Global Research

Eva Bartlett visited refugees in Syria escaping the horrid conditions in the Rukban Refugee Camp, a desolate outpost in the US administered deconfliction zone. What she found was very different than the ‘reality’ depicted by the Western press.

***

A little over a year ago — just after the Syrian army and its allies liberated the towns and villages around eastern Ghouta from the myriad armed jihadist groups that had waged a brutal campaign of torture and executions in the area — I interviewed a number of the civilians that had endured life under jihadist rule in Douma, Kafr Batna and the Horjilleh Center for Displaced People just south of Damascus.

A common theme emerged from the testimonies of those civilians: starvation as a result of jihadist control over aid and food supplies, and the public execution of civilians.

Their testimonies echoed those of civilians in other areas of Syria formerly occupied by armed anti-government groups, from Madaya and al-Waer to eastern Aleppo and elsewhere.

Despite those testimonies and the reality on the ground, Western politicians and media alike have placed the blame for the starvation and suffering of Syrian civilians squarely on the shoulders of Russia and Syria, ignoring the culpability of terrorist groups.

In reality, terrorist groups operating within areas of Syria that they occupy have had full control over food and aid, and ample documentation shows that they have hoarded food and medicines for themselves. Even under better circumstances, terrorist groups charged hungry civilians grotesquely inflated prices for basic foods, sometimes demanding up to 8,000 Syrian pounds (US $16) for a kilogram of salt, and 3,000 pounds (US $6) for a bag of bread.

Given the Western press’ obsessive coverage of the starvation and lack of medical care endured by Syrian civilians, its silence has been deafening in the case of Rukban — a desolate refugee camp in Syria’s southeast where conditions are appalling to such an extent that civilians have been dying as a result. Coverage has been scant of the successful evacuations of nearly 15,000 of the 40,000 to 60,000 now-former residents of Rukban (numbers vary according to source) to safe havens where they are provided food, shelter and medical care.

Silence about the civilian evacuations from Rukban is likely a result of the fact that those doing the rescuing are the governments of Syria and Russia — and the fact that they have been doing so in the face of increasing levels of opposition from the U.S. government.

A harsh, abusive environment

Rukban lies on Syria’s desolate desert border with Jordan, surrounded by a 55-km deconfliction zone, unilaterally established and enforced by the United States, and little else aside from the American base at al-Tanf, only 25 km away — a base whose presence is illegal under international law.

It is, by all reports, an unbearably harsh environment year-round and residents of the camp have endured abuse by terrorist groups and merchants within the camp, deprived of the very basics of life for many years now.

In February, the UNHCR reported that young girls and women in Rukban have been forced into marriage, some more than once. Their briefing noted:

Many women are terrified to leave their mud homes or tents and to be outside, as there are serious risks of sexual abuse and harassment. Our staff met mothers who keep their daughters indoors, as they are too afraid to let them go to improvised schools.”

The Jordanian government, home to 664,330 registered Syrian refugees, has adamantly refused any responsibility in providing humanitarian assistance to Rukban, arguing that it is a Syrian issue and that keeping its border with Syria closed is a matter of Jordan’s security — this after a number of terrorist attacks on the border near Rukban, some of which were attributed to ISIS and one that killed six Jordanian soldiers.

According to U.S. think-tank The Century Foundation, armed groups in Rukban have up to 4,000 men in their ranks and include:

Maghawir al-Thawra, the Free Tribes Army, the remnants of a formerly Pentagon-backed group called the Qaryatein Martyr Battalions and three factions formerly linked to the CIA’s covert war in Syria: the Army of the Eastern Lions, the Martyr Ahmed al-Abdo Forces, and the Shaam Liberation Army.”

Those armed groups, according to Russia, include several hundred ISIS and al-Qaeda recruits. Even the Atlantic Council — a NATO- and U.S. State Department-funded think-tank consistent in its anti-Syrian government stance — reported in November 2017 that the Jordanian government acknowledged an ISIS presence in Rukban.

The Century Foundation also notes the presence of ISIS in Rukban and concedes that the U.S. military “controls the area but won’t guarantee the safety of aid workers seeking access to the camp.”

The Rukban camp, sandwiched between Jordan, Syria borders and Iraq, Feb. 14, 2017. Raad Adayleh | AP

Syria and Russia have sought out diplomatic means to resolve the issue of Rukban, arguing repeatedly at the United Nations Security Council for the need to dismantle the camp and return refugees to areas once plagued by terrorism but that have now been secured.

As I wrote recently:

The U.S. stymied aid to Rukban, and was then only willing to provide security for aid convoys to a point 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) away from the camp, according to the UN’s own Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mark Lowcock. So, by U.S. administration logic, convoys should have dropped their Rukban-specific aid in areas controlled by terrorist groups and just hoped for the best.”

The U.S., for its part, has both refused the evacuation of refugees from the camp and obstructed aid deliveries on at least two occasions. In February, Russia and Syria opened two humanitarian corridors to Rukban and began delivering much-needed aid to its residents.

Syria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Bashar al-Ja’afari, noted in May 2019 that Syria agreed to facilitate the first aid convoy to Rukban earlier this year, but the convoy was ultimately delayed by the United States for 40 days. A second convoy was then delayed for four months. Al-Ja’afari also noted that the U.S., as an occupying power in Syria, is obliged under the Geneva Conventions to provide food, medicine and humanitarian assistance to those under its occupation.

Then, in early March, the Russian Center for Reconciliation reported that U.S. authorities had refused entry to a convoy of buses intending to enter the deconfliction zone to evacuate refugees from Rukban.

According to a March 2019 article from Public Radio International:

[W]hen Syrian and Iranian forces have entered the 34-mile perimeter around the base, American warplanes have responded with strikes — effectively putting Rukban and its residents under American protection from Assad’s forces.”

Despite the abundance of obstacles they faced, Syria and Russia were ultimately able to evacuate over 14,000 of the camp’s residents to safety. In a joint statement on June 19, representatives of the two countries noted that some of the camp’s residents were forced to pay “militants” between $400 to $1000 in order to leave Rukban.

Media reports on Rukban … from abroad

While Rukban — unlike Madaya or Aleppo in 2016 — generally isn’t making headlines, there are some pro-regime-change media reporting on it, although even those reports tend to omit the fact that civilians have been evacuated to safety and provided with food and medical care.

Instead, articles relieve America and armed Jihadist groups of their role in the suffering of displaced Syrians in Rukban, reserving blame for Syria and Russia and claiming internal refugees are being forced to leave against their will only to be imprisoned by the Syrian government.

Emad Ghali, a “media activist,” has been at the center of many of these claims. Ghali has been cited as a credible source in most of the mainstream Western press’ reporting on Rukban, from the New York Times, to Al Jazeera, to the Middle East Eye. Cited since at least 2018 in media reporting on Rukban, Ghali has an allegiance to the Free Syrian Army, a fact easily gleaned by simply browsing his Facebook profile. He recently posted multiple times on Facebook mourning the passing of jihadist commander and footballer Abdul Baset al-Sarout. As it turns out, Sarout not only held extremist and sectarian views, but pledged allegiance to ISIS, among other less-than-noble acts ignored by most media reports that cite him.

Ghali paid homage to ISIS commander Abdul Baset al-Sarout on his Facebook page

Citing Ghali as merely a “media activist” is not an unusual practice for many covering the Syrian conflict. In fact, Ghali holds the same level of extremist-minded views as the “sources” cited by the New York Times in articles that I reported on around the time Ghouta was being liberated from jihadist groups in 2018.

Four sources used in those articles had affiliations to, and/or reverence for the al-Qaeda-linked Jaysh al-Islam — including the former leader Zahran Alloush who has been known to confine civilians in cages, including women and children, for use as human shields in Ghouta — Faylaq al-Rahman, and even to al-Qaeda, not to mention the so-called Emir of al-Qaeda in Syria, the applauded Abu Muhammad Al-Julani.

Claims in a Reuters article of forced internment, being held at gunpoint in refugee centers, come from sources not named in Rukban — instead generically referred to as “residents of Rukban say”…

An article in the UAE-based The National also pushed fear-mongering over the “fate that awaits” evacuees, saying:

[T]here is talk of Syrian government guards separating women and children from men in holding centres in Homs city.There are also accusations of a shooting last month, with two men who had attempted an escape from one of the holding centres allegedly killed. The stories are unconfirmed, but they are enough to make Rukban’s men wary of taking the government’s route out.”

Yet reports from those who have actually visited the centers paint a different picture.

An April 2019 report by Russia-based Vesti News shows calm scenes of Rukban evacuees receiving medical exams by the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, who according to Vesti, have doctors there every day; and of food and clean, if not simple, rooms in a former school housing displaced refugees from Rukban. Notably, the Vesti journalist states: “There aren’t any checkpoints or barriers at the centre. The entrance and exit are free.”

The Russian Reconciliation Center reported on May 23 of the refugee centers:

In early May, these shelters were visited by officials from the respective UN agencies, in particular, the UNHCR, who could personally see that the Syrian government provided the required level of accommodation for the refugees in Homs. It is remarkable that most of the former Rukban residents have already relocated from temporary shelters in Homs to permanent residencies in government-controlled areas.”

Likewise, in the Horjilleh Center which I visited in 2018 families were living in modest but sanitary shelters, cooked food was provided, a school was running, and authorities were working to replace identity papers lost during the years under the rule of jihadist groups.

Calling on the U.S. to close the camp

David Swanson, Public Information Officer Regional Office for the Syria Crisis UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs based in Amman, Jordan, told me regarding claims of substandard conditions and of Syrians being forcefully held or mistreated in the centers that,

People leaving Rukban are taken to temporary collective shelters in Homs for a 24-hour stay. While there, they receive basic assistance, including shelter, blankets, mattresses, solar lamps, sleeping mats, plastic sheets, food parcels and nutrition supplies before proceeding to their areas of choice, mostly towards southern and eastern Homs, with small numbers going to rural Damascus or Deir-ez-Zor.

The United Nations has been granted access to the shelters on three occasions and has found the situation there adequate. The United Nations continues to advocate and call for safe, sustained and unimpeded humanitarian assistance and access to Rukban as well as to all those in need throughout Syria. The United Nations also seeks the support of all concerned parties in ensuring the humanitarian and voluntary character of departures from Rukban.”

Hedinn Halldorsson, the Spokesperson and Public Information Officer for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) based in Damascus, told me:

We looked into this when the rumours started, end of April, and concluded they were unfounded – and communicated that externally via press briefings in both Geneva and NY. The conditions in the shelters in Homs are also adequate and in compliance with standards; the UN has access and has done three monitoring visits so far.”

Syrian Arab Red Crescent members unload food and water for Rukban’s evacuees. Photo | Eva Bartlett

Halldorsson noted official UN statements, including:

“Alleged mistreatment of Rukban returnees

• The United Nations is aware of media reports about people leaving Rukban having been killed or subject to mistreatment upon arrival in shelters in Homs.
• The United Nations has not been able to confirm any of the allegations.

Regarding the issue of shelters, Halldorsson noted that as of July 1st:

• Nearly 15,600 people have left Rukban since March – or nearly 40 per cent of the estimated total population of 41,700.
• The United Nations has been granted access to the shelters in Homs on three occasions and found conditions in these shelters to be adequate.”

Confirming both UN officials’ statements about the Syrian government’s role in Rukban, the Syrian Mission to the United Nations in New York City told me:

The Syrian Government has spared no effort in recent years to provide every form of humanitarian assistance and support to all Syrians affected by the crisis, regardless of their locations throughout Syria. The Syrian Government has therefore collaborated and cooperated with the United Nations and other international organizations working in Syria to that end, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 46/182.

There must be an end to the suffering of tens of thousands of civilians who live in Al-Rukban, an area which is controlled by illegitimate foreign forces and armed terrorist groups affiliated with them. The continued suffering of those Syrian civilians demonstrates the indifference of the United States Administration to their suffering and disastrous situation.

We stress once again that there is a need to put an end to the suffering of these civilians and to close this camp definitively. The detained people in the camp must be allowed to leave it and return to their homes, which have been liberated by the Syrian Arab Army from terrorism. We note that the Syrian Government has taken all necessary measures to evacuate the detainees from the Rukban camp and end their suffering. What is needed today is for the American occupation forces to allow the camp to be dismantled and to ensure safe transportation in the occupied Al-Tanf area.”

Given that the United States has clearly demonstrated not only a lack of will to aid and or resettle Rukban’s residents but a callousness that flies in the face of their purported concern for Syrians in Rukban, the words of Syrian and Russian authorities on how to solve the crisis in Rukban could not ring truer.

Very little actual coverage

The sparse coverage Rukban has received has mostly revolved around accusations that the camp’s civilians fear returning to government-secured areas of Syria for fear of being imprisoned or tortured. This, in spite of the fact that areas brought back under government control over the years have seen hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians return to live in peace and of a confirmation by the United Nations that they had “positively assessed the conditions created by the Syrian authorities for returning refugees.”

The accusations also come in spite of the fact that, for years now, millions of internally displaced Syrians have taken shelter in government areas, often housed and given medical care by Syrian authorities.

Over the years I’ve found myself waiting for well over a month for my journalist visa at the Syrian embassy in Beirut to clear. During these times I traveled around Lebanon where I’ve encountered Syrians who left their country either for work, the main reason, or because their neighborhoods were occupied by terrorist groups. All expressed a longing for Syria and a desire to return home.

In March, journalist Sharmine Narwani tweeted in part that,

“the head of UNDP in Lebanon told me during an interview: ‘I have not met a single Syrian refugee who does not want to go home.’”

Of the authors who penned articles claiming that Syrians in Rukban are afraid to return to government-secured areas of Syria, few that I’m aware of actually traveled to Syria to speak with evacuees, instead reporting from Istanbul or even further abroad.

On June 12, I did just that, hiring a taxi to take me to a dusty stretch of road roughly 60 km east of ad-Dumayr, Syria, where I was able to intercept a convoy of buses ferrying exhausted refugees out of Rukban.

Merchants, armed groups and Americans

Five hundred meters from a fork in the highway connecting a road heading northeast to Tadmur (Palmyra) to another heading southeast towards Iraq — I waited at a nondescript stopping point called al-Waha, where buses stopped for water and food to be distributed to starving refugees. In Arabic, al-Waha means the oasis and, although only a makeshift Red Crescent distribution center, and compared to Rukban it might as well have been an oasis.

A convoy of 18 buses carrying nearly 900 tormented Syrians followed by a line of trucks carrying their belongings were transferred to refugee reception centers in Homs. Members of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent distributed boxes containing beans, chickpeas and canned meat — the latter a scarcity among the displaced.

Buses transported nearly 900 refugees from Rukban Camp to temporary shelters in Homs on June 12. Photo | Eva Bartlett

As food and water were handed out, I moved from bus to bus speaking with people who endured years-long shortages of food, medicine, clean water, work and education … the basic essentials of life. Most people I spoke to said they were starving because they couldn’t afford the hefty prices of food in the camp, which they blamed on Rukban’s merchants. Some blamed the terrorist groups operating in the camp and still others blamed the Americans. A few women I spoke to blamed the Syrian government, saying no aid had entered Rukban at all, a claim that would later be refuted by reports from both the UN and Red Crescent.

Image on the right: An elderly woman recounted enduring hunger in Rukban. Photo | Eva Bartlett

An old woman slumped on the floor of one bus recounted:

We were dying of hunger, life was hell there. Traders [merchants] sold everything at high prices, very expensive; we couldn’t afford to buy things. We tried to leave before today but we didn’t have money to pay for a car out. There were no doctors; it was horrible there.”

Aboard another bus, an older woman sat on the floor, two young women and several babies around her. She had spent four years in the camp:

“Everything was expensive, we were hungry all the time. We ate bread, za’atar, yogurt… We didn’t know meat, fruit…”

Merchants charged 1,000 Syrian pounds (US $2) for five potatoes, she said, exemplifying the absurdly high prices.

I asked whether she’d been prevented from leaving before. “Yes,” she responded.

She didn’t get a chance to elaborate as a younger woman further back on the bus shouted at her that no one had been preventing anyone from leaving. When I asked the younger woman how the armed groups had treated her, she replied, “All respect to them.”

But others that I spoke to were explicit in their blame for both the terrorist groups operating in the camp and the U.S. occupation forces in al-Tanf.

An older man from Palmyra who spent four years in the camp spoke of “armed gangs” paid in U.S. dollars being the only ones able to eat properly:

The armed gangs were living while the rest of the people were dead. No one here had fruit for several years. Those who wanted fruit have to pay in U.S. dollars. The armed groups were the only ones who could do so. They were spreading propaganda: ‘don’t go, the aid is coming.’ We do not want aid. We want to go back to our towns.”

Mahmoud Saleh, a young man from Homs, told me he’d fled home five years ago. According to Saleh, the Americans were in control of Rukban. He also put blame on the armed groups operating in the camp, especially for controlling who was permitted to leave. He said,

“There are two other convoys trying to leave but the armed groups are preventing them.”

Image below: Mahmoud Saleh from Homs said the Americans control Rukban and blamed armed groups in the camp for controlling who could leave. Photo | Eva Bartlett

A shepherd who had spent three years in Rukban blamed “terrorists” for not being able to leave. He also blamed the United States:

“Those controlling Tanf wouldn’t let us leave, the Americans wouldn’t let us leave.”

Many others I spoke to said they had wanted to leave before but were fear-mongered by terrorists into staying, told they would be “slaughtered by the regime,” a claim parroted by many in the Western press when Aleppo and other areas of Syria were being liberated from armed groups.

The testimonies I heard when speaking to Rukban evacuees radically differed from the claims made in most of the Western press’ reporting about Syria’s treatment of refugees. These testimonies are not only corroborated by Syrian and Russian authorities, but also by the United Nations itself.

*

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.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and occupied Palestine, where she lived for nearly four years. She is a recipient of the 2017 International Journalism Award for International Reporting, granted by the Mexican Journalists’ Press Club (founded in 1951), was the first recipient of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism, and was short-listed in 2017 for the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. See her extended bio on her blog In Gaza. She tweets at @EvaKBartlett

Featured image:  An elderly women evacuated from Rukban complained of hunger due to extremely high food prices. Photo | Eva Bartlett

“Before the Constitution and before the Bill of Rights there was the Declaration of Independence. The founders took little time to enshrine in the Declaration of Independence the most fundamental and primary right from which all other rights flow: that is the Right to Revolt against an oppressive government.” – Winston Weeks

On this Independence Day, as every Independence Day, I like to ponder the Declaration of Independence to which those gone before pledged lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

This year — as always — particular passages seemed as pertinent today as they did over 200 years ago.

For example — consider the failure of our Congress and President to protect citizens from environmentally-related illness,  and to enact and enforce basic workplace health and safety guarantees, and to refuse to regulate emissions in an age of global climate change — and then recall the reasons given by our founders for deciding to separate from King George and the British Crown:

“.. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. …”

Or, the collusion between our Government and mammoth multinational corporations in entering alliances such as WTO and NAFTA and GATT having the power to gut the power of our legislature to protect our environment, to assure safety and well-being of our workers and to protect all Americans from unwholesome, unsafe, unhealthy and dangerous goods:

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation”

“For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments”

“For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”

And consider the passage of the Patriot Act, its use of military tribunals, refusal to recognize the International Criminal Court, and the long-continuing Wars of Occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq, waged with impunity and against the will of the nation and the United Nations family of nations, and now  the Trump-Bolton regime recently declaring itself above the Rule of  Law and the prohibiting by force and diplomatic expulsion all investigation of the International Criminal Court of US state crimes in Afghanistan and the US itself;

“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He is at this time transporting large armies… to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation”

This is our Declaration of Independence, which along with the Constitution of the United States, provides the basis of loyalty to our Republic, and is at risk as never before.

*

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.

Matthew Stanton is a long practising Chicago attorney  and law professor.

This writer has been focussing tirelessly on the (obscene) fact that over half of our federal taxes goes down the rabbit hole of military spending. Well, writer and researcher Andre Damon of the World Socialist Website just wrote a piece on July 1st on this very subject. He stated that under phony populist demagogue Trump the Senate (with the help of 36 Democrats) passed the largest ever Pentagon budget. Taking over from Democrat Obama, where under his watch the said budgets even surpassed the ones under the war mongering Bush/Cheney cabal, ‘The hits just keep on comin!’ From the $619 billion in 2016 to $700 billion in 2017 to the $716 billion in 2018 to…drum roll please… $750 billion passed last Thursday. This now makes military spending AKA Defense spending (has a better ‘secure our borders’ flavor to it, yes?) accounting for… drum roll again… around 60% of the federal budget!

Imagine if you will that if just 25% of that money immediately went for things like A) Jumpstarting full Medicare for All with no need for buying supplemental private add on insurance (Read Which Path to National Improved Medicare for All?) B) Fixing our roads, bridges, power distribution below ground like in Europe, and money to sure up coastal areas to stand up to hurricanes better; C) Having an Amtrak to rival the railroad travel and accessibility that the Europeans have had for generations; D) Begin to institute public banking whereupon, with low or non profit, the consumer will save immeasurably. (Read The Public Banking Revolution Is Upon Us by Ellen Brown)

To put things into perspective, according to Andre Damon, Russia’s annual military budget is $61 billion, and they sure as hell kept our USA wolf from overtaking Syria and Venezuela! He goes on to report that the Democratic controlled House of Representatives is only proposing a $733 billion Pentagon budget. That’s some Green Deal hah? One surmises that most of those new Dems, you know the myriad of ex military and CIA folks, must have joined with their bipartisan colleagues to keep the money rolling into the War Economy and OUT of the Green Economy.

When will Sanders and AOC and the handful of true progressives walk away from that corruption? What in the hell good is it to belong to a party that may win elections, and then do as little as possible to help we working stiffs… AND make the world a little less crazy. Duh, it’s called ‘Lead by example’! As far as the other and much more ruthless party, they are far beyond help. Yet, half of the voting suckers choose them for a myriad of reasons… yet never to save their working stiff asses! So sad this country that I love.

*

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

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

Featured image is from NationOfChange

Western, US-driven globalization is defunct, but not globalization per se. A higher degree of economic and cultural interdependence has found favor in the form of new regionalism since the 1990s.

Recently, The Economist interviewed Michael O’Sullivan, former banker and economist at Princeton University, on the end of globalization and the emergence of a multipolar world, the thesis of his recent book. In the short interview and book’s excerpt, a macroscopic forgetfulness can be noticed: The idea and historical evolution of globalization is treated without any geopolitical characterization. In this discussion, globalization is taken for granted as a natural state of affairs that comes and goes. It is assumed that globalization has been a beneficial state of affairs, without mentioning the Western, liberal and neoliberal matrix, with its Anglo-Saxon inspired policies, often imposed without democratic discussion. Such policies, often disastrous, hardly ever benefit the South and are characterized by NATO’s expansionary footprints and war interventions in sensitive areas that did not accept the “Washington Consensus.”

I do agree with the statement “globalization is defunct,” but with the necessary consideration that Western neoliberal project of domination is defunct. Moreover, the author rightly suggests that we are moving toward a multipolar world, anchored in the US, Europe, and China-centric Asia, with middle powers, such as Japan, Russia and Australia, struggling to find their new footing. Two poles were already part of the previous power configuration, and China’s ascent is a four-decades-old process, so the author’s thesis says nothing new.

At the beginning of the century, I did a lot of academic research and published works on globalization and later on China’s contemporary development and international role. The literature on globalization always says that we never lived in a flat world and conform to the simultaneous phenomenon of new regionalism, above all in Asia. It is also incorrect to say that multipolarism existed until now only in theory, because it does not recognize the evolutionary aspect of last decade’s changes in world order.

Insights on it come from world system, economic geography and literature on geopolitics. So nowadays, China has peacefully challenged the previous, anachronistic and unjust form of globalization, imposition and exploitation of dependency relations (economically, financially and militarily). China’s idea of globalization is characterized by supporting multilateralism and forging a more representative world governance. The most important innovation is that for the first time in history, China, as a leading country, even though still developing, emphasizes the absolute need to respect each other and promote integration, new form of inter-state relations.

All of these innovative ideas are coherently attached to UN principles. Respecting these differences is the road to building a community with a shared future for humanity, which I consider a much more practical and broader idea to really respect human rights. It is the first right to development and peaceful coexistence (collective rights), without which it is impossible even to think about individual rights.

In addition, I do not think, as the author suggests, Bretton Woods institutions are defunct, because G20 has shown the will to reform them according to the new historical conditions and changes, and new emerging countries are not challenging the institutions per se, but the uneven and unjust power relations.

I do have other two critical points about The Economist interview.

First, the author is correct in his criticism of financialization process/monetary activism, saying that debt increase and wealth inequalities are key factors in causing tensions and affecting globalization. Consequently, he considers the “poor and inconclusive response to global financial crisis” the final hit on globalization. However, he forgot to mention that the crisis was born in the US and the EU, as a consequence of financial excesses, and thus we should interpret this crisis as another Western failure, weakening and hitting Western-made globalization. All is based on neoliberal doctrine, so neoliberal policies have failed as well.

Second, when he divides the world based on two groups of countries/societies, “Leveller” and “Leviathan,” he re-proposed a simplistic McCarthyism between societies (“public life”) devoted to freedom and democracy, and the rest. It is not surprising that he saw conflict in society like China, based on this view of democratic impulses versus Leviathans.

Again, as in the West-driven globalization tradition, he did not recognize the existence of a much more complex mosaic of people’s and nation-states’ traditions that you cannot grasp so simplistically. We know it is the US approach to simplifying the world, limiting the ability of the US to adapt to a deeply changing world. In spite of the author’s forecast of democratic decline (surely Western), inter-state relations are smoothly becoming democratic thanks to an increasing degree of multipolarity.

*

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 Global Times.

Prof. Fabio Massimo Parenti is associate professor of Geography/International Studies (ASN), teaching at the International Institute Lorenzo de’ Medici, Florence. He is also member of CCERRI think tank, Zhengzhou, and EURISPES, Laboratorio BRICS, Rome. His latest book is Geofinance and Geopolitics, Egea. Follow him on twitter @fabiomassimos

Featured image is from VCG

A thick veil of mystery surrounds the fire that broke out in a state of the art Russian submersible in the Barents Sea, leading to the death of 14 crew members poisoned by toxic fumes.

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the submersible was conducting bathymetric measurements, as in examining and mapping deep sea conditions. The crew on board was composed of “unique naval specialists, high-class professionals, who conducted important research of the Earth’s hydrosphere.” Now the – so far unnamed – nuclear-powered vessel is at the Arctic port of Severomorsk, the main base of Russia’s Northern Fleet.

A serious, comprehensive military investigation is in progress. According to the Kremlin,

“the Supreme Commander-in-Chief has all the information, but this data cannot be made public, because this refers to the category of absolutely classified data.”

The submersible is a Losharik. Its Russian code is AS-12 (for “Atomnaya Stantsiya” or “Nuclear Station“). NATO calls it Norsub-5. It’s been in service since 2003. Giant Delta III nuclear submarines, also able to launch ICBMs, have been modified to transport the submersible across the seas.

NATO’s spin is that the AS-12/Norsub-5 is a “spy” sub, and a major “threat” to undersea telecommunication cables, mostly installed by the West. The submersible’s operating depth is 1,000 meters and it may have operated as deep as 2,500 meters in the Arctic Ocean. It may be comparable to, or be something of an advanced version of, the US deep submergence vessel NR-1 (operating depth 910m) famous for being used to search for and recover critical parts of the space shuttle Challenger, lost in 1986.

It’s quite enlightening to place the Losharik within the scope of the latest Pentagon report about Russian strategic intentions. Amid the proverbial demonization terminology – “Russia’s gray zone tactics,” “Russian aggression.” Russian “deep-seated sense of geopolitical insecurity” – the report claims that “Russia is adopting coercive strategies that involve the orchestrated employment of military and nonmilitary means to deter and compel the US, its allies and partners prior to and after the outbreak of hostilities. These strategies must be proactively confronted, or the threat of significant armed conflict may increase.”

It’s no wonder that, considering the incandescence of US-Russia relations on the geopolitical chessboard, what happened to the Losharik fueled frenetic speculation  including totally unsubstantiated rumors it had been torpedoed by a US submarine in a firefight – on top of it, in Russian territorial waters.

Connections were made between US Vice-President Mike Pence’s suddenly being ordered to return to the White House while the Europeans were also huddled in Brussels, as President Putin had an emergency meeting with Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu.

In the end, it was nothing but mere speculation.

A Russian diagram of the ill-fated AS12 sub.

Submersible incident

The submersible incident – complete with the speculative plot line of a US-Russia firefight in the Arctic – did drown, at least for a while, the prime, current geopolitical incandescence: the US economic war on Iran.

Expanding on serious discussions at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Bishkek – which included Iran’s President Rouhani – and the Putin-Xi meetings in Moscow and St. Petersburg and at the G20 in Osaka, both Russia and China are fully invested in keeping Iran stable and protected from the Trump administration’s strategy of chaos.

Both Moscow and Beijing are fully aware Washington’s divide-and-rule tactics are geared towards stopping the momentum of Eurasia integration – which includes everything from bilateral trade in local currencies and bypassing the US dollar to further interconnection of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative, the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) and the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INSTC).

Beijing plays a shadow game, keeping very quiet on the de facto US economic blockade against one of its key Belt and Road allies. Yet the fact is China continues to buy Iranian crude, and bilateral trade is being settled in yuan and rial.

The Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), the mechanism set up by the EU-3 (France, UK and Germany) to bypass the US dollar for trade between Iran and the EU after the US unilaterally abandoned the nuclear deal, or JCPOA, may finally be in place. But there’s no evidence INSTEX will be adopted by myriad European companies, as it essentially covers Iranian purchases of food and medicine.

Plan B would be for the Russian Central Bank to extend access to Iran as one the nations possibly adopting SPFS (System for Transfer of Financial Messages), the Russian mechanism for trade sanctioned by the US that bypasses SWIFT. Moscow has been working on the SPFS since 2104, when the threat to expel Russia from SWIFT became a distinct possibility.

As for Iran being accused – by the US – of “breaching” the JCPOA, that’s absolute nonsense. To start with, Tehran cannot possibly “breach” a multinational deal that was declared null and void by one of the signatories, the US.

In fact the alleged “breach” is due to the fact the EU-3 were not buying Iran’s low-enriched uranium, as promised, because of the US embargo. Washington has de facto forced the EU-3 not to buy it. Tehran duly notified all JCPOA parties that, as they are not buying it, Iran will have to store more low enriched uranium than the JCPOA allows for. If the EU-3 resumes buying it that automatically means Iran is not “breaching” anything.

Cliffhanger

Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif is correct; INSTEX, already too little too late, is not even enough, as the mechanism does not allow Tehran to continue to export oil, which is the nation’s right. As for the “breach,” Zarif says it’s easily “reversible” – as long as the EU-3 abide by their commitments.

Russian energy minister Alexander Novak concurs:

“As regards restrictions on Iranian exports, we support Iran and we believe that the sanctions are unlawful; they have not been approved by the UN.”

Still, Iran continues to export crude, by all means available, especially to Asia, with the National Iranian Oil Co (NIOC) predictably shutting off satellite tracking on its fleet. But, ominously, the deadline set by Tehran for the EU-3 to actively support the sale of Iranian crude expires this coming Sunday. That’s a major cliffhanger. After that, the stalemate won’t be submersible anymore.

*

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.

Featured image: The submarine was formally assigned to the Russian Northern Fleet. (Source: AP: STR)

This year, an unprecedented event took place on Canada Day, in Ottawa. A group of Canadians answered a fellow citizen’s challenge to host the first ever “Make Canada Better – Speaker’s Corner”. The challenge went up on Facebook and Twitter, on June 16, 2019. It called for speakers to come to Ottawa on July 1st and “tell the truth about Apartheid in 2019 foreign-occupied Haiti”. It, in fact, listed three specific rendez-vous:

.

• July 1, 2019: Ottawa, Canada
• July 4, 2019: Washington, DC, USA
• July 14, 2019: Paris, France

As I explained to dozens of participants and curious listeners, who walked past the U.S. Embassy, on Sussex Drive, this Monday July 1, 2019, inspiration for these events came from a dear friend, the late Dr. Patrick Élie. The Biochemistry Professor, who passed away in February 2016, once went on a cross-Canada tour during which he spoke passionately about the urgent need for a radical change in Canadian policy towards Haiti.

Dr. Élie, who once served in the government of democratically-elected Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was often asked by attendees of his lectures: “what should well-meaning Canadians do to help Haiti?“. Invariably, he answered: “be a good citizen of your own country“.

Indeed, anyone who would have attended Patrick Élie’s lectures or who watched one of the well-researched documentaries about recent Haitian history, would quickly grasp the profound message conveyed in that sentence. A good Canadian citizen is one who exercises rights and fulfills duties that help make Canada a force for good in the world.

For nearly two decades now, a group of Canadians have tried to stir Canadian policy towards Haiti in a better direction. Unfortunately, the objective facts point to no major success thus far.

As illustrated by Canadian-French and American flags-adorned wooden crosses they trail on bent backs at multiple street demonstrations, impoverished Haitians consistently denounce Canada, the U.S. and France for the primary role they say these countries are playing in supporting a Neo-Tonton Macoute regime in Haiti.

Various researchers have documented disturbing evidence that Europe-U.S-Canada continue to nurture an unofficial system of political, social and economic Apartheid in the U.N./U.S.-occupied nation of Haiti.

Similarly to the 1915-1934 occupation of Haiti by the U.S., most natives reject today’s fraudulently and violently-imposed “presidents”, “senators”, “ministers” who are seen as mere black-face-white-mask puppets of the Core Group of foreigners (mostly white) who hold effective control of the 27,750 Square Kilometers known as the Republic of Haiti. This is also consistent with the decisions reached at the scandalous January 31, 2003 Ottawa Initiative on Haiti Coup planning meeting.

So, what was the point of repeating a message that has been systematically ignored by Canadian foreign policy makers, since the February 29, 2004 coup?

The topic is, of course, close to heart as I am an African, a native of Haiti, a Canadian and a citizen of Planet Earth who aspires to a better world. The 30000 Haitian victims of cholera contagion (brought to the island by the illegally-deployed U.N. troops), are family. The millions who are merely surviving on the island under the foreign-imposed neo-Tonton Macoute regime are deserving of our genuine solidarity.

In the African-Canadian community, there is much disdain for the term “visible minority” which was rendered fashionable by (mostly white) decision makers. It is fair to say that, after decades of speeches, its use has not helped increase the presence of non-whites in the spheres of power in Canada, to any significant degree. Likewise, the omnipresent huge cross adorned by the Canadian flag that Haitian demonstrators carry has, so far, somehow, failed to attract the curiosity of Canadian mainstream journalists. Some uncomfortable realities seem to have the surprising property of becoming invisible in plain sight.

Nonetheless, this past Monday July 1, 2019, Jo, a Raging Granny who joined previous Canada Haiti Action Networkevents in 2004-2006, was present with us, in front of the U.S. Embassy to answer the challenge. So was Mimi, an elegant grey-haired musician who speaks fondly of her native Petit-Goave, where she would have spent her old days, were it not for the Neo-Tonton Macoute regime that our taxes are propping up in Haiti.

Two vans arrived from Montreal with peace and anti-imperialism activists, including Frantz André, Jenny-Laure Sully, Marie Dimanche, friends from the Algonguin Anishinabe Nation and many more comrades of various background and experiences.

Did we successfully, magically, make Canada better with our speeches, with the flyers we distributed about the embezzled Petro Caribe funds, with information on the ongoing crimes like the Massacre of La Saline, or on journalist Pétion Rospide who the regime assassinated on June 10, 2019?

Will Federal Party Leaders answer our call for a principled stand on Haiti, ahead of the October elections?

Will CBC reporters decide to finally elucidate the reason young Haitians carry that cross which shames us all, on their backs?

I am unable to answer these questions with any degree of confidence. However, I feel honoured to have stood by the wretched of the earth alongside Darlène, Kevin, Simone, Turenne, Raymond, Mimi, Jo, Marie, Jean-Claude, Frantz, Jenny-Laure, Pierre as well as dozens of old or new comrades, on this July 1st afternoon. Brother Patrick, we tried to be the best Canadian citizens that we could be.

Tomorrow is July 4th. I have been told that, if not in Washington, in New-York, our KOMOKODA comrades will carry the challenge to tell the truth about Haiti, as they have been doing every Thursday – for several years now. Your beloved brother, the tireless Dahoud André is at the front. Do rest in peace comrade Patrick!

*

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 Jafrikayiti.

All images in this article are from Jafrikayiti

The US embassy in Ottawa boasted in a March 2017 memo, “Canada Adopts ‘America First’ Foreign Policy,” just after PM Trudeau appointed hard-line hawk Chrystia Freeland as foreign minister.

***

The US State Department boasted in a declassified memo in March 2017 that Canada had adopted an “America first” foreign policy.

The cable was authored just weeks after the centrist government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appointed Chrystia Freeland as foreign minister. The former editor of the major international news agency Reuters, Freeland has pushed for aggressive policies against states targeted by Washington for regime change, including Venezuela, Russia, Nicaragua, Syria, and Iran.

The State Department added that Trudeau had promoted Freeland “in large part because of her strong U.S. contacts,” and that her “number one priority” was working closely with Washington.

Under Freeland, the granddaughter of a Ukrainian Nazi propagandist, Canada has strongly campaigned against Russia, strengthened its ties with Saudi Arabia and Israel, and played a key role in the US-led right-wing coup attempt in Venezuela.

The memo offers the most concrete evidence to date that the United States sees Ottawa as an imperial subject and considers Canadian foreign policy as subordinate to its own.

Canada ‘Prioritizing U.S. Relations, ASAP’

On March 6, 2017, the US embassy in Canada’s capital of Ottawa sent a routine dispatch to Washington entitled “Canada Adopts ‘America First’ Foreign Policy.”

Almost all of the now declassified document is redacted. But it includes several pieces of revealing information.

The cable notes that the Canadian government would be “Prioritizing U.S. Relations, ASAP.” It also says to “Expect lncreased Engagement.”

The only section that is not redacted notes that the Trudeau administration “upgraded Canada’s approach to the bilateral relationship.”

“PM Trudeau promoted former Minister of International Trade Chrystia Freeland to Foreign Minister in large part because of her strong U.S. contacts, many developed before she entered politics,” the cable says.

“Her mandate letter from the PM listed her number one priority as maintaining ‘constructive relations’ with the United States,” the memo continues.

“Trudeau then added to her responsibilities for U.S. affairs, giving her responsibility for U.S.-Canada trade, an unprecedented move in the Canadian context,” the State Department wrote.

Chrystia Freeland’s ‘key role’ in Venezuela coup attempt

Foreign Minister Freeland has worked closely with the US government to advance its belligerent policies, especially those that target independent and leftist governments that refuse to submit to Washington’s diktat.

Under Freeland’s leadership, Canada took the lead in the plot to destabilize Venezuela this January. The Associated Press reported on how Ottawa joined Washington and right-wing Latin American governments in carefully planning the putsch.

Two weeks before coup leader Juan Guaidó declared himself “interim president,” Freeland personally called him to “congratulate him on unifying opposition forces in Venezuela.”

The AP reported:

“Playing a key role behind the scenes was Lima Group member Canada, whose Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland spoke to Guaido the night before Maduro’s searing-in ceremony to offer her government’s support should he confront the socialist leader.”

In 2017, Freeland helped to establish the Lima Group, an alliance of Canada and right-wing governments in Latin America that coalesced to push regime change in Venezuela. Because the US is not a member, Freeland has ensured that the Lima Group will act in Washington’s interests and advance North American imperial power in the region.

Canada’s former ambassador to Venezuela, Ben Rowswell, criticized the coup-plotting to the newspaper The Globe and Mail.

“It’s an unusual move for any country to comment on who the president of another country should be,” he said, “to have countries that represent two-thirds of the population of Latin America do it in minutes shows there was a remarkable alignment that’s got to be nearly unprecedented in the history of Latin America.”

Trudeau and Freeland have repeatedly called for the overthrow of the elected Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Canadian mining corporations, which are already heavily exploiting Honduras, have been desperate to get access to Venezuela’s substantial mineral reserves.

A Canadian hawk

Chrystia Freeland strongly supports sanctions against Western enemies and is a vocal advocate of unilaterally seizing the assets of foreign leaders deemed by Washington to be “dictators.”

She has pushed this “America first” foreign policy especially hard in Latin America and the Middle East.

In addition to imposing brutal sanctions on Venezuela, helping the US maintain a crippling economic blockade of the country, the Trudeau government has also sanctioned Nicaragua, whose democratically elected socialist government survived a violent right-wing onslaught in 2018. Freeland has echoed the Trump administration’s harsh rhetoric against Nicaragua’s Sandinista government.

Canada has also followed the US in expanding the economic attack against Syria, part of a renewed effort to destabilize the government of Bashar al-Assad. Weeks after Freeland was promoted, Ottawa pushed through a new round of sanctions against Damascus.

Freeland has also joined Washington in its campaign to suffocate Iran. The Canadian foreign minister has refused to re-establish diplomatic ties with Tehran.

At the same time, Freeland strengthened ties with the far-right government of Benjamin Netanyahu, pledging Canada’s “ironclad” support for Israel.

Nazi propagandist’s granddaughter

In Canada, Chrystia Freeland is perhaps best known for her anti-Russia campaigning. She has expressed her country’s “unwavering” support for Ukraine and boasted that she is “ready to impose costs on Russia.” The Trudeau administration has imposed several rounds of harsh sanctions on Russia.

While she has staunchly supported Ukraine, Freeland obscured the fact that she was the granddaughter of a fascist Ukrainian Nazi collaborator who edited a propaganda newspaper that was founded and overseen by Nazi Germany. Shockingly, the paper was founded after the Nazi regime stole the publication’s presses and offices from a Jewish publisher, whom it then killed in a death camp.

Freeland knew about her grandfather’s Nazi collaboration, but tried to hide this embarrassing fact by falsely branding it as “Russian disinformation.” The Canadian government even went so far as to expel a Russian diplomat who dared to publicize the truth about her Nazi lineage.

From the heights of journalism to electoral politics

Before entering formal politics as a member of Canada’s centrist Liberal Party in 2013, Chrystia Freeland spent decades in journalism. She worked for major American, British, and Canadian corporate media outlets.

After years shaping Western news coverage inside Ukraine and Russia, Freeland was promoted in 2010 to her highest position of all: global editor-at-large of Reuters, a major international news agency that has vast global influence.

Freeland cut her teeth doing anti-Russia reporting for the corporate press. She won awards for her puff pieces on the anti-Putin oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

In 2000, Freeland published a book, titled “Sale of the Century: The Inside Story of the Second Russian Revolution.” The book’s blurb notes that it documents “the country’s dramatic, wrenching transition from communist central planning to a market economy,” praising “Russia’s capitalist revolution.”

This was after Russia was looted by oligarchs empowered by Washington, and following the excess deaths of 3 to 5 million of its most vulnerable citizens due to the US-orchestrated demolition of the country’s social welfare state.

More pro-US operatives in Canada’s Trudeau government

The declassified State Department cable also touts several other appointees in the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as key US proxies.

The Canadian government selected a retired lieutenant general, Andrew Leslie, who the memo notes “has extensive ties to U.S. military leaders from his tours in Afghanistan,” as a parliamentary secretary at Global Affairs Canada, giving him “responsibility for relations with the United States.”

“PM Trudeau also elevated Transport Minister Mare Garneau — who also brings strong U.S. ties from a career as an astronaut and nine years in Houston — to head the Canada-U.S. Cabinet Committee,” the document adds.

The Trudeau government took what the State Department happily noted was an “unprecedented” decision to hold weekly meetings of the Canada-US Cabinet Committee, “even without a formal agenda, as ministers engage in freewheeling discussions of strategy and share information, in addition to making policy decisions.”

Prime Minister Trudeau campaigned on a progressive platform, but has continued governing Canada with many of the same center-right, neoliberal policies of previous administrations. He has almost without exception followed the US lead on major foreign-policy decisions, while aggressively building fossil-fuel pipelines at home.

Because Trudeau is from Canada’s centrist Liberal Party and has to maintain a veneer of resistance against the far-right US president, the State Department memo notes that Ottawa’s former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney serves as “Trudeau’s ‘Trump Whisperer.’”

Totally ignored by media

This US State Department cable was first uncovered and publicized by the Communist Party of Canada on July 2.

The memo, which was drafted by Nathan Doyel, a political officer at the embassy at the time, was declassified and published on May 31, 2019, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

It can be clearly seen on the US State Department website, with the subject line “CANADA ADOPTS ‘AMERICA FIRST’ FOREIGN POLICY.”

No media outlets have reported on this cable. Indeed, its discovery has been entirely ignored by the North American press corps.

Commenting on the document, the Canadian communist party wrote on social media,

“If a formerly classified internal memo came out from the Russian or Chinese foreign ministry titled CANADA ADOPTS RUSSIA FIRST FOREIGN POLICY or CANADA ADOPTS CHINA FIRST FOREIGN POLICY, would the Canadian media be interested in that story?”

The party added,

“In light of repeated insistence by the federal government that Canadians can expect foreign interference in elections and institutions, does such a memo merit further investigation by the Canadian media?”

*

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.

Ben Norton is a journalist and writer. He is a reporter for The Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com, and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.

Is Justin Trudeau a racist? He and his government certainly accept and promote anti-Palestinianism. Two recent moves reaffirm his government’s pattern of blaming Palestinians for their dispossession and subjugation.

Last week the government released its updated terrorist list. An eighth Palestinian organization was added and the International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (IRFAN) was re-designated. The first ever Canadian-based group designated a terrorist organization, IRFAN was listed by the Stephen Harper government for engaging in the ghastly act of supporting orphans and a hospital in the Gaza Strip through official (Hamas controlled) channels.

Recently, the Liberals also announced they were formally adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism as part of its anti-racism strategy. The explicit aim of those pushing the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism is to silence or marginalize those who criticize Palestinian dispossession and support the Palestinian civil society led Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement. The PM has repeatedly equated supporting Palestinian rights with hatred towards Jews and participated in an unprecedented smear against prominent Palestinian solidarity activist Dimitri Lascaris last summer.

Alongside efforts to demonize and delegitimize those advocating for a people under occupation, the Trudeau government has repeatedly justified violence against Palestinians. Last month Global Affairs Canada tweeted,

“Canada condemns the barrage of rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel by Hamas and other terrorist groups, which have killed and injured civilians. This indiscriminate targeting of civilians is not acceptable. We call for an immediate end to this violence.”

Canada condemns the barrage of rocket attacks from #Gaza into #Israel by Hamas and other terrorist groups, which have killed and injured civilians. This indiscriminate targeting of civilians is not acceptable. We call for an immediate end to this violence.

— Foreign Policy CAN (@CanadaFP) May 5, 2019

The statement was a response to an Israeli killed by rockets fired from Gaza and seven Palestinians killed in the open-air prison by the Israeli military. In the year before 200 Palestinians were killed and another 5,000 injured by live fire in peaceful March of Return protests in Gaza. Not a single Israeli died during these protests.

The Trudeau government has repeatedly isolated Canada from world opinion on Palestinian rights. Canada has joined the US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Micronesia and Palau in opposing UN resolutions in favour of Palestinian rights that nearly every other country supported. In fact, the Trudeau Liberals may have the most anti-Palestinian voting record of any recent Canadian government. In August Liberal MP Anthony Housefather boasted in a Canadian Jewish News article:

“We have voted against 87% of the resolutions singling out Israel for condemnation at the General Assembly versus 61% for the Harper government, 19% for the Martin and Mulroney governments and 3% for the Chrétien government. We have also supported 0% of these resolutions, compared to 23% support under Harper, 52% under Mulroney, 71% under Martin and 79% under Chretien.”

Further legitimating its illegal occupation, the Liberals “modernized” Canada’s two-decade-old Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Israel that allows West Bank settlement products to enter Canada duty-free. To promote an accord that recently received royal assent, International Trade Minister Jim Carr traveled to Israel and touted its benefits to Israel lobby organizations in Toronto and Winnipeg. “Minister Carr strengthens bilateral ties between Canada and Israel”, explained a June 20 press release.

In mid-2017 the federal government said its FTA with Israel trumps Canada’s Food and Drugs Act after the Canadian Food Inspection Agency called for accurate labelling of wines produced in the occupied West Bank. After David Kattenburg repeatedly complained about inaccurate labels on two wines sold in Ontario, the CFIA notified the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) that it “would not be acceptable and would be considered misleading” to declare Israel as the country of origin for wines produced in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Quoting from longstanding official Canadian policy, CFIA noted that “the government of Canada does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied in 1967.” In response to pressure from the Israeli embassy, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and B’nai Brith, CFIA quickly reversed its decision.

“We did not fully consider the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement,” a terse CFIA statement explained. “These wines adhere to the Agreement and therefore we can confirm that the products in question can be sold as currently labelled.”

Each year Canadian taxpayers subsidize hundreds of millions of dollars in charitable donations to Israel despite that country having a GDP per capita only slightly below Canada’s. (How many Canadian charities funnel money to Sweden or Japan?) Millions of dollars are also channeled to projects supporting West Bank settlements, explicitly racist institutions and Israel’s powerful military, which may all contravene Canadian charitable law. In response to a formal complaint submitted by four Palestine solidarity activists and Independent Jewish Voices Canada in fall 2017, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) began an audit of the Jewish National Fund for contravening Canadian charitable law. Despite the JNF openly supporting the Israeli military in explicit contravention of charitable law, the audit has been going on for a year and a half. The CRA is undoubtedly facing significant behind-the-scenes pressure to let the JNF off with little more than a slap on the wrist. In 2013 Trudeau attended a JNF gala and other Liberal cabinet ministers have participated in more recent events put on by an explicitly racist organization Liberal MP Michael Leavitt used to oversee. (In a positive step, the Beth Oloth Charitable Organization, which had $60 million in revenue in 2017, had its charitable status revoked in January for supporting the Israeli military.)

Of course, the Trudeau government would deny its racism towards Palestinians. They will point to their “aid” given to the Palestinian Authority. But, in fact much of that money is used in an explicit bid to advance Israel’s interests by building a security apparatus to protect the corrupt PA from popular disgust over its compliance in the face of ongoing Israeli settlement building. The Canadian military’s Operation Proteus, which contributes to the Office of the United States Security Coordinator, trains Palestinian security forces to suppress “popular protest” against the PA, the “subcontractor of the Occupation”.

In a recently published assessment of 80 donor reports from nine countries/institutions titled “Donor Perceptions of Palestine: Limits to Aid Effectiveness” Jeremy Wildeman concludes that Canada, the US and International Monetary Fund employed the most anti-Palestinian language.

“Canada and the US,” the academic writes, “were preoccupied with providing security for Israel from Palestinian violence, but not Palestinians from Israeli violence, effectively inverting the relationship of occupier and occupied.”

At a recent meeting, BDS-Québec decided to launch a campaign targeting Justin Trudeau in the upcoming federal election campaign. The plan is to swamp his Papineau ridding with leaflets and posters highlighting the Prime Minister’s anti-Palestinianism. It’s time politicians pay a political price for their active support of Israel’s racism.

*

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

Britain’s air commander Arthur Harris was convinced that efforts to “scourge the Third Reich” by “bombing Germany city by city”, as he put it in July 1942, would bring the war to a swift end. The outcome behind these increasingly destructive air raids proved very different to how it was foreseen.

British, and from 1943 American attacks, against densely populated areas – often avoiding armament hotspots – served to lengthen the Second World War by as much as two years.

In Europe, Allied air raids performed a central role in allowing the German war machine to roll on largely undamaged, before it came shuddering to a halt in the east.

Amid the thick of the action was Albert Speer, since his personal appointment as Nazi war minister by Hitler in February 1942, and he noted of Allied air tactics that “the war could largely have been decided in 1943 if instead of vast but pointless area bombing, the planes had concentrated on the centres of armaments production”.

Speer was an architect by trade, had never fired a gun before, and so he was “thunderstruck” at his assignment to succeed the deceased Fritz Todt.

“I have confidence in you”, Hitler reassured an uncertain Speer, “I know you will manage it. Besides, I have no one else. Get in touch with the Ministry at once and take over”.

Speer’s wide-ranging capabilities quickly came to the fore. Each month, the Nazi leader rang him to receive updates on armaments production, before jotting the results down in a prepared document.

In the spring of 1943 for example, Hitler contacted Speer and said to his minister upon hearing of the customary dazzling figures,

“Very good! Why, that’s wonderful! Really, a hundred and ten Tigers? That’s more than you promised… And how many Tigers do you think you’ll manage next month? Every tank is important now”.

The dictator rounded off these conversations with a brief analysis of what was unfolding at the front.

“We’ve taken Kharkov today. It’s going well”, he informed Speer, before resuming with, “Well then, nice to talk to you. My regards to your wife”.

The victory that Hitler was referring to, in eastern Ukraine, is known as the Third Battle of Kharkov, which concluded during the spring melt of March 1943. For Hitler it represented a measure of revenge following Stalingrad, a disaster which he was mainly responsible for.

At Kharkov – the Soviet Union’s third largest city – the Germans were outnumbered by 8 to 1 in manpower and 5 to 1 through tanks; but a combination of elite Wehrmacht and SS divisions, led by Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, inflicted more than 80,000 casualties on the Red Army who were completely driven from Kharkov by 16 March 1943.

The Tiger heavy tank, that Hitler implored Speer to produce in maximum numbers, played an important role in recapturing Kharkov, which helped to stabilize part of the eastern front.

Yet in 1942, had “Bomber” Harris concentrated his air attacks against the German war economy, they could have decimated production of Tigers – which had appeared on the battlefield for the first time near Leningrad in September 1942.

Recognizing the danger perhaps a little late, Speer warned Hitler on 20 September 1942 that,

“the tank production at Friedrichshafen and the ball bearing facilities in Schweinfurt were crucial to our whole effort”.

Towards the end of 1940, the Royal Air Force had introduced Stirling and Halifax four-engine heavy bombers, which could carry pay loads of explosives weighing up to 14,000 pounds (over 6,000 kilograms). Both aircraft also held flying ranges in which to roam across Germany without refuelling.

British bombers – which dwarfed their Luftwaffe counterparts – were rolling off the production lines in increasing numbers from 1941. Had the Stirling and Halifax, bolstered from February 1942 with the Lancaster, been sent towards German industrial zones in regular squadrons, they could have inflicted grievous harm upon the Nazi war industry even prior to 1943.

With Hitler spurred into action by Speer’s forebodings about factory vulnerability, he ordered greater anti-aircraft defences to be erected around these regions. Yet Hitler need not have worried too much. British commander Charles Portal, Chief of the Air Staff, outlined conclusively behind closed doors on 15 February 1942 that “the aiming points are to be built-up areas, not, for instance, the dockyards or factories”.

The panzer complexes in Friedrichshafen, along Germany’s far south, did not experience serious Allied bombardment until late April 1944. Thereafter, the raids were still intermittent at times and non-existent mostly.

The even more important ball bearing plants at Schweinfurt, in central Germany, were not attacked at all until 17 August 1943 – when Allied aircraft suffered heavy losses and the installations were mostly undamaged. Nazi Germany’s ball bearing facilities were pivotal not merely to the performance of her panzers, but also to U-boats, aircraft, heavy armour and other weaponry.

The greatest tragedy of many underlying these air attacks, was that it enabled the death camps in central and eastern Europe to remain in mass killing mode for much longer. From early 1942, the Nazis ramped up their systematic genocide mostly perpetrated against Europe’s Jewish populations, and also on Slavic races, Romani people, etc.

Hundreds of thousands of human lives could have been saved, had German war centres been demolished in 1943 or even 1944. What’s more, by at least late 1942 the Allies had information that the Nazis were committing massive crimes against humanity.

In the meantime, on 30 May 1942 Air Marshal Harris implemented the first 1,000 bomber raid over Cologne, western Germany, a Roman-era city. Among the airplanes were almost 300 four-engine heavy bombers, featuring the Stirling, Halifax and new Lancaster. This demonstration of terror bombing had little effect on German military capacity, simply destroying thousands of civilian homes, along with schools, hospitals and ancient buildings.

One can imagine the possible impact, in early summer 1942, had these British bombers been dispatched instead towards Nazi Germany’s ball bearing and panzer depots. Little collective thought was given to such ideas, because of the determination to hit urban environments. The following month, June 1942, the Nazis embarked on their renewed offensive eastwards with heavy armour that was pouring out of these unhindered factories.

Lack of accuracy with aerial bombing, mostly due to poor radar and navigation, was an issue for the Allies – but among such an enormous volume of aircraft, a proportion would surely have found their mark against Germany’s arms industries. Schweinfurt and its ball bearing plants were bombed a paltry 22 times throughout the war, as Cologne was raided on 262 occasions while Berlin endured 363 attacks.

By the spring of 1945, less than 2% of all Allied bombs had fallen upon the Germans’ war-related factories. Much of the rest was dumped over populated regions and workers’ homes. Quite revealing is that, at the post-war Nuremberg trials, absent from court proceedings was the issue of aerial bombing of urban civilian targets. Such deliberations would have shone light on potential Allied war crimes relating to “dehousing” and so on, which they pursued far more than the Luftwaffe.

Meanwhile, as the war advanced beyond 1942 much of the cream of Wehrmacht armies had been wiped out; though they could, in fits and spurts, still send out soldiers of fearsome repute. Among those was Werner Wolff, who after 1942 became one of the most decorated of the Nazis’ young infantrymen. On repeated occasions, the 20-year-old Wolff destroyed Soviet tanks single-handed such as in the mid-1943 Battle of Kursk, less than 300 miles west of Moscow.

On 14 October 1943, a daylight raid over the Schweinfurt factories reduced German ball bearing construction by an alarming 67%. To Hitler’s pleasure, American bombers suffered heavily during this attack, but a follow-up assault would have dealt a deadly blow to Nazi war production, heralding the conflict’s conclusion.

Speer confessed, “what really saved us was the fact that, from this time on [October 1943], the enemy to our astonishment once again ceased his attacks on the ball bearing industry”. The Allied raids over ball bearing centres did resume sporadically for a time, but once more stopped abruptly in April 1944.

Yet there may well be a separate factor behind these sometimes baffling policies, practically avoided and obscured to this day. Following the German defeat at Stalingrad in early 1943, and almost certainly by spring 1944, Western intelligence departments had earmarked Soviet Russia as the upcoming enemy.

Days after Hitler’s invasion of the USSR, then Missouri senator Harry Truman (future vice president and president) said he hoped that Germany and Russia would “kill as many as possible” between them, with Washington ideally providing assistance to either side that was losing in order to prolong the fighting.

The British were especially uncomfortable with their having the Soviet Union as a major ally. Field Marshal Alan Brooke, from December 1941 the principal adviser to Winston Churchill, wrote in July 1943 that the Soviet Union “cannot fail to become the main threat” after the war. Brooke continued, “Therefore foster Germany, gradually build her up, and bring her into a federation of western Europe”.

Brooke complained that, “this must all be done under the cloak of a holy alliance between England, Russia and America”, while he denounced the Soviet populace as “this semi-Asiatic race”. Brooke’s views are particularly telling, as from winter 1941 he was also Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and so held command of the entire British Army.

Britain’s disdain for Bolshevism long predated the war, and mostly prevented London from signing an alliance with Moscow prior to the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939. A British union with the Kremlin before autumn 1939, together with France, would have made it much trickier for Hitler to initiate a large-scale European conflict.

On 16 April 1939, Stalin formally suggested that a second triple entente be formed aligning Russia, Britain and France against Germany, as preceding the First World War. Britain’s government quickly rejected Stalin’s overtures and the Soviet dictator – already in contact with the Nazis – finalized his pact with Hitler four months later, ensuring that war would again be a certainty.

In April 1944, two months before the D-Day landings, London had formulated long-term strategic planning commissions, advancing the redevelopment of both Germany and Japan in opposition to the USSR. It is likely these strategies were evolving during 1943. In the opening months of 1944, Western military intelligence was now concealing from the Kremlin vital information on German troop formations in the east; while the British and Americans amassed “superbly detailed and accurate” material on Russian military forces.

It is therefore not outlandish to propose that German industry may have been spared the brunt of Allied air attacks, partly also in order to preserve it for planned hostilities with Russia. In the summer of 1943, the Allies were aware too that German technological advances, regarding rocket and missile design, far exceeded that of the Western powers. Washington and London would be tempted indeed to lay their hands on the technicians and their futuristic formulas, realized after the war as hundreds of Nazi scientists were sent to the United States. It was a German citizen and former SS major, Wernher von Braun, who masterminded America’s space program.

During autumn 1944 the British Foreign Office warned that,

“It is already becoming known that our soldiers are thinking of a possible war against Russia”.

Like-minded ideas prevailed in the US capital for months, as borne out by General Leslie Groves’ remarks in March 1944.

In late 1944, Britain’s high command was expounding plans which included rearming Germany for the envisaged attack on Russia. At this time also, high level British intelligence was privy to “super secret appreciations” leaking out from Washington that the Soviets were their imminent new foe.

In May 1945, with the ink still damp on German surrender papers, Churchill had conceived the “elimination of Russia” – with Moscow still officially an ally – in a proposed land invasion comprising hundreds of thousands of Allied troops, along with 10 re-equipped Wehrmacht divisions.

It was called Operation Unthinkable: A war plan broadly scorned by scholarship since late 1990s declassified documents finally revealed its contents. On closer inspection, however, Operation Unthinkable looks quite plausible when combining all of the above factors.

RAF planes were marked down to strike Soviet cities from British bases in northern Europe. Following the US atomic attacks on Japan in early August 1945, nuclear weapons were attached to such schemes. On 15 September 1945, the Pentagon was breaking out alone in her position as the great world and nuclear power, with a stratagem to attack vast areas of the Soviet Union with scores of atomic bombs.

*

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.

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

The Russian leader reminded the world of his original appeal as one of its socio-conservative leaders during an interview that he gave to the Financial Times late last week in which he spoke out strongly against liberalism and staunchly defended traditional values.

Part of President Putin’s original appeal worldwide was that he was one of the first socio-conservative leaders of a Great Power in the 21st century, though Trump’s meteoric rise to power and characteristic showmanship eventually overshadowed the soft power attractiveness of the Russian leader. As if on cue, Putin took the opportunity to proudly display his socio-conservative credentials during an interview that he gave to the Financial Times last week ahead of the G20. While a myriad of topics were covered during this extensive discussion, the most intriguing insight that he shared was about the present state of affairs in the West, which will undoubtedly attract the attention of the audience in that part of the world where his international reputation has been under the most ferocious attack.

Putin explained Trump and his fellow right-wing European allies’ tremendous popularity as being attributable to the prevailing notion among the population that “the ruling elites have broken away from the people”, which has caused “the obvious problem” of an enormous “gap (developing) between the interests of the elites and the overwhelming majority of the people.” The response of the European elites to the 2015 Migrant Crisis, inspired by “the so-called liberal idea which has outlived its purpose”, exacerbated this growing divide and brought the situation to the tipping point where “many people admitted that the policy of multiculturalism is not effective and that the interests of the core population should be considered.” Tapping into the veins of populism, Putin then described Merkel’s “refugee” policy as her “cardinal mistake”.

He elaborated by lambasting the “open door” policy for ignoring the problems of illegal migration and narcotics trafficking, crediting Trump’s controversial efforts to build a wall along the Mexican border as at least being an attempt to confront this global challenge. “As for the liberal idea”, Putin continued, “its proponents are not doing anything”, after which he proceeded to mock them by remarking that “they say that all is well, that everything is as it should be. But is it?” He added that “They say they cannot pursue a hardline policy for various reasons. Why exactly? Just because. We have the law, they say. Well, then change the law!” Putting his money where his mouth is, Putin then explained the approach that Russia is employing to address these threats.

In his words, “we are now working in the countries from which the migrants come, teaching Russian at their schools, and we are also working with them here. We have toughened the legislation to show that migrants must respect the laws, customs and culture of the country.” All of this is true and actually of immense importance too because “Be It From Birthrates Or Migration, Russia’s About To Greatly Increase Its Muslim Population” so it needs to be able to successfully continue assimilating and integrating “civilizationally dissimilar” individuals into its historically cosmopolitan society. Speaking of which, that said society is firmly rooted in strong traditions that emphasize the positive influence of religion in everyday life, just like the West used to be like before the advent of liberalism.

Putin thinks that “[religion] should play its current role” and that “it cannot be pushed out of this cultural space. We should not abuse anything.” Commenting on the countless scandals plaguing the Catholic Church, he warned that he “gets the feeling that these liberal circles are beginning to use certain elements and problems of [this institution] as a tool for destroying the Church itself”, which he “considers to be incorrect and dangerous”. Even so, despite his harsh critique of liberalism, Putin thinks that a balance must be struck between it and traditionalism since he’s of the belief that “purely liberal or purely traditional ideas have never existed”. Going further, he said that

“various ideas and various opinions should have a chance to exist and manifest themselves, but at the same time interests of the general public, those millions of people and their lives, should never be forgotten.”

That last comment is bound to win him some more supporters in the West, who have grown disillusioned with their mostly liberal leaders and the disconnect that they have with the majority of the population. Altogether, Putin’s reaffirmation of his status as one of the world’s leading socio-conservative leaders couldn’t have come at a better time since Russia and the US have begun the long process of clinching a “New Detente” with one another, so it helps to improve his image abroad and partially “rehabilitate” him during in the event that this this grand rapprochement eventually succeeds. As such, it was very important for Putin to trumpet his socio-conservative credentials and show that he relates to the concerns of the average Westerner nowadays.

*

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 is from Kremlin.ru

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: You wrote “Worker Cooperatives and Revolution” where you talk about workers’ cooperatives. In this fascinating book, we note your optimism about the coming of a new era where the human is at the center. You give the example of the cooperative New Era Windows, in Chicago. In your opinion, are we in a new era where the union of workers in the form of a cooperative will shape the future of the world?

Dr. Chris Wright: I think I may have been a little too optimistic in that book about the potential of worker cooperatives. On the one hand, Marx was right that cooperatives “represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new.” They’re microcosmic socialism, since socialism is just workers’ democratic control of economic activity, which is essentially what cooperatives are. Even in the large Mondragon firms that have seen some conflicts between workers and the elected management, there is still vastly more democracy (and more equal pay) than in a typical large capitalist enterprise.

Moreover, there’s an expanding movement in the U.S and elsewhere to seed new cooperatives and promote the transformation of existing capitalist firms into co-ops (which, incidentally, are often more productive, profitable, and longer-lasting than conventional businesses). Countless activists are working to spread a cooperative ethos and build a wide range of democratic, anti-capitalist institutions, from businesses to housing to political forms like participatory budgeting. (Websites like Shareable.net and Community-Wealth.org provide information on this movement.) This whole emerging “solidarity economy” is really what interested me when I was writing the book, though I focused on worker co-ops. I was struck that the very idea of a socialist society is just the solidarity economy writ large, in that all or the majority of institutions according to both visions are supposed to be communal, cooperative, democratic, and non-exploitative.

It’s true, though, that a new society can’t emerge from grassroots initiative alone. Large-scale political action is necessary, since national governments have such immense power. Unless you can transform state policy so as to facilitate economic democratization, you’re not going to get very far. Cooperatives alone can’t get the job done. You need radical political parties, mass confrontations with capitalist authorities, every variety of disruptive “direct action,” and it will all take a very, very long time. Social revolutions on the global scale we’re talking about take generations, even centuries. It probably won’t take as long as the European transition from feudalism to capitalism, but none of us will see “socialism” in our lifetime.

Marxists like to criticize cooperatives and the solidarity economy for being only interstitial, somewhat apolitical, and not sufficiently confrontational with capitalism, but, as I argue in the book, this criticism is misguided. A socialist transformation of the country and the world will take place on many levels, from the grassroots to the most ambitiously statist. And all the levels will reinforce and supplement each other. As the cooperative sector grows, more resources will be available for “statist” political action; and as national politics becomes more left-wing, state policy will promote worker takeovers of businesses. There’s a role for every type of leftist activism.

MA: Do you not think that the weakening of the trade union movement in the USA and elsewhere in the world further encourages the voracity of the capitalist oligarchy that dominates the world? Does not the working class throughout the world have a vital need for a great trade union movement?

DCW: The working class desperately needs reinvigorated unions. Without strong unions, you get the most rapacious and misanthropic form of capitalism imaginable, as we’ve seen in the last forty years. Unions, which can be the basis for political parties, have always been workers’ most effective means of defense and even offense. In the U.S., it was only after the Congress of Industrial Organizations had been founded in the late 1930s that a mass middle class, supported by industrial unions with millions of members, could emerge in the postwar era. Unions were important funders and organizers of the American Civil Rights Movement, and they successfully pushed for expansion of the welfare state and workplace safety regulations. They can serve as powerful allies of environmentalists. It’s hard to imagine a livable future if organized labor isn’t resurrected and empowered.

But I don’t think there can be a return of the great postwar paradigm of industry-wide collective bargaining and nationwide social democracy. Capital has become too mobile and globalized; durable class compromises like that aren’t possible anymore. In the coming decades, the most far-reaching role of unions will be more revolutionary: to facilitate worker takeovers of businesses, the formation of left-wing political parties, popular control of industry, mass resistance to the global privatization and austerity agenda, expansion of the public sphere, construction of international workers’ alliances, etc.

Actually, I think that, contrary to old Marxist expectations, it’s only in the 21st century that humanity is finally entering the age of the great apocalyptic battles between labor and capital. Marx didn’t foresee the welfare state and the Keynesian compromise of the postwar period. Now that those social forms are deteriorating, organized labor can finally take up its revolutionary calling. If it and its allies fail, there’s only barbarism ahead.

MA: Your book “Finding Our Compass: Reflections on a World in Crisis” asks a fundamental question, namely, do we live in a real democracy?

DCW: We certainly don’t. None of us do. The U.S. has democratic forms, but substantively it’s very undemocratic. Even mainstream political science recognizes this: studies have shown that the large majority of the population has essentially zero impact on policy, because they don’t have enough money to influence politicians or hire lobbyists. Practically the only way for them to get their voices heard is to disrupt the smooth functioning of institutions, such as through strikes or civil disobedience. We’ve seen this with the gilets jaunes protests in France, and we saw it when air traffic controllers refused to work and thus ended Donald Trump’s government shutdown in January 2019. We live in an oligarchy, a global oligarchy, which isn’t constrained much by the normal “democratic” process of voting.

But voting can be an important tool of resistance, especially if there are genuine oppositional candidates (like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example). In that case, society can start to become a little more democratic. So it remains essential for the left to organize electorally, even if it will take a while for there to be a big policy payoff.

MA: Do you not think a new crisis of capitalism is in progress? Does not the capitalist system generate crises?

DCW: I’m not an economist, but anyone can see that capitalism has a deep-rooted tendency to generate crises. There’s a long tradition of Marxist scholarship explaining why crises of overproduction and underconsumption (among other causes) repeatedly savage capitalist economies; David Harvey, Robert Brenner, and John Bellamy Foster are some recent scholars who have done good work on the subject. A lot of it comes down to the fact that “excessive capitalist empowerment,” to quote Harvey, leads to “wage repression” that limits aggregate demand, which constrains growth. For a while the problem doesn’t really appear because people can borrow, and are forced to borrow more and more. But accumulation of debt can’t go on forever if there’s no growth of underlying income. Huge credit bubbles appear as borrowing gets out of control and capitalists invest their colossal wealth in financial speculation, and the bubbles inevitably collapse. Then things like the Great Depression and the Great Recession happen.

As horrible as economic crises are, leftists should recognize, as Marx did, that at least they present major opportunities for organizing. It’s only in the context of long-term crisis and a decline of the middle class that there can be a transition to a new society, because crisis forces people to come together and press for radical solutions. It also destroys huge amounts of wealth, which can thin the ranks of the hyper-elite. And the enormous social discontent that results from crisis can weaken reactionary resistance to reform, as during the 1930s in the U.S. (On the other hand, fascism can also take power in such moments, unless leftists seize the initiative.)

There is no hope without crisis. That’s the paradoxical, “dialectical” lesson of Marxism.

MA: You wrote an article about Obama’s mediocrity. Don’t you think that the current US President Donald Trump is competing with Obama in mediocrity?

DCW: In the competition over who’s most mediocre, few people hold a candle to Trump. He’s just a pathetic non-entity, an almost impossibly stupid, ignorant, narcissistic, self-pitying, cruel, vulgar little embodiment of all that’s wrong with the world. He’s so far beneath contempt that even to talk about him is already to lower oneself. So in that sense, I suppose he’s a suitable ‘leader’ of global capitalism. Obama at least is a good family man, and he’s intelligent. But he’s almost as lacking in moral principles as Trump, and he has no moral courage at all. I don’t know what to say about someone who announced in 2014, as Israel was slaughtering hundreds of children in Gaza, that Israel has a right to defend itself, and went on to approve the shipment of arms to that criminal nation right in the midst of its Gaza massacre. He’s a self-infatuated megalomaniac without morality.

MA: You wrote in one of your articles that the US government considers its citizens as enemies by using generalized surveillance. Does not the real danger come from this system which spies on everyone?

DCW: I think Glenn Greenwald is right that few things are more pernicious than an expansive “national security” state. Surveillance is a key part of it, facilitating the persecution of protesters, dissenters, immigrants, and Muslims. The so-called “law and order” state is a lawless state of extreme disorder, in which power can operate with impunity. It begins to approach fascism.

One danger of the surveillance state is that it might operate like Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon: because people don’t know when they’re being watched or targeted, they monitor and regulate themselves all the time. They avoid stepping out of line, being obedient drudges and consumers. Any misstep might sweep them up in the black hole of the police state’s bureaucracy. So they internalize subservience. Of course, in our society there are many other ways of making people internalize subservience. Surveillance is only one, though a particularly vicious and dangerous one.

Another reason to be concerned is that internet companies’ ability to “spy” on users allows them to censor content, whether on their own initiative or from political pressure. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other such companies are constantly censoring leftists (and some on the right) and deleting their accounts. Critics of Israeli crimes are especially vulnerable, but they’re hardly alone. The only real way to solve this problem would be to make internet companies publicly owned, because private entities can do virtually whatever they want with their own property. It’s absurd that leftists can connect and coordinate and build movements only subject to the approval of Mark Zuckerberg and other corporate fascists. It’s also terrifying that a surveillance alliance can develop between corporate behemoths and governments. That’s another feature of fascism.

MA: How do you see the inhuman treatment of Julian Assange and the persecution of him by the British and American administrations?

DCW: As left-wing commentators have said, the persecution of Assange is an assault on journalism itself, and on the very idea of challenging the powerful or holding them to account. In that sense, it’s an assault on democracy. But that’s pretty much always what power-structures are doing, trying to undermine democracy and expand their own power, so the vicious treatment of Assange is hardly a surprise. But I doubt that the U.S. and Britain will be able to win their war on journalism in the long run. There are just too many good journalists out there, too many activists, too many people of conscience.

MA: This capitalist society is based on consumption but boasts of concepts such as “freedom of expression”, “human rights”, “democracy”, etc. Don’t we live rather in a fascist system?

DCW: I wouldn’t say the West’s political economy is truly fascist. It has fascist tendencies, and it certainly cares nothing for freedom of expression, human rights, or democracy. But civil society is too vibrant and gives too many opportunities for left-wing political organizing to say that we live under fascism. The classical fascism of Italy and Germany was far more extreme than anything we’re experiencing now, especially in the U.S. or Western Europe. We don’t have brownshirts marching in the streets, concentration camps for radicals, assassinations of political and union leaders, or total annihilation of organized labor. There’s still freedom to publish dissenting views.

But major power-structures in the U.S. would love to see fascism of some sort and are working hard to get there. And they have armies of useful idiots to do their bidding. American “libertarians,” for example, of whom there are untold millions, are essentially fascist without knowing it: they want to eliminate the welfare state and regulations of business activity so as to unfetter entrepreneurial genius and maximize “liberty.” They somehow don’t see that in this scenario, corporations, being opposed by no countervailing forces, would completely take over the state and inaugurate the most barbarous and global tyranny in history. The natural environment would be utterly destroyed and most life on Earth would end.

In one sense of fascism, Marxists from the 1920s and 1930s would, as you suggest, say we do live in a rather fascist system. For them, the term denoted the age of big business, or, more precisely, the near-fusion of business with the state. Insofar as society approached a capitalist dictatorship, it was approaching fascism. We don’t literally live under that kind of dictatorship, but without determined resistance it could well be our future.

MA: Isn’t there a need to reread Karl Marx? How do you explain the disappearance of critical thinking in Western society?

DCW: I actually think there’s a lot of critical thinking in Western society. The rise of “democratic socialism” in the U.S. is evidence of this, as is the popularity of Jeremy Corbyn in Britain. The left is growing internationally — although the right is too. But insofar as society suffers from a dearth of critical thinking, the reasons aren’t very obscure. Critical and informed thinking is dangerous to the powerful, so they do all they can to discourage it. Lots of studies have probed the methods of corporate and state indoctrination of the public, and the enormous scale of it. Noam Chomsky is famous for his many investigations of how the powerful “manufacture consent”; one of the lessons of his work is that the primary function of the mass media is to keep people ignorant and distracted. If important information about state crimes is suppressed, as it constantly is, and instead the powerful are continually glorified, well then people will tend to be uninformed and perhaps too supportive of the elite. It’s more fun, anyway, to play with phones and apps and video games and watch TV shows.

The mechanisms by which the business class promotes “stupidity” and ignorance are pretty transparent. Just look at any television commercial, or watch CNN or Fox News. It’s pure propaganda and infantilization.

As for Karl Marx: there’s always a need to read Marx, and to reread him. He and Chomsky are probably the two most incisive political analysts in history. But Marx was such an incredible writer too that he’s a sheer joy to read, and endlessly stimulating and inspiring. He rejuvenates you. (His political pamphlets on France, for instance, are stylistic and analytic masterpieces.) Besides, you simply can’t understand capitalism or history itself except through the lens of historical materialism, as I’ve argued elsewhere.

Of course, Marx wasn’t right about everything. In particular, his conception and timeline of socialist revolution were wrong. The “revolution,” if it happens, will, as I said earlier, be very protracted, since the worldwide replacing of one dominant mode of production by another doesn’t happen in a couple of decades. Even just on a national scale, the fact that modern nations exist in an international economy means socialism can’t evolve in one country without evolving in many others at the same time.

I can’t go into detail on how Marx got revolution wrong (as in his vague but overly statist notion of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”), but in Worker Cooperatives and Revolution I devote a couple of chapters to it. It’s unfortunate that most contemporary Marxists are so doctrinaire they consider it sacrilege if you try to update or rethink an aspect of historical materialism to make it more appropriate to conditions in the 21st century, which Marx could hardly have foreseen. They’re certainly not honoring the Master by thinking in terms of rigid dogma, whether orthodox Marxist or Leninist or Trotskyist.

MA: You are a humanist and the human condition is central in your work. Are you optimistic about the future of humanity?

DCW: Frankly, no, I’m not. The forces of darkness just have too much power. And global warming is too dire a threat, and humanity is doing too little to address it. It’s worth reflecting that at the end of the Permian age, 250 million years ago, global warming killed off almost all life. If we don’t do something about it very soon, by the end of the century there won’t be any organized civilization left to protect.

And then there’s the problem of billions of tons of plastic waste polluting the world, and of the extinction of insects “threatening the collapse of nature,” and of dangerous imperialistic conflicts between great powers, and so on. I don’t see much reason for optimism.

We know how to address global warming, for example. But the fossil fuel industry and, ironically, environmentalists are acting so as to increase the threat. According to good scientific research, as reported in the new book A Bright Future (among many others), it’s impossible to solve global warming without exponentially expanding the use of nuclear power. (Contrary to popular opinion, nuclear power is generally very safe, reliable, effective, and environmentally friendly.) Renewable energy can’t get the job done. The world has spent over $2 trillion on renewables in the last decade, but carbon emissions are still rising! That level of investment in nuclear energy, which is millions of times more concentrated and powerful than diffuse solar and wind energy, could have put us well on the way to solving global warming. Instead, the crisis is getting much worse. Renewables are so intermittent and insufficient that countries are still massively investing in fossil fuels, which are incomparably more destructive than nuclear.

But the left is adamant against nuclear power, and it’s very hard even to publish an article favorable to it. Only biased and misinformed articles are published, with some exceptions. So the left is working to exacerbate global warming, just as the right is. Why? Ultimately for ideological reasons: most leftists like the idea of decentralization, dispersed power, community control of energy, and anti-capitalism, and these values seem more compatible with solar and wind energy than nuclear. The nuclear power industry isn’t exactly a model of transparency, democracy, or political integrity.

But the Guardian environmental columnist George Monbiot is right: sometimes you have to go with a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater one, in this case the collapse of civilization and probably most life on Earth. Is that a price environmentalists are willing to pay so they can preen themselves on their political virtue? So far, it seems the answer is yes.

We humans have to break free of our tribal ways, our herd-thinking ways. We have to be more willing to think critically, self-critically, and stop being so complacent and conformist. The younger generation, actually, seems to be leading the way, for instance with the Extinction Rebellion and all the exciting forms of activism springing up everywhere. But we still have a terribly long way to go.

I haven’t lost hope, but I’m not sanguine. The next twenty or thirty years will be the most decisive in human 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.

Roberto Sirvent and Danny Haiphong have explored the albatross of myths, legends, lies and damn lies around America’s neck in their book American Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People’s History of Fake News—From the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror.  They look into America’s closet of historical secrets and expose them.  They knock down the stuff that is just made up.  The authors explain why the US habitually denies its own bad behavior, and projects it onto others.

Over the centuries the US has developed an illusion of grandeur.  It imagines itself as indispensable and exceptional, unlike any nation that has ever existed.

Exceptionalism means not having to say you are sorry or pay for your mistakes.  Being exceptional means you are the law.  You are the policeman, the judge, the jury and the executioner.

To enforce its exceptionalism the US has built a mighty military.  The price for its grandiose military has been the neglect of the American people.  The US is addicted to militarism and violence.  From its founding, the US was a violent country.  It used violence to acquire and occupy the land, and to gain independence from Great Britain.  The US maintained that God was on its side, and it was innocence of any wrongdoing.  The US just made it up that it was Manifest Destiny that it should become an empire.  Americans saw themselves as being on a civilizing mission for God.

The Myth of Manifest Destiny

Movies glorifying and romanticizing the westward expansion of the US were an early theme of motion pictures.  One of the first silent movies was a Western produced in 1903:  “The Great Train Robbery”.  Right from the beginning motion pictures created false narratives and myths.

A 1915 silent move spectacle was  The Birth of a Nation, which falsely recasts the Civil War and the Reconstruction Era.  It portrays the South as a victim, depicts blacks as depraved, and the Ku Klux Klan as a heroic protector of America’s virginity.  After featuring the movie in the White House, President Woodrow Wilson said:

“It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”

Hollywood perpetuates America’s spirit of exceptionalism, often in cahoots with the power elites of the ruling class.  Up until the late 1960’s Western movies were a regular theme, which was later adapted to television too.  Movies, radio and television were revolutionary forms of entertainment, information, advertising, and propaganda in the 20th century.

When I was growing up in the 1950’s playing “cowboys and Indians” was a favorite pastime for children.  We reenacted what we saw in the movies.  For example, watch the below movie trailer for “How the West Was Won”, produced in 1963:

The phrase Manifest Destiny was not coined until the mid-19th century.  But the ideology had started with the colonial settlement and ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people.  As Sirvent and Haiphong explain:

“George Washington and his secretary of war Henry Knox wasted no time in laying the basis for Manifest Destiny.  Manifest Destiny was an alteration to the colonial ideology that led to the formation of the American nation-state…..Manifest Destiny presupposed that American expansion from coast to coast was a matter of ordained fate justified by the Republic’s superior civilization”.

During the westward expansion, the phrase Manifest Destiny came into vogue with the debate about whether or not to steal one-third of Mexico, while “taming” the West.  Manifest Destiny won the debate.

The westward expansion of the US empire did not stop at the shore of the Pacific Ocean.  It kept on going to Asia.  The US became a colonial empire, and went knocking down the trade barriers of Japan, Korea and China.  The US believed in “free trade”, even if it had to be at the point of a gunboat.

The Legacy of Slavery

The legacy of slavery continues to pervert equality and justice today.  As Sirvent and Haiphong explain the US pleads that slavery was just a “peculiar institution” and not a contradiction of American exceptionalism:

“While It has been difficult to mask the horrors of slavery on subjugated Africans, it has been equally difficult to pierce through the narrative that the institution of slavery was a mere mistake or an aberration in an otherwise flawless American design.”

Saying that the US was built on the backs of slaves is not a metaphor.  The early foundation of the US economy relied on slavery.  The White House and Capitol were built by slaves; now that is a literal metaphor.  Watch the following short debate on the subject:

Chomsky is correct; cotton was king.  It was as important in the18th and 19th century, as oil is in the 21st century. Everybody wanted cotton, and the textile industry sparked the industrial revolution.  Yet the emancipated slaves and their descendants have never received reparations for their contribution.

The US pleads innocence from genocide and slavery.  The colonial settlers even blamed the victims.  The African slave was characterized as being lazy.  The Declaration of Independence accuses the indigenous people as being the following:

“…merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

Privatization of the Native’s commons and slavery were enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.  The “pursuit of happiness” was code for stealing Indian land and enslaving blacks.  That was the reason for the 2nd Amendment.

The Monroe Doctrine

Another well-known legacy of early American history is the Monroe Doctrine, as Roberto Sirvent and Danny Haiphong explain in their book.  The Monroe Doctrine sprang forth from President James Monroe’s lips as an extension of Manifest Destiny.  Since God was believed to have granted the US possession of the continent, it followed that it should include the Caribbean and Latin America too.

In the 19th century Spain lost its grip on its colonial possession in the Americas.  France had suffered major losses in the French and Indian War (1754 to 1763).  The Napoleonic Wars (1801 to 1815) weakened France.  Haiti, which was the “pearl” of France’s colonies, achieved independence in 1804.  In 1823 President Monroe declared that the US would be the arbiter of disputes and protector of the Caribbean and Latin America from then on.  With the victory of the Spanish American War (1898) the US became an empire with foreign colonies in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.

History is Not “History”, It Has a Life of its Own

American Exceptionalism and American Innocence is not just a history book, although it is that too.  Sirvent and Haiphong examine historical events and the myths that justified them.  For instance, after World War Two the US developed a messiah complex that it was the savior of the world.  The facts don’t support the myth.  However, the US did come out of World War Two as the strongest economic and military power in the world.

During the post-war period the US used it economic and military power to expand its neocolonialism.  The US opposed anti-colonial wars of liberation in Africa and Asia, as well as in its “backyard”.  The power elites of the US ruling class framed the US’s neocolonialism as protecting budding democracies from the evils of communism.  The US power elites hid their true economic motives in myths about freedom, democracy and human rights.

Critical thinking would expose the contradiction of the US supporting colonialism.  In fact, the US secretly overthrew democratically elected governments that wanted to use their natural resources for the benefit of their own people.  Early covert “regime change” operations were the democratically elected governments of Iran, Guatemala, and the DR Congo.  The US has been overthrowing governments ever since.  When communism was no longer available as a bogeyman, the US created a new villain with the War on Terror.

Since World War Two the US has been in 37 violent conflicts, which resulted in the deaths of an estimated 20 million people.  The ruling class frame these conflicts as examples of American exceptionalism.  The meme that the US is a force for good in repeated ad nauseum.  Critical thinking shows that US wars are for the benefit of corporations and cronies of the power elites.  US foreign policy is not for the benefit of the American people.

The ruling class developed sophisticated propaganda to manufacture the consent of the public to US policies.   American ideology and mythology are part of the soul of the nation.  The public internalizes the ideology and mythology as part of their being.  Many people become emotionally distraught when the US is criticized.

Symbols of American exceptionalism take on a life of their own.  For example, when NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick “took a knee” during the playing of the National Anthem it created an emotional firestorm.  Kaepernick was using his right of free speech to make a statement about the continued injustices to African American.  That is not allowed at patriotic orgies, which sporting events have become.

After twenty years of the War on Terror, the US has nothing to show for it.  A half-dozen nations have been destroyed and millions of people killed.  The cost to the US is guesstimated of $7 trillion, and still climbing.  The costs to the countries that the US destroyed are priceless.

The opportunity loss of the War on Terror has been the neglect of domestic problems, such as inequality, poverty, hunger, and disease.  Over 30 million people do not have healthcare.  Public education is being dismantled, and higher education leaves many students in deep debt.  US prisons are inhumane and rehabilitation isn’t even talked about.  Little is being done about global heating.  US infrastructure is decrepit and crumbling.  The Bill of Rights has been eviscerated.  Minorites are disproportionately affected by neglect and injustice.

Yet the myth is alive and well that the US is an exceptional nation for good.  People still believe that the US is the greatest nation in the world.  It is a great country for the few that are born rich or strike it rich.  It is a terrible country for those that are born in poverty, get sick without insurance, and get old with nothing more than a Social Security check.

The list of US failures to its people is long, but it can be summarized by the United Nations Index of Human Development.  Shockingly while the US spends trillions of dollars on war, the US comes in at 25th in human development, adjusted for inequality.  Don’t expect it to improve; the trend is down.

It is not enough to learn the real history of the US, and unlearn the fake history.  The US must get over the illusion of its exceptionalism, innocence, and victimhood.  The US really does not have any enemies that it cannot defend itself against.  Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and North Korea are not threatening the US.  It is ridiculous to think that they are.  Instead other geopolitical and economic motives are in play.

The US cannot escape its history, but it can change the future.  According to  Sirvent and Haiphong, to change America’s future the American people need to learn the real history of the US, and unlearn the myths.  A big step in that direction is found in the book American Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People’s History of Fake News—From the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror.

*

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 Herald Tribune.

David is a progressive columnist writing on economic, political and social issues. His articles have been published by The Greanville Post, Global Research, The Real News Network, Truth Out, Consortium News, OpEdNews, Pravda, Russia Insider and many other publications. 

It amazes me that alternative journalists would spend even a minute writing about the ongoing Democratic Party debates.  They are meaningless and they are not debates. How many times do we have to go through this ridiculous charade before this can be accepted once and for all? The “debates” are farces, total theater, as are the Presidential elections. They don’t matter.  The political quiz show of duopoly is fixed.  Discussing who has won is the height of absurdity. It legitimizes the system of oppressive duopoly.  It is political “jeopardy,” and only the fixers win when they suck us into watching and opining.  One expects the corporate media to do their jobs and drone on endlessly about nothing, but not those who oppose this anti-democratic sham.

Emma Goldman is alleged to have said, “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”  She was right then and is right now. With the exception of JFK, who was assassinated by the national security state when in his last year he radically turned against its war agenda, not one American president since has posed the slightest risk to the systemic power of the elites who own and run the country. If anyone ever did, they would not be on the ballot or in office. Here and there, a candidate running for the nomination of one of the ruling parties makes it into a debate only to be marginalized for bluntly attacking war policies – e.g. Tulsi Gabbard in 2019.  Those who enjoy the support of capitalism’s invisible army (the CIA) and Wall Street’s corporate merchants of death are allowed to present nuanced “anti-war” positions that their backers know are lies but suckers bite on in their desperation to believe that the system works – e.g. Obama in 2008.

Because Emma Goldman (image on the right) opposed the U.S. war and conscription policies during World War I, she was charged and imprisoned under the Espionage Act in 1917, “for conspiring against the draft,” a form of state imposed slavery.  Like Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange, she was punished for telling the truth to the American people and the world. To contemplate their confinement in these prison hellholes sickens the soul.

When I was young and was seeking release from the Marine Corps as a conscientious objector, I spent quite some time pondering prison life, something I was expecting and preparing for but surprisingly avoided when the Commandant of the Marines released me so I could “take final vows in a religious order.” It was an outright lie, something I never mentioned in my C.O. application, but it allowed them to save face while getting rid of a troublemaker.  Ironically, as a religious young man, I had often thought that the life of a Catholic priest or nun, in their respective celibate rooms in rectories or convents or monasteries, was similar to the life of a prisoner, and it struck me as very depressing.  Even a few years in a federal prison felt more liberating, so I steeled myself for that possibility by reading Cleaver’s Soul on Ice, and Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison, among others, and disciplining myself physically, mentally, and spiritually for what never came to pass.

Now the world is our prison, as John Berger wrote in 2005 in a stunning article with the understated yet hopeful title, “Meanwhile.”  Because he was not caged by traditional categories of conventional thought but just wrote, trusting that words were winged creatures that rise and fly out of sentences into the unknown, Berger was able to discover truths that many feel but cannot articulate.  Often referred to as a Marxist art critic, such a description fails to capture the liberated nature of his writing, even when he is describing how we are imprisoned:

I’m searching for words to describe the period of history we’re living through.  To say it is unprecedented means little because all periods were unprecedented since history was first discovered….The landmark that I’ve found Is that of a prison.  Nothing less. Across the planet we are living in a prison….No, it’s not a metaphor, the imprisonment is real, but to describe it one has to think historically….Today the purpose of most prison walls (concrete, electronic patrolled or interrogatory) is not to keep prisoners in and correct them, but to keep prisoners out and exclude them….In the eighteenth century, long-term imprisonment was approvingly defined as a punishment of ‘civic death.’  Three centuries later, governments are imposing – by law, force, economic threats and their buzz – mass regimes of civic death….The planet is a prison and the obedient governments, whether of the right or left, are the herders [US prison slang for Jailers].

At the heart of this prison system is financial, not industrial, capitalism, and the system of globalization fueled by the Internet that allows speculative financial transactions to be continually performed instantaneously. Speed is the essence of cyberspace, a placeless “place” that allows this worldwide prison system to operate.  Space, time, nationalities, local traditions, and idiosyncrasies of any sort are washed away by this tyrannical flood of abstract power controlled by the jailers and their henchmen in and out of governments.  This planetary prison’s “allotted zones vary and can be termed worksite, refugee camp, shopping mall, periphery, ghetto, office block, favela, suburb.  What is essential is that those incarcerated in these zones are fellow prisoners.”

The prisoners that are us are often just dimly aware that they are prisoners, but dimly is better than unaware.  For the jailers also use cyberspace to misinform, confabulate, lie, confuse, and convince the prisoners that they are not in cells but are free on their cells and had better be on constant alert to protect themselves and get theirs, theirs always being some commodity, which comes in many forms, including political candidates, sometimes “new and improved” and sometimes just “bright and new.” The prisoners are always free to choose more of the same, if they can be conned.  While everyone “knows” these candidates sell themselves and that’s what debates are about – “if you liked that (one), you will like this (one)” – the jailers create what Berger calls “a hallucinating paradox” that keeps the prison population believing that the rigged system somehow works for them since they are exceptions to the rule that renders others moronic suckers.

So the question – who won? – is a good one, if you are a sports fan, but not when applied to the Democratic (or Republican) candidates’ debates.  Better to sing “Mrs. Robinson” along with Simon and Garfunkel: “Going to the candidates’ debate/Laugh about it, shout about it/When you’ve got to choose/Every way you look at it you lose.”

Those writers who wish to help their fellow prisoners should refuse to be herded into doing the work of their jailers and using language in a way that suggests the game is not fixed and they are not being seduced, as Benjamin Braddock (Dustin Hoffman), the recent Williams College graduate, willingly was by Mrs. Robinson in the 1967 film, “The Graduate.”  Ben may have been put off by the suggestion that his future lay in “One word: plastics,” but if he were graduating from Williams or any other elite college and university this year or in any of the past twenty-five, a top career choice, flashing dollar signs, would be in the financial “services” industry, where he could join the financial tyrants in the use of cyberspace to imprison most of the world.  Our universities have become human “resources” departments (as people have become commodified resources like copper or nickel) for financial capitalism and the whole complex that ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern calls “the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academe-Think-Tank (MICIMATT) complex, in which the corporate-controlled media play the sine-qua-nontoday.”

Alternative writers should refuse to rate the candidates or discuss their debates, but, like John Berger, think historically, structurally, and imaginatively, finding “enclaves of the beyond” for their fellow prisoners, little gifts, sunlight and blue sky through the jail cell’s window, not prizes for the winners. That is not dissidence.

And while I am a harsh critic of the digital revolution, I realize Berger is right when he says:

Prisoners have always found ways of communicating with one another.  In today’s global prison, cyberspace can be used against the interests of those who first installed it.  Like this, prisoners inform themselves about what the world does each day, and they follow suppressed stories from the past, and so stand shoulder to shoulder with the dead.  In doing so, they rediscover little gifts, examples of courage, a single rose in a kitchen where there’s not enough to eat. Indelible pain, the indefatigability of mothers, laughter, mutual aid, silence, ever-widening resistance, willing sacrifice, more laughter….The messages are brief, but they extend in the solitude of their (our) nights.  The final guideline is not tactical but strategic.

“Meanwhile” is a hopeful word.  It implies that we are between times and the future is coming.  It can only be different if we do not play our jailors’ game, buy their lingo, and discuss the fixed quiz show that is American presidential politics.

“Liberty,” concludes Berger “is slowly being found not outside but in the depth of the prison.”

*

 

Victor Hugo was one of the greatest Social Clinicians who ever lived.  He provided accurate diagnosis; he sought root cause; and he offered brilliant remedy—“create vast fields of Public Activity.”

Hugo believed in the imperishability of Human Goodness and the grandeur of the Human Soul.  At a time of current global tension, confusion, and despondency, Hugo’s clarity of thought and uplifting message are more important and timely than ever.

Below are excerpts from Hugo’s 1862 novel, Les Miserables.  They suggest that the current illness afflicting civilization could be treated by replacing the current prevailing economic model (global capitalism) with an international network of Public Economies.

“When one looks at the selfish (the wealthy) and the miserable (the poor), the ideal (of Social Beauty) seems lost in the depths—shining, but isolated and imperceptible.  In the selfish one sees the prejudices, the darkness of the education of wealth, appetite increasing through intoxication, a stupefaction of prosperity which deafens,  a dread of suffering which, with some, is carried even to an aversion for sufferers,  an implacable satisfaction, the me so puffed up that it closes the soul.  In the  miserable one sees hearts of gloom, sadness, want, fatality, ignorance impure and simple, and, with some, covetousness, envy, and hatred.  And, yet, this ideal, seemingly so lost, is in no more danger than a star in the jaws of a cloud.”

For, “beneath the mortality of society we feel the imperishability of humanity. Just because a volcano breaks and throws out pus, the globe does not die.  Similarly, the diseases of people do not kill man.”

“Auscultation of civilization is encouraging.  Progress is the mode of man.  The general life of the human race is called Progress.  He who despairs is wrong.  Grief everywhere is only an occasion for good always.

“The study of social deformities and infirmities, and their indication in order to cure them, is not a work in which choice is permissible.  We seek for the cause. We must ponder over social questions: wages, education, misery, production, and distribution.  We must create vast fields of Public Activity, to have a hundred hands to stretch out to the exhausted and feeble, to employ the collective power in the great duty of opening workshops for all arms, schools for all aptitudes, and laboratories for all intelligence.  To destroy abuses is not enough; habits must change. 

“We must create wise wealth and distribute it equitably—not equal distribution, but equitable distribution.  If liberty is the summit, equality is the base.  Equality, though, is not all vegetation on a level—a society of big spears of grass and little oak trees.  We should proportion enjoyment to effort and gratification to need.  Encourage emulation.  Balance the ought and the have.  The highest equality is equity.  We must also understand that if labour is to be law, it must also be a right.”

“The highest duty is to think of others; the highest justice is conscience.”

“Progress is the aim; the ideal is the model.” 

But, do humans have sufficient capacity for such progress and goodness? 

“The mind’s eye can nowhere find anything more dazzling, nor more dark, than in man; it can fix itself on nothing which is more awful, more complex, more mysterious, or more infinite.  There is one spectacle greater than the sea, that is the sky; there is one spectacle grander than the sky, that is the interior of the soul.”

“An awakening of conscience is greatness of soul.” 

“People who are petrified in dogma or demoralized by lucre are unfit to lead Civilization.  Genuflexion before the idol or the dollar atrophies the muscle which walks and the will which goes.  Hierarchic or mercantile absorption diminishes the radiance of a people, lowers its horizon by lowering its level, and deprives it of the intelligence of the universal aim.” 

“But what about a compromise?  There does exist an entire political school called the compromise school.  Between cold water and warm water there is tepid water.  This school with its pretended depth, wholly superficial, which dissects effect without going back to causes, from the height of half science, chides those who agitate for change.  These almost people content themselves with their almost wisdom.”

“Ideas! Knowledge! Light! Equality! Fraternity! The amount of civilization is measured by the amount of imagination.”

“Change should be civilized.  No abrupt fall is necessary.  Neither despotism nor terrorism should be tolerated.  The healers must remain innocent.  Progress with gentle slope is desirable.”

“Some day we will be astounded.  There is no more a backward flow of ideas than a backward flow of a river.”

*

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 Rennebohm, MD is a pediatrician who encourages all to participate in the Social Clinic.  He lives in Port Townsend, Washington (USA) and can be reached at: [email protected]

In case you missed the kickoff, there is an unprecedented ‘must win’ wireless race for the US to cross the 5G finish line before China as alluded to during the recent Senate Commerce Committee oversight hearing on the Federal Commerce Commission.

The details were thin with no real discussion on the need for 5G or its complexities including the  national security implications of China beating out the USA! USA! or any mention of its dangerous, toxic health consequences or the true implications on the Massive Internet of Things (MIOT) decoded as the Dastardly Dark Utopian Vision of Future Illusion which promises a generation of trans-humans.  One already occurring aspect of the MIOT is when the overlap between government and the unelected tech giants becomes indistinguishable, representative democracy becomes passe.

During remarks at the White House in April (with Ivanka present to make her own comments), President Donald Trump said

“Winning the race to be the world’s leading provider of 5G cellular and communication networks; we want to be the leader in this. We cannot allow any other country to out-compete the United States in this powerful industry of the future. We just can’t let that happen.  It is a race America must win.”  

At stake, is at least a decade of global technological, economic and military dominance that would create three million new jobs, $500 billion in GDP and $275 billion in private sector investment.  With over 300 million consumers, the US became the world’s tech and innovation hub as a result of its 4G global leadership.  Adding $100 billion to the GDP with wireless jobs that grew at 84% and a $950 billion app economy, the US became the world’s strongest wireless economy and world leader in mobile broadband.

As a result of its leadership, today’s largest tech stocks continue to drive the US economy with a technical expertise that spawned the US-based mega tech companies (Google/Amazon/MS/FB/Twitter/MS).  Many of those American-made companies have taken thousands of skilled jobs and lucrative contracts outside the US which is, after all, what the globalist agenda is all about.  As 5G looms in an increasingly competitive global market, US dominance to sustain its competitive advantage is being put to the test.

National Security Council on 5G  

Sometime in late 2017, the National Security Council briefed the Trump Administration on its recommendations for a comprehensive “Eisenhower National Highway System for the Information Age,”  That system would include one centralized block network to be ‘built and run’ as a ‘nationalized’ government project with completion in three years in order to prevail against China.   The document concluded with “The best network from a technical, performance and security perspective will be single block, USG secured, and have the highest probability for project success.”

The White House denied nationalization as an option, pointing out that the NSC is one of many federal agencies which will weigh in on 5G.  Athis April press briefing, Trump put the idea to rest with “And, as you probably heard, we had another alternative of doing it; that would be through government investment…. we don’t want to do that because it won’t be nearly as good, nearly as fast.”

China

Nevertheless, the document provides the NSC’s national security perspective on 5G and insights on other decisions yet to be made.  Citing “cyber emergency we face on a daily basis”with a focus on ‘nefarious actors’ of ‘malicious intent,’the NSC consistently warned that:

• “China has achieved a dominant position in the manufacture and operation of network infrastructure”
• “Fact:  China is currently poised to lead the global deployment of 5G.”
• “Huawei more than doubled its market share in an 18 month period and in several areas or routing, it has caught or surpassed market leader Cisco.”
• “Notably the FBI continues to monitor market activity and risks associated with Huawei and ZTE.…permanently tasking the FBI to work with other intelligence agencies to monitor and regularly report to Congress and the Administration on the market activities and risks of Chinese infrastructure vendors would be valuable for national security.”

Part of the NSC document included excerpts from a September 15, 2018 memo from former Department of Defense Secretary James Mattis with the following:

• “China has assembled the basic components required for winning the AI arms race.”
• “China has already catapulted into the lead for facial recognition to support its authoritarian regime.”

The CRS further identified China as“the dominant malicious actor in the Information Domain” in its June 12th “National Security Implications,” pointing out that China is “…likely to deploy the world’s first 5G wide-area network”and that “Huawei has signed contracts for 5G infrastructure in over thirty countries including US allies.”

Since China’s National Intelligence Law requires that “any organization and citizen shall support, provide assistance, and cooperate in national intelligence work, and guard the secrecy of any national intelligence work that they are aware of” and as the Chinese government “extended a $100 billion line of credit to Huawei to finance deals abroad,” some analysts believe the implications of a government – corporate collaboration is the installation of backdoors and increased surveillance – as if the US is squeaky clean on its collaborations with Google and Amazon or organizing a cyber weapon attack like Stuxnet.

Standardized Cell Siting

The NSC asked the question “Can we standardize siting requirements? USG or Industry”

in recognition that each municipality across the country has different requirements and fees for siting small wireless facilities as required by 5G.  The NSC went on to suggest “use national security to force nationwide standardization of siting requirements” and that the“bottom line is that a three year deployment time is not achievable without a nationwide standard for siting.”

Since the telecom companies are entirely too cozy with the FCC, a national security declaration is unnecessary to achieve a de facto nationwide standard for siting approvals.  In September, 2018, the FCC obtained a Declaratory Judgment to Remove Regulatory Barriers for Deployment of Wireless Infrastructure for 5G Connectivity which will provide a ‘fast track’ to circumvent local delays to cell deployment. In response, cities across the US are opposing the FCC’s attempt to override local control decision-making regarding the installation of 5G wireless infrastructure.

In the words of FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr

“The FCC is working to get government out of the way so the private sector can start building hundreds of thousands of cells needed for 5G.  We excluded small cell from costly review procedures designed for 100 ft assigned towers.  That decision cost $1.5 billion in red tape.  FCC took another step in streamlining the local permitting process.  That decision cut another $2 billion in red tape and will stimulate $2.4 billion in small cell deployments, 97% of which will be in rural and suburban communities.”

In addition, the Streamline Small Cell Deployment Act S.1699 was introduced on June 3 to ‘streamline’ the siting process for small cell deployment in rural and suburban areas.  It has been referred to the Senate Commerce Committee for a hearing.

US Telecom Manufacturing

Thanks to the 1995 NAFTA vote which began the redistribution of millions of skilled American jobs overseas and the extraordinary growth of American telecoms relocating jobs abroad, the NSC confirmed that

“Fact: US telecommunication manufacturers have all but disappeared” and that “Today only a handful of companies are postured to play a role in global 5G deployment” followed by the facile assurance that  “Equipment manufacturers have expressed a willingness to move manufacturing facilities to the US in support of 5G.”

In addressing the issue of protecting national security from a tainted foreign supply chain, Mattis suggested   “Added assurance can be gained by ensuring that we create an IT and telecommunications manufacturing base. By securing the supply chain, we can be assured that our network is built with safe components.”

The unavoidable question is that since a ‘safe and secure’ supply chain is of national security importance and that Chinese manufactured components could not be trusted and that American manufacturers would be the most reliable purveyor of the necessary 5G components,  how exactly will the US rely on ‘safe and secure’ components in the absence of its own manufacturing base?

Executive Order

On May 15th, President Trump signed an Executive Order declaring a ‘national emergency’ that

“foreign adversaries are increasingly exploiting vulnerabilities in information and communications technology and services, in order to commit malicious cyber-enabled actions, including economic and industrial espionage.”

The Order bans American telecom firms and US allies from selling US-made components to foreign telecoms while creating a banned “Entity List’ which will require a USG license for foreign telecoms in order to do business with US tech companies.  The Order, which has broad bi-partisan support, did not address existing security risks of foreign made components currently embedded in US equipment while many rural carriers already rely on Chinese made equipment.  According to the Order, the US would stop sharing intel with allies who persist in using Chinese equipment, fearing intercepted messages or sabotage.

Within days of signing the EO, Intel, Qualcomm and other US tech companies announced that they would cut off critical software and components to Huawei while Google, which has AI research centers built inside China’s information sphere, has suspended its ties to Huawei and dropped its technical support for Android.  As the US telecom industry comply with the Order that “any Chinese equipment in the network could pose potential security concerns,” some US tech allies suspended their dealings with Huawei while some American chipmakers found ways around the ban by dropping the US-made label.

In addition, the Senate Commerce Committee introduced the “US 5G Leadership Act” which will fund $700,000 for removal of all Huawei or ZTE equipment or services from the US existing network in order to secure the 5G deployment.

While at the recent G20 Summit in Osaka, Trump reached a tentative trade deal with President Xi Jinping (with Ivanka at the conference table) unexpectedly reversing his position that US firms be allowed to sell to Huawei where there are no national security issues but leaving final resolution with Huawei to the end of negotiations.

In response, the Department of Commerce, which maintains the Entity List, has suggested it plans to continue Huawei’s ‘presumption of denial’ as it applies to a request for a business license. The thorny question remains how the US protects its national security with the use of out-sourced foreign suppliers or well meaning allies whose own security may have already been compromised.

To be continued….

*

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

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Author’s Note

9/11 was the necessary “new Pearl Harbor” for the neoconservatives to launch their wars on the Muslim Middle East and North Africa and to put in place an American police state. These are egregious consequences from an event for which we have no believable official explanation.  

I have written about this anomaly on many occasions over the many years.  The following text was first published by Global Research in 2011

Paul Craig Roberts, July 5, 2019

***

The short answer to the question in the title is no.

The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.

Let’s examine the case against “the truthers” presented by Ted Rall, Ann Barnhardt, and Alexander Cockburn.

But first let’s define who “the truthers” are.

The Internet has made it possible for anyone to have a web site and to rant and speculate to their heart’s content. There are a large number of “9/11 conspiracy theorists”.

Many on both sides of the issue are equally ignorant. Neither side has any shame about demonstrating ignorance.

Both sides of the issue have conspiracy theories.

9/11 was a conspiracy whether a person believes that it was an inside job or that a handful of Arabs outwitted the entire intelligence apparatus of the Western world and the operational response of NORAD and the US Air Force.

For one side to call the other conspiracy theorists is the pot calling the kettle black.

The question turns not on name-calling but on evidence.

The 9/11 Truth movement was not created by bloggers ranting on their web sites. It was created by professional architects and engineers some of whom are known for having designed steel high rise buildings.

It was created by distinguished scientists, such as University of Copenhagen nano-Chemist Niels Harrit who has 60 scientific papers to his credit and physicist Steven Jones.

It was created by US Air Force pilots and commercial airline pilots who are expert at flying airplanes.

It was created by firefighters who were in the twin towers and who personally heard and experienced numerous explosions including explosions in the sub-basements. It was created by members of 9/11 families who desire to know how such an improbable event as 9/11 could possibly occur.

The professionals and the scientists are speaking from the basis of years of experience and expert knowledge. Moreover, the scientists are speaking from the basis of careful research into the evidence that exists.

When an international research team of scientists spends 18 months studying the components in the dust from the towers and the fused pieces of concrete and steel, they know what they are doing. When they announce that they have definite evidence of incendiaries and explosives, you can bet your life that that have the evidence.

When a physicist proves that Building 7 (the stories not obscured by other buildings) fell at free fall speed and NIST has to acknowledge that he is correct, you can bet your life that the physicist is correct.

When fire department captains and clean-up teams report molten steel–and their testimony is backed up with photographs–in the debris of the ruins weeks and months after the buildings’ destruction, you can bet your life the molten steel was there.

When the same authorities report pumping fire suppressants and huge quantities of water with no effect on the molten steel, you can bet your life that the temperature long after the buildings’ destruction remained extremely high, far higher than any building fire can reach.

When the architects, engineers, and scientists speak, they offer no theory of who is responsible for 9/11. They state that the known evidence supports neither the NIST reports nor the 9/11 Commission Report. They say that the explanation that the government has provided is demonstrably wrong and that an investigation is required if we are to discover the truth about the event.

It is not a conspiracy theory to examine the evidence and to state that the evidence does not support the explanation that has been given.

That is the position of the 9/11 Truth movement.

What is the position of the movement’s critics? Ted Rall says: “Everything I’ve read and watched on Truther sites is easily dismissed by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and architecture. (I spent three years in engineering school.) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29113.htm

Wow! What powerful credentials. Has Rall ever designed a high rise steel building? Could Rall engage in a debate with a professor of nano-chemistry? Could he refute Newton’s laws in a debate with university physicists? Does Rall know anything about maneuvering airplanes? Does he have an explanation why 100 firefighters, janitors, and police report hearing and experiencing explosions that they did not hear or experience?

Clearly, Ted Rall has no qualifications whatsoever to make any judgment about the judgments of experts whose knowledge exceeds his meager understanding by a large amount.

Ann Barnhardt writes: “I gotta tell you, I’ve just about had it with these 9/11 truthers. If there is one phenomenon in our sick, sick culture that sums up how far gone and utterly damaged we are as a people, it is 9/11 trutherism. It pretty much covers everything: self-loathing, antisemitism, zero knowledge of rudimentary physics and a general inability to think logically.” She goes down hill from here. http://barnhardt.biz/

Amazing, isn’t she? Physics professors have “zero knowledge of rudimentary physics.”

Internationally recognized logicians have “a general inability to think logically.” People trained in the scientific method who use it to seek truth are “self-loathing.” If you doubt the government’s account you are antisemitic. Barnhardt then provides her readers with a lesson in physics, structural architecture and engineering, and the behavior of steel under heat and stress that is the most absolute nonsense imaginable.

Obviously, Barnhardt knows nothing whatsoever about what she is talking about, but overflowing with hubris she dismisses real scientists and professionals with ad hominem arguments. She adds to her luster with a video of herself tearing out pages of the Koran, which she has marked with slices of bacon, and burning the pages.

Now we come to Alexander Cockburn. He is certainly not stupid. I know him. He is pleasant company. He provides interesting intellectual conversation. I like him. Yet, he also arrogantly dismisses highly qualified experts who provide evidence contrary to the official government story of 9/11.

Cockburn avoids evidence presented by credentialed experts and relies on parody. He writes that the conspiracists claim that the twin towers “pancaked because Dick Cheney’s agents–scores of them–methodically planted demolition charges.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/02/the-911-conspiracists-vindicated-after-all-these-years/

Little doubt but there are bloggers somewhere in the vast Internet world who say this. But this is not what the professionals are saying who have provided evidence that the official account is not correct. The experts are simply saying that the evidence does not support the official explanation. More recently, an international team of scientists has reported finding unequivocal evidence of incendiaries and explosives. They have not said anything about who planted them. Indeed, they have said that other scientists should test their conclusions by repeating the research. After calling experts “conspiracy kooks,” Alex then damns them for not putting forward “a scenario of the alleged conspiracy.”

Moreover, not a single one of the experts believes the towers “pancaked.” This was an early explanation that, I believe, was tentatively put forward by NIST, but it had to be abandoned because of the speed with which the buildings came down and due to other problems.

Unlike Rall and Barnhardt, Cockburn does refer to evidence, but it is second or third-hand hearsay evidence that is nonsensical on its face. For example, Cockburn writes that Chuck Spinney “tells me that ‘there ARE pictures taken of the 757 plane hitting Pentagon–they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon’s heliport, which was right next to impact point. I have seen them both–stills and moving pictures. I just missed seeing it personally, but the driver of the van I just got out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the terrified faces of passengers in windows.’”

If there were pictures or videos of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, they would have been released years ago. They would have been supplied to the 9/11 Commission. Why would the government refuse for 10 years to release pictures that prove its case? The FBI confiscated all film from all surveillance cameras. No one has seen them, much less a Pentagon critic such as Spinney.

I have to say that the van driver must have better eyes than an eagle if he could see expressions on passenger faces through those small airliner portholes in a plane traveling around 500 mph. Try it sometimes. Sit on your front steps and try to discern the expressions of automobile passengers through much larger and clearer windows traveling down your street in a vehicle moving 30 mph. Then kick the speed up 16.7 times to 500 mph and report if you see anything but a blur.

Cockburn’s other evidence that 9/11 truthers are kooks is a letter that Herman Soifer, who claims to be a retired structural engineer, wrote to him summarizing “the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly.” This is what Soifer, who “had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction” wrote to Alex: “The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow.” This canard was disposed of years ago. If Alex had merely googled the plans of the buildings, he would have discovered that there were no thin-walled hollow tubes, but a very large number of massively thick steel beams.

Cockburn’s willingness to dismiss as kooks numerous acknowledged experts on the basis of a claim that a van driver saw terrified faces of passengers moving at 500 mph and a totally erroneous description in a letter from a person who knew nothing whatsoever about the structural integrity of the buildings means that he is a much braver person than I.

Before I call architects kooks whose careers were spent building steel high rises, I would want to know a lot more about the subject than I do. Before I poke fun at nano-chemists and physicists, I would want to at least be able to read their papers and find the scientific flaws in their arguments.

Yet, none of the people who ridicule 9/11 skeptics are capable of this. How, for example, can Rall, Barnhardt, or Cockburn pass judgment on a nano-chemist with 40 years of experience and 60 scientific publications to his credit?

They cannot, but nevertheless do. They don’t hesitate to pass judgment on issues about which they have no knowledge or understanding. This is an interesting psychological phenomenon worthy of study and analysis.

Another interesting phenomenon is the strong emotional reactions that many have to 9/11, an event about which they have little information. Even the lead members of the 9/11 Commission itself have said that information was withheld from them and the commission was set up to fail. People who rush to the defense of NIST do not even know what they are defending as NIST refuses to release the details of the simulation upon which NIST bases its conclusion.

There is no 9/11 debate.

On the one hand there are credentialed experts who demonstrate problems in the official account, and on the other hand there are non-experts who denounce the experts as conspiracy kooks.

The experts are cautious and careful about what they say, and their detractors have thrown caution and care to the wind. That is the state of the debate.

Further reading at:

THE 9/11 “BIG LIE”. WHEN FICTION BECOMES FACT
– by Global Research – 2011-09-11

Articles and documentation on 9/11 from Global Research

Iran will get to the Mediterranean bypassing the dangerous waters of ever challenged Strait of Hormuz, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea, and the Suez Canal, where US satellite states and US Navy are present and threatening this ancient trade route.

The US sanctions imposed on Iran and Syria and the invasion of Iraq have brought these three countries closer together as their people have paid and are still paying a hefty price to thwart the US hegemonic plans to control the region and beyond. Syria slaying the Project for the New American Century PNAC has put an end for the evil dreams of those behind it who are squeezing the resources of the United State of America and all of its allies and stooges for plans, not at all in the interests of the people of any country in the US camp.

The following report by Lebanese news channel Al-Mayadeen sheds a light on the railway project that will link Iran directly to the Mediterranean through Iraq, its route, its economic benefits and the parties behind it, English translation transcript below the video:

***

English translation transcript:

The Directorate of Iranian Railways announced the readiness to begin the implementation of the plans of the railways between Shalamche, (Iran), Basra, Iraq, and Lattakia, Syria, which means linking the port of Imam Khomeini to the Syrian port of Latakia in the Mediterranean Sea.

In March, President Hassan Rowhani paid an official visit to Iraq, during which he signed numerous trade, industrial and financial agreements, the most important being what was finally revealed through a railway project linking the Iranian city of Shalamche to Syrian Lattakia through Iraqi Basra.

The link will be through a railway line between the Iranian cities of Shalamche with a length of 32 km with Iraqi Basra and the line will continue after that towards Syria, where the port of Imam Khomeini on the Iranian side of the Gulf waters will link with the Syrian port of Latakia in the Mediterranean.

Iran will bypass the Strait of Hormuz, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea and Suez Canal to reach the Mediterranean

The director of the Iranian railway company revealed that Baniyad Mostazafan Foundation in Tehran will be the investor and contractor for the implementation of the project and the work will commence after about 3 months and that the execution and finance will be from Iran.

This long railway route will lead to an economic and vital link between three neighboring countries, these countries are subject to blockade, sanctions and trade and financial restrictions, particularly Damascus and Tehran, and this railway will contribute to the strengthening of trade relations between the three countries and facilitate the transport of goods time and cost.

The trade relations are being strengthened and varied, especially between Iran and Iraq, where a mechanism has been agreed to allow Iraq to pay for the imported Iranian energy with Iraqi Dinar, which can be used by Iran to buy humanitarian goods exclusively.

As Iraq imports electricity from Iran to compensate for the shortage of electricity production, especially in the summer season, where energy consumption increases significantly. Iraq also imports dry gas from Iran to feed generators that run on this fuel.

End of transcript

One of the main goals behind the US War of Terror it waged against Syria is to bring the Qatari gas to Europe through Syria and Turkey to strangle Iran economically and deprive Russia of its gas exports to Europe keeping it as a large powerless state. Thanks only to the steadfastness of the Syrian people, their massive sacrifices, and their pride, the world will have multi-polar again and not under the mercy of the US and its evil camp of lackeys, poodles, and stooges.

*

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

All images in this article are from Syria News

First published on February 1, 2019

For Washington, the U.S. dollar is leverage, a financial weapon to dominate the world economy, to impose its foreign policy agendas and to secure a steady flow of natural resources over sovereign countries who use the currency.

In the last decade or so, the reputation of the U.S. dollar has been widely discredited because it is viewed by many governments around the world as a risky asset since the U.S. economy holds more than $21 trillion in debt and if you add the unfunded liabilities in the form of promises to ensure payments to retirees associated with government pensions, entitlement programs and social security amounts to more than $200 trillion. The dollar is a fiat currency based on “faith” which is issued by the Treasury department and backed by the full weight of U.S. government, but countries who are routinely threatened by Washington with economic sanctions have lost faith in the dollar. The dollar is a debt instrument issued to the public with no real objective measure of the dollar’s true value. Since the Federal Reserve Bank was founded in 1913, the dollar has lost over 97% of its value. In 2018, rt.com reported that

“the Russian president noted that there are risks in settlements in national currencies, but they could be minimized. “Risks exist everywhere and they need to be minimized, and in order to minimize them diversification is required.” Holding dollars is risky “According to Putin, the US dollar is also a risky financial tool. “US foreign debt amounts to $20 trillion. What will be next? Who knows?”

The U.S. will never be able to finance their debt even if they brought back their manufacturing base, reduce government spending and end all of their wars including those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital recently told Rick Sanchez of RT News that

“All the signs are already there. Look at what’s happening out there. The stock market is falling, Look at homebuilders, the housing stocks, the financials, the retailers – all these are the same things that were happening in 2007 leading to that crisis,” Schiff warned. “So, what you’ve got to do is get out of U.S. dollar assets. The dollar is going to be the biggest casualty along with the American standard of living.”

The U.S. and their allies including Saudi Arabia, Israel, NATO, Colombia and until recently Brazil under the new Presidency of the ultra-right wing fascist, Jair Balsonaro are preparing for a major war with Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba to basically regain control over the world by restoring the U.S. dollar to its global dominance it once had. The National Interest, an international affairs magazine founded by neoconservative thinker Irving Kristol and whose honorary chairman is one of the world’s most notorious war criminals, Henry Kissinger published an article written by Christopher Smart titled ‘The Future of the Dollar-And It’s Role in Financial Diplomacy’ on the role the dollar plays in what they call “financial diplomacy”:

Financial diplomacy begins with the coordination of macroeconomic policy, investment regimes and banking regulation, but dollar dominance has given the United States a privileged role in a broad field of negotiations including debt restructuring, battles against terrorism and transborder crime. Most notably, targeted financial sanctions have dramatically bolstered political leverage to isolate bad actors like Venezuela over human rights or Russia over transborder aggression. Washington has sometimes failed to capitalize on all these tools due to poor political leadership or bureaucratic dysfunction, but that may make its accomplishments all the more remarkable across two broad areas. First, U.S. financial diplomacy has been the dominant voice in setting the rules and institutions that reinforce the openness and stability of the global financial system, and consequently support world economic prosperity. Second, the dollar’s dominance has opened conversation on a range of matters that raise global standards and improve cooperation beyond finance.

The ability to impose order on unruly global markets is, in many ways, what distinguishes the dollar from other international currencies. It is the world’s safest asset whenever political or financial turmoil spikes. In many of the same ways that the overwhelming power of the U.S. military can force order onto a conflict zone, so the U.S. Federal Reserve and Treasury have played pivotal roles in stabilizing financial markets through swap lines and loans

The U.S. has essentially used its currency status, or what Christopher Smart described as the dollar having “a privileged role” of negotiating financial deals with the upper-hand when it comes to specific issues including debt restructuring or “targeted financial sanctions” with leverage (or in simple terms, a gun to your head!), and for all of those reasons that is why several countries had made significant moves away from the dollar. That is why the dollar has also been losing its position as the world’s reserve currency, so a war will be the only option they have to keep it intact. The dollar became the reserve currency of the world since 1971 when the Nixon administration abandoned the Bretton-Woods gold standard, then the federal reserve went into mass printing mode where dollars where created without nothing to back it. One other reason that the dollar became a reserve currency for the world is what we call the Petrodollar as a mechanism to control the oil markets when Washington made a deal with Saudi Arabia to standardize oil prices in dollars creating the “petrodollar system” which meant that oil exporting countries needed to use dollars in exchange for their oil imports, therefore making it essential for all oil-exporting countries to use dollars. So national incomes became dependent on the dollar’s value, so when the dollar falls in value, so did their economy.  U.S. trade partners must peg their currencies to the dollar, so if the value of the dollar falls, so does the price of their domestic goods and services fall.

Not only the U.S. made the dollar the dominant currency in the world for natural resources in terms of oil, it uses its currency status as a weapon against sovereign nations who dared to challenge U.S. hegemony. Several countries in the last decade, especially Russia and Iran have been slowly abandoning the U.S. dollar since they have been repeatedly sanctioned by Washington for not following Western standards of compliance within the world order.

Despite Trump calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan (I don’t believe Trump will make that happen in my opinion), it does not change the fact that the Military-Industrial Complex is planning the next major war to protect the dollar as it is losing its world reserve status, perhaps we can call it The Dollar War. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein decided to sell oil in Euros bypassing the dollar and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi had planned on Africa using a gold-backed currency in dinars instead of the dollar. Soon after, a no-fly zone was imposed in both Iraq and Libya leading to a war which devastated both countries. Muammar Gaddafi also called for African nations to dump the dollar at a time when China’s growing economic ties with several African countries became a threat to Washington. Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were eventually captured by U.S. and NATO backed forces and terrorist groups and executed.

As the World Moves From the U.S. Dollar, Chance of a Major War Increases

On August 6th, 2018, former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tweeted

“The use of the US Dollar as the standard unit of currency in global markets and the world banking system is the key strength of the American Empire. Things need to change, current orders should be reordered. #Newworldorder #DollarDictatorship.”

Things do need to change. Russia, China and Iran are making moves to change the current system without the dollar. The mainstream- media is taking notes on the reality as Newsweek magazine published an interesting article last September titled ‘Russia and China Think U.S. Dollars are Ruining the World, So They’re Finding A New Way’ The title in itself speaks volumes.

“Russia and China lashed out at U.S.’s control over the global financial system after being hit by fresh sanctions that have left the two rising powers increasingly frustrated.”

The article continued:

“Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Friday that his country was making extensive efforts to distance itself entirely from the U.S.-dominated international financial system, much of which runs on the U.S. dollar, and urged others to do the same. Washington has taken advantage of its unmatched influence by enacting sanctions as a form of punishment against countries accused of wrongdoing, or to persuade them to alter policies that are unfavorable to the United States”

The Russian, Chinese and the Iranian governments and their citizens alike have been experiencing U.S. imposed sanctions for some time. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke on what Russia and their partners in Asia and Latin America were doing to be less depended on the U.S. dollar:

“Referencing the U.S. and its Western allies that have joined in on sanctions against Russia, Lavrov said Russia was “doing everything necessary to not depend on those countries that do so with respect to their international partners. More and more of our partners in Asia and Latin America are beginning to come from the same approaches. I think that this movement will only grow stronger.”

Whether it’s Political or Just Plain Economics, Sovereign Countries Are Bypassing the U.S. Dollar

While more countries around the world grow frustrated with U.S. sanctions, there has been a number of important trade agreements by using their own currencies to bypass the dollar.

Here are some recent developments from 2017-2018:

China-Japan Buy Less U.S. Treasuries, What Does it Mean for the U.S. Dollar?

Two major economic powers, China and Japan have reduced their holdings of U.S. treasuries as of last August according to a report from October 2018 by rt.com “China’s holdings of US sovereign debt dropped to $1.165 trillion in August, from $1.171 trillion in July, marking the third consecutive month of declines as the world’s second-largest economy bolsters its national currency amid trade tensions with the US.” The report also said that Japan is following in the same footsteps of China by cutting their holdings of U.S. debt:

Tokyo cut its holdings of US securities to $1.029 trillion in August, the lowest since October 2011. In July, Japan’s holdings were at $1.035 trillion. According to the latest figures from the country’s Ministry of Finance, Japanese investors opted to buy British debt in August, selling US and German bonds. Japan reportedly liquidated a net $5.6 billion worth of debt

The report mentioned others who are following the same strategy of reducing U.S. treasuries because of economic, financial and geopolitical tensions over the years:

Liquidating US Treasuries, one of the world’s most actively-traded financial assets, has recently become a trend among major holders. Russia dumped 84 percent of its holdings this year, with its remaining holdings as of June totaling just $14.9 billion. With relations between Moscow and Washington at their lowest point in decades, the Central Bank of Russia explained the decision was based on financial, economic and geopolitical risks.

Turkey and India have followed suit. Like Russia, Turkey has dropped out of the top-30 list of holders of American debt following a conflict with Washington over the attempted military coup in the country two years ago. While India remains among the top-30, the country has cut its US Treasury holdings for the fifth consecutive month, from $157 billion in March to $140 billion in August

At one point in history, China acquiring US debt offered a safe haven for what is known as ‘Chinese forex reserves’ where China offered loans to the US so that US consumers can buy Chinese goods as long as China had an export-driven economy which led to large-scale trade surpluses with the U.S. This allowed China to purchase U.S. debt over the years, but now that is no longer the case. China’s trade and geopolitical tensions with the U.S. has increased over the years especially since China’s economic power has grown. China’s ‘One Belt One Road’ Initiative has blocked Washington’s ambition to dominate the Asia-Pacific region.

An article by Schiffgold.com ‘Who Is Buying US Treasuries’ noted the fact that “the Japanese and Chinese aren’t buying US Treasuries. In fact, both countries reduced their holdings in April.” The article also says that China can use “US debt as a weapon” because they “can’t out-tariff Trump. The US imports far more products than the Chinese.” What is important for China’s strategy against U.S. pressure is the fact that “they could start more aggressively selling US Treasuries. If China starts dumping large amounts of debt on the market, interest rates will likely soar and the dollar would plunge.” According to Schiffgold.com

“As Wolf Street noted, you can more clearly see that Japan and China are less eager to service US debt when you look at it in terms of the percentage of the US gross national debt” WolfStreet did say that the two reasons are that “the US gross national debt has soared” and that “the holdings of China and Japan have fallen over the past two years.”

With Washington’s support of Taiwanese independence and the U.S. Navy ready to expand its presence in the South China Sea, China will continue to sell U.S. treasuries and expand their markets around the world under the One-Belt, One-Road Initiative’ while building their military capabilities puts Washington in a tight spot. China , Russia, Japan and others are following similar strategies that require less dollars. Tensions between Beijing and Washington will intensify as long as China’s influence around the world gains traction while its economic growth continues to outpace the U.S. economy.

Russia & Syria to Use National Currencies for Mutual Settlements & Energy Exploration

In a strategic economic sense, Russia and Syria has agreed to bypass the dollar when it comes to “mutual settlements and energy exploration in Syria” which is an important development to consider. “Mutual settlements, transport and logistics – as far as I’m concerned these issues have been settled,” Vladimir Padalko, Vice-President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry told journalists on the sidelines of an annual meeting of the Russian-Syrian commission for trade, economic, scientific and technical cooperation, taking place in Damascus” according to an rt.com report ‘Russia & Syria to dump dollar in mutual trade, agree joint energy projects’ published last month.

“The Russian official added that the countries have picked 200 Russian and Syrian companies to take part in joint projects for rebuilding the war-torn country. The parties are set to sign an agreement that includes 10 extensive focus areas for recovering the Syrian post-war economy”

The report also stated that “the parties have also clinched a number of commercial agreements on exploration and production of energy commodities in Syria, according to the Russian office.”

Iraq & Iran Remove U.S. Dollars from Trade

Another interesting development is the agreement between Iraq and Iran when it comes to mutual trade agreements in bypassing the dollar and using the Euro (that’s what got Iraqi President Saddam Hussein into trouble with Washington) and local currencies and even using a barter system for the trading of goods. A report published on September 10, 2018 by Presstv.com, an Iranian news source titled ‘Iraq officially removes US Dollar from Iran trade’said that Iraq and Iran “abandoned the greenback in their mutual trade.” The article stated the following:

Reports emerged in early September that Iraq and Iran had abandoned the greenback in their mutual trade, giving way to the Euro and local currencies, as well as direct barter of goods.  “The US dollar has been removed from the list of currencies used by Iran and Iraq in their trade transactions and they are using Iranian Rial, euro and Iraqi dinar for financial transactions,” Yahya Ale-Eshagh, head of the Iran-Iraq Chamber of Commerce, was quoted as saying by local media

Not only the governments of Iraq and Iran were bypassing the dollar in trade, merchants were already engaging in barter operations:

Apart from switching from the US dollar to alternative currencies, Iranian and Iraqi merchants have been engaging in barter operations, according to the official. The banking system, however, still needs improvements, since only a fraction of trade between the two countries actually goes through banks

One obstacle stands in the way from completely removing themselves from the dollar and that is the banking system:

The banking system, however, still needs improvements, since only a fraction of trade between the two countries actually goes through banks.  “Resolving the banking system problem must be a priority for both Iran and Iraq, as the two countries have at least $8 billion in transactions in the worst times,” Ale-Eshagh was further quoted as saying by the website of Russia Today.

India & Iran Will Drop Dollars for Oil Trade

India is another country set on bypassing the dollar by paying for Iranian oil imports with rupees to avoid U.S. sanctions. According to rt.com who has been following these developments on countries dropping the dollar closely said that:

Under the deal, the payments for oil will be made through India’s state-run UCO Bank, which has no US exposure. The countries are also discussing the barter-like system to avoid US sanctions, Sputnik reports.  Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is on a visit to India this week, where he has met with Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj. “During the talks, the two sides also exchanged views on a further expansion of ties in banking, energy, trade, insurance, shipping, use of national currencies, Chabahar projects and Chabahar-Zahedan railway,” Zarif said in a statement

India bought a record 27.2 million tons of Iranian crude last year, which according to Sputnik News “ended in March 2018.” It was calculated at a 114 percent increase.  India’s Swaraj said the country would ignore the US trade sanctions against Iran. “India will comply with UN sanctions and not any country-specific sanctions,” Swaraj said.

Pakistan and China’s ‘One Belt One Road Initiative’

Last December, Pakistan’s New Prime Minister, Imran Khan was interviewed by The Washington Post in regards to Pakistan’s relationship with the U.S. and their growing relationship with China ‘Pakistani leader to the U.S.: We’re not your ‘hired gun’ anymore.’  Khan was asked about Trump’s tweets and U.S. aid given to Pakistan over the years “What are you planning to do about your country’s relationship with the U.S., which has been deteriorating and has involved a social-media war with the president?” referring to Trump’s tweets on US aid to Pakistan and that safe havens that were given to terrorists. Trump wrote that “the United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!” Khan replied with “It was not really a Twitter war, it was just setting the record right.” later blaming “flawed U.S. policies — the military approach to Afghanistan.” Khan was asked about the future relationship with the U.S. and China and answered by stating the truth and facts of what was really happening in Pakistan, so he said that “I would never want to have a relationship where Pakistan is treated like a hired gun — given money to fight someone else’s war. We should never put ourselves in this position again. It not only cost us human lives, devastation of our tribal areas, but it also cost us our dignity.”Khan expanded his idea on Pakistan’s growing relationship with China saying that it is not “one-dimensional” and that “It’s a trade relationship between two countries. We want a similar relationship with the U.S.” What was interesting was what The Washington Post said to Khan regarding his anti-U.S. stand and Khan replied with “If you do not agree with U.S. policies, it does not mean you’re anti-American. This is a very imperialistic approach: “You’re either with me or against me.”

On December 17th, 2017, an article by Reuters ‘Pakistan considering plan to use yuan in trade with China’ explains how Pakistan is considering a proposal to replace the dollar with Chinese Yuan’s in the near future:

Pakistan is considering a proposal to replace the U.S. dollar with the Chinese yuan for bilateral trade between Pakistan and China, the English-language daily newspaper Dawn reported on Tuesday.  Bilateral trade between the countries totaled $13.8 billion in 2015 to 2016

What is troubling for Washington is the cooperation between China and Pakistan and what it involves in terms of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC):

The long-term plan highlighted key cooperation areas between the neighboring states including road and rail connections, information network infrastructure, energy, trade and industrial parks, agriculture, poverty alleviation and tourism.  The plan marks the first time the two countries have said how long they plan to work together on the project, known as the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC,)taking the economic partnership to at least 2030.  China has already committed to investing $57 billion in Pakistan to finance CPEC as part of Beijing’s “Belt and Road” initiative to build a new Silk Road of land and maritime trade routes across more than 60 countries in Asia, Europe and  Africa.

European Union to Create Own Payment System Independent of the U.S. Dominated SWIFT System? Don’t Count on it

Some countries within the European Union would be more than willing to move away from the dollar at least according to the author of ‘Currency Wars’, Jim Rickards. Rickards wrote an interesting article on actions the European Union is considering to establish a new E.U. based payments system that is independent from the U.S. dominated SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) payment system. The article was published in The Daily Reckoning titled ‘The World Is Ganging up Against the Dollar’, Rickards said that “the U.S. has been highly successful at pursuing financial warfare, including sanctions. But for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Stating the facts on how the U.S. uses its dollar, the world is responding with its own actions. Rickards warned “As the U.S. wields the dollar weapon more frequently, the rest of the world works harder to shun the dollar completely.” he continued “I’ve been warning for years about efforts of nations like Russia and China to escape what they call “dollar hegemony” and create a new financial system that does not depend on the dollar and helps them get out from under dollar-based economic sanctions.”

A new financial system was mention by German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas who “recently called for a new EU-based payments system independent of the U.S. and SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) that would not involve dollar payments” to obviously bypass Iranian sanctions imposed by the U.S. Jim Rickards describes the SWIFT system the “nerve center of the global financial network. All major banks transfer all major currencies using the SWIFT message system. Cutting a nation off from SWIFT is like taking away its oxygen.”

Given the fact that Europe is Washington’s lap dog when it comes to foreign policy and economics, Europe would be balancing itself on a tightrope if they decided to create a new payments system without angering Washington. So don’t count on them on creating a system that would damage Washington’s economic hegemony over European markets.

However, Russia has already made that move away from the SWIFT payment system to SPFS (System for Transfer of Financial Messages). According to rt.com:

Russia’s money transfer system, developed as an alternative to SWIFT is now more popular than the global network, said Anatoly Aksakov, head of the Russian parliamentary committee on financial markets.  He explained that Moscow is already engaged in talks with Chinese, Turkish and Iranian financial regulators on integrating its System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS) with financial messaging systems of those countries

The report went on to mention that the SPFS has more users than SWIFT:

“The number of users of our internal financial messages’ transfer system is now greater than that of those using SWIFT. We’re already holding talks with China, Iran and Turkey, along with several other countries, on linking our system with their systems,” Aksakov said. “They need to be properly integrated with each other in order to avoid any problems with using the countries’ internal financial messaging systems”

Russia created the SPFS payment system which “began in 2014 in response to Washington’s threats of disconnecting Russia from SWIFT. The first transaction on the SPFS network involving a non-bank enterprise was held in December 2017″ the report said.

SWIFT is a system that allows financial institutions to either send and receive information concerning financial transactions in a secure environment which is based on the dollar system. However, the SWIFT system is a tool used by the U.S. against other countries to enforce their foreign policy agendas. For example, between 2014 and 2015, the U.S. blocked several Russian banks from SWIFT since US-Russia relations where at an all-time low. In 2018, the U.S. threatened to ban China from using the system if it did not follow UN sanctions on North Korea.

With these actions taken by the U.S., it has also pushed China and Russia to purchase gold reserves over the years to minimize their exposure to the dollar and avoid any problems that may come up concerning their financial transactions with a payment system solely dominated by the U.S. So who can blame them?

Will Washington Launch the Next Major War to Save the U.S. Dollar?

World War III will be based on maintaining the power of the U.S. dollar. The interests of major corporations, the establishment from Washington and London, the banks and an interesting tribe whose seeds were planted in the Middle East back in 1948 are based on the dollar’s strength.

The dollar is the backbone, the tool that allows Washington to continue its geopolitical dominance backed with its military power over the world’s economy and its natural resources. The dollar allows Washington to intimidate sovereign countries with economic sanctions as a way to influence or directly control their politics and economy in Washington’s favor, nothing more and certainly, nothing less, and that’s a major reason the acceleration of dumping the U.S. dollar around the world will lead us into a major world war that may start with a country that has plenty of oil which two come to mind, and that is Venezuela and Iran.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. 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: Silent Crow News.

Timothy Alexander Guzman is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

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

*     *     *

Celebrate 243 Years of “Profitable Genocide”

By Jay Janson, July 04, 2019

Independence Holiday in the USA becomes a time when citizens tend to reflect on the nations two hundred forty year history. It is a history typical of six European empires in the areas of genocide and plunder.

The United States and Human Rights. A Long and Violent History

By Robert Fantina, July 04, 2019

When speaking about the United States’ blatant, constant and egregious violations of human rights, it is difficult to know where to start. That brutal, rogue nation, which disdains human rights and holds international law in contempt, is guilty on both the domestic and international stages.

Militarism Defines Trump’s 4th of July Spectacle

By Stephen Lendman, July 04, 2019

Annual US Independence Day commemorations reflect hypocrisy, not democracy, a notion the nation’s founders abhorred, things no different today.

It’s Time to Declare Your Independence from Tyranny, America

By John W. Whitehead, July 03, 2019

Indeed, it is painfully fitting that mere days before the nation prepared to celebrate its freedoms on the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the City Council for Charlottesville, Virginia—the home of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration—voted to do away with a holiday to honor Jefferson’s birthday, because Jefferson, like many of his contemporaries, owned slaves.

Fourth of July: “Put Away the Flags”

By Howard Zinn, July 03, 2019

On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.

A Thought for the Fourth of July: Can the U.S. Constitution Accommodate a Rogue President?

By Prof Rodrigue Tremblay, July 03, 2019

Very soon after his inauguration, Donald Trump began governing in authoritative way, issuing decree after decree, while attacking the press and the courts that stood in his way. Now, he seems to want the entire U.S. government to be at his personal service.

What is July 4th to US Imperialism? What is it to the Oppressed?

By Danny Haiphong, July 03, 2019

What does America’s national celebration mean to those under the heel of “Manifest Destiny,” at home and abroad? “For the victims of US imperialism, the 4^th of July is indeed a ‘hollow mockery’ and ‘mere bombast, fraud, and deception’ as Frederick Douglass so eloquently put it in his famous speech.”

*

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.

President Putin’s upcoming trip to Italy is much  more important than some people might think because it represents further progress being reached on a “New Detente”, and could help improve Orthodox-Catholic relations after his scheduled meeting with the Pope.

***

President Putin will be in Italy later this week to meet with the country’s leadership, which has remained surprisingly pragmatic towards Russia across administrations despite heavy American pressure for Italy to distance itself from the Eurasian Great Power. Trade ties are improving against all odds seeing as how the EU’s anti-Russian sanctions are still in place, which speaks to the interest that Italy has in carving out an independent niche for itself in the EU. This role has become even more prominent after last year’s elections saw the rise of a EuroRealist government to power, one that hasn’t shied away from supporting its sovereignty. It’s therefore fitting that the Russian leader will be paying a visit to this Southern European country, which comes amidst the nascent “New Detente” between Moscow and Brussels.

French President Macron surprised the world last month when he said that he wants to restore relations with Russia, after which Prime Minister Medvedev visited Paris to hold talks with his counterpart at the end of last month. The two premiers pledged to more actively cooperate with one another, and whether it was just a coincidence or otherwise, their meeting occurred around the same time as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) reinstated the Russian delegation’s rights after having frozen them for half a decade already following the Crimea’s reunification. Russian-EU relations are therefore noticeably on the upswing, at least when it comes to Moscow’s ties with the bloc’s most influential Western European members (Germany, France, and Italy), which creates a positive backdrop to President Putin’s visit to Rome.

Observers shouldn’t expect any dramatic outcome from this trip but should instead appreciate the pragmatism of yet another country warming up to Russia and refusing to submit to American pressure. This doesn’t by any means signify that Italy is “anti-American” — after all, Deputy Prime Minister Salvini recently wrote on Facebook that he wants his country to be “the first, most solid, valid, credible and coherent partner for the United States” — but just that it won’t sacrifice its national interests at the behest of a foreign power. Instead, Italy is signaling that it would like to “balance” between the US and Russia and position itself to play a key role in facilitating a “New Detente” between them that would also elevate its diplomatic position in the EU. It’s not unforeseeable that Italy could make some progress in this respect either, hence why it’s worth President Putin’s valuable time in traveling there.

He won’t just be meeting with that country’s representatives, but will also have his third meeting with Pope Francis, which Reuters pointed out will be their first one since the Catholic leader met with Patriarch Kirill in 2016 during the unprecedented meeting between the heads of these two Christian sects since their millennium-old schism. This obviously creates the opportunity for President Putin to build upon the progress that was previously made and possibly even invite the Pope to Russia, especially seeing as how he’s already recently visited several Orthodox-majority countries such as Romania, Bulgaria, and Macedonia. It’s difficult to predict whether such an offer will be extended and if the Pope would even commit to such a trip if he was indeed invited, but since intra-Christian relations are somewhat on the upswing, then it might be possible.

Of course, serious geo-religious differences still remain between the two, especially over Ukraine, but those could possibly be surmounted so long as the political will is present on both sides. In any case, the simple optics of President Putin meeting with the Pope during the nascent “New Detente” between Russia and the EU gives off a positive image that powerfully shows just how much the West’s attitudes towards the Eurasian Great Power are changing. The US’ infowar narrative that President Putin is a “pariah” will no longer be as convincing for most Westerners as it previously was since they’ll see with their own eyes that the spiritual leader that most of them respect is hosting the Russian President, which in and of itself makes his upcoming trip to Italy a lot more important than people might have initially thought.

*

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.

UPDATE: Britain’s GCHQ are currently advertising to recruit more trolls to carry out precisely the activity I outline here. As their advertisement puts it:

We are looking to recruit individuals who can contribute to a step change in the UK’s ability to project cyber power against our adversaries, in order to keep the UK safe. You will be at the forefront of the nation’s covert online capability. We want people who can help support and run operations that disrupt and degrade our adversaries’ ability to do us harm, and contest malign activity in cyber space.

I do hope this helps cut through the cognitive dissonance for those of you who found it difficult to come to terms with the truth of the below.

Original Post

It is a matter of simple fact that the British government employs a very large number of people whose full time job is to influence the political narrative on social media. The 77th Brigade of the British Army, the Integrity Initiative, MI5 and MI6 and GCHQ all run major programmes of covert online propaganda. These information warriors operate on twitter, facebook, and in comments sections across the internet.

I have long been fascinated by the disconnect by which people, who do know and understand that the security services employ tens of thousands of people and have budgets of billions, nevertheless find it hard to accept that they may come personally into contact with their operations. Therefore when I state that the security services infiltrate groups including environmentalists and the SNP, and were involved in the Skripal story in ways not public, there is a peculiar desire among people to reject it as it is uncomfortable. Equally while people do know the security services are committing huge sums to social media influencing, to point out any of its instances brings derisive shouts of “conspiracy theory”.

It was when I was pointing out the many omissions and inconsistencies in the official version of events surrounding the Skripals, that I first came under sustained attack from accounts on twitter, often making short and very sarcastic comments. I confess for a while this did actually get me down. I have no difficulty with people disagreeing with me, but I find it depressing to encounter unreasonably closed minds.

But in quite short order I started to note a few defining characteristics of the scores of accounts from which I was being attacked. These are false accounts, but they are trolls not bots. There are people from the 77th Brigade, GCHQ or other agencies sitting behind a desk and running scores of fake accounts each. As there is a real human being behind them, unlike bots, these trolls can reply if challenged and attempt to promote a real identity. But there are a number of key giveaways:

1) Many times more “follows” than “followers”.

In establishing a fake identity, the first step they take is to follow other twitter accounts. This is because a percentage of twitter users will automatically follow you back, so if you quickly follow 500 people you will likely get 100 “followers” back immediately. That appears to establish a real identity with followers. There are some interesting consequences of this technique. These troll accounts remarkably often follow sports betting twitter accounts, for example – because those accounts automatically follow back.

2) A tweet record consisting almost entirely of retweets.

This is the most important single giveaway. If you select “tweets” under the account, these accounts have zero original content. Their timeline consists of retweets of pro-Establishment content, leavened with retweets of the single characteristic that was chosen to establish a “character” – eg “Everton supporter”, “gym fanatic”. They never initiate a topic or posit an original thought, but work entirely in “retweet” or “reply” mode.

3) Follow and troll

Accounts which had nothing in common with me in terms of interests or political views, would suddenly decide to post a brief highly disparaging or ridiculing comment, and always simultaneously would start following me. The motivation of somebody who opens with rudeness yet simultaneously starts following is plainly aggressive – and not usual behaviour.

4) No convincing tweet history

A great many of these accounts are very newly minted at the time of first propaganda use. Generally, even those routine retweets are few and far between. Occasionally the troll twitter account claims to be longstanding – dating from 2009 or 2010 – but there is no evidence of actual (re)tweets going back more than a couple of years. This either suggests wholesale sleeper accounts were established, or twitter is actively involved in helping produce fake ones.

5) Lack of a normal “cluster” of followers

On most real people you can look through their followers and spot a little cluster of family, friends or workmates. The trolls don’t have normal roots.

***

How normal is this five point profile? Well, I looked through 200 entirely random twitter accounts and found 9 that would fit this profile – 4.5%. Yet surveying the threads from my own tweets, over 75% of the replies which I would characterise as hostile come from accounts that fit this profile. By which I mean meeting all five points. This analysis meets the scientific criterion of being replicable. You can test those figures for yourselves by looking through twitter. That is plain evidence these unusual profiles are being deliberately deployed – and highly probably deliberately created – for hostile intent.

I had spotted the giveaway profile of those attacking me a year ago, and had been mulling over posting on it. What determined me to do so was clicking on the “Mark Field” twitter trend following his physical attack on the female climate change activist. I was astonished by the sheer volume of tweets defending Mark Field. Clicking on them, I started to realise that what I was seeing was a massive deployment of twitter troll accounts all precisely following the profile I have outlined. They were putting out a unified message that the lady may have been an armed terrorist and that Field should be praised for his resolute, even heroic, action.

So here is the fun bit, some examples you can look at. I don’t claim these are all trolls. Some of these may be real identities who just happen to match the twitter troll profile. They may follow many times more people than they have followers simply because they have deeply repulsive personalities or nothing interesting to say. But remember we are talking about trolls not bots, so there is a human multiple account operative to all of the actual security service troll accounts, whose job it is to respond and attempt to portray a real existence. Unlike bots, if challenged, troll accounts will answer.

Look out yourself for troll accounts with these characteristics on twitter in future. Exposure is the simple way to nullify the vast state propaganda programmes on social media.

*

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

A delegation of more than a dozen members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus reported feeling unsafe and facing taunts and ridicule from Border Patrol agents during a visit Monday to immigrant detention facilities in Texas.

The Democratic legislators included Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was specifically targeted in sexually obscene and violent posts on a Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents’ secret Facebook page that was revealed in an exposé published Monday by ProPublica.

In the course of their tour of facilities, the lawmakers reported horrific conditions and abuse of women detainees at Border Patrol stations in El Paso and Clint, Texas. The provocative treatment the legislators received from Border Patrol agents at the facilities demonstrates that the fascistic sentiments of current and former CBP agents expressed in posts on the Facebook page are pervasive throughout the immigration agencies. President Trump, with the complicity of the Democratic Party, is cultivating and encouraging these forces as part of his drive to terrorize and persecute millions of immigrant workers.

This is being done in the face of broad popular sympathy for the immigrants and opposition to the erection of immigrant concentration camps. On Tuesday, thousands demonstrated across the country to demand the closure of the immigrant camps, a small reflection of the widespread hostility to Trump’s anti-immigrant and authoritarian measures.

Immigrant families held in overcrowded Border Patrol detention center in McAllen, Texas [Credit: OIG]

The Democrats are driven above all by fear of the emergence of mass social opposition, which would cut across US imperialist geopolitical interests and threaten to spiral out of the control of the corporate-controlled political parties. They, including the so-called “progressives” such as Ocasio-Cortez, have done nothing to mobilize the still largely passive opposition to the war on immigrants.

The episode at the border on Monday took place just days after the Democratic Party ensured passage of a bipartisan measure handing the Trump administration an additional $4.9 billion to fund its border war, claiming it was motivated by a “humanitarian” desire to improve conditions at immigrant detention facilities. Ocasio-Cortez agreed to vote to bring the border funding measure to a floor vote after meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, assuring its passage.

The Democrats’ humanitarian pretext was exploded by the threatening behavior of the border agents on Monday as well as Trump’s statement, upon signing the funding bill, that he plans to proceed with military-style raids in major cities to arrest and deport thousands of immigrants following his July 4 celebration of militarism at the Lincoln Memorial.

Meanwhile, the toll on workers fleeing poverty and violence in Central America continues to grow. On Monday night, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that a 30-year-old Honduran man who was in ICE custody died on Sunday at a Houston-area hospital. Yimi Alexis Balderramos-Torres is the sixth person to die in ICE custody since October 1.

Overcrowded immigrant families held in McAllen, Texas Border Patrol detention center [Credit: OIG]

After leaving the Border Patrol station in El Paso Monday, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: “Just left the 1st CBP facility. I see why CBP officers were being so physically & sexually threatening towards me. Officers were keeping women in cells w/ no water & had told them to drink out of the toilets. This was them on their GOOD behavior in front of members of Congress.”

She told reporters, “I was not safe from the officers in that facility.” Other members of the congressional delegation described CBP and Border Patrol agents laughing at the lawmakers and taking selfies with the Congress members in the background.

Trump refused to condemn either the fascistic Facebook posts or the provocative behavior of the border agents. White House spokesman Hogan Gidley told Fox Business Network, “I don’t know what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is talking about.” He called CBP agents “some of the bravest men and women on the planet,” and added, “They provided three meals a day to people who are here illegally and unlawfully, two snacks in between.”

A Fox News report accused the congresswoman of “screaming” at border agents in a “threatening manner.”

On Tuesday, Ocasio-Cortez responded by tweeting: “To these CBP officers saying they felt ‘threatened’ by me—They were literally discussing making a GoFundMe for an officer who attacked me on my tour.”

The ProPublica exposé reported that the CBP Facebook group, called “I’m 10-15” after the law enforcement code for “aliens in custody,” had some 9,500 members, identifying at least one supervisor. The page featured sadistic and racist jokes about immigrant deaths and sexually explicit photos, including one showing Ocasio-Cortez’s face being forced down to the crotch of a smiling Trump. Other posts called female Democratic lawmakers “hoes” and urged agents to throw burritos at visiting Hispanic Caucus legislators.

During Monday’s tour of border stations, Rep. Joaquin Castro, the chairman of the Hispanic Caucus, tweeted a video of several women under custody sitting on the floor at a station in El Paso, one of whom said he had been denied medicine. He described women being held in cramped cells for up to 50 days without access to showers or running water for weeks.

Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that the women in one cell “all began sobbing—out of fear of being punished, out of sickness, out of desperation, lack of sleep, trauma, despair.” Representative Madeleine Dean described 15 women in their 50s and 60s sleeping in a small concrete cell, all of whom had been separated from their families.

Female inmates told congressmembers the guards woke them up at all hours and called them “whores.”

These conditions are just the tip of the iceberg. The inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security, the parent agency of both CBP and ICE, released a report Monday on a May 7 tour of a border station in the El Paso sector that found there were only four showers for 756 immigrants. Half of the detained immigrants were being held outside in the Texas heat, while those inside were in cells with more than five times their capacity.

Inmates were forced to wear soiled clothing for weeks and the facility was infested with lice and had outbreaks of flu, chickenpox and scabies. It warned that border agents were arming themselves against possible riots.

The report made clear that the horrific conditions are being imposed deliberately to deter immigrants. It said: “[Border Patrol] recognizes they have a humanitarian issue with detaining single adults for so long, but believe if they do not have a consequence delivery system, either prosecution or ICE detention, the flow will increase.”

An updated inspector general’s report released Tuesday included photographs of hundreds of migrants crammed behind chain-link fences at CBP facilities. It called the situation a “ticking time bomb.”

The promotion of fascist elements in the immigration agencies is being directed from the White House. Trump’s chief immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, is purging officials deemed insufficiently aggressive and replacing them with others who advocate mass arrests and deportations and a crackdown on legal immigration.

Mark Morgan, named last week to replace acting CBP Commissioner John Sanders after the latter’s resignation under pressure from above, had authored the plan for mass raids in US cities while he was acting head of ICE. He has defended vigilante militia groups that illegally detain immigrants on the border and boasted of being able to look into the eyes of detained immigrant children and detect “soon-to-be MS-13 gang members.”

Morgan embodies the bipartisan character of the anti-immigrant policy, having served as assistant CBP commissioner under Barack Obama, whose administration deported 3 million people, the largest number in US history.

Last month Politico reported that Miller ally John Zadrozny was expected to be named deputy chief of staff at US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which oversees legal immigration, including asylum policy. He will join the team of newly installed USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli.

As Virginia attorney general earlier in this decade, Cuccinelli supported ending birthright citizenship and denying unemployment benefits to workers who did not speak English.

Zadrozny is an official at the State Department who previously worked for Trump’s Domestic Policy Council. In 2009, he worked as legislative counsel for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated FAIR as a hate group because of “virulent and false attacks on non-white immigrants.”

These developments must serve as a sharp warning to the entire working class. The war on immigrants is part of a broader attack on democratic rights, including the preparation of state violence against workers who strike or protest against sweatshop conditions and a deliberate drive to establish a presidential dictatorship. No section of the Democratic Party will defend democratic rights, because that requires a struggle against the capitalist system.

None of the Democrats who are protesting against Trump’s fascistic measures call for the liberation of all those being held in detention centers and the right of all workers to live and work wherever they choose. This is the policy fought for by the Socialist Equality Party as an essential part of the urgent struggle to unite the entire working class in defense of its democratic and social rights.

*

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

Featured image: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) addresses the media after touring the Clint, Texas, Border Patrol Facility housing children on July 1, 2019, in Clint, Texas.Christ Chavez/Getty Images

Once upon a time, the Fourth of July was about liberty and the Declaration of Independence. Now it’s about grilled burgers, beer, and fireworks made in China. 

For President Trump, the upcoming “holiday” is about showing off the latest death merchant gizmos, including fighter jets and tanks. 

.

Trump said this week's #July4th celebration will feature brand new tanks and "the best fighter jets in the world."
"Gotta be pretty careful with the tanks because the roads have a tendency not to like to carry heavy tanks so we have to put them in certain areas," he said pic.twitter.com/O3xO6R2JcG

— POLITICO (@politico) July 1, 2019

Did you catch that? Trump believes the death merchants still crank out Sherman tanks. The US has not produced Sherman tanks since WWII. 

As for the “best fighter jets in the world,” is it possible the Donald is talking about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter? This puppy came in 100% over budget, something the stockholders at Lockheed Martin undoubtedly celebrated. 

In response to the embarrassing fact the F-35 dog don’t hunt, in 2012 the Pentagon dumped an additional $450 million into the project. 

Russia’s Sukhoi Su-57 cost an estimated $10 million to research, develop, and prepare for production. Believe it or not, the F-35 cost $1.5 trillion to get off the drawing board. It is the most expensive weapons program in history.

The Donald’s militarized Fourth of July might be considered part of his sales pitch for the MIC (Military Industrial Complex). He would like to roll tanks—maybe including an ancient Sherman tank or two—down Pennsylvania Avenue, but it’s out of the question, as he noted in the above video. 

Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, warned about keeping “instruments on foot” and said one such “instrument is a standing army.” 

But then, far too many Americans are at a complete loss when it comes to the foundational principles of America, formerly and briefly a constitutional republic. 

*

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.

Why did the European Food Safety Authority claim that glyphosate was not ecotoxic? This is the question environmentalist Dr Rosemary Mason poses in her new 23-page report which can be accessed in full here. In places, the report reads like a compilation of peer-reviewed studies and official reports that have documented the adverse impacts of chemicals used in modern agriculture.

Only a brief outline of Mason’s report is possible here. Readers are urged to consult the document to grasp more detailed insight into the issues she discusses as well as the evidence cited in support of her arguments and claims.

Mason argues that the European Commission has consistently bowed to the demands of the pesticide lobby. In turn, she notes the fraudulent nature of the assessment of glyphosate which led to its relicensing in Europe and thus the continued use of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup. This ongoing support for the pesticide lobby flies in the face of so much evidence pointing to the detrimental effects of Roundup and other agrochemicals on the environment, living organisms, soil, water and human health.

These chemicals have become integral to an increasingly globalised process of agro-industrialisation. Mason discusses the nature of modern farming by referring to the endless corn fields of Iowa. One hundred years ago, these fields were home to 300 species of plants, 60 mammals, 300 birds and thousands of insects. Now, there is almost literally nothing – except corn – in what amounts to a biological desert. The birds, bees and insects have gone.

It’s a type of farming where so much toxic agrochemicals are used that they have ended up in soils and sediment, ditches and drains, precipitation, rivers and streams and even in seas, lakes, ponds, wetlands and groundwater. A type of agriculture that is responsible for undermining essential biodiversity, human health and diverse, nutritious diets.

The report takes us further afield, to the Great Barrier Reef to discuss the destruction of coral by Monsanto’s Roundup and Bayer’s insecticide clothianidin. It is interesting that the pesticide industry and the media tend to blame global warming for the degradation of the reef. Although there have been efforts to grow new corals, Mason states that pesticide run off from farmland means that corals will continue to be destroyed.

She touches on the role of agrochemicals in relation to the decline of the Monarch butterfly and the now well-documented ecological Armageddon due to the dramatic plunge in insect numbers: insects which are vital to soil health and the food web. Numerous studies and reports are presented as well as warnings from scientists and whistleblowers like Henk Tennekes and Evaggelos Vallianatos about the impacts of toxic chemicals in food and agriculture.

Indeed, since the late 1990s, Mason notes that various scientists have written in increasingly desperate tones about biodiversity loss and the impact on humanity as well as the emerging fungal threats to animal, plant and ecosystem health.

Mason also reveals insight into her own struggles with a local authority in Wales over the destruction of her nature reserve due to the council’s spraying of Roundup in the vicinity. Despite numerous open letters and e-mails to UK and European agencies documenting the impacts of this herbicide (some of this correspondence is contained in the report, with responses), her evidence has been ignored and it remains ‘business as usual’.

That’s because global agrochemical conglomerates exert huge political influence at state and international levels. For instance, back in 2017, the Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food was heavily critical of these companies and accused them of the “systematic denial of harms”, “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics” and heavy lobbying of governments which has “obstructed reforms and paralysed global pesticide restrictions”. The authors noted the catastrophic impacts on the environment, human health and society in general.

At the time, one of the report’s authors, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Hilal Elver, said:

“The power of the corporations over governments and over the scientific community is extremely important. If you want to deal with pesticides, you have to deal with the companies…”

Her co-author, Baskut Tuncak, the UN’s special rapporteur on toxics, added:

“While scientific research confirms the adverse effects of pesticides, proving a definitive link between exposure and human diseases or conditions or harm to the ecosystem presents a considerable challenge. This challenge has been exacerbated by a systematic denial, fuelled by the pesticide and agro-industry, of the magnitude of the damage inflicted by these chemicals, and aggressive, unethical marketing tactics.”

In noting the severity of the issue and the driving forces that perpetuate and profit from the chemical-intensive corporatised global food regime, Mason quotes Vandana Shiva:

“The ecological crisis, the agrarian crisis, the food crisis, the health and nutrition crisis, the crisis of democracy and sovereignty are not separate crises. They are one. And they are connected through food. The web of life is a food web. When it is ruptured by chemicals and poisons that come from war, and rules of ‘free trade’ that is a war declared by corporations against the earth and humanity, biodiversity is wiped out, farmers are killed through debt, and people die either because of hunger or because of cancer, diabetes, heart problems, hypertension and other environment and food related chronic diseases. Everyone is paying a very high price for corporate greed and dictatorship and collusion of corporate states to spread the toxic empire of corporations in the name of ‘reforms’.”

Pesticides include herbicides, insecticides, termiticides, nematicides, rodenticides and fungicides. Today, the pesticide industry is valued at over $50 billion and there are around 600 active ingredients. Herbicides account for approximately 80 per cent of all pesticide use.

Of course, Vandana Shiva’s main focus is on India and the ongoing undermining of its indigenous agriculture by foreign corporations. The potential market for herbicide growth alone in India is huge: sales have probably now reached over $800 million per year in that country, with scope for even greater expansion. And have no doubt the global agrochemical industry has made India a priority.

From cotton to soybean, little wonder we see the appearance of illegal genetically modified (GM) herbicide-tolerant seeds in the country. These seeds are designed not only to push GM into India across a range of food crops but, ultimately, to drive the growth of the herbicide market in India, as they have in South America. The detrimental health impacts there as a result of the widespread use of Roundup are now well documented along with the displacement of indigenous peasant agriculture to make way for commodity monocropping agro-exports. At the same time, in certain cotton cultivation areas of India, we have seen a push to break traditional weeding practices (‘double-lining’ ox ploughing), seemingly with the intention on nudging farmers towards taking up herbicide-tolerant seeds.

Little wonder too that we currently see industry-connected lobbyists (masquerading as objective scientists or independent ‘science communicators’) residing abroad and encouraging farmers in India to plant these illegal GM seeds in what appears to be an orchestrated campaign. Numerous high-level reports have stated that GM is unsuitable for India. Having lost the debate, the GM/agrochemical lobby has now resorted to a tactic of illegal cultivation.

While touting the supposed virtues of GM agriculture, these lobbyists also spend much of their time promoting the merits of its godparent, the Green Revolution, in an attempt to justify the roll-out of GM seeds and associated herbicides. But emerging academic research indicates that the Green Revolution in India did next to nothing in terms of increasing productivity, despite the well-perpetuated myth that it saved lives and helped avert famine. In fact, in Punjab, the cradle of the Green Revolution in India, this ‘green dream’ has turned into a toxic environmental and human health nightmare.

India produces enough food to feed its population. It does so without GM and could do so agroecologically without synthetic chemicals – without ‘nuking’ nature and without destroying human health. While the agrochemical lobby continues to spin the message that India and the world  need its proprietary inputs to feed the world and eradicate hunger, the reality is – as noted by Hilal Elver and Baskut Tuncak – that we do not.

If we want to look at the causes of hunger and malnutrition, we must first address the deleterious impacts of the water-guzzling, chemical-dependent Green Revolution, so eloquently described by Bhaskar Save in his open letter to officials in 2006 and extremely pertinent given India’s current water emergency; the global capitalist food regime and its undermining of regional food security and food sovereignty; the lack of income to purchase sufficient food; and various other issues, including an erosion of land rights, debt, poverty and food distribution problems.

No amount of genetic engineering or chemicals can address these issues. And no amount of industry-inspired spin can divert attention from the root causes of malnutrition and hunger and genuine (agroecological) solutions.

*

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

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

Libya’s Centre for Judicial Expertise (CJE) has conducted forensic investigations and identified the cause of death of several members of the Libyan National Army (LNA) and the Central Security Apparatus (CSA) after GNA militias entered Gharyan. The report concluded that LNA and CSA soldiers and officers were executed by GNA militias at Gharyan Hospital after they were captured. This article contains graphic images.

Forensic Report Confirms Victims Were Executed

Copies of death certificates which have been obtained by Al Marsad after the prosecutor granted permission to bury the victims, prove that the Centre for Judicial Expertise’s (CJE) Department of Forensic Medicine team did indeed confirm that a number of soldiers had been shot dead.

Doctors also confirmed that the victims were shot from a close range with some being shot in the head with bullets that pierced their skulls from back to front, whilst others were shot at with rounds of bullets from a close distance. Some of the bodies also displayed markings of cars run over them. This clearly shows that the summary execution and mutilation constitutes a war crime committed by the GNA militas.

The Government of National Accord (GNA) has denied any acts of revenge or summary executions in Gharyan. However, the GNA denial has been refuted by the accounts of survivors after the entry into Gharyan by troops loyal to the Tripoli Government.

Bodies of Slain Soldiers Returned to their Families

The Red Crescent in the city of Zintan (ZRC) received 40 corpses from the Gharyan University Hospital. From there the bodies were airlifted and transported by land to the victims’ families. The bodies of executed soldiers from Cyrenaica were flown to Benghazi; the bodies of those from the South were transported to Wadi el-Shati; while victims from the Western region were transported to the city of al-Asabia where they were buried in the city’s cemetery.

To see more photos, click here.

Zintan’s Red Crescent on Saturday posted pictures of the victims on its official Facebook page which clearly showed that the victims had sustained gunshots to the head. The photos also showed signs of torture, lacerations and facial mutilation due to proximity of the deliberate shooting which was cited in the forensic reports of the Centre for Judicial Expertise (CJE). However, the ZRC stressed its lack of jurisdiction in determining the cause of the deaths yet the forensic evidence left little doubt.

The Murder of Saleh Ibrahim bin Ali al-Khazali

Meanwhile, the family of soldier Saleh Ibrahim bin Ali al-Khazali who was also killed by the GNA militia received his body in his hometown of Bayda. The body was sent from the morgue of the Gharyan University Hospital. The slain soldier first appeared in a footage which was published on Facebook at the same hospital, where he appeared to be injured and was speaking consciously, before he was killed by the militias.

The father of the victim made a statement following the funeral of his son on Saturday. In a video release (see below), the family of the deceased soldier blamed Major General Usama Juwailli, Commander of the Western Military Region of the Government of National Accord (GNA), for the massacre.

HoR Announces National Mourning, LNA Holds the GNA and Turkey Responsible

The House of Representatives (HoR) condemned the Gharyan summary executions of the LNA and CSA soldiers and declared mourning for three days. The HoR statement said:

“The Libyan House of Representatives declares the official mourning in the country three days to mourn the souls of those who have given the homeland their pure lives to provide the Libyan people with security and stability and free it from terrorism, extremism, and cowardly criminal gangs.”

The Foreign Affairs, Defense and National Security Committees of the HoR held Turkey responsible for the massacre due to their use of Turkish killer drones in the attack on Gharyan and assistance in the planned capture of Gharyan from LNA forces. This was confirmed by Major General Mohammad al-Manfour who announced last night the destruction of a Turkish drone on a runway at Mitiga airport.

“This attack is in revenge for the martyrs of Gharyan and all our martyrs,” said General al-Manfour.

International Community Silent on GNA War Crimes

There is still deafening silence from the international community on the massacre by GNA Islamist militiamen in Gharyan. There has been no official outrage from Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Vice President of the EU Commission. Ghassan Salamé the head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) has yet to issue a condemnation of the massacre against the POWs in Gharyan. Some EU Ambassadors, such as the German Ambassador to Libya, Oliver Owcza, were insensitive in their official tweets on Gharyan and avoided any reference to the war crimes.

Relieved to see the elected municipal council reinstated in Gharyan. Very much hoping the city to be spared from any further violence. Still warm memories from my visit last March. pic.twitter.com/zwW4KDTKfK

— Oliver Owcza (@GermanAmbLBY) June 28, 2019

International human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch have not issued any statement on Gharyan or called for an inquiry in what has been beyond doubt a horrendous crime according to the norms of the Geneva Conventions and abuse of human rights. Activists such as Hanan Salah and Sarah Leah Whitson of Human Rights Watch made no mention as of yet of the war crimes and massacre at Gharyan.

Also surprisingly silent on the massacre and war crimes committed by GNA militias are the western experts, newswire agencies and journalists on Libya. Their focus is typically on the actions of the Libyan National Army (LNA) and the House of Representatives (HoR), and seem to be alarmingly negligent on the human rights abuses and criminal activity of Islamist militias under the GNA, or even on the nature of Turkey’s involvement and support for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Tripoli-based government and their actions in Gharyan. The recent US State Department 2019 report issued last week which documented the collusion of the GNA with criminal human trafficking rings and the abuse suffered by migrants at the detention centres is likewise swept under the rug. The report revealed disturbing collusion of the GNA with criminal networks:

“During the reporting year, there were continued reports that criminal networks, militia groups, government officials, and private employers exploited migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers in sex and labor trafficking.” [2019 Trafficking in Persons Report for Libya].

The fact that such information goes uninvestigated is an indication on how much is unreported by established western media organs and experts aligned to Islamist institutions.

As the Libyan nation mourns the death of over 40 POWs killed brutally by militias under the GNA, in what has been regarded as one of the most brutal massacres and war crimes since the Brak El-Shati massacre by GNA militias in 2017, Libyan commentators hold the GNA government of Fayez Sarraj responsible and are publicly calling for an international enquiry into the war crimes committed in Gharyan.

Forensic reports of five bodies examined and identified:

*

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 Al Marsad

According to 33 national organizations, the project “raises profound questions about national sovereignty, corporate power, consumer protection, competition policy, monetary policy, privacy, and more.”

***

In a letter Tuesday, a coalition of 33 consumer, privacy, economic policy, and other groups called on congressional leaders and top federal regulators to impose a moratorium on Facebook’s proposed global cryptocurrency “until the profound questions raised by the proposal are addressed.”

“The Facebook proposal to create a new cryptocurrency as part of its broader Libra project raises profound questions about national sovereignty, corporate power, consumer protection, competition policy, monetary policy, privacy, and more,” says the letter (pdf). “The U.S. regulatory system is not prepared to address these questions. Nor are the regulatory systems of other nations or international institutions.”

The letter—which is also addressed to Facebook and Calibra, its newly formed subsidiary to provide financial services—urges the tech giant “to put its implementation of its plans for the new cryptocurrency, Libra, on hold until the Congress and regulators have an opportunity to assess and react to a far more detailed presentation than has yet been made public.”

We and partners are demanding that Congress and regulators impose a moratorium on Facebook’s global currency, Libra.

The risks posed by Libra are too great to allow the plan to proceed with so many unanswered questions. https://t.co/sEP6EyYkzH

— Public Citizen (@Public_Citizen) July 2, 2019

The organizations assert in the letter that there is “a very long list of questions” Facebook must publicly answer before moving forward with the project, and include more than two dozen examples—”a small subsect” of the full list—that are grouped into categories such as governance and privacy.

Public Citizen, one of the letter signatories, highlighted a few of the questions in a statement announcing the letter Tuesday:

• How will national consumer protection laws apply to, be enforced against, and prevent misconduct by global sellers and lenders on matters relating to required disclosures, civil remedies, usury rules, access to credit, unfair and deceptive practices, and more?
• Given Facebook’s record and stated views on privacy, why should anyone believe that the company’s claims and commitments about privacy will be upheld?
• Will Facebook be able to use Libra and Calibra (a subsidiary involved in its cryptocurrency program) to pull consumers into a closed Facebook ecosystem that will disadvantage competitors and consumers?
• Wouldn’t Libra provide an easy mechanism for money laundering?
• Wouldn’t Libra similarly facilitate tax evasion and tax fraud?
• What impact might Libra have on monetary policy in smaller and developing countries?

“We have too much recent experience with insufficiently regulated financial markets spinning out of control to let this happen again,” the letter concludes. “The Facebook proposal must be put on hold until these numerous and fundamental questions are resolved.”

Other signatories to the letter include Demos, the Economic Policy Institute, the U.S. chapter of Friends of the Earth, Global Witness, the National Consumer Law Center, RootsAction.org, and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

The lawmakers addressed in the letter are the tops Republicans and Democrats on the U.S. Senate’s finance and banking committees as well as the U.S. House’s Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Financial Services committees. The regulatory entities named are the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission; U.S. Federal Trade Commission; Office of the United States Trade Representative; U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Financial Stability Oversight Council; and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

The progressive organizations behind the new letter are far from alone in sounding the alarm about concerns related to Facebook’s efforts to create a global cryptocurrency—among them, American economist and Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz, who charged in a piece for Project Syndicate Tuesday that “only a fool would trust Facebook with his or her financial wellbeing.”

“In just a few short years, Facebook has earned a level of distrust that took the banking sector much longer to achieve,” wrote Stiglitz, who also raised questions about Facebook’s business model for Libra. “Time and again, Facebook’s leaders, faced with a choice between money and honoring their promises, have grabbed the money. And nothing could be more about money than creating a new currency.”

In an article produced by the Independent Media Institute’s Economy for All project and published Sunday by Salon, market analyst Marshall Auerback argued that although U.S. regulators have largely failed to rein in Silicon Valley giants—especially Facebook—when it comes to social media platforms, “it’s hardly likely” that financial regulators around the world will be “pussyfooting” around issues raised by the cryptocurrency project.

“If Facebook introduces a cryptocurrency that in effect seeks to privatize or displace existing central bank functions, it is inevitable that the company will face a ton of regulatory oversight crashing down on it,” Auerback wrote. “Social media might be a newfangled type of business that doesn’t lend itself easily to the regulatory strictures of the Sherman Act, but money is precisely the kind of thing guaranteed to bring the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and several other regulatory bodies crashing down on Facebook, given this systemic risk.”

*

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

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

Over the past two years, the White House has initiated trade disputes, insulted allies and enemies alike, and withdrawn from or refused to ratify multinational treaties and agreements. It has also expanded the reach of its unilaterally imposed rules, forcing other nations to abide by its demands or face economic sanctions. While the stated Trump Administration intention has been to enter into new arrangements more favorable to the United States, the end result has been quite different, creating a broad consensus within the international community that Washington is unstable, not a reliable partner and cannot be trusted. This sentiment has, in turn, resulted in conversations among foreign governments regarding how to circumvent the American banking system, which is the primary offensive weapon apart from dropping bombs that Washington has to force compliance with its dictates.

Consequently, there has been considerable blowback from the Make America Great Again campaign, particularly as the flip side of the coin appears to be that the “greatness” will be obtained by making everyone else less great. The only country in the world that currently regards the United States favorably is Israel, which certainly has good reason to do so given the largesse that has come from the Trump Administration. Everyone else is keen to get out from under the American heel.

Well the worm has finally turned, maybe. Even the feckless Angela Merkel’s Germany now understands that national interests must prevail when the United States is demanding that it do the unspeakable. At the recently concluded G20 meeting in Tokyo Britain, France and Germany announced that the special trade mechanism that they have been working on this year is now up and running. It is called the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (Instex) and it will permit companies in Europe to do business with countries like Iran, avoiding American sanctions by trading outside the SWIFT system, which is dollar denominated and de facto controlled by the US Treasury.

The significance of the European move cannot be understated. It is the first major step in moving away from the dominance of the dollar as the world’s trading and reserve currency. As is often the case, the damage to US perceived interests is self-inflicted. There has been talk for years regarding setting up trade mechanisms that would not be dollar based, but they did not gain any momentum until the Trump Administration abruptly withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran over a year ago.

There were other signatories to the JCPOA, all of whom were angered by the White House move, because they believed correctly that it was a good agreement, preventing Iranian development of a nuclear weapon while also easing tensions in the Middle East. Major European powers Germany, France and Great Britain, as well as Russia and China, were all signatories and the agreement was endorsed by the United Nations Security Council. The US withdrawal in an attempt to destroy the “plan of action” was therefore viewed extremely negatively by all the other signatories and their anger increased when Washington declared that it would reinstate sanctions on Iran and also use secondary sanctions to punish any third party that did not comply with the restrictions on trade.

Instex is an upgrade of a previous “Special Purpose Vehicle” set up by the Europeans a year ago to permit trading with Iran without any actual money transfers, something like a barter system based on balancing payments by value. The announcement regarding Instex came as a result of last week’s meeting in Vienna in which the JCPOA signatories minus the US got together with Iranian ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi, who called the gathering “the last chance for the remaining parties…to gather and see how they can meet their commitments towards Iran.”

Iran is quietly pleased by the development, even though there are critics of the arrangement and the government is officially declaring that Instex is not enough and it will proceed with plans to increase its uranium production. This produced an immediate response from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo last week speaking in New Delhi “If there is conflict, if there is war, if there is a kinetic activity, it will be because the Iranians made that choice.” Nevertheless, Instex could possibly be a model for mechanisms that will allow Iran to sell its oil without hindrance from Washington. But a sharp reaction from the White House is expected. While Instex was in the development phase, US observers noted that the Iranian Special Trade and Finance Instrument, that will do the actual trading, includes government agencies that are already under US sanctions. That likely means that Washington will resort to secondary sanctions on the Europeans, a move that will definitely make the bilateral relationship even more poisonous than it already is. A global trade war is a distinct possibility and, as observed above, the abandonment of the dollar as the international reserve currency is a possible consequence.

Trump has already been “threatening penalties against the financial body created by Germany, the U.K. and France to shield trade with the Islamic Republic from US sanctions.” The Treasury’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, Israeli Sigal Mandelker, warned in a May 7^th letter that “I urge you to carefully consider the potential sanctions exposure of Instex. Engaging in activities that run afoul of US sanctions can result in severe consequences, including a loss of access to the US financial system.”

Indeed, the White House appears to be willing to engage in economic warfare with Europe over the issue of punishing Iran. The Treasury Department issued a statement regarding the Mandelker letter, saying “entities that transact in trade with the Iranian regime through any means may expose themselves to considerable sanctions risk, and Treasury intends to aggressively enforce our authorities.” Mike Pompeo also was explicit during a visit to London on May 8^th when he stated that “…it doesn’t matter what vehicle’s out there, if the transaction is sanctionable, we will evaluate it, review it, and if appropriate, levy sanctions against those that were involved in that transaction. It’s very straightforward.”

It is perhaps not unreasonable to wish the Europeans success, as they are supporting free trade while also registering their opposition to the White House’s bullying tactics using the world financial system. And if the dollar ceases to be the world’s trade and reserve currency, what of it? It would mean that the Treasury might have to cease printing surplus dollars and the US ability to establish global hegemony on a credit card might well be impeded. Those would be good results and one might also hope that some day soon the United States might once again become a normal country that Americans would be proud to call home.

*

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

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Britain, France, Germany, and the EU breached their JCPOA nuclear deal obligations.

They failed to challenge Trump’s illegal pullout, supporting his regime’s unlawful sanctions instead of refusing to observe them, how Russia and China reacted, fulfilling their JCPOA obligations, supporting Iran’s fundamental rights.

Europe’s refusal to observe its JCPOA obligations may doom the deal. An international agreement requires its signatories to stand by their commitments.

Britain, France, Germany, and the EU effectively abandoned the JCPOA by only pretending to want it preserved after the Trump regime pulled out. Their actions tell a different story — breaching the international agreement they vowed to observe.

They promised to maintain normal political, economic, financial, and trade relations with Iran but haven’t done it.

Its promises turned out to be hollow, showing they’re as untrustworthy as the US.

Last summer, a joint statement by EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, together with UK, French and German foreign ministers, said “effective financial channels” with Iran remain open despite US reimposition of sanctions, adding:

“This is why the European Union’s updated (1996) Blocking Statute will enter into force on 7 August to protect EU companies doing legitimate business with Iran from the impact of US extra-territorial sanctions.”

“The remaining parties to the JCPOA have committed to work on, inter alia, the preservation and maintenance of effective financial channels with Iran, and the continuation of Iran’s export of oil and gas.”

The updated EU Blocking Statute is supposed to prohibit European businesses from complying with US sanctions on Iran, letting them recover damages from Trump regime imposed penalties if imposed.

A separate European Commission statement said “(w)e are determined to protect European economic operators engaged in legitimate business with Iran, in accordance with EU law and with UN Security Council Resolution 2231” – unanimously affirming the JCPOA.

All of the above was rhetorical posturing, implementation to maintain normal relations with Iran not forthcoming, nor is it likely ahead based on the EU’s record of the past near-14 month period.

The European Investment Bank (EIB) was supposed to finance investments of EU nations in Iran, the arrangement approved last July.

It never happened because the EIB refused to circumvent Trump regime sanctions, another promise made, another broken one, Brussels doing nothing to insure compliance to terms it agreed on.

Nor was pledged EU cooperation with Iran’s energy and related sectors, along with its small and medium-sized enterprises, (SMEs) fulfilled.

European banks failed to continue normal financial transactions with Iran’s Central Bank (CBI), even on US non-sanctioned goods.

The so-called EU Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) barter system to circumvent Trump regime sanctions didn’t work because no bloc nation agreed to host it.

The EU Instrument for Supporting Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), a financial transactions mechanism to conduct normal trade with Iran, became operational late last month but fell woefully short of its intended purpose.

What was supposed to be an oil for goods mechanism is only for what the Trump regime hasn’t sanctioned, failing to cover the export of Iranian energy resources and related products.

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

Iranian officials consider INSTEX accomplishing less that the scandalous oil for food program for Iraq from 1995 through Bush/Cheney’s 2003 aggression.

UN heads of the operation Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck resigned their posts. In a joint November 2001 London Guardian op-ed, they denounced sanctions on Iraq, “punish(ing) (its) people for something they did not do.”

“Does the UN security council only serve the powerful,” they asked? Embargoing Iraq “breach(ed) the UN covenants on human rights, the Geneva and Hague conventions and other international laws.”

Separately, Halladay said he was “driven to resignation because I refused to continue to take Security Council orders, the same Security Council that had imposed and sustained genocidal sanctions on the innocent of Iraq. I did not want to be complicit. I wanted to be free to speak out publicly about this crime.”

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

If a similar world community-supported sanctions war on Iran continues longterm, something similar could happen, its severity depending on how long it lasts.

The JCPOA is supposed to assure normal Iranian trade and international financial transactions. Breach of its provisions by EU countries prevents normalized relations between Iran and Europe.

No evidence suggests European countries will change policies toward Iran, siding with unlawful Trump regime actions instead of fulfilling their JCPOA obligations, while pretending otherwise.

*

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.

Ending bigotry has gone mainstream among the enlightened people of the developed world.

Did you spot the acceptable bigotry in that sentence?

We’re against racism, sexism, and more kinds of bigotry than I could ever list.

But the 96 percent of humanity that’s not within the United States is hardly worthy of concern.

Millions of lives in Yemen lack the value of one Washington Post reporter dismembered with a bone saw. A third of the United States would gladly murder a million innocent North Koreans, the pollsters tell us. Not a million handicapped Americans, not a million atheist Americans, not a million gay Americans. We’re above all that. A million North Koreans. Or a half million Iraqi children, judging by the respect still afforded to Madeleine Albright to this day.

On the Fourth of July I’m expected to celebrate a bloody, moronic, hubristic, and laughably failed attempt to take over Canada that instead got the White House burned, because at a battle in Baltimore lots of people died yet a flag survived, and somebody who owned other human beings as slaves wrote a poem glorifying the murder of people who dared to escape from slavery or who happened to be Muslims.

Oh say.

Can you see?

Seriously, can you? If you go to a supposedly national park in the United States you have to pay to get in, because only Evil Socialists tax their billionaires, and the money for getting in the park goes to provide tanks and jets and weaponry for a fascist parade in Washington D.C. openly celebrating profiteering off death, which is now carried on with zero shame. And if you were to let people into the national parks for free on condition that they were able to name all the nations the United States had bombed in the previous year, not a dime in funding for the patriotic trumparade threat to the world would be lost.

Please take your good patriotism or proper nationalism and stick it where you’ve stuck homophobia and ageism and religious bigotry. Don’t you love your family? Your neighborhood? Your town? Your region? Of course you do, but where are the flags and songs and weapons parades to prove it? You don’t need them, do you? Because you don’t need to be conditioned to support mass murder on behalf of your family, neighborhood, town, or region.

Someone recently told me that my effort to get a statue glorifying genocide taken down was suspect because I was “white.” Yet the same person, like every other person in the United States, would almost certainly have rendered news of a massive bombing of Iran by the U.S. military thusly: “We just bombed Iran.” There’s not supposed to be a “we” undivided by the stupidest possible means. We’re supposed to be divided and conquered by appearance and culture. But the world’s greatest criminal enterprise is supposed to unite us (and one-and-a-quarter trillion of our dollars each year) in the cause of Small Gummint and the liberty to do unto others before they can do it unto you.

Sorry. I will never attack Iran. Iranians are my family. The people of Hong Kong demanding their rights are my family. The people of China, for that matter, demanding their rights are my family. Every single person in Sudan who wants peace, and any who do not, are my family. People all over the world contending with rotten governments but preferring not to have their houses bombed in the name of defying their rotten governments are my family.

Those kids in concentration camps near the U.S.-Mexico border are my family. The rightful president of Honduras, thrown out ten years ago in a coup the United States supported and supports, is in my family. The thugs who orchestrated the coup are my family too. Nancy Pelosi, who apparently believes nothing short of withholding a “campaign contribution” from her political party is impeachable, is my family too.

Families sometimes have discord, disagreement, and conflict. Families don’t solve their conflicts with hellfire missiles. Former presidents who joked about murdering their daughters’ boyfriends with predator drones are in our family too. The leader of North Korea is in our family. The people of his country who would rather not die in a nuclear apocalypse are in the same human family. The rest of the world’s people who’d rather not die in a nuclear winter created in Korea are also family members. And those in the United States who are so ridiculously misinformed as to suppose that nuclear explosions in Asia would not effect them, and that the horror of having murdered a million people would not effect them — those beautiful men and women are us; they live in our home.

There only is one home. And we cannot replace it. We cannot escape it. We cannot expect aliens (the noble little green kind not from Honduras and therefore not illegal, but still guaranteed to be met with barbaric hostility) to arrive and save us. We cannot sit back and wait for the market or the plutocrats or the liberals or the conservatives to save us. Our hope lies in identifying with and loving our entire family, which extends far beyond our one bizarre species — and in taking power on behalf of our family, and reversing every type of destructive hateful behavior, including patriotism.

*

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

In fact, it is merely an accounting office established due to lack of banking relations between Iran and Europe. The issue proves that INSTEX is not capable of meeting Iran’s least expectations considered in JCPOA.

After withdrawal of Trump from the nuclear deal in in May 2018, the Iranian government did not decide to reduce its commitments to JCPOA. Instead, on the way to guarantee its interests and preserve the nuclear deal, Iran preferred to act upon the deal unilaterally and kept negotiations with Europeans.

Talks with Europe started just a few days after withdrawal of the US from JCPOA. Europeans vowed that they would stand against US sanctions via fulfilling their commitments under JCPOA and to continue trading gold, precious metals and cars, purchasing oil and petrochemicals, having cooperation on ports and shipping sector, having banking ties and brokerage relations with Iran. Europe announced its four decisions to counter US sanctions, afterwards. The ones proved to be futile very soon.

Practicality of Europe’s four promises

1. Having Blocking Statute operational

The updated Blocking Statute- part of the EU’s support for the continued full and effective implementation of JCPOA- was implemented on August 8, 2018. The act, however, can be translated into a political gesture, since in practice it could not persuade European companies to stay in Iran and they started to leave the country one after another. The EU remained silent.

On November 10, 2018, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif explained the reason Iran remained in JCPOA. “It is a fact that Europeans have not been able to fulfill their commitments to JCPOA but this does not do any harm to the benefits of the JCPOA and to international and regional peace.”

2. Enabling European Investment Bank (EIB) to finance EU investment in Iran

The EU ratified a plan on July 5, 2018, to ease finance activities of EIB in Iran. But it was not put into practice since EIB did not accord to act upon due to US sanctions.

3. Reinforcing non-stop cooperation with Iran on energy sector and SMEs

Despite the made statements by Europeans, no specific result was obtained in this field.

4. Investigating possibility of banking transactions with Iran’s central bank

After imposition of US sanctions on Iran, European banks, concerned about US’ heavy fines and secondary sanctions, rejected all the banking transactions with Iran. They even quit doing transactions related to trade on non-sanctioned goods including food and medicine with the country.

Europeans took advantage of Iran’s inactiveness against US sanctions and could keep Iran in JCPOA without paying any specific cost.

Failure of SPV and Iran’s passivity

Europe established a barter system, Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), to ease oil and trade financial transactions with Iran. The channel was supposed to become operational before US oil sanctions imposed on November 4, 2018. But the plan was defeated since no European country accepted to host it.

Despite Europeans’ vows and announcements, SPV did not become operational even by the end of 2018 i.e. Iran spent months waiting for Europeans to make their promises.

INSTEX less than Oil-for-Food Program (OIP)

Europe minimized SPV into from an exchange mechanism to what is called INSTEX, which is merely a trade instrument. No money is exchanged in INSTEX but it acts as an accounting office in where mortgages and debts among European companies and Iran are registered. Goods are swapped with oil without having any monetary transaction done.

In their joint statement on the last day of January, France, Germany and UK introduced the INSTEX which was aimed at facilitating legitimate trade between European economic operators and Iran and making exchange of basic goods including food and medical equipment and medicine between Iranian companies and foreign ones by circumventing the American banking system and currency. This was neither put into practice.

Eventually after almost a year of Iran’s inactiveness, the country decided to reduce its commitments to JCPOA giving Europeans a 60-day ultimatum to fulfill their commitments.

On June 28, 2019, JCPOA joint commission announced that INSTEX had been made operational.

However, despite EU’s promises after US withdrawal from JCPOA, INSTEX is only practical for trade of non-sanctioned goods, including food and medicine, while such types of goods are exempted from all types of sanctions due to humanitarian reasons. If the US wanted to implement a system to put its sanctions into practice, its supposed system would definitely be something exactly the same as INSTEX.

The European mechanism is much worse than what was applied in Iraq to swap oil for food in 1990s.

It is much more humiliating. Today, Europe’s purchase of oil from Iran is near to zero and Iran should inject its oil revenues to INSTEX to be able to merely import food and medicine.

In addition, INSTEX is in contrast with JCPOA’s appendix 2, which urged it to facilitate trading gold, precious metals, cars, purchasing oil and petrochemicals, having cooperation on ports and shipping sector, having banking ties and brokerage relations with Iran. It does not facilitate sales of Iranian oil and is not capable of meeting the least expectations of Iran under JCPOA.

Europe big brother for Iran’s foreign trade

INSTEX would act as Europe’s observatory mechanism on Iran’s foreign trade in an economic war.

While its purchase of Iranian oil stands at zero, Europe requires Iran to inject its revenues from selling oil to China, Turkey, India ant etc. into INSTEX to provide the country with food and medicine. This would give Europe an upper hand in controlling Iran’s foreign trade transactions.

INSTEX an introduction to new banking, missile, regional JCPOAs

Europeans have established INSTEX under US sanctions and with humanitarian aims. They, however, have required Iran to implement FATF for having INSTEX fully implemented. In fact, Europe is using extortion against Iran.

This makes INSTEX an instrument for controlling Iran’s missile capabilities and regional power, as well.

Today, that the European INSTEX has failed to secure Iran’s minimum expectations in oil and banking sectors – as stated in the State Security Council’s statement.

The Islamic Republic of Iran should take the second step about JCPOA to make the other side fulfill its commitments. Otherwise, no achievements would there for Iran and its authority would be questioned.

*

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 Mehr News Agency

Independence Holiday in the USA becomes a time when citizens tend to reflect on the nations two hundred forty year history. It is a history typical of six European empires in the areas of genocide and plunder.

– genocide: 1. the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. plural: genocides [Google Dictionary]

Americans hoping to make US mass murderous crimes against humanity that are prosecutable under Nuremberg Principles law appear to be less than genocide, attempt to employ the old and outdated dictionary meaning of genocide wherein its scope and intention is defined as the utter and complete extermination of a group, race or nation.

The USA, like its parent colonial power the British Empire, before it, has had its undeservedly wealthy elite through their private speculative investment banks continually investing in genocide in order to both maintain its power over society, accumulate capital and extend its power wherever and whenever regardless of laws, regardless whether religious, common or statutory.

Genocide means killing people of a group, race or nation until a desired profitable arrangement is accepted by them. US banks have invested in profitable genocide non-stop over the entire life of the nation up to today and have their CIA and Pentagon laying plans for more genocide as we read.

USA’s AFRICAN genocide 1776-1864: New England banks financed deadly but lucrative slave trade, forced labor in the North, before massive forced labor in South; a million died during seizure and transport from Africa and another million died in forced labor. (For the first time in recorded history of slavery, inhumanity toward slaves as practiced in the USA and Colonial Powers, eventually became based on having inculcating society with fear-fostered ignorance and a preposterous insistence of racial superiority, sanding on its head white feelings of inferiority in the face of the far more accomplished cultures pale-skinned Europeans had conquered. [5]

NATIVE AMERICAN 1776-onward: Genocidal theft of habitats of a thousand Native American nations instigated by banks speculating in land; forced captive marches, broken treaties, wars, deaths from malnutrition certainly reached more than one million deaths already long ago.

MEXICO 1836 US rapes away half of Mexico through merciless war. Mexicans are made aware that Americans will keep killing Mexicans until USA demands are met. “2014 U.S. ‘intelligence’ assistance is larger than anywhere outside Afghanistan” [Washington Post]

PHILIPPINES 1898-1902: Invasion and massacres during Filipino war for independence – upwards of a million lives savagely taken. The overseas investment community propagated the racist concept of ‘Manifest Destiny’ make genocide tolerable.

CHINA 1900 murderous sacking of Beijing, orgy of killing and stripping away of all the cultural treasures for sale that the American and British could load into a few boxcars of a train.

In EUROPE and in European colonies world wide many millions die as US banks through the Federal Reserve financing and entry of US Armed Forces enable WW I to go on an extra year and a half; 1934-36 Senate Nye Committee investigates allegations that the U.S. entered WW I to make big profits. Senator Nye created headlines by drawing connections between the wartime profits of the banking and munitions industries to America’s involvement in World War I; investigation of these “merchants of death” documents the huge profits that arms factories made during the war; found bankers had pressured Wilson to intervene in the war in order to protect their loans abroad; arms industry had been price fixing; held excessive war investor influence on American foreign policy leading up to and during the war.

SOVIET RUSSIA 1917-20: Two US Armies invade along with armies of thirteen other capitalist nations to foster, aid, support and participate in civil war; seven to nine million new Soviet citizens die, three million just from typhoid.

ITALY 1922 -1936: Fascist Mussolini frequently lionized in both the New York Times and Washington Post, Fortune Magazine; Morgan Bank’s Thomas Lamont, served as the international chief of Mussolini’s finances; Mussolini received great investment aid from US bankers; especially, Bank of America head A.P. Giannini and Otto Kahn, a leading banker with Kuhn, Loeb. Pres. Franklin Roosevelt expressed admiration for Mussolini. In 1935 Fascist Italy invaded Ethiopia bringing death to more than a million Ethiopians, tens of thousands from mustard gas dropped from planes on civilian population. [Angelo Del Boca, The Ethiopian War 1935–1941 (1965)]

GERMANY 1933-37: US investments and joint-ventures of 50 largest US corporations build the Nazi Wehrmacht up to world’s #1, facilitating WW II and Holocaust, the magna return on investment making USA the single superpower, the investments and joint-venturing done in full knowledge of Hitler’s continually announced plans for ridding Germany of Jews and communists uand to fulfill Germany’s historic ‘Drang nach Osten’ [Push to the East] into the Soviet Union; of the 40 million dead in Europe 27 million are Soviet citizens. 1945 US makes sure Nuremberg Trials do not indict Nazi industrialists and bankers with whom American corporations, investors and banks had partnered.

CHINA 1944-49: US funding and military aid draws out civil war. CIA incursions; many millions starve.

JAPAN 1945: Two cities of civilians Atom-Bombed, sixty fire-bombed, nearly one million civilian lives taken. At Tokyo Trials of Japanese War Criminals, a US general of highest rank, commented off the record, “If the Japanese had won the war they would have tried us.”

VIETNAM 1945-1960: Truman criminally brings back French Army (which as Vichy French, had murderously run its Indochinese colonies for the Japanese Empire profit during WW II), in US ships to reconquer a Vietnam declared independent by US decorated ally Ho Chi Minh with US major in attendance. Tens of thousands of Vietnamese are killed by the French 80% funded by USA.

KOREA 1950-2014: Two and half million Koreas will perish as US bombs both south and north flat, after US Army invaded, criminally cutting the nation in two, overthrowing a democratic Korean government and installing a murderous dictator in the south, whose police and special forces would butcher nearly two hundred thousand before the army of the north swept south reuniting Korea. Perhaps another million deaths as a result of crippling sanctions on the northern part. [see Prosecutable US Crimes against Humanity in Korea “Dissident Voice.org click here]

PALESTINE 1947-2014: US forces through with threats a UN approval of a farcical and outrageously thieving plan to partition the Holy Land, a colonial crime against humanity against the residents of the Palestine, in full knowledge that permanent civil war would result and obviously intended to create deadly conflict, permanent hostilities, destabilization and facilitate Western imperialist penetration. The financial establishment in the US has its colony in the heart of Middle East oil reserves at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, some of which from families of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust denied US refuge before, during and after the Holocaust which itself would have been impossible without the heavy US investment and joint venturing in Nazi Germany. [US Economic Facilitation of Holocaust and Middle East Destabilizing Partition
click here ]

USA ITSELF 1947 onward: Operation MOCKINGBIRD — CIA recruits news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda. Washington Post becomes a major CIA player. Eventually CIA’s media assets include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service and more so media can fear monger the public into accepting genocides.

IRAN 1953 & 1980-88 1953 Oil coup: CIA and British M16 false-flag overthrow of Iranian democracy, many deaths./1980 air attack/1980-88 US backs Saddam Hussein invasion-war – more than half million Iranians lives lost/CIA and British M16 false-flag overthrow of Iranian democracy, many deaths/1979- US sanctions and threats of nuclear attack from US presidents.

GUATEMALA 1954 President ‘Ike’ Eisenhower ordered CIA overthrow bombing of first elected democracy; decades of massacres, mass murders follow. [Author performing on tour, is told horrific in conversations behind closed doors.]

VIETNAM 1955-1975: Upwards of 4 million die. Twice the bomb tonnage dropped in all of WWII/1973 CIA Operation Phoenix murders 20,000 Vietcong/ [1993-99 Author periodic Assist. Conductor Ho Chi Minh founded National Symphony Orchestra in Hanoi and on tours; every member of orchestra lost family “killed by Americans” spoken with Buddhist equanimity.]””

TURKEY 1955: Istanbul Pogrom a false-flag plot by Turkish branch of Operation Gladio, a clandestine anti-communist initiative created by the US; many Greeks, Armenians die; Turkish communists arrested/[Author visiting Istanbul forced to room in safe UK WMCA during provoked riots]

Laos 1957-63: The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos’ democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an “Armee Clandestine” of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA’s army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts high-altitude carpet bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II; Tiny Laos will become the most bombed country in history; A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves. [Steve Kangas, A Timeline of CIA Atrocities]

ETHIOPIA 1960s: US huge military arms sales build up for Emperor Selassie /1977 US switches and backs and arms Somalia invasion of People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia/Late 1980s US Heritage Foundation involvement ending in bloodbath civil war; for using Ethiopia and Somalia as pawns in Cold War a million est. starve to death. [Author on film shoot for African Development Bank during Mingustu socialist government in 1983 before it was overthrown with great loss of life by CIA organized attacks.]

WORLDWIDE 1960s-2014: CIA involved in lives-destroying illegal drug cultivation and trafficking has cause impossible-to-estimate loss of life worldwide – also CIA hypocritical anti-narcotics programs mean to spread further CIA penetration and covert violence for political-economic control in Latin America.

CONGO 1961-2014: Assassination of popular Pres. Lumumba, CIA US Air Force Interventions, overt and covert operations, have fostered civil wars; it is estimated between 15 and 20 million have died from warfare and famine, and if one goes back to the US destruction of the new nation, all this was to retain Congo governance profitable88 for US investors.

Before and after July 4, 2015, genocide for profit (in speculative investment driven Western Colonialism there never any other reason for it) is taking place thanks to participating and cooperating Americans in uniform and CIA in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, and surely further lives are being planned to be taken in the Ukraine and Venezuela and elsewhere as profits therefrom appear sure.

This article closes with a reminder that US genocides perpetrated after 1945 are prosecutable crimes against humanity under Nuremberg Principles law and as US economic power wanes in the world economy, lawsuits for indemnity, reparations and compensation by survivors can be expected to be so enormous in number as to make American investment in genocide unprofitable and thus inoperable.

Americans show zero interest that GIs brought death to a million and half innocent Iraqi men, women and children with bombing, invasion and occupation war prosecutable under international law even within the US Constitution. Celebrating on the July 4th is pure criminal insanity in a mesmerized TV worshiping inhumane and de-civilized society.

*

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

Jay Janson is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and writer; has lived and worked on all continents in 67 countries; articles on media published in China, Italy, UK, India, Sweden and the US; now resides in NYC.

When speaking about the United States’ blatant, constant and egregious violations of human rights, it is difficult to know where to start. That brutal, rogue nation, which disdains human rights and holds international law in contempt, is guilty on both the domestic and international stages.

In order to fully understand the depth and breadth of the United States’ many crimes against humanity, violations of civil and human rights, and violations of international law, we must look at its history. The nation was founded on the extermination of millions of Natives, peoples who had lived on the North American continent in peace for centuries. The government was established in the hands of white, male, wealthy landowners, with everyone else subservient.

After the genocide of millions of Natives in order to found the nation, it was built using slave labor. An estimated 12,000,000 Africans were kidnapped, forced to sail across the ocean in the most wretched conditions, and then forced to labor for long hours and little pay. About 600,000 of these victims wound up in the United States, where they were bought and sold the same way one might by a chair or car today; there was no regard for their humanity. Those who died on board, and there were many, were simply thrown overboard, considered nothing more than garbage, with no respect or consideration for the feelings of their family members.

As the two centuries of the U.S. unfolded, there was nothing but increased violence, always justified by the same racist attitudes that caused the slaughter of millions of Natives. A few examples will suffice.

During the Philippine-American War of 1899 – 1902, William Howard Taft, later elected to the presidency in the United States, was appointed civil governor of the Philippines after the U.S. demanded possession of that nation when it defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War. Taft said that the Philippine people were “a vast mass of ignorant, superstitious people.” The wife of another government official described them in this way:

“It looks to me as though it will take fifty generations of ‘line upon line’ and ‘precept upon precept’ before these natives will know enough to govern themselves. Many of them seem to be very stupid. The men here in this house who teach in Manila schools say the natives can’t reason.”

These attitudes were the underlying cause of the slaughter of the Philippine people as they resisted the imperial designs of the United States.

Sixty years later, the U.S. invaded Vietnam, where one unspeakable slaughter finally gained notoriety, despite U.S. efforts to keep it secret from the public.  On March 16 of 1968, over 400 unarmed civilians were massacred by U.S. soldiers in the village of May Lai. Racism was foundational to this atrocity. One of the soldiers in charge that day was charged with the premeditated murder of ‘Oriental human beings’, rather than of ‘human beings’. One man who wasn’t accused spoke in defense of those who were. He said this:

“A lot of those people wouldn’t think of killing a man. I mean a white man – a human….”

Another said this when referring to the victims:

“It wasn’t like they were humans.”

In its long and violent history, the United States has ignored human rights, international law and even common human decency in its quest to become a world power.  Just in the last 50 years, it has invaded, or supported anti-government terrorists in, at least 30 different countries, sometimes doing so multiple times. No other country on the planet can match that level of violence.

Now that we have taken a very brief look at the nation’s bloody and violent history, we will move to the current day, and first look at violations of human rights within its own borders.

Today, the U.S. is operating concentration camps along the U.S. – Mexico border. In these camps, children as young as 2 years old are ripped from their parents and put into cages with other children, some as young as 10, who are told to care for the younger ones. They sleep on concrete floors with only an aluminum blanket for warmth. They are provided with insufficient food, have no soap or toothpaste, and are often riddled with insects. They do not receive needed medical treatment. Guards mock them if they cry. Several have died in U.S. custody. Yet there is no major effort within U.S. governance to change this horrific situation.

All across the country, law-abiding, unarmed citizens of African descent are routinely shot and killed by members of the U.S. police force. It is rare that a white police officer is charged with any crime for these murders; rarer still that one is convicted.

When a U.S. citizen of African descent is lucky enough to be only arrested, they are arrested for such ‘crimes’ as driving their own car, walking in their own neighborhood, or entering their own home.

Additionally, access to voting, considered a fundamental right in the United States, is restricted, mainly, but not exclusively, based on race. Polling places in predominantly black districts have fewer available hours for voting, and often have more reports of voting machine malfunctions. Some areas demand identity cards before a citizen can vote; if a citizen doesn’t have a driver’s license, getting such a card can be difficult. This overwhelmingly impacts the African-American communities in the U.S.

Health care, housing, food and drinkable water are all available to the wealthy, but are not considered rights for anyone else.

While the violations of human rights of which the U.S. is guilty within its own borders could be further detailed in many volumes of books, we will move now to its current crimes on the international stage.

U.S. violence against Iran is just one of many current examples. In 2015, the U.S., Iran and several other nations and the European Union all signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In exchange for limiting its nuclear development activities, Iran was promised relief from cruel and unjust sanctions. Before the U.S. could officially be a partner to this agreement, it needed to be approved by the U.S. Congress, which it was. It was also authorized by the United Nations.

During the administration of President Barack Obama, who spearheaded the agreement, the JCPOA was honored by all participants, with the United Nations periodically certifying Iran’s full compliance. But in May of 2017, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the agreement, in violation of its own law and international law, and threatened the other signatories with economic sanctions if they maintained the agreement. Those other nations refused to stand up to U.S. bullying, and cruel economic sanctions against Iran were reimposed.

It is interesting to note that the U.S. government understands the impact of such sanctions, and yet issues them anyway. Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. had issued sanctions which resulted in the deaths of at least 500,000 children there. When Secretary of State Madeline Albright was asked if the sanctions were worth this horror, she replied:

“…we think the price is worth it”.

People have also accused Albright of war crimes in Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Columbia, but the U.S. government continues to hail her ‘greatness’.

And what has Iran done to incur the wrath of the United States’ irrational and unstable president? The government refuses to surrender to U.S. demands which, if adhered to, would make Iran cease to be Iran.  It must, in the eyes of the U.S. government, give up its right to defend its citizens. It must yield in all things to apartheid Israel. It must establish a government that will never oppose any crimes the U.S. commits.

The U.S. has always coveted oil-rich Iran. In 1953, the U.S. overthrew the democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, and installed the brutal Shah of Iran as monarch. For the next twenty-six years he oppressed the people of Iran, with complete U.S. support. During the Shah’s brutal reign, the U.S. supported his efforts to destabilize Iraq. Finally, he was overthrown by a popular people’s movement in 1979, against the wishes of the United States. The hypocritical U.S. government always says that it supports the self-determination of people around the world, but this is a blatant lie, and the overthrow of Iran’s government in 1953, and the continued hostility of the U.S. towards Iran since its people did, in fact, establish a government of their own choosing in 1979, is just one example of this hypocrisy.

Another is Palestine. The nation of Palestine has been occupied, blockaded, bombed, and terrorized by Israel since at least 1967, and all this has been financed and fully supported by the United States. The United Nations has issued more resolutions critical of Israel than it has of any other nation, but the U.S. still supports its war crimes and crimes against humanity. These atrocities are ongoing and continue to this day, with no end in sight.

Also currently, the U.S. is perpetrating economic terrorism against the people of Venezuela, demanding that the socialist president step down, so a leader more to the U.S.’s liking can take control. Rather than allow the people of Venezuela to choose their own government, the U.S. is doing all it can, short of bombing the nation, to force change.

Let’s look at one example of the U.S.’s ‘success’ in defeating a democratically-elected government. In 1964, Socialist candidate Salvador Allende seemed headed for electoral victory in Chile. The U.S.’s criminal, terrorist organization, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), spent more money supporting his opponent than was spent on the U.S. presidential campaign that same year, and Allende was defeated.

Six years later, however, he was victorious, but a Socialist leader in Chile could not be tolerated by the United States. The U.S. government first tried to prevent his inauguration and, failing that, U.S. president Richard Nixon said he would “make the economy scream”. But it wasn’t only brutal economic sanctions that the U.S. inaugurated; it spent millions to support violent opposition parties.

Before long, the U.S. was successful, and the Socialist Allende was overthrown, replaced by a man much more to the U.S. government’s liking, General Augusto Pinochet. He ruled for 17 long, brutally-oppressive years, during which time opposition political parties were banned, and at least 3,000 political opponents were killed, and at least 29,000 tortured. And during those 17 years of terror, Pinochet had the complete support of the U.S. government.

These are just a few examples, among many, of how the U.S. only demands that other nations abide by international law and human rights. We could also consider the decades-long, violent U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, or its support for the Saudi Arabia genocide of the people of Yemen.

The shocking murder of journalist Jamal Khoshoggi, ordered by Saudi Arabia’s leader, Mohammed bin Salman, is overlooked by the U.S. government, which has full and cordial ties with that nation. Also overlooked is Saudi Arabia’s blatant discrimination against women.

The Israeli government’s apartheid laws, its discrimination and brutality against Arabs and Africans, bring no opposition from the U.S. government.

The list goes on; it is estimated that, just since the end of World War II, the United States has been responsible for the deaths of at least 20,000,000 people.

This is the nation whose government dares to proclaim its moral superiority. This is the government that holds itself up as a model for the world to emulate. Its fantasies aren’t believed much outside its borders, and the fact that it is now alienating some of its oldest and strongest allies can only be beneficial to the world. Although its current leader is clearly unstable, its power in the world is decreasing, and while this makes it particularly dangerous in the short-term, it is hoped that President Donald Trump will not ignite a disastrous global war. Whoever succeeds him will find a weakened United States, and that can only help to make for a more peaceful world.

*

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

Trump intends turning this year’s Independence Day commemoration into a show of US military might — reflecting a nation permanently at war against invented enemies. More on the July 4 DC display below.

Annual US Independence Day commemorations reflect hypocrisy, not democracy, a notion the nation’s founders abhorred, things no different today.

Discussing “Untold Truths About the American Revolution,” the late Howard Zinn asked the following:

Was waging war then really worth it, taking perhaps 25,000 – 50,000 American lives, the “equivalent today to two and a half million (at the lower estimate) to get England off our backs?”

Canada ended British rule without war. So did Western Massachusetts farmers, “driv(ing their forces) out without firing a single shot,” adding:

“They had assembled by the thousands and thousands around courthouses and colonial offices and they had just taken over (and) said goodbye to the British officials” nonviolently.

America’s revolution was much different, but who “gained what?” Most Americans were poor like today.

“(T)he Founding Fathers were rather rich” with much different interests than ordinary people. “Do you think the Indians cared about independence” or Blacks held involuntarily as slaves?

“Slavery was there before (and) there after. Not only that, we wrote slavery into the Constitution. We legitimized it,” Zinn explained, adding:

“What about class divisions?” America was and remains a racist society. “We try to pretend in this country that we’re all one happy family. We’re not.”

The revolution wasn’t a “a simple affair of all of us against all of them,” any more than ongoing US wars in multiple theaters today.

They’re waged for wealth, power and privilege. They’re unrelated to exporting democracy to yearning masses.

“We’ve got to rethink this question of war,” said Zinn. There’s never a justifiable reason to battle another nation except in self-defense if attacked — clearly not the reason for all US post-WW II conflicts, aggression against nations threatening no one, a never-ending cycle of violence, slaughter and destruction.

On July 4, 1776, America’s Independence Day, white male property owners alone could vote.

Blacks were commodities, not people, women considered childbearing, homemaking appendages of their husbands, no constitutional rights afforded them.

Women’s suffrage wasn’t achieved until the 1920 19th Amendment became law after nearly a century of struggle for the right — 144 years after the nation’s birth.

Exploitation of Black Americans continues in new forms from earlier — from chattel to wage slavery, Jim Crow to its modern-day version, freedom to mass incarceration.

Zinn called enslavement of Blacks “the most cruel form in history: the frenzy for limitless profit that comes from capitalistic agriculture; the reduction of the slave to less than human status by the use of racial hatred, with that relentless clarity based on color, where white was master, black was slave.”

Native Americans perhaps have least to celebrate on the nation’s birthday, victims of America’s genocide, at most around 3% of their original numbers surviving.

For centuries, they were “hacked apart with axes and swords, burned alive and trampled under horses, hunted as game and fed to dogs, shot, beaten, stabbed, scalped for bounty, hanged on meathooks and thrown over the sides of ships at sea, worked to death as slave laborers, intentionally starved and frozen to death during a multitude of forced marches and internments, and, in an unknown number of instances, deliberately infected with epidemic diseases,” Ward Churchill explained, adding:

“The American holocaust was and remains unparalleled, in terms of its scope, ferocity and continuance over time,” thereafter suppressed by denial and silence.

From the nation’s founding to today, “We the People of the United States,” the constitution’s opening phrase, meant America’s privileged class, not its ordinary people, things no different today.

Yesteryear’s free-wheeling/self-serving politicians reflect how today’s political class operates for much greater stakes globally than when America was founded.

In his memoir titled “Born on the Fourth of July,” Vietnam combat veteran, anti-war activist Ron Kovic explained how war left his “beautiful body destroyed, defiled and savaged.”

The experience left him “physically and emotionally haunted” — wounded, paralyzed, and wheelchair-bound.

He’s been arrested a dozen or more times for publicly opposing US wars of aggression, describing his Vietnam experience as “condemning (young men sent to fight) to their (physical or emotional) death.”

In his book, he said the following:

“I wanted people to understand. I wanted to share with them as nakedly and openly and intimately as possible what I had gone through, what I had endured.”

“I wanted them to know what it really meant to be in a war, to be shot and wounded, to be fighting for my life on the intensive care ward, not the myth we had grown up believing.”

“I wanted people to know about the hospitals and the enema room, about why I had become opposed to the war, why I had grown more and more committed to peace and nonviolence.”

“I had been beaten by the police and arrested twelve times for protesting the war, and I had spent many nights in jail in my wheelchair.”

“I had been called a Communist and a traitor, simply for trying to tell the truth about what had happened in that war, but I refused to be intimidated.”

Master of oral history, Chicagoan Studs Terkel (1912 – 2008) explained there was nothing good about WW II, mischaracterized as the good war.

In his book titled “The Good War: An Oral History of World War II,” he said it was good that America “was the only country among the combatants that was neither invaded nor bombed. Ours were the only cities not blasted to rubble,” adding:

The bad was it “warped our view of how we look at things today (seeing them) in terms of war,” and the notion that they’re good or why else fight them.

This “twisted memory….encourages (people) to be willing, almost eager, to use military force” instead of going all-out to avoid it.

There’s nothing good about mass slaughter, communities turned to rubble, and human misery affecting countless millions.

In the nuclear age, wars are “lunatic” acts, these weapons likely to be used one day when other means aren’t considered enough to triumph over another nation.

Trump’s 4th of July commemoration will feature militarism over a celebration of world peace.

His so-called Salute to America on Washington’s National Mall will feature a display of the nation’s military might, including flyovers of F-35 stealth warplanes, attack helicopters, and Navy Blue Angel stunt pilots, along with M1A1 Abrams tanks and other hardware on Washington’s street.

Pentagon commanders will stand next to Trump for the display of military might. He’ll be the first sitting US president to deliver a televised address to the nation on the commemoration of its founding.

One estimate suggests the spectacle will cost tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. Preparations have been ongoing for months.

Trump is the latest in a long line of US warrior presidents. What’s planned for the 4th of July in Washington intends to show it, along with a display of the nation’s might.

In modern times, many Americans celebrate the 4th with family, friends, at outings, picnics, barbecues, a day at the ballpark, or other activities far removed from militarism and warmaking.

Trump wants the nation to commemorate the holiday through the prism of the real national pastime — waging endless wars, smashing one country after another, letting the world community know who’s boss.

Violence defines America’s culture, glorifying wars in the name of peace its ruling authorities abhor.

Long ago, Albert Einstein and philosopher Bertrand Russell warned: “Shall we put an end to the human race, or shall mankind renounce war.”

The notion is rejected by US ruling authorities, risking eventual war to end all future ones because of mass annihilation if the madness continues.

*

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 Evan Vucci/AP/Shutterstock

Souad Naji al-Azzawi, an Iraqi environmental scientist (and longtime contributor to Global Research), has devoted much of her professional life to studying one of the thorniest problems remaining from the years of war in her home country—the effect of depleted uranium weapons on the Iraqi environment and on human health.

Iraq’s environment suffered enormous damage in nearly four decades of war. Iraqi scientists, environmentalists and government continue to assess the extent of the effects of armed conflict on the country’s air, water, soil and on the health of its people.

Al-Azzawi, although she is technically retired and lives in Abu Dhabi, continues to publish research and to campaign on this issue, which has largely receded from public view, even though the problem has not gone away. In May, a private Qatar-based charity, the Arab Scientific Community Organization, published al-Azzawi’s paper, Modeling Depleted Uranium Contamination in Southern Iraq.

Depleted uranium—a waste product of nuclear power generation—is effective in anti-tank projectiles. The radioactive metal reaches high temperatures on impact with tank armor: hot enough to melt the armor into minute particles that are carried on the wind as dust. Environmentalists and many scientists argue that this radioactive dust contaminates air, water and soil, and has harmful consequences for human health—notably, conspicuously high incidences of cancer, leukemia and severe birth defects in areas where depleted uranium weapons were used.

“It’s not a subject that people are talking about much any more. I don’t know why,” said Renad Mansour, a research fellow in the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House who specializes in the reconstruction of post-war Iraq.

A Persistent Campaigner

While database and Internet searches indicate the number of papers published on the subject has dwindled in recent years, al-Azzawi has not stopped publishing and campaigning. She lectures worldwide, and in recent years has appeared on Iraqi TV as a political commentator.

“I’m not quitting,” she says.

After receiving a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Mosul in the early 1980s, she left Iraq—with her three children—for the United States, to study geology and environmental engineering at the Colorado School of Mines. The subject of her doctorate was the contamination of underground water by nuclear power generation.

Image on the right: Souad al-Azzawi speaking on Iraqi TV channel Alrafidain, in 2017 (Photo: Youtube)

Al-Azzawi returned to Iraq in 1991, in the middle of the war that followed Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. In 1996, as director of the doctoral program in environmental engineering at the University of Baghdad, she led a team that conducted a field survey to measure the effects of radiation on civilians and soldiers in southern Iraq in the aftermath of the war.

“People in the western part of Basrah city, and the Iraqi and American troops, received … a radioactive dosage about 200 times more than natural,” she wrote in an overview of the work.

At the same time, epidemiological studies conducted by faculty members of the Basra College of Medicine showed a correlation between depleted uranium contamination and disease. Cases of leukemia in children in Basra increased by 60 percent from 1990 to 1997, for example. In the same period, there was a threefold increase in the number of children born with severe birth defects.

“Nobody knew how to handle the problem,” al-Azzawi said. The wreckage of tanks and radioactive shrapnel lay near where people lived. “Kids were playing with the used bullets. The depleted uranium bullets were shiny and clean, and the kids would collect them and take them home.”

When the radioactive dust entered dust clouds, the contamination spread to cities.

Unpopular Findings

The team’s work took nearly seven years and faced obstacles that came from within and outside Iraq. Domestically, their work was unpopular for painting an unfavorable picture of conditions in the country.

“Our work was scientific work. We were saying this [debris] is radioactive, it’s not safe for civilians. Everyone was attacking us, even inside Iraq. They said, ‘Those people [researchers] will make people migrate from Basra, and nobody is buying our fruit [from fear of contamination].’ We were just telling the truth.”

At the same time, Iraq was still under United Nations sanctions which throttled the Iraqi economy and isolated the country from the rest of the world. Researchers could neither publish their results abroad nor receive scientific publications published outside Iraq.

When their work became too dangerous to continue, the research team disbanded. In 2003 Al-Azzawi fled the country and found refuge in Syria where she was appointed as an administrator at Mamoun University for Science and Technology near Aleppo, one of the private universities established in the early days of the rule of Bashar al-Assad. The same year, she was given an award for education by the Nuclear-Free Future Foundation, based in Germany. She remained in Syria for the next seven years.

A soldier examines an armor-piercing round using depleted uranium to be used in a U.S. tank during Operation Desert Shield in 1991 (Photo: U.S. Department of Defense).

Proving, beyond reasonable doubt, a direct causal relation between depleted uranium and health effects remains difficult. “It is like cigarettes and cancer,” al-Azzawi said, referring to the prolonged struggle between American tobacco companies and scientists on cigarette smoking as a cause of cancer. Until a critical mass of research was achieved, the link could always be denied.

A Shroud of Secrecy

Obstacles to conducting this basic research remain, said Doug Weir, former Coordinator of the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons, which campaigns for a ban on depleted uranium weapons.

“It’s hard to do the necessary research in Iraq,” Weir said. “Although there is civil society interest in Iraq about the effects of depleted uranium,” he said, the Iraqi environment ministry reduced the work of its radiation protection department when the rise of ISIS [the so-called Islamic State group also known as Da’esh] forced a change in their priorities.

Another obstacle facing research on the effects of depleted uranium weapons is the official secrecy that surrounds them. A stigma surrounds radioactive weapons that encourages government secrecy, Weir said. Data about where depleted uranium weapons were used must be painstakingly extracted from the United States government using Freedom of Information Act requests, he said.

Indeed, one of al-Azzawi’s remaining goals is to persuade the government of the United States to assume responsibility for the environmental impact of the depleted uranium weapons that were used in Iraq from 1990 onwards.

“You broke it, you bought it,” she says.

To consult the Archive of Dr al Azzawi’s articles on Global Research click 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: A U.S. tank of the type that carried depleted uranium shells fires its main gun into a building in Fallujah, Iraq, in December 2004. A Dutch study found the U.S. used the radioactive shells in civilian areas (Photo: U.S.M.C./Wikimedia Commons).

The antipodes has had a fraught relationship with the nuclear option.  At the distant ends of the earth, New Zealand took a stand against the death complex, assuming the forefront of restricting the deployment of nuclear assets in its proximity.  This drove Australia bonkers with moral envy and strategic fury.  The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act 1987 made the country a nuclear and biological weapons-free area. It was a thumbing, defiant gesture against the United States, but what is sometimes forgotten is that it was also a statement to other powers – including France – who might venture to experiment and test their weapons in the Pacific environs.

The Lange government had made an anti-nuclear platform indispensable to an independent foreign policy, one that caused a fair share of consternation in Washington.  The satellite was misbehaving, and seeking to break free from its US orbit. 

“If we don’t pass this law, if we don’t declare ourselves nuclear free,” insisted Prime Minister David Lange, “we will have anarchy on the harbours and in the streets.”

David Lange after winning the 1987 election. This was due in large part to the support the Labour Party received from their stance on the nuclear issue. (Source: Anti-Nuclear Protest in New Zealand)

An important provision of the Act remains clause 9(2):

“The Prime Minister may only grant approval for the entry into the internal waters of New Zealand by foreign warships if the Prime Minister is satisfied that the warships will not be carrying any nuclear explosive device upon their entry into the internal waters of New Zealand.”

The reaction from the US Congress was a cool one: the Broomfield Act was duly passed in the House: an ally had been recast as a somewhat disregarding “friend”.  It urged New Zealand to “reconsider its decision and law denying port access to certain US ships” and “resume its obligations under the ANZUS Treaty.”  Various “security assistance and arms export preferences” to New Zealand would be suspended till the President determined that the country was compliant with the Treaty. 

As Anglo-American retainer and policing authority of the Pacific, Australia has had sporadic flirts with the nuclear option, one shadowing the creation of the Australian National University, the Woomera Rocket Range and the Snowy Mountains hydro-electricity scheme.  Australian territory had been used, and abused, by British forces keen to test Albion’s own acquisition of an atomic option.  The Maralinga atomic weapons test range remains a poisoned reminder of that period, but was hoped to be a prelude to establishing an independent Australia nuclear force. Cooperation with Britain was to be key, and Australian defence spending, including the acquisition of 24 pricey F-111 fighter bombers from the US in the 1960s, was premised on a deliverable nuclear capability. 

During John Gorton’s short stint as prime minister in the late 1960s, rudimentary efforts were made at Jervis Bay to develop what would have been a reactor capable of generating plutonium under the broad aegis of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.  Gorton’s premiership ended in 1971; Australia slid back into the sheltering comforts of Washington’s unverifiable nuclear umbrella. 

The influential chairman of the AAEC, Philip Baxter, who held the reins between 1956 and 1972 with a passion for secrecy, never gave up his dream of encouraging the production of weapons grade plutonium.  It led historian Ann Moyal to reflect on the “problems and danger of closed government”, with nuclear policy framed “through the influence of one powerful administrator surrounded by largely silent men”.

Nuclear weapons have a habit of inducing the worst of human traits.  Envy, fear, and pride tend to coagulate, producing a nerdish disposition that tolerates mass murder in the name of faux strategy.  With the boisterous emergence of China, Australian academics and security hacks have been bitten by the nuclear bug.  In 2018, Stephan Frühling, Associate Dean of the College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University fantasised about adorning the Australian coastline with tactical, short-range nuclear weapons. 

It was a fantasy he was happy to recommend to audiences tuning in to the ABC’s Late Night Live.  “In air and naval battle on the high seas, nukes can now be employed without significant risk of collateral damage much like conventional warheads.”  Such thinking has the hallmarks of redux insanity in the field of nuclear thinking, the sort that deems such weapons equivalent in their characteristics to conventional types.

And what of the much vaunted US nuclear umbrella?  By stepping out of it, Australia was surely making a statement of cranky independence. Frühling’s suggestion is symptomatic of a field filled with syndromes and disorders. “Before investing in a nuclear program I think we would have to make a genuine attempt at trying to draw closer to the United States and its nuclear arsenal.”  By stepping out, you have to be stepping in.  

His work exudes a lingering suspicion that the ANZUS treaty binding both Australia and the United States remains foamy and indistinct on the issue of territorial defence.  Since Vietnam, there has been little by way of joint operations in the Pacific between the two.  The treaty’s preamble outlining the allies’ need to “declare publicly and formally their sense of unity, so that no potential aggressor could be under any illusion that any of them stand alone in the Pacific Area” remains distinctly free of evidence and logistical heft.

Other authors who claim to be doyens of Australian strategic thinking also fear the seize-the-prize intentions of the Yellow Peril and a half-hearted Uncle Sam keen to look away from “the Indo-Pacific and its allies.”  Paul Dibb, Richard Brabin-Smith and Brendan Sargeant, all with ANU affiliations, call for “a radically new defence policy,” which might be read as a terror of the US imperium in retreat.  For Dibb, Australia “should aim for greater defence self-reliance.”  This would involve “developing a Defence Force capable of denying our approaches to a well-armed adversary capable of engaging us in sustained high-intensity conflict.”

Such writings suggest an element of the unhinged at play. The paternal protector snubs the child; the child goes mad and seeks comfort in suitable toys.  Brabin-Smith broods over the end of extended nuclear deterrence, “not just for us but for other US allies in the Pacific, Japan especially.” This might well precipitate nuclear proliferation in the Pacific, requiring “Australia to review its own position on nuclear weapons.” 

Not wishing to be left off the increasingly crowded nuclear wagon, Australia’s long standing commentator on China, Hugh White, has also put his oar in, building up the pro-nuclear argument in what he calls a “difficult and uncomfortable” question.  (Age does have its own liberating qualities.)  Having suggested in 2017 that the China-US tussle in the Pacific would eventually lead to a victory for Beijing, he has his own recipe for a re-ordering of the Australian defence establishment.  How to Defend Australiasuggests what needs to be done and, as is the nature of such texts, what the bunglers in the security establishment are actually doing.  It is also a paean about future loss.  “We have been very fortunate to live under America’s protection for so long and we will sorely miss it when it is gone.”

White advocates an Australian Defence Force heavily reliant on sinking flotillas: “only ships can carry the vast amounts of material required for a major land campaign”.  Sell most of the surface vessels, he urges; abandon existing plans to build more; build a fleet of 24 to 36 submarines and increase defence spending from the current levels of 2% to 3.5%.   

Then comes the issue of a nuclear capability, previously unneeded given the pillowing comforts of the US umbrella, underpinned by the assurance that Washington was “the primary power in Asia”.  White shows more consideration than other nuclear groupies in acknowledging the existential dangers.  Acquiring such weapons would come at a Mephistophelian cost. “It would make us less secure in some ways, that’s why in some ways I think it’s appalling.” 

The nuclear call doing the rounds in Canberra is a bit of old man’s bravado, and a glowering approach to the non-proliferation thrust of the current international regime.  Should Australia embark on a nuclear program, it is bound to coalescence a range of otherwise divided interests across the country.  It will also thrill other nuclear aspirants excoriated for daring to obtain such an option.  The mullahs in Iran will crow, North Korea will be reassured, and states in the Asian-Pacific may well reconsider their benign status.

*

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

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

In the nineteen seventies multinational corporations were buying all the Canadian businesses they could so the Pierre Trudeau government established the Foreign Investment Review Agency to try to control it. In Ontario we were seeing celebrities like Goldie Hawn buying up the best vacation properties in the lake district north of Toronto.

It caused me to wonder, if all the business and the best lands were owned outside the country, is there still a country left?

James Meek, a journalist who writes for The Guardian wonders the same thing.

Britain is the private island he writes about. In chapter after chapter he looks at the demise of the publicly owned Royal Mail, British railways, water services, electricity and healthcare. The book won the Orwell Prize which exists to perpetuate George Orwell’s ambition ‘to make political writing into an art’ and this book lives up to the award. It is superbly written, meticulously researched and wonderfully presented.

He begins by reminding us of the policies of Margaret Thatcher who oversaw, as she claimed, ‘the greatest shift of ownership and power away from the state to individuals.’ Meek points out that in fact what happened was faceless state bureaucracies were replaced by the faceless but better paid, corporate bureaucracies!

Meek spent hours tracking down and meeting key players in each of the areas he writes about. He makes it clear that privatization, the selling off of national assets makes no sense. He shows how the myths about the free market being fairer and more efficient were replaced in Britain by the reality of higher prices and poorer service.

In less than one generation a country that once managed its own destiny has sold its control of things that are fundamental to society. Today much of the money the English pay for water goes out of the country. As he wrote of the city of London alone, its water facility is half owned in Britain, the other half owned by investors in Australia, United Arab Emirates, Beijing, Canada and Holland. Half of the money paid to buy water which used to all stay in the country, is now exported.

His chapter on railways follows the recent history of British rail which went from adequate but neglected in the early nineties, to privatized (in 1997), to mismanaged into chaos and disaster and then renationalized in 2002. Five years of chaos. After British Rail was privatized, the new company Railtrack, went flat out for the newest technology to speed train travel and committed to a system called moving block. The problem was the technology was not proven. It had never been tried on any railroad anywhere in the world. The professional people who could have told them that, had all been sacked. Predictably there were crashes, one killing 31 people.

Meek entitles this chapter Signal Failure and what he learned after dozens or interviews was that the culture at Railtrack was ‘..a tale of incompetence, greed and delusion, driven by the conviction that profit and share value is the only true measure of success.’

Throughout the book, Meek shows that with privatization, the prices of water, electricity, train fares and chief executive salaries have gone one way; up. And the only thing that went down was wages!

Free market jargon promises people more choices of better products at lower prices. It delivers jobs offshore, lower wages for the jobs retained, less social protection, national cutbacks and higher executive salaries.

Thanet personifies the problem; its an area in England that juts out into the English Channel east of London. Meek writes, ‘Offshore are the spinning turbines of Thanet Wind Farm, the world’s third largest. It belongs to Vattenfall, Sweden’s state electricity company. The monopoly on the power cables under Thanet streets belongs to Asia’s richest man, Li Ka Shing. Thanet’s water supply and drainage system belongs to Southern Water which is owned by a consortium of Hong Kong investment funds and Australian and Canadian pension funds.’

Thanet and Britain are not the only places losing control of their assets. As I finish this review, the Canadian Parliamentary Budget Office released a report that says that in 2016 nearly a trillion dollars was moved offshore by Canadian Corporations. Whether money goes out of the country to pay for water or to avoid the taxman, the nation gets poorer. Meek’s book has lessons for us 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.

The Grayzone’s Anya Parampil sat down for an exclusive interview with Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, on the 10th anniversary of the US-backed right-wing military coup that overthrew him.

He discusses the extreme violence, drug trafficking, economic depression, migration crisis, Juan Orlando Hernández (JOH), WikiLeaks, Venezuela, and more.

Full transcript of the interview below.

***

ANYA PARAMPIL: Thank you for your time, Mr. President. It has been 10 years since you were removed in a US-backed coup from your position as the democratically elected president of Honduras. What has the United States accomplished since then, what has changed in your country?

MANUEL ZELAYA: The rupture of a social contract, which we call the constitution of the republic, in the constitution of the state, when a social contract is broken, what logically comes next is the the law of the stronger (survival of the fittest). Crimes, killings, torture. Always the winning side against the opposition.

That has been a sacrifice for the Honduran people, because the side that took power had the support of the United States. The US is the major beneficiary of the coup. And there is a principle in penal law that says the beneficiary of a crime is the principal suspect.

How has it been the beneficiary? The US has almost complete control over Honduras. Control over justice through the OAS (Organization of American States). It controls security through US Southern Command. It controls the economy through the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and IDB (Inter-American Development Bank).

It controls the main media networks in Honduras; it has a big influence over the opinion of the main media outlets. It funds many churches, which receive donations from North American NGOs. And it finances Honduran NGOs. That is, it controls public opinion. It controls the powers of the state.

And in this way, it has a high interference in the decisions of states like Honduras, poor states, weak states, where their rulers, to receive protection, give up everything to the North Americans.

ANYA PARAMPIL: What has been the impact on the average Hondurans throughout these years?

MANUEL ZELAYA: Poverty increased. There are more poor people. The poverty level already surpasses almost 70 percent of the population. Crime increased. Drug trafficking increased. According to a report from the US State Department, the drug trafficking in Honduras after the coup increased by almost double. And the report says that Honduras became “the drug-trafficking paradise.”

External debt increased. When they took me out at gunpoint, we owed $3 billion. Today, in 10 years, we owe $14 billion. That is four times more. So this means the country has serious problems with a lack of economic growth, a lack of investment, human rights violations.

And I will present you with only one piece of proof: The [migrant] caravans heading to the US are from Honduras. Because the [US-backed] coup d’etat turned Honduras into hell.

ANYA PARAMPIL: How has this situation, what has happened over the last 10 years, contributed to the development of your party, Libre?

MANUEL ZELAYA: We are a party of opposition to the coup d’etat. And for 10 years those who carried out the coup have governed. They are the spawn of the coup. And the more errors they commit, the more they oppress, the more the opposition grows.

ANYA PARAMPIL: And this has led to the strengthening of the social movements here?

MANUEL ZELAYA: Well, social movements don’t grow for a sectarian political reason; they grow because electricity was privatized and they can’t pay for light. Many social services have been privatized. They have been given to private companies. And the problem is not just that they leave it to private enterprise. Private enterprise is efficient, but it’s expensive.

The most comfortable thing for a ruler is to say, “Security will be managed for me by US Southern Command.” “The economy will be managed for me by the IMF.” “The soldiers will manage internal security for me.” “And private enterprise will manage the money for me.” So, what does the ruler do? Nothing. Simply give benefits to his followers.

ANYA PARAMPIL: Who is Juan Orlando Hernandez (JOH) and why are we seeing now, 10 years after the coup, a re-ignition of unrest in the streets and a demand that JOH leave office?

MANUEL ZELAYA: He (JOH) is a son of the coup. He has serious personality problems. For example, I was president. And I walked in the streets. And people greeted me. And they told me, “Hi Mel! Hi President!” He (JOH) travels with armored cars, with helicopters. He travels with a huge security team.

In my opinion, he has a problem with mental illness. He believes that being president is a big deal. And the pastors come and tell him he is chosen by God. So it becomes even worse. And he begins to act like a person who is not in touch with reality.

The people are protesting because of hunger. And he thinks they’re protesting because of politics. And he tells to the United States a speech that the US, its right-wing, conservative governing class wants to hear. He says, “In Honduras there is terrorism. [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chávez’s people are there in Honduras. And they are affecting me, the drug traffickers.”

I think he is suffering from psychopathy.

ANYA PARAMPIL: And what about the accusations of corruption? Some Hondurans I spoke to today told me now JOH is one of the richest men in the region.

MANUEL ZELAYA: The corruption is public. They broke the social security system. Look, how do you sustain an illegal government? Paying people off. If they are legal, they don’t need to pay. Because they are the product of a social pact.

But when there is a coup d’etat, there is fraud. So they need to corrupt the institutions to sustain themselves. The fact that the United States supports a coup d’etat makes them support a dictator. And that is why corruption is surging. The corruption is the result of the dictatorship.

ANYA PARAMPIL: Hondurans have also told me that a small group of families control much of the country in terms of in terms of industry and specifically the media. Can you talk about the media’s role in the coup and also in sustaining the dictatorship, which you describe?

MANUEL ZELAYA: That is how capitalism works. In the US, France, anywhere. Capitalism is based on just one principle: accumulation of wealth. That is how it functions here and in the rest of the world.

A small elite of transnational [corporations] associated with people in countries who clean up for them. They do business, and that business creates the need to set up security for themselves.

They don’t tolerate competition. I brought in oil from Venezuela, with Hugo Chávez, and they insisted that they had to maintain their agreements. And they did not accept Venezuela. And that was one of the motives behind the coup.

ANYA PARAMPIL: And I believe the US ambassador at the time, Charles Ford, told you you’re not allowed to do this, as though he had the right to do this as a foreign ambassador.

MANUEL ZELAYA: The US gives advice that if you don’t follow, they act with reprisals. US President George W. Bush told it to me. John Negroponte told it to me. Ambassador Ford told it to me. And other government officials.

Bush said it to me in these words: “You cannot have relations with Hugo Chávez.” John Negroponte, his deputy secretary of state, told me, “If you sign the ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance), you are going to have problems with the US.”

And I signed the ALBA. And I would sign it again if I had the chance. Because it is to help Honduras progress.

I needed the support from Brazil, the support from Venezuela, the support from the US, the support from Europe. We are not able to depend solely on the US, because the US has its own interests. It’s another nation.

ANYA PARAMPIL: I would like you to comment on the significance of Wikileaks in the history of your country but also the region, and what you think about what is currently happening to Julian Assange with the with the help of the government in Ecuador?

MANUEL ZELAYA: Julian Assange is a symbol of freedom in the world today, tomorrow, and forever. He will be one of the people, in the future, like one of the great prophets. In their day, they are repressed. And later they become a symbol. That’s what Julian Assange will become.

Julian Assange proclaimed a world without secrets, an open world, a free world. Of course he affects the [powerful] interests of today. But in the future, I, and others in other generations, will follow the example of Assange.

ANYA PARAMPIL: We were speaking about Ambassador Ford, I believe after he finished his work in the embassy here he went to go work for SOUTHCOM, the military. Can you talk about how central the interests of the US military are to what happened with you and how its presence in the country has grown since you were ousted?

MANUEL ZELAYA: [Honduran] soldiers are trained at the [US] School of the Americas. All of their drills they do with the US. For the soldiers, the ideal of their life is to be like the US Marines, like the US soldiers.

And here, the US controls the armed forces and the police. They do what the US wants them to do. They are occupation forces.

ANYA PARAMPIL: I want to talk a little bit about the region, specifically Nicaragua. What do you think about the US-backed coup attempt he (Daniel Ortega) has faced over this last year? This month, I believe, is the one year anniversary since the government there defeated a US backed regime change operation.

MANUEL ZELAYA: When I returned [after the coup], I made several attempts to return to Honduras. In the return from Washington to Honduras, I was not able to land, because the military blocked me. So I had to come back through the Las Manos border crossing in Nicaragua. Then I secretly entered the Brazilian embassy. Two years later I returned from the Dominican Republic, from the Dominican Republic to Nicaragua, and from Nicaragua to Honduras.

In relation to the US trying to overthrow [Nicaraguan President] Daniel Ortega, I believe it already did it before, in the 1980s. The US armed Contras here in Honduras to fight against Nicaraguans. Since that time, I have always protested against this US occupation of Honduras to invade Nicaragua. And the people [today] voted for the Ortega government. He was elected.

Now, the US has been unable to overthrow him. Now, he is strong. Now Ortega has a lot of popular support. And I don’t think they are able to overthrow him, as they did in the past, from Honduras.

ANYA PARAMPIL: Can you compare your party, Libre, to the Sandinista Movement and what lessons you took from them?

MANUEL ZELAYA: They are two different historical moments. Sandinismo was developed by a military sergeant, who went to the mountains at the beginning of the 20th century, and he created an anti-imperialist force that created a party called the Sandinista Front for National Liberation (FSLN). This party won a war, overthrew the Somoza dictatorship, and now organizes democratically to stay in power.

We (in Honduras’ Libre Party) are a party that did not come out of the armed struggle. We did not come out of a war. We were born out of a movement that is revolutionary and democratic, but peaceful. Against the coup d’etat. And against those who support the coup. The US supported the coup.

ANYA PARAMPIL: I want to talk about your personal political development because when you were elected you were considered part of a more center-left party and movement, and now you are speaking about socialism. Why did you change and how would you characterize yourself now?

MANUEL ZELAYA: Center-right actually. (Not center-left.) It has been an evolution. Because the right wing is done for. It sustains itself with weapons, with coups, with fraud, with deceptions.

The future of humanity has to be social. You are a social being. You. Aristotle says that we are rational beings. The human is a rational animal. But we think that the human being, today, is a totally social being. Without society, men and women can’t survive. Everything that we think and perceive is related to our social environment.

So where should humanity walk to? To individualism, to egoism? To individual interests, or social interests? It’s to social interests.

The future of humanity is socialist. We might have to struggle for 10,000 years or more. But in the future, if humanity does not advance to be social, we would be living in caves, according to the survival of the fittest. Human beings are advancing, progressing to become social.

I was raised in a liberal political philosophy. But now I evolved to a new politics: first liberal and pro-socialist, but now democratic socialist.

ANYA PARAMPIL: How were you influenced by other governments of the Pink Tide, specifically Hugo Chavez of Venezuela?

MANUEL ZELAYA: Well you would have to ask how Chávez, a soldier, became a socialist. If you find this explanation, then you will find an explanation for how I, a land-owner, went from being a capitalist to a socialist. It is a heightening of the spirit. It is the conviction of a human being.

Capitalism is so barbaric. It is not the future of humanity. If capitalism is the future of humanity, humanity is destroyed. It is defeated. It is doomed to fail. The same for the planet.

The future of the humanity has to be social. It’s simple. It’s not money. It’s not commerce. It’s not simply economic activities that should lead humanity. No, those should be subject to the social.

It’s fine that private enterprise exists, private initiative. It’s fine that capital exists. But it is not ok for capital to direct the world. No, it is the world that should direct capital. This is an upside-down world.

And when you reach the highest governmental position in a country, which I reached, even in a small nation like Honduras, I learned then that there is no way to deal with capital other than subjecting it to popular sovereignty. Capital should continue to exist, but subjected to a plan of popular sovereignty that is the people.

The voice of the people is the voice of God. You have to have faith.

ANYA PARAMPIL: Like Chavez, you were pursuing the process of a Constituent Assembly in your country the day of the coup, to change the character of the state here. Why do you think that specifically was so threatening to the oligarchy here and the US government?

MANUEL ZELAYA: The question is not well formulated. Do you know who Thomas Jefferson is? Do you know who George Washington is? They created the United States, with a constitution.

Why mention Chávez? Chávez is simply from the 21st century. Jefferson and Washington were from 1776. The American Revolution was anti-imperialist, against the British Empire. They developed a constitutional assembly. And you have your constitution in the US. It’s not Chávez who invented the constituent assembly; it’s Jefferson and Washington. So why be afraid of the way in which nations are formed?

When the social pact is broken, because there is a lot of poverty, there is a lot of hunger, many people in need, and the majority does not resist the economic and social situation, you have to return to the constituent dialogue. This is basic in a society.

Inside the US, there are no coups. No, there presidents have to be ready in case in any moment they are killed. Here, there are coups. And in these countries in Latin America there have been 170 coups. And the great majority of them were sponsored by the US.

And what do you do when the pact is broken? You start over with a constituent assembly.

ANYA PARAMPIL: When you were facing the coup, Maduro was the Foreign Minister of Venezuela and you worked very closely with him at that time. What did you think about him, what was your impression of Nicolas Maduro, and what do you think about what’s happening now with Venezuela?

MANUEL ZELAYA: Two things: One, Chávez did not seek me out. Chávez was never going to look for a far-right country like Honduras, almost totally governed by the US. And now more than ever. And me, a president who arrived with the center-right. Chávez would never have sought me out.

I reached out to Chávez. I have to clarify that. Chávez never had an interest in Honduras. This is an invention of right-wing activists in the US, like Otto Reich, Robert Carmona, and Roger Noriega. I had to convince him [Chávez] to come here to help us, with oil, with the ALBA alliance, with Petrocaribe.

Two: Nicolás Maduro, yes he is a socialist from birth. He is a worker, from the working class, from the class that is exploited by capital, from the class that sells its labor force, and that is denied the rights that capitalists enjoy. He is a socialist, like Chávez.

And moreover, the Bolivarian Revolution, that was initiated by Chávez, with his socialist convictions, was inherited by Nicolás [Maduro]. And he has led with a great capacity, sensibility, and conscience.

They don’t want you to recognize it, but Nicolás [Maduro] is a Latin American leader of great international stature.

ANYA PARAMPIL: We’re 10 years since the coup, since then, one by one other progressive governments have been picked off and changed back into pawns of the United States. What gives you hope that one day we will see progressive governments return to power in Latin America?

MANUEL ZELAYA: No empire is eternal. With the exception of God eternal. Since the end of World War II, the US has ruled over much of the world. But it has serious contradictions. It is a country with high levels of poverty. There are serious internal contradictions.

And sometime soon, the North American ruling class will learn that to survive in the world, it will have to reduce military spending, to give medicine, healthcare, education and a good quality of life to its people. Someday they are going to understand that being the soldiers of the world, that being the police of the world, does not bring them as many benefits as they think.

And one day they are going to understand that it is better to have democratic countries than military dictatorships. When they come around, let’s hope it’s not too late.

The world is going to applaud, and meanwhile they continue giving fascist and imperialist orders installing dictators in our countries, setting up multinational corporations that exploit our rivers, our seas, our forests, our lands, and our working class. Then they will be pointed at and called practices that do not suit our countries.

I don’t have anything against the North American people. Nor do I have anything against the North American society. I’m an admirer of Lincoln, Kennedy, Jefferson, Washington, of what the US had signified. But I condemn its imperialist practices toward small countries like ours.

Instead of strengthening democracies, it strengthens military dictatorships. And that impoverishes our nation, and immigrants move there. And when immigrants move there, they start to complain.

*

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.

Anya Parampil is a journalist based in Washington, DC. She previously hosted a daily progressive afternoon news program called In Question on RT America. She has produced and reported several documentaries, including on-the-ground reports from the Korean peninsula and Palestine.

As deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest reaches the highest level in a decade, the rainforest’s indigenous peoples and their supporters have called for action against the political and business interests they blame for a spike in illegal logging and other resource extraction.

A report released by Amazon Watch as part of its ongoing “Complicity in Destruction” campaign aims not only to spotlight the role of North American and Western European financiers, importers, and traders in the ongoing destruction of the Amazon, but also to mobilize support for a boycott launched by the National Indigenous Mobilization (MNI) against the Brazilian agribusiness and mining interests encroaching on the threatened region. The report says:

The MNI requests solidarity from the international community to support these efforts, which aim to leverage global markets in order to moderate the behavior of the agroindustrial sector, as a means to halt [Brazil President Jair] Bolsonaro’s assault, ultimately protecting and restoring environmental safeguards and human rights.”

Christian Poirier, Amazon Watch’s Program Director, told MintPress News that the inauguration of right-wing strongman Jair Bolsonaro as Brazil’s president on January 1 lent fresh urgency to the campaign.

“Bolsonaro has overseen the most significant rollback of, and full-on assault on, human rights and environmental protection in Brazil since the fall of the country’s military dictatorship and the reinstallation of democracy in 1985,” Poirier said, adding:

He’s hearkening back to an era of rampant environmental destruction and rights abuses that some would call genocide of indigenous peoples, by attacking socio-environmental policy that is responsible for indigenous land rights, that is responsible for the protection of forests in the country, and he’s doing so at a very rapid pace.”

Among his first moves as president, Bolsonaro stripped Brazil’s National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) of its authority to create new reserves for indigenous nations and transferred control of both it and the country’s forest service to its agriculture ministry.

“Human rights abuses and environmental rollbacks”

Satellite data released by INPE, Brazil’s space agency, earlier this month showed the clear-cutting of 285 square miles, or 739 square kilometers, of the Amazon in May, the highest level of deforestation in a decade and more than twice the rate two years ago.

Observers cite an escalation in illegal logging and land theft during the Bolsonaro administration, with the first raid on an indigenous reserve occurring December 30, two days before Bolsonaro took office.

Poirier added that the MNI campaign intended to target corporate interests culpable not only for their own abuses, but also for Bolsonaro’s presidency:

The ‘Complicity in Destruction’ campaign works to pressure the most important sectors in Brazil’s economy — which are also responsible for human-rights abuses and environmental rollbacks, and also bringing Jair Bolsonao to power.

By targeting these sectors, we also intend to influence the behavior of the Bolsonaro regime, because we are targeting a strategic economic actor that is also a strategic political actor behind Bolsonaro’s rise to power, and that is responsible for his socio-environmental policy.”

In April, Bolsonaro — who once paid a fine of $2,500 for illegally fishing in a forested coastal reserve — announced the dissolution of Brazil’s National Council of the Environment (CONOMA), a government body with over 100 members, including independent representatives of environmental groups, tasked with protecting the Amazon.

He proposed replacing it with a new committee of six: Ricardo Salles, his nominee for environment minister and a close ally, along with five other presidential appointees. Poirier noted:

These are a wish list of Brazil’s agribusiness sector and its mining sector, to penetrate into protected areas, and that’s precisely what Bolsonaro’s doing, to the detriment of the human rights of indigenous peoples and traditional peoples in the Amazon, and to the detriment of global climatic stability.”

As one of the world’s largest non-oceanic “carbon sinks,” the Amazon plays a significant role in tempering climate change, absorbing a large — though declining — amount of the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide, while also emitting 20 percent of its oxygen.

“By ‘worst actors,’ I’m talking about environmental criminals”

Despite their staunch backing of Bolsonaro and the ruralista caucus supporting him from within Brazil’s Congress, the companies profiled by Amazon Watch had achieved notoriety well before Bolsonaro’s rise to power. Poirier told MintPress:

The specific corporate targets in the report are commodity importers, traders, and financial institutions that are doing business with the worst actors in Brazil’s agro-industrial sector.”

An illegally deforested area on Pirititi indigenous lands in Brazil’s Amazon basin. Felipe Werneck | Ibama via AP

By ‘worst actors,’ I’m talking about environmental criminals, those who have been found guilty and fined by Brazil’s environmental agency, Ibama, for environmental crimes ranging from illegal deforestation, to improper paperwork for wood, to even slave labor in their supply chains, since 2017.”

While an earlier report also analyzed Brazilian mining interests and their international ties, the most recent focuses on agribusiness, particularly its beef, soy, leather, timber and sugar sectors. Poirier stated:

The corporate actors internationally — the 27 importing companies and commodity traders that we list, and the dozens of financial institutions — are essentially enabling the behavior of these actors, which we consider to be emblematic behavior of these industries.”

Through their campaign, Poirier added, Amazon Watch and the MNI hope to “call on these companies to become agents to moderate the behavior of the worst actors, which is to say that they should carry out their own due diligence with their supply chains, and cut ties with the worst actors.”

*

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

Joe Catron is a MintPress News contributing journalist. He covers Palestine and Israel and other human rights issues. Catron has written frequently for Electronic Intifada and Middle East Eye, and co-edited The Prisoners’ Diaries: Palestinian Voices from the Israeli Gulag, an anthology of accounts by detainees freed in the 2011 prisoner exchange.

Featured image: IBAMA operation against illegal loggers in the Brazilian Amazon, courtesy of IBAMA.

This article was originally published in February 2018.

When I entered the Office of Pesticide Programs of the US Environmental Protection Agency in May 1979, I knew practically nothing about pesticides. Though I had taken classes in chemistry in college and had even written my first book about industrialized agriculture, nothing prepared me for the secrets I uncovered during twenty-five years of work in a bureaucracy designed and brought up to keep secrets.

My colleagues opened my eyes to the secret world of chemical sprays deceptively known as pesticides. They kept answering my questions and, more than that, they started giving me their memos, briefings, and scientific papers. They did not see much controversy in the “regulation” of pesticides. Most thought pesticides were necessary for farming.

In fact, EPA economists always defended pesticides, suggesting that without them food prices would go through the roof. Other EPA scientists like biologists, ecologists, chemists and toxicologists monitored those chemicals for ecological and health effects. They had read the pesticide law — The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act — and, some of them, were authors of regulations for their use on farms, lawns, homes, factories, and the natural world.

Who was going to object to the killing of “pests” like insects, rodents, fungi, and weeds?

It did not take me long to object to the use of pesticides, however. My knowledge about these chemicals increased rapidly. The writings of my colleagues and the discussions I had with them convinced me pesticides were more than pesticides. They are petrochemical biocides. They kill everything.

But there was something particularly insidious about certain farm sprays that were born about a century ago in the heat of WWI. The organophosphates parathion and malathion, for instance, are nerve gases related to chemical weapons. They are chemical weapons in diluted form.

I remember how EPA ecologists reacted to the news that parathion was killing honeybees in droves. They were very upset and urged senior officials to prohibit any more approvals of the deleterious nerve gas. The senior officials did no such thing. Honeybees continued to die from parathion poisoning for decades. EPA banned ethyl parathion in 2003. In 2015, the White House Energy-Climate Czarina and former EPA administrator, Carol Browner, announced the banning of methyl parathion on “all fruits and many vegetables.” Now, in 2018, honeybees die primarily from another version of neurotoxins, known as neonicotinoids, and manufactured in Germany.

Yet I don’t remember hearing EPA scientists connecting parathion and other neurotoxic pesticides to warfare agents. I found that strange because one heard of the horrible consequences they had in common: pinpoint pupils, sweating, convulsions, vomiting, asphyxiation, and death.

The military connection of many pesticides made their origins obscure and very difficult to decode. It was as if there existed a universal pact among experts in industry, academia and government not to question these extremely toxic compounds.

If Americans knew their food is contaminated by neurotoxic agents, what would they say and do? And how would the environmental movement act on the evidence of nerve poisons in conventional food?

According to Anna Feigenbaum, Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Media and Communication at Bournemouth University, modern tear gas also operates in the same mist of ignorance and fear that surrounds neurotoxic pesticides. Tear gas is not a gas at all. By tear gas we mean groups of chemicals, which are lachrymatory agents. This in Latin means they cause tears. Popular tear gases include CS (2-chlorobenzylidene malonitrile), CN (chloroacetophenone) and CR (dibenzoxazepine) – irritants released as smoke, vapor or liquid sprays. Another tear gas is pepper spray or OC (oleoresin capsicum). This is an inflammatory substance triggering tears.

Feigenbaum chronicles the history of tear gas intelligently and with passion in her “Tear Gas: From the Battlefields of World War I to the Streets of Today” (Verso, 2017).

According to Feigenbaum, tear gas started its warfare career in August 1914 when French troops fired grenades filled with methylbenzyl bromide into German trenches. The effect was to break the stalemate of trench warfare. Tear gas forced the German soldiers to run out of their protective trenches, only to be mowed down by French machine guns. This was the Battle of the Frontiers. In April 1915, at Ypres, the Germans retaliated with chlorine gas. The war of asphyxiating gases was in full swing.

Daan Boens, Belgian soldier-poet lived through this nerve gas war. In 1918, he published a poem, “Gas,” in which he caught the barbarism of chemical warfare. Feigenbaum cites the poem:

“The stench is unbearable, while death mocks back.
The masks around the cheeks cut the look of bestial snouts,
The masks with wild eyes, crazy or absurd,
Their bodies drift on until they stumble upon steel.
The men know nothing, they breathe in fear.
Their hands clench on weapons like a buoy for the drowning,
They do not see the enemy, who, also masked, loom forth,
And storm them, hidden in the rings of gas.
Thus in the dirty mist, the biggest murder happens.”

Like the pesticide merchants and lobbyists, tear gas advocates have buried this murder. They, according to Feigenbaum, reject the effects of their product: tearing, gagging, miscarriages, burning of the eyes, blindness, and death. They paint the military origins and use of tear gases into oblivion. The result of this successful propaganda is that tear gas faces none of the prohibitions against chemical warfare agents. A straightforward war gas – tear gas – has become a peacemaker. Innocent of harm.

Feigenbaum laments in particular the difficulties she faced in tracking sales and use of tear gas:

“There are just too many secrets and too many lies. The international trade in tear gas is buried under bureaucracy and often classified beyond the reach of Freedom of Information requests. There are files upon files that have been shredded and burned, deleted, altered and falsified.”

That’s to be expected of a chemical warfare agent dressed in civilian clothes.

Yet Feigenbaum succeeded eventually in her task. Her book is a lucid history that puts tear gas on trial. She exposed the profiteers, scientists, military buyers, arms dealers, police suppliers and editors trying to put a humane face on a dangerous weapon.

Neurotoxic pesticides are connected to tear gas by neurotoxicity. They are also products of chemical warfare. They kill by nerve poisoning and asphyxiation. They should be banned.

As Feigenbaum sees it, in its civilian life, tear gas does more than killing. It is designed “to torment people, to break their spirits, to cause physical and psychological damage.”

Read Feigenbaum’s book. It’s timely, well-written, and very important.

*

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.

Evaggelos Vallianatos worked on Capitol Hill for 2 years and at the US Environmental Protection Agency for 25 years. He is the author of hundreds of articles and 6 books, including “Poison Spring,” with McKay Jenkins.

Global Research provides penetrating analysis of world events. The articles published by this invaluable website pull no punches in reporting on global power relations.

-Marjorie Cohn (Professor Emerita, Thomas Jefferson School of Law)

Global Research is one of the few international News sites I completely trust. I make it required reading for my Political Sociology classes.

-Peter Phillips Ph.D. (Professor of Political Sociology, Sonoma State University)

Dear Readers,

We thank those of you who have come to our aid over the past month, and ask those of you who haven’t to consider making a donation or taking out a membership with us today. At present we are struggling to meet our monthly costs and are in fact running a deficit. However, we have a large readership for which we are extremely thankful.

If each of our readers made a donation, or took out a membership with us, we would be well on our way to remedying the situation. Become a member or make a donation by clicking below:

Click to become a member:

Global Research Annual Membership – $95.00/year

All new members (annual basis) as well as all membership renewal (annual basis) will receive a FREE copy of “Voices from Syria” by Mark Taliano, as well as a FREE copy of “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century“, edited by Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

---

Global Research Annual Membership – $48.00/year

(Students / Seniors / Low-Income)

All new members (annual basis) as well as all membership renewals (annual basis) will receive a FREE copy (in PDF format) of “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century“, edited by Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, as well as a copy (in PDF format) of “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

---

Global Research Monthly Membership – $9.50/month

All new members (monthly basis) will receive a FREE copy (in PDF format) of “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

 

---

Global Research Monthly Membership – $5.00/month

(Students / Seniors / Low-Income)

All new members (monthly basis) will receive a FREE copy (in PDF format) of “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

 

---

Sustainer Member – $200/per year

Help support Global Research with an annual membership payment of $200.00. Each Sustainer Member will receive any two books of their choice from our Online Store, as well as a FREE copy of  “The Globalization of War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

FOR FULL DETAILS AND OPTIONS, PLEASE VISIT OUR MEMBERSHIP PAGE

---

Click to donate:

DONATIONS BY POST:

To donate by post, kindly send a cheque or international money order, made out to CRG, to our postal address:

Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
P.O. Box 55019
11, Notre-Dame Ouest
Montreal, QC
CANADA  H2Y 4A7

Payment by check is accepted in US or Canadian dollars, GBP & EUR.

Thank you for your essential support!

Syria suffered its second S-200 debacle after a stray missile landed in Cyprus less than a year since a previous one accidentally hit a Russian spy plane last September, with these two incidents showing just how desperate it is to respond to “Israel’s” increasingly intense strikes against Iranian forces in the country that it’s forced to depend on such an outdated and unreliable technology after Russia still refuses to allow it to have full and independent operational control over the S-300s.

“Israel’s” anti-Iranian strikes in Syria that it carried out around midnight on 1 July were particularly devastating and destroyed a wide range of targets from Homs to Damascus, but the operation was also marked by an embarrassing debacle after one of the S-200 anti-air missiles that the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) fired in self-defense went astray and ended up landing in Cyprus. This was the second accident in less than a year since a previous missile mistakenly hit a Russian spy plane last September, with these two events showing just how desperate Syria is to respond to “Israel’s” increasingly intense attacks that it’s forced to depend on such an outdated and unreliable technology all because Russia still refuses to allow it to have full and independent operational control over the S-300s.

The world was led to believe through a carefully crafted perception management campaign that the deployment of those units would deter future “Israeli” airstrikes but the reality is that they were never meant to be anything other than “status symbols” to fulfill the wishful thinking fantasies of the members of the Alt-Media Community who are afflicted with a savior complex and ridiculously expect Russia to ride to Syria’s rescue. Moscow’s military mandate strictly concerns anti-terrorist responsibilities, not anything to do with defending the country’s borders from conventional threats, let alone from “Putinyahu’s Rusrael“, but the fake news notion that there’s more to its intervention than just that has given rise to the most absurd theories about Putin’s motivation for getting involved in that conflict.

The most popular narrative is that Russia is an “anti-Zionist crusader state” that’s supposedly dedicated itself to destroying “Israel“, which is easily debunked by simply reading the many positive statements of support that Putin made about the self-professed “Jewish State” that are available on the official Kremlin website. Even so, there are many who can’t accept them as truth and remain convinced that Russia is simply waiting for “the perfect time” to let Syria use the S-300s despite the Arab Republic already suffering so much as part of this so-called “master plan” by not being able to do so. That train of thought is easily discredited after Syria was forced to depend on the outdated and unreliable S-200s to defend itself, something that it wouldn’t risk doing if it was allowed to use that system’s successor.

The run-up to the nighttime attack saw a flurry of false allegations that Russia was supposedly jamming GPS signals in “Israeli” airspace, something that Moscow immediately decried as fake news but which nevertheless fed into the Alt-Media Community’s wishful thinking fantasies that Russia was secretly subverting the self-professed “Jewish State” on behalf of its Syrian “ally”. It can now be asserted without any doubt that those claims were patently false because “Israel” was able to successfully carry out its widespread bombing campaign without any difficulties, but they were probably made in the first place in order to further distance Russia from the deal that it likely struck with “Israel” and the US during last week’s National Security Advisor Summit in Jerusalem to let the “Israeli Air Force” intensify its anti-Iranian strikes in Syria.

Understood in this way, “Israeli” officials therefore lied about the GPS jamming scandal in order to provide soft power cover for their entity’s new Russian ally, the same as RT initially ran a story suggesting that the stray S-200 missile that landed in Cyprus might have actually been a downed “Israeli” jet. Russia and “Israel” sometimes work together to sow the seeds of doubt about their alliance to the international audience such as in this instance, attempting to make it seem to the casual observer that there are serious differences between the two when in reality they’re mostly on the same page about everything in the region, especially the need to “encourage” Assad to request Iran’s dignified but “phased withdrawal” from Syria.

Although Damascus is under heavy Russian influence nowadays that’s only expected to grow in the coming years as Moscow’s concerted efforts to “reform” its “deep state” begin to bear fruit, it would be inaccurate to describe Syria as a “puppet state” at this point since its desperate use of the outdated S-200s in self-defense proves that “Putinyahu’s Rusrael” doesn’t have complete control over the country just yet. President Assad has thus far refused to request Iran’s withdrawal from the country, and elements of the SAA are still doing all they can to respond to “Israeli” aggression, even if it means lobbing unreliable and dangerous S-200s at its incoming missiles and aircraft. Seeing as how “Israel” will probably continue striking Syria all summer as part of Netanyahu’s re-election campaign, the region might see more such S-200 debacles in the coming months.

*

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.

Western media are likely to jump on the ‘snapback mechanism’ wagon now that Iran has released details about the second stage of its reduction in commitments to the nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The snap back mechanism is a tool that allows the old United Nations sanctions to be reimposed on Iran without a vote on the Council, in the case of Tehran being found to be in serious violation of the terms of the nuclear agreement, under certain conditions and after following the predefined steps.

The other side wants to make it look as if the recent measures by Iran in reducing the level of its commitments to the JCPOA – which are in accordance with Article 26 and 36 of JCPOA – are a violation of the agreement in order to use the snap back mechanism against Iran.

But there are five reasons as to why the snap back mechanism cannot be used against Iran in this case.

One: The snap back mechanism has been designed to prevent Iran from violating the agreement. In other words, the mechanism has been set up in the case of Iran being the first party to withdraw from the nuclear deal. Of course, the first side to have left the agreement was the United States, and Iran’s compliance with its commitments have been confirmed time and again in all of the IAEA’s reports.

Two: According to the text of the JCPOA, the other side can use the snap back mechanism only when it “believes” that Iran’s performance is an instance of a major lack of compliance. According to a fundamental legal principle, this “belief” must be accompanied by “good faith”.  This is while none of the remaining parties to the JCPOA can actually claim with “good faith” that they “believe” in Iran’s major lack of compliance, since all of Iran’s measures have been legal, and are clearly taken so that all sides to the deal would fully implement their own commitments.

Three: Europe’s resorting to the snap back mechanism would be in fact a mockery of the international law, the UN Security Council and the UN’s collective security system. In other words, it would be the first time in history when the Security Council would be used to punish a country that only intends to use its legal tools to force others to implement a Security Council resolution (2231), and an agreement endorsed by the body.

Four: In order to accuse Iran of a violation, European powers first need to prove Iran’s ill intentions. This is while they all know that Iran’s only motivation and intention to reduce commitments is a way to actually revive the nuclear agreement.

Five: What European powers promised under the deal was never a “ceremonial” removal of sanctions. Article 3 of Appendix 2 of JCPOA clearly tasks Europe with removing the “impacts” of economic and financial sanctions. This means that the European sides are now clearly in violation of their commitments.

*

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 Mehr News Agency

At one point in Victor Hugo’s 1862 novel, Les Miserables, Jean Valjean and Cosette lived, secretly, in a house on Rue Plumet, where a garden hid their house from passers-by. This garden had been left uncultivated for fifty years. The garden not only protected Jean Valjean and Cosette from Javert’s discovery, it served to teach them how to behave more kindly, wisely, and creatively—to more deeply appreciate each other and all of Earth’s living things.

Hugo’s description of the Garden:

“Horticulture had departed, and nature had returned.  The trees bent over towards the briers, the briers mounted towards the trees, the shrub had climbed, the branch had bowed, that which runs upon the ground had attempted to find that which blooms in the air, that which floats in the wind had stooped towards that which trails in the moss; trunks, branches, leaves, twigs, tufts, tendrils, shoots, thorns, were mingled, crossed, married, confounded. Vegetation, in a close and strong embrace, had celebrated and accomplished there, under the satisfied eye of the creator, the sacred mystery of its fraternity, symbol of human fraternity.  At noon, a thousand white butterflies took refuge in it, and it was a heavenly sight to see this living snow of summer whirling about in flakes in the shade.  There, in this gay darkness of verdure, a multitude of innocent voices spoke softly to the soul, and what the warbling had forgotten to say, the humming completed. You felt the sacred intimacy of bird and tree; by day the wings rejoiced the leaves; by night the leaves protected the wings.

Nature, who disavows the Mean Arrangements of Man, always gives her whole self where she gives herself at all, as well in the ant as in the eagle.

Nothing is really small; whoever is open to the deep penetration of nature knows this. All works for all.

A flesh-worm is of account; the small is great, the great is small; all is in equilibrium in necessity; fearful vision for the mind.  There are marvelous relations between beings and things; in this inexhaustible whole, from sun to grub, there is no scorn; all need each other.

In the above passage, Hugo describes a healthy ecosystem, which included a healthy social component.  The plants, birds, insects, and other non-human life in the garden had developed a kind and wise Social Ecosystem—marvelous interdependent relations between beings and things—that benefitted all. In their garden there was no hierarchy, no upper class or lower class, no rich or poor, no caste system, no cliques, no individualism, no isolation, no predation, no segregation, no tension. In the “inexhaustible whole” of the garden, there was “no scorn.” All worked for all. All needed each other. All embraced, celebrated, and cared for each other, as if they fully understood their interdependence and thirsted for connection. All was in harmony, “in equilibrium, by necessity”—meaning that life in this garden would not have survived, individually or collectively, without the marvelous collaborative relations among its living things. This garden symbolized a healthy Social Ecosystem, maintained by the plants, insects, birds, and other living things in the Garden. It was a thing of Social Beauty—offered for emulation by Mankind.

Have we used Nature’s Garden as a model for development of a healthy human Social Ecosystem? Have we developed a human Social Ecosystem that is fully integrated with, and fully respectful of, Nature’s ecosystems? It does not appear so.¹

In fact, it appears as though modern Human beings have been slow to even recognize that each of us lives in the context of an interdependent human Social Ecosystem—where all need each other and all need to work for all in order to survive and enjoy Social Beauty—and that the human Social Ecosystem must be harmoniously integrated with Nature’s ecosystems.

Instead of developing a healthy Social Ecosystem that is integrated with Nature’s ecosystems, what have we done? We have created what looks like a severely damaged and degraded social ecosystem. The social ecosystem in which most of us live exhibits little of the caring characteristics of Nature’s Garden. Largely because of the economic model that has been allowed to prevail (Capitalism), our social ecosystem is characterized by hierarchy, individualism, cut-throat competition, predation, exploitation, inequality, injustice, anger, scorn, isolation, tension, anxiety, depression, alienation, loneliness, segregation, and boredom—with its leadership exhibiting heartlessness, disdain for collaboration, and denial of human interdependence. Our Social Ecosystem has been harmfully subjected to a powerful economic model that is based on, justified by, gives practice to, and rewards the worst aspects of our human nature, instead of our best aspects. Furthermore, it is an economic model that shows little respect for Nature’s ecosystems, is not integrated with Nature’s ecosystems, and wantonly destroys Nature’s ecosystems. Our current social system, which is a direct product of our prevailing economic model (Capitalism), represents a Mean Arrangement of Man—certainly not a thing of Social Beauty. Our current social ecosystem looks as plundered and ugly as a clear-cut boreal forest, or the toxic tailing ponds and poisoned aquifer in the Alberta tar sands. For the sake of Nature, and for our own sakes, should we not create a better Arrangement? Have the plants, birds, insects, and other living things in Nature’s Garden been far wiser, kinder, and creative than has Mankind?

If we were to use Nature’s Garden as a model for development of a healthy human social ecosystem, what might we create? We would start by acknowledging our interdependency—that we all need each other, and that all need to work for all. We would ask, “What are the universal needs; and how can we kindly and collaboratively meet those needs?” We would create an economic model that disavows such Mean Arrangements as hierarchy, class, exploitation, supremacy, racism, cut-throat competition, profiteering, scorn, sabotage, violence, predatory debt, isolating individualism, and disregard for the environment. We would choose an economic model that is based on moral incentive (rather than monetary incentive), an understanding of the positive aspects of human nature, and a commitment to altruistically meeting the needs of others—a Public Economy with Vast Public Activity that employs all aptitudes and gives jobs to all who need work. It would be an economic model that up-regulates the best aspects of human nature and down-regulates the worst aspects of our human nature (instead of the other way around, which is the effect of capitalism). It would be led by the most altruistic natural leaders among us, not by the most diabolic and selfish.

In short, we would create a Public Economy and a Social Ecosystem that resembles one giant public children’s hospital, whose modestly salaried physicians, nurses, researchers, technicians, janitors, and other employees gladly “give their whole selves” to meet the needs of sick children. It would be a model that provides the most precious freedom of all—the freedom to enjoy widespread up-regulated expression of the human capacity for kindness—up-regulation both in oneself and in the larger society—the freedom that comes from participating in collective public efforts to genuinely look after others. It would be an economic model that is democratically regulated by the creative common sense of Nature’s Garden, as opposed to the rigid  orderliness of the horticulturist, or, worse, the “clear cut” mentality of authoritarian timber industrialists. Such an economic model could create a healthy social ecosystem that would be in harmony with all of Nature’s ecosystems and with social ecosystems throughout the world. This would be a way to create human Social Beauty to complement and protect Nature’s Beauty. “Whoever is open to the deep penetration of Nature knows this.”

Postscript:

Apologists for Capitalism might accuse Victor Hugo of deliberately mentioning only the positive aspects of Nature and ignoring the ugly predatory activities in Nature—e.g. birds of prey killing innocent baby rabbits. But, Hugo was not denying the existence of violence and injustice in Nature—just as he does not deny the dark aspects of human nature. He was simply suggesting that we emulate the most positive behaviors in Nature, rather than its most ugly behaviors. Why would we want to model our economic system after the ugly predation and violence in Nature when, instead, we could model it after the “marvelous relations” exhibited in Nature’s Garden? Instead of flaunting a bird of prey (the eagle) as a national symbol, perhaps the USA could choose an innocent baby rabbit, or “vegetation in a close and strong embrace” as its symbol, with a Public Economy and a healthy Social Ecosystem to go with it.

*

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

Note

¹In human history there have been peoples who have developed a human social ecosystem that has been in harmony with Nature’s ecosystems—for example, the First Nations people in North America.  But, their social ecosystem and the sacred natural surroundings it respected were violently destroyed by those who insisted on a different model—a heartless, predatory, exploitative economic model and culture.

 

Latin America’s shifting geopolitics and the prolonged slowdown in China’s economic growth in recent years have led to a significant change in Beijing’s strategic approach to the region. The commodities boom at the beginning of this century coincided with a period of dramatic economic expansion in China. At the time, China seemed to buy everything, invest in everything and to welcome its new role as the principal geopolitical alternative to the United States for many of the countries in the hemisphere. And, the shift to the left in many Latin American countries – called the Pink Tide – invited the Chinese presence. Over the past year, however, China has adopted a more conservative approach to its role in the region. At the same time, in a number of the countries in the region, left-leaning government have been replaced by right-of-center ruling coalitions,

China has reduced its exposure in Venezuela and Ecuador, where it had accumulated significant shares of both countries’ sovereign debt in exchange for promises of petroleum at below-market prices. It has hit the pause button on several major infrastructure projects linked to its Belt and Road Initiative and has reduced its financing of private corporations, particularly in manufacturing. Most significantly, it has focused its investment in very specific strategic industries, such as lithium mining and renewable energy.

While China’s financial activity in the region over the past year has shrunk compared to the previous decade, it continues to see Latin America as an area where it must protect long-term strategic interests and where it can project power.

Overall, China’s relationship with Latin America continued to deepen during 2018, although at a pace slower than in previous years and with two significant shifts: in Venezuela concerning sovereign debt, and in Argentina, where it expanded its presence in lithium mining. China may be touting its role in the region less than it once did, but it continues to nurture the raw materials sources it needs and is building its stake in activities it considers crucial to its long-term interests. Perhaps the most significant in long term geopolitical terms is the increasing ownership stakes in the lithium and other rare earths mining on the fast salt flats that stretch across the borders of Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia.

Trade

China remains South America’s top export market and is second only to the U.S. as an export market for Latin America and the Caribbean as a whole. While the trade balance varies widely across countries in the region, Latin American exports were mostly boosted by modest increases in the four principal commodities traded with China: petroleum, soybeans, iron and copper. Prices for these commodities remain below their 2014 peak but have recovered from their lowest levels. There was a boost to Brazil’s soybean exports during the tariff dispute between the U.S. and China in the middle of 2018. Brazil’s soybean exports also benefited from the severe drought that reduced the U.S. harvest by nearly a third. The U.S.-China trade dispute also led to a significant increase in investment (by China and by other countries) in Paraguay’s rapidly expanding soybean production. While the bilateral tension between the U.S. and China has appeared to have reached a temporary plateau with a Trump-Xi “deal” to re-open negotiations on US-China trade and relaxation of U.S. sanctions designed to cripple the advance of Huawei, China’s leader in 5-G technology, China will be careful to protect its long-term interests by buying soybeans from alternative suppliers, such as Argentina, Brazil and now Paraguay.

China has become Cuba’s most important trading partner after Washington imposed more sanctions on the regime in Havana. China currently accounts for 30 percent of Cuba’s foreign trade. Despite Cuban efforts to attract more investment from China, the Chinese appear spooked by Cuba’s dual currency system and have not been able to figure out how to guarantee the value of their investments.

China’s trade with Latin America remains focused on mining industries: it accounts for 26 percent of the region’s extractive exports. China takes 16 percent of the region’s agricultural exports and only 3 percent of its manufacturing exports. These numbers all have increased by at least a factor of five over the past two decades. To look at these same numbers from another perspective, extractive commodities accounted for over half of the region’s exports to China. Over the past two decades, China’s demand has accounted for most of Latin America’s growth in the production of the four key commodities. Economists and government officials in the region are sensitive to this pattern and there is growing awareness of what is called the “new dependence” on China. For the moment, only Ecuador has acted to reduce this dependence.

Investment

Chinese investment in Latin America declined in 2018 after a robust 2017. The most significant acquisition was Tianqi Lithium’s purchase of Canadian firm Nutrien’s 24 percent stake in Chilean mining company SQM. That was complemented later in the year by a smaller investment in an Argentine lithium development, again through the acquisition of a Canadian mining company’s stake.

Chinese firms also made major moves in energy production: A state-owned Chinese consortium bought Peru’s Chaglla hydroelectric plant from scandal-plagued (and now in bankruptcy proceedings) Brazilian construction firm Odebrecht, while State Grid Corporation of China completed its purchase of CPFL Energias Renovaveis, a Brazilian energy company. There also were several modest increases in Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) in various countries throughout the hemisphere.

Sovereign debt

When it comes to sovereign debt, the Chinese have recently shown caution. Although total Chinese financing to Latin American governments in 2018 increased slightly compared to 2017, it still was lower than any other year since 2012. Moreover, $5 billion of the $7.7 billion total for the year was an advance to the government of Venezuela in an attempt to protect its huge exposure – nearly US$50Billion – to Venezuelan sovereign debt. Although China has been accused of lending to weak states in Latin America at usurious rates or extorting petroleum exporting countries such as Ecuador and Venezuela, there is little evidence that either country could have secured better treatment from any other lender. Ecuador moved to reduce its dependence on China and in Venezuela it looks as if the creditor is at least as trapped as the debtor.

Finally, it is worth noting that Chinese efforts to win support from countries in Latin America for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) continue to deepen. Both gained new involvement from countries in the region.

There are two cases which help to understand the complexity of and long-term thinking behind China’s role in Latin America. First, there is Venezuela, which is in the slow, agonizing process of falling apart. Over the first decade of this century, China had built up a major position in Venezuelan sovereign debt, to the point where it is now the largest holder. The Chinese guaranteed payment through promises of petroleum at favorable prices. Over the past few years, however, gross mismanagement by the government of President Nicolas Maduro has undermined the national petroleum company (PDVSA) production capacity to the point where production in 2018 was one third of what it was some 25 years ago. It is now questionable that China can get enough petroleum from Venezuela at any price to cover its holdings of Venezuela’s sovereign debt.

Given PDVSA’s commitments to deliver oil to Russia, the U.S., India and other buyers, China can no longer be confident that its debt will be paid at all – in oil or otherwise. The bankrupt Venezuelan government owes China $20 billion in interest payments over the next decade, according to estimates by the country’s commerce ministry. China has refused to extend the grace period on the debt it is owed and advanced President Maduro a mere $5 billion to keep his government going for a few months.

At the same time, the Chinese are establishing ties to the pretender to the presidency of Venezuela, Juan Guaido, the president of the National Assembly who has declared himself interim president. The U.S. and 53 other countries have recognized Mr. Guaido as Venezuela’s rightful leader. China, along with Russia, have criticized the aggressive sanctions imposed on Venezuela by the Trump administration; but they have not taken any further steps to bolster Maduro.

Traditionally, China has not made its investments or loans conditional on political stances or macroeconomic policies. Its position has contrasted sharply with that of multinational agencies, which put numerous fiscal and budgetary conditions on the loans they offer, and the U.S., which frequently pushes for political changes. In Venezuela, China’s approach appears to have gotten its banks and investors into serious trouble. In Ecuador, it also created problems when the government changed and accused previous officials of taking bribes from the Chinese for infrastructure deals. Those projects are now on hold while the current government carries out investigations.

Lithium

Another factor that indicates China is holding onto its long-term strategic goals in Latin America is its focus on investments in the lithium deposits found in the vast salt flats of the “Lithium Triangle.” The region extends from northwestern Argentina to northeastern Chile and into southwestern Bolivia. In February, Tibet Summit Resources, a Chinese company, purchased a Canadian mining company’s holding in Potasio y Litio de Argentina S.A. (PLASA) which had a concession in the Diablillos area to the northwest of the city of Salta, the capital of the eponymous province.

Meanwhile, the Chinese Export-Import Bank is financing the largest solar field in Latin America in Jujuy, just to the north of Salta, in the Cauchari field. The goal is to install 1.2 million solar panels there, making it one of the largest solar plants in the world.

It is no accident that the solar plant overlaps with a Chinese investment in the lithium fields. Chinese presence in one area enhances its influence in the other. China’s lithium strategy in South America is extremely aggressive, as evidenced by Tianqi Lithium’s above-mentioned purchase of a stake in Chilean mining firm SQM, which produces significant quantities of the mineral. For decades, China has considered control of the global lithium market a strategic goal. It used its ability to sway the market as a weapon against Japan just 20 years ago when it was the principal supplier of the refined metal to the Japanese electronics industry. While bickering over the Senkaku or Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea, the Chinese government blocked exports of lithium to Japan for more than three months, closing the Japanese producers for that period. There is no reason to believe that it would not use its leverage again, if necessary. It is important to underline that the Chinese have done everything possible to block or slow refining capacity of rare earths in producing countries. Chile is the only country in Latin America that is discussing the possibility of establishing a refinery on its territory. Here, the Chinese have indicated they would like to be part of the action.

Scenarios

The most likely prospect is that China will continue the more cautious involvement in Latin America that it adopted in 2018. As long as commodity prices continue to recover from their recent lows, the major producers will be only too happy to maintain their close relations with their principal market, China. At the same time, one can expect strategic investments in smaller countries in the region from some semi-official Chinese lenders. Recent examples include such support for projects in the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica.

In a less likely scenario, the tariff dispute between China and the U.S. would flare up again in the coming months, causing Beijing to lower its profile in Latin America so as not to further aggravate its relations with Washington. In the short term, this will not bother any of the commodity producers in Latin America, several of whom are likely to benefit from the bilateral tension between the world’s two largest economies.

Chinese involvement in Latin America must be put into a larger geopolitical context. The ongoing trade difficulties with the U.S are far more significant than the stake in any single country in Latin America or the region as a whole. For the moment, the Trump administration has little interest in the region other than migration and what the Cuban-American advisors who dominate the formulation of Latin American policy in Washington insist are the critical issues, which for them would be Cuba, Venezuela, and, to a lesser degree, Nicaragua. Drug trafficking is also important to the U.S., so there is some pressure on Colombia to do more to reduce the flow of drugs north. However, the Chinese have no significant interests in Colombia. Political instability in Argentina and Brazil have led Chinese companies to slow their infrastructure projects in those countries, following the lead of other major investors, such as the U.S. and Europeans.

*

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

Joseph S. Tulchin is a Latin Americanist specializing in hemispheric security and international affairs. After teaching for twenty-five years at Yale and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for sixteen years he directed a program of public policy research on Latin America at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

All images in this article are from APJJF

In another of his characteristic messages via Twitter, US President Donald Trump declared his army’s capacity to use “obliteration” fire power against Iran if necessary and in case of war between the two countries. Further, Trump’s claimed that such a war won’t last “very long”. Both statements suggest that the US administration recognizes its incapacity to defeat or face Iran with conventional fire power; hence Trump seems to advert to the possibility of using tactical nuclear bombs against Iran as the US did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon 2006 (uranium based weapons). He also told the press that no exit plan, no Plan B is necessary.

Trump is telling the world that the US believes Iran will surrender in a short time after the beginning of a possible war, showing that history is meaningless to US officials who made the same assumptions in previous wars, particularly in Afghanistan and its attempted regime-change in Syria. But how will Iran respond and what options are left to Iran today? 

There is little doubt that Trump’s administration is fixated on US military power, rather than exploring all possible scenarios and the prospects for Iranian retaliation. If Trump goes to war, the Middle East will face dire circumstances that Trump seems not to be taking into account.

When President George W. Bush launched “Operation Enduring Freedom” in 2001 he believed his war in Afghanistan would be a walk in the park; still today, President Trump is negotiating with Taliban a way to end this ongoing war. Moreover, President Barack Obama and UN officials believed the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s fall would be a “matter of time”. Trump is saying that he would bomb Iran rather than send troops to occupy any part of Iran, whether on the coast or inland, thus limiting his intervention to destroying a previously agreed-on bank of objectives.

Trump’s administration seems to believe that a quick and decisive bombing would be enough to convince Iran to swallow its pride, no matter how painful that would be, and drag its feet to the negotiation table. But it may be that Iran could absorb the first wave of bombing, no matter how painful, and launch cruise missiles against US targets, and the airports and oil facilities of the country from where the bombing was launched.

A US attack would no doubt destroy Iran’s oil facilities, missile launching bases, part of its military industry and would cause many Iranian human casualties. But US servicemen will also lose their lives and the price of oil will skyrocket, spoiling Trump’s electoral chances. The US is not taking into account Iranian missile capabilities, and the possibility Iran might have tactical nuclear missiles with enriched uranium, similar to those Israel used against Lebanon in the 2006 war. Moreover, if Iran is hit badly, how can the US stop Iran’s allies from bombing Israel, attacking US embassies and bases in Lebanon and Iraq, and targeting US troops in Syria?  Significant retaliation is certain when all the gloves come off.

Iran has been supporting its allies in the Middle East for a decade now and it would be illogical not to expect their support to be forthcoming in the extreme case of a direct attack on Iran. There will be no concern about world reaction to the revelation of Iran’s hidden capabilities when the death toll starts rising and the destruction becomes devastating. That could very well be Iran’s Plan B, an option that Trump seems oblivious to.

The US may use unconventional weapons against Iran, which will elicit global indignation. The internet today makes possible instant access to information around the world. Using unconventional weapons will rekindle the world’s memory of the atomic bombs dropped by the US over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During World War II, the US faced no accountability because the world was at war. Today the situation is very different and Trump is facing an internal political split, an electoral campaign, and the signatories to the JCPOA deal who oppose Trump’s revocation of the deal under the guidance of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Iran is not alone even if its officials decide on the 7^th of July to raise tensions and partially withdraw from the JCPOA. China has rejected the US sanctions on Iran. Russia is strongly opposing Trump’s decision by importing Iranian oil, and Europe may be moving to implement and activate its monetary system INSTEX before Iran makes a partial withdrawal.

So far, there is a debate in Iran whether to give Europe an additional short delay to see if INSTEX will be applied and will support the Iranian economy, or whether Europe, as the Iranian Leader warned his officials, “should not be trusted”.

Iran is stockpiling a large quantity of heavy water and centrifuges (even modernising these from IR-1 to IR-6 and heading towards IR-8). Trump is preventing Iran from exporting the excess so that Iran can be accused of violating the JCPOA. However, what Trump doesn’t seem to realise that he is giving Iran yet another card to play. Europe, eager to prevent Iran from attaining military grade nuclear capability, will offer to ease the export restrictions on the excess heavy water and centrifuges. But Iran will not accept this cherry-picking of what can be exported and what it can’t. This again will put the spotlight on Trump’s decision to shred the nuclear deal, unless sanctions are lifted on Iran or other partners emerge who will do business with Iran.

When Trump launched his threat of “obliteration”, he forced Iranian pragmatists and radicals alike to think twice about the Leader’s Fatwa that Iran should not possess nuclear bombs. Israel, Pakistan and India, countries proximate to Iran, all have nuclear bombs. On the other hand, the prevailing argument in Iran today is that a small group, like Hezbollah, stopped Israel, a nuclear country with dozens of bombs, from attaining its objectives in 2006. Technology, air superiority, a larger army and dozens of bases surrounding Iran do not guarantee a quick US victory, or even victory after a longer conflict. Afghanistan and Iraq are the best examples. The question is: for how long can Iran restrain itself and keep from acquiring nuclear bombs if its enemy – Donald Trump – continues to wave the threat of obliteration against it?

*

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

Featured image is from the author

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, during which the Ayatollahs took control of the country and brought down the Shah’s absolutist monarchy. The Iranian masses, who were undergoing various ideological changes at the time, overthrew the Shah’s corrupt and oppressive regime.

Much has been written over the years about Israel’s ties with Mohammad Reza Shah and his dictatorship. When it was convenient for the IDF censor and political and security officials in Israel, information — even secret documents from that period — was revealed to the general public.

Recently, files from the Foreign Ministry regarding relations with Iran have been declassified and can now be found in Israel’s State Archives. These include more than 10,000 pages from 1953 until 1979, which were heavily censored when compared to similar files in cases of other countries.

The documents expose Israel’s extensive and exceptional relations with a foreign country, not only because these political and security-based relations were with with a Muslim country, but because the relationship with the Shah’s dictatorship was strategic and central to the State of Israel from a security, economic and political point of view. At the time, Israel’s relations with many other countries were limited mainly to weapons sales in exchange for votes in international forums.

Thus, for example, Israel purchased a significant portion — and in some years all — of its oil from the Shah’s regime, while Iran used Israel as a middleman to sell its oil to third countries. The alliance over oil required that Israel and the Shah ensure the safety of shipping routes. This strengthened their partnership in the struggle against Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser’s repeated attempts to promote ideological and military alliances throughout the Middle East that were hostile to Iran and Israel, particularly in the Gulf states and the Arabian Peninsula.

Private and state-owned Israeli companies, ranging from textiles, agriculture, electrical appliances, water, fertilizers, construction, aviation, shipping, gas, tires and even dentures, had been operating extensively in Iran. In some years, Iran was one of the main destinations for Israeli exports. Meanwhile, Israeli academia also enjoyed relatively extensive cooperation with academics in Iran.

The Shah Never Officially Recognized Israel

Iran de facto recognized the State of Israel in March 1950, but in light of internal pressure by those who opposed Israel and the Shah’s pro-Western and pro-American policies — as well as external pressure by Arab states — Iran avoided officially recognizing Israel.

The Shah did have “secret” representation in Tel Aviv beginning in 1961, and Israel had permanent representation in Tehran, which at one point became an embassy that included military attachés. Due to the sensitive nature of the agreement, Israeli representatives in Iran generally refrained from conducting relations with the Shah regime through bureaucrats in the Foreign Ministry and other government ministries. Instead, it carried out its business through a narrow circle of Shah loyalists and politicians, as well as the top echelons of Iran’s defense establishment. Sometimes those relations were conducted directly with the Shah himself and his Royal Court minister.

Over the years, Israel attempted to hide its involvement in the security apparatuses and the suppression meted out by the Shah, yet the Iranian public was well aware of Israel’s aid to the regime. In particular was Israel’s close ties with the Shah’s security service, SAVAK, which was responsible for the political persecution, torture and murder of the monarch’s political opponents.

Given the breadth of relations between the two countries, I will focus on documents relating to Israeli assistance to the security apparatuses and the suppression by the Shah’s dictatorship, which would eventually lead to his downfall. These documents attest to the depth of Israeli involvement in the regime, Israel’s strategic importance to this relationship, and the fear of the consequences of the Shah’s fall — a concern that became palpable in the years before the end of his rule.

Stability Through Oppression

Israeli awareness of the Shah’s oppressive policies is evident from a telegram sent on April 22, 1955 by the Israeli embassy in London. The telegram describes an Iranian diplomat who tells his Israeli interlocutor that the Iranian government is banning communism everywhere, and that the Americans are satisfied with these actions.

Eight years later, on September 9, 1963, Director of the Middle East Department at Israel’s Foreign Ministry Nathaniel Lorch wrote that the traditional religious processions that took place that month had turned into mass demonstrations against the Shah’s regime, and that the government “was surprised by the use of religious demonstrations for political protest. The riots spread to a number of towns. The government used great force to suppress the riots and officially announced that 86 were killed and 193 were wounded. The last few days passed quietly. The regime controls the situation in both Tehran and its provinces.”

Lorch claimed that

“the anti-Israel chants by the demonstrators made up a small part of all the slogans, and in the meantime the anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli tone has completely disappeared.” Lorch further noted that “any attempt to present Israeli-Persian relations as a cause for events should be thwarted.”

According to a January 3, 1964 report prepared by Dr. Zvi Doriel, the head of the Israeli delegation in Tehran:

“The internal stability and exclusive reign of the Shah achieved by the suppression of religious and other opponents of the regime in June, as well as by what the regime views as a successful election season, continues without significant disturbance. The process of the disintegration of the National Front [the nationalist coalition that opposed the Shah — E.M.] continues.”

The Shah, according to Israeli reports, also leaned heavily on the ruling Iran Novin Party while fostering a semblance of opposition. According to a November 25, 1964 survey by Israel Haviv of the Middle East Department of the Foreign Ministry, instead of maintaining a one-state system ruled by Iran Novin, the Shah supported the continued existence of the People’s Party as a fictitious opposition party that would imbue parliamentary life in Iran with a more democratic character.

The Iranians Can Stifle Any Resistance Movement

In a meeting on December 19, 1964 between Foreign Minister Abba Eban and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aram, the latter praised the relations between Israel and Iran and said that there was no other country with which Iran’s relations were so close. Meanwhile, the Iranians preferred to keep the relationship quiet. Meir Ezri, an Israeli representative in Tehran, reported in a missive sent on May 5, 1965 about a meeting he held with the foreign minister, in which Aram complained about the public nature of Israel’s activities in the country, saying it may harm Iran’s relations with Arab countries.

Ezri replied to the minister, saying that

“Israel’s general interest in the Middle East is the existence of a sovereign and prosperous Iran headed by the Shah, who is considered a friend of Israel… We do not believe that the Arabs will ever be friends with Iran despite all Iranian efforts. Our friendship obliges us to bring to Iran’s attention what we know about the Arab efforts aimed at the most vital Iranian interests.”

Israel, as noted, was aware of the murderous suppression of the Iranian opposition. David Turgeman, who was part of the Israeli mission in Iran, reported on January 27, 1966 that the leaders of the communist Tudeh Party had been sentenced to death in absentia, part of a larger trend of putting opposition members on trial. A few months later on July 21, Turgeman reported that the Shah and the top echelons of the government were confident and that “there is no internal danger posed by left-wing oppositionists, and that security forces can stifle any resistance or underground movement.”

Top Iranian military officials Hasan Toofanian and Bahram Ariana with some Israeli officers in headquarters of Israel Defense Forces in 1975 (State of Israel via Wikimedia Commons)

Turgeman had no doubt about the nature of the regime. In a March 8, 1967 survey he wrote, in conjunction with the Shah’s family protection reforms, that “we must admit that the new law is a classic example of the benefits of a regime of enlightened absolutism.”

The IDF Attaché Is the Hero of the Day

This did not prevent Israel from seeing Iran as a matter of substance. In a survey prepared on February 23, 1966, Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Middle East Department Mordechai Gazit wrote that

“in some respects it was said that Iran-Israel relations are a kind of unwritten secret alliance that gives Israel a range of advantages in the fields of the economy, security, the Middle East and anti-Nasserism.”

Gazit added that Israel is engaged in “the renovation of Iranian Air Force planes and civil aviation aircrafts with full and large compensation… Israeli experts were employed in the anti-Nasser Persian propaganda… very close intelligence cooperation through taking full advantage of the Iranian territory… Close cooperation between the IDF and the Iranian army… The attachés are in daily contact with the Iranian general staff, and this is, in fact, without unnecessary modesty… An Iranian purchase from IMI Systems, in addition to the “Uzi” deals and the other acquisitions are in advanced stages of discussion.”

The published documents do not detail the content of the partnership between Israel and the notoriously despised SAVAK. However, the documents do include a breakdown of military cooperation. For example, according to a telegram from January 4, 1967, the Iranian prime minister asked the Israeli military attaché in Tehran, Colonel Ya’akov Nimrodi, to coordinate the training of the head of his bodyguards. In a conversation held a month later with Meir Ezri, the Israeli representative in Tehran, the prime minister told Ezri that “he instructed the commander of the gendarmerie to purchase an Uzi submachine gun and approved the necessary budget for doing so in accordance with the request of the IDF attaché in Tehran.”

Two months later, on April 13, then-Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin spoke with the Shah, who was interested in Israeli planes and tanks, and was “knowledgeable about what was going on and particularly on the security/military level” when it came to Israeli-Iranian cooperation.

A review by Israeli Ambassador in Tehran, Dr. Zvi Dorel, on August 29, 1967, read as follows:

“We have established a close, friendly, and practical partnership between the IDF and the security services and their Iranian counterparts, with joint execution of programs and missions of national importance, with continuous mutual visits by the heads of the armed forces and their senior officials.”

“Various security problems vital to Israel have been solved in close cooperation with the Iranians,” Dorel continued. “The military attaché is recognized by the general staff and the Iranian Foreign Ministry, it maintains extensive relations with the Iranian army and deals with an impressive list of issues of national importance and enjoys special fondness by the Iranian military circles… They conducted advanced negotiations regarding the purchase of Israeli-made products and BEDEC programs to the tune of millions of dollars… Israeli chiefs of staff and the head of the security services have met with the Shah several times… the Iranian army views the IDF and the security services as allies and those involved in making contact and professional issues… Colonel Nimrodi, an IDF attaché, was a hero today among the army circles.”

The Shah in Israeli Gossip Columns

According to a telegram dated December 27, 1967 (it is unclear who sent it):

“Prominent Israeli presence was accepted by the Iranian public as a fact that cannot be annulled… Iran views the ‘revolutionary’ Arab regimes not only as the source of extreme Arab nationalism but also as a threat to the royal regime. This is convenient and encouraging not only in the intimate relations between our security services and those of Iran, but also in the diplomatic realm in Western capitals, particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom, and even in coordination and cooperation in the Middle East (vis-à-vis the Kurds and Yemen).”

Nevertheless, despite the close relations, the Shah’s regime did not particularly like these relations — or criticism of the regime — to be publicized. The Shah’s inner circle repeatedly objected to Israeli media reports about both the relationship between the two countries as well the hedonism of the royal family. For example, in August 1967 the Iranian Foreign Ministry protested a gossip article published in LaIsha, an Israeli lifestyle magazine for women, about the Shah’s family, even though the Israeli representative in Tehran explained that it was “a magazine of no importance that is mainly read by teenage girls.”

According to a telegram sent by Y. Margolin on September 13, 1967, the Foreign Ministry examined the possibility of appealing to the Attorney General to initiate criminal proceedings against LaIsha and to require any gossip published about the Shah’s family to first be approved by the IDF censor.

According to a telegram sent in August 1972 by Ambassador Ezri to the director general of the Ministry of Defense, the negotiations over the purchase of Israeli tanker aircrafts by the Shah’s dictatorship were progressing. A report prepared by the Foreign Ministry on Israel’s defense exports to the dictatorship on October 29 of that year reveals that between 1968 and 1972, IMI Systems sold $20.9 million worth of equipment to Iran; Israel Aerospace Industries sold $1.3 million; Soltam sold $16.9 million in mortars; Motorola sold $12 million; Tadiran sold $11.3 million and set up a radio equipment factory in Iran; and Israel’s Defense Ministry sold $700,000 worth of equipment.

A United Front against Communism

A letter dated June 28, 1973 by the Finance Ministry’s deputy supervisor of foreign exchange to the deputy director general of the International Defense Cooperation Directorate of the Israel Ministry of Defense stated that,

“Recently, Israeli officials have increased their activity in Iran, including: production units of the IDF and our Ministry of Defense, the Air Industry, Tadiran, Motorola, and others who are trying to sell their services and products to the Iranian army, the Iranian Ministry of Defense and similar government agencies.”

“The spectrum of activity is broad, ranging from the supply of military products and electronics manufactured by factories in Israel, to the export of systems for creating and assembling them on the spot, training, surveys, construction, assembling and maintenance of facilities on the ground through contractors. From what has been brought to our attention, we see that the activities of various Israeli bodies are similar and perhaps even overlapping,” the deputy supervisor wrote.

Iranian police received training in operating communications equipment at Motorola in Israel, but according to a telegram sent on July 2, 1975 by A. Levin from the Israeli mission in Tehran to the Foreign Ministry’s Agency for International Development Cooperation, the Iranians requested to “receive full training in Israeli police facilities.” Levin recommended that the request be accepted and eventually informed the Foreign Ministry that “Israel Police agrees to accept under its auspices and responsibility the course for Iranian liaison officers,” and that the theoretical part of the course will include “tours to police facilities.”

These relations existed at the highest level. Prime Minister Golda Meir met with the Shah in 1972, and in a May 19 report she said that the Shah “thinks that the relations and cooperation between countries that stand against communism should be strengthened: Persia, Israel, Turkey and Ethiopia.” Two years later, when Meir resigned and Yitzhak Rabin took over, the new Israeli prime minister also visited Iran. According to a telegram from December 8, 1974, Rabin met with the head of the Iranian security services.

The Beginning of the End

It was during those years that Israel began to believe that the regime was unstable. In a report prepared by the Foreign Ministry on September 11, 1972, shortly after Meir’s visit to Tehran, it was noted that “social unrest is manifest among students and intellectuals, and the stability of the regime is maintained through policing.” Four years later, in June 1976, Israel already understood that the Shah was in trouble.

A telegram sent at the time by Israeli Ambassador Uri Lubrani stated that the Shah’s liberalization policy, which included the assumption of powers from SAVAK, led to “the opportunistic elements that until recently had been underground or dormant to take advantage of this and begin expressing their opposition to the regime.” This forced the Shah to return some of SAVAK’s authority in an effort to control the situation.

Ambassador Lubrani added that

“the feeling of many in Iran today is that the status of the Shah has begun to be quickly undermined, a process that cannot be reversed and will eventually lead to his defeat and a drastic change in the form of government in Iran. It is very difficult to give a time estimate and my personal assessment, which is not based on any objective data, is that this will take place more or less in the next five years. There is no answer to the question of who or what will replace the current regime. It is reasonable to assume that the monarchy will end and that, at least in the first stage, the military officers will take its place. The big question is who will lead them and what direction he will take.”

As for the consequences for the State of Israel, Ambassador Lubrani wrote that

“the implications of a new situation for Israel-Iran relations should the Shah’s rule be undermined are grave, and the current regime of the Shah will be seen as the most positive one for Israel in Iran. Any change in this government will, to the best of our assessment, be to the detriment of our relations with this country.”

Lubrani also that Israel had extensive activities in Iran at the time, including “relationships surrounding the oil supply from Iran (both to supply itself and the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline), and oil sales such as security-related projects,” and that “the security arrangements that were recently signed create an Israeli commitment to Iran vis-a-vis sensitive areas, as well as Iranian financial commitments that are significant for our national economy.”

As time went on, Israel became increasingly concerned about the fate of the regime. Two years later, on August 14, 1978, Lubrani sent a telegram to the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem in which he painted a bleak picture of the Shah’s future. The ambassador met with Deputy Police Chief Ja’afri, who told Lubrani that “in the short term he does not anticipate difficulties in maintaining law and order and believes that the military regime is capable of dealing with any attempt at rebellion. On the other hand, he believes that this situation cannot continue indefinitely and that if the government does not take far-reaching measure to change the system of governance and its priorities, the existing regime will collapse.”

Ja’afri believed that the Shah was unaware of his true situation. He also criticized the head of SAVAK for “not introducing changes into the system that the people themselves have hated for years.” Ja’afri claimed that the regime made a mistake when it used the army and “caused many casualties,” while noting “the special relations we had with him and promised to help if necessary.”

The Last Hope

A month and a half later, on September 28, Lubrani reported to the Foreign Ministry that he had met with the Shah in light of the huge demonstrations that sought to oust his regime, during which Shah reiterated his claims that the communists were responsible for the demonstrations. When the Shah asked Lubrani about the identity of his interlocutor, Lubrani answered that “on political matters I have always acted, if not in tandem the head of SAVAK, then through the Royal Court minister or Tufanian (Deputy Minister of Defense – E.M.).”

Lubrani summarized the meeting:

“I have a difficult impression of the man. He is not the man we were familiar with, he was distant and sometimes stares. There is no doubt that the man has gone through a nightmare from which he has yet to fully recover. He is full of terror and uncertain of the future. The most worrisome aspect is the sense that he seems to have made peace with his fate, without having found any strong desire to take matters into his own hands and change it. I will add that it is possible that I found the Shah in a temporary moment of gloom.”

Israel did not want to lose its stronghold in Iran under any circumstance. If the Shah was to be deposed, Israel hoped that a military regime would take his place. In a telegram from December 30, 1978, Director of the Middle East Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Yael Vered writes that the best option for the State of Israel is “extreme toughness by the army and the establishment of a military regime and a real military government. Whether initiated by the army in the form of a military coup or with the Shah through tacit consent on his part.”

On January 4, 1979, in a last-ditch attempt to bring calm to the streets of the country, the Shah appointed Shapour Bakhtiar as prime minister. Israel, however, had no illusions about his ability to govern. Four days later, Vered sent a telegram to Israeli missions around the world saying that Bakhtiar’s government had no public support and was in danger of collapsing.

Vered wrote that the Shah and Bakhtiar had reached an understanding about the Shah going on “holiday leave,” but “the length of time and who will decide on his return remains a question and may lead to crises in the future. The Shah continues to symbolize the unity of Iran, and the loyalty of the army to him, even today and despite the number of cracks, is undoubted.”

Vered estimated that if Khomeini and his supporters took power, relations with Israel would come to an end. Yet she maintained hope that the army would take over and that Iran would see “another form of government like the current one or a more convenient army, and it is likely that the presence (of Israel – E.M.) will initially continue under a lower profile.” Vered’s hopes did not come to fruition, and on January 16 the Shah fled Iran.

On February 11, about a week after Khomeini returned from exile to Iran, the Israeli government decided to evacuate its remaining representatives in Tehran, especially Ambassador Yossef Harmelin, while at the same time examining the possibility of leaving an Israeli representative so as to not completely sever ties with the new regime.

“The foreign minister instructed the director-general, after the Mossad announced the evacuation of our people, to examine the possibility of leaving a person in a diplomatic appointment so as not to cut the wire,” the cable said. “There will be no official announcement of leaving. If Harmelin leaves – he will be in danger should he be imprisoned, due to the fact that he was the former head of the Shin Bet.”

The Masses Can Bring Down a Regime with Tanks

Yet Israel still held out hope for the new regime. Three days later, Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan met with the Japanese ambassador to Israel. A report sent to the Israeli embassy in Tokyo shows Dayan told the diplomat that “the current stage (in Iran – E.M.) is not final and is a transition into a new period. There is concern that the influence of extreme leftists will grow, and that in addition to the religious sea change, xenophobia will also spread.”

Yet, according to Dayan, Iran will still need foreigners to operate its sophisticated weaponry, especially after the Americans had left. Minister Dayan further expressed his concern for the fate of the Jewish community in Iran, arguing that “one must worry about the influence of the events in Iran on other countries in the area, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Sudan, and Morocco, who also do not respect civil rights.”

On the same day, Dayan spoke with U.S. Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, who according to the protocol told the Israeli minister that “the United States does not feel guilt about what happened to the Shah, since the Shah failed to develop a managerial class below him that would shoulder some of the responsibility, and if everything in his country was in his hands, then his mistakes were his alone. There was also the problem of corruption. The revolution in Iran has reached the masses. There is a strong sense of nationalism. One can hope that the Iranians will understand the main factors in their national interest and act accordingly.”

But beyond concerns about the loss of an Israeli “outpost” in Iran, Israel had other no less serious concerns: the fear that the masses in the Middle East would imitate the Iranians and overthrow their own regimes. According to the minutes of a meeting of deputy directors-general held on the same day Dayan spoke with Brown, Pinchas Eliav, director of political research at the Foreign Ministry, said that the serious issue is that “the social-economic-public character of the upheaval proved that the street and the masses could bring down a regime with tanks, the most modern weaponry, and an air force.”

“All these forces stood before a street that is nevertheless a street (perhaps Khomeini had some agents and some communist intervention), incitement, and ideology, and the masses succeeded in overthrowing the regime. This is, in my opinion, a harbinger of danger to all the regimes in the region, including the radical ones.”

Neither Israel nor the United States have never taken responsibility for their continued support of the dictatorship and their support for the Shah in crushing the left and the progressive elements in Iran. Their conduct was instrumental in the establishment of the dictatorship of the Ayatollahs.

*

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

It’s been a little over half a year since the right-wing leader took office, but already Bolsonaro has made Brazil a pretty bleak place to live, and it doesn’t look like it’s going to get better anytime soon.

Nobody denies that Bolsonaro inherited a terrible socio-economic situation upon entering office at the beginning of this year, but he hasn’t done much to improve it in the past half year since he’s been in power.

His unexpected rise to the country’s top political post came about as a result of the US’ Hybrid War on Brazil, which aimed to create the conditions that would make the country’s return to leftist leadership impossible while simultaneously turning the South American giant into Washington’s regional “Lead From Behind” proxy through the fast-moving military-strategic, and possibly soon even economic, partnership that’s made rapid progress during this time. Geopolitically speaking, Trump can’t fulfill his “Fortress America” vision of restoring the US’ unrivaled hemispheric dominance without controlling Brazil, hence the importance of keeping Bolsonaro in power, or at least long enough for him to carry out radical reforms that make this state of affairs irreversible.

Brazil is already on the path to becoming a “Major Non-NATO Ally” (MNNA), whether formally so or unofficially in practice, which will turn the rising Great Power into a platform for projecting the US’ military power all throughout the region. This has yet to directly affect the lives of ordinary Brazilians and has therefore gone largely unnoticed by most, but it’s this partnership with the Pentagon that could ensure that Bolsonaro’s neoliberal economic policies become set in stone. The right-wing leader is trying to push through a very controversial pension reform that’s already provoked massive protests and a 45 million-person strike a few weeks ago, but this explosion of grassroots resistance still might not be enough to get the government to reconsider even though the demonstrators have joined forces with anti-government ones who are enraged by The Intercept’s leaked revelations proving that there was indeed a conspiracy to convict former President Lula.

On top of all this, Bolsonaro also wants to slash university funding in order to eliminate what he believes are “communist cells” embedded in this institution but which might very well lead to less opportunities for Brazil’s already underprivileged population if less educational options become available to them in the future. The country’s economy is already stagnating according to the state’s latest official report in this respect, and while one might be inclined to think that the government’s neoliberal policies and promised privatizations might attract more outside investors, that actually hasn’t been the case thus far. The prevailing uncertainty unleashed after the US’ Hybrid War opened up the Pandora’s Box of political unrest naturally scares international businessmen who aren’t sure whether it’s worth the risk to get involved at this point.

The possible clinching of a free trade deal between the Brazilian-led Mercosur and the EU in the near future might restore some macroeconomic hopes to the country, but it might also endanger the US’ plans to reach its own with the South American bloc too, potentially leading to more Hybrid War pressure to derail this development. In addition, Bolsonaro’s Brazil has tried to distance itself a bit from “fellow” BRICS member China on the pretext that its partner is taking advantage of it through lopsided agreements but which many suspect might also be a sign of fealty to the US. Whether Bolsonaro likes it or not, trade ties with China are exceptionally important for Brazil, and this signal of intent (which to his credit he has yet to implement on the scale that he promised during the campaign) has raised further worries about his country’s economic future.

Forgotten amidst all this socio-economic and political fretting is the fact that rainforest deforestation has risen over the past six months since Bolsonaro entered office, probably driven by people who feel emboldened by his plans to axe an environmental panel that protects this global treasure and also allow the mining of a vast reserve of it. The consequences of this trend getting out of control could truly be catastrophic for the entire world, yet there seems to be little interest in stopping it, let alone any practical proposals for doing so. Altogether, it’s not an exaggeration to say that Brazil has become a pretty bleak place to live ever since Bolsonaro took power, and while he veritably inherited a real mess (which was preexisting but exacerbated by the US’ Hybrid War), he hasn’t done anything to fix it and has only made it worse.

*

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.

First published by Global Research on June 24, 2017

“He [FBI Director James Comey] was fired because he was investigating the White House… This is the kind of thing that goes on in non-democracies.”Jeffrey Toobin (1960- ), legal analyst and former U.S. federal prosecutor, on CNN, Tues., May 9, 2017

 “I’m trying to avoid the conclusion that we’ve become Nicaragua.” General Michael Hayden (1945- ), former head of the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, Wed., May 10, 2017

“War is too serious a thing to be entrusted to military men.” Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929), French Prime minister, 1906-1909 and 1917-1920, in 1932

On Monday, June 12 2017, in his first public cabinet meeting, Trump is seen accepting a North-Korean-style pledge from his sycophant Cabinet members, on live television, after he had praised himself profusely. This was eerie: Watching all these secretaries humiliating themselves in lavishly praising the self-appointed ‘Great One’. They all echoed Trump’s Chief of Staff Reince Priebus who said:

“We thank you for the opportunity and blessing to serve your agenda.”

This was quite a totalitarian show, rarely seen in a democracy, but common in a dictatorship.

These secretaries (billionaires, CEOs, generals, etc.) were not saying that they were serving the people of the United States and its Constitution, to the best of their capabilities. No, instead, in a junta-like style, they said that they were serving the person of Donald Trump, above. all, not unlike the Cabinet appointees in North Korea are serving dictator Kim Jong-un. And, what is even worse, maybe, none of them thought of resigning, after being asked to shred any sense of self-respect in public, in the most servile manner.

This marked the day when the most skeptical among political observers had to realize that president Donald Trump is officially a would-be dictator in the making. As the popular saying goes,

“if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck”.

Very soon after his inauguration, Donald Trump began governing in authoritative way, issuing decree after decree, while attacking the press and the courts that stood in his way. Now, he seems to want the entire U.S. government to be at his personal service.

On February 17, I wrote a piece entitled “The Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump: a Threat to American Democracy and an Agent of Chaos in the World?” — Indeed, scandal after scandal, outrageous statements upon outrageous statements, insults after insults, falsehoods after falsehoods and self-serving idiosyncrasies after self-serving idiosyncrasies, Trump has confirmed the apprehensions of many, and he has clearly become “a threat to American democracy and an agent of chaos in the world”. One has to be blind or fanatically partisan not to see that.

A Possible Challenge to the U.S. Constitution 

The U.S. Constitution was adopted officially on September 17, 1787, 230 years ago, and came into force in 1789. That makes American democracy one of the oldest in the world. Its constitution’s main idea is the separation of powers and the rule of law, with checks and balances, a political doctrine originating in the writings of 18th century French social and political philosopher Montesquieu (1689-1755). More precisely, the U.S. Constitution states that the president, for example, can be removed for treason, bribery, or “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” under the authority of the U.S. Congress.

However, the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates (c. 469/470 BCE–399 BCE) was reported to have said to Plato (428-348 B.C.):

“Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty”.

What Socrates meant by these words, of course, is that democracy, notwithstanding its merits, is not a permanent form of government, but it is always threatened in its existence by the advent of tyranny, by autocratic or authoritative rule by a single person, a would-be dictator, by an oligarchy, which is the tyranny of a minority, or by the tyranny of a majority against minorities, when there are no legal protections for the individual or for groups, and it thus requires a constant vigilance on the part of citizens.

American Father of the Constitution George Mason (1725-1792) was also worried about democracy “when the same man, or set of men, holds the sword and the purse.” He feared that this could mean “an end to Liberty”.

Nevertheless, the writer of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), was more optimistic. He was confident that the U.S. Constitution was strong enough to prevent a would-be dictator or an oligarchy to usurp absolute power when he wrote, in 1798:

“in questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution”.

Was Thomas Jefferson too optimistic regarding the constraints a constitution imposes on people in power when the latter control money and the means of propaganda? Did he underestimate the possibility that political partisan interests, when a president is of the same political party that controls Congress, could, in fact, grant a sitting president, in advance, a statutory authority to violate the constitution at will, to govern by decree, or to wage wars of aggression abroad, at his discretion, without congressional due process?

Indeed, a constitution is a living document, which, as political history indicates, can be amended, circumvented or changed to fit the needs of power hungry men, when the circumstances are favorable to them. The U.S. Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of constitutional changes, can also be subverted, or filled with persons hostile to the very principles they are sworn to uphold.

In other words, a constitution is as good as the people in power who believe in its principles. If people in power no longer believe in its principles, they will find a way to change it or circumvent it. This is major lesson of the history of democracy: Democracies do die and they can be replaced by tyrannies.

During troubled political times or dire economic times, indeed, it can be feared that charlatans, demagogues, impostors, and would-be dictators could have a field day promising the people in distress easy and quick fixes for the lingering social and economic problems, in exchange for relinquishing their freedom. 

Two historical cases of “elected” dictators: In Italy in the 1920’s and in Germany in the 1930’s 

Italian newspaper editor Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) ruled Italy as Prime Minister and de facto dictator for more than twenty years (1922-1943). He was elected to the Italian Parliament on May 15, 1921, and his party, thanks to an alliance with rightist parties, gained thirty-five seats. From then on, Mussolini used violent and intimidating tactics to gain power. His Fascist blackshirt-followers launched a campaign to unseat the Italian government and they organized a “march to Rome”. On October 28, 1922, the then King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel III, turned down the existing government’s request to declare martial law to prevent a fascist revolution. This led to the resignation of the elected government.

Then, in a most controversial decision, the King asked Mussolini to form a new right-wing coalition government, with the support of the military, and of the wealthy industrial and agrarian Italian establishments. Mussolini’s political objective was to eventually establish a totalitarian state, with himself as “Supreme leader”. Mussolini legally became dictator through a law passed on December 24, 1925, which declared him “head of the government, Prime minister and State Secretary”, with no responsibility to Parliament, but only to the King. Armed with absolute powers, Mussolini then proceeded to progressively dismantle all constitutional and conventional restraints on his power. The rest is history. 

Let us also consider the case of Germany, some 85 years ago, a European democracy and the most advanced economy at the time. On January 30, 1933, in a Germany still mired in an economic depression, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) was named German Chancellor and head of a coalition government, even though his political party, the National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nazi Party) had not won a majority during the 1932 elections. Nevertheless, he had profited politically from the general dissatisfaction of voters with the way things were in Germany, politically and economically, and had promised an ‘effective’ government, besides promising to stimulate the economy by rearming Germany and by establishing new alliances.

Hitler became a de facto legal dictator on March 23, 1933, when the German Parliament (the Reichstag) adopted a law (the Enabling Act), giving Hitler’s cabinet the power to enact ‘executive orders’ without the consent of the Reichstag for four years. —In effect, Hitler could govern by decree. —He became a true dictator on August 19, 1934, when a German plebiscite approved the merger of the presidency with the chancellorship, thus making Hitler Head of State and Supreme Commander of the armed forces in that country. Hitler could then freely prepare the German economy for war.

A 1934 article published in the Green Bay Press-Gazette in the U.S. explained the political rise of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) in these terms:

“Adolf Hitler… tооk advantage of the groans. Hе told people that he would make Germany ‘great’ again. Hе blamed Jews, Socialists, Communists, and others for the troubles of the land. Hіѕ blazing speeches gained followers for his ‘cause’.”

Can Donald Trump Override the U.S. Constitution? 

Since the inauguration on January 20, 2017, incumbent President Donald Trump has shown a clear bent toward autocratic rule and has indicated his goal of boosting the U.S. military-industrial complex. For example, he declared on Thursday Feb 23, 2017, that he wants to build up the U.S. nuclear arsenal to ensure it is at the “top of the pack,” claiming that the United States has fallen behind in its atomic weapons capacity. 

In my book, The New American Empire, I wrote,

“The same simplistic populism, the same anti-intellectualism, the same aggressive isolationism, the same xenophobia, the same militarism, and the same scorn of international laws and institutions are found in some U.S. Republican leaders today. The United States is perhaps in greater danger than many think.” (p. 224).

I believe that these words could appropriately apply to the current Trump administration. In the coming months, the United States may face its most important democratic test ever.

An ominous danger: Leaving important war and peace decisions to the military 

A most reckless decision by Donald Trump was to grant American military chiefs overall control of U.S. military policy in Syria, thus leaving the U.S. military to operate in a political vacuum. Such a decision has greatly increased the risk of a military confrontation between the two main nuclear powers, the United States and Russia. A good example is the shooting down of a Syrian Air Force jet in Syria’s airspace, on Sunday June 18, 2017. This was presumably done to prevent the Syrian Army from getting directly involved in the liberation of Isis’s improvised capital Raqqa. The Syrian government is winning against the terrorist organization Isis, and that does not please the Trump administration at all.

Whatever the objective, besides the obvious hypocrisy, such an act of military aggression was clearly a violation of Syria’s sovereignty and a flagrant violation of not only international law, but also of U.S. law. It was, in fact, a premeditated act of war against a sovereign nation, with no involvement by the U.N. Security Council or by the U.S. Congress, as both international law and U.S. law require. And this was after Trump bombed, also illegally, a Syrian government air base, on Friday, April 7, 2017, on a false flag pretext. If this does not remind you of Hitler bombing Poland’s air fields on September 1^st 1939, what does? Indeed, would-be dictators do not like the rule of law, domestic or international. They always look for pretexts to launch wars of aggression to fit their agenda.

The truth is that Syria does not represent a threat to the USA—just as Poland did not represent a threat to Germany in 1939—and it has not attacked the United States, just as Poland had not attacked Germany. If this conflict were to degenerate into something even more serious, Donald Trump would have to take full personal responsibility for the chaos and the human disasters to follow.

Is it necessary to point out that Russia is legally in Syria, a member of the United Nations, having been officially invited by the legitimate Syrian government to defend itself against external aggression, while the U.S. has no legal basis whatsoever to be in Syria, has no legal right to conduct military operations in that country, and, therefore, is in clear violation of Syria’s sovereignty. Why is Donald Trump anxious to escalate the civil war conflict in Syria, with the help of al Qaeda terrorists, a conflict that could evolve into WWIII? Do ordinary Americans really approve of such incoherence, knowing that al Qaeda was behind 9/11 and 3,000 American deaths?

This is another example of Donald Trump’s brinkmanship and irresponsibility in international relations. This is also a far cry from the U.S. Constitution, which vests war decisions in Congress. It is true that, since WWII, the power of the U.S. President to wage war on his own has grown appreciably. —This is no progress. But Donald Trump, who has brought numerous generals into his administration (Marine general James Mattis, Marine general Joseph F. Dunford, Marine general, John F. Kelly), is now transferring basic war decisions to military commanders. Notwithstanding the fact that the latter are clearly in a conflict of interests on this score, because the more wars they start, the more promotions they receive.

That coterie of generals now forms a sort of parallel government in the Trump administration. Donald Trump may want to hide behind them to shift the political conversation from his domestic predicaments in Washington D.C. And, a war abroad is often a convenient rallying point for an American politician who is low in the polls. In other words, an escalating war in Syria could be in Trump’s short-term personal political interest.

The main losers from Trump’s policies: the poorest among Americans

Moreover, after a presidential campaign during which he promised to help disadvantaged voters and improve social programs for the poorest Americans, once in power, Donald Trump did pretty much the reverse of what he promised. Indeed, his nominations and his policies have mostly been designed to enrich large corporations, the Military-Industrial complex and, through planned tax cuts, the super rich among Americans, while depriving average and poorer Americans of health care, education and other essential social services.

In fact, states and counties where candidate Trump received the largest backing from voters are precisely the ones set up to loose the most from the Trump administration’s proposed cuts in welfare programs. On this regard, it can be said that politician Trump could be considered an impostor, defined as

“a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others.”

The newly elected president has also shown a serious lack of transparency and openness. He has tolerated that his immediate family’s wealth-seeking activities received favorable treatment from foreign governments, anxious to draw favors from the new administration. Similarly, he has not severed himself from obvious personal conflicts of interests, and he has not even released his tax returns as previous American presidents have done.

As a consequence of all of this, if the Democrats were to gain control of the House of Representatives in 2018, it is a virtual certainty that President Trump would be subjected to an impeachment procedure. Whether it will succeed is another matter. What is certain is that this will be most destabilizing for the economy.

Conclusion

Therefore, yes, a would-be dictator can be elected, most often, as history shows, with a minority of the votes. And no democratic constitution in the history of the world is totally protected against violations of its principles, if an oligarchy in power tolerates or welcomes them and when a substantial part of the population approves of them. That is why it would presumptuous for Americans to believe otherwise.

Economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, and of “The New American Empire”. 

Also published on The New American Empire

Please visit Dr. Tremblay’s site:
http://www.thenewamericanempire.com.

Please visit his multi-language international blog at:
http://www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.htm.

Featured image: credits to the owner

The Islamic State surrendered its last scrap of territory, in Baghouz, Syria, this past March.

While some argue that celebrations of IS’s demise are premature, there’s no question that the terrorist group left a trail of destruction in its wake.

Many lives were lost, of course. But a looming issue is the group’s legacy of looting.

During IS’s seemingly unstoppable rise, looted artifacts were said to be a significant source of income for the group. Value estimates ranged from a few million to several billion dollars.

One of the issues in media reports about the looting is that no one had a firm grasp of just how much was at stake. The dollar figures amounted to guesswork.

We still don’t know exactly what’s missing. But no one had identified the value, using empirical data and systematic calculations, of the artifacts that were known to exist in these archaeological sites. Until now.

With two Near Eastern archaeologists and two art market researchers on our team, we recently published a paper in the International Journal of Cultural Property that offers the first attempt to quantify the market value of artifacts at the level of a site.

The excavated objects’ total value was larger than we had expected. We found that just a small portion of a site can yield thousands of objects, adding up to millions of dollars.

An archaeological gold mine

For the study, we examined two sites from different time periods that housed two different types of settlements. The first, Dura Europos, was a Roman garrison town on the Euphrates with a multi-ethnic population. Four years ago, when satellite images revealed that Syria’s archaeological sites were being looted on a massive scale, the shots from Dura Europos showed a Swiss-cheese landscape of pits.

The second town we studied, Tell Bi’a, in northern Syria, was a major Bronze Age capital in the second millennium B.C.

In the early decades of the 20th century, archaeologists excavated roughly 40% of Dura Europos. About 10% of Tell Bi’a was studied in the 1980s and 1990s. Records at these two sites list over 13,000 objects, excluding coins.

Using a machine learning model, we compared archaeological records and sales records of over 40,000 antiquities from auction houses, galleries and dealers to predict what these objects would sell for. The goal was to match objects observed for sale on the art market with similar objects documented in excavation records.

Based on our model, the total estimated value of all artifacts, not including coins, excavated from Dura Europos to date is US$18 million. At Tell Bi’a, the estimate is $4 million. This range is partly explained by the different sizes of the two cities and the area that was excavated. It’s also explained by market interest: Greek and Roman artifacts, which comprise the large majority of objects found at Dura Europos, fetch higher prices at auction than Bronze Age items, which make up the majority of artifacts at Tell Bi’a.

It’s important to keep in mind that these dollar figures represent just slices of two sites. The most comprehensive database of Syrian archaeological sites, assembled by archaeologist Jesse Casana and collaborators at Dartmouth College, has identified roughly 15,000 major sites in the country. Data examined by Casana’s team suggest that 3,000 of those sites experienced some looting from the start of the Syrian Civil War in April 2011 to mid-2015.

A 2014 satellite image of Dura Europos published by the American Schools of Oriental Research. The detail in the top-right shows looting holes. (Source: DigitalGlobe, Inc.)

Not every site has the artifactual density or richness of Dura Europos. But if a small portion of a single site like Tell Bi’a is capable of generating $4 million in sales – and there are 15,000 major sites – it doesn’t take much imagination to see just how much of an archaeological gold mine the country is.

Again, these dollar figures do not tell us what IS – or any other looters – actually pocketed. Our numbers project the total estimated value of recorded artifacts excavated at a particular site to date. In other words, over the past four years, IS had a treasure trove of artifacts at their disposal that they were able to pawn on a whim.

We may never know the full extent of the loss.

What’s getting sold?

What should we do with these estimates?

First, any policy that hopes to tackle archaeological looting needs reliable market estimates that highlight the scope and scale of the issue. Our findings get us closer to a point where everyone’s on the same page.

Second, our data show that small objects account for the majority of market share. At Dura Europos, 50% of the total market value was generated by objects under 13 cm long, and at Tell Bi’a by objects under 7 cm long.

These small treasures can pack a big punch on the market. We’re not the first to suggest that such finds have outsize importance in the antiquities trade, and our data indicate that policies to address the black market – at least for Syrian antiquities – should focus on objects that can fit in looters’ pockets.

Our estimates also hint at possible features of the supply chain. Pairing our observations of market sales with existing evidence of farm gate prices – the price paid to looters at the source – we found that looters are paid just a small fraction of what objects would earn at their final destination. While evidence of farm gate prices is limited, it indicates that much of the final price may be going to middlemen or dealers.

Beyond the Islamic State

However this isn’t a story solely about IS. We know that multiple groups participated in archaeological looting during the Syrian war, including the Syrian government’s own army. IS did not invent looting; the group tapped into an existing looting infrastructure and intensified its scale and productivity. Archaeological looting is a global problem, and Syria will continue to be of interest to hobby diggers, renegade excavators and thieves.

Furthermore, archaeological sites aren’t just threatened by looters: Urbanization and climate change pose just as great a danger.

Of course, the legacy of Syrian wartime looting can’t just be measured in dollars. It’s a loss of culture and of historical knowledge. Archaeologists use artifacts to connect people, ideas and customs and track historical change. When an item goes missing, the ability to braid together such a rich history becomes that much harder.

Calculating the market value of an entire ancient city might be helpful for policymakers and scholars. But it doesn’t change what Syrians and Iraqis already know all too well: You can’t put a price on 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.

Fiona Greenland is an Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia

James Marrone is an Adjunct Lecturer of International Economics, Johns Hopkins University

Oya Topçuoğlu is a Lecturer, Northwestern University

Tasha Vorderstrasse is a University and Continuing Education Program Coordinator and Research Associate, University of Chicago

Featured image: A Syrian archeologist holds an artifact that was transported to Damascus for safe-keeping during the Syrian Civil War. (Source: AP Photo/Hassan Ammar)

Most years the annual gray whale migration along North America’s West Coast is a sure sign of spring. But this year something has gone wrong. Since January at least 167 dead whales have washed ashore from Mexico to Alaska. Scientists expect more in the weeks ahead.

One of the dead whales came to rest at the mouth of a river near my home. This was in May, in south-central Alaska. On a sunny evening my wife and I and our four-year-old daughter went out to see it.

A dead whale has a powerful stink to it, so we approached from the massive animal’s upwind side. It lays on its side in the sun, eyes closed and flukes resting flat on the silty beach. With ravens squawking from nearby cottonwoods and a bald eagle looking on from a riverside snag, we showed our daughter its blowhole, flippers, and the feathery baleen visible along the edges of its open mouth.

With the whale visible from a busy nearby road, a mix of residents and tourists came and went during our hour-long visit. Most stayed just long enough to snap a few photos. But others lingered to peer at the animal’s features or the square incisions biologists had made during their necropsy.

Scenes like this have unfolded up and down the West Coast in recent months. From Baja, Mexico, to Puget Sound to the remote shores of British Columbia, curious humans have strolled out to the continent’s edge to marvel at dead whales. Many brought their children. Some left behind flowers. And nearly everyone asked the same question my young daughter asked: “Why did the whale die?”

Why, indeed? We weren’t the only ones asking. Just a week earlier, the sudden spike led federal scientists to declare an “unusual mortality event,” triggering a special investigation.

Image on the right is from Steven Swartz/NOAA

Teasing out a common cause amidst all of these widely dispersed deaths can be daunting. Gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) have one of the longest migrations of any mammal, spanning 5,000 miles between Mexico’s Baja Peninsula and northern Alaska. This year’s dead whales have been found along nearly the whole length of their migratory route. At least 37 washed ashore in California, including twelve in San Francisco Bay. Thirty have been found in Washington. During the week of June 17 three whales discovered in Alaska brought that state’s total to ten.

Scientists say the whales on shore represent only a small portion of those that have died.

“It’s a rough calculation, but only about 10 percent of the mortalities are documented,” says John Calambokidis, a research biologist with the Cascadia Research Collective in Olympia, Washington. The remaining 90 percent, he says, either “sink, float out to sea, or otherwise go undocumented.” That means the death toll so far this year could actually be more than 1,000 individuals.

And we’re probably not done yet. Scientists expect more whales will wash ashore in the coming weeks as they continue north toward the Arctic, where they normally spend summers feasting in the rich waters of the Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort seas.

Seeking Answers

Dave Weller, a research wildlife biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in La Jolla, California, says the investigation begins with examining as many of the dead whales as possible before they begin decomposing.

“If we can access a dead whale in time, we can look for evidence of disease, viruses, malnutrition, or human causes such as collisions with ships,” he says.

Scientists along the West Coast have been busy performing necropsies on the dead whales, as described in a recent video from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. They measure the body, identify the sex, and take samples of the organs, blubber and feces. Each sample is a puzzle piece, helping assemble a picture of what’s occurring along the migration route.

Weller says many of the whales show signs of malnourishment. Examinations of a female gray whale found north of Seattle in early May revealed that she had starved to death. Another dead whale in Washington had eel grass in its stomach, evidence of “desperation eating,” according to one observer.

Image below: Gray whale and calf. Steven Swartz/NOAA

So far no results have been released for the gray whale I visited near my home in Alaska.

It’s not just the dead. Observers have also reported many “extremely malnourished” gray whales swimming off the West Coast this year, according to Calambokidis. Some have detoured into inland waters such as Los Angeles Harbor or San Francisco Bay, where several have been struck and killed by vessels.

Malnourishment makes scientists look north for answers. Gray whales do almost all of their feeding in Alaska, primarily by scooping tiny shrimp-like crustaceans called amphipods from muddy sediments on the ocean floor. They then rely on the fat reserves gained in Alaskan waters to survive their southward migration and the winter mating and breeding season in Mexico.

In one theory, malnourished whales may indicate the animals have reached the natural population level for their Arctic food supply. Population surveys show a steady increase in recent decades, with estimates now at 27,000 animals. It’s a successful recovery from the early 20th century, when commercial whaling reduced numbers to less than 2,000. Some researchers speculate that this year’s mortalities simply reflect the population has outpaced its Arctic food supply, leaving some whales without the reserves needed to return to Alaska.

Another theory is that dramatic warming in the Arctic in recent years has affected the gray whales’ food source. Since 2014 sustained heating in the Bering Sea has triggered an unprecedented loss of sea ice, which may have decreased the productivity of amphipods.

It’s also possible the two theories could be working in concert with each other. When a population reaches its carrying capacity, Calambokidis explains, it can become more vulnerable to environmental fluctuations such as the sudden loss of Bering Sea ice.

If rapidly changing Arctic conditions do play a role, this year’s gray whale deaths will join a growing list of wildlife mortality events connected to warming in the north. They include a massive collapse of West Coast sea star populations, a dramatic decrease in Alaskan cod harvests, and the starvation of thousands of puffins and murres in Alaska, all related to an extreme marine heat wave that began in 2013 in the northern Gulf of Alaska and lasted more than two years. Federal scientists also suspect warming contributed to unusually high mortality among fin and humpback whales in northern waters between 2015 and 2016.

Adding to questions about food web conditions in the Arctic, scores of dead ice seals have washed ashore in recent weeks in northern and western Alaska. Federal scientists have not identified a cause, but a NOAA spokesperson said reports indicate possible malnourishment or abnormal molting among some of the seals.

Image on the right: Bearded seal. Photo: NOAA News

It’s worth noting that this year’s gray whale deaths are unusual but not unprecedented. In 2000, 131 dead gray whales washed ashore on the U.S. coast during spring migration. Scientists did not conclusively determine the cause, but at least some of the whales were malnourished. Warming from a strong El Niño weather pattern was identified as a possible factor.

While scientists seek answers to the current mass mortality, the gray whale I visited with my family a few weeks ago remains stranded at the mouth of the river. Like the ones found on shores in other states, scientists may let it decompose naturally, a process that could take all summer for this 41-foot-long male.

Before his death this whale likely spent his final months swimming north toward the promise of his Bering Sea feeding grounds. What conditions he would have found there, and how they may affect other arriving whales, for now remains a mystery.

*

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.

Tim Lydon writes from Alaska on public-lands and conservation issues. He has worked on public lands for much of the past three decades, both as a guide and for land-management agencies. His writing has most recently appeared in High Country News, Terrain, The Revelator, The Hill and elsewhere.

Featured image is from the author

The Trump-Kim meeting at DMZ on June 30 took the world off guard; it was theatrical; it was historical. It gave a glimpse of hope for long waited peace on the Korean peninsula and the falling-down of the last frontier of the unholy cold war. 

Unfortunately, it seems that the media, think tanks and the political circles in the U.S. and elsewhere do not fully recognize the significance of the event.

I am asking two questions. What made the two world leaders to come to the meeting? What were the achievements of the meeting?

The objectives of the meeting can be different between Trump and Kim. We must remember how much Kim Jong-un was humiliated and angered by the failure of the Hanoi summit meeting in last February. We must remember that he took the one week-long painful train trip across China to show to the world how much he was sincere in solving the nuclear crisis.

But, he was betrayed by Trump. The Hanoi meeting has surely damaged his dignity, his pride and his leadership; he has lost his “face” in front of his people.

Since the Hanoi event, Kim had to do something to recover his leadership and find practical solutions to the nuclear issue and, at the same time, the problem of hunger and economic development.

He has taken some measures.

First, he has changed the negotiation team from the security team to the foreign affairs team possibly led by the first deputy minister of foreign affairs.

Second, this is important, Kim lost much of his faith in Washington; his mistrust about Trump, especially his advisors including John Bolton and Mike Pompeo has deepened.

Third, Kim might have abandoned the hope of freeing himself from never ending sanctions. It is possible that through the meetings with Xi Jinping and Putin, Kim has obtained the assurance for economic cooperation despite sanctions by Trump. In other words, Kim might have concluded that the relief from sanctions are not necessarily the first priority. This might have allowed Kim to meet Trump with a stronger bargaining position.

Fourth, Kim might have decided to focus, during the discussion with Trump on the preservation of his regime and national security. The regime preservation can be done through the establishment of liaison offices which will eventually become embassies.

It is likely to be easier for Trump to offer the regime preservation and security guarantee than the relief of sanctions for which the UN is involved.

If my assumptions regarding the sanctions and the regime preservation as well as security guarantee are correct, Kim might have come to DMZ without heavy burden; he might have come with a low level of hope. Therefore, he could be relatively easily satisfied with outcome of the meeting. In fact, after the 53-minute-chat with Trump, Kim looked pretty happy.

Fifth, it is important to know that it was not Kim who invited Trump; it was the latter who invited the former. This fact alone can contribute greatly the restoration of Kim’s dignity, his leadership and his “face” much tarnished in Hanoi.

In short, as far as Kim Jong-un was concerned, the DMZ meeting could offer decent rewards.

As for Trump, several factors seem to have led him to take the initiative for the meeting.

First, ever since the Hanoi event, Trump has not given up the hope for dialogue with Kim; in many occasions, he has been boasting about the good chemistry with Kim.

Second, he seems to regard the issue of North Korea differently from the Iran issue. Trump has taken much more belligerent approach to Iran, because Iran is capable of dominating the Middle East region, while North Korea has no capacity to dominate the region of East Asia. So, Trump could be more lenient toward Pyongyang.

Third, nuclear free North Korea could become friendly to the U.S. and it could be a part of China containment strategy.

Fourth, North Korea may be the true last economic frontier remaining in the region and the U.S. could participate, with ample benefits, in its economic development.

Fifth, owing to the devoted mediation of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea, the 70-year-old mutual mistrust between North Korea and the U.S. elite groups has been dissipated to some degree.

Sixth, the DMZ summit had the extraordinary timing to kill the huge impact of the second Democrats presidential election debate. The DMZ summit has completely eclipsed the media coverage of the Democrats debate. Thus, the summit was an important political gain for Trump.

Thus, both Trump and Kim had good reasons to come the summit meeting

Now, I am asking the question: “What are the summit’s accomplishments?” We may look at some possible positive results.

To begin with, the summit has proved that a summit could be organized with short notice, that it could take place with minimum cost and that it can take place often.

Moreover, the closed meeting of the two leaders lasted as long as 53 minutes, much longer than five minutes originally planned. Both Kim and Trump looked satisfied with the talk. Experts of Korean nuclear crisis suggest the following possible outcomes of the meeting.

First, Kim would have promised the dismantling of the Yongbyun nuclear facilities as well as missile launching pads. In exchange, Kim would have asked for his regime preservation and peace settlement. It appears that the relief of sanctions would have been given a lower priority.

Second, Trump might have accepted the “small deal” consisting of stepwise denuclearization in exchange of corresponding rewards by the U.S. That is, the Bolton’s idea of big deal could have been abandoned. By the way, Bolton was in Mongolia when the DMZ was taking place. This could mean a change in Trump’s strategy.

Third, it is true that the meeting did not produce concrete results; it is normal, because the meeting was not organized to produce them. The meeting was valuable in that it broke the stalemate of the nuclear dialogue and the reaffirmation of the mutual intention of continuing the dialogue.

On this point, the meeting was a success; new negotiation teams will be formed in a few week; the US team will be led by Stephen Biegun, US special representative for North Korea under Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State; the North Korea team could be led by Choe Son-hui, first deputy minister of foreign affairs under the direction of Ri Yong-ho, minister of foreign affairs.

Fourth, at the meeting, both leaders could have agreed to strengthen the top-down approach assisted by the bottom up consultations. It appears that the failure of the Hanoi summit was due to the lack of communication and coordination between the top and the bottom. It seems that now on, the top will more closely check the work of the negotiation teams.

Before closing my paper, I would like to add a few words about the reaction of media and politicians and brain-trust people. Most of these people are very negative about the meeting except Senator Bernie Sanders, leading Democrats president hopefuls and Pope Francis.

Their negative perception of the meeting is based on two main accusations, namely, the North Korea’s being not trustworthy and being a country of dictatorship.

As I pointed out in my previous Global Research papers, I am not sure which of the two countries is more untrustworthy. We must remember that the Framework Agreement of 1994 was broken by the U.S. and its allies, not by North Korea. In fact, if the U.S. and its allies respected the Agreement, North Korea would never have developed the nuclear weapons in the first place.

As for dictatorship, the history will tell you that the U.S. has supported countless terrible dictators all around the world. In South Korea, the U.S. has supported the merciless dictatorship of General Park Chung-hee and General Chun Doo-hwan. The argument that the U.S. would not deal with dictators is sheer hypocrisy.

The U.S. knew in advance that the government of General Chun would murder several hundred innocent citizens of Kwangju city on the 18th of May, 1980 with tanks and helicopters, yet the U.S. supported the criminals of the Chun government.

To sum up, I say this: I am glad that the DMZ summit took place. The FFVD (the Final Full Verifiable Denuclearization) is possible. But, Washington should abandon the “Big Deal” model and accept the stepwise denuclearization matched by relief of sanctions and other compensations leading eventually FFVD and lasting peace on the Korean peninsula. But the FFVD should guarantee North Korea’s self defence capacity.

However, to succeed in his attempt to denuclearize, Trump must free himself from the trap of demonization of North Korea perpetuated by the Washington Deep State oligarchy which goes for the maintenance of status quo of tension on the Korean peninsula so that they can sell more weapons to Korea.

*

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

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

Featured image is a White House photo

---

Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or large donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture will  be much appreciated.

This article was first published on May 19, 2011.

Author’s Note and Update

In recent developments, Ms. Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF is slated to become the next president of the European Central Bank (ECB). France’s president Emmanuel Macron acting on behalf of powerful banking interests was instrumental in Ms. Lagarde’s candidacy.

What media reports fail to mention is that Lagarde is a corrupt official involved in financial fraud. Her appointment to head the ECB is not matter of political debate or concern. She is an obedient instrument of the financial and banking establishment which controls both the IMF and the European Central Bank.

On December 20, 2016, A French court found IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde guilty of “negligence” in relation to a multimillion dollar Euro fraud while she was France’s finance minister in 2008. She is said to have approved “an award of €404m ($429m; £340m) transfer to businessman Bernard Tapie, [a crony of president Sarkozy] for the disputed sale of a firm.”

“Ms Lagarde, who always denied wrongdoing, was not present in court, having left Paris for Washington DC.”

The IMF board said it retained “full confidence” in her leadership. (BBC, December 20, 2016)

No questions asked: Despite her involvement in financial fraud at tax payers’ expense,  the French government at the time confirmed that they had full confidence in Ms. Lagarde.

Her leadership as head of the IMF has not been questioned. Christine Lagarde was reappointed in February 2016 to a second five-year term at the IMF.

Despite her record, she is now considered (July 2019) for the position of president of  the European Central Bank (ECB).

Eight years ago, Flashback to May-June 2011. The Dominique Strauss Khan (DSK) Honey Trap Scandal was instrumental in Lagarde’s accession to the IMF. And her role in the Euro 400 million financial transfer was casually ignored.

Regime Change: Dominque Strauss Khan (DSK), managing director of the IMF was framed and Christine Lagarde was appointed to replace him.

Media focus at the time centered on the story of  the alleged victim, the hotel housemaid, rather than on who was pulling the strings behind the scenes in what visibly was a political frame-up.

There was no firm evidence against Strauss-Kahn.  This was known to prosecutors at an early stage of the investigation. Had they released it, Lagarde would not have been chosen to replace DSK.

France’s Finance Minister Christine Lagarde was confirmed as Managing Director of the IMF on June 26th 2016. The report from the prosecutor was released to the media three days later, on  June 29.  

Lagarde was chosen to succeed Strauss Khan at the IMF, a few days prior to a New York Court ruling which completely exonerated Dominique Strauss Khan on the basis of lack of evidence.

If this information had been revealed a few days earlier, Lagarde’s candidacy would no doubt have been questioned.

Regime change was implemented at the IMF, not to mention preparations for the French presidential elections.

While Strauss Khan was dismissed following the 2011 scandal (despite the ruling of the New York court case which abandoned all charges again him) the 2008 financial scam involving Christine Lagarde was known to the French government. This however did not prevent her 2011 June appointment to the IMF.

Needless to say, not only did she retain her position at the IMF despite having been involved in a financial scam, she was appointed for a second term.

The appointment of Christine Lagarde in 2011 marks a major political turning point. Since the DSK affair, Europe’s political landscape has become increasingly pro-American.

The Washington consensus prevails. The application of IMF economic medicine had already been applied in several EU countries including Greece and Portugal during DSK’s mandate.  But in the course of the last few years, it has reached new heights. Drastic austerity measures have triggered unprecedented levels of unemployment. The entire European social  landscape is in crisis.

In many regards the DSK scandal was a watershed in the evolution of EU-US relations, with European governments becoming increasingly subservient to Washington’s demands.

Regime Change at the IMF. The Obama administration had demanded DSK’s replacement by a more compliant individual.

In retrospect, the framing of Strauss Kahn and the appointment of Lagarde had an impact not only on EU economic restructuring including the crisis in Greece, but also on the State structures of the French Republic.

The “Honey Trap” is a powerful instrument. Had DSK not been framed, Francois Hollande — who largely served US interests– would no doubt not have been elected president of the French Republic and Christine Lagarde would not have acceded to the positon of Managing Director if the IMF.

Michel Chossudovsky, February 27, 2o15, December 21, 2016, July 3, 2019

*     *     *

Regime Change at the IMF: The Frame-Up of Dominique Strauss-Kahn

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, 19 May 2011

The arrest of IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn has all the appearances of a frame-up ordered by powerful members of the financial establishment, in liaison with France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, whose presidency has served the interests of the US at the expense of those of France and the European Union. While there is for the moment no proof of a plot, the unusual circumstances of his arrest and imprisonment require careful examination.

Immediately following Strauss Kahn’s arrest, pressures were exerted by Washington to speed up his replacement as Managing Director of the IMF preferably by a non-European, an American or a handpicked candidate from an “emerging market economy” or a developing country.

Since the founding of the Bretton Woods institutions in 1945, the World Bank has been headed by an American whereas the IMF has been under the helm of a (Western) European.

Strauss-Kahn is a member of elite groups who meet behind closed doors. He belongs to the Bildeberger. Categorized as one of the world’s most influential persons, he is an academic and politician rather than a banker. In contrast to his predecessors at the IMF, he has no direct affiliation to a banking or financial institution.

But at the same time he is the fall guy. His “gaffe” was to confront the Washington-Wall Street Consensus and push for reforms within the IMF, which challenged America’s overriding role within the organization.

The demise of Strauss-Kahn potentially serves to strengthen the hegemony of the US and its control over the IMF at the expense of what former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called “Old Europe”.

Blocking Strauss-Kahn, the Presidential Candidate

In recent years, a major shift has occurred in Europe’s political landscape. Pro-American governments have been elected in both France and Germany. Social Democracy has been weakened.

Franco-American relations have been redefined, with Washington playing a significant role in grooming a new generation of European politicians.

The presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy has, in many regards, become a de facto US “client regime”, broadly supportive of US corporate interests in the EU and closely aligned with US foreign policy.

There are two overlapping and interrelated issues in the DSK frame-up hypothesis.

The first pertains to regime change at the IMF, the second to Strauss-Kahn as a candidate in France’s forthcoming presidential elections.

Both these processes are tied into the clash between competing US and European economic interests including control over the euro-currency system.

Strauss-Khan as a favorite of the Socialist Party, would have won the presidential elections leading to the demise of “Our Man in Paris” Nicolas Sarkozy. As documented by Thierry Meyssan, the CIA played a central undercover role in destabilizing the Gaullist party and supporting the election of Nicolas Sarkozy (See Operation Sarkozy: How the CIA placed one of its agents at the presidency of the French Republic, Reseau Voltaire, September 4, 2008)

A Strauss-Kahn presidency and a “Socialist” government would have been a serious setback for Washington, contributing to a major shift in Franco-American relations.

It would have contributed to weakening Washington’s role on the European political chessboard, leading to a shift in the balance of power between America and “Old Europe” (namely the Franco-German alliance).

It would have had repercussions on the internal structure of the Atlantic Alliance and the hegemonic role of the US within NATO.

The Eurozone monetary system as well as Wall Street’s resolve to exert a decisive influence on the European monetary architecture are also at stake.

The Frame-Up?

Fifty-seven percent of France’s population, according to a May 17 poll, believe that Strauss-Kahn was framed, victim of a set-up. He was detained on alleged sexual assault and rape charges based on scanty evidence. He was detained based on a complaint filed by the Sofitel hotel where he was staying, on behalf of the alleged victim, an unnamed hotel chamber-maid:

The 32-year-old maid told authorities that she entered his suite early Saturday afternoon and he attacked her, New York Police Department spokesman Paul J. Browne. She said she had been told to clean the spacious $3,000-a-night suite, which she thought was empty.

According to an account the woman provided to police, Strauss-Kahn emerged from the bathroom naked, chased her down a hallway and pulled her into a bedroom, where he began to sexually assault her. She said she fought him off, then he dragged her into the bathroom, where he forced her to perform oral sex on him and tried to remove her underwear. The woman was able to break free again and escaped the room and told hotel staff what had happened, authorities said. They called police.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7565485.html#ixzz1MfFWFlnY

Challenging the Washington Consensus 

What is at stake in the immediate wake of Strauss Kahn’s demise is “regime change” at the IMF.

The Obama administration has demanded his replacement by a more compliant individual. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, former CEO of the New York Federal Reserve Bank is pushing for the replacement of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, “suggesting he can no longer perform his duties” as IMF Managing director.

“Geithner called for greater formal recognition by the IMF board that John Lipsky, the fund’s second-in-command, will continue serving as temporary managing director for an interim period. Although Strauss-Kahn has yet to resign, sources say the IMF is in touch with his legal counsel to discuss his future at the organization.”

What lies behind the frame-up scenario? What powerful interests are involved? Geithner had a close personal relationship with Strauss-Kahn.

On the floor of the US Senate (May 18), Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, called for the resignation of DSK while calling upon the IMF’s deputy managing director John Lipsky to “assume full responsibility of the IMF” as interim managing director. The process of “permanent replacement should “commence at once,” he said. John Lipsky is a well connected Wall Street banker, a former Vice Chairman at JPMorgan Investment Bank.

While the IMF is in theory an intergovernmental organization, it has historically been controlled by Wall Street and the US Treasury. The IMF’s “bitter economic medicine”, the so-called Structural Adjustment Program (SAP), imposed on countless developing countries, essentially serves the interests of creditor banks and multinational corporations.

The IMF is not the main architect of these devastating economic reforms which have served to impoverish millions of people, while creating a “favorable environment” for foreign investors in Third World  low wage economies.

The creditor banks call the shots. The IMF is a bureaucratic entity. Its role is to implement and enforce those economic policies on behalf of dominant economic interests.

Strauss Kahn’s proposed reforms while providing a “human face” to the IMF did not constitute a shift in direction. They were formulated within the realm of neoliberalism. They modified but they did not undermine the central role of IMF “economic medicine”. The socially devastating impacts of IMF “shock treatment” under Strauss-Kahn’s leadership have largely prevailed.

Dominique Strauss Kahn arrived at the helm of the IMF in November 2007, less than a year prior to September-October 2008 financial meltdown on Wall Street. The structural adjustment program (SAP) was not modified. Under DSK, IMF “shock treatment” which historically had been limited to developing countries was  imposed on Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

Under the helm of DSK as Managing Director, the IMF demanded that developing countries remove food and fuel subsidies at a time of rising commodity prices on the New York and Chicago Mercantile exchanges.

The hikes in food and fuel prices, which preceded the September-October 2008 Wall Street crash, were in large part the result of market manipulation. Grain prices were boosted artificially by large scale speculative operations. Instead of taming the speculators and containing the rise in food and fuel prices, the IMF’s role was to ensure that the governments of indebted developing countries would not in any way interfere in the “free market”, by preventing these prices from going up.

These hikes in food prices, which are the result of outright manipulation (rather than scarcity) have served to impoverish people Worldwide. The surge in food prices constitutes a new phase of the process of global impoverishment.

DSK was complicit in this process of market manipulation. The removal of food and fuel subsidies in Tunisia and Egypt had been demanded by the IMF. Food and fuel prices skyrocketed, people were impoverished, paving the way towards the January 2011 social protest movement:

Fiscal prudence remains an overarching priority for the [Tunisian] authorities, who also see the need for maintaining a supportive fiscal policy in 2010 in the current international environment. Efforts in the last decade to bring down the public debt ratio significantly should not be jeopardized by a too lax fiscal policy. The authorities are committed to firmly control current expenditure, including subsidies,… (IMF Tunisia: 2010 Article IV Consultation – Staff Report; Public Information Notice on the Executive Board Discussion; and Statement by the Executive Director for Tunisia)

“[The IMF] encouraged the [Egyptian] authorities to press further with food and fuel subsidy reforms, and welcomed their intention to improve the efficiency and targeting of food subsidy programs. [meaning the selective elimination of food subsidies].

“Consideration should be given to introducing automatic adjustment mechanisms for domestic fuel prices to minimize distortions [meaning dramatic increases in fuel prices without State interference], while strengthening cash-based social programs to protect vulnerable groups. (IMF Executive Board Concludes 2008 Article IV Consultation with the Arab Republic of Egypt Public Information Notice, PIN  No. 09/04, January 15, 2009)

Under the helm of DSK, the IMF also imposed sweeping austerity measures on Egypt in 2008, while supporting Hosni Mubarak’s “efforts to broaden the privatization program”.(Ibid)

The Frank G. Wisner Nicolas Sarkozy Connection 

Strauss-Kahn was refused bail by Judge Melissa Jackson, an appointee and protégé of Michael Bloomberg, who in addition to his role as Mayor is a powerful figure on Wall Street.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. charged (using scanty evidence) Strauss-Kahn “with seven crimes, including attempted rape, sexual abuse, forcible touching and unlawful imprisonment”.

Who is Cyrus Vance Jr.?

He is the son of the late Cyrus Vance who served as Secretary of State (1977-1980) in the Carter administration.

But there is more than meets the eye. Nicolas Sarkozy’s step father Frank G. Wisner II, a prominent CIA official who married his step mother Christine de Ganay in 1977 served as Deputy Executive Secretary of State under the helm of Cyrus Vance Senior, father of District Attorney Cyrus Vance Junior.

Is it relevant?

In this courtroom drawing, Dominique Strauss-Khan, next to his lawyer

The Vance and Wisner families had close personal ties. In turn Nicolas Sarkozy had close family ties with his step father Frank Wisner (and his half brothers and sisters in the US and one member of the Wisner family was involved in Sarkozy’s election campaign).

It is also worth noting that Frank G. Wisner II was the son of one of America’s most notorious spies, the late Frank Gardiner Wisner (1909- 1965), the mastermind behind the CIA sponsored coup which toppled the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. Wisner Jr. is also trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Trust.

While these various personal ties do not prove that Strauss-Kahn was the object of a set-up, the matter of Sarkozy’s ties to the CIA via his step father, not to mention the ties of Frank G. Wisner II to the Cyrus Vance family are certainly worth investigating. Frank G, Wisner also played a key role as Obama’s special intelligence envoy to Egypt at the height of the January 2011 protest movement.

Did the CIA play a role?

Was Strauss-Kahn framed by people in his immediate political entourage including President Obama and Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner?

What was the role of Sarkozy’s Step-father:

• Sarkozy’s Step Father Frank G Wisner II, Deputy Executive Secretary of State (1976-79)
  under Cyrus Vance Senior during the Carter administration
• District Attorney Cyrus Vance Junior, son of the late Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State in the Carter administration

DSK and Timothy Geithner

DSK and Timothy Geithner

Fair Trial?

Innocent before proven guilty? The US media has already cast its verdict. Will the court procedures be manipulated?

One would expect that Strauss-Kahn be granted a fair trial, namely the same treatment as that granted to thousands of arrests on alleged sexual aggression charges in New York City.

How many similar or comparable alleged sexual aggressions occur on a monthly basis in New York City?  What is the underlying pattern? How many of these are reported to the police?  How many are the object of police follow-up once a complaint has been filed?

What is the percent of complaints submitted to police which are the object of police arrest? How many of these arrests lead to a judicial procedure? What are the delays in court procedures?

How many of these arrests lead to release without a judicial procedure?

How many of the cases submitted to a judicial procedure are dismissed by the presiding judge?

How many of the cases which are not dismissed are refused bail outright by the presiding judge? What is the basis for refusing bail?

How many are granted bail?  What is the average amount of bail?

How many are imprisoned without bail based on scanty and incomplete evidence?

How many of those who are refused bail are sent to an infamous maximum security prison on Rikers Island on the orders of  Michael Bloomberg.

Diplomatic Immunity

Press reports state that full diplomatic immunity does not apply to officials of the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions, namely that the US did not ratify the protocol.

“U.N. convention on privileges and immunities for international agencies that most countries have ratified. It gives the heads of U.N. agencies broad immunity in the countries where they are based. But the U.S. government never became a party to that treaty. Employees of international agencies are covered by a U.S. statute that gives only limited immunity.”

The relevant question is how has this limited immunity provision been applied in practice?  Namely how many people with limited immunity (UN officials, officials of the Bretton Woods institutions) have been arrested and sent to a high security prison?

Has Strauss Kahn been given the same treatment as those arrested under the provisions of “limited immunity”?

Does the Strauss Kahn arrest fit the pattern? Or is Strauss Kahn being treated in a way which does not correspond to the normal (average) pattern of police and judicial procedures applied in the numerous cases of persons arrested on alleged sexual assault charges?

Without a frame-up instrumented by very powerful people acting in the background, the head of the IMF would have been treated in an entirely different way. The mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg and Timothy Geithner would have come to his rescue.  The matter would have been hushed up with a view to protecting the reputation of a powerful public figure. But that did not happen.

---

The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Order Online Here

In this new and expanded edition of Chossudovsky’s international best-seller, the author outlines the contours of a New World Order which feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women. The result as his detailed examples from all parts of the world show so convincingly, is a globalization of poverty.

This book is a skilful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically.

In this new enlarged edition –which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction– the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation.

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

---

Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order

Michel Chossudovsky

Published in 14 languages. More than 140,000 copies sold Worldwide.

In these unprecedented economic times, the world is experiencing as a whole what most of the non-Industrialized world has experienced over the past several decades. Michel Chossudovsky takes the reader through a nuanced examination of the intricacies of the global political-economic landscape and the power players within it; specifically, looking at how the World Bank and IMF have been the greatest purveyors of poverty around the world, despite their rhetorical claims to the opposite. These institutions, representing the powerful Western nations and the financial interests that dominate them, spread social apartheid around the world, exploiting both the people and the resources of the vast majority of the world’s population. As Chossudovsky examines in this updated edition, often the programs of these International Financial Instittutions go hand-in-hand with covert military and intelligence operations undertaken by powerful Western nations with an objective to destabilize, control, destroy and dominate nations and people, such as in the cases of Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

To understand what role these international organizations play today, being pushed to the front lines and given unprecedented power and scope as ever before to manage the Global Economic Crisis, one must understand from whence they came. This book provides a detailed, exploratory, readable and multi-faceted examination of these institutions and actors as agents of the ‘New World Order,’ for which they advance the ‘Globalization of Poverty.’

Published by Global Research: Order Online Here

Hostile White House rhetoric against nonbelligerent Iran continues menacingly.

It should terrify everyone for pushing things toward possible war on the country, a nation of 81 million people, second in regional population size to Egypt, armed with sophisticated weapons able to hit back hard if attacked. 

Trump regime hardliners Bolton and Pompeo want war on the country, pushing Trump in this direction.

He’s manipulated by hardliners in charge of his geopolitical agenda, including Pentagon hawks, somewhat restrained by their cooler head counterparts — knowing war on Iran would be a far greater undertaking than other nations the US attacked since Vietnam.

A similar quagmire could result, including body bags returning home, highlighted by media hostile to Trump, wanting him defeated in 2020.

At the same time, the fourth estate is militantly hostile toward Iran, on board for transforming the country into a US client state, wanting Israel’s main regional rival eliminated by restoring pro-Western fascist rule over Iranian sovereign independence.

The fullness of time will tell what’s coming. Will or won’t the Trump regime attack Iran preemptively?

If happens it’ll likely follow a significant false flag incident, most likely resulting in US casualties, the way to arouse public anger and enlist congressional support — the Islamic Republic wrongfully blamed for what it surely won’t have anything to do with.

Trump regime arrogance is breathtaking. A July 1 White House statement threatened Iran more than already.

It came in response to Tehran’s legal JCPOA right to increase its uranium enrichment beyond limits it voluntarily agreed to observe.

Foreign Minister Zarif said his nation “surpassed the 300kg (low-uranium enrichment) limit, and we had already announced” an intention to exceed it,” adding:

“(W)e have said very clearly what we are doing and consider this as part of our rights as per the JCPOA.”

He, President Rouhani, and other Iranian officials said uranium enrichment would increase because Britain, France, Germany, and the EU breached their JCPOA obligations.

If they fulfill them ahead, Iran will reduce the amount of uranium it enriches, so far not exceeding a 3.67 level, far below the 90% level required to produce nukes.

No evidence whatever suggests Iran wants to develop and produce these WMDs it considers hostile to Islam, wanting them eliminated everywhere.

Arms Control Association executive director Daryl Kimball explained that no international standard prohibits Iran from enriching uranium, saying it “is not the case” that Tehran is in breach of its nuclear obligations. “That is the (unjustifiable) American position.”

The White House called it “a mistake under the Iran nuclear deal to allow Iran to enrich uranium at any level” — its legal right, the same as 31 other nations with nuclear reactors, and over 50 others with nuclear research reactors.

The White House claim that

“(t)here is little doubt that even before the deal’s existence, Iran was violating its terms” sounded like a nonsensical (GW) Bushism adding:

“We must restore the longstanding nonproliferation standard of no enrichment for Iran” — legal under Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and JCPOA.

“The United States and its allies will never allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons” it clearly doesn’t want.

At the same time, US officials ignore nuclear armed and dangerous Israel, also maintaining illegal stockpiles of chemical, biological and other banned weapons.

A same-day State Department disinformation statement was more hostile than the White House.

It falsely accused Iran of “tak(ing)  new steps to advance its nuclear (weapons) ambitions” — a bald-faced Big Lie.

Nor is the Islamic Republic the “world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism (sic)…us(ing) its nuclear program to extort the international community and threaten regional security (sic)” — dubious distinctions applying to the US, NATO, Israel, and their imperial partners.

These nations “pose (the) great(est) danger to the region and to the world,” mainly because of Washington’s hegemonic rage to control all other nations, their resources and populations.

Wars of aggression against sovereign independent countries threatening no one is its longstanding favored strategy — military Keynesianism on steroids.

Throughout most of the post-WW II era, Washington’s permanent war agenda has been and remains official policy by both right wings of the one-party state.

The late Seymour Melman explained that “every major aspect of American life is being shaped by our Permanent War Economy.”

Its horrific toll includes aggressive prioritizing wars over essential homeland needs, thirdworldizing the nation at the same time.

Half or more of US households are poor, disadvantaged, uneducated, “disconnected from society’s mainstream, restless and unhappy, frustrated, angry, and sad,” Melman stressed.

“State Capitalism” reflects the American way, an insidious government/business partnership.

It features permanent wars, debauched leadership, lost industrialization, crumbling infrastructure, and deprived millions on their own, uncared for, unwanted, ignored, and forgotten to assure steady funding for America’s wars and corporate handouts at the expense of peace, equity and justice.

Things have been on an ominous trajectory toward possible US war on Iran since Trump illegally withdrew from the JCPOA, an international agreement, unanimously adopted by Security Council members, making it binding international law, requiring all nations to observe its provisions.

Trump accusing Iran of “playing with fire” sounds ominously like his earlier “fire and fury like the world has never seen” threat against North Korea.

There’s no way to know for sure what’s coming, but some signs give hope. Pompeo and Bolton haven’t swayed NATO nations to join a US coalition for war on Iran — except perhaps for Britain, joined at the hip with Washington for all its wars of aggression.

Most Dems, some Republicans, and cautious Pentagon commanders oppose attacking Iran. Future events could change things dramatically.

Pre-WW II, Congress and the US public overwhelmingly opposed US involvement in Europe’s war. Japan’s Pearl Harbor attack transformed national sentiment from pacifism to raging anger against Japan.

House and Senate members near-unanimously approved a declaration of war, one congressional member alone opposing it.

As the saying goes, the rest is history. The 9/11 mother of all false flags was a second Pearl Harbor. Will a third one launch war on Iran?

False flags are a longstanding US tradition since the mid-19th century. No matter how many times Americans are fooled, they’re easy marks to be duped again.

War on Iran would be disastrous for the country, region, and world peace — why it’s crucial for nations and activists against it to go all-out to prevent US aggression against another nonbelligerent nation, supporting the rule of law, threatening no one.

*

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 Iranian Presidency/Anadolu Agency

It’s officially summer. Time for a swim, a cold beer, and a new slew of catastrophic climate changes…

• Temperatures in Greenland were 40 degrees above normal in June, causing 2 billion tons of ice to melt away in a single day. That’s the equivalent of 800,000 Olympic swimming pools.
• Scientists observed that the Arctic permafrost has begun to thaw a full 70 years before they expected it to—indicating the climate is warmer than it has been in at least 5,000 years—and potentially unearthing vast quantities of greenhouse gases trapped underground.
• Arctic sea ice coverage neared record lows this spring. Loss of arctic ice threatens plant and animal life, indigenous communities, and leads to extreme weather in other parts of the world.

It’s all alarming. But to officials in the Trump administration, it represents just another golden opportunity to profit. In April, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke to the Arctic Council—that’s the governmental group that gathers countries with territory in the Arctic region and indigenous peoples to cooperate on “issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic.”  Pompeo didn’t seem concerned about sticking to the council’s formal mission statement; he could barely contain his excitement about the new waterways and resources opening up due to the accelerating sea ice melt.

“The Secretary is looking at this with blinders on,” says Ray Pierrehumbert, Halley Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford and lead author of the IPCC Third Assessment Report. For the latest installment of Say WHAT?—the Bulletin’s video series that casts a wry eye at wrongheaded policy—we watched the Arctic Council speech with Pierrehumbert and captured his reaction to some of Pompeo’s most flabbergasting statements.

*

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.

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has taken steps to ban the sale of Cuban cigars Cohiba in Brazil.

According to O Globo, Bolsonaro’s administration justified the measure saying that the cigars had “excessive sorbic acid” when evaluated by the Brazilian National Health Oversight Agency (Anvisa).

Yet the company, Emporium, which has been managing the cigars’ importations for the past two decades, denied the allegations.

“There is no additive of any kind in the cigars, this is a 100 percent natural product.”

As a result of Anvisa’s evaluation on May 23, the registration of Cohiba’s brand was not renewed, and the agency gave the company a 30-day deadline to collect the product, automatically prohibiting its sales across the country.

However, Cohiba contested the measure, temporarily lifting the ban until an administrative court judges the case.

Cohiba, as a brand, was born in 1966 and for decades it has been recognized worldwide as a top brand for cigars and cigarettes. The products are sold all over the world, except the United States, where its sale is prohibited by the commercial, economic and financial blockade imposed on Cuba for more than six decades.

*

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 Wikimedia Commons

There had been earlier skirmishes, threats, talk of retaliation and warnings of dire consequences, but the trade war between the United States and China started in earnest on July 6, 2018 when Washington implemented its first China-specific tariffs. It ended just short of a year later, and though Chinese officials are too polite to publically proclaim victory, from their point of view, the outcome can be viewed in a favorable light.

At first glance, it hardly seemed a telling blow. No trumpets sounded, no flags were lowered, no treaties signed. But a meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan, US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to resume trade talks that had broken down in May. So? Hardly a surrender. Just a brief lull, a pause before hostilities re-commence? No. This is a moment of far more significance and one that many in the West do not fully appreciate. If the deal had been just to postpone tariffs Trump had threatened to impose on an additional $300 billion annually in Chinese imports then it could be considered a strategic retreat. After all, Trump will not overhaul the relationship with the world’s second-biggest economy as the 2020 election looms.

But lifting certain commercial restrictions in the US on Huawei, a computer firm seen as a Trojan Horse for the Chinese military, and reports that the Trump administration will allow North Korea to keep its nuclear weapons suggest a more defining moment has arrived. The Chinese have always denied that Huawei has links to its military. But then they would say that, wouldn’t they? But from the Chinese perspective, they believe many US companies operating in China have links to the US military. After all, did not Ike Eisenhower warn in his 1961 farewell presidential address of the threat posed by the industrial military complex. It hasn’t lessened since then.

This is a major reversal by Washington who had told its European allies, especially Britain, that any dealings with Huawei would endanger defense ties.

Just in May, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned London to prioritize its security interests and those of its allies when dealing with Huawei.

He hinted that the US could re-consider some of its extensive defense and economic interests in the UK.

This is the second time the Trump administration has backed down with a Chinese tech giant.

In June 2018, about the time the trade war started, the US Commerce Department lifted a ban on selling components to Chinese firm, ZTE Corps which had been accused of violating sanctions against Iran and North Korea. It coughed up more than $1 billion in fines. That came after a personal appeal from Xi to Trump.

North Korea seems less clear cut but the genie is out of the bottle. John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser, dismissed media reports that claimed the Trump administration was considering negotiating a nuclear freeze by North Korea, rather than complete denuclearization.

Trump said in March that

“North Korea has an incredible, brilliant economic future if they make a deal, but they don’t have any economic future if they have nuclear weapons’’.

But crucially North Korean leader Kim Jong-un believes that he can have both a developing relationship with the US and maintain his nuclear arsenal. A nuclear freeze is on the table. Beijing may not like Kim but it views a stable and more prosperous North Korea as vital for its own security. And China knows that, when dealing with Trump, the art of the deal is not boasting about it.

*

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

Tom Clifford is an Irish journalist based in China.

Featured image is from The Bullet