Global Research

In statements to the press on Wednesday afternoon, the Cuban Foreign Ministry’s Deputy Director for the United States, Johana Tablada, reiterated that “Cuba does not participate with military troops or personnel in military operations in Venezuela”

***

“There are no Cuban troops in Venezuela. There are no security forces from Cuba in Venezuela. Cuba does not participate with military troops or personnel in military operations in Venezuela. These falsehoods constitute an affront to the people of Cuba, the government of Cuba, the people of Venezuela, and the international community, sovereign states and the U.S. people who deserve to know the truth,” reiterated the Cuban Foreign Ministry’s Deputy Director for the United States, Johana Tablada, in statements offered to the press this Wednesday, May 1.

Tablada stressed that in recent weeks the Cuban government has denounced a series of accusations, falsehoods and slander regarding the nature of the cooperative relationship between Cuba and Venezuela, headed by “a pathological liar, former ambassador John Bolton, who has a long history of conflicts with the truth,” and today is National Security Advisor to the U.S. government.

She recalled that Bolton lied about the existence of chemical weapons in Iraq, and of biological weapons in Cuba in 2002, lies that cost him his appointment as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, following a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, which led to his own party voting against him and recommending that he be prevented from returning to public office at such a high level.

The Cuban diplomat emphasized that the escalation in accusations in recent days is intended to conceal the failure of the sustained U.S. policy of aggression against Venezuela, and the frustration after the second coup attempt against the legitimate government of Nicolás Maduro was also defeated. “The objective is to shroud the real support that exists in Venezuela for the government and the Bolivarian Revolution, and the lack of support for the self-proclaimed or supposed leaders chosen by the United States.”

Tablada explained that the intention is to find the most convenient pretext to impose and justify new measures of aggression against the Cuban people, on claiming that the island has 20,000 soldiers posted in Venezuela and is interfering in its internal affairs, “something that even the U.S. government knows is untrue.”

She noted that as part of this same policy of hostility, the U.S. President threatened the island with the proclamation of a “full and complete embargo,” if its troops were not withdrawn from Venezuela.

“We can’t withdraw something that does not exist from Venezuela. This is a disrespectful statement that conceals the cruel nature of the scope of these measures against our people.”

Johana Tablada highlighted that such recent announcements appear to overlook the fact that for 60 years the people of Cuba have suffered the most wide-ranging, complex and absurd system of unilateral sanctions and coercive measures in history, and that “Bolton is delirious when he says that the whole world supports the sanctions.”

“This decision will be met by our country, by our people, by our government, as always: we will denounce it, but we will resist. The people of Cuba will resist and triumph,” she concluded.

*

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

Featured image is Johana Tablada from Twitter

The death toll from the ongoing war in Yemen will reach a staggering 233,000 if it continues until the end of 2019, a new report from the United Nations said.

According to the UN report, of the 233,000 estimated deaths in Yemen, 102,000 will be combat-related and the remaining 131,000 due to malnutrition, cholera, and other diseases.

In another shocking statistic, the U.N. report said that 140,000 children will have been killed since the start of the conflict in March of 2015.

The report said that by the end of the year, one child will death will be reported every 11 minutes and 54 seconds.

These totals are only expected to increase substantially in the next three years, as the U.N. estimates the death toll will reach nearly 500,000 by 2022.

Unlike the war in Syria, the conflict in Yemen is rarely discussed in the international media.

Despite the fact that the Yemeni War is now the most violent conflict in the Middle East region, it still receives less coverage than other conflicts.

*

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

Featured image is from Al-Masdar News

Amid the ruckus of Great Britain’s reckless Brexit saga, one might not have noticed the ongoing environmental battle that could put a sudden end to shale gas development in the UK. While Britain’s energy security does not have any direct links to Brexit – its hydrocarbon production went into decline in 2000 and has been falling ever since, although the mid-2010s evidenced a stabilization of output – the UK High Court decision over the nation’s shale gas projects might deal a painful blow to the little hope British producers had to kick-start something new. All 9 basins of the Greater North Sea are mature and it is only until 2025-2027 that the current output rebound can last, after that Britain’s oil output will plunge Venezuela-style unless additional measures are taken.

There is no scientific consensus on how much shale gas can be recovered across the United Kingdom. We might use the British Geological Survey’s 2013 report as a point of reference, which states that across central Britain (Bowland-Hodder shales) the aggregate shale gas reserves are somewhere within the 164-264-447 TCf interval (P90-P50-P10). Even if it were true, due to the rather difficult lithography of central Britain the actual recoverable volume would be substantially smaller. The USGS has put the total recoverable gas resources in the Midlands area of England at 8.3 TCf. The Weald Basin in southern Britain and Northern Ireland also has shale gas resources, but they are in a less advanced stage of development than shale finds in Lancashire or Nottinghamshire.

Partially motivated by the emotional drain of Brexit and the necessity to present itself as an employment creating party, the Conservative Party (seemingly) made great headway last year in advancing the cause of developing UK shale gas resources and creating the regulative norms required for it. It has promoted a package of reforms that ought to kick-start shale projects across the country by removing needless administrative obstacles and easing operations. For instance, the new set of rules stipulated that no planning permissions would be needed for shale plays as long as fracking is not involved, and classified shale projects as “nationally significant”, meaning that decisions on shale applications were moved away from the local and regional level.

The Conservative minority government also created a new shale-devoted entity, the Shale Environmental Regulator Group (SERG), to create a dedicated authority that would act as a uniting platform and appointed a first-ever commissioner for shale gas matters. Yet unlike most gas producers around the globe (perhaps only excepting continental Europe) shale operators in the United Kingdom have to face a very committed and highly organized opponent, environmental activists. Opponents of shale gas drilling, staging one protest after another and causing disruptions at the sites, led Ineos and Cuadrilla to secure legal protection at their shale sites – the Preston Crown Court even jailed several anti-shale activists for blocking access in late 2018.

Lacking the competence to ban fracking altogether, Local councils in the UK also started to craft new creative ways on how to nip the government’s shale push in its bud – for instance, the mayor of Greater Manchester introduced a so-called “presumption” with regard to new shale gas developments, effectively meaning that the default position of the local council would be to ban new projects in view of Greater Manchester’s grand target of becoming carbon neutral. As Greater Manchester hosts 10 exploration licenses, this is no small feat. Other local councils have taken similar steps to restrict fracking – even the city of London made the case for a “climate emergency” as the mayor Sadiq Khan pushed for a blanket shale gas ban.

The Scottish government, availing itself of the freedom it has on the matter, has prolonged indefinitely its shale moratorium until an already agreed-upon permanent ban is placed in vigor. Similarly, the Welsh government held public consultations throughout last year and thereupon decided to freeze all license issuing procedures for shale oil and gas, regardless of whether fracking is used or not. To a certain extent, the reaction of the populace across Britain is fully understandable – the several shale gas development sites currently in action are considered a cautionary tale of what is to come unless the public does something about it. Cuadrilla, the only company currently fracking in the UK at its Preston New Road site near Blackpool in Lancashire, has had a series of 0.5 magnitude tremors in early December 2018 and was forced to halt it for a longer period after causing a 1.5 magnitude mini-earthquake mid-December.

All this runs counter to the research shale proponents put forward, stipulating that fracking’s impact would be like dropping a melon – in fact the more advanced the stage of the fracking, the more powerful were the earthquakes. Cuadrilla is reportedly looking to drill a second horizontal well at the same site, however, it remains to be seen how expedient would it be under current circumstances. All the more so as the UK’s shale gas commissioner, MP Natascha Engel, resigned last week from her position after a mere 6 months of work. Yet perhaps the biggest obstacle of any further shale gas advances in the United Kingdom would be its own High Court, which has ruled this March that the government’s amendments of the National Planning Policy Framework to speed up shale projects was unlawful.

Here we return to an oft-repeated mistake – the UK High Court has found that the government’s disregard for an environmental study (the “Mobbs Report”) presented by the anti-shale group Talk Fracking was undeniable and that the government indeed underestimated the extent of shale gas emissions arising from fracking, at the same time overestimating Britain’s shale potential. This opens up the possibility for other anti-shale and anti-fracking groups to question the government’s shale policy by means of judicial review. All in all, with a frustrated government, constrained companies and a very organized array of environmental groups, the United Kingdom is just a couple of steps away from giving up on its shale gas altogether.

*

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

Viktor Katona is an Group Physical Trader at MOL Group and Expert at the Russian International Affairs Council, currently based in Budapest.

In South Africa, public debt has recently been back in the news through a nationwide debate over the future of Eskom, the public electricity company. Major power cuts affected the country’s social and economic life in February 2019, drawing attention to this company.

The poorest sector of the South African population does not have easy access to electricity. In the townships, many residents set up makeshift electricity connections. Others manage to get a connection going again after Eskom employees have cut them off for not paying their bills. Meanwhile, over 40 % of power is consumed by only 30 big companies, mainly in the mining and metallurgy sectors. (See the Energy Intensive User Group of Southern Africa (EIUG) memorandum, who are lobbying in favour of privatization.

Map of Eskom power stations (Source : www.eskom.co.za)

Most of South Africa’s electricity is produced from coal, which is obviously very bad for the environment and public health. Two enormous new coal-fired power stations are under construction, one in Medupi and one in Kusile. This represents an enormous financial cost. The Japanese transnational company, Hitachi, responsible for the construction, is respecting neither the calendar nor the initial cost estimate. At the same time, they go in for large-scale bribery and corruption to keep the lucrative contract.

The World Bank granted a loan of 3.7 billion dollars to finance the construction of the Medupi plant. And the China Development Bank lent 2.5 billion dollars for the Kusile plant as well as 1.5 billion dollars for Medupi. Eskom will owe a total debt of over 33 billion dollars. That is colossal. The government has just made a new international loan to refinance the Eskom debt as it is on the brink of defaulting. The ANC government decided to break the company up into three parts thus laying the ground for partial or total privatization. The right wing would like to see rapid privatization. Social movements, including the unions, want the electricity production kept under public control and Eskom’s debts, identified as illegitimate, cancelled. Numerous movements, including AIDC and its partners, are demanding an end to coal-fired and nuclear power production along with the implementation of a vast programme of energy transition that would generate decent jobs and be better for the environment.

Regarding nuclear power, ex-president Jacob Zuma had mooted a project to develop South Africa’s nuclear power installations which fortunately caused such a hue and cry that it was dropped. / As well as Koeberg nuclear power plant, situated 30 km north of Cape Town and built during the Apartheid era with help from the French government and French companies, Zuma planned to build six to eight new reactors with a total capacity of 9 600 MW. To acquire these new reactors would have cost in the region of 1000 billion rand (about 70 billion euros), which would have meant a massive increase in South Africa’s public debt. Russia, France, South Korea and the United States put pressure on the ANC government to place orders. In the end, the project of adding to the present nuclear installations was put aside. [1]

The future of Eskom triggered a huge national debate. You can see a very interesting two-hour television debate broadcast by SABC on 24 March 2019. Irvin Jim, who heads NUMSA and the new Socialist Revolutionary Workers’ Party, took part as did Patrick Bond. Bond questioned the debt contracted by Eskom with the World Bank (see his article for more details about Eskom). Makoma Lekalakala, the leader of the environmental movement Earthlife Africa, emphasized the need for an energy transition phase to leave behind coal and nuclear power. Various proposals clearly show that hundreds of thousands, even a million jobs could be created as a result of an ambitious energy transition.

In the CADTM’s view, the public debt contracted by a government that has chosen to pursue electricity production using coal and/or nuclear power, is illegitimate. Such a debt is also odious because it was contracted against the interests of the population of South Africa. It was also contracted against the interests of the population of the entire planet. The lenders know full well that the money that they place at the disposal of Eskom is used to build coal-fired plants. Furthermore, they collude in the corruption that reigns around all the big Eskom contracts.

The government is well aware of the harm caused by continuing to produce electricity from coal. An expert report on Eskom’s coal plants shows that over a period of 21 months (April 2016 to December 2017), there were 3 200 cases when the limits were exceeded for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). In his report of 15 November 2018 Ranajit (Ron) Sahu, an independent consultant, writes:

“I have reviewed hardcopy monthly monitoring reports from 17 Eskom coal and gas power stations over a 21 month study period (April 2016 through December 2017). Based on my review, and after excluding the gas plants due to incomplete data, I have determined that the coal fired power stations reported nearly 3,200 exceedances of applicable daily Atmospheric Emissions Licenses (AEL) limits for particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx).”(See “Eskom Power Station Exceedances of Applicable Atmospheric Emission License(AEL) Limit Values for PM, SO2 & NOx During April 2016 to December 2017” and this).

According to a study carried out by Eskom itself, the pollution produced by 13 of its coal-fired power stations causes 333 premature deaths a year, representing a cost to public health of over a billion euros a year. (“Emissions from 13 of Eskom’s 15 coal-fired power stations cause 333 premature deaths per year at a health cost of R17.6 billion.”).

Moreover, the contracts that are financed with loans from the World Bank or other banks or lenders who buy sovereign South African securities are marked by obvious illegal acts: corruption, extra billing, non-respect of specifications, etc. are observed.

Conclusion:

It is high time that repaying a public debt generated by fossil or nuclear power production should be questioned. The struggle to have this odious debt cancelled should be combined with one to instigate a vast programme creating jobs that are favourable to the energy transition. Power production can be decentralized by placing it entirely in the public domain and by using sustainable non fossil sources such as solar energy.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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: 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.

Note

[1] Despite the exorbitant costs, the safety and environmental hazards, and all the problems to be overcome to obtain nuclear technology, at a time when many countries are opting out, in Africa nuclear power is still attractive to governments and capitalists. Countries like Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Niger, Nigeria and Sudan have made known their intentions to manage to produce nuclear energy. « In 2015, Egypt officially announced that Russia was building its first 1 000 MW nuclear power station in El-Dabaa, in the Libyan desert for 4 billion dollars and that it would be operational by 2025, while the Russian company Rosatom is building another nuclear power station in Nigeria.» Source: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/is-africa-ready-for-nuclear-energy

April 25: Foreign Minister Arreaza Describes Excruciating Suffering of the Venezuelan People Resulting From US Sanctions; 

April 26: US Violates its Obligation as  UN Host Country and Sanctions the Foreign Minister for Speaking Truth to Power

“We are not only on the wrong side, we are the wrong side.”   Pentagon Papers Expert Daniel Elllsberg

“American sanctions are deliberately aiming to wreck Venezuela’s economy and thereby lead to regime change.  It’s a fruitless, heartless, illegal, and failed policy, causing grave harm to the Venezuelan people.”  Professor Jeffrey Sachs

US Maneuvers at the United Nations

The entire official schedule of meetings of the United Nations Commission on Disarmament – April 8 through April 29 – was forced to cancel because the United States, in violation of its obligations as host country, refused a visa to important Russian delegates.

On April 25, Venezuela’s brilliant, charismatic Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza (left) detailed, in a United Nations press briefing, the horrific suffering the Venezuelan people are enduring as a result of the dictatorship of US sanctions against his country, and US terrorization of each and every global institution and nation which the US is demanding sever all economic and diplomatic ties with Venezuela.

In a stealthy, deadly march to global dictatorship, and consistent with its attempt to subjugate the United Nations to the interests of US oligarchic power, the United States is abusing its membership in the United Nations, attempting to force regime change on Venezuela, using criminal methods in violation of the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter of the Organization of American States, the Venezuelan Constitution, and in violation of U.S. law itself.

The U.S. maneuvers to destroy the Maduro government’s UN accreditation, and replace it with their puppet Guaido are horrifying and Machiavellian, and, quite realistically, since the US has absolutely no scruples, nor any respect for international law, there is an ominous possibility that they may succeed.  Numerous diplomats of many countries, with whom I have spoken, are terrified by the sanctions the US just placed on the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, recognizing the threat to their own sovereignty, and sophisticated Iranian specialists delineated the dangerous possibilities the US has to use this method to force out the Venezuelan delegation to the UN, and de facto denude the Maduro government’s access to the UN.  If the US succeeds in this criminal scheme, the credibility of the UN will be entirely and irreparably destroyed, as the many diplomats with whom I have spoken have confirmed.  Many delegates are now saying that the UN would be better based in another more reliable and respectful country.  Venezuela is Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement, an organization of 120 member states. For the US to sanction her Foreign Minister is an unconscionable and intolerable abuse of the host country status.

The US has, furthermore, forged another mafia-style organization of flunkey Latin American “governments” which give every indication of becoming  a new Operation Condor, that systematically organized engine of murder arranged by Augusto Pinochet and Henry Kissinger, (image left) an international organized criminal plan to exterminate all progressive and humanitarian efforts throughout Latin America and beyond.

Operation Condor orchestrated the slaughter of Chilean former Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier in Sheridan Circle, Washington, DC in 1976. Letelier bled to death after a car bomb arranged by Anti-Castro Cuban terrorists tore off his legs. An American girl working for the Institute of Policy Studies, Ronni Moffett was also killed in that terrorist action.  In Argentina, Chilean General Carlos Prats was murdered when his Buenos Aires home was bombed;  in Rome, Chilean Senator Bernardo Leighton’s wife was crippled by an assassin’s bullet intended for him;  Operation Condor arranged the murder of former progressive Bolivian President Torres in Argentina.

Diabolic Methods Used by the US to Wreck Venezuela

In a colossal report entitled:  “Economic Sanctions as Collective Punishment:  The Case of Venezuela,” and corroborating everything stated by Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza, economist Jeffrey Sachs and Mark Weisbrot describe the diabolic methods used by the United States to wreck Venezuela and discredit socialism, resulting in the deliberate murder of at least 40,000 Venezuelan people, including children, the elderly, the infirm and other of the most vulnerable civilians. This is a systematic and deliberate policy of the US government, a heinous plan to exterminate socialism and massacre the Venezuelan people in order to steal their oil, a spectacular act of piracy brazenly conducted with the collusion of obedient puppets in Western Europe and Canada, and craven, obsequious Latin American states whose shameful obedience to Washington is breathtaking.

Complete Blockade

Washington is now threatening to completely blockade and sanction Cuba to force that country to sever relations with Venezuela. Nicaragua is, of course, also in the crosshairs.

Yesterday there was a failed coup, provoked by the Quisling Juan Guaido, (image right with Lopez) who incited a military revolt to violently overthrow the democratically elected government of Nicholas Maduro.  If Joseph Biden or Bernie Sanders, or any American citizen advocated the violent overthrow of the US government, they would be imprisoned and/or executed.  It is astounding that the Manchurian candidate Juan Guaido, advocating the violent overthrow of the Venezuelan government, is allowed to roam free, throughout Venezuela.  This is incontestable proof of the impeccably democratic character of the Maduro government. And perhaps it is proof of Maduro’s strength and trust in the Venezuelan people.  But Maduro’s life is at risk for his country. During yesterday’s emergency, Venezuelan Ambassador Samuel Moncada convened a UN press conference, and skillfully replied to often slanted and biased questions  for which Moncada was well prepared, and had no doubt anticipated.

The US government is disintegrating, and has been for many years, with the current administration rife with internecine warfare.  The French government is confronting an incipient popular revolution of the Yellow Jackets, the British government stymied by Brexit and separatist movements threatening the survival of the “United Kingdom.”  It is only with the most flagrant arrogance that they criticize Venezuela.

It is agonizing to witness the mass murder of a heroic and progressive Venezuelan people, by a psychopathic capitalism which has not one iota of human decency, and wallowing in its cannibalistic behavior, desecrates the very concept of human rights.  But that is the essence of monopoly capitalism, whose “highest” stage is fascism. One can only hope that Russia and China will recognize the future menace to their own survival, and will not indulge in the wishful thinking of a “win-win” arrangement with Washington. One can only hope that the crucible of Venezuela will prove to be the Stalingrad of this de facto World War III, and it will be on the battlefield of Venezuela, with its transgenerational legacy of Simon Bolivar, that fascism is defeated, and the future progressive destiny of humanity will be forged.

*

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

Carla Stea is Global Research’s correspondent at United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y.

“We are complicit in crimes against humanity when we know about them and when we don’t stop them.” — Jacob Appelbaum

The unilaterally issued economic sanctions that the US leveled against Venezuela in 2017 and this year violate international laws the charters of the UN and the Organization of American States, according to a recently published report.

The 25-page report authored by Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs cites articles in the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) that prohibit sanctions.  Specifically, Article 19 states in part,

“No State or group or group of states has the right to intervene…for any reason whatsoever in the internal or exterior affairs of another state.”

Article 20 declares,

“No State may use… coercive measures of an economic or political character… to force the sovereign will of another State and obtain from it advantages of any kind.”

The authors conclude that the Trump administration’s sanctions against Venezuela “clearly violate both of these articles of the OAS Charter.”  Additionally, the report notes that legal scholars denounce the sanctions as violations of international law, specifically, the UN Charter and international human rights law (Weisbrot and Sachs 2019).

The August 2017 sanctions that the Trump regime initiated atop a debilitating recession had devastating effects on Venezuela’s most vulnerable: children, elderly, chronically sick and poverty ridden as Venezuelan oil production plummeted 42 percent during 2017 and 2018 amid harsh international banking restrictions created on orders from the US.  This directly impacted the imports of food, medicines and equipment that supports the electricity grid, water systems and public transportation.  The US Treasury Department in action tantamount to throwing gasoline on a raging fire issued a warning to international financing sources that collapsed Venezuelan banking institutions and evaporated credit sources   These demonstrably illegal actions by the US directly hinder the availability of life-saving goods for civilian Venezuelans (Weisbrot and Sachs 2019).

Beginning on January 28, 2019 Trump issued a barrage of executive orders.  Not the least of these was the Trump administration and its cabal of lapdog-courtier nations bringing forth Juan Guaidó, a political unknown in Venezuela where only about 19 percent of the population had ever heard of the 35-year-old, self-proclaimed “Interim President.”  Guaidó’s so-called parallel government along with other “sanctions resulting from further statements, threats or actions from the executive branch of the United States” must be included in the US outrages to crush the ability of a sovereign government to purchase essential imports (Weisbrot and Sachs 2019).

The ramification of the US sanctions is the “collective punishment” of the most vulnerable of Venezuela’s population.  An estimated 40,000 deaths have occurred subsequent the sanctions during 2017 and 2018, according to the National Survey on Living Conditions that was administered by three Venezuelan universities.  More than 300,000 were at risk during this period because of the unavailability of needed life-saving medicines that treat chronic disease.  The increased sanctions during 2019 will increase the risk of what amounts to death sentences for the chronically sick in Venezuela (Weisbrot and Sachs 2019).

Displaying in full the sadistic, mercenary and criminal nature of the Trump administration, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on March 11 gloated during an exchange with Associated Press reporter Mike Lee, “The circle is tightening; the humanitarian crisis is increasing….  You can see the increasing pain and suffering that the Venezuelan people are suffering from.”  In January Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton blurted,

“We’re in conversation with major American companies now….  It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela” (Weisbrot and Sachs 2019).

Under the lie of humanitarian assistance, the US began its crippling sanctions that are designed to disrupt and collapse the Venezuelan economy specifically and its society in general.  The Trump administration unilaterally issued by executive order broad economic sanctions on the South American nation.  But Venezuela had been in the US crosshairs since Bill Clinton’s administration when President Hugo Chávez elected president in December 1998.  Chávez, who was Nicolás Maduro’s predecessor and mentor, served as Venezuela’s president between February 2, 1999 and his death from cancer on March 5, 2013 (Weisbrot and Sachs 2019).

The US policymakers’ hatred of Hugo Chávez and his successor Nicolás Maduro stem from the policies of these two Venezuelan leaders that turned the tide of poverty and failed social programs during the “Lost Years” of the 1980s under regimes supported by the US.  By 1998 most Venezuelans, disillusioned with the volatile neoliberal agenda of right-wing President Carlos Andrés Pérez, sought radical change in their government.  Chávez was elected Venezuela’s president with 56 percent of the popular vote that consisted largely of dark-skinned, urban poor.  Chávez continued to enjoy popularity in the face of a failed US-backed coup d’état, an economy-destroying oil strike, a recall election and a withering propaganda campaign of the white oligarchy-controlled media that historian Greg Grandin quipped “made Fox News look like PBS.”  Mismanagement of the decades-long US-backed regimes opened the door for Chavismo, that combines elements of socialism, left-wing populism, feminism and Bolivarian nationalism.  By 2004, Chávez controlled Venezuela’s oil as he delivered an ambitious program to improve social conditions for the poor.  Chávez embarked on an audacious program to weaken US hegemony in Latin America with “poly-polar equilibrium.”  During his period as president, Chávez survived 15 national votes that former US President Jimmy Carter called the “best in the world” (Beezy 2008; Grandin 2013).

Of course, Chávez’s brash and audacious humor rankled US neoconservatives to further hone their blades when in September 2006, he stood at the floor of the UN General Assembly in New York City and informed the diplomats assembled there that President George W. Bush was Beelzebub.

“Yesterday, the devil came here,” he said.  “Right here… And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of.”

Then he made the sign of the cross, kissed his hand and winked at the audience (Grandin 2013).

Since the George W. Bush cadre of neoconservatives adopted the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) recipe for US global hegemony through manufactured public consent for the Iraq invasion in 2003, the government and its stooges in the corporate media recite the same rhetoric and protocol.  In every instance when the empire decides to bring “democracy” at the barrel of a gun to exploit weaker nations’ natural resources it follows the same scheme: (1) It declares the democratically elected leader is a dictator who is starving his people, while it issues illegal threats of regime change; (2) the US empire manipulates the world price of various commodities and access to international lending institutions to weaken the subject country’s economy; (3) the empire issues bribes, blackmails or threatens leaders of other nations to invoke a trade embargo that further collapses the economy; (4) the US and its allies seize assets of the targeted nation; (5) the CIA forms paramilitary forces to disrupt the targeted nation internally by creating false-flag operations and sabotage; (6) the CIA attempts to initiate a coup d’état within the targeted country’s military in the hope that the hardship created by propaganda and sanctions will cause a popular uprising.  Venezuela is a textbook example of these illegal and immoral processes are presently in motion in that beleaguered nation.

Since the dawn of the new millennium, the US has been involved in at least nine wars: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, the Indian Ocean, Libya, Uganda, Syria and Yemen.  Currently, the Trump administration, through Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton, is making overt threats of the use of force to topple the Nicolás Maduro government in Venezuela, a violation of the US Constitution, UN charter and international laws.  Special envoy to Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, who backed death squads in Central America during the Reagan administration, is now Trump’s point man in the US efforts to topple the Maduro 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.

Edward B. Winslow is a freelance writer in Illinois. Email: [email protected]

Sources

Beezy, Naomi Rose. 2008. Income Distribution in Venezuela Post Hugo Chávez. Pomona: California Polytechnic University, 77. Accessed May 1, 2019. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1276244.

Grandin, Greg. 2013. “Chávez: Why Venezuelans Love Him.” Nation 296 (13): 11-17.

Weisbrot, Mark, and Jeffrey Sachs. 2019. Economic Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela.Washington: Center for Economic and Policy Research, 25. Accessed 30 April, 2019.http://cepr.net/publications/reports/economic-sanctions-as-collective-punishment-the-case-of-venezuela.

Featured image is from Washington Times

Call for a United Nations Independent and Impartial Investigation

We, the mothers, fathers, siblings, relatives and friends of the victims of the 2 May 2014 violence in Odessa, as well as Odessa residents supporting a return to the rule of law, and our call for justice, are turning our hopes to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to appoint a group of experts to undertake an independent, impartial, objective and credible investigation into the tragedy that led to the death of at least 48 residents, and possibly more.

2 May 2014: Violence in Odessa

On 2 May 2014, supporters of the Kiev’s authorities represented by various extremist organizations that supported the violent change of Government, and supporters of federalization that would enable Ukraine to maintain its integrity, came into conflict with each other in the streets of Odessa. These actions resulted in the deaths and injuries of many people. Six men died in the city’s center: two were Government supporters four were “pro-federalism” supporters. Later in the day, an aggressive mob went to Kulikovo square. First of all the attackers burned the camp of federalization activists in the square. In the course of these activities people have been attacked and severely beaten with baseball bats, iron chains and even shot with firearm. The camp was set on fire; as a result people took refuge in the building of Trade Unions House. Dozens of people were trapped. But even after the fire in the Trade Unions House the attackers continued beating to death people gathered in the building. Fleeing from the fire, some people jumped from the windows of the second and third floor. After they felt to the ground, some were beaten to death. Other besieged people sought refuge on the roof of the building, from where they were rescued later on. Some died from suffocation or burned alive.

According to Ukrainian media, 48 people were killed: 6 in street clashes and 42 at the Kulikovo Field area. Two of the victims were pro-government demonstrators. The 46 others were supporters of federalization.

Surviving victims were seriously injured and a part of them were taken to hospitals. Some died there of their injuries, one of them died just six months ago. Others were removed from hospitals by their relatives out of fear that they would be killed.

Unfortunately, it is not known how many persons really died and disappeared, except the available official information, namely – 48 people were killed in clashes.

These violent actions were unprecedented in the recent history of Odessa. What happened shocked and horrified the entire city, which had traditionally been haven for people of different nationalities, religions and languages.

All this occurred under the eyes of the police, which did not intervene, on the ground that it had “no orders”. The fire brigade, located nearby, was called repeatedly for assistance, but took 45 minutes to come.

Some of these events, including the violence in the Kulikovo square were partially monitored by the OHCHR monitoring mission in Ukraine.

In a number of cases, the police eventually provided protection some of the victims but surprisingly took them into custody. Some of those arrested were released the next day, under pressure from Odessa residents who protested against their detention. About 60 “pro-federalism” supporters arrested in the center of the city were taken away from Odessa and detained in other cities. Five people arrested at the time are under arrest in prison and 15 others are under house arrest. All 20 are “pro-federalism” supporters. They were all charged for “mass disorder” (Penal code, Section 294) instead of being individually charged of specific offenses. All indictments are identical, as if they had been cut and pasted from the same model.  None of the “pro-government” supporters responsible for the organization and implementation of the murders has been punished. All perpetrators are free (three were initially arrested, but two of them were released, and the third died in detention from TB). One of them is undergoing investigation for murder, but is free and regularly participates in public events.

Investigations into the 2 May Violence

The official investigations have thus far been inconclusive; there is little evidence against on trial; numerous legal and procedural violations have been observed; the court buildings in Odessa have been repeatedly invaded by extremist militants who have threatened judges, defense lawyers and families of the defendants, and have sometimes assaulted them; they have interrupted judicial proceedings and in several cases forced judges to recuse themselves; and many documents were fabricated.

Two years, the victims of the 2 May 2014 Odessa violence are still waiting for truth and justice. Five separate official investigations were ordered by the authorities (General Prosecutor; Ministry of Interior; Parliamentary Commission; Ombudsperson; as well as police department in Odessa). None has brought about any tangible result. No one has been punished for any of the deaths, injuries and possible disappearances. Even the social activists of the “2 May group”, which claims to have carried out an independent investigation, and whose conclusions are questionable, expressed serious reservations about the willingness of the authorities to effectively investigate these tragic events. They recently stated that the investigation was clearly being sabotaged at the highest level in the Ministry of Interior. The Council of Europe also conducted an assessment of the investigation effort but concluded that the authorities were not determined, nor able, to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths and injuries. The Council of Mothers agrees with the conclusions of the Council of Europe, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, arbitrary or summary executions, and the UN Assistant Secretary General for human rights, about “the lack of progress in the investigations and proceedings into the killings that happened [in Maidan], on 2 May 2014 in Odessa and 9 May 2014 in Mariupol. The slow progress in these cases undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is essential that they be addressed promptly and with impartiality.”We also agree with the Council of Europe’s and the United Nations envoys that it is impossible to heal the deep wounds left by these tragic events under current political conditions. As the Council of Europe concluded in its assessment of the investigations of the Maidan violence “An important part of any such healing process is the conduct of an effective and independent investigation into the acts of violence. As has been widely acknowledged, there has been a clear lack of public confidence in Ukraine in any such investigations. On the contrary, there has been widespread perception of impunity on the part of law-enforcement agencies and of an unwillingness or inability on the part of the investigatory authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths and injuries. As is noted in the report, this perception has been highlighted on previous occasions by various Council of Europe bodies”. The report further notes “impunity must be fought as a matter of justice for the victims, as a deterrent to prevent new violations, and to uphold the rule of law and public trust in the justice system.” Unfortunately, the Council of Europe has reached very similar conclusions in its assessment of the investigations into the 2 May violence in Odessa. Two years later, no one has been brought to justice for the crimes committed, and there is no indication that anyone will.

Appeal of the Council of Mothers

As citizens of Ukraine, we believe that justice should be delivered to the people of Ukraine by the Ukrainian authorities.

However, in view of the lack of progress in any of the official investigations, and no indication that they will ever result in truth and justice, we are left with no other opportunity than turning to the United Nations as an independent and credible authority to effectively investigate these crimes, and bring perpetrators to justice. We hope that an investigation by the United Nations may encourage renewed effort by the Ukrainian authorities to deliver to the victims and their families a long-awaited and promised justice – which was one of the key demands of Maidan – and encourage them to effectively investigate and punish the real culprits (the organizers and perpetrators) of this tragedy.

*

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

A detailed plan from “UNITED STATES SOUTHERN COMMAND” dated “23 FEBRUARY 2018” was issued with the title “PLAN TO OVERTHROW THE VENEZUELAN DICTATORSHIP ‘MASTERSTROKE’” and is here presented complete. 

This document was personally signed by Admiral Kurt W. Tidd, who was the Commander (the chief), at SOUTHCOM, and he was thus the top U.S. military official handling Venezuela. But this was far more than just a military plan. It was comprehensive — directing military, diplomatic, and propaganda, policies — regarding the Trump Administration’s planned “Overthrow” of Venezuela’s Government. His plan has since guided the Administration’s entire operation, including “the capacities of the psychological war,” regarding Venezuela.

It instructed SOUTHCOM:

“Encouraging popular dissatisfaction by increasing scarcity and rise in price of the foodstuffs, medicines and other essential goods for the inhabitants. Making more harrowing and painful the scarcities of the main basic merchandises.” …

“intensifying the undercapitalization of the country, the leaking out of foreign currency and the deterioration of its monetary base, bringing about the application of new inflationary measures.” …

“Fully obstruct imports, and at the same time discouraging potential foreign investors in order to make the situation more critical for the population.” …

“compelling him to fall into mistakes that generate greater distrust and rejection domestically” …

“To besiege him, to ridicule him and to pose him as symbol of awkwardness and incompetence. To expose him as a puppet of Cuba.” …

“Appealing to domestic allies as well as other people inserted from abroad in the national scenario in order to generate protests, riots and insecurity, plunders, thefts, assaults and highjacking of vessels as well as other means of transportation, with the intention of deserting this country in crisis through all borderlands and other possible ways, jeopardizing in such a way the National Security of neighboring frontier nations. Causing victims and holding the Government responsible for them. Magnifying, in front of the world, the humanitarian crisis in which the country has been submitted to.” …

“Structuring a plan to get the profuse desertion of the most qualified professionals from the country, in order ‘to leave it with no professionals at all’, which will aggravate even more the internal situation and along these lines putting the blame on of Government.” …

“the presence of combat units from the United States of America and the other named countries, under the command of a Joint General Staff led by the USA.”

It was posted online at the Voltairenet site, and was first copied to a web archive on 14 May 2018. So, it has been online since at least that date. However, because the photo in it of the document wasn’t made available via software which includes the individual symbols, but presented only the full visual image of the paper document, it still hasn’t yet gone viral on the Web. Here, therefore, is the first appearance, on the Web, of the full document, that’s manually copied, character-by-character, so that each phrase in this document becomes, for the first time, web-searchable, and thereby conveniently available for journalists and historians to quote from. This prophetic document — the source for what has happened afterward in and to Venezuela — might therefore finally receive the public attention that it so clearly merits. 

The document starts with propaganda against Venezuela’s existing Government (and it totally ignores the extent to which the pre-existing U.S. economic sanctions against Venezuela had actually caused these problems), and it then proceeds to present the U.S. plan to overthrow the ‘dictatorship’. (Tidd refers to Maduro only as “the Dictator,” except at the very start and very end. At the end, he commands “the denouncement toward Maduro’s regimen” and he also uses the phrase “the enemy” to refer to him — as if there had been the U.S. Constitutionally required authorization, by the U.S. Congress, of this “war.” The close urges “the dispatch of a UNO military force for the imposition of peace, once Nicolas Maduro’s corrupt dictatorship is defeated.” The U.N. is militarily to “impose” “peace,” after the U.S. and its allies have conquered Venezuela.) 

Although Tidd placed 100% of the blame for Venezuela’s problems upon Maduro, and ignored the crucial extent to which U.S. economic sanctions had caused them, his plan emphasized that the U.S. must actively make things even worse for the Venezuelan public than America’s economic sanctions had yet done. His coup-plan is loaded with such statements, and, in fact, opens with one: “Encouraging popular dissatisfaction by increasing scarcity and rise in price of the foodstuffs, medicines and other essential goods for the inhabitants. Making more harrowing and painful the scarcities of the main basic merchandises.” So: he wasn’t naive. America’s induced suffering upon Venezuelans was part of his plan for Venezuelans, in order to get them to do what the U.S. regime wants them to do — overthrow Maduro. Furthermore, the United States Government has had extensive successes in previous such operations. One example is that this was how Chile’s Salvador Allende was brought down in 1973 (at a time when the U.S. Government’s claims to have done it for ‘national security’ reasons had much more credibility than its current excuse of helping the Venezuelan people does, because the supposedly ideological Cold War was still on). The only excuse that the perpetrators can come up with, this time around, is “to put an end to the Venezuelan nightmare and the awakening of theirs beloved nation at a luminous dawn, in which the vision of fortune, true peace and tranquility predominate for their fellow citizens.” Impoverish the nation, in order to help Venezuelans attain “true peace and tranquility.” That’s the plan.  

Below is the document’s entire text.

*

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

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

All images/documents in this article are from Voltairenet.org

As the son of an agricultural worker in NE Scotland, agricultural areas were always full of wonder and excitement for me. Places of clean, clear rivers where gigantic fish leapt enthusiastically for flies; home to mind boggling mass migrations of flying insects with their natural insect predators greedily in tow; places where light from a bedroom window could quickly attract 100 beautiful green lacewings, each staring implacably in with iridescent eyes to see what can be had.

When I see the barren industrial zones that agricultural areas in the UK and other economically developed nations have now become, my principle feeling is sadness, and some anger. Anger that this decimation can be treated with essentially a shrug of the shoulders by farmers, farm workers, politicians, the agri-industrialists that supply the weapons of destruction, and the general public alike. As a professional ecologist and academic I will explain here how intensive farming, principally through its incredibly abusive relationship with insects, is destroying not only the many beneficial insects such as pollinators that we depend up on but also the many larger, more charismatic animals such as birds and mammals that are visible to the public.

My focus here is on agriculture and insects. Why are insects so important to us and the natural world? The main reason why is that they are extremely abundant and diverse. Research done during the 1980s put the mass of insects in the United States at around 100 kg per hectare; comparable to the environmental abundance of bacteria and fungi. To put that in perspective, you could sum the mass of humans, birds and non-human mammals and it would still only be around 1/15 the mass of insects in the same area.

Figures for species richness are similarly impressive. Excluding fungi, algae and microbes (for which data is often poor) just over half the species on earth are insects and of those around half are plant-eating insects. Vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) by comparison make up a paltry 4% of species. All this has two major implications. The first you will have heard about: insects are important to us humans. In their role as pollinators, decomposers of nature’s waste materials and as natural regulators of pests, insects keep us in food and living in a relatively constant and healthy environment.

The second implication is perhaps less obvious: they are an incredibly important source of food for other animals. Their great species richness means that insects feature at the bottom of almost all food webs; a gigantic pot of food provisioned by mother nature to keep the feathered and furry animals higher up the food web with a full stomach. Mess with the abundance of insects and you are messing with the foundations of life itself. But that is exactly what humans are doing. Insect abundance right across the globe is dropping and it is dropping fast.

We have in fact known that insects are in trouble for some time but the recent publicity surrounding global insect decline appears to have coalesced round a piece of research done by a German team and published in 2017. Sampling flying insects across numerous German conservation sites, the team showed that numbers of flying insects had dropped by an incredible 75% in the 27 years since 1990. An influential review on global insect decline and a flurry of media interest has ensued. To my mind, what is interesting about these recent articles is the explicitness with which they point the finger at intensive agriculture and, in particular, pesticide use. Entomologists (insect scientists) have a well-concealed but very cosy relationship with agriculture and the agrochemical industry in particular. The British Royal Entomological Society, for example, which claims to be an organisation devoted to insect conservation, regularly invites agrochem scientists to its meetings to give presentations. I attended my final meeting of this organisation a few years back at a conference dedicated to insect decline where an agrochem rep gave a presentation that amounted essentially to displaying a catalogue of new insect pest control products his company were offering. So you can bet that if entomologists are pointing the finger at intensive agriculture they are really worried: their default position is to keep their mouth shut.

Agriculture impacts nature so profoundly by virtue of its scale. England, for example, is around 70% agricultural land by area with about half of that area dedicated to growing crops (arable) and the other half pasture for the rearing of animals. England is more or less all agricultural land and natural habitat is restricted to patches here and there. We scoff at countries like Indonesia clearing its forests for palm oil plantations at the expense of orangutans but the truth is that most economically developed nations cleared their natural environment a long, long time ago. By comparison, most economically developing nations have treated their natural environment with kid gloves. All this is to say that, in economically developed nations, if nature declines across agricultural land, it declines everywhere: the nature of agricultural areas is essentially the nature of the nation.

To get back to insects, agriculture leads a three pronged attack on these creatures. First line of attack is direct through spraying of ever more potent insecticides against insect crop pests. Using the UK as an example, the weight of pesticide applied in the UK has in fact halved since 1990, however this statistics is deceptive. The area treated has doubled, as has the number of applications per area. And crucially, the potency of pesticides has increased dramatically, particularly with the introduction of the ultra-potent neonicotinoids in the 1990s (all statistics here). Dave Goulson at the University of Sussex and colleagues calculate that the number of honeybee lethal doses applied to the 4.6 million hectares of arable land in the UK has increase roughly sixfold since 1990. And recall that these pesticides don’t just wipe out the problem insect pests that attack the crop; they kill almost all insects that happen to be living or resting in the crop. In essence, over and over, year after year, farmers kill pretty much every insect across just under half the land area of their nation. Can we reasonably expect to have a healthy insect fauna in nations where this intensity of spraying is so common place?

Second line of attack is herbicide spraying. Again using the UK as an example, the area of arable treated with the most commonly used herbicide, glyphosate (Roundup), has increased roughly 9-fold since 1990 to a staggering 2,634,573 hectares treatment area in 2016. As a boy I remember the surface of cereal fields and fields margins would be awash with a diversity of wild plants, with game birds scurrying among the crops to pick insects from them. Now go down on your knees and look across the surface of a cereal field and there is nothing but sandy soil and crop; a relative desert, and diversity in field margins is now largely restricted to grasses and a small number of dominant wild plants such as cow parsley. Recalling that almost half of all insects depend on wild plants for food, again, there is no way we can expect to have a healthy population of insects and the animals that eat them when almost half the land of nations is treated in this way.

The last line of attack on insects by intensive agriculture is intensification of pasture management. Traditionally, grass pastures were managed non-intensively, with low levels of chemical fertilisation, a low density of grazing animals, and prolonged periods of rest between grazing bouts. All this combined to make grass pasture an important habitat for plant and insect biodiversity with a high diversity of wild plants on which insects could feed. Now grass pasture can be viewed essentially as a high throughput system for the production of meat and milk. Huge quantities of chemical fertilisers are applied with the result that only a small number of dominant plant species can thrive, the length of time in between feeding bouts has been dramatically reduced, and many wet pastures have been drained as part of the intensification process. Now farmer’s pastures support nothing but grass and the large animals that graze on it. Like arable fields, they are a no go area for wild plants, the insects that feed on them, and the larger wild animals that feed on the insects in turn. Bearing in mind that grass pasture covers just under half of economically developed nations like England, this is a terrible blow to insects and nature in general.

So intensive agriculture is decimating insects and nature in general. What have we, the public, gotten in return? In a word: yield. Yield per area of arable and pasture have increased considerably in the last few decades. Proponents of high-intensity agriculture call this phenomenon ‘The Green Revolution’. When I talk to academic supporters of conventional agriculture they are always keen to tell me that this has led to cheaper food and greater food security. This is something of a mantra among such academics: they repeat it over and over again in conservation until they feel they have conveyed the message sufficiently forcefully. But the reality for the average citizen in many nations is far from so simple. Particularly in rapidly developing nations, this increased availability of food has led to a move away from healthy traditional diets to diets higher in fattening animal products and sugar with a resultant increase in obesity an ill health. In the UK no one can deny the ready availability of candy and junk food even to the poorest, but a recent report by the Food Foundation indicates that healthy food, the fruit and vegetables that we should be eating, remain out of reach for as many as 4 million of the UK’s least well off. As for food security, the ability of countries such as the UK to feed itself has been declining for many years. The UK produces roughly 60% of its own food with the rest imported. Food self-sufficiency in many economically developed nations has been subordinated to what is considered to be the more important function of international trade. The result is that any modifications to international trade leads to food insecurity and panic buying. In the UK the prospect of altered trade relations with the EU (Brexit) has lead to widespread fear of food shortages and panic buying. Only the staunchest supporters of intensive agriculture could claim that countries such as the UK are food secure. And with the worldwide rise of right wing zealots in positions of power, who knows what disturbances to international trade and food security lie ahead?

In the UK, the response of the ruling Conservative Party to the issues discussed in this article is a new Agriculture Bill. This promises to incentivise environmental improvements to farmland and if this leads to improved pasture management for nature then it is to be welcomed. However the bill barely mentions pesticide and herbicide spraying, suggesting that these key destroyers of the farmland environment for nature will remain untouched, which, to my mind, makes something of a mockery of the whole thing.

The solution to overuse of pesticide is simple. All crops have a threshold beyond which insect pest damage results in significant economic losses. These thresholds are typically expressed as number of insect pests per plant or head in the case of cereal. It would not take more than a small team of government scientists to produce yearly or dynamic within-year thresholds for the main crops grown in the UK. All that would then remain is for farmers to regularly sample their crop for pests to determine if threshold have been crossed, when spraying would then be allowed. This would, however, require legislation to restrict pesticide availability to farmers and some effort on the part of farmers. Farmers many years ago would regularly be seen among their crops examining plants but this ‘artisan’ aspect of farming in the UK seems to be all but gone. Modern farming appears to require skills in logistics and staff management rather than a knowledge of plant pathology and pest population dynamics. Herbicides could be treated similarly. A few weeds in a field won’t cause much loss and weed thresholds could be similarly applied. But as the current government won’t even mention pesticides and herbicides in their Agriculture Bill, these very reasonable solutions seems a very distant prospect.

Personally, I would like to see a mass mobilisation of citizens in defence of nature and against intensive farming in a way we are beginning to see in response to the problem of global warming. But waving placards in parliament square will achieve nothing regardless of how many people turn up. Our representatives in Westminster, Hollyrood, the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, and in political assemblies all over the world only understand money and economics and only when activists begin to impact ‘the bottom line’ of nations will they sit up and take notice.

*

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

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani signed a bill into law on Tuesday declaring all US forces in the Middle East terrorists and calling the US government a sponsor of terrorism, says Reuters.

The bill was passed by parliament last week in retaliation for President Donald Trump’s decision this month to designate Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards a foreign terrorist organisation.

It was not clear what the impact of the new law might be on US forces or their operations.

Rouhani instructed the ministry of intelligence, ministry of foreign affairs, the armed forces, and Iran’s supreme national security council to implement the law, state media reported.

The law specifically labels as a terrorist organisation the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), which is responsible for US military operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

The United States has already blacklisted dozens of entities and people for affiliations with the Guards, but until Trump’s decision not the organisation as a whole.

Comprising an estimated 125,000-strong military with army, navy and air units, the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) also command the Basij, a religious volunteer paramilitary force, and control Iran’s ballistic missile programmes. The Guards’ overseas Quds forces have fought Iran’s proxy wars in the region.

The long-tense relations between Tehran and Washington took a turn for the worse last May when Trump pulled out of a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers, reached before he took office, and reimposed sanctions.

Revolutionary Guards commanders have repeatedly said that US bases in the Middle East and US aircraft carriers in the Gulf are within range of Iranian missiles.

Rouhani said on Tuesday that Iran will continue to export oil despite US sanctions aimed at reducing the country’s crude shipments to zero.

*

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

Featured image is from Iranian Presidency/Anadolu Agency

Sadly, the uber rich, who seem to run just about everything, must be laughing all the way to their corporate headquarters, banks and brokerage houses. I mean, these sharks have had it so good for so long!

Speaking to an Austrian scientist on the treadmill next to mine at the gym, he summed it all up in a nutshell: “We’ve got 8 or so major political parties and you just always have column A and column B. Some democracy yeah?” Reminds one of the traditional comedy theme of the big fat dictator strutting around while his entire entourage fight with each other to impress him the best.

The Democrats now have 20 such minions running around (and soon to be at each other’s throats) to make ‘brownie points’ with this empire. With maybe with the exception of Ms. Gabbard they ALL seem to be banging the ‘Cold War with Russia’ drum along with their distaste for Venezuela’s elected government. One of them even distinguishes himself by accentuating that he is a socialist… oh sorry a ‘Democratic Socialist’. Some ‘Democratic Socialist’! Remember, he supported the horrific US orchestrated NATO carpet bombing and destruction of Libya in 2011. HIs alibi was that he was supporting the overthrow of their evil dictator (whose people had better health care than we have, and a better standard of living for the average Libyan). Matter of fact, here are a few facts on this:

• Education and medical treatment were free under Ghaddafi
• Newlyweds received U.S $50,000 from the government.
• Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project.
• Libya had no external debt and had reserves of $150 billion most of which were frozen globally by NATO’s instigation

Then, a few years ago, Sanders the ‘Democratic Socialist’ referred to the late Hugo Chavez of Venezuela as ‘A dead dictator’. Yet, during Chavez’s time in office Venezuela had the lowest rate of income inequality than ANY country in Latin America and the Caribbean! Too bad Bernie, because you do make sense on the whole domestic front… to an extent of course.

At least Senator Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard actually talk about real and innovative change, he on domestic issues and she on foreign policy issues. The others, well, they really see the uber rich run Deep State as their wayward cousins and not their enemies. Meaning that they wish to serve and not really overturn this corporate ‘capitalism on steroids’ system.

You know, a little push here and a little push there… but never addressing the mortal sin of people earning mega millions while the working stiffs are a few paychecks from the gutter.

I mean, Senator Warren actually came out with a plan to have those earning $ 50 million a year to pay a 2% Surtax. Really! Boy, that is some way to level the playing field. She actually thinks that her idea is going to address the uber rich (I got this great old bridge in Brooklyn for sale… cheap). Other than their concerns, which are real and viable, for the indigent, the Democrats  talk a good talk about we working stiffs, but have done squat to make our lives easier. Squat! My old schoolmate Senator Schumer has been a big wheel on the Senate Banking Committee for years… and why hasn’t he done anything to lower the interest rates that the predatory credit card companies/banks are getting away with? Ditto for the personal bankruptcy rules that favor (as always) the banks over the people? Of course, God forbid if the corporate bankrupted had to have the same rules applied to their cases!

No, the Democratic lemmings serve their purpose well, and we know the other party gets their marching orders from the slew of uber rich run think tanks and foundations. So, my Austrian gym friend hit the nail on the head. So, let’s address how a true Socialist or even Socialist leaning party should tackle a few key issues:

You want to have the uber rich pay their fair share to help the 99+ % of us? Well, how about, for starters, a 50% Flat Surtax on all income over and above $ 1,000,000 a year, with NO deductions? Thus, instead of being taxed at the current 37%, our uber rich neighbors (even though they hardly allow we serfs to see them up close) would have to see Half of all income over one million dollars going right to the Treasury.

• National Health and Dental Care for ALL – Well, with the savings from the above new plan, we could have a total National Health and Dental plan whereupon we all contribute according to our income. No need for private insurers as Uncle Sam would be the payer for all services. The savings would be phenomenal, and all of us would have better minds, bodies and teeth.
• Cutting the military spending, which is now over 50% of each of our federal taxes. Even a 25% cut would see well over $ 600 billion for use towards the needs for infrastructure, first providers, schools, libraries  and who knows what else.
• Public funding of ALL elections… Period! With one stroke of the pen there would be very few paid lobbyists circling around our legislatures. The only way our elected officials could be influenced would be by ‘under the table’ bribery… a convictable offense. Meanwhile, many of us who now have not a prayer of getting on a ballot would see chances to reach the public with new ideas.

The title of this column is interesting. As with little ants nibbling on crumbs at a picnic, so the current mainstream minions of empire operate. Don’t all of we working stiffs deserve better representation?

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is the 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 Sky News

On May 1, the Turkish-backed coalition of militant groups, the National Front for Liberation, claimed that its members had killed 4 Russian servicemembers with mortar shelling in the village of Braidij in northern Hama.

The reports came amid a new round of escalation in the area caused by the constant militant attacks on positions of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). According to pro-militant sources, Syrian and Russian aircraft carried out at least 50 strikes on militant targets in northern Hama and southern Idlib.

On the same day, government reinforcements reportedly arrived in the area in order to strengthen SAA positions near the so-called demilitarized zone. Pro-government sources immediately started a new round of speculation that this is a sign of an upcoming military operation near Idlib.

On May 2, the Russian Defense Ministry rejected claims about casualties among its servicemembers in northern Hama. Separately, the Russian military revealed that militants from the Idlib de-escalation zone had attempted to attack its Hmeymim airbase with multiple-launch rocket systems and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) 12 times over the past month. 8 of the 12 attacks were carried out with UAVs. Russian forces shot down 12 UAVs. No material damage or casualties were caused.

9 Turkish soldiers were killed and fourteen others injured in a series of attacks in the southern part of Afrin on April 30, the Afrin Liberation Forces (ALF) claimed in a new statement. The Turkish soldiers were supposedly killed when Kurdish fighters destroyed with ATGMs two BMC Kirpi Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles and a 4×4 Turkish military truck in the vicinity of the town of Qatamah. On the same day Kurdish fighters also ambushed a Turkish military unit near the same village. As a result of the ambush, six Turkish soldiers were injured, according to the ALF’s claims.

The Kurdish group’s claims are yet to be confirmed. The Turkish military, which usually announces his losses without any delay, has not commented on these claims so far.

ISIS units killed and captured a number of Syrian service members in two hit and run attacks in the eastern Homs countryside over the last few days. The attacks took place in the areas of Aatchane and Sukhna.

According to pro-government sources, the SAA’s Tiger Forces were recently sent to the Homs countryside in order to deal with the growing ISIS threat. The expected anti-ISIS operation in the desert however makes the possibility of an advance near Idlib questionable.

*

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

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

Retaliation against Julian Assange over the past decade plus replicates a pattern of ruthless political retaliation against whistleblowers, in particular those who reveal truths hidden by illegal secrecy, VIPS says.

***

DATE: April 30, 2019

MEMORANDUM FOR: The governments and people of the United Kingdom and the United States

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Extradition of Julian Assange Threatens Us All

On April 11, London police forcibly removed WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange from the embassy of Ecuador after that country’s president, Lenin Moreno, abruptly revoked his predecessor’s grant of asylum. The United States government immediately requested Assange’s extradition for prosecution under a charge of “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

Former U.S. Government officials promptly appeared in popular media offering soothing assurances that Assange’s arrest threatens neither constitutional rights nor the practice of journalism, and major newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post fell into line.

Not So Fast

Others found reason for concern in the details of the indictment. Carie DeCel, a staff attorney for the Knight First Amendment Institute, noted that the indictment goes beyond simply stating the computer intrusion charge and “includes many more allegations that reach more broadly into typical journalistic practices, including communication with a source, encouraging a source to share information, and protecting a source.”

In an analysis of the indictment’s implications, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) observed that it includes an allegation that “Assange and Manning took measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure…including by removing usernames from the disclosed information and deleting chat logs between Assange and Manning,” and that they “used a special folder on a cloud drop box of WikiLeaks to transmit classified records.”

“These are not only legitimate but professionally advised journalistic practices for source protection,” notes POGO. It is worth noting that Manning had Top Secret clearance and did not need Assange’s assistance to gain access to databases, but only to hide her identity.

The indictment’s implied threat thus reaches beyond Assange and even beyond journalists. The threat to journalists and others does not vanish if they subsequently avoid practices identified in the government’s indictment. The NSA’s big bag of past communications offers abundant material from which to spin an indictment years later, and even circumstantial evidence can produce a conviction. Moreover, the secret landscape—a recent and arbitrary development—continually expands, making ever more of government off limits to public view.

When politician and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo labeled WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service,” he was describing the oft-stated duty of newspapers, “to comfort the afflicted, and to afflict the comfortable.”

The Devil in the Big Picture

One can look so closely at the indictment details that one misses the big picture and with it vital truths. Standing back for a broader view, a long-running campaign of harassment by U.S. authorities and former officials focused on WikiLeaks’ publication of embarrassing secrets becomes visible. The Project on Government Oversight observes:

“Even if the motives for Assange’s indictment are entirely legitimate, the litany of high-ranking government officials who called for Assange to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents have likely already irreparably harmed the freedom of the press. It will be virtually impossible to fully disentangle the government’s desire to prosecute Assange for his publishing activities from the government’s current prosecution of him, and as a result there will to some degree be an unavoidable chilling effect stemming from his prosecution.”

Standing back still further, a crowd of similar cases comes into view: other truth tellers subjected to similar persecution. These are not journalists but another species of truth teller — national security whistleblowers— who have warned for years that this day would come.

A Pattern of Reprisal

Opinions of Julian Assange’s character and methods vary wildly but what is relevant to First Amendment freedoms is how the U.S. government perceives him. The big picture reveals that Assange, a publisher of whistleblower disclosures, is viewed the same way as whistleblowers: unwelcome lights shining on official wrongdoing who must be dimmed, deflected and shut off. What government bodies are doing to Assange they routinely have done to whistleblowers — Thomas Drake, Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou, Thomas Tamm, William Binney, Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning and others—who disclosed for public benefit information the government finds politically troublesome.

Once the government develops animus toward a truth teller, it fishes indefinitely until it finds some means to retaliate—some pretext to punish that individual. A pattern of retaliation against high-profile national security whistleblowers includes the following tactics:

1. relentless campaigns of character assassination and misinformation about facts of the case;

2. hostile, lengthy government investigations, often for minor, never proven or circumstantial offenses;

3. terrorization of the whistleblower and associates with threats (see here and here), solitary confinement and armed home invasions for non-violent, alleged offenses;

4. pre-trial declarations of guilt from influential officials, such as Barack Obama’s declaration (as the military’s Commander-in-Chief) that Army Private Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning “broke the law” — potentially influencing the Army court that heard her case.

5. a Balkanized judicial process that restricts most such cases to onejudicial venue cherry-picked by prosecutors for speedy deference to government, a venue sealed off from public scrutiny and, some say, justice;

6. prosecution under the Espionage Act, a “vague” and “draconian” law, similar in those respects to the CFAA;

7. continuing persecution—isolation, marginalization, blacklisting, and more—after time has been served (see here and here) or after charges are dropped.

Reportedly, British and U.S. intelligence are interrogating Assange, possibly employing torture tactics, without access to legal counsel at a prison reserved for terrorists. U.S. officials apparently charged Assange as “a terrorist” in order to dodge the problem of the statute of limitations for conspiracy or computer intrusion by extending (via the Patriot Act and/or other terrorism laws) the normal statute of limitations from 5 to 8 years.

Not for Insiders

Even if charges against a whistleblower are later dropped, governments still win because the tactics used damage the truth teller professionally, financially, socially and psychologically, and foreseeably chill other whistleblowers.

Importantly, virtually all of the retaliatory actions described above are carried out or instigated by the elite political establishment—current and former political appointees and elected officials. Equally important is the fact that tactics used against whistleblowers are rarely if ever applied to political insiders who fail to protect classified information. Even actual spies who give or sell secrets directly to foreign governments have fared better than some well-meaning whistleblowers. In contrast to whistleblowers, political insiders who mistreat government secrets are publicly praised by the establishment, face lesser charges (if any), are treated with dignity by investigators, receive presidential pardons and move on to prestigious and lucrative positions.

The Takeaway

Retaliation against Julian Assange over the past decade plus replicates a pattern of ruthless political retaliationagainst whistleblowers, in particular those who reveal truths hidden by illegal secrecy. U.S. law prohibits classifying information “in order to conceal inefficiency, violations of law, or administrative error; to prevent embarrassmentto a person, organization, or agency.”

Whether U.S. authorities successfully prosecute Assange, accept a desperate plea deal or keep him tied up with endless litigation, they will succeed in sending the same chilling message to all journalists that they send to potential whistleblowers: Do not embarrass us or we’ll punish you—somehow, someday, however long it takes. In that respect, one could say damage to journalism already has been done but the battle is not over.

This extension of a whistleblower reprisal regime onto a publisher of disclosures poses an existential threat to all journalists and to the right of all people to speak and hear important truths. The U.S. indictment of Julian Assange tests our ability to perceive a direct threat to free speech, and tests our will to oppose that threat.Without freedom of press and the right and willingness to publish, whistleblowers even disclosing issues of grave, life and death public safety, will be like a tree falling in the forest with no one to hear.

The great American writer Henry David Thoreau wrote, “It takes two to speak the truth–one to speak and one to hear.” Today, it takes three to speak the truth–one to speak, one to hear, and one to defend the first two in court. If the U.S. Government has its way, there will be no defense, no truth.

For the Steering Groups of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence:

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

Richard H. Black, Senator of Virginia, 13th District; Colonel US Army (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, the Pentagon (associate VIPS)

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

Thomas Drake, former Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service and NSA whistleblower

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

Katherine Gun, former linguist and Iraq War whistleblower in UK’s GCHQ (affiliate VIPS)

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq; former Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)

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.)

Annie Machon, former intelligence officer in the UK’s MI5 domestic security service (affiliate VIPS)

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

Craig Murray, former British diplomat and Ambassador to Uzbekistan, human rights activist and historian (affiliate VIPS)

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

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

Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)

Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)

J. Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.)

Larry Wilkerson, Colonel, U.S. Army (ret.), former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State; Distinguished Visiting Professor, College of William and Mary

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

Robert Wing, former U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Officer (Associate VIPS)

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 below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc

President Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Jason Greenblatt, tweeted last week that

“rumours that our peace vision includes a confederation between Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority, or that the vision contemplates making Jordan the homeland for Palestinians, are incorrect”.

His response comes in the wake of repeated warnings by His Majesty King Abdullah that he will never relent over the Hashemite Custodianship of Muslim and Christian holy places in Jerusalem, while rejecting plans to settle Palestinian refugees and turn Jordan into an alternative homeland.

The King’s unwavering stand on these three issues is in the crux of his long-standing position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; that the only path towards a just and lasting solution lies in a negotiated settlement based on the two-state formula, leading to the creation of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. But this is not Jordan’s position only. It is the position of all Arab countries, as underlined in the Arab League’s resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative, the EU through its declarations and the international community through UN resolutions over many years. Until 2016, it was also the position of the United States.

But now we have a White House team, whose impartiality is in doubt, which, while revealing very little about the proposed regional plan, has been the driving force behind a number of unilateral steps taken by President Donald Trump’s administration in recent years. These steps, which include the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the attempt to defund UNRWA, the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s office in Washington and the suspension of USAID projects in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, all point to one goal: the dismantling of the main components of the Palestinian issue.

These components, once referred to as final-status issues, include Jerusalem, settlements, borders, refugees and statehood. King Abdullah’s firm stand against what the Trump administration is working on is not only warranted but needed as he raises red flags and issues warnings of the repercussions on regional stability if the plan is allowed to pass.

Greenblatt’s Tweet does little to mollify Jordanians. He says that there are no plans to turn Jordan into an alternative homeland for the Palestinians, neither Jordanians nor Palestinians will allow that to happen, but he ignores other issues, such as the settling of Palestinian refugees in host countries, the fate of Jerusalem and a possible future role for Jordan in administering what remains of the West Bank after the annexation of Jewish settlements and others areas.

Greenblatt, who has been tweeting about other issues as well, has little understanding, or sympathy, for Palestinian suffering and sacrifice under decades of illegal occupation. Neither does Jared Kushner, who heads the White House team, nor David Friedman, US ambassador in Israel.

What is especially dangerous in Trump’s peace plan is that it ignores the traditional legal benchmarks required for a just and lasting peace, whether UN resolutions on the conflict, the Oslo Accords and latter agreements. It attempts to legitimise what is and has always been an illegal occupation of Palestinian land. We have already seen this in the outrageous and unilateral recognition by Trump of the occupied Golan Heights as Israeli territory.

Such a precedent, whether in the West Bank or Golan Heights, throws all international conventions, resolutions and agreements out of the window. What Trump and his aides fail to recognise is even if they impose what would be fait accompli on the Palestinians, the region as a whole will not accept such an anomaly. It will not only polarise the international community, but most importantly, it will unleash waves of violence in the occupied territories.

For Jordan, it does not matter what Greenblatt says in his Tweets. The Trump plan, which is synchronised with Israel’s far right agenda, will have a domino effect that will end up hurting Israel, the Palestinians and countries that have a stake in the fate of the peace process like Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and beyond.

King Abdullah, who has been increasingly vociferous in his opposition of any deviation from the path of the two-state formula, understands the dangerous reverberations of Trump’s plan on Jordan and the region as a whole. Furthermore, he refuses to tie the liquidation of the Palestinian cause to other regional challenges. And he knows that standing against Trump’s plan will come at a cost. This is why it is important for other Arab leaders to come forward as well.

Apart from the Palestinians, Jordan stands to lose the most if Trump’s plan goes through. This is why the King has been mobilising Jordanians to express their support for his position and reject any solution that would deny Palestinians their legitimate right. Few weeks separate us from “the ultimate deal” and the region should get ready for a tense phase that would put pressure on every Arab leadership and may lead to a diplomatic face-off with Washington.

*

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

Osama Al Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman.

We are having a propaganda barrage about the great Trump economy. We have been hearing about the great economy for a decade while the labor force participation rate declined, real family incomes stagnated, and debt burdens rose.  The economy has been great only for large equity owners whose stock ownership benefitted from the trillions of dollars the Fed poured into financial markets and from buy-backs by corporations of their own stocks.

I have pointed out for years that the jobs reports are fabrications and that the jobs that do exist are lowly paid domestic service jobs such as waitresses and bartenders and health care and social assistance.  What has kept the American economy going is the expansion of consumer debt, not higher pay from higher producivity. The reported low unemployment rate is obtained by not counting discouraged workers who have given up on finding a job.

Do you remember all the corporate money that the Trump tax cut was supposed to bring back to America for investment?  It was all BS.  Yesterday I read reports that Apple is losing its trillion dollar market valuation because Apple is using its profits to buy back its own stock.  In other words, the demand for Apple’s products does not justify more investment. Therefore, the best use of the profit is to repurchase the equity shares, thus shrinking Apple’s capitalization. The great economy does not include expanding demand for Apple’s products.

I read also of endless store and mall closings, losses falsely attributed to online purchasing, which only accounts for a small percentage of sales. 

Federal Reserve data reports that a large percentage of the younger work force live at home with parents, because the jobs available to them are insufficient to pay for an independent existence. How then can the real estate, home furnishings, and appliance markets be strong?

When a couple of decades ago I first wrote of the danger of jobs offshoring to the American middle class, state and local government budgets, and pension funds, idiot critics raised the charge of Luddite.

The Luddites were wrong. Mechanization raised the productivity of labor and real wages, but jobs offshoring shifts jobs from the domestic economy to abroad.  Domestic labor is displaced, but overseas labor gets the jobs, thus boosting jobs there. In other words, labor income declines in the country that loses jobs and rises in the country to which the jobs are offshored.  This is the way American corporations spurred the economic development of China. It was due to jobs offshoring that China developed far more rapidly than the CIA expected. 

In contrast, Robotics, instead of displacing labor, eliminates it. Unlike jobs offshoring which shifted jobs from the US to China, robotics will cause jobs losses in both countries.  If consumer incomes fall, then demand for output also falls, and output will fall.  Robotics, then, is a way to shrink gross domestic product.

The tech nerds and corporaions who cannot wait for robotics to reduce labor cost in their profits calculation are incapable of understanding that when masses of people are without jobs, there is no consumer inome with which to purchase the products of robots.  The robots themselves do not need housing, food, clothing, entertainment, transportation, and medical care. The mega-rich owners of the robots cannot possibly consume the robotic output.  An economy without consumers is a profitless economy.

One would think that there would be a great deal of discussion about the economic effects of robotics before the problems are upon us, just as one would think there would be enormous concern about the high tensions Washington has caused between the US and Russia and China, just as one would think there would be preparations for the adverse economic consequences of global warming, whatever the cause.  Instead, the US, a country facing many crises, is focused on whether President Trump obstructed investigation of a crime that the special prosector said did not take place.  

A country incapable of dealing with real problems has no future.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently recounted to an audience at Texas A&M University that when he was head of the Central Intelligence Agency he was responsible for “lying, cheating and stealing” to benefit the United States. “Like we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

The Secretary made the comment with a grin, noting that when he was a cadet at West Point he subscribed to the Academy honor code, which stated that “You will not lie, cheat, or steal or tolerate those who do.” The largely student audience clearly appreciated the irony and laughed and applauded, though it is not clear what they made of the “glory of the American experiment.” The normally humorless Pompeo was suggesting ironically that yesterday’s Pompeo would be required to turn today’s Pompeo into the appropriate authorities for lying and also conniving at high crimes and misdemeanors while at the Agency.

Certainly, some might find Pompeo’s admission a bit lame though perhaps understandable as he arrived at the CIA without any experience in intelligence. Someone should have whispered in his ear, “That is what spy agencies do Mike.” And if he found the moral ambiguities vexing, he should have turned down the job. Equally lame has been the international media coverage of the comments (it was not reported in any major national news outlet in the US) which reflected both shock and vindication at finding a top-level official who would admit that Washington does all that sort of nasty stuff.

And Pompeo is not alone in his doing what would have hitherto been unthinkable as many senior figures in the Trump Administration who have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution now find themselves conniving at starting various wars without the constitutionally required declaration of war from Congress. Pompeo has personally assured both the Venezuelans and Iranians that “all options are on the table,” while also arming the Ukrainians and warning the Russians to get out of Caracas or else face the consequences. And it is a good thing that he has now learned how to lie as he does so when he keeps insisting that the Iranians are the leading state sponsors of terrorism or that the Saudis are fighting a just war in Yemen.

And then there is the ethical dimension. The United States government is already involved in economic acts of war through use of its sanctions worldwide. It is currently dedicated to starving the Iranian and Venezuelan people to force them to change their governments. This week, a global boycott of Iranian oil sales to be enforced unilaterally by Washington kicks in with the objective, per Pompeo, of reducing “Iran’s oil exports to zero” to deny its government its “principal source of revenue.” The problem with the Pompeo objective is that attacking a foreign government normally rallies the people around their leadership. Also, denying a country income ultimately hurts ordinary people much more than it does those who make the decisions. One recalls the famous Madeleine Albright line about killing 500,000 Iraqi children through malnutrition and disease brought about by sanctions as “being worth it.”

Pompeo believes himself to be a good Christian. Indeed, a very good Christian in that he believes that the second coming of Jesus Christ is imminent and by virtue of his good deeds he will be saved and “raptured” directly to heaven. He, like Vice President Mike Pence, is referred to as a Dispensationalist, and he also believes that those who are not “born again” and accept Jesus will be doomed to hell. Most Dispensationalists think that the second coming will be preceded by a world war centered in the Middle East referred to as Armageddon, which will pit good against evil. How that shapes Pompeo’s thinking vis-à-vis encouraging a major armed conflict with Iran is certainly something that war-weary Americans should be considering.

One of the really interesting things about fanatics like Pompeo and his dos amigos Vice President Mike Pence and National Security Advisor John Bolton is how they are unable to figure out what comes next after the “lying, cheating, stealing” and shooting are over. After American air and naval power destroy Iran, what comes next? If Iraq and Afghanistan are anything to go by, “next” will be kind of figured out as one goes along. And as for an end game, fuggedaboutit.

Now let us suppose that with the crushing of the Mullahs all the requirements for Armageddon will be met and Jesus Christ makes his second appearance, what happens after that when the world as we know it ends? Presumably the rapture itself is painless but when Pompeo and Pence arrive at heaven what will they do all day? Play cards? There will be no television one presumes and no Muslims or Latinos to kick around as they will all be in hell. Drinking and smoking are probably not allowed and acquiring a girlfriend will likely be discouraged. One suspects that engaging in philosophical symposia to pass one’s time is not particularly favored by either gentleman.

Perhaps Pompeo and Pence look forward to something like the Mormon model, where they and their extended families going back genetically to the Pleistocene period will have their own planets where they can sit around and hobnob all day long. God, who, according to the Mormons, also has his own planet called Kolob, might just pop by for a visit every once in a while.

The point of all this is that we Americans are in the hands of a group of people who are adept at self- deception and who are also quite capable of doing some very dangerous things in light of their religious and personal views. It is one thing to have a strong foreign policy defending actual American interests but it is quite another to have a propensity to go to war to satisfy a personal predilection about how one goes about enabling a biblical prophecy. Equally, having a moral compass that is flexible depending who is on the receiving end is like having no real morals at all.

We have reached a point here in the United States where bad decisions and behavior best described as evil are masked by a certain kind of expressed piety and visions of national greatness. It is time to get rid of the Pompeos and Pences to end the charade and restore genuine morality unencumbered by the book of Revelations together with a national dignity that is not linked to threats or projection of military power.

*

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

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

The Washington favourite in Juan Guaido has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization of Venezuela. He has been groomed for 15 years as a long-term CIA project. It was, therefore, never any surprise to those watching that this was somehow a surprise. And of course, it is no surprise that his intentions are simply as an American stooge, to return Venezuela’s oil reserves to US hegemony and control. In the meantime, the British MSM slavishly follows orders.

America has a long history of attacking countries with oil reserves with one of two things – bombs or ‘liberal democracy.’ Usually, there’s a smattering of humanitarianism thrown in and coming from America, that is to be feared. To the recipient nations rarely do things end well. Think, Iraq, Libya and countless other countries at the end of America’s greed.

And like the attack of Iraq, where the British MSM stood idly by, looking the other way, not once properly challenging the obvious lies of the Tony Blair government and its made up story of WMD, the same is happening in Venezuela. The hypocrisy of Western media and its politicians is breathtaking in every sense when after such events in our recent history, we witness them again and again and nothing is said.

There is something insidious about Britain’s media – both printed and presented. That they themselves see a blatant overt military coup, cry about the human rights abuses and turn the real story around 180 degrees against the government that is defending itself against that very coup is at its most charitable described as hypocrisy. It’s a fraud that mocks the nation as nothing more than being dumb and irrelevant.

Former British ambassador Craig Murray has some words on the matter.

Today, miraculously, the MSM line is no coup attempt happened at all, it was just a spontaneous unarmed protest, and it is the evil government of Venezuela which attempts to portray it as a coup. BBC Breakfast this morning had the headline “President Maduro has accused the opposition of mounting a coup attempt”… Yet there is no doubt at all that, as a matter of plain fact, that is what happened.

The MSM today is full of video of water cannons against “protestors” and a horrible video of a military vehicle ramming a group. But it has all been very carefully edited to exclude hours of footage of the same military vehicles being pelted and set alight with molotov cocktails, and shot at. The presentation has been truly shocking.

In any civilised country, attempting to mount a military coup would lead to incarceration for life, and that is what should now happen to Juan Guaido. The attempt by the West to protect their puppet by pretending the failed military coup never happened, must be resisted, if only in the cause of intellectual honesty.

The resort to violence forces binary choice. I have been and am a critic of Maduro in many respects. I believe the constitutional changes to bypass Parliament were wrong, and the indirectly elected Constituent Assembly is not a good form of democracy. Venezuela does have a rampant corruption problem. US sanctions exacerbate but are not the root cause of economic mismanagement. There are human rights failings. But Chavez made revolutionary changes in educating and empowering the poor, and it is a far better governed country for the mass of its population than it would ever be under a US installed CIA puppet regime. Maduro was legitimately elected. The attempt at violence forces a binary choice.

I know which side I am on. It is not Guaido and the CIA.”

*

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

Featured image is from TruePublica

As F. William Engdahl wrote in “Death of the Birds and the Bees Across America“:

Birds and bees are something most of us take for granted as part of nature. The expression “teaching about the birds and the bees” to explain the process of human reproduction to young people is not an accidental expression. Bees and birds contribute to the essence of life on our planet. A study by the US Department of Agriculture estimated that “…perhaps one-third of our total diet is dependent, directly or indirectly, upon insect-pollinated plants.”[1]

The honey bee, Apis mellifera, is the most important pollinator of agricultural crops. Honey bees pollinate over 70 out of 100 crops that in turn provide 90% of the world’s food. They pollinate most fruits and vegetables — including apples, oranges, strawberries, onions and carrots.[2] But while managed honey bee populations have increased over the last 50 years, bee colony populations have decreased significantly in many European and North American nations. Simultaneously, crops that are dependent on insects for pollination have increased. The phenomenon has received the curious designation of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), implying it could be caused by any number of factors. Serious recent scientific studies however point to a major cause: use of new highly toxic systemic pesticides in agriculture since about 2004.

If governments in the EU, USA and other countries fail to impose a total ban on certain chemical insecticides, not only could bees become a thing of the past. The human species could face staggering new challenges merely to survive. The immediate threat comes from the widespread proliferation of commercial insecticides containing the highly-toxic chemical with the improbable name, neonicotinoids. Neonicotinoids are a group of insecticides chemically similar to nicotine. They act on the central nervous system of insects. But also on bees and  small song birds. Recent evidence suggests they could also affect human brain development in newborn.

Some five to six years back, reports began to circulate from around the world, especially out of the United States, and then increasingly from around the EU, especially in the UK, that entire bee colonies were disappearing. Since 2004 over a million beehives have died across the United States and beekeepers in 25 states report what is called Colony Collapse Disorder. In winter of 2009 an estimated one fifth of bee hives in the UK were lost, double the natural rate.[3] Government authorities claimed it was a mystery. Continue reading “Death of the Birds and the Bees Across America” by F. William Engdahl

Today more than ever, the world’s food resources are being hijacked by giant corporations that are turning farms into factories and replacing natural resources with genetically modified “food-like” substances.

F. William Engdahl is a leading researcher on the destruction of the planet’s food system and the profit-driven enterprises that are driving this devastating process.

To learn more, pick up your copy of “Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation“, published by Global Research. Now also available in PDF format.

Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
by F. William Engdahl (Paperback)

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

Global Research Price: US $18.00 + shipping & handling
(List price: US $25.95)

CLICK TO BUY

 

Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
by F. William Engdahl (PDF E-book)

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-2-3
Year: 2017
File type: PDF

Global Research Price: US $9.50

CLICK TO BUY

 

 

Ordering from Canada or the US? Find out about our special bulk offers for North American customers!

3 copies for $40.00

10 copies for $120.00

36 copies (1 box) for $354.60

Place your order online by credit card or by mail!

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

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

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

Engdahl’s carefully argued critique goes far beyond the familiar controversies surrounding the practice of genetic modification as a scientific technique. The book is an eye-opener, a must-read for all those committed to the causes of social justice and world peace.

Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

by F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

Global Research Price: US $18.00 + shipping & handling
(List price: US $25.95)
CLICK TO BUY

Save on shipping, order the PDF version of this book delivered directly to your inbox! CLICK HERE

Ordering from Canada or the US? Find out about our special bulk offers for North American customers!
3 copies for $40.00

10 copies for $120.00

36 copies (1 box) for $354.60

Place your order online by credit card, or by mail!

Browse our other titles here:

May Day 2019. Throughout the World,

Let us act in solidarity with the people of Venezuela. Let us stand united against war. (Graphics by Massoud Nayeri)

The Trump administration is threatening to invade Venezuela with a view to “restoring democracy”, replacing an elected president (casually described by the Western media as a “dictator”) by a US proxy, speaker of Venezuela’s National Assembly. US intervention claims to be committed to “restoring democracy”. It’s a lie. (Michel Chossudovsky)

Juan Guaido has been groomed for 15 years as a long-term CIA project. His coup attempt yesterday, which so far appears to have stalled, was the culmination of these efforts to return Venezuela’s oil reserves to US hegemony. (Craig Murray)

“Millions of Venezuelans are mobilized in citizen assemblies to defend the revolution from internal and external efforts to undermine it, what Chavismo is all about, supporting the country’s social democracy, hostile to US imperial aims to destroy it.” (Stephen Lendman)

 

What is important to know, though, is that throughout the day of the attempted coup, 30 April, the US State Department, in the person of the pompous Pompeo, accompanied by the National Security Advisor, John Bolton, kept threatening President Maduro in a press round. Pompeo directly menaced President Maduro, saying –

“If they ask me if the US is prepared to consider military action [in Venezuela], if this is what is necessary to restore democracy in Venezuela, the President [Donald Trump] has been coherent and clear: The military option is available, if this is what we have to do.”– These threats are repeated throughout May 1 – day after the Venezuelan attempted coup defeat by both Pompeo and warrior Bolton.

Pompeo’s audacity didn’t stop there. He went as far as suggesting to President Maduro to flee to Cuba and leave his country to those that will bring back (sic) freedom and democracy. (Peter Koenig)

“But here’s the rub for a clueless Trump and his warmongering psychopaths: the mobilization of a “civil-military alliance” (una alianza cívica-militar) against the invaders. The military has not gone over to Guaidó and the upper classes for two simple reasons: military leaders were not trained at the School of the Americas during the rule of Chávez, and military officers were influenced by the teaching of Simón Bolivar and his ideas about national and popular sovereignty.” (Kurt Nimmo)

“Despite progressive critics and anti-war voices speaking forcefully against the Trump administration’s overt backing of the attempted coup d’état by rightwing opposition forces in Venezuela on Tuesday, 2020 Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden aligned himself with the White House by throwing his support behind the overthrow effort.(Jon Queally)

Nothing turns on the charlatan class of terrorism expertise than a video from an elusive, unknown destination, adjusted, modified and giving all the speculative trimmings.  In reading, E.B. White suggested the presence of two participants: the author as impregnator; the reader as respondent.  In the terrorism video, the maker consciously penetrates the shallow mind of the recipient, leaving its gurgling DNA to grow and mutate.

When Islamic State began its gruesome foray into the world of terrorist snuff videos, experts resembled overly keen cinephiles seeking the underlying message of a new wave.  The burning of Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kasaesbeh in a cage in 2015 caused a certain rapture amongst members of a RAND panel.  Was this, perhaps, a celluloid standoff with rival al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, whose affiliates had just slaughtered the staff of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in their Parisian offices?

Senior Adviser to the RAND President, Brian Michael Jenkins, could not “recall a single incident in modern terrorism where terrorists deliberately killed a hostage with fire.”  There was “no religious basis for it this side of 17^th century witch burning.”

Senior political scientist Johan Blank turned to scripture, finding “at least one specific prohibition of death by fire in the ahadith literature” on “the grounds that it resembled hellfire.”  The inspiration had to stem from somewhere, and Blank’s judicious offering was Ibn Taymiyyah, “fountainhead of much current jihadi reinterpretation of longstanding Islamic orthodoxy.”  Andrew Liepman, senior policy analyst, saw the video as a lucid moment of proof. “I wonder how much more evidence we need to confirm that ISIS is acting outside the norms of Islam.” Not modish, it would seem.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the [alleged] leader of the Islamic State, has begun to resemble, in no small part, previous heads of franchise terrorist groups who have become reproductions and simulacra of themselves.  Terrorism is big business, stage sets and props, all tweeted for good measure; it is bestial theatre that draws out the voyeurs, the google-eyed analysts, and the lunatic converts.  Whether such heads are dead or not is of little consequence past a certain point: Baghdadi had supposedly been dead yet his corpse seems more than capable of putting together a presentation for audiences.  It is also incumbent on those seeking his capture or death to claim his general irrelevance.  Everyone did know one thing: the last time he performed on a public perform was the al-Nuri Mosque in Mosul in July 2014.

The video, aired on the Al Furqan network, is filmed in appropriately Spartan surrounds, but that is neither here nor there.  Iraq Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi thinks otherwise linking, erroneously, the making of the film with the current location of the protagonist.

“Regarding the location of Baghdadi, we can’t give intelligence information right now but it’s clear from the video that he’s in a remote area.”

As is the fashion, neither the date nor the authenticity of the recording is verifiable.  All else is a wonder, and even the Middle East Monitor is careful to suggest that the speaker was “a bearded man with Baghdadi’s appearance”.

Baghdadi lacks complexity in his message, never straying from the apocalyptic line.

“Our battle today is a battle of attrition, and we will prolong it for the enemy, and they must know that the jihad will continue until Judgment Day.”

He is mindful of the fruitful carnage inflicted by the Eastern Sunday bombers in Sri Lanka, and thanks them.  Such acts, he reasons, were retribution for the loss of Baghouz in Syria.

The speculations duly form a queue, and talking heads have been scrambled into studios and Skype portals.  This video may have been a retort, and reassurance, before the potential usurping moves of another ISIS figure of seniority, Abu Mohammed Husseini al-Hashimi.  Hashimi had staked a claim in stirring up discontent against Baghdadi’s more extreme tyrannical methods.  Not that he is averse to the application of hudud punishments (stoning for adultery excites him), and the quaint notion that the ruler of any Islamic State caliphate is bound to be a successor to the prophet Muhammed.  Modesty is a drawback in such line of work.

Colin P. Clarke, senior fellow at the Soufan Centre, aired his views that Baghdadi’s “sudden appearance will very likely serve as both a morale boost for ISIS supporters and remaining militants and as a catalyst for individuals or more groups to act.”  It was a reassurance that he remained the grand poohbah, atop “the command-and-control network of what remains of the group, not only in Iraq and Syria, but more broadly, in its far-flung franchises and affiliates.”

The teasing out and ponderings on minutiae are not far behind.  Resting upon a flowered mattress, and leaning against a cushion with an assault rifle by his side (nice touch for the old fox), it was bound to have an effect. The expansive beard caught the eye: The Washington Post noted that it “has greyed since his only other video appearance”. Previously, the paper noted, it had been “tinted with henna”.  Then there was the AK-74 prop, a rather popular Kalashnikov variant reprised from previous showings in the video work of Abu Musab Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden.

Such superficial renderings, the stuff of terrorism kitsch, lends itself to fundamental fact that Baghdadi might be somewhere, anywhere, or nowhere, a nonsense figure, to a degree, in a nonsense medium.  The modern terrorist franchise is fluid and far-reaching.  Followers need not feel estranged.  They can use social media, cosy-up and wait for eschatological endings.

The pioneer of this terror mania (global yet local) was al-Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, a figure who, along with his sparring counterpart US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, formed a perfect symmetry of simulative nonsense, the gobbledygook of post-2011 security.  Each time US forces and their allies sought to target the slippery Saudi, he vanished.  The raid and bombing of the Tora Bora complex in Afghanistan yielded no returns; the man was nowhere to be seen, having escaped, possibly, in female garb. Sightings, and rumoured killings, remained regular till the penultimate slaying in Abbottabad in May 2011.  The man, declared dead on numerous occasions, was Lazarus in reverse.

Rumsfeld, for his part, insisted on those known knowns, known unknowns and “things we do not know we don’t know”. Unwittingly, he had given the age its aptly absurd epitaph, and with that, much work and fare for the witch doctors of terrorism keen to gorge upon the next video offering from their beloved subjects.  Ignorance in this case, not knowledge, is power.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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]

Prime Minister Morawiecki’s op-ed for Politico articulated Poland’s five-point plan for pioneering a new future for the EU after this month’s European Parliamentary elections.

The Political Context Of Poland’s Op-Ed

The upcoming European Parliamentary elections later this month will be a watershed moment in the EU’s history if EuroRealist parties gain like they’re expected to at the expense of their EuroLiberal rivals. The reformist forces of Hungary’s Orban, Italy’s Salvini, and Poland’s “grey cardinal” Kaczynski are working hard to inspire their countries’ domestic and international supporters to vote against the status quo and give their ideological allies a shot at changing continental affairs. Poland is the rising Great Power of the geostrategic “Three Seas Initiative” in Central & Eastern Europe and it’s therefore fitting that its Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki just penned an op-ed for Politco articulating his country’s five-point plan for pioneering a new future for the EU after this month’s elections.

A Modern-Day Decolonization Demand

“Poland’s Vision For Europe” is clear in its message that a decentralized EU that returns sovereignty to its member states is much stronger and more sustainable than a “two-speed” centralized one that treats the countries east of the former “Iron Curtain” as conquered vassal states. The bloc’s Western European core has the same relationship to its Central & Eastern European periphery as former imperial metropoles had to their colonies, so in a sense, Morawiecki’s manifesto is a modern-day decolonization demand to free these subjugated countries from Brussels’ overbearing control and create a British Commonwealth-like arrangement that allows each of its members to remain on equal and cordial terms with one another after this “imperial reform” that Warsaw wants to lead after the upcoming elections.

Point By Point

As proof of this, the Polish Prime Minister wrote about the pressing need to fight international inequality as the first point in his op-ed, emphasizing that “inequalities exist not just between citizens, but also between countries”. “Set[ting] up a European innovation strategy that sets the agenda on artificial intelligence, the internet of things, big data and machine learning” would go a long way towards developing the Continent and promoting international equality if it’s successful, which is why he proposed a “bold EU budget” that could be partially funded by “the fair taxation of digital technology giants” as his second suggested policy. Third, he wrote that some EU states need to end their protectionist policies that discriminate against other members in parallel with “wag[ing] a real fight against global and regional monopolies, including online platforms and networks.”

His penultimate point is that defense spending must be increased and the protection of borders must be prioritized. This aligns with what Poland’s American ally has been demanding of the EU ever since Trump’s entrance into office, which isn’t coincidental since the ruling PiS party is in ideological alignment with the US President’s faction of the Republican Party and sees eye-to-eye with it on practically ever single issue, especially those dealing with hard power and national security. Morawiecki’s last point is indeed his most powerful, and it’s that Brussels mustn’t forget about democracy since he concludes his piece on the note that “Europe was founded on the idea that its member states are equal within the alliance and “only once [it] is truly a group of equal and self-respecting states, can the Continent become a superpower.”

EuroRealism In Practice

From the above point-by-point breakdown of Morawiecki’s manifesto, it can clearly be seen that Poland’s envisaged EuroRealist future for the bloc doesn’t involve the so-called “Polexit” that some of its critics have falsely fearmongered about as part of their infowar campaign against the country but is rather all about “balancing” between the bloc’s centralization and decentralization. Continental security and development strategies will be pursued collectively by the EU as a whole in order to make the continent more competitive in the 21st century, while socio-cultural and domestic legal issues will be decided individually by each member state. If Poland has it its way, then this reformed EU will fix its prior faults and be more efficient than before.

Concluding Thoughts

The EU is at a crossroads as the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative” prepares to pioneer a new future for Europe if their ideological EuroRealist allies make impressive gains during this month’s European Parliamentary elections. Structurally speaking, the reforms being put forth by the Polish Prime Minister amount to modern-day decolonization demands somewhat modeled off of the decolonization process that some British colonies experienced prior to their admission to the Commonwealth, with Warsaw wanting to see the return of international equality to the European realm in a similar fashion. The Central & Eastern European “colonies” are much too deeply tied to the Western European “metropole” to allow for a “clean split”, which is why Poland’s proposal is the most pragmatic set of compromises under these conditions.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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.

Featured image is from African Leadership Magazine

Multiple US attempts to topple Venezuela’s democratic government since April 2002 failed — a real-life David v. Goliath struggle, the Bolivarian Republic foiling mighty USA’s best shots time and again, short of unlikely, though possible, military intervention. More on this below.

If the Trump regime attacks Venezuela militarily, former UK MP George Galloway believes Vietnam on steroids would follow — endless guerrilla war, millions of Venezuelans involved in the struggle to preserve and protect their nation from the US imperial scourge.

In 2006, the Communal Council Law began the process of establishing communal councils throughout Venezuela nationwide – later replaced by the 2009 Communal Council Law.

Millions of Venezuelans are mobilized in citizen assemblies to defend the revolution from internal and external efforts to undermine it, what Chavismo is all about, supporting the country’s social democracy, hostile to US imperial aims to destroy it.

Maduro explained that over “five million Venezuelans (are) mobilized all over the country (to defend the republic) in support of the freedom…”

The fate of all empires awaits the US. It’s just a matter of time despite spending countless trillions of dollars to remain the dominant global superpower — pouring most of it down a black hole of waste, fraud and abuse, symptomatic of slow-motion decay.

It’s the same dynamic dooming all other empires in history. Nations decline because of their hubris, arrogance, and overreach.

For the US, it’s also about its ruinous military spending at the expense of vital homeland needs, waging endless wars against invented enemies, and unwillingness to change — both extremist right wings of its one-party rule supporting the same destructive agenda.

The following attempts aimed to replace Venezuela’s social democracy with fascist tyranny, mighty USA failing to gain another imperial trophy after nearly two decades of trying:

1. The aborted two-day April 2002 attempt to oust Hugo Chavez. Failure to get Venezuelan military support and popular resistance foiled it.

2. The 2002 – 03 general strike and oil management lockout, causing severe economic disruption and billions of dollars in losses.

3. The August 2004 national recall referendum, Hugo Chavez winning overwhelmingly with a 59% majority, thwarting the US-orchestrated attempt to remove him.

4. US sanctions war on Venezuela, begun by Bush/Cheney in 2006 for so-called non-cooperation in combatting international terrorism the US supports.

War on the Bolivarian Republic by other means continued under Obama, greatly escalated by Trump regime hardliners — targeting senior and other Venezuelan officials, the country’s enterprises, attempting to block its access to financial markets, along with aiming to reduce its oil sales to zero.

Annually since 2006, the State Department accused Venezuela of not “cooperating fully with United States anti-terrorism efforts” – pursuant to Section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 USC 2781).

5. In 2005, the Bush/Cheney regime falsely accused the Bolivarian Republic of non-cooperation against narco-trafficking the US supports worldwide.

Annually since then, Washington falsely claimed Venezuela hasn’t fulfilled its obligations under international narcotics agreements.

6. In 2008, the Bush/Cheney regime imposed asset freezes and prohibitions on financial transactions, targeting designated Venezuelan nationals and enterprises.

7. The Obama regime’s responsibility for killing Chavez, by poisoning or infection with deadly cancer causing substances, a coup by other means, eliminating him, Chavismo remaining resilient.

8. Obama’s March 2015 executive order, falsely declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,” declaring a fake ‘national emergency’ in order to confront” a nonexistent threat.

9. Intermittent violent street protests earlier and now, responsible for scores of deaths and hundreds of injuries — US-orchestrated color revolution attempts for regime change.

10. The August 2017 CIA-orchestrated terrorist attack on Fort Paramacay in Carabobo state, another foiled coup attempt.

11. The August 2018 attack on Maduro by drones armed with C-4 explosives, attempting to kill him.

12. Since taking office, Trump regime hardliners waged war on Venezuela by other means, greatly escalating things since January 2019 — including propaganda, economic, financial, and electricity war, along with other attacks on the country’s infrastructure, aiming to inflict enormous harm on its ordinary people, falsely believing they’ll blame Maduro for US criminal actions.

Chavez knew the US marked him for elimination. So does Maduro. He and other senior Venezuelan officials vulnerable to removal by coup d’etat or assassination.

The latest Trump regime coup attempt on Tuesday failed, the feeble effort foiled in hours after initiation, likely intended to turn out this way.

It’s just a matter of time before another attempt is made to oust Maduro and eliminate Venezuelan social democracy — likely a more serious effort next time, maybe launching a proxy war, using regional elements and perhaps ISIS, the jihadist group created and supported by the US.

Will next time be different? Will it succeed despite everything thrown at the country so far failing? US coup plots against Cuba for nearly 60 years, Iran for 40 years, and Venezuela for 20 years failed.

Failure is likely to continue against these countries short of US military intervention.

What’s likely coming in Venezuela? Perhaps before or along with a proxy war, the next shoe to drop may be an embargo, an act of war if imposed.

How Russia, China, and other Venezuelan allies respond to US regime change tactics are crucially important — if refusing to go along with its war by other means, Bolivarianism can survive over US aims to destroy it.

If US forces attack Venezuela militarily, unlikely but possible, all bets are off.

Regional countries oppose it, especially neighboring Brazil and Colombia, because of the hugely destabilizing spillover effects.

Galloway is likely right. US war on Venezuela would be hugely disruptive regionally. If US forces invade the country, lots of body bags will return to its shores for as long as conflict on the ground continues.

Given hardline extremists in charge of Trump’s geopolitical agenda, anything is possible — most likely proxy war, not Pentagon troops, if things go this far.

Will WW III begin in Venezuela? If not there, perhaps in Iran, similar Trump regime tactics used to topple its government.

If its oil sales are blocked, the Islamic Republic vowed to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.

Over 18 million barrels of oil pass through it daily, around 20% of world production. If the strait is blocked, the US no doubt would respond militarily.

War with Iran would hugely disrupt the entire region, perhaps enough to cause WW III by accident or design.

Note: Why is the US hellbent to control Venezuela and Iran? Besides wanting their sovereign independence eliminated, it’s all about their huge oil reserves.

Henry Kissinger explained it, saying: “Control oil and you control nations. Control food and you control the people.” Control money and you control everything.

*

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.

Six days after China celebrated the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Peoples’ Liberation Army Navy with an impressive parade of its ships, including the now operational Liaoning aircraft carrier, the new type 055 destroyers and a new type of nuclear submarine, a parade in which Russia, Vietnam, and India took part, and on the same day as Russian naval ships arrived in Qingdao to begin the joint Russian-Chinese naval Joint Sea Exercise 2019, two American destroyers entered the Taiwan Straights that lie between the coast of China proper and its island province of Taiwan thereby provoking an already tense situation.

The series of Chinese and Russian naval exercises are designed to test the ability of the two nations to operate together to counter common security threats. Both Russia and China claim no other nation is identified as a threat but everyone knows the threat is the United States and its allies. And the threat is real. For not only have the Americans been continually harassing China in the South China Sea by sending naval vessels with hostile intent into Chinese territorial waters around the Spratly Islands under the claim of free right of passage, they are also doing the same against Russia. The Kerch incident in which the Ukrainian navy was used as a proxy by the US to test a Russian response to an incursion into Russian waters near Crimea is part of a pattern shown again in December 2018 when they sent a destroyer into Peter the Great Bay near Vladivostok, entering Russian territorial waters, and threatening the Russian naval base there under the same pretext.

American ships have stepped up their show of strength in the Taiwan Straights from once a year before October to almost every month since October and they vow to keep up the pressure against Russia in the Baltic, Black Sea and Pacific and against China all along its coasts. The Americans recently committed an amphibious marine unit to Australia which has the purpose of “patrolling,” that is threatening to control, the Malacca Straights through which a large volume of Chinese shipping passes. The French have joined in the provocations by sending one of their war ships through the Straight on April 6, an action which China declared to be illegal. The Chinese, rightly convinced the US instigated the incident revoked France’s invitation to the PLA Navy celebrations. Britain has also rattled its sabres by stating its intention to send its aircraft carrier and support ships to the region to support the American threat.

The harassment of China by the US and its allies continues in other spheres with Trump’s trade war against China continuing, with the attempt to cut off Iranian oil supplies to China, and with the continued illegal detention by Canada of Huawei’s Chief Financial Officer, Meng Wanzhou, seized by Canadian authorities last December on a bogus US extradition request. She next appears in a Vancouver court on May 8 to set a date for the extradition hearings to take place. In retaliation China has stepped up its response to Canada’s action by blocking not only imports of Canadian canola, which has caused several billion dollars in export losses to Canadian farmers this winter, but this week, in advance of the May 8th hearing, has blocked imports of Canadian soybeans, peas and other agricultural products. The ban on these Canadian products is clearly timed to send a signal ahead of the court appearance by Meng, and it will not be the end.

The Global Times of China reported on April 30th that,

“There are growing calls in China for the government to take tough measures against Canada”

Wang Jun, deputy director of the Department of Information at the China Center for International Economic Exchanges stated, “If we start imposing sanctions on each other, I think it will hurt Canada more than it will China.”

Mei Xinyu, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation said,

“I think Canadians have only themselves to blames. China wants to resolve disputes without causing any turbulence. But if forced, China will take action. I think Canadians have misjudged the whole thing. They thought they would do the US a favor by arresting Meng. But they have found themselves increasingly forced to the wall because China and the US are now resolving their disputes and further escalation would not be in Canada’s interest because China is capable of taking more action, especially after we resolve the trade tensions with the US.”

There are now calls for the Chinese government to prohibit Chinese students from attending Canadian universities and private schools that depend on Chinese students for revenue.

But the Canadian government and opposition parties, instead of trying to solve the issue, to do the right thing, by releasing Meng Wanzhou and apologizing, are pushing for more confrontation with China, stating that they will search for measures to counter China, though what the Trudeau government can do is not clear. The Canadian Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer has called for the Canadian government to take China before the World Trade Organisation and to withdraw from the Asian Infrastructure Investment bank. Other Canadian diplomats have called for cessation of all bilateral trade talks and for kicking out Chinese athletes training in Canada for the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing. All of these would hurt Canada more than China and the suggestions reveal the complete moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Canadian leadership.

The American pressure on China in the economic and military spheres, the French and British threats to add to it by sending their war ships to the South China Sea, the Canadian action in arresting Meng Wanzhou, these are all expressions of the neo-colonial mindset of the western leaders and what Chinese leaders referred to as “white racism.” Their actions signal that they still see China as nation to be brought under their control and exploited instead of respected and treated as an equal.

But they forget that China threw off the colonial straight jacket with the May 4th Movement that began on May 4th 1919 in response to the Versailles negotiations after World War I at which the western leaders, led by US President Wilson, handed former German occupied lands of China to Japan instead of restoring them to Chinese sovereignty. Chinese students and intellectuals rose up and protested this act of colonialism, called for resistance to all forms of colonialism and imperialism and to the sellout government that allowed it to happen. A series of general strikes followed. Out of this movement arose a tide of nationalism and cultural and political renewal that has made China the great nation it is today. The 4th of May Movement was the manifestation of the refusal of the Chinese people to ever again be controlled by foreigners. It gave birth to both the Chinese Communist Party that succeeded in throwing off the yoke of colonialism and capitalism, as well as the Kuomintang nationalists who, locked in the past, ended by selling themselves to the interests of the United States and whose counter-revolutionary remnants are contained in Taiwan.

But as the 100th anniversary of the May 4th Movement is being celebrated across China to encourage the young generation to connect their own destiny with the destiny of China and contribute their share to social development, the west seems to have forgotten that it took place or acts like it never took place. But the China of 2019 is not the China of 1919. American gunboats can no longer sail up the Yangtze and impose their will. China is a nuclear power, a world economic power. Yet the United States and Canada act as if they are living in the past, as if history has passed them by, as if they have learned nothing and forget everything, for the American and Canadian provocations leading up to the May 4th celebration must be seen as a slap in the face to the Chinese people, as a denial of their aspirations and achievements.

The act of sending American ships through the Taiwan Straights is seen by China, not as an “exercise in right of passage through international waters,” as the Americans claim, but as an act of colonialism and imperialism by which the American ships, acting as a floating wall of steel, declare Taiwan to be there protectorate. The illegal arrest of Meng Wanzhou by Canada is a throwback to the Canadian anti-Chinese racism of the 19th century. Both nations are on the wrong side of history. They are aging anachronisms in a multipolar world, bereft of ideas, or of a future except what they can steal from others. But they don’t seem to learn except the hard way and if they keep pushing, China will teach them a very hard lesson indeed.

*

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

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

Now that Trump’s coup has failed to oust Maduro in Venezuela, his administration is preparing for a military attack.

.

.

.

U.S. military action in Venezuela is possibility if 'required': Pompeo https://t.co/XuB1ebJFUm pic.twitter.com/kHnWSkYoaT

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) May 1, 2019

Mike Pompeo on Venezuela: "The president has made very clear that all options are on the table, that certainly includes the military option." pic.twitter.com/6TOGDs063K

— The Hill (@thehill) May 1, 2019

Secretary of State Pompeo tried to escalate the situation when he said—without providing evidence, of course—that Maduro was ready to flee to Cuba when he was convinced by Russia to stay the course as Venezuela’s elected leader.  Both Venezuela and Russia had a field day poking holes in that unsubstantiated theory. 

#Maduro was 'getting prepared' to leave #Venezuela before #Russia persuaded him not to – #Pompeo pic.twitter.com/QqKT4q4F7v

— Ruptly (@Ruptly) May 1, 2019

The warmongering and slavish professional propaganda media wasted little time cranking up the heat so the war party might gain consensus—or at least appear to do so—from the American people.

The stakes couldn’t be higher in Venezuela. Either Venezuelans reclaim their freedom, or instability and misery will continue to radiate from Caracas through the Americas.https://t.co/gDyE2J4fmq

— WSJ Editorial Page (@WSJopinion) May 1, 2019

Happening now in Venezuela, a full blown crisis…thanks to the dictator Maduro and his patron, China.

Filipinos should not wait for this to happen here. We still have time, use our votes and dump team China!https://t.co/ej0vwr8qVc

— SyLicoNgaAko 裏科 OtsoDeretso (@SyLicoNgaAko) May 1, 2019

20,000 Russian Troops Hiding Their Nationality https://t.co/6BmJI0fB5J

— Newsmax (@newsmax) May 1, 2019

In February, FAIR posted a report on the extreme bias of the corporate media on the situation in Venezuela. 

“The corporate media have continued to peddle the Trump-as-humanitarian-champion line, even after it was revealed that a US plane was caught smuggling weapons into Venezuela, and even after Trump named Iran/Contra criminal Elliott Abrams to head up Venezuelan operations,” writes Mark Cook. “Abrams was in charge of the State Department Human Rights Office during the 1980s, when weapons to US-backed terrorists in Nicaragua were shipped in US planes disguised as ‘humanitarian’ relief.”

If you’re a cable tv news watcher, you won’t hear about the attack on Venezuela by the US military (most likely in coordination with other South American nations) until Caracas is engulfed in flames and Maduro faces the fate of Salvador Allende in Chile or that of Gaddafi in Libya. 

Pompeo told us the US will attack Venezuela now that it is obvious Juan Guaidó will not convince the military to defect and join the “opposition” (arranged by USAID) and the people are not going over to his side. Of course, he didn’t say it like that, instead telling us the US prefers diplomacy, while also mentioning military “options on the table” for the umpteenth time. 

Plan A—bloodlessly installing Guaidó—is now history. Plan B—mass murder and crimes against humanity—are now front and center. 

Plan B was discussed in mid-April during a meeting held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, a neocon-dominated organization that holds inordinate sway in Congress. 

Following the confidential CSIS meeting, Max Blumenthal tweeted:

Exclusive: DC's @CSIS hosted a who's who of Trump Latin America advisors for a private roundtable to discuss waging a US military assault on Venezuela. The meeting included the former head of SOUTHCOM, a Colombian general and USAID & NIC officials. https://t.co/qVlDZ2WdoT pic.twitter.com/fateSAwR0w

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) April 14, 2019

In short, the US has planned to attack Venezuela for some time. Trump’s neocons know the Venezuelan people—many of them recall the poverty and privation imposed by neoliberal regimes prior to Hugo Chávez’s rule—will never allow a spawn from the country’s financial and political elite to run Maduro out of office and permit a bankster and transnational feeding frenzy at their expense. 

There are a number of war profiteers waiting in the shadows. For instance, Eric Prince, founder of the brutal mercenary group Blackwater:

Erik Prince, billionaire heir & founder of private army Blackwater, wants to monetize Venezuela coup attempt by sending 5,000 mercenaries to overthrow Venezuela’s democratically elected government. Cost to American taxpayers: $40M.#HandsOffVenezeulahttps://t.co/4vLYkgTwlB

— Elinor (@nellvwiley) May 1, 2019

In a matter of weeks or days, the US will attack Venezuela. The country will be subject to the same sort of “creative destruction” unleashed on Iraq and Libya. In Iraq, the US attacked civilian infrastructure, including water and food, and bombed hospitals, mosques, and schools (this tactic was perfected during Bill Clinton’s air war against Yugoslavia). This will be repeated in Venezuela. 

But here’s the rub for a clueless Trump and his warmongering psychopaths: the mobilization of a “civil-military alliance” (una alianza cívica-militar) against the invaders. 

The military has not gone over to Guaidó and the upper classes for two simple reasons: military leaders were not trained at the School of the Americas during the rule of Chávez, and military officers were influenced by the teaching of Simón Bolivar and his ideas about national and popular sovereignty. 

“Chavez wants 1 million armed men and women in the army reserve, and 150,000 have already joined, surpassing the regular military’s force of 100,000. Now Venezuelans are also organizing neighborhood-based militia units for Chavez’s Territorial Guard,” CBS News reported in 2006. 

The reservists were trained to engage in a guerrilla war and fashion weapons out of materials at hand, retired Rear Admiral Luis Cabrera Aguirre told the BBC in 2006.

In April, Maduro ordered an additional expansion of Venezuela’s civilian militia to exceed a million members. 

It will be interesting to see how the US plans to fight a guerrilla war with a million indoctrinated Venezuelans. Caracas may end up looking like Syria’s Raqqa—resembling Stalingrad after the Nazi Operation Barbarossa—but like the Russians, they will not give up until the invader is defeated. 

*

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

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

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Introduction

US global power in the Trump period reflects the continuities and changes which are unfolding rapidly and deeply throughout the world and which are affecting the position of Washington.

Assessing the dynamics of US global power is a complex problem which requires examining multiple dimensions.

We will proceed by:

• Conceptualizing the principles which dictate empire building, specifically the power bases and the dynamic changes in relations and structures which shape the present and future position of the US.
• Identifying the spheres of influence and power and their growth and decline.
• Examining the regionsof conflict and contestation.
• The major and secondary rivalries.
• The stable and shifting relationsbetween existing and rising power centers.
• The internal dynamics shaping the relative strength of competing centers of global power.
• The instability of the regimes and states seeking to retain and expand global power.

Conceptualization of Global Power

US global power is built on several significant facts.  These include:  the US victory in World War II, its subsequent advanced economy and dominant military position throughout five continents.

The US advanced its dominance through a series of alliances in Europe via NATO; Asia via its hegemonic relationship with Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan as well as Australia and New Zealand in Oceana; Latin America via traditional client regimes; Africa via neo-colonial rulers imposed following independence.

US global power was built around encircling the USSR and China, undermining their economies and defeating their allies militarily via regional wars.

Post WWII global economic and military superiority created subordinated allies and established US global power, but it created the bases for gradual shifts in relations of dominance.

US global power was formidable but subject to economic and military changes over time and in space.

US Spheres of Power:  Then and Now

US global power exploited opportunities but also suffered military setbacks early on, particularly in Korea, Indo-China and Cuba. The US spheres of power were clearly in place in Western Europe and Latin America but was contested in Eastern Europe and Asia.

The most significant advance of US global power took place with the demise and disintegration of the USSR, the client states in Eastern Europe, as well as the transformation of China and Indo-China to capitalism during the 1980’s.

US ideologues declared the coming of a unipolar empire free of restraints and challenges to its global and regional power. The US turned to conquering peripheral adversaries.  Washington destroyed Yugoslavia and then Iraq – fragmenting them into mini-states. Wall Street promoted a multitude of multi-national corporations to invade China and Indo-China who reaped billions of profits exploiting cheap labor.

The believers of the enduring rule of US global power envisioned a century of US imperial rule.

In reality this was a short-sighted vision of a brief interlude.

The End of Unipolarity: New Rivalries and Global and Regional Centers of Power: An Overview

US global power led Washington into  ‘overreach’, in several crucial areas:  it launched a series of costly prolonged wars, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, which had three negative consequences:  the destruction of the Iraq armed forces and economy led to the rise of the Islamic State which overtook most of the country; the occupation in Afghanistan which led to the emergence of the Taliban and an ongoing twenty year war which cost hundreds of billions of dollars and several thousand wounded and dead US soldiers; as a result the majority of the US public turned negative toward wars and empire building

The US pillage and dominance of Russia ended, when President Putin replaced Yeltsin’s vassal state.  Russia rebuilt its industry, science, technology and military power.  Russia’s population recovered its living standards.

With Russian independence and advanced military weaponry, the US lost its unipolar  military power.  Nevertheless, Washington financed a coup which virtually annexed two thirds of the Ukraine.  The US incorporated the fragmented Yugoslavian ‘statelets’ into NATO.  Russia countered by annexing the Crimea and secured a mini-state adjacent Georgia.

China converted the economic invasion of US multi-national corporations into learning experiences for building its national economy and export platforms which contributed which led to its becoming an economic competitor and rival to the US.

US global empire building suffered important setbacks in Latin America resulting

from the  the so-called Washington Consensus.  The imposition of neo-liberal policies privatized and plundered their economies, impoverished the working and middle class, and provoked a series of popular uprising and the rise of radical social movements and center-left governments.

The US empire lost spheres of influence in some regions (China, Russia, Latin America, Middle East) though it retained influence among elites in contested regions and even launched new imperial wars in contested terrain.  Most notably the US attacked independent regimes in Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Sudan via armed proxies.

The change from a unipolar to a multi polar world and the gradual emergence of regional rivals led US global strategists to rethink their strategy.  The Trump regime’s aggressive policies set the stage for political division within the regime and among allies.

The Obama – Trump Convergence and Differences on Empire Building

By the second decade of the 21^stcentury several new global power alignments emerged:  China had become the main economic competitor for world power and Russia was the major military challenger to US military supremacy at the regional level.  The US replaced the former European colonial empire in Africa.  Washington’s sphere of influence extended especially in North and Sub Sahara Africa:  Kenya, Libya, Somalia and Ethiopia.  Trump gained leverage in the Middle East namely in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Jordan.

Israel retained its peculiar role, converting the US as its sphere of influence.

But the US  faced regional rivals for sphere of influence in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Algeria.

In South Asia US faced competition for spheres of influence from China, India, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In Latin America sharp and abrupt shifts in spheres of influence were the norm.  US influence declined between 2000 – 2015 and recovered from 2015 to the  present.

Imperial Power Alignments Under President Trump

President Trump faced complex global, regional and local political and economic challenges.

Trump followed and deepened many of the policies launched by the Obama- Hillary Clinton policies with regard to other countries and regions . However Trump also radicalized and/or reversed policies of his predecessors. He combined flattery and aggression at the same time.

At no time did Trump recognize the limits of US global power.  Like the previous three presidents he persisted in the belief that the transitory period of a unipolar global empire could be re-imposed.

Toward Russia, a global competitor, Trump adopted a policy of ‘rollback’.  Trump imposed economic sanctions, with the strategic ‘hope’ that  by impoverishing Russia, degrading its financial and industrial sectors that he could force a regime change which would convert Moscow into a vassal state.

At the beginning of his Presidential campaign Trump flirted with the notion of a business accommodation with Putin. However, Trump’s ultra-belligerent appointments and domestic opposition soon turned him toward a highly militarized strategy, rejecting military – including nuclear – agreements, in favor of military escalation.

Toward China, Trump faced a dynamic and advancing technological competitor. Trump resorted to a ‘trade war’ that went far beyond ‘trade’ to encompass a war against Beijing’s economic structure and social relations.  The Trump regime-imposed sanctions and threatened a total boycott of Chinese exports.

Trump and his economic team demanded China privatize and denationalize its entire state backed industry.  They demanded the power to unilaterally decide when violations of US rules occurred and to be able to re-introduce sanctions without consultations.  Trump demanded all Chinese technological agreements, economic sectors and innovations were subject and open to US business interests.  In other words, Trump demanded the end of Chinese sovereignty and the reversal of the structural base for its global power.  The US was not interested in mere ‘trade’ – it wanted a return to imperial rule over a colonized China.

The Trump regime rejected negotiations and recognition of a shared power relation: it viewed its global rivals as potential clients.

Inevitably the Trump regime’s strategy would never reach any enduring agreements on any substantial issues under negotiations.  China has a successful strategy for global power built on a 6 trillion-dollar world-wide Road and Belt (R and B) development policy, which links 60 countries and several regions. R and B is building seaports, rail and air systems linking industries financed by development banks.

In contrast, the US banks exploits industry, speculates and operates within closed financial circuits.  The US spends trillions on wars, coups, sanctions and other parasitical activities which have nothing to do with economic competitiveness.

The Trump regime’s ‘allies’ in the Middle East namely Saudi Arabia and Israel, are parasitic allies who buy protection and provoke costly wars.

Europe complains about China’s increase in industrial exports and overlook imports of consumer goods.  Yet the EU plans to resist Trump’s sanctions which lead to a blind alley of stagnation!

Conclusion

The most recent period of the  peak of US global power, the decade between 1989-99 contained the seeds of its decline and the current resort to trade wars, sanctions and nuclear threats.

The structure of US global power changed over the past seven decades.  The US global empire building began with the US command over the rebuilding of Western European economies and the displacement of England, France, Portugal and Belgium from Asia and Africa.

The Empire spread and penetrated  South America via US multi-national corporations. However, US empire building was not a linear process as witness  its unsuccessful confrontation with national liberation movements in Korea, Indo China, Southern Africa (Angola, Congo, etc.) and the Caribbean (Cuba).  By the early 1960’s the US had displaced its European rivals and successfully incorporated them as subordinate allies.

Washington’s main rivals for spheres of influence was Communist China and the USSR with their allies among client state and overseas revolutionaries.

The US empire builders’ successes led to the transformation of their Communist and nationalist rivals into emergent capitalist competitors.

In a word US dominance led to the construction of capitalist rivals, especially China and Russia.

Subsequently, following US military defeats and prolonged wars, regional powers proliferated in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Latin America. Regional blocs competed with US clients for power.

The diversification of power centers led to new and costly wars.  Washington lost exclusive control of markets, resources and alliances.  Competition reduced the spheres of US power.

In the face of these constraints on US global power the Trump regime envisioned a strategy to  recover  US dominance – ignoring the limited capacity and structure of US political , economic and class relations.

China absorbed US technology and went on to create new advances without following each previous stage.

Russia’s recovered from its losses and sanctions  and secured alternative trade relations to counter the new challenges to the US global empire.  Trump’s regime launched a ‘permanent trade war’ without stable allies. Moreover, he failed  to undermine China’s global infrastructure network; Europe demanded and secured autonomy to enter into trade deals with China, Iran and Russia.

Trump has pressured many regional powers who have ignored his threats.

The US still remains a global power.  But unlike the past, the US lacks the industrial base to ‘make America strong’.  Industry is subordinated to finance; technological innovations are not linked to skilled labor  to increase productivity.

Trump relies on sanctions and they have failed to undermine regional influentials.  Sanctions may temporarily reduce access to US markets’ but we have observed that new trade partners take their place.

Trump has gained client regimes in Latin America, but the gains are precarious and subject to reversal.

Under the Trump regime, big business and bankers have increased prices in the stock market and even the rate of growth of the  GDP, but he confronts severe domestic political instability, and high levels of turmoil among the branches of government.  In pursuit of loyalty over competence, Trump’s appointments have led to the ascendancy of cabinet officials who seek to wield unilateral power which the US no longer possesses.

Elliot Abrams can massacre a quarter-million Central Americans with impunity, but he has failed to impose US power over Venezuela and Cuba.  Pompeo can threaten North Kore, Iran and China but these countries fortify alliances with US rivals and competitors.  Bolton can advance the interests of Israel but their conversations take place in a telephone booth – it lacks resonance with any major powers.

Trump has won a presidential election, he has secured concessions from some countries but he has alienated regional and diplomatic allies.  Trump claims he is making America strong, but he has undermined lucrative strategic multi-lateral trade agreements.

US ‘Global Power’ does not prosper with bully-tactics.  Projections of power alone, have failed – they require recognition of realistic economic limitations and the losses from regional wars.

*

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

Award winning author Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

“Regime Change” is an old foreign policy of imperialist powers.

In 1800, the U.S. foreign policy was based on the idea of “Empire of Liberty”. Soon the concept of overthrowing unfriendly governments became the core principle of the U.S. foreign policy.

The successful 1950s CIA plotted coup d’état in Iran, Guatemala and other countries are the “glory” days of the U.S. foreign policy.

However, Mr. Trump with his unique “negotiating skills” simply has exposed the fallacy of U.S. foreign policy for good. Mr. Bolton is the best personification of the delusional foreign policy of the Trump administration today. He is still hopeful for a radical change in Venezuela after facing a demonstrative defeat and flopped coup attempt. Indeed, it is Mr. Bolton who has the “nerves of steel!”

Hands off Venezuela!

*

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

Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

The New York Times has begged readers’ forgiveness for printing a cartoon that supposedly “included anti-Semitic tropes” in its international edition, but no amount of shameless groveling will stop the Israeli weaponization of the “anti-Semitism” smear as it steamrolls America’s once-sacred First Amendment freedoms. This is a crusade to silence all legitimate criticism of a criminal regime, and if the Times has anything to apologize for, it is its complicity in that quest.

The offending cartoon depicts President Donald Trump as a blind man being led by a guide dog with the face of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, identified by a star-of-David collar. It’s unclear what the “anti-Semitic trope” in this case is supposed to be – the collar is arguably necessary to confirm the dog is Netanyahu, and the reader would have to be a political illiterate to interpret that as a stand-in for “all Jews.” The Times’ willingness to slap the “anti-Semitic trope” label on the cartoon regardless should put to rest the ridiculous “anti-Semitic trope” trope that is tirelessly deployed to smother accusations of wrongdoing by Israel or its lobbying organizations inside the US.

Source: The Times of Israel

Netanyahu himself has boasted that Trump acted on his orders when he declared Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization earlier this month, and Trump’s willingness to flout international law to unilaterally “give” the Golan Heights to Netanyahu as a re-election present shocked the world, unsettling even some Zionists who believe the land is rightfully theirs but worry the US’ official declaration will galvanize regional opposition to the occupation. Netanyahu’s last election campaign was arguably based on his ability to “lead” the US president blindly off the edge of a geopolitical cliff. Is he guilty of perpetuating anti-Semitic tropes for bragging about it?

Most papers only apologize when they’ve printed something erroneous. The Times has chosen instead to issue a correction for one of the few accurate depictions of the relationship between Israel and the White House, a glimmer of truth even more notable for its contrast with the paper’s usual disinformation painting Trump as some sort of foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Semite.

The Times’ decision to apologize for this cartoon while remaining silent when a cartoon depicting Trump in a gay love affair with Vladimir Putin was condemned by LGBT readers last year betrays the editorial board’s high moral dudgeon as the most transparent hypocrisy. US media has long smeared Putin’s government as homophobic, yet here they were presenting him half-clothed in a stomach-turning romantic embrace with Trump – a president who, it should be noted, has presided over the deterioration of US-Russia relations to levels not seen since the Cold War. But LGBT Twitter ultimately has little power in society, unlike the Israeli lobby, and the unfavorable depiction of Trump ensured most influential LGBT organizations steered clear of criticizing the cartoon. Outrage has become yet another commodity to be traded, not a genuine response to offense.l

If it’s in a repentant mood, however, the Times could apologize for its one-sided coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – much of it fed to them by The Israel Project, which skews US coverage of the facts on the ground in Israel by supplying American reporters with talking points in order to “neutralize undesired narratives.” From these spinmeisters we get the passive voice used to frame IDF soldiers mowing down unarmed protesters as “clashes occurred” and “Palestinian protesters were killed,” as well as breathless coverage of tunnels, kites, and rocket attacks that rarely seem to hit anyone.

The Times could apologize for its failure to expose the global campaign to redefine “anti-Zionism” as “anti-Semitism,” instead of playing into it by pretending a truthful cartoon is somehow an affront to Jews – as if all Jews support the racist policies of the Israeli government. Indeed, to assume all Jews back the criminal Netanyahu regime in its openly genocidal campaign to eradicate the Palestinians from the few enclaves of the West Bank in which they remain while maintaining an open-air concentration camp in Gaza is wildly anti-Semitic.

The Times could apologize for failing to report on the massive Israeli spying operation – funded, in no small part, by the US taxpayer – targeting American activists on American soil, exposed in detail in the suppressed al-Jazeera documentary “The Lobby,” which leaked last year to deafening silence in the media. Journalist Max Blumenthal actually spoke with a Times journalist who wanted to cover the explosive revelations of the documentary, but no story ever appeared. As Ali Abunimah, founder of the Electronic Intifada, has pointed out, the suppression of the documentary should have been a story in and of itself – and would have, had it involved any other country.

“Imagine that this had been an undercover documentary revealing supposed Russian interference, or Iranian interference…in US policy, and powerful groups had gone to work to suppress its broadcast and it had leaked out. Just that element of it – the suppression and the leak – should be front page news in the Washington Post and the New York Times,” he told Chris Hedges, whose RT program was the closest thing to mainstream coverage the documentary received in the US.

The Times instead chooses to cover up the actions of groups like the Israel on Campus Coalition as they surveil and smear pro-Palestinian activists – college students, professors, and others sympathetic to Israel’s sworn enemy – using a strategy the ICC’s executive director Jacob Baime admits is based on US General Stanley McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. “The Lobby” revealed that agents working for the Israeli government infiltrate pro-Palestinian, pro-peace groups using fake social media accounts and report their findings back to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a shocking fact that none of the organizations named in the film have disputed. A foreign government operating a military-style surveillance network to target and smear American citizens in their own country – for nothing more than exercising their freedom of speech – gets a pass from the Times, but a cartoon showing Trump’s blind loyalty to Israel for what it is must be condemned.

It’s tough to electrify an outrage mob based on a story that wasn’t printed, but the Times’ failure to address the very real threat to Americans exercising their free speech – a threat all the more dire because it is funded by US tax dollars to the tune of $3.8 billion per year – merits at least a full-page apology. Compounding the insult is a domestic economic crisis, with many American cities facing record homelessness, skyrocketing cost of living, a dearth of secure employment and an excess of exploitative “gig economy” temp work, and a rapidly-disappearing social safety net. Israel is a wealthy country, as Netanyahu often boasts, a successful country. Only a truly blind government could continue to fork over such enormous sums of money while Americans languish in poverty.

“The anti-Semitism smear is not what it used to be,” one lobbyist laments to al-Jazeera’s hidden camera-equipped reporter. Perhaps this is why the state of Florida has advanced a bill to criminalize “anti-Semitism,” now broadly redefined to include “alleging myths…that Jews control the media, economy, government, or other institutions.” The bill passed the House unanimously, the one holdout bullied into submission when she voiced concerns about its incompatibility with the First Amendment, yet to point out – as AIPAC does – that this bipartisan approval exists because the Israeli lobby has influence over both parties, or that this influence can make or break a candidate, is about to become illegal. When even a milquetoast like Democratic congressman Beto O’Rourke has stuck his neck out to call Netanyahu a racist – and he receives more money from the Israeli lobby than most of his House colleagues – the Times should be ashamed of itself for pushing the fiction that criticism of Israel and its iron grip on the US government is equivalent to anti-Semitism.

The Times’ own article about its apology quotes an interview with the “guilty” party, Portuguese cartoonist Antonio Moreira Antunes, from the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack, when four cartoonists and the magazine’s editor were murdered, supposedly for printing an offensive cartoon. There is a definite parallel with the Zionist outrage mobs calling for Antunes’ head – figuratively, if not yet literally; many are unsatisfied with the Times’ apology and insist Antunes suffer for his insolence by losing his job, if not his life. Antunes, in the interview, called his job “a profession of risk,” but states “there is no other option but to defend freedom of expression.”

The New York Times, and everyone else who demanded they apologize for a truthful cartoon while ignoring their failure to oppose genuine bigotry in the Netanyahu regime and supporters of Zionism, clearly do not agree that freedom of expression is worth defending. A press that cannot even defend itself does not deserve to be called “free.”

*

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

Helen Buyniski‘s work has been published at RT, Global Research, Progressive Radio Network, and Veterans Today, among other outlets. A journalist and photographer based in New York City, Helen has a BA in Journalism from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University. Find more of her work at http://www.helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski, or follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

For nearly 10 years now, the British government has waged a war on Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks. It has used every hard and soft power tool in its arsenal: the judiciary, government, international treaties, the media, diplomatic power and even the deprivation of health care. For his role in exposing US  war crimes and corruption, an outraged US establishment has conspired to silence Assange, constructing charges against him and demanding his extradition.  Meanwhile, the British government has tactically used vast state resources to serve Washington, all the while following the agenda of extradition and persecution.  By doing this, the government, along with much of the political class, has shown its complicity in what is recognised as a war not just on Assange, but on journalists, publishers and whistle blowers, and even more crucially – a war on freedom of the press and free speech.

In the course of this war, the British  government has violated multiple human rights laws.

Comments regarding the use of law in Assange’s case have been provided to 21st Century Wire in correspondence by former UN rapporteur to Venezuela and Ecuador, Alfred De Zayas, who visited Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2015.

Government lawyers destroying the law 

De Zayas describes the actions of the British and Swedish authorities towards Assange as:

“.. contrary  to the rule of law and contrary to the spirit of the law.”

From the outset De Zayas has warned that the use of the law against Assange has been politically driven:

“…it is more than evident that the charges in Sweden were trumped-up.  This in itself is an additional violation of domestic and international law.”

The investigation into sexual allegations made against Assange was initially quickly dropped.  It was then picked up again by lawyers who later applied the law in such a way that trapped Assange and secured a pocket of opportunity for his extradition to the US. The inaction of the Swedish prosecutors over several years gives further credence that the investigation has been used as a vehicle to achieve extradition.

The warrant for extradition was issued despite Assange receiving permission to travel to the UK from Sweden where the allegations were made, and where he had offered to meet with the prosecutors.   It is also well-known that Assange jumped bail to seek asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2012 to avoid being extradited to Sweden, known for its compliance with US dictates.  If eventually extradited to the US, Assange feared persecution by an outraged government whose war crimes and corruption he exposed.

Former Stockholm chief district prosecutor, Sven-Erik Alhem, described the steps to extradite Assange as:

“… unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate.”

He has stated the Swedish government had no legitimate reason to extradite Assange as he could simply have been questioned in the UK, which Assange offered repeatedly.

Emails acquired through freedom of information requests to the UK and Swedish authorities, collected by journalists,  show that the UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) wanted Assange extradited to Sweden and put off any investigation being carried out in the UK:

“My earlier advice remains, that in my view it would not be prudent for the Swedish authorities to try to interview the defendant in the UK.”

“Thus I suggest you interview him only on his surrender to Sweden and in accordance with Swedish law.”

– Paul Close, CPS lawyer

The pressure by the CPS on Swedish prosecutors not to question Assange in the embassy continued until 2016, during which time the investigation remained in preliminary stage:

“The reason that the requisite interview interrogation did not occur until late 2016 was, it transpires, on the advice of the CPS. Once the interview did occur, the proceedings were swiftly discontinued.”

– Gareth Peirce and Mark Summers, Assange Lawyers, Westminster Magistrates’ Court

These are investigators who knew who the accused was, where the accused was, and for years failed to knock on the door.  Instead, they chose the dead-end route to the investigation for all concerned, and left Assange with the threat of extradition to the US hanging over him, and with it the risk of persecution at the hands of the US.  This looks like a strategic and politically-driven use of the law by the UK and Sweden.  De Zayas has condemned the weaponizing of the law against Assange:

“Both violated article 2 of the Lisbon Treaty and should be denounced for allowing the administration of justice to be politicized and used as weapons against a journalist — thereby violating article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights…”

“I think that the collusion of government lawyers in what must be termed an Orwellian persecution of a journalist is shocking.”

Baltasar Garzon, the judge who indicted Pinochet and has defended Assange, has described the motive behind the persecution – Assange is a scapegoat. Watch:

Sexual allegations: a smokescreen for politicised use of the law

The stalling tactic also meant Assange would be attached to a sexual misconduct allegation over a long period of time, a platform for vilification which the British government exploited after the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found Assange to be arbitrarily detained in 2015.  ‘Human Rights’ Minister at the time, Dominic Raab clearly shows how the ‘fugitive from justice’ narrative has been used as a smokescreen to perpetuate state-sponsored persecution:

The ruling is factually upside down. It lacks moral clarity for the UN to suggest what they have about Mr Assange’s position given that he holed himself up in the  Ecuadorian embassy, and he is facing a serious allegation of rape. Sweden is not some tin pot banana republic. It’s a country with a well-respected justice system. He can forget about compensation, and frankly many people here will think this kind of nonsense undermines the credibility of the UN, which is not what we want.

Because Assange could not clear his name without risking persecution, the British government used this to deflect from its violation of international law and falsely accused Assange of obstructing justice.  However, it was not Assange obstructing justice but those applying the law:  obstructing the investigation that might end the sexual allegations,  obstructing any route for Assange to leave the embassy without threat to his life through extradition, an erosion of the law.  All the while the government squandering many millions in public funds on surveillance outside of the Ecuadorian embassy in Belgravia.

The possibility of extradition to the US was kept going for years, while the British and Swedish governments stalled the investigation and kept a European arrest warrant live, waiting for an opportunity to extradite Assange.  After the Swedish investigation was dropped in 2017 the British government continued squandering taxes on covert surveillance sitting in wait to ‘catch’ Assange.  And now that he has been betrayed by the government of Ecuador which has provided such opportunity, the British government continues to drive the false narrative that Assange is a fugitive and must face justice:

“… it is absolutely right that Assange will face justice in the proper way in the UK.” – Alan Duncan

Note: Julian Assange was never charged with any sexual offense by Swedish authorities, rather he was only ever sought for questioning in an ongoing investigation by Swedish prosecutor’s office. To suggest that he was a ‘fugitive’ from justice would be patently false.

What justice is Duncan referring to? The only prosecutable crime under British law applicable to Assange on 11th April 2019 was skipping bail seven years ago, a charge De Zayas does not credit:

“The skipping bail charge is frivolous and does not deserve any respect by UK courts.”

Duncan is not referring to British justice but deferring to US government for which the UK authorities have been operating since 2010, resulting in the erosion of law and a betrayal of British sovereignty.

Contrary to receiving justice,  Assange is now facing continued violation of his human rights. The UK is failing to meet the conditions set by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention under  Articles 7, 9, 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, summarised in a UN OHCHR statement as:

“The Working Group maintains that the arbitrary detention of Mr. Assange should be brought to an end, that his physical integrity and freedom of movement be respected, and that he should be entitled to an enforceable right to compensation.”

De Zayas explains that further more:

“… according to the principle “ubi ius, ibi remedium” –where there is law, there is a remedy — any violation of law requires reparation and rehabilitation.  Thus both UK and Sweden are still obliged to make reparation which could easily be by releasing him immediately.  Reparation need not be only monetary.  His rights were violated by the UK and the UK has the power to release him.” 

Comments like Duncan’s are meant to suggest ‘good governance’; the rule of law is implemented to keep us safe so we can trust the government.  But the world is watching Britain’s politicised use of its legal system, and pressure will now be put upon the British government to reject the US extradition request that would likely end in persecution for Assange.

The role of British diplomacy in the war on Assange

Alan Duncan, Minister for Europe and Americas, apparently spent months working out a deal with the US and Ecuador over Assange.

On 11th April Ecuador’s president, Lenin Moreno, stripped Assange of his Ecuadorian citizenship and asylum status, in violation of Ecuadorian constitutional law – Assange was granted citizenship in 2017.   As pretexts for Assange’s ‘exit’ Moreno used propaganda narratives and smear campaigns.  He then invited UK police into the embassy to arrest him. Assange was denied due process by the Ecuadorian government that was obligated under its own law to protect him.  It is believed that Moreno was motivated by 2 essential events: hand over Assange or have a $4 billion plus IMF loan vetoed by Washington, and revenge for the circulation by Wikileaks of  information implicating him in a corruption scandal with offshore company INA.

Very welcome news to see that Assange is out of the Ecuador Embassy. My thanks to President @Lenin Moreno and his government for their cooperation and tireless diplomacy in making this happen.

— Sir Alan Duncan MP (@AlanDuncanMP) April 11, 2019

The role played by Alan Duncan in enabling Moreno to deliver Assange up for US extradition could be described as that of a ‘middle man’ in a sleazy deal, and yet, this is how British soft power seems to work.  Duncan’s use of diplomatic power has undermined international human rights.  This is not new to Duncan, whose diplomatic office, like much of the British government, acts subservient to US political agenda.  In 2011, he was involved with a ‘White Hall’ cell engineering passage of oil to jihadists in Libya when Britain joined the US and France in overthrowing Gaddafi.  Moreover, he is on record as supporting the attempted coup by the far right Washington-backed ‘interim president’,  Juan Guaido, against the democratically elected Maduro government of Venezuela.  He also recently rejected a decision by the International Court of Justice that the UK must end its administration of Chagos Arhipelago so that it can be decolonized.

Based on these and other examples, it could be said that UK diplomacy, in the hands of people such as Duncan, is leading to chaos and the erosion of law, and most likely eventual diplomatic isolation for the UK in much the same way the current US administration has isolated itself.  Duncan’s plotting with unprincipled and corrupt leaders to subvert human rights mechanisms should be condemned:

As a political prisoner detained without charge for 8 years, in violation of 2 UN rulings, I suppose I must be "miserable"; yet nothing wrong with being a "little" person although I'm rather tall; and better a "worm", a healthy creature that invigorates the soil, than a snake.

— Defend Assange Campaign (@DefendAssange) March 27, 2018

Watch the following statement made on the floor of the House of Commons:

Any comments made by Duncan regarding ‘no death penalty’ assurances on extradition to the US are more likely for PR purposes.  Assange is protected under international law as de Zayas explains:

“Julian Assange cannot be extradited to the United States, because such an extradition would violate a jus cogens principle of international law – the rule of non-refoulement. Assange has the right to protection under the Geneva Refugee Convention and cannot be sent to any country where he would be subject to persecution, which is clearly what the US is doing.”

Duncan’s assurances are designed to appear as good governance, or the face of civilisation.  This should not fool us:  extraditing Assange with a guarantee of no death sentence still violates international law as the risk of persecution is very high, a principle also made clear by the UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer:

“In my assessment, if Mr. Assange were to be expelled from the Embassy of Ecuador, he is likely to be arrested by British authorities and extradited to the United States…Such a response could expose him to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Duncan’s humanitarian concerns about the death sentence designed to gain public trust should not distract us from what is clearly a further attempt at politicising the law, this time through the UK-US extradition treaty The exploitation of such a mechanism by the British government is a further erosion of the law.

We must see that our courts are not subservient to the US, that our judges can respect decisions made by the United Nations regarding human rights, and that they can condemn politicised use of law by government.  To date, the rulings against Assange by the British courts clearly indicate that extraterritoriality of US ‘justice’ is now here, or how else do we explain why British judges have enabled the government’s war on Assange for nearly ten years.  It appears this war is not just about press freedom, but integrity of our institutions which are supposed to promote democracy and civilisation. De Zayas warns:

“It is most regrettable when countries ostensibly committed to democracy, the rule of law, and human rights betray all of these values.  It is shocking that the mainstream press allows it to happen.  Unconscionable when civil society becomes complicit through its silence.  The US, UK, Sweden and Ecuador have been on a rampage against the rule of law — and this also harms the credibility of international law.

We are witnessing a revolt against international standards by multiple countries — US, UK, Sweden, Ecuador.”

Assange’s body – a tool for persecution

Parallels could be drawn between the British government’s policy towards Assange’s health and the US economic violence towards Venezuela – imposing devastating restrictions while offering token aid – the carrot and the stick designed to wear down the target while at the same time securing public opinion by gesturing humanitarianism.  But the ultimate goal is submission, while the strategy is blackmail.

If Assange had left the embassy to receive medical care he would not have made it to a doctor or hospital; he would have been arrested immediately. The situation was described in a 2015 psycho-social medical report detailing Assange’s living conditions, the effects of the massive police surveillance on him (he was in effect ‘under siege,‘), incidents that occurred leaving him in a state of anxiety, and the long-term effects of arbitrary detention.

The  weaponising of his deteriorating health is also described by Dr Sondra Crosby, a specialist in refugee health care, who assessed Assange in February this year.  Crosby condemned the way physical and mental suffering has been inflicted by the British government that promised to arrest him should he leave the embassy for treatment urgently needed.  She believed this amounted to a violation of articles 1 and 16 of the 1984 Convention Against Torture and asked Michelle Bachelet, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to intervene.

De Zayas believes Bachelet’s intervention is now essential:

“The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, should speak out.  But the silence is deafening. She should demand compliance with the 2016 judgement of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the rehabilitation of Assange and immediate protection of his life and health.”

The Dehumanisation of Assange through the British Media 

Much has now been written on the treatment of Assange by British mainstream media.  It has approached reporting on Assange the same way it has any of the British invasions and wars it has supported, circulating propaganda designed to inspire hatred and prejudice, manufacturing consent for violence and oppression.

We should loathe Assange for his pride , his ingratitude and meddling, his treachery, his spying, his skateboarding, how he treated his cat.  Following his arrest the BBC provided Moreno a platform to claim Assange ‘smeared feces on the embassy walls.’  The ultimate dehumanization of Assange reduced to an animal or a lunatic.  The purpose of this defamation campaign was to win our apathy so he can be quietly disposed of, as we we will agree to the erosion of the law and the criminalisation of journalism and whistle blowers, and the politicising of the courts in subservience to US ‘justice’.

But we cannot agree to that.  This war on Assange by the British government is really a war on us all.  It is an abuse of institutions, of both the spirit and the letter of the law, and of centuries civil rights achievements.  The British government is behaving in a violent and authoritarian manner behind a mask of ‘civilised rule of law’ which must be exposed and rejected.

*

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

This article was originally published on 21st Century Wire.

Author Nina Cross is an independent writer and researcher, and contributor to 21WIRE. To see more of her work, visit her Nina’s archive.

Featured image is from 21st CW

The Following text is Section 7 of

The 70 Years of NATO: From War to War,

by the Italian Committee No War No NATO

*

Documentation presented at the International Conference on the 70th Anniversary of NATO, Florence, April 7, 2019

In the course of the next two weeks, Global Research will publish the 16 sections of this important document, which will also be available as an E-book.

*
Contents 

1. NATO is born from the Bomb
2. In the post-Cold War, NATO is renewed
3. NATO demolishes the Yugoslav state
4. NATO expands eastward to Russia
5. US and NATO attack Afghanistan and Iraq
6. NATO demolishes the Libyan state
7. The US/NATO war to demolish Syria
8. Israel and the Emirates in NATO
9. The US/NATO orchestration of the coup in Ukraine
10. US/NATO escalation in Europe
11.  Italy, the aircraft carrier on the war front
12. US and NATO reject the UN treaty and deploy new nuclear weapons in Europe
13. US and NATO sink the INF Treaty
14. The Western American Empire plays the war card
15. The US/NATO planetary war system
16. Exiting the war system of NATO

***

1. After demolishing the Libyan state, the US/NATO operation to demolish the Syrian state began in the same year. One reason was the fact that in July 2011 Syria, Iran and Iraq signed an agreement for a gas pipeline that would link the Iranian oilfield of South Pars, the largest in the world, to Syria and then to the Mediterranean. Syria, where another large field was discovered near Homs, could thus become a hub of alternative energy corridors to those  controlled by US and European companies that run through Turkey and other routes.

2. The covert war began with a series of terrorist attacks, carried out above all in Damascus and Aleppo. Catastrophic were the images of the buildings devastated with powerful explosives: not the work of simple rebels, but of infiltrated war professionals. Hundreds of British elite SAS and SBS special forces – reported the Daily Star – operate in Syria, along with US and French units.

3. The rebel forces have been made up of an armed gathering of Islamic groups (until recently branded by Washington as terrorists) coming from Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Libya and other countries. In the group of Abu Omar al-Chechen – reported the reporter for   The Guardian in Aleppo – orders were given in Arabic, but have to be translated into Chechen, Tajik, Turkish, a Saudi dialect, Urdu, French and other languages. Equipped with fake passports (CIA specialties), the fighters flowed into the Turkish provinces of Adana and Hatai, bordering Syria, where the CIA opened military training centers. The weapons have arrived mainly via Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which, like in Libya, also has provided special forces.

4. The command of operations has been on board NATO ships in the port of Alessandretta. A propaganda center was opened in Istanbul where Syrian dissidents, trained and financed by the US State Department, have fabricated the news and videos that are broadcast via satellite networks.

5. From special operational centers, CIA agents provide for the purchase of weapons with large loans granted by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf monarchies. They organize the transport of weapons to Turkey and Jordan through an air bridge that finally make it across the border to groups in Syria who are already trained in special areas set up in Turkish and Jordanian territories.

6. The strategy of Western forces was disclosed in documents released in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails. In an email of 2012 (declassified as “case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498”), Clinton wrote that, given the “strategic relationship” of Iran and Syria, “the overthrow of Assad would constitute an immense benefit for Israel, and it would also diminish the understandable Israeli fear of losing their nuclear monopoly”.

7. An official Pentagon document, dated 12 August 2012 (declassified 18 May 2015 on the initiative of Judicial Watch), states that “Western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey support the opposition forces in Syria, which attempt to control the eastern areas adjacent to the western Iraqi provinces, helping them “to create safe havens under international protection”. There is “the possibility of establishing a Salafist principality in eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the powers that support the opposition want to do: isolate the Syrian regime, the strategic rear of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.

8. It is in this context that ISIS (or DAESH) was formed in 2013, which calls itself “The State of the Islamic Caliphate”. In May 2013, a month after founding ISIS, Ibrahim al-Badri – the “caliph” known on the battlefield as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – met US Senator John McCain, leader of the Republican Party who was commissioned by the President Obama (Democrat) to carry out secret operations in Syria on behalf of the government. The meeting was photographically documented.

9. ISIS has received funding, weapons and transit routes from the closest allies of the United States: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey and Jordan, based on a plan certainly coordinated by the CIA. After having conquered a great part of the Syrian territory with its militias, ISIS launched an offensive in Iraq, not surprisingly at a time when the government, headed by the Shiite Nouri al-Maliki, was distancing itself from Washington, getting closer and closer to China and Russia. The offensive, which set Iraq on fire, was fueled by the Sunni-Shiite rivalry. ISIS militias occupied Ramadi, Iraq’s second largest city, and immediately afterwards, Palmyra, in central Syria, killing thousands of civilians and forcing tens of thousands to flee.

10. ISIS actually has played a functional role in the US/NATO strategy of state demolitions. This does not mean that the mass of its militants, coming from different countries, is aware of it. It is very complex: there are Islamic fighters, formed in the drama of war, who are ex-soldiers from Saddam Hussein’s military who fought against invaders, and many others whose stories are always linked to the tragic social situations caused by the first Gulf War and the successive ones over more than twenty years. It also includes foreign fighters from Europe and the United States, behind whose masks there are certainly secret agents specially trained for these operations.

11. Very suspicious is also the unlimited access that ISIS has, in its period of maximum development, to the world media networks that are dominated by US and European corporate giants, through which it spreads its videos of beheadings that create horror and manipulate public opinion in favor of the intervention in Iraq and Syria.

12. The military campaign “Inherent Resolve”, formally directed against ISIS, was launched in Iraq and Syria in August 2014 by the USA and their allies: France, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and others. If the United States, France and Great Britain used their fighter-bombers as they had against Libya in 2011, the forces of ISIS, moving in open spaces, would be easy targets. They can instead advance undisturbed with columns of armored cars loaded with men and explosives. If ISIS advances in Syria and Iraq, it is because Washington wants just that. The strategic goal of Washington is the demolition of Syria and the reoccupation of Iraq.

13. The Russian military intervention in Syria in 2015, in support of government forces, reversed the fate of the conflict. Russian fighter-bombers destroyed ISIS strongholds one after the other, paving the way for Damascus forces. The United States, displaced, played the card of the fragmentation of Syria, supporting Kurdish insurgents and others. After trying to demolish the Syrian state for five years, breaking it up with armed terrorist groups infiltrated from outside and causing over 250,000 deaths, when the operation started failing due to Russian military intervention in support of Syrian government forces, the political and media apparatuses of the entire West launched a colossal psyop (psychological operation) to make the government and all those Syrians who resisted aggression appear as aggressors. The spearhead of the psyop was the demonization of President Assad (as they had already done with Milosevic and Gaddafi), presented as a sadistic dictator who enjoyed bombing hospitals and exterminating children with the help of his friend Putin, painted as a neo-tsar of the reborn Russian empire. When the last strongholds of ISIS fell, the same political and media apparatuses spread the fake news that ISIS was defeated by the United States and the “Syrian Democratic Forces” (a militia of Kurds and Arabs armed and supported by the Pentagon).

*

Sections 8-16 of the 70 Years of NATO, From War to War, forthcoming on Global Research

This text was translated from the Italian document which was distributed to participants at the April 7 Conference. It does not include sources and references.

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

The Democratic frontrunner characterizes effort to overthrow the elected government of President Nicolas Maduro at gunpoint, as just another benign effort to “restore democracy” in Latin America.

***

Despite progressive critics and anti-war voices speaking forcefully against the Trump administration’s overt backing of the attempted coup d’état by rightwing opposition forces in Venezuela on Tuesday, 2020 Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden aligned himself with the White House by throwing his support behind the overthrow effort.

“The violence in Venezuela today against peaceful protesters is criminal,” Biden tweeted on Tuesday. “Maduro’s regime is responsible for incredible suffering. The U.S. must stand with the National Assembly & Guaidó in their efforts to restore democracy through legitimate, internationally monitored elections.”

But what Biden embraced as an effort to “restore democracy,” many foreign policy experts—ones not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to people like national security advisor John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and President Donald Trump—called something else entirely: a violent effort by Venezuela’s rightwing elites, led by Juan Guaidó, to overthrow the elected government of President Nicolas Maduro.

To people of conscience:

Mike Pence, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Marco Rubio, Elliott Abrams, & Donald Trump are actively engineering a coup to overthrow a democratically-elected Latin American government. Speak out against US imperialism TODAY! #HandsOffVenezuela https://t.co/SGyOL1XaZM

— CODEPINK (@codepink) April 30, 2019

In subsequent comments during a campaign stop, Biden called for “calm” in Venezuela but also repeated the White House position that Maduro is not—despite his win in last year’s contested elections which the opposition largely boycotted—the legitimate leader of Venezuela:

Joe Biden on Venezuela: "What I think is ultimately required is for the international community to demand that there be free elections." pic.twitter.com/2PVBdSDNwM

— The Hill (@thehill) April 30, 2019

Biden wasn’t alone among top Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others also expressed support for the military uprising launched by Guaidó.

For critics, however, one of the salient dynamics about Biden’s announced support for the U.S.-backed coup in Venezuela in 2019 is what it suggests the former vice president has learned—or rather has not learned—about U.S. intervention (aka “meddling”) in the affairs of foreign nations since his support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Democratic presidential "favorite" @JoeBiden who enthusiastically cheerled Iraq War now backing @realDonaldTrump's coup in Venezuela https://t.co/zyFIGazeuw

— venezuelanalysis.com (@venanalysis) April 30, 2019

Interviewed by Democracy Now! early on Wednesday, economist and foreign policy expert Jeffrey Sachs, who directs the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, and Professor Miguel Tinker Salas of Pomona College discussed what they both agree is the dangerous and counterproductive agenda that leaders like Trump, Bolten, Biden, and Pelosi are now pushing in Venezuela.

“What’s so stupid about these American policies, these neocon policies,” said Sachs, “is they do create disaster, but they don’t achieve even the political goals of these nasty people like Bolton. It’s not as if they’re effective and nasty; they’re completely ineffective and totally nasty at the same time.”

While acknowledging that Maduro has certainly made mistakes and legitimate criticisms of his government exist, Tinker Salas said the history of U.S. intervention in Latin America—not to mention elsewhere in the world— shows overthrowing governments in this manner “doesn’t produce the change that most people want. And what it does is it aggravates conditions for the majority of the population.”

Sachs—who last week released a detailed study along with economist Mark Weisbrot on the devastating impact that U.S.-imposed sanctions have had on the Venezuelan economy—added that people backing Guaidó and the coup effort are really just embracing “normal U.S. right-wing foreign policy, nothing different.”

“This is the same foreign policy that we saw throughout Latin America in the 20th century,” Sachs added. “It’s the same foreign policy that we saw catastrophically in the Middle East. This is Mr. Bolton. This is Mr. Bolton’s idea of diplomacy. This is Trump’s idea of diplomacy. You punch someone in the face. You crush your opponent. You try whatever way you can to get your way. It’s very simpleminded. It’s very crude.”

“And,” and concluded, “it never works. It just leads to catastrophe.”

*

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

It’s Groundhog Day again in Venezuela, as the local conservative opposition has launched another attempt to oust President Nicolás Maduro from power. Surrounded by a few hardcore supporters, Washington-backed self-appointed president Juan Guaidó on April 30 called on the military to rise up and overthrow the democratically elected Maduro. Guaidó, a man who has never even stood for president, attempted the same thing in January, and the opposition has attempted to remove Maduro, and his predecessor Hugo Chávez, on many occasions, including in 2017, 2014, 2013, 2002 and 2001.

Despite bearing the clear hallmarks of a coup—defined as “the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group”—US media have overwhelmingly supported it, as they have past attempts (FAIR.org, 1/25/19, 5/16/18, 4/18/02). CNN (4/30/19) told the United States that it must “root for the people” of Venezuela, before explicitly stating, “Rooting for the Venezuelan people means hoping that Maduro will step down”—thus underlining the phenomenon noted by FAIR (1/31/19) that to corporate media, “the people” of Venezuela are whoever agrees with the US government. CNN (4/30/19) also used images of Guaidó’s paramilitaries (identifiable by their blue armbands) to illustrate a report claiming the forces of “socialist dictator” Maduro were “mowing down citizens in the streets.”

The CNN column (4/30/19) helpfully clarifies: “Rooting for the Venezuelan people means hoping that Maduro will step down peacefully.”

Not a Coup, but a…

Framing how readers see an issue is an incredibly powerful tool of persuasion. It’s not carpet bombing, it’s surgical strikes. And people are more likely to accept advanced interrogation techniques than they are torture.

In their efforts to refrain from using the negative—but accurate—term “coup” to describe events they support, the media have sometimes had to go to bizarre, roundabout and garbled lengths to dance around it. The Washington Post (4/30/19) used the clunky phrase “opposition-led military-backed challenge.”  The Post (4/30/19) also published an article in support of Guaidó headlined “Is What’s Happening in Venezuela an Attempted Coup? First, Define ‘Coup,” arguing that there were such things as “noble” and “democratic coups.”

And the award for Most Awkward Euphemism goes to…the Washington Post (4/30/19)!

Other outlets also refused to use the most logical word to describe events. CBS (4/30/19), Reuters (5/1/19) and CNN (5/1/19) chose the word “uprising,” NPR (4/30/19) and the New York Times (4/30/19) “protest,” and Yahoo! News went with the phrase “high-risk gamble” (5/1/19). Meanwhile, the Miami Herald (4/30/19) insisted that the “military rebellion” in Venezuela “can be called many things. But don’t call it a ‘coup attempt.’”

Even international organizations like the BBC (5/1/19), the Guardian (5/1/19) and Al-Jazeera (5/1/19) only used the word “coup” in quotations, characterizing it as an accusation attributed to government officials media have been demonizing for years (Extra!, 11–12/05; FAIR.org, 5/28/18, 4/11/19). This despite the fact that Al-Jazeera (4/30/19) reported on the day of the coup that Erik Prince, CEO of the private military contractor Blackwater, tried to persuade Donald Trump to let him send 5,000 mercenaries to Venezuela to “remove” Maduro.

Stenographers for Power

The reasons for the reluctance of the media to use the word “coup” can be found in official announcements from the government. With all the credibility of an armed man in a mask repeatedly shouting “this is not technically a bank robbery,” national security advisor John Bolton told reporters on April 30, “This is clearly not a coup,” but an effort by ”the Venezuelan people” to “regain their freedom,” which the US “fully supports.” Likewise, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that what we are seeing in Venezuela “is the will of the people to peacefully change the course of their country from one of despair to one of freedom and democracy.”

Soon after Bolton’s comments, Bloomberg published a series of articles (4/30/19; 4/30/19; 4/30/19), all by different writers, on why the events did not constitute a coup attempt. This, despite Bloomberg’s reporter Andrew Rosati revealing that coup leader Leopoldo Lopez told him and the rest the international media core that he wants the US to formally govern Venezuela once Maduro falls.

Pompeo made waves in April after publicly admitting at an event at Texas A&M University that he was a serial liar, cheat and thief. As CIA director, he declared, “We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses [on it]!” Nevertheless, the media credulously repeated his astonishing claims, made in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer (5/1/19), that Maduro, who has survived multiple coup attempts and assassinations, had been on the airport tarmac on his way to Cuba, “ready to leave” Venezuela for good, only for Russia to tell him to stay. This dubious, unverified and officially contested assertion made headlines around the world (Daily Beast, 4/30/19; Newsweek, 4/30/19; Times of London, 5/1/19; Deutsche Welle, 4/30/19), with few questioning its credibility.

“We lied, we cheated, we stole,” Pompeo declared—but trust him, Maduro only stayed in power because Putin told him to (CNN, 5/1/19)!

This is not the first time the media have lined up behind the government on a Venezuelan coup. As detailed in my book, Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting, the US media also endorsed the April 2002 coup against Chavez, using euphemisms such as “popular uprising” (Miami Herald, 4/18/02), “unrest” (New York Times, 5/23/02) or “Chavez’s temporary downfall” (New York Times, 4/29/02) to frame events more positively. Only after an official White House spokesperson used the word “coup” on April 15, 2002, was the word frequently used in the media, suggesting a close synergy between government officials and those supposedly employed to hold them to account.

After barely 12 hours, the most recent coup attempt appeared to have failed under the weight of its own unpopularity. According to the New York Times (4/30/19), Guaidó failed to attract meaningful support from the military, his co-conspirator Leopoldo Lopez had sought refuge first in the Chilean then in the Spanish embassy, and 25 of his paramilitaries had done the same in the Brazilian one. Guaidó did not win over the Venezuelan majority, who had previously chased his motorcade out of a working class district when he tried to enter. Ordinary Venezuelans continued their lives, or even rushed to the defense of the government. As USA Today (5/1/19) summed up:

Guaidó called it the moment for Venezuelans to reclaim their democracy once and for all. But as the hours dragged on, he stood alone on a highway overpass with the same small cadre of soldiers with whom he launched a bold effort to spark a military uprising.

It appears that the main base of support for the coup was the US government…and the media. The press’s extraordinary complicity, lining up with the State Department’s version of the world in the face of empirical evidence, highlights the worrying closeness between media and government. When it comes to foreign policy, there is often no difference between deep state and fourth estate.

*

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

Alan MacLeod @AlanRMacLeod is a member of the Glasgow University Media Group. His latest book, Bad News From Venezuela: 20 Years of Fake News and Misreporting, was published by Routledge in April.

Featured image is from Club Orlov

During the media frenzy, diplomatic flurry and widespread speculations around a hitherto marginal Saudi journalist’s apparently grizzly demise in Istanbul’s Saudi consulate last October, my thoughts stayed with the deathly silence that had fallen around Wikileaks’ founder and director.

Information about Julian Assange had become increasingly sparse and obscured. After six years under virtual house arrest in Ecuador’s London embassy, his fate was more precarious every day.  Seeking temporary asylum with Ecuador was apparently a serious miscalculation by Assange and his lawyers.

By 2017, Assange’s astute observations on a range of policy issues were becoming few and far between, his opinion on international matters sought or quoted www.Wikileaks.org turned less tantalizing too. (The most recent post is dated January, 2019.)

Did international media and free press advocates who once celebrated Assange and who utilized his revelations and heaped awards on Wikileaks collectively agreed to abandon their erstwhile hero? And why the turnaround? (Not easy to explain although one suggestion is former associates conspired to depose him)

Increased silence from within Assange’s refuge presaged his recent ‘capture’. Then, when he suddenly appeared, subdued by several guards, international media shamelessly rushed to applaud his arrest. Many repeated scant, salacious details of his condition at the time of his forced removal from the embassy. Reprehensible. Dismaying. Will those gloating journalists care what his captors do to Assange in detention?

This for the man whose political analyses and Wikileaks revelations had been daily headlines not long ago. This for a journalist and publisher who introduced a profound strategy to expose a government’s sinister diplomatic schemes, excesses and crimes documented by their own internal reports. This for an organization gathering evidence of government wrongdoing at a critical time, starting in 2006 when U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were being reevaluated by a sobering public. Rumors of military crimes, cover-ups, torture, black-site prisons, etc. had gradually, although belatedly, gained credibility and, following Abu Graib Prison revelations, Wikileaks provided irrefutable evidence of how U.S.A. and its allies conduct their wars. (How useless normal checks are was demonstrated by Chelsea Manning’s thwarted attempts to report questionable practices within the U.S.military structure.)

Also Assange launched Wikileaks.org soon after we recognized the potential of new digital technology. Here was a tool with the capacity to store and transfer massive quantities of data; hard copy was redundant and security systems for digital data including those of intelligence agencies were untested.

Julian Assange was no ordinary, lone, computer geek hacking commercial operators. He had a clear political agenda. He emerged as the unmatched pioneer sleuth for our new digital age, building Wikileaks as a free public platform for distributing huge quantities of data, material supposedly only accessible to authorized personnel. In its audacity Wikileaks even published a CIA manual on its (own) hacking methods! The undeniable content of the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs and diplomatic files know as Cable Gate clearly demonstrates how the U.S. spies on governments, including allies.

Wikileaks set a new standard for investigative journalism.

It took an exceptional mind to create the Wikileaks platform but also to assess and manage massive amounts of data gathered and uploaded to it. (I myself never searched through those files, but my perusal of the 2015 book, The Wikileaks Files,with an introduction by Assange offers a hint of the treasure the original files represent.) They will doubtless be drawn on by historians and policy analysts for decades.

Assange’s technical handling of the files he assembled was matched by his articulate public statements. He understood their implications better than many others and he demonstrated a critical grasp of international issues and policy implications. He could condense and explain the data to laypeople better than seasoned political journalists and professors could. So lucid were Assange’s commentaries that he was certain to be viewed by authorities as threatening as the Wikileaks postings.

With this brief sketch of Assange’s short career and his contributions to journalism, let’s recall the hardly known internationally celebrated personage in whose name an international award was created– an undistinguished fellow whose death, we were told, threatened one of Washington’s sacred alliances:—that with Saudi Arabia.

Certainly, this gadfly media celebrity should not have been murdered and “disappeared” in what sounds like an ugly, bungled inside job. One doesn’t want to see anyone losing his or her life in our noble profession, (although many do). Tell me frankly though: what was the real contribution of Jamal Khashoggi to journalism? Not much. Yes, he held positions at reputable Arab news agencies and he was doubtless highly competent.

He’d become an insider of the Saudi court. Although a clearly privileged position, that may have become an arrangement he sought to end.

In January 2018, Khashoggi was appointed as one of three new Global Opinions contributors at the prestigious Washington Post. It’s an expedient and not uncommon practice for news agencies to take on ‘native’ journalists like him. These visitors become highly valued ‘silent’ sources for their host while gaining legitimacy by writing occasional columns– a hell of a sweet deal.

Yet however insightful your occasional WaPo commentaries, they hardly matter. If you advise staff writers with reliable insider information about your country’s personalities and policies, you enjoy an elite professional badge, one you expect will protect you as well.

In Khashoggi’s case that security arrangement didn’t work out so well. Although the Washington Post managed to redeem itself by portraying their new columnist as an invaluable veteran employee who was horribly assassinated. Khashoggi became an instant American martyr, his murder a blow to the entire profession, an act that might unravel the unshakable U.S.-Saudi bond. Khashoggi’s spectacularly imagined death dominated headlines for weeks, disrupting a web of diplomatic relations. (Although talk of ending just one dimension of the American-Saudi alliance, the Yemen war, came to naught.) As for the Saudi crown prince: he may maintain a lower public profile today, but there’s little evidence his real power is diminished. Meanwhile, can you recall any citations of the Saudi journalist’s writings?

With the drama of Khashoggi’s death largely forgotten and the U.S.-Saudi status-quo restored, is there any way to compare his contribution to the imprisoned and vilified Wikileaks’ director?

*

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

Barbara Nimri Aziz is a New York based anthropologist and journalist. She is the author of “Tibetan Frontier Families” and numerous articles on Tibet and Nepal, has been working in Nepal in recent weeks. Find her work at www.RadioTahrir.org. She was a longtime producer at Pacifica-WBAI Radio in NY.

The following is an edited and abridged version of an open letter recently sent by Dr Rosemary Mason to Michael Gove, the British Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The full version containing relevant citations and additional data and information may be accessed here.  

You can also find on the site linked to all of Rosemary Mason’s previous work outlining the devastating impact of glyphosate and modern farming practices which remain in place due to the well-documented subversion of science and the corruption of governments and regulatory bodies by industry interests. 

It seems likely that a post-Brexit trade deal with the US could mean more of the same and lead to the introduction of GM crops in the UK alongside the lowering of standards for the use of biocides in agriculture. Sainsbury Laboratory already has plans for a new open air field trial of GM potatoes on farms in Suffolk and Cambridge.

Colin Todhunter

Below, Dr Mason lays out her concerns to Mr Gove.

***

Dear Michael Gove,

I am surprised to learn that from the huge number of scientists employed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Rothamsted Research (research institute involved in developing and testing GM crops) that not one of them has read the new book by Caius Rommens, former team leader at Monsanto. He helped create GM potatoes and has retracted his research as he explains in the book ‘Pandora’s Potatoes: The Worst GMOs’.

Professor Jonathan Jones, group leader for the Sainsbury Laboratory has worked for Monsanto in the past, so he has massive conflicts of interest.

It all shows an ignorance beyond belief!

In an interview with Sustainable Pulse, Caius Rommens has revealed the hidden dangers of the GMO potatoes he created:

“During my 26 years as a genetic engineer, I created hundreds of thousands of different GM potatoes at a direct cost of about $50 million. I started my work at universities in Amsterdam and Berkeley, continued at Monsanto, and then worked for many years at J. R. Simplot Company, which is one of the largest potato processors in the world. I had my potatoes tested in greenhouses or the field, but I rarely left the laboratory to visit the farms or experimental stations. Indeed, I believed that my theoretical knowledge about potatoes was sufficient to improve potatoes. This was one of my biggest mistakes.”

When asked why he decided to reveal information about the failings of GM potatoes after spending many years creating them, he responded that looking back he believes he and his colleagues were all brainwashed:

“We all brainwashed ourselves. We believed that the essence of life was a dead molecule, DNA, and that we could improve life by changing this molecule in the lab. We also assumed that theoretical knowledge was all we needed to succeed, and that a single genetic change would always have one intentional effect only.”

Rommens states that he and the other scientists he knew were supposed to understand DNA and to make valuable modifications, but the fact of the matter was that they knew as little about DNA as the average American knows about the Sanskrit version of the Bhagavad Gita:

“We just knew enough to be dangerous, especially when combined with our bias and narrowmindedness. We focused on short-term benefits (in the laboratory) without considering the long-term deficits (in the field). It was the same kind of thinking that produced DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, recombinant bovine growth hormone, and so on. I believe that it is important for people to understand how little genetic engineers know, how biased they are, and how wrong they can be.”

He adds that it is amazing that the USDA and FDA approved the GM potatoes by only evaluating the company’s own data. He asks: how can the regulatory agencies assume there is no bias?

“I was biased and all genetic engineers are biased. It is not just an emotional bias. We need the GM crops to be approved. There is a tremendous amount of pressure to succeed, to justify our existence by developing modifications that create hundreds of millions of dollars in value. We test our GM crops to confirm their safety, not to question their safety. The regulatory petitions for deregulation are full with meaningless data but hardly include any attempts to reveal the unintended effects. For instance, the petitions describe the insertion site of the transgene, but they don’t mention the numerous random mutations that occurred during the tissue culture manipulations. And the petitions provide data on compounds that are safe and don’t matter, such as the regular amino acids and sugars, but hardly give any measurements on the levels of potential toxins or allergens.”

Caius Rommens concludes that the main problem about the current process for deregulation of GMO crops is that it is based on an evaluation of data provided by the developers of GMO crops.

Future of British agriculture

Defra is quoted as saying that after Brexit:

“The most promising crops suitable for introducing to England would be Roundup Ready GA21 glyphosate tolerant crops, which synergises well with herbicides already widely used in the UK…”

Campaigner Georgina Downs has written about the long-awaited Agriculture Bill that has been introduced before Parliament. She says that this is the UK Government’s plan on what UK farming will look like post Brexit:

“There is no reference to the protection of human health or public health in the Agriculture Bill as regards to farmers, the main users of pesticides… The widespread use of pesticides and other toxic chemicals in our existing farming system appears to be the Government’s ‘elephant in the room’ because of DEFRA’s reluctance to mention it – let alone focus on it. Therefore, there is no recognition or even any specific reference in the Agriculture Bill – or Mr Gove’s statements – to the continued risks associated with the continued use of pesticides and other agrochemicals on crop fields across the UK.”

Mr Gove, your predecessor George Eustice was interviewed by Arthur Neslen on 30/05/2016 about Brexit and stated:

“The birds and habitats directives would go. But the directives’ framework is so rigid that it is spirit-crushing.”

On pesticides, he said

“The EU’s precautionary principle needed to be reformed in favour of a US-style risk-based approach, allowing faster authorisation.”

More than 1,700 tonnes of glyphosate were sprayed on crops last year, up a third on 2012, according to Defra. The total area sprayed with the weedkiller grew by almost 500,000 hectares to 2.1 million hectares, an area the size of Wales.

The Soil Association, has called on supermarkets to take bread containing glyphosate residue off shelves. It said the maximum residue level for glyphosate in wheat of 10 mg per kg had been set well before the finding that the herbicide was probably carcinogenic. 

In a recent court case, evidence was laid out showing that Monsanto worked closely with the Environmental Protection Agency to block a toxicity review of glyphosate by a separate government agency. A current trial and two previous trials have all included evidence that Monsanto engaged in ghostwriting certain scientific papers that concluded glyphosate products were safe; and that Monsanto spent millions of dollars on projects aimed at countering the conclusions of the international cancer scientists who classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. 

Monsanto (now Bayer) faces cascading scientific evidence linking glyphosate to a constellation of other injuries that have become prevalent since its introduction, including obesity, depression, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, autism, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, kidney disease, and inflammatory bowel disease, brain, breast and prostate cancer, miscarriage, birth defects and declining sperm counts. Strong evidence now links glyphosate to various other conditions too.

Researchers peg glyphosate as a potent endocrine disruptor, which interferes with sexual development in children. The chemical compound is certainly a chelator that removes important minerals from the body, including iron, magnesium, zinc, selenium and molybdenum. Roundup disrupts the microbiome destroying beneficial bacteria in the human gut and triggering brain inflammation and other ill effects.

The UN expert on toxins Baskut Tuncak wrote in the Guardian on 06/11/2017 that it’s time to put children’s health before pesticides. He said that children are growing up exposed to a toxic cocktail of weedkillers, insecticides, and fungicides. It’s on their food and in their water, and it’s even doused over their parks and playgrounds: 

“Many governments insist that our standards of protection from these pesticides are strong enough. But as a scientist and a lawyer who specialises in chemicals and their potential impact on people’s fundamental rights, I beg to differ. Last month it was revealed that in recommending that glyphosate – the world’s most widely-used pesticide – was safe, the EU’s food safety watchdog copied and pasted pages of a report directly from Monsanto, the pesticide’s manufacturer. Revelations like these are simply shocking.

“The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most ratified international human rights treaty in the world (only the US is not a party), makes it clear that states have an explicit obligation to protect children from exposure to toxic chemicals, from contaminated food and polluted water, and to ensure that every child can realise their right to the highest attainable standard of health. These and many other rights of the child are abused by the current pesticide regime. These chemicals are everywhere and they are invisible.”

Tuncak argues that the only way to protect citizens, especially those disproportionately at risk from exposure, is for governments to regulate them effectively, in large part by adhering to the highest standards of scientific integrity. He states:

“Paediatricians have referred to childhood exposure to pesticides as creating a “silent pandemic” of disease and disability. Exposure in pregnancy and childhood is linked to birth defects, diabetes, and cancer. Because a child’s developing body is more sensitive to exposure than adults and takes in more of everything – relative to their size, children eat, breathe, and drink much more than adults – they are particularly vulnerable to these toxic chemicals.”

According to Tuncak, increasing evidence shows that even at “low” doses of childhood exposure, irreversible health impacts can result. But most victims cannot prove the cause of their disability or disease, limiting our ability to hold those responsible to account. He concludes:

“In light of revelations such as the copy-and-paste scandal, a careful re-examination of the performance of states is required. The overwhelming reliance of regulators on industry-funded studies, the exclusion of independent science from assessments, and the confidentiality of studies relied upon by authorities must change.”

Finally, based on a three-year UN-backed study from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, there are grim implications for the future of humanity. The authors conclude that the rapid decline of the natural world is a crisis even bigger than climate change.

Industrial farming is to blame for much of the destruction and extinction of nature.

We need agriculture systems that regenerate ecosystems not degenerate them.

Rosemary Mason

*

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

The US hybrid war on Venezuela has now entered a hot phase.

On April 30, Juan Guaido, US-declared ‘Interim President’ of the country appeared in a video calling for a military uprising. Guaido, accompanied by heavily armed men, claimed that he had backing from the  military and  that the video was filmed at the Generalissimo Francisco de Miranda Air Base in the capital, Caracas.

Opposition politician Leopoldo Lopez, who had been held under house arrest after “inciting violence” during the anti-government riots, appeared alongside Guaido. He claimed that he had been “released by the military”.

The US immediately declared its public support for the coup attempt at the highest level and once again threatened the country’s legitimate government with military action. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called the actions of Guaido and his armed supporters a “quest for freedom and democracy”.

The US-backed coup attempt was branded “Operación Libertad” and received at least vocal support from leaders and officials of US Latin American allies. But something went wrong.

Despite the initial claims, Guaido supporters failed to establish control of the Francisco de Miranda Air Base. In the first half of the day, the main clashes between the rebels and the country’s National Guard took place on the highway alongside the military facility and in the Altamira area. Both sides used tear gas and in some cases even opened live fire.

There was at least one incident when an armored vehicle supposedly belonging to the National Guard loyal to the government rammed into a crowd injuring at least one. The incident took place after a group of rioters attacked a National Guard detachment.

Meanwhile, the country’s President Nicolas Maduro called on his supporters to mobilize. Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez reaffirmed that the Armed Forces reject the US-proclaimed president. Samuel Moncada, the ambassador to the UN, described the situation as an “attempt by foreign powers to spark a civil war.” The government characterised armed service members supporting Guaido as “a small group of traitors”, reinforced security measures across the capital and warned that the army would resort to force if necessary.

Measures were undertaken to take off air or limit access to local and international media outlets endorsing the coup.

By the evening, rioters and defectors had been expelled from the airbase’s gates, but clashes with the sporadic use of fire arms continued across the capital. Rioters, including armed ones, marched towards the Palacio de Miraflores, the official workplace of the real president, but lacked resources to storm it. Low-scale riots also took place in various provinces.

All this came amid speculations by US officials that “democracy” was about to achieve victory and Maduro was ready to flee the country to Russia. This did not happen. This round of the coup attempt failed because of the lack of support from the local population.

According to reports, the number of soldiers and security officers who defected to Guaido is around 80. Up to 100 people were injured as a result of the April 30 clashes in Caracas. Around 70 people were detained by the authorities.

Guaido announced a new round of protests to overthrow Maduro on May 1. It appears that Guaido and his supporters will be not able to seize power without direct foreign support. Such support may come in the form of an open or a silent US-led invasion under some formal pretext. Just recently, data leaked to the media that Erik Prince had pitched an idea to deploy some 5,000 mercenaries to support the coup against the Venezuelan 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.

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

Featured image: Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido, who many nations have recognized as the country’s rightful interim ruler, and fellow opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez address a crowd of supporters in Caracas, Venezuela on April 30, 2019. (REUTERS/Manaure Quintero)

In the early morning hours of 30 April, 2019, the self-declare “Interim President”, Juan Guaidó, launched what at first sight appeared to be a military coup – Guaidó calls it “Operation Freedom” (sounds very much like a Washington-invented title) – against the democratically elected, legitimate government of Nicolas Maduro.

With two dozen of defected armed military from the Carlota “military base” [formerly a private airport] east of Caracas (not hundreds, or even thousands, as reported by the mainstream media), Guaidó went to free Leopoldo Lopez, the opposition leader, who was under house arrest, after his 13-year prison sentence for his role in the deadly 2014 anti-government protests, was commuted. They first called for a full military insurrection – which failed bitterly, as the vast majority of the armed forces are backing President Maduro and his government.

As reported straight from Caracas by geopolitical analyst, Dario Azzelli, Guaidó and López rallied from the Plaza Altamira, for the people of Venezuela to rise up and take to the streets to oust President Maduro. According to them, this was the ‘last phase’ of a peaceful coup to bring freedom and democracy back to Venezuela. The nefarious pair issued a video of their “battle cry” which they broadcast over the social media.

Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó, recognized by many countries including the United States as the country’s rightful interim ruler, stands on top of a car surrounded by soldiers and civilians at Plaza Altamira in Caracas, Venezuela, on April 30. RAFAEL HERNANDEZ/PICTURE ALLIANCE/GETTY IMAGES

They mobilized a few hundred – again not thousands as pers SMS – right-wing middle to upper class protestors and marched towards the Presidential Palace. On the way, they were confronted by the Venezuelan Civil Guard with tear gas – not even the military had to intervene – and only few protestors reached the Palacio Miraflores which was protectively surrounded by thousands of Chavistas. And that was basically the end of yet another failed coup.

Leopoldo López was seeking asylum in the Chilean Embassy which rejected him, and now, it looks like he found his refuge in the Spanish Embassy. This is a huge embarrassment and outright shame for Spain, especially after the Socialist Party, PSOE, just won the elections with 29%, though not enough to form a government by its own, but largely sufficient to call the shots as to whom should be granted asylum on their territory. Looks like fascism is still alive in Spain, if Pedro Sanchez is not able to reject a right-wing fascist opposition and illegal coup leader of Venezuela to gain refuge on Spain’s territory.

As to Guaidó, rumors have it that he found refuge in the Brazilian Embassy, though some reports say he is being protected by his Colombian friends. Both is possible, Bolsonaro and Duque are of same fascist kind, certainly ready to grant criminals – what Guaidó is – asylum.

What is important to know, though, is that throughout the day of the attempted coup, 30 April, the US State Department, in the person of the pompous Pompeo, accompanied by the National Security Advisor, John Bolton, kept threatening President Maduro in a press round. Pompeo directly menaced President Maduro, saying –

“If they ask me if the US is prepared to consider military action [in Venezuela], if this is what is necessary to restore democracy in Venezuela, the President [Donald Trump] has been coherent and clear: The military option is available, if this is what we have to do.”– These threats are repeated throughout May 1 – day after the Venezuelan attempted coup defeat by both Pompeo and warrior Bolton.

Pompeo’s audacity didn’t stop there. He went as far as suggesting to President Maduro to flee to Cuba and leave his country to those that will bring back (sic) freedom and democracy.

Let’s be clear. Although this has been said before – it cannot be repeated enough for the world to understand. These outright war criminals in Washington are in flagrant violation of the UN Charter to which the US is – for good or for bad – a signatory.

UN Charter – Chapter I, Article 2 (4), says:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

We know that the White House, Pentagon and State Department have zero respect for the UN, and, in fact, use the international body for their purposes, manipulating and blackmailing its members into doing the bidding for the US. That is all known and has been documented. What is perhaps newer is that this is now happening, especially in the cases of Venezuela and Iran, openly, in unveiled flagrant disrespect of any international law, against bodies and sovereign countries that do not bend to the whims and will of the United States.

As a result of this open violation of the UN Charter by the world’s only rogue state, some 60 UN member nations, including Russia and China, have formed a solid shield against Washington’s aggressions. The group was created especially in defense of Venezuela, but is also there for Iran and other countries being aggressed and threatened by the US. Hence, the blatant blackmailing and manipulation of weaker UN member countries becomes more difficult.

To be sure, the Russian Foreign Ministry has immediately condemned the coup as illegal and warned the US of any military intervention. This is of course not the first time, but just to be sure – Russia is there, standing by her partner and friend, Venezuela.

This Guaidó–Lopez attempted coup was most certainly following instructions from Washington. Super-puppet Guaidó, US-groomed and trained, then self-declared “presidente interino”, would not dare doing anything on his own initiative which might raise the wrath of his masters. But would the US – with all her secret services capacity – seriously launch a coup so ill-prepared that it is defeated in just a few hours with minimal intervention of Venezuelan forces? – I doubt it.

What is it then, other than a planned failure? – A new propaganda instrument, for the corporate MSM to run amok and tell all kinds of lies, convincing its complacent western public of the atrocities produced by the Maduro regime, the misery Venezuelan people must live, famine, disease without medication, oppression by dictatorship, torture, murder – whatever they can come up with. You meet any mainstream-groomed people in Europe and elsewhere, even well-educated people, people who call themselves ‘socialists’ and are leading figures in European socialist parties, they would tell you these same lies about misery caused by the Maduro regime.

How could that be – if the Maduro Government doesn’t even arrest Juan Guaidó for his multiple crimes committed since January, when he self-proclaimed being the ‘interim president’ of Venezuela. Arresting him, for the coup attempts he initiated or was party to since his auto coronation to president. That’s what a dictator would do. That’s what the United States of America, would have done a long time ago. Washington and its internal security apparatus would certainly not tolerate such illegal acts – and to top it off – foreign manipulated political illegality.

Why for example, would the media not point out the real crimes of the US vassals of South America, like Colombia, where over 6 million people are internal and external refugees, where at least 240,000 peasants and  human rights activists were massacred and many were burned by US-funded paramilitary groups, atrocities that are ongoing as of this day, despite the November 2016 signed  “Peace Agreement” between the then Santos Government and the FARC – for which President Manuel Santos received the Nobel Peace Prize. – Can you imagine!

What world are we living in? A world of everyday deceit and lies and highly paid lie-propaganda, paid with fake money – fake as in indiscriminately printed US-dollars – of which every new dollar is debt that will never be paid back (as openly admitted by former FEDs Chairman, Alan Greenspan); dollars that can be indiscriminately spent to produce the deadliest weapons, as well as for corporate media-propaganda lies – also a deadly weapon – to indoctrinate people around the globe into believing that evil is good, and that war is peace.

I have lost many friends by telling them off, by telling them the truth, the truth about Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria – mostly to no avail. It’s actually no loss; it’s merely a repeated confirmation of how far the western society has been veered off the path of conscience into a comfort zone, where believing the propaganda lies of reputed media like The Guardian, NYT, WashPost, BBC, FAZ, Spiegel, Le Monde, Figaro, el País, ABC — and so on, is edifying. They are so convincing. They are so well-reputed and well-known. How could they lie? – No loss, indeed.

Let’s stay on track, comrades. Venceremos!

*

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

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21^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.

Sunday, May 5th, 2019 from 7:00-9:00pm

Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House—800 E Broadway, Vancouver

Hosted by Vancouver Peace Council

Please join us for this incredible opportunity to hear independent journalist Eva Bartlett speak about her reporting, politics, mainstream media disinformation, and imperialism. She has reported on the ground from Palestine and Syria, where she has also lived, and most recently from Venezuela. She has received numerous awards for her journalism and has received international recognition. Eva’s activism and reporting on imperialism in the Middle East has served as invaluable evidence against some of the most egregious mainstream propaganda in our modern time.

After her speech, there will be a Q&A for further engagement.

Read more of her work here: https://ingaza.wordpress.com/ and https://twitter.com/EvaKBartlett

If you would like to donate to support this event, run purely on volunteer time, please contact us. Thank you!

Eva Bartlett’s articles on Global Research

Online independent analysis of US-led wars, rampant corruption, corporate greed, civil rights and fraudulent monetary transactions is invariably relegated to the bottom rung of search engine results.

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

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis provided by Global Research on a daily basis?

Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

*     *     *

Venezuelan Military Putsch Defeated as Leopoldo Lopez Takes Refuge in Spanish Embassy

By Ricardo Vaz, May 01, 2019

The thwarted uprising started in the early morning hours when renegade military and intelligence officers reportedly released Lopez from house arrest. Lopez then joined Guaido and a handful of soldiers on the Altamira overpass in east Caracas, outside the Francisco de Miranda airbase, known as La Carlota.

NATO Demolishes the Libyan State

By Comitato No Nato, May 01, 2019

Multiple factors make Libya important in the eyes of the United States and the European powers. It has the largest oil reserves in Africa, precious for its high quality and low cost of extraction, and large reserves of natural gas.

The Spontaneous “Military Coup” in Caracas was Meant to Fail?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 01, 2019

This spontaneous so-called military putsch was meant to fail. Visibly, it was not a carefully planned operation. And Washington was fully aware from the outset that it would fail.

Sri Lanka: Candidate for a New NATO Base?

By Peter Koenig, May 01, 2019

There was a lot of confusion, and still is, all through Sri Lanka. Nobody claimed credit for the massacres. There were rumors that Sri Lanka’s President received warnings ahead of the attacks from foreign intelligence, but ignored them. The President denies these allegations. And the explosions continue.

Video: “Clinton Foundation and IS Funded from the Same Sources”: Julian Assange interview with John Pilger

By Julian Assange and John Pilger, May 01, 2019

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange stated that Hillary Clinton’s Clinton Foundation and the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIL/ISIS) are funded from the same sources.

Predator Cops, Guilty of Sex Crimes Against Women and Children, Are a Menace to Society

By John W. Whitehead, May 01, 2019

Where are the police when these children—some as young as 9 years old—are being raped repeatedly?

For that matter, what is the Trump Administration doing about the fact that adults purchase children for sex at least 2.5 million times a year in suburbs, cities and towns across this nation?

China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Towards a Just World?

By Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, May 01, 2019

Essentially an infrastructure development endeavor it seeks to initiate and support the construction of roads, railways, ports and bridges in at least 65 other countries spanning four continents. With a commitment of over 900 billion US dollars, OBOR is the biggest infrastructure development project ever undertaken in the history of our planet.

*

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

“Interim President” Juan Guaido and right-wing opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez spearheaded an unsuccessful coup attempt in Caracas on Tuesday.

The thwarted uprising started in the early morning hours when renegade military and intelligence officers reportedly released Lopez from house arrest. Lopez then joined Guaido and a handful of soldiers on the Altamira overpass in east Caracas, outside the Francisco de Miranda airbase, known as La Carlota.

Lopez and Guaido released videos on social media, calling on the armed forces to back their efforts and urging supporters to take to the streets, in what they termed as the “final phase” of the so-called “Operation Freedom.” Large crowds of anti-government protesters, as well as opposition lawmakers, made their way to the Altamira overpass.

The scene then saw armed confrontations between the soldiers that backed Juan Guaido and those inside La Carlota airbase. According to witnesses in La Carlota, the Venezuelan armed forces fired tear gas towards the Altamira overpass, where civilian protesters began to gather, whereas Guaido’s soldiers returned live fire. Riot police also appeared on the scene to try and disperse the crowds. There are reports of protesters wounded and arrested that are unconfirmed at the time of writing.

At the same time, many of the originally deployed soldiers withdrew from the scene, later revealing that they had been “deceived” by their superiors. Simultaneously, Chavista leaders took to state and social media to denounce what they termed a coup in progress, and large crowds gathered to defend Miraflores Presidential Palace.

Guaido later attempted to lead a march, including some armed soldiers, into western Caracas but was stopped by Venezuelan National Guard forces in Chacaito, some 10 kilometers away from Miraflores.

Leopoldo Lopez was later reported to have joined his family in the Chilean Embassy. However, the Chilean ambassador subsequently explained on Twitter that Lopez and his family had instead moved to the Spanish Embassy, in what he termed a “personal choice.” Lopez was serving a 13 year sentence for his role in the deadly 2014 anti-government protests, which was later commuted to house arrest.

Brazilian authorities also confirmed at the time that 25 soldiers who had taken part in the failed insurrection had taken refuge in the Brazilian embassy in Caracas.

Opposition protesters burned a public bus in Altamira, east Caracas. (Katrina Kozarek)

For his part, Guaido was absent for several hours before releasing a video on social media in the evening, calling on his supporters to take to the streets on Wednesday to continue the “final phase” of “Operation Freedom.”

The opposition leader went on claim President Maduro “does not have the support of the armed forces,” and vowed that his efforts to oust the Venezuelan government continue “as strong as ever.”

The day saw several localised outbreaks of violence in Caracas and several other cities, with protesters setting up burning barricades and authorities responding with rubber bullets and tear gas. Violent protests were particularly focused in traditional opposition strongholds of eastern Caracas, including outside La Carlota airbase. At the time of writing there are still reports of blocked roads and detonations.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro addressed the country in a televised speech on Tuesday evening, accusing those responsible for the military uprising of trying to provoke a “massacre” and lauding the armed forces for their restraint in avoiding direct confrontations.

“Who benefits from these [confrontations]? Who finances them? Undoubtedly the leadership of the terrorist ultra-right party Popular Will,” Maduro declared, referring to the party of Lopez and Guaido.

He added that today’s actions would not go “unpunished,” explaining that eight military officers and policemen were wounded in the armed confrontations, before going on to blast US leaders for their role in endorsing the coup attempt. Maduro also showed his appreciation for the tens of thousands who mobilized to defend the presidential palace beginning in the early hours of Tuesday.

The Venezuelan president, who was accompanied by high-ranking political and military leaders, ended his speech by calling for a “massive mobilization” on May 1st to celebrate workers’ day and “defend peace.”

Crowds gathered outside Miraflores Palace on Tuesday morning. (@OrlenysOV)

US officials also weighed in during the day, with National Security Advisor John Bolton warning Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino and Supreme Court President Maikel Moreno that this was their “last chance” to support Guaido. President Donald Trump likewise tweeted that the US “stands with the People of Venezuela and their Freedom!”

The coup attempt was also condemned by world leaders, with Bolivian President Evo Morales “vigorously condemning” the putschand Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel rejecting “an attempt to fill the country with violence.”

The European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs Federica Mogherini issued a statement in the afternoon, rejecting “any form of violence” and urging “restraint,” in contrast with European Parliament President Antonio Tajani, who tweeted his support for the unfolding coup. For his part, UN Secretary General also called for “maximum restraint” and for “immediate steps” to be taken to restore calm.

*

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

Featured image: The military coup attempt led by Juan Guaido and Leopoldo Lopez was unsuccessful. (@leopoldolopez)

The Following text is Section 6 of

The 70 Years of NATO: From War to War,

by the Italian Committee No War No NATO

*

Documentation presented at the International Conference on the 70th Anniversary of NATO, Florence, April 7, 2019

In the course of the next two weeks, Global Research will publish the 16 sections of this important document, which will also be available as an E-book.

*
Contents 

1. NATO is born from the Bomb
2. In the post-Cold War, NATO is renewed
3. NATO demolishes the Yugoslav state
4. NATO expands eastward to Russia
5. US and NATO attack Afghanistan and Iraq
6. NATO demolishes the Libyan state
7. The US/NATO war to demolish Syria
8. Israel and the Emirates in NATO
9. The US/NATO orchestration of the coup in Ukraine
10. US/NATO escalation in Europe
11.  Italy, the aircraft carrier on the war front
12. US and NATO reject the UN treaty and deploy new nuclear weapons in Europe
13. US and NATO sink the INF Treaty
14. The Western American Empire plays the war card
15. The US/NATO planetary war system
16. Exiting the war system of NATO

***

1. Multiple factors make Libya important in the eyes of the United States and the European powers. It has the largest oil reserves in Africa, precious for its high quality and low cost of extraction, and large reserves of natural gas. On these, the Libyan state maintains strong control, leaving limited profit margins to US and European companies. In addition to black gold, Libya has white gold: the immense reserve of fossil water from the Nubian aquifer, which extends under Libya, Egypt, Sudan and Chad. Relevant are the sovereign funds, the capital that the Libyan state has invested abroad, in particular to provide Africa with its own financial bodies and its own currency.

2. On the eve of the 2011 war, the United States and the European powers “froze”, or seized, the Libyan sovereign funds, delivering a mortal blow to the entire project. The emails of Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State of the Obama administration in 2011), which came to light later, confirmed the real purpose of the war: to block Gaddafi’s plan to use Libyan sovereign funds to create autonomous financial bodies of the African Union and an African currency as an alternative to the dollar and the CFA franc (the currency that 14 African countries, ex-French colonies are forced to use). It was Clinton – the New York Times would later document – who had President Obama sign “a document authorizing a covert operation in Libya and the supply of weapons to the rebels”.

3. Tribal sectors hostile to the government of Tripoli and Islamic groups that had until a few months before been defined as terrorists were financed and armed. At the same time special forces infiltrated Libya, including thousands of easily disguised Qatari commandos. The entire operation was led by the United States, first through the African Command, then through NATO under US command.

4. On 19 March 2011, Libya’s air-sea bombing began. In seven months, US/NATO air forces carried out 30,000 missions, of which 10,000 were attacks involving the use of over 40,000 bombs and missiles. Italy participated in this war using its military bases and forces and tearing up the Treaty of Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation between the two countries. For the war on Libya, Italy made seven air bases (Trapani, Gioia del Colle, Sigonella, Decimomannu, Aviano, Amendola and Pantelleria) available to the US/NATO forces, providing technical assistance and supplies. The Italian Air Force participated in the war by carrying out over a thousand missions, and the Italian Navy engaged on several fronts.

5. With the US/NATO war of 2011, the Libyan state was demolished and Gaddafi himself assassinated. That State was demolished which, on the southern shore of the Mediterranean facing Italy, maintained “high levels of economic growth” (as the World Bank itself documented in 2010), recording “high indicators of human development” including universal access to primary and secondary education with 46% of the population at university level. Despite the disparities, the standard of living of the Libyan population was considerably higher than that of other African countries. This was evidenced by the fact that over two million immigrants, mostly Africans, found work in Libya.

6. Sub-Saharan African immigrants were also affected by the war, who, persecuted on charges of collaborating with Gaddafi, were imprisoned or forced to flee. Many, driven by desperation, attempted the crossing of the Mediterranean towards Europe. Those who lost their lives were also victims of the war in which NATO demolished the Libyan state.

*

Sections 7-16 of the 70 Years of NATO, From War to War, forthcoming on Global Research

This text was translated from the Italian document which was distributed to participants at the April 7 Conference. It does not include sources and references.

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

Was it really a military coup? 

Anybody who has lived in Caracas, knows that you cannot wage a spontaneous military coup starting up in Chacaito, an upper middle class residential area, with a view to eventually marching towards the Miraflores presidential palace located in the historical centre of Caracas, without getting caught in dense traffic.  

There are important historical precedents of failed coups caught up in traffic.

Guaido presents the operation as the “Final phase” of “Operation Freedom.” ???

An attempted coup or violent street riots?

Lopez and Guaido released videos on social media, calling on the armed forces to back their efforts and urging supporters to take to the streets, in what they termed as the “final phase” of the so-called “Operation Freedom.” Large crowds of anti-government protesters, as well as opposition lawmakers, made their way to the Altamira overpass. (Venezuela Analysis, May 1, 2019)

The government responded by sending in the riot police, with the Armed Forces using tear gas against the protesters.

This spontaneous so-called military putsch was meant to fail.

Visibly, it was not a carefully planned operation. And Washington was fully aware from the outset that it would fail.  In fact it was carefully staged “not to succeed”:

The scene then saw armed confrontations between the soldiers that backed Juan Guaido and those inside La Carlota airbase.

[Carlota is not a full-fledged military base, it is a former private airport, largely defunct. It is now under the jurisdiction of the State of Miranda, used for both military and civilian emergencies]

According to witnesses in La Carlota [air base], the Venezuelan armed forces fired tear gas towards the Altamira overpass, where civilian protesters began to gather, whereas Guaido’s soldiers returned live fire. Riot police also appeared on the scene to try and disperse the crowds. There are reports of protesters wounded and arrested that are unconfirmed at the time of writing.

At the same time, many of the originally deployed soldiers withdrew from the scene, later revealing that they had been “deceived” by their superiors. Simultaneously, Chavista leaders took to state and social media to denounce what they termed a coup in progress, and large crowds gathered to defend Miraflores Presidential Palace.

Guaido later attempted to lead a march, including some armed soldiers, into western Caracas but was stopped by Venezuelan National Guard forces in Chacaito, some 10 kilometers away from Miraflores.(Venezuela Analysis, May 1, 2019)

From Washington’s standpoint, the ‘putsch” nonetheless served a “useful” purpose. It created a “narrative”, which serves as propaganda and media disinformation.  In turn, the Western media goes into high gear.

The “coup” becomes a talking point for the Bolton -Pompeo national security team. It becomes a pretext and a justification for US military intervention in the name of Democracy at some future date. See Pompeo below

 

National security Advisor John Bolton calls upon Venezuela’s military to intervene, with US support.

Mild thunder before the storm? It sets the stage? What is the intended timeline?

A failed putsch which may be followed by a “real” US sponsored military coup at some later date? That option is already on the drawing-board of the Pentagon.

The failed coup, a sloppy intelligence operation? Unlikely. US intelligence was fully informed.

Was this event planned to fail from the very outset?

***

An Important Historical Precedent, Santiago de Chile. The Failed June 29, 1973 Coup

In Chile in 1973, the September 11 coup d’Etat which led to the assassination of Allende and the installation of a military government was a carefully prepared military-intelligence operation supported by the US. with Henry Kissinger playing a key role.

Of historical significance: The September 11, 1973 coup was preceded by a failed coup on June 29, 1973 , which, in retrospect, was intended to fail.

In 1973, I was visiting professor at the Catholic University of Chile. The following text is an excerpt from an article I wrote in Santiago de Chile in the immediate wake of September 11, 1973 military coup against the democratically elected government of president Salvador Allende.

Bear in mind: The circumstances of  Chile in 1973 as well as the command structure of the (Chilean) Armed Forces were very different to those of Venezuela in 2019.

In the course of the months of July-August 1973, following the June 29, 1973 failed coup, important shifts occurred within Chile’s Armed Forces.In turn, the Christian Democrats were pressuring Allende to bring the military into the government.

Chile: The June 29, 1973 Failed Coup

On June 29, 1973, Coronal Roberto Souper led his tank division in an isolated attack on La Moneda, the Presidential Palace, in the hope that other units of the armed forces would join in. The June coup had initially been planned for the morning of September 27 by Patria y Libertad as well as by several high ranking military officers. The plans were found out by Military Intelligence and the coup was called off at 6pm on the 26th. A warrant for the arrest of Coronal Souper had been issued. Confronted with knowledge of his impending arrest, Colonel Souper in consultation with the officers under his command, decided to act in a most improvised fashion. At 9 am, amidst morning rush hour traffic, Tank Division Number Two drove down Bernardo O’Higgins, Santiago’s main down-town avenue towards the Presidential Palace.

While the aborted June Coup had the appearance of an insolated and uncoordinated initiative, there was evidence of considerable support in various sectors of the Navy as well as from Air Force General Gustovo Leigh, now [September 1973] member of the military junta [on 11 September General Leigh integrated the military Junta headed by General Pinochet]. According to well-informed sources, several high ranking officers in the aero-naval base of Quintero near Valparaiso had proposed the bombing of State enterprises controlled by militant left wing groups, as well as the setting up of an air corridor to transport navy troops. The latter were slated to join up with the forces of Colonel Souper in Santiago.

The June trial coup was «useful» indicating to the seditious elements within the Chilean Armed Forces that an isolated and uncoordinated effort would fail. After June 29, the right-wing elements in the Navy and the Air Force were involved in a process of consolidation aimed at gaining political support among officers and sub-officers. The Army, however, was still under the control of Commander in Chief General Carols Prats, who had previously integrated Allende’s cabinet and who was a firm supporter of constitutional government.

Meanwhile in the political arena, the Christian Democrats were pressuring Allende to bring in members of the Military into the Cabinet as well as significantly revise the programme and platform of the Unidad Popular. Party leaders of the government coalition considered this alternative [proposed by the Christian democrats] as a « legalized military coup» (golpe legal) and advised Allende to turn it down. Carlos Altamirano, leader of the Socialist Party had demanded that an endorsement of the programme of the Popular Unity coalition by the military be a sina qua non condition for their entry into the Cabinet. Upon the impossibility of bringing in the Military into the Cabinet on acceptable terms, Allende envisaged the formation of a so-called “Cabinet of Consolidation” composed of well known personalities. Fernando Castillo, rector of the Catholic University and a member of the Christian Democratic Party, Felipe Herrera, President of the Inter-|American Development Bank and other prominent personalities were approached but declined. (Michel Chossudovsky, The Ingredients of a Military Coup, Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, September 1973)

Minor edits to this text on May 1-2, 2019

The Russian leader’s wholehearted defense of China’s Belt & Road Initiative at last week’s yearly forum on this global series of megaprojects stands in stark contrast to the position of India’s Prime Minister, thus reinforcing the notion that Putin and Modi are at serious odds with one another when it comes to BRI irrespective of their Great Powers’ mutually beneficial and highly lucrative transactional relationship with one another.

Indian Intransigence

President Putin’s press conference at last week’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) Forum in Beijing was a well articulated masterclass in defense of this global series of megaprojects that has come under increasingly sharp criticism from China’s geopolitical rivals. One of the most outspoken countries vehemently opposed to BRI is India because of its maximalist approach to the Kashmir Conflict by which it claims the entirety of the global pivot state of Pakistan’s Gilgit-Baltistan region through which the Silk Road’s flagship investment of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) traverses. India is also tacitly opposed to BRI in principle because it understands that this is the vehicle for the Chinese-driven Multipolar World Order to spread across the planet, a scenario that decision makers in New Delhi deeply fear because they’re afraid that it’ll relegate their country to becoming “junior partner” of the People’s Republic. This in turn has made them all the more receptive to the US’ manipulatively tantalizing promises that a military-strategic partnership with America is the best way to promote India’s 21st-century interests, an emerging development which is actually destabilizing Eurasia to Washington’s divide-and-rule gain.

Russian Reservations

That explains why Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister called out the US for using India to “contain” China at the end of last year and also why Foreign Minister Lavrov said that his country regards the “Indo-Pacific Region” nomenclature that New Delhi is so fond of as an “artificially imposed” pro-American concept. Furthermore, awareness of these two interconnected policy positions by Russia allows one to better understand the “balancing” modalities of Moscow’s “Return to South Asia“, which is the diversification of this Great Power’s previous regional strategic dependence on India and its recent embrace of Pakistan as described in detail by Valdai Club programme director Oleg Barabanov in his visionary piece earlier this year about “Russia and the Search for Balance Between India and Pakistan“. Despite the dynamics of Russia and India gradually moving closer to one another’s geopolitical adversaries of the US and China & Pakistan respectively, the Russian-Indian Strategic Partnership is still mutually beneficial and highly lucrative for both even if it’s become mostly transactional in recent years as a result of these developments.

BRI Might Break The Russian-Indian Bond

Still, both Great Powers’ polar opposite approaches to BRI are a serious cause for concern since they hold with it the possibility that this growing strategic divergence will inevitably lead to the worsening of their relations in the future, especially in the event that India decides to politicize what might by then be Russia’s de-facto participation in its South Asian component through N-CPEC+. After all, President Putin declared during his keynote speech at last week’s event that Russia will merge its Eurasian Economic Union integration platform with China’s much larger BRI one, with the unstated implication being that Moscow will ultimately cooperate in some capacity or another with BRI’s flagship investment of CPEC, thus leading to a “strategic security dilemma” with its decades-long Indian partner that is obsessively opposed to that project. It might only a matter of time before this fault line provokes problems in the Russian-Indian Strategic Partnership, especially after President Putin’s wholehearted defense of BRI last week put him at serious odds with Modi.

Putin Is A True Believer In BRI

To accentuate that point, the analysis will close with a republication of President Putin’s enthusiastically supportive remarks on BRI that he made in response to a loaded question doubting its benefits for Russia, proving that the Russian President is a true believer in everything that BRI stands for and that he’s therefore bound to clash with the Indian Prime Minister whose views on this issue are the complete opposite of his own even if the two keep their heated disagreements behind closed doors in order to continue milking their countries’ mutually beneficial and highly lucrative transactional relationship with one another:

***

(boldened text is the author’s own and done to draw attention to important passages)

“Question: Good afternoon. The Belt and Road is a very ambitious project – to the extent that it raises concerns in some. China is not a country that makes plans only for years ahead – it makes plans for decades proceeding not from billions but from trillions of dollars. This leads to the question, is this China’s project or is it beneficial for other participants? Is it beneficial for Russia?

Vladimir Putin: China is a vast country. I have mentioned that according to open sources and IMF data, China is the world’s top economy as regards purchasing power parity. It is considerably lower per capita than, say, in the United States, but the volume is higher. Therefore, of course, China has plans for its development, and they are immense and ambitious; when China implements anything it uses a highly pragmatic approach to achieve its tasks.

China is our strategic partner; this is obvious from all indicators and parameters. China is Russia’s top trading partner. Our aim in 2018 was to reach the volume of $100 billion, and we exceed that, at $108 billion. And we have good prospects for development.

When the country’s leadership and President Xi Jinping formulate these plans and set development tasks for themselves and for the country – this is a very pragmatic approach. Just like us or any other country, they are governed by their national interests. This is normal.

China implements this in a civilised and delicate way, making sure proposals for common development meet the interests of the vast majority of international participants, if not all. Generally speaking, China has offered nothing new; what it is doing is actually making attempts to reaffirm the principles set out by the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund, and many of our colleagues are mentioning this backstage like they did at the last meeting. What is China’s goal? Stability.

What is the reason for this? China’s economy is immense, and the domestic market is growing. But today, what China produces is basically oriented towards foreign markets.

Of course, domestic consumption will gradually increase with the overall growth of people’s incomes. Today China is interested in pushing its products to foreign markets, which is a natural aspiration for any country. For example, the Swedish economy is almost entirely focused on exports, and the same applies to the German economy. China simply has more products to offer. So how should China respond when it faces certain restrictions and attempts by some countries to stop its development? What should China do? It must strengthen the fundamental tenets of global economic relations, and create conditions for promoting its products. How can this be done? By developing transport infrastructure, port facilities, air, rail and motor transport, and building roads. This is exactly what China is doing. This was how it all started, but later it became obvious both in terms of China’s growth and for us as well, that this would not be enough. We needed to strengthen the fundamental tenets of international economic relations.

Is Russia interested in this? Of course, it is. Considering the high volume of trade and the fact that it is growing, we are certainly interested in benefiting from the transit potential of the Trans-Siberian Railway and Baikal-Amur Mainline, and we intend to invest heavily in them, as well as in motor transport and roads. We have earmarked trillions of rubles for infrastructure development. Why are we doing this? In order to make effective use of our country’s transit potential and to be able to engage in mutual import and export operations.

China acts in a highly civilised manner. For many years, we have been raising the issue of the need to increase the share of engineering goods in our trade. This is now beginning to materialise, which is attributable among other things to the position adopted by China’s leadership. I am very grateful to President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Li Keqiang for their consistent efforts to improve China’s trade patterns with Russia.

Does this meet our interests? Absolutely. I think that this initiative has a very bright future ahead of it, since almost all of us are interested in this, as I have already said.No one wants to face any restrictions, no one wants any trade wars, maybe with the exception of those who are behind these processes. In any case, an overwhelming majority, nearly 100 percent strongly believe that these restrictions and wars undermine the global economy and its development. As strange as it may sound, the global economy as a whole needs the liberal values that China currently champions.

It is for this reason that I believe that this initiative will develop further, which can also be explained by Chinese philosophy: they advance with extreme caution and not only seek to take into consideration the interests of their partners, but actually do so in their political and practical activities. The world has a very positive view of these developments.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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.

Featured image is from Oriental Review

Sri Lanka, Easter Sunday, 21 April 2019: More than half a dozen bomb blasts shook the country killing from 250 to more than 350 people. Depending on who counts, the death toll varies. The devastation took place in in several catholic churches and luxury hotels. Other explosions, including from – what they say – are suicide bombers, have since killed another several dozens of people. Many are children, women – christen worshippers. Why the luxury hotels? Western (Christian) tourists?

Yesterday, another explosion ripped through a suspicious building, killing 18, including children and women. Again, they, the ‘authorities’, say suicide bombers, who didn’t want their ‘cache’ to be discovered. Conveniently they are all dead – the “suicide bombers”. Nobody can ask them any questions.

There was a lot of confusion, and still is, all through Sri Lanka. Nobody claimed credit for the massacres. There were rumors that Sri Lanka’s President received warnings ahead of the attacks from foreign intelligence, but ignored them. The President denies these allegations. And the explosions continue.

Finally, the verdict is in. The culprits are an Islamic terrorist group, associated with ISIS. What else is new.

Sri Lanka’s population is composed of about 70% Buddhists, 13% Hindus, almost 10% Muslims, mainly Sunni, the Salafi version, and about 7% Christians. The New York times reports that the accused mastermind of the terror attacks was strongly influenced by Wahhabism, the same extreme hardliners that control most of Saudi Arabia.

Hatred between religions seems on the rise. In New Zealand a few weeks ago a white supremacist assaulted a mosque, killing 50. This past weekend, a shooting in a Synagogue near San Diego, California, killed a woman. The murderer said he was inspired by the New Zealand massacre. Are these spontaneous, interreligious mini-wars part of a foreign directed ‘divide to conquer’ effort, a strategy that has been used by empires for centuries, but seems to be alive and well with the current Washington based empire?

MintPress News reports that

“Sri Lanka Easter attacks are the handiwork of terrorists returning from fighting in Syria, practicing the Saudi-backed Wahhabi Salafist ideology,”adding, “though not confirmed yet, they, [the attacks], are in keeping with the modus operandi of Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi terrorism worldwide. [The] Saudi sponsorship of Salafi Wahhabi dogma [is found] across the globe. From Boko Haram to ISIS, and from the Taliban to Al Qaeda, a common ideological thread runs through these terror groups. This is the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi Salafi ideology whose South Asian counterpart is Deobandi.  For abbreviation purposes, it is becoming increasingly common to term this interconnected ideology as WSD (Wahhabi Salafi Deobandi).”

May we expect a wave of Saudi-sponsored WSD terrorism in the east too? – Is the horror Saudi government protected by the US, because it does its bidding? And this bidding leads to making gradually Islam extremism the justification for NATO bases around the globe? – Perhaps in Sri Lanka, tomorrow? So far Sri Lanka is clean from NATO. Sri Lanka has not even an association agreement with NATO.

Just look at the world-geostrategic location of Sri Lanka, linking the Arabian Sea with the Indian Ocean. Sri Lanka may also have a direct, open-sea connection with the small British island of Diego Garcia, in the Chagos Archipelago, north-east of Madagascar. Diego Garcia hosts the US’s largest Navy base outside the American Continent. Many of the drone killings in Yemen, Syria and other places in the Middle East originate from Diego Garcia. The “civil war” in Syria was (and still is) largely directed from Diego Garcia, as well as from Djibouti.

Wouldn’t it be logical for NATO to set up base in Sri Lanka to control South East Asia? Saudi guided WSD attacks would create the necessary chaos justifying Western secret services – plus NATO – to descend on Colombo, to create further protests and anarchy – a never-ending internal strife, giving the war industry a new never-ending flow of profit, hence, further justifying the never-ending war on terror – and, thereby, moving yet an inch closer to Full Spectrum Dominance over Mother Earth and her hapless spectators, what western humanity has become – a bunch of complacent consumers, drenched in turbo-capitalist market ideology, too comfortable to go on the barricades.

The key and engine to all of this is NATO, whose modus operandi is killing for a living, for dominance and for profit. If there is ever to be Peace – and that’s what the vast majority of the inhabitants of this globe wants – I’m not exaggerating pretending that 99.99% of world population wants to live in peace – then NATO must go, NATO must be dismantled.

So, Europe which has the largest membership in NATO (27 out of 29 nations) has to put the money where her mouth is: Europe calls for Peace, Europe claims to be Peace-loving – really? Then put your money into creating Peace – pulling out of NATO, refusing at once to fund this killing machine under the pretext of “protecting Europe”. Protecting Europe from what? From whom? – Not from Russia – despite all the highly propagandized and highly corporate-funded Russiagate / Russiaphobia, exacerbated by a new artificially implanted fear – China. These countries have no history of expansion, like the west.

They only seek friendly relations of trade, of transport, cultural and research interconnectivity within the supercontinent, Eurasia, and ultimately, they promote a multi-polar world. The best example is the Chinese President Xi’s ingenuity – the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) that just finished its highly successful forum in Beijing – where more than 120 nations signed memoranda of understanding (MOU) and cooperation agreements with China for tens of billions of dollars equivalent. – What a way of cooperating, instead of sowing western-style belligerence.

Europe and the rest of the world is not in danger, except in danger of itself for being a vassal of the US and for hosting 30-plus NATO bases which would be first in the line of fire, if the east is forced to defend itself from that permanent Pentagon-NATO driven aggression.

Europe withhold your funding for NATO, get out of NATO, dismantle NATO, – NOW, before NATO sets up yet another base in Asia, before NATO spreads more death around the globe.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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.

This interview was conducted and published in November 2016.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange stated that Hillary Clinton’s Clinton Foundation and the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIL/ISIS) are funded from the same sources.

He was speaking about the organisation’s latest release of Clinton emails, during an interview on the John Pilger Special show that is to be exclusively broadcast by RT, courtesy of Dartmouth Films.

The interview took place in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where Assange has been residing since August 2012. The footage was released in November 2016

Mandatory Credit: Dartmouth Films

*

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

Earlier last month I was interviewed by the FNA international news agency on the income inequality trend in the US and asked whether Trump policies have been contributing to it. The following is the verbatim transcript of the interview published April 6, now in English translation.

Below is the full text of the interview conducted by FNA:

FNA: The US has been experiencing higher GDP under President Trump in the last 2 years. Is this economic growth shared with average or low-paid Americans?

Jack Rasmus: The Trump tax cuts passed in early 2018 amounted to more than $4.5 trillion over the decade to wealthy households, businesses, investors and corporations, which have been ‘front-loaded’ in 2018. Offsetting this are $1.5 trillion in tax hikes for wage earners, that begins to hit this year and accelerates after 2022. Assumptions about 3% GDP growth for another decade, with no recession, produces a further offsetting of $1 or more. The result is the $1.5 trillion reported by the press. The $4.5 trillion cuts for business and investors have not gone into real investment and generated the Trump 2017-18 GDP growth rates.

Real investment in structures and equipment declined steadily over 2018 as the Trump tax cuts took effect: measured in percent terms compared to the preceding quarter, residential construction was negative every quarter in 2018. Commercial construction, with a lag, turned negative in the second half of 2018. And equipment spending fell from 8.5% in the first quarter to 3.4% by October 2018.

So if the Trump tax cuts did not go into real investment, creating real employment or real GDP, where did it go? It went into stock buybacks, dividend payouts, and M&A activity. Several US banks’ research departments estimate buybacks plus dividends for just the Fortune 500 largest companies in the US will reach a record $1.3 trillion in 2018. Add the largest 2000 or 5000 companies and its close to $2 trillion. Hundreds of billions more for M&A. This diversion of the Trump tax cuts to financial markets is the main determinant driving stock markets (even after corrections) and other financial asset markets.

The government grossly over-reports wage gains for the average and low paid workers in the US. An independent source reports show that more than half of US workers received no wage gain at all in 2018. The official reported wage gains of 3% are skewed to the top 10% of the labor force and, moreover, the data is for full time employed only. So average workers at best stagnated, with most experiencing a decline in real wages. The rate of inflation in the US is under-estimated for median worker family households, and inflation is rising for rents, medical, education, and other major items in household budgets. So the immediate future will mean even less real wage gains for the majority of US workers. If they were doing so well, as Trump and even the press report, why is it that 7 million of them have defaulted on their auto loans? And why is credit card, auto loans, and education loan debt now all over $1 trillion each?

FNA: The US has a population of over 325 million people with undocumented immigrants estimated to be somewhere around 10 to 12 million people who are mainly the lowest paid workers. Do you believe in President Trump’s claim of immigrants’ invading American economy?

JR: Immigrants are certainly not invading. The 10-12 million number has been stable for several years. And for immigrants for some countries, like Mexico, the numbers are in sharp decline. It is true that more immigrants are coming from Central American countries like Honduras, Salvador and Guatemala. But that is due to the economic crises and violent breakdown of the social order in those countries, which is due largely to US support for the corrupt elites of those countries who encourage the gang violence in their countries and do nothing about the economic crises. If there is a problem with immigration in the US, it is a problem of highly educated tech workers being brought in on H1-B and L-1 visas, and rich Asians who can buy themselves a ‘green card’ residency by promising to spend $50,000 when they come. These groups are taking the real jobs, the high paying tech and other professional jobs and have been since the 1990s. But Trump is agreeing with the US tech companies to keep bringing them in, taking jobs US workers should and could get. Trump’s immigration policy and draconian action against immigrants from Latin America and elsewhere is about his re-election plans in 2020. By creating ‘enemies’ within and outside the US, he diverts his political base from the real problems of America. Blame the foreigner in our midst has always been a useful fascist argument. And Trump is marching down that road, as witnessed in his latest Constitutional power grab by declaring national emergencies to build his Wall and invoking phony national security to justify his trade wars.

FNA: Donald Trump represents the capitalist economy, which has not worked well for the majority of Americans. Do you believe the widening gap between the rich and the poor in his era can boost Americans’ interest in socialism?

JR: The income and wealth gaps in the US are not only widening but doing so at an accelerating pace. US neoliberal policy under Obama was to subsidize capital incomes through Federal Reserve cheap money and by extending and expanding his predecessor, George W. Bush, tax cuts for business and investors. Trump policy has accelerated the tax cuts and now stopped the Fed from raising interest rates. The direct consequence is booming stock and corporate bond markets, fed by $1 trillion annual stock buybacks and dividend payouts every year since 2011 (now at record $1.3 trillion in 2018). As wage incomes for the 90% of Americans remain stagnant, barely rise, or decline, the direct consequence is accelerating income inequality and wealth gaps.

Will this boost interest in socialism? It already has. A clear majority, well over 60%, of people aged 34 and younger in the work force, have indicated in various recent polls that they prefer socialism over capitalism. It’s not by accident, therefore, that Trump and the US business press has been launching an offensive to attack the idea of socialism once again. This shift in public opinion will continue as the Trump policies continue to create a growing gap in income, wealth and opportunity in America.

*

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

“Sexual predation by police officers happens far more often than people in the business are willing to admit.”—Former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper

How could this be happening right under our noses?

That’s what readers wanted to know after my column went viral about the extent to which young children are being bought and sold for sex in America.

Where are the police when these children—some as young as 9 years old—are being raped repeatedly?

For that matter, what is the Trump Administration doing about the fact that adults purchase children for sex at least 2.5 million times a year in suburbs, cities and towns across this nation?

I’ll tell you what the government is doing: little to nothing.

While America’s children are being menaced by sexual predators, the Trump Administration and its congressional cohorts continue to wage endless wars, run up the national debt, and distract the populace with vitriol and kabuki political theater.

The police are not much better.

In too many instances, the cops are worse.

Indeed, while there are certainly many good cops in this country—and I’ve had the honor of working with a number of them—the bad cops have become symptomatic of a criminal justice system that is deeply rotten through and through.

We can no longer count on police to save us from the worst in our society.

In many cases, rather than being part of the solution, America’s police forces—riddled with corruption, brutality, sexual misconduct and drug abuse—have largely become part of the problem. As the Philadelphia Inquirer reports, “Hundreds of police officers across the country have turned from protectors to predators, using the power of their badge to extort sex.”

Let’s start with sex trafficking.

In a number of cases, victims of sex trafficking report that police are among those “buying” young girls and women for sex.

In other words, as a recent study by the State Commission on the Status of Women and Arizona State University makes clear, “victims are being exploited by the very people who are supposed to protect them: police officers.”

In New York, seven NYPD cops—three sergeants, two detectives and two officers—were accused of running brothels that sold 15-minute sexual encounters, raking in more than $2 million over the course of 13 months. Two of the cops, brothers, were charged with holding a bachelor party at one of the brothels where “they got the place for nothing and they used the prostitutes.”

In California, a police sergeant—a 16-year veteran of the police force—was arrested for raping a 16-year-old girl who was being held captive and sold for sex in a home in an upscale neighborhood.

A week-long sting in Florida ended with 277 arrests of individuals accused of sex trafficking, including doctors, pharmacists and police officers.

Sex trafficking victims in Hawaii described “cops asking for sexual favors to more coercive situations like I’ll let you go if you do X, Y, or Z for me.”

One study found that “over 14 percent of sex workers said that they had been threatened with arrest unless they had sex with a police officer.” In many states, it’s actually legal for police to have sex with prostitutes during the course of sting operations.

While the problem of cops engaged in sex trafficking is part of the American police state’s seedy underbelly that doesn’t get addressed enough, equally alarming is the number of cops who commit sex crimes against those they encounter as part of their job duties, a largely underreported number given the “blue wall of silence” that shields police misconduct.

Former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper describes cases in which cops fondled prisoners, made false traffic stops of attractive women, traded sexual favors for freedom, had sex with teenagers and raped children.

Young girls are particularly vulnerable to these predators in blue.

Former police officer Phil Stinson estimates that half of the victims of police sex crimes are minors under the age of eighteen.

According to The Washington Post, a national study found that 40 percent of reported cases of police sexual misconduct involved teens. One young woman was assaulted during a “ride along” with an officer, who said in a taped confession: “The badge gets you the p—y and the p—y gets your badge, you know?”

For example, a Pennsylvania police chief and his friend were arrested for allegedly raping a young girl hundreds of times—orally, vaginally, and anally several times a week—over the course of seven years, starting when she was 4 years old.

In 2017, two NYPD cops were accused of arresting a teenager, handcuffing her, and driving her in an unmarked van to a nearby parking lot, where they raped her and forced her to perform oral sex on them, then dropped her off on a nearby street corner.

The New York Times reports that “a sheriff’s deputy in San Antonio was charged with sexually assaulting the 4-year-old daughter of an undocumented Guatemalan woman and threatening to have her deported if she reported the abuse.”

One young girl, J.E., was kidnapped by a Border Patrol agent when she was 14 years old, taken to his apartment and raped.

“In the apartment, there were two beds on top of the other, children’s bunk beds, and ropes there, too. They were shoelaces. For my wrists and my feet. My mind was blank,” recalls J.E. “I was trying to understand everything. I didn’t know what to do. My feet were tied up. I would look at him and he had a gun. And that frightened me. I asked him why, and he answered me that he was doing this to me because I was the prettiest one of the three.”

Two teenage girls accused a Customs and Border Protection officer of forcing them to strip, fondling them, then trying to get them to stop crying by offering chocolates, potato chips and a blanket. The government settled the case for $125,000.

Mind you, this is the same government that has been separating immigrant children from their parents and locking them up in detention centers, where they are easy prey for sexual predators. So far, the government has received more than 4500 complaints about sexual abuse at those child detention facilities.

This is also the same government that “lost” almost 1500 migrant children. Who knows how many of those children ended up in the hands of traffickers?

The police state’s sexual assaults of children are sickening enough, but when you add sex crimes against grown women into the mix, the picture becomes even more sordid.

According to The Washington Post, “research on ‘police sexual misconduct’—a term used to describe actions from sexual harassment and extortion to forcible rape by officers—overwhelmingly concludes that it is a systemic problem.”

Investigative journalist Andrea Ritchie has tracked national patterns of sexual violence by police officers during traffic stops, in addition to heightened risk from minor offenses, drug arrests and police interactions with teenagers.

Victims of domestic abuse, women of color, transgender women, women who use drugs or alcohol, and women involved in the sex trade are particularly vulnerable to sexual assault by police.

One Oklahoma City police officer allegedly sexually assaulted at least seven women while on duty over the course of four months, including a 57-year-old grandmother who says she was forced to give the cop oral sex after he pulled her over.

A Philadelphia state trooper, eventually convicted of assaulting six women and teenagers, once visited the hospital bedside of a pregnant woman who had attempted suicide, and groped her breasts and masturbated.

These aren’t isolated incidents.

According to research from Bowling Green State University, police officers in the U.S. were charged with more than 400 rapes over a 9-year period. During that same time period, 600 police officers were arrested for forcible fondling; 219 were charged with forcible sodomy; 186 were arrested for statutory rape; 58 for sexual assault with an object; and 98 with indecent exposure.

Sexual assault is believed to be the second-most reported form of misconduct against police officers after the use of excessive force, making up more than 9% of all complaints.

Even so, these crimes are believed to be largely underreported so much so that sex crimes may in fact be the number one form of misconduct among police officers.

So why are the numbers underreported?

“The women are terrified. Who are they going to call? It’s the police who are abusing them,” said Penny Harrington, the former police chief of Portland, Ore.

One Philadelphia cop threatened to arrest a teenager for carjacking unless she had sex with him.

“He had all the power. I had no choice,” testified the girl. “Who was I? He had his badge.”

This is the danger of a police state that invests its henchmen with so much power that they don’t even need to use handcuffs or a gun to get what they want.

Making matters worse, most police departments do little to identify the offenders, and even less to stop them.

“Unlike other types of police misconduct, the abuse of police power to coerce sex is little addressed in training, and rarely tracked by police disciplinary systems,” conclude Nancy Phillips and Craig R. McCoy writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer. “This official neglect makes it easier for predators to escape punishment and find new victims.”

Unfortunately, this is a problem that is hiding in plain sight, covered up by government agencies that are failing in their constitutional duties to serve and protect “we the people.”

That thin blue line of knee-jerk adulation and absolute loyalty to police above and beyond what the law requires—a line frequently pushed by President Trump—is creating a menace to society that cannot be ignored.

An investigative report into police misconduct illustrates the pervasiveness of the problem when police go rogue. According to USA Today:

At least 85,000 law enforcement officers across the USA have been investigated or disciplined for misconduct over the past decade… Officers have beaten members of the public, planted evidence and used their badges to harass women. They have lied, stolen, dealt drugs, driven drunk and abused their spouses. Despite their role as public servants, the men and women who swear an oath to keep communities safe can generally avoid public scrutiny for their misdeeds. The records of their misconduct are filed away, rarely seen by anyone outside their departments. Police unions and their political allies have worked to put special protections in place ensuring some records are shielded from public view, or even destroyed. Obtained from thousands of state agencies, prosecutors, police departments and sheriffs, the records detail at least 200,000 incidents of alleged misconduct, much of it previously unreported… They include 22,924 investigations of officers using excessive force, 3,145 allegations of rape, child molestation and other sexual misconduct and 2,307 cases of domestic violence by officers.

As researcher Jonathan Blanks notes,

“The system is rigged to protect police officers from outside accountability. The worst cops are going to get the most protection.”

Hyped up on the power of the badge and their weaponry, protected from charges of wrongdoing by police unions and government agencies, and empowered by rapidly advancing tools—technological and otherwise—that make it all too easy to identify, track and take advantage of vulnerable members of society, predators on the nation’s police forces are growing in number.

“It can start with a police officer punching a woman’s license plate into a police computer – not to see whether a car is stolen, but to check out her picture,” warns investigative journalists Nancy Phillips and Craig R. McCoy. “If they are not caught, or left unpunished, the abusers tend to keep going, and get worse, experts say.”

So where does this leave us?

The courts, by allowing the government’s desire for unregulated, unaccountable, expansive power to trump justice and the rule of law, have turned away from this menace. Politicians, eager for the support of the powerful police unions, have turned away from this menace. Religious leaders who should know better but instead have silenced their moral conscience in order to cozy up to political power have turned away from this menace.

Distracted by political theater, divided by politics, disenfranchised by a legislative and judicial system that renders us powerless in the face of the police state’s many abuses, “we the people” have also turned a blind eye to this menace.

We must stop turning away from this menace in our midst.

For starters, police should not be expected—or allowed—to police themselves.

Misconduct by local police has become a national problem. Therefore, the response to this national problem must start at the local level.

This is no longer a matter of a few bad apples.

The entire system has become corrupted and must be reformed.

Greater oversight is needed, yes, but also greater accountability and more significant consequences for assaults.

Andrea Ritchie’s piece in The Washington Post provides some practical suggestions for reform ranging from small steps to structural changes (greater surveillance of police movements, heightened scrutiny of police interactions and traffic stops, and more civilian oversight boards), but as she acknowledges, these efforts still don’t strike at the root of the problem: a criminal justice system that protects abusers and encourages abuse.

It’s difficult to say whether modern-day policing with its deep-seated corruption, immunity from accountability, and authoritarian approach to law enforcement attracts this kind of deviant behavior or cultivates it, but empowering police to view themselves as the best, or even the only, solution to the public’s problems, while failing to hold them accountable for misconduct, will only deepen the policing crisis that grows deadlier and more menacing by the day.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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 website: The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Featured image is from Good Times Santa Cruz

A FAIR survey of US opinion journalism on Venezuela found no voices in elite corporate media that opposed regime change in that country. Over a three-month period (1/15/19–4/15/19), zero opinion pieces in the New York Times and Washington Post took an anti–regime change or pro-Maduro/Chavista position. Not a single commentator on the big three Sunday morning talkshows or PBS NewsHour came out against President Nicolás Maduro stepping down from the Venezuelan government.

Of the 76 total articles, opinion videos or TV commentator segments that centered on or gave more than passing attention to Venezuela, 54 (72 percent) expressed explicit support for the Maduro administration’s ouster. Eleven (14 percent) were ambiguous, but were only classified as such for lack of explicit language. Reading between the lines, most of these were clearly also pro–regime change. Another 11 (14 percent) took no position, but many similarly offered ideological ammo for those in support.

The Times published 22 pro–regime change commentaries, three ambiguous and five without a position. The Post also spared no space for the pro-Chavista camp: 22 of its articles expressed support for the end to Maduro’s administration, eight were ambiguous and four took no position. Of the 12 TV opinions surveyed, 10 were pro-regime change and two took no position.

(The Times and Post pieces were found through a Nexis search for “Venezuela” between 1/15/19–4/15/19 using each paper as a source, narrowed to opinion articles and editorials. The search was supplemented with an examination of each outlet’s opinion/blog pages. The TV commentary segments were found through Nexis searches for “Venezuela” and the name of the talkshow during the same time period, in the folders of the corresponding television network: NBC News/CBS Newstranscripts, ABC News transcripts, and PBS NewsHour. Non-opinion TV news segments were omitted. The full list of items included can be found here.)

Corporate news coverage of Venezuela can only be described as a full-scale marketing campaign for regime change. If you’ve been reading FAIR recently (1/25/19, 2/9/19, 3/16/19)—or, indeed, since the early 2000s (4/18/02; Extra!, 11–12/05)—the anti-Maduro unanimity espoused in the most influential US media should come as no surprise.

This comes despite the existence of millions of Venezuelans who support Maduro—who was democratically elected twice by the same electoral system that won Juan Guaidó his seat in the National Assembly—and oppose US/foreign intervention. FAIR (2/20/19) has pointed out corporate media’s willful erasure of vast improvements to Venezuelan life under Chavismo, particularly for the oppressed poor, black, indigenous and mestizo populations. FAIR has also noted the lack of discussion of US-imposed sanctions, which have killed at least 40,000 Venezuelans between 2017–18 alone, and continue to devastate the Venezuelan economy.

Many authors in the sample eagerly championed the idea of the US ousting Maduro, including coup leader Juan Guiadó himself, in the Times (1/30/19) and Post (1/15/19), and on the NewsHour (2/18/19).

The Times made its official editorial opinion on the matter crystal clear at the outset of the attempted coup (1/24/19): “The Trump administration is right to support Mr. Guaidó.” Followed by FAIR’s favorite Times columnist, Bret Stephens (1/25/19):

The Trump administration took exactly the right step in recognizing National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s constitutionally legitimate president.

It’s generally a nation’s supreme court that has the final say on who is constitutionally legitimate, but in this case they can apparently be overruled by a foreign government—or a foreign newspaper columnist.

The Post editorial board also joined Team Unelected President (1/24/19):

The [Trump] administration’s best approach would be to join with its allies in initiatives that would help Venezuelans while bolstering Mr. Guaidó.

The Times even produced an opinion video (4/1/19) with Joanna Hausmann, “a Venezuelan American writer and comedian,” as she is described in her Times bio. Between sarcastic stabs at Venezuela’s “tyrannical dictator” and cute animations of “Ruth Bader Ginsburg in workout clothes”—Hausmann’s self-described “spirit animal”—come more serious declarations about the nation’s political situation:

Juan Guiadó is not an American right-wing puppet leading an illegitimate coup, but a social democrat appointed by the National Assembly, the only remaining democratically elected institution left in Venezuela…. Let’s provide humanitarian aid and support efforts to restore democracy.

The New York Times (4/1/19) neglected to mention that, unlike most of her “fellow liberals,” Joanna Hausmann is the child of an official in the Venezuelan coup government.

Odd that the Times didn’t find it necessary to note a blaring conflict of interest: Hausmann’s father is Ricardo Hausmann, Juan Guaidó’s appointed Inter-American Development Bank representative. Mint Press News (3/19/19) bluntly described him as the “neoliberal brain behind Juan Guaidó’s neoliberal agenda.”

It would be ludicrous to think the Times would withhold as blatant a connection to Maduro if one of his aides’ daughters made a snarky opinion video calling Juan Guaidó a would-be “brutal dictator”—even if our theoretical commentator was “an independent adult woman who has built a popular following on her own,” as Times opinion video producer Adam Ellick said in defense of the omission. Such a crucial relationship to a powerful Chavista politician would never go undisclosed—in the unlikely event that such a perspective would be tolerated in the opinion pages of an establishment paper.

These are just a few of many media pundits’ endorsements of Guaidó—someone whose name most of the Venezuelan population did not even recognize before he declared himself interim president. Put more accurately, they are endorsements of a US-backed coup attempt.

One of the more muddled regime change endorsements came from Rep. Ro Khanna’s Post op-ed (1/30/19), in which he says no! to military intervention, no! to sanctions, yet yes! to… “diplomatic efforts”:

The United States should lend its support to diplomatic efforts to find some form of power-sharing agreement between opposition parties, and only until fair elections can take place, so that there is an orderly transition of power.

“Diplomatic” is a reassuring term, until you realize that US diplomacy, as FAIR’s Janine Jackson explained on Citations Needed podcast (3/20/19), is “diplomacy where we try to get other countries to do what we want them to do”—in this case, effecting a “transition of power” in another country’s government.

Francisco Rodríguez and Jeffrey D. Sachs (New York Times, 2/2/19) envision similar efforts for a “peaceful and negotiated transition of power,” and Khanna made sure to characterize Maduro as “an authoritarian leader who has presided over unfair elections, failed economic policies, extrajudicial killings by police, food shortages and cronyism with military leaders.”

By viewing Venezuela through the lens of Russiagate, Fareed Zakaria (Washington Post, 3/28/19) was able to present backing an attempted coup as a pro-Resistance™ position.

In other words, Maduro the Dictator must be overthrown—but don’t worry, the US would be diplomatic about it.

Those that didn’t take explicit positions nonetheless wrote articles blaming all or most of Venezuela’s woes on Maduro and Chávez. Economics wiz Paul Krugman (New York Times, 1/29/19) gave his spiel:

Hugo Chávez got into power because of rage against the nation’s elite, but used the power badly. He seized the oil sector, which you only do if you can run it honestly and efficiently; instead, he turned it over to corrupt cronies, who degraded its performance. Then, when oil prices fell, his successor tried to cover the income gap by printing money. Hence the crisis.

Note that Krugman failed to mention the 57 percent reduction in extreme poverty that followed Chávez’s replacement of management of the state-owned oil industry (which has been nationalized since 1976, long before Chavismo). Nor does he acknowledge the impact of US sanctions, or any other sort of US culpability for Venezuela’s economic crisis.

Caroline Kennedy and Sarah K. Smith (Washington Post, 2/5/19) did not explicitly blame Maduro and Chávez for Venezuela’s “spiral downward,” but similarly ignored evidenced US involvement in that spiral. There are only so many places where you can point fingers without naming names.

Dictatorship-talk—writers lamenting the horrific and helpless situation under an alleged “dictator”—characterized many of the ambiguous and no-position articles. In the Post (1/24/19), Megan McArdle asked:

You have to look at Venezuela today and wonder: Is this what we’re seeing, the abrupt end of Venezuela’s years-long economic nightmare? Has President Nicolás Maduro’s ever-more-autocratic and incompetent regime finally completed its long pilgrimage toward disaster?

By simply describing the declining situation of a country (Times, 2/12/19, 4/1/19) and using words like “regime” (Times, 2/14/19), “authoritarian” (Post, 1/29/19) and, of course, “dictatorship” (Post, 1/23/19; Times, 2/27/19) in reference to government officials, commentators create the pretext for regime change without explicitly endorsing it.

The Sunday talkshows and NewsHour also couldn’t find a single person to challenge the anti-Maduro narrative. They did find room, however, for three of the most passionate advocates of regime change in Venezuela: Sen. Marco Rubio (Meet the Press, 1/27/19), Donald Trump (Face the Nation, 2/3/19) and Guaidó himself (NewsHour, 2/18/19).

Other TV regime change proponents included Florida Sen. Rick Scott (Meet the Press, 2/3/19), 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls Peter Buttigieg (This Week, 2/3/19) and Amy Klobuchar (Meet the Press, 3/17/19), Sen. Tim Kaine (Face the Nation, 3/17/19), and Guaidó-appointed, Mike Pence-approved “chargé d’affaires” Carlos Vecchio (NewsHour, 3/4/19).

But leave it to Nick Schifrin of the NewsHour (1/30/19) to bring on “two views” of the US intervention question that are both pro-regime change and pro-US intervention. View No. 1 came from Isaias Medina, a former Venezuelan diplomat who resigned from his post in protest against Maduro. Medina made the unlikely claim that 94 percent of the Venezuelan population—or 129 percent of the population over the age of 14—support US intervention to overthrow the Maduro government:

Not only I, but 30 million people, support not only the US circumstance, but also the Latin American initiative to restore the rule of law, democracy and freedom in Venezuela.

View No. 2, the ostensibly anti-regime change take, came from Benjamin Gedan, who served on the Obama administration’s National Security Council as director for Venezuela and the Southern Cone. When asked if he supported Trump’s moves to sanction Maduro and possibly use US troops to oust him, Gedan responded:

I think both of those steps are problematic. I think the sense of urgency that the United States administration has shown is absolutely correct…. The question is, how can we assist the Venezuelan people [to] promote a peaceful transition in Venezuela, without harming the people themselves, or fracturing the coalition that we have built over two administrations?

The PBS NewsHour (1/30/19) had a debate over intervention in Venezuela where the “anti” side saw the US’s goal as “assist[ing] the Venezuelan people [to] promote a peaceful transition in Venezuela.”

In other words, how can we overthrow the Venezuelan government without destroying the country—or “fracturing the coalition we have built”? The US has many options on the table, but none of them involve not pursuing the overthrow of Maduro.

In the “no position” camp for TV news, New York Times chief Washington correspondent David Sanger (Face the Nation, 1/27/19) noted that the problem with US support for Guaidó is one of  “both history and inconsistency”:

Our history in Latin America of intervening is a pretty ugly one, and the inconsistency of not applying the same standards to places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, where the president has embraced strong men, I think may come back to make the United States look pretty hypocritical, not for the first time.

Sanger indulged in the popular “hypocrisy takedown”: The problem, as presented, isn’t that the US disrupts democracies, destroys economies and kills people, but rather that it does so inconsistently. While vaguely acknowledging the US’s horrific track record of Latin American interventions, and Trump’s cherry-picking of governments worthy of regime change, Sanger didn’t take the logical next step of calling for the US to keep its hands off Venezuela. Instead, he called Maduro’s supporters—defined as “China, Russia and Cuba”—“not a great collection,” and failed to push back against the claim that Maduro “fixed the last” election. Without a formal declaration, Sanger did all the ideological preparation for foreign-backed regime change.

That elite media didn’t find a single person to vouch for Maduro or Chavismo, and that almost all the opinions explicitly or implicitly expressed support for the ouster of Venezuela’s elected president, demonstrates a firm editorial line, eerily obedient to the US government’s regime change policy.

This isn’t the first time that FAIR (e.g., 3/18/03, 4/18/18) has found a one-sided debate in corporate media on US intervention. When it comes to advocating the overthrow of the US government’s foreign undesirables, you can always count on opinion pages to represent all sides of why it’s a good thing. And the millions of people who beg to differ? Well, they’re just out of the question.

*

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

Featured image is from FAIR

Despite the positive approach by Iran Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif proposing a humanitarian exchange of prisoners between Washington and Tehran (in an attempt to break the stalemate and ease the current tension), Iranian Speaker Ali Larijani and ‘Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps – Quds Brigade’ (IRGC) commander Qassem Soleimani both rejected any rapprochement. It is the radical general mood in Iran and its tendency towards firmness rather than flexibility that is prevailing, as a response to the severe US sanctions on Tehran. In fact, Iran is showing signs of strength, less concerned about the US “strangulation policy”, confident it can face the US establishment decision to impose “zero oil exports” and confident also that it will survive, as it has the last four decades whilst under sanctions imposed by all US Presidents since 1979.

The policy of the US establishment under President Donald Trump is to impose its hegemony and flex its muscles, adopting political and financial sanctions on countries rather than sending troops to submit opponents through a military act of war. All countries opposing the US hegemony are under the US’s spotter microscope and have been listed on the sanction’s agenda. These are Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba Nicaragua, Yemen, Lebanon, Iran, Syria- and many other countries.

These US sanctions aim to burden above all the population, destroy the local economy and, in consequence, trigger a domestic uprising to reach the ultimate goal: changing the regime. The US is not aiming to intervene militarily unless the situation is ripe enough at the minimum possible cost of military effort and expense. George Bush’s previous policy of direct military interventionist era now seems out of fashion. Iran is aware of this and, in consequence, is comfortable about its domestic control of the situation. Tehran seems prepared for an economic siege for as long as President Trump is in power (until 2020) and, according to Iranian official sources, until the end of his next term if re-elected.

The White House believes Middle Eastern countries can top-up the difference needed to compensate the ‘lost’ two million Iranian barrels of oil exported on a daily basis. In a few words, the US objectives are two: preventing Iran’s oil exports and compensating for the overall loss of quantity, so as to avoid any market panic and an uncontrolled oil price. In fact, both of these US targets are unachievable.

Tehran controls not only a considerable fleet of oil tankers but also hundreds of trucks capable of transporting oil to neighbouring countries like Pakistan, Turkey and Iraq. According to well-informed sources, “Iran has expressed to its neighbours the intention to sell oil at a price much lower than the market price”, rendering any tight siege impossible. Indeed, even when the “Islamic State” (ISIS) was in control of parts of Syria and Iraq, all neighbouring countries were buying the oil from ISIS due to its low price.

Foreign Minister Zarif said

“Iran had made an offer six months ago to the Trump administration to discuss the status of the prisoners but it went unanswered”.

Iran is retaliating to US sanctions with a total rejection of any negotiation process with the US establishment- unlike what Trump was hoping for.

“There is no point in negotiating with this man (Trump). He is dangerous. Let us not make mistakes proposing to negotiate with him (alluding to Minister Zarif)”, the Iranian Speaker Ali Larijani said.

General Soleimani said

“the enemy wants to drag us to the negotiation table through economic pressure and this type of negotiation is an example of submission… Negotiation with the enemy under current conditions is pure surrender and certainly we will not give in to this humiliation”.

According to Iranian sources,

Sayyed Ali Khaminei “has always been sceptical about US intentions, even during Obama mandate, and refused to negotiate any other issues than the nuclear deal which successfully took place following President’s Hassan Rohani’s insistence on giving him and his diplomats a chance to try. Sayyed Khaminei will certainly not accept to talk to Trump whose approach towards his Middle Eastern partners is blatantly arrogant and who has no respect for any future deal by virtue of the ease with which he revokes and denies the very words he has pronounced himself!”.

Washington is hoping to force Iran to the negotiation table, while Tehran aims to disrupt the US plans. According to US officials, Iran has lost $10bn due to sanctions. Nevertheless, according to the sources,

“in the last four decades, Iran lost hundreds of billions of dollars- but without giving in- when its autonomy was at its lowest level on many industrial and basic needs fronts. Iran today is not the Iran of 1979 when the revolution took power, nor like the Iran of 1989, when it agreed to halt the war imposed by Saddam Hussein”.

It is clear that both sides, the US and Iran, are setting out red lines for one another, and both seem unwilling to move from the position they have adopted for now.

Soleimani and Larijani brought to light differences within the leadership. Zarif could not have proposed a swap of prisoners without the agreement of his direct superior, President Rouhani. Soleimani and Larijani are both of the same “house”, and both very close to Sayyed Ali Khamenei who is clearly, from the very beginning, against any rapprochement with the US.

Some analysts believe the different stands of the Iranian officials is nothing more than a distribution of roles, a theory dismissed by the same Iranian official source.

“On the contrary, it is a firm position that Iran shall not negotiate unless the US fulfils its previous commitments”.

Sayyed Ali Khaminei rejected the engagement of the country in re-negotiations with the US over any other issues, except the re-establishment of the nuclear deal, the release of Iranian assets held by the US, and the lifting of all sanctions.

Trump’s attitude in disregarding international law, ignoring the role of the United Nations, his indiscriminate imposition of sanctions on various countries, his revoking of previous deals signed by the US and his total lack of consideration for his own Middle Eastern and European partners and allies- all this will help Iran become more radical than ever. Trump is certainly pushing Iranian radicals and pragmatists towards a future unification of positions, fighting back against total US world hegemony.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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

All Great Powers, including most recently even Russia and India, are increasingly expanding their influence in Africa as they seek to take part in the continent’s expected growth across this century, and CPEC provides the perfect opportunity for Pakistan to pivot there too so long as the country’s decision makers are aware of its many opportunities and successfully craft a comprehensive strategy for building mutually beneficial partnerships with those states.

Conceptual Basis

African countries don’t normally come to mind when discussing Pakistan’s future partners, but they should because CPEC is providing it with the opportunity to finally build mutually beneficial partnerships there. The flagship project of China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) global vision of New Silk Road connectivity will eventually serve to facilitate Chinese-African trade across Pakistani territory, which has in turn made Pakistan and China’s African partners interested in expanding relations with one another. Islamabad already took the step to commence Regional Maritime Security Patrols throughout the Red Sea-Gulf of Aden region across which CPEC-transiting African-Chinese trade will traverse, so the next step is to leverage the military relationships that Pakistan’s building in this strategic maritime space to create economic opportunities for its businesses.

Most Likely Partners

In the Horn of Africa, Pakistan should follow what Russia’s doing in Eritrea by building a logistics centre in that country, Sudan, Djibouti, or Somalia as a stepping stone for eventually linking up with regional giant Ethiopia, which is the continent’s second-most-populous state and its fastest-growing economy. Moreover, the fast-moving political changes there under its new Prime Minister make it a promising country for any Great Power to deepen its engagement with, which might even be slightly easier for Pakistan than others because of Addis Ababa’s very close working relations with their mutual partners in Beijing. Moving southward, other potential countries that Pakistan should endeavour to form strategic partnerships with are Kenya and South Africa, which are the best-performing ones in their given regions and also on excellent terms with China.

Economic Opportunities

Signing deals and announcing partnerships are only symbolic actions unless they’re backed up by substance, which is why Pakistan should promote its domestic agricultural (including fertilizer) and textile products, among others, as suitable for the growing African marketplaces. The whole point of pivoting to Africa through CPEC isn’t just for the sake of Great Power prestige, but to deliver something tangible to Pakistanis at home by showing them that CPEC is more than just a “highway” across their country for China’s international trade with West Asian, European, and African countries. The rapidly growing economies in Africa provide limitless opportunities for commercial engagement with Pakistan so long as decision makers, entrepreneurs, and thought leaders are motivated to pursue them, which is why a change in thinking is urgently needed.

Military Dimensions

Expanding upon the concept of CPEC facilitating Pakistan’s “Pivot to Africa”, the military component of its partnership “scouting” via the Regional Maritime Security Patrols could also spread to the realm of bilateral training deals such as the sort that Russia and Pakistan recently reached with one another, albeit with Pakistan providing the training to its African partners under this arrangement. The Pakistani Armed Forces have proven their world-class capabilities in defeating terrorism, and sharing their experiences with African colleagues could be very useful to many of them as they try to thwart the threat that terrorists in their own countries pose. In addition, Pakistanis have decades of experience participating in African peacekeeping missions, which can help them create custom security solutions for the African partners that they train.

Cross-Continental Engagement

These possible partnerships don’t have to be limited to the coastal states of the Afro-Bengal Ocean (referred to as the “Indian Ocean” in conventional parlance) most immediately connected to CPEC’s Sea Lines Of Communication (SLOC), but should also include states along Africa’s Atlantic coast such as its most populous country of Nigeria. Even with the Silk Roads not yet linking them together, Pakistan could pioneer partnerships with Nigeria and the other Muslim-majority countries of the West Africa region by approaching them first and foremost from the security perspective and then eventually developing those incipient ties into an economic relationship. In other words, Pakistan’s strategy towards West Africa is the reverse of what it should attempt in East Africa, where economic relations are prioritized, and military ones follow.

Integrational Trends

Pakistan should also bear in mind that Africa is increasingly integrating its economic and security potential, the first-mentioned through the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCTFA) and the latter via the African Union’s peacekeeping missions, but that some individual countries will still fulfill leading functions in each of these two categories. That’s why Islamabad needs to plan its strategy in advance as opposed to “winging it” in order to make the best of its efforts. As a suggestion, the economic-military model that was previously described could be applied to several pairs of regional leaders and their neighbors in order to lay the basis for a comprehensive continental policy that eventually encompasses most of Africa and opens up a multitude of opportunities.

The Paired Approach

In any given order and in the framework of the regional leaders that should be focused on followed by their most attractive neighbours for Pakistan, these African countries are:

Ethiopia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Sudan

Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Somalia

South Africa, Mozambique, Madagascar, Botswana, Zimbabwe

Angola

Nigeria

Algeria

Egypt, Libya

As can be seen from the above, Pakistan’s “Pivot to Africa” truly has the potential build a multitude of partnerships all across the continent, each of which could be facilitated in their own way by CPEC.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Nation.

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.

The Belt Road Initiative (BRI) also known as the One Belt One Road (OBOR) project could well emerge as the obor (the flame in Indonesian or Malay) that will blaze the trail in the evolution of a new epoch in history.

Chinese President Xi Jinping must have sensed its historical significance when he announced OBOR in 2013. Essentially an infrastructure development endeavor it seeks to initiate and support the construction of roads, railways, ports and bridges in at least 65 other countries spanning four continents. With a commitment of over 900 billion US dollars, OBOR is the biggest infrastructure development project ever undertaken in the history of our planet.

It is more than infrastructure in the conventional sense. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) for instance which connects China’s Xinjiang province with Gwadar port in Pakistan’s Balochistan province will strengthen Pakistan’s energy sector, contribute to economic growth and reduce its severe trade deficit. The CPEC will also enhance cooperation between the two countries in agriculture.  There are other projects in other countries that will impact positively upon education and health care.

There is no doubt at all that OBOR will also facilitate the interaction of cultures and communities across national boundaries. This may lead to better understanding and appreciation of cultural and religious diversity. Greater respect for the differences and similarities that distinguish religions and cultures could help create an atmosphere that conduces towards social harmony.

If OBOR paves the way for positive interaction between different ethnicities and nationalities it would be replicating one of the outstanding achievements of the ancient Silk Route which was the inspiration for OBOR. Ideas and beliefs flowed along the Silk Route which connected East Asia and Southeast Asia with West Asia and East Africa to Southern Europe from about 130 BC until perhaps the middle of the 15^th century.  It is significant that it was through the Silk Route that Buddhism, Christianity and Islam spread at different times in history. It was “the cauldron where language groups competed, where Indo-European, Semitic and Sino-Tibetan tongues wagged alongside those speaking Altaic, Turkic and Caucasian.” Places of worship and libraries dotted the region “connecting Constantinople to Damascus, Isfahan, Samarkand, Kabul and Kashgar.”

These fabulous cities were not only centres of culture and learning but also hubs of thriving commercial enterprise. Silk was an important element in the trade that connected the sprawling network of links which was why a German geologist in the 19^th century gave it the name the “Silk Roads”. Precious stones and metals, paper and artwork, leather and hides, grains and spices, fruits and vegetables were all part of the trade and commerce that brought China and India close to Persia and Rome and vice versa.  The variety of goods and commodities available and the lands and nations that produced them endowed the Silk Route with an unprecedented global character. It was truly humankind’s first wave of globalization.

A variety of factors brought the wave to an end, among them Christopher Columbus’s expedition to the Americas and Vasco da Gama’s journey around the southern tip of Africa and on to India at the end of the 15^th century, both of which opened up new sea routes for Europe’s ascending maritime powers. Columbus in relation to the Americas and da Gama in relation to India and Asia heralded the rise of European colonialism which over the next four centuries embarked upon the conquest of land, the subjugation of people and the usurpation of natural resources that ushered in a pattern of power, control and dominance centering around Europe and later, the United States of America.

Indeed, western colonialism as it expressed itself in almost every sphere of life laid the basis for a new form of globalization which has perpetuated itself beyond the end of formal colonial rule. It is what one would call ‘hegemonic globalization’.  Hegemonic globalization has resulted in the dissemination of ideas and methods in economics and finance, politics and administration, education and science which by and large emanate from the centers of power in the West. It has shaped a world in which the interests and agendas of the dominant West supersede everything else. This is why the second wave of globalization is perceived as unjust and inimical to the well-being of the majority of the world’s citizens.

As globalization’s third wave, OBOR is opposed to hegemony. The Chinese leadership sees relationships among OBOR states as a partnership. It has no intention of imposing its will upon any other state. This was put to the test in the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) issue which saw Malaysia objecting to various terms of the agreement forged between a Chinese company and the previous Malaysian government  that were clearly detrimental to the nation’s interests. After strenuous negotiations, the agreement was revised extensively for the good of both parties.

It is not just China’s willingness to consider the interests of a partner state that facilitated a solution to the ECRL issue. The partner state should also be free of those vested interests that impede a just solution. It is important to observe that even in other collaborative efforts in which China has played a leading role such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) network and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), China has adopted a collegial approach.

Given its record, China should now elevate the principle of partnership in OBOR to a higher level by establishing an international panel consisting of seven to ten OBOR states that would be given the task of monitoring and evaluating the implementation of OBOR projects and activities. The proposed panel would of course work closely with the Chinese authorities.

It could also help ensure that OBOR is corruption- free which is the wish that Xi expressed at the recently concluded Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in Beijing. There will be other challenges facing OBOR in the years ahead. But the governments that are committed to the project should remain steadfast in their determination to achieve its goals.

For apart from the economic and cultural benefits that OBOR will bring to the human family which we have noted, OBOR is the best hope we have for evolving a just and equitable world which is not dominated by a few. Only in such a world will human dignity flourish. This is perhaps the most compelling reason why the citizens of the world should strive with all their energy to keep the flame alive.

*

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

Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from American Security Project

The Environmental Protection Agency said today the active ingredient in Bayer-Monsanto’s carcinogenic weedkiller Roundup is safe, ignoring a growing body of independent research showing a strong connection between glyphosate and cancer in humans.

“Today’s decision by Administrator Wheeler, like virtually every one he and the Trump administration make, completely ignores science in favor of polluters like Bayer,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “This move by EPA should not come as a surprise. Under the control of Trump and Wheeler, the agency is virtually incapable of taking steps to protect people from dangerous chemicals like glyphosate.”

A report published in January in the Environmental Sciences Europe documented how the EPA ignored a large number of independent, peer-reviewed studies that link glyphosate to cancer in humans. Instead, the report found, the EPA used research paid for by Monsanto to support the agency’s position that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.

In 2015, after reviewing extensive U.S., Canadian and Swedish epidemiological studies on glyphosate’s human health effects, as well as research on laboratory animals, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Genotoxicity is the damaging effect a chemical can have on DNA, triggering mutations that can lead to cancer. IARC scientists reviewed 118 different assays and found strong evidence that glyphosate may cause genotoxicity. But the EPA’s assessment included fewer than half of these studies.

In the past year, two separate juries found glyphosate caused cancer in two California men who were exposed to the herbicide while handling Roundup. There are now more than 13,400 similar cases against Bayer.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry released an analysis that gave weight to studies connecting glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and recommended monitoring children’s exposure to this toxic weedkiller.

Last year, two separate rounds of laboratory tests commissioned by EWG found glyphosate in nearly every sample of popular oat-based cereals and other oat-based foods marketed to children. The EPA’s decision to allow continued glyphosate uses fails to protect children’s health from glyphosate, and puts polluters’ profits first.

*

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

The US Department of State (DOS) offered a grant opportunity for “Promoting Accountability in Iraq and Syria For Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, and War Crimes,” on April 16^th.

The grant has a funding floor of $500,000 and an upper limit of $4,500,000. It expects to award the grant to 3 companies or organizations.

US and Foreign non-profit organizations, as well as for-profit organizations can take part. Private and state institutions of higher education, and public international organizations are also allowed to take part.

Meaning that, for example, the British Institute for Statecraft or the Integrity Initiative are eligible for funding, if they decide to take part. The Atlantic Council is also eligible.

The grant opportunity was released by the DOS’ Office of Global Criminal Justice (J/GCJ) and the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Office of Assistance Coordination (NEA/AC).

“J/GCJ promotes criminal accountability for abuses and violations in Iraq and Syria, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.”

The aim is to track such criminal acts and establish a framework, under which such “pervasive abuses” will face justice.

“The investigation and prosecution of atrocity crimes is a crucial part of holistic transitional justice strategies in which countries must address legacies of pervasive abuses. Criminal trials – whether they occur in the context of an international or regional tribunal, or domestic systems that have jurisdiction – can build adherence to the rule of law, reinforce the unacceptability of the crimes committed, demonstrate that impunity will not be tolerated, and deter future harm by punishing perpetrators. Trials can also help transitional societies come to terms with their own histories and rebuild stable, democratic institutions. Evidence presented in court can help to establish a historical record of atrocities, give victims an opportunity to be heard, and rebut denials by victimizers and their political allies that such atrocities ever occurred. Finally, criminal trials can also help to restore the dignity of victims and their families by providing a public acknowledgment of the gravity of the wrongs done to them.”

Those eligible for funding will have to do on-site investigations and present the facts, so that the justice part of the program can be carried out.

“The Department of State will consider funding programs that include components to develop local investigative and judicial skills; to collect and preserve evidence and maintain the chain of custody of evidence; provide information to national authorities with jurisdiction over crimes, and to conduct other activities that directly support investigations and prosecutions of perpetrators of atrocities in Iraq and Syria. Applicants should be able to demonstrate an awareness of existing work in the field.”

It’s especillay interesting, since the side in both the conflicts in Syria and Iraq that is blamed for the most civilian casualties is the US, there is also evidence to substantiate it. Regardless, Washington has maintained that it does everything necessary to protect innocent lives.

“Since the beginning of the conflict in Syria, more than 500 thousand people have been killed. Despite the fact that the Assad regime is responsible for the overwhelming majority of deaths and destruction, many other participants in the conflict committed murder, torture, sexual and gender-based violence and other offenses,” the State Department noted. Thus, the funding will primarily be used to blame the civilian casualties on other parties in an attempt to build a narrative in which Washington is not simply the innocent side, but is also sanctioning others for its forces’ misconduct.

Recently, in February, Syrian state news outlet SANA reported that a coalition led by the United States had committed a crime against humanity by inflicting air strikes on the Al-Baghouz settlement. As a result of the bombing, 16 civilians were killed, another 70 people were injured. Reports of the sort are the norm.

On April 24^th, Syrian Defense Minister Mahmoud Shawa called on the dissolution of the US-led coalition in Syria and their departure from the country.

“We demand to stop the illegal presence in our land of foreign troops of the United States, France, Britain, Turkey and disband the so-called international alliance,” the official was cited as saying.

A separate grant offers between $3 and $4 million to public International Organizations; overseas non-governmental non-profit organizations, who would take part in the Iraq-Syria Land Border Security Program.

“The overall aim is to build the capacity of civilian security forces belonging to the Government of Iraq, including the Kurdish Regional Government, and conduct border security management, including enhanced border screening and interagency coordination, in compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 2396. This funding opportunity seeks to address the porous and weakened state of the Iraq-Syria border in order to deny ISIS remnants cross-border freedom of movement and detect and interdict terrorists, terrorist networks and illicit trade.”

This is further evidence that the US plans on perpetuating its presence in both Syria and Iraq, whether by actual US troops remaining there or through their Kurdish proxies in the region.

*

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

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

Featured image is from South Front

When a CIA-backed military coup is attempted by a long term CIA puppet, roared on by John Bolton and backed with the offer of Blackwater mercenaries, in the country with the world’s largest oil reserves, I have no difficulty whatsoever in knowing which side I am on.

Juan Guaido has been groomed for 15 years as a long-term CIA project. His coup attempt yesterday, which so far appears to have stalled, was the culmination of these efforts to return Venezuela’s oil reserves to US hegemony.

It is strange how the urgent installation of liberal democracy by force correlates so often with oil reserves not aligned to the USA, as in Libya, Iraq or Venezuela, while countries with massive oil reserves which permit US military domination and align with the West and Israel can be as undemocratic as they wish, eg Saudi Arabia. Venezuela is an imperfect democracy but it is far, far more of a democracy than Saudi Arabia and with a much better human rights record. The hypocrisy of Western media and politicians is breathtaking.

Hypocrisy and irony are soulmates, and there are multiple levels of irony in seeing the “liberal” commentators who were cheering on an undisguised military coup, then complaining loudly that people are being injured or killed now their side is losing. Yesterday the MSM had no difficulty in calling the attempted coup what anybody with eyes and ears could see it plainly was, an attempted military coup.

Today, miraculously, the MSM line is no coup attempt happened at all, it was just a spontaneous unarmed protest, and it is the evil government of Venezuela which attempts to portray it as a coup. BBC Breakfast this morning had the headline “President Maduro has accused the opposition of mounting a coup attempt”… Yet there is no doubt at all that, as a matter of plain fact, that is what happened.

The MSM today is full of video of water cannons against “protestors” and a horrible video of a military vehicle ramming a group. But it has all been very carefully edited to exclude hours of footage of the same military vehicles being pelted and set alight with molotov cocktails, and shot at. The presentation has been truly shocking.

In any civilised country, attempting to mount a military coup would lead to incarceration for life, and that is what should now happen to Juan Guaido. The attempt by the West to protect their puppet by pretending the failed military coup never happened, must be resisted, if only in the cause of intellectual honesty.

The resort to violence forces binary choice. I have been and am a critic of Maduro in many respects. I believe the constitutional changes to bypass Parliament were wrong, and the indirectly elected Constituent Assembly is not a good form of democracy. Venezuela does have a rampant corruption problem. US sanctions exacerbate but are not the root cause of economic mismanagement. There are human rights failings. But Chavez made revolutionary changes in educating and empowering the poor, and it is a far better governed country for the mass of its population than it would ever be under a US installed CIA puppet regime. Maduro was legitimately elected. The attempt at violence forces a binary choice.

I know which side I am on. It is not Guaido and the CIA.

*

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

Featured image: Activists gather in front of the Venezuelan embassy in Washington, DC in March, 2019.

Not satisfied with the orgy of violence successive U.S. administrations have imposed on the world over the last two decades in the Middle East and North Africa, the Trump administration—with the full support of a majority of Democrats and the liberal establishment—gave the green light to a coup action in Venezuela that promises to cause untold suffering to the Venezuelan people in the Americas.

In response to the news that a military coup was unfolding in Venezuela, European Parliament President Antonio Tajani welcomed the move as “a historic moment for the return to democracy and freedom in Venezuela.” Liberal defenders of democracy and human rights across Europe have given enthusiastic support to U.S. counterrevolutionary efforts, affirming why the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) has identified the U.S./EU/NATO axis of domination as the principal enemy of collective global humanity.

The real possibility of more death and destruction at the hands of the United States in Venezuela, and that significant sectors of the U.S. population supports it, reflects once again the moral hypocrisy of a society that pretends to be concerned about gun violence in the United States while giving full support to the ultimate expression of gun violence in the form of war. The hypocrisy continues with the bipartisan support for increasing the U.S. military budget by an astronomical $750 billion.

The people of the world want peace. But peace and global social cooperation to tackle and defeat the collective challenges of climate change, poverty, economic exploitation and oppression will be impossible as long as some nation-states have the ability to impose their destructive will on everyone else.

We are confident the Venezuelan people will prevail because after 20 years of dignity, of attempting to build a new society based on equality, cooperation, and empowerment of the oppressed, they will never allow themselves to be returned to the days when a rapacious oligarchy was able to deny them a democratic voice and steal the fruits of their labor and national resources.

In the spirit of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Ella Baker, Claudia Jones, Malcolm X, Kwame Ture and Fannie Lou Hamer, BAP opposes the axis of domination and spreads the demand—Hands Off Venezuela!

*

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

Featured image is from teleSUR

UPDATE: May 1st, 2019. Failed Military Coup. Lopez Seek Refuge at Spanish Embassy

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro addressed the country in a televised speech on Tuesday evening, accusing those responsible for the military uprising of trying to provoke a “massacre” and lauding the armed forces for their restraint in avoiding direct confrontations.

“Who benefits from these [confrontations]? Who finances them? Undoubtedly the leadership of the terrorist ultra-right party Popular Will,” Maduro declared, referring to the party of Lopez and Guaido.

He added that today’s actions would not go “unpunished,” explaining that eight military officers and policemen were wounded in the armed confrontations, before going on to blast US leaders for their role in endorsing the coup attempt. Maduro also showed his appreciation for the tens of thousands who mobilized to defend the presidential palace beginning in the early hours of Tuesday.

The Venezuelan president, who was accompanied by high-ranking political and military leaders, ended his speech by calling for a “massive mobilization” on May 1st to celebrate workers’ day and “defend peace.”

* * *

A military coup attempt is underway in Venezuela on Tuesday, April 30, with imprisoned right wing leader Leopoldo Lopez, and self-proclaimed “Interim President” Juan Guaido and some members of the armed forces blocking a highway in Caracas and calling on the military to rise up.

According to reports, a group from Venezuela’s Sebin intelligence service freed Leopoldo Lopez from house arrest early Tuesday morning. Lopez then joined Guaido and a handful of members from different branches of the armed forces in the Altamira highway in eastern Caracas close to La Carlota airbase. Lopez and Guaido published videos on social media calling on other elements of the armed forces to join the uprising and on their supporters to take to the streets. Guaido vowed that this was the “final phase” in ousting the Maduro government.

The Venezuelan government promptly reacted, condemning the coup attempt and vowing that it would be defeated.

“We inform the Venezuelan people that right now we are facing and deactivating a small group of traitor soldiers who have positioned themselves on the Altamira overpass to attempt a coup against the state and the constitution,” Communications Minister Jorge Rodriguez tweeted.

The President of the National Constituent Assembly, Diosdado Cabello, spoke on state television, vowing that the uprising would be defeated and that those responsible would have to “assume their responsibilities.” He also called on the people and the Bolivarian militia to go out on the streets and defend Miraflores Palace.

For his part, Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López reported that military units throughout the country reported total normalcy, and that the military remain loyal to President Maduro.

At the time of writing, Guaido’s followers are taking to the streets both in Caracas and other parts of the country, blocking roads in support of his new call for a coup. Minor confrontations with tear gas have been reported outside La Carlota air base in Caracas.

Guaido had previously called for the “largest march in Venezuela’s history” scheduled for Wednesday May 1, while a Chavista march celebrating workers’ day was also expected to take place.

(We will be updating this space with more developments.)

*

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

Featured image is from France 24

The Canadian political analyst and Research Associate at Global Research, Mark Taliano, has affirmed that the West does not have a free press and all of the information to which most western people are exposed is delivered by about six media monopolies, which are servants to the oligarch classes, not the public interest.

He indicated that these monopolies largely control how Westerners perceive the world.

“Corporate-controlled governments and their media appendages control what Westerners perceive to be the truth in matters of foreign policy, but the messaging is totally corrupt and criminal,” Mr. Taliano said, giving as example that North Americans believe that Canada and its allies are fighting a war on terror.

“They think that we are fighting al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria.  The opposite is true of course.  Canada and its allies are supporting al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria with a view to destroying the pluralist, secular, democratic country and its government,” the analyst asserted.

He underscored that the government’s foreign policy consists of destroying freedom and democracy but Canadians are indoctrinated to believe the opposite. “Every time Empire and NATO member states seek to destroy another country – which is all the time — the prey country’s president or leader instantly becomes a “brutal dictator”, someone who “gasses own people”. It’s a complete inversion of the truth. But North Americans are trained to accept the war lies. Critical thinking is taboo.”

The analyst made it clear that the empire, to which Canada is a servile vassal, is imploding as war and poverty are being globalized.

“The economic model is not sustainable.  It serves transnational corporate monopoly profits as it neglects domestic economies.  Priorities are utterly inverted.  The public should be spending its money on equal access to quality healthcare, to infrastructure, education, the public good.  Instead the money serves the same warmongering, predatory classes that are destroying the world,” he emphasized.

“Neoliberalism”

Mr. Taliano pointed out that the current diseconomy that is hollowing out the middle class and concentrating the wealth into the hands of a parasitical oligarch class has a name, but few people are aware of it.

“If you can’t name something, you cannot address it.  The name itself is (intentionally) confusing: “neoliberalism”.  It is a predatory economic model that destroys the public domain, privatizes everything, cuts social spending, and deregulates corporate monopoly activities when the deregulation aligns with Big Monopoly “interests”. It’s a diseconomy that serves perceived corporate monopoly interests while at the same time excluding public interests,” he stressed.

The analyst went on to say:

“During the 1998 economic crash the deregulated corporate sector was responsible for the crash, but the public domain provided the bailouts. “Austerity” amounts to further corporate bailouts. Political parties associate the word with self-sufficiency but in reality, it simply gives the oligarchs a free pass to divert “their” wealth to tax avoidance shelters, tax havens and so on. The notion that the market is “free” is ridiculous. How does the oligarch class get away with it?  Simple, it’s the same bailed-out, parasitical oligarchy that owns the media, so they own the messaging, they own how we think, and what we say.”

He believes that if the truth about the West’s criminal wars abroad and its political diseconomy were to trickle down, then productive change might be seen.

“Unfortunately, in the absence of truth, all we have are the mechanisms of democracy but not the reality of democracy. Western politicians will say almost anything to get elected, within the framework of a political script, but they avoid dealing with the realities and the truths about Western imperialism and the drivers behind it. Once elected, the dictatorship of the warmongers and “neoliberalism” invariably resumes.  Hence, nothing changes, and the public interests – concealed and distorted by media lies – are not served,” Mr. Taliano said.

As for what the Western public should do to help itself and the world, the analyst said that Canadians should reject the war lies and the military industrial complex messaging that creates unreasonable fear as a tactic to divert even more money from the people.

“Canada should exit from U.S-led NATO… Media monopolies and in fact all big monopolies should be broken up, including the Banking sector.  No industry should be too big to fail,” Mr. Taliano concluded.

*

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

This interview was originally published on Syria Times.

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.

---

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

This incisive article by Professor Henry Espiritu was first published by Global Research in November 2017

“And thou wilt find the nearest in friendship to the believers to be those who say, ‘We are Christians’. That is because there are priests and monks among them and because they are not proud.” (Al-Qur-an, Surah Maidah: 82)

Introduction: Context and Commitment

The current expansion in mass media and communications reveal more evidently that our world contains variety of cultures, races, religions, and ideologies. Despite globalization and its attendant efforts towards homogeneity, ours is still a pluralist world. As such, tolerance is a foundational notion and a very relevant conceptual and practical prerequisite in establishing a pluralistic society. In pluralism’s point of view, people living in a society with varied religious, cultural, and ideological commitments should enjoy equal rights and should not sacrifice their beliefs at the mercy of the hegemonic ideology of a particular State or of the dominant religion of the majority community.

In our highly globalized world, tolerance and amity are all the more needed for the survival, cohesion, and progress of its citizens.

The contemporary mass media portray Islamic societies to be intolerant of other’s religious and ideological persuasions. The purpose of this paper is not to examine whether the contemporary media is right or wrong in perceiving Islamic societies as intolerant. My aim in this essay is to show that authentic Islam—as contained in the pristine revelation of the Qur-an—promotes tolerance, harmony, and goodwill of all peoples despite their differences.

Professor Henry Espiritu (right)

In this paper, I want to reflect straight from the original source of Islamic tenets (i.e., the Qur-an) the tolerant attitude of Islam vis-à-vis religious, cultural, and ideological diversities found in human societies. Likewise, I will endeavor to show various thematic perspectives found in selected passages of the Qur-an that encourage tolerance and societal concord. Side by side with my exposition of authentic Islam’s framework of tolerance, I will likewise provide several historical instantiations of this “spirituality of tolerance” in the lives of selected Muslim savants and revered Islamic personalities of various epochs in their encounter with Christians.

I sincerely hope that by showing the tolerant and pluralistic pronouncements of the Qur-an, and the historical instantiations of tolerance manifested in the exemplary lives of these prominent Muslims as they relate with Christians, I will be able to encourage Muslims to fully practice and live-out the Islamic mandates of amity and inter-religious understanding in their daily lives. Moreover, I further hope that in this essay, I will be able to inform non-Muslims that genuine Islam—as contained in the Qur-anic revelation, in the model conduct of the Prophet, and in the exemplary lives of pious Muslim personages—is a very tolerant religion that acknowledges and respects the divergent beliefs and ideological views of others.

The Dynamics of Tolerance: Philosophical, Metaphysical, and Mystical Presuppositions

Firstly, let me briefly explicate my own conceptual framework and philosophical presuppositions in understanding tolerance. Tolerance presupposes plurality and diversity of identities. Pluralism further presupposes alterity or otherness, since diversity entails variety of identities and plurality of existing values. The opposite of pluralism is hegemony where one particular value is imposed and where there is an enforced totalization of expressions of life to make human values comply to a uniformed worldview and a set praxis. Now, tolerance can only exist in a pluralistic framework since pluralism celebrates in the difference of the “other”. Tolerance is a very important ethical value in the face of the alterity of the “other”. Tolerance therefore presupposes an “other” since without an “other”, there is nothing to tolerate at all. In hegemony, however, the “other” is swallowed and annihilated by the sheer imposition of uniformity and forcible totalization. Thus with the absence of the “other” in a hegemony, tolerance will also be non-existent—this is why all totalitarian and hegemonic societies are most intolerant of differences and dissenting views.

Secondly, I consider tolerance as spirituality. A person who can tolerate the “other” is able to see the unitive Source Who permits and wills these various differences and diversities as found in the world. This unitive Bond that permeates all diverse phenomena of creation and transcends multiplicities—the mystics termed, “the One God”. In the words of the Holy Qur-an:

“And your God and our God is One God. There is no god but He, the Beneficent, the Merciful… There is no contention between us and you. Allah will gather us together, and to Him is our eventual coming.” (Surah Baqara:163 and Surah Shuraa:15)

Therefore—for the Qur-an—God is both the Ultimate Source of these diversities and the Essential End of all varied cosmic entities. Spirituality or mysticism acknowledges God as the unifying Connectivity that deeply binds the whole of creation to Himself despite their apparent differences and multiplicities. Muslim and Christian mystics are well able to tolerate religious differences because in their inner beings, these mystics see the vision of the One, and this unitive vision enabled them to go beyond creedal and dogmatic differences. It is by this divine grace of an all-inclusive vision of the One that enables saints and mystics to tolerate the “otherness” of the other (See Frithjof Schuon, Understanding Islam. London: Mandala Books, 1964; pp. 13-18.).

Tolerance in dealing with others, particularly the religious “other” is spirituality because by tolerating differences, one acknowledges the divine Wisdom of God who wills that these differences be made manifest. By reflecting on this ineffable theological tension regarding the plurality or diversity of God’s creation and the essential oneness of creation in the Being of God, mystics of all religious traditions appreciate the mystery and spirituality of tolerance; an unfathomable and sympathetic understanding that is holistically related to a consciousness of divine unity manifesting in and through diversity. Tolerance permits us to experience the sympathetic feeling of divine inter-connectedness among diverse creatures in the divine immanence of the Creator who permits these differences.

My own prayerful reflections evidently reveal to me that authentic Islam, i.e., the Islam as expressed in the pristine pages of the Qur-an and in the exemplary conduct set forth by Prophet Muhammad—in contrast with the rigid and hegemonic “Islam” as interpreted by “extremist” exegeses or “fundamentalist” hermeneutics—clearly advocates pluralism and encourages tolerance in its relationship with the religious “other”. In the next subsections, we will examine how the Qur-anic understanding of pluralism is intimately connected to the spirituality of tolerance. We will also see how the Qur-anic discourse of tolerance is practically exemplified in the lives of selected Muslim saints in their encounter and dialogue with Christians.

The Qur-anic View of Pluralism and Its Relevance to an Islamic Understanding of Tolerance

The Qur-an is fully conscious of the pluralistic nature of human societies. Many Qur-anic passages describe the diverse expressions of life as found in human communities. Pluralism is therefore a fact, which the Qur-an accepts as the basic reality of our human existence. The Qur-an says:

“For every one of you We appointed a law and a way. And if Allah had pleased, He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you. So vie with one another in virtuous deeds. To Allah will all return, so He will inform you of that wherein you differed.” (Surah Maida:48; The Holy Qur-an: Maulana Muhammad Ali Translation)

The above passage is a very decisive proclamation supporting tolerance. The verse fully points out the pluralistic condition of humankind. The passage admits to the existence of societal and religious diversity characterizing human communities when it declares; “for everyone of you, We appointed a law and a way”. Notice that this verse says that our pluralistic situation is willed and permitted by God so as to test human communities so that each community will vie with each other in doing good deeds. It further says:

“And if Allah had pleased, He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you. So vie with one another in virtuous deeds”.

Surah Maida:48 is likewise a very relevant verse in understanding the nature of the Islamic understanding of tolerance. If God willed that this world contains socio-cultural and religious diversities (when He could have made the world a “single people”), and if God himself has a divine reason for allowing these diversities (so that each society will “vie with one another in virtuous deeds”); then humankind should strive to accept, tolerate, and appreciate the fact of our pluralistic world.

Good Will, Courtesy, and Mutual Respect: The Basic Ethical Pillars of Qur-anic Tolerance

Maulana Muhammad Ali Lahori (circa 1879-1951), was an eminent Pakistani scholar of Qur-anic and Hadith exegesis. He authored exhaustive and authoritative books of Qur-anicexegesis, collectively known in Urdu as Bayan-e Qur-an (Qur-anic Lectures) and a comprehensive commentary of the Prophetic Traditions, entitled The Manual of Hadith. Maulana Muhammad Ali Lahori strove to present Islam as a rational, tolerant, and forward-looking religion during the era of the British rule of then undivided India.

In this period of the British Raj, various Christian missionary groups representing different denominations compete for the conversion of Indians to Christianity. Seeing the zeal of these missionaries, Maulana Muhammad Ali began to reflect on the state of the Muslims in India. He re-evaluated the Indian appropriation of Islamic tenets and found out that the Muslims in India were enveloped with customs which were thought to be Islamic, but in reality, were products of obscurantism, and therefore devoid of Islamic significance.

Maulana Muhammad Ali likewise engaged the Christian missionaries in friendly dialogues to clarify common misconceptions of Islam. His scholarly book, The Religion of Islam, which was the result of these dialogic exchanges, show a very rational explication of Islam; at the same time fully cognizant of the Christian missionaries’ objections against Islam by responding to these objections using the Qur-an and Sunnah as bases of clarification. In all his writings, one can admire the profound respect that Maulana Muhammad Ali accorded to his interlocutors, both Christians and Muslims.

I will quote from his Urdu commentary of the Holy Qur-an on the necessity of courtesy (adab), good will (ahsan), and respect or honor (izzat) in dialoguing with others. Commenting on the Qur-anicayah (verse): “Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner” (Surah Nahl:125), Maulana Muhammad Ali had this to say:

“If we desire to establish communication with other religions and their followers, the first pre-requisite is good will (ahsan). We need good will because we have to be reminded that followers of other religions desire for our own good when they want to convert us. And we too, desire for their own good when we invite them to Islam. Everyone sincerely believes that his or her respective tenet is the truth. Thus, keeping in mind that every religion desires salvation, the Holy Book requires us to conduct our concourse with others in the best manner of etiquette (adab). In his inner heart, the other person who communicates to us his religion thinks that he is doing an act of piety.

Similarly, in Surah Ankabut:46, the Word of Allah reiterates its exhortation to concourse with the People of the Book, in the attitude of respect and courtesy, when it says: ‘And argue not with the People of the Book except by what is best… And say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you and our God and your God is One, and to Him we submit’. It is therefore with this innate intention of good will that our Holy Book requires us to establish friendly concourse with the followers of other faiths, in the spirit of courtesy and profound respect.” (See Mawlana Muhammad Ali’s subsequent commentary of Surah Nahl 125 and Surah Ankabut 46.)

Maulana Muhammad Ali, in his encounters with Christian missionaries, was able to articulate and apply the ethical principles of dialogue and tolerance, which were already laid down by the Holy Qur-an (namely in Surah Nahl:125 and in Surah Ankabut:46). Maulana Muhammad Ali understood tolerance as something inherent in our being persons of good will; and that this divine awareness of good intention leads us to respect the viewpoint of the other person even if we do not subscribe to his creedal tenets. The verse in Surah Nahl:125 encourages Muslims to dialogue with the religious “other” in the spirit of sincere courtesy, profound sensitivity, and deep respect for each other’s differences, by granting a concordant presumption that the other’s intention in striving to convert another person is due to good will (i.e., for the “other’s” spiritual salvation).

Surah Maida: 48 as Potent Islamic Manifesto Supporting Tolerance

Maulana Muhammad Ali asserts that Surah Maida:48 is an explicit endorsement of pluralism and its attendant duty of tolerating the various diversities of humankind. I quote from Maulana Muhammad Ali’s exhaustive Qur-anic commentary to this particular passage:

“The appointment of a law and a way for everyone refers to the giving of different laws to different nations… Thus, the Holy Qur’an here recognizes the principle to which it refers frequently, that prophets were raised among every people (see Holy Qur’an 10:47; 13:7; and 35:24)… Man [sic] is placed above the whole of creation in that he has been granted discretionary powers so that he can choose to follow one path or another, as against the rest of creation, which must necessarily follow the laws to which it is subject. Hence led by that [God-given] discretion, men follow different ways, adopting different sects, whereas if man’s very nature had been so made as to make him unable to use his discretionary powers, all men [sic] would have been a single people, but then man’s better qualities, would not have been manifested.” (Maulana Muhammad Ali Commentary of the Holy Qur-an.Columbus, Ohio: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore, 1998; pp.256.)

As commented by Maulana Muhammad Ali, Surah Maida:48 explicitly declares that Almighty God sent his messengers to diverse groups of people and gave these communities their respective commandments in keeping with the different circumstances of each community. The laws prescribed by God to the different communities ensure the holistic development of their respective people. The verse continues, “And if Allah had pleased, He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you. So vie with one another in virtuous deeds”. This verse clearly pointed out that if God so willed it, He can create a single community out of varied groups of people. Nevertheless, God planned that humankind be varied in its communitarian expressions.

God’s endowment of a pluralistic world is His grace to humanity. Our differences provide venues for existential celebration of life and of living: variety and diversity being the potent antidote to our humdrum existence. Each community has its own unique way of life, its own customs and traditions, its own laws. Nevertheless, no matter how diverse these ways of life are, it should be understood in the light of the Almighty’s life-affirming purpose in allowing such diversities, i.e., human flourishing. It is therefore clear from Surah Maidah:48 that although God can produce a uniformed world of totalities by imposing a single law for all communities, yet He prefers to create pluralistic communities so that humankind will learn the values of tolerance, amity, harmony, and fraternity.

Another aim of God in creating varied communities is to test human beings in the conduct of virtuous deeds. He tests the various societies if they can live amicably and cordially with each other despite their differences. The divergence in each society’s ways of life should not be a cause of disharmony and differences; instead, societal divergences should prod each community to vie with one another in the performance of virtuous conduct (Cf., Reza Shah Kazemi, The Metaphysics of Interreligious Dialogue. London: Institute of Isma’ili Studies, 2001; pp.5-7.).

The Qur-an insists that the best way of putting an end to religious, cultural, and ideological conflicts is to tolerate differences with openness and good faith. Each religious community should do righteous deeds according to their tenets; leaving to God the judgment as to which community is the best. The final section of the passage states:

“To Allah will all return, so He will inform you of that wherein you differed”.

The verse is very precise in stating that it should be left to God (and to God alone) in deciding the truth of the matters that peoples dispute. It is not for humans to pontificate which view is true and which is wrong. Vain and fruitless arguments as to which religious, ethical, and ideological point of view is right or wrong will only lead to communal fracas and infringement of societal concord. Likewise, the verse firmly admonishes human beings to contend with one another in good deeds by utilizing their own respective laws as bases of their righteous conduct.

God as the Ultimate Source of Divine Revelation: A Central Tenet in the Qur-anic Understanding of Tolerance

The prologue of Surah Maida:48 states, “And We have revealed to thee the Book [i.e., the Qur-an] with the truth verifying that which is before it [i.e., the previous scriptures]…and a guardian over it”. This verse is a strong proclamation in favor of tolerance and pluralism. The Qur-an is referred to as “guardian” of the truths revealed by earlier scriptures. Likewise, one of the roles of the Qur-an is “a verifier” of previous scriptures. According to Ustaz Abu Ya’qub Sijistani, a Fatimid theologian and philosopher of the tenth century AD, this verse implies that the scriptures of various religions may be different, but the Ultimate Source of all revealed scriptures is the One and Only God. Thus, scriptures of different faiths are based on Divine revelation.

The tolerant nature of Islam as a religion can be seen in this verse in that, the Qur-an takes it upon itself to be the confirmer, verifier, and guardian of truths revealed in earlier scriptures (Paul Walker, Abu Ya’qub al-Sijistani: Intellectual Missionary. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1996; pp. 26-32, 58.).

Before elaborating further on Ustaz Abu Ya’qub al-Sijistani’s view of the Qur-an as the guardian and verifier of previous divinely revealed books and the implications of this Qur-anic guardianship to an Islamic framework of tolerance, a brief historical background of Ustaz Sijistani’s life is in order. Ustaz Abu Ya’qub Sijistani—although himself an Isma’ili Shi’a—maintained amicable relations with the orthodox Sunni majority during the period of the Fatimid Caliphate (i.e., 10th-11th century A.D.). To the dismay of the rabid Shi’as, Ustaz Sijistani forbade his disciples to curse the first three Caliphs of Islam (Khulafa-ar-Rashidin); warning them, that Prophet Muhammad lavished praise on these three Caliphs, and therefore, it is never right and against Islamic prudence to curse whom the Prophet had abundantly praised.

His endeavor to establish Sunni-Shi’a rapprochement was also matched by his spiritual and intellectual relationship with the Coptic Christians of Egypt, the Arab Orthodox Christians of Iraq, the Byzantine Christians of Anatolia, and the Jews. He studied the Torah in Hebrew and the New Testament in the Syro-Aramaic text. He often consulted Jewish rabbis and Orthodox Christian hermits and enquired from them regarding their interpretation of some obscure passages of the Bible. His encounters with Christianity and Judaism were indeed intellectually stimulating since Ustaz Sijistani wrote six (6) religio-philosophical treatises reflecting on his relations with Christianity and Judaism, not to mention the orthodox Sunni Islam. Sijistani’s main books, The Wellspring of Wisdom (Yanbu-al-Hikmat) and Proofs of Prophecy (Ithbat-un-Nubuwwat) were written to show that God is the ultimate Source of Revelation and that this divine Revelation is progressive, i.e., it is sent according to the measure of the spiritual preparedness of humankind to receive divine guidance. Ustaz Sijistani was therefore a perfect example of an “ecumenical Muslim”—if I may be permitted to coin such a term.

Let us now explicate on Sijistani’s understanding of progressive revelation and its implication to an Islamic perspective of tolerance. As per Ustaz Sijistani, the inclusive nature of the Islamic faith can be clearly observed in the Qur-an’s numerous narrations regarding the ministries of Jewish, Christians, and other pre-Islamic prophets. The Qur-an’s inclusion of the prophets of other religions preceding Islam is meant to illustrate the pluralistic and tolerant dimension of the Qur-anic Revelation. The list of prophets as found in the Qur-an was never meant to be exhaustive; it was meant to illustrate the extent of the universal chain of prophethood. Thus, we can safely assume that other religious communities that were not mentioned in the Qur-an are likewise included in the all-inclusive Qur-anic guardianship (Walker, Ibid, pp. 45-58, 110-112.).

Furthermore, Sijistani opined that the Qur-an fully acknowledges the different expressions of worship undertaken by different religions, while at the same time firmly holding to the Islamic expressions of worship (i.e., the five-times-a-day liturgical prayers, prescribed pilgrimage, Ramadhan fasting, etc.). In Surah Baqara:148 it is stated: “And everyone has a goal to which he turns (himself), so vie with one another in good works”. Abu Ya’qub al-Sijistani, interpreted the phrase, “everyone has a goal to which he turns” to signify the diverse spiritual communities and their different approaches of worship (Ibid, pp. 49-51.). Ustaz Sijistani, also pointed out that Surah Baqara:148 is very much related to the phrase in Surah Maida:48, viz; “For everyone of you We appointed a law and a way”.

The Qur-an on the Oneness of Humankind and Diverse Expressions of Human Cultures

The Qur-an, in many numerous passages explicitly proclaims the oneness of humankind. Humanity was “created from a single being” (Surah Nisah:1). All humans came from a single ancestry and living in the same homeland, earth (Surah Hujurat:13). Furthermore, Surah Baqara:213 says that the whole of humankind is essentially one in origin—from God, humankind’s Creator. God sent various messengers with their respective scriptures to guide the peoples of the world to righteous living. These prophets were sent to different places of the world and their revelations were suited to the varying milieus, mentalities, contextualities, situations, and circumstances of the peoples and societies in which they were being sent. However, instead of respecting other societies’ contextualities, people began to be divided and incessantly fight against each other. Surah Baqara:213 further states that God in giving His revelation to different communities did not intend that they fight each other; but that each communities respect each other’s differences.

The Qur-an balances its affirmation of the ontological oneness of humankind by equally highlighting on the divergent racial, linguistic, ideological, religious, and national identities of each society. God wills these identities; as the Qur-an plainly states, “And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colors. Surely, there are signs in these for the learned” (Surah Rum:2). This passage acknowledges cultural differences as “signs” of God and must be duly appreciated as these “signs” serve as venues for each society’s expression of identity. Cultural differences are essential for establishing a community’s identity and these divergences should prompt peoples to celebrate each other’s cultural and national identities (See, Maulana Muhammad Ali’s commentary of Surah Baqara:213, Hujurat:13 and Maida:48; op.cit.). Therefore, the Qur-an undoubtedly recognizes cultural, religious, and societal diversities as being willed by Divine Providence; even as it equally affirms the essential unity and oneness of humankind.

Tolerance and the Diverse Liturgical Expressions of Worship Found in Other Faiths

As of this juncture, it is noteworthy to quote some Qur-anic passages that illustrate the practical dimensions of Islamic tolerance with respect to the different worship expressions of other faith-traditions. The Qur-an says:

“It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards East or West; but righteous is the one who believes in Allah and the Last Day, and the angels, and the Book, and the prophets, and gives away wealth out of love for Him, to the near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer, and to those who ask, and to set the slaves free; and keeps up prayer, and pays the poor-rate [i.e., charity]: and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in the time of conflict [adversities]. These are they who are truthful; and these are they who keep their duty.” (Surah Baqara:177; Maulana Muhammad Ali Translation.)

The great master of Islamic mysticism, Hazrat Shaykh-al-Akbar Muhaiyuddin Ibn Arabi (circa 1164-1240 AD), in his Sufi treatise, Bezels of Wisdom (Fusus al-Hikam) provided a very universal and inclusive interpretation of the above passage, showing the tolerant nature of Islamic Sufism that Ibn Arabi espoused. Before discussing Ibn Arabi’s explanation of the above-mentioned passage, I feel that it is beneficial for our understanding to describe briefly his historical contextuality. Ibn Arabi’s tolerant and pluralistic approach to Islamic spirituality can best be gleaned in his oft-quoted pronouncement:

“My heart is open to every form: it is a pasture for ecstatics, and a cloister for Christian monks, a temple for idols, the Mecca for the monotheists, the tablet for the Torah and the bookstand of the Qur-an. I embrace the religion called ‘Love’; I go where my Beloved’s caravan asks me to go. My religion is the creed of Love.” (Shahabuddin Maliki, Light from the Sayings of Shaykh Ibn Arabi. Decca, Bangladesh: Markaz Towheedi, 1977; p.63.)

Arabi’s frequent discussions and meetings with Jewish and Christian philosophers and mystics may have influenced his all-inclusive and panentheistic approach to understanding Ultimate Reality (wahdat-ul-wujud). Ibn Arabi’s homeland, Andalusia, a cosmopolitan region in Spain was ruled during Ibn Arabi’s time by the extremely tolerant Umayyad sultans. The emirs of Andalusia encouraged learning and supported all educational institutions, whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish. It was during this period that Christians all over Europe flocked to Muslim Spain to study Greek philosophy as mediated by the Arabic textual sources. Likewise, it was in Muslim Spain where Jews from all parts of Europe and the Mediterranean took refuge from pogroms that greatly diminished their ranks. Ibn Arabi’s Islamic Andalusia ruled by the enlightened Umayyads offered an atmosphere of intellectual freedom—an atmosphere that was so different from the rest of Europe where inquisitions and religious persecutions were the order of the day (See Oliver Leaman, A Brief Introduction to Islamic Philosophy. Oxford: Polity Press, 1999; pp. 158-164.). This historical context contributed to Ibn Arabi’s universal and all embracing approach to Islamic mysticism.

Now let us come to Ibn Arabi’s inclusivist exegesis of Surah Baqara:177 and how this exegesis conduces to an Islamic spirituality of tolerance. Commenting on the above-mentioned verse, Ibn Arabi says:

“Beware of being bound up by a particular creed and rejecting others as unbelief. Try to make yourself a prime matter for all forms of religious beliefs. God is greater and wider than to be confined to one particular creed to the exclusion of others. For He Himself says: ‘To whichever direction you turn, there is the Face of God’. God is much greater, wider and deeper than our religious conceptions.” (See Oliver Leaman, A Brief Introduction to Islamic Philosophy. Oxford: Polity Press, 1999; pp. 158-164. )

Ibn Arabi admits that although in Islam, there exists a specific direction and prescribed liturgical postures by which a Muslim faces when praying, yet for him, the Qur-an equally acknowledges with respect the various directions and gestures of prayer adopted by other religions in their worship. More importantly, for Ibn Arabi, Surah Baqara:177 encourages religious pluralism and tolerance by going beyond (i.e., transcending) the ritual demands of different ceremonial expressions of worship and focusing instead on the importance of humane character, viz, compassion towards others and persevering faith in the midst of trials and difficulties (See, Henry Bayman, The Station of No Station: Open Secrets of the Sufis. Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books, 2001; pp. 166, 206.). Ibn Arabi explained that the divine purpose of the various prescribed acts of worship is for the spiritual education of humankind, aside from the avowed aim of glorifying God. For him, more than the outward manifestations of piety, the crucial intention of the Qur-an is for the Islamic Ummah(community) to produce proper human beings who are sensitive to the needs of others. The Qur-an endeavors to create compassionate and “humane” persons who act with benevolence and equanimity to everybody with no regard whatsoever to racial, cultural, religious, or ideological differences (Ibid, pp. 97-98, 103.).

Instantiations of Tolerance from the Life of the Prophet of Islam and His Companions

The Qur-an clearly reveals that, “all the children of Adam are equally honored” by God (See, Surah Bani-Israil:70). The Qur-an also takes an all-inclusive humanistic view in its understanding of justice and equality among all peoples. When it comes to judging actions that either benefit or harm humanity, the Qur-an does not distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims. As pointed out in Surah Nisah:123-124,

“It will not be in accordance with your vain desires [i.e., Muslims], nor the vain desires of the People of the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians] that can prevail. Whoever does evil will be requited for it… And whoever does good deeds, whether male or female—these will enter the Garden and they will not be dealt with a whit unjustly.” (Maulana Muhammad Ali Translation.)

The Qur-an further affirms; “so he who does an atom’s weight of good will see it. And he who does an atom’s weight of evil will see it” (Surah Zilzal:7-8.). According to the Qur-an, God does not consider a person’s dogmatic or creedal commitment when rendering judgment of an action. Everyone will be given their just recompense based on one’s deeds and not because of one’s religious adherence.

Furthermore, the Qur-an exhorts Muslims to respect places of worship of other faith-traditions and to ensure that these will be protected and safe from acts of vandalism and destruction. Surah al-Hajj:40 says; “And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much remembered would have been pulled down” (Maulana Muhammad Ali Translation.).

The abovementioned verse is very explicit in enjoining Muslims to sacrifice even their very own lives to defend the sanctity of churches and synagogues, and not just mosques. Interestingly, this particular passage avers that whether in church, synagogue or mosque, God’s name is “commemorated in abundant measure” in all these places of worship (Cf., Muhammad Hamidullah, Islam: An Introduction. Lahore: Kitab Islami Wakf, 1979; pp.34-35. See also Kazemi, op.cit., p.12.). Here, we can find that the Qur-an did not make any distinction between shrines of worship—it acknowledges the sacredness of places of worship where God’s name is celebrated with reverence; no matter what faith-tradition these shrines belong.

The Qur-an solemnly affirms, “there is no compulsion in religion” (Surah Baqara:256). The Qur-an is very keen in preserving freedom of conscience and freedom of belief—two crucial elements which are at the heart of tolerance. In this connection, a narration of two episodes in the life of the Prophet Muhammad is very pertinent in order to show that Islam fully respects the freedom of peoples to practice their own faith. When the people of Medina accepted the Prophet as their lawmaker and chief governmental executive, the Prophet himself immediately asked his scribes to write a declaration assuring the freedom of Jews and Christian residents of Medina and Najran to practice their faith. Likewise, when Christian monks and priests from Abyssinia came to Medina to see the Prophet, they inquired where they can hold their Eucharistic service (since they were still in Medina on a Sunday), the Prophet Muhammad gladly offered half of the space of his masjid (i.e., the first masjid built by the Prophet’s own hands) to the Christian priests for their liturgy. The priests tearfully thanked the Prophet for his hospitality, munificence, and cordial act of tolerance by offering and allowing them to hold their Divine Liturgy in his masjid (See, Maulana Muhammad Ali, The Religion of Islam. Columbus, Ohio: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at Islam Lahore, 1990; pp.281-291. For numerous instances showing the Prophet Muhammad’s tolerance and concordant treatment to non-Muslims particularly Christians and Jews, see also, Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqui, Anecdotes from the Life of Prophet Muhammad. Columbus Ohio: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore, 1997; pp.18-19, 35-37, 40-43.).

In keeping with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, the second Caliph of Islam, Hazrat Umar al-Farooq, assured the delegation of Coptic and Orthodox Christians that their churches, convents, and monasteries were to be protected and to be held inviolable by the Islamic State. The same Caliph Umar climbed by foot to Mount Sinai, Egypt to sign a treaty guaranteeing the safety of the monks and nuns of St. Catherine’s monastery. During this visit, the Caliph gave five thousand dirhams for the repair of the monks’ convent and chapel. The trustworthy Arab historian, At-Tabari narrated that the call for the noon prayer once overtook Caliph Umar while he was having consultations with the Orthodox Christian patriarch of Jerusalem at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The kind patriarch offered Caliph Umar to pray inside the church premises. The Caliph gently declined the patriarch’s offer saying that he was afraid that future Muslims might claim the church for themselves on account of the fact that the second Caliph of Islam prayed his noon prayer inside it. Caliph Umar then went out of the church and prayed at a vacant yard nearby (Cf., Hafsah Dawud Zikri, The Exemplary Precedents of our Righteous Sunni Ancestors. Pakpattan, Pakistan: Daawat-e Irshad, 1963; pp.68-85.). These historical instances and many others show the extent of amity, tolerance, and concordance that the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad afford to Christians. The continued existence of Arab, Coptic, Armenian, Greek, and Kurdish Christian communities in the Middle East and the marked presence of churches and convents in these Islamic realms give witness to the tolerant attitude of authentic Islam to the religious “other”.

Epilogue: Acceptance of “the Other” as Foundational Basis of an Islamic Spirituality of Tolerance

The Qur-an is very explicit in its pronouncement that non-Muslims should be given the right to worship based on the prescriptions of their own scriptures. As already mentioned in this paper, non-Muslims were given their civil, political, and religious rights during the time of the Prophet Muhammad. After the Prophet’s demise, the Holy Companions and the immediate Caliphs of the Prophet made numerous provisions so that the rights of Jews and Christians will be acknowledged and respected. Tolerance towards non-Muslims were also implemented by various Islamic monarchs like the pious Umayyad Caliph, Umar ibn Abdul Aziz; the Abbasid Caliph, Harun-al-Rashid; the just Sultan of Palestine, Saladdin Ayyubi; the Mughal Sultan Akbar; the Ottoman emperors, Fatih Mehmet and Kanooni Suleyman; and the emirs of the Moorish courts of Cordova and Grenada. These Islamic monarchs not only tolerated non-Muslims, much more, they employed Jews, Christians, and even Hindus in their administration, supported their respective places of worship, clergies, and educational institutions. These non-Muslims were accepted with dignity and treated with respect and at par with the Muslim citizens.

Authentic Islam based on the Qur-an and as practiced by the Prophet and his companions are not against the promotion of a pluralist egalitarian society that guarantees tolerance and respect to all religious communities within the society. The Qur-an recognizes religious diversity not only as a basic reality of human existence but also as a venue for humanity’s spiritual development (Cf., Surah Maida:48.). It is indeed very regrettable that in our contemporary times, most of the so-called Muslim nations are perceived as lagging behind in fulfilling the spirit of tolerance as plainly expressed in the Qur-an and the Tradition (Sunnah) of the Prophet. It is equally lamentable that political and religious extremism failed to see the pluralistic, concordant, and tolerant dimension of Islam as found in the Qur-anictexts and in the conduct of the Prophet.

As amply shown in history, it cannot be denied that there were many instances of bloody conflicts between Christians and Muslims and that atrocities and violence can be equally attributed to both sides. The era of the Crusades during the Middle Ages and the more recent phenomenon of Western colonization of Muslim lands painted a different picture of Christianity in the perceptions of Muslims—a grim and greedy “Christianity” which is far from the peace-loving Christianity of Christ and of the Gospels. Similarly, basing their perceptions on the Western media’s skewed descriptions of Muslims and the intolerance of some Islamic movements, Christians perceived a rigid and inflexible Islam—an “Islam” very different from the tolerant and inclusive Islam of the Holy Qur-an. It is high-time now for both Muslims and Christians to move past these historical contingencies—contingencies that were political, economic, and pragmatic in nature; which had little or even nothing to do with the essential spiritual and religious contents of both faiths as expressed in their respective Scriptures (Jean Rene Milot, Muslims and Christians: Enemies or Brothers? New York: Alba House, 1997; pp. 31.). Indeed, it is high time now for both Muslims and Christians to go back to their respective Scriptures and be nourished by the precepts of tolerance, understanding, and amity enjoined by both the Bible and the Qur-an. In so doing, both the largest and the second largest religions of the world will be able to contribute actively towards achieving world peace.

It is likewise imperative for academicians engaged in Muslim-Christian dialogue and researchers of Islamic political philosophy to work out theoretic and praxis in pursuance to the Qur-anic vision of tolerance and amity, by taking into consideration present realities of our pluralistic world. There is no contradiction in accepting the truth of ones’ own religious and ideological perspective and in tolerating or respecting the beliefs of others. Similarly, the Qur-anic belief in the ontological oneness of humanity does not contradict the pragmatic reality that humankind’s expressions of culture, spirituality, and political ideology are varied and diverse. Authentic Islam as found in the Qur-an respects the freedom of conscience of every individual; which includes the right to practice one’s own religious, cultural, ethnic, and ideological commitments. By paying careful and prayerful reflection to what the Qur-an says regarding tolerance, coupled with the faithful adherence to the Qur-anic values of amity and harmony amidst differences, Muslims and non-Muslims will be able to live a tranquil, serene, and secure life—a life of dignity and justice by accepting with openness and good faith each other’s differences. May this hope become a Reality for all Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Insha-Allah (God willing)!

References 

Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Holy Qur-an: Text, Translation and Commentary (3rd ed.). Kashmiri Bazar, Lahore: Shaikh Muhammad Ashraf, 1978.

Ali, Maulana Muhammad. The Holy Qur-an: Translation and Commentary. Columbus, Ohio: Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore, 1998.

_______. The Religion of Islam. Columbus, Ohio: Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore, 1990.

Bayman, Henry. The Station of No Station: Open Secrets of the Sufis. Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books, 2001.

Ghulam-Ahmad, Hazrat Mirza. Paigham-e-Sulh: Letters of Peace. Suva, Fiji: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at Islam Lahore-Fiji, 1972.

Hamidullah, Muhammad. Islam: An Introduction. Lahore: Kitab Islami Wakf, 1979.

Kazemi, Reza Shah. The Metaphysics of Interreligious Dialogue. London: Institute of Isma’ili Studies, 2001.

Leaman, Oliver. A Brief Introduction to Islamic Philosophy. Oxford: Polity Press, 1999.

Maliki, Shahabuddin. Light from the Sayings of Shaykh Ibn Arabi. Decca, Bangladesh: Markaz Towheedi, 1977.

Milot, Jean Rene. Muslims and Christians: Enemies or Brothers? New York: Alba House, 1997.

Schuon, Frithjof. Understanding Islam. London: Mandala Books, 1964.

Walker, Paul. Abu Ya’qub al-Sijistani: Intellectual Missionary. London: I. B.Tauris Publishers, 1996.

Zikri, Hafsah Dawood. The Exemplary Precedents of our Righteous Sunni Ancestors. Pakpattan, Pakistan: Daawat-e Irshad, 1963.

***

Prof. Henry Francis B. Espiritu is Associate Professor-VI of Philosophy and Asian Studies at the University of the Philippines (UP), Cebu City. He was former Academic Coordinator of the Political Science Program at UP Cebu from 2011-2014. He was also the former Coordinator of Gender and Development (GAD) Office at UP Cebu. His research interests include Islamic Studies particularly Sunni jurisprudence, Islamic feminist discourses, Islam in interfaith dialogue initiatives, Islamic environmentalism, Classical Sunni Islamic pedagogy, the writings of Imam Al-Ghazali on pluralism and tolerance, Turkish Sufism, Muslim-Christian dialogue, Middle Eastern affairs, Peace Studies and Public Theology.

La conferenza internazionale di membri di organizzazioni senza scopo di lucro (non governative) tenutasi nell’aprile di quest’anno a Firenze, in Italia, potrebbe rimanere al di fuori dal orizzonte di personalità politiche e governative, nonché dei rappresentanti dei media, se non fosse per una serie di circostanze molto significative ad essa connesse.

La prima e più importante caratteristica distintiva del presente forum si è manifestata attraverso il motto non standard “No alla guerra, no alla NATO” sotto cui si è tenuta. I suoi partecipanti hanno sollevato in modo estremamente deciso la questione della prevenzione di qualsiasi scontro militare nel continente europeo e nel mondo nel suo complesso, sia con l’uso di armi nucleari che convenzionali.

Al forum è stato lanciato un appello: creare un movimento di forze sociali e politiche in Europa, che, come l’ampio movimento civile antinucleare negli anni ’80 del secolo scorso, contribuisca ad eliminare la minaccia missilistica nucleare, poiché il suo livello è diventato chiaramente alto negli ultimi anni, anche in questa questa parte del globo terrestre.

In particolare nel continente europeo, in aggiunta alle armi nucleari statunitensi ivi schierate sin dagli anni ’50 del secolo scorso, il Pentagono ha iniziato negli ultimi anni ad inviare nel suo spazio aereo aerei strategici pesanti, in grado di trasportare sia missili di crociera che bombe con testate nucleari.

La seconda particolarità dell’evento è stata quella di avere un carattere molto rappresentativo: oltre 500 persone vi hanno preso parte, il che ha portato gli organizzatori a noleggiare l’Odeon, uno dei cinema centrali della città, per otto ore. L’interesse è stato ovviamente grande.

Alla conferenza hanno preso parte persone da quasi tutti i paesi europei, compresi i paesi membri dell’Alleanza del Nord Atlantico. Al fine di informare i partecipanti all’incontro riguardo alla situazione relativa all’ulteriore complicazione del processo di controllo degli armamenti, in particolare di quelli nucleari, sono stati invitati in qualità di relatori principali dell’evento noti esperti che si occupano di tali questioni. Tra i relatori c’erano anche specialisti che studiano le conseguenze negative dell’allocazione da parte dei paesi leader nella NATO di spese militari chiaramente eccessive che impediscono l’attuazione di programmi per lo sviluppo socio-economico dei suoi stati membri e della comunità europea nel suo insieme.

In occasione del 70 ° anniversario della creazione della NATO, gli organizzatori della conferenza hanno preparato e mostrato un film documentario “70 anni della NATO: guerra alla guerra”, che critica la politica militare ed i preparativi militari dell’alleanza della “solidarietà transatlantica”, le sue enormi spese militari ed i tentativi di interferenze politiche e di altro genere negli affari di Stati sovrani al fine di rovesciarne i legittimi organi di potere ed amministrazione.

Il film mostra gli interventi degli Stati Uniti e di altri stati, membri di questo blocco militare, negli affari della Serbia, della Siria e di altri paesi, e vengono presentate le prove dell’interferenza di Washington negli affari interni dell’Ucraina attraverso l’organizzazione di colpo di stato nel 2014. Sono criticate il dispiegamento di armi nucleari e sistemi anti-missilistici statunitensi in Europa. Viene sollevata la questione della chiusura di tutte le basi militari statunitensi non solo in Italia, ma anche in altri paesi europei. Nel film è stato pronunciato lo slogan: “Per uscire dalle guerre, bisonga uscire dalla NATO”.

All’evento, la parte russa ha presentato una nuova monografia intitolata “L’evoluzione delle armi nucleari strategiche e tattiche statunitensi e le caratteristiche del loro uso nel XXI secolo” (Mosca 2019, pp. 1086). Inoltre ha analizzato la situazione allarmante nel campo del controllo degli armamenti dovuta agli Stati Uniti, che hanno mostrato e continuano a tenere atteggiamenti negativi nei confronti dei 12 trattati internazionali vigenti in questo settore. Ciò è provato dal fatto che gli USA hanno unilateralmente ripudiato alcuni di essi (in particolare il Trattato ABM), o hanno rifiutato di ratificarne altri (ad esempio, il Trattato di divieto totale per i test nucleari), o hanno violato le loro disposizioni (ad esempio il Trattato DSSMD sull’eliminazione dei missili a medio e breve raggio), o addirittura si sono rifiutati di discutere nel merito alcuni di essi nelle sedi di negoziazione internazionale (ad esempio, il progetto di Trattato sulla sicurezza europea).

E’ stato notato con particolare attenzione che metà di tali trattati e accordi sono direttamente collegati alle armi nucleari, vale a dire: il Trattato sulla riduzione delle armi strategiche offensive (Trattato START-3), il Trattato sull’eliminazione dei missili a raggio intermedio e corto, il Trattato di non proliferazione delle armi nucleari, l’Accordo sul nucleare iraniano, il Trattato sulla messa al bando totale degli esperimenti nucleari e l’Accordo sul plutonio di grado militare.

Particolare attenzione da parte russa è stata rivolta alle ripetute violazioni da parte di Washington del DSSMD, quando per verificare l’efficacia del sistema di difesa anti-missilistica sono stati utilizzati missili bersaglio vietati da questo trattato.

Dai documenti ufficiali del Congresso e dal Dipartimento della Difesa degli Stati Uniti segue che negli ultimi due decenni, prendendo in considerazione l’uso dei predetti missili bersaglio nel corso di prove, il Pentagono ha violato questo trattato 117 volte. La comunicazione di questo dato ad un pubblico così vasto alla Conferenza fiorentina non è stato né sarà senza impatto ed attenzione, soprattutto in considerazione del fatto che la Russia non ha mai violato questo trattato e non è stata la prima ad annunciarne il ripudio.

Nella “Dichiarazione di Firenze”, documento conclusivo ed approvato, è stato rilevato che la NATO è un’organizzazione sotto il comando del Pentagono e che il suo obiettivo è quello di assicurare il controllo dell’Europa occidentale e orientale, che le basi militari statunitensi negli Stati membri di questa unione militare servono ad occupare questi paesi. Mantenere una presenza militare americana permanente consente a Washington di influenzare e controllare le politiche dei paesi europei e di altri paesi.

Il documento finale, che è stato poi tradotto in 15 lingue, viene notato che l’Alleanza è una macchina militare che lavora per gli interessi degli Stati Uniti con la complicità dei principali gruppi di potere europei e che si è macchiata di crimini contro l’umanità. In questo contesto sono stati menzionati la guerra aggressiva scatenata dalla NATO nel 1999 contro la Jugoslavia, così come gli interventi militari del blocco, compiuti in piena violazione della legge internazionale, contro l’Afghanistan, la Libia, la Siria ed alcuni altri stati.

Nella dichiarazione si constata che, in violazione del Trattato di non proliferazione delle armi nucleari, gli Stati Uniti stanno schierando armi nucleari in cinque stati NATO non nucleari con il falso pretesto dell’esistenza di una “minaccia russa”, e che ciò mette a rischio la sicurezza nel continente europeo.

Naturalmente, per passare dalla dichiarazione adottata a Firenze circa la necessità di sciogliere un’alleanza militare come la NATO e rafforzare il regime di controllo degli armamenti, all’ottenimento di risultati concreti in queste aree, saranno necessari molti sforzi organizzativi, politici, informativi e di altro genere da parte dei sostenitori della stabilità globale complessiva e della politica al di fuori di alleanze. Sembra che il processo di creazione di un movimento specifico contro la guerra e allo stesso tempo con orientamento anti-NATO sia iniziato e che possa essere promosso.

Vladimir Kozin

 

Traduzione: D. M.

Vladimir Kozin è uno dei massimi esperti del Centro per gli studi politico-militari del MGIMO del Ministero degli Esteri russo

A Conferência Internacional dos membros de organizações sem fins lucrativos (não-governamentais), realizada em Abril deste ano, em Florença, Itália, poderia permanecer fora do horizonte das personalidades políticas e governamentais, bem como dos representantes da comunicação mediática, se não fosse uma série de circunstâncias muito significativas ligadas a ela.

A primeira e mais importante característica distintiva deste fórum, manifestou-se através do lema não habitual “NÃO à guerra, NÃO à NATO”, sob o qual foi realizada. Os participantes levantaram a questão de prevenir qualquer confronto militar no continente europeu e no mundo como um todo, tanto através do uso de armas nucleares como convencionais.

Foi lançado no fórum o seguinte apelo: criar um movimento de forças sociais e políticas na Europa que, à semelhança do grande movimento civil anti nuclear da década de 80, contribua para a eliminação da ameaça dos mísseis nucleares, pois que, nos últimos anos, o seu nível se tornou nitidamente elevado também nesta parte do globo terrestre.

Em particular, no continente europeu, juntamente com as armas nucleares dos EUA instaladas ali desde os anos 50, o Pentágono começou a enviar para o seu espaço aéreo, nos anos mais recentes, aviões estratégicos pesados capazes de transportar tanto mísseis de cruzeiro como bombas com ogivas nucleares.

A segunda particularidade do evento foi ter um caráter muito representativo: mais de 500 pessoas participaram nele, o que levou os organizadores a alugar o Odeon, um dos cinemas centrais da cidade, durante oito horas. Obviamente, o interesse foi elevado.

Participaram na conferência pessoas de quase todos os países europeus, incluindo cidadãos dos países membros da Aliança do Atlântico Norte. A fim de informar os participantes da reunião sobre a situação relativa à complicação adicional do processo de controlo de armas, em particular de armas nucleares, foram convidados na qualidade de oradores principais do evento, especialistas que lidam com essas questões. Entre os oradores também houve especialistas que estudam as consequências negativas da atribuição de despesas militares claramente excessivas aos países líderes da NATO, as quais impedem a elaboração de programas de desenvolvimento social e económico dos seus Estados membros e da comunidade europeia, no seu conjunto.

Por ocasião do 70º aniversário da criação da NATO, os organizadores da conferência prepararam e mostraram um documentário “Os 70 anos da NATO: de guerra em guerra”, que critica a política militar e os preparativos militares da aliança de “solidariedade transatlântica”, as suas enormes despesas militares e as tentativas de interferências políticas e de outro género, nos assuntos dos Estados soberanos, a fim de derrubar os órgãos legítimos do poder e da administração.

O filme mostra as intervenções dos Estados Unidos e de outros Estados, membros desse bloco militar, nos assuntos da Sérvia, da Síria e de outros países, e são apresentadas provas da interferência de Washington nos assuntos internos da Ucrânia através da organização de um golpe de Estado, em 2014. É criticada a instalação, na Europa, de armas nucleares e sistemas antimíssil dos EUA. É levantada a questão do encerramento de todas as bases militares dos EUA não só em Itália, mas também noutros países europeus. No filme, foi pronunciado o slogan: “Para sair das guerras, é necessário sair da NATO”.

No evento, o representante russo apresentou uma nova monografia intitulada ***”A evolução das armas nucleares estratégicas e táticas dos EUA e as características do seu uso no século XXI” (Moscovo, 2019, p. 1086). Também analisou a situação alarmante no campo do controlo de armas devido aos Estados Unidos, que mostraram e continuam a manter atitudes negativas em relação aos 12 tratados internacionais em vigor neste sector. Este caso é evidenciado pelo facto dos EUA terem repudiado unilateralmente alguns deles (em particular o Tratado ABM), ou recusado ratificar outros (por exemplo, o Tratado de Proibição Total de Ensaios Nucleares), ou violado as suas disposições (por exemplo, o Tratado INF sobre a eliminação de mísseis de médio e curto alcance), ou até mesmo se recusarem a discutir alguns deles em espaços de negociação internacional (por exemplo, o projecto do Tratado sobre Segurança Europeia).

Observou, com particular atenção, que metade desses tratados e acordos estão directamente ligados às armas nucleares, a saber: o Tratado sobre a Redução de Armas Ofensivas Estratégicas (Tratado START), o Tratado sobre a Eliminação de Mísseis de Alcance Intermédio e Curto, o Tratadode Não-Proliferação de Armas Nucleares, o Acordo Nuclear Iraniano, o Tratado sobre a Proibição Total de Ensaios Nucleares e o Acordo do Plutónio de Uso Militar .

Foi dada atenção especial da parte russa às repetidas violações do Tratado INF por parte de Washington quando, para verificar a eficácia do sistema de defesa antimíssil, foram utilizados mísseis alvo que são proibidos por este tratado.

A partir dos documentos oficiais do Congresso e do Departamento de Defesa dos Estados Unidos, segue-se que, nas últimas duas décadas, tomando em consideração o uso dos mísseis alvo supracitados durante os ensaios, o Pentágono violou este tratado 117 vezes. A comunicação deste dado a um público tão vasto na Conferência de Florença não ficou nem ficará sem impacto e atenção, sobretudo, tendo em consideração o facto de que a Rússia nunca violou este Tratado INF e não foi a primeira a anunciar o seu repúdio.

Na “Declaração de Florença”, um documento conclusivo e aprovado, foi salientado que a NATO é uma organização sob o comando do Pentágono e que seu objectivo é garantir o controlo da Europa Ocidental e Oriental, que as bases militares dos EUA nos Estados membros dessa união militar, servem para ocupar esses países. A manutenção de uma presença militar permanente dos EUA permite que Washington influencie e controle as políticas dos países europeus e de outros países.

O documento final, que mais tarde foi traduzido em **15 idiomas, indica que a Aliança é uma máquina militar que trabalha para os interesses dos Estados Unidos com a cumplicidade dos principais grupos de poder europeus e é culpada de crimes contra a Humanidade. Neste contexto, foi mencionada a guerra agressiva desencadeada pela NATO, em 1999, contra a Jugoslávia, bem como as intervenções militares do bloco, realizadas em total violação do Direito Internacional, contra o Afeganistão, a Líbia, a Síria e mais alguns Estados.

Na declaração constata-se que, violando o Tratado de Não-Proliferação de Armas Nucleares, os Estados Unidos estão a instalar armas nucleares em cinco países não-nucleares da NATO, sob o falso pretexto da existência de uma “ameaça russa”, o que coloca em risco a segurança no continente europeu.

Naturalmente, da declaração adoptada em Florença sobre a necessidade de dissolver uma aliança militar como a NATO e fortalecer o regime de controlo de armamentos, até serem alcançados resultados específicos nessas áreas, muitos esforços organizacionais, políticos, informativos e outros serão exigidos dos defensores da política de não-bloco e de saída da aliança. Afigura-se que o processo de criação de um movimento específico contra a guerra e, ao mesmo tempo, com orientação anti NATO começou e pode ser activado.

Vladimir Kozin

 

 

Vladimir Kozin é um dos principais especialistas do Centro de Estudos Político-Militares do MGIMO do Ministério das Relações Exteriores da Rússia

** De momento, disponível em 17 línguas.

*** A evolução das armas nucleares estratégicas e tácticas dos EUA e as características do seu uso no século XXI: 
Monografia/V. Kozin. –  Editora Sabashnikovs. 2019. – 1086 p., Com ilustrações

(ISBN 975 −5-82420-163-5).

A monografia  explora de maneira abrangente a perspectiva da evolução das armas nucleares estratégicas e táticas dos EUA no séc. XXI em estreita conexão com as suas estratégias nucleares modernas e outras estratégias (segurança nacional, defesa nacional e antimísseis) adoptadas durante o período do Presidente Donald Trump. Uma ênfase considerável é colocada na identificação de características da modernização das armas ofensivas estratégicas americanas e das armas nucleares tácticas, incluindo a tríade nuclear estratégica qualitativamente nova, que existirá em quase todo o século. Nesse sentido, o ensaio histórico relacionado a questões seleccionadas é mínimo. Os problemas que as futuras negociações para reduzir as armas ofensivas estratégicas e as armas nucleares táticas podem enfrentar no contexto do fortalecimento do sistema de defesa antimíssil global e as forças de propósitos gerais dos EUA estão sendo consideradas. As características da violação pelo lado americano do Tratado START-3 e da eliminação do Tratado do INF. São analisadas diversas propostas sobre a limitação de armas ofensivas estratégicas e armas nucleares tácticas apresentadas por especialistas estrangeiros. É investigada a posição de Washington sobre a possibilidade de construir um mundo livre de armas nucleares em escala global.

A monografia destina-se a profissionais envolvidos no desenvolvimento de armas nucleares ofensivas e tácticas estratégicas dos EUA, no contexto da segurança global e da estabilidade estratégica, bem como àqueles que estudam as questões de controlo de armas e as relações russo-americanas em geral.