The recent announcement by United States President Donald Trump that the US will recognise Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights draws attention yet again to the double standards applied by NATO and its satraps including Australia to the issues of territorial integrity, the right to self-determination, and international law. Three cases illustrate the duplicity and double standards of the Western nations. They may be reviewed chronologically.

The Golan Heights form part of the sovereign territory of the state of Syria. It, along with the West Bank of Palestine (then part of Jordan) and the Gaza strip were seized by Israel at the conclusion of the Six Day War between Israel, Egypt, Syria and Jordan in June 1967. Israel has remained in occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights ever since. It maintains a blockade on Gaza to the immense suffering of Gaza’s inhabitants.

It is well-established international law (Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949) that states may not continue to occupy territory seized as a result of war. On 22ndof November 1967 the United Nations Security Council in resolution 242 unanimously called on Israel to withdraw its forces from occupied territory. This was ignored by Israel, just as it has violated 32 United Nations resolutions since 1968, easily the single biggest offender (Turkey is second with 24 violations over the same time period).

In 1981 Israel passed the Golan Heights Law in which it purported to annex the Syrian Golan Heights. United Nations Security Council resolution 497 of 17th of December 1981 declared that purported annexation “null and void and without legal effect.”

That Israel continues to ignore its obligations under international law is not surprising. That the United States, other NATO countries, and Australia not only do not impose any sanctions on Israel for its continued violations, it does not even permit the discussion of such a possibility. Even to raise the issue invites immediate allegations of anti-Semitism and other absurdities from the immensely powerful Jewish lobby in most western states.

Trump’s announcement follows a similar declaration last year to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. This is also not only a violation of international law, it is contrary to resolutions the United States itself has supported in the past (as with the Golan Heights).

Kosovo’s case is totally different but it raises a number of relevant points. Kosovo is ethnically and linguistically Albanian, although it formed part of the former Yugoslavia. There were strong elements within Kosovo that wanted independence from Yugoslavia.

That independence movement was supported by the United States. Between March and June 1999 the United States bombed Serbia to encourage the Serbs to withdraw their military forces from Kosovo. The bombing was without Security Council approval, was not within the provisions of the United Nations Charter, and was accordingly a gross violation of international law.

At the cessation of the bombing, on 10 June 1999, United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 gave Kosovo autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On the 17th February 2008 Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Yugoslavia. There was no referendum, but it is fair to say that the declaration was supported by the majority of Kosovans, especially those of Albanian ethnicity who comprised 88% of Kosovo’s population.

On 8 October 2008 the United Nations General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the Kosovo declaration of Independence. Their decision was announced on 22nd July 2010. The court noted the lengthy history of unilateral declarations of independence since the 17th century, with most of them opposed by the parent state.

The court concluded that “international law contained no prohibition of declarations of independence” (paragraph 79) and that “the declaration of 17th February 2008 did not violate general international law” (paragraph 84).

The United States had a particular interest in Kosovo, including in particular being able to establish a substantial military base there (Camp Bond Steel). That base functions, inter alia, as a major transit point for Afghan heroin under the control of United States and Allied forces in Afghanistan.

No sanctions were applied to the United States for its illegal bombing of Syria, nor on Kosovo for its unilateral declaration of independence. The majority of the world’s countries now recognise Kosovo as a separate independent state.

Crimea was factually different again, but also contains several relevant points. Crimea had been part of the Russian Empire since 1783. On 18 February 1954 the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a decree transferring Crimea to Ukraine. There was no referendum of the Crimean people and had there been, the overwhelming likelihood is that the transfer would have been rejected.

The transfer seems to have been the brainchild of then Soviet leader Khrushchev, himself a Ukrainian. The absence of democratic procedures is reinforced by the fact that the transfer was itself a violation of Soviet law.

In the following decades there was an uneasy relationship between the Crimeans and the Ukrainian government. Crimea enjoyed the status of being an “autonomous republic”. That uneasiness came to a head in February 2014 when the duly elected and internationally recognised government of Ukraine was overthrown in an American organized and financed coup d’état.

The new Ukrainian government was anti-Russian and frankly fascist in its orientation. Neither fact was acceptable to the Crimeans who, like the Albanians in Kosovo were overwhelmingly of one language, culture, ethnicity and identification with all things Russian.

A referendum was quickly organized (unlike Kosovo) and there was a voter turnout of 83.1%, of whom 95.5% voted in favour of reunification with Russia. The Russian Duma in turn voted to accept Crimea back into the Russian Federation.

The western media and politicians consistently use the term “annexation” to describe the reincorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation. The OED defines annexation as synonymous with “seizure, occupation, invasion, conquest, takeover, appropriation and expropriation.” None of these terms accurately describes the sequence of events in Crimea.

There is no difference in international law between what Kosovo did with the approval of the International Court of Justice and what the Crimeans did. The latter was arguably much more democratic as it followed an overwhelming referendum result in support of departure from Ukraine and rejoining with Russia.

The consequences however, have been very different. Russia has been subject to endless vilification. The Russian state and many political and business leaders have been subjected to sanctions. One has only to ask: would this have happened if Crimea had voted to leave the Russian Federation and join Ukraine? The overwhelming probability is that Crimea would have been welcomed with open arms and its people applauded for making the ‘right’ choice.

Crimea is strategically significant, which is why the British fought Russians there in the Crimean war (1853-1856), and why a prime geopolitical objective of the US interference in Ukraine was to deprive the Russians of the naval base at Sevastopol.

The history of these three episodes (Golan, Kosovo and Crimea) exemplifies the double standards and hypocrisy that characterizes western geopolitics. Trump’s latest statements on the Golan Heights only reinforce the point.

*

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

James O’Neill is an Australian-based Barrister at Law and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Golan Heights, Kosovo and Crimea: A Case Study in Hypocrisy and Double Standards

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has awarded Avon Protection Systems Inc., Cadillac, Michigan, a $245,961,250 firm-fixed-price contract for production of M53A1 Chemical Biological Protective Mask systems, according to the DoD contract website.

The Army estimates M53A1 gas masks will start delivery in the second half of this financial year ending September. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, will oversee the purchase order.

Avon Protection Systems is a world leader and major supplier to the military, law enforcement, first responders, and industrial sectors globally.

The M53A1 was developed to counter multiple threats encountered on the modern battlefield. “It provides excellent protection against traditional chemical and biological warfare agents, select Toxic Industrial Materials (TIMs) and particulate matter including radioactive dust,” read the M53 brochure.

According to the company, the M53A1 protects soldiers from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks. Specifically, the mask protects against mustard, sarin, soman, and VX nerve agents.

The order comes one month after the U.S. government introduced science-based guidelines for how first responders decontaminate large numbers of Americans after a chemical-weapons attack.

The guidelines, published last month, are the first in the U.S. to be based on extensive research and testing.

“Terrorist threats and the use of chemical weapons in Syria have heightened awareness of the need for improved preparedness against chemical attacks,” said Gary Disbrow, deputy director of the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, which prepared the guidelines.

“First responders are supportive of the fact that it is evidence-based guidance, and not just, ‘We used this last time, and it seemed to work,’” he added.

With lightning speed, the Army and U.S. government have been actively preparing for a biological incident on the homeland. With threats harder to anticipate today, the act of preparation suggests some fears that an attack of some sort could be imminent.

*

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

All images in this article are from Zero Hedge

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on DoD Orders $250 Million of Gas Masks – What Do They Know?

Governments throughout the Southern African Development Community (SADC) are working feverishly to provide relief to millions of people affected by cyclone Idai, a category three-to-four storm which has severely impacted three states, Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe, with some damage extending as far away as South Africa and Madagascar.

During the early morning hours of March 14 storms and subsequent flooding destroyed homes, crops, businesses and public institutions bringing normal life to a halt while local and international rescue operations scrambled to provide temporary housing and medical assistance to the communities directly hit by the cyclone.

In the strategic port city of Biera in central Mozambique’s Sofala Province, it has been estimated that 90 percent of the infrastructure of the municipality was been destroyed. Although the port itself, a lifeline for the landlocked states of Zambia, Malawi and Zimbabwe, remains largely intact, with such destruction of surrounding areas, it is expected that the recovery process will take years.

Biera has experienced exponential growth over the last two decades. The population more than doubled since 1997 and the prospects for economic development were enhanced due to the discovery of vast amounts of natural gas resources off shore in the Indian Ocean.

The cyclone winds prompted continuous rains resulting in the overflowing of rivers causing flooding which wiped away everything in its path. Official accounts of the number of deaths stands at the time of this writing at approximately 750.

However, in Biera, hundreds of bodies were lying along the roads in a gruesome scene. The number of corpses poses challenges for identification, storage and burials. With the widespread flooding, returning the deceased to surviving relatives for burials will be almost impossible.

Due to the massive dislocation, injuries and deaths, it is not surprising that cases of the water borne disease cholera have surfaced. In Mozambique there were 139 confirmed cases as of March 29 with many more being anticipated.  Nearly a million doses of the cholera vaccine are being rushed into the region through the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) to avoid deaths which could extend into the thousands.

Cholera is contracted through contaminated water sources and if not treated could kill its victims within a matter of hours. In light of the conditions prevailing in the makeshift internally displaced persons camps, the disease could rapidly spread causing further social problems for Mozambique and the other affected SADC countries.

Southern African news website reports that:

“The provision of clean drinking water is a priority in effected areas with reports emerging that citizens of Beira, a city of 500,000 people, have taken to drinking the stagnant water that has gathered on the side of the road as relief efforts struggle to restore life in the region to normal. Hunger and water shortages have further increased the risk of Cholera infection as desperate people take to eating and drinking contaminated food and water. The United Nations estimates that 1.8 million people in Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe are in need of aid, primarily food, clean drinking water and medical supplies. Mozambique President Filipe Nyusi has declared that all health care in the regions affected will be free until such time as the crisis has been warded off.”

In neighboring Zimbabwe, the government of President Emmerson Mnangagwa has taken a leading role in mobilizing aid to the damaged regions of the country. Most of the damage has taken place in Manicaland and Masvingo provinces with the towns of Chimanimani, Chipenge and Bikita bearing the brunt of the storm.

Zimbabwe cyclone Idai flooding in Manicaland during March of 2019

There have been over 100 people killed in the disaster in Zimbabwe while some 200,000 have been in the direct line of cyclone Idai on the border with Mozambique. The government in Harare reported on March 28 that $100 million is being allocated for aid and reconstruction of the damaged areas.

Malawi reports that 90,000 people were displaced by the cyclone. One aid organization based Ireland, Concern, reported that anywhere between 80 to 100 percent of the maize crop has been destroyed by the winds and flooding. (See this)

Economic Challenges within the SADC Region

All three states which were the epicenter of Idai are struggling against the broader political and economic forces imposed upon them by the Western industrialized countries. Mozambique, despite its natural resources and strategic location, was compelled in 2018 to renegotiate the terms of its financial obligations internationally. (See this)

A former Portuguese colony for five centuries, the people could only obtain their national independence through an armed struggle which lasted for a decade. In 1975, the oppressed nation gained its freedom under the leadership of the Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO), which remains in power today.

The country then served as a rear-base and frontline state supporting the liberation movements in contiguous Zimbabwe and South Africa. As a result, the FRELIMO government was targeted for regime-change where the settler-colony of Rhodesia and South Africa, both backed by imperialism, funded counter-revolutionary groups to undermine the independence and nation-building efforts beginning in the late 1970s.

Since the end of the imperialist-engineered civil war in the early 1990s, Mozambique has been emerging as a developing state. With the energy resource findings of recent years the hopes for an economic take off was promising. However, the decline in commodity prices since 2014, coupled with western-backed loans and other financial obligations, has slowed growth. Other challenges include the emergence last year of an “Islamist” armed group in the north which has engaged in infrastructural sabotage and murder against civilians. Consequently, the FRELIMO government must focus much-needed resources on defense and security concerns to repel the violent threats.

Zimbabwe, also won its independence by waging an armed revolutionary war from the mid-1960s until 1979, when a negotiated settlement with the European-settler regime, led to multi-party, non-racial elections in which the Zimbabwe African National Union, Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) became the dominant party in 1980, extending its rule now for nearly 40 years. After a radical land redistribution program transferred land from the British commercial farmers to millions of Africans in 2000, Britain, the European Union (EU) and the United States have maintained sanctions against the ZANU-PF party and government creating tremendous economic problems.

Malawi, which gained its independence by way of political mobilization from Britain in 1964, is one of the world’s poorest states largely dependent upon agricultural production of tobacco, tea and sugar for export. More than half the population lives below the poverty line. As a result of its dependency on external trade, the country has run large deficits hampering its capacity for long term social and economic planning.

Climate Change and the Need for Economic Independence

The warming of the planet including ocean waters is often blamed for the worsening impact of cyclones and other weather-related issues. In Mozambique, Biera, the fourth largest city, had taken precautions to guard against floods stemming from heavy rains.

According to an article by Cara Anna published in the Associated Press dispatches for March 29, it says:

“Long and narrow with a 2,400-kilometer (1,500-mile) Indian Ocean coastline, Mozambique is on the frontline of fighting climate change in Africa, where most nations have little infrastructure and funding to cope. Rapidly growing coastal cities like Beira are especially at risk. The mayor (Daviz Simango) called it unjust that African nations face some of the toughest challenges while contributing little to global warming. People in rich, industrialized nations produce much of the carbon dioxide and other gases that are warming the planet by burning the most coal, diesel, gasoline and jet fuel.” (See this)

Humanitarian agency Oxfam works in Malawi where Country Director, John Makina, noted:

“People have been left with nothing. They need help now and in the months and years ahead to rebuild their communities in a way, which equips them for a world where climate change means extreme weather events such as Idai happen more often. Idai is yet another deadly warning of the impact of unchecked climate change unless governments, particularly major emitters, fail to cut emissions fast.” (See this)

Malawi children displaced by cyclone Idai during March 2019

Therefore, continuing economic dependency and rapid climate change must be addressed as foreign policy issues which threaten the future development of Southern African states. This imperative requires continental collaboration between all African Union (AU) member-states along with mass organizations, religious institutions, trade unions and youth. These issues are political in that they require immediate attention and correction to insure that Africa reaches its full potential which will result in genuine independence and sustainability.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Cyclone Idai Causes Devastation Compounding Economic Challenges in the Southern Africa Region
  • Tags: ,

As we approach the one-year anniversary of the Great March of Return and Breaking the Siege in Gaza – also the 43rd anniversary of Land Day – Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network joins Palestinians and people around the world in encouraging all supporters of justice to join in solidarity actions at this critical timeLand Day has been marked since 1976 not only to highlight Palestinians’ connection to the land and their struggle to liberate it from ongoing colonialism, but also to remember the six Palestinians slain on 30 March of that year in Palestine ’48 as they protested against land theft and confiscation.

Palestinians in Gaza, 70 percent of them refugees denied their right to return home, marked Land Day in 2018 with a massive march, bringing tens of thousands and even more to the colonially-imposed “border” and its associated “fence.” They demanded not only an end to the suffocating siege under which they have suffered for over a decade, progressively intensifying and persisting through three devastating wars. They also brought to the forefront the core of the Palestinian struggle for liberation: the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands confiscated by Zionist colonization. It is a struggle that belongs not only to the Palestinians in Gaza, but to all Palestinians around the world, especially those in the refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and those Palestinians dispersed even further from their homeland.

For organizing in a mass, collective demonstration highlighting this most fundamental Palestinian right, these demonstrators have faced brutal repression and killing for nearly one year. Medics, journalists, children, elders and people with disabilities have been shot down in cold blood by Israeli occupation forces as they protested for their right. And despite the killing, they have persisted and remained, marching each Friday to claim their rights in an uprising that has inspired people around the world, and especially Palestinians, with a clear commitment to achieving their goals: return and liberation.

Indeed, the Israeli occupation state has repeatedly attempted to pressure Palestinians into stopping the marches, through continuing and intensified siege, military attack and brutal military might. Despite the impunity Israeli officials enjoy and the unparalleled support they receive from the U.S. government and other world powers, the reality of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity has perhaps never been so clear, as was recently affirmed in a new report by an independent commission of the UN Human Rights Council.

In the context of the fragmentation of Palestinians, the Great March of Return, on Land Day, has once again highlighted that the Palestinian struggle is one struggle – from Palestinian citizens of Israel in ’48 Palestine, to those in Jerusalem, in the West Bank, in the Gaza Strip, in Jordan, in the camps in Lebanon and Syria and everywhere around the world in exile and diaspora. To this number must also be added the nearly 6,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, who through continued struggle inside the prisons continue to confront the siege and isolation imposed upon them as well.

Palestinians killed by occupation forces in the Great March of Return, have – like those shot down in extrajudicial executions and assassinations in the West Bank – had their bodies imprisoned by the Israeli occupation in an attempt to extort political concessions from Palestinians. In addition, participants from the demonstrations have themselves been kidnapped and imprisoned inside Israeli jails. Palestinian refugees who continue to be denied their right to return to their homes and lands may enter Palestine ’48 only when shackled, bound, tortured and imprisoned by the colonizing power that has confiscated that land.

Every uprising and act of resistance inside Israeli prisons is part of the same struggle against siege and isolation that the Great March of Return and Breaking the Siege represents. The Gaza Strip itself is often described as an “open-air prison,” the siege another form of colonial torture and isolation akin to that imposed on Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. The struggle to break the siege is a struggle to break all of the sieges encircling Palestinians, from the ever-intensifying racist campaigns of discrimination and exclusion in Palestine ’48, the ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem, the raids, killings and colonial settlements in the West Bank, the isolation of Palestinian refugees in the camps, the criminalization and repression of Palestinian activism worldwide.

Since 30 March 2018, the Palestinian Ministry of Health confirmed that Israeli occupation forces have killed 266 people, including 50 children, six women and one elderly man. 30,398 people have been injured, 16,027 seriously enough to be hospitalized. The hospitalized Palestinians include 3,175 children and 1,008 women. During the demonstrations, 6,857 Palestinians have been shot with live bullets and another 844 with rubber-coated metal bullets. 1,503 were shot in the head and neck, 7,731 in the legs and 732 in the chest and back; 136 Palestinians have gone through amputations as a result. (This reflects another version of the infamous policy of Israeli commander “Captain Nidal” in shooting and disabling the Palestinian youth in Dheisheh and Aida refugee camps near Bethlehem.)

Medics Razan al-Najjar, Abdullah al-Qati and Musa Abu Hassanein were killed by occupation forces and 665 more were injured; 112 ambulances were damaged. Two journalists, Yaser Murtaja and Ahmed Abu Hussein, were killed and 347 more were wounded.

Despite this great price, Palestinians are continuing to march to break the siege, to win freedom for all, from the prisons to the camps to the streets, fields and shores of Gaza (where fishers and farmers risk death or imprisonment to ply their trade and support their families and communities.) They continue to march, most centrally, for their right to return home, for liberation for Palestine.

This weekend, we urge you to answer the calls for solidarity – to join the marches, events and demonstrations taking place around the world, to echo the calls of Palestinians from inside the prisons of the Israeli occupation and the open-air prison in Gaza for an end to the siege and for the right to return.

A list of events and activities is below. We know this list is not fully comprehensive, and we urge people to send their additional events and actions to us on Facebook or via email at [email protected]. Please join your local events and join in the uprising that Palestinians in Gaza have been leading for the past year – continuing over 100 years of anti-colonial Palestinian resistance.

*

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 IMEMC

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) today called on the inspector general for the Department of the Interior to investigate Acting Secretary David Bernhardt’s role in blocking a scientific assessment showing the pesticide chlorpyrifos threatens the existence of nearly 1,400 protected species.

Bernhardt’s efforts to suppress the studies, which were completed in October 2017 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, were revealed in a document obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity through the Freedom of Information Act. Those findings were highlighted in a New York Times investigation published this week.

“We welcome any effort to shed light on this disgraceful scandal,” said Brett Hartl, director of government affairs at the Center. “It’s disgusting that after pesticide companies asked for evidence of catastrophic harm to endangered species to be buried, Bernhardt gladly pulled out the shovels.”

The determination by Fish and Wildlife Service scientists that the insecticide jeopardizes 1,399 plants and animals on the endangered species list prompted no action by the Trump administration to curb its use. Instead the administration worked to undercut the findings and delay all further efforts to assess and reduce the impacts of pesticides on endangered species.

Wyden’s request comes a day after he questioned Bernhardt about the buried assessments during the acting secretary’s confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, of which Wyden is a senior member.

*

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 Boise State Public Radio

Xi’s Visit Sets Tone for China-EU Relations

March 30th, 2019 by Liu Caiyu

Chinese President Xi Jinping returned to Beijing on Wednesday after his visit to Europe, bringing a fruitful outcome and the visit assures the cooperative trend of China-EU relations, analysts noted.

The outcome of Xi’s visit to Europe is “beyond expectations” and extremely “practical” in terms of deepening China-Europe relations. The visit sets the tone for the future of the relations, Chinese analysts noted on Wednesday.

At the conclusion of Xi’s visit, Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi told reporters in Paris that through the visit, the Chinese president has shown Europe and the world that China is standing on the right side of history, and will continue to promote China-EU relations, safeguard multilateralism and guide the reform of global governance, the Xinhua News Agency reported on Wednesday.

Xi’s visit to Europe injects new impetus in China-Europe relations, Geng Shuang, a spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, told a daily briefing on Wednesday.

“China always views Europe as a comprehensive strategic partner and an indispensable global power. Together with Europe, we will fulfill multilateralism, increase stability and certainty in the world and inject more positive energy and impetus for international cooperation,” Geng said.

Xi visited Italy, Monaco and France from March 21 to 26 and held “unprecedented” talks on building new global governance with the leaders of France, Germany and the EU in Paris.

During the visit, Italy became the first Group of Seven nation to join the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and also agreed to return 796 sets of Chinese cultural relics. China and France signed an agreement on future space cooperation in Paris, allowing France to fly its experiments on the Chang’e-6 mission.

The application of 5G in Monaco, which will become the first country in the world to be fully covered by a nationwide 5G mobile network, promotes China’s efforts in information infrastructure construction in Europe, analysts noted.

‘Icebreaker’

Overall, Xi’s visit to Europe was “fruitful” and the outcome “beyond expectations,” Ding Chun, director of the Center for European Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, told the Global Times on Wednesday.

In particular, Xi’s meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker not only reinforced bilateral ties but also sets the tone for the future of China-Europe relations, Ding said.

China and Europe are not “rivals” as the “EU-China: Strategic Outlook” issued by the European Commission described, but “partners,” Ding said.

From the articles and speeches Xi made, European leaders and people could feel the determination and sincerity that China has toward China-Europe relations and Xi’s charm in handling diplomatic matters, which is another prominent outcome of the visit, said Zhao Junjie, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences’ Institute of European Studies.

Xi’s visit to Italy brought BRI to a new level. The cooperation with Italy, as a major Europe nation, will be an icebreaker for the BRI to extend to the European continent, Zhao told the Global Times on Wednesday.

The BRI’s end point, either the maritime Silk Road or land Silk Road, is Europe, which cannot be replaced by other regions. But most European countries continue to hold a wait-and-see attitude, Zhao explained.

On March 23, Italy signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with China to jointly advance the construction of the BRI.

Italian Deputy Prime Minister Luigi Di Maio said the deals were worth an initial 2.5 billion euros ($2.8 billion) but had a potential value of 20 billion, Reuters reported.

(From left) Chinese President Xi Jinping, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Italian Labour and Industry Minister Luigi Di Maio and Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte at the signing ceremony in Rome on Saturday. Photo: AFP

(From left) Chinese President Xi Jinping, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Italian Labour and Industry Minister Luigi Di Maio and Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte at the signing ceremony in Rome on Saturday. Photo: AFP

Under the framework, the BRI will be continuously enriched with trade deals and investments. Italy’s olive oil and agricultural tourism would be new growth points for bilateral ties and China might invest in the port city of Trieste, Zhao said.

Trieste could be a key point of the Belt and Road Initiative, especially 21st Century Maritime Silk Road in Europe, which can spread benefits to more regions like southern and western Europe, Zhao said.

Germany expressed its willingness to participate in the second Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in Beijing in April, the Xinhua News Agency reported.

Some European countries remain concerned on issues like reciprocity, but EU members are open to learn about the initiative, so if they find the BRI truly mutually beneficial, their stance could be changed, Feng Zhongping, director of European Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, told the Global Times.

During Xi’s European visit, he also mentioned an increase in third-party market cooperation under the BRI project, which Zhao said would offer new opportunities for European nations interested in BRI to work with China in new markets.

Feng said that “some problems between China and the EU can’t be totally solved in one night, and issues like market access, transfer of technology and intellectual property still need to be addressed.”

After China passes its foreign investment law, European countries will find more opportunities and equal treatment in China, so this could be a positive sign, Feng noted.

*

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: Chinese President Xi Jinping (second from left), French President Emmanuel Macron (second from right), German Chancellor Angela Merkel (first from right) and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker attend the closing ceremony of a global governance forum co-hosted by China and France in Paris, France on Tuesday. Photo: Xinhua

Theresa May’s no-deal/deal went down by a 344 – 286 margin. Did her latest defeat signal three strikes and she’s out – her coup de grace of no return?

Britain has until April 12 to crash out of the EU with no deal or remain a bloc member, abandoning Brexit sine die, MPs strongly rejecting the former option.

Ahead of Friday’s vote, May offered to resign if MPs backed her no-deal/deal. As things now stand, she’ll likely either step down voluntarily or be pushed in the coming days, her tenure as prime minister since July 2016 pockmarked with failure.

Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn called for new elections, stressing Britain won’t leave the EU without an acceptable deal, adding if May refuses to accept that, she has to go.

She called the implications of her third defeat “grave,” saying Britain is scheduled to leave the EU on April 12, adding she’ll continue pressing for an “orderly Brexit” – a notion she opposed all along without admitting it publicly as prime minister.

Other MPs called Brexit dead, wanting Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty revoked, stating:

“1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.”

“2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.”

“That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.”

“3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”

“4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.”

“A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”

“5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.”

In January 2017, Britain’s Supreme Court ruled against fast-tracking Brexit, saying “the government cannot trigger Article 50 without Parliament authorizing that course.” It’s for MPs to decide, not the PM or UK voters.

So far, MPs rejected eight variations of May’s no-deal/deal this week. On Monday, they’ll vote perhaps for the last time on still another alternative.

Before Friday’s vote, House of Commons Speaker John Bercow ruled that May could not call for a third vote without substantially changing her plan.

She split her no-deal/deal apart. Friday’s vote was on a transition period post-Brexit if occurs. Omitted for a future vote was the hard part – a declaration on Britain’s relationship with the EU if it leaves the bloc.

Her strategy let her circumvent Bercow’s ruling, accomplishing nothing else. Losing for the third time likely drove the final stake into Brexit.

Only its obituary remains to be written, along with postmortems about nearly three wasted years of parliamentary debates and negotiations with Brussels.

May’s days as prime minister are numbered. She and Brexit are doomed – the latter long before Friday’s vote.

Note: If majority MPs have a change of heart on Monday, agreeing to accept May’s deal after all, perhaps with minor changes, it’ll still be a no-deal/deal.

It’ll amount to Britain pretending to leave the bloc – doing it in name only, not in fact.

No wonder, millions of Brits, a likely majority, are fed up with what’s gone on, wanting either a new referendum or revoking Article 50, abandoning Brexit altogether.

I’ve favored a hard Brexit all along, a clean break, walking away and not looking back. Disruption would likely be much less severe than Brexit opponents claim, along with being relatively short-term.

Britain is a leading European country. Others on the continent surely want current economic, financial, and trade relations maintained. It’s mutually beneficial to all European nations to have things this way.

A year post-hard Brexit if occurs, Britain’s relationship with EU member states would likely be much the same as 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.

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.

Saudi nuclear power ambitions are well known. For months, the Trump and Saudi regimes have been negotiating the sale of US nuclear technology to the kingdom.

Anti-nuclear expert Helen Caldicott explained that any country operating nuclear power plants “can theoretically manufacture 40 (nuclear) bombs a year” by producing plutonium, the fuel for nukes.

According to nuclear security expert Matthew Fuhrmann,

“(a)ny nuclear technology could be used for legitimate civilian things like producing electricity or making medical isotopes to treat cancer patients, but that same technology can give countries the ability to make nuclear weapons,” adding:

“You always want to think about what the possibilities might be, that a country may try and use things that were provided for peaceful purposes down the road towards military ends.”

The US intelligence community is concerned about whether Riyadh’s interest in nuclear power plants goes beyond wanting another energy source.

Israel is the region’s only nuclear armed and dangerous state, its open secret revealed long ago. Giving ruthlessly dangerous Saudi crown prince/de facto ruler Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) access to technology able to produce nuclear weapons would be madness.

Earlier he said if Iran “developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible” – knowing the Islamic Republic abhors these weapons, wanting them eliminated.

According to the House Oversight and Reform Committee, Trump regime relations with the Saudis are “shrouded in secrecy,” Jared Kushner directly involved MBS. He once said he’s got Trump’s son-in-law “in his pocket.”

DLT, his children and Kushner prioritize wealth and power. Saudi Arabia is a super-wealthy family dictatorship masquerading as a nation state.

Trump has gone all-out to assure nothing interferes with US/Saudi business and political relations. He’s had longstanding business ties to the kingdom, including distress sales to royal family members when needing cash to meet debt obligations.

He pursues maximum Saudi revenues flowing to US corporate interests. The House Oversight and Reform Committee earlier said his regime is fast-tracking “the transfer of highly sensitive US nuclear technology” to the kingdom without required congressional review – in violation of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, US law regulating civilian and military uses of nuclear material.

The NEA prohibits the transfer of US technology to another country if there’s a risk it can be used to develop nukes. The NEA’s Section 123 states that nuclear technology transfers abroad are subject to congressional approval.

According to Reuters,

“US Energy Secretary Rick Perry has approved six secret authorizations by companies to sell nuclear power technology and assistance to Saudi Arabia, according to a copy of a document seen by (the news service) on Wednesday,” adding:

“Perry’s approvals, known as Part 810 authorizations, allow companies to do preliminary work on nuclear power ahead of any deal, but not ship equipment that would go into a plant, a source with knowledge of the agreements said on condition of anonymity.”

A Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) statement said

“each of the companies which received a specific authorization for (Saudi Arabia) have provided us written request that their authorization be withheld from public release.”

During House Energy and Commerce Committee testimony, Mike Pompeo was accused of attempting to circumvent congressional control over nuclear technology sales to foreign nations.

Senators Bob Menendez and Marco Rubio asked the Government Accountability Office to review Energy Department negotiations with the Saudis to determine if federal laws were violated.

Last week, Bush/Cheney envoy to Saudi Arabia Robert Jordan said if the transfer of US nuclear technology to the kingdom “already occurred, or is being discussed, it’s likely in violation of the Atomic Energy Act section 123.”

It requires congressional approval for sales of nuclear technology to foreign governments – prohibiting use of the technology for development of nuclear weapons.

In dealing with a regime like the Saudis, its agreement to AEA section 123 won’t be worth the paper it’s written on. Like the US, NATO and Israel, the Saudis do whatever they please, defying rule of law principles.

The oil rich kingdom has no need for nuclear power as an energy source for its 33 million people. According to Fuhrmann, from its standpoint, it’s logical to believe the Saudis have a “strong strategic incentive to want nuclear weapons.”

The White House has been secretive about the kind of nuclear technology it seeks to sell the Saudis, noting it’s “highly sensitive,” the comment raising an obvious red flag.

As congressional approval is required for the sale or transfer of US nuclear technology to other countries, it’s up to its bipartisan leadership to block its sale to the Saudis.

*

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.

Following an aggressive public relations campaign in which union officials questioned GM’s loyalty to ‘Canadian taxpayers’, General Motors has apparently agreed to keep its Oshawa facility partially open. No official announcement has yet been made, but there are rumours of a revised plan to retain 600-700 workers by investing $100-million to stamp the cargo beds for pick-up trucks.

There are good reasons to be skeptical about both this rumour and this plan. But even if true, before a desperate workforce reluctantly accepts that ‘some jobs, however few, are better than nothing’, more ambitious thinking should be considered.

The Oshawa facility currently supports 5,700-6,000 jobs: GM directly employs 2,200 hourly workers and some 500 salaried workers, with other companies employing over 3,000 to supply components (some working right inside the Oshawa facility). The new proposal means cutting this total by upwards of 5,000 jobs or 85 per cent.

Thinking Bigger

A little over a generation ago, GM alone employed 23,000 hourly and office workers in the city. The steady decline to GM’s current numbers was accompanied, each step of the way, by the consolation that ‘well, at least some of the jobs remained’. The continuation of that fatalistic and dispiriting response will leave Oshawa – even if the rumours of the stamping plant are correct – at only 3 per cent of the earlier peak.

With this loss of jobs comes a damaging loss of productive capacity – the potential to apply workers’ collective skills to make socially useful products. In the mid-1980s GM Oshawa was the largest auto complex in North America, with three assembly plants turning out some 750,000 vehicles annually while also manufacturing its own axles, batteries, and radiators.

Tony Leah, a maintenance welder in Oshawa, notes that if the rumours of an expanded stamping plant come to pass, the expanded stamping capacity would still occupy only “a tiny piece of the remaining 9-10 million square foot Oshawa complex… all of the assembly process equipment, technology, and space – Body Plant, Chassis Plant, Paint Shop, Supplier Park – [will] remain empty.”

The Unifor leadership deserves credit for pushing GM off its original ‘non-negotiable’ declaration that a complete closure was a done deal. Yet it also shows the limits of its overall strategy. The concessions made during the last round of bargaining were to no avail but contributed to weakening workers’ confidence to resist. The enthusiasm for the security the new trade agreement with the USA and Mexico would bring was badly misplaced. The same goes for a campaign primarily focused on hiring a public relations firm and choosing the main tactic as boycotting GM vehicles from Mexico.

It was of course always a stretch to expect GM to reverse itself on so fundamental a strategic decision as ending vehicle assembly in Oshawa. This might well have been the case even with a massive mobilization of autoworkers and the community. That’s why posing possibilities beyond GM was so critical. The union’s refusal to explore broader opportunities, ones that reached beyond GM, reflected a disheartening failure of imagination, a failure that reinforced a steady lowering of expectations on the part of the union leadership, its members, and the community more generally.

The politicians have been worse. Provincially, the Doug Ford government – fresh from putting up billboards declaring Ontario ‘open for business’ and frantic to get the negative reality of Oshawa out of the spotlight – meekly repeated GM’s mantra of Oshawa being ‘a done deal’. The Federal government, with which the union leadership claimed a special relationship, was only a few rhetorical steps behind in trying to dampen hopes.

Is a stamping plant really the best we can aspire to? After all the lamentations about Canada’s over-dependence on resources, and the recurrent task forces on developing a manufacturing base, how can we let those facilities we already have – like the Oshawa complex – fade away with so little resistance and popular outrage? And more directly: If the stamping plant does materialize, why would we give up on the rest of this massive complex?

A Tale of Conflicting Perspectives

Let’s start with General Motors’ decision to leave. The Oshawa plant is split between cars and trucks. GM has been losing interest in producing cars in Canada and the USA because their profit margins are low. Better, from GM’s perspective, to build those cars – or when the transformation to electric vehicles occurs – in Mexico or China.

As for the highly profitable trucks, GM is trying to sell as many of these as it can before environmental limits put the brakes on such sales. But the model Oshawa got in exchange for concessions was an older one that some had already seen as having only a transitional lifespan of perhaps 18 months until the new models were geared up in other plants. In any case, for GM a half empty plant (i.e. after car production goes) is a liability. More profitable from where the corporation sits is rationalizing capacity across all its operations and reallocating Oshawa’s remaining production elsewhere.

According to business consultants, and readily confirmed by the corporation, the Oshawa facilities regularly ranked at or near the top of all of GM’s operations in terms of productivity and quality. In the end, however, this turned out to not matter all that much. There’s a lesson here of note for workers everywhere: there comes a point when we must think beyond putting all our hopes in private corporations with interests antagonistic to our own.

Where the union disappointed was in refusing to come to grips with the fact that GM was no longer the salvation for working people, and in consequently not exploring – even as a last resort – other options. It rested with GM’s Oshawa retirees to pose the crucial question of a reorientation that went beyond appealing to GM.

The retirees noted the centrality of the accumulated sweat of workers to GM’s accumulated profits. They pointed as well to the mind-numbing $11-billion contribution the Canadian public made to keeping GM alive during the financial crisis. They especially took into consideration GM’s loss of interest in the facility. This led to the straightforward moral and practical conclusion of placing the facility and its equipment in public hands, and the retirees passed a resolution to that effect. The hourly workers followed by passing a similar resolution at a subsequent membership meeting.

This response is to be commended, but those votes involved a small fraction of GM retirees and workers. And though the local leadership did not oppose the resolutions, neither did they give them any profile. No public statements were issued to broadcast the resolutions, and they weren’t even reported on the local’s website. The national union paid zero attention to the resolutions.

The dismissive reaction of the local and national leadership was no doubt made easier by the fact that in itself, ‘nationalization’ alone is not enough of an answer. Though the sentiment broke with the union’s public relations response, enthusiasm is difficult to generate without a plan for what might follow. What needed elaboration was what a nationalized facility like that in Oshawa might actually produce.

What do Canadians need, and do the workers in Oshawa have the capacities and skills to produce such equipment and goods? If not, can those abilities be developed? And what role should all levels of government have in bringing those needs and capacities together?

Imagining a Credible Alternative

If workers came together in a room and brainstormed about what they might produce with some external support, they would likely come up with a significant list, some suggestions being stronger than others. Why not make some of the things we currently import? Why can’t we make some of the products that government and para-government institutions like schools and hospitals purchase? Could, for example, a part of the Oshawa facility make products needed by our aging population – could it make wheel chairs, wheel mobility scooters, disability ramps, home lifts, accessibility beds, oxygen treatment equipment?

The environmental crisis in particular holds out the promise of all kinds of potential jobs. If we are to prevent or at least limit the looming environmental catastrophe, it is clear that everything about how we work, live, travel, and transport goods will have to be transformed. Everything. This ranges across the accelerated production of wind turbines and solar panels; energy saving lighting, heat pumps, small motors and generators for energy transmission; energy efficient doors and windows as well as modified appliances for every home and office; electric cars and electric fleets of utility vehicles.

The last example – fleets of electric utility vehicles – seems the most obvious alternative for an assembly plant. Public vehicles will inevitably have to be electrified or run on renewable energy resources, and this means a growing market for electric post office vans for mail and package delivery (as suggested by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers), hydro vehicles doing maintenance and repair work, minibuses to supplement public transit, the electric scooters mentioned above for seniors and people with disabilities, and electrified vehicles in agriculture, mining, and construction.

With the stamping plant confined to a small part of the plant, the assembly of fleets of electric utility vehicles could occupy the main part of the plant. This might even give the stamping plant additional work making stampings for the fleets. Particularly important, it would mean that the life of the complex would not end if GM suddenly (but not surprisingly) decided that it would rather close the stamping plant and sell the larger facility to developers looking to build condos. If, with the fleet vehicles and the (rumoured) stamping plant excess capacity still remained, the unutilized subsections of the plant could focus on addressing the miscellaneous aging and environmental-related products cited above, or other products workers might come up with.

Much of the needed equipment and skills already exist in the Oshawa plant. The components sector, especially where GM work is being lost, has the ability and flexibility to shift to supporting parts for these vehicles. Further high-tech support could be brought together from the tool and die industry, metal fabricating, aerospace (propulsion systems, materials), the Waterloo computer corridor, and Canada’s experienced engineering and construction firms (all the more so if scandal-ridden SNC-Lavalin were also made into a public enterprise!).

Moreover, an Oshawa complex converted to ‘green production’ and looking to the future might also include hiring hundreds of young engineers working on-site to consider what other needs and capacities might be developed. This would have the added advantage of contributing to building a national planning capacity to convert other threatened closings – of which there will be many – as well as generating new technologies and products which could help alleviate the environmental crisis.

From Ideas to Implementation

The indispensable condition for achieving the conversion of the GM Oshawa plant and keeping the jobs lies with the commitment of the Oshawa workers. No one else is as equipped to lead this fight and place an alternative on the agenda.

Moving to think bigger can be intimidating. But it seems criminal not to at least try and keep Oshawa alive. Furthermore, the history of the past few decades in auto and elsewhere convincingly shows that unless workers take a strong collective decision, things will keep getting worse.

If the workforce does organize itself around an alternative for the GM plant, the next step will be to rally other workers and potential allies. The recent teacher mobilizations in California provide an inspiration and a blueprint for building diversified community coalitions to limit corporate power and win support from the mayor and city council. With such support GM could be blocked from moving its equipment or selling the land (the build-out dates as of now seem to be the last quarter of this year), and the facility could instead be converted to a municipally-owned facility producing socially useful and environmentally-essential products.

This would clearly require substantial support from the provincial and federal governments to have their agencies purchase the Oshawa products and to fast-track the use of electric fleets. Both layers of government would also be critical to providing finance, developing needed skills, supporting a transport redevelopment agency to chart, facilitate, and monitor transport redesign, and developing a planning capacity that can address new closures next time they occur – and there will be no shortage of such ‘next times’ in auto and elsewhere.

Of course, Queen’s Park and Ottawa will not easily jump in. But facing a public campaign, the provincial government may be vulnerable to pressure given its promise of providing new manufacturing jobs and in the face of popular reaction to Ford’s massive cuts in jobs and services in health, education, and public transport. And the federal Liberals – weakened by the SNC-Lavalin scandal and with an election coming up – have offered a lot of rhetoric on both the environment and defending workers but have fallen far short of dramatic action on both counts.

It is unlikely that any such massive project would go forward without a feasibility study to show that all this is not just pie-in-the-sky. The crucial point is that addressing ‘feasibility’ is not a technical issue but a matter of struggling over the most basic principles that should govern our society. It cannot mean asking how much profit the facility would generate in competition with Mexico, China – or the USA and Europe for that matter. We have seen where such criteria take us. Rather, it demands another set of questions:

  • What are the wider social benefits of the products being produced (are the products socially useful; do they contribute to addressing the pressing environmental crisis)?
  • Can this project provide well-paying jobs with dignity for working people?
  • Can the workers involved do the job effectively and at high quality?
  • Does the project develop the future capacity of Canada to respond to future economic and social restructuring?

Conclusion

GM was bailed out on the assumption it would return the favour with sustained employment. It’s now the workers’ turn to be supported – in this case, however, with a social plan that benefits the entire community and not just a private corporation that can move on when the wind changes.

But first the Oshawa autoworkers must take a stand. They will need to put their own stamp on the remarkable resistance that has flowered elsewhere. Something historic is happening around the world – sometimes with dark and negative undercurrents, but at its best, inspiring and hopeful. Frustrations are overflowing over the loss of control over daily life, the growing inequalities and shrinking democracy, the perpetual insecurity, and the narrowing of hope across generations.

Fighting back has no guarantees, only possibilities worth considering and trying. Will Oshawa join this world-wide rebellion and find their own constructive way to say a loud ‘No!’ to the unrelenting lowering of expectations followed by a louder ‘Yes!’ to once again raising and creating new possibilities?

*

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

Sam Gindin was research director of the Canadian Auto Workers from 1974–2000 and is now an adjunct professor at York University in Toronto. He is co-author (with Leo Panitch) of The Making of Global Capitalism (Verso).

Featured image is from The Bullet

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Workers’ Rights and Canada’s Auto Industry: GM Oshawa: Lowered Expectations, Unexplored Opportunities
  • Tags: ,

A recent series of Russian strikes on positions of militant groups in the Syrian province of Idlib has once again caused a wave of mainstream media reports regarding civilian casualties caused by Russian bombings. According to “local activists” quoted by media, the Idlib strikes led to tens of civilian casualties. There are no MSM reports about casualties among members of militant groups or destruction of their infrastructure.

Since the very start of the Russian military operation in Syria, Russia has been under fire over its usage of unguided weapons – missiles and bombs – as a main mean of engagement. The key idea repeated by Western diplomats, military officials and media in various formats is the following:

While the US-led coalition carries out pinpoint strikes with precision weaponry, the Russian Aerospace Forces employ indiscriminate strikes with unguided bombs, which are often being dropped from high altitudes.

Both the US and Russia accuse each other in causing civilian casualties and humanitarian crises in Syria on a constant basis. Besides this, Washington and its allies have a much wider understanding of the term “moderate opposition” than Moscow has ever had.

A significant difference can also be observed on the level of employed weapon systems and munitions.

A guided bomb or a “smart bomb” is the type of bombs with guidance and control systems. Some versions even have small rocket engines increasing their range and control over their flight.

Guided weapons cost much more than their unguided counterparts, but supposedly allow to put fewer air crews at risk, spent less ordnance and reduce collateral damage. The creation of precision-guided munitions resulted in the retroactive renaming of older bombs as unguided bombs or “dumb bombs”; with these “dumb bombs” actively being used by Russia.

In August 2017, Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff Lieutenant General Igor Makushev revealed that 50% of basic missions for wiping out militant facilities by airstrikes in Syria were performed by Su-24M bombers and Su-25SM attack aircraft. These aircrafts were designed to provide a fire support for ground forces and were using unguided weapons massively. Besides them, 250kg and 500kg unguided munitions were actively employed against infrastructure belonging to ISIS in eastern Syria by Tu-22M3 strategic bombers.

What mainstream media does not cover is that while the Russian Aerospace Forces massively used “dumb bombs”, the strikes themselves were “smart”. Russian warplanes employ specialized computer sub-system SVP-24 Gefest, which allows the use of unguided munitions as high-precision weapons.

Prior SVP-24 modernization of guidance systems were focused on the targets positioning. This is a road to the further increase the complexity and cost of employed weapons. The system incorporates a difference concept; it focused on the positioning of weapon carriers.

SVP-24 analyzes data of the GLONASS satellite navigation grouping on the mutual location of the aircraft and the target, takes into account the level of atmospheric pressure, air humidity, wind speed, the flight velocity, and some other factors to calculate the route, speed and altitude of dropping air-launched munitions, after which the warplane reaches a pre-determined position and conducts the strike in almost an automatic mode.

SVP-24 receives additional data from airborne early warning and control aircraft, like the A-50, other warplanes, and ground detection stations.

According to the Russian military, the usage of the SVP-24 ensured the efficiency of striking enemy installations with unguided bombs comparable with the accuracy of using smart bombs. The bombing accuracy is 4-7m from the altitude of 5-6km. Furthermore, aircraft with SVP-24 are capable of conducting strikes in free maneuver, out of the range of enemy’s local air defense.

Besides the obvious economic advantage of this approach, the SV-24 became one of the factors which allowed the Russian air group in Syria to increase the number of combat sorties per aircraft.

In one of the hottest years of the conflict – 2016, the Russians had about 70 aircraft deployed for operations (46-48 at Hmeimim and 32-36 from Admiral Kuznetsov). This group was conducting approximately 70-80 combat sorties per day. Therefore, one Russian combat aircraft was involved in at least one combat sortie per day.

At the same time, according to the Pentagon’s data, aircraft of the US-led coalition made about 19.68 combat sorties per day. Taking into account that the coalition had about 180 aircraft deployed for operations, one coalition aircraft was involved in 0.1 combat sortie per day.

These numbers lead to expected questions: Who was really fighting terrorists in Syria? And who was making money and perceiving its own political interests?

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: “Dumb Bombs”, Indiscriminate Strikes and Civilian Casualties in Syrian War

Translated from the Spanish by Global Research. 

“A confession from [America’s] puppet pointing to evidence,” said journalist Gustavo Villapol Wednesday, noting that the deputy of the National Assembly in contempt Juan Guaidó confessed to be behind the attacks perpetrated against the National Electric Service (SEN) that have affected the Venezuelan people since last March 7.  

“The gentleman, Deputy Guaidó, has told the world that they are behind this devious and terrorist attack against the Electric System,” he said during an interview on the Punto de Encuentro program broadcast by Venezolana de Televisión.

[These are the quotations from Guaido’s statements at the National Assembly, video below  13′ 11″ – 14′ 09″,  GR editor]

“And I repeat, the cessation of darkness will definitely come with the cessation of usurpation,” culminates the self-proclaimed Juan Guaidó (VTV Fotogram)

“There will be no solution to the electrical problem, there will be no water to the houses much less domestic gas”. the parliamentarian of Voluntad Popular stated verbatim.

“We will generate the necessary internal pressure to add up in this process of definitive cessation of the usurpation,” he is heard saying in the video broadcast from the floor of the Federal Legislative Palace.

“And I repeat, the cessation of darkness will definitely come with the cessation of usurpation,” culminated his TV intervention.
Journalist Gustavo Villapol described Guaidó as a symbolic expression of the new political-military doctrine that Donald Trump is trying to develop from the presidency of the United States (USA).

Original Spanish text below

Title: Guaido confesó estar detrás del sabotaje eléctrico

“A confesión de títere relevo de pruebas”, afirmó este miércoles el periodista Gustavo Villapol, al advertir que el diputado de la Asamblea Nacional en desacato Juan Guaidó confesó estar detrás de los atentados perpetrados contra el Servicio Eléctrico Nacional (SEN) que han afectado al pueblo venezolano desde el pasado 7 de marzo.

“El señorito diputado Guaidó ha expresado al mundo que ellos están detrás de este ataque artero y terrorista contra el Sistema Eléctrico”, dijo durante una entrevista en el programa Punto de Encuentro que transmite Venezolana de Televisión.

“Y lo repito, el cese de la oscuridad vendrá definitivamente con el cese de la usurpación”, culmina el autoproclamado Juan Guaidó (Fotograma VTV)

  • No habrá solución al problema eléctrico, no habrá agua a las casas mucho menos gas doméstico”. manifestó textualmente el parlamentario de Voluntad Popular.
  • Vamos a generar la presión interna necesaria para ir sumando en este proceso de cese definitivo de la usurpación”, se le oye decir en el video transmitido desde el hemiciclo del Palacio Federal Legislativo.
  • Y lo repito, el cese de la oscuridad vendrá definitivamente con el cese de la usurpación”, culminó su intervención en el audiovisual.

Villapol calificó a Guaidó como expresión simbólica de la nueva doctrina política-militar que está intentando desarrollar Donald Trump desde la presidencia de Estados Unidos (EE.UU.).

Access complete Spanish text 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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Juan Guaidó Confesses Being Behind the Sabotage of Venezuela’s Electric System

Hundreds of migrants are being held by border agents in a fenced in encampment under a bridge in El Paso, leading to anger and accusations that the American government is holding people in “concentration camps.”

Images posted online by reporters and advocates painted a disturbing scene in the Texas city. Lines of migrants behind fencing, being processed by agents from U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), walked into a camp area that appeared to be standing room only.

Reporters from The Washington Post caught pictures of crowds of migrants behind fencing.

The encampment, which is referred to by CBP as a “transitional shelter,” was set up in the last month according to reporting from Buzzfeed.

“The tent that is set up underneath the Paso Del Norte port of entry and adjacent to the Border Patrol’s Processing Facility is a transitional shelter,” a CBP spokesperson told the outlet. “Due to the large volume of apprehensions within the El Paso Station’s Area of Responsibility, the agency has undertaken additional measures to facilitate processing.”

Photos of the hundreds of people held at the site spread over social media on Wednesday. The publicity came alongside an appearance at El Paso by CBP commissioner Kevin McAleenan, who said that the border was “at its breaking point.”

“CBP is facing an unprecedented humanitarian and border security crisis all along our Southwest border,” said McAleenan, “and nowhere has that crisis manifested more acutely than here in El Paso.”

As a number of immigration advocates pointed out, that’s a hard sell in 2019 given the amount of border crossings two decades ago—crossings peaked at 1.6 million a year in 2000. The conditions in El Paso reminded some observers of the worst of humanity.

“This is a fucking concentration camp,” writer Lauren Hough said on Twitter. “We are running concentration camps.”

“It’s appalling,” said Women’s March communications director Sophie Ellman-Golan.

Meanwhile, according to reporting from The Texas Tribune, CBP pulled 750 agents from across Texas’s southern border’s ports of entry to El Paso to help with processing. There is no return date as yet for those agents, raising concerns that the border will become even more closed off in the near future.

*

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

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 BRICS New Development Bank is having its Annual General Meeting on 1-2 April, here in South Africa. There’s information about the meeting here, including public sessions. Critics meet to discuss the Bank on 31 March – 3 June in Cape Town and Johannesburg, especially to interrogate bank loans to South Africa.

The more we look at this institution, the more its rhetoric on sustainability and claims to offer an alternative approach to that of the Bretton Woods Institutions grate. The World Bank has a new leader, David Malpass, following a quite disastrous run by ex-leftist Jim Yong Kim (as predicted when he took up the post in 2012). With Malpass in the lead we can predict abundant hypocrisy when it comes to South African corruption, especially in Eskom and Transnet, as described in the attached files. To his credit, Malpass was honest, back in 2017:

Malpass: “They’re often corrupt in their lending practices, and they don’t get the benefit to the actual people in the countries. They get the benefit to the people who fly in on a first-class airplane ticket to give advice to the government officials in the country, that flow of money is large, but not so much the actual benefit to normal people within poor countries, and that’s what I’d like to see change.”

Rep. Maxine Waters:“Do you have an example of that?”

Malpass: “Well, for example, we have countries such as South Africa that are deteriorating rapidly as their government is unable to provide efficiency and effectiveness… South Africa is heavily indebted and not making progress and is not being well served by its relationships with international financial institutions.”

True! South Africans are pushing the Bank to write off its largest-ever loan now: Eskom’s Medupi, a $3.75bn corruption-riddled coal-fired power station, a garantuan white elephant. Last Sunday, a national tv town-hall show – The Big Debateexplored this question of lender liability.

Just as Donald Trump appointed the idiot Malpass with no BRICS opposition, Jair Bolsonaro will appoint the next BRICS Bank president.

The BRICS Bank is facing the same questions about Odious Debt in relation to the loan to Transnet, to expand the main Durban harbour. But BRICS NDB Compliance Officer Srinivas Yanamandra is in corruption-denial, as you see from correspondence which ended yesterday. He convicingly shows that the BRICS NDB cannot be reasoned with.

*

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

Professor Patrick Bond teaches political economy at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Even though we now know there is zero evidence Donald Trump colluded with the Russians, neocon talking heads are still babbling about the discredited conspiracy theory and working it into facile monologues. 

For instance, Samatha Vinograd, a “national security” analyst at Propaganda One, CNN. Ms. Vinograd is a former Obama NSC member and a former senior advisor to the president, a David E. Rockefeller Fellow at the Trilateral Commission, a Millennium Fellow at the Atlantic Council where the Russian collusion nonsense is kept alive, and also a facilitator of fascist relationships—public-private (see “Economic Fascism” by DiLorenzo)—in service to the vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, Goldman Sachs. 

There is very little the US can do about Russia in its “backyard”—and it has no internationally recognized right to do so unless Russia directly threatens the United States, which it has not (unless we consider delivering humanitarian aid to starving Venezuelans an act of war, as the neocons do). 

Vinograd is not simply another attractive young talking head selling the establishment line on foreign policy. As noted above, she is a Trilateralist and a member of The Atlantic Council. This means what she tells us during this interview will more than likely be adopted in some form or other by the Trump administration, now fully neo-conized at the highest levels. 

It is important to note Vinograd’s opening remark combines a criticism of the president’s performance and also the debunked and discredited Russian election collusion op engineered by a petulant Hillary Clinton and the DNC to take down the duly elected president of the United States. 

It’s not that Vinograd doesn’t know about the Mueller investigation summary admitting the special inquisitor doesn’t have a case against Trump. Rather it is an attempt to move away from that reality and continue to target the New Hitler, Vladimir Putin. This is the new meal ticket for the military-industrial-surveillance complex now that the artificially manufactured Islamic State is almost “defeated” in Syria. The government long ago stopped promoting peace dividends. 

Now we have the ever-pugnacious John Bolton, neocon foreign policy demagogue and special national security adviser to the president. Bolton told Russia the US government and its owners lay claim to the Western Hemisphere. 

“We strongly caution actors external to the Western Hemisphere against deploying military assets to Venezuela,” said Bolton, “or elsewhere in the Hemisphere, with the intent of establishing or expanding military operations… We will consider such provocative actions as a direct threat to international peace and security in the region.”

Neocon John can only get away with saying this due to the lamentable fact most Americans are almost entirely clueless on the history of US intervention in Central and South America. If they knew anything about the coups, election rigging, paramilitary death squads, and and massive corruption they might think twice about what Bolton said. 

Bolton’s threat came two days after Trump said, “all options are on the table” in regard to Russia’s presence in Venezuela. In typical Trumpian fashion—somewhere between a mob boss and a festooned carnival barker—the president demanded Russia “get out” of Caracas. He made the remark in Washington during a meeting with Fabiana Rosales, the wife of Juan Guaido. 

Putin checkmated Trump and his neocons—for now. On March 25 Venezuela said, “self-proclaimed “Interim President” Juan Guaido and other opposition leaders were involved in a plot to carry out acts of terrorism employing foreign paramilitaries trained in Colombia,” according to sources at Venezuelananlysis.com. 

According to [Communications Minister Jorge Rodriguez], Venezuelan intelligence services uncovered plans to contract mercenaries from Colombia and Central America and bring them into Venezuela to execute targeted killings and acts of sabotage, adding that “at least half” of the armed groups managed to make their way into Venezuelan territory and are currently being sought.

If Venezuela’s intelligence is accurate, one the largest private banks in the country served as a paymaster for these mercenary terrorists. 

The [Whatsapp] screen captures [on the phone of Guaido’s arrested chief of staff, Roberto Marrero] also revealed details of alleged bank accounts through which payments to the paramilitary groups were supposed to be made. One of them was in Banesco’s Panama branch. Banesco is Venezuela’s largest private bank, and Rodriguez called on Banesco owner Ricardo Escotet to inform security services whether this account exists and what movements have been made.

President Trump is known for his impatience. He wants to do something now about Venezuela and its massive oil reserve, the largest in the world. Russia is in Caracas to foil any attempt to outright invade the country and provide assistance to track down mercenaries plotting to stage violence and terror attacks. 

The neoliberal masterminds with their neocon collaborators behind US foreign policy know going to war with Russia is not doable. They believe a “democratic revolution” in Venezuela from below—using the usual NED and subversion NGO partners—or short of that a violent coup attempt, are not possible if Russia stands in the way, as it did in Syria. 

For now, we will continue to hear neocons like Bolton and globalist insiders like Vinograd declaring Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine are still in force and represent the will of the American people, which is of course a wagonload of manure. 

*

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

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

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from South China Morning Post

Syria: Is US Fighting ISIS or Liquidating Assets?

March 30th, 2019 by Tony Cartalucci

That the “final stronghold” of the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS) resides in US occupied territory in Syria says it all.

From US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memos dating back to 2012 noting efforts to create a “Salafist” [Islamic] “principality” [State] in eastern Syria precisely where ISIS rose and now clings to its “final stronghold,” to the obvious fact that ISIS’ fighting capacity was only possible through extensive state sponsorship – it was already clear that the US and its partners in regime change against Syria had been using terrorists including ISIS as proxy ground forces.

Now the US claims it has cornered and is on the verge of defeating ISIS – despite the terrorist group having been cleared out of virtually every other corner of the nation by Syrian, Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah forces long ago.

In reality, the US is merely liquidating assets it had harbored, protected, armed, and funded throughout the 8 year proxy war until no longer politically feasible.

CNN in its article, “Thousands of ISIS troops surrender amid attack on final stronghold in Syria,” uncritically claims:

At its height, ISIS controlled huge swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq. The US-led coalition has been working for years to oust the group from cities and towns.

CNN omits entirely any mention of the source of ISIS’ fighting capacity and the fact that its supply lines led directly out of NATO-member Turkey and was overseen by US special forces and intelligence agencies.

CNN also omits that it wasn’t until the 2015 Russian military intervention when Russian air power attacked and cut ISIS supply lines that ISIS began suffering defeat across Syrian territory – first and foremost in territory being retaken by Syrian forces and its allies.

In territory illegally-occupied by the US, it appears that ISIS militants and other extremists were simply being shuffled around. In other cases, US forces attacked the Syrian military and their allies when attempting to cross into US-occupied territory in pursuit of ISIS forces. This game has carried on to the point of absurdity with the largest and most powerful military in the world only now creeping in last across the finish line of its own supposed battle against ISIS.

What Becomes of Surrendering and Fleeing ISIS Militants? 

CNN also claims:

More than 3,000 ISIS fighters have surrendered amid a pitched battle by US-backed forces to retake the last ISIS stronghold in Syria.   

The article also notes that many more may attempt to flee. The US has not made it clear what will happen with these fighters, or others “fleeing” from the supposed US-backed offensive. In certain cases, it seems Washington has singled interest in sending foreign fighters back to their countries of origin – which means many will simply be reintegrated into society where local intelligence agencies will keep tabs on them, use them for domestic distractions, or redeploy them to Washington’s next proxy war when required.

A recent Iraqi military deployment near the Syrian-Iraqi border consisting of Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) amid the ongoing US offensive in Syria indicates that at least Baghdad believes Washington’s “defeat” of ISIS is more likely another attempt to shuffle valuable proxy fighters around on the battlefield – and this time – back into Iraq and in particular, into Al Anbar governorate where the US still maintains a military presence and where they will continue receiving defacto US protection.

Al-Masdar News in an article titled, “Iraqi reinforcements deploy to Syrian border as ISIS terrorists attempt to escape Syria,” would note:

The Iraqi Armed Forces deployed a large number of military personnel to the Syrian border this week to block any Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh) from fleeing into Iraq.

 According to a new report, the Iraqi Army and Hashd Al-Sha’abi deployed these reinforcements to the Anbar-Deir Ezzor border after some Islamic State terrorists were suspected of sneaking into Iraq from eastern Syria.

It was the rise of ISIS inside Iraq and its crossing over into Syrian territory that set the pretext for the now ongoing US occupation of Syrian territory. The threat of ISIS “resurging” in Iraq also serves as an ongoing pretext for US forces still based there.

The rise of Iranian-backed militias throughout Iraq has become a potent counterweight to US-backed proxies attempting to take root there once again, and will make it infinitely more difficult for the US to repeat the scale and duration of the ISIS scourge the US visited upon the region.

The term “liquidate” in this context doesn’t necessarily mean destroying ISIS formations entirely – but instead simply moving them where they can be protected in Al Anbar and reconstituted to either continue serving as a pretext for US troops to remain in the region, or to fight in future proxies wars the US is planning in the wake of its current defeat in Syria.

While the Western media is attempting to hail this “final battle” as a victory for US forces – it is in actuality an indictment of America’s complicity in ISIS’ creation, proliferation across the region, and its longevity on the battlefield – suspiciously where US forces are operating.

The real story isn’t that the US is finally moving in on ISIS’ “last stronghold,” it’s that the US presided over the “last stronghold” for so long.

*

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

Tony Cartalucci is Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

Angles of Tolerance: Yusuf Islam in Christchurch

March 30th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Let’s not be too churlish about this; but then again, let us not be ignorant.  The singer once known as Cat Stevens (in pre-conversion state), and known as Yusuf Islam to others, made a considerable impression on the stage in Christchurch.  The slaughter of fifty at two mosques in the New Zealand city had made enough of an impression to lure the singer. 

Yusuf had worshipped at the Masjid Al Noor in December 2017, a pit stop as part of his 50th anniversary Peace Train tour.  On Friday, he performed at the National Remembrance Service in Hagley Park.  Assisted by double-bassist Bruce Lynch, he wowed the crowd.  To various New Zealand press outlets, he was in a mood to reflect, recalling a city “peaceful” and “orderly” with “nice people”.  Then came the trigger happy “monster”.  The response to the killings impressed him.  There was “this incredible backlash of kindness and love and unity which is obviously so powerful that it changes the whole picture from dark to light.”

The Ardern government had furnished him an exemplary case of emotional management and response. They had shone the light. 

“Things like [the reaction] don’t happen in many other places in the world.  Things happen but it stays dark.  The government rarely does anything of any importance in the aftermath.  Here the story is different.” 

He reflected on ignorance being the enemy; freedom of speech was to be valued “but truth, peace and harmony are kind of more valuable.” 

Tolerance, inclusiveness, love.  These words are often bandied about as part of a stage set but not always practiced.  Yusuf Islam supplies us a troubling example, and his dig at freedom of speech as being of secondary order of importance is important. His selection as part of the mourning and commemoration process might have been an oversight on the part of the organisers; if so, it was a grave one, suggesting that ignorance and grief are often two parts of the same distorting lenses.   

In 1989, on British television, the singer was posed a hypothetical by international lawyer and pundit Geoffrey Robertson QC.  A state sanctioned edict, or fatwa, had been issued by Iran’s supreme leader the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses.  All Muslims were to be encouraged in the endeavour; publishers were also be targets.  Even a novel, with an exploratory theme suggesting that the Prophet Mohammed might have stemmed from pagan tradition, was too much to stomach.  Rushdie was intentionally naughty, deploying terms long seen as taboo: Jahilia, alluding to Jahiliyyah, or “state of ignorance from guidance of God”; a brothel named Hijab; and Mahound, a pejorative variant of Mohammed.   

Did Rushdie deserve to die?  “Yes, yes,” came the unequivocal response from Yusuf.  Would you be his executioner?  “Uh, no, not necessarily, unless we were in an Islamic state and I was ordered by a judge or by the authority to carry out such an act – perhaps yes.”  Would you attend an effigy-burning protest against the author? “I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing.”  Should Rushdie turn up at his doorstep, he “might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like. I’d try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is.”

Hard to forget, and Rushdie would grimly muse in 2010 on the appearance of Yusuf at Jon Stewart’s Rally for Sanity. “I have always liked Stewart and Colbert but what on earth was Cat Yusuf Stevens Islam doing on that stage?  If he’s a ‘good Muslim’ like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar then I’m the Great Pumpkin.  Happy Halloween.” 

People can mellow, and, with age, even shift their positions.  Defects can be revised; mistakes revisited.  Andrew Anthony of the Observer failed to note much in the way of change a decade or so after the singer expressed his faithful bloodlust.  “He told me in 1997, eight years after saying on TV that Rushdie should be lynched, that he was in favour of stoning women to death for adultery.  He also reconfirmed his position on Rushdie.”   

Yusuf had also dedicated himself to that unhealthy tendency latent in many monotheistic religions: proselytization.  The Islamia school in Brent, Anthony notes, was dedicated to “bring about the submission of the individual, the community and the world at large to Islam.”  Women were also to abide by their fair share of subjugation and heed submission in the enterprise.  Such is the way of that type of tolerance. 

In 2017 on News24, Yusuf continued what has been a systematic process of aversion and denial. (The faithful fanatic can wobble when needed.)  “I never called for the death of Salman Rushdie; nor backed the Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini – and still don’t.”  Instead, he was happy to blame Rushdie, a sure sign about where guilt should lie. “The book [The Satanic Verses] itself destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis.” 

The Robertson episode is ignored; instead, Yusuf finds fault with “a loaded question posed by a journalist, after a harmless biographical lecture I gave to students in Kingston University in 1989”.  The tendency to erase in the name of faith is all too evident here.

The lasting truth about those solemn, and for the most part heartfelt proceedings in Hagley Park, is that they were marked by a person who has little in the way of any problem with theocratic-sanctioned murder for the use of language.  By an author, a wordsmith, a thinker.  For an occasion supposedly staged to rebuke extremism, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern effectively shared the same stage with one of the more extreme creatures of fanaticism, one who embraces assassination as one of the more effective means of censorship.  As Rushdie himself would pen in a letter to the Telegraph in 2007, “Let’s have no more rubbish about how ‘green’ and innocent this man was.”

*

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 Houthis captured 100 positions in the central Yemeni province of Dhale from the Saudi-led coalition and its proxies during a recent large-scale operation, Brig. Gen. Yahya Sari, a spokesman of the pro-Houthis wing of the Yemeni Armed Forces, announced in the late hours of March 28.

“Our forces succeed in a special military operation on the front of Dhale … As a result, more than 100 military positions were secured, more than 250 enemy personnel were injured and killed, while dozens others surrendered themselves,” Brig. Gen. Yahya Sari said.

The Nasah mount was among the positions, which were captured by the Houthis in the course of the attack that lasted for five days

The Houthis media wing released a short video of the attack showing two T-55 main battle tanks of Saudi-backed forces, which were destroyed by Houthi tank hunters. According to Brig. Gen. Yahya, the Yemeni group’s fighters destroyed dozens of other vehicles.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Houthis Kill or Injure 250 Saudi-backed Fighters, Capture 100 Positions in Large-scale Attack in Dhale
  • Tags: , ,

Why Canada Should Get Out of NATO

March 30th, 2019 by Canadian Peace Congress

Concerns are growing across this country about the disturbing tilt in Canadian foreign policy toward increasing militarization and aggression – about our participation in foreign wars and US-led ‘regime change’ operations abroad, and about burgeoning defence budgets and rearmament programs, while funding for vital services like education, healthcare and environmental protection are frozen and even cutback.

At the same time however, there is little or no debate at all about Canada’s continuing membership in the NATO military alliance. Neither the parties in parliament nor the mainstream media are prepared to seriously question our NATO status. And yet it is precisely our NATO membership – and the ‘obligations’ that entails – which is the mechanism driving increased military spending and preparations for more aggression and war.

As the NATO generals and their governments prepare to celebrate the 70th anniversary of this aggressive military alliance, it is high time that the peace forces across Canada, and their allies in the labour and people’s movements, put this issue back on the front burner, and begin to build up a grassroots campaign across the country to demand Canada’s withdrawal, and the dissolution of this dangerous military pact as a whole.

NATO’s long and sordid history

Ever since its founding in April 1949, NATO has served as the vehicle to spur the arms race in the name of ‘peace through strength’. In that very same year, the Truman Administration in the United States secretly developed “Operation Dropshot’ to launch a devastating ‘first-strike’ against the former Soviet Union to completely obliterate that country. Throughout the ‘cold war’ years, the U.S. and its NATO allies always maintained an overwhelming military superiority over the USSR and the Warsaw Pact – a fact that they cynically concealed from public view at the time, but now readily admit.

Following the 1991 dissolution of the USSR, NATO – which always professed itself as a ‘defensive shield’ – has instead expanded its military reach right up to the borders of the Russian Federation, throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East, and elsewhere around the globe. It led an illegal 78-day assault on Yugoslavia in 1999 which killed thousands and caused over $100 billion in damages. The imperialist war and occupation of Afghanistan, began in 2001, was undertaken under a NATO mandate. And the 2011 war on Libya – which was once again justified under the pretext of “humanitarian interventionism” – was likewise under the flag of NATO.

Canadian air and ground forces were directly involved in all of these acts of aggression, as part of our ‘commitment’ as a NATO member. And Canadian troops are also stationed in NATO base in Eastern Europe and are helping the pro-fascist regime in Ukraine.

In fact, NATO has now emerged as the primary military instrument of U.S. imperialist domination around the world. It recently recruited Colombia, and has invited Brazil – two of the most right-wing governments in Latin America – to be ‘global partners’, no doubt to increase pressures on the besieged Maduro government in Venezuela.

NATO’s Price Tag

The 2017 announcement  by the Trudeau government to raise the annual military budget to $32.7 billion – an increase of over 70% – by 2026, and to commit over $150 billion for the purchase of new warships and fighter jets, is directly connected to our NATO ‘commitment’ to increase annual defence spending to 2% of GDP.  U.S. President Trump has called on its NATO partners to further increase defence expenditure to 4% of national GDP, which would mean a staggering annual military expenditure of well over $80 billion for Canada.

Such vast allocations can only be met through massive increase in taxes, or debilitating cuts to social programs for Canadians, or a combination of both. Is this a price working people should be expected to pay – not for defending our shores, but rather to wage aggressive wars abroad?

NATO & Canadian Sovereignty

Every time peace activists raise demands to cut military spending, or to get Canda to sign the UN Treaty to abolish nuclear weapons, or to oppose Canadian arms deals with Saudi Arabia or support other peace initiatives, we are told the same thing by Ottawa and the military-corporate-complex it serves – that this would violate our ‘obligations’ under NATO.

That is why withdrawing from this aggressive military alliance is such a central and pressing priority if we are ever to win a truly sovereign and independent foreign policy based on peace and disarmament, not militarism and war. Of course, withdrawal would be only the first step in winning a fundamentally new program for Canada, but it is a necessary and vital step in that direction.

Canada’s membership in NATO is the ‘pink elephant in the room’ that everyone knows is there but no one wants to acknowledge. It’s time to change that!

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Canada Should Get Out of NATO
  • Tags: ,

China-Italy Cooperation and the “Devil’s Alternative”

March 30th, 2019 by Francesco Maringiò

The complex Sino-American trade negotiation is going through a period that is not turbulent but is nevertheless marked by objective difficulties: too much distance separates the American warnings from the concessions that China is willing to make without penalizing its development and it becomes too difficult to contain the impact of the war on 5G (which is part of the negotiation but which also concerns other strategic aspects) in the United States and Europe. However difficult it may be, it cannot be excluded that an agreement is still possible. But there are many economists who observe how the “great deal” would put Europe in check, tightened in an alliance between the two superpowers and unable to carve out a role in international trade.

It is with this premise that the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Italy and China during the State visit of the Chinese President must be judged, which will officially begin on 22 p.v. with the meeting with the President of the Republic Sergio Mattarella. Because faced with the real risk of failure of the negotiations there is an absolute need to build a sovereign foreign policy for the country and capable of protecting its economic and geo-strategic interests.

To do this, a framework agreement with China and the emerging economies is essential, otherwise the country will be subject to blackmail, which would further aggravate the already precarious condition of the Italian economy and the eurozone itself. In fact, faced with the possibility of Italy joining the club of the countries of the Belt and Road Initiative (BIS), the United States has set up a very strong strategy of blackmail. If Italy were to sign, it would expose itself, according to American sources, to commercial, economic and military cooperation and intelligence retaliation; if, on the other hand, it were to decide to withdraw the agreement with Beijing, the alternative would be, in any case, to maintain a framework of subordination with Washington, to be paid at a high price. The example of the war on the 5G is, from this point of view, paradigmatic: Italy is pushed to renounce the technological modernization through the Chinese infrastructures available today on the market, waiting for an American technology which does not yet exist and which, in the future, will certainly be more expensive than the Chinese one. The choice is clear: if you make the agreement you expose yourself to retaliation, if you delete the agreement you get nothing in return, if not the maintenance of the status quo based on unfair agreements and a relationship of absolute subordination. Tertium non datur.

For these reasons, the government’s decision to confirm the signing of the Memorandum certainly does not represent an exit strategy from the framework of Atlantic and NATO conditioning, but it does outline at least one way to create the conditions to attract the Chinese surplus in terms of direct investment in the short term and lay the foundations for a foreign policy that breaks with the blackmail that Washington and, for various reasons, Brussels are trying to impose on our country.

It is interesting to note that the “party against the memorandum”, which has enjoyed great media coverage and the political backing of the League in government and the Pd and Forza Italia for the opposition, has used almost exclusively the argument of the need not to cooperate with Beijing because it promotes a hegemonic project. They then argued that in any case we could not sign the memorandum, without first asking permission from our “landlord”, the U.S. (on the subject of hegemony …).

Who knows how they will comment today, after reading the letter that Xi Jinping has entrusted to the pages of the Corriere della Sera and which provides the key to interpretation of Chinese diplomacy and regions for his strong investment in our country. It is a text written from a very clear perspective: Italy and China are not called to agree on a series of economic and trade dossiers. Not only that, at least. The two countries are called upon to respect their long thousand-year history which, in the words of Xi Jinping, places them as “emblems of eastern and western civilization”, given that “they have written some of the most important and significant chapters in the history of human civilization”. Their relationship, even the Silk Road itself, is therefore not born today, but has its roots in the times of the Roman Empire, to then live special occasions that have made the history of relations between the two countries. Marco Polo arrived at the court of the Khan before Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas, Matteo Ricci became mandarin to win the trust of the Ming and Prospero Intorcetta translated Confucius into Latin and opened an important window of knowledge on Eastern philosophy throughout the West. It is to this story that the Chinese president refers when he speaks of the relations between his country and Italy, drawing heavily on the great history of Italy and citing, among others, Dante, Virgil, Moravia and Italian synology.

But the key passage of the Chinese President’s speech is probably the following: “Faced with the evolutions and challenges of the contemporary world, the two countries appeal to their precious and long experience and together imagine the interesting scenarios capable of creating a new model of international relations based on mutual respect, equality and justice and cooperation of mutual benefit, building a shared future of humanity”. The story of the “new world order with Chinese characteristics”, as it has been contemptuously defined by the opponents of the Italo-Chinese agreement, or the rhetoric of Beijing’s hegemony is shattered on the rocks of the strategic pact that China offers Italy, of building a new model of international relations that definitively closes the unilateralism in vogue after the collapse of the USSR and lays the foundations for cooperation between equals among the nations of the world. Equality, justice and cooperation are universal values that have their roots in the ideals of the French Revolution and that we certainly cannot ignore.

At the same time, those who continue to see China as their main enemy and write it in their own strategic documents (US and EU) and with the peace of their Italian representatives who would like the country to adopt an aggressive policy towards Beijing or in a privileged inter-European relationship (which does not exist, given the divergent interests that exist in the eurozone), or in a framework of Euro-Atlantic cooperation whose objective is the rupture of the Russian-Chinese axis and the co-optation of Moscow in a new iron curtain hostile to Beijing.

Italian politics has a crossroads before it: either it accepts the “devil’s alternative” and binds itself to the decline of this strategic vision, or it overturns the table and affirms the need for a policy based on cooperation and equal dignity among nations. The signing of the Memorandum is the first step to take the second road, but we are still at the initial skirmishes of an arm wrestling that will mark the near future.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China-Italy Cooperation and the “Devil’s Alternative”
  • Tags: , ,

Turkish-US relations have deteriorated in recent weeks, with Washington threatening reprisals if Ankara goes ahead with the purchase of the Russian-made S-400 air defence system.

Relations between the two countries have been in a downward spiral for some time—especially since Washington made the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), which Ankara considers a “terrorist organization” and threat to the Turkish state, its main proxy army in its regime-change war in Syria, then supported a failed July 2016 coup against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Differences have since expanded to include an array of Mideast and even global issues. Washington is particularly alarmed by Ankara’s attempts to offset pressure from its traditional western allies by forging closer ties with Russia and Iran.

Washington is adamant Turkey not finalize the purchase of the S-400, a long-range air and missile defence system, for $2.5 billion, claiming that its deployment would disrupt US-Turkish and Turkish-NATO military-security cooperation.

In testimony before a congressional committee Tuesday, the acting US defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, signalled that if Ankara proceeds with the S-400 purchase, Washington will block further shipments of F-35 fighter jets to Ankara and cut Turkish companies out of the F-35 project.

Asked if the Pentagon wants Turkey as an F-35 partner, Shanahan said,

“We absolutely do,” then added, “We need Turkey to buy the Patriot.” This was a reference to Washington’s offer to sell US-made Patriot missile batteries to Ankara for $3.5 billion in lieu of the S-400.

If Turkey deploys the S-400 it will run afoul of US sanctions against Russia. The 2017 Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act empowers the president to impose sweeping sanctions on any individual, organization or state that enters into a “significant transaction” with the defence or intelligence sectors of the Russian Federation. Washington could also seek to intensify pressure on Ankara by refusing to grant Turkey an extension of the “waiver” exempting it from the unilateral and patently illegal US embargo on Iranian energy exports. Turkey is heavily reliant on Iranian natural gas.

Senior Trump administration officials have raised the prospect of Turkey being excluded from NATO activities, citing interoperability concerns with the Russian-made missile system.

Erdogan has, nonetheless, repeatedly vowed that Turkey will buy and deploy the S-400. In his latest comments on the subject, made in an interview last Sunday with television broadcaster TGRT Haber, Erdogan declared that no matter what the United States says, Turkey will not reverse its position on the deal.

Erdogan’s rebuke to Washington came just two days after he issued a critical statement protesting the Trump administration’s decision to recognise Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan Heights. A Foreign Ministry statement subsequently declared, “This unfortunate decision… demonstrates that the US administration continues its approach to be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution in the Middle East.”

The dispute over the S-400 is a flashpoint for deeper conflicts bound up with Turkey’s geopolitical and military-strategic orientation. A member of NATO since 1952 and a key Western ally during the Cold War, Turkey has been severely destabilised by American imperialism’s more than quarter-century of uninterrupted war. Bordering Syria and Iraq to the south and with significant economic and political interests in the nearby regions of the Balkans and North Africa, Ankara was directly impacted by the first Gulf War, the Western-backed carve-up of Yugoslavia and NATO’s bombardment of Serbia, the 2003 Iraq invasion, the 2011 air onslaught on Libya to topple Gaddafi, and the ongoing bloodbath in Syria.

The Turkish ruling elite, including under Erdogan and his AKP during their first decade in power, supported the succession of US wars and tried to advance its own interests through them. But the many shifts in US policy frequently cut across their interests and ambitions.

With Syria matters came to a head. Initially Erdogan enthusiastically supported the US fomented regime-change war in Syria and Ankara was a major co-sponsor of the Islamist militias that spearheaded the drive to overthrow Bashar al-Assad and his Baathist regime. But Turkey was incensed when, once those militias had been pushed back, the US forged an alliance with the YPG, a Syrian offshoot of the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), against which Ankara has waged a brutal counter-insurgency war for over three decades. It was within this context that Turkey orchestrated a rapprochement with Russia and intensified cooperation with Iran.

For Turkey, rolling back the proto-state that the YPG has established in northern Syria remains the overriding goal of its Syria policy. Toward this end it has repeatedly sent forces into Syria, while maintaining a shaky alliance of convenience with Moscow and Tehran and cooperating with them in the so-called Astana Syrian “peace process.”

The Pentagon meanwhile continues to rely on the YPG to provide a base for its predatory operations in Syria, including by denying the Assad regime access to the country’s most important oil fields.

The American national security establishment has increasingly come to view Turkey as an obstacle to its goal of securing unbridled hegemony over the energy-rich and strategically critical Middle East. In a recent analysis published by the Arab Gulf States Institute, a Washington-based think tank, the authors argued that the Middle East is increasingly divided into three blocs: the Sunni Gulf states led by Saudi Arabia, an Iran-led alliance that includes Hezbollah, and a Turkish-led bloc. “Turkey’s role at the epicenter of a new Middle East alliance was consolidated by the 2017 boycott of Qatar by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt. Qatar has relied on Turkey, which maintains a military base in that country, for support against the boycott,” they add.

Within this context, Turkey’s decision on the S-400 missile defence system is seen as having far-reaching consequences. In an editorial published earlier this month, the Financial Times, one of the principal mouthpieces of the US and European financial elites, argued, “Turkey can still reset its relations with the West.” After noting that Erdogan “took power in Turkey in 2003, offering stable civilian leadership, a new drive for EU membership and a business-friendly approach,” the Financial Times went on to complain: “In recent years, Mr. Erdogan has moved towards authoritarianism, alienating western allies and adopting questionable stewardship of the economy. Choosing to purchase Russian military hardware has raised further concerns.”

Erdogan has used the dispute with Washington over the S-400 to capitalise on popular hostility to US imperialism ahead of Turkey’s March 31 nationwide municipal elections. However, he has given little indication he plans to alter his stance towards Washington after the elections. On April 8, the Turkish president is due to travel to Moscow for one-on-one talks with Vladimir Putin.

At the same time, and clearly with a view to exploiting the growing rift between Europe and America, Erdogan has announced that Turkey will renew its bid to join the European Union next month.

Commentary in pro-government Turkish media indicate the anger within elite circles over Washington’s failure to accommodate what they perceive as their vital interests, and their fears that the country that has been Ankara’s principal military-security partner for decades can no longer be trusted. A common refrain is that if Turkey abandons the purchase of the S-400 and accepts Washington’s offer of the Patriot missiles, it could soon face additional US conditions, including making accommodations on Israel or Syria.

Turkish ruling circles also responded angrily to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s attendance at an energy summit involving Israel, Greece and Cyprus in Jerusalem March 20. Long-standing territorial disputes in the Eastern Mediterranean bound up with the Cyprus conflict, which pits a Turkish-recognised regime in the north of the island against the internationally-recognised Greek Cypriot government in Nicosia, have been compounded with the discovery of large natural gas resources under the sea floor.

That being said, Washington will undoubtedly bring tremendous pressure to bear on Ankara, including on the economic front. Just before Erdogan visits Moscow, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu will travel to a NATO foreign ministers meeting, where he is due to meet with Pompeo.

Any attempt by Turkey to move closer to Russia or China, which has invested heavily in Turkey over recent years and sought to win Ankara over to its Belt and Road Initiative, would be fraught with conflicts. Ankara’s disputes with the Western powers notwithstanding, the Turkish bourgeoisie still relies overwhelmingly on capital from Europe to invest in domestic projects, and the European Union remains far and away Turkey’s most important export destination.

As shown by last Friday’s 5 percent depreciation of the Turkish lira after Erdogan denounced Trump’s Golan decision and the crashing of the Turkish currency last August after the Trump administration doubled its tariffs on Turkey’s steel and aluminium exports, Turkey’s ruling elite is extremely vulnerable to pressure from the major imperialist powers.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Threatens Turkey over Russian S-400 Air Defence Purchase
  • Tags: , ,

Less than two years ago Montenegro became the 29th state to join NATO, an American-led military alliance that has become a far-reaching intervention force since the USSR’s demise. The accession of mighty Montenegro to NATO must have set hearts fluttering across the Atlantic in Washington.

One can guess that some within the Donald Trump administration would have taken due care in pinpointing Montenegro on their European maps, with its population of 600,000 people. The Montenegrin landmass, situated in south-eastern Europe and for decades part of Yugoslavia, is a fraction the size of neighbouring Bosnia.

In July 2018, president Trump complained live on air regarding the Balkan country’s membership of NATO, saying the Montenegrins are “very aggressive people. They may get aggressive and, congratulations, you’re in World War III”. Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s Secretary General, had insisted that Montenegro “would have an equal voice in shaping our alliance, and its independence guaranteed”.

Indeed, Montenegro will hold as equal a voice as America herself in formulating NATO’s foreign policy actions. It is safe to presume the Montenegrin government – having pushed through in militarizing its state – will have no scruples in participating with future NATO engagements, to add to the past illegal attacks on Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

The expected arrival of newly-named “North Macedonia”, which will bring the number of NATO states to 30, is a further upcoming event that must have the Trump cabinet clamouring in anticipation. As with Montenegro, North Macedonia is a tiny country located in the Balkans, and is less than a third the size of Ireland.

Yet the New York Times is pleased with the prospect of North Macedonia’s addition to NATO, expressing last month that it “plugs another gap in what was once the former Soviet Union’s backyard”.

One can imagine the New York Times’ reaction would have been rather different, had the Soviet Union persuaded Nicaragua to join the Warsaw Pact. Russia, we are told, has no right to be concerned about the unremitting expansion of NATO, which has almost doubled in size over the past generation.

Trump’s analysis pertaining to the possibility of “World War III” is not without foundation. NATO’s march eastwards, in violation of verbal promises expounded following the USSR’s capitulation, has undoubtedly increased the likelihood of World War III unfolding. A third world war, which would entail a nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia or China, is a scenario that spells the end for entire humanity.

One of NATO’s broadly reported maxims is “an attack against one ally is considered an attack against all allies”. Such mottos put into perspective the mindset of an organization geared towards military combat, with much of its focus on a nuclear superpower in Russia.

There are further plans by Washington to incorporate the Ukraine and Georgia (Stalin’s birth country) into NATO, two states situated directly on Russia’s western and southern borders respectively; should either nation accede, it would represent an enormous provocation of Russia and could conceivably trigger a nuclear war.

Despite the fact that NATO enlargement, along with various interventions of the alliance, poses a clear threat to mankind, Western political figures have long championed these policies, as have commercial media. Powerful institutions are, therefore, openly supporting the increased possibility of humanity’s annihilation.

A New York Times editorial from 26 January 2019 pronounced that NATO “has been the foundation of trans-Atlantic stability and prosperity for seven decades” while it “continues to keep a predatory Russia at bay”. There is no mention in the Times’ evaluation of NATO’s rapid advance towards this “predatory” Russia.

An experienced Guardian columnist outlined his belief that,

“The greatest achievement of NATO is that it has helped to keep the peace in Europe – with occasional exceptions – for more than 60 years… this is an epochal achievement on the grand historic scale”.

One of the “occasional exceptions” was NATO’s flagrantly illegitimate invasion of Yugoslavia 20 years ago, which killed thousands of people, and included such depredations as the deliberate bombardment of Radio Television of Serbia (RTS) headquarters, along with the Chinese embassy’s destruction in Belgrade, Serbia’s capital. Attacks like this constituted outrageous war crimes in which no one was charged, as the victors in conflict seldom are.

The US-led assault on Yugoslavia even provoked criticism from Israel’s Ariel Sharon, who described it as an act of “brutal interventionism”.

The continuing issue of NATO’s existence and eastward spread has been highlighted over successive years by scientists running the Doomsday Clock – whose hand is currently at two minutes to midnight (apocalypse). In the atomic scientists’ 2019 review they assess that, “The United States and Russia should discuss and adopt measures to prevent peacetime military incidents along the borders of NATO”, which are placed at Russia’s very horizons.

In a New York Times opinion editorial from January this year Ursula von der Leyen, the German defence minister, writes that NATO “represents a special, even emotional bond between the American and the European continents… Maybe the most basic benefit of NATO is that it provides reliability in an unreliable world”.

Indeed, “reliability in an unreliable world” with strategies leading to the growing threat of a planetary nuclear holocaust. Von der Leyen has for months been tipped to succeed Stoltenberg as NATO’s Secretary General, so one can expect business as usual in the time ahead.

Von der Leyen is simply reiterating what her leader Angela Merkel has been remarking for years. Since Trump entered office in January 2017, Merkel has openly complained that America no longer “protects us”. It is incredible to witness the willing subservience that the Germans, with their long history of bloody militarism, are placing upon the armed forces of another country thousands of miles to the west.

Comments like those, as expressed by Merkel and Von der Leyen, would have horrified Germany’s old soldiers from bygone eras, such as Helmuth von Moltke, Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenburg. One may assume that these vaunted military figures have been turning over in their graves somewhat.

Germany today is compromised in both action and thought. In all of the elapsing decades, the German state has never fully recovered from Hitler’s assumption to power in January 1933. Much of the blame for Hitler gaining the Chancellorship can be laid at the door of 53-year-old Franz von Papen – the conservative politician, nobleman and staff officer, who felt he could control the Nazi leader once he became head of state. Von Papen misjudged Hitler to a grave degree.

The aspiring dictator possessed a terribly brutal and crazy streak, as later borne out by his organized genocide and merciless invasion on the Eastern front. However, to portray Hitler as a complete raving lunatic is not only inaccurate but serves history no purpose whatever.

Albert Speer, former German architect and war minister, who achieved a well above average IQ score at Nuremberg, knew Hitler intimately for over a decade – and Speer noted in his postwar writings that the Führer was no carpet-chewing madman, but someone containing a variety of character traits, including that of being “genial” before later becoming “a forbidding despot”. After the war, Speer had come to despise Hitler, so in his books he was hardly defending the dictator out of admiration or loyalty.

In his split personality, Hitler was also an extremely cunning individual and skilled politician who, once with power in his grasp, would isolate and eliminate any rivals while strengthening his grip on the state. Von Papen, with a new role in 1933 as “Vice-Chancellor”, was by the following year marginalized through Hitler’s ruthless maneuvering – forcing his second-in-command to resign in July 1934 and proposing him to take up an ambassadorial position in Austria, which Von Papen meekly accepted.

Hindenburg himself, for much of the early 20th century a national icon in Germany, has shipped much criticism down the years for apparently overseeing Hitler’s rise to power.

Yet in January 1933, the 85-year-old Hindenburg was in poor health and entering the final 18 months of his life. Hindenburg was, more than anything else, a military man whose service dated all the way to the mid-1860s, and he was unavoidably lacking in political guile. Hindenburg was in many ways steeped in the lost years of his past which he reminisced on with some regret; and he continued ruing the Germans’ failed Spring Offensive of 1918 on the Western front, which signalled the beginning of the end of World War I.

Hindenburg was noted for his modesty and distaste of the limelight, while allowing his long-time colleague Ludendorff to enjoy much of the acclaim. Rather than comprising a political sort, Hindenburg was most comfortable overseeing the field of battle, analyzing maps in his methodical Prussian manner, handing out orders to young and precocious officers.

Though no angel, Hindenburg did not believe in anything like the Nazi vision, which was too extreme for his tastes. He was an old-fashioned conservative and monarchist, brought up in a family of minor nobility in the Kingdom of Prussia. He met Hitler for the first time during October 1931, at a crowded room in Berlin; those present observed Hindenburg’s disdainful attitude towards Hitler and the cool body language between the pair.

The following August, in 1932, Hindenburg said after another conference with Hitler, “That man for a Chancellor? I’ll make him a postmaster and he can lick the stamps with my head on them”.

The aristocratic old soldier was not to be seen mingling with the riff-raff amidst beer halls, and he disparagingly referred to Hitler as “the Austrian corporal”. Like Von Papen, Hindenburg was underestimating Hitler, but the former had in addition assured Hindenburg that, in the new government, he could ably restrain Hitler.

During Hindenburg and Hitler’s more frequent personal meetings in 1933 and 1934, the Field Marshal would before long prove no match for the Corporal – with the latter even partially winning over the “old gentleman” with his psychological games and political tactics.

Once Hitler was allowed control over Germany, the only means to remove him was through firm actions early in his rule when he was still vulnerable or, failing that, assassination. With Hitler running Germany, that country inevitably became a tyrannical dictatorship which plunged into a major European war that, at first, it seemed like winning with one triumph secured after another.

By mid-December 1941, as Operation Barbarossa was beaten back by Soviet armies in the East – allied to Hitler’s decision in declaring war on the USA that month – Germany was thereafter in opposition to three of earth’s strongest countries: The USSR, Britain and America. The writing of defeat was engraven on the wall.

Had Hitler been thwarted nine years before in his bid to grasp power, a second global conflict may well have materialized regardless; again most likely due to the severity of measures implemented against Germany at the 1919 Treaty of Versailles by the Western states. Nevertheless, those crimes against humanity perpetrated by Hitler’s Reich would surely not have occurred under any other German leader.

In that case, Germany would likely have emerged from a second world war, defeated or otherwise, in a position where it was not dissected for over 40 years between the planet’s dominant nations.

Since reunification in October 1990, a diminished German state has been a virtual US client entity belonging to NATO, and further influenced by American financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank. Germany may have regained some strength at the head of the European Union, but her foreign policy initiatives are usually dictated by Washington, with German troops as part of NATO present in Afghanistan, Iraq and across eastern Europe.

*

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.

Featured image is from http://nousnatobases.org


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

WWIII Scenario

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO’s Unrelenting Expansion Could Trigger a Major Nuclear War
  • Tags: ,

According to United States government documents, since 1998, the Office of the Inspector General has reported $21 Trillion in unaccounted for money.

As unbelievable and absurd as that sounds, the actual total of unaccounted for money at the Pentagon is most likely significantly more than $21 trillion.

Researchers are unable to get data for every year of military spending, many Pentagon agencies do not have any publicly available records, hundreds of thousands of transactions have been erased, and an estimated millions of transactions do not have any traceable record.

As you will see in detail throughout this series of reports, not only have trillions of taxpayer dollars been knowingly dumped into a shockingly unaccountable black hole, Congress is not even sure how much money has been appropriated and given out in the first place.

United States government officials who work for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have been reporting on this stunning issue for years.

The fact that this mind-blowing amount of missing tax money has not been a lightning rod for mainstream media coverage, congressional investigations, and a lead issue for all political representatives, particularly those who claim to care about our skyrocketing national debt, calls into serious question the integrity and legitimacy of all leadership and responsible parties.

Beyond the outright disregard for the rule of law and lack of consequences for ignoring an annual audit legal requirement, the Pentagon is also flagrantly in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 specifically states:

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

*

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

Israeli warplanes launched 82 missiles at 38 targets across the Gaza Strip. Several houses and civil facilities sustained material damage and dozens of civilians became homeless. Israeli forces continued to use excessive force against the peaceful protestors in the Gaza Strip. Two Palestinian civilians were killed in eastern Gaza City and al-Buriej camp. 195 civilians, including 56 children, 4 women, 3 journalists, and a paramedic, were wounded. The injury of two of them was reported as serious.

Shooting:

  • In the Gaza Strip, the Israeli forces continued to use lethal force against the participants in the peaceful protests organized along the Gaza Strip borders, which witnessed the peaceful protests for the 51st week along the eastern and northern border area of the Gaza Strip. They also continued to use force as well during the incursions into the West Bank. In the Gaza Strip, Israeli forces killed 2 Palestinian civilians and wounded 205 others, including 57 children, 4 women, 3 journalists, and a paramedic. The injury of two of them was reported serious. Seven of the total number of injuries were wounded during airstrikes carried out by the Israeli warplanes at targets across the Gaza Strip as two fishermen were wounded in the Gaza Sea and a child was wounded after targeting the border areas. Meanwhile, the rest injuries occurred during the Return and Breaking Siege March. In the West Bank, Israeli forces killed a volunteer paramedic (17) and wounded 3 civilians in al-Dahisha refugee camp south of the West Bank.
  • In the Gaza Strip, during the 51st Friday of the Return and Breaking Siege March, Israeli forces killed 2 Palestinian civilians. The first one, Jehad Hararah (23), from al-Shuja’iyia neighborhood, east of Gaza City, died after being hit with a live bullet to the chest while participating in the demonstrations in Malaka square, east of Gaza City. The second one, Nidal Shatat (29), from al-Moghraqah village, south of Gaza City, died after being hit with a live bullet to the chest while participating in the demonstrations in eastern al-Buriej camp and present around 50 meters away from the border fence with Israel. These new violations come only hours after the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution on accountability brought by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The vote had 23 states voting in favor, 8 against and with 15 abstentions, condemning Israel’s “apparent intentional use of unlawful lethal and other excessive force” against civilian protesters in Gaza.  Thus, these incidents emphasize that the Israeli forces persist in its violation of the international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
  • In excessive use of lethal force against the peaceful protesters in eastern Gaza Strip, Israeli forces wounded 195 civilians, including 56 children, 4 women, 3 journalists, and a paramedic. The injury of two of them was reported serious.

Injuries in the Gaza Strip from 20 to 27 March 2019 According to the Governorate

  • As part of airstrikes, Israeli forces carried out dozens of airstrikes on various targets across the Gaza Strip. These airstrikes have been the most violent in recent months that have not spared civilians and displaced dozens of them. Palestinians in the Gaza Strip lived in a state of terror and fear due to the continuous Israeli airstrikes that targeted various locations; some were in densely-populated areas throughout the Gaza Strip. According to the documentation by PCHR’s fieldworkers, the Israeli warplanes launched 82 missiles at 38 targets across the Gaza Strip, including residential buildings and civil facilities, under the pretext of having security service offices underneath or near them.  As a result, 7 Palestinian civilians sustained minor wounds due to the scattering glass and bricks following those airstrikes. During and after the airstrikes, dozens of civilians were forced to evacuate from their houses dreadfully in the cold weather at night, rendering 13 families comprised of 70 members, including 44 children and 14 women, homeless. In addition to the destruction caused by the airstrikes against the targeted locations and the damage caused to nearby houses and facilities, the resulting explosions caused panic and fear among civilians, especially women and children, as the explosions reminded them of the traumatic experiences they lived in the three offensives of 2008-2009, 2012, and 2014.
  • As part of targeting the Palestinian fishermen in the sea, the Israeli forces continued to escalate their attacks against the Palestinian fishermen, indicating the on-going Israeli policy to target their livelihoods. During the reporting period, PCHR documented 4 incidents were as follows: 2 incidents off Rafah Shore; one incident off Khan Yunis Shore, south of the Gaza Strip; and one incident off al-Waha resort shore, north of the Gaza Strip. These incidents resulting in the injury of a fisherman and his son, in addition to damaging their fishing boat.
  • As part of targeting the border areas, on 24 March 2019, Israeli forces stationed along the border fence with Israel, east of al-Shawka, east of Rafah, opened fire at a number of Palestinian civilians, who were collecting aggregates. As a result, Mahmoud Fouad Salman al-‘Arja (14) was hit with shrapnel to the face.
  • On 26 March 2019, Israeli forces stationed along the border fence with Israel, east of al-Buriej refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip, opened fire at Palestinian shepherds and no injuries were reported. The shepherds were forced to leave the area for fear of their lives.
  • In the West Bank, in new crime of targeting medical personnel, Israeli forces moved into al-Walijah neighbourhood in al-Dheisheh refugee camp, south of the West Bank, and killed a volunteer paramedic, Sajed Mizher (17) while treating injured protesters in the camp. The Israeli forces also wounded 3 other civilians.

Israeli authorities continued to create a Jewish majority in occupied East Jerusalem

  • As part of the Israeli house demolitions and notices, on Tuesday morning, 26 March 2019, Ahmed Moussa al-‘Abassy (48) started to demolish his house in order to implement the Israeli Municipality decision. Ahmed said that the municipality issued a demolition decision in the middle of the past February under the pretext of non-licensing. Moreover, on Monday, 25 March 2019, the municipality staff raided Ahmed’s house in Ra’ss al-‘Amoud neighborhood in Silwan village, south of the old city, and ordered him to self-demolish his house within two weeks. As a result, Ahmed was forced to self-demolish his house to avoid paying the demolition costs. It should be noted that Ahmed started to build his 100-square-meter an under-construction house in October 2018.
  • As part of targeting social activities in the city, on Thursday, 21 March 2019, Israeli authorities prevented the holding of a Palestinian activity for Mother’s Day in the French Cultural Center in Jerusalem on Salah al-Deen Street in central occupied East Jerusalem. Eyewitnesses said that Israeli Intelligence officers accompanied with boarder guard officers raided the French Cultural Center, locked it down and prevented the invitees to enter to Jerusalem Girls Association’s activity in the center, under the pretext that it is funded and supervised by the Palestinian Authority (PA). Moreover, the eyewitnesses said that the Israeli forces fixed an order on the center’s gate to prevent holding the activity in the center or in any different place in Jerusalem. It should be mentioned that, over the past years, the Israeli authorities prevented several social and national activities under the pretext that they were funded by the PA.

Israeli Forces continued their settlement activities, and the settlers continued their attacks against Palestinian civilians and their property

  • As part of Israeli settlers’ attacks against Palestinian civilians and their property, PCHR’s fieldworkers documented 3 direct attacks were as follows:
  • On 21 March 2019, Hundreds of the Israeli settlers organized a demonstration starting from the closed Shuhadah Street and then heading to Tal al-Ramidah neighborhood, where they performed their religious rituals at al-Ibrahimi Mosque and chanted racist slogans against the Arabs.
  • On 25 March 2019, Israeli settlers wrote racist slogans and punctured the tires of 28 vehicles in the French Hill neighborhood, north of occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City. The vehicles belong to Abu Lail, Shanak, ‘Oda and ‘Obaidi.
  • On 26 March 2019, Israeli settlers attacked al-Khansa Primary Mixed School in Taqou’a village, southeast of Bethlehem.

Use of Force against Demonstrations in Protest against the U.S. President’s Decision to Recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel

Israeli forces continued its excessive use of lethal force against peaceful demonstration organized by Palestinian civilians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and it was named as “The Great March of Return and Breaking Siege.” The demonstration was in protest against the U.S. President Donald Trump’s declaration to move the U.S. Embassy to it. According to PCHR fieldworkers’ observations, the border area witnessed large participation by Palestinian civilians as the Israeli forces continued to use upon highest military and political echelons excessive force against the peaceful demonstrators, though the demonstration were fully peaceful. The demonstration was as follows during the reporting period:

Gaza Strip

  • At approximately 15:30 on Thursday, 21 March 2019, Israeli forces stationed on sand berms along the border fence with Israeli, opened fire and fired tear gas canisters at a group of Palestinian young men and boys gathered near the Return Camp, east of al-Buraij. As a result, a child was hit to the lower limbs and his injury was reported moderate.

During the 51st week of the March of Return and Breaking Siege activities, Israeli forces killed two Palestinian civilians and wounded 190 others, including 54 children, four women, three journalists and a paramedic. The incidents were as follows

  • Gaza City: The Israeli shooting at Palestinian demonstrators, which continued from 15:00 until 18:00, resulted in the killing of Jehad Munir Khaled Harara (23), from al-Shuja’ya neighborhood, east of Gaza City. At approximately 16:50, Jehad was hit with a live bullet to the chest and at approximately 17:30, the medical sources announced his death. Moreover, 98 civilians, including 28 children and a journalist, were wounded. Seventy-one of them were hit with live bullets and shrapnel, 20 were directly hit with tear gas canisters and seven were hit with rubber bullets. The wounded journalist, ‘Ali Jadallah (27), who works as a photographer for Anadolu Agency, was hit with a live bullet shrapnel to the left hand.
  • Northern Gaza Strip: the Israeli shooting at Palestinian demonstrators resulted in the injury of 23 civilians, including five children, a woman, a journalist, and a paramedic. Seven of them were hit with live bullets and shrapnel and 16 were directly hit with tear gas canisters.  The injury of two of them was reported serious. The wounded journalist, Mohammed Isma’il ‘Abdullah al-‘Athamna (20), who works as a freelance journalist, was hit with a live bullet to the left leg. The wounded paramedic, Youssof Ra’ed Youssof Abu Baid (22), who works as a volunteer paramedic for PRCS, was hit with a tear gas canister to the right hand.

 

  • Central Gaza Strip: The Israeli shooting at Palestinian demonstrators, which continued until 18:00, resulted in the killing of Nedal ‘Abd al-Karim Ahmed Shatat (29), from al-Moghraqa village, south of Gaza City. At approximately 17:20, Nedal was hit with a live bullet entered his left side of chest and exited the right side, while he was around 50 meters away from the border fence with Israel, east of al-Buriej Camp. At approximately 17:40, Nedal arrived as a dead body at al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah. Moreover, the shooting resulted in the injury of 32 civilians, including 15 children and two women. Fourteen of them were hit with live bullets and shrapnel and 18 were directly hit with tear gas canisters. The Israeli soldiers targeted in the vicinity of a field medical point and ambulances with tear gas canisters. As a result, a number of medical personnel sustained tear gas inhalation.
  • Khan Younis: The Israeli shooting at Palestinian demonstrators, which continued from 15:00 until 18:00, resulted in the injury of 28 civilians, including six children, a woman and a paramedic. Ten of them were hit with live bullets and shrapnel, 17 were directly hit with tear gas canisters and one was hit with a rubber bullet.  The wounded journalist, Isma’il Farid Mohammed Abu ‘Amer (36), who works as a reporter at al-Aqsa Voice Radio, was hit with a tear gas canister to the left leg.
  • Rafah: The Israeli shooting at the demonstrators, which continued from 15:00 until 17:30, resulted in the injury of nine demonstrators. Three of them were hit with live bullets and shrapnel and six were directly hit with tear gas canisters.
  • At approximately 16:30 on Saturday, 23 March 2019, an Israeli drone fired two missiles at a group of Palestinian young men, who were around 400 meters away from the border fence with Israel, east of al-Buraij Camp in the Central Gaza Strip. As a result, three civilians were hit with shrapnel. It should be noted that two journalists sustained bruises. The wounded journalists were identified as Mahmoud Omar Mahmoud al-Loh (29), who works as a reporter for al-Sha’b Voice Radio, and Ahmed Bakr Mahmoud al-Loh (34), who works as a reporter for al-Rebat Voice Radio.
  • At approximately 16:40 on Tuesday, 26 March 2019, Israeli forces stationed on sand berms along the border fence with Israel opened fire and fired tear gas canisters at a group of Palestinian young men and boys, who were near the Return Camp, east of al-Buraij. As a result, a 17-year-old child was hit to the lower limbs and his injury was reported moderate.

Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip

On Monday and Tuesday, 25 and 26 March 2019, Israeli forces carried out dozens of airstrikes on various targets across the Gaza Strip.  These airstrikes have been the most violent in recent months that have not spared civilians and displaced dozens of them after 10 days of a similar aggression. For 12 hours, two million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip lived in a state of terror and fear due to the continuous Israeli airstrikes that targeted various locations; some were in densely-populated areas throughout the Gaza Strip.  Moreover, on Wednesday, 27 March 2019, Israeli warplanes fired missiles at other targets. According to the documentation of PCHR, the Israeli warplanes fired 82 missiles at 38 targets across the Gaza Strip, including residential buildings and civil facilities, under the pretext of having security service offices underneath or near them.  As a result, seven Palestinian civilians were wounded due to the scattering glass and bricks following those airstrikes and reported minor.  During and after the airstrikes, dozens of civilians were forced to evacuate from their houses dreadfully in the cold weather at night, rendering 13 families comprised of 70 members, including 44 children and 14 women, homeless. In addition to the destruction caused by the airstrikes against the targeted locations and the damage caused to nearby houses and facilities, the resulting explosions caused panic and fear among civilians, especially women and children, as the explosions reminded them of the traumatic experiences they lived in the three offensives of 2008-2009, 2012, and 2014. With this wide-scale tide of escalation, Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip found themselves again under disproportionate airstrikes, which fall under the Israeli collective punishment policy, after Israel had declared that two rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip over northern Tel Aviv, wounding seven Israel.

The most prominent civilian facilities that were targeted were as follows

– Targeting al-Multazem Insurance Company located in the ground floor of al-Ghazali Building.  Al-Ghazali was comprised of 2 buildings on an area of 662 square meters and included 10 residential apartments next to the Municipality Park in Gaza City.  The Israeli drones and warplanes targeted the building with 5 missiles after the Israeli Intelligence called the building’s owner and ordered him to evacuate.  As a result, the nearby buildings sustained severe damage and four families of 29 members, including 19 children and women, were displaced.

– Targeting Hassounah 4-storey building, which include 8 residential apartments and whose warehouses were rented by the Internal Security Service, in western Gaza City.  The Israeli warplanes targeted the building with 8 consecutive missiles after calling the residents and ordering them to evacuate.  As a result, the building was completely destroyed, and nearby buildings sustained severe damage.  Moreover, 9 families of 41 members, including 25 children and 9 women, were displaced.

– Targeting the office of Head of Hamas political bureau, Ismail Haniyah, in al-Naser neighborhood in Gaza City and completely destroying it with 4 missiles in addition to causing extensive damage to the nearby houses and facilities, including the Palestinian Association for Development and Reconstruction (PADR).

– Targeting the Khan Younis Seaport and so destroying 2 boats belonging to the Marine Police and causing severe damage to 6 fishing boats and nets.

  • Destroying Omar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Mosque, adjacent to a military training site belonging to al-Qassam Brigades on Khalil al-Wazir Street in the center of Beit Hanoun, which was targeted with seven missiles in successive airstrikes. Moreover, Etihad Beit Hanoun Sport Club’s facilities, adjacent to the site from the west, sustained damage. It should be noted that the mosque was built of tin plates and steel frames after targeting it several times by Israeli warplanes during the 2012 and 2014 offensives.

The rest of the targets varied between agricultural lands and sites belonging to the military wings of the Palestinian factions, causing damage to the nearby residential buildings.

Israeli settlers’ attacks against Palestinian civilians’ property

  • At dawn hours on Monday, 25 March 2019, Israeli settlers wrote racist slogans and damaged dozens of vehicles in the French Hill neighborhood known as al- Samar land, north of occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City. The residents of the French Hill said that, on Monday, while they were going to their work, they were surprised that their vehicles’ tires were punctured, in addition to writing racist slogans on one of the neighborhood’s walls and a house gate. Some of these slogans was “Revenge… We will not give up the Israeli blood”. They also said that the vehicles belong to Abu Lail, Shanak, ‘Oda and ‘Obaidi. Moreover, Israeli police took photos of the vehicles and erased the slogans, but the residents held the Israeli police responsible for the recurrent of similar attacks in the area as they do not punish the settlers and reveal them. It should be noted that this is the third attack in the area over the past five years.

Notices and House Demolitions:

  • On Tuesday morning, 26 March 2019, Ahmed Moussa al-‘Abassy (48) started to demolish his house in order to implement the Israeli Municipality decision. Ahmed said that the municipality issued a demolition decision in the middle of the past February under the pretext of non-licensing. Moreover, on Monday, 25 March 2019, the municipality staff raided Ahmed’s house in Ra’ss al-‘Amoud neighborhood in Silwan village, south of the old city, and ordered him to self-demolish his house within two weeks. As a result, Ahmed was forced to self-demolish his house to avoid paying the demolition costs. It should be noted that Ahmed started to build his 100-square-meter an under-construction house in October 2018.

Settlement activities and attacks by settlers against Palestinian civilians and property

Israeli forces’ attacks:

  • At approximately 10:00, on Monday, 25 March 2019, Israeli forces backed by several military vehicles and a vehicle of the Israeli Civil Administration moved into al-Ras area, west of Ethna village, west of Hebron. An Israeli Civil Administration officer handed the houses’ owners two notices to stop construction work under the pretext of non-licensing. The first 100-sqaure-meter house belongs to Shehada Wajeeh al-Jeiawy (30) and the second 80-square-meter house belong to his brother Mahmoud.
  • On Thursday morning, 21 March 2019, Israeli forces locked down several neighborhoods in Hebron’s Old City and prevented Palestinian civilians from entering or exiting the neighborhoods in order to protect Israeli settlers’ Purim celebrations. Hundreds of the Israeli settlers organized a demonstration starting from the closed Shuhadah Street and then heading to Tal al-Ramidah neighborhood, where they performed their religious rituals at al-Ibrahimi Mosque and chanted racist slogans against the Arabs. The demonstration, which continued until 13:00, was under the Israeli forces’ protection.

Israeli settlers’ attacks:

  • At approximately 12:00, on Tuesday, 26 March 2019, Israeli settlers attacked a Palestinian school in Taqou’a village, east of Bethlehem. Residents of the village said that dozens of settlers backed by Israeli forces organized a march near al-Khansa Primary Mixed School in Taqou’a. They gathered on the village’s main street and raised Israel’s flags, hindering the traffic. The village’s residents said that the Israeli settlers attempted to raid the school and attack students and teachers, but Palestinian young men and parents gathered and prevented the Israeli settlers from getting in the school.

Recommendations to the International Community

PCHR warns of the escalating settlement construction in the West Bank, the attempts to legitimize settlement outposts established on Palestinian lands in the West Bank and the continued summary executions of Palestinian civilians under the pretext that they pose a security threat to the Israeli forces. PCHR reminds the international community that thousands of Palestinian civilians have been rendered homeless and lived in caravans under tragic circumstances due to the latest Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip that has been under a tight closure for almost 11 years. PCHR welcomes the UN Security Council’s Resolution No. 2334, which states that settlements are a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions and calls upon Israel to stop them and not to recognize any demographic change in the oPt since 1967.  PCHR hopes this resolution will pave the way for eliminating the settlement crime and bring to justice those responsible for it. PCHR further reiterates that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are still under Israeli occupation in spite of Israel’s unilateral disengagement plan of 2005.  PCHR emphasizes that there is international recognition of Israel’s obligation to respect international human rights instruments and international humanitarian law.  Israel is bound to apply international human rights law and the law of war, sometimes reciprocally and other times in parallel, in a way that achieves the best protection for civilians and remedy for the victims.

  1. PCHR calls upon the international community to respect the Security Council’s Resolution No. 2334 and to ensure that Israel respects it as well, in particular point 5 which obliges Israel not to deal with settlements as if they were part of Israel.
  2. PCHR calls upon the ICC this year to open an investigation into Israeli crimes committed in the oPt, particularly the settlement crimes and the 2014 offensive on the Gaza Strip.
  3. PCHR Calls upon the European Union (EU) and all international bodies to boycott settlements and ban working and investing in them in application of their obligations according to international human rights law and international humanitarian law considering settlements as a war crime.
  4. PCHR calls upon the international community to use all available means to allow the Palestinian people to enjoy their right to self-determination through the establishment of the Palestinian State, which was recognized by the UN General Assembly with a vast majority, using all international legal mechanisms, including sanctions to end the occupation of the State of Palestine.
  5. PCHR calls upon the international community and United Nations to take all necessary measures to stop Israeli policies aimed at creating a Jewish demographic majority in Jerusalem and at voiding Palestine from its original inhabitants through deportations and house demolitions as a collective punishment, which violates international humanitarian law, amounting to a crime against humanity.
  6. PCHR calls upon the international community to condemn summary executions carried out by Israeli forces against Palestinians and to pressurize Israel to stop them.
  7. PCHR calls upon the States Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC to work hard to hold Israeli war criminals accountable.
  8. PCHR calls upon the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions to fulfill their obligations under article (1) of the Convention to ensure respect for the Conventions under all circumstances, and under articles (146) and (147) to search for and prosecute those responsible for committing grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions to ensure justice and remedy for Palestinian victims, especially in light of the almost complete denial of justice for them before the Israeli judiciary.
  9. PCHR calls upon the international community to speed up the reconstruction process necessary because of the destruction inflicted by the Israeli offensive on Gaza.
  10. PCHR calls for a prompt intervention to compel the Israeli authorities to lift the closure that obstructs the freedom of movement of goods and 1.8 million civilians that experience unprecedented economic, social, political and cultural hardships due to collective punishment policies and retaliatory action against civilians.
  11. PCHR calls upon the European Union to apply human rights standards embedded in the EU-Israel Association Agreement and to respect its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights when dealing with Israel.
  12. PCHR calls upon the international community, especially states that import Israeli weapons and military services, to meet their moral and legal responsibility not to allow Israel to use the offensive in Gaza to test new weapons and not accept training services based on the field experience in Gaza in order to avoid turning Palestinian civilians in Gaza into testing objects for Israeli weapons and military tactics.
  13. PCHR calls upon the parties to international human rights instruments, especially the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to pressurize Israel to comply with its provisions in the oPt and to compel it to incorporate the human rights situation in the oPt in its reports submitted to the relevant committees.
  14. PCHR calls upon the EU and international human rights bodies to pressurize the Israeli forces to stop their attacks against Palestinian fishermen and farmers, mainly in the border area.

Fully detailed document available at the official website of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR).

*

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 IMEMC

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Report on Israeli Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (21 – 27 March 2019)
  • Tags: , ,

On the first anniversary of the beginning of the #GreatReturnMarch protests by Palestinians in Gaza to mark #LandDay on March 30, the Freedom Flotilla Coalition stands in solidarity with our Palestinian friends who are demanding full freedom of movement, including the right to return to their homes in historic Palestine.

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition joins the Palestinian Human Rights Institutions Association and demands that:

  1. the international community fulfill its responsibilities, condemn the aggression and actively intervene to compel the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) to stop their ongoing and escalating aggression on the Gaza Strip and to respect International Humanitarian Law.
  2. all parties to the Geneva Convention IV uphold their legal responsibilities under Article 1 of the Convention which states that these parties are committed to respect the Convention and to ensure that the Convention is respected in all circumstances, in addition to its obligation to prosecute those accused of committing serious violations of the provisions of the Convention under Article 146.
  3. the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court open an official investigation into the killings committed by the IOF against the population of the Gaza Strip to ensure that the IOF are held accountable.
  4. the European Union and other world bodies suspend their Association Agreements with the Israeli Occupation for failing to respect human rights, and that they cease all forms of cooperation with the Israeli Occupation.

We urge supporters to participate in solidarity protests wherever possible, to write to the media demanding they report the truth about what is happening to Palestinians in Gaza (see these talking points from the American Friends Service Committee) and to contact their governments. Our friends at Code Pink offer more resources here, including a petition we all can sign to the US Congress.

We join the Israeli NGO Gisha and many others in calling for an end to blockade and full freedom of movement for all Palestinians, including access to the sea. In the spirit of the historic 2008 call from the Free Gaza movement, we pledge to continue sailing against the blockade until Palestine is 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.

Since last weekend, Israeli warplanes preemptively terror-bombed Gaza and Aleppo’s Sheikh Najar region overnight, causing material damage, according to Syria’s Defense Ministry.

For Netanyahu, it’s all about wanting his resume as a warrior burnished ahead of upcoming April 9 elections – wanting bragging rights for deaths, injuries and destruction.

What further aggression does he have in mind through early April? According to the Palestinian Prisoners Society, his regime abducted 19 Palestinians on Thursday, invading dozens homes across the West Bank, ransacking them, terrorizing families, traumatizing young children.

On Wednesday, seven Hebron Palestinians were kidnapped by Israeli forces. Soldiers attacked peaceful protesters near Ramallah, marching in solidarity with Palestinian political prisoners, eight shot with live fire and rubber-coated steel bullets.

An uneasy Gaza truce is holding, Strip residents fearful of further IDF terror-bombing and possible cross-border attacks by Israeli combat troops – mobilized ready to invade if ordered.

Overnight Wednesday and Thursday, hundreds of Gazans protested against Israeli aggression and suffocating blockade. Soldiers attacked them with live fire and toxic tear gas.

Saturday March 30 is Land Day, commemorated annually since 1976. At the time, Israeli General Yisrael Koenig prepared a secret plan, encouraging greater Jewish occupation of the Galilee and Negev, wanting Arabs displaced to accommodate them.

Demonstrations against confiscation of over 5,000 acres of Palestinian land were declared illegal. Security forces attacked nonviolent Palestinians, killing six, injuring dozens, arresting hundreds.

For Palestinians, Land Day is all about resistance against Israeli theft of their land, displacing Arab residents for exclusive Jewish development and occupancy.

The Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel explained why Great March of Return demonstrations in Gaza began on March 30, 2018, continuing weekly, saying:

“…Palestinians in Gaza launched (weekly marches) to reclaim their right to return to their homeland. This is why the demonstrations began on 30 March – Land Day – which marks Palestinians’ resistance to the state’s expropriation of mass tracts of their land in Galilee in 1976.”

What began 43 years ago remains an endless struggle for Palestinian rights to their land and freedom from repressive Israeli occupation.

“…Palestinians’ rights to their lands, their livelihoods and their lives are under greater threat than ever,” said Adalah.

Ahead of this year’s commemoration, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) said Israel occupies more than 85% of historic Palestine, about 27,000 square km.

At end of 2017, there were 150 illegal Israeli settlements and 116 outposts. Last year, the Netanyahu regime sharply increased construction of around another 9,400 housing units, approving nine new settlement outposts.

Settler population was around 654,000 at yearend 2017, numbers increasing daily at the expense of displaced Palestinians.

Physician, activist, Palestinian Legislative Council and PLO member, General Secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative (PNI) Mustafa Barghouti earlier said:

“Every day is Land Day for our people.” It reflects “our battle with the occupation that steals our land and our future. The only way to respond is by escalating popular resistance” – continuing until Palestine is liberated from illegal Israeli occupation.

The  BDS Movement for Freedom, Justice and Equality earlier headlined “Land Day: Celebrate Resistance and Intensify BDS.”

“Land Day presents opportunity to develop campaigns for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, particularly campaigns targeting the Jewish National Fund, Israeli agribusinesses and companies operating in illegal Israeli settlements, all of which play a vital role in the continued theft of Palestinian land.”

“The Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC) invites people of conscience across the world to join us in marking land day by highlighting BDS as an effective form of solidarity with the Palestinian struggle.”

“At a time when Israel is facing unprecedented levels of pressure over its continued colonization of Palestinian land and quickly losing the international support upon which it depends, let us work together to intensify our collective efforts to hold Israel and its supporters accountable.”

Annual Land Day commemorations are to resist and remember, Palestinians expected to turn out en masse this Saturday throughout the Occupied Territories – Israeli violence virtually certain to confront them.

As long as illegal brutalizing occupation continues, on Land Day and every day, supporters of peace, equity and justice everywhere are all Palestinians.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Palestinians Commemorate Land Day 2019. Gazans Protest against Israeli Aggression and Suffocating Blockade
  • Tags: , , ,

Brexit has ceased to be the “will of the people”, analysis of British Social Attitudes Survey respondents has suggested.

National Centre for Social Research data found 55 per cent of Brits would vote Remain in a second referendum, with just six per cent of respondents saying they now think the UK will secure a good Brexit deal – a massive reduction from the 33 per cent who were optimistic about the outcome of negotiations when the Article 50 process was triggered in March 2017.

The findings have prompted the centre’s senior research fellow Sir John Curtice to warn MPs discussing Brexit in Parliament that:

“There is seemingly room for debate about whether leaving the EU is still the ‘will’ of a majority of voters in the UK.

“Perhaps the key message for the politicians as they decide what to do is that those on all sides of the argument might be best advised to show a degree of humility when claiming to know what voters really want.”

Of the 70 polls conducted since the 2017 General Election only two have given Leave the edge (+1), with five ties and 63 Remain leads.

Recent averages for Remain have been between seven and eight points.

There also hasn’t been a single poll in almost a year now with Leave lead.

But Sir John issued a note of caution by saying:

“The Remain lead in our data is not sufficiently large for anyone to be sure what the outcome of any second ballot would be, especially as any such ballot would occur after a campaign that might result in a shift of opinion in one direction or the other.”

He also warned:

“There must be a question mark about whether those who did not vote first time around would necessarily do so second time around.”

But he concluded the new data clearly showed a “potential frailty of arguments that leaving the EU is necessarily the ‘will’ of a majority of the British public.

“It is enough to raise doubts about whether, two and half years after the original ballot, leaving the EU necessarily continues to represent the view of a majority of the British public”

*

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

Jack is a business and economics journalist and the founder of The London Economic (TLE). He has contributed articles to The Sunday Telegraph, BBC News and writes for The Big Issue on a weekly basis. Jack read History at the University of Wales, Bangor and has a Masters in Journalism from the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Featured image: Sir John Curtice (Source: The London Economic)

Contrary to the high hopes that many in the Alt-Media Community had for a Russian base in Venezuela after false reports and “analytical” innuendo were spread about this possibility, Moscow officially denied that it’s planning to permanently base its military forces in the South American country.

The Faux Challenge

Another day, another fake news scandal, except this time it could have epic international consequences after none other than the US government seems to have fallen for Alt-Media’s false reports and “analytical” innuendo about a supposed Russian base in Venezuela. Trump threatened that “all options” are on the table to prevent this from happening after Moscow’s latest dispatch of military aid to the South American country saw it sending roughly 100 troops to train their Venezuelan counterparts on how to operate their new unspecified equipment. That highly publicized and grossly misreported development sent alarm bells ringing after Mainstream Media and Alt-Media alike interpreted it as representing a Syrian-like challenge to the US’ regime change efforts there, with these two diametrically opposed information forces curiously seeming to agree on this false narrative for their own separate reasons.

The Rumor Mill

While it can’t be known exactly why they entered into tacit agreement to promote this narrative, one plausible explanation could be that both Mainstream and Alternative Media were influenced by the reports late last year about a possible Russian base in Venezuela, with the former seeing this as something deviously destabilizing while the latter appeared to regard it as a stabilizing godsend. Neither of them, it must be said, appeared to doubt the veracity of the unconfirmed report from Nezavisimaya Gazeta that RT catapulted to global attention at the time. The public at large seems to have had the attitude that if both the Mainstream and Alternative Medias actually agree on something, then there must be at least a kernel of truth to it, naively ignoring the fact that Russia couldn’t realistically maintain such a speculated facility halfway across the world in the face of Trump’s vigorous neo-“Monroe Doctrine” implementation of his “Fortress America” grand strategy for restoring the US’ unipolar hegemony in the Western Hemisphere.

Rubbishing The False Reports

Nevertheless, this “inconvenient fact” didn’t stop those in the Mainstream and Alternative Medias from imagining that Russia was “standing up” to the US in Venezuela when all that it actually was doing was simply fulfilling a profitable military contract irrespective of the dramatic optics that would ultimately surround it. The “chattering classes” – each for their own reasons – pretended that there was “something else going on”, wanting to believe that there’s “more to it than it seems”, but none other than Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman just quashed all that speculation when she unambiguously announced on Thursday that “It’s the first time that I hear about bases in Venezuela… Where have you seen such discussions? On the Telegram messenger? I have never seen any discussions on the topic of our bases.”

Self-Interested Skepticism

Russia’s official rubbishing of this false narrative probably won’t be believed by either the Mainstream or the Alternative Medias, and again, each of their own reasons. The first-mentioned never trusts anything that Russia says no matter what it is, while the latter is usually conspiratorially convinced that Russia denies certain things like this “just because it has to” (ridiculously assuming that only they can understand its “subtle messaging” while the US’ many intelligence agencies are apparently stupidly unaware of “what’s really going on”). It would be extremely troublesome, however, if purportedly “friendly” Alt-Media outlets, personalities, and commentators don’t open their eyes to the fact that there really aren’t any plans to build a Russian base in Venezuela and that continuing to advance this narrative actually plays into the US’ hands by “justifying” any potentially forthcoming forcible measures to “drive the Russians out”. The US is likely planning a conventional attack or outright invasion there anyhow, but feeding into its fake anti-Russian pretext for doing so is counterproductive.

Reality Check

In fact, it can even be argued that Trump is preparing to masterfully exploit the “fortuitous opportunity” of Russia’s training mission in Venezuela in order to inflict a crushing blow to its international soft power by destroying the Alt-Media myth that Moscow is “saving” the South American country and therefore disappointing the countless people who were misled into thinking that this is so. Nobody should have believed this anyhow when considering that the US still regularly bombs Syria despite Russia having rotated tens of thousands of its troops through the two bases that it currently has in the Mideast country that’s much closer to its borders than the South American one halfway across the world in which only around 100 of its trainers are deployed in a non-combat capacity.

Lesson Learned?

Acknowledging these “inconvenient facts” doesn’t mean that Russia has no right to enter into military cooperation with Venezuela at the request of the host government’s democratically elected and legitimate authorities, nor that it should withdraw in response to Trump’s threats (even if it does have the “face-saving” possibility of doing so if Caracas publicly declares that their mission is complete), but just that the international audience shouldn’t have any false expectations about the strategic impact of Moscow’s latest low-level but highly publicized military deployment there. Trump is clearly taking advantage of the obviously false reports about an impending Russian base in Venezuela in order to concoct a “strawman” argument for “plausibly” intensifying his regime change operations there to the possible point of a conventional military intervention, but the wisdom of hindsight should make many people in Alt-Media realize how they inadvertently played into the US’ evolving infowar narrative over the past few months by hyping up such speculative reports and therefore cause them to think twice about doing so next time.

*

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.

Trump Trades Arab Lives for Netanyahu Votes

March 29th, 2019 by Laila Ujayli

In blatant violation of international law, Donald Trump has recognized Israel’s claim to sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The order came in the midst of a renewed wave of violence in the Gaza Strip, with Israel responding to rocket attacks with a characteristically disproportionate slew of airstrikes. Tensions are still high in Gaza, which is becoming increasingly uninhabitable.

The lives and homes that continue to be lost in both Gaza and Israel only underscore the importance of negotiating a good-faith solution to one of the Middle East’s most central and devastating conflicts. Trump’s latest move, however, appears designed to bolster Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of Israel’s elections on April 9 and entrench a ruling party whose policies aggravate the situation on the ground and work in direct opposition to long-held U.S. positions. This support of Netanyahu and capitulation to the Israeli far right comes at the expense of thousands of Syrian and millions of Palestinian lives.

Israel displaced tens of thousands of Syrians when it seized the Golan during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and prohibited them from returning to their homes. Later, the United Nations unequivocally condemned Israel’s 1981 unilateral annexation of the Golan, with the Security Council asserting in Resolution 497 that Israel’s “decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect.” Seizing and annexing a territory through military force is prohibited under international law. The United States relied on this principle to condemn Russia’s annexation of the Crimea, so Trump’s decision also gives Putin cause to celebrate.

Thousands of Druze still live in the Golan and retain their Syrian identity, even as Israel’s settlements have expanded beyond the “defensive” security installations that justified the Golan’s occupation in the first place. As Human Rights Watch has noted, the Trump administration’s decision works to undercut the protections afforded to these Syrians under the law of occupation, which includes “the prohibition against building settlements and extracting natural resources for the benefit of the occupier.” Israel, of course, continues to engage in both prohibited activities with little protest from the United States. With Trump’s order, however, the United States will no longer recognize these protections.

Denying the reality of the Golan’s occupation adds to Trump’s already long repertoire of policies that hurt the Syrian people. In addition to exploiting the current situation in Syria to justify this shift in U.S. policy, Trump’s Muslim Ban bars Syrian nationals from entering the country, and his FY2020 budget request seeks to eliminate all U.S. stabilization funding for Syria—despite the U.S. role in destroying vital infrastructure in cities like Raqqa. By gifting the Golan to Netanyahu, Trump also enshrines an occupation that effectively assigns Muslims in the Golan second-class citizenship under Israel’s racist nation-state law.

Trump’s decision to change the Golan’s status under U.S. policy also has troubling consequences for Palestinians. Rather than sanction Netanyahu for his election deal with far-right parties that promote hate and for his advancement of settlement policies that violate international law, Trump is encouraging and empowering the re-election of a prime minister who would undoubtedly continue the erosion of Arab Israeli and Palestinian rights. Netanyahu is already claiming that the decision sets a precedent for annexation that could justify a similar designation for large swathes of the West Bank.

While encouraging Netanyahu, Trump has stripped aid funding to Palestinians and continued to perpetuate the status quo in Israel, even as the United Nations accuses Israel of potential war crimes in Gaza for murdering unarmed protesters, including children. In October, he also signed into law the 2018 Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act (ATCA), which “stipulates that foreign governments which accept aid from the U.S. government will be eligible for prosecution in U.S. courts for damages as a result of terrorism.” Since that provision could make the Palestinian Authority (PA) financially liable in U.S. courts, the PA said it could no longer accept U.S. aid, forcing USAID and U.S. NGOs to leave Gaza and the West Bank.

Trump’s recent order does not change the reality of the ground. The Golan Heights is occupied Syrian land, recognized as such under international law. But Trump’s designation degrades the already tattered U.S. legitimacy in the region, providing further proof that Jared Kushner is wasting a lot of jet fuel and taxpayer dollars pointlessly flitting about the Middle East with his “peace plan.”

But beyond U.S. credibility and the Israeli elections, the Golan Heights is home to thousands of people who will be directly hurt by this decision. Palestinians will also bear the brunt of an emboldened Israeli far-right wing, making peace in the region seem less and less achievable. As the 2020 elections inch closer, the crowded field of Democratic candidates must be prepared to present a robust Middle East policy and a clearly delineated path forward to undo the damage Trump has caused.

*

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

Laila Ujayli is a Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow at Win Without War specializing in the human impact of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. She graduated from The Ohio State University with a double B.S. in International Relations and English, focusing on the intersection of narrative and policy. Her screenplays on history and conflict in the Middle East have won multiple awards.

Featured image is an official White House photo

One of, if not the most, powerful international issue lobby is that of the pro-Israel crowd. Well-financed and politically powerful, the pro-Israel lobby is a major force on American foreign affairs that looks to continue America’s military and fiscal support of the Jewish nation-state. The lobby has had recent policy success with the Trump administration moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from the internationally-recognized capital of Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move long advocated by some in the pro-Israel lobby. Notably however, JStreet, one of the larger pro-Israel groups opposed the move. The administration is very friendly with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and has taken a hard line on Israel peace talks, barely talking to the Palestinians and ending all foreign aid to the West Bank and Gaza.

Even with the policy victories coming under a Republican president, the lobby still remained staunch Democratic contributors, giving more than $14.8 million in the 2018 midterms to mostly Democrats. This marked their third-biggest cycle ever and their biggest non-presidential cycle.

The largest group which contributed was JStreetPAC which gave more than $4 million to candidates in 2018. Only one other pro-Israel group spent over $1 million on the cycle – NorPAC with more than $1.1 million.

The top recipient of pro-Israel funds in the 2018 midterms was Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) with $546,507. Menendez is the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) received the second-most with $349,437.

2018 was an all-time high for money spent on lobbying for pro-Israel issues with more than $5 million. The robust lobbying force was led by the face of the pro-Israel movement the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC spent more than $3.5 million on lobbying in 2018, making up the vast majority the entire lobby spent. A distant second was the Israeli-American Coalition for Action which dropped $550,000.

The pro-Israel lobby is not entirely unified on policy decisions. JStreet, the group with the biggest campaign contributions, differs from AIPAC which led the lobbying effort. JStreet is a more liberal organization and is often critical of the Netanyahu and Trump administrations. AIPAC on the other hand has a policy of not publicly criticizing the Israeli government and has been more supportive of Trump.

Raymond Arke, February 2019

***

Top Contributors, 2017-2018

Contributions to:
Democrats
Republicans
Liberal Groups
Conservative Groups
Nonpartisan

Contribution Trends, 1990-2018

Top Lobbying Clients, 2018

Lobbying Totals, 1998-2018

Party Split, 1990-2018

Top Recipients, 2017-2018

Average Contributions to Members of Congress, 1990-2018

All lobbying expenditures on this page come from the Senate Office of Public Records. Data for the most recent year was downloaded on January 24, 2019.

Data for the current election cycle were released by the Federal Election Commission on Friday, February 01, 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 is from American Free Press

 

On Wednesday, the London Guardian headlined: “MPs to vote on alternative (Brexit) plans as speculation mounts May could announce decision to quit,” adding: She’s “under intense pressure to set out a timetable for her departure from Downing Street…”

Theresa May resembles a “dead man walking,” increasingly a prime minster in name only – her wings clipped, her power ebbing.

Her epitaph as PM alone remains to be written. It won’t be kind about a more wrecking ball figure than leader, a humiliating example of ineptitude.

Straightaway after the June 2016 Brexit vote to leave the EU, she botched discussions with Brussels, dragging them out endlessly, agreeing to a no-Brexit/Brexit deal, displeasing Tories, opposition parties, most Brits and European officials – achieving nothing but overwhelming revulsion over how she handled things.

On Monday, MPs took control of the Brexit process, adopting an amendment for them to hold so-called “indicative votes” this week. They, not May, will decide where Brexit goes from here.

Three more of her ministers resigned, voting for the amendment she opposed, powerless to stop its adoption.

Though non-binding, “indicative votes” will determine Brexit options going forward, abandoning it altogether, remaining in the EU, the most likely one.

After nearly three years of toing and froing, achieving nothing, ending up at square one, Brexit appears zombie-like, its corpse awaiting burial.

MPs defeated May’s no-deal/deal twice. They oppose another vote to defeat it a third time. Chances of Britain crashing out of the EU with no deal are virtually nil.

Options are either May’s no-deal/deal, another referendum likely to kill Brexit if held, or MPs conducting the burial themselves.

Brussels rejects Brexit other than on its terms – Britain leaving the bloc in name only, in reality remaining a member – indicative voting unlikely to change the impasse.

There’s no new approach acceptable to all sides. No matter how many parliamentary votes are taken, a majority for one option agreeable to Brussels is highly unlikely.

For nearly three years, no breakthroughs were achieved, none likely coming. Other than a second referendum, the options are like being pregnant or not at all. There’s no in between.

Monday was significant, a big step toward ending May’s tenure as prime minister, MPs taking control of the Brexit process, her power slipping away.

Responding to Monday events in parliament, her Brexit spokesman said adoption of the amendment for indicative voting “upends the balance between our democratic institutions and sets a dangerous, unpredictable precedent for the future,” adding:

“While it is now up to parliament to set out next steps in respect of this amendment, the government will continue to call for realism. Any options considered must be deliverable in negotiations with the EU.”

“Parliament should take account of how long these negotiations would take, and if they’d require a longer extension, which would mean holding European parliamentary elections.”

While May isn’t bound to accept indicative voting results, her only acceptable option is stepping down – other than hanging on to be voted out of office, where things are heading, maybe in days.

As things now stand with Brussels, the March 29 deadline was pushed back to May 22 – provided UK parliamentarians accept the twice rejected deal by end of this week, or make significant movement toward acceptance.

If not, May was given an April 12 deadline to leave the bloc, what won’t happen without a deal approved by UK MPs and Brussels.

Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn was right, saying May’s approach to Brexit “has now become a national embarrassment. Every step of the way along this process the government has refused to reach out, refused to listen and refused to find a consensus that can represent the views of the whole of the country, not just her own party.”

Brexit is dead, May’s tenure as prime minister on life support. Admitting reality and leaving is her only option – voluntarily or being shoved.

*

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.

Genocide is among the worst possible crimes. Victims of genocide and crimes against humanity deserve to see the perpetrators prosecuted and punished. However, the innocent must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, despite the seriousness of the alleged crime.

No U.S. citizen, neither president nor military officer, has ever been accused or tried for genocide crime in a U.S. court, but Rwandan immigrants have been tried here many times for participating in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide and lying about it on their immigration papers. Former Rwandan medical student Jean Leonard Teganya has been facing such charges in Massachusetts Federal District Court, and his case will be decided in coming weeks, most likely by mid-April.

No U.S. citizen, neither president nor military officer, has ever been accused or tried for genocide crime in a U.S. court, but Rwandan immigrants have been tried here many times for participating in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide and lying about it on their immigration papers.

Teganya is accused of identifying and helping Hutu militants capture and kill Tutsis in the hospital where he was training in 1994.

In order to convict Teganya of the crime of perjury in the U.S., the jury must conclude that he is indeed guilty of alleged crimes in Rwanda or that he lied about being a member of the National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development (MRND), the ruling party before Gen. Paul Kagame and his army seized power in July 1994. The court must presume his innocence until conclusive evidence of his guilt is presented.

Rwanda’s military dictator Paul Kagame commonly accuses innocent Rwandans living abroad of genocide crime because they differ politically, because they challenge the government’s account of who killed whom and how during the genocide, and because they are of Rwanda’s Hutu ethnic group, which is commonly believed to have committed genocide against the Tutsi.

Rwanda’s military dictator Paul Kagame commonly accuses innocent Rwandans living abroad of genocide crime.

Imagine a group of people who have been coerced by threat of death or imprisonment in an African jail and then told that to escape that fate, they need simply go on a trip to the United States to testify against some stranger, with the flight, hotel, meals etc. all paid for by American taxpayers. Imagine those people being coached by an African prosecutor about what to say in the U.S. courtroom.

Imagine that, after the defense team cross-examines them and manages to prove obvious lies in their testimony, these people simply leave their hotel and fly home to Rwanda, avoiding perjury charges unless the prosecutor later decides to indict them in a U.S. court and demand their extradition. It’s so unlikely that a U.S. prosecutor would do such a thing that it deserves mention only as a legal technicality. In fact, prosecution witnesses testify without penalty of perjury.

Many observers present at the trial of Jean Leonard Teganya in Boston, Massachusetts, have observed all this happening.

The U.S. federal court system is normally biased against the defendant. In 1972, the conviction rate in that system was approximately 75 percent and by 2012 it had climbed to 93 percent. Today, some say that rate is as high as 95 percent. It does not take a genius to realize that at least some of these convictions are wrong and the Innocence Project has exonerated many people years after they were convicted.

Prosecution collaborates with Rwandan military dictator Paul Kagame

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts made the odds even worse for Mr. Teganya by collaborating with the government of Rwandan military dictator Paul Kagame to produce “witnesses,” who have nothing to lose because they will leave this country before they can be charged with perjury, and who have everything to gain back home in Rwanda by falsely accusing Mr. Teganya.

The witnesses that the Kagame regime has offered to the prosecution are a defense team’s worst nightmare and an abuse of the U.S. legal system because they testify essentially without penalty of perjury.

What’s more, the human rights crimes of Kagame himself and his military forces have been widely documented in annual reports from the State Department as well as various reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. He and his forces could be convicted of genocide if charges were brought in a criminal court and honestly investigated.

This was explained in the BBC documentary “Rwanda’s Untold Story” and in the United Nations’ Mapping Report. Gen. Kagame’s plots to assassinate Rwandans abroad have been exposed in the United Kingdom, Belgium and South Africa.

His use of false witnesses to go after real or perceived enemies has been documented by many, including Alexander Zahar in “The Problem of False Testimony at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.” Nevertheless, federal prosecutors in Massachusetts have chosen to partner with this regime to increase their chances of convicting Mr. Teganya.

The mainstream media in Boston, particularly the Boston Globe’s Maria Cramer and the Boston Herald’s Laurel J. Sweet, aided the prosecution by publishing, upon the trial’s opening, accusations with no countervailing account of events. As these accusations now fall apart in court, these reporters are failing to correct the public record. This is not only media malpractice, but also a disservice to their audiences.

One of these Rwandan witnesses claimed that Mr. Teganya sexually assaulted her during the 1994 genocide. This same witness had previously testified about her 1994 ordeals in several proceedings in Rwanda and at the United Nations Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania. Some defendants were convicted on the basis of her testimony in those proceedings in Africa.

However, at no time in multiple proceedings did she ever mention Mr. Teganya’s name. In the Massachusetts federal district court, she was unable to explain why, 25 years later, she is accusing Mr. Teganya for the first time ever.

Her current testimony does not match all her previous testimonies. Was she lying multiple times in African courts or is she lying now, assuming that the American court would never know what she told the African courts?

Another Rwandan witness claimed that he was on the janitorial staff at the school where Mr. Teganya was studying medicine in 1994, and that the two of them would go to town every week to get militia weapons-training in preparation for the genocide. However, in response to defense questioning, this witness was unable to name any other medical students known to him or to Mr. Teganya. The jury was expected to believe that this janitorial staffer made friends with just one medical student, Mr. Teganya, without knowing any of his other friends among the hospital’s medical students. American taxpayer dollars are being used to fly these kinds of witnesses to Boston.

Despite all this worthless testimony, the Massachusetts prosecutors who charged Mr. Teganya have failed to demonstrate why he, at the time a high-achieving, 22-year-old medical student with a passion for medicine and no prior record – not even a parking ticket – would suddenly commit murder and rape women.

Americans should oppose the use of their taxes to bring such pathetic witnesses to U.S. courts. They should oppose the federal government prosecutor’s collaboration with an infamous military dictator hunting his enemies down abroad.

And they should oppose mainstream media that tarnishes defendants’ names and then fails to correct the record when new information comes out. They should watch the U.S. District Court in the State of Massachusetts in the case of Jean Leonard Teganya.

Genocide victims deserve to see real perpetrators punished, not to see the innocent framed.

*

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

Rwandan Canadian and human rights activist Aimable Mugara lives in Toronto. 

The Russian military leadership continues employing its maritime doctrine, an important part of which is the strengthening of the surface fleet.

As was recently revealed, Moscow is planning to build two units of project 23560 (i.e. Lider-class nuclear-powered destroyers) by the end of the 2020s.  Preliminary design of the project is complete and was accomplished by the Severnoye Design Bureau. Research and development work and planning for the construction phase are ongoing.

In accordance with the state rearmament program for 2018-2027, the structural design work on Lider-class destroyers must begin in 2021. According to prior assessments, construction of one ship would require approximately seven years.

It is planned to float off the lead ship of the class and a first serial destroyer by the end of the 2020s. Every destroyer will reportedly cost about RUB100 billion (about USD1.5 billion).

Lider is an ocean-going guided missile destroyer. It is smaller than Russian Kirov-class battlecruisers, but larger than US Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyers.

Supposed technical specifications are as follows:

  • Displacement – up to 20,000 t.
  • Approximate length – 230 m.
  • Beam – 20 m.
  • Draught – 6.6m.
  • Speed – about 32 knots.
  • Crew – 300 persons.

The ship will be capable of carrying over 100 missiles of the type Zircon, Onix, Kalibr, or a combination of these three. Experts say that Lider also may be armed with an upgraded version of the current missile being used in the Kinzhal hypersonic complex.

Air and missile defense of the ship will be provided by naval versions of the S-500, S-300, and Pantsir systems as well as the Poliment-Redut medium-range surface-to-air system, developed by Almaz Antey especially for new generation ships.

The air group will consist of 2 helicopters – most likely Ka-29 or Ka-52K.

Anti-submarine warfare and anti-torpedo defense will be provided by the Paket-NK torpedo system. Paket-NK torpedoes are designed to destroy both submarines and torpedoes in the near field of the ship.

Some of the weapon and counter-measure systems of Lider are already being tested in active ships of the Russian Navy.

Operational range and life of the ship will drastically increase due to the included atomic energy power plant. It is expected that the destroyer will be fully designed for use of stealth technology, to include employment of composite materials in the main deck, superstructure, and outline of the ship.

Military sources say that Lider will be a combined guided missile destroyer, large anti-submarine warship, and guided missile cruiser, able to complete tasks of Project 1155 anti-submarine destroyers, Project 956 anti-surface destroyers and Project 1164 cruisers. Lider-class destroyers will become the most capable ships of the Russian Navy, excluding battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy and other ships of the same class.

It should be noted that since the collapse of the USSR, Russia has yet to build such large ships. Nonetheless, it has the experience of successful modernization of large ships built in the Soviet period. This experience will be employed in the design and development of new destroyers.

Estimating the supposed technical specifications of Lider, some experts say that they include common elements of the arms race. This project is a yet another attempt to catch up technical capabilities of the leading Western navies. Nonetheless, the decision to build Lider-class destroyers is determined by the modern course of development of the international relations and Russia’s growing need to strengthen its ocean-going component of the surface fleet.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Lider-class Destroyer — A New Face of Russian Surface Fleet
  • Tags: ,

Lebanese Judge Ahmad Mezher has given orders that a survey be conducted of Lebanese occupied territories in the Shebaa Farms, Kfarshouba, Huneen, Ideise and Bleeda. These villages are bordering Hasbaiya, Rashaya al-Fukhar and Kiyam and have been under Israeli occupation since 1981, as Syria’s Golan Heights have been since 1967. This step coincides with the illegal “gift” of the Syrian Golan Heights offered by US President Donald Trump to his closest ally Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. Although Trump’s move was verbally condemned by the international community, no other state or international body seems likely to openly oppose Trump’s move at the moment.

However, Lebanon has decided to confront this move on the ground, showing its readiness to defend its territory if US “gifts” were ever seen to include Lebanese occupied territories. The Lebanese presidency, the Parliament and the government agreed that it is the right of Lebanon to regain its occupied territory and that the equation “the army, the people, the resistance” is united under one umbrella. Thus, the possibility of confrontation between the Resistance – i.e. Hezbollah in this case – and Israel is now on the table.

The level of tension and chances of confrontation increased during Lebanese President Michel Aoun’s visit to Moscow. During meetings with his homologue Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Christian President Aoun rejected US pressure on his country. The US establishment, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his envoys to Lebanon, wants to prevent the over one and a half million Syrian refugees in Lebanon from returning home. President Aoun also rejected Trump’s gift to Netanyahu, stating clearly that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory illegally occupied by Israel,  and not the property of  the US to dispose of as it will.

It remains unclear whether the Shebaa Farms, Kfarshouba and neighbouring villages are part of Trump’s gift to Israel. This is why Lebanese authorities have requested the judiciary authority officially survey the southern Lebanese territories occupied by Israel. If, in response to the survey, any attempt is made to assert that these areas are part of Israel, then the Lebanese triad (the army, the people and the resistance) will be bound to recover its occupied territory. The timing of the decision is important because it shows the readiness of the Lebanese government to raise the subject and to confront Israel in the wake of the US decision on the Golan Heights, a territory closely linked to the Lebanese farms and villages. As recently as 2009 some of these lands were contested between Syria and Lebanon, but now that Lebanon is in a better position than Syria to vindicate its claims against Israel, the Syrian government will be happy for it to do so.

President Aoun raised these issues with President Putin in the context of Trump’s previous gift of Jerusalem, by virtue of his recognition of an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Lebanon fully supports the right of return of Palestinians to their land, particularly since there are over 800,000 Palestinians living in Lebanon. Just as the US would prefer these Palestinians to remain in Lebanon, the US now seems to want Lebanon to accept an ongoing presence of Syrian refugees on Lebanese soil. The US policy of keeping Syrian refugees in Lebanon has several goals.

The first is to shift the religious balance of power in Lebanon. Most Syrian refugees are Sunni (mainly hostile to Assad and to his allies) and the US would like to see a Sunni plurality in Lebanon to confront Shia Hezbollah and the society behind it. All Israeli wars have failed to curb Hezbollah and could not reduce its strength. On the contrary, Hezbollah military power is increased to an unprecedented level domestically and regionally. Moreover, in the last Lebanese Parliamentary polls, Hezbollah won more votes than any religious party, surprising everyone. Support for Hezbollah goes beyond any one religious confession; it has proved itself as a force defending Christians and Shia against Wahhabi takfiri extremists. Confronting Hezbollah face to face would lead to certain failure, hence the US need to strategically build another society to stand against it.

President Aoun insists on the return of Syrian refugees to Syria, notwithstanding the financial incentives being offered by the US and Europe to keep them in Lebanon. The presence of the refugees upsets the religious equilibrium in Lebanon, and accelerates the process by which Christians are becoming a minority on Lebanese soil. The religious terrorism that hit the Middle East over the last decade targeted regional minorities, notably the Christians. The same NATO leaders whose governments sponsored takfiri terrorism against Christians in the Levant proposed to Lebanese Christian leaders that they leave the land of their ancestors and settle in the west. Christians (and other minorities) who were raped, murdered and terrorized by ISIS and al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria would have suffered the same fate in Lebanon had Hezbollah decided to entrench themselves only in the south of Lebanon, in the Beirut suburbs, or in selected villages of the Bekaa Valley and did not move its forces to Syria and Iraq to face and fight Takfiri.

Moreover, the Lebanese President considers the Syrian refugees a security and a financial burden that is placing a heavy burden on the fragile and chaotic Lebanese infrastructure.  These refugees currently represent a third of the total Lebanese population.

Another objective of US refugee policy in Lebanon is to recover from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad what it failed to achieve by arming militants to overthrow his government over the last 8 years. The US establishment would like to keep over 5 million Syrian refugees outside Syria, mainly in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Europe. This, in US thinking, could impede forthcoming presidential elections in Syria, and prevent both the rebuilding of the Syrian Army and the reconstruction of the country. Syrians are skilful craftsmen; keeping them away from home impedes rebuilding.  All these US objectives do not help Lebanon in any way. On the contrary, they weaken Lebanon, which needs a healthy relationship with neighbouring Syria for its security and commercial development.

Trump has made the Middle East less secure. He has offered Israel an illegal and unnecessary gift. Israel was already controlling the Syrian Golan Heights; Syria posed no threat to it. Syria had not fired a bullet against Israeli occupation of the Golan for 30 years and will be busy for the next ten years rebuilding its destroyed infrastructure. Moreover, the late President Hafez Assad had engaged with Israel, through US mediation, to negotiate a peace deal in exchange for the Golan Heights. It was Israel who rejected the deal at the last minute. Assad then said he would leave liberation of the territory to the generation to come.

The US establishment is undermining Lebanon’s security and peace by imposing one and a half million refugees on the country, destabilizing the local society, and threatening to impose sanctions if Lebanon does not submit to US bullying.

Trump gave Jerusalem to Israel and can no longer be considered a partner in any peace process. This realization has given new urgency to the Palestinian cause. He is not willing to give a state to the Palestinians, but he is disposing of their rights.

US forces are unwelcome in Syria, occupying a third of the country and a bordering passage, while ISIS no longer controls any Syrian territory in the north-east. At the same time the US is keeping tens of thousands of Syrian refugees at the al-Rukban camps from returning home.

In Iraq, the parliament is divided between those willing to see the last US soldier depart and those who want to maintain some training and intelligence collaboration. Iraqi politicians are afraid of asking the US to stay or to leave permanently for fear of seeing ISIS return with US support in either case (if US forces stay there is fear of seeing the US support for ISIS, an eventuality Iraqis also fear if the US were to leave).

Finally, the US is now seen as a superpower ruled by a thug sucking wealth from the oil-rich Arab countries, forcing them to buy US weapons so that Middle Easterners can continue killing each other at their own expense. Arab countries, once very rich, are imposing local taxes they have never imposed before on their own nationals and are going through a financial crisis unheard of for decades. Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine and Lebanon are on the floor financially and even Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Qatar and Bahrein are not in their best financial shape. Iran’s nuclear deal was revoked and since Trump took power the country is facing the harshest sanctions ever.

It is unclear when the next war may erupt to challenge US hegemony in this part of the world. It is clear that Russia and China are already present in the Middle East, ready to take the place of a US establishment which is no longer regarded as a friendly nation by any state but Israel.

*

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

March 29 – Brexit Day

March 29th, 2019 by Julian Rose

I’m in the UK on my farm. Tomorrow, 29th March, is ‘Brexit Day’. But the reality is far from it – in fact the UK is faced by a constitutional crisis – as the 29th March quitting the EU was enshrined in an Act of Parliament – which has never been rescinded! To rescind this requires a vote in the Commons and a new act stating the new terms. Instead (so far) some lady peer stood up in the House of Lords and read a letter saying that 29 March is no longer the recognised date for England quitting the EU.

What we are witnessing is, in fact, a type of ‘treason’. The Country is being sold to Brussels.

Perhaps ‘given-away’ would be more accurate.

Theresa May has, all along, been playing a double game: claiming to be negotiating departure terms wile actually ensuring no departure actually happens in reality. It is simply stepping stones in the progression: Nation State gets swallowed by Super State gets swallowed by Totalitarian State becomes swallowed by New World Order. The UK is being taken-apart from the inside. All the ballyhoo is about obfuscating the steady march to total technocracy and control.

An interesting constitutional observation is that the Queen – who opens the new parliament after the summer recess every year – did so in September 2018 without wearing her crown. Just a plain blue hat. This has never happened before – and some picked it up as a symbolic gesture. Resigning her role as constitutional/titular head of the nation?

In UK old law (which still applies) the people are sovereign and parliament carries through the will of the people by representing them in the House of Commons. The Queen retains her ‘Royal Prerogative’, which counts for little these days, but remains highly symbolic – and in fact, if ever actually used, carries genuine political weight. On her Coronation in 1953, the Queen swore to uphold the constitution of the Country as long as she lived.

However, as Britain’s monarch, she clearly has a foot in two contrasting camps. One gets the impression that the hole shebang is being orchestrated, if not choreographed, to shift the ‘chosen’ 0.2% into their ‘negotiated’ new roles as heads of an empire that will considerably eclipse the British Empire of around 100 years ago.

In the mean time, unprecedented scenes outside the House of Parliament, as thousands of (mostly young) ‘remainers’ wave European Union flags and vociferously demand to stay in the EU. As Moses found out all those years ago, people are so reticent to give-up their slavery.

*

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

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

His Excellency Bashar al Jaafari issued an urgent statement on Syria’s Golan, via a UN stake out, 22 March 2019. While maintaining his immaculate standard of professional diplomat, the Syrian ambassador crushed US President Donald J. Trump’s “irresponsible tweeting.” He laid waste to the escalation of “American arrogance,” and explained the many UN Security Council Resolutions which support Syria’s sovereignty over its Golan, resolutions which call for the end of illegal Israeli occupation.

Dr. Jaafari explained to his audience there is no “Golan heights,” there is only the Syrian Golan. The word “heights” was affixed by Israeli propagandists as part of its psychological warfare campaign to make its illegal occupation appear more powerful.

Syria’s ambassador read a five-minute statement in Arabic, followed by its English translation, after which he took questions from the reporters.

One reporter said that Syria’s official request for the UNSG to publicly condemn Trump’s aggression was met by a generic response that the SG stands by all resolutions, but is not ready to condemn the US president’s tweet.

Here, the author interjects to again remind our readers of the corruption and bias of Antonio Guterres — Guterres, the friend of war criminal Tony Blair, Guterres whose own imperialist arrogance contains putting lies in writing. Consider his claim that the OPCW “fact-finding mission” was “in the Syrian Arab Republic,” despite OPCW’s admission it was too afraid of terrorists to actually send in investigators.

Diplomat Jaafari meticulously explained that Trump’s imperious tweet — “diplomacy now about tweeting, apparently” — was contemptuous of the international community, showed “flagrant violation of international law, the charter of the UN and the simplest…values and ethics,” and demonstrated escalation against member states of the United Nations: It’s “my way or the highway.”

Before taking questions, the Syrian diplomat asked everyone to focus exclusively on the Golan. He told them that there would be another “humanitarian meeting” on the 27th, at which time they could ask all questions. His request to “Please let us focus on this important issue” of course fell on deaf western ears, as someone immediately asked about Trump’s statistics on the remaining “Islamic State.”

Excellency Jaafari did respond, however, to educate the reporter that there is no such thing, there is “a bunch of terrorists gathered from all over the world…all kinds of hyenas.”

One English-speaking colonialist whined from a State Department-type script, about these being “different times.” Nu, is it not always different times? Since when does the movement of the planet legitimize theft, authorize a third party to declare theft to be lawful?

Golan

UNSCR 242 (1967). Israel must return the Golan to its legal country, Syria.

Not surprisingly, one of the most fetid collections of questions came from an incel-sounding voice claiming to be of the Middle East Eye. “MEE is the offspring of the inbred relationship of UK’s The Guardian and Qatar’s al-Jazeera, consistently supportive of NATO Spring takfiri in Syria.

“MEE”‘s first question was sheer idiocy, suggesting that a tweet has the power to legalize a crime. The second question was an attempt to propagandize against Syria’s Golan, and to propagandize for future hypothetical victimhood of Israeli occupiers on the Golan which belongs to the SAR.

Dr. Jaafari carefully explained that Syria will regain that which it owns, and that there are no Israeli civilians on Syrian land: “They are settlers, not civilians. They must leave.”

Multiple attempts were made to provoke Dr. Jaafari into a response to create another wave of anti-Syria hysteria in western media. His character state of professional diplomat is likely the reason his urgent statement on Trump’s criminal tweet in support of Israel’s criminal occupation of the Golan has been ignored by “mainstream media.”

Addenda

Ambassador Jaafari’s statement focused on UNSC Resolutions supporting Syria’s ownership of its Golan.

We remind our readers that both the US and Israel are signatories to the Geneva treaties, which have strict principles governing occupation, which is supposed to be temporary:

golan

Principles governing occupation.

We also remind our readers that Israel has bragged about providing terrorists with state of the art medical care on the Syrian Golan, which it occupies; that Israeli medium reported that Israel is the number one purchaser of oil stolen by terrorists; that Israel breaches all of the principles governing what is supposed to be temporary occupation.

We also note the vicious, imperialist hypocrisy of the three illegal vermin who had their photo taken on Syria’s Golan:

Israel has built a hideous wall that has stolen more Palestinian land. Lindsay Graham is an ardent supporter of building a wall between the US-Mexico border. The ‘ambassador’ is a double-pathogen, as it is undiplomatic to illegally enter any country.

*

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

All images in this article are from Syria News unless otherwise stated

‘Every War Is a War Against Children’

March 29th, 2019 by Kathy Kelly

We, in the United States, have yet to realize both the futility and immense consequences of war even as we develop, store, sell, and use hideous weapons. The number of children killed is rising.

***

At 9:30 in the morning of March 26, the start of the fifth year of the Saudi-led coalition war against Yemen, the entrance to a rural hospital in the northwest part of the country was teeming as patients waited to be seen and employees arrived at work. Suddenly, missiles from an airstrike hit the hospital, killing seven people, four of them children.

Jason Lee of Save the Children, told The New York Times that the Saudi-led coalition, now in its fifth year of waging war in Yemen, knew the coordinates of the hospital and should have been able to avoid the strike. He called what happened “a gross violation of humanitarian law.”

The day before, Save the Children reported that air raids carried out by the Saudi-led coalition have killed at least 226 Yemeni children and injured 217 more in just the last twelve months. “Of these children,” the report noted, “210 were inside or close to a house when their lives were torn apart by bombs that had been sold to the coalition by foreign governments.”

Last year, an analysis issued by Save the Children estimated that 85,000 children under age five have likely died from starvation or disease since the Saudi-led coalition’s 2015 escalation of the war in Yemen.

“Children who die in this way suffer immensely as their vital organ functions slow down and eventually stop,” said Tamer Kirolos, Save the Children’s Country Director in Yemen. “Their immune systems are so weak they are more prone to infections with some too frail to even cry. Parents are having to witness their children wasting away, unable to do anything about it.”

Kirolos and others who have continuously reported on the war in Yemen believe these deaths are entirely preventable. They are demanding an immediate suspension of arms sales to all warring parties, an end to blockades preventing distribution of food, fuel and humanitarian aid and the application of full diplomatic pressure to end the war.

The United States, a major supporter of the Saudi-led coalition, has itself been guilty of killing innocent patients and hospital workers by bombing a hospital. On October 3, 2015, U.S. airstrikes destroyed a Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, killing forty-two people.

“Patients burned in their beds,” MSF reported, “medical staff were decapitated and lost limbs, and others were shot from the air while they fled the burning building.”

More recently, on March 23, 2019, eight children were among fourteen Afghan civilians killed by a U.S. airstrike also near Kunduz.

Atrocities of war accumulate, horrifically. We in the United States have yet to realize both the futility and immense consequences of war. We continue to develop, store, sell, and use hideous weapons. We rob ourselves and others of resources needed to meet human needs, including grappling with the terrifying realities of climate change.

We should heed the words and actions of Eglantyne Jebb, who founded Save the Children a century ago. Responding to the British post-war blockade of Germany and Eastern Europe, Jebb participated in a group attempting to deliver food and medical supplies to children who were starving.

In London’s Trafalgar Square, she distributed a leaflet showing the emaciated children and declaring: “Our blockade has caused this, – millions of children are starving to death.” She was arrested, tried, convicted, and fined. But the judge in the case was moved by her commitment to children and paid her fine. His generosity was Save the Children’s first donation.

“Every war,” said Jebb, “is a war against children.”

*

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

Kathy Kelly is Co-coordinater of Voices for Creative Nonviolence.

Featured image is from Felton Davis | CC BY 2.0

The archives in question will be opened on March 2, 2020.

And while historians around the world are already preparing to record parts of the pope’s documents explaining his role in the Holocaust, Croatia and the region will probably be more interested in his role the post-war rescue of war criminals, Croatia-based website Index is reporting.

The article said that a ratline ran through the Vatican that was used, among others, by Ustasha leaders to escape justice after WW2. This ratline was organized by Croatian Catholic priest Krunoslav Draganovic, whom Boris Raseta refers to as “the Ustasha James Bond” in his book.

The Ustasha regime was in power in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), a WW2 entity allied with the Nazis that set up and operated death camps for Serbs, Jews, and Roma, including Jasenovac.

Image result for Ante Pavelic

Ustasha leader Ante Pavelic (image on the right) himself escaped thanks to his connections in the College of St. Jerome in Rome, as did many other criminals, while Index is reporting that Pope Pius XII must have known a lot about the crimes of the Ustasha – “if for no other reason than because of what (high ranking Croatian Catholic cleric) Alojzije Stepinac was saying.”

“The speeches of Church dignitaries don’t go unnoticed by the Vatican. It will be interesting to see what the pope thought of post-war Yugoslav authorities, especially in light of (Croatia’s) efforts to proclaim Stepinac a saint. Both canonizations (of Pius and Stepinac) are stuck and sidelined, both of them knew a lot about the biggest crime in the history of Europe. And neither was overly upset,” Index writes.

Pope Pius XII is best known for the concordat between the Vatican and the Nazi Germany, signed in 1933, which he arranged while serving as the Holy See’s ambassador to Germany.

When became the pope shortly before WW2 broke out, Pius XII was warning more about communism than Nazism, and was later silent on the Holocaust.

Over 150,000 documents that will be made public should provide the answer to the question that is troubling historians the most: Did the pope know about “the final solution,” the extermination of the Jews, did he know about the Holocaust?

“Hardly not. The Vatican has had an excellent intelligence service for centuries, and they hardly missed the slaughter of six million people. And a more important question arises: Why didn’t the head of the Catholic Church react?,” the website wondered.

*

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

Trump vs. Powell: How Independent Really Is the Fed?

March 29th, 2019 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

The following article appeared in the February 2019 issue of the European Financial Review.

It’s main theme is to show that the Fed, like all central banks, is not independent–of either government or private banking interests pressures–quite contrary to accepted academic economists’ widely held myth. Nor is it true the Fed doesn’t respond to financial markets’ conditions, but only to real economy inflation and employment conditions. Events since last November 2018 clearly reveal that both central bank independence and policy setting apart from financial markets’ performance are just myths.

“It was just a few months ago, October 2018, that Federal Reserve Chairman, Jerome Powell, announced the Fed would continue raising its benchmark federal funds interest rate in 2019 and 2020. A next hike was due in December 2018, followed by four more in 2019, and a possible three more in 2020. That would put the fed funds rate at around 4% by the time of the 2020 November national elections.

Powell cited, as justification for the 7 to 8 more hikes, a strong US labor market with robust job creation and moderate, though rising, average wages; inflation remaining stable around the Fed’s target 2% annual rate; and indications of a continued growth in the US economy well above a 2.5% annual GDP.

If Not the Economy—What?

Fast forward just a couple months—to January 2019—following Powell’s fall announcement to stay the course on rate hikes. Somehow the entire economic scenario had reversed, justifying Powell to announce a halt in future rate hikes. The keyword Powell offered for the media was that the Fed was now adopting a policy of ‘patience’, as he called it, with regard to future rate hikes. Translated, the reference to ‘patience’ really meant no more rate hikes in the foreseeable future unless US economic data strongly recovered. But had the US economy downshifted that much between October and late December 2018 to assume it was now so weak, in early January 2019, that a halt to all future rate hikes was justified? Had the GDP, jobs, and the US economy dramatically ‘reversed course’ between October 2018 and December 2018, in just a few months, to justify Powell’s abrupt reversal of Fed policy?

Not really. US GDP growth rate, QoQ, from late October to late December 2018, had declined only 0.1%, and after December 21, 2018 up until Powell’s announcement in January the US economy was forecast to continue to continue to grow at 2.7%–i.e. a normal post-holiday seasonal softening and comfortably still above the Fed’s 2.5% GDP target. The same lack of data indicating a dramatic shift in employment or wages over the October to January period was also evident. Average hourly earnings rose 0.3% on average each month in the 3rd quarter 2018 (0.9% for the quarter). And it continued to rise at the same 0.3% per month in the 4th quarter. Employment from October through January 2019 grew on average at 241,000 jobs a month. At the same time, the Fed’s target inflation indicator, the PCE, continued to hover around 2-2.2%, suggesting no change in rates necessary in either direction.

So if the US real economy hadn’t radically shifted direction after October, i.e. had not fallen off an economic cliff in just two months, what then lay behind Powell’s mid-January 2019 decision to reverse course and abruptly halt 2019-2020 anticipated rate hikes?

One possible explanation is that President Trump’s repeated and intensifying criticism of Powell’s rate hikes resulted in the Fed chairman doing an ‘about face’ with regard to Fed interest rate policy that had been in place since 2016. But if Powell shifted policy direction in response to Trump criticism that would mean that the oft repeated claim that the Federal Reserve acts independently of the government is something of a fiction. So was Powell’s shift in response to Trump criticism? Or was it a response to something else? And if something else, what?

Central Bank Interference—From Elected Politicians?

The idea of the Fed always acts independently is somewhat a myth of conventional wisdom. The notion of central bank independence became generally accepted only around the early 1970s, when monetary policy (and the central bank) arose as the preferred policy choice compared to fiscal policy, which had been viewed as the primary policy choice before that decade. According to the notion, elected government officials were too prone to change policy to ensure their re-election, it was argued. Only appointed, long term, ‘experts’ in monetary theory and practice would not be influenced by personal gain and would decide on behalf of the economy and not their careers.

But the idea that central bankers would not be responsive to outside pressure is a fiction. Moreover, the source of outside pressure need not be limited to elected politicians. Since the emergence of the notion of central bank independence there have been several notable cases of political interference to the contrary. And who knows how many cases of private sector pressure on the Fed resulted in Fed policy shift—given the rising frequency of ‘revolving doors’ career changes between appointed Fed governors and Fed district presidents in recent decades.

The more obvious cases of political interference have been occurring since the 1970s.

President Richard Nixon sacked the standing Fed chairman, McChesny Martin, when he came into office in 1969 and replaced him with his personal friend, Arthur Burns, who proceeded to do Nixon’s bidding by lowering interest rates—despite a massive fiscal stimulus at the time—in order to help ensure Nixon a booming economy in 1972 and his re-election.

In 1979 president Jimmy Carter was pressured to replace his standing Fed chairman with a new chair, Paul Volcker. Who were the private and political forces, outside as well as inside government, who forced Volcker on Carter?

In 1985, president Reagan, together with his de facto policy vice-president, James Baker, Secretary of the Treasury and later Secretary of State, engineered the removal of Fed chair, Paul Volcker. Volcker had refused to go along with Baker’s demand to shift Fed interest rate policy more aggressively, to drive down interest rates further and more rapidly in order to boost the stock market. Volcker refused and was gone. His replacement, Alan Greenspan, who had done Reagan’s bidding as chair of his Social Security Reform commission, readily agreed to Baker’s demands upon assuming the Fed chair in 1986. That shift in Fed rate policy contributed heavily to accelerating financial speculation that followed Greenspan’s appointment.

Excess liquidity from the Fed lowered rates, which in turn played a central role in the subsequent stock market crash of 1987, the concurrent junk bond bubble at the time, and the residential housing bubble and crash that followed both.

Another case example was the relationship between president George W. Bush and Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan, during Bush’s first term in office, 2001-2004.

As Bush took office in early 2001 the US economy slipped into a moderate recession following the dot.com Tech bust of 200-2001. Though moderate, the 2001 recession showed signs of faltering once again in 2002. The economy appeared to be slipping back into a second contraction after a brief recovery in late 2001 due to a quick infusion of US government spending in the aftermath of 9-11 and accelerated government spending for the invasion of Afghanistan in the fourth quarter of 2001. However, Fed interest rates were already low in 2002 by historical standards. Nevertheless, Bush met with Greenspan and the Fed lowered rates still further after 2002, to an unprecedented 1% fed funds rate. That boosted a housing market that was already long ‘in the tooth’, as they say, and had largely run through a normal cycle that began seven years earlier in 1996-97. The Fed’s further lowering of rates to 1% resulted in the housing market an artificial second wind again in 2003, boosting the US economy out of recession and setting the stage for a robust recovery in 2004 just before Bush’s re-election. Bush thereafter named Greenspan to an extended term as Fed chair. Greenspan continued on the job as chair. Bush got re-elected. But at the cost of the artificially low 1% rates driving the housing market into a bubble starting 2003 for another four years until it bust in 2006-07. Perhaps more of a ‘smoking gun’ case example, the Bush-Greenspan relation suggests the Fed bowed to Bush pressure (i.e. interference) and represents a case of a central bank acting less than independently. Certainly Greenspan must have known that stimulating the housing market so late in its cycle, with so unprecedented low 1% rates, could only have resulted in an inevitable bubble with all its consequences.

Were these examples of Presidents—Nixon, Carter, Reagan, G.W. Bush—pressuring Fed policy in order to ensure their re-election chances? In the case of Nixon. perhaps. Certainly not in the case of Carter. By appointing Volcker—who had publicly indicated he would quickly raise rates in the 1980 election year as high as necessary if he were appointed—Carter surely must have known it would seriously jeopardize his re-election prospects that year. The rapid escalation of rates in fact played an important role in the 1980 recession and Carter’s losing the election that year.

In the case of Reagan, it appears that stimulating financial asset markets were the primary motive for removing Volcker. There was no re-election on the horizon in 1985. Which raises the question: on behalf of whom and whose interests was James Baker acting by driving out Volcker and replacing him with a more compliant Greenspan? If the motivation was not political re-election, and it was clear the real economy was not in recession and in need of a low interest rate boosting, why then was Baker so determined to have rates lowered? Who would it benefit? In retrospect, the main beneficiaries were the financial markets and investors, especially those associated with junk bond financed mergers and acquisitions and the residential housing-commercial property markets.

In the case of Bush, both financial markets and re-election appear the likely motivations for the Fed policy shift. The financial sector in 2003-2007 had a lot to gain from selling securitized assets and related derivatives on subprime mortgages. Their lobbying the Bush administration, and undoubtedly Greenspan as well, was intense at the time. Lower Fed rates played a crucial role in keeping the quantity of new housing contracts rising—upon which the securitization and derivatives financial boom at the time depended. Of course, it may not have been solely financial markets motivated. Bush got his recovery—and thus economic cover to invade Iraq in 2003 and his re-election in 2004 with a strong economy and a war.

The point is that presidents don’t interfere with central bank policy only for their own personal political gains. They interfere as well on behalf of other private interests, who may also be ‘interfering’ by lobbying the Fed behind the scenes as well—or lobbying key committee members of Congress and the President to interfere on their behalf as well. It is therefore too simplistic to argue that politicians’ interference in central bank policy is always for personal political reasons, just as it is too simple to assume that private investors and bankers have no access to the Fed and never try to influence Fed policy behind the scenes.

This does not mean that private interests do so on the eve of every Fed rate policy decision before its Open Market Committee meets bi-monthly to decide on short term rate changes. The interference typically intensifies when a strategic shift in Fed policy is desired.

Central Bank Interference—From Bankers?

Reaching back further in US central banking history, the original Federal Reserve created in 1913 was essentially the economic sandbox of private sector bankers. It was structured so the Fed districts and their presidents were primarily staffed by bankers themselves, while the Washington Board of Governors was dominated by representatives of the big New York banks as well. This private banker dominated and run structure prevailed for more than two decades following the founding of the Fed.

Only when the Fed screwed up during the great depression of the 1930s, and especially by raising rates in 1932 into a rapidly collapsing US economy—which it did in order to try to protect the financial assets of bankers and investors—did the era of direct banker control of the Fed come to an end. Fed rate hikes in the midst of the depression caused an even worst contraction. Thereafter, central bank reforms were introduced under Roosevelt to bring more direct government appointed governors onto the Fed’s Washington Board of Governors. Other reforms also dampened banker influence at the district Fed. One may argue with evidence, however, that the era of direct banker-investor operation of the Fed ultimately gave way in the course of ensuing decades to a more subtle, indirect banker-investor influence over Fed strategic directions by more indirect means.

The direct dominance by banking interests over Federal Reserve day to day, tactical decision making during the Fed’s first two decades was generally considered normal and acceptable at the time. There was no notion that the Fed should be ‘independent’ of the bankers themselves.

With Roosevelt’s 1935 Fed reforms, for the next two decades at minimum the central bank was relegated to a more passive policy role. The US Treasury Secretary effectively ran monetary policy from the background. It was widely accepted from World War II and immediately beyond that the central bank, having screwed up in the early 1930s, should relinquish its independence to the government—i.e. to the US Treasury. The Fed was relegated to serving as the government’s fiscal agent and to selling bonds to pay for the US debt incurred during depression and war time. Its interest rate policy was ultimately decided by the US Treasury. It wasn’t until the 1950s that the Fed was permitted to slowly reassert a more independent and active role in monetary policy matters. And it was not until the 1960s that monetary policy itself was perceived as an activist economic tool once again. Through the 1950s and 1960s fiscal policy was still king.

The Fed gained more policy independence in the 1970s, as fiscal policy failed to stabilize the economy and, in fact, was viewed as having contributed heavily to its destabilization. It was at this time that the notion of central bank independence gained more credence. The collapse of the postwar Bretton Woods international monetary system in 1973, and the dollar-gold standard as means to stabilize currency exchange rates, provided further impetus to monetary policy as primary and thus to a greater role for central banks’ in the ‘managed float’ international monetary system that replaced Bretton Woods. With the even greater reliance on central banking and monetary policy in the post-1980 period in the US, and globally, the notion that central banks were, and should remain, independent grew concurrently.

Behind Trump’s Attack on Powell

President Trump’s recent attack on Powell and the Fed, building throughout 2018 as the Fed continued its rate hikes, and intensifying at year end 2018, is thus in the long tradition of presidential interference in Fed policy—its strategic direction if not its tactical day to day decision making.

But this still leaves open the question of ‘why presidential interference’? Is it because the president wants a robust real economy prior to a re-election? Trump’s attack on Powell and the Fed peaked the week of the Christmas holiday, well after the midterm elections. It’s unlikely therefore that political motivation lay behind Trump’s attacks. Nor could a deteriorating real economy been the motivation. As noted early, nearly all real economic indicators at the time of October-December 2018 show no collapse or even downward trend.
On the other hand, financial markets were in freefall after October 2018. US stock markets had collapsed by 30%. Oil was falling by 40%. Emerging markets’ currencies were plummeting, and as a consequence depressing US multinational corporations’ offshore profits repatriation from those economies. For the first time, virtually no high yield corporate bonds were sold.

As Trump turned up the heat on Powell in late December, it is likely that representatives of financial interests and investors in the private sector were demanding political action by Trump to halt financial asset deflation—and the massive loss of wealth and values that deflation threatened? Treasury Secretary Mnuchin did not appear panicked for no reason. It was beginning to look a little like late August 2008.

The Fed’s Dangerous Legacy: Low Rates Addiction

As this writer has written elsewhere for some time, financial markets (and the real agents behind them, the wealthy investors and their institutions) have become addicted to low interest rates since 2008. This writer has predicted that the Fed funds rate could not rise above 2.75% without precipitating a major financial markets’ negative response. The Fed has stopped at 2.5% in response to the November-December markets contraction, the worst since 2008 or 1931. Since the Fed halted its rate hikes in January, the same markets have recovered much of their loss—i.e. further evidence of the growing elasticity of stock and other asset prices to Fed interest rate cuts.

The financial crash of 2008 was set in motion, at least in part, by the excessive Fed rate hikes in 2008. Well behind the curve of real developments and events, the Bernanke Fed kept raising rates into the slowing real economy and growing financial instability. The Fed funds rate topped off at 5.25% in 2008—i.e. almost twice as high as the peak in 2018 of 2.5%. Fed rate hikes may not have been the fundamental cause of the 2008-09 crash, but can be accurately considered one of the main precipitating causes. In previous recessions and financial crises, in December 2000 and July 1990, respectively, the Fed Funds rate had peaked at 6.5% and 8%.

The longer term trend clearly means the US real economy (i.e. real asset investment) is becoming less and less responsive to interest rate change, while the financial side of the economy (i.e. financial asset investment) is becoming increasingly sensitive and responsive to rate changes. The question is why is this so? What’s behind the declining ineffectiveness of interest rates in stimulating the real economy and goods and services prices, while the rate policy is becoming more effective in stimulating the financial economy and financial asset prices? A complete answer to that critical question is not possible here, except to say it has to do with the radical structural changes that have been impacting both financial and labor markets that are being driven by increasingly rapid technological change and the very nature of capitalist economy itself.

The Financial Markets, Trump & Powell

Presidents act on behalf of financial interests when called upon. And this is probably more true in the case of Trump, himself a long time financial speculator in commercial property markets. It’s not by accident that the press often reports that Trump sees the stock market as the prime indicator of the health of the economy. Trump likely perceived the stock and financial markets steep correction of last November-December as the possible unraveling of the economy in general. He therefore probably intervened in Fed policy without the further factor of at-large financial investors, officers of investment and commercial banks, hedge fund and private equity CEOs, and others lobbying him to do so. But those sources directly lobbying Trump cannot be disregarded either. The relationship between financial sector interests and Trump is undoubtedly quite tight, given Trump’s own origins and his business investments. It has been reported that Trump often calls private business supporters and contributors for advice in critical situations. And they no doubt call him.

It is also likely that those same financial interests in late 2018 as markets were imploding were not limiting themselves to just lobbying Trump. Their deep connections with Fed district presidents and their committees (on which they typically hold 3 to 6 of the nine committee seats in each district) almost certainly means they were communicating, interceding, and demanding action by the decision makers within the Fed structure itself. Many former Fed governors and district presidents return to the banking industry after a stint at the Fed. Their personal connections with the Fed enable them to informally and indirectly ‘lobby’ with their Fed colleagues.

What these relations between Presidents, the Fed, and financial sector players suggest is that what may appear at one level as presidential or political interference in central bank policy may, at a deeper level, represent private financial interests demanding action by politicians and presidents in particular to ensure the central bank in a crisis shifts its strategic policy direction in order to back-stop and support financial markets. The Fed and Powell may deny that the central bank responds to financial markets, that its mandate is only goods and services price stability and employment, but the reality suggests otherwise. That is especially true of the recent Fed policy shift—where no issues of the real economy demanded Fed policy shift but the financial economy strongly demanded the Fed respond by changing strategic direction. The real economy showed no justification for Powell and the Fed to reverse course with regard to interest rate hikes and policy. But the collapse of US stock markets and other financial asset markets after October 2018 clearly coincides with Trump’s intensifying attacks on the Fed—as well as Powell’s abrupt shift in policy direction in response.

Central Banking Myths & Prospects

It is a myth, and a more contemporary one at that, that central banks always act independently. So too is the corollary, that politicians should not interfere with central banks decision making. Central banks’ strategic decisions are often influenced by elected government officials—and should be. That’s because central bank chairpersons and their committees are not perfectly shielded or uninfluenced by private banking interests. It’s not a question of central bank independence or lack thereof. It’s a question of ‘independence from whom’? It’s a question of central banks functioning on behalf of the public interest—and not in the service of interests of private bankers and finance capitalists or serving politicians acting on their own behalf.

But central banks, whether the Fed or others, have never been structured up to now to serve first and foremost the public interest. Central banks were born out of, and emerged and evolved from, the private banking industry, and their first function was to serve as loan aggregator for governments and the political system. They serve those two masters, in a tug of war depending on the crisis at hand. In the latest iteration of that contest between financial interests and government interests, the Fed has clearly responded to the financial sector (despite its denial it never does so) to stop hiking interest rates in order to relieve pressure on the financial asset markets which were beginning to fracture and break due to Fed rate hikes.

But the longer term trend appears that central banks, the Fed in particular, can serve both masters increasingly less effectively. Central bank interest rate policy actions are growing increasingly ineffective and destabilizing at the same time. In the case of Europe and Japan, central bank responses to the last crisis in 2008-09 (and subsequent double dip recessions) has rendered their potential for response to the next crisis virtually nil. Rates are near zero or negative. QE appears baked into the monetary structure going forward. Balance sheets cannot be recovered—i.e. QT is dead. Europe and Japan (and Bank of England and Swiss Bank, etc.) have shot off their ammunition and the gun is now jammed and cannot be reloaded. They will resort to ever more risky economic and political alternatives come the next crisis.

The US Fed’s is a situation not much better. It has created trillion dollar annual budget deficits for the next decade. The central bank must raise rates to fund an additional $12 trillion in debt coming (on top of the existing $21 trillion today). To do that the Fed must raise interest rates to attract more buyers of its Treasury bonds. But Trump and Powell have stopped raising rates—in response to financial markets’ fragility and inherent instability. And there’s the rub, as they say. The Fed can’t raise rates above 2.75% without precipitating more financial instability. And it must raise rates to finance a $33 trillion US national debt by 2028.

All the talk about global trade war pales in comparison to this great contradiction in monetary-fiscal policy now looming on the near horizon.”

*

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. Jack Rasmus is author of the book, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression’, Clarity Press, 2017; ‘Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed’, Lexington Books, March 2019; and ‘Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy’, Clarity Press, 2016. He teaches economics at St.Marys College in California and blogs at jackrasmus.com.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a concentration camp is defined as “a place where large numbers of people are kept as prisoners in extremely bad conditions, especially for political reasons.” It is undeniable that the Rukban camp fits this definition to the letter.

***

The United States military has rejected offers to resolve the growing humanitarian crisis in the Rukban refugee camp in Syria, which sits inside a 55 km zone occupied by the U.S. along the Syria-Jordan border. The U.S. has also refused to let any of the estimated 40,000 refugees — the majority of which are women and children — leave the camp voluntarily, even though children are dying in droves from lack of food, adequate shelter and medical care. The U.S. has also not provided humanitarian aid to the camp even though a U.S. military base is located just 20 km (12.4 miles) away.

The growing desperation inside the Rukban camp has received sparse media coverage, likely because of the U.S.’ control over the area in which the camp is located. The U.S. has been accused of refusing to let civilians leave the area — even though nearly all have expressed a desire to either return to Syrian government-held territory or seek refuge in neighboring countries such as Turkey — because the camp’s presence helps to justify the U.S.’ illegal occupation of the area.

Though the U.S. has long justified its presence in al-Tanf as necessary to defeat Daesh (ISIS), the U.S. government has also acknowledged that al-Tanf’s true strategic importance lies in U.S. efforts to “contain” Iran by blocking a connection from Iran to Syria through Iraq. Al-Tanf lies near the area where the borders of Syria, Iraq and Jordan meet. Thus, in the U.S.’ game of brinkmanship with Iran, Rukban’s estimated 40,000 inhabitants have become pawns whose basic needs are ignored by their occupiers.

U.S. shows no interest in meeting

On Tuesday, delegations from Russia, Syria, the UN, and the Rukban refugee camp met to discuss the fate of the camp’s inhabitants after a UN survey found that 95 percent of the camp’s inhabitants wanted to leave the camp, while 83 percent wanted to return to their hometowns in areas of Syria now under Syrian government control.

However, the U.S. military and State Department officials in nearby Jordan rejected an invitation to Tuesday’s meeting. The U.S. military also prohibited a Syrian-Russian delegation from entering the Rukban camp on Tuesday. The delegation had sought to assess conditions in the camp, which have become increasingly desperate according to reports from a variety of outlets, including U.S. government-funded outlets like Voice of America.

The U.S.’ refusal to attend the meeting or allow the delegation passage comes less than a month after the U.S. military blocked the entry of evacuation buses overseen by Russian and Syrian forces that would have allowed refugees to leave the camp.

The buses would have entered through the “humanitarian corridors” that were recently opened on the Syrian-controlled side of the U.S.-occupied enclave. While camp inhabitants can, in theory, leave the camp through the corridors on foot, the barren area’s remoteness makes such evacuations unfeasible without vehicle transport. Although some families have left this way, the lack of record keeping within the camp has made it impossible to know how many have tried leaving this way since the corridors were opened last month.

Rukban

An aeriel photo of Rukban, between the Jordan and Syria borders, Feb. 14, 2017. Photo | AP

An often overlooked problem that has prevented them from leaving is that U.S.-backed and U.S.-trained “moderate rebel” groups have been known to block camp inhabitants from leaving, demanding large payments in U.S. dollars to leave the area. The U.S. military took control of Al-Tanf alongside “moderate” rebel forces in 2014 after wresting the area from Daesh. Many of those opposition groups have since been revealed to have ties and sympathies to terrorist groups, including Daesh.

The U.S. has not given a reason for its rejection of Tuesday’s meeting and had previously said that its rejection of the evacuation buses was based on its view that the buses did not meet the U.S.’ “protection standards.”

Horrific conditions and a U.S. shrug

While the U.S. has claimed that it has blocked refugees from leaving on Russian-Syrian buses are under U.S. “protection,” it has done little to abet the suffering of the tens of thousands of civilians in Rukban, even though the area is under complete U.S. military control and a U.S. military base is just a few miles away. Indeed, the extent of U.S. “aid” to the Rukban camp has been medical training of the handful of nurses in the camp, who work in conditions they describe as being like “the Stone Age” owing to the chronic lack of basic medications and doctors.

While medical care is decidedly lacking, the most pressing problem is the access to food, as starvation has become a real threat for those living in Rukban. Last October the opposition-aligned news service, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), reported that the Rukban camp had been without food or essential supplies for months. Only two aid deliveries, managed jointly by the Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) and the UN, were able to enter the camp.

One of those shipments, however, almost didn’t happen after the UN delayed the aid “for logistical and security reasons.” While the UN did not specify which “security reasons” had prompted the delay, it was apparently not the Syrian government, as the UN also said in the same statement that the convoy had received approval from Damascus. This suggests that the “security” concerns were related to U.S.-backed militants in the U.S.-controlled area surrounding al-Tanf. Notably, Russian and Syrian sources have claimed that these same militants often “plunder” the aid intended for the camp’s inhabitants for themselves.

Rukban

Children look for food scraps in a pile of trash in the Rukban camp in Syria, Nov, 2018. Photo | SNHR

Since then, the situation inside the camp has continued to deteriorate. Indeed, things have gotten so desperate that, in January, a mother attempted to set herself and her three children on fire after she couldn’t find food for three straight days and preferred to give her children a quick death rather than watch them starve. Others in the camp rescued the family, though the mother and her infant were seriously injured. Recently aid from the UN and SARC arrived in early February, the first aid shipment in over three months.

The lack of food combined with the lack of medical care has been responsible for scores of deaths in the camp — the majority of which are of children under the age of two, who often die from malnutrition and preventable diseases. Others have died from freezing weather owing to a lack of adequate shelter, with eight children dying in January for that very reason. Satellite images taken of the camp in early March showed the recent creation of a mass grave containing an estimated 300 bodies adjacent to the camp.

Despite the desperate conditions less than 13 miles from its military base, the U.S. has declined to send food, doctors, medical supplies or other forms of aid to Rukban’s inhabitants, while also preventing them from leaving. However, the U.S. has been providing militant groups in the same area with military and logistical support.

Rukban provides a pretext

In addition to presiding over the squalid and starvation conditions in the Rukban camp, the U.S. has also given militant groups present in the area it controls — including Daesh terrorists who have “embedded” themselves in the camp on the U.S.’ watch — free rein to terrorize the camp’s refugees. These militant groups not only control the flow of food and aid in the camp but terrorize its most vulnerable inhabitants, forcing women and children into sex slavery and engaging in human trafficking. All of this is taking place in a “deconfliction zone” controlled by the U.S. military.

These extremist groups, including Daesh, are well-armed, according to Jordanian Brigadier General Sami Kafawin, who told NBC News in 2017 that these groups “have whole weapons systems … small arms, RPGs, anti-aircraft.”

The official reason for the U.S. base in al-Tanf has long been counterterrorism operations that ostensibly target Daesh. However, very few attacks against the terror group have been launched from this base and a UN report released last August found that Daesh had been given “breathing space” in U.S.-occupied areas of Syria, including al-Tanf. The U.S. has stated that it uses the al-Tanf base to train Syrian opposition fighters who then control the area around the base, including Rukban.

Syria Tanf

Unidentified Syrian rebels surround a piece of US weaponry during training by an American special forces member in Tanf. Photo | Hammurabi’s Justice News

With the U.S. now having claimed that Daesh has been completely defeated in Syria, the official justification for its illegal occupation of Syrian territory is wearing thin. With that justification now on shaky ground, the U.S. is increasingly having to acknowledge its main motive for its presence in al-Tanf — containing Iran and keeping Syria divided.

Indeed, a recent Reuters article notes that the U.S.-controlled area around al-Tanf that includes the Rukban camp “is designed to shield U.S. troops at the Tanf garrison and maintain for Washington a strategic foothold in an area close to a crucial supply route for Iranian weapons entering Syria from Iraq.” This was confirmed by General Joseph Votel late last year when he told NBC News that the U.S. base in al-Tanf was key in countering “the sway of Iran” in Syria.

This followed statements made last July by National Security Advisor John Bolton that U.S. troops would remain in Syria “as long as the Iranian menace continues throughout the Middle East.” This policy of Iran containment has clearly guided U.S. policy in Syria of late, with at least 1,000 U.S. troops set to stay in Syria illegally despite Daesh’s defeat and President Donald Trump’s recent calls for a troop withdrawal.

The U.S. has been accused of using the civilians trapped in Rukban as a “shield” for its continued operations in Syria aimed at containing Iran’s regional influence. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier this month that “the fact that people are not allowed to leave [the camp] and are held hostage makes one suggest that the U.S. needs this camp to continue justifying its illegitimate presence there.” There appear to be few other explanations for the U.S.’ refusal to let camp inhabitants leave the area.

The hypocrisy of U.S. “humanitarian concerns”

The situation in the Rukban camp reveals the dark reality behind the U.S.’ occupation of Syrian territory in Al-Tanf and elsewhere. In order to pursue its policy of Iran “containment” and a divided and partitioned Syria, the U.S. is willing to imprison some 40,000 people — many of them children — in a concentration camp where international aid is blocked and where food is so scarce that mothers are setting themselves and their children on fire so they can avoid slowly starving to death.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a concentration camp is defined as “a place where large numbers of people are kept as prisoners in extremely bad conditions, especially for political reasons.” It is undeniable that the Rukban camp fits this definition to the letter.

That the U.S. justifies its aggressive policies around the world — from Syria to Venezuela and elsewhere — as being motivated by “humanitarian concerns” — when a refugee camp under the U.S.’ complete control in Syria is facing starvation conditions and its inhabitants are being forcefully kept confined in the camp by the U.S. military despite their expressed desire to leave — is an obscene Orwellian twist.  All this to “contain” Iranian influence in the Middle East.

*

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

Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.

Featured image is from SANA

In a stunning rejection of the will of five million online petitioners, and over 100,000 protestors this weekend, the European Parliament has abandoned common-sense and the advice of academics, technologists, and UN human rights experts, and approved the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive in its entirety.

There’s now little that can stop these provisions from becoming the law of the land across Europe. It’s theoretically possible that the final text will fail to gain a majority of member states’ approval when the European Council meets later this month, but this would require at least one key country to change its mind. Toward that end, German and Polish activists are already re-doubling their efforts to shift their government’s key votes.

If that attempt fails, the results will be drawn-out, and chaotic. Unlike EU Regulations like the GDPR, which become law on passage by the central EU institutions, EU Directives have to be transposed: written into each member country’s national law. Countries have until 2021 to transpose the Copyright Directive, but EU rarely keeps its members to that deadline, so it could take even longer.

Unfortunately, it is likely that the first implementation of the Directive will come from the countries who have most enthusiastically supported its passage. France’s current batch of national politicians have consistently advocated for the worst parts of the Directive, and the Macron administration may seek to grab an early win for the country’s media establishment.

Countries whose polity were more divided will no doubt take longer. In Poland, politicians were besieged by angry voters wanting them to vote down the Directive, while simultaneously facing brazen denunciations from national and local newspaper owners warning that they would “not forget” any politician who voted against Article 11. The passing of the Directive will still leave that division between the Polish people and the media establishment, with politicians struggling to find a domestic solution that won’t damage their prospects with either group.

The rhetoric in Germany in the last few days was not much better. German politicians claimed with straight faces that the tech companies had paid this weekend’s protestors to march on the streets. Meanwhile, the Christian Democratic Union, Angela Merkel’s party, whose own Axel Voss as the ringleader for the Directive, put out a policy proposal that suggested it could implement Article 13 not with filters, but with a blanket licensing regime. Legal experts have already said that these licenses won’t comply with Article 13’s stringent requirements – but it’s going to be hard for the CDU to walk back from that commitment now.

Which brings us to the future prospect of legal challenges in Europe’s courts. Again, unlike the GDPR, which gave existing regulatory bodies the clear power to adjudicate and enforce that law and its ambiguities, it’s unclear who is supposed to impose consistency in the EU between, say, a harsh French regime and a potentially softer German solution, or interpret the Directive’s notoriously incoherent text.

That means it will fall by default to Europe’s judicial system, and the long, slow road to a final decision by the EU’s superior court, the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

We can expect media and rightsholders to lobby for the most draconian possible national laws, then promptly march to the courts to extract fines whenever anyone online wanders over its fuzzy lines. The Directive is written so that any owner of copyrighted material can demand satisfaction from an Internet service, and we’ve already seen that the rightsholders are by no means united on what Big Tech should be doing. Whatever Internet companies and organizations do to comply with twenty-seven or more national laws – from dropping links to European news sites entirely, to upping their already over-sensitive filtering systems, or seeking to strike deals with key media conglomerates – will be challenged by one rightsholder faction or another.

But there’s also opportunities for the courts to rein in the Directive – or even throw out its worst articles entirely. One key paradox at the heart of the Directive will have to be resolved very soon. Article 13 is meant to be compatible with the older E-Commerce Directive, which explicitly forbids any requirement to proactively monitor for IP enforcement (a provision that was upheld and strengthened by the ECJ in 2011). Any law mandating filters could be challenged to settle this inconsistency.

But who will represent Internet users in court? Big Tech has some of the motive and the millions to do it, but after this heavy defeat, those increasingly defensive giants may well decide that it will be better to settle out of court, and strike a deal that pays a danegeld to the established media in Europe – at a price that will conveniently lock out any potential tech upstarts to their market dominance in that market.

That means Europe’s Internet users can’t depend on the tech companies to fight this. The battle will have to continue, as it has done in these last few weeks, with millions of everyday users uniting online and on the streets to demand their right to be free of censorship, and free to communicate without algorithmic censors or arbitrary licensing requirements.

EU netizens will need to organize and support independent European digital rights groups willing to challenge the Directive in court.

And outside Europe, friends of the Internet will have to brace themselves to push back against copyright maximalists attempting to export this terrible Directive to the rest of the world. We must, and we will, regroup and stand together to stop this Directive in Europe, and prevent it spreading further.

*

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 EFF

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on EU’s Parliament Signs Off on Disastrous Internet Law: What Happens Next?
  • Tags:

Welcome to Hell: Peruvian Mining City of La Rinconada

March 29th, 2019 by Andre Vltchek

No one can agree how high above the sea level that La Rinconada really lies at: 5,300 meters or 5,200 meters? On the access road, a metal plate says 5,015. But who really cares? It is indisputably the highest settlement in the world; a gold mining town, a concentration of misery, a community of around 70,000 inhabitants, many of whom have been poisoned by mercury. A place where countless women and children get regularly raped, where law and order collapsed quite some time ago, where young girls are sent to garbage dumps in order to ‘recycle’ terribly smelling waste, and where almost all the men work in beastly conditions, trying to save at least some money, but where most of them simply ruin their health, barely managing to stay alive.

I decided to travel to La Rinconada precisely during these days when the socialist Venezuela is fighting for its survival. I drove there as the European elites in Bolivia were trying to smear the enormously popular and successful President of Bolivia, Evo Morales, while the elections were approaching.

As in so many places in the turbo-capitalist and pro-Western Peru, La Rinconada is like a tremendous warning: this is how Venezuela and Bolivia used to be before Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. This is where Washington wants the entire Latin America to return to. Like those monstrous and hopeless slums surrounding Lima, La Rinconada should be a call to arms.

Just some five years ago we thought: This is how Latin America was never supposed to look again. We thought so, before the extreme right-wing forces in Washington managed to regroup and to deploy old dogmas of the Monroe Doctrine back to the frontlines, against Latin American independence and socialism.

*

A driver refused to take me to La Rinconada, alone. For me, the fewer people involved the better. Even in Afghanistan, I work alone, only with my trusted Pashtun driver. But here it is different: the reputation of La Rinconada is that “you can enter, but you will never manage to leave.” I am told about the new mafia that operates there, and about the totally deteriorating security situation. In the end, I had no choice but to accept a crew of two men: a driver and a person “who is familiar with the situation related to Peruvian mines”.

We leave the city of Puno in the morning, passing along the magnificent shores of Lake Titicaca, which with a surface elevation of 3,812 meters, is the highest navigable lake in the world, shared by Peru and Bolivia.

“From the Peruvian side, the lake is getting poisoned by mercury,” explained Freddy, a mining expert. “La Rinconada and its gold mines are still very far, but the River Ramis is now bringing contaminated water from the area, particularly from the mining town of Ananea, directly into the lake.”

There is some sort of a motorway between Puno and Juliaca, a ‘center of commercial activity’ in the region; in fact, a huge, unkempt dusty city full of slums. Right after Juliaca, it is just rural misery.

I used to work in Peru during the so called ‘Dirty War’, fought between two Communist guerillas (the Maoist Shining Path and the Marxist, pro-Cuban MRTA) and the Peruvian state, which officially ended in 1992. Since then, the rural misery of Peru has not changed: dwellings made of earth, the desperate faces of villagers, and almost no social services, have remained. Right across the border, in socialist Bolivia, life in the countryside improves dramatically, continuously. But not here; not in Peru. And so, tents of thousands of anxious men are ‘going up’, reaching tremendous heights, risking their lives and ruining their heath, for at least a tiny chance to find gold, and to escape the endemic misery.

“My wife saved me,” I was told by a driver who, two days earlier, took me from the Bolivian border of Desaguadero, to the Peruvian city of Puno:

“I was totally broke. We just had a baby. I had no idea what to do. And so, I told my family that I am going to La Rinconada. My wife stood up and said: ‘If you go, you will never return. And if you do, you will not be the man that I love, anymore. You stay in Puno and work here. I will work, too. We will somehow manage. Don’t you know: La Rinconada is a death sentence.’ I stayed. She was right. I saw people who went and came back totally destroyed.”

*

It is getting cold. Our Toyota Hilux climbs up, grumpily, with badly damaged suspension, but going nevertheless. The higher we climb, the colder it gets. It rains, then it stops.

Miners taking break

The views are magnificent, but the countryside is covered by garbage. The river is filthy. The Llamas are eating garbage, cars are being washed in the rapids, and entire villages appear to be abandoned, turned into ghost towns.

After more than four hours of driving, after insane, neck-breaking serpentines, the first mines appear on the horizon. Then more filth, primitive machinery, and a mining town – Ananea.

Ms. Irma, the owner of a local eatery, prepares strong coffee and coca leaves soaked in hot water, the best remedy for altitude sickness. She is chatty, realizing that we represent no danger:

“Sometimes, miners from La Rinconada, escape here. Ananeo is a bit below, and safer. We have water here. There, it is all poisoned; by mercury and other horrible stuff. You know the concept, how they work up there: 29 days they are laboring for free, and then for one day a month, they are allowed to grab what they find. It is a gamble: if they are lucky, they get rich during that one day. Or they find very little, or nothing. And even if they do, at night, it can get stolen from them.”

She sounds old, maternal, compassionate, concerned. She has seen it all, it appears.

We pay and drive up.

Then, we see it: enormous lakes, yellowish, brownish, with streams coming from their surface. Long blue hoses. Everything is ruined and poisoned. Freddy says that there are some new technologies that could be used to extract gold, but the miners here use mercury, as it is cheaper. Primitive machinery is at work, just like on the Indonesian island of Kalimantan/Borneo; there, illegal mining is poisoning mighty rivers, here, it is leveling entire mountains, creating huge lakes, and moonscapes at some 5,000 meters of altitude.

The guards are obviously very unhappy about our presence. Still, I manage to film and photograph, and then we drive even further up.

The piles of garbage appear. Behind them, two tremendous mountains covered by snow. And an ironic metal sign: Welcome to La Rinconada”, “Do not litter.”

*

I have seen a lot, on all the continents, but La Rinconada is truly ‘unique’.

Mountains and valleys are dotted with metal shacks, with makeshift structures. The filth is everywhere. There is no water supply. Electricity is scarce.

Garbage even covers the humble graves of a local cemetery.

In the main square, heavy drinking is in progress. It is dangerous to photograph here. I hide; use zoom. Two plastered miners are lying on their stomachs, and someone is throwing food into their open mouths, as if it was feeding time in a zoo.

Prostitution is rampant. Children are doing odd jobs. At one of the garbage dumps, I ask two young girls about their age.

“25,” comes the ready answer. I guess 15, at most. But their faces are covered.

“How dangerous is it here?” I ask one of the miners.

He replies readily: “Very dangerous, but we have no choice.”

“Do people get injured on jobs? Do they get killed?”

“Of course. It happens very often. We are all taking risks. Some people get horrible injuries, others die. If they cannot treat them here, they take them to Ananeo, and if they are lucky, to a Juliaca hospital. Others are left here to die. It’s life. Some get saved, some don’t.”

Do they blame capitalism, the extreme savage pro-market system, adopted by their country?

“It’s life,” I hear the same fatalistic reply.

Do they know about Bolivia; about the great changes just across the border? Do they know that some 30 kilometers away from here, ‘as the condor flies’, on the Bolivian side, there is the pristine Uila Uila National Fauna Reserve?

Some know that it is much better ‘there’, in Bolivia, now. But they do not associate it with socialism or with the independent and pro-people policies of President Evo Morales. And they know very little about Venezuela.

All they know is that they were barely surviving on Altiplano, and that they are fighting for their lives, here, in La Rinconada.

Like in Indonesia, another savage pro-Western capitalist regime, people here are too preoccupied with their immediate essential problems; they cannot be bothered with ‘abstract’ thoughts about the environment, or lawlessness.

I see people pissing in the middle of the street.

“It is not just mercury,” I am told. “Everything here is mixed: poisons related to mining, urine, shit, urban waste…”

The altitude is hitting me hard. 4,000 in Puno is bad; over 5,000 here is fatal. I am being held by two people as I film on the edge of a ravine, in order not to fall down.

Somehow, in a very twisted way, I acknowledge that the vistas around me are beautiful, stunning. I am impressed. Impressed by the ability of human beings to survive under almost any conditions.

Post-mining craters

Virtually all of this is illegal. But hundreds of millions are made, and washed.

People gain nothing; almost nothing. A miner makes 800 to 1,000 Soles (roughly $250 to $300) per month. Private companies and corrupt government gain billions. Once again, Latin America is getting poorer. But the West is not pushing for ‘regime change’ in Peru, or in Paraguay, or Brazil. This is how it is supposing to be; this is how Washington likes it.

Another miner dares to talk to me:

“Most of the gold goes abroad. But before it does… If gangs do not rob us, miners, at night, they often murder small middlemen, those who buy gold directly from us.”

Is he scared?

“Everyone here is scared,” he confirms. “Scared and sick. This is hell.”

“It is like a war…” I utter.

“It is a war,” he confirms.

But almost nobody comes here to report and to investigate. The life of a poor Peruvian person is worth nothing; nothing at all.

I film, I document… It is all that I can do for them. And for Bolivia, for Venezuela.

While I work, I feel that hell is near, it is here. It is not abstract, religious: it is real. But it could, it should be stopped.

*

This article was originally published on RT.

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

All images in this article are from the author

In March of 1999, NATO, at the behest of President Bill Clinton, unleashed an aerial assault on Serbia under the pretext of “humanitarian intervention.” This led to massive destruction and heavy loss of life.

The attack violated international law and the UN Charter, and became a precedent for similar attacks on Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.

But in some ways it was the end of Russian compliance with Washington’s “new world order.” Tiphaine Dickson reports on an important conference in Belgrade calling for a “World of Equals.”

*

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 Logic of Annexation: Israel and the Golan Heights

March 29th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Any measure of annexation is based on the extension of a military’s boots.  Diplomats tend to be silenced before the noise of tanks, weaponry and garrisons.  Countries may claim to possess territory but can only dream in the absence of military weight.  When it came to the issue of negotiating the post-World War II agreements, Generalissimo Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union had a clear sense of this in charting out Soviet influence in east European states.  Israel also bullied its way into recognition, making sure that it acquired, at various stages, the Sinai (since relinquished), the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights.

The status of the Golan Heights has been a disputed business since the 1949 armistice line hammered out between Syria and Israel.  The seven-hundred-square-mile stretch features all gazing vantage points: Jordan to the south, Syria to the east, Lebanon to the north, and Israel to its west.  To military advantage could also be added water security: the edge of the Golan Heights features the freshwater Sea of Galilee.

Israel remained convinced that the mandate lines of Palestine and Syria should have finalised the issue but rendered much of that moot with the seizure of the territory in the Six Day War of 1967. (Syrian forces made use of their elevation during that war by shelling Israeli farms in the Hula Valley.)  The UN Security Council proceeded to pass Resolution 242, calling for Israeli forces to be withdrawn from territories occupied during the conflict and “acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries.”  The international lawyers duly fussed over the wording and quibbled over niceties: the issue of “secure… boundaries” kept plaguing the issue, as Israel refused to budge; translation matters between the French and English versions of the resolution were also seized upon.

No international body was going to stop the Israeli push to incorporate the heights and do what it has become so adept at doing: colonising it into new reality.  The Knesset showed its disdain in 1981 by adopting the Golan Heights Law, passed by 63 votes to 21, which effectively acknowledged that the law, jurisdiction and administration of Israel would be duly extended into the territory.  Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s views on Syrian hostility, reflected in the deployment of missiles on Lebanese soil, was also cited as an excuse.

The recent turn of events centred on the Syrian Civil War renewed interest in the Golan.  Syria seemed to be collapsing, the Assad regime in dire straits.  Iran and Hezbollah came into play.  Given the assisting presence of Teheran’s Quds Force, Israel’s strategists have seen a further need to maintain a forward presence, mindful of militants of all persuasion moving through the territory.

The position of Israel’s unqualified and foremost ally was, at least notionally, with international reservation on the status of the Golan.  But that contested state offered another overturned convention for the Trump administration and US foreign policy.  On March 21, President Donald Trump decided, via his own chosen, special medium, to claim that,

“After 52 years, it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s [s]overeignty over the Golan Heights.”

As is operating protocol in the administration, it was not initially clear whether Trump had merely cyber-aired an opinion in an act of spontaneous release or announced a genuine policy shift.  The US State Department preferred to direct press concerns to the White House; certainty was, for a period, suspended in the scramble for elusive facts.

Those scrounging for some hook to hang their questions on did have an additional statement from National Security adviser John Bolton, also made on Twitter:

“To allow Golan Heights to be controlled by the likes of the Syrian or Iranian regimes would turn a blind eye to the atrocities of Assad and the destabilizing presence of Iran in the region.  Strengthening Israel’s security enhances our ability to fight common threats together.”

Unsurprisingly, for Bolton, there was no reference to the body of international norms he has come to regard as absent.

In Israel, clarity had cooled, and the mould set. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was convinced by Trump’s meditations, revealing that the White House had been most accommodating towards a shift.  Trump had “made history.”  Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights had been recognized, and there was no better time than now, “when Iran is trying to use the Golan Heights as a platform for the destruction of Israel.”  But in addition to the security justification came the old sinister and stretched notions of exclusive, lengthy habitation.  “Jews lived there for thousands of years and the people of Israel have come back to the Golan.”

Next to Netanyahu was US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who made the stumbling affirmation of the position: the Golan Heights were to be considered an appropriate “sovereign part of the State of Israel.”  Israelis should also “know the battles they fought, the lives that they lost on that very ground, were worthy and meaningful.”

It all comes as a measure of grades.  Start gradually, then push the issue with force and settlements.  Over time, the attrition might convince; international opposition would melt away.  The Golan-based human rights group Al-Marsad is gloomy about Syrians in the area, seeing the existential demise of its residents.  “Syrians in the occupied Golan face calculated Israeli efforts to restrict their building and land use, destroy their enterprise, cleanse their Arab culture, manipulate their Syrian identity, and suffocate their freedom of movement.”

The Trump decision, similarly to its stance on East Jerusalem, tilts the head of US foreign policy away from the basic principles of peace and security embedded in the UN Charter, as weak a document as it has proven to be over the years.  It will also further muddy the waters with the Assad regime, ever keen to restore order as the bloody civil war painstakingly comes to a close.  And as for the issue of Arab-Israeli peace?  Forget it.  Boots, construction and missiles are proving far more effective than diplomatic advances.

*

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]

Brazil: 55 years after the army staged a coup on 31 March 1964 and overthrew President Joao Goulart, the new far-right President, Jair Bolsonaro has announced a celebration of this said event. There can be no doubt about the active support provided by the US government, the World Bank and the IMF. On 2 April 2014, a US NGO, the National Security Archive (NSA!) publicized an impressive amount of declassified official documents that testify to Washington aiding and abetting the Brazilian army officers who had overthrown Joao Goulart’s democratic government 50 years earlier. See this.

In the PhD dissertation I presented at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège in 2004 [1], I discussed the support provided to the coup by Washington, the WB and the IMF. The relevant section is reproduced below.

Support for the Brazilian military junta after the overthrow of President Joao Goulart

President Joao Goulart’s democratic government was overthrown by the military in April 1964. WB and IMF loans, suspended for three years, resumed very soon afterwards. [2]

A brief time line: in 1958, Brazilian president Kubitschek was about to undertake negotiations with the IMF to gain access to a loan of 300 million dollars from the United States. At the end, Kubitschek refused the IMF-imposed conditions and did without the US loan. This earned him wide popularity.

His successor, Goulart, announced that he would implement a radical land reform programme and proceed to nationalise petroleum refineries: he was overthrown by the military. The United States recognised the new military regime one day after the coup. Not long afterwards, the WB and IMF resumed their suspended lending policy. As for the military, they rescinded the economic measures the United States and IMF had criticised. Note that international financial institutions were of the view that the military regime was taking sound economic measures [3]. Yet, the GDP fell 7% in 1965 and thousands of firms declared WBruptcy. The regime organised harsh repression, outlawed strikes, caused a dramatic drop in real wages, and eliminated direct ballot voting, disbanded trade unions and made systematic use of torture.

President Joao Goulart’s democratic government was overthrown

Since his first trip in May 1968, McNamara regularly visited Brazil where he did not miss meeting the military rulers. The public reports of the WB systematically praised the policies of the dictatorship in reducing inequalities [4]. Nevertheless, inside the WB, the discussions took a bitter turn. When Bernard Chadenet, Vice-President of Project of the WB declared that the image of the WB is going to degrade following the support to the repressive government of Brazil, McNamara recognized that there was a tremendous amount of repression but he added that it “is not necessarily a great deal different from what it had been under previous governments, and it did not seem to be a lot worse than in some other member countries of the WB. Is Brazil worse than Thailand?” [5] Some days later, Mc Namara followed up “No viable alternative to the Government by generals seemed open” [6]. The World WB realised very well that inequalities would not diminish and that its loans in the agricultural sector would reinforce the big landowners. Nevertheless, it decided to carry on the loans because it absolutely wanted to put the government under its influence. Now, at this juncture, the WB met an obvious failure: the military regime demonstrated a deep mistrust in the context of the WBs desire to increase his presence. Finally, at the end of the 70s, they took advantage of a profusion of loans from the international private bankers granted at a lower rate of interest than that of the WB and moved away from the WB, which they found less useful.

How political and geostrategical considerations influence World WB lending policy

Article IV section 10 stipulates:

“The WB and its officers shall not interfere in the political affairs of any member; nor shall they be influenced in their decisions by the political character of the member or members concerned. Only economic considerations shall be relevant to their decisions, and these considerations shall be weighed impartially in order to achieve the purposes (set by the WB) stated in Article I.”

The WB has found many systematic means of getting round the prohibiting its operations taking “political” and “non-economic” considerations into account, one of the primary stipulations of its charter, from its founding onwards. The WB refused loans to post-liberation France as long as the Communists remained in the government. The day after they left the government in May 1947, the loan France had requested, blocked until then, was granted [7].

The WB has repeatedly contravened article IV of its own statutes. In truth, the WB has made many choices based on political considerations. The quality of governments’ economic policies is not the determining element in its choices. The WB has often lent money to the authorities in countries despite the dismal quality of their economic policies and a great degree of corruption: Indonesia and Zaire are two cases in point. Specifically, WB choices relative to countries that play a major political role in the eyes of its major shareholders are regularly linked to these shareholders’ interests and outlooks, starting with the United States.

From 1947 to the collapse of the Soviet bloc [8], World WB and IMF decisions were determined in large part by the following criteria:

  • avoid shoring up self-reliant models;
  • provide funding to large-scale projects (WB) or policies (IMF) enabling major industrialised countries to increase exports;
  • refuse to help regimes seen as a threat by the United States government or other important shareholders;
  • attempt to modify the policies of certain governments in the so-called socialist countries so as to weaken the cohesion of the Soviet bloc. This is why support was granted to Yugoslavia, which had dropped out of the Moscow-dominated bloc from 1948, or to Romania from the 1970s at the time when Ceaucescu was attempting to take his distances from the Comecon and the Warsaw Pact;
  • support strategic allies of the western capitalist bloc and in particular of the US, (i.e.: Indonesia from 1965 to the present day, Mobutu’s Zaire, the Philippines under Marcos, Brazil under the dictators after the 1964 coup, dictator Somoza’s Nicaragua, Apartheid South Africa);
  • Attempt to avoid or to limit in so far as possible, closer links between Third World countries and the Soviet bloc or China: for example, distancing the USSR from India and Sukarno-era Indonesia.

To carry out this policy, the World WB and the IMF have generalised a tactic: greater flexibility towards right-wing governments (less demanding in terms of austerity measures) facing a strong left opposition than to left-wing governments facing strong opposition from the right. Concretely, that means IFI are more demanding and make life more difficult for left-wing governments to weaken them and ease the right’s path to power. According to the same logic, the IFI have made fewer demands on right-wing governments facing a left-wing opposition to avoid weakening them and preventing the left from coming to power. Monetarist orthodoxy has variable geometrics: the variations depend on many political and geostrategic factors.

The IMF and World WB did not hesitate to support dictatorships when they (and other major capitalist powers) found it opportune. The author of the World Report on Human Development published by UNDP (1994 edition) says so in black and white:

“But rhetoric is running far ahead of reality, as a comparison of the per capita ODA received by democratic and authoritarian regimes shows. Indeed, for the United States in the 1980s, the relationship between aid and human rights has been perverse. Multilateral donors also seem not to have been bothered by such considerations. They seem to prefer martial law regimes, quietly assuming that such regimes will promote political stability and improve economic management. After Bangladesh and the Philippines lifted martial law, their shares in the total loans given by the World WB declined” [9].

*

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 CADTM.

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

Notes

[1] Eric Toussaint, doctoral thesis in political science, presented in 2004 at the Universities of Liège and Paris VIII: “Enjeux politiques de l’action de la Banque mondiale et du Fonds monétaire international envers le tiers-monde” (“Political aspects of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund actions toward the Third World”), http://cadtm.org/Enjeux-politiques-de-l-action-de This part of the dissertation was inserted in the book Eric Toussaint, The World Bank : A critical Primer, London, Pluto Press, 2008, http://cadtm.org/The-World-Bank-A-critical-Primer, chapter 6.

[2] An analysis of the facts summarised below is found in: Payer, Cheryl. 1974. The Debt Trap: The International Monetary Fund and the Third World, Monthly Review Press, New York and London, p. 143-165.

[3] In 1965 Brazil signed the Stand-By Agreement with the IMF, received new credits and had the United States, several European creditor nations and Japan restructure its debt. After the military coup, loans rose from zero to an average of 73 million US dollars for the rest of the 1960s and reached almost half a billion US dollars per annum in the mid 1970s.

[4] Details in Kapur, Devesh, Lewis, John P., Webb, Richard. 1997. The World Bank, Its First Half Century, Volume 1: History, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 274-282

[5] World Bank, “Notes on Brazil Country Program Review, December 2, 1971” Details in Kapur, Devesh, Lewis, John P., Webb, Richard. 1997. The World Bank, Its First Half Century, Volume 1, pp. 276.

[6] Kapur, Devesh, Lewis, John P., Webb, Richard. 1997. The World Bank, Its First Half Century, Volume 1, pp. 276.

[7] See Kapur, Devesh, Lewis, John P., Webb, Richard. 1997. The World Bank, Its First Half Century, Volume 1: History, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., p. 1218

[8] The period coinciding with the cold war.

[9] UNPD. 1994. Human Development Report, p.76

All images in this article are from CADTM unless otherwise stated

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Brazil: 55 Years after the Overthrow of Democratically Elected President Joao Goulart, the New Far-right President, Jair Bolsonaro Has Announced a Celebration of the 1964 Military Coup
  • Tags: , , ,

Dimitri Lascaris: This is Dimitri Lascars reporting for The Real News Network.

Media have descended on Puerto Rico since Hurricane Maria devastated the island a year and a half ago, and many reported on its struggle to rebuild its energy grid. But behind the scenes, some policymakers and fossil fuel industry leaders are using the crisis to transform Puerto Rico into a hub for liquefied natural gas–gas obtained from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in the mainland United States.

Speaker: To rebuild the devastation of Hurricane Maria, this LNG has potential to reshape the Puerto Rican grid, making it safer and more reliable.

DL: Climate activists have decried these efforts.

S: The interest of the gas producers in the United States pushing for a gas market in Puerto Rico for their products.

DL: Liquefied natural gas, or LNG, is methane gas that’s been super chilled to a liquid state. It gets shipped via tankers from oceanic ports. LNG export shipments from the U.S. have greatly expanded in the fracking area. That tie to the fracking drilling method has not been lost on advocates in Puerto Rico.

S: Trying to sell us that gas is clean energy, and it’s not. Especially the gas that comes from the United States, which is fracking gas. That is dirty gas because of the effect it’s causing on the environment.

DL: Industry supporters tout natural gas as a more climate-friendly fossil fuel and potential “bridge fuel” to a renewable energy future.

Video: Energy Source carries tremendous benefits for consumers and the environment. It is versatile, clean burning, and abundant.

DL: Yet scientists fear that gas infrastructure could pose a major climate threat due to its capacity to lock in a long-term supply chain.

S: Scientists know that methane traps about 87, I’ve also seen 90, times as much carbon–as much heat as carbon would, over a 20 year period. And that’s really what’s important. It’s the short-term, the short-lived climate pollutants like methane that are really going to pack the biggest punch over the short term.

DL: Despite those concerns, Puerto Rico included the buildout of three LNG import terminals as a central component of its Integrated Resources Plan, the plan for its energy grid published in February.

S: There’s so much of it people have described it as a glut of natural gas in the U.S. There are people and corporations interested in making Puerto Rico the natural gas hub, or the fracked gas hub, of the Caribbean.

DL: And the Trump administration has made it easier to export LNG to the island by reclassifying tankers as “small scale.” It’s a move allowing gas to flow via deregulation. A new classification of LNG tankers dubbed “small scale” are now considered in the public interest under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 as a result of a regulation published in July by the Energy Department. That fast track means companies no longer have to go through public hearings for their project proposals, or pass an environmental review when aiming to export small-scale LNG.

In its press release announcing the rule, U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry cited the Caribbean market as a key destination of small-scale LNG.

Though billed as small scale, the actual size of the shipments are as big, if not bigger, than conventional LNG exports. Meg Gentle, CEO of the company Tellurian, which specializes in small-scale LNG exports, explained it herself at a 2017 event.

Meg Gentle: LNG construction is a massive economies of scale business, and there are some projects that talk about small scale. And in fact, we did some research on trying to reduce the size of the plant, to bring smaller quantities into market as the market grows. What we learned is that there really are no economies of small.

DL: These efforts have triggered ire for the Puerto Rican climate activists.

S: The politicians publicly is we shouldn’t build our future on the top of the people who are being harmed in the north.

DL: While Puerto Rico does have regulations in place promoting renewable energy, the country has failed to achieve its goals.

S: What is known as a renewable portfolio standard enacted into law in Puerto Rico, and those goals have not been met, not even by far. They haven’t been met. And so we’re still depending on, as I mentioned earlier, 97 percent to 98 percent fossil fuels.

DL: Some say that renewable energy, and solar energy in particular, should sit at the center of Puerto Rico’s future energy plans.

S: I think we are advancing. I think we’re making some progress. I don’t think it’s fast enough. We are talking about being 100 percent renewable by by 2050. I think climate change won’t give us that amount of time. Climate change will push us towards it quicker than that.

DL: In the meantime, some Puerto Ricans have taken the transition into their own hands.

S: One of the things that we learned, one of the lessons that were definitely learned from the Hurricane Maria aftermath, is that communities need to play an active role and not be just passive consumers, but rather what are being called prosumers; that is, producers and consumers of energy. They need to, you know, use rooftops, especially, and other places close to the point of use for installations of photovoltaic systems, battery energy storage systems.

DL: With The Real News Network, I’m Dimitri Lascaris.

*

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 SocialistWorker.org

Em 24 de Março de 1999, a sessão do Senado foi retomada às 20h35 com uma comunicação de Sergio Mattarella, então Vice-Presidente do Governo de D’Alema (Ulivo – Pdci – Udeur): “Distintos Senadores, como as agências informaram, às 18h45 começaram as operações da NATO”.

Naquele momento, as bombas dos F-16 do 31º Esquadrão USA, decolados de Aviano, já tinham atingido Pristina e Belgrado. E estão a chegar novas ondas de caça bombardeiros USA e aliados, partidos de outras bases italianas. Deste modo, violando a Constituição (artigos 11, 78 e 87), a Itália é arrastada para uma guerra, da qual o governo informa o Parlamento depois das agências de notícias, quando a mesma já está iniciada.

Vinte dias antes do ataque à Jugoslávia, Massimo d’Alema – como ele próprio diria numa entrevista a Il Riformista (24 de Março de 2009) – tinha sido convocado a Washington, onde o Presidente americano Bill Clinton lhe havia proposto: “A Itália está tão perto do cenário de guerra que não lhe pedimos para participar nas operações militares, basta que coloque à disposição as bases”. D’Alema tinha-lhe respondido, orgulhosamente, “vamos assumir as nossas responsabilidades como os outros países da Aliança”, ou seja, a Itália teria disponibilizado não só as bases, mas também os seus bombardeiros para a guerra contra a Jugoslávia. Nos bombardeamentos participarão, de facto, 54 aviões italianos, atacando os alvos indicados pelo comando USA.

“Era moralmente justo e também era o modo de exercermos plenamente o nosso papel”, explica D ‘Alema na entrevista. “Pelo número de aviões, fomos os segundos em relação aos EUA. A Itália é um grande país e não devemos surpreender-nos com o compromisso demonstrado nesta guerra”, declarou em Junho de 1999, como Presidente do Conselho, salientando que, para os pilotos, tinha sido “uma grande experiência humana e profissional.”

Assim, a Itália assume um papel de importância primordial na guerra contra a Jugoslávia. Das bases, em Itália, decola a maior parte dos 1.100 aviões e, em 78 dias, efectuam 38.000 surtidas, lançando 23.000 bombas e mísseis (muitas com urânio empobrecido) na Sérvia e em Kosovo. Deste modo, é activado e testado, em Itália, todo o sistema de bases USA/NATO, preparando o seu fortalecimento para guerras futuras.

A guerra seguinte será contra a Líbia, em 2011. A guerra de há vinte anos, foi a condição necessária e suficiente para a activação da nova e pesada servidão militar no nosso território.

Enquanto decorre ainda, a guerra contra a Jugoslávia, o Governo D’Alema participa em Washington na cimeira da NATO, de 23 a 25 de Abril de 1999, que oficializa o “novo conceito estratégico”: a NATO é transformada numa aliança que obriga os países membros a “realizar operações de resposta a crises não previstas no Artigo 5, fora do território da Aliança”. A partir daqui começa a expansão da NATO para Leste, considerada um indicador de novos “confrontos” perigosos, mesmo pelos vultos do ‘establishment’ USA. Em vinte anos, depois de ter destruído o que ainda restava da Federação Jugoslava, a NATO amplia-se de 16 para 29 países (30 se agora englobar também a Macedónia), expandindo-se, cada vez mais, ao redor da Rússia.

Hoje, a “área do Atlântico Norte” estende-se até as montanhas afegãs. E os soldados italianos estão lá, confirmando o que D’Alema definia com orgulho “o novo estatuto de um grande país”, conquistado pela Itália há vinte anos, por participar na destruição de um país que não tinha atacado ou ameaçado, nem a Itália, nem os seus aliados.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

il manifesto, 23 de Março de 2019

 

A GUERRA À JUGOSLÁVIA SERÁ UM DOS TEMAS

DA CONFERÊNCIA INTERNACIONAL SOBRE O 70º ANIVERSÁRIO DA NATO

O tema «Jugoslávia: Há 20 anos a guerra fundadora da nova NATO» é tratado, também com documentação em vídeo, na Conferência Internacional “Os 70 anos da NATO: qual é o  balanço histórico? Sair do sistema de guerra, agora “, que acontece no domingo, 7 de Abril, em Florença (Cinema Teatro Odeon, Piazza Strozzi, 10: 15-18). Entre outros tópicos «A Europa na vanguarda do confronto nuclear».

Oradores: M. Chossudovsky, Director de Global Research (Canada): V. Kozin, perito político militar do Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros da  Russia; Ž. Jovanović, Presidente do Forum de Belgrado (Serbia); Diana Johnstone, Ensaísta (Usa); P. Craig Roberts, Economista (Usa). Entre os oradores  italianos: A. Zanotelli, G. Strada, F. Cardini, F. Mini, G. Chiesa, A. Negri, T. Di Francesco, M. Dinucci.

Promotores: Comitato No Guerra No Nato e Global Research, juntamente com Pax Christi, Comboniani, Wilpf e outras associações. Para partecipar na Conferência (entrada ingresso) comunicar o nome e o lugar de residência a G. Padovano: Email [email protected] / Cell. 393 998 3462

 

 

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Como a Itália conquistou o «estatuto de grande país»

From one day to the next,  following the release of the Mueller report, the shaky RussiaGate consensus created by the corporate media has collapsed.  

What the Mueller investigation contends is that there is no proof that the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 presidential elections. 

The demise of the RussiaGate narrative, however, does not mean that the Trump administration will renew its relations with the Kremlin. “The Russians are still coming”… without RussiaGate. Russia is still portrayed as a threat to America’s National Security. 

In this regard, the objective of the Neocons has been achieved. The Trump administration, with its hawk team of  advisers including Pompeo and Bolton, not to mention Gina Haspel at the CIA, is towing the line. 

Corporate and Political Rivalries

The RussiaGate narrative was required to sustain the multibillion dollar contracts in favor of the military industrial complex including the 1.2 trillion dollar nuclear weapons program.

What was at stake in 2016 were fundamental rivalries within the US establishment marked by the clash between competing corporate (and political) factions, each of which was intent upon exerting control over the incoming US presidency.

In this regard,  Trump was not entirely in the pocket of the lobby groups. He was not a groomed politician. As a member of the business establishment, he had his own corporate sponsors and fund raisers. His stated foreign policy agenda including his “commitment” to revise Washington’s relationship with Moscow did not fully conform with the interests of the defence contractors.

Prior to the elections, a smear campaign was launched by the media on behalf of the  “Clinton faction”. At the height of the election campaign Trump was portrayed by the US media as  “an agent” of the Kremlin, a modern Manchurian candidate.  Barely a month before the November 8 2016 elections, former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leo Panetta  intimated that Trump represented a threat to National Security. The Atlantic (October 8, 2016),  described Trump is a “Modern Manchurian Candidate”.

Belleville National Democrats, Jan 13, 2017

Vanity Fair November 1 2016

The Atlantic October 8 2016

This anti-Trump campaign continued unabated in the wake of the elections. Ironically, Rod Rosenstein who had been nominated for the position of Deputy Attorney General by president Trump in February 2017, acted against Trump almost immediately following his confirmation on April 27, 2017.

Rosenstein’s mandate was to organize the so-called Russia Probe pertaining to alleged Kremlin interference in the November 2016 elections. Rosenstein’s first step consisted in the firing of FBI Director James Comey and appointing former FBI Director Robert Mueller as Special Council to lead the Russia Probe.

Rod Rosenstein had prepared a three page memorandum, which  criticized James Comey for his handling of the Clinton email investigation and the release of Comey’s October 28, 2016 “Second Letter to Congress” 11 days before Election Day.

This action by Comey referred to as “October Surprise” (2016)  was largely detrimental to Clinton’s candidacy. It certainly did not go against the interests of Donald Trump.

The Fake News Witch-hunt. Clamping Down on Independent Media

RussiaGate was not only a conspiracy against Trump, largely in response to his 2016 election campaign commitment to restore “normal” diplomatic relations with Russia, it also took the form of a Witch-hunt directed against the independent online media,  which were casually tagged as “Russian trolls”, “Russian bots”,  “political commentators acting on behalf of the Russian government.” etc.

In chorus, the Western media was involved in accusing Moscow of election meddling without a shred of evidence.

In contrast, the lies and fabrications as well as the criminality underlying the Democrats’ 2016 election campaign were the object of  independent online media reports which were immediately branded as “fake news” on behalf of the Kremlin.

According to Reuters:

 “Russian President Vladimir Putin supervised his intelligence agencies’ hacking of the U.S. presidential election and turned it from a general attempt to discredit American democracy to an effort to help Donald Trump, three U.S. officials said on Thursday.” (emphasis added)

The New York Times (December 15) focussed on Kremlin meddling. Donald Trump is tagged as “a Useful Idiot”:

Kremlin meddling in the 2016 election warrants further investigation, with an eye toward preventive or retaliatory measures. President Obama has asked the nation’s intelligence community to deliver a fuller report on its findings before he leaves office on Jan. 20, …

Mr. Trump’s reaction to the C.I.A.’s findings leaves him isolated, … There could be no more “useful idiot,” to use Lenin’s term of art, than an American president who doesn’t know he’s being played by a wily foreign power. (emphasis added)

According to the Washington Post in a report published one month before the 2016 November elections:

The Obama administration on Friday [October 2016] officially accused Russia of attempting to interfere in the 2016 elections, including by hacking the computers of the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations.

The denunciation, made by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security, came as pressure was growing from within the administration and some lawmakers to publicly name Moscow and hold it accountable for actions apparently aimed at sowing discord around the election.

“The U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations,” said a joint statement from the two agencies. “. . . These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.” (WP, October 7, 2016)

While the Washington Post (supported by the Deep State?) was spreading rumors on Russia’s alleged election meddling, it was also involved in engineering the Blacklisting of the independent media which was questioning the RussiaGate consensus.

In an “authoritative” Washington Post article, (published 6 days after the November 2016 election) reporter Craig Timberg  reviewed an anonymous website called “PropOrNot,” which had blacklisted several hundred independent online news sources intimating that these websites and social media accounts were part of a Kremlin propaganda network.  Timberg had no evidence in support of his allegations. The objective was to trigger the crackdown against the online independent media:

“Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House. The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news,” as they have vowed to do after widespread complaints about the problem. (Washington Post, November 14, 2016, emphasis added)

Screenshot of WP article, November 24, 2016

***

The Washington Post is “Fake News” at its Best. The report served as an endorsement of the Blacklisting campaign. Sustained by the RussiaGate narrative, a smear campaign was launched.  Several hundred online media sites including Global Research were tagged as “fake news” by Facebook and Google.

The Washington based Atlantic Council and NATO’s Centre of Excellency (COE), a  “Research Centre”  based in Latvia have published several “authoritative reports” which identify the independent online media “with links” to the Kremlin. Much of this “analysis” is fabricated.

The objective was to use the RussiaGate narrative (which had become a broadly accepted public consensus), as a means to suppress critical analysis of neoliberal economic policies, US foreign policy, US-NATO war plans, etc.

What happens now?

While the Mueller report confirms that the corporate media were spreading “fake news” in support of RussiaGate, it is highly unlikely that the mainstream media will indulge in a mea culpa. Moreover, it is also unlikely that social media and search engine censorship against the independent online media will be removed.

What is of course significant is that the broader public is now fully aware that they have been lied to. The public has been deliberately misled by the mainstream media from the very outset of the RussiaGate saga. The corporate media has endorsed war propaganda, it has granted  legitimacy to acts of war and military aggression, through lies and fabrications. Under Nuremberg, war propaganda constitutes the ultimate crime: “the Crime against Peace”.

The Skripal Affair

The RussiaGate saga was not limited to the United States, it extended into Britain and the European Union. The unspoken objective was to jeopardize diplomatic as well as economic relations between the European Union and the Russian Federation. The Kremlin was also accused of political meddling in relation to America’s closest allies including Britain, France and Canada (where the issue of election interference was raised).

The Skripal affair –which hit Britain’s tabloids– was an integral part of the RussiaGate Op. It was based on fake intelligence and media disinformation directed against Moscow. Launched by the UK government of Theresa May, a political consensus had unfolded. Moscow was casually accused of conducting a mysterious covert nerve gas attack against a former Russian intelligence operative and his daughter.

While the story was refuted, the objective of the Skripal affair  ultimately succeeded. It consisted in pressuring EU member states to jeopardize their diplomatic relations with Russia.

Meanwhile, the RussiaGate saga also provided legitimacy to NATO threats against Russia, resulting in massive military deployments at Russia’s doorstep.

US Foreign Policy

The Mueller report does not restore sanity in US foreign policy.  Quite the opposite.

What it confirms is that there is no evidence of Russian support of  Trump’s candidacy in the 2016 presidential elections.

Since Trump’s inauguration, however, the objective of normalizing diplomatic relations with Russia has largely been scrapped.

With Bolton and Pompeo, the NeoCons control Trump’s foreign policy.

War scenarios with Russia and China are contemplated.

Nuclear war is on the drawing board of the Pentagon.

The RussiaGate narrative against Trump is no longer required.

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on “The Russians are Still Coming” “Without RussiaGate”: The “Fake News” Witch-hunt against the Independent Media

The Democrats cannot stop making fools of themselves.  Thom Hartmann is an example. He writes for Common Dreams and has a progressive talk radio program.  During the George W. Bush regime I was a frequent guest on his program.  It was OK to tell the truth about the Bush regime’s deceits and illegal wars of aggression.  But telling the truth about the Obama regime’s deceits and illegal wars of aggression left me unqualified for his program.

Hartmann, like the rest of them, will never escape from Democratic partisanship. He asserts that Attorney General William Barr, who he calls “cover-up general” covered up Mueller’s Russiagate report.  Hartmann seems to think that Mueller found all sorts of damning evidence against Trump, but we will never know because Barr, “without showing us even a single complete sentence from the Mueller report decided that there are no crimes here.”  He accuses Barr of “burying Mueller’s report and cherry-picking fragments of sentences from it to justify Trump’s behavior.”  He tells his readers that “Barr’s history of doing just this sort of thing to help Republican presidents in legal crises explains why Trump brought him back in to head the Justice Department.” (See this)

Hartmann ignorantly accuses Barr of withholding Mueller’s report. To the contrary, Barr’s summary of the report clearly states that federal laws, which he identifies, govern the release of information that can be made public.  Once the DOJ has identified “material that by law cannot be made public,” the report will be released.  

I know Democrats are disappointed not to have Trump’s head presented to them by Mueller on a silver platter.  But surely not even Democrats are stupid enough to believe the Russiagate conspiracy tale.  It was all cooked up by the military/security complex to prevent Trump from normalizing relations with Russia, thereby removing the enemy that justifies the $1,000 billion annual budget.

Before writing such nonsense as Hartmann has written, he should have read Barr’s summary of the report.  Barr quotes Mueller directly from the report: 

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” (See this)

Again from Mueller’s report: 

“The evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.”

Other Democrats who cannot cope with their disappointment claim that although cleared of election theft collusion Trump was not cleared of obstruction of justice.  This is nonsensical even for Democrats.  As Trump committed no crime, what evidence did he obstruct?  The evidence of his innocence?  Just as murder requires a body, obstruction requires a crime to obstruct.

But facts are boring to Democrats.  They were certain that all the lies that they and the media told would find their way into Mueller’s report. Mueller’s staff was Democrat to the core, and Mueller used every dirty trick in the book in his effort to get something on Trump.  It simply couldn’t be done.

Democrats will never get over it, just as they never have got over Iran-Contra.  Hartmann couldn’t write about the “Russiagate coverup” without dragging in Ronald Reagan and the “Iran-Contra coverup.”

What coverup is he talking about? The Reagan administration started an investigation that continued during the George H.W. Bush administration.  It resulted in a dozen indictments and convictions of high level officials, not lowly grunts as in the Abu Ghraib torture case. Among the convicted were Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, National Security Advisor John Poindexter, Chief of Covert Ops-CIA Clair George, Chief of the CIA’s Central American Task Force Alan D. Fiers, Air Force Major General Richard Secord, Lt. Col. Oliver North.  

Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger was indicted but pardoned by President Bush prior to being tried.  Poindexter’s conviction was overturned.  North was granted immunity for testifying. With the exception of General Secord, the others convicted were later pardoned by President Bush.  

Under precedents established by the George W. Bush and Obama regimes, an Iran-Contra investigation would not be possible today.  In the 21st century US presidents have successfully asserted powers as commander-in-chief that are beyond the reach of Congress.  For all practical purposes, the Boland Amendment is a dead letter law.

Iran-Contra was a scheme involving Israel to prevent what was perceived to be a communist takeover in Nicaragua and to obtain the release of US hostages held by Hezbollah.  As a scandal its illegality pales in comparison to the Clinton regime’s bombing attack on Serbia, the George W. Bush regime’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama regime’s overthrow of Gaddafi and attempted overthrow of Assad by military force and Obama’s overthrow of democratically elected presidents in Honduras and Ukraine, and the Trump regime’s threats against Iran and current attempt to overthrow the democratic government in Venezuela.

Iran-Contra was three decades ago. No one under 50 would know anything about it. Yet we hear more about it from the liberal/progressive/left than we do about the massive abuses of power and war crimes of our own time.

*

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 in the author’s blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy. 

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

Russia Rejects Trump Regime Demand to Leave Venezuela

March 28th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

On Wednesday, Trump demanded around 100 Russian military forces leave the Bolivarian Republic, repeating his warning about “all options…open.”

Moscow is undeterred by his threat, acting in support of  Venezuela and President Maduro.

John Bolton repeated Trump’s warning, saying “(a)s (he) made clear today, “Russia needs to get out” of Venezuela.

“The United States will not tolerate hostile foreign military powers (sic) meddling with the Western Hemisphere’s shared goals of democracy, security, and the rule of law (sic)” – notions Republicans and undemocratic Dems abhor, tolerating them nowhere, especially not at home.

Pompeo made similar remarks, falsely accusing Russia and Cuba of “undermining the democratic dreams of the Venezuelan people and their welfare,” blaming them for harm caused by Trump regime war on the country by other means.

The State Department said he told Lavrov that the US won’t “stand idly by as Russia exacerbates tensions in Venezuela (sic),” adding:

“The continued insertion of Russian military personnel to support illegitimate Nicolas Maduro (rule) in Venezuela (sic) risks prolonging the suffering of the Venezuelan people who overwhelmingly support…Guaido (sic).”

Around 100 Russian military forces and equipment arrived in Caracas last Saturday for what a Russian embassy source said was for “exchange consultations,” in accordance with a 2001 bilateral agreement.

In January, both countries held joint military exercises in Venezuela. Two Russian Tu-160 strategic bombers flew to the country, capable of carrying nuclear and conventional weapons.

Venezuelan Minister of Defense Vladimir Padrino Lopez said both nations will continue to create a “productive and energetic team of brotherhood and effective cooperation…We are getting prepared to defend Venezuela when it is needed.”

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed the Trump regime, rejecting the notion of Latin America as Washington’s “backyard,” stressing Moscow’s actions fully comply with international law and Venezuela’s Constitution.

Trump regime bombast and threats won’t change Moscow’s legitimate relationship with the Bolivarian Republic, she added.

Sergey Lavrov denounced Trump regime “attempts to organize a coup d’etat in Venezuela,” adding its “threats against the legitimate government are in violation of the UN Charter.”

Trump hardliners are conducting “undisguised (illegal) interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.”

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang stressed that all nations may collaborate with others, free from foreign interference, adding: Latin America “does not belong to any country and it is not anyone’s backyard.”

Russia’s lower house State Duma’s International Affairs Committee chairman Leonid Slutsky slammed Trump’s unacceptable demand for Russia to leave Venezuela, saying:

His remark was “a wild statement in the spirit of colonial approach. Trump can dictate neither to Venezuela, nor to Russia how to build bilateral relations, where, in which industries and on which territory to cooperate,” adding:

“The United States is again trying to impose its will by using force and by ignoring the law. And I agree with my colleagues: Washington should first show how it is to leave by fulfilling its (hollow) promises in Syria” – along with ending its illegal occupation of other countries, he should have added.

On March 25, US House members passed the so-called Russian-Venezuelan Threat Mitigation Act by voice vote.

It “requires a threat assessment and strategy to counter Russian influence in Venezuela, an assessment of foreign acquisition of CITGO assets in the United States, and for other purposes.”

Russian upper house Federation Council Foreign Affairs Committee member Oleg Morozov described the measure as “legal nonsense…call(ing) for  preventing absolutely legitimate cooperation between two UN member states…which is illegal by definition,” adding:

The measure likely heading for Senate passage and Trump’s signature, enacting it into law, will have no affect on Russian/Venezuelan relations.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed the measure, saying:

“Continuing its aggressive rhetoric towards Venezuela, openly making efforts to organize a coup in that country, the US is simultaneously trying to threaten those who are cooperating with its legitimate authorities,” adding:

“The US Congress is considering on a fast-track basis a bill on measures to influence the participants in Russia-Venezuela cooperation, believing that Moscow can be influenced through sanctions, to which Russia has already adjusted itself and has stopped paying attention to.”

A Final Comment

In Wednesday testimony to House Foreign Relations Committee members, pertaining to Trump regime foreign policy strategy and its FY 2020 State Department budget request, Mike Pompeo said the following:

“This budget (aims to) make sure that China and Russia cannot gain a strategic advantage and edge – in an age of renewed great power competition,” adding:

“This budget prioritizes countering Russian malign influence (sic) in Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia, and further strengthens the Department’s own systems against malign actors (sic).”

The US, NATO, Israel, and their imperial partners comprise unparalleled “malign influence.” Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and other sovereign independent states are a vital counter force against them.

*

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.

Cuba: The Revolution “Must be Fun”

March 28th, 2019 by Prof Susan Babbitt

Tony Perrottet’s Cuba Libre! Che, Fidel and the improbable revolution that changed the world is a “colourful page turner”.[i] Perrottet wanted a book that is “entertaining and readable, unsaturated by ideology”. He succeeds in the first, not the second.

It’s about a “scrappy bunch of idealistic young people who … beat a professional army of [dictator Fulgencio Batista’s] 40,000 soldiers”. Indeed, it is fun to know how Castro, with 18 followers, few guns, convinced (the New York Times’) Herbert Matthews of a well-armed force of hundreds.

But the Cuban Revolution was not improbable. And the story about that is not fun. It is serious, involving ideas.  They expose lies: that are lived.

Perrottet’s book is typical of how many, who admire Cuba, write about it: as if Cubans are steeped in ideology while liberals on the left have none. They are “anti-authoritarian”, ignoring the tyranny of their own rich lives. They make no “value judgments”. They “just listen” and tell stories.

It’s easy. But it has a dark side: It imposes ideology, ignorantly or dishonestly.

According to science, no one “just listens”, at least not without mental training, which we don’t believe in in the North because of the same ideology Perrottet assumes. To “just listen” requires mental control.[ii] It takes work. Cuban philosopher and diplomat, Raúl Roa, says the Renaissance, instead of reviving ancient humanism, buried it. It buried the contemplation part of human well-being.[iii]

It glorified the “man of action”, the “anti-authoritarian” who listens to an “inner voice”, made plausible by power. This story was known to the “scrappy bunch”: part of centuries-long traditions of poets, philosophers and revolutionaries who rejected the ideology that says stories are just stories.

Perrottet notes the rebels didn’t kill prisoners. They treated them well. They gave scarce medicines to Batista’s soldiers when they set them free. They educated each other: about literature, history, language. Perrottet reports these facts but not their importance.

They have explanatory significanceRead Zona Roja.[iv] It opens with phone calls on September 9, 2014. Ebola was devastating Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. The Secretary General of the UN called personally to United States, France and the Netherlands.

He also called the president of a fourth country, small and poor: Cuba. Cuba mobilized more doctors, faster, than all the rich countries put together. When Liberia’s desperate president, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, received Raúl Castro’s answer, that Cuba was mobilizing, she said, emotionally, “We knew Cuba would not desert us”. She told him to tell the Cuban people: “We will never forget”.

Cubans are medically well trained. Of a 256-member contingent, only one contracted Ebola and, after recovering in Cuba, returned to Sierra Leone to complete his mission.

Zona Roja is about extraordinary people, but not “improbable”. Many had been in internationalist missions in Africa, Asia and Latin America, including liberation struggles in Angola and Nicaragua and natural disasters in Haiti and Pakistan.

Author Enrique Ubieta Gómez describes them as ordinary folk who know we live in an unequal world. They know something else, not ideological, or at least, not any more than science is ideological: We exist interdependently. Ubieta describes Cuban internationalism as an “inescapable ethic”. Once you’ve lived it, you cannot not live it You receive the human benefits of knowing inescapable interconnection.

Che Guevara called it “moral incentives”. It is felt. But not just Marx noticed we don’t live alone, and we don’t think alone. Frei Betto is a Brazilian priest, who committed to Christianity at 21 because he saw the “vida religiosa” bringing revolution to Brazil.  Betto, imprisoned for four years by Brazil’s dictatorship, has lived his life in activism for the poor.

As liberation theologist, he supported the revolution in Nicaragua, proud to be part of its literacy campaign. But Betto no longer goes there. He says the church and government abandoned the poor.[v]  Not so in Cuba. At an international conference in Havana in 2019, Betto said: “No traicioné ni a Cristo, ni a Castro.” [vi]

Why? The story’s been around for millennia. Those who are rational investigate available explanations. They look for the one with most explanatory capacity, that is, the one explaining more of the facts than rival views. But elite philosophers are not rational when it comes to Cuba, or the South generally.

Noam Chomsky holds the same (philosophical) view as Perrottet. In a documentary at Russia Today, Chomsky says the US is the freest place on the planet: It’s because of minimal government interference. That is, the US is free because, more than anyone else, US folk can do what they want.

That Chomsky holds this implausible view of freedom is not as interesting as the fact that he doesn’t defend it.  Philosophers call it “begging the question”. It means you assume you are right before you start the debate. You do that by taking for granted your own view of the concept at issue: freedom, for instance. Your view needs no defense, and your rivals don’t exist or are talking about something else.

Theirs is a story “gone awry”, as Perrottet says (without argument) about Cuba. It works if your view dominates and if everyone in the conversation, or recognized to be so, holds the same view.

It’s bad argument. It’s also uninteresting. But so it goes with the “anti-authoritarian left”, assuming a view of freedom without defense because it can. The rivals, we all know, are “ideologically saturated”. Cuban philosopher, José Martí, commented that it is like an oyster in a shell, seeing the shell and mistaking it for the world, thinking the world is dark.

It is dark if you think freedom is doing what you want. But never mind. It’s fun.

*

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

Susan Babbitt is author of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014).

Notes

[i] Newsday (January 16 2019).See my:https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/cuba-libre-che

[ii] E.g. William Hart, The art of living (HarperCollins)

[iii] “Humanismo y servidumbre”, Viento sur,1953

[iv] Enrique Ubieta Gómez, 2016, Casa Editora Abril.

[v] Frei Betto,Una biografía, (Editorial José Martí) 337

[vi] “I didn’t betray Christ or Castro”,  Por el equilibrio del mundo, Havana, January 28-30, 2019

Featured image is from NEO

The US Ambassador to Israel revealed on Wednesday three key elements of the long-awaited American Middle East peace plan known as the “deal of the century”, Anadolu has reported. David Friedman, who is a member of the three-man team tasked with formulating the plan, told this week’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in Washington that the plan would give Israel full security control over the occupied West Bank.

Friedman is a strong supporter of Israel’s illegal settlements across the occupied Palestinian territories. He added that the deal will allow Israel to maintain a permanent security presence in the Jordan Valley.

“Can we leave this to an administration [in Washington] that may not understand the need for Israel to maintain overriding security control of Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] and a permanent defence position in the Jordan Valley?” he asked.

The current administration, he pointed out, would continue to work with Israel, the Palestinians and other regional players in pursuit of a final peace deal.

Image of US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman [newcrescent47/Twitter]

With regard to Jerusalem, Friedman claimed that “For the first time in 2,000 years, Jerusalem has become a dynamic and prosperous city fully open to worshippers of all three faiths.” He ignored the armed incursions by Jewish settlers at the Noble Sanctuary of Al-Aqsa and the frequent lock-outs of Muslims from Al-Aqsa Mosque. Moreover, Palestinians are being driven out of the city by Israel’s apartheid policies which remove their residence rights and allow illegal settlers to take over their homes.

In the wake of US President Donald Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, the ambassador noted that, without annexation of the territory,

“Syria would be right on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, which provides 40 per cent of Israel’s fresh water.”

International law clearly takes second place to Israel’s security, said observers.

In response, Secretary-General of the PLO Saeb Erekat tweeted,

“Trump, Netanyahu, and their teams should look in the mirror every time a Palestinian or an Israeli is killed to know who is responsible.”

The veteran negotiator went on to cite a recent tweet by Aaron David Miller, a prominent American Middle East analyst, who said:

“Based on Trump’s moves on Jerusalem and Golan, it’s clear he’s revolutionising US policy. Maybe parts of the West Bank are next.”

*

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 MEMO

“But these weren’t the kind of monsters that had tentacles and rotting skin, the kind a seven-year-old might be able to wrap his mind around—they were monsters with human faces, in crisp uniforms, marching in lockstep, so banal you don’t recognize them for what they are until it’s too late.” — Ransom Riggs, Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children

The U.S. government, in its pursuit of so-called monsters, has itself become a monster.

This is not a new development, nor is it a revelation.

This is a government that has in recent decades unleashed untold horrors upon the world—including its own citizenry—in the name of global conquest, the acquisition of greater wealth, scientific experimentation, and technological advances, all packaged in the guise of the greater good.

Mind you, there is no greater good when the government is involved. There is only greater greed for money and power.

Unfortunately, the public has become so easily distracted by the political spectacle coming out of Washington, DC, that they are altogether oblivious to the grisly experiments, barbaric behavior and inhumane conditions that have become synonymous with the U.S. government.

These horrors are being meted out against humans and animals alike.

It’s heartbreaking enough when you hear about police shooting family dogs that pose no threat—beloved pets that are “guilty” of little more than barking, or wagging a tag, or racing towards them in greeting—at an alarming rate somewhere in the vicinity of 500 dogs a day.

What I’m about to share goes beyond heartbreaking to horrifying.

For instance, did you know that the U.S. government has been buying hundreds of dogs and cats from “Asian meat markets” as part of a gruesome experiment into food-borne illnesses? The cannibalistic experiments involve killing cats and dogs purchased from Colombia, Brazil, Vietnam, China and Ethiopia, and then feeding the dead remains to laboratory kittens, bred in government laboratories for the express purpose of being infected with a disease and then killed.

It gets more gruesome.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has been removing parts of dogs’ brains to see how it affects their breathing; applying electrodes to dogs’ spinal cords (before and after severing them) to see how it impacts their cough reflexes; and implanting pacemakers in dogs’ hearts and then inducing them to have heart attacks (before draining their blood). All of the laboratory dogs are killed during the course of these experiments.

It’s not just animals that are being treated like lab rats by government agencies.

“We the people” have also become the police state’s guinea pigs: to be caged, branded, experimented upon without our knowledge or consent, and then conveniently discarded and left to suffer from the after-effects.

Back in 2017, FEMA “inadvertently” exposed nearly 10,000 firefighters, paramedics and other responders to a deadly form of ricin during simulated bioterrorism response sessions. In 2015, it was discovered that an Army lab had been “mistakenly” shipping deadly anthrax to labs and defense contractors for a decade.

While these particular incidents have been dismissed as “accidents,” you don’t have to dig very deep or go very back in the nation’s history to uncover numerous cases in which the government deliberately conducted secret experiments on an unsuspecting populace—citizens and noncitizens alike—making healthy people sick by spraying them with chemicals, injecting them with infectious diseases and exposing them to airborne toxins.

At the time, the government reasoned that it was legitimate to experiment on people who did not have full rights in society such as prisoners, mental patients, and poor blacks.

In Alabama, for example, 600 black men with syphilis were allowed to suffer without proper medical treatment in order to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis. In California, older prisoners had testicles from livestock and from recently executed convicts implanted in them to test their virility. In Connecticut, mental patients were injected with hepatitis.

In Maryland, sleeping prisoners had a pandemic flu virus sprayed up their noses. In Georgia, two dozen “volunteering” prison inmates had gonorrhea bacteria pumped directly into their urinary tracts through the penis. In Michigan, male patients at an insane asylum were exposed to the flu after first being injected with an experimental flu vaccine. In Minnesota, 11 public service employee “volunteers” were injected with malaria, then starved for five days.

In New York, dying patients had cancer cells introduced into their systems. In Ohio, over 100 inmates were injected with live cancer cells. Also in New York, prisoners at a reformatory prison were also split into two groups to determine how a deadly stomach virus was spread: the first group was made to swallow an unfiltered stool suspension, while the second group merely breathed in germs sprayed into the air. And in Staten Island, children with mental retardation were given hepatitis orally and by injection to see if they could then be cured.

As the Associated Press reports,

“The late 1940s and 1950s saw huge growth in the U.S. pharmaceutical and health care industries, accompanied by a boom in prisoner experiments funded by both the government and corporations. By the 1960s, at least half the states allowed prisoners to be used as medical guinea pigs … because they were cheaper than chimpanzees.”

Moreover,

“Some of these studies, mostly from the 1940s to the ’60s, apparently were never covered by news media. Others were reported at the time, but the focus was on the promise of enduring new cures, while glossing over how test subjects were treated.”

Media blackouts, propaganda, spin. Sound familiar?

How many government incursions into our freedoms have been blacked out, buried under “entertainment” news headlines, or spun in such a way as to suggest that anyone voicing a word of caution is paranoid or conspiratorial?

Unfortunately, these incidents are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the atrocities the government has inflicted on an unsuspecting populace in the name of secret experimentation.

For instance, there was the U.S. military’s secret race-based testing of mustard gas on more than 60,000 enlisted men. As NPR reports,

“All of the World War II experiments with mustard gas were done in secret and weren’t recorded on the subjects’ official military records. Most do not have proof of what they went through. They received no follow-up health care or monitoring of any kind. And they were sworn to secrecy about the tests under threat of dishonorable discharge and military prison time, leaving some unable to receive adequate medical treatment for their injuries, because they couldn’t tell doctors what happened to them.”

And then there was the CIA’s MKULTRA program in which hundreds of unsuspecting American civilians and military personnel were dosed with LSD, some having the hallucinogenic drug slipped into their drinks at the beach, in city bars, at restaurants. As Time reports,

“before the documentation and other facts of the program were made public, those who talked of it were frequently dismissed as being psychotic.”

Now one might argue that this is all ancient history and that the government today is different from the government of yesteryear, but has the U.S. government really changed?

Has the government become any more humane, any more respectful of the rights of the citizenry?

Has it become any more transparent or willing to abide by the rule of law? Has it become any more truthful about its activities? Has it become any more cognizant of its appointed role as a guardian of our rights?

Or has the government simply hunkered down and hidden its nefarious acts and dastardly experiments under layers of secrecy, legalism and obfuscations? Has it not become wilier, more slippery, more difficult to pin down?

Having mastered the Orwellian art of Doublespeak and followed the Huxleyan blueprint for distraction and diversion, are we not dealing with a government that is simply craftier and more conniving that it used to be?

Consider this: after revelations about the government’s experiments spanning the 20th century spawned outrage, the government began looking for human guinea pigs in other countries, where “clinical trials could be done more cheaply and with fewer rules.”

In Guatemala, prisoners and patients at a mental hospital were infected with syphilis, “apparently to test whether penicillin could prevent some sexually transmitted disease.” In Uganda, U.S.-funded doctors “failed to give the AIDS drug AZT to all the HIV-infected pregnant women in a study… even though it would have protected their newborns.” Meanwhile, in Nigeria, children with meningitis were used to test an antibiotic named Trovan. Eleven children died and many others were left disabled.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Case in point: back in 2016, it was announced that scientists working for the Department of Homeland Security would begin releasing various gases and particles on crowded subway platforms as part of an experiment aimed at testing bioterror airflow in New York subways.

The government insisted that the gases released into the subways by the DHS were nontoxic and did not pose a health risk. It’s in our best interests, they said, to understand how quickly a chemical or biological terrorist attack might spread. And look how cool the technology is—said the government cheerleaders—that scientists can use something called DNATrax to track the movement of microscopic substances in air and food. (Imagine the kinds of surveillance that could be carried out by the government using trackable airborne microscopic substances you breathe in or ingest.)

Mind you, this is the same government that in 1949 sprayed bacteria into the Pentagon’s air handling system, then the world’s largest office building. In 1950, special ops forces sprayed bacteria from Navy ships off the coast of Norfolk and San Francisco, in the latter case exposing all of the city’s 800,000 residents.

In 1953, government operatives staged “mock” anthrax attacks on St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Winnipegusing generators placed on top of cars. Local governments were reportedly told that “‘invisible smokescreen[s]’ were being deployed to mask the city on enemy radar.” Later experiments covered territory as wide-ranging as Ohio to Texas and Michigan to Kansas.

In 1965, the government’s experiments in bioterror took aim at Washington’s National Airport, followed by a 1966 experiment in which army scientists exposed a million subway NYC passengers to airborne bacteria that causes food poisoning.

And this is the same government that has taken every bit of technology sold to us as being in our best interests—GPS devices, surveillance, nonlethal weapons, etc.—and used it against us, to track, control and trap us.

So, no, I don’t think the government’s ethics have changed much over the years. It’s just taken its nefarious programs undercover.

The question remains: why is the government doing this? The answer is always the same: money, power and total domination.

It’s the same answer no matter which totalitarian regime is in power.

The mindset driving these programs has, appropriately, been likened to that of Nazi doctors experimenting on Jews. As the Holocaust Museum recounts, Nazi physicians “conducted painful and often deadly experiments on thousands of concentration camp prisoners without their consent.”

The Nazi’s unethical experiments ran the gamut from freezing experiments using prisoners to find an effective treatment for hypothermia, tests to determine the maximum altitude for parachuting out of a plane, injecting prisoners with malaria, typhus, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, yellow fever, and infectious hepatitis, exposing prisoners to phosgene and mustard gas, and mass sterilization experiments.

The horrors being meted out against the American people can be traced back, in a direct line, to the horrors meted out in Nazi laboratories. In fact, following the second World War, the U.S. government recruited many of Hitler’s employees, adopted his protocols, embraced his mindset about law and order and experimentation, and implemented his tactics in incremental steps.

Sounds far-fetched, you say? Read on. It’s all documented.

As historian Robert Gellately recounts, the Nazi police state was initially so admired for its efficiency and order by the world powers of the day that Herbert Hoover, then-head of the FBI, actually sent one of his right-hand men, Edmund Patrick Coffey, to Berlin in January 1938 at the invitation of Germany’s secret police, the Gestapo.

The FBI was so impressed with the Nazi regime that, according to the New York Times, in the decades after World War II, the FBI, along with other government agencies, aggressively recruited at least a thousand Nazis, including some of Hitler’s highest henchmen.

All told, thousands of Nazi collaborators—including the head of a Nazi concentration camp, among others—were given secret visas and brought to America by way of Project Paperclip. Subsequently, they were hired on as spies, informants and scientific advisers, and then camouflaged to ensure that their true identities and ties to Hitler’s holocaust machine would remain unknown. All the while, thousands of Jewish refugees were refused entry visas to the U.S. on the grounds that it could threaten national security.

Adding further insult to injury, American taxpayers have been paying to keep these ex-Nazis on the U.S. government’s payroll ever since. And in true Gestapo fashion, anyone who has dared to blow the whistle on the FBI’s illicit Nazi ties has found himself spied upon, intimidated, harassed and labeled a threat to national security.

As if the government’s covert, taxpayer-funded employment of Nazis after World War II wasn’t bad enough, U.S. government agencies—the FBI, CIA and the military—have since fully embraced many of the Nazi’s well-honed policing tactics, and have used them repeatedly against American citizens.

It’s certainly easy to denounce the full-frontal horrors carried out by the scientific and medical community within a despotic regime such as Nazi Germany, but what do you do when it’s your own government that claims to be a champion of human rights all the while allowing its agents to engage in the foulest, bases and most despicable acts of torture, abuse and experimentation?

When all is said and done, this is not a government that has our best interests at heart.

This is not a government that values us.

Perhaps the answer lies in The Third Man, Carol Reed’s influential 1949 film starring Joseph Cotten and Orson Welles. In the film, set in a post-WW II Vienna, rogue war profiteer Harry Lime has come to view human carnage with a callous indifference, unconcerned that the diluted penicillin he’s been trafficking underground has resulted in the tortured deaths of young children.

Challenged by his old friend Holly Martins to consider the consequences of his actions, Lime responds, “In these days, old man, nobody thinks in terms of human beings. Governments don’t, so why should we?

“Have you ever seen any of your victims?” asks Martins.

“Victims?” responds Limes, as he looks down from the top of a Ferris wheel onto a populace reduced to mere dots on the ground. “Look down there. Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax — the only way you can save money nowadays.”

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this is how the U.S. government sees us, too, when it looks down upon us from its lofty perch.

To the powers-that-be, the rest of us are insignificant specks, faceless dots on the ground.

To the architects of the American police state, we are not worthy or vested with inherent rights. This is how the government can justify treating us like economic units to be bought and sold and traded, or caged rats to be experimented upon and discarded when we’ve outgrown our usefulness.

To those who call the shots in the halls of government, “we the people” are merely the means to an end.

“We the people”—who think, who reason, who take a stand, who resist, who demand to be treated with dignity and care, who believe in freedom and justice for all—have become obsolete, undervalued citizens of a totalitarian state that, in the words of Rod Serling, “has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advances, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom.”

In this sense, we are all Romney Wordsworth, the condemned man in Serling’s Twilight Zone episode “The Obsolete Man.”

The Obsolete Man” speaks to the dangers of a government that views people as expendable once they have outgrown their usefulness to the State. Yet—and here’s the kicker—this is where the government through its monstrous inhumanity also becomes obsolete. As Serling noted in his original script for “The Obsolete Man,” “Any state, any entity, any ideology which fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man…that state is obsolete.

How do you defeat a monster? You start by recognizing the monster for what it is.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Making of a Monster: We’re All Lab Rats in the Government’s Secret Experiments

On the occasion of 20th anniversary of the aggression of NATO Alliance against Serbia (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the FRY), on 22nd and 23rd March 2019 Belgrade was the venue of the International Conference under slogan NEVER TO FORGET, and title “Peace and Progress instead of Wars and Poverty”. The organisers of the Conference are the Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals, the Federation of Associations of Veterans of the National Liberation War of Serbia, the Serbian Generals and Admirals Club, the Society of the Serbian Hosts, in cooperation with the World Peace Council. Besides the participants from Serbia, the Conference was attended by more than 200 distinguished guests from some 35 countries from all over the world, whom the organisers welcomed and expressed sincerest gratitude for their solidarity, support and huge humanitarian relief during one of the most challenging periods in the recent history of Serbia and the Serbian nation.

The program of activities marking this anniversary was dedicated to preserving the lasting memory and paying tribute to the military and the police personnel who made the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of their country against the aggression, as well as to the civilian victims including the very young, the very old, and the ailing victims killed during this 78-day aggression by NATO.

The participants have unanimously condemned NATO aggression, affirming that in its essence it was an illegal, invading and criminal war against a peaceful sovereign European country, waged without the UN Security Council mandate and under brute violation of the United Nations Charter, the OSCE Helsinki Final (1975) and the basic principles of international law.

By attacking Serbia (the FRY), the leading Western powers championed by the USA had exposed the freedom-loving and justness-oriented Serbian people to anguish, devastation, and lasting suffering for the sake of attaining their imperialistic geopolitical aims for control of natural and energy resources, the road of transport and the sphere of influence. This was neither ‘a small war’ nor ‘a humanitarian intervention’, but rather a war of underlying geopolitical goals for the long-term deployment of the US troops in the Balkans, for the establishment of case precedent for future aggressions, and for the toppling of legitimate governments, all within the Eastbound Expansion Strategy and the overall goal of setting the global dominance. The history will note the fact that, back in 1999, blindly following alien geopolitical interests, Europe fought itself.

The Balkan is today more unstable. Europe is even more divided. Europe’s backtracking to itself requires some soul-searching, courage and the vision, including confession that the attack against Serbia (the FRY) in 1999 was a colossal historical error.

The aggression’s masterminds and executors should be held responsible for their crimes. The aggression killed some 4,000 persons (including 79 children), whereas additional 6,500 people were seriously wounded. Direct material damage amounted to US 100 billion. It was stressed that NATO and its members participating in the aggression had duty to compensate the war damages to Serbia.

The participants of the Conference were informed about the findings of scientific and expert analyses conducted so far, all confirming that the use of ammunition filled with depleted uranium, and of graphite and cluster bombs and other inflammable and toxic means of warfare, have resulted in high levels of the long-term environmental pollution and the massive-scale endangering of the Serbian citizens. They welcomed the establishment of special bodies of both the national Assembly and of the Government of Serbia tasked with determining the consequences of NATO aggression reflected on the health of population and the safety of environment, and expressed support to the work of those bodies.

The forcible and unlawful tearing Kosovo and Metohija off Serbia continues, through the constant pressuring of Serbia to formally acknowledge the splitting off of a part of territory of its State. Participants of the Conference underscored that a forcible taking of Kosovo and Metohija apart from Serbia would become a precedent which, in turn, would inevitably pave the way for drawing the new borders in the Balkans and the creation of the so-called Greater Albania at the expense of territories of the states of Serbia, North Macedonia, Greece, and Montenegro, what must not be permitted.

NATO aggression against Serbia (the FRY) was a direct and simultaneous attack on the peace and security system in Europe and in the world, which has been constructed on the outcome of the Second World War. As conclusively demonstrated by the subsequent interventions of the USA and its allies (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Syria, etc.), this aggression has served as case-precedent and template to globalize the interventionism, a manual on how to utilize terrorism and separatism to carry out the Western powers’ plans of conquest, in order to forcibly topple ‘unsuitable’ regimes and impose geopolitical interests of the West, notably, of the USA.

NATO aggression against Serbia (the FRY), an act of most blatant violation of fundamental principles of the international law, is unjustifiable; aggressor’s responsibility cannot be diminished by hypocritical attempts to transfer responsibility onto Serbia or her that-time state leadership. This NATO aggression made history as an indicator of moral and civilisation decline that, twenty years on, the governments of the leading aggressor countries have neither been pardoned, nor gotten to learn the right lesson from.

Participants of the Conference expressed their strong support to, and solidarity with efforts Serbia invests in remedying the grave and lasting consequences of the aggression and to her striving to prevent the continuation of NATO aggression by other means. They explicitly supported Serbia’s efforts to preserve own sovereignty and territorial integrity and her contribution to resolve the future status of Kosovo and Metohija, which will be in line with international law and Resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council. They denounced the policy of coercion, pressures, and unilateral steps.

The aggressors’ responsibility for the committed crimes and the inflicted damage cannot be either justified or diminished. Serbia is entitled to seek indemnification, and legal and criminal culpability of NATO leaders and the responsible members. Demand was made to immediately prosecute all those responsible for the crimes against the Serbian nation, and in particular for the case of illicit trafficking in human organs harvested from the abducted Serbs, in accordance with the Report of Disk Marty and relevant decision of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe..

The aggression of 1999 against Serbia (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and its other more recent military interventions have transformed NATO into an openly offensive military alliance, which is responsible for the present-day Balkans and Europe being more discordant and volatile, for militarization of Europe and of international relations, for reaching the lowest point of distrust and confrontation since the Cold War, and for the thoroughly shaken the global security order.

NATO is but a tool of the military industry complex and the largest capital domination, rather than a tool of peace, peoples’ needs, and progress. This is why NATO, a Cold War relic, should be dissolved and foreign military camps abolished, including military base Bondsteele in the Serbian Province of Kosovo and Metohija.

Participants of the Conference held that the world was going through period of growing distrust, tensions, and threats of new interventions and conflicts. The root causes are the aggressiveness of NATO and of alienated power centres, whose interests benefit from violations of fundamental principles of the international law, escalation of threats, renewed arms race, and militarization of international relations.

The participants have condemned all method of abuse of international institutions such as: United Nations, OSCE, UNESCO, WTO and others, demanding their improvement and strengthening, not weakening and bypassed.

The policy of domination based on military might, typical of unipolar world order, was rejected as unacceptable because being founded on privileges and self-proclaimed excellence and not on equality of all countries and nations. Multi-polarisation excludes dominance and opens window for democratisation of international affairs. The Conference sent an appeal to all peaceful forces in the world to join forces in the struggle for the observance of the international law as based on the UN Charter, for reinforced role of the United Nations and other universal international organisations.

Participants of the Conference unanimously demanded to urgently put an end to a new arms race and violation of relevant international agreements, and to redirect the funds from the military budgets into the domains of economic development, improving quality of people’s life, and eliminating the disheartening developmental and social divergences. They expressed profound concern provoked by unilateral USA withdrawalof the valid international agreements particularly of Intermediate range Nuclear Force Treaty (INF). They demanded for full respect of the existing agreements, and renewal of negotiations on stopping arm race, particularly nuclear. They demand full withdrawal of the US tactical nuclear weapons and missile defense assets from Europe that are worsening of the security on the European continent.

It was held that the imperialism system with its insatiable greed for someone else’s wealth, and unipolar order based on the strategy of exceptionality, dominance and NATO interventionism, are the key sources of instability, distrust, and conflicts. Peace, stability, democracy, inclusive progress, require radical changes in global relations, observance of sovereign equality, non-interference, multiculturalism, common interests, and exclusion of any egotism, protectionism, and privileges.

A statement was made that the imperialistic system, with its inherent insatiable greediness for other nations’ riches, and the unipolar order based on the strategy of exceptionalism and dominance, and NATO interventionism, are the key sources of instability, distrust, and conflicts. Peace, democracy, and progress require radical changed in global relations, observance of sovereign equality, non-interference, and multiculturalism. Stability, peace, and inclusive progress require observance of common interests, partnership, and exclusion of any egotism, protectionism, and privileges. Policy of confrontation, interventionism, and interference in the internal affairs, prompted by the military industry complex and big financial capital must give way to dialogue, partnership, observance of the basic norms of international law and international order, which are based on the common interests and mutual respect.

Participants of the Conference committed to peaceful political solution of all international problems, under observance of principles of international law, the UN Charter, and the decisions of the UN Security Council.

Belgrade, 23th March 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.

For over two decades, American families have faced an unscrupulous foe that threatens the public health and welfare. It is a rogue, unmanageable institution within our federal government, now seemingly beholden solely to private interests. Citizens have been horribly mistaken in believing that the nation’s leading health agency, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), honors its mandate to protect the public from “dangerous health threats,” both domestic and foreign. We are expected to assume the CDC relies upon the most advanced and cutting-edge medical science and data to make its policy decisions. However, the agency’s history of corruption and fraud contradict its own pledge, as outlined on its website. Instead of protecting the “health security of our nation,” the CDC uses bromides and meaningless pageantry to hide its true nature.

During the past year, especially in recent months, the fear-mongering spewing forth from the CDC has become virulent. It is a classic Orwellian script. The recent measles outbreak – although nowhere near as alarming as the flare-ups of bygone eras – has been seized upon as an opportunity to brainwash the public and reshape it into obedient livestock in order to increase vaccination compliance. Worse, this disinformation campaign ignores everything we know about measles infection and the failures of the MMR vaccine.

Unfortunately, we are no longer permitted to debate the pros and cons of the measles vaccine. The CDC consistently shuts down debate when its decisions are challenged.  Physicians, medical researchers, immunologists and former vaccine advocates who challenge the loose claims for vaccine safety and efficacy are frustrated and eager to publicly debate the best vaccine advocates the CDC and vaccine industry have to offer, but none will take up the challenge because the science is so clearly not on their side.

The agency consistently fails to conduct and apply the gold standard in its own medical research and ignores the best independent peer-reviewed science. In short, this agency is a mouthpiece for the pharmaceutical-industrial complex and operates for its own financial advantage, rather than for the benefit of society. Its revolving doors are kept spinning with a constant influx of pharmaceutical industry and vaccine insiders. In fact the lines separating corporate influence and public health are grossly blurred and distorted. It is no surprise that documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests paint the CDC as rotten in its core and one of the greatest health threats to the nation. The agency, in Robert Kennedy Jr’s words, is a “cesspool of corruption.”

What you will never hear in the mainstream media is that there is another medical institution that is supposed to have been granted the responsibility to assure the CDC receives quality and reliable scientific research to use as the basis for its healthcare decisions.  The Institutes of Medicine (IOM) does not possess the CDC’s legislative clout; however, it represents a far superior body of scientists and researchers in their medical fields.

Founded in 1970, the Institute of Medicine falls under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences started by President Abraham Lincoln and Congress in 1863. The Academy was founded for the purpose of bringing together the nation’s best scientific minds to advise the government on scientific matters. The IOM was founded later to provide expert advice and reliable medical research to the White House and Congressional legislators to guide their decisions, keeping them informed about the social, economic and political impacts of healthcare. According to its principles, and unlike the CDC, IOM members deliberating on vaccine research and policies are expected to be independent and not represent private interests.

During a press conference this month at Yale University, Children’s Health Defense founder Robert Kennedy Jr presented data (watch video below) from his investigations into the CDC’s culture of medical negligence and efforts to cover up of the compelling evidence for vaccine-induced injuries, including autism. Over the course of twenty years, the IOM has monitored and reviewed the medical literature to determine the most- and least- likely injuries associated with specific vaccines and provided recommendations to the CDC. In 1991, 22 illnesses were identified, 6 were confirmed as vaccine-related and 12 remained uncertain due to insufficiently reliable studies.

Those cases with confirmed causation included learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, and childhood diabetes. This data was collected subsequent to President Ronald Reagan signing the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, a point when autism rates started to climb exponentially. Three years later, the IOM identified 54 medical conditions, the medical literature supported 10 diseases as vaccine-induced and 38 were uncertain. Among the confirmed illnesses were seizures, demyelinating disease, sterility, transverse myelitis and, for the first time, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Again in 2011, the IOM reported a whopping 155 adverse conditions with 16 vaccine-induced injuries supported by the science, including a correlation between the DTaP vaccine and autism.

Unfortunately, the IOM holds no official authority over our federal agencies; consequently, its recommendations to the CDC to further investigate vaccines’ adverse effects went unheeded. Today, nothing has changed at the CDC. Instead, the agency has dug itself into a deeper hole of secrecy and corruption. With a budget of $11.5 billion, Kennedy notes that only a pathetic $20 million is designated for vaccine safety. The CDC is crying out for a thorough public audit.

These early IOM reports are extremely valuable. They identify many of the same childhood diseases that have grown to epidemic proportions in the intervening years, and they indict vaccines as a causal factor. Yet regrettably, the IOM has recently showed signs of becoming as compromised as other health agencies. It, too, may have become another pawn of the Medical Deep State that is infiltrating every state legislative body to pass draconian immunization laws with the end goal of vaccinating Americans by lies and even threats and force if necessary.

For example, in a 2013 report on the safety of the CDC’s Childhood Immunization Schedule, the IOM gave its stamp of approval while ignoring the fact that no vaccine trial, except for a poorly designed Gardasil trial, has conducted safety tests with a scientifically valid placebo. Nor are there credible and reliable studies to support claims that no synergistic health risks arise from administering multiple vaccines concurrently. Now the IOM, too, is basing its conclusions on junk corporate science.  Its recent reports also omit reviews of the scientific literature that note the toxicity of the aluminum adjuvant used in many vaccines, including the MMR.

Recent research conducted by Dr. Chris Exley at Keele University in the UK has uncovered the pathways by which high amounts of vaccine aluminum accumulate in brain tissue rather than being excreted. High brain aluminum levels were found in deceased autistic children whose tissues were donated for his research. Autistic children can have as much as ten times the amount of aluminum lodged in the brain compared to a normal adult. Blogging on the Hippocratic Post, Exley notes that Merck refuses to make its aluminum adjuvant available for researchers to conduct independent analysis.

The CDC’s crimes are a matter of public record. These are not secrets or confidential information. The documents and voices of whistleblowers within the CDC are readily found on the internet to support all of our charges against the agency. They are readily available to anyone who wishes to investigate. Unfortunately, our media has again failed to do its job in accurately reporting on federal corruption, instead becoming an instrument of the Medical Deep State and a mouthpiece to deceive the public.

CDC misconduct includes widespread corporate nepotism favoring private pharmaceutical interests, illegal destruction of clinical data that showed a correlation between the MMR vaccine and a 250 percent increase in autism among African American boys, hiring a criminal(s) to conduct fraudulent research to conceal the neurological risks of mercury-containing vaccines, the silencing of internal officials and whistleblowers, serving as the go-between on behalf of the beverage industry concerning the World Health Organization’s restriction of sugary soft drinks, etc. The CDC has fudged firearm safety statistics; that report led Harvard University’s Injury Control Research Center director David Hemenway to declare that no one should trust the CDC’s estimates.

During the 1970s, it was the CDC’s Dr. Colleen Boyle who covered up the hideously toxic nature of Agent Orange and dioxin that thousands of Vietnam War veterans were exposed to. Although the IOM and Congress revealed Boyle’s chicanery, the agency duly rewarded her loyalty with a promotion.

The CDC and the vaccine industry have been colluding for a long time. In 2004, Congress accused the agency of operating as a public relations firm for private interests, rather than as a watchdog ensuring the integrity of vaccine science. That same year, the US Office of Special Counsel uncovered potential evidence that the CDC and pharmaceutical companies were destroying data linking the vaccine preservative thimerosal with neurological disorders. Senator Tom Coburn’s expose reveals the agency’s widespread budgetary mismanagement has wasted millions of tax dollars and concludes that the CDC cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease.

In October 2017, Congressman Bill Posey sent a letter to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions calling on him to resume efforts to extradite and prosecute Dr. Poul Thorsen for money laundering of over $1 million from the CDC. The catch is that Thorsen was contracted by the CDC to conduct fraudulent research in Denmark that would mask any association between the vaccine preservative thimerosal and autism. In 2011, Thorsen was placed on the Inspector General’s most wanted list; nevertheless, the CDC has continued to erect obstacles to extradition efforts. More worrisome, Rep Posey discovered that for at least three years after the FBI issued its arrest warrant, the CDC and National Institutes of Health continued to collaborate with Thorsen and even joint-published more junk science together.

Another misdemeanor involved the CDC providing erroneous data to Congress about its women’s health program, WISEWOMAN, commissioned to provide preventative health services to women between 40 and 65 to reduce cardiovascular disease. Native Americans were also targeted for assistance in the program. The data was cooked and enrolled far less women than the CDC reported to Congress.

These ethical violations are systemic throughout the agency and Congress has been paralyzed in any efforts to rein in the rottenness that saturates the agency’s leadership.

In 2016, a group of scientists within the agency submitted a letter stating their concerns to the CDC’s chief of staff:

“We are a group of scientists at the CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests…. What concerns us most is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right.”

Out of fear of retribution, this group of CDC employees filed their complaint anonymously.

Over the years, Congressional subcommittees have voiced warnings to CDC officials to clean up their act. A House Government Reform Committee reported that both the CDC’s and FDA’s advisory committees for vaccines were thoroughly compromised with pharmaceutical conflicts of interest.

Another voting advisory committee member held a patent on a rival rotavirus vaccine. Neither advisory committee complies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires a diversity of medical opinions; instead, the committees are stacked with corporate shills advocating for fast-tracking poorly developed vaccines with insufficient and untrustworthy safety and efficacy data to otherwise support their approval. In 2009, the Office of the Inspector General conducted an investigation of conflicts of interests within the CDC. The Office discovered that 97 percent of its advisors failed to declare their links to the pharmaceutical industry.

 

We have reported in the past how the CDC operates more like a private intelligence and surveillance firm rather than a federally funded public health service. In the meantime, epidemics of autism, neuro-developmental disorders, autoimmunity, childhood diabetes, febrile seizures, asthma and allergies roll on and federal health officials embrace the superstitions of vaccine magic and reside in a culture of medical denialism.

Finally, there is a fundamental question.

Would you hire someone with such an extensive rap sheet to care for your child, let alone a newborn infant? Would you trust them to undertake the correct measures in an emergency, or use sound judgment to assure your child’s well-being?  For the hundreds of thousands of vaccine-damaged children, the CDC remains a felon on the loose. And the rest of our government is less competent than inebriated Keystone cops to authorize a thorough housecleaning.

The agency displays no sincere interest in your child’s well-being and health, nor those of any American for that matter. And the mainstream media, every major network, newspaper and magazine, are similarly unconscionably complicit in preserving the CDC’s culture of deception. The entire media should be stamped with a warning as life-threatening dangers to the public health.

*

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

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including Poverty Inc and Deadly Deception.

Selected Articles: NATO’s Anti-Democratic Roots

March 28th, 2019 by Global Research News

A future without independent media leaves us with an upside down reality where according to the corporate media “NATO deserves a Nobel Peace Prize”, and where “nuclear weapons and wars make us safer”.

.

.

If, like us, this is a future you wish to avoid, please help sustain Global Research’s activities by making a donation or taking out a membership now!

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

*     *     *

On NATO’s 70th Anniversary Important to Remember Its Anti-democratic Roots

By Yves Engler, March 28, 2019

Formally, NATO was the West’s response to an aggressive Soviet Union, but the notion that the US, or even Western Europe, was threatened by the Soviet Union after World War II is laughable.

Gaddafi Spy Chief – Libya Gave Ex-French President Sarkozy $8million Bribe

By True Publica, March 28, 2019

From Ian Allen at IntelNews comes the report the same senior intelligence advisor to Gaddafi has reportedly told French investigators that the Libyan government gave $8 million to the election campaign of France’s ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy as a bribe to clean up Gadaffi’s international reputation.

Jury Slams Monsanto for Corporate Malfeasance in Roundup Cancer Trial, Awards $80 Million in Damages

By EWG, March 28, 2019

Today, a second jury in less that 8 months found Bayer-Monsanto’s signature weedkiller Roundup responsible for causing cancer.

Kosovo War at 20: How Britain and America Backed Jihadists Throughout Conflict

By Kit Klarenberg, March 28, 2019

On 24 March 1999, NATO launched a 78-day-long bombing campaign against the then-Republic of Yugoslavia. Still hailed by the Western mainstream as a successful ‘humanitarian intervention’, the true story of the conflict’s roots and legacy is far darker, and points to extensive collaboration between London, Washington and extremist Islamist forces.

Ukrainian Security Official Says Ukraine Shot Down MH-17

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, March 27, 2019

298 Passengers and crew were murdered by Ukraine in order to create a propaganda attack on Russia.  The filth that comprise the Western media and governments hid the truth for the sake of Washington’s anti-Russian propaganda.  

Cancer Cluster at California Elementary School Results in Removal of Sprint Cell Phone Tower

By Zero Hedge, March 27, 2019

Weston Elementary School in Ripon, CA went on high alert after the controversy erupted two years ago – with some parents even pulling their children from school over the tower which Sprint has been paying the school $2,000 per month to place on its property.

Pompeo was a Firm Supporter of RussiaGate: Was he Jeopardizing Trump’s Foreign Policy Initiatives?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 27, 2019

It is worth noting that until the release of the Mueller report, Trump’s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (and former CIA Director) was a firm supporter of the RussiaGate narrative. What is his position today?

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: NATO’s Anti-Democratic Roots

Governments that pride themselves on being either democratic or republican in nature claim that they are empowered by the will of the people, but the sad reality is that most regimes come to power based on promises that they have no intention of honoring after the election is over. In the United States we have seen President Donald Trump quite plausibly enjoy a margin of victory that was due to his pledges to end America’s involvement in senseless Middle Eastern wars and to mend relations with Russia. Neither has occurred, quite the contrary, with a serious threat that war with Iran on behalf of Israel is imminent and a relationship with Moscow that is worse than it was in the latter phases of the Cold War. Whether all of that is due to Trump’s own character and intellectual failings or instead the fault of the advisors he has chosen to listen to remains somewhat unclear.

Even when something emerges that might provide clarity over specific issues, some leading government official inevitably steps in and says something that suggests that the politicians are incapable to dealing with anything outside the scripted responses that they are accustomed to rely on.

The recently released long-awaited Mueller report on the 2016 election did not find any evidence that senior members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to change the outcome, a proposition that has largely been promoted by Hillary Clinton and her supporters. The full report, if it ever surfaces unedited, may or may not determine that there was some “influencing” activity by Moscow on the peripheries of the electoral process, but everyone agrees that the result was not materially influenced by any foreign government. Nevertheless, the wily but brain-dead Senate Major Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged the report with

“I welcome the announcement that the Special Counsel has finally completed his investigation into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. Many Republicans have long believed that Russia poses a significant threat to American interests. I hope the Special Counsel’s report will help inform and improve our efforts to protect our democracy.”

Mitch’s apparent belief that the Kremlin was the target may surprise some who thought that the purpose of the investigation was to uncover possible collusion by the Trumpsters, something that apparently was not demonstrated in the case of Russia but was revealed regarding Israel’s overtures to National Security Advisor designate Michael Flynn. However, while it is perfectly acceptable or even expected to say nasty things about Russia, doing the same about Israel is a no-no, so McConnell was being politically astute in failing to take the bait.

But the conclusion of the Mueller inquiry should be welcomed by everyone because it frees up resources that can now be used to determine whether God had a hand in electing Donald Trump. In a story reported by the BBC and elsewhere, dispensationalist Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responded oddly to a question regarding the Jewish Purim holiday, which commemorates the alleged rescue of the Jewish people by Queen Esther from the Persians. When Pompeo, at the time in Israel, was asked if “President Trump right now has been sort of raised for such a time as this, just like Queen Esther, to help save the Jewish people from an Iranian menace” he answered that

“As a Christian, I certainly believe that’s possible. I am confident that the Lord is at work here.”

So, Pompeo is “confident” that God elected Trump to protect the Jews from Iran. It is an interesting observation, particularly as the biblical Purim-Esther story has the Jews killing 75,500 Persians and then feasting to celebrate the event.

One must consider that the theory that there was a possible divine intervention to bring about the result of the 2016 election to save the Jews is possibly the most frightening bit of commentary to come out of the entire feckless Trump national security team. Pompeo, by virtue of his office, has great power to do good or ill and he has clearly chosen to make decisions relating to the conduct of United States diplomacy based not on American interests but rather on his own personal religiosity as reflected in his interpretation of a religious text. Has Pompeo never heard of “separation of church and state?”

Further, Pompeo is promoting American interference in an election in Israel which might have led to a rejection of the extreme right-wing philosophy that guides its current government. The recent White House move to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights was clearly part and parcel of a plan to promote Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the candidate who would be best able to secure unlimited support from Washington. More might be coming in the form of some additional recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Palestinian West Bank prior to the April 9th election or even some military action against Iran. Pompeo clearly believes that this is all part of some divine plan.

Anyone who persists in thinking that nations should pursue policies that are proportionate, rational and based on genuine interests should be appalled by the Pompeo comments and fearful of what the consequences might be.

Given the awfulness of the Pompeo remarks, one might wonder where is the condemnation of them on the editorial pages of the New York Times or the Washington Post? Surely there should be a demand for his resignation as he is suggesting that the United States should be fighting a divinely mandated war against Iran to protect Israel which is, for what it’s worth, not actually threatened by the Iranians while even the Pentagon has declared Iran to be a “rational actor” in foreign policy. But one hears mostly silence. The Washington Establishment clearly believes that one can and should condemn Russia without any evidence, but one cannot investigate or even challenge a Secretary of State who believes that he is receiving his guidance directly from God.

*

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

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

Featured image is from SCF

The power  of the communists, wherever that power flourishes, depends upon their ability to suppress and destroy the free institutions that stand against them. They pick them off one by one: the political parties, the trade unions, the churches, the schools, the universities, the trade associations, even the sporting clubs and the kindergartens. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is meant to be a declaration to the world that this kind of conquest from within will not in the future take place amongst us.” – March 28, 1949, Lester Pearson, External Affairs Minister, House of Commons

First in a four-part series on the 70th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

With NATO turning 70 next week it’s a good occasion to revisit the creation of a military alliance operating under the stated principle that an “attack  against one ally is considered as an attack against all allies.” Now encompassing 29 member states, the north Atlantic alliance was instigated by US, British and Canadian officials.

Image result for Alliance and Illusion: Canada and the World, 1945-1984

Formally, NATO was the West’s response to an aggressive Soviet Union, but the notion that the US, or even Western Europe, was threatened by the Soviet Union after World War II is laughable. Twenty-five million people in the Soviet Union lost their lives in the war while the US came out of WWII much stronger than when they entered it. After the destruction of WWII, the Soviets were not interested in fighting the US and its allies, which Canadian and US officials admitted privately. In April 1945 Canada’s ambassador to Russia, Dana Wilgress, concluded that “the interests  of the Soviet privileged class are bound up with the maintenance of a long period of peace.” The Soviet elite, the ambassador continued in an internal memo, was “fearful of the possibility of attack from abroad” and “obsessed with problems of security.” Wilgress believed the Soviets wanted a post-war alliance with the UK to guarantee peace in Europe (with a Soviet sphere in the East and a UK-led West.) Internally, US officials came to similar conclusions.

Rather than a defence against possible Russian attack, NATO was partly conceived as a reaction to growing socialist sentiment in Western Europe. During WWII self-described communists opposed Mussolini in Italy, fought the fascists in Greece and resisted the Nazi occupation of France. As a result, they had a great deal of prestige after the war, unlike the wealth-holders and church officials who backed the fascists. If not for US/British interference, communists, without Moscow’s support, would probably have taken power in Greece and won the 1948 election in Italy. In France the Communist Party won 30 percent of the first post-war vote, filling a number of ministries in a coalition government.

At the time of Italy’s first post-war election, prominent Canadian diplomat Escott Reid, explained that “the whole  game of the Russians is obviously to conquer without armed attack.” For his part, Pearson decried an “attempt  at a complete Russian conquest of Italy by constitutional or extra-constitutional means” and described class struggle by workers as a “new and sinister kind of danger, indirect aggression.”

US officials were equally concerned. George Kennan, the top US government policy planner at the time of NATO’s formation, considered “the communist  danger in its most threatening form as an internal problem that is of western society.” For his part NATO commander Dwight D. Eisenhower explained:

One  of the great and immediate uses of the [NATO] military forces we are developing is to convey a feeling of confidence to exposed populations, a confidence which will make them sturdier, politically, in their opposition to Communist inroads.”

NATO planners feared a weakening of self-confidence among Western Europe’s elite and the widely held belief that communism was the wave of the future. Tens of thousands of North American troops were stationed in Western Europe to strengthen the Western European elite’s confidence to face growing left-wing parties and movements. Apparently, “Secret anti-Communist NATO protocols” committed alliance countries’ intelligence agencies to preventing communist parties from gaining power. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, information surfaced regarding groups the CIA and MI6 organized to “stay-behind” in case of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. No invasion took place, of course. Instead, NATO’s Secret Armies notes:

“The real and present danger in the eyes of the secret war strategists in Washington and London were the at-times numerically strong Communist parties in the democracies of Western Europe. Hence the network in the total absence of a Soviet invasion took up arms in numerous countries and fought a secret war against the political forces of the left. The secret armies… were involved in a whole series of terrorist operations and human rights violations that they wrongly blamed on the Communists in order to discredit the left at the polls.”

Informally known as “Operation Gladio”, these right- wing “stay behind” groups were overseen by NATO’s Office of Security. A Spanish paper reported, in November 1990,

The Supreme  Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe (SHAPE), directing organ of NATO’s military apparatus, coordinated the actions of Gladio, according to the revelations of Gladio Secretary General Manfred Wörner during a reunion with the NATO ambassadors of the 16 allied nations.”

At the time the European Parliament condemned Operation Gladio and requested an investigation, which hasn’t been undertaken.

Canada was one of two NATO countries omitted from Daniele Ganser’s NATO’s Secret Armies (Iceland was the other). No researcher has tied the two together, but the year after NATO was established the RCMP began a highly secretive espionage operation and internment plan known as PROFUNC (PROminent FUNCtionaries of the Communist Party). In October 2010 CBC’s Fifth Estate and Radio-Canada’s Enquête aired shows on “this secret  contingency plan, called PROFUNC, [which] allowed police to round up and indefinitely detain Canadians believed to be Communist sympathizers.” In case of a “national security” threat up to 16,000 suspected communists and 50,000 sympathizers were to be apprehended and interned in one of eight camps across the country. Initiated by RCMP Commissioner Stuart Taylor Wood in 1950, the plan continued until 1983.

Blunting the European Left was an important part of the establishment of NATO. As odes to the organization ring across the dominant media during this week’s 70th celebrations, it’s important to remember that NATO was birthed with an elitist, anti-democratic intent. Its reason for creation was to manage “democracy” so that existing elites maintained their status.

*

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

Underestimating the potential of one’s adversaries and expressing excessive self-confidence in one’s own abilities oftentimes leads to the said party being unpleasantly surprised if events don’t go exactly according to how they expect them to.

Russia would well to reconsider its position towards the US’ proposed “European Energy Security And Diversification Act of 2019” because it could potentially be a more serious threat to the country’s interests than Moscow seems to think. Publicly financed Russian media outlet TASS reported that Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko, the third most powerful person in the country, shrugged off this piece of legislation, writing the following about her interaction with journalists about this issue:

“”I would give another name to that bill. It should be named ‘On setting stage for extra supplies of shale and other gas to Europe’. That is blatant protectionism, willful breach of international trade rules, WTO rules, that is an attempt to limit economic and energy sovereignty of Europe,” she said.

 “I am confident that the leaders of European states will not go against the interests of their countries, and the bill will have no force,” the upper house speaker added. Matviyenko stressed that if enacted, the draft law “will not have slightest impact on economic interests of the Russian Federation” due to the fact that its “energy cooperation with Europe and other states is mutually beneficial.”

She considers the bill to be Washington’s “attempt to foist its more expensive gas on Europe and limit competition on that market.” “The bill has not been adopted by the Senate and signed by US President (Donald) Trump yet. A chance remains that common sense will prevail, but only a chance,” Matviyenko added.”

As can be seen, her words reveal a dismissive attitude towards the US’ latest moves that underestimate America’s resolve to hit Russia’s budget where it hurts and express excessive self-confidence in her country’s ability to thwart any scenario that could adversely affect its interests. That might not be the best approach, however, because it could result in Russia being unpleasantly surprised if events don’t unfold exactly like it expects them to.

Critiquing her commentary, the first part is definitely correct – the Act is indeed blatant protectionism and certainly goes against established international rules and norms, though it shouldn’t have been unexpected to any observers at this point more than two years into his presidency that Trump will act unilaterally in advance of his country’s interests irrespective of “international law” since there exists no credible enforcement measure to bring the US to account for violating it.

Building off of that, even the lowest level Russian pundits acknowledge by now that the US has been enforcing its political, economic, and military will on Europe at the expense of the continent’s own objective interests, but the bloc is largely unable to resist American pressure as evidenced by it going along with Washington’s anti-Russian sanctions and NATO policies, so the precedent is that it will actually fall in line with its energy ones too and not entirely resist them.

Ditto the same in principle when it comes to Mrs. Matviyenko’s other point about her “confidence that the leaders of European states will not go against the interests of their countries, and the bill will have no force.” It’s one thing if she was just saying that as a talking point for the media’s sake and another if she actually believes it, but either way, it suggests a serious underestimation of the US’ influence over the EU and a gross overestimation of their decision making freedom.

Unlike what she says, the draft law will indeed have much more than the “slightest impact on economic interests of the Russian Federation” because a much higher proportion of the Russian budget is obtained through energy sales abroad than the American one is, meaning that in the zero-sum game of gas geopolitics in the absence of any tangibly far-reaching economic restructuring on Russia’s part, Moscow could potentially be deprived of valuable revenue over the long term that it might be depending upon to fund the “Great Society” nationwide socio-economic development program.

The combination of proposed  DASKAA energy sanctions against Russia and “Energy Security Act” incentives to the EU could combine in such a way as to offset Russia’s budgetary stability during its sensitive domestic and international transitions into PP24 (Post-Putin 2024) and the emerging Multipolar World Order respectively if not preemptively and responsibly addressed by Russian decision makers, and downplaying this scenario won’t make it any less likely to materialize.

It’s certainly true that Russia’s “energy cooperation with Europe and other states is mutually beneficial”, but again, that doesn’t mean that the EU and other partners will pursue their own objective self-interests by successfully rebuffing American pressure. Some of them, such as Germany and Russia’s TurkStream Balkan & Central European partners, will undoubtedly go ahead with their plans, but the US will seek to impose higher financial and political costs upon them for doing so.

The whole point of this American pressure campaign is to artificially increase the cost of conducting energy-related business with Russia so as to make more costly US-exported LNG “competitive” by comparison, ergo the support that the “Energy Security Act” promises to provide to the EU and other entities in order to help them manage the costs of “balancing” out their energy imports between the US and Russia (such as providing financial assistance for LNG terminals).

The final point that can be made about Mrs. Matviyenko’s remarks is that she probably doesn’t care that “common sense” might prevail in the US in the event that the bill isn’t passed into law. The rhetorical question would be that “if the bill isn’t a problem, who cares whether it’s promulgated or not?” Moreover, the well-known aphorism of “never interrupting your enemy when he is making a mistake” makes one wonder why Mrs. Matviyenko hopes that the bill doesn’t pass if would supposedly only be a waste of time and treasure for the US anyhow.

It’s inconceivable that the third most powerful person in Russia sincerely cares about protecting US interests so her words should be seen as a sarcastic attempt at “reverse-psychology” that belies an understanding that the “Energy Security Act” is actually a much bigger deal than she just made it seem, though it’s still unclear whether she and her government are taking this threat as seriously as they should. One would like to hope that “common sense will prevail” and that they are are, but then again, “groupthink” affects all governments and Russia’s is certainly no exception.

*

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

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

Featured image: Valentina Matviyenko (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Almost 20 Palestinian rights groups – both regional and international – urged the United Nations to protect Gazans who participate in the anniversary of the “Great March of Return” protests this coming Saturday.

In a letter sent to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Wednesday, the groups warned that Israel “will once again resort to lethal and other excessive force, including live ammunition, to suppress the protests”.

“We urge the UN to take meaningful action to prevent further unnecessary loss of life and injury by the Israeli occupying forces, which entails individual criminal responsibility and may amount to international crimes,” the letter read.

They went on to issue an 11-point list of recommendations for the UN, including beefing up monitoring of Israel’s use of force on the protests, demanding accountability and making sure Israel adheres to the Geneva Convention.

According to the letter, 197 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed by Israel since the protests began, which includes 42 children. More than 29,000 Palestinians have been wounded in the protests by Israel’s military and 1,200 of those injures include “complex limb injuries requiring multiple surgeries and long-term follow up”.

Since 30 March last year, thousands of Palestinians in the small coastal territory have demonstrated along the fence with Israel, demanding the implementation of Palestinian refugees’ right of return and an end to the crippling 11-year siege of Gaza.

While Israel has claimed that the protests have been orchestrated by Hamas, the de facto ruling party in Gaza, the organisers of the March have rejected these claims. For its part, Hamas has not formally recognised any of the slain Palestinians as belonging to its organisation.

The UN General Assembly has denounced Israel’s use of force against the demonstrators as “excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate”, while many rights groups slammed it as illegal, “horrifying” and “calculated”.

Two Israeli soldiers have been killed over the same period, one by a Palestinian sniper and another during a botched Israeli special forces operation within the Gaza Strip.

Israel maintains a crippling blockade of Gaza that critics say amounts to collective punishment of the impoverished enclave’s two million residents.

Egypt also upholds the siege, restricting movement in and out of Gaza on its border.

*

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

Russia Throws Down the Gauntlet to US on Venezuela

March 28th, 2019 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

The Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova acknowledged in Moscow on Tuesday that Russian “specialists” are indeed in Venezuela within the ambit of a 2001 military-technical cooperation agreement with Caracas. Zakharova underscored that Russia’s bilateral military cooperation with Venezuela is in accordance with the latter’s constitution and has legal underpinning, which “doesn’t require any additional approval from the (opposition-controlled) National Assembly of Venezuela.” 

This followed media reports that two Russian air force planes landed at Caracas on Saturday carrying Vasily Tonkoshkurov, chief of staff of the ground forces with nearly 100 military personnel and some 35 tonnes of material. An unnamed official at the Russian embassy in Caracas told the Sputnik that the Russian personnel had arrived to “exchange consultations. Russia has various contracts that are in the process of being fulfilled, contracts of a technical-military character.”

Zakharova’s remarks came a day after Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov received a phone call from the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on March 25. The Russian readout said Pompeo was “interested in certain issues related to the developments in Venezuela.” It added,

“Sergey Lavrov emphasised that Washington’s attempts to organise a coup d’etat in Venezuela and threats to its legitimate government are a violation of the UN Charter and blatant interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state… After stating principal differences in Russian and US positions, the officials agreed to stay in touch and continue to exchange assessments.” 

The state department readout, however, claimed that Pompeo warned Russia “to cease its unconstructive behavior” in Venezuela” and that Washington and its regional allies “will not stand idly by as Russia exacerbates tensions.” It also said Pompeo accused Russia of “continued insertion … to support the illegitimate regime of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela [which] risks prolonging the suffering of the Venezuelan people who overwhelmingly support interim President Juan Guaido”. 

Meanwhile, on Monday and Tuesday, in a series of tweets, US national security advisor John Bolton vent anger and frustration:

“Maduro has lost the support of the Venezuelan people, so he’s relying on Cuban and Russian support to usurp democracy and repress innocent civilians… Rather than sending nuclear-capable bombers and special forces to prop up a corrupt dictator, Russia should work with the international community to support the Venezuelan people. The United States will not tolerate hostile foreign military powers meddling with the Western Hemisphere’s shared goals of democracy, security, and the rule of law… Maduro asks for Cuban and Russian goons to suppress the people of Venezuela.” 

With these developments, the crisis situation around Venezuela may deem to have acquired a New Cold War dimension to it. Clearly, Moscow has weighed the pros and cons of the Venezuelan situation and has decided to be unapologetic about its support for the Maduro government. Despite the US outbursts, Moscow is showing no signs of backing off, either. 

The big question ahead is whether Russia is climbing the escalation ladder. Indeed, the stepping up of the military-technical cooperation stems from the assessment in Moscow that the desperate US attempts to engineer / sponsor a military coup in Caracas aren’t getting anywhere. Meanwhile, President Nicolas Maduro announced in an interview with the Russian state television today that “a high-level working session on intergovernmental cooperation” between Russia and Venezuela is due to take place in April where “we will sign over 20 documents on cooperation in economy, trade, culture, energy and education.”

Suffice to say, Moscow intends to step up its support for Maduro and is drawing up a plan of action to develop a comprehensive bilateral cooperation program with a medium and long term perspective. Now, that can only mean that in the Russian assessment, US’ blueprint to overthrow the regime through economic sanctions and other covert actions (such as the sabotage of power supply) and various methods of political and diplomatic pressure (including illegal confiscation of Venezuelan assets in western banks running into tens of billions of dollars) can be and must be countered. It is interesting that Cuba, which is rich in experience in countering the US’ coercive policies, is working shoulder to shoulder with Russia in this direction. 

From all appearance — so far, at least — a direct US military intervention in Venezuela to forcibly change the regime is not on the cards. Rather, a cold-war era war of attrition appears to be looming ahead. Can Russia sustain the financial and economic burden involved? But the analogy of the Russian intervention in Syria does not hold good here insofar as Venezuela is potentially a rich country with the world’s largest proven hydrocarbon reserves. Equally, China is also a stakeholder in Venezuela’s economic stability. 

On the other hand, it is vitally important for Russia that the US, which aspires to be the number one exporter of oil and gas, does not gain control of the vast Venezuelan reserves, as that would mean an enormous capacity falling into Washington’s hands to manipulate the supply and demand in the world energy market and set the price of oil and gas. 

In geopolitical terms, a strong Russian presence in Venezuela becomes a negotiating chip for Moscow in dealing with the growing NATO and American deployments along Russia’s western borders in central and eastern Europe and the Baltic states. That alone makes Venezuela a strategic partner for Russia. 

Plainly put, any projection of Russian power in the US’ backyard will at some point sooner rather than later impress upon Washington the imperative need to constructively engage Moscow in dialogue and negotiations, howsoever unpalatable that prospect might be. In fact, at one point, Zakharaova pointedly touched on the Trump administration’s Munroe Doctrine, asking in an acerbic tone,

“What are they (US) themselves doing in Eastern Hemisphere? Perhaps, they believe that the people of this part of the world will be thankful when Washington wilfully changes their leaders and kills the unwanted ones. Or the US still believes that people are waiting for the Americans to bring democracy to them on the wings of their bombers. Ask Iraqis, Libyans or Serbs about it.” 

Zakharova did not explicitly mention Ukraine or the Baltic states and Poland and the Black Sea and the Caucasus, but the implicit meaning is clear: If the US interferes in Russia’s backyard, Moscow serves the right to retaliate. Period. It is useful to recall that the denouement to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 was ultimately on the basis of a reciprocal withdrawal of Russian missiles in Cuba and the American missiles deployed in Turkey. 

Pompeo’s phone call to Lavrov suggests that the US is trying to figure out the Russian intentions. Interestingly, the Russian readout mentioned that Lavrov also brought up Syria and Ukraine during the conversation with Pompeo. Lavrov’s remarks were rather sharp:

“He (Lavrov) also stressed that the US’s intention to recognise Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights would lead to a serious violation of international law, impede the Syrian settlement process and aggravate the situation in the Middle East. Speaking about Ukraine, Sergey Lavrov noted that Washington’s playing into the Kiev regime’s hands in torpedoing the Minsk Agreements on the settlement of the intra-Ukrainian conflict was unacceptable.” 

Curiously, on the contrary, the US state department readout completely omitted any references to Syria or Ukraine. Evidently, it was too much of a hot potato for Washington to even acknowledge that Lavrov might have drawn a parallel with the US behaviour in the ‘Eastern Hemisphere’, which Russia finds utterly unacceptable. 

*

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: An airplane with the Russian flag was seen at Simon Bolivar International Airport in Caracas, Venezuela, March 24, 2019. (Source: Indian Punchline)