Global Research

Most of the international media is referring to Saturday’s attack on the Pearl Continental hotel in Gwadar as being committed by either “gunmen” or “militants” instead of the actual terrorists that the perpetrators are after the BBC reported that they chose their target in order to kill Chinese and other foreign investors, therefore exposing a common double standard whereby “politically convenient” terrorist attacks are simply reframed as “shootings” or “militancy” while “politically inconvenient” acts of resistance are smeared as “terrorism”.

Several terrorists tried storming into the Pearl Continental hotel in CPEC’s terminal port of Gwadar Saturday afternoon, but a large-scale tragedy was thankfully averted after the security services managed to evacuate most of the guests. The BBC reported that the “Balochistan Liberation Army” (BLA) claimed responsibility for the attack and quoted the terrorist organization as “saying it had targeted Chinese and other foreign investors”. This incident is a blatant act of terrorism just like the much more devastating ones that were carried out against several hotels and churches in Sri Lanka last month, but the international media is resorting to its tried-and-tested double standards after most of them described the perpetrators as “gunmen” or “militants” instead of the actual terrorists that they are.

This is because the terrorist attacks are “politically convenient” for the US and India, with these two allies collectively commanding impressive influence across the world’s media space, because it targeted Chinese civilians and infrastructure as part of the ongoing Hybrid War on CPEC. The evident purpose was to deter further investments and visits by foreign businessmen to this strategically significant port in the global pivot state of Pakistan, as well as to trigger an overreaction by the security services against local Baloch which could then be basis upon upon which a Xinjiang-like fake news campaign alleging “concentration camps” and “cultural cleansing” can be carried out prior to the possible imposition of sanctions for “humanitarian reasons”. Of course, this would also be executed in parallel with the Hybrid War on Hybrid War in Pakistan pretending that the country has no terrorist threats whatsoever and that all forms of opposition to the state — including taking up arms and targeting civilians — are “legitimate”, especially if they’re being led by minority Pashtuns or Baloch.

On the opposite side of the coin, “politically inconvenient” acts of resistance such as what the Kashmiris and Palestinians are doing against their Indian and “Israeli” occupiers (who not coincidentally have recently become military-strategic partners and are both allied with the US) are smeared as “terrorism” even if they only target soldiers and paramilitary units. Another double standard is that international media is usually pleading for the world’s leading economies to invest in underdeveloped “Global South” regions, yet these same information outlets are now lending “legitimacy” to the BLA’s terrorist crusade against China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) investments in Pakistani Balochistan because it serves the US’ grand strategic purposes. Having said that, even the most casual information consumer must sense that they’re being manipulated after the world condemned last month’s terrorist attacks on Sri Lankan hotels but is now silent about the latest one Pakistan’s PC Gwadar.

*

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.

 “If you are one of the millions who seek faster downloads of movies, games and virtual pornography, a solution is at hand, that is, if you do not mind volunteering your living body in a giant uncontrolled experiment on the human population.”

– Dr. Devra Davis, President of the Environmental Health Trust [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Welcome to the brave new world of 5G.

The long-running trade talks between the U.S. and China seem to have unfortunately fizzled out, but while American commentators are busy blaming Beijing for their apparent failure, the fact of the matter is that President Donald Trump‘s team had the wrong approach to them from the get-go and should, therefore, take responsibility for ruining them. The American economy has different underlying fundamentals from the Chinese one and accordingly has certain structural advantages over its many competitors, which is why Washington was pushing for Beijing to drastically lower its tariffs and allow an influx of imports from the U.S. 

What President Trump’s team didn’t account for, however, is China’s historical reluctance to do so after being exploited by the imperialist powers that disguised their hegemonic operations under cover of “free trade”. In fact, the infamous U.S.-led “Open Door Policy” only made matters worse for China during that period, yet that’s precisely what the U.S. was seemingly trying to replicate this time around through its trade talk demands.

It should be objectively acknowledged that China’s economy is slowly but surely opening up to the rest of the world, but this is a gradual process that must be carried out with the utmost care in order to avoid inadvertently destabilizing the country. Artificially accelerating this process like the U.S. wants to do could carry with it very serious consequences for China, hence the reluctance to agree to the American demands and the reason why China reportedly tried to renegotiate the terms of their deal.

A group photo of the Chinese and U.S. trade negotiators at Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing, China, February 15, 2019. /VCG Photo 

If the U.S. intentions were purely economic and solely predicated on rectifying the trade deficit between the two, then it would have been more understanding of the Chinese position, but its leader has instead resorted to publicly spewing insults against his counterparts on social media in what appears to be a fit of rage all because they wanted to ensure that there wouldn’t be any unforeseen consequences to their economy if they complied with the proposed terms that were laid out in the deal that they were negotiating at that time.

President Trump’s dramatic reaction also speaks to the U.S. another mistake in that it failed to account for the concept of “face” in Chinese culture. Publicly insulting China’s high-level representatives was intended to humiliate the entire country and also created a toxic negotiating environment that made it extremely unlikely that any deal would ultimately be reached.

One would be forgiven for suspecting that this might have partially been the point all along and that those tweets could have been a Machiavellian tactic to doom the talks so that their failure could then be misleadingly placed squarely on China’s shoulders by the army of American commentators that have suddenly assembled to blame Beijing for what happened.

U.S. President Donald Trump signs Section 201 actions in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 23, 2018. /VCG Photo

Speaking of distrust, it can’t be forgotten that President Trump’s economic team was negotiating with China in parallel with his military one provocatively sailing through the Taiwan Strait and clinching arms deals with the province, which were very unfriendly moves that made China question the real U.S. motives.

The possible success of a comprehensive trade deal between China and the U.S. could have laid the basis for a larger one regulating their relations and reducing the odds that their strategic competition with one another could one day lead to conflict, which is why it’s such a pity that everything apparently fell through at the very last minute. Even so, it’s not China’s fault for what happened because the U.S. took the totally wrong approach to the negotiations from the get-go.

It was highly unlikely that the Chinese would agree to another “Open Door Policy” considering that this could have very easily favored the U.S. at their expense, and there was close to no chance of the negotiations continuing in good faith after President Trump publicly insulted the Chinese trade team in parallel with the Pentagon’s provocative interactions with Taiwan. As such, the world needs to recognize that the responsibility for the failed trade talks rests with the U.S. alone and that no deal can ever be reached until the Americans change their positions and take China’s legitimate interests into account.

*

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 CGTN.

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

Featured image:  Chinese Vice Premier Liu He‍ (C) waves as he departs the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 9, 2019. /VCG Photo

On this seventy-first annual commemoration of Palestine’s Jewish-state Nakba, let’s resolve not to continue to oversimplify things.

Whether you believe the American rabbi and historian Arthur Hertzberg’s assessment of the Zionist idea as “unprecedented … an essential dialogue between the Jew and the nations of the earth”, rather than a matter between Jews and God, or you believe the assessment of Ass’ad Razzouk, researcher and contributor to the PLO Research Center’s 1970 Arabic translation of Hertzberg’s book, that Zionism, at its heart, emerged naturally from Jewish religious sources and is thoroughly influenced and motivated by traditional Jewish religious ideas, both conscious and unconscious, the fact remains that there exists a complex picture of the relationship between Judaism and Zionism.

To Palestinians, the intersection between Judaism and Zionism has always been considered the most dangerous aspect of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state in Palestine today.

The focus today among the international activist community advocating for Palestine is on Zionism’s modern European political and ideological roots, a focus that represents Zionism as no different from any other form of European colonialism, as a settler-colonial movement foreign to the Middle East.

This “narrative”, if you will, has made great inroads in concentrating international attention, especially through the human rights formulations of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. But I believe, by itself, such a theoretical framework for the Palestinian decades-long struggle for justice and liberation is insufficient to effect change, not only because of the ongoing complicity of Western powers in the Nakba, but also because, by itself, this narrative cannot sufficiently move the hearts and minds of Israelis and Jews worldwide.

Only a resurgence of the progressive and developed principles of Reform Judaism, as expressed in a series of rabbinical conferences in German lands in the 1840s and in the U.S. in the second half of the 19th century, will have the necessary ideological power to defeat Zionism.

Upon the partitioning of Palestine and the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state, Herzl’s expectation that rabbis would devote their energies in the service of Zionism came to fruition; Zionism has long gained the great masses of religious Jews around the world and “redirected their love of Zion from its spiritual and longing sense and its traditional supplicatory character” to political Zionism, as Ass’ad Razzouk expressed it in his book al-Dawla wa-l-Din (Religion and the State).

The Reform Judaism movement, a modern historical development of Judaism, arose early in the 19th century, in reaction to changing conditions in Europe that overthrew oppressive medieval laws against Jews. The movement, among whose requirements was the repudiation or disavowal of Jewish nationalist aspirations, aimed to accommodate the beliefs and religious practices of Judaism to the new liberal and enlightened age in Europe and in the U.S.

Reform Judaism addresses both the Zionist idea of the historical inevitability of a Jewish state resulting from antisemitism and other external factors, as well as the messianic idea resulting from religion and religious texts — the book of Exodus and the belief in the advent of the messiah. Reform Judaism disrupts the conception, so useful to Israel, that Zionism is heir to a long uninterrupted Jewish history. It also opens up the door for the universal application of the supposed values of modern (i.e., political) Zionism — namely, individual liberty, national freedom, economic and social justice, i.e., the door for the Palestinian people that Zionism slammed shut against them in their own homeland.

Many Jews (as well as Evangelical Christians) understand Israel’s 1967 occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a wonderful, almost miraculous restoration of Jewish sovereignty over ancient religious sites. To Reform Jews worldwide who had been shaken out of their optimistic, universalist stance after the Holocaust, the war of 1967 also brought Israel close to home to Canadian, American (and other) Jews around the world, through “ethnic pride”.  The Naksa, as Palestinians call the war, fed the “Jewish identity” side of Reform Judaism, destabilizing the balance this reform movement was trying to uphold, at its inception, in the “interplay between universalism and particularism”, an interplay that, to Palestinians, means having one’s cake and eating it too.

Reform Judaism has now reached its 200th anniversary. Can the Reform movement, not Zionism, finally satisfy Jewish religious and identity needs in a way that swings the interplay between the universal and particular in Palestinians’ favor? In ‘History of Reform Judaism and a Look Ahead: In Search of Belonging’, Rabbi Lawrence A. Englander (Canadian) writes:

Two hundred years ago, one’s personal identity was essentially defined through one or two primary groups to which one belonged-usually country and religion. Today, identity is more fractionalized and complex, determined by such factors as country, language, gender, profession, socioeconomic status-and religion. Each of these components make up our identity like pieces of a pie.

The PLO charter declares Judaism as a religion and not “nationalism”, and describes Jews as “citizens of the states to which they belong … not a single people with a separate identity.” These definitions of Judaism and Jews play an important role in the rhetorical battle against Zionism. In the 1964 and 1968 PLO National Charters, the words Muslim or Islam don’t appear.

Palestinian nationalism is universalist in nature, encompassing both Muslims and Christians — as well as indigenized Jews pre-1948. And even though the multiplicity of religions within a single national movement does not abolish concerns or religious communal interests from the national agenda, such concerns can be addressed rationally within the context of one secular and democratic state. The Palestinian will for national liberation is not disconnected from religious impulses. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are explicitly religious and function as a response to the judaization of Jerusalem, in particular.

The Palestinian understanding of Zionism as a movement at the heart of which lies religious, messianic interests and myths (as documented and argued prolifically by the PLO Research Center in Beirut) has long been silenced or attacked in scholarly debate and blurred by contemporary politics as going against the secularist claims of Zionist leaders, but it provides us with an important insight. Ignoring it or refusing to engage in it dismisses a vital context of the Palestinian struggle and forms an insurmountable obstacle to the formation of a secular democratic state in all of Palestine, the only remaining viable solution to Israel’s aggression on the Palestinian people.

Christians who now embrace Zionism (some as a result of funds and gifts received from Zionists) abdicate true Christian values, as do Jews who call for Jewish nationalism on a secular (political) or religious basis and embrace a mythical “birthright” in Palestine.

*

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

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.

“If you are really going to be free, you have to overcome the love of wealth and the fear of death.” – Martin Luther King, Jr. as quoted by Andrew Young in the documentary “King in the Wilderness”

Most people on this earth live on the edge of an abyss. Life is a daily struggle to stay alive, to acquire enough to eat and drink, rudimentary health care, housing, and protection from murderous government forces, their various death-squads, and their economic vultures.  The gap between the rich and poor, while always great, has grown even more obscenely vast, and lies at the core of what so many face daily. Their perilous conditions are sustained by imperial nations, led by the United States, who, together with its minions, buy and bribe and butcher overtly and covertly all around the world. The love of wealth and the fear of death drive these power-mad marauders and divert the gazes of their citizens from the slaughter.  It’s an old story.

If you are reading this, I am probably not telling you anything new.  You know this, as do I, as I sit safely behind a screened-in table on a beautiful spring day in the hills of western Massachusetts.  I have had some soup and bread for lunch and there are no bombers overhead or death-squads cruising the roads here.  While my family and I live a simple life, compared to the world’s poor and persecuted, we are privileged.  One does not have to be rich to be privileged.  The advantages granted to those like me who can securely sit and pen words about the fate of the poor and persecuted victims of my country’s endless violence weighs heavy on my conscience, as they have done since I was young.

I am ashamed to say that in the early morning of May 1, as I lay in bed musing, I thought I would like to stay in bed all day, a depressed feeling that I had never had before. Discouragement enveloped me: I was being forced out of my teaching job; I felt that my dissident writing and teaching made no difference in a world where injustice and violence are endemic and without end; and the forces of evil seemed to be triumphing everywhere. Self-pity mixed with an angry sadness that disgusted me. I disgusted myself.  So I jumped out of bed and prepared to go and teach some of my last classes.  But I was lost in gloom as I drove along the winding roads.

When I arrived at the college and checked my mail, there was a package waiting for me.  It was a review copy of the poet Carolyn Forché’s startling new memoir (What You Have Heard Is True: A Memoir of Witness and Resistance) about her youthful transformative experiences in El Salvador in the late 1970s as U.S. trained and supported death-squads brutally murdered poor peasants and priests, and guerrilla resistance was growing prior to the outbreak of civil war.  I opened the book to the epigraph, which reads:

Hope also nourishes us.  Not the hope of fools.  The other kind.  Hope, when everything is clear.

Awareness.

The quotation is from the Salvadorian writer Manlio Argueta, whose deeply moving novel, One Day of Life (1980), banned by the Salvadorian government, takes the readerthrough one terrifying and bloodstained day in the life of peasants struggling to stay aliveasthey aretortured and slaughtered with impunity.  We hear the voices of the poor tell a story of the growth of conscience (“God is conscience. And conscience is we, the ones forgotten now, the poor.”), the discovery of rights, and the awareness of exploitation.  Despite the terrifying evil that pervades this book – now considered one of the greatest Latin American novels of the 20th century – there is a luminous spirit of hope and resistance that miraculously prevails that is passed on from person to person despite death, torture, and immense suffering.  Argueta fulfills the words of the tortured Jose to Lupe: “Don’t worry, if those of us with understanding failed to act, we would all be in real trouble.”

I remembered that I had reviewed this book in the early 1980s at a time when 100 or more very poor campesinos were being murdered every week, a few years after Archbishop Oscar Romero, the courageous defender of the poor who spoke out against the killers, had been gunned down while saying Mass.  The Roman Catholic Church has subsequently declared him a saint.

Yet decades later, despite the extraordinary efforts of awakened souls like Carolyn Forché, it still seems true that Americans can’t visualize, no less believe in or care about, the death and suffering their government is inflicting on innocent people all around the world.  Today’s screen culture – I Phone therefore I Am – while seemingly allowing for the visualization of the suffering of the world’s poor, has rendered all reality more abstract and unreal, while inducing a collective hallucination sustained by media and machines that divorces us from flesh and blood, our own and others. All the disembodied data that is daily disgorged through these screens seems to me to have rendered the world disincarnate through the metastasizing of a digital dementia tied to death denial.

I think of Galway Kinnell’s poem, “The Fundamental Project of Technology”:

To de-animalize human mentality, to purge it of obsolete,

Evolutionary characteristics, in particular of death,

Which foreknowledge terrorizes the content of skulls with,

Is the fundamental project of technology; however,

pseudologica fantastica’s mechanisms require:

to establish deathlessness it is necessary to eliminate those who die;

a task attempted when a white light flashed.

Awareness?  I sit here looking through the screen that encloses the little porch where my table rests.  MLK’s words reverberate in my mind as I watch a grey fox slink across the grass in search of prey.  What is it about the love of money and the fear of death that so cripples people’s care and compassion?  I know I don’t want to see that fox seize a screaming rabbit and worry (to kill by biting and shaking the throat; strangle) it to death.  Unlike Forché, I have not physically seen the dead and mutilated bodies of Salvadorian victims of death squads, nor been threatened by them, as she was.  Nevertheless, thanks to her and others like Manlio Argueta, I have seen them in my imagination and heard the screams, and they have haunted me.  Ghosts.

But why are some so haunted and others not?

The foreknowledge that terrorizes the contents of skulls, as Kinnell puts it – our ultimate powerlessness – overwhelms humans from childhood unless they can find a way forward that discovers power in powerlessness.  When one’s “well-being” is dependent on the death of others, as is the case for most Americans and others in the so-called first world, people tend to repress the terror of death by building various types of culturally induced defenses that allow them to shakily believe they are in control of life and death.

One’s natural impotence is then hidden within what Ernest Becker called “the vital lie of character,” and in what, by extension, is the lie of American character that rests on money and military might.  One lives within the manageable cultural world that helps blot out existential awareness by offering various social games, agreed forms of “madness” that narcotize. One learns to adjust, to use all sorts of techniques to blot out the awareness that each of us is essentially exposed and mortal, flesh and blood.

The aim is clearly to cut life down to manageable proportions, domesticate terror, and learn to think we are captains of our fate.  Inevitably, however, not all these social “tricks” work equally well.  Life’s terrors have a way of breaking through to dim awareness, and therefore more drastic measures are needed.  So after having lived the cultural lie uncritically, one tries to blot out awareness itself.  If shopping to forget doesn’t work, if obsessive work doesn’t do it, one turns to drugs or drink, anything to forget, anything to assuage our fears, anything to deny our need for courage.  Anything to help us refuse the truth that our lives are built on the blood of others.

The ineluctable reality of uncertainty is our fate. I have always known that, but I forget.  I have also long known that we live by faith of one kind or another, and whatever name we give it, it is by faith we enter into the holy mystery of existence.  We are carried forward by the spirit that binds us in solidarity to all human struggles for freedom and dignity, for bread and justice. The day I wished to stay in bed and wallow in self-pity and depression came as a shock to me.  It revealed to me my hubris, my sense of self-importance, as if my efforts were not just a drop in the sea, seeds scattered that may or may not take root.  I was afraid to accept possible defeat, despite my best efforts.  I was afraid of death and lacked courage.  Like those I criticize for turning their faces away from the suffering faces of America’s victims, I lost my courage that morning in bed. And hope.

But later that day I would awaken and see through the screen of my self-importance when I leafed through Carolyn Forché’s book and chanced upon her quoting Fr. Romero’s words:

“We must hope without hoping.  We must hope when we have no hope.”

Then her poem “Ourselves or Nothing” bubbled up in memory:

There is a cyclone fence between

Ourselves and the slaughter and behind it

We hover in a calm protected world like

Netted fish, exactly like netted fish.

It is either the beginning or the end

Of the world, and the choice is ourselves or nothing.

Priest and poet reminding us to fight lucidly on.  Hope when everything is clear.  Awareness.

*

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

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

The blockade of the Gaza Strip is the ongoing land, air, and sea blockade of essential food, medical and building supplies imposed by Israel in 2007 under the pretext of arms-control but which, in reality, is in order to try to force regime change. This is the criminal action that has deprived a population of nearly 2 million of their electricity, power and basic needs of existence for more than 12 years in addition to heavily restricting the free movement of civilians and goods.

Furthermore, there is the illegal settlement of over 600,000 Israeli citizens in the Occupied Territories that is, in effect, supported by British arms and military exports notwithstanding the violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 that clearly states that such settlements ‘Have No Legal Validity and Constitute a Flagrant Violation of International Law.’

Gaza, of course, has no Army, no Air Force and no Navy, only civilian protestors and militants who fire homemade rockets into the land of their nuclear-armed oppressors who then bravely retaliate by indiscriminately bombing a defenceless civilian population. The IDF, heavily-armed with American and British equipment, attack targets in Gaza leaving the wounded to die as they themselves return in their brand new F-35 US-made warplanes to drink coffee and eat hummus at home with their wives and families.

This then is the Middle East of 2019, controlled by the Netanyahu government, supported by US President Trump that advocates a Greater Israel with all Palestinian indigenous people ethnically cleansed to leave a single Jewish-only state extending from the Mediterranean to the far side of the River Jordan.

Five million indigenous Palestinian Arabs would then become stateless in their own land in a travesty of justice reminiscent of the bygone colonial times of the British Imperial Empire when Cecil Rhodes strode about Africa planting a British flag in the soil and claiming entire countries and their populations as the subjects and chattels of the British Crown. And now the world watches as Messrs Trump and Netanyahu continue to violate the command of the United Nations Security Council, with impunity.

*

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

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

The apartheid regime we know as “Israel” was built on the very ruins of Palestine and imposed a brutal regime on those who still live in their country. Millions of Palestinians still languish in refugee camps in and around Palestine, yet Israel and its allies around the world celebrate “Israeli independence.”

***

Nakba Day — the day when Palestinians commemorate the destruction of their country and the mass killing and forced eviction of their people — is coming up, and with each passing day, another disturbing story unfolds.

Perhaps the most disturbing story so far is the plan to present Palestine with a new name, “New Palestine.” This, according to a rumored leak, is what Donald Trump and Jared Kushner are going to present to an anticipating world as part of the so-called “Deal of the Century.”

Also according to the leak, aside from a demand for Palestinians to accept a new name as part of the “Deal of the Century” — forgoing the name “Palestine,” which has been used to describe their land since the Bronze Age — the Palestinian people will have to accept that their heritage and their history will be erased and their land will be taken away for good. In other words, what Palestinians are going to receive, according to the leak, is a new name but no country, and they will be expected to accept this or else they will be denied access to foreign aid, not only from the U.S. but other countries as well.

From elections to Gaza to Independence Day

Things move fast on the Israeli side of occupied Palestine. Israel recently held elections, then — within a few weeks and before a new government was even formed — Israel lashed out with a deadly attack on Gaza. Then, Israel recognized a few solemn days, the first one Holocaust Remembrance Day and the second, a day to commemorate Israeli soldiers who had fallen in battle. Then Israelis were off to celebrate “Israeli Independence.”

On the Palestinian side, no sooner does one tragedy end than a second one follows, no time for the fresh blood on the ground to dry before more is spilled. The lovely face of 16-year-old Fatima Hijazi, shot by an Israeli sniper, is still fresh in people’s hearts when more, even younger casualties are reported. Palestinians go from mourning to mourning with no end in sight.

Over the past several years, a new phenomenon has risen, a joint memorial service where Israelis and Palestinians join together to commemorate their fallen loved ones. While the idea of such an event may seem appealing to some, the moral equivalency it tries to create between the victims of the violence and those who lost their lives while perpetuating the violence is troubling. However, in the political climate that now exists among Israelis, this is considered progressive. While this event was permitted to proceed, right-wing gangs came by to protest the initiative and lashed out with obscenities at the participants: “Sons of whores, may God take all of you stinking lefties! Death to Arabs!” and on and on.

Celebrating independence

A custom that can only be described as insensitive, if not outright cruel, and which has been in place since Palestine was destroyed, is the celebration of Israeli independence. Just as Israeli elections were held on the day that Palestinians commemorate the massacre at Deir Yassin, Israel callously celebrates a day of independence at the same time as Palestinians mourn the loss of their country.

The apartheid regime we know as “Israel” was built on the very ruins of Palestine and imposed a brutal regime on those who still live in their country. Millions of Palestinians still languish in refugee camps in and around Palestine, yet Israel and its allies around the world celebrate.

Israelis are not the indigenous people of Palestine. What we know today as “Israelis” are people who came to colonize mostly during the time of the British Mandate in Palestine, and they did so largely with the assistance of the British government. The British mandate over Palestine, which was, in reality, an occupation of the country, facilitated the creation of the Zionist apartheid regime in Palestine. The Jews who came to colonize and settle in Palestine were never oppressed or occupied; in fact, they were privileged. The Jewish settlements in Palestine had services like running water and electricity long before many of the Palestinian communities did, and they were assisted by the British in every possible way.

The biblical Zionist narrative

The name “New Palestine” becomes even more absurd in light of the fact that the name Palestine was, “first documented in the late Bronze Age, about 3,200 years ago.” Furthermore, according to a new book by historian Nur Masalha, “the name Palestine is the conventional name used between 450 B.C. and 1948 A.D. to describe the geographical region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.” These quotes are from Masalha’s Palestine, A Four Thousand Year History, published by Zed Books in 2018.

Masalha — professor of history at the London University School of Oriental and African Studies, or SOAS — takes on the difficult task of seriously, scientifically, and one may add successfully, challenging the prevailing narrative regarding Palestine. This is clearly no simple feat but it is one in which the historian Masalha succeeds in a manner that is both admirable and convincing.

Unfortunately, odds are neither Jared Kushner or Benjamin Netanyahu — the two men who are most likely to be behind the “New Palestine” and the “Deal of the Century” — will ever read this important history book. Revealing, as it does, aspects of Palestinian history that Zionists would prefer remain in the dark, Masalha’s book is essential reading. Until the history of Palestine is told and the cruel reality in which Palestinians live today is exposed, Palestine will never be 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.

Miko Peled is an author and human rights activist born in Jerusalem. He is the author of “The General’s Son. Journey of an Israeli in Palestine,” and “Injustice, the Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five.”

Featured image is from PressTV

After the redacted Mueller report was made public, Donald Trump tweeted, “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION.” But when the House Judiciary Committee asked to see Mueller’s full report, Trump said no way.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to check and balance the executive branch. That includes the power to issue and enforce subpoenas. In the 1927 Teapot Dome scandal case about government corruption, the Supreme Court held that Congress’s “power of inquiry — with process to enforce it — is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” Justice Willis Van Devanter wrote for the unanimous Court that when the Constitution was adopted, “the power of inquiry, with enforcing process, was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate — indeed, was treated as inhering in it.”

Yet Trump has defied nearly all of the nine subpoenas and requests for testimony and/or documents that House committees have issued.

Barr Refuses to Produce the Unredacted Mueller Report

On April 19, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler issued a subpoena ordering Attorney General William Barr to produce the unredacted Mueller report and evidence undergirding it by May 1.

Instead, Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd sent a letter to Nadler on May 1, stating that Barr was refusing to comply with the committee’s subpoena.

On May 8, Boyd notified Nadler that

“the President has asserted a protective assertion of executive privilege over the entirety of the subpoenaed materials.”

Trump has not actually asserted executive privilege yet. A protective assertion means he is reserving the right to assert it in the future after reviewing the requested materials.

“[A] formal executive privilege claim requires scrutiny of the precise documents and information withheld to determine whether 1) that material fits within a component of executive privilege and 2) Congress’s need for the information is not sufficiently weighty to overcome the privilege,” Jonathan Shaub wrote at Lawfare.

Barr claimed that the judiciary committee had “not allowed sufficient time” for Trump to decide whether to make a “conclusive assertion” of executive privilege.

After Barr’s refusal to comply with the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena to produce the unredacted Mueller report and supporting documentation, the committee voted to issue a contempt citation against Barr on May 9.

Now the full House of Representatives will decide whether to hold Barr in contempt of Congress. In the likely event that occurs, there are four possible avenues to enforce the congressional contempt citation.

First, the House could ask the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., to initiate a criminal prosecution of Barr. But the U.S. attorney answers to Barr, the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, making it less likely that the U.S. attorney would actually pursue the prosecution.

Second, the House could order the sergeant-at-arms to take Barr into custody until he complies with the subpoena. There is a jail in the congressional building. This procedure, known as the power of “inherent contempt,” was last used in 1935.

Third, the House could file a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoena. However, this type of suit could take years. And, as Adam Liptak noted in The New York Times, even if the House were to prevail, it “is not clear that the Trump administration would comply with any eventual court order.”

Fourth, if the House convenes an impeachment proceeding, it would bolster the chances of receiving testimony and documents.

“Judges have repeatedly ruled that Congress has a greater claim to sensitive government documents and personal information when it can point to an ongoing legal matter, instead of just a congressional investigation or legislative debate. And impeachment would give lawmakers that legal matter,” Darren Samuelsohn and Josh Gerstein wrote at Politico.

Trump Defies All Subpoenas

Of the nine subpoenas and requests that House committees have issued, Trump is resisting nearly all of them.

Trump declared to reporters outside the White House, “We’re fighting all the subpoenas.”

Even John Yoo, author of the most egregious torture memos and champion of the “unitary executive” theory of presidential power, said:

The thing that’s unusual is the blanket refusal. It would be extraordinary if the president actually were to try to stop all congressional testimony on subpoenaed issues. That would actually be unprecedented if it were a complete ban…. He’s treating Congress like they’re the Chinese or a local labor union working on a Trump building.

On May 2, the day after his withering appearance at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Barr refused to appear at a scheduled hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.

Then, on May 9, the House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena for Barr to produce the unredacted Mueller report and underlying documentation.

After the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify and produce documents, Trump asserted executive privilege to prevent McGahn from testifying.

Meanwhile, both the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary have subpoenaed Robert Mueller to testify before them. The 10 Democrats who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote a letter to committee chair Lindsey Graham, asking that the committee hold a hearing with Mueller. They listed 60 unanswered questions they wish to ask Mueller.

Barr said he had no objection to Mueller testifying. Trump then tweeted, “Bob Mueller should not testify.” A few days later, however, Trump stated, “I’m going to leave that up to our very great attorney general. He’ll make a decision on that.”

What About Impeachment?

Nearly 800 former federal prosecutors, both Republicans and Democrats, signed a statement saying that if it weren’t for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting president can’t be indicted, Trump would be charged with multiple felonies. They wrote,

“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.”

Ten million people have signed a petition calling for the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings.

The Democratic-controlled House would have the votes to impeach Trump. The case would then move to the Senate for trial, where two-thirds of the senators must agree to convict Trump and remove him from office. That is nearly impossible, as the Republicans control the Senate.

And so, even if Trump were to be impeached, he would be acquitted in the Senate and Trump would claim victory. Bill Clinton’s impeachment in the House and acquittal in the Senate garnered sympathy for the president. Although there is strong sentiment for impeachment, the procedure is politically risky for Democrats. However, it is possible that televised evidence of Trump’s crimes could turn GOP senators against him, as happened during the Watergate hearings.

James Reston Jr. wrote in The New York Times about the “power of the televised [Watergate] hearings of the House Judiciary Committee” in 1974. “Far from being politically divisive, they proved a dignified and appropriate response to egregious presidential misconduct — enough to persuade seven out of the committee’s 17 Republicans to vote in favor of at least one of the articles of impeachment.”

The articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon included obstruction of justice, abuse of power and refusal to comply with eight congressional subpoenas regarding the Watergate scandal.

Will Trump follow a Nixon-like path, with television — ironically — becoming the site of his downfall? Or will he manage to strong-arm his way to legal impunity?

*

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

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

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

US State Department head Mike Pompeo has suffered a public meltdown, reacting forcefully that the constitutional government of Venezuela actually arrested a key member of the upper house of parliament (AN) – Edgar Zambrano – who was actively engaged in the treasonous coup, and openly called for the military to violate their sworn oaths. Pompeo reached out to world media, announcing that the Venezuelan courts moves were an “Unacceptable and illegal step”

Mike Pompeo denounced the detention by Venezuelan authorities of the now-former Vice-Speaker of the National Assembly, Edgar Zambrano. In a statement released last night, Pompeo describes as them as “arbitrary” and “unacceptable and illegal act” the arrest of the politician , first vice president of the National Assembly of Venezuela, which took place this Wednesday night in Caracas, at the hands of SEBIN agents.

Despite Pompeo’s public tantrum, widely viewed as hypocritical, there are no signs that Venezuelan authorities are prepared to release an accused coup-planner and traitor on his own recognizance.

According to witnesses, bodies of the Bolivarian Intelligence Service (SEBIN) arrived at the main headquarters of the Acción Democrática party, to which Zambrano belongs. The deputy was in his vehicle, who refused to steo outside. It was then that SEBIN officials pulled the deputy’s car with a crane, and in a raucous scene, he was arrested by SEBIN while in his car, taken by tow-truck. It should be noted that Diosdado Cabello confirmed the arrest of Zambrano on the same Wednesday night.

Days before, the Constituent National Assembly (ANC) – the legislative body in Venezuela comparable to the house of commons or the house of representatives – authorized legislation which the executive branch and courts approved, which removed the immunity from criminal charges for key members of the opposition who can be demonstrated to be conspiring with foreign powers against the constitutional order, which were previously enjoyed by members of both houses.

FRN reported yesterday Zambrano was arrested by national intelligence officers of Venezuela as one of the main organizers of the attempted coup d’etat on April 30. The head of the National Assembly, the leader of the opposition, Juan Guaido, announced his arrest.

Earlier, Guaido acknowledged the failure of the coup attempt, which he says occurred due to the refusal of the military to go over to the side of the self-proclaimed president.

The crimes committed by Zambrano are: “treason to the homeland, conspiracy, instigation to the insurrection, civil rebellion, conspiracy to commit a crime, usurpation of functions, public instigation to the disobedience of the laws and continued hatred, planned and sanctioned in articles 128, 132, 143, 145, 163, 213, 285, all of the Criminal Code, respectively and Association, provided for and sanctioned in article 37 of the Organic Law Against Organized Crime and Terrorist Financing “.

Likewise, the National Constituent Assembly (ANC) of Venezuela approved on May 7 to revoke parliamentary immunity to eight deputies of the National Assembly (AN), an instance that has been in contempt since 2016, for their participation in the coup attempt. Among them, the first vice president of the AN, Edgar Zambrano.

The other seven opposition deputies, whose parliamentary immunity was raided are: Herry Ramos, Luis Florido, Richard Blanco, Marianela Magallanes, Américo De Grazia, Andres Velazques and José Calzadilla.

*

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

General Manuel Ricardo Cristopher Figuera, one of the masterminds behind the coup attempt of April 30, had been recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States for more than a year, the president said.

President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro also revealed new details Friday about those responsible for the attempted coup this past April 30, supported and directed by the United States.

He specifically referred to the participation of the former director of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (Sebin) General Manuel Ricardo Cristopher Figuera, who was expelled and demoted along with 54 other rebels.

The president indicated that after the investigations they were able to verify “that General Manuel Ricardo Cristopher had been recruited by the CIA more than a year ago. This Venezuelan justice will come sooner rather than later!”

Also, the president also revealed that he was alerted to Cristopher Figuera’s intentions a week before he acted on them. In fact, on April 30, he was meant to be replaced by the Chief General Gustavo Gonzalez Lopez.

“It was General Padrino Lopez, Maikel Moreno and General Hernandez Dala who warned me of the strange behavior of this General who would be dismissed from office and arrested on Tuesday, 30 April at 9 am,” he said during a graduation speech at the 16th Victor’s Parade of the “Mision Ribas” in the halls of Miraflores Palace.

@NicolasMaduro revela que fue el GJ @vladimirpadrinol, el General Hernández Dalas y Maikel Moreno quienes una semana antes le advirtieron sobre el golpe de estado, y el General Cristopher ya iba a ser sustituido "lo íbamos a detener el #30A, el plan ya estaba develado"

— Madelein Garcia (@madeleintlSUR) May 10, 2019

*

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: Maduro giving a speech at an event at the Miraflores Presidential Palace | Photo: @PresidencialVen

U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning was released from jail Thursday after being held for 62 days—including a month in solitary confinement—for refusing to testify before a secret grand jury, but she could be imprisoned again as soon as next week if she refuses to comply with a second subpoena to appear before a different grand jury.

Manning’s release came after the expiration of the term of the grand jury. According to Manning’s legal team, the whistleblower was served with another subpoena prior to her release on Thursday.

“This means she is expected to appear before a different grand jury, on Thursday, May 16, 2019, just one week from her release today,” Manning’s lawyers said in a statement. “It is therefore conceivable that she will once again be held in contempt of court, and be returned to the custody of the Alexandria Detention Center, possibly as soon as next Thursday, May 16.”

Manning’s legal team said she will continue to refuse to cooperate with a process that she has called an effort to “entrap and persecute activists for protected political speech.”

“Chelsea will continue to refuse to answer questions, and will use every available legal defense to prove to District Judge Trenga that she has just cause for her refusal to give testimony,” said Manning’s lawyers.

** Feds released Chelsea a few hours ago after Grand Jury expired – @EDVAnews prosecutors subpoenaed her to appear a 2nd time for a different grand jury – but for same questions – on May 16th – official statement from her pending https://t.co/BkXDxnrLmZ

— Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea) May 10, 2019

Indeed, she’s already been subpoenaed to appear in court May 16th. There’s hardly any reason to think it will go differently.

So far, she’s done 62 days in jail on this matter. She may have just over a week of freedom before doing it all over again.https://t.co/4L0VjsDewA

— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) May 10, 2019

Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison in 2013 for leaking classified U.S. government documents to WikiLeaks. Former President Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence in 2017.

Attempts to compel Manning to testify before a secret grand jury come as WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange is fighting attempts to extradite him to the United States after he was forcibly expelled from the Ecuadorian embassy in London last month and arrested by U.K. authorities.

Advocacy groups and legal experts warned that efforts by the U.S. government to extradite and prosecute Assange pose a grave threat to freedom of the press.

“Prosecutors appear to be pressing for Manning’s testimony in order to bolster their case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange,” Politico reported last month.

But Manning has remained firm in her refusal to testify.

“I don’t have anything to contribute to this, or any other grand jury,” Manning said in a statement last month. “While I miss home, they can continue to hold me in jail, with all the harmful consequences that brings. I will not give up.”

*

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

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

The effort Justin Trudeau is putting into overthrowing Venezuela’s government is remarkable.

During the past 12 days the prime minister has raised the issue separately with the leaders of the EU, Spain, Japan and Cuba.On Tuesday Trudeau had a phone conversation with European Council President Donald Tusk focused almost entirely on Venezuela, according to the communiqué.

“Prime Minister Trudeau reiterated his support for Interim President Juan Guaidó”, it noted.

The next day Trudeau talked to Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez about ousting president Nicolás Maduro. Venezuela is the only subject mentioned in the official release about the call.

Venezuela was also on the agenda during Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Ottawa on April 28. The post meeting release noted,

“during the visit, Prime Minister Abe announced Japan’s endorsement of the Ottawa Declaration on Venezuela.”

Produced at an early February meeting of the “Lima Group” of governments opposed to Maduro, the “Ottawa Declaration” called on Venezuela’s armed forces “to demonstrate their loyalty to the interim president” and remove the elected president.

On May 3 Trudeau called Cuban president Miguel Díaz-Canel to pressure him to join Ottawa’s effort to oust Maduro. The release noted,

“the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Lima Group, underscored the desire to see free and fair elections and the constitution upheld in Venezuela.”

Four days later foreign affairs minister Chrystia Freeland added to the diplomatic pressure on Havana. She told reporters,

“Cuba needs to not be part of the problem in Venezuela, but become part of the solution.”

Freeland was highly active after Guaidó, Leopoldo Lopez and others sought to stoke a military uprising in Caracas on April 30. Hours into the early morning effort Freeland tweeted,

“watching events today in Venezuela very closely. The safety and security of Juan Guaido and Leopoldo López must be guaranteed. Venezuelans who peacefully support Interim President Guaido must do so without fear of intimidation or violence.”

She followed that up with a statement to the press noting,

“Venezuelans are in the streets today demonstrating their desire for a return to democracy even in the face of a violent crackdown. Canada commends their courage and we call on the Maduro regime to step aside now.”

Then Freeland put out a video calling on Venezuelans to rise up and requested an emergency video conference meeting of the Lima Group. Later that evening the coalition issued a statement labeling the attempted putsch an effort “to restore democracy” and demanded the military “cease being instruments of the illegitimate regime for the oppression of the Venezuelan people.”

Canada commends the courage of Venezuelans demonstrating their desire for a return to democracy. It is time for the Maduro regime to step aside and allow for a peaceful end to this crisis. pic.twitter.com/qRMlOash7p

— Chrystia Freeland (@cafreeland) May 2, 2019

Three days later Freeland attended an emergency meeting of the Lima Group in Peru. The coalition released a communique after that get together accusing Maduro’s government of protecting “terrorist groups” in Colombia.

At another Lima Group meeting in Chile on April 15 Freeland announced the fourth round of Canadian sanctions against Venezuelan officials. Forty-three individuals were added to the list of 70 leaders Canada had already sanctioned. CBC reported that the latest round of (illegal) sanctions were designed to “punish Venezuelan judges who rubber-stamped Maduro’s moves” and “lower-ranking police officials who took prominent roles in suppressing the attempt by Venezuela’s opposition to bring humanitarian aid into the country on February 23.”

The Venezuelan government responded to Canadian sanctions by denouncing Ottawa’s “alliance with war criminals that have declared their intention to destroy the Venezuelan economy to inflict suffering on the people and loot the country’s riches.” A recent Center for Economic and Policy Research report gives credence to this perspective. Written by Jeffrey Sachs and Mark Weisbrot, “Economic Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela” concluded that 40,000 Venezuelans may have died over the past two years as a result of US sanctions.

The Liberals want us to believe their campaign to oust Venezuela’s government is motivated by support for democracy and human rights. Yet in recent weeks the Trudeau government has deepened ties to repressive Middle East monarchies, gutted its promise to rein in international abuses by Canadian mining companies’ and justified Israeli violence against those living in the open-air prison known as the Gaza Strip.

Last month members of Mouvement Québécois pour la Paix interrupted a speech by Freeland at the University of Montréal to criticize Canada’s policy towards Venezuela. Activists should be disrupting Freeland and other Liberal MPs public events across the country to demand an end to their effort to overthrow the government of 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 the author

You cannot bottle him, export him or use him as a precedent for anything.  His calm, even tempered disposition is the stuff of bafflement and bemusement, and yet, after his tenure at one of Europe’s most known football clubs, Jürgen Klopp, football’s everyman (the “normal one”, he insists) will be the model to emulate.   

Klopp has been saddled with the reputation of encouraging “heavy metal” football, marked by whirlwind bursts of vigour and aggressive strumming.  Arsène Wenger, who long reigned at Arsenal, was more inclined to soft instrumental and orchestral show, all caress and flow. 

“He,” reflected Klopp, “likes having the ball, playing football, passes.  It’s like an orchestra.  But it’s a silent song. I like heavy metal more.  I always want it loud.”   

The jaw dropping victory over Barcelona in the semi-finals of the Champions League will be retrospectively touched up and reconsidered for years to come.  There will be notations on the Klopp method of bursting deficits – the second-leg victory over Dortmund in the Europa League after the German side was leading 3-1 being one such example.  Struggling to come up with an analysis, writers have suggested that the Klopp method, in contrast to the Van Gaal-Guardiola school of coaching, thrives on a loss of control rather than its assertion, a blessed release over miring constipation.  When that happens, his side gets its boots dirty, mucking in and making the necessary, combative tackles.

While the officials, specialists and tacticians plump the dossiers of planning, the achievement on the field resists it.  This is humanity’s great perversion and genius: the hope that nature and circumstance can be tamed; the feeling that the unpredictable will somehow fall within the realm of the measurable. But on the field, the odds vary, and speak to potential chaos.  When facing a three goal deficit on a return leg against a team with such luminaries as Lionel Messi and Luis Suárez, they are magnified. 

Klopp remains touching in this regard.  Battle plans can be seen as successful in the aftermath, or they can result in failure.  He was clear before taking the field against Barcelona in Anfield that the likelihood of victory was slim, but equally clear that he believed in the men.  Faith can be a strong stimulant.  As the German claimed while coaching Mainz,

“I don’t believe in a football god, only God.  I believe that everything happens for a reason.” 

The players, in turn, believe in him.  The loyalty he seems to draw from his men is singular, derived from a familial philosophy that links the team in a bond that demand unqualified commitment.  He, observed Pepijn Lijnders, Klopp’s assistant, in an interview with De Volksrant, “creates a family.  We always say: 30 percent tactic, 70 percent teambuilding.” 

More than even God’s wily ways is the Anfield supporter, that rare species of zealot capable of knowing the moment to bellow and holler, to hector and terrify.  Threats are magnified to the visiting side; the team’s talents are duly inflated.  Main host of The Anfield Wrap podcast Neil Atkinson put it this way: “Anfield crowds know when to scream at you”.  Wenger does not disagree, calling Anfield “the most heated stadium in Europe in a return game.” 

Against Barcelona, Liverpool’s heavy metal proved devastating even absent the drumming of Mohamed Salah and Roberto Firmino, a true rebuke to the “tika-tika” play which insists on possession as a prelude to execution.  “Fighting football, not serenity football,” reasoned Klopp, “is what I like.”  At a certain point, Liverpool’s opponents were stunned to a point of being mere automata, fought to a hypnotised standstill.  Messi, star at the Camp Nou, rarely shone.  Suárez suggested that his side “looked like schoolboys” once the fourth goal found its mark.  “We will have to be ready for all the criticism that is going to rain down on us now.”  

It began with Divock Origi in the seventh minute.  Then another burst in the second-half, this time from substitute Georginio Wijnaldum, with two goals in quick succession wiping out the deficit.  (“I was really angry at the manager that he put me on the bench,” surmised an agitated Wijnaldum, “but I had to do something to help the team when I came on.”)  Eleven minutes from full time came Origi’s coup de grâce.

The ever combative now ex-manager of Manchester United José Mourinho, in trying to understand Liverpool’s victory, put it down to one force: “I would say that for me, this has one name: Jürgen.”  Such a feat was “not about tactics” or “philosophy” but “heart and soul, and a fantastic empathy he created with this group of players.”  Rather sweetly, another factor was suggested: “I said if it’s possible, Anfield is one of the places to make the impossible be possible.”  As Klopp reflects on the work of those he termed “fucking mentality giants”, few would disagree.  

*

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]

It can be readily demonstrated that the proffered U.S. justifications for labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization are no more than hare-brained excuses designed to put further pressure on the Iranian people in pursuit of its long-standing policy of regime change from within. Indeed, it can reasonably be argued that, in light of the fact the U.S. has repeatedly terrorized many peoples and nations in various parts of the world, its designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization represents an ironic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Considering the fact that between 25 and 30 percent of the Iranian economy is owned and/or operated by the Revolutionary Guards, sanctioning of the organization’s economic activities, especially its foreign trade, is bound to further depress Iran’s economy and, hence, its people’s living conditions.

Combined with the economic mismanagement of President Rouhani’s administration, the U.S. economic war on Iran has provided fertile grounds for discontent and anger among the masses of the Iranian people who suffer from the crushing impact of U.S. sanctions, on the one hand, and the Rouhani government’s economic mismanagement, on the other.

In pursuit of its long-standing strategy to bring Iran back into the orbit of its client states in the region, the U.S. has consistently employed two destabilizing tactics. The first is to exert enough pressure on Iran to force its rulers to submit to its will and stop resisting its geopolitical designs in the region. This is called “behavior change without regime change.” The second tactic, applied in case of the failure of the first, is to wield enough economic pressure on the Iranian people to incite them to rebellion in pursuit of regime change from inside.

With varying degrees, this “regime-changing” scheme has been in the works ever since the 1979 revolution that ended the rule of the compliant U.S. ally Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in Iran. So far, it has not succeeded. Whether it would succeed in the future or not, depends largely on the continued support of the Iranian people of their country’s ruling powers. That support, in turn, depends mainly on how soon and how effective an uplifting economic reform can be brought about in Iran—an economic overhaul that would improve the living conditions of the people and, thus, earn their support for the ruling circles.

It is crucially important that, in this context, the ruling powers in Iran draw an instructive lesson from the tragic demise of the Soviet Union: military power alone is not enough to withstand the unrelenting imperialist assault; equally (or more) important is an economically-satisfied and, therefore, supportive population.

Iran’s own experience of the 8-year war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq can also be instructive in this regard. Because of the extensive social safety-net, or welfare, programs of the time, and because of a strong sense among the Iranian people that the relatively uncorrupted revolutionary government of the time served their interest, they wholeheartedly threw their support behind the government, thereby preserving the unity and sovereignty of Iran against Saddam’s aggression and his powerful backers.

The ruling circles of Iran cannot and should not take that exemplary support for granted; they have to earn it. That strong support and the legendary sacrifices of the time in terms of blood and treasure have in recent years been dwindled; but it can be restored if the widespread waste, embezzlement and misuse of national resources is curtailed, the living conditions of citizens are improved, and people’s faith in the ruling powers is reinstated.

Contrary to U.S. claims that designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards would disrupt their activities and weaken their power, the designation is bound to further strengthen the power and influence of the Guards, as they would logically try to redouble their efforts to maximize their readiness capabilities in the face of U.S. threats. Such a defensive reaction to aggressive actions of U.S. imperialism is both logical and universal: it is not just Iran or its Revolutionary Guards but any other country or military force that is threatened by an aggressive foreign power is bound to reinforce its defensive capabilities. Indeed, this explains why U.S. wars of choice and militarism have led to globalization of militarism. Like Iran, many countries ill-afford to divert their precious financial resource from social to military spending. But they are often forced to do so in order to preserve their sovereignty in the face of persistent imperialistic aggressions.

Sadly, this vicious circle of persistent imperialist aggression, the defensive military spending of the targeted nations, and the consequent globalization of militarism, fits well with the nefarious interests of the U.S. military-industrial-security-intelligence complex—as well as with the interests of major banks and financial conglomerates that finance war and military spending. The wicked interests of this complex lie with the invention and/or creation of enemies and, therefore, with persistent wars and military adventures; as this would justify continued escalation of the Pentagon budget, on the one hand, and continued escalation of the sale of military hardware, on the other.

The heavy-handed policy of the United States toward Iran can be better understood in light of this overall imperialistic strategy. The essence of that strategy is control and “management” of social, economic and military affairs of peoples and/or nations of the world. Practical implication of this strategy is that the U.S. cannot countenance socio-economic structures that are at variance with its own model of capitalism. These “undesirable” structures would include not only non-capitalist or centrally-planned economies of the Soviet type but, indeed, any economic model that, like the Social-Democratic economies in Europe, encompass social safety-net (or welfare) programs in favor of the poor and working people.

This policy of safeguarding unbridled capitalist system on a global scale was succinctly described by the late U.S. president Harry Truman. Calling any socio-economic policy in favor of the people undue “regimentation,” President Truman declared (in a 1947 speech at Baylor University) that “regimented economies” were the enemy of free enterprise, and “unless we act, and act decisively,” those regimented economies would become “the pattern of the next century.” To fend off that danger, Truman urged that “the whole world should adopt the American system.” The system of free enterprise, he went on, “could survive in America only if it becomes a world system.”

This explains why, for example, the U.S. is determined to torpedo the socio-economic policies and structures of countries such as Cuba and Venezuela. The capitalist rulers of the United States view such humane, people-centered economic policies inimical to their profit-oriented neoliberal policies of austerity economics—the economics of the survival of the fittest.

It also explains why U.S. imperialism has since WW II overthrown many “undesirable” governments around the world. Some of these governments were ousted overtly by direct military means, such as the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, the overthrow of the democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz in 1954, the overthrow of the government of Brazilian President Joao Goulart in 1964, the overthrow of the democratically elected Chilean government of Salvador Allende in 1973, and many more. Others were toppled by covert operations or fake elections such as the color-coded revolutions of recent years (The Orange Revolution in Ukraine, The Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, and more).

It further explains the colossal rise of the U.S. military machine to an unprecedented extent—to the extent that currently it has close to nine hundred military bases around the globe. The gigantic expansion of the military apparatus has, in turn, led to an internally driven, self-expanding dynamics of its own—a process that is driven by the impulse of an ever expanding accumulation of military capital, the notorious military-industrial complex. This is why it can reasonably be argued that U.S. wars, hot or cold, and military adventures are often economic rewards for the beneficiaries of militarism: the military-industrial complex, as well as the big banks that lend money for wars and aggressions. It can also reasonably be argued that profitability imperatives often drive the beneficiaries of war dividends to invent or manufacture enemies and instigate wars and military adventures in order to maximize their nefarious profits.

As long as the Soviet Union existed, the “threat” of communism readily served the purpose of constantly escalating the military budget. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, however, beneficiaries of war dividends have had to discover new “threats to U.S. national interests,” or the interests of its allies, in order to reap the lion’s share of national resource, as well as to extract financial resources from countries that are threatened or coerced to buy U.S. armaments. It is not surprising, then, that the fall of the Soviet Union has given birth to all kinds of “boogeymen” that are invented as substitutes for the “communist threat” of the Soviet era. These perceived, instigated, or manufactured bogeys include global terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS, and more. Provocative actions and destabilizing policies of the United States against Iran, especially the brutal economic war against that country, can better be understood in light of this background.

All this is a clear vindication of the late President Dwight Eisenhower’s prescient warning that the “military-industrial-complex [may] cause military spending to be driven not by national security needs but by a network of weapons makers, lobbyists and elected officials.”

Military expenditures are ultimately deductions from non-military social spending. Again, as President Eisenhower put it:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

Viewed in this light, battlefield victories or defeats of U.S. military adventures here and there are secondary to the overriding goal of inflating war dividends by maintaining permanent war, or threat of war. From the standpoint of beneficiaries of war dividends, the mere persistence or protraction of wars and international tensions are, in and of themselves, deemed victory—not necessarily the battlefield military victory in the traditional sense of war.

Thus, for example, U.S. military operations in Syria may not succeed in accomplishing their stated goal of overthrowing the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Likewise, its operations in Afghanistan may not succeed in uprooting the Taliban. But to beneficiaries of war dividends such less-than successful military operations are not necessarily defeats or failures. The mere fact of continued war and geopolitical turbulence in those countries (and elsewhere) bring economic gain for these beneficiaries and is, therefore, tantamount to success from their point of view. Of course, this judgment does not apply to military professionals, especially the lower rank personnel who serve as cannon fodder for the heinous interests of the beneficiaries of war dividends. This explains why those who benefit from war and militarism prefer war to peace—hence the aptly sardonic title of the late Gore Vidal’s 2002 book, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace; or the similarly ironic term “war is peace,” coined by the late George Orwell in his 1948 dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty Four.

*

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

Ismael Hossein-zadeh is Professor Emeritus of Economics (Drake University). He is the author of Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis (Routledge 2014), The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave–Macmillan 2007), and the Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser’s Egypt (Praeger Publishers 1989). He is also a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.

Title: Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis: Parasitic Finance Capital (Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy)

Author: Ismael Hossein-Zadeh

Publisher: Routledge; 1 edition (April 14, 2014)

ISBN-10: 0415638062

ISBN-13: 978-0415638067

Click here to order.

.

.

.

As long as the US was onboard, Iran nuclear deal signatories Britain, France, and Germany supported its implementation and provisions — no longer after Trump’s withdrawal.

Their rhetoric says one thing, their actions another. In response to Iran giving EU JCPOA signatories 60 days to fulfill their pledged commitments to the deal, a joint statement by their leaders May, Macron and Merkel said the following:

“Together, we emphasize our continuing commitment to the JCPOA. This agreement remains important for our shared security.”

“We urge all sides to remain committed to its full implementation and to act in a spirit of responsibility.”

Expressing “regret and concern” over the Trump regime’s pullout, the leaders failed to denounce the unlawful move.

Nor did they refuse to go along with illegal US sanctions or affirm that normal diplomatic, economic, financial, and trade relations with Iran will continue — with them and other EU countries, their obligation under JCPOA provisions.

Iran’s patience wore thin. Its Wednesday announced partial pullback from its JCPOA commitments came after waiting a full year in vain for EU signatories to fulfill their obligations under the deal.

Their leaders “encourage(d) Iran to show restraint,” what it’s done for the past year and continues doing.

“Iran must continue to meet its…obligations under the deal,” they stressed — despite the Trump regime’s pullout and their failure to fulfill their own commitments.

Saying they’ll continue to pursue normal relations with Iran is belied by their actions doing the opposite.

On Wednesday, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Abbas Araqchi said the following:

“We have not left the JCPOA so far, but we have put such a move on our agenda and that would happen step-by-step” unless EU signatories fulfill their commitments, what they failed to do so far.

“No country can accuse Iran of breaching or leaving the nuclear deal,” Araqchi added. The nuclear watchdog IAEA affirmed its full compliance numerous times.

If Britain, France and Germany continue to delay, equivocate, and fail to fulfill their obligations, Iran will no longer feel obligated to remain committed to the deal’s provisions.

Adopted by Security Council members unanimously, it’s binding international law, all nations required to observe its provisions.

If Iran, Russia and China alone adhere fully to them, not EU signatories after the Trump regime’s pullout, the deal is effectively null and void. Maintaining enforcement requires full compliance.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said his government will partially suspend its JCPOA commitments if EU signatories fail to fulfill their own in 60 days, “especially in the banking and oil sectors,” he stressed.

On Thursday, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini rejected Iran’s 30-day deadline. A joint statement by her, along with foreign ministers from Britain, France and Germany expressed “great concern” about Tehran’s Wednesday announcement, saying the following:

“We reject any ultimatums and we will assess Iran’s compliance on the basis of Iran’s performance regarding its nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA and the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons),” adding:

“In this respect, we recall the key role of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) monitoring and verification of the implementation by Iran of its nuclear-related commitments.”

“We strongly urge Iran to continue to implement its commitments under the JCPOA in full as it has done until now and to refrain from any escalatory steps.”

The statement said nothing about failure of EU signatories to fulfill their JCPOA obligations — why Iran made its Wednesday announcement, suspending some of its voluntary commitments, relating to enrichment and storage of uranium and heavy water, its legal right under articles 26 and 36 of the deal, saying:

It’s ready to engage cooperatively with EU nations to ensure full mutual compliance with JCPOA provisions — “seek(ing) to bring the deal back on track.”

On Thursday, Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi said Tehran reserves the legal right to “totally or partially” suspend its commitment if other signatories fail to uphold its provisions, adding:

His government’s goal is for full compliance with JCPOA provisions by all its signatories. Trump pulled out. EU countries failed to uphold their end of the deal.

On Wednesday at a joint press conference with his UK counterpart Jeremy Hunt, Mike Pompeo slammed Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.

He lied saying Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline construction aims to gain “leverage” over Europe, vowing to keep trying to undermine it.

He falsely blamed Iran for US war in Yemen, begun by Bush/Cheney, continued by Obama, greatly escalated by the Trump regime in cahoots with the Saudis and UAE, NATO countries and Israel involved.

He called China “a new kind of challenge,” a nation contesting US economic supremacy, surpassing it on a purchase-price basis, what a basket of goods costs in both countries, on track toward likely surpassing the US on a GDP basis years from now, what Washington wants prevented.

He falsely accused China of “want(ing) to divide Western alliances through bits and bytes, not bullets and bombs.”

He and other Trump regime officials are pressuring EU countries against granting Chinese tech giant Huawei access to their 5G networks, falsely claiming it’ll help Beijing spy on them.

He slammed Iran, repeating the long ago discredited US litany of Big Lies about its government. “I urge the United Kingdom to stand with us to rein in (Tehran’s) bloodletting and lawlessness (sic), not soothe the ayatollahs, angry at our decision to pull out of a nuclear deal,” he roared.

Separately, he warned that the special US/UK relationship depends on Britain fully backing the Trump regime against Iran.

He lied saying intelligence (received from Israel’s Mossad) indicated that Iranian forces or its proxies intend targeting US regional troops.

Acting US war secretary Patrick Shanahan turned truth on its head, claiming the Islamic Republic poses “a credible threat” to US regional forces and interests.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) spokesman Keivan Khosravi called the Trump regime’s hostile rhetoric and deployments of a carrier task force along with nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to the region “psychological warfare.”

Iran seeks cooperative relations with other countries, threatening none. The Islamic Republic and Venezuela are on the US target list for regime change.

Will the Trump regime attack one or both countries? What’s unlikely is possible, waging either direct or proxy war — with likely congressional support if DJT goes this far.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The psychic problems facing the Democrats continue to bite, and with their foiled efforts to see the full, unredacted report of the Mueller Report, they look distracted, confused and bitter.  In politics, the sense of vengeance and retribution has a place, but without some restorative balance, cripples the actor.  The Democrats can point to numerous contenders for the presidential election, but these are either going to peter out or result in public acts of self-harm before an awful realisation sets in: that Donald J. Trump may well win a second term.

Leaving aside that troubling, and mind racking thought for the holy initiates of the Tweedle Dum Party there is a serious danger of a condition so enervating it risks submerging it.  Experience, according to the classicist Gilbert Murray, should dull the edges of all our dogmas, but Muellerisation is a powerful condition. It may well be irresistible, and any survivors struggling to make it to the shoreline risk being dragged in by the tide, drowning in their angst about the monster in the White House and his all-inculpating Russian connection. In the meantime, the party can make good its duty to avoid anything remotely resembling policy.

The Democrats must have the document and more, pure and whole.  The point here is a vain hope that something, somewhere hidden will have the weapon they can use against Trump.  But the obvious point in all of this, one pointed out by Glenn Greenwald, is one of degree: if there was evidence of Kremlin collusion (and the extent of it) suggested by some Democrats, Mueller would most certainly have had it by now. If he had not shown it “he would most almost be guilty of treason.” 

The latest target of this entire endeavour is the Attorney General William Barr, adding yet another episode to the Mueller bonanza.  The House Judiciary Committee took aim at the AG, drafting a resolution finding him in contempt of Congress for not complying with the subpoena to provide the full, unredacted version of the report and linked materials.

The subpoena itself is broad; the smell of sheer desperation that something, somewhere, will blow smoke or emit an incriminating odour is palpable.  In addition to seeking the “complete and unredacted version” of the Mueller report, it also demands “all summaries, exhibits, indices, tables of contents or other tables or figures, appendices, supplements, addenda, or any other attachments” and, “All documents obtained and investigative materials created by the Special Counsel’s office.” 

Trump, as he always does, went on to spoil their efforts, formally asserting protective executive privilege on Barr’s advice.  The warning had been made in a Tuesday letter to the chairman, Jerry Nadler, from Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd.  

“In face of the Committee’s threatened contempt vote, the Attorney General will be compelled to request that the President invoke executive privilege with respect to the materials subject to this subpoena.”

With the committee not being particular responsive, Barr’s advice to President Trump followed in his May 8 letter. 

“In cases such as this where a committee has declined to grant sufficient time to conduct a full review, the President may make a protective assertion of privilege to protect the interests of the Executive Branch pending a final determination whether to assert privilege.”   

What strikes Barr as relevant is broad brush nature of the claim, a grab-for-all in demanding “all of the Special Counsel’s investigative files, which consists of millions of pages of classified and unclassified documents bearing upon more than two dozen criminal cases and investigations, many of which are ongoing.” Details embedded in such material cover “law enforcement information, information about sensitive intelligence sources and methods, and grand-jury information that the Department is prohibited from disclosing by law.”

Such a protective assertion of privilege has precedent.  President Bill Clinton did so, on advice from then Attorney General Janet Reno, in 1996 in what is officially titled Protective Assertion of Executive Privilege White House Counsel’s Office Documents, 20 Op., O.L.C. 1 (1996).  Nor is it, explain the legal boffins, a “conclusive”, actual assertion.  In the hair-splitting world of jurisprudence, this is merely “protective”, ensuring, in the words of Boyd’s letter, “the President’s ability to make a final decision whether to assert privilege following a full review of these materials.”   In this Alice in Wonderful linguistic tangle, the president is effectively asserting executive privilege in order to determine whether he needs to assert executive privilege. 

The legal fraternity, pouring over the details of this battle, have much to work through.  While Barr’s reasoning is, on the face of it, orthodox, not all redacted material falls within the protection granted by executive privilege.  Using redactions to protect privacy, according to Tennessee Assistant Solicitor General Jonathan Shaub, is an awkward fit.  “In particular, grand jury material has never itself been considered a component of executive privilege.”  

The House Judiciary committee, refusing to surprise, duly voted along party lines to hear contempt proceedings against Barr.  Attempting to fan the flames of drama, Nadler called such conduct on the part of attorney general the solid basis for a “constitutional crisis” affected by a “lawless administration”, ignoring the enormously broad scope of the initial subpoena.

The Mueller Report, and all that is incidental to it, has ceased being a matter of evidence, but an issue of manic principle.   The premise is already coined; what matters is finding the appropriate evidence to justify the claim, wherever it may be.  That claim, as we all know, is not merely Trump-Russia collusion but a Manchurian Candidate styled fantasy that risks turning the Democrat effort come 2020 into a Disneyland escapade.  Nothing would warm that master in distraction Trump more than such a development.

*

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]

Featured image is from Rantt Media

The Following text is Section 14 of 16

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. A vast arc of growing tensions and conflicts extends from East Asia to Central Asia, from the Middle East to Europe, from Africa to Latin America. The “hot spots” along this intercontinental arc – the Korean Peninsula, the South China Sea, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine, Libya, Venezuela and others – have different histories and geopolitical characteristics, with specific internal socio-economic factors, but they are at the same time linked to a single factor: the strategy with which the United States of America seeks to maintain their position as the dominant superpower.

2. The United States is still the leading economic power in the world, above all thanks to the capital and the mechanisms with which it dominates the global financial market, to the multinationals with which they exploit human and material resources of every continent, to the high technologies and to the relative patents in their possession, to the pervasive role of their multimedia groups that influence the opinions and tastes of billions of users on a planetary scale.

3. Their supremacy is however jeopardized by the emergence of new state and social subjects. What is being questioned by Russia, China and other countries is not only the exorbitant power of the petrodollar (reserve currency from the sale of oil), but the hegemony of the dollar itself. Its value is determined not by real US economic capacity, but by the fact that it constitutes almost two-thirds of world currency reserves and the currency with which the price of oil, gold and other raw materials is established on global markets. in general of the goods.

4. This allows the Federal Reserve, the Central Bank (which is a private bank), to print thousands of billions of dollars with which the colossal US public debt is financed – about 23 trillion dollars – through the purchase of bonds and other securities issued by the Treasury. In this context, the decision taken by Venezuela in 2017 to release the price of oil from the dollar and tie it to that of the Chinese yuan causes a shock that causes the entire imperial palace founded on the dollar to shake. If the example of Venezuela spread, if the dollar ceased to be the dominant currency of international trade and foreign exchange reserves, an immense amount of dollars would be placed on the market bringing down the value of the US currency.

5. Washington looks with growing concern above all at the Russian-Chinese partnership: the interchange between the two countries is in strong growth; at the same time, Russian-Chinese cooperation agreements on energy, agriculture, aeronautics, space and infrastructure are on the rise. The supply of Russian gas to China through the new Sila Sibiri gas pipeline, starting in 2019, opens the way to Russian energy exports to the East while the US tries to block the way to the West towards Europe.

6. In the Middle East, in addition to the military intervention blocking the US / NATO plan to demolish the Syrian state, Russia uses economic instruments, stipulating in 2017 agreements with Iran for the construction of railway and energy infrastructure, including a pipeline between Iran and India strongly opposed by the USA. Washington responds with a move previously agreed with Israel: President Trump violently attacks Iran, accusing him of violating “the spirit” of Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal with Group 5 + 1 (US, Britain, France, Germany , China and Russia). Despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency itself guarantees that Iran is abiding by the agreement and is not attempting to manufacture nuclear weapons, the issue is artificially reopened by initiating a dangerous process with unpredictable results. The Washington attack is directed not only against Iran, but against Russia which is reaffirming its presence in the Middle East.

7. “Moscow – writes the New York Times in October 2017 – tries, through the giant state oil company Rosneft, to gain influence in places where the United States has stumbled. The biggest bet is Venezuela. In three years Russia and Rosneft have provided Caracas with financial assistance for 10 billion dollars, helping Venezuela avoid default. Russia increasingly uses oil as a tool, spreads its influence in the world and challenges the interests of the United States “.

8. A growing challenge to US interests comes simultaneously from China. The world’s leading exporter of goods, it rose, as a gross national income, to second place in the world after the United States and recorded economic growth rates higher than those in the United States. The most ambitious project, launched by China in 2013 and shared by Russia, is that of a new Silk Road: a road and rail network between China and Europe through Central and Western Asia and through Russia, roughly along the route of the ancient Silk Road. The project, already under construction, foresees, together with the terrestrial one, a sea route through the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. For road and railway infrastructures, which should cross and connect over 60 countries, investments of over 1,000 billion dollars are expected. The project, which does not include military components, is not simply economic. If it were realized according to the original idea, it would reshape the geopolitical architecture of the entire Eurasia, creating on the basis of mutual convenience a new network of economic and political relations between the states of the continent.

9. The drive to remodel the global economic order does not only come from large state actors, such as China and Russia, which want a world that is no longer unipolar but multipolar. It comes, in multiple forms and degrees of awareness, from immense social subjects, billions of human beings who, on every continent, suffer the consequences of the current global economic order. An economic globalization centered on the search for maximum profit which, while on the one hand cuts down borders so that capital and production can circulate freely, on the other it sets up other borders, invisible but no less concrete, which exclude the majority of the world population from the benefits of that economic growth built with human and material resources around the world. This system creates a growing polarization between wealth and poverty in the world. Over 85% of global wealth (in terms of money and property) is concentrated in the hands of 8% of the world’s adult population. The remaining 92% owns just 14% of global wealth. Over 3 and a half billion people, representing almost three quarters of the global adult population, have a total of less than 2.5% of global wealth.

10. Over 2 billion people in Africa, Asia and Latin America, especially in rural areas, live in poverty or at least in conditions of severe economic hardship. Among these, about one billion are in extreme poverty, that is, in a social condition characterized by chronic malnutrition, disastrous housing and hygiene situation, high incidence of infectious and parasitic diseases, high mortality above all in children, short average life span, illiteracy, lack of decision-making power, dependency, marginalization, vulnerability and constant insecurity. From the villages of sub-Saharan Africa to the Asian and Latin American slums, the poor experience the same drama caused by the same underlying causes.

11. This is the global economic order that the United States seeks by all means to preserve and control. The strategic aim pursued by Washington is clear: to remove any state or political / social movement that could damage the fundamental political, economic and military interests of the United States of America, endangering their supremacy. In this strategy they are supported by the European powers of NATO and others, such as Israel and Japan, which, despite having contrasts of interest with the US, are under US leadership when it comes to defending the economic and political order dominated by ‘West. Not having the economic strength to do so, the United States and its allies increasingly play the card of war.

12. In addition to the wars properly called, Washington increasingly leads “unconventional wars” through “covert operations”, that is to say secret. The Intelligence Community is formed by 17 federal organizations. In addition to the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) there is the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), but every sector of the Armed Forces – army, air force, navy, corps of marines – has its own secret service. The State Department and the Homeland Security Department have it. Among these services, in fierce competition with each other to grab political support and federal funds, the NSA, the National Security Agency, specializing in telephone and IT interceptions, through which they are not only spied upon, plays a primary role. the enemies but also the friends of the United States, as confirmed by the “datagate” aroused by the revelations of the former contractor Edward Snowden.

13. The field actions are carried out by the USSOCOM, the Special Forces Command, which has tens of thousands of commandos from the four sectors of the armed forces. As emerges from a Washington Post inquiry, special operations forces are deployed in 75 countries. The USSOCOM employs private military companies at the same time. In the area of the US Central Command, which also includes Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon’s contractors number over 150,000. Added to those assumed by other departments and allied armies, the number of which is unknown, but certainly high. All belong to the private shadow army, which joins the official one.

14. To this is added the “humanitarian army” formed by all those “non-governmental organizations” which, endowed with huge means, are used by the CIA and the State Department for internal destabilization actions in the name of “defense of rights of citizens ». In the same picture is the action of the Bilderberg group – which the magistrate Ferdinando Imposimato denounced as “one of the leaders of the strategy of tension and massacres” in Italy – and that of the Open Society of the “investor and philanthropist George Soros”, creator of the «Color revolutions».

15. The United States – which since 1945 has caused 20-30 million deaths with their wars and coups (more than hundreds of millions caused by the indirect effects of such actions) – are willing to do anything to preserve military superiority on which they base their empire, which is crumbling with the emergence of a multipolar world. Within the framework of this strategy, political decisions are taken first of all in the “deep state”, an underground center of real power held by economic, financial and military oligarchies.

*

Sections 15-16 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.

Featured image is from NewsFocus

Renewable energy deployment stalled out last year, raising alarm bells about the pace of the clean energy transition.

In 2018, total deployment of renewable energy stood at about 180 gigawatts (GW), which was the same as the previous year. It was the first time since 2001 that capacity failed to increase year-on-year, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Adding 180 GW of clean energy is a massive total, but still falls short of what is needed to clean up the electricity sector. It equates to roughly 60 percent of what is needed each year in order to meet long-term climate goals, the IEA said. The agency said that the world needs to add about 300 GW of renewable energy each year through 2030 in order to meet the targets laid out in the Paris Climate Agreement.

Worse, last year, CO2 emissions from energy rose 1.7 percent, setting another record high at 33 Gigatonnes. So, while emissions need to decline sharply, they haven’t even flattened out yet. Renewable energy continues to grow, but so does demand for oil and gas.

“The world cannot afford to press “pause” on the expansion of renewables and governments need to act quickly to correct this situation and enable a faster flow of new projects,” Fatih Birol, the IEA’s Executive Director, said in a statement.

“Thanks to rapidly declining costs, the competitiveness of renewables is no longer heavily tied to financial incentives. What they mainly need are stable policies supported by a long-term vision but also a focus on integrating renewables into power systems in a cost-effective and optimal way. Stop-and-go policies are particularly harmful to markets and jobs,” Birol added.

For the last four years, growth of wind had slowed, but the gap was made up by faster growth from solar. The difference in 2018 was that solar’s exponential growth flattened out. The reason for that lies in China, where the government pared back incentives on solar in order to cut expenditures and cope with grid integration challenges, the IEA said. Still, China added 44 GW of solar last year, the most by far out of any other country and nearly half of the 97 GW global total. But that was down from 53 GW that China installed in 2017.

Costs continue to fall, making renewable energy the cheapest option in many markets, which should ensure strong growth going forward. In the U.S., wind and solar are now cheaper than operating existing coal plants in much of the country. In fact, in April, renewable energy surpassed coal in terms of electricity generation for the first time, accounting for 24 percent of the total, compared to coal’s 20 percent market share.

But, despite the momentum, the transition is not fast enough. A new UN report finds that the world is facing a mass die-off of biodiversity, with as many as one million plant and animal species at risk of extinction. Also, the world is on track to blow through its carbon budget within 12 years.

Because of this urgency, a wave of new policies supporting a faster roll out of electric vehicles and renewable energy is inevitable. At the state level, renewable energy mandates are proliferating. In the Democratic primary for president, candidates are trying to outdo each other in terms of ambition on clean energy and climate change. For instance, what was once considered an extreme position, such as banning oil and gas drilling on public lands, has now become a mainstream position in the Democratic Party, at least for the candidates running for president.

Another example of the shifting Overton window came in late April when former Texas Congressman and presidential contender Beto O’Rourke recently called for $5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years in an effort to cut emissions to zero by 2050. It’s ambitious by any measure, but faced some pushback for not going far enough, which says a lot about the growing concern about climate change. In fact, climate change ranked as the top issue for Democratic voters, according to a recent poll.

The oil and gas industry has enjoyed a golden era under the Trump administration, but it may only be temporary.

*

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

Nick Cunningham is a freelance writer on oil and gas, renewable energy, climate change, energy policy and geopolitics. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.

Russia, most of the countries of the former Soviet Union, and Israel all celebrate the end of World War II on 9 May, with this year’s commemoration in Moscow being the 74th in history. This solemn day marks the victory of freedom over fascism and is practically regarded as sacred for the survivors and their descendants.

It serves as a reminder to the world of the evils of fascism and the horrible consequences that have befallen tens of millions of civilians at the hands of a genocidal ethnonationalist supremacist ideology. There are serious concerns that these terrifying ideas that were thought to have been defeated once and for all are experiencing a revival in modern-day Europe, which makes this year’s Victory Day events more relevant than ever.

French President Emmanuel Macron attends a ceremony marking the 74th anniversary of World War II victory in Europe at the Arc de Triomphe, Paris, May 9, 2019. /VCG Photo

Having said that, it should be acknowledged that World War II did not end in Europe but in Asia a few months afterward. In fact, that global conflict also began there too, but this is not commonly recognized because of the Western-centric historical worldview.

Imperial Japan followed its own variation of Hitler’s fascist ideology that preached the ethno-nationalist supremacy of the Japanese people. It was used to justify their country’s aggressive wars of conquest in East and Southeast Asia in pursuit of the so-called “Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere,” their version of Hitler’s Third Reich. Just like their European ally, the Imperial Japanese committed unspeakable acts of genocide during this time.

The Nanjing Massacre is the most well-known of these atrocities among the non-Chinese individuals who are interested in this historical period, but countless others were carried out that have yet to be universally condemned for the acts of evil that they were.

One prominent example is the inhumane biological and chemical weapons experiments that were conducted by the Japanese on Chinese and other victims through the secret “Unit 731” project. Most of the world has never heard about these crimes against humanity, but hopefully, that will one day change and they come to recognize them for what they obviously are. In any case, at least the victims are commemorated by China.

The communists had yet to succeed in their hard-fought revolution by the time that the Japanese finally surrendered on 15 August, but their brave anti-imperialist resistance is acknowledged as being a key factor behind the empire’s eventual defeat. Communist freedom fighters seriously complicated Japan’s occupation of China and the illegal carving out of several puppet states that followed, bleeding the aggressors to the point where they had to deploy millions of troops to the mainland to quell unrest which therefore made them comparatively more vulnerable along the other fronts that the USSR and the U.S. later attacked them from.

Russian President Vladimir Putin lays flowers at the Mamayev Kurgan Memorial in Volgograd during an event to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the battle of Stalingrad in World War II, Russia, February 2, 2018. /VCG Photo 

Another important point to make in connection with the global victory over fascism is that it could not have happened without the communists in both the USSR and China. Their people’s ideological dedication to the cause inspired them to resist in the most dramatic ways and to continue fighting even after it seemed at times that all hope was lost, which in the Chinese case ultimately contributed to the communist party’s victory at the end of the civil war a few years later. While most of the world united in their opposition to fascism and many countries’ citizens lost their lives because of it, the Soviet Union and China suffered the most from this ideological scourge in terms human casualties, which is why it is important to pay homage to their victims and never forget their sacrifices.

It then brings the article back to its lead-in news event, the Victory Day commemorations in Russia. The Chinese and all other anti-fascist people stand in solidarity with their Russian comrades-in-arms who valiantly fought to defeat this wretched ideology. But in the meantime, it is important to remind the world that the destructive flames of fascism were not fully extinguished on 9 May but were finally put out once and for all more than three months later on August 15 with the Empire of Japan’s unilateral surrender.

That said, it is equally important to ensure that fascism never rises again anywhere in the world – be it in Europe, Asia, or elsewhere – and that all instances of this possibly happening are universally condemned in the strongest way possible whenever they occur.

*

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 CGTN.

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.

One year after the US unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (known also as JCPOA- Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action), the US is flexing its muscles by announcing an already previously scheduled departure of the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group as a measure to frighten Iran and force it to the negotiation table. Iran responded by showing a video that included several US Navy in the Persian Gulf as potential targets to its forces. Both messages clearly aim to avoid a war. This is why Iran is expected to refer back to resolutions 26, 36 and 37 to send a warning to the UN to rectify the violation of the deal by the US or else Tehran will be in its legal position to “cease performing its commitments in whole or in part”. This is what President Hassan Rouhani is expected to announce tomorrow Wednesday the 8^thof May, according to Iranian official sources, who expect Iran to stay in the deal for now.

“Iran doesn’t want to trigger a hostile reaction from the United Nations and its European allies, so that they do not join the US in imposing sanctions as they did in 2011. This is why Iran will remain as a signature member of the JCPOA. Today, those who praised and signed the nuclear deal are standing, if only verbally, against the US unilateral withdrawal from the deal and its imposition of one-sided sanctions”, said the official source to me.

Iran is expected to abide by the article 26, calling upon the US administration, the President and the Congress to “refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions… re-introduce or re-impose sanctions specific in Annex II”. According to article 26, US failure to respect the deal will offer Iran “ground to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part”.

Source: author

Iran is expected to invoke Article 36 that states “if Iran believed that any of the EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution…that will have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period is extended by consensus”. Therefore, the Iranians responsible are not expected to go to a military war against the US but to adopt a gradual legal step before using its right to break its commitments, partially or fully.

According to Iranian sources, those in Iran calling for “an immediate and complete withdrawal from the JCPOA failed to convince the majority of decision-makers to adopt a radical approach, unless the UN and Europe (United Kingdom, France and Germany) were to fail to lift the sanctions on Iran and do nothing to support Iranian export of oil and import of needed technology and goods. Iran would then have the option of disregarding concerns related to Arak Nuclear Complex heavy water production plant to produce and reprocess weapons-grade plutonium and to restart unrestricted enrichment”.

It is clear that Iran doesn’t want to close the Strait of Hormuz, as much as it is clear that the US is not looking for a military confrontation with Iran. The US Navy, as a normal procedure, is still in regular contact with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) stationed at the entrance of the Hormuz Strait, even if the IRGC is on the US terrorism list.

Source: author

The US administration would have preferred to support a Middle Eastern country willing to declare war on Iran. Nevertheless, Iran is not Yemen and has destructive fire power sufficient to dissuade any regional country from attacking it. Thus, a war with a slim chance of a favourable outcome for the West is not expected despite the rise of tensions in the Persian Gulf.

The US is failing to intimidate Iran and force it to the negotiation table. The US demands, composed of 12 points, are and will remain impossible for Iran to meet or to come close to. Iran will never withdraw from Syria unless on the request of President Bashar al-Assad, and is not in a position to cease its supports to its partners in the Middle East unless the constitution is amended. And last, Iran considers its missile production a defensive strategy against any possible aggression. This strategy reflects Iran’s experience during the Iraq-Iran war in 1980’s, when Iran was much less well equipped than it is today.

Notwithstanding overwhelming US military capabilities, the US administration is sending signals of weakness to its regional allies and to Iran. Tehran’s challenges to the US are also watched carefully by the Gulf countries who will think carefully before confronting Iran any time in the future.

President Hassan Rouhani has rejected Trump’s request for a meeting eight times. The US administration will, without any doubt, fail to bring Iran to the negotiation table by sending the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and seems incapable of imposing zero oil export on Iran. The Middle East is boiling and miscalculations can be expected. Nevertheless, it is more about a show of force than about the possibility of 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.

In its latest budget request, the Trump administration is asking for a near-record $750 billion for the Pentagon and related defense activities, an astonishing figure by any measure. If passed by Congress, it will, in fact, be one of the largest military budgets in American history, topping peak levels reached during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. And keep one thing in mind: that $750 billion represents only part of the actual annual cost of our national security state.

There are at least 10 separate pots of money dedicated to fighting wars, preparing for yet more wars, and dealing with the consequences of wars already fought. So the next time a president, a general, a secretary of defense, or a hawkish member of Congress insists that the U.S. military is woefully underfunded, think twice. A careful look at U.S. defense expenditures offers a healthy corrective to such wildly inaccurate claims.

Now, let’s take a brief dollar-by-dollar tour of the U.S. national security state of 2019, tallying the sums up as we go, and see just where we finally land (or perhaps the word should be “soar”), financially speaking.

The Pentagon’s “Base” Budget: The Pentagon’s regular, or “base,” budget is slated to be $544.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2020, a healthy sum but only a modest down payment on total military spending.

As you might imagine, that base budget provides basic operating funds for the Department of Defense, much of which will actually be squandered on preparations for ongoing wars never authorized by Congress, overpriced weapons systems that aren’t actually needed, or outright waste, an expansive category that includes everything from cost overruns to unnecessary bureaucracy. That $544.5 billion is the amount publicly reported by the Pentagon for its essential expenses and includes as well $9.6 billion in mandatory spending that goes toward items like military retirement.

Among those basic expenses, let’s start with waste, a category even the biggest boosters of Pentagon spending can’t defend. The Pentagon’s own Defense Business Board found that cutting unnecessary overhead, including a bloated bureaucracy and a startlingly large shadow workforce of private contractors, would save $125 billion over five years. Perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that the board’s proposal has done little to quiet calls for more money. Instead, from the highest reaches of the Pentagon (and the president himself) came a proposal to create a Space Force, a sixth military service that’s all but guaranteed to further bloat its bureaucracy and duplicate work already being done by the other services. Even Pentagon planners estimate that the future Space Force will cost $13 billion over the next five years (and that’s undoubtedly a low-ball figure).

In addition, the Defense Department employs an army of private contractors — more than 600,000 of them — many doing jobs that could be done far more cheaply by civilian government employees. Cutting the private contractor work force by 15% to a mere half-million people would promptly save more than $20 billion per year. And don’t forget the cost overruns on major weapons programs like the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent — the Pentagon’s unwieldy name for the Air Force’s new intercontinental ballistic missile — and routine overpayments for even minor spare parts (like $8,000 for a helicopter gear worth less than $500, a markup of more than 1,500%).

Then there are the overpriced weapons systems the military can’t even afford to operate like the $13-billion aircraft carrier, 200 nuclear bombers at $564 million a pop, and the F-35 combat aircraft, the most expensive weapons system in history, at a price tag of at least $1.4 trillion over the lifetime of the program. The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) has found — and the Government Accountability Office recently substantiated — that, despite years of work and staggering costs, the F-35 may never perform as advertised.

And don’t forget the Pentagon’s recent push for long-range strike weapons and new reconnaissance systems designed for future wars with a nuclear-armed Russia or China, the kind of conflicts that could easily escalate into World War III, where such weaponry would be beside the point. Imagine if any of that money were devoted to figuring out how to prevent such conflicts, rather than hatching yet more schemes for how to fight them.

Base Budget total: $554.1 billion

The War Budget: As if its regular budget weren’t enough, the Pentagon also maintains its very own slush fund, formally known as the Overseas Contingency Operations account, or OCO. In theory, the fund is meant to pay for the war on terror — that is, the U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and elsewhere across the Middle East and Africa. In practice, it does that and so much more.

After a fight over shutting down the government led to the formation of a bipartisan commission on deficit reduction — known as Simpson-Bowles after its co-chairs, former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Senator Alan Simpson — Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011. It officially put caps on both military and domestic spending that were supposed to save a total of $2 trillion over 10 years. Half of that figure was to come from the Pentagon, as well as from nuclear weapons spending at the Department of Energy. As it happened, though, there was a huge loophole: that war budget was exempt from the caps. The Pentagon promptly began to put tens of billions of dollars into it for pet projects that had nothing whatsoever to do with current wars (and the process has never stopped). The level of abuse of this fund remained largely secret for years, with the Pentagon admitting only in 2016 that just half of the money in the OCO went to actual wars, prompting critics and numerous members of Congress — including then-Congressman Mick Mulvaney, now President Trump’s latest chief of staff — to dub it a “slush fund.”

This year’s budget proposal supersizes the slush in that fund to a figure that would likely be considered absurd if it weren’t part of the Pentagon budget. Of the nearly $174 billion proposed for the war budget and “emergency” funding, only a little more than $25 billion is meant to directly pay for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The rest will be set aside for what’s termed “enduring” activities that would continue even if those wars ended, or to pay for routine Pentagon activities that couldn’t be funded within the constraints of the budget caps. The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives is expected to work to alter this arrangement. Even if the House leadership were to have its way, however, most of its reductions in the war budget would be offset by lifting caps on the regular Pentagon budget by corresponding amounts. (It’s worth noting that President Trump’s budget calls for someday eliminating the slush fund.)

The 2020 OCO also includes $9.2 billion in “emergency” spending for building Trump’s beloved wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, among other things. Talk about a slush fund! There is no emergency, of course. The executive branch is just seizing taxpayer dollars that Congress refused to provide. Even supporters of the president’s wall should be troubled by this money grab. As 36 former Republican members of Congress recently argued, “What powers are ceded to a president whose policies you support may also be used by presidents whose policies you abhor.” Of all of Trump’s “security”-related proposals, this is undoubtedly the most likely to be eliminated, or at least scaled back, given the congressional Democrats against it.

War Budget total: $173.8 billion

Running tally: $727.9 billion

The Department of Energy/Nuclear Budget: It may surprise you to know that work on the deadliest weapons in the U.S. arsenal, nuclear warheads, is housed in the Department of Energy (DOE), not the Pentagon. The DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration runs a nationwide research, development, and production network for nuclear warheads and naval nuclear reactors that stretches from Livermore, California, to Albuquerque and Los Alamos, New Mexico, to Kansas City, Missouri, to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to Savannah River, South Carolina. Its laboratories also have a long history of program mismanagement, with some projects coming in at nearly eight times the initial estimates.

Nuclear Budget total: $24.8 billion

Running tally: $752.7 billion

“Defense Related Activities”: This category covers the $9 billion that annually goes to agencies other than the Pentagon, the bulk of it to the FBI for homeland security-related activities.

Defense Related Activities total: $9 billion

Running tally: $761.7 billion

The five categories outlined above make up the budget of what’s officially known as “national defense.” Under the Budget Control Act, this spending should have been capped at $630 billion. The $761.7 billion proposed for the 2020 budget is, however, only the beginning of the story.

The Veterans Affairs Budget: The wars of this century have created a new generation of veterans. In all, over 2.7 million U.S. military personnel have cycled through the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. Many of them remain in need of substantial support to deal with the physical and mental wounds of war. As a result, the budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs has gone through the roof, more than tripling in this century to a proposed $216 billion. And this massive figure may not even prove enough to provide the necessary services.

More than 6,900 U.S. military personnel have died in Washington’s post-9/11 wars, with more than 30,000 wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. These casualties are, however, just the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of thousands of returning troops suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), illnesses created by exposure to toxic burn pits, or traumatic brain injuries. The U.S. government is committed to providing care for these veterans for the rest of their lives. An analysis by the Costs of War Project at Brown University has determined that obligations to veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars alone will total more than $1 trillion in the years to come. This cost of war is rarely considered when leaders in Washington decide to send U.S. troops into combat.

Veterans Affairs total: $216 billion

Running tally: $977.7 billion

The Homeland Security Budget: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a mega-agency created after the 9/11 attacks. At the time, it swallowed 22 then-existing government organizations, creating a massive department that currently has nearly a quarter of a million employees. Agencies that are now part of DHS include the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Secret Service, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

While some of DHS’s activities — such as airport security and defense against the smuggling of a nuclear weapon or “dirty bomb” into our midst — have a clear security rationale, many others do not. ICE — America’s deportation force — has done far more to cause suffering among innocent people than to thwart criminals or terrorists. Other questionable DHS activities include grants to local law enforcement agencies to help them buy military-grade equipment.

Homeland Security total: $69.2 billion

Running tally: $1.0469 trillion

The International Affairs Budget: This includes the budgets of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Diplomacy is one of the most effective ways to make the United States and the world more secure, but it has been under assault in the Trump years. The Fiscal Year 2020 budget calls for a one-third cut in international affairs spending, leaving it at about one-fifteenth of the amount allocated for the Pentagon and related agencies grouped under the category of “national defense.” And that doesn’t even account for the fact that more than 10% of the international affairs budget supports military aid efforts, most notably the $5.4 billion Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program. The bulk of FMF goes to Israel and Egypt, but in all over a dozen countries receive funding under it, including Jordan, Lebanon, Djibouti, Tunisia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

International Affairs total: $51 billion

Running tally: $1.0979 trillion     

The Intelligence Budget: The United States has 17 separate intelligence agencies. In addition to the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the FBI, mentioned above, they are the CIA; the National Security Agency; the Defense Intelligence Agency; the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; the Drug Enforcement Agency’s Office of National Security Intelligence; the Treasury Department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis; the Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; the National Reconnaissance Office; the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command; the Office of Naval Intelligence; Marine Corps Intelligence; and Coast Guard Intelligence. And then there’s that 17th one, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, set up to coordinate the activities of the other 16.

We know remarkably little about the nature of the nation’s intelligence spending, other than its supposed total, released in a report every year. By now, it’s more than $80 billion. The bulk of this funding, including for the CIA and NSA, is believed to be hidden under obscure line items in the Pentagon budget. Since intelligence spending is not a separate funding stream, it’s not counted in our tally below (though, for all we know, some of it should be).

Intelligence Budget total: $80 billion

Running tally (still): $1.0979 trillion

Defense Share of Interest on the National Debt: The interest on the national debt is well on its way to becoming one of the most expensive items in the federal budget. Within a decade, it is projected to exceed the Pentagon’s regular budget in size. For now, of the more than $500 billion in interest taxpayers fork over to service the government’s debt each year, about $156 billion can be attributed to Pentagon spending.

Defense Share of National Debt total: $156.3 billion

Final tally: $1.2542 trillion

So, our final annual tally for war, preparations for war, and the impact of war comes to more than $1.25 trillion — more than double the Pentagon’s base budget. If the average taxpayer were aware that this amount was being spent in the name of national defense — with much of it wasted, misguided, or simply counterproductive — it might be far harder for the national security state to consume ever-growing sums with minimal public pushback. For now, however, the gravy train is running full speed ahead and its main beneficiaries — Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and their cohorts — are laughing all the way to the bank.

*

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

William D. Hartung, a TomDispatch regular, is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.

Mandy Smithberger, a TomDispatch regular, is the director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight.

Featured image is from NationofChange

The United States is moving dangerously forward in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to provoke a war with Iran, apparently based on threat intelligence provided by Israel. The claims made by National Security Advisor John Bolton and by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that there is solid evidence of Iran’s intention to attack US forces in the Persian Gulf region is almost certainly a fabrication, possibly deliberately contrived by Bolton and company in collaboration with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It will be used to justify sending bombers and additional naval air resources to confront any possible moves by Tehran to maintain its oil exports, which were blocked by Washington last week. If the US Navy tries to board ships carrying Iranian oil it will undoubtedly, and justifiably, provoke a violent response from Iran, which is precisely what Bolton, Pompeo and Netanyahu are seeking.

It would be difficult to find in the history books another example of a war fought for no reason whatsoever. As ignorant as President Donald Trump and his triumvirate or psychotics Bolton, Pompeo and Elliott Abrams are, even they surely know that Iran poses no threat to the United States. If they believe at all that a war is necessary, they no doubt base their judgment on the perception that the United States must maintain its number one position in the world by occasionally attacking and defeating someone to serve as an example of what might happen if one defies Washington. Understanding that, the Iranians would be wise to avoid confrontation until the sages in the White House move on to some easier target, which at the moment would appear to be Venezuela.

The influence of Israel over US foreign policy is undeniable, with Washington now declaring that it will “review ties” with other nations that are considered to be unfriendly to the Jewish state. For observers who might also believe that Israel and its allies in the US are the driving force behind America’s belligerency in the Middle East, there are possibly some other games that are in play, all involving Benjamin Netanyahu and his band of merry cutthroats. It is becoming increasingly apparent that foreign politicians have realized that the easiest way to gain Washington’s favor is to do something that will please Israel. In practical terms, the door to Capitol Hill and the White House is opened through the good offices of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Israel is desperate to confirm its legitimacy in international fora, where it has few friends in spite of an intensive lobbying campaign. It seeks to have countries that do not have an embassy in Israel to take steps to establish one, and it also wants more nations that do already have an embassy in Tel Aviv to move to Jerusalem, building on the White House’s decision taken last year to do just that. Not surprisingly, nations and political leaders who are on the make and want American support have drawn the correct conclusions and pander to Israel as a first step.

One only has to cite the example of Venezuela. Juan Guaido, the candidate favored by Washington for regime change, has undoubtedly a lot of things on his plate but he has proven willing to make some time to say what Benjamin Netanyahu wants to hear, as reported by the Israeli media. The Times of Israel describes how

“Venezuela’s self-proclaimed leader Juan Guaido is working to re-establish diplomatic relations with Israel and isn’t ruling out placing his country’s embassy in Jerusalem, according to an interview with an Israeli newspaper published Tuesday.”

One would think that Guaido would consider his interview sufficient, but he has also taken the pandering process one step farther, reportedly displaying huge video images of the flags of both Israel and the United States at his rallies.

This deference to Israel’s interests produced an almost immediate positive result with Netanyahu recognizing him as the legitimate Venezuelan head of state, followed by an echo chamber of effusive congratulations from US (sic) Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, who praised the Jewish state for “standing with the people of Venezuela and the forces of freedom and democracy.” Donald Trump’s esteemed special envoy for international negotiations, Jason Greenblatt, also joined in, praising the Israeli government for its “courageous stand in solidarity with the Venezuelan people.”

A similar bonding took place regarding Brazil, where hard right conservative leader Jair Bolsonaro was recently elected president. Netanyahu attended the Bolsonaro inauguration last December and the two men benefit from strong support from Christian Evangelicals. Bolsonaro repaid the favor by promising that Israel would be his first foreign trip. In the event he went to Washington first, but the state visit to Israel took place in April, just before that country’s elections, in a bid to demonstrate international support for Netanyahu.

Brazilian Jews constitute a wealthy and powerful community which reacted positively to Bolsonaro’s pledges to fight corruption and high crime rates while also repairing a struggling economy. They also appreciated his stance on Israel. He committed to moving the Brazilian embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, though he has backpedaled a bit on that pledge. And he also promised to shut the Palestinian embassy in the capital Brasilia. He famously asked and answered his own question,

“Is Palestine a country? Palestine is not a country, so there should be no embassy here. You do not negotiate with terrorists.”

Bolsonaro’s pro-Israel anti-Venezuela credentials also endeared him to Donald Trump on a visit to Washington in mid-March which was described by the media as a “love fest.” The Brazilian leader’s visits to Israel and the US as well as Guaido’s promises to Israel reveal that the foreign policies of Tel Aviv and Washington have become inextricably intertwined, with supplicant nations and politicians wisely seeking to do homage to both regimes to gain favor. It is a development that would shock the Founding Fathers, most particularly George Washington, who warned against entangling alliances, and it means that American interests will be seen through an Israeli prism, a reality that has already produced very bad results.

*

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 is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests.

Before Donald Trump’s February summit with Kim Jong Un in Hanoi, Vietnam, The Washington Post ran an article headlined, “The US wants North Korea to follow the ‘miracle’ of Vietnam’s path.”

“In light of the once-unimaginable prosperity and partnership we have with Vietnam today, I have a message for Chairman Kim Jong Un: President Trump believes your country can replicate this path,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, as quoted in The Post article.

In 2019, the evolution of Vietnam toward capitalism, praised by the Trump administration, is not without irony. A ruinous and brutal U.S. war against North Vietnam and its Viet Cong supporters in the south ended with the U.S. withdrawal of military troops in 1973, followed by a complete end to the conflict in 1975.

Indeed, it was a little under 45 years ago that the U.S. military departed Vietnam with more than 58,000 soldiers dead and its tail between its legs. In the end, the North Vietnamese forces had won a decisive victory against the United States and the South Vietnamese army (the Army of the Republic of Vietnam). The North and South Vietnamese combatants lost nearly 1.5 million soldiers and at least 2 million civilians. According to The Balance, “Vietnam was the most heavily bombed country in history.”

Nearly three times more bombs were dropped on Vietnam than the U.S. used in World War II. In addition, 20 million gallons of herbicides were used to clear plants and trees in an effort to try and expose the Viet Cong. There was also the widespread use of the toxic Agent Orange, napalm and other deadly chemicals. The legacy that the U.S. left behind in Vietnam was gruesome and full of atrocities.

Image on the right: Until his death in 1969 Ho Chi Minh, the communist leader of Vietnam, led a war against the French and then the US. His nation became a victor against both powers despite having almost no advanced weaponry at his military’s disposal.

The bloody combat could have been avoided. Following World War II, Ho Chi Minh had written to President Harry Truman, seeking his support to prevent the French from returning to govern Vietnam as a colony. Truman ignored Minh’s appeal and even began supporting the French military struggle for control in 1950. When the French were routed in 1954 at Dien Bien Phu, the country was divided into North and South Vietnam by an international agreement. It did not take long for the U.S. to begin supporting a puppet “democratic” government in the South, leading to a full-fledged conflict with North Vietnam in the ’60s.

After the war with the U.S. and South Vietnam was over, North and South Vietnam became one unified communist state.

The United States justified the conflict as a means to stop the spread of communism during the Cold War. Vietnam historically had an often antagonistic relationship with China, however, so, U.S. leaders’ fear of the Chinese Communist Party controlling Vietnam along with the Soviet Union was a toothless Cold War fear. Indeed, that fear became a moot point when in the late 1980s, the Vietnam Communist Party began to turn from socialism and government-owned industries to betting its economic future on neoliberal capitalism.

Vietnam’s shift to capitalism, which now is in full swing, came partly as a result of several factors. Firstly, the nation was economically devastated by the war with the U.S. — particularly the bombing of infrastructure and agricultural fields. Compounding this obstacle, the nation had traditionally been reliant on subsistence agricultural production, which hampered industrialization of the nation. Furthermore, the U.S. embargo against Vietnam was not officially lifted until 1994. In addition, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the movement of China toward state capitalism, Vietnam followed suit.

John Battelle wrote about Vietnam’s neighbor in a recent commentary, “The End of Democratic Capitalism,” in Medium: “It’s now inarguable that the most muscular version of capitalism worldwide is the brand currently practiced by the Chinese state. Let’s call it autocratic capitalism  — for it is a market-driven economic system where the market is controlled by an autocratic state.”

Battelle adds “Growth is capitalism’s most sacred goal, and the Chinese know it.” So, apparently, do the single-party rulers of Vietnam.

From Adidas and North Face to Pizza Hut and McDonald’s, Vietnam has become a rapidly expanding consumer market for global corporation branded products.

As USA Today states in a 2015 article, “Vietnam … may actually be one of the most pro-capitalist countries on Earth. Almost all Vietnamese people — 95% of them — now support capitalism, according to the Pew Research Center, which polled nearly 45 nations late last year on economic issues.” In the United States, by contrast, Pew found that only 70 percent thought a “free market” system was ideal.

As early as 1993, U.S. multinational corporations began seeking out investments in Vietnam. A February 3, 1993, New York Times article noted, “Almost 18 years after United States diplomats fled Saigon before the advancing communist troops, American capitalists are trickling back, hoping to employ their former enemies and ready the country for a corporate invasion.”

Although the U.S. lags behind Asian nations, such as South Korea, China and Japan, in investment in Vietnam, its presence is visible throughout the country, whether it be in Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonald outlets, Coca-Cola or other Western and Asian name brands and corporations. At the center of Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) stands the opulent Park Hyatt Hotel, a sprawling symbol of gilded capitalism. Room rates there begin at $350 a night. Indeed, Vietnam is so eager to seek U.S. capital investment that it has downplayed the catastrophic war by only sparingly reminding citizens and tourists that it ever occurred.

For example, in Ho Chi Minh City the former Exhibition House for U.S. and Puppet Crimes first had its name changed to the Exhibition House for Crimes and War Aggression and then in 1995 to the euphemistic War Remnants Museum. There one can see the destruction and massive death caused by the U.S. and French when they failed to recolonize Vietnam after WWII, but the tone is muted. Smaller museums (including the “Hanoi Hilton,” where John McCain was imprisoned) and war sites are scattered around the country. They often appear to be relics from a long time ago.

There are occasional outdoor displays in Vietnam of U.S. military equipment left behind in the rush to end the war. They are few in number and some have the appearance of junkyards. There is little signage that even identifies the hardware with the destructive conflict with the U.S. The majority of Vietnamese people were born after the war, and the state has its eyes on becoming a “developed nation,” not on looking backward.

The move to an energized capitalism is now overseen by Nguyen Phu Trong, who last autumn assumed the dual roles of Communist Party secretary and president of Vietnam. If any animosity remains toward the U.S., it was hard to find it, as I traveled from Hanoi to Ho Chi Minh City this past December, in a nation that now values individual economic competition and gain over socialist principles. A Pew 2017 poll found that 84 percent of Vietnamese citizens had a positive view of the U.S.

The state still controls many areas of the economy, such as much of the land use and investment in a variety of ventures, including the lucrative area of tourism. Indeed, up to one-third of the Vietnamese economy is still state owned. The country, however, joined the World Trade Organization in 2007, in return for capital and trading opportunities, and all but surrendered its economic adherence to communism.

Primarily due to the influx of foreign capital, Vietnam has been experiencing a 6 percent to 7 percent gross domestic growth in the past few years. Many of the more than 90 million Vietnamese citizens are rising to the middle class, but, as in the U.S., only a few are rising to the top income tier – and many are left eking out a barely livable existence.

Those who work for well-paying foreign companies and enjoy larger salaries – and those in the booming tourist industry – have created a market for global products. The “haves” have become ardent consumers. Vietnam Briefing found “a survey conducted by Nielsen concluded that Vietnam ranks third in the world in terms of fondness for branded goods.”

Many expensive brands have a presence in Vietnam. They include, according to Vietnam Briefing, Louis Vuitton, Dior, Burberry, Ermenegildo Zegna, Bulgari and Hermes. The Briefing notes that “the Hermes boutique in Hanoi, opened in 2008, increased its profits gradually by 20 to 30 percent each year.”

Although the primary means of transportation in Vietnam is motorbikes, dealers for luxury cars have also opened. The ownership of automobiles is rising, particularly in Ho Chi Minh City.

Most financial analysts who specialize in Vietnam put the poverty rate in 2018 at about 10 percent (down from about 85 percent in 1993), but that is a relative figure in a nation where the average worker’s salary is somewhere just below $2200.

Vietnam’s recent financial growth is not solving the country’s economic disparities. In fact, it is increasing them. In Vietnam what is evident is the inevitable result of soaring capitalism: income inequality. What is happening there is one more example of how economic injustice is built into capitalism even in a nation whose government is nominally communist.

Indeed, a 2017 analysis by Oxfam warns of signs that Vietnam is moving toward an increasingly inequitable society. It does not help, the report finds, that the tax system in Vietnam is generally regressive. This means that Vietnamese citizens are subject to many flat taxes and fees, regardless of income. Since 2009, corporate taxes have been reduced from 28 to 20 percent. And, the report notes, “tax avoidance and evasion are also letting the richest multinationals off the hook and sucking money out of the budget.” Therefore, the tax burden disproportionately relies on lower income earners, many of them rural farmers and members of Indigenous populations.

As the number of wealthy rise in Vietnam on the back of capitalism, inequality also is increasing. The rural poor still come to cities and towns to sell produce, for example, often by carrying baskets suspended from a wooden strip on their shoulders.

The Oxfam study flatly states, “Economic inequality in Vietnam is growing by any measure. World Bank data shows that income inequality in Vietnam has increased in the last two decades, and more importantly, the richest are taking a disproportionate share of income.”

Oxfam notes that advancement opportunities for those in the lower economic strata are hampered by barriers such as tuition for secondary education and charges for essential supplies for primary school, such as textbooks. As another example of disparity, Oxfam explains that Vietnam’s health system is more accessible to the wealthy. Many of the costs normally absorbed by a socialist state are being offloaded to individuals, many of them of limited means.

As the UN confirmed as early as 2008, the glaring injustice of Vietnam’s rush to capitalism is the economic division it is creating among the nation’s citizens: “According to statistics … 29.9 percent of the gross national income is held by rich people, who account for just 10 percent of the population.” The concentration of money among the wealthy and upper middle class has only increased since that time, as the Oxfam report concluded.

Meanwhile, the nominally communist government severely limits free speech. As Foreign Policy notes, Vietnam wants to curry the favor of Western politicians and global corporations, but not to open up the nation into a forum for democracy. That is just fine with the U.S., especially with Donald Trump.

What is important to the U.S. government is nations directing their economies to global capitalism. That they evolve into democratic societies, despite bipartisan platitudinous claims to the contrary, is of secondary and minimal priority to D.C. policy makers.

In fact, single-party governments that adopt capitalistic economic systems are more stable as far as corporations and investors are concerned. Therefore, multinational corporations may prefer a “communist” Vietnam or China to nations that allow an unpredictable democratic process.

Conveniently overlooked by the U.S. government’s glee at the explosion of global capitalism in Vietnam is the alleged corruption of the Vietnamese government. A 2015 Guardian article stated, “Transparency International last year reported that Vietnam is perceived to be one of the most corrupt countries in the world, doing worse than 118 others and scoring only 31 out of a possible 100 good points on its index.”

It is hardly a new development that the U.S. government downplays economic inequity and corruption in governments that it supports. Why would the U.S. government be concerned about economic injustice in Vietnam when it fosters it at home? As for the tolerance of corruption, look no further than the Trump White House.

Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, six years before the North Vietnamese army took control of South Vietnam. By the late 1980s, five-year collectivization plans — and the other factors cited earlier in this article — had failed to improve the economy. As a result, Vietnam has embarked on a path that makes it a member of the global neoliberal community, which ensures that inequity and corruption will continue to persist there.

*

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

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Mark Karlin founded BuzzFlash.com in May 2000. He wrote daily commentaries for Truthout for eight years and was a senior member of the staff. He recently spent a month traversing Vietnam. Follow him on Twitter: @MarkDKarlin.

All images in this article are from the author except for the featured which is an Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Recent reports suggest that Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton, together with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, are “doing everything possible to instigate a war with Iran”. Will they succeed?

Bolton-Pompeo are involved in deliberate acts of provocation. The Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group is currently en route to the Persian Gulf  “to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime…”  

This is not the first time that threats of this nature have been formulated. War on Iran has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for the past 16 years.  Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. military sources intimated at the time that an aerial attack on Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to the U.S. “shock and awe” bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003.

Without dispelling the dangers of the reckless Bolton-Pompeo initiative, a large scale US-NATO-Israel military operation directed against Iran from a strategic and geopolitical standpoint at this juncture is unlikely.

Why?

A shift in military alliances between “Great Powers” is unfolding, which is exceedingly more complex than that  pertaining to World War I. (i.e  the confrontation between “The Triple Entente” and “the Triple Alliance”).

Today, the structure of military alliances is in jeopardy much to the detriment of Washington.

You cannot successfully wage war on Iran when Turkey, your ally and NATO heavy weight is “sleeping with the enemy”. 

While Turkey is officially a member of NATO as well as a firm ally of the US, president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been developing “friendly relations” with two of America’s arch-enemies, namely Iran and Russia.

Needless to say NATO is in crisis. Moreover, US and Turkey supported proxy forces are fighting one another in Northern Syria. 

There is also a Turkey-Israel military-intelligence alliance which dates back to the Security and Secrecy Agreement (SSA) signed with the government Tansu Çiller in 1993-94. This alliance which had been designed by the Clinton administration is no longer functional.  

The strategic bilateral US-Israel relationship as well as the US-Turkey alliance coupled with the Israel-Turkey military and intelligence cooperation agreement as well as the Israel-NATO agreement (2003), were the foundations of the US-Israel-Turkey “Triple alliance” or what the Brookings Institute called the US-Turkey- Israel Triangle.

This US sponsored triangular structure of alliances is dead and defunct, much to the detriment of Washington’s interests in the Middle East.

What is now unfolding is a new Triple Entente between Turkey, Iran and Russia

The Netanyahu-Putin “Love Relationship”

But there is another element which is absolutely crucial: Israel is also sleeping with the enemy. Netanyahu and Putin have developed over the years an informal and friendly relationship. They consult one another frequently on key political and strategic issues.

While the Netanyahu-Putin relationship is not a formal alliance, it nonetheless serves the interests of both Russia and Israel. “Putin has a friend in Bibi Netanyahu, and maybe even a soulmate”. According to Reuters, “Vladimir Putin is the closest thing to a friend Israel has ever had in Moscow”.

Turkey, NATO Exit

Contemporary developments point to a historical shift in the structure of military alliances which is contributing to weakening US hegemony in the Middle East as well as creating an unspoken crisis within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Waging US-NATO-Israel war on Iran with or without Turkey?

Turkey is NATO’s heavy weight, it is the only NATO member state which is (largely) situated in the Middle East bordering onto Iran.

In early April, Secretary State Mike Pompeo met up with his counterpart Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu  in Ankara. The Pompeo-Cavusoglu confrontation made the headlines, In turn, Vice President Pence openly threatened the Turkish government:

Vice President Mike Pence warned Turkey against going ahead with the purchase of the Russian-made [S-400] missile system, hours after the Turkish foreign minister said the acquisition was “a done deal” … Pence said the weapons purchase could “threaten the very cohesion of this alliance... We’ve also made it clear that we’ll not stand idly by while NATO allies purchase weapons from our adversaries,“ Pence said. (CNN, April 3, 2019)

Mike Pence is right: The cohesion of NATO is at stake. And Turkey cannot be trusted as an ally of the US.

Turkey’s NATO-Exit? It is almost a done deal.

And if Turkey exits NATO, other countries might follow suit.Something which Washington would want to avoid.

In the course of the month of April (following Pompeo’s diplomatic blunder in Ankara) Turkey and Iran have strengthened their bilateral relations.

Pompeo’s counterpart Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has retorted: “We do not accept unilateral sanctions and impositions on how we build our relationship with our neighbors.” (quoted in Al Monitor, April 29, 2019)

US, NATO, Israel Military logistics are integrated, and Turkey is still (officially) part of NATO.

The evolving structure of military alliances (and cross-cutting coalitions) including the crisis within NATO does not favour the launching  of a large scale military operation against Iran. One assumes that Bolton-Pompeo are fully aware of this issue. Or are they?

Turkey is a NATO Member State which is sleeping with enemy. Given It’s relationship with Russia and Iran, from a logistical point of view the practice of coordinated US-NATO military planning is in jeopardy.

This does not exclude the conduct of other forms of warfare including economic sanctions, sabotage, Bolton-style spontaneous acts of provocation, covert support of terrorist organizations, etc.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, May 09, 2019

Is Turkey Sleeping with the Enemy? The Russia -Turkey -Iran “Triple Entente”

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 10, 2018

Sleeping with the enemy:  “Our relations are not good with Turkey” says Trump.

US-Turkey military cooperation (including US air force bases in Turkey) dates back to the Cold War. Today Turkey is now sleeping with both Iran and Russia. 

Trump’s response takes the form of both military threats and economic sanctions coupled with financial manipulation of foreign exchange markets directed against Turkey’s Lira.

And their  currency “slides rapidly downwards against our very strong dollar”, says Trump.

Turkey has developed an alliance of convenience with Iran. And Iran in turn is now supported by a powerful China-Russia block, which includes military cooperation, strategic pipelines as well extensive trade and investment agreements.

But there is more than meets the eye.

While the US and Israel have for many years contemplated military action (including the preemptive use of nuclear weapons) against Iran, this military agenda –which relied on a longstanding military-intelligence alliance between Israel and Turkey– is currently in jeopardy. And so is Ankara’s  bilateral military alliance with Washington.

The Israel-Turkey alliance which dates back to the Security and Secrecy Agreement (SSA) signed under Turkey’s  Tansu Çiller government in 1993-94 included:

…A 1993 Memorandum of Understanding led to the creation of (Israeli-Turkish) “joint committees” to handle so-called regional threats. Under the terms of the Memorandum, Turkey and Israel agreed “to cooperate in gathering intelligence on Syria, Iran, and Iraq and to meet regularly to share assessments pertaining to terrorism and these countries’ military capabilities.”

“Turkey agreed to allow IDF and Israeli security forces to gather electronic intelligence on Syria and Iran from Turkey. In exchange, Israel assisted in the equipping and training of Turkish forces in anti-terror warfare along the Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian borders.” (see Michel Chossudovsky, 2004)

The SSA agreement was a carefully designed instrument of US foreign policy which set the stage for a firm and close Israel-Turkey relationship in military and intelligence cooperation, joint military exercises, weapons production and training.

Image on the left: Erdogan and Ariel Sharon (2004)

Already during the Clinton Administration, a triangular military alliance between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This “triple alliance”,  dominated by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, integrated and coordinated military command decisions between the three countries pertaining to the broader Middle East. It is based on the close military ties respectively of Israel and Turkey with the US, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara. ….

The triple alliance is also coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement which includes “many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint military exercises. These military cooperation ties with NATO are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, “Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, August 6, 2006)

In 2006,  shortly before Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, the US and Turkey signed a “Shared Vision” (which committed Turkey to supporting Israel). The agreement was:

“characterized by strong bonds of friendship, alliance, mutual trust and unity of vision. We share the same set of values and ideals in our regional and global objectives: the promotion of peace, democracy, freedom and prosperity.”

The bilateral US-Israel and US-Turkey alliance coupled with the Israel-Turkey military and intelligence cooperation agreement as well as the Israel-NATO agreement (2003), constitute the foundations of the US-Israel-Turkey “Triple alliance” or what the Brookings Institute calls the US-Turkey- Israel Triangle.

This triangular structure of alliances is dead much to the detriment of Washington.

In turn,  Turkey wants to acquire Russia’s S-400 air defense system at a cost of 2 billion dollars. In practice, this would mean that Turkey would opt  out of the integrated US-NATO air defense system (which also includes the participation of Israel). In practice this also means that Turkey has “unofficially” chosen NATO-Exit.

Image on the right: Rouhani, Putin, Erdogan

What is unfolding is the building of  a new Triple Entente between Turkey, Iran and Russia. 

At this stage, this Triple Entente goes beyond an “alliance of convenience”. It constitutes a major restructuring of both military and economic alliances.

Who Benefits from Trump’s Foreign Policy Statements? Short-Selling Major Currencies. Insider Trade?

On a related matter, the Trump administration is involved in acts of manipulation on foreign exchange markets with the full support of Wall Street.

What is the consequence of Trump’s statements?

Trigger the collapse of the Turkish Lira, which constitutes a de facto act of financial warfare directed against Turkey.

Those who had advanced knowledge of  Trump’s statements (“inside information”) are making multibillion dollar profits on the foreign exchange markets. (This is an issue for further investigation)

An earlier statement by Trump regarding sanctions directed Russia was conducive to a significant decline in the Russian Ruble.

After two years of denial, evasion and procrastination, this government has finally accepted ultimate responsibility for the atrocity of multiple deaths in Grenfell Tower, North Kensington, West London on 14th June 2017.

The government-controlled fire-regulations to which all buildings in UK have to conform, were such that they allowed the application of fire-accelerant materials to be used on the exterior cladding of residential and other buildings with the result that over 160 high rise tower blocks housing thousands of people still today remain a public safety risk as a result of grossly deficient fire regulations affecting public safety.

The materials used incorporated polymer foams that have been known for decades to be highly dangerous in case of fire in that not only are they fire- accelerants but that they also emit deadly hydrogen-cyanide gas (HCN) which can kill in seconds. All this has been documented for many years worldwide yet the government chose not to prohibit its use. That would appear to be a prima facie case of criminal negligence.

That the same government has today said it will, under public pressure, now fund the remedial work to those 160 buildings still affected, is a belated, overdue admission of negligence. However no one has been prosecuted to date.

*

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

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Britain is denying millions of Venezuelans food and healthcare by blocking access to the South American country’s gold deposits at the Bank of England, says Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza.

Speaking during a visit to Moscow, the Russian capital, Arreaza said Monday that the Bank of England had confiscated over $1.5 billion in Venezuelan overseas gold deposits and refused to return it even though the Latin American country was grappling with food shortages and deteriorating healthcare services.

“In the Bank of England, there are 1359 million euros ($1.52 billion) in Venezuelan gold blocked,” Arreaza told a press conference, noting that the money was for “the health of the people, to feed the people, for production in Venezuela”.

The Venezuelan FM said the Bank of England was only one of the European and international financial institutions that had “confiscated” a total of 5 billion euros in Venezuelan deposits upon an order by US President Donald Trump.

The Trump administration has announced sanctions against the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and blocked the assets of its officials across the world in a bid to channel them to Juan Guaido, the country’s self-proclaimed interim president who has been trying to oust Maduro since his re-election in January.

“These are resources of the Venezuelan people for their food, for their health, for their public services, for their housing, for their infrastructure, it’s criminal what the United States is doing,” said Arreaza.

“When a housewife can’t get a product or it’s more expensive, it’s thanks to the blockade; when a child can’t be operated on, it’s thanks to the blockade,” he added.

London has already expressed support for Guaido.

British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said in late January that tightening economic pressure against Venezuelan “kleptocrats” could force Maduro to accept opposition calls for early elections.

“Targeted sanctions against the kleptocrats who have enriched themselves on the back of the rest of the population who are very poor, that is something I think can be effective,” Hunt said ahead of Brexit meeting with counterparts in the European Union (EU).

Maduro had tried to withdraw the gold in January but the Bank of England rejected the request after extensive lobbying by the US. Guaido has since asked for the funds to be diverted to him instead. According to British media, however, the assets still remain frozen.

Arreaza said Caracas was not sitting idly by and had been seeking help from allies such as China and Russia to create “alternative routes … to bypass the American blockade.”

Russia and China have sent humanitarian aid for Venezuelan people.

Maduro has blamed US sanctions for his country’s woes. Venezuela’s GDP has fallen by around 50 percent since he took over from the late Hugo Chavez in 2013.

Back in March, Maduro accused Washington of using cyberwarfare to cripple the country’s power grid and cause nationwide blackouts that lasted for days.

*

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

US secretary of state Mike Pompeo made a surprise four-hour visit to Baghdad on Tuesday in connection to the panic he is trying to trump up, along with US national security adviser and Sheldon Adelson plant John Bolton about Iran supposedly planning to attack US troops in the Middle East.

For his part, Iraqi prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said in remarks to the press that Iraq will undertake to ensure the safety of the some 5,000 US troops in Iraq, who are helping the Iraqi army mop up ISIL remnants.

At the same time, Abdul Mahdi insisted that Iraq would not participate in any economic boycott of any country, which is to say that he declined to cooperate with the Trump administration’s attempts to squeeze Iran.

Iraqi sources said after the visit was over that Bolton offered to give Iraq a temporary waiver with regard to its trade ties with Iran. He may as well, since he is unlikely to get much cooperation from Shiite-ruled Iraq in the blockade on Iran.

The Trump administration has imposed an international financial blockade on Iran trade, which has no UN backing or basis in international law. Iran is in compliance with its obligations under the 2015 nuclear deal, according to UN inspectors. In contrast, the United States has breached that treaty by its blockade.

Tuesday night I watched Iranian president Hassan Rouhani give a speech in which he said that the 2015 nuclear deal is on life support, and that while Iran is not withdrawing from it, it will cease observing some self-limits it had imposed beyond the strict letter of the treaty. Iran will no longer limit enrichment of uranium to 3.67 percent (what is needed to make fuel for generating electricity). It has to be enriched to 95% for a bomb, but every increase above 3.67 percent is a tiny step toward the latter, and concerning to the world community. Rouhani said that Iran may also renovate the heavy water reactor at Arak. Heavy water reactors are much easier to use to make fissile material than light water reactors. I’m confused by this statement, since I thought bricking in the Arak proposed reactor was one of the four cardinal points of the 2015 nuclear deal.

Rouhani’s plans are foolish, since they just give ammunition to the US War Party, even though they are not steps toward a bomb.

The only two countries in the greater Middle East who actually have nuclear weapons are Israel and Pakistan. Iran does not, and apparently has never intended to develop such weapons, in part on religious grounds.

Pompeo and Bolton have not only claimed credit for sending a US aircraft carrier battle group to the Gulf but they have also sent four B-52 bombers to al-Udeid Air Force Base in Qatar, in hopes of spooking the Iranians into doing something rash so that they can rally the gullible American public to a war on Iran. Qatar has correct relations with Iran, and this move puts Doha in a difficult position. Iran came to Qatar’s aid in 2017 when the Saudis imposed a blockade on it, at a time when Trump was tweeting lies about Qatar and siding with the Saudis.

US intelligence sources leaked to the US press such as The Daily Beast that Bolton and Pompeo are hysterically hyping the intel, which is not as specific or threatening as they are making it out to be.

The practice in journalism is to be cautious about calling people liars, since we cannot know what is in their heads, and what they say may be incorrect but a sincerely held belief. I think George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of that crew used the reluctance of journalists to call them out as liars to political advantage, and it may have helped Bush win a second term.

So let me be clear. Mike Pompeo and John Bolton are known, serial, dedicated liars. Bolton helped lie the US into the Iraq War. Pompeo assiduously lied about the Benghazi affair. Nothing they say about Iran should be given any credence whatsoever.

The American security establishment has seldom actually understood the relationship of Iran to Iraq’s Shiites. For the 8.5 years the Pentagon occupied Iraq, mostly in the Bush era, US government personnel were absolutely convinced that Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr was a cat’s paw for Iran. But the al-Sadrs think of themselves as arch Iraqi nationalists and Muqtada’s father had contested the top clerical post in Iraq with the Iranian Ali Sistani. Muqtada’s followers, poor Iraqis of the cities and the south, deeply resent Iranian influence in Iraq.

On the other hand, al-Sadr is a staunch anti-imperialist, who has said that if the US ever attacked Iran, his followers would defend it. In fact, al-Sadr is upset about the US pressure on Iraq to stop doing business with Iran, and said in late April that if Iraq was going to be put in the middle of Washington and Tehran, it was better that the US embassy be closed and the US kicked out of Iraq.

Muqtada al-Sadr threatens #US embassy in #Iraq saying it must be closed to stop US interference in Iraq or else it will be a target again by the “resistance”. pic.twitter.com/mbZJbPmFRr

— العنــــود (@A_140_) April 27, 2019

Iraq does billions of dollars in trade with Iran and depends on that country for electricity in some provinces.

Al-Sadr’s Sairoun Party has 54 seats in the 329-seat parliament and was a power broker who helped ease the current prime minister, Adel Abdul Mahdi, into power.

Bush’s illegal war of aggression on Iraq is the gift that keeps on giving to the US fascists, since there are ways in which it now sets up Iran for similar treatment. I heard a congressman speaking on tv who had served in Iraq estimate that one-fifth of US troops killed in Iraq were killed by Iran or Iran proxies. That is such a bullshit statistic. There were never any Iranian troops in Iraq in that period, and many US troops who were killed by Shiite militias were killed by Sadrists or radical offshoots of Sadrism, which is to say, by Shiite Iraq nationalists who also disliked Iran (one group burned down the Iranian consulate in Basra). The US military also had this mysterious theory that Iraqi Sunnis could not use shaped charges against US tanks, and tended to count all shaped charge attacks as Iranian, even in al-Anbar province where there are no Shiites to speak of. The US invaded Iraq on the theory that its Sunni-dominated government was 2 years from having a nuclear weapon, but Iraqi Sunnis can’t get up a shaped charge, a technology that goes back to WW II?

Besides, no US troops would have been killed at all if the then president had not given them an illegal order to go occupy somebody else’s country. Using the fact that they faced resistance to this neocolonialism to stage more neocolonialism is fiendishly clever.

The Americans also assumed that Iraqi Shiites voted for fundamentalist parties because of Iranian influence on the elections, but the Da’wa (Islamic Call Party), which generally did well, was a longstanding Iraqi Shiite party representing the professional middle class and which rejected Khomeinism. Iraqis had their own reasons for voting as the did.

Ironically, the Shiite militia that the US generally got along with was the Badr Corps, which is more or less a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

It was pro-Iran Iraqi Shiite militias, helped by small numbers of advisers from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, who did a lot of heavy lifting in defeating ISIL after the US-built Iraqi army collapsed, and it seems clear that despite denials on both sides, the US occasionally gave them air support. But Iran would have a right to be annoyed with the US for policies that led to the rise of ISIL on its borders in the first place.

Bolton and Pompeo and Trump don’t actually know anything about the Middle East nor do they care about the welfare of its people. Bolton and Pompeo are warmongers and like the idea of bullying Iran, and they are also closely tied to the fascist Likud Party in Israel, which has been plumping for a war on Iran for decades. Pompeo is in the back pocket of the Koch brothers Big Oil lobby, which would benefit from higher prices if there is trouble with Iran.

*

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

More than 99.9 percent of people commenting on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposal to reauthorize sodium cyanide in wildlife-killing devices called M-44s support a ban on these “cyanide bombs,” according to an analysis released today.

Cyanide bombs inhumanely and indiscriminately kill thousands of animals every year. The analysis of public comments was done by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Western Environmental Law Center.

Earlier this year, the EPA issued a proposed interim decision renewing sodium cyanide registration for use in M-44s and opened a public comment period. More than 22,400 people submitted comments.

Of those, just 10 submissions asked the EPA to renew its registration of M-44s.

“Cyanide traps are indiscriminate killers that can’t be used safely by anyone, anywhere,” said Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’re fighting for a permanent nationwide ban, which is the only way to protect people, pets and imperiled wildlife from this poison.”

EPA’s registration authorizes use of the deadly devices by Wildlife Services — a secretive wildlife-killing program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture — as well as by state agencies in South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico and Texas.

The devices spray deadly sodium cyanide into the mouths of unsuspecting coyotes, foxes and other carnivores lured by smelly bait. Anything or anyone that pulls on the baited M-44 device can be killed or severely injured by the deadly spray.

M-44s temporarily blinded a child and killed three family dogs in two incidents in Idaho and Wyoming in 2017. A wolf was also accidentally killed by an M-44 set in Oregon that year. In response, Idaho instituted an ongoing moratorium on M-44 use on public lands, and Oregon this week passed legislation banning them in the state.

“It is far past time to eliminate these cruel killing devices altogether,” said Kelly Nokes, Shared Earth wildlife attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center. “M-44s are an inhumane relic of the past and an unnecessary safety risk that have no place on our public landscape in 2019. We call on EPA to revoke its registration of this poison and protect the American public from these barbaric sodium cyanide bombs once and for all.”

According to Wildlife Services’ own data, M-44s killed 13,232 animals, mostly coyotes and foxes, in 2017. Of these, more than 200 deaths were nontarget animals, including a wolf, family dogs, opossums, raccoons, ravens and skunks. These numbers are likely a significant undercount of the true death toll, as Wildlife Services is notorious for poor data collection and an entrenched “shoot, shovel, shut up” mentality.

Background

A bipartisan group of federal lawmakers last week introduced legislation, H.R. 2471 and S. 1301, to ban M-44s nationwide.

In response to a 2017 lawsuit brought by the Center and its allies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to analyze impacts of M-44s on endangered wildlife by the end of 2021. Another 2017 lawsuit by the wildlife advocates prompted Wildlife Services in Colorado to temporarily halt the use of M-44s while it completes a new environmental analysis on its wildlife-killing program.

In November, EPA denied a 2017 petition authored by the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians that asked for a nationwide ban on M-44s.

*

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: Coyote pup photo by Tom Koerner, USFWS.

By May 8, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies had repelled a series of counter-attacks by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham-led forces keeping control of all the positions captured in northwestern Hama. Especially intense clashes took place near Tell Ottman where, according to pro-government sources, the SAA eliminated at least 5 militants.

Despite this, the SAA has not been able to develop on its success and push further into the militant-held area. An initial attempt to advance in the direction of Kafr Nabuda was repelled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its radical counterparts.

In the morning of May 8, the SAA advanced on Kafr Nabuda and entered the village. Clashes are ongoing.

The Damascus government employed only a limited force in this area. This means that the SAA is likely focussing on limited operations to neutralize the militant threat in particular parts of the de-militarized zone rather than undertaking a major advance on Idlib.

If the SAA adopts this kind of strategy, it will likely attempt to pull apart the militants’ strike force in Hama and Idlib through a series of tactical advances and to make gains in areas where their defense is weakened.

Meanwhile in northeastern Syria, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have continued their steady operations against existing ISIS cells on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. The SDF is also working to strengthen its positions on the contact line with the government-controlled area. After the collapse of Trump’s determination to withdraw US forces from the country, the US-backed group once again believes in its ability to establish a pseudo-state under Washington’s protection in this part of Syria.

US-Iranian tensions are growing amid speculations by mainstream media outlets that Iran is preparing to strike US troops deployed in the Middle East. Security Adviser John Bolton also announced that the US is deploying a carrier strike group and a strategic bomber task force to “deter” Iran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif denounced this behavior saying that “If US and clients don’t feel safe, it’s because they’re despised by the people of the region” and “blaming Iran” will not help with this.

*

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

The Following text is Section 13 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. The United States announced in February 2019 the “suspension” of the INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) with Russia and the intention to leave it definitively within six months. They therefore feel free to test and deploy weapons of the category prohibited by the Treaty: short-range and intermediate range nuclear missiles (between 500 and 5500 km), based on land. The Pershing 2 and the Cruise deployed in the 1980s by the USA in European NATO countries and the SS-20 deployed by the USSR on their territory were eliminated by the Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) signed in 1987 by Presidents Gorbachev and Reagan.

2. The INF Treaty was challenged by Washington when the United States saw their strategic advantage over Russia and China diminish. In 2014, the Obama administration accused Russia, without bringing any evidence, of having tested a cruise missile of the category prohibited by the Treaty and, in 2015, announced that “faced with the violation of the INF Treaty by Russia, the United States is considering the deployment of ground-based missiles in Europe”. The plan was carried out by the Trump administration. In 2018, Congress authorized the financing of “a research and development program for a cruise missile launched from the ground by a road-based mobile platform”. For its part, Moscow denied that its cruise missile violated the treaty and, in turn, accused Washington of having installed interceptor missile launchers (those of the “shield”) in Poland and Romania, which can be used to launch nuclear warhead cruise missiles.

3. In this context, the geographical factor must be kept in mind: while a US intermediate-range nuclear missile, deployed in Europe, may hit Moscow, a similar missile deployed by Russia on its territory may hit European capitals, but not Washington. Reversing the scenario, it is as if Russia deployed its intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Mexico.

4. The US plan to scuttle the INF Treaty was fully supported by NATO’s European allies. The North Atlantic Council declared in December 2018 that “the INF Treaty was in danger due to the actions of Russia”, which was accused of deploying “a destabilizing missile system”. The North Atlantic Council itself declared in February 2019 its “full support for the United States’ action to suspend its obligations with respect to the INF Treaty” and urged Russia to “use the remaining six months to return to full compliance with the Treaty”.

5. The European Union also contributed to the collapse of the INF Treaty. At the United Nations General Assembly in December 2018, the EU voted against the resolution presented by Russia on the “preservation and observance of the INF Treaty”. It was rejected with 46 votes against 43 and 78 abstentions. The European Union – of which 21 of the 27 members are part of NATO (as is Great Britain even after leaving the EU) – thus conforms totally to the position of NATO, which in turn conforms to that of the United States. In essence, therefore, even the European Union has given green light to the possible installation of new US nuclear missiles in Europe, including Italy.

6. The warning issued by President Vladimir Putin in February 2019 was once again ignored: “Russia will be forced to create and deploy weapons systems that can be used not only against the territories from which this direct threat originates, but also against those territories where the decision-making centers are located from which the order to use these weapons against us can come ”. In other words, if the US deploys intermediate-range nuclear missiles aimed at Russia in Europe, Russia will deploy nuclear missiles aimed at European territories where US missiles are deployed and, at the same time, against US territories where the command and control centers for these missiles are located.

*

Sections 14-16 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.

Featured image is from InfoRos

Americans are sick of fighting a 20-year war against an undefined enemy they can’t seem to beat. With morale and recruitment scraping bottom, the world’s best-funded military reckons that, if it can’t win, it can at least look like a winner.

The US Army looked to World War II, the last war the US could decisively be said to have “won,” for inspiration when designing its new service uniform to invoke “the most prominent time the Army’s service to our nation was universally recognized,” as sergeant major Daniel Dailey, the Army’s highest-ranking enlisted soldier, told the New York Times. But the specter of World War II – when Americans were hailed as “the good guys” – was conjured up long before the military decided to reenact its golden age through cosplay. Indeed, the US has been borrowing from the WWII playbook since before the War on Terror officially began.

Like WWII, the US’ forever-war, which has long since spilled beyond the Middle East, is being fought on multiple fronts against countries that, left alone, would pose no threat to the US. In both cases, the American people had to be tricked into supporting long, bloody, expensive conflicts that served little strategic purpose for the US – but strongly benefited their allies.

Neocon think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC) infamously called for a “new Pearl Harbor” to advance its foreign policy goals, and the attacks of September 11 were used to shred the Constitution and pitch the country headlong into nearly two decades of unparalleled destruction, destabilizing the Middle East for generations and bankrupting the US. Neither attack happened without plenty of warning, however, and both were arguably permitted – if not encouraged – to take place in order to manufacture consent for extremely unpopular wars.

With the US barely out of World War I, President Franklin Roosevelt faced a population 80 to 90 percent opposed to entering another global conflict; he even ran on the promise that “your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” Not only did Roosevelt deliberately place the US’ Pacific fleet in harm’s way by anchoring it in Pearl Harbor against the advice of fleet commander Admiral James Richardson; he relieved Richardson of his command for complaining, reportedly telling him “Sooner or later the Japanese will commit an overt act against the United States and the nation will be willing to enter the war.” US military intelligence, which had cracked the Japanese encryption codes, intercepted radio messages indicating Japan planned to attack Hawaii. The attack was allowed to happen, and overnight, a population allergic to war was baying for Japanese blood.

Several government agents, including FBI Minneapolis field office chief counsel Coleen Rowley and FBI Special Agent Robert Wright, came forward before September 11, troubled by evidence that seemed to point to a foreign group planning an attack on American soil. Saudi nationals conspicuously training at flight schools and Israeli “art students” probing security vulnerabilities in government buildings set off alarms in government agencies all over the country.  But the administration of President George W. Bush, packed with PNAC alumni, ignored and even punished these whistleblowers. The Twin Towers were destroyed, the PATRIOT Act (pre-written and ready to go) was rammed through a docile Congress and, less than a month later, according to General Wesley Clark, the decision to invade Iraq had been made, even as hostilities had barely commenced in Afghanistan. Clark was told of a classified memo from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that described how “We’re going to take out seven countries in five years,” and while their timetable is a little behind, Iran is the only country on that list where the US and its allies haven’t attempted a regime change.

It’s worth looking at what triggered the Pearl Harbor attack, because it is happening again. When Japan refused to pull its forces out of China, the US imposed an oil embargo on Japan, cutting the nation off from 80 percent of its oil supply and leaving it no choice but to seek fuel elsewhere. The closest oil was in then-Dutch Indonesia, but US-controlled Philippines physically barred the way. The US had thus almost guaranteed Japan would have to attack the US, allowing Washington to enter the war with the American people’s approval in order to fight Germany, whom Roosevelt perceived as the “real” enemy.

The US has imposed the strictest sanctions on Iran yet, repealing the last waivers last week in the hope of forcing the country into a similarly suicidal act. Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if it is blocked from using the waterway, which sees 20 percent of the world’s oil traffic. US officials have deemed such a move “unacceptable,” suggesting massive retaliation would follow, and a US carrier strike group is on its way to the region, supposedly acting on a “credible threat” that Iran plans to target US interests. Regardless of who fires the first shot – and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has warned Trump a false flag attack is extremely likely – war with Iran would be the result, and Americans would be cheering it on. The question is not if, but when.

War with Iran wouldn’t benefit the US at all – a 2002 Pentagon wargame simulation has even indicated the US would lose. But Iran is the strongest enemy of Israel left standing, and Trump’s inner circle – like the neocons at PNAC (whose members included John Bolton) – has made it clear where his priorities lie. Just as laying waste to Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen only created an endless supply of enemies for the US while crossing Israel’s regional rivals off the list, attempting to destroy Iran will have devastating repercussions for the US while ensuring no one is left to challenge Israel’s regional dominance. It is no coincidence that the intel suggesting Iran was plotting an attack on American targets in the Middle East – the tip that triggered the deployment of the carrier strike group Abraham Lincoln to the region last month – came from the Mossad, the Israeli intel agency whose motto is “by deception, thou shalt do war.” Israel has been lying about Iran’s ambitions for decades. In the same way, Britain, not the US, stood to benefit from the US attacking Germany in WWII. While the US did eventually profit from Germany’s defeat, splitting a destroyed Europe with the Soviets, Britain needed US intervention if it hoped to survive at all.

World War II was a golden era for propagandists on both sides, and the US’ reliance on the art has only grown since the days when buck-toothed racist Japanese caricatures spoke to American civilians in broken English: “Please, take day off!” Hitler remains the exemplar of evil in the American mind only because history is written by the victors – Stalin, whose body count was significantly greater, was cast as kindly Uncle Joe, until the military-industrial complex required a new enemy to maintain military spending levels and the Soviet Union was transformed from powerful friend into formidable foe. Anti-Nazi propaganda has flourished since the war’s end, with lurid tales of lampshades and soap made from concentration camp victims, and “Nazi” itself has become shorthand for anyone we disagree with politically.

Americans are told again and again that military intervention is the only way to “save” the people of Libya, Syria, or Iraq, especially their women and children. While Libya may have taken the cake for most bizarre propaganda narrative yet, with stories that Muammar Gaddafi was doling out Viagra to his soldiers to ensure they were at the top of their rape game, the terrorist White Helmets in Syria won an Oscar for their convincing portrayal of a noble civil defense force, convincing the folks back home that Bashar Assad was a gas-happy monster instead of the cosmopolitan statesman who’d received the French Medal of Honor just a few years before.

An important part of both eras’ successful propaganda campaigns was bringing the war closer to home. Most Americans couldn’t care less about what is happening halfway around the world, no matter how many babies are supposedly being thrown into ovens or out of incubators. During WWII, this was accomplished with a speculative story in Life magazine on how the Nazis might invade the US. One of the routes took the Nazis up through Mexico. The narrative hasn’t changed much since then, except now it’s ISIS camped out at the border, lustily eyeing our “freedoms.”

Trump isn’t the only American aware that the US is no longer “winning.” But enacting the rituals of the last time it tasted victory is not going to catapult the world back into the golden age of the American empire. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it – worse, they are doomed to think repeating it is a good idea.

*

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.

Featured image is from Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

On February 2nd, 1943, the 6th German Army, under the command of Field Marshall Von Paulus, and elements of the 4th Panzer Army, surrendered to the Red Army at Stalingrad. This stunning victory is considered the turning point in the war in Europe, heralding the defeat of fascist Germany.

That defeat came on May 2nd 1945, when the German forces in Berlin, the capital of the Third Reich, surrendered to the forces of the Red Army that had captured the city. On May 9th the official act of surrender of the German government and military forces took place in Berlin when the Germans surrendered to the Soviet commander, Marshal Zhukov, a surrender witnessed by representatives of the American, British and French forces. This was the end of the war in Europe.

Surrenders of elements of the German armies in the Italy and Austria on May 2nd and German forces in northern Europe, on May 7th, at first claimed by the western allies to be the official surrender of Germany, were not recognised as such by the Soviet government, since they were in violation of the agreement of the European Advisory Committee of the three Big Powers, that was finalised in March, 1944. That agreement required that the surrender would be one event, would be of the German government itself, not just of army elements in impossible positions, and was to take place at the seat of government from which German aggression had been launched, Berlin.

The Soviet Flag over the Reichstag photograph, taken during the Battle of Berlin on 2 May 1945 (CC BY 4.0)

The western allies had no choice but to agree, and to regard the May 9th ceremony as the official act of surrender of the German government. But it was clear even then that the western allies had tried to arrange a separate peace with the Germans while the Soviets were still fighting and it was made very clear that the Americans and British wanted to steal the show from the Russians. Now 70 years later, the propaganda machine in the west once again claims that the earlier date was the end of the war in Europe.

It is well to remember the significance of this attempt by the Americans and British to conclude a separate peace with the Nazis, while Soviet forces were still engaged in the fierce Battle of Berlin and what a betrayal it was of the promised solidarity between the nations fighting against fascist aggression to which the Soviet forces at Stalingrad had dealt the fatal blow.

During one of his fireside chats on American radio on July 28, 1943, American President Roosevelt said,

“The world has never seen greater devotion, determination and self-sacrifice than have been displayed by the Russian people…under the leadership of Marshal Joseph Stalin. With a nation, that in saving itself, is thereby helping to save all the world from the Nazi menace, this country of ours should always be glad to be a good neighbour and a sincere friend to the world of the future.”

Fine words, and true, but where is the good neighbour now?

Instead of international solidarity between the victors and recognition of the sacrifice of the Russian people that Roosevelt praised, the NATO countries now refuse to attend the Moscow Victory Parade commemorating the defeat of Nazi Germany. But why do they insult the one nation that suffered the most, sacrificed the most, fought the hardest and won the greatest victories against the fascists? Is it really about Ukraine? The answer is simply that they see the defeat of fascist Germany not as a victory over fascism but as a failure of the western attempt to crush Russia.

We must also remember that NATO includes the occupied German state whose forces attacked the Soviet Union on June 22nd 1941, a state that still has no sovereignty and is still occupied by American forces two decades after Russian forces left, and whose leaders, now revealed as permitting American intelligence to spy on German companies for economic advantage, are evidently in the pocket of the American government.

It includes Britain, whose war time leader, Winston Churchill, echoing public calls by American General Patton, proposed an attack on the Soviet forces in Europe to take place in July 1945, using combined American-British-Canadian forces as well as the remaining German armies. The plan even included the use of nuclear weapons. It was called Operation Unthinkable, but it was clearly very thinkable and was a plan to pick up where the Nazis had failed, to subjugate Russia, and was only shelved when analysis proved that Soviet forces were too strong to overcome.

It is clear that the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the nuclear attacks on Japan, in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were incinerated by the Americans and British, were meant as demonstrations to the Soviet Union of their power, as an attempt to intimidate and subdue their supposed ally before the war with Germany was even concluded. The threat of a continued world war against Russia was made with the attacks on those defenceless cities. But with Operation Unthinkable put on hold and the formation of the Warsaw Pact as a defense against the NATO threat, the war against Russia was continued using other means and came to be called the Cold War, a political euphemism, since Soviet forces fought against the NATO allies directly in Korea and Vietnam and by proxies in many countries seeking liberation from western colonialism in Asia, Africa and Afghanistan.

We must also remember that in 1939, when Hitler attacked Poland, both Britain and France reneged on their promise to Poland to defend it in the event of an attack by Germany because they wanted German forces to be able to move right up to the borders of the Soviet Union to make it easier for Germany to launch its invasion of Russia just two years later. The so-called phony war after the fall of Poland until the May, 1940 German attack on France, gave crucial time to Germany to advance its plans to attack Russia.

The entire focus of the NATO alliance, formed immediately after the defeat of Germany, has been on war with Russia and, since the fall of the Soviet Union and the weakening of Russian power, the NATO alliance has steadily advanced its attack position with a series of wars from Yugoslavia to Georgia and Ukraine, from Chechnya to Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan, all designed to eliminate Russian allies and to put NATO forces right up against Russian territory on its southern and western flanks.

In a document known as the Atlantic Charter, drafted on a battleship off the coast of Newfoundland in the middle of 1941, the Americans and British promised that the goals of the world war were not to increase their territories, but to guarantee the self-government of peoples, free trade, global cooperation to secure better economic and social conditions for all, freedom from fear and want, freedom of the seas and abandonment of the use of force as an instrument of policy, and disarmament. The Soviet Union adhered to these principles in the January 1, 1942 Declaration of the United Nations.

But aside from the relentless forcing of “free trade” treaties down workers throats across the world, which really means the freedom to exploit workers everywhere for the profit of a few corporations, the western signatories have violated every one of the clauses in the Atlantic Charter document.

The world was assured that there would be peace but they have given us nothing but 70 years of war. They promised us freedom from want but have relentlessly tried to destroy any government that protects the rights of workers, and poverty has increased dramatically in every western country since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Nations that were promised liberation at the end of the world war, had to fight these same powers to attain that justice. Some like China and Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea, succeeded after long and bitter fighting, while the struggles of many others were crushed or subverted.

In Ukraine now we are witnessing a national army and formations of outright fascist militias, the new SS, firing on, and shelling fellow citizens who protest the lack of legality of the government and the American agenda of using it as a base to attack Russia. The interests of the War Party in the west prevail over the basic demands of their peoples for social and economic justice, and freedom from fear and war.

The whole world owes the peoples of the Soviet Union, of the Russian Federation, a debt that can never be repaid for their defeat of fascism in Europe. They suffered the heaviest losses, the most destruction, the heaviest burden of fighting the Nazi war machine.

The refusal of NATO leaders to attend the Moscow ceremonies on May 9th is an insult to history, to the sacrifices of scores of millions of Russians, and is tantamount to a repudiation of the principles of the Atlantic Charter and the Charter of the United Nations. But it is more than that. It is proof, if ever it was needed, that the main objective of the world war in Europe was the crushing of Russia for the benefit of the three powers, the USA, Britain and Germany. While scrapping among themselves to see who would be top dog on the world street, they were united in their desire to subdue Russia to their will. This objective was long held in check by Soviet power. The fall of the Soviet Union and its replacement by a government initially composed of compradors for the west gave the Americans and their allies the impression that they had succeeded in bringing Russia under their complete domination. But the rise of new leaders in Russia, reinvigorating Russian sovereignty and reviving Russian power and prestige in the world has angered these wolves of war who now circle, and harass, waiting for the opportunity to strike.

*

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 a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and he is known for a number of high-profile cases involving human rights and war crimes, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

After the new coup attempt – or propaganda coup – Venezuela lives in a state of foreign imposed insecurity. The failed coup was executed on 30 April by Juan Guaidó, the self-proclaimed and Washington-trained and endorsed “interim President”, and the opposition leader, Leopoldo López, who was hurriedly freed from house arrest by Guaidó with a couple of dozens of armed-to-the-teeth defecting military, who apparently didn’t quite know what they were up to. Because, when all was over after a few hours, most of them asked to be re-integrated into their military units – and, as far as I know, they were readmitted.

These are Washington’s puppets and “coup-makers”. When one sees that the so-called coup was defeated in a mere few hours, without any Venezuelan military interference, one wonders whether this was really planned as a coup, or merely as a “public relations” coup, for the media to ‘recharge’ their narrative of Maduro dictatorship, of a suffering people, of famine, of lack of medication and medical supply – all due to the Maduro government’s mismanagement of Venezuela’s natural riches, the lie-slander we have been used to for the last several years.

For sure, the Venezuelan people are suffering. According to a CEPR report (see this) sanctions have killed some 40,000 Venezuelans. And this, not because of President Maduro’s squandering of Venezuelan resources, but because of a brutal, merciless outside interference, principally from the United States and to a lesser degree from Washington’s European vassals. If you listen to the ceaseless drumbeat for war against Venezuela and her democratically elected President Nicolas Maduro, by Pompeo, Bolton, Pence and Trump – you can only wonder and shake your head – what pathological and schizophrenic world we are living in? – And – are we all sick to the bone, that we tolerate it, that nobody of and in power – other than Russia and China – say ‘Halt’ to this deadly fiasco?

This article by Eric Zuesse, including leaked documents from Pentagon’s southern command, SOUTHCOM, will give the non-believers plenty of reasons to change their minds. See this.

Western humanity has reached an abject state of mental disease. We allow the slaughter of tens of millions of people by the United States and its NATO allies, in US-provoked wars and conflicts around the world, indiscriminate killing for resources and monetary dominion. But we follow the same killer nation in accusing a quiet, peace-loving, fully democratic country, like Venezuela, to be utterly trampled on and punished with the most horrific monetary and economic sanctions – all illegal, by any standards of law – and our western “leaders” know it all.

These western heads of state and their chosen minions do not have the guts or political courage to say ‘STOP’. They could, if they had any conscience left. These so-called leaders (sic) of vassal states, they have it all in their sovereign power – they could together decide that enough is enough, separate themselves from the Washington horrors and form a real European Union, a union to say no to the tyrant, a union that is capable of calling its own sovereign shots – decide its own destiny, a destiny of alliance with peaceful countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China, Iran and more – basically all those that have decided not to bend to the dictate of Washington.

Why don’t they? Have they been bought, or received death threats if they dare to deviate? – All is possible – even likely, because it is unfathomable that the leaders, the political heads of all those 28 EU countries are hell-bent to believe the lies being propagated day-in and day-out, drip-by-miserable drip. It is not possible.

Back to Venezuela.

The western public at large must never be too long without devastating smear-news about a regime the empire wants to “change”. It is clear that the nefarious pair in Venezuela, Guaidó-López, followed strict Washington instructions. Guaidó would never dare doing anything without prior approval and directives from his masters in Washington.

Despite threats after pompous threats and false accusations and failed coup attempts, President Maduro holds on to a solid backing of six million voters who supported him, more than two thirds of those who went to the ballots, on 20 May 2018. He also has the solid support of the military, who have a revolutionary integrity and conscience unknown to the west. And not least, he has the support of Venezuela’s solid allies, Russia and China.

Nevertheless, the United States will not let go. Why do they risk everything – even a devastating war?

Well, there are several reasons. First you may think, “It’s the Oil, stupid!” – And second, the turbo-capitalist, neoliberal turning-to-neofascist US will not tolerate a socialist state in what they still consider their ‘backyard’. – Well, all of this is true. Venezuela has indeed the world’s largest hydrocarbon reserves – and it is conveniently close to The US’s Texas refineries.

However, the key reason for Washington forcing ‘regime change’ is that Venezuela has stopped selling her hydrocarbon in US dollars, and, may therefore become a risk for the US-dollar hegemony around the globe. That is a punishable violation for the empire. At least two heads of state were assassinated because they dared abandoning the unwritten and unlawful, but nevertheless US-imposed rule to sell their oil and gas in US-dollars, Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi. Both had started trading their oil in other than US-dollar currencies – and were strong advocates for others to do likewise.

Some three years ago, Venezuela started selling her oil and gas in other currencies than the US-dollar, a cardinal sin.

Global dollar hegemony, meaning the full control of economies throughout the globe – a control that is rapidly fading – can only be maintained by a world flooded by dollars and with a monetary system that is entirely controlled by the FED and its associated American banks, by an international transfer system, SWIFT, that channels every dollar to be moved between countries, whether it is the US or any other country – through a US bank, in either New York or London. That still being the case, the US dollar remains the key reserve currency in the world, though rapidly fading. And second, through the obligatory trading of a commodities – like hydrocarbon energy – ONLY in US-dollars. The latter also allows the empire to print as many dollars as it needs to keep the world economy under control – and punish those that do not want to bend to Washington’s rule, with sanctions and confiscation of assets abroad, because — all transactions are controlled by the US banking system.

First, the dollar as a reserve currency, is fading rapidly, as ever fewer countries entrust their reserves to a largely recognized ‘fake’, fiat and debt-based currency, the US-dollar. They convert their dollar reserve holdings gradually into other assets, i.e. gold, or the Chinese Yuan which has become high in demand over the last few years. Logically, because China is already known as the undisputable strongest economy in the world, hence, the Chinese currency has a special reserve standing. However, the mainstream media do not report on this.

Second, with a growing number of countries that do no longer respect the Washington imposed US-dollar rule for hydrocarbon trading – the demand for dollars decreases rapidly – a direct confrontation to the United States’ dollar hegemony over the world. Russia and China have years ago stopped trading in US dollars, not only hydrocarbons, but everything. India and Iran have started doing the same. Other countries will follow – and Venezuela, one of the vanguards with the world’s largest oil reserves – should, therefore, not be allowed to become a model for other nations. The Trump Administration and its Wall Street masters will do what it takes to stop Venezuela from abandoning the dollar.

Hence, regime change and taking over the vast oil assets is of the order – with war, if necessary – “all options are on the table” – all under the blatantly fakest pretexts of “humanitarian intervention” and bringing back democracy – when the world knows that anywhere the US intervenes, democracy is abolished. In fact, what the US has managed – and wantonly so – is kill any democracy that ever existed.

Under these circumstances, Venezuela’s transgression in shedding the dollar for oil trading – and for trading in general – amounts to a serious threat to the dollar hegemony and must be suffocated. That’s what these coup attempts are all about. If they succeed, the dollar-currency collapse could be postponed for a bit, and taking possession of the oil reserves would be the icing on the cake.

What’s left after the dollar dominance over the world is gone, once the key tool, economic sanctions, for manipulating nations into doing the bidding of the emperor is no longer effective? – A broken US economy, one that already today depends heavily on the war and weapons industry – in fact, for over 50% of US GDP, when all associated manufacturing and services are counted. What’s left is the overwhelming firepower of that belligerent warmongering and war-dependent nation, with which the US and NATO could pull the rest of the world into oblivion.

That’s what’s at stake with any nation that wants to kick the petro-dollar. Also, Iran, of course. But both Iran and Venezuela have strong protection from Russia and China – two countries that freed themselves from the fangs of the dollar system years ago. And they are offering a bright future with viable Eastern monetary alternatives, mostly based on the Chinese Yuan and other currencies linked to SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) members.

Venezuela – 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.

Featured image is from Prensa Latina

A multilateral military treaty between Honduras, Israel, and the United States will see the deployment of 1000 Israeli soldiers at Honduras. They will train the Armed Forces of Honduras (FFAA) and National Police (PN).

The main mission of the troops is to train for border protection to stop migrants fleeing Honduras to the U.S., especially children.

This would be the second time that Honduras is allowing foreign military personnel in the territory and the first time in Israel’s history to send troops abroad.

Apart from border protection, fight against drug trafficking, investigation, and counterterrorism will be offered as well.

According to local news media El Heraldo, the presence of Israeli soldiers is part of bilateral cooperation between the two countries before Honduras transferred its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The Israeli army will share space with the Joint Task Force-Bravo (FTCB) of the U.S. at the Jose Enrique Soto Cano air base in Palmerola.

Honduras also has an agreement of more than a million dollars with Israel in terms of purchasing arms, military equipment, and repowering ships and planes. The 10-year agreement was signed in 2016.

The military training agreement was joined by the U.S. because they have a permanent military base in Palmerola and want Honduras to guard their borders due to an upsurge of migrants going towards the North American nation.

The agreement was discussed between Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during the inauguration of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.

*

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 Digital Journal

As it becomes clear that the Trump Administration support, so far unsuccessful, for regime change in Venezuela is also very much about targeting the huge financial presence of China with the Maduro government, recent news of a major Chinese oil success in Cuban waters will clearly deepen the geopolitical tensions. And it involves not only Venezuela, Guyana and Brazil.

China’s major state-owned oil company, CNPC, through its subsidiary, Great Wall Drilling, has begun exploring for oil off Cuba’s coast in a joint venture with state-owned oil firm Cuba Petroleum Company (CUPET), according to an April 16 report in the China state news agency, Xinhua. Great Wall has been engaged in oil exploration in Cuba since 2005, but this is the most promising result to date. Advanced drilling technology from CNPC has opened the prospect of major oil off Cuba for the first time.

The news comes as Washington sanctions target Venezuela oil earnings and also its agreements to supply Cuba with low cost oil. While the Maduro government continues to insist it will deliver oil to Cuba despite sanctions, clearly the security of supply is becoming riskier and supply less.

On April 21 US National Security Adviser John Bolton announced that Washington will use a heretofore unused sanction law that allows legal action in US courts to sue foreigners using property seized by the communist regime. While it’s not clear how hard that will hit Cuba, it will clearly chill foreign companies looking to invest in Cuba.

Cuba is well-known to have provided large-scale military assistance as well as thousands of Cuban doctors and medical personnel to support the Maduro presidency in Venezuela. What is less well-known and perhaps an unspoken motive behind the Bolton declaration is the presence of China in both countries.

China presence in Cuba

Details of Chinese loans to the Cuban economy are classified state secret and not disclosed. Clearly though, Beijing has quietly been increasing its presence in the Caribbean island, a country which during the Cold War Fidel Castro era had become a close ally of the Soviets, putting them then at odds with China. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, despite several attempts by Russian companies such as Norilsk Nickel to gain a presence in Cuba again, financial restraints have hindered any strong new Russian presence.

China appears to have no such problems, and has been investing in a number of key areas in Cuba’s liberalizing economy. Since Cuba trade liberalizations over the past two years, China has sold Yutong buses, Sinotruk trucks, YTO tractors, Geely cars, Haier domestic appliances to Cuba along with 100 railroad locomotives.

Huawei is building internet hotspots on the island and discussions are underway, though with no result to date, for $600 million Chinese investment in a China-Cuban joint venture at the Las Camariocas Cuban nickel processing plant that was left unfinished by the Soviets. Cuba has the world’s third-largest nickel reserves. In 2017 Haier opened a Cuban computer assembly plant with an annual capacity of 120,000 laptops and tablets and a ship container terminal Santiago de Cuba, financed by a $120 million Chinese development loan.

Currently Beijing is Cuba’s largest trading partner and Havana’s largest creditor, with Cuba importing major supplies of Chinese rice, along with thousands of China tourists, a business that brings Cuba an estimated $2 billion annually. Sugar and nickel are the two major Cuban products sent to China amid a trade imbalance in China’s favor.

If China now develops major offshore oil resources in Cuba, their presence will significantly increase and the decline of Venezuelan oil to Cuba as a kind of barter payment for the military and medical and other support, will be eased. Until now Russia’s Rosneft has filled the oil import gap for Cuba.

A Chinese Caribbean?

China is well-established as the major foreign creditor as well to Venezuela with some estimates putting their debt as high as $61 billion. Venezuelan oil is clearly at the heart of the relationship, but there are indications Chinese companies also are looking to exploit untapped gold and coltan resources there. Since the Washington declarations in support of Guaido, China has been unusually outspoken in defense of Maduro, unusual for a state that claims never to involve in local politics.

With details of the extent of Chinese investments in Venezuela not fully clear, China has also made a major presence in neighboring Guyana, since 2018 officially welcoming the small former British colony to join the Belt, Road Initiative, sometimes called China’s New Economic Silk Road. That is indeed far away from an original Beijing infrastructure project, first unveiled by Xi Jinping in Kazakhstan in 2013 that proposed to link all Eurasia from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic in a dual network of deep-water container ports and high-speed railways. As it unfolds, the China BRI clearly is developing global perspective, and this is clearly beginning to unsettle some in Washington.

In Guyana Chinese companies and Chinese money are presently building a highway link from Manaus in Northern Brazil through Guyana, giving Brazil far more efficient access to the Panama Canal, cutting thousands of miles off the shipping route. Talks are reportedly also underway for China to build a deep-water port in Guyana’s northern coast to link to China’s highway to the Brazil Amazon region bordering Venezuela, with its vast untapped mineral riches. People in Guyana say the road-port will benefit China far more than Guyana. In any case, it would enable efficient ship transport from the Amazon through the Panama Canal to China.

And Panama…

If we add to the quiet but growing Chinese economic presence in Cuba, Venezuela and Guyana, the recent actions of Beijing in the strategic Panama Canal it begins to explain part of Washington’s growing alarm over developments in Venezuela and Cuba.

In 2016 China’s Landbridge Group bought Panama’s Margarita Island Port in the Colón Free Trade Zone, the largest port, on the canal’s Atlantic side, giving the Chinese company intimate access to one of the most important goods distribution centers in the world. They have made major expansion since using by state-owned China Communication Construction Corp., today the world’s largest infrastructure and engineering company.

Already in 1997 China’s Hutchinson Whampoa took control of the American-constructed ports of Balboa and Cristobal in a 50-year contract. Today Hutchison Whampoa is owned by Cheung Kong Holdings of the family of Chinese billionaire Li Ka Shing.

In 2017, Panama delivered a shock to Taiwan, and to Washington, and withdrew its earlier recognition of Taiwan in favor of Beijing. In early April, this year Panama’s President Juan Carlos Varela was in China to discuss formally joining the China BRI. In December, 2018 China’s Xi Jinping paid an official visit to Panama as well. Beijing has put Panama high on its priority list. Chinese goods are the second in volume to those of the USA going through the canal.

In addition to Chinese ownership of vital Panama container ports such as Margarita Island Port, China is proposing to build a $4.1 billion 243-mile high-speed rail line from Panama City to its border with Costa Rica —under the rubric of the Belt and Road.

As these relationships develop, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has said he is considering joining Belt and Road.

In this strategic setting, it becomes clearer why Washington is beginning to react more strongly in its backyard, Central America, by invoking the 19th Century Monroe Doctrine, a de facto empty shell of rhetoric. What is desperately lacking is a series of positive economic initiatives from Washington to provide the means to help those countries develop critical infrastructure across Central and South America, a stark departure from earlier Gunboat Diplomacy. Were that to begin, the climate in the region could become much more friendly to cooperation 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.

National Security Advisor John Bolton, aided by his comrade-in-arms Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is doing everything possible to instigate a war with Iran. Naked aggression as a means of starting such a war may be too much for even Bolton to pull off, so the strategy has been to try to pressure and goad Iran into doing something—anything—that could be construed as a casus belli. So far, no doubt to Bolton’s frustration, Iran has exercised remarkable restraint in the face of unrelenting and escalating hostility from the Trump administration. Iran even continues to comply with its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the agreement that restricted Iran’s nuclear program, despite the U.S. reneging on the agreement and the resulting absence of economic improvement for Iran that was part of the deal. But Bolton keeps searching for still more ways to goad and to pressure.

One of the most recent ways is a twist on the ever-expanding U.S. sanctions against Iran, the main effects of which so far have been to make life for ordinary Iranians more uncomfortable and to poison relations with U.S. allies and other states doing ordinary business with Iran. The twist—and another U.S. violation of the JCPOA and of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231—is to sanction anyone who, in compliance with the terms of the JCPOA and Resolution 2231, imports any heavy water or low-enriched uranium from Iran, thereby keeping Iran’s own stocks of these materials under the agreed limits. The U.S. move is a way of pressuring Iran into exceeding those limits and violating the agreement. The move shows that the campaign of goading Iran is taking precedence over even the nonproliferation objective of keeping the Iranian nuclear program peaceful through the enforcement of strict limits.

Unsheathing the Saber

The very latest escalation in the campaign is a saber-rattling statement that Bolton issued over the weekend: “In response to a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings,” the United States is deploying a carrier strike group and bomber task force to the region “to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.” The statement was issued in the name of Bolton himself, making the origin clear. No explanation or details have been given about the supposed “troubling and escalatory indications and warnings,” and nothing in the news suggests any heightened Iranian interest in attacking U.S. interests or attacking anyone else, for that matter. The phrasing of the statement is more of the obscurantist rhetoric of the “malign, nefarious, destabilizing behavior” variety that has become an anti-Iran mantra but almost never gets to specifics.

Follow-up comments suggest that Bolton’s move does not respond to any specific Iranian threat. One report, sourced to Israeli officials, indicates that Israel was the origin of whatever information was involved but that the information was “not very specific” and, in the words of an Israeli official, “It is still unclear to us what the Iranians are trying to do and how they are planning to do it.” A Reuters report quotes a U.S. official as saying that the U.S. deployment, given the already high tensions between Washington and Tehran, was made “as a deterrence to what has been seen as potential preparations by Iranian forces and its proxies that may indicate possible attacks on U.S. forces in the region.” The official said that the United States was not expecting any imminent attack and cited no specific Iranian activities that raised any new concerns. If the Iranians have been making preparations for possible military action, that would be only prudent on their part given all the threats they have been hearing from Washington.

The administration’s rhetoric about Iranian conduct has been internally inconsistent. When Pompeo or President Trump wants to argue that all those U.S. sanctions have been successful even though they have not brought Iran an inch closer to a negotiating table, they contend that they have curbed bad Iranian behavior in the Middle East. But when Bolton wants to heat up the war fever, the contention is the opposite—that Iranian behavior is worse than ever. In fact, the nature and tempo of Iranian regional activity have not changed appreciably, one way or another, in the last couple of years. The Iranians do what they do in the region for what they consider to be reasons important to their security, and they do not ramp that activity up or down in response to the state of their nation’s economy. What they are doing now is basically the same as what they have been doing for some time.

The language in Bolton’s statement about interests “of our allies,” as well as a later reference in the statement to how the United States would respond to actions “by proxy” as well as by Iran itself, is an open invitation to Iran’s regional rivals to generate some incident that could spark a war. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates once observed, the Saudis “want to fight the Iranians to the last American.” Something similar could be said about the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, who has made hostility toward Iran a hallmark of his premiership and the all-purpose distraction from things he would rather not talk about. A shooting war between Iran and the United States would be the best distraction of all.

The opportunities for the regional rivals to ignite a spark are numerous and easy to imagine, ranging from a sophisticated black-flag operation to a simple encounter at sea.  Bolton would exploit, rather than be deterred by, any murkiness about responsibility for an incident.

A pretext for war would not even require a manufactured incident and instead could involve spinning the meaning of “proxy” and “ally.” Mark Dubowitz of the misleadingly-named Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which has been Bolton’s most influential pressure-group ally in stoking hostility toward Iran, is using this gambit. He suggests that such fighting as recently occurred in the Gaza Strip is somehow an Iranian way of distracting Israel from Iranian plans “for strikes against U.S. assets and allies.” In fact, the fighting in Gaza has everything to do with conditions in Gaza and the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict and nothing to do with Iran.

Effects of War

It probably would be futile to try to get inside the war-mongering mind of John Bolton to figure out why he wants a war with Iran. Suffice it to note that Bolton to this day contends that the 2003 war against Iraq—a colossal blunder of U.S. foreign and security policy—was a good thing. He probably expects a war with Iran to trigger regime change in Iran. That overlooks the likelihood that a war would be at least as likely to trigger a rally-round-the-flag effect as it did during the devastating Iran-Iraq War, when the Islamic Republic was less well established and more vulnerable than it is today. It also overlooks that any regime change that might occur probably would produce a government more hardline and less democratic than what Iran has now.

Overlooked as well are the other destructive effects of such a war, including but not limited to the direct physical and fiscal costs. They also would include wider economic effects, especially given the disruption to the oil trade that a war in the Persian Gulf region would entail. And they would include lasting animosity toward the United States among future generations of Iranians.

Bolton is in a position to accomplish much of this mayhem himself. He reportedly has caused much of the usual policy-making machinery to be bypassed or simply to fall into disuse. Meetings of National Security Council principals have become rare. There is a parallel here, too, with the disastrous Iraq War. No policy process ever examined whether launching that war was a good idea.

The person who most needs to pay attention to all this is the one in the Oval Office. Having dismissed Steve Bannon when he came to perceive how much his once-influential political advisor was manipulating him, Trump needs to realize how much Bolton is manipulating him now. A war begun in the next few months would be past the “mission accomplished” stage and into the stage of regrets and awareness of costs when Trump—who won votes in 2016 by criticizing excessive U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern wars—is up for re-election. Trump already has cashiered two previous national security advisors, one (Michael Flynn) for good cause and the other (H.R. McMaster) because Trump got impatient with an adult in the room telling him what to do.

Trump’s earlier hesitation to bring Bolton into his administration reportedly stemmed from his dislike for Bolton’s mustache. Surely getting the United States into another Middle East war, which would be damaging to Trump’s presidency as well as highly damaging to U.S. interests, would be a least as good a reason to separate Bolton from the levers of 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.

Paul R. Pillar is Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies of Georgetown University and an Associate Fellow of the Geneva Center for Security Policy. He retired in 2005 from a 28-year career in the U.S. intelligence community.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

The Following text is Section 12 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. On 20 September 2017, the same day that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was opened for signature at the United Nations, NATO was soundly rejecting it. The Treaty, approved by a majority vote of 122 states of the General Assembly, commited the signatory states not to produce or possess nuclear weapons, not to use them or threaten to use them, not to transfer them or to receive them directly or indirectly, with the aim of their total elimination.

2. In the statement of 20 September 2017, the North Atlantic Council (made up of representatives of the 29 member states) argued that “the Treaty will not be effective. It will not increase international security or peace, but risks creating the opposite by creating divisions and differences.” It, therefore, clearly clarified that “we will not accept any argument contained in the Treaty”.

3. The North Atlantic Council thus foreclosed the national parliaments of the member countries, depriving them of sovereignty to decide for themselves whether or not to join the UN Treaty on the abolition of nuclear weapons. It also announced that “we will call our partners and all countries willing to support the Treaty to seriously reflect on its implications” (read: “We will blackmail them so they do not sign it or ratify it”). The North Atlantic Council reiterated that “the fundamental purpose of NATO’s nuclear capability is to preserve peace and discourage aggression” and that “as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance”.

4. The North Atlantic Council, however, ensured “NATO’s strong commitment to the full implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)”. In reality, it is actually violated by NATO. The United States, in violation of Article 1 which prohibits militarily nuclear states from transferring nuclear weapons to other countries, has deployed B61 nuclear bombs in five Alliance member countries: Italy, Germany, Belgium, Holland and Turkey. These actions violate the NPT, which in Article 2 prohibits militarily non-nuclear states from receiving nuclear weapons, nor from having control over such weapons directly or indirectly.

5. A new U.S. nuclear bomb, the B61-12, will replace the B61, which is currently deployed in Italy and other European countries. The B61-12 has a nuclear warhead with four selectable power options. At the time of launch, the blast power is chosen depending on the target. Unlike the B61, which is dropped vertically on the target, the B61-12 is launched remotely and guided by a satellite system. It also has the ability to penetrate deep into the Earth, even through reinforced concrete, exploding at depths that can destroy the bunkers of command centers and other underground structures, so as to “decapitate” the enemy country in a nuclear first strike.

6. The Pentagon program foresees the construction of around 500 B61-12, with an estimated cost of around 10 billion dollars (so each bomb will cost twice as much as it would cost if it were built entirely in gold). The danger of this new weapon is highlighted even by General James Cartwright, former head of the US Strategic Command, responsible for nuclear weapons: “Nuclear weapons of less power and more precision increase the temptation to use them, even to use them first instead of in retaliation”.

7. Satellite photos show that renovations have been carried out to increase the “security” of the Aviano and Ghedi Torre bases in view of the installation of the B61-12. Similar renovations were carried out at the German air base in Buchel, in two other bases in Belgium and the Netherlands, and in the Turkish base of Incirlic. The B61-12 can be dropped from F-16 and Tornado fighters, but, to exploit the entire bomb capacity, we need U.S. aircraft equipped with special digital systems: F-35A fighters, also supplied by the Italian Air Force.

8. The fact that Polish pilots also took part in the NATO nuclear war exercise in Ghedi for the first time in 2014 indicated that the B61-12 will also be deployed in Poland and other Eastern European countries. Dual-capacity conventional and nuclear NATO fighters are already deployed in the Baltic republics near Russia.

9. At the same time, the U.S. and NATO are extending the “anti-missile shield” over Europe. In May 2016, at the Deveselu Air Base in Romania, the Aegis Ashore was inaugurated, the first terrestrial installation of the United States Aegis missile system on European territory. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg thanked the United States because with this installation, “the first of its kind with a land-based base”, they greatly enhanced the ability to “defend European allies against ballistic missiles from outside the Euro-Atlantic area”. He then announced the start of work to build another Aegis Ashore in Poland by 2018, similar to the one that came into operation in Romania. The two terrestrial installations are added to four warships equipped with Aegis radars and SM-3 missiles, which, from a location of the U.S. Navy in the Spanish base of Rota, cross into the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea. The U.S. Navy already has about 30 ships of this type.

10. Both Aegis ships and land-based installations are equipped with Mark 41 Vertical Launchers from Lockheed Martin, i.e. vertical pipes from which interceptor missiles are launched. It is the so-called “shield” whose function is actually offensive. If the U.S. could build a reliable system capable of intercepting ballistic missiles, they could keep Russia under the threat of a nuclear first strike, trusting the “shield” ability to neutralize the effects of retaliation. The vertical “shield” launchers, in addition to the interceptor missiles, can also launch other missiles. Lockheed Martin herself points out that this system is capable of launching “missiles for all missions”, including “those for long-range attack”, such as “Tomahawk cruise missiles”. These can be armed with a conventional (non-nuclear) warhead or a nuclear warhead.

11. One cannot, therefore, know which missiles are really in the vertical launchers of the bases in Romania and in Poland and in those on board the ships that cross the limits of Russian territorial waters. Unable to control, Moscow takes for granted that there are also nuclear attack missiles. The location of Mark 41 Vertical Launchers near the Russian territory, therefore, violates the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) signed by the USA and USSR in 1987.

*

Sections 13-16 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.

A despesa militar mundial – segundo as estimativas publicadas pelo SIPRI, em 29 de Abril – ultrapassaram os 1.800 biliões de dólares, em 2018, com um aumento em termos reais de 76% em relação a 1998. De acordo com esta estimativa, a cada minuto gasta-se cerca de 3,5 milhões de dólares em armas e exércitos em todo o mundo. Em primeiro lugar estão os Estados Unidos com uma despesa, em 2018, de 649 biliões. Este número representa o orçamento do Pentágono, incluindo operações militares no estrangeiro, mas não a totalidade da despesa militar dos EUA.

De facto, juntam-se outros elementos de carácter militar. 

• O Departamento dos Assuntos dos Veteranos, que é responsável pelo pessoal militar aposentado, teve um orçamento de 180 biliões de dólares, em 2018.
• A comunidade dos Serviços Secretos, composta de 17 agências (entre as quais a mais famosa é a CIA), declara um orçamento de 81,5 biliões, que, no entanto, é só a ponta do iceberg dos gastos reais para operações secretas.  
• O Departamento de Segurança Interna gastou 70 biliões em 2018, sobretudo para “proteger, com o serviço secreto, a nossa infraestrutura financeira e os nossos dirigentes mais destacados”.
• O Departamento de Energia gastou 14 biliões, correspondendo a metade de seu orçamento, para manter e modernizar o arsenal nuclear.

Tendo em conta estes e outros assuntos, a despesa militar dos EUA, em 2018, chega a cerca de 1 trilião de dólares. Como despesa per capita, é equivalente a 3.000 (três mil) dólares por habitante dos Estados Unidos.

A despesa militar é a causa primordial do déficit federal,  que subiu para 1 trilião bilhões e em aumento acentuado. Juntamente com outros factores, ela  faz crescer a dívida pública dos EUA, que em 2019, subiu para mais de 22 biliões de dólares, com juros anuais de 390 biliões, que dobrarão em 2025. Esse sistema é baseado na hegemonia do dólar, cujo valor é determinado não pela  capacidade económica real dos EUA, mas, pelo facto de que é a principal moeda das reservas cambiais e dos preços das matérias primas internacionais. Isto permite que a Federal Reserve imprima milhares de biliões de dólares com os quais a colossal dívida pública dos EUA é financiada através de obrigações e outros títulos emitidos pelo Tesouro.

Visto que a China, a Rússia e outros países questionam a hegemonia do dólar – e com ela, a ordem económica e política dominada pelo Ocidente – os Estados Unidos jogam cada vez mais a carta da guerra, investindo 25% de seu orçamento federal na máquina de guerra mais cara do mundo. A despesa militar dos Estados Unidos têm um efeito impulsionador sobre as dos outros países, que, no entanto, permanecem em níveis muito mais baixos.

• A despesa da China é estimada pelo SIPRI em 250 biliões de dólares, em 2018, embora o número oficial fornecido por Pequim seja de 175.
• A despesa da Rússia é estimada em 61 biliões, mais de 10 vezes menor do que nos EUA (comparada apenas com o orçamento do Pentágono).
• De acordo com as mesmas regras, sete países da NATO – EUA, França, Grã-Bretanha, Alemanha, Itália, Canadá e Turquia – respondem juntos por cerca de metade das despesas militares do mundo.
• A despesa militar italiana, que subiu em 2018 de 13º para o 11º lugar no mundo, é estimada pelo SIPRI em 27,8 biliões de dólares.

Assim, a estimativa é substancialmente confirmada, incluindo outros assuntos além do orçamento da Defesa, que os gastos militares italianos totalizam 25 biliões de euros por ano, em alta. Isto significa que, num ano, se gasta já hoje o equivalente (de acordo com as previsões) a quatro anos de renda da cidadania.

Seguindo as pegadas dos EUA, foi decidido agora um forte aumento posterior. Agora, a maior “renda da cidadania” é a da guerra.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

La locomotiva USA della spesa militare mondiale

il manifesto, 7 de Maio de 2019  

Tradutora : Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

It is going to be 30 years in another six months since the USS Abraham Lincoln, named in honour of the 16th US President, was commissioned on Nov.11, 1989 as the 5th Nimitz-class aircraft carrier of the American Navy. Now, as it leaves Croatia and heads toward the Persian Gulf, the carrier would have mixed emotions. 

Its finest moment in all of these thirty years came on a sunny day off the coast of San Diego on May 1, 2003, when the then commander-in-chief President George W. Bush landed on its deck in the co-pilot’s seat of a Navy fighter jet to give a “thumbs-up” sign and declare victory in the war in Iraq. 

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush said, the infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner hovering over him. “In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed,” the C-in-C declared. 

Sixteen years later, USS Abraham Lincoln is going back to the Persian Gulf in atonement — to confront the real winner of the Iraq War and US’ number one enemy, Iran. The irony of this improbable moment cannot be lost on the 5000-odd men and women on board the carrier when the US National Security Advisor John Bolton announced their new deployment at 9.30 pm on Sunday. The statement said, 

“In response to a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings, the United States is deploying the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a bomber task force to the U.S. Central Command region to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.  The United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime, but we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or regular Iranian forces.” 

Bolton didn’t go into specifics. To be sure, the sudden announcement — unusual for a Sunday and extraordinary for its timing at 9.30 pm — has triggered speculation. However, Tehran has taken Bolton’s words in its stride, dismissing them as “psywar”. One plausible explanation seems to be that 8th May happens to be the first anniversary of the announcement by President Trump on the US’ withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and the fact of the matter is that the anniversary highlights three things.

First, the US and a clutch of Middle Eastern allies aside, the international community has continued to support the Iran nuclear deal. The US’ stark isolation is visible. Second, the US’ punitive sanctions against Iran have taken a heavy toll on the latter’s economy. Growth has stagnated while people face numerous privations in day-to-day life. Three, notwithstanding the above, there are no signs of Tehran changing its policies to compromise with the US’ regional strategies.   

Importantly, Tehran has also let it be known that on the anniversary date on May 8, President Hassan Rouhani will announce its retaliatory actions against the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal. The Tehran Times, which reflects establishment views, quoted “sources” to the effect Iran proposes to jettison some of the limitations on its nuclear activities (which had been suspended under the 2015) agreement. Specifically, the report goes to explain, that while Tehran as of now does not intend to quit the nuclear deal (although discarded by Washington), it will take measured steps within the ambit of articles 26 and 36 of the 2015 agreement.    

Tehran has already notified the European Union (which, along with UK, France and Germany, is a signatory of the agreement) of its intention. An urgent meeting of the so-called Joint Commission (E3+EU3) is due to take place in Brussels today with Iran’s deputy foreign minister and chief negotiator Abbas Araghchi. This is as per article 36 of the nuclear deal, which prescribes the modalities of arbitration. (The Tehran Times report is here.) 

Meanwhile, Tehran is mulling over the options available to it. An influential Iranian strategic thinker who is close to the power circles in Tehran and used to be a spokesman for Iran’s nuclear negotiators in the past, Seyed Hossein Mousavian, wrote in the Middle East Eye on Monday about the growing perception in Tehran that the White House is “laying siege to Iran in ways similar to the way the Bush administration did as it prepared to wage an illegal war against Iraq. 

Mousavian warned,

“With the US constantly increasing sanctions and pressures, with other world powers failing to provide assurances for the JCPOA’s (Iran nuclear deal) economic benefits, Iran’s patience is running out. It is left with two options: A gradual withdrawal from the JCPOA or an  immediate departure from Non-proliferation Treaty and the JCPOA simultaneously.” 

Mousavian concludes:

“Both options are risky. The possibility of military confrontation exists in both options, but the latter is more effective because the United States will no longer be able to use the NPT as an instrument against Iran. In return, withdrawing from the NPT will bolster Iran’s position on the negotiation table more than ever by giving it more bargaining power.”

Ambassador Mousavian’s opinion piece is here. 

Significantly, there have also been reports recently that Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is planning to visit North Korea. 

Of course, with its back pushed against the wall, Trump administration is leaving Iran with no choice but to retaliate. (The question of capitulation to US bullying simply does not arise.) 

Now, if Iran quits the NPT, it has nothing to lose in the prevailing circumstances where its integration into the international community is in any case blocked by the US sanctions. On the other hand, without Iran’s inclusion, the roof the nuclear non-proliferation architecture will collapse overnight. 

Suffice to say, Tehran is forcing the international community to push back at the Trump administration and restore the status quo ante in regard of the 2015 deal. But the Europeans have neither the political will nor the capacity or grit to measure up to Iran’s expectations. 

The US knows it. Thus, a flashpoint is arising. Clearly, Iran will not precipitate any military confrontation. But then, Israel is also waiting in the wings to cook up some dirty tricks that leads to a US-Iran conflict. Herein lies the risk. 

Having said that, Tehran is betting that Trump himself doesn’t want war with Iran. Possibly, Bolton who works for Israeli interests is punching above his weight. But the brinkmanship itself is incredibly dangerous. A US-Iran war is unthinkable, as the consequences will be disastrous not only for both and regionally but also for the world economy and international security. Worse still, Iran does not even threaten US interests directly. 

It is highly unlikely that Trump would ever contemplate a replay of the infamous George W. Bush moment aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Simply put, Iran is not Saddam’s Iraq. In Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan alone, there are 20000 American troops deployed within Iran’s missile range.

Source: Indian Punchline

Besides, Hezbollah has comprehensively targeted Israel. Israeli estimates put the number of Hezbollah rockets at anywhere up to 200,000. Read a thoughtful analysis by the Atlantic magazine entitled The Many Ways Iran Could Target the United States, here. 

*

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: George W. Bush declares victory in Iraq War, USS Abraham Lincoln, San Diego, May 1, 2003)

On Wednesday, Iran announced the suspension of some of its JCPOA commitments, short of withdrawing from the nuclear deal altogether. More on this below.

Trump’s year ago pullout greatly jeopardizes the deal’s sustainability over the longterm, what its hardliners aim for.

They want Iran to pull out of the deal as a pretext for greater toughness against the country including possible military action — despite world community opposition to belligerence against a nation threatening no one.

Destabilizing the region more greatly than already will follow if the US attacks Iran directly or through proxies, the latter strategy similar to its aggression against Libya and Syria, supported by Pentagon-led terror-bombing.

The JCPOA nuclear deal is an international agreement, formally approved by Security Council members, making it binding international law.

Trump’s pullout flagrantly breached it — how the US operates time and again, by its own rules exclusively at the expense of world peace, stability, and the rights of sovereign nations, independent ones like Iran targeted for regime change.

Signatories to the January 2016 JCPOA include China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK and US. Sino/Russian support for its principles is firm. Both countries maintain normal diplomatic, economic, and financial relations with the Islamic Republic.

The US pulled out. EU signatories failed to deliver on commitments made, promising one thing, then effectively reneging by not continuing normal ties to Iran, including purchases of its oil and maintaining normal financial relations.

Instead of refusing to go along with unlawful Trump regime sanctions, Brussels honors them, a flagrant breach of JCPOA provisions.

Since Trump’s May 2018 withdrawal, signals from Brussels have been mixed. The European Commission (EC) said the EU blocking statute would be invoked – banning bloc companies from complying with US sanctions on Iran, along with prohibiting EU courts from enforcing them.

Created in 1996, the statute was never invoked against Washington, rendering it toothless. For the past year, Brussels took no clear action to reject Trump’s JCPOA pullout and reimposition of nuclear-related sanctions.

Instead, delay and equivocation defined its actions, opposing the US withdrawal rhetorically alone, doing nothing to fulfill its commitments.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini did no more than urge the Trump regime to grant waiver permission for bloc countries to continue normal economic, financial and trade relations with Iran — a request falling on deaf ears in Washington.

EU companies wound down their purchases of Iranian oil, no longer buying it. European banks, insurers, shippers, and most other companies yielded to US pressure, suspending normal trade and financial relations with the Islamic Republic.

Italian refiner Saras said “(w)e cannot defy the United States.” Virtually all other major EU companies reacted the same way, fearing loss of access to the US market if reject Trump regime sanctions on Iran.

That’s where things have stood for the past year, Tehran’s patience wearing thin. On Wednesday, President Hassan Rouhani’s government revealed countermeasures to Trump’s JCPOA withdrawal.

It gave parties to the agreement “60 days to meet their commitments, especially in the banking and oil sectors,” adding:

“Whenever our (legitimate) demands are met, we will, to the same extent, resume the commitments. Otherwise, the Islamic Republic will be suspending more commitments stage by stage.”

“In line with protecting the security and national interests of the Iranian people,” the Supreme National Security Council said it’ll suspend some of its voluntary commitments, relating to enrichment and storage of uranium and heavy water — according to its rights under JCPOA articles 26 and 36.

“Iran stands ready to continue its consultations with the remaining parties to the deal at all levels, but it will swiftly and firmly react to any irresponsible measure, including returning the case (of Iran’s legal nuclear program) to the Security Council or imposing more sanctions.”

The letter stressed Tehran’s patience over the past year following the US pullout, giving other signatories adequate time to fulfill their commitments.

Brussels failed to implement “practical measures” to circumvent unlawful Trump regime sanctions.

As a result, the Islamic Republic’s only option is to “reduce its commitments” under the JCPOA.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said his country is not withdrawing from the agreement.

It’s acting according to its legal rights under Articles 26 and 36. Its announcement is “an opportunity for other parties to the deal to take required measures, and not just issue (meaningless) statements,” Zarif stressed.

Trump regime hardliners will likely impose further sanctions in response to Iran’s announcement.

Will military action follow at a later time? For the past 40 years, the US sought regime change in Iran, current actions against its government more extreme and menacing than anything earlier.

If Trump regime war on the Islamic Republic by other means fails, US military action to topple its government is possible, maybe likely.

It’s why the world community should go all out to prevent what could be regionally devastating if Trump regime hardliners go this far.

Note: In response to Iran’s JCPOA announcement, Russia said it’ll work with its signatories to save the deal. The jury is very much out on if it’s possible longer-term.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from NEO

There are no protests on the streets and no effigies of university officials being burned by protesting students today.  There are no protests outside the officers of the over-remunerated Vice Chancellors and their various henchpersons. 

It is business and malpractice as usual after revelations by Australia’s national broadcaster that Australian universities have been adjusting admission requirements to boost student numbers.  Standards have been cooked, if not waived altogether, on the issue of English proficiency.  Student bodies are the university equivalent of lebensraum: the expansive steppes of the Asian student market, to be exploited and leeched.

Since Australian universities first started entering the foreign market of education in 1986, a dependency on international students has taken a clenching, and corrupting hold.  Such students mean one thing: revenue.  Between 1988 and 2014, the number of international students at Australian universities climbed 13-fold. 

Issues such as fudging results on language proficiency, false documents and online sites plump with ready-made material for submission, have proliferated.  But these instances enabled universities to play dumb: they were the ones facing unscrupulous students desperate to get an Australian minted education.  Universities could still claim that they, somehow or rather, were maintaining appropriate standards of admission, whatever those sly applicants might be up to.  A few might get through, but they would be found out and weeded into oblivion. 

This façade has been comprehensively holed in recent years, and the brackish water is making its way through the system.  Universities, hungry and operating like famine stricken urchins, have been seeking more students than ever.  In 2015, the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) raked through the university system in that state, finding what it modestly called “corruption risks”.  To “intertwine compliance and profit rather than separating them, and to reward profit over compliance, can be conducive to questionable and corrupt behaviour.”  ICAC is almost sympathetic to the insidious behaviour of university apparatchiks: “Students may be struggling to pass, but universities cannot afford to fail them.” Wither standards! 

The recommendations by ICAC were hardly upending in nature, going to, amongst other things, limiting the number of overseas agents with which universities are engaged in; divorcing the issue of compliance from the issue of development “where feasible, which may include moving the admission functions out of international student offices that are responsible for marketing and recruitment”; and “considering the full costs associated with international students of different capabilities when making marketing decisions”.

As with other overgrown and self-serving bureaucracies, the modern university resists with a fanatic’s zeal, always happy to doff the cap to such suggestions while happy to expand, and in some cases refine, the abuse.  Which brings us to the Four Corner’s Report.

The picture painted is bleak for those believing in academic standards.  Since 2016, the Federal Government made a cardinal error: granting universities greater scope in determining the credibility of applications from students from certain countries, notably in such areas as English proficiency.  This was the equivalent of giving a bellicose military full scope and decision in making war, removing any civilian controls.   

Education departments were cut out of the picture; universities were granted full dispensation to waive standards deemed unnecessary or onerous for the applicant.  Given the value of the education industry – $34 billion per annum – and a reduction in federal funding – this was a license to manipulate and omit.  Approvals from universities, submitted in visa applications, have ensured a smooth, and rapid approval process.  Andrew Durston, former employee of the Immigration Department, was adamant that the practice was yielding unsatisfactory, and spoiled fruit. 

“I think there’s evidence to show that there are students who are being granted visas who haven’t actually undertaken an English language test.” 

The practice of accepting “medium of instruction” (MOI) letters for postgraduate students from India and Nepal, for instance, stating that students have previously studied in English, has also caught the eye of the Home Affairs Department.  Such a letter would “not meet the legislative requirements” as evidence for a visa application. 

This is an act of mutual harm. It denies the student a worthy assessment while also prostituting the application and any requisite standards of offered courses.  What matters is the issue of cash funnelled into corporations that, for the most part, have ceased achieving their public purpose.  They have become ungainly, mismanaged amalgams run by individuals who refrain from performing those dirty tasks of researching and teaching, preferring the cocktail circuit, spreadsheets and boardrooms. 

University commissars have come out to deny the existence of any problem.  The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency sees “little evidence to suggest there is a systemic failure regarding compliance with English language requirements.”  Professor Margaret Gardner, Chair of Universities Australia, has access to “overall statistics” revealing that, “international students… pass successfully at about the same rate as domestic students.”  It has been years since the good professor taught a class let alone graded a paper; ignorance is such merry bliss. 

There was one exception, if only a minor one.  The University of Tasmania was sufficiently alarmed by Monday’s program to consider a review, despite its Vice Chancellor Rufus Black suggesting how much the institution “intrinsically” cared about “international students”.  (Abusers always feign a degree of necessary caring.)  UTAS had featured in the investigation in a rather damning fashion: a staff member had sent an email outlining the money lust of a recruitment drive.  “As a part of our last-mile efforts to encourage acceptances for July 2018, the university will be waiving the English condition in order to assist the students who have yet to meet their English conditions.”  The true spirit of a standard-free recruitment drive. 

When universities speak of an independent external review, both words tend to be suspect.  Pick your investigator, pick your result.  Importantly, pick a person of like mind and background to eliminate room for error and space for disruption.  In this case, the individual selected by the task of examining admission practices in UTAS is Hilary Winchester, director and principal of a company bearing her name, an expert, we are told in “higher education quality assurance”.

Combing through the exploits of Winchester reveals a pedigree that is bound to resist revolt and revolution; brooms and mops will be kept at home.  She is, after all, one of them, greasing the ranks and attaining the appropriate position in the managerial strata of higher education: formerly Pro-Vice Chancellor (Academic) at Flinders University and Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic and Research) at Central Queensland University.  As universities have been seized by such very types, Vice Chancellor Black and his PVC guards should have little to concern themselves about.  Assurances, if lacking in quality, are guaranteed.

* 

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]

The zero-hour has arrived in Idlib, as the long awaited military operations to clear the last remaining terrorist-controlled area in Syria has begun.  It is estimated that there are 40,000 terrorists, some with their families, and they comprise many different terrorist groups, which are now aligned under one umbrella.  Colonel Suheil Al-Hassan of the Tiger Forces is part of the ground forces advancing on the province, in the wake of air strikes.   Idlib’s population, about 2 million today, has changed since 2011.

Idlib was one of the first areas infiltrated by the Radical Islamic political ideology of the Free Syrian Army (FSA).  The very first murder in Idlib by the Syrian ‘rebels’ in 2011 was the pharmacist Dr. Samir Kanatry, who was killed and then burnt up inside his pharmacy in August 2011 at Ma’arat Numan.  He was murdered because he was advocating secular values.  The US-backed FSA were sectarian from the outset, and any secular political ideals were their enemy.

The majority of Syrians do not support armed revolution in order to create a new sectarian based Syrian government. The ‘rebels’ only hope was to incite a military intervention by US-NATO forces based on a fabricated story of a chemical attack.  They tried this ploy repeatedly, and it never succeeded.  Even aligning them with Al Qaeda didn’t work, as the FSA and Al Qaeda developed their own ‘wars’ amongst themselves.

Beginning in 2011 many residents of Idlib fled: some to Latakia as a safe-haven from the ‘rebels’, who by then were clearly acting as terrorists.  Some of the residents of Idlib sided with the terrorists, and yet others fled to Turkey which is close by, with promises not only of safety, but financial support, and possible long term benefits from Turkish citizenship and income.

The current residents in Idlib are a very mixed bag: almost 4,000 of them are Chinese citizens. They are Uyghers from the far West of China, which is a Turkic speaking Muslim population.  Pres. Erdogan of Turkey inticed them to come to Turkey on passports he had issued, and then cross the border into Syria.  He supported their Jihad to Syria, and they brought parents, wives, and children and they are well-armed.   Pres. Erdogan sees the Uyghurs as ‘long lost cousins’, sharing the same root language as modern Turkey.

The “White Helmets” are in Idlib, too.  This award-winning video troop has been evacuated from other terrorist areas which were cleared by the SAA.

Why are the “White Helmets” (WH) only in areas under terrorist control?

Why have we never seen any WH rescuing people in places that were targeted by the ‘rebels’?  Recently, a missile fell on the Palestinian refugee camp in Latakia and destroyed a home: why weren’t the WH there to pull the injured from the rubble?

Raed Saleh, the main organizer of the WH recently spoke with National Public Radio in the USA, and he said,

“The revolution still goes on.  We have not lost. This revolution continues.”

He also admitted that his group still receives funding from the US government.  It appears his focus is not helping to rescue people or any humanitarian project: his goal is a “revolution”.  This proves the group is not neutral, or humanitarian.

They work strictly within a political framework that was developed by the US-NATO organizers of the destruction of Syria.  The question not asked of him by NPR is: “How much support does the revolution have among the current population in Syria?”  The majority of Syrian citizens who have never left Syria, and have endured 8 years of armed conflict, want peace.  They want to rebuild their lives, homes, and businesses.

Russia and Turkey entered into a de-escalation agreement on Idlib last year.  This agreement was supposed to entail the Al Qaeda affiliates, as well as ISIS and all other recognized terrorist groups, moving away from civilian areas, thus allowing forces to target and eliminate terrorists, while protecting innocent civilians.  However, the agreement did not cause the separation of the innocent from the terrorists.

In fact, some terrorist groups fought with each other and innocent civilians were killed and injured, as well as some armed groups made new alliances that moved their designation from ‘rebels’ to terrorists.  Many people wondered why would Russia and Turkey make a pact to safeguard and protect armed groups?  Turkey has always been a supporter of the armed groups, including Al Qaeda’s Syrian branch, Jibhat al Nusra, which is the leading force occupying Idlib.

Idlib residents are Americans, French, Belgian, Australian, British, North African, and Saudi Arabian.  Some are Syrians but were originally from Aleppo, Deraa, Homs, East Ghouta and other locations far removed from Idlib. The Syrians living in Idlib today were mainly bussed to Idlib, as their areas fell to the SAA, and they chose to live in exile in Idlib rather than surrender and resume peaceful life.

The Western media warns of the largest humanitarian disaster waiting to happen in Idlib if the SAA and its Russian allies take the area.  One wonders where the Western media was when those terrorists in Idlib shot missiles repeatedly at Kessab, Latakia, Slonfa, Hama, Aleppo, Jeblah, and M’Hardeh.  Where were the cries about deaths, injuries, and loss of property such as schools, and homes in places targeted by the terrorists?

In fact, many industries which lay on the perimeter of Idlib are unable to recover or rebuild, even though peace is restored, because they live under the threat of missile and drone attacks, launched by the terrorists who are protected in Idlib.  An example is Kessab, which was attacked, destroyed and occupied in March 2014 by the FSA and Al Qaeda.  The Christian village is far from Idlib, yet the missiles still land there and have landed in the school while children were playing.

America and her western allies, including the Arab Gulf monarchies, have the policy to prevent Syria from peaceful recovery and rebuilding.   They are demanding ‘regime-change’ prior to rebuilding, even though they lost the war.  Once Idlib is retaken by the SAA, the US-NATO project for the “New Syria” made in their image will be declared dead.

*

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 InfoRos.

Featured image is from InfoRos

Somewhat surprisingly, tiny Sri Lanka has emerged as the loudest voice in South Asia opposing the “Indo-Pacific” concept that New Delhi and Washington are jointly pursuing, pointing out how it’s “aimed at restraining China and even the Greater Eurasia by creating military unions between countries”, but the strong statement issued by the Sri Lankan Ambassador to Russia might also have been intended to alter the dynamics of his country’s ongoing “deep state” civil war.

Small State, Loud Voice

Tiny Sri Lanka has been making global headlines ever since the Easter terrorist attacks last month, but the latest official statement coming out of the country hasn’t received the press that it deserves. The Sri Lankan Ambassador to Russia gave an interview to his host country’s prestigious publicly funded international media outlet TASS where he praised the idea that President Putin originally put forth during his speech at the UN General Assembly in September 2015 for forging an inclusive anti-terrorist coalition, but it was what he said afterwards that truly deserves international attention, at least within the South Asian region. On the topic of forming military blocs, he said that:

“As for military pressure, it will take the world back to the colonial era but we are living in the 21st century. In the past, military methods were used to put pressure on economically emerging countries. Such practices are completely unacceptable, they damage the idea of peaceful co-existence. There is a project such as ASEAN, which focuses on Asian countries. This project is more worthy of respect than the so-called Indo-Pacific project aimed at restraining China and even the Greater Eurasia by creating military unions between countries.”

Russia’s “Return To South Asia”

In other words, he contrasted Russia’s calls for an inclusive anti-terrorist coalition without ulterior motives to be secretly used against any state-level third parties with the exclusive transregional military bloc being created by the US and India with the tacit purpose of “containing” China and even Russia. It’s actually for this reason why Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov condemned the “Indo-Pacific” in February as an “artificially imposed” pro-American concept immediately prior to Moscow officially returning to South Asia by offering to host Indo-Pak peace talks in order to restore “balance” to this externally destabilized region. In parallel with that, Russia endorsed Pakistan’s geostrategic importance and fully committed itself to China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).

Sri Lanka’s “Deep State” Civil War

Returning to the specific news item that inspired the present analysis, there are likely several interconnected reasons why the Sri Lankan Ambassador to Russia slammed the “Indo-Pacific” concept. The first is that he probably wanted to impress his hosts and signal that his country is in strategic alignment with them on this very important issue, but remembering the high level of Indian influence in his country since the 2015 elections narrowly unseated civil war hero former President Rajapaksa as a result of RAW’s meddling, his move might be part of Sri Lanka’s ongoing “deep state” civil war between pro-Indian liberals and pro-sovereignty conservatives.

This could especially be the case if Sri Lanka was secretly approached by the US and/or India to join the “Indo-Pacific” concept shortly after its disastrous terrorist attacks in exchange for so-called “anti-terrorist” assistance. Sri Lanka remembers India’s support for the LTTE terrorist group, and while the pro-Indian liberals seemingly don’t care, the rising pro-sovereignty conservatives obviously do and would therefore be opposed to joining the “Indo-Pacific” concept in principle in order to preserve their country’s sovereignty and avoiding voluntarily turning it into an Indian vassal state that would certainly be abused by its new patron. This isn’t mere speculation either since Ambassador Dayan Jayatilleka is a close ally of former President Rajapaksa.

The UK-based online opposition outlet “Colombo Telegraph” noted around the time of his nomination as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Russia that the former Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva is former President Rajapaksa’s “close confidante”. It also published a leaked email between him and the former President late last year where Ambassador Jayatilleka blamed the country’s political crisis on the US and urged the country’s then-Prime Minister to mobilize society in order to defeat the counterrevolution. He proudly defended his words but clarified that they were written in a private capacity. This proves without a doubt that Ambassador Jayatilleka is a true believer in the emerging Multipolar World Order just like his Russian hosts are.

Concluding Thoughts

In any case, there should be no question that while the reportedly left-leaning Ambassador Jayatilleka isn’t a conservative, he definitely isn’t a liberal either, but regardless of how one would classify his political beliefs, such a description shouldn’t leave out that he’s strongly in support of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty. With his country’s ongoing “deep state” civil war as the contextual background to his sharp criticism of the “Indo-Pacific” concept, it becomes clear that his words represent the official policy of President Sirisena, former President Rajapaksa’s recent ally, and are intended to thwart whatever devious plans their rivals are pursuing to exploit the latest terrorist attacks in order to subjugate Sri Lanka to joint Indo-American 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.

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.

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of NATO with the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949. Established as a peacetime alliance between the United States and Europe to prevent expansion of the Soviet Union, NATO has grown in size and and changed from a defensive force to an aggressive force implementing Western policies of expansion and control.

NATO now has 29 members ranging geographically east to west from the United Kingdom to countries of the former Soviet Union and north to south from Norway to Greece. NATO’s intervention in the Bosnian war in 1994 signaled the beginning of a new role for a force effectively made redundant by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Since then NATO has escalated its presence on the international scene taking on various roles in Afghanistan in 2003, Iraq in 2004, the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean in 2009 and culminated in the bombing of Libya in 2011 with ‘9,500 strike sorties against pro-Gaddafi targets.’

The main argument for the existence of NATO was for it to be a system of collective defence in response to external attack from the Soviet Union. Although during the Cold War NATO did not carry out military operations as a defence force, its changing role has now implicated its members in a culture of aggressive war which they had not originally signed up for.

For former colonial powers the NATO culture of war on a global scale is nothing new. The geopolitical agendas of expansionism for Western elites that NATO serves is the modern form of the colonial adventures of the past which have long passed their sell-by date. The culture of war which passes for ‘the white man’s burden’, ‘bringing freedom to other countries’ or ‘saving them from communism’ legitimizes aggressive action abroad while giving a sense of pride at home of a worthwhile military doing a great job.

War as a means to an end and war as culture

The culture of war then is different from culture wars (e.g. competing forms of culture like religion). Since the Enlightenment, war has been described as a means to an end, serving essentially rational interests. The benefits of war at home like ending the feudal system, repelling invaders, etc. were seen to apply abroad too by helping others through systems of alliances, for example the Second World War alliance to end Hitlerite fascism.

However, there are those who see war as an end in itself, as part of the human condition. Writers like Martin Van Creveld have argues that:

“war exercises a powerful fascination in its own right — one that has its greatest impact on participants but is by no means limited to them. Fighting itself can be a source of joy, perhaps even the greatest joy of all. Out of this fascination grew an entire culture that surrounds it and in which, in fact, it is immersed.”

However, not all cultures of war are the same. Van Creveld conflates the culture of war of imperial nations with the culture of war of resistance to colonialism and imperialism. Britain’s wars were fought for the benefit of British elites. But Ireland, for example, has a long history of opposition to British colonialism and Ireland’s culture of war has similar symbols and traditions to Britain yet very different content. Over the centuries generation after generation of Irish men and women have taken part in wars of resistance to colonial domination. While the British culture of war may have been a proud culture of successful militarism, in Ireland it was a desperate fight for independence from an all-powerful enemy always willing to throw its vast armory into the fight against ‘treachery to the King’.

In other words, the culture of war was imposed on a people as a way to survive military, economic and political domination. Which brings up the question of whether war really is a part of the human condition.

War and ‘primitive tribes’

It has been a Romantic trope to look back to the ‘primitive tribes’ as a way of understanding our own society and how they may have looked before feudalism and the burgeoning capitalism’s ‘satanic mills’ were set in motion. Yet, it is interesting to see the descriptions of ‘primitive people’ from our history books, as Zinn writes:

“When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. […] These Arawaks of the Bahama Islands were much like Indians on the mainland, who were remarkable (European observers were to say again and again) for their hospitality, their belief in sharing.”

Bartolome de las Casas, who, as a young priest, participated in the conquest of Cuba, wrote:.

“They are not completely peaceful, because they do battle from time to time with other tribes, but their casualties seem small, and they fight when they are individually moved to do so because of some grievance, not on the orders of captains or kings.”

Their resorting to violence and killing was a form of defence which ultimately failed:

“On Haiti, they found that the sailors left behind at Fort Navidad had been killed in a battle with the Indians, after they had roamed the island in gangs looking for gold, taking women and children as slaves for sex and labor.[…] Total control led to total cruelty. The Spaniards “thought nothing of knifing Indians by tens and twenties and of cutting slices off them to test the sharpness of their blades.” Las Casas tells how “two of these so-called Christians met two Indian boys one day, each carrying a parrot; they took the parrots and for fun beheaded the boys.” The Indians’ attempts to defend themselves failed. And when they ran off into the hills they were found and killed.”

Thus, we can see that while there was occasional violence against other tribes these tribes lived in peace until faced with the extreme violence of their invaders.

Development of warrior societies

Recent research in archeology seems to suggest now that we don’t need to look to ‘primitive tribes’ abroad anymore but can see similar experiences in research on our own ancestors here in Europe and nearby regions.

In an article by John Horgan, Survey of Earliest Human Settlements Undermines Claim that War Has Deep Evolutionary Roots, he looks at the recent work of anthropologist Brian Ferguson, an authority on the origins of warfare:

“Ferguson closely examines excavations of early human settlements in Europe and the Near East in the Neolithic era, when our ancestors started abandoning their nomadic ways and domesticating plants and animals. Ferguson shows that evidence of war in this era is quite variable. In many regions of Europe, Neolithic settlements existed for 500-1,000 years without leaving signs of warfare. “As time goes on, more war signs are fixed in all potential lines of evidence—skeletons, settlements, weapons and sometimes art,” Ferguson writes. “But there is no simple line of increase.” By the time Europeans started supplementing stone tools with metal ones roughly 5,500 years ago, “a culture of war was in place across all of Europe,” Ferguson writes. “After that,” Ferguson told me by email, “you see the growth of cultural militarism, culminating in the warrior societies of the Bronze Age.””

It seems then that the history of the development of warrior societies and their enslavement of peaceful peoples is the basis for our cultures of war: the wars of those imposing slavery on people and the wars of those resisting.

The idea of a inherent human condition of war promoted by Van Creveld may be covering up for the felt need or desire for a culture of war to dissuade those who may be thinking of imposing slavery or dominance on a people, as a form of defence in an aggressive, militarized world, for example, the Jews in Nazi Germany .

The Irish people have a long history of resistance to British forces and Ireland’s long experience of foreign aggression has led it to be wary of foreign military associations. Thus, today Ireland is still not a fully paid up member of NATO. In the nineteenth century the British used every form of simianism and Frankensteinism to depict the Irish people who had the gall to combine against them.

Ridiculing resistance: “The Irish Frankenstein” (1882) and “Mr. G O’Rilla, the Young Ireland Party” (1861)

This all changed during the First World War when Britain desperately needed new recruits and issued posters now depicting a proud Irishman as a country squire. Guilt was the weapon of choice in these posters as Britain declared to be fighting for the rights of small nations like Ireland, who was not participating.

WWI British Army Recruitment Posters: “Ireland “I’ll go too – the Real Irish Spirit”” and “Ireland “For the Glory of Ireland””

Of course, after the war was over and the main nationalist party, Sinn Fein, won 80% of the national vote, the British government’s reaction was to send in soldiers and criminals to put down the rebellion instead. This strategy failed, leading to negotiation and the signing of a treaty which led to the creation of Northern Ireland.

Ireland’s culture of resistance: the Wexford Pikeman by Oliver Sheppard and IRA Memorial, Athlone

Ireland and NATO

In 1949 Ireland had been willing  to negotiate a bilateral defence pact with the United States, but opposed joining NATO until the question of Northern Ireland was resolved with the United Kingdom. However, Ireland became a signatory to NATO’s Partnership for Peace programme and the alliance’s Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in 1999.

In December 1996, the Peace & Neutrality Alliance (PANA) was established in Dublin. According to their website, ‘PANA seeks to advocate an Independent Irish Foreign Policy, defend Irish Neutrality and to promote a reformed United Nations as the Institution through which Ireland should pursue its security concerns.’A wide range of groups and a growing number of individual are affiliated to PANA. This wide anti-NATO sentiment was reflected in the attack on US military planes in 2003. In February 2003 the Irish Times reported:

“The Army has been called in to provide security around Shannon Airport after five peace activists broke into a hangar and damaged a US military aircraft early this morning. It is the third embarrassing security breach at the airport where US military planes are refuelling en route to the looming war with Iraq.”

One anti-war activist Mary Kelly was convicted of causing $1.5m in damage to a United States navy plane at Shannon airport.She attacked the plane with a hatchet causing damage to the nose wheel and electric systems at the front of the plane.

In 2018 the First International Conference Against NATO was held in Dublin. The conference was organised by the Global Campaign Against US/NATO Military Bases which itself is a coalition of peace organisations from around the world.

However, there are still forces in Ireland pushing for full membership of NATO. A recent article in an Irish national newspaper stated that ‘Ireland has been free-riding on transatlantic security structures paid for by American and European taxpayers since 1949’ and that ‘very few politicians think much about Ireland’s security in any depth and even fewer believe we should join NATO. None is likely to provide grown-up leadership on national security.’ A combination of realism and guilt that has been tried on the Irish people many times before and rejected. The writer recognises that ‘few people advocate such a course and most are quite attached to the State’s long-held position of military neutrality.’

Conference on the 70th Anniversary of NATO

Getting other nations to develop a similar attitude and leave NATO was the objective of the recent International Conference on the 70th Anniversary of NATO held in Florence, Italy, on 7 April 2019. During the conference Prof. Michel Chossudovsky (Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization) presented the The Florence Declaration which was adopted by more than 600 participants.

The Florence Declaration was drafted by Italy’s Comitato and the CRG and calls for members

“To exit the war system which is causing more and more damage and exposing us to increasing dangers, we must leave NATO, affirming our rights as sovereign and neutral States.

In this way, it becomes possible to contribute to the dismantling of NATO and all other military alliances, to the reconfiguration of the structures of the whole European region, to the formation of a multipolar world where the aspirations of the People for liberty and social justice may be realised.”

*

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

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

A must see film, from 1987, is Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket. This movie follows a group of young Marines from Parris Island boot camp right smack dab into ‘The Shit’ that GIs called Vietnam. There are literally countless scenes that depict what our young men both felt and experienced during their tour of (bulls..t) duty. This was our corrupt and perverted empire when the veil of deception and propaganda was lifted… as Kubrick succeeded in revealing to us. One scene in the film captures the utter depravity of our empire and what it did to young men transported to that once tranquil place, made sorry by our presence there.

This was the scene inside the helicopter that was carrying Private ‘Joker’ and his companion deeper into ‘The Shit’. The door gunner was in the midst of  ‘executing’ civilians with his machine gun as the chopper flew on:

• Door Gunner : Git some! Git some! Git some, yeah, yeah, yeah! Anyone who runs, is a VC. Anyone who stands still, is a well-disciplined VC! You guys oughta do a story about me sometime!
• Private Joker : Why should we do a story about you?
• Door Gunner : ‘Cuz I’m so fuckin’ good! I done got me 157 dead gooks killed. Plus 50 water buffalo, too! Them’s all confirmed!
• Private Joker : Any women or children?
• Door Gunner : Sometimes!
• Private Joker : How can you shoot women or children?
• Door Gunner : Easy! Ya just don’t lead ’em so much! Ain’t war hell?

This writer has told the story many times of guys from my Brooklyn neighborhood who never came home alive. There was Vito, the Polish born son of my friend’s building superintendent. He joined up and became a Ranger, replete with the beret and high boots. I can still see him standing there in the back of our church, right next to me, at mass one Sunday. He didn’t remember me, so all I could view was Vito’s  lean figure holding that beret as we all prayed together.

He looked straight ahead during the whole Mass. The key word here would be gallant as he genuflected and exited church. I never saw him again alive, nor did his family, as Vito was killed on some ‘ made famous ‘ hill in Vietnam. His kid brother, two years younger than me, really took Vito’s death hard. A few years later I would see the kid , now 18, in a hidden corner of the schoolyard on many afternoons… sniffing glue. I then heard that he had dropped out of high school. Soon after that I got the word that he was now ‘ shooting up horse’ ( heroin) and not in the schoolyard. A year of so later I got the news that the kid had OD’d and was dead!

Another guy from my neighborhood was Tommy L. , the son of our church’s school crossing guard. You could not forget her, for Mrs. L. would always have this tremendous smile across her face. She would greet everyone who crossed Ocean Ave from Sunday mass with her almost contagious joy. In 1968 her son Tommy joined the Marines along with his buddy Pete Haros, of the Haros Coffee Shop family. Pete came home a year later, but Tommy’s tour was cut short due to his death in some anonymous rice paddy. The extra tragedy was seeing this wonderful woman , at her post each Sunday, with what I always remembered as this ‘Mona Lisa smile’. It was how I always interpreted Mona Lisa from the famous painting. She had that look, that smirk holding back her smile, as if saying ‘ Oh if YOU only knew what I am going through’!

The rear gunner from Full Metal Jacket actually captured what Vito and Tommy’s families would say, in that ‘Ain’t war hell?’

One surmises that this is what the families of all our young men in uniform would say  when their loved ones were either maimed or killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. What should they say to men like Elliot Abrams and John Bolton? The Vietnam War was sure as shit NOT HELL to those two. You see, both men were born in 1948, so they could have (or should have, if true believers?) served in ‘The Shit'[Vietnam].

Abrams graduated Harvard and practiced law, and never signed up to fight the Commies in Asia. He just became a Neo Con ‘couch warrior’ and worked in the Reagan and Bush SR. administrations to support every illegal and immoral phony war along with Latin American covert actions.

Bolton graduated from Yale and before his draft number was pulled, he took the best ‘Get out of Vietnam card’ which was to join the Maryland National Guard. Why was that the best way to avoid going to ‘The Shit’? Well, you can ask both Poppy Bush and his son ‘W’ about that. They knew that getting into the Guard was a sure ticked way to NOT being sent overseas.

At that time , unlike nowadays, the Guard and Reserves would be the LAST to be sent overseas to fight (and die?). They were safe. So, what do most chickenhawks become: War criminals or those who serve such men  and women (just look at Condi Rice of the infamous ‘Smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud’ fame).

Since evil has a tendency to recycle itself, Abrams and Bolton are center stage and ready to initiate ‘regime change’ in Venezuela and Iran.

Imagine all those die hard Trump supporters, the ones who still have their doubts about the Iraq war (as Trump keeps saying he does), and how they now are looking down the rabbit hole of more foreign interventions… the ones that candidate Trump railed against.

As the Catholics would say, it is a mortal sin for any government to have these two predators on their payroll, let alone as key advisors!

No, regardless of who sits in that ‘Situation room’ and is called Commander in Chief, they ALL are pawns of the empire: Clinton (Yugoslavia), Bush Jr. (Iraq & Afghanistan), Obama (Libya & Syria) and now Trump. Ain’t war hell?

*

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].

Laurentino Cortizo narrowly won Panama’s elections on Sunday to become the country’s next president-elect, prior to which he implied in an exclusive interview with Reuters that the U.S. needed to re-engage the region otherwise it risks being replaced by China. His exact words were that

“We need, and we have asked, that they look toward the region more – the region, not just Panama…They need to pay more attention. While they’re not paying attention, another one is making advances.”

The outlet also noted in a different piece that “Cortizo has said that he would review a high-speed train project with China,” which altogether carries with it the optics of the Panamanian president-elect supposedly pivoting towards the U.S. at China’s perceived expense.

That’s unlikely to happen, however, because Panama is poised to play an important regional role in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) if it goes forward with China’s plans to build a four billion U.S. dollars high-speed railroad from its capital to the Costa Rican border. This proposed project has the potential to strengthen relations between the members of the Central American Integration System (CISA) as a result.

The Panama Canal could then conceivably be the entry point for the terminal port for those countries’ own exports back to China, which would be facilitated by the proposed high-speed rail project and therefore increase Panama’s strategic importance to the rest of Central America.

The Neopanamax container vessel EVER LOADING transits the Expanded Canal on the outskirts of Panama City, Panama, June 26, 2017. /VCG Photo

It should be pointed out that China and Panama established diplomatic relations just two years ago and that relations between the two countries have greatly expanded in the intervening period, so the Central American state is already on excellent terms with China.

It would therefore be disadvantageous to its interests if it tries to politicize this proposed high-speed rail project in an effort to curry favor with the U.S., which is openly opposed to China’s many investments in the Western Hemisphere because they undermine the imperial-era Monroe Doctrine that claims all of Latin America as its exclusive sphere of influence. Panama has strong historic relations with the U.S. that explain its eagerness to court more attention from that country, but this should not be pursued in a zero-sum manner that might come at its other partners’ expense.

Instead, it would be best if Panama keeps its relations with China separate from those that it has with the U.S. and does not try to intermingle them in a way that might be predicated on turning one against the other. Friendly competition between countries always works out to everyone’s benefit, but unfriendly competition does not, so this should be avoided at all costs in order to not inadvertently ruin Panama’s relations with its other partners if Panama’s presumed balancing act backfires.

China’s investments in Panama and the Central American region as a whole have the explicit permission of their hosts because both parties recognize the objective win-win interests involved in expanding their cooperation with one another, which does not come at the expense of anyone’s relations with the U.S. unlike how some people misportray it.

Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Isabel Saint Malo de Alvarado, Panama’s vice president and foreign minister, sign the joint communique in Beijing, June 13, 2017. /Xinhua Photo

Panama’s new president will therefore probably continue his country’s cooperation with what might turn out to be the Central American Silk Road by retaining pragmatic relations with China. The proposed high-speed rail project is much too important to Panama’s grand strategic interests to be sacrificed to the U.S. so it wouldn’t make sense for president-elect Cortizo to do that.

Rather, his latest rhetoric about China should be understood in the context of the heated election that he ultimately won and as part of the recently discernible pattern of political candidates in other Silk Road countries taking a tougher stance towards China because they think it’ll earn them more votes. That seems to have been the case here as well, so there is no need to worry about Panama’s commitment to win-win cooperation with China for now.

*

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 CGTN.

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 CGTN

Right-wing Israeli National Union Member of the Knesset Bezalel Smotrich yesterday called for killing a Palestinian in return for every rocket launched from the Gaza Strip, Quds Net reported.

On Twitter, Bezalel wrote:

“From a tactical view, the battle in Gaza must end after killed 700 terrorists  -one terrorist for each rocket.”

Smotrich refers to the number of Palestinian rockets allegedly launched at Israel from Gaza.

The minister, who is looking to become the country’s next justice ministry, head the National Union party which made an alliance with the Jewish Home and Jewish Power (Otzma Yehudit) parties to run under the Union of Right Wing Parties alliance in Israel’s elections last month. The alliance has since joined the coalition government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who is serving his fifth term in office.

*

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: Bezalel Smotrich, an extremist Israeli Jewish MK [File photo]

Introduction

The parallels between the successor to Poroshenko and the current occupant of the White House are striking. Neither has had significant prior experience with national politics prior to launching a bid for the supreme executive office of their respective countries. Giving credit for Trump, he has had extensive experience in managing large businesses, Zelenskiy has none.

Both evaded compulsory military service citing health issues. Each owes his political success to their country’s population being worn down by a costly, endless war, and many-sided economic problems compounded by growing corruption and crony capitalism.

Both received support from major Jewish economic players with close ties to Israel (Igor Kolomoysky in Ukraine, Sheldon Adelson in the United States), with Trump subsequently repaying that debt of gratitude by transferring the US embassy to Jerusalem, designating it as the capital of Israel, and recognizing the annexation of the Golan Heights.

Both follow presidents who came into office as presumptive saviors of their countries, namely “Hope and Change” Barack Obama who delivered 8 years of a gradual deterioration in living standards, and “Revolution of Dignity” Petro Poroshenko who promised to transform Ukraine into a country comparable to the advanced capitalist states of Western Europe. And, last but not least, each represents a pile of political “mystery meat”.

Not having a career in politics also means not having a pool of loyal and capable cadres who can descend on the government and govern in the name of their boss. This problem was clearly evident in Trump’s case. Lacking political cadres of his own, he was unable to staff the large number of positions vacated by Obama’s political appointees and instead had to rely on the suggestions of his vice president who was a consummate party insider. Worse, when Trump attempted to staff his foreign policy team with individuals advocating a less confrontational approach to Russia, such as Rex Tillerson and Mike Flynn, he found himself faced with extreme opposition from entrenched “deep state” bureaucrats. As we know, that resistance culminated in the Mueller investigation the ostensible goal of which was to investigate Russian “meddling” and Trump’s “collusion” therewith, but whose actual goal appears to have been to steer Trump’s foreign policy into greater confrontation with Russia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela and even North Korea. Now that US foreign policy is run by the likes of John Bolton (National Security Council), Mike Pompeo (State), and “Bloody Gina” Haspel (CIA)  valiantly assisted by Military Industrial Complex friend Patrick Shanahan (Defense), Robert Mueller can confidently announce “mission accomplished” and shut down his investigation. Is this what the future has in store for Zelenskiy?

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

One key difference between US and Ukrainian “deep states” is that the Ukrainian one does not lead an independent existence. Rather, it is a creature of the US and Western European political establishments who provide it with direction and guidance. While US and EU political and economic objectives concerning Ukraine may differ on a few points (the EU is mainly interested in exploiting Ukraine’s agricultural and natural resources, whereas the US sees it as a military battering ram against Russia), for all intents and purposes they are united enough to treat them as a single entity.

If the Ukrainian “deep state” is the rock,  the Ukrainian people who are plainly tired of the war, desire better relations with Russia, and a return to something resembling the normalcy of the late Yanukovych era when Ukraine was considerably more free and prosperous than it is after 5 years of post-Maidan reforms, are surely a hard place to be reckoned with. The stunning rejection of Poroshenko in the polls indicates the moral bankruptcy of the entire Maidan revolution camp, including the aforementioned Ukrainian “deep state”.

At the same time, the removal of Poroshenko will weaken the positions of the “deep state” and enhance those of the Ukrainian oligarchs who, while not exactly friends of the Ukrainian people, are nevertheless interested for their own reasons in less confrontational relations with Russia.

Poroshenko, being a political veteran with a respectable power base of his own, was able to curb their ambitions and impose his will on them. Under Zelensky, the oligarchs will almost inevitably become considerably more assertive in defending their economic interests, which is liable to lead to political pressure on Zelensky to moderate Ukraine’s policies toward Russia. The early sign of this was the decision by a court in Kiev that the nationalization of Igor Kolomoysky’s Privat-Bank was unlawful, though so far the Ukraine Central Bank shows no signs of abiding by that decision.

Will Zelensky be able to deliver policies that are genuinely different from Poroshenko’s? It remains to be seen whether he feels himself powerful enough politically to replace the entire national security team, including the likes of Avakov, Turchinov, Poltorak, Klimkin, and other national security and foreign policy players who are utterly compromised by their anti-Russian policies and the crimes committed by Ukrainian military and security services in the Donbass. If they remain in office, there is little reason to believe Zelensky is anything other than a figurehead.

An Offer Ukraine Can’t Refuse

Further complicating matters is the fact that Ukraine today is far weaker and more dependent on the West than it was 5 years ago. Successive IMF loan tranches and the vastly higher indebtedness of the Ukrainian state mean that Western powers have many levers of influence on Zelensky. The United States is showing no sign of losing interest in Ukraine, likewise the EU’s policies have shown no sign of moderation. Ukraine’s continued need of loans and loan restructuring alone give Western powers a de-facto veto on Ukraine’s foreign policies. While not wholly pleased with Poroshenko’s tenure in office, where he proved to be more interested in promoting his own interests rather than the interests of his Western sponsors (a key reason why the West now appears ready to sacrifice Poroshenko), he did deliver a confrontation with Russia which validated his support by the West. Should Zelensky attempt to pick up where Yanukovych left off, there is little reason to doubt that he would be quickly faced with yet another Maidan, which would once again receive both vocal and tacit support from Western powers. Also for that reason, we should not expect any progress on the question of the recognition of Crimea. This and many other issues are no longer Ukraine’s to decide. They are part and parcel of the West-Russia political and military stand-off, and can be only resolved as part of a general “peace treaty” between the two areas. In other words, Ukraine’s future is no longer in its own hands.

Conclusion

Given all of the above, while there are a few reason for optimism, one should also curb one’s expectations. Granted, the very fact of Zelensky embarrassing Poroshenko and the rest of the Ukrainian establishment is a cause for celebration. Ukrainian politicians have been shown to be out of touch with the Ukrainian people who do not share their political priorities and do not approve of their ineptitude and corruption. But since when does the will of the people affect Kiev’s policies, given the very direct influence Western governments have on shaping Ukrainian policies, both in the domestic and international realms? Moscow’s rather belated decision to impose a ban on petroleum exports to Ukraine, which is to enter force on June 1, 2019, suggests it is not expecting anything but a tough transition period to the new regime in Ukraine.

*

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

Deputy Housing Minister in Gaza Naji Sarhan said that 130 residential apartments were completely destroyed, while 700 others were partially destroyed in the three day Israeli strikes on Gaza.

In a statement, Sarhan said that the emergency staff of the ministry started their evaluation of the targeted buildings since the start of the Israeli offensive.

Sarhan condemned the Israeli aggression against the civilians, calling for the international community to urgently interfere to stop the Israeli targeting of the civic buildings, which are protected by the international laws and conventions, and called called for the donors to help the affected families pay for repairing or rebuilding their homes.

25 civilians were killed in the Israeli attack, including a pregnant woman and a two year old baby. At least 154 were also wounded in the attack.

*

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 PNN

On Sunday, Donald Trump re-tweeted a post by the arch-reactionary evangelical preacher and prominent Trump confidant Jerry Falwell, Jr. calling for the president to extend his term from the constitutionally mandated four years to six.

Referring to the Democratic Party-led effort to label Trump a Russian collaborator, the tweet read:

“Trump should have 2 yrs added to his 1st term as pay back for time stolen by this corrupt failed coup.”

By re-tweeting this proposal, Trump is, in effect, threatening to cancel the 2020 elections and declare himself above the law. Article II of the US Constitution states that the president “shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years.”

Trump’s action is a direct threat to abrogate the Constitution. Bourgeois politics has degenerated to such a degree that political and legal norms considered fundamental since the American Revolution are now challenged by presidential tweet.

Trump’s Republican backers claim that Trump was only joking. But canceling elections is not something about which presidents joke. The president is the most powerful person in the world and his every word is closely followed in the US and internationally. Politicians, businessmen and decision makers around the world parse even seemingly mundane statements or off-the-cuff remarks for their deeper significance.

Trump’s re-tweet of a prominent, politically active evangelical preacher is not a joke. It is a serious signal sent deliberately to both supporters and opponents, who will understand that Trump is serious and that he is prepared to pursue anticonstitutional methods to stay in power. It is part of an increasingly dictatorial pattern that Trump and his fascist advisers have long planned.

While accepting an award at a ceremony in April along with military leaders, Trump said,

“This is really beautiful. This will find a permanent place, at least for six years, in the Oval Office.”

In 2018, Trump told Chinese President Xi Jinping that it was “great” that Xi was now “president for life,” adding, “Maybe we’ll have to give it a shot someday.” In the lead-up to the 2016 election, Trump repeatedly threatened to disregard the election results if Democrat Hillary Clinton proved victorious. In response to a debate question asking whether he would accept a losing result, he said, “I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense.”

It was Trump’s current attorney, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who proposed canceling the November 2001 mayoral election in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, arguing that semi-dictatorial methods were needed despite the fact that he was legally termed out.

Trump’s presidency has included many similar authoritarian trial balloons. He positioned soldiers behind him during his inaugural address, planned to hold a military demonstration in Washington DC, and implemented a ban on travel from several Muslim countries.

He has established a network of internment camps, proposed the death penalty for drug dealers, praised neo-Nazis as “good people,” called for ending due process for immigrants, said that his supporters were justified in using violence against his detractors, deployed the army on domestic soil, separated immigrant children from their parents, and declared a national emergency to appropriate funds for the construction of a border wall.

In this context, the response of the Democratic Party is equally chilling.

In an article titled “Pelosi Warns Democrats: Stay in the Center or Trump May Contest Election Results,” the New York Times published an interview with Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, citing her “concern that Mr. Trump would not give up power voluntarily if he lost re-election by a slim margin next year.”

In the interview, which was conducted before Trump’s tweet, Pelosi said in reference to the 2018 midterm elections: “If we win by four seats, by a thousand votes each, he’s not going to respect the election. He would poison the public mind. He would challenge each of the races; he would say you can’t seat these people. We had to win. Imagine if we hadn’t won—oh, don’t even imagine. So, as we go forward, we have to have the same approach.”

In response to brazen threats to violate the constitution, the Democrats’ strategy is to “own the center-left, own the mainstream,” Pelosi told the Times. Instead of condemning Trump’s proposal to extend his term or warning him of the serious criminal implications of canceling a presidential election, Pelosi instructs Democrats to “not engage in some of the other exuberances in our party,” making clear that the party will not allow any social reform.

This comes from a party that has won a plurality of the popular vote in all but one of the last eight presidential elections, yet failed to contest the stolen election of 2000, in which the Supreme Court wrote that Americans do not have the right to vote for president. Pelosi’s statement is an acknowledgment that the Democrats believe there are circumstances where they would have to accept the cancellation of an election. Were Trump to follow through on his threat, the most Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer would do is promise to file a lawsuit!

The Democrats’ fecklessness in the face of Trump’s threat to cancel a presidential election contrasts with the ferocity of their claims that Trump has facilitated Russia’s use of $100,000 to “interfere” in the last one.

Pelosi’s interview exposes the anti-Russia campaign as disingenuous and absurd. If Trump were colluding with Russia, wouldn’t his threat to refuse to accept election results be proof that Vladimir Putin is “undermining our democracy?” And doesn’t Trump’s threat alone constitute a violation of his oath to “protect and defend” Article II of the Constitution—an impeachable act?

The Democrats are combining absolute indifference to critical issues of democratic rights with support for major aspects of Trump’s policy agenda. On Monday, the New York Times published an editorial board statement titled, “Give Trump his Border Money.” The Democrats are collaborating with Trump on a new infrastructure program and lending support to his efforts to overthrow the government of Venezuela and impose tariffs on China.

They are motivated above all by fear of social opposition from the working class, manifested most starkly in growing support for socialism. The Democrats dare not challenge Trump by raising the social, economic and democratic grievances of the broad masses of people because they believe this might trigger widespread strikes and protests challenging the profits of Wall Street and US imperialism’s plans for military aggression and world domination.

A serious warning must be made. Trump’s tweet and Pelosi’s interview only scratch the surface of the antidemocratic and dictatorial measures being discussed behind closed doors at the White House, the Pentagon, Langley and Fort Meade.

*

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

I have been lonely in my concern with the dire economic implications of robotics, but now Clarity Press has provided me with some company by publishing The Artificial Intelligence Contagion by David Barnhizer and Daniel Barnhizer.  It is telling as to the irrelevance of the economics profession that the coauthors are lawyers. 

The concerns about robots and artificial intelligence have come from scientists who express worries about killer robots with super intelligence taking over from dumber humans with less capabilities.  Possibly, but it is more likely that these kind of concerns stem from an incorrect model or understanding of mind, consciousness, and creativity.  I do wish that Michael Polanyi were still with us to give us his take on our proclivity to attribute intelligence to machines.

The coauthors briefly mention these threats as well as the very real and already present  threats from governments armed with the intrusive surveillance and control that the digital revolution and artificial intelligence make possible.  Warnings from Stephen Hawking, Nick Bostrom, and Elon Musk of an immortal godlike superintelligence, amoral at best and immoral at worse, that will determine our fate are speculative, but the adverse economic impact of robotics are already upon us. Thus, the main focus  of the coauthors is on the massive economic dislocation that will result from making people superfluous. 

Recently, I read about a smart machine that displaces warehouse workers and also the workers at the plants that make the mechanical forklift machines that warehouse workers use to move and stack the crates and boxes. As the smart machines themselves are made by robots, the forklift production workers are also displaced.

According to the latest job report, there are 1,192,000 people employed in warehouses. Unlike the forklift, the new smart machine does not contribute to increasing the productivity of labor. Instead the smart machine displaces labor by eliminating the need for people to do the work.  Every dollar that would have been paid in wages goes instead into the profits of the warehouse owners. This is the great difference between earlier innovations that increased human productivity and living standards and the AI robotic innovation that eliminates the need for humans and makes them redundant. 

Robotics will not be implemented everywhere all at once. it will come upon us in stages. The 1.2 million displaced warehouse workers will look for other jobs. The lucky few will find one. The rest will join the unemployment ranks until they become discouraged and are dropped out of the unemployment measure.  State, local, and federal tax revenues will decline as a result of the lost jobs. But unemployment compensation and other social welfare benefits will rise. With constrained or nonexistent incomes, 1.2 million people will have less participation in the retail market. Car sales, home sales, restaurant, clothing, and entertainment sales all decline. The Social Security and Medicare payroll tax revenues decline by the earnings of 1.2 million Americans as do pension contributions. Social Security and Medicare are funded by the current work force paying for the retired work force.  As robotics eliminates the current work force, payroll tax revenues collapse.  

For an unknown period of time, as the US dollar is the world reserve currency, the federal government can print money to fill in the gap in the difference between Social Security and Medicare benefits and payroll revenues.  But large parts of the world (Russia and China) have already been driven away by sanctions from using the US dollar, and this means that the dollar will lose its reserve currency role.  Then what do we do when there are untold millions of Americans expecting Social Security pensions and medical care and there is no work force to pay the payroll tax?

These kind of questions, and there are many more, should be the primary focus of every economist, not that it would do much good as neoliberal economists are indoctrinated beings incapable of thought.  Nevertheless, that there is no concern among economists shows their irrelevance and uselessness.

Many years ago I pointed out that under present law and practice, the entirety of the GDP would flow to the handful of owners of the robotic and AI patents.  There would be no income for anyone else.  Such a situation is not possible, because it would mean that the patents would produce no income for the owners as no one would have jobs and incomes with which to purchase the products of robots and artificial intelligence.  The obvious dilemma I described received no response.

One way of looking at our dilemma is that we need artificial intelligence because those bringing us the AI revolution have no intelligence themselves.  How intelligent is it to make humans useless?  How intelligent is it to have robotic production lines when no humans have incomes from jobs with which to purchase the output of robots?  

Well, you might say, we will make the owners of the robots pay the payroll taxes from their sales revenues. We will guarantee sales by socializing the patents and sending everyone a check for their share of the GDP.  And so on.  

But why?  Why eliminate the need for human labor when no gain can accrue to the elite as there would be no consumer market for their products? The cost savings from robotics and artificial intelligence are meaningless when there are no consumers at the other end. When the patents have to be socialized in order to support a population displaced by robotics, what is the point of the robotics?

The coauthors of Contagion, and that is what artificial intelligence is, understand that humans with their limited awareness and intelligence have found intellectual interests in developing the means for their own self destruction.  Nuclear weapons, for example, are an insane accomplishment of mindless idiots, because they can not enter general use without destroying all life on the planet.  A doomsday weapon is a pointless weapon.

The same for robotics and artificial intelligence.  What is the purpose of producing threats to humans from police states and by taking away all purposes for human  existence?  This is a mindless act.  Those responsible for it are the worst criminals the world has ever known.  Yet these destroyers of humanity bask in public approval for all the benefits they are bringing to mankind.

Read The Artificial Intelligence Contagion and then tell me about the benefits.

*

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.

“The White Helmets are more dangerous than any terrorist”.

Find out why by listening to this important testimony from the town of Mesyaf that has recently been under attack from Israel and the Israeli-backed terrorists in northern Hama and Idleb. Ali Habib, a retired schoolteacher eloquently describes the growing antagonism towards the people of Europe and the U.S after eight years of a punishing war imposed upon the Syrian people by elected governments in the West and their regional allies.

“It was so safe here but you – Europeans, came to us and did what you did to us.

Europeans don’t see that, the Europeans only see that they want to overthrow Bashar al-Assad regime. We, the people, are satisfied with Bashar al-Assad. What does this have to do with you? What is it to you? We are satisfied with him. Soon Bashar al-Assad will make elections and we either elect him or not. We decide, not you.”

These are the voices of Syrian people that are never heard in the West. Western state-media has deliberately silenced them. If they had been listened to, this war might never have happened, let alone lasted eight terrible years and left Syria damaged and bleeding.

Full transcript of the interview below.

“First, my name is Ali Habib. I am from a village here, near Mesyaf but I spend most of my time in Mesyaf. I have witnessed multiple terrorist aggressions on Mesyaf, during one of them, I was only about 50 meters away when they targeted the hospital few days ago.

So, this hospital which is treating the residents of this region, despite all the pressure and siege imposed on Syria, ,nd which is treating patients and injured, was hit by three rockets. I saw that with my own eyes. What is the purpose of shelling such a place? What’s the purpose of shelling a hospital? Why don’t that people (the West) write about the terrorists targeting the hospital? Why don’t they write about the economic siege which has affected all of us psychologically, socially and morally? Our psychological state is not normal anymore, our psychological state is not normal anymore.

Why is the whole world talking about the White Helmets and Chemical Weapons and “They will use CW…” and “the Syrian government used CW…” Which Chemical Weapons are they are talking about? They are targeting us daily using psychological, social and economic poisons. They have burdened us in every sense and they are the ones who caused that and now they claim that now they want to protect us and to protect the Syrian people. No, that’s not right. They want to destroy the Syrian people, they don’t want to destroy the Syrian government, they want to destroy the country, to destroy Syria as a country. They didn’t see all that.

Yesterday, they shelled (there) and I saw the injured people with my own eyes, what did these innocent civilians do wrong? Why don’t al-Jazeera and al-Arabia and France 24 and American media report about these civilians who were killed? Why don’t they report about the hospital that was shelled? They have been targeting the hospital for about six months, but they didn’t manage to hit it directly. Of course, shells landed around it, but finally they hit the hospital and finally, they injured people and doctors who are rescuing people. But all that, unfortunately, Westerners don’t see…

We used to…I am one of those who used to believe that the French and the English and Germans have some morals. We know that the Americans have no morals but the French and Germans and Europeans in general to be subordinates of the American immorality – this is a new thing for us and it is frustrating for us.

Honestly, it’s seeding an internal (Syrian) antagonism towards them and we were not like that. We used to love them. When I used to see a foreigner like you hereI would run to you to see what you may need. I speak good French, I would use my knowledge of French to help you. That’s how we used to show our love to foreigners when they come to our country. Now we don’t want to see any of them because all of them are liars and all of them are deceitful, all of them are besieging us and all of them are tightening the noose on us and all of them are suffocating the hell out of us – the citizens, and we – the citizens…or I as a civilian, I am a civilian, I am a retired teacher. What crime have I committed to be hit by a shell? Or my car to be destroyed by a shell, or to be robbed by the militants?

Europeans don’t see that, the Europeans only see that they want to overthrow Bashar al-Assad regime. We, the people, are satisfied with Bashar al-Assad. What does this have to do with you? What is it to you? We are satisfied with him. Soon Bashar al-Assad will make elections and we either elect him or not. We decide, not you.

I mean this matter, manipulation of peoples manipulation of peoples’ thoughts, undermining peoples like that. It is absolutely abnormal. It’s unacceptable. I hope our voice will reach Europeans. We used to love them a lot. We used to deal with them. I have been to Europe a lot. I have been to Europe 11 times. I have visited all the European countries and I was happy with them, but now, honestly, I don’t have good feelings towards them as a result of their wrongful positions towards us. So I hope our voice will reach Europeans and that they will know the truth about what’s going on in Syria.

The people are as you see…the level of security in Syria was better than any other place in the world. Billions were spent to create this and unfortunately, the Europeans and Americans participated in the destruction of this country.

Why?

What crimes have we committed? What crimes have these people, who used to live in complete security, committed? I could sleep in the street and no one would come close to me. I have slept in the streets of Paris and no one robbed me and one could sleep in the streets here and no one would rob him. It was so safe here but you – Europeans, came to us and did what you did to us. I hope our voice will reach to you. I hope our voice will reach the people…

The European people, I believe, are different from the governments but for them to be subordinates to the Americans like this, it is shocking. It’s unfortunate. Unfortunate. European are known for their morals while Americans are known to be gangsters. Yes, I am talking from personal cultural experience. So, that is how we used to love Europeans, but unfortunately, now we don’t (love them) at all.

The White Helmets are much more dangerous than militants who slaughter people. What happened regarding the militants, I didn’t tell you, there is the slaughtering practice in the name of Islam, in the name of religion, while religion has nothing to do with all that but the White Helmets are more dangerous. The militants used knives and guns explicitly, while the White Helmets are working politically. I mean they are implanting narratives to bring more rockets to target us. We are fed up with rockets and fed up with killing.

White Helmet posing for shot during production of another “interventionist” narrative. (Photo: White Helmet PR archives)

The White Helmets are more dangerous than those who have slaughtered people, this is an undeniable fact. They (White Helmets) are pushing the Americans and Europeans to bombard us on the pretext that we are using Chemical Weapons against our own people. We – the people…

So, the White Helmets are much more dangerous than those (terrorists) who slaughter people in streets. The White Helmets, they are a terrorist organization, more terrorizing and more bloodsheding than those who slaughter people in streets – and this is probably a public opinion here.

We know who the White Helmets are. The White Helmets are more dangerous than any terrorist.

You are welcome..”

End of transcript.

*

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.

Vanessa Beeley is an independent journalist, peace activist, photographer and associate editor at 21st Century Wire. Vanessa was a finalist for one of the most prestigious journalism awards – the 2017 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism – whose winners have included the likes of Robert Parry in 2017, Patrick Cockburn, Robert Fisk, Nick Davies and the Bureau for Investigative Journalism team. Please support her work at her Patreon account. 

Featured image is from 21CW

For more than a decade, the United States has been steadily increasing the scale of its illegal military operations across the Middle East, resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

Eighteen years ago, the US invaded Afghanistan under the pretext of ousting the Taliban who allegedly granted sanctuary to Al-Qaeda. According to a study released by Brown University, more than 140,000 Afghan militants and civilians have died in the fight.

Since December 2001, the United States has been conducting various operations in Somali, and even today the Pentagon carries out both air strikes and ground operations, accompanied by a constant toll of civilian lives.

Back in 2003, Washington launched Operation Iraq Freedom to strip Saddam Hussein of WMDs he didn’t even have and to convert Iraq into a “democracy”, plunging this country into a state of perpetual chaos guaranteeing that it will remain a Western bastion in the Arab and Islamic World for years to come.

Eight years ago, the US succeeded in destabilizing Libya, when US warplanes attacked the troops of Libya’s most successful ruler to date – Muammar Gaddafi. Back then, Washington took every step to ensure his government would be ousted and and its key leaders murdered. The Libyan conflict has since produced tens of thousands of dead. In 2016, Barack Obama said that Libya was probably the “worst mistake” of his presidency.

The seven years of war in Syria resulted in a death toll of half a million Syrian nationals. Here, American troops are stationed illegally to fight ISIS and “indigenous ground forces.” The strange wording that Washington uses in its official rhetoric is no coincidence, since more than on one occasion US armed forces have opened fire on both Syrian government troops and civilians, with no official rationale ever being given to explain this brutality.

In Yemen, the United States has been backing Saudi Arabia’s efforts to put an end to the Houthi rebellion for three years. Washington carries on supplying Saudi authorities with high-precision weapons, combat aircraft and intelligence. This war has already triggered the largest humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century, with 20 million people finding themselves on the brink of starvation.

No Justice for Somalia

Amnesty International has recently released a report titled, USA/Somalia: Shroud of Secrecy Around Civilian Deaths Masks Possible War Crimes. This report contains accounts of more than 150 eye-witnesses and relatives of the victims of US armed forces in Somalia. Additionally, one can find expert opinions, satellite images and other factual information that blows the lid off the scale of US military operations in this war-torn country. This report alone states that some 14 civilians were killed and 8 more injured in the course of ongoing hostilities. And how many more deaths go unreported and or without investigation in Somalia every month?

The authors of the above mentioned report state that over the last couple of years Washington would launch over a hundred drone strikes in Somalia, with 24 of them occurring this year. This means that under the Trump administration, the number of UAV strikes in Somalia increased threefold.

Amnesty International states that those attacks “appear” to have violated international humanitarian law, and “may amount to war crimes.” Even though it doesn’t take an expert lawyer to establish what constitutes a blatant violation of international law and what doesn’t, it’s important that the international community begins increasing the number of such reports, even with some of them mired with overtly cowardly wording.

No Peace for Afghanistan

There’s more than enough convincing evidence showing that Washington ignores the ever increasing number of civilian casualties that accompany its military operations in Afghanistan. According to UN experts, over the last month alone the Pentagon would:

On March 12, carry out an air strike with a single UH-60L Black Hawk in the Andar District of Ghazni Province resulting in 11 civilian deaths. The helicopter displayed the colors of the 101st Airborne Division operating from Bagram Air Base.

On the following day, a Thunderbolt A-10A of the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing attacked a detachment of Afghan National Security Forces near the town of Tarinkot, leaving 5 Afghans servicemen dead and 10 more injured.

On March 17, two civilians were shot dead by a unit of US special operations forces near the village of Churak some 150 miles to the north of Kabul.

On March 20, 4 civilians were killed in the Wardak Province as a result of a strike launched by an MQ-9 Reaper UAV from the same 455th Air Expeditionary Wing.

On March 23, similar circumstances in the area of Bakhshi of the Kunduz Province resulted in a death of 13 civilians, including 10 children.

All of the reports presented above were confirmed by data from the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.

Thus, for ordinary Afghans, religious extremists do not represent quite the same threat as the US armed forces who are allegedly fighting these radicals.

Hundreds of other similar cases of US criminal activity across the Middle Eastern region can be cited, with Washington refusing to take responsibility for any of them.

It’s particularly curious that against this backdrop US State Department spokesman Robert Palladino had the audacity to describe an attack launched by the Saudi-led coalition against a Save the Children-supported hospital in Yemen “awful,” while urging Riyadh to conduct a thorough investigation.

However, Robert Palladino didn’t say a single word about Washington’s intentions to conduct any similar such investigation of any in a long list of similar attacks conducted by the US armed forces themselves all over the world. This fact shows that the United States has become accustomed to impunity from all manners of crimes, which explains why the Pentagon couldn’t be bothered with ensuring the safety of the civilian populations amid its various global military operations. The grief of the families of thousands of innocent victims is of little concern to those calling the shots in Washington. They are simply shrugged off as collateral damage. The US doesn’t want to know how many times it has violated international humanitarian law or how many war crimes it has committed.

So will the United States be held accountable for its crimes or will the international community once again be too willing to continue looking the other way?

*

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

Jean Périer is an independent researcher and analyst and a renowned expert on the Near and Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook“.

Featured image is from NEO

An advisor to US President Donald Trump has been caught red handed using fake videos to attack Palestinians, even as Israeli airstrikes killed 24 civilians in Gaza over the weekend.

Katrina Pierson, senior advisor to Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign, tweeted footage of rocket fire in Ukraine but claimed it shows Palestinian rocket barrage targeting Israel.

She used the footage to lash out at pro-Palestinian Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar on Sunday, after the Muslim-American representative from Minnesota criticised Israel’s assault on the besieged Palestinian enclave.

“650 Rockets being fired into Israel from Gaza in an attempt to overwhelm Israels Iron Dome: 173 intercepts, 4 people killed, and 28 wounded. What is @IlhanMN response to this violence? Will she condemn it?,” tweeted Pierson, who was the national spokesperson for Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Twitter users however were quick to point out that the video dates back to 2015 and shows missile attacks during the Ukrainian conflict.

American news website Mediaite accused Pierson of spreading a “fake video” in her Twitter attack on Omar.

The tweet has yet to be removed or corrected.

650 Rockets being fired into Israel from Gaza in an attempt to overwhelm Israels Iron Dome: 173 intercepts, 4 people killed, and 28 wounded. What is @IlhanMN response to this violence? Will she condemn it? pic.twitter.com/Vb1Ymxygj6

— Katrina Pierson (@KatrinaPierson) May 5, 2019

US Army helicopters dropped food and medicine to ISIS terrorists hiding in the depth of Anbar desert, Iraq, as per locals.

Qussai Anbari, director of the Iraqi Badr Organization, stated ‘ISIS terrorist groups hiding in the depth of Anbar province where no one can reach except US planes and under strict US approvals.’

‘Local Beduin families living in the desert have seen US helicopters drop food and medicine packages to the terrorists who are hiding in the western desert,’ Mr. Anbari added. He explained that the ‘Anbar desert is vast and terrorists cannot travel for long distances to buy food there’.

It’s not a first for US helicopters to deliver aid to terrorists, the US army operates under an illegal coalition of similar evil countries has been spotted delivering food and other aid to ISIS terrorists while the Iraqis were trying to clean their country from the terrorists in Saladdin, Falluja, Musol, and Diyala.

Iraqis also reported US planes transporting ISIS commanders and personnel from frontlines to other areas.

The same what US troops allegedly fighting ISIS in Syria within the same illegal coalition of evil countries have done multiple times leaving no doubts as to who is behind these world’s trash terrorists.

US fighter jets have constantly targeted and bombed the Syrian Arab Army and its allies during fights with ISIS, Nusra Front, and other internationally designated terrorist groups in the country.

A very infamous incident occurred in September 2016 when the US fighter jets bombed for almost an hour an SAA post which was stationed in Thardeh Mountain protecting the city of Deir Ezzor from ISIS. This attack, the Pentagon apologized for later claiming it was by error, killed 90 SAA soldiers and injured 110 more, led to the waiting ISIS herds storming the mountain and taking control of it before SAA reinforcement could arrive and clean it again.

Former US secretary of state Kerry was caught in a leaked conversation with political heads of Syrian terrorists that the US sought the use of ISIS to add pressure on the Syrian leadership to effect the long-awaited Regime Change in the country.

Worth noting that a considerable number of US troops have been killed in both Iraq and Syria during their mission to destroy both countries for the few greedy evil junta ruling the USA. Lives wasted for nothing while working for Satan killing innocent people in countries that posed no thereat whatsoever for the USA across the 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.

Featured image is from Syria News

The great deception of “a real democracy” in the Ukraine, which the New York Times insisted on 31 March 2019, shows little sign of relenting. For five years, Western populations have been consistently misled through skewed and slanted reporting, assuring the readership that what is unfolding in Kiev is a “fledgling democracy”, as a Washington Post editorial further outlined on 6 April 2019.

In reality it was a United States-funded coup d’état. During the months prior to Viktor Yanukovych‘s February 2014 ousting, elite American organizations bankrolled the “anti-government protests”, revealed as much in December 2013 by Victoria Nuland, then a high ranking official within the US Department of State.

Nuland publicly announced that America had pumped billions of dollars through the Ukraine “in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government”.

It was a clear admission of interference by a great power in the internal proceedings of an independent country, and one that shares a 1,000 kilometre border with Russia to the east.

Through bygone eras, intrusion in Ukrainian affairs could be brushed aside as old-fashioned imperial meddling. Since 1945, however, humanity’s circumstances have drastically altered and such policies of aggravation now carry with them the gravest of risks. Over the past seven decades, the earth’s inhabitants have been residing in an era dominated by the silent and sinister threat of nuclear weapons, with our world a far more dangerous and fragile place as a consequence.

Unlike China, a nation existing for thousands of years, America remains a youthful and inexperienced country founded less than 250 years ago. On separate occasions, the US and her powers-that-be have demonstrated a lack of maturity and prudence in their actions; they have moreover undertaken sometimes brutal, ill-judged and costly invasions against the likes of Vietnam and Iraq, along with an array of other outright and covert interventions.

In the broader international arena, during the First World War, among the first to notice the uncoordinated nature of American armies were the German military dictators, Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff – two men whose power was such that, by late 1916, they could ruthlessly intervene at will within civilian life in Germany, so as to promote their war aims.

In Hindenburg’s memoirs written in 1919, he reminisced on how the previous autumn American commanders “had proved themselves clumsily” on the battlefield, and that US soldiers were “unskilfully led”. At the end of his book, Hindenburg in addition warned America’s military that, “the business of war cannot be learnt in a few months, and that in a crisis lack of this experience costs a stream of blood”.

By 1918, the US had been at war for the large majority of its existence, but Hindenburg was examining American fighting through a Germanic prism relating to the European continent.

That such a powerful and at times rash nation as America was the first to produce nuclear weapons, surely did not bode well for the planet’s future. It is in fact a wonder that planet-altering accidents did not unfold, as a result of carelessness within US command structures; during the height of the Cold War, American jets armed with thermonuclear bombs were circling without specific orders, or adequate communication, at the Kunsan Air Base in South Korea; there was no protocol to prevent a rogue pilot, or one who lost his nerve, from taking it upon himself to initiate an “execute message” with his nuclear payload.

American warships sailing gracefully into Japanese harbours all contained stashes of nuclear weapons aboard, without the knowledge of Japan’s governments, and was consequently a severe violation of that country’s sovereignty. A collision with a neighbouring US ship may have been sufficient to unleash a part or full nuclear explosion.

Fortunately, no catastrophe occurred, but the risks could have been eliminated had there been orders in place to offload nuclear cargos before entering port. Worryingly, the near constant presence of nuclear-armed American vessels in Japanese waters would very likely have constituted high priority targets in Soviet nuclear war planning, putting Japan in even greater danger.

Due to lack of secure storage for nuclear weapons underneath American jets, an uncontrolled landing or botched take-off on a runway, like in South Korea, could have triggered a partial nuclear blast in the aircraft’s undercarriage; this critical defect was known at the time by US officers, but nothing it seems was done to rectify it. Any such accident would have compelled other American jets already airborne to assume they had suffered an enemy attack; and they in turn would have responded by launching assaults on Russia, with the nuclear winter phenomenon to have followed.

Time and again unnecessary and heart-rending gambles were taken with nuclear arsenals, sometimes in the most astonishing and haphazard fashion. They were the actions of a state’s military that simply lacked the competence and rationality, in order to handle with due care the deadly weapons bestowed to their possession. By further slices of luck, no incident materialized.

In the Ukraine, it was most likely clear to all concerned that overthrowing a government in 2014 and implementing a Western client outfit, would lead to an increased chance of nuclear war between America and Russia. In 2015 Richard Sakwa, a professor of Russian and European politics, wrote that,

“The Russo-Georgian War of 2008 was in effect the first of the ‘wars to stop NATO enlargement’; the Ukraine crisis of 2014 is the second. It is not clear whether humanity would survive a third”.

Undeterred by the spectre of nuclear conflict with Russia, president Barack Obama pushed ahead with plans to install a puppet regime in the Ukraine, and in early 2015 he confirmed American involvement on CNN.

Washington’s principal ambition in the Ukraine was to install a proxy government that would enable the western superpower, along with its military arm NATO, to interfere at ease in the country’s institutions. In a double whammy, this also prevented Russia from retaining relations with her strategically important neighbour.

The European Union performed its customary role of obedience by following Washington’s lead in supporting the coup – and the EU thereafter rolled out a list of sanctions against Russia from March 2014, under the pretext of punishing Moscow for its absorption of the Crimea – a peninsula which comprised part of the Russian Empire and Kremlin-led Soviet Union for over 200 years.

Though cracks in the relationship are emerging, Europe’s subservience to American hegemony is perhaps not surprising. Of the 28 nations that belong to the EU, 22 of them are now members of the US-run NATO organization; included among these are Europe’s most powerful states such as France, Italy and Germany; while this century smaller countries have increasingly been swallowed up by NATO, some lying astride Russia’s very frontiers, like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Again these policies, receiving broad acceptance and backing, have increased the possibility of nuclear disaster.

Europe’s strongest nation, Germany, and its chancellor Angela Merkel, have tended to display a notably American-friendly attitude. Though it is almost forgotten, Merkel as opposition leader was a firm supporter of the US invasion of Iraq, criticizing then head of state Gerhard Schröder for “anti-Americanism” when he moved Germany clear of the illicit intervention.

Even more seriously, as chancellor Merkel agreed in 2009 to the installment of US nuclear weapons on German soil – as part of NATO’s “nuclear sharing policy” – and without even consulting her nation’s populace. A cache of twenty B61 nuclear bombs are still in place today at Büchel Air Base in western Germany, and they represent a most flagrant breach of German statehood.

In the Ukraine president Petro Poroshenko, a billionaire tycoon who enriched himself by purchasing state assets, was a willing sycophant to Western desires. Poroshenko’s five year tenure is summarized neatly by his trip to Washington in June 2017, where he “dropped in” to visit the new US president Donald Trump, who was seemingly not keen upon meeting his Ukrainian counterpart. The White House’s then press secretary, Sean Spicer, said that Poroshenko was scheduled to see vice president Mike Pence alone, but in the end “a compromise was reached” so that he could talk to Trump.

Meanwhile, rather than Russia “fomenting a war” in eastern Ukraine as has been reported, it was largely the US-engineered overthrow of Yanukovych which instigated the conflict, that once more could have escalated to nuclear war. For months on end, Russian-backed separatists were battling neo-Nazi and fascist-linked regiments in eastern Ukrainian regions, such as the Azov, Aidar, Donbas and Dnipro Battalions. The putsch furthermore prompted Russia to initiate its aforementioned takeover of the Crimea, a few weeks after Yanukovych’s departure.

There has been a wave of recent articles pointing to the election of a Jewish presidential candidate, Volodymyr Zelensky, as proof of the Ukraine’s “transition to democracy” and disregard for fascism. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is little reference to the fact that Zelensky has enjoyed ample support from a highly influential billionaire businessman, Ihor Kolomoyskyi – who has quite a murky history and is presently under investigation by the FBI over claims of “ordering contract killings” and “financial crimes”. Kolomoyskyi has also led the way in funding the far-right Ukrainian regiments fighting in the east.

Virtually no attention has been afforded either to the growing number of far-right politicians employed as MPs in the “pro-democracy” Kiev assembly. Since 2014, numerous past and present members of the fascist Svoboda party have enjoyed work as MPs: from Oleh Tyahnybok, Ihor Mosiychuk and Mykhailo Holovko, to Oleh Makhnitskyi, Yuriy Levchenko and Ruslan Koshulynskyi.

Other far-right figures are holding parliamentary positions following the “revolution”, such as previous and current Svoboda MPs, Oleh Osukhovskyi, Oleksandr Aronets, Yuriy Bublyk and Oleksandr Marchenko. There are ex-Svoboda members, like Serhii Rudyk, concealed in “liberal-conservative” parties like the Petro Poroshenko Bloc.

This number is bolstered by a range of yet more far-right MPs sworn to office, all of whom were elected to power in late 2014, months after Yanukovych was removed: Dmytro Yarosh, Andriy Biletsky, Boryslav Bereza, Yuriy Bereza, Volodymyr Parasyuk and Semen Semenchenko. Some are embedded in apparently respectable parties like People’s Front and Self Reliance, while others are employed as “independents”.

MPs like Yarosh, Biletsky, Boryslav Bereza and Parasyuk are past and current members of Neo-Nazi parties like Right Sector, National Corps and Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists.

The great majority of the above enjoy continued employment as MPs, while established newspapers like the Guardian, on 25 April 2019, declare the Ukraine to be “a healthy democracy” that is witnessing “the prospect of a democratic transfer of power” which “the Russian president has trouble getting to grips with”. The same columnist, a prominent contributor to the Guardian, writes that,

“In a way, Ukraine is the Russia that never was. To see this helps to explain why Putin preferred to unleash war in the Donbass to letting the Maidan Revolution thrive”.

Andriy Parubiy, MP and Chairman of the Ukraine’s parliament since April 2016, has a history of neo-Nazi activity dating to 1991, and he was “a commandant in the Euromaidan” protests that partly led to Yanukovych’s demise. The briefly above-mentioned far-right figure, Parasyuk, also performed a prominent role in the “Maidan Revolution” marches.

From 2014 Parubiy has held membership of the People’s Front party; as too has the formidable commander of the Dnipro Battalion, Yuriy Bereza, who has himself sparked fist fights in parliament as recently as December –and in summer 2017 he threatened to “grab a machine gun and shoot” fellow MPs who protested the banning of the Moscow-supported St George’s Ribbon.

Western audiences are spared such grim realities as these, and for five years have been fed a diet of misinformation.

*

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

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