Russia’s recognition of “North Macedonia” disappointed many activists in what Moscow would have otherwise continued to regard as the Republic of Macedonia per its constitutionally legitimate name, but this purely political move shouldn’t have been all that unexpected in hindsight because it correlates with speculation that Moscow plans to take the lead in shaping the “New Balkans”.
Surprise…Or Not?
Russia surprised many observers in the Balkans when it recognized “North Macedonia” in spite of its previous principled opposition to the post-Color Revolution government’s blatantly illegal disregard of the population’s unequivocal refusal to support this move during last year’s referendum. Many activists in what Moscow would have otherwise continued to regard as the Republic of Macedonia per its constitutionally legitimate name are sorely disappointed by this purely political move and are struggling to understand why it happened, but the reason actually isn’t all that unexpected in hindsight. It needs to be recognized that while there were veritably very powerful soft power merits to Moscow continuing to inspire (key word) protests by refusing to recognize the so-called “compromise name” that Zaev agreed to impose on his people for the express purpose of expediting the country’s entry into the EU and NATO, the modern-day Russian Federation isn’t driven whatsoever by ideological motivations like its Soviet predecessor but is instead coldly pragmatic in pursuing its own interests.
“Balancing” The “New World Order” And The Emerging Multipolar One
In contrast to the way that he’s often portrayed by Alt-Media (and especially through misleadingly decontextualized memes and quotes spread by the “Putinist” cult), President Putin actually isn’t as anti-Western as many of his international supporters have been encouraged to believe. He’s indisputably a more sovereignty-focused leader than his predecessor and a much stronger one at that, but instead of being the “enemy” of the “New World Order” that a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that he is, President Putin assumed the role of a “balancer” between it and the emerging Multipolar World Order in order to enable Russia to decisively influence the balance of power between the American and Chinese superpowers in a game-changing way in pursuing his country’s interests at any given time. This flexible grand strategy explains why Russia is simultaneously advancing the construction of alternative multipolar global institutions like the BRICS Development Bank in parallel with seeking a “New Détente” with the West in order to receive sanctions relief.
Co-opting And Guiding “Inevitable Outcomes”
By accepting this strategic backdrop in spite of the sadness that it might cause in the hearts of well-intended people the world over who placed their entire hopes in President Putin as a “hero” who they mistakenly thought put all of his effort into endlessly fighting against the “New World Order”, it’s much easier to understand Russia’s recognition of “North Macedonia” and the larger motivation behind this move. There’s no doubt that “The Macedonian Name Deal Threatens To Erase European Identity” and that “Macedonia’s About To Become The World’s First ‘Politically Correct’ Police State” because of it, but there realistically isn’t anything that Russia can do to prevent any of this from happening. In fact, when faced with seemingly “inevitable outcomes” such as “Israel’s” “Yinon Plan”, Russia actually has a track record of involving itself in these processes to one extent or another as it tries to guide events in the direction of its own interests, with this oftentimes – but not always – overlapping with most of its partners’.
“The New Balkans”
As a case in point, the author reported on three important policymaking pieces by the highly influential Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) earlier this year to conclude that “Russia Might Return To The Balkans In A Big (But Controversial) Way”, namely by facilitating Timothy Less’ controversial plan to partition the Balkans along ethno-religious lines through a series of “peaceful” and “democratic” processes instead of the more violent ones that took place when creating the so-called “New Middle East”. This “New Balkans” might not be the ideal future that most of its inhabitants wanted but it could conceivably represent the best “compromise solution” between the many competing visions by all sides and possibly preempt an outbreak of hostilities that could horribly replicate the “New Middle East” in the worst-case scenario, or at least that seems to be how Russia is tacitly “rationalizing” its recognition of “North Macedonia” and possible support of Vucic’s speculated upcoming “compromise” on Kosovo too (the latter of which was elaborated in the above hyperlinked analysis).
Concluding Thoughts
There’s no doubt that Russia’s decision to recognize “North Macedonia” disappointed many in the country and beyond, but that’s largely because they had a mistaken view of President Putin and only saw in this “geopolitical Rorschach blot” whatever they wanted, which in this context mostly seemed to be a “knight in shining armor” who “dedicated his life” to “opposing” the “New World Order”. Professor Dugin was far ahead of his time in writing about President Putin’s liberal-conservative duality in his 2015 book “Putin vs Putin: Vladimir Putin Viewed from the Right”, which has in hindsight been vindicated by Russia’s visibly evolving approach towards the Balkans and its apparent decision to “co-opt” America’s strategic designs there in order to “guide” this seemingly “inevitable outcome” in the direction of its own interests. Removing Macedonia from the map (by backing its name change to “North Macedonia”) and eventually recognizing Kosovo are the two catalysts for building the “New Balkans”, though only time will tell if Russia did the right thing.
*
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.
Right now, President Trump and colleagues are under fire for speculated “collusion” with the Russian state to undermine the democratic procedures of the 2016 presidential election, one of America’s most shocking elections, the one most insiders thought Hillary Clinton would decisively win. The story of the day may well be about how the Clinton administration sought revenge for a near death experience under the hands of an offensive Trump campaign and manufactured a neo-mccarthyist scare to get back. The story for the annals, however, is about how Russiagate embodies anxieties about America’s control over a multipolar world order and its determination to drive the narrative, maintain illusions of a bipolar world order where it stands triumphant, makes the rules.
The “end of history” narrative, as intellectual historian Francis Fukuyama spoke to a need to reappraise the Marxist-Hegelian worldview after 1991, builds a tidy picture, the ideological conflicts about the proper organisation of society resolved by the main winner capitalism, evidenced by the collapse of the Soviet Union. This narrative, heavily biased by ideological commitments, encoded with hegemonic power, plays a key role in the continuation of NATO, its interventions in the collapse of Yugoslavia and later the Middle East. On their view, American power in the world order remained a lynchpin of freedom worldwide, as it may face new existential threats even after communism became a ghost.
After the year 2000, the US empire sought to crusade against another fifth column in its spheres of influence as part of its stated (but questionable) historic commitments to protect freedom domestically, by expanding liberal constitutions by force globally. Unfortunately the military-led process of regime change in the Middle East rejected the move of interventions based on international law and democratic deliberation, contravened best practice maxims of global constitutionalism, and yet sought enough funds to keep the war factory in business from taxes from people who did not order fire on civilians or austerity at home. Perhaps unsurprisingly, disenchantment and disenfranchisement with democracy rose sharply in this period.
Enter constructivism, an oblique academic niche in international relations theory with yet a rich perspective on contemporary American geopolitics. In constructivism consists a far different, depreciated view of the role of states and their material capabilities in galvanising events in world politics than realism. As part of its worldview constructivism upholds the core significance of symbolic, ideational factors in creating geopolitical outcomes. For example, if agenda setting states create status symbols out of nuclear technology, smaller states will aspire to follow their lead, assuming geopolitical advantage was important to them. Primacy is given to ideational, not material factors, although the latter is accounted for.
Powerful offices associated with the Clinton administration know that spending billions on a manufactured scare could actually fortify their economic security in the long run by creating a satisfying illusion of continuity of US-centrism in a world order bearing the revolution of decentralised regionalism. By expanding the cold war, by accelerating the witch-hunt for Russian defectors and by increasing the rhetoric of invasion, the liberal plutocrats who are an ossified class in America will achieve significant dividends: the people’s understanding of, support for, a multipolar world order where the BRICs and regionalism triumph over the old empires will drop significantly if they believe this mean feat of perception management.
Russiagate is one of a litany of examples of elites contriving belligerent narratives, encoded with symbolic and hegemonic ideas, to create, recreate acquiescence of the masses in their warped worldview and agenda. Because the American state thinks, has thought, long will think, strategically about how to maintain its supremacy globally, we know it may be so shrewd as to develop and agenda to create the illusion that the world order of multipolar power and regionalism is an anachronism, when in all truth, the opposite is true.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Five years after the “EuroMaidan” protests in Kiev and elsewhere toppled the government of now-exiled former president Viktor Yanukovych, the people of Ukraine are set to elect a new leader. Over 34 million Ukrainian citizens will be eligible to cast their vote on 31 March, although several million will be prevented from participating due to the ongoing conflict situation in the country’s eastern Donbass region. Should none of the candidates receive an absolute majority, a second round of voting will be held on 21 April.
Ukraine consistently ranks among the poorest countries in Europe – last year it overtook Moldova to occupy the top spot in the list. The largest post-Soviet state after Russia in terms of population, it finds itself torn between the European Union promising economic integration and a limited degree of freedom of movement, and deepening the country’s relationship with Moscow, the largest consumer of Ukrainian exports to which Ukraine is tied by centuries of shared history, tradition, and repeated conflict.
EuroMaidan exacerbated the country’s ongoing economic decline and mounting social pressures in 2013–14, ultimately triggering the war in the Donbass region and the Russian annexation of the Crimean peninsula. These tensions have facilitated the rise of a vicious Ukrainian nationalism that the government led by current president Petro Poroshenko is not afraid to manipulate for its own purposes. Attacks on left-wing activists and ethnic minorities are becoming increasingly common, while armed far-right paramilitaries like the so-called “Azov Regiment” are normalized and integrated into mainstream political life.
That said, not everyone in Ukraine is happy about these developments. Although none of the candidates in the upcoming elections offer a particularly radical or progressive vision for the country, voters will at least be able to decide whether to endorse Poroshenko’s current course or throw their support behind another figure. Loren Balhorn of the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung spoke with Kiev-based sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko to get a better understanding of the candidates, the state of the county, and what is at stake for the people of Ukraine in 2019.
***
Loren Balhorn: Ukraine is scheduled to hold presidential elections at the end of the month, preceding elections to the national parliament, or “Verkhovna Rada”, later this year. Is there anything special about the timing? What exactly is the president’s role in the Ukrainian political system, and what implications will the vote have for parliamentary elections in October?
Volodymyr Ishchenko:The timing is simple: it’s been five years since 2014 and the Maidan Uprising, when snap elections were called that saw Viktor Yanukovych and his Party of Regions lose a lot of strength. The first round of the presidential elections is at the end of the month, and it is very likely that there will be a second round because no candidate will receive over 50 percent (at least according to polls).
The president is very important in Ukrainian politics. The country is formally a parliamentary-presidential system, neither fully parliamentary nor fully presidential, but this is a very uneasy balance of power. The prime minister is an important position elected by the parliamentary majority, but the president also has influence over important government ministers. As is true of many post-Soviet states, however, beyond this formal institutional division of powers the informal divisions are much more decisive. Who is loyal to whom and who is dependent on whom plays a much bigger role in “real” Ukrainian politics than formal powers and privileges.
Petro Poroshenko, the current president, is the most important person in Ukrainian politics. His powers are formally limited but he has other ways to exercise influence and his own party, the “Petro Poroshenko Bloc” that forms the government together with the “People’s Front”, the party of former Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Another important figure in that party is the current Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, who is also a very wealthy man.
LB: Avakov also cultivates ties to the Azov Regiment, no?
VI: This is widely suspected, but the precise nature of those ties has never been proven. I am sceptical of the idea that the Azov Regiment is merely a puppet of Avakov, I suspect it is something like a mutually beneficial cooperation.
If Poroshenko loses we will see a lot of defections by MPs from his bloc. Ukrainian politics operates as what political scientists call a “neopatrimonial regime”, meaning it is characterized by rival, informal power blocs. If the Poroshenko Bloc loses, it will reshuffle loyalties in the parliament from one patriarch to another.
LB: What do you mean by “neopatrimonial regime”?
VI: By that I mean Ukrainian politics is characterized by competition between various power blocs, you could also call them pyramids or even clans. Poroshenko builds his pyramid while Arakov builds his own pyramid, etc. The current Prime Minister, Volodymyr Groysman, was originally perceived as a loyalist of Poroshenko, but now even he seems to be cultivating his own pyramid and will probably triangulate between various political blocs.
LB: How did Groysman come to replace Yatsenyuk?
VI: As friction between Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk grew Poroshenko financed a public campaign against him, attacking him and calling for his resignation. But Yatsenyuk had a lot of support from the West, especially the US Vice-President at the time, Joe Biden. Eventually an agreement was reached that he would step down and be replaced by Groysman.
This represented a conflict between different patrimonial structures within the governing elite, but also reflected a wider conflict between Ukrainian oligarchs and the West more generally. Many leftists in Ukraine see the country as a colony of the United States, but it’s much more complicated than that. Ukraine is definitely dependent on Western economic and financial aid, political support against Russia, etc., but it’s not a colony—it’s not ruled from the American Embassy. Local oligarchs like Poroshenko and Arakov have their own interests that they defend staunchly against the West. At its core, this is a conflict between transnational capital and the local bourgeoisie.
One key issue in these debates, and the crucial issue for the West and the IMF, was corruption and the establishment of “anti-corruption” institutions to ensure transparent rules of the game in Ukraine. But what they call “corruption” is basically the most important advantage that the Ukrainian bourgeoisie has against transnational capital: namely, their property is secure from the state while that of their competitors is not. This is also what scares away potential international investors. Because of this fear, foreign direct investment (FDI) is actually declining despite the Ukrainian government’s steps towards Western integration.
LB: So fear of corruption is harming investment?
VI: Yes, although the war is of course another factor.
In the beginning, in 2014 and 2015, we had a lot of people in the government without Ukrainian citizenship who received their positions because they were neoliberal, Western-oriented professionals, like the Lithuanian citizen Aivaras Abromavičius who was a minister under Yatsenyuk. Gradually, those neoliberal reformers were pushed out and replaced by people loyal to the ruling oligarchs. Yatsenyuk being replaced by Groysman was just one particularly important example of this process.
LB: It sounds like a pretty grim scenario. But even if electoral politics is just competition between oligarchic factions, certainly there must be some other issues being debated at least on the surface? What are the dominant themes the candidates are using to attract support?
Poroshenko has been most successful in setting the agenda with an aggressively nationalist campaign—his main slogan is “Army, Faith, Language”. He side-lined the socially populist issues that Yulia Timoshenko tried to raise by portraying the election as a choice between him or Putin and depicting his opponents as puppets of Moscow.
VI: And is it working?
Yes, to some extent. His support has been rising in the polls since the recognition of the independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
LB: Was that split between the Ukrainian Church and Moscow supported by the government?
VI: Yes, it was actively organized by Poroshenko as a strategy to win the election. Formally, the Ukrainian Orthodox church enjoyed broad autonomy but was dependent on the Moscow Patriarchate and was recognized by other Orthodox churches. A separate church founded in the early 1990s, the Kiev Patriarchate, was unrecognized by any other international church but still fairly popular in the country. In reality most people didn’t care which church they attended. The split was purely political, there were no theological differences.
Poroshenko started to push the theme in 2017 and 2018 that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was something like an “agent of Moscow” in Ukraine. The details are quite complicated, and to be honest many people in Ukraine didn’t really understand these structures until last year either, but for people who care about national issues, who care about Ukraine asserting itself against Russia, this was an important step. Nevertheless, it looks like the majority of local parishes will actually stay with the Moscow Patriarchate.
LB: You have alluded to the conflict with Russia several times now as setting the terms of the debate, and making it easier for politicians to distract from social questions by focusing on nationalism. Is there any kind of visible, vaguely progressive social opposition in the country?
VI: Most politicians and the three leading candidates for the president are not significantly different on the question of the conflict in the Donbass region. Poroshenko, Timoshenko, and Volodymyr Zelensky are all within the patriotic consensus, although Poroshenko is more militant. Candidates who actually have a different opinion and are not as popular sprang from the former Party of Regions, later branded the “Opposition Bloc”. They failed to negotiate a common candidate for the so-called “Southeast”, the region where the Russian-speaking minority mostly lives. Despite raising important issues like peace in Donbass, re-claiming national sovereignty from the West, and re-industrialization, these candidates—Yuriy Boyko and Oleksandr Vilkul—are representatives of major oligarchic financial-industrial groups. There is no significant “grassroots” movement behind the issues. There are of course labour struggles, and there have been some strikes, but they are weak. There are some feminist mobilizations but they are miniscule compared to the radical nationalists. Not just the anti-capitalist “Left”, but also progressive liberalism is very weak.
The Left is in a bad situation. The Communist Party has been banned. They are appealing the ban but their public visibility has declined to practically zero. Their leader, Petro Symonenko, tried to register as a presidential candidate but was not accepted by the government, and no other relevant left-wing parties exist on the national level.
LB: Government corruption, oligarchic control of the economy, a decimated Left—a lot of this sounds familiar. Couldn’t we, at least to some extent, compare conditions in Ukraine to the situation in all of the former Eastern Bloc countries?
VI: I don’t think so. EU membership makes a big difference, it imposes certain rules that are absent in Ukraine. The presence of strong oligarchs, for example, is pretty specific. The other Eastern Bloc countries don’t have a strong local bourgeoisie, but are largely dominated by Western capital. There are no Polish oligarchs, Czech oligarchs, Hungarian oligarchs—we only hear about Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. What makes Ukraine different is that the oligarchic system is pluralistic. We have multiple, competing oligarchs, whereas in Russia and Belarus one neopatrimonial pyramid managed to emerge as dominant in the last 15 years.
The promise of EU membership restructured Eastern European politics beginning in the 1990s, whereas this was never a prospect in Ukraine, Russia, or Belarus. But we still didn’t see the rise of any figure like Vladimir Putin or an Alexander Lukashenko in Ukraine. I think this has to do with the country’s divided identity: almost every election has been framed as a question of “East vs. West”, with one candidate supported by the western half and the other by the eastern half. In this sense it’s comparable with Donald Trump: any time a Ukrainian president comes to power he is opposed by half the population from day one. This makes it very difficult to consolidate nationwide power.
LB: Are there not also economic aspects to the East/West division?
VI: Yes, the east has more heavy, Soviet-era industry, exporting primarily to the markets of the former USSR and uncompetitive on Western markets. For example, the people supporting Yanukovych and opposing EuroMaidan were at least partially concerned about keeping their jobs in a Ukrainian economy dominated by the EU.
LB: So it’s not only a nationalist issue, but also one of bread-and-butter economic issues?
VI: Yes, absolutely.
LB: Speaking of “East vs. West”, has anything changed since Ukraine’s accession to the visa-free regime for Schengen states in 2017?
VI: That was one of very few positive developments under Poroshenko, and he’s touting it a lot during the campaign. Freedom of movement is of course something good and something we support, but it was particularly good for younger, highly educated Ukrainians in the major cities.
It has also facilitated increased labour migration, which has really risen since 2014. I don’t have any precise statistics but we’re talking about millions of people. Many Ukrainians go to work in Poland, which actively recruits them because they are seen as culturally and linguistically “closer” to Poles (unlike refugees from the Middle East). You could say that cheap Ukrainian labour is subsidizing the Polish economic boom. The Czech Republic is also popular, and Germany will probably be next.
As workers from the eastern EU states like Bulgaria and Poland move west to work they’re replaced by cheaper labour from Ukraine, but no one moves to Ukraine. There is a lot of discussion in the Ukrainian media about how it simply does not make sense to work in the country when you can make two or three times more across the border.
LB: But does this not mean that the Ukrainian labour market is gradually getting tighter? Wouldn’t it at least theoretically put organized labour in a more advantageous position to fight for higher wages?
VI: Yes, theoretically! But Ukrainian trade unions are very weak, and they have failed to take advantage of the situation.
LB: You recently gave an interview to Jacobin Magazine in which you compared the situation of the Ukrainian Left with that of Latin America in the 1970s. I found that very striking, given that the Left was quite large in Latin America at the time and microscopic in Ukraine today. Could you flesh out that comparison a bit? Where exactly do you see similarities?
VI: Ukraine is a deindustrializing, peripheral economy. Most Soviet-era industry fell apart after 1991, and what remains is not competitive on the Western European market. Ukraine has thus become a supplier of raw materials with low added value like iron. In this sense it is a very peripheral capitalism characterized by extreme inequality and powerful oligarchs, like Latin America. There is also the major role played by far-right paramilitaries—this doesn’t happen anywhere else in Europe, except for briefly in former Yugoslavia. We also have a strongly pro-American and highly dependent government, very similar to Latin America.
I think it’s logical to look for comparisons and lessons from similar historical social formations. If the Ukrainian Left is looking to fight a corrupt, authoritarian, anti-Communist regime, and given how weak the Left and even liberalism is, we have to work together to fight for basic democratic rights and against the nationalist hysteria to lay the base for a movement that could perhaps become more significant in the future. Here I see parallels to the Latin American Left’s struggle against dictatorship in the 1970s and 1980s.
LB: Do you think it’s possible in a geopolitical situation where tensions between the EU and Russia are so prominent to formulate a broad, democratic programme that stands above this fray?
VI: It’s obviously very difficult, but what other options do we have? Become puppets in the geopolitical game? There was a split on the Left in 2014 when many chose EuroMaidan and the “West” while others chose Anti-Maidan and the “Russian” side. Both sides ended up tailing more powerful right-wing forces and failed to formulate their own independent positions.
LB: But would anything else have been possible?
VI: Well, obviously we can’t seriously entertain the building of a strong left-wing party under such difficult conditions. What is possible, however, is to maintain some kind of milieu for left-wing ideas. The groups and networks that exist have to consolidate a possible embryo for a strong Left in the future. It’s important to be realistic and understand what’s possible or completely impossible. We might not be able to formulate some kind of “Third Camp” in Ukrainian politics right now, but that is our objective situation, and we should try to figure out what we can realistically do. We should work on strengthening our groups, our unions, our intellectual initiatives, to hopefully be able to do something bigger in the future.
Corbyn, Podemos, and Mélenchon are inspiring figures, but we need to understand what is specific about the political regime in our country and respond in a specific way. We need to try to expand the range of the possible for left politics at the moment. Even if it isn’t so inspiring and very weak, we still have to try. The kind of system that exists in Ukraine can’t last forever. There are many contradictions, divisions, and cleavages exacerbated by the ruling groups, and all of these will lead to a situation at some point where weaker groups might become politically relevant and important again.
LB: Before we wrap up I wanted to ask you about the third major candidate, Volodymyr Zelensky. If I understand correctly, he stars in a TV show about a politician and has now become the politician he plays on TV. Is that correct—and is he popular? Does he have a chance at winning or is this a stunt?
VI: Actually, he’s currently the most popular politician in the country. According to polls he has significantly more support than both Poroshenko and Timoshenko, and could very possibly become the president.
There are basically three groups of people voting for him: firstly, fans of his TV show, a very popular comedy about Ukrainian politics. Another large group are just so disappointed and tired of these oligarchs that they will vote for any fresh face.
LB: So he’s similar to Donald Trump in some ways?
VI: In some ways, but what’s different from Trump is the third group of his supporters, namely people who are voting for him because he is perceived as less nationalist than the other candidates. Zelensky himself is Russian-speaking, he’s from the central Ukrainian city of Kryvyi Rih, and has attracted lots of support from Russian-speaking citizens.
That makes Zelensky different from Trump—he’s actually trying to campaign on unifying themes, not divisive ones. He opposes Poroshenko’s attempts to push the Ukrainian language on Russian speakers, for example.
Another thing that makes him different from Trump or Beppe Grillo is that he has no populist movement behind him, or any movement at all for that matter. All he has is his TV show, around which he is now trying to build a political party from scratch. This is different from other populist figures—there was no mass mobilization preceding him. Trump, for example, is obviously somehow a result of the Tea Party movement, while Grillo represents the Five Stars Movement.
Another difference is his connection to Igor Kolomoisky, one of Ukraine’s richest oligarchs now in opposition to Poroshenko who founded the country’s largest bank, Privat Bank, and still owns a controlling share of the national airline. Zelensky’s show is broadcast on one of Kolomoisky’s eight TV stations, and one of his lawyers is a key architect of Zelensky’s party, Sluha Narodu, which translates to “Servant of the People” (also the name of his show). Right now it’s not possible to say how independent Zelensky is. I wouldn’t call him a puppet, but there are definitely connections to the ruling class.
All of this means that Zelensky will be very weak if he wins, and not only because he’s inexperienced. For the first half year he won’t have much support in parliament. He has no loyal political party behind him. He will surely get some opportunists to defect from other parties, but hardly a majority. I don’t know what he could do in that situation. After the parliamentary elections he might face a more favourable constellation, but it will also depend on how he does in the first months.
It’s impossible to say how he would perform as president. He has zero political experience. I fear that he may understand politics even less than Donald Trump. He is a blank page on which anything can be written.
LB: So he reflects the vacuum in civil society more generally?
VI: Exactly. He is a glaring symptom of what’s going on in Ukrainian society. People hate the oligarchs, they hate the faces they’ve seen for decades. Revolutions come and go, elections come and go, but life just gets worse and worse. People don’t want another five years of Timoshenko or Poroshenko and are happy to vote for any recognizable fresh face who isn’t implicated in serious corruption. People are voting less out of hope than out of anger. Better to vote for an incompetent comedian than the same old corrupt experts.
At the same time, civil society is so weak that it couldn’t put up any competing figure. Only a TV star was able to do that, nobody from the pro-Western, liberal NGOs came even close. None of those figures poll even one percent. This says a lot about Ukrainian “civil society”: it’s totally incapable of producing competent, popular leaders.
If he is elected, it will be strong proof that the people are sick of the old style of politics, that they aren’t being manipulated by Poroshenko’s nationalism and want something better. Nevertheless, I am very sceptical that Zelensky will be able to change anything. Real change in Ukraine will be a much longer process, and will require the building of a different kind of political opposition that we haven’t seen in this country for a very long 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.
Volodymyr Ishchenko is a sociologist studying protests and radical movements in Ukraine. He has authored a number of articles on radical right- and left-wing participation in the EuroMaidan Uprising and the ensuing war in 2013–14. He is currently working on an analysis of Maidan from the perspective of social-movement sociology and theories of revolution.
On March 15, the Day of the Popular March for Climate, tens of thousands of young people from several countries, followers of the Swedish student Greta Thunberg, showed their indignation at the indifference of world leaders towards climate change. Since last August, 16-year-old Greta demonstrates every Friday before the Swedish Parliament calling for greater commitment in the fight against the alarming deterioration of the oceans and glaciers.
Surprising (or not) that while environmental activists of the stature of the Honduran Berta Cáceres or the Iranian professor Kavous Emami who have been killed for their struggle against the powers that benefit from the destruction of the environment, the Swedish teenager is presented as leader of the fight to save the planet.
According to Global Witness, in 2017, at least 207 environmental activists were murdered in 22 countries. A year earlier, there were another 200, eight more than in 2015. It is unknown why she, a native of one of the world’s top arms sellers, and her fans concerned about the CO2 that seeps into her lungs, have not included the “No to war” and the businesses that revolve around the arms industry in its claims to save the battered planet. It is incomprehensible that they are more afraid of breathing contaminated air, but not of the very real threat of a nuclear war that would kill billions of living beings, and cause long and hard suffering for the survivors. A year ago Trump broke the nuclear agreement with Iran, and last month he did the same with the agreement with Russia, while he ordered to invest 1.2 billion dollars to make new atomic bombs in order to “make the world safer “.
February 23, 2019: “French president Macron received Swedish climate girl Greta Thunberg (right to Macron) and a delegation from Youth for Climate, including Anuna De Wever (second from the right) and Kyra Gantois (first from the left).” [Source]
In the slogans the “March” did not see any mention of the consequences of the open wars in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Libya (which have destroyed the lives of nearly 150 million people), nor those that imperialism can start against Venezuela and Iran, or the deadly contamination of the Palestinians’ habitat, which besides being bombed almost daily by Israel, they live an ecological catastrophe: millions of their olive trees have been uprooted by the occupiers, the fields of Fruit trees and farms in Gaza have disappeared; its people breathe the asbestos of demolished houses, and untreated sewage pollutes the Mediterranean because of the destruction of infrastructure.
The same “amnesia” happens with television ads, which invite us to recycle to protect the land, but silence the degree of responsibility of large companies always protected by the states, which commit 80% of the aggressions against the environment .
The lack of policies on the part of the capitalist governments to avoid a greater ecological disaster is simply a policy.
Other false environmental heroes
Greenwashing “greenwashing” or pseudoecologism is the term created to denounce makeup on the face of a system that continuously generates and reproduces the foundations of the destruction of nature.
Former US Vice President Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017 ”for his efforts to build and disseminate on climate change“, despite the fact that the Clinton-Gore administration bombed Yugoslavia, Albania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Zaire, and Liberia, using all kinds of destructive munitions including projectiles that contained depleted uranium, causing the death of tens of thousands of civilians and causing irreparable damage to their lands, airs, and waters. He was also one of the promoters of the campaign to expand raw material for biofuel, trying to convert the pancakes of the poorest Mexicans into ethanol from the cars of the well off. It was the fear of the rebellion of millions of hungry people who filed away, in part, this occurrence.
Years later, in September 2014 and on the eve of the UN Climate Summit, Wall Street bankers paid about $ 220,000 to announce the march organized by companies like Avaaz and 300 other organizations against the New York subway. The pollution of the planet. The participation of the World Bank or the Clinton Global Initiative in these initiatives, rather than being due to the “mainstreaming” of the environmental movement, is to take control of it, as well as a marketing operation to “whitewash” the most predatory elites without scruples of the world, the same that presents, for example, to NATO as the sister of charity: if you download tons of bombs on defenseless nations it is because the arms industry goes out of its way for the well-being of the Sudanese lord,the Afghan lady .
The movement for “climate justice” is a very profitable capitalist business line that turns the sensible struggle of people worried about the agony of our planet into a commodity, creating the illusion that the manufacturers of cluster bombs or white phosphorus are going to give up their benefits, at the stroke of “signatures” or demonstrations with music and dance.
One of the examples of the trickery of capitalism is, for example, that 1) the stock markets lower the price of carbon in order to sell the largest amount, 2) the banks do not exclude the most polluting companies from their offers of credits, and 3) governments give incentives to this sector to reduce their polluting emissions. The business of “Saving the Earth” is very all-encompassing.
Devastate the environment with war
It is said that the army of ancient Rome, to ensure the present and future capitulation of its enemies, covered the surface of its arable land of salt; Centuries later, we have witnessed how US aviation sprayed the forests and crops of Vietnam with 20 million gallons of Agent Naranja herbicide (produced by Monsanto). Today, 44 years later, there are 500,000 blind children, without limbs and with other serious malformations. A few years before, Harry Truman’s atomic bombs turned Hiroshima, Nagasaki and 240,000 of his neighbors into ashes.
The wars, in addition, produce massive displacements of the population, erode the soil, desert the forests. Among the scant data on the environmental stress caused by the military aggression of the US and its allies to Iraq, started in the Persian Gulf War of 1991 and continues to this day , news like this is showing:
In “response” to the fire of 736 Kuwaiti oil wells by Iraqi troops, Anglo-American forces bombed Iraq’s refineries and oil fields that burned for months, producing millions of tons of carbon dioxide, sulfur, mercury, which produced rain Acid on a large surface removed vegetation and animals.
The use of 320 tons of depleted uranium by the US, which killed thousands of people, produced strange diseases and malformations in babies born later, in addition to polluting hectares of cultivated land.
Tens of thousands of birds died, some by drowning in oil spilled in the waters of the Persian Gulf, and others by falling water temperature, creating a toxic micro-layer on its surface.
In 2015, Iraq experienced the highest temperature in the world, because of the destruction in the vegetation cover and the reduction of the water surface. The severe dust storms that are born in this country and spread throughout the area, cause conditions that kill hundreds of people each year.
Fishermen and Iraqi kids who bathe in the Tigris River still find bodies in their waters.
In Myanmar, the army uses the “scorched earth” tactic against the Rohinya, burning their homes and crops, in order to make it impossible for the victims to return to their homes.
In Sudan, the war has caused the elimination of thousands of animals, hunted to feed the armed men. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the population of white rhinos, an endangered species, was reduced to 31 in 1996 because of the conflict; 5,000 elephants disappeared, as well as half of the hippos.
With a few open wars in the Middle East, and the US threat to provoke others to seize the natural resources of other peoples, the environmental movement must strengthen the weak movement for peace , and include the reduction of military spending in one of its main demands.
We need you to support critical voices.
*
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: February 23, 2019: “French president Macron received Swedish climate girl Greta Thunberg (right to Macron) and a delegation from Youth for Climate, including Anuna De Wever (second from the right) and Kyra Gantois (first from the left).” [Source]
Our objective at Global Research is to recruit one thousand committed “volunteers” among our more than 50,000 Newsletter subscribers to support the distribution of Global Research articles (email lists, social media, crossposts).
Do not send us money. Under Plan A, we call upon our readers to donate 5 minutes a day to Global Research.
Global Research Volunteer Members can contact us at [email protected] for consultations and guidelines.
If, however, you are pressed for time in the course of a busy day, consider Plan B, Consider Making a Donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member.
Today’s verdict in favor of a California man who said his cancer was caused by exposure to Bayer AG’s Roundup weedkiller is further evidence that glyphosate, the herbicide’s active ingredient, is carcinogenic to humans, said Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook.
According to the Trump regime, a US-China trade deal is on the horizon. If a trade deal is reached then no doubt global stock markets will surge even further into over inflated bubble territory. Bloomberg estimates a trade deal could add 10% to global equities.
As part of the ongoing sanctions and attempts to destabilize the Venezuelan government, the U.S. government announced the new measure that aims to block state mining assets and prohibit U.S citizens from dealing with the company. The decision comes after Uganda said it was investigating its biggest gold refinery for importing Venezuelan gold.
I am not referring to the conspiracy theories of George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Donald Trump and other such luminaries concerning events such as the attack of September 11, 2011, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the ongoing war on terror, Julian Assange’s alleged ties to Russia, etc. These people’s conspiracy theories have nothing to do with petty crime, for their handiwork is grand indeed. They are “big people”.
Tulsi Gabbard visited the San Francisco Bay Area last weekend. The 3 term Congresswoman from Hawaii is 37 years old and ethnically diverse. Remarkably, she has 15 years military experience in the US Army and National Guard as well as substantial political experience. She was elected to the Hawaii State Assembly at age 21.
In a cheerful press conference, in Brussels, on January 25, this year, Ardern reaffirmed New Zealand’s “close partnership” with NATO. Standing alongside NATO’s Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, Ardern stated that New Zealand “sought to play its role and part [alongside NATO] in the defense of values and norms, we hold dear”.
The demonization of Slobodan Milsovic by so-called “Progressives” has served over the years to uphold the legitimacy of the NATO bombings. It has also provided credibility to “a war crimes tribunal” under the jurisidiction of those who committed extensive war crimes in the name of social justice.
*
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 federal government is relying on secret shelters to hold unaccompanied minors, in possible violation of the long-standing rules for the care of immigrant children, a Reveal investigation has found.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement, the government agency that cares for unaccompanied minors, has never made the shelters’ existence public or even disclosed them to the minors’ own attorneys in a landmark class-action case.
It remains unclear how many total sites are under operation, but there are at least five in Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Virginia, holding at least 16 boys and girls for the refugee agency, some as young as 9 years old.
Minors being held at the clandestine facilities initially were placed at known shelters around the country but later were transferred to these off-the-books facilities that specialize in providing for youth with mental health and behavioral challenges.
The refugee agency’s standards for transferring youth in its care state that the agency “makes every effort to place children and youth within the ORR funded care provider network,” but makes room for out-of-network transfers, adding that “there may be instances when ORR determines there is no care provider available within the network to provide specialized services needed for special needs cases. In those cases, ORR will consider an alternative placement.”
Under the Flores Settlement Agreement, a 1997 pact that sets the standards for how unaccompanied minors are treated while detained and calls for their swift release, the federal government is supposed to provide attorneys representing detained children with a regular and detailed census of each minor in the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s custody. The practice appears to violate the long-held agreement.
Holly Cooper, who represents the class of unaccompanied minors in the agency’s care, says the government failed in its obligation to report every minor’s location – and believes the refugee agency still is withholding information about other locations, even after being pressed to do so.
“Detained unaccompanied children with mental health issues are some of the most vulnerable children, and when the government does not provide access to their whereabouts, it calls into question the basic underpinnings of our democratic institutions,” Cooper said.
Cooper learned about one of the facilities months ago. After requesting information about additional sites, she learned about several others. Now, she told Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting, she’s still getting credible information that the list the government provided to her is incomplete.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement acknowledged a request for comment but hadn’t yet responded to specific questions by the time this story was published.
Robert Carey, who directed the agency during the final two years of the Obama administration, said that as far as he knew, no such arrangements were in place before Donald Trump became president.
“If that was happening, it was something that I was not aware of,” he said.
Some facilities, he said, occasionally would subcontract specialized medical or educational services. But Carey said he wasn’t aware of children being housed outside of publicly disclosed shelters.
“We had pretty exhaustive oversight procedures and monitoring procedures,” he said. “If any of those standards are being lessened or compromised, that would obviously be cause for concern. These systems are in place for a reason. There’s an inherent vulnerability in the care for children.”
One of the care providers, Millcreek Behavioral Health in Fordyce, Arkansas, operates as a residential treatment center and is holding at least eight children in the refugee agency’s custody, according to information obtained by Reveal. Inspection reports obtained by Reveal do not suggest any serious state violations; 911 service call records to the facility were requested by Reveal in December, but the local office of emergency management hasn’t decided whether to release the documents.
Another provider, Rolling Hills Hospital in Ada, Oklahoma, is a facility for children and adults that is holding at least one minor in the refugee agency’s custody. An investigation by The Oklahoman published earlier this year revealed that patients complained of broken bones, along with “allegations of sexual harassment and physical abuse” at the hospital. A 2017 inspection report reviewed by Reveal describes multiple violations, including employees who said the hospital failed to provide staff orientation, patient records that indicated registered nurses had not provided necessary assessments, and a facility where patient deaths went unreported to the governing body for oversight.
Officials with the care facilities either declined to comment or did not respond to emails and phone messages from Reveal.
“I don’t have anybody that needs to comment,” said Pam Burford, an administrator at Millcreek Behavioral Health.
Néstor Dubón, a sponsor for an asylum-seeking cousin who’s being held at Millcreek, hasn’t visited the site but describes it as a better alternative to the Northern Virginia Juvenile Detention Center, a shelter whose federal contract came to an end in 2018, where Dubón’s cousin previously was held. Dubón was told that his cousin would be transferred to Arkansas but was unaware that the facility’s use as a shelter wasn’t public. No matter where his cousin is being held, Dubón’s chief concern is his cousin’s release. He said he’s met all the requirements asked of him by the Office of Refugee Resettlement to gain his cousin’s freedom.
“I’ve given my fingerprints three times – three times!” Dubón said. “I’ve obtained and shared birth certificates and powers of attorney from Honduras and for what? He’s still there.”
Dubón’s 16-year-old cousin has been in the agency’s custody since he first entered the United States more than two years ago.
Both Millcreek and Rolling Hills are owned and operated by Acadia Healthcare. Reveal has determined that 50 of Acadia’s facilities – operating in 23 states and Puerto Rico – provide residential care for minors, but it’s unclear how many of those facilities serve youth in the refugee agency’s custody.
Acadia has been publicly traded on the NASDAQ for nearly a decade. With hundreds of facilities and a capacity of over 18,000 beds, it is one of the largest treatment networks in the country. Its services include care for behavioral health and addiction.
In November, a critical investor detailed a litany of abuse allegations at Acadia-run facilities, including Rolling Hills. A December 2017 lawsuit accused Acadia and Rolling Hills of permitting ongoing sexual abuse inside a facility for children, destroying video evidence and refusing access to a state investigator.
Former Acadia CEO Joey Jacobs has acknowledged that regulatory problems led some states to temporarily stop referring people to Acadia facilities. But Jacobs announced those problems had been resolved, at least in a call with investors in November 2018.
“We’re a large company with a large number of facilities,” he said. “So at any time, we can have an inspection go bad or an incident occur or an investigation be instigated.”
Jacobs left the company in December. Acadia has accumulated $3.2 billion in debt from buying up local care centers, prompting critical attention from investors who doubt that it can be paid off.
Acadia Healthcare did not return a call for comment for this story.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement also hasn’t disclosed that it houses children at Devereux, a nonprofit behavioral health organization based in Pennsylvania that operates in multiple states, Reveal has confirmed. One of its facilities in Florida is holding at least five minors for the federal agency. The previously undisclosed care network also includes residential treatment centers operated by KidsPeace and Youth For Tomorrow. These two organizations alreadycontract with the government as shelter providers, offering general care. But they don’t have public agreements to provide the more intensive behavioral and mental health care of a residential treatment center.
KidsPeace communications director Bob Martin told Reveal that there were “a very small number of cases” in which his organization has accepted children from other refugee agency shelters for placement in its residential treatment center. In those cases, he said, no new contracts were signed, beyond what he called a “letter of agreement” with the agency.
“It’s been an extremely rare occurrence,” Martin said.
Martin said any questions about government oversight in those cases should be answered by the Office of Refugee Resettlement.
Courtney Gaskins, director of program services for Youth For Tomorrow, confirmed that the refugee agency has requested that her organization take children in its residential treatment wing.
“We’ve gotten requests for those,” she said. But Gaskins declined to say whether her organization has ever agreed to do so. “I wouldn’t comment if we did,” she said.
Reveal reviewed federal contract and grant awards to Youth For Tomorrow and KidsPeace but found no mention of residential treatment center services.
Some of the nonprofit organizations involved in this network are well-monied and hold powerful connections in the media and government. Devereux’s board includes James H. Schwab, who, according to his LinkedIn profile, was the president of Vice Media until December and remains a board member and senior adviser at Vice. Oliver North and Fox News analyst Brit Hume sit on the Youth For Tomorrow board of directors.
In a statement to Reveal, Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, called the arrangement “incredibly disturbing.”
“Imagine being a child in a strange country, hundreds or thousands of miles from where you grew up, surrounded by people who may not speak your language. You would be incredibly vulnerable – which is exactly why ORR is supposed to follow strict regulations governing where these children can be held and what child welfare standards must be met.”
Merkley has introduced a bill that would require shelter operators to grant access to members of Congress.
“ORR needs to provide answers immediately about where they are holding asylum-seeking children, and what, if any, child welfare regulations those facilities are meeting,” he said.
The lack of disclosure of facilities where unaccompanied minors are held leaves a vacuum of public oversight. It’s unclear how the refugee agency regulates and inspects these facilities. For its publicly listed shelters, the agency sets a minimum staff-to-children ratio and training requirements and conducts announced and unannounced inspections. One possibility is that shelter providers are subcontracting the care of certain children to another care provider.
According to cooperative agreements between the refugee agency and residential care providers, which Reveal acquired after filing a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, shelters may subcontract services to other entities. In those cases, the federal agency holds the shelter responsible for ensuring that “sub-recipients” maintain the same standards of care required by law.
Reveal filed FOIA requests in the fall for information about any subcontracts or out-of-network care contracts to care for unaccompanied children. The government has yet to respond.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Post-WW II, America’s only enemies were and remain invented ones.
No real ones existed since Nazi Germany and imperial Japan were defeated – none anywhere, clearly none today!
Yet the US consistently pours countless trillions of dollars down a black hole of endless waste, fraud and abuse – global militarism and belligerence supported by the vast majority of Republicans and undemocratic Dems, at the expense of world peace, equity and justice.
Trump regime director of trade and industrial policy Peter Navarro is a militant right-wing.
He’s part of the cabal in Washington, wanting US-controlled puppet rule replacing independent governments in China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and elsewhere.
He favors whatever it takes for the US to achieve dominance. The NYT gave him feature op-ed space to promote greater military spending at a time it should be slashed.
He lied claiming “(i)nvesting in the (defense) sector means more jobs at home and improved security abroad. He lied saying “(i)n terms of economic security, the Trump defense budget is helping to create good manufacturing jobs at good wages.”
He lied claiming increased “arms sales (abroad) not only help create good jobs at good wages in America…they also enhance America’s capacity to bolster and stabilize our regional alliances, even as they may reduce the need to deploy more American soldiers overseas.”
He lied saying “our defense industrial base (is) the unshakable foundation of both economic and national security.”
Dwight Eisenhower’s warning about military-industrial complex dangers went unheeded, saying:
“The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
He called it a “potential enemy of the national interest…a distorted use of the nation’s resources…fail(ing) to comprehend its grave implication…(affecting our) livelihood (and) the very structure of our society,” adding:
“Every gun that is made, every war ship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and not clothed.”
In an article titled “The War Business,” the late Chalmers Johnson said the following:
“(M)unitions and war profiteering have (become) the most efficient means for well-connected capitalists to engorge themselves at the public trough.”
“To call these companies ‘private,’ though, is mere ideology. (Weapons and) munitions making in the United States today (and related industries profiting from them are) not really private enterprise. It is state socialism,” adding:
“When war becomes the most profitable course of action, we can certainly expect more of it,” sacrificing a free society for private interests reaping short-term gains.
George Washington warned about “overgrown military establishments,” calling them “inauspicious to liberty.”
Perpetual wars now rage for illusory peace, what ruling authorities in Washington abhor – along with democratic governance they tolerate nowhere, especially at home.
US elections are farcical when held. With attribution to redoubtable activist Emma Goldman, if they changed anything, they’d be outlawed.
Economist, activist writer opponent of the military, industrial, security complex, Seymour Melman wrote extensively on the topic, dispelling state-sponsored/media promoted myths.
Discussing what he called “the Grip of a Permanent War Economy,” he explained the following:
“(A)t the start of the twenty-first century, every major aspect of American life (has been) shaped by our Permanent War Economy.” Its horrific toll includes:
a de-industrialized nation, the result of decades of shifting production abroad, leaving unions, US workers and communities “decimated;”
government financing, promoting and pursuing “every kind of war industry and foreign investing by US firms” – war priorities taking precedence over essential homeland needs;
America’s “permanent war economy…has endured since the end of World War II…Since then, the US has been at war – somewhere – every year, in Korea, Nicaragua, Vietnam, the Balkans, – all this to the accompaniment of shorter military forays in Africa, Chile, Grenada, Panama,” and endless aggression in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Palestine, Somalia, Yemen, Central Africa, and increasingly against perceived homeland threats;
“How to make war” takes precedence over everything, leaving no “public space (for) improv(ing) the quality of our lives;”
“Shortages of housing have caused a swelling of the homeless population in every major city (because) state and city governments across the country have become trained to bend to the needs of the military…;”
The nation’s deplorable state is characterized by growing millions of poor, disadvantaged, low income, uneducated, and “disconnected (people) from society’s mainstream, restless and unhappy, frustrated, angry, and sad;”
“State Capitalism” characterizes America’s agenda – partnering with business, running a permanent war economy for greater power and wealth, ill-served by pure evil leadership, at war on humanity at home and abroad.
US rage for global dominance comes at the expense of a nation in decline, lost industrialization, crumbling infrastructure, millions of lost jobs offshored to low-wage countries, growing millions at home uncared for, unwanted, ignored, and forgotten to assure steady funding for bankers, warmaking, and other corporate predation – at the expense of ordinary people everywhere.
Melman explained that investing in domestic needs, developing the nation and its people, achieves a far greater bang for the buck than resources spent for militarism and warmaking.
They’re parasitic, unjustifiable, illegal, immoral, and eventually self-destructive – why the US has been in decline for decades while China, Russia, and other nations are growing and developing productively.
Unlike America’s permanent war agenda, wanting its will forcefully imposed on other nations, they wage peace and mutual cooperation with other nations.
Along with equity and justice for all everywhere, what’s more important than 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.
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.”
Today’s verdict in favor of a California man who said his cancer was caused by exposure to Bayer AG’s Roundup weedkiller is further evidence that glyphosate, the herbicide’s active ingredient, is carcinogenic to humans, said Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook.
In the first phase of Edward Hardeman v. Monsanto Company, the jury sided with arguments and scientific evidence presented by the attorneys for Edward Hardeman that glyphosate was the cause of his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
“Today’s verdict reinforces what another jury found last year, and what scientists with the state of California and the World Health Organization have concluded: Glyphosate causes cancer in people,” said Cook. “As similar lawsuits mount, the evidence will grow that Roundup is not safe, and that the company has tried to cover it up.”
Bayer AG bought Monsanto last year for $63 billion and is now liable for claims against it. Bayer faces more than 11,000 U.S. lawsuits alleging that glyphosate causes cancer.
Now the case before the federal district court in San Francisco will enter the second phase of the trial. Hardeman’s lawyers will present evidence to the jury, including internal Monsanto documents, that could show the company knew the dangers of Roundup and glyphosate and attempted to cover them up.
Judge Vincent Chhabria, who is presiding over this case, unsealed some of those documents in March 2017. The New York Times reported that they show how Monsanto systematically attempted to discredit scientists and independent scientific research, swayed scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency over its review of glyphosate, and even ghostwrote stories that appeared to be authored by scientists not affiliated with Monsanto.
“The decision by Bayer to purchase Monsanto, a company with a long history of environmental malfeasance, could go down as one of the worst business decisions ever made,” added Cook. “The day of reckoning for Bayer and its cancer-causing weedkiller is getting closer.”
In August, another California jury awarded Dewayne Lee Johnson, a former groundskeeper who regularly handled Roundup, $289 million in his case against Monsanto. The verdict was later reduced by the court to $78 million.
Glyphosate is the most heavily used herbicide in the world. People who are not farm workers or groundskeepers are being exposed to the cancer-causing chemical through food.
Two separate rounds of laboratory tests commissioned last year by EWG found glyphosate in nearly every sample of popular oat-based cereals and other oat-based food marketed to children. The brands in which glyphosate was detected included several cereals and breakfast bars made by General Mills and Quaker.
*
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 evidence is mounting pointing to similarities in the two recent crashes of Boeing 737 Max 8 commercial jets, costing a combined total of 346 lives. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that the new model 737s were rushed into service without the level of pilot training that normally accompanies the introduction of new or redesigned aircraft.
New revelations also indicate that Boeing, the commercial carriers, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the pilots unions were all involved in the process by which safety and training corners were cut in the interests of reducing costs and accelerating production and sales, so as to gain market share and profits at the expense of Boeing’s chief competitor, European-based Airbus.
On March 10, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed about six minutes after takeoff from the airport in Addis Ababa, killing all 157 passengers and crew aboard. This was only five months after a Lion Air 737 Max 8 crashed minutes after takeoff from the airport in Jakarta, Indonesia, killing all 189 passengers and crew. In both cases the pilots struggled to keep the nose of the plane from pointing down, and the jets oscillated wildly between ascent and descent, ultimately plunging to their destruction.
While the investigation into the Lion Air crash is continuing, and the probe of the Ethiopian crash is in only its initial stages, the black boxes having been recovered but not yet read, aviation experts believe that the first crash was connected to a newly installed automated anti-stall system of which the pilots were unaware and which they were unable to manually override. And satellite data, communications from the cockpit and physical evidence found at the crash site of last week’s disaster all suggest that in this case as well, the new automated system, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS, was a factor.
The New York Times reported on Sunday that Boeing, with the support of the FAA, insisted that pilots who previously flew 737s did not require retraining, using expensive and time-consuming simulation cockpits, to safely fly the new, more fuel- and cost-efficient Max models. These planes quickly became the manufacturer’s best-selling jets, with more than 4,600 on order around the world and more than 70 in service at Southwest, American and United Airlines in the US. They have played a huge role in record profits and a dizzying run-up in the price of Boeing stock since the introduction of the planes in 2017.
No one can seriously doubt that these were the main considerations that led Boeing, the FAA and the Trump administration to keep the planes flying for days after virtually every other country had grounded them and/or banned them from their air space following the March 10 crash. It was only after Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg reversed his position that the planes were perfectly safe and should keep flying, calling Trump Wednesday morning to recommend their grounding, that Trump announced that afternoon the grounding of the 737 Max fleet in the US pending the results of the crash investigations.
Since then Boeing has suspended deliveries of the jets to customers, while continuing production at the previous, rapid pace.
In its front-page article Sunday, the Times quoted Greg Bowen, the training and standards chair at the Southwest pilots union, as saying the “senior leadership” at Southwest told him the engineering data necessary to design software for pilot training simulators was still being finalized “right up until the plane was nearly completed.”
“They were building the airplane and still designing it,” Bowen said. “The data to build a simulator didn’t become available until about when the plane was ready to fly.”
Despite this extraordinary situation, pilots union officials at American and Southwest met with Boeing and agreed that the plane could be flown without any but the most minimal and cursory additional training. The FAA agreed and declared the new aircraft to be safe.
Boeing said in a statement that “the 737 Max was certified in accordance with the identical FAA requirements and processes that have governed certification of all previous new airplanes and derivatives.” The FAA issued a statement declaring, “The FAA’s aircraft certification processes are well established and have consistently produced safe aircraft designs.”
Even after last October’s Lion Air crash, when pilots urged the airlines to deploy cockpit simulators to train pilots in the new systems on the Max 8 and 9, the carriers refused and the FAA refused to mandate any such action. That remains their position even after the March 10 crash in Ethiopia.
When Boeing was set to begin delivering the aircraft in 2017, a group of pilots union officials who have flown the older 737s put together a training manual without even flying the Max or a simulator. James LaRosa, a 737 captain who helped lead the training group, told the Times he flew to a Boeing training center in Seattle to learn about the Max.
LaRosa and other pilots created a 13-page handbook on the differences between the Max and earlier models. This was the only addition to a two-hour iPad training course offered by Boeing, and neither mentioned MCAS.
Dennis Tajer, a spokesman for the American Airlines pilots union, told the Times that after the Lion Air crash last fall, Boeing told the pilots that it hadn’t mentioned the new anti-stall software (MCAS) because it did not want to “inundate” them with information.
“When you find out that there are systems on it that are wildly different that affect the performance of the aircraft,” Tajer said, “having a simulator is part of a safety culture. It can be the difference between a safe, recoverable flight and one that makes the newspapers.”
Over the weekend it was reported that a reclaimed piece of the Ethiopian Airlines plane, known as a jackscrew, indicated that the plane’s stabilizers had been pointed upward. At this angle, the stabilizers would have forced the nose of the jet downward, a similar scenario as that involved in the Lion Air crash.
In order to save fuel and reduce costs, Boeing made the Max’s engines larger than those on previous 737s and mounted them further forward on the wings. It was understood that this change in design could potentially result in the plane’s nose tilting upward, producing a stall under certain circumstances. MCAS was programmed to automatically engage so as to counteract that risk.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Reports by London’s Guardian, Press TV, and other media suggesting it are unverified, the Guardian saying the following:
Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) “has not attended a series of high-profile ministerial and diplomatic meetings in Saudi Arabia over the last fortnight and is alleged to have been stripped of some of his financial and economic authority,” adding:
“The move to restrict, if only temporarily…understood to have been revealed to a group of senior ministers earlier last week by his father, King Salman.”
Press TV reported that MBS was “stripped of some of his powers and has not attended…recent weekly cabinet meetings and…high-profile talks with visiting dignitaries,” including Sergey Lavrov, confirmed by Russia’s Foreign Ministry, adding:
King Salman appointed Musaed al-Aiban to oversee kingdom financial and investment decision-making.
On July 14, 2018, months before Jamal Khashoggi’s October 2 murder by an MBS hit squad in the kingdom’s Istanbul consulate, Middle East Eye reported the following:
“Twenty-four Saudi princes, including Deputy Crown Prince Muqrin Bin Abdulaziz, (met) with king Salman…in Mecca…in the absence of” MBS.
Separately, king Salman met with presidents and other officials of various nations in July last year. It’s unclear if MBS attended the meeting.
His absence from various high-level meetings may or may not be significant, no information from the kingdom either way.
He’s king Salman’s favorite son. There’s been no official word on whether he fell out of favor with his father over Khashoggi’s murder causing international furor and/or other activities he overseas.
Separately according to the NYT, Al Jazeera, and other media, MBS approved a secret initiative to eliminate Saudi dissidents at home and abroad, saying actions involve surveillance, kidnapping, detention, torture, and murder.
Citing unnamed US officials, the Times called the initiative launched in 2017 the Saudi Rapid Intervention Group, Khashoggi one of its many victims, unknown numbers more on its target list.
According to the Middle East Eye (MEE), it broke the story last October, calling the Saudi hit squad the Firqat el-Nemr, or Tiger Squad, saying at the time:
“Jamal Khashoggi fell victim to its assassins. He wasn’t the first,” adding:
The Saudi hit squad “is well-known to the US intelligence services,” comprised of dozens of highly-skilled “intelligence and military operatives…(i)ts members…unflinchingly loyal to” MBS.
Citing what it called “a very well-placed (kingdom) source,” MEE said “(t)he tiger squad’s mission is to covertly assassinate Saudi dissidents, inside the kingdom and on foreign soil, in a way that goes unnoticed by the media, the international community and politicians.”
Assassinations are messy like Khashoggi’s elimination or disguised to appear accidental, deaths arranged by car crashes, house fires, deadly virus injections during routine medical visits, and other tactics.
The tiger squad reportedly eliminated at least a dozen Saudi dissidents since 2017. MEE called close MBS aide Maher Abdulaziz Mutrib “the spinal cord of the tiger squad…chosen by (the crown prince) who depends on him and is close to him.”
The Saudi Rapid Intervention Group tiger squad was named after deputy kingdom intelligence chief Ahmed al-Assiri, nicknamed “the Tiger of the South” – also called “the Beast” for involvement in the Yemen war.
Relieved of his duties for involvement in Khashoggi’s murder, the incident making world headlines for weeks, it’s not believed he was among the convenient kingdom patsies charged with the crime.
Last week, the Saudis claimed Khashoggi’s killers were punished, no names or details revealed – rejecting calls for an independent probe into his murder, adding the kingdom resolved the issue, according to high-level Saudi minister Bandar bin Mohammed al-Aiban.
Turning truth on its head, he called Khashoggi’s assassination an “unfortunate accident,” adding 11 Saudis were indicted.
So-called Saudi justice (sic) “operates pursuant to international law and it does so in all transparency (sic)…foreign interference (in the kingdom’s) domestic affairs or judicial system” rejected.
Saudi-style “justice” assures none at all. The same applies to the US, other NATO countries, Israel, and their imperial partners time and again.
*
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.”
According to the Trump regime, a US-China trade deal is on the horizon. If a trade deal is reached then no doubt global stock markets will surge even further into over inflated bubble territory. Bloomberg estimates a trade deal could add 10% to global equities.
If a trade deal is struck then the mainstream media and Trump can gleefully tell us that all is well with the world: stock markets are booming so don’t worry yourself about a thing. Hyperbole aside will a trade deal lead to a thaw in US-China relations? Can it help resolve the economic and geostrategic tensions that exist between both nations?
President Obama’s much vaunted ‘pivot’’ to Asia in 2011 was a belated recognition by the American Empire that it faced a new superpower in the making that threatened its economic and geo-political dominance of the Asia-Pacific region. During Obama’s presidency the Asia pivot was primarily military in nature although we shouldn’t forget his ill-fated Trans Pacific Partnership that was designed to contains China’s economic expansion throughout the region.
The election of the populist Trump, a billionaire businessman, on a ticket of ‘Make America Great Again’ tapped into a public mood that was angry at the de-industrialisation of America and the way Wall Street has been fleecing ‘Main street’. Trump’s election reflected a recognition by the American ruling class of the need for action against a backdrop of an escalating rivalry in advanced technology between the US and China, competition for raw materials/markets and increasing geo-political tensions.
Dean Cheng of The Heritage Foundation has argued that the leadership of the misnamed Chinese Communist Party (CCP), sees their country as being in a period of peaceful competition with the U.S.. The CCP leadership sees China as in a period of “strategic opportunity’’ that will allow it to focus upon the non-military aspects of “comprehensive national power.’’ In other words this is a period where there is an historic opportunity to not only catch up with the more economically developed nations of the West but to go on to become a world leader in advanced manufacturing and technology. Thereby, raising living standards for its 1.4 billion population whose passive acceptance of the one party state is of paramount concern to President Xi and the billionaire oligarchs whose interests he represents.
The Chinese Communist Party leadership have been looking to the future in terms of decades when it comes to the country’s economic, scientific and military development. At the CCP congress in 2017 President Xi stated that by mid century the objective was of becoming a “global leader in terms of comprehensive national power and international influence.”
Made In China 2025 Initiative
The ‘Made In China 2025’ initiative that was launched in 2015 represented a turning point in the escalation of the economic and military rivalry between China and the US. The Chinese ruling class see the initiative as an attempt to comprehensively upgrade their entire economy from advanced manufacturing tech to traditional industries and the service sector.
Scott Kennedy from the Centre For Strategic & International Studies has observed that:
“The goal is to comprehensively upgrade Chinese industry, making it more efficient and integrated so that it can occupy the highest parts of global production chains. The plan identifies the goal of raising domestic content of core components and materials to 40% by 2020 and 70% by 2025.’’
In his testimony to a congressional committee on 25 September 2018 Dean Cheng emphasised the comprehensive nature of the Made In China 2025 initiative:
“China’s “Made in 2025” program, where the Chinese hope to be able to become largely autonomous in key manufacturing areas by 2025, should therefore be seen as part of the larger effort to promote Chinese science and technology, not only in terms of innovation and R&D, but sustaining China’s industry by localizing the entire technology development, commercialization, and production process.’’
The Made In China 2025 initiative is seen as a serious threat by the United States to both its advanced technology sector and its attempts at full spectrum military dominance of the planet on behalf of corporate capital.
According to the U.S. Congress the next generation IT. that China wants to become dominant in includes: 5G networks, A.I., blockchain, cloud computing, quantum computing and semi conductors. The fear of Chinese dominance in these hi-tech sectors is portrayed as a grave economic and national security threat to the United States that must be stopped.
Hi-tech economic rivalry
The fear and alarm at China’s emergence as a competitor to the U.S. in high-tech industries is not unfounded. Chinese supercomputers are some of the fastest in the world. China is now the largest producer of supercomputers in the world. In 2017 202 of the 500 fastest supercomputers were Chinese compared to 143 for the U.S. A Chinese lunar probe is scheduled to make a landing on the far side of the moon while the world’s largest radio telescope is based in China.
Alex Barrera, Chief Editor at the Adelph Report has observed:
“The US and Europe are lagging behind in technological adoption. Robotics, AI-based systems, automated education, Quantum computing or smart mobility are all happening in China, not in the US.’’
The emerging gap in terms of investment, research and adoption of AI and Deep Learning is staggering. This has led to the US Congress holding a series of hearings into the economic threat posed by China to the United States. On 26 September 2018 the U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing titled: “Countering China-Ensuring America remains the world leader in Advanced Technologies and Innovation.’’ The chairman of the hearing, Rep. Hurd, stated in his opening remarks that China wanted to “replace us’’ as the world leader in advanced technology and was guilty of intellectual property theft that was costing the US economy between $225 and $600 billion annually.
The arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou on 1 December 2018 by Canadian authorities, at the request of the U.S. government, has brought into the public spotlight this rapidly escalating technology rivalry between China and the U.S..
It is also evidence of increasing U.S. frustration at China’s emergence as high-tech powerhouse that may well eclipse the U.S. in the next 20 years.
In 2018 Huawei became the number one smart phone maker in China, eclipsing Apple to become the second biggest maker globally. In 2017 its revenue was greater than Chinese corporate giants such as Alibaba, Tencent and Baidu combined. Over half of this revenue came from sales abroad in Europe and Asia. This revenue growth has increased far faster in recent years than U.S. rivals such as Cisco. In 2012 both had similar revenues but by 2017 Huawei’s revenues far surpassed those of Cisco: $92 billion for Huawei compared to $50 billion for Cisco. Blake Schmidt of Bloomberg has observed that Huawei’s revenue growth, “strikes fear among some policy makers in the West.’’
The military-industrial complex in the U.S. is pushing Trump to ban Huawei from supplying wireless carriers as they upgrade to 5G. American allies such as Australia, New Zealand and Japan are planning to limit use of Huawei gear in their countries.
It will be interesting to see how the “impending’’ trade deal manages the issues of intellectual property rights, access to software and patents for the advanced tech sector.
Challenges facing China’s leadership
President Trump’s imposition of trade tariffs on Chinese imports reflects another front in this escalating trade war between the two superpowers. U.S. trade tariffs have undoubtedly hurt the slowing Chinese economy that is facing a number of major challenges not least of which is maintaining annual GDP growth above 6% to ensure social stability.
The Chinese ruling class is still haunted by the memory of the Tiananmen Square uprisingthat threatened its very existence. Hence, its economic programme is motivated by the key priority of avoiding social unrest in a country with a well educated population that has high expectations raised by its economic revolution over the last 40 years. Professor Marshall Meyer of Wharton Management has noted that the current government of President Xi, “is not totally secure. This is the first government post-1949 that has not had the mantle of Mao or Deng, and it is struggling a bit for legitimacy.’’
Hence, the continuing slowdown in manufacturing is of great concern to the CCP leadership. China has made concessions to the U.S., such as resuming soya bean purchases last December, and is no doubt keen to get the $250 billion of U.S. trade tariffs lifted in the hope of boosting its slowing economy.
U.S.-China co-dependency
On the one hand both nations are mutually dependent upon one another yet they are both in competition with each other on the economic, technological, diplomatic and military fronts. The question is whether their state of mutual dependency is strong enough to stave off any further deterioration in their relationship that raises the prospect of a military conflict.
The United States is dependent upon China in a number of key areas that range from the cheap consumer goods that Chinese and American manufacturing based in China can sell to American consumers. Besides this, is the vitally important role of America’s key foreign creditors such as China, that holds over a $1trillion in U.S. treasury bonds. Foreign creditors help enable the U.S. government to run its public debt to over $22 trillion that helps pay for its huge war machine.
China’s economic problems
Conversely, Chinese manufacturing industry is dependent upon the continuing ability of heavily indebtedU.S. consumers to continue purchasing its products. China’s leaders are also mindful that in key technology areas its industry is heavily dependent upon foreign sources. Major Chinese companies such as ZTE and Huawei and key state enterprises like Petro China are still heavily dependent upon Western technology in certain key areas.
More importantly, China’s leaders are acutely aware that they have to tread carefully in managing its huge debt problems, particularly in the sphere of corporate debt running at 145% of GDP. According to the IMF 15% of bank loans to the corporate sector (Over $1.3 trillion) are “at risk’’ meaning their earnings cannot cover their interest expense. Hence, why the Chinese government is so keen to try and stimulate its slowing economy to help resolve this escalating debt crisis. The One Belt One Road project and the Made In China 2025 projects, that are seen as major threats by the American Empire, are integral parts of trying to boost economic growth.
The U.S. and China will probably come to a trade deal that will resolve some of their short term issues. However, longer term trends suggest any trade deal is unlikely to resolve the economic, technological and military rivalry between the two nations.
U.S. economic problems
Despite the much trumpeted boom in its economy the United States faces a number of structural economic problems that threaten to undermine its superpower status to the advantage of rivals such as China. The economic problems facing the U.S. also illustrate the profound short termism of American capitalism which threaten to intensify the great power rivalry with China.
In 1945 the U.S. was both the chief creditor and the workshop of the world. It was able to dictate the terms of world trade through the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944 to its advantage. The U.S. dollar became the world’s reserve currency which together with fixed exchange rates between all other currencies and the dollar allowed the U.S. to dominate the global economy in a totally unprecedented way.
Fast forward to 2019 the United States has allowed a major portion of its manufacturing industry to be sent offshore to China and other low wage economies. Corporate giants such as Apple produce their iPhones in China and ship them to the U.S. The United States faces increasing attempts by more and more countries, with China leading the way, to bypass the dollars dominance of global trade by deals that allow the purchase of goods and services in their own domestic currency. From the world’s creditor the United States has become a nation drowning in unpayable debts from the $22 trillion in government public debt to the record $13.4 trillion of household debt.
Source: U.S. Federal Reserve
Since the 9/11 attacks the U.S. has thrown off the so called Vietnam syndrome. It has used its military power to engage in naked gun boat diplomacy fighting one regime change war after another in an attempt to reassert its political, economic and strategic dominance over the Middle East.
Instead of investing in its education system, creaking infrastructure, and unbalanced economy the U.S. ruling class, dominated as it is by the demands of finance capital, has degenerated into myopic short termism allowing the pursuit of massive profits by Wall Street and the bloated financial industry at the expense of the rest of society. This had led to huge wealth inequalities in America that threaten the long term stability of its society. The U.S. Federal Reserve, probably the most powerful central bank on the planet, has dedicated itself to propping up financial markets creating a gigantic wealth transfer unprecedented in history.
The Fed’s low interest rate policy along with money printing through it s Q.E. programme has fuelled an orgy of parasitic debt based activity since the 2008 financial crisis. This had led to a merger and acquisition mania (worth over $400 billion in 2018) and stock buybacks worth over $800 billion in 2018 surpassing capex for the first time since 2008.
Despite the stock market correction in the last quarter of 2018 the Fed’s policies, particularly its recent statements that further rate rises and the unwinding of its $4 trillion balance sheet are on hold, have fuelled a speculative frenzy that has boosted U.S. financial markets into making huge gains this year.
It would appear that the financial elite in America have completely lost their heads. Instead of punishing such short termism investors are rewarding companies that put M&A and stock buyback activity ahead of R&D and long term capital investment. The American media and corporate politicians have the temerity to complain about China’ s rapid economic development and have fallen fall back upon sabre rattling threats and imposing tariffs upon Chinese imports.
China catching up with the U.S.
No amount of American trade tariffs or gunboat diplomacy in the South China Sea will prevent China from investing massively in research and development to stimulate innovation in its economy that will threaten American hegemony over the global economy. It is estimated that this yearChina will surpass the U.S. in the amount of money devoted to research and development. China’s R&D spending has increased by an average of 18% a year since 2004 compared to 4% a year for the U.S. which devotes ever greater resources to its bloated military.
America’s military budget for the next fiscal year will be $989 billion which is 4 times larger that of China’s which stands at $228 billion. America’s military budget is larger than the defence budgets of the next 9 countries combined!
Let’s take two examples to illustrate how China’s long term economic strategy is surpassing the U.S. in critical areas. The telecommunications sector is a critical industry for any modern industrial economy. Over the last 3 years China has outspent the U.S. by approximately $24 billion on investments in telecommunications infrastructure. It is planning to spend an additional $400 billion over the next 5 years to win the race to be the first to deploy 5G wireless technology. China has already deployed 350,000 cell sites for 5G whereas the U.S. has only deployed 30,000.
In the key sector of education China is rapidly catching up to the U.S. According to the National Science Foundation China now awards nearly as many doctorates in science and engineering as America. Meanwhile, China produces 22% of the world’s Science and Engineering undergraduates compared to 10% for the U.S. In 2017 American scientists published 409,000 science, medical and technology papers in premier international journals compared to 426,000 for China.
Dr.John Schrock, in an article for University World News, noted in December 2018 that American science is in decline as China’s science leaps forward. Schrock noted that China’s :
“long-term policy and investment in education and people has paid off in accelerating advancements in science.… The US has failed to move ahead in many areas of science, from particle accelerators to astronomy to organismic biology.’’
Geo-political rivalry will intensify
The much touted trade deal, if it comes off, may help to relieve tensions between China and the U.S. on a temporary short term basis. However, no matter how comprehensive the deal it will not resolve the fundamental economic problems between the two nations that are leading to rising geo-political and military tensions.
Despite its own serious problems with a gigantic debt pile China has committed itself to a massive long term investment in its economic development. All the trends suggest that by mid century or even sooner China will have eclipsed the U.S. to become a global leader in advanced technologies that will greatly enhance its economy.
This undermining of American hegemony over the global economy obviously has serious geo-political consequences as the U.S. will not allow this to happen without a struggle. It remains to be seen whether this intensified rivalry remains contained to the economic sphere or whether it may escalate to military warfare. The next global recession, that comes closer every day, will undoubtedly exacerbate U.S.-China relations and may well push military and geo-political tensions to breaking point. After all, warfare and foreign policy are merely a continuation of domestic politics and economics by other means.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Leon Tressell is a UK based historian whose research focuses upon geo-politics and economics.
Last week Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ordered the last of the US diplomats out of Venezuela, saying their presence was a “constraint” on US policy toward the country. The wording seemed intended to convey the idea that the US is about to launch military action to place a Washington-backed, self-appointed politician to the presidency. Was it just bluster, designed to intimidate? Or is the Trump Administration really about to invade another country that has neither attacked nor threatened the United States?
While US Administrations engaged in “regime change” have generally tried to mask their real intentions, this US-backed coup is remarkable for how honest its backers are being. Not long ago the National Security Advisor to the president, John Bolton, openly admitted that getting US companies in control of Venezuelan oil was the Administration’s intent. Trump Administration officials have gone so far as mocking the suffering of Venezuelans when a suspiciously-timed nationwide power failure heightened citizens’ misery.
According to media reports, Vice President Mike Pence is angry with the Venezuela coup leader, Juan Guaido, because he promised the whole operation would be a cake walk – just like the neocons promised us about Iraq. Guaido said hundreds of thousands of protesters would follow him to the Colombian border to “liberate” US aid trucks just over the border, but no one showed up. So Pompeo and the neocons made up a lie that Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro’s thugs burned the aid trucks to prevent the people from getting relief from their suffering. Even the pro-war New York Times finally admitted that the Administration was lying: it was opposition protesters who burned the trucks.
Was the US behind the take-down of Venezuela’s power grid? It would not be the first time the CIA pulled such a move, and US officials are open about the US goal of making life as miserable as possible for average Venezuelans in hopes that they overthrow their government.
Congress has to this point been strongly in favor of President Trump’s “regime change” policy for Venezuela. Sadly, even though our neocon foreign policy of interventionism has proven disastrous – from Iraq to Libya to Syria and elsewhere – both parties in Congress continue to act as if somehow this time they will get it right. I have news for them, they won’t.
Even weak Congressional efforts to remind the president that Congress must approve military action overseas sound like war cries. In Rep. David N. Cicilline’s (D-RI) statement introducing his “Prohibiting Unauthorized Military Action in Venezuela Act” last week, he sounded more hawkish than John Bolton or Elliott Abrams! The statement makes all the arguments in favor of a US military attack on Venezuela and then – wink wink – reminds the president he needs authorization beforehand. As if that’s going to be a hard sell!
So is President Trump about to attack Venezuela? At a recent US House hearing, one of the expert witnesses testified that such an invasion would require between 100,000 and 150,000 US troops, going up against maybe three times that number of Venezuelan troops in a country twice the size of Iraq. With a lot of jungle. All for a “prize” that has nothing to do with US security. If the president makes such a foolish move he might find the current war cheerleaders in the Democrat Party changing their tune rather quickly. Let’s hope Trump changes his tune and returns to his promises of no more regime change wars.
*
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 U.S. Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on Tuesday against Venezuela’s state-run gold mining company Minerven, which is part of the Venezuelan Guayana Corporation (CVG) holding.
As part of the ongoing sanctions and attempts to destabilize the Venezuelan government, the U.S. government announced the new measure that aims to block state mining assets and prohibit U.S citizens from dealing with the company. The decision comes after Uganda said it was investigating its biggest gold refinery for importing Venezuelan gold.
The state-run ferrous metals mining company, and its president, Adrian Antonio Perdomo Mata, were included in the list of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons (SDN), adding to more than half a dozen rounds of sanctions against the Venezuelan people and assets.
“We have a fierce battle against international sanctions that have caused Venezuela to lose at least 20 billion dollars in 2018,” said President Nicolas Maduro back in January 2019 as sanctions intensified.
While the interventionist choke-hold progresses, gold has become a possible lifeline for the Venezuelan economy. President Maduro declared that Venezuela is currently certifying 32 gold fields, adding that “everything suggests the country will be the second biggest gold reserve on the planet.”
However, U.S. officials keep asserting pressure on their British counterparts, as the Bank of England refused in February to return 14 tons of gold owned by the Venezuelan central bank, worth US$550 million. According to RT, Venezuela holds more than US$8 billion in foreign reserves. The amount of Venezuelan gold kept in the Bank of England doubled in recent months, growing from 14 to 31 tons.
Trump: “We can be much tougher if we need to do it”
As the new sanctions rolled out, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro was meeting with Donald Trump, part his first U.S. visit. Most of the discussion in the White House revolved around Venezuela, to which Trump said his administration has yet to impose the “toughest” sanctions.
“We can be much tougher if we need to do it,” said the U.S. president reiterating that all options are on the table regarding possible aggression against the Latin American nation.
El Gobierno de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela expresa su contundente rechazo a las peligrosas declaraciones de los presidentes de Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, y del Brasil, Jair Bolsonaro, el día de hoy martes19 de marzo de 2019. Comunicado Oficial: pic.twitter.com/XuI3fGpWXu
In an official response issued by Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza, the government declared it was “grotesque to see two heads of state with such important international responsibilities justify war without any distension, in a flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter.”
Arreaza added that the Venezuelan government is concerned about the “U.S. warmongering influence over Brazil and the supremacist thesis of Donald Trump over Jair Bolsonaro.” The statement emphasized that Venezuela denounces once again the threats of military intervention before the international community. “No neofascist alliance will succeed in overcoming the independent and sovereign will of the Venezuelan people,” it concludes.
*
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 three-day visit to Washington by the president of Brazil brought together two of the most right-wing figures in the world: Jair Bolsonaro, a former military officer and fervent admirer of the blood-soaked military dictatorship that ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985, and Donald Trump, who has become the pole of attraction for authoritarians and fascists the world over, including the gunman who slaughtered 50 Muslims at two New Zealand mosques last week.
During their joint press conference at the White House Tuesday afternoon, Trump repeated his declaration, delivered to an audience of right-wing Cuban and Venezuelan exiles in Florida, that “The twilight hour of socialism has arrived in our hemisphere.” He emphasized, as he did in his State of the Union speech, that this also involved putting an end to the threat of socialism within the United States itself.
Both Trump and Bolsonaro have made the extirpation of socialism—the political core of fascist movements—the central goal of their governments. At their joint press conference, they railed against socialism only days after the massacre in New Zealand, carried out by Brenton Tarrant. Tarrant posted a manifesto hailing Trump as a “symbol of renewed white identity” and declaring his desire to put his boot on the neck of every “Marxist.”
The mutual embrace of Trump and Bolsonaro at the White House is symbolic of the elevation of far-right parties and cultivation of fascistic forces by capitalist governments and established bourgeois parties all over the world. It underscores the fact that the growth of fascism in Europe, Asia, Latin America and the US is the result not of a groundswell of mass support from below, but rather the sponsorship and encouragement of so-called “democratic” governments that are, in fact, controlled top to bottom by corporate oligarchs.
The global promotion of extreme right politics was embodied by the presence of right-wing ideologue Steve Bannon, a former Goldman Sachs vice president and Navy officer, as a guest of honor at a dinner with Jair Bolsonaro Monday night. Bannon has close ties with Bolsonaro’s son, Eduardo, who is a member of the Brazilian Parliament and a Latin American representative of the political consortium set up by Bannon, known as the Movement, whose aim is to promote extreme right-wing political parties throughout the world. “Some of the Bolsonaro team on the right see themselves as disciples of the Bannon movement and representatives of Bannon for Brazil and Latin America,” one former Trump administration official told McClatchy.
At the press conference, both Jair Bolsonaro and Trump pledged their support to a fascistic litany of “god, family and nation,” as Trump put it. Bolsonaro declared,
“Brazil and the United States stand side-by-side in their efforts to share liberties and respect to traditional and family lifestyles, respect to God, our creator, against the gender ideology of the politically correct attitudes, and fake news.”
Both presidents threatened the use of military force against Venezuela, demonizing President Nicolas Maduro as a socialist dictator. (He heads a capitalist regime, but one whose foreign policy tilts toward China and Russia rather than US imperialism).
Trump reiterated the mantra that “all options are on the table” against Venezuela. Bolsonaro was asked if he would permit US soldiers to use Brazilian soil as a base for military operations against Venezuela. Rather than dismissing that prospect as a violation of both Brazilian and Venezuelan sovereignty, he declined to answer, citing the need for maintaining operational secrecy and the element of surprise.
One of the bilateral agreements that Trump and Bolsonaro signed would allow the United States to use Brazil’s Alcantara Aerospace Launch Base for its satellites. Brazil also announced an end to visa requirements for US visitors. Both actions provide avenues for the integration of Brazil into Pentagon operations, particularly drone-missile warfare and the deployment of special operations forces.
Before visiting the White House, Bolsonaro made an unannounced visit to the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Virginia, an extraordinary move for the president of a country that was subjected to 21 years of unrestrained torture and murder by a military dictatorship installed in a CIA-backed coup.
The dire implications for the working class of the global rise of the far right are indicated by Bolsonaro’s glorification of the Brazilian military dictatorship. Trump hailed the “shared values” between his government and that of a former military officer who praises a regime that jailed, tortured and murdered tens of thousands of workers and students. Twenty years ago, Bolsonaro told an interviewer that the Brazilian Congress should be shut down and that the country could be changed only by a civil war that completed “the job that the military regime didn’t do, killing 30,000 people.”
The capitalist ruling classes are turning once again to dictatorship and fascism in response to the intensification of the world economic crisis, the disintegration of the postwar international order and growth of trade war and geostrategic conflicts, and, above all, the resurgence of the class struggle on a world scale. Petrified by the prospect of mass working-class opposition and the growth of anti-capitalist and socialist sentiment, they are reviving all of the ideological and political filth of the 20th century, including racism, anti-Semitism and the politics of “blood and soil.” They are actively recruiting fascists and racists and integrating them into the military/police agencies of the state, to be unleashed against an insurgent working class.
These developments show that the alternatives are not socialism or reformism, but socialism or barbarism—that is, the descent into fascism and world war.
It would be politically criminal to underestimate the danger to the working class represented by the growth of far-right and fascist movements and the elevation of far-right parties and politicians into government—as is already the case in Germany, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Austria, Brazil and other countries. To defeat this danger, it is above all necessary to learn the lessons of history.
The entire history of the 20th century demonstrates that fascism and war cannot by prevented by appeals to the ruling class or “popular front”-style politics, which subordinates the working class to supposed “progressive” sections of the bourgeoisie. The only way to stop fascism and prevent imperialist war is to mobilize the working class on an international scale for the overthrow of capitalism.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Would you pick as Conservative Party leader an ex-cabinet minister who was forced to resign from the Government because of her alleged disloyalty in November 2017, just less than 18 months ago? An ex-minister who reportedly tried to arrange for British tax monies to be covertly sent to Netanyahu’s IDF, in order to help fund Israel’s continued illegal occupation of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and East Jerusalem in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 and the stated policy of the British government.
Would you allow a nuclear-weaponised state in the Middle East to arrange for one of its lobbyists to become leader of a major British political Party and interim Prime Minister of the United Kingdom! The mind boggles at the thought!
She would presumably invite the Israeli Prime Minister, (currently facing serious corruption charges), to officially visit Downing Street and be given the opportunity to address the House of Commons on Israeli government plans to illegally annex the Occupied Territories thereby making millions of Palestinian Arabs stateless, and further destabilising the entire region.
She would probably appoint Boris Johnson, the bumbling court- jester, as her sidekick and Chancellor notwithstanding his former abject failure in Cabinet.
The safest course of action, without doubt, would be for the Parliamentary Conservative Party to ensure that any of its MPs – other than ex- ministers Patel, Fox or Johnson – would become its interim leader.
The British people are certainly not proposing to leave the EU merely to become a poodle for Team Trump and family. Can you imagine the nightmare of Trump, Netanyahu, Johnson & Patel? God help us!
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Priti Patel speaking at a fringe event organized by Brexit Central, during the Conservative Party annual conference. Source: Empics Entertainment
“Our research has shown for the first time the role that conspiracy theories can play in determining an individual’s attitude to everyday crime. It demonstrates that people subscribing to the view that others have conspired might be more inclined toward unethical actions.” – Professor Karen Douglas, University of Kent press release for the research, entitled “Belief in Conspiracy Theories and Intentions to Engage in Everyday Crime,” in the British Journal of Social Psychology
Let me be perfectly clear from the outset.
I am not referring to the conspiracy theories of George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Donald Trump and other such luminaries concerning events such as the attack of September 11, 2011, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the ongoing war on terror, Julian Assange’s alleged ties to Russia, etc. These people’s conspiracy theories have nothing to do with petty crime, for their handiwork is grand indeed. They are “big people”. In any case, I don’t know what small stuff they might be up to when not killing so many people all around the world.
I got to thinking about my petty crimes after reading a profound article in The New York Posthow the aforementioned Professor Douglas and her comrades at two English research universities have proven – “backed up by science” as the Post’s Rob Bailey-Milado says – that “little people” like me who have concluded that the U.S. national security state conspired to kill President Kennedy, to take one example, are inclined to take to the dark side and pilfer M&Ms from the candy counter and stuff like that.
“Sure,” Bailey-Milado writes in his elegant style, “we’ve been saying this about our wack-job uncle for years.” Such a nut case might be a “9/11 denier” or believe “the ancient pyramids were built by aliens” or “myths surrounding the Mueller report to the chilling ‘secret’ behind Disney’s ‘Frozen’.”
As we all know, all these nutty beliefs are of equal value and validity, and to even harbor the thought that Bailey-Milado might have the CIA’s 1967 secret Dispatch – Doc 1035-960, showing how to counter and discredit the claims of conspiracy theorists – pinned over his desk or in his mind is to risk further accusations of being wacked-out and in need of examining one’s proclivity toward everyday crimes. So I won’t go there. I’m guilty enough.
So bless me, folks, for I have sinned. Let me confess.
Last week, after reading the Post article and the study itself, I found myself in my local co-op market. You might wonder where I had been looking for myself when I found myself there, staring into bins of dried fruit, but let’s just say I had been around. When you’re lost and wacked out, you never know where you are or why you believe what you believe.
I was trying to decide whether to get the dried pineapple, mango, or figs. It was a tough choice, sort of like staring at forty different tubes of toothpaste on the store shelf and wondering which to buy or if the one advertised as specially for women would work for a man since men must have different teeth. The comparison is not exactly apt, I guess, for you can’t test the toothpastes there, but the fruit looked so edible. So, when no one was looking, I first tried the pineapple, then the mango, and finally the figs. I thought I saw the store manager see me when I took the fig because I was so enjoying the fruits of my crime that I let my guard down.
When I was leaving the store, I had the odd thought that the cop car in the parking lot was there for me, so I turned and went out via the sidewalk, sighing in relief as I did. As I was walking home, I thought of my narrow escape and the brilliance of the study that connected my conspiratorial thinking to my criminal activity with the fruit. I also couldn’t help thinking how the figs had reminded me of my latest conspiracy theory, but one supported by sources as confidential as those referenced by The New York Times or The Washington Post. In addition, like those devotees of truth and confidentiality, I will never reveal my sources.
Legend has it that Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity while sitting in a garden, watching apples fall perpendicularly to the ground. However, this is not true. I have learned from my confidential sources that his nickname was Isaac “Fig” Newton and that those who claim the Fig Newton cookie was named after Newton, Massachusetts are involved in a great cover-up.
My sources tell me that when Isaac was a child, he was so fond of figs that his mother had to warn him against eating too many, for as you probably know, figs, like prunes, are filled with fiber and possess a laxative quality. Isaac was defecating so much and so often that his mother was alarmed. But a mother’s panic at a child’s toilet habits can be a source of insight years later.
So it was that years later it was Isaac’s experience on the potty that gave him his great insight into gravity. Reflecting back on his childhood, he realized that shit always went down, never up (there were no electric fans in those days, so no one would say that it went up when “shit hit the fan”). He remembered his mother’s loving words when as a boy he would tell his mom he had to “take a shit,” she would always remind him that it was always better to give than take, so he should “give a shit.”
Also, it was Isaac’s chore to take the family potty out behind the house where it was emptied down into a deep hole about six feet under. Thus, the adult Isaac came to call his discovery gravity, after the grave. He scientifically proved what everyone already knew: that everything and everyone goes down, eventually. Not the most uplifting news, I grant it, but I have sources for that also.
So I readily admit I am guilty of this inclination toward low-level “crime,” as Douglas and her colleagues explicate so brilliantly. No doubt, it is connected to my conspiratorial mindset. I hope that much is clear. Sometimes I just can’t resist the forbidden fruit. Although not an apple, it seems to give me insight into the knowledge of good and evil.
For some reason, I suspect Douglas will not be studying the elite criminals who conspire to invade countries, kill millions, and blame it on others. Those are crimes against humanity, and are beyond the purview of research aimed at showing how sick everyday people are who suspect that their leaders are big-time criminals.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Tulsi Gabbard visited the San Francisco Bay Area last weekend. The 3 term Congresswoman from Hawaii is 37 years old and ethnically diverse. Remarkably, she has 15 years military experience in the US Army and National Guard as well as substantial political experience. She was elected to the Hawaii State Assembly at age 21.
Tulsi Gabbard supports progressive domestic policy issues including criminal justice reform, healthcare-for-all, national and international steps to protect the environment. She has a high approval rating on gay issues.
What makes Gabbard really distinctive is her emphasis and approach to US foreign policy. While other candidates largely avoid the subject, Tulsi Gabbard says the issue is “central” to all other issues. She says we need to change the policy of “regime change wars” and “new cold war” with Russia and China. She advocates cooperation instead of conflict.
Gabbard said “We are at a greater risk of nuclear catastrophe than ever before in history.” She described the scare of an incoming nuclear missile attack which occurred in Hawaii last year. Even though the alert turned out to be false, the threat is real. “It should alarm every one of us here that leaders in Washington are either not paying attention, they don’t know, or they don’t care. This should alarm every one of us because that means not only are we not addressing this threat, but the actions that leaders in Washington are taking are actually making it worse.”
Tulsi Gabbard says that as a soldier in a medical unit she has seen the “costs of war” first hand. Thousands of US soldiers never made it home alive. Many others suffer visible and invisible wounds of war. Where the US has intervened or invaded, the people are worse off not better. The “costs of war” are trillions of dollars which should be spent at home.
Gabbard says the bad policies are the result of ‘self-serving politicians, greedy corporations and special interests.” She calls out the military industrial complex and decries the “powerful forces that have ruled over both parties in Washington for far too long.”
No wonder there is so much misinformation and attacks on Gabbard. She is challenging the core policy of US exceptionalism and identifying who benefits and “who pays the price” for those policies.
Her 35 minute presentation at the University of San Francisco can be viewed here. Following is the text of her speech followed by her response to questions regarding Bernie Sanders, her religion and age.
***
Tulsi Gabbard Speaks
University of San Francisco / 16 March 2019
It’s tough sometimes when we see what is happening in our country. There are a lot of challenges that we’re facing and it’s heartbreaking to see in so many different ways how we are being torn apart as people, how our country is being divided, how that vision that our founders had for us as a country, as a united country with a government of, by and for the people has been lost. It’s heartbreaking to see how people are suffering.
Our family, our friends, our neighbors are dealing with things that we shouldn’t have to be dealing with in this country. We’re in a place where we have a government that is not of the people, by the people and for the people, but rather a government that is controlled and influenced by self serving politicians, greedy corporations and those special interests who can afford to buy their seat at the table as laws are being made.
Who pays the price? We do. Who suffers as a result? We do. Who is left behind? We are.
The place that we are in as a country right now, is exactly counter to the vision that our founders had for this great country: where we have leaders elected by the people, who are of the people and for the people and whose sole interest and focus is on serving the interests of the people of this country, putting the well-being of our people, our planet, and our future at the forefront of those decisions that are being made. Instead, what we see is what’s happening in Washington where we have people who live in a bubble that is so disconnected from the reality that we are living in our lives across this country. And this corruption of spirit that’s casting a dark shadow over us is what we must defeat. There’s only one way to do that. And to me, this is why we’re gathered here today because we care. We care for each other. We care for our country, we care for our planet and our future. We want to do something about it, right?
Tulsi Gabbard visited the Bay Area this morning and hosted a town hall at San Francisco University (Source: KITV Channel 4)
YOU are why I am hopeful because gathering together in this spirit of – what we in Hawaii call Aloha – is truly the answer of how we overcome the challenges that we face. Now, a lot of people know Aloha is a word that means hello or goodbye, right? Because this is how we greet each other in Hawaii. But there’s a reason why we start our conversations and our gatherings with this word Aloha because there is so much power in what it actually means. When we greet each other with Aloha and we gather in the spirit of Aloha, what we’re really saying is I love you, I care for you, I respect you, and I recognize that we are all brothers and sisters, we’re all children of God regardless of where we come from or the color of our skin, who we love, how much money we make or don’t make, what kind of education we have.
All of those things that are so often used to divide us, whether it’s by politicians or corporations or people in positions of power who pit one group of us against the other for their own gain, who tear us apart, raising fear and suspicions and fomenting bigotry between us for their own gain, without any care for the, the pain and the harm and the impact that it has on all of us. This Aloha spirit is what has the power to defeat that darkness with love and care for each other and that love for our country. It is this spirit of Aloha that unites us, that reminds us and inspires us about how we can build that path forward, that path that leads to a future that is bright, that is peaceful, that is prosperous, that provides that opportunity and justice and equality for every single one of us.
So we look throughout history, especially during those darkest moments and we see how we have found our way through. It has always been when we, the people, stand up and stand together, when we speak as one for what is right and what is just and for each other. And it is this time that we are in now that calls upon us to once again rise up and stand together knowing that when we do that, when we stand together, motivated by this care for each other, this love for our country, there is no obstacle that we cannot overcome.
The obstacles seem great and this is why sometimes it’s easy to feel disheartened and frustrated and to say how do we move forward? How can we ever overcome? Just a couple of weekends ago in the days leading up to the anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, I had a chance to go and walk on a civil rights pilgrimage led by congressman John Lewis, who was one of the youngest leaders of the civil rights movement at that time. And it was an incredible experience to hear directly from him as we walked through those steps where he and Dr. King and so many others were beaten and bloodied. They were called every name in the book. They were threatened, their very lives on the line as they worked for justice. They worked for equality. They worked for the right to vote to make sure that their voices were heard and it was heart wrenching to hear from him about what they went through. It was inspiring because of how they responded to that hatred and that darkness, how they responded to that physical violence that they endured, they did not respond to that hate with hate. As Dr. King said, they knew that darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that.
Their example and those wise words are what inspires us today. They show how we can bring about the real change that we need to see. How we can pass legislation like Medicare For All to make sure every single person has health-care.
How we can bring about real criminal justice reform.
How we can pass legislation that I’ve introduced to end the federal prohibition on marijuana. That will have an incredible impact on this country. In the press conference that we held as we were introducing this legislation, which is the only bipartisan piece of legislation to end the federal prohibition on marijuana in Congress, we had a few people there who shared their stories. We had small business owners and people who were working on providing medical marijuana to those who need it. We had researchers who are gathering evidence and data to say this is important to help impact people’s lives. We had people who are helping those who are fighting opioid addiction. We’re seeing every day how in places where medical marijuana is legal, opioid addiction is dropping, opioid related deaths are decreasing, and people who are going through very difficult problems are finally finding help.
We also had a guy named Harry from Virginia who was there who shared his own story about how when he was in college about 10 years ago, studying computer science, furthering himself and seeking better opportunities. He was convicted of marijuana possession and thrown into prison for 10 years: two mandatory minimum sentences of five years each. This was for marijuana possession. He talked about how his cellmate was convicted of murder and he got out of prison before Harry did.
The injustice that exists within our country because of the failed war on drugs and our broken criminal justice system has to end. We cannot have another generation of people whose lives are ruined in this failed war on drugs.
You know, there are a lot of different issues that we need to address. I’ve mentioned a few of them. Dealing with the climate crisis that we’re facing in this country and in the world is an urgent one that we all must stand up to demand real change to address. We’ve been talking about this issue for a while. We’ve been talking about how our policies and and the way that we live has a negative impact on our environment. But we have not yet seen that kind of bold action and recognition from our leaders. That has to change. We also have to recognize how important it is that even as we take aggressive action to address this climate crisis in this country, that alone will not be enough. This is a problem that is facing our planet. It is facing every country in this world and in order to tackle it, it will require us to build relationships based on cooperation, not conflict with other countries in the world and work together to address this crisis.
Things like re-entering the Paris accords is a necessary and important step, but that alone will not be enough.
Retracting from the world and treating other countries in this zero sum mentality where you’re either with us or against us, with this approach of conflict rather than cooperation must end.
I want to close by talking about an issue that is central to all of these others that are pressing and urgent and impact our everyday lives and that is the issue of the cost of war. I am a major in the army national guard, serving now for almost 15 years, deployed twice to the Middle East where I served in a medical unit on that first deployment to Iraq in 2005. I saw firsthand every day the high human cost of war and who pays the price. I saw it in friends of mine who were killed in combat, who never made that trip home with us. I see it in my brothers and sisters, our veterans who continue to pay the price after coming home, dealing with wounds both visible and invisible, the lack of quality care and benefits provided to them to help them when they come home. The price for these wars that people don’t often recognize is the one that every single one of us pays. The fact that we are spending trillions of dollars on wasteful regime change wars and this new cold war between the United States and nuclear armed countries like Russia and China. Tensions continue to increase and a nuclear arms race has been been kicked off by actions like the one President Trump took recently by withdrawing from this historic INF treaty negotiated between Reagan and Gorbachev.
These actions have put us as a country and the world in a position where we are at a greater risk of nuclear catastrophe than ever before in history. Now, what’s interesting is that, as I share this information and talk about these issues with leaders in Washington, they say “Really? Really? More than the Cuban missile crisis? More than the Cold War with the Soviet Union?” . Yes, the answer is yes. This is the reality of the existential threat we’re facing today. And it should alarm every one of us here that leaders in Washington are either not paying attention, they don’t know, or they don’t care. This should alarm every one of us because that means not only are we not addressing this threat, but the actions that leaders in Washington are taking are actually making it worse.
I want to get to why this issue is important to every one of us. We in Hawaii had a huge wake-up call about a year ago when there was a text alert that went out to over a million phones all across our state that said, “Missile incoming. Seek shelter immediately. This is not a drill.” I want to let that sink in for a second. We all have phones in our pockets. Imagine that on a Saturday morning like today, people in Hawaii, were just waking up, maybe thinking about going to the beach or going to hang out with friends , when this message came across their phones. Think about what you would do and how you would feel, who you would think about, where you would go if you got that message. As we’re sitting here today, think about knowing there are just minutes to live.
It was terrifying.
People thought “Where can I take my family? Where can I find shelter? Where can we be safe?” A father was trying to figure out which of his children he would spend the last minutes of his life with. Another father lowered his little girl down a manhole thinking that may be the only place where she could be safe.
That alert turned out to be false, but the reason why we reacted the way that we did is because this threat is real. And it’s important for us to recognize this. Not because we should sit here and be afraid and think we’re doomed, but because we have to recognize the power lies in our hands to make sure this is not our future.
Because it doesn’t have to be this way. We have the power and we must take action to change direction, to bend this arc away from war and towards peace, to make sure that our foreign policy is one that actually serves the interests of our people, that secures our country and moves us closer to peace rather than nuclear catastrophe and war.
This is why I’m running for president. Because none of you should have to go through what we went through in Hawaii. No family in this country should have to go through what our families went through in Hawaii. Not a single person in this country should have to live at any point in the day thinking about what would I do if I got that message?
We must change our foreign policy, the way we are relating to different countries and build those relationships based on cooperation, not conflict and work towards this future where we are getting rid of nuclear weapons rather than building more of them.
To build this future we need to take those trillions of dollars being spent on wasteful regime change wars and a nuclear arms race. We need to take those dollars and bring them to serve the needs of people here at home, to make sure that we have health-care for everyone, to make sure our kids have a great education and a great future, to invest in a green, renewable energy based economy that serves us today and for generations to come, to make sure that we are investing in the right kind of infrastructure and sustainable agriculture.
There are so many things that we need to do right now to invest in a bright future for every single American. In order to do that, we have to change the course we are on. We need to take those dollars wasted on regime change wars and a nuclear arms race in a new cold war. We need to place our priorities put those dollars where they need to be, which is right here on our people, on our families and on our future.
To do that requires strong leadership, leadership and all of us standing together, standing up against those in the military industrial complex and those who benefit and continue to push for these regime change wars and this nuclear arms race. The only thing that will overcome those powerful forces that have ruled over both parties in Washington for far too long are us. We, the people are the only ones who have the power to make this change.
No one else is going to do it for us,
We cannot forget or underestimate the power that we have in our own hands and we cannot take lightly the threats that we face in the urgent need for us to stand up, speak out, and make sure that our voices are heard now. Not tomorrow, not next year, not in five years or 10 years. Now our future is in our hands. I ask for your support.
I ask you to stand with me so that together we can take on those challenge and shape a bright future for every single one of us.
***
In the Q & A following the speech, one person asked about Bernie Sanders and her religion. Her response was as follows:
“Bernie remains a good friend and I think he brings such an important voice to this country and the conversations that we’re having.
My decision to run for president was really based on the recognition that the most important job that a president has is as commander in chief. So the experiences that I have in serving as a soldier for almost 15 years, of being deployed to the Middle East and seeing and experiencing firsthand the cost of war and the consequences of the failed policies of this country directly firsthand [are crucial]. I am not someone who is going to go into the White House and sit back and rely on the foreign policy establishment in Washington to tell me what to do. I don’t have to.
That is what differentiates me from every other candidate who’s running for president right now. Because I’m walking in on day one with that experience both as a soldier directly, but also as a member of Congress who served on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees for years, who has engaged with leaders of other countries who has held the feet to the fire of people like the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I’m not intimidated by the stars that someone wears on their shoulders.
I am not intimidated by the military industrial complex and what they are fishing for. I’m not running for president to be president. I’m running for president to be able to bring about this sea change in our foreign policy that is so necessary for us and for the world.
Quickly regarding the last question, I’m a practicing Hindu. I practice Bhakti Yoga and Karma Yoga. I dedicate my life to do my best every day, to be of service to God and to be of service to others. That pretty much sums up my spiritual foundation and my motivation throughout my life.
Another person asked how her young age as potentially the youngest president in US history and how she would cater to the needs of young people. She responded as follows:
What matters most to what I bring to the White House and the presidency is the experience and perspective. In 2020 millennials will be the largest demographic. Millennials will actually be that majority to determine what kind of future we want for ourselves.
To me this is not about catering, that I’m going to cater to quote unquote young people or this group or that group. The message that I shared with you today about why I’m running and the kind of change that I seek to bring about is the kind of change that serves every person in this country, not just one group or another, not one age or another, one race or another, one religion or another. This is about every single one of us.
The key to that, rather than pandering to one group or another, the kind of change we’re talking about is centered around putting people first, putting people ahead of profits, putting people ahead of politics, putting people ahead of the powerful, really working and centering our policies around how does this best serve the people of this country and our planet? That’s my goal. That’s my objective.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. He can be contacted at [email protected]
Comments Off on Tulsi Gabbard Comes to San Francisco: “I am Running for President to Bring About this Sea Change in Our Foreign Policy, … for Us and for the World.”
New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, doesn’t know why someone would want to shoot dead 49 Muslims in her country. “There is no place in New Zealand, for such acts of extreme and unprecedented violence”, she said, in “an emotional” press conference, last Friday. She’s wrong. There is a place in New Zealand for such acts. And her foreign policy sanctions them.
In a cheerful press conference, in Brussels, on January 25, this year, Ardern reaffirmed New Zealand’s “close partnership” with NATO. Standing alongside NATO’s Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, Ardern stated that New Zealand “sought to play its role and part [alongside NATO] in the defense of values and norms, we hold dear”. These values include, she added, “democracy, human rights, vital freedoms” and a “rules based order”. She forgot to mention another key norm, which she and her NATO partners embrace: killing Muslims in large numbers.
According to the website of the New Zealand Army:
“the NZDF [New Zealand Defense Forces] has contributed to international military efforts in Afghanistan since 2001.”
And today, among other things, the NZDF contributes “two headquarters staff officers supporting NATO’s Resolute Support mission”.
In Iraq, today, there are “NZDF staff officers working at the headquarters of the Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve In Baghdad”. And their job is to “coordinate military efforts in Iraq and Syria”.
NZDF “officers are [also] stationed in headquarters in Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain”. The headquarters of what? The website doesn’t specify, but we can surmise that these command centers are controlled by NATO forces.
And in the Arabian Gulf and around the Horn of Africa “NZDF personnel are also embarked on UK and Australian Navy ships”.
Meanwhile in Mali, “a senior NZDF officer [recently] assumed the role of Chief Military Intelligence Officer (U2)” in the foreign force that is currently occupying that country.
And the icing on this poisonous NZDF cake, is the fact that:
“a NZDF National Planning Element and operational support has been based at the United States Central Command in Florida since 2003. They perform liaison and planning functions.”
In short: New Zealand, today, is making war throughout the Muslim world. Jacinda Ardern, of course, doesn’t say this. She and her partner, Jens Stoltenberg, prefer the words: “peace and security”, “rules based order”, “mutual goals”, “globalization” and even “human rights”.
The American led “War on Terror”, which New Zealand has clearly signed up for, is guilty of genocide within the Muslim world. Since 2001, this war of aggression has mercilessly ripped apart Afghanistan and Iraq. And has branched out, with equal viciousness, into Libya, Syria and Yemen. The Muslim blood that has been spilt in these countries, since 2001, is partly on the hands of New Zealand.
Last Friday’s horrible killing of Muslims in Christchurch, represent in microcosm the “war on terror”, which has been waged by New Zealand and its partners throughout the Middle East and North Africa, since 2001.
After watching the Christchurch killings on Facebook and YouTube, one can only compare them to the infamous July 12, 2007 killings in Baghdad, which Chelsea Manning and Wikileaks revealed to the world in 2010. The cold blooded killer in Christchurch may as well have been the pilot of the US helicopter gunship. He may as well have been a member of New Zealand’s special forces.
New Zealand’s Prime Minister is ignorant, when she says that the Christchurch killers “are not us”. An examination of her foreign policy, reveals that New Zealand has signed up precisely for the madness we witnessed on the streets of Christchurch last week. Embedded in New Zealand’s global posture – whether Ardern is aware of it or not – is Islamophobia.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Aidan O’Brien is a hospital worker in Dublin, Ireland.
A censorious and censoring attitude has engulfed responses to the mental airings of the Christchurch shooter. Material in connection with Brenton Tarrant, the alleged gunman behind the killing of 50 individuals at two mosques in New Zealand, is drying up; his manifesto, for one, is being disaggregated and spread through multiple forms, removed from their various parts with blunt razors. Doing so does a disservice to any arguments that might be mounted against him, but having a debate is not what this is generally about.
Arguments on banning the incendiary and dangerous are easily mounted against a range of publications. The smutty supposedly corrupt public morals; the revolutionary supposedly give citizens strange and cocksure ideas about overthrowing the order of things. Then there are just the downright bizarre and adventurous, incapable of classification, but deemed dangerous for not falling into any clear category. Certitude is fundamentally important for the rule-directed censor and paper shuffling bureaucrat.
One example stands out, a testament to the failure of such efforts and the misunderstandings and distortions that follow. Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, as a stellar case, was banned in Germany after the Second World War. In January 2016, it was republished on the expiry of copyright held by the Bavarian government. As Steven Luckert remarked in The Atlantic at the time, “the history of the book, and of Hitler’s words more generally, demonstrates that there’s no clear-cut relationship between banning speech and halting the spread of ideas.” The Nazi party did not disappear in the aftermath of the ban; nor could it be said that his ideas had captivated whole states and their governments, despite being accessible.
The book, deemed to be an insight into the darkened corridors of Hitler’s racial and biologically charged mind, was not initially seen as off limits in the war of ideas; even as the United States was doing battle against Nazi Germany, advocates for understanding the mental baggage of Hitler was sought rather than dismissed. Houghton Mifflin made it a patriotic duty for Americans to familiarise themselves with the tenets of the text.
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was also keen that those battling Germany have a sense of what they were up against. As he noted in his history of the Second World War, “There was no book which deserved more careful study from the rulers, political and military, of the Allied Powers.” All the elements were there, from “the programme of German insurrection” to establishing “the rightful position of Germany at the summit of the world.”
With Tarrant, the push to restrict discussion and siphon off any serious mention is well underway. The Great Replacement has become scarcer on the internet, having been removed from numerous sites and scoured off digital domains. White House counselor Kellyanne Conway insists that the document be studied and read “in its entirety.” Her reasons, explained in a Monday morning interview with Fox & Friends, are valid enough; she wants to argue that Tarrant is not merely a white nationalist warrior, but as much a radical in other contexts. Yes, he mentions President Donald Trump “and there it is, one time. But he also said he aligns closely with the ideology of China. He said he’s not a conservative, he’s not a Nazi, I think her referred to himself as an eco-naturalist or an eco-fascist.” Such are the muddying details of completeness.
The suggestion prompted scorn and outrage from the media cognoscenti. Aaron Rupar called it “highly irresponsible.” Joan Donovan of Harvard’s Technology and Social Change Research Project, demonstrating the enlightened disposition one has come to expect from boxed squirrel scholars, demanded a curb to its reach. “It is loaded with keywords that lead down far-right rabbit holes. Do not repost.” Tech writer for The New York Times Kevin Roose was decidedly paternalistic, issuing a hazard warning to any would-be reader: “be careful with the NZ shooter’s apparent manifesto. It’s thick with irony and meta-text and very easy to misinterpret if you’re not steeped in this stuff all the time (and even if you are).” Like the Catholic Church of old, it has been left to a priestly cast of read, steeped-in-the-stuff interpreters to give the highlights, carefully chosen, for public consumption. No rabbit holes, meta-text, or irony for the unfortunate plebeian readership.
The mechanism by which this censorship is being engineered is questionable from ethical, evidentiary and epistemological contexts. The copy-cat syndrome has roared to the fore as real and influencing, and to that end, justifying. Be wary of social contagion in the aftermath of a mass killing, we are told.
In 2015, a multi-authored study in PloS ONE claimed to find “significant evidence that mass killings involving firearms are incented by similar events in the immediate past.” There was “significant evidence of contagion in school shootings.” The authors suggested that an increased risk of mass killings and school shootings in a 13-day period following previous incidents. Such perspectives on contagion have been echoed in a range of publications which insist on not publishing names or photographs of mass shooters.
Adam Lankford and Sara Tomek revisited the theme in studying mass killings in the United States between 2006 and 2013 in the journal Suicide and Life-Threatening Behaviour. They noted the absence of relevant empirical studies on the subject, and previous contradictory findings. The authors suggested that contagion requires transmission. “The social contagion thesis requires that the imitative mass killer be at least indirectly exposed to the model killer’s behaviour.”
On examining their gathered data, Lankford and Tomek confidently asserted that their study raised “significant questions about previous findings implying a short-term social contagion effect from mass killings.” No “statistically significant evidence of contagion” was detectable within the 14-day time period. Ever careful to cover their tracks with heavy padding, they also issue a cautionary note; “that longer term contagion or copycat effects may pose a significant threat to society.”
The banning complex is hard to resist. After catastrophe, material can find itself onto forbidden lists. Authorities, fearing mayhem, are the first to identify such dangers in slipshod fashion. Uncertain and unverifiable contagion measures are considered. But keeping such material off the radar will not advance the discussion of nationalism of a certain pedigree and the source of its inspiration. If white nationalism be the problem, then call it out. Examine it. Consider remedies. Tarrant’s The Great Replacement, like Hitler’s Mein Kampf before it, should be studied for its implications and understandings rather than avoided as a viral inducement for further violence. The censor, in attitude, practice and assumption, remains as great a danger to society as any dangerous text ever could be.
*
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]
Facing China’s irresistible rise all across the chessboard, and under relentless US pressure, the not exactly democratic EU leadership is on a backbreaking exercise to position itself between a geopolitical/geoeconomic rock and a hard place.
The 28-member EU holds a crucial meeting next week in Brussels where it may adopt a 10-point action plan detailing, in a thesis, the terms of an equitable economic relationship with China going forward.
This will happen as Chinese President Xi Jinping visits Italy and then France – ahead of the very important, annual China-EU summit in Brussels on April 9, to be co-chaired by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang.
That’s the crucial context under which the European Commission (EC) has recommended what it describes as 10 concrete “actions” to the EU Heads of State for their debate at the European Council in March 21 and 22.
The full report, EU-China – A Strategic Outlook, is here.
The EC shows how in 2017 – the latest available figures – the EU was “China’s largest partner with a share of 13% of imports of goods in China and a share of 16% of exports of goods from China.” At the same time, the EC stresses that China is an “economic competitor” and “a systemic rival promoting alternative models of governance.”
Yet the EC’s “contribution” to the European Council debate next week is far from confrontational. It is a balancing act couched in Eurocratic terminology attempting to shape common “resolve” among the 28 member-states.
Predictable real problem
Coming from the EC/EU, support for “effective multilateralism with the United Nations at its core” is the norm – with China fully integrated.
Beijing is praised for its support for the Iran nuclear deal, its role in the denuclearization of North Korea, its upcoming role in the peace process in Afghanistan and tackling the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar. The real problem, predictably, is China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea.
Virtually no one apart from Brussels Eurocrats knows about the existence of an “EU Strategy on Connecting Europe and Asia.” That’s one of those joint communiqués that no one reads, issued late last year, “enabling the Union to seek synergies between the EU and third countries, including China, in transport, energy and digital connectivity, on the basis of international norms and standards.”
Curiously, in the EC report, there’s no mention whatsoever of the New Silk Road, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – which happens to be China’s synergy masterplan for the whole of Eurasia. We could define it as Globalization 3.0.
On the other hand, Made in China 2025 is duly referenced – and not demonized, Trump administration-style.
From the EU perspective, the key problem remains “lack of reciprocal market access.” The EU wants greater access for European companies, less Chinese subsidies for Chinese companies and curtailment of technology transfer from European firms to their state-owned joint venture partners in China.
All this should be part of a deal on investment rules to be clinched by 2020.
Action 9 in the EC report is quite revealing:
“To safeguard against potential serious security implications for critical digital infrastructure, a common EU approach to the security of 5G networks is needed.” To deal with it, the EC will issue – what else – another “recommendation.”
A hefty degree of Eurocratic puzzlement seems to be in the cards; one cannot disassociate BRI from Made in China, 5G and Huawei technology; it’s all part of the same package. Yet the EU is under heavy pressure from Washington to ban Huawei and forget about joining BRI, even as nearly 20 EU member-states are already linked or interested in linking to BRI, and a majority are also interested in Chinese 5G technology.
Brussels diplomats confirmed to Asia Times that the EC report was basically authored by Berlin and Paris. And yes, they had to deal with heavy Washington pressure.
The report harbors a subtle, inbuilt element of “Chinese threat” – perhaps not as overtly as in a Pentagon report. This stance is how the Franco-German alliance believes it may influence “recalcitrants” such as the 16+1 group of Central and Eastern European nations doing business with China, as well as soon to be BRI-linked Italy.
Yet that’s already a done deal – as I detailed in the case of Italy.
‘Existential threat’
Beijing is accomplishing, little by little, something that is unbearable for the Beltway; extending its influence not only inside the EU but inside the NATO space.
The US Deep State may have lumped BRI – along with Made in China 2025 and Huawei’s 5G – as part of an “existential threat”; but that’s not the case for most EU latitudes, from Greece and Portugal to German industrialists and the new Lega/Five Stars administration in Rome.
Brussels very well knows that Washington will punish any “ally” who gets too close to Beijing. It’s never enough to be reminded that the list of economic “threats” to the US features, in that order, China, Russia and Germany. And Italy is now caught in the crossfire – because it is committed to good economic relations with both China and Russia.
Rome has already sent a clear message to Brussels; beyond any EU common “resolve” facing China, what matters is the Italian national economic interest in, for instance, linking the ports of Venice, Trieste and Genoa to the New Silk Road. Alarmed Atlanticists are essentially warning that Italians cannot cross a red line; they need to ask permission to act independently. That’s not going to happen – whatever the EC decides to “recommend.”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
From Malaysia to the Argentina, peoples movements and organizations mobilized on Saturday March 16, to express their solidarity with Venezuela amid one of the most brutal attacks on the country by the US and its allies
***
This weekend, movements and organizations from across the world mobilized with the goal of showing to the United States and their lackeys that the people of the world stand with Venezuela and its democratically elected President Nicolás Maduro and are completely against the possibility of a military intervention in the South American country. Mobilizations and activities were held in front of US embassies and consulates; in front of symbols of US capital; and also in front of embassies and consulates of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
The call for the mobilization came out of the International Peoples’ Assembly in Solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution and Against Imperialism which took place in Caracas, Venezuela from February 24-27. The 500 delegates from 85 countries, representing over 180 organizations, left the assembly with the commitment to intensify the campaign of solidarity with Venezuela in their own countries, with the first action being the International Day of Struggle for Peace in Venezuela and the cessation of the economic blockade on March 16. The date was chosen because it marks the 16th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq by the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Poland, another criminal war led by the US to destroy a country in order to control its natural resources.
Across the world, the eight-starred Venezuelan flag flew high, which chants of “Maduro Yes, Yankees No” and “Yankees go home!” echoing. Many also pointed to the latest attacks on the national electrical system as an act of intensification of the hybrid war being waged against Venezuela by the US and have called for the attacks to be classified as a crime against humanity.
The global day of solidarity with Venezuela kicked off in Johannesburg with a massive protest outside the US consulate located at the center of finance monopoly capital, Sandton. The protest was organized by the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa, Socialist Revolutionary Workers Party, South African Federation of Trade Unions and the United Front.
Argentina
Hundreds of militants from social and political organizations, trade unions participated in an activity in Buenos Aires, Argentina to denounce US imperialism and manifest their solidarity with Venezuela and Nicolás Maduro under the slogan “Yankees al carajo” (Yankees go to hell) from Chávez’s historic speech in 2008 when he expelled the US ambassador from Venezuela.
Peru
In Lima, Peru the Anti-Imperialist Coordinator for Sovereignty in Latin America along with the organizations and movements that are part of the Peru Chapter of ALBA Movements mobilized in the Plaza San Martin.
Mexico
In Mexico City, organizations held a series of actions starting with a rally against North American interference outside the US embassy in the city and then a Latin American cultural activity in the central Zocalo, or plaza, of the city.
Cultural act in the Zocalo of Mexico City
Malaysia
Militants of the Socialist Party of Malaysia delivered a letter of protest to the US embassy in Kuala Lumpur. During their action the police tried to block them from crossing the road.
Venezuela
In Venezuela thousands of people took to the streets in Caracas to denounce the continued aggressions against them by the US and its allies and their democratically elected president, Nicolás Maduro. The Motorcycle Drivers Movement of Venezuela part of the National Federation of Motorized Drivers of Socialist Bolivarian Venezuela participated in a coordinated action to spell out “Trump Hands Off Venezuela”.
Zambia
The Socialist Party Zambia also participated in the global mobilization in solidarity with Venezuela and against US imperialism.
Nigeria
The teachers and students of the Hugo Chávez School, along with the graduates of the Latin American School of Medicine in Venezuela, expressed their support to President Nicolás Maduro and the sons and daughters of the homeland of Bolívar and Chávez.
US
Hundreds of people mobilized outside the White House in Washington DC, USA to denounce US imperialism and aggression against Venezuela. They also manifested their support and solidarity to the Venezuelan people and their president Nicolás Maduro.
*
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 Peoples Dispatch
Online independent analysis of US-led wars, rampant corruption, corporate greed, civil rights and fraudulent monetary transactions is invariably relegated to the bottom rung of search engine results.
As a result we presently do not cover our monthly running costs which could eventually jeopardize our activities.
Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis provided by Global Research on a daily basis?
We are witnessing a worldwide environmental collapse, and nobody seems to know how to stop it. As you will see below, a study that was just released that looked at more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals and amphibians discovered that nearly a quarter of them “will almost certainly face extinction”.
Israel is off-limits. The criminalisation of anti-Semitism means nothing short of this. In fact, France’s President Macron says anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism and both are now legally defined as “hate crimes”. Will this be a global precursor?
March 2019 is notable in the post-Soviet space for three interrelated reasons, all of which deal with Ukraine: it was half a decade ago that Crimea reunited with Russia, after which the country began its descent into failed state status, and now it’s poised to hold general elections at the end of the month to decide its future trajectory.
Human Rights Watch (HRW), in their 2019 report on revolutionary Cuba, have once more been championing American-sponsored proxy gatherings within the Caribbean island, such as the Ladies in White. This century, the most notable of these “dissident groups” in Cuba are indeed the seemingly virtuous Ladies in White, who in 2005 won the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, an award presented by the European Parliament no less.
According to Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, chief climate advisor to the European Union, “We’re simply talking about the very life support system of this planet”. As fascism and the horror of murderous hate crimes are on the rise, governments are presiding over runaway climate change leading toward mass extinctions of species, costing the lives of billions and the demise of much of nature, while children are protesting against the betrayal of their future.
The report estimated the threat of radioactive microparticles created by the meltdowns as possibly “the single largest ongoing risk to public health from the Fukushima disaster.” According to the research, these pieces of material from the nuclear fuel meltdowns are small enough to be inhaled or ingested and lodge in major organs of the human body where they continually irradiate cancer-causing levels of radiation, making them much more hazardous than the external sources of radiation being monitored by health authorities.
The real problems in the Province of Kosovo and Metohija have been provoked by Albanian separatism and terrorism continuously supported by some western powers. This support was motivated by their geopolitical interests: weakening and fragmenting Serbia has always meant for them weakening Russia’s presence and influence in the Balkans.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Una risoluzione approvata dal Parlamento europeo il 12 marzo sostiene che «la Russia non può più essere considerata un partner strategico e l’Unione europea deve essere pronta a imporle ulteriori sanzioni se essa continua a violare il diritto internazionale».
«La Russia non può più essere considerata un partner strategico e l’Unione europea deve essere pronta a imporle ulteriori sanzioni se essa continua a violare il diritto internazionale»: così stabilisce la risoluzione approvata dal Parlamento europeo il 12 marzo con 402 voti a favore, 163 contro e 89 astensioni. La risoluzione, presentata dalla parlamentare lettone Sandra Kalniete, nega anzitutto la legittimità delle elezioni presidenziali in Russia, definendole «non-democratiche», presentando così il presidente Putin come un usurpatore.
Accusa la Russia non solo di «violazione dell’integrità territoriale dell’Ucraina e della Georgia», ma dell’«intervento in Siria e dell’interferenza in paesi come la Libia», e, in Europa, di «interferenza mirante ad influenzare le elezioni e ad accrescere le tensioni». Accusa la Russia di «violazione degli accordi di controllo degli armamenti», attribuendole la responsabilità di aver affossato il Trattato Inf. La accusa inoltre di «estese violazioni dei diritti umani al suo interno, comprese torture ed esecuzioni extragiudiziali», e di «assassini compiuti da suoi agenti con armi chimiche sul suolo europeo». Al termine di queste e altre accuse, il Parlamento europeo dichiara che il Nord Stream 2, il gasdotto destinato a raddoppiare la fornitura di gas russo alla Germania attraverso il Mar Baltico, «deve essere fermato perché accresce la dipendenza della Ue dalle forniture russe di gas, minacciando il suo mercato interno e i suoi interessi strategici».
La risoluzione del Parlamento europeo ripete fedelmente, non solo nei contenuti ma nelle stesse parole, le accuse che Usa e Nato rivolgono alla Russia. E, cosa più importante, ripete fedelmente la richiesta di bloccare il Nord Stream 2: obiettivo della strategia di Washington mirante a ridurre le forniture energetiche russe all’Unione europea per sostituirle con quelle provenienti dagli Stati uniti o comunque da compagnie statunitensi. Nello stesso quadro rientra la comunicazione della Commissione europea ai paesi membri, tra cui l’Italia, intenzionati ad aderire alla iniziativa cinese della Nuova Via della Seta: la Commissione li avverte che la Cina è un partner ma anche un concorrente economico e, cosa della massima importanza, «un rivale sistemico che promuove modelli alternativi di governance», in altre parole modelli alternativi alla governance finora dominata dalle potenze occidentali.
La Commissione avverte che occorre anzitutto «salvaguardare le infrastrutture digitali critiche da minacce potenzialmente serie alla sicurezza», derivanti da reti 5G fornite da società cinesi come la Huawei messa al bando negli Stati uniti. La Commissione europea ripete fedelmente l’avvertimento degli Stati uniti agli alleati.
Il Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa, il generale Usa Scaparrotti, ha avvertito che le reti mobili ultraveloci di quinta generazione svolgeranno un ruolo sempre più importante nelle capacità belliche della Nato, per cui non sono ammesse «leggerezze» da parte degli alleati.
Tutto ciò conferma quale sia l’influenza che esercita il «partito americano», potente schieramento trasversale che orienta le politiche dell’Unione lungo le linee strategiche Usa/Nato.
Costruendo la falsa immagine di una Russia e una Cina minacciose, le istituzioni Ue preparano l’opinione pubblica ad accettare ciò che gli Usa a guida Trump stanno preparando per «difendere» l’Europa: gli Stati uniti – ha dichiarato alla Cnn un portavoce del Pentagono – si preparano a testare missili balistici con base a terra (proibiti dal Trattato Inf affossato da Washington), cioè nuovi euromissili che faranno di nuovo dell’Europa la base e allo stesso tempo il bersaglio di una guerra nucleare.
Since the military invasion of Cyprus by the Turkish army during the summer of 1974, countless reports have been published about the atrocities the Turkish invaders committed on the beautiful Mediterranean island.
But less known is the continuous effort by the Turkish occupiers to drastically alter the cultural identity of the northern half of Cyprus, an area with thousands of years of rich history.
Since 1974’s violent displacement of hundreds of thousands of Greek-Cypriots, the northern part of Cyprus has occupied not just by Turkish-Cypriots, from whom the vast majority were already living in the island.
Tens of thousands of Turkish settlers have been brought to the island from the Turkish mainland in consecutive ”waves” of re-settlements conducted by the Turkish state. These operations by Turkey took place in an effort to completely reshape the ethnic and cultural makeup of the so-called ”Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”.
The interior of the church of Saint Irene (Agia Eirini) in Morphou. Photo by the Cypriot Ministry of Foreign Affairs
An area rich in ancient Greek, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine and Venetian artifacts, monuments and buildings is undergoing a constant cultural attack, on a both systematic and unsystematic basis.
This has resulted in a de facto ethnic and religious cleansing, in which the Christian and Greek character of northern Cyprus has been almost completely wiped off the face of the map.
The church of Saint Anthony (Agios Antonios) in Leonarisso has been turned into a farm building. Photo by the Cypriot Ministry of Foreign Affairs
As Michael Jansen wrote in his Cyprus: The Loss of a Cultural Heritage report of 1986, ”the political-demographic de facto partition imposed on Cyprus since 1974 threatens not only the unity and integrity of a modern nation-state.
He continued that the partition also threatens “the millennial cultural integrity and continuity of the island which has been the crossroads of the civilization of the Eastern Mediterranean.”
Universities, along with the government of the Republic of Cyprus and various non-governmental organizations, have tried throughout the years to shed light onto the constant cultural erosion taking place in occupied Cyprus. Unfortunately there have been no significant successes to report in stopping the Turkish side from continuing these practices.
Churches, monasteries, cemeteries and archaeological sites either lie abandoned and/or have been deliberately damaged throughout the occupied territories.
The Christian cemetery in Rizokarpaso. Photo by the Cypriot Ministry of Foreign Affairs
More striking examples of this situation are the churches of the Apostle Barnabas in Famagusta, Saint Anthony in Lamarisso, Saint Irene in Morphou and of the Archangel Michael Church in Lefkoniko. Most of these structures are either abandoned or have been turned into sheds, where the local farmers store their products and tools.
Church icons dating back to the Middle Ages have been vandalized or even destroyed completely by perpetrators who are rarely caught.
The vandalized Jewish cemetery of Margo in occupied northern Cyprus. Photo by the Cypriot Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Buildings such as the Prophet Elias Monastery of Maronite Monks and the Antifonitis Monastery, along with the archaeological sites of Salamis and Enkomi, are badly damaged due to the Turkish-Cypriot community’s negligence and even willful destruction.
Examples of artifacts from these sites being smuggled abroad are numerous.
In addition, Christian and Jewish cemeteries have also fallen victim to the Turks of northern Cyprus. The cemeteries of Rizokarpaso, Margo and Kontea are just some examples of areas which have been completely devastated.
Ruins at the ancient site of Salamis
As shocking as all this is today, this woeful reality is not anything new. From the very beginning of the invasion until the present moment, monuments from the Cypriot past have been looted and destroyed all over occupied Cyprus.
In a recent example, the monastery of Saint Panteleimon in Myrto was completely destroyed, apparently by locals, who also wrote slogans on the walls and even stole the church’s 300-kilogram bell, most likely in order to sell it.
Map of the divided island of Cyprus
Nearly forty-five years after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, it is obvious that the island is still suffering the consequences and deep scars of this dreadful incident. Worse yet, it is an ongoing situation which threatens to erase the history of this ancient European state forever.
*
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 Defend Democracy Press
The Trump Administration has delivered yet another concession to Israel’s embattled Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the eve of parliamentary elections: the Israeli military occupation of much of the Palestinian West Bank and of the Golan Heights will no longer be referred to in official U.S. government documents as an occupation. America’s so-called Ambassador to Israel is a former Trump lawyer named David Friedman who is more involved in serving Israel than the United States. He personally supports the view that the illegal Jewish settlements are legitimately part of Israel, choosing to ignore their growth even though it has long been U.S. policy to oppose them. He has also long sought to change the State Department’s language on the Israeli control of the West Bank and Golan Heights, being particularly concerned about the expression “occupied,” which has legal implications. Now he appears to have won that fight, to the delight of the Netanyahu government.
And the expunging of “occupied” might be only the first of many gifts intended to bolster Netanyahu’s chances. Senator Lindsey Graham, who also boasts of his close ties to the Israeli Prime Minister, intends to initiate legislative action to go one step further and compel the United States to actually recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, the Syrian territory that was annexed after fighting in 1967, but which has not been recognized as part of Israel by any other country or international body. If a vote on the bill is pushed forward and goes as expected virtually unanimously as the subject before congress is Israel, it would hugely benefit Bibi. Some sources are also predicting that recognition of the Golan Heights could easily lead to U.S. government recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over much of the West Bank.
Israel’s election is scheduled for April 9th, so there is still plenty of time for additional mischief. There have even been suggestions in the Israeli media that Netanyahu just might escalate fighting with any one or more of a number of its neighbors to enhance his wartime leader credentials. That Gaza will be pummeled is a certainty and Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria is probably also in the gun-sights. An uncorroborated report last week out of Israel claimed that Hezbollah is operating a “terror cell” in Syria close to the border with Israel. It would serve as a pretext for a bit of military action and America’s own congress-critters would immediately be jumping up and down expressing their support for Israel’s right to “defend itself.” The big prize for Netanyahu would, of course, be success at getting the United States to attack Iran and one can bet that Mossad is cranking up “false flag” plans to bring about such an eventuality while also making it look like the Mullahs were at fault.
Netanyahu, bedeviled by corruption charges against him, is otherwise sinking into his usual pre-election mode, which is to outflank nearly everyone on the intransigent right of Israeli politics. He has entered into a coalition with the openly racist Kahanist party Otzma Yehudit, which most Israelis consider to be close to a Jewish version of fascism as it advocates, among other policies, the forceful expulsion of all Arabs.
Benjamin Netanyahu is also looking for a boost through his attendance at the annual American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) summit, which is being held in Washington from March 24-26. The theme of the conference is, unfortunately, “Connected for Good,” which is clearly a boast by AIPAC rather than an admission of the shameful reality that has been delivered to the American people by a groveling and subservient congress and White House. Co-opting the United States is what it is all about, with the promotional material promising an “UNFORGETTABLE EXPERIENCE : The AIPAC Policy Conference is the largest gathering of America’s pro-Israel community. The conference is a celebration of the U.S.-Israel partnership and the premier opportunity for every attendee to lobby their Congressional office to advance the U.S.-Israel relationship. The Policy Conference is also a rich educational experience and inspirational booster shot. Attendees will hear keynote speeches by American and Israeli leaders, attend intimate educational sessions, and be wowed by moving stories of U.S.-Israel partnerships, Israeli heroism, and groundbreaking Israeli innovations that are changing our world.”
AIPAC is a seriously threatening organization with income of more than $100 million per annum, nearly 400 employees, 100,000 members, seventeen regional offices, and a “vast pool of donors.” It clearly includes a lot of smart and savvy folks who know a lot about what is going on in the Middle East, but its panels will not include a single word about shooting unarmed protesters, declaring Israel to be a “nation state for Jews alone,” its own acceptance of laws attacking freedom of speech, or its use of Jewish donated money to corrupt the American political system encouraging “allegiance to a foreign country” on the part of U.S. citizens. Bibi will undoubtedly pick up on AIPAC’s cozy theme of inclusiveness by taking the opportunity to burnish his credentials as the leader who can continue to deliver on unlimited and uncritical support from the United States. He will almost certainly meet with President Donald Trump and the two will undoubtedly mention the terrible wave of anti-Semitism that is sweeping the globe, justifying still more ethnic cleansing of the diminishing number of Arabs living in Greater Israel and the bombing of Iran.
Other leading American politicians who will be at AIPAC in supporting rolls include the slimy Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and the despicable former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. It will also include numerous other congressmen, administration officials and the usual scumbags who gravitate to these events, including pardoned criminal Elliott Abrams and unindicted felon Senator Robert Menendez. Abrams, who believes that Jews and gentiles should not intermarry, is currently engaged in destroying Venezuela and just might be otherwise occupied.
A number of the “American” government attendees at the event are actually Israeli citizens. Sigal Mandelker, a committed Zionist who holds the perpetually Jewish position of Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence in the United States Department of Treasury, is an Israeli by birth and it is widely believed that a number of Jewish congressmen and government officials who will be attending the AIPAC conference have dual citizenship. On the conference website’s roster of attendees, it is amusing to see the official photos in which the U.S. legislators and officials are standing in front of the American flag, seemingly disinterested in the irony that what AIPAC is doing is destructive of democracy in America and a sell-out to Israeli interests, undermining those of the United States.
Netanyahu’s most serious opposition in the election appears to be a centrist coalition headed by former Israeli Defense Force chief General Benny Gantz, who has spoken of his pride in killing 1,364 “terrorists” in Gaza, and former Finance Minister Yair Lapid. It is the principal challenge to incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s re-election hopes. Israeli courts have also meanwhile banned several Arab parties while allowing extreme right-wing Jewish parties to appear on the ballot.
Whatever the outcome, the United States will be on the receiving end of what Israel decides to do post-election as Trump and company as well as the Democrats in opposition also have an election coming up next year and will want to receive the Israeli seal of approval. And AIPAC will be right there to make sure that Israel in return gets everything that it so richly deserves. Goodnight America.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
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 www.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.
Writing for Americans, unless for their entertainment, is a challenging undertaking. One reason is that many, especially of the younger generations, no longer have a concept of objective truth.
For them “truth” is simply a bias reflecting one’s race, gender, upbringing or predisposition. Emotion overwhelms fact. Biases are not considered to be equal. Some are worthy and some or not. The biases of white people are defined as “hate speech,” “white supremacy,” and “hate crimes.” Today America has many self-hating whites, especially in the media and Democratic Party.
Another reason is that many Americans confuse an explanation with a justification. An explanation of an event is seen as a justification of the event. For example, if one provides an explanation of slavery the assumption is that the writer approves of slavery. A defense of a disapproved category is taken as a demonstration of your own unworthiness. For example, if you defend white people from the propagandistic accusations leveled at them by Identity Politics, you are a “white supremist.”
Yet another reason is that some races and genders have succeeded in defining any criticism of themselves as an expression of bias. For example, criticism of Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians or of the Israel Lobby’s power makes one an “anti-semite.” Similarly, if you criticize a black person, you are a racist and your argument is dismissed as an expression of your bias. If you criticize a woman, you are a misogynist, and your criticism of a woman proves it.
If you express skepticism of false flag events, you are dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist.”
Another reason is that American patriots regard criticism of US policies, especially wars, as anti-American and as taking the side of the enemy against one’s own country. To prevent a recurrence of the Vietnam war protests, when Washington invaded Afghanistan and Iraq the Bush regime came up with the slogan, “Support the Troops.” If you criticized the wars, you weren’t supporting the troops and were aligning yourself with the enemy: “You are with us or against us.” When President Trump met with President Putin, CIA director John Brennan accused Trump of treason. When US Representative Tulsi Gabbard met with Assad of Syria, she was accused of supporting dictatorship. ( If her critics had accused her of meeting with Assad because she was a bimbo who didn’t know any better, her critics would have been dismissed as misogynists.)
In a world such as this, honest ordinary language is risky as many are not attending to the cogency of the analysis but looking for indications of racism and sexism. Exposure of government deceptions gets one branded “anti-American” with the result that people cling more tightly to the lie that deceives them.
It has always been the case that readers look for writers who reinforce their beliefs by telling them what they want to hear. The king kills the messenger who brings unwanted news. Consequently there are few messengers. The result is a dysfunctional democracy in which the agendas of those who control explanations dominate.
For the most part, readers of this website are different. They are a self-selected group who are motivated to escape being controlled by official explanations. To their purpose I lend my knowledge and experience. The website has a devoted readership as your response to my March quarterly appeal testifies.
A few of you are impatient for solutions, but there can be no solutions until there is recognization of the problems. Moreover, every solution can be interpreted as favoring some interest group with its advocate being dismissed as a servant of the favored group. For example, President Reagan’s solution to stagflation was accused of being a scheme for the rich. The people have to find solutions, but first they must be informed. As this article makes clear, that is a difficult enough undertaking.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Lebanon is expecting the visit of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo this week at a time when the Lebanese economic-political map is being redrawn and while Lebanon is suffering its most serious economic downturnin recent history.
Reasons for the deterioration of the local economy include not only the corruption of Lebanon’s political leadership and lower level administration but also US sanctions imposed on Iran. The latest sanctions are the harshest ever imposed. They will also dramatically affect Lebanon so long as President Donald Trump is in power if Lebanon does not follow US policy and dictates.
If, as anticipated, Washington declares economic war on Lebanon, the sanctions will leave Lebanon few alternatives. They may force Lebanon to fall back on Iranian civilian industry to overcome US economic pressure, and to rely on the Russian military industry to equip Lebanese security forces. This will be the result if Pompeo insists on threatening Lebanese officials, as his assistants have done on previous visits to the country. The consistent message from US officials has been: you’re either with us or against us.
Politically, Lebanon is divided between two currents, one pro-US (and Saudi Arabia) and another outside the US orbit. The economic situation may well increase internal division to the point that the local population reacts angrily in order to exclude the US and its allies from influence in Lebanon.
Such a scenario may still be avoided if Saudi Arabia injects enough investment to reboot the agonising local economy. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia fears that those who are not aligned with its policies and those of the US could benefit from its support. To date, Riyadh has not fully understood the internal Lebanese dynamic and what it is possible or impossible to achieve in Lebanon. The kidnapping of Prime Minister Saad Hariri was the most flagrant indication of Saudi ignorance of Lebanese politics. The Saudis’ lack of strategic vision in Lebanon will likely prevent any serious support to the failing economy and may lead the country into serious instability.
Before 1982, one US dollar was equivalent to 3 Lebanese Lira. This was in part because the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) was spending tens of millions of dollars in the country on its own people and on Palestinian families living in Lebanon. Moreover, United Nations organisations (UNRWA) and other NGOS were also distributing financial support to Palestinian refugees whose homes had been taken by Israel forcing them to leave their country.
Following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the PLO was forced to leave the country. Not much later, one US dollar reached an exchange rate of 3000 Lebanese Lira, later devalued to stabilise at the current rate of 1$ for 1500 L.L. Iran entered the scene to support local Lebanese fighters (the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, i.e. Hezbollah) to recover their territory from Israeli occupation. In the year 2000, Iran began to make a serious investment in Hezbollah as the group managed to force the Israelis out of most Lebanese territory. Iranian financial investment had reached a very high level by the 2006 war when Israel was prevented from disarming Hezbollah to keep its rockets and missiles out of range of Israel.
In 2013, the Syrian government asked Hezbollah to support the Syrian Army to prevent disintegration of the country and to keep Takfiri militants from taking over. Iran pumped billions of dollars to defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda and to prevent them from overwhelming Syria and Iraq, aware that Iran would be the next target. The budget for Hezbollah troops went sky high. Support for movements of troops, logistics and daily allowances given to fighters, contributed to boosting the Lebanese economy. Hezbollah’s monthly budget went much beyond $100 million per month.
Lebanese disputed blocks with Israel (Source: EJM)
But after the arrival of Donald Trump in power and his rejection of the Iran nuclear deal, the US government has imposed the severest sanctions on Iran and halted donations to the United Nations organisations supporting Palestinian refugees (UNRWA). Sanctions on Iran have forced a new budget on Hezbollah, a five-year austerity plan. Forces have been reduced to a minimum number in Syria, movement of troops are slowed accordingly and all additional remunerations are suspended. Hezbollah reduced its budget to a quarter of what it had been without suspending any militants or contractors’ monthly salaries and medical care as stipulated by a personal order from Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s Secretary General.
This new financial situation will affect the Lebanese economy as cash flow and foreign currency dry up. The consequences are expected to be more noticeable in the coming months, leading to a plausible domestic reaction from the local population that will feel the weight of the failing economy.
The US and Europe are imposing strict controls on any monies transferred to and from Lebanon. The country is on a financial blacklist and there is tight scrutiny on all transactions. Religious donations from abroad are no longer possible since they expose donors to serious accusations of support for terrorism by western countries.
As long as Trump is in power, Hezbollah and Iran believe the situation will remain critical; they estimate that the US President will most probably enjoy a second term. The next five years are expected to be hard on the Lebanese economy, particularly if Pompeo’s visit brings messages and dictates that Lebanon cannot obey.
Pompeo wants Lebanon to give up on its demand to redraw its disputed water borders with Israel, compromising on blocks 8, 9 and 10 to the benefit of Israel. This request will not be granted and Lebanese officials have said on several occasions that they are relying on Hezbollah’s precision missiles to stop Israel from stealing Lebanese water.
Pompeo also wants Lebanon to give up on Hezbollah and its role in government. Again, the US establishment seems ignorant that Hezbollah is almost a third of Lebanon’s population, enjoying the support of more than half of Lebanese Shia, Christian, Sunni and Druse, with official members in the executive and legislative authorities of the country.
What then is the alternative? If Saudi Arabia moves in, Lebanon doesn’t need one or two or five billion but tens of billions of dollars to resuscitate its economy. It also needs a hands-off policy from the US establishment to allow the country to govern itself.
The Saudis are already suffering from Trump’s bullying, and its funds are drying up. If Saudi decides to invest in Lebanon, it will seek to impose terms not much different from US demands. Saudi Arabia engages in wishful thinking when it aims to expel Iran’s influence and Hezbollah supporters from Lebanon, an impossible goal to fulfil.
Lebanon’s remaining choices are few. Lebanon can move closer to Iran to lower its expenditures and the cost of goods, and it can ask Russia to support the Lebanese army if the West fails to do so. China is preparing to move in and can be a positive alternative for the country, using Lebanon as a platform to reach Syria and later Iraq and Jordan. Otherwise, Lebanon will have to prepare to join the list of poorest countries.
A shadow is hanging over the land of the cedars, a country that has already had to fight for survival in the 21stcentury. Hezbollah, now subject to US and UK sanctions, is the same force that protected the country from ISIS and other takfiri fighters who threatened to expel Christians from the country, in accordance with French President Sarkozy’s advice to the Lebanese patriarch that Lebanese Christians abandon their homes. The takfiri jihadists and NATO shared the same intentions for Lebanon. The failure of the US establishment’s plan to divide Iraq and create a failed state in Syria as part of a “new Middle East” woke the Russian bear from its long hibernation. Today Russia competes with the US for hegemony in the Middle East, obliging Trump to pull out all the stops in an attempt to break the anti-US front.
It is a battle with no taboos where all blows are permitted. The US is pushing Lebanon into a bottleneck with no alternatives to closer partnership with Iran and Russia.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Written in response to the ‘Arab Spring’ initiated in Tunisia in 2011, Shadow Wars – The Secret Struggle for the Middle East, is a powerful indictment of the western neoliberal economic/political order. Christopher Davidson has gathered a huge amount of information from many sources that support his overall argument,
“…the primary blame for not only the failure of the Arab Spring, but also the dramatic and well-funded rise of Islamic extremist organizations since the late twentieth century – including the deadly al-Qaeda and now the blood curdling ’Islamic State’ – must rest with the long-running policies of successive imperial and ’advanced capitalist’ administrations and their ongoing manipulations of an elaborate network of powerful national and transnational actors across both the Arab and Islamic worlds.”
Davidson then summarizes future prospects indicating the Arab Spring having been foiled,
“…has also been covertly redirected into a pretext for striking at other enemies…the same powers that have distantly ruled the region for hundreds of years are now making sure their grip gets even tighter.”
The work starts with a brief overview of counter revolutionary patterns where the deep state attempts and often succeeds in countering movements that threaten their power. Examples range from the British Jacobite counter revolution to reinstate the divine right of kings under papal authority, the French revolution, on up through the Russian Bolshevik revolution and the Spanish revolution before the Second World War.
Davidson then quickly focuses on the Middle East and the history of British imperialism, advances to the modern era and U.S. imperialism. The book is a wonderful read – in a nasty sort of way – with Davidson drawing in many sources, well referenced, detailing how the imperial powers of the west have operated in the region.
Highlights
Without detailing his overall storyline, several ideas were standout from my perspective.
First off is the breadth and strength of British imperialism and its manipulations in order to maintain some form of imperial stability. This morphs into tU.S. imperial desires, and while the U.S. receives much critical analysis of its attempts at control, it is made obvious that the U.K. has not really given up on its imperial desires, only now subordinate to the power of the U.S. The main thrust of the interference for both is the desire of western governments wanting “stability”, either military, clan based, or religious, as long as the resources were under control by the west.
In consideration of the imperial “divide and conquer” agenda the whole history relates the ongoing and continued use of jihadis to extend the empire’s control. They serve multiple purposes from creating a reason to attack a particular region, as well as using them as a means to disrupt and attack.
Not surprisingly, Saudi Arabia is viewed as being the wellspring of the jihadi movement, supplying both the wahhabi belief system as well as the financial support for the various jihadi groups. They are not alone, as Davidson clearly shows how the Gulf States, the former British Trucial states UAE, along with Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait provide both financial, logistical, and media support (and evasions) for the jihadis. Turkey with its pretensions for caliphate further complicates the scenarios.
The final standout has to be the many interactions between the local groups, their efforts to recruit jihadis from abroad (from Indonesia, Pakistan, the former Russian states among others), and the many different branches of the the U.S. empire – financial, military, political, corporate.
Published in 2016, Shadow Wars obviously misses the success of Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and to a small degree a recalcitrant Turkey in being the essential factors in defeating the actual physical caliphate if not all ISIS jihadis. Davidson ends balancing on the apparent increasing power of the caliphate with its broad global support (regardless of media and political rhetoric) while noting a few successes in regaining small amounts of land from the caliphate.
Regardless, it is a very strong read, a strong indictment of the British and U.S.empires and how they use their media, financial power, and military power in order to use both covert and overt mechanisms to maintain control of Middle East resources.
Baseline misses
There are two missed components in this work, but given the overall powerful presentation they do not affect the main premise of western imperial interference even though they are part and parcel of it.
As I have noticed with some other writers on this general topic, Israel is a missing element. It is mentioned in a few brief comments, such as the one with the IDF admitting providing medical aid to ISIS fighters. However, in consideration of both British and U.S. imperial projects in the region, nothing is said. Both countries, in particular Britain at first, view the establishment of Israel as an “outpost” for western powers in order to control the region. The military power of Israel combined with its political power in the U.S. and EU makes it a significant factor in western control of the regions resources with the most important being oil.
Perhaps Davidson along with other authors take into consideration the backlash that might be received from various state actors if Israel’s participation was highlighted. As I indicated, beyond this, it is still a very powerful and significant view of western interference in the region.
The other miss is oil – and as I have indicated in other writings, it is not really the oil that is of concern, but its use as support for the US$. With Saudi Arabia having agreed to sell oil only in US$, which is of particular benefit after the U.S. went off the gold standard, it has become a powerful player as well in U.S. domestic politics. Without the dollar support, the U.S. would more than likely lose its preferential position as being the global fiat currency.
The Middle East and the western states then play a double game against each other – supporters of the Washington consensus financial system while also supporting various jihadi groups that the powers that be pretend to oppose but mainly manipulate for their own desires at control. Democracy and freedom are not truly desired; stability and control are the ultimate goals.
Otherwise, Shadow Wars is an excellent book detailing all these double dealings. Christopher Davidson is to be commended for his wonderful work – and I would hope a follow up perspective will be written now that Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Turkey have managed for now to gain the upper hand in Syria.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
According to the agency South Front, the United States has transported approximately 50 tons of gold from the regions occupied by ISIS in the Deir ez-Zor Governorate. The Kurdish news source reports that the gold was stolen from Syria, and subsequently stored in an American military base, located in Ayn al-Arab. In addition, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) stated that U.S. forces had been transporting large chests filled with ISIS gold from the al-Dashisha area in the southern part of the Al-Hasakah Governorate.
Furthermore, the United Kingdom-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported that ISIS members in the Euphrates region were in possession of approximately 40 tons of gold, which the terrorists used to buy a safe passage out of the region, surrounded by forces supported by the United States. As a rule, American military personnel received payments for allowing terrorists to leave the area without a hassle, and they subsequently handed over this money at their base. SOHR also claimed that the coalition, headed by the United States, did not attack the territory occupied by ISIS “deliberately”, and as a result, then received money from outlaws and terrorists. After all according to the saying “Money does not stink,” hence, the U.S. band of looters and bribe takers became even richer.
If someone actually believes that Americans had only recently begun to accept gold from terrorists and transfer it to U.S. coffers, they are sadly mistaken. Irrespective of who the President of the United States is at any given time, these leaders have always believed that stealing money and gold ingots from others is a “noble pursuit”. And there are plenty of examples that support this claim.
For instance, we could remind our readers about the gold and the vast amount in dollars that belonged to the Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos. During the fight for the “happiness of his people,” Ferdinand Marcos and his family did not forget about their own needs. Their possessions included various thriving businesses involved in the manufacturing and service sectors, which were owned by their relatives and acquaintances. In 1985, The Mercury News, a local newspaper based in San Jose, published a series of sensational articles that attempted to describe the method used by this “first couple” to accumulate so much wealth, with particular emphasis on spheres connected with the United States. The publication was unable to identify all of the sources of Ferdinand Marcos’s wealth, but up until now the amount of money, belonging to him, is estimated to be somewhere below $10 billion.
Once Ferdinand Marcos was deposed as president, Swiss banks froze his family’s accounts, on request from Washington, and then refused to acknowledge the suit filed by the new Filipino government because it lacked legal grounds. Hence, these banks did not accept that the deposited funds belonged to the Philippines. By August 1987, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed 35 suits against the former president, his wife and 300 individuals close to him, in order to seek compensation for the financial losses supposedly suffered by the government, totaling $90 billion, which, as uncovered later, was transferred to the United States.
The issue of the alleged Marcos gold bars is especially interesting. This treasure was supposedly stolen by Japanese armed forces from Asian nations during World War II, and subsequently buried by the Japanese general Tomoyuki Yamashita somewhere in the Philippines Islands. Apparently, Ferdinand Marcos discovered the location of this treasure, which came into his possession in 1975.
A fairly similar (or perhaps worse) misfortune befell the U.S. strategic partner in the Middle East and the ruler of Iran, Reza Shah Pahlavi. He possessed vast sums of money received from the oil industry and invaluable art work, which was collected since the times of the Safavid dynasty and then of the Qajar dynasty. Reza Shah Pahlavi was an excellent pilot, and during the revolution, he loaded his wealth on a plane with his family on board and left Tehran. However, the United States welcomed his money and invaluable treasure, but not the Shah himself. After his death, he was buried in Cairo. After all, who needed this pauper? The exact amount of Iranian money, remaining in the United States, is still unknown, as supposedly these funds were frozen. In reality, this money has been put to “good use” and has earned vast profits for the U.S. gang of profiteers.
Once these American thieves began to run out of funds, they decided to refill their coffers with money from treasuries of two other wealthy rulers, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. Since Americans did not wish to hand over Iraq’s incalculable wealth to strangers, they occupied the country themselves and robbed it of all its riches. Besides the vast sums of money in dollars stolen from the nation, a unique Iraqi museum located in Baghdad was looted. It used to house antiquities which are 6,000 to 7,000 years old. Can you imagine the prices of these artifacts on the black market? Up until now, unique objects and treasures from Iraq continue to be sold in various nations of the world. Needless to say, Saddam Hussein’s personal possessions met the same fate. They were stolen by American looters and can now be purchased in different parts of the globe.
Then a military campaign began in Libya, where Washington’s European vassals profited. Libyans still cannot figure out what happened to tens of billions of dollars from their treasury or the personal treasures that belonged to the leader of the Arab Jamahiriya, Muammar Gaddafi. In reality, all of this wealth has been quietly transferred to the coffers of American profiteers. And what of international laws that prohibit looting of conquered nations and removal of stolen goods from their territories?
In response, “Gentlemen” from Washington, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, simply chuckle and continue talking about the rule of law, human rights and the right of every nation to take their case to the International Court of Justice…
As the Russian proverb goes “Where the horse puts its hoof, there the crab sticks its claw” (i.e. “the thread follows the needle”). A recent, noteworthy example of this behavior was the refusal by the Bank of England to return gold ingots, worth £420 million (or almost $550 million), to Venezuela. With a wry smile, British officials insist that “standard measures to prevent money-laundering be taken.” These measures include the Venezuelan government providing explanations about how the South American nation plans to use its own gold. According to the newspaper, The Times, the Bank of England would like to receive a “clarification of the Venezuelan government’s intentions for the gold.”
Once again this proves that Anglo-Saxon “gentlemen” are not to be trusted, as historical evidence shows that such behavior is traditionally British. The Bank of England, without any sign of embarrassment, deceived another nation, Venezuela, and stole its gold ingots, worth $1.2 billion. The bank has formally outed itself as a thief! Everything is as it was in times past, when Francis Drake, generously rewarded by Queen Elizabeth I, looted Spanish galleons and brought money back to England. Times change but London’s approach to life remains the same: “We stole from others, and if an opportunity presents itself, we will continue to steal.”
It is worth reminding our readers that Venezuela is an independent nation, and an esteemed member of the United Nations and other respectable international organizations. It is not a country that has been occupied by either the USA or Great Britain. However, the United States and its allies have been treating Venezuela as a subject state, whose riches will soon be transported to coffers belonging to American profiteers.
Earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump ordered sanctions to be imposed on Venezuela in order to prevent the South American nation from performing transactions with its gold reserves. According to a notice, published by the White House Office of the Press Secretary, the Trump administration is intent on preventing the government of this Latin American nation from plundering “Venezuela’s wealth for their own corrupt purposes” and degrading “Venezuela’s infrastructure and natural environment through economic mismanagement.” As a result, Washington has also prohibited Americans from “operating in the gold sector of the Venezuelan economy.”
These unfortunate experiences are, to a certain extent, beneficial to current leaders. As they clearly demonstrate that one should not trust the tales, told by these foreign thieves, about democracy for one and all, freedom of speech and movement, and some arbitrary human rights. As soon as an opportunity to plunder other nations and people presents itself, Washington forgets these words. Other than the United States and Britain, aren’t there other respectable nations where one can, without reservations, store money and wealth? For instance, not long ago Venezuela made a decision to transfer the foreign headquarters of PDVSA, the nation’s main state cooperation, which has borne the main burden of imposed U.S. sanctions, from Lisbon to Moscow. It seems fair to say that in the current complex state of international relations, when the United States and its vassals are stirring up hysteria by any means with their irrational actions, more and more countries and people have started to believe in Russia, its peace loving policies, as well as its honesty and integrity.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Viktor Mikhin, a member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Trump lied about winning against ISIS, the scourge the US created and supports, along with al-Qaeda, its al-Nusra offshoot, and other jihadist groups.
Last December, he lied saying
“(o)ur boys, our young women, our men — they’re all coming back (from Syria), and they’re coming back now (sic). We won (sic), and that’s the way we want it.”
“We have started returning United States troops home (sic) as we transition to the next phase of this campaign,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders added.
In mid-December, Trump said all US forces would be out of Syria in 30 days, in January extended to 120 days.
At the time, a State Department official said there’s “no timeline” for withdrawal of US troops from the country, adding:
“The president has made the decision that we will withdraw our military forces from Syria, but that it will be done in a deliberate, heavily coordinated way with our allies and partners.”
In June 2018, we reported that US combat troops were illegally occupying northern and southern parts of the country aren’t leaving, their numbers likely much larger than officially reported, including elite special forces.
They’re deployed to around three-fourths of world countries, CIA operatives covertly everywhere worldwide, most often masquerading as diplomats.
Center for International Policy Arms and Security Project director William Hartung earlier said
“(t)here is little or no transparency as to what (US forces and their numbers) are doing in (nations worldwide) and whether their efforts are promoting security or provoking further tension and conflict.”
There’s no ambiguity about their mission in US combat and other theaters. Along with propping up friendly despots, they’re involved in toppling sovereign independent governments, the US wanting pro-Western puppet regimes replacing them.
Using ISIS and other jihadists as imperial proxies, Iranian and Syrian governments are targeted for regime change – NATO, Israel, and other regional rogue states in cahoots with US plans.
Earlier reports of pulling US forces from Syria were greatly exaggerated. Weeks after Trump’s mid-December announcement, none were withdrawn, just redeployments from one location in the country to another, along with moving them back and forth cross-border between Syria and Iraq.
At the same time, hundreds of truckloads of weapons, munitions, and military equipment were sent to Syria by air and cross-border from Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel. They keep coming.
Statements by Pompeo and Bolton affirmed the Trump regime’s intention to maintain a military presence in Syria and Iraq – Pompeo earlier saying “America will not retreat until the terror fight (it supports) is over.”
Indefinite US occupation of northern and southern Syrian territory is planned, Pentagon forces operating from 18 or more bases in the country – platforms for supporting ISIS and other terrorists, along with waging endless war on the country for regime change.
In late January, hundreds more US troops were sent to northern Syria, according to Turkey’s Anadolu news agency.
US envoy for regime change in Syria James Jeffrey said US forces will remain in the country for “a very long time.” Withdrawal of some will likely shift them cross-border to Iraqi territory bordering Syria for easy return to the country if ordered.
US occupation of nations is permanent, true of Japan, Germany, South Korea, and other countries post-WW II – true in the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa post-9/11.
An earlier Pentagon statement said US forces will stay in Syria indefinitely – as long as ISIS remains a threat, its scourge supported by Republican and undemocratic Dem regimes.
In February, Senate members voted 70 – 26 against withdrawing Pentagon forces from Syria – claiming “a precipitous withdrawal” could destabilize the (already hugely destabilized) region, adding pullout would benefit Iran and Russia.
According to the Wall Street Journal on Sunday, the Pentagon intends “keep(ing) 1,000 forces in Syria, US officials said, a shift that comes three months after President Trump ordered a complete withdrawal and is far more than the White House originally intended.”
They’ll remain in northern and southern parts of the country, bordering Turkey in the north, Iraq and Jordan in the south.
In February, Trump said he intends leaving 200 US troops in the country after saying they’re all coming home. Now it’s a 1,000. Numbers cited are meaningless.
As long as the US maintains a military presence in Syria and elsewhere, Pentagon commanders will decide on numbers to deploy to all theaters – together with the US war secretary.
Occupation of Syria began early in the war the Obama regime launched in March 2011. Unknown numbers of US forces will remain in the country indefinitely.
*
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.”
Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.
We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.
If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.
We are witnessing a worldwide environmental collapse, and nobody seems to know how to stop it. As you will see below, a study that was just released that looked at more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals and amphibians discovered that nearly a quarter of them “will almost certainly face extinction”. Never before has our society faced such a massive collapse of life on a planetary scale, and yet the vast majority of the population doesn’t seem concerned about what is happening. Species after species is being permanently wiped out, and most of us couldn’t care less.
The time for action is now. According to this new study, over 1,200 species will soon be extinct unless dramatic action is taken. The following comes from the Guardian…
More than 1,200 species globally face threats to their survival in more than 90% of their habitat and “will almost certainly face extinction” without conservation intervention, according to new research.
Scientists working with Australia’s University of Queensland and the Wildlife Conservation Society have mapped threats faced by 5,457 species of birds, mammals and amphibians to determine which parts of a species’ habitat range are most affected by known drivers of biodiversity loss.
Once these species are gone, they will be gone forever.
Scientists are telling us that we have entered “the sixth major extinction” in the history of our planet. A brand new survey of 73 scientific reports that was just released has come to the conclusion that the total number of insects on the globe is falling by 2.5 percent per year. If we stay on this current pace, the survey warns that there might not be “any insects at all” by the year 2119. And since insects are absolutely critical to the worldwide food chain, that has extremely ominous implications for all of us.
In case you are wondering, humanity would not survive very long without insects.
In fact, it has been estimated that if all bees go extinct that most of humanity will be wiped out within ten years.
The global food chain is literally dying right in front of our eyes, and I cannot understand why more people are not deeply alarmed by this.
We are facing an unprecedented crisis in our oceans as well. Researchers in Canada have discovered that levels of phytoplankton have dropped by about 40 percent since 1950…
The tiny organisms, known as phytoplankton, also gobble up carbon dioxide to produce half the world’s oxygen output—equaling that of trees and plants on land.
But their numbers have dwindled since the dawn of the 20th century, with unknown consequences for ocean ecosystems and the planet’s carbon cycle.
Researchers at Canada’s Dalhousie University say the global population of phytoplankton has fallen about 40 percent since 1950.
Without phytoplankton, our oceans would quickly become giant “dead zones”, and at the pace we are going we don’t have too long before that will happen.
And the truth is that the frightening drop in phytoplankton levels is already having a dramatic impact on the food chain. I have shared the following quote from Chris Martenson before, but it is worth sharing again…
Fewer phytoplankton means less thiamine being produced. That means less thiamine is available to pass up the food chain. Next thing you know, there’s a 70% decline in seabird populations.
This is something I’ve noticed directly and commented on during my annual pilgrimages to the northern Maine coast over the past 30 years, where seagulls used to be extremely common and are now practically gone. Seagulls!
Next thing you know, some other major food chain will be wiped out and we’ll get oceans full of jellyfish instead of actual fish.
Are you starting to understand where I am coming from?
Our planet is literally dying, and there is only a very, very limited amount of time to do anything about it.
Meanwhile, western civilization is dying as well. Paul Joseph Watson has just produced a video entitled “The Collapse Of Western Civilization”, and it is perhaps the finest video that he has created to date. If you have not seen it yet, I would encourage you to check it out.
In an accompanying article, Watson listed some of the evidence that our society is in the process of collapsing…
From spiritual bankruptcy, to mass chemical dependence, to rampant addiction to sensual stimulation.
Almost every factor that precedes the collapse of great civilizations has been met by the west.
Our destruction is long overdue.
Depression is at its highest level ever. Drug addiction is at its highest level ever.
People identifying as Christians is at its lowest level ever.
As usual, Watson is right on the money. We have lost our values, we have no clear direction as a society, and we are deeply, deeply miserable. Just consider the following numbers from the CDC…
The number of deaths from alcohol, drugs and suicide in 2017 hit the highest level since federal data collection started in 1999, according to an analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data by two public health nonprofits.
The national rate for deaths from alcohol, drugs and suicide rose from 43.9 to 46.6 deaths per 100,000 people in 2017, a 6 percent increase, the Trust for America’s Health and the Well Being Trust reported Tuesday.
Most people do not have a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Without meaning and purpose, most people drift aimlessly through life, and that must change.
Time is running out for our exceedingly vacuous society. We are literally destroying ourselves and everything around us, and here in the western world we have completely lost our values. We are on a road to nowhere, and we will soon be overtaken by the consequences of our very foolish actions.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
I filmed these scenes on March 10, but until now have been too busy and also lacking good enough internet to upload.
My objective in filming is not to say there is no poverty in Venezuela, nor to imply there is no hunger or shortages anywhere. However, when corporate media is flat out saying shelves are empty all over Caracas and the city is in crisis, well this is false. The scenes I’m seeing are much like I saw in 2010. I know there are differences since then and now, of course, but there isn’t the pandemonium MSM is attempting to claim is happening here. Also, this is not a wealthy area of Caracas, its perhaps lower middle class. I’ll film the wealthy areas where typically opposition live in coming days.
Further, in the days since filming this, I have had the opportunity to visit organized communities growing massive amounts of produce, also breeding rabbits (apparently a high source of protein)…and also one of the cities urban garden initiatives. I’ll upload more on that when time allows, but for now, day 1, no “crisis”, but people were dealing with the effects of the nation wide power outage, one believed most likely due to US acts of sabotage on the electricity grid.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Israel is off-limits. The criminalisation of anti-Semitism means nothing short of this. In fact, France’s President Macron says anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism and both are now legally defined as “hate crimes”. Will this be a global precursor? Will the world uphold such a sweeping, broad legal definition that has the potential to embrace the inhumanity and egregious acts of such nations as Israel, now an apartheid Jewish state? For example, will countries refusing to recognise Israel, like Malaysia, be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC)?
And, why is it the apartheid Jewish state of Israel, discriminatory towards the Palestinians in its very essence, cannot be criticised for its inhumanity against a brethren race? Let the Semites fight it out amongst themselves — for the land, the water resources and whatever else the Israeli Jews are robbing the Muslim Palestinians of?
Yes, the inhumane treatment of the Palestinians, most especially of Gaza, by Tel Aviv is anti-Semitism. Why is it that only the rhetorical and physical manifestations of irrational hatred toward the Jewish community, institutions and religious facilities — as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and used officially — is singled out? Palestinians are Semites, too. The British gave away their land to Jews from Europe, not Semitic, enabling the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland. There was genocide and ethnic cleansing by the Jews, which are on-going to this day.
These crimes against a Semitic people is not anti-Semitism?
Furthermore, the IHRA definition in attempting a neutral position does uphold that
“Rhetorical and physical manifestation of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or property…”
Yet, the West goes out of its way to define any and all criticism of Israel — and in France also of Zionism — as anti-Semitism and has been conveniently criminalised. Why? In whose interest is it to prevent the exorcism of evil from Israeli policies?
Zionism claims legitimacy as “a national liberation movement of the Jews, by the Jews, and for the Jews” (Mohameden Ould-Mey, 2003) which, in short, is Jewish nationalism. Israel then would be the basis for Jewish nationalism and ipso facto containing Zionism to within the Israeli borders. Not so! As Laurent Guyenot argues in his article “How Zionist is the New World Order”, Zionism is nationalism, which transcends itself, a feat achievable only within a religious context.
Jewish nationalism is sourced from the Bible, which refers to Jews as the people of Israel, hence Israelites. After the fall of the Kingdom of Israel at the hands of the Romans the Jewish/Israelite diaspora became.
A complicated history of commercial and financial success enriching the minority Jews at the expense of the natives ultimately saw violence — the pogroms in Russia where the biggest community of Jews lived — perpetrated against them almost on a regular basis. Of course, there was the Holocaust. The search for a safe haven became the imperative and the struggle took the form of Zionism.
Jewish nationalism, aka Zionism, drove not just the modern-day Israelis with such birthright notions of the Promised Land and the Chosen People. It is, too, the ideology of the diaspora, a convenience hijacked by the neoconservatives — not all Jews — for their New World Order aspiration of a world government where nation states are cumbersome constructs; colonialism 2.0. Israel under this ideology then becomes more a project to drive a larger world-view long financed by oligarchs such as the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. George Soros is but a johnny-come-lately.
Only under this circumstance can anyone hope to understand why against the emerging populism in the West the sanctity of freedom of speech is being openly sacrificed. Why anti-Semitism in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn is being built up as a menace when research shows that Mr Corbyn was never an anti-Semite prior to him taking over the leadership of the British Labour Party on a crest of populist sentiments, nor now. Being pro-Palestine is not being anti-Semitic. And, there are few indications that the Party is being poisoned by anti-Semitism, although some are obviously trying to fan what are mere ambers, if at all.
This explains why the French philosopher Roger Garaudy was imprisoned on charges of Holocaust denial. Why Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has been attacked for questioning the dual loyalty of many in Congress to the extent where laws are passed that do not serve American interest but to protect Israel. Why many US legislators have lost their positions for questioning Israeli improprieties. Why anti-Boycott Divest and Sanction (BDF) legislation has been adopted in almost half the states of the USA and parts of Europe.
But Macron’s criminalising of anti-Zionism is probably a first. Why make public the connection between Zionism and anti-Semitism? Zionism, after all, is perceived as ideology. Criminalising anti-Zionism is not unlike attempts at criminalising Marxist theory by banning Marx’s writings as in some Third World countries.
It is my guess that the French move to criminalise these particular “hate crimes” now could be a desperate attempt at oppression; to quell the popular discontent as epitomised by the Gilet Jaunes street protests, now in its 15th consecutive Saturday. Accuse the peaceful protesters of “hate crimes” and then ban what has been proven to be peaceful protests made violent by state aggression.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Askiah Adam is Executive Director of International Movement for a JUST World [JUST]. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
March 2019 is notable in the post-Soviet space for three interrelated reasons, all of which deal with Ukraine: it was half a decade ago that Crimea reunited with Russia, after which the country began its descent into failed state status, and now it’s poised to hold general elections at the end of the month to decide its future trajectory. While Crimea has flourished as a free and safe society in the time since, the rest of “rump Ukraine” wasn’t so lucky since it quickly slipped into civil war and had its entire state apparatus captured by pro-Western oligarchs, the most well-known of which is the incumbent President Poroshenko.
As could have been expected, the economy capsized and the security situation became very dangerous for ethno-religious minorities, especially after Nazi-era ultra-nationalism was made the unofficial national ideology. The dysfunctional nature of post-coup Ukraine is such that no amount of money that was poured into the country by its Western partners could fix its new structural problems, which to the contrary only seemed to get worse the closer that Ukraine moved towards the West. The country is now at a pivotal crossroads as its people decide whether to stay the course and continue with Poroshenko, go “back to the future” and give Tymoshenko a try once more, or throw caution to the wind and support the comedian Zelensky.
It’s difficult at this moment to tell which of those three main candidates is leading because Poroshenko controls all of the state machinery and has been accused of using all the means at his disposal to tip the scales to his favor by hook or by crook. Many observers even believe that he staged the November 2018 Kerch Strait incident and subsequent imposition of martial law in order to create the pretext for indefinitely delaying elections or obtaining the cover that he needed for rigging them, both of which are very likely scenarios but were only offset by Western behind-the-scenes pressure after even the US realized that such audacious vote-rigging wouldn’t be accepted by the population.
This brings to mind the country’s growing protest movement which is comprised of a motley crew of dissidents all opposed to Poroshenko for their own reasons, be it his blatant corruption, dangerous international provocations against Russia, failure to halt the rapid decline of the people’s living standards, and even the fact that he isn’t “far right enough” for EuroMaidan’s original ultra-nationalist militias.
Openly stealing the election through one means or another could trigger a real revolution, especially if Tymoshenko and/or Zelensky seek covert Western support from Poroshenko’s international “partners” who might be fed up with him by that point in order to have them back another wave of anti-government protests.
This state of affairs might be why Poroshenko is less overt nowadays about his vote-rigging plans, which might not succeeded even if he puts his best efforts behind them because it remains to be seen whether his permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) are more loyal to him than they are to foreign patrons, the opposition candidates, or even the country’s national interests as they objectively exist. It can’t be discounted that Poroshenko might win, but it also can’t be ruled out that he won’t, and that his possible loss might be due to the most powerful elements of his “deep state” “betraying” him for the aforementioned reasons.
Poroshenko does have one last trick up his sleeve, though, and that’s if he makes a last-minute appeal to the most ultra-nationalist elements of the population in order to position himself as “their candidate” and promise to “be everything they wanted him to be”, with the hint being that they should take to the streets and wreak havoc if he loses. He might not ultimately play that card, and it might not even rile up the right-wing radicals like he might expect it to because there’s a chance that it could come off as insincere political pandering, but if he does resort to this strategy and it manifests itself in any tangible way, then it would be akin to him holding the country hostage.
Going forward, there are less than two weeks before the first round of elections is held, and it’s foreseeable that they’ll go into a second round if no candidate wins an outright majority. Poroshenko’s primary objective is to ensure that he reaches that stage so that he can have more time to craft a strategy custom-tailored for beating whichever candidate his main opponent turns out to be.
Once he has a clearer idea of who that person is, he can get to work orchestrating the behind-the-scenes pressure campaign and possible public stunts that he thinks are necessary in order for him to retain the presidency, notwithstanding the possible vote rigging that he might order elements of his “deep state” to undertake.
Wrapping up the article by returning to the introductory point, March 2019 is indeed very historic for Ukraine in more ways than one, with voters going to the polls to decide which candidate is best suited to have any chance of repairing the self-inflicted damage to this failing country’s statehood.
Conventional wisdom would suggest that Poroshenko – who greatly contributed to getting them into this situation in the first place and keeping them there for half a decade already – wouldn’t be the one to do so, but it’s precisely because of his oligarchic instinct in wanting to cling to power at all costs that he can be expected to pull whatever tricks are needed to stay in office, though there’s nevertheless no guarantee that he’ll succeed.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Human Rights Watch (HRW), in their 2019 report on revolutionary Cuba, have once more been championing American-sponsored proxy gatherings within the Caribbean island, such as the Ladies in White. This century, the most notable of these “dissident groups” in Cuba are indeed the seemingly virtuous Ladies in White, who in 2005 won the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, an award presented by the European Parliament no less.
All is not as it appears, however. WikiLeaks cables – which are proved accurate time and again – have since outlined clear links between the Ladies in White and US governments, revelations of significant interest to Cuba’s administration.
One should furthermore be wary of decorations dispensed by European Union institutions. In 2017 for example the Sakharov Prize, named after Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov, was awarded to the “Democratic Opposition in Venezuela”; the winners here were again proxy associations funded for years by elite US organizations, as even mainstream outlets like the Washington Post reported a month ago.
With regard the EU, since its inception in 1993, it has been increasingly influenced by hegemonic American interests, with the USSR no longer in existence to rival this growing power.
The EU today consists of 28 nations, a staggering 22 of which are members of NATO: A US-run interventionist military alliance, which has violated international law with its attacks on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya. One of the principal reasons that NATO was established in 1949, was so as to prevent Europe from pursuing policies contrary to Washington’s plans. As the elapsing decades have shown, it has worked a treat in that regard.
Europe has once more been kowtowing to the White House recently, with a list of EU states (most of which belong to NATO) following their master’s wishes by recognizing Juan Guaidó in Venezuela, who is a puppet figure in the truest sense.
In 1988 the first to be given the above-mentioned Sakharov Prize was Nelson Mandela, in this case a deserving victor, who was then enduring his 25th year in an apartheid jail. One can assume the South African revolutionary would have been somewhat unimpressed by the same decoration later bestowed upon US-funded groups within Venezuela and Cuba.
Mandela was a strong critic of America’s hostile actions against Cuba. In July 1991 he highlighted that,
“We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of a vicious, imperialist-orchestrated campaign, organized to destroy the impressive gains made in the Cuban Revolution… The most important lesson that you [the Cubans] have for us is that no matter what the odds, no matter what difficulties you have had to struggle under, there can be no surrender. It is a case of freedom or death”.
Much to the West’s distaste, Mandela was eternally grateful to Fidel Castro for initiating the liberation of southern Africa from apartheid; with Cuba’s leader sending thousands of his soldiers to the region during the 1970s and 1980s, along with other personnel like doctors and teachers.
While Mandela stewed restlessly for long years in a cramped prison cell, those triumphs achieved by Cuban-led armies against the racist, mercenary forces were a source of inspiration to Mandela and his followers – both in jail and spread out on the battlefield.
From a psychological viewpoint, the native African troops fighting apartheid had thought their conflict a vain one, for the prevailing mood was that the white divisions were “invincible”. This was due to a deeply ingrained inferiority complex, whose roots could be traced to the white race’s murderous conquest of African lands generations into the past.
Similar feelings of despair were witnessed in territories the British Empire subjugated in southern Asia during the 19th century. In Burma (Myanmar) for instance, the British soldier was long considered “unbeatable” by many of the local inhabitants.
This perpetual myth of the white man’s invulnerability would rapidly disintegrate, however, with the arrival of the Imperial Japanese Army along Burma’s southern horizons in mid-December 1941. Within a matter of weeks, the Japanese were running amok across the country against Britain’s beleaguered and humiliated infantrymen.
In early March 1942, Burma’s capital Rangoon fell, and by late May 1942 the Japanese had expelled Britain’s armies from the whole of Burma, ending more than 100 years of colonial rule. This was no insignificant victory as Burma is a state larger in size than France.
Meanwhile, in southern Africa, once Castro’s forces – which partly comprised of black troops – were inflicting heavy defeats upon the racist enemy, it shattered the legend of white superiority in this area, while simultaneously rousing Africa’s freedom fighters.
Throughout the 1980s, US president Ronald Reagan was a strong supporter of South Africa’s apartheid dominion, as too was British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. When the tide turned irrevocably against apartheid tyranny in the late 1980s, Thatcher discerned the warning signs and retreated. However, the Reagan administration continued providing assistance to South Africa’s neo-Nazi units, even after they were compelled to retreat southwards.
For the meantime, the most prominent anti-government figure in Cuba is currently José Daniel Ferrer, aged 48; in August 2011 he founded the “dissident group” Patriotic Union of Cuba, while his wife is a Ladies in White member. In May 2016, Ferrer described America as “the greatest ally of Cuban democracy”, words apparently spoken in serious tones.
In June 2017, Ferrer wrote a letter to US president Donald Trump calling “for a maximum reversal of some policies that only benefit the Castro regime” and he also demanded “strong sanctions on the regime of Raul Castro”. Ferrer is in reality another US-supported proxy candidate seeking to embed himself in Cuban society. He has written of his belief in “the commitment of the European Union and the United States to human rights”, and furthermore expresses his opinion that “the United States, the European Union, and others strive to help Cuba”.
Ferrer is an ongoing backer of the Trump cabinet’s malevolent attitude towards Cuba, which ensures daily existence is that bit more difficult for millions of Cubans. Yet Ferrer has spoken of his desire in helping “the oppressed people of Cuba” to achieve “freedom and democracy”, without seemingly realizing the actual oppression can be traced directly to Washington, which continues to implement a punishing six-decade long embargo.
There is no call from Ferrer that president Trump should remove this unwarranted blockade, that every country on the planet opposes apart from America and Israel. Nor is there an insistence from Ferrer that US forces relinquish Guantanamo Bay in south-eastern Cuba, which is occupied in breach of international law, and where some of the most severe torture has taken place in the Western hemisphere.
Also receiving no mention by Ferrer are the decades of US-directed attacks on Cuba, aid for international terrorists, bombing of Cuban hotels, etc. In recent years, Ferrer has toured cities across Europe and America – which he titles “the free world” – visiting Miami too, the region from which many brutal anti-Castro schemes were instigated.
Ferrer has called for other like-minded souls to join protest cliques in Cuba, including of course the Ladies In White. He held meetings with the top US diplomat in Cuba, Jeffrey DeLaurentis, before the ambassador left his post in July 2017.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ferrer has mass media backing with the Washington Post describing him in May 2016 as, “A tall charismatic man, with a deep voice” who is “a new breed of Cuban dissident”. The New York Times labels him as “a fiery lieutenant” in the opposition “movement”.
The Miami Herald championed Ferrer in August 2018 as “the leader of the largest dissident organization in Cuba”, and who is “a clearly charismatic leader”. This is the same newspaper which described Luis Posada Carriles, one of the world’s biggest international terrorists, as “the Cuban exile militant and CIA operative who targeted Fidel Castro’s rule”. Such was the Miami Herald’s portrayal of Posada upon his death last May.
Remarkably, all of these actualities seem to be lost on both Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, whose reports relating to Cuba are also lacking in historical perspective and context. The NGOs’ accounts are, in fact, mostly diatribes which have performed a key role in fostering a negative image of the Cuban nation.
Due to Amnesty and HRW’s respected reputations, well meaning people who read their analysis on Cuba are unduly influenced by their skewed studies, and so a grossly unfair identity of the island country is promulgated. Western elites must be grateful indeed to the NGOs for their work in this case.
In August 2018, Amnesty insisted that Ferrer is a “pro-democracy leader” and “a prisoner of conscience”; these are descriptions the London-based NGO have conferred upon Ferrer for a number of years now. Previously, in March 2013, Amnesty stated that Ferrer was leading “an unrecognized organization that seeks democratic change by non-violent means”.
In HRW’s 2019 review, they simply describe Ferrer as a “dissident” and have been highlighting his cause for successive years. Considering Ferrer’s flagrant anti-government campaigns in Cuba, it is hardly surprising that he has spent periods in jail, along with other US surrogate figures.
One should put into proper setting the enormous extent of threat facing Cuba’s government and its population: The country is in opposition to the most powerful state in history, whose military might dwarfs even that of China and Russia. American governments have intervened, directly and covertly, in numerous sovereign countries since the early 1950s.
Scarcely any of this receives mention in the NGOs’ reports concerning Cuba. The overall situation is surely not lost on the Cubans themselves. To have any chance of surviving from its outset, Castro’s government realized that it had to swiftly repel proxy organizations within the state, so as to prevent Washington from establishing a possible bridgehead.
In the great majority of cases modest prison sentences were handed out to the accused, some of which were then commuted, with many detainees thereafter departing towards Miami.
*
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.
If you want to know why an Australian man massacred 50 Muslims in a mosque in New Zealand yesterday afternoon, then you need to understand a little bit about our nation’s dark past and in particular the quality of our present leadership. Chris Graham explains.
***
Getting your head around an unspeakable tragedy like that which occurred in Christchurch yesterday is no easy thing. It’s hard to fathom the level of hate that underpins such a heinous act.
Ordinarily when an event like this occurs, there’s a rush from political leaders to offer condolences. But there’s also a clamour to avoid political discussion. When terrible things like this happen, ‘now is not the timefor debate. Now is the time for grieving’.
In Australia, on this occasion, that clamour hasn’t occurred. I think that’s in part because the victims are Muslim and most Australians don’t – and won’t – identify with their grieving. There’s no ‘profile pic filter’ in support of the Muslims of Christchurch flooding Facebook today.
I think it’s also in part because Muslim leaders themselves – young and old – are already leading the calls for a national discussion, although it’s not like they haven’t been doing that for a long time. Journalist Osman Faruqi probably put it best.
I feel so sad. We begged you to stop amplifying and normalising hatred and racism. But you told us we were 'politically correct' and 'freedom of speech' was more important.
The more you gave the far-right a platform, the more powerful they got. We begged you.
There are several distinctly separate conversations that must go on, across two countries, and there’s a deep, twisted irony in at least one of them.
If New Zealand leaders respond the way Australian leaders have in the past, then there will be a debate centred around immigration. They might come to the conclusion that no Muslim has ever come to their shores and massacred 49 people. But an Australian has, and by Australian logic, New Zealanders should be calling for an immigration ban… on Australians.
The other discussion – the more pressing one – is on our own shores. What Muslim leaders – and many of the rest of us – want to discuss is how we got to this point, and how we get back from here. That will require an honest assessment of this nation’s history – not just our treatment of Muslims, but of people of colour generally – and in particular it requires a frank discussion about the people who have led us here, and still lead us today. It’s only then can we even start to understand what created a man like Brendon Tarrant.
This analysis piece is an attempt to contribute to that process.
Aussie racism and our leaders
When John Howard, our Prime Minister from 1996 until 2007, first joined the Liberal Party in the 1950s, slavery of Aboriginal people was common in Australia, although there is no official recognition of this in our museums or libraries.
Aboriginal children were taken from their families, placed into ‘homes’ and then forced into labour. Their wages and savings were held in ‘trust’ by government, and then stolen. As late as 1986 governments were still refusing to pay Aboriginal workers the same wages as everyone else. When a court finally ordered equal pay, the Queensland Government increased the wage level, then sacked the requisite number of black workers to ensure there was no impact on the bottom line.
As this occurred, John Howard had already been in parliament a decade and a half and had climbed to the ranks of leader of the federal Liberal Party. He said nothing in defence of Aboriginal people, nor did he call to heel his party colleague, Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke Petersen.
Two years later, as Opposition leader, he called for Asian immigration to Australia to be reduced. The policy was called, ‘One Australia’.
In 1998, Howard campaigned on tax reform and faced an electoral wipeout. He won the election, but not the popular vote. By 2001, he’d learnt his lesson – his election slogan was ‘We’ll decide who comes to this country and the circumstances under which they come’. The ‘Tampa election’ – where Howard refused to process asylum seekers who had sunk at sea and been picked up by the a passing ship – delivered a significant victory for the Liberals, and most notably, changed the political landscape in Australia.
Howard’s overt xenophobia was welcomed by a majority of voters.
By 2005, Howard was still Prime Minister when thousands of white Australians descended on Sydney’s famous Cronulla beach to riot and beat brown people – to ‘take back our beaches’, as organisers put it.
The ‘protest’ had been driven in large part by Sydney shock jock Alan Jones, a mate of Howard’s. Despite the violence, and the scale of it, Howard refused to accept Australia had a problem with racism.
June 21, 2007: Prime Minister John Howard and Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough announce the Northern Territory intervention.
Two years later, he sent the Australian Army into Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory on the false pretext that it was awash with paedophile rings. The story was part of a racist campaign concocted by our national broadcaster, the ABC, and Howard and his party tried to exploit it at the next federal election. Self-harm and attempt suicide rates among the NT’s Aboriginal population more than quadrupled, anaemia rates in Aboriginal children sky-rocketed, and the government later conceded that the practice of restricting access to welfare funds caused widespread starvation among the Aboriginal population.
Only black people were subject to these laws.
When Dr James Anaya from the United Nations toured the country in 2009, he labelled the NT intervention policy – which was now being run by Labor – as “racist”. He was described as an “armchair critic” by Australia’s future Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, a man who believes climate change is “crap”, whose main election slogan in 2013 was “stop the boats” – a reference to mainly brown people seeking asylum – and who thought that Aboriginal people living in grinding state-engineered poverty were making “lifestyle choices”.
Abbott was ultimately rolled as Prime Minister, and eventually succeeded by our current leader, Scott Morrison, the man who as Abbott’s immigration minister set up the indefinite detention of refugees in camps on Manus and Nauru. Documents leaked at the time revealed that Morrison deliberately constructed the detention system to be as punitive as possible, to act as a deterrent.
There are still hundreds of men and women living this ‘deterrence’ today, trapped on these islands. This policy has also been condemned by the United Nations and the international community.
Yesterday Morrison was quick to empathise with New Zealand, and to condemn comments by his parliamentary colleague, Fraser Anning, who claimed the cause of the massacre was New Zealand’s immigration policy. Morrison called Anning’s comments “disgusting”.
They are disgusting – indeed most things Anning says are, including this recent speech calling for a ‘Final Solution’ to Australia’s ‘immigration problem’. But of all the people in Australia in a position to condemn it, our Prime Minister is not one of them.
Fraser Anning, of course, was previously part of One Nation, a deeply racist political party headed by Pauline Hanson. For her part, Hanson was previously a member of Scott Morrison’s Liberals. She entered the parliamentary chamber last year dressed in a burka, a stunt designed to highlight her opposition to Muslim immigration.
In her maiden speech to parliament in 1996, she complained Australia was being swamped by Asians. In her return to parliament two decades later, she claimed Australia was now being “swamped by Muslims”. And just to clear that up, about two-thirds of Australians today were born here and identify their heritage as white, and Islam doesn’t even rank in the top five religions in the country, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Recently, amid a major political revival of her party, Hanson chose Mark Latham as her lead candidate in next week’s NSW state election. Latham is the former leader of the Labor Party, Australia’s other major political force. Earlier this week, Latham called for Aboriginal people to be DNA tested before they’re allowed to claim social welfare. In 2015, he told media wstern Sydney had a “Muslim problem”. In 2017, he argued it was pointless being “nice to Muslims” to get them to tip off police about future terrorist attacks.
Latham is expected to easily win a seat in the NSW Parliament next weekend.
Those on the ‘left’ in Australia often claim that the Labor Party is much more moderate than the Liberals. Here’s former Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd describing people seeking asylum as “illegal immigrants”. And here’s his predecessor, Julia Gillard, blaming Aboriginal people for their own poverty.
Someone who might also return to the parliamentary benches at the upcoming federal election is Jacqui Lambie a former Senator with the Palmer United Party, another of Australia’s fringe-right parties.
Boosted by the media, Lambie reached folk-hero status during her term in office for being known as a ‘plain talker’. Here’s Lambie ‘talking plainly’ on television about the problems with ‘Shari Law’.
If you can’t stomach the clip – or more to the point, you simply can’t understand it – you can read a full transcript here. Or here’s a brief excerpt. Lambie is asked exactly what she thinks Sharia Law is: “‘Shari, Shari law, um, you know, to me it’s, um, it’s, ah, it obviously involves terrorism. It, it, it involves a, um, a power that, um, is not a healthy power.” Those are the exact words of a popularly elected Australian leader.
Cory Bernardi, another former member of the Liberals and at one time on the frontbench, has long been a vocal opponent of Muslims and Islam. He still serves in parliament as an independent, and last year described Halal certifiers in Australia as “cockroaches” after waging a failed campaign against them for four years, which included a Senate inquiry that found, unsurprisingly, no links to terrorism.
One of the more entertaining moments of his campaign was during an interview with ABC’s Four Corners program, where he tried to argue there were financial links between halal certifiers and ‘terrorist groups’ like Hamas, the governing party in Palestine’s Gaza City.
“Hamas itself is not a proscribed terrorist organisation in this country,” the journalist points out. Bernardi stares back at the camera for a moment, gulps, and then replies: “Well, there you go.”
Bernardi’s anti-Muslim rhetoric has routinely been given a wide airing in media, under the pretense of ‘balance’. But here he is ‘doing it for himself’ on his own website, in a piece entitled, ‘Words are not enough’. He rails against the 2017 terrorist attacks in Manchester, which claimed the lives of 23 people, and ends by saying, “Enough is enough. If the Muslim community will not stamp out this evil in their midst we must take the lead. Our institutions are designed to protect our citizens and our national interest. It’s about time we did what is necessary to make them effective.”
Notably, Bernardi’s response to the slaughter of 49 Muslims by a white Australian male drew a much more muted reaction – a single 13-word tweet.
In 2013, Bernardi used that same term – “disgusting”- but added “abhorrent” to describe proposed Greens’ legislation on same-sex marriage. It would lead to bestiality, he argued.
Who boosts them?
That’s just a small fraction of the recent Australian leadership – there’s simply too many to mention, like Wilson Tuckey, known widely in politics by his nickname ‘Iron Bar’, which he got for flogging an Aboriginal man on the floor of an outback pub; or the faceless Labor left figure who described the job of being Aboriginal affairs minister as akin to being the ‘toilet cleaner on the Titanic’. Or former One Nation politician David Oldfield, who thinks Aboriginal culture – the oldest on earth – should have died out in the Stone Age.
But it does give you some idea of the climate in which this country conducts its affairs, which is one of fear and loathing of ‘the other’ – of anyone who is not white.
Our population is easily exploited by this craven political cynicism. That is undeniable. But the politicians and leaders can’t do it without the assistance of our media, and on that front, there’s no shortage of willing participants.
The Daily Mail has devoted huge quantities of space today to the Christchurch attacks. Sure, wholesale slaughter may be terribly sad, but there’s clicks to be had and money to be made.
If you search the word “Muslim” on the Daily Mail home page, then manage to scroll past the 79 stories they’ve already filed on the tragedy, you’ll get to the Daily Mail’s real coverage of Islam, which is a catalogue of some of the most extreme bigotry and Islamophobia in Australian media history.
Go to the Daily Telegraph or the Herald Sun and google ‘African gangs’ or ‘Lebanese gangs’. Or read this story by Michael Brull, which documents 2,891 Murdoch stories trashing Islam in a single year.
Read this fake news story from Fairfax about how the country NSW town of Bourke – home to a substantial number of Aboriginal residents – is the most dangerous place on earth.
Then there’s the commentariat. On any given day, there’s no shortage of reams of copy from ultra-conservative mainstream columnists demanding the same rights they expect as citizens be denied people of the Islamic faith. Or Aboriginal people.
Go to google and search on the phrase ‘Sunrise’ and ‘Aboriginal’. What you’ll find is deep ignorance and bigotry repackaged as entertainment, then presented as ‘balanced debate’.
Earlier this year, our media hosted another of those ‘balanced debates’ about ‘Australia Day’, as it does every year (we still celebrate our national day on the date marking the arrival of the British and the commencement of two centuries of slaughter and dispossession of the First Australians). Panellist Kerrianne Kennerly – an Australian television icon – came to the conclusion that people protesting Australia Day needed to get off their arse and head out bush to stop Aboriginal kids and women being raped.
In 2017, ABC journalist Yassmin Abdel-Magied – a Muslim woman – was hounded out of the country by media and politicians for having the gall to mention our history of slaughter on Anzac Day, a date reserved for the ‘commemoration’ of our proud involvement in virtually every global conflict since Federation. To us, solemn reflection is a public holiday where we get drunk and gamble, and don’t mention the wars fought on our own soil.
Arch conservative News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt described Abdel-Magied as a “Muslim apologist”.And here’s a tweet from Queensland Liberal-National politician George Christensen – a warrior for free speech – calling for Abdel Magied’s sacking and “self-deportation”. It got enthusiastic coverage in mainstream media.
Yasmin should no longer on the public broadcaster's tax-funded payroll. Self-deportation should also be considered. https://t.co/xqs7ILx2xC
Without a hint of irony, this was Christensen’s social media response to the Christchurch slaughter.
It’s worth noting, two years earlier, Christensen was the guest speaker at a rally staged by Reclaim Australia – a now defunct group with links to neo-Nazis – in which he declared Australia was at war with radical Islam. That got major media coverage as well. Outrage as clicks is big business.
Prior to Abdel-Magied, we hounded an Aboriginal football star, Adam Goodes, out of the game after he threw an imaginary spear at a section of the crowd that was mercilessly booing him for having a young girl ejected from an earlier game for calling him an “ape”. And before that, despite our national obsession with sport, we celebrated when an Aboriginal boxer Anthony Mundine was knocked out in a world title fight. It’s almost certainly the first time in Australian media history that publishers celebrated a significant sporting loss.
So where to from here?
Australia, as a nation, hasn’t so much lost our way, as we never really found it. Our history is one of slaughter, but it’s also one of denial of that slaughter.
When Anders Behring Breivik massacred 76 people in Norway in 2011 – a person whom Brenton Tarrant listed in his rambling, unhinged 73-page manifesto as his “true inspiration” – Breivik praised Australian conservatives like Keith Windschuttle, an historian who flatly denied that significant massacres occurred in Tasmania in the 1800s.
Breivik also praised our former PM, John Howard, along with Catholic Cardinal George Pell, who was this week sentenced to jail for raping a choir boy, and sexually assaulting another. John Howard wrote him a glowing character reference for his court appearance.
Like Breivik’s manifesto, Tarrant’s is also very extreme and mirrors, in large part, the views of people like Blair Cottrell, Shermon Burgess and Neil Erikson, three of the more prominent white supremacists in this country, who have frequently been entertained by the Australian media.
But while his language and tone are angry, what Tarrant actually says – the things he calls for, like a halt to Islamic immigration – are views widely held and expressed within government, parliament and our broader leadership… the leaders who plough our fields with intolerance, then express condelences when people like Tarrant carry out the violence.
If we’re to find our way out of the toxic mess that we’ve built for ourselves, it’s going to require an honest reckoning of our past. That’s an enormous task, given the depth of our denial.
In responding to Fraser Anning’s comments yesterday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison also said Anning’s views had no place in Australian Parliament. In fact, those sorts of views have always been a part of Australian Parliament.
This is Australia’s first Prime Minister, Edmund Barton, speaking after the passage of our parliament’s first major piece of legislation in 1901, called the Immigration Restriction Act: “All men who come to these shores with a clean record who leave behind a memory of class distinctions and religious differences of the old world are Australians. No n*gger, no Chinaman, no laska, no Kanaka, no purveyor of cheap coloured labour is an Australian.”
That legislation was known as the White Australia Policy, and remained in force until the mid 1970s (at the time the strapline of the magazine which published the remarks, The Bulletin, was ‘Australia for the white man’. It finally closed its doors in 2008).
So contrary to Morrison’s assertions, these sorts of comments don’t just belong in Australian Parliament, that’s routinely from where they emanate.
For a way forward, we also need to acknowledge our present. If you look at Scott Morrison’s official Twitter account today, he’s posted eight times on the attack in Christchurch at the time of press. But he pointedly avoids using the ‘M’ word, referring instead to ‘all New Zealanders’ and ‘all Kiwis’, as though the attack was not specifically targeted at Muslims. But when the shoe is on the other foot – when two Australians were killed by a Muslim terrorist in Melbourne last year – Morrison found voice, naming and shaming the Islamic community for not doing enough to stop the violence.
“For those who want to stick their head in the sand, for those who want to make excuses for those who stick their head in the sand, you are not making Australia safer. You are giving people an excuse to look the other way and not deal with things right in front of you.
“If there are people in a religious community, an Islamic community, that are bringing in hateful, violent, extremist ideologies into your community, you’ve got to call it out.”
Indeed. But what of the non-Islamic communities, who breed men like Brendon Tarrant? What are they doing? Where is the blanket condemnation of them from our Prime Minister? Why isn’t the Mayor of Grafton, where Tarrant grew up, being held to account? Or Dr Murray Harvey, the Catholic Bishop of Grafton?
Besides honestly acknowledging our present, out best way out of this mess is to start applying standards equally – to treat all citizens in this country with the same respect, and afford them the same rights and courtesies. And we must demand that our elected leaders begin and uphold that process.
On that front, sadly, we do not presently have a leadership in Australia capable of the task. Our dog whistling, our Islamophobia, our racism and fear of brown people is so entrenched that, as we speak, sitting in Scott Morrison’s Prime Ministerial office is a trophy – literally a trophy – in the shape of a boat, with a plaque on it that reads, “I stopped these”.
So we need to find other people to lead this nation. Our leaders stopped the boats – we need to stop their votes. We need to clean out our parliament at the May 2019 election. Where we sit today is a direct result of our past. It’s time we took control of our future.
There is no other option, because while it certainly is a shock, and deeply distressing, that the man who massacred at least 49 Muslims in New Zealand was an Australian, it should also come as no surprise.
We’ve been importing and then fomenting hatred in this nation since 1788. Now, finally, we’re exporting it.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Chris Graham is the publisher and editor of New Matilda. He is the former founding managing editor of the National Indigenous Times and Tracker magazine. Chris has won a Walkley Award, a Walkley High Commendation and two Human Rights Awards for his reporting. He lives in Brisbane and splits his time between Stradbroke Island, where New Matilda is based, and the mainland.
All images in this article are from New Matilda unless otherwise stated
Government forces and the Russian Military Police have kicked off a joint security operation in the Eastern Ghouta region near Damascus. In particular, the operation targeted Jisreen, Mohammedia, al-Aftaris, al-Nashabiyah and Marj al-Sultan where a notable number of weapons and equipment was abandoned by militants after the defeat suffered from the Syrian Army in 2018.
According to reports, locals, many of them former members of militant groups, who opted to reconcile with the Damascus government, are assisting the operation with information about possible locations of hidden weapon caches.
The Russian Aerospace Forces have deployed at least four Su-25 attack aircraft at Hmeimim Airbase, according to recently released satellite images. The Su-25 Grach is a single-seat, twin-engine, close air support jet developed in the USSR by Sukhoi. The jet’s latest variant, the Su-25SM3, is equipped with the advanced tactical EW suite Vitebsk-25, the SOLT-25 day\night electro-optical targeting system, a new encrypted communications system, and an updated navigation system.
Experts link the deployment of close-air-support jets with the increased tensions within the Idlib de-escalation zone. The demilitarized zone agreement has in fact failed and even Turkish patrols in the area do not stop militants from attacks on areas controlled by the Damascus government.
Additionally to this, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) continued releasing public threats against the Syrian government and the Russians.
“We tell the Russian occupier: there is nothing between us but war, we will not be tricked by your well-known games, no believer should be fooled twice, a land that was freed by blood, we will defend it with blood,” the General Shari’a Council of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham said in an official statement on March 14.
While recently Hayat Tahrir al-Sham had little military success, there was an obvious quality growth of its literary activities. On March 6, Hayat Tahir al-Sham threatened the Syrian Army and Russian forces with “long dark nights” and “black days stained with blood.”
Actions of the administration of US President Donald Trump in Syria look more and more similar to those conducted by the Obama administration. The State Department officially announced that the US intends to provide an additional funding of $5m to ‘heroic’ members of the so-called White Helmets, the group, which has become widely known thanks to its involvement in staged chemical attacks and large-scale media operations in support of al-Qaeda in Syria.
Taking into account a recent warning by the Russian side that militants in the Idlib zone have resumed preparations for staged chemical attacks, it can be expected that soon we will observe a new wave of anti-Syria, anti-Russia and anti-Iran propaganda.
Regarding the supposed withdrawal of US forces from the war-torn country, it mysteriously transformed from a rapid and decisive decision to a thing, which according to U.S. Special Representative for Syria Engagement James Jeffrey, has no timeline because the struggle to defeat ISIS ideology would go on. Some Syrian experts say that, prior to defeating ISIS ideology, the US-led coalition should finalize its operation against the 600m2-wide ISIS-held pocket in the Euphrates Valley, which has still not been eliminated.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
In response to annual US reports on human rights in China, Beijing issues its own on the deplorable state of human rights in America.
It’s latest report made the following introductory remarks, saying:
As in previous years, the latest US reports on human rights in world community nations “continued pointing fingers at and slandering human rights situations in over 190 countries, while blindly ignoring its own serious human rights problems.”
“If one takes a glimpse into the human rights situation of the United States in 2018, it will not be difficult to find that the United States government, a self-styled ‘human rights defender,’ has a human rights record which is (deeply) flawed…(T)he double standards of human rights it pursues are obvious.”
Examples are numerous, including far greater gun violence per capita in America than other developed nation, tens of thousands instances annually, affecting men, women, and children.
“Religious intolerance remarks were on the rise,” notably affecting Muslims, falsely claiming they’re “inherently violent or pose an imminent threat” – Trump and other right-wing extremists proliferators of the Big Lie.
They’ve “called for Muslims to be denied basic rights or declared that Islam is not a religion.”
Big Brother Internet surveillance in the US is a major issue, along with “warrantless wiretapping…vacuuming up emails, Facebook messages, Google chats, Skype calls, and the like.”
Big money controls US elections. “The total cost of the 2018 mid-term elections was $5.2 billion,” 35% more than in 2014 in nominal dollars, “making them by far the most expensive mid-term elections on record. The US government is representing the super rich” exclusively at the expense of most others.
Among Western countries, the US has the greatest income inequality. Its super-rich never had things better. The vast majority in the nation struggle to get by, most earning poverty or near-poverty wages with few or no benefits.
The “land of the free and home of the brave” is pure fantasy. So is “America the beautiful” – except for its privilege few.
America’s top 1% owns nearly 40% of the nation’s wealth, the disparity becoming greater annually. “Nearly half of the American households live in financial difficulties, and 18.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty.”
Hate crimes are at a record high – 7,175 reported by the FBI, 17% more than in 2017, Black Americans harmed most of all, their overall status deplorable.
“The median white family has about 10 times as much wealth as the median black family. African Americans are 2.5 times as likely to be in poverty as whites, about twice as likely to be in unemployment as whites, and more than 6 times as likely as whites to be incarcerated.”
“The infant mortality rate is 1.3 times higher for African Americans, whose average life expectancy is about 3.5 years shorter than whites.”
Countless numbers of school shootings occur annually – 94 last year, killing or wounding 163 people, the worst year on record for these incidents.
“Women are living in fear of sexual harassment and sexual assaults. A survey found that 81 percent of women interviewed had experienced some form of sexual harassment, and 27 percent said they had been sexually assaulted.”
Trump racist immigration policy separated at least 2,000 unwanted alien children from parents, traumatizing many, instances of sexually abused alien juveniles reported.
The Trump regime withdrew from the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran, the INF Treaty with Russia, UN Human Rights Council, the Paris Climate Agreement and UNESCO. It illegally moved its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, a UN recognized international city.
It cut or eliminated aid to Palestinians, especially its millions of refugees. It maintains a global gulag of torture prisons, Guantanamo the tip of the iceberg, most in them held indefinitely for political reasons.
Numerous cases of violent crime, gun crimes, abuse of power by police, and press freedom abuses were reported.
According to the FBI, there were an “estimated 1,247,321 violent crimes, including 17,284 incidents of murder, 135,755 rapes, 810,825 aggravated assaults, as well as 319,356 robberies.”
“Among the cases, 72.6 percent of murders, 40.6 percent of robberies, and 26.3 percent of aggravated assaults were committed with firearms.”
Press freedom in America deteriorated further, including “journalists attacked, searched, arrested, intercepted at borders, and restricted from publishing public information.”
Special UN rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights Philip Alston published a report, explaining that wealthy Americans get preferential judicial treatment, ordinary Americans charged with offenses treated much differently.
Washington is corporate occupied territory, money power running the country, House and Senate members serving their interests exclusively, ordinary people exploited and otherwise abused.
Poverty is America’s leading growth industry. Around half the nation’s households are financially stressed. Low-income ones lack proper health insurance. They’re either uninsured or way underinsured, unprotected in case of serious illnesses or injuries.
Homelessness and hunger get scant attention. The world’s richest country increasingly ignores the needs of its most disadvantaged citizens and residents.
“Systematic racial discrimination has long existed in the United States. Ethnic minorities faced restrictions in exercising their voting rights. The law enforcement and judicial departments made no progress in reducing racial discrimination.”
“Racial discrimination causes health disparities. When looking at the 10 leading causes of death in the United States, including cancer, stroke and heart disease, mortality rates among black Americans were higher than among white Americans. Compelling evidence suggests both individual- and institutional-level discrimination causes this disparity.”
Women face discrimination, on average earning 80% as much as men with similar skills for similar work. Polls show nearly half of women dissatisfied with their position in US society, treated unequally compared to men.
UN special rapporteurs on human rights, international solidarity, the right of everyone to be treated equitably, the right to non-discrimination, against racism, torture, and other inhuman treatment criticized the way America treats refugees and asylum seekers.
“The United States shirked international responsibilities, carried out the unilateralist America First policies unscrupulously, repeatedly withdrew from international organizations, bullied the weak, and caused human rights disasters in its overseas military operations, and became a ‘trouble maker’ that the international community widely condemned.”
Endless US wars rage, nations attacked for refusing to subordinate their sovereignty to US interests, no end of them in prospect, new ones in the wings to be waged.
The US is the world’s leading human rights abuser on a global scale, including at home against its poor, people of color, unwanted aliens, Muslims from the wrong countries, and anyone against its rage to rule the world unchallenged.
*
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.”
On Monday December 8th 1941 FDR stood before Congress and said “December 7th, 1941, a date that will live in infamy…” and the people of our nation rallied to the cause for justice.
After 9/11 Junior Bush also rallied our people by telling us to “Get down to Disney World in Florida… take your families and enjoy life…” The US-NATO invasion of Afghanistan commenced on October 7, 2001.
Meanwhile, our great Military Industrial Empire was given the go ahead to gear up for WAR. On March 19th, 2003 the Bush crew, led by former G.D. Searle CEO Rumsfeld (under his thumb the slow poison artificial sweetener Aspartame was born) announced the newest phony war term. That would be Shock and Awe as we carpet bombed and missile shredded Iraq’s infrastructure and citizenry.
Why not, as this was good business for the Bush/Cheney donors who would then get contracts to clean up the mess or AKA Reconstruction. Isn’t infamy great?
This writer has written on more than one occasion my experience of that fateful morning of March 19, 2003. The night before I was glued to my television set watching the news shows from Canada, hoping for an eleventh hour cancelation of the impending attack on Iraq.
A month earlier millions, no, tens of millions of people from throughout the entire world marched and rallied against the planned illegal and immoral pre-emptive attack on another sovereign nation. Well, that fateful morning all we had hoped for did not occur. My country did the dirty deed, and its karma still resonates. I can recall standing in my living room, watching some asshole on either CNN or MSNBC describing the Shock and Awe like a cheerleader at a football game. I cried like a baby. Sadly, many of my friends and neighbors ‘Drank the Kool-Aid’ and marched along with the lying Bush/Cheney Cabal. Remember how many Democrats also wore their flag pins on those lapels? Months earlier, worrying about their upcoming re-elections, too many of them voted to authorize the Cabal’s pre-emptive attack plans. Miss Hillary, destined to be champion of her party in 2016, marched lockstep with the evil doers… and you wonder why she lost her bid for the White House?
Only a fool will deny that most of what our government labels as Al Qaeda or ISIL or whatever fanatical Islamic group is out there, would not even fit inside of a sports stadium with their numbers… IF we never attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq. Ditto for Afghanistan, where the Taliban had offered to turn over Bin Laden after 9/11. No, those two nations had to be controlled.
Why? Well, as to Iraq, Hussein was going to begin selling his oil in Euros and not in the dollars he always traded in. Of course, Iraq’s oil reserves were massive and needed to be controlled by us. Iraq was also right next to the other ‘AXIS of Evil’, Iran, and wouldn’t it be great to have our military right on their border?
As to Afghanistan, well, it was a gateway and transport area for the whole oil and gas Caspian region. Plus, as we have later found out, Afghanistan is overripe with mineral deposits, one such being the lithium needed for the hundreds of millions of batteries for the sea of electronic gadgets used worldwide. As the late General Smedley Butler had written in his 1935 short book War is a Racket we need to see who profits from our military engagements AKA Wars. All the European and Middle Eastern nations that are flooded with this severe refugee crisis should finger the blame on Uncle Sam and their own participation in NATO. For without those terrible attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria by this US led imperialist coalition, more hearts would be still beating, more towns and cities not destroyed, along with a decent way of life for millions.
Question is: When will the hundreds of millions of our citizens wake up and smell the coffee, or shall I say the burning sewage coming from our elected officials and mainstream media? Holding one’s nose is just not enough.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn, NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his work posted on sites like Global Research, Greanville Post, Off Guardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected].
Armed forces organization depends on several factors, from current and future threats and challenges (the nature of the projected theater of operations, or TO), to the country’s economic and technological capabilities. The doctrines of the two world superpowers of the second half of the 20th century (USSR and USA) assumed that large combined arms forces would conduct operations with massive support by artillery and aviation under conditions of nuclear war, in a multi-theater setting, including the wide-ranging European TO. But the experience of actual wars, including the Vietnam one for the US and Afghan one for the USSR showed that the current limited local and regional conflicts are decided by well-equipped mobile formations. Both countries researched the optimum organizational structure and methods of waging war for such operations.
Another event determining the development of military thought was the break-up of USSR. Massed nuclear strikes were no longer on the agenda. Military planning shifted from operations by field armies and larger formations toward highly mobile and well-equipped tactical task forces and combat teams up to brigade level.
By the end of the 2000’s, leading powers again changed their assessment of threats and challenges. This was due to the changes in global economy as well as social and ideological processes. Neither the US nor Russia were satisfied with the world situation. One felt the sense of losing an opportunity to establish oneself as the global hegemon, while the other sought to re-establish the status of a, at minimum, regional power. Economic motives played a key role in both cases. The powers increasingly acted through military confrontations. The risk of a global or a number of regional conflicts increased. Armed forces required adaptation to the new reality.
This is the context in which we briefly evaluate the organizational and staff structure of US and Russian armies, their missions and tasks, and development prospects.
United States
From the perspective of US military and political leadership, the post-USSR international environment and the associated changes in the methods of warfare demanded high-readiness Army units. Army divisions of the late 1990s represented a collection of battalions and brigade HQs. The divisional commander formed brigade out of several battalions and an already deployed brigade HQ. This made it difficult to coalesce these ad-hoc brigades, undermined their ability to conduct autonomous operations, and complicated joint action among brigade’s subunits. The decreased mobility and lavish equipment levels made it difficult to deploy divisions to overseas theaters of operations. Such units did not correspond to contemporary rapid reaction requirements, or the need for units capable of operating effectively in combat and non-combat (“operations other than war”) roles. The new requirements toward the US Army, particularly relevant during the opening phases of operations, demanded reforms in order to create a qualitatively new formation type capable of rapid deployment to theaters of operations.
Soldiers in Bull Troop, 1st Squadron, 2d Cavalry Regiment conduct a blank fire lane during troop exercise evaluations in the Grafenwoehr Training Area Feb. 18, 2018. The U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center is modernizing the Army Safety program to ensure that all Soldiers are safe during training and in carrying out their duties. (Photo Credit: U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Jennifer Bunn)
The US Army launched a large-scale re-organization in 2003 in order to transition to a brigade structure. Results included new corps and divisional command structures with a novel organizational structure.
As far as divisions are concerned, they are currently modular. The division maintains the function of HQ over a number of wholly autonomous brigades. Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) may be sent at any moment and in desired quantity to any corner of the world under the command of a divisional HQ or theater-level command structures. US Army divisions may be divided into two types—combined arms (infantry, cavalry, armored) and special (mountain, airborne, airmobile). Overall there are 11 divisions, not counting the US Army National Guard.
Brigades, consisting of a number of assets, became the key building blocks of land forces. They were subordinated to divisional, corps, or theater HQs, acting as a component of joint forces formed to satisfy the needs of the local commander. Such brigades are capable of rapid deployment and timely reaction to changes in situation.
Organizational and staff structure of Brigade Combat Teams
The US Army includes 3 brigade types: the Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT), Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT), and Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT).
The mission of the IBCT is to disrupt or destroy enemy military forces, control land areas including populations and resources and be prepared to conduct combat operations to protect US national interests. It is intended for operations in urban or densely populated areas where heavier equipment is inappropriate, as part of aerial or amphibious assault operations, and as a enveloping/raiding force. IBCT consists of 7 battalions: 3 infantry, reconnaissance, combat service support, combat engineer, and artillery, and totals 4413 soldiers. Each IBCT can perform assault operations and is officially designed as assault-landing. Most of its soldiers are mounted on Humvees. The weight and size of IBCT equipment allow transport using all types of transport aircraft, ensuring very high strategic mobility. IBCT’s main firepower consists of 6 towed M777 155mm howitzers, 12 towed M119 105mm howitzers, 48 mortars of various calibers, 36 self-propelled TOW-2 ATGMs, and 100 portable Javelin ATGMs.
U.S. Army soldiers of 141st Infantry Battalion, 3rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Bulldogs, out of Fort Bliss, fire at the enemy as part of a training mission at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif., on June 19, 2011.
Organizational and staff structure of SBCT
The SBCT is a medium mechanized brigade intended for both offensive and defensive operations in various terrain types. This BCT is usually used in fluid maneuver environments in certain terrain types (urban, mountain), and to defend important sectors.
SBCT consists of 7 battalions: 3 infantry, reconnaissance, combat service support, combat engineer, artillery, and totals 4500 soldiers. Since 2015 the anti-tank battery was transferred from combat engineer to reconnaissance battalion in order to form a fire support company there.
Soldiers from the 18th Engineer Co. 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, Stryker Brigade Combat Team, ready their 19 ton Engineer Squad Vehicles prior to moving into the “box” at the National Training Center.
Organizational and staff structure of ABCT
The ABCT represents the mainstay of US Army heavy forces. It is the main tactical shock-action unit intended for operations in tank-friendly terrain, launching counterattacks, breaking enemy defenses, and inflicting maximum damage on the enemy. Possessing great striking power and survivability, ABCTs form the core of the land force component in strategic theaters and, as a rule, are deployed in their entirety on combat missions.
ABCT consists of 7 battalions: 3 mechanized (combined arms), reconnaissance, artillery, combat engineer, and combat service support, totaling 4743 soldiers. Since 2013, the three combined arms battalions became two tank (two tank and one mechanized company) and one mechanized (one tank, two mechanized companies). It meant the elimination of two mechanized companies, while a tank company was reassigned to the reconnaissance battalion.
Modularity is also practiced in support brigades. The Modular Support Brigades come in 5 varieties: army aviation, artillery, reconnaissance, mixed (combat engineers, signals, military police, NBC defense), and supply. In earlier times artillery and combat service support existed only at division level, while brigades were assigned subunits by the divisional commander depending on the mission and situation. BCTs may be supported by the following units, depending on the mission and higher commander’s decisions.
Combat Aviation Brigades include UAVs, heavy and medium transport helicopters (Chinook and Blackhawk), attack helicopters (Apache), medevac helicopters. Such brigades are directly subordinated to divisional HQ.
Field Artillery Brigades (Fires Brigades until 2014) are equipped with M270 MLRS and HIMARS multiple rocket launchers. They also conduct information operations and have non-lethal capabilities.
Patriot
Air Defense Brigades possess Patriot and THAAD anti-air and anti-missile batteries. They were taken away from divisions as part of air defense reorganization. Nine out of ten US Army air defense battalions and two out of eight National Guard air defense battalions have been deactivated. The US Army has realized the need to re-establish a viable short-range air defense (SHORAD) capability, largely from lessons learned in Ukraine and Syria. National Guard units still utilize the Avenger AN/TWQ-1 short-range air defense system, and the US Army is currently updating and deploying the Avenger. The 678th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, a National Guard unit, was deployed to Europe last year, the first such deployment since the end of the Cold War.
THAAD
Maneuver Enhancement Brigades are used on those operational theaters where combat and support units are used in limited quantities, where an entire support brigade would be superfluous.
Sustainment Brigades provide logistical support of units above brigade-level. They consist of two battalions: special troops (battalion HQ and signals company), and combat service support (battalion HQ, technical servicing company, transport company, dispatcher group, quartermaster company).
Battlefield Surveillance Brigades are equipped with UAVs and deploy surveillance detachments.
In addition, there also exist Security Force Assistance Brigades, which train allied armed forces. While such brigades do not directly participate in combat, 500 SFAB troops save 4500 BCT troops from having to serve on training missions. By October 2017, the first of six planned SFABs was established at Ft. Benning.
As of September 2018, US Army had 31 brigades, including 13 IBCT (5 airborne, 3 air assault), 11 ABCT, and 7 SBCT.
Army National Guard has 27 BCT, including 5 ABCT, 12 IBCT, and 2 SBCT. Altogether the US Army has 58 BCT.
In order to visualize the capabilities of a division, we will consider a few cases.
Organizational and staff structure of 1st Armored Division, 1st and 3rd Infantry Divisions
The 1st Armored Division, as of 2016, consisted of a Headquarters and Headquarters company, Operations Company, Intelligence and Sustainment Company, Signal Company. Its combat power consists of one SBCT, two ABCT, Division Artillery, Combat aviation Brigade, supported by a Sustainment Brigade.
The 1st Infantry Division, as of 2016, had similar organization, except that its combat units include only two ABCT.
The 3rd Infantry Division is similar, except for two ABCT and one IBCT, supported by a Maneuver Enhancement Brigade.
When examining corps and army levels, one can discern the following:
I Corps is unique among active Army corps in that it includes both regular and reserve forces stationed in 47 out of 50 US states. Formally its forces include only the 7th ID.
III Corps includes the 1st Cavalry, 1st Armored, 1st Infantry and 4th Infantry divisions, in addition to support units.
XVIII Airborne Corps consists of 3rd Infantry, 10th Infantry (Mountain), 82nd Airborne and 101st Air Assault Divisions
Regional commands deserve a separate mention.
US EUCOM’s Army units are subordinates to US Army Europe (USAREUR). Its forces include 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (SBCT organization) in germany, and the 173rd IBCT (Airborne) in Italy. It is headquartered at the Lucius D. Clay Kaserne in Wiesbaden, Germany.
USINDPACOM (Pacific and Indian Ocean area). Its army units are subordinated to USARPAC. Organizationally it consists of the 8th Army, which in turn controls the 2nd Infantry and 25th Infantry divisions, with most of the latter based in Hawaii and Alaska. Its HQ is at Ft. Shafter, Hawaii.
USAFRICOM. Its Army units are subordinated to USARAF, and include the 2nd ABCT. It is headquarted at Caserma Ederle in Vicenza, Italy.
USCENTCOM does not have permanently assigned Army forces.
USARCENT (the former 3rd Army) controls foreign bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and various support units. Its HQ is at the Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina.
USNORTHCOM has no permanently assigned Army units.
USARNORTH (former 5th Army) controls the 263rd Air and Missile Defense Command
USSOUTHCOM has no permanently assigned Army units.
USARSOUTH (former 6th Army) includes the 193rd Infantry Brigade, 476th Military Intelligence Brigade, and various support units. Its HQ is at Ft. Sam Houston, TX.
US Army also has Functional Combatant Commands, including the USCYBERCOM, USSTRATCOM, USTRANSCOM, USSPACECOM, and USSOCOM. They do not have permanently assigned Army units, only attached ones as required and assigned by higher HQs.
Special Characteristics and Development Prospects
Unique organizational characteristics are readily evident. Each division has a unique structure. Nominally the US Army has only one armored division, and the existing infantry divisions are de-facto combined arms (not fully infantry, but also not fully mechanized). Artillery does not exist as a separate structure within the division. The divisional artillery headquarters trains and commands artillery units of assigned BCTs.
Changed threat assessments by leading world powers led to a new round of confrontation and a heightened risk of a global or several regional conflicts. Therefore US Army BCTs will form core of task forces with personnel strength of up to 5000 troops. US military specialists suggest three options.
The first is an armored brigade, reinforced by two infantry battalions and a reconnaissance battalion.
The second is a Stryker brigade reinforced by two heavy mechanized/tank battalions and a reconnaissance battalion.
The third is a light brigade, reinforced by two infantry battalions and a reconnaissance battalion.
Moreover, US Army BCTs will undertake a broader range of missions, including ones currently undertaken by special operations forces: raids, ambushes, mining important facilities and avenues of approach, precision strikes, guiding precision-guided munitions to target.
Simultaneously the US Army is reorganizing and expanding combat service support battalions, as part of effort of reforming US Army logistics in order to improve timely resupply prior to and during combat operations by shifting from mass delivery approach to a detailed distribution one. In particular, there is a trend of increasing the number of forward support companies. It is they which facilitate the ability of BCTs to quickly enter combat after deployment to a distant theater of operations without extensive logistical infrastructure. Attaching a forward logistical support company to each battalion makes it possible to create a flexible and scalable logistical network to ensure targeted logistical support.
Russian Federation
Now we will briefly evaluate Russian Federation Ground Forces, which experienced a more complicated and tortuous path toward its optimum organization due to the Russian military leadership’s approach to assessing military threats. If for the Soviet Army that threat was represented by NATO with its large combined arms forces, in the 1990s-2000s it was the struggle against international terrorism, and in 2010s the problem of confronting NATO and its mobile and well-equipped forces re-emerged.
Starting with the late 1980s and until the early 2000s, most heavy forces were deactivated or turned into equipment storage bases for economic and political reasons. The changing geopolitical situation and the experience of armed conflicts in various countries showed that in the absence of a well armed and property trained army it is impossible to defend national interests, particularly economic ones, neither on the global nor on regional scale. Reorganizing the army was a particularly high priority after the fighting in Chechnya in 1994 and 1999, and again during the war in South Ossetia in 2008. It proved unexpected for Russian military leaders that a division could at best deploy a reinforced battalion. Hasty assembly of several such divisions into more or less combat-capable formations revealed shortcomings in command and control, battle cohesion, organization of communications and logistics.
On the basis of such negative practical experience, Russian leadership decided to utilize the experience of foreign countries (particularly USA) in order to form modern mobile Ground Forces. Brigade was chosen as the building block. The main argument in favor of shifting to a brigade structure was that it had smaller size, thus it was more flexible and mobile than a division. Brigade structure was to endow the entire Russian army with high mobility and flexibility, corresponding to new security challenges.
In practice, the transition to the new structure suffered from the general situation plaguing the Russian Army of the early 2000’s, and was made more complicated by the civilian reformers running the MOD. A motorized rifle division would be reduced to a single motor-rifle regiment (2-3 battalions) plus reinforcements (tank, artillery, combat engineer, air defense, transport, and other subunits), the remainder being deactivated. There were fewer tank and motor rifle battalions, missions they were capable of fulfilling were more than modest. At that time it was probably the only way to preserve divisions, even in a reduced state. If one considers that the brigade was seen as something intermediate between regiment and brigade (divisional power and regimental mobility), one has to admit the actual outcome was a failure. Many exercises showed that brigades did not absorb division’s power and did not have regiments’ cohesion and mobility. If one is to compare the amount of assets entering into the direct contact with the enemy, the balance was not in favor of the brigade. Regiments and brigades had approximately the same number of tanks, APCs, and IFVs (more about that will be said below). Thus the brigade became a weak regiment reinforced with artillery and other support units. Motor rifle divisions would have three such regiments (two MRR, one tank), with the same number of support units.
The worsening of the international situation and NATO’s military activities near Russia’s borders revealed problems in Russia’s combined arms formations and forced military leaders to act. This included acknowledging the fact that as of mid-2014, there was not a single combined arms formation located in the Russian provinces adjacent to the Donetsk and Lugansk provinces of Ukraine, capable of defending them from unexpected Ukrainian military operations. One the western threat was reassessed, due to the pro-Western Ukrainian regime and NATO concentration near Russian borders, Russian military decided in 2014-17 to reorganize the 20th Army of the Western MD and creating the 1st Tank Army (Western MD) and the 8th Army (Southern MD), whose core would consist of tank and motor-rifle divisions. The Western strategic direction is critically important to the Russian Federation, as it includes 78% of the country’s population, biggest cities, the main economic, industrial, and scientific potential.
Russian Ground Forces currently deploy forces on the territory of adjacent countries and also further abroad. When deploying military bases (MBs), the Russian military uses US experience. The bases in South Ossetia (4th MB, 4000 troops), Abkhazia (7th MB, 4000 troops), Armenia (102nd MB, 5000 troops) have de-facto brigade structure. Their missions is to protect Russian interests in the region and prevent conflict. Due to the specifics and importance of that region, the 201st MB in Tajikistan has had divisional structure since 2013. This is due to the unending conflict in Afghanistan and the vacuum of power after NATO’s retreat. The base has the mission of protecting the independence and constitutional order of the Republic of Tajikistan, as well as ensuring the stability of political and military situation.
To get more detailed understanding of Russian Ground Forces combined arms formations, one should examine the entire structure from the army to division/brigade/regiment level. The following are the data for 2015-17.
As an example, we will examine the 20th Guards Army of the Western MD which was created in a new form in 2015.
By comparison, here is the 2nd Guards Army of the Central MD
One level of organization below, we have:
3rd MRD
21st MR Brigade of the 2nd Army (Southern MD)
37th MR Brigade of the 36th Army of Eastern MD
One level lower: 752nd MRR of the 3rd MRD (as of 2016)
By comparison, a tank division, brigade, and regiment, whose organizational structures are known
4th Guards TD from the 1st Tank Army (Western MD)
5th Separate Guards Tank Brigade from 36th Army, Eastern MD
12th TR from the 4th TD of the 1st Tank Army
Specifics and Development Prospects
Russian Ground Forces are currently in the midst of determining the most optimal and universal structure. Hence the reason why Russian military does not have standardized organizational structure and maintains not only brigades but also regiments and divisions. MR brigades also differ from one another. Russia’s Ground Forces include armies which may have only a single MR brigade (29th Army in Eastern MD) without support units. This is due to the specific missions of the armies. At the same time, in the eastern direction, division level formations are also formed for key spots. So, at the end of 2018, the 127th motorized rifle division (5th Army in Eastern MD) was re-established on the basis of the 59th and, partially, 60th motorized rifle brigades. One must concentrated shock- and fire-power inherent to divisions on the western direction to counter NATO forces. In the southern and eastern directions, the main enemy are terrorist organizations and the main threat is the destruction of political regimes of countries neighboring Russia and the spread of civil war. Here brigades or battalion tactical groups are more convenient, since they can conduct autonomous operations against mobile terrorist or insurgent formations. Widespread formation of battalion tactical groups was the situational way out for the Russian armed forces. Put that way, up to 136 battalion tactical groups, staffed with contract soldiers, were formed at the beginning of 2019.
By district, we get the following picture:
It’s also worth noting Russian military now fully realize the importance of reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and sniping on the modern battlefield. MR and tank brigades, regiments, and divisions now have sniper companies, EW and drone units.
Concerning differences between US and Russian armies, the Russian military does not have a concept of a modular support brigade. Artillery and reconnaissance brigades’ functions are peUnified Combatant Commands (UCC) under the rformed by units which are part of individual brigades (rocket artillery battalions or batteries, UAV companies). Frontal aviation units operate independently or are attached as needed by higher HQs.
Conclusions
Having considered the main aspects of land forces organization for the United States and Russia, one may discern a difference in approach due to varying assessments of threats, and to whether operations will be conducted on distant theaters or one’s own soil. There are also different approaches in assessing whether to rank potential threats as critical, vital, or important to state interests. Economic, technological, and organizational potential also plays a role.
The US Army is continuing to reorganize its BCTs. The aim is to improve their combat power through revising organizational structure and rearmament in order to meet battlefield demands. There is a trend to depart from a rigid classification of types of combat operations in favor of giving commanders the ability to act on the basis of own initiative in response to concrete tasks and conditions.
Brigade is the foundation for the brigade task force capable of accomplishing a wide range of missions after sufficient reinforcement, in both offensive and defensive operations as well as stabilization and assistance missions. According to senior US Army officers, further BCT development will depend on the spectrum of tasks they have to perform, battlefield conditions, and methods of waging warfare.
At higher levels, the United States military operates Unified Combatant Commands (UCC) under the DoD, consisting of at least two military departments with broad and continuing missions. These commands ensure effective direction of military formations irrespective of the branch of service during both peace and war. They are organized on “area of responsibility” (AOR) geographic principle or a functional one, for example special operations or logistics. The term AOR is used by the commands to establish regions with specific geographic boundaries where they may plan and conduct operations.
In Russia’s case, military leaders decided to abandon brigades as the basic block of combined arms formations on the most important strategic directions. This was due to the concern about the increase in NATO forces and their deployment on Russia’s western borders. Thus the Western MD is going back to armies consisting of divisions and regiments rather than brigades, which is more useful in both defense and offense. In addition, Ground Forces are creating large tank-heavy formations. Western MD already has one. In the foreseeable future, one may expect the Central MD to also get a tank army, since the 90th Tank Division is not part of any army. It is also likely Eastern MD formations will retain current structure. Brigades there are the best solution for a country in difficult economic and demographic conditions.
A few words should be said about the military administration of Russia’s territory. There is active discussion of a return to the Soviet military district model, due to the difficulties in command and control when the district HQ is 1000km away from the district boundary. The reinvented military district would also be responsible for all types of forces needed to fulfill its missions. Thus the Western MD may be divided into Leningrad and Moscow MDs, Central MD into Vola-Urals and Siberian MDs. It’s difficult to say how Eastern MD might be divided, and the Southern MD will likely be preserved in its current form, which means splitting higher command echelons (district level) and increasing formation size (from brigades to divisions and regiments).
We may thus draw the conclusion that the main difference in the approach between US and Russian land forces is that, first of all, the Russian Ground Forces are intended to defend the territorial integrity and inviolability of the nation’s own territory, and secondly, to react to the use of force by competitor powers in third countries when it poses a significant threat to Russia’s vital interests.
In the meantime, further US Army development will focus on rapid deployability to any part of the planet, concurrently with the overwhelming expansion of its own potential to defend US or allied interests. It is therefore relatively clear that the United States will continue to develop the doctrine of offensive operations as part of its pursuit of global dominion. The Russian Federation, in turn, will concentrated on defense and reaction to the actions of potential rivals.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has been visiting Iraq this week—a friendly, extended visit that has yielded several bilateral agreements on trade and transportation. Such an event causes heartburn, of course, within the Trump administration and for others who believe that the only useful thing to do to Iran is to try to isolate and cripple it.
History and geography have pushed Iraq and Iran to strive for close and cordial relations today. It is the sensible thing for each state to do. And Americans need not suffer heartburn because of it.
Iraq and Iran share a 900-mile border and at times have shared difficulties along the border such as restive Kurdish minorities and an old boundary dispute along the Shatt al-Arab waterway. Such geographic cohabitation has long carried the potential both for trouble and for cooperation. The shah of Iran, for example, assisted an insurgency by Iraqi Kurds as a form of pressure on Baghdad but stopped doing so as part of an agreement in which Iraq made concessions regarding the location of the boundary along the Shatt al-Arab.
A formative experience for both countries was the devastating war, which Saddam Hussein started, between Iraq and Iran in 1980-1988. The war caused hundreds of thousands of casualties. For Iranian leaders, the indelible lesson was the need to have a regime in Baghdad friendly enough toward Iran never to do what Saddam did. Iraq, which also suffered mightily in the war, came away from the conflict with similar lessons about the need to have a stable relationship with its neighbor to the east.
The Trump administration’s effort to get everyone in the world to join in its campaign of ostracism and punishment of Iran is colliding with these geographic and historical realities. Iraqis of various political stripes see the U.S. coercion of Iraq to join the pressure campaign as a misguided attempt to export an obsession and as contrary to Iraq’s own interests, and the Iraqis resent it. The resentment was clear last month when President Trump said in an interview that he wanted to keep a U.S. military base in Iraq “partly because I want to be looking a little bit at Iran because Iran is a real problem.” Iraqi President Barham Salih spoke for his countrymen when he responded, “Don’t overburden Iraq with your own issues…We live here.” The senior and highly respected Shiite cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, stated, “Iraq rejects being a station for harming any other country.”
In addition to the security reasons that both Iraq and Iran have for keeping their relationship stable and not making trouble for each other, there are economic reasons. Iraq as well as Iran needs the bilateral trade. Iraq especially depends on imports of Iranian natural gas and electricity to meet its energy needs. Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi notes how Iraqis suffered from a U.S.-imposed economic blockade during Saddam Hussein’s rule and states,
“Iraq will not be part of the sanctions regime against Iran and any other people.”
Iraq and Iran still have their differences and disagreements, but Iraqis are aware that the most consequential thing Iran has done in Iraq in recent years has been to assist the Iraqis in liberating the large part of western Iraq that had come under the rule of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS or IS). Iran has been the most important source of outside assistance in defeating IS—assistance that is unburdened by any talk about keeping military bases on Iraqi soil for the unrelated purpose of “looking” at rivals of Iran. Awareness of this assistance is probably one reason Rouhani has enjoyed a successful visit with all the trimmings, including a full slate of meetings with Iraqi officials, businessmen, and tribal leaders. In contrast, President Trump’s foray into Iraq last December was a quick, unannounced, middle-of-the-night drop-in to a U.S. military base without meeting any Iraqi leaders.
One of the principal consequences of the regime-changing war that an earlier U.S. administration launched in Iraq 16 years ago has been a marked increase in Iranian influence in Iraq. Now a different U.S. administration is apparently bent on changing another regime while exhibiting similar disregard for, or misunderstanding of, relevant regional realities and likely consequences. The makers of the 2003 war surely did not intend to increase Iranian influence in Iraq, and thus the heightened influence must be considered another failure of that war. But now that the influence exists, it is not worth losing any more American sleep over it, at least not without asking “influence for what?”—especially given that the most conspicuous objective Iran has pursued in Iraq is one the United States shares: the defeat of IS.
The United States still has an interest in post-Saddam Iraq being a stable, prosperous, and peaceful country. It thus is against U.S. interests to pressure Iraq into participating in economic warfare that is damaging to Iraq itself.
It also is against U.S. interests to pressure the Iraqis into violating their own constitution—a constitution written with U.S. encouragement and tutelage after the ouster of Saddam, partly with the aim of preventing the country from again becoming a participant in regional conflict and strife the way it was under the late Iraqi dictator. One of the “fundamental principles” enshrined in that constitution as Article 8 is:
Iraq shall observe the principles of good neighborliness, adhere to the principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of other states, seek to settle disputes by peaceful means, establish relations on the basis of mutual interests and reciprocity, and respect its international obligations.
That’s still a good idea.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Paul R. Pillar is Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies of Georgetown University and an Associate Fellow of the Geneva Center for Security Policy. He retired in 2005 from a 28-year career in the U.S. intelligence community. His senior positions included National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia, Deputy Chief of the DCI Counterterrorist Center, and Executive Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence.
A newly declassified US intelligence memo has been unearthed this week and featured in a bombshell Wall Street Journal report. It proves that the year prior to the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq the White House was expressly warned in great detail of all that could and would go wrong in the regime change war’s aftermath, including the Sunni-Shia sectarian chaos and proxy war with Iran that would define Iraq and the whole region for years following. And crucially, it reveals that seven months before the US invasion of Iraq, American intelligence officials understood that Osama bin Laden was likely “alive and well and hiding in northwest Pakistan” —important given that a key Bush admin claim to sell the war was that Saddam Hussein and bin Laden were “in league” against the United States.
The July 2002 memo was authored by William Burns, then serving as assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, and though clearly dismissed by the Bush neocons making the case for war, proved prescient on many levels.
“Following are some very quick and informal thoughts on how events before, during and after an effort to overthrow the regime in Baghdad could unravel if we’re not careful, intersecting to create a ‘perfect storm’ for American interests,” Burns wrote in the memo, classified ‘Secret’ and sent to Secretary of State Colin Powell.
The classified memo’s existence was first brought to the public’s attention through Knight Ridder’s reporting in July 2003, which sought to reveal at the time there were pockets of dissenting voices in the State Department and intelligence community pushing back against the absurd White House claim that the whole operation would be a “cakewalk” and US troops would be greeted as “liberators”. And there’s Vice President Dick Cheney’s infamous declaration that the military effort would take“weeks rather than months.”
Now, sixteen years after the start of the war the “perfect storm” intel briefing has been made public in fully redacted form and it affirms, as the WSJ reports,
“Diplomats accurately forecast many setbacks: sectarian violence, attacks on U.S. troops, Iranian intervention and long road to structural change.”
Out of this came the rise of ISIS and the continued unleashing of regime change and sectarian chaos on neighboring Syria.
The ten page memo outlines a litany of catastrophic doom and gloom scenarios resulting from the invasion which would destabilize not only Iraq, but unleash sectarian hell on the entire region.
Here are but a handful of the memo’s many warnings which later proved right on target, as summarized by the military reporting website Task & Purpose:
Iran increasing aid to anti-American groups in both Iraq and Afghanistan because it feared being “next on US hit list.”
Security in Iraq collapsing following regime change because Iraqi troops and police would be too afraid to patrol while Iraqis aligned with the United States would prove to be inept.
U.S. troops coming under increasing attacks as they patrol both Shiite and Sunni cities. “If they intervene to stop disputes, they are perceived to have sided with one party or another in a tribal dispute, thus incurring the wrath of the opposing party.”
Afghanistan’s security situation simultaneously deteriorating, creating the need for more U.S. troops there.
“Carpetbaggers, bill collectors, expats and exiles,” arriving in Iraq. “It will be a wild mix.”
“I don’t mean to be pessimistic, because I really do believe that if we do it right this could be a tremendous boon to the future of the region, and to U.S. national security interests,” the memo stated. “But we should have no illusion that it will be quick or easy.”
And further contradicting Cheney’s “weeks rather than months” claim, the memo accurately predicted that U.S. troops would have to stay for, “Five years – maybe four if we’re lucky, ten if we’re not.”
Some further interesting highlights from the July 2002 ‘Secret’ report are below.
*
Osama bin Laden hiding in Pakistan(the Bush admin claimed Saddam and bin Laden were in cahoots)
“Osama bin Laden turns out to be alive and well and hiding in NW Pakistan. We press Paks, internal stresses grow in Pakistan.”
Iran and Syria targeted next
“Following US warnings that it would take the war on terrorism to all groups with global capabilities, Iran and Syria hold summit meeting, decide US has targeted them.”
Iran and Syria “strengthen positions in face of perceived US threat against them following action in Iraq.”
Sectarian score settling and Shia uprising
“This means night becomes the time for revenge, all over Iraq. A horrible wave of bloodletting and private vengeance begins… US forces are helpless to stop the countrywide phenomenon. Police, intelligence, senior military, and Baath Party officials effectively go into hiding…”
“Shia religious and political leaders, unhappy with composition of provisional government and determined to secure greater share of power in post-Saddam Iraq… This leads to more violent confronations, and deaths, and the riots become a political tool to demonstrate power and increase leverage against Sunnis and Kurds…”
Long US quagmire to put down sectarian powder keg
“Faced with inchoate and escalating disorder in the provinces, the US faces an agonizing decision: step up to a more direct security role, or devolve power to local leaders.”
“The Shia in the south, quietly aided by Iran, stage major revolt, taking over local government offices and killing interim officials.”
Weapons from Saddam’s army will disappear (to be later used against US occupation)
“Law and Order, collecting weapons. We won’t get them, most will go to ground.”
“All for one, one for all, free for all – deals, short-term scrambles. It will be every clan for itself.”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
US forever war in Yemen rages, the Saudis, UAE, NATO, and Israel part of its so-called coalition – against peace in the country and elsewhere.
Over 17 years of war began by the Bush/Cheney regime. There’s virtually no prospect for ending it any time soon, the enormous human toll of no consequence to the US war party – regardless of its congressional posturing.
Joint House/Senate Resolution 7 “to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress” was too little, too late, a meaningless action.
On Wednesday, Senate members passed the measure by a 54 – 46 majority, invoking the 1973 War Powers Resolution. It requires a congressional declaration of war, or a national emergency created by an attack on the US, its territories, possessions, or armed forces, for the executive to deploy troops to engage in foreign hostilities.
It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing forces to military action. It prohibits them from remaining over 60 days, a further 30-day withdrawal period allowed – without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by Congress.
In December, a similar Senate measure passed by a 56 – 41 margin. Then-Speaker Paul Ryan killed it by not calling for a House vote.
In mid-February, House members invoked the War Powers Resolution, challenging the Trump regime’s involvement in Yemen.
They’ll vote again on the Senate resolution, virtually certain to pass, followed by reconciling any differences between both measures – Trump certain to veto what comes to his desk, likely to hold.
A two-thirds House and Senate majority is required to override presidential vetoes. Support for the measure is well short of this strength so far.
On Friday, Pompeo lied saying:
“We all want (the Yemen) conflict to end (sic). We all want to improve the dire humanitarian situation (sic). But the Trump (regime) fundamentally disagrees that curbing our assistance to the Saudi-led coalition (sic) is the way to achieve these goals.”
If Senate members “truly care about Yemeni lives, (they’d) support the Saudi-led effort (sic) to prevent Yemen from turning into (an Islamic Republic) puppet state (sic),” adding:
“If you truly care about Arab lives in the region, you’d support allied efforts to prevent Iran from extending its authoritarian rule from Tehran to the Mediterranean Sea and on down to Yemen (sic).”
“And if we truly care about American lives and livelihoods, and the lives and livelihoods of people all around the world, you’d understand that Iran and its proxies cannot be allowed to control the shipping lanes that abut Yemen (sic).”
Iran is the region’s leading peace and stability advocate – objectives impossible to achieve because of Washington’s belligerent presence, along with Israeli aggression. Both countries partner in each other’s wars.
Congress has appropriation power. The way to end war in Yemen and elsewhere is by cutting off funding, an action with scant support by Republicans and undemocratic Dems – showing their true position on war and peace, supporting the former, rejecting the latter.
Endless US wars in multiple theaters speak for themselves. Prospects for ending them are virtually nil – Afghanistan and Yemen the two longest ones, both launched in October 2001.
In response to Senate adoption of SJ 7, a White House statement said the Trump regime “strongly opposes (its) passage. (DLT’s) senior advisors (will) recommend he veto the joint resolution.”
Last year, a White House statement said a congressional vote to end US involvement in Yemen “would harm bilateral relationships in the region and negatively impact the ability of the United States to prevent the spread of violent extremist organizations.”
Yemen’s strategic location makes it important to the US – near the Horn of Africa on Saudi Arabia’s southern border, the Red Sea, its Bab el-Mandeb strait (a key chokepoint separating Yemen from Eritrea through which millions barrels of oil pass daily), and the Gulf of Aden connection to the Indian Ocean.
It’s why war to gain and maintain control of the country rages endlessly.
Separately, Yemeni Houthis said they have advanced ballistic missiles and drones able to strike strategic Saudi/UAE targets in response to a “major attack” on the port city of Hodeidah, the entry point for amounts of humanitarian aid able to enter the country.
On Saturday, Houthi spokesman General Yahya Sari said the following:
“The missiles force achieved major success leading to the production of ballistic missiles 100% locally…New generations of attack UAVs were produced and manufactured.”
“We have aerial photographs and coordinates of dozens of headquarters, facilities and military bases of the enemy.”
“The legitimate targets of our forces extend to the capital of Saudi Arabia (Riyadh) and to the emirate of Abu Dhabi” UAE.
Sari added the following about war since March 2015, saying hostile airstrikes included use of hundreds of thousands of missiles, bombs, and artillery shells, as well as around 6,000 banned cluster bombs. They’re terror weapons.
He said thousands of what he called light bombs, sound bombs, and fragmentation bombs were used against Yemeni targets, as well as thousands of rockets fired by naval vessels.
He further said Israel is involved in war on the country, along with other US imperial allies and thousands of foreign mercenaries, ISIS and al-Qaeda jihadists among them.
Yemen is Washington’s war, he stressed, adding brutal US/Saudi aggression massacred countless thousands and destroyed vital infrastructure, including schools, food storage facilities, residential areas, and hospitals, wrecking Yemen’s healthcare system.
Millions of Yemenis are threatened by endless violence, lack of treatment for illnesses and injuries, starvation, and possible widespread famine.
US orchestrated aggression destroyed the country – genocide a strategy of war, an entire population at risk.
The world’s severest humanitarian crisis worsens daily with scant Western media attention. The rape of Yemen continues with no end of conflict in prospect.
*
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.”
When Sen. John McCain passed away in August, he was lauded far and wide for his long career of public service. Rep. John Lewis, the famous civil-rights activist, hailed McCain as a “warrior for peace.” In reality, McCain embodied a toxic mix of moralism and militarism that worked out disastrously for America and the world.
In his funeral eulogies, McCain was portrayed as a hero and a visionary. But early in his congressional career, he barely avoided indictment as part of the Keating Five Savings and Loan bribery scandal that cost taxpayers billions of dollars. McCain repaired his image by becoming a champion of campaign-finance reform and new restrictions on political contributions. In 2002, Congress enacted the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which proved more effective at suppressing criticism than at reforming political life. The McCain-Feingold Act authorized harsh penalties for private citizens who accused their rulers of abusing their power. It prohibited most issue ads by private groups on television or radio in the months before a presidential or congressional election. In 2003, the Supreme Court (by a 5-4 margin) upheld the new law in response to activities with “a significant risk of actual and apparent corruption.” Justice Antonin Scalia noted in a dissent to the decision upholding the law, that the McCain-Feingold act “cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government.” But that was fine with McCain, since he declared that if he had the power, he would outlaw all negative political ads. He declared, “I detest the negative advertising. I think it is one of the worst things that has ever happened in American politics.” Banning negative ads but not political lies was McCain’s notion of a level playing field.
When he was awarded the Liberty Medal in October 2017 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Senator McCain declared,
“We live in a land made of ideals…. We are the custodians of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad. We have done great good in the world.”
He warned that it would be “unpatriotic” to “abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe.” But idealism has fared better in political speeches than in the lives of American soldiers or supposed foreign beneficiaries.
McCain served 25 years as the chairman of the International Republican Institute, a federally funded entity that intervenes in foreign elections to promote pro-American candidates. McCain often spoke as if the institute was the incarnation of America at its best. In 1997, McCain declared, “When we provide the democratic opposition in Albania with 12 Jeep Cherokees and they win an election, I’m incredibly proud.” However, the Institute was involved in violent attempts to overthrow governments in Venezuela and Haiti and was condemned for meddling in many other places. As long as pro-American candidates snared the most votes by hook or by crook, McCain had no complaints.
During the 1990s, McCain “slowly moved toward the idealist camp and became one of his party’s foremost advocates for the use of force abroad,” the Boston Globe noted. In his 2000 presidential campaign, he pledged a “rogue state rollback,” which sounded like “fill-in-the-blank” declarations of war against any regime of which the United States disapproved. He was defeated in the Republican primaries by George W. Bush, who sounded reasonable and moderate in comparison. However, after 9/11 Bush adopted McCain’s bellicose vision and promised to “rid the world of evil.”
Iraq
McCain was one of the foremost advocates for attacking Iraq and served as honorary co-chairman of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. In 2002, he declared that invading that nation would be “fairly easy” and that “we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time.” Two months after the fall of Baghdad, McCain proclaimed that the war was “fully vindicated.” After the war became a debacle, he declared in 2008 that it was “fine with me” to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for “a hundred years.”
McCain believed Americans should idealize military interventions regardless of the political machinations that preceded them. When Bush created a pseudo-independent commission in 2004 to exonerate him for the missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he selected McCain as one of the nine members. On the day his appointment was announced, McCain publicly declared,
“The president of the United States, I believe, would not manipulate any kind of information for political gain or otherwise.”
McCain’s boundless endorsement of the current president ignored the legendary presidential deceits that trademarked the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War of 1898, the First World War, and the Vietnam War.
McCain sanctified a commission (which had no subpoena power) that was a crock from the get-go. As Sen. Robert Byrd scoffed,
“This commission is 100 percent under the thumb of the White House. Who created the panel’s charter? The president. Who chooses the panel members? The president. To whom does the panel report? The president. Whom shall the panel advise and assist? The president. Who is in charge of determining what classified reports the panel may see? The president. Who gets to decide whether the Congress may see the panel’s report? The president.”
Predictably, the commission concluded that Bush was not to blame for starting the Iraq War on false pretenses.
McCain loved to strut on foreign trips where American reporters were sure to hail him as a visiting savior. He was ridiculed as “the new Baghdad Bob” who took a “magic carpet ride” after he visited a Baghdad market in 2007 and claimed, “Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today.” McCain touted his visit: “We stopped at a local market, where we spent well over an hour, shopping and talking with the local people, getting their views and ideas about different issues of the day.” Rep. (now Vice President) Mike Pence, who accompanied McCain, ludicrously asserted that the scene was “just like any open-air market in Indiana in the summertime.” At the time of his market visit, McCain was wearing a flak jacket, accompanied by 100 U.S. troops, and protected overhead by attack helicopters. Prior to McCain’s arrival, U.S. troops cleared almost everyone else at the scene. After he departed, Iraqi merchants bitterly scoffed at his claims that the market was safe. One shop owner growled, “They paralyzed the market when they came. This was only for the media. This will not change anything.”
But the American media lapped it up and the charade did nothing to prevent McCain from securing the Republican presidential nomination the following year. The shining moment of his campaign was his proclamation, “We are all Georgians now!” in response to a border clash that the Republic of Georgia commenced against the Russian Federation. McCain’s bellicosity against Russia never died. He also proclaimed during that campaign, “I know how to win wars. And if I’m elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory.” McCain never explained how he learned how to win wars (not a lesson taught in North Vietnamese prisons) or why he advocated bombing more than a dozen nations throughout his congressional career.
Syria and Libya
Perhaps the only lesson McCain learned from the Iraq War was that the American media would unquestioningly glorify him for demanding foreign intervention. In 2011, he was outspoken demanding U.S. bombing of Libya — widely considered the biggest foreign-policy blunder of the Obama administration. In April 2011, he visited rebels in Benghazi and labeled them heroes. Yet, as a Wikileaks disclosure revealed, he had sung a different tune two years earlier when he visited Tripoli. Meeting with officials of Muammar Qaddafi’s regime, McCain “pledged to see what he could do to move things forward in Congress” regarding a Libyan request for U.S. military equipment, according to a confidential U.S. embassy cable. After the United States helped topple the Qaddafi regime, chaos erupted and four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, were killed in Benghazi. A few years later, slave markets were operating in the nation that McCain and Obama had so proudly liberated.
McCain returned to the Middle East for an encore visit with Syrian rebels in 2013, whom he then ceaselessly championed as a moderate alternative to the regime of Bashar Assad. Under pressure from McCain and others, the Obama administration provided massive military aid to anti-Assad forces, but much of the weaponry ended up in the hands of terrorist groups. The absurdity of U.S. policy became undeniable when Pentagon-backed Syrian rebels openly battled CIA-backed rebels. That did not deter McCain from endless pious preening, such as his early 2017 tweet:
“On 6th anniversary of Syrian civil war, Assad & Russia cont. to commit genocide — when will the world wake up to the slaughter in Syria?”
Since McCain had used the word “genocide,” that meant the U.S. government was morally obliged to topple the Assad regime — even though Libya showed the catastrophic results of intervention. A year later, McCain wailed, “For seven long years, the United States has sat idly by in the face of genocide. We seem to have become immune to images of devastation and brutality coming out of Syria every day. Two successive U.S. administrations have failed to do anything meaningful to stop the slaughter and enabled Assad’s reign of terror to thrive.” Actually, the U.S. government had dropped tens of thousands of bombs and missiles on Syria, despite not having a dog in that fight. Donald Trump twice sent cruise missile barrages against the Assad government after unproven allegations were made that the government had used chemical weapons. (The al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups fighting Assad were also frequently accused of using chemical weapons.)
Most of the media ignored McCain’s role in making the Syrian conflict longer and bloodier than it otherwise would have been. That is no surprise, since American politicians across the board are perennially absolved by the ideals they invoke when championing foreign wars. But the moral bonus points are void beyond the national borders. Idealistic pretenses can spur vast resentment because “the American judges himself by the way he feels, whereas the foreigner judges him by what he does,” as Irving Babbitt explained after World War One.
There are plenty of nasty dictators in the world but U.S. government efforts have dismally failed to spread democracy this century. John McCain was in the forefront of prominent Americans who had “learned nothing and forgotten nothing” from recent U.S. pratfalls. Instead, he continued talking as if foreign interventions could be a deft blend of Jesus and General Sherman, righteously burning a swath through Georgia.
America cannot afford an idealism that consists of little more than combining bombing and wishful thinking. We should not forget the Americans, Iraqis, Syrians, and Libyans who died in part because of policies McCain championed. The most valuable lesson from McCain’s career is to reject the folly of militarized idealism.
*
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 December 2018 edition of Future of Freedom.
James Bovard is a policy adviser to The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is a USA Today columnist and has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, New Republic, Reader’s Digest, Playboy, American Spectator, Investors Business Daily, and many other publications.
The latest evidence gathered by the Venezuelan government and presented on Monday, March 11, to the Venezuelan population about the attack on the national electricity system, allows us to reconstruct the multidimensional nature of the attack that was unleashed in the energy sector as part of the irregular war against Venezuela.
Less than a week after the cyber sabotage on the Simón Bolívar Hydroelectric Power Station located in the Guri reservoir, which cut off the supply of electricity to more than 80% of the national territory, also affecting the supply of drinking water, health centres, communications and electronic banking, the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela denounced the physical attacks on electricity substations that made difficult the job of the technical personnel of the National Electrical Corporation (Corpoelec) to restore the service.
The cyber-attack against Corpoelec’s computerized centre in the Guri Complex hydroelectric plant and against the nervous centre in Caracas was followed by electromagnetic attacks and, simultaneously, sabotage of other backup infrastructure that reversed the recovery processes so as to ensure the general and irreversible collapse of the electricity supply.
It is crucial to point out that these attacks are not dislocated events of the road map for the development of an irregular war in an openly warfare phase against Venezuela, as Venezuelan authorities have repeatedly denounced.
The aggravation of the unconventional conflict against Venezuela would bring with it sabotage on a large scale in order to bring about the greater weakening of the security systems in Venezuela, which would be extended to the population through the degradation of the population’s living conditions. Indispensable components to the “humanitarian crisis” and “inability” of the “usurpation authorities” to “protect” the Venezuelan population narrative; premise under which the U.S. government persists in acting.
Indeed, a week after the electrical attack on Venezuela, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said his country’s government will insist on pushing through “humanitarian aid,” now incorporating the input of the destruction of normality and the almost total breakdown of social cohesion in Venezuela as a consequence of the blackout.
Operational Map of the Physical Attacks on the Electricity System
The attacks described below occurred when power had been restored in the east and south of the country and while working on its recovery in the capital. At least five attacks on the national electricity system were recorded, according to information provided after that by Communication Minister, Jorge Rodríguez.
On the other hand, there was a focus on direct sabotage, such as the one that took place through the explosion of the Alto Prado substation, which is located in Terrazas, the Club Hípico in the municipality of Baruta. When it caught fire in the early hours of Monday 11, it again left part of the city of Caracas without electricity.
The sabotage of the Tacoa thermoelectric plant, located in Vargas, also took place. There they cut off the gas that supplies the station, causing an explosion and preventing its operation as a contingency element to the blackout inside the Venezuelan capital.
It is necessary to stop at this point to point out that a context of irregular war, such as the one already being waged against Venezuela, denying Caracas from having electricity has strategic value, not only because it is the most important hub of national politics, but also because it is the main centre of financial operations and of the extensive electronic payment systems for the country as a whole. The interruption of the flow of electricity and consequently of telecommunications and means of payment, would dramatically break down any sense of normality thus having a direct impact on the population.
Other electricity transformer explosions were reported in the interior of the country, mainly affecting the western region. In the municipality of Cabimas (Zulia) as well as in Cabudare (Lara) that are places where the complete restoration of the electricity system took a long time to materialize due to explosions in substations. Specifically in Zulia, the explosion was reported last Tuesday afternoon (March 12) in the Las Cabillas sector of the Cabimas municipality. This state has also suffered irregular violent actions that have affected several commercial areas.
Also in the Lara municipality of Cabudare, the explosion of the substation occurred on Monday 11, causing further delays in the restoration of electricity within that area.
Sabotage of Oil Installations: Objectives
On Wednesday, March 13, the explosion of two 250,000 barrels of diluent in two tanks took place in the state of Anzoátegui, specifically in the PDVSA Petro San Félix complex. PDVSA authorities announced through internal messages, barely hours after the event, that the explosion had all the signs of being sabotage. Diluents are hydrocarbon fluids (such as naphtha) that are used to dilute heavy oil and reduce its viscosity, thus facilitating the transportation of crude oil.
Venezuelan crude for export is mostly extra-heavy, between 9 and 15 API degrees, of high density. For their transportation, handling and dispatch, diluents are essential. They are also the basis of Venezuela’s capacity to sustain or increase its production of crude oil.
The intermittent lack of these diluents has been one of the causes of the fall in oil production in recent years in Venezuela, as they had traditionally been supplied by the U.S. oil industry to Venezuela, and since the sanctions against the Venezuelan economy the country has had to resort to other suppliers in the midst of the financial boycott, thus affecting the smooth supply of that input to Venezuelan production.
The attack on Petro San Felix could be clearly understood within an agenda to degrade Venezuelan exports. It also contributes to partially disable the production of gasoline for the domestic market, given that the systems for transporting and dispatching crude oil through pipelines to national refineries also depend on these diluents.
Recently, the financial firm Barclays estimated that by attacking the Venezuelan electricity system, the country could abruptly lose 700,000 barrels of oil production.
Although the Venezuelan authorities have not reported on this, it is true that oil production is associated with electricity flows and that the shielding of oil fields through on-site electricity generation could be partial and limited. The sustained loss of electricity means loss of compression injected into wells, indispensable for pumping crude oil. It is known that a loss of substantial production, as opposed to the current levels, would have extensive effects on national exports and the domestic supply of fuels.
It is therefore necessary to conclude that PDVSA is an essential target in the operational plan of war of attrition against vital services in Venezuela.
Precise Inputs and Actors of the Irregular War in Venezuela
Through successive events that have taken place in Venezuela, we can see that a series of asymmetric actions have been perpetrated aimed to increase the collapse, such as consecutive attacks on power stations in border states by irregular groups coming from Colombia, theft of cables and strategic material in substations in the western central region, and attacks on the electricity system that have peaked during electoral periods.
Minister Jorge Rodríguez has released figures illustrating the consequences of low-intensity operations, which seek to dismantle the electricity infrastructure, a strategic area for the normal functioning of a country, with the aim of providing more ammunition to justify foreign intervention.
These actions, which have a long history, have generated more than 200 people dead by electrocution, more than 150 damaged electricity substations and multimillion-dollar losses in specialized equipment. The constant terrorist attacks to the electricity system of the country have seriously deteriorated the infrastructure, which facilitated the work of generating a domino effect that would prolong the collapse of the services.
By the time the perpetrators gaining access to the nervous centre and being able to dislocate its operation, the whole system throughout the national territory had already been weakened.
In addition to assessing the response capacity of Venezuelan military institutions in the face of a possible war scenario, where this type of resources would be needed daily, the violation of security in the Guri was used to reactivate the propaganda campaign of the “humanitarian crisis” after the failure of the 23F. The New York Times disclosure of the fabrication of a false positive in the show of bringing in “humanitarian aid” by force exposed not only the Trump administration but also the Colombian government for their open involvement.
Then enters the scene U.S. intermediary, Juan Guaidó (politically diminished after 23F), to comply with the media phase of unconventional aggression, spreading deceptive explanations of a supposed energy crisis caused by the negligence of the Venezuelan state.
At the same time, Marco Rubio spreads false figures of deaths due to power failures and incorrect information from affected stations and John Bolton is in charge of hiding the involvement of the United States by ‘explaining’ the reason for the blackouts “to years of corruption of Maduro, underinvestment and careless maintenance”.
In addition, the U.S. takes advantage of the brief media trend enjoyed by the false news about what happens in Venezuela after the blackout, to tighten the financial siege and pressurise other nations to join as well.
The intellectual authors of Washington inflated the effects of the attack in order to use them both to transfer the blame on the government of Nicolás Maduro and to increase the economic and diplomatic pressures against Venezuela, rushing things through by the realization that the support to the “parallel government” of Guaidó and the aggressive tone against the legitimate presidency of Maduro at a global level is irretrievably losing strength, while internally, they have not managed to split the FANB is as to bring about “regime change”.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
A senior French officer faces punishment after publicly condemning the US-led coalition’s military tactics against Daesh in the east of Syria, accusing Washington of prolonging the conflict and disregarding a growing civilian death toll, the army said on Saturday.
Colonel Francois-Regis Legrier – who has been in charge of directing French artillery supporting Kurdish-led groups in Syria since October – said the coalition’s focus had been on limiting its own risks and this had greatly increased the death toll among civilians, as well as raised the level of destruction.
“Yes, the Battle of Hajin [near Syria’s eastern border with Iraq] was won, at least on the ground but by refusing ground engagement, we unnecessarily prolonged the conflict and thus contributed to increasing the number of casualties in the population,” Legrier wrote in an article in the National Defence Review.
France is one of the main allies in the US-led coalition fighting Daesh in Syria and Iraq, with its warplanes used to strike militant targets, its heavy-artillery backing Kurdish-led fighters and its special forces leading the ground assault.
“We have massively destroyed the infrastructure and given the population a disgusting image of what may be a Western-style liberation leaving behind the seeds of an imminent resurgence of a new adversary,” he said, in rare public criticism by a serving officer.
“We have in no way won the war because we lack a realistic and lasting policy and an adequate strategy,” Legrier said. “How many Hajins will it take to understand that we are on the wrong track?”
Legrier’s article has embarrassed French authorities just days before the coalition is expected to announce the defeat of the terror group; the article was removed from the review’s website on Saturday.
“A punishment is being considered,” French army spokesman Patrick Steiger confirmed to reporters.
Hajin was the last major towns held by Daesh militants and was the target of the final phase of “Operation Roundup” that started September, with heavy battles also centring on the Al-Shafah area near the Iraqi border. Six months on, a rapidly-diminishing few hundred militants have been battling on the eastern banks of the Euphrates River, hemmed in by US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) on the Syrian side of the Iraqi border and by Iranian-backed Shia militias on the other.
Yet the battle has proved difficult with Daesh militants fiercely resisting SDF attempts to capture their final stronghold, despite hundreds of Kurdish fighters – including heavy military equipment – sent as reinforcements over the course of the fighting.
Although the SDF were also supported by fighter jets from the international coalition, strategically positioned minefields placed by Daesh reportedly significantly slowed the ground assault, causing the operation to be temporarily halted in November.
The coalition could have got rid of just 2,000 militant fighters – who lacked air support or modern technological equipment – much more quickly and effectively by sending in just 1,000 troops, Legrier argued.
“This refusal raises a question: why have an army that we don’t dare use?” he said.
Human rights groups have repeatedly criticised the US-led bombing campaign, which has resulted in the deaths of scores of civilians over the past six months; to date, some 700 civilians – over 250 of whom were children – have been killed, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Thousands of civilians have fled the area, with the Al-Houl refugee camp in north-eastern Syria currently hosting over 39,000 people, mainly women and children.
In October, some 54 people – including 12 children – were killed in a single strike on a mosque in the town of Al-Susah, near the Iraqi border. The US alleged that the mosque was being used as a base by Daesh operatives; some 22 militants were also killed in the blast. Despite being hit during the weekly Friday congregational prayer, a popular time for civilians, the military claimed it targeted the mosque when only fighters were present.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Children’s crusades do not necessarily end well. During the years of armed missions to the Holy Land, when Jerusalem meant something to the sacredly inclined in Europe, children were encouraged to take to the rough and dangerous road as it wound its way towards Palestine. In 1212, a boy of 12 is said to have begun preaching at Saint-Denis in France. God had supposedly taken some time to communicate a pressing wish: Christian children were to head to the Holy Land and liberate it from the Infidel. How they would do so was not clear.
They subsequently starved, suffered deprivation, were killed and enslaved on route to their destination. The modern student movement against climate change stresses another Jerusalem, that there will be nothing to salvage if nothing is done now. We are all, in short, for the chop if climate change is not arrested. As an Oakland high-schooler by the name of Bruke toldWired, “My GPA isn’t going to matter if I’m dead.” And much else besides.
To such movements can also be added other acts of striking in peaceful protest. Tens of thousands of US students did so in 2018 swathed in the grief and despair of gun shootings, the most immediate being the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. The National School Walkout of March 14 and the March for Our Lives ten days later had a biting clarity of purpose: students and staff were entitled to feel secure in the teaching and learning environment. The movement was characterised by much eloquence wreathed in anger and tears, not least of all Emma Gonzalez, who chided those political representatives “who sit in their gilded House and Senate seats funded by the NRA telling us nothing could have been ever done to prevent this”.
Criticism of such movements emphasises helplessness and delusion; they are children and so are vulnerable, idiotic and irrelevant. They are to be taught and have nothing to teach the adult world. Leave it to the big boys and girls to stuff up matters. The critics, often estranged from the very political processes they have been complicit in corrupting, see embryos in need of a constructive voice, expressed constructively without inconvenience, not coherent agents keen to affect change. There is, as Kari Marie Norgaard observed in 2012, a lag between the accumulating evidence of doom on the one hand, and the absence of public urgency, even interest, in response. “Although not inherently unproblematic,” surmised Norgaard, “local efforts may provide a key for breaking through climate avoidance from the ground up.”
The global climate change strike movement by children, blown and swept along by the efforts of Swedish student Greta Thunberg, have suggested the possible short-circuiting of this dilemma: to combat the global by being stridently engaged in the local. (Such statements can become feeble mantras but do operate to galvanise interest.)
For Thunberg, the issue of change is unavoidable. In her COP24 Climate Change Conference speech in December, the plucky youth did not believe that begging world leaders “to care for our future” would make much of a difference. “They have ignored us in the past and they will ignore us again.” What mattered was letting “them know that change is coming whether they like it or not.”
Protests were registered on March 15 across 2,052 venues in 123 countries. There were 50 in Australia; and protests in every state in the United States. Often forgotten in these movements is the role played by children themselves in the organisational side of things, often clear, fathomable and inherently coherent. In the United States were such figures as 12-year-old Haven Coleman of Denver, Colorado, Alexandria Villasenor of New York City, and 16-year-old Israr Hirsi of Minnesota.
Squirrel scholars suggest that these actions represented a “transformation” at play. Associate lecturer Blanche Verlie claimed that her research revealed how “young people’s sense of self, identity, and existence is being fundamentally altered by climate change.” It can be tempting to read too much into matters, to see flowers grow in fields initially thought barren. But there is little doubting climate change as a catalyst of active and noisy encouragement amongst youth, one akin to the anti-war movements of the Vietnam War period.
There has been much finger wagging against the children from, for instance, politicians who just cannot understand how a striking student could ever get employment. How dare they take time off learning in a classroom while taking to the classroom of the streets? The spokesman for UK Prime Minister Theresa May, for instance, argued that such protests increased “teachers’ workloads” and wasted lesson time. Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, in contrast, signalled his preference for the marchers and strikers:
“Climate change is the greatest threat that we all face but it is the school kids of today whose futures are most on the line.”
In Australia, New South Wales Education Minister Rob Stokespreferred to brandish the rod of punitive action: both students and teachers would be punished for participating in the March 15 rally. By all means, find your “voice”, suggested the threatening minister, but avoid doing so during school hours. For such scolding types, climate change and injustice have strict timetables and schedules, to be dealt with in good, extra-curricular time.
Australian Resources Minister Matt Canavan’s views on the youth climate action movement are childishly simple and representative, suggesting that Thunberg is correct in her harsh assessment. Recorded in November last year, the minister sees education as an instrumental affair.
“The best thing you’ll learn about going to a protest is how to join the dole queue. Because that’s what your future life will look like […] not actually taking charge of your life and getting a real job.”
Forget the environment’s durability; drill it, excavate it, mine it, drain it and burn it to a cinder. Australia, and the world, do not need environmentally conscious citizens, merely automata consuming and feeding the commodity markets. For the likes of Canavan, it is too late. For the children, the battle to change the beastly status quo is urgent, pressing and inevitable.
*
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]
Vietnam veteran S. Brian Willson paid the price for peace as he was run over and nearly killed by a military train during a non-violent protest at The Concord Naval Weapons Station in California on September 1st, 1987. The train was carrying weapons that were to be shipped to Central America and used to kill innocent civilians in Nicaragua, El Salvador & Guatemala.
Since then, Brian has not stopped calling attention to the US government’s defiance of international law through waging endless illegal wars. “PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE” exposes the truth about the United States’ addiction to war and the lies it perpetuates in order to wage ongoing violence. Brian’s story is very moving, inspirational and educational.
Watch the trailer below.
Reviews of the film:
S. Brian Willson has paid the Price For Peace in lifelong regular installments and his commitment assures us that truly one heart with courage is a majority. – Martin Sheen: Actor & Activist.
I love Brian. And I love this film. I wish that every American, interested in truth, could see it. Since his time in Vietnam, Brian’s life has been about revealing the dark side of US foreign policy. This very important film, which includes many of Brian’s friends in the anti-war movement, also talks about how U.S. militarism is one of the biggest contributors to Global Warming. – Daniel Ellsberg: Author, Activist & Former Military Analyst, who revealed The Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in 1971.
After viewing PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE, I cannot remember a film that has touched me so deeply, that resonates so intensely with the power of commitment, love and sacrifice. I have come to know the life and work of S. Brian Willson though his great book BLOOD ON THE TRACKS as well as a few personal meetings over the years. The film dramatizes his extraordinary life and work in new ways, assembling the voices and experiences of so many who have been impacted by his incredible journey. Willson’s presence on the American scene has been nothing short of transformative. As an author of several books on the destructive impact of United states militarism, I have found dozens of invaluable sources on the topic, but none more so than this film and the book that so powerfully capture Brian’s unique contributions to the struggle for peace and justice. As a veteran myself (though fortunately not in any war) and someone raised in a military family, I especially value his truth-telling about a system that is anything but virtuous or peaceful. There is a fierce and direct honesty about the way he describes the terrible costs and consequences of the military machine throughout U.S. history. As someone engaged in antiwar work since the 1960’s, I see in Brian’s life-story, an enduring inspiration for those of us struggling to end the long U.S. addition to war and finally, to dismantle a warfare state that threatens the survival of every living thing on the planet. Never has a film been more urgently needed. – Carl Boggs PHD: Professor of Social Sciences at National University LA, Author of several books on US military & foreign policy including: THE CRIMES OF EMPIRE, THE HOLLYWOOD WAR MACHINE & ORIGINS OF THE WARFARE STATE.
“S. Brian Willson is an international hero revered for his lifelong, unrelenting refusal to accept any apology for the US empire and its murderous military machine. This documentary should be seen by everyone, particularly the younger generation who may not yet be familiar with Willson’s life and his challenge to every US resident to take responsibility to end the US militaristic madness”. – Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz: Historian & Author of: “An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States”
“PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE” is truly an important and essential work of history and art. It is so much greater than a biographical documentary of Brian Willson, although it triumphs in its telling of Brian’s story. And it is much more than a terrifically put together and well edited visual narrative and history, which it certainly is. For these reasons alone, it is a film worth watching: gripping, inspiring and powerful in its retelling of Brian’s life before and during the Vietnam War and his commitment to peace and justice and especially his sacrifice after Vietnam. It is the history of the peace movement after the Vietnam War, especially in the 1980s. And for those of us who were children during that time, this is the sacred history of those who have come before us. Stories of men and women who accompanied Brian in his peace work are plentiful in the film and they provide a rich accounting and record of the acts of many who bodily, intellectually and spiritually opposed the madness of the militarism of the Reagan years; a madness that goes on. To say I learned a tremendous amount is an understatement. If there is required viewing for those of my generation and younger, so that we can know, acknowledge, respect and follow those who have come before us in the Peace and Justice Movement, it is “PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE”. Invest the time in watching it. You will have a wonderfully rewarding experience. – Matthew Hoh: Senior Fellow, Center for International Policy, Marine and State Department veteran of Iraq and Afghan wars.
PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE is perhaps the most compelling film I have watched in my life. I have seen it several times now. Each time I capture more and more gems falling from S. Brian Willson’s mouth, as well as from the numerous other individuals featured in the movie. The film is about waking up. Brian Willson reveals how he “did everything right and it was all wrong”. Essentially, he came to understand how he and the public, had been fed a pack of lies regarding patriotism and the U.S involvement in the Vietnam war, as well as other areas of conflict, in particular Central America. The film exposes what happens when you stand up to power. Expect strong resistance and stronger repercussions when you dare to question the status quo, bear witness and take action by speaking up, doing civil disobedience and exposing the egregious lies, deceptions and cover-ups put forth by the power structure. They will go to all lengths to suppress and destroy people powered movements. However, as we begin to unearth and face our willful ignorance and see things as they really are, something magnificent happens. There is no turning back. We are inspired to take action because it is the right thing to do. I was impressed that Brian Willson is very forgiving despite the travails he has endured. He understands that people who mean well have been misled throughout their lives and does not judge. At the same time, he does not give up and continues to live his life as a socially responsible person, paving the way for others as an inspiration to awaken from our trance, get on the side of oppressed and to value the life of each and every person. Please do not assume that this film is outdated or yesterday’s news. No! It is more relevant now than ever if we want to live in a world with genuine peace, justice and respect for all. – Patricia Todd: Librarian, Anti-War Activist and Animal Rights Activist
These are very challenging and dangerous times. We need people who can inspire us to resist. I highly recommend seeing: ‘PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE: The Story of S. Brian Willson’. Brian and the other people in this very important film, show us and lead us in resisting wars being waged by the United States. These illegal and immoral wars have devastated and killed millions of innocent people in the third world”. – Father Roy Bourgeois: Naval Officer in Vietnam, former Maryknoll Priest and Founder of The School of The Americas Watch.
“PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE” is the remarkable story of a remarkable man willing to give his life for peace. Brian Willson risked his life for the people of Central America, who were being killed by U.S. bullets and bombs. Brian paid the price for peace with his legs and almost his life. The rest of us are paying the price with our souls”. – Col. Ann Wright: Retired United States Army Colonel and U.S. State Department Official.
“There are few in this world who would unselfishly risk their lives for humanity’s sake. S. Brian Willson is one such individual. He paid an enormous price in an effort to help the innocent civilians of Central America by unmasking the truth about US. foreign policy and militarism. His is a dramatic, inspiring, emotional story of one man’s commitment to resistance and nonviolence.” – Joan Baez: Singer and Long-Time Activist.
“I had the privilege of seeing an early copy of PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE and then the honor of interviewing Brian Willson on my KPFK public affairs show about the movie and about his life. Now, I’ve spent over 50-years in the anti-war movement, met and worked with some of the great national leaders in that movement, including many who sacrificed much to win the peace we all sought. But no anti-war movie that I’ve ever seen and I’ve seen dozens, and no one single individual that I’ve ever met, has had a more profound impact of my emotions and my thinking about war and anti-war movements and what it means when one person truly and completely, “puts it all on the line,” than the movie PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE. If you have the good fortune to see this movie, you too, will get to know Brian Willson and through him learn what one extraordinary person can do to inspire others and thereby advance the cause of peace for all human kind.” – Jim Lafferty: Executive Director of The National Lawyers Guild/LA, Host of The Lawyers Guild Show on KPFK 90.7 FM Radio.
According to Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, chief climate advisor to the European Union, “We’re simply talking about the very life support system of this planet”. As fascism and the horror of murderous hate crimes are on the rise, governments are presiding over runaway climate change leading toward mass extinctions of species, costing the lives of billions and the demise of much of nature, while children are protesting against the betrayal of their future.
Evidence based on early climates and on current global warming requires revision of the mostly-linear IPCC climate change trajectories proposed for the 21st to 23rd centuries (Figure 3). The polar ice sheets, acting as thermostats of the climate, are melting at an accelerated rate.
Polar temperatures have been rising at twice the rate of lower latitude zones, weakening the jet stream and the Arctic boundary, which are becoming increasingly undulated (Figure 4). This allows cold air masses to breach the boundary as they move southward, as happened recently in North America and Europe, while warm air masses migrate northward. As the large ice sheets are melting large pools of cold ice melt water are forming in the North Atlantic Ocean south and east of Greenland (Rahmstorf et al. 2015) (See this). The AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation) is slowing down and the probability of future transient freeze event/s (stadials) lasting few decades or longer (Hansen et al. 2016) is increasing. The juxtaposition of polar-derived freezing fronts and tropics-derived warm air masses leads to a rise in extreme weather events (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Tipping points in the Earth system (Lenton et al., 2008) (see this) Creative Commons BY-ND 3.0 DE license.
More than 30 years since Professor James Hansen, then NASA’s chief climate scientist, presented a stern warning to the US Senate regarding the existential risk posed by global warming (see this), the consequences of the ignorance, criminal denial and pro-carbon ideology by vested interests and their accomplices among the political classes and in the media, are upon us, as the climate system is shifting into a dangerous uncharted territory. While the Earth as a whole continues to heat, transient temperature polarities between warming land masses and Arctic-derived cold air masses lead to extreme weather events (see this).
Arctic air temperatures for 2014-2018 have exceeded all previous records since 1900. According to NOAA, Arctic warming has led to a loss of 95 percent of its oldest sea ice over the past three decades. Reports of the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), based on thousands of peer reviewed science papers and reports, offer a confident documentation of past and present processes in the atmosphere. On the other hand when it comes to estimates of future ice melt and sea level rise rates, the IPCC models are subject to a number of uncertainties. This includes the difficulty in quantifying amplifying feedbacks from land and water, ice melt rates, linear versus irregular temperature trajectories, sea level rise rates, methane release rates, the role of fires and the observed onset of transient freeze events.
Figure 2. Atmospheric carbon rise rates and global warming events: a comparison between current global warming, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Event (PETM) and the last Glacial Termination.
Linear to curved temperature trends portrayed by the IPCC to the year 2300 are rare in the paleo-climate record, where abrupt warming and cooling are common during both glacial and interglacial periods. At +4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperature, projected by the IPCC for the end of the 21st century, life on Earth could be depleted to levels such as existed in the wake of previous mass extinctions of species (see this).
There would be no smooth transition toward +4 degrees Celsius but irregular heating including a series of extreme weather events and transient temperature reversals induced by the flow of cold ice melt water from the melting glacial sheetsinto the oceans. Hansen et al. (2016) (see this) used paleoclimate data and modern observations to estimate the effects of ice melt water from Greenland and Antarctica, with cold low-density meltwater capping warmer subsurface ocean water. Ice mass loss would raise sea level by several and later tens of meters in an exponential rather than a linear response. Sharp drops in temperature, reflecting freeze events in the Atlantic Ocean and the sub-Antarctic Ocean and their surrounds, would reach -2oC for several decades (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Global surface-air temperature to the year 2300 in the North Atlantic and Southern Oceans, including stadial freeze events as a function of Greenland and Antarctic ice melt doubling time (Hansen et al. 2016) (see this)
These projections differ markedly from IPCC models which portray long term ice melting values raising sea levels to less than 1.0 meters by the end of the 21st century (see this), an estimate difficult to reconcile with satellite gravity-based mass loss estimates by Rignot et al. (2011) (see this) and others.
With the breach of the Arctic boundary (Figure 4) the world’s climate is moving into uncharted territory, with significant implications for the planning of future adaptation efforts, including preparations for sea level rise and for deep freeze events in parts of Western Europe and eastern North America. As the Earth warms the increase in temperature contrasts across the globe, and thereby an increase in storminess and extreme weather events, as occur at present, need to be considered when planning adaptation measures. These would include preparation of coastal defenses from sea level rise and construction of channels and pipelines from flooded regions to drought-stricken zones. In Australia this should include construction of water pipelines and channels from the flooded north to the Murray-Darling basin.
Since many in authority do not accept, or only pay lip service to, climate science, it is a good question whether governments would be investing in adaptation measures in time. In particular no plans appear at hand for draw-down of CO2– the one measure which could potentially arrest global warming. In this regard the reluctance to date to undertake meaningful mitigation measures does not bode well.
The powers to be are now presiding over the greatest calamity that has ever befell on humanity and on much of nature.
Figure 4. The undulating jet stream allows penetration of cold air masses from the Arctic southward and warm air masses into the Arctic northward. (see this)
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr Andrew Glikson, Earth and Paleo-climate science, Australia National University (ANU) School of Anthropology and Archaeology, ANU Planetary Science Institute, ANU Climate Change Institute, Honorary Associate Professor, Geothermal Energy Centre of Excellence, University of Queensland. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Right now, Donald Trump could start a nuclear war on a whim, and no one could stop him.
Under any circumstances, the prospect of nuclear war is terrifying, the deadly consequences irreversible. Yet with a single order, the president — any president — could effectively declare a nuclear war that would wipe out entire nations, including our own.
More worrying still, our current president has shown an alarming willingness to engage in aggression instead of diplomacy — particularly towards nations like Iran and China, as well as countries whose citizens have now been banned from traveling to the U.S. under an overbroad, dog-whistle executive order.
Trump has almost gleefully exercised his right to threaten nuclear war.
He made boastful remarks about nuclear might throughout his campaign. And just recently, he called for a new push to put America at the “top of the pack” when it comes to nuclear weapons capability (as though we weren’t already).
Going against decades of precedent, not to mention hard-won diplomatic treaties reached with countries like Russia and Iran, Trump has enthusiastically declared that we should expand, not reduce, our nuclear arsenal.
Already, just a tiny amount of our nuclear stockpile would be enough to blow up the world several times over. We’d probably even have enough left over to decimate most of the seven Earth-like planets in the Trappist-1 solar system that NASA recently discovered.
Surely the horrors at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the devastation after the nuclear power plant leak at Fukushima, should warn us against the danger of nuclear fallout. The disaster at Three Mile Island wasn’t exactly a small lab accident, either.
It’s almost impossible to comprehend millions of people being obliterated from the face of the earth simultaneously, in the blink of an eye. Especially at the whim of just one American who happens to have access to a certain red button.
That’s why Representative Ted Lieu and Senator Ed Markey have introduced legislation prohibiting the sitting president from unilaterally declaring nuclear war without a prior act of Congress. They call it the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017.
“Nuclear war poses the gravest risk to human survival,” Markey warned in a joint statement introducing this legislation. Unfortunately, Trump insists on “maintaining the option of using nuclear weapons first in a conflict.”
“In a crisis with another nuclear-armed country,” the senator went on to explain, “this policy drastically increases the risk of unintended nuclear escalation.”
As so many people have said, we only have one planet. Billions of people live here — and nowhere else in the universe.
If we take our nation’s responsibility as a leader of the free world seriously, it’s our duty to protect people from the horrors of war, famine, poverty, genocide, and nuclear fallout. But there will be no place to go for any survivors of a nuclear disaster.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t even watch post-apocalyptic TV shows. I certainly don’t want to find myself living in the middle of one.
No one person on this planet should be able to make a decision that will send millions of people instantaneously to their deaths. That’s genocide.
Killing off our entire planet? That’s just inhuman.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Olivia Alperstein is the Deputy Director of Communications and Policy at Progressive Congress. Distributed by OtherWords.org.
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
That’s the thinking driving the Donald Trump administration’s policy towards Venezuela, according to a Wall Street Journal story titled “U.S. Push to Oust Venezuela’s Maduro Marks First Shot in Plan to Reshape Latin America.” Adding credence to this thesis, on Monday US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters that “Cuba is the true imperialist power in Venezuela.”
Despite Washington’s hope that toppling President Nicolás Maduro could hasten the fall of Cuba’s government, the Justin Trudeau government, which is supposed to have good relations with Havana, has played a central role in the US-led bid to oust Maduro. It has also echoed some of the Trump administration’s attacks on Cuba’s role in Venezuela. Why would a ‘friend’ of Cuba do this?
While much is made of Ottawa’s seemingly cordial relations with Havana, the reality is more complicated than often presented, as I detail here. Most significantly, Canada has repeatedly aligned with US fear-mongering about the “Cuban menace” in the region.
Just days after the April 1961 CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker claimed the Cuban government was a threat to the security of the hemisphere and “a dictatorship which is abhorrent to free men everywhere.” Two years later Ottawa’s representative to a NATO ministerial meeting was tasked with saying, “the Canadian government, of course, holds no sympathy for the present dictatorial regime in Cuba …. We remain deeply disturbed by the presence in the Western Hemisphere of a communist regime aligned with the Soviet Union and by the transformation of Cuba into an area which still retains a potential for disturbing East-West relations and the stability of the Hemisphere.”
Canada backed the US-led Alliance for Progress, which was the John F. Kennedy administration’s response to the excitement created in Latin America by the 1959 Cuban revolution. Ottawa began delivering aid to the newly independent Commonwealth Caribbean partly to counter Cuba’s appeal. In the early 1960s External Affairs officials, notes Canadian Gunboat Diplomacy: The Canadian Navy and Foreign Policy, “singled out Cuban revolutionary activity as the main threat to political and thus economic stability in the region and implied that developmental aid staved off Cuban interference.”
In 1963, that book notes, HMCS Saskatchewan was deployed to Haiti largely to guarantee that François Duvalier did not make any moves towards Cuba and that a Cuban-inspired guerilla movement did not seize power. Three years later two Canadian gunboats were deployed to Barbados’ independence celebration in a bizarre diplomatic maneuver designed to demonstrate Canada’s military prowess and to send a ‘signal’ to Havana. Canadian Gunboat Diplomacy explains,
“we can only speculate at who the “signal” was directed towards, but given the fact that tensions were running high in the Caribbean over the Dominican Republic Affair [1965 US invasion], it is likely that the targets were any outside force, probably Cuban, which might be tempted to interfere with Barbadian independence.”
When 7,000 US troops invaded Grenada in 1983 to reassert US hegemony in a country supposedly overrun by Cuban doctors, Canadian officials criticized Grenada’s government and abstained on a UN resolution calling for the withdrawal of all foreign troops (predominantly American) from that country. The next year Canadian ambassador to Panama, Francis Filleul, complained that
“Nicaragua has been penetrated so badly by Cuba and other [eastern bloc] countries that it is destabilizing. It was not that the people of Nicaragua … chose to welcome the Russians and the Cubans. It was that the FSLN [Sandinistas] had gained control of the revolutionary movement and that was their policy.”
As with the US Caribbean Basin Initiative, the 1986 Caribbean-Canada Trade Agreement (CARIBCAN) sought to isolate Cuba from the region.
According to a 2006 cable released by Wikileaks headlined “Canada’s new government: opportunities and challenges”, the US embassy in Ottawa pushed the Stephen Harper government to begin “engaging more actively in other hemispheric trouble spots such as Venezuela, Colombia, and Cuba.” In the spring of 2008 the Canadian embassy in Panama teamed up with the US National Endowment for Democracy to organize a meeting for prominent members of the opposition in Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela to respond to the “new era of populism and authoritarianism in Latin America.” In 2012 Canada was alone with the US in opposing Cuba’s participation in the Summit of the Americas.
While purportedly sympathetic to Cuba, Justin Trudeau’s government has criticized Cuba’s actions in Venezuela. In a recent article titled “Canada at odds with Cuban ‘ally’ over Maduro’s fate” Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland told CBC that Cuba’s role in Venezuela is “concerning” and that“we have heard directly from the Venezuelan opposition that they’re concerned by the role that some Cubans are playing in their country.” The article, written by extreme Canadian officialdom sycophant Evan Dyer, quoted an opposition group claiming thousands of Cuban agents “direct centres of torture in Venezuela.”
Compared to Washington, Ottawa has had cordial relations with Havana since the Cuban revolution. Still, Canada has generally sided with US fear mongering about the “Cuban menace”, which is propaganda largely designed to justify keeping the region subservient to western capitalist domination.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
These figures are almost certainly far smaller than the actual number of animals killed, as whistle-blowing former employees of the ironically named “Wildlife Services” program of the USDA have claimed they killed far more animals than they were instructed to report:
While livestock protection is its primary charge, Wildlife Services also “kills animals for eating flowers and pet food, digging in gardens, frightening people, and other concerns that could easily be addressed using nonviolent methods,” according to wildlife advocacy group Predator Defense.
“That killing is carried out with a vast arsenal of rifles, shotguns, small planes, helicopters, snowmobiles, leg-hold traps, neck snares and sodium cyanide poison,” writes Tom Knudson, a reporter who’s been investigating the program for years.
“A list of birds and mammals trapped and poisoned by mistake by Wildlife Services would fill a small field guide: great blue herons, porcupines, river otter, mule deer, pronghorn, snapping turtles, raccoons, family pets, federally protected bald and golden eagles, a wolverine – the list goes on and on.”
“This war on wildlife can’t be tolerated anymore,” attorney for The Center for Biological Diversity Collette Adkins told Newsweek. “This idea of killing wildlife any time there is a conflict is just barbaric.”
The environmental organization is suing the federal government over its Wildlife Services program.
“The Department of Agriculture needs to get out of the wildlife-slaughter business,” she added. “There’s just no scientific basis for continuing to shoot, poison and strangle more than a million animals every year. Even pets and endangered species are being killed by mistake, as collateral damage.”
“The barbaric, outdated tactics Wildlife Services uses to destroy America’s animals need to end. Wolves, bears and other carnivores help balance the web of life where they live. Our government needs to end its pointless cycle of violence.”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
We are completing what became more than a week-long peace delegation to Venezuela organized by the US Peace Council and the Committee for International Solidarity in Venezuela (COSI). The trip was complicated by American Airlines cancelling all flights in and out of the country, leaving us scrambling for ways to get there and get home. We also arrived in the midst of the attack on Venezuela’s electrical system, which caused further complications.
Our delegation met with community groups, political parties and members of the government, including a private meeting with President Maduro. One theme that became obvious during the visit is that the United States’ imperialism is fundamentally weak. It relies on lies and bullying threats to get its way. So far, Venezuelans are resisting everything the US and its allies are throwing at it, but they remain vigilant and concerned about an escalation of attacks.
Rallying with the women oil workers outside the presidential palace on March 15, 2019 in Caracas.
Venezuela Unites in Response To US Attack on Electrical Grid
The attack on Venezuela’s electrical grid began on March 7 and continued for several days. The outage made life difficult for Venezuelans. Without electricity, water pumps could not bring water to people’s homes, refrigerators weren’t working and the subway couldn’t run.
People lined up to fill buckets with water. Lights were on, but not everywhere. When we talked to residents, we learned how they came to their neighbor’s aid, sharing food and water. Despite years of economic difficulties caused by US and allied countries’ sanctions, there were no reports of looting or unrest in Caracas. Venezuelans remained calm and steady while confronting the challenges of the blackout. School and work were cancelled until March 14, but some people were out anyway and a few shops were open.
Maduro explained that the attack on the electrical grid came from the United States. There is evidence it emanated from Houston, the home of the company that provided infrastructure for the grid, and Chicago. There were also attacks on power lines and substations inside Venezuela. When a section was repaired, it would be attacked again.
Maduro told us the plan had been for the attack on the electrical grid to cause chaos and confusion in order to provide an excuse for US intervention. The plan failed. Venezuelans realized this was part of the US-led coup campaign, and rather than becoming divided, they united.
The democratically-elected government of President Maduro worked to end the electricity crisis, provide people with water and food and make sure buses were running. The self-appointed coup’s Juan Gaido worked with the United States, which caused the blackout and their hardships. Gauido is being investigated for his involvement in the electrical attack. He is allied with countries waging an economic war that is causing financial distress, and he is calling for foreign military intervention, a traitorous action.
We attended an ongoing rally outside the presidential palace to defend it. On Saturday, there was a mass protest of tens of thousands of people celebrating the country coming together to confront the attack on their electrical grid. People were dancing, singing and chanting their support for President Maduro. While there were several opposition protests announced, when a member of our delegation went to cover them, they were not to be found.
Pro-Bolivarian Process rally on Saturday, March 16, 2019 in Caracas.
The US Embassy is Forced to Close
On Tuesday, the US Embassy in Venezuela was forced to close because it was being used as a center for organizing the ongoing US intervention. President Maduro told us how the US openly tried to bribe and threaten officials in his government and in the military and how they threatened his wife and family. The US told the opposition to boycott the last election and told candidates not to run against him. They knew they would lose an election to Maduro, so the plan had always been to falsely claim the election was illegitimate.
Maduro wants to have a dialogue with the US but the embassy had to close because not only was it undermining his government but it provided justification for the US to intervene on behalf of its diplomatic staff. Venezuela plans to have dialogue with the US through its UN representative.
When the embassy personnel left, we received word we were “on our own.” The State Department issued a statement describing civil unrest in Caracas saying that Americans could be arrested at any time for no reason. They warned people it was too dangerous to come to Venezuela. This was echoed by the Airline Pilots Association, who told their pilots not to fly to Venezuela because of the dangers.
The morning of these declarations, we went for a walk in Caracas to look for unrest. Families were out with their children, people were shopping and eating pizza, and ice cream. Caracas is as active and safe as any big city in the United States. Members of our delegation described in this video the calm in Caracas and how the US was falsely claiming civil unrest to manufacture an excuse for US intervention. The people of Venezuela are prepared for more struggle, building a self-sufficient resistance economy and the will fight to preserve their independence.
When we talked to Venezuelans, one thing they commonly told us was ‘thank you for coming to Venezuela, now you can tell people in the United States the truth about our country when your politicians and media lie about us.’ The Venezuelan people want a good relationship with the people of the United States. President Maduro told us of his love for the United States and how he had driven through Chinatown, Little Italy, and Harlem in New York, visited many cities in the US, was offered a contract to play for the Los Angeles Dodgers, and loves basketball and Jimi Hendrix.
Maduro has offered to meet with President Trump to discuss and resolve their differences. His Foreign Secretary met with John Bolton — a fruitless meeting, but an attempt by Venezuela for dialogue. Venezuela wants a positive relationship with the United States but it will not give up its sovereignty, independence, or pride, and is prepared to fight a US coup.
Hands Of Venezuela March in Washington, DC on March 16, 2019. By Ted Majdosz.
Guaido Is the Butt of Jokes In Venezuela, Not Legitimate Under the Constitution
We were invited to be in the audience of the most widely-watched television show in Venezuela. It is a remarkable political education-entertainment show hosted by the president of the National Constituent Assembly, Diosdado Cabello. The show, Con el Mazo Dando (loosely translated as “Hitting with a Club”), is a weekly five-hour show that combines politics with music and comedy. During the show, he covered 80 different news stories including a chronology of the electrical attack.
Cabello uses biting satire. Guaido was the punch line of many jokes and his alliance with the hated Trump administration was highlighted. Gauido does not have the respect of the people of Venezuela. He is becoming of little use to the US coup and will possibly be discarded in the near future.
While Guaido has overtly committed multiple crimes, the Maduro administration seems to have made a conscious decision to not arrest him as his actions are weakening him and exposing the coup’s connection to US and western imperialism.
One thing that was highlighted to us in Venezuela was that the self-appointment of Guaido violates the Venezuelan Constitution. The language of the Venezuelan Constitution is plain regarding when the president of the National Assembly can become president and none of those conditions have been met. The coup relies on Article 233 of the Constitution, which allows the president of the National Assembly to become president only if the president-elect
“become[s] permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice [equivalent of impeachment]; permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the approval of the National Assembly; abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote.”
None of these conditions exist. And, if they did exist, the vice president would take power until there is an election. Not only is Guaido a self-appointed president, but he is illegally self-appointed. In a press briefing, Elliot Abrams admitted that Guaido is not “able to exercise the powers of the office because Maduro still is there.”
The State Department has been pressuring the media to call Guaido the “interim president” and not to call him “self-appointed” or “opposition leader” despite the fact that he has no presidential powers and no legitimacy under Venezuelan law. Any media that succumbs to this pressure is participating in a dangerous farce that is part of a US-led coup.
This contrasts with the legitimacy of President Maduro. This week, international election observers wrote the European Union telling them they were “unanimous in concluding that the elections were conducted fairly, that the election conditions were not biased.” They described EU claims as “fabrications of the most disgraceful kind.” We described in detail the legitimacy of the elections and other essential facts activists need to know about this US coup.
Singing and dancing as people arrive for “Con El Mazo Dando”. By Margaret Flowers.
Solidarity With Venezuela Is Essential
The people of Venezuela have shown their solidarity in standing together against the US and oligarch coup attempt. It is essential for those who believe in peace, justice and anti-imperialism to do the same.
We agree with Vijay Prashad, solidarity is a process, not a slogan. We plan to build on the relationships we developed with the US Peace Council, World Peace Council and COSI among others. We will provide a list of items that COSI needs for their ongoing organizing in Venezuela, but so far they told us they need computers, printers and paper. They also need donations (a little goes a long way). They don’t have a website yet. If you can donate, contact us at [email protected] and we’ll find a way to get it to them.
The first steps in building solidarity include demanding the end to all interference: ending US imperialism and preventing military intervention and war. It also means an end to the economic war, sanctions, blocking of finances and the embargo. On a near daily basis, it requires us to correct the record and confront the lies on which US imperialism is based. We will continue to post stories on Venezuela regularly and we urge you to re-post them to social media, email networks, and websites.
We can defeat the regime change narrative by getting out the truth. Join the national webinar on Venezuela on March 26 at 7:00 pm Eastern. Register here. And join the national webinar on NATO and Latin America on March 28 at 8:00 pm Eastern. Register here. We will have more reports from our meetings in Venezuela posted on Popular Resistance.
It is evident the US coup is weak. They have a weak leader in Guaido. They depend on lies because the truth undermines their every turn. They cannot participate in elections because they have very little democratic support. This contrasts with the strength of Maduro, who has the support of the people. The popular movement is positioned to stop the Venezuela coup and prevent a military attack. Our solidarity efforts in the US may prevent them from having to suffer more.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.
All images in this article are from Popular Resistance unless otherwise stated.
At long last, President Trump released his third presidential budget request today, after a month-long delay due to the government shutdown. And it’s a doozy.
President Trump’s priorities for FY 2020 go even further than last year’s request in bloating the already enormous military budget, requesting $750 billion for the military —an increase of 5 percent, or $34 billion, from the 2019 enacted budget.
That would put 57 percent of the $1.3 trillion discretionary budget into the Pentagon and nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, total funding for all other agencies, from the Department of Education to Veterans Affairs and NASA, is only $543 billion, down from $597 billion budgeted in 2019 – a nine percent decrease.
The budget pretends to be fiscally responsible, but it relies to an unprecedented degree on one of the biggest budget gimmicks of the 21st century, a Pentagon slush fund known as the Overseas Contingency Operations. This account was first established to pay for wars in 2001, but has become a genie in a bottle for the fulfillment of any Pentagon wish that doesn’t fit in the regular budget. Administrations can claim to keep Pentagon spending under control, and stuff the extra into the slush fund. The Trump budget takes full advantage, more than doubling funding for this Pentagon slush fund, to $165 billion, up from $81 billion enacted last year.
An additional $9 billion in the military budget is listed under “emergency requirements,” which may provide funds to build the border wall that President Trump is showing no signs of dropping as a political football. Reports from administration sources indicate that the president’s budget includes $8.6 billion to fund construction of a border wall, in addition to $3.6 billion to repay military construction funds he has attempted to seize to construct a wall.
The top-line budget numbers released today in the president’s “A Budget for a Better America” document provide a broad outline of the President’s priorities — more specific numbers are expected to be released next week.
But the document lays out some of the incredibly out-of-touch, militaristic items flagged for national security funding increases, like the “United States Space Force (USSF)” proposed as a sixth branch of the Armed Forces. And the budget touts the ramp-up of nuclear funds to begin a planned $1 trillion-plus renewed commitment to U.S. nuclear weapons capacity. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the Dept. of Energy gets an 8.9 percent boost to $16.5 billion for even more nuclear weapons proliferation.
On border security, the FY 2020 budget proposes to increase funding for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to $18.2 billion, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to $8.8 billion — up 19 percent from FY 2019.
While pumping up all these facets of the militarized budget, Trump’s budget is proposing a 23.3 percent cut to the State Department, America’s major means of preventing military conflict through diplomacy, bringing it down to $42.8 billion.
This is all while proposing massive cuts to agencies that actually meet human needs, like the Department of Education (down 12 percent to $62 billion), Housing and Urban Development (down 16.4 percent to $44.1 billion), Department of Transportation (down 21.5 percent to $21.4 billion), and the Department of Labor (down 9.7 percent to $10.9 billion).
Among the hardest hit are the Environmental Protection Agency, brought down 31 percent to $6.1 billion, and the non-nuke portion of the Department of Energy, down 25.4 percent to $15.2 billion. So much for dealing with the actual existential threat of climate change!
Of course, presidential budgets rarely come to pass. But President Trump’s intentions are clear, and if his recent willingness to shut down the federal government is any indication, there are plenty of fights ahead.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
As of November 2018, 18,434 people are known to have died from the March 11, 2011 earthquake and the follow-up tsunami which struck the nuclear facility leading to the inundation of electric generators powering the circulation of coolant in the reactors. When the generators failed, three units experienced catastrophic meltdowns. [1]
Radioactive water has for years now been draining into the Pacific Ocean. Toxic debris spewed into the Earth’s atmosphere. More than 73,000 people remain evacuated, and fully 3,600 dies of illness from causes like illness and suicide linked to the aftermath of the event. [2]
The group Simplyinfo.org has been undertaking extensive ongoing research and analysis of the Fukushima disaster and its aftereffects. In its recently released annual report, Simplyinfo presented a number of astonishing and grim revelations.
The report estimated the threat of radioactive microparticles created by the meltdowns as possibly “the single largest ongoing risk to public health from the Fukushima disaster.” According to the research, these pieces of material from the nuclear fuel meltdowns are small enough to be inhaled or ingested and lodge in major organs of the human body where they continually irradiate cancer-causing levels of radiation, making them much more hazardous than the external sources of radiation being monitored by health authorities. [3]
The report also highlighted startling instances of negligence and cover-up. One notable example was the case of Dr. Shunichi Yamashita. He had downplayed the health risks in public meetings, but was discovered through an internal memo retrieved from an ‘off-site center’ set up as a central commend for the disaster to have warned of ‘a serious possibility of thyroid damage to children in the region.’ [4]
As the radioactive contamination continues to be a concern the Japanese government of Shinzō Abe is inviting the world to visit Tokyo for the 2020 Olympics. The authorities are maintaining that the situation has been contained. Officials have decided to have the city of Fukushima host baseball and softball games, and are even having the iconic torch run start in Fukushima. [5]
Efforts to normalize life in Fukushima 8 years after the meltdowns appear to be successful if trends in media consumption are any indication. Articles marking the anniversary were eclipsed by other breaking stories.[6]
This week’s instalment of the Global Research News Hour strives to impress on our listenership that the Fukushima event, if it does not constitute an extinction level event, it is certainly an ongoing health and environmental hazard deserving of at least a portion of the public attention currently directed to climate change.
Dr. Helen Caldicott appears in the first half hour of our program. She collaborated with other experts to provide a one of a kind volume detailing the medical and ecological costs of the Fukushima catastrophe. She returns to the program to update listeners on what is known about the ongoing health dangers, the lack of transparency around the casualties, and the extent of the suppression and misrepresentation of the truth by the Japanese government, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization and the media.
We next hear from Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Energy Education. The nuclear industry watchdog shares his understanding of the spread of nuclear contamination at Fukushima, the Japanese government’s bid to distract the public with heavy investment in and promotion of the 2020 Olympics, and the general tendency of governments and regulators to put the health of the industry above the safety of the public. He also addresses some of the background of the Three Mile Island incident which took place 40 years ago this month in Pennsylvania, near Harrisburg.
Arnie Gundersen is one of the directors of Fairewinds Energy Education, an information hub showcasing over 200 videos, numerous podcasts and newsletters detailing relating to nuclear energy and the entire power production paradigm. Gundersen is a nuclear engineer with over 45 years of experience in the industry. He holds a nuclear safety patent, was a licensed reactor operator, and has coordinated projects at 70 nuclear power plants in the US. He co-authored with Maggie Gundersen and barrister Reiko Okazaki the 2012 book Fukushima Daiichi: Truth And The Way Forward, which became a Japanese best-seller. His organization’s website is fairewinds.org.
It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.
Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.
Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.
Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca
For example, the Guardian published a story related to the Fukushima anniversary the same day as the story of the Ethiopian Boeing disaster. The Fukushima story got 756 times as opposed to the plane story’s 21 thousand shares on social media. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/10/ethiopian-airlines-says-kenya-flight-with-157-onboard-has-crashed
By now, there should be serious doubts about how the Brexit debate and EU referendum even got off the ground in the first place. David Cameron would have been advised by countless experts, both political and economic about the demons an EU referendum would unleash. Countless ‘mainstream media’ articles reported that his decision was to settle the long-standing battle between the right and radical right within the Tory party and that he simply miscalculated.
But there is a truth that the MSM or commentators dare not utter. David Cameron was heavily influenced politically by yet another of these guileful and influential think tanks – this time the Policy Exchange.
Policy Exchange – David Cameron’s favourite think-tank – was founded in 2001 after the ultra right-winger Iain Duncan Smith was elected leader. The think tank shaped Mr Cameron’s campaign for the party’s leadership and again his election and soon began to make waves in Tory circles under its chairman, Michael Gove, and its director, Nicholas Boles.
How right-wing is this think tank? They once suggested that efforts to regenerate struggling northern towns should be abandoned and their residents encouraged to move south – as reported here by the BBC in 2008.
Just as importantly, it strongly promotes and always has done, a hard-Brexit or what they call a ‘clean break’ with the view that Britain will thrive under WTO trade arrangement rules.
So, is it right to say that David Cameron was A) a Remainer and B) an Atlanticist more than a Europhile? On the first, it would be fair to say, that’s not true and on the second – definitely. A British Atlanticist fundamentally believes in stronger ties with both America and NATO, not the EU project and an EU army.
Brexit was always going to create a situation where Britain would have been forced into the arms of the USA (and NATO) and strenuous efforts are underway right now to ensure that happens.
More evidence
WikiLeaks releases (HERE) shed details on David Cameron’s relationship with Washington. A 2008 cable, for example, shows then shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague telling the US embassy that “we want a pro-American regime. We need it.” [i] The US official noted:
“Hague said whoever enters 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister soon learns of the essential nature of the relationship with America”.
Hague also said that he and Tory leader David Cameron were “children of Thatcher” and “staunch Atlanticists”. [ii] In the words of the US embassy, Hague added that he:
“has a sister who is American, spends his own vacations in America, and, like many similar to him, considers America the ‘other country to turn to’”.
Similar assurances were made by Liam Fox, the shadow Defence Secretary who in 2009 met the US ambassador, telling him not only of his “desire to work closely with the U.S. if the Conservative Party wins power in next year’s general election” but also that “we (Conservatives) intend to follow a much more pro-American profile in procurement“.[iii]
What a coincidence then that these ‘staunch Atlanticists’ as they put it were the architects of a political plan that ended with more procurement with America – also known as – negotiating a trade deal with America.
What a coincidence then that Liam Fox was immediately appointed Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade to negotiate trade deals – with no trade negotiation experience. Why Fox – a man sacked for breaching national security? One assumes it had nothing to do with Atlantic Bridge, a think tank set up in Margaret Thatcher’s name – designed purely to promote Atlanticism that itself says is an “ideology of cooperation between the United Kingdom and the United States regarding political, economic, and defence issues.” It was set up by fierce Brexiteers Liam Fox, Michael Gove and William Hague. Atlantic Bridge had a partnership program with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a free-market organisation with extensive links to American State Legislators and corporate and industrial groups.
George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who supposedly backed Remain was on the advisory council of Atlantic Bridge – so was Chris Grayling. Even David Cameron’s press secretary, Gabby Bertin, admitted she was paid £25,000 by the US drug giant Pfizer when working for Atlantic Bridge. All of these people were linked to right-wing Republican’s in the Tea Party.
US Views on David Cameron
US cables show its officials viewing David Cameron in frank terms. Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal wrote to his boss in November 2009 noting that:
“On foreign policy, Cameron is unsure, inexperienced, oblique, and largely uncommitted. So far his foreign policy is little more than projection of his domestic politics, especially his need to keep his party behind him going into the election. His political imperatives have pressured him to lean right, including on alignment with the far right European Parliament affiliation”.[v]
Murdoch in on the game
Blumenthal also told Clinton that the mainstream media had a clear imperative – “the Murdoch outlets, (The Sun, Sunday Times, Press Assoc, News of the World) of which the Times is one, have a headline goal of getting Cameron elected.”[viii]
The Libyan war
In advance of the military campaign against Gaddafi which began in March 2011, the Cameron government claimed that its aim was to prevent Gaddafi’s attacks on civilians and not to overthrow him.[xiv] That deposing Gaddafi was illegal was confirmed by Cameron himself when he told Parliament on 21 March 2011 that UN resolution 1973, authorising the use of force, “explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from power by military means”.[xv]
However, WikiLeaks files from the Hillary Clinton archive, which were released in 2016, show William Burns, Clinton’s deputy as Under Secretary of State, having talked with Foreign Secretary William Hague and National Security Advisor Peter Ricketts about a “post-Qadafi Libya”.[xvi] This was on 26 February 2011, over three weeks before the UN resolution was adopted and before military operations began. The intention was always to overthrow Gaddafi and the UN resolution about civilians was window dressing.
As the war was still raging, in September 2011, another US cable reveals that David Cameron and his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy were both jockeying for their oil companies to be rewarded by the new Libyan government due to their role in the war. Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal noted:
“The two leaders, in private conversations, also intend to press the leaders of the NTC [National Transitional Council] to reward their early support for the rebellion against Muammar al Qaddafi. Sarkozy and Cameron expect this recognition to be tangible, in the form of favourable contracts for French and British energy companies looking to play a major role in the Libyan oil industry.” [xvii]
All of this only goes to show the extent of collusion between the Cameron government and the US administration of the day i.e. that America had given its explicit blessing to the attack of Libya that ended with the destruction of a wealthy stable sovereign state – and of course, the unbottling of African migration, that then destabilised the European Union. The right-wng press had a field day.
Covert operations
The WikiLeaks files also contain intriguing hints of other questionable operations during the Cameron government. There are other cables, especially with regard to Israel, Syria and other Middle-Eastern states, demonstrating a deal of orchestration between the USA and UK. [xix]
Influencing the Scottish referendum?
There were many tactics being used to influence the Scottish referendum. ‘Project Fear’ was highly cited by those who criticised the MSM, commentators, politicians and business leaders for threatening Scotland with, more than anything, economic exclusion.
However, to demonstrate how deeply the Westminster government was embroiled in the propaganda war – the WikiLeaks files also show that David Cameron met with representatives of American media company Sony Pictures ten weeks before the Scottish referendum in September 2014. Discussions took place prior to the release of a TV show called “Outlander” based on Scotland’s repression under British rule. The release of the TV series was delayed in the UK, while being shown in the US, provoking suggestions this was influenced by the upcoming Scottish referendum. The leaked email published by WikiLeaks from Sony Pictures’ vice president Keith Weaver to other Sony executives made note of a planned meeting with Cameron, expressing the “importance” of the TV series to the political situation at the time.[xxi]
The USA or EU?
For anyone to suggest that David Cameron’s thoughts were not determined in some way by his favoured highly influential think tank with strong right-wing, free-market ideals, whose funding and donors is unknown, would be foolish. That Cameron was an outright Atlanticist is plain for all to see. And, if having to choose between one or the other, it is clear this is where his heart was – because he was prepared to gamble Britain’s relationship with the EU.
His governments’ ideology of austerity is nothing more than the type of financial strangulation seen in the USA represented by the worst health care system in the western world – privatisation of everything is the key to everything, irrespective of the outcomes.
The fact that key American corporations are designing and directing the dismantling of the UK’s welfare state already should be a strong hint of what is to come. Cameron accelerated this plan, as his government did with adding privatised services to the NHS and selling off state assets faster than Thatcher did.
For all of the speculation that David Cameron just ‘slipped up’ with the EU referendum that caused Brexit is frankly on the one hand – little more than a serious indictment of ‘the establishment’ that he was born into and beholden to. On the other, it indicates the inquisitive to wonder if offering an EU referendum is exactly what ‘deep state’ America wanted.
*
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 American war on Venezuela continues to escalate with the sabotage of its electricity grid, the most serious action of all so far, which was not only an act of terrorism against the entire civilian population but also an attempt to shut down exports of Venezuelan oil.
This is part of the American hybrid war strategy. Hybrid warfare is warfare that uses all domains of life and society to hurt and damage the targeted nation. It was best defined by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiansui, two senior colonels of the Peoples Liberation Army in their famous book titled, Unrestricted Warfare, published in 1999 which proposed strategies and tactics that could be used by developing countries to compensate for their military inferiority vis a vis the United States during a high tech war.
Published prior to the American cruise missile attack on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, the book drew a lot of attention in the west for its proposition that a multitude of means, military and non-military could be used to strike at the United States in a conflict; hacking into websites, targeting financial institutions, terrorism, using the media, urban warfare, sabotage, crippling infrastructure, subversion, all the methods of what the Americans term hybrid warfare.
The Chinese colonels stated that the first rule of this type of warfare is that there are no rules, nothing is forbidden. But they made a fundamental error when they also stated that “strong countries would not use the same approach against weak countries because strong countries make the rule while rising one break them” and, though admitting that the US breaks the rules of international law and makes up its own law when it suits their interests stated that it “has to observe its own rules or the world won’t trust it.”
Well, the colonels seem to have ignored the long history of the United States using exactly these types of methods against all its enemies weak or strong, of using unrestricted warfare, without limitations, in effect, total war on nations and peoples they target. They did not seem to understand that the Americans don’t give a damn what anyone else in the world thinks or whether anyone trusts them, which makes them all the more dangerous because peaceful settlement of disputes with them on an equitable basis is next to impossible. They are currently using these methods against Russia, Iran, China, Syria, DPRK, and of course Venezuela.
All these tactics are, of course, elements of a war of aggression, which is the fundamental war crime, and now a crime at the ICC for which they could, in theory, be prosecuted. Yet, the ICC prosecutor sits at her desk, as his her custom, drinking tea while collecting a large salary and instead of stating that the US and its allies are committing crimes against humanity and war crimes against the Venezuelan people entertains a Canadian request on behalf of the Lima Group to investigate the Venezuelan government for “crimes against humanity.” We have to suppose for not giving all its oil to the Americans.
Though Venezuela is a Party to the Treaty of Rome and so falls within their jurisdiction, for the Prosecutor to begin an investigation she has to be supplied with credible and reliable information deserving of investigation that crimes have been committed and crimes which the Venezuelan government is systematically ignoring or is part of. They have supplied no such information in their requests. All they have sent to the Prosecutor are unsubstantiated claims, bald statements echoing their political rhetoric. So there are no legal grounds on which the Prosecutor can act.
However, there is overwhelming evidence and outright confessions, bragging in fact by the US, Canadian and some EU leaders that they are committing crimes against humanity against the people of Venezuela with their economic warfare, that they call “sanctions’ which are illegal under international law, and for supporting an internal coup attempt, for their conspiracy to commit aggression and lately the sabotage of civilian infrastructure, the electricity grid.
Canada, with the US, and European nations, such as Germany Spain France and Britain, have imposed illegal sanctions, economic warfare on the people of Venezuela in order to force them to turn against their government by making them suffer. The sanctions are illegal because they violate the UN Charter. Only the Security Council has the authority to impose sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. They are also crimes against humanity because they amount to siege warfare, that is, causing the deliberate suffering of civilians in an attempt to overthrow a government. Venezuela to protect itself, is building support among the nations such as Russia China, India, Cuba, Turkey, Iran and many other nations that have just formed a group to restore the UN Charter as the heart of international law and in recent days we have seen both Russia and China promising assistance and telling the Americans to back off.
Venezuela can also play the ICC game. It can request the ICC to lay charges against the countries attacking it and can file a claim against the USA and its gang for damages in the International Court of Justice and request an order from that court to the US gang stop their aggression against Venezuela. Venezuela can also use war without rules on its attackers and President Maduro hinted as much in a recent speech warning the Americans that they will not be immune from the consequences of their actions.
In some way it appears as if the United States, its influence weakening in other areas of the world, is attempting to re-establish its one time dominance in North and South America. Canada has been long brought to heel and is just a whimpering poodle in the lap of the American state to the dismay of most Canadians who have no real say in anything. Mexico was once in their pocket but already there are signs of trying to undermine and slap down the new Mexican President Obrador whose social democracy is too left for the far right that controls the US machinery of power.
John Bolton even stated that the “Monroe Doctrine” was the foundation of their policy to explain the US approach against Venezuela. The statement was a clear insult to all the countries of Latin America, the Lima Group included but it has no basis in international law.
The Monroe Doctrine is not accepted as part of international law and never has been. It is a very simple statement that the Americans issued in 1823 just after most of Latin America freed itself from Spanish and Portuguese rule, proclaiming that the western hemisphere was an American region of interest and that any European intrusions into the area would be considered a hostile act. To resurrect it today as Bolton tries to do is an insult to all Latin American countries, and even Canada, since it means that the Americans view those nations as so many provinces of their empire. However there is a contradiction because the Americans now rely on assistance from the very European countries that the Monroe Doctrine was aimed against; Spain, Britain, France, Germany in order to advance their war against Venezuela. So its resurrection at this time shows American weakness, by relying on help from the same nations that the Monroe Doctrine claims to exclude from the region.
Indeed, they heavily relied on these European interlopers to help them get their American puppet back into the country after he had left to try to stage a propaganda stunt at the Colombia-Venezuela border, a stunt that backfired and made them look like fools. On his return to Venezuela on March 4, Guaidò was met at the airport, likely preventing his deserved arrest, by some European ambassadors from Spain, France, and Germany, in particular. The US ambassador was not there.
In any case that action by the foreign ambassadors was a violation of the Vienna Convention and a hostile act. Article 5 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations sets out the permitted normal activities of consuls in a receiving state. But subsection (m) states:
“(m) performing any other functions entrusted to a consular post by the sending State which are not prohibited by the laws and regulations of the receiving State or to which no objection is taken by the receiving State or which are referred to in the international agreements in force between the sending State and the receiving State.”
This means that supporting the conspirators in an attempted coup against the receiving state, Venezuela is clearly prohibited and is regarded under customary international law as a hostile act and Venezuela has the right to immediately expel the consular officials involved or the entire consulate. The German ambassador who seemed to be most vocal has now been expelled.
Part of the hybrid warfare is the use of propaganda of course and an important element of the US propaganda is the resort to a claim that there exists a legal doctrine of “responsibility to protect” in international law. This doctrine does not exist in international law. It is purely an invention of the United States and its allies to justify their wars of aggression and violations of the UN Charter. Since they cannot obtain the support of the Security Council for their wars, because they are in violation of the obligation to keep the peace, and violations of the rights of every nation to its sovereignty and independence, the right not to be attacked in any way by other nations, they invented this phrase to justify the unjustifiable, It is nothing less than a pretext for wars of aggression and people should put it out of their minds as an argument for these wars. It is a bogus doctrine, a doctrine invented by fascists.
Worse they base the resort to this false doctrine on false facts because the UN Human Rights Council sent a Special Rapporteur to investigate the conditions in Venezuela and the cause of them. The man assigned dutifully went there, investigated and dutifully filed his report which because it did not accord with what they had hoped he would report was suppressed and we only know about it through an interview he gave to the press. Mr. Alfred de Zeyas reported to the UN that it was the illegal economic sanctions imposed by the US, Canada and their other allies that are the principal cause of the hardships being created in Venezuela and that they are illegal and should be ended and that the countries imposing them should be charged for committing crimes against humanity, I could quote him at length but I think the reader deserves to read this interview in full as much as de Zeyas deserves to he heard. We can only hope that the ICC Prosecutor will read his report and act on it. But I won’t hold my breath waiting.
The people of the world must protest this war, protest against these criminals who control the machinery of state in their nations for the crimes we see them commit against peoples in foreign lands so openly are the very crimes they are committing against us at home. We are all targets. No one is immune. The war on the people of Venezuela, and now, for good measure, Cuba and other socialist countries, against any form of socialism everywhere, is a war against us all.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
The real problems in the Province of Kosovo and Metohija have been provoked by Albanian separatism and terrorism continuously supported by some western powers. This support was motivated by their geopolitical interests: weakening and fragmenting Serbia has always meant for them weakening Russia’s presence and influence in the Balkans.
In the late 90’s of the last century, as confirmed by British sources, Clinton’s administration decided to topple President Slobodan Milosevic by encouraging the terrorist UCK to provoke wide scale terrorism. In the summer of 1998 the Serbian Government reacted with legitimate anti terrorist actions against which NATO orchestrated propaganda presenting them as a “massive violation of human rights” as a prelude to premeditated military aggression. Many lies were launched such as the hypothetical “horse shoe plan” Zivadin Jovanovic
Interview with Zivadin Jovanovic, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Enrico Vigna: Twenty years after the NATO 1999 bombing of the FRY, the real geopolitical and geostrategic reasons (military, political, economic) of the aggression are being revealed. What is your opinion?
Zivadin Jovanovic: Now, 20 years after the so called “humanitarian intervention“ or “merciful angel” it is clear that it was an illegal, blatant aggression with geopolitical objectives. First, to get justification for the deployment of the USA’s troops closer to the Russian borders. Kosovo’s plains became a land carrier of US troops. After Bondsteel the USA established a chain of bases in Bulgaria (4), Romania (4), and so on up to the Baltic Sea. Second, the objective was to create a precedent for the future illegal interventions all over the globe – Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Libya, the “Arab spring”, the Ukraine, Syria and so on. Using the same pattern, now they are openly threatening Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran… So, we can say that the bombs and missiles thrown in 1999 on Yugoslavia have torn into pieces the agreements of Potsdam, Teheran, Yalta, the UN Charter, and the Helsinki Final Document. Generally, their targethas been the global world order based on the outcome of the Second World War. Is that sane?
EV: What is the political, social, economic situation in Serbia?
ZJ: In spite of the opposition presently boycotting the Parliament and weekly demonstrations, I would say that the Government is legitimate and still stable. Whether there will be early elections soon does not depend on the strength of the opposition but mainly on the tactical needs of the ruling SPP (SNS) party related to the Kosovo negotiations. Economically Serbia is moderately recovering with about a 4% GDP rise in 2018. However, unemployment of the youth, the brain drain towards Germany, Austria and Switzerland, poverty, the deepening of social differences, high corruption, remain great problems which the present neo-liberal corporative system favoring the richest by all means, seems unable to resolve. Serbia democratized by NED standards is still below the living standard of the 80’s of the last century.
EV: I know well the situation in Kosovo Metohija (Kosmet), directly and through continuous communication with our partners, such as SOS Kosovo Metohija and SOS YU. We are the only Italian Association operating in the Serbian Province. The situation there is very tense, with a risk of new violence and conflicts. In your new book “1244 Key to Peace in Europe” (we introduced it on www.civg.it) you advocate implementation of the UN Security Council’s resolution 1244 as the only basis for a peaceful and sustainable solution. What is the real future of Kosovo and Metohija?
ZJ: NATO’s 1999 aggression ended by the UN SC resolution 1244 (June 10th, 1999) which guaranteed, among other things, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia (Serbia) and wide autonomy for Kosovo and Metohija within Serbia. This is the legal, universally binding document agreed upon by all permanent members of the UN SC. To have lasting, sustainable peace it is necessary to fully implement this document. Not only the parts binding Serbia but all of it. Not because of Serbia but because of global governance and peace in Europe. This resolution is a consolidated compromise of the interests of the Serbian and Albanian peoples but at the same time a compromise of the interests of all relevant international factors. If in the meantime there has been a change of circumstances, it would be difficult to prove that such a change has favored the privileges, or exceptionality of any particular power, or a unipolar concept of domination.
Offering Serbia “a deal” to recognize the theft of her state territory in exchange for EU membership offers quite a gloomy perspective, which would definitely lead to a further accumulating of conflict potential, regionally and globally. Have we already forgotten the example of how the leading western powers were “saving peace” in Munich 1938? Destruction of the SFR of Yugoslavia 1992-1995 was the price of keeping the unity of the EEC. Would Serbia with all her experiences of the past decades accept now her own dissolution for the sake of the unity of the EU? It is strange and worrisome indeed that anybody might believe Serbia can be persuaded to join NATO while it takes a leading role in war games near the Russian borders, or accept USA made EU sanctions!
EV: How do you see the future of Kosovo Metohija and that of the Serbian people living there?
ZJ: In my opinion, Kosovo and Metohija should enjoy wide autonomy within Serbia, as envisaged by the UN SC resolution 1244. Albanians there should have the widest self governance in all spheres of their life from culture and education to the economy and finance. This excludes secession, recognition of independence or unification with any other state. All provisions of the UN SC resolution have to be fully implemented, including the right of about 230.000 displaced Serbs and other non-Albanians to freely return to their homes and properties in safety and dignity. Together with about 130.000 Serbs who now live in the Province, they should enjoy self governance within Provincial autonomy. The Community of Serbian districts within the Province may be the framework providing them executive power.
EV: What is the situation of the NATO and EU integration process in Serbia?
ZJ: I believe that neutrality is in the best interests of Serbia. NATO is an offensive military alliance intervening all over the world for the interests of multinational corporations and U.S. imperial domination. On the other side, Serbia is a small, peace loving country with a quite different tradition. It has never belonged to any blocs. Finally, Serbia cannot forget the crimes of the NATO aggression, human victims, use of depleted uranium and economic damage of over 100 billion US dollars. What NATO did to Serbia in 1999 is a historic mistake, an unforgettable, shameful act disgracing Europe and western democracy. They even bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade killing three Chinese citizens. Who would believe this was a mistake as Washington claimed?
After the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999 Europe and the global governance have become militarized. At the recent Munich Security Conference nobody opposed the opinion that global mistrust and tensions have never after the end of the Cold War been so deep and worrisome as today? As regards all military arsenals on the planet, particularly the nuclear ones and the spreading of disregard and even annihilation of the basic international norms and treaties, the question arises as to whether the tide of madness could be stopped, by whom and how?
Concerning Serbia’s EU integration, I think we should be cautious to see first what happens with the EU itself. The EU has demonstrated a biased approach in negotiations about the future of the Province of Kosovo and Metohija persistently favoring the secessionist aims of Prishtina and the geopolitical interests of the USA and NATO. This is dead-end way and very dangerous for the future of Europe. Catalonia is just one reminder. The whole process should be returned to the track of the UN enabling the active participation of Russia and China along with the western powers. Only this framework can guarantee a balanced and unbiased approach and sustainable solution.
EV: After Putin’s recent visit to Belgrade, do you think that Serbia’s position in defending national independence and sovereignty is stronger?
ZJ: President Putin’s visit to Serbia provided concrete substance to the long term strategic partnership and co-operation between the two countries. About 20 different agreements have been signed covering many fields of cooperation from gas supply and modernization of the infrastructure to the transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and culture. President Putin has reaffirmed Russia’s steady principled position supporting the sovereignty and integrity of Serbia and a peaceful solution of the Kosovo and Metohija issue based on international law and Serbia’s legal system. If Russia’s role was decisive in stopping the NATO aggression in 1999 and in the passing of resolution 1244 in the UN SC, who really can claim today, 20 years later, that the lasting solution can be reached keeping Russia (and China) at a distance! Was the Russia of president Boris Yeltsin more relevant in 1999 for the shaping of the world’s relations, than the Russia of president Vladimir Putin in 2019?
EV: What is your opinion about the political situation in Serbia today? And what do you think about the weekly protests in Belgrade, are they spontaneous or initiated by external interests?
ZJ: The present Serbian opposition is mainly composed of the remnants of the former DOS (Democratic Opposition of Serbia) which in October 2000 overturned the then President Slobodan Milosevic and in 2001 unconstitutionally handed him to the Hague Tribunal with the decisive help of western secret services. The Serbian opposition today is fragmented, devoid of any serious ideas about socio-economic progress, about a just and sustainable solution for the Kosovo and Metohija issue, or regarding an independent foreign policy. All pressures on the Serbian government now, be they from within or outside of the country, are designed to weaken its negotiating position on Kosovo and Metohija, to compel the Government to accept “a deal” – and recognize the independence of Kosovo and Metohija immediately – for the vague promise of EU membership! The outgoing neoliberal EU elite confronted with the tide of nationalist and so called populist forces badly needs at least some success. So, they want Serbia to pay for their futile policy by surrendering part of her state territory and national identity in order to falsely say: – the Kosovo issue is resolved, peace preserved! For this they are even seeking collaborators inside Serbia.
EV: You established in Serbia the think tank “Silk Road Connectivity Research Center” and supported the establishment of an Italian branch known as the “Belt and Road Observatory”. How would you assess the progress of this global Project?
ZJ: In the present day divisions, global tensions and rising protectionism, the positive impact of China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI) is growing and promising.Only five years after this Initiative was announced by the President Xi Jinping in Astana, Kazakhstan, BRI has attracted about 100 countries from Asia, Europe, Africa and other continents that are directly involved in practical implementation. Major regional economic integrations and groupings of countries are seeking ways how to coordinate their own infrastructure and other projects with the BRI in order to provide synergy for more efficient development. Close to 100 industrial parks have been established along the Belt and Road providing over one million new working places. The BRI has contributed immensely for people to people connectivity bringing closer civilizations, cultures, youths, thus strengthening mutual understanding and trust. China+16 CEEC cooperation under BRI has become an important bridge for Euro-Asia and especially between China and the European Union. The Win Win spirit has become a trade-mark of BRI cooperation.
The slowing down of the growth of the global economy, instability of the financial markets, globalization of poverty, protectionism, weakening of multilateral institutions such as WTO, power politics and geopolitical approaches to economic cooperation, are some of the challenges ahead. The general answer to all of them is doubling the efforts to create a new global governance based on partnership, multi-polarity and equality, reforms and strengthening of the international institutions, better coordination. The Second BRI Forum Summit in China in April this year will summarize great achievements of the Initiative and open new perspectives for the strengthening of cooperation which is strategically important for the stability and growth of the global economy. Serbia is actively participating in the BRI cooperation, especially within the China+16 CEE countries. Chinese investments in Serbia have reached about 6 billion US dollars mainly in modern infrastructure, industry and the energy sector. The Serbian section of the high speed railway Belgrade – Budapest is progressing as one of the largest investment projects.
EV: The NATO aggression of 20 years ago has been justified by the Kosovo humanitarian situation. Every time when I visit Kosovo and Metohija Serbs living there keep complaining about their dramatic security situation and fear of terror in the future. Based on your knowledge and experience, what would you have to say to the Italian and international public?
ZJ: The real problems in the Province of Kosovo and Metohija have been provoked by Albanian separatism and terrorism continuously supported by some western powers. This support was motivated by their geopolitical interests: weakening and fragmenting Serbia has always meant for them weakening Russia’s presence and influence in the Balkans. In the late 90’s of the last century, as confirmed by British sources, Clinton’s administration decided to topple President Slobodan Milosevic by encouraging the terrorist UCK to provoke wide scale terrorism. In the summer of 1998 the Serbian Government reacted with legitimate anti terrorist actions against which NATO orchestrated propaganda presenting them as a “massive violation of human rights” as a prelude to premeditated military aggression. Many lies were launched such as the hypothetical “horse shoe plan”, “the Rachak massacre” etc. In fact, the real humanitarian catastrophe and exodus of refugees started only after first NATO bombs fell in Kosovo and Metohija and Yugoslavia.
EV: Like the SOS Kosovo and Metohija Association many years ago we have decided to concentrate our solidarity concept and information work on Serbian enclaves in Kosmet, because we think that this is the nodal point of the contradictions that will involve the entire Balkans in the future. And the resistance of the people in Kosmet is fundamental also for the future in Serbia. What is your opinion?
ZJ: First of all, we are grateful to your associations for their continuous support and help to Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija over the past decades. Your contacts, humanitarian assistance and especially your role in exchanges of children’s visits are extremely important for the feelings of the Serbs there – that they are not forgotten, nor abandoned, that they have friends who understand their problems. And those are really unbelievable problems. The Serbs in the enclaves live today like they were in ghettos, sometimes fenced by barbed wires. Their movement is not secure, their households have been constantly robbed, their churches, graveyards, religious symbols destroyed. They live in a state of uncertainty and fear of a new ethnic cleansing and pogroms similar to the previous ones which led to the exodus of 230.000 Serbs and other non-Albanians, the destruction of 150 Christian medieval monasteries and churches. EU, USA, UNMIK, KFOR, EULEX have done little or nothing to punish the perpetrators of the crimes against the Serbs, to investigate human organs trafficking, generally, to guarantee equal human rights for the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija.
EV: Thank you. Good bye in Belgrade on 22 March, for the International Meeting for the 20th anniversary of the NATO aggression, organized by Belgrade Forum.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
March 17th, 2019 by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
The final Mueller report should be graded “incomplete,” says VIPS, whose forensic work proves the speciousness of the story that DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking.
***
.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The Attorney General
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT:Mueller’s Forensics-Free Findings
Executive Summary
Media reports are predicting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is about to give you the findings of his probe into any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. If Mueller gives you his “completed” report anytime soon, it should be graded “incomplete.” Major deficiencies include depending on a DNC-hired cybersecurity company for forensics and failure to consult with those who have done original forensic work, including us and the independent forensic investigators with whom we have examined the data. We stand ready to help.
We veteran intelligence professionals (VIPS) have done enough detailed forensic work to prove the speciousness of the prevailing story that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking. Given the paucity of evidence to support that story, we believe Mueller may choose to finesse this key issue and leave everyone hanging. That would help sustain the widespread belief that Trump owes his victory to President Vladimir Putin, and strengthen the hand of those who pay little heed to the unpredictable consequences of an increase in tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.
There is an overabundance of “assessments” but a lack of hard evidence to support that prevailing narrative. We believe that there are enough people of integrity in the Department of Justice to prevent the outright manufacture or distortion of “evidence,” particularly if they become aware that experienced scientists have completed independent forensic study that yield very different conclusions. We know only too well — and did our best to expose — how our former colleagues in the intelligence community manufactured fraudulent “evidence” of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
We have scrutinized publicly available physical data — the “trail” that every cyber operation leaves behind. And we have had support from highly experienced independent forensic investigators who, like us, have no axes to grind. We can prove that the conventional-wisdom story about Russian-hacking-DNC-emails-for-WikiLeaks is false. Drawing largely on the unique expertise of two VIPS scientists who worked for a combined total of 70 years at the National Security Agency and became Technical Directors there, we have regularly published our findings. But we have been deprived of a hearing in mainstream media — an experience painfully reminiscent of what we had to endure when we exposed the corruption of intelligence before the attack on Iraq 16 years ago.
This time, with the principles of physics and forensic science to rely on, we are able to adduce solid evidence exposing mistakes and distortions in the dominant story. We offer you below — as a kind of aide-memoire— a discussion of some of the key factors related to what has become known as “Russia-gate.” And we include our most recent findings drawn from forensic work on data associated with WikiLeaks’ publication of the DNC emails.
We do not claim our conclusions are “irrefutable and undeniable,” a la Colin Powell at the UN before the Iraq war. Our judgments, however, are based on the scientific method — not “assessments.” We decided to put this memorandum together in hopes of ensuring that you hear that directly from us.
If the Mueller team remains reluctant to review our work — or even to interview willing witnesses with direct knowledge, like WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange and former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, we fear that many of those yearning earnestly for the truth on Russia-gate will come to the corrosive conclusion that the Mueller investigation was a sham.
In sum, we are concerned that, at this point, an incomplete Mueller report will fall far short of the commitment made by then Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “to ensure a full and thorough investigation,” when he appointed Mueller in May 2017. Again, we are at your disposal.
Discussion
The centerpiece accusation of Kremlin “interference” in the 2016 presidential election was the charge that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee emails and gave them to WikiLeaks to embarrass Secretary Hillary Clinton and help Mr. Trump win. The weeks following the election witnessed multiple leak-based media allegations to that effect. These culminated on January 6, 2017 in an evidence-light, rump report misleadingly labeled “Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).” Prepared by “handpicked analysts” from only three of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI, and NSA), the assessment expressed “high confidence” in the Russia-hacking-to-WikiLeaks story, but lacked so much as a hint that the authors had sought access to independent forensics to support their “assessment.”
The media immediately awarded the ICA the status of Holy Writ, choosing to overlook an assortment of banal, full-disclosure-type caveats included in the assessment itself — such as:
“When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as ‘we assess’ or ‘we judge,’ they are conveying an analytic assessment or judgment. …Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. … Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary … High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong.”
To their credit, however, the authors of the ICA did make a highly germane point in introductory remarks on “cyber incident attribution.“ They noted: “The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber operation — malicious or not — leaves a trail.” [Emphasis added.]
Forensics
The imperative is to get on that “trail” — and quickly, before red herrings can be swept across it. The best way to establish attribution is to apply the methodology and processes of forensic science. Intrusions into computers leave behind discernible physical data that can be examined scientifically by forensic experts. Risk to “sources and methods” is normally not a problem.
Direct access to the actual computers is the first requirement — the more so when an intrusion is termed “an act of war” and blamed on a nuclear-armed foreign government (the words used by the late Sen. John McCain and other senior officials). In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in March 2017, former FBI Director James Comey admitted that he did not insist on physical access to the DNC computers even though, as he conceded, “best practices” dictate direct access.
In June 2017, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr asked Comey whether he ever had “access to the actual hardware that was hacked.” Comey answered, “In the case of the DNC … we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. …” Sen. Burr followed up: “But no content? Isn’t content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?” Comey: “It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks … is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.”
The “private party/high-class entity” to which Comey refers is CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm of checkered reputation and multiple conflicts of interest, including very close ties to a number of key anti-Russian organizations. Comey indicated that the DNC hired CrowdStrike in the spring of 2016.
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – including a possible impeachment battle and greatly increased tension between Russia and the U.S. — it is difficult to understand why Comey did not move quickly to seize the computer hardware so the FBI could perform an independent examination of what quickly became the major predicate for investigating election interference by Russia. Fortunately, enough data remain on the forensic “trail” to arrive at evidence-anchored conclusions. The work we have done shows the prevailing narrative to be false. We have been suggesting this for over two years. Recent forensic work significantly strengthens that conclusion.
We Do Forensics
Recent forensic examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23, 25 and 26 May 2016. (On June 12, Julian Assange announced he had them; WikiLeaks published them on July 22.) We recently discovered that the files reveal a FAT (File Allocation Table) system property. This shows that the data had been transferred to an external storage device, such as a thumb drive, before WikiLeaks posted them.
FAT is a simple file system named for its method of organization, the File Allocation Table. It is used for storage only and is not related to internet transfers like hacking. Were WikiLeaks to have received the DNC files via a hack, the last modified times on the files would be a random mixture of odd-and even-ending numbers.
Why is that important? The evidence lies in the “last modified” time stamps on the Wikileaks files. When a file is stored under the FAT file system the software rounds the time to the nearest even-numbered second. Every single one of the time stamps in the DNC files on WikiLeaks’ site ends in an even number.
We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on the Wikileaks site. All 500 files end in an even number—2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If those files had been hacked over the Internet, there would be an equal probability of the time stamp ending in an odd number. The random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power. Thus, these data show that the DNC emails posted by WikiLeaks went through a storage device, like a thumb drive, and were physically moved before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide Web.
This finding alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts, for example, about Mueller’s indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers for hacking the DNC emails given to WikiLeaks. A defense attorney could easily use the forensics to argue that someone copied the DNC files to a storage device like a USB thumb drive and got them physically to WikiLeaks — not electronically via a hack.
Role of NSA
For more than two years, we strongly suspected that the DNC emails were copied/leaked in that way, not hacked. And we said so. We remain intrigued by the apparent failure of NSA’s dragnet, collect-it-all approach — including “cast-iron” coverage of WikiLeaks — to provide forensic evidence (as opposed to “assessments”) as to how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks and who sent them. Well before the telling evidence drawn from the use of FAT, other technical evidence led us to conclude that the DNC emails were not hacked over the network, but rather physically moved over, say, the Atlantic Ocean.
Is it possible that NSA has not yet been asked to produce the collected packets of DNC email data claimed to have been hacked by Russia? Surely, this should be done before Mueller competes his investigation. NSA has taps on all the transoceanic cables leaving the U.S. and would almost certainly have such packets if they exist. (The detailed slides released by Edward Snowden actually show the routes that trace the packets.)
The forensics we examined shed no direct light on who may have been behind the leak. The only thing we know for sure is that the person had to have direct access to the DNC computers or servers in order to copy the emails. The apparent lack of evidence from the most likely source, NSA, regarding a hack may help explain the FBI’s curious preference for forensic data from CrowdStrike. No less puzzling is why Comey would choose to call CrowdStrike a “high-class entity.”
Comey was one of the intelligence chiefs briefing President Obama on January 5, 2017 on the “Intelligence Community Assessment,” which was then briefed to President-elect Trump and published the following day. That Obama found a key part of the ICA narrative less than persuasive became clear at his last press conference (January 18), when he told the media, “The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive … as to how ‘the DNC emails that were leaked’ got to WikiLeaks.
Is Guccifer 2.0 a Fraud?
There is further compelling technical evidence that undermines the claim that the DNC emails were downloaded over the internet as a result of a spearphishing attack. William Binney, one of VIPS’ two former Technical Directors at NSA, along with other former intelligence community experts, examined files posted by Guccifer 2.0 and discovered that those files could not have been downloaded over the internet. It is a simple matter of mathematics and physics.
There was a flurry of activity after Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016: “We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication.” On June 14, DNC contractor CrowdStrike announced that malware was found on the DNC server and claimed there was evidence it was injected by Russians. On June 15, the Guccifer 2.0 persona emerged on the public stage, affirmed the DNC statement, claimed to be responsible for hacking the DNC, claimed to be a WikiLeaks source, and posted a document that forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”
Our suspicions about the Guccifer 2.0 persona grew when G-2 claimed responsibility for a “hack” of the DNC on July 5, 2016, which released DNC data that was rather bland compared to what WikiLeaks published 17 days later (showing how the DNC had tipped the primary scales against Sen. Bernie Sanders). As VIPS reported in a wrap-up Memorandum for the President on July 24, 2017 (titled “Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence),” forensic examination of the July 5, 2016 cyber intrusion into the DNC showed it NOT to be a hack by the Russians or by anyone else, but rather a copy onto an external storage device. It seemed a good guess that the July 5 intrusion was a contrivance to preemptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish from the DNC, by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.” WikiLeaks published the DNC emails on July 22, three days before the Democratic convention.
As we prepared our July 24 memo for the President, we chose to begin by taking Guccifer 2.0 at face value; i. e., that the documents he posted on July 5, 2016 were obtained via a hack over the Internet. Binney conducted a forensic examination of the metadata contained in the posted documents and compared that metadata with the known capacity of Internet connection speeds at the time in the U.S. This analysis showed a transfer rate as high as 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than was possible from a remote online Internet connection. The 49.1 megabytes speed coincided, though, with the rate that copying onto a thumb drive could accommodate.
Binney, assisted by colleagues with relevant technical expertise, then extended the examination and ran various forensic tests from the U.S. to the Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and the UK. The fastest Internet rate obtained — from a data center in New Jersey to a data center in the UK — was 12 megabytes per second, which is less than a fourth of the capacity typical of a copy onto a thumb drive.
The findings from the examination of the Guccifer 2.0 data and the WikiLeaks data does not indicate who copied the information to an external storage device (probably a thumb drive). But our examination does disprove that G.2 hacked into the DNC on July 5, 2016. Forensic evidence for the Guccifer 2.0 data adds to other evidence that the DNC emails were not taken by an internet spearphishing attack. The data breach was local. The emails were copied from the network.
Presidential Interest
After VIPS’ July 24, 2017 Memorandum for the President, Binney, one of its principal authors, was invited to share his insights with Mike Pompeo, CIA Director at the time. When Binney arrived in Pompeo’s office at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017 for an hour-long discussion, the director made no secret of the reason for the invitation: “You are here because the President told me that if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk with you.”
Binney warned Pompeo — to stares of incredulity — that his people should stop lying about the Russian hacking. Binney then started to explain the VIPS findings that had caught President Trump’s attention. Pompeo asked Binney if he would talk to the FBI and NSA. Binney agreed, but has not been contacted by those agencies. With that, Pompeo had done what the President asked. There was no follow-up.
Confronting James Clapper on Forensics
We, the hoi polloi, do not often get a chance to talk to people like Pompeo — and still less to the former intelligence chiefs who are the leading purveyors of the prevailing Russia-gate narrative. An exception came on November 13, when former National Intelligence Director James Clapper came to the Carnegie Endowment in Washington to hawk his memoir. Answering a question during the Q&A about Russian “hacking” and NSA, Clapper said:
“Well, I have talked with NSA a lot … And in my mind, I spent a lot of time in the SIGINT business, the forensic evidence was overwhelming about what the Russians had done.There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever.” [Emphasis added]
Clapper added:
“… as a private citizen, understanding the magnitude of what the Russians did and the number of citizens in our country they reached and the different mechanisms that, by which they reached them, to me it stretches credulity to think they didn’t have a profound impact on election on the outcome of the election.”
(A transcript of the interesting Q&A can be found here and a commentary on Clapper’s performance at Carnegie, as well as on his longstanding lack of credibility, is here.)
Normally soft-spoken Ron Wyden, Democratic senator from Oregon, lost his patience with Clapper last week when he learned that Clapper is still denying that he lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the extent of NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens. In an unusual outburst, Wyden said: “James Clapper needs to stop making excuses for lying to the American people about mass surveillance. To be clear: I sent him the question in advance. I asked him to correct the record afterward. He chose to let the lie stand.”
The materials brought out by Edward Snowden in June 2013 showed Clapper to have lied under oath to the committee on March 12, 2013; he was, nevertheless, allowed to stay on as Director of National Intelligence for three and half more years. Clapper fancies himself an expert on Russia, telling Meet the Presson May 28, 2017 that Russia’s history shows that Russians are “typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever.”
Clapper ought to be asked about the “forensics” he said were “overwhelming about what the Russians had done.” And that, too, before Mueller completes his investigation.
For the steering group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center (ret.)
Richard H. Black, Senator of Virginia, 13th District; Colonel US Army (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, the Pentagon (associate VIPS)
Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras, former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson, former CIA and State Department Counter Terrorism officer
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis, Cryptologic Computer Scientist, former Technical Director at NSA (ret.)
David MacMichael, Ph.D., former senior estimates officer, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst; CIA Presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council & CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Peter Van Buren, US Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Sarah G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Ann Wright, retired U.S. Army reserve colonel and former U.S. diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Philip A Farruggio has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected].
Ellen Brown discusses Quantitative Easing with Philip Faruggio, as well as Universal Basic Income, in a very informative interview.
.
.
Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including Web of Debt and The Public Bank Solution. A 13th book titled Banking on the People: Democratizing Finance in the Digital Age is due out soon. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn, NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his work posted on sites like Global Research, Greanville Post, Off Guardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected].
*
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 was originally published on the author’s podcast, Spreaker.
Can you 
