Global Research

The British government licensed arms deals worth over £14m ($17.8m) to Israel last year even as Israeli soldiers were accused of intentionally firing on Palestinian protesters at the Gaza border in what the UN says may be potential war crimes.

Weapons approved for sale included ammunition, components for assault rifles, and other types of arms which could be used for repression, according to newly released details from the Department of International Trade (DIT), compiled by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT).

Revelations of the sales to Israel come after a UK court ordered the British government last week to stop approving arms sales to Saudi Arabia because it failed to fully assess whether the equipment might be used in breach of international humanitarian law in the war in Yemen.

One sale for more than $125,000-worth of military training equipment was approved on 18 May last year, four days after 68 Palestinians were killed by Israeli troops on the most deadly day in Gaza since the 2014 Israeli offensive.

The DIT declined to give MEE more details about the equipment and how it could be used.

The sale was approved the same week Prime Minister Theresa May called the Palestinian killings “extremely concerning,” and said there was an urgent need to find out why Israeli forces had used live fire.

“While we do not question the right of Israel to defend its borders, the use of live fire and the resulting loss of life is deeply troubling,” May said in a 15 May press conference. “We urge Israel to show restraint.”

The violence at the border was debated in parliament on the same day, with seven MPs calling for greater scrutiny of arms sales to Israel and some calling for an outright ban.

But the approval of licences continued, including military radar equipment, missile technology and night-vision gear, totalling about $18m between 30 March until the end of the year.

That figure does not include sales that were approved through what are called open licences, whereby UK firms are not required to publicly disclose the values of arms or quantities sold.

Use of these opaque licences to sell arms to states in the Middle East and North Africa rose by 22 percent between 2013 and 2017, MEE has reported.

MEE understands that the DIT reviewed export licenses for Israel following the events at the border in May 2018 but found nothing to indicate that UK-supplied equipment had been used in a way that violated licensing criteria. It would, however, revoke licences if that assessment changed.

A DIT spokesperson told MEE:

“All export licence applications are considered on a case-by-case basis against international criteria, including respect for human rights. We will revoke any licenses found to be no longer consistent with these standards.

“We keep all defence exports under careful and continual review.”

‘The message it sends’

But CAAT spokesperson Andrew Smith said that while it’s not clear whether UK-made weapons were specifically used on protesters, it is the symbolism of the UK sales, which have continued through Israeli offensives on Gaza in 2008 and 2014, that matters.

“If shooting on the border didn’t stop the arms sales, if the bombardment in 2014 and 2008 didn’t stop them, what more will it take?” Smith said.

“The message it sends is that, no matter what atrocities are inflicted on the Palestinian people, arms sales will continue.”

By continuing to arm and support the Israeli military, he added, the UK is “only making it more likely that UK-made weapons will play a devastating role in the future”.

Asked about the figures, Palestinian Ambassador to the UK Husam Zomlot told MEE it is the sole responsibility of the British government to ensure that its arms sales are lawful, but he said there was a wider legal context to consider beyond the arms trade.

“The UK government can only say if it has done its due process. We are not aware of such a process to ensure that these weapons do not harm innocent Palestinians and they do not end up aiding Israel in its illegal occupation and colonisation of the land and people of Palestine,” he said.

“It’s not just about a direct specific incident only, but it’s also about the overall macro picture of the entire illegal situation of a state that has been in control of another and in daily violations of basic UK and international law.”

Shortly before the mass killing on 18 May, the UK parliament’s Committee on Arms Export Controls, the government’s arms export watchdog, wrote to Trade Secretary Liam Fox, asking whether he had any information about how sniper rifles and their components approved for sale to Israel in January 2017 had been used.

Fox responded that the company which exported the rifles and components used them to test ammunition in the company’s own firing range.

“We were satisfied that there was not a clear risk that these items might be used for internal repression or in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law,” he wrote.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle, an MP and member of the committee, said the answer had been “rather dissatisfactory” and called for end-use auditing that was more far-sighted.

“There is no good sending Israel arms in relative peace assuming the risk of it using them is low only to realise it is too late when it launches another disproportionate assault on their neighbours,” he said.

According to Palestinian Ministry of Health figures released on Sunday, 306 people have been killed and 35,529 injured in what have been called the Great March of Return protests.

The ongoing initiative began in March 2018 after a call from local civil society actors urged Palestinians to engage in a mass march towards the Gaza fence in opposition to Israel’s 11-year-old siege on Gaza.

A United Nations inquiry released earlier this year found that Israeli soldiers intentionally shot civilians and may have committed war crimes in their heavy-handed response to the protests.

*

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: Palestinian take cover as Israeli forces fire at protesters at the Gaza border on 14 December 2018 [Mohammed Asad/Middle East Monitor]

The attitudes of Democratic voters toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict have become decidedly more balanced in the past two decades. Favourable attitudes toward Palestinians are up, while attitudes toward Israel appear to be in decline. While overall views of Israel remain positive, substantial numbers of Democrats are opposed to Israeli policies, namely illegal settlement construction and violations of Palestinian rights. Israel’s leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is also viewed negatively by most Democrats.

These shifts in opinion have placed many Democratic presidential candidates in a bind, especially those who have served in Congress or as governors. As conscious as they may be of their base’s changing mood, they have also been schooled not to alienate pro-Israel donors or cross Israel’s lobbyists, who can, if aroused, distract their campaigns with a barrage of protests.

It was against this backdrop that I watched the results of a months-long New York Times project, in which they interviewed 21 of the Democrats running for president on a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that will confront the next president. There were questions on Afghanistan, handguns, healthcare, immigration and the death penalty.

Most intriguing to me was question no. four: “Do you think that Israel meets international standards of human rights?” because it was deeply revealing about each of candidates’ principles and their understanding of and readiness to deal with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

It was disturbing how few of the candidates appear to have given the matter any serious thought. With the notable exceptions of Senator Bernie Sanders, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and congressmen Eric Swalwell and Seth Moulton, most of the elected officials stumbled about like frightened high schoolers being asked a test question, for which they had not prepared.

Only a handful found the inner strength to suggest that Israel was, in fact, violating human rights. Most respondents hedged their replies noting the challenges Israel faces or “Israel attempts meet human rights standards… but could do a better job.” A few, senators Kamala Harris and Michael Bennet, Mayor Bill de Blasio and Congressman John Delaney, actually indicated that they believed that Israel was upholding human rights. Some, instead of addressing the question, shifted to a more comfortable critique of the failings of President Donald Trump or Prime Minister Netanyahu, as if to suggest that problems began with these two leaders.

Additionally, those who hedged their answers implying that Israel’s record was less than perfect offered, as their way out of appearing to be critical of Israel, something like, “Israel’s trying to do the right thing, but sometimes they fail and need our help.” Finally, other than the few that mentioned illegal settlement expansion, most failed to consider other human rights violations that occur in occupied Palestine. The only Democrat who did was Seth Moulton, who cited his earlier support for legislation calling for “not supplying Israel with weapons and goods if they do not uphold standards for the treatment of Palestinian kids in prison”.

As they awkwardly struggled to get out of the challenge foisted upon them, you could almost see the wheels spinning inside their heads weighing their need to assert their pro-Israel bona fides with the newly-felt need to be relevant to the changing mood of the Democratic electorate. It was for many “a damned if they do, damned if they don’t” situation.

What became painfully clear was the extent to which most of the candidates, either because they were loath to offer any criticism of Israel or because they simply had no idea how to answer this question, found themselves forced to recall comfortable, though irrelevant, talking points.

The top-of-mind reply of a majority of the respondents was a variation of “Israel is our most important ally” or “Israel is a liberal democracy”, completely dodging the question asked. Equally off-topic was the support a majority of the candidates expressed for a “two-state solution”.

You can read the transcripts of their comments, but far more interesting was watching their faces as they struggled to answer this simple question. First, there was the obvious discomfort at being called upon to talk about a topic they would rather avoid. Then, you could see them fumbling about trying to remember talking points and looking for a safety net. At one point, you can see the lights go on when they recalled the magical “two-state solution” formula. It was as if at the end of a long and gruelling half-baked answer to an unwanted question, they remembered “Ah ha! Two states, that is the way out of this mess.” Then without any connection to the question or anything they had said up until that point, they would shift into their comfort zone and say “we should be doing more to press the parties to negotiate a two-state solution”, end of answer and smile, as if they were saying “Phew! Did I get out of that one?”

What is especially troubling about this “fall back” two-state solution answer, in addition to the fact that it had nothing to do with the question that was asked, is that most seemed to act as if just saying they supported two states absolved them of needing to say or do more, for this reason, I have come to refer to it as “the two-state absolution”. The notable exception here was Congressman Julian Castro, who acknowledged that illegal settlement expansion made the goal of two states “harder”.

Most disappointing was the non-response of the usually thoughtful Senator Elizabeth Warren, who said that she would urge the Israelis and Palestinians to “come to the table and negotiate” and then “stay out of the way to let them negotiate”, as if that had never been tried before and as if the ascendancy of far-right in Israel is not hell-bent on doing everything they can to avoid an independent Palestinian state.

The bottom line is that most of the Democrats running for president have a long way to go to in dealing with Israel/Palestine. The reason is simple. Because of the pervasive presence and power of pro-Israel forces, elected officials have long taken a “hands-off” approach to dealing with this issue. Many have learned that stepping “out of line” brings painful results, calls that tie up their office phones and angry e-mails that fill up their inboxes, leading them to avoid this issue like a disease. The result is what I called “willed ignorance”. They focus on “their issues”, the ones that got them elected and ignore those that can only bring trouble. Therefore, they do not receive or even request briefings on this critical question.

But the situation is changing. The evolving attitudes of the electorate, especially key blocs of Democratic voters and the disgust of many Democrats with Netanyahu’s policies and the Trump/Netanyahu “love-fest”, all point to the fact that this will not be the last time uncomfortable questions about Israel-Palestine will be asked. It is time for those who hope to lead us to take the time to learn about this issue that has vexed every US president for 70 years.

*

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.

James J. Zogby is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.

Featured image is from NDTV

A coup attempt in the historic Ethiopian core region of Amhara was narrowly thwarted even though the state chief was killed and the country’s top military leader was assassinated in a related incident that later took place in the capital, with the failure of this regional regime change effort saving Africa’s second most populous country from civil war and subsequent collapse, at least for now.

The “Ethiopian Gorbachev”

It’s been less than a year and a half since 42-year-old former intelligence official Abiy Ahmed took the reins of Africa’s second-largest country following what amounted to a de-facto “soft coup” in the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), after which he rapidly implemented radical domestic and international political reforms that saw several opposition groups delisted from their previous “terrorist” designation and the clinching of a peace accord with neighboring Eritrea. Ethiopia was in the news for all the right reasons and it looked like the country was on the path to becoming one of Africa’s rising powers, but the “Ethiopian Gorbachev’s” reforms unwittingly opened up the Pandora’s Box of ethno-regionalist tensions over its internal borders, which became more important of an issue than ever before after many came to believe that PM Abiy was sending signals of his eventual intent to decentralize the state.

Domestic Political Context

Africa’s second most populous country is already legally a federation but the former Tigrayan-led faction (Tigray People’s Liberation Front, TPLF) of the ruling party that had previously run Ethiopia prior to PM Abiy’s “soft coup” never allowed this to enter into practice, thus making it a de-facto centralized state in contravention of the constitution. Even so, while the old state of affairs had serious faults, such as its refusal to meet the regional demands of the Oromo people (the largest plurality in the country at roughly a third of the population and strategically concentrated in its central region) which almost pushed it towards civil war before PM Abiy’s appointment, it nevertheless largely kept the peace in the rest of the country through its heavy-handed leadership style. It eventually became apparent, however, that this was backfiring in the Oromia Region, hence the decision to elevate one of that group’s ethnic representatives — PM Abiy — as the head of state in a bid to placate the increasingly violent protesting masses.

OLF forces retreat into Kenya, February 3, 2006 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Although Ethiopia has moved past the original Oromo Crisis that almost brought it to the brink of civil war, it’s unwittingly triggered several other ones all across the country following the explosion of ethno-regionalist nationalism that was unleashed as a result of PM Abiy’s Gorbachev-like reforms. The internal administrative borders of the East African giant don’t completely correlate to the actual ethnic distribution in the country despite certain groups being contiguous local majorities between states. For example, several well-known fault lines exist between the Oromia and Somali Regions, as well as between the Amhara and Tigray ones too. Minorities in one region, which constitute the majority in the adjacent one and are contiguous to each other across state lines, are afraid that the de-facto implementation of decentralization will make them victims of nationalist policies by the titular nation of their host region. Naturally, those said titular representatives and their supporters believe that the ethnic minorities in their region (which constitute a majority in the adjacent one) are stealing their people’s land, which has given rise to several local conflicts as state control loosened.

Abiy’s Ethiopia = Gorbachev’s USSR?

In spite of PM Abiy’s well-intended reforms, modern-day Ethiopia has become just as much of an ethno-regionalist tinderbox as the former Soviet Union was in the twilight years of Gorbachev’s leadership, with the only thing missing being the spark to set the whole state ablaze. The TPLF’s home region of Tigray is already largely opposed to PM Abiy’s reformist government as it is, and Ethiopians haven’t forgotten the military finesse of this comparatively minuscule minority (~6% of the total) in being the leading vanguard that made victory against the communist Derg possible during the last civil war. Furthermore, the Amhara — the second-largest plurality at slightly over 25% of the population — have always considered themselves to be the core of the Ethiopian nation and are inclined towards centralization, both de-facto and de-jure (like during the Imperial, Derg, and TPLF-led EPRDF eras). A rebellion in this region could conceivably cut neighboring Tigray off from the central government even more so than it already is, thus laying the ground for another civil war unless the government reversed its radical reforms.

Asaminew’s Coup Attempt In Amhara

The aforementioned context explains some of the strategic reasoning that went into the recent coup attempt, which was led by Amhara security chief Asaminew Tsige, who was released from prison last year after serving nearly a decade behind bars for involvement in a 2009 coup plot. PM Abiy let him and many others free over the past year and a half as a goodwill gesture to promote national reconciliation and signal the seriousness of his reforms, with the idea possibly being that if Asaminew and others were opposed to the TPLF-led EPRDF, then that makes them natural allies of his reformist government. That was a colossal mistake in hindsight because it overlooked the modus operandi of the 2009 coup plot, which Reuters described at the time as “using assassinations and bombings to create enough chaos to get supporters on the streets to topple the government.” In other words, Asaminew planned to wage HybridWar on Ethiopia by using Unconventional Warfare (terrorism, assassinations, bombings, etc.) to catalyze a Color Revolution that he and his cohorts hoped would lead to the reversal of reforms and/or regime change.

That’s exactly what he attempted to do last weekend, when a team of his operatives assassinated Amhara’s regional leader and then an allied bodyguard killed the country’s top military leader shortly thereafter in the capital of Addis Ababa. Shortly before his coup attempt, Asaminew publicly urged his fellow Amhara to take up arms and form militias to defend their region, and it was actually this simmering security threat that the region’s chief was holding a meeting about when he was killed. Had Asaminew and his ilk successfully seized power in Amhara after decapitating Ethiopia’s military leadership through the chief of staff’s assassination, then both that region and Tigray would have been largely outside the control of federal forces and PM Abiy would have been forced to either reverse his reforms and hope that he’d still have enough support within the EPRDF to remain in office afterwards or fight an imminent civil war to restore the central government’s authority. Suffice to say, Ethiopia was almost pushed to the edge of collapse, and the consequences would been catastrophic for this nation of over 100 million people.

Hybrid War Hell In The Horn Of Africa

Apart from the “Weapons of Mass Migration” that would have swept across the region and possibly as far as Europe, this could have also endangered the country’s unity and possibly even resulted in a Horn of Africa version of Ralph Peters’ “Blood Borders“. The American military strategist infamously declared that “ethnic cleansing works”, which would be the inevitable outcome of an ethno-regional civil war that would either “Balkanize” Ethiopia into several “independent” states or at the very least radically revise its internal administrative borders to make them more closely correlate with the country’s post-war ethnic layout. In any case, Ethiopia is the military and diplomatic lynchpin of regional security, so its destabilization would have a ripple effect across the comparatively more fragile neighboring states of Somalia, Sudan, and South Sudan, as well as possibly endangering the peace with Eritrea if the Red Sea state saw a sudden opportunity to finally erase its former Ethiopian overseer from the map once and for all by resuming its support of armed separatist groups in the country.

No Foreign Fingerprints

It should be said at this point that the self-sustaining cycle of Hybrid War unrest that would have been unleashed had Asaminew’s coup attempt in Amhara succeeded wouldn’t have been in the interests of any foreign country. The Gulf States have come to command enormous influence over Ethiopia since PM Abiy’s entrance into office after the UAE helped broker the country’s peace deal with Eritrea, and the Horn of Africa heavyweight is one of China’s closest partners on the continent. Russia and India are looking to invest more in it too, and Addis Ababa has always been very close to Washington when it comes to their shared anti-terrorist security concerns in Somalia. Although the cynical argument can be made that “Balkanizing” Ethiopia would help the US more easily divide and rule this strategic region, the chaotic consequences that it would have produced might have also damaged its own interests by weakening its allies’ “strategic depth”, especially that of the UAE and India vis-a-vis China. It therefore appears that Asaminew’s coup attempt was an entirely indigenous response to PM Abiy’s radical Gorbachev-like reforms and represents the fourth actual or attempted military seizure of power this year after Gabon, Algeria, and Sudan, proving that the “African Spring” continues to roll on.

Concluding Thoughts

Asaminew’s coup attempt in Amhara pushed Ethiopia to the edge of collapse, and although it was ultimately thwarted, it still exposed the country’s main fault lines and showed how vulnerable the Horn of Africa giant is to internal unrest as a result of PM Abiy’s radical Gorbachev-like reforms. The head of state now has to decide whether to reverse them, slow down the pace, or continue full steam ahead, with each choice having their respective benefits and detriments and therefore throwing the young leader on the horns of a massive dilemma. Making matters even more acute is the fact that Ethiopia is supposed to hold its first genuinely free and fair parliamentary elections sometime next year, which will be an historical turning point that will either finally stabilize the country or serve as a trigger event for exacerbating ethno-regionalist tensions. PM Abiy therefore has his hands full with almost as many possibly existential problems as Gorbachev did during the twilight years of the Soviet Union, though that doesn’t necessarily mean that Ethiopia is fated to follow the same path into the dustbin of 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.

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.

Top media outlets turn to the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) for figures on deaths and detentions, never noting the group’s seamless connection to Syria’s opposition, the support it receives from states that waged war on the country, or its open lobbying for US military intervention.

***

The Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) portrays itself as a neutral “monitor” of Syria’s bloody war. In recent years, the group has become a go-to source for corporate media outlets.

Major US newspapers, human rights organizations, and even governments have credulously echoed SNHR’s dubious reports. But not once have these institutions questioned what exactly the organization is, who funds it, and what its relationship is to Syria’s armed opposition.

An investigation by The Grayzone reveals that the Syrian Network for Human Rights is far from the impartial arbiter that it has been sold as. In reality, it is a key player in the Syrian opposition. Currently based in Qatar, SNHR is funded by foreign governments and staffed by top opposition leaders.

This “monitoring group” has even openly lobbied for “immediate intervention” in Syria by an “international coalition,” citing NATO’s 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia as a model. These explicit calls for foreign military intervention have been repeated for years by SNHR itself, as well as by the organization’s leaders.

Yet one would never know this side of the SNHR’s activities from corporate media reporting.

An ‘independent monitoring group’ run by the Syrian opposition

On May 11, The New York Times published an exposé claiming to provide new details of a “secret, industrial-scale system of arbitrary arrests and torture prisons” in Syria. Filed from Turkey by reporter Anne Barnard, this article centered around the eyebrow-raising claim that 128,000 people have never emerged from Syrian prisons, “and are presumed to be either dead or still in custody.”

The Times’ source for this shocking statistic was the Syrian Network for Human Rights, which Barnard described as an “independent monitoring group that keeps the most rigorous tally.”

SNHR also supplied key data for a June 2 report by Washington Post reporter Louisa Loveluck on the arrests of Syrian refugees who have returned home. The group insisted that “2,000 people have been detained after returning to Syria during the past two years.”

In the past few years, SNHR has been uncritically cited by major news outlets, from The Guardian to The Intercept to The Daily Beast. Western journalists have unquestioningly regurgitated SNHR data to provide statistical heft to gut-wrenching reports on the Syrian government’s alleged abuses.

Even Amnesty International turned to the group for help on a widely promoted report on Syria’s Sednayah Prison. On its website, SNHR boasts that it was the second-most cited source in the US State Department’s 2018 report on the human rights situation in Syria.

When it is cited in mainstream media, SNHR is almost invariably characterized as a neutral observer without any agenda beyond documenting death and abuse. In Barnard’s article, the group was described as “independent,” absurdly implying that it was not affiliated in any way with governments or individuals that have participated in the Syrian conflict.

While there may be little doubt that the Syrian government presides over a harsh police state apparatus, it has also been the target of one of the most expensive and sophisticated disinformation campaigns in recent history.

Seeking to stimulate support among a war-weary Western public for US military intervention, a collection of billionaires and foreign governments has leveraged hundreds of millions of dollars into a high-tech information war waged by NGOs, insurgent-linked civil society groups, and mainstream corporate media.

The Syrian Network for Human Rights has emerged as one of the most important cogs in this operation. Posing as a professional human rights organization, SNHR has functioned as a publicity arm of the Syrian opposition, operating out of Doha, Qatar and collaborating with the opposition’s “embassy” there under the direction of Syrian opposition leaders.

On SNHR’s board of directors sits Burhan Ghalioun, the longtime leader of the Western- and Gulf-backed Syrian National Council, which was founded as an opposition government-in-exile.

Ghalioun’s bio at SNHR’s website (above) fails to acknowledge his role as a leader of the opposition SNC

The Syrian Network for Human Rights has a reputation for warping numbers to support its ulterior regime change agenda, while relentlessly downplaying the crimes of Salafi-jihadist militias, including ISIS and al-Qaeda’s local affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra.

What’s more, the group’s leadership has openly clamored for Western military intervention, most recently after it issued a dubious report in May on alleged Syrian government chemical attacks that turned out to be sourced to an al-Qaeda affiliate comprised entirely of foreign fighters.

In a report on its website, SNHR acknowledges that it is “funded by states,” though it does not disclose which ones those are.

Given the ideological composition of its leadership and their basing in Qatar, it is easy to deduce that those government funders are the same ones that have bankrolled an Islamist insurgency in Syria to the tune of several billion dollars, costing many thousands of lives and helping to fuel a refugee crisis of titanic proportions.

The Syrian Network for Human Rights (@SNHR) is totally nontransparent, but quietly admitted it is funded by "states" https://t.co/T2yFTpxXAx pic.twitter.com/PqWRBQbRKX

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 25, 2017

So why have so many journalists who depended on SNHR omitted vital context like this while attempting to pass the group off as “independent”? Perhaps because providing readers with the full truth about the organization would raise questions in their minds about its credibility – or lack thereof – and expose yet another journalistic narrative designed to trigger Western military intervention.

Citing the Syrian Network for Human Rights as an independent and credible source is the journalistic equivalent of sourcing statistics on head trauma to a research front created by the National Football League, or turning to tobacco industry lobbyists for information on the connection between smoking and lung cancer. And yet this has been standard practice among correspondents covering the Syrian conflict.

Indeed, Western press has engaged for years in an insidious sleight of hand, basing reams of shock journalism around claims by a single, highly suspect source that is deeply embedded within the Syrian opposition – and hoped that no one would notice.

Expert: SNHR is ‘more partisan and less objective’ than other pro-opposition monitors

The Syrian Network for Human Rights has spent years systematically whitewashing and downplaying the crimes of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other extremist groups while inflating the numbers of those killed by government forces.

In a typically slanted report in 2017, SNHR claimed that the Syrian government was responsible for over 92 percent of all deaths during the conflict. Meanwhile, the group reported that “extremist Islamic groups” like ISIS and al-Qaeda’s local franchise were responsible for less than 2 percent of those killed. As usual, the organization provided nothing to back up its absurd numbers other than a cartoon graph.

SNHR’s death tolls stand in stark contrast with those of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), another widely cited organization dedicated to tracking casualties in the Syrian conflict.

Based in Coventry, England and run by a single pro-opposition figure, Rami Abdulrahman, the SOHR has received funding from the British Foreign Office to monitor deaths in Syria.

But unlike SNHR, SOHR has asserted that the death toll among government forces has been almost equal to that of opposition fighters, with over 60,000 dying to beat back a foreign-backed insurgency.

Even the explicitly pro-opposition, UK-based "monitoring group" SOHR is acknowledging that more than 1/3rd of the people who have been killed in the war in Syria are pro-government forces — roughly equal to the number of rebels who have been killed.https://t.co/oTcJfwApR7 pic.twitter.com/rH4Zq8JG2g

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 12, 2018

Because numbers like these undermine the one-sided narrative fashioned by Western media and NGOs dedicated to regime change, many have turned to SNHR instead for more politically convenient statistics spun out through graphics simple enough for a child to digest.

“SOHR is more reliable than SNHR, which is closely associated with the Syrian opposition,” explained Joshua Landis, professor of international and area studies at the University of Oklahoma and a leading expert on Syrian affairs, in an interview with The Grayzone.

“SOHR is also associated with the opposition, but the head is sympathetic to the Kurdish opposition which perhaps makes him a bit more even handed than either of the main antagonists, who have been known to play fast and loose with the facts,” he said.

Landis emphasized that “SNHR is more partisan and less objective” than the pro-opposition SOHR, adding that “it is impossible to know what the real statistics are for the obvious reasons.”

Indeed, the United Nations stopped tabulating deaths in the Syrian conflict in 2014, citing the difficulty it had in obtaining even remotely accurate numbers.

Another chemical “red line” deception?

Not only has the Syrian Network for Human Rights conjured up ridiculously slanted death toll numbers, it recently made suspicious claims of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government in an overt bid to trigger US military intervention.

On March 27, as Syrian forces closed in on the province of Idlib, the home of the rebranded al-Qaeda affiliate known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), SNHR claimed that the Syrian government used a missile launcher to fire “poison gas” at an HTS position in the eastern suburbs of Latakia. The attack “caused breathing difficulty, redness of the eyes and tearing” among the targets, according to SNHR.

The US State Department seemed to echo the suspicious information reported by SNHR to claim without concrete evidence on March 19 that it had received “indications of any new use of chemical weapons by the regime.”

SOHR issued a report of its own, however, that undercut the claims by SNHR and the US. According to SOHR,

“the Turkestani [Islamic] party is the source and basis of the news adopted by the United States of America about the shelling by the regime forces using chlorine gas.”

The SOHR noted that one Turkestani Islamic Party fighter who claimed to have been attacked by chemical gas had asthma.

The Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) is comprised largely of Uyghur Muslim militants from China’s Xinjiang region who are allied with HTS in Syria and Al Qaeda on a global level. TIP leadership has called on foreign Muslims to wage jihad in Syria, publishing an online recruitment video in 2018 that celebrated the 9/11 attacks as holy retaliation against a decadent United States awash in homosexuality and sin.

Children of the Turkistan Islamic Party, the apparent source for SNHR and the State Department’s dubious claim of a chemical attack in Idlib

Fadel Abdul Ghani, the chairman of the opposition-linked SNHR, suggested openly in his group’s dubious report of chemical weapons use that his intention was to see the US intervene in support of Islamist extremist militias like HTS and TIP.

“The US president, the French president and the British Prime Minister have threatened the Syrian regime that if chemical weapons are used again, there will be a decisive response,” Abdul Ghani stated. “Syrian society is still waiting for these leaders to fulfill the promises made, and to hold the Syrian regime to account in a serious and effective way.”

Abdul Ghani has openly advocated for US military intervention for years, telling The Atlantic in 2013 that any civilian deaths by American airstrikes were preferable to the preservation of Assad’s rule.

“If Assad continues without any intervention, everyday we will keep losing 100 to 120 people,” Abdul Ghani said. “We have no choice. If we don’t try to take out Assad’s missiles and tanks, he will continue using them against civilians.”

In May 2019, SNHR once again made a public call for foreign military intervention, based on dubious claims of a chemical weapons attack.

On May 27, the ostensible monitoring group published a report subtly entitled “The Syrian Regime Uses Chemical Weapons Again in Latakia and the United States, France, Britain and the Civilized Countries of the World Must Fulfill Their Promises.”

The intention of the report was made as explicit as it could be. The subtitle read, “Immediate Intervention Must Be Made Through an International Coalition to Protect Civilians in Syria Like the NATO Intervention in Kosovo.”

SNHR disposed of any pretense of being an impartial observer and clearly invoked NATO’s 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, which ultimately balkanized and destroyed the state, as an example that should be repeated in Syria.

A pro-Tory, Qatar-based arm of the opposition

Wael Aleji, the SNHR’s spokesperson, has not been shy with his views either. On Twitter, Aleji has likened the UK Labour Party of anti-war leftist Jeremy Corbyn to Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist Party, and praised a vitriolic piece by neoconservative pundit Nick Cohen branding Corbyn as “Hezbollah’s man in London.”

Aleji not only endorsed UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s decision to support US airstrikes on Syrian in 2018, he has explicitly identified himself as a member of the UK’s Conservative Party.

@David_Cameron well done Mr. Prime Minister, so proud of you and our party. Keep Syria in mind

— Wael Aleji (@waelaleji) May 8, 2015

While SNHR previously identified its location as England, its office there is currently listed as “dormant.” Little is known about who supports the group — although, again, it acknowledges on its own about page that it is “funded by states.”

The organization has openly collaborated with the opposition Syrian National Council’s “embassy” in Doha, Qatar to launch a traveling art exhibition promoting its work around the country. Qatar is the Gulf monarchy that heavily funded Islamist insurgent groups in Syria, including Jabhat al-Nusra, the local affiliate of al-Qaeda that rebranded as HTS.

Many of the Syrian exiles on the SNHR’s board of directors are based in Qatar, occupying positions at Doha University and other government institutions.

Another leading figure on the SNHR board, former chairman of the Syrian National Council Burhan Ghalioun, once courted the West with promises to end Syria’s relationship with Iran and Palestinian resistance forces if it helped install him and his exiled council as the country’s new rulers.

With figures like Ghalioun on the SNHR’s board, it should be hard to dispute that the organization acts as a de facto arm of the Syrian opposition. And yet reporters like the New York Times’ Anne Barnard have overlooked these inconvenient facts to describe the group as “independent.”

The SNHR did not respond to an interview request from The Grayzone.

Regime change journalism, hosted by Democracy Now, endorsed by Hillary Clinton

As a former Beirut bureau chief for the New York Times who now enjoys a fellowship at the notoriously hawkish Council on Foreign Relations, Barnard would be hard to describe as a progressive muckraker. Yet her curiously sourced report on Syrian prisons earned her an invite nonetheless from progressive news program Democracy Now.

Barnard told Democracy Now host Amy Goodman that the Syrian government was “vacuuming up people literally including followers of Gandhi,” suggesting that the rebellion was entirely peaceful while ignoring evidence that the opposition engaged in lethal violence just weeks into the revolt.

In a subsequent question-and-answer session at Reddit, Barnard described a militarized Syrian insurgency that saw the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra assume a leading role in taking over large swaths of the country as “a movement for reform and democracy.”

Barnard appeared upset that the United States had failed to intervene directly to affect regime change.

“President Barack Obama spoke loudly, calling for Mr. al-Assad’s ouster,” she said, “but carried a small stick. He backed off from even symbolic enforcement of the red line he had set.”

Barnard’s article ultimately earned an endorsement from former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who called it “a remarkable piece of journalism.”

This might be a first for me. https://t.co/EzXCdPVa8p

— Anne Barnard (@ABarnardNYT) May 14, 2019

To gather data documenting the staggering human toll of Syria’s “secret prison network” the New York Times reporter turned to the SNHR, calling it an “independent human rights group” that keeps “the most meticulous count” of prison deaths.

In an interview with the New Yorker, Barnard vouched for the credibility of SNHR and the rigor of its research methods.

“Their numbers are actual counts of reports that they get,” she said. “They have people on the ground and people outside Syria, and they basically just take phone calls, and they also have a form on their Web site that you can fill in. They go through the detailed report to them, they verify what they can, and they take this actual tally.”

After opening her piece with bracing testimony from a Syrian who described himself as a former prisoner, Barnard introduced a staggering statistic to demonstrate the scope of brutality by the Syrian government:

“Nearly 128,000 have never emerged [from Syrian prisons], and are presumed to be either dead or still in custody, according to the Syrian Network for Human Rights, an independent monitoring group that keeps the most rigorous tally.”

Nearly 14,000 were “killed under torture,” she wrote, citing the same SNHR report.

Again, there is little debate that the Syrian government has used brutal methods to counter an extremist insurgency that has been funded, armed, and trained with billions of dollars from numerous foreign nations. What is in dispute are the actual numbers — and the magnitude — of deaths and victims of these tactics. And SNHR’s have been comically absurd.

SNHR claimed in the blog post linked by the New York Times that nearly 14,000 people were tortured to death by Syrian government forces, yet it provided no evidence or documentation beyond a single cartoon chart. At the same time, the group claimed that only 32 people were tortured to death by the genocidal extremists in ISIS, and just 21 by the rebranded al-Qaeda affiliate, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

The notion that ISIS and al-Qaeda tortured only 53 people to death in Syria over eight years is risible. However, Barnard and her editors at the Times seem to have accepted this claim as indisputable truth, regurgitating it without a hint of skepticism.

Barnard did not respond to emailed questions about the SNHR.

Providing sourcing for US State Department, Amnesty, and The Intercept

The New York Times is not the only mainstream institution to have depended heavily on dubious allegations by the Syrian Network for Human Rights. The group brags that it came in second place for citations in the US State Department’s 2018 report on the human-rights situation in Syria.

SNHR’s report on human-rights violations by the Kurdish-led anti-ISIS coalition was promoted enthusiastically by the Daily Beast’s Roy Gutman, a longtime critic of the Kurdish YPG. However, unlike virtually every other mainstream reporter, Gutman at least hinted at SNHR’s alignment with the Syrian opposition, noting that it was a “Qatar-based human rights group, echoing the position of the Turkish government…”

In September 2018, The Intercept’s Murtaza Hussain and Mariam Elba relied on SNHR for numbers of those disappeared into “the sprawling prison network maintained by the Assad government.” (Oddly, the number of secret detainees they cited was 82,000, which means that the Syrian government would have had to have disappeared a whopping 46,000 people in an eight-month period to reach the figure Barnard quoted in the New York Times.)

It was one of many instances in which The Intercept cited SNHR as a credible “watchdog group” without disclosing its seamless ties to the Syrian opposition and the state backers of the Islamist insurgency.

According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights, there are at a minimum 95,000 forcibly disappeared persons in Syria, with almost 82,000 of these people having disappeared into the sprawling prison network maintained by the Assad government. https://t.co/4zDUJv0thc

— The Intercept (@theintercept) September 10, 2018

The Syrian Network for Human Rights has also been a go-to source for The Guardian, which relied on the group and various other opposition-tied outfits like the Violations Documentation Center to claim that Russian airstrikes in Syria have been more deadly than those by the US-led coalition, which is reported by those groups to have killed 1,600 civilians in Raqqa alone. (The Guardian referred to SNHR merely as “a UK-based organization.”)

In her article for the New York Times, Barnard relied on a widely discussed 2017 Amnesty International report to claim that Syria’s Saydnaya Prison was a “mass execution center” where “thousands were hanged after summary trials.” That report, headlined with the tabloid title “Human Slaughterhouse” and supplemented with CGI-style storytelling graphics, also relied heavily on unsourced claims provided by SNHR.

According to Amnesty, anywhere from 5,000 to 13,000 prisoners were summarily executed at Saydnaya. However, the international NGO provided no data to support this claim, conceding in a footnote on page 17 of its report that its data was based entirely on hypothetical calculations.

The footnote where Amnesty admits that its Saydnayah death toll is based on hypothetical mathematical calculations

Later, on page 40, Amnesty acknowledged that “the exact number of deaths in Saydnaya is impossible to specify.” The NGO then revealed that it documented only 375 deaths at the prison over a five-year period, and thanks to allegations “verified” by SNHR.

Like virtually every other organization that depended on SNHR’s claims, Amnesty referred to the SNHR simply as a “monitoring group,” not noting its intimate connection to the Syrian opposition.

In Barnard’s New York Times report, SNHR was cited alongside an interconnected array of NGOs and individuals with documented ties to the Syrian opposition. As with SNHR, absolutely no context was provided to inform readers about the political agenda of these organizations, or about the direct support they received from states that have fueled the extremist insurgency in Syria.

Through omissions like these, regime change propaganda has been carefully repackaged as news that’s fit to print.

Part two of this investigation will examine another widely cited, opposition-tied source that has been widely cited by US mainstream media in coverage of Syria. It is the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA). With a tightly-knit coterie of lawyers, faceless Salafi-jihadist insurgents, and an intelligence network spanning from Washington to Doha, this group of so-called “document hunters” is honing the latest tactic in the West’s regime-change toolbox.

*

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.

Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican Gomorrah, Goliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza. Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America’s state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic repercussions.

All images in this article are from The Grayzone

I ministri della Difesa della Nato (per l’Italia Elisabetta Trenta, M5S) sono stati convocati a Bruxelles, il 26 e 27 giugno, per approvare le nuove misure di «deterrenza» contro la Russia, accusata senza alcuna prova di aver violato il Trattato INF.

In sostanza si accoderanno agli Stati uniti che, ritirandosi definitivamente dal Trattato il 2 agosto, si preparano a schierare in Europa missili nucleari a gittata intermedia (tra 500 e 5500 km) con base a terra, analoghi a quelli degli anni Ottanta (i Pershing II e i cruise) che furono eliminati (insieme agli SS-20 sovietici) dal Trattato firmato nel 1987 dai presidenti Gorbaciov e Reagan.

Le maggiori potenze europee, sempre più divise all’interno della Ue, si ricompattano nella Nato sotto comando Usa per sostenere i loro comuni interessi strategici.

La stessa Unione europea – di cui 21 dei 27 membri fanno parte della Nato (come ne fa parte la Gran Bretagna in uscita dalla Ue) – ha bocciato alle Nazioni Unite la proposta russa di mantenere il Trattato INF. Su una questione di tale importanza l’opinione pubblica europea è lasciata volutamente all’oscuro dai governi e dai grandi media. Non si avverte così il crescente pericolo che ci sovrasta: aumenta la possibilità che si arrivi un giorno all’uso di armi nucleari.

Lo conferma l’ultimo documento strategico delle Forze armate Usa, «Nuclear Operations» (11 giugno), redatto sotto la direzione del Presidente degli Stati maggiori riuniti. Premesso che «le forze nucleari forniscono agli Usa la capacità di conseguire i propri obiettivi nazionali», il documento sottolinea che esse devono essere «diversificate, flessibili e adattabili» a «una vasta gamma di avversari, minacce e contesti».

Mentre la Russia avverte che anche l’uso di una singola arma nucleare di bassa potenza innescherebbe una reazione a catena che potrebbe portare a un conflitto nucleare su vasta scala, la dottrina statunitense si sta orientando in base a un pericoloso concetto di «flessibilità».

Il documento strategico afferma che «le forze nucleari Usa forniscono i mezzi per applicare la forza a una vasta gamma di bersagli nei tempi e nei modi scelti dal Presidente». Bersagli (chiarisce lo stesso documento) in realtà scelti dalle agenzie di intelligence, che ne valutano la vulnerabilità a un attacco nucleare, prevedendo anche gli effetti della ricaduta radioattiva.

L’uso di armi nucleari – sottolinea il documento – «può creare le condizioni per risultati decisivi: in specifico, l’uso di un’arma nucleare cambierà fondamentalmente il quadro di una battaglia creando le condizioni che permettono ai comandanti di prevalere nel conflitto». Le armi nucleari permettono inoltre agli Usa di «assicurare gli alleati e i partner» che, fidando su di esse, «rinunciano al possesso di proprie armi nucleari, contribuendo agli scopi Usa di non-proliferazione».

Il documento chiarisce però che «gli Usa e alcuni alleati Nato selezionati mantengono aerei a duplice capacità in grado di trasportare armi nucleari o convenzionali». Ammette così che quattro paesi europei ufficialmente non-nucleari  – Italia, Germania, Belgio, Olanda – e la Turchia, violando il Trattato di non-proliferazione, non solo ospitano armi nucleari Usa (le bombe B-61 che dal 2020 saranno sostituire dalle più micidiali B61-12), ma sono preparati a usarle in un attacco nucleare sotto comando del Pentagono.

Tutto questo tacciono governi e parlamenti, televisioni e giornali, con il complice silenzio della stragrande maggioranza dei politici e dei giornalisti, che invece ci ripetono quotidianamente quanto importante sia, per noi italiani ed europei, la «sicurezza». La garantiscono  gli Stati uniti schierando in Europa altre armi nucleari.

Manlio Dinucci

 

 

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

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

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

*     *     *

Lying by Omission Is Still Lying

By Nino Pagliccia, June 24, 2019

In its 22-paragraphs long article clearly the focus is on Guaidó. However, some half-statements – the other half being what is not said – are of concern because they do not give a balanced understanding of the event that took place in Venezuela with the visit of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet.

‘Modified’: A Film About GMOs and the Corruption of “Food Supply for Profit”

By Colin Todhunter, June 24, 2019

Parts of the documentary Modified are spent at the kitchen table. But it’s not really a tale about wonderful recipes or the preparation of food. Ultimately, it’s a story of capitalism, money and power and how our most basic rights are being eroded by unscrupulous commercial interests.

Hundreds of 737 Max Pilots Sue Boeing over ‘Unprecedented Cover-Up”

By Zero Hedge, June 24, 2019

The lawsuit, filed by a plaintiff who goes by “Pilot X” in court documents out of “fear of reprisal from Boeing and discrimination from Boeing customers,” accuses the Chicago-based aviation giant of “an unprecedented cover-up of the known design flaws of the MAX, which predictably resulted in the crashes of two MAX aircraft and subsequent grounding of all MAX aircraft worldwide.”

“Theoretical Lies” of the World Bank. Developing Countries and the Hidden Agenda of the “Washington Consensus”

By Eric Toussaint, June 24, 2019

In 2019, the World Bank (WB) and the IMF will be 75 years old. These two international financial institutions (IFI), founded in 1944, are dominated by the USA and a few allied major powers who work to generalize policies that run counter the interests of the world’s populations.

The Mechanism of Economic Sanctions: Changing Perceptions and Euphemisms

By Elias Davidsson, June 24, 2019

The increasing imposition of unilateral coercive measures by the United States against developing countries prompted the adoption, over a period exceeding 20 years, of numerous United Nations resolutions and declarations, sponsored by such countries, against the use of unilateral economic coercion.

Memo to the President: Is Pompeo’s Iran Agenda the Same as Yours?

By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, June 24, 2019

Pompeo’s behavior betrays a strong desire to resort to  military action — perhaps even without your approval — to Iranian provocations (real or imagined), with no discernible strategic goal other than to advance the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Trained to Lie: The Making of the Modern Politician

By Julian Rose, June 24, 2019

It would appear these days, that unless one can show that one is important or an expert in some way or other, one will not be taken seriously by those who only see life as a social climbing highway called ‘career making’.

*

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.

I’ve always been kind of obsessed by things nuclear. From the time I learned about nuclear arsenals as a child, I wondered how masses of people could tolerate this Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. A few years ago, I started reading and writing intensively on this topic, thinking I would have one last kick at the can before I get too old to have any fight left in me. I thought people might wake up finally after the catastrophic meltdowns at Fukushima Dai-ichi. Thus one might think I would be encouraged by the news that HBO had produced a five-hour drama portraying the horror of the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986. It has been a massive hit, bringing attention to an issue that I’ve tried to cover on my obscure blogs in the years since 2011. Perhaps it was the writings, films and actions of thousands of concerned citizens (including myself) that made a big-name entertainment company realize nuclear risk was a theme that people wanted to learn about. At the same time, there was reason to worry that an American entertainment network would get the story wrong, or the audience would take the wrong lessons from it.

After watching the series and reading a broad spectrum of commentary on it, it is clear this concern was justified. There are some viewers and reviewers who have taken the wrong lesson from the dramatized version of the story, and the usual anti-Russia propaganda specialists have joined the discussion, concluding that the catastrophe was a product of the Soviet system, and because it is interpreted as a one-off event, others have even concluded that the drama delivered a pro-nuclear message: this technology can be mastered because we are not Soviet technocrats trapped in a totalitarian nightmare, are we?

Meltdowns Real and Metaphorical: Nuclear Catastrophes, Oil Spills and the Wealth of Nations

• April 26, 1986: Explosion and meltdown of one RMBK Reactor at Chernobyl
• October 1986: London’s Big Bang Financial Sector liberalization, the rise of neoliberal ideology
• October 1986: Reagan-Gorbachev Reykjavik Summit, leading to the INF Treaty
• November 1989: Opening of the Berlin Wall
• December 25, 1991: Dissolution of the Soviet Union, economic meltdown and asset stripping of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics

Two Decades Later

• September 15, 2008: Global financial market meltdown, resulting from rampant mortgage fraud and the neoliberal Big Bang reforms (neoliberalism in general) begun in the 1980s
• April 20, 2010: British Petroleum oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico
• March 11-15, 2011: Meltdowns and explosions of three General Electric nuclear reactors in Fukushima

Chernobyl: Another entry in a long list of anti-Russia propaganda vehicles?

In recent years the mass media-deep state complex has tried to promote weapons sales to NATO countries by producing several reality show programs to drum up fear of the Slavic beast living over the eastern horizon. One example was the academy award-winning White Helmets documentary about the al-Qaeda warriors in Syria who worked part-time as emergency responders in any part of Syria controlled by “moderate rebels” but not in territory held by the Assad-Putin alliance that was defending Syrian sovereignty.[1]

Then there was the Skripal script in which an ex-Russian spy and present British MI6 asset, along with his daughter, was supposed to suffer a fatal chemical attack by Russian agents close to his home in Britain. Like the real people who act and react in a loosely scripted scenario in a season of Survivor, they were supposed to have perhaps faked their own deaths and disappeared. It’s not clear what the plan was, but it was obvious after a few weeks that the plan had gone terribly off-script and the audience was getting bored.[2] Perhaps Russian intelligence had duped their British counterparts into thinking they were going to carry out a nerve agent attack, but then slipped only a mild toxin into the targets’ food. Whatever the case was, the victims survived the “always-fatal” nerve agent poisoning, then disappeared. It all started to surpass even the farcical plot of Graham Greene’s British espionage satire Our Man in Havana. Perhaps the Skripal’s contract with the producers of the tale included a non-disclosure agreement and a big payoff for agreeing to disappear. They stopped talking about the failed show and hoped the audience would forget it. It was time for something different.

And this year we have Chernobyl.

link to official trailer

When I heard about it, I had my doubts about why it was appearing at this time and why it was being so heavily promoted, even though many people thought I would be encouraged to know that a topic I had written about was now reaching a popular audience. But the timing was just too strange, and I knew that similarly themed dramas had flopped in the past. For example, who remembers the 2014 series Manhattan? (A dramatization of the Manhattan Project.) I suspected Chernobyl would be made as a condemnation of Russia and the Soviet system, and not of nuclear technology itself. The producers of the drama make this error, and many viewers and reviewers have also interpreted it as a lesson in the evils of the Soviet system, and they naturally extend this to apply to what they believe is the present Russian “authoritarian” government that undermines “freedom,” “openness” and “liberal democracy” throughout the world. To see how absurd the phobia has become, just read the thorough list posted by The Grayzone of all the absurd ways Russia has allegedly contaminated the bodily fluids of our virile liberal democracies.[3]

In America’s “open society” the 1959 meltdown at the SSFL near Los Angeles was unknown to the public until 1979.

Chernobyl and the creative license of historical dramas

There have been several reviews and interviews that address the question of the story’s accuracy. There is nothing wrong with “getting things wrong” in historical dramas, as it is exactly what they have to do to tell a complex story in a few hours. The writers and directors who produce them emphasize that they are not portraying a comprehensive, definitive set of facts. Even documentary films are extremely selective and subjective, and tell their own stories. Actually, if a documentary or dramatization is done well, it will make you feel like you know less about the subject than you did before you saw it. It will make you feel like you need to know more.

link to official trailer

It’s interesting in this case to consider who becomes annoyed by dramatic license, and who is not allowed to get away with dramatization. In 1991, when Oliver Stone made his film about the JFK assassination, the leading newspapers and television networks in the United States (which to this day endorse the lone-assassin theory) pounced on it even before it opened because they had obtained a draft of a script that didn’t even reflect the final version accurately. Having read quite a lot about both the JFK assassination and Chernobyl, and the media coverage of the historical dramas JFK and Chernobyl, I can see that Chernobyl has been treated much more kindly by the American and British media establishment. The reviews and commentary have been forgiving of the numerous inaccuracies and exaggerations in Chernobyl, whereas they slammed Oliver Stone for any small deviation from historical facts. Oliver Stone, however, was arguably more successful in sticking to the facts. Unlike the highly fictionalized trial depicted in Chernobyl, the trial in JFK depicts quite accurately the case put forth by New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison, and conforms with the facts of the case and what Garrison described in his book On the Trail of the Assassins.

Obviously, this discrepancy arises from the fact that the film JFK revealed what was in the shadows of American life, and Chernobyl depicted flaws in the Soviet system. Unfortunately, this is what the commentary has focused on. Reviewers have jumped on the chance to discuss what the catastrophe revealed about the failures of the Soviet system while they completely miss what it teaches about the general risks and horrors of taking uranium out of the ground and turning it into fissionable material. Some pro-nuclear activists have even expressed relief that the film stayed on the anti-Soviet theme and didn’t explicitly condemn nuclear energy. It was just this thing that happened once, long ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Editor of Bellingcat, Natalia Antonova, was given space in The Guardian to mix an anti-Russia, anti-Brexit and anti-Trump message into her interpretation of Chernobyl. Bellingcat, by the way, describes itself as an “independent international collective of researchers, investigators and citizen journalists,” yet it is supported by government and private agencies that have a long history of biased propagandizing for NATO and against any state that resists the American “rules-based international order”—a term preferred these days because the world now laughs openly when the US government claims to be upholding international law. The Bellilngcat website shows little interest in doing crusading, investigative journalism on domestic political issues within NATO countries. Bellingcat funders are the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy, The Open Society Foundation (George Soros), the Dutch postcode lottery, and other privately funded foundations listed on its website.

Bellingcat’s most famous investigation looked into the destruction of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine in 2014, and it seemed to have status as a quasi-official member of the investigation team. Yet after five years, the conclusions of this Dutch Joint Investigation Team remain unconvincing to the Malaysian government, which for some strange reason has not been allowed to participate in the investigation or have access to the aircraft’s black box. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir recently rejected the Bellingcat and DJIT conclusions accusing Russia of supplying the weapon that shot down the aircraft. He stated that the allegation was unproven and implausible.[4], [5]

In her review of Chernobyl Natalia Antonova wrote:

I also recognized how the mind-numbing lies and the political expediency of the horror is not something we can safely put away into a box… Whether it’s the demagogue sitting in the White House, the people who engineered Brexit, or the chorus on the right and corporate interests telling us that the climate crisis is nothing but an alarmist hoax, there are people who do the expedient thing for their own ends all around us. Many are powerful enough to decide our collective fates. Today, I regularly encounter people who think that life in a communist paradise will help humanity solve its current predicaments. Some are mean and cruel, delighted by the prospect of purging all those they consider their enemies. Some are decent and kind, unable to comprehend the brutalities of life in the USSR and genuine in their belief that Vladimir Lenin, the man whose name the doomed nuclear plant carried, foresaw a beautiful utopia—or, as us Soviets once called it, an age of mercy. I want to urge such people, as well as the Trumpers, the Brexiteers and everyone else, to watch Chernobyl.[6]

So to sum up this view, the disastrous explosion and meltdown of a nuclear reactor teaches us only about the mind-numbing lies and political expediency of the Soviet Union, as if these have never emerged from industrial accidents in countries with different ideologies and different forms of government. The “lessons that haven’t been learned” are not about nuclear technology but about the danger of people wanting socialist solutions for the ecological and social destruction caused by capitalism. In her review, Anatova mentions only the usual Bellingcat suspects that are on the contemporary propaganda agenda: Trump, demagogues, nationalists, Brexiteers, and radical leftists—but no one else! Not George Bush I, who showered Iraq with depleted uranium, not Bill Clinton, who showered Serbia with depleted uranium, not George Bush II, who tore up the ABM Treaty, not Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who fully backed the Japanese government’s “lies and political expediency” during the meltdowns of three American-built reactors in Fukushima, not Tony Blair who joined Bush’s war on Iraq, based on a lie about weapons of mass destruction, and not the present government of India that has seized the passport and frozen the bank account of a leading anti-nuclear activist that it accuses of sedition.[7] In Bellingcat world it is as if there was an era of peace between 1986 and 2016 and it is only afterwards that everything went to hell.

Masha Gessen, another Soviet era exile who now makes a living doing anti-Russia propaganda, wrote in a similar vein in the New Yorker.[8] She remarked on how a speech in Chernobyl (episode one 41:50~), given by an elder statesman named Zharkov (a fictitious character, making a fictitious speech), conveyed “Soviet relationships of power”:

But it is my experience that when the people ask questions that are not in their own best interest, they should simply be told to keep their minds on their labor and leave matters of the State to the State. We seal off the city. No one leaves. And cut the phone lines. Contain the spread of misinformation. That is how we keep the people from undermining the fruits of their own labor.

This monolog was written so as to portray the Soviet system as a uniquely sinister force, but I’ve known Canadian, American and British nuclear engineers and pundits to say basically the same thing about nuclear emergencies—that the evacuation does more damage than the radiation, which they honestly believe will cause less illness and death than the panic and economic losses. The Japanese government also now says the radiation-affected populations just need to learn how to be “resilient,” which is really a directive that amounts to turning passive-aggressive bullying into official state policy.[9]

Furthermore, Zharkov’s speech is not much different than what is spoken by leaders in capitalist countries after a disaster. The priority is always to keep the stock market up, keep people going to work, and urge them to keep shopping, as George Bush did famously immediately after September 11, 2001.

In its ability to respond to such a disaster, the Soviet system actually had some advantages over capitalist countries. In Chernobyl, the viciousness of high officials and the KGB is greatly exaggerated. Characters are always afraid of “getting a bullet” if they admit to mistakes, or those in power are threatening to have someone summarily shot. But it just wasn’t like this in the 1980s, as Masha Gessen points out in her review. In reality, in the midst of all its crimes and mistakes, the government was at least able to mobilize vast human and material resources to deal with the catastrophe, without concern for costs and profitability, without the delays needed under capitalism to arrange contracts with corporations, private entities and volunteer labor forces, and without needing to wait for corporate charity. Soviet citizens had been calling each other comrade for sixty years, and this factor might have contributed to their ability to pull together through hard times. In contrast, the Fukushima Dai-ichi cleanup has been left to day laborers and sub-contracted workers. In spite of much talk about the ties that bind all Japanese together (kizuna), Fukushima Dai-ichi is willfully out of sight and out of mind for 99% of the population. We can at least say, to Gorbachev’s credit, that his first reaction to the crisis was not to bid on the 1996 Olympics as a way to gloss over the disaster. In Japan, ever since 2011, the government has tried to use 2020 Olympics boosterism to sweep the country’s problems under the carpet.

Masha Gessen also finds that the courtroom scene in Chernobyl “encapsulates the Soviet system perfectly.” A member of the Central Committee overrules the judge, and he and the prosecutor follow orders to allow Legasov to proceed with his statement. “This is exactly how Soviet courts worked,” she writes, “they [judges] did the bidding of the Central Committee, and the prosecutor wielded more power than the judge.” I suppose Masha Gessen has never heard of the Grand Jury Trial in the early 1990s that investigated the long history of negligence and coverups at the Rocky Flats plutonium factory in Colorado. That trial was inexplicably shut down by the Justice Department in its third year, then the jurors were ordered to disclose nothing about the trial in public.[10] The contemporary anti-Russia propagandists would have us believe that the American security state and its too-big-to-fail corporations have never interfered in matters before the court.

In an interview with Slate the drama’s writer and showrunner, Craig Mazin, confirmed that he did in fact conceive of the story as a lesson about the evils of the Soviet system, and he declares himself to be pro-nuclear. Ironically, he also states, as if he and many others in Hollywood were innocent of having created a slick pieces of propaganda themselves (often with the help of the CIA and the Pentagon), that the Soviets “were masters of weaponized narration. And interestingly, they appear to have continued that tradition. The KGB is gone, but the FSB [the present Russian equivalent] is here.” Throughout the interview he endorses a mild, de-politicized humanism, saying that his story is “not about left or right. It’s about humans, and the mistakes that humans make. We are, all of us, subject to that, because we are, all of us, human, and imperfect.” It’s a nice thought, but it is also completely fatuous.

The most critical thing Mazin could say about Hilary Clinton, whom he supported, was that she struggled because “she didn’t have this narrative that apparently everybody needs. She was just smart and wanted to do things.” She had in fact done quite a few things in the preceding years, but American liberals completely ignored her hawkish foreign policy and criminal destruction of Libya as Secretary of State, as well as her many other faults as a feminist who excused her husband’s outrageous behavior toward women. Mazin also endorses the idea of the Holodomor genocide, unaware that it was a politicized narrative created after WWII by Ukrainian exiles to demonize Stalin. It has been debunked by Grover Furr and other historians,[11] and counter-debunkers have fought back as the controversy has unfolded since the collapse of the Soviet Union. (Readers are welcome to go to the endnote and dive into the controversy with their own internet searches, but I leave it here.)

Evincing no knowledge of Fukushima or the legacy of minor and major nuclear mishaps in the United States, Mazin reveals his ideological commitment best with this quote from the interview:

That reactor was built nowhere else in the world except the Soviet Union. Nobody else would dare build that reactor. It was a horrendous design. It had no containment building. And people were not properly trained. And there wasn’t a safety culture. For a million reasons, this was not an anti-nuclear polemic. It’s anti­–Soviet government, and it is anti-lie, and it is pro–human being. But anyone who thinks the point of this is that nuclear power is bad, is just, they’ve just missed it.[12]

Chernobyl fails its audience, and these reviewers fail theirs, by conveying the notion that the Chernobyl catastrophe was a unique one-off event, a tragic product of late Soviet bureaucracy. My strongest complaint about the drama is that it completely ignored the involvement of France, the UK, the US and the IAEA in abetting the big lie and coverup that the Soviet government began. When Legasov, the lead character in Chernobyl, had to make a presentation at the IAEA conference in Vienna in August 1986, Gorbachev told him to just go and tell everything, hold back nothing. This would be a part of his new policy of glasnost (openness). Soviet officials, like many Soviet citizens of the time, had an inferiority complex and they idealized the openness and prosperity of the West. Legasov and other officials feared that the Westerners would see through any lies and demand to hear the unvarnished truth. So Legasov likely went in with what he believed was the lowest estimate of the long-term casualties that he could get away with. He stated 40,000 would die from cancers in the coming decades, but this figure shocked the international participants. Too low? No. They refused to accept any figure higher than 4,000, and this figure became, by uncanny coincidence, the official toll of damage in the UN report produced in 2005.[13] None of this was mentioned in Chernobyl, even though Legasov’s trip to Vienna was a central part of the later episodes.

There is also no mention, amid all the description of the reactor design flaws, of the fact that the RMBK reactor was used because it was an excellent tool for producing plutonium for the nuclear arsenal. The benefits, risks and vulnerabilities were well understood by the Americans, and this is a fact which has fueled speculation that the Chernobyl explosion was sabotage.[14] This theory is neither provable nor disprovable, and there is little evidence for it, but it is worth keeping in mind the chaos and bloodshed that the CIA and the US State Department have always been willing to create in order to achieve American strategic objectives. For a government that had several times proposed a first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union (winnable nuclear war), it is not implausible that it could consider a strike on a nuclear power plant as a way to destabilize the enemy. Since the nuclear establishment has always maintained that major nuclear accidents lead to minimal public health problems, the loss of one nuclear reactor would have been a small price to pay for “bringing down communism,” to quote a favorite phrase of American statesmen like Al Gore who boast about the end of the cold war. Recall too that in the same era as Chernobyl, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser, had this to say in 1998 about his instigation of the Soviet-Afghan war and the creation of Islamic terrorist forces:

ZB: That secret operation [support of foreign Islamic fighters] was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War.” Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

ZB: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?[15]

While it may be pointless to pursue this question of sabotage causing the explosion of Reactor Number 4, it was certainly a godsend for the US government during a time when it was carrying out a massive covert and overt operation to bring down the Soviet Union. There was a critical radar installation near Chernobyl that was rendered inoperable when it was doused in radionuclides. The disaster demoralized the population and frightened Gorbachev into making proposals for massive cuts in nuclear and conventional arsenals. One other peculiar thing related to this topic, one that never gets mentioned, is that we are supposed to believe that the US government, with all of its intelligence capabilities, had no knowledge of the explosion until a worker at a Swedish nuclear plant detected radiation forty-eight hours after the event on the morning of April 28, 1986.

The lasting health and environmental impacts

The damage to human health and the environment caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe has always been “controversial” because the nuclear establishments of all nuclear powers have stubbornly refused to take a close look at the rural populations affected by the fallout. Numerous scientists and historians have written about this bias, and perhaps the most convincing and thorough research on this matter was published by the historian Kate Brown just as HBO’s Chernobyl was about to be released in the spring of 2019. Based on her years spent in the former Soviet Union and on research in the archives of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, she concluded in a recent editorial:

… much of what we are told about the Chernobyl accident is incomplete or incorrect. People were far sicker and far more people died than we are led to believe. Chernobyl contaminants were not safely enclosed within the Chernobyl Zone. Nor has the chapter been closed. We are still ingesting Chernobyl fallout from 33 years ago.[16]

In the conclusion of her book, she elaborates on this point:

Thirty years after the Chernobyl accident, we are still short on answers and long on uncertainties. Ignorance about low-dose exposures is, I have argued, partly deliberate. Before 1986, Soviet and international experts knew about the connection between childhood thyroid cancer and radioactivity, but they suppressed and refuted evidence about the epidemic surrounding the smoking Chernobyl reactor because they had much larger radioactive skeletons in the closet from nuclear bomb tests. Thyroid cancer among children is the medical canary in the mine. Declassified Soviet health records demonstrate that thyroid cancer was just one outcome and that radioactive nuclides lodged in organs caused a wide range of illness among people in the Chernobyl territories. The Soviet medical records suggest it is time to ask a new set of questions that is, finally, useful to people exposed over their lifetimes to chronic doses of man-made radiation from medical procedures, nuclear power reactors and their accidents, and atomic bombs and their fallout. Few people on earth have escaped those exposures.[17]

Kate Brown also explains the faulty conclusions of the nuclear establishment by noting how the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb studies are the flawed model upon which this nuclear establishment willingly based their own studies of Chernobyl and all other radiological disasters. The model was never reliable because the data was incomplete (the study didn’t begin until several years after the bombings) and the atomic bombings and nuclear plant disasters were not comparable events.

Yet the nuclear establishments had no interest in looking through the Belarussian and Ukrainian countryside for victims and speaking to frontline medical personnel, or in questioning their own assumptions and models. The Soviet government officials, and later the government officials of Ukraine and Belarus, were also eager to steer foreign scientists away from reality. Negative findings would weaken public support for nuclear energy and nuclear arsenals, and provide evidence for nuclear veterans and nuclear workers who, in the early 1990s, were suing the their governments for damages. It would be nice if the anti-Russia propagandists in the West could admit that “mind-numbing lies and the political expediency” are found in any country that chooses to develop a nuclear complex, whether it consists of nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons, or both. Tyranny and an obsession with national security are the requirements of controlling the demons released from splitting atoms. Just as it is wrong to believe that the poisons from Reactor Number 4 were safely contained in the exclusion zone, it is wrong to assume that the need to lie and disregard human life was restricted to the Soviet Union.

“A postwar mode of living indebted to acceleration”

[Critics] miss what is to me Brown’s larger and more radical point. It is not just that nuclear power has dangers that distribute themselves unequally across landscapes and societies. It is not even that these dangers have been denied and ignored. It is that Chernobyl is but one aspect of a postwar mode of living indebted to acceleration—in the use of fossil fuels, production of plastics, manufacture of pesticides, consumption of a thousand other chemicals. All that speed has marked our bodies. It has marked some more than others, opening them to new and strange kinds of suffering. The appeal of Brown’s critics has emotional clarity. If nuclear fallout left no mark, I do not have to think about the isotopes lodged in my husband’s bones, wondering if he moved away from Kyiv in time. Nor do we, in aggregate, have to turn from a faith in technological solutions to environmental precarity. I envy Brown’s critics their certainty that nuclear power leaves no dangerous trace, that our species can adequately shepherd Reactor Number Four’s toxic hulk, that the world can keep accelerating. But Manual for Survival argues convincingly that such security is the actual myth. – Bathsheba Demuth, “The Monster Within: On Two New Books About Chernobyl,” Los Angeles Review of Books, May 12, 2019.

The creators of Chernobyl could have made this point more explicitly so that so many viewers would not see the story simply as a tale about the failings of the Soviet system. However, this neutral message is there for anyone who cares to hear it. If alien visitors could study humanity’s nuclear disasters and watch Chernobyl, they would notice that in the final words spoken by Legasov (which are fictional, he never actually said them in his famous tapes),[18] the adjective Soviet is not applied when he mentions, in the plural, “our governments, our ideologies or our religions”:

To be a scientist is to be naive. We are so focused on our search for truth, we fail to consider how few actually want us to find it. But it is always there, whether we see it or not, whether we choose to or not. The truth doesn’t care about our needs or wants. It doesn’t care about our governments, our ideologies, our religions. It will lie in wait for all time. And this, at last, is the gift of Chernobyl. Where I once would fear the cost of truth, now I only ask: What is the cost of lies?

The American-Made Nuclear Age

On that note, I wonder if HBO will consider its own lies of omission and give us a story about—just to take one of many possible homegrown examples—the 1959 reactor meltdown at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, an accident that was kept secret for twenty years but now appears in the local Los Angeles news once in a while—lying in wait for all time for the denizens of the metropolis to see the connection to all the cancers that have plagued residents of Simi Valley.[19] It’s so close to Hollywood. The writers and producers wouldn’t have to travel far at all. Alternatively, there is a long list of other American nuclear age tales which would make for compelling drama, but Hollywood has never gone back to them since the days of Silkwood and The China Syndrome.

Fifteen years ago HBO was in its golden age, producing shows like The Sopranos, The Wire and Deadwood, which were all tragedies that looked squarely at the flaws of America’s past and present. Barack Obama said during his first presidential campaign that The Wire was his favorite show, but when his presidency turned into Game of Drones, HBO turned to fantasy fare like Game of Thrones, then to this frightening, fictionalized drama about a disaster suffered by the cold war enemy, one that is now demonized in the American and British media as an “adversary,” “hostile power” and “authoritarian state” led by a “strongman” (as if leaders are not supposed to be strong).

Finally, where in all the reviews and podcasts and online discussions has there been any mention of Fukushima Dai-ichi, the more recent made-in-America catastrophe that rivals Chernobyl in severity? It’s like it never happened, and this seems to be the strange fallout of Chernobyl. The attention diverted to one event erases awareness of the other. Perhaps thirty-three years later, in the year 2044, someone will make a compelling television drama about the melted reactor cores still embedded in the coast of Honshu, still leaking their radionuclides into the Pacific, lying in wait for all time.

Oh, and sorry, I forgot to say, “spoiler alert,” but we all know how this ends, right?

*

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 DiaNuke.org.

Notes

[1] Eva Bartlett, “UN Panel Details Organ Theft, Staged Attacks by the White Helmets,” Mint Press News, January 2, 2019.

[2] Catte Black, “The OPCW, Douma & The Skripals,” Off-Guardian, May 17, 2019.

[3] “A Very Incomplete List of Sinister Things Vladimir Putin/Russia/’the Russians’ Have Been Accused of Doing,” The Greyzone, March 27, 2019.

[4] Jürgen Cain Külbel, “Everything on Bellingcat and the official inquiry into the destruction of Flight MH17,” Voltairenet, April 5, 2019.

[5] F. William Engdahl, “Mahatir Opens A Ukraine Political Pandora’s Box,” June 9, 2019, http://www.williamengdahl.com.

[6] Natalia Antonova, “Chernobyl is still horrifyingly relevant—the lessons have not been learned,” The Guardian, June 10, 2019.

[7] S.P. Udayakumar, “Anti-nuke activist, Udayakumar, appeals to Indian President to end ongoing Government witch-hunt,” Dianuke, June 13, 2019.

[8] Masha Gessen, “What HBO’s “Chernobyl” Got Right, and What It Got Terribly Wrong,” New Yorker, June 4, 2019.

[9] Thierry Ribault, “Resilience in Fukushima: Contribution to a Political Economy of Consent,” Alternatives, June 2019. From the abstract: “This article is a contribution to the political economy of consent based on the analysis of speeches, declarations, initiatives, and policies implemented in the name of resilience in the context of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. It argues that, in practice as much as in theory, resilience fuels peoples’ submission to an existing reality—in the case of Fukushima, the submission to radioactive contamination—in an attempt to deny this reality as well as its consequences.”

[10] Kristen Iversen, Full Body Burden: Growing up in the Nuclear Shadow of Rocky Flats (Random House, 2012), 232-237.

[11] Grover Furr, “The ‘Holodomor’ and the Film ‘Bitter Harvest’ are Fascist Lies,” Counterpunch, March 3, 2017.

[12] Sam Adams, “The Creator of Chernobyl on Viewers Taking Away the Wrong Lessons,” Slate, June 3, 2019.

[13] Thomas Johnson (Director), “The Battle of Chernobyl,” Play Films, 2006 (1:18:30 ~ end).

[14] David Hinckley, “New Science Channel Doc: Did the CIA Blow Up Chernobyl?” Huffington Post, August 30, 2017.

[15] “The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan, Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser”, Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, January 15, 1998, published in English by the Centre for Research on Globalization, October 5, 2001.

[16] Kate Brown, “Chernobyl horror has nuclear lessons for SA,” Business Day, South Africa, June 4, 2019.

[17] Kate Brown, Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future (W. W. Norton & Company), 311-312.

[18] “12 Ways HBO Changed The Chernobyl Story 12 Ways HBO Changed The Chernobyl Story,” Insider, June 7, 2019.

[19] Libbe Halevy, “Santa Susana Field Lab/Woolsey Fire Radiation Dangers—Shocking History of Nuke Site Health Damage w/Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano – NH #388,” Nuclear Hotseat, November 28, 2018.

All images in this article are from DiaNuke.org

The US President Donald Trump’s reported decision abruptly to call off military strike against Iran which he’d previously ordered, highlights the growing complexity of the US-Iranian entanglement. 

Indeed, it takes political courage to rationalise amidst such a dangerous situation that discretion is the better part of valour. Trump has been smart enough. But, having said that, there’s going to be downstream consequences. The Trump administration appears paralysed. And Tehran has seized the diplomatic initiative. 

What prompted Trump’s rethink? Surely, the rethink somewhat legitimises the Iranian assertion that it shot down the American drone which intruded into its air space. (In fact, Iran has since claimed that it recovered the debris of the downed US drone in the country’s southern waters.)

The US has a history of lying in such situations. Remember the downing of a scheduled Iranian passenger Airbus A300 flight in 1988 by an SM-2MR surface-to-air missile fired from USS Vincennes killing all 290 people including 66 children on board? 

The US, at the level of Vice-President George HW Bush lied over US culpability, saying,

“I will never apologise for the United States — I don’t care what the facts are… I’m not an apologise-for-America kind of guy.”

Only years later in 1996 Washington agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement to discontinue a case brought by Iran in the International Court of Justice relating to this incident. 

Therefore, the ‘known unknown’ here is at what point exactly Trump would have realised that this was a US spying mission that went horribly wrong — and constituted a reckless untimely provocation against Iran. Of course, an admission of guilt is not to be expected but Trump apparently decided not to begin a war based on falsehood. 

An expert opinion in the Atlantic details the “unlovely truth” that throughout its history, “America has attacked countries that did not threaten it. To carry out such wars, American leaders have contrived pretexts to justify American aggression. That’s what Donald Trump’s administration—and especially its national security adviser, John Bolton—is doing now with Iran.”  

According to the New York Times, Trump’s national security advisers are split about “whether to respond militarily” after Iran shot down the US surveillance drone for intruding into its airspace.

Senior administration officials told the daily that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Adviser John Bolton and CIA Director Gina Haspel had favoured a military raid. “But top Pentagon officials cautioned that such an action could result in a spiralling escalation with risks for American forces in the region,” The New York Times added. 

At any rate, Trump’s smartness lies here — in the sense that he understands that a war with Iran is risky, which the US can win only at a high cost and may even destroy his presidency. Second, there are no takers in the international community for a war against Iran. Even the UAE and Saudi Arabia have taken fright. (Tehran has disclosed that the US drone took off from the UAE.) 

France has openly disagreed with the US on the standoff with Iran, reflecting the mood in Europe. Trump would sense that any move against Iran by the US will be a solo act. No doubt, an influential section of American opinion too has begun voicing opposition to any US military strike against Iran. See the video, below, of a PBS interview with Stephen Hadley, former National Security Advisor in the George W Bush administration and Gerard Araud, former French ambassador to Washington. 

What lies ahead? Clearly, Trump has so far seemed to be looking for a way to avoid a potentially serious military crisis with Iran. Nonetheless, the danger of escalation remains. There are hardliners in both countries and it may turn out that they become mutual enablers in going up an escalation ladder. Then, there are always the unattended consequences when two adversaries indulge in brinkmanship while guessing about each other’s intentions.

Fundamentally, Trump’s policy lacks coherence and clarity. Its “maximum pressure” policy has become an end in itself. The policy narrows down to achieving either of two goals — outright Iranian capitulation or implosion of Iranian regime — and neither is a realistic objective. 

Plainly put, what Iran may have achieved in the drone incident is to demonstrate not only its capability but its political will and determination to counter the US’ “economic war” against it. Paradoxically, the US has applied such coercion against Iran by playing havoc with Iran’s economic ties with the rest of the world that the latter has no more option left to it but to escalate the tensions to a point that it is not Iran alone that suffers but the US and its regional allies as well. 

Simply put, the resistance has shifted gear. The Iranian missile strike at the US drone has taken place within two days of Trump formally announcing his candidacy for the 2020 November election. This carefully calibrated act of escalation would have served the purpose of highlighting to Trump that there is a high price to pay for the untold suffering he has imposed on the Iranian people by denying them healthcare and medicines and inflicting severe economic hardships. To be sure, the festive kickoff event in the Amway Center stadium in downtown Orland on Tuesday has already been drowned out by the sound of war drums.     

Given the above, there is no real substitute for direct US-Iranian diplomatic engagement. But for that to happen, there has to be some sort of gesture by the American side. Tehran will expect at a minimum an easing of sanctions by the Trump administration in terms of, say, giving waivers to third countries to import Iranian oil. 

Surely, the US started the spiral of tensions with the decision last May to leave the Iran nuclear deal and it is the responsibility of the Trump administration to make a gesture. How Trump can manage to do it is the big question. The Trump administration’s aggressive and confused policy towards Iran has dented the US credibility. 

*

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: US Navy RQ-4A Global Hawk identified by the US as the drone shot down by Iran over the Strait of Hormuz (Source: Indian Punchline)

UPDATED: VIPS says its direct experience with Mike Pompeo leaves them with strong doubt regarding his trustworthiness on issues of consequence to the President and the nation.

DATE: June 21, 2019

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President.

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Is Pompeo’s Iran Agenda the Same As Yours?

After the close call yesterday when you called off the planned military strike on Iran, we remain concerned that you are about to be mousetrapped into war with Iran. You have said you do not want such a war (no sane person would), and our comments below are based on that premise. There are troubling signs that Secretary Pompeo is not likely to jettison his more warlike approach, More importantly, we know from personal experience with Pompeo’s dismissive attitude to instructions from you that his agenda can deviate from yours on issues of major consequence.

Pompeo’s behavior betrays a strong desire to resort to  military action — perhaps even without your approval — to Iranian provocations (real or imagined), with no discernible strategic goal other than to advance the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. He is a neophyte compared to his anti-Iran partner John Bolton, whose dilettante approach to interpreting intelligence, strong advocacy of the misbegotten war on Iraq (and continued pride in his role in promoting it), and fierce pursuit of his own aggressive agenda are a matter of a decades-long record. You may not be fully aware of our experience with Pompeo, who has now taken the lead on Iran.

That experience leaves us with strong doubt regarding his trustworthiness on issues of consequence to you and the country, including the contentious issue of alleged Russian hacking into the DNC. The sketchy “evidence” behind that story has now crumbled, thanks to some unusual candor from the Department of Justice. We refer to the extraordinary revelation in a recent Department of Justice court filing that former FBI Director James Comey never required a final forensic report from the DNC-hired cybersecurity company, CrowdStrike.

Comey, of course, has admitted to the fact that, amid accusations from the late Sen. John McCain and others that the Russians had committed “an act of war,” the FBI did not follow best practices and insist on direct access to the DNC computers, preferring to rely on CrowdStrike reporting. What was not known until the DOJ revelation is that CrowdStrike never gave Comey a final report on its forensic findings regarding alleged “Russian hacking.” Mainstream media have suppressed this story so far; we reported it several days ago.

The point here is that Pompeo could have exposed the lies about Russian hacking of the DNC, had he done what you asked him to do almost two years ago when he was director of the CIA.

In our Memorandum to you of July 24, 2017 entitled “Was the ‘Russian Hack’ an Inside Job?,” we suggested:

“You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this.[“This” being the evidence-deprived allegation that “a shadowy entity with the moniker ‘Guccifer 2.0’ hacked the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks.”] Our own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it is possible that neither former CIA Director John Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down.”

Three months later, Director Pompeo invited William Binney, one of VIPS’ two former NSA technical directors (and a co-author of our July 24, 2017 Memorandum), to CIA headquarters to discuss our findings. Pompeo began an hour-long meeting with Binney on October 24, 2017 by explaining the genesis of the unusual invitation: “You are here because the President told me that if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk to you.”

But Did Pompeo ‘Really Want to Know’?

Apparently not. Binney, a widely respected, plain-spoken scientist with more than three decades of experience at NSA, began by telling Pompeo that his (CIA) people were lying to him about Russian hacking and that he (Binney) could prove it. As we explained in our most recent Memorandum to you, Pompeo reacted with disbelief and — now get this — tried to put the burden on Binney to pursue the matter with the FBI and NSA.

As for Pompeo himself, there is no sign he followed up by pursuing Binney’s stark observation with anyone, including his own CIA cyber sleuths. Pompeo had been around intelligence long enough to realize the risks entailed in asking intrusive questions of intelligence officers—in this case, subordinates in the Directorate of Digital Innovation, which was created by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015. CIA malware and hacking tools are built by the Engineering Development Group, part of that relatively new Directorate. (It is a safe guess that offensive cybertool specialists from that Directorate were among those involved in the reported placing of “implants” or software code into the Russian grid, about which The New York Times claims you were not informed.)

If Pompeo failed to report back to you on the conversation you instructed him to have with Binney, you might ask him about it now (even though the flimsy evidence of Russia hacking the DNC has now evaporated, with Binney vindicated). There were two note-takers present at the October 24, 2017 meeting at CIA headquarters. There is also a good chance the session was also recorded. You might ask Pompeo about that.

Whose Agenda?

The question is whose agenda Pompeo was pursuing — yours or his own. Binney had the impression Pompeo was simply going through the motions — and disingenuously, at that. If he “really wanted to know about Russian hacking,” he would have acquainted himself with the conclusions that VIPS, with Binney in the lead, had reached in mid-2017, and which apparently caught your eye.

Had he pursued the matter seriously with Binney, we might not have had to wait until the Justice Department itself put nails in the coffin of Russiagate, CrowdStrike, and Comey. In sum, Pompeo could have prevented two additional years of “everyone knows that the Russians hacked into the DNC.” Why did he not?

Pompeo is said to be a bright fellow — Bolton, too–with impeccable academic  credentials. The history of the past six decades, though, shows that an Ivy League pedigree can spell disaster in affairs of state. Think, for example, of President Lyndon Johnson’s national security adviser, former Harvard Dean McGeorge Bundy, for example, who sold the Tonkin Gulf Resolution to Congress to authorize the Vietnam war based on what he knew was a lie. Millions dead.

Bundy was to LBJ as John Bolton is to you, and it is a bit tiresome watching Bolton brandish his Yale senior ring at every podium. Think, too, of Princeton’s own Donald Rumsfeld concocting and pushing the fraud about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to “justify” war on Iraq, assuring us all the while that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Millions dead.

Rumsfeld’s dictum is anathema to William Binney, who has shown uncommon patience answering a thousand evidence-free “What if’s” over the past three years. Binney’s shtick? The principles of physics, applied mathematics, and the scientific method. He is widely recognized for his uncanny ability to use these to excellent advantage in separating the chaff from wheat. No Ivy pedigree wanted or needed.

Binney describes himself as a “country boy” from western Pennsylvania. He studied at Penn State and became a world renowned mathematician/cryptologist as well as a technical director at NSA. Binney’s accomplishments are featured in a documentary on YouTube, “A Good American.” You may wish to talk to him person-to-person.

Cooked Intelligence

Some of us served as long ago as the Vietnam War. We are painfully aware of how Gen. William Westmoreland and other top military officers lied about the “progress” the Army was making, and succeeded in forcing their superiors in Washington to suppress our conclusions as all-source analysts that the war was a fool’s errand and one we would inevitably lose. Millions dead.

Four decades later, on February 5, 2003, six weeks before the attack on Iraq, we warned President Bush that there was no reliable intelligence to justify war on Iraq.

Five years later, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, releasing the bipartisan conclusions of the committee’s investigation, said this:

“In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent.  As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

Intelligence on the Middle East has still been spotty — and sometimes “fixed” for political purposes. Four years ago, a U.S. congressional report said Central Command painted too rosy a picture of the fight against Islamic State in 2014 and 2015 compared with the reality on the ground and grimmer assessments by other analysts.

Intelligence analysts at CENTCOM claimed their commanders imposed a “false narrative” on analysts, intentionally rewrote and suppressed intelligence products, and engaged in “delay tactics” to undermine intelligence provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency. In July 2015, fifty CENTCOM analysts signed a complaint to the Pentagon’s Inspector General that their intelligence reports were being manipulated by their superiors. The CENTCOM analysts were joined by intelligence analysts working for the Defense Intelligence Agency.

We offer this as a caution. As difficult as this is for us to say, the intelligence you get from CENTCOM should not be accepted reflexively as gospel truth, especially in periods of high tension. The experience of the Tonkin Gulf alone should give us caution. Unclear and misinterpreted intelligence can be as much a problem as politicization in key conflict areas.

Frequent problems with intelligence and Cheney-style hyperbole help explain why CENTCOM commander Admiral William Fallon in early 2007 blurted out that “an attack on Iran “ will not happen on my watch,” as Bush kept sending additional carrier groups into the Persian Gulf. Hillary Mann, the administration’s former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs, warned at the time that some Bush advisers secretly wanted an excuse to attack Iran. “They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,” she told Newsweek. Deja vu. A National Intelligence Estimate issued in November 2007 concluded unanimously that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed such work.

We believe your final decision yesterday was the right one — given the so-called “fog of war” and against the background of a long list of intelligence mistakes, not to mention “cooking” shenanigans. We seldom quote media commentators, but we think Tucker Carlson had it right yesterday evening: “The very people — in some cases, literally the same people who lured us into the Iraq quagmire 16 years ago — are demanding a new war — this one with Iran. Carlson described you as “skeptical.” We believe ample skepticism is warranted.

We are at your disposal, should you wish to discuss any of this with us.

For the Steering Groups of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:

William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)

Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer & former Division Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (ret.)

Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator

James George Jatras, former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)

Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)

John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003

Clement J. Laniewski, LTC, U.S. Army (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & CIA political analyst (ret.)

Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)

Sarah Wilton, Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve (ret.) and Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)

Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War

*

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

There is no doubt that lying in any form and for questionable reasons is not an accepted value. It can cause serious consequences on those who are the object of lies. It some cases it can cost lives. A person caught lying on a witness stand in court can face criminal charges.

Lying by omission – that is willfully withdrawing important factual information – is no less serious than outright disinformation. When it comes to Venezuela today any form of omission of relevant information must be considered reckless.

The Washington Post in its article of 21 June titled “UN human rights chief meets with Venezuela’s Guaidó, Maduro” [1] provides a good example of lying by omission.

In its 22-paragraphs long article clearly the focus is on Guaidó. However, some half-statements – the other half being what is not said – are of concern because they do not give a balanced understanding of the event that took place in Venezuela with the visit of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet.

The Washington Post does not seem to value the importance that the visit may have in deescalating the dangerous US-Venezuela political tension at the international level. On the contrary, it finds the space to state that “Bachelet issued a tough statement criticizing Maduro’s government” and quotes from a statement that Ms. Bachelet gave last March:

“I am also deeply concerned about the shrinking of the democratic space, especially the continued criminalization of peaceful protest and dissent.”

That quote is accurate. What the Washington Post omits is something else Ms. Bachelet said in that same March statement:

“Although this pervasive and devastating economic and social crisis began before the imposition of the first economic sanctions in 2017, I am concerned that the recent sanctions on financial transfers related to the sale of Venezuelan oil within the United States may contribute to aggravating the economic crisis, with possible repercussions on people’s basic rights and wellbeing.“

Although that statement has also being criticized for not being totally accurate, [2] its omission is even more striking because the Washington Post would have had an opportunity to introduce a major relevant fact such as the extent of the numerous US sanctions on Venezuela. The Washington Post makes no reference at all in the whole article to the sanctions as if they did not exist or have negative impacts on the country. The first US sanctions were imposed in March 2015 by the Obama administration and have dramatically escalated to become a virtual economic and financial blockade. This is a widely documented fact easily accessible to the Washington Post journalist and editor.

Further, the Washington Post states,

“[Ms. Bachelet’s] predecessor, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, was repeatedly denied access to the country [Venezuela] for criticizing what he said was the government’s refusal to recognize a humanitarian crisis.”

The Post journalist does not say when that actually happened. But we do have on video record Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein saying

“I welcome the oral invitation of the government [of Venezuela] to my office to provide technical support for the implementation of the universal periodic review recommendations.” [3]

The invitation was dismissed in that same declaration that was highly critical of the Venezuelan government, and was delivered at the UN Security Council presided by former US ambassador at the UN Nikki Haley and with OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro present.

However, that is not the only omission. Mr. Hussein made reference to the invitation on November 13, 2017 but the Washington Post does not mention that UN special rapporteur Alfred De Zayas visited Venezuela invited by the Venezuelan government from November 26 to December 4, 2017 – arrangement that surely must have been worked out during Mr. Hussein tenure at the UN – and gave his official report to the UN Human Rights Council in September 2018, one month after Mr. Hussein ended his period at the UN. [4] In it Mr. de Zayas reports that there is no humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, among other facts.

This type of media reporting that gives only part of the facts while omitting others is misleading, irresponsible, unprofessional, and reckless, and can only be construed as a sign of a biased and prejudiced view on Venezuela. I was able to find these relevant facts after a quick Internet search. And so can a professional journalist writing for alleged serious media. It only requires the will and the integrity to do so. Maybe the day will come when a journalist or editor can be prosecuted for posting articles that contain lies.

*

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

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

Notes

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/un-human-rights-chief-meets-with-venezuelas-guaido-maduro/2019/06/21/04353b5a-942f-11e9-956a-88c291ab5c38_story.html

[2] https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14401

[3] http://webtv.un.org/d/watch/zeid-ra’ad-al-hussein-ohchr-on-the-situation-in-venezuela-security-council-arria-formula-meeting/5643399460001/

[4] https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G18/239/31/PDF/G1823931.pdf

Parts of the documentary Modified are spent at the kitchen table. But it’s not really a tale about wonderful recipes or the preparation of food. Ultimately, it’s a story of capitalism, money and power and how our most basic rights are being eroded by unscrupulous commercial interests.

The film centres on its maker, Aube Giroux, who resides in Nova Scotia, Canada. Her interest in food and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was inspired by her mother, Jali, who also appears throughout. Aube says that when her parents bought their first house her mother immediately got rid of the lawn and planted a huge garden where she grew all kinds of heirloom vegetables, berries, flowers, legumes and garlic.

“She wanted me and my sister to grow up knowing the story behind the food that we ate, so our backyard was basically our grocery store,” says Aube.

During the film, we are treated not only to various outdoor scenes of the Giroux’s food garden (their ‘grocery store’) but also to Aube and her mother’s passion for preparing homemade culinary delights. The ‘backyard’ is the grocery store and much of Giroux family life revolves around the kitchen and the joy of healthy, nutritious food.

When GMOs first began appearing in food, Aube says that what bothered her mother was that some of the world’s largest chemical companies were patenting these new genetically engineered seeds and controlling the seed market.

In the film, Aube explains,

“Farmers who grow GMOs have to sign technology license agreements promising never to save or replant the patented seeds. My mom didn’t think it was a good idea to allow corporations to engineer and then patent the seeds that we rely on for food. She believed that seeds belong in the hands of people.”

As the GMO issue became prominent, Aube became more interested in the subject. It took her 10 years to complete the film, which is about her personal journey of discovery into the world of GMOs. The film depicts a world that is familiar to many of us; a place where agritech industry science and money talk, politicians and officials are all too eager to listen and the public interest becomes a secondary concern.

Watch the trailer of Modified below.

In 2001, Canada’s top scientific body, The Royal Society, released a scathing report that found major problems with the way GMOs were being regulated. The report made 53 recommendations to the government for fixing the regulatory system and bringing it in line with peer reviewed science and the precautionary principle, which says new technologies should not be approved when there is uncertainty about their long-term safety. To date, only three of these recommendations have been implemented.

Throughout the film, we see Aube making numerous phone calls, unsuccessfully trying to arrange an interview to discuss these issues with Health Canada, the department of the government of Canada that is responsible for national public health.

Meanwhile, various people are interviewed as the story unfolds. We are told about the subverting of regulatory agencies in the US when GMOs first appeared on the scene in the early 1990s: the Food and Drug Administration ignored the warnings of its own scientists, while Monsanto flexed its political muscle to compromise the agency by manoeuvring its own people into positions of influence.

One respondent says,

“We’ve had a number of people from Monsanto, many from Dupont, who have actually been in top positions at the USDA and the FDA over the last 20 years, making darn sure that when those agencies did come out with any pseudo-regulation, that it was what these industries wanted. The industry will often say these are the most regulated crops in history… I’m not an expert on the law in many other countries. But I am an expert on the laws in the United States and I can tell you… they are virtually unregulated.”

Aube takes time to find out about genetic engineering and talks to molecular biologists. She is shown how the process of genetic modification in the lab works. One scientist says,

“In genetics, we have a phrase called pleiotropic effects. It means that there are other effects in the plant that are unintended but are a consequence of what you’ve done. I wouldn’t be surprised if something came up somewhere along the line that we hadn’t anticipated that’s going to be a problem.”

And that’s very revealing: if you are altering the genetic core of the national (and global) food supply in a way that would not have occurred without human intervention, you had better be pretty sure about the consequences. Many illnesses can take decades to show up in a population.

This is one reason why Aube Giroux focuses on the need for the mandatory labelling of GM food in Canada. Some 64 countries have already implemented such a policy and most Canadians want GM food to be labelled too. However, across North America labelling has been fiercely resisted by the industry. As the film highlights, it’s an industry that has key politicians in its back pocket and has spent millions resisting effective labelling.

In the film, we hear from someone from the agri/biotech industry say that labelling would send out the wrong message; it would amount to fearmongering; it would confuse the public; it would raise food prices; and you can eat organic if you don’t want GMOs. To those involved in the GMO debate and the food movement, these industry talking points are all too familiar.

Signalling the presence of GMOs in food through labelling is about the public’s right to know what they are eating. But the film makes clear there are other reasons for labelling too. To ensure that these products are environmentally safe and safe for human health, you need to monitor them in the marketplace. If you have new allergic responses emerging is it a consequence of GMOs? There’s no way of telling if there is no labelling. Moreover, the industry knows many would not purchase GM food if people were given any choice on the matter. That’s why it has spent so much money and invested so much effort to prevent it.

During the film, we also hear from an Iowa farmer, who says GM is all about patented seeds and money. He says there’s incredible wealth and power to be had from gaining ownership of the plants that feed humanity. And it has become a sorry tale for those at the sharp end: farmers are now on a financially lucrative (for industry) chemical-biotech treadmill as problems with the technology and its associated chemicals mount: industry rolls out even stronger chemicals and newer GM traits to overcome the failures of previous roll outs.

But to divert attention from the fact that GM has ‘failed to yield’ and deliver on industry promises, the film notes that the industry churns out rhetoric, appealing to emotion rather than fact, about saving the world and feeding the hungry to help legitimize the need for GM seeds and associated (health- and environment-damaging) chemical inputs.

In an interview posted on the film’s website, Aube says that genetic engineering is an important technology but “should only take place if the benefits truly outweigh the risks, if rigorous adequate regulatory systems are in place and if full transparency, full disclosure and the precautionary principle are the pillars on which our food policies are based.”

Health Canada has always claimed to have had a science-based GMO regulatory system. But the Royal Society’s report showed that GMO approvals are based on industry studies that have little scientific merit since they aren’t peer reviewed.

For all her attempts, Aube failed to get an interview with Health Canada. Near the end of the film, we see her on the phone to the agency once again. She says,

“Well I guess I find it extremely concerning and puzzling that Health Canada is not willing to speak with me… you guys are our public taxpayer funded agency in this country that regulates GMOs, and so you’re accountable to Canadians, and you have a responsibility to answer questions.”

Given this lack of response and the agency’s overall track record on GMOs, it is pertinent to ask just whose interests does Health Canada ultimately serve.

When Aube Giroux started this project, it was meant to be a film about food. But she notes that it gradually became a film about democracy: who gets to decide our food policies; is it the people we elect to represent us, or is it corporations and their heavily financed lobbyists?

Aube is a skilful filmmaker and storyteller. She draws the viewer into her life and introduces us to some inspiring characters, especially her mother, Jali, who passed away during the making of the film. Jali has a key part in the documentary, which had started out as a joint venture between Aube and her mother. By interweaving personal lives with broader political issues, Modified becomes a compelling documentary. On one level, it’s deeply personal. On another, it is deeply disturbing given what corporations are doing to food without our consent – and often – without our knowledge.

For those who watch the film, especially those coming to the issue for the first time, it should at the very least raise concerns about what is happening to food, why it is happening and what can be done about it. The film might be set in Canada, but the genetic engineering of our food supply by conglomerates with global reach transcends borders and affects us all.

Whether we reside in North America, Europe, India or elsewhere, the push in on to co-opt governments and subvert regulatory bodies by an industry which regards GM as a multi-billion cash cow  – regardless of the consequences.

Modified won the 2019 James Beard Foundation award for best documentary and is currently available on DVD at .modifiedthefilm.com/dvd. It is due to be released on digital streaming platforms this summer.

*

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.

As I posted on June 22, the world still faces the danger of an attack on Iran by Washington acting as an agent of Netanyahu.  Israeli agent John Bolton is already in Israel conferring with Netanyahu.  It is a safe bet that a more serious false flag attack is being planned that will force Trump to save face by attacking Iran. See this. 

If Israel and its neoconservative American agents succeed in setting the Middle East on fire, it will also be the fault of the Russian and Chinese leadership.  The Russians and Chinese could stabilize the situation by announcing a NATO-type alliance with Iran and putting military forces in the country, and by informing the criminal Netanyahu that if war breaks out Israel is the first to go.  

I am aware of the arguments that it is not Russia and China’s responsibility to protect Iran and save the world.  The problem with this view is that if a conflagration breaks out, neither Russia nor China can escape its consequences.  It would be far more intelligent for the two governments to take unified proactive measures than to be faced with having to react to a conflagration.  

The US Congress long ago decided to evade responsibility by giving up its war authority, a decision that currently rests in the hands of Bolton and Netanyahu.  The European politicians are Washington’s mindless puppets.  The only chance for world leadership resides in the Russian and Chinese governments.  Both should understand that their inaction is a form of deadly action.

*

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

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

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

---

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 substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

Over 400 pilots have joined a class-action lawsuit against Boeing, accusing the company of an “unprecedented cover-up” of “known design flaws” on the company’s top-selling 737 MAX, according to the Australian Broadcasting Company. 

The MAX, first put into service in 2017, was involved in two fatal crashes over the course of a year; the first off the coast of Indonesia in October 2018, killing 189 – and the second in Ethiopia, killing 157.

The lawsuit, filed by a plaintiff who goes by “Pilot X” in court documents out of “fear of reprisal from Boeing and discrimination from Boeing customers,” accuses the Chicago-based aviation giant of “an unprecedented cover-up of the known design flaws of the MAX, which predictably resulted in the crashes of two MAX aircraft and subsequent grounding of all MAX aircraft worldwide.”

The pilots argue that they “suffer and continue to suffer significant lost wages, among other economic and non-economic damages” since the fleet was grounded across the globe.

The lawsuit focuses on the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) anti-stall system, which Pilot X claims gave the aircraft “inherently dangerous aerodynamic handling defects.”

The reason for this handling quirk was by design, as Boeing made the decision to retrofit newer, large fuel-efficient engines onto an existing 737 model’s fuselage, in order to create the MAX.

The larger engines caused a change in aerodynamics which made the plane prone to pitching up during flight, so much so, that it risked a crash as a result of an aerodynamic stall.

To stop this from happening, Boeing introduced MCAS software to the MAX, which automatically tilted the plane down if the software detected that the plane’s nose was pointing at too steep of an angle, known as a high Angle of Attack (AOA). –ABC

Via ABC.net.au

In May, we reported that Boeing designers also altered a MCAS toggle switch panel that could have prevented both of the deadly crashes. 

On the older 737 NG, the right switch was labeled “AUTO PILOT” – and allowed pilots to deactivate the plane’s automated stabilizer controls, such as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), suspected to be the culprit in both crashes. The left toggle switch on the NG would deactivate the buttons on the yoke which pilots regularly use to control the horizontal stabilizer.

On the 737 MAX, however, the two switches were altered to perform the same function, according to internal documents reviewed by the Times, so that they would disable all electronic stabilizer controls – including the MCAS and the thumb buttons on the yoke used to control the stabilizer.

During the October Lion Air flight, pilots were reportedly unaware of how to troubleshoot the MCAS system – while the day before, an off-duty pilot with knowledge of the stabilizer controls helped pilots disable the system on the same plane. Data from the flight revealed that the repeated commands from the MCAS system sent the flight from Bali to Jakarta plummeting into the sea.

In a rush to bring the plane to customers, Boeing did not alert pilots to the software in a bid to prevent “any new training that required a simulator” — a decision that was also designed to save MAX customers money.

Pilot X, alleges that Boeing “decided not to tell MAX pilots about the MCAS or to require MAX pilots to undergo any MCAS training” so that its customers could deploy pilots on “revenue-generating routes as quickly as possible”.

In March, a report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) found that the system was only mentioned once in the aircraft manual, which was in the glossary, explaining the MCAS acronym — an omission Boeing did not deny in response to the CBC. –ABC

The pilots who have joined the lawsuit hope to “deter Boeing and other airplane manufacturers from placing corporate profits ahead of the lives of the pilots, crews, and general public they service.”

*

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

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated

The recent escalation of conflict between the United States and Iran threatens another US military quagmire that would create crisis and chaos in Iran, the region and perhaps globally as well as costing the US trillions of dollars. The US needs to change course — a deeply wrong course it has been on regarding Iran since the 1950s, escalating since Iran declared its independence in their 1979 Revolution. There is a path out of this situation, but it requires leadership from President Trump, which will only come if the people of the United States mobilize to demand it.

Peace Delegation to Iran at the Iranian Foreign Ministry, February 2019. Photograph from CODE PINK.

The Trump Story Of Last Minute Decision Not To Attack Iran, Doubted

The story repeated in the corporate media, including the New York Times, Washington, Post, CNN, ABC News, and others is that President Trump called off a military attack on Iran at the last moment because he was told that 150 Iranians could be killed. It is evident this was the story being pushed by the White House. Initially, the story was that Trump stopped the bombing with ten minutes to spare, while the planes were already in the air. On Sunday, the story changed to Trump was asked for a decision by the Pentagon a half hour before the attack and said ‘no’ to the attack because he was told about civilian casualties.

This story is being doubted by many. Even on FOX News, two of its leading broadcasters, Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace, said Trump’s story of stopping the attack at the last moment, “does not hold water” and “something is wrong here.” They talked with former military officials and said it was highly unlikely that the president would not have been told of the likely casualties from the possible military scenarios.

Did President Trump really think the US could drop bombs on Iran and not kill people? Trump broke the record for bombs dropped in Afghanistan when in 2018 he dropped more than 5,200 bombs. The UN found that in 2019, the US and its allies were responsible for the majority of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. In 2017, President Trump loosened the rules on drone strikes causing a significant escalation in drone strikes. The US and its allies dropped more than 20,000 bombs in 2017 in Syria, reducing cities to literal rubble. With this record, how can anyone believe Trump was worried about a potential 150 deaths in Iran?

And, bombs are not the only way President Trump kills people. Economic coercive measures (aka sanctions) in Venezuela put in place by President Trump in August 2017 have resulted in 40,000 deaths. In Iran, Trump has escalated sanctions to choke the economy and create hardship for the Iranian people. Sanctions are as deadly as war but are worse because people find them to be more palatable than bombs.

If it was not a concern for the death of civilians, why did Trump not bomb Iran in response to the drone being shot down?

Iran Shows it can Defend Itself Against a US Military Attack

One concern about the destruction of the US drone is whether it was over Iranian airspace when it was destroyed. Iran maintains that it was in their airspace. The US claims it was in international air space, but the US lacks credibility when it makes such claims. Perhaps one reason Trump has not acted is he knows Iran was within its rights.

Iran reports that they did not shoot down the drone until after giving several warnings to the United States.  Major General Hossein Salami of the Revolutionary Guard said, “The downing of the US drone had an explicit, decisive and clear message that defenders of the Islamic Iran’s borders will show decisive and knockout reactions to aggression against this territory by any alien.”

According to Reuters, Amirali Hajizadeh, the head of the Revolutionary Guard’s aerospace division, said that a manned US Boeing P-8 Poseidon surveillance plane was also in Iranian airspace at the same time as the drone. Iran decided not to shoot it down because there were 35 people on board. Hajizadeh said, the US “plane also entered our airspace and we could have shot it down, but we did not.”

Reuters also reported that Iran received a message from the United States through Oman that a military strike was imminent and that Trump was against any war with Iran but wanted to talk to Iran about various issues. Iran responded: “We made it clear that the leader is against any talks, but the message will be conveyed to him to make a decision … However, we told the Omani official that any attack against Iran will have regional and international consequences.”

Iran shot down the drone with a Surface to Air Missile that was an Iranian-produced defense system. This illustrates that a military conflict with the Islamic Republic would be very challenging for the United States. The Center for Strategic and International Studies reports that Iran has the largest and most diverse missile arsenal in the Middle East. Tehran views missile defense as vital against Washington’s aggression. The missile attack on the US drone shows Iran has aerial defense capability.

Military Times reports how difficult war with Iran would be writing, “Iranian coastal defenses would likely render the entire Persian Gulf off-limits to U.S. Navy warships. Iran’s advanced surface-to-air missile defenses would be a significant threat to U.S. pilots. And Iran’s arsenal of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles put U.S military installations across the U.S. Central Command region at risk. The cost in U.S. casualties could be high.”

The big problem for the United States is it simply does not have the military power to keep the Strait of Hormuz  open, 30% of the world’s oil supply transits the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Baqeri, stated reality clearly: “If the Islamic Republic of Iran were determined to prevent export of oil from the Persian Gulf, that determination would be realized in full and announced in public, in view of the power of the country and its Armed Forces.”

Pepe Escobar explains the Iranian border of the Persian Gulf is lined up with anti-ship missiles and Iran’s ballistic missiles are capable of hitting “carriers in the sea” with precision. He explains that blocking the Strait would dramatically increase oil prices and detonate “the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market; and that would collapse the world banking system, crushing the world’s $80 trillion GDP and causing an unprecedented depression.”

Iran’s allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan are ready for joint operations in response to a US military war against Iran.  According to Eliajah J.Magnier, they are prepared and on alert at the highest level. Joint operations will begin from the moment they are necessary. According to sources, Iran’s allies will open fire against already agreed on objectives in an organized, orchestrated, synchronized and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many months. The US will face war on many fronts very quickly.

The US lacks international support for a military attack on Iran. Russia, China, the European Union, and other major powers have called for de-escalation. A military attack on Iran would lead to a quagmire that could take a decade or more and end in defeat for the United States, destruction in Iran and chaos in the region. The US has spent more than $7 trillion since the beginning of the Iraq War and Iran is larger in geography and population as well as having a better militarily. The United States cannot afford another $7+ trillion dollar war for another decade. It would be an economic and military disaster that would further isolate the United States.

Peace Delegation to Iran visits the Tehran Peace Museum 2019. Photograph from Popular Resistance.

Iran in Context and a Path Out of the US-Created Debacle

In our conversation on the Clearing the FOG podcast, which will air Monday, June 24, conflict resolution expert, Patrick Hiller, explained how sometimes to resolve a conflict, the conflict must be heightened. The US conflict with Iran is escalating in dangerous ways where perhaps both sides can see that the path to war will produce no winners and could be the greatest foreign policy error in US history.

President Trump can be the hero as the US heads into 2020 presidential elections but it will require him to stop listening to National Security Advisor, John Bolton and Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, who both want war with Iran. Their advice is the opposite of President Trump’s criticism of war during his last campaign. They have teamed up to undermine Trump’s negotiations with North Korea, prevent the withdrawal of US troops from Syria, led him into a failed coup in Venezuela and now to the brink of war with Iran. Trump would be wise to replace both Bolton and Pompeo.

The idiocy of Pompeo was shown this week when he claimed Iran’s actions “should be understood in the context of 40 years of unprovoked aggression.” Is Pompeo really that ignorant of history?

Popular Resistance has often reported on the US overthrow of the democratically-elected government of  Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in August 1953. The CIA has confirmed its role in this coup as has the US State Department. This coup ended Iran’s brief experience with a secular democracy. If that democracy had been allowed to flourish, the story of the Middle East would have been very different than the war, chaos and brutal governments we have seen since that time. Mossadegh was followed by the US puppet, the Shah, who brutally ruled the country until the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

After the Iranian Revolution, the US encouraged and supported the eight-year Iraq War against Iran with money, naval assistance, and weapons. The US provided Iraq with the ingredients for chemical weapons as well as intelligence on where to use them. More than one million people were killed and more than 80,000 were injured by chemical weapons in the war.

The US also killed 290 Iranians, including 66 children, when a US missile shot down a commercial Iranian airliner in July 1988. The US has never apologized for this mass killing of civilians. The US has imposed aggressive economic sanctions against Iran since they declared their independence and has consistently escalated those sanctions in an attempt to destroy their economy. And, the US has spent millions of dollars to build opposition inside Iran to the Iranian government as well as working with the opposition, MEK,  secretly trained by the US military, which is branded a terrorist group by Iran (and used to be designated a terrorist group by the US).

The US has imposed economic sanctions since 1980 when the US broke diplomatic relations with Iran. President Carter put in place sanctions including freezing $12 billion in Iranian assets and banning imports of Iranian oil. The economic war and the illegal unilateral coercive measures have been escalated by every president, including by President Trump when he violated the carefully negotiated nuclear agreement. Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif painstakingly negotiated the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal between China, France, Russia, the UK, Germany, and the European Union for more than a decade. Instead of abiding by the agreement, the US violated it and escalated sanctions against Iran.

The US is also fomenting rebellion. The Trump administration has been seeking regime change through various actions including violence. Trump created a Mission Center in the CIA focused on regime change in Iran and spends millions of dollars to encourage opposition in Iran, working to manipulate protests to support a US agenda.

The path out of this mess is for President Trump to lead. He needs to acknowledge this history and the mistakes of his advisors, Bolton and Pompeo, rejoin the nuclear agreement, abide by it by lifting the illegal US sanctions and promise to abide by international law.  It will take positive actions by the United States to make up for decades of aggressive abuses against Iran to bring Iran to the table of diplomacy.

If these steps are taken, a positive relationship based on mutual respect can be developed between the US and Iran. It is the job of the peace movement and all those who seek stability and justice in the world to work toward this outcome.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

It would appear these days, that unless one can show that one is important or an expert in some way or other, one will not be taken seriously by those who only see life as a social climbing highway called ‘career making’.

Gone, as important values for society, is respect for simple common sense, the quiet search for deeper knowledge and the expression of native indigenous wisdom. Unless one is on the road to ‘making it’ or has already ‘made it’ on the terms of reference of the current status quo, one is treated as a kind of social misfit.

Accordingly, aspirants of fame and fortune struggle to attain positions in society which enable them to make an impression by pronouncing authoritatively on various issues of the day. Most people seeking to acquire this authoritative aura go out of their way to ensure they look the part, choosing their attire with great care and no doubt spending much time in front of the mirror before anchoring themselves to their chosen pedestal and awaiting the applause of the public arena.

Some get an early break and are able to establish a good foothold on the ‘making-it’ ladder; while others flounder and fall from grace without getting beyond the first or second rung. They are the lucky ones, because they are saved from the overwhelming temptation to sell their souls to the devil called power.

For the perspective of this article I am interested in following those who, once on the ladder, single-mindedly devote their entire lives to getting to the top. Those who become steadily more and more blinded by the prospect of achieving the holy grail status of becoming what is commonly called ‘ a power broker’.

The most febrile setting for the enactment of this Faustian power game is politics. The Politician learns the rules of the game at an early stage of his/her career and the first and most important rule is to become thoroughly well versed in the art of deception. There really is not much hope of moving up the rungs of the 21st century political ladder without perfecting this skill. The ability to oh so convincingly make a lie sound like a truth.

The first lesson of the new kid on the block of politics is “obey the party line or sink into oblivion.”

The party line, one is bound to observe, is itself a characteristic evasion of the truth, because it lays down a set of values and conditions that must be adhered to, even though they are perennially based on biased, bigoted and typically blinkered views concerning the direction society should move in.

But our recently elected seeker on the political path is not too concerned about that, and is all too ready to sign-up to membership of this little prison. The party rules offer a certain safety zone within which to operate, one which pretty much ensures that it will never be necessary to think or act outside this particularly well insulated box.

The convenience of signing-up to life inside a virtual prison is clearly extremely enticing. Few political career builders fail to fall for its unholy assurance of protection and insulation from the typical struggles of everyday life on the street. Those who unflinchingly obey the party line will always remain candidates for the next rung up the ladder of political privilege which comes with being a well protected member of the elite.

So, signing-in completed, off goes our recently elected eager little bundle of good will towards mankind to hold a ‘surgery’ with the constituents who voted him into office (I have chosen to use ‘him’ but it might just as well be ‘her’). Congratulations are the order of the day and our new parliamentarian can bathe in the warm glow of becoming ‘a representative of the people’. A bright future looks assured with the next rung on the ladder already firmly within his sights.

In the hallowed halls of Westminster’s the parliament building, the newly elected get their first true taste of the trappings of power. It could be any parliament in the world, the effect would be the same. The place is packed full of history, of famous people and famous events. National TV crews hover around waiting to do interviews, eager to pick-up the issue of the moment. Members of the public cue to get into the spectators gallery and a large police presence maintains a 24 hour patrol of the precinct. A personal office is ready for occupation with a well trained secretary awaiting orders from her new boss. It’s a heady combination, perfectly designed to fuel career ambitions and massage an ever opportunistic ego.

Then, one fine day a few years down this road, the great chance comes. A junior ministerial post in the ministry of Defence is offered, and our young politician is called to attend a private session with a small group of senior party grandees.  In spite of the fact that our friend has learned how ro reel-off the party line to perfection and to fend-off awkward questions from his constituents – what he is told in this meeting is unexpected.

The ensuing conversation goes something like this:

“Sit down David – cup of tea? We have observed your allegiance to the party and are pleased with your performance in this regard, however there is one area in which you still appear a little vulnerable.”

David “Oh, I’m very interested to hear what that might be..”

Grandee “Good, do you take sugar? David, none of us in this room would be where we are today if it wasn’t for the fact that we had – on a number of occasions – to be ..well how shall I put it..somewhat conservative with the truth”.

David “If you mean the need to conceal some information in the cause of protecting the party position – I’m quite familiar with this need.”

Grandee “That is indeed close to what we want to convey – however on occasions it goes a little further. You see David, as you are no doubt aware the party is dependent on funds from donors, some of whom – especially the corporate ones – would not continue to support the party should it deviate from its pledge to follow-through certain commitments, some of which might appear .. somewhat controversial.”

David “There is much controversy raised on a daily basis in the house, do you mean something over and above this?”

A second grandee “What ‘the right honorable gentleman’ is referring to – to borrow the language we use in the debating chamber – does somewhat exceed the typical repartee of the chamber, and indeed the standard line we put-out to the media. What my colleague wishes to convey to you David, is that once one has attained the position of a Minister there is a need to prioritize both verbal and actual support for the commercial interests of our chief sponsors. There really is no room for expressing a view outside the one that assures the economic viability of the party.”

After a small time spent reflecting on this, our young political aspirant replies

“I see, well it has been my observation since becoming elected that we are dependent upon a number of well-off party faithfuls to keep the coffers topped-up.”

Second grandee “While that is a valid observation, we need to take it one step further. Suppose someone – a Saudi Royal for example – should establish contact with you with a view to acquiring a substantial order of military equipment – and upon inquiry – it becomes evident that this could possibly be used to enforce some form of coercion upon a neighbouring country. Suppose, David, that you were in a position to make a decision on whether or not to go ahead with this request – what would your response be?”

David “Well..I find that a little hard to answer. I think it would depend upon first making a more detailed assessment of the geopolitical position.”

A somewhat prolonged silence settles over the room, making our young aspirant a trifle nervous. Then the first grandee leans slowly forward

“That is not the right answer David. It would indeed be right if you were being interviewed by the BBC, but in this room, between you and I and my colleagues – it is not the right answer. David, now that you are to take up this important position in the Ministry, you will need to take a considerably more pragmatic stance in such matters. One that is not influenced by the possible outcome of completing an arms deal such as that being mooted. You must place any conscientious  concerns behind you and recognize that to refuse such a deal on humanitarian grounds, or similar considerations, would mean a serious loss of earnings to the government – and indeed, to the prestige of the Country. What I am saying, David, as I feel sure you will understand, is that you must readily agree to negotiate the sale of such military armaments and beyond that – to declare your pleasure at being able to unequivocally support the Royal personage’s request.”

On receiving this information, our still somewhat naive Junior Minister falls into a state of mini crisis, a kind of black-out of the mind. His wife, children, home, old school friends – all flash past his eyes – followed by a freeze frame vision of severely wounded and brutalized citizens of an occupied Middle Eastern Country. Yet, rising-up and ultimately superseding all these images, is the career. The desire to ‘make it’. The vision that accompanies this emotion is of a newspaper headline ‘David Saunders Set To Be Prime Minister’.

After what seems like an interminable and agonizing passage of time the words are formed in response

“I admit that I am rather taken-aback by the uncompromising nature of your answer. I do possess a moral compass which would in normal conditions make me wish to consider this issue before responding. However, if my role as a Minister demanded a response in line with the one you have indicated, I would of course feel obliged to take that route. But I will not pretend that it would sit easily in me or that I would not feel the need for some moral justification in taking such a decision.”

First grandee “ Ah, we all went through that one David, it is an essential initiation process into the world of real politics. I’m afraid there is no way around it, you have to make economic pragmatism your new moral compass. You have to bury any lingering sense of ethical or humanitarian consideration, and go forward in complete confidence, demonstrating that you have no doubts and are fully committed to the call of your office.”

David “I see”.

Grandee “Yes, it’s not easy at first, but after a while it becomes second nature. You will soon learn to set aside old scruples that would otherwise block your political career  and undermine your status in the outside world. You will need the same resolve to by-pass any human sensitivities you might feel when you stand in front of the cameras for news’ broadcasts; in newspaper quotes; in official trips abroad, even in front of your own family. You see David, you are undergoing a necessary training. You are being trained to lie, both to yourself and to the outside world. There really is no other way if you wish to be a successful general on the battlefield of 21st century politics. In fact, you will need to work tirelessly in order to perfect the art of deception. To that point where you yourself actually come to believe your pronouncements to be true, even when they’re clearly not. At that juncture the public will fall for your every word and not be able to discern what is right from what is wrong. Good luck David, stick by the rules of the game and your highest dreams stand every chance of being realized.”

Leaving the room, David Saunders MP, Junior Minister of Defence, felt a new sense of  resolve. The highest positions of office were indeed within reach; why should he turn down any opportunity that might present itself – to boost his status as a successful Minister, enrich the party coffers and move closer to that all enticing goal of one day leading his Country?

*

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.

Julian Rose is an international activist, writer, organic farming pioneer and actor.  In 1987 and 1998, he led a campaign that saved unpasteurised milk from being banned in the UK; and, with Jadwiga Lopata, a ‘Say No to GMO’ campaign in Poland which led to a national ban of GM seeds and plants in that country in 2006. Julian is currently campaigning to ‘Stop 5G’ WiFi. He is the author of two acclaimed titles: Changing Course for Life and In Defence of Life. His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind’ will be available from this July. Julian is a long time exponent of yoga/meditation. See his web site for more information and to purchase his books www.julianrose.info

Pompeo, Bolton, and their hardline underlings seek coalition partners of the willing for confronting Iran militarily. More on this below.

Sunday on NBC News Meet the Press, Trump made a rare candid statement, saying “(i)f it was up to (John Bolton), he’d take on the whole world at one time…”

At the same time, DJT demonized Iran, a nonbelligerent nation threatening no one.

Its ruling authorities have no aim to develop nuclear weapons. Nuclear expert Helen Caldicott earlier said this technology “threatens life on our planet with extinction,” adding:

“If present trends continue, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink will soon be contaminated with enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard far greater than any plague humanity has ever experienced.”

A “single failure of nuclear deterrence (could) start nuclear war.”

Devastating consequences would follow, potentially killing “tens of millions of people, and caus(ing) long-term, catastrophic disruptions of the global climate and massive destruction of Earth’s protective ozone layer.”

“The result would be a global nuclear famine that could kill up to one billion people.” Enough thermonuke detonations could potentially end life on earth.

Nuclear winter is the ultimate nightmare. No antidote exists, no coming back if things go this far. What should terrify everyone is never discussed publicly, largely ignored by Western media.

Humanity has a choice – eliminate these weapons entirely or they may eliminate us.

Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and establishment media saying Iran must never be allowed to have nukes ignores its abhorrence of these weapons.

They’re also silent about nuclear armed and dangerous Israel, the only Middle East nation with these weapons, their development aided by the US — supplying the country with its first small nuclear reactor in 1955.

In 1964, France built the Dimona nuclear reactor in the Negev. Israeli production of nukes began in the 1960s. South Africa collaborated with Israeli nuclear weapons development until the early 1990s.

David Ben-Gurion (Israel’s first prime minister) and Shimon Peres were the driving forces behind Israeli development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Its officials maintain ambiguity about them.

Its missiles, warplanes and submarines can launch nukes to reach targets far distant from its borders, a menace largely ignored in the West.

The Saudis may have nuclear ambitions of their own. Last March, the Trump regime approved the sale of sensitive nuclear technology to the kingdom.

Its interest in building nuclear power plants may go beyond wanting another energy source. Giving ruthlessly dangerous Saudi crown prince/de facto ruler Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) access to technology able to produce nuclear weapons should set off global alarm warnings.

Earlier he said if Iran “developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.”

Transferring highly sensitive US nuclear technology to the kingdom without required congressional review violates the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, US law regulating civilian and military uses of nuclear material.

Consider the irony. Israel and the Saudis are the region’s most belligerent states. Iran is the Middle East’s most prominent proponent of peace and stability, a nation to be embraced and respected, not demonized the way the US mistreated it since its 1979 revolution.

US actions threaten everyone everywhere, Trump the latest in a long line of US warrior presidents. “…I have so many targets you wouldn’t believe,” he roared on Meet the Press, adding:

“We have targets all over” ready to strike. Claiming he “knocked out the caliphate in Syria…100%” ignored US support for ISIS and other terrorist groups it created.

Meanwhile, the Trump regime seeks coalition partners for possible war on Iran. On Sunday, Pompeo said the following:

“I’m heading out today. Our first stops will be in…Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, two great allies in the challenge that Iran presents (sic), and will be talking with them about how to make sure that we are all strategically aligned and how we can go about a global coalition…not only throughout the Gulf states but in Asia and in Europe that understands this challenge and that is prepared to push back against the world’s largest state sponsor of terror” (sic).

Big Lies about Iran persist because establishment media repeat them endlessly.

The Trump regime has willing partners for war on Iran in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE — fascist police states against peace.

It’ll have a hard time convincing most other world community states to support war on the Islamic Republic.

At the same time, US sanctions war on the country continues, new ones to be announced on Monday. Russia, China, Turkey and other nations oppose them.

Throughout its history, the Islamic Republic has found ways to circumvent illegal US sanctions, including by working cooperatively with private entities and friendly nations.

Russia is helping Iran circumvent them. On Russian NTV television, Vladimir Putin said he won’t be “steamroll(ed)” into changing Moscow’s position on Iran and Venezuela, strategic allies the Kremlin supports.

Separately, Iran denied US media reports about a Trump regime cyberattack disabling its military command and control computer systems, along with its missile control systems.

On Monday, Iranian Minister of Information and Communications Technology Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi tweeted:

“The media ask whether the alleged (US) cyber attacks against Iran did take place. They try hard, but they have yet to carry out a successful attack,” adding:

“We have been facing with cyber terrorism, like Stuxnet, and the US unilateralism, such as sanctions, for a long time.”

Iran’s Dejfa defense shield thwarted all cyberattacks on the nation last year against private and state-operated systems “with (a national) firewall,” he said.

Since Trump took office, US hostility toward Iran escalated to a fever pitch.

The risk of US preemptive war on the country remains ominously real. If coming it’ll be based on Big Lies and deception like all US wars of aggression.

The Gulf of Oman and weeks earlier false flags appaprently weren’t major enough to launch it.

A significant Gulf of Tonkin type incident resulting in US casualties may get what Trump regime hawks wish for — opening the gates of hell, embroiling the region far more than earlier by attacking Iran militarily.

Most worrisome is whether war on the country could escalate to a global conflict, risking possible use of nuclear weapons for the first time in earnest — the ultimate doomsday scenario if things go this far.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

In 2019, the World Bank (WB) and the IMF will be 75 years old. These two international financial institutions (IFI), founded in 1944, are dominated by the USA and a few allied major powers who work to generalize policies that run counter the interests of the world’s populations.

The WB and the IMF have systematically made loans to States as a means of influencing their policies. Foreign indebtedness has been and continues to be used as an instrument for subordinating the borrowers. Since their creation, the IMF and the WB have violated international pacts on human rights and have no qualms about supporting dictatorships.

A new form of decolonization is urgently required to get out of the predicament in which the IFI and their main shareholders have entrapped the world in general. New international institutions must be established. This new series of articles by Éric Toussaint retraces the development of the World Bank and the IMF since they were founded in 1944. The articles are taken from the book The World Bank: a never-ending coup d’état. The hidden agenda of the Washington Consensus, Mumbai: Vikas Adhyayan Kendra, 2007, or The World Bank : A critical Primer Pluto, 2007.

***

The World Bank claims that, in order to progress, the Developing Countries [1] should rely on external borrowing and attract foreign investments. The main aim of thus running up debt is to buy basic equipment and consumer goods from the highly industrialised countries. The facts show that day after day, for decades now, the idea has been failing to bring about progress.

The models which have influenced the Bank’s vision can only result in making the developing countries heavily dependent on an influx of external capital, particularly in the form of loans, which create the illusion of a certain level of self-sustained development. The lenders of public money (the governments of the industrialised countries and especially the World Bank) see loans as a powerful means of control over indebted countries. Thus the Bank’s actions should not be seen as a succession of errors or bad management. On the contrary, they are a deliberate part of a coherent, carefully thought-out, theoretical plan, taught with great application in most universities. It is distilled in hundreds of books on development economics. The World Bank has produced its own ideology of development. When facts undermine the theory, the Bank does not question the theory. Rather, it seeks to twist the facts in order to protect the dogma.

In the early years of its existence, the Bank was not much given to reflecting upon the type of political economy that might best be applied to the developing countries. There were several reasons for this: first, it was not among the Bank’s priorities at the time. In 1957, the majority of the loans made by the Bank (52.7%) still went to the industrialised countries [2]. Secondly, the theoretical framework of the Bank’s economists and directors was of a neo-classical bent. Now neo-classical theory did not assign any particular place to the developing countries [3]. Finally, it was not until 1960 that the Bank came up with a specific instrument for granting low-interest loans to the developing countries, with the creation of the International Development Association (IDA).

However, the fact that the Bank had no ideas of its own did not prevent it from criticising others. Indeed, in 1949, it criticised a report by a United Nations’ commission on employment and economics, which argued for public investment in heavy industry in the developing countries. The Bank declared that the governments of the developing countries had enough to do in establishing a good infrastructure, and should leave the responsibility for heavy industry to local and foreign private initiative [4].

According to World Bank historians Mason and Asher, the Bank’s position stemmed from the belief that public and private sectors should play different roles. The public should ensure the planned development of an adequate infrastructure: railways, roads, power stations, ports and communications in general. The private sector should deal with agriculture, industry, trade, and personal and financial services as it is held to be more effective than the public sector in these areas [5]. What this really meant was that anything which might prove profitable should be handed over to the private sector. On the other hand, providing the infrastructure should fall to the public sector, since the costs needed to be met by society, to help out the private sector. In other words, the World Bank recommended privatisation of profits combined with the socialisation of the cost of anything which was not directly profitable.

An ethnocentric and conservative vision of the world

The World Bank’s vision is marked by several conservative prejudices. In the reports and speeches of the first 15 years of its existence, there are regular references to backward and under-developed countries. The Bank sees the reasons for under-development from an ethnocentric point of view. In the World Bank’s 8^th Annual Report, we read that: “There are many and complex reasons why these areas have not been more developed. Many cultures, for instance, have placed a low value on material advance and, indeed, some have regarded it as incompatible with more desirable objectives of society and the individual…” [6]. One of the causes of backwardness identified in the Report is the lack of desire or absence of will to make material progress and to modernise society. Hindus’ deep respect for cows becomes shorthand for the inherent backwardness of India. As for Africa, World Bank president Eugene Black declared in 1961: “ Even today the bulk of Africa’s more than 200 millions are only beginning to enter world society ” [7]… The reactionary nature of World Bank vision has by no means been attenuated by the passing years. In the Global Development Report of 1987, the Bank wrote: “In his Principles of Political Economy (1848), John Stuart Mill mentioned the advantages of ‘foreign trade’. Over a century later, his observations are as pertinent as they were in 1848. Here is what Mill had to say about the indirect advantages of trade: “A people may be in the quiescent, indolent, uncultivated state, with all their tastes either fully satisfied or entirely undeveloped, and they may fail to put forth the whole of their productive energies for want of any sufficient object of desire. The opening of a foreign trade, by making them acquainted with new objects, or tempting them by the easier acquisition of things which they had not previously thought attainable, sometimes works a sort of industrial revolution in a country whose resources were previously undeveloped for want of energy and ambition in the people: inducing those who were satisfied with scanty comforts and little work to work harder for the gratification of their new tastes, and even to save and accumulate capital, for the still more complete satisfaction of those tastes at a future time.” [8]

The massive return of the neo-conservatives in the administration achieved by G. W. Bush (2001-2008) exacerbated its deeply materialistic and reactionary tendencies. The appointment of Paul Wolfowitz, one of the leading neo-cons, to the presidency of the Bank in 2005, has further entrenched this orientation.

Growth and development planning (in both industrialised and developing economies) is given remarkable importance in World Bank documents and the literature of the time dealing with development issues from the 1950s until the 1970s. Until the end of the ‘70s, planning was considered important for several reasons: first, planning emerged during the prolonged depression of the 1930s as a response to the chaos resulting from laisser-faire policies; secondly, the reconstruction of Europe and Japan had to be organised; thirdly, this was still part of the thirty years of continuous economic growth that followed the Second World War and had to be managed and planned for; fourthly, the success, real or supposed, of Soviet planning undoubtedly exercised a great fascination, even for the sworn enemies of the so-called “Communist bloc”. The idea of planning was completely rejected from the early ‘80s, when neo-liberal ideologies and policies came back with a vengeance.

Another major preoccupation in the early days which was rejected after the 1980s was the decision by several Latin American countries to resort to import substitution and the possibility that other newly independent countries might follow their example.

Let us briefly review some of the economists whose work had a direct influence on and in the Bank.

The HOS model (Heckscher – Ohlin – Samuelson)

Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantages gained force in the 1930s through the studies of Swedish economists, Heckscher and Ohlin, later joined by Samuelson. It is the synthesis produced by the latter that is known as the HOS model. The HOS model raises the issue of factors of production – these factors are work, land and capital – and claims that each country has an interest in specialising in the production and export of goods which make greatest use of that country’s most abundant production factor – which will also be the cheapest. Free trade would then make it possible to balance out what the factors earn among all the countries taking part in free trade agreements. The abundant factor, which would be exported, would grow scarcer and thus more costly; the rare factor, which would be imported, would increase and its price would fall. This system of specialisation would bring about optimal distribution of factors in a now homogenous market. This model would enable all economies to aim for maximal integration in the global market with positive outcome for all the trading partners. Various studies carried out later, especially those by Paul Krugman [9], to test the HOS model have shown it to be inaccurate.

The Five Stages of Economic Growth according to Walt W. Rostow

In 1960, Walt W. Rostow [10] postulated five stages of development in a book entitled The Stages of Economic Growth: a Non-Communist Manifesto [11]. He claimed that all countries fell into one of the five categories and that they can only follow this route.

The first stage is traditional society characterised by the predominance of agricultural activity. Technical progress is nil, there is practically no growth in productivity and minds are not ready for change.

Next, in the stage before take-off, exchanges and techniques begin to emerge, people’s mentalities become less fatalistic and savings rates increase. In fact, this is how European societies evolved from the 15^th to the early 18^th century.

The third stage is take-off, a crucial stage corresponding to a quality leap, with significant increase in savings and investment rates and a move towards cumulative growth [12].

The fourth stage is the “march towards maturity”, where technical progress takes over in all fields of activity and production is diversified.

Finally, the fifth stage coincides with the era of mass consumerism [13].

Walt W. Rostow claimed that at the take-off stage, an influx of external capital (in the form of foreign investments or credit) was indispensable.

Rostow’s model is marred by over-simplification. He presents the stage of development reached by the USA after the Second World War both as the goal to aim for and the model to reproduce. Similarly, he considers that the British take-off model, with the agricultural revolution followed by the industrial revolution, should be reproduced elsewhere. He thus completely ignores the historical reality of other countries. There is no reason why each country should go through the five stages he describes.

Insufficient savings and the need to resort to external funding

In neo-classical terms, savings should precede investment and are insufficient in the developing countries. This means that the shortage of savings is seen as a fundamental factor explaining why development is blocked. An influx of external funding is required. Paul Samuelson, in Economics [14], took the history of US indebtedness in the 19^th and 20^th centuries as a basis for determining four different stages leading to prosperity: young borrowing nation in debt (from the War of Independence in 1776 to the Civil War of 1865); mature indebted nation (from 1873 to 1914); new lending nation (from the first to Second World Wars); mature lending nation (1960s). Samuelson and his emulators slapped the model of US economic development from the late 18^th century until the Second World War onto one hundred or so countries which made up the Third World after 1945, as though it were possible for all those countries to quite simply imitate the experience of the United States [15].

As for the need to resort to foreign capital (in the form of loans and foreign investments), an associate of Walt W. Rostow’s, Paul Rosenstein-Rodan, found the following formula: “Foreign capital will be a pure addition to domestic capital formation, i.e. it will all be invested; the investment will be productive or ‘businesslike’ and result in increased production. The main function of foreign capital inflow is to increase the rate of domestic capital formation up to a level which could then be maintained without any further aid” [16]. This statement contradicts the facts. It is not true that foreign capital enhance the formation of national capital and is all invested. A large part of foreign capital rapidly leaves the country where it was temporarily directed, as capital flight and repatriation of profits.

Paul Rosenstein-Rodan, who was the assistant director of the Economics Department of the World Bank between 1946 and 1952, made another monumental error in predicting the dates when various countries would reach self-sustained growth. He reckoned that Colombia would reach that stage by 1965, Yugoslavia by 1966, Argentina and Mexico between 1965 and 1975, India in the early 1970s, Pakistan three or four years after India, and the Philippines after 1975. What nonsense that has proved to be!

Note that this notion of self-sustained growth is commonly used by the World Bank. The definition given by Dragoslav Avramović, then director of the Economics Department, in 1964, was as follows: “Self-sustained growth is defined to mean a rate of income increase of, say, 5% p.a. financed out of domestically generated funds and out of foreign capital which flows into the country…” [17].

Development planning as envisaged by the World Bank and US academia amounts to pseudo-scientific deception based on mathematical equations. It is supposed to give legitimacy and credibility to the intention to make the developing countries dependent on obtaining external capital. There follows an example, advanced in all seriousness by Max Millikan and Walt W. Rostow in 1957: “If the initial rate of domestic investment in a country is 5 per cent of national income, if foreign capital is supplied at a constant rate equal to one-third the initial level of domestic investment, if 25 per cent of all additions to income are saved and reinvested, if the capital-output ratio is 3 and if interest and dividend service on foreign loans and private investment are paid at the rate of 6 per cent per year, the country will be able to discontinue net foreign borrowing after fourteen years and sustain a 3 per cent rate of growth out of its own resources” [18]. More nonsense!

Chenery and Strout’s double deficit model

In the mid-1960s, the economist Hollis Chenery, later to become Chief Economist and Vice-President of the World Bank [19], and his colleague Alan Strout, drew up a new model called the “double deficit model” [20]. Chenery and Strout laid emphasis on two constraints: first, insufficient internal savings, and then insufficient foreign currency. Charles Oman and Ganeshan Wignarja summarised the Chenery – Strout model as follows: “Essentially, the double deficit model hypothesises that while in the very first stages of industrial growth insufficient savings can constitute the main constraint on the rate of formation of domestic capital, once industrialisation is up and running, the main constraint may no longer be domestic savings per se, but rather the availability of currency required to import equipment, intermediary goods and perhaps even the raw materials used as industrial input. The currency deficit can thus exceed the savings deficit as the main constraint on development.” [21] To resolve this double deficit, Chenery and Strout propose a simple solution: borrow foreign currency and/or procure it by increasing exports.

The Chenery – Strout model is highly mathematical. It was the “in thing” at the time. For its supporters, it had the advantage of conferring an air of scientific credibility upon a policy whose main aims were, firstly, to incite the developing countries to resort to massive external borrowing and foreign investments, and secondly, to subject their development to a dependency on exports. At the time, the model came under criticism from several quarters. Suffice it to quote that of Keith Griffin and Jean Luc Enos, who claimed that resorting to external inflow would further limit local savings: “Yet as long as the cost of aid (e.g. the rate of interest on foreign loans) is less than the incremental output-capital ratio, it will ‘pay’ a country to borrow as much as possible and substitute foreign for domestic savings. In other words, given a target rate of growth in the developing country, foreign aid will permit higher consumption, and domestic savings will simply be a residual, that is, the difference between desired investment and the amount of foreign aid available. Thus the foundations of models of the Chenery-Strout type are weak, since one would expect, on theoretical grounds, to find an inverse association between foreign aid and domestic savings” [22].

The wish to incite the developing countries to resort to external aid seen as a means of influencing them

Bilateral aid and World Bank policies are directly related to the political objectives pursued by the USA in its foreign affairs.

Hollis Chenery maintained that “The main objective of foreign assistance, as of many other tools of foreign policy, is to produce the kind of political and economic environment in the world in which the United States can best pursue its own social goals” [23].

In a book entitled The Emerging Nations : their Growth and United States Policy, Max Millikan [24] and Donald Blackmer, both colleagues of Walt W. Rostow’s, clearly described in 1961 certain objectives of US foreign policy: “It is in the interest of the United States to see emerging from the transition process nations with certain characteristics. First, they must be able to maintain their independence, especially of powers hostile or potentially hostile to the United States (…) Fourth, they must accept the principle of an open society whose members are encouraged to exchange ideas, goods, values, and experiences with the rest of the world ; this implies as well that their governments must be willing to cooperate in the measures of international economic, political and social control necessary to the functioning of an interdependent world community”. [25] Under the leadership of the USA, of course.

Later in the book, it is explicitly shown how aid is used as a lever to orient the policies of the beneficiary countries: “For capital assistance to have the maximum leverage in persuading the underdeveloped countries to follow a course consistent with American and free-world interests the amounts offered must be large enough and the terms flexible enough to persuade the recipient that the game is worth the effort. This means that we must invest substantially larger resources in our economic development programs than we have done in our past” [26]

The volume of loans to developing countries increased at a growing pace throughout the 1960s and 1970s, as the consequence of a deliberate policy on the part of the USA, the governments of other industrialised countries and the Bretton Woods institutions, whose aim was to influence the policies of countries in the South.

Priority on exports

In one of their main contributions, Chenery and Strout claimed that resorting to import substitution is an acceptable method of reducing the deficit in foreign currency [27]. They later abandoned this position, when maintaining import substitution policies as practised by certain developing countries became one of the main criticisms levelled by the Bank, the IMF, the OECD and the governments of the major industrialised countries.

This is how other studies by economists directly associated with the World Bank turned to measuring the effective rates of protection of economies and the resulting bias in terms of utilisation of productive resources and of profitability of investments. They favoured redirecting strategies towards exports, abandoning protectionist tariffs, and, more generally, a price-fixing policy more closely related to market mechanisms. Bela Balassa, Jagdish Bhagwati and Anne Krueger [28] systematised this approach and their analyses were to leave their mark on the international institutions and become the theoretical justification for opening up trade during the 1980s and 1990s. Anne Krueger [29] wrote: “A regime promoting exports can free a country’s economy from the Keynesian yoke of under-employment since, unlike a regime of import substitution, the effective demand for its products on international markets may be virtually infinite, and thus it can always get closer to full employment, unless there is a world recession. A small export-oriented economy will be able to sell whatever quantity of goods it may produce. In other words, the country’s only constraint will be its capacity to supply the goods.” [30]. More eyewash.

The trickle-down effect

The trickle-down effect is a trivial metaphor which has guided the actions of the World Bank from the outset. The idea is simple: the positive effects of growth trickle down, starting from the top, where they benefit the wealthy, until eventually at the bottom a little also reaches the poor. This means that it is in the interests of the poor that growth should be as strong as possible, if they are to be able to lap up the drops. Indeed, if growth is weak, the rich will keep a larger part than when growth is strong.

What are the effects of this on the World Bank’s conduct? Growth should be encouraged at all costs so that there is something left for the poor at the end of the cycle. Any policy which holds back growth for the sake of (even partial) redistribution of wealth or for the sake of protecting the environment reduces the trickle-down effect and harms the poor. In practice, the actions of the World Bank’s directors are conducted in line with this metaphor, whatever the more sophisticated discourse of certain experts. Moreover the World Bank’s historians devote about twenty pages to discussions of the trickle-down31 theory and acknowledge that “This belief justified persistent efforts to persuade borrowers of the advantages of discipline, sacrifice, and trust in the market, and therefore of the need to hold the line against political temptation” [31]. They maintain that the belief gradually fell into disrepute from 1970, due to cutting remarks from an impressive number of researchers concerning the situation in both the United States and the developing countries [32]. Nevertheless, the historians note that in practice, this did not have much effect [33], particularly since, from 1982 on, trickle-down theory made a triumphant comeback at the World Bank [34]. Obviously the trickle-down issue is inseparable from that of inequality, which will be discussed in the next section.

The question of inequality in the distribution of income

From 1973 on, the World Bank began to examine the question of inequality in the distribution of income in the developing countries as a factor affecting the chances of development. The economics team under the direction of Hollis Chenery gave the matter considerable thought. The major World Bank book on the subject, published in 1974, was co-ordinated by Chenery himself and entitled Redistribution with Growth [35]. Chenery was aware that the type of growth induced by the Bank’s loans policy would generate increased inequality. The World Bank’s main worry was clearly expressed by McNamara on several occasions: if we do not reduce inequality and poverty, there will be repeated outbursts of social unrest which will harm the interests of the free world, under the leadership of the United States.

Chenery did not share Simon Kuznet’s point of view [36], that after a necessary phase of increased inequality during economic take-off, things would subsequently improve. The World Bank was firmly convinced of the need for increased inequality. This is borne out by the words of the president of the World Bank, Eugene Black, in April 1961: “Inequalities in income are a necessary by-product of economic growth (which) makes it possible for people to escape a life of poverty” [37]. Yet empirical studies carried out by the World Bank in Chenery’s day disproved Kuznets’ claims. [38]

However, after Chenery’s departure in 1982 and his replacement by Anne Krueger, the World Bank completely abandoned its relative concern about increasing or maintaining inequality to the extent that it decided not to publish relevant data in the World Development Report. Anne Krueger did not hesitate to adopt Kuznets’ argument, making the rise of inequality a condition for take-off of growth, on the grounds that the savings of the rich were likely to feed into investments. Not until François Bourguignon became chief economist in 2003 did the Bank’s show any real renewal of interest in this question [39]. In 2006, the World Bank’s World Development Report subtitled Equity and development again refers to inequality as a hindrance to development [40]. At best, this approach is considered to be good marketing by J. Wolfensohn (president of the World Bank from 1996 to 2005) and his successor, Paul Wolfowitz.

*

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 CADTM.

Eric Toussaint is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokesperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France. He is the author of Bankocracy (2015); The Life and Crimes of an Exemplary Man (2014); Glance in the Rear View Mirror. Neoliberal Ideology From its Origins to the Present, Haymarket books, Chicago, 2012 (see here), etc.

Notes

This week’s National Security Advisor summit in Jerusalem is an historic event because of the participation of the Russian, Israeli, and American representatives during this multi-day meeting from 24-26 June, but it’s also a juicy one too because of the many rumors that it’s given rise to, the most popular being the possibility of a so-called “grand deal” being clinched about the future of the Middle East.

US National Security Adviser John Bolton together with his Israeli and Russian counterparts Meir Ben-Shabbat and Nikolai Patrushev will meet behind closed doors in what is described as an “unprecedented summit” in Jerusalem.

According to the Israeli media: “The chaos in Syria, rising tensions in the Persian Gulf” are on the agenda.

President Putin answered a question in this respect during last week’s hours-long Q&A session, mocking the terminology of a “grand deal” for sounding like “some commercial act” and then reaffirming that his country “doesn’t sell out our allies, our interests or our principles”. Nevertheless, if the concept of a “grand deal” doesn’t include “selling out” the aforementioned, then Russia might very well go along with it, which could prospectively be the purpose of this unprecedented meeting.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has spent the past month taunting Iran by declaring that this get-together will be focused on its regional activities, especially its military presence in Syria, which was corroborated by unnamed American officials who confirmed as much to the press. The Russians have been tight-lipped about the topics that would be discussed but their representatives assured the public that they’ll take Iran’s legitimate interests into account, hence Putin’s response about how Russia won’t “sell out our allies, our interests or our principles’. Even so, Russia has been practicing a delicate “balancing” act for the past couple of years whereby it’s “passively facilitated” hundreds of Israeli strikes in Syria against suspected IRGC and Hezbollah targets while still retaining its on-the-ground anti-terrorist military alliance with Iran, but it seems like the time has finally come for it to more decisively lean one way or the other.

Russia’s 21st-century grand strategy is to become the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia, to which end it’s struck up a slew of non-traditional partnerships such as the very close ones that it presently enjoys with Israel and its not-so-secret Saudi ally, both of whom are opposed to the expansion of Iran’s regional influence. With this in mind, the Jerusalem Summit might end up being an attempt to calibrate the Russian, Israeli, and American positions on this issue and — according to unconfirmed reports — see the latter two offer Moscow some vague incentives such as possible sanctions relief to encourage Iran’s “phased withdrawal” from Syria. Seeing as how the last two days of the meeting coincide with the Bahrain economic conference that’s supposed to form the apolitical component of the US’ “Deal of the Century”, any progress on the Syrian-Iranian front would probably be inextricably connected to this new regional vision.

About that, Russia has publicly insisted that the only acceptable solution to the Palestinian issue is the creation of two separate states along the pre-1967 borders, and even though it’s unlikely that Moscow will compromise on this principle of international law, it might show more flexibility on other facets. For instance, the “Deal of the Century” doesn’t seem to be exclusive to the Israelis and Palestinians, but appears to be a euphemism for the entirely new regional order that’s arisen out of the aftermath of the so-called “Arab Spring” theater-wide Color Revolutions, therefore making the National Security Advisor summit somewhat akin to the first part of a modern-day but much more secretive Yalta Conference for shaping the post-Sykes-Picot Mideast. Considering the likelihood that this is the case, then the meeting is much more important than the media’s initially let on, though that doesn’t necessarily ensure its success.

It’ll remain to be seen what, if anything, is agreed upon by the three National Security Advisors, but the very fact that they’re spending three days in a city as symbolic as Jerusalem to discuss regional issues (first and foremost among them Iran and everything related to it) in this very specific and high-tense context says a lot about the intent of these ultra-busy individuals to clinch some sort of unofficial agreement at the very least. Whatever might be decided upon will obviously concern Iran, but at this point the outcome can only be speculated upon and might not even be known until months after the meeting ends if the informal understanding reached between the participants is kept secret for sensitivity’s sake. In any case, Russia won’t “sell out” its allies, interests, or principles, but will do whatever it can to advance its national security objectives via its regional “balancing” strategy.

*

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

“Economic sanctions”, a mode of coercion in international relations resuscitated in recent years, has prompted renewed and lively scholarly interest in the subject. Why have such measures become so popular?

One answer is that they “constitute a means of exerting international influence that is more powerful than diplomatic mediation but lies below the threshold of military intervention”[1]. Another answer is that “they engage comparatively less internal political resistance than other candidate strategies […]. They do not generate sombre processions of body bags bringing home the mortal remains of the sons and daughters of constituents”[2], in other words, they cost little to the side imposing the sanctions. The notable predilection by the United States for economic sanctions[3], suggests that such a tool is particularly useful for economically powerful states that are themselves relatively immune to such measures.

This tool of collective economic coercion, with antecedents such as siege warfare and blockade going back to biblical time [4], was used during most of the 20th Century, particularly in war situations. Although the United Nations Charter, drafted during the later stages of World War II, includes provisions for the imposition of economic sanctions (Article 41), the Security Council – empowered to resort to this tool – only used it twice between 1945 and 1990, against Rhodesia in 1966 and South Africa in 1977.

In our discussion we designate economic sanctions as “coordinated restrictions on trade and/or financial transactions intended to impair economic life within a given territory”[5]. To the extent that measures intend to impair “economic life within a given territory” through restrictions on trade and/or finance, they constitute, for our purposes, economic sanctions. Selective or individualized measures, such as restrictions on specific goods (arms, luxury items, some forms of travel), are therefore not considered as economic sanctions. Symbolic economic deprivations, such as partial withholding of aid,do not amount to economic sanctions if their intended effect is primarily to convey displeasure, rather than to affect the economy.

This article examines how economic sanctions have been perceived, justified or criticized with regard to the nature of such adverse measures. Understanding how economic sanctions are supposed to achieve their intended purpose is necessary in order to dispel a simplistic view that such measures are a humane alternative to physical force.

1. A short history of the debate on economic sanctions before 1990

Scholarly work before 1990 on economic sanctions and related measures, such as boycotts, centred on a handful of disparate cases: The Arab oil boycott, the U.N. sanctions imposed on Rhodesia, the sanctions imposed on the South African apartheid regime and the COCOM trade restrictions imposed by the West on the Socialist bloc[6]. A number of authors, including particularly Doxey and Hufbauer [7], provided during this period a relatively comprehensive treatment of the subject with Doxey emphasising the theoretical aspects of the subject-matter and Hufbauer and his colleagues providing impressive details on 116 sanctions episodes between 1914 and 1990. The Arab oil boycott may have chilled the enthusiasm of some Western politicians of that period for the economic weapon, since this weapon appeared for the first time in the “wrong” hands. Scholarly debate in the United States, moderated by Richard B. Lillich, reflected the ambivalent attitudes toward economic sanctions prompted by the Arab oil boycott [8].

The increasing imposition of unilateral coercive measures by the United States against developing countries prompted the adoption, over a period exceeding 20 years, of numerous United Nations resolutions and declarations, sponsored by such countries, against the use of unilateral economic coercion[9]. The focus of their concern was that such measures impeded their economic development. The sanctions imposed on South Africa and the subsequent end of the apartheid regime strengthened the belief, particularly among progressive circles, that economic sanctions constitute a peaceful alternative to the use of force.

2. Overview of the debate in the 1990s

From the demise of the Soviet bloc and the concomitant change in the international balance of forces emerged a world order dominated by the United States. The United States henceforth effectively set the international agenda as reflected in the workings of the United Nations Security Council or by adopting unilateral hegemonic policies towards other states[10].

The invasion of Kuwait by the Iraqi army in August 1990, condemned by virtually all U.N. members, provided the United States with a unique opportunity to assert its leadership within the international order[11]. The dormant enforcement powers of the U.N. Security Council were duly resuscitated. On 6 August 1990, the Security Council imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq and occupied Kuwait[12]. Thus began what David Cortright and George A. Lopez termed “The Sanctions Decade”, the title of their book[13].

Between 1990 and 2000, the U.N. Security Council imposed economic sanctions against Iraq, Haiti, Libya, former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, Angola (UNITA), Cambodia and Afghanistan. A number of other countries were subjected to non-economic sanctions, particularly arms embargoes and diplomatic sanctions. Regional organisations, including the Organisation of American States (OAS)[14], the European Union[15] and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)[16], imposed economic sanctions, independently from, or in conjunction with U.N. sanctions. In that decade, international sanctions by the United States became what has been termed a “growth industry”[17]: According to the National Association of Manufacturers, unilateral sanctions policies imposed by the United States affected 42% of the world’s population[18].

The proliferation of economic sanctions spawned a vast literature on the subject. As the decade progressed, numerous symposia and conferences were organised to discuss economic sanctions in general, their specific implementation, effectiveness, impact and legal aspects. For a long time, it was assumed – at least by public opinion – that economic sanctions were more humane than armed warfare. Michael Reisman aptly describes the rationale for this assumption:

Economic sanctions have enjoyed great popularity among people of pacifistic bent, because they seem to offer wholly non-violent and non-destructive ways of implementing international policy (…) Such assumptions are unfounded (…) The apparent reason for this persistent blindspot (…) has been the incorrect assumption that only the military instrument is destructive.The assumption that non-military strategies are inherently non-destructive or nonlethal has also insulated their prospective and retrospective appraisal in terms of basic human rights instruments. The consequences of this blind spot can be very grave” (emphasis added)[19]

The devastating consequences of the U.N. sanctions against Iraq and Haiti, and of U.S. sanctions against Panama and Cuba, undermined the faith of many in the apparent softness of the economic weapon. Peace activists who for many years promoted economic sanctions as a humane alternative to the use of military force began to realize the truth expressed almost a century ago by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, when he described such measures as a “peaceful, silent [and] deadly” pressure that “no modern nation could resist”[20].

3. The contours of the debate on economic sanctions since 1990

Due to the wealth of articles, books, resolutions, declarations and other writings on economic sanctions since 1990, we will limit ourselves to classify such writings into six rough categories:

• Studies of economic sanctions within the field of international relations[21].
• Studies concerned with the effectiveness of economic sanctions in general or in particular cases. These are essentially utilitarian efforts aiming to prove the futility of economic sanctions as a policy tool, or recommend improvements to increase their coercive effects[22].
• Studies examining the fine mechanics of implementing economic sanctions, such as the enactment of regulations in domestic jurisdictions for the implementation of Security Council decisions, monitoring compliance with sanctions, interdiction measures by naval forces, etc[23].
• Studies which document the adverse humanitarian impact of economic sanctions[24].
• Studies concerned with means of mitigating the humanitarian impact of economic sanctions. Such efforts range from attempting to improve the effectiveness of existing humanitarian programmes to recommending alternative forms of international coercive measures (individualised sanctions, financial sanctions, etc.)[25].
• Studies regarding the ethics and the legality of economic sanctions under public international law or their compatibility with human rights norms and international humanitarian law[26].

The recent change in scholarly perception of economic sanctions is reflected in the work by Margaret Doxey. The “Select Bibliography of General Works on Economic Sanctions” provided at the end of Doxey’s first edition of her seminal book does not contain a single title referring to the human or humanitarian consequences of economic sanctions. Most works listed there deal with these measures as a policy instrument or as a tool of statecraft, addressing their utility, effectiveness, implementation, enforcement, their relation to the international legal order and to international relations in general.

In Doxey’s second and third editions of the same book[27], published after the imposition of sanctions against Iraq, she specifically addresses the humanitarian consequences of economic sanctions. At least since 1995 authors dealing with economic sanctions generally include a discussion about the humanitarian effects of such measures, even when their focus remains utilitarian.

4. Understanding the mechanism of economic sanctions

In order to effectively describe a complex and highly politicized phenomenon, such as economic sanctions, the utmost care in the choice of terminology is necessary. Among the tools of politicians figure their creative use of language, including the invention of euphemisms and obfuscatory expressions.

Discussing the role of euphemisms in political discourse, Stanley Cohen writes:

The most familiar form of reinterpretation is the use of euphemistic labels and jargon. These are everyday devices for masking, sanitising, and conferring respectability by using palliative terms that deny or misrepresent cruelty or harm, giving them neutral or respectable status. Orwell’s original account of the anaesthetic function of political language – how words insulate their users and listeners from experiencing fully the meaning of what they are doing – remains the classic source on the subject[28].

Judge Weeramantry, in his Separate Dissenting Opinion on The legality of nuclear weapons (International Court of Justice (Advisory Opinion) (1996)), castigates […] the use of euphemistic language – the disembodied language of military operations and the polite language of diplomacy. They conceal the horror of nuclear war, diverting attention to intellectual concepts such as self-defence, reprisals, and proportionate damage which can have little relevance to a situation of total destruction.

Horrendous damage to civilians and neutrals is described as collateral damage, because it was not directly intended; incineration of cities becomes “considerable thermal damage”. One speaks of “acceptable levels of casualties”, even if megadeaths are involved. Maintaining the balance of terror is described as “nuclear preparedness”; assured destruction as “deterrence”, total devastation of the environment as “environmental damage”. Clinically detached from their human context, such expressions bypass the world of human suffering, out of which humanitarian law has sprung.

With regard to economic sanctions we will show that euphemisms have been used (a) to hide the mechanism by which such measures are expected to achieve their declared purposes; (b) to imply that these measures target wrongdoers; and (c) to imply that such measures are compatible with humanitarian principles. Regardless whether such obfuscation is deliberate, represents a “blind spot”, or results from the lack of intellectual rigour, the effects of such abuse of language are not innocent. One of the first tasks of those who study economic sanctions is to bring order into the use of terminology. We will review some of the most common linguistic devices that have been used to mask the reality of economic sanctions.

(a) How are economic sanctions expected to achieve their declared purpose?

The main declared purpose of economicsanctions is mostly to induce a government to comply with the demands of the sanctioning parties. This is done by crippling the economy in the targeted territory. While the demands imposed along sanctions may be fully legitimate, this article is solely concerned with the mechanism used to secure the compliance with these demands as well as with some of the linguistic devices that mask this mechanism.

The mechanism by which economic sanctions are expected to achieve their declared objectives is seldom discussed in public[29]. The implied theory of economic sanctions is that by crippling the economy within a territory, the authorities of that territory are prevented from satisfying popular needs such as the supply of commodities, services and work. Massive shortages that ensue are supposed to cause popular discontent, which would translate into a call for the removal of the authorities or a pressure on the authorities to comply with external demands. The theory is thus predicated on causing civilian pain to achieve a political gain.

Cortright and Lopez, invoking other commentators, dismiss this theory of economic sanctions as “naive” and claim that “there is no direct transmission mechanism by which social suffering is translated into political change”[30]. Yet they do not provide a more plausible explanation of the mechanism by which economic sanctions (as distinct from other adverse measures) are expected to yield the compliance of country’s leaders with external demands.

It is not surprising that politicians are loath to acknowledge that a political goal is to be achieved by inflicting severe suffering on a civilian population. To hurt innocent civilians in order to extract concessions from a government is, after all, what is defined in U.S. law as international terrorism[31]!

(b) Who are the true targets of economic sanctions?

As the mechanism of economic sanctions requires the generation of popular discontent within the targeted territory and as such measures inevitably affect the lives of the civilian population, it is axiomatic that the targets of such measures are those who happen to live in that territory, without distinction. This fact must be borne in mind when examining the language used to address the various aspects of economic sanctions.

Depending upon their position in society, however, individuals and families may suffer the consequences of economic sanctions to a different degree. Those who suffer most from economic sanctions are vulnerable and powerless population groups whereas the powerful and the wealthy can often avoid the most adverse consequences and may, sometimes, even enrich themselves from the inevitable emergence of black markets. It is thus accurate to say that economic sanctions target the civilian population of a given territory as a whole, particularly the most vulnerable segments of society. In making this statement, it is presumed that those who adopt a policy intend its foreseeable consequences. Certainly those who maintain a given policy after having been put at notice of its severe consequences, must be deemed to have intended such consequences.

(c) Euphemisms used to mask the mechanism of economic sanctions and the identity of the targets

The examples provided below represent euphemisms commonly used by writers, media and politicians to mask the wholesale and indiscriminate nature of economic sanctions.

“Target state”

Various authors sometimes refer to “senders” and “targets” of economic sanctions as shortcuts[32]. The term “sender” refers to the individual state, the regional organisation or the international organisation imposing the sanctions. The term “target” usually refers to the state against which the sanctions are imposed.

While the term “sender” serves adequately as a shortcut for the entity or entities who impose economic sanctions, the term “target” masks the identity of the true addresses. While sanctions are typically coercive, they cannot, obviously, coerce an object, let alone an abstract construct, such as “state” or “country”. While material objects can be targeted for destruction, only human beings can be the targets of coercion[33]. Unless measures are specifically coercing the decision-makers in the targeted territory in their individual capacity (in which case the designation economicsanctions would not be applicable), the targets of economic sanctions are simply all those who reside in the targeted territory. From the point of view of the victims of economic sanctions it does not matter whether the expression “target state” is a deliberate obfuscation or results from an inadvertent or convenient “blind spot”, that makes them invisible “targets”.

One variant of the expression “target state”[34] is “offending nation”[35], an expression which imputes collective culpability and provides indirect justification for imposing collective injury[36].

The conceptual foundation of the concept “target state” rests on the view of the global system as a set of interacting black boxes (states) whose contents is irrelevant. The following example illustrates the chilling implications of such conceptualization:

The purpose of Article 41of the UN Charter is not to exact retribution, but to provide for the international excommunication of a delinquent State as an incentive to reform. The Security Council thus seeks to cut out a – temporarily – cancerous cell from the global body[37].

Here a state is compared to a ‘cancerous cell’ which should be removed from the global body, apparently without consideration of its human contents. Such conceptualization echoes the perspective and the language of Adolf Hitler, as reflected in Mein Kampf[38].

By treating states as entities that possess an autonomous will and existence, rather than the mere symbolic representation for the individual human beings who live within the given area, perpetrators of the most odious crimes against humanity could in the past insulate themselves against pangs of conscience[39].

Conflating a population with its leader

Another obfuscation used to imbue economic sanctions with an ethical veneer, is to imply that they target a particular loathsome individual rather than a population.

The following example is culled from the proceedings of the debate that took place in the U.S. Congress before the Gulf war of 1991. Senator B. Bradley refers there to Iraq in the third person male and singular, conflating it invidiously with the person of the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein[40].

We would isolate Iraq from the international economic system, with sanctions to deny him markets for his export, oil, to freeze his foreign financial assets, and to deny his access to spare parts and supplies on which his military machine depends.”(emphasis added).

The obfuscatory nature of this statement is readily apparent from this unusual syntax. But beyond this obvious fact, the author actually conflates a country’s markets and foreign financial assets with those of one person, a fantastic claim by itself. Income from Iraqi oil exports were massively used, not only to finance Iraq’s repressive apparatus and a large and ineffective army, but also to develop Iraq’s infrastructure, health services and school system, reduce poverty and secure access to an adequate supply of nutritional food for all segments of the population. Among items banned by the sanctions, at first, were not only military goods as suggested above, but equally hygienic articles, books, kitchen utensils, children toys and the like. Even food supplies for Iraqi civilians were initially included in the trade ban.

“Collateral” and “unintended” effects

The expression collateral effects(of economic sanctions) is borrowed from the language of armed conflict. The expression “collateral victims” conveys the idea that innocents harmed from military attacks are a regrettable but unavoidable by-product of legitimate warfare, provided that the attacks are justified by the principles of (military) necessity and proportionality and do not indiscriminately target civilians. The term “collateral” has certainly been abused by parties to armed conflict and there will always be disputes about the necessity of a particular attack, its proportionality with regard to the ultimate purpose and the care taken by the conflicting parties to ensure the safety of non-combatants. But the principles (of necessity, proportionality and humanity) are not in dispute.

The weapon of economic sanctions is incapable of discriminating between combatants and civilians. It is levelled at the (national) economy composed mainly by the civilian population[41]. The term “collateral” is thus inapposite[42] with relation to economic sanctions, with the exception of unintended consequences affecting individuals and companies within other states. Article 50 of the U.N. Charter foresees such “collateral” consequences of economic sanctions:

If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.

The rationale behind this provision is that preventive or enforcement measures against a state taken by the Security Council, including economic sanctions, are not intended to harm other states, but that unintended harm may ensue. The distinction made in the aforementioned provision between the target state and “other” states with regard to the “right to consult the Security Council” in the case of “special economic problems” supports the assertion that adverse consequences in “other” states are unintended whereas adverse consequences in the target state are intended.

It is sometimes claimed that while harm to the economy is intended by economic sanctions, no harm is intended to the “vulnerable segments” of that population (children, pregnant women, the elderly, the sick): Adverse consequences to these groups are merely “unintended”. When a healthy adult loses employment (and income) as a result of economic sanctions, his or her children are inevitably going to suffer, even if it is claimed that only harm to the parent’s child was “intended” while the harm to the child is not. Comprehensive economic sanctions, being macro-economic policies, do not differentiate between “vulnerable” and “non-vulnerable” populations and even mitigation measures can only marginally compensate for the indiscriminate nature of the “weapon”[43]. T o the extent that mitigation measures fully compensate the adverse consequences of economic sanctions, they defeat the very purpose of the sanctions.

The very expression “vulnerable populations” is inappropriate in the particular context of economic sanctions. While this expression is relevant for emergency situations where resources to children, lactating women, the sick and the elderly must be prioritized (such as when natural calamities occur), its use within the framework of economic sanctions is questionable. Are not all civilians, without distinction, protected by the principles of international humanitarian law? Is it ethical, or even lawful, to coerce or punish innocent people? How can measures that knowingly infringe the human rights of healthy, but innocent, adults, such as the right to travel, to work and to live in dignity, be justified on the account that the individual in question is not a member of a “vulnerable” group? Can children be spared when destitution is imposed on their parents? The risk of invoking expressions such as “vulnerable populations” in the context of economic sanctions, is that they legitimize measures that would inflict harm on civilians deemed “non vulnerable” by the “senders” of the sanctions, while giving an appearance of humanitarian concern[44].

“Humanitarian exemptions”

The expression humanitarian exemptions to economic sanctions is widely used and refer to discretionary permits granted by sanctioning parties to the sanctioned state (and its citizens), for humanitarian reasons. Such exemptions are generally justified by humanitarian concern. The use of this term implies the recognition that economic sanctions, if not assorted by such humanitarian exemptions, would unduly harm the civilian population harm. There is, however, something disingenuous with this expression.

While the immediate purpose of armed warfare is to destroy military facilities and armed forces, the immediate purpose of economic sanctions is to cripple a (civilian) economy, that is to inflict sufferings on the civilian population. A crucial difference lurks behind these two modes of injury: The expression “to destroy a military facility” refers to actions that only seek to prevent an enemy from using violence. The immediate purpose of economic sanctions is, however, to cripple the economy, or more accurately, to severely impair the living conditions of the civilian population. Humanitarian exemptions, by allowing breathing space, undermine the crippling effects of economic sanctions[45]. To the extent that humanitarian exemptions permit civilians to live their normal lives, such exemptions undermine the sanctions regime. For most of its duration, the humanitarian programme grafted on the U.N. sanctions against Iraq was not designed to eliminate sufferings or normalize the living conditions of the population, but merely to prevent a “further deterioration” of the humanitarian situation in Iraq[46]. In other words, sanctioners’ intention was to maintain the population in destitution, though short of starvation.

5. Concluding remarks

A blind spot has marked the debate on economic sanctions. This blind spot results, partly, from the fact that the voice of victims of economic sanctions have not reached the ears of those who engage in this debate. In the various seminars, symposia and conferences that have taken place in recent years regarding the need to “humanize” or redesign economic sanctions, the views of past and potential victims of such measures have been conspicuous by their absence. To the extent that economic sanctions should remain an international tool of coercion, the debate on their future modalities must include those who have been directly affected by such measures.

While individuals and groups around the world have successfully exposed the grave humanitarian consequences of past sanctions regimes, they did not succeed in exposing the incompatibility between such measures and human rights. Nor has the international community yet recognized that it owes a moral and material debt to surviving innocent victims of economic sanctions.

It the hope of the present author that by exposing the mechanism of economic sanctions, particularly their instrumentalization of civilian pain as a means to achieve political gain, the international community will realize the need to prohibit wholesale coercion of civilian populations. This can be done by various means, including an international treaty that would define and prohibit economic coercion and oppression of civilian populations and by adding economic coercion and oppression of civilian populations to the list of crimes against humanity under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

*

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

Elias Davidsson is an Icelandic citizen living in Germany. He is a composer, human rights and peace activist and author of several books on 9/11 and false-flag terrorism.

Notes

1. Manfred Kulessa and Dorothee Starck, Peace through sanctions?,Policy Paper 7 of the Development and Peace Foundation, Bonn, Germany, Presented at a Conference in Bonn, January 15, 1998

2. Michael Reisman, Assessing the Lawfulness of Nonmilitary Enforcement: The Case of EconomicSanctions, ASIL Proceedings 1995, p. 354

3. Robert P. O’Quinn of the Heritage Foundation, writes in A User’s Guide to Economic Sanctions(The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1126, 25 June 1997): “Since 1990… the United States has been far more willing to employ unilateral economic sanctions to achieve other foreign policy objectives. During President Clinton’s first term, U.S. laws and executive actions imposed new unilateral economic sanctions 61 times on a total of 35 countries. These countries are home to 2.3 billion people, or 42 percent o f t h e world’s population.” http://www.heritage.org/library/categories/trade/bg1126.html

4. See Geoff Simons, Imposing Economic Sanctions: Legal Remedy or Genocidal Tool?London & Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press (1999); Joy Gordon, A Peaceful, Silent, Deadly Remedy: The Ethicsof Economic Sanctions, 13 Ethics and International Affairs (1999).

5. Elias Davidsson, Towards an Objective Definition of Economic Sanctions, unpubl. manuscript (2003)

6. Paul Conlon, The UN’s Questionable Sanctions Practices, Aussenpolitik IV (1995)

7. Margaret P. Doxey, International Sanctions in Contemporary Perspective, first edition Macmillan Press Ltd., 1987 (the second edition was published in 1996); also Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Jeffrey J. Schott, and Kimberly Ann Elliott, Economic Sanctions Reconsidered: History and Current Policy,Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics (1985)

8. Richard B. Lillich, Economic Coercion and the “New International Economic Order: A SecondLook At Some First Impressions. In “Economic Coercion and the New International EconomicOrder”, edited by Richard B. Lillich, 107-18. Charlottesville, Virginia: The Michie Company (1976)

9. UNGA Resolution 2625 (XXV) (1970); UNGA Resolution 3281 (XXIX) (1974); UNGA Resolution 210 (XLVI) 1991); UNGA Resolution 52/181

10. See generally Phyllis Bennis, Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today’s UN.New York: Olive Branch Press (1996); see also Elias Davidsson: The U.N. Security Council’sObligations of Good Faith, Florida Jnl. Int’l L., Vol. XV No. 4 (2003), pp. 541-574

11. See, inter alia, Elias Davidsson, The Role Played by the Security Council in Crippling the Iraqi Economy 1990-2001 – An Annotated Chronology, unpubl. manuscript (2002)

12. Security Council Resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990

13. David Cortright and George A. Lopez, Eds. The Sanctions Decade: Assessing UN Strategies in the 1990s. Boulder & London: Lynne Rienner Publishers (2000)

14. Resolution by ad hocmeeting of foreign ministers of the Organisation of American States (OAS), on Haiti, 3 October 1991

15. Riccardo Pavoni, UN Sanctions in EU and National Law: The CENTRO-COM Case, 48 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1999

16. Reported by Cortright (2000), supra note 11,p. 171

17. Cited by John B. Reynolds, III, in his contribution to the discussion On Country sanctions andthe international business community, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law(ASIL), 1997, p. 333

18. National Association of Manufacturers, A catalogue of new U.S. unilateral economic sanctions forforeign policy purposes, 1993-96, (1997) (with analysis and recommendations)

19. Reisman, supra note 3,p. 354-5

20. Cited by Barry E. Carter, International economic sanctions: improving the haphazard U.S. legalregime, (1988)

21. Leading examples are the works by Margaret Doxey, see supra note 6.

22. Here is a typical utilitarian pronouncement accompanying such studies: “We have found that sanctions sometimes bear fruit, but only when planted in the right soil and nurtured in the proper way”, in Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Jeffrey J. Schott, and Kimberly Ann Elliott: Economic Sanctions Reconsidered, second edition, revised, 2 vols. (Washington, Institute for International Economics, December 1990) (Executive summary); For the utilitarian approach, see also: Christopher C. Joyner, Sanctions, Compliance and International Law: Reflections On the United Nations’Experience Against Iraq, 32 Virginia Journal of International Law (1992); Paul Conlon,Legal Problems At the Centre of United Nations Sanctions, 65 Nordic Journal of International Law(1996); R. Jeker, Chairman’s Conclusions, International Expert Seminar on the Targeting of United Nations Sanctions, Interlaken, Switzerland, 19 March 1998; Cortright and Lopez (2000), see supranote 11; and Stuart E Eizenstat, Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and AgriculturalAffairs, Testimony Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC, 1 July 1999 http://www.state.gov/www/policy_remarks/1999/990701_eizen_sanctions.html

23. Hazel Fox and C. Wickremasinghe, UK Implementation of Economic Sanctions, 42 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1993); William B. Hoffman, Global Mandate, National Law: AU.S. Perspective On Chaos and Convergence in Sanctions Implementation, ASIL Proceedings1995; and Richard Conroy,Implementation problems of travel bans: Practical and Legal Aspects(First Expert Seminar: Smart Sanctions, The Next Step: Arms Embargoes and Travel Restrictions). Bonn International Centre for Conversion (BICC), (2000)

24. Richard Garfield, The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Health and Well-being, Overseas Development Institute, London, November (1999); Elizabeth Gibbons and Richard Garfield TheImpact of Economic Sanctions On Health and Human Rights in Haiti, 1991-1994 89 AmericanJournal of Public Health (1999)

25. For example David Cortright, Toward More Humane and Effective Sanctions Management:Enhancing the Capacity of the United Nations System, United Nations Office for the Co-ordination

26.  An example of an ethical approach is Joy Gordon, Economic Sanctions, Just War Doctrine, and the “Fearful Spectacle of the Civilian Dead” in Cross Currents, Fall 1999, Vol. 49 Issue 3, at http://www.crosscurrents.org/gordon.htm . Examples of legal approaches, include Starvation As a Weapon: Legal Implications of the United Nations Food Blockade Against Iraq and Kuwait, 30 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 1992; Hans Koechler, The United Nations Sanctions Policy and International Law, Kuala Lumpur: Just World Trust, 1995; Iraqi Sanctions, Human Rights and Humanitarian Law , 2 Jun 1997 Available from http://www.merip.org

27. Doxey (1996), see supra note 6

28. Stanley Cohen,Government Responses to Human Rights Reports: Claims, Denials, andCounterclaims, 18 Human Rights Quarterly (1996) p. 527

29. See in particular Elias Davidsson, Towards an Objective Definition of Economic Sanctions, unpubl. manuscript (2003), notes 16-17

30. David Cortright and George A. Lopez, Carrots, Sticks and Cooperation: Economic Tools of Statecraft, Fourth Freedom Forum, http://fourthfreedom.org/sanctions/carrotssticks.html

31. U.S. legal statute, Title 18 § 2331, at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2331.html

32. For example Joyner (1992) (supra note 20): “In a broader sense, sanctions seek to isolate the target from the rest of the international community, and thereby to deprive it of the benefits of international intercourse.” (p.3); or Jonathan Eaton and Maxim Engers, Sanctions: Some SimpleAnalytics, AEA Papers and Proceedings (1999): “We find success more likely when the threatened measure costs the sender little relative to the gain from modifying the target’s behaviour, while the damage to the target is large relative to his cost of complying with the sender’s will” (p.409).

33. Paul Tavernier, Sanctions Économiques Et Droits De L’homme, In Nouvel ordre mondial et droitsde l’homme, edited by Paul Tavernier, Editions Publisud; Université de Rouen, Centre de rechercheset d’études sur les droits de l’homme et le droit humanitaire (CREDHO), (1993) p. 21, concurs: “[L]es sanctions économiques sont destinées à punir l’Etat violateur et à l’inciter à corriger son comportement. Toutefois, l’Etat n’apparaissant comme une entité abstraite, ce sont les personnes, les individus, les femmes et les hommes, qui sont effectivement atteints par de telles mesures.”

34. Blanchard and Ripsman write: “Unlike most writers, our analysis does not focus on how states can maximise the economic pain imposed on a target state ” (Jean-Marc F. Blanchard and Norrin M. Ripsman, Asking the Right Question: When Do Economic Sanctions Work Best?,in Power and thePurse: Economic Statecraft, Interdependence and National Security, edited by Jean-Marc F.Blanchard, Edward D. Mansfield, and Norrin M. Ripsman, Frank Cass Publishers, London & Portland (2000)), p. 220; or “There are three main ways a sender country tries to inflict costs on the target country” (Hufbauer et al, supra note6, p. 28)

35. Victor W. Sidel, Can Sanctions Be Sanctioned?, 89 American Journal of Public Health (1999): “Sanctions should specify that restriction of food, medicine, and other items needed for the health and welfare of the people of the offending nation are specifically forbidden”, pp. 1497-8. The author, obviously, erred in his formulation and had in mind ‘offending government’. Such mistakes show the importance of handling such concepts with utmost care. A similar, though less innocent, amalgamation is reflected by the Economist (London, 30 Nov. 1996), the Editorial of which is titled: “Keep the screws on Iraq”!

36. Some people, probably unaware of its prohibited nature, endorse the principle of collective punishment. A former officer in the United States Armed Forces, wrote on 2 May 1995 to the author: “I spent 6 months of my life in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. I knew why my soldiers and I were going over there for and not once questioned the reason…I favour 100% the sanctions that are levelled against the Iraqi nation, although at the end it is the civilian population that suffers the most. They must also be held accountable for the actions of the mad man from Baghdad. For they continue to support his regime whether due to fear or their unwillingness to overthrow him…”.

37. Jeremy P. Carver,Making Financial Sanctions work: Preconditions for successful implementationof sanctions by the implementing state, in Expert Seminar on Targeting UN Financial Sanctions,Interlaken, Switzerland, March 17-19, 1998, published by the Swiss Federal Office for Foreign Economic Affairs, Department of Economy, p.88.

38. Jews were likened to a “maggot [found] in a rotting body” (p. 57), or a “parasite,… who like a noxious bacillus keep spreading” (p.305) (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston (1942), thirteenth printing, Sentry Edition C). To refer to human beings as a “cancerous cell” or to “germs” paves the way to their extermination

39. The National-Socialists were keenly aware of this phenomenon and chose an innocuous term – “The Final Solution” – to help insulate the numerous participants in the genocide of Jews from pangs of conscience.

40. Congressional Record, Proceeding and Debates of the 102d Congress, First Session (No. 6, Jan. 10, 1991) at S135

41. “Unlike rules of warfare, which are based on the protection of civilians, sanctions do not differentiate between non-innocent and innocent parties. The U.S. Committee on Economic Sanctions stated in 1931 that ‘a really successful food embargo ranks well in advance of torpedoing hospital ships and is somewhere near the class of gassing maternity hospitals.’” (Katarina Tomasevski, Between Sanctions and Elections, Pinter, London & Washington, (1997)), p. 218

42. John Pilger reports having asked Peter van Walsum, the Netherlands’ ambassador to the U.N. and chair of the Iraq Sanctions Committee if he agreed with punishing innocent people for the crimes of a dictator, over whom they have no control. He reportedly replied: “It is a difficult problem. Sanctions obviously hurt…they are like a military measure and you have the eternal problem of collateral damage.” Commenting on this reply, John Pilger observes: “The implication that a whole nation is ‘collateral damage’ is astonishing, yet it accurately reflects the moral and intellectual contortion common in United Nations Plaza, the U.S. State Department and the Foreign Office, as a justification for the destruction of a country. . “, in Sanctions on Iraq kill 200 children every day, New Statesman, London, 6 March 2000

43. Even the most elaborate humanitarian scheme cannot supplant an established social and political structure within the sanctioned country. In order to mitigate the effects of sanctions, sanctioners need the co-operation of the government that is allegedly been targeted by the sanctions!

44. This expression and its application would be justified if one would consider all healthy, male, adults, in a sanctioned country as deserving punishment.

45. Doxey (1996), supra note 6, pp. 106-107: “[The question arises how far it is desirable – and possible – to limit the scale of economic damage by granting exemptions on humanitarian grounds. Far-reaching exemptions undermine the effectiveness of the sanctions; in a telling metaphor a 1930s commentator wrote that ‘the acid of exemptions will eat the very heart out of a sanctions regime.’”

46. See, in particular, Elias Davidsson, The Role Played by the Security Council in Crippling the Iraqi Economy 1990-2001, unpubl. manuscript (2002),, chapter 4.2 (The Purpose of the “Oil-For-Food” Programme)

Surveillance is merely a variant of violent voyeurism, the human behind the camera or visual apparatus observing behaviour in a setting, often private.  Its premise is privacy’s violation; its working assumption is privacy’s irrelevance; officially tolerated such a concept is unofficially repudiated.  Studies on surveillance do as much to reveal its problems as accommodate them: the great, all seeing commissar of email, letters and conversations remains persuasive.   

Those who have put pen to paper on this have not always been very sympathetic.  Judith Jarvis Thomson tended to see matters of privacy as a secondary interest: privacy rights are bundled up, as it were, with others, a second order of concern.  The violation of privacy comes after more salient breaches. But mass market surveillance, much of it manufactured in the private sector, the ubiquity of spyware, and the ease with which such material can be acquired, has eclipsed such quibbles.

The innovations on the market have proven to be devastatingly effective.  Canadian privacy research group Citizen Lab’s work in this field has shed light on a range of manufacturers pushing such products as FinFisher, the Remote Control System (RCS) of Hacking Team, and Israel’s own NSO Group’s Pegasus.  As Sarah McKune and Ron Deibert observed in 2017,

“business is booming for a specialized market to facilitate the digital attacks, monitoring, and intelligence-cum-evidence-gathered conducted by government entities and their proxies.”  

Pegasus spyware remains one of the NSO Group’s most damnably and dangerously effective products, used to target individuals in 45 countries with impunity.  Human rights activists such as Ahmed Mansoor can testify to its spear-phishing qualities, having been a target of various SMS messages with links intended to infect his iPhone.  Had he actually clicked on those links instead of passing them on to experts at Citizen Lab and the cybersecurity firm Lookout for examination, surveillance software would have been installed.

An even more high profile instance where Pegasus is alleged to have been deployed is the case of slain journalist and occasional Riyadh critic Jamal Khashoggi, who was brutally dismembered in the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018.  A suit against NSO was subsequently filed in Tel Aviv by fellow dissident critic Omar Abdulaziz, claiming that communications between him and Khashoggi had been monitored by Saudi authorities deploying NSO software. 

Much of this is shrugged off as exceptional: the NSO Group, for instance, argues that such technology has been used to legitimately target terrorist groups and criminals; besides, their sale is premised on ethical restrictions.  “It is not a tool to be weaponized against human rights activists or political dissidents,” explains the NSO Group in an email.  Such ethical considerations were little bar in the cases of Khashoggi, at least initially.  But the concern, and publicity, was sufficient to prompt some mild action on the part of NSO Group.  While the firm concluded that its technology did not “directly contribute” to tracking Khashoggi prior to his killing, new requests from Saudi Arabia were frozen over concerns of misuse. 

David Kaye, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, has made the latest effort to remind citizens that spyware, commercially and readily available, can be a very dangerous thing.  A good deal of matters in life take place behind the screen of safe privacy.  Dissidents and contrarians need their space to survive; journalists need their room to document abuses and make the powerful account.  In the face of modern surveillance, expansive, beefed up, and developed by global corporations, the task had gotten that much more challenging.  

Kaye’s gloomy report, published to the UN Human Rights Council, supplies the disturbing stuffing the world of surveillance provides.  It leaves little room for the fence sitters: surveillance harms and impairs.  It is axiomatic that trust is denuded in that pursuit, and its very nature and intrusive activity eliminates the consensual bridge between citizen and state, and, as by-product, citizen and citizen.  

It is, furthermore, generally unsupervised. 

“Digital surveillance is no longer the preserve of countries that enjoy the resources to conduct mass and targeted surveillance based on in-house tools.  Private industry has stepped in, unsupervised and with something close to impunity.” 

The market itself was “shrouded in secrecy; indeed, our knowledge of the problem exists mainly because of the digital-forensic framework of non-governmental researchers and tenacious reporting by civil society organizations and the media”. 

As a function, such spyware is directed against specific individuals, “often journalists, activists, opposition figures, critics”.  This has led to unmistakable consequences: arbitrary detention, torture and extrajudicial killings.  This suggests two parts of the equation: to see, at one end; to then order, at the other, the suppression if not elimination of the individual.  

Kaye suggests a reasoned brake on the industry. 

“States should impose an immediate moratorium on the export, sale, transfer, use or servicing of privately developed surveillance tools until a human rights-compliant safeguards regime is in place.” 

This may be sadly ambitious, given the security establishment’s various addictions to technology in this field.  Such suggestions are the equivalent of banning space technology that might be deployed in weaponry. Spyware is as much a product as a vision, the equivalent of arms manufacturing and efforts to produce the most lethal and insidious creation.  To mention human rights in the same breath is the equivalent of seeking a more honed form of killing, a decent form of surveillance.  Seen in its amoral context, such products are neither wicked nor good, a mere mechanism to monitor and police.  But behind the eye of spyware are its unscrupulous users. Behind the gazing software is a state or corporate employee, the voyeur of the national security state ever keen to peer into the lives of citizenry.

*

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]

A report this week by the Associated Press (AP) on conditions facing children at a Border Patrol station near El Paso, Texas, highlights the inhuman treatment of children under the Trump Administration’s savage anti-immigrant campaign.

The AP, in an account that has not been widely reported elsewhere in the media, describes young teenage girls taking responsibility for caring for toddlers and infants who have been separated from their parents under the government’s drive to penalize undocumented immigrants fleeing the poverty and violence that have been stoked by American imperialism in their home countries.

The legal team that spoke to the AP gained access to the facility in Clint, Texas, about 25 miles southeast of El Paso, after negotiations with federal officials. The lawyers interviewed 60 children, out of the total of 250 infants, children and teenagers at the station. They reported inadequate food, water and sanitation, amid other neglect of the most basic needs of toddlers and children less than one year old.

The detention camp includes six children three years of age and younger, including three infants. There were many examples of children taking care of children. One girl explained, “A Border Patrol agent came in our room with a 2-year-old boy and asked us, ‘Who wants to take care of this little boy?’”

Source: AP News

A 14-year-old girl from Guatemala who had been holding two smaller children in her lap told the lawyers, according to the AP report, “I need comfort too. I am bigger than they are, but I am a child, too.”

A father who is a US resident said that authorities had separated his daughter, who would be in second grade in a US school, from her aunt when they entered the country. He only found out where his daughter was when an attorney visiting the camp found his phone number written on a bracelet the little girl was wearing. “She’s suffering very much because she’s never been alone,” the father explained.

The children at the Texas camp, held in conditions that undoubtedly prevail in hundreds of other facilities run by the federal government, are fed oatmeal, a cookie and sweetened drink for breakfast, instant noodles for lunch, and a burrito for dinner. They have had no fruits or vegetables, nor have they had a clean change of clothes or the opportunity to bathe for weeks.

The AP spoke to some of the lawyers as well as others involved in the struggle to defend immigrants.

Warren Binford, director of the Clinical Law Program at Willamette University, reported that some of the children “are so tired they have been falling asleep on chairs and at the conference table.” Holly Cooper, a director of the University of California, Davis, Immigrant Law Clinic, said, “In my 22 years of doing visits with children in detention, I have never heard of this level of inhumanity.” Gilbert Kliman, a San Francisco psychoanalyst who has experience with families with children seeking asylum, noted, “The care of children by children constitutes a betrayal of adult responsibility, governmental responsibility.” Kliman said the current conditions would have lasting impact and psychological damage on the children.

Meanwhile, in a courtroom in San Francisco, the Trump administration argued that the “safe and sanitary” conditions mandated for migrant children by a 1985 class action lawsuit that was filed during the Reagan presidency do not require that soap and toothbrushes be provided, and also that sleeping on cold concrete floors in cells with low temperatures similarly qualifies as “safe and sanitary.” The court hearing, reported by Newsweek, was part of a federal appeal of a lower court ruling against the Trump administration.

Department of Justice lawyer Sarah Fabian, the Trump administration’s representative in the case, insisted that the above conditions do not violate the terms of the 1985 agreement.

“One has to assume it was left that way and not enumerated by the parties because either the parties couldn’t reach agreement on how to enumerate that or it was left to the agencies to determine,” Fabian coldly argued.

Several justices of the 9th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals registered their concern.

“You’re really going to stand up and tell us that being able to sleep isn’t a question of safe and sanitary conditions?” Judge Marsha Berzon asked.

Judge William Fletcher added,

“Are you arguing seriously that you do not read the agreement as requiring you to do anything other than what I just described: cold all night long, lights on all night long, sleeping on concrete and you’ve got an aluminum foil blanket?”

The federal onslaught on the elementary rights of asylum seekers and other migrants began long before the current administration, although Trump has escalated the attacks and used them to whip his fascistic base into a frenzy, as seen most recently in his 2020 reelection campaign kickoff in Orlando, Florida.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has just announced plans to reopen the internment camp at Fort Sill in Oklahoma that was used to house Japanese-Americans rounded up by the administration of Franklin Roosevelt during the Second World War. The new concentration camp will be used to detain 1,400 children. Without even the excuse—as yet—of a shooting war, the government in Washington is stepping up its criminalization of working class immigrants.

The Democrats are mostly silent on the latest outrages, and in some cases they have joined in the campaign, quarreling at most with Trump’s way of going about “border security.” It was the Obama administration that deported a record 3 million undocumented immigrants during his eight years in office, providing Trump with a baseline from which he could intensify the attacks. This past week the president tweeted his latest threat to round up “millions,” beginning with the one million immigrants who are subject to removal orders—an action that would have devastating consequences not only for these families but for the cities and communities in which they live and work. Plans were announced for raids to begin across the country as soon as Sunday.

The record of both big business parties demonstrates the irrefutable truth that no section of the working class can defend its interests except through a break from these representatives of the ruling elite and a united struggle for the socialist reorganization of society. Native-born workers must come to the defense of their immigrant brothers and sisters, whether documented or not. The mass mobilization of the working class, through protests, mass demonstrations and strikes, will be necessary to stop the bipartisan attack on immigrants. This must be part of a political struggle for a socialist workers’ government that will tear down the artificial national boundaries and extend its hand in friendship to workers all over the world.

*

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

Featured image is from Reveal

We can for now be thankful Trump didn’t kill people and blow things up in Iran yesterday. Even so, the fact he went full-throttle, and then backed off is worrisome. 

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

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

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

*     *     *

Trump Has a $259 Million Reason to Bomb Iran

By Eli Clifton, June 23, 2019

Yet, there’s another omnipresent influence on Trump: $259 million given by some of the GOP’s top supporters to boost his campaign in 2016 and support Republican congressional and senate campaigns in 2016 and 2018.

Provoking Iran Could Start a War and Crash the World Economy

By Federico Pieraccini, June 23, 2019

As if the political and military situation at this time were not tense and complex enough, the two most important power groups in the United States, the Fed and the military-industrial complex, both face problems that threaten to diminish Washington’s status as a world superpower.

US-China Economic Warfare: Chinese Enterprises Blacklisted by the US

By Stephen Lendman, June 23, 2019

On Friday, the BIS added five more Chinese tech enterprises to its blacklist, further heightening bilateral tensions ahead of China’s President Xi Jinping’s scheduled meeting with Trump for talks later this week at the Osaka, Japan G20 summit.

Germany vs. Iran – Has Germany Sold Out to the Devil?

By Peter Koenig, June 23, 2019

Madame Angela Merkel – the head of Europe’s strongest economy, of the leader of the European Union, said that there was strong evidence that Iran attacked the two tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

Iran Had the Legal Right to Shoot Down US Spy Drone

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, June 23, 2019

The White House claimed that its drone was at least 20 miles from Iran, in international airspace, while Iran maintains the drone was in Iranian airspace. Iran presented GPS coordinates showing the drone eight miles from Iran’s coast, which is inside the area of 12 nautical miles that is considered Iran’s territorial waters under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Video: The US Has Threatened Several Times to Stage an Attack and Blame It on Iran

By The Corbett Report, June 22, 2019

A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the bench marks followed by accusations of the Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the United States blamed on Iran culminating in a “defensive” US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Iran Goes for “Maximum Counter-pressure”. Is Closing the Strait of Hormuz an Option?

By Pepe Escobar, June 21, 2019

There would be no need to shut down the Strait of Hormuz if Quds Force commander, General Qasem Soleimani, the ultimate Pentagon bête noire, explained in detail, on global media, that Washington simply does not have the military capacity to keep the Strait open.

*

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

On Thursday, the United States came perilously close to a military confrontation with Iran after it downed a U.S. drone that may or may not have entered the country’s air space. President Donald Trump reportedly ordered a retaliatory military strike on Iran but called it off, according to Trump’s own tweets on Friday morning, because a general told him that “150 people” might die in the strike.

Much analysis of Trump’s slide toward war with Iran has focused on his hawkish national security adviser, John Bolton, who, reportedly requested options from the Pentagon to deploy as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East and hit Iran with 500 missiles per day. Bolton is the loudest voice inside the White House pushing for a military escalation to the administration’s “maximum pressure” strategy.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, for his part, is staking out the position that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force allows the administration to take military action against Iran without congressional approval, an unusual and broadly criticized interpretation of congressional oversight.

Yet, there’s another omnipresent influence on Trump: $259 million given by some of the GOP’s top supporters to boost his campaign in 2016 and support Republican congressional and senate campaigns in 2016 and 2018.

Those funds  came from Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, Paul Singer and Bernard Marcus, donors who have made no secret, both through public statements and funding think tanks that support military action against Iran, of their desire for the United States to destroy the Islamic Republic.

Adelson, who alongside his wife Miriam are the biggest donors to Trump and the GOP, contributed $205 million to Republicans in the past two political cycles and reportedly sent $35 million to the Future 45 Super PAC that supported Trump’s presidential bid. His role as the biggest funder of Republican House and Senate campaigns makes him a vital ally for Trump—who relied on Adelson’s campaign donations to maintain a Republican majority in the Senate and curb Republican losses in the House in the 2018 midterm election—and any Republican seeking national office.

Adelson publicly suggested using nuclear weapons against Iran and pushed for Trump to replace then-national security adviser H.R. McMaster with Bolton, partly due to the former’s perceived unwillingness to take a harder line on Iran. In 2017, the Zionist Organization of America, which receives much of its funding from the Adelsons, led a public campaign against McMaster, accusing him of being “opposed to President Trump’s basic policy positions on Israel, Iran, and Islamist terror.”

In 2015, Trump mocked his primary opponent, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), for seeking Adelson’s financial support, warning that Adelson expects a degree of control over candidates in exchange for campaign contributions. Trump tweeted:

Sheldon Adelson is looking to give big dollars to Rubio because he feels he can mold him into his perfect little puppet. I agree!

And Adelson isn’t alone.

Billionaire Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus is the second largest contributor to Trump’s campaign, providing $7 million. He also champions John Bolton, contributing $530,000 to John Bolton’s super PAC over its lifetime. And he’s a major contributor to GOP campaigns, contributing over $13 million to Trump’s presidential campaign and GOP congressional campaigns in 2016 and nearly $8 million to GOP midterm efforts in 2018.

Marcus, like Adelson, makes no qualms about his views on Iran, which he characterized as “the devil” in a 2015 Fox Business interview.

Unlike Adelson and Marcus, hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer was a “never Trump” conservative until Trump won the election. Then he donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration. Singer is far more careful with his words than Marcus and Singer, but his money supports some of the most hawkish think tank experts and politicians in Washington.

Singer, alongside Marcus and Adelson, has contributed generously to the hawkish Foundation for Defense of Democracies, whose experts have spent the past decade regularly promoting policies to pressure Iran economically and militarily, including most recently Trump’s “maximum pressure” approach.

According to donor rolls of FDD’s biggest supporters by the end of 2011, a year that saw a sharp rise in tensions and rumors of war by Israel against Iran, Adelson contributed $1.5 million, Paul Singer contributed $3.6 million, and Bernard Marcus, who sits on FDD’s board, contributed $10.7 million.

(FDD says that Adelson is no longer a contributor, but Marcus continues to give generously, contributing $3.63 million in 2017, over a quarter of FDD’s contributions that year.)

Employees of Singer’s firm, Elliott Management, were the second largest source of funds for the 2014 candidacy of the Senate’s most outspoken Iran hawk, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who urged Trump to conduct a “retaliatory strike” against Iran for purportedly attacking two commercial tankers last week.

Singer donated $26 million to Republicans in the 2016 election and $6.4 million to the GOP’s midterm campaigns.

The billionaire Iran hawks—the Adelsons, Singer, and Marcus—made combined donations of over $259 million to GOP politicians in the past two cycles, making them some of the Republican Party’s most important donors. That quarter-billion-dollars doesn’t include contributions to dark money 501c4 groups and donations to 501c3 nonprofits, such as think tanks like FDD.

News coverage of Trump’s slide toward war frames the discussion as a competition between his better instincts and a national security advisor and secretary of state who, to varying degrees, favor military action.

But the $259 million that helped elect Trump and Trump-friendly Republicans must loom large over the president.

As Trump evaluates his options with Iran and turns his attention to the 2020 election, he knows he’ll need to rely on the Adelsons, Singer, and Marcus to boost his campaign, maintain a narrow majority in the Senate, and attempt a takeback of the House.

These donors have made their policy preferences on Iran plainly known. They surely expect a return on their investment in Trump’s GOP.

*

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.

Eli Clifton reports on money in politics and US foreign policy. Eli previously reported for the American Independent News Network, ThinkProgress, and Inter Press Service.

Tensions in the Persian Gulf are reaching a point of no return. In recent weeks, six oil tankers have been subjected to Israeli sabotage disguised to look like Iranian attacks to induce the United States to take military action against the Islamic Republic. Some days ago Iran rightfully shot out of the sky a US Drone. In Yemen, the Houthis have finally started responding with cruise and ballistic missiles to the Saudis’ indiscriminate attacks, causing damage to the Saudi international airport of Abha, as well as blocking, through explosive drones, Saudi oil transportation from east to west through one of the largest pipelines in the world.

As if the political and military situation at this time were not tense and complex enough, the two most important power groups in the United States, the Fed and the military-industrial complex, both face problems that threaten to diminish Washington’s status as a world superpower.

The Fed could find itself defending the role of the US dollar as the world reserve currency during any conflict in the Persian Gulf that would see the cost of oil rise to $300 a barrel, threatening trillions of dollars in derivatives and toppling the global economy.

The military-industrial complex would in turn be involved in a war that it would struggle to contain and even win, destroying the United States’ image of invincibility and inflicting a mortal blow on its ability to project power to the four corners of the world.

Just look at how surprised US officials were about Iran’s capabilities to shot down an advanced US Drone:

“Iran’s ability to target and destroy the high-altitude American drone, which was developed to evade the very surface-to-air missiles used to bring it down, surprised some Defense Department officials, who interpreted it as a show of how difficult Tehran can make things for the United States as it deploys more troops and steps up surveillance in the region.”

The Fed and the defense of the dollar

The US dollar-based economy has a huge debt problem caused by post-2008 economic policies. All central banks have lowered interest rates to zero or even negative, thus continuing to feed otherwise dying economies.

The central bank of central banks, the Bank for International Settlements, an entity hardly known to most people, has stated in writing that “the outstanding notional amount of derivative contracts is 542 trillion dollars.” The total combined GDP of all the countries of the world is around 75 trillion dollars.

With the dimensions of the problem thus understood, it is important to look at how Deutsche Bank (DB), one of the largest financial institutions in the world, is dealing with this. The German bank alone has assets worth about 40 trillion dollars in derivatives, or more than half of annual global GDP.

Their solution, not at all innovative or effective, has been to create yet another bad bank into which to pour at least 50 billion dollars of long-term assets, which are clearly toxic.

Reuters explains:

“The bad bank would house or sell assets valued at up to 50 billion euros ($56 billion) – after adjusting for risk – and comprising mainly long-dated derivatives.

The measures are part of a significant restructuring of the investment bank, a major source of revenue for Germany’s largest lender, which has struggled to generate sustainable profits since the 2008 financial crisis.”

Thus, not only has Deutsche Bank accumulated tens of billions of dollars in unsuccessful options and securities, it seeks to obtain a profit that has been elusive since 2008, the year of the financial crisis. Deutsche Bank is full of toxic bonds and inflated debts kept alive through the flow of quantitative easing (QE) money from the European Central Bank, the Fed and the Japanese Central Bank. Without QE, the entire Western world economy would have fallen into recession with a chain of bubbles bursting, such as in public and private debt.

If the economy was recovering, as we are told by soi-disant financial experts, the central-bank rates would rise. Instead, rates have plummeted for about a decade, to the extent of becoming negative loans.

If the Western financial trend is undoubtedly heading towards an economic abyss as a result of the monetary policies employed after 2008 to keep a dying economy alive, what is the rescue plan for the US dollar, its status as a global-reserve currency, and by extension of US hegemony? Simply put, there is no rescue plan.

There could not be one because the next financial crisis will undoubtedly wipe out the US dollar as a global reserve currency, ending US hegemony financed by unlimited spending power. All countries possessing a modicum of foresight are in the process of de-dollarizing their economies and are converting strategic reserves from US or US-dollar government bonds to primary commodities like gold.

The military-industrial complex and the harsh reality in Iran

In this economic situation that offers no escape, the immediate geopolitical effect is a surge of war threats in strategic locations like the Persian Gulf. The risk of a war of aggression against Iran by the Saudi-Israeli-US axis would have little chance of success, but it would probably succeed in permanently devastating the global economy as a result of a surge in oil prices.

The risk of war on Iran by this triad seems to be the typical ploy of the bad loser who, rather than admit defeat, would rather pull the rug out from under everyone’s feet in order to bring everybody down with him. Tankers being hit and then blamed on Iran with no evidence are a prime example of how to create the plausible justification for bombing Tehran.

Upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that the actions of Bolton and Pompeo seem to be aligned in prolonging the United States’ unipolar moment, continuing to issue diktats to other countries and failing to recognize the multipolar reality we live in. Their policies and actions are accelerating the dispersal of power away from the US and towards other great powers like Russia and China, both of which also have enormous influence in the Persian Gulf.

The threat of causing a conflict in the Persian Gulf, and thereby making the price of oil soar to $300 a barrel, will not save US hegemony but will rather end up accelerating the inevitable end of the US dollar as a global reserve currency.

Trump is in danger of being crushed between a Fed that sees the US dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency collapse, and the need for the Fed to blame someone not linked to the real causes of the collapse, that is to say, the monetary policies adopted through QE to prolong the post-crisis economic agony of 2008.

At the same time, with Trump as president, the neocon-Israeli-Saudi supporters see a unique opportunity to strike Iran, a desire that has remained unchanged for 40 years.

As foolish as it may seem, a war on Iran could be the perfect option that satisfies all power groups in the United States. The hawks would finally have their war against Tehran, the world economy would sink, and the blame would fall entirely on Trump. The Donald, as a result, would lose any chance of being re-elected so it makes sense for him to call off possible strikes as he did after the US drone was shot out of the sky.

While unable to live up to his electoral promises, Trump seems to be aware that the path laid out for him in the event of an attack on Iran would lead to his political destruction and probably to a conflict that is militarily unsustainable for the US and especially its Saudi and Israeli allies. It would also be the catalyst for the collapse of the world economy.

In trying to pressure Iran into new negotiations, Trump runs the risk of putting too much pressure on Tehran and giving too much of a free hand to the provocations of Pompeo and Bolton that could end up triggering a war in the Strait of Hormuz.

Putin and Xi Jinping prepare for the worst

Our current geopolitical environment requires the careful and considered attention of relevant heads of state. The repeated meetings between Putin and Xi Jinping indicate that Russia and China are actively preparing for any eventuality. The closer we get to economic collapse, the more tensions and chaos increase around the world thanks to the actions of Washington and her close allies.

Xi Jinping and Putin, who have inherited this chaotic situation, have met at least a dozen times over the last six months, more recently meeting at least three times over two months. The pressing need is to coordinate and prepare for what will inevitably happen, once again trying to limit and contain the damage by a United States that is completely out of control and becoming a danger to all, allies and enemies alike.

As Putin just recently said:

“The degeneration of the universalistic model of globalization and its transformation into a parody, caricature of itself, where the common international rules are replaced by administrative and judicial laws of a country or group of countries.

The fragmentation of global economic space with a policy of unbridled economic selfishness and an imposed collapse. But this is the road to infinite conflict, trade wars and perhaps not just commercial ones. Figuratively, this is the road to the final struggle of all against all.

It is necessary to draft a more stable and fair development model. These agreements should not only be written clearly, but should be observed by all participants.

However, I am convinced that talking about a world economic order such as this will remain a pious desire unless we return to the center of the discussion, that is to say, notions like sovereignty, the unconditional right of each country to its own path to development and, let me add, responsibility in the universal sustainable development, not just its own.”

The spokesman of the Chancellery of the People’s Republic of China, Hua Chun Ying, echoed this sentiment:

“The American leaders say that ‘the era of the commercial surrender of their country has come to an end’, but what is over is their economic intimidation of the world and their hegemony.

The United States must again respect international law, not arrogate to itself extraterritorial rights and mandates, must learn to respect its peers in safeguarding transparent and non-discriminatory diplomatic and commercial relations. China and the United States have negotiated other disputes in the past with good results and the doors of dialogue are open as long as they are based on mutual respect and benefits.

But as long as these new trade disputes persist, China informs the government of the United States of America and the whole world that it will immediately impose duties on each other, unilaterally on 128 products from the United States of America.

Also, we think we will stop buying US public debt. It’s all, good night!”

I wonder if Europeans will understand all this before the impending disaster. I doubt 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.

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies.

Washington-led NATO has always sought to destroy Syria as a functioning state. In order to achieve this goal, its air campaign and its terrorists have continuously targeted infrastructure. Schools, hospitals, and their employees have been targeted either for destruction or for repurposing to suit terrorist requirements. The terrorists have always sought to impose their will on domestic populations.  Garnering Syrian public support was never a consideration.

A 2017 Tasmin news article notes, for example, that terrorists killed over 700 doctors and destroyed over 450 ambulances. The aforementioned source adds:

During the six years of the war against Syria, the terrorist groups destroyed 38 hospitals completely, 20 hospitals were partially damaged and the equipment and medical equipment were damaged. About 450 health centers were out of service and some 200 others closed due to their presence in unsafe areas. [1]

These statistics seem reasonable. In 2014, Prof. Tim Anderson noted that, “(s)ince 2011 NATO-backed armed groups have systematically attacked more than two thirds of Syria’s public hospitals, and have murdered, kidnapped or injured more than 300 health workers.”[2]

NATO terrorists take pride in their work. In the video below, we see them blowing up what was previously Aleppo’s renowned al-Kindi hospital, one of the Middle-East’s foremost anti-cancer centre.

NATO terrorists also use civilian infrastructure as shields.  Hence hospitals are frequently “re-purposed” to suit their needs. The buildings serve as sniper perches, Sharia jails, torture centers, warehouses to hoard medicine and food, command centers and a myriad other uses. Once this happens, “hospitals” lose their “protected” status under international law.[3]

Making matters even worse, the West’s criminal economic warfare against Syria also targets Syrian healthcare.  Dr. Jafaari notes:

Another scandal, as human feelings are overflowing today, do you know that after 8 years of imposing sanctions, or what they call unilateral coercive measures, because they are not imposed by you and are not legal, after 8 years, and with such overflowing human feelings we heard today, the United States and the European Union prohibit the export of medical devices such as the MRI and CT Scan to Syria until today, and the surgical procedures required by Syrian doctors for surgical operations? What is this overflowing human feeling that prevents the export of medical devices such as MRI and CT Scan and surgical thread for surgical operations?[4]

NATO-supported terrorists have consistently attacked Syrian schools as well, thus denying Syrian children access to secular education in terrorist-occupied areas. By 2017, the terrorists had reportedly murdered 480 school teachers and 700 school children[5]. The grim statistics would be higher by now. As with hospitals, the terrorists also repurpose some schools, at times turning them into “Wahhabi learning centres”, but also for military purposes.

Western media, of course, obliterates all of these facts from its “reporting”, as it now focuses on protecting its al Qaeda assets in Idlib.  To set the record straight, Rachid Khallouf provides this information on a June 19 Facebook post:

The population of Idlib is 126,000. According to the 2010 census.

• Idlib city diameter 2.7 km.
• It has one traffic sign.
• Two government hospitals and six small private hospitals.
• abandoned by the local population, and currently inhabited by global terrorism.

*

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

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

Notes

[1] “Detailed figures for six years of the Syrian war .. Losses sectors of health, education, electricity and tourism + photos.” Tasnim. 2017/04/12. (https://tn.ai/1376971) Accessed 22 June, 2019.

[2] Prof. Tim Anderson, “Syria’s Hospitals targeted by NATO-backed Armed Groups.” Global Research, 03 January, 2014 (https://www.globalresearch.ca/syrias-hospitals-targeted-by-nato-backed-armed-groups/5363563?fbclid=IwAR3ee8vg0xLg5pkkEXShWTKxtbSXVzBprec3ssfilYkg_BWckP1_2jrmcPM) Accessed 22 June, 2019.

[3] Gail Malone, “Aleppo: Where hospitals were turned into Sharia gaols.” Off Guardian, 17 May, 2017. (https://off-guardian.org/2017/05/17/aleppo-where-hospitals-were-turned-into-sharia-gaols/) Accessed 22 June, 2019.

[4] Arabi Souri, “Amb. Jaafari’s Statement at UNSC on Idlib and NATO’s War Of Terror against the Syrian People.” Syria News, 19 June, 2019. (https://www.syrianews.cc/amb-jaafaris-statement-at-unsc-on-idlib-and-natos-war-of-terror-against-the-syrian-people/) Accessed 22 June, 2019.

[5] “Syrian Minister of Education Sputnik: a huge number of schools destroyed.” Sputnik Arabic. 14/04/2019 (https://sptnkne.ws/mkkU) Accessed 22 June, 2019.

---

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

The US considers China a strategic adversary. Waging war on the China by other means makes reconciling major bilateral differences all the harder.

According to a US Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) document, 143 tech-related Chinese enterprises have been blacklisted from the US market.

They include companies involved in producing aviation related products, semiconductors, engineering, as well as other high-tech products and components.

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

On Friday, the BIS added five more Chinese tech enterprises to its blacklist, further heightening bilateral tensions ahead of China’s President Xi Jinping’s scheduled meeting with Trump for talks later this week at the Osaka, Japan G20 summit.

All blacklisted companies are barred from purchasing US technology without Washington’s permission, tech giant Huawei and its 70 affiliate companies most prominent on its so-called “entity list.”

A 90-day reprieve was granted the company before the order takes effect, enabling Huawei to fulfill existing orders and provide software updates for its mobile phone users.

In early June, China’s Commerce Ministry said it’ll blacklist what it called the country’s “non-reliable entity list,” comprised of foreign “entities, individuals and companies that block and shut the supply chain, or take discriminatory measures over non-commercial reasons, and when their actions endanger the business of Chinese companies…”

The announcement responded to the Trump regime’s blacklisting of Huawei, its affiliate companies, and other Chinese enterprises showing it won’t tolerate unacceptable US actions.

Beijing is prepared for a longterm struggle with the US, intending to pursue whatever it believes appropriate to defend its sovereignty and national interests.

Weeks earlier, China’s central economic planning authorities, its national development and reform commission, along with its ministries of commerce, industry and technology reportedly warned major US tech companies they’ll face “dire consequences” if they comply with the Trump regime’s ban to cut Huawei out of the global supply chain.

They were also warned them against relocating their production facilities to other countries, saying this action could have permanent consequences — perhaps restricting or banning them from the Chinese market, the most important one for many foreign enterprises.

As long as major Sino/US differences remain world’s apart, the number of blacklisted Chinese entities could expand exponentially. Over 300 Russian enterprises are banned from the US market.

Former US trade official William Reinsch said blacklisting five more Chinese entities is “ill-timed” ahead of this week’s Xi/Trump meeting, adding:

The action “clearly will be received negatively by the Chinese,” making resolution of bilateral differences all the harder.

Hostile US actions encourage its authorities to go all-out to develop homegrown technology, clearly a longterm project, China currently dependent on foreign suppliers for key high-tech products and components.

On Saturday, China’s official People’s Daily broadsheet said Beijing is “prepare(d) for a long fight if the US continues to escalate tensions (even if it)  negatively affect China’s economy,” adding:

“To those who claim that China will lose, we have one thing to say: fear is not in our vocabulary.”

Last week, China’s Global Times stressed that the nation “must stay firm for negotiations,” adding:

“Negotiation outcomes are not often obtained through talks, but through fights. If desiring a good negotiation result, China must persist and not fear.”

“If the US imposes unfair conditions on China, it must be prepared for a protracted trade war and bear the consequential losses together with China.”

What’s likely from Xi/Trump talks later this week? Global Times editor Hu Xijin tweeted:

“Chinese side is concerned about the fairness of a trade deal. The most important part is the US side must remove all newly imposed tariffs since the trade war. Until now, what I’ve learned is China won’t accept a deal that the US keeps part of the tariffs.”

Trump regime negotiators rejected this demand earlier. They’re unlikely to soften their position ahead while things remain unresolved.

Perhaps Xi/Trump talks this week will end like when they last met on the sidelines of the Buenos Aires G20 summit late last year — agreeing to a 90-day truce for further talks.

Because of the Trump regime’s hardline position toward China, wanting the country weakened, contained, and isolated, no major breakthroughs are likely in Osaka.

Perhaps they’re out of reach entirely no matter how many more rounds of talks are held.

The US trade deficit with China is a minor issue compared to major ones.

China is an emerging political, economic, financial, technological, and military powerhouse. The US wants its growing power and influence curtailed.

That’s the stuff conflicts are made of. The risk of Sino/US confrontation ahead is real. The same goes for US relations with Russia.

Both nations stand in the way of US rage for global dominance — why eventual nuclear war is an ominous possibility.

*

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.

---

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 substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

Madame Angela Merkel – the head of Europe’s strongest economy, of the leader of the European Union, said that there was strong evidence that Iran attacked the two tankers in the Gulf of Oman. Ten days ago, German Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, travelled to Tehran, officially to “save” the Nuclear Deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – JCPoA), but in reality, to ‘negotiate’ with Tehran ways so Germany and by association other EU members, might still do business with Iran, against some “concessions” by Iran, in order to appease Washington.

Iran’s President Rouhani reacted quickly. FM Maas got the cold shoulder and was dismissed. And rightly so. Maas was not really representing Germany – but the United States. Iran gave the EU an “ultimatum” of 60 days to stick to their commitments on trading with Iran according to the Nuclear Deal – despite the US reneging on it – or else, Iran may bypass some of the conditions under the JCPOA accord. The EU – not being independent and her member countries having lost all sovereignty by submitting to the dictate first from Brussels, second from the tyranny of Washington, didn’t like the ultimatum, and said so in a joint statement. They added a weak and meek phrase, “We call on countries not party to the JCPOA to refrain from taking any actions that impede the remaining parties’ ability to fully perform their commitments;” not even daring calling the country by name, for whom the statement was destined, i.e. the US of A.

Germany’s position is as absurd as it has ever been since Merkel and the entire Bundestag accepted the sanctions imposed by Washington on Russia in 2014 – and replicated them along with the rest of the EU – even to their own detriment and to the detriment of the entire EU. Chancellor Merkel and apparently the entire Bundestag, again, go along with Washington’s equally absurd and false accusation that Iran has attacked the two tankers, one Japanese owned, the other Norwegian. The latter belonging to a close friend of Iran’s, and the Japanese one, hardest hit – exactly at the time when Japan’s PM Shinzō Abe, was visiting the Ayatollah in Tehran to discuss how to maintain the Nuclear Deal – trading – despite the sanctions and threats of Washington, hence, a friendly visit.

A blind person can see that these were two false flags – so thinly masked, with badly fabricated US ‘video evidence’ that even according to CIA and US military brass did not deliver conclusive evidence. In fact, none at all. Madame Merkel – why do you not first ask the obvious question “Cui bono?”— Who benefits? Certainly not Iran – but the aggressor, the US which has been planning and preparing for war with Iran for decades, ever since the first Iraq war under Father Bush, in 1991. At the 2003 invasion of Iraq – Bolton openly expressed his dreams to demolish Iran. He and Pompeo are liars and war criminals, who run the White House and pretend to run the Pentagon – and who act in impunity. Their power seems limitless. Trump – seems to be a mere puppet.

Getting Merkel on board of the flagrant US lie that Iran was attacking two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, is a strategic hit, enhancing the lies’ credibility and, thus, making a US attack on Iran more palatable to the rest of the world. Yet, apparently this was not enough. The Pentagon sent an unmanned high-altitude Global Hawk drone into Iranian airspace, a provocation Iran could not resist and shot the drone down, but not before sending warning signals, about which today nobody talks. The world shouldn’t know that Iran had the noblesse to warn the US about the drone being in their airspace. As can be expected the White House gnomes deny that the drone was invading Iranian airspace, but pretend it was in international air space, when it was shot down.

This raised the ante for Washington to launch an attack on Iran. All was planned to be carried from Thursday to Friday (20 to 21 June), and at last minute Trump stopped it. Is it true? – It could be, because somebody a bit ‘higher up’ than Trump and his warrior minions, must have realized the danger that such an attack may pose to the rest of the world – or actually that it could trigger a nuclear conflict. However, that the attack plan was stopped doesn’t mean it was canceled. Maybe it was just postponed.

In the meantime, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has ordered all US airlines to avoid the Gulf of Oman and the Gulf of Hormuz. And, as could be expected, the airlines of Washington’s “true” puppet allies have followed suit, i.e. Australia’s Qantas Airways Ltd, Singapore Airlines Ltd, Germany’s Lufthansa, British Airways, Air France and its Dutch KLM affiliate, as well as Malaysia Airlines, said they were re-routing flights to avoid the area. Others may follow under direct or tacit pressure of the US. The Japanese airline ANA said they were considering alternative routings. Effectively, the US was able to declare a no-fly zone over a significant area of Iran.

Let’s make no mistake, all the visible key figures at the helm of the White House – are run in the back by Israel, by Netanyahu and the Chosen People he represents, those who also run Wall Street and the western world’s banking and financial system. Israel would like to see Iran in rubbles, or better, in eternal chaos, the goal that was set for Iraq, Afghanistan and that the US was and still is dreaming for Syria. This bunch of evil elite pulls the strings and hopes to soon pull just ONE string for global hegemony, under a ONE World Order.

Back to Germany. Instead of jumping off the sinking ship of Washington and its faithful entourage of the willing, as rats would do, and as the vast majority of the German people would prefer, let alone German and European business, Madame Merkel and apparently all her circles, including Berlin’s Parliament, follow the US flagrant lie propaganda. Why? – Well, this is the deal: There are many ways to “buy” top politicians, with threats or with money or by outright inflicting fear through ‘proxy-assassinations’.

Once Germany is on board – the rest of Europe will follow suit. In that case, Washington – Trump and consortia – think they have Iran totally strangled, by blocking all trade and all financial transactions, plus confiscating Iranian assets abroad – on top of imposing stiff tariffs, so that Iran can no longer afford importing vital goods for manufacturing – or for sheer survival from the west. Once a country is weak, it can be taken over easily. So, the western, AngloZionist thinking goes.

Iran – her Fifth-Columnists aside – is strong and has already proven that it is detaching from the west. Even trying to adhere and fight for the Nuclear Deal which the west, i.e. Europe is incapable of respecting for lack of backbone, is a waste of time. To demonstrate that Iran has alternatives, Mr. Rouhani was attending the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, on 13 and 14 June 2019, by invitation of China, the leader of the 8-member “club”.

SCO stands for promoting peace, trade and a non-aggressive defense strategy (the antidote to the NATO-type military aggression). As of now, Mr. Rouhani is an observer for his country, Iran which is in an advanced stage in the process of entering the SCO as a full member. This could happen later this year or in 2020. Iran would recover her sovereignty, her economic potential and would – and will – be able to detach from the west, pretty much as did Russia and China, the two super-powers under constant assaults of sanctions, denigration and false accusations.

Turkey – is in a similar situation. If Turkey is admitted by the SCO – also very likely – their NATO exit will be imminent. What that will mean for the rest of NATO, at this point we can only guess and dream of, especially since there is an ever-stronger people’s movement throughout Europe to exit NATO. It is particularly strong in Italy and paradoxically also in Germany. The vast majority of Germans want to exit NATO, but the government doesn’t listen. “So far” doesn’t listen. The German anti-NATO movement has been gaining strength ever since the anti-nuclear energy protests in the early seventies which were followed and intensified in the late 1970’s early 1980s against nuclear arms stockpiled in Germany by the US, particularly those stored at the US Air Force base of Ramstein, near Kaiserslautern.

The “so-far” is a precursor to a break with NATO, as the pressure against the USAF base Ramstein, against NATO, is mounting, and that, when Madame Merkel decides firmly to go with the sinking ship – risking to pull Germany and her people down the drain for sheer senseless and outdated obedience to the succumbing tyrant. How absurd!

While Iran is making smart moves, gradually away from western economics, from trading with the west – and moving eastwards – where the future is – Germany backtracks, literally into the orbit of a dying beast, into what is ever-more detectible – a decaying empire.

When will Germany wake up? When the first bombs fall on her cities – a WWI and WWII redux? Except this time, it may not be just the falling of conventional bombs. It may be nuclear meeting nuclear at Ramstein. Madame Merkel, your obligation to the people who apparently elected you is larger than you think and larger than yourself – and much larger than whatever goes on in your mind to follow a defeated warrior and rogue nation into hell.

*

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

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

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

Having signed off on an attack against Iran early Thursday, President Trump didn’t just tell the military and diplomats that he was on board. Trump also sent a message to the Iranian government, by way of Oman, telling them that the attack was imminent.

Trump’s forwarded message not only informed Iran of the planned US attack, but also offered talks with Iran “about various issues.” They gave a very brief period awaiting an Iranian response.

Iranian officials say that they responded Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had already rejected talks, and added that any US attack would “have regional and international consequences.” Trump decided against the attack with 10 minutes to spare, though he suggests this was not related to the exchange with Iranian officials.

US officials are now emphasizing that the US offered diplomacy, and that Iran “has no right” to respond with force, by way of condemning the downing of a US surveillance drone by Iran.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry, by contrast, reacted that they would respond to diplomacy with diplomacy, and intend to respond to war “with firm defense.” That’s a key distinction, of course.

And while the US clearly wants to portray Iran as the one in the wrong in this situation, they weren’t just offered diplomacy in Trump’s Thursday message. They were told they were being attacked by the United States, and an offer of talks was the postscript that was likely drowned out by the lead message of an imminent attack which but for the call would’ve been a total sneak attack.

*

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

Jason Ditz is news editor of Antiwar.com.

Featured image is from  Silent Crow News

President Trump’s controversial visit to the UK finished with his departure to Normandy to mark the 75^th anniversary of the D-Day landings. Trump gathered with other Western leaders for the usual photo op which did not include the leaders of Russia and China who were not even invited even though their countries lost 27 million and 20 million dead respectively during World War Two.

In his speech Trump celebrated the sacrifice and heroism of Allied soldiers who helped liberate France from Nazi control. He thanked America’s western allies stating ‘our bond is unbreakable’. There was no mention of America’s Soviet ally in the east. The Soviet Union made gigantic sacrifices and the decisive contribution towards defeating the German Wehrmacht during the summer of 1944.

Trump’s failure to even acknowledge the role of the Soviet Union fits in with the Western narrative that the D-Day landings played the critical role in bringing about the defeat of Nazi Germany whilst completely ignoring the role of the Soviet Red Army.

Competing narratives regarding the importance of D-Day

This narrative is exemplified in the article by Ian Carter from the Imperial War Museum in London, Why D-Day Was So Important To Allied Victory. Carter makes the grandiose and historically inaccurate claim that the Allied invasion of Normandy played a vitally important role in the defeat of Nazi Germany:

“The German Army suffered a catastrophe greater than that of Stalingrad, the defeat in North Africa or even the massive Soviet summer offensive of 1944.’’

American historian Peter Kuznick, professor of history at American University and co-author, with Oliver Stone, of The Untold History Of The United States, has recently commented on the narrative that it was the D-Day landings that broke the back of German fascism. In an interview with The Real News Network on 9 June Kuznick commented:

“For the Americans, the war begins at Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. And then there’s some battling in North Africa and the underbelly, and Italy. But the real war for the Americans begins June 6, 1944, with the invasion of Normandy with D-Day. Then the Americans single-handedly defeat the Germans and marched straight into Berlin. And the Americans win the war in Europe. That’s a very, very unfortunate and dangerous myth that has been perpetrated. And if you listen to Trump’s words, again, in England, again he’s reinforcing that myth about the Americans leading the way to the liberation of Europe. That’s not the reality. The reality was the success at Normandy is largely due to the fact that the Germans were already weakened badly by that point, because they had been taking a pummelling, and they were in retreat across Europe ahead of the Russian Army, ahead of the vast Red Army, which was then liberating the concentration camps.’’

In complete contrast to this pro-American narrative Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, made the following statement on the 75 anniversary of the D-Day landings:

“As historians note, the Normandy landing did not have a decisive impact on the outcome of World War II and the Great Patriotic War. It had already been pre-determined as a result of the Red Army’s victories, mainly at Stalingrad (in late 1942) and Kursk (in mid-1943),’’

Before I proceed here’s my disclaimer. My grandfather fought in North Africa and Italy with the British 8^th Army so this article is not knocking the contribution of allied soldiers but merely seeks to give historical balance to the highly politicized narrative over who dealt the decisive blow to Nazi Germany during 1944.

Importance of German defeats during 1943

The United States entered World War Two on 7 December 1941 following the Japanese attack upon the American naval base at Pearl Harbour. As early as June 1942 the Soviet Union had urged its American and British allies to open a second front in Western Europe. It would take the US and UK another two years to finally launch the invasion of France. Meanwhile, the Red Army took the brunt of German military might and millions died in the genocidal race war waged by the Nazis on the Eastern Front.

By June 1944 the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany had already been established by the Red Army victories at Stalingrad (August 1942-February 1943) and Kursk (July-August 1943) during 1943. At Stalingrad it had lost the Sixth Army and four allied armies of over 400,000 men. Meanwhile, at Kursk it had lost 30 divisions (over 500,000 men) including 7 Panzer divisions equipped with the new Panther and Tiger tanks, 1,500 tanks, 3,000 guns and 3,500 warplanes.

Both German and Soviet generals writing after the war agree upon the catastrophic consequences of the Wehrmacht’s defeats during 1943. Colonel General Heinz Guderian, who became Chief of the General Staff in 1944, admitted that by the end of 1943 the Wehrmacht, “had suffered a decisive defeat. … From now on the enemy was in undisputed possession of the initiative.’’

Troops of the 49th Army during the capture of Mogilev on 28 June 1944 (CC BY 4.0)

Field Marshall Manstein echoed Guderian’s assessment of the catastrophic consequences of German defeats during 1943. In his memoirs he noted that by the end of 1943 the Wehrmacht:

“ … found itself waging a defensive struggle which could not be anything more than a system of improvisations and stopgaps….To maintain ourselves in the field, and in doing so wear down the enemy’s offensive capabilities to the utmost, became the whole essence of the struggle.’’

Marshal Zhukov, deputy commander of the Red Army later observed the decisive nature of the defeats inflicted upon the German Wehrmacht during 1943:

“Not only were the picked and most powerful groupings of the Germans destroyed here, but the faith of the German Army and the German people in the Nazi leadership and Germany’s ability to withstand the growing might of the Soviet Union was irrevocably shattered.’’

The American historians David Glantz and Jonathan House, in their account of the Eastern Front When Titans Clashed How The Red Army Stopped Hitler, declare that 1943 was a ruinous and fatally destructive period for the German army:

“Organizationally, the Wehrmacht was clearly in decline by late 1943. In addition to the death of Sixth Army and several allied armies, the German Panzer force and air transport force had been shattered repeatedly. Hundreds of ordinary infantry divisions were reduced to two thirds of their strength, with declining mobility and inadequate anti-tank defences.’’

“Indeed, after Kursk a vicious cycle set in. Each new setback forced the Germans to commit their newly recruited replacement troops and their refurbished panzer units to battle more rapidly and with less training. Poorly trained troops suffered abnormally high casualties before they learned the harsh realities of combat. These casualties in turn, meant that commanders had to call on the next wave of replacments at an even earlier stage in their training.’’

By the summer of 1944 the German Wehrmacht was incapable of conducting a general offensive on a wide front. It was reeling from the massive losses inflicted by the Red Army’s winter campaign of 1943-44 that had led to the destruction of large portions of First Panzer, Sixth, Eighth and Seventeenth Armies. 16 German divisions comprising over 50,000 men had been completely destroyed while 60 other divisions had been reduced to fragments of their former strength.

Objectives for the Soviet summer offensives of 1944

Wider geo-political considerations entered the deliberations of the Red Army command when working out the objectives for its summer campaign of 1944. The long delayed second front invasion of France was a factor in Stalin’ s thinking. He was aware that the American led force landing in Normandy would be in a race with the Red Army to get to Berlin first. In 1943 Stalin met with Churchill and Roosevelt at the Tehran Conference to begin planning the post war future of Europe which envisaged the division of Germany into zones of influence. Stalin was determined that the Red Army would get to Berlin first and so have the initiative when dividing up Germany and ensuring that Eastern Europe would become a satellite buffer zone for the Soviet Union.

In March 1944 the State Defence Committee led by Stalin and the Red Army General Staff began their analysis of their options for the summer offensive. It was eventually resolved that the Red Army would attack and destroy its toughest foe: Army Group Centre which was concentrated in Belorussia. The liberation of Belorussia would place the Red Army in Poland and leave it poised along the most direct route to Berlin and have the added bonus of leaving Army Group North cut off from its supply lines and unable to retreat.

The summer campaign would involved five different offensives running north to south that would be staggered along the 2,000 mile front. Operation Bagration was named after the Russian general who was mortally wounded in 1812 at the battle of Borodino. It was scheduled to start on 22 June nearly a fortnight after the offensive against Finland which was designed to drive this German ally out of the war.

The Red Army pulled off a massive redeployment of troops in strict secrecy that was part of its highly successful deception that led the German High Command to expect the main offensives to be directed against Army Group South and Army Group North.

By mid June the Red Army had pulled off the herculean task of manoeuvring 14 combined-arms armies in to place together with 1 tank army, 118 rifle divisions, 4 air armies and 2 cavalry corps. This huge force comprised 1,254,300 men, 2,715 tanks, 24,363 artillery pieces supported by 2,306 Katyusha rocket launchers and 5,327 combat aircraft supported by 700 bombers of the Long Range Bomber Force.

The logistics involved in preparing the four army fronts involved in Operation Bagration gives an idea of the massive scale of the impending attack. The four army fronts were supported by 70,000 lorries and 90-100 trains a day bringing fuel and ammunitions up to the starting lines of the impending offensive.

Summer Offensives begin

Three days after the D-Day landings on 9 June almost 1,000 combat aircraft opened the offensive that was to knock Finland out of the war. It also had the added benefit of keeping Army Group Centre distracted away from the main Soviet thrust that was carefully forming in front of the German defences.

Operation Bagration 23 June – 19 August 1944

On 19 June Soviet partisans set off over 10,000 demolition charges ripping up German rail track, rolling stock, sidings and junctions on the central front. Over the next 4 nights 40,000 demolitions spread destruction deep into the rear of the German transport network.

Source: WW11 Database

Finally, on 23 June, on almost the third anniversary of the Wehrmacht’s invasion of the Soviet Union, the Red Army launched its massive surprise attack against Army Group Centre.

Operation Bagration achieved complete tactical surprise and soon had Army Group Centre reeling. The German High Command seemed completely unaware of the impending catastrophe that was rapidly enveloping their forces. Hitler, refused permission for any kind of flexible defence that involved tactical retreats by German units and was unwilling to sanction any major reinforcements being despatched to Army Group Centre.

As early as 24 June Army Group Centre was facing a very serious threat to its entire position. John Erickson in his magisterial account of the Eastern Front, The Road To Berlin: Stalin’s War With Germany Vol.2, has commented:

“From this point forward, Army Group Centre was caught in an impossible situation and progressively drenched with Russian fire denied any degree of flexibility yet bereft of any effective reinforcement. … The situation of Third Panzer [army] and Fourth Army was serious: for the Ninth Army to the south it rapidly became catastrophic.’’

A week after the launch of Operation Bagration the German defensive system had collapsed. The four Red Army fronts had liberated Vitebesk, Orsha, Moghilev and Bobruisk and pressed on towards Minsk. They had killed over 130,000 German soldiers, taken 66,000 prisoner and destroyed 900 German tanks and thousands of vehicles. Red Army casualties were so high that the 2^nd Belorussian Front was forced to withdraw and recoup. Despite its heavy casualties the Red Army showed no signs of slackening the pace of its offensive.

The three German armies that comprised Army Group Centre were in disarray and in headlong retreat. They were ordered to follow a scorched earth policy that left no resources for the advancing Red Army which came across numerous German war crimes. John Erickson has noted that:

“Minsk, its factories dynamited and its installations wrecked, stood mostly in ruins; throughout most of Belorussia Soviet troops advanced through burned villages and broken towns, the livestock gone and the population fearfully thinned. More than once Red Army units came upon wagons loaded with children consigned to deportation to the Reich.’’

Minsk, capital of Belorussia fell on 3 July, and the Red Army moved to encircle and destroy the German Fourth whose strength by then had fallen to around 105,000 men.

40,000 German soldiers died trying to break out of the Soviet encirclement. On 11 July the remnants of Fourth Army, out of ammunition and fuel, surrendered.

The Red Army had achieved total tactical and strategic success and torn a 250 mile gap in the German front leaving Army Group Centre with a meagre 8 divisions at its disposal.

Estimates of the staggering German losses suggest that Army Group Centre lost 25-28 divisions, over 450,000 men, while another 100,000 fell on the southern and northern fronts.

Soviet casualties were equally horrendous with the Red Army suffering over 230,000 killed and 800,000 wounded.

During the Red Army’s whirlwind offensives of late June and July 1944 the Western Allies struggled to break out of their Normandy bridgehead. Operation Bagration and the accompanying offensives that took the Red Army to the eastern suburbs of Warsaw, had surpassed their initial objectives and broken the back of Germany’s strongest army group leaving Hitler’s regime staring defeat in the face.

Assessments of Operation Bagration

Assessments of the impact of Operation Bagration all agree that it dealt a devastating and catastrophic blow to the military capabilities of German fascism.

American historians David M. Gantz and Jonathan House have noted the dreadful consequences of Operation Bagration for the German Wehrmacht:

“The destruction of more than 30 divisions and the carnage wrought in a host of surviving divisions, accompanied by a Soviet mechanized advance in excess of 300 kilometres. It had decimated Army Group Centre, the strongest German army group, severely shaken Army Group South Ukraine, and brought the Red Army to the borders of the Reich.’’

John Erickson in his evaluation of the historical importance of Operation Bagration has commented:

“ When Soviet armies shattered Army Group Centre, they achieved their greatest military success on the Eastern Front. For the German army in the east it was a catastrophe of unbelievable proportions, greater than that of Stalingrad, ….’’

This assessment is supported by German and Soviet generals.

According to German military historian, General von Buttlar, Operation Bagration left the German Wehrmacht in disarray and shattered its ability to mount effective resistance to the Red Army. He observed that, ‘the rout of the Centre Group of Armies put an end to the organized resistance of Germans in the East.’

Marshal Zhukov in his memoirs gave a detailed assessment of the military and geo-political ramifications of Operation Bagration:

“In two months, Soviet troops had routed two big strategic German groupings, liberated Belorussia, completed the liberation of the Ukraine, and freed a considerable part of Lithuania and eastern Poland. In these battles, the 1^st, 2^ndand 3^rd Belorussian Fronts and the 1^st Baltic Front routed 70 divisions. Thirty divisions were routed by the 1^stUkrainian Front in the Lvov-Sandomir regions … the defeat of the Centre and North Ukraine groups, the capture of three major bridgeheads on the Vistula and arrival at Warsaw brought our striking fronts close to Berlin, now only 600 km [370 miles] away … Roumania and Hungary were close to withdrawal from the German alliance.’’

During June-July 1944 Operation Bagration broke the back of the strongest military formation in the German Wehrmacht and dealt a mortal blow to German fascism from which it was unable to recover. The American narrative that D-Day dealt the mortal blow to German fascism does not stand up to close scrutiny.

The American military historians Glantz and House have observed that, ‘ … despite the Germans’ need to direct new divisions and equipment eastward, throughout June and July the Wehrmacht was still able to contain the Allied bridgehead in Normandy.’

On 17 July 1944 57,000 German prisoners of war, captured during Operation Bagration, were paraded through the streets of Moscow. The motive for this was to scotch all talk that the Red Army had not played the decisive role in destroying the military capabilities of the German Wehrmacht.

Military historian John Erickson has noted how:

“Russians resented suggestions that German troops had been transferred from Belorussia westwards to fight off the invading Allied armies: the parade of the prisoners was in part designed to stifle ‘nonsensical’ talk of this kind. The main battle-front, and here Soviet commentators quoted directly from German cries of anguish, lay in the east where battles of ‘apocalyptic’ dimensions raged.’’

Endnote

It is 75 years since the momentous events on the eastern front during the summer of 1944 that broke the back of German fascism and left it staring defeat in the face. We should celebrate this victory and remember the huge sacrifices made by the Red Army.

That said, we should not be complacent about the defeat of German fascism. The conditions that helped give birth to fascism are beginning to re-emerge and will be given a huge stimulus by the next global economic crisis.

Bertolt Brecht gave a warning about this when writing after World War Two. Brecht warned:

“Don’t rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the world stood up and stopped the bastard. The bitch that bore him is in heat again.’’

*

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

The New York Times is reporting that on June 20, President Trump ordered military strikes against Iran to retaliate for its shootdown of a U.S. drone, but then pulled back and didn’t launch them. Officials told the Times that Trump had approved attacks on Iranian radar and missile batteries.

Trump tweeted,

“We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.”

Nevertheless, shortly after midnight on June 21, Newsweek reported that regional U.S. military assets have been put on 72-hour standby.

On June 19, an Iranian surface-to-air missile shot down an unmanned U.S. surveillance drone. The White House claimed that its drone was at least 20 miles from Iran, in international airspace, while Iran maintains the drone was in Iranian airspace. Iran presented GPS coordinates showing the drone eight miles from Iran’s coast, which is inside the area of 12 nautical miles that is considered Iran’s territorial waters under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Iran has the legal right to control its own airspace. The United States has no lawful claim of self-defense that would justify a military attack on Iran.

Both the U.S. and Iran are parties to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, which provides “that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.”

Iran’s sovereignty over its airspace includes the right to shoot down an unmanned drone present without consent.

“Although there is no black letter law on the question, state practice suggests that a state can use force against unmanned drones that have entered its airspace without consent,” Ashley Deeks and Scott R. Anderson wrote at Lawfare.

“Assuming that for once Washington is telling the truth” about how far the U.S. drone was from Iran when it was downed, “it is still undeniable that Iran has the right to demand identification from any aircraft flying this near its territory,” H. Bruce Franklin, former Air Force navigator and intelligence officer, wrote on Facebook. U.S. Air Defense Identification Zones extend 200 miles from the U.S. border. “Any unidentified drone” which flew that close to the U.S. “would most likely be shot down,” Franklin added.

Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, wrote to the Security Council that the drone did not respond to several radio warnings before it was shot down.

A U.S. Attack on Iran Would Not Be Lawful Self-Defense

If the United States attacks Iran, it would act in violation of the United Nations Charter. The Charter only allows the use of military force in self-defense after an armed attack or with Security Council approval.

The International Court of Justice held in the 1986 Nicaragua case that an “armed attack” only includes “the most grave forms of the use of force.” No one was injured or killed when Iran shot down the U.S. drone since it was unmanned. Indeed, Trump told reporters it made “a big, big difference” that a U.S. pilot was not threatened.

Iran did not carry out an armed attack against the United States. Under the Caroline case, there must exist “a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” There is no imminent necessity for a U.S. military attack on Iran.

Congress Has Not Authorized a Military Attack on Iran

A U.S. strike on Iran would also violate the War Powers Resolution, which lists three situations in which the president can introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities:

First, after a declaration of war by Congress, which has not occurred since World War II. Second, in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” The loss of a U.S. drone does not constitute a “national emergency.” Third, when there is “specific statutory authorization,” such as an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

In 2001, Congress adopted an AUMF that authorized the president to use military force against individuals, groups and countries that had contributed to the 9/11 attacks. In the past 18 years, three presidents have misused the 2001 AUMF to justify multiple military interventions.

This is happening again. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has mounted a campaign to link Iran to al-Qaeda in order to make a case that the 2001 AUMF would allow the U.S. to attack Iran. But, as Johns Hopkins professor Bruce Riedel told Al-Monitor,

“Rather than being secretly in bed with each other as some have argued, al-Qaeda had a fairly hostile relationship with the Iranian regime.”

On June 19, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed a $1 trillion appropriations bill that includes a provision repealing the 2001 AUMF within eight months. Introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California), it says the AUMF “has been used to justify a broad and open-ended authorization for the use of military force and such an interpretation is inconsistent with the authority of Congress to declare war and make all laws for executing powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.” But the GOP-controlled Senate will not pass the bill with the AUMF repeal provision in it.

The U.N. Security Council Should Act

Tensions between the United States and Iran have been steadily escalating. One year ago, the U.S. pulled out of the multilateral 2015 nuclear deal, which was working to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Trump then reimposed devastating sanctions against Iran, whose oil exports have fallen by one-half.

After Trump designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group in April, Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-third of the world’s oil passes. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council designated the U.S. Central Command a terrorist organization. Trump ordered 2,500 additional troops and an aircraft carrier to the region.

On June 13, two oil tankers — one Japanese, the other Norwegian with a 50 percent Russian crew — were attacked in the Gulf of Oman. The United States blamed Iran, which denied responsibility for the attack. Neither Japan nor Norway have said Iran was responsible. “That Iran would target a Japanese and a friendly Russian crewed ship is a ludicrous allegation,” Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, wrote on his blog.

Besides being illegal, a U.S. attack on Iran would prove disastrous to the entire region, and indeed, the world. Congress should repeal the 2001 AUMF and assert its authority under the War Powers Resolution. The Security Council must convene immediately and act to fulfill its duty under the Charter to restore international peace and security to the Gulf region.

*

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

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

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

This article was originally published in March 2017.

In April [2017] as part of our fact finding mission, we travelled to Aleppo.  We visited a hospital there which MSF (Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctor’s Without Borders) has accused Assad and Russia of deliberately bombing.  The White Helmets reported all hospitals in Eastern Aleppo had been destroyed, clearly this is not the case.  MSF also mentioned that they had not given either Syria or Russia the co-ordinates of ‘their’ hospitals.  As you will see from the photographs the hospital has not been bombed, although mortar and small weapons fire is obvious.  Factors to note; no one from MSF are actually on the ground to verify what they are being told.  There was no aerial bombardment at the time of the report and the liberation.  Aleppo was predominately a ground offensive … suburb to suburb, block to block, street to street and house to house and room to room.

Image on the right: Box of supplies with MSF logo; image below: White Helmets logo

This MSF ‘hospital’ had a women’s section, a men’s section, a Sharia school for the kiddies and a literal dungeon consisting of hundreds of solitary confinement cells and a Sharia Court.  A one stop, Wahhabi terror shop.  We saw plenty of evidence of everyone’s favourite Oscar winners.  The White Helmets had left behind evidence in their rush to stay with their murdering mates on their way to Idlib, following the money as it were.  Hollywood, particularly George Clooney, must be so proud.  Stick a ‘white hat’ on anyone and in the eyes of a gullible audience they must be the heroes … brainwashing 101.

There where all manner of medical supplies, supplies that never made their way to the majority of the civilians, held to ransom by groups operating out of a MSF claimed hospital.  I hope people are fully grasping what this means.  There where empty glass vials scattered on the ground, and evidence of a Norwegian NGO’s supplies being stored at this base, also a Turkish NGO’s blanket and Syrian American Medical Society stickers, among others on the walls .  If, as reported in the west, Assad and Russia were besieging Aleppo and not allowing aid in, how did the takfiris get their hands on these vital supplies?

We saw graffiti on the walls of cells hapless victims were held in this place of horrors.  One read; ‘God help my children’.  The once fully functioning hospital was used by the takfiris against the Syrian government and MSF went along for the ride.  With a number of hard line terrorist supporter journalists, like Australia’s Sophie McNeill and CNN’s Clarissa Ward preferring not to delve too deeply into their sources, giving the terrorists a life of their own as good Samaritans.  Still, I guess that’s journalism these days.  We all know the famous Malcolm X quote about believing the guilty.

Emblem of a shadow council on White Helmet uniform

There is now enough evidence to link the White Helmets with terrorism.  Hypothetically, if not enough to arrest them, there’s plenty of evidence to warrant an investigation and one would think enough to raise an eyebrow in Hollywood, but no.  Tinsel Town seems to be in for the long haul, toughing it out. How they will recover from this is anyone’s guess.  Like Iraq, the truth of Syria will eventually see the light of day.  Will any of these journalists, actors and NGOs complicit in the great lie of the Syrian Crisis face justice?  Time will tell but justice, like international law, seems a quaint idea from the past.

Updated 6th June, 2017

Note: link below contains many of the logos of ‘NGOs’ we saw in the hospital.  On page 19 there is a photo of the above hospital before Aleppo was liberated.  This brings all these groups under suspicion of supporting jihadist in Syria. https://savinglivesunderground.thesyriacampaign.org

According to news reports, the validity of which cannot be ascertained by the general public, a crazed US government came within ten minutes of igniting a general conflagation in the Middle East, the consequences of which could have been catastrophic for all. 

The moronic warmongers in high office—Bolton, Pompeo, and Pence—and their Israel Lobby masters are determined, and they have not abandoned their campaign for war with Iran.  Of course, the liars say that Iran will just accept its punishment for defending its territory and there will be no war.  But this is not what Iran says.  I believe Iran.

Some of the tiny percentage of people in the Western World who are still capable of thought regret that Trump called off the insane plan.  They think the consequences would have been the destruction of the Saudi and Israeli governments—two of the most evil in history—and the cut-off of oil to the US and Europe, with the resulting depression causing the overthrow of the Western warmonger governments.  They believe that catastrophic American defeat is the only way peace can be restored to the world.  

In other words, it is not clear whether Trump calling off the attack saved us or doomed us.  The Israel Lobby and their neoconservative agents have not been taught a lesson.  Trump has not fired Bolton and Pompeo for almost igniting a conflagation, and he has not dressed down his moronic vice president.  So, it can all happen again.  

And likely will.  The lesson that Bolton and Israel have learned is that the fake news about an Iranian attack on a Japanese freighter, denied by the Japanese, was not sufficient to lock Trump into “saving face” by attacking Iran.  So be prepared for a larger orchestrated provocation. Bolton and Israel know that the Western presstitutes will lie for them.  Watch for a provocation that allows Trump no alternative to an attack.

Washington’s use of fake news and false flag attacks to launch military attacks goes back a long way.  In the 21st century we have had a concentrated dose—Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Iranian nukes, Russian invasions, Maduro starving his own people, the endless lies about Gaddafi.  Yes, I know there are more.  I am writing an article, not an encyclopedia.

Washington has grown accustomed to attacking countries on false pretenses and getting away with it.  Therefore, there is nothing to discourage the Israel Lobby and its Washington puppets from continuing to set-up Iran for an attack.  Success breeds incaution.  The attack on Iraq was stage-managed by a credible US Secretary of State before the UN.  The attack on Libya was stage-managed by a UN resolution that a deceived Russia and China failed to block.  In situations such as these, Washington arranged a green light for its war crimes.  However, Washington has failed to stage-manage a green light for an attack on Iran. Moreover, Iran is a more powerful military force than Iraq and Libya, and the extent of the depth of Russian and Chinese support for Iran is unknown to Washington.

If Israel succeeds in having its Washington puppet attack Iran, Israel and its neoconservative agents will not welcome failure of their objective.  They will fight against failure with more dangerous moves.  I can easily imagine the fanatics having Trump “save face” by destroying the world and issuing some kind of ultimatums to Russia and China or resorting to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.  

The insouciant American—indeed, Western—people are kept unaware by design.  It is the function of the presstitutes to control the explanations given to the people.  The US Congress is bought and paid for by the Israel Lobby, as are most important politicians in the UK and Europe.  What I am telling you is that it is very easy for fanatics to produce Armageddon.

Stephen Cohen and I, and a few surviving others, lived through the 20th century Cold War. In recent years we both have reported on numerous occasions that the threat of nuclear war today is far higher than during the Cold War.  One reason is that during the Cold War US and Soviet leaders worked to defuse tensions and to build trust.  In contrast, since the Clinton regime the US has worked consistently to build tensions.  Both Cohen and I have listed on many occasions the tension-building activities pursued by all post-Reagan/George H.W. Bush administrations.

The Russians no longer trust Washington, and neither do the Chinese.  Washington has lied to, and about, Russia so often in the 21st century that Russian trust of Washington is exhausted.  No matter how earnestly the Russian government wants to trust Washington, it dare not do so.

Therefore, it takes very little miscalculation for the morons in Washington to cause a threat-ending response from Russia as Washington has convinced the Russian government that the US intends to destroy them.  

The orchestration of Russiagate by the Democratic Party, military/security complex, and their media whores has, as Stephen Cohen has emphasized, forced President Trump in an act of self-preservation to adopt the neoconservative attitude toward Russia and other “non-compliant” governments.  This attitude is dangerous enough in the best of times.  It is extremely dangerous after trust has been destroyed by years of lies and false accusations.  

Perhaps there is someone in the Trump administration who has the intelligence to understand the dangerous situation and who has Trump’s confidence.  But I do not know who that person is.

We have to face the fact that as we face Armageddon the Western World is leaderless.

*

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

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

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

“Imagine that a group of bandits entered your house without permission and booted you and your family members out. Afterwards the bandits continue to occupy the house, but they graciously allow you and your family to stay in the cellar. Would you accept such a state of affairs? Would you not want your house back in its entirety? And would you not want the usurpers evicted?”  – Kim Peterson (May 20, 2018) [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

According to the internationally recognized definition, genocide is a broad term that encompasses not only mass killing of members of a specific national, ethnic, racial or religious group, but also:

• the Causing of serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
• the Deliberate inflicting on the group of conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
• the Imposing of measures intended to prevent births within the group
• and the Forcible transferring of children of the group to another group

By this definition, the entities known as Canada and the United States of America owe their very existence as nation states to a genocide perpetrated against the original peoples of the continent. Going all the way back to the arrival of Christopher Columbus, Indigenous communities were subjected to torture, terror, sexual abuse, systematic military occupations, massacres, and relocations. In American Philosophy: From Wounded Knee to the Present, authors Erin McKenna, Scott L. Pratt report a 90-95% decline in the Indigenous population of the Americas between 1491 and 1691. [2][3]

In Canada, this genocide was facilitated by the creation of the Canadian National Railway, and the consequent destruction of the buffalo, a critical component of Indigenous life and culture. There was also critically, the 1876 Indian Act, and the system of Indian Residential schools it enabled. This system ripped children away from their parents and put them into institutions designed to assimilate them instead into Canadian society, the stated intention being ‘to kill the Indian in the child.’ [4][5]

It is no small coincidence that the genocide has been beneficial for elite corporate interests, both domestic and foreign, seeking to profit from the land base over which various Indigenous peoples have title and sovereignty.

On the occasion of National Indigenous Peoples Day, recognized in Canada on June 21st, this week’s Global Research News Hour radio program is a special broadcast recognizing the past and ongoing struggles of Indigenous peoples against the forces seeking to exploit them and extinguish their resistance.

The episode opens with an excerpt from the National Community Radio Association’s Resonating Reconciliation Project, produced by CITR 101.9FM in Vancouver on the traditional and unceded territory of the Musqueam Nation.

We complete the first half hour with an interview with Bruce Clark, an author, scholar and former lawyer who has spent forty six years defending the rights of Indigenous peoples across North America. In this discussion, Clark elaborates on his fundamental position that the legal system has been twisted and contorted to deliberately suppress Indigenous sovereignty to the advantage of wealthy elites, and is therefore aiding and abetting a genocide.

Our second guest, Reuben George, is a member of the Tsleil Waututh Nation on the West Coast of Canada that is vowing to contest the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, recently approved by the Canadian federal government. He outlines the heart of his peoples’ concerns, the problems with the government’s consultation process, and his conviction that the pipeline project will not be completed.

Finally, Intercontinental Cry founder and editor John Ahniwanika Schertow returns with reports on genocidal actions being carried out against the forest-dwelling Adivasi in India, and the Yezidi in Syria and Iraq.

Bruce Clark holds an MA in constitutional history and a PhD in comparative law jurisprudence. A scholar specializing in the legal history of the evolving relationship between Natives and Newcomers, he is the author of a number of essays for Dissident Voice, and of the 2018 book, Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial Suppression of the “Existing” Aboriginal Rights. Dr. Clark’s site is ongoinggenocide.com

Reuben George is manager of the Tsleil Waututh Nation Sacred Trust Initative, which is mandated to stop the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion from happening.

John Ahniwanika Schertow is an award-winning journalist and multimedia artist of Mohawk and European descent. He is the founder and lead editor of Intercontinental Cry, an on-line media source of news of world-wide Indigenous struggle and resistance. As a poet and freelance journalist, John’s work has been featured in the Guardian, Toward Freedom, the Dominion, Madre, Swerve Magazine and many other publications. 

(Global Research News Hour Episode 265)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (alternativecurrentradio.com)

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 3pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time.

Notes:

1. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-dispossession-of-canadas-first-nations-and-the-kinder-morgan-pipeline/5641139
2. http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162804
3. American Philosophy: From Wounded Knee to the Present; Erin McKenna, Scott L. Pratt; Bloomsbury; 2015; Page 375
4. Timothy J. Stanley (January 7, 2015), ‘John A. Macdonald’s Aryan Canada: Aboriginal Genocide and Chinese Exclusion’, Active History; activehistory.ca/2015/01/john-a-macdonalds-aryan-canada-aboriginal-genocide-and-chinese-exclusion/
5. (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015, p. 130; http://nctr.ca/assets/reports/Final%20Reports/Executive_Summary_English_Web.pdf

Introduction

Armed forces organization depends on several factors, from current and future threats and challenges (the nature of the projected theater of operations, or TO), to the country’s economic and technological capabilities. The doctrines of the two world superpowers of the second half of the 20th century (USSR and USA) assumed that large combined arms forces would conduct operations with massive support by artillery and aviation under conditions of nuclear war, in a multi-theater setting, including the wide-ranging European TO. But the experience of actual wars, including the Vietnam one for the US and Afghan one for the USSR showed that the current limited local and regional conflicts are decided by well-equipped mobile formations. Both countries researched the optimum organizational structure and methods of waging war for such operations.

Another event determining the development of military thought was the break-up of USSR. Massed nuclear strikes were no longer on the agenda. Military planning shifted from operations by field armies and larger formations toward highly mobile and well-equipped tactical task forces and combat teams up to brigade level.

By the end of the 2000’s, leading powers again changed their assessment of threats and challenges. This was due to the changes in global economy as well as social and ideological processes. Neither the US nor Russia were satisfied with the world situation. One felt the sense of losing an opportunity to establish oneself as the global hegemon, while the other sought to re-establish the status of a, at minimum, regional power. Economic motives played a key role in both cases. The powers increasingly acted through military confrontations. The risk of a global or a number of regional conflicts increased. Armed forces required adaptation to the new reality.

This is the context in which we briefly evaluate the organizational and staff structure of US and Russian armies, their missions and tasks, and development prospects.

United States

From the perspective of US military and political leadership, the post-USSR international environment and the associated changes in the methods of warfare demanded high-readiness Army units. Army divisions of the late 1990s represented a collection of battalions and brigade HQs. The divisional commander formed brigade out of several battalions and an already deployed brigade HQ. This made it difficult to coalesce these ad-hoc brigades, undermined their ability to conduct autonomous operations, and complicated joint action among brigade’s subunits. The decreased mobility and lavish equipment levels made it difficult to deploy divisions to overseas theaters of operations. Such units did not correspond to contemporary rapid reaction requirements, or the need for units capable of operating effectively in combat and non-combat (“operations other than war”) roles. The new requirements toward the US Army, particularly relevant during the opening phases of operations, demanded reforms in order to create a qualitatively new formation type capable of rapid deployment to theaters of operations.

Soldiers in Bull Troop, 1st Squadron, 2d Cavalry Regiment conduct a blank fire lane during troop exercise evaluations in the Grafenwoehr Training Area Feb. 18, 2018. The U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center is modernizing the Army Safety program to ensure that all Soldiers are safe during training and in carrying out their duties. (Photo Credit: U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Jennifer Bunn)

The US Army launched a large-scale re-organization in 2003 in order to transition to a brigade structure. Results included new corps and divisional command structures with a novel organizational structure.

As far as divisions are concerned, they are currently modular. The division maintains the function of HQ over a number of wholly autonomous brigades. Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) may be sent at any moment and in desired quantity to any corner of the world under the command of a divisional HQ  or theater-level command structures. US Army divisions may be divided into two types—combined arms (infantry, cavalry, armored) and special (mountain, airborne, airmobile). Overall there are 11 divisions, not counting the US Army National Guard.

Brigades, consisting of a number of assets, became the key building blocks of land forces. They were subordinated to divisional, corps, or theater HQs, acting as a component of joint forces formed to satisfy the needs of the local commander. Such brigades are capable of rapid deployment and timely reaction to changes in situation.

Organizational and staff structure of Brigade Combat Teams

The US Army includes 3 brigade types: the Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT), Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT), and Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT).

The mission of the IBCT is to disrupt or destroy enemy military forces, control land areas including populations and resources and be prepared to conduct combat operations to protect US national interests. It is intended for operations in urban or densely populated areas where heavier equipment is inappropriate, as part of aerial or amphibious assault operations, and as a enveloping/raiding force. IBCT consists of 7 battalions: 3 infantry, reconnaissance, combat service support, combat engineer, and artillery, and totals 4413 soldiers. Each IBCT can perform assault operations and is officially designed as assault-landing. Most of its soldiers are mounted on Humvees. The weight and size of IBCT equipment allow transport using all types of transport aircraft, ensuring very high strategic mobility. IBCT’s main firepower consists of 6 towed M777 155mm howitzers, 12 towed M119 105mm howitzers, 48 mortars of various calibers, 36 self-propelled TOW-2 ATGMs, and 100 portable Javelin ATGMs.

U.S. Army soldiers of 141st Infantry Battalion, 3rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Bulldogs, out of Fort Bliss, fire at the enemy as part of a training mission at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif., on June 19, 2011.

Organizational and staff structure of SBCT

The SBCT is a medium mechanized brigade intended for both offensive and defensive operations in various terrain types. This BCT is usually used in fluid maneuver environments in certain terrain types (urban, mountain), and to defend important sectors.

SBCT consists of 7 battalions: 3 infantry, reconnaissance, combat service support, combat engineer, artillery, and totals 4500 soldiers. Since 2015 the anti-tank battery was transferred from combat engineer to reconnaissance battalion in order to form a fire support company there.

SBCT firepower includes 77 M1138 wheeled assault guns/tank destroyers with 105mm cannon, 36 M1129 SP 120mm mortars, 9 M1134 SP TOW-2 ATGMs, 121 portable Javelin ATGMs, and 18 M777 towed 155mm howitzers.

Soldiers from the 18th Engineer Co. 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, Stryker Brigade Combat Team, ready their 19 ton Engineer Squad Vehicles prior to moving into the “box” at the National Training Center.

Organizational and staff structure of ABCT

The ABCT represents the mainstay of US Army heavy forces. It is the main tactical shock-action unit intended for operations in tank-friendly terrain, launching counterattacks, breaking enemy defenses, and inflicting maximum damage on the enemy. Possessing great striking power and survivability, ABCTs form the core of the land force component in strategic theaters and, as a rule, are deployed in their entirety on combat missions.

ABCT consists of 7 battalions: 3 mechanized (combined arms), reconnaissance, artillery, combat engineer, and combat service support, totaling 4743 soldiers. Since 2013, the three combined arms battalions became two tank (two tank and one mechanized company) and one mechanized (one tank, two mechanized companies). It meant the elimination of two mechanized companies, while a tank company was reassigned to the reconnaissance battalion.

ABCT firepower consists of 87 Abrams MBTs, 18 M109 155 SP howitzers, 18 120mm SP mortars, and 84 portable Javelin ATGMs.

Support Brigades

Modularity is also practiced in support brigades. The Modular Support Brigades come in 5 varieties: army aviation, artillery, reconnaissance, mixed (combat engineers, signals, military police, NBC defense), and supply. In earlier times artillery and combat service support existed only at division level, while brigades were assigned subunits by the divisional commander depending on the mission and situation. BCTs may be supported by the following units, depending on the mission and higher commander’s decisions.

Combat Aviation Brigades include UAVs, heavy and medium transport helicopters (Chinook and Blackhawk), attack helicopters (Apache), medevac helicopters. Such brigades are directly subordinated to divisional HQ.

Field Artillery Brigades (Fires Brigades until 2014) are equipped with M270 MLRS and HIMARS multiple rocket launchers. They also conduct information operations and have non-lethal capabilities.

Patriot

Air Defense Brigades possess Patriot and THAAD anti-air and anti-missile batteries. They were taken away from divisions as part of air defense reorganization. Nine out of ten US Army air defense battalions and two out of eight National Guard air defense battalions have been deactivated. The US Army has realized the need to re-establish a viable short-range air defense (SHORAD) capability, largely from lessons learned in Ukraine and Syria. National Guard units still utilize the Avenger AN/TWQ-1 short-range air defense system, and the US Army is currently updating and deploying the Avenger. The 678^th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, a National Guard unit, was deployed to Europe last year, the first such deployment since the end of the Cold War.

THAAD

Maneuver Enhancement Brigades are used on those operational theaters where combat and support units are used in limited quantities, where an entire support brigade would be superfluous.

Sustainment Brigades provide logistical support of units above brigade-level. They consist of two battalions: special troops (battalion HQ and signals company), and combat service support (battalion HQ, technical servicing company, transport company, dispatcher group, quartermaster company).

Battlefield Surveillance Brigades are equipped with UAVs and deploy surveillance detachments.

In addition, there also exist Security Force Assistance Brigades, which train allied armed forces. While such brigades do not directly participate in combat, 500 SFAB troops save 4500 BCT troops from having to serve on training missions. By October 2017, the first of six planned SFABs was established at Ft. Benning.

As of September 2018, US Army had 31 brigades, including 13 IBCT (5 airborne, 3 air assault), 11 ABCT, and 7 SBCT.

Army National Guard has 27 BCT, including 5 ABCT, 12 IBCT, and 2 SBCT. Altogether the US Army has 58 BCT.

In order to visualize the capabilities of a division, we will consider a few cases.

Organizational and staff structure of 1^st Armored Division, 1^st and 3^rd Infantry Divisions

The 1st Armored Division, as of 2016, consisted of a Headquarters and Headquarters company, Operations Company, Intelligence and Sustainment Company, Signal Company. Its combat power consists of one SBCT, two ABCT, Division Artillery, Combat aviation Brigade, supported by a Sustainment Brigade.

The 1st Infantry Division, as of 2016, had similar organization, except that its combat units include only two ABCT.

The 3rd Infantry Division is similar, except for two ABCT and one IBCT, supported by a Maneuver Enhancement Brigade.

When examining corps and army levels, one can discern the following:

I Corps is unique among active Army corps in that it includes both regular and reserve forces stationed in 47 out of 50 US states. Formally its forces include only the 7th ID.

III Corps includes the 1st Cavalry, 1st Armored, 1st Infantry and 4th Infantry divisions, in addition to support units.

XVIII Airborne Corps consists of 3rd Infantry, 10th Infantry (Mountain), 82nd Airborne and 101st Air Assault Divisions

Regional commands deserve a separate mention.

US EUCOM’s Army units are subordinates to US Army Europe (USAREUR). Its forces include 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (SBCT organization) in germany, and the 173rd IBCT (Airborne) in Italy. It is headquartered at the Lucius D. Clay Kaserne in Wiesbaden, Germany.

USINDPACOM (Pacific and Indian Ocean area). Its army units are subordinated to USARPAC. Organizationally it consists of the 8th Army, which in turn controls the 2nd Infantry and 25th Infantry divisions, with most of the latter based in Hawaii and Alaska. Its HQ is at Ft. Shafter, Hawaii.

USAFRICOM. Its Army units are subordinated to USARAF, and include the 2nd ABCT. It is headquarted at Caserma Ederle in Vicenza, Italy.

USCENTCOM does not have permanently assigned Army forces.

USARCENT (the former 3rd Army) controls foreign bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and various support units. Its HQ is at the Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina.

USNORTHCOM has no permanently assigned Army units.

USARNORTH (former 5th Army) controls the 263rd Air and Missile Defense Command

USSOUTHCOM has no permanently assigned Army units.

USARSOUTH (former 6th Army) includes the 193rd Infantry Brigade, 476th Military Intelligence Brigade, and various support units. Its HQ is at Ft. Sam Houston, TX.

US Army also has Functional Combatant Commands, including the USCYBERCOM, USSTRATCOM, USTRANSCOM, USSPACECOM, and USSOCOM. They do not have permanently assigned Army units, only attached ones as required and assigned by higher HQs.

Special Characteristics and Development Prospects

Unique organizational characteristics are readily evident. Each division has a unique structure. Nominally the US Army has only one armored division, and the existing infantry divisions are de-facto combined arms (not fully infantry, but also not fully mechanized). Artillery does not exist as a separate structure within the division. The divisional artillery headquarters trains and commands artillery units of assigned BCTs.

Changed threat assessments by leading world powers led to a new round of confrontation and a heightened risk of a global or several regional conflicts. Therefore US Army BCTs will form core of task forces with personnel strength of up to 5000 troops. US military specialists suggest three options.

The first is an armored brigade, reinforced by two infantry battalions and a reconnaissance battalion.

The second is a Stryker brigade reinforced by two heavy mechanized/tank battalions and a reconnaissance battalion.

The third is a light brigade, reinforced by two infantry battalions and a reconnaissance battalion.

Moreover, US Army BCTs will undertake a broader range of missions, including ones currently undertaken by special operations forces: raids, ambushes, mining important facilities and avenues of approach, precision strikes, guiding precision-guided munitions to target.

Simultaneously the US Army is reorganizing and expanding combat service support battalions, as part of effort of reforming US Army logistics in order to improve timely resupply prior to and during combat operations by shifting from mass delivery approach to a detailed distribution one. In particular, there is a trend of increasing the number of forward support companies. It is they which facilitate the ability of BCTs to quickly enter combat after deployment to a distant theater of operations without extensive logistical infrastructure. Attaching a forward logistical support company to each battalion makes it possible to create a flexible and scalable logistical network to ensure targeted logistical support.

Russian Federation

Now we will briefly evaluate Russian Federation Ground Forces, which experienced a more complicated and tortuous path toward its optimum organization due to the Russian military leadership’s approach to assessing military threats. If for the Soviet Army that threat was represented by NATO with its large combined arms forces, in the 1990s-2000s it was the struggle against international terrorism, and in 2010s the problem of confronting NATO and its mobile and well-equipped forces re-emerged.

Starting with the late 1980s and until the early 2000s, most heavy forces were deactivated or turned into equipment storage bases for economic and political reasons. The changing geopolitical situation and the experience of armed conflicts in various countries showed that in the absence of a well armed and property trained army it is impossible to defend national interests, particularly economic ones, neither on the global nor on regional scale. Reorganizing the army was a particularly high priority after the fighting in Chechnya in 1994 and 1999, and again during the war in South Ossetia in 2008. It proved unexpected for Russian military leaders that a division could at best deploy a reinforced battalion. Hasty assembly of several such divisions into more or less combat-capable formations revealed shortcomings in command and control, battle cohesion, organization of communications and logistics.

On the basis of such negative practical experience, Russian leadership decided to utilize the experience of foreign countries (particularly USA) in order to form modern mobile Ground Forces. Brigade was chosen as the building block. The main argument in favor of shifting to a brigade structure was that it had smaller size, thus it was more flexible and mobile than a division. Brigade structure was to endow the entire Russian army with high mobility and flexibility, corresponding to new security challenges.

In practice, the transition to the new structure suffered from the general situation plaguing the Russian Army of the early 2000’s, and was made more complicated by the civilian reformers running the MOD. A motorized rifle division would be reduced to a single motor-rifle regiment (2-3 battalions) plus reinforcements (tank, artillery, combat engineer, air defense, transport, and other subunits), the remainder being deactivated. There were fewer tank and motor rifle battalions, missions they were capable of fulfilling were more than modest. At that time it was probably the only way to preserve divisions, even in a reduced state. If one considers that the brigade was seen as something intermediate between regiment and brigade (divisional power and regimental mobility), one has to admit the actual outcome was a failure. Many exercises showed that brigades did not absorb division’s power and did not have regiments’ cohesion and mobility. If one is to compare the amount of assets entering into the direct contact with the enemy, the balance was not in favor of the brigade. Regiments and brigades had approximately the same number of tanks, APCs, and IFVs (more about that will be said below). Thus the brigade became a weak regiment reinforced with artillery and other support units. Motor rifle divisions would have three such regiments (two MRR, one tank), with the same number of support units.

The worsening of the international situation and NATO’s military activities near Russia’s borders revealed problems in Russia’s combined arms formations and forced military leaders to act. This included acknowledging the fact that as of mid-2014, there was not a single combined arms formation located in the Russian provinces adjacent to the Donetsk and Lugansk provinces of Ukraine, capable of defending them from unexpected Ukrainian military operations. One the western threat was reassessed, due to the pro-Western Ukrainian regime and NATO concentration near Russian borders, Russian military decided in 2014-17 to reorganize the 20^th Army of the Western MD and creating the 1^st Tank Army (Western MD) and the 8^th Army (Southern MD), whose core would consist of tank and motor-rifle divisions. The Western strategic direction is critically important to the Russian Federation, as it includes 78% of the country’s population, biggest cities, the main economic, industrial, and scientific potential.

Russian Ground Forces currently deploy forces on the territory of adjacent countries and also further abroad. When deploying military bases (MBs), the Russian military uses US experience. The bases in South Ossetia (4^th MB, 4000 troops), Abkhazia (7^th MB, 4000 troops), Armenia (102^nd MB, 5000 troops) have de-facto brigade structure. Their missions is to protect Russian interests in the region and prevent conflict. Due to the specifics and importance of that region, the 201^st MB in Tajikistan has had divisional structure since 2013. This is due to the unending conflict in Afghanistan and the vacuum of power after NATO’s retreat. The base has the mission of protecting the independence and constitutional order of the Republic of Tajikistan, as well as ensuring the stability of political and military situation.

To get more detailed understanding of Russian Ground Forces combined arms formations, one should examine the entire structure from the army to division/brigade/regiment level. The following are the data for 2015-17.

As an example, we will examine the 20^th Guards Army of the Western MD which was created in a new form in 2015.

By comparison, here is the 2^nd Guards Army of the Central MD

One level of organization below:

• 3^rd MRD 
• 21^st MR Brigade of the 2^nd Army (Southern MD)
• 37^th MR Brigade of the 36^th Army of Eastern MD
• One level lower: 752^nd MRR of the 3^rd MRD (as of 2016)

By comparison, a tank division, brigade, and regiment, whose organizational structures are known

• 4^th Guards TD from the 1^st Tank Army (Western MD)
• 5^th Separate Guards Tank Brigade from 36^th Army, Eastern MD
• 12^th TR from the 4^th TD of the 1^st Tank Army

Specifics and Development Prospects

Russian Ground Forces are currently in the midst of determining the most optimal and universal structure. Hence the reason why Russian military does not have standardized organizational structure and maintains not only brigades but also regiments and divisions. MR brigades also differ from one another. Russia’s Ground Forces include armies which may have only a single MR brigade (29^th Army in Eastern MD) without support units. This is due to the specific missions of the armies. At the same time, in the eastern direction, division level formations are also formed for key spots. So, at the end of 2018, the 127th motorized rifle division (5^th Army in Eastern MD) was re-established on the basis of the 59th and, partially, 60th motorized rifle brigades. One must concentrated shock- and fire-power inherent to divisions on the western direction to counter NATO forces. In the southern and eastern directions, the main enemy are terrorist organizations and the main threat is the destruction of political regimes of countries neighboring Russia and the spread of civil war. Here brigades or battalion tactical groups are more convenient, since they can conduct autonomous operations against mobile terrorist or insurgent formations. Widespread formation of battalion tactical groups was the situational way out for the Russian armed forces. Put that way, up to 136 battalion tactical groups, staffed with contract soldiers, were formed at the beginning of 2019.

It’s also worth noting Russian military now fully realize the importance of reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and sniping on the modern battlefield. MR and tank brigades, regiments, and divisions now have sniper companies, EW and drone units.

Concerning differences between US and Russian armies, the Russian military does not have a concept of a modular support brigade. Artillery and reconnaissance brigades’ functions are peUnified Combatant Commands (UCC) under the rformed by units which are part of individual brigades (rocket artillery battalions or batteries, UAV companies). Frontal aviation units operate independently or are attached as needed by higher HQs.

Conclusions

Having considered the main aspects of land forces organization for the United States and Russia, one may discern a difference in approach due to varying assessments of threats, and to whether operations will be conducted on distant theaters or one’s own soil. There are also different approaches in assessing whether to rank potential threats as critical, vital, or important to state interests. Economic, technological, and organizational potential also plays a role.

The US Army is continuing to reorganize its BCTs. The aim is to improve their combat power through revising organizational structure and rearmament in order to meet battlefield demands. There is a trend to depart from a rigid classification of types of combat operations in favor of giving commanders the ability to act on the basis of own initiative in response to concrete tasks and conditions.

Brigade is the foundation for the brigade task force capable of accomplishing a wide range of missions after sufficient reinforcement, in both offensive and defensive operations as well as stabilization and assistance missions. According to senior US Army officers, further BCT development will depend on the spectrum of tasks they have to perform, battlefield conditions, and methods of waging warfare.

At higher levels, the United States military operates Unified Combatant Commands (UCC) under the DoD, consisting of at least two military departments with broad and continuing missions. These commands ensure effective direction of military formations irrespective of the branch of service during both peace and war. They are organized on “area of responsibility” (AOR) geographic principle or a functional one, for example special operations or logistics. The  term AOR is used by the commands to establish regions with specific geographic boundaries where they may plan and conduct operations.

In Russia’s case, military leaders decided to abandon brigades as the basic block of combined arms formations on the most important strategic directions. This was due to the concern about the increase in NATO forces and their deployment on Russia’s western borders. Thus the Western MD is going back to armies consisting of divisions and regiments rather than brigades, which is more useful in both defense and offense. In addition, Ground Forces are creating large tank-heavy formations. Western MD already has one. In the foreseeable future, one may expect the Central MD to also get a tank army, since the 90^th Tank Division is not part of any army. It is also likely Eastern MD formations will retain current structure. Brigades there are the best solution for a country in difficult economic and demographic conditions.

A few words should be said about the military administration of Russia’s territory. There is active discussion of a return to the Soviet military district model, due to the difficulties in command and control when the district HQ is 1000km away from the district boundary. The reinvented military district would also be responsible for all types of forces needed to fulfill its missions. Thus the Western MD may be divided into Leningrad and Moscow MDs, Central MD into Vola-Urals and Siberian MDs. It’s difficult to say how Eastern MD might be divided, and the Southern MD will likely be preserved in its current form, which means splitting higher command echelons (district level) and increasing formation size (from brigades to divisions and regiments).

We may thus draw the conclusion that the main difference in the approach between US and Russian land forces is that, first of all, the Russian Ground Forces are intended to defend the territorial integrity and inviolability of the nation’s own territory, and secondly, to react to the use of force by competitor powers in third countries when it poses a significant threat to Russia’s vital interests.

In the meantime, further US Army development will focus on rapid deployability to any part of the planet, concurrently with the overwhelming expansion of its own potential to defend US or allied interests. It is therefore relatively clear that the United States will continue to develop the doctrine of offensive operations as part of its pursuit of global dominion. The Russian Federation, in turn, will concentrated on defense and reaction to the actions of potential rivals.

*

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

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

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

“War in the name of morality provides as many reasons for historical shudders as war in the name of self-interest, for at least the latter may be easier to call off when self-interest calls for compromise.” — Lawrence Freedman, Review of International Studies, July, 2000

The Balkans has often been prone to seizures of mysticism, glum prediction and predation.  But one character felt at home as he addressed his audience in Kosovo, himself having been afflicted by a certain evangelical urge.  This month, former US President William Jefferson Clinton, keeping company with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, were rubbing shoulders with officials and stage hands in Pristina to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the Kosovo intervention by NATO in March 1999.

It was a chance Kosovo’s president Hashim Thaçi was not going to let pass.  In being awarded the Order of Freedom, Clinton was all praise.

“I think the whole world today with all this turmoil, can look to Kosovo as an example of a democracy and a commitment to prove, grow, and live in peace with one’s neighbours.”

Being Clinton, his words have a profound lightweight quality, albeit dressed up as grave and morally hefty.

Image: Albright and former KLA leader Hashim Thaci in 1998

Nonetheless, they struck the appropriate, ceremonial note.  Thaçi glowed with appreciation.

“We thank you for the just decision to stop the Serbian genocide during 1999.  We are very grateful for the support of the US to Kosovo. The story of Kosovo is a story of joint success.  You are our hero.”

Clinton duly responded, expressing pride at having been the “president of the United States when you needed someone to stand up and say no more ethnic cleansing, no more people running out of their homes, no more killing innocent civilians, there’s got to be another way.”

Misnamed humanitarian interventions are nasty, untidy things.  They ride on the wave of emotional simplification, embellished by the force of ghastly imagery and eye-moistened grief.  As UK Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd would note as the crisis in Yugoslavia deepened in blood in 1992, taking a swipe at the seductions of the idiot box in a much quoted speech at the Travellers’ Club in London,

“the selection of these tragedies is now visible within hours to people around the world.  People reject and resent what is going on because they know it more visibly than before.”

As news reporter Martin Bell would reflect, a variant of this point had been made by the essayist and novelist G.K. Chesterton:

“It’s not the world that has got so much worse, but the news coverage that has got so much better”.

Yet such coverage can be suspect not because it inaccurately portrays horror, but that it does so from one, captured vantage point.  Participants assume the roles of innocent victims and stained perpetrators.  The NATO intervention, given its Clinton white wash, removes references to attacks on Serbian civilian targets and infrastructure and the acceleration of the cleansing efforts by Serb forces in Kosovo-proper after the bombings began, suggesting a less than rosy account of Operation Allied Force.

The neatness of such commemorative occasions as took place in Pristina unduly purifies. It ignores such assessments as those from Robert Gelbard, Clinton’s special envoy to the Balkans, who deemed the Kosovo Liberation Army “a terrorist group” in comments made on February 23, 1999. In March that same year, Gelbard appeared before the House International Relations Committee to modify his response, claiming that the KLA had “not been classified legally by the US government as a terrorist organisation.” That said, he did explain to law makers that “terrorist” acts perpetrated by the KLA had “provided an excuse for [Serbian President Slobodan] Milošević.”

Even with the embers still bright, Jeremy Harding remarked in an August issue of the London Review of Books how “in the former Yugoslavia, a loss of any kind often insinuates itself into the annals of gain, while short-term winners – Kosovo Albanians, for instance – can barely distinguish what they are meant to have won from all the have lost.”

Serbia’s Foreign Minister, Ivica Dačić, if predictably, had a rather different reading of the anniversary.  When the 78-day aerial bombing initiated by a US-led NATO force commenced on the rump of what was left of Yugoslavia, it did so without UN Security Council authorisation, a rebuff to the UN Charter. Those powers, Dačić said accusingly, became colonisers. The pathway to Kosovo’s 2008 declaration of independence had been less paved than bombed, and this small stretch of territory became a European headache of monumental proportions, punctuated by annual clashes between the Albanian majority and Serbian minority ever fearful at their own expulsion.

Last year’s decision to transform the Kosovo Security Forces into a more traditional military fighting force could hardly be said to be in line with neighbourliness, but realities on trodden Balkan ground were always rather different from Clinton’s distracted interpretations.

While Clinton was being cheered in Pristina, the humanitarian credo in international relations had a vital co-conspirator in British Prime Minister Tony Blair.  It was Blair who girded the Kosovo intervention with a doctrine and flogged it before assemblies and fora with gravity and conviction.  Before the Chicago Economic Club in April 1999, he drew back the curtains on the “Doctrine of the International Community”, showing the usual spin and ease with terms that proved to be the hallmark of New Labour.

Central to the meretricious doctrine is a contention that cruelty has one face – or a set of faces – clearly discernible, and, to that end, identifiable for punishment. “No one in the west who has seen what is happening in Kosovo can doubt that NATO’s military action is justified.”  Bismarck, he contended, was wrong to suggest that the Balkans were not worth the bones of one Pomeranian Grenadier. “Anyone who has seen the tear-stained faces of the hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming across the border, heard their heart-rending tales of cruelty or contemplated the unknown fates of those left behind, knows that Bismarck was wrong.”  Hurd, hard boiled realist, would have recoiled; but Blair was the prime minister of image, the confection, the sound bite.

The Kosovo intervention remains an object lesson on how misguided the messianic instinct can be. Coupled with the astonishing shallowness that governed much of the President Erect’s time in office, one marked by squalid scandal and the desperation for foreign distractions, NATO gave birth to a monster that has been reprised in several forms since.

The worst of these is the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, a cheeky number that discards the “right” to intervene in favour of an obligation to protect.  But the record of this less than illustrious doctrine is patchy, even disastrous.  The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in 2001 tried to underpin the interventionist doctrine with procedural caveats – the need for verification of atrocity, for instance, and the logistical requirement that infrastructure would be spared – but such neat precautions disappear in the red mist fog of war. As unfolded in Libya in 2011, cruise missiles do little in the way of promoting humanitarian, let alone humane outcomes.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Reuters

From Harry Truman’s aggression on North Korea to post-9/11 preemptive US wars, US ruling authorities acted with coalition of the willing partners — in lieu of going it alone.

World community opposition gives Washington pause about attacking another nation unilaterally, what so far appears to be a restraint against Trump’s war on Iran especially urged by Bolton and Pompeo.

Following incidents in the Gulf of Oman last week and regional waters in May, along with Iran downing a hostile US drone intrusion in its airspace, Trump threatened to attack the Islamic Republic.

He then stepped back, calling off what could have opened the gates of hell to all-out war, potentially devastating the country, its people and region.

The possibility of things going this far prompted a global alarm from the world community, including from close US allies, calling for restraint, opposing war on Iran.

Is this what got Trump to call off Pentagon strikes on Iranian targets? It had nothing to do with his Big Lie concern for the loss of Iranian lives he doesn’t give a hoot about — or lives and welfare of ordinary people anywhere, including domestically.

His hostile agenda speaks for itself, escalating wars of aggression he inherited from Bush/Cheney and Obama, serving privileged interests exclusively at the expense of ordinary Americans harmed by his actions.

Weeks earlier, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini called for “maximum restraint and avoiding any escalation on a military side” against Iran.

On Friday, European Council President Donald Tusk expressed concern about the US attacking Iran.

On the same day, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said “information that we have shows absolutely clearly that the situation is extremely dangerous,” adding:

“I would call this balancing on the brink of war…Most ‘fires’ in the Middle East were sparked by Washington’s ‘arsonist’ policies.”

“There still is a risk of conflict, and we call on responsible players again — if there are any responsible players left in Washington — to assess the possible consequences. We warn them against hasty steps.”

Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said

“(t)he situation in the Persian Gulf is very tense. We are extremely concerned about it. We’re following the situation carefully, and we call on all sides involved to show restraint.”

A UK statement said

“(w)e have said continuously that we are calling for de-escalation on all sides…We don’t believe escalation would be in any party’s interest and continue to talk to the US and our partners.”

French President Emmanuel Macron said

“(w)e need an agenda with Iran and our partners in the region that allows us to find a solution to this crisis,” adding:

“We need to continue to frame the Iranian nuclear activities, to go further in time, but we must avoid the escalation of tensions. So I invite all the parties to reason, to calm down and to discuss.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel called for “diplomatic negotiations for a political solution to a very tense situation.”

Israel, the Saudis, UAE and Iranophobic hardliners in Washington support war on the country.

Iranian academic Mohammad Marandi warned that the response by its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to US aggression would be “relentless and disproportionate,” adding:

“(T)he Iranians will not only strike back at aggressive forces, but they will strike at those countries that have facilitated the United States in carrying out that attack.”

“No one in Iran trusts the United States, and, in particular, no one trusts Trump.”

Marandi noted the July 3, 1988 downing of Iran Air Flight 655 in its own airspace by an SM-2MR surface-to-air cruise missile launched from the USS Vincennes, killing 290 civilians, including 65 children and infants — based on a Big Lie.

Then-Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati asked the Security Council to condemn the downing as a willful “criminal act, (a) massacre, (and an) atrocity.”

Then-US Vice President GHW Bush said the captain and crew of the Vincennes acted appropriately, separately telling GOP officials:

“I will never apologize for the United States. I don’t care what the facts are…I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy” — the same true for the vast majority of GOP and undemocratic Dem officials earlier and now.

Vincennes crew members were awarded Combat Action Ribbons for the incident. The warship’s warfare coordinator received the Navy Commendation Medal.

Ship Captain William C. Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit “for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer…from April 1987 to May 1989.”

The citation omitted mention of downing Iran Air 655. Marandi explained that US authorities “lied about the flight, and the Western media mimicked the US government position,” adding:

“They lied completely in order to make the Iranian airliner seem guilty and justify US acts. And later on it became very clear the airline…was acting as any other plane was supposed to act” — threatening no one.

Marandi noted that Captain Rogers was “awarded a medal for murdering innocents.”

Countless US actions against the Islamic Republic show clear US hostility toward the country.

It can never be trusted, why Iran rejects talks with Trump regime officials, knowing the futility of engaging with hardliners bent on toppling its government.

*

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.

---

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 substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

Transcript of the video below.

1) PATRICK CLAWSON ON “CRISIS INITIATION”

CLAWSON: I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough and it’s very hard for me to see how the United States president can get us to war with Iran. Which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming, that the traditional way of America gets to war is what would be best for US interests.

Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War II. As David mentioned, you may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people might think Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War I. You may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam. You may recall they had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn’t go to war with Spain until the USS Maine exploded. And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing would the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.

So if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.

[…]

I would just like to suggest that one can combine other means of pressure with
sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean, look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down. Someday one of them might not come up. Who would know why? We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I’m not advocating that, but I’m just suggesting that this is not an either-or proposition of, you know, it’s just sanctions has to succeed or other things. We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that.

SOURCE: Patrick Clawson Responds to Questions, Full Video – 9/21/2012

2) ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI WARNS OF “A TERRORIST ACT BLAMED ON IRAN”

BRZEZINSKI: A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the bench marks followed by accusations of the Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the United States blamed on Iran culminating in a “defensive” US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

SOURCE: Zbigniew Brzezinski The Senate Foreign Relations Committee

3) GARY HART WARNS IRAN ABOUT “ANOTHER GULF OF TONKIN”

WE ARE CHANGE: Yes, you recently wrote a letter to the President of Iran in which you urge them to study the gulf of tonkin incident which we now know is a staged event used to justify war in Vietnam andyou also raise the question “Does America provoke provocations?” Sir, was this not an . . I have the letter right here sir if you want to read it I have it on me right here Oh sir I mean that’s mainstream media has been published in many publications do you deny writing that letter sir you say I can read it to you right now okay you said on presuming that you are not actually ignorant enough to desire war with the United States you might you might be well advised to read the history of the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor in 1998 and the history of the gulf of gulf of tonkin

HART: I’m sorry that was a blog or nothing to most I did not literally write a letter it was a mock letter read failed in doublespeak that the United States could stage an event to go to war with Iran no no then well what I was come in cheek saying was that we have an administration in Washington that is dying for a reason to bomb Iran and so in a mock blog letter to the Iranian government not the president of the Iranian government I just simply said if unless you people want to be bombed you better be careful about cross border incursions and I think I explicitly said keep the Republican Guard and revolutionary whatever it’s called away from the Iraqi border I was trying to communicate to the American people what our own government was trying to plan and that was to find a reason for bombing Iran and I was simply saying in effect to the American people through this mock letter be very careful about this administration creating a USS Maine incident or a Gulf of Tonkin incident that would justify popping around that’s all

SOURCE: Gary Hart WARNING – WeAreChange

4) SEYMOUR HERSH: CHENEY’S PLAN TO STAGE AN INCIDENT

FAIZ SHAKIR: There’s a bit at the end of this latest article that you wrote that I found actually most interesting. And the article hasn’t got that much attention but I want to get your take on this. And this relates to a stray or an incident that happened a couple months ago. Many of you remember. It was in the Strait of Hormuz. There was an incident where an American carrier almost blew a couple of Iranian speedboats out of the water and perhaps would have started the next war against Iran or potentially a World War III. And it was averted, thankfully, at the last second. We later learned that there was really nothing to be terribly concerned about—the incident was overblown—and that there was a vice admiral in charge of the fleet in the Strait of Hormuz who said basically there was no concern there. That it was overblown.

HERSH: But yeah, the second part basically. He was concerned but they were never a threat.

SHAKIR: They were never a threat. And you talked about—this his name is Kevin cosgrove and in article you write:

Nonetheless, Cosgriff’s demeanor angered Cheney, according to the former senior intelligence official. But a lesson was learned in the incident: The public had supported the idea of retaliation, and was even asking why the US didn’t do more. The former official said that, a few weeks later, a meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. “The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,” he said.

What you’re writing there is that Cheney—there was a meeting in the White House where Cheney presided over looking to cook up the next war. A false war based on false intelligence.

HERSH: My oldest son is a lawyer and when I sent him this story before it was published—basically in a final form, just a day—and he he wrote back and he said “You really buried the lead in this one,” about casus belli. Um, how many press are here?

Anyway, there was a meeting. Among the items among the items considered and rejected—which is why The New Yorker did not publish it, on grounds that it wasn’t accepted—one of the items was why not . . . There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger war. The one that interested me the most was: Why don’t we build in our shipyard—build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats, put navy seals on them with a lot of arms and the next time what about those goes through the Straits of Hormuz start a shoot up. Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. But that’s the kind of that’s the level of stuff we were talking about: provocation.

But that was rejected so I could understand the argument of not writing something that was rejected. Maybe. I, basically—my attitude always towards editors is they’re mice training to be rats. But the point is jejune, if you know what that means. Silly, maybe, but potentially very lethal. Because one of the things they learned in the incident was the American public—if you get the right incident, the American public will support, you know, bang bang kiss kiss. You know, we’re into it.

SOURCE Dick Cheney’s false flag attack idea to start the war with Iran

MIKE POMPEO: But in terms of how you think about problem sets, I – when I was a cadet, what’s the first – what’s the cadet motto at West Point? You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do. I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. (Laughter.) It’s – it was like – we had entire training courses. (Applause.)

SOURCE: Secretary Pompeo Participates in Q&A Discussion at Texas A&M University

POMPEO: Good afternoon. It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today. This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.

SOURCE: Secretary Pompeo Delivers Remarks to the 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.

Featured image is from Jared Rodriguez/Truthout

The infamous Herman Goering had this quote at the time of the Nuremberg Trials in the wake of World War II [1]:

“Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, It is the Leaders of the country  who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. it works the same in any country.”  (emphasis added)

One can fast forward to some of our own nation’s so called ‘Wars’ after World War II: Korea, Vietnam and of course Iraq. In all of these instances the public was sold, hook, line and sinker, the fear card that our entire way of life would come to an end if we did not fight. And fight we did, or should I say in the case of Iraq ‘And attack we did!’ This ‘guns and butter’ approach only succeeded, each and every time, of helping to further the slow timed bankruptcy process, both fiscally and morally.

Eugene Jarecki made one of the greatest documentaries in 2005 entitled so appropriately ‘Why We Fight’. This is a must see for all Americans, especially our high school kids. The film is that powerful! Three years after his film, Jarecki wrote a great book The American Way of War, covering the how and why our corrupt leaders do what they do. Folks, it has always been and will always be about serving The Empire, what this writer always refers to as The Military Industrial Empire.

In Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick‘s The Untold History of the United States the creation of what was named The Cold War was by this same empire… the military industrial one. Goering’s quote from above scores it all.

The ‘sheep’ need to be led so that the uber rich who run things can maintain their place at the head of the world’s table. It was never really about Russia or China or Iraq or now Iran. No, it was and is always about DUH MONEY! Marine Major General Smedley Butler was correct in his 1935 essay War is a Racket – The money talks and few wounded walk.

The sad reality is to look at this ‘Teeedle Dum and Tweedle Dee’ two party system which has handcuffed our citizenry for so long… and will always! Through the embedded media they will rant and rave at each other for the cameras.. a ‘Food Fight’ by mostly millionaires or wanabee ones.

The Democrats will stand firm and tell the suckers how they ‘Will fight for you’, and then sell us out time and time again. The other party, more dastardly and yes, much more dangerous, will promise to protect the suckers from all interlopers, and how ‘Family Values’ are secured inside of the flag… the flag they hold hostage.

Meanwhile, both phony and hypocritical parties laugh all the way to the bank and future lobbyist or corporate positions after they serve. It is always been we working stiffs who have to pay the bills… for obscene military spending or other corporate gifts for the empire.

That is why we fight… and die!!

Note 

[1] This quote from Hermann Goering during the course of the Nuremburg Trials, was not part of the trial records. The quote was recorded in a conversation between Goering awith prison psychologist and U.S. Army Captain Gustave M. Gilbert which took place in the prison. 

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 Pete Linforth/Pixabay

Cuba denounced a decision by the United States to blacklist the island nation for allegedly contributing to human trafficking as based on “lies and slander.”

The U.S. State Department’s annual report on human trafficking released Thursday added Cuba and Saudi Arabia to the list of countries allegedly “not doing enugh” to prevent human trafficking and warned sanctions could follow. To add insult to injury, the U.S. also accused Cuba of using its overseas medical program for trafficking.

Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel rejected the claims on Twitter, writing,

“More lies and slander by #US in ranking #Cuba in the lowest tier of trafficking in persons report, attacking Cuban medical cooperation, (an) example of solidarity, humanity and noble and legitimate collaboration between countries of the South #SomosCuba #SomosContinuidad,” Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel wrote on Twitter.

This is what conservative ideas prevailing in #US mistake for trafficking in persons. We denounce this immoral, lying and perverse accusation.#SomosCuba
Cuban internationalist doctors: slaves only to the love for othershttps://t.co/r8MFKCwqrK

— Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez (@DiazCanelB) June 20, 2019

“This is the conservative ideas that prevail in the #US, confusing people. We denounce this immoral, lying and perverse accusation. #WeAreCuba. Cuban internationalist doctors: slaves only of love for each other.”

Cuba’s international medical program Operation Miracle travels the world offering free medical treatment to impoverished and needy communities. They have been praised by numerous international organizations for their selfless dedication to their patients and their rapid response to areas struck by disaster.

To discredit the program by accusing it of aiding human traffickers would also, by association, discredit the hundreds of surgeons who have worked to care for Mozambique’s cyclone victims, Bolivia’s most remote villagers, Puerto Rican hurricane victims, Ecuadorean earthquake survivors, and Chernobyl’s cancer patients.

Diaz-Canel denounced it as a ploy to increase sanctions against the Caribbean country​​​​​​​. The United Nations has denounced the compounding number of sanctions imposed by the United States as a violation of human rights and international law.

*

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 spite of the “writ” not having been “dropped” Canada is already in full election mode.  Of course politicians are always electioneering as their main purpose once in power is to stay in power in order to reap its rewards and benefits.  Otherwise, instead of politicians running the country we could simply let the bureaucrats do their uncelebrated mundane work of the daily running of the country.  Unfortunately it is not that simple as the rules and policies the bureaucracy follows are put out by various political parties – massaged and manipulated over time – and not  put out on the basis of “universal values” or “constitutional values” whatever they may be.  In the meantime electioneering has started with the many policies, plans, promises, platitudes, and homilies being announced for consumption by the incumbents and wannabes.

Within domestic affairs and identity politics are many topics used to shape and steer discussions in attempts to sway the popular will.  What is seldom discussed – and very little understood, are the actions and belief systems that really underlie our society.  In a broad perspective Canada’s position as a neoliberal, austerity imposing, capitalist member of the western elite, the western U.S. sponsored empire, is seldom if ever questioned.

It is seldom discussed because the true powers that be – the elite powers of those within the Washington consensus group of institutions – the bankers, financial officers, and corporate managers of the large private and public businesses and institutions – do not want it discussed.  They do not want ‘democracy’ to be more than a superficial status.  Their control of monetary policy, their centralized control of the media steers the world the way they want it to operate and be perceived, making our democratic institutions essentially a rubber stamp for their economic dominance.

Our institutions operate within the parameters acceptable to the corporate greed towards ever increasing profits at the expense of the global environment, and at the expense of the global citizenry.  While science has long warned about climate change and environmental pollution of all kinds – a very real occurrence – even those who pay attention to it are so entwined within societies’ structures that very little is done about  these scientific concerns.  Along with that, part of the same underlying paradigm are increasingly vast disparities in income and wealth levels both domestically and in other countries.  A small group of super elites control vast amounts of wealth and thus power, generally working together to secure their realm.

If this broad if somewhat short generalized view is used as the lens through which to view Canada’s political parties, there are rather few underlying differences between the parties as seldom if ever are the underlying factors questioned..

Essentially it all comes down to maintaining the status quo of western financial dominance of the world, its resources and people.  The Liberals and Conservatives both actively support the military industrial complex that is the not so hidden fist keeping – or trying to – control of the world’s governments.  Perhaps they present it differently, the Conservatives wanting to put the military out to “punch above its weight” while the Liberals soften the blow with “rule of law” and “peacekeeping forces,” both serving the empire well.  Few question it – from Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria to Ukraine, Canada willingly supports the empire.  Venezuela reveals the ultimate ugliness of it all as Canada has for decades – with notables such as Ben Rowswell and Allan Culham (former ambassadors), and Chrystia Freeland (current Foreign Minister) – openly advocating the overthrow of a duly elected government.  How democratic!

Israel serves as another example of an empire under non-democratic control.  A government that denies twenty per cent of its population the same civic status as the ethnic religious majority, that guards 1.8 million people in an open air prison on survival rations only, and that has created a series of militarily ruled or controlled bantustans is not democratic.  Yet there is no Canadian political party that decries this situation, all fearful of the domestic religious vote (Christian and Jewish) and the repercussions of not supporting the empire’s outpost in the Middle East.  For the latter it is truly not so much fear of what might happen but an overwhelming blind willingness to support the dominant power of the west.

All major parties – Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, and Greens – support the fully outdated position of wanting a two state position, while Israel continues to ignore all those dead positions and continues building illegal settlements on occupied territory while the rest of the world turns away.  Israel is not the only place where Canadians uphold the status of the west’s military control of wealth and resources.

Throughout Africa, through much of the Middle East, Canada’s military-business connections help maintain the extraction of wealth through current supra-national corporate models of governance.  So called “free trade” agreements, onerous World Bank predatory lending, and IMF “structural adjustment programs” (debt and more debt) maintains control of many governments and many supposedly sovereign economies.  In essence, globalization is about controlling the world’s wealth while guarding the people – the workers, labourers – behind sovereign borders.  Canada is in full partnership with all this.

Blowback – refugees, poverty, and the environment

Obviously all is not well with globalization as millions of people attempt to escape the worst of its violent dangers and impositions.  The large displacement of people in the Middle East and Africa  is placing pressure on Europe as refugees continue to arrive en masse when escaping domestic mayhem.  The same holds true in the Americas as thousands of Hispanic/indigenous people attempt to travel to the U.S. in order to escape the violence and corruption and despotism at home.  Most of that violence is caused by the economic impositions of globalization combined with the history of U.S. interventions to control governments that objected to U.S.corporate dominance.

Blowback from globalization also has an impact on the Canadian domestic scene.  Hyped up fears of terrorism has increased the powers of the security state (with much learned from Israel’s control of its Palestinian population) and increased the unjustified glorification of the Canadian military both through the media and with a larger budget.  Canada is a member of the “five eyes”, the family members inheriting the British empire and who now share information and security methodologies.  Another form of blowback are the  heightened fear of terrorism ad “other” – mainly focussed on refugees with a Muslim background but extending out to the created fears generated by identity politics.  These fears and prejudices are used in different ways to control the domestic electorate, a diversion from the reality of the overall non-democratic governance of the military-financial- corporate powers.

Two other perspectives can view this same phenomenon – income disparity/poverty and global environmental change.

Most everyone pays lip service to poverty.  Many offer solutions on a small scale through NGOs acting on small targeted goals in specific areas – actions that certainly aid a small number of people but in no way address the source of poverty.  Musicians sing about it, politicians talk about it, the media keeps us focused on these feel good/do-good attempts without addressing the underlying causes (and note, poverty does not equate to terrorism).  Until the base structures of western globalization are deconstructed or contained (or collapse) poverty will continue its destructive pathways – malnutrition, starvation, poor health, serfdom, wage slave labour, exploitation et al.  Poverty, other than small domestic pockets, many of indigenous people, does not register on Canada’s domestic political scene.  However climate change and global warming do have an impact.

At this point it is mainly different parties and different jurisdictions arguing about how to control carbon output using some form of establishment acceptable monetary initiatives (cap and trade, carbon tax).  Extrapolating from current trends all that money manoeuvering will have little impact due to the nature of our profit oriented consumer culture.  As one small but important factor consider Canada’s export of garbage, plastic waste, and e-waste to poorer less developed countries in Southeast Asia.  Those outlets now are closed and very little of our waste/garbage is actually recycled or reused.  Most is incinerated at 1400 degrees celsius with the subsequent volatile gases dispersing through the atmosphere.

Canadian consumer culture continues its money habits of purchasing stuff, and “planned obsolescence stuff” continuing the degradation of the environment both from chemical pollution and carbon induced warming.  Global warming, while obviously important and becoming more and more a political and media talking point hides the dangers of thousand of chemical products behind a smokescreen (quite literally).

Canadians who think they are “green” and want to eliminate poverty, need to consider the following. Are you really willing to accept the huge changes necessary in order to achieve a clean sustainable world –  i.e., far less consumption, less travel, less stuff, no more debt purchases?  The latter is very difficult because while the wealth of the top elites has risen dramatically, wages have stagnated over the past several decades.  Simply using the “3 Rs” will not do it unless the reduce aspect is taken to its necessary full extension.

Consider also Canada’s military.  Can you recognize our actions in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and maybe soon Venezuela and Iran as being part of U.S. corporate elites striving for full control?  Do you support Canada’s role within the globalization paradigm of controlling other countries economies through predatory financial practices, up to and including the use of mercenaries to protect corporations against indigenous protests?

Do you support the U.S. military actions – overt and covert – used to maintain the economic dominance of the super elites and their global corporations?  Do you support the many western interventions in the Middle East considering the terrorists we are supposedly fighting have been used, supplied, and trained in part by western military and political establishments?  More broadly, ask what role the 800+ military bases, the dozen or so carrier groups, play in attempting to subordinate the rest of the world to our non-sustainable demands.  The U.S. military is the largest institutional user of oil in the world.  In 2007 it ranked as the 35th largest sovereign user, and ranks 3rd globally on a per capita basis.  Canada is a large part of the U.S. empire and plays a large role in creating the poverty, terror, and environmental disasters around the world through our support of their military adventurism.

In other words if you support the military as it is currently used, you achieve nothing against poverty and your green colour is a veneer over the actual economic life style choices you make.

The veneer is readily maintained by mainstream media, the vast majority of which is owned and financially controlled by the military-financial-corporate elites. It combines a wilful ignorance of our predations with massive amounts of diversions.  One of the main diversions includes all the propaganda associated with the various wars of control and the manipulation of the terrorist “threat”.  The diversions extend well beyond through  all aspects of consumerism – the entertainment of movies, film, television, the internet in all its aspects through to major sports activities, and on to leisure and holiday consumption.  As corporate profits rise and wages stagnate, consumers rely heavily on debt to achieve the advertised/propagandized ideals of the good life.  All the debt, trillions of dollars, simply feeds more money and power to the controllers of a corporate financialized economy.

Back to Canadian political parties

In Canada, these issues present a serious problem as to which party or candidate to support.  The Liberals and Conservatives are essentially opposite sides of the same coin, both supporters of the global status quo as envisioned by the corporate powers.  The supposedly “left” New Democrats similarly follow this status quo, are not very green, and tend to move to the right once the political dollars become a more central interest.  That leaves the actual Greens, although they are not as green as they would like to be perceived – support for U.S. actions, support for Israeli actions, with no real action plan regarding environmental changes addressing our military supported consumer society lowers their credentials as a truly ‘green‘ party.

The Liberals quashed their election reform agenda after realizing it could negatively affect their majority control in parliament.  In opposing moves they announce a climate “emergency” then a day later approve a 12-14 billion dollar pipeline project to move tar sands – diluted bitumen or dilbit, but not oil – to an ecologically sensitive coastline.  Given Canada’s current economic-political fight with China, it is a bit ridiculous to think China will buy more of our dirty oil.  Economic health as determined by a high energy consumer economy does not go together with a good environment.

The Conservatives acquiesced on the lack of election reform for the same reason.  They are pro big oil, frequent climate change deniers although a recent policy statement recognized that, yes, after all these years of working against the idea, global warming is happening.  They offer no real solutions other than a variant on the inefficient cap and trade idea, but with no stated costs or implementation factors.

The two smaller parties offer little.  The NDP have failed to truly distinguish themselves from the two larger parties, creating policy positions frequently accepted and adopted (if not implemented) by the Liberals and for which the Conservatives cry “socialism” over.  The Greens have some initiatives in the right direction but with their support of the military and of government attempts to change foreign governments, they have yet to create a policy that will change the momentum/inertia of a debt ridden, consumer based, media biased, military/corporate society.

Other than perhaps voting for the lessor evil of the group, a spoiled ballot or no vote at all are the better options.

*

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.

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Concentration camp (noun): a place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution. -Oxford English Dictionary

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has ignited a firestorm of criticism, from both the left and the right as well as the mainstream media, for calling US immigrant detention centers “concentration camps.” To her credit, Ocasio-Cortez has refused to back down, citing academic experts and blasting the Trump administration for forcibly holding undocumented migrants “where they are brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying.” She also cited history.

“The US ran concentration camps before, when we rounded up Japanese people during World War II,” she tweeted. “It is such a shameful history that we largely ignore it. These camps occur throughout history.”

Indeed they do. What follows is an overview of US civilian concentration camps through the centuries. Prisoner-of-war camps, as horrific as they have been, have been excluded due to their legal status under the Geneva Conventions, and for brevity’s sake.

Trail of Tears

Half a century before President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act into law in 1830, a young Virginia governor named Thomas Jefferson embraced genocide and ethnic cleansing as solutions to what would later be called the “Indian problem.” In 1780 Jefferson wrote that “if we are to wage a campaign against these Indians, the end proposed should be their extermination, or their removal beyond the lakes of the Illinois River.” However, it wasn’t until Jackson that “emigration depots” were introduced as an integral part of official US Indian removal policy. Tens of thousands of Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Ponca, Winnebago and other indigenous peoples were forced from their homes at gunpoint and marched to prison camps in Alabama and Tennessee. Overcrowding and a lack of sanitation led to outbreaks of measles, cholera, whooping cough, dysentery and typhus, while insufficient food and water, along with exposure to the elements, caused tremendous death and suffering.

Thousands of men, women and children died of cold, hunger and illness in camps and during death marches, including the infamous Trail of Tears, of hundreds and sometimes even a thousand miles (1,600 km). This genocidal relocation was pursued, Jackson explained, as the “benevolent policy” of the US government, and because Native Americans “have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits nor the desire of improvement” required to live in peace and freedom. “Established in the midst of a… superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority… they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and long disappear,” the man who Donald Trump has called his favorite president said in his 1833 State of the Union address.

The Long Walk

Decades later, when the Sioux and other indigenous people resisted white invasion and theft of their lands, Minnesota governor Alexander Ramsey responded with yet another call for genocide and ethnic cleansing. “The Sioux Indians of Minnesota must be exterminated or driven forever beyond the borders of the state,” he declared in 1862, offering a bounty of $200 — over $5,000 in today’s money — for the scalp of each fleeing or resisting Indian. Around 1,700 Dakota women, children and elderly were force-marched into a concentration camp built on a sacred spiritual site. Many didn’t make it there. According to Mendota Dakota Tribal Chair Jim Anderson, “during that march a lot of our relatives died. They were killed by settlers; when they went through the small towns, babies were taken out of mothers arms and killed and women… were shot or bayoneted.” Those who survived faced winter storms, diseases and hunger. Many did not make it through the winter.

Two years later, Civil War general and notorious Indian killer James Henry Carleton forced 10,000 Navajo people to march 300 miles (480 km) in the dead of winter from their homeland in the Four Corners region to a concentration camp at Fort Sumner, New Mexico. This followed a scorched earth campaign in which famed frontiersman Kit Carson tried to starve the life out of the Navajo, hundreds of whom died or were enslaved by white settlers and rival tribes during what became known as The Long Walk. Those who survived the death march to Fort Sumner faced starvation, lack of wood for heating and cooking during the bitterly cold winters and ravaging diseases. Daily depredations included a ban on prayers, spiritual ceremonies and songs. It is estimated that some 1,500 people died while interned at Fort Sumner, many of them infants and children.

Contraband

At about the same time, the Union Army was re-capturing freed slaves throughout the South and pressing them into hard labor in disease-ridden “contraband camps,” as escaped and freed slaves were considered captured enemy property.

“There is much sickness, suffering and destitution,” wrote James E. Yeatman of the Western Sanitary Commission after visiting one such camp near Natchez, Mississippi in 1863. “There was not one house that I visited where death had not entered… Seventy-five had died in a single day… some had returned to their masters on account of their suffering.”

At one camp in Young’s Point, Louisiana, Yeatman reported “frightful sickness and death,” with 30-50 people dying each day from disease and starvation. One camp near Natchez, Mississippi held as many as 4,000 black refugees in the summer of 1863; by fall 2,000 had already perished, most of them children infected with smallpox and measles.

‘Benevolent Assimilation’ in the ‘Suburbs of Hell’

With indigenous peoples no longer standing in the way of its “manifest destiny,” the US set its sights on becoming a first-rate imperial power through overseas conquest and expansion. After overthrowing Hawaii’s monarchy and annexing its islands, war was waged against Spain, resulting in the capture of the first US colonies in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. When Filipinos resisted, US commanders responded with tremendous cruelty. Echoing Andrew Jackson, President William McKinley called this the “benevolent assimilation” of the Philippines into the burgeoning US empire.

As General “Hell-Roaring” Jake Smith ordered his troops to “kill everyone over 10” in Samar, future president William Howard Taft, the US colonial administrator of the archipelago, instituted a “pacification” campaign that combined the counterinsurgency tactics of torture and summary execution with deportation and imprisonment in concentration camps, or reconcentrados, that one commandant referred to as the  “suburbs of hell.” General J. Franklin Bell, looking forward to his new post as warden of the notorious Batangas reconcentrado, declared that “all consideration and regard for the inhabitants of this place cease from the day I become commander.”

He meant it. In December 1901 Bell gave the people of Batangas two weeks to leave their homes and report to the camp; everything they left behind — their homes, farms, livestock, food stores and tools — was stolen or destroyed by US troops. People who refused to report to the camp were shot, as were random prisoners whenever insurgents killed an American. Conditions were beyond horrific in many reconcentrados. Hunger, disease and torture, which included waterboarding, were rampant. In some camps, as many as 20 percent of internees died. In order to save food, 1,300 Batangas prisoners were forced to dig mass graves before being gunned down 20 at a time and buried in them. “To keep them prisoners would necessitate the placing of [US] soldiers on short rations,” one soldier explained. “There was nothing to do but kill them.”

Concentration Camps for US Citizens

During both world wars, thousands of German nationals, German-Americans and Germans from Latin American nations were imprisoned in concentration camps across the United States. However, their race and relatively high level of assimilation saved most German-Americans from internment, and conditions were much better than they had been in previous US camps. Japanese-Americans weren’t so lucky. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, under which all people of Japanese ancestry living on the West Coast were rounded up and imprisoned in dozens of civilian assembly centers (where they were often forced to sleep in crowded, manure-covered horse stables), relocation centers, military bases, and “citizen isolation centers” — harsh desert prison camps where “problem inmates,” including those who refused to pledge allegiance to the United States, were jailed. Conditions varied by camp, but overcrowding, lack of indoor plumbing, fuel shortages and food rationing were common. Many of the camps were located in remote, scorpion- and snake-infested deserts.

Incredibly, thousands of Japanese-Americans volunteered to fight for the country that was imprisoning them for nothing more than their ethnicity. These were some of the most highly-decorated US troops in the war. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court sided with the government in three cases brought by Japanese-Americans challenging the constitutionality of their detention, and an American public caught in the grip of racist “yellow peril” hysteria acquiesced to the blatantly unconstitutional mass imprisonment. Internment would last the duration of the war, sometimes longer, with many detainees discovering their homes, businesses and property were stolen or destroyed when they were finally released. President Ronald Reagan would formally apologize and sign off on $20,000 reparation payments to former internees in 1988.

In addition to Japanese and some Germans, a smaller number of Italians and Italian-Americans were also imprisoned during World War II. So were the indigenous Aleuts of Alaska, who were forcibly evacuated before their villages were burned to the ground to prevent any invading Japanese forces from using them. Nearly 900 Aleuts were imprisoned in abandoned factories and other derelict facilities without plumbing, electricity or toilets; decent food, potable water and warm winter clothing were in short supply. Nearly 10 percent of the detainees died in the camps. Others were enslaved and forced to hunt fur seals.

During the early years of the Cold War, Congress passed the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 over President Harry Truman’s veto, which led to the construction of six concentration camps that were meant to hold communists, peace activists, civil rights leaders and others deemed a threat in the event the government declared a state of emergency. The act was upheld by the Supreme Court during the McCarthy/Red Scare years but in the 1960s the high court ruled  that provisions requiring communists to register with the government and banning them from obtaining passports or government employment were unconstitutional. The camps, which were never used, were closed by the end of the decade.

From Japan to Vietnam

In a little-known atrocity, at least 3,000 Okinawans died from malaria and other diseases in camps set up by US troops after they conquered the Japanese islands during fierce fighting in 1945. During and after the war, Okinawans’ land and homes were seized at gunpoint and their houses and farms were bulldozed or burned to the ground to make way for dozens of US military bases. Some 300,000 civilians were forced into these camps; survivor Kenichiro Miyazato later recalled how “too many people died, so the bodies had to be buried in a single mass grave.”

For sheer scale, no US concentration camp regime could match the Strategic Hamlet Program. In 1961 President John F. Kennedy approved the forcible relocation, often at gunpoint, of 8.5 million South Vietnamese peasants into over 7,000 fortified camps surrounded by barbed wire, minefields and armed guards. This was done to starve the growing Viet Cong insurgency of food, shelter and new recruits. However, few hearts and minds were won and many were indeed lost as US and South Vietnamese troops burned people’s homes before their very eyes before marching them away from their land, and with it their deepest spiritual bonds with their revered ancestors.

War on Terrorists and Migrants

Although prisoner of war camps are not included in this survey of US concentration camps, the open-ended global war against terrorism started by the George W. Bush administration after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States has seen a blurring of lines between combatant and civilian detention. According to Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff for Bush-era secretary of state Colin Powell, most of the men and boys held at the Guantánamo Bay military prison were innocent but held for political reasons or in an attempt to glean a “mosaic” of intelligence. Innocent civilians were also held in military prisons, some of them secret, in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Many detainees were tortured and died in US custody. Some of these men have been held without charge or trial for as many as 17 years, while some deemed too innocent to charge remain imprisoned at GITMO despite being cleared for release for many years.

Now it’s the migrants’ turn. And despite the howling protestations of those who commit or justify the crime of tearing infants and children from their parents’ arms and imprisoning them in freezing cages that Trump officials have euphemistically compared to “summer camp,” there is no doubt that concentration camps are in operation on US soil once again. The Trump administration’s attempt to portray child imprisonment as something much happier instantly recalls World War II propaganda films showing content Japanese-Americans benefiting from life behind barbed wire. Actor George Takei, who was interned with his family for the duration of the war, was anything but content. “I know what concentration camps are,” he tweeted amid the current controversy. “I was inside two of them. In America. And yes, we are operating such camps again.”

Takei noted one big difference between then and now: “At least during the internment of Japanese-Americans, I and other children were not stripped from our parents,” he wrote, adding that “‘at least during the internment’ are words I thought I’d never utter.”

*

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.

Brett Wilkins is a San Francisco-based freelance author and editor-at-large for US news at Digital Journal. His work, which focuses on issues of war and peace and human rights, is archived at www.brettwilkins.com.

India has recently voted in support of Israel at the United Nations (UN) for the first time in its post-independence history. At the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) on June 6 she voted with Israel to deny a Palestinian non-governmental organisation (NGO), the Shahed, an observer status.

To many this may appear innocuous. Israel has persuaded India that Shahed is a terrorist organisation and not, as it claims to be, an NGO fighting for the human rights of Palestinians.

But under threat of genocide is not survival contingent upon resistance? Why not give Shahed an observer status? How dangerous can that be?

Instead, New Delhi chose to break a long standing post-independence position, which is to be on the side of the two-state settlement, viewing both Israel and Palestine as equals. Even before independence, the Mahatma himself had voiced concern about the return of the Jews to Palestine. In a letter to the Jewish-German philosopher, Martin Buber, he asked why the Arabs in Palestine should be evacuated because of a civil war in Europe or a Biblical promise of a National Homeland in Palestine? This was the stand that Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India, perpetuated in his foreign policy. He refused to recognise Israel as long as there was no Palestinian state as envisaged in the 1948 demarcation of historic Palestine.

Netanyahu and Modi (image right)

As such, until recently no diplomatic ties existed between the two countries. Today, however, there is an embassy of Israel in New Delhi.

It was then just a matter of time before a definitive position would surface, a pragmatic one that would consider Indian interests before any moral high ground. But whether Gandhi’s position will be completely abandoned is yet to be seen. Mahatma Gandhi, himself, was not against the notion of a Jewish homeland. He questioned why Palestine, a centuries-old state still very much populated, was the location of choice.

Indeed, currently, supporting Palestinian statehood under the two-state solution is the only ethical way forward for any country . But geopolitical and economic imperatives will, ultimately, be too compelling. India is making strides in economic growth although current trends are indicating a plateauing because the real economy is not growing fast enough to make consumers of the poor, numbering hundreds of millions, who can help propel the Indian economy into the big league. Foregoing opportunities offered by the US and Israel for a socialist-humanitarian stance is looking to be a growing economic burden. India’s flirtation with neo-liberal capitalism under Narendra Modi, while not making a pro-Israel policy preference necessary, an economic partnership with the US, however, necessitates it. That geoeconomically India is an American ally is borne out by New Delhi’s demonetisation exercise. It is a US inspired move often blamed for the economic slowdown now afflicting the country.

Meanwhile, the US under xenophobic and belligerent Donald Trump — who is attempting a feat unsurpassed with regard an apartheid Jewish state on Palestinian soil, promising a “deal of the century” peace plan — is urgently trying to patch together a pro-Israel coalition of disparate nations that will allow the deal to pass with as little fuss as possible, of course, at the expense of the Palestinians who are not being consulted. Moving to the right with a little arm-twisting by Washington, has some political commentators in India applauding. From their viewpoint the past is hypocrisy when all the while India has not stopped talking to Israel, the pace of which gained tempo under Narashimha Rao, India’s 9^th prime minister.

While voting in support of Israel is new, India took the first step in a pro-Israel direction in the UN in 2015. Then, New Delhi abstained from voting in the UN Human Rights Council for a resolution critical of Israel. Tel Aviv was being censured for having perpetrated inexcusable violence against the Palestinians during her so-called Operation Protective Edge war on Gaza in 2014. India refused to condemn Israel for slaughtering more than a thousand Palestinians almost half of whom were children!

To friends of Palestine a pro-Israel position appears to be the start of an unholy alliance where ethics and morality are no longer front and centre for India. Security has become the imperative with Israel now the third supplier of military equipment to India after Russia and the US.

More importantly, it is noteworthy that India under Modi is part of the emerging “Quad” of nations — US, Australia, Japan and India — in the Indo-Pacific set up to counter China even while it is part of the Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa organisation (BRICS) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), with China. This foreign policy stance is referred to by Indian commentators as a pro-India policy with priority for Indian interests. The moral high ground vis-a-vis Palestine is being weighed against the demands of self-interest.

The point is for Palestine there is no way other nations can support her effectively outside of the United Nations given that the state has effectively been legally disappeared. Until a solution is afforded to her in the way of a state restored, Palestine can only be supported within the UN construct. As such a pro-Israel move in the UN, such as India’s, is a dramatic shift in foreign policy, a move which cannot act as precedent for other Palestine-friendly countries.

It cannot be denied that India must look after her citizens first. But consequences of such and similar actions in the UN cannot be ignored.

For all its seeming impotence, the UN is a world body. Through it the voice of every member nation be they rich or poor, large or small, powerful or weak can be heard. For this reason, for Palestine, it is an enormous disadvantage when friends desert them. Palestine needs the support of friendly nations in the UN in the struggle for a state. Palestine was stolen from under the feet of its people. The time has come for  Palestine to be returned to Palestinians for which supporting the Palestinian war of resistance is obligatory.

And, human decency dictates that any move supporting the position of a terrorist state, which Israel indisputably is, and an occupying power too, is not merely morally reprehensible but unethical and just plain wrong.

*

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

Askiah Adam is Executive Director of the International Movement for a JUST World (JUST).

Featured image is from India TV

Sixty years ago, Britain won a long-forgotten war in Oman, setting the special relationship between the two countries that is still being boosted today. 

The anniversary falls as the head of the British army recently visited Oman, and as the two countries signed a “Comprehensive Joint Declaration on Enduring Friendship” and a new Joint Defence Agreement. Last year, the two cooperated on the UK’s largest military exercise in the Middle East in 20 years.

The UK’s growing support for Oman’s ruler, Sultan Qaboos, is as extensive as it is ignored in the British media. But a key question looms: who will succeed the sultan after his death, and will London then continue this special relationship?

‘Not a great deal of hope’

The 1957-9 war in central Oman defeated an uprising threatening the rule of Sultan Said bin Taimur, one of the most repressive regimes ever seen in the Middle East. Declassified files show Britain’s chief diplomat in the region, George Middleton, recognising that: “The condition of the people is miserable, the Sultan is unpopular, there is no central administration … and, under the present regime, not a great deal of hope for the future.”

But that didn’t stop Britain from coming to the aid of the sultan, who kept hundreds of slaves at his palace in Salalah, deploying the Royal Air Force (RAF) to bomb the rebels from the air “to show the population the power of weapons at our disposal” and to convince them that “resistance will be fruitless and lead only to hardship”, the files show.

Former prime minister Harold Macmillan approved the bombing of water supplies and agricultural gardens – civilian targets that constitute war crimes – to “deter dissident villages from gathering their crops” and to promote “denial of water supply to selected villages by air action”. The Special Air Service was also deployed in late 1958 and captured the rebels’ final stronghold the following year.

The rebellion that broke out a few years later in Dhofar province in southern Oman also prompted British intervention. The Dhofar uprising was “an indigenous rebellion against the repression and neglect” of the sultan, the Foreign Office later privately noted.

With barely any schools or health facilities in the country, even by 1970 it was forbidden to smoke in public, to play football, to wear glasses, or to talk to anyone for more than 15 minutes. The sultan’s response to the uprising was to use even greater force – largely from British officers, who controlled Oman’s military.

A giant British base

When the British realised the sultan might not win the Dhofar war, their military advisers in Muscat overthrew him in a palace coup in 1970 and installed in power his son, Qaboos, who has remained there ever since. Oman became, in effect, a giant British military and intelligence base.

Files leaked by Edward Snowden show that Britain’s GCHQ has a network of three spy bases in Oman – codenamed Timpani, Guitar and Clarinet – which tap in to various undersea cables passing through the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Gulf.

These bases intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic. The information is then shared with the US National Security Agency.

Britain has just established a large, new military base at the Duqm port complex in central Oman, which will house the two 65,000-tonneaircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy. This will provide “a strategically important and permanent maritime base east of Suez, but outside of the Gulf” and “serve as a staging post for UK Carrier Strike Group deployments across the Indian Ocean”.

A new Omani-British Joint Training Area is also being established in Oman this year to facilitate a permanent British army presence in the region. The relationship is solidified, as ever, by arms exports: Oman imported $2.4bn worth of arms during 2014-18, of which the UK was the largest supplier.

Economic interests

British commercial interests in Oman are also growing, especially in oil and gas, which accounts for 30 percent of Oman’s GDP. Shell has a 34 percent interest in the Petroleum Development Corporation, which manages the country’s oil, while BP has a 60 percent interest in the massive Khazzan gas project, in which it has invested $16bn.

These interests are tying the UK still further to the sultan’s regime, which is authoritarian and repressive even by Gulf standards. Political parties are banned and political meetings are likely to result in arrests. Although Oman has elections to its lower house, the body is largely toothless.

Sultan Qaboos formally holds the positions of prime minister, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, chairman of the central bank, and minister of defence, foreign affairs and finance.

While Oman has made major economic progress in recent decades, portraying it as a benign dictatorship is misleading. In 2014, a UN special rapporteur described a “pervasive culture of silence and fear affecting anyone who wants to speak and work for reforms in Oman”.

Last year, Oman introduced a new penal code that contains harsh penalties against free speech and other rights, and gives sweeping powers to authorities. It provides for jailing anyone who publishes material that poses “a challenge to the rights of the Sultan and his prerogatives, or disgraces his person” or which “undermine the stature of the State”.

Human rights abuses

Britain’s active support for the sultan’s regime was confirmed in 2017, when Middle East Eye revealed that the Police Service of Northern Ireland had run programmes training Oman’s police, military and special forces in how to manage strikes and protests.

London remains silent on Oman’s human rights abuses, while stressing their “exceptionally close relationship”. Indeed, when the recently-sacked UK defence secretary, Gavin Williamson, was in Oman in February 2019, he praised the “statesmanship, the knowledge, the wisdom” of the sultan, even describing him as a “visionary”.

Alan Duncan, a British foreign minister, is a regular guest of the sultan and has visited Oman 24 times since 2000, according to the British parliament’s register of financial interests. These trips have been mainly paid by the sultanate. Three visits have taken place since Duncan became minister of state in July 2016.

But will Britain maintain its special relationship when the current sultan dies? Qaboos, who is 78 and has suffered from colon cancer since 2014, has no heirs and has not formally designated a successor. Oman’s Basic Law stipulates that the next leader must be a male descendant of Sayyid Turki bin Said bin Sultan, the sultan of Muscat and Oman from 1871-88.

The two most commonly mentioned frontrunners are Qaboos’s cousin, Sayyid Asaad bin Tariq al Said, and the latter’s son, Taimur.

Business as usual

Asaad, the deputy prime minister, regularly meets foreign diplomats on behalf of Qaboos and is believed to be the most likely successor. Asaad was, like Qaboos himself, trained at the UK’s military training centre at Sandhurst in the 1970s before becoming an army commander.

Taimur, who is just 39, was described in a US State Department cable, revealed by Wikileaks, as “personable, affable and informal”. He studied for four years in the UK, in Brighton, Galashiels in Scotland and London.

The UK will be using its connections with the coterie surrounding its current placeman in Muscat to help ensure more of the same upon Qaboos’s passing.

Britain’s exit from the European Union is prompting the British government to seek ever closer relations with its longstanding allies in the Gulf. This will continue to be at the expense of promoting positive political and economic change in the region.

*

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

Mark Curtis is a historian and analyst of UK foreign policy and international development and the author of six books, the latest being an updated edition of Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam.

Last April marked a special anniversary for Cuba but one that we should all reflect upon given the current events in Latin America, particularly in Venezuela. In mid-April 1961 three cities in Cuba were bombed at the same time from the air. Immediately the US government claimed that Cuban defectors carried out the action with Cuban planes and pilots. The media quickly “confirmed the actions”.

These were false flag attacks organized by the US.

In a large mass rally in Havana the next day Fidel Castro pronounced a very important speech where he called John Kennedy and the media liars. That was the speech where Fidel declared the “socialist character” of the Cuban revolution.

US interventions, military and parliamentary coups have been relentless before and since in Latin America. Often they are preceded by outright disinformation in order to misrepresent events and demonize the target government as a prelude to legitimize a more aggressive intervention.

Fast-forward to the 21^st Century, pan quickly over the Middle East, and zoom into our Western hemisphere today and you will see Venezuela. Not the country that most Venezuelans want you to see, but the country that the US government and its allies – Canada at the forefront – want you to see. Reportedly, one that needs a regime change.

The level of disinformation about Venezuela has been widely exposed by political analysts like Dan Kovalik and media groups like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), which indicated that corporate media in the United States has undertaken “a full-scale marketing campaign for regime change in Venezuela”.

In an article last April Time magazine said, “Venezuelans are starving for information”. Venezuelanalysis.com writers responded that, “Creative reporting about Venezuela is ‘the world’s most lucrative fictional genre’“, and it goes on to show how there are three private TV channels, a satellite provider that covers FOX News, CNN and BBC. Anti-government print media is also widely accessible as well as online outlets.

The truth is that people outside Venezuela are starving for reliable information.

The New York Times printed, “Venezuela’s Collapse Is the Worst Outside of War in Decades” with barely a reference to the impact of US sanctions and the billions of dollars stolen from Venezuela as if irrelevant.

Perhaps there is no conventional war in Venezuela, but there is a devastating economic war imposed by unilateral coercive measures, media warfare or infowar. Venezuelans call it guerra mediática. In 2009 Chavez even spoke of “media dictatorship.”

It kills people just the same by virtue of curtailing vital trade, investment and imports in a capitalist world that reacts and panics very quickly at a minor sign of insecurity. Capital flees, leaving the country at the mercy of political imperial attacks.

The US government and its embedded corporate media become the jugglers of disinformation, or equivalently they display what I call a choreography of disinformation.

When it comes to Venezuela papers like the Washington Post, the NYT, the Globe and Mail and others are no different from tabloids. How else would you interpret the NYT information that Hezbollah is in Venezuela? It is a dangerous insinuation just because the Minister of Industry of Venezuela is of Lebanese descent and his great-uncle allegedly was associated with the Ba’athist Party of Iraq. The NYT would never make such an outlandish insinuation that the neo-Fascists are in Canada because Chrystia Freeland had a distant relative associated with Nazism in the Ukraine.

If we skip over the most obvious media lies, the bulk of disinformation can be reduced to two main categories of accusations laid against Nicolas Maduro: 1) Maduro is not a legitimate president; and 2) Maduro has broken the constitutional order of Venezuela.

Is Maduro an illegitimate president? Let’s remember that Maduro obtained irrefutably almost 68% of the valid votes on May 20^th, and that Juan Guaidó appointed himself as “interim president” in a street rally.

Further, an analysis of the electoral process based on the established international standards shows that all the recommended elements for a legitimate election were followed in Venezuela and confirmed by many international observers.

More importantly, five candidates participated in the elections representing different ideologies. One of them, Henri Falcon, was even threatened with sanctions by the US if he decided to participate. The most radical rightwing opposition did not participate in the elections and did so by their own free will boycotting the process.

Did Maduro break the constitutional order? Former Canadian ambassador to Venezuela Ben Rowswell (2014-2017) recently lied in an interview with CTV stating that Maduro “suspended” the constitution. That never happened as it has been widely documented.

We cannot deny the economic crisis in Venezuela caused by the “guerra económica” (economic war) waged by the US. The last conservative figure for the cost of US sanctions to Venezuela is US$130 billion. But the US government and the corporate media want you to believe that the economic crisis in Venezuela is due to the Maduro government mismanagement, totally disregarding the impact of the unilateral coercive measures.

The reality is that the government of Venezuela is responding with full commitment to the constitution, and the international commitment to its “responsibility to protect” the well being of the population by maintaining its social programs under harsh circumstances. The people are at the centre of all programs.

Perhaps the most important government program is the Local Supply and Production Committees (CLAP-Comité Local de Abastecimiento y Producción) that guarantees delivery of boxes of food and other items in order to cover the basic needs. The program covers about 6 million families.

The US is currently threatening the Venezuelan CLAP program with sanctions, alleging that it finances or is a cover up for drug trade. This is the most vile deceit at the cost of starving Venezuelans. Not even in time of war is such a callous crime allowed.

Concluding remarks

It is obvious that the US government is after the control of Venezuela’s oil resources based on its unfounded claim over its “backyard”. Canada has joined with its own claim to protect its mining sector corporations with interests in Venezuela. Neither country has any interest in the people of Venezuela, despite their rhetoric.

It is also quite obvious that the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela centers on the protection of its people and on preventing any pillage of its resources based on its legitimate claim on sovereignty, independence and self-determination, supported by the majority of people.

There lies the true nature of the US/Canada attacks against Venezuela.

However, that is the pragmatic reason. The more political and ideological reason is that the US corporate interests that govern the country will never allow any other ideology that hints or resembles any form of socialism, even in its embryonic form. Canada’s foreign policy today is quite attuned with US foreign policy.

It is interesting to note that the constitution promoted by Chavez does not have a single mention of the word “socialism”. It speaks frequently of “social democracy” but never of socialism.

Chavez coined the phrase “Socialism for the 21^st Century” in 2005, six years after the new constitution was approved. And yet he was already slated for a US-sponsored coup in 2002. The coup failed but that must have made Chavez’s anti-imperialism discourse much more urgent. His speeches rejecting capitalism, imperialism and neo-liberalism, as causing oppression of the population, became much more open, explicit and forceful.

The policies of his government also became much more progressive as indicated by the law passed in 2006 establishing communal councils as units of direct democratic self-government, and the law of 2010 establishing the creation of communes as institutions that would bring together the communal councils with local productive units. These laws were in compliance with Article 184 of the constitution.

However, the new constitution being drafted by the National Constituent Assembly needs to formalize the close to 3,000 Communes in Venezuela by giving them constitutional ranking.

It would not be totally surprising to see a more prominent place for the “21^stCentury Socialism” in the new constitution. Perhaps, we may witness a formal Venezuelan declaration of the “socialist character” of the Bolivarian Revolution.

Today we can infer that the corporate media war is not just against Maduro but it is against Chavismo as the living ideology of the Bolivarian Revolution.

We are currently witnessing a race between two forces in our hemisphere: 1) the US and Canada imperial forces that support the Venezuelan rightwing opposition in order to produce a regime change, and 2) Venezuela’s popular majority forces determined to build an independent socialist path.

This is not a race where we can stand at the margin and say, may the best win. This is a race in which we are all involved. We must be involved. Today’s geopolitical reality makes us all vulnerable. Sorting out reality from fiction is the essential task.

*

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 Venezuelanalysis.com.

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

Featured image is from teleSUR

The warmongers on Trump’s national security team apparently convinced him to set in motion an aerial strike against Iran Thursday in retaliation for the downing of a US drone over waters claimed by Iran.

Then at the last minute, Michael D. Shear, Eric Schmitt, Michael Crowley and Maggie Haberman at the NYT report, Trump seems to have listened to generals who warned him that things could spiral out of control, even into war. He issued a stand down order. At least for now.

It isn’t even clear that there was a casus belli. On domestic issues, the US press is locked into an one the one hand, on the other hand disastrous story-telling mode that has enormously benefited those pushing falsehoods such as that cigarettes don’t cause cancer or putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere does not cause global heating.

Source: New York Times

Yet, when it comes to reporting on international security affairs, most US reporting does not fall more than an inch from the Pentagon line of the day (often this dishonesty is the work of editors and publisher-owners rather than the fault of news-gathering reporters, as we saw at McClatchy during the Iraq War).

We heard all about the way Trump attempted to walk back his tough talk, saying that he was sure that Iran shot down the US drone by accident. The statement, like his later stand down order, is a clear sign of the division between him and his warmongering appointees, such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton.

Trump created this crisis by breaching the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Having pocketed Iran’s mothballing of 80 percent of its uranium enrichment program, Trump slapped the harshest sanctions ever seen against any country on Iran, unilaterally and in the teeth of opposition from NATO allies and the permanent members of the UN Security Council. In other words, he screwed Iran over. Europe cannot stop the US sanctions, since they are third-party sanctions and European firms who do business both in the US and in Iran will be fined billions of dollars for their dealings with Tehran.

So Trump’s attempts to back peddle from his hard liners are useless as long as the US has a financial blockade on Iran preventing it from selling its petroleum. A naval blockade preventing a country from exporting a key commodity is considered an act of war in international law. It is hard to see the difference between that and an effective financial blockade. Same outcome.

The US press almost never interviews non-US world leaders, especially those to whom Washington is hostile. It is almost as though when it comes to national security reporting, American news outlets go into war propaganda mode. Warmongers in high office know all about this phenomenon and use it to get the wars they crave.

So with regard to the shooting down of the US drone by Iran, I think it is important to hear the Iranian side of the story. It may be false, it may be Iranian war propaganda. We can decide that once we’ve heard it.

BBC Monitoring translated from a Persian website the statement from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps:

“The Global Hawk surveillance drone took off from one the US bases in the south of the Persian Gulf at 0014 [1944 gmt] and disabled its identification system in a move contravening aviation regulations. It secretly flew from the Strait of Hormuz to Chabahar and on its way back travelling westward, the unmanned aerial vehicle violated the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the region of Strait of Hormuz and started collecting information and spying,” IRGC’s statement read . . At 0405 [2335 gmt] and while the intrusive plane was inside our territories, the Guard’s aerospace defence unit shot it down.”

Source: Fars News Agency website, Tehran, in Persian 0919 gmt 20 Jun 19

In another report, Iran’s news service said that a 3 Khordad anti-aircraft missile was deployed against the drone.

If Iran is right that the drone flew into Iranian territory, the incident is still an unfortunate raising of tensions. But if it was over international waters, as the US maintains, Iran was in the wrong.

One problem for these definitions is that the US, in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, recognizes only 12 nautical miles off the coast as belonging to the country, whereas many nations claim a much larger portion of the sea along their coasts than that. The US Air Force says that the drone was never closer to the Iranian coast than 21 nautical miles. One of the unfortunate consequences of the hostility of Trump and his capos like John Bolton to the UN and international law is that it makes it harder for the US to insist with a straight face that other countries take these things seriously. Bolton once denied that the UN even exists.

In the absence of an agreement on the UN definition of territorial waters, some sort of US Iran bilateral negotiations would be preferable to cowboying it.

Again, this crisis is of Trump’s making. His conviction that he could stiff Iran without consequences, all for the sake of looking tough with his MAGA base, was a serious miscalculation. It is the problem with having an ignorant and yet opinionated man at the helm of the US government. He is guaranteed to make basic mistakes that put the US on a war footing even though that appears to be the last thing Trump wants.

Unfortunately, Iran will provoke again, and next time the US warmongers may win the argument.

*

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 Informed Comment

This article was first published in August 2018.

Author’s Introduction and Update

With regard to ongoing US threats directed against Iran:

Whereas a “bloody nose” missile attack directed against specific targets in Iran cannot be ruled out, a conventional war theatre including ground war operations directed against Iran is almost an impossibility without the support of Turkey and Pakistan, both of which are “sleeping with the enemy”.

Turkey is a NATO heavyweight which is allied with Iran and Russia. Pakistan is allied with China and Iran. Both Turkey and Pakistan have borders with Iran.

The Pentagon’s policy of “encirclement” of Iran formulated in the wake of the 2003 Iraq War is defunct. Iran has good relations with neighbouring countries including Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan. All three countries have refused to collaborate with Washington.

Needless to say the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is also in crisis. America can no no longer rely on its staunchest allies.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

America’s largest military facility in the Middle East the Al-Udeid military base in Qatar is now situated in a country which is (unofficially) a partner and de facto ally of Iran. Qatar has switched sides. It has broken its relations with Saudi Arabia. While retaining good  bilateral relations with the US, Qatar is nonetheless aligned with Iran (and Turkey).

Moreover, since 2016, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is in jeopardy. The Sultanate of Oman which together with Iran guards the Strait of Hormuz entry into the Persian Gulf is also unofficially aligned with Iran.

US Central Command (USCENTCOM) in Enemy Territory

Moreover, while the US air force has relocated part of its capabilities to Saudi Arabia, the Al-Udeid military base in Qatar still “officially” hosts the Middle East “forward headquarters” of US Central Command (USCENTCOM) in a country which is de facto aligned with an enemy of the United States of America.

In January 2019,  the US and Qatar signed  a Joint Declaration on Security Co-operation “to promote peace and stability and counter the scourge of terrorism”.

The United States welcomed Qatar’s generous offer to expand critical facilities at bases used by US forces in the country and to align operating procedures at these bases with Nato standards, thereby increasing the operational capability of US and coalition forces based in Qatar.

Ironically, the US and Qatar signed an Memorandum of Understanding “enabling deeper co-ordination on potential expansion at Al Udeid Air Base.”

Not withstanding the rhetoric underlying official US-Qatar ties, The Atlantic Council, a think tank, which has close ties to both the Pentagon and NATO confirms that Qatar is now a firm ally of both Turkey and Iran:

Put simply, for Qatar to maintain its independence, Doha will have essentially no choice but to maintain its strong partnership with Turkey, which has been an important ally from the perspective of military support and food security, as well as Iran. The odds are good that Iranian-Qatari ties will continue to strengthen even if Tehran and Doha agree to disagree on certain issues … On June 15, President Hassan Rouhani emphasized that improving relations with Qatar is a high priority for Iranian policymakers. … Rouhani told the Qatari emir that “stability and security of regional countries are intertwined” and Qatar’s head of state, in turn, stressed that Doha seeks a stronger partnership with the Islamic Republic. (Atlantic Council, June 2019)

The structure of alliances is in jeopardy. The US cannot reasonably wage a full-fledged conventional theatre war on Iran without the support of its longstanding allies which are now sleeping with the enemy.

This of course does not exclude other forms of warfare, including

• targeted missile attacks which could lead to escalation,
• economic warfare and sanctions,
• cyber warfare,
• political destabilization and regime change,
• the selective use of advanced weapons systems (e.g. electromagnetic warfare, environmental modification techniques (ENMOD), climatic warfare, the use of biological and chemical weapons)

 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 22, 2019

***

A major and far-reaching shift in military alliances is unfolding.

While Turkey is still “officially” a member of NATO, president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been developing “friendly relations” with two of America’s staunchest enemies, namely Iran and Russia. (see image right). 

US-Turkey military cooperation (including US air force bases in Turkey) dates back to the Cold War. Today Turkey is sleeping with the enemy. And Trump has (“rhetorically”) declared war on Turkey. 

We are ready for war,  says President Erdogan.

“The secret to successful states is their readiness for war. We are ready with everything we have,” (Erdogan’s statement on August 12, 2018 meeting with ambassadors in Ankara) 

Erdogan also accuses the US of waging a “financial warfare” against Turkey.

Turkish banks are under attack. In turn, a banking crisis is unfolding in the European Union largely hitting EU banks which hold substantial portions of Turkey’s debt.

According to Turkey’s president:

 “It is everyone’s observation that the developments in foreign currency exchange have no financial basis and they are an attack on our country… On the one hand you are a strategic ally and the other you shoot (the country) in the foot. Is something like this acceptable?” (Ahvalnews)

While the media has its eyes riveted on the collapse of the Turkish Lira (which so far in 2018 has lost approximately 40 percent of its value in relation to the US dollar), NATO is in a state of disarray, with one of its member states “at war” with another member state, namely the United States of America.

Turkey by a long shot has the largest conventional forces (after the US) within NATO outpacing France, Britain and Germany, (not to mention its tactical B61 nuclear weapons capabilities).

#NATOExit

Broadly speaking, the US-Turkey rift and its implications for the Atlantic Alliance are either ignored or trivialized by the media. The entire structure of military alliances is defunct. NATO is in a shambles.

Turkey is to acquire Russia’s state of the art S-400 air defense system. Why? Does this mean that Turkey which is a NATO member state will withdraw from the integrated US-NATO-Israel air defense system? Such a decision is tantamount to NATOExit.

 “On  July 26, the US Congress decided to ban the shipment of F-35 aircraft to Turkey unless  Ankara refused to purchase S-400 anti-aircraft systems from Russia.” (Pravda)

The US-Turkey-Israel “Triple Alliance” is Also Defunct

In 1993, Israel and Turkey signed a Memorandum of Understanding leading to the creation of (Israeli-Turkish) “joint committees” to handle so-called regional threats. Under the terms of the Memorandum, Turkey and Israel agreed “to cooperate in gathering intelligence on Syria, Iran, and Iraq and to meet regularly to share assessments pertaining to terrorism and these countries’ military capabilities.”

Image on the right: Sharon and Erdogan in 2004

The triple alliance was also coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement which included “many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint military exercises.”  These military cooperation ties with NATO were viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.”

The “triple alliance” linking the US, Israel and Turkey was coordinated by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was an integrated and coordinated military command structure pertaining to the broader Middle East. It was based on close bilateral US military ties respectively with Israel and Turkey, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara. In this regard, Israel and Turkey have been close partners with the US in planned aerial attacks on Iran since 2005. (See Michel Chossudovsky, May 2005)

Needless to say, that triple alliance is defunct. With Turkey siding with Iran and Russia, it would be “suicide” for US-Israel to even consider waging aerial attacks on Iran.

Moreover, the NATO-Israel 2005 military cooperation agreement which relied heavily on the role of Turkey is dysfunctional.

What this means is that US-Israeli threats directed against Iran are no longer supported by Turkey which has entered into an alliance of convenience with Iran.

The broader Realignment of Military alliances

The shift in military alliances is not limited to Turkey. Following the rift between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is in disarray with Qatar siding with Iran and Turkey against Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Qatar is of utmost strategic significance because it shares with Iran the world’s largest maritime gas fields in the Persian Gulf. (see map below)

The Al-Udeid military base near Doha is America’s largest military base in the Middle East. In turn, Turkey has now established its own military facility in Qatar.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

A profound shift in geopolitical alliances is also occurring in South Asia with the instatement in 2017 of both India and Pakistan as full members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).  Inevitably, this historic shift constitutes a blow against Washington, which has defense and trade agreements with both Pakistan and India. “While India remains firmly aligned with Washington, America’s political stranglehold on Pakistan (through military and intelligence agreements) has been weakened as a result of Pakistan’s trade and investment deals with China.”  (Michel Chossudovsky, August 1, 2017)

In other words, this enlargement of the SCO weakens America’s hegemonic ambitions in both South Asia and the broader Eurasian region. It has a bearing on energy pipeline routes, transport corridors, borders and mutual security and maritime rights.

Pakistan is the gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia, where US influence has been weakened to the benefit of China, Iran and Turkey. China is involved in major investments in mining, not to mention the development of transport routes which seek the integration of Afghanistan into Western China.

Where does Turkey fit in? Turkey is increasingly part of the Eurasian project dominated by China and Russia. In 2017-18, Erdogan had several meetings with both president Xi-Jingping and Vladimir Putin. Erdogan has been contemplating becoming a member of the SCO since 2016 but sofar nothing concrete has emerged.

The Antiwar Movement: #NATOExit People’s Movement

Of crucial significance, the crisis within NATO constitutes a historic opportunity to develop a #NATOExit people’s movement across Europe and North America, a people’s movement pressuring governments to withdraw from the Atlantic Alliance, a movement to eventually dismantle and abolish the military and political apparatus of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff briefly published and then removed from public access a new edition of their official doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons. But a public copy was preserved. See Joint Publication 3-72, Nuclear Operations, June 11, 2019.

The document presents an unclassified, mostly familiar overview of nuclear strategy, force structure, planning, targeting, command and control, and operations.

“Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability,” according to one Strangelovian passage in the publication. “Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.”

Screenshot

The document might have gone unremarked, but after publishing it last week the Joint Chiefs deleted it from their public website. A notice there states that it (JP 3-72) is now only “available through JEL+” (the Joint Electronic Library), which is a restricted access site.

A local copy remains publicly available on the FAS website.

*

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.

Days after calling last week’s Gulf of Oman incident “very minor,” stepping back from possible war on Iran, Trump called its downing of a US spy drone (in its own airspace he failed to explain) “a very big mistake.” 

Responding to whether he’ll order a strike on the country in retaliation against what was a hostile US act, he ominously said: “You’ll soon find out” — a worrisome sign.

Attacking Iran would be “a very big mistake,” a nation able to hit back hard against an aggressor and disrupt oil shipments through the Gulf of Hormuz if its own are blocked.

By letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Iranian UN envoy Majid Takht-e Ravanchi condemned the provocative intrusion of a US spy plane in its airspace, saying the following:

“Iran condemns, in the strongest possible terms, this irresponsible and provocative wrongful act by the United States, which entails its international responsibility,” adding:

“While the Islamic Republic of Iran does not seek war, it reserves its inherent right, under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, to take all appropriate necessary measures against any hostile act violating its territory, and is determined to vigorously defend its land, sea and air.”

“This is not the first provocative act by the United States against Iran’s territorial integrity” and clearly won’t be the last.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Seyyed Abbas Araqchi said the following:

There’s “irrefutable evidence about the presence of this drone in Iran’s airspace, and even some parts of its wreckage have been retrieved from Iranian territorial waters.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted:

“The US wages #Economic Terrorism on Iran, has conducted covert action against us & now encroaches on our territory.”

“We don’t seek war, but will zealously defend our skies, land & waters.”

“We’ll take this new aggression to #UN & show that the US is lying about international waters.”

The US wages #EconomicTerrorism on Iran, has conducted covert action against us & now encroaches on our territory.

We don't seek war, but will zealously defend our skies, land & waters.

We'll take this new aggression to #UN & show that the US is lying about international waters

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) June 20, 2019

Zarif explained the following via Twitter:

“At 00:14 (on the day of the incident a) US drone took off from UAE in stealth mode & violated Iranian airspace. It was targeted at 04:05 at the coordinates (25°59’43″N 57°02’25″E) near Kouh-e Mobarak.”

“We’ve retrieved sections of the US military drone in OUR territorial waters where it was shot down.”

At 00:14 US drone took off from UAE in stealth mode & violated Iranian airspace. It was targeted at 04:05 at the coordinates (25°59'43"N 57°02'25"E) near Kouh-e Mobarak.

We've retrieved sections of the US military drone in OUR territorial waters where it was shot down. pic.twitter.com/pJ34Tysmsg

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) June 20, 2019

A statement by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) explained that the US spy drone’s identification transponder was switched off “in violation of aviation rules and was moving in full secrecy” when it was downed over Iranian territorial waters.

Iran will present evidence to the UN proving it. During his annual marathon Q & A session, fielding questions on numerous issues, Vladimir Putin said the following on possible US aggression against Iran:

Attacking Iran militarily by the US “would be a catastrophe at least for the region, because it would trigger violence and, possibly, an increase in the number of refugees from the region,” adding:

“For those who might make such attempts the consequences would be very sad, too, because it is very hard to foresee what the use of military force might entail.”

He stopped short of indicating how Russia might respond to possible US aggression against the Islamic Republic, a nonbelligerent nation threatening no one.

Separately, European External Action Service (EEAS) secretary Helga Schmid stressed that the IAEA “confirmed in 15 reports that Iran abides by its nuclear related commitments” — even after increasing its uranium enrichment and storage, including retention of its heavy water.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said “it’s a dangerous situation,” adding she doubts Trump wants war. “There is no appetite for going to war” on Iran, including by many congressional members.

After sounding bellicose, Trump softened his rhetoric, saying

“I find it hard to believe it was intentional. I would imagine it was a general or somebody who made a mistake in shooting the drone down,” adding:

“I have a feeling…that it was a mistake made by somebody…I think they made a mistake and I’m not just talking about the country made a mistake somebody under the command of the country made a mistake.”

The NYT reported that he

“approved strikes on Iran, but then abruptly pull(ed) back from launching them on Thursday night after a day of escalating tensions,” adding:

“Officials said the president had initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries.”

“The operation was underway in its early stages when it was called off, a senior administration official said. Planes were in the air and ships were in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down, the official said.”

First, it’s unclear if the above information is accurate or whether it’s the official story the White House wants reported.

It’s also unclear if Trump ordered strikes on Iran, then called them off, or if shifted them to a later time frame — perhaps with greater force against more targeted sites.

According to the Times, Pompeo, Bolton, and CIA director Gina Haspel pushed for a strike. Pentagon commanders reportedly cautioned against it because of likely IRGC retaliation against US regional forces.

Striking Iran over the Gulf of Oman and earlier May regional incidents it had nothing to do with would be going to war based on Big Lies and deception — what unjustifiably justifies all wars of aggression, including all US ones from Harry Truman’s aggression against North Korea in the early 1950s to all post-9/11 conflicts.

On Thursday, Iran’s IRGC commander-in-chief General Hossein Salami said

“(t)he downing of the American drone was a clear message to America (that Tehran will) react strongly” to any aggression.

He stressed that the Islamic Republic wants regional peace and stability, but is “fully prepared to defend” itself if attacked by an aggressor.

Self-defense is a universal right, affirmed by the UN Charter, stating in Article 51:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

The Trump regime is waging war on Iran by other means. Escalating tensions risks turning things hot.

Iran is the prime US/Israeli regional target for regime change. Attacking the country would risk boiling over the Middle East more than already.

The Islamic Republic can’t match US military strength, but its ballistic and cruise missiles can accurately strike its regional bases and warships, along with Israeli, Saudi and UAE targets if these nations get involved in hostilities against its territory.

Iran never attacked another country preemptively, threatening none now — polar opposite how the US, NATO, Israel, and their imperial partners operate.

Not a shred of credible evidence suggests Tehran had anything to do with preemptive belligerent incidents anywhere throughout its history.

Days earlier, a fabricated US intelligence report suggested a large-scale Iranian assault on a Saudi oil facility was coming in days. No credible evidence suggests it.

On Wednesday, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council chairman Ali Shamkhani said

“(w)e currently face demonstrative threats.”

“Nevertheless, when it comes to air defense of our country, we consider using foreign potential in addition to our domestic capacities.”

Iran has Russian S-300 air defense missiles. It may be seeking S-400s from Moscow for greater defensive capabilities.

Separately on Thursday, the US Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) banned commercial air traffic in Iranian airspace over its territorial waters.

US flights to Iran are legal. Will banning them altogether follow the above explained FAA ban?

Of far greater concern is whether Trump will yield ahead to Pompeo and Bolton on striking Iranian sites.

Perhaps it’s coming in response to a greater US-orchestrated false flag than the Gulf of Oman and May incidents.

Something against a US warship similar to the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin false flag could get Trump to order strikes on Iranian targets.

What earlier led to over a decade of US Southeast Asia aggression and quagmire could happen in the Middle East by attacking Iran — based on Big Lies and deception.

*

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 Veterans Today

Supplementary to my earlier letter [1] it strikes me that public criticism of vaccine products may come a poor third in the spread of measles in comparison with failure of outreach and failure of the vaccine technology itself. In addition to the 1996 paper by Markowitz which I cited [2] I note a number of papers pointing to failure of immunity as a result of the programme [3-11].

Even with 100% coverage and three doses it seems unlikely that synthetic herd immunity is set to do anything but decline: meanwhile censuring and criminalising critics and dissenters is only distracting in a politically unpleasant way from the problem. I am personally grateful to the editor for her recent call for “civil discourse, and debate” [12].

*

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.

Notes

[1] John Stone, ‘Advocates of compulsory vaccination also need to acknowledge risks’, 6 June 2019, https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2359/rr-0

[2] Markowitz LE, Albrecht P, Rhodes P, Demonteverde R, Swint E, Maes EF, Powell C, Patriarca PA., ‘Changing levels of measles antibody titers in women and children in the United States: impact on response to vaccination. Kaiser Permanente Measles Vaccine Trial Team.’, Pediatrics. 1996 Jan;97(1):53-8., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8545224

[3] Kontio M, Jokinen S, Paunio M, Peltola H, Davidkin I, ‘Waning antibody levels and avidity: implications for MMR vaccine-induced protection’, Infect Dis. 2012 Nov 15;206(10):1542-8. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jis568. Epub 2012 Sep 10.

[4] Sandra Waaijenborg, Susan J. M. Hahné, Liesbeth Mollema, Gaby P. Smits, Guy A. M. Berbers, Fiona R. M. van der Klis, Hester E. de Melker, and Jacco Wallinga, ‘Waning of Maternal Antibodies Against Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella in Communities With Contrasting Vaccination Coverage’, J Infect Dis. 2013 Jul 1; 208(1): 10–16.

[5] Zhao et al, ‘Low titers of measles antibody in mothers whose infants suffered from measles before eligible age for measles vaccination’ Virol J. 2010; 7: 87., Published online 2010 May 6. doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-7-87

[6] Kang et al, ‘An increasing, potentially measles-susceptible population over time after vaccination in Korea’, Vaccine
Volume 35, Issue 33, 24 July 2017, Pages 4126-4132, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X17308551

[7] Fiebelkorn et al, ‘Measles virus neutralizing antibody response, cell-mediated immunity, and IgG antibody avidity before and after a third dose of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine in young adults’, J Infect Dis. 2016 Apr 1; 213(7): 1115–1123.
Published online 2015 Nov 23. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiv555

[8] Paunio et al, ‘Secondary measles vaccine failures identified by measurement of IgG avidity: high occurrence among teenagers vaccinated at a young age’, Epidemiol Infect. 2000 Apr;124(2):263-71.,https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2359/rr-0

[9] Rosen JB, Rota JS, Hickman CJ, Sowers SB, Mercader S, Rota PA, Bellini WJ, Huang AJ, Doll MK, Zucker JR, Zimmerman CM., ‘Outbreak of measles among persons with prior evidence of immunity, New York City, 2011’, Clin Infect Dis. 2014 May;58(9):1205-10. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu105. Epub 2014 Feb 27

[10] Felicia Roy, Lillian Mendoza, Joanne Hiebert, Rebecca J. McNall, Bettina Bankamp, Sarah Connolly, Amy Lüdde, Nicole Friedrich, Annette Mankertz, Paul A. Rota, Alberto Severini , ‘Rapid Identification of Measles Virus Vaccine Genotype by Real-Time PCR’
https://jcm.asm.org/content/55/3/735 “Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences (RJ McNall, unpublished data)”.

[11] Rosen JB, Rota JS, Hickman CJ, Sowers SB, Mercader S, Rota PA, Bellini WJ, Huang AJ, Doll MK, Zucker JR, Zimmerman CM., ‘Outbreak of measles among persons with prior evidence of immunity, New York City, 2011’, Clin Infect Dis. 2014 May;58(9):1205-10. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu105. Epub 2014 Feb 27

[12] Fiona Godlee, ‘What should we do about vaccine hesitancy?’,
BMJ 2019; 365 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4044 (Published 06 June 2019)

Thanks to an explosive internal memo, there is no reason to believe the claims put forward by the Syrian opposition that President Bashar al-Assad’s government used chemical weapons against innocent civilians in Douma back in April. This is a scenario I have questioned from the beginning.

It also calls into question all the other conclusions and reports by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which was assigned in 2014 “to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic.”

As you recall, the Trump administration initiated a coordinated bombing of Syrian government facilities with the UK and France within days of the Douma incident and before a full investigation of the scene could be completed, charging Assad with the “barbaric act” of using “banned chemical weapons” to kill dozens of people on the scene. Bomb first, ask questions later.

The OPCW began their investigation days after the strikes. The group drew on witness testimonies, environmental and biomedical sample analysis results, and additional digital information from witnesses (i.e. video and still photography), as well as toxicological and ballistic analyses. In July 2018, the OPCW released an interim report on Douma that said “no organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties,” but that chlorine, which is not a banned chemical weapon, was detected there.

The report cited ballistic tests that indicated that the canisters found at two locations on the scene were dropped from the air (witnesses blamed Assad’s forces), but investigations were ongoing. The final report in March reiterated the ballistics data, and the conclusions were just as underwhelming, saying that all of the evidence gathered there provides “reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place,” due in part to traces of chlorine and explosives at the impact sites.

Now, the leaked internal report apparently suppressed by the OPCW says there is a “high probability” that a pair of chlorine gas cylinders that had been claimed as the source of the toxic chemical had been planted there by hand and not dropped by aircraft. This was based on extensive engineering assessments and computer modeling as well as all of the evidence previously afforded to the OPCW.

What does this mean? To my mind, the canisters were planted by the opposition in an effort to frame the Syrian government.

The OPCW has confirmed with the validity of this shocking document and has offered statements to reporters, including Peter Hitchens, who published the organization’s response to him on May 16.

The ramifications of this turn of events extend far beyond simply disproving the allegations concerning the events in April 2018. The credibility of the OPCW itself and every report and conclusion it has released concerning allegations of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government are now suspect. The extent to which the OPCW has, almost exclusively, relied upon the same Syrian opposition sources who are now suspected of fabricating the Douma events raises serious questions about both the methodology and motivation of an organization that had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013 for “its extensive efforts to eliminate chemical weapons.”

In a response to Agence France-Presse (AFP), OPCW director general Fernando Arias acknowledged there is an internal probe into the memo leak but that he continues to “stand by the impartial and professional conclusions” of the group’s original report. He played down the role of the memo’s author, Ian Henderson, and said his alternative hypotheses were not included in the final OPCW report because they “pointed at possible attribution” and were therefore outside the scope of the OPCW’s fact finding mission in Syria.

Self-produced videos and witness statements provided by the pro-opposition Violations Documentation Center, Syrian Civil Defense (also known as the White Helmets), and the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), a non-profit organization that operates hospitals in opposition-controlled Syria, represented the heart and soul of the case against the Syrian government regarding the events in Douma. To my mind, the internal memo now suggests that these actors were engaging in a systemic effort to disseminate disinformation that would facilitate Western military intervention with the goal of removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power.

This theory has been advanced by pro-Assad forces and their Russian partners for some time. But independent reporting on the ground since the Douma incident has sussed out many of the same concerns. From James Harkin, director of the Center for Investigative Journalism and a fellow at Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center, who traveled to the site of the attacks and reported for The Intercept in February of this year:

The imperative to grab the fleeting attention of an international audience certainly seems to have influenced the presentation of the evidence. In the videos and photos that appeared that evening, most analysts and observers agree that there were some signs that the bodies and gas canisters had been moved or tampered with after the event for maximum impact. The Syrian media activists who’d arrived at the apartment block with the dead people weren’t the first to arrive on the scene; they’d heard about the deaths from White Helmet workers and doctors at the hospital.

The relationship between the OPCW and the Syrian opposition can be traced back to 2013. That was when the OPCW was given the responsibility of eliminating Syria’s declared arsenal of chemical weapons; this task was largely completed by 2014. However, the Syrian opposition began making persistent allegations of chemical weapon attacks by the Syrian government in which chlorine, a substance not covered by Syria’s obligation to be disarmed of chemical weapons, was used. In response, the OPCW established the Fact Finding Mission (FFM) in 2014 “to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic.”

The priority of effort for the FFM early on was to investigate allegations of the use of chlorine as a weapon. Since, according to its May 2014 summary, “all reported incidents took place at locations that the Syrian Government considers to be outside its effective control,” the FFM determined that the success of its mission was contingent upon “identification of key actors, such as local authorities and/or representatives of armed opposition groups in charge of the territories in which these locations are situated; the establishment of contacts with these groups in an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence that allows the mandate and objectives of the FFM to be communicated.”

So from its very inception, the FFM had to rely on the anti-Assad opposition and its supporters for nearly everything. The document that governed the conduct of the FFM’s work in Syria was premised on the fact that the mission would be dependent in part upon “opposition representatives” to coordinate, along with the United Nations, the “security, logistical and operational aspects of the OPCW FFM,” including liaising “for the purposes of making available persons for interviews.”

One could sense the bias resulting from such an arrangement when, acting on information provided to it by the opposition regarding an “alleged attack with chlorine” on the towns of Kafr Zeyta and Al-Lataminah, the FFM changed its original plans to investigate an alleged chlorine attack on the town of Harasta. This decision, the FFM reported, “was welcomed by the opposition.” When the FFM attempted to inspect Kafr Zeyta, however, it was attacked by opposition forces, with one of its vehicles destroyed by a roadside bomb, one inspector wounded, and several inspectors detained by opposition fighters.

The inability to go to Kafr Zeyta precluded the group from “presenting definitive conclusions,” according to the report. But that did not stop the FFM from saying that the information given to them from these opposition sources, “including treating physicians with whom the FFM was able to establish contact,” and public domain material, “lends credence to the view that toxic chemicals, most likely pulmonary irritating agents such as chlorine, have been used in a systematic manner in a number of attacks” against Kafr Zeyta.

So the conclusion/non-conclusion was based not on any onsite investigation, but rather videos produced by the opposition and subsequently released via social media and interviews also likely set up by opposition groups (White Helmets, SAMS, etc.), which we know, according to their own documents, served as the key liaisons for the FFM on the ground.

All of this is worrisome. It is unclear at this point how many Syrian chemical attacks have been truly confirmed since the start of the war. In February of this year, the Global Policy Institute released a report saying there were 336 such reports, but they were broken down into “confirmed,” “credibly substantiated,” and “comprehensively confirmed.” Out of the total, 111 were given the rigorous “comprehensively confirmed” tag, which, according to the group, meant the incidents were “were investigated and confirmed by competent international bodies or backed up by at least three highly reliable independent sources of evidence.”

They do not go into further detail about those bodies and sources, but are sure to thank the White Helmets and their “implementing partner” Mayday Rescue and Violations Documentation Center, among other groups, as “friends and partners” in the study. So it becomes clear, looking at the Kafr Zeytan inspection and beyond, that the same opposition sources that are informing the now-dubious OPCW reports are also delivering data and “assistance” to outside groups reaching international audiences, too.

The role of the OPCW in sustaining the claims made by the obviously biased Syrian opposition sources cannot be understated—by confirming the allegations of chemical weapons use in Douma, the OPCW lent credibility to claims that otherwise should not—and indeed would not—have been granted, and in doing so violated the very operating procedures that had been put in place by the OPCW to protect the credibility of the organization and its findings.

There is an old prosecutorial rule—one lie, all lies—that comes into play in this case. With the leaked internal report out there, suggesting that the sources in the Douma investigation were agenda-driven and dishonest, all information ever provided to the OPCW by the White Helmets, SAMS, and other Syrian opposition groups must now, in my mind, be viewed as tainted and therefore unusable.

*

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.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Featured image is from Mikhail Semenov /Shutterstock

The tenth international meeting on security has just concluded in the Russian the city of Ufa. The forum has been under-reported, but it represents one of the few global examples of multilateral meetings between high-level representatives of countries that are in conflict. Hundreds of representatives from as many as 120 countries attended the meeting over three days to discuss humanitarian crises, hybrid warfare, terrorist threats and ways to recover from armed conflict.

President Putin’s opening speech was read aloud by Russian Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev, which explained the forum’s agenda and objectives, namely, to create a positive atmosphere that should succeed in reducing various areas of tension between countries around the globe.

“I expect your communication to be substantial and fruitful, and will help achieve our common goal of creating a reliable, flexible, indivisible and equal for all security system at the regional and global level. US exit from arms reduction treaties undermines global security. This forum has fully proved to be in demand and effective, ensuring a dialogue on countering global challenges. The meeting’s agenda addresses problems requiring joint solutions and collective action, overcoming the consequences of armed conflict and humanitarian problems, as well as ensuring information security.”

The most important news of the day coming from Ufa was revealed by Tass:

“A high-ranking official from the US National Security Council will take part in an international meeting of high security representatives at Ufa on June 18-20, Deputy Secretary of the Russian Security Council Alexander Venediktov said in an interview with the Rossiyskaya Gazeta daily on Sunday.”

This disclosure is particularly relevant as the US has not sent any representatives to attend the international security meeting in the last four years. This is an event where leading figures can meet and discuss ways of overcoming disagreements in spite of any current difficulties that may exist between countries, such as between Iran and the US.

The Ufa forum has drawn little attention from the international press and has even been little reported on in the host country, with only Tass putting out a couple of reports on the gathering. The lack of media exposure is probably intentional, with the lack of a media spotlight allowing for diplomacy to calmly do its work without any unnecessary distractions.

The world is at a critical historical juncture, with potential or already volatile situations present on the Korean peninsula, in Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Ukraine, the Arctic, the Persian Gulf, and the Baltic, Black and South China Seas. Other volatile situations can be found in the cyber and information-warfare domains, as well as in the competition in space.

With so many potential flashpoints, a conference to address these dangers is most welcome. The fact that 120 countries have the opportunity to talk and think about possible ways for de-escalation is a rare opportunity that should not be left to go to waste.

Given current global events, the most significant attendees in Ufa are a senior US National Security Council member and the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), Ali Shamkhani. As of now, the only official news comes from Ali Shamkhani’s words concerning the possibility of mediation with the US and the possibility of Iran acquiring weapons systems to fend off US threats. Shamkhani stated:

“We currently face demonstrative threats. Nevertheless, when it comes to air defense of our country, we consider using the foreign potential in addition to our domestic capacities… Mediation is out of question in the current situation. The United States has unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA, it has flouted its obligations and it has introduced illegal sanctions against Iran. The United States should return to the starting point and correct its own mistakes. This process needs no mediation,”

“This [gradually boosting of uranium enrichment and heavy water production beyond the levels outlined in the JCPOA] is a serious decision of the Islamic Republic [of Iran] and we will continue doing it step by step until JCPOA violators move toward agreement and return to fulfilling their obligations. [If JCPOA participants do not comply with the deal, Iran will be reducing its commitments] step by step within legal mechanisms that the JCPOA envisions.”

He also accused the US of “exercising pressure on the Islamic Republic through claims that Iran was behind the attack on oil tankers attack in the Gulf of Oman”. Speaking about the possibility of a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, he reiterated that “Iran will protect its borders and repel any encroachment”. The official also stated that “Iran and the United States will not come to war as there is no reason for this war to happen”.

Ali Shamkhani also held an important meeting with his Armenian counterpart to reaffirm how strategic trust and cooperation between Tehran and Yerevan is fundamental to the region, resisting external pressure from third parties. Currently Iran needs all the possible international support it can get in light of tensions with the US. The Ufa forum seems to be the perfect place for Iran to make this happen. The meeting between Ali Shamkhani and his Afghan counterpart, Hamdullah Mohib, seems to reflect this, being another example of how Iran is seeking more political allies.

Afghanistan is a central player in Eurasian integration, and Russia, India, China and Iran are all too keenly aware of the devastation wrought by the American occupation of the country.

The situation in Afghanistan seems to have improved recently, with regional powers increasingly acting independently of Washington’s desire to plunge the country into a perpetual state of chaos and underdevelopment. In fact, the next regional meeting on Afghanistan is set to be held in Tehran, with the participation of all five countries bordering Afghanistan, namely, Iran, Russia, China, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. Notably, Shamkhani asked neighboring countries to interact with the opposition in Afghanistan in order to draw them to the negotiating table, thereby limiting the influence of external actors in the country.

The meeting between Mohib and Shamkhani also served to reiterate how strategic cooperation between all relevant parties is fundamental to sustaining progress, peace and development in an area that is fundamental to Eurasian integration.

Ali Shamkhani also released some statements directed at Trump and the current state of Iran-US relations, stating that

“[Donald Trump’s America] is the most warmongering country in its history… If a wide range of countries decide to stand up to the illegal US blackmail and bullying, we can make the US retreat and adopt a rational and responsible behavior in the international system.”

Speaking of the US’s weaponization of the banking system and international finance, Shamkhani stated:

“No title other than economic terrorism suits this US behavior.”

He urged countries to create multilateral mechanisms to break US dominance on the global monetary system. He also pointed out that the US withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was a blow against the role of diplomacy and dialogue in solving security challenges. However, most countries, he added, were appreciative of Iran’s “wise” behavior in giving diplomacy a chance and were dragging their feet with regard to US pressure to suspend the nuclear deal.

Shamkhani’s words testify to the level of dissatisfaction and annoyance that Iran feels, being treated as it is so aggressively by Washington following years of negotiation to finally agree on the nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

Guo Shengkun, a Senior Chinese security official who attended the conference, underlined the importance of countries increasing dialogue and cooperation to avoid unnecessary conflicts and trade wars, a pointed reference to Washington’s actions in its trade war against the People’s Republic of China.

His Russian counterpart was even more direct, highlighting Washington’s fear of full-scale Eurasian integration led by China and Russia. Sergey Naryshkin, Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, stated:

“The US uses methods of hybrid war trying to hamper Russian cooperation, particularly with China. We are witnessing that. Moreover, there is no need to make any effort to see it, it is all happening before our very eyes.”

He also commented on how Washington exploits the US dollar as the global reserve currency for economic warfare.

“It seems bewildering that the US continues to be the holder of the main reserve currency while behaving so aggressively and unpredictably. The monopoly position of the dollar in international economic relations has become anachronistic. Gradually, the dollar is becoming toxic.”

The political climate in Ufa seems very serene and inclined to favour dialogue and collaboration, showing how the Eurasian giants China, Russia and Iran are working together with enormous efforts to pacify the region and beyond. The statement of the Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergey Naryshkin, about new US sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) reveal the profound cooperation between Moscow and Tehran in various fields including terrorism.

“It’s no secret that over the past several years sanctions have become a favored method of the US policy. What is especially alarming is that the restrictions are introduced absolutely arbitrarily, spontaneously and impulsively. Their initiators do not take into account not only the long-term consequences but also the opinion of the closest economic partners… [Regarding US sanctions against the IRGC] The IRGC has made a huge contribution to the fight against ISIL in Syria and Iraq.”

The Ufa meeting is not attracting any particular attention from the mainstream press (no mention of it has been made in the major Western news outlets). While it has been given some coverage by the Russian and Chinese media, most coverage has been given by Iranian media. This is an aspect worth considering given the current geopolitical environment. Moscow and Beijing have no intention of increasing the tension between Washington and other countries. Keeping a low media profile is a way of helping the Ufa forum act in a way that eases global tensions.

A war against Iran is a red line for virtually all forum participants. The fact that the US is represented at the forum at a time of elevated tensions with Iran, especially after having not attended for the previous four years, is a good signal from the Trump administration that it is willing to open dialogue with Iran despite the risk of continued provocations or intentional accidents between the two countries.

The explicit and direct words used by the Russian, Chinese and Iranian representatives suggest a complete coordination on essential issues like terrorism, especially when it is used by the US as a tool against geopolitical opponents around the world, whether it be on Russia’s southern border, in Syria, or in the Chinese province of Xinjiang. Terrorism used as tool of imperialism is something that Ufa places at the center of current global problems, trying to limit its impact and effectiveness.

Iran and Russia’s energy ministers met in the Iranian city of Isfahan on Tuesday to continue discussions about an oil-for-goods program in which the proceeds from the sale of Iranian oil would be used to pay for Russian agricultural equipment and products.

The Ufa forum shows the combined power of Russia and China in a multipolar global order. Beijing and Moscow seem to be the only two global superpowers able to mediate and gather countries around a table in spite of increasing tensions.

Putin and Xi Jinping’s ability to de-escalate global tensions in such low-key forum as the one in Ufa (now in its tenth edition) is the only hope we have for avoiding or defusing conflicts and trade wars that may be erupt around the world.

*

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

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Standing back a little and surveying the events of the last couple of weeks, gives a bleak view of the current state of western democracy.

We have seen what appears to be the most unconvincing of false flags in the Gulf. I pointed out why it was improbable Iran would attack these particular ships. Since then we have had American military sources pointing to video evidence of a packed small Iranian boat allegedly removing a limpet mine from the ship the Iranians helped to rescue, which was somehow supposed to prove it was the Iranians who planted the alleged device. We also have had the Japanese owner specifically contradict the American account and say that the ship was hit by flying objects.

The Iranians certainly have a strange method of bomb disposal if they carry it out using unarmoured personnel, with as many as possible crammed into a small boat in immediate contact with the “mine”. It is also hard to understand why the alleged “limpet mines” would be four feet above the waterline.

Limpet mines are placed below the waterline. There are numerous reasons for this. Firstly, holes above the waterline will not sink a ship. Secondly, the weight of the water helps contain the blast against the ship. Thirdly, it is obviously harder to detect both the diver placing the mine and the mine once placed if it is below the water. In fact it would be very difficult for a diver to place a limpet mine four feet above the waterline, even if they wanted to.

There seems to be a remarkable disconnect between the widespread popular disdain at yet another fake western power casus belli in the Middle East, and the near universal complicity of the UK political and media class in promoting this transparent lie. It is as though even pretending to have any respect for truth and fact has simply been discarded within the UK’s governmental system. Which ought to worry us a lot.

The second development ought to have been the biggest media story of the decade in the UK, if we had anything like a free and honest media. Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State, made plain the Trump administration’s intent to prevent the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. Pompeo told a meeting of Jewish leaders:

It could be that Mr. Corbyn manages to run the gantlet and get elected. It’s possible. You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back.

This blatant interference by a foreign power in the UK’s democracy is an absolute scandal. Compare the lack of media outrage at Pompeo’s intervention with the ludicrous claims made about much less high profile Russian attempts at influence. This incident provides incontrovertible proof that the world does indeed operate in the way that I have been explaining here for a decade. It is not a “conspiracy theory” that democracy is manipulated by hidden powers, it is fact. Pompeo’s description of Corbyn’s route to election as “running the gauntlet” is particularly revealing. Even more so is the cursory coverage this story was given, and I have seen no evidence to date of any MSM “journalist” attempting any follow-up investigation on the methods the US are planning to employ – or more likely already employing – against Corbyn.

Everybody should be incandescent at this, no matter who they vote for.

Something else which revealed the truth of the way the political world now operates, and which again did not get nearly the media attention it deserves, was Matt Kennard’s stunning revelation of the way the Guardian has been taken over by the security services. I have been explaining for years that the Guardian has become the security services’ news outlet of choice, and it is very helpful to have documentation to prove it.

It is worth noting that the Guardian obeyed completely the DSMA committee ban on mentioning Pablo Miller in reporting the security service fantasy version of the Skripal story. As Kennard points out, it is also very interesting indeed that the Guardian published Luke Harding’s front page fabrication of Manafort/Assange meetings two weeks after MOD Director Dominic Wilson congratulated Guardian deputy editor Paul Johnson on “re-establishing links” with the security services. The Guardian is, like other British newspapers, as controlled by the military and security services just like in any other decent autocracy.

Incidentally, I cannot find Matt Kennard’s excellent work set out anywhere, except in that twitter stream. Surely there is an article on a website somewhere? I cannot find anything on Google, but as it is exactly the kind of information Google routinely suppresses, that does not mean it is not out there. Anyone seen it?

Finally, we have of course seen Sajid Javid sign the extradition warrant for Julian Assange to be sent to the United States for the “crime” of publishing truthful information about US government illegalities. Julian’s extradition hearing was, contrary to normal practice, held despite the fact he was too sick to attend in person. And it was presided over by Judge Arbuthnot, despite the fact that her husband is a former Tory defence minister who started a “security consultancy” in partnership with a former head of MI6, the war criminal John Scarlett who oversaw the fabrication of the dossier of lies about Iraqi WMD, in order to launch an illegal war of aggression that killed and maimed millions. The Assange team had asked her to recuse herself on that pretty obvious basis, but she had refused. At an earlier hearing she taunted Assange with the observation that he could get adequate exercise in the Embassy on a 1.5 meter Juliet balcony.

Just as the Guardian has never apologised for, nor withdrawn, the utter lie of the Assange/Manafort story, so the identity politics promoting, false “left” has never apologised for its pursuit of Assange over sexual allegations in Sweden, which were obvious on the slightest scrutiny to be only a fit-up designed to get him into custody. Those figures like David Allen Green, Joan Smith and David Aaronovitch, among scores of other pustulous hacks, who mocked and scorned those of us who always said that Assange faced not extradition to Sweden but to the United States for publishing, have been shown up as, at the very best, stupid naive and unwitting tools of the state, and more likely, insincere and vicious propagandists.

This brief review of current issues reveal that not only do western governments lie and fake, they have really given up on trying to pretend that they do not. The abuse of power is naked and the propaganda is revealed by the lightest effort to brush away the veneer of democracy.

I find it hard to believe that I live in times where Assange suffers as he does for telling the truth, where a dedicated anti-racist like Corbyn is subjected to daily false accusations of racism and to US and security service backed efforts to thwart his democratic prospects, where the most laughable false flag is paraded to move us towards war with Iran, and where there is no semblance of a genuinely independent media. But, starkly, that is where we are. This is not unrelated to the massive and fast growing inequality of wealth; the erosion of freedom is the necessary precondition that allows the ultra-wealthy to loot the rest of us. It remains my hope there will eventually come a public reaction against the political classes as strong as the situation demands.

*

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.

Even though there is a tremendous amount of evidence to the contrary, the Federal Reserve continues to insist that the U.S. economy is in good shape.  On Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell told the nation that “the economy has performed relatively well” in 2019 and he insisted that “the baseline outlook is a good one.”  Of course he didn’t say anything about our collapsing manufacturing numbers, the worst global trade numbers since the last recession or the “bloodbath” in the U.S. trucking industry.  Powell did concede that “the risk of less favorable outcomes has risen”, but other than vague statements like that he really didn’t acknowledge our growing economic problems at all.  Considering the fact that Powell has more power over the U.S. economy than anyone else in the entire country, this should deeply concern all of us.  To me, Powell’s performance on Wednesday was quite reminiscent of the moment in 2008 when Fed Chair Ben Bernanke told us that the Federal Reserve was not “currently forecasting a recession” after a recession had already begun.

As I have been documenting for weeks, evidence that another major economic downturn has already started can be clearly seen all around us.

For example, we got some very alarming news from the steel industry on Wednesday.  When the Trump administration slapped a 25 percent tariff on steel imports last year, that was supposed to greatly help the U.S. steel industry.  But instead, a dramatic drop in demand due to this new economic downturn is forcing steel companies to take dramatic measures.  According to CNN, U.S. Steel just announced that it will be shutting down a blast furnace in Gary, Indiana and another one that is located just outside of Detroit…

Pain has returned to the US steel industry despite the tariffs put on imported steel last year that were designed to help.

Late Tuesday US Steel announced it will idle two of the blast furnaces where it makes steel, one in its flagship mill in Gary, Indiana, near Chicago, the other in Ecorse, Michigan, near Detroit. The idled furnaces will cut production by about 200,000 tons of steel or more a month, the company said.

“We will resume blast furnace production at one or both idled blast furnaces when market conditions improve,” said the company.

But when will market conditions improve?

In 2020?

After this new economic downturn is over?

Never?

Of course U.S. Steel is not the only steel producer that is hurting right now.  In fact, Nucor and Steel Dynamics have both cut profit forecasts…

US Steel’s action follows similar warnings Monday from Nucor, the nation’s largest steelmaker, and Steel Dynamics. Both are now forecasting lower profits. Nucor pointed to weaker demand from the US auto industry.

Sadly, the truth is that major industry after major industry is deeply suffering at this moment…

• Our ongoing “retail apocalypse” is absolutely brutalizing the retail industry, and we are on pace to have the worst year for store closings in our entire history.
• Auto industry sales have been absolutely abysmal, and auto loan delinquencies have shot up to alarmingly high levels.
• The agriculture industry is going to have the worst year it has seen in at least several decades.
• Our 800 billion dollar trucking industry is already in the midst of a “bloodbath”.
• The real estate industry is poised for the worst downturn that we have seen since the subprime mortgage meltdown during the last financial crisis.
• The manufacturing industry has not seen numbers this bad since the last recession, and things are rapidly getting worse.

But yeah, let’s tell the American people that the economy is “booming” and see if they will buy it.

Really?

Let’s get real.  The U.S. economy is mired in the worst slump in a decade, and economic conditions continue to deteriorate rapidly.  The Federal Reserve could have given us a short-term boost by cutting interest rates on Wednesday, but they decided not to do that…

A divided Federal Reserve held the line on interest rates Wednesday and indicated formally that no cuts are coming in 2019. The decision came amid divisions over what is ahead and still leaves open the possibility that policy loosening could happen before the end of the year depending on how conditions unfold.

The central bank predicts one or two rate cuts in its set of economic predictions, but not until 2020. Despite cautious wording in the post-meeting statement Wednesday, markets are still betting the Fed cuts, as soon as July.

Perhaps they want to save their very limited ammunition for when the recession officially starts, and I can understand that.

But this latest move by the Fed is definitely not going to please President Trump, and it will likely prompt more speculation that Trump would like to demote Powell…

The action sets up a possible confrontation between Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and President Donald Trump, who has been pressuring the Fed to cut rates. Just Tuesday, Trump said “let’s see what he does” at the Fed meeting when asked if he still wants to demote Powell.

At the post-statement news conference, Powell was asked about his future as chairman. “I think the law is clear that I have a four year term, and I fully intend to serve it,” he said.

Trump needs the U.S. economy to be as strong as possible as he heads into an election year.

The stronger the U.S. economy is, the more likely it is that he will be re-elected.

And actually the Federal Reserve may be doing Trump a favor by trying to perpetuate the myth that everything is just fine.  Because if the Fed had cut rates on Wednesday, it would have essentially been an admission that a new recession is on our doorstep.  As John P. Hussman has aptly pointed out, almost every initial rate cut in history “has been associated with an oncoming or ongoing recession”…

With the exception of 1967 and 1996, every initial Fed rate cut has been associated with an oncoming or ongoing recession. Be careful what you wish for.

So for now, the Fed seems to have adopted a “fake it until you make it” approach, and sometimes that can work.

Unfortunately, I don’t think it is going to work this time.  And meanwhile millions upon millions of Americans have been lulled into a false sense of security, and they are not getting prepared for the exceedingly hard times that are coming.

One of my readers recently left a comment in which he stated that what we are facing “is not a drill”, and I believe that he is quite correct.

We haven’t seen economic conditions anything like this since the last recession, and the outlook is getting worse with each passing day.

*

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

Michael Snyder is a nationally-syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including Get Prepared Now, The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters.

Featured image is from Moneycontrol

The ruling “Georgian Dream” party of the former Soviet Republic of Georgia is at risk of falling in the face of an ever-escalating Color Revolution that was preplanned to coincide with the symbolic visit of a Russian parliamentarian during the ongoing Inter-Parliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy meeting in the South Caucasian country’s capital, possibly giving way to an American nightmare afterwards if this regime change plot succeeds and ends up forcing Russia on the defensive on yet another former Soviet front.

The Republic of Georgia is in the throes of an ever-escalating Color Revolution that abruptly broke out in response to the symbolic visit of a Russian parliamentarian during the ongoing Inter-Parliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy (IAO) meeting in the South Caucasian country’s capital. The ruling “Georgian Dream” party is under fire for allowing IAO chairman and Duma deputy Sergei Gavrilov from the Russian Communist Party to address the gathering in his native language from the Georgian parliamentarian chairman’s seat, with the opposition regarding this as a provocative affront to their state’s sovereignty given the absence of formal relations between the two countries since Russia’s 2008 peace-enforcement mission. Furthermore, rumors abounded that Gavrilov had supported the Abkhaz separatists in the 1990s, though the foreign official denied the accusations and instead insisted that “Russia and Georgia are united by fraternal Orthodox ties”.

His trip to Georgia was supposed to have been an apolitical event aimed at achieving Orthodox-facilitated reconciliation between these two neighboring countries, with it having been entirely predictable that he’d address the assembly in this year’s host state seeing as how protocol naturally calls for the chairman to do so. Nevertheless, because the scheduled event and Gavrilov’s role in it obviously weren’t a secret, this allowed the opposition to prepare for carrying out a preplanned provocation designed to topple the ruling “Georgian Dream” party for its pragmatic stance towards Russia after the previous attempt during last summer’s so-called “Rave Revolution” failed (even if it did serve in hindsight as a probing attempt to discern the security services’ vulnerabilities). Accordingly, some opposition members stormed out of the meeting when Gavrilov stepped up to the podium and then proceeded to call on their compatriots to stage a massive protest outside of parliament in response.

The resultant Color Revolution attempt turned downtown Tbilisi into a war zone after the riot police were forced to respond with tear gas and rubber bullets following the opposition’s attack against parliament. The country is now bracing for a second wave of unrest this weekend as the anti-government rioters demand the resignation of several top officials, which if successful would basically amount to regime change against the ruling “Georgian Dream” party. Prime Minister Mamuka Bakhtadze attempted to mitigate the public’s anger by describing events as a “fair protest” that was triggered by the “huge mistake” of letting Gavrilov address the assembly from the Georgian parliamentarian chairman’s seat but blamed “destructive forces” for hijacking the demonstrations. French-born President Salome Zurabishvili, who ran as an Independent but in an alliance with the “Georgian Dream” party, sensed her coalition partner’s weakness and pounced by accusing a Russian “fifth column” of being behind the unrest, implying that some in the state might have been involved in a conspiracy.

Chaos theory teaches that the outcome of complex processes is disproportionately dependent on the initial conditions, so bearing in mind that Color Revolutions are essentially the weaponization of this concept, it’s possible to make some predictions about the direction that the latest events are headed. It’s obvious that this was a preplanned provocation that exploited preexisting tensions and was timed to coincide with the “trigger event” of Gavrilov making his IAO speech from the Georgian parliamentarian chairman’s seat. The opposition’s walk-out stunt and subsequent rabble-rousing fanned the flames of ultra-nationalist sentiment that were quickly corralled in the direction of parliament and against the ruling party, succeeding in causing a split between the Independent President and her ruling “Georgian Dream” coalition partners. If the targeted authorities don’t resign, then the demonstrations will probably increase in fervor, probably culminating in more violence and/or a constitutional crisis if the President seeks to dismiss some officials against their will.

In terms of the larger picture, the latest unrest serves American grand strategic interests by forcing Russia to react to yet another crisis on its periphery, thereby tightening the “containment” noose that it’s set up in recent years throughout a slew of former Soviet Republics and forcing it on the defensive on yet another front. Furthermore, the possible loss of pragmatic partners in Georgia could further deteriorate Russia’s relations with the country, especially if a new ultra-nationalist government tries to expedite the state’s entry into NATO in spite of the unresolved status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (which should technically make Georgia ineligible for membership). Even in the “best-case” scenario that the “Georgian Dream” doesn’t immediately give way to an American nightmare, it’s probable that the US and its EU partners might sanction the country under the pretext of supposed “unprovoked violence against peaceful protesters”, which could worsen the situation and eventually pave the way for yet another Color Revolution attempt in the coming future.

*

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

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 Reuters/Irakli Gedenidze

Syria and Russia have been evacuating civilians from yet another region starved by its Western-backed terrorists. But Western corporate media ignore this and instead continue spinning nightmarish war propaganda on Syria.

The International Movement for a Just World (JUST) and the Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF) share Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s skepticism about  Russia’s alleged culpability in the shooting down of MH17 on the 17^th of July 2014. The Dutch-led joint investigation team (JIT) has not produced any solid evidence to show that the four suspects it has named are guilty of the crime. Dr.Mahathir is right when he argues that from the very beginning there was a political script in place to put the blame upon Russia.

A number of independent investigators, apart from organisations such as JUST, PGPF and Global Research, had raised fundamental questions about the investigation since 2014. They had asked how the investigation could be credible when Ukraine was in the team because it was alleged that Ukraine was complicit in the attack on MH17. To make it worse, the four initial members of the JIT, namely, Australia, Belgium, Netherlands and Ukraine  — Malaysia was deliberately excluded in the early stage of the investigation — came to an agreement on 8 August 2014 that the results of the investigation can only be announced if they have the consent of all four parties. Making unanimity among the four a condition in effect gave Ukraine an effective veto over the decision-making process.

We are also aware that throughout the investigation attempts to obtain independent verifiable data have not been successful. These include certified copies of communications between Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the flight crew on board the ill-fated airline and the Comma Separated Variable (CSV) file from the plane’s flight data recorder. This lack of transparency had created serious doubts about the integrity of the investigation. It is alleged that as a result of the biased investigation high quality items of evidence available were not subjected to thorough analysis and evaluation.

There is perhaps an even bigger problem with the investigation. The JIT has not tried to link the tragedy with larger geopolitical concerns. The critical question of who benefitted from the massacre in the skies has not been accorded any attention. And yet it is obvious that the massacre was manipulated to not only demonize Russian President Vladimir Putin and thwart Russia’s military and political re-assertion but also to intensify sanctions against Russia with the support of the United States’ European allies. These allies such as Germany, France, Netherlands and Italy were somewhat reluctant to endorse the US drive to widen and deepen sanctions against Russia in the initial phase but after the July 17^th massacre of innocent travellers the European mood changed dramatically.

The failure of the JIT to address these and other important issues pertaining to the actual investigation and its geopolitical dimensions undermines its credibility. Arresting and charging individuals on the back such a lopsided investigation does not do justice to the families of the victims of the terrible tragedy. It does not guarantee closure.

In the name of the families of the victims and in the name of truth and justice, JUST and PGPF demand that a more honest and comprehensive investigation be carried out perhaps by a truly independent international panel.

Let us not sacrifice truth and justice at the altar of power and geopolitical machinations.

*

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. Chandra Muzaffar, President, International  Movement for a Just World (JUST)

Tan Sri Norian Mai, Chairman, Perdana  Global Peace Foundation (PGPF)        

Read part I, II, III and IV from the links below.

Part I – On Global Capitalist Crises: Systemic Changes and Challenges

Part II – On Global Capitalist Crises. Debt Defaults, Bankruptcies and Real Economy Decline

Part III – On Global Capitalist Crises: US Neocons and Trump’s Economic and Social Agenda

Part IV – On Global Capitalist Crises: The Destruction and Cooptation of the Trade Union Movement

In this part is a brief comment on how US financial imperialism works in Venezuela, just as German-Northern Europe financial imperialism works in the southern Europe periphery of the Eurozone (e.g. Greece, Italy, etc.).

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Your article Financial Imperialism: The case of Venezuela dated last March caught my attention, as all your work that I advise our readership to read. You wrote: “Venezuela today is a classic case how US imperialism in the 21st century employs financial measures to crush a state and country that dares to break away from the US global economic empire and pursue an independent course outside the US empire’s web of entangling economic and financial relations.” In your opinion, how can Venezuela resist the US-led imperialist war against it?

Jack Rasmus: It’s important to understand how in 21st century capitalism, where the US is clearly the hegemonic power, how the US expands, maintains, and intervenes to maintain its economic empire. If 21st century global capitalism is increasingly a financial capitalism, and depends increasingly more on financial means to expand, then its imperialism is more financial than ever before.

Unfortunately, the ‘left’ and progressives, even Marxists, are looking in the rear view mirror at imperialism.They still see it in the prism of 19th century, or early 20th century, in its forms. One of my projects is to analyze and explain how financial measures are used by US to maintain its economic empire. It is quite different from classical British imperialism, which collapsed fully after world war II and was replaced by the American empire.

In my article, ‘Financial Imperialism: The Case of Venezuela’ I explained how some of these financial measures work, and continue to work, to destabilize Venezuela’s economy and set it up for violent political change, either from within or without via invasion of some kind that is organized and managed by the US.

My 2016 book, ‘Looting Greece: A New Financial Imperialism Emerges’, looked at how it works in the Eurozone as well, with Greece a microcosm case example that has implications elsewhere. Financial Imperialism works as well within the advanced capitalist economies, where the periphery (like southern Europe) is financially exploited by the northern Europe bankers and their political elites in the European Central Bank, European Commission, etc. Trade zones and currency unions (like the Eurozone) function in this way.

What can Venezuela do to resist the US-led imperialist war against it is your question. First, it is essential for Venezuela to organize, mobilize and arm its base of popular support. This I think it has been doing. But I’m not sure it has a strategy how to use that mobilized base against its opponents, internal and external. It’s been mostly a defensive action, not going on the offensive. But I may be wrong there, since I have no way of knowing what it may be doing internally in that regard.

Second, the Maduro regime must retain support of the Venezuelan military.So far it appears it is succeeding in that regard. The recent attempted uprising by the US-puppet, Gaido, failed miserably in its attempt to co-opt and ‘turn’ the military against the government.

Third, its important that popular forces find a way to throw out Bolsonaro in Brazil and Macri in Argentina.Those two US-assisted governments would probably send the military forces should a military invasion occur in Venezuela. The US will use the OAS (note: Organization of American States)and their militaries as proxies. But if they’re out of the picture or preoccupied with serious problems at home, its unlikely they could be used.The people of Brazil and Argentina can thus play a role here as well. State allies of Venezuela could help significantly as well by trade and loans to help Venezuela. And by purchasing its oil and restoring its refinery production to offset US sabotage and sanctions. Notably here are China, Russia, Cuba and other South American countries not already the clients of Washington like Brazil, Argentina, and perhaps now Ecuador.

Finally, within the US progressive forces can work more aggressively and coordinate better their efforts to reveal to American people what’s really going on in Venezuela, how the US neocons are intensifying the attack in preparation for invasion, what’s really behind the problems in the country’s economy, etc. There needs to be something similar to the Latin American defense movement that arose in the 1970s after the Chilean coup engineered by the US and the defense of central American progressive forces in the 1980s.

Another ‘target’ of intensifying US financial imperialism is, of course, Iran. Here you can see the strategy and program how it is implemented from the beginning.

*

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.

Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has described the decision to charge three Russians and one Ukranian with murder over flight MH17 as a political plot against Russia.

“We are very unhappy. From the very beginning, it became a political issue on how to accuse Russia of the wrongdoing.

“Even before they examined the case, they have already claimed it (the shooting down of MH17) was done by Russia,” said Dr Mahathir to reporters at the Prime Minister’s Department Hari Raya celebration event here.

Dr Mahathir said Malaysia is not convinced with the findings and demands that the investigators provide proof that the Russians were behind the shooting.

Click here to watch the video

 

“This is a ridiculous thing. Someone shoots a gun and you are not able to see who, but you know who shot,” said Dr Mahathir.

When asked if Malaysia’s stance was because it had a stake with Russia, who are the buyers of its palm oil, Dr Mahathir said no.

“No, no. That is different,” he said.

International investigators charged four people with murder over the 2014 shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 above rebel-held eastern Ukraine in which 298 people were killed.

The four were Russian nationals Igor Girkin, Sergey Dubinskiy and Oleg Pulatov, and Ukrainian Leonid Kharchenko.

*

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.