India’s Agrarian Crisis: Dismantling ‘Development’

March 15th, 2019 by Colin Todhunter

In his 1978 book ‘India Mortgaged’, T.N. Reddy predicted the country would one day open all sectors to foreign direct investment and surrender economic sovereignty to imperialist powers.

Today, the US and Europe cling to a moribund form of capitalism and have used various mechanisms to bolster the system in the face of economic stagnation and massive inequalities: the raiding of public budgets, the expansion of credit to consumers and governments to sustain spending and consumption, financial speculation and increased militarism. Via ‘globalisation’, Western powers have also been on an unrelenting drive to plunder what they regard as ‘untapped markets’ in other areas of the globe.

Agricapital has been moving in on Indian food and agriculture for some time. But India is an agrarian-based country underpinned by smallholder agriculture and decentralised food processing. Foreign capital therefore first needs to displace the current model before bringing India’s food and agriculture sector under its control. And this is precisely what is happening.

Western agribusiness is shaping the ‘development’ agenda in India. Over 300,000 farmers have taken their lives since 1997 and many more are experiencing economic distress or have left farming as a result of debt, a shift to (GMO) cash crops and economic liberalisation.

Other sectors have not been immune to this bogus notion of development. Millions of people have been displaced to facilitate the needs of resource extraction industries, land grabs for Special Economic Zones, nuclear plants and other large-scale projects. And the full military backing of the state has been on hand to forcibly evict people, place them in camps and inflict human rights abuses on them.

To help open the nation to foreign capital, proponents of economic neoliberalism are fond of stating that ‘regulatory blockages’ must be removed. If particular ‘blockages’ stemming from legitimate protest, rights to land and dissent cannot be dealt with by peaceful means, other methods are used. And when increasing mass surveillance or widespread ideological attempts to discredit and smear does not secure compliance or dilute the power of protest, brute force is on hand.

India’s agrarian crisis

India is currently witnessing a headlong rush to facilitate (foreign) agricapital and the running down of the existing system of agriculture. Millions of small-scale and marginal farmers are suffering economic distress as the sector is deliberately made financially non-viable for them.

At the same time, the country’s spurt of GDP growth – the holy grail of ‘development’ – has largely been fuelled on the back of cheap food and the subsequent impoverishment of farmers. The gap between their income and the rest of the population has widened enormously to the point where rural India consumes less calories per head of population than it did 40 years ago. Meanwhile, unlike farmers, corporations receive massive handouts and interest-free loans but have failed to spur job creation.

The plan is to displace the existing system of livelihood-sustaining smallholder agriculture with one dominated from seed to plate by transnational agribusiness and retail concerns. To facilitate this, independent cultivators are being bankrupted, land is to be amalgamated to facilitate large-scale industrial cultivation and remaining farmers will be absorbed into corporate supply chains and squeezed as they work on contracts, the terms of which will be dictated by large agribusiness and chain retailers.

US agribusiness corporations are spearheading the process, the very companies that fuel and thrive on a five-year US taxpayer-funded farm bill subsidy of around $500 billion. Their industrial model in the US is based on the overproduction of certain commodities often sold at prices below the cost of production and dumped on the rest of the world, thereby undermining farmers’ livelihoods and agriculture in other countries.

It is a model designed to facilitate the needs and profits of these corporations which belong to the agritech, agrichemicals, commodity trading, food processing and retail sectors. A model that can only survive thanks to taxpayer handouts and by subsidising the farmer who is squeezed at one end by seed and agrochemical manufacturers and at the other, by powerful retail interests. A model that can only function by externalising its massive health, environmental and social costs. And a model that only leads to the destruction of rural communities and jobs, degraded soil, less diverse and nutrient-deficient diets, polluted water, water shortages and poor health.

If we look at the US model, it serves the needs of agribusiness corporations and large-scale retailers, not farmers, the public nor the environment. So by bowing to their needs via World Bank directives and the US-Indo Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture, what is the future to be for India?

A mainly urbanised country reliant on an industrial agriculture and all it entails, including denutrified food, increasingly monolithic diets, the massive use of agrochemicals and food contaminated by hormones, steroids, antibiotics and a range of chemical additives. A country with spiralling rates of ill health, degraded soil, a collapse in the insect population, contaminated and depleted water supplies and a cartel of seed, chemical and food processing companies with ever-greater control over the global food production and supply chain.

But we don’t need a crystal ball to look into the future. Much of the above is already taking place, not least the destruction of rural communities, the impoverishment of the countryside and continuing urbanisation, which is itself causing problems for India’s crowded cities and eating up valuable agricultural land.

So why would India want to let the foxes guard the hen house? Why mimic the model of intensive, chemical-dependent agriculture of the US and be further incorporated into a corrupt US-dominated global food regime that undermines food security and food sovereignty? After all, numerous high-level reports have concluded that policies need to support more resilient, diverse, sustainable (smallholder) agroecological methods of farming and develop decentralised, locally-based food economies.

Yet the trend in India continues to move in the opposite direction towards industrial-scale agriculture and centralised chains for the benefit of Monsanto-Bayer, Cargill and other transnational players.

The plan is to shift hundreds of millions from the countryside into the cities to serve as a cheap army of labour for offshored foreign companies, mirroring what China has become: a US colonial outpost for manufacturing that has boosted corporate profits at the expense of US jobs. In India, rural migrants are to become the new ‘serfs’ of the informal services and construction sectors or to be trained for low-level industrial jobs. Even here, however, India might have missed the boat as jobless ‘growth’ seems to have arrived as the effects of automation and artificial intelligence are eradicating the need for human labour across many sectors.

If we look at the various Western powers, to whom many of India’s top politicians look to in order to ‘modernise’ the country’s food and agriculture, their paths to economic prosperity occurred on the back of colonialism and imperialism. Do India’s politicians think this mindset has disappeared?

Fuelled by capitalism’s compulsion to overproduce and then seek out new markets, the same mentality now lurks behind the neoliberal globalisation agenda: terms and policies like ‘foreign direct investment’, ‘ease of doing business’, making India ‘business friendly’ or ‘enabling the business of agriculture’ embody little more than the tenets of neoliberal fundamentalism wrapped in benign-sounding words. It boils down to one thing: Monsanto-Bayer, Cargill and other transnational corporations will decide on what is to be eaten and how it is to be produced and processed.

Alternatives to development

Current policies seek to tie agriculture to an environmentally destructive, moribund system of capitalism. Practical solutions to the agrarian crisis must be based on sustainable agriculture which places the small farmer at the centre of policies: far-sighted and sustained policy initiatives centred on self-sufficiency, localisation, food sovereignty, regenerative agriculture and agroecology.

The scaling up of agroecological approaches should be a lynchpin of genuine rural development. Other measures involve implementing land reforms, correcting rigged trade, delinking from capitalist globalisation (capital controls) and managing foreign trade to suit smallholder farmers’ interests not those of foreign agricapital.

More generally, there is the need to recognise that genuine sustainable agriculture can only be achieved by challenging power relations, especially resisting the industrial model of agriculture being rolled out by powerful agribusiness corporations and the neoliberal policies that serve their interests.

What is required is an ‘alternative to development’ as post-development theorist Arturo Escobar explains:

“Because seven decades after World War II, certain fundamentals have not changed. Global inequality remains severe, both between and within nations. Environmental devastation and human dislocation, driven by political as well as ecological factors, continues to worsen. These are symptoms of the failure of “development,” indicators that the intellectual and political post-development project remains an urgent task.”

Looking at the situation in Latin America, Escobar says development strategies have centred on large-scale interventions, such as the expansion of oil palm plantations, mining, and large port development.

And it is similar in India: commodity monocropping; immiseration in the countryside; the appropriation of biodiversity, the means of subsistence for millions of rural dwellers; unnecessary and inappropriate environment-destroying, people-displacing infrastructure projects; and state-backed violence against the poorest and most marginalised sections of society.

These problems, says Escobar, are not the result of a lack of development but of ‘excessive development’. Escobar looks towards the worldviews of indigenous peoples and the inseparability and interdependence of humans and nature for solutions.

He is not alone. Writers Felix Padel and Malvika Gupta argue that adivasi (India’s indigenous peoples) economics may be the only hope for the future because India’s tribal cultures remain the antithesis of capitalism and industrialisation. Their age-old knowledge and value systems promote long-term sustainability through restraint in what is taken from nature. Their societies also emphasise equality and sharing rather than hierarchy and competition.

These principles must guide our actions regardless of where we live on the planet because what’s the alternative? A system driven by narcissism, domination, ego, anthropocentrism, speciesism and plunder. A system that is using up oil, water and other resources much faster than they can ever be regenerated. We have poisoned the rivers and oceans, destroyed natural habitats, driven wildlife species to (the edge of) extinction and have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere to the point that runaway climate change seems more and more likely.

And, as we see all around us, the outcome is endless conflicts over fewer and fewer resources, while nuclear missiles hand over humanity’s head like a sword of Damocles.

*

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

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

There is something strange going on in the French senate. Ideological disorientation has taken hold. The centre-right Les Républicains, and the Parti Socialiste, of the centre-left, have somehow found themselves on the same side, contending with a cabinet-backed business and privatisation draft law. For the socialists, this is business as usual. However, for the former-UMP party Republicans, headed in the senate by Bruno Retailleau, this position seems to demand answers. Is there not a conflict between their traditional core values and the inexplicable course they now find themselves on?

The item in question is the Loi PACTE, proffered by Macron’s minister for the economy, Bruno Le Maire. The draft law aims to smooth the financial and bureaucratic burden for small and medium businesses. Along with a number of other shake-ups relating to employee-company involvement and bureaucratic processes, there is the promotion of a new enterprise ethos requirement for companies.

The aim is “to have companies that have the kidneys strong enough to innovate and export,” and to have employees “more involved in the march of companies,” Le Maire has said.

The most contentious aspect of the draft law, however, has been the article pertaining to free up €10 billion to fund an expansive business innovation project. This requires the privatisation, among others, of Aéroport de Paris (ADP), the company responsible for the commercial operation of Roissy and Orly airports. In order to make this sale of shares, the law which prevents the state from falling below 50% control in such companies must be changed.

“It is essential to redefine the place of the state in our economy. Do we wish for a State that contents itself with receiving dividends, or a state-strategist who prepares for the future?” Le Maire explained. “We will make these operations of disposals of assets as soon as the law is passed and the market conditions are met.”

Macron’s En Marche party dominate the national assembly, the lower house. As such the draft passed there on first reading in October, with 361 votes for, and only 84 against. It is the national assembly which will have the last word. In spite of this, in the Republican controlled senate, Bruno Retailleau, leader of the centre-right party, has baffled many by joining his forces with those of his traditional socialist adversaries in order to decry the Loi PACTE.

“I am a liberal, (but) I consider that to privatize a monopoly is to unduly give a financial income to the private sector.” Painting comparisons with the privatisation of highways, he said “We sold the family jewels, we made a coup, and then nothing (…) the privatisation of highways has not been a good thing.”

Currently, ADP generates about €160 million a year in revenue for the state. His argument circles around the idea that relinquishing this would apparently not be in the public interest, in spite of the large cash injection it would provide at a time when the country needs it most.

Le Maire responded that he believed the comparison to be a hasty false equivalency, and that they would not make “the same mistakes” as with the highways in 2006. He continued by saying that the government plans to maintain a higher degree of control over the situation by ensuring that “the regulatory framework will be stricter after this operation.” However, he said that it was not the role of the state “to manage hotels and luxury shops of the ADP group. This is not my conception of the state.”

It might seem bewildering that Bruno Retailleau and his party are opposed to such privatisation when one considers the historical actions of their political ancestors.

From 1981, the government of Jacques Chirac, father of the UMP, launched several actions of privatisation. These included the partial privatisation of Saint-Gobain, CGE, Havas, TF1 and Suez, as well as the Paribas banks, BTP, BIMP, CCF, and Société Générale. Additionally, his government sold the national telecom company (CGCT) and the Mutuelle Général Francais health insurance provider. Ultimately, this brought the state the equivalent of about 13 billion euros.

It was Chirac’s successor, leader of the UMP between 2004 to 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy who brought about the removal of the inheritance tax as well as the privatisation of the universities through the Law LRU. During his sitting presidency in 2007 the controversial politician gave financial autonomy to universities so that the government could set aside the heavy cost of supporting them. In spite of the unrest caused by this move, it was likely only the financial crisis that prevented the viability of further privatisation under the then centre-right government.

Yet more recently, candidate François Fillon of the 2016 presidential race ran as the economic liberal nominee. A man who throughout his career has openly pushed for the relaxation of corporate taxation in order to stimulate commercial investment. A Republican who sought the shrinking of the state and the opening up of the private sector.

When Mr Retailleau says “We will oppose the privatisation of the ADP,” it is almost as if he and his deputies oppose their own political vision and that of their predecessors. The centre-right in French politics has for a long time been understood by its adherence to economic liberalism. This ideology has arguably underpinned the centre-right’s identity since the founding of the fifth republic. The fact that Bruno Retailleau and his supporters seem to be abandoning this fundamental component of their party doctrine is an indication of how deeply their uncertainty runs, and it must, in part, be ascribed to the disruptive emergence of En Marche itself.

Without a clear sense of the position of Macron’s centre line government, the Republicans, seemingly startled, have dived left when they should have perhaps dived right. That is to say, if one assumes that maintaining authentic principles has already been abandoned altogether. At this stage, it would probably surprise very few people if Mr Retailleau were to come out and admit publicly that he too was confused by the disembodied socialist’s voice now producing itself from his throat.

*

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

William Harrison is currently a doctoral student in global economics and international relations. His main fields of interest are new technologies, globalization, security and the environment.

Featured image: Bruno Le Maire (Source: Ambassade de France aux Emirats Arabes Unis)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on French Politics: Are the Centre-Right Conservatives Still Economic Liberals?
  • Tags:

Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline project is the most impressive of its kind – when completed to be the world’s longest underwater pipeline.

It’ll be able to deliver 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas from beneath the Baltic Sea, its capacity to be doubled by an additional line.

The project is scheduled for completion by late 2019, construction cost an estimated 9.5 billion euros.

The pipeline will traverse the territorial waters of Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany.

Russia’s Gazprom’s European partners include France’s Engie, Austria’s OMV AG, Germany’s Uniper and Wintershall, along with Royal Dutch Shell. These companies are financing half the cost, Gazprom the remainder.

According to Gazprom’s CEO Alexey Miller, January 1, 2020 is the project’s expected startup date – Russian natural gas to flow to European buyers at 30% less cost than US liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The savings and proximity to European countries makes Russia their natural supplier. The Trump regime wants the project undermined, falsely claiming it jeopardizes European energy security and stability.

Polar opposite is true. It’ll be an economic and energy boon for countries benefitting from the pipeline.

Last year, the State Department threatened possible sanctions on companies involved in the project. At the time, German Vice Chancellor/former Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel called the threat “hostile to Berlin’s interests,” adding:

It “aggressively bind(s) US economic interests with issues of external policy.” Germany rejects US attempts to “push Russian gas from the European market” to sell its own. EU nations often talk tough, then yield to US dominance, harming their own interests.

On Monday, the White House threatened to impose sanctions on European companies involved in Nord Stream 2 construction through Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) amendments.

The measure imposed sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea – overwhelmingly adopted by House and Senate members, three representatives and two senators alone opposing it in 2017.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Brussels and economic powerhouse Germany have strongly supported the project all along, intending to assure its successful completion – defying the Trump regime if hold firm.

Separately, the European Parliament adopted a non-binding resolution, expressing opposition to Nord Stream by a vote of 402 MEPs for stoppage, 163 supporting it, another 83 abstaining.

The measure came weeks after EU officials endorsed compromise amendments, extending EU pipeline regulations to and from bloc countries to non-member-states, including for Russian natural gas to European markets through Nord Stream.

Commenting on possible US sanctions on companies involved in its construction, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov slammed the Trump regime as follows, saying:

“The hostile and un-competitive attitude of the US to this exclusively economic project is well-known. This is not news, “ adding:

“We are aware that we’re dealing with attempts at unprincipled competition, and sometimes using actions that amount to racketeering or asset-grabbing (in) the international arena.”

A Uniper statement expressed concern about continued project financing based on the threat of US sanctions, adding:

“We are currently operating under the specific guidance of the OFAC (the US Office of Foreign Assets Control). The financing of the project (was contractually agreed on) before any sanctions legislation (was enacted) in the US.”

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee chairwoman Lisa Murkowski said no legislation is currently being considered to sanction companies involved in Nord Stream construction.

The US seeks a competitive advantage over all other countries – notably Russia and China, its main adversaries, wanting them marginalized.

That’s what the Sino/US trade war and Trump regime efforts to undermine Nord Stream 2 are all about.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Is AIPAC in Violation of Federal Election Law?

March 14th, 2019 by Renee Parsons

What newcomer to the US House of Representatives, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Mn) may not have fully realized  is that her critique of Israel influence on American politics would open a door that has previously been hermetically sealed as the third rail of American politics.  

With its influence carefully concealed behind decades of deceptions, lies and ruthless intimidation and representing a mere 2.1% of the population spread across nine states, AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and its supporters are like any school yard bully when confronted with a higher ethical authority.  They throw down the race card, an archaic accusation of anti-semitism intended to play on a misguided empathy that is no longer effective when confronted with words that speak truth to power.

Rep. Omar first came to our attention during a House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting with an elegant takedown of convicted felon and neo-con purveyor of brutal atrocities Elliot Abrams. Abrams is currently President Trump’s point man on plotting future military action in Venezuela.

From there, the controversies around Rep. Omar have whirled with comments purported to be anti-Semitic such as:

It’s all about the Benjamins Baby.”

Israel has hypnotized the world; may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel

Before that uproar had died down, she added

I want to talk about political influence in this country that says it is ok for people to push for allegiance to a foreign countryWhy is it ok for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, the fossil fuel industry or Big Pharma and not talk about a powerful lobbying group that is influencing policy?”

Bullies in American politics since 1948, the outrage, the denials and the hypocrisy came fast and furious with the usual anti-Semitic card being played and the ‘dual loyalty’ defense as if any one ethnicity or organization is entitled to special accommodating consideration by virtue of ….what exactly?

Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fl) responded with a question to Omar that

Jews have dual loyalty and can’t be patriotic members in the country in which they live?”

As an elected Member of the US House of Representatives, Rep. Deutch has an official, legal Constitutional responsibility that his sole and unquestionable loyalty is to the United States.    Mr. Deutch’s  ‘..in the country in which they live’ is dismissive and a less than overwhelming commitment to the land of one’s birth which happens to be his employer.

Of special concern is whether any AIPAC Congressional supporters possess a security clearance.   If so, that clearance, where appropriate, needs to be revoked immediately and if those supporters cannot solely represent the United States with the utmost devotion and independence, they should resign.

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathon Greenblatt explained on March 4th that

Sometimes referred to as the dual loyalty charge, it alleges that Jews should be suspected of being disloyal neighbors or citizens because their true allegiance is to their co-religionists around the world or to a secret and immoral jewish agenda.”

Mr. Greenblatt takes it even further by contradicting himself in eschewing the dual loyalty meme and then confessing that ‘their true allegiance’ is to another country.

Meanwhile, on March 3rd, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) tweeted that

No member of Congress is asked to swear allegiance to another country. Throughout history, Jews have been accused of dual loyalty, leading to discrimination and violence.”    

It is alleged that to raise the issue of dual loyalty is anti-semitic yet both Rep. Deutch and Mr. Greenblatt admit it as all three raised the dual loyalty issue independently as if believing there is an entitlement right to dual loyalty to another country.   They do not have that right any more than I have a right to claim dual loyalty to Scotland.

As a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and its Oversight and Investigations subcommittee, Rep. Omar is not only correct but, in fact, is obliged to act as an elected Member of the House to question the double standard of exactly who is a loyal, true blue American for discussion and debate especially in the context of Article 6of the United States Constitution known as the Oath Clause:

The Senators and Representatives and the members of several state legislatures  and all executive and judicial officers, both of the US and of the several states  shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution…”

While the Founding Fathers did not specify in Article VI that any elected member of Congress should not ‘be bound…’ to another country, any Court in the land will validate that Constitutional intent was that loyalty ‘be bound by oath or affirmation’ solely to the United States.

According to Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story (1812-1845) that those sworn in were  “conscientiously bound to refrain from all acts inconsistent”.  During the American Revolution, General George Washington required all officers to subscribe to an oath renouncing any allegiance to King George III and pledging their fidelity to the United States.

In other words, under Article 6 there is no allowance for dual loyalty which would have been considered treasonous in the country’s earliest days and some would consider it treasonous today.

Thankfully, not a shrinking violet when it comes to politics, Rep. Omar responded with “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress.”

In other words, Rep. Omar is confirming that she has been approached to pledge support since AIPAC’s demand that every single Member of Congress sign a loyalty statement to Israel has been privately reported and is common knowledge although the MSM pretend to be unaware.

In addition, former Representative Cynthia McKinney who served twelve years in the House of Representatives related her experience with the pro Israel lobby when she supported the Palestinian people, refused to support military policy as it would benefit Israel or sign the AIPAC loyalty pledge.   Instead, her Congressional District boundaries were realigned and she earned a primary opponent who ultimately defeated her.

AIPAC’s stated purpose is to lobby Congress on issues and legislation related to Israel but that they ‘do not rate or endorse candidates for election or appointed office or directly contribute’ to a campaign.  Who do they think they are kidding?   AIPAC dodges registering with the FEC by the use of shell organizations and by requiring its members to join its Congressional Club and donate to the campaigns of certain members of Congress in order to receive exclusive membership benefits.  They also annually sponsor free round trip visits to Israel for Members of Congress otherwise known as junkets.

It is a curiosity that AIPAC, the American Israel Political Affairs Committee alleges that it is not a political action committee even as it provided $3.5 million in campaign contributions in 2018.  According to the Center for Responsive Politics, AIPAC has not registered its financial activities with the Federal Election Commission as if they have special entitlement.

The backstory is that in 1990, unanimous FEC decision cleared AIPAC from charges of coordinating campaign contributions with 27 other pro Israel PACs since acting in collusion is barred by Federal law.  Despite ‘similarities in campaign contributions’ and an overlap of membership and shared officers,  FEC General Counsel Lawrence Noble reached a finding of ‘insufficient evidence’ to require AIPAC to adhere to US election law.

To date, AIPAC is not registered with the FEC as a Political Action Committee nor is it registered with the Department of Justice as a foreign agent representing the interests of a foreign country.

*

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

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist at Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31.   

Boeing’s 737 Max 8: Lobbies and Belated Groundings

March 14th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Lobbies, powerful interests and financial matters are usually the first things that come to mind when the aircraft industry is considered.  Safety, while deemed of foremost importance, is a superficial formality, sometimes observed in the breach.  To see the camera footage of the wreckage from the Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max 8 was to be shocked by a certain irony: cameras was found lingering over an inflight safety cards on what to do in the event of an emergency.  For those on board that doomed flight, it was irrelevant.

The deaths of all 157 individuals on board the flight en route to Nairobi from Addis Ababa on Sunday might have caused a flurry of panicked responses.  There had been a similar disaster in Indonesia last year when Lion Air’s flight JT610 crashed killing 189 people.  Two is too many, but the response to the disasters was initially lethargic.   

Concern seemed to centre on the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), deemed vital to prevent the aircraft from stalling.  Sensors within the MCAS might, according to accident investigator Geoffrey Dell, have sent “spurious signals to the flight management computers and resulting in the autopilot automatically pushing the nose of the aircraft down”.  If so, then the ability to manually counter those actions, a safety design feature of previous aircraft autopilots, would have to be questioned.  Troubling Dell was another question: why did the pilots fail to disconnect the autopilot when it played up?  Ditto the auto throttle system itself. 

When it comes to safety in the aviation industry, powerful players tend to monetise rather than humanise their passengers.  A company like Boeing is seen as much as a patriot of the US defence industry as a producer of passenger aircraft. The company’s presence in Washington is multiple and vast, characterised by the buzzing activity of some two dozen in-house lobbyists and twenty lobbying firms. Lobbyists such as John Keast, a former principal at Cornerstone Government Affairs, have links with lawmakers such as Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi nurtured since the days he was chief of staff.  Wicker spokeswoman Brianna Manzelli was, however, keen to narrow that influence supposedly wielded by Keast in a statement made to CNN. 

“While at Cornerstone Government Affairs, John Keast lobbied for a variety of clients including Boeing on defence issues only.”

Such combined lobbying efforts cost $15 million last year alone, which makes Boeing’s contribution relatively small to trade groups, but significant in terms of outdoing such competitors as Lockheed Martin.  Added to the fact that CEO Dennis Muilenburg has an open channel to the White House, the campaign favouring the Max 8’s continued, and unmolested operation, was hitting gear.  A Tuesday call made by the executive to Trump after the president’s tweet on the dangers posed by complex systems suggested some serious pull.

For a time, it seemed that the lobby was doing its customary black magic, and winning, attempting to douse fires being made by the likes of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA Union calling for a temporary grounding of the Max 8.  Certain pilots had noticed control issues while operating the Max 8 over US airspace. 

Boeing initially convinced the Federal Aviation Administration, which failed to note in a surly statement from Acting FAA administrator Daniel K. Elwell any “systematic performance issues” worthy of grounding the model.

  “Nor have other civil aviation authorities provided data to us that would warrant action.  In the course of our urgent review of data on the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash, if any issues affecting the continued airworthiness of the aircraft are identified, the FAA will take immediate and appropriate action.”

This statement stood in stark contrast to that of the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand.

“Currently, there is no clear indication for the actual cause of accidents in Indonesia & Ethiopia, and no evident risk management measures or any mechanism to ensure the safety of 737 Max 9 aircraft from the aircraft manufacturer.” 

The lobby’s traction has gradually slowed on the Hill, and its tittering has, at least for the moment, started to lose conviction.  Calls started to come from lawmakers that the 737 model needed to be looked at.  Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) suggested grounding the aircraft as a “prudent” measure. “Further investigation may reveal that mechanical issues were not the cause, but until that time, our first priority must be the safety of the flying public.” Democratic senators Edward Markey (D-MA) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) were also itching to convince the FAA to ground the Max 8 “until the agency can conclusively determine that the aircraft be operated safely.”

Other lawmakers, ever mindful of Boeing’s influence in their states, preferred to leave the regulators to their task.  Till then, the planes would be permitted to continue taking to the skies.  “Right now,” cautioned Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), chair of the subcommittee overseeing aviation and a political voice for a state hosting an important Boeing facility, “the important thing is that relevant agencies are allowed to conduct a thorough and careful investigation.”  

It was President Donald Trump who ultimately decided to reverse the earlier decision by regulators permitting the aircraft to continue flying.  The emergency order put the US in step with safety regulators in 42 other countries.

“I didn’t want to take any chances,” explained Trump.  But ever mindful of Boeing’s shadowy hold, the president added a qualifying note. “We could have delayed it.  We maybe didn’t have to make it at all.  But I felt it was important both psychologically and in a lot of other ways.”

The FAA’s continued “data gathering”, previously deemed insufficient to warrant a grounding despite the quick response in other countries, had led to the opposite conclusion.  This included “newly refined satellite data available to the FAA”.  But Elwell was unwilling to eat anything resembling humble pie. “Since this accident occurred we were resolute that we would not take action until we had data.  That data coalesced today.”  A coalescence demonstrating, in more concrete terms, how safety, while important, tends to lag in the broader considerations of profit and operation in the aviation industry. 

Watch the video below, preview of the investigation where Al Jazeera interviewed the manager of the Boeing 787 programme, Larry Loftis.

*

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]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Boeing’s 737 Max 8: Lobbies and Belated Groundings
  • Tags:

The armed conflict between the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and Serbian forces started in 1992 with the KLA attacks on Serbian police officers, non-Albanians that lived in Kosovo and Albanians loyal to Serbia (Johnstone, 2002; Kozyris, 1999).  This low level conflict escalated in 1996 with the KLA attacking refugee camps as well as other civilians and policemen resulting in dozens of innocent deaths (Johnstone, 2002; Kozyris, 1999).  At this point of time and all up to late 1998, the KLA was regarded as a terrorist organisation (Gelbard, cited in Parenti, 2000:99; Jatras, 2002; Johnstone, 2002; Kepruner, 2003; Rubin, cited in BBC, -). 

Following the collapse of communism in Albania and this country falling into anarchy, many army storage facilities were ransacked and truckloads of weapons were smuggled into neighbouring Kosovo.  Increased criminal activities such as drugs and people trafficking as well as compulsory taxing of Albanians working abroad also provided funding for the KLA (Antic, 1999; Jatras, 2002). 

Increased KLA terrorist activities were met with a harsh response by the Serbian police and army resulting in some civilian deaths and displacement.  Consequent UN resolutions 1160, 1199 and 1203 as well as the Holbrook-Milosevic agreement in 1998 (Littman, 1999) demanded Serbian forces reduce in numbers and withdrawal to pre-conflict positions.  Serbian government complied with most of these demands, but the demands were not met fully because of several reasons. The KLA was not disarmed and did not comply with resolutions and increased their terrorist activities. The KLA was constantly provoking Serbian forces, purposely endangering civilians (Thaci, cited in BBC, -) as they knew that “the more civilians were killed, the chances of international interventions were bigger…” (Gorani, cited in BBC, -). 

Albright and KLA leader Hashim Thaci

They also re-occupied positions Serbian forces were previously holding and at some points of time controlled up to 40 % of Kosovo territory.  The KLA was re-enforced by hundreds of mercenaries and mujahideens, and started receiving support from the CIA, DIA, MI6 and German Intelligence BND (Bowman, 1999: 8; Marsden, 1999; Chossudovsky, 2001; GN TV, 2005: 1; WSWS 1999). 

Hashim Thaci and Madeleine Albright, 1998

The KLA was also supported by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda (Chossudovsky, 2001; Deliso, 2001; GN TV, 2005: 1; Johnstone, 2002:11).  Even though the KLA did not comply with UN resolutions and the Holbrook-Milosevic agreement, and it was responsible for most breaches of ceasefire (Robertson, cited in Chomsky, 2004: 56) there was a significant reduction in hostilities and almost all refugees returned to their places of living (Bowman, 1999; Littman, 1999).   

The most significant event occurred on January 15, 1999 with the alleged Racak massacre which was wrongly but consciously attributed to Serbian forces by William Walker, the head of the Kosovo Verification Mission who was previously involved in the cover up of atrocities in El Salvador (Bowman, 1999; Berliner Zeitung, cited in Free Republic, 2000; Chomsky, 2004: 56; Fleming, 1999; Gowans, 2001; Johnstone, 2002:239; Parenti, 2000:104; Wilcoxson, 2006). 

Allegations that Serbian forces massacred 45 innocent men, women and children were dismissed by Serbian, Belarus and Finnish forensic experts who found that these people have not been massacred or killed from close range as well as that most of them had traces of gunpowder residue on their hands, confirming that they actually were KLA fighters. 

The reports also state there was only one woman and one adolescent boy among the dead as well as that only one person was possibly but not explicitly shot from a close range (Berliner Zeitung, cited in Free Republic, 2000; Fleming, 1999; Johnstone, 2002).  Even though this was a crucial document, the report was not made public immediately (Berliner Zeitung, cited in Free Republic, 2000; Johnson, 2002). 

This was followed by Rambouillet negotiations, which was actually an ultimatum, that the Yugoslav government, or any other government, could not accept (Bennis, 2004: 240-241; Fraser, cited in SBS, 2000; Johnson, 2002: 245-247; Littman, 1999; Miller, 2003: 243; Muller, 1999; Parenti, 2000: 108-114; Pugh, 2001; Trifkovic, 1999).  After this the Kosovo Verification Mission was withdrawn and NATO humanitarian intervention or rather aggression began and lasted 78 days.

Numerous scholars (Mertus, 1999; Muenzel, 1999; Power, 2003; Stephen 2004; Urquhart, 2002; Williams, 2003; Young, 2003 and others), International Commission on Kosovo (cited in Neier, 2001:34) and politicians, especially those coming from the NATO countries, who advocate that NATO intervention is justified on the grounds of preventing ethnic cleansing, genocide and even new holocaust as well as securing peace and stability in the region.  They base their arguments on the United Nations Chapter VII, the humanitarian international law and the Universal Declaration of Human rights.  Falk (cited in Chossudovsky, 2003:1) states that:

 The Kosovo War was a just war because it was undertaken to avoid likely instance of “ethnic cleansing” undertaken by the Serb leadership of former Yugoslavia… It was a just war despite being illegally undertaken without authorization by the United Nations, and despite being waged in a manner that unduly caused Kosovar and Serbian civilian casualties while minimizing the risk of death or injury on the NATO side.

However, many other scholars advocate and demonstrate NATO intervention was illegal and unnecessary.  According to William Rockler (cited in Chossudovsky, 2003:1), former prosecutor of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal: 

The [1999] bombing war violates and shreds the basic provisions of the United Nations Charter and other conventions and treaties; the attack on Yugoslavia constitutes the most brazen international aggression since the Nazis attacked Poland to prevent “Polish atrocities” against Germans. The United States has discarded pretensions to international legality and decency, and embarked on a course of raw imperialism run amok.

The NATO intervention was illegal as NATO action was unilateral, avoided Security Council and therefore it was in violation of several provisions of the UN Charter, specifically Article 2 (3), Article 2 (4) and Article 53 as well as it breached NATO Charter First Article (Bisset, 2002).  The Rambouillet negotiations also breached Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) Section 2: Invalidity of Treaties Article 51 and Article 51 (Hatchett, 1999).

NATO officials insisted that this is a humanitarian intervention, but Lt. Gen. Mike Short, Commander of Allied Forces, admitted that NATO intervention was actually a war against Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (BBC, -):

 I certainly acknowledge that there were people within Allied that felt we weren’t at war, but as commander … in my mind I was at war and people under my control were, and that’s how we had to do our business…

As this was an undeclared war, it also breached Constitutions of NATO countries involved and Geneva Convention Article 52.2.  NATO breached this Article numerous times and committed war crimes by bombing schools, hospitals, TV and radio installations, bridges, factories, civilian suburbs of many cities, water treatment and electricity facilities, and deliberately targeting civilians such as in the case of Grdelica train and convoy of Albanian refugees near Djakovica when 75-100 refugees were killed (Bennis, 2004; Savich, 2007; Shen, 1999). Additionally, Captain Adolfo Luis Martin de la Hoz (cited in Morales, 1999), Spanish pilot engaged in NATO aggression, admitted that NATO was deliberately targeting the civilian population. According to the BBC (-) this was decided by Havier Solana and Gen. Klaus Nauman without consulting other NATO countries.  Hayden (1999) states that this was a deliberate act:

The Wall Street Journal reported on April 27 that NATO had decided to attack “political, rather than just military, targets in Serbia.” On April 25, the Washington Times reported that NATO planned to hit “power generation plants and water systems, taking the war directly to civilians.”

NATO also breached the Geneva Convention trying to assassinate President Milosevic by bombing his private residence (Guardian, 1999; Malic, 2003) as well as bombing the Chinese embassy.

Moreover, Littman (1999: 8) states

“It cannot be said that the use of force is necessary unless it can be clearly demonstrated that all measures short of force (and in particular measures of diplomacy) have been exhausted.” 

The Rambouillet negotiations fall very short of Littman’s statement.  The Yugoslav government accepted all political provisions of the agreement and was ready to negotiate on the military part of the agreement.  However, NATO’s ‘Appendix B’ of the agreement was presented to the Yugoslav delegation one day before the final date as a non-negotiable agreement.  This meant NATO de-facto occupation of Yugoslavia and therefore could not be accepted, however the Yugoslav government was ready to further negotiate military proposals.  To prove this, Yugoslav officials (23 February 1999) as well as the Serbian Assembly resolution (23 March 1999) declared that Yugoslavia would accept international force under the UN command (Littman, 1999).  However, NATO demanded full compliance with the military part of the Rambouillet agreement and according to senior US State Department official (Kenney, cited in Hatchett, 1999:1) “the United States ‘deliberately set the bar higher than the Serbs could accept.’ The Serbs needed, according to the official, a little bombing to see reason.”  Dr Kissinger (cited in Littman, 2004:5) clearly states that:

 The Rambouillet text, which called on Serbia to admit NATO troops throughout Yugoslavia, was a provocation, an excuse to start bombing.  Rambouillet is not a document that an angelic Serb could have accepted.  It was a terrible diplomatic document that should never have been presented in that form.

Furthermore, many scholars and politicians regarded Serbs as perpetrators engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide.  Certainly, there were atrocities including murder, looting and taking revenge on innocent civilians committed by Serbian paratroops and petty criminals. However, these atrocities were not supported by the Yugoslav government and were nothing even close to what NATO and media were reporting (Johnstone, 2002; Mitchell, 1999; Parenti, 2000).  The UN Secretary General reported to the UN on 17 March 1999 that situation in Kosovo is characterised by constant and persistent KLA attacks and disproportionate use of force by Yugoslav authorities (Littman, 2004).  Kosovo Verification Mission report also states that during the period (Littman, 2004:5)

22 January and 22 March 1999, passed on by NATO to the UN, show that in this period the total fatalities were 27 for the Serbs and 30 for the Kosovo Albanians. Another estimate puts the total Albanian fatalities over five months from 16 October 1998 to 20 March 1999) at 46; an average of 2 a week. By contrast, in 11 weeks of the NATO war from 25 March 1999 to 10 June 1999 NATO killed 1500 civilians and wounded 8000.  This is an average of 136 deaths a week and 30 times as many deaths as the total prior to the war.

Prior to the NATO intervention there were approximately 100,000 refugees on all sides, however after the bombing started this number very quickly escalated to more than 800,000 with 100,000 Serbians, Albanians and others moving into Central Serbia. The question here is did Serbs ethnically ‘cleanse’ their own people from Kosovo?  The simple truth is most of the refugees left because of the NATO bombing and increased fighting between the KLA and Serb forces.  Lt. Gen. Satish Nambier (1999:2), the Force Commander and Head of Mission of the United Nations Forces in the former Yugoslavia, also acknowledges that there was no intention by Yugoslavs to ethnically cleanse Kosovo.  Similarly, Lord Carrington (cited in Littman, 2004:8) declared that:

I think what NATO did by bombing Serbia actually precipitated the exodus of the Kosovo Albanians into Macedonia and Montenegro.  I think the bombing did cause the ethnic cleansing… NATO’s action in Kosovo was mistaken… what we did made things much worse.

The testimony of Jacques Prod’homme (cited in Rouleau, 1999), a French member of the OSCE observer mission about period before NATO intervention “during which he moved freely throughout the Pec region, neither he nor his colleagues observed anything that could be described as systematic persecution, either collective or individual murders, burning of houses or deportations.”

Also, there were reports that Serbian forces had plans to clear entire Kosovo of Albanian population by engaging in ‘Operation Horseshoe’ which later proved to be German Intelligence propaganda (Littman, 2004; WSWS, 1999).  Other allegations of mass murder of Kosovo Albanians include the US State Department Ambassador Scheffer’s claims (cited in Parenti, 2000) that up to 225,000 Kosovo Albanians aged 14 to 59 were not unaccounted as well as British Foreign Office Minister Hoon claim that in more than 100 massacres more than 10,000 people were killed by Serbian forces.  Also, there were allegations that Serbian forces used Trepca mineshafts to dispose bodies of killed Albanians as well burning Albanian bodies in furnaces. 

All these allegations were later dismissed as nonsense and NATO propaganda by FBI, French and Spanish forensic experts (Parenti, 2000).  The Wall Street journal (cited in Parenti, 2000) reported that by November 1999 about 2,100 bodies were found and these include those killed by Serbian forces, the KLA, NATO bombs and those who died of natural causes.  In fact one of the largest mass graves, found near town of Malisevo, contained 24 Serb and non-Albanian bodies mutilated by the KLA (BBC, CNN, Reuters, cited in ERP KIM, 2005)

Finally, the human, economic and environmental costs of NATO aggression were enormous.  The total estimate of human losses in FR Yugoslavia, excluding Kosovo, is 2500 with 557 civilians killed and 12,500 wounded (Dedeic, 2007).  The total economic costs include £2.5bn direct NATO costs (BBC, 1999) and somewhere between $30 billion and $100 billion costs to Yugoslav devastated economy and infrastructure (Dedeic, 2007). 

Environmental costs are not possible to estimate.  For instance, NATO planes deliberately targeted chemical complexes in Pancevo causing approximately 100,000 tonnes of highly toxic and cancerogenic chemicals and 8 tonnes of mercury contaminating the air, soil, underground waters as well as the largest river Danube (Djuric, 2005).  In Novi Sad, NATO destroyed 150 oil tanks causing more than 120,000 tonnes of oil derivates burning for days and spilling into underground waters and Danube.  In Kragujevac and Bor NATO destroyed electricity sub-stations causing more than 50 tonnes of highly toxic dioxin contaminate large areas (Djuric, 2005).  In Kosovo and Southern Serbia several areas were repeatedly bombarded with ammunitions containing depleted uranium.  Some estimates suggest that more than 10 tonnes of depleted uranium was dumped onto Yugoslavia.  Srbljak reported in early 2005 (cited in Djuric, 2005:4) that the rate of people suffering from cancers of lung, bones, liver and other organs were in some parts of Kosovo up 120 times higher than in the same period in 2004.

Overall, NATO ‘humanitarian’ intervention was not at all about humanitarian issues.  This was an illegal aggression and an undeclared war against sovereign state of Yugoslavia and violation of the UN Charter and Geneva Convention.  NATO intervention caused much greater suffering of all civilians, it devastated environment of Yugoslavia and surrounding countries as well as Yugoslav economy and infrastructure.  It also increased antagonism between Kosovo Albanians and Serbs and other non-Albanians minimising chances of coexistence.  This was proved by the exodus of 250,000 refugees after NATO occupied Kosovo and Albanian refugees and the KLA returned to Kosovo.  It also caused radical Muslim ideas spreading into other parts of former Yugoslavia and further destabilising Sandzak, Southern Serbia and Macedonia.  Russia also became concerned with NATO’s action and it increased their military spending thus re-starting arm race.

The actual reasons for NATO aggression are hard to establish.  Many authors believe that this intervention was about establishing a new role and the credibility of NATO in the post-Cold War era.  Others see this as the result of US imperialism and hegemony as well as economic expansion as Fleming (1999) states “one way to open the market is to concur it”.  Some authors also believe that this is a part of the US strategic expansionism towards the East, which involved decade’s long fight against communism and attempts to minimise Russian influence in the world.  Yugoslavia was the only country in Europe that was at the time still under communist rule and therefore under Russian influence. 

There are certainly those who genuinely believe that NATO intervention was done because of a just cause, thus attempting to prevent humanitarian catastrophe in the middle of Europe.  However, their understanding of the whole situation was distorted by the KLA/NATO sophisticated propaganda, media frenzy and the lack of full understanding of the situation on the ground.     

*

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

Sources

Antic, O.  1999.  “Kosovar Independence”: Muenzel’s Biased Pro-Greater Albania Approach.  Retrieved on 30.03.2007 from: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/antic.htm 

BBC.  – .  Exact date and tittle of the TV documentary unknown. (TV documentary about Rambouillet negotiations and NATO intervention in Kosovo) 

BBC News.  1999. World: Europe Kosovo war cost £30bn.  Retrieved on 02.04.2007 from:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/europewide_debate/329370.stm 

Beloni, R.  2002.  Kosovo and beyond: Is humanitarian intervention transforming international society?  Retrieved on 25.03.2007 from: http://www.du.edu/gsis/hrhw/volumes/2002/2-1/belloni2-1.pdf 

Bennis, P.  2004.  Calling the shots: How Washington dominates today’s UN.  Arriss Books, Gloucestershire. 

Bisset, J.  2002.  Anniversary of shame: March 1999 – March 2002.  Retrieved on 30.03.2007 from:  

Bowman, R. M.  1999.  Chronology of the conflict in Kosovo.  Retrieved on 30.03.2007 from: http://www.rmbowman.com/isss/kosovo.htm 

Chomsky, N.  2004.  Hegemony or survival: America’s quest for global dominance.  Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW. 

Chomsky, 2006.  Failed states: The abuse of power and the assault on democracy.  Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW. 

Coady, C.A.J.  2003.  War for humanity: a critique.  In Ethics and foreign intervention.  Eds. D.K. Chatterjee & D.E. Scheid,  Cambridge University Press, pp. 274-295.

Chossudovsky, M.  2001.  “Osamagate” [sic.].  Retrieved on 30.03.2007 from:http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html 

Chossudovsky, M.  2001.  The Just War theory.  Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20050717&articleId=698

Chossudovsky, M.  2001.  NATO and US Government War Crimes in Yugoslavia.  Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from:http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MIC20020219&articleId=370

Dedeic, S. 2007.  Danas se navrsava osam godina od pocetka bombardovanja SR Jugoslavije.  Retrieved on 02.04.2007:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg34493.html 

Deliso, C.  2001.  Bin Laden, Iran and the KLA: How Islamic terrorism took root in Albania.  Retrieved on 30.03.2007 from:http://www.antiwar.com/orig/deliso5.html 

Durch, J. W.  1997.  Introduction to anarchy: Humanitarian intervention and “State building” in Somalia.  In UN: Peacekeeping, American policy and the uncivil wars of the 1990s, ed. William J. Durch.  MacMillan Press, London, pp. 311-365. 

Djuric, V.  2005.  Istina koja opominje.  Retrieved on 02.04.2007. from: http://arhiva.glas-javnosti.co.yu/arhiva/2005/12/12/srpski/nato2.shtml 

ERP KIM Info Service.  2005.  Another mass grave with Serb bodies found in Kosovo.  Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from: http://www.decani.org/news/archive/2005/May_15/1.html 

Free Republic, 2000. “Berliner Zeitung” disputes massacre claims: Racak a hoax.  Retrieved on 31.03.2007 from:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39bac263741e.htm 

Fleming, T.  1999.  Serbian Studies Foundation Forum – Macquarie University.  Personal encounter on 09.05.1999. 

German Network TV (GN TV).  2005.  German Intelligence and the CIA supported Al Qaeda sponsored Terrorists in Yugoslavia.  Retrieved on 30.03.2007 from: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BEH502A.html 

Gowans, S.  2001.  Sorting through the lies of the Racak massacre and other myths of Kosovo.  Retrieved on 31.03.2007 from:http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans1.html 

Guardian.  2002.  Ground troops ‘may go in within four weeks’.  Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,,206951,00.html 

Hapmson, F.O.  1997.  ‘The Pursuit of human rights: The United Nations in El Salvador’.  In UN: Peacekeeping, American policy and the uncivil wars of the 1990s, ed. William J. Durch.  MacMillan Press, London, pp. 68-102. 

Hatchett, R.L.  1999.  Serbs had little choice: Kosovo peace accord not what we think.  Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from:http://www.srpska-mreza.com/Kosovo/NATO-attack/Rambouillet.html 

Hayden, R.  1999.  Humanitarian Hypocrisy.  Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hayden.htm

Jatras, S.L.  2002. The crimes of the KLA: Who will pay?  Retrieved on 30.03.2007 from:http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras9.html

Johnstone, D.  2002.  Fool’s crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western delusions.  Monthly Review Press, New York. 

Kepruner, K.  2003.  Putovanja u zemlju ratova: Dozivljaji jednog stranca u Yugoslaviji, book review by Carl Savich.  Retrieved on 30.03.2007 from: http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/069.shtml 

Kozyris, P.J.  1999.  Delayed learning from Kosovo: Any chance of common understanding of facts and law.  Retrieved on 28.03.2007 from: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/phaed1.htm 

Krasno, J.E. & Sutterlin, J.S.  2003.  The United Nations and Iraq: Defanging the viper.  Praeger Publishers, Connecticut.  

Littman, M. (QC).  1999.  Kosovo: law & diplomacy.  Retrieved on 28.03.2007 from: http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/20000125littmcpsuk.php 

Littman, M. (QC).  2004.  Do you remember Kosovo.  Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from:http://www.barder.com/politics/international/kosovo/littman2.php 

Malic, N.  2003.  Citizen Clark? Or, why electing a mass murderer is a really bad idea.  Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from:http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m091803.html

Mertus, J.  1999.  Kosovo & Yugoslavia: Law in crisis.  Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/acad-op.htm#Jules 

Miller, R.W.  2003.  ‘Respectable oppressors, hypocritical liberators: morality, intervention, and reality’.  In Ethics and foreign intervention.  Eds. D.K. Chatterjee & D.E. Scheid,  Cambridge University Press, pp. 215-250.  

Mitchell, A.  Serbian Studies Foundation Forum – Macquarie University.  Personal encounter on 09.05.1999. 

Morales, J.L.  1999.  Spanish pilot admits NATO attacked civilians.  Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from: http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosovo_crisis/Jun_16/5.html 

Muenzel, F.  1999.  “What does Public International Law have to say about Kosovar independence?” Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/simop.htm 

Muller, R.F.  1999.  Serbian Studies Foundation Forum – Macquarie University.  Personal encounter on 09.05.1999. 

Neier, A.  ‘The quest for justice’, The New York Review of Books (8 March 2001), pp. 31-35.

Parenti, M.  2000.  To kill a nation: The attack on Yugoslavia.  Verso, London. 

Posner, E.A.  2006.  The humanitarian war myth.  Retrieved on 27.03.2007 from:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901435.html 

Power, S.  ‘Conclusion’.  In ‘A problem from hell’: America and the Age of Genocide.  Flamingo, London, pp. 503-516 

Pugh, M.  ‘Peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention’. In Brian White, Richard Little and Michael Smith (eds.)  Issues in world politics.  Palgrave, Basingstoke, 2001, pp. 113-131 

Rouleau, J.  1991.  French diplomacy adrift in Kosovo.  Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from: http://mondediplo.com/1999/12/04rouleau

Savich, C.  2007.  Anatomy of NATO war crimes: The Grdelica passenger train bombing.  Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from:http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/088.shtml 

Satish, N. Lt. Gen.  1999.  The fatal flaws underlying NATO’s intervention in Yugoslavia.  Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from:http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/ece/flaws.pdf 

SBS.  2000.  Exact tittle of the TV documentary unknown (Malcolm Fraser on CARE Australia involvement in former Yugoslavia).

Shen, J.  1999.  A Politicized ICTY Should Come to an End.  Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/shen.htm 

Shinoda, H.  2000.  The politics of legitimacy in international relations: The case of NATO’s intervention in Kosovo.  Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from: http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/press/010shinoda.htm

Stephen, C.  2004.  Judgement day: The trial of Slobodan Milosevic.  Atlantic Books, London.

Stokes, D.  2003.  Why the end of Cold War doesn’t matter: the US war of Terror in Columbia.  Retrieved on 25.03.2007 from:http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/200310–02.pdf 

Thomas, R.G.C.  1997.  NATO and International Law.  Retrieved on 01.004.2004 from: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/thomas.htm

Trifkovic, S.  1999.  Serbian Studies Foundation Forum – Macquarie University.  Personal encounter on 09.05.1999.

Urquhart, B.  ‘In the name of humanity’.  The New York Review of Books (27 April 2000).  pp. 19-22.

Urquhart, B.  ‘Shameful neglect’.  The New York Review of Books (25 April 2002).  pp. 11-14.

Wheeler, N.J. & Bellamy, A. J.  2005.  Chapter 15 ‘Humanitarian intervention in world politics’.  In The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 3rd ed.  Eds. J. Baylis and S. Smiths.  Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 556-578.

Wilcoxson, A. 2006.  The 1999 Racak massacre: KLA had been planning to fabricate “Serbian crimes”.  Retrieved on 31.03.2007 from: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060127&articleId=1836 

Williams, L.  ‘Altered States’, The Sydney Morning Herald (22-23 November 2003)

Whitman, J.  – . After Kosovo: The Risks and Deficiencies of Unsanctioned Humanitarian Intervention.  Retrieved on 01.03.2004 from: http://www.jha.ac/articles/a062.htm

World Socialist Web Site (WSWS).  1999.  Why is NATO at war with Yugoslavia? World power, oil and gold.  Retrieved on 30.03.2007 from: http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/stat-m24.shtml

World Socialist Web Site (WSWS).  1999.  “Operation Horseshoe” – propaganda and reality: How NATO propaganda misled public.   Retrieved on 01.04.2007 from: http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jul1999/hs-j29.shtml 

Young, I.M.  2003.  Violence against power: critical thoughts on military intervention.  In Ethics and foreign intervention.  Eds. D.K. Chatterjee & D.E. Scheid,  Cambridge University Press, pp. 251-273.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Kosovo War: “Humanitarian Intervention” or Undeclared War Against Yugoslavia?

Largely by voice vote on Tuesday, House members passed four anti-Russia measures, continuing US war on the country by other means.

One bill targeted Vladimir Putin over the February 2015 killing of opposition figure Boris Nemtsov – lethally shot multiple times in central Moscow, an incident Russia’s leader had nothing to do with, nor any other Kremlin official.

The killing was strategically timed – ahead of a Vesna (Russian Spring anti-government) opposition march, used as a Nemtsov memorial march, falsely portraying him as a martyr.

At the time, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said

“Putin has stressed that this brutal murder has all (the) signs of a contract murder and is extremely provocative.”

“The president has expressed his deep condolences to the family of tragically deceased Nemtsov.”

He was a Western financed self-serving opportunist. His killing had all the earmarks of a US-staged false flag. Cui bono is most important.

Clearly Putin had nothing to gain. Rogue US elements had lots to benefit from trying to destabilize Russia.

If Putin wanted Nemtsov dead, it’s inconceivable he’d order a Mafia-style contract killing. Lethally shooting him in central Moscow clearly ruled out Kremlin involvement. No evidence suggested a state-sponsored assassination.

Nemtsov’s death was and remains more valuable to Washington than using him alive as an impotent opposition figure with less than 5% public support when killed.

Ahead of Tuesday’s House vote, Russophobic House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Eliot Engel turned truth on its head saying the following:

“It’s been four years since his death, but there’s been no proper investigation of his assassination (sic) and the cover-up and zero accountability for those responsible (sic). That’s certainly an outrage,” adding:

“This resolution condemns the Kremlin’s systematic targeting of its political opponents (sic) and calls on the administration to impose sanctions on those responsible for Nemtsov’s murder and cover-up (sic).”

Following an investigation by authorities, five Russian nationals were charged with Nemtzov’s murder.

Three other measures passed on Tuesday, largely by voice vote, showing near-unanimous anti-Russia hostility on Capitol Hill.

The Crimea Annexation (sic) Non-Recognition Act bans US recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.

The Vladimir Putin Transparency Act calls for the US intelligence community to determine and expose so-called “key networks” used by Russia’s president to strengthen political control (sic) and weaken democratic states (sic).

The Keeping Russian Entrapments Minimal and Limiting Intelligence Networks (Kremlin) Act requires the US director of national intelligence (DNI) to inform Congress of Moscow’s malign intent (sic) against the US and other NATO countries.

It also calls for determining potential Russian responses to expanded US/NATO involvement in Eastern Europe, along with identifying areas of Kremlin weakness to use against its ruling authorities.

Senate members will likely adopt similar anti-Russia measures. They follow multiple rounds of US sanctions on the country and July 2017 Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.

Targeting Russia, Iran and North Korea, it passed both houses with only five of 535 members casting dissenting votes, signed into law by Trump.

It called for expanding unilateral sanctions on these countries, imposed illegally for political reasons, unrelated to so-called “malign activities” – part of Washington’s hostile imperial agenda.

Responding to the House measures, Dmitry Peskov said the following:

“Such bills can only have an adverse effect (on bilateral relations). This very unfriendly, rampant anti-Russian sentiment line continues,” adding:

“This is a continuation of this emotional exaltation. Therefore, we do not expect any kind of sober-minded assessment from US legislators now.”

Congress is “strongly influenced by these emotions, which prevent them from assessing the situation soberly and show at least some kind of political will to take actions, which we believe would meet the two countries’ interests best of all.”

He expects anti-Russia sentiment to intensify ahead of US November 2020 presidential, congressional, and state elections.

A Final Comment

On Wednesday, five Republican and undemocratic Dem senators introduced the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression (DASKA)” Act.

Called the “sanctions bill from hell,” it targets Russia’s banking and energy sectors, along with its foreign debt and more, aiming to weaken its economy.

It falsely calls the Russian Federation a “state sponsor of terrorism” – the designation applicable to the US, NATO, Israel, and their imperial partners, not Moscow.

A statement by co-sponsors Bob Menendez, Lindsey Graham, Cory Gardner, Ben Cardin, and Jeanne Shaheen said the following in part:

The measure “seeks to increase economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on the Russian Federation in response to Russia’s interference in democratic processes abroad (sic), malign influence in Syria (sic), and aggression against Ukraine (sic), including in the Kerch Strait (sic).

It calls for sanctions on Russian banks, its energy and cyber sectors, investments in its foreign LNG projects (targeting Nord Stream 2 pipeline construction investors), its foreign debt, shipbuilding sector, as well as key political and private figures.

Its other provisions call for intensified hostile actions against Russia. A similar measure failed to pass last year.

This one is more likely to be adopted by both houses overwhelmingly and signed into law by Trump.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: Russian President Vladimir Putin By Harold Escalona/shutterstock And President Trump By Drop of Light/Shutterstock

Plight of Women in Indian Prisons

March 14th, 2019 by CJP

Various studies done within Indian prisons have concluded that a majority of prisoners are Adivasis, Dalits or from other marginalised communities that are being criminalised. Their social and economic situation makes them vulnerable, being unable to defend themselves legally and financially. This compilation aims to highlight the general issues related to Women Prisoners, the Structural Exclusions within the Prison, Analysing the Monitoring Process, Legal Aid, and Accountability of Jail Staff to procedures laid down in Jail manuals.

***

Terms of Reference

  • Conduct countrywide Public Hearings on Women Prisoners
  • Analyse the conditions of Women Prisoners in different states of the Country when measured against National and International Standards
  • Analyse the efficacy of monitoring mechanisms of jail conditions of Women in Prison

Status Report: Women Prisoners in India

In the year 2016, over three lakh women were arrested for crimes under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Special and Local Laws (SLL). A large number of these women were reportedly arrested for crimes under the Prohibition Act, for cruelty by relatives of husband and rioting etc. The overall number of crimes by women has been relatively consistent over the past decade or so.[1] In Maharashtra, 1336 women occupied prisons in 2015[2].

Some relevant Facts and Figures

As per the most recent data available from the report Women in Prisons published by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, there are 4,19,623 persons in jails in India. Women constitute 4.3% of this figure, numbering a total of 17,834 women. These are the official figures. Of these, 66.8% (11,916) are under-trial prisoners.

In India, an analysis of prison statistics at five-year intervals reveals an increasing trend in the number of women prisoners – 3.3% of all prisoners in 2000, 3.9% in 2005, 4.1% in 2010 and 4.3% of prisoners in 2015 were women.

A majority of female inmates are in the age group of 30-50 years (50.5%), followed by 18-30 years (31.3%).Of the total 1,401 prisons in India, only 18 are exclusively for women, housing 2,985 female prisoners. Thus, a majority of women inmates are housed in women’s enclosures of general prisons.

Maharashtra

According to latest report from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Maharashtra has a total 9 central jails with an authorised capacity of 452 women prisoners. However, they accommodate 722 prisoners. There are also 28 District jails with a capacity of 334 prisoners, but that actually accommodate 356 prisoners. The 100 sub-jails have an authorized capacity of 568 prisoners and house 8 prisoners, while one Special jail with an authorized capacity of 3 prisoners actually accommodates 6 prisoners.

There is one women’s jail with an authorized capacity of 262 prisoners, but houses 200 prisoners. There are also 13 open jails with an authorized capacity of 100 prisoners but house 44 prisoners. In all, Maharashtra has 154 jails with an authorized capacity of 1,719 women prisoners, but the actual number of inmates is 1,336.

International Rules and Standards governing the Rights of Prisoners

There are various International Rules and Standards governing the Rights of Prisoners. Following are the International Treaties, Rules and Standards directing the model prison conditions.

  1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  2. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
  3. Standard Minimum Rules for treatment of Prisoners (Standard Minimum Rules)
  4. Nelson Mandela Rules
  5. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
  6. Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners
  • Both, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, without exception or derogation.
  • The Standard Minimum Rules adopted by U.N. Economic and Social Council in 1957 are one of the most comprehensive sets of guidelines determining the rights of prisoners. They prescribe that the religious beliefs of the prisoner should be respected, prisoners should be provided with wholesome and well-prepared food at usual timings, that at least one qualified medical officer who also has knowledge of psychiatry should be present at every institution etc. There are some special provisions for women prisons like there should be special accommodation for all necessary pre-natal and post-natal care and treatment and where nursing infants are allowed to remain in the institution with their mothers, provision should be made for a nursery staffed by qualified persons.
  • The Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any form of Detention or Imprisonment and the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, both lay down general standards to treat prisoners with inherent dignity and value as human beings.

National Rules and Standards governing the Rights of Prisoners in India

The rules of incarceration in India are determined by following laws:

  1. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  2. Prison Act, 1894.
  3. Prisoners Act, 1900.
  4. Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920.
  5. Exchange of Prisoners Act, 1948.
  6. Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950.
  7. Prisoner (Attendance in Court) Act, 1955.
  8. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
  9. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
  10.  Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003.
  11. Model Prison Manual, 2003.
  12. Model Prison Manual, 2016.

Earlier, because of the plethora of laws in the country, there was no uniformity in laws, or standards relating to prisons. Hence, the Ministry of Home Affairs brought in the Model Prison Manual aimed at ensuring some uniformity in laws relating to prisons. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs advised the State Governments/UT Administrations that in order to ensure basic uniformity in prison rules and regulations, all States and UTs should revise their existing Prison Manuals by adopting the provisions of the National Model Prison Manual, 2016.

Some of the important guidelines mentioned in Model Prison Manual 2016 published by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India are:

  1.  To ensure safety of woman prisoners there should be at least one women’s jail in each and every state.
  2. Enclosures for women prisoners should have all the requisite facilities with reference to their special needs, such as pregnancy, child birth and family care, health care and rehabilitation etc.
  3. Female prisoners should be granted equal access to work, vocational training and education as male prisoners.
  4. A register shall/should be maintained in every place of imprisonment where the details regarding a woman prisoner’s identity, their reason for imprisonment, day, and hour of their admission and release and details of children of women prisoners shall be entered.
  5. No male prisoner shall be permitted to enter the female ward of any prison at any time unless he has legitimate duty to attend therein. No male shall enter it at all by night except in an emergency, and even then only along with a female officer.
  6. All staff assigned to work with women prisoners shall receive training relating to the gender specific needs and human rights of women including on sexual misconduct and discrimination.
  7. Photographs, footprints, fingerprints, and measurements of women prisoners shall be done in the presence and with the assistance of women prison officers.
  8. Daily visits and night inspection rounds shall be made by women prison officers.
  9. Women prisoners shall be searched by women wardens and such searches shall not be conducted in the presence of any male.
  10. On admission to prison, women prisoners shall be medically examined by a lady medical officer.
  11. When a woman prisoner is found or suspected to be pregnant at the time of admission or later, the lady Medical Officer shall report the fact to the superintendent and send for gynaecological examination.
  12. As far as possible, arrangements for temporary release will be made to enable a prisoner to deliver her child in hospital outside the prison. Births in prison shall be registered at the local birth registration office.
  13. Children up to six years of age shall be admitted to prison with their mother if no other arrangements for keeping them with relatives or otherwise can be made. The children of women prisoners living in the prison shall be given proper education and recreational opportunities.
  14. Adequate health facilities shall be provided to children of women prisoners. Pregnant women prisoners should be prescribed a special diet.
  15. Every prisoner should receive food everyday at prescribed times, and according to the scale laid down.
  16. Adequate clothing should be provided to women prisoners and their children.
  17. Proper accommodation should be provided to women prisoners that shall meet basic requirements of health.
  18. Every woman prisoner should be provided with the opportunity to access education, and recreational, cultural programmes, and vocational training should be organised for them.
  19. To ensure access to justice for all, timely legal aid services should be provided to needy prisoners at State expenses as prescribed by the State government.
  20. In a prison for convicted women prisoners, there shall be one post of a lady Superintendent.

Challenges faced by Women in Prisons

As discussed above, there are numerous clearly defined Rights of Prisoners. However, the implementation of most of the conditions is found missing in prisons today. The following are the major problems faced by women in prisons in the country, with special focus on Maharashtra.

Prison Staff

  • There is a lack of female staff in prisons in the country. In Maharashtra the sanctioned number of jail staff was 5,064 in 2015, whereas only 3,976 people were employed in the jails, of which 713 were women.
  • The lack of female staff in women prisons often leads to male staff becoming responsible for female inmates. This is highly undesirable since women inmates need gender-specific services that should be provided by female staff.

Sanitation and Hygiene

  • Most jails are lacking in basic facilities of sanitation and hygiene. While the prescription in the Prison Manual is to ensure one toilet and one bathing cubicle for every 10 prisoners, this is rarely seen on the ground.
  • There is a lack of sufficient water, which exacerbates the low levels of sanitation and hygiene, as against the minimum standard estimate of 135 liters per inmate by the Manual.
  • In Byculla jail, 81 women inmates were hospitalized last year due to alleged food poisoning caused by the unhygienic environment in the prison. The women complained of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.

Accommodation

  • National and International Guidelines prescribe decent human living standards for prisoners. A specified size for cells and barracks in prison is prescribed in the National Prison Manual. Barracks are meant to ideally only house 20 prisoners and dormitories to house only four to six prisoners each.
  • The Minimum Standards Rules further direct that dormitories should be carefully provided to people suitable to live with each other and windows where prisoners live or work shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light.
  • Over-crowding is one of the key problems plaguing the prisons in the country. The national average occupancy was reported at 114.4% in 2015. The effects of overcrowding often become even more pronounced in the case of women, as they are usually restricted to a smaller enclosure of the jail due to lack of proper infrastructure for them.
  • In Maharashtra, however, over-crowding is not a problem, with the total capacity being 1719, occupied by 1336 women.

Health

  • The right to health includes providing healthcare that is available, accessible, acceptable and of good quality. In many cases, female wards in hospitals and lady Medical Officers, especially gynecologists, are not available. Concerns of mental health are often not given adequate importance, and women suffering from mental illnesses are often housed in prisons due to lack of other appropriate facilities.
  • A total of 51 deaths of women prisoners were reported in 2015, of which 48 deaths were considered to be of natural causes and three deaths occurred due to committing suicide. In Maharashtra, 4 deaths were due to natural causes.

Legal Aid

  • As per the new National Prison Manual, State governments are to appoint jail-visiting advocates, set up legal aid clinics in every prison, and provide legal literacy classes in all prisons to ensure that prisoners have access to legal aid.
  • Visits by members of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to various prisons have revealed that many prisons do not have a legal aid cell, and very few prisoners have accessed legal aid. States should ensure that District and State Legal Service Authorities are linked to prisons to provide free legal aid, and all prisoners should be made aware of their rights.

Violence

  • Incidents of violence, including sexual violence by inmates and authorities, have been reported from across the country. However, official reports underestimate the prevalence of violence, because prisoners fear retaliation, as they are forced to stay in the same place as their perpetrators.
  • In 2017, Manjula Shetye was allegedly beaten to death in Byculla jail by prison staff.[3]

Children

  • Children up to the age of six are allowed to live with their mothers in prisons if no other arrangements for their care can be made. In Maharashtra, the total number of women with children is 82, and the total number of children is 88.
  • As per a 2009 BPR&D report, proper facilities for biological, psychological and social growth of the child, crèche, and recreational facilities are not available in every prison. NHRC jail visits reveal that in many cases, other than a glass of milk, an adequate special diet for children is not always provided.

*

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

Notes

[1] Women in Prisons Report published by Ministry of Women and Child Development, India in June 2018.

[2] NCRB’s Crime in India Statistics, 2015

Featured image is from CJP

A young woman picks up and compares juices in a store aisle. She’s 29. She spends 40 minutes on average shopping and likes orange juice. That’s not all: She usually spends 2,500 yen per visit to the store.

The Japanese startup Vaak’s software knows a lot about the woman in a white shirt.

Most importantly, it knows that there is only a 4 percent chance of her doing something such as shoplifting.

Vaak is one of a growing number of companies across the globe developing AI-powered surveillance technology that analyzes body language to judge whether someone is behaving in a suspicious manner. (The technology also has important applications for autonomous cars; those systems need to know, for instance, what the intent of someone standing on a street corner is.)

But many companies envision the products as a security tool. While nary a month goes by without some press account on a troubling aspect of facial recognition technology, there’s been far less attention paid to the type of artificial intelligence that Vaak is developing.

Vaak’s software works by analyzing in-store security camera footage. In a promotional video, the software can not only identify the 29-year-old juice lover, but zero in on a shifty character in a hoodie who may be contemplating shoplifting. A floating tag next to the suspicious man’s face identifies him as a 30-year-old who usually only spends 500 yen (about $5) in the store. A high-tech looking array of dots and lines shimmers across his frame as he peeks down an aisle; presumably it is measuring the man’s movements and looking for signs of nefarious intent: fidgeting, restlessness, and suspicious body behavior. After a quick glance to make sure the coast is clear, hoodie guy pockets a can of beer. Vaak clocks him as having an “86-percent” suspicious rate.

According to the Bloomberg article “These cameras can spot shoplifters even before they steal,” Vaak is testing its software in several locations in the Tokyo region. After a real-life theft during a practice run of the technology at a test store in nearby Yokohama, Vaak reportedly helped authorities arrest a shoplifter. The company’s founder, Ryo Tanaka, told Bloomberg about the breakthrough moment for the company:

“We took an important step closer to a society where crime can be prevented with AI.”

And Vaak is not the only one pursuing this type of body language profiling approach. Wrnch, a Canadian company, uses “synthetic” humans, similar to those that a videogame designer might create, to train the company’s system to recognize behaviors. In addition to Vaak and wrnch, companies in England and Israel, at least, are also working on similar technology.

At first glance, this approach appears different from the AI-based surveillance technology taken by facial recognition developers, who rely on massive data sets of photos of actual people, and which has received a torrent of criticism in recent months. (The American Civil Liberties Union found that Amazon’s Rekognition facial software disproportionately labeled minority members of the US Congress as being in a mug-shot database.)

But behavior recognition software may be no better in this regard. Just as a potentially racially biased facial recognition system could flag a person for police attention, could biased software deem someone moving in a “fidgety” manner as suspicious on dubious grounds?

Kind of all makes one want to go “Vaak.”

*

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

Matt Field is an associate editor at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Before joining the Bulletin, he covered the White House, Congress, and presidential campaigns as a news producer for Japanese public television. He has also reported for print outlets in the Midwest and on the East Coast. He holds a master’s degree in journalism from Northwestern University.

Featured image: A screenshot from a video on Vaak’s website. Credit: Vaak.

EPA Proposes Use of 650,000 Pounds of Antibiotics Per Year on Citrus Fields

March 14th, 2019 by Center For Biological Diversity

Advocates from public-health and environmental groups delivered more than 45,000 petition signatures to the Environmental Protection Agency today asking the agency to deny a proposal that would expand spraying antibiotics on citrus fields.

If that proposal is approved, citrus growers could spray more than 650,000 pounds of the antibiotic streptomycin on citrus fields every year to treat the bacteria that causes citrus greening disease. Streptomycin belongs to a class of antibiotics considered critically important to human health by the World Health Organization. By contrast, people in America only use 14,000 pounds of that antibiotic class each year.

“The more you use antibiotics, the greater the risk that bacteria resistant to the drugs will flourish and spread. The bottom line is that the potential problems created by spraying massive amounts of streptomycin on citrus fields could outweigh the original problem the EPA wants to solve,” said Matt Wellington, U.S. PIRG’s Stop the Overuse of Antibiotics campaign director.

Spraying antibiotics on citrus fields does not cure citrus greening disease or prevent its spread. If allowed, this would be the largest-ever use of a medically important antibiotic in plant agriculture in the United States. The EPA has not fully considered the consequences of this unprecedented antibiotic use, especially given its limited potential for success, as laid out in comments by the Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and U.S. PIRG.

“Spraying orange and grapefruit trees with an antibiotic we use to treat human disease is a dangerously shortsighted idea,” said Emily Knobbe, EPA policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “In addition to increasing the risk of antibiotic resistance, the EPA’s own analysis indicates streptomycin could harm foraging mammals like rabbits and chipmunks.”

Recent research suggests that up to 162,000 Americans die each year from antibiotic-resistant infections. The World Health Organization ranked antibiotic resistance among the top 10 health threats in 2019. Overusing antibiotics in any setting fuels the spread of drug-resistant bacteria.

Antibiotics should be used as sparingly as possible and only when absolutely necessary. Spraying massive quantities of a medically important antibiotic on citrus fields doesn’t fit those requirements.

*

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

While online audiences know YouTube comedian Joanna Hausmann from her videos making the case for regime change, her economist father has flown below the radar. His record holds the key to understanding what the U.S. wants in Venezuela.

***

If you’ve followed Venezuela-related news on social media, you’ve undoubtedly stumbled across a video (below) released by comedian Joanna Hausmann in which she promises to tell you, “What’s Happening in Venezuela: Just the Facts.” Despite a title designed to instill confidence in the uninformed viewer, upon closer examination the “facts” presented in Hausman’s video hardly stand the test of reality.

Hausmann, for example, attempted to pass off dubious assertions that Venezuelan opposition leader “Juan Guaidó is not right wing,” and that he “did not just declare himself president” of the country. She also claimed that President Nicolas Maduro “made up” the National Constituent Assembly, neglecting to mention that that governing body was clearly defined in the country’s 1999 Constitution, and was ratified by 71.8 percent of the country through a democratic vote.

Hausmann’s performance ended with a teary-eyed appeal for sympathy: “On a personal level… my father is exiled from going back home.” For a video dedicated to “just the facts,” Hausmann’s rant omitted an especially pertinent piece of information: her exiled father and the rest of her family are no ordinary Venezuelans, and are, in fact, key players in the bid to bring down the elected government.

Much of Hausmann’s script echoed talking points outlined by her father, Ricardo Hausmann, in a 2018 article ominously entitled “D-Day Venezuela.” The piece amounted to a plea for the U.S. to depose Maduro by force, with Hausman arguing that “military intervention by a coalition of regional forces may be the only way to end a man-made famine threatening millions of lives.”

But Ricardo Hausmann is much more than a prominent pundit. He is one of the West’s leading neoliberal economists, who played an unsavory role during the 1980s and ’90s in devising policies that enabled the looting of Venezuela’s economy by international capital and provoked devastating social turmoil.

Hausmann emerged among a group of neoliberal economists gathered around the Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administración (IESA), a private university in Caracas. They came to be known in Venezuela as “the IESA Boys,” a not-so-affectionate reference to the Chicago Boys who had been “imported” into Chile from the Economics Department of the University of Chicago and who in 1973 played a role in devising shock-therapy economic policies for Augusto Pinochet and his military junta.

The popular rejection of the IESA Boys’ agenda began with the Caracazo of 1989, a massive revolt that consumed the capital of Caracas when poor and working-class Venezuelans rioted in protest of an IMF package that mandated harsh austerity. Thousands of dead civilians and three years later, Hausman entered government to impose more shock therapy on the most vulnerable Venezuelans, making the rise of Hugo Chávez as president in 1998 practically inevitable.

While unknown to most Venezuelans, Hausmann remains a key player in his country’s tumultuous politics. During a talk at the World Affairs Council of Greater Houston in November 2018, he eerily predicted Guaidó’s self-proclaimed presidency, telling the crowd “the international community is now focused on the idea that… January 10th is the end of the presidential period of Nicolás Maduro.”

“On January 11th, Nicolás Maduro will not be recognized as… the legitimate president of Venezuela,” Hausmann anticipated. “I think that’s an important date.”

On January 11th, when Juan Guaidó declared his preparedness to become president of Venezuela, the Harvard professor’s prophecy was fulfilled.

Almost two months later, Guaidó appointed Hausman to serve as his representative at the Inter-American Development Bank. This was perhaps the best signal of what lies in store for Venezuela if Guaidó and his benefactors in the Trump administration achieve their goal of regime change. Hausmann’s return to power spells the restoration of the IESA Boys’ agenda, bringing neoliberal austerity back with a vengeance. A detailed look at his history is a preview of what lurks on the horizon for the poor and working-class Venezuelans whose lives improved the most throughout the era of Chavismo.

The wreckage of the IESA Boys

The neoliberal Venezuelan economist Juan Cristóbal Nagel described the neoliberal economics plan he favored for his country during the late 1980’s as “your basic Washington Consensus recipe.” Nagel said the plan consisted of the following ingredients: an end to price controls on basic goods and subsidies for gasoline; the privatization of state utilities; a decision to float the country’s exchange rate; and the lowering of tariffs. The recipe was popularly known as “El Gran Viraje,” or the Great Turn, to radical free-market capitalism.

While campaigning for Venezuela’s 1988 presidential elections, Carlos Andrés Pérez of the social-democratic Acción Democrática Party (AD) slammed the International Monetary Fund as a “neutron bomb that killed people but left buildings standing.” Immediately upon taking office, however, Pérez filled the IMF’s toxic economic prescription for Venezuela’s ailing economy, accepting a massive loan that completed the “Gran Viraje.”

The reforms led to a 30 percent hike in bus fares, announced in February 1989, prompting masses of workers to flood the streets in cities nationwide to publicly reject the bitter pill Pérez was forcing down their throats. Pérez opted to violently suppress the uprising, known as the “Caracazo,” declaring a national emergency and deploying the military to extinguish the revolt. By the time the it was over, anywhere between 300 to 3,000 people were dead, with piles of bodies discovered in mass graves outside of Caracas, the casualties of execution-style killings.

Ricardo Hausmann entered Venezuela’s government under Pérez, serving as his Planning and Finance Minister from 1992 to 1993 while sitting on the board of the country’s Central Bank. Hausman has claimed that he was at Oxford University when the Caracazo erupted, though he had already made his mark on the government’s economic policies.

“Hausmann will tell you that he was abroad at Oxford during the Caracazo rebellion,” says George Ciccariello-Maher, author of We Created Chávez: A People’s History of the Venezuelan Revolution.

“While this may be true” explained Ciccariello-Maher, “[Hausmann] had already spent years in a number of government positions going back to the mid-1980s, and as a key ‘IESA boy,’ spreading neoliberal doctrine from his professorship at the Institute.”

Indeed, before Pérez tapped Hausmann to serve as planning minister, the economist had worked also as a professor at the IESA.

“It was a classic bait-and-switch,” said Ciccariello-Maher. “Pérez had just been elected using anti-neoliberal rhetoric, but he immediately appointed an IESA-dominated cabinet and did the opposite.”

In his book Windfall to Curse: Oil and Industrialization in Venezuela, economist Jonathan Di John wrote that “Pérez was greatly influenced” by IESA academics, characterizing them as “an elite group… who had no party affiliation and were champions of radical, neoliberal reform.”

According to Di John, this group initiated “rapid liberalization reforms,” specifically in trade policy, including reducing the maximum tariff “from 135 percent, one of the highest in the region, to 20 percent by 1992.” A year later, that rate would fall to 10 percent. In other words, Pérez, Hausmann, and the “ISEA Boys” had opened up Venezuela for a free run by multinational corporations while gutting whatever was left of the welfare state.

In 1994, Hausmann received his golden parachute with a post as chief economist for the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington. This institution, which claims to “improve lives in Latin America and the Caribbean” by providing “financial and technical support to reduce poverty and inequality,” is just another mechanism for imposing the Washington consensus. The U.S. controls 30 percent of the bank’s voting power over financial decisions even though it is not situated in Latin America, where the bank is supposed to do its work. Meanwhile, all 26 Caribbean and Latin American member states carry only a 50 percent sway over the bank’s decisions.

While Hausmann perpetuated his brand of neoliberalism from Washington, a movement was building in the barracks and barrios of Venezuela to exert popular control over the economy. It was led by a charismatic military man named Hugo Chávez.

Revolt against the austerity agenda

During the late 1980s, as Lt. Col. Chávez watched the wholesale ravaging of his country’s economy by foreign capital, he formed a cadre of populist officers called the Bolivarian Revolutionary Movement 200. In 1992, Chávez led the officers in an attempted military coup against the government of Pérez, hoping to ride the wave of popular resentment for the neoliberal policies enforced by Hausmann and his fellow IESA boys. Though he initially failed, Chávez captured the mood of the Venezuelan public, including sectors of the middle class, and emerged as a national folk hero.

Even mainstream U.S. media conceded that Chávez had a point. At the time, the Washington Post identified him as the leader of a popular movement challenging Perez “for not instituting a viable democracy and stewarding an economic program that has not served the country’s poor.”

In contrast to the Post’s contemporary coverage of Venezuela, which reads like an information-warfare campaign on behalf of the anti-Chávez opposition, the Post at that time freely conceded public dissatisfaction with the IESA reforms: “Many people around Caracas banged on pots and pans today and shouted out of their windows in support of the rebels,” the paper noted.

It added:

Venezuela, the third-largest producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel, has been wracked by unrest. Critics accuse the government of not distributing oil riches to the public, citing corruption as a cause.”

For its part, the New York Times reported:

The coup attempt followed violent protests and labor unrest arising from a growing disparity between rich and poor in Venezuela. The Government has admitted that only 57 percent of Venezuelans are able to afford more than one meal a day.”

The Guardian also described the military insurrection as a popular insurgency against the ruthless austerity program of Pérez’s IESA Boys:

The underlying cause of the military unrest is undoubtedly the widespread social discontent. When he came back to power three years ago, President Pérez was expected to repeat the expansionist policies of his first term of office in the late 1970s when Venezuela was one of the richest countries in the developing world, enjoying the easy wealth brought by its huge oil reserves.

But Mr. Pérez overnight adopted the liberal economic policies dominant in most of the Western world. He cut back heavily on government spending, opening up the economy to market forces and international competition.”

Across the board, mainstream media identified the economic program imposed under the watch of Hausmann and his colleagues as the force driving Pérez’s unpopularity. Though Chávez failed to take control of the state in 1992, calling for his comrades to lay down arms following his failed revolt, he declared that “now is the time to reflect,” promising “new situations will come.”

“The same month that Chávez led a failed coup against the Pérez government, Hausmann officially joined the government as planning minister,” recalled Ciccariello-Maher, adding:

It’s not clear to me whether it’s better to have been in charge when the government instituted a brutal neoliberal reform package, or to willingly join that same government after it had massacred hundreds, if not thousands, who resisted the reforms.”

Six years later, Chávez won democratic elections for president, convening a national assembly and referendum to rewrite the country’s constitution and alter the character of the Venezuelan state in a dramatic fashion.

By this time, Hausmann and his wife, Ana Julia Jatar, who also served in the Pérez administration, had left for high-flying careers Washington, where Hausmann took over as Chief Economist at the Inter-American Development Bank. While her husband worked at the bank, Jatar was a Senior Fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue, a think-tank primarily funded by Chevron, the Ford Foundation, USAID, and her husband’s employer.

In 2000, Hausman took a professorial job at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, watching and waiting for an opportunity to return to power in his home country.

“Neoliberalism is the path to hell”

Back in Venezuela, the Bolivarian Revolution ushered in by Chávez provided an antidote to the IESA method that had produced so much social damage to Venezuela’s majority.

“The Bolivarian Revolution was an indirect response to neoliberalism, born of mass resistance in the streets,” claims Ciccariello-Maher, observing that while “in power, it remained largely faithful to that mission.”

Ciccariello-Maher added that “it would be difficult to exaggerate the impact Chavismo has had on Venezuelan society,” because for the first time in its history “oil was put at the service of the people. …Most important, however, the poor – so long excluded – became ‘protagonists’ in the political life of Venezuela, and active participants in local direct democracy.”

Chávez moved to nationalize not only the country’s prosperous oil resources, booting ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips from the field, but also centers of agricultural production, telecommunications, and mineral mining. Considering Venezuela sits atop the largest oil reserves in the world, as well as sizeable gold stocks, this achievement was no small feat.

In his 1998 inaugural address, Chávez cited Pope John Paul II as having described capitalism as “savage,” using the words of His Holiness to highlight the social damage left behind by Hausmann and his colleagues. Chavez declared:

It is savage that in a country like ours more than half of preschoolers are not going to preschool. It is savage to know that only one out of every five children who enter preschool, only one in five finishes elementary school. That is savage because that is the future of this country.”

In 2002, just one month after facing down a U.S.-backed coup attempt, Chávez addressed a conference in Madrid declaring “neoliberalism is the path to hell.” Unlike Pérez, Venezuela’s new leader would not sell out his promise to reject the IMF’s austerity agenda.

The Hausmann clan versus Chavismo

During the Chávez era, the Hausmann family was not content to sit on the sidelines and watch him build a “21st-century socialism.”

Joanna’s mother, Ana Julia Jatar, assumed a position as executive director of Súmate, a U.S.-backed “civil society group” formed by right-wing darling María Corina Machado in order to “build democracy” in Venezuela.

In 2003, Súmate received $53,400 from the National Endowment for Democracy “to work on referendum and general electoral activities,” accordingto a U.S. diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks.

The initiative represented Jatar and Machado’s attempt to remove Chávez from power through popular recall. Yet the public rejected the referendum by a whopping 59 percent margin, in results certified by the Carter Center and Organization of American States.

Seeking to defend his wife’s failed project, Ricardo Hausmann co-authored a paper that he insisted “open[ed] the door to… hypotheses of fraud” marring the vote. His argument was thoroughly rebuked in an extensive study issued by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, which determined Hausmann and his co-author, M.I.T’s Roberto Rigobon, “provide no evidence of fraud.”

Súmate’s subsequent efforts to label the vote as fraudulent were also rebuffed in a comprehensive report released by the Carter Center, which concluded: “the Aug. 15 vote clearly expressed the will of the Venezuelan electorate.” The Carter Center concluded that it “did not observe, and has not received, credible evidence of fraud that would have changed the outcome of the vote.”

Despite Súmate’s failures, President George W. Bush welcomed Machado to the White House in 2005. In the Oval Office, Bush heralded her efforts “to defend the electoral and constitutional rights of all Venezuelan citizens” and monitor the country’s elections.

Sociologist William I. Robinson told Venezuelanalysis that Súmate was part of “a full-blown operation, a massive foreign-policy operation to undermine the Venezuelan revolution, to overthrow the government of Hugo Chávez, and to reinstall the elite back in power in Venezuela.”

Such elites include multiple members of Joanna Hausmann’s clan.

“My extended family, they go out on these protests,” the YouTube comedian declared in her video. “My uncle is in jail for simply being a journalist.”

Image on the right: Ana Julia Jatar and her father, Braulio Jatar Dotti. Photo | NotiEspartano

Ana Julia Jatar | Braulio Jatar Dotti

That uncle is Ana Julia’s brother, Braulio Jatar, and he was not “simply” a journalist, but also a lawyer and businessman jailed not for “journalism,” but rather for extortion, fraud, and other financial crimes.

Ana Julia and Braulio were the children of Braulio Jatar Dotti, who served as Secretary for Parliamentary and Municipal Affairs in the ruling Democratic Action party while it was engaged in a violent battle against the armed Revolutionary Left Movement.

The independent Chilean news site El Desconcierto described Braulio Sr. as having been “in charge of eliminating the leftist groups” in Venezuela at the time. In 1963, he literally wrote the book on how to disable the “extreme left” and guerillas. It was called, “Disabling the Extreme Left and the Corian Guerillas.”

Hausmann’s power play for “opening up the oil industry”

Fast forward to 2019, and Joanna Hausmann sits comfortably in her New York City apartment, complaining that “the Venezuelan economy is a disaster in a country that sits on the world’s largest oil reserves.”

Meanwhile, Joanna’s father, Ricardo, has been barnstorming the U.S. to drum up support at elite think tanks for a coup he clearly saw on the horizon. During his November 2018 address to the World Affairs Council of Greater Houston, which functions as a roundtable for U.S. oil executives, Hausman laid out his agenda for “the morning after” regime change.

The economist called for an end to the Bolivarian government’s policy of investing oil wealth into Venezuelan society, stating his support for “private investment in the oil industry without PDVSA participation.” In fact, Hausmann imagined “the opening up of the oil industry” as a top item on the new government’s agenda.

The selection of Ricardo Hausmann to serve at the Inter-American Development Bank by Guaidó’s U.S. handlers demonstrates how central neoliberal economics are to his own administration.

“This is about people,” Joanna Hausmann insisted at the end of her YouTube performance; “this is about people wanting to take their country back.”

Those people include her family, and they are not your average Venezuelans.

*

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

Anya Parampil is a Washington, DC-based journalist. She previously hosted a daily progressive afternoon news program called In Question on RT America. She has produced and reported several documentaries, including on the ground reports from the Korean peninsula and Palestine.

Featured image: Ricardo Hausmann speaks at the “Us and prosperity” conference organized by the Rafael del Pino Foundation on June 7, 2017. in Madrid, Spain. Photo | Rafael del Pino Foundation | Creative Commons

Give Chagos back to the Chagossians! That’s a slogan I first heard in 2000. It was a demonstration in London, outside a courthouse, a small group of people with handmade signs appealing to the British legal system to return their islands to them. Few people paid them any attention. The courts sided with the islanders (whose case is unimpeachable) and then did nothing to enforce their verdict.

The Chagos Archipelago is a group of 60 islands in the Indian Ocean. These islands are claimed by Mauritius, a country that won its independence from the United Kingdom in 1968. Three years before the independence of Mauritius, the British separated the Chagos Archipelago and converted it into the British Indian Ocean Territory. To cement its control over the islands, the British expelled over 2,000 Chagossians. Some of these Chagossians stood in London, fighting for their lost islands.

At the end of February, the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the UK must give the islands back to Mauritius. In 2017, the UN General Assembly had heard the case of the islanders and referred it to the ICJ. Now, the ICJ—with a 13 to 1 ruling (the U.S. voting against)—has sided with the Chagossians. But this is not a binding ruling, and the British government has said it would ignore the International Court of Justice.

Diego Garcia

Why would the United Kingdom need these islands? By the 1960s, the United States had begun to take over many of the British imperial bases for its own massive military base system. There are now over 800 U.S. military bases in more than 70 countries (for comparison, the Russians have about eight overseas military bases, most of them in the territory of the former USSR—such as in Moldova and in Belarus—with only the bases in Syria and Vietnam outside that zone). No country can match the U.S. military footprint.

The biggest island on the Chagos Archipelago is Diego Garcia. The United States leases this island from the United Kingdom. The UK gave the United States the lease in exchange for a discount on the sale of the Polaris nuclear submarine system. That lease ends in 2036. Diego Garcia has been one of the most important U.S. overseas bases—used in the U.S. war on Vietnam, the U.S. war on Afghanistan and the U.S. war on Iraq. It was used by the CIA as a black site in the War on Terror (150 Sri Lankan fishermen were held there in its prisons).

Zone of Peace

The United States has faced legal threats to its base for the past five decades. The bereft Chagossians have taken their case to British courts, hoping to exert pressure to return the islands to them. When the British broke off the islands from Mauritius in 1965, the UK violated UN Resolution 1514 (XV) on Decolonization that argued against the breakup of colonies. Britain strong-armed the Mauritius independence movement, telling them that they could have their freedom without Chagos or have no freedom at all.

More difficult for the U.S. military operations was the attempt by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the United Nations to constitute the Indian Ocean as a “zone of peace.” As early as 1964, at the Cairo, Egypt, Non-Aligned summit, the member states recommended that the oceans of the world be “denuclearized zones” (the NAM was inspired by the 1959 Antarctic Treaty and the 1963 Treaty of Tlatelolco—to keep Latin America free of nuclear weapons). In 1970, the Non-Aligned summit in Lusaka, Zambia, declared that the Indian Ocean must be a “zone of peace from which Great Power rivalries and competition, as well as bases,” must be excluded.

The United States attacked this idea. Admiral Elmo Zumwalt told the U.S. Congress in 1974 that the USSR stood atop the “central part of the West’s energy jugular down to the Persian Gulf.” For that reason, the Indian Ocean—and Diego Garcia—has “become a focal point of U.S. foreign and economic policies and has a growing impact on our security.”

Marine Reserve

Every attempt was made to deny the people of Chagos their homeland. In April 2010, the British Foreign Office said that 640,000 square kilometers of the archipelago would now be a “marine reserve,” which should remain uninhabited. The British government told the U.S. government—in a secret cable—that the “former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos were a marine reserve.” This was environmental conservation for military purposes. No statement was made to remove the U.S. base from Diego Garcia, which would be at the heart of the marine reserve.

In 2015, Mauritius went to the court of arbitration at the Hague, where they won a ruling that the British declaration of the marine reserve was illegal. The UK had not consulted either Mauritius or the Chagossians. Britain eventually said that the Chagossians would not be able to exercise their right to return because of the objections of the U.S. military. So be it.

After this ruling, a spokeswoman for the British foreign office said that the ICJ’s ruling “was an advisory opinion, not a judgment.” It is unlikely that the UK—or the United States—will honor the opinion. The United States voted against it. The UK now says that the military base “helps to protect people here in Britain and around the world from terrorist threats, organized crime and piracy.” The door closes once more on the hopes of the Chagossians.

Those hopes, eternal and persistent, are captured in the poet Saradha Soobrayen’s prize-winning work:

“On the main island of Diego Garcia, the U.S. base, Camp Justice squats.

The Chagossians are still chanting, ‘Rann nu Diego’

thirty, forty years later, fighting for the right to return.

Their loss is unimaginable, these guardians of the Chagos archipelago

Their homecoming is not yet out of reach, not yet out of sight.”

*

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

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

Vijay Prashad is the Director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and Chief Editor of LeftWord Books. He is a Writing Fellow and Chief Correspondent at Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He writes regularly for The Hindu, Frontline, Newsclick, and BirGün.

The US-funded CANVAS organization that trained Juan Guaido and his allies produced a 2010 memo on exploiting electricity outages and urged the opposition “to take advantage of the situation…towards their needs”

***

A September 2010 memo by a US-funded soft power organization that helped train Venezuelan coup leader Juan Guaido and his allies identifies the potential collapse of the country’s electrical sector as “a watershed event” that “would likely have the impact of galvanizing public unrest in a way that no opposition group could ever hope to generate.”

The memo has special relevance today as Guaido moves to exploit nationwide blackouts caused by a major failure at the Simon Bolivar Hydroelectric Plant at Guri dam – a crisis that Venezuela’s government blames on US sabotage.

It was authored by Srdja Popovic of the Center for Applied Non-Violent Action and Strategies (CANVAS), a Belgrade-based “democracy promotion” organization funded by the US government that has trained thousands of US-aligned youth activists in countries where the West seeks regime change.

This group reportedly hosted Guaido and the key leaders of his Popular Will party for a series of training sessions, fashioning them into a “Generation 2007” determined to foment resistance to then-President Hugo Chavez and sabotage his plans to implement “21st century socialism” in Venezuela.

In the 2010 memo, CANVAS’s Popovic declared, “A key to Chavez’s current weakness is the decline in the electricity sector.” Popovic explicitly identified the Simon Bolivar Hydroelectric Plant as a friction point, emphasizing that “water levels at the Guri dam are dropping, and Chavez has been unable to reduce consumption sufficiently to compensate for the deteriorating industry.”

Speculating on a “grave possibility that some 70 percent of the country’s electricity grid could go dark as soon as April 2010,” the CANVAS leader stated that “an opposition group would be best served to take advantage of the situation and spin it against Chavez and towards their needs.”

Flash forward to March 2019, and the scenario outlined by Popovic is playing out almost exactly as he had imagined.

On March 7, just days after Guaido’s return from Colombia, where he participated in the failed and demonstrably violent February 23 attempt to ram a shipment of US aid across the Venezuelan border, the Simon Bolivar Hydroelectric Plant experienced a major and still unexplained collapse.

Days later, electricity remains sporadic across the country. Meanwhile, Guaido has done everything he can “to take advantage of the situation and spin it” against President Nicolas Maduro – just as his allies were urged to do over eight years before by CANVAS.

Rubio vows “a period of suffering” for Venezuela hours before the blackout

The Venezuelan government has placed the blame squarely on Washington, accusing it of sabotage through a cyber-attack on its electrical infrastructure. Key players in the US-directed coup attempt have done little to dispel the accusation.

In a tweet on March 8, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo framed the electricity outage as a pivotal stage in US plans for regime change:

At noon on March 7, during a hearing on Venezuela at the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee, Sen. Marco Rubio explicitly called for the US to stir “widespread unrest,” declaring that it “needs to happen” in order to achieve regime change.

“Venezuela is going to enter a period of suffering no nation in our hemisphere has confronted in modern history,” Rubio proclaimed.

Around 5 PM, the Simon Bolivar Hydroelectric Plant experienced a total and still unexplained collapse. Residents of Caracas and throughout Venezuela were immediately plunged into darkness.

At 5:18 PM, a clearly excited Rubio took to Twitter to announce the blackout and claim that “backup generators have failed.” It was unclear how Rubio had obtained such specific information so soon after the outage occurred. According to Jorge Rodriguez, the communications minister of Venezuela, local authorities did not know if backup generators had failed at the time of Rubio’s tweet.

Back in Caracas, Guaido immediately set out to exploit the situation, just as his CANVAS trainers had advised over eight years before. Taking to Twitter just over an hour after Rubio, Guaido declared, “the light will return when the usurpation [of Maduro] ends.” Like Pompeo, the self-declared president framed the blackouts as part of a regime change strategy, not an accident or error.

Two days later, Guaido was at the center of opposition rally he convened in affluent eastern Caracas, bellowing into a megaphone: “Article 187 when the time comes. We need to be in the streets, mobilized. It depends on us, not on anybody else.”

Article 187 establishes the right of the National Assembly “to authorize the use of Venezuelan military missions abroad or foreign in the country.”

Upon his mention of the constitutional article, Guaido’s supporters responded, “Intervention! Intervention!”

Exploiting crisis to “get back into a position of power”

As Dan Cohen and I reported here at the Grayzone, Guaido’s rise to prominence – and the coup plot that he has been appointed to oversee – is the product of a decade-long project overseen by the Belgrade-based CANVAS outfit.

CANVAS is a spinoff of Otpor, a Serbian protest group founded by Srdja Popovic in 1998 at the University of Belgrade. Otpor, which means “resistance” in Serbian, was the student group that worked alongside US soft power organizations to mobilize the protests that eventually toppled the late Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic.

CANVAS has been funded largely through the National Endowment for Democracy, a CIA cut-out that functions as the US government’s main arm of promoting regime change.  According to leaked internal emails from Stratfor, an intelligence firm known as the “shadow CIA,” CANVAS “may have also received CIA funding and training during the 1999/2000 anti-Milosevic struggle.”

A leaked email from a Stratfor staffer noted that after they ousted Milosevic,

“the kids who ran OTPOR grew up, got suits and designed CANVAS… or in other words a ‘export-a-revolution’ group that sowed the seeds for a NUMBER of color revolutions. They are still hooked into U.S. funding and basically go around the world trying to topple dictators and autocratic governments (ones that U.S. does not like ;).”

Stratfor subsequently revealed that CANVAS “turned its attention to Venezuela” in 2005, after training opposition movements that led pro-NATO regime change operations across Eastern Europe.

In September 2010, as Venezuela headed for a parliamentary election, CANVAS produced a series of memos outlining the plans they had hatched with “non-formal actors” like Guaido and his cadre of student activists to bring down Chavez.

“This is the first opportunity for the opposition to get back into a position of power,” Popovic wrote at the time.

In his memo on electricity outages, Popovic highlighted the importance of the Venezuelan military in achieving regime change.

“Alliances with the military could be critical because in such a situation of massive public unrest and rejection of the presidency,” the CANVAS founder wrote, “malcontent sectors of the military will likely decide to intervene, but only if they believe they have sufficient support.”

While the scenario Popovic envisioned failed to materialize in 2010, it perfectly describes the situation gripping Venezuela today as an opposition leader cultivated by CANVAS seeks to spin the crisis against Maduro while calling on the military to break ranks.

Since the Grayzone exposed the deep ties between CANVAS and Guaido’s Popular Will party, Popovic has attempted to publicly distance himself from his record of training Venezuela’s opposition.

Today, however, Popovic’s 2010 memo on exploiting electricity outages reads like a blueprint for the strategy that Guaido and his patrons in Washington have actively implemented. Whether or not the blackout is the result of external sabotage, it represents the “watershed event” that CANVAS has prepared its Venezuelan cadres for.

*

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

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

Featured image is from The Grayzone 

Contesting the Arctic Railway

March 14th, 2019 by Clemence Waller

The Arctic railway would have opened up the Arctic trade routes and allowed Finland to have a direct connection to central Europe for transport of raw materials. However, a recent report has brought the project’s commercial and ethical viability into question.  

The report concluded that:

“A railway project this size is so complex and involves so many stakeholders and factors that in the time and resources given it has not been possible to properly assess all of the issues regarding the Arctic railway project.”

The report argues that more planning is needed regarding funding and respecting the rights of the Indigenous people (the Sami) whose land the railway would have to traverse across.

Environmental impact 

The projected railway was planned to cross from Rovaniemi, Finland to Kirkenes Norway. This railway would open up the Arctic circle to Europe and secure a more direct trade route for Baltic Nations, Russia, Japan and China to transport raw materials to Central Europe.

The project was initially announced in October 2015 by former Prime Minister of Finland Paavo Lipponen, in a memorandum to Former European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker

This project has since been met with vehement criticism from the Sami People, environmental activists and artists supporting the Sami people and ordinary Finnish citizens.

Johanna Kronqvist, a student at Abo Akademy in Finland, said: 

“At first, I thought [the railway project] sounded quite exciting, but as soon as I realised the effects on the Sami people, the reindeer husbandry and the environment in general, I got upset”. 

Indeed, though the Norwegian and Finish governments explored five different route options, all would have had to cross Sami Lapland, and thus cause damage to the habitat of the reindeer and the fishing traditions of the Sami people.

Final frontier

The construction of the line was projected by Minister Anna Berner to cost €2.9 billion, with Norway paying €0.9 and Finland paying the rest. Te Rovaniemi-Kirkenes line would cut through lake Inari and a large portion of forest and herding territories.

Dr Humrich from the University of Groningen describes the Arctic as “the final frontier”. The Arctic region is a goldmine for those seeking to exploit its natural resources, with its untapped liquid oil and gas reserves, and the Arctic ocean serving as an expedient sea route that helps transport raw goods.

Dr Humrich said:

 “Concerning the transport of raw materials, the railway would be transferring copper, iron ore, phosphate or raw wood. They are not transportable by plane. The goods are currently being transported by boat but that is a very slow process.

“Finally, the goods could be transferred by street but they have less capacity than trains, who are in the eyes of the Finnish government, the most economically feasible option.”

As it stands, goods from Russia enter the northernmost part of Norway and still have to be transferred to other modes of transportations. The Rovaniemi-Kirkenes line would have effectively cut out the middle man and set up a direct line connecting Europe to the Arctic sea and create new transport hubs and ports. 

In Dr Humrich’s opinion, despite looking at all five proposal routes for this line, there was no way for construction to avoid Sami Lapland. However, he did agree that the Rovaniemi-Kirkenes was the option, though most direct, that would cause the greatest amount of damage to the Lapland flora and fauna.

Indigenous livelihoods

The Sami people are the only Indigenous peoples living within the European Union. They are present in Norway, Sweden, Russia and Finland.

Part of their heritage is Reindeer Husbandry and Fishing.  The projected railway line would cut through one third of Lapland forest region and would cause significant damage to an already fragile Arctic Environment.

As Dr. Cepinskyte of the Finnish Intstitute of International Affairs, specialist on the protection of national minorities and indigenous peoples and Arctic Security explained: 

“The Sami people fear the railway would disrupt reindeer pastures and migration patterns, while trains could also kill a lot of reindeers.

“In addition, the railway would likely attract large scale industrial activities, such as mining, which would pose a threat to the environment and nature.

“Reindeer herding and the traditional use of lands is fundamental for the survival of the Sami culture and languages, thus any harm to the environment and nature would put the preservation of the Sami identity at risk.”

Activist interventions

This view is further supported by Former head of YLE Sami-language news, Pirita Näkkäläjärvi, who wrote an article citing that the projected line would plough through Sami remains, thus disrespecting culturally significant traditions and bring about significant damage to Sami culture.

Näkkäläjärvi wrote:

 “The grazing lands for the reindeer have already been cut by competing land use such as logging, roads and construction. Building a railway through the reindeer herding cooperatives would further fragment, narrow and decrease the land needed by the reindeer.”

Activist groups such as Suohpanterror and Greenpeace joined the Sami people in September 2018 as the Sami formed a ‘red line’ along the projected railway route to protest the construction that was planned without the ‘Free, Prior, Informed Consent’ right given to the Indigenous people to protect their rights.

Furthermore, Sami Parliament have issued a statement claiming that the Sami were not consulted adequately by Norwegian and Finnish governments to discuss the implications this project would have for the Sami.

This is not the first time Nordic governments have ignored indigenous people’s rights, but the cancellation of the project is a step closer to protecting the environment and indigenous rights.

Viable solutions

The Sami and the environment can breathe a little easier as the controversy seems to be settled peacefully, unlike those affected by the Dakota Access Pipeline in the United States.

The future of this project remains unclear. What is clear however, is that if Norwegian and Finnish authorities wish to continue with this railway, they must include the Indigenous peoples on their territories in all stages of planning and discussion, in order to come up with a viable solution for all parties.

*

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

Clemence Waller is a journalism Masters student at the University of Groningen. Growing up in the Middle East, she has always been interested in international reporting and politics. She is currently a freelance journalist.

Featured image is from The Ecologist

The CIA is conspiring with ISIS commanders in northeastern Syria supplying them with fake documents and then transferring them to Iraq, according to reports in Turkish pro-government media.

About 2,000 ISIS members were questioned in the areas of Kesra, Buseira, al-Omar and Suwayr in Deir Ezzor province and at least 140 of them then received fake documents. Some of the questioned terrorists were then moved to the camps of al-Hol, Hasakah and Rukban, which are controlled by US-backed forces. The CIA also reportedly created a special facility near Abu Khashab with the same purpose.

Israeli, French and British special services are reportedly involved.

An interesting observation is that the media of the country, which in the previous years of war, used to conspire with ISIS allowing its foreign recruits to enter Syria and buying smuggled oil from the terrorists, has now become one of the most active exposers of the alleged US ties with ISIS elements.

Another issue often raised in Turkish media is the poor humanitarian situation in the refugee camps controlled by US-backed forces. These reports come in the course of other revelations. According to the International Rescue Committee, about 100 people, mostly children, died in combat zones or in the al-Hol camp controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces just recently.

In its turn, the Russian Defense Ministry released a series of satellite images revealing the horrifying conditions in the al-Rukban camp. The imagery released on March 12 shows at least 670 graves, many of them fresh, close to the camp’s living area. The tents and light constructions used to settle refugees are also located in a close proximity to large waste deposits.

A joint statement by the Russian and Syrian Joint Coordination Committees for Repatriation of Syrian Refugees said that refugees in al-Rukban are suffering from a lack of water, food, medication and warm clothing, which is especially important during winter. According to the statement, members of the US-backed armed group Maghawir al-Thawra disrupt water deliveries to the camp, using this as a bargaining chip for blackmailing and profiteering purposes.

Tensions are once again growing between Syria and Israel. Earlier in March, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad submitted an official letter to the head of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) Kristin Lund that Damascus ”will not hesitate to confront Israel” if it continues refusing  to withdraw from the Golan Heights.

Israeli media and officials responded with a new round of allegations that Hezbollah is entrenching in southern Syria therefore justifying a further militarization of the Golan Heights.

*

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

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Now that Israel is getting a lot of heat for its decision to put finishing touches on the wholesale theft of Syria’s Golan Heights, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has launched a new PR campaign. 

Netanyahu claims arch-enemy Hezbollah is preparing to use the Golan to attack Israel. In order to get the attention of the American people—it already has the full attention of the US government—and make excuses ahead of the plan to make annexation final, Netanyahu said the leader of the Hezbollah group has killed Americans and now is set on killing Israelis. 

Reuters reports:

Israel on Wednesday accused a suspected Lebanese Hezbollah operative [Ali Mussa Daqduq] who was previously held in Iraq over the killing of five U.S. military personnel of now setting up a Syrian guerrilla network for cross-border attacks on Israeli targets.

The Israeli foreign minister connected this alleged plot by Iran and Hezbollah directly to the push to have the US officially recognize the annexation. He said it would be “an appropriate” response to what he described as increased Hezbollah activity on the Golan.

Israel’s IDF said Daqduq is the “mastermind” behind the plan. The allegation is “based on what it described as previously classified intelligence,” according to the Reuters report. 

The claim Daqduq is linked to Hezbollah comes from US intelligence sources. British forces captured Daqduq in Iraq where he was assisting the resistance to occupation. In 2008 The New York Times, a dependable source for government narratives, reported Iran had trained Hezbollah operatives to kill US troops. 

Militants from the Lebanese group Hezbollah have been training Iraqi militia fighters at a camp near Tehran, according to American interrogation reports that the United States has supplied to the Iraqi government.

This claim was extracted from Shia detainees during “enhanced interrogation”—doublespeak for torture—by the US military, thus the validity of the accusations remain in question, not that we should expect The New York Times to make note of it. 

The United States had handed Daqduq over to Baghdad in 2011 after failing to secure a custody deal ahead of the U.S. military’s [phantom] withdrawal from Iraq. Washington said it had received Baghdad’s assurances Daqduq would be prosecuted, but he was later cleared by an Iraqi court and repatriated to Lebanon. 

The US produced a long laundry list of crimes he was said to have committed and this was used to persaude the Iraqi government to turn him over to the US and face a military tribunal.

Iraq had found there wasn’t sufficient evidence to convict Daqduq and he was released “despite the entreaties of the Obama administration,” the Times reported in November 2012. 

As pressure mounts in Congress to have the United States officially recognize and condone the theft of Syrian territory, Israel has decided to resurrect the specter of Ali Mussa Daqduq and his connection to Hezbollah. 

Bibi’s Twitter performance will further distract from corruption charges leveled against him. It will also bolster the arguments of neocons that Iran and Hezbollah are not only a threat to Israel, but also to the national security of the United States. Both are intricately entwined. 

*

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

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

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The Guggenheim’s strange and wonderful exhibition of Hilma af Klint’s groundbreaking, yet largely unknown body of abstract art is an important event – one that challenges us to not only rethink the early history of twentieth century abstract art, but to recognize her vision of art and reality as unique, authentic, and deliciously puzzling.

Af Klint was a formally trained and respected portrait and landscape painter in Stockholm, who as a young woman became involved in spiritualism, theosophy, as well as Rosicrucianism. By 1906, af Klint was creating abstract paintings, many years before Vasily Kandinsky and Piet Mondrian – however she kept them private, maintaining that the world was not yet ready to see her work; and in fact she requested that they not be seen for twenty years following her death. We can see the Rosicrucian influence in this decision: a guiding principle of the spiritual movement was its anticipation of a “universal reformation of mankind,” when a long hidden, secret science will finally be received by humanity.

Image result for hilma af klint

In 1906, af Klint’s art moves away from conventional representation and toward a different kind of subject matter, with an entirely new spiritual intention. The origin of this project is also quite unlike anything else – according to af Klint, spirits who she channeled in the course of regular séances spoke and commissioned these paintings. The project was driven by a metaphysical conviction and motivation – that is, to represent the numerous stages of a transcendent reality beyond the observable world.

Rosicrucian thinking is informed by Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) and hermeticism. One of the fundamental doctrines that both of these teachings share is the notion of ‘as above, so below’ – in other words, whatever happens on one level of reality, also happens on every other. According to this way thinking, each human being is a microcosm of the universe into which all the potencies of creation have been placed, so that an activity below, stimulates a corresponding activity on high. This doctrine is essential for understanding what af Klint was up to: her work is not simply trying to express this teaching, but is itself meant to be seen as an embodiment of it.

When she was seventeen, af Klint’s interest in spiritualism began. Her sister died around this time, and initially her curiosity grew out of her desire to be in contact with the dead. It was not long before the desire evolved: through contact with higher spiritual entities, af Klint began seeking metaphysical insight and understanding.

During séances in 1904, spiritual guides proposed the construction of a temple that would house spiritually derived works of art. The commission for such a series of works – works created specifically for a future temple – fell to af Klint. She agreed to carry out the “Great Commission” when other members of her spiritualist group, The Five (De Fem), declined due to a concern that such a project – demanding close and sustained contact with the spirit realm – could lead to madness.

Between November and December 1907, The Ten Largest were created. They constitute nothing less than a wholly new approach to painting – something unprecedented and unique, unlike anything else that has come before. They are breathtaking in their enormous vitality: they are alive, bursting with energy and color. While they are abstract paintings, they are also doubtlessly drawing on the world for content – whether it be the forms of Swedish folk art, the kinds of representation found in scientific diagrams, or the symbols associated with various spiritual movements. All these elements and visual modes are combined and transformed in new and remarkable ways.

In af Klint’s symbolic vocabulary, blue represents the female and yellow the male. The notion that these two colors constitute an essential dichotomy was likely derived from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s Theory of Colours (1810), which she was known to have kept in her library. Goethe’s book has been widely rejected and dismissed as ‘worthless still-born dilettantism’, especially for his polemic against Isaac Newton, whose Opticks demonstrated that colorless rays of light contained the power to provoke sensations of color. Goethe did not object to Newton’s view that color could be measured in terms of wavelength; rather, his error was to adopt an approach ‘that banished the spirit of living contemplation.’ Newton did not give the complete story: his theory was a part masquerading as a whole. Why does blue have the quality of blue and yellow the quality of yellow? Newton’s reductionist theory did not make colors intelligible in themselves – but instead reduced them to measurable wavelengths of colorless light.

Goethe can help us to appreciate af Klint: she takes much more from Goethe than the simple dichotomy between blue and yellow. Her work is no less a rebuke of that Newtonian universe of meaningless fragmentation; like Goethe, she proposes a sensuous and colorful world shaped by principles of order and patterning.

The Paintings for the Temple are presented in a number of groups; and just as the groups were meant to be viewed in a particular order, so too in each series the paintings were likewise to be seen in a certain progression. Few symbols are as important for af Klint as that of the spiral – which represents physical and spiritual evolution, a concept which was central not only to Darwinian thought, but to theosophy, which views evolution as a process that goes beyond biology and ultimately pervades the cosmos. The Paintings for the Temple were to be housed in a spiraling structure, not unlike the Guggenheim itself – which makes the current exhibition all more extraordinary.

Image result for hilma af klint

In 1915, af Klint completed the Painting for the Temple, a project which by the end included 193 paintings and drawings. These works break with the language of representation, they epitomize a shift away from figuration and realism (at least in any conventional sense). Looking at af Klint’s work, it is hard to escape the feeling that this artist has secrets to tell – secrets that are worth the hearing and that she is ready to share. Part of the immense pleasure is that, at the same time, she also refuses to simply give them over. She makes us work for them – she delays, sustains and prolongs.

Image result for painting for the temple hilma

The truth is that, as with any genuine art, these are works that exceed any rational reiteration. At times her great project – the otherworldly “commission” that she undertook – seems almost like a metaphysical treasure map, a kind of guide to navigating ever higher realms of reality, finally culminating in a vision of transcendent unity. But the true greatness of the work is that it eludes any such straightforward presumptions; that her paintings are finally irreducible to a diagram – though often the imagery appears to be precisely that. Even at her most metaphysical, she remains a painter through and through – and as every great painter knows, to give is to withhold, and there is no pleasure where there is nothing risked.

*

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

Sam Ben-Meir is a professor of philosophy and world religions at Mercy College in New York City. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from Guggenheim

Many myself among them have pointed to the vast hydrocarbon reserves of Venezuela as a possible driving motive behind the otherwise bizarre Washington intervention in Venezuela. The more I look into the situation, the more I suspect a quite other explanation for the intervention from a President who campaigned on a call to end US regime change interventions into other countries. The President’s NSC advisor, John Bolton openly stated it was about the oil. Could there be another reason as well? What then could it be?

Bolton also declared recently,

“In this administration, we’re not afraid to use the word Monroe Doctrine. This is a country in our hemisphere.“ 

The last President to invoke the Monroe Doctrine, something going back to 1823, was Ronald Reagan. Before Reagan, JFK did so to justify US measures against the growing influence of the Soviet Union in the region after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

The Monroe Doctrine was drafted by US Secretary of State John Quincy Adams and proclaimed in the State of the Union address by President James Monroe at a point most all South American colonial nations had achieved independence from Spain or Portugal. It declared that any attempts by European powers to try to establish new colonies there would be considered by Washington as “the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” In effect it declared that the New World would be a separate sphere of influence from that of the colonial Old World of Europe. Notably, the immediate trigger for the 1823 declaration was a Russian Ukase of 1821 asserting rights to the Pacific Northwest and forbidding non-Russian ships from approaching the coast.

Historically the original Monroe Doctrine was largely a bluff, as the US at the time had no serious navy and relied on the British Royal Navy informally to keep other powers out. What then could be the basis of invoking the Monroe Doctrine in 2019, nearly 200 years later?

Target China?

Given the track record in brutal regime change of US operators such as Elliott Abrams and others in the present effort to oust President Maduro in favor of Assembly President Juan Guaidó as interim president, it seems something other than supporting free and fair elections is involved to put it mildly. If we look at the role of foreign governments not only in Venezuela but in the broader region as a possible US motive, what comes into focus is the potential and very significant presence of China and its economic stake in Venezuela and the entire region, one receiving little attention to date.

It’s widely known that China wants security of supplies for its oil and draws from a wide variety of countries for that from Iran to Russia, from Saudi Arabia to Angola. And from Venezuela.

China is a, in fact the major creditor to the Venezuela Maduro regime, perhaps as much as $61 billion worth of loans by some estimates. Since the Washington declarations in support of Guaido, China has been unusually outspoken in defense of Maduro, unusual for a state that claims never to involve in local politics. What is not public is what detailed agreements China has from Maduro in return for being Venezuela’s main financial supporter. Are there concessions to Venezuela’s rich untapped deposits of gold or of rare earth minerals such as Coltan?

Coltan, sometimes called “blue gold,” has been confirmed in the Amazon region of Venezuela near the border to Brazil and Guyana, of an estimated $100 billion worth. Coltan is the source for tantalum which sometimes is priced higher than gold.

Tantalum is a metal used in capacitors that store energy in modern electronics like smart phones and tablets. Tantalum capacitors are also essential in powering modern military weaponry because the metal resists corrosion and can withstand the extreme temperatures generated by the new military applications. Without it, weapons systems would overheat.

The US relies on tantalum to build the basic circuitry in guidance control systems in smart bombs, the on-board navigational systems in drones, anti-tank systems, robots and most weapons systems.

The metal is vital to US defense. Yet, it has no domestic mines to mine coltan. According to the US Geological Survey most of world tantalum from coltan today comes from Rwanda and Congo in Africa followed by Brazil, Nigeria and China. In terms of tantalum reserves, Australia is world largest and its major tantalum-coltan mine, the Bald Hill lithium-tantalum mine in Western Australia, opened in 2018 with its total output pledged to a Hong Kong company.

Gold is another huge untapped resource in Venezuela estimated at some 15,500 tons. But this alone does not explain the US intervention.

Guyana Infrastructure

If we add to China’s major Venezuela presence the fact that China also signed neighbor Guyana to its Belt, Road Initiative in 2018, it begins to take on a larger dimension than mere oil supply lines or tantalum sources. Chinese companies and money are presently building a highway link from Manaus in Northern Brazil through Guyana, giving Brazil far more efficient access to the Panama Canal, cutting thousands of miles off the shipping route. Talks are reportedly also underway for China to build a deep-water port in Guyana’s northern coast to link to China’s highway to the Brazil Amazon region bordering Venezuela, with its vast untapped mineral riches. People in Guyana say the road-port will benefit China far more than Guyana. It would enable efficient ship transport from the Amazon through the Panama Canal to China.

A recent report from the Washington CSIS think tank describes what larger design China seems to be engaged in around its Venezuela presence. Author Evan Ellis states, “In South America, a transcontinental infrastructure that includes a network of highways, train, and river routes will connect Brazil to the Atlantic, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. Such connections will probably include train linkages across the Amazon to Peru’s northern cost, and a more southerly train route through Bolivia to southern Peru and northern Chile.”

Notable also are Chinese efforts in Panama, the central shipping crossing between Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In 2016 China’s Landbridge Group bought Panama’s Margarita Island Port, the largest port, on the canal’s Atlantic side, giving the Chinese company intimate access to one of the most important goods distribution centers in the world.

With China deeply engaged in Venezuela, Guyana, and Brazil as well as owning Panama’s largest port, it can well be that Washington believes that by forcing China to dramatically scale back its presence in Maduro’s Venezuela, pressure on China to scale back her global strategic agenda could markedly increase. That would add to the pressure that is coming over US sanctions on Iran, another major oil source for China. A Washington policy, undeclared, of strategic denial to China in Venezuela would fit with the remarks of John Bolton in citing the Monroe Doctrine. If so the target is not so much Maduro and his alleged dictatorship, but its growing dependence on China and China’s growing geopolitical ambitions in South 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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Another Reason for Washington in Venezuela? Monroe Doctrine: “This Country is in Our Hemisphere”
  • Tags: ,

Wealth Concentration Drives a New Global Imperialism

March 14th, 2019 by Peter Phillips

Regime changes in Iraq and Libya, Syria’s war, Venezuela’s crisis, sanctions on Cuba, Iran, Russia, and North Korea are reflections of a new global imperialism imposed by a core of capitalist nations in support of trillions of dollars of concentrated investment wealth. This new world order of mass capital has become a totalitarian empire of inequality and repression.

The global 1%, comprised of over 36-million millionaires and 2,400 billionaires, employ their excess capital with investment management firms like BlackRock and J.P Morgan Chase. The top seventeen of these trillion-dollar investment management firms controlled $41.1 trillion dollars in 2017. These firms are all directly invested in each other and managed by only 199 people who decide how and where global capital will be invested. Their biggest problem is they have more capital than there are safe investment opportunities, which leads to risky speculative investments, increased war spending, privatization of the public domain, and pressures to open new capital investment opportunities through political regime changes.

Power elites in support of capital investment are collectively embedded in a system of mandatory growth. Failure for capital to achieve continuing expansion leads to economic stagnation, which can result in depression, bank failures, currency collapses, and mass unemployment.  Capitalism is an economic system that inevitably adjusts itself via contractions, recessions, and depressions.

Professor Peter Phillips (right)

Power elites are  entrapped in a web of enforced growth that requires ongoing global management and the formation of new and ever expanding capital investment opportunities. This forced expansion becomes a worldwide manifest destiny that seeks total capital domination in all regions of the earth and beyond.

Sixty percent of the core 199 global power elite managers are from the US, with people from twenty capitalist nations rounding out the balance. These power elite managers and associated one percenters take active part in global policy groups and governments. They serve as advisors to the IMF, World Trade Organization, World Bank, International Bank of Settlements, Federal Reserve Board, G-7 and the G-20. Most attend the World Economic Forum. Global power elites engage actively on private international policy councils such as the Council of Thirty, Trilateral Commission, and the Atlantic Council. Many of the US global elites are members of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Business Roundtable in the US. The most important issue for these power elites is protecting capital investment, insuring debt collection, and building opportunities for further returns.

The global power elite are aware of their existence as a numerical minority in the vast sea of impoverished humanity. Roughly 80% of the world’s population lives on less than ten dollars a day and half live on less than three dollars a day. Concentrated global capital becomes the binding institutional alignment that brings transnational capitalists into a centralized global imperialism facilitated by world economic/trade institutions and protected by the US/NATO military empire. This concentration of wealth leads to a crisis of humanity, whereby poverty, war, starvation, mass alienation, media propaganda, and environmental devastation have reached levels that threaten humanity’s future.

The idea of independent self-ruling nation-states has long been held sacrosanct in traditional liberal capitalist economies. However, globalization has placed a new set of demands on capitalism that requires transnational mechanisms to support continued capital growth that is increasingly beyond the boundaries of individual states. The financial crisis of 2008 was an acknowledgement of the global system of capital under threat. These threats encourage the abandonment of nation-state rights altogether and the formation of a global imperialism that reflects new world order requirements for protecting transnational capital.

Institutions within capitalist countries including government ministries, defense forces, intelligence agencies, judiciary, universities and representative bodies, recognize to varying degrees that the overriding demands of transnational capital spill beyond the boundaries of nation-states.  The resulting worldwide reach motivates a new form of global imperialism that is evident by coalitions of core capitalist nations engaged in past and present regime change efforts via sanctions, covert actions, co-options, and war with non-cooperating nations—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and Russia.

The attempted coup in Venezuela shows the alignment of transnational capital-supporting states in recognizing the elite forces that oppose Maduro’s socialist presidency. A new global imperialism is at work here, whereby Venezuela’s sovereignty is openly undermined by a capital imperial world order that seeks not just control of Venezuela’s oil, but a full opportunity for widespread investments through a new regime.

The widespread corporate media negation of the democratically elected president of Venezuela demonstrates that thesemedia are owned and controlled by ideologists for the global power elite. Corporate media today is highly concentrated and fully international. Their primary goal is the promotion of product sales and pro-capitalist propaganda through the psychological control of human desires, emotions, beliefs, fears, and values. Corporate media does this by manipulating feelings and cognitions of human beings worldwide, and by promoting entertainment as a distraction to global inequality.

Recognizing global imperialism as a manifestation of concentrated wealth, managed by a few hundred people, is of utmost importance for democratic humanitarian activists.  We must stand on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and challenge global imperialism and its fascist governments, media propaganda, and empire armies.

 

*

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

Peter Phillips is a professor of political sociology at Sonoma State University. Giants: The Global Power Elite, 2018,  is his 18th book from Seven Stories Press.He teaches courses in Political Sociology, Sociology of Power, Sociology of Media, Sociology of Conspiracies and Investigative Sociology. He served as director of Project Censored from 1996 to 2010 and as president of Media Freedom Foundation from 2003 to 2017.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Featured image is from Images.com/Corbis


Giants: The Global Power Elite

Author: Peter Phillips

Publisher: Seven Stories Press (August 21, 2018)

ISBN-10: 1609808711

ISBN-13: 978-1609808716

Click here to order.

.

.

Trump’s $34 Trillion Deficit and Debt Bomb

March 14th, 2019 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

This week Trump released his latest budget for 2019-20 fiscal year. It calls for $2.7 trillion in various social spending cuts over the decade, including $872 billion in reductions in Medicare, Social Security, Disability spending; another $327 billion in food stamps, housing support, and Medicaid; a further $200 billion in student loan cuts; and hundreds of billions more in cuts to education, government workers’ pensions, and funds to operate the EPA and other government agencies.

Not surprising, the $2.7 trillion in social program spending cuts will finance spending for the military and defense related programs like Homeland Security, Border walls, veterans, police, and programs like school vouchers.

Of course, the budget proposal is ‘dead on arrival’ with the US House of Representatives, which must approve all spending bills, according to the US Constitution.  But don’t hold your breath. Trump may now have a back door to this Constitutional obstacle and eventually get his way on the budget, at least in part, to fund his military spending plans.

Trump’s National Emergency ‘Workaround’ & the Budget

It should not be forgotten, Trump just enacted his ‘national emergency ’ to build his Mexico border wall by diverting funds, without Congressional approval, from other sources in the US budget—i.e. a clear violation of the US Constitution.  That ‘national emergency declaration’ will almost surely be approved by his current stacked US Supreme Court before the end of Trump’s first term.  When approved, the precedent will allow Trump to repeat the action, perhaps on an even larger scale. So what’s to stop him from using the same national emergency precedent to shift other funds in the future from social programs to the military and defense, as he clearly proposes in this latest budget?

Some liberals and Democrats may declare he can never do that. But they said the same about his national emergency declaration to fund his wall, and he declared it anyway. He will continue to subvert and destroy long-standing rules and even Constitutional norms within the government.  The national emergency declaration about funding his wall gave him his foot in the door. Will the Supreme Court eventually allow him to kick it open now in the future?  One shouldn’t be too surprised with this President, who has little concern or respect for Democratic rights and institutions.

We now have a precedent in the national emergency declaration. So what’s to stop him from shifting even more funds from social programs to war, defense and the military? In other words, to spend a good part of his proposed additional $2.7 trillion for the Pentagon, and to simply divert the funds from Medicare, Social Security, Education, etc.? The Democrat Party majority’s control of the US House of Representatives’ may refuse to pass legislation to approve Trump’s $2.7 trillion budget shift to the military and defense. But the precedent now exists allowing him to do it. Trump is intent on getting what he wants, to pander to his right wing base, and get himself re-elected. He cares little for Democratic norms or civil liberties. Don’t underestimate his willingness to shred those liberties and subvert those norms.

As worrisome as the politics of the US budget process going forward may yet prove to be, however, the economics of Trump’s 2019-20 budget are more serious. It represents a trend that will continue whether or not the budget is passed, either in the short or the longer term by national emergency declaration.

The $34 Trillion National Debt  

Whether Trump’s budget is passed or not, his fiscal policy (taxation and spending) already represents a faster escalation of US deficits and therefore Debt.

During Trump’s first two years in office, US federal government deficits have driven the national debt up already by $3 trillion:  At the end of 2016, when Trump entered office, the US national debt was $19.5 trillion. Today it is $22.5 trillion. He’s thus already added $3 trillion, a faster rate per year of debt accumulation than under even his predecessors, George Bush and Barack Obama.

The Treasury Advisory Committee, a long standing committee of private experts who regularly provide advice to the US Treasury, recently warned the US Treasury that it will have to sell $12 trillion more US Treasury bonds, bills and notes, over the next decade if the US is to fund the $1 trillion plus deficits every year that now coming over the next decade, 2018-2028.

That’s $12 trillion on top of the current $22.5 trillion national debt!  That’s a $34 trillion national debt by 2028!  According to the Congressional Budget Office research, that $34 trillion national debt will translate into no less than $900 billion a year just in interest payments on the debt by 2028—a roughly tripling of interest payments that will have to come out of future US budgets as well, in addition to escalating tax cuts and war-defense spending.

How will the US government pay for such escalating interest—as it continues to cut taxes for business, investors and the wealthy while continuing to accelerate war and defense spending?

20 Years of Accelerating National Deficits & Debt 

The US government’s growing Deficit-Debt problem did not begin with Trump, however. He just represents the further acceleration of the Deficit-Debt crisis.

Trump’s escalating deficits and debt are driven by two main causes: tax cutting and defense-war spending increases.  But this is just a continuation of the same under Bush-Obama.

Studies show tax revenue shortfall accounts for at least 60% of US deficits. Another 20% is due to escalating defense spending, especially the ‘off budget’, so called ‘Overseas Contingency Operations’ (OCO) budget expenditures that go for direct war spending. The OCO is in addition to the Pentagon’s official budget, now to rise to $750 billion under Trump’s latest budget proposal.

The US actual defense budget, therefore, includes the $750 billion Pentagon bill, plus the OCO direct war spending.  Total defense-war spending also includes additional ‘defense’ spending for Homeland Security and for the CIA’s, NSA’s, and US State Department’s growing covert military spending for their ‘private’ armies and use of special forces. It further includes spending for Veterans benefits and military pensions, and for the costs of fuel used by the military which is indicated in the US Energy Dept. budget not the Pentagon’s. Add still more ‘defense’ spending on nuclear arms billed to the Atomic Energy Agency’s budget.  And let’s not forget the $50-$75 billion a year in the US ‘black budget’ that fund’s future secret military arms and technology, which never appears in print anywhere in the official US budget document and which only a handful of Congressional leaders in both the Republican and Democrat parties are privy to know.

In short, the US ‘defense’ budget is well over $1 trillion a year and is rising by hundreds of billions a year more under Trump.

US wars in the Middle East alone since 2001 have cost the US at minimum $6 trillion, according to various estimates. But contributing even more than wars to the now runaway national deficits and debt is the chronic and accelerating tax cutting that has been going on since 2001 under both Republican and Democrat presidents and Congresses alike—roughly 80% of which has gone to business, investors, and the wealthiest 1% households.

The Bush-Obama $14 Trillion Deficit-Debt Escalation 

When George Bush took office in 2001 the national debt was $5.6 trillion. When he left it was approximately $10 trillion. A doubling. When Obama left office in 2016 it had risen to $19.6 trillion. Another doubling. (Under Trump’s first two years it has risen another $3 trillion). For a US national debt of $22.5 trillion today.

Under George W. Bush’s 8 years in office, the tax cutting amounted to more than $4 trillion. Defense and war spending accelerated by several trillions as well.  The middle east wars represent the first time in US history that the US cut taxes while raising war spending. In all previous wars, taxation was raised to help pay for war spending. Not anymore.

Obama cut another $300 billion in taxes in 2009 as part of his initial 2009 economic recovery program. He then extended the Bush tax cuts, scheduled to expire in 2010, for two more years in 2011-12—at a cost of another $900 billion.  He further proposed, and Congress passed, an additional $806 billion in tax cuts for business as the US economic recovery faltered in 2010. Obama then struck a deal with Republicans in January 2013 to extend the Bush tax cuts of 2001-08 for another entire decade—costing a further $2 trillion during Obama’s second term in office (and $5 trillion over the next ten years, 2013-2023).  Thus $2 trillion of that further $5 trillion was paid out on Obama’s watch from 2013-16 as part of the 2013 ‘Fiscal Cliff’ deal he agreed to with the Republicans.

So both Bush and Obama cut taxes by approximately $4 trillion each, for $8 trillion total. And defense-war spending long term costs rose by $6 trillion under both.

Trump’s Deficit-Debt Contribution 2017-18

When added up, Bush-Obama 2001-2016 combined $6 trillion in war-defense spending hikes, plus their accumulated $8 trillion in tax cutting, roughly accounts for the US federal deficit-debt increase of $14 trillion, i.e. from $5.6 trillion in national debt in 2000 to $19.5 trillion by the end of 2016.

To this Trump has since added another $3 trillion during his first two years in office, which adds up to the current $22.5 trillion US national debt.

Here’s how Trump has added the $3 trillion more in just two years:

In January 2018 the Trump tax cut provided a $4.5 trillion windfall tax reduction over the next decade, 2018-2028, targeting businesses, multinational corporations, wealthy households, and investors. US multinational corporations alone were allocated nearly half of that $4.5 trillion.

So where did the 2018 Trump (and continuing Bush-Obama tax cuts) go? Several bank research departments in 2018 estimate that in 2018 alone, the first year of Trump’s tax cuts, that the S&P 500 largest corporate profits were boosted by no less than 22% due to the tax cuts.  Total S&P 500 profits rose 27% in 2018. So Trump’s tax cuts provided the biggest boost to their bottom line.

Not surprising, with $1.3 trillion in corporate stock buybacks and dividend payouts occurring in 2018 as well, US stock markets continued to rise and shrug off corrections in February and November that otherwise would have brought the stock market boom to an end.

But starting this year, 2019, the middle class will begin paying for those corporate-wealthy reductions. Already tax refunds for the average household are down 17%, according to reports. The middle class will pay $1.5 trillion in higher taxes by 2028, as the tax hike bite starts in earnest by 2022.

Another $1.5 trillion in absurd assumptions by the Trump administration about US economic growth over the next decade supposedly reduces the Trump’s $4.5 trillion of tax cuts for the rich and their corporations by another $1.5 trillion. Thus we get the official reported cost of only $1.5 trillion for the 2018 Trump tax cuts. But the official, reported ‘only’ $1.5 trillion cost of Trump’s 2018 tax cuts is the ‘spin and cover-up’. Corporate America, investors and the wealthy 1% actually get $4.5 trillion, while the rest of us pay $1.5 trillion starting, now in 2019, and Trump spins the absurd economic growth estimations over the next decade.

The 2018 Trump tax cuts have reduced US government revenues by about $500 billion in 2018. Add another $.5 trillion per year in Bush-Obama era tax cuts carrying over for 2017-18, another $.4 trillion in Trump war and other spending hikes during his first two years and more than $.6 trillion in interest payments on the debt—and the total is a further $3 trillion added to the national debt during Trump’s first two years.

So Bush-Obama add $14 trillion to the $5.6 trillion debt in 2000. And Trump adds another $3 trillion so far. There’s the $17 trillion addition to the $5.6 trillion national debt.[1]

And now, according to the Treasury Advisory Committee, we can expect a further $12 trillion in debt to be added to the national debt over the coming decade—to give us the $34 trillion and $900 billion a year just in interest charges on that debt!

Total US Debt: 2019 

But it gets worse than another $12 trillion. Today’s $22.5 trillion, rising to $34 trillion, is just the US national government debt. Total US debt includes state and local government debt, household debt, corporate bond and business commercial & industrial loan debt, central bank balance sheet debt, and government agencies (GSEs) debt.

Screenshot from the US National Debt Clock: Real Time (as of March 14, 01:50 UTC)

Household debt is now $13.5 trillion and rising rapidly for student loans, auto loans, credit cards and other installment loans.  In 2018, State and Local government debt was $3.16 trillion and rising as well. Corporate bond debt today  is more than $9 trillion—two thirds of which is considered ‘junk’ and low quality BBB investment grade bonds, much of which is likely to default in the next recession. To this must be added other forms of business loan debt, commercial paper, and the like.  The Federal Reserve bank’s balance sheet is also a form of debt, which is $4 trillion and, according to the Fed recently, will not be reduced further. Other government housing agencies, like Fannie Mae, add hundreds of billions more in US debt. All these account for more than an additional $30 trillion in US debt.

Add these other forms of debt to the national debt of $22.5 trillion and the total debt in the US rises easily to around $53 trillion. And add the further $12 trillion additional national debt on the horizon and further increases in other forms of debt, and the total US debt may easily exceed $70 trillion by 2028. The $900 billion a year in interest charges assumed by the CBO may thus be actually too low an estimate.

Who Pays the Debt and to Whom?

To whom do the various interest payments on debt accrue? To the wealthy and their corporations who buy the US and corporate bonds and who issue the credit cards, auto loans, and mortgages; to their banks that offload their debt to the Federal Reserve central bank during financial crises and recessions; to wealthy investors who buy government and agency bonds; to wealthy shareholders who have been getting $1 trillion a year since 2009 in dividends payouts and capital gains from stock buybacks made possible in large part by corporate bond raisings; and to wealthy households and corporations that get the tax cuts that drive the deficit and debt.

Their ‘interest income’ is projected to continue to accelerate over the next decade, thus further exacerbating income inequality trends now plaguing the US and getting worse.

Policies accelerating debt-based income transfer since 2001 have been expanding and deepening since 2000, across both Republican and Democrat regimes, from Bush through Obama, now accelerating even faster under Trump.

For consumer and household debt, clearly the working class-middle class pays most of the interest on the debt—via mortgage, auto, student and credit cards, rising state and local taxation, more federal taxation paying for the Trump tax cuts, etc.  The federal government—and thus the taxpayer–pay the interest on the government bond debt.  The creditors and owners of the debt reap the benefits, now in the trillions of dollars annually.

The Trump budget proposes to pay for the US government’s share of the total debt, by transferring the cost of financing military-defense spending and tax cutting—which creates more deficit and debt—to those households who aren’t investors and business owners. But whether Trump gets his budget approved or not is irrelevant. The deficits and debt will continue to accelerate nonetheless.

And if he does get to shift some of the cost via extending his national emergency rule to the US spending in general, not just his wall, the economic consequences will of course even be worse.

*

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: Jack Rasmus.

Jack Rasmus is author of the forthcoming book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, forthcoming summer 2019, and ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression’, Clarity Press, August 2017. He blogs at jackrasmus.com and hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio Network. His website is http://kyklosproductions.com and tweets at @drjackrasmus. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Note

[1] Conservatives argue that this excludes rising social program spending debt, like social security and medicare. But those programs are not financed out of the US budget (with the exception of the prescription drugs program for seniors). They have their own tax base, the payroll tax.  What about the 2008-09 bailout? The banks were bailed out by the Federal Reserve not Congress. And the costs of social program spending hikes after 2008-2011, were offset by a $1.5 trillion cut in social spending that started in August 2011—which exempted effectively cuts in defense spending thereafter.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s $34 Trillion Deficit and Debt Bomb

“With the possible exception of the Civil War, no event in U.S. history has demanded more soul-searching than the war in Vietnam. The false pre-texts used to justify our intervention, the indiscriminate brutality of our warfare, the stubborn refusal of elected leaders to withdraw despite public opposition, and the stunning failure to achieve our stated objectives – these harrowing realities provoked a profound national identity crisis, an American reckoning.”  – Christian Appy [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

A conflict with its roots in efforts to assist France in reclaiming a former colony, U.S. Forces had been providing financial and military assistance to South Vietnam in the temporarily partitioned country since the early ‘50s. [2]

The war saw a major turning point however when in the summer of 1964, news spread of an attack by North Vietnamese torpedo boats against two U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. The incident, now known to have never happened, was used to justify the so-called Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which authorized a major escalation of the war. [3]

That escalation included the dispatching of 3500 U.S. Marines to South Vietnam on March 8, 1965. The Global Research News Hour marks the anniversary of this start to America’s ground war in Vietnam with four informative interviews.

In the first half hour, analyst Peter Dale Scott introduces the motivations of the U.S. Security State and the U.S. Deep State in promoting the war, the connections between the escalation and President Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, and the motivation on the part of his successor Lyndon Johnson in launching the land assault. Later we hear from Abayomi Azikiwe about the solidarity between Black liberation and Vietnamese resistance groups and its importance in fostering U.S. opposition to the war.

Barrie Zwicker discusses the media establishment’s treatment of the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the war generally. Finally Professor Michel Chossudovsky elaborates on the theme of a 1995 article he wrote which explains the impoverishment of Vietanam and it integration of Vietnam into the capitalist cheap labour economy in recent decades in spite of the anti-U.S. resistance emerging victorious in 1975.

Professor Peter Dale Scott is a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, a poet, writer, and researcher. He is the author of Drugs Oil and WarThe Road to 9/11, The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War, and The American Deep State: Big Money, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy. His website is www.peterdalescott.net.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire, and has made guest appearances on Press TV, RT, Al Jazeera, China Global Television Network, BBC, NPR, and Radio Netherlands among others. He is also a frequent contributor to globalresearch.

Barrie Zwicker is a journalist and media critic whose work spans 7 decades, including a seven year stint as staff writer for the Globe and Mail during the 1960s. He also wrote for the Toronto Star, Vancouver Province, Sudbury Star, Detroit News, and Lansing State Journal. He taught the Media and Society course at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto as a part-time professor for seven years, and worked as a media critic for the national broadcaster VisionTV from 1998 to 2003. He is the author of the 2006 book, Towers of deception: The Media Coverup of 9/11.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky is Professor(emeritus) of Economics at the University of Ottawa. He is the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research On Globalization, and Editor of Global Research. He has authored numerous scholarly articles and eleven books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005), and The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015).

(Global Research News Hour Episode 251)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . Excerpts of the show have begun airing on Rabble Radio and appear as podcasts at rabble.ca.

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (alternativecurrentradio.com)

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 4pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time. 

Notes:

  1. Christian Appy (2015), American Reckoning: The Vietnam War and Our National Identity (p. x), published by Viking Penguin Books, an imprint of Penguin Random House LLC.
  2. https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/vietnam-war-timeline
  3. https://www.britannica.com/event/Gulf-of-Tonkin-Resolution

Imperialism on Trial. Conference Event

March 13th, 2019 by Global Research News

While Donald Trump may have popularised the term ‘Fake News’, journalists, academics and activists, have been calling out the establishment media in their promotion of imperialism, for many years before he ever threw his hat in the ring, politically.

 Nine peace activists will be speaking at the ‘Imperialism on Trial’ events in Belfast and Derry, later this month.

 Some of the topics that will be covered at the event will include:

.

  • ‘Russiagate’- allegations of Russian meddling, hacking and collusion with Trump
  • False narrative on the war on Syria
  • The Magnitsky Act
  • Iran, Saudi Arabia, and what’s not been reported on Yemen
  • Venezuela
  • The Yellow Vests (Gilets Jaunes)
  • Media and  false consciousness
These two events will be livestreamed by the RT.
The primary focus of the event in Belfast is the State, and the role of it’s various agencies; while for the Derry event, the establishment media, it’s propaganda and lies, and war on journalism will be scrutinised.b
Tuesday, March 19
Balmoral Hotel
Belfast
7:30-11:00pm
(Doors open at 7pm)
 b
The issue of US sanctions, and imperialist wars and regime changes, from the former Yugoslavia to the Middle-east to now, Venezuela, will feature in depth throughout the night.
b
The speakers are:
Danny Morrison, Former Sinn Fein Director of Publicity
Craig Murray, Former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan
Peter Ford, Former UK Ambassador to Syria and Bahrain
Ray McGovern, Former CIA Analyst
Michael Pike, Former British Soldier, Veterans For Peace (VFP)
Patrick Henningsen, 21st Century Wire
Guildhall
Derry
7:30-11:00pm
(Doors open at 7pm)
bbb
 
The speakers are:
b
Craig Murray, Former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan
Ray McGovern, Former CIA Analyst
Patrick Henningsen, 21st Century Wire
Catherine Shakdam, Writer & Commentator
John Wight, Journalist
Plus another speaker TBC
Imperialism on Trial is a theme for events that bring together an array of speakers from the world of politics, academia, journalism, former diplomats, former intelligence officers, and clergy to offer their insights and expertise on the subject of imperialism and neoliberalism.
All speakers are driven by a profound and sincere desire for an end to these endless wars of aggression, and regime changes. We all want peace, diplomacy, and good international relations to replace what has become the norm for the hegemon – the US and it’s vassal states- of coercive diplomacy, sanctions, threats of war, hot wars, cold wars and proxy wars.
 b
Tickets for either event are £5 online with EVENTBRITE, Imperialism on Trial.
OR £5 at the door.
Both events are being livestreamed by RT UK Facebook page
Tuesday March 19 at 7.15pm GMT
Thursday March 21 at 7.15pm GMT
 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Imperialism on Trial – About Us
b
Gregory Sharkey:
bb 
“Imperialism on Trial is a theme for events that I organise and host. These events bring together an array of speakers from the world of politics, academia, journalism, former diplomats and clergy to offer their insights and expertise on the subject of imperialism and neoliberalism.
 
We provide a platform where an alternative perspective and analysis is presented to the audience and on-line viewers, which challenges the mainstream narrative.
 
All speakers are driven by a profound and sincere desire for an end to these endless wars of aggression, and regime changes. We all want peace, diplomacy, and good international relations to replace what has become the norm for the hegemon – the US and it’s vassal states- of coercive diplomacy, sanctions, threats of war, hot wars, cold wars and proxy wars.
 
We welcome an alternative to the unipolar vision advanced by the neoliberal and imperialist elites; and embrace a world which has multi spheres of influence, where no one country, or group of countries dominate others.
 
We believe that trade and international relations should be based on parity, and not coercion and subservience. We espouse the rights for countries to have national sovereignty and self-determination, and to not live in fear of war or economic hardship from sanctions.
We are anti-imperialists, and don’t pick favourites. We don’t victim-blame. A victim of imperialism is a victim. No person, no country, no leader is perfect. It is not the role of the West, or any nation to impose its will on another sovereign nation.”

The People’s Climate Movement. No Mention of War

March 13th, 2019 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

While millions of people across the World will be protesting on March 15 under the banner of “Global Warming”, today’s wars including Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela are not mentioned.

Nor are the dangers of a Third World War which threatens the future of humanity.

Global warming overshadows the dangers of nuclear war. According to media reports, Trump’s $1.2 trillion nuclear weapons program “Makes the World safer”. 

 

On March 15, tens of thousands of children in 71 countries will skip school in support of what is described as “one of the biggest environmental protests in history.”

While Jobs and Justice are part of the campaign alongside climate, the issue of poverty and Worldwide unemployment resulting from the imposition of neoliberal reforms is sidetracked.

Mid-March 2019: There are ongoing military threats against Venezuela and Iran.

Is a US sponsored war contemplated for March 2019?

Is this a matter of concern which should be the object of a Worldwide protest movement?

The cyber-attack on Venezuela’s Electric grid affecting up to 80% of the country constitutes a de facto act of war.

On March 10, Washington confirmed its intent to carry out regime change in Venezuela. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asked the US Congress to appropriate half a billion dollars “to restore the economy of the Venezuelan nation (sic) (and) help Juan Guaido.” This statement should be interpreted as a de facto “declaration of war”.

National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had previously confirmed their intent to wage war on Iran.

Unfortunately, these war plans seem to have been overshadowed by a highly publicized campaign against global warming.

While Climate, Jobs and Justice are mentioned, the Word “Peace” is casually omitted.

It is not too late to rectify: SAY NO TO WAR on March 15

Our proposal is that on March 15, this Worldwide environmental campaign embody alongside the issues of climate, a firm commitment against US-led wars and neoliberal policies which contribute to impoverishing people Worldwide.

Also, the People’s Climate Movement should take a stance against the deployment of the police apparatus against those who demand jobs and justice including the Yellow Vest movement.

Needless to say, the environmental impacts of US-NATO led wars should also be addressed.

While Climate Change is a legitimate concern, why are these protest movements limited to global warming?  The answer is that many of the key organizations involved are generously funded by Wall Street foundations and corporate charities, including the Rockefellers, Tides, Soros., et al.

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on The People’s Climate Movement. No Mention of War

When will the leadership at social media platform Facebook get it? When will they understand the scale of damage being done with its insidious and pernicious system of systematically promoting division, distrust and disharmony through the slow-burn destruction of democratic principles?

It is simply not a good enough defence to say that as a private company they can do anything they like as long as they don’t break the law.

Just last week, Facebook was exposed yet again accepting political ‘dark money’ to promote a hard Brexit. An Observer investigation found that the single biggest known British political advertiser on Facebook is a mysterious pro-Brexit campaign group pushing for a no-deal exit from the EU. Two weeks before, the same happened – more dark money poured into political campaigning for a hard-Brexit. Again, more being spent than all known campaigning groups combined.

The influence of “dark money” in British politics has been unearthed through relentless and tenacious investigative journalism, not by the police or other state agencies. No-one has yet been arrested, even after the evidence has mounted. The police, National Crime Agency and Electoral Commission are all forcibly involved and other than a few paltry fines have dragged their feet. By the time anything happens, a terrible Brexit deal will be done or Britain will go over its self-imposed cliff.

In last week’s exposure, a little-known campaign group, with almost no public exposure, no public following to speak of and publishes no information about itself, has spent more than £340,000 on Facebook adverts backing a hard Brexit – making it a bigger spender than every UK political party and the government combined. For clarity, this type of money gets you tens of millions of adverts pushed to specific groups of people.

As editor of TruePublica, I published a story about Brexit and added a paragraph about a book we are promoting – Brexit – A Corporate Coup D’Etat. That paragraph included a link to the publishers. That was enough for Facebook to email me and demand A) payment to promote the article and B) that I provide passport and proof of address – because this was clearly a “political advert sensitive to the national interest.”

And yet – SCL Elections/Cambridge Analytica had the full force of Facebook’s database to pump billions of targeted micro-ads to swing voters during the EU referendum and during a period where it was illegal to do so. That acceptance of ‘dark money’ and the organisations and individuals involved was exposed and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg summoned to appear before the British political system. He simply refused to answer any questions.

In the Observer’s article of last week, it was obvious what is going on.

The sophisticated campaign includes thousands of individual pro-Brexit adverts, targeted at voters in the constituencies of selected MPs. The adverts urge voters to email their local representative and create the impression of a grassroots uprising for a no-deal Brexit. The MPs then receive emails, signed by a “concerned constituent”, demanding a hard Brexit. The emails do not mention the involvement of an organised campaign group.”

In the meantime, Sky News has just published its own investigative findings on the same subject. Its headline is: “Fake, foreign and far-right: Dodgy accounts uncovered pushing Brexit agenda on social media.” The entire article is about research that confirms how political extremists outside of the UK have been amplifying online pro-Leave views on Brexit. Unsurprisingly, it mentions America a few times.

Tell me if this deception is right and proper given Britain’s delicate situation?

The problem is that no law is being broken by this type of campaigning. It is quite legal for any individual or campaign group to promote political material without declaring where the funds come from as long as it is outside a defined election period.

However, this moment, the Brexit moment, is Britain’s biggest political moment – and much of what is happening is due to perception. This must be true or no-one would bother spending vast sums of money on it in such a way – and then going to great lengths disguising where it comes from. It can’t be ethical, professional or moral can it and probably not legal – not if you’re hiding in the shadows.

And who is funding this campaign? Don’t we have a right to know? Doesn’t the government want to know if it might be arch nemesis Putin and his white cat, mad missile Kim Wrong’Un or even worse, the most bigly orange estate agent sat in the roundest of rooms in Washington DC?

Does anyone really believe that our misguided, out of control, domestic surveillance agency, MI5 knows nothing of this attack against Britain’s democracy? Is that not what they are for in the first place – to ensure that the dark forces operating under the radar are not usurping the establishment?

Does this look right to you?

Theresa May is part of the establishment. She headed up the Home Office. She has twice been accused of serious Brexit cover-ups. That’s the Prime Minister of Britain – accused of cover-ups. In any previous government in British history, May would have resigned by now. Even Cameron, the worst PM since god decided seven days was enough work to create an entire world full of wonderful and equally rubbish things resigned.

One coverup was the accusation that she blocked an investigation into Brexit bankroller Arron Banks in the run-up to the 2016 referendum. He’s since under investigation by the National Crime Agency. This only happened because of journalism, not the government or police action.

In the aforementioned book, you know the one that’s been censored by FB, there is a chapter dedicated to another coverup by Theresa May.

However, it was not until after the EU referendum, that the Home Office under Theresa May was found to have held back a number of other government generated reports that detailed the positive impacts immigration has had upon Britain in recent decades. Vince Cable commented on what can only be described as vitally important information suppression (censorship) by the government stating that:

“When I was Business Secretary there were up to nine studies that we looked at that took in all the academic evidence. It showed that immigration had very little impact on wages or employment. But this was suppressed by the Home Office under Theresa May because the results were inconvenient. I remember it vividly.”

The book (that unearths some amazing facts) quoted another report that said:

Theresa May faced accusations from within the government that she tried to remove evidence. Correspondence seen by the Guardian laid bare a six-month tussle between Conservative and Liberal Democrat advisers, which was part of a government-wide exercise into the pros and cons of EU membership. Emails dating back to 2014 show Lib Dem advisers, who were then in government as part of the coalition, complaining repeatedly about Theresa May’s deliberate interventions.”

In the book (you should buy one, it’s only £2.99), another little fact is unearthed. It is a fact, that almost everyone would not just understand but would support.

“The report also detailed numerous ways in which Britain could easily reduce the overall number of EU nationals coming to work in the UK if it had wanted, including implementing a two-year residency restriction for unskilled workers and further restrictions on bringing family members over.

“A lot of the pro-free-movement evidence has been removed,” complained one adviser, citing a UCL report This was, if anything, a disgraceful cover-up by the government.”

Actually, it was yet another report stifled and shoved under the carpet during the EU referendum debate by none other than – Theresa May.

At what point do we really think she campaigned to Remain – because let’s be fair – other than the odd low profile speech, she didn’t.

Interestingly, pro-EU campaigners believe Theresa May made it harder for David Cameron to argue for Britain’s continued membership in the EU as a direct result. David Cameron’s former director of communications, Craig Oliver, also accused the Home Secretary of repeatedly failing to throw her weight behind the campaign to keep Britain in the EU. I wonder why?

Last November, Theresa May was again accused of being at the heart of another coverup by blocking publication of the full legal advice behind her Brexit deal. That is hardly democracy is it? May has persistently proceeded to Brexit failure at every stage – even though she has been warned with specific legal counsel.

Theresa May’s government has been found to be in contempt of parliament – a first. And she was handed the most overwhelming defeat in British political history – another first. All this alongside the coverups, the lying and threats.

In the meantime, why has the ultra-hard-right ERG group of Brexiteers, described as one of the most ‘powerful forces in British politics‘, funded by British taxpayers been given anonymity for so long?

That additional dodgy cash it gets from dodgy foreign donors called ‘dark money’ might have something to do with it, is nothing less than a scandal. Think about that for a minute. The ERG are hiding their member’s identities and where the money comes from whilst being at the very heart of not just government but Brexit. That doesn’t just smell a bit does it – it wreaks.

As Ian Dunt at politics.co.uk put it last week when commenting about Theresa May and her government –

The shame is gone. And that permeates all the way down the system, from the ceaseless lies told by MPs to the limitless cash ministers waste. Organisations take on the character of those at the top. We have Theresa May, so shamelessness, ignorance and inadequacy have now tricked down to every part of the governing structure.

You’d think May had some sort of undercover protection team ensuring that no matter how bad the defeat, no matter how much she breaks ethical, moral or parliamentary rules, no matter how many lies or threats she issues – she will stand until the deal is done and then, just like David Cameron, disappear into the night.

If it doesn’t look, feel or sound right – guess what.

Frankly, It stinks.

*

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

Featured image is from TruePublica

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Brexit: Beware: It’s All Starting to Stink of Something Else
  • Tags: ,

The US will most likely misportray Russia as an “aggressor” in order to intentionally destabilize the EU and thus make it more compliant to America’s hegemonic demands

***

There shouldn’t be any doubt that Russia will respond in a tit-for-tat fashion to the US’ possible deployment of previously banned short- and -intermediate missiles anywhere in the world and especially in Europe after President Putin, Foreign Minister Lavrov, and Chairman of the Duma Defense Committee Vladimir Shamanov all literally said as in several statements over the past couple of weeks.

Russia reserves its legitimate right to do so in order to maintain strategic parity between it and the US and therefore reinforce global stability in an increasingly chaotic world, but it’s also walking into an unavoidable infowar trap by doing this. There isn’t any alternative to Russia’s tit-for-tat response otherwise it risks undermining its own national security interests, though its defensive reaction will almost certainly be reframed by the US as an “aggressive” one as Washington incessantly continues its anti-Russian fearmongering campaign in the EU.

It’s not Russia that wants to return Europe to being conceptualized as a conventional battleground in the New Cold War just like it was in the old one, but the US, though it’s unlikely that America actually intends to make it one but is instead seeking to exploit this sentiment for its own self-interested hegemonic reasons.

Pushing the narrative of “Russian aggression” and pointing to “proof” of Moscow’s deployment of short- and -intermediate range missiles (conveniently leaving out the tit-for-tat part) could allow Trump to squeeze his country’s NATO allies for even more funding than ever before, as well as advance his administration’s “cost plus 50” plan to have every country hosting American troops pay the base cost of doing so plus an additional 50% premium. In parallel, the US’ military-industrial complex can also pressure its partners to purchase more American weapons on this pretext, which could create jobs that Trump could promote as part of his re-election campaign.

Nevertheless, the end effect would be the same, and that’s to accelerate the militarization of the Eurasian Rimland with a specific emphasis on the European part that most directly concerns Russia’s strategic security. The point in doing so is to compel Russia to compete in a new interconnected arms and space race and spend the requisite funds to “keep pace” with American-led developments in this sphere, which could combine with the existing and proposed sanctions regimes against the country to deprive the government of some of the financial resources that it allocated to President Putin’s “Great Society” socio-economic development program.

The end goal is to shape the perceptions of average Russian citizens and influence their electoral behavior ahead of the country’s inevitable political transition at the end of President Putin’s fourth and final term in office in 2024, hoping that this can eventually be weaponized to strategically advantageous ends for America.

That’s the plan, at least, but it’s far from foolproof and has a credible chance of failing to accomplish all of what it sets out to do. For starters, Russian decision makers are confident in the knowledge that their world-class hypersonic missiles are more than adequate to ensure the long-term security of the country and that there’s no need to redirect funds away from the “Great Society” and back into the military-industrial complex. This makes a new arms and space race between it and the US more of a political fantasy than anything, albeit one that unaware civilians could easily be convinced into believing.

As such, it’s absolutely integral that the Russian state harnesses its domestic and international information capabilities to convey this truth to their intended audiences, doing what must be needed to debunk the false notion that Russia would be responding “aggressively” through its tit-for-tat policy and reassuring everyone that it doesn’t intend to participate in an arms and space race.

To be sure, Russia is already trying to do that and has succeeded on the home front, but the odds of success are stacked against it abroad. The EU is increasingly suppressing Russia’s publicly funded international media platforms and private Alt-Media ones alike that share statements by Russian representatives to the aforementioned effect, leading to a situation where the European public is unlikely to directly hear Russia’s position on these important issues without it being manipulatively distorted by their anti-Russian Mainstream Medias.

As for the decision-making element of Russia’s targeted audience, most European leaders are unable to resist the US’ Hybrid War pressure upon them and will probably go along with America’s plans whether they want to or not, especially if Trump weaponizes economic instruments against them such as unrelated secondary sanctions pertaining to Iran and Venezuela for instance in order to get them to strategically submit.

Having said that, it can’t be discounted that the US’ hegemonic demands will partially backfire if some independently minded leaders like Germany’s publicly speak out against this in defense of their own objective national interests, basing their opposition on the need to avoid a costly and dangerous return to the Old Cold War’s conventional threats in Europe and not risk worsening already strained relations with Russia that could otherwise be improved to the economic advantage of average citizens.

Given its hefty economic sway, bloc-wide leadership, and hosting of so many US troops, Germany is the only country that can conceivably set the precedent for this to happen and encourage others to follow in its path, but it’ll probably have no effect on Three Seas leader Poland who will try to position itself as the “New Germany” vis-à-vis its rising military-strategic importance to the US. Even so, as long as Russia avoids being dragged into a new arms and space race, then America will be deprived of its sought-after “victory”.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoRos.

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

Featured image is from InfoRos

What happened to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar was troubling. On the one hand, because she dared to challenge the way supporters of Israel have worked to silence debate on US policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, she became a victim of incitement, and the target of legislation meant to shame her. At the same time, however, the heavy-handed tactics employed against her by some pro-Israel members of Congress backfired, exposing new fault lines in the US-Israel relationship.

The weapon of choice utilized by Omar’s opponents was to demonize her as an anti-Semite. Her “sin,” it appears, was her continued umbrage over the double-standard that exists in American policy toward Israel and its treatment of Palestinians.

During Israel’s assault on Gaza, for example, she criticized the failure of the US media to pierce through Israeli propaganda and see what was actually happening to Palestinians in that impoverished strip of land. Once in Congress, she was deemed to have “sinned” again when she challenged the power of AIPAC to intimidate politicians and silence debate on Israel/Palestine.

New to Washington and the “acceptable language” one should use to discuss these issues, she admitted that her word choices had been unfortunate and apologized for the pain she may have caused.

Despite her apology, she remained a target. Because she is a hijab-wearing Muslim, who was critical of Israel, the GOP sought to exploit her in their continuing effort to drive a wedge between the Jewish community and Democrats. For their part, some Democrats reacted with hyperventilated outrage. Extreme language was used to denounce Omar. Her words were described as “bigoted,” “vile,” and, of course, “anti-Semitic slurs.”

Never, in all this time, was there a critical examination of what she actually said. In fact, she never accused the Jewish community of controlling the media (unless one assumes that Israel’s ability to dominate media coverage of events occurring in the occupation can be attributed to the Jewish community). Nor did she accuse the Jewish community of using money to buy influence in Washington (unless one suggests that AIPAC speaks for and acts on behalf of the entire Jewish community). It didn’t matter, her opponents continued to call her an “anti-Semite,” and did so with such frequency that the term stuck, putting her at risk to threats of violence from bigots.

The entire affair came to a head when, at a town hall last week, Omar attempted to explain herself. Asked to address the controversy that had erupted over her advocacy of Palestinian rights, Omar’s colleague, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, spoke first noting that to her the question of Palestine is personal – her grandmother still lives in the West Bank and Congresswoman Tlaib desires that she receive equal justice and recognition of her rights to live in dignity. Reacting to what she had just heard, Omar said that she couldn’t agree with those who fight for human rights and dignity for others and yet exclude Palestinian rights and dignity. For her part, she said, the focus should be universal – leaving no one out. She then chided those in Congress who have pressed her to reject her commitment to call out Israeli abuses and ignore Palestinians rights. Because she is a Muslim, Omar said, her criticism of Israel has been automatically seen as anti-Semitic in order to silence her. Even more troubling she noted was that, as a result of the manufactured controversy over her words, the discussion became whether or not she was an anti-Semite, while ignoring “the broader debate about what is happening in Palestine.”

At that point, Omar said that she resented those who are pushing her to demonstrate allegiance to Israel. She concluded by saying that she wanted to have this conversation about “the political influence in this country that says it’s okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

The reaction to this newest “sin” was near hysteria. Without ever listening to what she actually said, some members of Congress accused her of saying that the Jews had dual-loyalty – despite the fact that she had said no such thing. They demanded that Omar be censured or removed from her committee posts. And the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee proposed a resolution that would have denounced anti-Semitism in a way that was clearly directed at the congresswoman.

What was disturbing about this proposed resolution was that none of “Whereas” clauses included had anything to do with what Omar actually said. She never accused Jews of “dual loyalty because they support Israel”; nor did she display “prejudicial attitudes” towards Jews; nor did she ever make “mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews”.

What she did do was: challenge official American, and in particular, Congressional silence on the suffering of the Palestinians; the efforts by pro-Israel groups to silence debate on this issue; and the way that some have sought to create a virtual identity being pro-Israel and American interests.

Despite the obvious falseness of their claims, Omar’s opponents in Congress plowed ahead with their proposed bill in order “to teach her a lesson.” In their remarks rebuking Omar, they unwittingly made her point. One congressman said, “Questioning support for the US-Israel relationship is unacceptable.” Another said, “there are many reasons to support Israel, but there is no reason to oppose Israel.” While still another said that Democrats and Republicans, alike, are committed to insuring that the “United States and Israel stand as one.”

It is exactly this attitude to which Omar objected when she wrote,

“I am told everyday that I am anti-American if I am not pro-Israel…I know what it means to be an American and no one will ever tell me otherwise…I have not said anything about the loyalty of others, but spoke about the loyalty expected of me.”

Because Omar has touched what some have come to say is “the third rail of American politics” she was being exploited by some Republicans and hung out to dry by some Democrats. They put a target on her back. And haters were quick to respond with frightening death threats and shameful bigoted assaults on her as a Muslim woman. There is no question that these threats against Omar were the byproduct of the sustained campaign of incitement.

It’s important to note, however, that outside of the halls of Congress a different reality was unfolding. The attacks on Congresswoman Omar were rejected by many Democrats, including progressive Jewish groups, and a debate was sparked by the issues she raised and the over-reaction to them by Congress.

By week’s end, the entire effort appeared to backfire. Instead of being the “slam dunk” they expected, the proposed resolution ran into blocks. Some members objected to singling out of anti-Semitism, without also denouncing racism, sexism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, etc. Others protested that Omar was being singled out and put at risk.  And a few of the more prominent Democratic presidential hopefuls (Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris) insisted that charges of anti-Semitism should not be used to silence debate on Israeli policy.

By week’s end, Congress passed a resolution denouncing all forms of hate or intolerance against any religious, ethnic, or religious community. Since it made no mention of Ilhan, it was clearly a loss for those who began the push to shame or punish her

Two final points must be made:

Firstly, Representative Omar is owed an apology. False charges and a manufactured crisis have sullied her name and put her at risk.

And secondly, it is clear that Omar’s courage has helped to open a door enabling a discussion of Israeli policy and the US-Israel relationship. While her opponents attempted to slam it shut, it seems that their behavior and incitement against her backfired stirring a debate that has helped to pry the door even further open.

*

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

Featured image is from MPR News

The Solons on Capitol Hill are terrified of the expression “dual loyalty.” They are afraid because dual loyalty means that one is not completely a loyal citizen of the country where one was born, raised and, presumably, prospered. It also suggests something more perverse, and that is dual citizenship, which in its present historic and social context particularly refers to the Jewish congressmen and women who just might be citizens of both the United States and Israel. There is particular concern over the issue at the moment because a freshman congresswoman Ilhan Omar has let the proverbial cat out of the bag by alluding to American-Jewish money buying uncritical support for a foreign country which is Israel without any regard to broader U.S. interests, something that everyone in Washington knows is true and has been the case for decades but is afraid to discuss due to inevitable punishment by the Israel Lobby.

Certainly, the voting record in Congress would suggest that there are a lot of congress critters who embrace dual loyalty, with evidence that the loyalty is not so much dual as skewed in favor of Israel. Any bill relating to Israel or to Jewish collective interests, like the currently fashionable topic of anti-Semitism, is guaranteed a 90% plus approval rating no matter what it says or how much it damages actual U.S. interests. Thursday’s 407 to 23 vote in the House of Representatives on a meaningless and almost unreadable “anti-hate” resolution was primarily intended to punish Ilhan Omar and to demonstrate that the Democratic Party is indeed fully committed to sustaining the exclusive prerogatives of the domestic Jewish community and the Jewish state.

Image result for Steven Rosen AIPAC

The voting on the resolution was far from unusual and would have been unanimous but for the fact that twenty-three Republicans voted “no” because they wanted a document that was only focused on anti-Semitism, without any references to Muslims or other groups that might be encountering hatred in America. That the congress should be wasting its time with such nonsense is little more than a manifestation of Jewish power in the United States, part of a long-sought goal of making any criticism of Israel a “hate” crime punishable by fining and imprisonment. And congress is always willing to play its part. Famously, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) official Steven Rosen (image on the right) once boasted that he could take a napkin and within 24 hours have the signatures of 70 Senators on it, reflective of the ability of the leading pro-Israel organization to impel the U.S. legislature to respond uncritically to its concerns.

Ilhan Omar has certainly been forced to apologize and explain her position as she is under sustained attack from the left, right and center as well as from the White House. One congressman told her that “Questioning support for the US-Israel relationship is unacceptable.” Another said “there are many reasons to support Israel, but there is no reason to oppose Israel” while yet another one declared that all in Congress are committed to insuring that the “United States and Israel stand as one.”

But Omar has defended herself without abandoning her core arguments and she has further established her bona fides as a credible critic of what passes for U.S. foreign policy by virtue of an astonishing attack on former President Barack Obama, whom she criticized obliquely in an interview Friday, saying

“We can’t be only upset with Trump. His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was. That’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”

Presumably Omar was referring to Obama’s death by drone program and his destruction of Libya, among his other crimes. Everything she said about the smooth talking but feckless Obama is true and could be cast in even worse terms, but to hear the truth from out of the mouth of a liberal Democrat is something like a revelation that all progressives are not ideologically fossilized and fundamentally brain dead. One wonders what she thinks of the Clintons?

The Democrats are in a tricky situation that will only wind up hurting relationships with some of their core constituencies. If they come down too hard on Omar – a Muslim woman of color who wears a head covering – it will not look good to some key minority voters they have long courted. If they do not, the considerable Jewish political donations to the Democratic Party will certainly be diminished if not slowed to a trickle and much of the media will turn hostile. So they are trying to bluff their way through by uttering the usual bromides. Senator Kristin Gillibrand of New York characteristically tried to cover both ends by saying

“Those with critical views of Israel, such as Congresswoman Omar, should be able to express their views without employing anti-Semitic tropes about money or influence.”

Well, of course, it is all about Jews, money buying access and obtaining political power, with the additional element of supporting a foreign government that has few actual interests in common with the United States, isn’t it?

As Omar put it,

“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country…”

She also tweeted to a congressional critic that

“I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.”

Gilad Atzmon, a well known Jewish critic of Israel, observed drily that

“How reassuring is it that the only American who upholds the core values of liberty, patriotism and freedom is a black Muslim and an immigrant…”

But such explicatory language about the values that Americans used to embrace before Israel-worship rendered irrelevant the Constitution clearly made some lightweights from the GOP side nervous. Megan McCain, daughter of thankfully deceased “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” Senator John McCain appears on a mind numbing talk-television program called The View where she cried as she described her great love for fellow Israel-firster warmonger former U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman as “like family,” before launching into her own “informed” analysis:

“I take the hate crimes rising in this country incredibly seriously and I think what’s happening in Europe is really scary. On both sides it should be called out. And just because I don’t technically have Jewish family that are blood-related to me doesn’t mean that I don’t take this seriously and it is very dangerous, very dangerous… what Ilhan Omar is saying is very scary to me.”

The New York Times also had a lot to say, covering the story on both its news and op-eds pages daily. Columnist Michelle Goldberg, who is usually sensible, criticizes Omar because of her “minimizing the legacy of the holocaust” and blames her because “she’s committed what might be called, in another context, a series of microaggressions — inadvertent slights that are painful because they echo whole histories of trauma.” In other words, if some Jews are indeed deliberately corrupting American politics on behalf of Israel and against actual U.S. interests using money to do so it is not a good idea to say anything about it because it might revive bad historical – or not so historical – memories. It is perpetual victimhood employed as an excuse for malfeasance on the part of Jewish groups and the Jewish state.

Another Times columnist Bret Stephens also takes up the task of defenestrating Omar with some relish, denying that “claims that Israel…uses money to bend others to its will, or that its American supporters ‘push for allegiance to a foreign country’” are nothing more than the “repackage[ing] falsehoods commonly used against Jews for centuries.” He attributes to her “insidious cunning” and “anti-Jewish bigotry” observing how “she wraps herself in the flag, sounding almost like Pat Buchanan when he called Congress “Israeli-occupied” territory.” And it’s all “…how anti-Zionism has abruptly become an acceptable point of view in reputable circles. It’s why anti-Semitism is just outside the frame, bidding to get in.” He concludes by asking why the Democratic Party “has so much trouble calling out a naked anti-Semite in its own ranks.”

Stephens clearly does not accept that what Omar claims just might actually be true. Perhaps he is so irritated by her because he himself is a perfect example of someone who suffers from dual loyalty syndrome, or perhaps it would be better described as single loyalty to his tribe and to Israel. Review some of his recent columns in The Times if you do not believe that to be true. He has an obsession with rooting out people that he believes to be anti-Semites and believes all the nonsense about Israel as the “only democracy in the Middle East.” In his op-ed he claims that “Israel is the only country in its region that embraces the sorts of values the Democratic Party claims to champion.” Yes, a theocratic state’s summary execution of unarmed protesters and starving civilians while simultaneously carrying out ethnic cleansing are traditional Democratic Party programs, at least as Bret sees it.

People like Stephens are unfortunately possessors of a bully pulpit and are influential. As they are public figures, they should be called out regarding where their actual loyalties lie, but no one in power is prepared to do that. Stephens wears his Jewishness on his sleeve and is pro-Israel far beyond anyone else writing at The Times. He and other dual loyalists, to be generous in describing them, should be exposed for what they are, which is the epitome of the promoters of the too “passionate attachment” with a foreign state that President George Washington once warned against. If the United States of America is not their homeland by every measure, they should perhaps consider doing Aliyah and moving to Israel. We genuine Americans would be well rid of them.

*

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

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.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

Selected Articles: War Spending Is Bankrupting America

March 13th, 2019 by Global Research News

A future without independent media leaves us with an upside down reality where according to the corporate media “NATO deserves a Nobel Peace Prize”, and where “nuclear weapons and wars make us safer”

If, like us, this is a future you wish to avoid, please help sustain Global Research’s activities by making a donation or taking out a membership now!

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

*     *     *

Venezuela: Suspend Debt Repayments and Create an Emergency Humanitarian Fund

By Eric Toussaint, March 13, 2019

Faced with the aggressive measures taken by foreign powers who have not hesitated to confiscate assets of the Republic of Venezuela deposited abroad and which are necessary for maintaining commercial exchanges, the government must declare a suspension of repayment of foreign debt.

Canada’s SNC-Lavalin Affair: The Site C Dam Project and Bulk Water Export

By Joyce Nelson, March 13, 2019

In all the press coverage of the “the SNC-Lavalin affair,” not enough attention has been paid to the company’s involvement in Site C – the contentious $11 billion dam being constructed in B.C.’s Peace River valley.

Buying Back the “Iron Dome” from Israel

By Philip Giraldi, March 13, 2019

In early February, the U.S. Army announced that it would be buying Israel’s Iron Dome antimissile system to protect American troops against incoming rockets, artillery shells, and mortar rounds.

Distorting American History: Jefferson Exhibit Generates Racial Controversy in Detroit

By Abayomi Azikiwe, March 13, 2019

On March 12, approximately 100 people picketed the Wright Museum demanding that the Jefferson exhibit be reconsidered. Participants carried a banner challenging the official narrative and characterization of Jefferson.

UK Parliament Rejects No-Brexit/Brexit Deal for Second Time

By Stephen Lendman, March 13, 2019

The deal calls for the UK remaining in the EU customs union, Brussels and Berlin retaining control. A number of May’s ministers resigned over her deal, refusing to support capitulation to EU authorities.

US Congressmen Introduce Bill to Prohibit US Courts from Recognizing Cuban Trademarks

By Telesur, March 13, 2019

Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) presented a bill on Tuesday before the US Congress in which they seek to prohibit the official recognition and rights of Cuban trademarks in the United States.

Pity the Nation: War Spending Is Bankrupting America

By John W. Whitehead, March 13, 2019

According to an investigative report by Open the Government, among the items purchased during the last month of the fiscal year when government agencies go all out to get rid of these “use it or lose it” funds: Wexford Leather club chair ($9,241), china tableware ($53,004), alcohol ($308,994), golf carts ($673,471), musical equipment including pianos, tubas, and trombones ($1.7 million), lobster tail and crab ($4.6 million), iPhones and iPads ($7.7 million), and workout and recreation equipment ($9.8 million).

*

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

It’s not only the mafia that demands ransom money in exchange for its “protection”. “The rich countries that we protect” – warned President Donald Trump in a menacing speech at the Pentagon – Our allies “are all notified. They will have to pay for our protection”.

President Trump – reveals Bloomberg — is going to present the plan “Cost Plus 50” which includes the following criteria – the allied countries which shelter US forces on their territory will have to cover their total cost, and pay the USA a supplement of 50 % in exchange for the “privilege” of housing them and therefore enjoying their “protection”.

The plan also requires that the shelter countries pay the salaries of US military personnel and the costs of the management of the aircraft and warships that the United States keep in that country. Italy must therefore pay not only the salaries of approximately 12,000 US military employees based on their territory, but also the management costs for the F-16 fighters and other aircraft deployed by the USA at Aviano and Sigonella. To this must be added the costs of the Sixth Fleet based at Gaeta. According to this same requirement, we will also have to pay for the management of Camp Darby, the biggest US arsenal outside of the homeland, and for the upkeep of the US nuclear weapons stored at Aviano and Ghedi.

We do not know how much the United States intend to charge Italy and the other European countries which shelter their military forces, since we do not even know how much they are currently paying. These data are covered by Secret-Defense. According to a study by the Rand Corporation, the European members of NATO assume the average charge of 34 % of the cost of the US forces and bases present on their territories. But we do not know how much of the annual cost they currently pay to the USA. The only estimation – 2,5 billion dollars – was made 17 years ago.

The sum paid by Italy is therefore also secret. We only have information on certain posts – for example the tens of millions of Euros spent to adapt the airports of Aviano and Ghedi to the needs of the US F-35 fighters and the new B61-12 nuclear bombs that the USA will begin to deploy in Italy in 2020, plus approximately 100 million Euros for the work on the aeronaval base at Sigonella, which is also to be paid for by Italy. At Sigonella, only the Nas I, the administrative and leisure area, is exclusively financed by the USA, while Nas II, the operational departments – the most expensive – are financed by NATO, and therefore also by Italy.

In any case, it is certain – warns a researcher from the Rand Corp – that with the “Cost Plus 50” plan, the costs for the allies “will skyrocket”. There is talk of an increase of 600 %. This will be added to the usual military spending, which in Italy reaches approximately 70 million Euros per day, soon to climb to about 100 million Euros according to the engagements taken by consecutive Italian governments at NATO headquarters.

This is public money drawn from our pockets, subtracted from productive investments and social spending. But it is possible that Italy could pay less for the US forces and bases deployed on its territory. The “Cost Plus 50” in fact plans for a “good behaviour bonus” in the favour of those “allies which closely align themselves with the United States, by doing what they are asked”.

We are sure that Italy will profit from a strong reduction because, from government to government, it has always followed close behind the United States, most recently, by sending troops and warplanes to Eastern Europe on the pretext of containing the “Russian menace” and by favouring the US plan to bury the INF Treaty in order to deploy in Europe, including Italy, sites for nuclear missiles pointed at Russia.

Since these are the targets of possible reprisals, we will need the “protection” of other US forces and bases. Which we will have to pay for, but still with the reduction bonus.

Source: PandoraTV

*

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 Il Manifesto. Translated by Pete Kimberley.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from the author

While the Justin Trudeau government’s interference in the prosecution of SNC Lavalin highlights corporate influence over politics, it is also a story about a firm at the centre of Canadian foreign policy.

In a recent story titled “Canada’s Corrupt Foreign Policy Comes Home to Roost” I detailed some of SNC’s controversial international undertakings, corruption and government support. But, there’s a great deal more to say about the global behemoth.

With offices and operations in over 160 countries”, the company has long been the corporate face of this country’s foreign policy. In fact, it is not much of an exaggeration to describe some Canadian diplomatic posts as PR arms for the Montréal-based firm. What’s good for SNC has been defined as good for Canada.

Even as evidence of its extensive bribery began seeping out six years ago, SNC continued to receive diplomatic support and rich government contracts. Since then the Crown Corporation Export Development Canada issued SNC or its international customers at least $800-million  in loans; SNC and a partner were awarded part of a contract worth  up to $400 million to manage Canadian Forces bases abroad; Canada’s aid agency profiled  a venture SNC co-led to curb pollution in Vietnam; Canada’s High  Commissioner Gérard Latulippe and Canadian Commercial Corporation vice president Mariette Fyfe-Fortin sought “to arrange  an untendered, closed-door” contract for SNC to build a $163-million hospital complex in Trinidad and Tobago.

Ottawa’s support for SNC despite corruption allegations in 15 countries is not altogether surprising since the company has proven to be a loyal foot soldier fighting for controversial foreign policy decisions under both Liberal and Conservative governments.

SNC’s nuclear division participated  in a delegation to India led by International Trade Minister Stockwell Day a few months after Ottawa signed a 2008 agreement to export nuclear reactors to India, even though New Delhi refused to sign the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (India developed atomic weapons with Canadian technology). Describing it as the “biggest  private contractor to [the] Canadian mission” in Afghanistan, the Ottawa Citizen referred to SNC in 2007 as “an indispensable part of Canada’s war effort.” In Haiti SNC participated  in a Francophonie Business Forum trip seven months after the US, Canada and France overthrew the country’s elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Amidst the coup government’s vast political repression, the Montreal firm met foreign installed prime minister Gérard Latortue and the company received a series of Canadian government funded contracts in Haiti.

SNC certainly does not shy away from ethically dubious business. For years it manufactured grenades for the Canadian military and others at its plant in Le Gardeur, Quebec. According to its website, SNC opened an office  in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 1982 amidst the international campaign to boycott the apartheid regime. Later that decade SNC worked on the Canadian government funded Manantali Dam, which led to “economic ruin, malnutrition and disease to hundreds of thousands of West African farmers.”

More recently, SNC has been part of numerous controversial mining projects in Africa. It had a major stake in a Sherritt-led consortium that initiated one of the world’s largest nickel and cobalt mines in Ambatovy Madagascar. Backed by Canadian diplomats  and Export Development  Canada, the gigantic open pit mine tore up more than 1,300 acres of biologically rich  rain forest home to a thousand species of flowering plants, fourteen species of lemurs and a hundred types of frogs.

According to West Africa Leaks, SNC dodged its tax obligations in Senegal. With no construction equipment or office of its own, SNC created a shell company in Mauritius to avoid paying tax. Senegal missed out on $8.9 million the Montréal firm should have paid the country because its ‘office’ was listed in tax free Mauritius. SNC has subsidiaries in low tax jurisdictions Jersey and Panama and the company was cited in the “Panama Papers” leak of offshore accounts for making a $22 million payment to a British Virgin Islands-based firm to secure contracts in Algeria. (In a case of the tax-avoiding fox protecting the public’s hen house, former SNC president and chairman of the board, Guy Saint-Pierre, was appointed to Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s 2007 advisory panel  on Canada’s System of International Taxation.)

SNC has benefited from Ottawa’s international push for neoliberal reforms and Canada’s power within the World Bank. A strong proponent of neoliberalism, the Montréal firm has worked  on and promoted  privatizing water services in a number of countries. Alongside Global Affairs Canada, SNC promotes the idea that the public cannot build, operate or manage services and that the way forward is through Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), which often go beyond a standard design-and-build-construction contract to include private sector participation in service operation, financing and decision making. SNC is represented on the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships, which promotes PPPs globally. The Montréal firm has also sponsored many pro-privatization forums.With Rio Tinto, Alcan, Teck Resources and the Canadian International Development Agency, SNC funded  and presented at a 2012 conference at McGill University on Public-Private Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Towards a Framework for Resource Extraction Industries.

In an embarrassing comment on the PPP lobby, the year before SNC was charged with paying $22.5 million  in bribes to gain the contract to build the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) the Canadian Council  for Public-Private Partnerships and Thomson Reuters  both awarded the MUHC project a prize for best PPP.

Further proof that in the corporate world what is good for SNC is seen as good for Canada, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants gave SNC its award for excellence in corporate governance in seven of the ten  years before the company’s corruption received widespread attention.

In an indication of the impunity that reigns in the corporate world, the directors that oversaw SNC’s global corruption have faced little sanction. After the corruption scandal was revealed board chairman Gwyn Morgan, founder of EnCana, continued to write a regular column for the Globe and Mail Report on Business (currently Financial Post) and continues his membership in the Order of Canada. Ditto for another long serving SNC director who is also a member of the Order of Canada. In fact, Conservative Senator Hugh Segal was subsequently made a member of the Order of Ontario. Another Order of Canada and Order of Ontario member on SNC’s board, Lorna Marsden, also maintained her awards. Other long serving board members — Claude Mongeau, Pierre Lessard, Dee Marcoux, Lawrence Stevenson and David Goldman – received corporate positions and awards after overseeing SNC’s corruption.

The corporate face of this country’s foreign policy is not pretty. While Trudeau’s SNC scandal highlights corporate influence over politics, it’s also the story of the Ugly Canadian abroad.

*

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 February 24 to 27th, the International People’s Assembly (AIP) was held in Caracas, in solidarity with the people and government of Venezuela represented by Nicolás Maduro. Almost 500 delegates from 90 countries of the world attended the event, and one of the most ardent supporters of this initiative in the last two years is the leader of the Landless Movement of Brazil, João Pedro Stédile.

***

Carlos Aznarez (CA): Why an International People’s Assembly now?

João Pedro Stédile (JPS): The effort that we are making with this coordination, not substituting any other action by the parties and unions, is to try to gather all the popular forces so that we can promote common struggles against the common enemies that are the imperialists. That is the main reason to look for new forms of international organization that promote struggles and try to unite the diverse spaces and forms of organization in our countries. In this first Assembly, because of the extent of conflict in Venezuela, which is now the epicenter of the world class struggle, at least in the West, where imperialism seeks by any means to overthrow Venezuela, the number one task, the absolute priority of all of us is to leave here with an agenda of actions, of denunciation, so that our movements can be developed in each of the countries represented here.

CA: I am the devil’s advocate: whenever this type of meeting is held, it is proposed to return to the countries and coordinate actions, and then, for some reason or because of the internal actions of each country, these things are not carried out and the documents and resolutions are packed away. Why do you think that this time it is going to happen or it should happen?

JPS: That is our self-critical reflection: we have to get out of paperwork and try to promote more actions. I believe that we should promote concrete struggles and actions because the popular forces that are here are accustomed to processes of popular organization in their countries. In other words, it is not a bureaucratic meeting that comes with the acronym or the party, but rather people who are involved in real processes of struggle in their countries. So, we are confident that when they return to their countries they will put the issue of Venezuela, the issue of internationalism, permanently on their agenda in the national struggles they are already waging.

CA: Venezuela is a turning point today in the anti-imperialist struggle. How do you think it is most valid or most effective to express solidarity with Venezuela on the continent?

JPS: It is true that there is tremendous confusion and that is why Venezuela is a key point, because even some left-wing sectors of Latin America and Europe allow themselves to be influenced by what the bourgeois press says. We had invited several European forces that refused to come to Venezuela because Venezuela is not a democracy. Look, a country that has held 25 elections in 20 years, where the private press is the majority, where the opposition marches every day it wishes, how can we say that there is no democracy in that country? So, those ideas of the bourgeoisie have also influenced sectors of the left, the most institutional, which later are moved only by electoral logic, which if they are in an election year believe that it is convenient for us to be close to Venezuelans because they are radical. Just as in the past they isolated themselves from Cuba, but Cuba is there, after 60 years of resistance and today with its happy, educated people.

So Venezuela is very important because it is the battle of this century. If the empire succeeds in overthrowing Venezuela, that means that it will have more forces to overthrow Cuba, Nicaragua, and all the processes that propose changes, even that institutional left that only thinks of elections with the defeat of Venezuela will have more difficulties winning elections. So, even for the institutional or public struggle, it is very important to defend Venezuela and transform it into a trench of resistance and at least make it the grave of the Trump government.

CA: In your speeches and statements you tend to criticize the errors of the neo-developmental governments, but there is a tendency that in order to get out of this imperialist offensive, you have to resort back to the recourse of social democracy. How do you see that, is that valid or do we have to define ourselves more clearly by proposing the path to socialism?

JPS: The assessment that we make is that there is a profound crisis of the capitalist mode of production and the exit that they are seeking to resolve the accumulation of their problems is to seize control of resources more offensively, be it oil, mining, water, biodiversity, and increasing the rate of exploitation of the working class by stripping away historical rights that we have gained throughout the decades after World War II. In ideological terms, what capital is promoting is the recovery of the extreme right, as happened in the crisis of the 1930s when it resorted to fascist and Nazi ideology.

The advantage we have now is that this approach cannot be repeated as a right-wing proposal because they do not have a mass movement in the working class as fascism and Nazism used to have, and that gives us some security. But, on the other hand, since they don’t have the masses, they wage an ideological struggle and use all the weapons they have, television, internet, networks, fake news, to defeat us with their ideology.

In the capitalist plan, they have themselves defeated social democracy. In Latin America, Europe and the whole world social democracy was a means of humanizing capital, but capital no longer wants to be human. Capital, in order to recover, has to be the devil, to go to the extreme of consequence, whether in terms of manipulation of the State or of super-exploitation of nature and human labour.

Then, it would be a mistake for the left to think that in order to win elections we have to become stronger social democrats. Now we have to attempt to return to grassroots work, to engage in ideological struggle, to recover our social base which is the working class that has been displaced, is precarious, and faces numerous challenges. But we have to reorganize it under other forms that are not only union and party as we were used to, but also new forms, new movements, to have a social base that brings new forms of participatory democracy to the table, because winning elections alone, as was proven in Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina, is not enough. Of course it is important to win elections, but we must have accumulated forces to achieve structural changes in the economy and in the political system.

CA: There is a phenomenon in Europe that is attracting attention and that is the yellow vests. Strangely enough, this wave comes from Europe and not from Latin America as one might imagine, but that there is an anti-system approach. Do you see that this phenomenon could take shape in the new forms of struggle that must be applied to empire?

JPS: Without a doubt. We are very interested in the process of developing them, we are going to try to send our people to stay a while to learn with them the forms they have adopted. It caught our attention because they are part of the working class, it is not a movement of the petty bourgeoisie or disillusioned students as it was once the case in Europe with camps in public squares. We perceive that initiatives are being promoted there by the precarious working class outside the unions, the political parties, but that reacted to this contradiction when they saw that capitalism no longer solves their daily problems and they adopted this form that seemed very interesting to us.

However, it is not a form that we should apply in each country but the importance of it is that they were creative and discovered a form that serves the French reality. That’s what we have to look for in Brazil, in Argentina and in each of the countries. In other words, to promote a debate in grassroots movements to look for new forms of struggle that will stop capital and that will cause damage, because just with demonstrations, slogans of order, rallies, capital is not stopped. The yellow vests of France have caused hardship because they are blocking the roads and everyone knows that capital no longer moves through trucks carrying goods. I congratulate the comrades and I hope that the French left will learn from them and get involved so as to extract lessons from the methodological point of view of how we should work with the disorganized masses.

CA: How is the Landless Workers’ Movement (MST) approaching the struggle at this moment in Brazil where time is passing, Lula is still in prison, there are inconsistencies in the government but it is advancing over the rights of the workers and the gains that have been made?

JPS: The MST is now in a very complex situation since we have to redouble our work and our efforts, because our movement has a peasant base, it developed its experience of class struggle in the countryside against the landlords and agricultural capital, which are the big transnationals. There we were formed, we politicized and we understood how the Agrarian Reform is not only land for those who work there as the Zapatista ideas were defended in the 20th century, but that now Agrarian Reform is a struggle against international capital, against its transgenic and agrotoxic technology. It was that struggle that politicized us to extrapolate what the classic peasant movements were.

Faced with the defeat we had because of Lula’s imprisonment and with Bolsonaro’s victory, new challenges are imposed on us that extrapolate the struggle for Agrarian Reform. At the same time, to expose Agrarian Reform we have to win in a political struggle. So the MST has to proceed more carefully in Agrarian Reform because the right wing is preparing for us to fall into some trap and beat us up. Now in the countryside we have to act with much more wisdom and with many more people to protect ourselves from the coming repression. For now it has been coming in a very specific way from the militias that capital has, we have not yet faced repression from the State, from the government of Bolsonaro, but we do not doubt that this is precisely what they desire.

In political terms what we have to do, and we are planning our struggle, is to try to go to the city with our militancy, our experience, and to develop a movement that acts precisely on the periphery with all its strength, and for that we have created in Brazil a broad united front of popular movements called the Popular Brazil Front. We are developing our own way of doing grassroots work that we call the People’s Congress, it is a pompous name, but it is an attempt to challenge, to go house to house to talk to people, to ask about their problems, and to motivate them to go to a popular assembly in their neighborhood, parish, work place. After the assemblies where people voice their problems, try to hold municipal assemblies, then provincial assemblies, to arrive some day, next year or at the end of the year, at a National People’s Congress as a way to stimulate the people to participate in politics, to recover new means of communication, to distribute our newspaper, to discuss it with the people, to use Internet networks, to hold cultural events, to reach the people through music, theatre, and not just because of the political discourse that no-one listens to. We have to use other mass pedagogies so that the masses understand what is happening in Brazil, and the creativity I was talking about.

CA: Will Lula and his freedom continue to be on the agenda of the MST?

JPS: That’s the second big issue in politics: Lula’s freedom is at the center of the class struggle in Brazil. There is no successor to Lula because the one who chooses popular leadership is not the parties, it is the people, that is why it is called popular leadership because the people choose their leaders and Lula is the popular leader of Brazil.

It is a fundamental task for the class struggle that we succeed in liberating Lula so that he becomes the principal spokesman, he is the one who has the capacity to help mobilize the masses against the system and the project of the extreme right. That’s why the extreme right is terrified and prevents him from even speaking, giving interviews, something that goes against the Constitution. Any narco-trafficker in Brazil speaks on national television, but Lula cannot give an interview even to a newspaper.

So, we are fighting for Lula’s freedom, which is going to depend on two important factors: international solidarity, which is why I take this opportunity to ask everyone to help us. The second factor is the national mobilization: we are promoting from Brazil in order to join the campaign for Lula with concrete struggle. We want people to begin to realize that they will have to mobilize against the measures of the neoliberal government, in defense of the historical rights of the working class that they want to eliminate today.

*

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

This interview was first published on the Resumen Latinoamericano.org website. Translation by Internationalist 360°.

João Pedro Stedile is an economist and a member of the national coordination of the MST and Via Campesina.

Featured image is from The Bullet

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Latin America: Searching for New Forms of Struggle. Leader of Brazil’s Landless Movement

Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution, which took off with the election of President Hugo Chávez in December 1998, frequently and even quite recently received praise for its social gains from the United Nations, international humanitarian organizations and economists. This aspect of the country’s story has been almost entirely written out of media coverage of the effort to overthrow the Venezuelan government by the US, Canada and their right-wing partners in Venezuela and the region.

Under Chávez, poverty in Venezuela was cut by more than a third, and extreme poverty by 57 percent (CEPR, 3/7/13). (These declines were even steeper if measured from the depths of the opposition-led oil strike, designed to force Chávez out by wrecking the economy.)

In June 2013, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) included Venezuela in a group of 18 nations that that had cut their number of hungry people by half in the preceding 20 years, 14 of which were governed by Chavismo: The FAO said that Venezuela reduced the number of people suffering from malnutrition from 13.5 percent of the population in 1990–92 to less than 5 percent of the population in 2010–12; the FAO credited government-run supermarket networks and nutrition programs created by Chávez.

Child Malnutrition in Venezuela

Malnutrition in children under five was one of several social indicators that improved dramatically in Venezuela following the election of Hugo Chávez in 1999. (Source: Instituto Nacional de Nutrición/CEPR)

Three months later, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination said that it “welcomes the social development measures, programs and plans that include indigenous peoples and people of African descent, which have helped to combat structural racial discrimination” in the country. The committee also noted that it

welcomes the progress made by the [Venezuelan government] in the area of education and its efforts to reduce illiteracy, as a result of which it was declared an “illiteracy-free territory” by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in October 2005.

In 2014, Niky Fabiancic, resident UN coordinator for Venezuela, called the country “one of the leading countries in Latin America and the Caribbean in reducing inequality,” according to Venezuelanalysis (5/9/14). The website also quoted UNICEF representative Kiyomi Kawaguchi as saying that from 2009–10, 7.7 million students attended school, an increase of 24 percent over ten years previously.

Thus, in the Bolivarian Revolution’s 14th and 15th year, multiple UN organs highlighted how Chavismo had improved the lives of Venezuela’s poor majority.

Similarly, the UN’s Economic and Social Council published a report in 2015, two years into the presidency of Nicolas Maduro, that said the council

takes note with satisfaction of the progress made by [the Venezuelan government] in combating poverty and reducing inequality. The Committee also welcomes the huge progress made by the [Venezuelan government] in the fight against malnutrition through the expansion of the school meals program and the food allowance for low-income families.

One widely used measure of a country or territory’s overall well-being is the UN’s Human Development Index (HDI), a statistical composite index of life expectancy, education and per capita income indicators. The most recent HDI report is the one that was published in 2018, based on 2017 data.

The 2018 report put Venezuela in the category of countries or territories that have “High Human Development,” the second best of the HDI’s four rankings, and 78th of the 189 countries and territories examined. On that list, Venezuela outranks the majority of the states in the 14-country Lima Group currently trying to overthrow its government, including Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Paraguay, Peru and Saint Lucia. Guatemala, Guyana and Honduras are categorized as “Medium Human Development,” the group below the one to which Venezuela belongs and the second lowest HDI category.

The HDI does not provide a perfect picture of present conditions in Venezuela, since the situation in the country has evolved and appears to have worsened since 2017, in large part because of the sharp escalation of the economic war on the country by the Trump administration in August 2017. The HDI does, however, indicate that by this metric, in 2017 Venezuela was doing reasonably well by regional and global standards even in the face of harsh sanctions.

While the progress made by the Bolivarian Revolution has eroded—in larger measure due to US, Canadian and European sanctions undercutting Venezuela’s economy and its people’s access to food and medicine—a mere six months ago, Alfred de Zayas, the first UN special rapporteur to visit Venezuela in 21 years, issued a report based on his late 2017 visit to the country, four years into the Maduro era. The report says:

In the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Gran Misión Vivienda low-cost housing program has contributed to saving millions of persons from homelessness. Over 2 million housing units have been delivered to persons who would otherwise live in shanty towns. In order to address hunger, the Local Supply and Production Committees provide needy Venezuelans with 16kg packages containing sugar, flour, dried milk, oil etc., as the independent expert was able to verify at the Urbanización Nelson Mandela. Another social acquis, El Sistema, established by the late José Antonio Abreu, has offered free musical education to over 1 million youngsters, contributing to a reduction in juvenile delinquency.

Each of these pieces of information constitutes evidence about life in Venezuela in the Chavismo period, which the US and its partners are attempting to end. As such, this data should at least be part of the current conversation about Venezuela, especially inside of states that are trying to illegally oust the Venezuelan movement that not long ago was being praised for its successes by the UN, international humanitarian groups, and economists, and drawing favourable comparisons to the social order that had previously prevailed in the country.

To assess whether US media have noted this crucial part of the story of the Bolivarian Revolution, I used the media aggregator Factiva to search the databases of three of the country’s major newspapers:  the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. I examined the period since the US government and its allies have asserted that Juan Guaidó is the president of Venezuela, not the elected Nicolás Maduro. According to Factiva, the three outlets have run a combined 800 pieces in the intervening period, and I was able to find four that make reference to Chavismo social programs and even these are done in a vague, dismissive fashion. None discuss in any detail the accomplishments that won the Bolivarian Revolution international acclaim.

WSJ: Paradise Lost: Venezuela's Path From Riches to Ruin

To the Wall Street Journal (2/7/19), Venezuela was “paradise” when it was much more unequal.

The Wall Street Journal (2/7/19) gave a timeline of Venezuelan history that, in a section labelled “2003–12,” asserts:

Mr. Chávez expropriates farms and businesses, and uses oil revenue to build homes, distribute food and upgrade healthcare. The programs reduce poverty and make him popular. But he also saddles Venezuela with high inflation, billions in foreign debt and makes the country even more oil dependent.

This piece’s mention of Chavismo’s achievements subsumes them into an overarching narrative that is overwhelmingly focused on the many failures the authors attribute to the Bolivarian Revolution.

Max Fisher of the New York Times (1/24/19) noted that “Mr. Chávez was a dedicated leftist who spent heavily on social programs,” but failed to mention that these programs benefited Venezuelans for a very long time, especially the poorest in the country. In a common trope that’s typically used against leftist governments, especially those in the Global South with non-white majorities, Fisher denigrates the use of Venezuela’s resources to aid its people as a kind of bribery: “handouts to maintain support among his supporters.”

Also in the Times, Virginia Lopez Glass (1/25/19) made a brief, hand-waving reference to the long period of successes of the Bolivarian Revolution, writing that “perhaps Venezuela is finally at the end of a political cycle that, despite some years of social gains, ultimately impoverished what was once the richest nation in the region.”

Times columnist Bret Stephens  (1/28/19) mentioned Chavismo’s social programs, but only to blame government spending on these for the country’s ailments.

The Post seems not to have made any mention at all of the improvements the Bolivarian Revolution brought to the poor and working class who make up most of Venezuela’s population.

When the gains that Chavismo made are erased from the story being told about the country, a distorted version of events is presented. This accounting carries the incorrect message that the Bolivarian Revolution has been an abject failure from start to finish, and that every aspect of the project must therefore be abandoned in order to improve Venezuelans’ conditions. Such a misleading narrative further suggests that, since the Venezuelan government has allegedly brought only harm to the country’s people, the states involved in the effort to remove the Venezuelan government are justified in so doing, and their citizens should support rather than try to stop these efforts.

The starting point for discussions about Venezuela involving anyone who purports to care about the welfare of the people of the country ought to be the question, “What steps can be taken for Venezuela to resume making the impressive strides that it made for the majority of the time that Chavismo has held power?” as opposed to, “How can we disempower the social forces that gave birth to those gains, namely Venezuela’s poor and disproportionately mestizo, indigenous and black populations?” To their discredit, corporate media have framed their coverage around the latter rather than the former–a question whose answer necessarily involves lifting the draconian sanctions.

*

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

Featured image is from FAIR

Two days ago I was in the Syrian Christian town of Al Skeilbiyyeh that has endured sustained attacks from the various terrorist groups backed by the U.S Coalition. These groups are embedded in the countryside bordering Al Skeilbiyyeh. In the last two weeks they have targeted schools, residential areas and civilian districts with 25 rockets/GRAD missiles, causing significant material damage to homes and infrastructure. Children have been told they cannot go to school during these precarious times.

I met with the courageous commander of the volunteer National Defence Forces in this beautiful town, Nabel Alabdalla – and he took me to see the devastation caused by just one rocket that decimated a neighbourhood.

#AlSkeilbiyyeh and the neighbouring town of Mhardeh represent the brave resistance of these besieged peoples against violent and brutal sectarianism and extremism. They are the light in the darkness that has been introduced into their land by the imperialist predators. God bless them and protect them.

Full transcript of Nabel Alabdalla’s words:

“This time, the rockets that landed on this area were unusual and very destructive. We think they have used C4 or another prohibited explosive because this extent of destruction is not from a normal GRAD rocket

This is the result of the Gulf blood money and Erdogan’s policy, his treacherous policy. International mercenaries are targeting civilians in the steadfast city of al-Skeilbiyyeh to drive us from this land.

We send a message to the world that we are staying on this land no matter what they do, we will remain steadfast with the determination of the heroic Syrian Arab army

Our people confirm this because they will stay in their homes neighbouring the international terrorism that is gathered in the countryside of Idleb. We confirm that we always carry the candles of love and peace in one hand and the other hand is on the trigger, we will not leave this land.

Look, there are children toys here, there are homes here, what else is here? Is there a military base here? Where is Europe about this? Why is the Vatican silent? Why is the international community silent and the “humanitarian organisations? Would they accept this landing on their homes?

He worked in Lebanon for 4 years, collecting pennies to build this house, for 4 years. Is he a terrorist? Look at his face, is he a militant? What is he? Why are they targeting him? They are cowards.

They made people homeless

Look, it was not a usual rocket that caused all this destruction

Here the rocket landed. This may collapse, don’t stand on it.

This the level of destruction of one rocket, this is not a usual rocket, look there, it has severed a concrete pillar, scraped the iron bars here, destroyed this house, destroyed that house, it has destroyed two neighborhoods – one rocket.

These are unusual rockets, they have modified them with C4 fillers. The criminals of the world supported by Erdogan, by the American intelligence and by the Gulf blood money want to displace us from this land.

We can assure everyone that we are staying on this land with the determination of the heroic Syrian Arab Army, and the protection of the Virgin Mary. We are not going anywhere, and with the determination of the heroes – our steadfast civilian people – they are showing all levels of steadfastness

We hope for unequivocal support for our civilians to maintain resistance and steadfastness on this Holy Land. We affirm the resistance and we will remain steadfast. We will not move from this land, no matter what they do.

Here we are now, and the launching site is visible. There it is, Tall Othman. There it is … look at the destruction.

International terrorism is gathered in Idleb… we want a solution for this terrorism… it will transfer to Europe, to America and to the world.

They (the terrorists) always send messages of forced displacement, murder – sectarian messages which we have never experienced before.

Here, we are all Syrians. The city of Skeilbiyyeh houses 4000 refugees, Syrians from northern Idleb, the northern villages, from the northwestern countryside of Hama and from the countryside of Idleb.

They came to the city of Skeilbiyyeh fleeing from the criminality of their sons, from the terrorization of their sons, they sought refuge with us, and we embraced them. We provide for them, give them everything they need.

Parents are forced to flee the terrorism of their sons, what should we say about those sons? The mother and father couldn’t endure the terrorization of their sons! Why are the West and Europe supporting them? They are criminals, we must find a solution!

That is the monastery….look where the rocked had landed. Look at the monastery there, the Monastery of the Virgin Mary, the Monastery of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, look where the rocket ( landed), it’s visible, it landed on the wall… there.

They targeted the churches, they targeted the markets, the market was completely destroyed, they targeted the children’s schools, now you will see the footage, they had targeted 4 children schools. What is this?

The city (of Skeilbiyyeh) has been targeted by 4000 rockets and shells until now… this is the protector, look, the photo of saint George is still in its place

The houses were full of children, and this is the patron saint of warriors crowned with victory – Saint George, in his place, steadfast, and we will stay like him

Thank you too…, we always thank the independent journalist who speaks on a humanitarian level, our friend Vanessa Beeley. We convey a message of love and appreciation to you in my name and in the names of the people of Skeilbiyyeh

We will not forget those who stood with us in the most dangerous circumstances and through the darkest times.

Your presence in this land that’s bordering the international terrorism – coming from Paris, from France – strengthens the determination of all the soldiers… and increases the steadfastness of the civilians when they see the humanity in your eyes, and your arrival in the land bordering terrorism.

We thank you in my name and in the name of the city. We confirm our resistance and steadfastness to everyone. We have every confidence that our voice will reach to the whole world, with the terrorism that our city is exposed to, and the terrorism that the civilians are exposed to.

We have complete confidence in you and in your presence in this land and we thank you again for standing with us whenever adversity intensifies.

The late leader Hafez al-Assad said in his clear words: adversities reveal the metal of people, and the more adversity intensifies, the more pure gold is revealed

We always see you with us on this land during dark times, and that is what strengthens us and relieves our people’s suffering, you are always welcome.

Vanessa Beeley, thank you”

***

Thank you to Nabel Alabdalla and your wonderful family – to the brave soldiers in the NDF, the SAA and to the people of Skeilbiyyeh and Mhardeh who truly teach us the meaning of resistance against the terrorist plague that threatens 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.

This article was originally published on the author’s Patreon page.

Vanessa Beeley is an independent journalist, peace activist, photographer and associate editor at 21st Century Wire. Vanessa was a finalist for one of the most prestigious journalism awards – the 2017 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism – whose winners have included the likes of Robert Parry in 2017, Patrick Cockburn, Robert Fisk, Nick Davies and the Bureau for Investigative Journalism team. You can support Vanessa’s journalism through her Patreon Page. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: One of the volunteer Syrian National Defence Forces soldiers in Al Skeilbiyyeh. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)


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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Forgotten Syrian Christian Towns Under Attack on Border with Idleb and Northern Hama
  • Tags: , , ,

In the wake of the February 14, 2018, mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which killed 17 students and staff members, a teacher said the school looked “like a war zone.” And to many young Americans, that’s exactly what it felt like. But this shooting was different. Refusing to be victims, Parkland survivors disrupted the “thoughts and prayers” cycle by immediately rallying student activists and adults across the country, mobilizing them around such tragedies and the weapons of war that often facilitate them.

Recent history suggested that such a movement, sure to be unable to keep the public’s attention or exert significant pressure on lawmakers, would collapse almost instantly. Yet, miraculously enough, the same fear — of their school being next — that had kept young Americans paralyzed for almost 20 years was what drove these newly impassioned activists not to back down.

Let me say that, much as I admire them, I look at their remarkable movement from an odd perspective. You see, I grew up in the “school-shooting era” and now work for a non-profit called ReThink Media tracking coverage of the American drone war that has been going on for 17 years.

To me, the U.S. military and CIA drones that hover constantly over eight countries across the Greater Middle East and Africa, and regularly terrorize, maim, and kill civilians, including children, are the equivalents of the disturbed shooters in American schools. But that story is hard to find anywhere in this country. What reports Americans do read about those drone strikes usually focus on successes (a major terrorist taken out in a distant land), not the “collateral damage.”

With that in mind, let me return to those teenage activists against gun violence who quickly grasped three crucial things. The first was that such violence can’t be dealt with by focusing on gun control alone. You also have to confront the other endemic problems exacerbating the gun violence epidemic, including inadequate mental health resources, systemic racism and police brutality, and the depth of economic inequality. As Parkland teen organizer Edna Chavez explained,

“Instead of police officers we should have a department specializing in restorative justice. We need to tackle the root causes of the issues we face and come to an understanding of how to resolve them.”

The second was that, no matter how much you shouted, you had to be aware of the privilege of being heard. In other words, when you shouted, you had to do so not just for yourself but for all those voices so regularly drowned out in this country. After all, black Americans represent the majority of gun homicide victims. Black children are 10 times as likely to die by gun and yet their activism on the subject has been largely demonized or overlooked even as support for the Marjory Stoneman Douglas students rolled in.

Image on the right: Cruz, Parkland school shooting perpetrator, during his arrest 

The third was that apathy is the enemy of progress, which means that to make change you have to give people a sense of engagement and empowerment. As one of the Parkland students, Emma Gonzalez, put it:

“What matters is that the majority of American people have become complacent in a senseless injustice that occurs all around them.”

Washington’s Expanding Drone Wars

Here’s the irony, though: while those teenagers continue to talk about the repeated killing of innocents in this country, their broader message could easily be applied to another type of violence that, in all these years, Americans have paid next to no attention to: the U.S. drone war.

Unlike school shootings, drone strikes killing civilians in distant lands rarely make the news here, much less the headlines. Most of us at least now know what it means to live in a country where school shootings are an almost weekly news story. Drones are another matter entirely, and beyond the innocents they so regularly slaughter, there are long-term effects on the communities they are attacking.

As Veterans for Peace put it,

“Here at home, deaths of students and others killed in mass shootings and gun violence, including suicide gun deaths, are said to be the price of freedom to bear arms. Civilian casualties in war are written off as ‘collateral damage,’ the price of freedom and U.S. security.”

And yet, after 17 years, three presidents, and little transparency, America’s drone wars have never truly made it into the national conversation. Regularly marketed over those years as “precise” and “surgical,” drones have always been seen by lawmakers as a “sexy,” casualty-free solution to fighting the bad guys, while protecting American blood and treasure.

According to reports, President Trump actually expanded the U.S. global drone war, while removing the last shreds of transparency about what those drones are doing — and even who’s launching them. One of his first orders on entering the Oval Office was to secretly reinstate the CIA’s ability to launch drone strikes that are, in most cases, not even officially acknowledged. And since then, it’s only gotten worse. Just last week, he revoked an Obama-era executive order that required the director of national intelligence to release an annual report on civilian and combatant casualties caused by CIA drones and other lethal operations. Now, not only are the rules of engagement — whom you can strike and under what circumstances — secret, but the Pentagon no longer even reveals when drones have been used, no less when civilians die from them. Because of this purposeful opaqueness, even an estimate of the drone death toll no longer exists.

Still, in the data available on all U.S. airstrikes since Trump was elected, an alarming trend is discernible: there are more of them, more casualties from them, and ever less accountability about them. In Iraq and Syria alone, the monitoring group Airwars believes that the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS is responsible for between 7,468 and 11,841 civilian deaths, around 2,000 of whom were children. (The U.S.-led coalition, however, only admits to killing 1,139 civilians.)

In Afghanistan, the U.N. recently found that U.S. airstrikes (including drone strikes) had killed approximately the same number of Afghan civilians in 2018 as in the previous three years put together. In response to this report, the U.S.-led NATO mission there claimed that “all feasible precautions” were being taken to limit civilian casualties and that it investigates all allegations of their occurrence. According to such NATO investigations, airstrikes by foreign forces caused 117 civilian casualties last year, including 62 deaths — about a fifth of the U.N. tally.

And those are only the numbers for places where Washington is officially at war. In Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Libya, even less information is available on the number of civilians the U.S. has killed. Experts who track drone strikes in such gray areas of conflict, however, place that number in the thousands, though there is no way to confirm them, as even our military acknowledges. U.S. Army Colonel Thomas Veale, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS, put it this way last year:

“As far as how do we know how many civilians were killed, I am just being honest, no one will ever know. Anyone who claims they will know is lying, and there’s no possible way.”

After a U.S. strike killed or injured an entire Afghan family, the trauma surgeon treating a four-year-old survivor told NBC,

“I am sad. A young boy with such big injuries. No eyes, brain out. What will be his future?”

In other words, while America’s teenagers fight in the most public way possible for their right to live, a world away Afghanistan’s teenagers are marching for the same thing — except instead of gun control, in that heavily armed land, they want peace.

Trauma Is Trauma Is Trauma

Gun violence — and school shootings in particular — have become the preeminent fear of American teenagers. A Pew poll taken last year found that 57% of teens are worried about a shooting at their school. (One in four are “very worried.”) This is even truer of nonwhite teens, with roughly two-thirds of them expressing such fear.

As one student told Teen Vogue:

“How could you not feel a little bit terrified knowing that it happens so randomly and so often?”

And she’s not exaggerating. More than 150,000 students in the U.S have experienced a shooting on campus since the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, considered the first modern mass school shooting.

And in such anticipatory anxiety, American students have much in common with victims of drone warfare. Speaking to researchers from Stanford University, Haroon Quddoos, a Pakistani taxi driver who survived two U.S. drone strikes, explained it this way:

“No matter what we are doing, that fear is always inculcated in us. Because whether we are driving a car, or we are working on a farm, or we are sitting home playing… cards — no matter what we are doing, we are always thinking the drone will strike us. So we are scared to do anything, no matter what.”

Similar symptoms of post-traumatic stress, trauma, and anxiety are commonplace emotions in countries where U.S. drones are active, just as in American communities like Parkland that have lived through a mass shooting. Visiting communities in Yemen that experienced drone strikes, forensic psychologist Peter Schaapveld found that 92% of their inhabitants were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, with children the most significantly affected. Psychologists have come up with similar figures when studying both survivors of school shootings and children who have been psychologically affected by school-lockdown drills, by the media’s focus on violence, and by the culture of fear that has developed in response to mass shootings.

The Voices Left Out of the Conversation

The Parkland students have created a coherent movement that brings together an incredibly diverse group united around a common goal and a belief that all gun violence victims, not just those who have experienced a mass shooting, need to be heard. As one Parkland survivor and leader of the March For Our Lives movement, David Hogg, put it, the goal isn’t to talk for different communities, but to let them “speak for themselves and ask them how we can help.”

The Parkland survivors have essentially created an echo chamber, amplifying the previously unheard voices of young African-Americans and Latinos in particular. At last year’s March For Our Lives, for instance, 11-year-old Naomi Wadler started her speech this way:

“I am here today to acknowledge and represent the African-American girls whose stories don’t make the front page of every national newspaper, whose stories don’t lead the evening news.”

In 2016, there were nearly 39,000 gun deaths, more than 14,000 of them homicides and almost 23,000 suicides. Such routine gun violence disproportionately affects black Americans. Mass shootings accounted for only about 1.2% of all gun deaths that year. Yet the Parkland students made headlines and gained praise for their activism — Oprah Winfrey even donated $500,000 to the movement — while black communities that had been fighting gun violence for years never received anything similar.

As someone who spends a lot of her time engrossed in the undercovered news of drone strikes, I can’t help but notice the parallels. Stories about U.S. drone strikes taking out dangerous terrorists proliferate, while reports on U.S.-caused civilian casualties disappear into the void. For example, in January, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command claimed that a precision drone strike finally killed Jamel Ahmed Mohammed Ali al-Badawi (image on the right), the alleged mastermind behind the deadly October 2000 suicide bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. Within a day, more than 24 media outlets had covered the story.

Few, however, focused on the fact that the U.S. command only claimed al-Badawi’s death was “likely,” despite similar reports about such terrorists that have repeatedly been proven wrong. The British human rights group Reprieve found back in 2014 that even when drone operators end up successfully targeting specific individuals like al-Badawi, they regularly kill vastly more people than their chosen targets. Attempts to kill 41 terror figures, Reprieve reported, resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people. That was five years ago, but there’s no reason to believe anything has changed.

In contrast, when a U.S. airstrike — it’s not clear whether it was a drone or a manned aircraft — killed at least 20 civilians in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, in December, 2018, only four American media outlets (Reuters, the Associated Press, Voice of America, and the New York Times) covered the story and none followed up with a report on those civilians and their families. That has largely been the norm since the war on terror began with the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. In the Trump years so far, while headlines scream about mass school shootings and other slaughters of civilians here, the civilian casualties of America’s wars and the drone strikes that often go with them are, if anything, even more strikingly missing in action in the media.

When Safa al-Ahmad, a journalist for PBS’s Frontline, was asked why she thought it was important to hear from Yemenis experiencing American drone strikes, she responded:

“I think if you’re going to talk about people, you should go talk to them. It’s just basic respect for other human beings. It really bothered me that everyone was just talking about the Americans… The other civilians, they weren’t given any names, they weren’t given any details. It was like an aside to the story… This is part of the struggle when you construct stories on foreign countries, when it comes to the American public. I think we’ve done [Americans] a disservice, by not doing more of this… We impact the world, we should understand it. An informed public is the only way there can be a functioning democracy. That is our duty as a democracy, to be informed.”

This one-sided view of America’s never-ending air wars fails everyone, from the people being asked to carry out Washington’s decisions in those lands to ordinary Americans who have little idea what’s being done in their name to the many people living under those drones. Americans should know that, to them, it’s we who seem like the school shooters of the planet.

Waking Up An Apathetic Nation

For the better part of two decades, young Americans have been trapped in a cycle of violence at home and abroad with little way to speak out. Gun violence in this country was a headline-grabbing given. School shootings, like so many other mass killings here, were deemed “tragic” and worthy of thoughts, prayers, and much fervid media attention, but little else.

Until Parkland.

What changed? Well, a new cohort, Generation Z, came on the scene and, unlike their millennial predecessors, many of them are refusing to accept the status quo, especially when it comes to issues like gun violence.

Every time there was a mass shooting, millennials would hold their breath, wondering if today would be the day the country finally woke up. After Newtown. After San Bernadino. After Las Vegas. And each time, it wasn’t. Parkland could have been the same, if it hadn’t been for those meddling kids. Having witnessed the dangers of apathy, Gen-Z seems increasingly to be about movement and action. In fact, in a Vice youth survey, 71% of respondents reported feeling “capable” of enacting change around global warming and 85% felt the same about social problems. And that’s new.

For so long, gun violence seemed like an unstoppable, incurable plague. Fed up with the “adults in the room,” however, these young activists have begun to take matters into their own hands, giving those particularly at risk of gun violence, children, a sense of newfound power — the power to determine their own futures. Whether it’s testifying in front of Congress in the first hearing on gun violence since 2011, protesting at the stores and offices of gun manufacturers, or participating in “die-ins,” these kids are making their voices heard.

Since the Parkland massacre, there has been actual movement on gun control, something that America has not seen for a long time. Under pressure, the Justice Department moved to ban the bump stocks that can make semi-automatic weapons fire almost like machine guns, Florida signed a $400 million bill to tighten the state’s gun laws, companies began to cut ties with the National Rifle Association, and public support grew for stricter gun control laws.

Although the new Gen Z activists have focused on issues close to home, sooner or later they may start to look beyond the water’s edge and find themselves in touch with their counterparts across the globe, who are showing every day how dedicated they are to changing the world they live in, with or without anyone’s help. And if they do, they will find that, in its endless wars, America has been the true school shooter on this planet, terrorizing the global classroom with a remarkable lack of consequences.

In March 2018, according to Human Rights Watch, American planes bombed a school that housed displaced people in Syria, killing dozens of them, including children. Similarly, in Yemen that August, a Saudi plane, using a Pentagon-supplied laser-guided bomb, blew away a school bus, killing 40 schoolchildren. Just as at home, it’s not only about the weaponry like those planes or drones. Activists will find that they have to focus their attention as well on the root causes of such violence and the scars they leave behind in the communities of survivors.

More tolerant, more diverse, less trustful of major institutions and less inclined to believe in American exceptionalism than any generation before them, Generation Z may be primed to care about what their country is doing in their name from Afghanistan to Syria, Yemen to Libya. But first they have to know it’s happening.

*

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

Allegra Harpootlian is a media associate at ReThink Media, where she works with leading experts and organizations at the intersection of national security, politics, and the media. She principally focuses on U.S. drone policies and related use-of-force issues. She is also a political partner with the Truman National Security Project. Find her on Twitter @ally_harp.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

There is no doubt that Donald Trump’s policies, those of the Lima group [1] and the European powers who seek to impose the usurper Juan Guaidó as President of Venezuela and do not hesitate to interfere in order to succeed, must be opposed. As usual, Washington and its allies are announcing a humanitarian crisis as a pretext for the threat of military intervention in a country that has important quantities of natural resources that they seek to grab. The trick is cheap and must be shown up for what it is. All the more so, that the mainstream media are conniving to prepare public opinion for this possibility. The situation is presented in the starkest of terms: a catastrophic dictatorial regime refuses to allow humanitarian aid to reach its needy population; whereas the self-proclaimed new President wants freedom for his people and calls for international help to release the aid that is blocked at the frontier, to the population.

This false and misleading image of the situation must be denounced. The Maduro regime is not a dictatorship: opponents may express themselves and call demonstrations, and President Maduro was elected by direct suffrage against opposing candidates. At the same time it is clear that the level of democracy enjoyed in Venezuela during the period that Hugo Chavez was President has withered: when the Maduro government decided to call an election to create a new constituent assembly, the procedure used by Hugo Chavez was not applied. There was no referendum to decide if a general election in order to elect a new constituent assembly was required; the choice of candidates to the assembly was made under pressure from the party and from Maduro. Over the last few years several popular demonstrations have been repressed.

On the other hand, one must not go to the other extreme and hold that what is happening in Venezuela is solely because of manipulation by foreign enemies of the Bolivarian process. Of course the measures taken by Trump since 2017, and the previous less aggressive measures by Obama, [2] cause great difficulties to the authorities and the economy of the country. There is however a measure of responsibility of the Maduro government and the new Bolivarian bourgeoisie that has emerged and prospered in the wake of the new government and President Maduro’s PSUV party. The root of the problems goes back a long way.

Beyond the discourse of “21st Century Socialism”, no real anti-capitalist measures were ever taken in Venezuela and the government largely allowed the local capitalist class to maintain its control over the industrial, financial and distribution sectors of the economy. A large space was also left open to big foreign capital from the US, Canada, Russia, China and Brazil. The effort to diversify the economy was insufficiently developed, so the country has remained heavily dependent on oil and raw material exports. Public participation in policy making was also insufficient and a new sector of privileged bourgeois parasites has appeared, known as the “Boli-bourgeoisie”. [3]

A previous article published on 28 January 2019, five days after Juan Guaidó proclaimed himself President in place of Maduro, [4] made several criticisms:

“his continuing to repay external debt instead of declaring a moratorium and using the financial resources that would thus be freed up to do more to relieve the humanitarian crisis the Venezuelan people are now suffering. In 2016 the CADTM had called on the Venezuelan government to conduct an audit of the debt with citizen participation (CADTM AYNA appeals to the Venezuelan government to set up a Citizens’ Debt Audit and offers its support). Other critiques of the Maduro government’s policies coming from the Left are also justified: its failure to combat the capital flight organised with the complicity of the highest authorities of the administration and the government; the continuance of the extractivist exportation model, encouraging exhaustion of the country’s natural resources; the repression against trade unionists and other activists; the development of policies of clientelism and a Constituent Assembly whose actual operation does not live up to the hopes its election had raised.”

These are serious criticisms and they cannot be left unanswered.

At the same time, it is absolutely certain that the proposals made by Juan Guaidó and his supporters are not compatible with the needs of Venezuela and of maintaining its sovereignty. Guiado wants to facilitate the exploitation of the country’s natural resources and manpower by local and foreign corporations. A victory by Guiado would mean Venezuela would sink into the debt system to the advantage of its domestic creditors (the old Establishment and the new Boli-bourgeoisie who purchased Venezuelan debt meaning to profit at the expense of the people) and foreign investors such as big American and European banks and Russian and Chinese corporations, to mention just a few. Guaidó would not end corruption nor the flight of capital or speculation on food and medicine prices. Guaidó represents the traditional idle rich Venezuelan Establishment who have never been interested in developing the Venezuelan economy and whose interests are the opposite to those of the vast majority of the people. An elite who is happy to export the country’s raw materials and import more or less everything else the country needs. An elite that is favourable to paying the foreign and domestic debt, as they are among the holders of the titles.

But beyond all that, another fundamental factor needs to be taken into account: Guaidó’s attempted coup can succeed only if foreign powers intervene directly and succeed in buying off a part of the army (which Trump has made no bones about wanting to do) and fighting the remaining part. If the intervention now being prepared for is not halted, there will be dramatic consequences for the people of Venezuela, for the entire continent and internationally. The Latin American governments who are allied with Washington against Venezuela are ultra-reactionary. The very names of heads of state such as Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Mauricio Macri in Argentina, Iván Duque in Colombia, Jimmy Morales in Guatemala, Martín Vizcarra in Peru, Juan Carlos Varela in Panama and Sebastián Piñera in Chile are synonymous with reactionism. And of course the European powers, in a parade led by France, Germany, the UK and Spain, fearful that they might miss an opportunity to get a piece of Venezuela’s natural wealth, have rushed to get in line behind the United States and recognize Guaidó. The former colonial powers must be denounced for conducting such policies while at the same time not hesitating for a moment to lend their support to true dictatorships like that of Abdel Fattah el-Sissi in Egypt, Idriss Déby in Chad, and Mohammed Ben Salman in Saudi Arabia, who is killing the people of Yemen and had an opposition journalist literally butchered in his embassy in Istanbul. The government of the State of Israel, which is responsible for war crimes against the Palestinian people, also supports Guaidó. The dominant media repeat as if by rote that the “international community” supports Guaidó, without mentioning the fact that sixty countries have announced that they continue to recognize the Maduro government. Only fifty support Guaidó. Note that the Centre-Left governments of Mexico and Uruguay refuse to fall in line with the Lima Group countries and have offered to act as mediators – a fact very rarely mentioned in the press.

For all these reasons, working-class political movements must refuse any contact with Guaidó and his backers. Guaidó must be unequivocally denounced and combated as a putschist, a representative of big capital and a traitor to the Venezuelan nation because he has called for armed intervention from Washington and its allies. And, faced with threats of a foreign intervention that is anything but imaginary, there is no other choice than to try to organize as broad a front as possible to oppose it. Of course, to avoid an escalation of the conflict, the two opposing camps must negotiate; but working-class political movements must refuse to meet with Guaidó, since he would only instrumentalize them to cloak himself with legitimacy. They must also maintain their autonomy and their ability to criticize the Maduro government.

Faced with the various forms of aggression adopted by Washington and its allies, and in order to improve living conditions for the people of Venezuela, the Maduro government should apply the proposals made by the Venezuelan economist Simón Andrés Zúñiga in an article entitled “Venezuela: El bloqueo y pirateo de fondos obligan a una moratoria de la deuda” (“The blockade and the theft of government funds demand a debt moratorium” – also available in French.

The author of the article begins by stating:

“The stratagem of ‘humanitarian aid’ must not be underestimated, because it is one of the most powerful political tools for ideological manipulation used by the forces who are prepared to crush any expression of sovereignty and independence. They want to convince the population, or a large part of the population, that the government is violating human rights by refusing to let the invaders pass.”

Zúñiga warns:

“Papering over the objective conditions the working population is suffering under is a suicidal attitude, the equivalent of running away from reality. It’s quite simple: the price of a medication in a pharmacy can easily be in excess of two week’s or a month’s wages for working men and women, and that can be seen on the cash-register receipt.”

The article proposes that “…against the Trojan horse of ‘humanitarian aid’ promoted by the US and its allies to justify violating and taking control of Venezuelan territory, while at the same time fraudulently blocking access to Venezuela’s sovereign deposits and assets, the government should organise a mobilisation of the people in solidarity, involving all organisations and communities, in order to meet priority health and nutritional needs as well as organise to resist the criminal siege.

This should be done by means of a broad appeal for participation by all sectors in determining priorities for the use and control of existing resources. It would be an agenda of solidarity and support with broad popular participation, as opposed to the mendacious and cynical ‘humanitarian aid’ agenda.” The proposals contained in the balance of the article, which we can support, can be summed up roughly as follows. We have added certain items while keeping the content of the proposals intact. Obviously applying them would require a change of direction, and depends on the will as well as the ability of the people’s movements to make them their own and insist that they be applied. Unfortunately it seems improbable that they will take concrete form, but they do show that there is a way out of the humanitarian crisis.

1. Faced with the aggressive measures taken by foreign powers who have not hesitated to confiscate assets of the Republic of Venezuela deposited abroad and which are necessary for maintaining commercial exchanges, the government must declare a suspension of repayment of foreign debt.

We would add that international law permits a country facing an emergency situation, for example a humanitarian crisis, to decree a unilateral moratorium on debt repayment (without accumulation of interest or late penalties). And since in addition Venezuela is faced with measures of the type taken unilaterally by Washington without consulting the UN, a unilateral act of suspension of debt repayment is all the more justified.

2. Rather than use its low reserves of hard currencies for repayment of the debt, the government must use them to meet the fundamental needs of the population. As Zúñiga puts it: “The health and nourishment of the people must take priority over repayment of foreign debt.”

3. The moratorium would be accompanied by an open, detailed public audit which, without doubt, would throw light on the numerous manoeuvres and illegal capital flight that have taken place under the protection of the private financial system and of some of the country’s authorities.

4. There are political and economic reasons and legal precedent for supporting a decision of this scope. Unilaterally declaring a moratorium on debt and conducting an audit would be proof of determination to put priorities back in the proper order. The priority use of the nation’s resources must not be to repay debt, but rather to improve the dramatic living conditions being endured by a large part of the population. By suspending repayment, the government of Venezuela would be in a position of strength in its relationship with its creditors.

5. The suspension of debt repayment would apply to all debts issued by the national government and by PDVSA [the Venezuelan state-owned oil and natural gas company].

6. The implementation of an emergency plan for acquisition of food and medicines for the benefit of the population is inevitable. Simultaneously, financial resources must be invested in developing production of food and medicine at the national level. Priority must be given to local producers.

7. A solidarity plan for distributing medicines and care for persons suffering from serious diseases such as diabetes, cancer, renal failure, Parkinson’s disease and HIV/AIDS, among others, which require ongoing and stable treatment, must be implemented immediately. The same goes for the basic medicines needed by the population. A special effort must be made for the people of Amazonia, who are living with an epidemic of malaria.

8. The government and a front made up of forces opposed to foreign interference must take on this task massively, including both those affected and popular organisations. This inclusive and unifying strategy requires breaking with the culture of paternalism, mystification, clientelism and electoralism which characterises many countries, Venezuela among them. All forces that oppose foreign interference, without exception, must be called to unite. A popular mobilisation is possible and necessary, and if it is led by a broad front it can obtain immediate and effective results to ease the current health and nutritional emergency and the very real threat of outside intervention.

9. These measures and the necessary mobilization must and can be supported by a programme that will multiply resources in order to denounce the masquerade of the fake “humanitarian-aid” programme, which amounts to a miserable 20 million dollars.

10. In the case of certain medicines, the plan must overcome the dependence on importsand move towards producing basic medicines nationally. In that sector, the accent should be put not only on the finished products, but also on acquisition of the necessary active substances and on domestic production, which would promote the use of nationally-produced medicines instead of imported ones.

11. Eliminate the Ministry of Food and Nutrition, which has become an anarchic tangle of blind importations (and a haemorrhage of foreign currencies) and contributes to the destruction of domestic food production. The idea is to centralise policies for promoting and supporting the agricultural sector, both plant and animal, in one place. This entity must have a coherent, coordinated and complete vision of the agricultural sector.

12. Foreign trade must be publicly controlled and information on all transactions must be made transparent.

13. The Communal Councils [the basic structure of the country since 2006 [5]] must play a predominant role in agricultural production. In fact, certain Councils have brought about major improvements in productivity and political awareness.

In another context, several of the proposals listed above had been put forward by the Venezuela Citizens’ Debt Audit Platform in 2016-2017. The platform proposed suspending repayment of the debt and conducting a public debt audit with citizen participation with the support of the Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM) and the participation of social movements and citizen organizations. Paulino Núñez and Oly Millán Campos explain: “The goal is to determine what share of the debt is odious and illegitimate and therefore must be cancelled before any debt restructuring. Rather than giving priority to debt servicing by the government, the many health and nutrition problems the Venezuelan people are experiencing must be addressed.” Venezuela : la dette comme expression d’un modèle d’extraction de capitaux permanente et délictueuse (in French). CADTM members in Venezuela have been campaigning for 20 years for an audit of the debt, and since 2016-2017 have called for suspension of payment in the face of the humanitarian crisis affecting the majority of the country’s population.

Given the seriousness of the situation of Venezuela’s people, there should be no hesitation in adopting the proposed suspension of debt repayment in order to create an emergency fund for purchase of medicines and foodstuffs.

*

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

Translation by Snake Arbusto, Vicki Briault and Mike Krolikowski pour le CADTM where this article was originally published.

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

Notes

[1] The Lima Group is at present mainly composed of the following countries: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay and Peru. Mexico has stepped back from the informal group since it decided to support the putschist Guaidó.

[2] Economic and financial sanctions were started by Trump in August 2017 : https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-41055728 Under the Obama administration sanctions were aimed at the Venezuelan personalities in December 2014: https://apnews.com/16e5cb67ca184b7aaa32ded6c777c72a They were started in 2015: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-usa-visas/u-s-slaps-visa-restrictions-on-current-former-venezuelan-officials-idUSKBN0L620D20150202

On 8 March 2015 Obama declared that Venezuela was a menace to the United States: https://www.hispantv.com/noticias/ee-uu-/23336/obama-ordena-nuevas-sanciones-contra-venezuela

and Trump prolonged the decree:

https://www.dw.com/es/extiende-trump-decreto-que-declara-a-venezuela-amenaza-para-ee-uu/a-42808304

(All links in Spanish)

[3] See my critique of the limits of the Venezuelan policies, published in 2009: Changements en cours au Venezuela en 2008 – 2009 (in French) And this article on the failure of the constitutional revision published in 2007: The failure of 2 December 2007 can be a powerful lever for improving the process currently unfolding in Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela

[5] The institution of the Communal Councils (Consejos Municipales) in 2006, under the leadership of President Hugo Chávez, was strongly characterised by a desire to make citizen participation part of the process of conceiving and executing local policies. The law on Communal Councils or Ley de los consejos municipales (LCC) was adopted on 7 April 2006 (see http://www.tecnoiuris.com/venezuela/gaceta-oficial/administrativo/ley-de-los-consejos-comunales.html )

The government of Hugo Chávez placed high hopes on these Councils, which it saw as “the basic territorial units of popular participation and self-government.” The power granted the Communal Councils is not negligible, since it empowers a “community” to propose and carry out a project which, beginning with the first year, can amount to 30 million bolivars (which at the time was equivalent to around 10 million euros). The Communal Councils have lost their vitality little by little; now is the time to breathe new life into them.

Featured image is from CADTM

Buying Back the “Iron Dome” from Israel

March 13th, 2019 by Philip Giraldi

Even if one spends years exploring the dark corners infested by Israel’s agents and its diaspora proxies in their successful effort to control much of Capitol Hill and the White House, it is still possible to be shocked by the effrontery of what many have dubbed the 51st state.

In early February, the U.S. Army announced that it would be buying Israel’s Iron Dome antimissile system to protect American troops against incoming rockets, artillery shells, and mortar rounds. The sale means that the United States, which has the largest and most advanced defense industries in the world, is now agreeing to buy some of its military hardware from Israel rather than producing its own equivalent version.

The Iron Dome was developed and produced by Israeli government-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems company with some assistance from Raytheon in the United States. It has been operational since 2011 and was deployed to intercept mostly homemade incoming rockets from Hamas during Israel’s large-scale ground and air attacks on Gaza in 2012 and 2014 as well as in the more recent bloody clashes along the border fences that separate Israel from Gaza, which have killed nearly 3,000 Arabs.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu inevitably took credit for the sale, describing it as “a great achievement for Israel and yet another expression of the strengthening of our powerful alliance with the U.S.” The U.S. Army is committed to buy two Iron Dome batteries for deployment next year for $373 million as a first phase of a possible $1.7 billion procurement to develop an enhanced mobile missile defense capability. It is believed that the purchase could lead to far bigger deals if Rafael proves able to upgrade Iron Dome to defeat the more complex battlefield threats envisioned by the Pentagon.

There are a number of problems related to the agreement to purchase Iron Dome. First of all, there is some dispute about whether it actually works. Israeli government sources unsurprisingly claim that it does, but some critics believe that its actual success rate might be considerably lower than the 90% that is being claimed by Rafael and by the Israeli government based on 1,700 reported interceptions. It has been observed that intercepting an incoming bottle rocket is a relatively easy task compared to an artillery or mortar round, which have lower trajectories and less flight time, making locking in the system’s radar more difficult. And, as Iron Dome has not been used with any frequency against enemies firing military-grade rockets, mortars or artillery, so the testing of it has not been fully subjected to the actual field conditions if the U.S. Army were to deploy the system.

The second problem involves the purchase itself. According to a report examining the Iron Dome project, the United States has already provided at least $5.5 billion of the development costs of the system since it was first proposed in 2010. In 2018, Congress provided an additional $705 million to the Israeli government for various missile defense projects, which included Iron Dome. That means that Washington is buying back a system that it paid to develop and is therefore paying for it twice. This is a wonderful way to do business for Israel, but it is a complete rip-off of the American taxpayer. The fact that no one in Congress is complaining is perhaps attributable to the willingness of the government to do favors for Israel, including favors that undercut the U.S.’s own defense industries, as Israel will undoubtedly use reports of the sale to boost its own efforts to market the product worldwide.

A third problem is the cost effectiveness of the system, even if it does work. Each Iron Dome battery will cost close to $125 million, but actually using the system is also expensive. Each Iron Dome-compatible Israeli-developed Tamir missile costs between $50,000 and $150,000, and two are normally used to counter each incoming target. In operations against homemade rockets emanating from Gaza, that means that $100,000-$300,000 is spent to destroy a projectile that might have cost less than $1,000 to make if one is dealing with resistance groups, insurgencies, or terrorist organizations that might be improvising their armaments. And, as the supply of missiles is depleted either in training or in actual combat, it will be necessary to go back to Israel for more, creating a regular cash flow for government-owned Rafael.

When all is said and done, if the U.S. Army has no defense against low-level missile and projectile attacks and Iron Dome is the only tested option available, then there would be a certain desirability to obtain the system for deployment in parts of the world where the military faces that kind of threat. But, as is often the case when it comes to Israel, one has to suspect that politics are quite likely behind the purchase, most particularly in the form of Pentagon officials and congressmen who are desirous of enhancing the benefit packages that Israel receives from U.S. taxpayers.

The bottom line should be the bottom line. If the United States has contributed more than $6 billion to the development of Israel’s military antimissile defenses and actually needs Iron Dome, there should be payback. The two batteries should be freely provided to the U.S. Army as a thank you from the grateful people of Israel for the unprecedented financial aid totaling $134 billion since 1948, as well as the virtually unlimited political cover for Israel’s bad behavior that the American people have provided for the past 70-plus years. Perhaps someone on Capitol Hill or in the White House should remind Netanyahu of the $38 billion that Congress has just approved for Israel on top of all the money that has already gone to Iron Dome. This presents a wonderful opportunity for Israel to finally demonstrate its willingness to do something for the United States, a reciprocity which its powerful American lobby always boasts about but which has never actually been the case in practice.

*

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 American Free Press.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Other articles by Giraldi can be found on the website of the Unz Review. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from American Free Press

Musician Stephen Travers hopes a new documentary on a notorious massacre in the north of Ireland during the Troubles will lead to justice almost 50 years later.

In a new Netflix documentary released later this month he says that the 1975 Miami Showband Massacre was not a random sectarian attack but was masterminded by British intelligence services.

Three members of the band, one of Ireland’s most popular, were killed in the attack by the loyalist paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF).

They were heading to Dublin in their van when they were stopped by uniformed men at what looked like a random army checkpoint near Newry in Co Down and shot.

Bass player Mr Travers had only joined the band six weeks earlier. He tells how the “soldiers” fitted a bomb underneath the van which detonated early.

Watch the trailer below.

The blast and subsequent shootings left three band members dead: Brian McCoy, Tony Geraghty and lead singer Fran O’Toole, who was shot 22 times at close range.

Mr Travers believes the band was deliberately targeted due to its popularity among Irish nationalists.

He claimed the killings were masterminded by the loyalist paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force’s brigadier Robin “the Jackal” Jackson, working closely with British intelligence services. At least four of the gunmen were soldiers from the British Army’s Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR).

The shady Glennane Gang, a secret informal alliance of loyalists who carried out killings of Catholics and nationalists, have been implicated in the killings. Members are thought to have acted as double agents for British military intelligence.

“We were targeted because the British wanted our government to seal the border so that the IRA wouldn’t be able to cross easily into the relative safety of the south after committing some sort of atrocity,” Mr Travers told the Belfast Telegraph.

He said the band would have been branded terrorists, with guns planted in the van, had the bomb not exploded early.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland’s historical inquiries team, which was disbanded in 2014, confirmed Mr Jackson’s involvement in the killings.

His fingerprints were found on a pistol used in the attack. But British army officer Robert Nairac was cleared of involvement.

Mr Travers, however, remains sceptical of the team’s findings, “because they were answerable to the British government.”

Nearly 50 years after the slaughter he hopes the new film will open the door to investigations into the killings.

“I’m not going to go away. I’m looking for the truth,” he said.

*

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

On January 15, Theresa May’s no-deal/deal was overwhelmingly defeated by a 432 – 202 margin – the greatest rejection of a UK leader’s legislative aim in modern times.

As expected on March 12, parliamentarians again rejected her no-Brexit/Brexit deal by a 391 – 242 margin against it.

The vote followed May and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s announced last-minute tweaking of the deal rejected in January. The Irish Times explained it as follows, saying:

“Theresa May on Monday night accepted from the EU a package of assurances, including enhanced legal commitments on the (Irish border) backstop (assuring no hard border between Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland), that she said would allow her to put the Brexit withdrawal agreement to MPs on Tuesday.”

They’ll be “no further changes,” Juncker warned. It’s “this deal or” no deal. Plan A and B were largely identical, last minute changes too insignificant to matter.

Irish backstop concessions offered are temporary, not a permanent guarantee against a hard border if Britain leaves the EU, what’s looking increasingly unlikely.

May agreed on a deal critics called capitulation to Brussels, economic powerhouse Germany having most say on its terms. They involve Britain remaining more in than withdrawn from the EU if Brexit occurs.

The deal calls for the UK remaining in the EU customs union, Brussels and Berlin retaining control. A number of May’s ministers resigned over her deal, refusing to support capitulation to EU authorities.

A March 29 deadline approaches – when negotiating a withdrawal agreement is supposed to end unless an extension is agreed on, what seems likely as time is running out.

Two additional votes are scheduled this week. On Wednesday MPs will vote up or down on whether to leave the EU without a deal – a so-called hard Brexit, virtually certain to be rejected.

On Thursday, a second vote will be held on extending the March 29 deadline for additional weeks (likely no later than completion of European Parliament elections on May 26) – subject to unanimous approval by EU member states.

What UK/EU negotiations failed to accomplish after most Brits voted to leave the bloc on June 23, 2016 isn’t likely to change in the coming weeks or months.

May is highly unlikely to seek a third vote on her twice-rejected no-Brexit/Brexit scheme. Ahead of Tuesday’s vote, UK Attorney General Geoffrey Cox called May’s Plan B virtually “unchanged” from Plan A, assuring its defeat by a wide margin.

Opposition Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn slammed May’s Plan B, saying

“(a)fter three months of running down the clock, the prime minister has, despite very extensive delays, achieved not a single change to the withdrawal agreement.”

How things play out in ahead remain uncertain. Despite expressing support for Brexit as prime minister, May opposed it as home secretary.

As things now stand, her no-Brexit/Brexit deal is the only option, twice rejected by parliament.

When the dust fully settles in the weeks and months ahead, the UK may remain an EU member – my best guess on what’s coming.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Lies in the Branding: Justin Trudeau’s Implosion

March 13th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

“Trudeau came out and asked for strong women, and he got them.” – Michelle Rempel, Conservative Party MP, The Atlantic, Mar 12, 2019

The gods have various roles, and most of them are intrusively irritating. They select humans, and drive them mad.  They select them for special missions, praise them and drive them to death.  They also select them to, if the time comes, commit foolish suicide.  The going might be good for a time, but they shall utterly be vanquished, mortal snots that they are.   

The situation with Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will either ensure his survival for some time, or his destruction.  For many, his looks, his manner and his sense of presence have been prime excuses for avoiding sternly critiqued policy, pushing him up charts of aesthetics and chat shows.  Like the Camelot of the Kennedys, the substantive nature of achievements have given way to a nimbus of awe and praise.  In an appropriate observation from Jesse Brown, Trudeau was a “social media savant”, “the political equivalent of a YouTube puppy video.  After your daily barrage of Trump and terror, you can settle your jangled nerves with his comforting memes.”  Serious issues could hang, and Canada could resist growing up and challenging the lies of its label.   

On some level, he was excused for simply being a half-decent, bearable presenter after nine years of the conservative Harper administration, one who caused the occasional flutter and quiver in appropriate audiences.  Tickling an audience will get you some way.  

He also, much like Tony Blair of the New Labour wave in Britain in the late 1990s, decided to fan progressive tendencies while caking them in the most god awful spin.  He preferred conciliatory approaches.  He ticked the boxes of the progressive report card, because ticks matter: go for a gender-balanced cabinet; chew over climate change policy; be sensitive to the First Peoples and seek their representation. 

In 2015, when asked why he felt his cabinet should be evenly divided in terms of gender (on Ottawa’s Parliament Hill, he sported the fine distribution of 15 men and 15 women), his response reverberated on the tarted waves of social media.  “Because it’s 2015.”

Jody Wilson-Raybould, was one of the faces of that cabinet, appointed justice minister and attorney general, and the first indigenous person to attain that post.  Full marks were given to the new leader. He was walking, not just on water, but well.

That period of uncritical Trudeau-ism is over.  The dirt is coming in.  The brittle realities of politics have become apparent.  The glory boy has lost his shine, his coat looking that much more ragged.  Wilson-Raybould has resigned from the cabinet claiming interference from Trudeau in her efforts to prosecute engineering giant SNC-Lavalin, a company which has thousands of Canadians in its employ and a certain smell of bribery and corruption touching a number of Libyan business contracts.  (The Qaddafi era still casts its shadow.) 

Wilson-Raybould proved to be a true spoil sport to the Trudeau image.  Jobs were playing on the prime minister’s mind, and became a dominant intrusion.  Going heavy on the company for grounds of fraud or corruption would lead to job losses, notably in Quebec.  A criminal conviction would fetter the company from bidding on government contracts for a decade.  Best keep SNC-Lavalin up and running, in a fashion.  The company would be encouraged to confess, spanked with a manageable fine and be made to promise improvements.  Wilson-Raybould refused.  

On February 27, in extended testimony to members of the House of Commons Justice committee, the former Attorney General explained that between September and December 2018, she had “experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion [in her] role as the Attorney General of Canada in an inappropriate effort to secure a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with SNC-Lavalin.”

Her refusal to accede to the deferred agreement for SNC, she surmised, led to her shuffling out of her cabinet position on January 7 this year.  She duly resigned.  Before the committee, she reminded members of the role of the attorney general, one who exercises discretion to prosecute “individually and independently.”  Cabinet’s views on the matter were irrelevant in making such decisions.

The extensive cloud was irritating and morally vexing enough to compel another resignation, a certain capable Jane Philpott of the treasury board. 

“Unfortunately, the evidence of efforts by politicians and/or officials to pressure the former Attorney General to intervene in the criminal case involving SNC-Lavalin, and the evidence as to the content of those efforts have raised serious concerns for me.”

If there is nothing more pronounced in outrage, it is those who felt faith and lost it; who adored stupidly, idiotically, only to understand that politics has a habit of feeding, and promoting, certain acts of self-interested and damaging imbecility.  Trudeau’s actions were those of a person caught up, concerned at the loss of jobs and votes.  Accordingly, he massaged any principles.

Other parties have started to express interest at this fall from grace.  Investigations have been mounted by the Justice Committee and the federal ethics commissioner.  The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has expressed concern over the SNC-Lavalin affair, feeling that it poses a challenge to Canada’s reputation for upholding the rule of law.  NDP MP Charlie Angus insists that the perception of Canada on the “world stage” was at stake.  (Canada’s sense of virtue tends to assume a strained rhetorical quality at points.)  “If Canada is seen as a jurisdiction soft on corporate corruption, Canadians lose out.”

SNC-Lavalin may well be the undoing of the prime minister in every sense, starting with members of his own party, though he seems to have retained support – at least for the moment – within his caucus.  The two resignations did not precipitate movements for an imminent coup. 

If he had simply set his sights lower, clinging to the grime of politics and the arithmetic of amorality, the fall would not only have softened but be lower. Not so.  He felt better; elevated and irritatingly cocky, he could gaze from Olympus on the miscreants and assume that he had become exceptional in the frothy nonsense that is social media and goggle-eyed celebrity.  He could dabble in the world of moose shit and look puppyish and cute.  That time is at an end. 

*

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]

On February 16, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika since 1999 announced his candidacy for a fifth term – despite unable to perform the duties of his office since becoming ill in 2005, especially after a debilitating 2013 stroke.

Large-scale daily protests followed his announcement. Others occurred last December against a fifth term in office.

Organized via social media in Algerian cities, protests rallied against him since mid-February. In the country’s Algiers capital, they’ve been the largest in many years – in a nation where street protests are banned.

According to human rights activists, around 800,000 rallied against him on February 22. On February 24, he was hospitalized in Geneva, Switzerland.

March 3 was the deadline for presidential aspirants to formally announce their candidacy for the nation’s highest office. On March 1, Dzair News television reported that around one million rallied in Algiers against Bouteflika’s candidacy.

Yet on March 3, he announced he’d stand for a fifth term despite strong public opposition. Large-scale protests against him continued, including calls for other candidates to withdraw.

Until March, Algerian media largely ignored street protests. When state TV covered them, protesters were criticized. France’s Le Figero called anti-Bouteflika demonstrations a humiliation for the president and his government.

On March 11 after returning from Geneva, he announced his withdrawal from the race, postponing the April 18 election indefinitely.

On the same day, the Algiers Herald reported the following, saying:

The nation’s “dictatorial regime has opted for the postponement of the election without setting a timeline for the next election, which will likely result in Bouteflika remaining president until his death,” adding:

Regime opponents consider his announcement “a constitutional coup.” The Algerian Constitution only permits postponing an election in time of war, not applicable to things in the country now.

Bouteflika’s announcement challenged popular sentiment, along with violating the country’s Constitution.

He nominated Noureddine Bedoui to serve as prime minister – perhaps his choice to succeed him as president when he formally steps down or dies in office.

On April 28, his legitimacy as president will end. Following Algerian League for the Defense of Human Rights (LADDH)/National Committee for the Defense of the Rights of Unemployed (CNDDC) member Hadj Ghermoul’s demand for “no…fifth term” for Bouteflika, he was arrested and sentenced to six months imprisonment – part of an attempt to quash protests against another term in office.

He aims to retain power directly or indirectly until passing – despite popular sentiment opposing his “mandate of shame.”

Days before postponing the election indefinitely, a statement on his behalf said he “listened and heard the heartfelt cries of the demonstrators,” yet remains a “candidate for the next presidential election.”

Opposition elements mocked him, saying “(w)e have two plans: plan A, for Abdelaziz (his first name). And plan B, for Bouteflika!”

Plan C came on Monday, Bouteflika saying:

“There will be no fifth term. There was never any question of it for me. Given my state of health and age (82), my last duty towards the Algerian people was always contributing to the foundation of a new republic.”

He hasn’t made a public speech since 2013. Over 1,000 judges said they wouldn’t oversea the presidential election with him as a candidate.

Known as “the pouvoir (the power)” since 1999, his formal days in office may be numbered – wanting immunity for crimes in office from whoever succeeds him while still alive.

He governs like Turkey’s Erdogan and Egypt’s el-Sisi, though frail and incapacitated without without their vigor and public posture.

No matter. Underlings enforce his brutal rule though it’s unclear who’s really in charge given his precarious state. Algerians can be imprisoned for “offending the president, “insulting state officials,” or “denigrating Islam.”

Like the US, other Western nations and Israel, Algerian “democracy” is pure fantasy. Hardline regime rule runs the country under Bouteflika, whoever succeeds him in power, and the country’s military.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

At his Monday press conference, Mike Pompeo said “we’ve asked (Congress to appropriate) up to $500 million…to restore the economy of the Venezuelan nation (sic) (and) help Juan Guaido.”

He failed to explain the ongoing Trump regime coup plot, nor that it’s all about replacing Bolivarian social democracy with US-controlled tyranny – DLT and hardliners surrounding him wanting control over Venezuelan oil, gas, gold, and other valued resources.

It’s what the scourge of imperialism is all about, Guaido an illegitimate US designated puppet, usurper in waiting, traitor to Venezuela and its people, belonging in prison longterm for his highest of high political crimes.

What the Trump regime calls “democratic transition” in the Bolivarian Republic and other targeted countries is all about gaining imperial trophies – intolerant of democracy everywhere, notably at home.

Trump’s dystopian FY 2020 budget proposal calls for 23% less State Department funding, USAID’s budget reduced from $52 billion to $40 billion, and other funding for Latin America cut by 27% from $158 million to $116 million.

At the same time, he wants half a billion dollars for regime change in Venezuela – certain to want more later for the same thing in Cuba and Nicaragua.

Claiming funds sought for intervention in Venezuela is also for “respond(ing) to the crisis,” Trump’s budget proposal failed to explain what’s going on in the country was largely made in the USA – by unlawful economic, financial and sanctions war.

Pompeo announced the withdrawal of remaining US embassy and consular staff from Venezuela, ominously saying their presence “has become a constraint on US policy” – likely indicating planned escalation of violence, bloodshed and chaos.

US point man for regime change in Venezuela, convicted felon Elliot Abrams, expanded on Pompeo’s remarks, saying it’s “prudent to take these folks out” because their presence makes it “more difficult for the United States to take the actions that it needed to do to support the Venezuelan people (sic).”

US proxy war is most likely ahead, short of direct Pentagon intervention other than support for anti-government guarimberos – thugs enlisted by Trump regime hardliners to do their dirty work.

When asked about possible US military intervention in Venezuela, the response by Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Abrams is always the same, saying: All options are on the table, meaning they intend doing whatever it takes to achieve their imperial objectives.

Abrams said the Trump regime intends imposing “some very significant” new sanctions on Venezuela “in the coming days,” targeting financial institutions supporting the Bolivarian Republic.

Pressure is being exerted on China, Russia, Turkey, and other countries opposing the Trump regime’s coup plot with no success so far. Around 50 countries back the scheme, the rest of the world community and UN against it.

On March 12, a State Department travel advisory said the following:

“Do not travel to Venezuela” because of the risks involved. “US citizens residing or traveling in Venezuela should depart” the country. Consular services in Caracas are no longer being provided.

Was warning US citizens in Venezuela to leave ahead of planned escalated Trump regime violence to topple Maduro? Are Pompeo, Bolton, and Abrams intending to turn the country into a virtual war zone – with Pentagon and CIA help?

Bolton warned the Bolivarian Republic separately, saying

“(w)e will continue to intensify our efforts to end Maduro’s usurpation of Venezuela’s Presidency (sic) and will hold the military and security forces responsible for protecting the Venezuelan people.”

At the same time, Trump regime policies aim to inflict maximum pain and suffering on them, aiming to enlist popular support for the coup plot, a failed scheme every time tried before in other countries.

Bolton also said insurance companies and flag carriers were put “on notice” to cease facilitating Venezuelan oil shipments.

He, Pompeo and Abrams are trying to form an anti-Bolivarian coalition for regime change, Bolton saying:

“We are trying to rally support for the peaceful transition of power (sic) from Maduro to Juan Guaido, whom we recognize as president (sic),” adding:

“I’d like to see as broad a coalition as we can put together to replace Maduro, to replace the whole corrupt regime (sic). That’s what we are trying to do.”

Days earlier, he said

“we’re not afraid to use the phrase ‘Monroe Doctrine,’ ” adding Venezuela “is a country in our (sic) hemisphere. The US wants “to have a completely democratic hemisphere (sic).”

Republicans and undemocratic Dems abhor the notion at home and abroad, tolerating it nowhere, wanting it eliminated it wherever it exists, notably in Venezuela – a longtime threat of a good example US hardliners want prevented from spreading to other countries.

A Final Comment

On Tuesday, Venezuelan Communications Minister Jorge Rodriguez said

“electricity supply had been restored almost completely throughout the whole national territory.”

Whether it’s sustainable is uncertain. Further cyberattacks on the electrical grid may happen if targeting it to cause economic harm is part of the Trump regime’s plan.

On Tuesday, Maduro said he’ll ask the UN, Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba for help in protecting against further cyberattack-caused blackouts.

He appointed a “special presidential commission to investigate” what happened. He seeks help from “international specialists,” adding:

Power nationwide was largely restored. “We now need to reinforce it, to make it reliable and impregnable 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.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Uncle Sam Loves You, so Buy American, or Else…

March 13th, 2019 by Helen Buyniski

The US is so enamored of its role as sole world superpower that it thinks nothing of mistreating allies, never believing they might tire of the abuse and run away – into the arms of China, or – perish the thought – Russia.

The Trump administration has never met a failed policy it wouldn’t embrace, from attempting to ignite a color revolution in Iran (after stamping out actual democracy there half a century ago), to throwing good money after bad in the two-decade-long quagmire of Afghanistan. With a stranglehold on the world’s reserve currency, even the most expensive mistakes – and at $22 trillion in debt, a lot have been made – have largely theoretical consequences, and just as Wall Street is able to outsource risk to Main Street, the US can sleep well at night knowing the fallout of its bad decisions is unfolding largely outside its borders.

Bristling with nuclear enthusiasm after throwing aside the INF with a Strangelovian flourish, promising to take its bloated and over-equipped military to space “the better to menace you with,” brutalizing even its own citizens both physically and psychologically with constant surveillance, and wielding punitive sanctions against putative allies for daring to defy its petty economic vendettas, the US is the geopolitical equivalent of an abusive romantic partner. And its allies are finally waking up to the realization that perhaps it’s time to break things off.

The biggest indignity yet was the ludicrous demand that NATO allies pay to host the American troops permanently garrisoned there – to essentially bankroll their own occupations. Last week, it was reported the US would begin asking some of its most hospitable allies – those nations home to hundreds of thousands of soldiers – to foot the bill for the cost of keeping them “safe.” While the cost breakdown hasn’t been decided yet, it may include the actual salaries of the soldiers stationed there – which would make the “quartering” policy that helped set off the American Revolution look positively civilized in comparison. Over two-thirds of the residents of Okinawa, where the US wants to relocate a military base, voted against the plan in a referendum last month. Construction is going ahead anyway. With allies like these, who needs enemies?

Adding insult to this financial injury, those countries whose policies “align closely” with the US would get an unspecified “discount” on their occupation bill – while those countries who didn’t play ball would, presumably, face the prospect of hundreds of thousands of disgruntled, well-armed American troops on their soil. “Gee, that’s a nice country you got there. Would be a real shame if something happened to it.” The US has been accused of acting like a mafia state before, but prior to Trump, its leaders seldom embraced the designation with such zest. One has to respect his honesty, at least – as Ilhan Omar said (and then quickly tried to un-say), Barack Obama’s policies were almost indistinguishable, except they were delivered by a pretty face, with a smile capable of speaking in complete sentences.

And where would an abusive relationship be without gaslighting? The US insists, to all who will listen, that its puppet Juan Guaido is recognized the world over as the legitimate ruler of Venezuela, even though no more than 54 countries have fallen in line behind his self-appointed leadership. Even the mainstream US media – hardly a pack of truth-tellers – has come under attack by Sen. Marco Rubio, who accused CNN of Russian collusion for referring to Guaido as the “self-proclaimed” president of Venezuela. Not to be outdone, Abrams has threatened second-order sanctions against those nations that refuse to declare 2 + 2 = 5 and embrace the unelected frontman for another good old-fashioned South American resource-grab. Never mind international law – second-order sanctions are not, in fact, a thing – but almost three-quarters of the UN still backs Nicolas Maduro, the elected President of Venezuela.

Like any abusive partner, the US is wildly jealous. Germany is the primary target of its covetous rages, courted as it is both by Russia, with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and China, whose Huawei is currently in talks to build 5G wireless infrastructure. Huawei has even opened a “cybersecurity and transparency center” in Brussels in a bid to sway the whole EU into acknowledging its technological superiority, even as the US attempts to jail the company’s CFO and ban its products across the western world. So far, this is a battle the US is losing, despite their efforts to convince allies that Huawei is secretly a Chinese spy plot – concerns Berlin perhaps feels justified in ignoring since learning that US intelligence spent over a decade listening in on Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone calls – so on Monday they upped the ante, issuing an ultimatum to Berlin that should they scorn the wishes of the world’s only superpower, the US would no longer be able to cooperate with German security agencies. Officially, this is because of the risk of Chinese backdoors built into the equipment. Realistically, this is the behavior of a petty, jealous lover. Germany can do so much better. So can the rest of the world.

*

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

Helen Buyniski is a journalist and photographer based in New York City. Her work has appeared on RT, Progressive Radio Network, and Veterans Today. Helen has a BA in Journalism from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University. Find more of her work at http://www.helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Uncle Sam Loves You, so Buy American, or Else…

The Day American Activism Died, or… the First Rule of Democracy!

March 13th, 2019 by Brett Redmayne-Titley

“Democracy Has Just Been A Word…Never Been An Act!” -Wall Graffiti / 2016 Thailand Military Coup.    

5:05 AM. February 4, 2012. It’s almost pitch dark. No one has slept this night. The only morning illumination comes from scores of dimly glowing dots of blues, greens, yellows, reds or orange inside a patchwork of hundreds of still standing tents. Most sit empty for the first time in months; a lamp left on during their vacancy. Nearby, the tall, jet-black and ornate sidewalk lamp poles lining the concrete walkways of McPherson Park here in Washington D.C. provide a few additional stage lights, their bright-white cones casting a single spotlight on their foreground.

Under these spotlights, peering nervously across this scene into the depths of the grey-on-black streaks of the approaching morning, many small groups of protesters stand huddled together, as if for warmth, against the brisk, sub-zero February morning as the first warning flashes of dank sunrise announce this day. The night’s silence is broken as the voices from these groups slowly rise. There is anxiety in the sound. Nervousness. And…

Fear. Fear of how bad this day would turn out to be. Yes, the tents were all still there, for now. The stalwarts had stayed out of principle. Their hearts and minds would not be swayed. This morning, they huddled, shoulder to shoulder in their groups, hot tea, coffee or a freshly light cig cupped in hand; finding support within their waning numbers. All knew as they glanced about the fringes of the park, second-by-second… today was going to be a very bad day.

The cops are coming.

*

In the next few hours, made-up of minutes that wore on in slow-motion horror, it would all be over. Finished. All that once was and could have been of the last outbreak of effective democratic American activism would be stripped bare; stomped into submission, its rattling bones, like the hundreds of nearby multi-coloured tents, cast into a huge trash can of US history thus offended. By the end of this day, American activism would be dead. Its leadership dead as our collective cause. The one we, who still stood our ground this morning, shivering, used as a nationwide rallying cry to everyone who could still hear and listen. For months we had shouted, often screamed that name, that dream, that goal, that one call to action. That threat. The one we all so defiantly called, “Occupy.”

Yeah, American activism would be dead this day. Dead as the American dream.

The one we were all trying to save.

The Last Victory for American Activism

“Protest is when I say I don’t like this. Resistance is when I put an end to what I don’t like. Protest is when I say I refuse to go along with this anymore. Resistance is when I make sure everybody else stops going along too.” Ulrike Meinhof

This February morning, all had reason for fear. We all knew that we would not win on this day. The First Rule of Democracy – the numbers, the ratio-cops-to-activists– did not bode well for a victory in our nation’s capital this morning.  But, the First Rule had beaten them back, beaten them badly, once before. We knew that the cops remembered, as some of us did now, that turbulent morning aeons ago. Two months before.

Some of us huddled here shoulder-to-shoulder had first been in Los Angeles at America’s biggest Occupy camp at City Hall. Oh, the cops came to kick us out on that morning, too, and for the exact same reasons. But it took ‘em two tries to do it!

The memory of that great day: that incredible night until morning when we, those of us who finally stood up for ourselves, and for others, against what we knew was festering all around us. That one morning when… we finally won. There, under the lampposts, those of us who were there that day in L.A. told the fable of that glory day to those who had only heard about that Sunday. That day too long ago when we, together, kicked those cop’s fucking asses.

Without firing a shot or throwing a punch we, the Occupiers in LA, had showcased what Occupy actually stood for to our nation. A reminder of the First Rule of Democracy. That day, we used our collective middle fingers to give the bastards a whipping they would not forget.

Now, we shivered and prepared for what we all knew would be our own ass-kicking to come.

“They’ll have to drag me out…” was said again-and-again to draw courage on that morning, too. That story of LA brought needed smiles to nervous faces as it was told. All the while, all eyes darted about in the day’s slow illumination, watching. Listening.

 

*

It was the morning of that great day in November 2011. Driving south towards San Diego city, like so many other southern Californians, the news of the day’s eviction of the Los Angeles Occupy camp- the biggest in the nation- was broadcast over the car radio. Trouble was brewing and the cops were massing on the fringes of city Hall grounds to begin the threatened eviction.

Unless…?

Yes, on that Sunday Nov. 29,we, the people: the disaffected, the poor, the homeless and those of us who honoured our conscience and still believed in the possibility of changing our world for the better would, as one, look right through the grey-tinted face shields and into the eyes of 1000 black jacketed, riot-gear-clad cops. Not one of us backing up… one… single… inch.

The eviction notice of Occupy LA spread like a herald’s call to action. They came.

It was time.

Southern California flooded into Los Angeles City Hall. By noon over three thousand. By 4 PM four thousand. By the time the biggest General Assembly (GA) ever was convened on the city hall steps, the crowd swamped the City Hall grounds from centre stage of W. 1st Street to the side streets of N. Main and N. Spring., nearing 6000 strong. I was standing at the top of the massive stone entryway steps looking down at the milling crowd as the twilight of this night approached, taking pictures by the score and smiling so hard the edges of my mouth cramped.

This was a real protest.

Finally.

The energy was electric, infectious. The crowd was getting ever louder as calls for “Mic Check” were ignored, until calm was finally restored and the first speaker and the laborious Occupy democratic process was introduced to the crowd. “Shut the fuck up!” could be heard from many well-intentioned Occupiers demanding a return to civility and decorum- and silence- as others shared stern looks with the few remaining offenders until the message of respect was universally received. Quiet.

“The cops ain’t gonna be able to control this mob, tonight,” I heard a voice remark just off my right shoulder. This was a prescient comment indeed. It came from a City Hall cop standing right next to me. “Those cops move… it’s going to be a full-blown riot.”

Indeed.

He was referring to the hundreds of cops-over a thousand – with more arriving by the hour– all in full black riot gear, who lined all four streets all the way back to W. Temple. Standing almost shoulder to shoulder they surrounded the entire City Hall grounds and every side street and alleyway. Unlike the affable cop near me, these cops were here to evict everyone, by force. From the vicious, penetrating stares they provided to anyone within eyeshot, they were absolutely salivating at the chance to get started.

But there was just one problem. Actually six thousand problems… and growing. Those damn Occupiers, many who stood deliberately and directly in front of many a cop, just inches away, staring back. They were growing in number. And getting louder. Much louder. All waited for the moment when all those cops took their first step forwards. And, then…

No one was here to back down tonight.

It was time.

It had only been two months before that LA city council members were writing proclamations in favour of Occupy and singing its praises as a new form of non-violent, democratic protest. They had invited Occupy to stay on the city hall grounds. The Occupiers were welcome to come and stay…and protest, or so they said in glowing oratory. And the LA camp grew, becoming the biggest in America with over 1000 tents and 1500 Occupiers daily. Zuccotti in N.Y.C and McPherson and Freedom Plaza in DC were mere postage stamps by comparison.

Occupy within weeks became so much more than merely an opposition movement. Occupy became an example. By providing social services long since gutted from local society, the example Occupy showcased in many ways was the only example of society’s remaining obligation to the unfortunate. LA streets are a very unsafe place to sleep and the City deliberately provides little assistance in the failed hope that the homeless will finally move on. Somewhere. However, all were at least safe and could eat at the Camp. Despite the drug abuse, assorted low-lifes and nefarious side of the Occupy camps, violence was virtually unheard of. Non-violence, tolerance and diversity were embraced and preached as an integral part of Occupy. A communal spirit pervaded the camps and this included an educational component, as small symposiums, lectures and talks on assorted democratic principles were held throughout each day for any who chose to sit in and learn.

These were exciting days.

Sunday in the Park With Occupy

Education is the Most Powerful Weapon One Can Use to Change the World” Nelson Mandela

To understand the effectiveness and leadership that the Occupy camps so quickly provided nationally, all one needs to have done was stop into the camps, as so many did, on any Sunday morning.

Occupy camps had sprung up in more than a hundred cities and towns, big and small, across America. Zuccotti Park, New York City, got most of the press- and the money- during those crazy days when it seemed that activism had finally returned to leading the conscience of the nation. Every state Capital city had an Occupy Camp and local politicians sang the praises of the new populist form of inclusive democracy and non-violent opposition.

Yes, like LA, these camps were an amalgam of passionate activists, the homeless, drug abusers, and the temporarily interested. However, to a suddenly threatened Government not used to effective opposition, the Occupy camps were a much bigger problem than the Occupiers themselves realized. For these camps from sea to shining sea were, behind the scenes, just weeks away from having a new separate national Occupy political platform.

From the massive Los Angeles camp of well over one thousand to McPherson Park in D.C. down to the small camps of Austin, TX and San Luis Obispo, Calif, Sunday was the most special day of every week. The camps on these days were a true sign that the opposition Occupy had created was working. And, support was growing.

Beginning in the mornings each Sunday and continuing often until past dark, people came from everywhere. They came to the camps. Many said, they “had to.” Their obligation.

It was time.

Yes, they showed up at the camps. Every type of American. Race? Sex?  Religion? Didn’t matter. They came with food to share. Freshly baked cakes, cookies, little tarts. Hot soup. Cigarettes or a bit of weed to share. They came with clothes and donations. There were always extra coats and jackets available to newly arriving Occupiers.

Each and every visitor came in spirit. Looking across the camps, conversations in groups took place among the tents or on the sidewalks next to the monuments, lampposts, and street corners, the participants locked together in impassioned, but collegial discourse while others listened carefully. Many who were interviewed spoke of their personal need to be involved in any manner, even for one day, but also of their need for accurate information due to their distrust of the media. It was satisfying to see so many people coming together. The camp took on a conspiratorial, hushed, tone. This reporter interviewed many people at McPherson who went to work daily but stayed in their own heat-less tent- in February- every night.

Then there was the Occupy platform. Across the breadth of the nation’s camps, all were trying via the slow laborious machinations of Occupy democracy and inclusion of all, to effect a national platform that would be presented to all Occupiers for a national vote. And then?  A new political party. This, by the very nature of Occupy’s all-inclusive democratic proceedings, was a daunting task indeed. But one embraced with hope. Not the fake political kind. Real Hope.

From the vantage point of those venturing to the Camps, this was American society renewed. Discussion, disagreement, tolerance, inclusion, love and a spirit of cooperation for the good of all. Everyone.  All welcome. These societal tenets had been virtually destroyed by an ongoing capitalist set of self-serving US governments over the past forty years. There was now an optimism that pervaded the many impassioned conversations and it shined on the faces of those who roamed the camps on these Sundays.

We were starting to believe.

However, an Obama administration predisposed to the continued gutting of what little was left of American social responsibility, had a decidedly different view of Occupy. To the “primal forces of nature” thus challenged, this was not democracy renewed. This was not non-violent protest. No, in a nation of purchased leaders Occupy was to them a different example of leadership.

It was a threat.

*

With LA City having almost no food program for the homeless, it was the Camp that filled this fundamental role as well.  This November night, as the emotions of this night, rose and fell, I spent several hours in the company of Daniel T. as we watched for the cops to begin this night’s attack from our vantage point high up on the top of the City Hall steps. Dan, a thirty-year-old chef at a local restaurant proudly told me how he had organized the massive tent kitchen that lined the sidewalk of W.1St. street and how he and forty plus volunteers were preparing and cooking a free breakfast and dinner for 1500 or more. Everyday. Anyone who was hungry was welcome.

This evening’s dinner had been cancelled.

Each morning he and his old yellow Toyota pick-up would be down at the LA Wholesale Produce markets of Central and Olympic Streets in downtown. There he spoke with dozens of wholesale vendors asking for bruised or slightly blemished produce. The response was tremendous, he said, and each morning he returned laden to gunwales with the day’s ingredients. Augmented by other food donations and a tiny donated budget, he and the other cooks turned this into a basic, but the nutritious meal, so that no one had to go hungry. Why? “Fuck man…it’s the right thing to do, right? That’s why I’m here.”

But as the winter closed in, the media did its job and echoed the many politicians who had already turned tail on Occupy. Yes, there were drugs. The camps were noisy and sleep was not always easy. Garbage collected despite volunteer details performing clean-up. The haphazard set-up of the hundreds of tents was a tattered assortment at best, but never once did I see a rat. Well, except for the ones who appeared on the City Hall steps asking us to now take our game of democracy and go home.

Then the eviction notices came out.

Typically, the cops arrived in the wee hours of Friday morning, posting the single page eviction notices on tents, trees, trash cans and street signs as they stole quietly through the Camp in groups of three. Then the alarm of the day went off. That morning everyone knew what they did not, all these weeks, want to admit would ever come: It was on!

The stated eviction deadline was Sunday at 5 PM. Everyone out. No exceptions. Out or be arrested.

Well… maybe.

That Powerful Sweet Smell in the Morning. Smells like… Victory!

“There is absolutely no greater high than challenging the power structure as a nobody, giving it your all, and winning!”Abbie Hoffman

The media which had also turned so quickly on Occupy was also, this day in LA, spoiling for some high news ratings and looking forward to some good old fashioned police brutality. Coverage of the pending eviction was all over the news and scores of reporters roamed the LA camp, acting cool, but didn’t give a shit about the truth of this national story. Well, that was their job. Their news copters hovered overhead until the cops cleared the skies in preparation.

But, all their coverage instead brought out the city and the surrounding counties. By Saturday, hundreds more had come down with their tents and donations. But, on Sunday when 1500 Occupiers seemed about to get very seriously worked by the ever-mounting police militia, for some of conscience and pent up outrage, this all was too much for one to stand by and merely watch-on in sympathy from afar.

That day and that longest of nights I talked with dozens who had driven to be at the camp that day for one simple reason: to finally say, “No!”  Like this reporter, they had made the first move, decided to do something, after far too long.

It was time.

*

That Sunday night seemed to last forever on a razor’s edge. One wrong move by a protester and the Cops would have devolved into an orgy of mace, batons and tasers. Guns? One attack by any one of the cops would have thrown all that pent-up and frenzied kinetic energy, outrage, and desperation of the 6000 Occupiers raining down on these political henchmen en mass.

As it approached 4 AM of Monday, the tete-a-tete remained nose to nose. Bullhorns from the cops attempted continually to intimidate the protesters into leaving, while bullhorns from the Occupiers and the banshee screams from the protesters answered their challenge. The morning was coming.

From atop the City Hall steps we all agreed that the cops were not going to let this night continue for long. The protesters still struggled out loud with their personal moral dilemma: whether to get out of camp beforehand, or continuing to stand in unison, using one historically successful democratic tactic: The First Rule of Democracy.

By now, the crowd undulated like some kind of massive wounded animal writhing in preparation for one last gasp of life before death. As cop cars screamed down the streets scores of bicycle riding protesters suddenly whirled towards them circling the grounds on the perimeter streets in renewed defiance, pedaling furiously. Small groups, getting bigger as they attracted participants, prepared for their own pending defensive actions. Couples boldly walked the perimeter sidewalks, arm in arm, showing the cops that they were scared of them no more.

Bullhorns bellowed from the phalanxes of cops. The perimeter boundaries on all four streets became solid; twenty deep with protesters on all sides as the defences of personal liberty squared off inches from the masked all-black pigs. The knife edge was literally drawn: The street gutter of oppression right before the grass-fringed sidewalk of resistance.

Now, one-by-one, Occupiers old and new linked hands, just feet from the police front lines in a show of solidarity- an unbroken chain- that surrounded the entire grounds.  More than a half-mile in circumference. Organizers called again and again for calm as the cops bellowed for them to leave… or else! On the four sidewalks, the front lines of the cops and the protesters stood inches apart, face to face, nose to nose. The cops played with their nightsticks or fingered their cans of mace threateningly. The protesters returned the threat with the one weapon so hated by every cop in attendance… the middle finger of a self-confident smile. Oh, they all wanted to beat all of us to a pulp and were begging to see the festivities begin in earnest. Some had been rooted to the same spot for hours, wordless, unsmiling… vicious.

Suddenly, 5:35 A.M.  A historic roar. Thousands, yes thousands, of spontaneous cheers erupting in unison across the grounds of City Hall. A cacophony echoing off the surrounding concrete buildings. The cheers of the thousands of us who had- that very moment- seen with our own eyes the unimaginable, what we had all thought was impossible that night. What we had all silently prayed for. These cops, after more than eighteen hours of intimidation and a monstrous show of force… they now turned on their heels in unison… they went backwards.

They went home!

Victory! Our victory! A national victory. For those, we were fighting for and the ideas we all shared. It was a very great morning. It was thrilling. It was unbelievable… to be able to “believe” in something once again. After so, so long.

On this crystal blue southern California morning, I walked through the crisp slowly warming air swinging in circles of joy around lamp posts and parking meters one-by-one on the long trip back to my car. The cops were still everywhere; on every side street and alleyway, all standing in clusters near line after line of cop cars of all shapes and sizes. They grimaced, staring at me as I paraded my reverie before their nasty faces. I considered my own middle finger as a final message before disappearing from their sight, but then instead laughed out loud, guffaws of satisfaction and happiness. For I realized that today, this day, we had all already given them- every single cop-  the best middle finger possible.

But, in the eternal optimism of that amazing morning, none of us could know that this victory would be the last- ever- for non-violent American activism.

Yeah, the LA cops came back on the Tuesday and stomped us real good. But they still proved the First Rule of Democracy. That day, the inverted ratio of cops to protesters was 4:1. The wrong way, this time.

They breezed through the camp on Tuesday in what could only be described as a full blown attack. Everyone got kettled or beaten, forced into huge groups, except for the wounded, and put on buses that then left for Dodger Stadium parking lot to sit, hour after hour in the heat of the day. No bathroom breaks, no news, just sitting there boiling in the sun.

All the while, the cops surrounded the dozens of buses, standing or leaning on their black-and-whites, glowering. And smiling.

The demise of the LA Occupy camp and the legend of that Sunday were the best advertising Occupy could have had. People across America were now following this leadership. Opposition was rising. City by city, it had found a place to fester and grow stronger. It had found fertile ground and its roots were growing far too quickly. The remaining camps nationwide continued to grow. Activism flourished.

It was time.

The Cold Dead Joke of the Late Night Comedian

“Politics is the only art whose artists regularly disown their masterpieces.” ― Raheel Farooq

Before Occupy became a household name splashed across the daily news cycle, Americans, particularly those whose cynicism had not lost a sense of humour, realized some other undeniable, important and yet often ignored rules about their national condition. One: Their government- from POTUS to Congress- is utterly controlled by capitalist corporations and a fear mongering military that holds complete sway of all their politicians. Two: The media cannot be trusted. Be it Newspaper, Radio, Television or Cable, the media, almost without exception serves the interest of the established regime.

Hence, a very new political affectation arose from a place never before considered as part of the News Media: the snarky, quick-witted late-night comedian as a pundit of popular opinion and a new voice of a disenfranchised nation. What news exec. would have thought that the tiny, struggling cable channel, Comedy Central, would suddenly take a prominent place within mainstream news media and steal ratings and respect from these increasingly propagandized news corporations?

Enter Jon Stewart and protege Stephen Colbert.

Stewart had spent years as host of “The Daily Show.” His acerbic wit and bold, direct – yet cuttingly humorous- interview style slowly manifested into his daily political commentary. From the opening monologue through his cutting duplicitous interview questions, he challenged his many guests, exposing them as being mere pawns in the system he regularly mocked to the growing glee of his attentive viewers. As the show grew in popularity Stewart’s rendition of the daily news and current events became a more trusted voice in the wind of media lies and propaganda. Not surprisingly, The Daily Show became one of the top-rated shows on cable TV with millions tuning in each evening. It became more than obvious that Stewart knew very well the power he had gained in honestly exposing the lies of the status quo and his nightly demeanour brimmed with confidence. But his was something more than that… something that became more and more apparent as the Daily Show sharpened its collective sword of political humour. Stewart’s persona was no longer mere comedy. It was, now, leadership.

Many forget that once Walter Cronkite, the career old-school journalist and decades-long anchor of the CBS evening news, was considered the most trusted man in America. In a by-gone era when news was based substantially on facts, on-scene reporting, two-sided analysis and competition among the big three networks, CBS, ABC and NBC, Cronkite exemplified the highest standard of news. Unlike, the teleprompter reading, make-up slathered, talking heads currently featured across all news media, in a long-gone world full of take-no-prisoners, gumshoe journalism, Cronkite had risen the top, and he had earned it the hard way. More important than Cronkite’s eventual legacy as an icon of American news, when he retired on air at the end of his final “The CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite,” the nation across the breadth of American media knew that “news” had lost more… it had lost a leader. Never to be replaced.

As trustworthy American journalism began its slow but steady transformation into one national American Völkischer Beobachter, the networks were replaced in prominence by cable news and then cable news dutifully descended into what it has become today: Entertainment propaganda for dullards designed to maintain wholesale ignorance and the authoritarian status quo control of same. Two decades on from the Cronkite era, what little intelligence that still remained in America was hungry for news that confirmed their growing suspicion that… we’re all fucked.

This left the news door open for Stewart and his political variety show to become a similarly trusted voice. Like Cronkite, a large portion of the nation gravitated to his words and political commentary because he, too, was offering the truth. Hell, it had to be the truth, ’cause no one else was saying it!

His eventual sidekick, Stephen Colbert, a man of incredibly gifted wit and a talent for spontaneous, unscripted, ad-lib humour worked his occasional hilarious five-minute political parodies into being a regular feature on Stewart’s show. Colbert was a different sort than Stewart and entered the show at a time when The Daily Show had already begun to morph into a political force and leadership that commanded ever-increasing viewership because of it. So the show was ready for Colbert and his brand of hilarious, deep cutting, if not hurtful, political brand of humour. Colbert’s style augmented Stewart’s shtick perfectly. Not surprisingly, Colbert’s very rare comedic talents earned him a show of his own, “The Colbert Report” which immediately followed The Daily Show. Stewart’s show became the set-up routine handed off to Colbert every evening.

Colbert showed real brass and was even more aggressive in destroying his interviewees. Arrogant political leaders using their standard talking points were excoriated by Colbert because he knew his subject well and his adversary better. His humour not only exposed them, it mocked them and what they had come to his show and try to stand for. Colbert took obvious delight as he left most of them quivering for mercy as the audience roared in guffaws of ridicule, and approval, of these political leaders, being thus stripped bare naked by their new hero.

Colbert was so politically effective, and funny, that his public destruction of so many politicians forced House Speaker John Boehner to advise, in writing, that Republicans avoid Colbert’s invitations to be on the show. His daily mockery of the American condition, like Stewart’s, was not limited to individual political hypocrisy or either political party. His ongoing factual examination of the results of the incredibly divisive Citizen’s United US Supreme Court decision- that made corporations into people in order to justify unlimited campaign financing- was some of the only correct commentary available from any media source. Like Stewart, Colbert had gone from comedian to political pundit and next to leader. He showed this as he regularly brought to his show people of impeccable credentials in their fields and offered them to his viewers as a counterpoint to the established MSM narrative. Many of the issues he tackled continued to be updated and expanded on week after week as his education and viewership on important current events continued to increase.

Both shows became so popular that there was a six-month waiting list for audience tickets. When visiting New York City in 2010, a line of young people hoping for a remaindered ticket stretched down the avenue for a hundred yards or more. Colbert and Stewart had become political rock stars. Acknowledgements, praise and awards came in as both hosts showcased their success, which they gladly acknowledged was due to their growing audience’s allegiance to them and their quest for alternative news. People and organizations paid tribute to them, their shows and what they had accomplished as the new mirror against growing American political oppression. And that popularity continued to grow as did the leadership that their shows offered to a waking portion of an outraged nation, a new voice of opposition deliberately inspired.

Then… they went too far.

*

It was early 2010. Building on the success of both shows, Stewart and Colbert began using their daily evening platforms to advertise a new milestone in their comedic leadership. Before Occupy exemplified the First Rule of Democracy, both understood that their nation needed a single gathering point for all those who wanted to make their own voices heard in Washington and across the nation. Hence, they booked the entire Washington Mall, the scene of great moments in US history. Its stated purpose was to provide a venue for attendees to be heard above what Stewart described as the more vocal and extreme 15–20% of Americans who “control the conversation” of American politics.  This would be a gathering of like minds and a symbol of protest to those dark minions housed in their fortifications close by. They called their call to action, “The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear!”

The event was largely ignored by MSM and the networks as just another crackpot stunt, but in a sign of the popularity of both the shows, word spread and people came from everywhere. Interviewed during the month-long ramp-up to the event that would be broadcast live for three uninterrupted hours on Comedy Central on Oct 30, 2010, Stewart and Colbert said that they were hoping for, perhaps, 100,000 to attend.

So when both took to the huge elevated banner draped stage on that crisp and clear DC morning, the looks on their faces, as they started from side to side along the length of the huge mall, the smiles they wore said more than they could have imagined. There were not 100,000 in front of the stage; estimates actually approached 250,000. They had, like their government, completely underestimated the numbers and the outrage of the nation, one that had got off their couches that day, got in their cars and finally made a personal effort to make one personal statement. To finally say, “No!”

It was time.

All stood, laughed and cheered as both hosts and their guests that ranged from Ozzie Osborne to the recently arrested terrorist ex-musician Cat Stevens graced the stage and mocked, again and again, the lies, the distortions, the control and the manufactured fear created by politicians and their minions in their government and their media. Stewart spontaneously tried to quantify the surprising and overwhelming success of the protest by starting a human wave from across the stage front and sending it backwards through the crowd. The wave took so long to reach the back that Stewart began a second, then third wave. So, it became very obvious to Stewart, Colbert and a nation watching on a once very minor cable channel- and to the status quo- America was really pissed!

As these two leaders bid goodbye to these maddening throngs of rejuvenated Americans on that DC afternoon, admonishing them with more humour, to come together, work together and all get along together in this day’s final humorous salvo designed to re-propagate their goals for this day, the nation had suddenly taken an incredible step towards restoring Sanity and eliminating Fear. This day, Stewart and Colbert had taken what they had so slowly and methodically built for years and established their shows and themselves as true and effective leaders of a new opposition. They were ready for truly big results to come. They were doing what no others had managed to do in decades: The times… they were a-changing’!

Or that’s how it seemed on that glorious day, nearly a decade ago. Oh, yes! It seemed like a victory.

But…

In the nearby dark basement halls inhabited by the black-hearted practitioners of unlimited greed and American authoritarian capitalist control, this day’s successful event was not the comedy event of the decade. It was a horror show.

A year later, when the advent of Occupy philosophically echoed what Stewart and Colbert had helped start, giving a place for the opposition to ferment, both hosts paid homage to those Occupiers and Occupy camps that had now joined them on front lines of opposition. Daily, viewers tuned in to see them showcase this new focus of daily opposition. The ratings of both The Colbert Report and The Daily Show, for the same reasons that had made the DC event on the Mall exceed all expectations, were still growing; as was their influence. The Occupiers, like Stewart and Colbert, were the new leaders of the opposition and everyone of like mind and desperation was welcome to join.

Sincere leaders, real leaders- those that lead on behalf and inclusion of others without demand for personal gain -are the greatest rarity in our modern world. These leaders, in the minds of established hypocrisy, avarice and greed, are the greatest threat. The vital ingredient to the First Rule. Something had to be done.

When it did, retribution happened oh, so quickly.

The Day American Activism Died

“I’m for truth, no matter who tells it. I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” ― Malcolm X

6:00 AM. February 4, 2012.  McPherson Park. “They’re here!” came the sudden shout of warning, snapping everyone at McPherson and camps across the nation, to attention. It was true. They were here. Cops. Hundreds.

They were coming our way.

On the western edge of McPherson Park, Khaki uniformed DC Park Service police combined with DC metro police. Near them, Yellow long sleeved Haz-Mat suited and gloved sanitation workers stood with huge trash bins near bigger trash trucks ready to raze this park, its tents and all the ideals that this park had stood for during the past four months, directly into the dust bin for US history. Vanquished.

Again, their bullhorns of oppression blared warnings to us to leave or be arrested. Most had left, many had stayed. In an interesting loophole of DC metro law, tents were actually OK. Sleeping in them was not. Thus, anyone having a tent and a sleeping bag had their tent summarily chucked into the rubbish bin. Anyone resisting was arrested. Without the numbers needed for effective opposition- like in LA- these hit men, the cops and the workers, roamed free, tossing the last vestiges of our hopes into bins, smashing them to pieces.

Under an ageing, four-sided, floppy, olive drab military tent, Mike,the camp librarian had spent months culling a very substantial collection of donated books that numbered in the thousands into a correctly categorized library on make-shift wooden shelves for all to use freely. His was a library in a tent and Mike slept elsewhere. This fact and the many remaining Occupiers made this clear. So, as the Camp became almost barren, the final spectacle of Mike and his library still stood as one last middle figure to the cops. There he stood as we yelled encouragement and the cops waited for him to finally fall asleep… to be arrested, all his books and their stores of knowledge to be burned at the stake of America’s capitalist pyre.

The final nightmare had begun.

Across the nation, on this day and the next, every remaining camp of any size or influence was crashed by the cops. Denver went down during a driving snowstorm. Philly got beat up pretty bad we were told. Zuccotti had already gone down, but their reappearance on the concrete rotunda was anticipated and put down brutally by New York’s finest. Small camps like San Luis Obispo, Calif and Austin, Texas were left alone to wither and die without support from the nation or their brothers in state capital Occupy camps.

By the end of the day, that terrible daylight years ago, we had all been defeated. Our leaders had been taken and our collective national Occupy political platform- so tantalizingly close to fruition- was left to twist in the wind for all to laugh at and forget.

Did we forget?

Yes, there was talk of how to regroup, to begin anew, but without the Camps that provided the gathering place for this opposition to grow and congregate the national Occupy camps were doomed to a Hooverville-like fate at the hands of a government once again threatened by non-violent public protest. Yeah, it was over quickly. Too quickly for a movement so close to success. All that was left of the government stopping we insurgents was mopping up what little remained of any potential future  leadership.

This day, come nightfall, American activism was stone dead.

Colbert went from political leader to political sell-out in no time, prostituting his skills and success in order to become the exact same political shill he had rallied against and encouraged his viewers to fight against. The last two years of the Colbert Report had almost none of the bite as before and interviewees were generally a milquetoast assortment. His reward for whoring out his legacy was the Late Show. Nowadays, four nights a week, Colbert spews scripted status quo pablum to the ignorant masses. Like the many other late night pundits who together could not ad lib a fart at a baked bean contest, he is paid lavishly – in Rachelle Maddow style- to help keep them in line.

Stewart had the sincerity to bow out before he was forced to sell-out. He is today rarely heard from, his legacy has faded into oblivion. He too, like Colbert, became the personification of one last, very sad, tasteless, and disgusting political joke: Not the one about what once was…the one about what might have been!

By 3 p.m., the southern half of McPherson Square had been mostly cleared out, with bulldozers clearing off the top layer of soil, which was removed by dump trucks.

And so it goes.

*

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

Author’s Note: This concludes Part One of: “The Day American Activism Died – The First Rule of Democracy. Please see this News Site for Part Two: “Why Julian Assange Sits in Stir!”

Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 170 in-depth articles over the past eight years for news agencies worldwide. Many have been translated. On-scene reporting from important current events has been an emphasis that has led to his many multi-part exposes on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, Keystone XL Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Erdogan’s Turkey and many more. He can be reached at: live-on-scene ((at)) gmx.com. Prior articles can be viewed at his archive: www.watchingromeburn.uk

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Day American Activism Died, or… the First Rule of Democracy!

An historical exhibit designed to examine various aspects of the life and people of the Monticello plantation in Virginia during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, which was owned by Thomas Jefferson, has prompted protests in Detroit.

Members of the Black Legacy Coalition (BLC) have held press conferences and made public statements objecting to the hosting of “Slavery at Jefferson’s Monticello: Paradox of Liberty” by the Dr. Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History located in the Midtown district of the city.

On March 12, approximately 100 people picketed the Wright Museum demanding that the Jefferson exhibit be reconsidered. Participants carried a banner challenging the official narrative and characterization of Jefferson.

Others held placards denouncing enslavement and the treatment of Sally Hemings, a woman of African descent owned by Jefferson who bore several children by the plantation owner.

The BLC plans to protest every day at 11:00am until the exhibit opens. This midday manifestation gained press coverage from several media outlets.

The exhibit is scheduled to begin on March 15 amid continuing efforts by the BLC to have the display cancelled. Members of the BLC and others feel that the character of the exhibit attempts to cover up the horrors of African enslavement including the systematic sexual exploitation of African women.

In a press release issued on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (Jan. 21) in Detroit held at the St. Matthew’s & St. Joseph’s Episcopal Church on Woodward Avenue, the BLC noted that:

“The Coalition stands on the immortal, sacred legacy of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Dr. Charles H. Wright to preserve and protect the CHW  Museum against any effort to ‘romanticize’ the terrorism forced upon those forcibly enslaved, like Sally Hemings, or  the duplicitous depiction of a ‘patriarchal narrative’ to shroud the brutality and inhumanity of enslavers like Thomas Jefferson, who  ‘owned’  600 Africans while penning that ‘all men are created equal.’”

This exhibit began in 2012 at the Smithsonian American Museum of History in Washington, D.C. Over the last seven years it has been hosted by several cities including St. Louis, Philadelphia and Dallas.

Jefferson: Co-Author of the Declaration of Independence and early U.S. Politician

This issue is being raised during the 400th anniversary of the enslavement of Africans beginning in the former British colony of Virginia in August 1619, which later became the U.S. Jefferson was a co-author of the Declaration of Independence and served as Governor of Virginia in the Continental Congress, secretary of state, secretary of war, minister of state to France and vice-president prior to becoming the third president of the U.S.

According to language in the “Slavery at Jefferson’s Monticello: Paradox of Liberty” promotional materials:

“As many as 70 members of the Hemings family lived in slavery at Monticello over five generations. Elizabeth Hemings  (1735–1807) and her children arrived at Monticello around 1774 as part of Jefferson’s inheritance from his father-in-law, John Wayles, who was likely the father of six of the children.” (See this)

The same document continues by pointing out:

“Members of the family eventually occupied the most important positions in Monticello’s labor force. They helped build the Monticello house, ran the household, made furniture, cooked Jefferson’s meals, cared for his children and grandchildren, attended to him in his final moments, and dug his grave. Elizabeth’s daughter Sally Hemings was likely the mother of four of his children. The nine people Jefferson freed in his lifetime and will were all members of the Hemings family.”

Although the brochure acknowledges the indispensable nature of slave labor in the operation of the plantation, it fails to categorically condemn the triangular trade as an economic system which eventually led to the development of industrial capitalism in both Western Europe and North America. By framing slavery as essentially a moral question, the exhibit neglects the principal role of the exploitation of African people in the growth and expansion of the U.S. into the leading imperialist power by the mid-20th century. (See this)

Many accounts of Jefferson’s life extol his mastery of law, architecture, mathematics, agriculture and other professional fields. He signed the documents outlawing the importation of enslaved Africans into the U.S. in 1807, although the system continued long after his death and only ended with the Civil War fought during 1861-1865. As early as 1788 he was said to have banned the importation of enslaved Africans into the state of Virginia.

Detroit demonstration against Jefferson slavery exhibit on March 12, 2019

Nonetheless, his views on African people state clearly that he felt they were inherently inferior to whites in both beauty and intelligence. He did not believe that Africans could be integrated into U.S. society and supported the gradual training and freeing of Africans where they could possibly be sent to live in Santo Domingo. Jefferson believed that the ending of slavery would cause unrest in the U.S.

In one of Jefferson’s most widely read books, “Notes on the State of Virginia”, published in 1785, the leading politician and wealthy slave owner expressed the general fears among the ruling class that the potential for war between the races was highly probable. Therefore, he advocated the colonization of Africans on the continent or in other regions of the world.

One passage in “Notes on the State of Virginia” emphasizes:

“It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” (See this)

By 1816, there was the formation of the American Colonization Society (ACS) which resettled thousands of willing Africans who felt there was no hope for an independent and free existence in the U.S., in the West African region which became known as Liberia. The country was declared independent in 1847. However, up until the modern era, Liberia has remained under the economic and political dominance of Washington.

Despite the purported prohibition on the Atlantic trade in African people after the first decade of the 19th century, slavery expanded exponentially utilizing both “illegal” importations and domestic breeding, where by 1861 four million Africans were subjected to bondage.

General Demands of the BLC

The struggle over the Jefferson exhibit is part of broader demands related to the governance and programmatic character of the Wright Museum, which was the largest of its kind in the U.S. prior to the opening of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington during 2016.  The Wright Museum was the outgrowth of the decades-long work of Dr. Charles H. Wright, an area physician, who built the institution through memberships and eventual recognition by the City of Detroit government under its first African American Mayor Coleman A. Young.

BLC has called for the appointment of community members to the board of the Wright Museum. The Coalition is charging that the board has become corporate dominated and non-representative of the city of Detroit which has a more than 80% African American population.

*

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

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

All images in this article are from the author

Pity the Nation: War Spending Is Bankrupting America

March 13th, 2019 by John W. Whitehead

“Pity the nation whose people are sheep

And whose shepherds mislead them

Pity the nation whose leaders are liars

Whose sages are silenced

And whose bigots haunt the airwaves

Pity the nation that raises not its voice

Except to praise conquerors

And acclaim the bully as hero

And aims to rule the world

By force and by torture…

Pity the nation oh pity the people

who allow their rights to erode

and their freedoms to be washed away…”

—Lawrence Ferlinghetti, poet

War spending is bankrupting America.

Our nation is being preyed upon by a military industrial complex that is propped up by war profiteers, corrupt politicians and foreign governments.

America has so much to offer—creativity, ingenuity, vast natural resources, a rich heritage, a beautifully diverse populace, a freedom foundation unrivaled anywhere in the world, and opportunities galore—and yet our birthright is being sold out from under us so that power-hungry politicians, greedy military contractors, and bloodthirsty war hawks can make a hefty profit at our expense.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that your hard-earned tax dollars are being used for national security and urgent military needs.

It’s all a ruse.

You know what happens to tax dollars that are left over at the end of the government’s fiscal year? Government agencies—including the Department of Defense—go on a “use it or lose it” spending spree so they can justify asking for money in the next fiscal year.

We’re not talking chump change, either.

We’re talking $97 billion worth of wasteful spending.

According to an investigative report by Open the Government, among the items purchased during the last month of the fiscal year when government agencies go all out to get rid of these “use it or lose it” funds: Wexford Leather club chair ($9,241), china tableware ($53,004), alcohol ($308,994), golf carts ($673,471), musical equipment including pianos, tubas, and trombones ($1.7 million), lobster tail and crab ($4.6 million), iPhones and iPads ($7.7 million), and workout and recreation equipment ($9.8 million).

So much for draining the swamp.

Anyone who suggests that the military needs more money is either criminally clueless or equally corrupt, because the military isn’t suffering from lack of funding—it’s suffering from lack of proper oversight.

Where President Trump fits into that scenario, you decide.

Trump may turn out to be, as policy analyst Stan Collender warned, “the biggest deficit- and debt-increasing president of all time.”

Rest assured, however, that if Trump gets his way—to the tune of a $4.7 trillion budget that digs the nation deeper in debt to foreign creditors, adds $750 billion for the military budget, and doubles the debt growth that Trump once promised to erase—the war profiteers (and foreign banks who “own” our debt) will be raking in a fortune while America goes belly up.

This is basic math, and the numbers just don’t add up.

As it now stands, the U.S. government is operating in the negative on every front: it’s spending far more than what it makes (and takes from the American taxpayers) and it is borrowing heavily (from foreign governments and Social Security) to keep the government operating and keep funding its endless wars abroad.

Certainly, nothing about the way the government budgets its funds puts America’s needs first.

The nation’s educational system is pathetic (young people are learning nothing about their freedoms or their government). The infrastructure is antiquated and growing more outdated by the day. The health system is overpriced and inaccessible to those who need it most. The supposedly robust economy is belied by the daily reports of businesses shuttering storefronts and declaring bankruptcy. And our so-called representative government is a sham.

If this is a formula for making America great again, it’s not working.

The White House wants taxpayers to accept that the only way to reduce the nation’s ballooning deficit is by cutting “entitlement” programs such as Social Security and Medicare, yet the glaring economic truth is that at the end of the day, it’s the military industrial complex—and not the sick, the elderly or the poor—that is pushing America towards bankruptcy.

We have become a debtor nation, and the government is sinking us deeper into debt with every passing day that it allows the military industrial complex to call the shots.

Simply put, the government cannot afford to maintain its over-extended military empire.

Money is the new 800-pound gorilla,” remarked a senior administration official involved in Afghanistan. “It shifts the debate from ‘Is the strategy working?’ to ‘Can we afford this?’ And when you view it that way, the scope of the mission that we have now is far, far less defensible.” Or as one commentator noted, “Foreclosing the future of our country should not be confused with defending it.”

To be clear, the U.S government’s defense spending is about one thing and one thing only: establishing and maintaining a global military empire.

Although the U.S. constitutes only 5% of the world’s population, America boasts almost 50% of the world’s total military expenditure, spending more on the military than the next 19 biggest spending nations combined.

In fact, the Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.

The American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope, one dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth.

Since 2001, the U.S. government has spent more than $4.7 trillion waging its endless wars.

Having been co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent government officials, America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $32 million per hour.

In fact, the U.S. government has spent more money every five seconds in Iraq than the average American earns in a year.

Then there’s the cost of maintaining and staffing the 1000-plus U.S. military bases spread around the world and policing the globe with 1.3 million U.S. troops stationed in 177 countries (over 70% of the countries worldwide).

Future wars and military exercises waged around the globe are expected to push the total bill upwards of $12 trillion by 2053.

The U.S. government is spending money it doesn’t have on a military empire it can’t afford.

As investigative journalist Uri Friedman puts it, for more than 15 years now, the United States has been fighting terrorism with a credit card, “essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local governments, and by countries like China and Japan.”

War is not cheap, but it becomes outrageously costly when you factor in government incompetence, fraud, and greedy contractors.

As The Nation reports:

For decades, the DoD’s leaders and accountants have been perpetrating a gigantic, unconstitutional accounting fraud, deliberately cooking the books to mislead the Congress and drive the DoD’s budgets ever higher, regardless of military necessity. DoD has literally been making up numbers in its annual financial reports to Congress—representing trillions of dollars’ worth of seemingly nonexistent transactions—knowing that Congress would rely on those misleading reports when deciding how much money to give the DoD the following year.

For example, a leading accounting firm concluded that one of the Pentagon’s largest agencies “can’t account for hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of spending.”

Unfortunately, the outlook isn’t much better for the spending that can be tracked.

A government audit found that defense contractor Boeing has been massively overcharging taxpayers for mundane parts, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in overspending. As the report noted, the American taxpayer paid:

$71 for a metal pin that should cost just 4 cents; $644.75 for a small gear smaller than a dime that sells for $12.51: more than a 5,100 percent increase in price. $1,678.61 for another tiny part, also smaller than a dime, that could have been bought within DoD for $7.71: a 21,000 percent increase. $71.01 for a straight, thin metal pin that DoD had on hand, unused by the tens of thousands, for 4 cents: an increase of over 177,000 percent.

That price gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire is a sad statement on how little control “we the people” have over our runaway government.

Mind you, this isn’t just corrupt behavior. It’s deadly, downright immoral behavior.

The U.S. government is not making the world any safer. It’s making the world more dangerous. It is estimated that the U.S. military drops a bomb somewhere in the world every 12 minutes. Since 9/11, the United States government has directly contributed to the deaths of around 500,000. Every one of those deaths was paid for with taxpayer funds.

The U.S. government is not making America any safer. It’s exposing American citizens to alarming levels of blowback, a CIA term referring to the unintended consequences of the U.S. government’s international activities. Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA consultant, repeatedly warned that America’s use of its military to gain power over the global economy would result in devastating blowback.

Those who call the shots in the government—those who push the military industrial complex’s agenda—those who make a killing by embroiling the U.S. in foreign wars—have not heeded Johnson’s warning.

The U.S. government is not making American citizens any safer. The repercussions of America’s military empire have been deadly, not only for those innocent men, women and children killed by drone strikes abroad but also those here in the United States.

The 9/11 attacks were blowback. The Boston Marathon Bombing was blowback. The attempted Times Square bomber was blowback. The Fort Hood shooter, a major in the U.S. Army, was blowback.

The transformation of America into a battlefield is blowback.

All of this carnage is being carried out with the full support of the American people, or at least with the proxy that is our taxpayer dollars.

The government is destabilizing the economy, destroying the national infrastructure through neglect and a lack of resources, and turning taxpayer dollars into blood money with its endless wars, drone strikes and mounting death tolls.

As Martin Luther King Jr. recognized, under a military empire, war and its profiteering will always take precedence over the people’s basic human needs.

Similarly, President Dwight Eisenhower warned us not to let the profit-driven war machine endanger our liberties or democratic processes.

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may live?”

We failed to heed Eisenhower’s warning.

The illicit merger of the armaments industry and the government that Eisenhower warned against has come to represent perhaps the greatest threat to the nation today.

It’s not sustainable, of course.

Eventually, inevitably, military empires fall and fail by spreading themselves too thin and spending themselves to death.

It happened in Rome. It’s happening again.

The America empire is already breaking down.

We’re already witnessing a breakdown of society on virtually every front, and the government is ready.

For years now, the government has worked with the military to prepare for widespread civil unrest brought about by “economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters.”

For years now, the government has been warning against the dangers of domestic terrorism, erecting surveillance systems to monitor its own citizens, creating classification systems to label any viewpoints that challenge the status quo as extremist, and training law enforcement agencies to equate anyone possessing anti-government views as a domestic terrorist.

We’re approaching critical mass.

As long as “we the people” continue to allow the government to wage its costly, meaningless, endless wars abroad, the American homeland will continue to suffer: our roads will crumble, our bridges will fail, our schools will fall into disrepair, our drinking water will become undrinkable, our communities will destabilize, our economy will tank, crime will rise, and our freedoms will suffer.

So who will save us?

As I make clear in my book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we’d better start saving ourselves: one by one, neighbor to neighbor, through grassroots endeavors, by pushing back against the police state where it most counts—in our communities first and foremost, and by holding fast to what binds us together and not allowing politics and other manufactured nonrealities to tear us apart.

Start today. Start now. Do your part.

Literally and figuratively, the buck starts and stops with “we the people.”

*

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

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Featured image is from Jared Rodriguez / Truthout

Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) presented a bill on Tuesday before the US Congress in which they seek to prohibit the official recognition and rights of Cuban trademarks in the United States.

The bipartisan and bicameral legislation, named “No Stolen Trademarks Honored in America Act”, would affect trademarks supposedly linked with nationalized properties after the triumph of the Cuban Revolution in January 1959. A companion bill was presented in the House of Representatives by the congressmen Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) and John Rutherford (R-FL).

Its purpose is to prohibit US courts from “recognizing, enforcing or validating” any assertion of rights by an individual of a trademark that was used in connection with a business or assets that were nationalized by Cuba, unless “the original owner of the brand has expressly consented.”

To illustrate the case, Rubio mentioned, in a press release, the legal battle between the Bacardi against Cuba for the rights of the Havana Club trademark. In 1993, Pernod Ricard S. A. and Cuba Ron S. A. launched a joint venture in charge of the production, marketing and commercialization of the Havana Club brand throughout the world.

As a response, Bacardi filed for the right to use Havana Club in the U.S., which was registered since 1974, through the commercialization of a rum produced in Puerto Rico. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ignored this claim and in 2016 designated the state company Cubaexport as the legitimate international representative of the renowned rum, dismissing Bacardi.

The proposed bill would prohibit the joint venture Pernod Ricard / Cuba Ron from using the rights related to Havana Club, as part of a series of measures to increase the economic assault against the island.

Rubio and Menendez’ bill appears 23 years after the approval of the “Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act”, commonly known as Helms-Burton. The law was signed on March 12, 1996, in Bill Clinton’s Administration, with the objective of affecting foreign investment to the island and accentuating the economic effects of the embargo.

On the infamous anniversary, the President of Cuba, Miguel Diaz-Canel, pointed out that the law is absurd and illegal, adding that “you can not legislate against the world, or ignore the sovereignty of each country. Cuba is an independent and sovereign nation that respects and demands respect. Imperialists learn at once: dignity is invincible #WeareCuba.”

*

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

Featured image is from EFE

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Congressmen Introduce Bill to Prohibit US Courts from Recognizing Cuban Trademarks
  • Tags: ,

Groups behind BattleForTheNet.com pledge to call, text, and email constituents of lawmakers who fail to cosponsor net neutrality bill before leaving DC for recess.

Today, activists behind BattleForTheNet.com launched an updated Congressional “scoreboard” showing where every member of Congress stands on the Save The Internet Act to overturn the FCC’s repeal of basic open Internet protections. The announcement comes as Communications and Technology subcommittee members convene on Capitol Hill to discuss net neutrality legislation. The activists have given lawmakers until COB March 15th–right before they leave for the March in-district recess–to cosponsor the bill, otherwise groups promise to unleash a flood of calls, emails, and tweets from their district.

The updated scoreboard shows which members of Congress truly support net neutrality by cosponsoring the Save the Internet Act, and reveals how much they’ve taken in campaign contributions from telecom companies. The scoreboard is a project of BattleForTheNet.com, a net neutrality action site maintained by Fight for the Future, Demand Progress, and Free Press Action Fund.

image

Today’s announcement also comes on the heels of a new crowdfunding campaign launched by Fight for the Future late last night to put up a billboard in Phoenix targeting Senator Kyrsten Sinema, the only Democratic member of the Senate who has not cosponsored the bill.

“Enough is enough. There are absolutely no excuses for not supporting this bill,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her). “Voters from across the political spectrum are pissed off and have made it very clear that they want strong net neutrality rules back in place as soon as possible. At this point, members of Congress can consider themselves on notice: if you choose to put the telecom giants ahead of your constituents, we will make sure that every single one of your constituents knows you sold them out for cable money. You have until close of business on Friday, March 15th.”

“It is unreal that there is any member of Congress who is still on the wrong side of this issue,” said Free Press Action Fund Campaign Director Candace Clement.“The Save The Internet Act is exactly the right way to safeguard Net Neutrality. It draws on the overwhelming bipartisan support for real Net Neutrality, including support among vast majorities of Republican, Democratic and independent voters. And it fixes the Trump FCC’s massive mistake when it repealed the Open Internet Order in 2017. People, by the millions, protested that FCC decision, and they’ve rejected the empty rhetoric and lies of phone- and cable-industry lobbyists. It’s time every member of Congress did the same and joined us in support of the Save The Internet Act.”

“For lawmakers who claim to stand for their constituents and against special interests in Washington, supporting this bill should be one of the easiest things they do this year,” said Mark Stanley, director of communications for Demand Progress. “The Save the Internet Act restores strong net neutrality protections that benefit every person who depends on the open internet to access information, communicate, or run a small business. The tired attacks hurled at this bill and similar measures have proven to be based on industry-backed lies, time and again. Simply put, there’s no excuse — every lawmaker should get behind the Save the Internet Act to restore crucial and commonsense protections for their constituents.”

*

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 Fight for the Future

Major bilateral differences are over structural issues, the US trade deficit with China a minor one by comparison.

Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference vice chairman Zhang Qingli said

“China never wants a trade war with anybody…but we also do not fear such a war,” adding:

“The US side has disregarded a consensus with China after multiple rounds of consultations, insisting on waging a trade war against China, (threatening) to escalate it” if its demands aren’t met.

Multiple rounds of talks failed to resolve all major issues. According to economists and political analysts, bilateral trade differences are harming investment in both countries.

A Rhodium Group/Mercator Institute for China Studies report said investments by Chinese firms in EU countries declined by 40% last year.

Acquisition of US tech companies by Chinese firms declined by two-thirds in 2018, according to financial data company Refinitiv. US acquisitions of Chinese firms also declined sharply.

For these and overall economic reasons, ruling authorities of both countries want resolution of bilateral differences.

China’s Commerce Minister Zhong Shan said

“(t)he work team is still continuing to negotiate because we still have a lot to do.”

Xi and Trump won’t meet in late March or April unless able to formally sign off on a deal. Representatives of both countries may hold further talks in Beijing in the coming days, likely after China’s National People’s Congress ends on March 15.

A key area of dispute involves enforcement, along with the Trump regime insisting on its right to raise tariffs on Chinese imports if it claims Beijing violated agreed on terms – without retaliation by Xi, what his government considers an infringement of its sovereign rights.

How US tariffs will be rescinded if a deal is reached remains unresolved. China wants no delay in their lifting. The Trump regime wants it done gradually, both sides so far at an impasse over this issue and others – mainly structural ones.

Beijing wants no foreign restraints imposed on its ability and goal to develop economically, industrially and technologically. The Trump regime’s aim is polar opposite – the greatest obstacle to bilateral relations whatever may be agreed on ahead.

No meeting between Xi and Trump is scheduled so far. Without one, no deal is likely. China’s Commerce Minister Zhong Shan said

“(d)uring the last 90 days, the sides held three rounds of talks at the high level,” adding:

“Chinese Vice Premier Liu He has recently visited the United States for the talks as the head of a Chinese delegation. The process of consultations was extremely difficult and time-consuming.”

“Due to the difference in state systems, culture and the stages of development, the two countries are very different.”

Key issues remain unresolved.

On Sunday, China’s Global Times (GT) said bilateral trade talks are “poised on a knife-edge…(Trump) stressed that he wants either a good deal or no deal.”

No preparations are underway for a summit between both leaders. A key difference between both sides involves the Trump regime saying it’ll “impose punitive tariffs on Chinese products any time it feels that China does not fully implement the agreement while China should not retaliate. China believes this is an intrusion on (its) sovereignty and has rejected the proposition.”

Both sides resolved various differences. “But given the different opinions within the US and the capriciousness of US government as a whole, a highly sensitive period is expected before a final agreement is signed.”

Both sides know each other’s bottom lines, no major changes in their positions likely ahead. If talks fail, “the US will suffer more pain, and at a greater cost, than it is currently already suffering,” said GT, adding:

“Particularly when the economic perspective for the US in 2019 is not as optimistic as that for last year and the new election season is drawing near, the US is not any better than China at enduring the political pressure of a continuing trade war.”

A final deal must be fair to both sides. Neither country benefits by pushing the other too far. Will things be resolved in the weeks ahead?

It’s in the interest of both nations to forge an agreement – compromise and fairness the only way to achieve it.

Given Washington’s record of breaching deals agreed on, whatever Sino/US accommodation is reached will be tenuous at best.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Extorquir dinheiro a troco de protecção não é apanágio só da mafia. – Trump advertiu, ameaçadoramente, num discurso no Pentágono – “Os países ricos que estamos a proteger estão todos avisados: deverão pagar pela nossa protecção.”

O Presidente Trump – revela a Bloomberg – está prestes a apresentar o plano “Cost Plus 50” que estabelece o seguinte critério: os países aliados que hospedam  forças americanas no seu território terão de cobrir integralmente as despesas e pagar 50% de custos adicionais aos EUA, em troca do “privilégio” de albergá-los e, assim, serem “protegidos” por eles.

O plano prevê que os países anfitriões também paguem os salários dos militares USA e os custos da gestão dos aviões e navios de guerra que os Estados Unidos têm nesses países. A Itália deveria, portanto, pagar não só os salários de cerca de 12.000 soldados americanos estacionados aqui, como também os custos da gestão dos caças F-16 e de outros aviões instalados pelos EUA, em Aviano e Sigonella, e os custos da Sexta Frota, fundeada em Gaeta.

De acordo com o mesmo critério, também devemos pagar pela gestão de Camp Darby, o maior arsenal USA fora da mãe pátria, e pela manutenção das bombas nucleares USA, localizadas em Aviano e Ghedi. Não se sabe quanto os Estados Unidos pretendem pedir à Itália e aos outros países europeus que hospedam as suas forças militares, pois que nem se sabe quanto esses países pagam actualmente. Os documentos estão cobertos pelo segredo militar.

Segundo um estudo da Rand Corporation, os países europeus da NATO suportam, em média, 34% dos custos das forças e das bases USA presentes nos seus territórios. Não se sabe, no entanto, qual o montante anual que pagam aos EUA: a única estimativa – 2,5 biliões de dólares – remonta há 17 anos. Portanto, o valor pago pela Itália  também é secreto. Apenas se conhecem algumas referências: por exemplo, dezenas de milhões de euros para adaptar os aeroportos de Aviano e Ghedi ao caça F-35 dos EUA e às novas bombas nucleares B61-12 que os EUA começarão a instalar em Itália, em 2020, e cerca de 100 milhões para os trabalhos na Base Aérea americana, em Sigonella, também a cargo da Itália.

Em Sigonella, é financiada pelos EUA, só a NAS I, a área administrativa e recreativa, enquanto a NAS II, a dos departamentos operacionais e, portanto, a mais cara, é financiada pela NATO, ou seja, também pela Itália. No entanto, é certo – prevê um investigador da Rand Corp – que, com o plano “Cost Plus 50”, os custos para os aliados “disparem até às estrelas”. Fala-se de um aumento de 600%. Serão adicionados às despesas militares que, em Itália, atingem cerca de 70 milhões de euros por dia, destinados a subir para cerca de 100 milhões, de acordo com os compromissos assumidos pelos governos italianos na sede da NATO.

Trata-se de dinheiro público, que sai dos nossos bolsos, subtraído a investimentos produtivos e a despesas sociais. É possível, no entanto, que a Itália possa pagar menos pelas forças e bases norte-americanas instaladas no seu território. De facto, o plano “Cost Plus 50” prevê um “desconto por bom comportamento” a favor dos “aliados que se alinham de perto com os Estados Unidos, fazendo o que eles exigem”.

É certo que a Itália terá um grande desconto, pois que, de governo em governo, foi sempre mantida na peugada dos Estados Unidos.

Ultimamente, enviando tropas e aviões de guerra para a Europa de Leste, com a motivação de enfrentar a “ameaça russa” e favorecendo o plano dos EUA de abandonar o Tratado INF a fim de instalar na Europa, incluindo Itália, mísseis nucleares apontados para a Rússia. Sendo alvo de uma possível retaliação, precisaremos como “protecção”, de outras forças e bases USA. Teremos de pagá-las, mas sempre com desconto.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

Sale alle stelle il prezzo della «protezione» UsaBy Manlio Dinucci, March 12, 2019

il manifesto, 12 de Março de 2019

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

 

VIDEO (PandoraTV) :

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Sobe até às estrelas, o preço da “protecção” USA

“Gimme Some Truth”. John Lennon’s Message Resonates

March 12th, 2019 by Philip A Farruggio

.

.

.

.

Gimme Some Truth

John Lennon, The Plastic Ono Band

I’m sick and tired of hearing things from
Uptight short sided narrow minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth, just give me some truth
I’ve had enough of reading things
By neurotic psychotic pigheaded politicians
All I want is the truth, just give me some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied
Son of tricky dicky’s
Gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocket full of hopes
Money for dope, money for rope
 

John Lennon wrote that song in 1971, and its value as message resonates even better today. His lyrics refer to some as ‘uptight, short sided (he meant ‘sighted’?) narrow minded hypo critics (he may have even meant those in the media who ‘critique’ the news) ‘. How sad that almost 50 years have passed and our A) Mainstream Media B) Politicians  and C) The Corporate Consumer machine are still at it.

They are equal opportunity bullshit artists, undertaking the task of distorting the truth about what is affecting our society. Of course, behind the OZ curtain stand the wizards who control how we working stiffs should think, vote and shop. There was a cogent scene from Robert DeNiro’s  2006 film The Good Sheperd. In the film Matt Damon plays a CIA official who visits a Mafia leader (played by Joe Pesci), asking for some covert help. At the end of their visit, Pesci says (I am paraphrasing) ‘Let me ask you a question. Every group has something that they are known for. You know, the Niggers have their music, we Italians have the family… what do your people have?’ Damon looks at him and answers’ We have America, and you’re all just visitors.’

The brainwashing has been going on for so long that it’s tough for minds to be deprogrammed through basic human discourse. Case in point: This writer has written consistently about my idea for a 50% Flat Surtax on any income over and above $1,000,000 a year. The first one million would be taxed at the regular rate of around 37% (before deductions) and would have no bearing on the surtax. When I discuss the plan with many working stiffs out there, the overwhelming majority of them  tell me ‘Oh that’s too much! Why not start at $ 5 million?’ There you have it. The American Dream is alive and well in the psyche of our fellows. A good analogy to remember regarding the mainstream news outlets, electronic and print, is this:  You will know when you hear of a good, viable idea when the mainstream news rarely or hardly ever covers it. Ditto for our sacred elected officials. As far as our great Military Industrial Empire, stop believing the lies that are filtered out by both the Pentagon and of course the corporate world. Commercials as to our brave military that keeps us ‘ FREE’ , or commercials about how the ‘for profit’ health care industry cares about your wellbeing…. mute that boob tube! Folks, there is no ‘truth in advertising’!

March 19th will be the 16th anniversary of one of the most heinous acts by our government… right up there, most assuredly, with 9/11. In both cases, elements within the inner circles of the Bush/Cheney Cabal must have skewed all that they could to arrive at what transpired. The sacrifice of tens of thousands (in NYC and environs, what with the after effects of the towers being destroyed) and perhaps millions of Iraqi civilians, along with the destruction of one of the most modern countries in the Middle East, should give any decent person the desire, NO the drive, for truth. Those two actions by covert actors is why there is such a refugee crisis in Europe. It is also why there even is an ISIL or whatever our government calls those religious fanatics. If not for US imperialist (a word not used enough nowadays) actions in the Middle East, there would be maybe a few thousand fanatics in all those nations.

John Lennon was spot on in 1971. Without the mass of working stiffs demanding just that, TRUTH, our nation will continue to go down that rabbit hole.

*

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].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Gimme Some Truth”. John Lennon’s Message Resonates

Information Commissioner rules that Brexit department must release names of European Research Group MPs, following openDemocracy Freedom of Information appeal

***

There are few more powerful forces in British politics at present than the pro-Brexit European Research Group. The influential group of Tory MPs, led by Jacob-Rees Mogg, has pledged to torpedo Theresa May’s Brexit deal when it returns to the Commons on Tuesday. But just who the ERG are has long been shrouded in secrecy.

The ERG’s various spokespeople have long refused to name its members, or even confirm how many supporters it has – despite the group being funded by taxpayer money. In a ‘car crash’ interview with Channel 4 News in 2017, Tory MP Suella Fernandes said that a list of ERG members was “available if necessary”. No such list has ever been published.

Now that secrecy is set to end, after the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) ruled that the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) must release a list of ERG members. The move comes after openDemocracy appealed to the information watchdog when DExEU redacted the names of ERG members named in a 2017 email exchange with then Brexit minister Steve Baker.

Baker, a former ERG chair, became a minister in June 2017. Just weeks later, he offered a private briefing for the ERG on the so-called Great Repeal Bill, the parliamentary act for provides for leaving the European Union. One email noted how there is a “larger group” and “a smaller more senior one” within the ERG.

Following a Freedom of Information request, openDemocracy revealed the existence of Baker’s offer last year. But DExEU redacted the email correspondence so that the ERG members could not be identified.

However, the information commissioner has now rejected DExEU’s claim that releasing the names of ERG members included in Baker’s email would breach data protection laws.

“The names and parliament email addresses of the MPs, MEPs and Lords redacted from the emails disclosed should be provided,” the ICO ruled. The ICO added that ERG members’ names are “constantly placed in the public domain” and “they frequently use publicly accessible Twitter accounts to provide their views”.

The ERG, which has been described by Tory sources as ‘a party within a party’, has used hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money to fund its operations, but has repeatedly refused to make public the names of its members.

The ERG’s ranks have included a number of prominent cabinet ministers such as Michael Gove, Andrea Leadsom and Chris Grayling. Steve Baker has emerged as among the most vocal critic of the prime minister’s Brexit deal since resigning from the government last year over May’s Chequers proposals.

Screenshot 2019-03-11 at 17.03.29.png

‘Resisting transparency’

The ICO ordering DExEU to release the names of those redacted in the communications could shed further light on who exactly is attached the hardline pro-Brexit group.

Transparency International hailed the Information Regulator’s ruling as “very timely given the current political debate” and urged DExEU “to comply as a matter of urgency”.

“The gravity of decisions under ministerial consideration are almost incomparable in living memory. It is therefore of utmost importance that the public are not kept in the dark about how these are made and whose interests are in play. Resisting such transparency only raises the suspicion that there is something to hide,” said Steve Goodrich, senior research officer at Transparency International.

DExEU has around a month to release the list of ERG members. Responding to questions from openDemocracy, the department said:

“We are considering the ICO’s decision and will issue our response in due course.”

Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake accused DExEU of a “shameless attempt” “to shroud in secrecy its meetings with the ERG” and of “a desperate ploy to conceal how a cabal of MPs are puppeteering spineless Minister.”

Labour MP Ben Bradshaw said that it was “completely unacceptable that we have to rely on the Information Commissioner” to discover the identity of the ERG’s core membership.

“These are the people who are currently holding our country to ransom and working to take us crashing over the Brexit cliff edge in two weeks’ time, yet they refuse to operate transparently and honour the accepted rules of democratic and political behaviour,” Bradshaw said.

Screenshot 2019-03-11 at 17.04.45.png

‘Secretive yet influential’

The ERG is a secretive yet influential group composed of backbench Conservative MPs, many of whom have pushed for a no-deal Brexit. The group also has strong connections to pro-Brexit think tanks such as the Institute for Economic Affairs.

openDemocracy has previously revealed how the ERG operates a secret second bank account, despite taking at least a quarter of a million pounds of taxpayers’ money.

The ERG has also accepted a donation from the Constitutional Research Council – a secretive organisation that channelled a controversial £435,000 donation to the DUP’s Brexit campaign. The organisation is headed by Richard Cook, a former Conservative general election candidate implicated in illegal international waste shipments.

The ERG is classed as a parliamentary research service provider which produces materials for its members. This research is not made public. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) reviews the output produced by parliamentary research service providers, including the ERG.

Using Freedom of Information legislation, openDemocracy has requested that the parliamentary watchdog disclose research materials produced by the ERG that it holds. IPSA has so far refused, but openDemocracy will be arguing for the release of the materials at the Information Tribunal. The hearing scheduled to take place on May 2.

*

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

Featured image is from Sky News

Trump’s dead on arrival budget proposal to Congress is all about funding greater militarism and belligerence, along with serving corporate interests and high-net worth households – while gutting vital social programs.

It’s a proposal only Wall Street, the military, industrial, security complex, Big Oil, and monied interests could love.

Totaling $4.75 trillion, Trump wants an increase of $34 billion in war spending, euphemistically called “defense” – at a time sharp cuts are needed.

Washington’s only enemies are invented ones. No real ones exist. He wants $8.6 billion more for wall construction along the southern border with Mexico.

His priorities include slashing Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, student loans, and other essential social programs – along with big cuts in environmental protection programs.

He wants about $1.5 trillion cut from Medicaid spending in the next decade, $845 million less for Medicare over the same period, $25 billion from Social Security and disability spending, a 9% reduction in non-defense spending across the board – funds shifted to “defense” priorities, corporate handouts, and other initiatives benefitting high-net worth households.

Other proposed cuts over the next decade include $220 billion less for food stamps, $21 billion from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), $207 billion less for student loans, along with billions more cut from housing assistance and other social programs.

Note: In February 2017 during his first address to a joint congressional session, Trump pledged “no changes” to Social Security and Medicare.

He said

“America must put its own citizens first…Above all else, we will keep our promises to the American people…Our obligation is to serve, protect, and defend the citizens of the United States.”

He broke virtually every positive promise made to ordinary Americans, serving monied interests exclusively. His FY 2020 budget proposal calls for more of the same, disdainful of the general welfare he doesn’t give a hoot about.

He wants funding for renewable energy initiatives slashed by 70% – from around $2.3 billion to $700 million. He favors eliminating the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy altogether, wanting energy innovation left entirely to the private sector at its discretion.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,

“(e)ach of the past two Trump budgets has targeted benefits and services for individuals and families of modest means for deep cuts, even as it has supported tax cuts conferring large new benefits on those at the top of the income scale,” adding:

“If (his proposed FY 2020 budget is) enacted, these cuts would have increased poverty and hardship, leaving more people struggling to afford basics like food and rent.”

The type society Trump and hardline ideologues in his regime favor is all about serving privileged interests exclusively, wanting ordinary Americans left on their own sink or swim – social safety net spending abolished in their ideal world.

One way he aims to increase military spending for warmaking is by increasing a so-called overseas operations (slush) fund from $69 billion this year to $165 billion in 2020.

The budget includes $33 billion in greater “defense” spending to counter the “malign influence” of Russia China, Iran, North Korea, and other sovereign independent states. It calls for development of new land-based, sea, and aerial weapons, along with around $10 billion for cybersecurity.

Trump wants increased funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), along with more for Customs and Border Protection.

Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution states: “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law…”

Spending bills originate in the House and Senate Appropriations  Committees. They need majority House and super-majority (60-vote) Senate approval to pass.

Presidents have veto power over appropriations bills, not so-called line-item authority – so congressional-adopted budgets must be signed into law entirely or vetoed. A two-thirds majority in each house is needed to override it.

Congress and the president have until September 30 (the fiscal year’s end) to agree on a budget for the following FY. Often used continuing resolutions keep government funded for a specified time period when agreements aren’t reached.

Otherwise, government shutdowns are triggered until bipartisan differences are resolved.

Trump’s request for $8.6 billion more for border wall construction alone assures another spending fight if he’s unbending on this issue.

According to a senior regime official, his budget proposes “more reductions in spending than any (previous US) president in history” – taking pride in what demands shame.

House Appropriations Committee chairwoman Nita Lowey slammed Trump’s proposal, saying the following:

He “managed to produce a budget request even more untethered from reality than his past two. With such misguided priorities, (his) budget has no chance of garnering the necessary bipartisan support to become law.”

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Strategic Culture Foundation

The Commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM) told the House Armed Services Committee just how “concerned” he is about China projecting its Silk Road influence from Gwadar to Africa through S-CPEC+ and consequently establishing a permanent naval presence in the western end of the Afro-Asian Ocean.

CPEC is increasingly being appreciated as the game-changing geostrategic megaproject that it is after the Commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM) told the House Armed Services Committee just how “concerned” he is about its terminal port of Gwadar being used as China’s launching pad for expanding its Silk Road influence into Africa and consequently establishing a permanent naval presence along the routes connecting several Sea Lines Of Communication (SLOC) between them. This outlook isn’t a unique one and was most recently elaborated upon by the author last week in his piece about how “Pakistan’s Indian Sub Interception Proves The Importance Of The Country’s Navy”, but it appears to be the first time that a high-level American military official publicly confirmed the likelihood of this scenario unfolding and expressed “concern” about it. According to reports, Joseph Votel told the Committee that:

“As they develop that land route what they are attempting to do and then we expect then be looking for ports they can connect that to ports in southern Pakistan leading to ports in AFRICOM (US Africa Command), and for us it’s going to lead to a permanent presence of Chinese maritime military maritime activity in the region that we will need to be concerned with.” (author’s note: reproduced exactly as reported by The Times Of India, grammatical errors and all)

This brief statement is loaded with a lot of strategic significance. Firstly, it implies that the joint Indian-American Hybrid War on CPEC has failed and that the Chinese-built megaproject is proceeding apace in turning Pakistan into the global pivot state for facilitating transcontinental multipolar integration.

Secondly, it draws attention to the southern branch of CPEC’s logical expansion that the author earlier coined S-CPEC+. Thirdly, Votel is convinced that this will also take on military dimensions as China is compelled to defend its SLOCs all along this route, possibly through the clinching of LEMOA-like deals with Pakistan and coastal African countries. And finally, the fourth main point that can be drawn from the CENTCOM Commander’ s statement is that China’s CPEC-assisted expansion of influence into the western Afro-Asian Ocean poses a multidimensional cross-theater challenge to American hegemony in the Eastern Hemisphere.

What’s less clear, however, is how the US intends to counter this after the failure of the Indian-American Hybrid War on CPEC. Resorting to similar measures against the Horn of Africa and East African states might backfire for several reasons, not least of which is that the interests of the US’ partners overlap with China’s own in this space and would therefore be adversely affected by regional destabilization. It’s possible that the US might weaponize comparatively low-level chaos dynamics such as those embodied by al Shabaab but this could inadvertently create opportunities for Russia to export its “Democratic Security” model from the Central African Republic to the African coastland and actually safeguard the long-term strategic viability of S-CPEC+,  hence why non-kinetic methods will probably be relied upon at this point in time.

It’s very likely that the US will intensify its infowar against China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI), with specific focus being given to the narrative that Beijing is more interested in extracting resources through so-called “debt trap diplomacy” than in sincerely developing its partners’ economies. There might also be more underhanded efforts to incite mob violence against Chinese citizens in order to bait the People’s Republic into costly “mission creep” that it’s both militarily unprepared for and which could exacerbate some of the angry locals’ negative perceptions about it. In addition, the US could use economic pressure to dissuade African governments from signing LEMOA-like deals with China and entice them into embracing “Trumpism” instead of Silk Road-led Globalism. Fearmongering about China’s speculative military motives, the US might use this as the pretext for launching Indian-led multilateral “freedom of navigation” patrols.

The most likely outcome that the US hopes to achieve is to encourage “friendly competition” between BRI and the nascent Indo-Japanese “Asia-Africa Growth Corridor” while manipulatively working behind the scenes to influence the “rules of the game” in such a way as to favor its proxies and their French and Emirati partners prior to using their multilateral economic platform as the basis for the creation of a new African-centric security bloc for more comprehensively “containing” China. Accordingly, it would be to the benefit of the emerging Multipolar World Order if China partnered with Pakistan, Turkey, and Russia to preemptively thwart this scenario, with the first protecting S-CPEC+’s SLOCS, the second sharing its widespread soft power in sub-Saharan Africa, and the last using its “Democratic Security” model to safeguard everything in the most ideal win-win arrangement between them 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.

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.

For 60 years the Cuban Revolution has been in opposition to the most powerful nation of all time. America is a landmass almost 100 times larger in size than Cuba, is infinitely wealthier, stronger and boasts the largest and most advanced military on earth. There has hardly been a more unequal battle in world history than that of America against Cuba, yet the latter has taken the blows and is still standing.

Consecutive United States governments – dating to the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration of the late 1950s – were left increasingly perplexed and enraged by their country’s inability to either assassinate Fidel Castro or upend the Revolution.

Image on the right: Orlando Bosch (left) with Luis Posada Carriles in Miami. (Source: Havana Times)

Image result for Luis Posada Carriles + Orlando Bosch

US governments have implemented a range of attacks against Cuba in the form of a six-decade old embargo, an illegal invasion, artillery and gun assaults, chemical and biological warfare, employment of Cuban exile mercenaries and infamous figures like Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch. Little of this receives even passing mention in common discourse on American-Cuban relations.

Posada and Bosch gained a sprinkling of notoriety as architects of the October 1976 destruction of a Cuban airliner, killing all 73 people aboard, including many teenagers. The CIA “had concrete advance intelligence” months prior to the attack but did nothing to prevent it. Perhaps this is not surprising, as Posada enjoyed extensive work as a CIA agent, while Bosch was also utilized as an American intelligence operative and had contact with the CIA dating to the early 1960s.

The Cuban airplane atrocity is merely the iceberg’s tip, so to speak; Posada and Bosch were responsible for countless other murderous acts across the Western Hemisphere, executed with the use of assault rifles, machine guns, revolvers, bombs, grenade launchers, a bazooka, etc.

Indeed, Posada and Bosch were two of the biggest international terrorists of the post-1945 age. During their long reign of terror they were protected by powerful American politicians, such as the Bush family. In the late 1980s, future presidential candidate Jeb Bush intervened directly on Bosch’s behalf, so as to allow this mass murderer to remain unhindered on American soil.

Bosch was thereafter granted US residency, and in July 1990 he was pardoned of all charges by US president George H. W. Bush, partly due to lobbying by his son Jeb. In April 2011, Bosch would die unmolested in Miami aged 84, surrounded by the Cuban-American mafia who call the area home.

Last May, the 90-year-old Posada also died a free man in Miami, and was never charged for his vast array of criminality. It is likely that many of Miami’s residents, along with visiting holidaymakers, have been entirely unaware of these terrorists walking uninhibited on the city’s fair streets.

Posada, who in the mid-1960s received training at the US Army post Fort Benning, had furthermore been shielded by George W. Bush’s administration earlier this century. Posada was granted sanctuary from America’s highest office while, in Guantanamo Bay, prisoners were held and tortured on far lesser charges, and others on mere suspicion. Previously, for a time in the mid-1970s, Bosch himself received additional guardianship in Chile under the US-instituted Augusto Pinochet dictatorship, and “lived quietly as an artist” in the South American country.

Image result for My Life: A Spoken Autobiography

When Cuban leader Fidel Castro was questioned about these grotesque affairs over a decade ago, he replied,

“Posada Carriles and his accomplice Orlando Bosch are the most bloodthirsty exponents of imperialist terrorism against our nation. They have carried out dozens of horrific actions in numerous countries within the hemisphere, including even the territory of the United States. Thousands of Cubans and some citizens of other countries have lost their lives and been mutilated, as a consequence of those cowardly and abominable acts by governments of the United States”.

Castro also notes that Posada and Bosch have “always acted under the orders of American administrations and their special services, and have been illegally exonerated of all charges and possible punishment… Posada Carriles’ terrorist acts, including the bombings of tourist hotels in Havana and the assassination plans, have been financed by the United States through the unfortunately famous Cuban-American National Foundation, since its creation by Reagan and Bush in 1981. All of the money came from the United States. No one has ever acted with more deceit and hypocrisy”.

Elsewhere, those criticizing Cuba for “human rights violations” fail to put into context unprecedented threats the island nation has faced for decades, and continues to endure.

Should small counter-revolutionary cells present on Cuban territory (often covertly supported by the US) enact methods that undercut the socialist project, then the issue must surely be dealt with. The Revolution would simply never have lasted unless actions are taken to counter the subversive cliques.

In the majority of cases, Castro’s government handed out moderate prison sentences to the accused – which are then sometimes commuted – with the detainees upon release allowed to leave the country, many of course departing to America. In addition systematic acts of torture, widespread elsewhere, have not been committed within post-1959 Cuba.

For the meantime, should those few anti-socialist groups in Cuba begin their activities without government measures in response, the individuals would then become emboldened. In such a scenario, Washington inevitably senses blood while disingenuously announcing their concern for “democracy and human rights”, with the press leaping aboard the bandwagon.

Such cases have been witnessed elsewhere, in Iran last year and Venezuela recently, when protest marches were pounced upon by the White House and mass media. The fact that in Venezuela its president, Nicolás Maduro, has three times the number of people marching in support of him, by comparison to Washington stooge Juan Guaidó, receives smaller notice.

Unless swift action is initiated by Cuba’s government in response to the counter-revolutionary plans, America may gain a bridge hold in the country – as the superpower has succeeded in doing so with regard Venezuela and various other sovereign states, repeatedly violating the UN Charter. In Indonesia during the mid-1960s, direct US involvement enabled the Western-backed General Suharto and his forces to kill around a million people, rivalling Stalin’s purges.

In reports concerning Cuba conducted by often well regarded NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW), they have consistently failed to take into account the extraordinary extent of hostility towards the Caribbean island. Amnesty and HRW have undertaken some good work in other regions, but one must remember that the former is headquartered in London and the latter in New York. For this case, much of the Western NGOs’ coverage bears the hallmarks of having been skewed by years of blanket propaganda against Cuba, engineered by American and British institutions.

Moreover, Amnesty and HRW have betrayed an unfortunate tendency to focus on “pro-democracy activists” within Cuba, the most prominent of those this century being the so-called “Ladies in White”. The Ladies in White are in actual fact a US-funded proxy group. In August 2011 Wikileaks cables – which are invariably accurate – revealed that the Ladies in White have links to US government organizations. Despite such realities, Amnesty and HRW have continued to champion their motives in the name of “human rights”.

In 2018, HRW described the Ladies in White as “founded by the wives, mothers and daughters of political prisoners” – while Amnesty in their 2017/2018 analysis on Cuba outlined them as “a group of female relatives of prisoners detained on politically motivated grounds”. In these accounts, not a word has been written relating to the Ladies in White and their ties to American governments, or indeed the Wikileaks documents.

When claims of human rights breaches were put to Castro in an interview earlier this century, he responded that,

“The life expectancy of Cuban citizens is now almost 18 years longer than in 1959, when the Revolution came to power. We have made universal literacy possible, made it possible for every child to go to school, made it possible for every citizen to get an education. In the fields of education and health, there’s no country in the Third World, or even in the developed capitalist world, that’s done what we’ve done in those areas, for the good of the people”.

In relation to societal problems seen around the world, including in wealthy consumer nations, Castro highlighted that in Cuba,

“Begging and unemployment have been eradicated. Drug use and gambling have also disappeared. You won’t find children begging in the streets; we don’t have homeless beggars here… And I won’t go on too long about the aid we’ve given to dozens of countries in the Third World. There are Cuban doctors in over 40 countries, and they’ve saved thousands of human lives”.

Following the April 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in northern Ukraine, Castro further outlined that,

“We’ve given free treatment to thousands of children from Chernobyl that no other country took in. I don’t think any place in the world has equalled the generosity to human beings that’s been shown by Cuba. And this is the country that people want to condemn for violations of human rights? Only through lies and calumnies can such profoundly dishonest accusations be made”.

Over elapsing years from the Chernobyl catastrophe, Cuba has now treated over 26,000 victims, more than 80% of whom are children.

Meanwhile, in August 2005, immediately after Hurricane Katrina laid waste to wide sections of America’s south-east, Cuba was among the first to offer medical assistance to the US – in the form of over 1,500 doctors along with dozens of tons of supplies. This act of generosity was forthcoming despite decades of the above-mentioned attacks. Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela was also quick in offering aid to America during the hurricane’s aftermath.

Both lifelines were rejected in silence by the Bush administration, who were loath to accept humanitarian relief from socialist governments they were seeking to undermine and overthrow. Had Cuban and Venezuelan support been welcomed by president Bush – sluggish himself in responding to the crisis and whose country was notably short of doctors – many lives like those lost in New Orleans would likely have been saved.

*

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

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook.

Trudeau’s Cabinet Tempest

March 12th, 2019 by Jim Miles

On a global scale, the current events within Canada’s Justin Trudeau cabinet are not much more than the proverbial tempest in a teapot. While receiving saturation coverage on Canada’s CBC and some national newspapers, it is not totally noteworthy with global significance, other than some slipping and tarnishing of Trudeau’s halo with foreign media.

Having said that the problem’s within the Trudeau government do demonstrate a few political truths common to many governments and government parties. Concurrently it also reveals some problems deep – but not too deep – within Canada’s governance. Superficially it is a squabble internally within the Trudeau cabinet but it has threads and connections that incorporate much of what is wrong with Canadian governance.

It started innocently enough, at least on the surface, with the resignation of a cabinet minister for straightforward reasons. Positions were reassigned and shortly thereafter another resignation occurred, setting the current problems into motion – which is another way of saying the problems surfaced into the public sphere, old problems and new problems.

Canada’s Minister of Justice and the Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould was reassigned to a new position as Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, an assignment many considered was a demotion. MS Wilson-Raybould appeared to accept the change with equanimity. However, shortly thereafter, she resigned from that position, keeping her position guarded behind the inability to speak as per the legalities of client confidentiality and cabinet confidentiality.

It quickly became understood that the problem concerned her decision to allow the prosecution of a Canadian multinational corporation, SNC Lavalin, to proceed. Trudeau attempted to appease the situation but considering the strong character of Ms Wilson-Raybould and his own shifting explanations the media ran with the story, creating a significant impact across the country.

I watched Ms Wilson-Raybould’s presentation to the House of Commons Justice Committee, followed by presentations from Gerald Butts, Trudeau’s best friend and right hand man in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and from Michael Wernick, Clerk of the Privy Council, one of the more powerful positions in the bureaucracy. Butts testimony seemed vague, more because he was not in attendance at many of the conversations discussed. Wernick was abrasive and abrupt, arrogant, and quite comfortable being so. He struck me as being someone who would be a partisan supporter of either the Liberals or the Conservatives, whoever was in power, as long as they followed the neoliberal agenda.

What I took away from all this so far are ramifications that spread throughout the Canadian political and business community, and indeed into the international community.

Jobs, jobs, jobs

The original problem stemmed from charges against SNC Lavalin for bribery of foreign officials that the Prosecutor’s Office were proceeding with. It quickly became mixed up with a hastily thought up and recently passed bill creating the possibility within the judicial system of a “deferred prosecution agreement” (DPA). Trudeau and the PMO argued publicly that a DPA would save many jobs, directly, and indirectly through service providers to SNC Lavalin. Ms Wilson-Raybould stood fast in Committee to her position that the prosecution should proceed.

There was no argument about the innocence of SNC Lavalin. The argument presented by the government concerned the usual political mantra used by all parties – “jobs, jobs, jobs.” Wernick argued that it was in the “public interest” while the overall testimony seemed to indicate it was purely political interest carrying the argument.

From my perspective it is not at all about jobs, and many good arguments were made in Committee indicating that employment and the economy were not the issue, at least not in the usual usage of the language. What struck me was that the PDA is another means by which corporations, their managers, and their shareholders, can escape responsibility for actions undertaken by the legality known as the “corporation.”

It is what corporations are designed for: to escape personal responsibility for errors, mistakes, illegal actions et al, and to maximize profits. The PDA, while excused as being something other countries have (which does not necessarily make it a good thing), is simply another layer to protect the managers and shareholders of SNC Lavalin from prosecution and responsibility for damages. With the PDA, a slap on the wrist, some form of promises and conditionalities to meet and then business will proceed as usual.

For true justice, corporate citizenship should be annulled and the managers and shareholders be held responsible for criminal actions and other damages created by the company. Certainly that creates problems on the shareholder side as many citizens are shareholders simply through the practice of pension and other investment pools being involved with the markets. I won’t sort that out here. SNC Lavalin’s directors, whichever one offered the bribe, should be held criminally responsible.

Neocolonialism and Canada’s Indian Act

Ms Wilson-Raybould has an undergraduate degree in political science and history, and a graduate law degree. She has served as B.C. Crown Prosecutor, a Treaty Commissioner, and a Regional Chief for the B.C. Assembly of First Nations. She speaks with the authority of a person well versed in European based law and well versed in First Nations traditions and governance. That introduces another broad thread to the story.

As a First Nation leader, Ms. Wilson-Raybould has consistently spoken against Canada’s Indian Act (1876), still in force with amendments. When the cabinet shuffle occurred, Trudeau offered her the position of Minister of Indigenous Affairs, a position she declined for obvious reasons of not wanting to be the ‘enforcer’ of an act she abhorred. In short, the Indian Act is one of the larger means to continue with Canada’s unstated political acts of maintaining the First Nations as subjugated people, a unilaterally imposed set of rules theoretically dealing with the various treaties made as European ‘civilization’ spread across the continent. Ms Wilson-Raybould does come from British Columbia, a province where the vast majority of the land has never been ceded by treaty.

Underneath Trudeau’s attempts at reconciliation for all the colonial depredations imposed on the indigenous people of Canada – land theft, imposition of reservations, many legal limitations, ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide – Canada remains a racist state. It is not overt and obvious to many, but it rests beneath the surface of Canadian civility. The Indian Act needs to be repealed and the federal government needs to negotiate with the First Nations in order to honour the treaties across Canada, and not impose unilateral regulations. Reconciliation should proceed to reparations – financial and territorial.

Resolution

How this affair resolves itself is an unknown. Beside the legal affairs of SNC Lavalin and the reconciliatory pretences of the Trudeau government, there is also the factor of Trudeau’s avowed feminism. After MS Wilson-Raybould’s departure, another high level and highly respected cabinet minister, Jane Philpott, resigned over the handling of the SNC Lavalin affair.

So far, both women are staying in caucus and are indicating they will run again in the approaching general election, October 21, 2019. Polls indicate Trudeau’s ratings have dropped considerably, while the Liberal party itself has already rebounded somewhat from an initial drop. With a weak opposition – a divided Conservative camp, and a wandering NDP, there may yet be time to straighten the halo, albeit with some tarnish.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trudeau’s Cabinet Tempest

The Media’s 6 Biggest Lies About North Korea

March 12th, 2019 by Mike Whitney

Here are six of the media’s biggest lies about North Korea:

1–Did North Korea end the negotiations in Hanoi because Trump refused to lift sanctions?

No. That’s not what happened at all. Kim Jong un made a serious offer to permanently halt all long-range rocket and nuclear tests and to “completely dismantle all the nuclear production facilities” at Yongbyon (the DPRK’s primary nuclear enrichment facility) in exchange for the partial lifting of sanctions that targeted North Korean civilians. Kim did not present his offer as an ironclad demand from which he was unwilling to budge, but as a starting point for discussions just as one would expect during negotiations. But the Trump team never seriously considered Kim’s offer, instead–at the advice of neocon warlord, John Bolton — the Trump delegation surprised Kim with a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum that included the “elimination of the DPRK’s “chemical and biological weapons, “their ballistic missile program” along with complete denuclearization. Bolton said that no sanctions would be lifted until this comprehensive disarmament plan was implemented and verified by Washington’s weapons inspectors. These unrelated demands were not part of previous discussions nor were they contained in the earlier agreements in Singapore. They were concocted with the clear intention of sabotaging the summit and ensuring that no agreement between the sides would be reached.

2–Has the Trump administration honored the agreement it made at the Singapore Summit?

No. On June 12, 2018 President Trump signed a joint declaration agreeing to the following:

  • The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new US-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.
  • The United States and DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
  • Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
  • The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

President Donald J. Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, walk together to their one-on-one bilateral meeting, Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at the Capella Hotel in Singapore. (Official White House Photo by Stephanie Chasez)

While Kim has taken a number of steps to normalize US-DPRK relations (including the cessation of all ballistic missile and nuclear weapon tests, the destruction of one former nuclear testing site, returning the remains of 55 US servicemen who were killed during the Korean War back to US custody, removing mines from the DMZ, and actively engaging in cultural and economic projects with leaders in the South) the Trump administration has done absolutely nothing aside from terminating the provocative large-scale joint military exercises that are used as a rehearsal for invading the North and toppling the government in Pyongyang. Trump has made no effort to normalize relations or to create a “stable peace regime” on the peninsula.

Also, last Thursday, the US violated the Singapore agreement by launching another round of joint-military drills called “Dong Maeng” (which means “alliance” in Korean). While the maneuvers have been ignored by the western media, they were excoriated by North Korea’s state-run news agency KCNA which blasted the drills as a “threat… to peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.”

3–Did Kim Jong un agree to decommission his nuclear arsenal and end his ballistic missile program BEFORE the Trump administration eased sanctions?

Not a chance. On September 18, 2018: Kim met South Korean President Moon Jae-in in Pyongyang where the the two leaders agreed to expand the “cessation of military hostilities”, advance economic, humanitarian and cultural cooperation and exchanges, pursue complete denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea committed to dismantle the Dongchang-ri missile engine test site (which it has done) and promised to take additional steps, like the dismantling of the nuclear facilities in Yongbyon, if the United States “takes corresponding measures in accordance with the spirit of the June 12 US-DPRK Joint Statement.”

The promise of denuclearization was never a commitment to unilaterally disarm while the US did nothing. The North expected both sides to make reciprocal gestures in order to build confidence. Instead, the Trump administration tightened sanctions which increased Pyongyang’s distrust.

In any event, the original agreement implied a gradual disarmament after there was (a) an improvement in relations and (b) the building of “a lasting and stable peace regime.”

4–Did the Trump administration agree to a “phased” or gradual disarmament similar to what was hashed out in Singapore?

Yes. On January 31, 2019, Special envoy for North Korea Stephen Biegun said the administration was prepared to move step-by-step towards complete denuclearization in parallel with working towards peace in Korea and that it is willing to defer a complete declaration of North Korea’s nuclear assets. Here’s an excerpt of Biegun’s comments at Stanford University:

“We have communicated to our North Korean counterparts that we are prepared to pursue simultaneously and in parallel all of the commitments our two leaders made in their joint statement at Singapore last summer.

Biegun’s statement was made in January, 2019. But two months later– on March 7th, 2019 –the US State Department issued a statement which completely rejected Biegun’s policy. The statement read:

“Nobody in the administration advocates a step-by-step approach. In all cases, the expectation is a complete denuclearization of North Korea as a condition for all the other steps being — all the other steps being taken.” (State Department)

So, what does this mean? Did Trump deliberately mislead Kim about the administration’s demands or has Trump’s position simply hardened over time? Typically, negotiations are not a one-way street: “You give me everything I want, and maybe I’ll lift sanctions.” That’s not the way negotiations work. What Trump and his hardline advisors want is capitulation, the complete and unconditional surrender of Pyongyang to its American overlords. That’s a strategy that’s bound to fail.

5–Did the Trump administration lie about canceling joint military drills with South Korea?

Yes, but a spokesman for the US tried to minimize the offense by stating that the exercises were greatly “scaled-back” from the drills that had been scheduled. (Why would that matter?) Naturally, the North Korean state media responded angrily saying:

“It is a violent violation of the joint declarations and statements that North Korea reached with the U.S. and South Korea. This also represents a frontal challenge to the aim and desires of all [Korean] people and the international community for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.”

6–Is Kim Jong un planning to break the commitments he made at Singapore by rebuilding his missile testing facilities so he can launch another ballistic missile?

No. The stories that have recently popped up in the media, suggesting that Kim is cheating on his prior agreements, are part of an elaborate and well-funded psychological operation (psy-ops) aimed at convincing the American people that Kim cannot be trusted. Some of these articles even invoke the specter of nuclear holocaust hoping to deter the administration from even considering future negotiations. The propaganda blitz has been hugely successful as a majority of Americans are only-too-eager to believe that Kim is the “brutal dictator” he is portrayed to be in the media (rather than another blameless target of Washington’s insatiable belligerence.) The Disobedient Media website has done some first-rate research and analysis on this latest fake news story (Kim’s “missile testing facilities”) Here are a few excerpts from one of the posts aptly titled: “The Media Is Lying About Construction At Sohae Launch Facility”, Disobedient Media:

“A March 8, 2019 report from National Public Radio (NPR) follows another by NBC News with sensational and misleading claims that satellite imagery released by private corporations with contractual ties to government defense and intelligence agencies show imminent preparations by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) to engage in missile testing or the launch of a satellite from their facilities in Sanumdong, North Korea. An examination of the photos provided shows absolutely no indication of such activity……

(Repeat) there is absolutely no indication that several low resolution photos of a facility in North Korea have any activity in them outside of a few rusting vehicles that have sat without moving for some time….

NPR’s Sources Of Satellite Imagery Are Contractors For The CIA And Pentagon

The pervasive involvement of intelligence agencies and defense contractors in attempts to undermine negotiations with North Korea does not create confidence in the already shaky claims made by NPR regarding alleged preparations by the DPRK to participate in a missile launch. These contentions are not supported in substance by any tangible facts…..

Satellite Footage Of Sanumdong Facility Shows No Sign Of Imminent Launch…

NPR’s claims that the imagery shows “vehicle activity” occurring around the facility. Yet close inspection shows that the “activity” consists of a few inert vehicles, which appear to be a white pickup and white dump truck or flatbed parked in a permanent position next to piles of metal. The scene does not appear to be different from any number of sleepy yards of businesses that can be examined by members of the public on Google Maps….

NBC News Has Destroyed It’s Journalistic Integrity On North Korean Issues

The decision by NBC News to include a plethora of biased sources of analysis which appear to have intentionally been misrepresenting the nature of satellite footage of the DPRK’s Sohae Satellite Launching Station seriously calls their journalistic integrity into question. Their decision to represent satellite footage obtained from intelligence contractors and defense industry sources as “commercial” totally removes any remaining doubts that the recent reports of alleged North Korean activity after the breakdown of the Hanoi Summit are solely distributed with the intention of propagandizing not only the public but also President Trump himself. It is a pathetic effort to undermine the potential for peace and economic opportunity for the purpose of continued tensions that only benefit select special interests.”

“The Media Is Lying About Construction At Sohae Launch Facility”, Disobedient Media

These are excellent reports that should be read in full, but for our purposes, we’ll stop here.

Bottom line: The Trump administration deliberately sabotaged the Hanoi Summit, failed to honor its commitments under the terms of the Singapore Summit, lied about the termination of joint-military drills, did a complete 180 on its Special Envoy’s pledge for “phased disarmament”, and made no attempt to normalize US-DPRK relations or “build a lasting and stable peace regime.” On top of that, the media has launched another gigantic disinformation campaign aimed at garnering public support for tighter sanctions, more provocations, and war without end.

*

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.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Zoom in Korea

March 11, 2019 is the 8th anniversary of the Earthquake-Tsunami-Nuclear Meltdown, the first of a type of techo-natural disaster predicted in the 1990s by seismologist Ishibashi Katsuhiko. He coined the Japanese term genpatsu shinsai (原発震災, literally a nuclear power-earthquake disaster) to highlight the way a horrific natural disaster would be worsened by the co-occurrence of nuclear reactors melting down because of the earthquake.

I wasn’t physically or materially affected by the genpatsu shinsai, but it happened close enough to my home in Japan that it deeply affected me, and I was able to observe the way Japanese society reacted to it. Even at the time there was a wide range of reactions in society. Some people never thought twice about it. Others were devastated and angry, and they demanded that the national energy policy abandon nuclear energy. But this anger never transformed into a broader and more radical shift in politics. No one was connecting the issue to Japan’s attachment to the US military-economic alliance and the traditional export-driven capitalist model that requires infinite growth in a finite world.

I’ve always had a lot of sympathy for the people dislocated by the nuclear disaster, but I’ve also sensed something narrow and naïve about the way the problem is viewed. The victims should have expected a nuclear disaster, but they never should have expected anything different than the treatment they got. There are hundreds of disasters throughout the world that they could have looked to as examples of victims being abandoned. Few victims ever receive any kind of justice or a return to the life they once had. A nuclear accident is a rare and unique cause of an internal refugee crisis, but the plight of the refugees is not much different than that of others throughout the world who are uprooted because of natural disasters and war. Right after the genpatsu shinsai, large numbers of refugees began to enter Europe because of the destruction of the Libyan state and the war against Syria. Unfortunately, there was never a popular solidarity movement connecting Japan’s internal refugee crisis to the larger international crisis. In fact, during the aftermath of the genpatsu shinsai, the US government and the Japanese establishment were finishing off a soft coup against the elected Japanese government that had tried to challenge the status quo of the US-Japan alliance and the nature of the Japanese economy. No one was in the mood to keep fighting that battle.

I read and wrote about such things for five years after the disaster until I felt written out, or perhaps written into a corner. I felt trapped by the success of my self-education. If I wasn’t preaching to the converted, I was encountering people who disagreed and had a level of confidence in their opinions that was inversely proportional to their knowledge of the topic. They wanted to “debate” me for five minutes at a noisy social gathering, but they didn’t want to read a book on the topic (my reading list is at the end of this blog post) and talk to me about it afterwards. The same thing happened after I read several books on the history of the cold war and post-cold war era. Now instead of the pointless debates, people just shut me down. I have had to listen to people saying, “No, I don’t want to talk to you about Russia.” Who needs to have their views challenged when you can learn all you need to know from covers of the Economist?

I had once hoped that the genpatsu shinsai would change everything and make energy and environmental issues the top priority in politics. That’s why I made the effort to learn about it and talk about it, but the toxic legacy of the nuclear age remained on the margin of the margin of public consciousness as every nuclear state prepared to rebuild and upgrade its nuclear arsenal and nuclear energy facilities. Fukushima? You would think it never even happened.

Other blogs and news sites will be running stories about the 8th anniversary today, so I tried to think of something to discuss that wouldn’t be covered elsewhere. What follows is a short excerpt from a book of poems by a Japanese author, Kojima Chikara, who joined the anti-nuclear movement decades ago and wrote about it before and after the genpatsu shinsai. Many of his poems describe the era of nuclear expansion during which there were minor unreported accidents and radiation exposures of the invisible sub-contracted laborers. Their health problems were never tracked by regulators or the curious branch of science called “health physics.” These poems make it clear that the disaster really began when the reactors were first switched on.

This short sample has been reproduced here for the purpose of review (fair use claimed) and to help the author get some exposure for his work which is not well-known outside of Japan.

***

A Selection of Poetry Works: My Tears Flow Endlessly

Forced out of House and Home by the Fukushima Nuclear Power Accident

by Kojima Chikara, translated by Noda Setsuko

Tokyo, Nishidashoten Publishing, ©2017

123 pages. Excerpt from pages 42-46.

The book was published with the original Japanese poems alongside the English translation.

Kojima and Noda are surnames, listed first here as in Japanese publishing style.

1.5 µSv around the entrance of my house

Where daisy fleabanes bloom.

1.7 µSv under the trees

Covered with overgrown vines in my garden

2.45 µSv on the surface of the ground

In my backyard where wet leaves pile up.

0.6 µSv around the heated table sunken into the floor

Which is no longer in use

Except during our short visits.

0.9 µSv in the sunroom

Looking out through the pane of class

0.8 µSv in the second floor bedroom

where nobody has slept since the accident.

We cleaned our house after an absence of a year and four months.

Wiping away the rat droppings on the tatami mats

And clearing all the dust in our house that day

We didn’t manage to return to our 0.05 µSv temporary house in Tokyo.

Near the sunken heated table

We placed floor cushions, each 0.7 µSv

And took blankets of 0.6 µSv out of the closet,

Which is now difficult to open and close.

We slept somewhere between 0.6 µSv and 0.7 µSv.

We slept shuddering in fear

Of being exposed to the radiation all night.

We slept with the knowledge

That we might not live in our house and homeland again.

Worrying about our future in the dark of night,

We slept.

Kashi, kashi, kashi     Kashi, kashi, kashi  

From the very darkness at midnight

I can hear a faint sound.

It reverberates across the whole room.

Kashi, kashi, kashi     Kashi, kashi, kashi 

The sound has continued non-stop

for about an hour since I was woken up.

Kashi, kashi, kashi     Kashi, kashi, kashi  

As soon as I awoke I turned on the light

And identified the origin of the sound.

Kashi, kashi, kashi     Kashi, kashi, kashi  

It’s a little young rat, not even as big as an egg.

I came home for a short visit after two months absence

And was enraged to see droppings all over the tatami mats.

I set a trap and it worked.

The rat scratched the edge of the cardboard with its rear claws

Because it was trapped with its belly glued to duct tape.

Rat, rat,

You are not hurt at all.

Besides, “There are no immediate effects on your health.”

I don’t want to help you,

Let alone pay you compensation, or give you donations.

I only listen to you struggling, not sleeping at all.

Kashi, kashi, kashi     Kashi, kashi, kashi   

I must live in a temporary shack.

Somebody might really make a fool of me if I pity you

Snickering at me beyond the darkness.

Kashi, kashi, kashi     Kashi, kashi, kashi  

Kashi, kashi, kashi     Kashi, kashi, kashi 

Half dead, Half dead    Half dead, Half dead  

Half dead, Half dead    Half dead, Half dead

***

A Nuclear Age Reading List, 2011-2019.

Until now I have been too unassuming to stress all the reading and work I’ve put into learning about the nuclear age and the history of the 20th century. However, today I look back on several experiences when I had to tolerate people shutting me down or giving me their thinly supported opinions—people who were utterly uninterested in reading books on these subjects or listening to someone who does. I’ve also seen historians having similar experiences when they are interviewed on television, so I thought for once I would mention the fact that since the nuclear disaster, I’ve read the seventy books listed below cover to cover. I’m employed as an educator, so I have an advantage by having some extra time to do this research, but still I want to stress that anyone can start reading and learning again. When I was young no one thought I was special. I was a B student who struggled to get the occasional A. I kept reading because I turned off the TV and left my country. You may not be able to do both of these things, but you can at least do the former.

A.V. Yablokov, V.B. Nesterenko & A.V. Nesterenko, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

Ace Hoffman, The Code Killers

Alla Yaroshinskaya, Chernobyl: Crime without Punishment

Andrew Nikiforuk, The Energy of Slaves: Oil and the New Servitude

Bruno Barrillot, Les irradiés de la République : Les victimes des essais nucléaires français prennent la parole

Buddy Levy, Conquistador: Hernan Cortes, King Montezuma, and the Last Stand of the Aztecs

Charles Forsdick & Christian Høgsbjerg, Toussaint Louverture: A Black Jacobin in the Age of Revolutions

Charles C. Mann

1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus,

1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created

Chris Hedges, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt

Christopher Boyce, Cait Boyce, Vince Font, The Untold Story of the Falcon and the Snowman

David Graeber

The Utopia of Rules

Debt: The First 5,000 Years

David Talbot, The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, The CIA and the Rise of America’s Secret Government

Douglas Valentine, Hotel Tacloban

Edward Herman & David Peterson, Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later

Eileen Welsome, The Plutonium Files: America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War

Eri Hotta, Japan 1941: Countdown to Infamy

Eric Schlosser, Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety

Gabrielle Hecht, Being Nuclear: Africans and the Global Uranium Trade

Gar Smith, Nuclear Roulette: The Truth about the Most Dangerous Energy Source on Earth

Gavan Daws, Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands

Gavan McCormack & Satoko Oka Norimatsu, Resistant Islands: Okinawa Confronts Japan and the United States

Gayle Greene, The Woman Who Knew Too Much: Alice Stewart and the Secrets of Radiation

Gerard Prunier, Africa’s World War: Congo, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Making of a Continental Catastrophe

Grover Furr, Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands Is False

Greg Poulgrain, Incubus of Intervention: Conflicting Indonesia Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen Dulles

James W. Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Jared Diamond

Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

Jim Albertini, Nelson Foster, Wally Inglis, Gill Roeder, The Dark Side of Paradise: Hawaii in a Nuclear World

Jim Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins

Jim Harding, Canada’s Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System

John Reid, Ten Days that Shook the World

Joseph Mangano, Mad Science: The Nuclear Power Experiment

Joseph Masco, The Nuclear Borderlands: The Manhattan Project in Post-Cold War New Mexico

Judi Rever, In Praise of Blood: The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto

Karl Marx, The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon

Kate Brown

A Biography of No Place: From Ethnic Borderland to Soviet Heartland

Dispatches from Dystopia: Histories of Places Not Yet Forgotten

Plutopia: Nuclear Families, Atomic Cities, and the Great Soviet and American Plutonium Disasters

Kristen Iversen, Full Body Burden: Growing up in the Nuclear Shadow of Rocky Flats

Leon Siu, Ke Aupuni O Hawaii, The Basis for Restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Matashichi Oishi, The Day the Sun Rose in the West: Bikini, the Lucky Dragon, and I

Noelani Goodyear-Ka’opua et al, A Nation Rising: Hawaiian Movements for Life, Land and Sovereignty

NHK TV, Tokaimura Criticality Accident Crew, A Slow Death: 85 Days of Radiation Sickness

Nicolas Lambert, Avenir Radieux

Odd Arne Westad, The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times

Oliver Stone & Peter Kuznick, The Untold History of the United States

Penny Sanger, Blind Faith: The Nuclear Industry in One Small Town

Peter van Wyck, The Highway of the Atom

R.T. Howard, Power and Glory: France’s Secret Wars with Anglo-America

Richard Cottrell, Gladio, NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe: The Pentagon-Nazi-Mafia Terror Axis

Richard Rhodes

The Twilight of the Bombs: Recent Challenges, New Dangers and the Prospects for a World Without Nuclear Weapons

Arsenals of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race

Robert J. Johnson, Romancing the Atom: Nuclear Infatuation from the Radium Girls to Fukushima

Robert Jacobs, The Dragon’s Tail: American’s Face the Atomic Age

Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenney, Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union

Roger Stone, The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ

Scott Straus, The Order of Genocide: Race, Power and War in Rwanda

Sheldon M. Stern, The Cuban Missile Crisis in American Memory: Myths versus Reality

Stephanie Cook, In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age

Stephen F. Cohen, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War

Stephen Kinzer, The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain and the Birth of American Empire

Susan Southard, Nagasaki: Life After Nuclear War

Svetlana Alexievich, Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster

Takahashi Hirose, Fukushima Meltdown: The World’s First Earthquake-Tsunami-Nuclear Disaster

Tom Zoellner, Uranium: War, Energy and the Rock that Shaped the World

William T. Vollman, Into the Forbidden Zone: A Trip Through Hell and High Water in Post-Earthquake Japan

*

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 Lit by IMAGINATION

On Monday, Pompeo hinted at the Trump regime upping the stakes in Venezuela, saying “(t)he United States is drawing a clear line between those who aid (the Bolivarian Republic) and those” supporting US aims in the country.

He falsely blamed Maduro for US sabotage to Venezuela’s electrical grid, causing continuing widespread blackout conditions, a problem much more serious than initially believed, likely requiring considerable time, effort, and expertise to correct entirely.

He lied claiming patients are dying in hospitals, telecommunications “entirely collapsing.”

Maduro had backup generators installed in all Venezuelan hospitals to maintain operations in case of power outages.

When the electrical grid was sabotaged last Thursday, backup generators were automatically activated, Venezuelan Communication Minister Jorge Rodriguez explained.

Pompeo slammed Cuba and Russia for what he called “undermining the democratic dreams (sic) of the Venezuelan people and their welfare (sic).”

He turned reality on its head claiming

“Cuba is the true imperialist power in Venezuela (sic), train(ing) Venezuelans’ secret police and torture tactics (sic), domestic spying techniques (sic), and mechanisms of repression the Cuban authorities have wielded against their own people for decades (sic),” adding:

“Cuban security forces have displaced Venezuelan security forces (sic) in a clear violation of Venezuelan sovereignty.”

Cuba and Maduro “disdain private property rights (sic), the rule of law (sic), and free and fair elections (sic). (They) routinely violate the basic human rights of their peoples (sic).”

Pompeo’s remarks about the Bolivarian republic and Cuba were bald-faced Big Lies.

Fact: Cuba’s leading exports to Venezuela and other countries are goodwill, doctors, and teachers. Washington’s leading exports are mass slaughter, destruction, and human misery.

Trump hardliners target both countries for regime change, along with Nicaragua regionally, what Bolton last November called a “troika of tyranny” – for their sovereign independence he, Pompeo, Abrams and DLT want eliminated, these countries transformed into US vassal states.

Pompeo slammed Russia for supporting Maduro, adding the Kremlin is “pressuring countries to disregard the democratic legitimacy (sic) of the interim president Guaido (sic).”

He’s an illegitimate US-designated puppet/usurper in waiting,  betraying his nation and the Venezuelan people.

Interviewed on Fox News business, the Rupert Murdoch-owned channel gave Guaido a platform to lie – his public remarks scripted by Trump regime hardliners.

He lied claiming authority to invoke constitutional authority for the National Assembly to call for foreign intervention in the country, saying:

He’s “empower(ed) (sic), as the person in charge (sic), to employ whatever measures are necessary to enact this cooperation (with other nations for) assistance (to) Venezuela (sic).”

Did he set the stage for greater US intervention than already by whatever tactics Trump regime hardliners intend to employ?

He lied claiming blackout conditions in much of the country “generate(d) over 25 deaths (in) hospitals.”

The head nurse in one of Caracas’ leading hospitals reported none. He lied claiming

“(t)he world has seen how Maduro’s government has burned medicines and foodstuffs. The world saw how they blocked trucks to enter medicine into the country.”

So-called aid included out-of-date, unsafe to use food and medicines, along with barbed wire and other implements for barricades, part of the Trump regime’s aim to cause internal turmoil.

Last Sunday, the NYT admitted that video footage released by the Colombian government showed so-called disruptive anti-Bolivarian guarimberos torched two so-called aid trucks with Molotov cocktails.

Neither Maduro or Venezuela’s military had anything to do with the incidents. In February, the Times and other establishment media claimed otherwise, the self-styled newspaper of record surprisingly setting the record straight belatedly.

On Monday, the opposition-controlled National Assembly (AN) declared a state of “national alarm” over “general calamity” conditions caused by US sabotage to the nation’s electrical grid it failed to explain.

Note: For illegally swearing in three contested legislators in January 2016, Venezuela’s Supreme Court held the opposition-controlled AN in contempt, its decisions null and void – the judiciary to act in its place because of its “contempt” and “incapacitation” to carry out its constitutional duties.

Separately on Monday, Guaido illegally declared a “national emergency.” He called for further public demonstrations on Tuesday, again urging Venezuelan military commanders and soldiers to defect.

Things remain in flux. On Monday, Maduro explained that blackout was caused by cyber-attacking Venezuela’s electrical power grid.

After around 70% of power was restored last Friday, further cyberattacks on the grid occurred, probably more to come until things are resolved.

It’s likely to take weeks or months if malware used resembles the powerful Stuxnet virus used against Iranian nuclear power plants in 2010 – a joint US/Israeli cyberattack. Perhaps they partnered again against Venezuela.

Maduro called the sabotage “a great violation of human rights in our country by the right wing, who celebrate national suffering.”

A Final Comment

Pompeo said remaining Trump regime personnel will be withdrawn from Venezuela this week. Most staff left in January after Maduro ordered them out.

Is recalling remaining numbers to Washington prelude to greater Trump regime toughness – involving escalated violence, bloodshed and chaos?

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from The Santiago Times

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Greater Trump Regime Intervention in Venezuela Coming? Sabotage as a Prelude to All Out War?
  • Tags: ,

The racism inherent in Western media’s reportage of African tragedy, such as the Ethiopian Airline disaster, once again shows how important it is for Africans to support their own media.

***

Tragedy is a human experience that no one can escape from. Yet the manner in which Western media report on death involving Africans remains infused with racism. Reporting on the Ethiopian Airline flight ET302 crash has proven to be no exception. The doomed flight had 32 Kenyans on board – the largest group from one country to perish in the crash. But reporting by the Western media displays all the tropes of “Africa, the dark continent”, with media outlets such as Associated Press listing the countries of the victims in order of nationality, deliberately excluding Kenya and other African countries.

The reportage by The New York Times on the Dusit bomb attack in Kenya was equally layered in racist tropes. In addition, a newscast by TRT World tried to pin the crash on Ethiopian Airlines having a poor safety record, a claim that aviation analyst Alex Macheras was quick to dispute and correct. Macheras said,

“Ethiopian Airlines is an incredibly safe and trusted airline. This is not an airline with a poor safety record, as the presenter said.”

Incidents like these once again emphasise how important it is for Africans to support their own media and to tell their own stories accurately and effectively. They also shows the need to strengthen Africa’s media in a continent where press freedom is still a big issue.

The names of the 32 Kenyans involved in the crash were released by Kenyan authorities. The names of other nationals in the crash were sent to their various embassies. A total of 19 staff members of United Nations affiliated organisations were on board. For now, Ethiopia (and other countries) has grounded all its Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft. Our deep condolences go to the loved ones of those lost in the crash.

*

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: Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 aircraft. (Source: This Is Africa)

“Distance matters because time matters. And time matters because the faster commodities can be produced and exchanged, the greater the profits for individual firms. The answer? Mega infrastructure corridors.” – Nicholas Hildyard[1]

One of the world’s biggest e-commerce companies, Beijing-based JD.com, says it will soon be able to deliver fruit from anywhere in the world to the doorsteps of Chinese consumers within 48 hours. It takes highly integrated global infrastructure—connecting farms to warehouses to transportation to consumers—to achieve a goal like this. China’s new mega-infrastructure plan, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), will help make JD.com’s vision a reality. It will also increase the concentration of global food production and distribution, potentially pushing small-scale farmers, fisherfolk, forest peoples and rural communities further to the margins. There are also serious concerns that BRI could worsen land grabs, human rights abuses, indebtedness, and environmental and health impacts in target countries.

Also known as One Belt One Road (OBOR), BRI was launched by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013. The largest infrastructure project ever embarked upon in world history, BRI focuses on promoting manufacturing, trade and investment, as well as the physical and digital integration of international markets. BRI provides a framework for Chinese investment to enhance existing infrastructure as well as build new production sites and trade routes to better connect China with the rest of the world.

BRI envisions a land-based “belt” connecting China with Europe and a sea-based “road” crossing the Indian Ocean to Africa up through the Mediterranean and reaching over the Pacific as far as Oceania and Latin America (see map). The initiative currently involves some 90 countries and is expected to cost more than US$1 trillion. Much of the funding comes from Chinese sources such as the China Development Bank and involves a combination of loans, bonds and equity investments. China also set up a special Silk Road Fund to finance BRI projects. International finance institutions such as the World Bank and the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, as well as private banks like HSBC, have also expressed support or established their own BRI focused funds.

Map of the BRI global infrastructure network. Source: Mercator Institute for China Studies, May 2018

Because of its vast geographic scale and massive investment, BRI could reconfigure large parts of Asia, Africa, Europe, and the seas in between, into production and distribution areas with warehouses, logistics terminals and export-import zones. BRI-associated projects have already undermined thousands of people and hundreds of millions more are likely to be adversely affected to make way for BRI’s planned roads, railways, seaports, dry ports and airports.

Many of BRI’s projects are promoted as win-win ventures that will bring much needed jobs, capital and technology to local economies. In reality, they are likely to further concentrate power in the global food system and undermine national food security, local food producers and rural communities.

How BRI impacts agriculture

Food security has always been a major concern for the Chinese government. Until recently, this meant trying to achieve and maintain national self-sufficiency, with the task falling almost entirely to China’s small-scale farmers. Now the government is shifting its approach, replacing peasant farms with large commercial agribusiness operations, investing in farm production abroad and opening up to more imports.[2]

China’s foreign agricultural investment is increasingly led by the private sector.[3] Over the past ten years, Chinese companies have invested US$43 billion in agricultural production outside China.[4] They have also gone on massive shopping sprees, buying up operations in global production chains like pork in the US and soybeans in Brazil, and gaining greater control over the global seed industry by taking on majority ownership of the Swiss-based seed giant Syngenta.

China is also a huge importer of soybeans, dairy, oilseeds, sugar and cereals. Its meat and dairy imports are surging, propelled in part by trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand. Given its reliance on the US for about 20% of its food imports, the new “trade war” launched by President Donald Trump against China has put pressure on Beijing to find new sources of food and livestock feed.

BRI is expected to boost China’s outward investments in agribusiness as well as baseline infrastructure spending to facilitate greater agricultural trade. The annex table of agricultural projects under BRI gives a sense of what is unfolding in various countries.

Read the Selected list of BRI-related agricultural projects here.

CPEC in Pakistan

Total agricultural trade between China and Pakistan reached US$652 million in 2013.[5] The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), signed in April 2015 and worth US$46 billion, aims to increase this. The project’s goal is to connect southwest China to the port of Gwadar in Balochistan province through roads, railways and other infrastructure. Along the way it will open up new mines, mills and communication systems—not to mention military capabilities. Agriculture is central to the agenda.

The long-term plan is to replace traditional Pakistani farming with high-tech farming and marketing systems and a large-scale agroindustrial complex. Towards this end, CPEC outlines ten key areas for collaboration and nine special economic zones.[6] Projects include the construction of a fertiliser plant with an annual output of 800,000 tons; large-scale vegetable and grain processing plants in Asadabad, Islamabad, Lahore and Gwadar; and a meat processing plant in Sukkur. Hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland will be needed for these projects, with many farmers likely displaced.

CPEC is also facilitating the expansion of hybrid wheat, replacing farmers’ traditional wheat varieties to the benefit of Chinese agricultural input companies like Sinochem Group. The company has successfully grown Chinese hybrid wheat on a pilot area of 2,000 hectares in Pakistan and now plans to introduce it to other BRI countries like Uzbekistan and Bangladesh.[7]With wheat being one of Pakistan’s main staples, local communities fear these developments will negatively impact small farmers and lead to Chinese control over the country’s food supply, according to Roots for Equity.[8] CPEC is also bringing Chinese investment to the Pakistani dairy and seafood sectors for export to China, with cotton and rice also on the radar.[9]

BRI in Africa

East Africa is the first link in BRI’s connection to Africa. China is building ports and sea infrastructure to upgrade the route from South Asia to Kenya and Tanzania and then up to the Mediterranean via Djibouti. Inland railways are also being built. East African food and farming are bound to be undermined. For instance, China pledged to combine BRI with the longstanding Forum on China-Africa Cooperation to boost African agricultural productivity and increase its agricultural imports from Africa.[10] China already has agro-industrial parks in Mozambique, Uganda, Zambia and other countries, and is now expanding its agro-industrial investments under the banner of the BRI.

As for West Africa, President Xi Jinping visited the region for the first time in July 2018 with the intention of connecting the region to BRI. The Diamniadio International Industrial Platform, a new Chinese-funded special economic zone outside of Dakar, has established Senegal as a springboard for Chinese industry throughout West Africa. Since Senegal is a member of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, China can manufacture and export goods from the special economic zone to the US market using Senegal’s quota and duty-free privileges. The same holds for the EU market, where Senegalese goods can enter through the Everything But Arms trade arrangement.

Kazakhstan: Ground zero in Central Asia

Kazakhstan has been described as “ground zero” for China’s agricultural ambitions in Central Asia. A massive dry port, 49% owned by Chinese companies, has been built in the town of Korghos on the border between China and Kazakhstan to facilitate food trade. A railroad and a highway are being constructed across the country to connect China with Europe. And a trade corridor has been constructed which links Kazakhstan to Southeast Asia through the Chinese port of Lianyungang in Jiangsu province. BRI’s Silk Road fund alone has earmarked US$2 billion for Kazakhstan, much of it connected to agriculture.

Chinese interests are eyeing Kazakhstan as a new source of wheat, sugar, meat and vegetable oil. Authorities and foreign investors in Kazakhstan view China as a lucrative market for farm exports, especially beef, wheat and dairy. Kazakhstan is already on its way to tripling wheat exports to China by 2020. The country has also just broken into China’s soybean market and is building a new meat processing plant near the Chinese border focused on producing beef and lamb for the Chinese market.

In May 2016, the government of Kazakhstan announced that Chinese companies were proposing 19 new agroindustrial projects valued at US$1.9 billion under the banner of BRI. One year later, seven agreements worth US$160 million were signed at the Kazakh-Chinese Agriculture Investment Forum in Astana. With the exception of large-scale poultry and cattle farms, the projects focus more on processing than on primary production.

COFCO, China’s biggest food trader, is one of the Chinese players moving into Kazakhstan. COFCO has partnered with a Kazakhstani company to produce tomato paste for China and is starting to import beef from Kazakhstan through a freight train service opened in 2017. Another Chinese company, CITIC Construction, is investing in livestock production to generate beef for export to China. Meanwhile, Aiju Grain and Oil has started producing and exporting vegetable oil using farms that Aiju “either owns or invests in” in Kazakhstan. The list goes on, with Chinese companies partnering with Kazakhstani firms to venture into fruit and vegetable production, sugar processing, meat packing, oil processing, and flour and noodle manufacturing.

In 2016, protests erupted throughout Kazakhstan after the government announced it had revised a 2003 land law to extend the farmland lease period for foreigners from 10 to 25 years. As a result of the protests, the government postponed implementation of this measure until December 2021. Still, protests related to large-scale Chinese investments continue to rage, especially around labour issues.

Conflicts and controversies

There are a number of issues beginning to emerge from Chinese foreign investment in general, and BRI projects in particular. These revolve around debt and threats to national sovereignty, land grabbing, displacement, human rights abuses in conflict zones, environmental impacts, public health concerns and labour violations.

Poster for a Chinese high-speed train at the construction site for a bridge over the Mekong River near Luang Prabang, Laos. Photo: Adam Dean for The New York Times

Many BRI projects are financed by loans to recipient governments which can’t pay them back. The government of Sri Lanka, for instance, agreed to allow China to build a new port on its southern shore, but when Colombo couldn’t pay back the loan, the Chinese took over the port. Other BRI projects have led to similar concerns about debt repayment. In August 2018, Malaysia withdrew from a US$22 billion BRI project fearing it would be unable to pay for it. Indonesia’s President Jokowi is holding off on committing to BRI due to similar concerns.

Land is another controversial issue since BRI projects require large swaths of land on which to develop infrastructure and industrial zones. In Laos, for instance, a railway project (initiated before BRI but then placed under it) is grabbing the land of over 4,400 farming families, who are being displaced without compensation.[11] Many of the families have been waiting for compensation for more than two years and some have been forced to migrate to neighbouring countries to find work after losing their farms. A 2015 GRAIN report identified 61 land deals involving Chinese companies covering 3.3 million hectares in 31 countries.[12] It is unclear exactly how many of these deals are directly tied to BRI-associated projects, but BRI is certainly helping to increase China’s control over the world’s farmland.

BRI projects are also passing through conflict areas in several countries. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, for example, cuts through the disputed territory of Gilgit Baltistan, which is likely to exacerbate religious, geopolitical, military and land tensions between India and Pakistan. In Southeast Asia, planned trading networks between China and India include areas of longstanding conflict such as the historical persecution and displacement of the Rohingyas and other ethnic minorities in Rakhine State, Myanmar.[13] Both China and India have proposed to set up a special economic zone in Rakhine State to link trade between South and Southeast Asia under the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor. In addition, according to Community Care and Emergency Response and Rehabilitation Myanmar, numerous indigenous landholders who lived from agriculture were evicted when the persecution and expulsion of the Rohingya intensified in the area.

Another conflict area in Myanmar, Kachin State, has been targeted as a growing expansion area for banana plantations for export to China. Villagers in Myanmar report thousands of trucks coming in and out of the region transporting bananas. As a result, there have been growing protests against Chinese investments in Myanmar over the past year.

Finally, there are serious concerns about the public health, labour and environmental impacts of BRI projects. Chinese foreign agricultural investments in Southeast Asia have led to the increased use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers, causing health problems in communities.

This is especially well documented in the case of Chinese banana and rubber plantations in Laos and Myanmar. Water supplies are affected as water is polluted or diverted from communities to irrigate Chinese plantations. There are also reports of declining soil quality on Chinese plantations caused by input-heavy farming practices. Additionally, there are reports of forced labour being used on some Chinese plantations. [14]

Conclusion

More work is urgently needed to map out the reach and impacts of BRI-affiliated projects that are taking over farmland and resources with the aim of boosting agricultural production and trade with China. Not only are these projects having a negative impact on the livelihoods of small farmers and rural communities in target countries, they will also ultimately undermine peasant farmers in China by replacing them with industrial production and food imports. Instead of the large-scale industrial farming and expanded global trade that BRI envisions, we need to support the small farmers and resources involved in ecological food production for local markets.

Box 1. BRI accelerating climate disaster

BRI’s model of infrastructure-driven economic growth is based on grabbing large areas of land and territory to convert to economic corridors. This necessarily involves the loss of forests, ecosystems, traditional livelihoods and biodiversity. What’s more, all of BRI’s projects are high carbon-emitting initiatives: from building new roads, railway lines and ports in the Pacific and Indian Oceans to creating oil and gas pipelines to Russia, Kazakhstan and Myanmar to setting up plantations, large-scale farms and processing zones across Asia and possibly Africa.

While it pledges to cut coal use at home, China is opening new mines and building several large-scale coal power plants abroad: in Pakistan alone, Chinese coal investments reach more than US$10 billion.[15]  According to The Financial Times, BRI energy projects focus “disproportionately” on fossil fuels: “If new energy infrastructure investments in BRI countries follow patterns similar to the average emissions intensity observed in these countries in the past, roughly three quarters of the global energy-related carbon budget compatible with the Paris Agreement will be consumed by 2040.”[16]

An environmental assessment of BRI projects in Myanmar shows that forest degradation is another major risk from projects like the oil and gas pipeline from the Rakhine coastline up to China’s Yunnan province, the US$10 billion Kyaukphyu Special Economic Zone, and associated roads and railways.[17] Widespread deforestation in Myanmar due to these projects could impact 24 million people, with farmers most affected. Deforestation has also been cited as a cause of the landslides and floods that occurred in Myanmar in 2015, which led to the salinisation of valuable rice paddy land.

Lastly, most of the agriculture projects being developed under BRI are industrial and export-oriented. The industrial food system is already responsible for up to half of global greenhouse gas emissions. [18] The World Bank says that emissions from agriculture and food could account for as much as 70% of the greenhouse gas emissions the world can emit while still having a likely chance of limiting dangerous global temperature rise. Given its focus on expanding industrial agriculture and food trade, BRI could potentially accelerate the world into climate disaster even faster than experts predict.

Box. 2 BRI and trade deals

Trade agreements are expected to play an important role in lending legal strength to BRI projects. This is particularly the case with agreements setting out legal protections for investors, common food safety standards, intellectual property rules and market access arrangements. China already has trade deals with a number of countries involved in BRI projects including Pakistan, Maldives, Georgia, the Southeast Asian ASEAN bloc and the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union. It is also currently negotiating a massive regional trade deal (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership or RCEP) that includes India, as well as smaller bilateral pacts with key BRI partners like Sri Lanka and the Gulf States.

The agreement with the Eurasian Economic Union is significant because it directly links China with both Russia and Kazakhstan, major territories for BRI. It is, for the moment, a “light” agreement that open the door to formal cooperation without locking the countries into strong new commitments. But those openings could lead to stronger agreements about markets and investment down the line. RCEP could similarly upgrade China’s trade and investment opportunities in India and Southeast Asia, but it’s not clear whether and when consensus could be reached. In the coming years, we can expect China to push new trade deals with Pakistan and Bangladesh, among others.

*

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

Notes

[1] Nicholas Hildyard, “Extreme infrastructure: Infrastructure corridors in context”, Presentation at Eurodad International Conference, June 2017, http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/sites/thecornerhouse.org.uk/files/Extreme%20Infrastructure_0.pdf

[2] China Government Network, “Li Keqiang: Developing modern agriculture in an industrial way” (in Chinese), Central Government Portal, 2015, http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2015-07/25/content_2902475.htm.

[3] Several large state-owned enterprises like Chongqing, COFCO and China National Agriculture Development Group Corporation, as well as provincial authorities, invest in farming abroad. A survey estimated that 47 Chinese companies rented or purchased a total of 983,000 hectares of land abroad. These included large state-owned companies like COFCO and China Agricultural Development Group, companies affiliated with provincial authorities like Chongqing Grain Group and Jilin Province Overseas Agriculture Investment Co., and 38 companies affiliated with provincial state farm systems. See: Gooch and Gale, USDA, “China’s Foreign Agriculture Investments”, Economic Information Bulletin No. 192, April 2018, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324984953_China’s_Foreign_Agriculture_Investments

[4] American Enterprise Institute, “China global investment tracker”, 2015, https://www.aei.org/china-global-investment-tracker/

[5] Qiao Jinliang, “Broad prospects for agriculture co-op under “Belt and Road” initiative”, China Economy Net, 2016, https://farmlandgrab.org/25916

[6] CPEC Special economic zones, http://cpec.gov.pk/special-economic-zones-projects

[7] Liu Zhihua, “Chinese hybrid wheat brings hope for farmers in Pakistan”, Sinochem, 2018, http://www.sinochem.com/english/s/1569-4966-121571.html; China Seed, “China Seed Signs Hybrid Wheat Industrialization Cooperation Agreement with Pakistani Enterprise”, Sinochem, 2018, http://www.sinochem.com/english/s/1569-5518-18020.html

[8] Askari Abbas, “Patenting agriculture: case of Chinese hybrid wheat seeds introduce under CPEC, Roots for Equity, 18 December 2018, https://rootsforequity.noblogs.org/patenting-agriculture-case-of-chinese-hybrid-wheat-seeds-introduced-under-cpec/

[9] Khurram Husain, “CPEC moves into agriculture”, Dawn, 18 October 2018, https://www.dawn.com/news/1441188

[10] Ehizuelen Michael Mitchell Omoruyi, “FOCAC, BRI reshaping Sino-African cooperation”, China Africa Daily, 14 Sep 2018, http://africa.chinadaily.com.cn/weekly/2018-09/14/content_36913139.htm  

[11] Radio Free Asia, “Chinese railway project in Laos leaves farmers in the lurch”, 10 January 2019, https://www.rfa.org/english/news/laos/lao-farmer-railway-01102019160842.html

[12] GRAIN, “Corporations replace peasants as the ‘vanguard’ of China’s new food security agenda”, November 2015, https://www.grain.org/e/5330

[13] Ashrafuzzaman Khan, “The strategic importance of Rakhine State”, Straits Times, 3 September 2018, https://farmlandgrab.org/28403

[14] See the excellent report by Mark Grimsditch, “Chinese agriculture in Southeast Asia: Investment, aid and trade in Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar”, Heinrich Böll Foundation, June 2017:  https://th.boell.org/en/2017/06/22/chinese-agriculture-southeast-asia-investment-aid-and-trade-cambodia-laos-and-myanmar

[15] CPEC energy priority projects, http://cpec.gov.pk/energy

[16] Mattia Romani, “China’s Belt and Road Initiative puts Paris climate commitments at risk”, The Financial Times, 14 December 2018, https://www.ft.com/content/e925f9fa-ff99   

[17] Naw Betty Han, “Belt and Road road corridors put half of Myanmar’s population at risk”, Myanmar TImes, 22 February 2018, http://bilaterals.org/?belt-and-road-road-corridors-put

[18] GRAIN, “Food sovereignty: five steps to cool the planet and feed its people”, December 2014, https://www.grain.org/e/5102

Featured image: Farmers pack tomatoes in Guandao village, southwest China, during the 2014 spring harvest. Photo: Xinhua/Lu Boan

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Belt and Road Initiative: Chinese Agribusiness Going Global
  • Tags: ,