read the new tea leaves. The Russia-China strategic partnership – directly involved in linking Belt and Road with the Eurasia Economic Union and also the International North-South Transportation Corridor – considers Turkey and Iran as absolutely indispensable key hubs for the ongoing, multi-layered Eurasia integration process.

A new Turkey-Iran-Qatar geopolitical and economic axis is slowly but surely evolving in Southwest Asia, ever more linked to Russia-China. The thrust is Eurasia integration, visible for instance via a frenzy of railroad building designed to link the New Silk Roads, and the Russia-Iran transportation corridor, to the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea and, eastwards, the Iran-Pakistan corridor to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, one of Belt and Road’s highlights.

This is all being supported by interlocking transportation cooperation agreements involving Turkey-Iran-Qatar and Iran-Iraq-Syria.

The end result not only consolidates Iran as a key Belt and Road connectivity hub and China’s strategic partner, but also by contiguity Turkey – the bridge to Europe.

As Xinjiang is the key hub in Western China connecting to multiple Belt and Road corridors, Erdogan had to find a middle ground – in the process minimizing, to a great extent, waves of disinformation and Western-peddled Sinophobia. Applying Xi Jinping thought, one would say Erdogan opted for privileging cultural understanding and people-to-people exchanges over an ideological battle.

Ready to mediate

In conjunction with his success at the court of the Dragon King, Erdogan now feels emboldened enough to offer his services as mediator between Tehran and the Trump administration – picking up on a suggestion he made to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at the G20.

Erdogan would not have made that offer if it had not been discussed previously with Russia and China – which, crucially, are member signatories of the Iran nuclear deal, or Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA).

It’s easy to see how Russia and China should consider Turkey the perfect mediator: a neighbor of Iran, the proverbial bridge between East and West, and a NATO member. Turkey is certainly much more representative than the EU-3 (France, UK, Germany).

Trump seems to want – or at least gives the impression of imposing – a JCPOA 2.0, without an Obama signature. The Russia-China partnership could easily call his bluff, after clearing it with Tehran, by offering a new negotiating table including Turkey. Even if the ineffective – in every sense – EU-3 remained, there would be real counterbalance in the form of Russia, China and Turkey.

Out of all these important moves in the geopolitical chessboard, one motivation stands out among top players: Eurasian integration cannot significantly progress without challenging the Trumpian sanction obsession.

*

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 Presidency of the Rep of Turkey

Louisiana will hold a public hearing on issuing 15 air permits for Taiwanese company Formosa Plastics. The massive proposed complex would be one of the largest and most toxic plastic production facilities in the world.

On Tuesday, July 9, at 6 p.m., the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality will hear public comments on the Formosa chemical complex, a proposed project that would create 14 new chemical plants in a largely African-American community. The hearing will be held at the Westbank Reception Area, 2455 Highway 18, Vacherie, Louisiana. A short press conference will be held at 5:30 p.m., prior to the hearing.

Sharon Lavigne, founder and director of Rise St. James, stressed the importance of the residents of St. James Parish learning about the chemical complex and voicing their opinions before the state of Louisiana issues any permits.

“The people of St. James don’t know what’s going on,” Lavigne said. “The people I talk to don’t know about the chemicals or the effects. They can’t even pronounce the names of the chemicals. Once people have knowledge, their eyes will open. But by the time this plant is built, it will be too late.”

LDEQ is currently dealing with the environmental fallout from other pollution-spewing facilities nearby, including the Denka chemical plant in St. John Parish and the mountainous radioactive wastewater lake from the Mosaic fertilizer plant in St. James Parish. The state has the opportunity to stop Formosa’s 14 toxic plants before they have a chance to do any damage.

“Once the state has issued its permits, it’s much harder for the residents to do anything about the plants,” said Kendall Dix, a representative of Healthy Gulf. “It’s vital that residents attend the hearing and give testimony or submit written comments to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality so the state has an accurate picture of whether the residents actually want to live near what would be one of the most toxic chemical complexes on Earth.”

Formosa would be located in the 5th District of St. James Parish, an area on the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans known for its high cancer rates and high concentration of industrial development in African-American communities. Formosa, a company with a long and well-documented history of pollution in Baton Rouge, Texas, Taiwan, and Vietnam, did not submit a single proposed alternative site in a non-black neighborhood in its permit application. Formosa’s 2016 chemical spill in Vietnam put thousands of fishermen out of work and represented the largest industrial disaster in the nation’s history.

The plant has faced fierce opposition from local residents who have been fighting against petrochemical development since the term “Cancer Alley” was first coined to describe the region in the 1980s. At the hearing for the coastal use permit on Dec. 6, dozens of people spoke out against the plant, with only one person speaking in favor of the plant.

The Formosa complex would emit the second-highest amount of ethylene oxide and the second-highest amount of benzene of any plant in a state already full of large-scale industrial development. Both ethylene oxide and benzene are known human carcinogens and cause numerous other chronic health problems.

A 2009 Texas A&M study provides strong evidence of genetic damage to cattle located downwind from Formosa’s facility in Point Comfort, Texas. The damage increased with greater proximity to Formosa.

“The majority of chemicals released were potential to known carcinogens with some released in high amounts,” the study found.

“The proposed Formosa chemical complex is an environmental and public health disaster waiting to happen,” said Adrienne Bloch, Earthjustice senior attorney. “The St. James Parish community deserves clean air, clean water, and a say on what gets built in their own backyard. We’ll be standing with our partners at LDEQ’s public hearing to make sure their voices are heard.”

The Formosa complex is part of a push to turn the byproducts of natural gas extraction into feedstock for single-use plastic packaging and consumer products. The fossil fuel industry plans to increase plastic production by 40 percent over the next decade, adding to the growing ocean plastic pollution crisis.

“We can’t let Formosa pollute Louisiana’s air just to create more throwaway plastic. This community has already suffered from exposure to dangerous industrial pollutants for far too long,” said Lauren Packard, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Formosa’s project would emit 13 million tons of greenhouse gases per year, the same as three coal-fired power plants. Polluting Louisiana’s air to make disposable plastics we don’t need is a terrible idea.”

Formosa will be gifted $12 million in a cash grant from the state of Louisiana and another $1.5 billion in tax breaks for its new plastics complex through the controversial Industrial Tax Exemption Permit. But with plastic products being banned in Europe and municipalities across the U.S., the demand for Formosa’s output is likely to decline over time. Additionally, the value of neighboring homes that residents have invested in for generations will be wiped out, never to be recovered.

The complex will destroy more than 100 acres of wetlands, making flooding worse and increasing the risk of a chemical spill during a natural disaster. With the Mississippi River at flood stage during hurricane season and new hurricane maps showing storm surges of 10 feet or higher affecting even Baton Rouge, it’s a matter of when — not if —Cancer Alley floods.

Formosa’s 13 million tons of annual carbon dioxide emissions will worsen climate change and increase the likelihood of devastating hurricanes. The Formosa project is therefore incompatible with the state’s $50 billion master plan to slow down the loss of its coast.

*

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

On this day, five years ago, the Israeli occupation launched one of its deadliest military offensives against the Gaza Strip in recent history. The conflict left 2,251 people dead, with more than 11,000 wounded, according to Palestinian and UN sources. Five years on, Gaza is still subject to intense attacks by Israel as well as the ongoing blockade which has been enforced for more than 11 years.

What: 2014 Israelis offensive against Gaza

When: 8 July – 26 August 2014

Where: The occupied Gaza Strip

What happened?

The Israeli military offensive on the Gaza Strip took place against the backdrop of a second Palestinian unity government being formed in early June by the Islamic Resistance Movement — Hamas — in the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Threatened by the reconciliation between the two main Palestinian factions, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that the PA had to choose between peace with Hamas and peace with Israel.

Ten days later, on 12 June, three Israeli settlers went missing in the West Bank, an incident for which Israel blamed Hamas, despite providing no evidence to back the allegation. Netanyahu also stated that the kidnapping proved that the unity pact between the Palestinian factions could not be endorsed.

High ranking Hamas officials denied involvement and the PA attributed the abductions to the Qawasameh clan, a group within Hamas that has frequently acted against the party’s policies. Israeli historian Ilan Pappé has said that the motivation for the kidnapping was the murder of two Palestinian teenagers by Israeli forces in May 2014; the autopsy report which showed that the teens were killed by Israeli soldiers’ live fire had been made public the day before the kidnapping.

In the aftermath of the abduction, Israel launched a crackdown on alleged Hamas associates in the West Bank. Some 11 Palestinians were killed and dozens were wounded in the run up to 2 July, with hundreds arrested, many of whom had been freed in the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange deal. The murder of a Palestinian teen by Israeli settlers then sparked widespread protests in the occupied territories. Israel also bombarded the Gaza Strip, prompting some minor rocket fire from various factions in the besieged enclave.

After attempts to agree to a ceasefire failed, with Tel Aviv refusing to meet Hamas conditions that the siege be ended and prisoners released, on 7 July the Israeli military announced the start of Operative Protective Edge to “hit Hamas hard”.

Within the first 48 hours of the operation, Israel dropped 400 tonnes of bombs on Gaza. Over the next two months, some 6,000 air strikes were launched on the besieged 365 km2 of the coastal territory.

The subsequent bombardment displaced some 500,000 people; 300,000 civilians were forced to shelter in UNRWA schools. Electricity to hospitals was cut off, rendering thousands without basic medical care.

Hamas fired rockets towards Israel in response, but did little damage. Lacking in precision guidance systems, the attacks were indiscriminate by default, but Hamas has said on many occasions that its rockets are always intended to hit military targets. Conversely, Israel used its high-powered US-financed precision-guided arsenal to target civilian areas deliberately, claiming that militants were hiding in homes, schools and hospitals.

Israeli army also began a limited ground invasion, focusing on destroying tunnels used to transfer much-needed humanitarian supplies to the besieged population. The tunnels have been described as “Gaza’s lifeline”.

The offensive prompted outrage from the international community, with protests organised around the world in support of the Palestinians.

What happened next?

On 3 August, the army pulled most of its ground forces out of the Gaza Strip after completing the destruction of 32 tunnels. A week later, a three-day truce negotiated by Egypt came into effect, which led to a series of brief ceasefires, before Israel and Hamas agreed to an end to hostilities on 26 August.

The “Gaza War” has had enduring consequences for the Strip’s two million inhabitants. Over 2,250 Palestinians were killed, 500 of whom were children, and 11,000 were wounded, placing a huge strain on the already severely stretched medical sector.

Moreover, at least 20,000 buildings were destroyed in the Israeli bombardment, either reduced to rubble or rendered uninhabitable, including mosques, churches, hospitals and schools. Pierre Krähenbühl, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, appealed for £178 million ($295 million) in international aid towards its recovery operations, but little of the planned reconstruction has been completed.

The Israeli death toll was 67 soldiers and six civilians by the time of the ceasefire.

The UN affirmed in 2015 that Israel committed war crimes during the offensive due to its targeting of civilians areas. Israel had refused to co-operate with the UN investigation, which it claimed had drawn its conclusions in advance. The report supported the Palestinians in the filing of a petition to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has yet to open a full investigation into the allegations, despite dossiers of evidence reportedly having been provided by the PA.

A two-year investigation by Israel’s official watchdog into the operation also revealed last year that the government failed to explore diplomatic solutions to prevent the seven-week conflict. The 200-page report also criticized the Netanyahu government for ignoring several warnings by security services that the ongoing blockade in Gaza was escalating tensions and could lead to violence if not relaxed.

Five years down the line, Al Ray further reports, the Palestinians in Gaza continue to be subject to Israeli brutality, as demonstrated most recently during the Great March of Return protests since the end of March. At least 2017 people have been killed by Israeli forces, including children, medical personnel and journalists. A senior Israeli official tweeted: “Nothing was uncontrolled; everything was accurate and measured and we know where every bullet [fired by Israeli snipers] landed.” Campaigners believe that this alone is enough to see Israeli military personnel charged and convicted of war crimes.

*

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 Hosam Salem via IMEMC

The United States believes that it is so invincible, exceptional and so frightening that no one would ever dare to protest, let alone defend its people against constant humiliation, economic embargos and military threats.

It used to be like this for quite some time. In the past, the West used to bully the world before and after each well-planned assault. Also, well-crafted propaganda used to be applied.

It was declared that things are done ‘legally’ and rationally. There were certain stages to colonialist and imperialist attacks: “define your goals”, “identify your victim”, “plan”, “brainwash your own citizens and people all over the world”, and then, only then, “bomb some unfortunate country back to the stone ages”.

Now, things are slightly different. “The leader of the free world” wakes up in the middle of the night, and he tweets. What comes from his computer, tablet or phone, (or whatever he uses), is spontaneous, unpolished and incredibly dangerous. Similar in substance to what made him wake up in the middle of the night, in a first place.

He does not seem to plan; he shoots off from the hip. Today, as I am writing this essay, he has declared that he has “five strategies for Venezuela”. Go figure. Bravo!

Earlier, as he was about to land outside London, he embarked on insulting the Mayor of the British capital, calling him names. A bit like we used to do to each other, when we were five years old, in the neighborhood playground.

He has been regularly offending Mexico, and of course Iran, China and Russia.

He basically tells the leader of the most populous nation on earth – China – to “be there”, at the G20 Summit, or else.

Whenever he and his lieutenants are in the mood, they get busy antagonizing everyone: Cuba and Nicaragua, DPRK and Venezuela, Bolivia and Syria.

Of course, the main “culprits” are always the ‘biggest bad boys’, Russia and China.

Anyone, at any time, could easily land on the proverbial hit list of President Trump, and hawks of his United States of A. It could be India (which, during ‘good submissive times’ is called by the West the “biggest democracy”, or perhaps Turkey (militarily the second mightiest NATO country).  The world had been converted into an entity which appears to be run by a bloodthirsty and unpredictable dictatorship. The world is an entity where everyone is terrified of being purged, imprisoned, starved to death, or directly attacked, even liquidated.

It was always like this, at least in the modern history of the planet. Colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism: they have many different faces but one common root. Root that has been often hidden deep under the surface.

But this time it is all in the open, raw and brutally honest.

*

Both George W. Bush and Donald Trump have one thing in common: they are honest.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were both ‘suave’ presidents. They were loved in Europe, as they knew how to speak politely, how to dine elegantly, and how to commit mass murder in a ‘rational, righteous way’; ‘old-fashioned, European-style’.

The brutal, vulgar ways of W. Bush and Donald Trump, have been consistently shocking all those individuals who are pleased when things are done ‘stylishly’ and ‘politically correctly’; be it a coup or the starvation to death of millions through embargos. Or be it invasions or ‘smart’ bombing (practically, ‘smart’ meaning very far from the inquisitive eyes).

But it is not only the ‘offended sensibilities’ of predominantly European population, that matter.

The danger is that someone might take Donald Trump seriously, and respond accordingly.

In the past, verbal insults similar to those unleashed now by the US President, could easily have led to a war, or at least to the breaking up of diplomatic relationships.

And now?

In case Westerners have not realized it, yet – people all over the world are indignant. I talk to Libyans, Afghans, Iraqis, Venezuelans, Cubans, Iranians: they hate what comes from Washington; hate it with passion. They know that what is being done to them is terrorism, thuggery. But for now, they do not know how to defend themselves. Not yet, but they are thinking.

The entire world now resembles a brutal ghetto, or a slum, where a heavily armed gang controls the streets, and in fact every corner and alley.

At least in the past, subjugated people were able to hide behind decorative words and ideological pirouettes. They were able to ‘save their face’. They were sodomized in the name of ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’. Now, a horrible reality is flying directly into all directions: “You will do as you are told!” “It is us who will decide.” “Obey, because we said so”. Entire proud nations are being reduced into states of slaves or even worse – lap dogs.

*

As everyone is well aware of, even lackeys and slaves often hold grudges. And abused dogs can bite.

Throughout history, slaves rebelled. True heroes came from rebellious and enslaved nations.

This, what we have now on our planet, is not good, not a healthy situation.

The more countries that are being intimidated, the higher the chances are that somewhere, soon, things will let go; collapse.

Only terrible fear, so far, assures that if a Syrian or a Libyan or an Afghan city is leveled to the ground, there is no real retaliation: urban areas in the USA stay intact.

Only incredible patience of the Russian or Chinese leaders guarantees that, so far, even as their economies are being battered by ridiculous sanctions, the two powerful nations do not retaliate and ruin the US financial system (which is only a paper tiger).

Trump dares. He tortures and humiliates more than half of the world, then looks straight ahead and laughs: “So what are you going to do now?”

So far, the world is doing nothing.

Even the proud and mighty Iran is not ‘crossing the line’. As millions of its people are suffering because of insane sanctions, the Iranian navy is not yet engaging the US battleships that are sailing very near its shores.

Even as more and more US bases are being built right next to both Russia and China’s borders, so far there are no substantial military bases being erected by Moscow or Beijing in places such as Nicaragua, Cuba or Venezuela.

*

All this may change, soon.

And the so much dreaded (by Washington) “domino effect” may actually take place.

Non-Western leaders have also their ‘bad days’ and terrible nights. They also wake up in the middle of the night, and think, want to communicate and to act.

Imagine an Iranian leader, waking up at 2AM, and suddenly feeling overwhelmed by wrath, because Iranian men, women and children are suffering, for no reason, as a result of the perverse sadism being regurgitated by the West. What if he Tweets an insult, too? What if he just orders, on a spur of the moment, to have all those obsolete US aircraft carriers and destroyers that are floating in the vicinity, be sunk? Iran can do it: everyone knows that it can! Technically, militarily, it is easy: those ships are just sitting ducks.

Then what? Will Washington nuke Iran?

Someone may say: The West is killing millions every year, anyway. Better to fight it, in order to stop it, once and for all. Others may join. And then, then what? Will Trump give orders to kill tens of millions, just to maintain control over the world?

What if the US navy vessels bump into a Russian or a Chinese ship, as they almost did in the South China Sea, recently? What if a Russian or Chinese ship sinks, dozens of sailors die. And there is a retaliation? Then what?

What if Syria has enough and begins shooting down Israeli military jets that are bombing it, and attacking North American and European ‘special forces’ that are still located, illegally, on its territory?

The US is engaged all over the world. France and the UK, too. And if you talk to the people in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, you very soon realize what the real feelings towards Washington are!

If you provoke the entire world, something very terrible may happen!

Now, there is an entire coalition of powerful nations, ready to defend themselves, and also defend each other. Militarily, economically, and ideologically.

The world is not a slave of the West, or the United States. It is not a latrine.

This is the new world. Considering the horrors that were spread by the West, for many long years and centuries, Asia, Africa, “Latin America”, the Middle East and Oceania, are unbelievably patient and forgiving. But the USA and Europe should not take this tolerance for granted. They should not provoke its former and present victims.

Now, we (the people from the previously ruined part of the world) are beginning to speak up: about what is being done to us – to China and Russia, to South America and Africa, and the Middle East. With awareness comes courage. With courage comes pride.

Do not misinterpret our kindness. It is not a weakness. Not anymore. Think twice before you speak (or Tweet). Think a thousand times, before you act!

*

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.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are China and Ecological Civilization with John B. Cobb, Jr., Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter. His Patreon

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

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

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

*     *     *

“It’s Going To Be Carnage” – Deutsche Bank Begins Culling 18,000 Employees

By Zero Hedge, July 10, 2019

Deutsche Bank shares have continued to sell off ahead of the US market open. They were recently off 5% at a new session low, as the bank’s shareholders have apparently realized that DB won’t be able to return to profitability with no revenue.

US Military Is a Bigger Polluter than as Many as 140 Countries – Shrinking this War Machine Is a Must

By Benjamin Neimark, Prof. Oliver Belcher, and Patrick Bigger, July 10, 2019

The US military’s carbon bootprint is enormous. Like corporate supply chains, it relies upon an extensive global network of container ships, trucks and cargo planes to supply its operations with everything from bombs to humanitarian aid and hydrocarbon fuels. Our new study calculated the contribution of this vast infrastructure to climate change.

The High Costs of Military Shows

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls, July 10, 2019

The airshow were done partly for recruiting future pilots, partly for raising unit morale, partly to gain the support of congresspersons who vote on military budgets and, one supposes, to further glorify America’s military conquests in the eyes of the public.

Iran Rightfully Increases Uranium Stockpiles and Enrichment Beyond JCPOA Limits

By Sarah Abed, July 10, 2019

Iran recently increased its enriched uranium stockpiles and uranium enrichment levels beyond JCPOA limits in response to Washington’s unilateral withdrawal and increased sanctions.

Does Trump Have the Balls to Hold the Deep State Accountable?

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 10, 2019

It is a known fact that the orchestration of Russiagate, a hoax perpetrated on the American people and the world by the military/security complex, Democratic Party, and US presstitutes, required high officials of the CIA, FBI, and Obama Department of Justice (sic) to commit felonies. 

Israeli Occupation, Colonialism and Apartheid

By Stephen Lendman, July 09, 2019

The ICJ also ruled against Israel’s Separation Wall, calling it illegal, ordering completed sections dismantled, and “all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto” repealed or rendered “ineffective forthwith.”

Racism Dictates Ireland’s Policy in Africa. The “French Connection” is Questioned in Dublin

By Aidan O’Brien, July 09, 2019

Today is different. Dublin has an opinion. It has its own parliament and can project its own vision upon Africa. And what’s that? It’s no different from that of Europe’s imperialists. As Europe scrambles for Africa again – Ireland wants a piece of the action.

*

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

Update (9 am ET): Deutsche Bank shares have continued to sell off ahead of the US market open. They were recently off 5% at a new session low, as the bank’s shareholders have apparently realized that DB won’t be able to return to profitability with no revenue.

.

* * *

Some readers might have dismissed warnings of “Lehman-style” scenes outside Deutsche Bank’s global offices as hysteria related to the bank’s restructuring. But the mass firings that will eventually cull some 18,000 employees, roughly 20% of the bank’s global workforce, have already begun.

After announcing the bank’s most radical restructuring plan in two decades, CEO Christian Sewing on Sunday revealed that the bank would immediately move ahead with the steep job cuts. On Monday, whole teams of equity traders in Tokyo and the bank’s other Asian offices were let go, the first step toward winding down the bank’s equities sales and trading operation. The bank is also planning cutbacks to its fixed income, and rates, trading business. Shares bounced in pre-market trading on Sunday, but have since turned lower; in recent trade, DB shares were off nearly 2%.

Though DB didn’t disclose the regional breakdown of the job cuts, it’s widely believed that roughly 50% of the employees in its bloated investment bank will be let go. That would mean the bank’s offices in New York and London will be the hardest hit.

One Singapore-based employee whose team had not been hit by the cuts told the FT on Monday:

“The mood is always depressed in Deutsche.”

The FT said DB staff working in London will receive “notification risk” notices, effectively a warning that they might soon be fired, offered a ‘consultation session with HR, and then given the rest of the day off.

“People know the bank is not doing well…It’s not like a party…This is really sad what is going on right now in the bank, but I guess from top management’s point of view that is what is needed to be done,” said one Deutsche staff member in London who declined to be named.

As a reminder, here are the highlights of the “radical transformation” as published by the bank:

• Creating a fourth business division called the Corporate Bank which will be comprised of the Global Transaction Bank and the German commercial banking business.
• Exiting the Equities Sales & Trading business and reducing the amount of capital used by the Fixed-Income Sales & Trading business, in particular Rates.
• Returning 5 billion euros of capital to shareholders starting in 2022, facilitated by a new Capital Release Unit (CRU) to which the bank plans initially to transfer approximately 288 billion euros, or about 20% of Deutsche Bank’s leverage exposure, and 74 billion euros of risk weighted assets (RWA) for wind-down or disposal.
• Funding the transformation through existing resources including maintaining a minimum Common Equity Tier 1 ratio of 12.5%. The bank expects to execute its restructuring without the need to raise additional capital.
• As a result, the bank’s leverage ratio is expected increase to 4.5% in 2020 and approximately 5% from 2022.
• Reducing adjusted costs by 2022 by approximately 6 billion euros to 17 billion euros, a reduction by a quarter of the current cost base.
• Targeting a Return on Tangible Equity of 8% by 2020.
• Investing 13 billion euros in technology by 2022, to drive efficiency and further improve products and services.

The layoffs come as DB refocuses on its core European corporate business, while also planning to package some €74 billion in derivatives into a ‘bad bank’. Most of the job cuts will land outside Germany, partly because Germany’s powerful unions will shield employees from the axe. The bank has committed not to fire any German retail employees against their will until mid-2021, and since 2017 it has been reducing head count through natural attrition.

One fund manager in Germany described CEO Sewing’s cuts as “a crash diet” to help the bank get back in shape, adding that the steps are long overdue.

“The announced measures are a crash diet,” said Alexandra Annecke, fund manager at Germany’s third largest asset manager Union Investment.

As the cuts begin, one staffer warned: “it is going to be carnage” inside the bank’s London office on Monday.

*

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 the author

The US military’s carbon bootprint is enormous. Like corporate supply chains, it relies upon an extensive global network of container ships, trucks and cargo planes to supply its operations with everything from bombs to humanitarian aid and hydrocarbon fuels. Our new study calculated the contribution of this vast infrastructure to climate change.

Greenhouse gas emission accounting usually focuses on how much energy and fuel civilians use. But recent work, including our own, shows that the US military is one of the largest polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more climate-changing gases than most medium-sized countries. If the US military were a country, its fuel usage alone would make it the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, sitting between Peru and Portugal.

In 2017, the US military bought about 269,230 barrels of oil a day and emitted more than 25,000 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide by burning those fuels. The US Air Force purchased US$4.9 billion worth of fuel, and the navy US$2.8 billion, followed by the army at US$947m and the Marines at US$36m.

It’s no coincidence that US military emissions tend to be overlooked in climate change studies. It’s very difficult to get consistent data from the Pentagon and across US government departments. In fact, the United States insisted on an exemption for reporting military emissions in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. This loophole was closed by the Paris Accord, but with the Trump administration due to withdraw from the accord in 2020, this gap will will return.

Our study is based on data retrieved from multiple Freedom of Information Act requests to the US Defense Logistics Agency, the massive bureaucratic agency tasked with managing the US military’s supply chains, including its hydrocarbon fuel purchases and distribution.

The US military has long understood that it isn’t immune from the potential consequences of climate change – recognising it as a “threat multiplier” that can exacerbate other risks. Many, though not all, military bases have been preparing for climate change impacts like sea level rise. Nor has the military ignored its own contribution to the problem. As we have previously shown, the military has invested in developing alternative energy sources like biofuels, but these comprise only a tiny fraction of spending on fuels.

The American military’s climate policy remains contradictory. There have been attempts to “green” aspects of its operations by increasing renewable electricity generation on bases, but it remains the single largest institutional consumer of hydrocarbons in the world. It has also locked itself into hydrocarbon-based weapons systems for years to come, by depending on existing aircraft and warships for open-ended operations.

Not green, but less, military

Climate change has become a hot-button topic on the campaign trail for the 2020 presidential election. Leading Democratic candidates, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, and members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are calling for major climate initiatives like the Green New Deal. For any of that to be effective, the US military’s carbon footprint must be addressed in domestic policy and international climate treaties.

Our study shows that action on climate change demands shuttering vast sections of the military machine. There are few activities on Earth as environmentally catastrophic as waging war. Significant reductions to the Pentagon’s budget and shrinking its capacity to wage war would cause a huge drop in demand from the biggest consumer of liquid fuels in the world.

It does no good tinkering around the edges of the war machine’s environmental impact. The money spent procuring and distributing fuel across the US empire could instead be spent as a peace dividend, helping to fund a Green New Deal in whatever form it might take. There are no shortage of policy priorities that could use a funding bump. Any of these options would be better than fuelling one of the largest military forces in history.

*

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.

Benjamin Neimark is Senior Lecturer, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University.

Oliver Belcher is Assistant Professor of Geography, Durham University.

Patrick Bigger is Lecturer of Human Geography, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University.

Featured image: A US Navy warship refuelling off the coast of California. Jason Orender/Shutterstock

More than 300,000 people are unable to return to their homes in Mosul two years after the end of a military operation to retake Iraq’s second largest city from Islamic State.

An estimated 138,000 houses were damaged or destroyed in Mosul during bitter fighting between Iraqi forces and Islamic State, also known as ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh.

Islamic State (IS) launched an offensive on Mosul in June 2014. On 29 June that year, IS leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, announced the formation of a caliphate stretching from Aleppo in Syria to Diyala in Iraq. Mosul was an important IS stronghold.

Iraqi forces – supported by Kurds and the US – began an offensive to retake Mosul on 17 October 2016, finally taking the city on 10 July 2017.

The Ferret reported from inside Mosul in March 2017 as Iraqi forces fought street to street with Islamic State in the eastern part of the city.

In West Mosul alone, there are still more than 53,000 houses flattened and thousands more damaged. Many displaced families have run out of savings and are in debt, surviving on humanitarian aid.

The Mosque of al-Nuri seen through a damaged window – West Mosul

The mosque of al-Nuri, where the IS group proclaimed the Islamic State in Iraq is still in ruins, as pretty much all the old city in Mosul. “It looks like a painting on the wall but its more like a scar that’s not healing,” says Hussein, who used to live there. In west Mosul alone, 53,000 houses are still destroyed, and as many families who can’t return. Rubble and unexploded bombs are still lacing the city. 

Hussein Abas, watching al Nuri Mosque from his destroyed house

Hussein’s house is at the heart of the old city of Mosul, which was massively bombed during retaking operations two years ago. His house was occupied by the IS group and is still heavily damaged and contaminated with unexploded mortar shells. “I can’t return, it’s not safe. The house is full of ammunition. There are even mortar shells on the rooftop, it’s very dangerous for the children”. He and his two kids live with other family members outside of the old city. They will not be able to return home as long as it’s not safe.

An unexploded mortar shell on Hussein’s rooftop – Old city of Mosul

“The house is full of ammunition. There are even mortar shells on the rooftop”.

The remains of Al Nuri Mosque

The remains of Al Nuri Mosque – two years after it was destroyed by IS group Reconstruction work has started to restore the historic Mosque, but its neighbourhood is far from receiving the same treatment. “We haven’t received a dinar from the government,” says Hussein, a teacher in the old city, “the only help comes from the community and the people themselves. We are rebuilding this city ourselves. Is that normal?” Two years after the end of retaking operations, 78% of displaced people from Mosul can’t return because their house is still destroyed. Only 4% is intending to return in 2019.

According to the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) – which has been helping displaced Iraqis from Mosul – only four per cent of people said they intended to return to Mosul this year.

“For them, the suffering of the war that ended two years ago remains a daily battle for survival,” said Rishana Haniffa, the Iraq country director for the Norwegian Refugee Council.

“It’s a disgrace that after two years, thousands of families and children still have to live in displacement camps and in abysmal conditions because their neighbourhoods are still in ruins.

“Some have attempted to return several times but faced a dead end. In spite of the world’s attention two years ago, Mosul’s displaced population has all but been forgotten.”

Liqaa and her family

Liqaa, her husband and five children have to live in the basement of their destroyed house. “My house got burnt, I have nothing left in my house. I did not even have blankets” she says. The family has been living there for one year, they don’t have the money to rebuild nor rent another house. “The government will not give us compensation. If they were intending to give us compensation they would have done it during the past two years. We are living on the support from the community,” she says.

Liqaa and her family

“Those who do not have money return because they have no other option. They will live exactly how we live. I have 5 children and we live in this basement room. We eat, drink and sleep here,” says Liqaa.

Liqaa and her family

“People cannot return to this area because there are no services. In the old city, we don’t have services, neither a hospital nearby. If you go to a hospital there is no medicine. You have to buy it from outside the hospital. If you don’t have money how can you live?”

The loss of ID cards, birth certificates and other essential documentation also remains one of the main obstacles for thousands of families wanting to return. Without official documents proving their legal identity, displaced Iraqis are deprived of their most basic rights as citizens, unable to move freely and barred from property ownership and employment.

“We urge the Iraqi government and the international community to step up reconstruction work so that Iraqis can return to their homes,” Haniffa said. “But in the meantime, the authorities can immediately help these families make a giant leap forward by issuing them with their missing documentation that would allow them to plan their return in dignity.”

Muhammed has been living in the camp for three years

Muhammed Hassan Yunis, 41 years old from Mosul, has been living with his family in Hamam Al-Alil Camp in Mosul for three years. “I want to return to Mosul but the cost of the rent is very high without any regulation from the governorate. In addition, finding a job in Mosul is very hard as there are very little job opportunities. Living there is too hard when you don’t have a house, a job and you have to pay the rent and electricity,” he says.

Muhammed looks at a ruined house

Muhammed is not able to go back to Mosul, because his house is destroyed, he lost everything he owns, his financial status does not allow him to rent a new house, and he can not even find a job to start over and rebuild his life.

In the last two years, NRC has repaired and rebuilt houses for more than 5,200 people in Mosul and supported more than 6,000 undocumented people to obtain or retrieve civil documents.

*

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 The Ferret

It is a known fact that the orchestration of Russiagate, a hoax perpetrated on the American people and the world by the military/security complex, Democratic Party, and US presstitutes, required high officials of the CIA, FBI, and Obama Department of Justice (sic) to commit felonies.  We know what the felonies are and who committed them.  The plot required the print and TV media to serve as the propaganda ministry for the treasonous officials.

This is common knowledge among those who pay attention. Last April former House Intelligence Committee Chairman, now ranking member, Devin Nunes said that

“criminal referrals on numerous individuals involved in the abuse of intelligence for political purposes” would soon be submitted. 

Apparently, the criminal referrals have been delayed while reports by Justice (sic) Department officials Michael Horowitz and John Durham are completed and cleared for release by—you guessed it—the CIA and FBI that the report investigates.

The felonies committed by the CIA, FBI, and Obama Justice (sic) Department constitute no less than a coup against the president of the United States, an act of sedition and treason.  Yet, those responsible might never be held accountable.  

Republicans are poor political infighters.  They lack the stomach for it, and the media is against them.  Trump is being advised to let the matter go.  He is being told that as he was cleared he should move on rather than keep the issue alive by prosecuting those who intended his political assassination.  Instead of shaking the American people’s confidence in their security agencies, he should get on with his agenda and achieve enough unity to win reelection.  

This advice comes from weak and stupid people whose main interest is to protect the Washington establishment even if it means ignoring an act of high treason.  

This is the last chance for the US government to hold the security agencies accountable.  If they are given a pass, henceforth they will be unimpeded in the pursuit of their secret agendas.  The Office of the President will never again have the opportunity to restore accountability over the Deep State.

Former CIA officer Ray McGovern gives an explanation of the current balance of power.  Does Trump dare to attempt to reestablish control?

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Iran recently increased its enriched uranium stockpiles and uranium enrichment levels beyond JCPOA limits in response to Washington’s unilateral withdrawal and increased sanctions.

Fourteen months ago, Donald Trump unilaterally pulled the United States out of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement, also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. Soon after the withdrawal, the Trump administration started implementing a “maximum pressure campaign” which is meant to bring Iran back to the negotiating table. What it has done, however, is unnecessarily set into motion a series of events that could have negative global implications.

Washington’s decision to pull out of the nuclear deal was met with criticism from many, including their European allies who urged the United States to reconsider and then when that failed, they pleaded with Iran to remain in compliance, while they mediated a solution.

Europe however, not only failed to bring about any relief to Iran, from Washington’s sanctions, but also fell prey to Washington’s bully tactics by not buying oil from Iran. Washington has stated that their goal is to bring Iran’s oil exports to zero.

Increased sanctions under the “maximum pressure campaign” have been referred to by Tehran as economic terrorism, and have affected not only the private and public sectors, but ordinary Iranian civilians as well.

Within the past month, Iran has been accused by the United States of sabotaging numerous oil tankers in its vicinity without any proper proof. Iran denied involvement in the attacks and instead has said that it saved forty-four sailors from two tankers that were hit in the Gulf of Oman.

Another major development, which sent a strong message to Washington, was the downing of a US drone over Iran’s waters. Iran has filed a complaint with the UN stating the violation was actually within its airspace. Trump was said to have approved a military response but then called it off.

Some say Trump notified Iran through an ally that he was preparing a limited military response. Iran responded that it would consider any such response to be an act of war which trigger a larger and dis-proportionate response. Some say that’s the real reason why Trump called it off. Trump stated that it was because he didn’t feel that risking 150 people’s lives was a reasonable cost for downing an unmanned drone. Whatever the real reason may be, it was a good idea to call it off.

The latest development however, is that Iran has now followed through with its pre-disclosed plan to enrich uranium above the 3.67% limit stated in the JCPOA to an unknown level. It also recently exceeded the 300kg limit on its uranium stockpiles. These two actions were pre-disclosed in full transparency over sixty days ago and are in direct response to both Washington’s increased sanctions and Europe’s failure to resist US sanctions.

What the Trump administration fails to understand is that Iran is neither looking to negotiate a new agreement, nor are they interested in making any changes to the existing agreement. Essentially, they will they be bullied into making further concessions.

The JCPOA was born out of twelve years of negotiations through our global partners due to the lack of any direct diplomatic channels between the United States and Iran. Iran is not going to be appeasing the United States, and as Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi (a politics professor at the University of Tehran) said on July 7th,

“If Europe does not stand up to the United States, then the deal will collapse. The ball is in Europe’s court”.

On July 8th, Geng Shuang, spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry stated during a press briefing in Beijing,

“The maximum pressure exerted by the US on Iran is the root cause of the Iranian nuclear crisis.” He also stated, “The facts show that unilateral bullying has already become a worsening tumor.”

In a tweet on July 7th, Javad Zarif the Foreign Minister of Iran stated,

“Today Iran is taking its second round of remedial steps under Para 36 of the JCPOA. We reserve the right to continue to exercise legal remedies within JCPOA to protect our interests in the face of US #EconomicTerrorism. All such steps are reversible only through E3 compliance.”

Iran is neither a member of the EU nor subject to any European oil embargo.

Last I checked, EU was against extraterritoriality.

UK's unlawful seizure of a tanker with Iranian oil on behalf of #B_Team is piracy, pure and simple.

It sets a dangerous precedent and must end now.

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) July 8, 2019

It’s not only naive but reckless to think that Iran should stick to its obligations under the JCPOA while other parties fail to meet their commitments. In addition to exceeding its limit of uranium stockpile and enriching uranium above the limit, Iran supposedly also plans to restore the Arak reactor to its original design which could produce plutonium. These measures are being taken to show that Washington’s pressure, sanctions, and bullying will no longer be tolerated. If obligations are not met by all parties, then the deal will collapse entirely along with years of diplomacy, negotiation, full transparency and concessions on Iran’s part.

Also on July 7th, Zarif tweeted the following,

“Having failed to implement their obligations under JCPOA—including after the US withdrawal—the EU/E3 should at minimum politically support Iran’s remedial measures under Paragraph 36, incl at IAEA. E3 have no pretexts to avoid a firm political stance to preserve JCPOA & counter U.S unilateralism.”

Having failed to implement their obligations under JCPOA—incl after US withdrawal—EU/E3 should at minimum politically support Iran’s remedial measures under Para 36, incl at IAEA.
E3 have no pretexts to avoid a firm political stance to preserve JCPOA & counter U.S unilateralism.

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) July 7, 2019

Trump’s response in the form of a warning that Iran had better be careful fell on deaf ears.

Despite Washington’s heavy sanctions, Iran’s Oil Minister, Bijan Zanganeh is hopeful that crude oil exports will improve. Iran simply wants to continue to export the same amount of oil as it did before Washington withdrew from the JCPOA.

Iran’s latest actions are meant to send a clear message to members of the JCPOA and the international community as a whole, that Iran was in compliance before Washington withdrew, and stayed in compliance for over a year, and is entirely willing to scale back its uranium stockpiles and enrichment to the terms set in the nuclear deal IF other parties lift the sanctions on Iran’s main source of income, and comply with their terms as well.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: The Rabbit Hole.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. For media inquiries please email [email protected]

Featured image is from TRH

At Global Research, our mandate is to strive for peace through increasing awareness on the broadest possible level while maintaining full independence in our reports and analyses. Our commitment is to make our content available to the broadest possible readership, on a non-commercial basis, without the need for a login or a paid subscription to access our articles.

We, on the other hand, do have to pay in order to provide you with this service. Independent online analysis of US-led wars, rampant corruption, corporate greed, civil rights and fraudulent monetary transactions is an increasing target of online suppression and tacit censorship, our content often relegated to the bottom rung of search engine results.

As a result we presently do not cover our monthly running costs which could eventually jeopardize our activities. 

Please help us reverse our deficit by taking out a recurring membership or making a donation today.

Click to donate:

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

Click to view our membership plans

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING INDEPENDENT MEDIA!

La Russia, dove operano 500 aziende italiane, è il quinto mercato extra-europeo per il nostro export e fornisce il 35% del fabbisogno italiano di gas naturale. L’interscambio è stato di 27 miliardi di dollari nel 2018, ma nel 2013 ammontava a 54 miliardi. Si è quindi dimezzato a causa di quello che il premier Conte definisce il «deterioramento delle relazioni tra Russia e Unione europea che ha portato alle sanzioni europee» (in realtà decise a Washington).

Lo stato delle relazioni tra Italia e Russia è «eccellente»: lo afferma il premier Conte ricevendo a Roma il presidente Putin. Il messaggio è tranquillizzante, anzi soporifero nei confronti dell’opinione pubblica. Ci si limita, fondamentalmente, allo stato delle relazioni economiche. La Russia, dove operano 500 aziende italiane, è il quinto mercato extra-europeo per il nostro export e fornisce il 35% del fabbisogno italiano di gas naturale. L’interscambio – precisa Putin – è stato di 27 miliardi di dollari nel 2018, ma nel 2013 ammontava a 54 miliardi. Si è quindi dimezzato a causa di quello che Conte definisce il «deterioramento delle relazioni tra Russia e Unione europea che ha portato alle sanzioni europee» (in realtà decise a Washington).

Nonostante ciò vi è tra i due paesi una «intensa relazione a tutti i livelli». Toni rassicuranti che ricalcano quelli della visita di Conte a Mosca nel 2018 e del premier Renzi a San Pietroburgo nel 2016, quando aveva garantito che «la parola guerra fredda è fuori dalla storia e dalla realtà». Prosegue così la sceneggiata. Nelle relazioni con la Russia, Conte (come Renzi nel 2016) si presenta unicamente nelle vesti di capo di governo di un paese dell’Unione europea, nascondendo dietro le quinte l’appartenenza dell’Italia alla Nato sotto comando degli Stati uniti, considerati «alleato privilegiato».

Al tavolo Italia-Russia continua quindi a sedere, quale convitato di pietra, l’«alleato privilegiato» sulla cui scia si colloca l’Italia. Il governo Conte dichiara «eccellente» lo stato delle relazioni con la Russia quando, appena una settimana prima in sede Nato, ha accusato di nuovo la Russia di aver violato il Trattato Inf (in base alle «prove» fornite da Washington), accodandosi alla decisione Usa di affossare il Trattato per schierare in Europa nuovi missili nucleari a raggio intermedio puntati sulla Russia. Il 3 luglio, il giorno prima della visita di Putin in Italia, è stata pubblicata a Mosca la legge da lui firmata che sospende la partecipazione russa al Trattato: una mossa preventiva prima che Washington ne esca definitivamete il 2 agosto.

Lo stesso Putin ha avvertito che, se gli Usa schiereranno nuove armi nucleari in Europa a ridosso della Russia, questa punterà i suoi missili sulle zone in cui sono dislocate.
È così avvertita anche l’Italia, che si prepara a ospitare dal 2020 le nuove bombe nucleari B61-12 a disposizioe anche dell’aeronautica italiana sotto comando degli Stati uniti.
Una settimana prima della conferma dell’«eccellente» stato delle relazioni con la Russia, il governo Conte ha confermato la partecipazione italiana alla forza Nato sotto comando Usa di 30 navi da guerra, 30 battaglioni e 30 squadre aeree dispiegabili entro 30 giorni in Europa contro la Russia a partire dal 2020.

Sempre in funzione anti-Russia navi italiane partecipano a esercitazioni Nato di guerra sottomarina; forze meccanizzate italiane fanno parte del Gruppo di battaglia Nato in Lettonia e la Brigata corazzata Ariete si è esercitata due settimane fa in Polonia, mentre caccia italiani Eurofighter Typhoon vengono schierati in Romania e Lettonia. Tutto ciò conferma che la politica estera e militare dell’Italia viene decisa non a Roma ma a Washington, in barba al «sovranismo» attribuito all’attuale governo.

Le relazioni economiche con la Russia, e anche quelle con la Cina, poggiano sulle sabbie mobili della dipendenza italiana dalle decisioni strategiche di Washington. Basta ricordare come nel 2014, per ordine di Washington, venne affossato il gasdotto South Stream Russia-Italia, con perdite di miliardi di euro per le aziende italiane. Con l’assoluto silenzio e consenso del governo italiano.

Israeli occupation, colonialism and apartheid exceed the worst of South Africa’s high crimes.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled the West Bank occupied. The same holds for Gaza and East Jerusalem. 

According to the ICJ,

“Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development (and) have been established in breach of international law.”

The ICJ also ruled against Israel’s Separation Wall, calling it illegal, ordering completed sections dismantled, and “all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto” repealed or rendered “ineffective forthwith.”

In its ruling, the ICJ mandated reparations for the “requisition and destruction of homes, businesses, and agricultural holdings (and) to return the land, orchards, olive groves, and other immovable property seized,” obligating member states to reject the illegal construction and demand Israel comply with international law.

Israel spurned the ruling, the way it treats all international law. Clearly it’ll dismiss other international court rulings against its actions, but they matter longterm — establishing a judicial record of Israeli lawlessness.

The UN and other international bodies declared Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem illegally occupied territories, their residents protected persons under international law.

The UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (the Declaration on Colonialism — 1960), condemned “colonialism in all its forms and manifestations,” including illegal settlements.

According to the UN International Convention for the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (the Apartheid Convention — 1973), this practice is state-sanctioned discriminatory “inhuman” racism “committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”

Resisting tyranny is a universal right. For long-suffering Palestinians, resisting Israel’s repressive boot is the only way to achieve long sought liberation.

Israeli and other Zionist ideologues hold Palestinians responsible for Jewish state high crimes committed against them.

In April 2018, the US Supreme Court refused to hear a February 2015 district court $655.5 million terrorism judgment against the Palestinian Authority (PA) during the Second Intifada for survivors of 33 US citizens killed during the Israeli-instigated September 2000 – February 2005 period.

The High Court effectively upheld a US Appeals Court ruling, ordering the judgment dismissed on grounds of no jurisdiction over a foreign organization in a foreign country.

The appeals court called it a mistake in judgment for a district court to allow the case to be heard.

Shurat Hadin, the Israeli law center, operating in cahoots with Israeli intelligence, ruling regime hardliners, and Israel’s Strategic Affairs Ministry uses unscrupulous tactics against Jewish state critics.

They include politically motivated lawsuits and other dubious actions against legitimate Israeli critics like BDS activists, supporting what demands condemnation.

In response to US judicial action, ruling against their without merit lawsuit, the organization called the justifiable decision “a horrible travesty of justice” — what applies to filing it, not the proper ruling, throwing the case out.

Shurat Hadin ignored the horrific five-year Second Intifada Israeli toll on defense Palestinians, including:

• 4,166 Palestinian deaths, including 886 children and 271 women;

• 554 extrajudicial assassinations; including 253 bystanders;

• 3,530 disabled or maimed Palestinians;

• 8,600 imprisoned, including 288 children and 115 women;

• 576 students killed, including 199 university-level ones and 32 teachers;

• another 4,713 students injured and 1,389 detained;

• 2,329,659 dunums of confiscated Palestinian land;

• another 73,613 dunums of razed land plus 1,355,290 uprooted trees; and

• 7,761 demolished homes and another 93,842 damaged.

The devastating over-seven decade/post-1948 Israeli toll on millions of defenseless Palestinians is incalculable, including the theft of their country, dispossessing them from their own land — the world community doing nothing to enforce the rule of law against oppressive Jewish state terror.

Shurat Hadin didn’t quit. On Monday, a Jerusalem District Court, hostile to Palestine rights, disgracefully ruled the PA liable for civil damages on behalf of eight families of Second Intifada victims.

Further judicial hearings will follow. Depending on the case’s disposition in Israeli courts, the PA could be liable for up to $1 billion in damages — despite Israeli responsibility for years of mass slaughter and destruction, Palestinians their victims during the Second Intifada, along with throughout its history.

The International Court of Justice may one day hear the case — even though its ruling will have no effect on how Israel and Zionist ideologues operate.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from The Bullet

Leave it to CBS News and all the other establishment propaganda mills to spin the obvious.

CBS and the others know the Iran nuke deal is a dead letter.

Trump refused to honor the agreement while Europe pretends the deal is still valid, mostly because it needs Iranian oil. EU apparatchiks understand all bets are off now that the US has reimposed sanctions.

They have no choice but to fall in line.

Iran ignores Trump's warning, breaks another nuclear deal limit on uranium enrichment https://t.co/IvDPrRwbsi pic.twitter.com/YiChouWF7d

— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 8, 2019

In true Pavlovian fashion—following the lead of Trump and his coven of neocons and Israel-firsters—the Europeans have threatened to trigger the JCPOA’s “dispute resolution mechanism” allowing the EU to impose sanctions. This will result in the issue of Iran enriching low-grade uranium going before the neoliberal lapdog, the United Nations Security Council.

Iran’s foreign minister summed it up:

Iran is neither a member of the EU nor subject to any European oil embargo.

Last I checked, EU was against extraterritoriality.

UK's unlawful seizure of a tanker with Iranian oil on behalf of #B_Team is piracy, pure and simple.

It sets a dangerous precedent and must end now.

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) July 8, 2019

Iran is incrementally enriching uranium as a wedge to force Europe to fully abide by the deal and ignore Trump’s ultimatum. Zarif said Iran’s enrichment is “reversible” if the European signatories of the deal fulfill their end.

Today, Iran is taking its second round of remedial steps under Para 36 of the JCPOA. We reserve the right to continue to exercise legal remedies within JCPOA to protect our interests in the face of US #EconomicTerrorism. All such steps are reversible only through E3 compliance.

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) July 7, 2019

Meanwhile, clod Trump tells us there is only one purpose for the low-grade enrichment of uranium.

President Trump: "Iran better be careful. Because you enrich for one reason and I won't tell you what that reason is. But it's no good. They better be careful." pic.twitter.com/iaYDSOcGc0

— The Hill (@thehill) July 8, 2019

Trump, thoroughly zombified by his neocon manipulators and his Orthodox Jewish, settler-friendly Likudnik son-in-law, doesn’t realize uranium enrichment at the current level—more than 85 percent below what is needed to make an effective nuclear bomb—is at best useful for nuclear power plant fuel. 

But you wouldn’t know this if you’re the average headline skimmer. The neocons and Israel want you to believe Iran will have a thermo-nuke tomorrow and will immediately target Israel and US “assets” in the Middle East.

The propaganda is working, even though a majority of Americans, according to corporate polls, support the nuclear deal. At the same time, they believe Iran is a threat to America, never mind there is zero evidence of this.

In fact, the opposite is true: the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia are a threat to Iran.

But then most Americans are not very good at history and really don’t show much interest in truth, preferring instead to skim deceptive corporate media headlines on social media between episodes of The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Given his personal history perhaps it is no surprise that Justin Trudeau is fond of monarchies.

The United Arab Emirates is a repressive monarchy that pursues violent, anti-democratic, policies in its region. Despite this — or maybe because of it —Trudeau’s Liberal government has strengthened ties to the federation of seven Emirates. And unlike Canada’s claims to be promoting democracy in Venezuela or the Ukraine, there has been little mention of this in the media or scrutiny in Parliament.

The UAE has propped up the Transitional Military Council in Sudan that has faced massive protests calling for civilian rule. Two months ago the oil rich country put up half of a $3 billion package (with Saudi Arabia) to support Sudan’s military rulers and the head of the military council visited powerful Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan in Abu Dhabi in late May. Many pro-democracy activists believe the UAE and Saudi Arabia pushed Sudan’s military to destroy a major protest site that left dozens dead at the start of June.

Abu Dhabi fears democracy in Sudan for various reasons. One immediate concern is the likelihood that a government in Khartoum representing the popular will would withdraw the 10,000 Sudanese soldiers in Yemen. The UAE has played a key role in the war in Yemen, which has left 100,000 dead, millions hungry and sparked a terrible cholera epidemic.

In Libya the UAE was recently caught delivering weapons to warlord Khalifa Haftar in violation of UN sanctions. Abu Dhabi has financed and supported Haftar’s bid to seize the Libyan capital by force. The Tripoli-based Government of National Accord said a UAE F-16 fighter jet was responsible for bombing a migrant detention centre that left some 50 people dead last week.

Elsewhere in the region the UAE has engaged in a two year blockade of Qatar designed to force Doha to heed their and close ally Saudi Arabia’s belligerent, anti-democratic, position towards Iran, Egypt and elsewhere. In recent years UAE helped crush Bahrain’s 2011 uprising, dispatched forces to Libya to support the NATO war and financed the return of military rule to Egypt in 2013. Abu Dhabi also plowed hundreds of millions of dollars of weaponry and other forms of support to Al Qaeda linked rebels in Syria.

Domestically, the UAE is a repressive monarchy that outlaws labour unions and hangs/stones individuals to death. The country heavily restricts religious freedoms and women’s rights. Recently, the wife (one of six) of Dubai’s ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum sought asylum in the UK fearing for her life.

From what I could find the Trudeau government has stayed mum on Abu Dhabi’s efforts to derail democracy in Sudan. Nor have they made any comment on its violation of UN sanctions in Libya. Over four years they’ve barely made a peep about the UAE’s bombing and troops in Yemen. Instead of challenging the monarchy’s egregious policies, the Liberals have deepened ties to the Gulf Kingdom.

On July 1 officials from the two countries highlighted “the bond between Canada and the United Arab Emirates” by raising a Canadian flag-inspired display on Abu Dhabi’s Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building. Ten days ago, the government announced that Canada would participate in Expo 2020 Dubai. International trade minister Jim Carr declared, “our presence at Expo 2020 affirms the vitality of Canada-UAE relations.”

A UAE delegation led by Minister of Energy and Industry Suhail bin Mohammed Faraj Faris Al Mazrouei attended the International Economic Forum of the Americas in mid-June. At the Montréal conference Al Mazrouei met economic development minister Navdeep Bains and trade minister Jim Carr. During the opening of the last UN General Assembly session Trudeau met UAE foreign minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed and he visited foreign minister Chrystia Freeland in Ottawa last May.

Despite their violence in Yemen, the Trudeau government has deepened military ties to the UAE. There are a small number of Canadian troops in the UAE and Royal Canadian Navy vessels in the region regularly coordinate with their Emirates counterparts. Last week Canada’s ambassador in Abu Dhabi, Masud Husain, met defence minister Mohammed bin Ahmed Al Bowardi. Canada’s Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan also met Al Bowardi there in April. According to Emirates News Agency, Canadian and UAE officials discussed “cooperation  in the military and defence sectors” and “current regional and international developments.” In December 2017 Sajan traveled to the Gulf State to sign the Canada-UAE Defence Cooperation Arrangement.

According to Radio Canada International, the Canada–UAE defence accord “will make it easier for the Canadian defence industry to access one of the world’s most lucrative arms markets.” During the last four years the Trudeau government has promoted arm sales at the Abu Dhabi-based International Defence Exhibition and Conference (IDEX). With support from “15 tradecommissioners and representatives from the Government of Ontario, National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, and the Canadian Commercial Corporation”, 50 Canadian arms companies flogged their wares at IDEX in February. To help the arms companies move their products, commander of the Bahrain-based Combined Task Force 150, Commodore Darren Garnier, led a Canadian military delegation to IDEX.

In February of last year Parliamentary Secretary to minister Bains, David Lametti, who is now Justice Minister, promoted Bombardier’s delivery of surveillance planes to the UAE. Montreal-based flight simulator company CAE trains UAE Air Force pilots at a facility in Abu Dhabi. Some UAE pilots bombing Yemen also likely trained at NATO’s Flying Training in Canada, which is run by CAE and the Canadian Forces.

As Anthony Fenton has documented in detail on his fantastic Canada-Gulf focused Twitter handle, armoured vehicles made by Canada’s Streit Group in the UAE have been repeatedly videoed in Yemen. At IDEX 2019 Streit Group officials were photographed pitching their Sherp All-terrain military vehicle to UAE officials.

After a high profile diplomatic spat with Saudi Arabia last August Canadian officials privately worried it would negatively impact relations with UAE. That didn’t happen, of course. In fact, the spat may have spurred closer ties to Saudi Arabia’s main regional ally.

It’s time for some mainstream journalists and parliamentarians to devote a little attention to the Trudeau’s government hypocritical embrace of the UAE monarchy.

*

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: UAE foreign minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed with Justin Trudeau (Source: Yves Engler)

“The tragedy of Africa is that the African has not fully entered into history….they have never really launched themselves into the future…” — Nicolas Sarkozy, 2007

“The problems Africa face are completely different….they are civilizational…” — Emmanuel Macron, 2017

“[Africa] is the continent of the future, on that point we can’t just leave them alone…” — Emmanuel Macron, 2017

Ireland missed the original scramble for Africa. When Europe’s imperialists were carving up the African continent at the 1884-85 Berlin Conference, Ireland was still a colony of Britain. Ireland had no voice. Today is different. Dublin has an opinion. It has its own parliament and can project its own vision upon Africa. And what’s that? It’s no different from that of Europe’s imperialists. As Europe scrambles for Africa again – Ireland wants a piece of the action.

Map: The colonial subdivision of Africa, Berlin Conference 1984-85 (right)

On June 20, the Irish parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor (73-39) of sending Ireland’s special forces into West Africa. This means that Dublin’s attack dogs will be fighting in the Sahara alongside those of – among others – Berlin. And who will the white Irish be pointing their guns at? Black Africans. Indeed, Dublin’s targets will be the de rigueur targets of contemporary western imperialism: Muslims.

Ireland’s cover story is the United Nations. But the real story is white supremacy. Dublin is hiding behind the UN mission named MINUSMA (Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali). However MINUSMA is based on the French army and its 2013 intervention in Mali. Which itself is based on French aggression (2011) in Libya and Ivory Coast. In fact, the French military spearheads current white ambition throughout Francophone Africa or, as it is alternatively called, Françafrique.

The French connection is openly acknowledged and questioned in Dublin. The Irish Times writes that “France….specifically appealed to European governments this week to send special forces to Mali.” And the political opposition notes that – to begin with – “it was a French colonial intervention”. It also warns that Ireland “must not facilitate French interests in the area”. The Irish Prime Minister, however, sticks with the UN cover story: “[Ireland’s special forces are] a big part of ….our commitment to the UN.”

The UN though justifies nothing. Since the Korean War (1950-53) the UN has been a convenient fig leaf for western imperialism. The UN General Assembly and UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) may have been, over the years, a thorn in the side of the West but overall the UN has been in the pocket of the West. And in the 21st century France, perhaps more than any other western nation, has been covering its geopolitical dementia with the UN cover story.

From the crudest of regime changes in Haiti (2004) to the Libyan genocide (2011) and beyond to Operation Burkhane (2014-present), the UN has been legitimizing French terror wherever it strikes. In fact, the last mentioned action encapsulates France’s view of the world and, ipso facto, that of the UN too. And its packed with white supremacism.

According to the prevailing western / French logic: the Sahel / Sahara is a “lawless” place in which “extremists” predominate. The word “Islamists” captures for western journalists, commentators and official spokesmen the threat of this “situation”. However, the fact that everyone in this region is Islamic automatically means that the whole population of this vast area of Africa is somehow suspicious. And therefore must be policed.

Operation Burkhane is the conclusion of this western group think. Its a story as old as modern times: the non European is incapable of looking after himself, therefore the European must do it for him. After entering Mali in 2013 (Operation Serval) and solving nothing, the French decided to intervene in all of Mali’s neighbors in 2014 (Operation Burkhane). In other words, the area made up of Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad and Mauritania was declared to be one enormous, and permanent, hunting ground for thousands of French soldiers.

Its more appropriate, however, to say that French capitalism is doing the hunting. After losing out to German capital, in the battle for Europe, French capital has “rediscovered” Africa. In truth, of course, France never really disengaged from Françafrique. The French Treasury, for one, refused to let go of Africa: it has been managing for decades the currencies of 14 African states (the CFA Franc). And French companies have been exploiting this fact by lodging themselves into the economic fabric of western and central Africa – so much so, that French business in Africa has become a byword for corruption. Nonetheless, with Europe firmly in the hands of Germany – France, in order to boost whatever competitive advantage it has left, is now playing the last dirty trick up its sleeve: Françafrique.

France though is not the only outsider in Africa. American soldiers are all over the place. And so too are Chinese workers. US militarism (AFRICOM) has been imposing itself upon the continent since 2007. However the USA has been pushing France aside in Africa since 1994: the story behind the Rwandan genocide is the American takeover of a French asset – Rwanda. And over the same period, Chinese economics within Africa has been trumping French corruption nonstop.

France needed to act, if it wanted to stay in the race for African resources and if it wanted to prevent itself – to quote Jacques Chirac – from “[sliding] down into the rank of a third [world] power”.

So France went to war in Africa. It went to war in Africa with the backing of the UN. And with the support of white men everywhere. The British, the Germans, the European Union, NATO and NATO’s partners from all around the world, support France’s latest push into Africa. And this includes France’s competitor in Africa – the USA. Why? Because the white man is, in fact, sliding down into the rank of a third rate power!

Ireland is an example of this western slide into oblivion and the knee jerk imperialism / racism it stimulates. Around the year 2000: Ireland was a neoliberal poster boy. It obeyed the Washington Consensus and reaped the short term profits. In the long term, however, it exposed itself to financial instability. And that duly arrived in 2008. Now, around the year 2020, Ireland obeys the war agenda of its creditors – creditors, who in fact, lack any credibility whatsoever: for example, France.

Refusing to backtrack from failed neoliberal policies, Ireland is digging its own moral grave. It does so in order to conform to a white Eurocentric fantasy called the European Union. Drowning in a sea of debt – only Japan and the USA have a per capita national debt higher than Ireland’s – Dublin feels it has no choice but to follow the EU down the path of war. By joining in the fallacious effort to make Europe great again, the Irish state tragically finds itself supporting the same kind of imperialism / racism which repressed the Irish for centuries.

You’d think the Irish state would know better. But the irrationalism of financial capitalism is merciless. And a lot of the finance capital that failed in Ireland was French. Therefore where French capital goes in order to recover its losses – so does Irish capital. And today that means Africa.

The irony is that the Europeans call the Africans “lawless” and “extremists”. In truth, of course, its the other way around. Hiding behind liberal platitudes, a broken European capitalism is entering Africa today with extreme force. After ripping apart the Middle East, its special forces are now in the Sahara / Sahel. At a loss to stop the internal rot, Europe is losing itself in wars and the accompanying ideologies of corruption and hate. In short: its a case of Europe über alles. Or if you’re Irish – France über alles.

*

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

Aidan O’Brien is a hospital worker in Dublin, Ireland.

Hypocrisy seems to have become a defining characteristic of US foreign policy, especially when it comes to Iran. After breaking the Iran deal last year and, de facto, forcing the Europeans to violate the deal in May, the US Administration is now complaining that Iran is no longer abiding by its obligations under the deal!

It’s remarkable to see Secretary of State Mike Pompeo take to Twitter to complain of Iran enriching uranium to pre-deal levels, as if somehow the US believes it can still dictate the terms of a deal to which it is no longer a party.

This latest neocon push for US war on Iran started last week when Iran exceeded the limit of a 300 kilogram stockpile of low-enriched uranium. As usual, the media only reported part of the story. One reason Iran went over the limit was that the countries to which Iran was exporting its excess uranium were notified by the US in early May that they would face US sanctions if they continued taking the uranium off Iranian hands.

The US created the crisis by preventing Iran from exporting its excess uranium and then pointed to the expanding Iranian stockpile of uranium enriched to 3.6 percent as proof that Iran was about to launch a nuclear weapon!

Make no mistake about it: Trump’s neocons are determined to trap him into a massive, disastrous war with Iran and they are using the same tactics they used to hoodwink George W. Bush into a multi-trillion dollar war on an Iraq that could not have attacked us if it wanted to.

Secretary Pompeo tweeted yesterday the exact kind of dishonest hysterics used to terrify many Americans into supporting an Iraq attack 13 years ago:

“Iran’s regime, armed with nuclear weapons, would pose an even greater danger to the world.”

Iran’s latest expansion of its nuclear program will lead to further isolation and sanctions. Nations should restore the longstanding standard of no enrichment for Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s regime, armed with nuclear weapons, would pose an even greater danger to the world.

— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) July 7, 2019

As the former head of the CIA, surely Pompeo knows that his own agency had determined back in 2003 that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program and that every US intelligence assessment since then has concurred with that conclusion. But then again, he did brag recently about his excellent ability to lie, cheat, and steal.

Though the Europeans promised Iran that they would continue to honor the deal, they have proven themselves unable to put forth a credible alternative to the US-dominated SWIFT system, meaning no trade in Iran’s number one export: oil.

Iran responded over the weekend to European fecklessness by announcing that they would begin enriching uranium up to five percent, which is a level needed to run one of its nuclear power generating plants. As could be predicted, this move – which is allowed according to section 36 of the Iran deal – is being treated as the equivalent of Saddam’s “mobile chemical weapons labs.”

The Iranians are not backing down. They rightly feel cheated, as they continued to honor the deal even as the US re-imposed crippling sanctions meant to destroy their economy and starve their people.

President Trump has a very serious decision to make. He is being frog-marched into war by his neocons and his Middle East “partners.” He has very little time left to change course. If the neocons are not swept out immediately, he is risking both his second term and his legacy.

*

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 Sprott Money

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.

I have previously written many articles describing one or more aspects of the dysfunctional nature of the typical human mind, together with an explanation of how this came about and what we can do about it. See, for example, many of the articles republished in ‘Key Articles’ and the source documents ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

I have also explained that it is this dysfunctional psychological foundation that generated the behaviors, as well as the political, economic, legal and social institutions (such as capitalism), that are driving the multifaceted and existential crisis in which humanity now finds itself.

Moreover, on that basis, my own focus has significantly evolved from the research and nonviolent activism that occupied me for several decades to now include an ongoing effort to have this psychological dysfunctionality addressed as a central feature of our efforts to understand and transform dysfunctional political, economic, legal and social institutions as well as to understand and end war (including the threat of nuclear war), the environmental crisis (including the climate catastrophe) and all other ongoing conflicts that bedevil humanity.

You may believe that psychology is unimportant to your understanding of conflict or that it is the realm of specialists but, in fact, it is crucial to any deeper and complete understanding of the origin and unfolding of our crisis and it is far from complicated simply because any psychological dysfunctionality can be explained in straightforward language which is readily understood by most people. For a sample, try ‘The Disintegrated Mind: The Greatest Threat to Human Survival on Earth’.

But because only the rarest psychologist and psychiatrist understands human psychology – as I have explained in ‘Defeating the Violence of Psychiatry’ – most of the literature on psychology and psychiatry is virtually incomprehensible, not to mention inaccurate. This lack of understanding has four immediate and disastrous outcomes.

First, it leads to groups of psychological symptoms being linked together and then given an arbitrary label (so that the fields of psychology/psychiatry can sound as if they know what they are talking about while excluding those who do not comprehend their jargon).

Second, it provides cover for the pharmaceutical industry to profit massively from the manufacture and sale of drugs that theoretically suppress key symptoms of, rather than cure, the psychological dysfunction that has been ‘diagnosed’.

Third, it precludes accurate diagnosis and treatment of any dysfunction: obviously, if a problem is not understood it cannot be responded to powerfully so that the issue is resolved. (Of course, it is more profitable for practitioners and the pharmaceutical industry if any dysfunction is not resolved but simply requires ongoing – that is, endless – ‘therapy’/drugs.)

Fourth and most fundamentally of all, it limits the domain of what is considered psychological dysfunctionality to those with ‘identifiable’ mental illnesses. But psychological dysfunctionality goes well beyond those considered to have a mental illness and is simply an outcome of the fact that mental health, like physical health, has many dimensions that require appropriate attention for the human organism to function optimally.

So, beyond the many examples I have offered previously in the articles I cited above (and others not cited but also available on the ‘Feelings First’ website), I would now like to describe further common examples of psychological dysfunctionality that are impeding both activists and those they are trying to mobilize in the effort to save Earth’s biosphere and avert human extinction, particularly given the timeframe in which this must now happen. See ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’.

As a result of the ‘socialization’ (more accurately labeled ‘terrorization’) to which all children are subjected throughout their childhood and adolescence (which involves inflicting unending ‘visible’, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ violence on them during these periods) – see ‘Why Violence?’ – the typical young human being obediently (or, often enough, unconsciously) acquires the set of attitudes, beliefs and values (as well as the consequent behaviors) that are approved by the significant adults (and predominant institutions) in their life. These attitudes, beliefs and values, however, are often so deeply entrenched by the (unconscious) fear that holds them in place that they are never subjected to serious scrutiny by the individual: whether functional or otherwise, they are accepted without question and, over time, acquire the status of ‘incontrovertible fact’ (as the individual perceives them).

The most obvious (and highly negative) consequence of being terrorized into accepting the attitudes, beliefs and values of the significant adults (and predominant institutions) around them is that the capacities to analyze a problem or conflict (often including its roots in the nature of their society), to seek out relevant (and perhaps complex) evidence to understand the issues arising from it, to plan a strategy so that underlying drivers of the problem or conflict are addressed in-depth and to then behave strategically (often in concert with others) to achieve this outcome are simply never developed beyond the most superficial levels (sufficient, say, for a socially approved career, whether trade or professional).

As a result, the typical human being is simply going through the routine of ‘growing up’ (which also critically involves being further terrorized into becoming a submissive citizen and worker/soldier at school for a decade or more: see ‘Do We Want School or Education?’), choosing post-secondary education and/or an approved job doing what someone else tells you, and then doing that job (or an equivalent) for decades (usually having a partner and children in the process and perhaps some hobby as well).

Fundamentally, humans are terrorized into taking on the ‘socially-constructed delusional identity’ that their society imposes on them and then calling it ‘me’. Their personal life journey is now so utterly obliterated from their awareness that the idea of seeking out their own unique destiny never even occurs to them. Of course, some people (in industrialized societies at least) are compensated for their sacrifice: wages, entertainment, travel and other trinkets. But, for most, these trinkets are given in sparing quantities and for many others around the world (in deliberately ‘underdeveloped’ countries), not at all.

Terrorized into believing that this is all that life has to offer, only the rarest individual aspires to more. Endless consumption of goods and services (no matter the quality, beauty or functionality) – see ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’ – at the expense of the Earth, becomes the reason for living. Because life itself no longer has meaning.

So here we are, a human population that is so devoid of self and planetary awareness that we are on the brink of precipitating our own extinction. Do you really believe that this is where we would be if we were all psychologically functional? Manipulated and controlled by an unaccountable global elite that is utterly insane – see ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’ – using its many agents, including governments, to easily deceive us into consuming ever more in pursuit of capitalism’s ‘God’ – endless economic growth (that is, corporate profit, power and privilege) – the bulk of the human population submissively unaware (except of the latest scandal or sports result) and most activists (who purport to be trying to do something about the perilous state of the world) incapable of thinking, planning and acting strategically to struggle for outcomes that are so desperately needed. See, for example, ‘Why Activists Fail’.

So what can we do?

Well, given that the enormous psychological dysfunctionality of most humans is the primary driver of our accelerating rush to extinction – again, see ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’ – I encourage you to seriously consider incorporating strategies to address this dysfunctionality into any effort you make to improve our world.

For most people, this will include starting with yourself. See ‘Putting Feelings First’.

For virtually all adults, it will include reviewing your relationship with children and, ideally, making ‘My Promise to Children’. Critically, this will include learning the skill of nisteling. See ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’.

For those who feel psychologically capable, consider campaigning strategically to achieve the outcomes we need. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy or Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy. The global elite is deeply entrenched – fighting its wars, exploiting people, destroying the biosphere, invading/occupying resource-rich countries – and not about to give way without a concerted effort by many of us campaigning strategically on several key fronts.

If you recognize the pervasiveness of the fear-driven violence in our world, consider joining the global network of people resisting it by signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

But if you do nothing else while understanding the simple point that Earth’s biosphere cannot sustain a human population of this magnitude of whom more than half endlessly over-consume, then consider accelerated participation in the strategy outlined in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’.

Or, if this feels too complicated, consider committing to:

The Earth Pledge 

Out of love for the Earth and all of its creatures, and my respect for their needs, from this day onwards I pledge that:

1. I will listen deeply to children(see explanation above)
2. I will not travel by plane
3. I will not travel by car
4. I will not eat meat and fish
5. I will only eat organically/biodynamically grown food
6. I will minimize the amount of fresh water I use, including by minimizing my ownership and use of electronic devices
7. I will not buy rainforest timber
8. I will not buy or use single-use plastic, such as bags, bottles, containers, cups and straws
9. I will not use banks, superannuation (pension) funds or insurance companies that provide any service to corporations involved in fossil fuels, nuclear power and/or weapons
10. I will not accept employment from, or invest in, any organization that supports or participates in the exploitation of fellow human beings or profits from killing and/or destruction of the biosphere
11. I will not get news from the corporate media (mainstream newspapers, television, radio, Google, Facebook, Twitter…)
12. I will make the effort to learn a skill, such as food gardening or sewing, that makes me more self-reliant
13. I will gently encourage my family and friends to consider signing this pledge.

Conclusion

There is a great deal wrong with our world, which continues to get worse every day. And, as should be obvious from my argument above, if we as a species do not start to remove the (largely unconscious) fear that limits our minds and governs our behavior, we will continue contributing to this predicament rather than resolving it.

I am well aware that this point is not where the typical individual wants to start and that is assuming the point is even understood. After all, because most fear is unconscious, it is easy for people to fail to identify their own dysfunctional behavior (or to rationalize it by believing in the ‘importance’ of what they do). So while you may like to believe that we do not have to ‘start’ with this point, collectively speaking, we cannot ignore it either, if human survival is our aim.

The key issue is that for our strategy to mobilize people in this great struggle for survival to be effective, we must also be mobilizing parents, teachers, religious leaders and other adults to reconsider and profoundly revise their relationship with children. This is because every child who is not dysfunctionalized becomes a powerful agent for change. If we do not do this, we will continue to undermine the overall struggle, even if we precipitate some interim victories along the way.

My own preoccupation is ending violence, averting human extinction and building anew and sustainably our relationships with the Earth and each other. What about you?

*

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

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here.

In this episode of Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox, Cindy and Mark discuss criminal Western war propaganda, how it fabricates tacit “consent” from ostensibly “anti-war” protestors, and how it enables the current overseas holocaust that imperils us all.

Some of the issues raised throughout the interview include these:

• “Anti-war” protestors embrace the “brutal dictator” myth, oblivious to known facts on-the-ground such as the multitudes of displaced Syrians in Lebanon who clamored to vote for President Assad and even a 2013 NATO survey[1] which demonstrated Assad’s massive support from Syrians.
• The Washington-led, publicly announced Regime Change war was not and is not a “Revolution”. “Color revolutions” are CIA et al. operations. NATO snipers (reportedly from Italy) disrupted peaceful protests by murdering innocent people (as per the Kiev operation).
• President Assad ordered soldiers and security personnel to disarm and to use batons only. Regime Change operatives slaughtered soldiers and security personnel.[2]
• The White Helmets, key agents in the war propaganda apparatus, are terrorists.[3]

Click the image above to listen to the interview.

*

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.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net.

Notes

[1] “NATO reveals 70% of Syrians support Bashar al-Assad.” Voltaire Network, 6 June, 2013. (https://www.voltairenet.org/article178779.html) Accessed 8 July, 2019.

[2] Basma Qaddour, “Mark Taliano’s ‘Voices from Syria” Debunks Lies Fabricated by the Western Media.” Global Research, 12 November, 2018, The Syria Times 11 November 2018. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/mark-talianos-voices-from-syria-debunks-lies-fabricated-by-the-western-media/5659573) Accessed 8 July, 2019.

[3] Mark Taliano, “Video: Who Are the White Helmets? Fake News and Staged Rescues.” Global Research, 26 December, 2018. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-who-are-the-white-helmets-fake-news-and-staged-rescues/5663906) Accessed 8 July, 2019.

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Rep. Peter King of New York said recently there will be plenty of dirt revealed on the FBI and CIA after Attorney General Bill Barr concludes his investigation into the efforts to sabotage Donald Trump’s election campaign. 

I have news for Mr. King. Both agencies have been involved in nasty business for decades, the difference is most of the nastiness focused on ordinary citizens, including your humble blogger, and not rich crony capitalists like Trump.

'Severe, Serious Abuses' By FBI, CIA Are 'Going To Come Out': Rep. Peter King https://t.co/btyJdLxIuN

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 7, 2019

In the mid-1970s, the Church Committee revealed all manner of illegal and unethical behavior by both the FBI and the CIA, mostly directed against political opponents of the state. 

For the FBI, it was COINTELPRO, while the CIA engaged in a number of operations in America forbidden by its charter. Both presidents Johnson and Nixon worked with the CIA to undermine the antiwar movement. Nixon characterized those opposed to the illegal war in Vietnam as “a wild orgasm of anarchists sweeping across the country like a prairie fire.”

The American Civil Liberties Union described it as follows:

Until the mid-1970’s, both the CIA and the National Security Agency (“NSA”) illegally investigated Americans. Despite the statutory provision in its charter prohibiting the CIA from engaging in law enforcement or internal security functions (50 U.S.C. 403-3(d)(1)), the CIA spied on as many as seven thousand Americans in Operation CHAOS. This operation in the 1960’s and early 1970’sinvolved spying on people who opposed the war in Vietnam, or who were student activists or were so-called black nationalists. Operation CHAOS involved an extensive program of information sharing from the FBI and other agencies to the CIA. The CIA received all of the FBI’s reports on the American peace movement, which numbered over 1,000/month by June of 1970, according to a Senate report issued by the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect To Intelligence Activities (” Church Committee Report”). The Church Committee Report revealed how simple passive information sharing from other agencies to the CIA became authorized spying and data collection on lawful American political activity protected by the First Amendment. 

But the CIA’s role pales in comparison to that of the FBI. The Church Committee found the agency guilty of 

• violating and ignoring the law;
• exceeding its powers with regard to domestic intelligence activity;
• using excessively intrusive techniques against United States citizens;
• using covert action to disrupt and discredit domestic groups;
• abusing intelligence information for political purposes; and
• having inadequate controls, as well as no accountability.

In addition, the agency engaged in violence against and assassination of political activists, primarily black nationalists. 

According to COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story, 

Between 1968-1971, FBI-initiated terror and disruption resulted in the murder of Black Panthers Arthur Morris, Bobby Hutton, Steven Bartholomew, Robert Lawrence, Tommy Lewis, Welton Armstead, Frank Diggs, Alprentice Carter, John Huggins, Alex Rackley, John Savage, Sylvester Bell, Larry Roberson, Nathaniel Clark, Walter TourÈ Pope, Spurgeon Winters, Fred Hampton, Mark Clark, Sterling Jones, Eugene Anderson, Babatunde X Omarwali, Carl Hampton, Jonathan Jackson, Fred Bennett, Sandra Lane Pratt, Robert Webb, Samuel Napier, Harold Russell, and George Jackson.

Brain Glick describes (War at Home) the tactics used by the FBI: 

1. Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit and disrupt. Their very presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential supporters. The FBI and police exploited this fear to smear genuine activists as agents.

2. Psychological Warfare From the Outside: The FBI and police used myriad other “dirty tricks” to undermine progressive movements. They planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents, employers, landlords, school officials andothers to cause trouble for activists.

3. Harassment through the Legal System The FBI and police abused the legal system to harass dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers of the law gave perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used conspicuous surveillance, “investigative” inter views, and grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence their supporters.

4. Extralegal Force and Violence: The FBI and police threatened, instigated, and themselves conducted break-ins, vandalism, assaults, and beatings. The object was to frighten dissidents and disrupt their movements. In the case of radical Black and Puerto Rican activists (and later Native Americans), these attacks-including political assassinations-were so extensive, vicious, and calculated that they can accurately be termed a form of official “terrorism.”

None of this illegal and unethical behavior is even mentioned in passing when the corporate propaganda media reports on how the FBI and CIA were used to sabotage Trump’s presidential bid. Both these agencies of the state were established primarily to destroy serious political opposition and disfavored governments.

In short, it’s only a problem when the political class is targeted. The untold destruction of careers, reputations, and the lives of political activists and others outside the establishment is of so little importance it barely warrants mention. 

In fact, COINTELPRO-like operations targeting political groups and individuals continue to this day and ramped up considerably after 9/11 and the passage of the PATRIOT Act. The most notable takedown was that of the Occupy Wall Street movement. However, the targeting of political outcasts on both the right and left are ongoing. 

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

As Congress arrives back into town and the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees prepare to question ex-Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller on July 17, partisan lines are being drawn even more sharply, as Russias-gate blossoms into Deep-State-gate. On Sunday, a top Republican legislator, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) took the gloves off in an unusually acerbic public attack on former leaders of the FBI and CIA.

King told a radio audience:

“There is no doubt to me there was severe, serious abuses that were carried out in the FBI and, I believe, top levels of the CIA against the President of the United States or, at that time, presidential candidate Donald Trump,” according to The Hill.

King (image on the right), a senior congressman specializing in national security, twice chaired the House Homeland Security Committee and currently heads its Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. He also served for several years on the House Intelligence Committee.

He asserted:

“There was no legal basis at all for them to begin this investigation of his campaign – and the way they carried it forward, and the way information was leaked. … All of this is going to come out. It’s going to show the bias. It’s going to show the baselessness of the investigation … and I would say the same thing if this were done to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders …It’s just wrong.”

The Long Island Republican added a well aimed swipe at what passes for the media today:

“The media went along with this – actually, keeping this farcical, ridiculous thought going that the President of the United States… was somehow involved in a conspiracy with Russia against his own country.”

According to King, the Justice Department’s review, ordered by Attorney General William Barr, would prove that former officials acted improperly. He was alluding to the investigation led by John Durham, U.S. Attorney in Connecticut. Sounds nice. But waiting for Durham to complete his investigation at a typically lawyerly pace would, I fear, be much like the experience of waiting for Mueller to finish his; that is, like waiting for Godot. What about now?

So Where is the IG Report on FISA?

That’s the big one. If Horowitz is able to speak freely about what he has learned, his report could lead to indictments of former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former Deputy Attorneys General Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein, and Dana Boente — Boente being the only signer of the relevant FISA applications still in office. (No, he has not been demoted to file clerk in the FBI library; at last report, he is FBI General Counsel!).

The DOJ inspector General’s investigation, launched in March 2018, has centered on whether the FBI and DOJ filing of four FISA applications and renewals beginning in October 2016 to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page amounted to abuse of the FISA process. (Fortunately for the IG, Obama’s top intelligence and law enforcement officials were so sure that Hillary Clinton would win that they did not do much to hide their tracks.)

The Washington Examiner reported last Tuesday, “The Justice Department inspector general’s investigation of potential abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is complete, a Republican congressman said, though a report on its findings might not be released for a month.”  The report continued:

“House Judiciary Committee member John Ratcliffe (R, Texas) said Monday he’d met with DOJ watchdog Michael Horowitz last week about his FISA abuse report. In a media interview, Ratcliffe said they’d discussed the timing, but not the content of his report and Horowitz ‘related that his team’s investigative work is complete and they’re now in the process of drafting that report. Ratcliffe said he was doubtful that Horowitz’s report would be made available to the public or the Congress anytime soon. ‘He [Horowitz] did relay that as much as 20% of his report is going to include classified information, so that draft report will have to undergo a classification review at the FBI and at the Department of Justice,’ Ratcliffe said. ‘So, while I’m hopeful that we members of Congress might see it before the August recess, I’m not too certain about that.’”

Earlier, Horowitz had predicted that his report would be ready in May or June but there may, in fact, be good reason for some delay. Fox News reported Friday that “key witnesses sought for questioning by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz (image on the left) early in his investigation into alleged government surveillance abuse have come forward at the 11th hour.” According to Fox’s sources, at least one witness outside the Justice Department and FBI has started cooperating — a breakthrough that came after Durham was assigned to lead a separate investigation into the origins of the FBI’s 2016 Russia case that led to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.

“Classification,” however, has been one of the Deep State’s favorite tactics to stymie investigations — especially when the material in question yields serious embarrassment or reveals crimes. And the stakes this time are huge.

Judging by past precedent, Deep State intelligence and law enforcement officials will do all they can to use the “but-it’s-classified” excuse to avoid putting themselves and their former colleagues in legal jeopardy. (Though this would violate Obama’s executive order 13526, prohibiting classification of embarrassing or criminal information).

It is far from clear that DOJ IG Horowitz and Attorney General Barr will prevail in the end, even though President Trump has given Barr nominal authority to declassify as necessary. Why are the the stakes so extraordinarily high?

What Did Obama Know, and When Did He Know It?

Recall that in a Sept. 2, 2016 text message to the FBI’s then-deputy chief of counterintelligence Peter Strzok, his girlfriend and then-top legal adviser to Deputy FBI Director McCabe, Lisa Page, wrote that she was preparing talking points because the president “wants to know everything we’re doing.” [Emphasis added.] It does not seem likely that the Director of National Intelligence, DOJ, FBI, and CIA all kept President Obama in the dark about their FISA and other machinations — although it is possible they did so out of a desire to provide him with “plausible denial.”

It seems more likely that Obama’s closest intelligence confidant, Brennan, told him about the shenanigans with FISA, that Obama gave him approval (perhaps just tacit approval), and that Brennan used that to harness top intelligence and law enforcement officials behind the effort to defeat Trump and, later, to emasculate and, if possible, remove him.

Moreover, one should not rule out seeing in the coming months an “Obama-made-us-do-it” defense — whether grounded in fact or not — by Brennan and perhaps the rest of the gang. Brennan may even have a piece of paper recording the President’s “approval” for this or that — or could readily have his former subordinates prepare one that appears authentic.

Reining in Devin Nunes

That the Deep State retains formidable power can be seen in the repeated Lucy-holding-then-withdrawing-the-football-for-Charlie Brown treatment experienced by House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member, Devin Nunes (R-CA, image on the right). On April 5, 2019, in the apparent belief he had a green light to go on the offensive, Nunes wrote that committee Republicans “will soon be submitting criminal referrals on numerous individuals involved … in the abuse of intelligence for political purposes. These people must be held to account to prevent similar abuses from occurring in the future.”

On April 7, Nunes was even more specific, telling Fox News that he was preparing to send eight criminal referrals to the Department of Justice “this week,” concerning alleged misconduct during the Trump-Russia investigation, including leaks of “highly classified material” and conspiracies to lie to Congress and the FISA court. It seemed to be no-holds-barred for Nunes, who had begun to talk publicly about prison time for those who might be brought to trial.

Except for Fox, the corporate media ignored Nunes’s explosive comments. The media seemed smugly convinced that Nunes’s talk of “referrals” could be safely ignored — even though a new sheriff, Barr, had come to town. And sure enough, now, three months later, where are the criminal referrals?

There is ample evidence that President Trump is afraid to run afoul of the Deep State functionaries he inherited. And the Deep State almost always wins. But if Attorney General Barr leans hard on the president to unfetter Nunes, IG Horowitz, Durham and like-minded investigators, all hell may break lose, because the evidence against those who took serious liberties with the law is staring them all in the face.

*

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.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. No fan of the current President, Ray has been trained to follow and analyze the facts, wherever they may lead. He spent 27 years as a CIA analyst, and prepared the President’s Daily Brief for three presidents. In retirement he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

All images in this article are from Consortiumnews

The Russian-Pakistani Strategic Partnership (“Rusi-Pakistani Yaar Yaar”) entered a new phase last week following two significant developments that included their decision to establish a High-Level Inter-Parliamentary Commission and their efforts to expand joint military ties.

A New Phase

The Russian-Pakistani Strategic Partnership (“Rusi-Pakistani Yaar Yaar“) entered a new phase last week following two significant developments that came just a few weeks after President Putin and Prime Minister Khan’s first meeting at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek, during which time it became obvious that the South Asian state is integral to the Eurasian future that the Russian leader articulated at the event. It therefore shouldn’t be a surprise that the two Great Powers decided to establish a High-Level Inter-Parliamentary Commission and expand their joint military ties following the Pakistani Chairman of the National Assembly’s visit to Moscow and the trip that the Russian Ground Force Commander-in-Chief paid to Islamabad, respectively.

Strategic Timing

These visits took place in the context of Russia’s “Return to South Asia“, whereby the Eurasian Great Power is prioritizing its relations with Pakistan in order to “balance” out India’s pro-American pivot after New Delhi fully committed itself to the US’ so-called “Indo-Pacific” strategy for “containing” China. The latest developments will intensify their political and military cooperation, thus deepening the trust between the two sides that was forged through their joint diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan and the active ones to preemptively thwart the regional terrorist threats that are emanating from the landlocked country. The enhancement of political ties could lead to the diversification of their strategic relations into the much-needed economic and connectivity realms, while their military ones could foreseeably result in more arms sales.

Substance Over Symbolism

It’s therefore the case that last week’s moves are much more substantial than cynics might think because they position these two Great Powers to take maximum advantage of the success that they’ve hitherto had in their fast-moving strategic partnership. Although a lot of work still remains to be done to broaden their ties to the point where they’re truly comprehensive and involve every sphere of bilateral relations, the groundwork has veritably been created to eventually take them to that level. It shouldn’t be forgotten that few thought that Russia and Pakistan would ever surmount their Old Cold War-era rivalry after the bitter historical memories that they share over their 1980s proxy war in Afghanistan, but the very fact that their parliaments and militaries are now partnering with one another should be appreciated for the historic new phase that they herald.

*

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.

Kamala Harris is rising in the polls after dramatically confronting Joe Biden during the Democratic primary debate about his opposition to federally mandated busing for desegregation. The following week, however, Harris backed away from saying that busing should always be federally mandated, calling it just one “tool that is in the toolbox” for school districts to use. When asked to clarify whether she would support federal mandates for busing, she said: “I believe that any tool that is in the toolbox should be considered by a school district.” But Biden’s poll numbers are falling as a result of Harris’s theatrical attack.

Harris, who served as San Francisco District Attorney from 2004 to 2011 and California Attorney General from 2011 to 2017, describes herself as a “progressive prosecutor­­­­.” Harris’s prosecutorial record, however, is far from progressive. Through her apologia for egregious prosecutorial misconduct, her refusal to allow DNA testing for a probably innocent death row inmate, her opposition to legislation requiring the attorney general’s office to independently investigate police shootings and more, she has made a significant contribution to the sordid history of injustice she decries.

Harris Tried to Whitewash Jail Informant Scandal in California

For years, perhaps decades, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, in cooperation with the Orange County District Attorney (OCDA), planted teams of informants in the jail to illegally elicit confessions.

Deputy sheriffs placed informants near defendants who were represented by counsel to obtain statements from them. Prosecutors were aware of this program and explicitly or implicitly promised benefits to informants. This violated the defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

In People v. Dekraai, an informant in this program illegally obtained statements from the defendant. After the prosecutor agreed not to use the statements, Dekraai pled guilty to murder and was preparing his defense for a trial on whether he would get the death penalty. He asked the judge to find that the OCDA had a conflict of interest because of its involvement in the jail informant program.

Over a six-month period, the judge held two hearings and heard from 39 witnesses.

The judge found that many witnesses, including prosecutors and law enforcement officers, were “credibility challenged” about the nature of the informant program and their role in it. Some couldn’t remember, the judge determined, but “others undoubtedly lied.”

Thus, the judge concluded that the OCDA had a conflict of interest and recused the entire OCDA office, removing it from any further involvement in Dekraai’s case.

Kamala Harris, who at that time was serving as State Attorney General, would then take over the prosecution of the death penalty phase of Dekraai’s trial. But Harris appealed the judge’s ruling and opposed the recusal of the OCDA.

In 2016, the Court of Appeal rejected Harris’s argument and upheld the trial judge’s recusal of the OCDA. The appellate court wrote in its opinion:

On the last page of the Attorney General’s reply brief it states, “The trial court’s order recusing the OCDA from prosecuting Dekraai’s penalty phase trial was a remedy in search of a conflict.” Nonsense. The court recused the OCDA only after lengthy evidentiary hearings where it heard a steady stream of evidence regarding improper conduct by the prosecution team. To suggest the trial judge prejudged the case is reckless and grossly unfair. These proceedings were a search for the truth.The order is affirmed.

Attorney Jerome Wallingford represented a man who, like Dekraai, was a victim of the illegal Orange County jail informant program.

“Harris should’ve done her job and investigated the informant program based on the findings of the Court of Appeal in the Dekraai case,” Wallingford told Truthout. “But instead, she tried to whitewash the scandal by protecting the DA and blaming the sheriff.”

The job of the attorney general is not to protect the DA. As chief law enforcement officer of the state, the attorney general’s duty is “to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced,” as mandated by Article V of the California Constitution. Harris violated her legal duty in this case.

Harris Minimized “Outrageous Government Misconduct”

Harris minimized “outrageous government misconduct” in People v. Velasco-Palacios. The trial court found the prosecutor “deliberately altered an interrogation transcript to include a confession that could be used to justify charges carrying a life sentence, and he distributed it to defense counsel during a period of time when [the prosecutor] knew defense counsel was trying to persuade defendant to settle the case.” After the prosecutor snuck the fabricated confession into the record, it caused the defense counsel to urge the defendant to plead guilty, which undermined the trust the client had in his lawyer.

The trial judge determined that the prosecutor’s action was “egregious, outrageous, and shocked the conscience,” and dismissed the case. Harris’s office appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, noting that “dismissal is an appropriate sanction for government misconduct that is egregious enough to prejudice a defendant’s constitutional rights.” Significantly, the appellate court stated that “egregious violations of a defendant’s constitutional rights are sufficient to establish outrageous government misconduct.”

But the Court of Appeal rejected Harris’s argument that if the conduct wasn’t physically brutal, it would not satisfy the “shock the conscience” standard required for dismissal.

Once again, Harris was covering up prosecutorial misconduct and ignoring the Supreme Court’s admonition in Berger v. U.S. that the duty of a prosecutor “is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.”

Harris Opposed Attorney General Investigations of Police Shootings

These cases are not isolated examples of Harris’s less-than-progressive record as a prosecutor.

“Time after time, when progressives urged her to embrace criminal justice reforms as a district attorney and then the state’s attorney general, Ms. Harris opposed them or stayed silent,” University of San Francisco School of Law Professor Lara Bazelon wrote in a New York Times article titled, “Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor.’” Bazelon added, “Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.”

After a federal judge ruled in 2014 that California’s death penalty system had become so dysfunctional it “violate[d] the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment,” Harris appealed the decision. As a result, California’s death penalty was upheld and remains in place today.

Harris refused DNA testing that could exonerate Kevin Cooper, a likely innocent man on death row, and she opposed statewide body-worn police cameras. Harris favored criminalizing truancy, raising cash bail fees and keeping prisoners locked up for cheap labor. She also supported reporting arrested undocumented juveniles to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, covering for corrupt police lab technicians and blocking gender confirmation surgery for a transgender prisoner. A U.S. District Court judge concluded that withholding the surgery constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Many of Harris’s prosecutorial actions disproportionately hurt people of color.

Harris opposed legislation requiring the attorney general’s office to independently investigate police shootings resulting in death. In 2016, members of the California Legislative Black Caucus called on Harris to do more to strengthen accountability for police misconduct. Assemblyman Kevin McCarthy (D-Sacramento), a member of the Black Caucus, told the Los Angeles Times, “The African American and civil rights community have been disappointed that [Harris] hasn’t come out stronger on this.”

Harris Refused to Prosecute the “Foreclosure King”

Although many of Harris’s prosecutorial actions harmed people of color, a notable one helped the white “foreclosure king” — Steve Mnuchin, now Trump’s Treasury secretary.

Mnuchin was CEO of OneWest Bank from 2009-2015. A 2013 memo obtained by The Intercept alleges that “OneWest rushed delinquent homeowners out of their homes by violating notice and waiting period statutes, illegally backdated key documents, and effectively gamed foreclosure auctions.”

After a yearlong investigation, the California attorney general’s Consumer Law Section “uncovered evidence suggestive of widespread misconduct.” In 2013, they recommended that Harris prosecute a civil enforcement lawsuit against the bank.

“Without any explanation,” Harris’s office declined to initiate litigation in the case.

Mnuchin donated $2,000 to Harris’s Senate campaign in February 2016. It was his only donation to a Democratic candidate.

In January 2017, the Campaign for Accountability claimed that Mnuchin and OneWest Bank used “potentially illegal tactics to foreclose on as many as 80,000 California homes,” and called for a federal investigation.

Harris wrote in her memoir, The Truths We Hold, “America has a deep and dark history of people using the power of the prosecutor as an instrument of injustice.” She added, “I know this history well — of innocent men framed, of charges brought against people without sufficient evidence, of prosecutors hiding information that would exonerate defendants, of the disproportionate application of the law.”

Indeed, the public record indicates that as district attorney and later as attorney general of California, Harris has contributed to the injustice she claims to abhor.

*

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

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The Omani Foreign Minister’s surprise visit to Syria strongly suggests that the Arab League’s de-facto “normalization” of relations with Syria is presently underway, but it also hints that something bigger might be at going on as well given that Muscat also enjoys excellent relations with Tel Aviv and Washington and has previously played the role of a behind-the-scenes regional mediator between the US and Damascus’ allies in Iran.

Syria’s so-called “isolation” from the rest of the Arab World is disappearing by the day ever since the UAE and Bahrain reopened their embassies in Damascus late last year, but now a new development has occurred after months of silence that strongly suggests that the Arab League’s de-facto “normalization” of relations with the Arab Republic is still underway. The Omani Foreign Minister paid a surprise visit to the Syrian capital over the weekend, reciprocating a sojourn that his Syrian counterpart made last spring, and media reports said that the purpose of the trip was to discuss regional affairs and economic issues.

Oman was one of the few Arab countries to maintain relations with Syria during the Hybrid War of Terror against it, and it’s traditionally played a mediator role between various countries in the region due to its traditional neutrality in practically every dispute. For example, Muscat was responsible for bringing Washington and Tehran together over half a decade ago and facilitating the JCPOA, and its sultan also hosted Netanyahu late last year in a clearest sign yet that the self-professed “Jewish State” and the GCC of which Oman is an integral component are on the brink of proudly making their secret strategic partnership public very soon.

So close has Oman become to “Israel” over the past year that the same Foreign Minister that met with President Assad earlier met with Netanyahu during the anti-Iranian conference in Warsaw and declared that his interlocutor’s obvious innuendo to recognize his political entity “is an important, new vision for the future”. The Mossad chief even revealed earlier last week that “Israel” might open up a Foreign Ministry office in Oman, and although Muscat officially denied this, it’s clear to see which way the proverbial wind is blowing and seems destined to happen sooner than later.

This strategic political backdrop makes the Omani Foreign Minister’s surprise visit to Syria very intriguing because it carries with it the hint that he might have passed along a message from his country’s new “Israeli” ally that could realistically pertain to its innumerable Russian-facilitated bombings against Iranian military units in the Arab Republic. To make this event all the more curious, it was immediately preceded by reports from the well-connected and pro-Damascus Al-Masdar News (AMN) media outlet that President Assad replaced his supposedly pro-Iranian intelligence chief at the behest of Saudi Arabia, Oman’s chief benefactor.

If true, and there’s no credible reason to doubt AMN’s integrity in posting such a significant story, then that would imply that President Assad might be preparing to finally request Iran’s dignified but “phased withdrawal” in accordance with his Russian patron’s vision for sustainably resolving his country’s long-running conflict. His decision might have of course been influenced by “Israel’s” latest strikes, which proved that the recent Jerusalem Summit was a success in the sense of getting the host entity and its Russian & American allies on the same page regarding the need to pressure Damascus to remove the Islamic Republic’s forces from the country.

Although some Alt-Media outlets published several wishful thinking stories that the summit was a “failure”, that narrative was debunked after President Putin accepted a call from Netanyahu on Monday and the official Kremlin website reported that the two “discussed matters related to Russian-Israeli cooperation in the Syrian settlement process considering the results of the trilateral meeting between the Russian, Israeli and US security council secretaries held on June 25, 2019”, and that “In particular, they emphasised the importance of further cooperation between military agencies.” On top of that, Netanyahu was invited to attended V-Day 2020, too.

Given the close cooperation that “Israel” has with Russia and Oman, as well as Moscow’s efforts to “reshape Syria’s ‘deep state’ in its own image” and Muscat’s traditional regional mediating role, the context of the Omani Foreign Minister visiting Damascus just a day after President Assad reportedly removed his pro-Iranian intelligence chief convincingly hints that he made the independent choice (though possibly under intense Russian-“Israeli” pressure) to begin gently distancing himself from the Islamic Republic and that the Gulf diplomat was tasked by Tel Aviv to see just how serious he really is about this incipient pivot.

Oman did the unthinkable over half a decade ago by helping to broker what eventually became known as the JCPOA, so it wouldn’t exactly be unprecedented if it sought to facilitate the de-facto “normalization” of ties between Syria and “Israel” in a similar manner as it’s also currently trying to do between Syria and the Arab League. This process could even be part and parcel of the so-called “Deal of the Century” for geostrategically re-engineering the Mideast during the onset of the emerging Multipolar World Order, so in answering the question of on whose orders Oman sent its Foreign Minister to Syria, it’s “Israel’s” with US & Russian approval.

*

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

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

Featured image:  Syrian President Bashar Assad, right, meets with Oman’s Foreign Minister Yusuf bin Alawi, left, in Damascus, Syria, Sunday, July 7, 2019. (Source: SANA)

We are this close to an unimaginable apocalyptic horror:

Had Friday’s 7.1 earthquake and other ongoing seismic shocks hit less than 200 miles northwest of Ridgecrest/China Lake, ten million people in Los Angeles would now be under an apocalyptic cloud, their lives and those of the state and nation in radioactive ruin.    

The likely human death toll would be in the millions. The likely property loss would be in the trillions. The forever damage to our species’ food supply, ecological support systems, and longterm economy would be very far beyond any meaningful calculation. The threat to the ability of the human race to survive on this planet would be extremely significant.

The two cracked, embrittled, under-maintained, unregulated, uninsured, and un-inspected atomic reactors at Diablo Canyon, near San Luis Obispo, would be a seething radioactive ruin.

Their cores would be melting into the ground. Hydrogen explosions would be blasting the site to deadly dust. One or both melted cores would have burned into the earth and hit ground or ocean water, causing massive steam explosions with physical impacts in the range of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The huge clouds would send murderous radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere that would permanently poison the land, the oceans, the air … and circle the globe again and again, and yet again, filling the lungs of billions of living things with the most potent poisons humans have ever created.

In 2010, badly maintained gas pipes run by Pacific Gas & Electric blew up a neighborhood in San Bruno, killing eight people. PG&E’s badly maintained power lines have helped torch much of northern California, killing 80 people and incinerating more than 10,000 structures.

Now in bankruptcy, with its third president in two years, PG&E is utterly unqualified to run two large, old, obsolete, crumbling atomic reactors which are surrounded by earthquake faults. At least a dozen faults have been identified within a small radius around the reactors. The reactor cores are less than fifty miles from the San Andreas fault, less than half the distance that Fukushima Daiichi was from the epicenter that destroyed four reactors there.

Diablo cannot withstand an earthquake of the magnitude now hitting less than 200 miles away. In 2014, the Associated Press reported that Dr. Michael Peck, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s site inspector at Diablo, had warned that the two reactors should be shut because they can’t withstand a seismic shock like the one that has just hit so close. The NRC tried to bury Peck’s report. They attacked his findings, then shipped him to Tennessee. He’s no longer with the Commission.

All major reactor disasters have come with early warnings. A 1978 accident at Ohio’s Davis-Besse reactor presaged the 1979 disaster at Three Mile Island. The realities were hidden, and TMI spewed radiation that killed local people and animals in droves.

Soviet officials knew the emergency shut-down mechanism at Chernobyl could cause an explosion — but kept it secret. Unit Four exploded the instant the rods meant to shut it down were deployed.

Decades before disaster struck at Fukushima Daiichi, millions of Japanese citizens marched to demand atomic reactors NOT be built in a zone riddled by fault lines, washed by tsunamis.

In California, ten thousand citizens were arrested demanding the same.  Diablo’s owners hid the existence of the Hosgri Fault just three miles from the site. A dozen more nearby fault lines have since been found, capable in tandem of delivering shocks like the ones shaking Ridgecrest. No significant structural improvements have been made to deal with the newfound fault lines.

The truly horrifying HBO series on Chernobyl currently topping all historic viewership charts shows just a small sample of the ghastly death and destruction that can be caused by official corruption and neglect.

Like Soviet apparatchiks, the state of California has refused to conduct independent investigations on the physical status of the two Diablo reactors. It has refused to hold public hearings on Dr. Peck’s warnings that they can’t withstand seismic shocks like the ones now being experienced so dangerously nearby. If there are realistic plans to evacuate Los Angeles and other downwind areas during reactor melt-downs/explosions, hearings on them have yet to be held.

In the wake of the 2011 explosions at Fukushima, the NRC staff compiled critical reforms for American reactors, including Diablo. But the Commission killed the proposed regulations. So nothing significant has been done to improve safety at two coastal reactors upwind of ten million people that are surrounded by earthquake faults in a tsunami zone like the one where the four Fukushima reactors have already exploded.

There are no excuses. These seismic shocks will never stop. Diablo is scheduled to shut in 2024 and 2025. But massive advances in wind, solar, batteries and efficiency have already rendered the nukes’ power unnecessary. A petition demanding Governor Newsom and the state independently investigate Diablo’s ability to operate safely is at www.solartopia.org.

That petition began circulating before these latest quakes. The continued operation of these two reactors has now gone to a whole new level of apocalyptic insanity.

*

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.

Harvey Wasserman’s Green Power & Wellness Show is podcast at prn.fm; California Solartopia is broadcast at KPFK-Pacifica, 90.7 fm, Los Angeles. His book The People’s Spiral of US History: From Deganawidah to Solartopia will soon be at www.solartopia.org.

Children are ripped from their parents at the border or lying dead, together, their arms around their father’s neck on the banks of the Rio Grande, the result of a cruel immigration strategy. Iranians face empty shelves and rising prices as US sanctions bite deeply. Palestinians, without work, are crowded into refugee camps in Gaza as public services slump, funding cut off by the United States. Cubans dealing with another devastating season of shortages of medicines and food as the United States tightens its embargo. Central Americans suffer at the hands of criminal and narcotics organizations and gang violence, having lost the pittance of resources they once had to relieve the violence as the United States cuts off assistance. Yemenis die daily under a rain of fire launched by Saudi aircraft, using American-supplied weapons.

The consistent effect of American intervention, cruel sanctions, and border chaos is human suffering. Wherever the Trump administration thinks it is making negotiating progress it has not only not made any progress, it is contributing to disastrous living conditions, suffering, and pain for the world’s people.

This is the ugly face of America. All of the virtues of this once-powerful country—its principles, its culture, its economic strength, its democratic governance—have collapsed in a rubble of devastation, pain, and suffering.

To state the obvious, the United States, even Donald Trump, is not responsible for all the political, economic, and social pain in the world.

Dislike of America is on the rise globally, however. Unlike the myth that American intends good in the world, and has occasionally provided some, today the world has no expectation that America intends any such thing.

An ugly foreign policy implemented by a powerful country has had exactly the opposite impact.  It does not strengthen leadership or respect. It confirms to others that they are on their own and need to leave the United States behind.

This shift in power was happening well before Trump came to office. It was apparent in the inevitable rise of Chinese military and economic power, the independent political and military actions of Putin’s Russia, the rise of Indian economic and military capabilities, and the independent foreign policy of a once-NATO-stalwart Turkey. It could be seen in the expansion of Iranian regional influence, the irrelevance of the United States in Syria, an assertive Germany and Japan, and in the failed U.S.-led interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bullying cruelty of this administration’s foreign policy is gasoline poured on the burning fire of this rebalancing.

Is the suffering, cruelty, and lost reputation reversible? Whatever a different presidency or Congress brings to the table, the global tide has turned. The political class and chattering commentators do not quite get this, as yet. Too many people still dream of a “restoration” of American leadership, a return of the “exceptional” America that confronts China or Russia, a recreation of the “indispensable” nation that protects the global commons and the rules-based international order.  Those days are gone in a blistering fire accelerated by the Trumpian gasoline.

A return to generosity and the restoration of American democracy will not be enough. The United States has to recognize that power has shifted irreversibly. It must be willing to engage on equal terms with other global and regional powers and accept that Washington cannot do everything (and will not be welcome if it tries). The United States must be ready to confront real challenges like inequality, poverty, racism, prejudice, hatred, and a new climate that challenges human survival. Military cooperation, not supremacy, will be necessary. And, above all, U.S. diplomacy must be restored and reformed not just with more money but with more realistic thinking about American strategy.

The ugly American foreign policy will have to be replaced with a more benign, realistic engagement strategy that accepts that the United States is no longer “indispensable” but another player, among many, on the world stage.

*

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.

Gordon Adams is Professor Emeritus at the School of International Service, American University and, since 2008, a Distinguished Fellow (non-resident) at the Stimson Center both in Washington, DC.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

Who would have thought that, during the attempted coup d’état in Venezuela on January 23 and its immediate aftermath, Caracas would become, only five months later, the epicentre of the Latin American left? The XXV São Paulo Forum is planned for July 25–28 in the very Caracas that was supposed to be in the hands of the US and its allies. The day of the coup attempt, international hemispheric right-wing reaction – from the north, in Ottawa, through Washington, DC, to Bogotá and southward to Lima and Santiago de Chile – was ready to get the champagne bottles popping.

While capturing Venezuela’s oil was and obviously remains the objective, the destruction of Chavismo as an example and inspiration also was and remains a key consideration. It weighed heavily in the balance as the US and its allies launched their daring coup on January 23. It was not the first such direct US intervention in the country, the previous one having been launched against Chávez in his day.

However, this latest version was expected to be a sure winner for US imperialism. Everything was in place, including catapulting a “popular” new leader from the “grassroots,” who happened to be an actual elected member of parliament! This stroke of genius was apparently meant to replace the overtly capitalist Federation of Chambers of Commerce, which looked like a civilian Pinochet police lineup when they posed for a photo opportunity back in 2002.

No, this was to be a new version of a coup. This new face of imperialism had at its disposal a ready-made dream team coalition in the form of the Lima Cartel. The main original feature of this entity was that it did not include the universally detested Trump, who was replaced by his supposed political antithesis from Canada, Justin Trudeau, so as to give credibility to the Trump administration.

The massive use of international corporate media in an unprecedented demonization campaign against a leader, in this case Maduro, was supported “on the ground” by the foot soldiers of pro-US social media all over the planet. The Bolivarian resistance was fierce, and Maduro in particular exhibited nerves of steel and foresight.

The US and its allies in the hemisphere, and beyond from Old Europe, organized two more coup attempts and three electrical power grid failures in March, on top of the successive economic and diplomatic sanctions that had already caused 40,000 deaths by January 23. Despite the hardships and the tense situation, overtures to the armed forces to desert the government fell on deaf ears.

On the contrary, the civic–military alliance not only held its own but further developed its political/ideological and patriotic consciousness even as it spread further into the population. From January 23 to the present, millions of Chavistas have regularly shown support for THEIR revolution, expressing in a more convincing manner than the ballot box that Maduro is their legitimate president.

In the course of this resistance, the Bolivarian Revolution further developed its policy of combining revolutionary struggle (not trusting imperialism one iota, as Che put it), based on the principles thereof, with a search for a negotiated, peaceful political solution with the opposition – a brilliant example of revolutionary diplomacy.

In this context, and with São Paulo in mind, we should appreciate the work of the Bolivarian Revolution, Maduro and his entire leadership (e.g. Jorge Arreaza as a bilingual, globetrotting foreign minister) on another front: they are actively building ties with the left-wing anti-imperialist forces in the heartland of imperialism. Maduro, for example, personally and explicitly extended a hand on behalf of the Bolivarian Revolution to the left-wing forces in Washington who had courageously occupied the Venezuelan Embassy to protect it from pro-US forces.

To take another of many examples, the Venezuelan diplomatic missions in Canada did not hesitate to recognize the statements issued by Canadian unions in January and February, on behalf of their five million members, in support of Venezuela’s right to self-determination in the face of the Canadian government’s pro-Trump policy of interference.

This outreach is reciprocal, as the left in the capitalist countries – the US, Canada and the UK, in particular – have been flocking to Caracas since January to witness and report back in response to the massive disinformation campaign against Venezuela. This trend has become, in a manner of speaking, the 2019 digital version of the international brigades that went to support the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War.

When I had the opportunity to listen to Maduro in a small meeting with a foreign delegation on February 4, 2019, one of several significant points he made was that Venezuela is, despite itself, being forced onto the international stage as the international epicentre of anti-imperialism. And, of course, the Bolivarian Revolution is up to the challenge.

I would add that as a result of the international situation and the Bolivarian Revolution, the left has moved more to the left. The principled stand of Venezuela has forced the false friends of the Bolivarian Revolution out of the woodwork. This tendency had been a dead weight on the Bolivarian process in any case, sowing doubts about it from a safe distance.

Since the coup attempt, they have openly fallen into the US narrative in which the elections of May 2018 were “deficient,” marred by “irregularities” and “manipulation,” and, of course, the idea that Maduro is an “authoritarian.” The US presents these people as the “reasonable” voice of the campaign against Venezuela, seeking sorely needed credibility for its manoeuvres in this way.

In return, the false friends continually pronounce the keywords (“fraudulent,” “authoritarian”) so as to retain their academic privileges and their access to the mainstream. The latent “critical support” evinced before January 23 has converged with the US narrative, retaining some left-wing rhetoric in a desperate attempt to maintain credibility.

As to the statement that, as a result of the Bolivarian Revolution, the left has moved more to the left, it is useful at times to investigate how the enemy regards this movement. After all, the empire is highly sensitive to the reinforcement of Chavismo as an undesired boomerang effect of its interference in Venezuela. Judging by an article in World Politics Review titled “Venezuela’s Crisis Is Drawing New Ideological Lines in Latin America,” the empire’s worst nightmare is coming true:

“It is no longer possible for Latin American leaders to issue fuzzy statements now that the Venezuelan opposition has declared Maduro an illegitimate president. When Juan Guaidó, the head of Venezuela’s National Assembly, declared himself interim president last month, it compelled every leader in the region to make their position regarding the government clear.” 

On the other hand, this move to the left is also reflected in the fact that the courageous, principled left-wing forces in the US and Canada have actually expanded into new areas. In addition, and this is very important, the blatant media campaign against Venezuela has vastly strengthened their political consciousness.

It has likewise resulted in a flurry of new social media as well as a multifold increase in the use of already existing social media and alternative websites dedicated, among other causes, to the Bolivarian Revolution.

For those of us who follow alternative and Venezuelan media, the blatant lies are so frustrating that it results in even stronger resolve, and thus a more left-wing stand on important international issues as well as the domestic situation in the imperialist countries.

Thus, the choice of Caracas for the next SãoPaulo Forum is not an arbitrary decision. It is a natural and inevitable choice that is well deserved by Maduro and the millions of Chavistas who will welcome the progressive forces to the very city of Caracas that was supposed to have been occupied by the US and its allies.

When one is on the correct side of history, this is what happens. It is important to reflect on the historical importance of the five months subsequent to January 23, not only for Latin America, but also for the entire hemisphere and indeed the world, as the outcome in Latin America impacts all of humankind.

*

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

This article was first published in Spanish on Firmas Selectas Prensa Latina (Cuba).

Arnold August is a Canadian journalist and lecturer, the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion and Cuba–U.S. Relations: Obama and Beyond. He collaborates with many web sites, television and radio broadcasts based in Latin America, Europe, North America and the Middle East. Twitter  Facebook, His trilingual website:  www.arnoldaugust.com.

Featured image is from Prensa Latina

Recently the U.S. President Donald Trump formally launched his 2020 re-election campaign in front of a large crowd in Orlando, Florida. The campaign is gaining momentum. We have already seen the celebrities and politicians speeches, preliminary ratings and even the economic models of the New York Times predicting Trump’s victory.

For his part, the candidate keeps on delighting the world community by posting promising Tweets to increase his popularity and to retake votes from his opponents. According to Gallup, 45% of U.S. adults said Trump should be impeached and removed from office over the matter, while 53% said he should not be. 45% is too much for the sitting president, so it has been decided to increase his positions in the eyes of freedom fighters.

In this case, we are not speaking about the strict implementation of all his statements, but only about election promises that can snatch the next agenda from competitors. For instance, the situation is so with Trump’s report on the withdrawal of the U.S. troops from Afghanistan. It looks like the White House analysts are working on the same scenario.

Last Monday President Trump told Fox News that he would leave an intelligence presence in Afghanistan, though he has long hoped for a full withdrawal of U.S. military presence from the country. So, according to Trump’s statement, the U.S. will retain intelligence in the region. That’s ridiculous! Washington has been trying to withdraw troops from Afghanistan for several years.

Boutros Marjana – the head of Syria’s parliamentary Foreign Relations Committee in response stated that this action was focused on the media, to make the average American to believe that the unnecessary and external conflict is over.

“Tramp said the same on Syria. However, a radical change in the area of hostilities has not happened. The situation on the ground is quite different from what was stated. So far, in my opinion, the United States has not developed a strategy for the situation in the eastern coast of the Euphrates River”, Marjana said.

And while Trump is posting Tweets for his electorate, the U.S.-led international coalition carried out another air raid on the residential area in Idlib province. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) units were the alleged aim of the aviation. The details on casualties among civilians have not been reported. It worth noting, that during the previous bombardment, apart from the extremists, 49 civilians in a mosque were killed.

U.S. Central Command announced that the attack had been initiated in response to HTS terrorist acts in residential areas. It is unlikely that Trump will actually withdraw from Syria or Afghanistan because the killing of terrorists and civilians does not stop.

Moreover, telling the world about the withdrawal of troops the White House decided to put pressure upon Germany to expand its participation in the Syrian conflict (apparently instead of Washington).

Currently, Germany supplies weapons and surveillance planes to Syria. However, the United States insists on Germany to send its ground forces.

It is hardly surprising that some international coalition members suddenly proclaim their participation in the joint operation against ISIS terrorists under any pretext. In fact, their contingent will be intended to replace the U.S. troops that following Trump’s intention should be withdrawn from Syria. Wonder who will get all the U.S. military bases in Syria? In this situation, the obvious question arises: why should the EU troops be located in Syria instead of the U.S.? And who is going to replace the U.S. forces in Afghanistan?

At the same time, Israel is also playing an active role in the ‘peacemaking’ process in Syria. On June 1, at least 15 citizens, including five women and a child, were killed as a result of the Israeli air strike on Syria.

Anyway, illegal U.S. forces presence is a considerable obstacle to the political settlement of the Syrian conflict. And the cynical Israeli air attacks, as well as its international policy, break any hope for resolving all disputes peacefully. Trump may make the only right decision that will let him increase his ratings using the Syrian issue. The current president should do his best to reconcile the parties, suspend cooperation with Israel, and also establish a dialogue with Turkey, Russia, and Iran. That is very unlikely. Therefore Trump has to go on tricks with a contingent from other states.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

The Venezuelan government has disputed the findings of a report released by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

Having seen the report in advance of its publication, Caracas issued a 70-point statement pointing towards what Venezuelan authorities term a “selective and openly biased” view of the human rights situation in the Caribbean country.

“The distorted view of the report is a result of the significant shortcomings in the methodology behind it,” the statement reads.

One of the main points of contention is that out of the 558 interviews carried out, 460 of them involved people not currently in Venezuela.

The government went on to criticize the fact that the report downplays the consequences of US sanctions against Venezuela and ignores research on the subject, including a recent study published by Washington DC-based Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) which estimated that 40,000 people have died since 2017 as a result of US coercive measures.

The US Treasury Department has levied successive rounds of sanctions against various sectors of the Venezuelan economy, as well as freezing Venezuelan assets held abroad. The oil industry has been particularly hit, with an embargo put in place in January that blocks Venezuela from exporting crude to the US as well as from importing diluents needed to produce fuel and refine heavy crude into exportable grades.

Sanctions have drastically reduced imports by shrinking the government’s foreign currency revenue, while also limiting access to financial markets and placing obstacles to commercial transactions. According to Torino Capital Chief Economist Francisco Rodriguez, imports fell to just US $303 million in April, marking a 64 percent decline from last year’s average and a 93.2 percent drop relative to 2012.

Despite recognizing that US sanctions “are exacerbating the economic crisis,” the report contains no recommendation for the measures to be lifted.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet presented the report to the Human Rights Council in Geneva on Friday. The text argues that Venezuelan special forces FAES and forensic police body CICPC have been “responsible for numerous extrajudicial executions,” and other practices meant to “instil fear and maintain social control.”

The OHCHR’s report additionally points the finger at corruption and the deterioration of public services, as well as difficulties in the population’s access to food and healthcare, while also expressing “concern” that Venezuelan migration will continue to grow.

The UN Human Rights body ends with a series of recommendations, including calling on the government to investigate serious human rights violations, dissolve the FAES, and allow a permanent OHCHR country office to be established.

The report came on the heels of the death of retired navy officer Rafael Acosta in state custody on June 29, with the Venezuelan opposition claiming he died as a result of torture. Two National Guard officers have been arrested and charged with manslaughter. Acosta had been arrested for his alleged involvement in a coup plot that included the assassination of President Maduro and other high-ranking figures.

Former Chilean President Bachelet recently made a historic three-day visit to Caracas, in which she held meetings with government and opposition officials, as well as human rights NGOs and activist groups.

Some of the organizations which met with Bachelet, such as Fundalatin or the Committee of Guarimba Victims representing victims of violent street protests staged by the opposition in 2014 and 2017, expressed their disappointment that their voices were not included in the report.

“Bachelet’s report makes the victims invisible and protects those responsible for the violence that has caused the country so much damage,” the Committee said on Twitter.

UN Independent Expert Alfred de Zayas likewise criticized the OHCHR’s report, calling it “fundamentally flawed and disappointing” and a “missed opportunity.”

“It is unprofessional for the UN staff to ignore or not give appropriate weight to the submissions by [human rights organizations] Fundalatin, Grupo Sures, the Red Nacional de Derechos Humanos, and the specific answers provided by the government,” de Zayas wrote in personal blog, while also lamenting the scarce attention paid to sanctions in the report.

The UN High Commissioners’ Office likewise announced on Friday that 22 people had been released from prison upon request by Bachelet. The list includes journalist and businessman Braulio Jatar and former judge Maria Afiuni. Venezuela’s Supreme Court confirmed the release of Jatar and Afiuni, while offering no information on the other 20 cases, while Reuters describes them as “students.”

Jatar had been arrested in 2016 on charges of money laundering and extortion, whereas Afiuni was indicted on corruption charges in 2009 after she ordered the release of businessman Eligio Cedeno. Cedeno had several corruption charges against him and subsequently fled the country. Afiuni had been handed a five year sentence in March.

*

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

The US considers itself master of the universe, demanding submissiveness from all other nations.

Its bipartisan ruling authorities tolerate no independent states or social democracies like Venezuela, no military or economic superpowers like Russia and China respectively — what hegemonic arrogance is all about, enforced extrajudicially with an iron fist.

Most often, Europe follows Washington’s lead, its member states operating as virtual colonies, doing as they’re told, their sovereignty sacrificed to a higher power.

When the Trump regime illegally abandoned the JCPOA nuclear deal, Europe followed suit, breaching its obligations like the US.

No matter. These nations demand Iran stick to what it agreed to even though the nuclear deal lets Tehran cease observing its commitments (including its voluntary ones) when other signatories breach theirs.

That’s precisely what happened, except for Russia and China. The US, Britain, France, Germany, and the EU agreed to one thing, then walked away from their legal obligations.

The JCPOA became binding international law when unanimously adopted by Security Council members in 2015.

Despite increasing its enriched uranium beyond the JCPOA stipulated 360 kg limit/3.67% purity level, Iran remains in compliance with the agreement’s provisions.

The US-led West again showed it can’t be trusted by breaching what what was pledged to observe.

The Trump regime arrogantly demands Iran halt its legal right to enrich uranium altogether. The State Department said “(n)o nuclear deal should ever allow (Tehran) to enrich uranium at any level.”

Its overlord Pompeo, masquerading as a diplomat, operating like a crime boss, warned Iran of “further isolation and sanctions,” adding:

Tehran “armed with nuclear weapons would pose an even greater danger to the world.” No matter that the Islamic Republic abhors these weapons, doesn’t seek them, and wants them eliminated everywhere.

The US, NATO, Israel, and their imperial partners pose an unprecedented menace to world peace and humanity’s survival — not Iran, a law-abiding nation threatening no one.

For US and Western policymakers, it’s OK for Israel to be nuclear armed and dangerous, to refuse to be a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatory, to be an IAEA member state without permitting its monitors anywhere near its nuclear weapons facilities.

It’s also OK for the Jewish state to maintain illegal stockpiles of chemical, biological, and other banned weapons, to wage war on Palestinians and Syria without declaring it, to be run by fascist extremists, Zionist ideologues, and religious fundamentalists, masquerading as democratic.

All of the above applies to Washington, run by its war party with two extremist right wings, a plutocratic increasingly totalitarian state, a fantasy democracy, never the real thing throughout its history.

No one is allowed near its secret nuclear, chemical, biological, and other banned weapons facilities, monitoring out of the question, including its global empire of bases — used as platforms for endless preemptive wars on nations threatening no one, the supreme high crime against peace.

The US long ago abandoned virtually every international and constitutional law, norm, and standard interfering with its drive for global hegemony, operating by its own rules exclusively, demanding all nations worldwide subordinate their sovereignty to its interests.

That’s what the scourge of imperialism is all about, along with smashing nations unwilling to bend to the US master of the universe.

On Sunday, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said his government will scale back other voluntary commitments it agreed to observe under the JCPOA in 60 days if Europe remains in breach of the deal.

Britain, France, and Germany responded, demanding Tehran fully honor its JCPOA commitments even though these countries abandoned theirs after Trump pulled out of the deal in May 2018 — breaching Security Council Resolution 2231 adopting the agreement, making it binding international law.

On Sunday, Russia’s Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna Mikhail Ulyanov said “(w)e understand  (what) pushed the Iranians to” increase their uranium enrichment — an expected move in response to the Western breach, Tehran acting in a transparent manner.

Urging Iran not to “complicate the situation” further, Ulyanov believes “there is space to continue diplomatic efforts, and they will be continued.”

Diplomacy isn’t one way, how the US and its go along European partners operate. Resolving differences with Iran requires the West to comply with its JCPOA obligations.

Iran clearly said it will resume full compliance with its voluntary commitments if Europe does the same thing.

The US aside, for the agreement to work, its other signatories must comply with its provisions.

Normalization of Iran’s trade with Europe, especially oil sales to its markets, is essential to preserve the JCPOA.

It requires Britain, France, Germany, and the EU to break with the US on this issue, refuse to observe its sanctions, and go their own way independent of its illegal demands.

What hasn’t happened so far is highly unlikely ahead. The JCPOA may be doomed because of US-led Western noncompliance.

A Final Comment

Chairman of Iran’s Parliament National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Mojtaba Zonnour said his government will enrich uranium to the level needed for its legitimate nuclear-related industries.

Enrichment will first be increased to a 5% purity level to fuel the country’s nuclear reactors.

Ahead, enrichment may be increased to 20%, its pre-JCPOA level, to produce radiopharmaceutical and fuel research reactors like the 5 MW Razi research reactor in Tehran.

Taking these steps is Iran’s legal right, what it sacrificed for establishment of the JCPOA.

Trump regime hardliners want the deal eliminated, why it pulled out. They want Iran to resume its (legitimate) pre-agreement nuclear activities, giving them a pretext to push DJT toward war on the country.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

Swedish prosecutors have this week announced that for the time being they will not be issuing a European Investigation Order (EIO) to interview Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks.  According to Sweden’s Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions,  Eva-Marie Persson,”…it is currently not on the cards to issue a European investigation order…” For now, they will be analysing evidence before making a decision regarding procedure. So, how is it possible she is now not in a position to interview him – yet two months ago she requested his detention so that she could issue a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) against him and start an extradition process?

If Swedish prosecutors are to follow through with this latest investigation attempt, it will have been the third time that Assange will have been interviewed by Swedish authorities for what is essentially the same inquiry. If Persson is not in a position to proceed with an EIO, how can it have been practical or proportionate for her in May to have pursued his detention for the purpose of extraditing him to Sweden from the UK?  According to the 2014 legislation by the European Court of Justice, authorities not in a position to prosecute do not require an EAW, but should carry out investigation through an investigation order.  In fact, a Swedish court called the Swedish prosecutor’s request for Assange’s detention disproportionate and refused to grant it on June 3rd, suggesting that at least some judges and authorities are deferring to the European Court regarding EAW issuance and proportionality.

It simply does not make sense that one minute it’s full steam ahead with talk about arrest and extradition and the next, ‘Well, we’ll keep you posted.’  Is this how the Swedish prosecuting authority works?  Or is that how it works for Julian Assange? There is only one logical conclusion from the latest development:  the Swedish prosecutors were not in a position to prosecute Assange yet attempted to have him extradited anyway. This surely makes a mockery of the attempts by human rights organisations and the European Court to stop the ongoing abuse of the EAW.

How can they claim they needed to start procedures for extradition while at the same time have no immediate intention to interview?  Is it not the case that this type of calculated misuse of the EAW back in 2010, followed by an obstructive application of the law is what led to Assange being held in arbitrary detention in the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years? Again, Swedish authorities failed to interview him for years while hanging the threat of extradition over him, a situation which was ruled on by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) as de facto incarceration.

How “not on the cards to issue a European Investigation Order” for an interview compares to the British Courts’ decision to extradite Assange to Sweden for prosecution:

It should be remembered that the British courts ruled on the 2010 EAW against Assange, and agreed to extradite him.  One of the deciding factors in their decision was that the Swedish prosecutors issued the EAW in order to prosecute, not just interview him. In 2012 he lost his final appeal after which time fled to the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden, fearing he would then be extradited on to the US where he believed he was wanted for his role in exposing US war crimes, a fear now known to be true. Yet, within the last few weeks a Swedish court has ruled that a new EAW against Assange would be disproportionate, while the prosecutor involved is currently unprepared to interview him.  Therefore, recent events clearly vindicate Assange’s defence during his previous appeal: they indicate the 2010 EAW against him was for an interview, and not a prosecution, therefore, the British courts were wrong. In effect, the courts legitimised the overt abuse of the EAW. If justice were now to be applied fair and evenly, then Assange would be due compensation and remedy for this injustice, as indicated in the UNWGAD statement.

Flexing Swedish Muscle through Mainstream Media 

The very same prosecuting services that invited every Tom, Dick and Harry reporter in mainstream media and put on a full media spectacular to announce the re-opening of the investigation against Assange has announced its latest step in a statement on its website.  When the opportunity arises to showcase Sweden’s role in bringing down Assange, bring on the pressers, but when the world discovers an alternative narrative – an incompetent or most likely compromised prosecuting authority, then suddenly a statement appears on their website.

Here was the media extravaganza showing Sweden flexing muscle over Assange:

It should also be noted that the absence of this story in mainstream media is also by design. Reuters and a couple of outlets mentioned the back-tracking, but the silence in British media is once again deafening, particularly when the cracks in their narrative are exposed.

We wait to see the next steps by the Swedish prosecuting authorities, which, according to the website statement, will be August at the earliest.

Whatever they decide to do, the significance that a request for an EIO is not currently “on the cards” should not be lost – because Julian Assange has already lost nine years of his life from this legal hustle.

*

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 21st Century Wire.

Nina Cross is an independent writer and researcher, and contributor to 21WIRE. To see more of her work, visit her Nina’s archive.

Featured image is from 21CW

In May 2019, a curious document was made publicly available under the aegis of the US Defense Department and the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is entitled “Russian Strategic Intentions” and was prepared as part of the Strategic Multilayer Assessment programme.

The report is the joint effort of more than 30 authors, including John Arquilla, one of the founders of the Netwar concept; Marlene Laruelle, who has specialised in the ideology of Eurasianism for many years; Daniel Flynn from the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence; and a number of other academics and military officials from relevant organisations, such as the US Military Academy at West Point; the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism; the US Air Force; the Center for Political–Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute; the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute; the US Central Command; the Naval Postgraduate School; and the USEUCOM Strategy Division & Russia Strategic Initiative.

The list of names also includes several specialists on Russia, such as Anna Borshchevskaya from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who has spent years dishing out Russophobic propaganda to US think tanks; and Pavel Devyatkin from The Arctic Institute, who also works with the US Peace Corps, a long-standing NGO that peddles US propaganda and conducts intelligence activities in other countries.

As early as the preface, written by Lieutenant General Theodore Martin from the US Army Training and Doctrine Command, it states that

“Russian actions occurring within the Competitive Zone, or ‘Gray Zone,’ profoundly impact and continue to threaten vital aspects of US national interest and security. Finding a way to understand the overarching campaign plan behind Russian actions will enable the United States to more effectively counter Moscow.”

So, the idea is clear. It is an attempt to think like the Russian government does in order to know for certain which actions the Kremlin will take in the future. Given that the report is broken down into regions – Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and the Arctic – it appears that US military and political leaders believe Russia is a threat to the US in all these areas.

Where the recent study by the RAND Corporation openly talks about the various scenarios to be implemented in order to directly or indirectly weaken Russia and hurt its interests in the post-Soviet space and critical areas like Syria, here we see the results of some kind of brainstorming session that was organised to “provide government stakeholders—intelligence, law enforcement, military, and policy agencies—with valuable insights and analytic frameworks to assist the US, its allies, and partners in developing a comprehensive strategy to compete and defeat this Russian challenge.” It sounds almost identical to the Cold War era.

It is telling that, on 8 May, the Strategic Multilayer Assessment, together with the US National Defence University and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, held a panel discussion on the future of global competition and conflict with Russia. The list of speakers (with just as venerable experts and experienced politicians, such as retired Brigadier General Peter Zwack, former US Defense Attaché to Russia, and Angela Stent, director of Georgetown University’s Eurasian, Russian, and East European Studies, who also once served as National Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia) differed from the authors of the report mentioned earlier, which means that these two initiatives are just the tip of an iceberg that is only visible thanks to the publicity of the events.

As well as using current favourite terms like “Grey Zone” and “hybrid warfare”, US experts note in the Executive Summary that,

“[t]he military exercises which Russia conducts regularly require a total mobilization of society”, “Russia increasingly is operating more to save face” (e.g. Venezuela), Russia is seeking to destroy “institutions in Europe”, and even that Russia established the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) “to extend the rules of the Russian economy, and allow Russia access to the policies of privileged sphere nations and further prevent Western encroachment and influence”.

It is interesting that Kazakhstan, for example, in no way reduced its economic relations with the EU after the establishment of the EAEU, but actually increased them. It also makes no mention of the fact that all decisions within the EAEU are reached by consensus. So, when such US academics try to pass off wishful thinking as reality and rationalise certain concepts (such as “Putinism”, “imperial DNA”, and a “new Brezhnev doctrine”), it only serves to show their bias and incompetence. Incidentally, a mysterious flurry of activity around US Army recruiting stations was listed among Russia’s hostile actions. Mysterious because it is only mentioned in the context of “Russia’s influence activities” in the 2016 US presidential election. It goes without saying that no facts or evidence are provided.

As for the report on Russia’s “strategic intentions”, there are no noticeable attempts to penetrate the Kremlin’s thinking, while much is said of the need to reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian gas, of Russia’s near abroad (especially Georgia, Moldova and Donbass), of the activities of the GRU and FSB, of the strategy of “maskirovka” (or military deception), and of Moscow’s machinations.

There is even a fantastic story about Russia exploiting insurgents from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). (Mention is also made of the Spanish-language television channel Russia Today en Español as an agent of disinformation.)

The view is even expressed that Russia has an “assertive grand strategy”. Allegedly behind this strategy are: the desire of the Russian elite for Russia to be recognised as a great power; the desire to protect Russian identity and a broader Slavic identity; and the desire to see the US global power limited. But desires are not the same as institutionalised practice, which requires resources and certain mechanisms for a plan to be implemented. It is interesting to watch US academics discussing links between the thousand-year history of Rus’, Christianity, the Yalta conference and present-day Russia, of course, but it crosses the line when these digressions get mixed up with the expansion of NATO, the role of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation and the EAEU (Jeremy Lamoreaux), and Russia being credited with the “most aggressive methods […] to achieve its grand strategic vision of a multipolar world defined by exclusive spheres of influence” (Robert Person).

The observation that Russia and America’s strategies on Europe are different, and that what Washington wants, Moscow doesn’t want and vice versa, is true, but it is a long-known truth and does not need further comment.

And listing the various outcomes of Russia’s foreign policy activities is like a digest of Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, except with a negative interpretation.

On the whole, there is a noticeable number of clichés and exaggerated metaphors.

Proposals for combating Russian influence include the spread of liberalism; strengthening NATO; recruiting a large number of experienced diplomats; promoting American culture, language, and values; using the private sector as proxy actors in countries neighbouring Russia; squeezing out Russian weapons exports using security cooperation programmes; providing incentives to countries carrying out pro-Western reforms (such as Uzbekistan); and targeted programmes in a number of countries where they can be implemented.

The most rational opinion was probably given by John Arquilla, who noted: “We should think about potential ‘shocks,’ the most troubling of which would be if Putin performed a ‘reverse Nixon’ and played his own version of the ‘China card.’ The world system, and American influence in it, would be completely upended if Moscow and Beijing aligned more closely. Perhaps a good American strategy would be to play a ‘Russia card’ first.”

This is one of those times when the Russian government should do just that, and as soon as possible. Where the minds of US experts have given rise to chimeras that will become the rationale for their next strategy, Russia’s real grand strategy will be based on logical conclusions, sustainable mechanisms, and decisions acceptable to everyone involved.

*

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.

Leonid Savin is a geopolitical analyst, Chief editor of Geopolitica.ru, founder and chief editor of Journal of Eurasian Affairs; head of the administration of the International Eurasian Movement.

Featured image: Russia’s Hostile Measures in Europe, according to RAND Corporation (Source: OR)

The so-called “international community” can’t proverbially “see the forest through the trees” and therefore fails to grasp the larger ambitions being pursued by the US through the JCPOA Crisis that it manufactured, which isn’t about nukes at all actually but rather about the expansion and further embedding of America’s strategic influence all across the world, a scheme that Russia is well-positioned to thwart if it can successfully apply its “balancing” strategy to this end.

***

The world’s leading Great Powers are increasingly concerned that the JCPOA Crisis will eventually lead to war, worrying that Iran’s decision to backtrack on its commitments under the 2015 deal in response to the US’ provocative withdrawal from the said agreement will create the pretext for America, Israel, and/or the GCC to take military action against it on the basis of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation. The original pact was supposed to guarantee the Islamic Republic’s international legal right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy without any potential for abusing its byproducts in the construction of nuclear weapons, the latter scenario of which would end Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the region. Furthermore, the Obama Administration was trying to co-opt Iran’s “reformist” faction at the time as part of a gambit to undermine the country from within if this attempted pivot succeeded enough to the point where American influence could flood into the country through economic, NGO, and other means just like what happened during President Assad’s neoliberal reforms of the 2000s prior to the so-called “Arab Spring“.

Trump made the US’ withdrawal from the JCPOA a key component of its foreign policy platform during the 2016 elections because of his fear that the agreement’s “sunset clauses” will lead to Iran eventually obtaining nuclear weapons anyway, preferring instead to aggressively preempt this from happening through a crippling sanctions regime and other Hybrid War measure than to sit back and irresponsibly endanger the security of his country’s Israeli and Saudi allies. That, at least, is the most popular public explanation for how the JCPOA Crisis began, and while it isn’t wrong, it doesn’t present the full picture of what’s really going on. All of the aforementioned is true, but what’s left out of the discourse is the fact that the US is exploiting events in order to experiment with the weaponization of primary and secondary sanctions as a new form of indirect warfare against its adversaries, with Iran being the perfect target to test these techniques on because of the enormous stakes that the P5+1 Great Powers acquired in that pillar of the emerging Multipolar World Order after the JCPOA was clinched.

Looked at another way, the US’ unilateral withdrawal from the pact gave it the pretext to impose primary sanctions against Iran and then subsequently threaten secondary ones against all who defy America’s diktat in this respect, knowing that many of the P5+1’s most important companies are already too deeply enmeshed in a relationship of complex economic interdependence with America that they can’t risk losing access to its enormous established marketplace just to chase some extra profit in Iran’s comparatively smaller but nevertheless still promising one. This strategy therefore set into motion other avenues for expanding the US’ strategic influence and further embedding it all across the world, such as the effect that it’s had on the global energy industry after American and Gulf resources replaced Iranian ones in India, for instance, which is one of the world’s largest energy consumers. The long-term financial impact that India’s compliance with these sanctions is expected to have on Iran’s yearly budget contributed to its decision to surpass the JCPOA’s enrichment threshold as a risky negotiating tactic to try to get the US to walk back its economic restrictions.

The Iranian plan to take advantage of the visible transatlantic divisions during Trump’s presidency dramatically failed because Tehran underestimated the strength of American influence over the EU, which is why the country decided to enrich more uranium as part of a last-ditch effort to get them to defy the US’ sanctions threats and provide emergency relief to the Islamic Republic’s struggling economy. That bold move inadvertently drew Russia’s rebuke (somewhat unexpectedly from the perspective of the Alt-Media Community), however, which “called on Iran to refrain from further actions that could complicate the situation with the nuclear deal even more”. This statement was driven by Russia’s interest in “balancing” between its myriad Mideast partners, with Iran on one side and Israel & Saudi Arabia on the other, all in pursuit of a “New Detente” with the US that could result in it “managing” the Islamic Republic on behalf of the so-called “international community” if Moscow succeeds in adroitly using the JCPOA Crisis to its advantage.

To explain, while some major Russian companies such as Rosneft are complying with American sanctions for the previously mentioned reasons, new ones can be created from scratch to conduct trade with Iran without consequence and therefore save its economy from collapse.

In exchange, these Russian firms would end up monopolizing the Iranian marketplace because of the dearth of competition there, which could then drastically increase Russia’s influence over the country. Seeing as how a solid economic foundation is the prerequisite to maintaining stability in Iran, its leadership would then be inclined to rely on Russia’s “balancing/mediation” services for brokering a possible “compromise” to the JCPOA Crisis, with Moscow importantly being the go-between just like Muscat originally was half a decade ago in order to prevent Tehran from “losing legitimacy” in the eyes of its population by directly negotiating with Washington at such a sensitive moment after all that it publicly said in defiance of it up until this point.

The ideal outcome for Russia would be a renegotiated deal that avoids war and slows down Trump’s sanctions offensive against the world, with the added perk being the enormous economic influence that it would then wield over Iran and could possibly leverage to other ends.

*

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

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

Modern fractional reserve banking is ultimately a confidence game. If lenders or depositors are confident their bank is solvent, it stands. If confidence is broken, that historically leads to bank panics, deposit runs and domino collapse of a financial system or worse. The surprise collapse in late May of a small Inner-Mongolia Chinese bank, Baoshang, has suddenly focused attention on the fragility of the world’s largest and largely opaque banking system, that of the Peoples Republic of China. The timing is very bad, as China struggles with a sharp domestic economic slowdown, rising food inflation, combined with the uncertainties of the US trade war.

At the end of May, for the first time in three decades, the Chinese Peoples’ Bank of China (PBOC) and the State banking regulators seized an insolvent bank. They did so publicly and in a way that apparently was aimed at sending a message to other banks to control lending risks. By doing so, they may have detonated a domino-collapse of one of the world’s largest and most opaque and under-regulated banking systems—China’s poorly-regulated regional and local banks sometimes called shadow banks. Total assets of China’s small and medium banks are estimated to approximately equal that of the four regulated giant state banks, so a spreading crisis here could be nasty. That clearly is why Beijing stepped in so quickly to contain Baoshang.

The Baoshang Bank to all appearances looked healthy. Its last financial report issued in 2017 showed a profit of $600 million for 2016, assets of near $90 billion and bad loans of less than 2%. The insolvency shock has created a growing risk crisis in China’s interbank lending markets not unlike the early stages of America’s 2007 sub-prime mortgage interbank crisis. It has forced the PBOC, the national bank, to inject billions of yuan, so far $125 billion equivalent, and to issue a guarantee of all bank deposits to contain fears of a larger systemic banking crisis. Indications are the crisis is far from over.

The problem is that China has built one of the most impressive construction and modernization efforts in human history in an astonishingly brief three decades or more– entire cities, tens of thousands of miles of high-speed rail, mechanized container ports, like no other nation in history–all on debt. The servicing of that debt depends on an economy whose profits are continually growing. If contraction once begins, the consequences are incalculable.

Now as the economy is clearly slowing down, some say even in recession, risky investments across the country are suddenly facing insolvency. Lenders of all sorts are suddenly looking again at the risks of new lending. The auto sector is sharply down in recent months, but other industries as well. To make matters worse, a severe epidemic of African Swine Fever is decimating China’s huge pig population leading to almost 8% food inflation. In this climate the PBOC is valiantly trying to avoid turning on the printing presses that creates more inflation and weakens the Renminbi for fear of igniting a new financial bubble.

An added Achilles heel in all this is China’s dependence on global dollar financial markets for trillions of dollars of that debt at a time when dollar export earnings are declining even before the US trade war tariffs. Were China insulated from the global economy as in the 1970’s, the state could simply deal with the problems internally, wipe out the insolvent loans and reorganize banks.

China Debt Model

In critical respects the China credit model is unlike that of the West. The currency, Renminbi, is not yet freely convertible. Control of money is not in the hands of privately-owned independent central banks as in the USA or the ECB in the EU. Rather it is in the hands of the wholly-state-owned Peoples’ Bank of China, itself answerable to the Politburo of the Communist Party. Its largest industrial conglomerates are not private but State-Owned Enterprises, including the four largest banks in the world, the world’s largest rail construction company and giant oil companies. That gives a huge apparent advantage. When the government gives an order, things happen. Rails get built with little obstruction, or highways. However, when the order is flawed, under a command or central planning model, it can magnify errors.

Now for the past two years Beijing has been clearly concerned with how it can correct the uncontrolled explosion of “off-balance-sheet” or shadow bank lending across the economy. Since the 2008 Lehman crisis, China has financed a staggering volume of construction projects to modernize what was one of the world’s poorest nations a mere four decades ago, and to prevent economic contraction and exploding unemployment and social unrest. Since 2013 it has added the ambitious Belt, Road Initiative to the spending list, partly to sustain the pace of China steel and infrastructure industrial growth, as the domestic economy neared saturation.

With the 2008 global Lehman crisis, Beijing expanded that debt balloon like no other country in history. Since 2009, the China money supply grew nearly 400% or by $20 trillion (133 trillion Yuan) while China’s annual GDP grew by only $8.4 trillion. That is inherently not sustainable. Suspicion is that within that huge monetary expansion lie more than one Baoshang Bank insolvency today. At this point, however, as the financial regulation is still in its relative infancy, no one knows the true risks of insolvency contagion, not even Beijing.

Interbank risks unclear

The problem with the lending that is implied in these numbers is that the credits issued by so-called shadow banks–loosely-regulated small to middle size banks not part of the big state bank system– are poorly controlled and now facing widespread loan defaults and bankruptcies from high-risk loans they have made. Baoshang Bank’s collapse has suddenly turned all eyes to those risks.

Big banks are hesitant to continue to lend to the small banks via the interbank market, forcing borrowing rates up. Assurances by the PBOC that the Baoshang case is an “isolated” one are not likely to reassure. Bloomberg estimates that for the first 4 months of 2019, Chinese companies have defaulted on some $5.8 billion in domestic bonds, more than three times the rate a year ago.

Beijing authorities including the PBOC have made it clear for months that they want to reduce such risky lending by local shadow banks and others to get the situation under control. However, it will not be easy to restrain risky local bank lending without triggering a wave of bankruptcy failures in China’s slowing economy.

As a result of the unexpected Baoshang collapse, China’s interbank lending market is suddenly in crisis. It is not yet clear whether Beijing authorities are acting sufficiently to calm the crisis or whether a quiet drying up of lending from large banks via interbank lending to small regional or shadow banks is underway that will cause further economic woes, bankruptcies and unemployment. A sign all is not well, on June 24 the PBOC announced that it will allow select brokerages to borrow up to three times more 90-days short-term commercial paper to keep liquidity flowing as they try to sort the mess out, according to Caixin financial news. This is clearly a stop gap to buy time.

Another sign Beijing is concerned, in early June authorities gave the green light for municipalities to further increase their already enormous borrowing for infrastructure. Local government officials will be allowed to use proceeds of bond sales to count as equity in the new infrastructure projects including more railways and highways, adding to the debt mountain.

China Finance Minister Liu Kun just issued a report on the regional and local and national fiscal situation for the five months to end May. The numbers were not encouraging for Beijing’s stated policy of controlling inflation and asset bubbles. He noted that all government revenue grew by just 3.8% year on year. Tax revenue grew only 2.2% owing to a big tax cut. At the same time, government spending grew by 12.5% annually. In response he announced that the government would demand austerity of “more than 10%” to reduce the gap.

China is governed by highly intelligent and hard-working people. There is no question. However, to put the easy money genie back in the bottle without major mishaps will require extraordinary skill and quite a bit of luck.

China external debt at the beginning of 2019 stood officially at just under $2 trillion, two thirds of that short-term. Unofficially, reports are that the large State-Owned Enterprises have taken on far more than that in low-interest foreign borrowings from the dollar and Euro. Nobody knows precisely.

This current situation will be the test for Beijing to show that it has banking crises like Baoshang under firm control, and that it is serious about opening China financial markets to foreign firms as part of its globalization. China needs the good cooperation of Western banks to maintain its impressive economy.

Until now China has been the apparent winner of the post-1990s globalization model. How Beijing manages its banking problems in the coming months may determine if that incredible record will continue. The challenge is real.

*

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

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

Featured image is from NEO

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

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

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

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

When reading the Bachelet Report on Human Rights, following the HR High Commissioner’s 3 day visit to Venezuela, published on Venezuela’s National Holiday, 5 July, that it makes hardly any reference to the deadly sanctions and blockades imposed by the United States. How is that possible? The High Commissioner for Human Right does not mention the crimes of all crimes committed vis-à-vis Venezuela?

The Washington based Center for Economic and Policy Research issued a few weeks ago a report co-authored by Jeffrey Sachs and Mark Weisbrot, concluding that more than 40,000 people have died in Venezuela since 2017 as a result of sanctions. They reduced the availability of food, medicine, and medical equipment, increasing Venezuelans disease and mortality rate. Jeffrey Sachs wrote in the report and repeated to Democracy Now–

“American sanctions are deliberately aiming to wreck Venezuela’s economy and thereby lead to regime change. It’s a fruitless, heartless, illegal, and failed policy, causing grave harm to the Venezuelan people.”

Is Michelle Bachelet bought by Washington? Has she been threatened? Been given Washington’s script of what has to be in the report? Has she been told that no condemnation of the sanctions is allowed, or else… and who knows what “or else” might include? Believe me, it could be the worst.

Of course, Ms. Bachelet knew what she was doing when she accepted the job of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on 1 September 2018. It was and still is, a challenge and also a prestige. It’s a prestige traveling around the world and telling countries, selectively that they are in breach of Human Rights – while others will get the thumbs up, usually the world’s most flagrant HR abusers, as long as they are in bed with Washington. But, if not Michelle Bachelet, who knows who would have been made High Commissioner for Human Rights? – Maybe a Saudi? – These are considerations we should not forget. She was maybe the ‘compromise’ accepted by Washington.

However, what Ms. Bachelet should not forget and most certainly did not forget, when she accepted this high-profile assignment, is her father, Alberto Arturo Miguel Bachelet Martínez. Her dad was in the Chilean Air Force as a Brigadier General, who opposed the 1973 CIA-Pinochet coup. He was imprisoned shortly after the coup on 11 September 1973; he was tortured and died on 12 March 1974, while incarcerated, from the usual “heart attack”. In fact, he died from torture. One of his two chief torturers, Retired Chilean Air Force Colonel Edgar Cevallos Jones, died a few months ago, the other one, Ramon Caceres Jorquera, was recently liberated from prison and put under house arrest by current President Sebastian Piñera’s High Court, for “severe dementia and irrelevance”. Together the two were the top leaders of Pinochet’s repressive torture team, “Joint Command”.

Alberto Bachelet was deprived of food and water, water-boarded, tortured with apparent suffocation with plastic hoods over his head, electric shocks – and more. All of this, his daughter, Michelle Bachelet, was aware of and has for sure not forgotten. She knows what torture is; she knows what disrespect for Human Rights means. So, she knows that Venezuela, the legally elected Nicolás Maduro Government, does respect Human Rights; that, if there is any torturing in Venezuela, it’s by the opposition, by Juan Guaído’s criminal cronies.

Michelle Bachelet, member of the Chilean socialist party and a pediatrician by profession, was twice President of Chile, from 11 March 2006 to 11 March 2010, and from 11 March 2014 to 11 March 2018. In her first term she enhanced civil rights and social services. In between her two terms, Sebastian Piñera, a right-wing multi-billionaire, said to be one of Chile’s richest people, served as President, and as if by coincidence, he followed her second term, and is currently serving also for the second time as President of Chile.

In his first term, Piñera had veered Chile onto a fully neoliberal course, “privatizing all” is the name of the game, and now in his second term, very much prepared and pushed by Washington, he is finishing the job. This means, in her second term from 2014 to 2018, Bachelet’s hands were pretty much tied by an all dominating financial sector, while the country’s social infrastructure, from health to education to pensions, started already to deteriorate, and now it is declining at an even faster pace.

Former consultant of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Alfred de Zayas, says that Bachelet’s report is highly flawed and “unfortunately unbalanced and does not draw conclusions that can help the suffering Venezuelan people.” He went on calling for what Bachelet’s report did not call for – “immediately lifting United States sanctions on the nation.”

The report did not condemn the US sanctions, and did not address the criminality of the foreign guided internal coup attempts. Instead the report states dubious figures of deaths that have occurred during the last several years of violent upheavals – some 9,000 – leaving unclear who is responsible for the deaths, but implies by the general tenor of the report that it is most likely the Maduro Government. – That is not true, but that’s precisely what Washington and its European and Latin American vassals, want to hear.

What Bachelet’s report will undoubtedly do is adding more fuel to the western anti-Venezuela fire. It will further justify outside interference and oppression, as well as contribute to continuing with financial and economic torture of Venezuela by western political corruptness. Ms. Bachelet, you, and with you the entire Human Rights Commission, have not served Human Rights. Quite to the contrary, with this report you are serving the oppression of Human Rights.

The Venezuelan Government said there are 70 corrections that the report should make. – Well, it is a real pity that the UN has missed an opportunity to bring Venezuela back into the fold of the nations that make up the “United Nations”, as a sovereign country, deserving the respect of all – as she does. The UN was created as an instrument for Peace. It is currently manipulated by the western powers, led by – who else – the US of A, as an instrument to foment war. Yes, once more, the UN and one of its top agencies for peace advocacy – The Human Rights Commission – has made the bidding of the rogue, unlawful, criminal United States of America.

*

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

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

A future without independent media leaves us with an upside down reality where according to the corporate media “NATO deserves a Nobel Peace Prize”, and where “nuclear weapons and wars make us safer”.

.

.

If, like us, this is a future you wish to avoid, please help sustain Global Research’s activities by making a donation or taking out a membership now!

Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

*     *     *

Offshoring and Industrial Relocation: Profits from Exploitation in Honduras. Transnational Companies are Impoverishing us All

By Mark Taliano, July 08, 2019

Imperialists employ myriad strategies to “open the veins” of prey countries.  Economic warfare is one such strategy.  Prolonged and sustained economic warfare against long-suffering Honduras advances the tentacles of the Big Monopolies as it impoverishes and destroys Honduras.

US Call for German Troops in Syria Angers Berlin

By The New Arab, July 08, 2019

Discord broke out in German Chancellor Angela Merkel‘s ruling coalition Sunday, after the United States urged the country to send ground troops to Syria as Washington looks to withdraw from the region.

USAID Anti-Russia Propaganda

By Stephen Lendman, July 08, 2019

The CIA, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute, USAID, right-wing US think tanks, the CIA/AFL and other large labor unions, along with similar organizations and initiatives are all about advancing Washington’s anti-democratic agenda at the expense of world peace.

Why Trump Is Dead Wrong About the Census

By Eric Zuesse, July 08, 2019

The first lengthy clause in the U.S. Constitution (and there are only three clauses in it that are lengthy) comes almost immediately after the Preamble, and it is quite explicit that the only way in which a change to the questions in the U.S. Census can be made, is by an act of Congress, passed by the Congress, and signed into law by the President.

A Secret Meeting to Plot War?

By Philip Giraldi, July 08, 2019

All of the Jewish organizations but one were openly declared advocates for Israel and are supportive of its policies. Key groups present included the Council of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Anti-Defamation League, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Netanyahu Compares Iranian Uranium Enrichment to Nazi Invasion of the Rhineland

By Kurt Nimmo, July 08, 2019

The prime minister of Israel would have the people of Europe believe Iran’s recent decision to increase uranium enrichment—currently at a paltry 3.67 percent—is comparable to the German army marching into the Rhineland in March 1936. 

UN Report on Human Rights in Venezuela Faulty by Design

By Nino Pagliccia, July 06, 2019

If the overall intention of the UNHCHR with this report was to use the opportunity of the visit to Venezuela in order to strike a rapprochement between the two contending parties, it totally missed the chance.

*

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 is not what America is about” argues a reporter referring to revelations of misogynist, violent, racist behavior by employees of the U.S. Border Patrol ‘guarding’ migrants held in detention centers.

Sorry Mr. Thompson (Propublica journalist who broke this story); THIS IS what America is about — administrative abuse of vulnerable people, i.e. women, men and children held in secret or without legal representation, — undocumented migrants, Americans in detention or serving sentences in prison, our indigent and our Black and Brown citizens in general, and foreign prisoners. We witness threats, racial slurs, assaults, beatings and killings by ‘authorized’, armed personnel every day–every day– most of it carried out by our local police officers.

But that’s another long, sad story. Let’s get back to those border guards and their contempt for their wards. Where did we last see this shameless conduct on the scale of these recent revelations? Was it not Abu Graib in 2004? And Abu Graib was just one Iraqi prison where American excesses were exposed. One can find more references to extreme cruelty and sadistic acts by American and allied troops (all under earlier administrations) directed against prisoners in Afghanistan.

As much as our naïve public and the noble liberal wing of our press may wish to assign this newly revealed shame to the Trump administration, the ‘problem’ is much deeper.

I suggest it exists within the training of U.S. troops today and to the license given them in the Iraq and Afghan wars– a license to humiliate, mutilate, shame, torture and murder with impunity— people they have been taught to despise. Recall the report of an American verbally attacking a Muslim woman in the street not long ago proudly proclaiming: “I killed people like you over there!” (This week we had one U.S. Navy Seal tried for just one murder by U.S. troops in Iraq; and he was acquitted.)

The U.S. is home to more than two million Iraq-Afghan war veterans who, when they announce they are veterans, we are obliged to hail with “Thank you for your service”. A huge percentage of these veterans are ill—little wonder, given crimes they have witnessed and committed. Of those, an undocumented number have become abusers and killers at home. Too often, if one searches through a news story we’ll find that many killings– of families by out-of-control husbands or fathers, or the perpetrators of mass shootings– are by veterans. A local New Hampshire paper carried a story in May about the murder of two enlisted women by a fellow soldier at their military base.

One threat of a mass shooting, by a military veteran, was thankfully intercepted more recently in Dallas, Texas.

A Mother Jones investigation of mass murders in the US and contributing factors (updated May 31, 2019) offers no analysis about killers’ experiences in the armed services and in foreign wars.

What we need is a thorough, honest tally of the number of our prison guards, our border patrol guards, and policemen who’ve been in the U.S. military–policemen like those threatening the family in Phoenix.

Videos exposing this kind of terrorizing American urban police behavior may shock our largely white population. It will not shock Black Americans. Nor will it shock Afghans and Iraqis who doubtless witnessed countless such shameless, unrestrained murderous conduct by U.S. and other occupation troops in their neighborhoods.

A closer examination of prior military experience of those involved in the recently revealed activities towards would-be-migrants by border guards may well reveal a) racism, Islamophobia and misogyny perpetuated by our military establishment, and b) the culpability of all American administrations. The ugliness that faces us today cannot simply be laid on the shoulders of the current White House occupant.

*

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 Nimri Aziz is a New York based anthropologist and journalist. In addition to books on Tibet and Nepal, she is author of “Swimming Up the Tigris: Real Life Encounters with Iraq” based on her work in the Arab Homelands. For many years a producer at Pacifica-WBAI Radio in NY, her productions and current articles can be found at www.RadioTahrir.org  

Bombs and missiles will still be exported to Saudi Arabia under a secretive licensing system that means business as usual for defence firms despite a landmark ruling that UK arms sales are illegal.

In a judgement on 20 June at London’s Court of Appeal, reported by The Ferret, arms sales to the Saudis were ruled unlawful by judges who accused UK ministers of ignoring alleged war crimes in Yemen.

The UK government said it would appeal the ruling but added that in the meantime no new export licences would be granted to Saudi Arabia or its allies in Yemen’s war – United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Egypt.

Existing export licences will not be suspended, however, and new data published by the Department for International Trade reveals there are 295 extant export licences where the end user is Saudi Arabia, meaning the UK’s arms trade will continue.

The number of existing licences has also prompted fears that smart bombs made in Scotland by a US arms multinational will still be sent to the Saudis.

The historic legal victory was won by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) who challenged the UK government over its covert business with Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis – backed by the US and UK – are fighting a war against Houthi rebels in Yemen in which around 91,000 people have been killed since March 2015.

Indiscriminate airstrikes by a Saudi-led coalition have prompted dozens of war crime allegations with an estimated  7,500 children killed or wounded in attacks.

The coalition uses British warplanes and drops Paveway IV bombs made in Fife by a US arms firm called Raytheon.

Paveway IV missiles are covered by Open Individual Export Licences, aka open licences, which have not been suspended by the UK government.

An open licence allows an unlimited number of bombs to be transferred over a five-year period and CAAT fears several licences may still be valid.

Raytheon applied for an export licence to Saudi Arabia in 2014 but did not respond to questions by The Ferret as to whether it is still valid.

Arms firm, BAE Systems, had three open licences to export Paveway bombs and also air-to-surface missiles called Brimstone and Storm Shadow.

Raytheon makes Paveway IV bombs at Glenrothes while a firm called MBDA makes Brimstone and Storm Shadow missiles.

An Italian arms firm with a factory in Edinburgh called Leonardo, which has received £7.5m in grants from Scottish Enterprise, owns part of MBDA.

CAAT says that open licences allow weapons to be exported with minimal oversight, describing them as a “secretive mechanism to export extremely deadly equipment to Saudi Arabia.”

CAAT’s Andrew Smith said:

“The verdict was a historic one. It must be the start of a serious reconsideration of UK foreign policy and UK relations with the Saudi Arabian regime. It cannot simply go back to business as usual.

“Companies like Raytheon will sell their deadly equipment to anyone that is willing to pay for it. They don’t care how it is used or how many people will die as a result. Yemen has endured the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, but Raytheon has profited every step of the way.”

Smith added:

“The government in Westminster must stop the arms sales and end its complicity in the war. Meanwhile, the Scottish Government should do all it can to end its ties and support for Raytheon and others that have fuelled this immoral war.”

BAE Systems, which operates on the ground in Saudi Arabia to service and maintain Tornado, Hawk and Typhoon warplanes used by the Saudi-led coalition, said the ruling did not mean a halt to exports.

“We continue to support the UK government in providing equipment, support and training under government-to-government agreements between the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. The decision of the court does not mean that licenses to export arms to Saudi Arabia must immediately be suspended. CAAT did not ask for such an order and the court did not order it,” BAE Systems said.

Raytheon and MBDA did not respond to our requests for comment.

The Department for International Trade (DIT) has refused to say which firms have the extant licences, citing “commercial sensitivity” although its new data reveals the scale of continuing UK arms deals with Saudi Arabia.

A DIT spokesperson said:

“The government takes its export responsibilities very seriously. We operate one of the most robust export control regimes in the world and keep our defence exports to Saudi Arabia under careful and continual review.

“All export licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, taking account of all relevant factors at the time of the application. We will not a grant a licence if to do so would be inconsistent with these criteria.”

Following the Court of Appeal’s ruling, the Scottish Greens wrote to Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, requesting that financial support to arms firms profiting from Yemen’s war be stopped.

The Ferret revealed in May that three defence firms – Raytheon, Leonardo and Rolls Royce – were awarded nearly £3 million of taxpayers’ money in 2018.

“There is no doubt that UK-made weapons have contributed to targeted attacks on civilians,” wrote Green MSP Ross Greer.

“Fragments of missiles produced by Raytheon have been found at many bombing sites in which civilians, including children, have been killed or injured. Further, it is estimated that over 85,000 children have died from starvation and cholera outbreaks since the onset of the war.”

Greer added:

“The Scottish Government has recognised this catastrophe and supported the Yemen Crisis Appeal. We are also aware that you have introduced a new system of human rights assessments before public money or support is granted to a business.

“In light of the above, we ask that you end Scottish Government funding and support of companies who sell munitions and military equipment to Saudi Arabia, including Raytheon.”

The Scottish Government stressed that it had consistently called on the UK government to end its flawed foreign policy approach.

“We have repeatedly made very clear that, whilst it is a reserved matter, we expect the UK government to properly police the export of arms and investigate whenever concerns are raised,” said a spokesperson.

Scottish Enterprise (SE) insisted that it had never supported the manufacture of munitions.

“Aerospace, defence and marine companies employ tens of thousands of people in Scotland and we work with them to diversify their businesses with a view to sustaining and growing employment, said an SE spokesperson.

“New guidelines have led to the introduction of additional human rights checks that are being applied to all requests for support. Those checks will also be applied to companies with existing relationships when they make a new request for assistance.”

The legal victory for CAAT followed four years of reporting on the UK’s arms trade by The Ferret.

We first reported links between Scotland and alleged war crimes in Yemen in September 2015 when we disclosed that Paveway IV smart bombs made by Raytheon were being used by the Saudis.

Read the data released by the Department for International Trade and Letter from Ross Greer to Nicola Sturgeon here.

*

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

Featured image is from Yemen Press

Imperialists employ myriad strategies to “open the veins” of prey countries.  Economic warfare is one such strategy.  Prolonged and sustained economic warfare against long-suffering Honduras advances the tentacles of the Big Monopolies as it impoverishes and destroys Honduras. Transnational companies, meanwhile are afforded additional “supranational” protections through “free trade” agreements.

As the following article first published in 2013 demonstrates, “internal imperialism” is also part of the predatory equation.  Transnational companies “bleed” domestic economies. In the case of Gildan, beneath the cover of fake messaging about “competitiveness and efficiencies” Canadian workers were disemployed and the Canadian economy suffered.

Neoliberal economic models impose asymmetrical economies on both foreign and domestic economies. Transnational oligarch classes are impoverishing us all.

Mark Taliano, Global Research, July 8, 2019

***

In March of 2007, Gildan Activewear Inc., a Montreal-based textile manufacturer, decided to leave Canada for sunnier climes.

The company laid off hundreds of Canadian workers, and resettled where business was good: Honduras. “Free Trade” legislation facilitated the exodus from Canada and powerful psychological operations (psy ops) strategies reassured people at home and abroad. Corporations and their government subsidiaries repeated messaging about “competitiveness and efficiencies” in Canada while Hondurans were promised economic revitalisation and jobs. The end result? Canada lost jobs and Honduras’ asymmetrical, toxic economy was further entrenched.

Honduran sweatshop workers are basically slaves and their status will likely remain unchanged, or get worse.  Since the 2009 military coup — which removed the democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya — the illegal regime dismantled or corrupted institutions that might be of benefit to humans (including constitutional judges) and created a heavily militarized and murderous environment. “Since 2010,” reports Raul Burbano, delegation leader of election observers from Common Frontiers, “there have been more than 200 politically motivated killings.”

In the meantime, Canada’s Gildan corporation profits from the misery. Gildan pays NO taxes in Honduras, and the workforce (primarily women) is easily exploited. Unions are not allowed, collective bargaining is not allowed, and human rights are not a concern.

The Collective Of Honduran Women (CODEMUH by its Spanish acronym), a brave voice for freedom in Honduras, comprehensively documents the exploitation of workers and the impacts of the Canada-Honduras Free Trade Agreement.

Workers produce T-shirts from about 7:00 am to 7:00 pm four days a week, at jobs that are physically repetitive. Repetitive strain injuries are common, proper care is elusive, and injured workers are easily discarded. Since workers have few rights, someone younger and healthier can usually be found. In poverty-stricken environments like Honduras (and elsewhere), job scarcity means that a replacement worker will likely work for less money and even fewer rights. At Gildan, inspectors aren’t allowed into the plant, and workers are fired (or worse) if they try to organize unions.

One former worker, now “discarded,” explained that she would be given a cortisone shot to treat her calcified tendonitis, and then sent immediately back to work. Proper treatment in such a case would involve an injection followed by rest, but work quotas are more important to foreign share-holders than worker health.

It’s no surprise then, that by age 25, chronic work injuries, coupled with poor medical treatment, often prevent workers from performing their fast-paced tasks.

Worse still, once a worker leaves Gildan, she is likely to have irreversible health problems which preclude her from finding alternate employment. Some women need crutches to walk; others can’t hold their babies or do housework. Savage poverty imposes itself on their already precarious existences and decimated social institutions perpetuate the misery.

Healthcare, schooling, and other social/public institutions are abysmal, and only those (few) with money get adequate service.

What are the drivers behind such misery?

Those who control the levers of power in Honduras are governed by self-serving interests that do not include the common good. Consequently, society and the economy have been spiralling downwards since the coup.

Prior to the 2009 military coup, freedom and democracy were making inroads into the malaise, but now the power structure looks something like this:

At the top of this asymmetrical and entirely dysfunctional political economy are transnational corporations, including banks. They are the free-marketeers/slavers that are seamlessly aligned with governments in Canada and the U.S. They tacitly, if not overtly, drive foreign policy decisions.

On the ground in Honduras looms the invisible hand of the occupying U.S military that fosters and enables destabilization and is allied with the corrupt dictator, Juan Orlando Hernandez. Compliant dictators make good proxies, and Hernandez has likely been a U.S. puppet for some time now.

Locally, the nexus of powerful politics includes narco gangs, the police, the military, the para-police (Tigres), and rich oligarchs (including about ten very wealthy families).

Corruption throughout society is so pervasive that people trying to make a living often have to pay extortion money not only to gangs, but also to the police.

Now, with a growing number of U.S. military bases of occupation and the murderous dictatorship of Juan Orlando Hernandez solidified, profits are basically guaranteed for transnational sweatshops in what is essentially a state-sanctioned Slaver’s paradise.

As Canadians, we need to continue asking important questions. For example: Why are these “Free Trade” Agreements, such as the Canada-Honduras Free Trade Agreement so secret? And why have we chosen to profit from the misery of others?

Once we get some answers, we might choose to pay a couple dollars more for our next T-shirt.

*

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.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from the author

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Discord broke out in German Chancellor Angela Merkel‘s ruling coalition Sunday, after the United States urged the country to send ground troops to Syria as Washington looks to withdraw from the region.

Both right wings of the US war party consider nonbelligerent Russia an existential threat. 

The CIA, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute, USAID, right-wing US think tanks, the CIA/AFL and other large labor unions, along with similar organizations and initiatives are all about advancing Washington’s anti-democratic agenda at the expense of world peace. 

A newly released USAID document is titled “COUNTERING MALIGN KREMLIN INFLUENCE (CMKI) DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK,” the latest US anti-Russia broadside.

On Friday, USAID head Mark Green presented the Trump regime strategy for “countering malign Kremlin influence” that doesn’t exist — “by building the economic and democratic resilience (sic) of targeted countries (sic),” adding:

“The United States has long believed that a strong, prosperous, and free Europe (sic) is vitally important to American strategic interests.”

“The Russian Government and its proxies (sic) aim to weaken US influence in the world and divide us from our allies and partners (sic).”

The above Orwellian remarks turned reality on its head about the most dedicated major nation to world peace and multi-world polarity.

The US is hell-bent for eliminating what it claims to support globally, including the sovereign rights of all nations, their energy and economic independence, as well as democratic rule, media independence, and rule of law observance.

USAID falsely claimed Washington supports all of the above for all nations. Its aim for dominion over planet earth, its resources and population belies these high-minded notions US policymakers abhor.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry responded to the USAID’s policy document, calling it “malicious anti-Russian propaganda,” adding:

The US agency “is not at all aimed at creating an atmosphere of cooperation on the world stage, but serves as an instrument of ideological struggle and propaganda.”

Policymakers in Washington want all other nations “subordinate(ed) to US interests.” Bipartisan US hardliners want normalization of US/Russia relations prevented.

They want puppet regimes beholden to US interests installed everywhere. The USAID document is the latest in a long line of anti-Russia US efforts — showing partnership between both nations is unattainable.

It’s foolhardy to believe otherwise. Russia and China are the only nations able to challenge US sought global dominance.

Post-Soviet Union Cold War 2.0 Russophobia is far more menacing to world peace than its earlier version.

Relentless US bipartisan media-supported Russia bashing risks unthinkable confrontation between the world’s dominant nuclear powers — a doomsday scenario if occurs by accident or design.

Moscow is accused of all sorts of things it had nothing to do with. Endlessly repeated propaganda gets most people to believe it, despite no credible evidence backing claims, none even presented.

The Russian Federation never attacked or threatened another nation – what the US and its imperial partners do repeatedly, waging permanent wars of aggression and other hostile actions on humanity at home and abroad, what imperialism is all about.

The evil empire is headquartered in Washington — with branch offices in most nations on every continent, colonial control beyond whatever existed earlier.

Fantasy democracies and tyrannical regimes define US allies — pressured, bullied, bribed, and/or threatened to serve its interests.

Russia and China use carrots, not sticks, to gain allies, a longterm winning strategy unless US-unleashed nuclear immolation consumes us all — or ecocide does the same thing longer-term because friends of the earth lack power to save it.

Militant US/UK hostility toward Russia threatens everyone, most people unaware of what risks possible nuclear war because media fail to warn of the clear and present danger.

*

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.

On June 5, 16 heads of Jewish organizations joined 25 Democratic senators in a private meeting, which, according to the Times of Israel, is an annual event. All of the Jewish organizations but one were openly declared advocates for Israel and are supportive of its policies. Key groups present included the Council of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Anti-Defamation League, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. A number of the groups have lobbied Congress and the White House in support of the use of force against Iran, a position that is basically identical to the demands being made by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The senatorial delegation was headed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), currently Senate minority leader who has described himself as the “shomer” or guardian of Israel in the Senate. The 25 senators in attendance constitute one-quarter of the entire deliberative body and more than half of all Democrats serving in it. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who has emphatically linked her campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020 to Jewish and Israeli interests, chaired the gathering.

After the meeting, Jewish Insider provided a complete list of the participants and also a diagram of how they were positioned in the Capitol Hill conference room. The senators were placed on one side of a rectangle with the Jewish leaders in front of them filling the seats on the other three sides. Who exactly provided the agenda that Klobuchar was presumably following is not known, but one suspects that it may have been a joint effort by Schumer and several of the more prominent Jewish organization participants.

The meeting was by design not a public event, and, to a certain extent, it was a secret. Its time, place, and participants were not announced, and it was only reported at all in the Israeli and Jewish media. According to after-the-fact coverage of the event by Alison Weir of the “If Americans Knew” website, even staffers in the congressional offices were not aware that the meeting was taking place. No statement was issued afterwards, but it is believed that the principal topic under discussion was how to contain and reverse pro- Palestinian sentiment among progressive Democratic voters, who, to the horror of the participants, actually have been embracing the possibility that Palestinians are human beings with plausibly the same rights as Israelis. A particular focus would have been the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become a growing force on college campuses and in progressive circles.

Other issues raised were mentioned in passing afterwards on the email service “The Tell” by Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) news service. They included supporting Israel and also more federal-level legislation to combat “anti-Semitism.” And, of course, there was the issue of money. Several groups want funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) increased to pay for more security at Jewish facilities. Current legislation is considering allocating $70 million per year and there were demands that it be increased to $90 million. A 2014 article in the Jewish Forward reported that Jewish institutions received 94% of DHS discretionary funding.

One might reasonably argue that the private meeting with the Democratic senators reflects a singular urgency in that the party base is becoming notably less pro-Israel, suggesting that something had to be done to stop the rot. That may be true enough, but the reality is that the federal government’s pandering to Israel is both bi-partisan and global in its reach. The United States uniquely has a special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, and his writ extends to proposing sanctions against countries that are critics of Israel.

And even as the Democrats were meeting with Jewish leaders, the Republicans were doing much the same thing. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with probably some of those very same leaders as the Democrats and expressed concern about the possibility that British Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn might become prime minister. Corbyn has been targeted by British Jews because he is the first UK senior politician to speak sympathetically about the plight of the Palestinians.

Pompeo was asked, if Corbyn “is elected, would you be willing to work with us to take action if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the UK?” He replied:

“It could be that Mr. Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get elected. It’s possible. You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best. It’s too risky and too important and too hard once it’s already happened.”

So American Jews want to join with their British counterparts to either bring down or contain a top-level elected politician just because he recognizes the suffering of the Palestinians. The American secretary of state meets with those same activists and agrees with them that something must be done, to include quite possibly taking steps to ensure that he does not become prime minister in the first place. Recall for the moment that Britain is America’s closest ally and is what passes for a democracy these days. Jews obviously occupy a rather special space, politically speaking, in the United States. One might reasonably ask, where are the private meetings with representatives of Italian, German, Irish, or Polish organizations, each of which represents a far greater portion of America’s ethnic mix than do Jews? The obvious answer is that those groups do not operate in a cohesive, tribal fashion and they do not possess the financial resources that the 600 or so Jewish groups that advocate for Israel have. In America, unfortunately, money buys access to power and, if there is enough money on the table, it can also buy politicians.

Nor are America’s other white ethnic groups as grievance-driven.

And there is one other significant difference: While other ethnic groups in the United States are protective of their respective cultures and languages, there is no sense that any of them actually seek to advocate policies damaging to the United States to benefit the foreign nations that they identify with. The Jewish advocacy for Israel is something quite different, costing the American taxpayer billions of dollars every year and involving Washington in a sequence of wars of choice driven by Israel itself aided by its powerful domestic lobby.

Israel also comes with a price tag in terms of the constitutional rights enjoyed by Americans. Before too long, legislation currently working its way through Congress will criminalize any criticism of Israel. No other national or ethnic group in the United States seeks to dismantle the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in quite that fashion.

Israel is no friend and never has been. Recent media reports detail how Jewish-American oligarch Paul Singer has been working with the Israeli government to transfer thousands of high-paying American IT jobs to Israel. Is he guilty of dual loyalty? No, he is only really loyal to Israel, as are many of the Jewish leaders who met with Pompeo and the senators. It is a disgrace.

And it is also a disgrace that Pompeo and 25 Democratic Party senators should be meeting privately with Jewish organizations to do things for Israel and the Jewish community that do not serve the interests of all Americans, up to and including meddling in the politics of a genuine close ally to respond to the paranoia of British Jews.

Yes, there is a Jewish international conspiracy in place directed by some Jews like those who met with the senators and Pompeo, and it has no off switch. Never before in history has a great power been so dominated by a puny client state and its domestic fifth column, and it is time that the private meetings whereby a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” panders to one group alone should end forever.

*

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 American Free Press.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the Interest. Other articles by Giraldi can be found on the website of the Unz Review.

Featured image is from American Free Press

The prime minister of Israel would have the people of Europe believe Iran’s recent decision to increase uranium enrichment—currently at a paltry 3.67 percent—is comparable to the German army marching into the Rhineland in March 1936. 

.

.

Netanyahu: Iran’s breach of enrichment cap a ‘dangerous step’: PM compares Tehran's violation of 2015 deal to Nazis' 1936 occupation of Rhineland, urges European countries to intervene and impose sanctions https://t.co/7hYF4GayTd TimesofIsrael pic.twitter.com/QW3KYBQdux

— Jewish Community (@JComm_BlogFeeds) July 7, 2019

Bibi Netanyahu would have us believe Iran’s decision to violate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action following Donald Trump’s decision to remove the US from the agreement and impose sanctions is somehow akin to Hitler violating the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Treaties. In short, Netanyahu is saying Iran’s decision will result in a crisis on par with the Second World War. 

This latest bit of hyperbole is certainly not as theatrical as the prime minister’s previous presentations, namely his “Iran Lied” show-and-tell last April, which included a shelf of binders and CDs supposedly containing a wealth of data on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and also his 2012 presentation before the United Nations with a lit fuse bomb diagram predicting nuclear Armageddon. 

Thus, we have come to expect over-the-top exaggeration by Netanyahu on Iran and its purported nuclear weapons program that has yet to be confirmed. His remark about the Iranians and Nazi Germany is intended to move the Europeans to impose strict sanctions. it was specifically crafted to exploit their history. 

“I call on my friends, the heads of France, Britain, and Germany—you signed this deal and you said that as soon as they take this step, severe sanctions will be imposed—that was the Security Council resolution. Where are you?” Netanyahu said.

Bibi and the Zionists have little concern for the energy needs of the Europeans. In 2017, EU nations imported 66.5 million barrels of crude oil, or nearly 560,000 barrels per day, from Iran, according to Eurostat, the official news portal of the European Commission. Netanyahu, Donald Trump, and his gang of neocons would have Europe suffer for the sake of Israel.  

The Europeans have complained bitterly about the White House decision to not provide waivers for crude to their oil-dependent nations. 

In May, Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign policy chief, and other officials in  Bruxelles declared in a sternly worded letter that 

the High Representative of the European Union and the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and the United Kingdom, take note with regret and concern of the decision by the United States not to extend waivers with regards to trade in oil with Iran. We also note with concern the decision by the United States not to fully renew waivers for nuclear non-proliferation projects in the framework of the JCPoA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).

Trump’s Vice President, Mike Pence, demanded in a speech delivered in Warsaw in February that Europe reject the nuclear deal. Like Bibi, his Likudniks, Trump, and the neocons, Pence would have the people of Europe suffer for the sake of Israel and its long-held plan to balkanize Iran and Arab nations in the region. 

“Sadly, some of our leading European partners have not been nearly as cooperative—in fact, they have led the effort to create mechanisms to break up our sanctions,” Pence said. “Just two weeks ago, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom announced the creation of a special financial mechanism designed to oversee mirror-image transactions that would replace sanctionable international payments between EU businesses and Iran.” 

As usual, the Europeans appear to have buckled under pressure. On Sunday, the European signatories to the deal condemned Iran’s decision to start up its enrichment program. Despite the apocalyptic warnings of Bibi and the Zionists, Iran is far away from the 90 percent enrichment required to make a nuclear weapon. 

Maja Kocijancic, spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Mogherini, sounded a little like Bibi and the neocons.

“We are extremely concerned at Iran’s announcement that it has started uranium enrichment above the limit of 3.67%,” she said. “We strongly urge Iran to stop and reverse all activities inconsistent with its commitments.” 

Ms. Kocijancic failed to mention the obvious—the nuclear deal with Iran came to a crashing halt after the US went back on the agreement and reimposed sanctions designed to make the people of Iran suffer. 

Trump and the Israelis plan to overthrow the rule of the current government and replace it with the autocratic rule of a cult leader, Maryam Rajavi. Her organization, the Mojahedin-e Khalq, has killed Americans, but this is of no concern for the likes of Netyanhu, John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani (both have received handsome sums of money for speeches delivered to MEK supporters), and the neocons. 

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

For more than 14 months now, Europe has offered no solution to ease the crippling US sanctions on Iran, giving the “Islamic Republic” no valid reason to hold on the JCPOA nuclear deal. The Leader of the Revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei advised Iranian officials to trust neither the US nor Europe. From Iran’s point of view, the US is honest in revealing its animosity to Iran, showing its bad intentions and plans to corner the country. It is playing – in Iran’s view – “the bad cop role”. Europe, on the other hand “is worse, taking upon itself the good cop role, offering nice phrases, a pretence of care and concern, but with no intention of buying Iranian oil”. Iran believes today it has been cheated and gave up a high degree of uranium enrichment and the many centrifuges it possessed in 2012, in return for unprecedented sanctions. This is what is pushing Tehran towards a “gradual partial withdrawal, every few months until reaching total withdrawal and a request for the IAEA to leave the country sometime next year”. That will enable Iran to regain its full nuclear capability, irrespective of US and EU concerns, without necessarily heading towards producing nuclear bombs.

Iranian officials said that

“President Vladimir Putin advised Iran to stay within the nuclear deal, against Iran’s inclination to partially withdraw from it. Putin believed Europe, by joining China and Russia, would be in a position to meet Iran’s demands and soften the heavy US unilateral sanctions. Today the Russian President is aware that Europe has little to offer except for asking for more time and further delays. Europe is in no position to exchange its commerce with the US for its Iranian trade. Whatever European leaders might like to do, they are in no position to compensate for the US sanctions on Iran”.

Iranian sources directly linked to the nuclear deal said:

“European criticism of the US unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal can’t be translated into facts. We have been through similar situations for over a decade now, and we are aware that Europe is in no position to buy Iranian oil. The European INSTEX (Instrument In Support Of Trade Exchanges) monetary system is not designed to address oil-related transactions and facilitate the daily sale of 2.5 – 2.8 million barrels of oil per day, necessary to the Iranian economy. Is being offered to buy non-sanctionable medicine, medical equipment, food and humanitarian products, items the US itself has excluded from its sanctions. Europe is also aware that Trump is pushing Iran out of the nuclear deal in order to win some political support, notwithstanding the absence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme. Iran is part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that allows Iran to use nuclear technology for research, medical and energy purposes. However, Trump wants to see the world gathering behind the US and against Iran like in 2012″.

“What the US seems unaware off is that in 2012, Iran was much weaker than today with fewer resources and a fragile economy. The world’s sanctions didn’t stop Iran from increasing its uranium enrichment and the number of centrifuges. It is clear to us that Iran was cheated and deprived of a large stock of its nuclear capability in exchange for harsh sanctions. Therefore, Iran has no interest in remaining in the nuclear deal. However, there is no hurry. The withdrawal will not be sudden”.

Europe is saying it has no leverage to induce European companies to deal with or work in Iran. Therefore, it is not violating the nuclear deal. Iran maintains that it is not violating the JCPOA understanding but implementing its articles 26 and 36, allowing it to partially or permanently withdraw from the deal if parties revoke it or sanctions are imposed. Moreover, the US is asking Iran to abide by the deal and avoid “playing with fire”, while imposing further sanctions on Iran’s leader and possibly its Foreign Minister.

Iran remembers recent history well, while White House advisors seem not to have learned any lessons from their colleagues in previous administrations.

Read this carefully and concentrate on the date: 

In 2012, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) declare that the Fordow and Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plants (FFEP) had reached 19.75 percent LEU uranium enrichment (today Iran is allowed to reach 3.67 per cent). EU Foreign ministers decided to halt their import of oil from Iran and removed the country from its Belgium based monetary system (SWIFT). Iran failed to convince Saudi Arabia to avoid increasing its oil production to compensate for this loss to the market. Iran then declared that the Strait of Hormuz would be closed to navigation if prevented from exporting its oil. Iran also delivered explicit threats to any US jet violating its airspace. The local currency was sharply devaluated, losing 40 per cent (today it is 37.2) of its value.

The US administration was convinced the Iranian regime would fall within months and that demonstrations would invade the streets to topple the regime due to the heavy sanctions. Iran’s oil exports fell from 21 billion dollars a year to almost 11-12 billion dollars.

At the same time, Iran’s stockpile of uranium reached 8,271 kg (the threshold of 300 kg of uranium hexafluoride imposed on Iran today was designed to keep Iran at a distance from 1,500 kg of 3.67 percent enriched uranium that would be needed for a single nuclear weapon if the uranium were to be further enriched to 90 per cent) and it reached 12,669 centrifuges IR-1 centrifuges at Natanz facility, 2,088 at Fordow and planned to install additional 2,952 IR-2 centrifuges.

Israel then targeted and assassinated Iranian scientists; the US, UK and Israel attacked Iran electronically to disturb its nuclear programme; the entire world agreed to impose sanctions on Iran, including the UN, Russia and China. Iran declared it would soon reach 60% to 90% of enriched uranium, the percentage needed for nuclear bomb production.

Israel voiced its intention to bomb Iran that responded that Israel and all US military bases would be bombed in response. Iran’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hassan Fairouz Abadi warned that Tehran would retaliate with a “surprising punishment” and would move the battle to the heart of the US. Hezbollah Secretary General said “any battle against Iran means the entire region will be in flames”.

That was the moment President Barak Obama decided to sit around the negotiation table. Not for fear of war, but because Iran was adapting to the sanctions, supporting Syria to prevent the US regime-change war, financing (despite heavy sanctions) its army and infrastructure needs, finding ways to sell its oil, developing its nuclear programme without any international agency’s control and with the prospect of producing a nuclear bomb, even if Iran never said it aimed at a nuclear weapons programme.

Yesterday looks so much like today. However, Trump and his administration have a short memory. Iran is today far from being isolated and is much stronger than in 2012. It has the more excellent military capability, while the UN, Russia and China are on its side.

Iran has cards to play against Europe.

As Iran said in private messages to European leaders, the “Islamic Republic” can unleash Afghan drug smugglers and lessen security measures to prevent them from exporting to Europe;

Iran can cease its cooperation in terrorism matters and terminate its punitive and very costly measures to stop illegal immigration to Europe.

In the remaining days leading up to the 7th of July, Europe is not expected to devise a magical solution but will instead watch Iran partially withdraw from the JCPOA, until its final pull-out expected in less than a year.

President Obama, unlike Donald Trump, refused to listen to Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu who wanted to bomb Iran. If Trump did not have an election campaign to run, his warmonger consiglieri would likely have pushed him to war already. It is against European interests to find itself in the middle, when a re-elected Trump, careless about the costs of an Israeli-inspired adventure, will likely bomb Iran. It is not too late, but it is past time for Europe to steel itself and prevent disaster.

*

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 the author