Lebanon is expecting the visit of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo this week at a time when the Lebanese economic-political map is being redrawn and while Lebanon is suffering its most serious economic downturnin recent history.
Reasons for the deterioration of the local economy include not only the corruption of Lebanon’s political leadership and lower level administration but also US sanctions imposed on Iran. The latest sanctions are the harshest ever imposed. They will also dramatically affect Lebanon so long as President Donald Trump is in power if Lebanon does not follow US policy and dictates.
If, as anticipated, Washington declares economic war on Lebanon, the sanctions will leave Lebanon few alternatives. They may force Lebanon to fall back on Iranian civilian industry to overcome US economic pressure, and to rely on the Russian military industry to equip Lebanese security forces. This will be the result if Pompeo insists on threatening Lebanese officials, as his assistants have done on previous visits to the country. The consistent message from US officials has been: you’re either with us or against us.
Politically, Lebanon is divided between two currents, one pro-US (and Saudi Arabia) and another outside the US orbit. The economic situation may well increase internal division to the point that the local population reacts angrily in order to exclude the US and its allies from influence in Lebanon.
Such a scenario may still be avoided if Saudi Arabia injects enough investment to reboot the agonising local economy. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia fears that those who are not aligned with its policies and those of the US could benefit from its support. To date, Riyadh has not fully understood the internal Lebanese dynamic and what it is possible or impossible to achieve in Lebanon. The kidnapping of Prime Minister Saad Hariri was the most flagrant indication of Saudi ignorance of Lebanese politics. The Saudis’ lack of strategic vision in Lebanon will likely prevent any serious support to the failing economy and may lead the country into serious instability.
Before 1982, one US dollar was equivalent to 3 Lebanese Lira. This was in part because the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) was spending tens of millions of dollars in the country on its own people and on Palestinian families living in Lebanon. Moreover, United Nations organisations (UNRWA) and other NGOS were also distributing financial support to Palestinian refugees whose homes had been taken by Israel forcing them to leave their country.
Following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the PLO was forced to leave the country. Not much later, one US dollar reached an exchange rate of 3000 Lebanese Lira, later devalued to stabilise at the current rate of 1$ for 1500 L.L. Iran entered the scene to support local Lebanese fighters (the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, i.e. Hezbollah) to recover their territory from Israeli occupation. In the year 2000, Iran began to make a serious investment in Hezbollah as the group managed to force the Israelis out of most Lebanese territory. Iranian financial investment had reached a very high level by the 2006 war when Israel was prevented from disarming Hezbollah to keep its rockets and missiles out of range of Israel.
In 2013, the Syrian government asked Hezbollah to support the Syrian Army to prevent disintegration of the country and to keep Takfiri militants from taking over. Iran pumped billions of dollars to defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda and to prevent them from overwhelming Syria and Iraq, aware that Iran would be the next target. The budget for Hezbollah troops went sky high. Support for movements of troops, logistics and daily allowances given to fighters, contributed to boosting the Lebanese economy. Hezbollah’s monthly budget went much beyond $100 million per month.
Lebanese disputed blocks with Israel (Source: EJM)
But after the arrival of Donald Trump in power and his rejection of the Iran nuclear deal, the US government has imposed the severest sanctions on Iran and halted donations to the United Nations organisations supporting Palestinian refugees (UNRWA). Sanctions on Iran have forced a new budget on Hezbollah, a five-year austerity plan. Forces have been reduced to a minimum number in Syria, movement of troops are slowed accordingly and all additional remunerations are suspended. Hezbollah reduced its budget to a quarter of what it had been without suspending any militants or contractors’ monthly salaries and medical care as stipulated by a personal order from Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s Secretary General.
This new financial situation will affect the Lebanese economy as cash flow and foreign currency dry up. The consequences are expected to be more noticeable in the coming months, leading to a plausible domestic reaction from the local population that will feel the weight of the failing economy.
The US and Europe are imposing strict controls on any monies transferred to and from Lebanon. The country is on a financial blacklist and there is tight scrutiny on all transactions. Religious donations from abroad are no longer possible since they expose donors to serious accusations of support for terrorism by western countries.
As long as Trump is in power, Hezbollah and Iran believe the situation will remain critical; they estimate that the US President will most probably enjoy a second term. The next five years are expected to be hard on the Lebanese economy, particularly if Pompeo’s visit brings messages and dictates that Lebanon cannot obey.
Pompeo wants Lebanon to give up on its demand to redraw its disputed water borders with Israel, compromising on blocks 8, 9 and 10 to the benefit of Israel. This request will not be granted and Lebanese officials have said on several occasions that they are relying on Hezbollah’s precision missiles to stop Israel from stealing Lebanese water.
Pompeo also wants Lebanon to give up on Hezbollah and its role in government. Again, the US establishment seems ignorant that Hezbollah is almost a third of Lebanon’s population, enjoying the support of more than half of Lebanese Shia, Christian, Sunni and Druse, with official members in the executive and legislative authorities of the country.
What then is the alternative? If Saudi Arabia moves in, Lebanon doesn’t need one or two or five billion but tens of billions of dollars to resuscitate its economy. It also needs a hands-off policy from the US establishment to allow the country to govern itself.
The Saudis are already suffering from Trump’s bullying, and its funds are drying up. If Saudi decides to invest in Lebanon, it will seek to impose terms not much different from US demands. Saudi Arabia engages in wishful thinking when it aims to expel Iran’s influence and Hezbollah supporters from Lebanon, an impossible goal to fulfil.
Lebanon’s remaining choices are few. Lebanon can move closer to Iran to lower its expenditures and the cost of goods, and it can ask Russia to support the Lebanese army if the West fails to do so. China is preparing to move in and can be a positive alternative for the country, using Lebanon as a platform to reach Syria and later Iraq and Jordan. Otherwise, Lebanon will have to prepare to join the list of poorest countries.
A shadow is hanging over the land of the cedars, a country that has already had to fight for survival in the 21stcentury. Hezbollah, now subject to US and UK sanctions, is the same force that protected the country from ISIS and other takfiri fighters who threatened to expel Christians from the country, in accordance with French President Sarkozy’s advice to the Lebanese patriarch that Lebanese Christians abandon their homes. The takfiri jihadists and NATO shared the same intentions for Lebanon. The failure of the US establishment’s plan to divide Iraq and create a failed state in Syria as part of a “new Middle East” woke the Russian bear from its long hibernation. Today Russia competes with the US for hegemony in the Middle East, obliging Trump to pull out all the stops in an attempt to break the anti-US front.
It is a battle with no taboos where all blows are permitted. The US is pushing Lebanon into a bottleneck with no alternatives to closer partnership with Iran and Russia.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Written in response to the ‘Arab Spring’ initiated in Tunisia in 2011, Shadow Wars – The Secret Struggle for the Middle East, is a powerful indictment of the western neoliberal economic/political order. Christopher Davidson has gathered a huge amount of information from many sources that support his overall argument,
“…the primary blame for not only the failure of the Arab Spring, but also the dramatic and well-funded rise of Islamic extremist organizations since the late twentieth century – including the deadly al-Qaeda and now the blood curdling ’Islamic State’ – must rest with the long-running policies of successive imperial and ’advanced capitalist’ administrations and their ongoing manipulations of an elaborate network of powerful national and transnational actors across both the Arab and Islamic worlds.”
Davidson then summarizes future prospects indicating the Arab Spring having been foiled,
“…has also been covertly redirected into a pretext for striking at other enemies…the same powers that have distantly ruled the region for hundreds of years are now making sure their grip gets even tighter.”
The work starts with a brief overview of counter revolutionary patterns where the deep state attempts and often succeeds in countering movements that threaten their power. Examples range from the British Jacobite counter revolution to reinstate the divine right of kings under papal authority, the French revolution, on up through the Russian Bolshevik revolution and the Spanish revolution before the Second World War.
Davidson then quickly focuses on the Middle East and the history of British imperialism, advances to the modern era and U.S. imperialism. The book is a wonderful read – in a nasty sort of way – with Davidson drawing in many sources, well referenced, detailing how the imperial powers of the west have operated in the region.
Highlights
Without detailing his overall storyline, several ideas were standout from my perspective.
First off is the breadth and strength of British imperialism and its manipulations in order to maintain some form of imperial stability. This morphs into tU.S. imperial desires, and while the U.S. receives much critical analysis of its attempts at control, it is made obvious that the U.K. has not really given up on its imperial desires, only now subordinate to the power of the U.S. The main thrust of the interference for both is the desire of western governments wanting “stability”, either military, clan based, or religious, as long as the resources were under control by the west.
In consideration of the imperial “divide and conquer” agenda the whole history relates the ongoing and continued use of jihadis to extend the empire’s control. They serve multiple purposes from creating a reason to attack a particular region, as well as using them as a means to disrupt and attack.
Not surprisingly, Saudi Arabia is viewed as being the wellspring of the jihadi movement, supplying both the wahhabi belief system as well as the financial support for the various jihadi groups. They are not alone, as Davidson clearly shows how the Gulf States, the former British Trucial states UAE, along with Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait provide both financial, logistical, and media support (and evasions) for the jihadis. Turkey with its pretensions for caliphate further complicates the scenarios.
The final standout has to be the many interactions between the local groups, their efforts to recruit jihadis from abroad (from Indonesia, Pakistan, the former Russian states among others), and the many different branches of the the U.S. empire – financial, military, political, corporate.
Published in 2016, Shadow Wars obviously misses the success of Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and to a small degree a recalcitrant Turkey in being the essential factors in defeating the actual physical caliphate if not all ISIS jihadis. Davidson ends balancing on the apparent increasing power of the caliphate with its broad global support (regardless of media and political rhetoric) while noting a few successes in regaining small amounts of land from the caliphate.
Regardless, it is a very strong read, a strong indictment of the British and U.S.empires and how they use their media, financial power, and military power in order to use both covert and overt mechanisms to maintain control of Middle East resources.
Baseline misses
There are two missed components in this work, but given the overall powerful presentation they do not affect the main premise of western imperial interference even though they are part and parcel of it.
As I have noticed with some other writers on this general topic, Israel is a missing element. It is mentioned in a few brief comments, such as the one with the IDF admitting providing medical aid to ISIS fighters. However, in consideration of both British and U.S. imperial projects in the region, nothing is said. Both countries, in particular Britain at first, view the establishment of Israel as an “outpost” for western powers in order to control the region. The military power of Israel combined with its political power in the U.S. and EU makes it a significant factor in western control of the regions resources with the most important being oil.
Perhaps Davidson along with other authors take into consideration the backlash that might be received from various state actors if Israel’s participation was highlighted. As I indicated, beyond this, it is still a very powerful and significant view of western interference in the region.
The other miss is oil – and as I have indicated in other writings, it is not really the oil that is of concern, but its use as support for the US$. With Saudi Arabia having agreed to sell oil only in US$, which is of particular benefit after the U.S. went off the gold standard, it has become a powerful player as well in U.S. domestic politics. Without the dollar support, the U.S. would more than likely lose its preferential position as being the global fiat currency.
The Middle East and the western states then play a double game against each other – supporters of the Washington consensus financial system while also supporting various jihadi groups that the powers that be pretend to oppose but mainly manipulate for their own desires at control. Democracy and freedom are not truly desired; stability and control are the ultimate goals.
Otherwise, Shadow Wars is an excellent book detailing all these double dealings. Christopher Davidson is to be commended for his wonderful work – and I would hope a follow up perspective will be written now that Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Turkey have managed for now to gain the upper hand in Syria.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
According to the agency South Front, the United States has transported approximately 50 tons of gold from the regions occupied by ISIS in the Deir ez-Zor Governorate. The Kurdish news source reports that the gold was stolen from Syria, and subsequently stored in an American military base, located in Ayn al-Arab. In addition, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) stated that U.S. forces had been transporting large chests filled with ISIS gold from the al-Dashisha area in the southern part of the Al-Hasakah Governorate.
Furthermore, the United Kingdom-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported that ISIS members in the Euphrates region were in possession of approximately 40 tons of gold, which the terrorists used to buy a safe passage out of the region, surrounded by forces supported by the United States. As a rule, American military personnel received payments for allowing terrorists to leave the area without a hassle, and they subsequently handed over this money at their base. SOHR also claimed that the coalition, headed by the United States, did not attack the territory occupied by ISIS “deliberately”, and as a result, then received money from outlaws and terrorists. After all according to the saying “Money does not stink,” hence, the U.S. band of looters and bribe takers became even richer.
If someone actually believes that Americans had only recently begun to accept gold from terrorists and transfer it to U.S. coffers, they are sadly mistaken. Irrespective of who the President of the United States is at any given time, these leaders have always believed that stealing money and gold ingots from others is a “noble pursuit”. And there are plenty of examples that support this claim.
For instance, we could remind our readers about the gold and the vast amount in dollars that belonged to the Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos. During the fight for the “happiness of his people,” Ferdinand Marcos and his family did not forget about their own needs. Their possessions included various thriving businesses involved in the manufacturing and service sectors, which were owned by their relatives and acquaintances. In 1985, The Mercury News, a local newspaper based in San Jose, published a series of sensational articles that attempted to describe the method used by this “first couple” to accumulate so much wealth, with particular emphasis on spheres connected with the United States. The publication was unable to identify all of the sources of Ferdinand Marcos’s wealth, but up until now the amount of money, belonging to him, is estimated to be somewhere below $10 billion.
Once Ferdinand Marcos was deposed as president, Swiss banks froze his family’s accounts, on request from Washington, and then refused to acknowledge the suit filed by the new Filipino government because it lacked legal grounds. Hence, these banks did not accept that the deposited funds belonged to the Philippines. By August 1987, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed 35 suits against the former president, his wife and 300 individuals close to him, in order to seek compensation for the financial losses supposedly suffered by the government, totaling $90 billion, which, as uncovered later, was transferred to the United States.
The issue of the alleged Marcos gold bars is especially interesting. This treasure was supposedly stolen by Japanese armed forces from Asian nations during World War II, and subsequently buried by the Japanese general Tomoyuki Yamashita somewhere in the Philippines Islands. Apparently, Ferdinand Marcos discovered the location of this treasure, which came into his possession in 1975.
A fairly similar (or perhaps worse) misfortune befell the U.S. strategic partner in the Middle East and the ruler of Iran, Reza Shah Pahlavi. He possessed vast sums of money received from the oil industry and invaluable art work, which was collected since the times of the Safavid dynasty and then of the Qajar dynasty. Reza Shah Pahlavi was an excellent pilot, and during the revolution, he loaded his wealth on a plane with his family on board and left Tehran. However, the United States welcomed his money and invaluable treasure, but not the Shah himself. After his death, he was buried in Cairo. After all, who needed this pauper? The exact amount of Iranian money, remaining in the United States, is still unknown, as supposedly these funds were frozen. In reality, this money has been put to “good use” and has earned vast profits for the U.S. gang of profiteers.
Once these American thieves began to run out of funds, they decided to refill their coffers with money from treasuries of two other wealthy rulers, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. Since Americans did not wish to hand over Iraq’s incalculable wealth to strangers, they occupied the country themselves and robbed it of all its riches. Besides the vast sums of money in dollars stolen from the nation, a unique Iraqi museum located in Baghdad was looted. It used to house antiquities which are 6,000 to 7,000 years old. Can you imagine the prices of these artifacts on the black market? Up until now, unique objects and treasures from Iraq continue to be sold in various nations of the world. Needless to say, Saddam Hussein’s personal possessions met the same fate. They were stolen by American looters and can now be purchased in different parts of the globe.
Then a military campaign began in Libya, where Washington’s European vassals profited. Libyans still cannot figure out what happened to tens of billions of dollars from their treasury or the personal treasures that belonged to the leader of the Arab Jamahiriya, Muammar Gaddafi. In reality, all of this wealth has been quietly transferred to the coffers of American profiteers. And what of international laws that prohibit looting of conquered nations and removal of stolen goods from their territories?
In response, “Gentlemen” from Washington, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, simply chuckle and continue talking about the rule of law, human rights and the right of every nation to take their case to the International Court of Justice…
As the Russian proverb goes “Where the horse puts its hoof, there the crab sticks its claw” (i.e. “the thread follows the needle”). A recent, noteworthy example of this behavior was the refusal by the Bank of England to return gold ingots, worth £420 million (or almost $550 million), to Venezuela. With a wry smile, British officials insist that “standard measures to prevent money-laundering be taken.” These measures include the Venezuelan government providing explanations about how the South American nation plans to use its own gold. According to the newspaper, The Times, the Bank of England would like to receive a “clarification of the Venezuelan government’s intentions for the gold.”
Once again this proves that Anglo-Saxon “gentlemen” are not to be trusted, as historical evidence shows that such behavior is traditionally British. The Bank of England, without any sign of embarrassment, deceived another nation, Venezuela, and stole its gold ingots, worth $1.2 billion. The bank has formally outed itself as a thief! Everything is as it was in times past, when Francis Drake, generously rewarded by Queen Elizabeth I, looted Spanish galleons and brought money back to England. Times change but London’s approach to life remains the same: “We stole from others, and if an opportunity presents itself, we will continue to steal.”
It is worth reminding our readers that Venezuela is an independent nation, and an esteemed member of the United Nations and other respectable international organizations. It is not a country that has been occupied by either the USA or Great Britain. However, the United States and its allies have been treating Venezuela as a subject state, whose riches will soon be transported to coffers belonging to American profiteers.
Earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump ordered sanctions to be imposed on Venezuela in order to prevent the South American nation from performing transactions with its gold reserves. According to a notice, published by the White House Office of the Press Secretary, the Trump administration is intent on preventing the government of this Latin American nation from plundering “Venezuela’s wealth for their own corrupt purposes” and degrading “Venezuela’s infrastructure and natural environment through economic mismanagement.” As a result, Washington has also prohibited Americans from “operating in the gold sector of the Venezuelan economy.”
These unfortunate experiences are, to a certain extent, beneficial to current leaders. As they clearly demonstrate that one should not trust the tales, told by these foreign thieves, about democracy for one and all, freedom of speech and movement, and some arbitrary human rights. As soon as an opportunity to plunder other nations and people presents itself, Washington forgets these words. Other than the United States and Britain, aren’t there other respectable nations where one can, without reservations, store money and wealth? For instance, not long ago Venezuela made a decision to transfer the foreign headquarters of PDVSA, the nation’s main state cooperation, which has borne the main burden of imposed U.S. sanctions, from Lisbon to Moscow. It seems fair to say that in the current complex state of international relations, when the United States and its vassals are stirring up hysteria by any means with their irrational actions, more and more countries and people have started to believe in Russia, its peace loving policies, as well as its honesty and integrity.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Viktor Mikhin, a member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Trump lied about winning against ISIS, the scourge the US created and supports, along with al-Qaeda, its al-Nusra offshoot, and other jihadist groups.
Last December, he lied saying
“(o)ur boys, our young women, our men — they’re all coming back (from Syria), and they’re coming back now (sic). We won (sic), and that’s the way we want it.”
“We have started returning United States troops home (sic) as we transition to the next phase of this campaign,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders added.
In mid-December, Trump said all US forces would be out of Syria in 30 days, in January extended to 120 days.
At the time, a State Department official said there’s “no timeline” for withdrawal of US troops from the country, adding:
“The president has made the decision that we will withdraw our military forces from Syria, but that it will be done in a deliberate, heavily coordinated way with our allies and partners.”
In June 2018, we reported that US combat troops were illegally occupying northern and southern parts of the country aren’t leaving, their numbers likely much larger than officially reported, including elite special forces.
They’re deployed to around three-fourths of world countries, CIA operatives covertly everywhere worldwide, most often masquerading as diplomats.
Center for International Policy Arms and Security Project director William Hartung earlier said
“(t)here is little or no transparency as to what (US forces and their numbers) are doing in (nations worldwide) and whether their efforts are promoting security or provoking further tension and conflict.”
There’s no ambiguity about their mission in US combat and other theaters. Along with propping up friendly despots, they’re involved in toppling sovereign independent governments, the US wanting pro-Western puppet regimes replacing them.
Using ISIS and other jihadists as imperial proxies, Iranian and Syrian governments are targeted for regime change – NATO, Israel, and other regional rogue states in cahoots with US plans.
Earlier reports of pulling US forces from Syria were greatly exaggerated. Weeks after Trump’s mid-December announcement, none were withdrawn, just redeployments from one location in the country to another, along with moving them back and forth cross-border between Syria and Iraq.
At the same time, hundreds of truckloads of weapons, munitions, and military equipment were sent to Syria by air and cross-border from Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel. They keep coming.
Statements by Pompeo and Bolton affirmed the Trump regime’s intention to maintain a military presence in Syria and Iraq – Pompeo earlier saying “America will not retreat until the terror fight (it supports) is over.”
Indefinite US occupation of northern and southern Syrian territory is planned, Pentagon forces operating from 18 or more bases in the country – platforms for supporting ISIS and other terrorists, along with waging endless war on the country for regime change.
In late January, hundreds more US troops were sent to northern Syria, according to Turkey’s Anadolu news agency.
US envoy for regime change in Syria James Jeffrey said US forces will remain in the country for “a very long time.” Withdrawal of some will likely shift them cross-border to Iraqi territory bordering Syria for easy return to the country if ordered.
US occupation of nations is permanent, true of Japan, Germany, South Korea, and other countries post-WW II – true in the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa post-9/11.
An earlier Pentagon statement said US forces will stay in Syria indefinitely – as long as ISIS remains a threat, its scourge supported by Republican and undemocratic Dem regimes.
In February, Senate members voted 70 – 26 against withdrawing Pentagon forces from Syria – claiming “a precipitous withdrawal” could destabilize the (already hugely destabilized) region, adding pullout would benefit Iran and Russia.
According to the Wall Street Journal on Sunday, the Pentagon intends “keep(ing) 1,000 forces in Syria, US officials said, a shift that comes three months after President Trump ordered a complete withdrawal and is far more than the White House originally intended.”
They’ll remain in northern and southern parts of the country, bordering Turkey in the north, Iraq and Jordan in the south.
In February, Trump said he intends leaving 200 US troops in the country after saying they’re all coming home. Now it’s a 1,000. Numbers cited are meaningless.
As long as the US maintains a military presence in Syria and elsewhere, Pentagon commanders will decide on numbers to deploy to all theaters – together with the US war secretary.
Occupation of Syria began early in the war the Obama regime launched in March 2011. Unknown numbers of US forces will remain in the country indefinitely.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.
We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.
If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.
We are witnessing a worldwide environmental collapse, and nobody seems to know how to stop it. As you will see below, a study that was just released that looked at more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals and amphibians discovered that nearly a quarter of them “will almost certainly face extinction”. Never before has our society faced such a massive collapse of life on a planetary scale, and yet the vast majority of the population doesn’t seem concerned about what is happening. Species after species is being permanently wiped out, and most of us couldn’t care less.
The time for action is now. According to this new study, over 1,200 species will soon be extinct unless dramatic action is taken. The following comes from the Guardian…
More than 1,200 species globally face threats to their survival in more than 90% of their habitat and “will almost certainly face extinction” without conservation intervention, according to new research.
Scientists working with Australia’s University of Queensland and the Wildlife Conservation Society have mapped threats faced by 5,457 species of birds, mammals and amphibians to determine which parts of a species’ habitat range are most affected by known drivers of biodiversity loss.
Once these species are gone, they will be gone forever.
Scientists are telling us that we have entered “the sixth major extinction” in the history of our planet. A brand new survey of 73 scientific reports that was just released has come to the conclusion that the total number of insects on the globe is falling by 2.5 percent per year. If we stay on this current pace, the survey warns that there might not be “any insects at all” by the year 2119. And since insects are absolutely critical to the worldwide food chain, that has extremely ominous implications for all of us.
In case you are wondering, humanity would not survive very long without insects.
In fact, it has been estimated that if all bees go extinct that most of humanity will be wiped out within ten years.
The global food chain is literally dying right in front of our eyes, and I cannot understand why more people are not deeply alarmed by this.
We are facing an unprecedented crisis in our oceans as well. Researchers in Canada have discovered that levels of phytoplankton have dropped by about 40 percent since 1950…
The tiny organisms, known as phytoplankton, also gobble up carbon dioxide to produce half the world’s oxygen output—equaling that of trees and plants on land.
But their numbers have dwindled since the dawn of the 20th century, with unknown consequences for ocean ecosystems and the planet’s carbon cycle.
Researchers at Canada’s Dalhousie University say the global population of phytoplankton has fallen about 40 percent since 1950.
Without phytoplankton, our oceans would quickly become giant “dead zones”, and at the pace we are going we don’t have too long before that will happen.
And the truth is that the frightening drop in phytoplankton levels is already having a dramatic impact on the food chain. I have shared the following quote from Chris Martenson before, but it is worth sharing again…
Fewer phytoplankton means less thiamine being produced. That means less thiamine is available to pass up the food chain. Next thing you know, there’s a 70% decline in seabird populations.
This is something I’ve noticed directly and commented on during my annual pilgrimages to the northern Maine coast over the past 30 years, where seagulls used to be extremely common and are now practically gone. Seagulls!
Next thing you know, some other major food chain will be wiped out and we’ll get oceans full of jellyfish instead of actual fish.
Are you starting to understand where I am coming from?
Our planet is literally dying, and there is only a very, very limited amount of time to do anything about it.
Meanwhile, western civilization is dying as well. Paul Joseph Watson has just produced a video entitled “The Collapse Of Western Civilization”, and it is perhaps the finest video that he has created to date. If you have not seen it yet, I would encourage you to check it out.
In an accompanying article, Watson listed some of the evidence that our society is in the process of collapsing…
From spiritual bankruptcy, to mass chemical dependence, to rampant addiction to sensual stimulation.
Almost every factor that precedes the collapse of great civilizations has been met by the west.
Our destruction is long overdue.
Depression is at its highest level ever. Drug addiction is at its highest level ever.
People identifying as Christians is at its lowest level ever.
As usual, Watson is right on the money. We have lost our values, we have no clear direction as a society, and we are deeply, deeply miserable. Just consider the following numbers from the CDC…
The number of deaths from alcohol, drugs and suicide in 2017 hit the highest level since federal data collection started in 1999, according to an analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data by two public health nonprofits.
The national rate for deaths from alcohol, drugs and suicide rose from 43.9 to 46.6 deaths per 100,000 people in 2017, a 6 percent increase, the Trust for America’s Health and the Well Being Trust reported Tuesday.
Most people do not have a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Without meaning and purpose, most people drift aimlessly through life, and that must change.
Time is running out for our exceedingly vacuous society. We are literally destroying ourselves and everything around us, and here in the western world we have completely lost our values. We are on a road to nowhere, and we will soon be overtaken by the consequences of our very foolish actions.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
I filmed these scenes on March 10, but until now have been too busy and also lacking good enough internet to upload.
My objective in filming is not to say there is no poverty in Venezuela, nor to imply there is no hunger or shortages anywhere. However, when corporate media is flat out saying shelves are empty all over Caracas and the city is in crisis, well this is false. The scenes I’m seeing are much like I saw in 2010. I know there are differences since then and now, of course, but there isn’t the pandemonium MSM is attempting to claim is happening here. Also, this is not a wealthy area of Caracas, its perhaps lower middle class. I’ll film the wealthy areas where typically opposition live in coming days.
Further, in the days since filming this, I have had the opportunity to visit organized communities growing massive amounts of produce, also breeding rabbits (apparently a high source of protein)…and also one of the cities urban garden initiatives. I’ll upload more on that when time allows, but for now, day 1, no “crisis”, but people were dealing with the effects of the nation wide power outage, one believed most likely due to US acts of sabotage on the electricity grid.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Israel is off-limits. The criminalisation of anti-Semitism means nothing short of this. In fact, France’s President Macron says anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism and both are now legally defined as “hate crimes”. Will this be a global precursor? Will the world uphold such a sweeping, broad legal definition that has the potential to embrace the inhumanity and egregious acts of such nations as Israel, now an apartheid Jewish state? For example, will countries refusing to recognise Israel, like Malaysia, be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC)?
And, why is it the apartheid Jewish state of Israel, discriminatory towards the Palestinians in its very essence, cannot be criticised for its inhumanity against a brethren race? Let the Semites fight it out amongst themselves — for the land, the water resources and whatever else the Israeli Jews are robbing the Muslim Palestinians of?
Yes, the inhumane treatment of the Palestinians, most especially of Gaza, by Tel Aviv is anti-Semitism. Why is it that only the rhetorical and physical manifestations of irrational hatred toward the Jewish community, institutions and religious facilities — as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and used officially — is singled out? Palestinians are Semites, too. The British gave away their land to Jews from Europe, not Semitic, enabling the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland. There was genocide and ethnic cleansing by the Jews, which are on-going to this day.
These crimes against a Semitic people is not anti-Semitism?
Furthermore, the IHRA definition in attempting a neutral position does uphold that
“Rhetorical and physical manifestation of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or property…”
Yet, the West goes out of its way to define any and all criticism of Israel — and in France also of Zionism — as anti-Semitism and has been conveniently criminalised. Why? In whose interest is it to prevent the exorcism of evil from Israeli policies?
Zionism claims legitimacy as “a national liberation movement of the Jews, by the Jews, and for the Jews” (Mohameden Ould-Mey, 2003) which, in short, is Jewish nationalism. Israel then would be the basis for Jewish nationalism and ipso facto containing Zionism to within the Israeli borders. Not so! As Laurent Guyenot argues in his article “How Zionist is the New World Order”, Zionism is nationalism, which transcends itself, a feat achievable only within a religious context.
Jewish nationalism is sourced from the Bible, which refers to Jews as the people of Israel, hence Israelites. After the fall of the Kingdom of Israel at the hands of the Romans the Jewish/Israelite diaspora became.
A complicated history of commercial and financial success enriching the minority Jews at the expense of the natives ultimately saw violence — the pogroms in Russia where the biggest community of Jews lived — perpetrated against them almost on a regular basis. Of course, there was the Holocaust. The search for a safe haven became the imperative and the struggle took the form of Zionism.
Jewish nationalism, aka Zionism, drove not just the modern-day Israelis with such birthright notions of the Promised Land and the Chosen People. It is, too, the ideology of the diaspora, a convenience hijacked by the neoconservatives — not all Jews — for their New World Order aspiration of a world government where nation states are cumbersome constructs; colonialism 2.0. Israel under this ideology then becomes more a project to drive a larger world-view long financed by oligarchs such as the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. George Soros is but a johnny-come-lately.
Only under this circumstance can anyone hope to understand why against the emerging populism in the West the sanctity of freedom of speech is being openly sacrificed. Why anti-Semitism in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn is being built up as a menace when research shows that Mr Corbyn was never an anti-Semite prior to him taking over the leadership of the British Labour Party on a crest of populist sentiments, nor now. Being pro-Palestine is not being anti-Semitic. And, there are few indications that the Party is being poisoned by anti-Semitism, although some are obviously trying to fan what are mere ambers, if at all.
This explains why the French philosopher Roger Garaudy was imprisoned on charges of Holocaust denial. Why Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has been attacked for questioning the dual loyalty of many in Congress to the extent where laws are passed that do not serve American interest but to protect Israel. Why many US legislators have lost their positions for questioning Israeli improprieties. Why anti-Boycott Divest and Sanction (BDF) legislation has been adopted in almost half the states of the USA and parts of Europe.
But Macron’s criminalising of anti-Zionism is probably a first. Why make public the connection between Zionism and anti-Semitism? Zionism, after all, is perceived as ideology. Criminalising anti-Zionism is not unlike attempts at criminalising Marxist theory by banning Marx’s writings as in some Third World countries.
It is my guess that the French move to criminalise these particular “hate crimes” now could be a desperate attempt at oppression; to quell the popular discontent as epitomised by the Gilet Jaunes street protests, now in its 15th consecutive Saturday. Accuse the peaceful protesters of “hate crimes” and then ban what has been proven to be peaceful protests made violent by state aggression.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Askiah Adam is Executive Director of International Movement for a JUST World [JUST]. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
March 2019 is notable in the post-Soviet space for three interrelated reasons, all of which deal with Ukraine: it was half a decade ago that Crimea reunited with Russia, after which the country began its descent into failed state status, and now it’s poised to hold general elections at the end of the month to decide its future trajectory. While Crimea has flourished as a free and safe society in the time since, the rest of “rump Ukraine” wasn’t so lucky since it quickly slipped into civil war and had its entire state apparatus captured by pro-Western oligarchs, the most well-known of which is the incumbent President Poroshenko.
As could have been expected, the economy capsized and the security situation became very dangerous for ethno-religious minorities, especially after Nazi-era ultra-nationalism was made the unofficial national ideology. The dysfunctional nature of post-coup Ukraine is such that no amount of money that was poured into the country by its Western partners could fix its new structural problems, which to the contrary only seemed to get worse the closer that Ukraine moved towards the West. The country is now at a pivotal crossroads as its people decide whether to stay the course and continue with Poroshenko, go “back to the future” and give Tymoshenko a try once more, or throw caution to the wind and support the comedian Zelensky.
It’s difficult at this moment to tell which of those three main candidates is leading because Poroshenko controls all of the state machinery and has been accused of using all the means at his disposal to tip the scales to his favor by hook or by crook. Many observers even believe that he staged the November 2018 Kerch Strait incident and subsequent imposition of martial law in order to create the pretext for indefinitely delaying elections or obtaining the cover that he needed for rigging them, both of which are very likely scenarios but were only offset by Western behind-the-scenes pressure after even the US realized that such audacious vote-rigging wouldn’t be accepted by the population.
This brings to mind the country’s growing protest movement which is comprised of a motley crew of dissidents all opposed to Poroshenko for their own reasons, be it his blatant corruption, dangerous international provocations against Russia, failure to halt the rapid decline of the people’s living standards, and even the fact that he isn’t “far right enough” for EuroMaidan’s original ultra-nationalist militias.
Openly stealing the election through one means or another could trigger a real revolution, especially if Tymoshenko and/or Zelensky seek covert Western support from Poroshenko’s international “partners” who might be fed up with him by that point in order to have them back another wave of anti-government protests.
This state of affairs might be why Poroshenko is less overt nowadays about his vote-rigging plans, which might not succeeded even if he puts his best efforts behind them because it remains to be seen whether his permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) are more loyal to him than they are to foreign patrons, the opposition candidates, or even the country’s national interests as they objectively exist. It can’t be discounted that Poroshenko might win, but it also can’t be ruled out that he won’t, and that his possible loss might be due to the most powerful elements of his “deep state” “betraying” him for the aforementioned reasons.
Poroshenko does have one last trick up his sleeve, though, and that’s if he makes a last-minute appeal to the most ultra-nationalist elements of the population in order to position himself as “their candidate” and promise to “be everything they wanted him to be”, with the hint being that they should take to the streets and wreak havoc if he loses. He might not ultimately play that card, and it might not even rile up the right-wing radicals like he might expect it to because there’s a chance that it could come off as insincere political pandering, but if he does resort to this strategy and it manifests itself in any tangible way, then it would be akin to him holding the country hostage.
Going forward, there are less than two weeks before the first round of elections is held, and it’s foreseeable that they’ll go into a second round if no candidate wins an outright majority. Poroshenko’s primary objective is to ensure that he reaches that stage so that he can have more time to craft a strategy custom-tailored for beating whichever candidate his main opponent turns out to be.
Once he has a clearer idea of who that person is, he can get to work orchestrating the behind-the-scenes pressure campaign and possible public stunts that he thinks are necessary in order for him to retain the presidency, notwithstanding the possible vote rigging that he might order elements of his “deep state” to undertake.
Wrapping up the article by returning to the introductory point, March 2019 is indeed very historic for Ukraine in more ways than one, with voters going to the polls to decide which candidate is best suited to have any chance of repairing the self-inflicted damage to this failing country’s statehood.
Conventional wisdom would suggest that Poroshenko – who greatly contributed to getting them into this situation in the first place and keeping them there for half a decade already – wouldn’t be the one to do so, but it’s precisely because of his oligarchic instinct in wanting to cling to power at all costs that he can be expected to pull whatever tricks are needed to stay in office, though there’s nevertheless no guarantee that he’ll succeed.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Human Rights Watch (HRW), in their 2019 report on revolutionary Cuba, have once more been championing American-sponsored proxy gatherings within the Caribbean island, such as the Ladies in White. This century, the most notable of these “dissident groups” in Cuba are indeed the seemingly virtuous Ladies in White, who in 2005 won the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, an award presented by the European Parliament no less.
All is not as it appears, however. WikiLeaks cables – which are proved accurate time and again – have since outlined clear links between the Ladies in White and US governments, revelations of significant interest to Cuba’s administration.
One should furthermore be wary of decorations dispensed by European Union institutions. In 2017 for example the Sakharov Prize, named after Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov, was awarded to the “Democratic Opposition in Venezuela”; the winners here were again proxy associations funded for years by elite US organizations, as even mainstream outlets like the Washington Post reported a month ago.
With regard the EU, since its inception in 1993, it has been increasingly influenced by hegemonic American interests, with the USSR no longer in existence to rival this growing power.
The EU today consists of 28 nations, a staggering 22 of which are members of NATO: A US-run interventionist military alliance, which has violated international law with its attacks on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya. One of the principal reasons that NATO was established in 1949, was so as to prevent Europe from pursuing policies contrary to Washington’s plans. As the elapsing decades have shown, it has worked a treat in that regard.
Europe has once more been kowtowing to the White House recently, with a list of EU states (most of which belong to NATO) following their master’s wishes by recognizing Juan Guaidó in Venezuela, who is a puppet figure in the truest sense.
In 1988 the first to be given the above-mentioned Sakharov Prize was Nelson Mandela, in this case a deserving victor, who was then enduring his 25th year in an apartheid jail. One can assume the South African revolutionary would have been somewhat unimpressed by the same decoration later bestowed upon US-funded groups within Venezuela and Cuba.
Mandela was a strong critic of America’s hostile actions against Cuba. In July 1991 he highlighted that,
“We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of a vicious, imperialist-orchestrated campaign, organized to destroy the impressive gains made in the Cuban Revolution… The most important lesson that you [the Cubans] have for us is that no matter what the odds, no matter what difficulties you have had to struggle under, there can be no surrender. It is a case of freedom or death”.
Much to the West’s distaste, Mandela was eternally grateful to Fidel Castro for initiating the liberation of southern Africa from apartheid; with Cuba’s leader sending thousands of his soldiers to the region during the 1970s and 1980s, along with other personnel like doctors and teachers.
While Mandela stewed restlessly for long years in a cramped prison cell, those triumphs achieved by Cuban-led armies against the racist, mercenary forces were a source of inspiration to Mandela and his followers – both in jail and spread out on the battlefield.
From a psychological viewpoint, the native African troops fighting apartheid had thought their conflict a vain one, for the prevailing mood was that the white divisions were “invincible”. This was due to a deeply ingrained inferiority complex, whose roots could be traced to the white race’s murderous conquest of African lands generations into the past.
Similar feelings of despair were witnessed in territories the British Empire subjugated in southern Asia during the 19th century. In Burma (Myanmar) for instance, the British soldier was long considered “unbeatable” by many of the local inhabitants.
This perpetual myth of the white man’s invulnerability would rapidly disintegrate, however, with the arrival of the Imperial Japanese Army along Burma’s southern horizons in mid-December 1941. Within a matter of weeks, the Japanese were running amok across the country against Britain’s beleaguered and humiliated infantrymen.
In early March 1942, Burma’s capital Rangoon fell, and by late May 1942 the Japanese had expelled Britain’s armies from the whole of Burma, ending more than 100 years of colonial rule. This was no insignificant victory as Burma is a state larger in size than France.
Meanwhile, in southern Africa, once Castro’s forces – which partly comprised of black troops – were inflicting heavy defeats upon the racist enemy, it shattered the legend of white superiority in this area, while simultaneously rousing Africa’s freedom fighters.
Throughout the 1980s, US president Ronald Reagan was a strong supporter of South Africa’s apartheid dominion, as too was British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. When the tide turned irrevocably against apartheid tyranny in the late 1980s, Thatcher discerned the warning signs and retreated. However, the Reagan administration continued providing assistance to South Africa’s neo-Nazi units, even after they were compelled to retreat southwards.
For the meantime, the most prominent anti-government figure in Cuba is currently José Daniel Ferrer, aged 48; in August 2011 he founded the “dissident group” Patriotic Union of Cuba, while his wife is a Ladies in White member. In May 2016, Ferrer described America as “the greatest ally of Cuban democracy”, words apparently spoken in serious tones.
In June 2017, Ferrer wrote a letter to US president Donald Trump calling “for a maximum reversal of some policies that only benefit the Castro regime” and he also demanded “strong sanctions on the regime of Raul Castro”. Ferrer is in reality another US-supported proxy candidate seeking to embed himself in Cuban society. He has written of his belief in “the commitment of the European Union and the United States to human rights”, and furthermore expresses his opinion that “the United States, the European Union, and others strive to help Cuba”.
Ferrer is an ongoing backer of the Trump cabinet’s malevolent attitude towards Cuba, which ensures daily existence is that bit more difficult for millions of Cubans. Yet Ferrer has spoken of his desire in helping “the oppressed people of Cuba” to achieve “freedom and democracy”, without seemingly realizing the actual oppression can be traced directly to Washington, which continues to implement a punishing six-decade long embargo.
There is no call from Ferrer that president Trump should remove this unwarranted blockade, that every country on the planet opposes apart from America and Israel. Nor is there an insistence from Ferrer that US forces relinquish Guantanamo Bay in south-eastern Cuba, which is occupied in breach of international law, and where some of the most severe torture has taken place in the Western hemisphere.
Also receiving no mention by Ferrer are the decades of US-directed attacks on Cuba, aid for international terrorists, bombing of Cuban hotels, etc. In recent years, Ferrer has toured cities across Europe and America – which he titles “the free world” – visiting Miami too, the region from which many brutal anti-Castro schemes were instigated.
Ferrer has called for other like-minded souls to join protest cliques in Cuba, including of course the Ladies In White. He held meetings with the top US diplomat in Cuba, Jeffrey DeLaurentis, before the ambassador left his post in July 2017.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ferrer has mass media backing with the Washington Post describing him in May 2016 as, “A tall charismatic man, with a deep voice” who is “a new breed of Cuban dissident”. The New York Times labels him as “a fiery lieutenant” in the opposition “movement”.
The Miami Herald championed Ferrer in August 2018 as “the leader of the largest dissident organization in Cuba”, and who is “a clearly charismatic leader”. This is the same newspaper which described Luis Posada Carriles, one of the world’s biggest international terrorists, as “the Cuban exile militant and CIA operative who targeted Fidel Castro’s rule”. Such was the Miami Herald’s portrayal of Posada upon his death last May.
Remarkably, all of these actualities seem to be lost on both Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, whose reports relating to Cuba are also lacking in historical perspective and context. The NGOs’ accounts are, in fact, mostly diatribes which have performed a key role in fostering a negative image of the Cuban nation.
Due to Amnesty and HRW’s respected reputations, well meaning people who read their analysis on Cuba are unduly influenced by their skewed studies, and so a grossly unfair identity of the island country is promulgated. Western elites must be grateful indeed to the NGOs for their work in this case.
In August 2018, Amnesty insisted that Ferrer is a “pro-democracy leader” and “a prisoner of conscience”; these are descriptions the London-based NGO have conferred upon Ferrer for a number of years now. Previously, in March 2013, Amnesty stated that Ferrer was leading “an unrecognized organization that seeks democratic change by non-violent means”.
In HRW’s 2019 review, they simply describe Ferrer as a “dissident” and have been highlighting his cause for successive years. Considering Ferrer’s flagrant anti-government campaigns in Cuba, it is hardly surprising that he has spent periods in jail, along with other US surrogate figures.
One should put into proper setting the enormous extent of threat facing Cuba’s government and its population: The country is in opposition to the most powerful state in history, whose military might dwarfs even that of China and Russia. American governments have intervened, directly and covertly, in numerous sovereign countries since the early 1950s.
Scarcely any of this receives mention in the NGOs’ reports concerning Cuba. The overall situation is surely not lost on the Cubans themselves. To have any chance of surviving from its outset, Castro’s government realized that it had to swiftly repel proxy organizations within the state, so as to prevent Washington from establishing a possible bridgehead.
In the great majority of cases modest prison sentences were handed out to the accused, some of which were then commuted, with many detainees thereafter departing towards Miami.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
If you want to know why an Australian man massacred 50 Muslims in a mosque in New Zealand yesterday afternoon, then you need to understand a little bit about our nation’s dark past and in particular the quality of our present leadership. Chris Graham explains.
***
Getting your head around an unspeakable tragedy like that which occurred in Christchurch yesterday is no easy thing. It’s hard to fathom the level of hate that underpins such a heinous act.
Ordinarily when an event like this occurs, there’s a rush from political leaders to offer condolences. But there’s also a clamour to avoid political discussion. When terrible things like this happen, ‘now is not the timefor debate. Now is the time for grieving’.
In Australia, on this occasion, that clamour hasn’t occurred. I think that’s in part because the victims are Muslim and most Australians don’t – and won’t – identify with their grieving. There’s no ‘profile pic filter’ in support of the Muslims of Christchurch flooding Facebook today.
I think it’s also in part because Muslim leaders themselves – young and old – are already leading the calls for a national discussion, although it’s not like they haven’t been doing that for a long time. Journalist Osman Faruqi probably put it best.
I feel so sad. We begged you to stop amplifying and normalising hatred and racism. But you told us we were 'politically correct' and 'freedom of speech' was more important.
The more you gave the far-right a platform, the more powerful they got. We begged you.
There are several distinctly separate conversations that must go on, across two countries, and there’s a deep, twisted irony in at least one of them.
If New Zealand leaders respond the way Australian leaders have in the past, then there will be a debate centred around immigration. They might come to the conclusion that no Muslim has ever come to their shores and massacred 49 people. But an Australian has, and by Australian logic, New Zealanders should be calling for an immigration ban… on Australians.
The other discussion – the more pressing one – is on our own shores. What Muslim leaders – and many of the rest of us – want to discuss is how we got to this point, and how we get back from here. That will require an honest assessment of this nation’s history – not just our treatment of Muslims, but of people of colour generally – and in particular it requires a frank discussion about the people who have led us here, and still lead us today. It’s only then can we even start to understand what created a man like Brendon Tarrant.
This analysis piece is an attempt to contribute to that process.
Aussie racism and our leaders
When John Howard, our Prime Minister from 1996 until 2007, first joined the Liberal Party in the 1950s, slavery of Aboriginal people was common in Australia, although there is no official recognition of this in our museums or libraries.
Aboriginal children were taken from their families, placed into ‘homes’ and then forced into labour. Their wages and savings were held in ‘trust’ by government, and then stolen. As late as 1986 governments were still refusing to pay Aboriginal workers the same wages as everyone else. When a court finally ordered equal pay, the Queensland Government increased the wage level, then sacked the requisite number of black workers to ensure there was no impact on the bottom line.
As this occurred, John Howard had already been in parliament a decade and a half and had climbed to the ranks of leader of the federal Liberal Party. He said nothing in defence of Aboriginal people, nor did he call to heel his party colleague, Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke Petersen.
Two years later, as Opposition leader, he called for Asian immigration to Australia to be reduced. The policy was called, ‘One Australia’.
In 1998, Howard campaigned on tax reform and faced an electoral wipeout. He won the election, but not the popular vote. By 2001, he’d learnt his lesson – his election slogan was ‘We’ll decide who comes to this country and the circumstances under which they come’. The ‘Tampa election’ – where Howard refused to process asylum seekers who had sunk at sea and been picked up by the a passing ship – delivered a significant victory for the Liberals, and most notably, changed the political landscape in Australia.
Howard’s overt xenophobia was welcomed by a majority of voters.
By 2005, Howard was still Prime Minister when thousands of white Australians descended on Sydney’s famous Cronulla beach to riot and beat brown people – to ‘take back our beaches’, as organisers put it.
The ‘protest’ had been driven in large part by Sydney shock jock Alan Jones, a mate of Howard’s. Despite the violence, and the scale of it, Howard refused to accept Australia had a problem with racism.
June 21, 2007: Prime Minister John Howard and Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough announce the Northern Territory intervention.
Two years later, he sent the Australian Army into Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory on the false pretext that it was awash with paedophile rings. The story was part of a racist campaign concocted by our national broadcaster, the ABC, and Howard and his party tried to exploit it at the next federal election. Self-harm and attempt suicide rates among the NT’s Aboriginal population more than quadrupled, anaemia rates in Aboriginal children sky-rocketed, and the government later conceded that the practice of restricting access to welfare funds caused widespread starvation among the Aboriginal population.
Only black people were subject to these laws.
When Dr James Anaya from the United Nations toured the country in 2009, he labelled the NT intervention policy – which was now being run by Labor – as “racist”. He was described as an “armchair critic” by Australia’s future Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, a man who believes climate change is “crap”, whose main election slogan in 2013 was “stop the boats” – a reference to mainly brown people seeking asylum – and who thought that Aboriginal people living in grinding state-engineered poverty were making “lifestyle choices”.
Abbott was ultimately rolled as Prime Minister, and eventually succeeded by our current leader, Scott Morrison, the man who as Abbott’s immigration minister set up the indefinite detention of refugees in camps on Manus and Nauru. Documents leaked at the time revealed that Morrison deliberately constructed the detention system to be as punitive as possible, to act as a deterrent.
There are still hundreds of men and women living this ‘deterrence’ today, trapped on these islands. This policy has also been condemned by the United Nations and the international community.
Yesterday Morrison was quick to empathise with New Zealand, and to condemn comments by his parliamentary colleague, Fraser Anning, who claimed the cause of the massacre was New Zealand’s immigration policy. Morrison called Anning’s comments “disgusting”.
They are disgusting – indeed most things Anning says are, including this recent speech calling for a ‘Final Solution’ to Australia’s ‘immigration problem’. But of all the people in Australia in a position to condemn it, our Prime Minister is not one of them.
Fraser Anning, of course, was previously part of One Nation, a deeply racist political party headed by Pauline Hanson. For her part, Hanson was previously a member of Scott Morrison’s Liberals. She entered the parliamentary chamber last year dressed in a burka, a stunt designed to highlight her opposition to Muslim immigration.
In her maiden speech to parliament in 1996, she complained Australia was being swamped by Asians. In her return to parliament two decades later, she claimed Australia was now being “swamped by Muslims”. And just to clear that up, about two-thirds of Australians today were born here and identify their heritage as white, and Islam doesn’t even rank in the top five religions in the country, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Recently, amid a major political revival of her party, Hanson chose Mark Latham as her lead candidate in next week’s NSW state election. Latham is the former leader of the Labor Party, Australia’s other major political force. Earlier this week, Latham called for Aboriginal people to be DNA tested before they’re allowed to claim social welfare. In 2015, he told media wstern Sydney had a “Muslim problem”. In 2017, he argued it was pointless being “nice to Muslims” to get them to tip off police about future terrorist attacks.
Latham is expected to easily win a seat in the NSW Parliament next weekend.
Those on the ‘left’ in Australia often claim that the Labor Party is much more moderate than the Liberals. Here’s former Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd describing people seeking asylum as “illegal immigrants”. And here’s his predecessor, Julia Gillard, blaming Aboriginal people for their own poverty.
Someone who might also return to the parliamentary benches at the upcoming federal election is Jacqui Lambie a former Senator with the Palmer United Party, another of Australia’s fringe-right parties.
Boosted by the media, Lambie reached folk-hero status during her term in office for being known as a ‘plain talker’. Here’s Lambie ‘talking plainly’ on television about the problems with ‘Shari Law’.
If you can’t stomach the clip – or more to the point, you simply can’t understand it – you can read a full transcript here. Or here’s a brief excerpt. Lambie is asked exactly what she thinks Sharia Law is: “‘Shari, Shari law, um, you know, to me it’s, um, it’s, ah, it obviously involves terrorism. It, it, it involves a, um, a power that, um, is not a healthy power.” Those are the exact words of a popularly elected Australian leader.
Cory Bernardi, another former member of the Liberals and at one time on the frontbench, has long been a vocal opponent of Muslims and Islam. He still serves in parliament as an independent, and last year described Halal certifiers in Australia as “cockroaches” after waging a failed campaign against them for four years, which included a Senate inquiry that found, unsurprisingly, no links to terrorism.
One of the more entertaining moments of his campaign was during an interview with ABC’s Four Corners program, where he tried to argue there were financial links between halal certifiers and ‘terrorist groups’ like Hamas, the governing party in Palestine’s Gaza City.
“Hamas itself is not a proscribed terrorist organisation in this country,” the journalist points out. Bernardi stares back at the camera for a moment, gulps, and then replies: “Well, there you go.”
Bernardi’s anti-Muslim rhetoric has routinely been given a wide airing in media, under the pretense of ‘balance’. But here he is ‘doing it for himself’ on his own website, in a piece entitled, ‘Words are not enough’. He rails against the 2017 terrorist attacks in Manchester, which claimed the lives of 23 people, and ends by saying, “Enough is enough. If the Muslim community will not stamp out this evil in their midst we must take the lead. Our institutions are designed to protect our citizens and our national interest. It’s about time we did what is necessary to make them effective.”
Notably, Bernardi’s response to the slaughter of 49 Muslims by a white Australian male drew a much more muted reaction – a single 13-word tweet.
In 2013, Bernardi used that same term – “disgusting”- but added “abhorrent” to describe proposed Greens’ legislation on same-sex marriage. It would lead to bestiality, he argued.
Who boosts them?
That’s just a small fraction of the recent Australian leadership – there’s simply too many to mention, like Wilson Tuckey, known widely in politics by his nickname ‘Iron Bar’, which he got for flogging an Aboriginal man on the floor of an outback pub; or the faceless Labor left figure who described the job of being Aboriginal affairs minister as akin to being the ‘toilet cleaner on the Titanic’. Or former One Nation politician David Oldfield, who thinks Aboriginal culture – the oldest on earth – should have died out in the Stone Age.
But it does give you some idea of the climate in which this country conducts its affairs, which is one of fear and loathing of ‘the other’ – of anyone who is not white.
Our population is easily exploited by this craven political cynicism. That is undeniable. But the politicians and leaders can’t do it without the assistance of our media, and on that front, there’s no shortage of willing participants.
The Daily Mail has devoted huge quantities of space today to the Christchurch attacks. Sure, wholesale slaughter may be terribly sad, but there’s clicks to be had and money to be made.
If you search the word “Muslim” on the Daily Mail home page, then manage to scroll past the 79 stories they’ve already filed on the tragedy, you’ll get to the Daily Mail’s real coverage of Islam, which is a catalogue of some of the most extreme bigotry and Islamophobia in Australian media history.
Go to the Daily Telegraph or the Herald Sun and google ‘African gangs’ or ‘Lebanese gangs’. Or read this story by Michael Brull, which documents 2,891 Murdoch stories trashing Islam in a single year.
Read this fake news story from Fairfax about how the country NSW town of Bourke – home to a substantial number of Aboriginal residents – is the most dangerous place on earth.
Then there’s the commentariat. On any given day, there’s no shortage of reams of copy from ultra-conservative mainstream columnists demanding the same rights they expect as citizens be denied people of the Islamic faith. Or Aboriginal people.
Go to google and search on the phrase ‘Sunrise’ and ‘Aboriginal’. What you’ll find is deep ignorance and bigotry repackaged as entertainment, then presented as ‘balanced debate’.
Earlier this year, our media hosted another of those ‘balanced debates’ about ‘Australia Day’, as it does every year (we still celebrate our national day on the date marking the arrival of the British and the commencement of two centuries of slaughter and dispossession of the First Australians). Panellist Kerrianne Kennerly – an Australian television icon – came to the conclusion that people protesting Australia Day needed to get off their arse and head out bush to stop Aboriginal kids and women being raped.
In 2017, ABC journalist Yassmin Abdel-Magied – a Muslim woman – was hounded out of the country by media and politicians for having the gall to mention our history of slaughter on Anzac Day, a date reserved for the ‘commemoration’ of our proud involvement in virtually every global conflict since Federation. To us, solemn reflection is a public holiday where we get drunk and gamble, and don’t mention the wars fought on our own soil.
Arch conservative News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt described Abdel-Magied as a “Muslim apologist”.And here’s a tweet from Queensland Liberal-National politician George Christensen – a warrior for free speech – calling for Abdel Magied’s sacking and “self-deportation”. It got enthusiastic coverage in mainstream media.
Yasmin should no longer on the public broadcaster's tax-funded payroll. Self-deportation should also be considered. https://t.co/xqs7ILx2xC
Without a hint of irony, this was Christensen’s social media response to the Christchurch slaughter.
It’s worth noting, two years earlier, Christensen was the guest speaker at a rally staged by Reclaim Australia – a now defunct group with links to neo-Nazis – in which he declared Australia was at war with radical Islam. That got major media coverage as well. Outrage as clicks is big business.
Prior to Abdel-Magied, we hounded an Aboriginal football star, Adam Goodes, out of the game after he threw an imaginary spear at a section of the crowd that was mercilessly booing him for having a young girl ejected from an earlier game for calling him an “ape”. And before that, despite our national obsession with sport, we celebrated when an Aboriginal boxer Anthony Mundine was knocked out in a world title fight. It’s almost certainly the first time in Australian media history that publishers celebrated a significant sporting loss.
So where to from here?
Australia, as a nation, hasn’t so much lost our way, as we never really found it. Our history is one of slaughter, but it’s also one of denial of that slaughter.
When Anders Behring Breivik massacred 76 people in Norway in 2011 – a person whom Brenton Tarrant listed in his rambling, unhinged 73-page manifesto as his “true inspiration” – Breivik praised Australian conservatives like Keith Windschuttle, an historian who flatly denied that significant massacres occurred in Tasmania in the 1800s.
Breivik also praised our former PM, John Howard, along with Catholic Cardinal George Pell, who was this week sentenced to jail for raping a choir boy, and sexually assaulting another. John Howard wrote him a glowing character reference for his court appearance.
Like Breivik’s manifesto, Tarrant’s is also very extreme and mirrors, in large part, the views of people like Blair Cottrell, Shermon Burgess and Neil Erikson, three of the more prominent white supremacists in this country, who have frequently been entertained by the Australian media.
But while his language and tone are angry, what Tarrant actually says – the things he calls for, like a halt to Islamic immigration – are views widely held and expressed within government, parliament and our broader leadership… the leaders who plough our fields with intolerance, then express condelences when people like Tarrant carry out the violence.
If we’re to find our way out of the toxic mess that we’ve built for ourselves, it’s going to require an honest reckoning of our past. That’s an enormous task, given the depth of our denial.
In responding to Fraser Anning’s comments yesterday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison also said Anning’s views had no place in Australian Parliament. In fact, those sorts of views have always been a part of Australian Parliament.
This is Australia’s first Prime Minister, Edmund Barton, speaking after the passage of our parliament’s first major piece of legislation in 1901, called the Immigration Restriction Act: “All men who come to these shores with a clean record who leave behind a memory of class distinctions and religious differences of the old world are Australians. No n*gger, no Chinaman, no laska, no Kanaka, no purveyor of cheap coloured labour is an Australian.”
That legislation was known as the White Australia Policy, and remained in force until the mid 1970s (at the time the strapline of the magazine which published the remarks, The Bulletin, was ‘Australia for the white man’. It finally closed its doors in 2008).
So contrary to Morrison’s assertions, these sorts of comments don’t just belong in Australian Parliament, that’s routinely from where they emanate.
For a way forward, we also need to acknowledge our present. If you look at Scott Morrison’s official Twitter account today, he’s posted eight times on the attack in Christchurch at the time of press. But he pointedly avoids using the ‘M’ word, referring instead to ‘all New Zealanders’ and ‘all Kiwis’, as though the attack was not specifically targeted at Muslims. But when the shoe is on the other foot – when two Australians were killed by a Muslim terrorist in Melbourne last year – Morrison found voice, naming and shaming the Islamic community for not doing enough to stop the violence.
“For those who want to stick their head in the sand, for those who want to make excuses for those who stick their head in the sand, you are not making Australia safer. You are giving people an excuse to look the other way and not deal with things right in front of you.
“If there are people in a religious community, an Islamic community, that are bringing in hateful, violent, extremist ideologies into your community, you’ve got to call it out.”
Indeed. But what of the non-Islamic communities, who breed men like Brendon Tarrant? What are they doing? Where is the blanket condemnation of them from our Prime Minister? Why isn’t the Mayor of Grafton, where Tarrant grew up, being held to account? Or Dr Murray Harvey, the Catholic Bishop of Grafton?
Besides honestly acknowledging our present, out best way out of this mess is to start applying standards equally – to treat all citizens in this country with the same respect, and afford them the same rights and courtesies. And we must demand that our elected leaders begin and uphold that process.
On that front, sadly, we do not presently have a leadership in Australia capable of the task. Our dog whistling, our Islamophobia, our racism and fear of brown people is so entrenched that, as we speak, sitting in Scott Morrison’s Prime Ministerial office is a trophy – literally a trophy – in the shape of a boat, with a plaque on it that reads, “I stopped these”.
So we need to find other people to lead this nation. Our leaders stopped the boats – we need to stop their votes. We need to clean out our parliament at the May 2019 election. Where we sit today is a direct result of our past. It’s time we took control of our future.
There is no other option, because while it certainly is a shock, and deeply distressing, that the man who massacred at least 49 Muslims in New Zealand was an Australian, it should also come as no surprise.
We’ve been importing and then fomenting hatred in this nation since 1788. Now, finally, we’re exporting it.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Chris Graham is the publisher and editor of New Matilda. He is the former founding managing editor of the National Indigenous Times and Tracker magazine. Chris has won a Walkley Award, a Walkley High Commendation and two Human Rights Awards for his reporting. He lives in Brisbane and splits his time between Stradbroke Island, where New Matilda is based, and the mainland.
All images in this article are from New Matilda unless otherwise stated
Government forces and the Russian Military Police have kicked off a joint security operation in the Eastern Ghouta region near Damascus. In particular, the operation targeted Jisreen, Mohammedia, al-Aftaris, al-Nashabiyah and Marj al-Sultan where a notable number of weapons and equipment was abandoned by militants after the defeat suffered from the Syrian Army in 2018.
According to reports, locals, many of them former members of militant groups, who opted to reconcile with the Damascus government, are assisting the operation with information about possible locations of hidden weapon caches.
The Russian Aerospace Forces have deployed at least four Su-25 attack aircraft at Hmeimim Airbase, according to recently released satellite images. The Su-25 Grach is a single-seat, twin-engine, close air support jet developed in the USSR by Sukhoi. The jet’s latest variant, the Su-25SM3, is equipped with the advanced tactical EW suite Vitebsk-25, the SOLT-25 day\night electro-optical targeting system, a new encrypted communications system, and an updated navigation system.
Experts link the deployment of close-air-support jets with the increased tensions within the Idlib de-escalation zone. The demilitarized zone agreement has in fact failed and even Turkish patrols in the area do not stop militants from attacks on areas controlled by the Damascus government.
Additionally to this, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) continued releasing public threats against the Syrian government and the Russians.
“We tell the Russian occupier: there is nothing between us but war, we will not be tricked by your well-known games, no believer should be fooled twice, a land that was freed by blood, we will defend it with blood,” the General Shari’a Council of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham said in an official statement on March 14.
While recently Hayat Tahrir al-Sham had little military success, there was an obvious quality growth of its literary activities. On March 6, Hayat Tahir al-Sham threatened the Syrian Army and Russian forces with “long dark nights” and “black days stained with blood.”
Actions of the administration of US President Donald Trump in Syria look more and more similar to those conducted by the Obama administration. The State Department officially announced that the US intends to provide an additional funding of $5m to ‘heroic’ members of the so-called White Helmets, the group, which has become widely known thanks to its involvement in staged chemical attacks and large-scale media operations in support of al-Qaeda in Syria.
Taking into account a recent warning by the Russian side that militants in the Idlib zone have resumed preparations for staged chemical attacks, it can be expected that soon we will observe a new wave of anti-Syria, anti-Russia and anti-Iran propaganda.
Regarding the supposed withdrawal of US forces from the war-torn country, it mysteriously transformed from a rapid and decisive decision to a thing, which according to U.S. Special Representative for Syria Engagement James Jeffrey, has no timeline because the struggle to defeat ISIS ideology would go on. Some Syrian experts say that, prior to defeating ISIS ideology, the US-led coalition should finalize its operation against the 600m2-wide ISIS-held pocket in the Euphrates Valley, which has still not been eliminated.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
In response to annual US reports on human rights in China, Beijing issues its own on the deplorable state of human rights in America.
It’s latest report made the following introductory remarks, saying:
As in previous years, the latest US reports on human rights in world community nations “continued pointing fingers at and slandering human rights situations in over 190 countries, while blindly ignoring its own serious human rights problems.”
“If one takes a glimpse into the human rights situation of the United States in 2018, it will not be difficult to find that the United States government, a self-styled ‘human rights defender,’ has a human rights record which is (deeply) flawed…(T)he double standards of human rights it pursues are obvious.”
Examples are numerous, including far greater gun violence per capita in America than other developed nation, tens of thousands instances annually, affecting men, women, and children.
“Religious intolerance remarks were on the rise,” notably affecting Muslims, falsely claiming they’re “inherently violent or pose an imminent threat” – Trump and other right-wing extremists proliferators of the Big Lie.
They’ve “called for Muslims to be denied basic rights or declared that Islam is not a religion.”
Big Brother Internet surveillance in the US is a major issue, along with “warrantless wiretapping…vacuuming up emails, Facebook messages, Google chats, Skype calls, and the like.”
Big money controls US elections. “The total cost of the 2018 mid-term elections was $5.2 billion,” 35% more than in 2014 in nominal dollars, “making them by far the most expensive mid-term elections on record. The US government is representing the super rich” exclusively at the expense of most others.
Among Western countries, the US has the greatest income inequality. Its super-rich never had things better. The vast majority in the nation struggle to get by, most earning poverty or near-poverty wages with few or no benefits.
The “land of the free and home of the brave” is pure fantasy. So is “America the beautiful” – except for its privilege few.
America’s top 1% owns nearly 40% of the nation’s wealth, the disparity becoming greater annually. “Nearly half of the American households live in financial difficulties, and 18.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty.”
Hate crimes are at a record high – 7,175 reported by the FBI, 17% more than in 2017, Black Americans harmed most of all, their overall status deplorable.
“The median white family has about 10 times as much wealth as the median black family. African Americans are 2.5 times as likely to be in poverty as whites, about twice as likely to be in unemployment as whites, and more than 6 times as likely as whites to be incarcerated.”
“The infant mortality rate is 1.3 times higher for African Americans, whose average life expectancy is about 3.5 years shorter than whites.”
Countless numbers of school shootings occur annually – 94 last year, killing or wounding 163 people, the worst year on record for these incidents.
“Women are living in fear of sexual harassment and sexual assaults. A survey found that 81 percent of women interviewed had experienced some form of sexual harassment, and 27 percent said they had been sexually assaulted.”
Trump racist immigration policy separated at least 2,000 unwanted alien children from parents, traumatizing many, instances of sexually abused alien juveniles reported.
The Trump regime withdrew from the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran, the INF Treaty with Russia, UN Human Rights Council, the Paris Climate Agreement and UNESCO. It illegally moved its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, a UN recognized international city.
It cut or eliminated aid to Palestinians, especially its millions of refugees. It maintains a global gulag of torture prisons, Guantanamo the tip of the iceberg, most in them held indefinitely for political reasons.
Numerous cases of violent crime, gun crimes, abuse of power by police, and press freedom abuses were reported.
According to the FBI, there were an “estimated 1,247,321 violent crimes, including 17,284 incidents of murder, 135,755 rapes, 810,825 aggravated assaults, as well as 319,356 robberies.”
“Among the cases, 72.6 percent of murders, 40.6 percent of robberies, and 26.3 percent of aggravated assaults were committed with firearms.”
Press freedom in America deteriorated further, including “journalists attacked, searched, arrested, intercepted at borders, and restricted from publishing public information.”
Special UN rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights Philip Alston published a report, explaining that wealthy Americans get preferential judicial treatment, ordinary Americans charged with offenses treated much differently.
Washington is corporate occupied territory, money power running the country, House and Senate members serving their interests exclusively, ordinary people exploited and otherwise abused.
Poverty is America’s leading growth industry. Around half the nation’s households are financially stressed. Low-income ones lack proper health insurance. They’re either uninsured or way underinsured, unprotected in case of serious illnesses or injuries.
Homelessness and hunger get scant attention. The world’s richest country increasingly ignores the needs of its most disadvantaged citizens and residents.
“Systematic racial discrimination has long existed in the United States. Ethnic minorities faced restrictions in exercising their voting rights. The law enforcement and judicial departments made no progress in reducing racial discrimination.”
“Racial discrimination causes health disparities. When looking at the 10 leading causes of death in the United States, including cancer, stroke and heart disease, mortality rates among black Americans were higher than among white Americans. Compelling evidence suggests both individual- and institutional-level discrimination causes this disparity.”
Women face discrimination, on average earning 80% as much as men with similar skills for similar work. Polls show nearly half of women dissatisfied with their position in US society, treated unequally compared to men.
UN special rapporteurs on human rights, international solidarity, the right of everyone to be treated equitably, the right to non-discrimination, against racism, torture, and other inhuman treatment criticized the way America treats refugees and asylum seekers.
“The United States shirked international responsibilities, carried out the unilateralist America First policies unscrupulously, repeatedly withdrew from international organizations, bullied the weak, and caused human rights disasters in its overseas military operations, and became a ‘trouble maker’ that the international community widely condemned.”
Endless US wars rage, nations attacked for refusing to subordinate their sovereignty to US interests, no end of them in prospect, new ones in the wings to be waged.
The US is the world’s leading human rights abuser on a global scale, including at home against its poor, people of color, unwanted aliens, Muslims from the wrong countries, and anyone against its rage to rule the world unchallenged.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
On Monday December 8th 1941 FDR stood before Congress and said “December 7th, 1941, a date that will live in infamy…” and the people of our nation rallied to the cause for justice.
After 9/11 Junior Bush also rallied our people by telling us to “Get down to Disney World in Florida… take your families and enjoy life…” The US-NATO invasion of Afghanistan commenced on October 7, 2001.
Meanwhile, our great Military Industrial Empire was given the go ahead to gear up for WAR. On March 19th, 2003 the Bush crew, led by former G.D. Searle CEO Rumsfeld (under his thumb the slow poison artificial sweetener Aspartame was born) announced the newest phony war term. That would be Shock and Awe as we carpet bombed and missile shredded Iraq’s infrastructure and citizenry.
Why not, as this was good business for the Bush/Cheney donors who would then get contracts to clean up the mess or AKA Reconstruction. Isn’t infamy great?
This writer has written on more than one occasion my experience of that fateful morning of March 19, 2003. The night before I was glued to my television set watching the news shows from Canada, hoping for an eleventh hour cancelation of the impending attack on Iraq.
A month earlier millions, no, tens of millions of people from throughout the entire world marched and rallied against the planned illegal and immoral pre-emptive attack on another sovereign nation. Well, that fateful morning all we had hoped for did not occur. My country did the dirty deed, and its karma still resonates. I can recall standing in my living room, watching some asshole on either CNN or MSNBC describing the Shock and Awe like a cheerleader at a football game. I cried like a baby. Sadly, many of my friends and neighbors ‘Drank the Kool-Aid’ and marched along with the lying Bush/Cheney Cabal. Remember how many Democrats also wore their flag pins on those lapels? Months earlier, worrying about their upcoming re-elections, too many of them voted to authorize the Cabal’s pre-emptive attack plans. Miss Hillary, destined to be champion of her party in 2016, marched lockstep with the evil doers… and you wonder why she lost her bid for the White House?
Only a fool will deny that most of what our government labels as Al Qaeda or ISIL or whatever fanatical Islamic group is out there, would not even fit inside of a sports stadium with their numbers… IF we never attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq. Ditto for Afghanistan, where the Taliban had offered to turn over Bin Laden after 9/11. No, those two nations had to be controlled.
Why? Well, as to Iraq, Hussein was going to begin selling his oil in Euros and not in the dollars he always traded in. Of course, Iraq’s oil reserves were massive and needed to be controlled by us. Iraq was also right next to the other ‘AXIS of Evil’, Iran, and wouldn’t it be great to have our military right on their border?
As to Afghanistan, well, it was a gateway and transport area for the whole oil and gas Caspian region. Plus, as we have later found out, Afghanistan is overripe with mineral deposits, one such being the lithium needed for the hundreds of millions of batteries for the sea of electronic gadgets used worldwide. As the late General Smedley Butler had written in his 1935 short book War is a Racket we need to see who profits from our military engagements AKA Wars. All the European and Middle Eastern nations that are flooded with this severe refugee crisis should finger the blame on Uncle Sam and their own participation in NATO. For without those terrible attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria by this US led imperialist coalition, more hearts would be still beating, more towns and cities not destroyed, along with a decent way of life for millions.
Question is: When will the hundreds of millions of our citizens wake up and smell the coffee, or shall I say the burning sewage coming from our elected officials and mainstream media? Holding one’s nose is just not enough.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn, NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his work posted on sites like Global Research, Greanville Post, Off Guardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected].
Armed forces organization depends on several factors, from current and future threats and challenges (the nature of the projected theater of operations, or TO), to the country’s economic and technological capabilities. The doctrines of the two world superpowers of the second half of the 20th century (USSR and USA) assumed that large combined arms forces would conduct operations with massive support by artillery and aviation under conditions of nuclear war, in a multi-theater setting, including the wide-ranging European TO. But the experience of actual wars, including the Vietnam one for the US and Afghan one for the USSR showed that the current limited local and regional conflicts are decided by well-equipped mobile formations. Both countries researched the optimum organizational structure and methods of waging war for such operations.
Another event determining the development of military thought was the break-up of USSR. Massed nuclear strikes were no longer on the agenda. Military planning shifted from operations by field armies and larger formations toward highly mobile and well-equipped tactical task forces and combat teams up to brigade level.
By the end of the 2000’s, leading powers again changed their assessment of threats and challenges. This was due to the changes in global economy as well as social and ideological processes. Neither the US nor Russia were satisfied with the world situation. One felt the sense of losing an opportunity to establish oneself as the global hegemon, while the other sought to re-establish the status of a, at minimum, regional power. Economic motives played a key role in both cases. The powers increasingly acted through military confrontations. The risk of a global or a number of regional conflicts increased. Armed forces required adaptation to the new reality.
This is the context in which we briefly evaluate the organizational and staff structure of US and Russian armies, their missions and tasks, and development prospects.
United States
From the perspective of US military and political leadership, the post-USSR international environment and the associated changes in the methods of warfare demanded high-readiness Army units. Army divisions of the late 1990s represented a collection of battalions and brigade HQs. The divisional commander formed brigade out of several battalions and an already deployed brigade HQ. This made it difficult to coalesce these ad-hoc brigades, undermined their ability to conduct autonomous operations, and complicated joint action among brigade’s subunits. The decreased mobility and lavish equipment levels made it difficult to deploy divisions to overseas theaters of operations. Such units did not correspond to contemporary rapid reaction requirements, or the need for units capable of operating effectively in combat and non-combat (“operations other than war”) roles. The new requirements toward the US Army, particularly relevant during the opening phases of operations, demanded reforms in order to create a qualitatively new formation type capable of rapid deployment to theaters of operations.
Soldiers in Bull Troop, 1st Squadron, 2d Cavalry Regiment conduct a blank fire lane during troop exercise evaluations in the Grafenwoehr Training Area Feb. 18, 2018. The U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center is modernizing the Army Safety program to ensure that all Soldiers are safe during training and in carrying out their duties. (Photo Credit: U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Jennifer Bunn)
The US Army launched a large-scale re-organization in 2003 in order to transition to a brigade structure. Results included new corps and divisional command structures with a novel organizational structure.
As far as divisions are concerned, they are currently modular. The division maintains the function of HQ over a number of wholly autonomous brigades. Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) may be sent at any moment and in desired quantity to any corner of the world under the command of a divisional HQ or theater-level command structures. US Army divisions may be divided into two types—combined arms (infantry, cavalry, armored) and special (mountain, airborne, airmobile). Overall there are 11 divisions, not counting the US Army National Guard.
Brigades, consisting of a number of assets, became the key building blocks of land forces. They were subordinated to divisional, corps, or theater HQs, acting as a component of joint forces formed to satisfy the needs of the local commander. Such brigades are capable of rapid deployment and timely reaction to changes in situation.
Organizational and staff structure of Brigade Combat Teams
The US Army includes 3 brigade types: the Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT), Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT), and Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT).
The mission of the IBCT is to disrupt or destroy enemy military forces, control land areas including populations and resources and be prepared to conduct combat operations to protect US national interests. It is intended for operations in urban or densely populated areas where heavier equipment is inappropriate, as part of aerial or amphibious assault operations, and as a enveloping/raiding force. IBCT consists of 7 battalions: 3 infantry, reconnaissance, combat service support, combat engineer, and artillery, and totals 4413 soldiers. Each IBCT can perform assault operations and is officially designed as assault-landing. Most of its soldiers are mounted on Humvees. The weight and size of IBCT equipment allow transport using all types of transport aircraft, ensuring very high strategic mobility. IBCT’s main firepower consists of 6 towed M777 155mm howitzers, 12 towed M119 105mm howitzers, 48 mortars of various calibers, 36 self-propelled TOW-2 ATGMs, and 100 portable Javelin ATGMs.
U.S. Army soldiers of 141st Infantry Battalion, 3rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Bulldogs, out of Fort Bliss, fire at the enemy as part of a training mission at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif., on June 19, 2011.
Organizational and staff structure of SBCT
The SBCT is a medium mechanized brigade intended for both offensive and defensive operations in various terrain types. This BCT is usually used in fluid maneuver environments in certain terrain types (urban, mountain), and to defend important sectors.
SBCT consists of 7 battalions: 3 infantry, reconnaissance, combat service support, combat engineer, artillery, and totals 4500 soldiers. Since 2015 the anti-tank battery was transferred from combat engineer to reconnaissance battalion in order to form a fire support company there.
Soldiers from the 18th Engineer Co. 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, Stryker Brigade Combat Team, ready their 19 ton Engineer Squad Vehicles prior to moving into the “box” at the National Training Center.
Organizational and staff structure of ABCT
The ABCT represents the mainstay of US Army heavy forces. It is the main tactical shock-action unit intended for operations in tank-friendly terrain, launching counterattacks, breaking enemy defenses, and inflicting maximum damage on the enemy. Possessing great striking power and survivability, ABCTs form the core of the land force component in strategic theaters and, as a rule, are deployed in their entirety on combat missions.
ABCT consists of 7 battalions: 3 mechanized (combined arms), reconnaissance, artillery, combat engineer, and combat service support, totaling 4743 soldiers. Since 2013, the three combined arms battalions became two tank (two tank and one mechanized company) and one mechanized (one tank, two mechanized companies). It meant the elimination of two mechanized companies, while a tank company was reassigned to the reconnaissance battalion.
Modularity is also practiced in support brigades. The Modular Support Brigades come in 5 varieties: army aviation, artillery, reconnaissance, mixed (combat engineers, signals, military police, NBC defense), and supply. In earlier times artillery and combat service support existed only at division level, while brigades were assigned subunits by the divisional commander depending on the mission and situation. BCTs may be supported by the following units, depending on the mission and higher commander’s decisions.
Combat Aviation Brigades include UAVs, heavy and medium transport helicopters (Chinook and Blackhawk), attack helicopters (Apache), medevac helicopters. Such brigades are directly subordinated to divisional HQ.
Field Artillery Brigades (Fires Brigades until 2014) are equipped with M270 MLRS and HIMARS multiple rocket launchers. They also conduct information operations and have non-lethal capabilities.
Patriot
Air Defense Brigades possess Patriot and THAAD anti-air and anti-missile batteries. They were taken away from divisions as part of air defense reorganization. Nine out of ten US Army air defense battalions and two out of eight National Guard air defense battalions have been deactivated. The US Army has realized the need to re-establish a viable short-range air defense (SHORAD) capability, largely from lessons learned in Ukraine and Syria. National Guard units still utilize the Avenger AN/TWQ-1 short-range air defense system, and the US Army is currently updating and deploying the Avenger. The 678th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, a National Guard unit, was deployed to Europe last year, the first such deployment since the end of the Cold War.
THAAD
Maneuver Enhancement Brigades are used on those operational theaters where combat and support units are used in limited quantities, where an entire support brigade would be superfluous.
Sustainment Brigades provide logistical support of units above brigade-level. They consist of two battalions: special troops (battalion HQ and signals company), and combat service support (battalion HQ, technical servicing company, transport company, dispatcher group, quartermaster company).
Battlefield Surveillance Brigades are equipped with UAVs and deploy surveillance detachments.
In addition, there also exist Security Force Assistance Brigades, which train allied armed forces. While such brigades do not directly participate in combat, 500 SFAB troops save 4500 BCT troops from having to serve on training missions. By October 2017, the first of six planned SFABs was established at Ft. Benning.
As of September 2018, US Army had 31 brigades, including 13 IBCT (5 airborne, 3 air assault), 11 ABCT, and 7 SBCT.
Army National Guard has 27 BCT, including 5 ABCT, 12 IBCT, and 2 SBCT. Altogether the US Army has 58 BCT.
In order to visualize the capabilities of a division, we will consider a few cases.
Organizational and staff structure of 1st Armored Division, 1st and 3rd Infantry Divisions
The 1st Armored Division, as of 2016, consisted of a Headquarters and Headquarters company, Operations Company, Intelligence and Sustainment Company, Signal Company. Its combat power consists of one SBCT, two ABCT, Division Artillery, Combat aviation Brigade, supported by a Sustainment Brigade.
The 1st Infantry Division, as of 2016, had similar organization, except that its combat units include only two ABCT.
The 3rd Infantry Division is similar, except for two ABCT and one IBCT, supported by a Maneuver Enhancement Brigade.
When examining corps and army levels, one can discern the following:
I Corps is unique among active Army corps in that it includes both regular and reserve forces stationed in 47 out of 50 US states. Formally its forces include only the 7th ID.
III Corps includes the 1st Cavalry, 1st Armored, 1st Infantry and 4th Infantry divisions, in addition to support units.
XVIII Airborne Corps consists of 3rd Infantry, 10th Infantry (Mountain), 82nd Airborne and 101st Air Assault Divisions
Regional commands deserve a separate mention.
US EUCOM’s Army units are subordinates to US Army Europe (USAREUR). Its forces include 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (SBCT organization) in germany, and the 173rd IBCT (Airborne) in Italy. It is headquartered at the Lucius D. Clay Kaserne in Wiesbaden, Germany.
USINDPACOM (Pacific and Indian Ocean area). Its army units are subordinated to USARPAC. Organizationally it consists of the 8th Army, which in turn controls the 2nd Infantry and 25th Infantry divisions, with most of the latter based in Hawaii and Alaska. Its HQ is at Ft. Shafter, Hawaii.
USAFRICOM. Its Army units are subordinated to USARAF, and include the 2nd ABCT. It is headquarted at Caserma Ederle in Vicenza, Italy.
USCENTCOM does not have permanently assigned Army forces.
USARCENT (the former 3rd Army) controls foreign bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and various support units. Its HQ is at the Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina.
USNORTHCOM has no permanently assigned Army units.
USARNORTH (former 5th Army) controls the 263rd Air and Missile Defense Command
USSOUTHCOM has no permanently assigned Army units.
USARSOUTH (former 6th Army) includes the 193rd Infantry Brigade, 476th Military Intelligence Brigade, and various support units. Its HQ is at Ft. Sam Houston, TX.
US Army also has Functional Combatant Commands, including the USCYBERCOM, USSTRATCOM, USTRANSCOM, USSPACECOM, and USSOCOM. They do not have permanently assigned Army units, only attached ones as required and assigned by higher HQs.
Special Characteristics and Development Prospects
Unique organizational characteristics are readily evident. Each division has a unique structure. Nominally the US Army has only one armored division, and the existing infantry divisions are de-facto combined arms (not fully infantry, but also not fully mechanized). Artillery does not exist as a separate structure within the division. The divisional artillery headquarters trains and commands artillery units of assigned BCTs.
Changed threat assessments by leading world powers led to a new round of confrontation and a heightened risk of a global or several regional conflicts. Therefore US Army BCTs will form core of task forces with personnel strength of up to 5000 troops. US military specialists suggest three options.
The first is an armored brigade, reinforced by two infantry battalions and a reconnaissance battalion.
The second is a Stryker brigade reinforced by two heavy mechanized/tank battalions and a reconnaissance battalion.
The third is a light brigade, reinforced by two infantry battalions and a reconnaissance battalion.
Moreover, US Army BCTs will undertake a broader range of missions, including ones currently undertaken by special operations forces: raids, ambushes, mining important facilities and avenues of approach, precision strikes, guiding precision-guided munitions to target.
Simultaneously the US Army is reorganizing and expanding combat service support battalions, as part of effort of reforming US Army logistics in order to improve timely resupply prior to and during combat operations by shifting from mass delivery approach to a detailed distribution one. In particular, there is a trend of increasing the number of forward support companies. It is they which facilitate the ability of BCTs to quickly enter combat after deployment to a distant theater of operations without extensive logistical infrastructure. Attaching a forward logistical support company to each battalion makes it possible to create a flexible and scalable logistical network to ensure targeted logistical support.
Russian Federation
Now we will briefly evaluate Russian Federation Ground Forces, which experienced a more complicated and tortuous path toward its optimum organization due to the Russian military leadership’s approach to assessing military threats. If for the Soviet Army that threat was represented by NATO with its large combined arms forces, in the 1990s-2000s it was the struggle against international terrorism, and in 2010s the problem of confronting NATO and its mobile and well-equipped forces re-emerged.
Starting with the late 1980s and until the early 2000s, most heavy forces were deactivated or turned into equipment storage bases for economic and political reasons. The changing geopolitical situation and the experience of armed conflicts in various countries showed that in the absence of a well armed and property trained army it is impossible to defend national interests, particularly economic ones, neither on the global nor on regional scale. Reorganizing the army was a particularly high priority after the fighting in Chechnya in 1994 and 1999, and again during the war in South Ossetia in 2008. It proved unexpected for Russian military leaders that a division could at best deploy a reinforced battalion. Hasty assembly of several such divisions into more or less combat-capable formations revealed shortcomings in command and control, battle cohesion, organization of communications and logistics.
On the basis of such negative practical experience, Russian leadership decided to utilize the experience of foreign countries (particularly USA) in order to form modern mobile Ground Forces. Brigade was chosen as the building block. The main argument in favor of shifting to a brigade structure was that it had smaller size, thus it was more flexible and mobile than a division. Brigade structure was to endow the entire Russian army with high mobility and flexibility, corresponding to new security challenges.
In practice, the transition to the new structure suffered from the general situation plaguing the Russian Army of the early 2000’s, and was made more complicated by the civilian reformers running the MOD. A motorized rifle division would be reduced to a single motor-rifle regiment (2-3 battalions) plus reinforcements (tank, artillery, combat engineer, air defense, transport, and other subunits), the remainder being deactivated. There were fewer tank and motor rifle battalions, missions they were capable of fulfilling were more than modest. At that time it was probably the only way to preserve divisions, even in a reduced state. If one considers that the brigade was seen as something intermediate between regiment and brigade (divisional power and regimental mobility), one has to admit the actual outcome was a failure. Many exercises showed that brigades did not absorb division’s power and did not have regiments’ cohesion and mobility. If one is to compare the amount of assets entering into the direct contact with the enemy, the balance was not in favor of the brigade. Regiments and brigades had approximately the same number of tanks, APCs, and IFVs (more about that will be said below). Thus the brigade became a weak regiment reinforced with artillery and other support units. Motor rifle divisions would have three such regiments (two MRR, one tank), with the same number of support units.
The worsening of the international situation and NATO’s military activities near Russia’s borders revealed problems in Russia’s combined arms formations and forced military leaders to act. This included acknowledging the fact that as of mid-2014, there was not a single combined arms formation located in the Russian provinces adjacent to the Donetsk and Lugansk provinces of Ukraine, capable of defending them from unexpected Ukrainian military operations. One the western threat was reassessed, due to the pro-Western Ukrainian regime and NATO concentration near Russian borders, Russian military decided in 2014-17 to reorganize the 20th Army of the Western MD and creating the 1st Tank Army (Western MD) and the 8th Army (Southern MD), whose core would consist of tank and motor-rifle divisions. The Western strategic direction is critically important to the Russian Federation, as it includes 78% of the country’s population, biggest cities, the main economic, industrial, and scientific potential.
Russian Ground Forces currently deploy forces on the territory of adjacent countries and also further abroad. When deploying military bases (MBs), the Russian military uses US experience. The bases in South Ossetia (4th MB, 4000 troops), Abkhazia (7th MB, 4000 troops), Armenia (102nd MB, 5000 troops) have de-facto brigade structure. Their missions is to protect Russian interests in the region and prevent conflict. Due to the specifics and importance of that region, the 201st MB in Tajikistan has had divisional structure since 2013. This is due to the unending conflict in Afghanistan and the vacuum of power after NATO’s retreat. The base has the mission of protecting the independence and constitutional order of the Republic of Tajikistan, as well as ensuring the stability of political and military situation.
To get more detailed understanding of Russian Ground Forces combined arms formations, one should examine the entire structure from the army to division/brigade/regiment level. The following are the data for 2015-17.
As an example, we will examine the 20th Guards Army of the Western MD which was created in a new form in 2015.
By comparison, here is the 2nd Guards Army of the Central MD
One level of organization below, we have:
3rd MRD
21st MR Brigade of the 2nd Army (Southern MD)
37th MR Brigade of the 36th Army of Eastern MD
One level lower: 752nd MRR of the 3rd MRD (as of 2016)
By comparison, a tank division, brigade, and regiment, whose organizational structures are known
4th Guards TD from the 1st Tank Army (Western MD)
5th Separate Guards Tank Brigade from 36th Army, Eastern MD
12th TR from the 4th TD of the 1st Tank Army
Specifics and Development Prospects
Russian Ground Forces are currently in the midst of determining the most optimal and universal structure. Hence the reason why Russian military does not have standardized organizational structure and maintains not only brigades but also regiments and divisions. MR brigades also differ from one another. Russia’s Ground Forces include armies which may have only a single MR brigade (29th Army in Eastern MD) without support units. This is due to the specific missions of the armies. At the same time, in the eastern direction, division level formations are also formed for key spots. So, at the end of 2018, the 127th motorized rifle division (5th Army in Eastern MD) was re-established on the basis of the 59th and, partially, 60th motorized rifle brigades. One must concentrated shock- and fire-power inherent to divisions on the western direction to counter NATO forces. In the southern and eastern directions, the main enemy are terrorist organizations and the main threat is the destruction of political regimes of countries neighboring Russia and the spread of civil war. Here brigades or battalion tactical groups are more convenient, since they can conduct autonomous operations against mobile terrorist or insurgent formations. Widespread formation of battalion tactical groups was the situational way out for the Russian armed forces. Put that way, up to 136 battalion tactical groups, staffed with contract soldiers, were formed at the beginning of 2019.
By district, we get the following picture:
It’s also worth noting Russian military now fully realize the importance of reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and sniping on the modern battlefield. MR and tank brigades, regiments, and divisions now have sniper companies, EW and drone units.
Concerning differences between US and Russian armies, the Russian military does not have a concept of a modular support brigade. Artillery and reconnaissance brigades’ functions are peUnified Combatant Commands (UCC) under the rformed by units which are part of individual brigades (rocket artillery battalions or batteries, UAV companies). Frontal aviation units operate independently or are attached as needed by higher HQs.
Conclusions
Having considered the main aspects of land forces organization for the United States and Russia, one may discern a difference in approach due to varying assessments of threats, and to whether operations will be conducted on distant theaters or one’s own soil. There are also different approaches in assessing whether to rank potential threats as critical, vital, or important to state interests. Economic, technological, and organizational potential also plays a role.
The US Army is continuing to reorganize its BCTs. The aim is to improve their combat power through revising organizational structure and rearmament in order to meet battlefield demands. There is a trend to depart from a rigid classification of types of combat operations in favor of giving commanders the ability to act on the basis of own initiative in response to concrete tasks and conditions.
Brigade is the foundation for the brigade task force capable of accomplishing a wide range of missions after sufficient reinforcement, in both offensive and defensive operations as well as stabilization and assistance missions. According to senior US Army officers, further BCT development will depend on the spectrum of tasks they have to perform, battlefield conditions, and methods of waging warfare.
At higher levels, the United States military operates Unified Combatant Commands (UCC) under the DoD, consisting of at least two military departments with broad and continuing missions. These commands ensure effective direction of military formations irrespective of the branch of service during both peace and war. They are organized on “area of responsibility” (AOR) geographic principle or a functional one, for example special operations or logistics. The term AOR is used by the commands to establish regions with specific geographic boundaries where they may plan and conduct operations.
In Russia’s case, military leaders decided to abandon brigades as the basic block of combined arms formations on the most important strategic directions. This was due to the concern about the increase in NATO forces and their deployment on Russia’s western borders. Thus the Western MD is going back to armies consisting of divisions and regiments rather than brigades, which is more useful in both defense and offense. In addition, Ground Forces are creating large tank-heavy formations. Western MD already has one. In the foreseeable future, one may expect the Central MD to also get a tank army, since the 90th Tank Division is not part of any army. It is also likely Eastern MD formations will retain current structure. Brigades there are the best solution for a country in difficult economic and demographic conditions.
A few words should be said about the military administration of Russia’s territory. There is active discussion of a return to the Soviet military district model, due to the difficulties in command and control when the district HQ is 1000km away from the district boundary. The reinvented military district would also be responsible for all types of forces needed to fulfill its missions. Thus the Western MD may be divided into Leningrad and Moscow MDs, Central MD into Vola-Urals and Siberian MDs. It’s difficult to say how Eastern MD might be divided, and the Southern MD will likely be preserved in its current form, which means splitting higher command echelons (district level) and increasing formation size (from brigades to divisions and regiments).
We may thus draw the conclusion that the main difference in the approach between US and Russian land forces is that, first of all, the Russian Ground Forces are intended to defend the territorial integrity and inviolability of the nation’s own territory, and secondly, to react to the use of force by competitor powers in third countries when it poses a significant threat to Russia’s vital interests.
In the meantime, further US Army development will focus on rapid deployability to any part of the planet, concurrently with the overwhelming expansion of its own potential to defend US or allied interests. It is therefore relatively clear that the United States will continue to develop the doctrine of offensive operations as part of its pursuit of global dominion. The Russian Federation, in turn, will concentrated on defense and reaction to the actions of potential rivals.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has been visiting Iraq this week—a friendly, extended visit that has yielded several bilateral agreements on trade and transportation. Such an event causes heartburn, of course, within the Trump administration and for others who believe that the only useful thing to do to Iran is to try to isolate and cripple it.
History and geography have pushed Iraq and Iran to strive for close and cordial relations today. It is the sensible thing for each state to do. And Americans need not suffer heartburn because of it.
Iraq and Iran share a 900-mile border and at times have shared difficulties along the border such as restive Kurdish minorities and an old boundary dispute along the Shatt al-Arab waterway. Such geographic cohabitation has long carried the potential both for trouble and for cooperation. The shah of Iran, for example, assisted an insurgency by Iraqi Kurds as a form of pressure on Baghdad but stopped doing so as part of an agreement in which Iraq made concessions regarding the location of the boundary along the Shatt al-Arab.
A formative experience for both countries was the devastating war, which Saddam Hussein started, between Iraq and Iran in 1980-1988. The war caused hundreds of thousands of casualties. For Iranian leaders, the indelible lesson was the need to have a regime in Baghdad friendly enough toward Iran never to do what Saddam did. Iraq, which also suffered mightily in the war, came away from the conflict with similar lessons about the need to have a stable relationship with its neighbor to the east.
The Trump administration’s effort to get everyone in the world to join in its campaign of ostracism and punishment of Iran is colliding with these geographic and historical realities. Iraqis of various political stripes see the U.S. coercion of Iraq to join the pressure campaign as a misguided attempt to export an obsession and as contrary to Iraq’s own interests, and the Iraqis resent it. The resentment was clear last month when President Trump said in an interview that he wanted to keep a U.S. military base in Iraq “partly because I want to be looking a little bit at Iran because Iran is a real problem.” Iraqi President Barham Salih spoke for his countrymen when he responded, “Don’t overburden Iraq with your own issues…We live here.” The senior and highly respected Shiite cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, stated, “Iraq rejects being a station for harming any other country.”
In addition to the security reasons that both Iraq and Iran have for keeping their relationship stable and not making trouble for each other, there are economic reasons. Iraq as well as Iran needs the bilateral trade. Iraq especially depends on imports of Iranian natural gas and electricity to meet its energy needs. Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi notes how Iraqis suffered from a U.S.-imposed economic blockade during Saddam Hussein’s rule and states,
“Iraq will not be part of the sanctions regime against Iran and any other people.”
Iraq and Iran still have their differences and disagreements, but Iraqis are aware that the most consequential thing Iran has done in Iraq in recent years has been to assist the Iraqis in liberating the large part of western Iraq that had come under the rule of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS or IS). Iran has been the most important source of outside assistance in defeating IS—assistance that is unburdened by any talk about keeping military bases on Iraqi soil for the unrelated purpose of “looking” at rivals of Iran. Awareness of this assistance is probably one reason Rouhani has enjoyed a successful visit with all the trimmings, including a full slate of meetings with Iraqi officials, businessmen, and tribal leaders. In contrast, President Trump’s foray into Iraq last December was a quick, unannounced, middle-of-the-night drop-in to a U.S. military base without meeting any Iraqi leaders.
One of the principal consequences of the regime-changing war that an earlier U.S. administration launched in Iraq 16 years ago has been a marked increase in Iranian influence in Iraq. Now a different U.S. administration is apparently bent on changing another regime while exhibiting similar disregard for, or misunderstanding of, relevant regional realities and likely consequences. The makers of the 2003 war surely did not intend to increase Iranian influence in Iraq, and thus the heightened influence must be considered another failure of that war. But now that the influence exists, it is not worth losing any more American sleep over it, at least not without asking “influence for what?”—especially given that the most conspicuous objective Iran has pursued in Iraq is one the United States shares: the defeat of IS.
The United States still has an interest in post-Saddam Iraq being a stable, prosperous, and peaceful country. It thus is against U.S. interests to pressure Iraq into participating in economic warfare that is damaging to Iraq itself.
It also is against U.S. interests to pressure the Iraqis into violating their own constitution—a constitution written with U.S. encouragement and tutelage after the ouster of Saddam, partly with the aim of preventing the country from again becoming a participant in regional conflict and strife the way it was under the late Iraqi dictator. One of the “fundamental principles” enshrined in that constitution as Article 8 is:
Iraq shall observe the principles of good neighborliness, adhere to the principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of other states, seek to settle disputes by peaceful means, establish relations on the basis of mutual interests and reciprocity, and respect its international obligations.
That’s still a good idea.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Paul R. Pillar is Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies of Georgetown University and an Associate Fellow of the Geneva Center for Security Policy. He retired in 2005 from a 28-year career in the U.S. intelligence community. His senior positions included National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia, Deputy Chief of the DCI Counterterrorist Center, and Executive Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence.
A newly declassified US intelligence memo has been unearthed this week and featured in a bombshell Wall Street Journal report. It proves that the year prior to the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq the White House was expressly warned in great detail of all that could and would go wrong in the regime change war’s aftermath, including the Sunni-Shia sectarian chaos and proxy war with Iran that would define Iraq and the whole region for years following. And crucially, it reveals that seven months before the US invasion of Iraq, American intelligence officials understood that Osama bin Laden was likely “alive and well and hiding in northwest Pakistan” —important given that a key Bush admin claim to sell the war was that Saddam Hussein and bin Laden were “in league” against the United States.
The July 2002 memo was authored by William Burns, then serving as assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, and though clearly dismissed by the Bush neocons making the case for war, proved prescient on many levels.
“Following are some very quick and informal thoughts on how events before, during and after an effort to overthrow the regime in Baghdad could unravel if we’re not careful, intersecting to create a ‘perfect storm’ for American interests,” Burns wrote in the memo, classified ‘Secret’ and sent to Secretary of State Colin Powell.
The classified memo’s existence was first brought to the public’s attention through Knight Ridder’s reporting in July 2003, which sought to reveal at the time there were pockets of dissenting voices in the State Department and intelligence community pushing back against the absurd White House claim that the whole operation would be a “cakewalk” and US troops would be greeted as “liberators”. And there’s Vice President Dick Cheney’s infamous declaration that the military effort would take“weeks rather than months.”
Now, sixteen years after the start of the war the “perfect storm” intel briefing has been made public in fully redacted form and it affirms, as the WSJ reports,
“Diplomats accurately forecast many setbacks: sectarian violence, attacks on U.S. troops, Iranian intervention and long road to structural change.”
Out of this came the rise of ISIS and the continued unleashing of regime change and sectarian chaos on neighboring Syria.
The ten page memo outlines a litany of catastrophic doom and gloom scenarios resulting from the invasion which would destabilize not only Iraq, but unleash sectarian hell on the entire region.
Here are but a handful of the memo’s many warnings which later proved right on target, as summarized by the military reporting website Task & Purpose:
Iran increasing aid to anti-American groups in both Iraq and Afghanistan because it feared being “next on US hit list.”
Security in Iraq collapsing following regime change because Iraqi troops and police would be too afraid to patrol while Iraqis aligned with the United States would prove to be inept.
U.S. troops coming under increasing attacks as they patrol both Shiite and Sunni cities. “If they intervene to stop disputes, they are perceived to have sided with one party or another in a tribal dispute, thus incurring the wrath of the opposing party.”
Afghanistan’s security situation simultaneously deteriorating, creating the need for more U.S. troops there.
“Carpetbaggers, bill collectors, expats and exiles,” arriving in Iraq. “It will be a wild mix.”
“I don’t mean to be pessimistic, because I really do believe that if we do it right this could be a tremendous boon to the future of the region, and to U.S. national security interests,” the memo stated. “But we should have no illusion that it will be quick or easy.”
And further contradicting Cheney’s “weeks rather than months” claim, the memo accurately predicted that U.S. troops would have to stay for, “Five years – maybe four if we’re lucky, ten if we’re not.”
Some further interesting highlights from the July 2002 ‘Secret’ report are below.
*
Osama bin Laden hiding in Pakistan(the Bush admin claimed Saddam and bin Laden were in cahoots)
“Osama bin Laden turns out to be alive and well and hiding in NW Pakistan. We press Paks, internal stresses grow in Pakistan.”
Iran and Syria targeted next
“Following US warnings that it would take the war on terrorism to all groups with global capabilities, Iran and Syria hold summit meeting, decide US has targeted them.”
Iran and Syria “strengthen positions in face of perceived US threat against them following action in Iraq.”
Sectarian score settling and Shia uprising
“This means night becomes the time for revenge, all over Iraq. A horrible wave of bloodletting and private vengeance begins… US forces are helpless to stop the countrywide phenomenon. Police, intelligence, senior military, and Baath Party officials effectively go into hiding…”
“Shia religious and political leaders, unhappy with composition of provisional government and determined to secure greater share of power in post-Saddam Iraq… This leads to more violent confronations, and deaths, and the riots become a political tool to demonstrate power and increase leverage against Sunnis and Kurds…”
Long US quagmire to put down sectarian powder keg
“Faced with inchoate and escalating disorder in the provinces, the US faces an agonizing decision: step up to a more direct security role, or devolve power to local leaders.”
“The Shia in the south, quietly aided by Iran, stage major revolt, taking over local government offices and killing interim officials.”
Weapons from Saddam’s army will disappear (to be later used against US occupation)
“Law and Order, collecting weapons. We won’t get them, most will go to ground.”
“All for one, one for all, free for all – deals, short-term scrambles. It will be every clan for itself.”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
US forever war in Yemen rages, the Saudis, UAE, NATO, and Israel part of its so-called coalition – against peace in the country and elsewhere.
Over 17 years of war began by the Bush/Cheney regime. There’s virtually no prospect for ending it any time soon, the enormous human toll of no consequence to the US war party – regardless of its congressional posturing.
Joint House/Senate Resolution 7 “to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress” was too little, too late, a meaningless action.
On Wednesday, Senate members passed the measure by a 54 – 46 majority, invoking the 1973 War Powers Resolution. It requires a congressional declaration of war, or a national emergency created by an attack on the US, its territories, possessions, or armed forces, for the executive to deploy troops to engage in foreign hostilities.
It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing forces to military action. It prohibits them from remaining over 60 days, a further 30-day withdrawal period allowed – without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by Congress.
In December, a similar Senate measure passed by a 56 – 41 margin. Then-Speaker Paul Ryan killed it by not calling for a House vote.
In mid-February, House members invoked the War Powers Resolution, challenging the Trump regime’s involvement in Yemen.
They’ll vote again on the Senate resolution, virtually certain to pass, followed by reconciling any differences between both measures – Trump certain to veto what comes to his desk, likely to hold.
A two-thirds House and Senate majority is required to override presidential vetoes. Support for the measure is well short of this strength so far.
On Friday, Pompeo lied saying:
“We all want (the Yemen) conflict to end (sic). We all want to improve the dire humanitarian situation (sic). But the Trump (regime) fundamentally disagrees that curbing our assistance to the Saudi-led coalition (sic) is the way to achieve these goals.”
If Senate members “truly care about Yemeni lives, (they’d) support the Saudi-led effort (sic) to prevent Yemen from turning into (an Islamic Republic) puppet state (sic),” adding:
“If you truly care about Arab lives in the region, you’d support allied efforts to prevent Iran from extending its authoritarian rule from Tehran to the Mediterranean Sea and on down to Yemen (sic).”
“And if we truly care about American lives and livelihoods, and the lives and livelihoods of people all around the world, you’d understand that Iran and its proxies cannot be allowed to control the shipping lanes that abut Yemen (sic).”
Iran is the region’s leading peace and stability advocate – objectives impossible to achieve because of Washington’s belligerent presence, along with Israeli aggression. Both countries partner in each other’s wars.
Congress has appropriation power. The way to end war in Yemen and elsewhere is by cutting off funding, an action with scant support by Republicans and undemocratic Dems – showing their true position on war and peace, supporting the former, rejecting the latter.
Endless US wars in multiple theaters speak for themselves. Prospects for ending them are virtually nil – Afghanistan and Yemen the two longest ones, both launched in October 2001.
In response to Senate adoption of SJ 7, a White House statement said the Trump regime “strongly opposes (its) passage. (DLT’s) senior advisors (will) recommend he veto the joint resolution.”
Last year, a White House statement said a congressional vote to end US involvement in Yemen “would harm bilateral relationships in the region and negatively impact the ability of the United States to prevent the spread of violent extremist organizations.”
Yemen’s strategic location makes it important to the US – near the Horn of Africa on Saudi Arabia’s southern border, the Red Sea, its Bab el-Mandeb strait (a key chokepoint separating Yemen from Eritrea through which millions barrels of oil pass daily), and the Gulf of Aden connection to the Indian Ocean.
It’s why war to gain and maintain control of the country rages endlessly.
Separately, Yemeni Houthis said they have advanced ballistic missiles and drones able to strike strategic Saudi/UAE targets in response to a “major attack” on the port city of Hodeidah, the entry point for amounts of humanitarian aid able to enter the country.
On Saturday, Houthi spokesman General Yahya Sari said the following:
“The missiles force achieved major success leading to the production of ballistic missiles 100% locally…New generations of attack UAVs were produced and manufactured.”
“We have aerial photographs and coordinates of dozens of headquarters, facilities and military bases of the enemy.”
“The legitimate targets of our forces extend to the capital of Saudi Arabia (Riyadh) and to the emirate of Abu Dhabi” UAE.
Sari added the following about war since March 2015, saying hostile airstrikes included use of hundreds of thousands of missiles, bombs, and artillery shells, as well as around 6,000 banned cluster bombs. They’re terror weapons.
He said thousands of what he called light bombs, sound bombs, and fragmentation bombs were used against Yemeni targets, as well as thousands of rockets fired by naval vessels.
He further said Israel is involved in war on the country, along with other US imperial allies and thousands of foreign mercenaries, ISIS and al-Qaeda jihadists among them.
Yemen is Washington’s war, he stressed, adding brutal US/Saudi aggression massacred countless thousands and destroyed vital infrastructure, including schools, food storage facilities, residential areas, and hospitals, wrecking Yemen’s healthcare system.
Millions of Yemenis are threatened by endless violence, lack of treatment for illnesses and injuries, starvation, and possible widespread famine.
US orchestrated aggression destroyed the country – genocide a strategy of war, an entire population at risk.
The world’s severest humanitarian crisis worsens daily with scant Western media attention. The rape of Yemen continues with no end of conflict in prospect.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
When Sen. John McCain passed away in August, he was lauded far and wide for his long career of public service. Rep. John Lewis, the famous civil-rights activist, hailed McCain as a “warrior for peace.” In reality, McCain embodied a toxic mix of moralism and militarism that worked out disastrously for America and the world.
In his funeral eulogies, McCain was portrayed as a hero and a visionary. But early in his congressional career, he barely avoided indictment as part of the Keating Five Savings and Loan bribery scandal that cost taxpayers billions of dollars. McCain repaired his image by becoming a champion of campaign-finance reform and new restrictions on political contributions. In 2002, Congress enacted the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which proved more effective at suppressing criticism than at reforming political life. The McCain-Feingold Act authorized harsh penalties for private citizens who accused their rulers of abusing their power. It prohibited most issue ads by private groups on television or radio in the months before a presidential or congressional election. In 2003, the Supreme Court (by a 5-4 margin) upheld the new law in response to activities with “a significant risk of actual and apparent corruption.” Justice Antonin Scalia noted in a dissent to the decision upholding the law, that the McCain-Feingold act “cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government.” But that was fine with McCain, since he declared that if he had the power, he would outlaw all negative political ads. He declared, “I detest the negative advertising. I think it is one of the worst things that has ever happened in American politics.” Banning negative ads but not political lies was McCain’s notion of a level playing field.
When he was awarded the Liberty Medal in October 2017 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Senator McCain declared,
“We live in a land made of ideals…. We are the custodians of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad. We have done great good in the world.”
He warned that it would be “unpatriotic” to “abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe.” But idealism has fared better in political speeches than in the lives of American soldiers or supposed foreign beneficiaries.
McCain served 25 years as the chairman of the International Republican Institute, a federally funded entity that intervenes in foreign elections to promote pro-American candidates. McCain often spoke as if the institute was the incarnation of America at its best. In 1997, McCain declared, “When we provide the democratic opposition in Albania with 12 Jeep Cherokees and they win an election, I’m incredibly proud.” However, the Institute was involved in violent attempts to overthrow governments in Venezuela and Haiti and was condemned for meddling in many other places. As long as pro-American candidates snared the most votes by hook or by crook, McCain had no complaints.
During the 1990s, McCain “slowly moved toward the idealist camp and became one of his party’s foremost advocates for the use of force abroad,” the Boston Globe noted. In his 2000 presidential campaign, he pledged a “rogue state rollback,” which sounded like “fill-in-the-blank” declarations of war against any regime of which the United States disapproved. He was defeated in the Republican primaries by George W. Bush, who sounded reasonable and moderate in comparison. However, after 9/11 Bush adopted McCain’s bellicose vision and promised to “rid the world of evil.”
Iraq
McCain was one of the foremost advocates for attacking Iraq and served as honorary co-chairman of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. In 2002, he declared that invading that nation would be “fairly easy” and that “we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time.” Two months after the fall of Baghdad, McCain proclaimed that the war was “fully vindicated.” After the war became a debacle, he declared in 2008 that it was “fine with me” to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for “a hundred years.”
McCain believed Americans should idealize military interventions regardless of the political machinations that preceded them. When Bush created a pseudo-independent commission in 2004 to exonerate him for the missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he selected McCain as one of the nine members. On the day his appointment was announced, McCain publicly declared,
“The president of the United States, I believe, would not manipulate any kind of information for political gain or otherwise.”
McCain’s boundless endorsement of the current president ignored the legendary presidential deceits that trademarked the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War of 1898, the First World War, and the Vietnam War.
McCain sanctified a commission (which had no subpoena power) that was a crock from the get-go. As Sen. Robert Byrd scoffed,
“This commission is 100 percent under the thumb of the White House. Who created the panel’s charter? The president. Who chooses the panel members? The president. To whom does the panel report? The president. Whom shall the panel advise and assist? The president. Who is in charge of determining what classified reports the panel may see? The president. Who gets to decide whether the Congress may see the panel’s report? The president.”
Predictably, the commission concluded that Bush was not to blame for starting the Iraq War on false pretenses.
McCain loved to strut on foreign trips where American reporters were sure to hail him as a visiting savior. He was ridiculed as “the new Baghdad Bob” who took a “magic carpet ride” after he visited a Baghdad market in 2007 and claimed, “Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today.” McCain touted his visit: “We stopped at a local market, where we spent well over an hour, shopping and talking with the local people, getting their views and ideas about different issues of the day.” Rep. (now Vice President) Mike Pence, who accompanied McCain, ludicrously asserted that the scene was “just like any open-air market in Indiana in the summertime.” At the time of his market visit, McCain was wearing a flak jacket, accompanied by 100 U.S. troops, and protected overhead by attack helicopters. Prior to McCain’s arrival, U.S. troops cleared almost everyone else at the scene. After he departed, Iraqi merchants bitterly scoffed at his claims that the market was safe. One shop owner growled, “They paralyzed the market when they came. This was only for the media. This will not change anything.”
But the American media lapped it up and the charade did nothing to prevent McCain from securing the Republican presidential nomination the following year. The shining moment of his campaign was his proclamation, “We are all Georgians now!” in response to a border clash that the Republic of Georgia commenced against the Russian Federation. McCain’s bellicosity against Russia never died. He also proclaimed during that campaign, “I know how to win wars. And if I’m elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory.” McCain never explained how he learned how to win wars (not a lesson taught in North Vietnamese prisons) or why he advocated bombing more than a dozen nations throughout his congressional career.
Syria and Libya
Perhaps the only lesson McCain learned from the Iraq War was that the American media would unquestioningly glorify him for demanding foreign intervention. In 2011, he was outspoken demanding U.S. bombing of Libya — widely considered the biggest foreign-policy blunder of the Obama administration. In April 2011, he visited rebels in Benghazi and labeled them heroes. Yet, as a Wikileaks disclosure revealed, he had sung a different tune two years earlier when he visited Tripoli. Meeting with officials of Muammar Qaddafi’s regime, McCain “pledged to see what he could do to move things forward in Congress” regarding a Libyan request for U.S. military equipment, according to a confidential U.S. embassy cable. After the United States helped topple the Qaddafi regime, chaos erupted and four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, were killed in Benghazi. A few years later, slave markets were operating in the nation that McCain and Obama had so proudly liberated.
McCain returned to the Middle East for an encore visit with Syrian rebels in 2013, whom he then ceaselessly championed as a moderate alternative to the regime of Bashar Assad. Under pressure from McCain and others, the Obama administration provided massive military aid to anti-Assad forces, but much of the weaponry ended up in the hands of terrorist groups. The absurdity of U.S. policy became undeniable when Pentagon-backed Syrian rebels openly battled CIA-backed rebels. That did not deter McCain from endless pious preening, such as his early 2017 tweet:
“On 6th anniversary of Syrian civil war, Assad & Russia cont. to commit genocide — when will the world wake up to the slaughter in Syria?”
Since McCain had used the word “genocide,” that meant the U.S. government was morally obliged to topple the Assad regime — even though Libya showed the catastrophic results of intervention. A year later, McCain wailed, “For seven long years, the United States has sat idly by in the face of genocide. We seem to have become immune to images of devastation and brutality coming out of Syria every day. Two successive U.S. administrations have failed to do anything meaningful to stop the slaughter and enabled Assad’s reign of terror to thrive.” Actually, the U.S. government had dropped tens of thousands of bombs and missiles on Syria, despite not having a dog in that fight. Donald Trump twice sent cruise missile barrages against the Assad government after unproven allegations were made that the government had used chemical weapons. (The al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups fighting Assad were also frequently accused of using chemical weapons.)
Most of the media ignored McCain’s role in making the Syrian conflict longer and bloodier than it otherwise would have been. That is no surprise, since American politicians across the board are perennially absolved by the ideals they invoke when championing foreign wars. But the moral bonus points are void beyond the national borders. Idealistic pretenses can spur vast resentment because “the American judges himself by the way he feels, whereas the foreigner judges him by what he does,” as Irving Babbitt explained after World War One.
There are plenty of nasty dictators in the world but U.S. government efforts have dismally failed to spread democracy this century. John McCain was in the forefront of prominent Americans who had “learned nothing and forgotten nothing” from recent U.S. pratfalls. Instead, he continued talking as if foreign interventions could be a deft blend of Jesus and General Sherman, righteously burning a swath through Georgia.
America cannot afford an idealism that consists of little more than combining bombing and wishful thinking. We should not forget the Americans, Iraqis, Syrians, and Libyans who died in part because of policies McCain championed. The most valuable lesson from McCain’s career is to reject the folly of militarized idealism.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published in the December 2018 edition of Future of Freedom.
James Bovard is a policy adviser to The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is a USA Today columnist and has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, New Republic, Reader’s Digest, Playboy, American Spectator, Investors Business Daily, and many other publications.
The latest evidence gathered by the Venezuelan government and presented on Monday, March 11, to the Venezuelan population about the attack on the national electricity system, allows us to reconstruct the multidimensional nature of the attack that was unleashed in the energy sector as part of the irregular war against Venezuela.
Less than a week after the cyber sabotage on the Simón Bolívar Hydroelectric Power Station located in the Guri reservoir, which cut off the supply of electricity to more than 80% of the national territory, also affecting the supply of drinking water, health centres, communications and electronic banking, the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela denounced the physical attacks on electricity substations that made difficult the job of the technical personnel of the National Electrical Corporation (Corpoelec) to restore the service.
The cyber-attack against Corpoelec’s computerized centre in the Guri Complex hydroelectric plant and against the nervous centre in Caracas was followed by electromagnetic attacks and, simultaneously, sabotage of other backup infrastructure that reversed the recovery processes so as to ensure the general and irreversible collapse of the electricity supply.
It is crucial to point out that these attacks are not dislocated events of the road map for the development of an irregular war in an openly warfare phase against Venezuela, as Venezuelan authorities have repeatedly denounced.
The aggravation of the unconventional conflict against Venezuela would bring with it sabotage on a large scale in order to bring about the greater weakening of the security systems in Venezuela, which would be extended to the population through the degradation of the population’s living conditions. Indispensable components to the “humanitarian crisis” and “inability” of the “usurpation authorities” to “protect” the Venezuelan population narrative; premise under which the U.S. government persists in acting.
Indeed, a week after the electrical attack on Venezuela, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said his country’s government will insist on pushing through “humanitarian aid,” now incorporating the input of the destruction of normality and the almost total breakdown of social cohesion in Venezuela as a consequence of the blackout.
Operational Map of the Physical Attacks on the Electricity System
The attacks described below occurred when power had been restored in the east and south of the country and while working on its recovery in the capital. At least five attacks on the national electricity system were recorded, according to information provided after that by Communication Minister, Jorge Rodríguez.
On the other hand, there was a focus on direct sabotage, such as the one that took place through the explosion of the Alto Prado substation, which is located in Terrazas, the Club Hípico in the municipality of Baruta. When it caught fire in the early hours of Monday 11, it again left part of the city of Caracas without electricity.
The sabotage of the Tacoa thermoelectric plant, located in Vargas, also took place. There they cut off the gas that supplies the station, causing an explosion and preventing its operation as a contingency element to the blackout inside the Venezuelan capital.
It is necessary to stop at this point to point out that a context of irregular war, such as the one already being waged against Venezuela, denying Caracas from having electricity has strategic value, not only because it is the most important hub of national politics, but also because it is the main centre of financial operations and of the extensive electronic payment systems for the country as a whole. The interruption of the flow of electricity and consequently of telecommunications and means of payment, would dramatically break down any sense of normality thus having a direct impact on the population.
Other electricity transformer explosions were reported in the interior of the country, mainly affecting the western region. In the municipality of Cabimas (Zulia) as well as in Cabudare (Lara) that are places where the complete restoration of the electricity system took a long time to materialize due to explosions in substations. Specifically in Zulia, the explosion was reported last Tuesday afternoon (March 12) in the Las Cabillas sector of the Cabimas municipality. This state has also suffered irregular violent actions that have affected several commercial areas.
Also in the Lara municipality of Cabudare, the explosion of the substation occurred on Monday 11, causing further delays in the restoration of electricity within that area.
Sabotage of Oil Installations: Objectives
On Wednesday, March 13, the explosion of two 250,000 barrels of diluent in two tanks took place in the state of Anzoátegui, specifically in the PDVSA Petro San Félix complex. PDVSA authorities announced through internal messages, barely hours after the event, that the explosion had all the signs of being sabotage. Diluents are hydrocarbon fluids (such as naphtha) that are used to dilute heavy oil and reduce its viscosity, thus facilitating the transportation of crude oil.
Venezuelan crude for export is mostly extra-heavy, between 9 and 15 API degrees, of high density. For their transportation, handling and dispatch, diluents are essential. They are also the basis of Venezuela’s capacity to sustain or increase its production of crude oil.
The intermittent lack of these diluents has been one of the causes of the fall in oil production in recent years in Venezuela, as they had traditionally been supplied by the U.S. oil industry to Venezuela, and since the sanctions against the Venezuelan economy the country has had to resort to other suppliers in the midst of the financial boycott, thus affecting the smooth supply of that input to Venezuelan production.
The attack on Petro San Felix could be clearly understood within an agenda to degrade Venezuelan exports. It also contributes to partially disable the production of gasoline for the domestic market, given that the systems for transporting and dispatching crude oil through pipelines to national refineries also depend on these diluents.
Recently, the financial firm Barclays estimated that by attacking the Venezuelan electricity system, the country could abruptly lose 700,000 barrels of oil production.
Although the Venezuelan authorities have not reported on this, it is true that oil production is associated with electricity flows and that the shielding of oil fields through on-site electricity generation could be partial and limited. The sustained loss of electricity means loss of compression injected into wells, indispensable for pumping crude oil. It is known that a loss of substantial production, as opposed to the current levels, would have extensive effects on national exports and the domestic supply of fuels.
It is therefore necessary to conclude that PDVSA is an essential target in the operational plan of war of attrition against vital services in Venezuela.
Precise Inputs and Actors of the Irregular War in Venezuela
Through successive events that have taken place in Venezuela, we can see that a series of asymmetric actions have been perpetrated aimed to increase the collapse, such as consecutive attacks on power stations in border states by irregular groups coming from Colombia, theft of cables and strategic material in substations in the western central region, and attacks on the electricity system that have peaked during electoral periods.
Minister Jorge Rodríguez has released figures illustrating the consequences of low-intensity operations, which seek to dismantle the electricity infrastructure, a strategic area for the normal functioning of a country, with the aim of providing more ammunition to justify foreign intervention.
These actions, which have a long history, have generated more than 200 people dead by electrocution, more than 150 damaged electricity substations and multimillion-dollar losses in specialized equipment. The constant terrorist attacks to the electricity system of the country have seriously deteriorated the infrastructure, which facilitated the work of generating a domino effect that would prolong the collapse of the services.
By the time the perpetrators gaining access to the nervous centre and being able to dislocate its operation, the whole system throughout the national territory had already been weakened.
In addition to assessing the response capacity of Venezuelan military institutions in the face of a possible war scenario, where this type of resources would be needed daily, the violation of security in the Guri was used to reactivate the propaganda campaign of the “humanitarian crisis” after the failure of the 23F. The New York Times disclosure of the fabrication of a false positive in the show of bringing in “humanitarian aid” by force exposed not only the Trump administration but also the Colombian government for their open involvement.
Then enters the scene U.S. intermediary, Juan Guaidó (politically diminished after 23F), to comply with the media phase of unconventional aggression, spreading deceptive explanations of a supposed energy crisis caused by the negligence of the Venezuelan state.
At the same time, Marco Rubio spreads false figures of deaths due to power failures and incorrect information from affected stations and John Bolton is in charge of hiding the involvement of the United States by ‘explaining’ the reason for the blackouts “to years of corruption of Maduro, underinvestment and careless maintenance”.
In addition, the U.S. takes advantage of the brief media trend enjoyed by the false news about what happens in Venezuela after the blackout, to tighten the financial siege and pressurise other nations to join as well.
The intellectual authors of Washington inflated the effects of the attack in order to use them both to transfer the blame on the government of Nicolás Maduro and to increase the economic and diplomatic pressures against Venezuela, rushing things through by the realization that the support to the “parallel government” of Guaidó and the aggressive tone against the legitimate presidency of Maduro at a global level is irretrievably losing strength, while internally, they have not managed to split the FANB is as to bring about “regime change”.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
A senior French officer faces punishment after publicly condemning the US-led coalition’s military tactics against Daesh in the east of Syria, accusing Washington of prolonging the conflict and disregarding a growing civilian death toll, the army said on Saturday.
Colonel Francois-Regis Legrier – who has been in charge of directing French artillery supporting Kurdish-led groups in Syria since October – said the coalition’s focus had been on limiting its own risks and this had greatly increased the death toll among civilians, as well as raised the level of destruction.
“Yes, the Battle of Hajin [near Syria’s eastern border with Iraq] was won, at least on the ground but by refusing ground engagement, we unnecessarily prolonged the conflict and thus contributed to increasing the number of casualties in the population,” Legrier wrote in an article in the National Defence Review.
France is one of the main allies in the US-led coalition fighting Daesh in Syria and Iraq, with its warplanes used to strike militant targets, its heavy-artillery backing Kurdish-led fighters and its special forces leading the ground assault.
“We have massively destroyed the infrastructure and given the population a disgusting image of what may be a Western-style liberation leaving behind the seeds of an imminent resurgence of a new adversary,” he said, in rare public criticism by a serving officer.
“We have in no way won the war because we lack a realistic and lasting policy and an adequate strategy,” Legrier said. “How many Hajins will it take to understand that we are on the wrong track?”
Legrier’s article has embarrassed French authorities just days before the coalition is expected to announce the defeat of the terror group; the article was removed from the review’s website on Saturday.
“A punishment is being considered,” French army spokesman Patrick Steiger confirmed to reporters.
Hajin was the last major towns held by Daesh militants and was the target of the final phase of “Operation Roundup” that started September, with heavy battles also centring on the Al-Shafah area near the Iraqi border. Six months on, a rapidly-diminishing few hundred militants have been battling on the eastern banks of the Euphrates River, hemmed in by US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) on the Syrian side of the Iraqi border and by Iranian-backed Shia militias on the other.
Yet the battle has proved difficult with Daesh militants fiercely resisting SDF attempts to capture their final stronghold, despite hundreds of Kurdish fighters – including heavy military equipment – sent as reinforcements over the course of the fighting.
Although the SDF were also supported by fighter jets from the international coalition, strategically positioned minefields placed by Daesh reportedly significantly slowed the ground assault, causing the operation to be temporarily halted in November.
The coalition could have got rid of just 2,000 militant fighters – who lacked air support or modern technological equipment – much more quickly and effectively by sending in just 1,000 troops, Legrier argued.
“This refusal raises a question: why have an army that we don’t dare use?” he said.
Human rights groups have repeatedly criticised the US-led bombing campaign, which has resulted in the deaths of scores of civilians over the past six months; to date, some 700 civilians – over 250 of whom were children – have been killed, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Thousands of civilians have fled the area, with the Al-Houl refugee camp in north-eastern Syria currently hosting over 39,000 people, mainly women and children.
In October, some 54 people – including 12 children – were killed in a single strike on a mosque in the town of Al-Susah, near the Iraqi border. The US alleged that the mosque was being used as a base by Daesh operatives; some 22 militants were also killed in the blast. Despite being hit during the weekly Friday congregational prayer, a popular time for civilians, the military claimed it targeted the mosque when only fighters were present.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Children’s crusades do not necessarily end well. During the years of armed missions to the Holy Land, when Jerusalem meant something to the sacredly inclined in Europe, children were encouraged to take to the rough and dangerous road as it wound its way towards Palestine. In 1212, a boy of 12 is said to have begun preaching at Saint-Denis in France. God had supposedly taken some time to communicate a pressing wish: Christian children were to head to the Holy Land and liberate it from the Infidel. How they would do so was not clear.
They subsequently starved, suffered deprivation, were killed and enslaved on route to their destination. The modern student movement against climate change stresses another Jerusalem, that there will be nothing to salvage if nothing is done now. We are all, in short, for the chop if climate change is not arrested. As an Oakland high-schooler by the name of Bruke toldWired, “My GPA isn’t going to matter if I’m dead.” And much else besides.
To such movements can also be added other acts of striking in peaceful protest. Tens of thousands of US students did so in 2018 swathed in the grief and despair of gun shootings, the most immediate being the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. The National School Walkout of March 14 and the March for Our Lives ten days later had a biting clarity of purpose: students and staff were entitled to feel secure in the teaching and learning environment. The movement was characterised by much eloquence wreathed in anger and tears, not least of all Emma Gonzalez, who chided those political representatives “who sit in their gilded House and Senate seats funded by the NRA telling us nothing could have been ever done to prevent this”.
Criticism of such movements emphasises helplessness and delusion; they are children and so are vulnerable, idiotic and irrelevant. They are to be taught and have nothing to teach the adult world. Leave it to the big boys and girls to stuff up matters. The critics, often estranged from the very political processes they have been complicit in corrupting, see embryos in need of a constructive voice, expressed constructively without inconvenience, not coherent agents keen to affect change. There is, as Kari Marie Norgaard observed in 2012, a lag between the accumulating evidence of doom on the one hand, and the absence of public urgency, even interest, in response. “Although not inherently unproblematic,” surmised Norgaard, “local efforts may provide a key for breaking through climate avoidance from the ground up.”
The global climate change strike movement by children, blown and swept along by the efforts of Swedish student Greta Thunberg, have suggested the possible short-circuiting of this dilemma: to combat the global by being stridently engaged in the local. (Such statements can become feeble mantras but do operate to galvanise interest.)
For Thunberg, the issue of change is unavoidable. In her COP24 Climate Change Conference speech in December, the plucky youth did not believe that begging world leaders “to care for our future” would make much of a difference. “They have ignored us in the past and they will ignore us again.” What mattered was letting “them know that change is coming whether they like it or not.”
Protests were registered on March 15 across 2,052 venues in 123 countries. There were 50 in Australia; and protests in every state in the United States. Often forgotten in these movements is the role played by children themselves in the organisational side of things, often clear, fathomable and inherently coherent. In the United States were such figures as 12-year-old Haven Coleman of Denver, Colorado, Alexandria Villasenor of New York City, and 16-year-old Israr Hirsi of Minnesota.
Squirrel scholars suggest that these actions represented a “transformation” at play. Associate lecturer Blanche Verlie claimed that her research revealed how “young people’s sense of self, identity, and existence is being fundamentally altered by climate change.” It can be tempting to read too much into matters, to see flowers grow in fields initially thought barren. But there is little doubting climate change as a catalyst of active and noisy encouragement amongst youth, one akin to the anti-war movements of the Vietnam War period.
There has been much finger wagging against the children from, for instance, politicians who just cannot understand how a striking student could ever get employment. How dare they take time off learning in a classroom while taking to the classroom of the streets? The spokesman for UK Prime Minister Theresa May, for instance, argued that such protests increased “teachers’ workloads” and wasted lesson time. Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, in contrast, signalled his preference for the marchers and strikers:
“Climate change is the greatest threat that we all face but it is the school kids of today whose futures are most on the line.”
In Australia, New South Wales Education Minister Rob Stokespreferred to brandish the rod of punitive action: both students and teachers would be punished for participating in the March 15 rally. By all means, find your “voice”, suggested the threatening minister, but avoid doing so during school hours. For such scolding types, climate change and injustice have strict timetables and schedules, to be dealt with in good, extra-curricular time.
Australian Resources Minister Matt Canavan’s views on the youth climate action movement are childishly simple and representative, suggesting that Thunberg is correct in her harsh assessment. Recorded in November last year, the minister sees education as an instrumental affair.
“The best thing you’ll learn about going to a protest is how to join the dole queue. Because that’s what your future life will look like […] not actually taking charge of your life and getting a real job.”
Forget the environment’s durability; drill it, excavate it, mine it, drain it and burn it to a cinder. Australia, and the world, do not need environmentally conscious citizens, merely automata consuming and feeding the commodity markets. For the likes of Canavan, it is too late. For the children, the battle to change the beastly status quo is urgent, pressing and inevitable.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
Vietnam veteran S. Brian Willson paid the price for peace as he was run over and nearly killed by a military train during a non-violent protest at The Concord Naval Weapons Station in California on September 1st, 1987. The train was carrying weapons that were to be shipped to Central America and used to kill innocent civilians in Nicaragua, El Salvador & Guatemala.
Since then, Brian has not stopped calling attention to the US government’s defiance of international law through waging endless illegal wars. “PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE” exposes the truth about the United States’ addiction to war and the lies it perpetuates in order to wage ongoing violence. Brian’s story is very moving, inspirational and educational.
Watch the trailer below.
Reviews of the film:
S. Brian Willson has paid the Price For Peace in lifelong regular installments and his commitment assures us that truly one heart with courage is a majority. – Martin Sheen: Actor & Activist.
I love Brian. And I love this film. I wish that every American, interested in truth, could see it. Since his time in Vietnam, Brian’s life has been about revealing the dark side of US foreign policy. This very important film, which includes many of Brian’s friends in the anti-war movement, also talks about how U.S. militarism is one of the biggest contributors to Global Warming. – Daniel Ellsberg: Author, Activist & Former Military Analyst, who revealed The Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in 1971.
After viewing PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE, I cannot remember a film that has touched me so deeply, that resonates so intensely with the power of commitment, love and sacrifice. I have come to know the life and work of S. Brian Willson though his great book BLOOD ON THE TRACKS as well as a few personal meetings over the years. The film dramatizes his extraordinary life and work in new ways, assembling the voices and experiences of so many who have been impacted by his incredible journey. Willson’s presence on the American scene has been nothing short of transformative. As an author of several books on the destructive impact of United states militarism, I have found dozens of invaluable sources on the topic, but none more so than this film and the book that so powerfully capture Brian’s unique contributions to the struggle for peace and justice. As a veteran myself (though fortunately not in any war) and someone raised in a military family, I especially value his truth-telling about a system that is anything but virtuous or peaceful. There is a fierce and direct honesty about the way he describes the terrible costs and consequences of the military machine throughout U.S. history. As someone engaged in antiwar work since the 1960’s, I see in Brian’s life-story, an enduring inspiration for those of us struggling to end the long U.S. addition to war and finally, to dismantle a warfare state that threatens the survival of every living thing on the planet. Never has a film been more urgently needed. – Carl Boggs PHD: Professor of Social Sciences at National University LA, Author of several books on US military & foreign policy including: THE CRIMES OF EMPIRE, THE HOLLYWOOD WAR MACHINE & ORIGINS OF THE WARFARE STATE.
“S. Brian Willson is an international hero revered for his lifelong, unrelenting refusal to accept any apology for the US empire and its murderous military machine. This documentary should be seen by everyone, particularly the younger generation who may not yet be familiar with Willson’s life and his challenge to every US resident to take responsibility to end the US militaristic madness”. – Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz: Historian & Author of: “An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States”
“PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE” is truly an important and essential work of history and art. It is so much greater than a biographical documentary of Brian Willson, although it triumphs in its telling of Brian’s story. And it is much more than a terrifically put together and well edited visual narrative and history, which it certainly is. For these reasons alone, it is a film worth watching: gripping, inspiring and powerful in its retelling of Brian’s life before and during the Vietnam War and his commitment to peace and justice and especially his sacrifice after Vietnam. It is the history of the peace movement after the Vietnam War, especially in the 1980s. And for those of us who were children during that time, this is the sacred history of those who have come before us. Stories of men and women who accompanied Brian in his peace work are plentiful in the film and they provide a rich accounting and record of the acts of many who bodily, intellectually and spiritually opposed the madness of the militarism of the Reagan years; a madness that goes on. To say I learned a tremendous amount is an understatement. If there is required viewing for those of my generation and younger, so that we can know, acknowledge, respect and follow those who have come before us in the Peace and Justice Movement, it is “PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE”. Invest the time in watching it. You will have a wonderfully rewarding experience. – Matthew Hoh: Senior Fellow, Center for International Policy, Marine and State Department veteran of Iraq and Afghan wars.
PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE is perhaps the most compelling film I have watched in my life. I have seen it several times now. Each time I capture more and more gems falling from S. Brian Willson’s mouth, as well as from the numerous other individuals featured in the movie. The film is about waking up. Brian Willson reveals how he “did everything right and it was all wrong”. Essentially, he came to understand how he and the public, had been fed a pack of lies regarding patriotism and the U.S involvement in the Vietnam war, as well as other areas of conflict, in particular Central America. The film exposes what happens when you stand up to power. Expect strong resistance and stronger repercussions when you dare to question the status quo, bear witness and take action by speaking up, doing civil disobedience and exposing the egregious lies, deceptions and cover-ups put forth by the power structure. They will go to all lengths to suppress and destroy people powered movements. However, as we begin to unearth and face our willful ignorance and see things as they really are, something magnificent happens. There is no turning back. We are inspired to take action because it is the right thing to do. I was impressed that Brian Willson is very forgiving despite the travails he has endured. He understands that people who mean well have been misled throughout their lives and does not judge. At the same time, he does not give up and continues to live his life as a socially responsible person, paving the way for others as an inspiration to awaken from our trance, get on the side of oppressed and to value the life of each and every person. Please do not assume that this film is outdated or yesterday’s news. No! It is more relevant now than ever if we want to live in a world with genuine peace, justice and respect for all. – Patricia Todd: Librarian, Anti-War Activist and Animal Rights Activist
These are very challenging and dangerous times. We need people who can inspire us to resist. I highly recommend seeing: ‘PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE: The Story of S. Brian Willson’. Brian and the other people in this very important film, show us and lead us in resisting wars being waged by the United States. These illegal and immoral wars have devastated and killed millions of innocent people in the third world”. – Father Roy Bourgeois: Naval Officer in Vietnam, former Maryknoll Priest and Founder of The School of The Americas Watch.
“PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE” is the remarkable story of a remarkable man willing to give his life for peace. Brian Willson risked his life for the people of Central America, who were being killed by U.S. bullets and bombs. Brian paid the price for peace with his legs and almost his life. The rest of us are paying the price with our souls”. – Col. Ann Wright: Retired United States Army Colonel and U.S. State Department Official.
“There are few in this world who would unselfishly risk their lives for humanity’s sake. S. Brian Willson is one such individual. He paid an enormous price in an effort to help the innocent civilians of Central America by unmasking the truth about US. foreign policy and militarism. His is a dramatic, inspiring, emotional story of one man’s commitment to resistance and nonviolence.” – Joan Baez: Singer and Long-Time Activist.
“I had the privilege of seeing an early copy of PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE and then the honor of interviewing Brian Willson on my KPFK public affairs show about the movie and about his life. Now, I’ve spent over 50-years in the anti-war movement, met and worked with some of the great national leaders in that movement, including many who sacrificed much to win the peace we all sought. But no anti-war movie that I’ve ever seen and I’ve seen dozens, and no one single individual that I’ve ever met, has had a more profound impact of my emotions and my thinking about war and anti-war movements and what it means when one person truly and completely, “puts it all on the line,” than the movie PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE. If you have the good fortune to see this movie, you too, will get to know Brian Willson and through him learn what one extraordinary person can do to inspire others and thereby advance the cause of peace for all human kind.” – Jim Lafferty: Executive Director of The National Lawyers Guild/LA, Host of The Lawyers Guild Show on KPFK 90.7 FM Radio.
According to Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, chief climate advisor to the European Union, “We’re simply talking about the very life support system of this planet”. As fascism and the horror of murderous hate crimes are on the rise, governments are presiding over runaway climate change leading toward mass extinctions of species, costing the lives of billions and the demise of much of nature, while children are protesting against the betrayal of their future.
Evidence based on early climates and on current global warming requires revision of the mostly-linear IPCC climate change trajectories proposed for the 21st to 23rd centuries (Figure 3). The polar ice sheets, acting as thermostats of the climate, are melting at an accelerated rate.
Polar temperatures have been rising at twice the rate of lower latitude zones, weakening the jet stream and the Arctic boundary, which are becoming increasingly undulated (Figure 4). This allows cold air masses to breach the boundary as they move southward, as happened recently in North America and Europe, while warm air masses migrate northward. As the large ice sheets are melting large pools of cold ice melt water are forming in the North Atlantic Ocean south and east of Greenland (Rahmstorf et al. 2015) (See this). The AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation) is slowing down and the probability of future transient freeze event/s (stadials) lasting few decades or longer (Hansen et al. 2016) is increasing. The juxtaposition of polar-derived freezing fronts and tropics-derived warm air masses leads to a rise in extreme weather events (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Tipping points in the Earth system (Lenton et al., 2008) (see this) Creative Commons BY-ND 3.0 DE license.
More than 30 years since Professor James Hansen, then NASA’s chief climate scientist, presented a stern warning to the US Senate regarding the existential risk posed by global warming (see this), the consequences of the ignorance, criminal denial and pro-carbon ideology by vested interests and their accomplices among the political classes and in the media, are upon us, as the climate system is shifting into a dangerous uncharted territory. While the Earth as a whole continues to heat, transient temperature polarities between warming land masses and Arctic-derived cold air masses lead to extreme weather events (see this).
Arctic air temperatures for 2014-2018 have exceeded all previous records since 1900. According to NOAA, Arctic warming has led to a loss of 95 percent of its oldest sea ice over the past three decades. Reports of the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), based on thousands of peer reviewed science papers and reports, offer a confident documentation of past and present processes in the atmosphere. On the other hand when it comes to estimates of future ice melt and sea level rise rates, the IPCC models are subject to a number of uncertainties. This includes the difficulty in quantifying amplifying feedbacks from land and water, ice melt rates, linear versus irregular temperature trajectories, sea level rise rates, methane release rates, the role of fires and the observed onset of transient freeze events.
Figure 2. Atmospheric carbon rise rates and global warming events: a comparison between current global warming, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Event (PETM) and the last Glacial Termination.
Linear to curved temperature trends portrayed by the IPCC to the year 2300 are rare in the paleo-climate record, where abrupt warming and cooling are common during both glacial and interglacial periods. At +4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperature, projected by the IPCC for the end of the 21st century, life on Earth could be depleted to levels such as existed in the wake of previous mass extinctions of species (see this).
There would be no smooth transition toward +4 degrees Celsius but irregular heating including a series of extreme weather events and transient temperature reversals induced by the flow of cold ice melt water from the melting glacial sheetsinto the oceans. Hansen et al. (2016) (see this) used paleoclimate data and modern observations to estimate the effects of ice melt water from Greenland and Antarctica, with cold low-density meltwater capping warmer subsurface ocean water. Ice mass loss would raise sea level by several and later tens of meters in an exponential rather than a linear response. Sharp drops in temperature, reflecting freeze events in the Atlantic Ocean and the sub-Antarctic Ocean and their surrounds, would reach -2oC for several decades (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Global surface-air temperature to the year 2300 in the North Atlantic and Southern Oceans, including stadial freeze events as a function of Greenland and Antarctic ice melt doubling time (Hansen et al. 2016) (see this)
These projections differ markedly from IPCC models which portray long term ice melting values raising sea levels to less than 1.0 meters by the end of the 21st century (see this), an estimate difficult to reconcile with satellite gravity-based mass loss estimates by Rignot et al. (2011) (see this) and others.
With the breach of the Arctic boundary (Figure 4) the world’s climate is moving into uncharted territory, with significant implications for the planning of future adaptation efforts, including preparations for sea level rise and for deep freeze events in parts of Western Europe and eastern North America. As the Earth warms the increase in temperature contrasts across the globe, and thereby an increase in storminess and extreme weather events, as occur at present, need to be considered when planning adaptation measures. These would include preparation of coastal defenses from sea level rise and construction of channels and pipelines from flooded regions to drought-stricken zones. In Australia this should include construction of water pipelines and channels from the flooded north to the Murray-Darling basin.
Since many in authority do not accept, or only pay lip service to, climate science, it is a good question whether governments would be investing in adaptation measures in time. In particular no plans appear at hand for draw-down of CO2– the one measure which could potentially arrest global warming. In this regard the reluctance to date to undertake meaningful mitigation measures does not bode well.
The powers to be are now presiding over the greatest calamity that has ever befell on humanity and on much of nature.
Figure 4. The undulating jet stream allows penetration of cold air masses from the Arctic southward and warm air masses into the Arctic northward. (see this)
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr Andrew Glikson, Earth and Paleo-climate science, Australia National University (ANU) School of Anthropology and Archaeology, ANU Planetary Science Institute, ANU Climate Change Institute, Honorary Associate Professor, Geothermal Energy Centre of Excellence, University of Queensland. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Right now, Donald Trump could start a nuclear war on a whim, and no one could stop him.
Under any circumstances, the prospect of nuclear war is terrifying, the deadly consequences irreversible. Yet with a single order, the president — any president — could effectively declare a nuclear war that would wipe out entire nations, including our own.
More worrying still, our current president has shown an alarming willingness to engage in aggression instead of diplomacy — particularly towards nations like Iran and China, as well as countries whose citizens have now been banned from traveling to the U.S. under an overbroad, dog-whistle executive order.
Trump has almost gleefully exercised his right to threaten nuclear war.
He made boastful remarks about nuclear might throughout his campaign. And just recently, he called for a new push to put America at the “top of the pack” when it comes to nuclear weapons capability (as though we weren’t already).
Going against decades of precedent, not to mention hard-won diplomatic treaties reached with countries like Russia and Iran, Trump has enthusiastically declared that we should expand, not reduce, our nuclear arsenal.
Already, just a tiny amount of our nuclear stockpile would be enough to blow up the world several times over. We’d probably even have enough left over to decimate most of the seven Earth-like planets in the Trappist-1 solar system that NASA recently discovered.
Surely the horrors at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the devastation after the nuclear power plant leak at Fukushima, should warn us against the danger of nuclear fallout. The disaster at Three Mile Island wasn’t exactly a small lab accident, either.
It’s almost impossible to comprehend millions of people being obliterated from the face of the earth simultaneously, in the blink of an eye. Especially at the whim of just one American who happens to have access to a certain red button.
That’s why Representative Ted Lieu and Senator Ed Markey have introduced legislation prohibiting the sitting president from unilaterally declaring nuclear war without a prior act of Congress. They call it the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017.
“Nuclear war poses the gravest risk to human survival,” Markey warned in a joint statement introducing this legislation. Unfortunately, Trump insists on “maintaining the option of using nuclear weapons first in a conflict.”
“In a crisis with another nuclear-armed country,” the senator went on to explain, “this policy drastically increases the risk of unintended nuclear escalation.”
As so many people have said, we only have one planet. Billions of people live here — and nowhere else in the universe.
If we take our nation’s responsibility as a leader of the free world seriously, it’s our duty to protect people from the horrors of war, famine, poverty, genocide, and nuclear fallout. But there will be no place to go for any survivors of a nuclear disaster.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t even watch post-apocalyptic TV shows. I certainly don’t want to find myself living in the middle of one.
No one person on this planet should be able to make a decision that will send millions of people instantaneously to their deaths. That’s genocide.
Killing off our entire planet? That’s just inhuman.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Olivia Alperstein is the Deputy Director of Communications and Policy at Progressive Congress. Distributed by OtherWords.org.
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102 Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling) PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
That’s the thinking driving the Donald Trump administration’s policy towards Venezuela, according to a Wall Street Journal story titled “U.S. Push to Oust Venezuela’s Maduro Marks First Shot in Plan to Reshape Latin America.” Adding credence to this thesis, on Monday US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters that “Cuba is the true imperialist power in Venezuela.”
Despite Washington’s hope that toppling President Nicolás Maduro could hasten the fall of Cuba’s government, the Justin Trudeau government, which is supposed to have good relations with Havana, has played a central role in the US-led bid to oust Maduro. It has also echoed some of the Trump administration’s attacks on Cuba’s role in Venezuela. Why would a ‘friend’ of Cuba do this?
While much is made of Ottawa’s seemingly cordial relations with Havana, the reality is more complicated than often presented, as I detail here. Most significantly, Canada has repeatedly aligned with US fear-mongering about the “Cuban menace” in the region.
Just days after the April 1961 CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker claimed the Cuban government was a threat to the security of the hemisphere and “a dictatorship which is abhorrent to free men everywhere.” Two years later Ottawa’s representative to a NATO ministerial meeting was tasked with saying, “the Canadian government, of course, holds no sympathy for the present dictatorial regime in Cuba …. We remain deeply disturbed by the presence in the Western Hemisphere of a communist regime aligned with the Soviet Union and by the transformation of Cuba into an area which still retains a potential for disturbing East-West relations and the stability of the Hemisphere.”
Canada backed the US-led Alliance for Progress, which was the John F. Kennedy administration’s response to the excitement created in Latin America by the 1959 Cuban revolution. Ottawa began delivering aid to the newly independent Commonwealth Caribbean partly to counter Cuba’s appeal. In the early 1960s External Affairs officials, notes Canadian Gunboat Diplomacy: The Canadian Navy and Foreign Policy, “singled out Cuban revolutionary activity as the main threat to political and thus economic stability in the region and implied that developmental aid staved off Cuban interference.”
In 1963, that book notes, HMCS Saskatchewan was deployed to Haiti largely to guarantee that François Duvalier did not make any moves towards Cuba and that a Cuban-inspired guerilla movement did not seize power. Three years later two Canadian gunboats were deployed to Barbados’ independence celebration in a bizarre diplomatic maneuver designed to demonstrate Canada’s military prowess and to send a ‘signal’ to Havana. Canadian Gunboat Diplomacy explains,
“we can only speculate at who the “signal” was directed towards, but given the fact that tensions were running high in the Caribbean over the Dominican Republic Affair [1965 US invasion], it is likely that the targets were any outside force, probably Cuban, which might be tempted to interfere with Barbadian independence.”
When 7,000 US troops invaded Grenada in 1983 to reassert US hegemony in a country supposedly overrun by Cuban doctors, Canadian officials criticized Grenada’s government and abstained on a UN resolution calling for the withdrawal of all foreign troops (predominantly American) from that country. The next year Canadian ambassador to Panama, Francis Filleul, complained that
“Nicaragua has been penetrated so badly by Cuba and other [eastern bloc] countries that it is destabilizing. It was not that the people of Nicaragua … chose to welcome the Russians and the Cubans. It was that the FSLN [Sandinistas] had gained control of the revolutionary movement and that was their policy.”
As with the US Caribbean Basin Initiative, the 1986 Caribbean-Canada Trade Agreement (CARIBCAN) sought to isolate Cuba from the region.
According to a 2006 cable released by Wikileaks headlined “Canada’s new government: opportunities and challenges”, the US embassy in Ottawa pushed the Stephen Harper government to begin “engaging more actively in other hemispheric trouble spots such as Venezuela, Colombia, and Cuba.” In the spring of 2008 the Canadian embassy in Panama teamed up with the US National Endowment for Democracy to organize a meeting for prominent members of the opposition in Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela to respond to the “new era of populism and authoritarianism in Latin America.” In 2012 Canada was alone with the US in opposing Cuba’s participation in the Summit of the Americas.
While purportedly sympathetic to Cuba, Justin Trudeau’s government has criticized Cuba’s actions in Venezuela. In a recent article titled “Canada at odds with Cuban ‘ally’ over Maduro’s fate” Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland told CBC that Cuba’s role in Venezuela is “concerning” and that“we have heard directly from the Venezuelan opposition that they’re concerned by the role that some Cubans are playing in their country.” The article, written by extreme Canadian officialdom sycophant Evan Dyer, quoted an opposition group claiming thousands of Cuban agents “direct centres of torture in Venezuela.”
Compared to Washington, Ottawa has had cordial relations with Havana since the Cuban revolution. Still, Canada has generally sided with US fear mongering about the “Cuban menace”, which is propaganda largely designed to justify keeping the region subservient to western capitalist domination.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
These figures are almost certainly far smaller than the actual number of animals killed, as whistle-blowing former employees of the ironically named “Wildlife Services” program of the USDA have claimed they killed far more animals than they were instructed to report:
While livestock protection is its primary charge, Wildlife Services also “kills animals for eating flowers and pet food, digging in gardens, frightening people, and other concerns that could easily be addressed using nonviolent methods,” according to wildlife advocacy group Predator Defense.
“That killing is carried out with a vast arsenal of rifles, shotguns, small planes, helicopters, snowmobiles, leg-hold traps, neck snares and sodium cyanide poison,” writes Tom Knudson, a reporter who’s been investigating the program for years.
“A list of birds and mammals trapped and poisoned by mistake by Wildlife Services would fill a small field guide: great blue herons, porcupines, river otter, mule deer, pronghorn, snapping turtles, raccoons, family pets, federally protected bald and golden eagles, a wolverine – the list goes on and on.”
“This war on wildlife can’t be tolerated anymore,” attorney for The Center for Biological Diversity Collette Adkins told Newsweek. “This idea of killing wildlife any time there is a conflict is just barbaric.”
The environmental organization is suing the federal government over its Wildlife Services program.
“The Department of Agriculture needs to get out of the wildlife-slaughter business,” she added. “There’s just no scientific basis for continuing to shoot, poison and strangle more than a million animals every year. Even pets and endangered species are being killed by mistake, as collateral damage.”
“The barbaric, outdated tactics Wildlife Services uses to destroy America’s animals need to end. Wolves, bears and other carnivores help balance the web of life where they live. Our government needs to end its pointless cycle of violence.”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
We are completing what became more than a week-long peace delegation to Venezuela organized by the US Peace Council and the Committee for International Solidarity in Venezuela (COSI). The trip was complicated by American Airlines cancelling all flights in and out of the country, leaving us scrambling for ways to get there and get home. We also arrived in the midst of the attack on Venezuela’s electrical system, which caused further complications.
Our delegation met with community groups, political parties and members of the government, including a private meeting with President Maduro. One theme that became obvious during the visit is that the United States’ imperialism is fundamentally weak. It relies on lies and bullying threats to get its way. So far, Venezuelans are resisting everything the US and its allies are throwing at it, but they remain vigilant and concerned about an escalation of attacks.
Rallying with the women oil workers outside the presidential palace on March 15, 2019 in Caracas.
Venezuela Unites in Response To US Attack on Electrical Grid
The attack on Venezuela’s electrical grid began on March 7 and continued for several days. The outage made life difficult for Venezuelans. Without electricity, water pumps could not bring water to people’s homes, refrigerators weren’t working and the subway couldn’t run.
People lined up to fill buckets with water. Lights were on, but not everywhere. When we talked to residents, we learned how they came to their neighbor’s aid, sharing food and water. Despite years of economic difficulties caused by US and allied countries’ sanctions, there were no reports of looting or unrest in Caracas. Venezuelans remained calm and steady while confronting the challenges of the blackout. School and work were cancelled until March 14, but some people were out anyway and a few shops were open.
Maduro explained that the attack on the electrical grid came from the United States. There is evidence it emanated from Houston, the home of the company that provided infrastructure for the grid, and Chicago. There were also attacks on power lines and substations inside Venezuela. When a section was repaired, it would be attacked again.
Maduro told us the plan had been for the attack on the electrical grid to cause chaos and confusion in order to provide an excuse for US intervention. The plan failed. Venezuelans realized this was part of the US-led coup campaign, and rather than becoming divided, they united.
The democratically-elected government of President Maduro worked to end the electricity crisis, provide people with water and food and make sure buses were running. The self-appointed coup’s Juan Gaido worked with the United States, which caused the blackout and their hardships. Gauido is being investigated for his involvement in the electrical attack. He is allied with countries waging an economic war that is causing financial distress, and he is calling for foreign military intervention, a traitorous action.
We attended an ongoing rally outside the presidential palace to defend it. On Saturday, there was a mass protest of tens of thousands of people celebrating the country coming together to confront the attack on their electrical grid. People were dancing, singing and chanting their support for President Maduro. While there were several opposition protests announced, when a member of our delegation went to cover them, they were not to be found.
Pro-Bolivarian Process rally on Saturday, March 16, 2019 in Caracas.
The US Embassy is Forced to Close
On Tuesday, the US Embassy in Venezuela was forced to close because it was being used as a center for organizing the ongoing US intervention. President Maduro told us how the US openly tried to bribe and threaten officials in his government and in the military and how they threatened his wife and family. The US told the opposition to boycott the last election and told candidates not to run against him. They knew they would lose an election to Maduro, so the plan had always been to falsely claim the election was illegitimate.
Maduro wants to have a dialogue with the US but the embassy had to close because not only was it undermining his government but it provided justification for the US to intervene on behalf of its diplomatic staff. Venezuela plans to have dialogue with the US through its UN representative.
When the embassy personnel left, we received word we were “on our own.” The State Department issued a statement describing civil unrest in Caracas saying that Americans could be arrested at any time for no reason. They warned people it was too dangerous to come to Venezuela. This was echoed by the Airline Pilots Association, who told their pilots not to fly to Venezuela because of the dangers.
The morning of these declarations, we went for a walk in Caracas to look for unrest. Families were out with their children, people were shopping and eating pizza, and ice cream. Caracas is as active and safe as any big city in the United States. Members of our delegation described in this video the calm in Caracas and how the US was falsely claiming civil unrest to manufacture an excuse for US intervention. The people of Venezuela are prepared for more struggle, building a self-sufficient resistance economy and the will fight to preserve their independence.
When we talked to Venezuelans, one thing they commonly told us was ‘thank you for coming to Venezuela, now you can tell people in the United States the truth about our country when your politicians and media lie about us.’ The Venezuelan people want a good relationship with the people of the United States. President Maduro told us of his love for the United States and how he had driven through Chinatown, Little Italy, and Harlem in New York, visited many cities in the US, was offered a contract to play for the Los Angeles Dodgers, and loves basketball and Jimi Hendrix.
Maduro has offered to meet with President Trump to discuss and resolve their differences. His Foreign Secretary met with John Bolton — a fruitless meeting, but an attempt by Venezuela for dialogue. Venezuela wants a positive relationship with the United States but it will not give up its sovereignty, independence, or pride, and is prepared to fight a US coup.
Hands Of Venezuela March in Washington, DC on March 16, 2019. By Ted Majdosz.
Guaido Is the Butt of Jokes In Venezuela, Not Legitimate Under the Constitution
We were invited to be in the audience of the most widely-watched television show in Venezuela. It is a remarkable political education-entertainment show hosted by the president of the National Constituent Assembly, Diosdado Cabello. The show, Con el Mazo Dando (loosely translated as “Hitting with a Club”), is a weekly five-hour show that combines politics with music and comedy. During the show, he covered 80 different news stories including a chronology of the electrical attack.
Cabello uses biting satire. Guaido was the punch line of many jokes and his alliance with the hated Trump administration was highlighted. Gauido does not have the respect of the people of Venezuela. He is becoming of little use to the US coup and will possibly be discarded in the near future.
While Guaido has overtly committed multiple crimes, the Maduro administration seems to have made a conscious decision to not arrest him as his actions are weakening him and exposing the coup’s connection to US and western imperialism.
One thing that was highlighted to us in Venezuela was that the self-appointment of Guaido violates the Venezuelan Constitution. The language of the Venezuelan Constitution is plain regarding when the president of the National Assembly can become president and none of those conditions have been met. The coup relies on Article 233 of the Constitution, which allows the president of the National Assembly to become president only if the president-elect
“become[s] permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice [equivalent of impeachment]; permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the approval of the National Assembly; abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote.”
None of these conditions exist. And, if they did exist, the vice president would take power until there is an election. Not only is Guaido a self-appointed president, but he is illegally self-appointed. In a press briefing, Elliot Abrams admitted that Guaido is not “able to exercise the powers of the office because Maduro still is there.”
The State Department has been pressuring the media to call Guaido the “interim president” and not to call him “self-appointed” or “opposition leader” despite the fact that he has no presidential powers and no legitimacy under Venezuelan law. Any media that succumbs to this pressure is participating in a dangerous farce that is part of a US-led coup.
This contrasts with the legitimacy of President Maduro. This week, international election observers wrote the European Union telling them they were “unanimous in concluding that the elections were conducted fairly, that the election conditions were not biased.” They described EU claims as “fabrications of the most disgraceful kind.” We described in detail the legitimacy of the elections and other essential facts activists need to know about this US coup.
Singing and dancing as people arrive for “Con El Mazo Dando”. By Margaret Flowers.
Solidarity With Venezuela Is Essential
The people of Venezuela have shown their solidarity in standing together against the US and oligarch coup attempt. It is essential for those who believe in peace, justice and anti-imperialism to do the same.
We agree with Vijay Prashad, solidarity is a process, not a slogan. We plan to build on the relationships we developed with the US Peace Council, World Peace Council and COSI among others. We will provide a list of items that COSI needs for their ongoing organizing in Venezuela, but so far they told us they need computers, printers and paper. They also need donations (a little goes a long way). They don’t have a website yet. If you can donate, contact us at [email protected] and we’ll find a way to get it to them.
The first steps in building solidarity include demanding the end to all interference: ending US imperialism and preventing military intervention and war. It also means an end to the economic war, sanctions, blocking of finances and the embargo. On a near daily basis, it requires us to correct the record and confront the lies on which US imperialism is based. We will continue to post stories on Venezuela regularly and we urge you to re-post them to social media, email networks, and websites.
We can defeat the regime change narrative by getting out the truth. Join the national webinar on Venezuela on March 26 at 7:00 pm Eastern. Register here. And join the national webinar on NATO and Latin America on March 28 at 8:00 pm Eastern. Register here. We will have more reports from our meetings in Venezuela posted on Popular Resistance.
It is evident the US coup is weak. They have a weak leader in Guaido. They depend on lies because the truth undermines their every turn. They cannot participate in elections because they have very little democratic support. This contrasts with the strength of Maduro, who has the support of the people. The popular movement is positioned to stop the Venezuela coup and prevent a military attack. Our solidarity efforts in the US may prevent them from having to suffer more.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.
All images in this article are from Popular Resistance unless otherwise stated.
At long last, President Trump released his third presidential budget request today, after a month-long delay due to the government shutdown. And it’s a doozy.
President Trump’s priorities for FY 2020 go even further than last year’s request in bloating the already enormous military budget, requesting $750 billion for the military —an increase of 5 percent, or $34 billion, from the 2019 enacted budget.
That would put 57 percent of the $1.3 trillion discretionary budget into the Pentagon and nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, total funding for all other agencies, from the Department of Education to Veterans Affairs and NASA, is only $543 billion, down from $597 billion budgeted in 2019 – a nine percent decrease.
The budget pretends to be fiscally responsible, but it relies to an unprecedented degree on one of the biggest budget gimmicks of the 21st century, a Pentagon slush fund known as the Overseas Contingency Operations. This account was first established to pay for wars in 2001, but has become a genie in a bottle for the fulfillment of any Pentagon wish that doesn’t fit in the regular budget. Administrations can claim to keep Pentagon spending under control, and stuff the extra into the slush fund. The Trump budget takes full advantage, more than doubling funding for this Pentagon slush fund, to $165 billion, up from $81 billion enacted last year.
An additional $9 billion in the military budget is listed under “emergency requirements,” which may provide funds to build the border wall that President Trump is showing no signs of dropping as a political football. Reports from administration sources indicate that the president’s budget includes $8.6 billion to fund construction of a border wall, in addition to $3.6 billion to repay military construction funds he has attempted to seize to construct a wall.
The top-line budget numbers released today in the president’s “A Budget for a Better America” document provide a broad outline of the President’s priorities — more specific numbers are expected to be released next week.
But the document lays out some of the incredibly out-of-touch, militaristic items flagged for national security funding increases, like the “United States Space Force (USSF)” proposed as a sixth branch of the Armed Forces. And the budget touts the ramp-up of nuclear funds to begin a planned $1 trillion-plus renewed commitment to U.S. nuclear weapons capacity. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the Dept. of Energy gets an 8.9 percent boost to $16.5 billion for even more nuclear weapons proliferation.
On border security, the FY 2020 budget proposes to increase funding for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to $18.2 billion, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to $8.8 billion — up 19 percent from FY 2019.
While pumping up all these facets of the militarized budget, Trump’s budget is proposing a 23.3 percent cut to the State Department, America’s major means of preventing military conflict through diplomacy, bringing it down to $42.8 billion.
This is all while proposing massive cuts to agencies that actually meet human needs, like the Department of Education (down 12 percent to $62 billion), Housing and Urban Development (down 16.4 percent to $44.1 billion), Department of Transportation (down 21.5 percent to $21.4 billion), and the Department of Labor (down 9.7 percent to $10.9 billion).
Among the hardest hit are the Environmental Protection Agency, brought down 31 percent to $6.1 billion, and the non-nuke portion of the Department of Energy, down 25.4 percent to $15.2 billion. So much for dealing with the actual existential threat of climate change!
Of course, presidential budgets rarely come to pass. But President Trump’s intentions are clear, and if his recent willingness to shut down the federal government is any indication, there are plenty of fights ahead.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
As of November 2018, 18,434 people are known to have died from the March 11, 2011 earthquake and the follow-up tsunami which struck the nuclear facility leading to the inundation of electric generators powering the circulation of coolant in the reactors. When the generators failed, three units experienced catastrophic meltdowns. [1]
Radioactive water has for years now been draining into the Pacific Ocean. Toxic debris spewed into the Earth’s atmosphere. More than 73,000 people remain evacuated, and fully 3,600 dies of illness from causes like illness and suicide linked to the aftermath of the event. [2]
The group Simplyinfo.org has been undertaking extensive ongoing research and analysis of the Fukushima disaster and its aftereffects. In its recently released annual report, Simplyinfo presented a number of astonishing and grim revelations.
The report estimated the threat of radioactive microparticles created by the meltdowns as possibly “the single largest ongoing risk to public health from the Fukushima disaster.” According to the research, these pieces of material from the nuclear fuel meltdowns are small enough to be inhaled or ingested and lodge in major organs of the human body where they continually irradiate cancer-causing levels of radiation, making them much more hazardous than the external sources of radiation being monitored by health authorities. [3]
The report also highlighted startling instances of negligence and cover-up. One notable example was the case of Dr. Shunichi Yamashita. He had downplayed the health risks in public meetings, but was discovered through an internal memo retrieved from an ‘off-site center’ set up as a central commend for the disaster to have warned of ‘a serious possibility of thyroid damage to children in the region.’ [4]
As the radioactive contamination continues to be a concern the Japanese government of Shinzō Abe is inviting the world to visit Tokyo for the 2020 Olympics. The authorities are maintaining that the situation has been contained. Officials have decided to have the city of Fukushima host baseball and softball games, and are even having the iconic torch run start in Fukushima. [5]
Efforts to normalize life in Fukushima 8 years after the meltdowns appear to be successful if trends in media consumption are any indication. Articles marking the anniversary were eclipsed by other breaking stories.[6]
This week’s instalment of the Global Research News Hour strives to impress on our listenership that the Fukushima event, if it does not constitute an extinction level event, it is certainly an ongoing health and environmental hazard deserving of at least a portion of the public attention currently directed to climate change.
Dr. Helen Caldicott appears in the first half hour of our program. She collaborated with other experts to provide a one of a kind volume detailing the medical and ecological costs of the Fukushima catastrophe. She returns to the program to update listeners on what is known about the ongoing health dangers, the lack of transparency around the casualties, and the extent of the suppression and misrepresentation of the truth by the Japanese government, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization and the media.
We next hear from Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Energy Education. The nuclear industry watchdog shares his understanding of the spread of nuclear contamination at Fukushima, the Japanese government’s bid to distract the public with heavy investment in and promotion of the 2020 Olympics, and the general tendency of governments and regulators to put the health of the industry above the safety of the public. He also addresses some of the background of the Three Mile Island incident which took place 40 years ago this month in Pennsylvania, near Harrisburg.
Arnie Gundersen is one of the directors of Fairewinds Energy Education, an information hub showcasing over 200 videos, numerous podcasts and newsletters detailing relating to nuclear energy and the entire power production paradigm. Gundersen is a nuclear engineer with over 45 years of experience in the industry. He holds a nuclear safety patent, was a licensed reactor operator, and has coordinated projects at 70 nuclear power plants in the US. He co-authored with Maggie Gundersen and barrister Reiko Okazaki the 2012 book Fukushima Daiichi: Truth And The Way Forward, which became a Japanese best-seller. His organization’s website is fairewinds.org.
It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.
Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.
Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.
Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca
For example, the Guardian published a story related to the Fukushima anniversary the same day as the story of the Ethiopian Boeing disaster. The Fukushima story got 756 times as opposed to the plane story’s 21 thousand shares on social media. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/10/ethiopian-airlines-says-kenya-flight-with-157-onboard-has-crashed
By now, there should be serious doubts about how the Brexit debate and EU referendum even got off the ground in the first place. David Cameron would have been advised by countless experts, both political and economic about the demons an EU referendum would unleash. Countless ‘mainstream media’ articles reported that his decision was to settle the long-standing battle between the right and radical right within the Tory party and that he simply miscalculated.
But there is a truth that the MSM or commentators dare not utter. David Cameron was heavily influenced politically by yet another of these guileful and influential think tanks – this time the Policy Exchange.
Policy Exchange – David Cameron’s favourite think-tank – was founded in 2001 after the ultra right-winger Iain Duncan Smith was elected leader. The think tank shaped Mr Cameron’s campaign for the party’s leadership and again his election and soon began to make waves in Tory circles under its chairman, Michael Gove, and its director, Nicholas Boles.
How right-wing is this think tank? They once suggested that efforts to regenerate struggling northern towns should be abandoned and their residents encouraged to move south – as reported here by the BBC in 2008.
Just as importantly, it strongly promotes and always has done, a hard-Brexit or what they call a ‘clean break’ with the view that Britain will thrive under WTO trade arrangement rules.
So, is it right to say that David Cameron was A) a Remainer and B) an Atlanticist more than a Europhile? On the first, it would be fair to say, that’s not true and on the second – definitely. A British Atlanticist fundamentally believes in stronger ties with both America and NATO, not the EU project and an EU army.
Brexit was always going to create a situation where Britain would have been forced into the arms of the USA (and NATO) and strenuous efforts are underway right now to ensure that happens.
More evidence
WikiLeaks releases (HERE) shed details on David Cameron’s relationship with Washington. A 2008 cable, for example, shows then shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague telling the US embassy that “we want a pro-American regime. We need it.” [i] The US official noted:
“Hague said whoever enters 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister soon learns of the essential nature of the relationship with America”.
Hague also said that he and Tory leader David Cameron were “children of Thatcher” and “staunch Atlanticists”. [ii] In the words of the US embassy, Hague added that he:
“has a sister who is American, spends his own vacations in America, and, like many similar to him, considers America the ‘other country to turn to’”.
Similar assurances were made by Liam Fox, the shadow Defence Secretary who in 2009 met the US ambassador, telling him not only of his “desire to work closely with the U.S. if the Conservative Party wins power in next year’s general election” but also that “we (Conservatives) intend to follow a much more pro-American profile in procurement“.[iii]
What a coincidence then that these ‘staunch Atlanticists’ as they put it were the architects of a political plan that ended with more procurement with America – also known as – negotiating a trade deal with America.
What a coincidence then that Liam Fox was immediately appointed Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade to negotiate trade deals – with no trade negotiation experience. Why Fox – a man sacked for breaching national security? One assumes it had nothing to do with Atlantic Bridge, a think tank set up in Margaret Thatcher’s name – designed purely to promote Atlanticism that itself says is an “ideology of cooperation between the United Kingdom and the United States regarding political, economic, and defence issues.” It was set up by fierce Brexiteers Liam Fox, Michael Gove and William Hague. Atlantic Bridge had a partnership program with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a free-market organisation with extensive links to American State Legislators and corporate and industrial groups.
George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who supposedly backed Remain was on the advisory council of Atlantic Bridge – so was Chris Grayling. Even David Cameron’s press secretary, Gabby Bertin, admitted she was paid £25,000 by the US drug giant Pfizer when working for Atlantic Bridge. All of these people were linked to right-wing Republican’s in the Tea Party.
US Views on David Cameron
US cables show its officials viewing David Cameron in frank terms. Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal wrote to his boss in November 2009 noting that:
“On foreign policy, Cameron is unsure, inexperienced, oblique, and largely uncommitted. So far his foreign policy is little more than projection of his domestic politics, especially his need to keep his party behind him going into the election. His political imperatives have pressured him to lean right, including on alignment with the far right European Parliament affiliation”.[v]
Murdoch in on the game
Blumenthal also told Clinton that the mainstream media had a clear imperative – “the Murdoch outlets, (The Sun, Sunday Times, Press Assoc, News of the World) of which the Times is one, have a headline goal of getting Cameron elected.”[viii]
The Libyan war
In advance of the military campaign against Gaddafi which began in March 2011, the Cameron government claimed that its aim was to prevent Gaddafi’s attacks on civilians and not to overthrow him.[xiv] That deposing Gaddafi was illegal was confirmed by Cameron himself when he told Parliament on 21 March 2011 that UN resolution 1973, authorising the use of force, “explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from power by military means”.[xv]
However, WikiLeaks files from the Hillary Clinton archive, which were released in 2016, show William Burns, Clinton’s deputy as Under Secretary of State, having talked with Foreign Secretary William Hague and National Security Advisor Peter Ricketts about a “post-Qadafi Libya”.[xvi] This was on 26 February 2011, over three weeks before the UN resolution was adopted and before military operations began. The intention was always to overthrow Gaddafi and the UN resolution about civilians was window dressing.
As the war was still raging, in September 2011, another US cable reveals that David Cameron and his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy were both jockeying for their oil companies to be rewarded by the new Libyan government due to their role in the war. Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal noted:
“The two leaders, in private conversations, also intend to press the leaders of the NTC [National Transitional Council] to reward their early support for the rebellion against Muammar al Qaddafi. Sarkozy and Cameron expect this recognition to be tangible, in the form of favourable contracts for French and British energy companies looking to play a major role in the Libyan oil industry.” [xvii]
All of this only goes to show the extent of collusion between the Cameron government and the US administration of the day i.e. that America had given its explicit blessing to the attack of Libya that ended with the destruction of a wealthy stable sovereign state – and of course, the unbottling of African migration, that then destabilised the European Union. The right-wng press had a field day.
Covert operations
The WikiLeaks files also contain intriguing hints of other questionable operations during the Cameron government. There are other cables, especially with regard to Israel, Syria and other Middle-Eastern states, demonstrating a deal of orchestration between the USA and UK. [xix]
Influencing the Scottish referendum?
There were many tactics being used to influence the Scottish referendum. ‘Project Fear’ was highly cited by those who criticised the MSM, commentators, politicians and business leaders for threatening Scotland with, more than anything, economic exclusion.
However, to demonstrate how deeply the Westminster government was embroiled in the propaganda war – the WikiLeaks files also show that David Cameron met with representatives of American media company Sony Pictures ten weeks before the Scottish referendum in September 2014. Discussions took place prior to the release of a TV show called “Outlander” based on Scotland’s repression under British rule. The release of the TV series was delayed in the UK, while being shown in the US, provoking suggestions this was influenced by the upcoming Scottish referendum. The leaked email published by WikiLeaks from Sony Pictures’ vice president Keith Weaver to other Sony executives made note of a planned meeting with Cameron, expressing the “importance” of the TV series to the political situation at the time.[xxi]
The USA or EU?
For anyone to suggest that David Cameron’s thoughts were not determined in some way by his favoured highly influential think tank with strong right-wing, free-market ideals, whose funding and donors is unknown, would be foolish. That Cameron was an outright Atlanticist is plain for all to see. And, if having to choose between one or the other, it is clear this is where his heart was – because he was prepared to gamble Britain’s relationship with the EU.
His governments’ ideology of austerity is nothing more than the type of financial strangulation seen in the USA represented by the worst health care system in the western world – privatisation of everything is the key to everything, irrespective of the outcomes.
The fact that key American corporations are designing and directing the dismantling of the UK’s welfare state already should be a strong hint of what is to come. Cameron accelerated this plan, as his government did with adding privatised services to the NHS and selling off state assets faster than Thatcher did.
For all of the speculation that David Cameron just ‘slipped up’ with the EU referendum that caused Brexit is frankly on the one hand – little more than a serious indictment of ‘the establishment’ that he was born into and beholden to. On the other, it indicates the inquisitive to wonder if offering an EU referendum is exactly what ‘deep state’ America wanted.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The American war on Venezuela continues to escalate with the sabotage of its electricity grid, the most serious action of all so far, which was not only an act of terrorism against the entire civilian population but also an attempt to shut down exports of Venezuelan oil.
This is part of the American hybrid war strategy. Hybrid warfare is warfare that uses all domains of life and society to hurt and damage the targeted nation. It was best defined by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiansui, two senior colonels of the Peoples Liberation Army in their famous book titled, Unrestricted Warfare, published in 1999 which proposed strategies and tactics that could be used by developing countries to compensate for their military inferiority vis a vis the United States during a high tech war.
Published prior to the American cruise missile attack on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, the book drew a lot of attention in the west for its proposition that a multitude of means, military and non-military could be used to strike at the United States in a conflict; hacking into websites, targeting financial institutions, terrorism, using the media, urban warfare, sabotage, crippling infrastructure, subversion, all the methods of what the Americans term hybrid warfare.
The Chinese colonels stated that the first rule of this type of warfare is that there are no rules, nothing is forbidden. But they made a fundamental error when they also stated that “strong countries would not use the same approach against weak countries because strong countries make the rule while rising one break them” and, though admitting that the US breaks the rules of international law and makes up its own law when it suits their interests stated that it “has to observe its own rules or the world won’t trust it.”
Well, the colonels seem to have ignored the long history of the United States using exactly these types of methods against all its enemies weak or strong, of using unrestricted warfare, without limitations, in effect, total war on nations and peoples they target. They did not seem to understand that the Americans don’t give a damn what anyone else in the world thinks or whether anyone trusts them, which makes them all the more dangerous because peaceful settlement of disputes with them on an equitable basis is next to impossible. They are currently using these methods against Russia, Iran, China, Syria, DPRK, and of course Venezuela.
All these tactics are, of course, elements of a war of aggression, which is the fundamental war crime, and now a crime at the ICC for which they could, in theory, be prosecuted. Yet, the ICC prosecutor sits at her desk, as his her custom, drinking tea while collecting a large salary and instead of stating that the US and its allies are committing crimes against humanity and war crimes against the Venezuelan people entertains a Canadian request on behalf of the Lima Group to investigate the Venezuelan government for “crimes against humanity.” We have to suppose for not giving all its oil to the Americans.
Though Venezuela is a Party to the Treaty of Rome and so falls within their jurisdiction, for the Prosecutor to begin an investigation she has to be supplied with credible and reliable information deserving of investigation that crimes have been committed and crimes which the Venezuelan government is systematically ignoring or is part of. They have supplied no such information in their requests. All they have sent to the Prosecutor are unsubstantiated claims, bald statements echoing their political rhetoric. So there are no legal grounds on which the Prosecutor can act.
However, there is overwhelming evidence and outright confessions, bragging in fact by the US, Canadian and some EU leaders that they are committing crimes against humanity against the people of Venezuela with their economic warfare, that they call “sanctions’ which are illegal under international law, and for supporting an internal coup attempt, for their conspiracy to commit aggression and lately the sabotage of civilian infrastructure, the electricity grid.
Canada, with the US, and European nations, such as Germany Spain France and Britain, have imposed illegal sanctions, economic warfare on the people of Venezuela in order to force them to turn against their government by making them suffer. The sanctions are illegal because they violate the UN Charter. Only the Security Council has the authority to impose sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. They are also crimes against humanity because they amount to siege warfare, that is, causing the deliberate suffering of civilians in an attempt to overthrow a government. Venezuela to protect itself, is building support among the nations such as Russia China, India, Cuba, Turkey, Iran and many other nations that have just formed a group to restore the UN Charter as the heart of international law and in recent days we have seen both Russia and China promising assistance and telling the Americans to back off.
Venezuela can also play the ICC game. It can request the ICC to lay charges against the countries attacking it and can file a claim against the USA and its gang for damages in the International Court of Justice and request an order from that court to the US gang stop their aggression against Venezuela. Venezuela can also use war without rules on its attackers and President Maduro hinted as much in a recent speech warning the Americans that they will not be immune from the consequences of their actions.
In some way it appears as if the United States, its influence weakening in other areas of the world, is attempting to re-establish its one time dominance in North and South America. Canada has been long brought to heel and is just a whimpering poodle in the lap of the American state to the dismay of most Canadians who have no real say in anything. Mexico was once in their pocket but already there are signs of trying to undermine and slap down the new Mexican President Obrador whose social democracy is too left for the far right that controls the US machinery of power.
John Bolton even stated that the “Monroe Doctrine” was the foundation of their policy to explain the US approach against Venezuela. The statement was a clear insult to all the countries of Latin America, the Lima Group included but it has no basis in international law.
The Monroe Doctrine is not accepted as part of international law and never has been. It is a very simple statement that the Americans issued in 1823 just after most of Latin America freed itself from Spanish and Portuguese rule, proclaiming that the western hemisphere was an American region of interest and that any European intrusions into the area would be considered a hostile act. To resurrect it today as Bolton tries to do is an insult to all Latin American countries, and even Canada, since it means that the Americans view those nations as so many provinces of their empire. However there is a contradiction because the Americans now rely on assistance from the very European countries that the Monroe Doctrine was aimed against; Spain, Britain, France, Germany in order to advance their war against Venezuela. So its resurrection at this time shows American weakness, by relying on help from the same nations that the Monroe Doctrine claims to exclude from the region.
Indeed, they heavily relied on these European interlopers to help them get their American puppet back into the country after he had left to try to stage a propaganda stunt at the Colombia-Venezuela border, a stunt that backfired and made them look like fools. On his return to Venezuela on March 4, Guaidò was met at the airport, likely preventing his deserved arrest, by some European ambassadors from Spain, France, and Germany, in particular. The US ambassador was not there.
In any case that action by the foreign ambassadors was a violation of the Vienna Convention and a hostile act. Article 5 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations sets out the permitted normal activities of consuls in a receiving state. But subsection (m) states:
“(m) performing any other functions entrusted to a consular post by the sending State which are not prohibited by the laws and regulations of the receiving State or to which no objection is taken by the receiving State or which are referred to in the international agreements in force between the sending State and the receiving State.”
This means that supporting the conspirators in an attempted coup against the receiving state, Venezuela is clearly prohibited and is regarded under customary international law as a hostile act and Venezuela has the right to immediately expel the consular officials involved or the entire consulate. The German ambassador who seemed to be most vocal has now been expelled.
Part of the hybrid warfare is the use of propaganda of course and an important element of the US propaganda is the resort to a claim that there exists a legal doctrine of “responsibility to protect” in international law. This doctrine does not exist in international law. It is purely an invention of the United States and its allies to justify their wars of aggression and violations of the UN Charter. Since they cannot obtain the support of the Security Council for their wars, because they are in violation of the obligation to keep the peace, and violations of the rights of every nation to its sovereignty and independence, the right not to be attacked in any way by other nations, they invented this phrase to justify the unjustifiable, It is nothing less than a pretext for wars of aggression and people should put it out of their minds as an argument for these wars. It is a bogus doctrine, a doctrine invented by fascists.
Worse they base the resort to this false doctrine on false facts because the UN Human Rights Council sent a Special Rapporteur to investigate the conditions in Venezuela and the cause of them. The man assigned dutifully went there, investigated and dutifully filed his report which because it did not accord with what they had hoped he would report was suppressed and we only know about it through an interview he gave to the press. Mr. Alfred de Zeyas reported to the UN that it was the illegal economic sanctions imposed by the US, Canada and their other allies that are the principal cause of the hardships being created in Venezuela and that they are illegal and should be ended and that the countries imposing them should be charged for committing crimes against humanity, I could quote him at length but I think the reader deserves to read this interview in full as much as de Zeyas deserves to he heard. We can only hope that the ICC Prosecutor will read his report and act on it. But I won’t hold my breath waiting.
The people of the world must protest this war, protest against these criminals who control the machinery of state in their nations for the crimes we see them commit against peoples in foreign lands so openly are the very crimes they are committing against us at home. We are all targets. No one is immune. The war on the people of Venezuela, and now, for good measure, Cuba and other socialist countries, against any form of socialism everywhere, is a war against us all.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
The real problems in the Province of Kosovo and Metohija have been provoked by Albanian separatism and terrorism continuously supported by some western powers. This support was motivated by their geopolitical interests: weakening and fragmenting Serbia has always meant for them weakening Russia’s presence and influence in the Balkans.
In the late 90’s of the last century, as confirmed by British sources, Clinton’s administration decided to topple President Slobodan Milosevic by encouraging the terrorist UCK to provoke wide scale terrorism. In the summer of 1998 the Serbian Government reacted with legitimate anti terrorist actions against which NATO orchestrated propaganda presenting them as a “massive violation of human rights” as a prelude to premeditated military aggression. Many lies were launched such as the hypothetical “horse shoe plan” Zivadin Jovanovic
Interview with Zivadin Jovanovic, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Enrico Vigna: Twenty years after the NATO 1999 bombing of the FRY, the real geopolitical and geostrategic reasons (military, political, economic) of the aggression are being revealed. What is your opinion?
Zivadin Jovanovic: Now, 20 years after the so called “humanitarian intervention“ or “merciful angel” it is clear that it was an illegal, blatant aggression with geopolitical objectives. First, to get justification for the deployment of the USA’s troops closer to the Russian borders. Kosovo’s plains became a land carrier of US troops. After Bondsteel the USA established a chain of bases in Bulgaria (4), Romania (4), and so on up to the Baltic Sea. Second, the objective was to create a precedent for the future illegal interventions all over the globe – Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Libya, the “Arab spring”, the Ukraine, Syria and so on. Using the same pattern, now they are openly threatening Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran… So, we can say that the bombs and missiles thrown in 1999 on Yugoslavia have torn into pieces the agreements of Potsdam, Teheran, Yalta, the UN Charter, and the Helsinki Final Document. Generally, their targethas been the global world order based on the outcome of the Second World War. Is that sane?
EV: What is the political, social, economic situation in Serbia?
ZJ: In spite of the opposition presently boycotting the Parliament and weekly demonstrations, I would say that the Government is legitimate and still stable. Whether there will be early elections soon does not depend on the strength of the opposition but mainly on the tactical needs of the ruling SPP (SNS) party related to the Kosovo negotiations. Economically Serbia is moderately recovering with about a 4% GDP rise in 2018. However, unemployment of the youth, the brain drain towards Germany, Austria and Switzerland, poverty, the deepening of social differences, high corruption, remain great problems which the present neo-liberal corporative system favoring the richest by all means, seems unable to resolve. Serbia democratized by NED standards is still below the living standard of the 80’s of the last century.
EV: I know well the situation in Kosovo Metohija (Kosmet), directly and through continuous communication with our partners, such as SOS Kosovo Metohija and SOS YU. We are the only Italian Association operating in the Serbian Province. The situation there is very tense, with a risk of new violence and conflicts. In your new book “1244 Key to Peace in Europe” (we introduced it on www.civg.it) you advocate implementation of the UN Security Council’s resolution 1244 as the only basis for a peaceful and sustainable solution. What is the real future of Kosovo and Metohija?
ZJ: NATO’s 1999 aggression ended by the UN SC resolution 1244 (June 10th, 1999) which guaranteed, among other things, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia (Serbia) and wide autonomy for Kosovo and Metohija within Serbia. This is the legal, universally binding document agreed upon by all permanent members of the UN SC. To have lasting, sustainable peace it is necessary to fully implement this document. Not only the parts binding Serbia but all of it. Not because of Serbia but because of global governance and peace in Europe. This resolution is a consolidated compromise of the interests of the Serbian and Albanian peoples but at the same time a compromise of the interests of all relevant international factors. If in the meantime there has been a change of circumstances, it would be difficult to prove that such a change has favored the privileges, or exceptionality of any particular power, or a unipolar concept of domination.
Offering Serbia “a deal” to recognize the theft of her state territory in exchange for EU membership offers quite a gloomy perspective, which would definitely lead to a further accumulating of conflict potential, regionally and globally. Have we already forgotten the example of how the leading western powers were “saving peace” in Munich 1938? Destruction of the SFR of Yugoslavia 1992-1995 was the price of keeping the unity of the EEC. Would Serbia with all her experiences of the past decades accept now her own dissolution for the sake of the unity of the EU? It is strange and worrisome indeed that anybody might believe Serbia can be persuaded to join NATO while it takes a leading role in war games near the Russian borders, or accept USA made EU sanctions!
EV: How do you see the future of Kosovo Metohija and that of the Serbian people living there?
ZJ: In my opinion, Kosovo and Metohija should enjoy wide autonomy within Serbia, as envisaged by the UN SC resolution 1244. Albanians there should have the widest self governance in all spheres of their life from culture and education to the economy and finance. This excludes secession, recognition of independence or unification with any other state. All provisions of the UN SC resolution have to be fully implemented, including the right of about 230.000 displaced Serbs and other non-Albanians to freely return to their homes and properties in safety and dignity. Together with about 130.000 Serbs who now live in the Province, they should enjoy self governance within Provincial autonomy. The Community of Serbian districts within the Province may be the framework providing them executive power.
EV: What is the situation of the NATO and EU integration process in Serbia?
ZJ: I believe that neutrality is in the best interests of Serbia. NATO is an offensive military alliance intervening all over the world for the interests of multinational corporations and U.S. imperial domination. On the other side, Serbia is a small, peace loving country with a quite different tradition. It has never belonged to any blocs. Finally, Serbia cannot forget the crimes of the NATO aggression, human victims, use of depleted uranium and economic damage of over 100 billion US dollars. What NATO did to Serbia in 1999 is a historic mistake, an unforgettable, shameful act disgracing Europe and western democracy. They even bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade killing three Chinese citizens. Who would believe this was a mistake as Washington claimed?
After the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999 Europe and the global governance have become militarized. At the recent Munich Security Conference nobody opposed the opinion that global mistrust and tensions have never after the end of the Cold War been so deep and worrisome as today? As regards all military arsenals on the planet, particularly the nuclear ones and the spreading of disregard and even annihilation of the basic international norms and treaties, the question arises as to whether the tide of madness could be stopped, by whom and how?
Concerning Serbia’s EU integration, I think we should be cautious to see first what happens with the EU itself. The EU has demonstrated a biased approach in negotiations about the future of the Province of Kosovo and Metohija persistently favoring the secessionist aims of Prishtina and the geopolitical interests of the USA and NATO. This is dead-end way and very dangerous for the future of Europe. Catalonia is just one reminder. The whole process should be returned to the track of the UN enabling the active participation of Russia and China along with the western powers. Only this framework can guarantee a balanced and unbiased approach and sustainable solution.
EV: After Putin’s recent visit to Belgrade, do you think that Serbia’s position in defending national independence and sovereignty is stronger?
ZJ: President Putin’s visit to Serbia provided concrete substance to the long term strategic partnership and co-operation between the two countries. About 20 different agreements have been signed covering many fields of cooperation from gas supply and modernization of the infrastructure to the transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and culture. President Putin has reaffirmed Russia’s steady principled position supporting the sovereignty and integrity of Serbia and a peaceful solution of the Kosovo and Metohija issue based on international law and Serbia’s legal system. If Russia’s role was decisive in stopping the NATO aggression in 1999 and in the passing of resolution 1244 in the UN SC, who really can claim today, 20 years later, that the lasting solution can be reached keeping Russia (and China) at a distance! Was the Russia of president Boris Yeltsin more relevant in 1999 for the shaping of the world’s relations, than the Russia of president Vladimir Putin in 2019?
EV: What is your opinion about the political situation in Serbia today? And what do you think about the weekly protests in Belgrade, are they spontaneous or initiated by external interests?
ZJ: The present Serbian opposition is mainly composed of the remnants of the former DOS (Democratic Opposition of Serbia) which in October 2000 overturned the then President Slobodan Milosevic and in 2001 unconstitutionally handed him to the Hague Tribunal with the decisive help of western secret services. The Serbian opposition today is fragmented, devoid of any serious ideas about socio-economic progress, about a just and sustainable solution for the Kosovo and Metohija issue, or regarding an independent foreign policy. All pressures on the Serbian government now, be they from within or outside of the country, are designed to weaken its negotiating position on Kosovo and Metohija, to compel the Government to accept “a deal” – and recognize the independence of Kosovo and Metohija immediately – for the vague promise of EU membership! The outgoing neoliberal EU elite confronted with the tide of nationalist and so called populist forces badly needs at least some success. So, they want Serbia to pay for their futile policy by surrendering part of her state territory and national identity in order to falsely say: – the Kosovo issue is resolved, peace preserved! For this they are even seeking collaborators inside Serbia.
EV: You established in Serbia the think tank “Silk Road Connectivity Research Center” and supported the establishment of an Italian branch known as the “Belt and Road Observatory”. How would you assess the progress of this global Project?
ZJ: In the present day divisions, global tensions and rising protectionism, the positive impact of China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI) is growing and promising.Only five years after this Initiative was announced by the President Xi Jinping in Astana, Kazakhstan, BRI has attracted about 100 countries from Asia, Europe, Africa and other continents that are directly involved in practical implementation. Major regional economic integrations and groupings of countries are seeking ways how to coordinate their own infrastructure and other projects with the BRI in order to provide synergy for more efficient development. Close to 100 industrial parks have been established along the Belt and Road providing over one million new working places. The BRI has contributed immensely for people to people connectivity bringing closer civilizations, cultures, youths, thus strengthening mutual understanding and trust. China+16 CEEC cooperation under BRI has become an important bridge for Euro-Asia and especially between China and the European Union. The Win Win spirit has become a trade-mark of BRI cooperation.
The slowing down of the growth of the global economy, instability of the financial markets, globalization of poverty, protectionism, weakening of multilateral institutions such as WTO, power politics and geopolitical approaches to economic cooperation, are some of the challenges ahead. The general answer to all of them is doubling the efforts to create a new global governance based on partnership, multi-polarity and equality, reforms and strengthening of the international institutions, better coordination. The Second BRI Forum Summit in China in April this year will summarize great achievements of the Initiative and open new perspectives for the strengthening of cooperation which is strategically important for the stability and growth of the global economy. Serbia is actively participating in the BRI cooperation, especially within the China+16 CEE countries. Chinese investments in Serbia have reached about 6 billion US dollars mainly in modern infrastructure, industry and the energy sector. The Serbian section of the high speed railway Belgrade – Budapest is progressing as one of the largest investment projects.
EV: The NATO aggression of 20 years ago has been justified by the Kosovo humanitarian situation. Every time when I visit Kosovo and Metohija Serbs living there keep complaining about their dramatic security situation and fear of terror in the future. Based on your knowledge and experience, what would you have to say to the Italian and international public?
ZJ: The real problems in the Province of Kosovo and Metohija have been provoked by Albanian separatism and terrorism continuously supported by some western powers. This support was motivated by their geopolitical interests: weakening and fragmenting Serbia has always meant for them weakening Russia’s presence and influence in the Balkans. In the late 90’s of the last century, as confirmed by British sources, Clinton’s administration decided to topple President Slobodan Milosevic by encouraging the terrorist UCK to provoke wide scale terrorism. In the summer of 1998 the Serbian Government reacted with legitimate anti terrorist actions against which NATO orchestrated propaganda presenting them as a “massive violation of human rights” as a prelude to premeditated military aggression. Many lies were launched such as the hypothetical “horse shoe plan”, “the Rachak massacre” etc. In fact, the real humanitarian catastrophe and exodus of refugees started only after first NATO bombs fell in Kosovo and Metohija and Yugoslavia.
EV: Like the SOS Kosovo and Metohija Association many years ago we have decided to concentrate our solidarity concept and information work on Serbian enclaves in Kosmet, because we think that this is the nodal point of the contradictions that will involve the entire Balkans in the future. And the resistance of the people in Kosmet is fundamental also for the future in Serbia. What is your opinion?
ZJ: First of all, we are grateful to your associations for their continuous support and help to Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija over the past decades. Your contacts, humanitarian assistance and especially your role in exchanges of children’s visits are extremely important for the feelings of the Serbs there – that they are not forgotten, nor abandoned, that they have friends who understand their problems. And those are really unbelievable problems. The Serbs in the enclaves live today like they were in ghettos, sometimes fenced by barbed wires. Their movement is not secure, their households have been constantly robbed, their churches, graveyards, religious symbols destroyed. They live in a state of uncertainty and fear of a new ethnic cleansing and pogroms similar to the previous ones which led to the exodus of 230.000 Serbs and other non-Albanians, the destruction of 150 Christian medieval monasteries and churches. EU, USA, UNMIK, KFOR, EULEX have done little or nothing to punish the perpetrators of the crimes against the Serbs, to investigate human organs trafficking, generally, to guarantee equal human rights for the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija.
EV: Thank you. Good bye in Belgrade on 22 March, for the International Meeting for the 20th anniversary of the NATO aggression, organized by Belgrade Forum.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
March 17th, 2019 by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
The final Mueller report should be graded “incomplete,” says VIPS, whose forensic work proves the speciousness of the story that DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking.
***
.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The Attorney General
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT:Mueller’s Forensics-Free Findings
Executive Summary
Media reports are predicting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is about to give you the findings of his probe into any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. If Mueller gives you his “completed” report anytime soon, it should be graded “incomplete.” Major deficiencies include depending on a DNC-hired cybersecurity company for forensics and failure to consult with those who have done original forensic work, including us and the independent forensic investigators with whom we have examined the data. We stand ready to help.
We veteran intelligence professionals (VIPS) have done enough detailed forensic work to prove the speciousness of the prevailing story that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking. Given the paucity of evidence to support that story, we believe Mueller may choose to finesse this key issue and leave everyone hanging. That would help sustain the widespread belief that Trump owes his victory to President Vladimir Putin, and strengthen the hand of those who pay little heed to the unpredictable consequences of an increase in tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.
There is an overabundance of “assessments” but a lack of hard evidence to support that prevailing narrative. We believe that there are enough people of integrity in the Department of Justice to prevent the outright manufacture or distortion of “evidence,” particularly if they become aware that experienced scientists have completed independent forensic study that yield very different conclusions. We know only too well — and did our best to expose — how our former colleagues in the intelligence community manufactured fraudulent “evidence” of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
We have scrutinized publicly available physical data — the “trail” that every cyber operation leaves behind. And we have had support from highly experienced independent forensic investigators who, like us, have no axes to grind. We can prove that the conventional-wisdom story about Russian-hacking-DNC-emails-for-WikiLeaks is false. Drawing largely on the unique expertise of two VIPS scientists who worked for a combined total of 70 years at the National Security Agency and became Technical Directors there, we have regularly published our findings. But we have been deprived of a hearing in mainstream media — an experience painfully reminiscent of what we had to endure when we exposed the corruption of intelligence before the attack on Iraq 16 years ago.
This time, with the principles of physics and forensic science to rely on, we are able to adduce solid evidence exposing mistakes and distortions in the dominant story. We offer you below — as a kind of aide-memoire— a discussion of some of the key factors related to what has become known as “Russia-gate.” And we include our most recent findings drawn from forensic work on data associated with WikiLeaks’ publication of the DNC emails.
We do not claim our conclusions are “irrefutable and undeniable,” a la Colin Powell at the UN before the Iraq war. Our judgments, however, are based on the scientific method — not “assessments.” We decided to put this memorandum together in hopes of ensuring that you hear that directly from us.
If the Mueller team remains reluctant to review our work — or even to interview willing witnesses with direct knowledge, like WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange and former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, we fear that many of those yearning earnestly for the truth on Russia-gate will come to the corrosive conclusion that the Mueller investigation was a sham.
In sum, we are concerned that, at this point, an incomplete Mueller report will fall far short of the commitment made by then Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “to ensure a full and thorough investigation,” when he appointed Mueller in May 2017. Again, we are at your disposal.
Discussion
The centerpiece accusation of Kremlin “interference” in the 2016 presidential election was the charge that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee emails and gave them to WikiLeaks to embarrass Secretary Hillary Clinton and help Mr. Trump win. The weeks following the election witnessed multiple leak-based media allegations to that effect. These culminated on January 6, 2017 in an evidence-light, rump report misleadingly labeled “Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).” Prepared by “handpicked analysts” from only three of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI, and NSA), the assessment expressed “high confidence” in the Russia-hacking-to-WikiLeaks story, but lacked so much as a hint that the authors had sought access to independent forensics to support their “assessment.”
The media immediately awarded the ICA the status of Holy Writ, choosing to overlook an assortment of banal, full-disclosure-type caveats included in the assessment itself — such as:
“When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as ‘we assess’ or ‘we judge,’ they are conveying an analytic assessment or judgment. …Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. … Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary … High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong.”
To their credit, however, the authors of the ICA did make a highly germane point in introductory remarks on “cyber incident attribution.“ They noted: “The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber operation — malicious or not — leaves a trail.” [Emphasis added.]
Forensics
The imperative is to get on that “trail” — and quickly, before red herrings can be swept across it. The best way to establish attribution is to apply the methodology and processes of forensic science. Intrusions into computers leave behind discernible physical data that can be examined scientifically by forensic experts. Risk to “sources and methods” is normally not a problem.
Direct access to the actual computers is the first requirement — the more so when an intrusion is termed “an act of war” and blamed on a nuclear-armed foreign government (the words used by the late Sen. John McCain and other senior officials). In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in March 2017, former FBI Director James Comey admitted that he did not insist on physical access to the DNC computers even though, as he conceded, “best practices” dictate direct access.
In June 2017, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr asked Comey whether he ever had “access to the actual hardware that was hacked.” Comey answered, “In the case of the DNC … we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. …” Sen. Burr followed up: “But no content? Isn’t content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?” Comey: “It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks … is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.”
The “private party/high-class entity” to which Comey refers is CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm of checkered reputation and multiple conflicts of interest, including very close ties to a number of key anti-Russian organizations. Comey indicated that the DNC hired CrowdStrike in the spring of 2016.
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – including a possible impeachment battle and greatly increased tension between Russia and the U.S. — it is difficult to understand why Comey did not move quickly to seize the computer hardware so the FBI could perform an independent examination of what quickly became the major predicate for investigating election interference by Russia. Fortunately, enough data remain on the forensic “trail” to arrive at evidence-anchored conclusions. The work we have done shows the prevailing narrative to be false. We have been suggesting this for over two years. Recent forensic work significantly strengthens that conclusion.
We Do Forensics
Recent forensic examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23, 25 and 26 May 2016. (On June 12, Julian Assange announced he had them; WikiLeaks published them on July 22.) We recently discovered that the files reveal a FAT (File Allocation Table) system property. This shows that the data had been transferred to an external storage device, such as a thumb drive, before WikiLeaks posted them.
FAT is a simple file system named for its method of organization, the File Allocation Table. It is used for storage only and is not related to internet transfers like hacking. Were WikiLeaks to have received the DNC files via a hack, the last modified times on the files would be a random mixture of odd-and even-ending numbers.
Why is that important? The evidence lies in the “last modified” time stamps on the Wikileaks files. When a file is stored under the FAT file system the software rounds the time to the nearest even-numbered second. Every single one of the time stamps in the DNC files on WikiLeaks’ site ends in an even number.
We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on the Wikileaks site. All 500 files end in an even number—2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If those files had been hacked over the Internet, there would be an equal probability of the time stamp ending in an odd number. The random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power. Thus, these data show that the DNC emails posted by WikiLeaks went through a storage device, like a thumb drive, and were physically moved before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide Web.
This finding alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts, for example, about Mueller’s indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers for hacking the DNC emails given to WikiLeaks. A defense attorney could easily use the forensics to argue that someone copied the DNC files to a storage device like a USB thumb drive and got them physically to WikiLeaks — not electronically via a hack.
Role of NSA
For more than two years, we strongly suspected that the DNC emails were copied/leaked in that way, not hacked. And we said so. We remain intrigued by the apparent failure of NSA’s dragnet, collect-it-all approach — including “cast-iron” coverage of WikiLeaks — to provide forensic evidence (as opposed to “assessments”) as to how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks and who sent them. Well before the telling evidence drawn from the use of FAT, other technical evidence led us to conclude that the DNC emails were not hacked over the network, but rather physically moved over, say, the Atlantic Ocean.
Is it possible that NSA has not yet been asked to produce the collected packets of DNC email data claimed to have been hacked by Russia? Surely, this should be done before Mueller competes his investigation. NSA has taps on all the transoceanic cables leaving the U.S. and would almost certainly have such packets if they exist. (The detailed slides released by Edward Snowden actually show the routes that trace the packets.)
The forensics we examined shed no direct light on who may have been behind the leak. The only thing we know for sure is that the person had to have direct access to the DNC computers or servers in order to copy the emails. The apparent lack of evidence from the most likely source, NSA, regarding a hack may help explain the FBI’s curious preference for forensic data from CrowdStrike. No less puzzling is why Comey would choose to call CrowdStrike a “high-class entity.”
Comey was one of the intelligence chiefs briefing President Obama on January 5, 2017 on the “Intelligence Community Assessment,” which was then briefed to President-elect Trump and published the following day. That Obama found a key part of the ICA narrative less than persuasive became clear at his last press conference (January 18), when he told the media, “The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive … as to how ‘the DNC emails that were leaked’ got to WikiLeaks.
Is Guccifer 2.0 a Fraud?
There is further compelling technical evidence that undermines the claim that the DNC emails were downloaded over the internet as a result of a spearphishing attack. William Binney, one of VIPS’ two former Technical Directors at NSA, along with other former intelligence community experts, examined files posted by Guccifer 2.0 and discovered that those files could not have been downloaded over the internet. It is a simple matter of mathematics and physics.
There was a flurry of activity after Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016: “We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication.” On June 14, DNC contractor CrowdStrike announced that malware was found on the DNC server and claimed there was evidence it was injected by Russians. On June 15, the Guccifer 2.0 persona emerged on the public stage, affirmed the DNC statement, claimed to be responsible for hacking the DNC, claimed to be a WikiLeaks source, and posted a document that forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”
Our suspicions about the Guccifer 2.0 persona grew when G-2 claimed responsibility for a “hack” of the DNC on July 5, 2016, which released DNC data that was rather bland compared to what WikiLeaks published 17 days later (showing how the DNC had tipped the primary scales against Sen. Bernie Sanders). As VIPS reported in a wrap-up Memorandum for the President on July 24, 2017 (titled “Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence),” forensic examination of the July 5, 2016 cyber intrusion into the DNC showed it NOT to be a hack by the Russians or by anyone else, but rather a copy onto an external storage device. It seemed a good guess that the July 5 intrusion was a contrivance to preemptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish from the DNC, by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.” WikiLeaks published the DNC emails on July 22, three days before the Democratic convention.
As we prepared our July 24 memo for the President, we chose to begin by taking Guccifer 2.0 at face value; i. e., that the documents he posted on July 5, 2016 were obtained via a hack over the Internet. Binney conducted a forensic examination of the metadata contained in the posted documents and compared that metadata with the known capacity of Internet connection speeds at the time in the U.S. This analysis showed a transfer rate as high as 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than was possible from a remote online Internet connection. The 49.1 megabytes speed coincided, though, with the rate that copying onto a thumb drive could accommodate.
Binney, assisted by colleagues with relevant technical expertise, then extended the examination and ran various forensic tests from the U.S. to the Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and the UK. The fastest Internet rate obtained — from a data center in New Jersey to a data center in the UK — was 12 megabytes per second, which is less than a fourth of the capacity typical of a copy onto a thumb drive.
The findings from the examination of the Guccifer 2.0 data and the WikiLeaks data does not indicate who copied the information to an external storage device (probably a thumb drive). But our examination does disprove that G.2 hacked into the DNC on July 5, 2016. Forensic evidence for the Guccifer 2.0 data adds to other evidence that the DNC emails were not taken by an internet spearphishing attack. The data breach was local. The emails were copied from the network.
Presidential Interest
After VIPS’ July 24, 2017 Memorandum for the President, Binney, one of its principal authors, was invited to share his insights with Mike Pompeo, CIA Director at the time. When Binney arrived in Pompeo’s office at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017 for an hour-long discussion, the director made no secret of the reason for the invitation: “You are here because the President told me that if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk with you.”
Binney warned Pompeo — to stares of incredulity — that his people should stop lying about the Russian hacking. Binney then started to explain the VIPS findings that had caught President Trump’s attention. Pompeo asked Binney if he would talk to the FBI and NSA. Binney agreed, but has not been contacted by those agencies. With that, Pompeo had done what the President asked. There was no follow-up.
Confronting James Clapper on Forensics
We, the hoi polloi, do not often get a chance to talk to people like Pompeo — and still less to the former intelligence chiefs who are the leading purveyors of the prevailing Russia-gate narrative. An exception came on November 13, when former National Intelligence Director James Clapper came to the Carnegie Endowment in Washington to hawk his memoir. Answering a question during the Q&A about Russian “hacking” and NSA, Clapper said:
“Well, I have talked with NSA a lot … And in my mind, I spent a lot of time in the SIGINT business, the forensic evidence was overwhelming about what the Russians had done.There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever.” [Emphasis added]
Clapper added:
“… as a private citizen, understanding the magnitude of what the Russians did and the number of citizens in our country they reached and the different mechanisms that, by which they reached them, to me it stretches credulity to think they didn’t have a profound impact on election on the outcome of the election.”
(A transcript of the interesting Q&A can be found here and a commentary on Clapper’s performance at Carnegie, as well as on his longstanding lack of credibility, is here.)
Normally soft-spoken Ron Wyden, Democratic senator from Oregon, lost his patience with Clapper last week when he learned that Clapper is still denying that he lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the extent of NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens. In an unusual outburst, Wyden said: “James Clapper needs to stop making excuses for lying to the American people about mass surveillance. To be clear: I sent him the question in advance. I asked him to correct the record afterward. He chose to let the lie stand.”
The materials brought out by Edward Snowden in June 2013 showed Clapper to have lied under oath to the committee on March 12, 2013; he was, nevertheless, allowed to stay on as Director of National Intelligence for three and half more years. Clapper fancies himself an expert on Russia, telling Meet the Presson May 28, 2017 that Russia’s history shows that Russians are “typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever.”
Clapper ought to be asked about the “forensics” he said were “overwhelming about what the Russians had done.” And that, too, before Mueller completes his investigation.
For the steering group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center (ret.)
Richard H. Black, Senator of Virginia, 13th District; Colonel US Army (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, the Pentagon (associate VIPS)
Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras, former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson, former CIA and State Department Counter Terrorism officer
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis, Cryptologic Computer Scientist, former Technical Director at NSA (ret.)
David MacMichael, Ph.D., former senior estimates officer, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst; CIA Presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council & CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Peter Van Buren, US Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Sarah G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Ann Wright, retired U.S. Army reserve colonel and former U.S. diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Philip A Farruggio has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected].
Ellen Brown discusses Quantitative Easing with Philip Faruggio, as well as Universal Basic Income, in a very informative interview.
.
.
Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including Web of Debt and The Public Bank Solution. A 13th book titled Banking on the People: Democratizing Finance in the Digital Age is due out soon. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn, NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his work posted on sites like Global Research, Greanville Post, Off Guardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected].
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This was originally published on the author’s podcast, Spreaker.
Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a rule that leaves workers across the United States exposed to methylene chloride, a lethal chemical used in paint strippers that has already caused dozens of worker deaths. Breaking EPA’s repeated promises to ban commercial and consumer uses of methylene chloride paint strippers, the Trump administration instead finalized a ban solely on consumer uses, opening a loophole that leaves thousands of workers at risk of illness and death.
“We will not allow this administration to once again attack our community, because that is what this rule does, it leaves workers blatantly exposed to deadly chemicals,”said Hector Sanchez Barba, LCLAA Executive Director. “Latino and immigrant workers are overly represented in jobs that require exposure to deadly working conditions, including paint strippers. LCLAA is committed to ensuring that these women and men are granted the same protections as workers in other industries. Methylene chloride must be fully banned.”
In January 2017, EPA acknowledged those risks and proposed a ban on commercial and consumer uses of methylene chloride paint strippers. Since then, at least four people — including two workers — have died from methylene chloride exposure. However, despite repeated promises to finalize that proposal, the Trump administration reversed course and excluded workers from its final methylene chloride rule.
“Workers will continue to die because the Trump administration can’t bring itself to ban even the most toxic chemicals on the market. EPA’s decision to leave workers exposed to lethal paint strippers is unconscionable and unlawful,” said Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, a staff attorney at Earthjustice. “The methylene chloride rule sends a clear message to workers that their lives matter less than chemical industry profits.”
Acute exposure to methylene chloride can cause asphyxiation, heart failure, even sudden death, while long-term exposure increases risks of cancer, liver disease, and other serious health effects. Last month, LCLAA, represented by Earthjustice, sued EPA over its failure to regulate the chemical’s unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, and bystanders, as required by the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The methylene chloride lawsuit filed by LCLAA, represented by Earthjustice, and the Natural Resources Defense Council is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
A 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!
In August last year, Anning made the claim before his Senate colleagues in his maiden speech that Australia needed to finally redress the issue of immigration. He reflects on the era of Sir Robert Menzies, one where change was slow and wealth abundant; he then looks the country now, and sees welfare seekers everywhere.
The United States will impose visa restrictions on people responsible for any International Criminal Court (ICC) probe, a move aimed at preventing the court from pursuing the United States and its allies regarding their actions during and after the invasion in Afghanistan, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Friday.
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and his government committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, aided and abetted by U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration, according to a recent ruling from the International Peoples’ Tribunal on the Philippines.
The US is spearheading a “peace negotiation” campaign with Taliban since weeks in Qatar’s capital city, Doha. The US special representative on Afghanistan Reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, has been spelling out the details of conclave through his twitter account. There is no Afghan or international journalist or correspondent allowed on the scene to report on actual minutes of the meeting that allegedly took place.
A number of recent speeches by US President Donald Trump have featured Cold War Era rhetoric, including the claim that in ‘the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country’.
Articles were regarded as “negative articles written about Islam”, if they “referred to Islam or Muslims alongside words like violence, extremism, terrorism or radical”. It should be noted – this is a pretty expansive definition. A story that accurately reported a noteworthy incident of Muslim violence, without being inflammatory or misrepresenting material facts, and which had the respectful cooperation of Muslims, would still be caught up under this definition.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Veterans For Peace (VFP) calls on all members of the U.S. military to refuse illegal orders to intervene in Venezuela. Furthermore, VFP urges all U.S. military leaders to inform the president that they will order their units to stand down from preparations to invade Venezuela.
President Donald Trump has called on Venezuelan soldiers to disobey orders and join coup perpetrators headed by U.S.-backed opposition leader, Juan Guaidó. If they do not do this, President Trump threatened: “You will find no safe harbor, no easy exit and no way out. You will lose everything.”
Veterans For Peace President, Gerry Condon states, “While President Trump speaks of supporting democracy in Venezuela and Latin America, the real purpose of the U.S. assault on the Venezuelan government is to fully open the vast Venezuelan oil reserves to U.S. and other Western oil corporations as well as to destroy progressive governments in Latin America that put their own peoples’ needs above the profits of foreign corporations.”
Illegal, immoral and irresponsible U.S. actions, including “sanctions” (economic war) have already taken a great toll on the people Venezuela. Nonetheless, the vast majority of Venezuelan people and military are standing firm against foreign intervention.
There is a very real possibility that President Trump will order U.S. troops to intervene in Venezuela, whether through a direct invasion and occupation, or through support for irregular counter-revolutionary forces. This would likely lead to a widening war that could spread to other Latin American countries and the Caribbean, bringing increasing suffering to the peoples of Latin America and the U.S.
It is illegal under both U.S. and international law to launch a military attack against another nation unless it is clearly in self-defense, and is approved by the United Nations.
There are a number of options for GI’s who do not wish to follow illegal orders. Veterans For Peace wants service-members to be fully informed as they make profound choices with possibly serious consequences. We urge GI’s facing possible deployment to contact the National Lawyers Guild Military Law Task Force at (619) 463-2369 and/or [email protected] for referral to a civilian attorney to discuss your options.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Two weeks after U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Uncut short their second summit with no agreement or clear path forward, a top North Korean official said on Friday the “gangster-like” behavior of Trump’s hawkish top officials helped derail the denuclearization negotiations.
At a gathering of diplomats and foreign media in Pyongyang, North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui expressed disappointment that the summit ended without a deal and threatened to suspend talks. According toThe Associated Press:
Choe, who attended the Feb. 27-28 talks in Hanoi, said Kim was puzzled by what she called the “eccentric” negotiation position of the U.S. She suggested that while Trump was more willing to talk, an atmosphere of hostility and mistrust was created by the uncompromising demands of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton. She said statements by senior Trump advisers since the summit have further worsened the climate.
“On our way back to the homeland, our chairman of the state affairs commission said, ‘For what reason do we have to make this train trip again?'” Choe told reporters. “I want to make it clear that the gangster-like stand of the U.S. will eventually put the situation in danger.”
President Moon: Call Chairman Kim. President Trump: Fire Bolton and Pompeo if you have to. Let's get this process back on track. https://t.co/VP7SfzqBTs
While Pompeo said Friday morning that the administration wishes to continue talks with North Korea, Choe’s comments fueled mounting concerns that Trump and Kim may not return to the negotiating table anytime soon and followed speculation immediately after the summit that Bolton played a key role in the breakdown.
After the breakdown, critics called the meeting—which was the second time Trump and Kim met face-to-face—a “missed opportunity” to end the decades-long Korean war and pave a path for peace on the peninsula. However, Trump and Kim were also praised for building trust and pursuing diplomacy rather than trading insults and threats, as they had done previously.
Trump claimed the talks ended in Hanoi because Kim wanted devastating economic sanctions “lifted in their entirety, but we couldn’t do that.” Earlier this month, Bolton said that if North Korea doesn’t shutter its nuclear program and everything associated with it, “they’re not going to get relief from the crushing economic sanctions that have been imposed on them and we’ll look at ramping those sanctions in fact.”
Choe claimed Friday that despite the way things ended in Hanoi, personal relations remain good between Trump and Kim. She also said the North Korean leader will soon “clarify his position” on whether to continue talks or restart missile launches and nuclear tests. In terms of sanctions, she pushed back against Trump’s explanation.
“I’m not sure why the U.S. came out with this different description,” Choe said. “We never asked for the removal of sanctions in their entirety.”
“This time we understood very clearly that the United States has a very different calculation to ours,” she added. “What is clear is that the U.S. has thrown away a golden opportunity this time.”
Duyeon Kim, a senior fellow at the Center for New American Security and columnist for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, responded to Choe’s remarks in a series of tweets. As Kim put it,
“Choe is like the Bolton of NK during summitry; she talks tough time to time.”
However, she concluded, there’s still hope for diplomacy, and key figures from both countries should focus on that.
👇1. We're seeing a Bolton-Choe moment hitting the airwaves after Hanoi. Choe is like the Bolton of NK during summitry; she talks tough time to time. Her comments reflect genuine NK frustration, but also seems to be playing hard to get & trying to force US to make move… https://t.co/XvbwIUDGMk
3. To do: ROK send intel chief Suh, persuade to keep moratorium & talk. US knock on NK door for more talks (I worry about translation issues in Hanoi & recent Biegun word choices "incremental" etc). Trump tweet something positive/send love letter (cant believe I'm saying this)…
The argument that the Christchurch shooter, suspect Brenton Tarrant, or the views of Australia’s Senator Fraser Anning, seemingly holding a lone torch, are somehow not representative of the broader whole, be it Australia or New Zealand, is a self-deflecting exercise. They are the uncomfortable mirrors of ruin, actual and perceived. They are the voices of people who can either be marginalised and confined or addressed.
Tarrant’s views sizzle with clenching anxiety, shot through the desire to recover what has been lost and what has been taken. It is deprivation, and it is not so much nostalgia as castration and insufficiency. How to overcome that? The response is spectacular violence, one that seeks to “show the invaders that our lands will never be their lands, our homelands are our own and that, as long as white man still lives, they will NEVER conquer our lands and they will never replace our people”.
Australian Senator Fraser Anning, with the bodies still warm, decided to wade into the debate.
“Does anyone still dispute the link between Muslim immigration and violence?” he posed on Twitter.
Does anyone still dispute the link between Muslim immigration and violence?
He had no time for the “clichéd nonsense” that the Christchurch killings were the result of poor gun laws or those “holding nationalist views”.
“The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.”
Marginalisation, coupled with severe muzzling, is the preferred formula to such individuals. A petition to remove Anning from parliament, for instance, has reached 750,000, a move that will do wonders to martyr him and make way for crude shrines.
“We call on the Australian government to expel this man who blames victims for their own violent deaths, and uses references to genocide to further his hateful agenda.”
Repeatedly, remarks have been made across the politically smug spectrum that neither the shooter, nor the reactionary senator, represent the “values” of Australasia. Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, Penny Wong, has dismissed Tarrant’s views as alien and incompatible.
“He is not who we are.” Ditto Anning, deemed a freak. “I say to the people of New Zealand, I say to all people, Mr Anning does not represent Australia, he does not represent our values, he does not represent who we are.”
This is self-denying, camouflaging guff; individuals like Tarrant and Anning are, in of themselves, representative of a particular strain of thinking of alienation, morbid fear of extinction, a terror of being subsumed. Call it bruised White ego, the governing classes left out in the cold. Call it a sense of drowning and asphyxiation and falling into social and political irrelevance. They are the ones whose views suggest a loss of control, and, fundamentally, a loss of power. Consider Anning’s remarks on March 12:
“I can see what happened in the UK where 429 Muslims are in political office now and hold massive influence over law making including introducing Sharia law.”
I can see what has happened in the UK where 429 Muslims are in political office and now hold massive influence over law making including introducing Sharia Law.
Islam is NOT compatible with Australia and our politics.
Those of Wong’s persuasion would do well to consider that many Australians of a certain ilk and background are, however delusional, terrified about the incompatibilities of Islam and the Anglo-Australian legal system.
In August last year, Anning made the claim before his Senate colleagues in his maiden speech that Australia needed to finally redress the issue of immigration. He reflects on the era of Sir Robert Menzies, one where change was slow and wealth abundant; he then looks the country now, and sees welfare seekers everywhere. (A touch shabby on the actual success of Australia’s immigration program, is Anning.)
“In the days of Menzies, immigrants arriving here were not allowed to apply for welfare and that attracted the right sort of hard-working people this country needed.”
Such a program, one that had been taken out of the hands of the Australian people, needed a “final solution”. Whether Anning’s choice of words was intentionally vulgar, or simply ignorant and convenient, is impossible to know. But few listened or consulted the full text of that speech, which has a number of surprises. Anning mentions, for instance, the methods of the Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci, the inspiration behind an “insidious revolution”. Understand Gramsci, and you will understand the dangers posed by cultural Marxism. Anning misses the boat by a good stretch on why individuals concur with their institutions (people can be seduced not to revolt), but his views nonetheless draw the customary lines in the sand in the culture debates.
His words got their predictable reaction, fodder for his brand label. As a minor politician, publicity is pure oxygen. In the kingdom of clippings and short takes, his message was simplified and amplified. It is also worth noting that Katter’s Australia Party, to which he initially belonged, endorsed his claims about immigration only to have a dramatic change of heart.
Playing the values game is a dangerous one. What, exactly, are “Australian values”, inchoate and slippery as they are? We see those two words repeated with machine automated promptings. Australian values were not reflected in the killings; they were not reflected in the extremist sentiments of the suspect shooter or the senator with a loose tongue. But Australian values have just as easily been ones of expropriation, dispossession and racial fear, a product of British colonial mentality, frontier conflict against the Indigenous population, and the deputy sheriff essentials so keenly embraced by this extension of the US imperium. How pleasant it is to assume that something else is at play, that Anning and Tarrant are the exceptional monsters in the playground.
The poisoned well of anxiety and resentment is a deep and broad one, common to Islamic State and the right wing fundamentalism that supplies their counter. They are, as journalist Stan Grant noted on ABC News quoting from Mark Lilla, the shipwrecked minds; they catastrophize the world, see it as calamitous. They nourish each other, supplying the nutrient of hate. To not understand the fundamental unity of these seemingly opposite positions, and seeking ways to remove that polarity, will be to mask the condition. Talk about values, to that end, is pernicious.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
The United States will impose visa restrictions on people responsible for any International Criminal Court (ICC) probe, a move aimed at preventing the court from pursuing the United States and its allies regarding their actions during and after the invasion in Afghanistan, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Friday.
In September, the Trump administration said that if the court launched a probe of war crimes in Afghanistan, it would consider banning ICC judges and prosecutors from entering the United States, sanctioning funds they have there and prosecuting them in U.S. courts. Washington took the first step on Friday with Pompeo’s announcement.
“I’m announcing a policy of U.S. visa restrictions on those individuals directly responsible for any ICC investigation of U.S. personnel,” Pompeo told a news conference in Washington. “These visa restrictions may also be used to deter ICC efforts to pursue allied personnel, including Israelis, without allies’ consent.”
Pompeo said the policy was already being implemented but would not elaborate, citing visa privacy laws.
“These visa restrictions will not be the end of our efforts,” he said. “We’re prepared to take additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course.”
A director at Human Rights Watch, Andrea Prasow, described the announcement as a “thuggish attempt to penalize investigators” at the court.
“Taking action against those who work for the ICC sends a clear message to torturers and murderers alike: their crimes may continue unchecked,” she said and calling on U.S. lawmakers to rescind the move and express support for the international court.
In November 2017, the ICC prosecutor requested authorization from judges to initiate an investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan since May 1, 2003, including in states where the CIA held prisoners.
More than one million statements from Afghan people and organizations had been submitted to the ICC alleging war crimes committed by several actors, including the U.S. military, the CIA, Afghan forces and the Taliban, local groups working with the Hague-based tribunal said last year.
Katherine Gallagher, a senior staff attorney with the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, argued that the Afghanistan case could be a test for proving the effectiveness of the young court and hoped the ICC judges would decide to approve the probe.
“To date, no high-level U.S. official from the civilian leadership, military, CIA, or private contractor has been prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. An ICC investigation could finally change that – bringing an end to the impunity US officials have enjoyed and, critically, some measure of redress to victims of the U.S. torture program,” Gallagher stressed.
Judges are reviewing all material submitted by the prosecutor and will need to decide whether or not to authorize an investigation.
With 123 member states, including the entire European Union, the ICC is a court of last resort. It was established in 2002 to prosecute war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity when a country is unable or unwilling to prosecute perpetrators itself. Major powers, including the United States, China and Russia, are not members.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
When I went to medical school in the late 1960s, one of my wiser pediatric professors told us students: “always listen to the parents of your pediatric patients, because they will tell you what is wrong with the child”.
That truism proved to be valuable in dealing with patients and their family members throughout my career in family practice, and I still believe in its profound truth. Even when dealing with adult patients, I have found that family members often have valuable observations and know important historical facts about the patient that helped me make a more accurate and timely diagnosis.
I have heard many physicians complain that they are sometimes kept from obtaining a thorough medical history because of time constraints imposed on them by their clinics, which can impair the development of the list of potential diagnoses. Important examples of diagnoses that are frequently not considered are the host of vaccine-induced adverse effects – partly because they are largely un-recognized by many pro-vaccine physicians and nurses and partly because they qualify as being iatrogenic.
Of course, my late 1960s med school experience occurred in a simpler time in medical history when Big Pharma, Big Vaccine, Big Medicine and the variety of other profit-minded corporations or governmental agencies were still in their infancy. Those medical industries weren’t so cutthroat back then. They had not yet started recognizing and exploiting the enormous profit potential to be had in “miracle” drugs and “miracle” vaccines. But the hype was starting. I still have my Eli Lilly reflex hammer and stethoscope to remind my about some of the subtle ways that Big Pharma propagandizes physicians.
The CEOs of 1950s to 1960s-era pharmaceutical companies like Cutter Laboratories, Wyeth, Parke-Davis, Ciba-Geigy, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Merck, Sharp & Dohme were only making salaries in the range of a hundred thousand dollars a year, rather than the multi-million-dollars per year salaries (plus stock options) that they now command – and they were somehow satisfied with that.
In the context of this column, it is important to be reminded that Cutter Labs was a prominent vaccine company in the mid-1950s. Cutter manufactured and marketed a formaldehyde-inactivated poliovirus vaccine (Salk’s, not Sabin’s), but the formaldehyde inactivation technology failed in many of the mass-produced vaccine batches, and the now-live virus-containing, injectable vaccine actually caused an epidemic of poliomyelitis that infected 40,000 school children with polio. The incident generated so many lawsuits that it destroyed the company. Back in the mid-1950s, it was still lawful to sue vaccine companies for damages when their products killed or sickened the vacinees. (Read about the 1955 “Cutter Incident” here.)
The Mercury that used to be in RhoGam Caused Fetal Brain Damage
Back when the vaccine industry was still not a money-making enterprise controlled by Big Business, I came across a published study that revealed that pregnant Rh-negative women that were injected with the mercury-containing RhoGam shot had a 25% chance of giving birth to a neurologically-damaged child that developed symptoms that were commonly mis-diagnosed at that time as having symptoms compatible with ADHD. The medical consensus at the time was that the neurotoxic mercury was the obvious root cause of the neurological damage that had occurred to the fetal brain.
Nobody at the time tumbled to the fact that the so-called ADHD that followed RhoGam shots was really a form of vaccine-induced Autism Spectrum Disorder. Autism was still on the distant horizon, waiting for the era when physicians were encouraged by the public health agencies and the CDC to over-vaccinate their infants and children with simultaneously-administered cocktails of vaccines that contained mercury, aluminum and sometimes live viruses in addition to other toxic ingredients and occasional contaminants. What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
Back in the 1950s and 60s neighborhood mothers organized measles, mumps and chickenpox parties so that children could get exposed to the neighborhood kids who had come down with those usually mild, non-lethal childhood infectious diseases – and then get that infection over with. When children did get measles, mumps or chickenpox they just stayed home from school for a few days, with the assurance that that lucky child was now immune from that particular infection for the rest of his or her life. (“Booster shots” were never needed if a child acquired one of those infectious diseases naturally.)
Beware the Information Coming out of the CDC, for it is a Wholly-owned Subsidiary of the Pharmaceutical Industry
Most healthcare-givers and journalists get their vaccine information from the Big Pharma co-opted CDC, FDA and AAP, each of which has been justifiably and derisively called “wholly-owned subsidiaries of the pharmaceutical industry”. Therefore, healthcare-givers and journalists are getting tainted information from those sources and therefore are making mistake after mistake when the ignore the fact that there are toxic vaccine ingredients in most vaccines and those toxins are causing a large variety of vaccine-induced disorders.
Likewise, legislators, talk show hosts and talking heads tend to be vaccine-illiterate, and can only be expected to repeat what their conflict-of-interest-corrupted sources tell them concerning the safety and efficacy or even the actual need for the multitude of marketed vaccines. We should all tremble when we realize that the vaccine industry has over 250 new vaccines in their developmental pipelines.
Shouldn’t non-scientist journalists and non-scientist legislators be expected to know the difference between pure, unbiased, scholarly science and the for-profit pseudoscience that is the norm for most for-profit industries? And shouldn’t non-scientist journalist and non-scientist legislators be called out when they are misleading their constituents, whether by design or out of simple ignorance?
Injectable Vaccines can’t Provide Long-lasting or Life-long Immunity Against Infectious Diseases
The truth is that injectable vaccines are not reliably preventive, and here is the reason for that statement: Intramuscularly-injected vaccine ingredients can’t really simulate natural infectious diseases because viruses or bacteria that cause natural infectious diseases always initially infect the mucosal surfaces of the body whereas vaccine injections bypass the mucosa. Thus, the vitally important “mucosal immunity” doesn’t happen with vaccinations and therefore there is not complete protection against future so-called “vaccine-preventable” infectious diseases.
In other words, injectable vaccines are totally inadequate in producing mucosal immunity – the first line of defense against communicable infectious diseases. Full immunity is only possible when a sufficient number of microorganisms first infects the nasal, oral, pharyngeal, respiratory or intestinal mucosa and then enters the bloodstream and is exposed to the complex immune system- which attempts to produce the antibodies that can – at least partially – protect the body against future infectious agents.
This second component of the immune system is called hormonal (or serological) immunity and, when over-stimulated by vaccines and a process called molecular mimicry, the system can also create serious autoimmune disorders. In addition, the autoimmunity, the ingredients in many vaccines can cause any number of other disorders. (See the list of some of them below.)
Thimerosal, the mercury-containing preservative that was commonly used in many vaccines that started the autism epidemic of the 1980s and 1990s was a common preservative in vaccines that needs no explanation as to why it destroys brain tissue.
The Aluminum Adjuvant/Autoimmune Disorder Connection
But many vaccines also contained a known neurotoxic metal called aluminum. Aluminum nanoparticles, when adherent to protein molecules, have long been known to reliably hyper-stimulate antibody production when the complexes are exposed to immune cells in the body.
However, in some cases, the aluminum in the vaccine actually adhered to the body’s own proteins (“molecular mimicry”) and cause the formation of antibodies against the body’s own proteins, hence causing a complex set of disorders that is now known as the ASIA Syndrome (Autoimmune/inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants. Some of these autoimmune disorders are in the list below.)
It is important to recognize that in un-vaccinated populations, childhood autoimmune disorders are essentially non-existent (including autoimmune disorders like juvenile type I diabetes and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis; also rare are autistic spectrum disorders and asthma). Two examples of such un-vaccinated populations are certain Amish communities and the Home First Clinic in Chicago, neither one of which encourages the vaccination of their pediatric patients.
It is the fully-vaccinated populations that appear to be riddled with autoimmune disorders, autistic spectrum disorders and chronic childhood diseases, the incidences of all three of which appear to be increasing rapidly among the fully-vaccinated. A recent study reported that up to 42% of American children have some type of chronic health disorder. In my hometown back in the 1950s there was only one child that had a chronic health disorder and his was from a birth injury.
Listening Carefully to the Parents of Vaccine-injured Children for a Change
I have heard and read the oral and written testimonies of hundreds of anguished parents who have tearfully (and often angrily) told their stories about their SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) child, their near-SIDS child, their autistic child, their Asperger’s child or their neurologically-damaged and disabled child that was abruptly changed from a perfectly healthy, smiley baby into an acutely-ill and then chronically ill child that often wound up being permanently-disabled.
The common denominator in all these case studies was the inoculations of cocktails of vaccines (of up to 9 different neurotoxin-containing vaccines in three different body sites at the same office visit!). What could possibly go wrong with that kind of assault?
All vaccines contain various neurotoxic ingredients (including mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, live viruses, etc, FOR WHICH THERE ARE NO KNOWN SAFE DOSES WHEN INJECTED INTO MUSCLE TISSUE!
It is true. The many different combinations of FDA-approved infant vaccines have never actually been safety-tested – even in guinea pig labs; and the CDC, the State Departments of Health, the WHO, the AAP, the AMA, the AAFP, etc continue to recommend these cocktails for routine use in children! And these cocktails are often given without fully informing the parent about the risks of these procedures before getting their consent. What could possibly go wrong with that picture?
So many of us in the pure science-based and scholarly Anti-Over-Vaccination community cannot help but be suspicious of the motives of the Big Businesses that are involved in the CDC’s vaccine agenda.
And, given what my medical school professors told me about “believing what the parents tell you about what they think caused their child to become ill”, I cringe when I am told that parents that do that when vaccines have sickened their child, they are not just not listened to, they are commonly fired from their clinics as well!
Big Pharma’s Propaganda Meme of “Vaccine Hesitancy”
Anybody recognizing the truths in the above documentable information should not have to wonder why there is such a thing as “vaccine-hesitancy” among knowledgeable parents who want and also deserve to have the chance to withhold their consent to fully vaccinate their child if they feel that the risks involved in precisely following the CDC vaccination schedule for their particular child outweighs the benefits.
Many understandably hesitant parents would logically prefer to modify the CDC’s recommendations by delaying or not allowing so many vaccines to be given at a single setting or space out the vaccinations over a extended time period.
All the Pro-Over-Vaccination propaganda is coming from corporate entities that are enriching themselves by promoting such agendas. Those CDC and AAP agendas are putting at risk the health and lives of America’s innately immuno-compromised infants and children all because of a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying from measles, a scenario in which 9,999 children will be exposed to unnecessary health-threatening, even life-threatening, potentially toxic vaccines for nothing – except to theoretically save one life. Nobody really knows just how many lives will be sacrificed just from being over-vaccinated?
Sadly, parents have never been given the essential information about the potential neurological problems, the chronic autoimmune disorders, the behavioral disorders or the learning disabilities that are commonly associated with America’s over-vaccination schedules that they deserve to know about.
Adverse vaccine reactions can be life-threatening, health-threatening, require chronic medical management and even last a lifetime. Those realities should totally change the discussion about the pros and cons of following the CDC’s vaccine agenda for any concerned parent, especially if they were also fully informed about the relatively rarity and lack of seriousness of most of the supposedly “vaccine-preventable” infectious diseases. Parents choosing not to expose their children to the possibility of developing serious vaccine-induced illnesses should not be denigrated.
It should be mentioned that many of victims of the vaccine-related disorders listed below have had their cases tried before a federal vaccine court. Many judgements have been made in favor of the vaccine-injured patient, thus legally refuting Big Pharma’s oft-repeated false claim that vaccines are 100% safe. These damaged patients are mostly children, and the hundreds of cases have been awarded a total of $4,000,000,000 (4 billion dollars) in financial compensation over the past 2 decades. Read the story of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) here.
It is also important to emphasize that many of the vaccine-induced disorders in the list below are also mentioned in the product insert forms that vaccine corporations such as Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi-Pasteur and Aventis are mandated by the FDA to include with each vaccine vial. Clinics have no real reason to claim ignorance about the facts presented in this article, because they have been written down for them by the very vaccine industry that hopes the information is over-looked.
So even Big Pharma is acknowledging that there are significant health risks in America’s over-vaccination programs; vaccines. And yet, the “conventional wisdom” – heavily promoted by Big Pharma, the CDC and the AAP – is that 100% of vaccines are 100% safe, 100% effective and 100% necessary.
What could possibly go wrong with that over-optimistic deviation from reality?
Below is a list of Vaccine Side Effects (that may Represent Early Signs of Serious Vaccine Toxicity and Therefore a Contraindication to Further Vaccinations)
This list was put together by a consortium of scholars, scientists, investigative journalists, parents of vaccine-damaged children, medical doctors, nurses, biomedical researchers, immunologists and holistic health providers – most of whom are associated with the Alliance for Vaccine Awareness and the US Health Consortium.
A trip or phone call to a doctor or the hospital Emergency Room
Collapse
Fever above 102, Lasting over 12 hours or ccompanied by other symptoms/signs such as Atypical Fussiness, Arching back with screaming; Rigid body; crying or screaming that occurs in the days and weeks post vaccination.
Seizures: New or an increased number of seizures in a child who already had seizures
Diarrhea: New, foul smelling stools within hours to one week after vaccination, especially if accompanied by discomfort, screaming, vomiting or nausea
Death: Vaccine-induced SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome), Near SIDS, or SBS (Shaken Baby Syndrome)
Brain Damage: Repetitive Behaviors; Autism/Asperger’s Syndrome (diagnosis is always delayed by months or years)
Increased Frequency of Infectious Diseases after vaccinations, especially ear infections
Allergies new after vaccinations
Eczema: Red, scaly or itchy patches on skin
Rash Any noticeable new red spots on skin within 2 months of vaccination, any worsening or an increase in size or number of current skin spots
Asthma: New or worsening
Seasonal allergies (pollen)
Environmental Allergy (animal dander, dust, mold); Insect allergy (cockroaches, bees); Hives; Allergic Sinusitis; Dark circles under eyes
Macrophagic Myofasciitis (MMF): (hard tender long-lasting lump at site of injection); Diminished movement of extremity in which vaccination occurred
New Neurological signs or symptoms: Paralysis; Deterioration; Weakness in the arms/legs; Numbness or tingling; Pain and discomfort; Bedwetting beyond 5 years of age; Soiling self with lack of stool control
Oversensitivity: Doesn’t like the feel of tags on clothing; Is overstimulated by the outside world; may prefer a noise cancelling headset; Puts hands over ears; Isolates self
Vision changes: Depth perception; Tunnel vision (including walking into things that should be clearly in the visual field; Watching/looking at things sideways or upside down; Change in vision; Strabismus (lazy eye); Eye movement disorder; Decreased vision, including blindness
Hearing loss: Damage to hearing; Deafness
Language issues: Speech and language delay; Lack of comprehension; Cannot express self; Stuttering
Body movements: Tics; Repetitive hand movements; Eye tics; Head-banging; Head tics; Rocking; Repetitive feet and/or leg movements; Mouth or tongue movements
Foul language, new onset
Hair-pulling or Hair-twisting (trichotillomania)
Body Balance impairment: Cannot keep balance standing on one leg – new symptom; New clumsiness
Cognitive and Behavioral changes: Learning disability; New ADHD-like symptoms; Lessened awareness; Loss of eye contact; Showing signs of being withdrawn; Change in sleep patterns; Change in ability to focus; New repetitive behavior; New sensory processing issues; Intolerant of texture of food or clothing; Intolerant of touch; Intolerant of sound; Picky eating or lack of appetite; Anxiety; OCD; Irritability; Tantrums or rage or oppositional behavior; Withdrawal or uncommunicative; Depression
Verbal regression: Sentence pattern diminished; Language ability changes; Repetition of sounds; Lack of comprehension of chores, parental and teacher direction changes
Developmental Milestones Not Met: Including pointing (by age 1), following another’s point (by age 1), other manifestations of shared/joint attention, responding to name (by age 1 or earlier).
Developmental Milestones lost.
Autism Spectrum Disorder
“Gardasil Girls” who developed symptoms after one of the Three CDC-recommended HBV Vaccinations: Vaginal or rectal bleeding; Amenorrhea; Infertility; Reproductive organ cancer (usually diagnosed within a few years after the Gardasil shots: New Lower Abdominal Pain; Loss of consciousness/fainting after vaccination; New medical diagnosis made post-vaccination; New autoimmune disorder (which have occurred many years after vaccination);
Autoimmune Disorders (Vaccine-Induced)
(The list below only names 20 out of the over 80 autoimmune disorders)
3 ASIA Syndrome (Autoimmune/inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants [“adjuvants” = nanoparticles of aluminum added to many vaccine in order to hyper-stimulate the production of antibodies to the intended antigen – usually viruses or viral particles])
4 Celiac Disease
5 Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
6 Crohn’s disease
7 Guillain-Barre Syndrome
8 Type 1 diabetes mellitus (Juvenile/insulin-dependent)
9 Chronic Lyme disease
10 Lupus
11 Multiple Sclerosis
12 PANS or PANDAS
13 Psoriasis
14 Raynaud’s
15 Rheumatic Fever
16 Rheumatoid Arthritis
17 Scleroderma
18 Sjogren’s Syndrome
19 Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP)
20 Vitiligo
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Since his retirement from his holistic mental health practice, Dr Kohls has been writing the weekly Duty to Warn column for the Duluth Reader, Minnesota’s premier alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns, which have been re-published all around the world for the last decade, deal with a variety of justice issues, including the dangers of copper/nickel sulfide mining in water-rich northeast Minnesota and the realities of pro-corporate “Friendly” Fascism in America, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s over-drugging, Big Vaccine’s over-vaccinating, Big Medicine’s over-screening and over-treating agendas, as well as other movements that threaten human health, the environment, democracy, civility and the sustainability of the planet and the populace. Many of his columns have been archived at a number of websites, including the following four:
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and his government committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, aided and abetted by U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration, according to a recent ruling from the International Peoples’ Tribunal on the Philippines.
The tribunal, which was held in Brussels, Belgium, on September 18 and 19, 2018, rendered its 84-page decision on these crimes on March 8. Conveners of the tribunal included the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights, Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, IBON International, and the International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines. A panel of eight jurors from Egypt, France, Italy, Malaysia, the Netherlands and the United States heard testimony from 31 witnesses, including me.
These jurors ordered the defendants to make reparations; to provide compensation or indemnification, restitution and rehabilitation; and to be subjected to possible prosecution and sanctions for their crimes. Although the tribunal does not have the power to enforce those measures, its findings of facts and conclusions of law could be used to bolster the preliminary examination of crimes by the Duterte regime currently pending in the International Criminal Court (ICC).
“The Tribunal has finally rendered its historical and comprehensive decision,” Edre Olalia, president of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) in the Philippines, who also served as clerk of the tribunal, told Truthout in an email.
“It is extensive in its presentation of the facts and evidence” and contains “an incisive elaboration of the nexus between the acts and omissions of Defendants and their accountability under a plethora of international instruments.”
Olalia added that the decision “sends out a message loud and clear: a people continually victimized by authoritarian and repressive governments and exploitative entities will seek justice wherever they can before those who are willing to give them a fighting chance.” Finally, Olalia said,
“the decision remains ever more relevant to this day and time when the Filipinos are still struggling to ride out the storm of tyranny, brutality, corruption, misogyny and repression.”
Much of this tyranny, brutality and corruption has been endorsed, whether implicitly or explicitly, by the United States. The unholy alliance between the Philippine and U.S. governments is long-standing. For the past 18 years, under Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump, the United States has continued to provide assistance to the Philippine government, which enables it to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity against its own people and deny them their legal right to self-determination.
After the 9/11 attacks, Bush declared the Philippines a second front in the war on terror, calling it “Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines.” The Philippine government used Bush’s campaign as an opportunity to escalate its vicious counterinsurgency program against Muslims and individuals and organizations that oppose its policies.
The Philippine government labels specific people and groups as “terrorists,” which makes them targets of the regime. The government also engages in “red tagging” — political vilification. These labels can lead to harassment, assault, detention, torture and even murder. Targets are frequently human rights activists and advocates, political opponents, community organizers or groups struggling for national liberation.
Indeed, attorney Benjamin Ramos, secretary general of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, was assassinated on November 6, 2018, two months after the tribunal proceedings.
“Atty. Ramos was a leading human rights lawyer in Negros, who passionately advocated for genuine agrarian reform and peasant rights,” the NUPL said in a statement.
Ramos was the 34th lawyer killed by the Duterte regime. Two more have been killed since.
The tribunal found Defendants Rodrigo Duterte and his regime, and Donald Trump and his administration guilty of gross and systematic violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights; and the rights of the people to national self-determination and development.
Duterte is responsible for the crimes of his administration under the doctrine of Command Responsibility. Commanders are criminally liable for murders and other crimes committed by their subordinates if they knew or should have known they would be committed and they did nothing to stop or prevent it.
Liability for the Trump administration was based on its role as accomplice to Duterte’s crimes. The Rome Statute of the ICC includes aiding and abetting liability for war crimes. An individual can be convicted of a war crime in the ICC if he or she “aids, abets or otherwise assists” in the commission or attempted commission of the crime. This includes “providing the means for its commission.” The U.S. government supplied the Duterte regime with $175 million in foreign military financing in 2017 and 2018, and $111 million in 2019.
Violations of Civil and Political Rights
The tribunal found the Duterte regime responsible for “mass murder, gross violations of the right to due process, unabated killings, attacks, terrorist-tagging and criminalisation of human rights defenders and political dissenters, muzzling of the right to free expression, impunity to the hilt, general situation of unpeace, and the utter contempt for human rights.”
Duterte is perpetrating a ruthless “war on drugs,” which has taken the form of a violent war on suspected drug users. Most victims of the drug war are poor people from the slums. A police memo ordered that suspected drug users be “neutralized” or killed. The government admits to killing at least 4,410 people suspected of drug use as of July 31, 2018. Independent sources put the number at 23,000. The police claim that they acted in self-defense.
But, tribunal prosecutor Neri Colmenares, the chairperson of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, argued,
“direct evidence including eyewitness’s accounts, CCTV and others show that the police, themselves, killed the victims [who were] not fighting back. They have been killing the victims while the victims were kneeling and pleading for their lives.”
Colmenares noted the brazenness of these killings, saying,
“They were committed in broad daylight, in public places, in front of many witnesses … even near police stations showing that the perpetrators were never afraid at all at being accosted by the authorities.”
There is a culture of impunity for officials in the Philippines. Police officers who carry out illegal killings are not brought to justice. They are promoted to higher posts.
Many lawyers are afraid to defend drug suspects for fear they might be killed. Since Duterte took office on July 1, 2016, the regime has illegally killed 10 prosecutors, 21 lawyers, three judges, and 13 journalists.
“The extra-judicial killings have also intensified against human rights defenders and the progressive sections of Philippine civil society who have criticized the current undemocratic and anti-people policies and systems,” the tribunal wrote. “As of June 2018, 169 leaders of the progressive movement have been victims of extrajudicial-killings (EJKs) and an additional 509 political prisoners are illegally jailed, subjected to trumped-up criminal charges and planted evidence.”
Duterte is unapologetic. On September 27, 2018, he publicly admitted,
“My only sin is the extrajudicial killings.”
Extrajudicial means outside the law.
Fatou Bensouda, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court wrote in an October 2016 statement about the situation in the Philippines that extra-judicial killings may fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC “if they are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population pursuant to a State policy to commit such an attack.” That is the definition of a crime against humanity.
Witnesses testified at the tribunal that suspects and prisoners endure physical and psychological torture. Janry Mensis, a miner in Mindanao, testified via video. He described how he and his brother were arrested, detained and tortured. They were tied and detained inside an ambulance for nine days. Then they were hogtied and their mouths covered with packing tape. The soldiers then strangled them. When the brothers pretended to be unconscious, they were thrown into a pit with wood and oil and set afire. They dragged themselves out of the pit after the soldiers left them for dead. They both suffered third-degree burns and other injuries from the torture.
Duterte declared Martial Law in Mindanao on May 23, 2017, purportedly in response to an invasion in one city by an alleged ISIS-inspired group (ISIS is also known as Daesh). His government has used the Martial Law to conduct illegal arrests and detentions, enforced disappearances, forced displacement and arbitrary deprivation of property, destruction of mosques and schools, and arbitrary denial of humanitarian aid to civilians caught in the crossfire.
After considering this evidence, the tribunal found violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Geneva Conventions; Nuremberg Tribunal; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.
Murder, torture and cruel treatment constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions.
Murder or torture committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack, constitute crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute.
Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The Philippine and U.S. governments were not the only entities on trial at the tribunal. Other defendants included the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and transnational corporations and foreign banks doing business in the Philippines.
“Duterte’s economic policies result in the deprivation of genuine government service as they divert public funds to corruption and big ticket projects demanded by Defendants World Bank, IMF, WTO and transnational corporations,” the tribunal wrote.
The tribunal determined that Duterte “has perpetrated anti-democratic and exclusionary economics and governance as he dramatically perpetuates neoliberal policies imposed or influenced by Defendant actors and transnational entities doing business in the Philippines by the systematic violation of fundamental human rights as exemplified in the mining exploitation.” Moreover, the tribunal concluded,
“This aggravates even more systemic violations of the people’s social, economic and cultural rights.”
Witnesses testified to “the impact of an exploitative system that has deprived millions of Filipinos of their livelihood, demolished the shanties of the marginalized poor, grabbed lands of the peasants and condemned workers to eternal poverty through perpetual contractualization and the exportation of labor, many of whom are victimized abroad,” Colmenares summarized.
The evidence revealed the imposition of “an exploitative system which has reduced the Philippines into a producer of raw material for industries; reduced the Philippines into a mere source of cheap labor and a lucrative and pliant market for their goods.” This is called neoliberalism.
The tribunal concluded that the Duterte regime “has consistently failed to provide the basic rights to work; to living wages and regular employment; to land; to an adequate standard of living; and to health, housing and education.” The tribunal also faulted the regime for imposing “new taxes that hit primarily the poor; and forced displacement of poor families to install tourism projects on their lands.”
“Farmers are deprived of the lands they have tilled for ages and are attacked; workers are exploited and their strikes violently dispersed; the urban poor remain homeless and threatened when they assert their rights; education is commercialized and inaccessible to the great majority,” the tribunal noted. In addition, “thousands are forced to migrate daily, including nurses, under a labor export policy; the right to livelihood is curtailed; and distressed overseas workers are neglected and abandoned.”
The tribunal found violations of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Convention Concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize; Convention on the Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively; Algiers Declaration; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and International Convention on Protections of Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families.
Violations of the Rights to National Self-Determination and Development
“Duterte has essentially demonstrated his allegiance to US imperialist goals in Asia-Pacific region,” the tribunal concluded. His government “also overturned anew the victory of the people in removing US military bases.”
The tribunal explained how the U.S. bases in the Philippines facilitate Duterte’s counterinsurgency program:
“US presence and the permanent and expanded basing of US troops are further emboldening the Defendant Duterte government in implementing the counterinsurgency program Oplan Kapayapaan patterned after the 2009 US Counterinsurgency Guide and financed by Defendant US government.”
U.S. government assistance to the Duterte government includes the provision of “intelligence, funding, orientation, training and arms to promote and pursue its economic and geopolitical interests in the region.”
The tribunal adopted my testimony as follows:
“US military aid to the Philippine government facilitates its commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity against its own people. Like Philippine leaders, US political and military leaders could be liable in the International Criminal Court as aiders and abettors of war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
The Filipino people have the right to self-determination, which includes the right to development. As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, it is “by virtue of” self-determination that peoples “have the right freely to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” The people have the “inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their national wealth and resources.”
Witnesses documented widespread and systematic attacks on indigenous peoples and national minorities, and the use of white phosphorous gas and enforced disappearances, which amount to crimes against humanity.
“Philippine and US political and military leaders do not enjoy impunity for their crimes. Achieving justice for the Filipino people is not just a matter for people in the Philippines. Americans and other people throughout the world have a responsibility to bring the criminals to justice,” the tribunal wrote, adopting my testimony. “The Filipino people continue their valiant struggle for national liberation and self-determination. Providing legal accountability for the crimes of Philippine and US officials will help to deter them from committing additional crimes.”
In February 2018, Bensouda opened a preliminary examination into possible crimes committed since at least 1 July, 2016, in the context of the “war on drugs” campaign launched by the Philippine government. A preliminary examination is an initial step to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to proceed with a full investigation.
The following month, in March 2018, the Philippine government submitted a withdrawal from the Rome Statute. It takes effect one year later. Bensouda responded,
“A withdrawal has no impact on on-going proceedings or any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.”
Even if the ICC does not ultimately investigate and prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by military and police officials of the Philippine government, other countries could bring the offenders to justice under the well-established principle of universal jurisdiction.
Any country can try a foreign national for war crimes and crimes against humanity when the suspect’s home country is unable or unwilling to prosecute, and Duterte has proved unwilling to prosecute those responsible for the heinous crimes against the Filipino 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.
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
For the international community to turn a blind eye to the atrocities carried out by the Israeli government on the premise that its military technology is far too valuable to condemn the human rights abuse of the IDF, is a grave error of judgment that encourages Right-wing extremism around the world.
1. The legal designation of 21% of the Israeli population, who are Palestinian Arabs, as second-class citizens with restricted civil rights who are subject to harassment and humiliation on a daily basis.
2. The state-imposed military blockade against a 1.8 million civilian population in the Palestinian enclave of Gaza that prohibits delivery of essential goods including medical supplies, building materials, power and electricity etc. with the specific objective to try to force a regime change. This illegal blockade against the Palestinian people has been implemented for over 10 years to the point that it has forced a now weakened majority into unemployment and starvation. This, of course, is the intended objective of the Netanyahu government to dehumanise nearly 2 million people and to starve them into submission by using the pretext of ‘arms control’.
3. Freedom of movement is heavily restricted and border posts are manned by Israeli police and military who deliberately harass and humiliate any non-Israeli civilians passing through the check points. Sick people and pregnant women can and do die as a result of the actions of an illegal occupation that has been condemned as a violation of human rights by the United Nations Security Council (UNSCR 2334).
4. Thousands of political protestors are imprisoned without trial including hundreds of Palestinian children.
5. White phosphorus has been used as a chemical weapon against unarmed civilians.
6. Electricity generator stations in Gaza have been deliberately destroyed by the IDF.
7. Water supplies from the River Jordon to the indigenous people of Palestine i.e. their own water – have been redirected to Israeli cities.
8. Schools and hospitals in Gaza have been bombed and destroyed by IDF.
9. So called ‘price tag’ terrorists continue to burn down and destroy Palestinian olive groves in the Occupied Territories.
10. Arab villagers in the West Bank are daily harassed and their movement brutally restricted on their own land by troops of the illegal occupation; the intended objective of the Likud administration being the eventual annexation of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Reporting from Kabul: The US is spearheading a “peace negotiation” campaign with Taliban since weeks in Qatar’s capital city, Doha. The US special representative on Afghanistan Reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, has been spelling out the details of conclave through his twitter account. There is no Afghan or international journalist or correspondent allowed on the scene to report on actual minutes of the meeting that allegedly took place.
This “peace project” has been dragging on for weeks. There is no guarantee that the US-Taliban talks will end in a desired result for people of Afghanistan. It is possible that months-long talks will land in trouble due to fundamental disagreements. .
History tells us that such symbolic talks have tricked us by deceitful rhetoric into another war or crisis. We have only heard in media that several rounds of negotiations have been staged so far, but we haven’t witnessed any practical development or actual scenes, as did US warplanes strike bare deserts for years in its war on ISIS in Syria while media would report conversely. The talks are tantamount to private meetings attended by US and Taliban, none of which belongs in Afghanistan, nor any of them represent the true concerns of the Afghan people.
On March 12, the bilateral talks finished without any breakthrough for an Afghan peace deal. The minutiae development in the agreement included Taliban’s severing of ties with Al Qaeda and ISIS, which is not a big deal for observers. The other items of the agenda are the withdrawal of US forces as well as preventing Afghan soil from being used against others.
For now, these developments could be seen as a last resort option for US policymakers to take an urgent turn in relation to their foreign policy war stance formulated in the immediate wake of 9/11, leading to the illegal invasion of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001.
Taking account of this fact, peace is will not be easy to achieve. We are now entering into the third week of the bogus peace dialogue between the US and Taliban without any substantive achievements. It is more like a US propaganda machine that has raised “unfounded hopes” among Afghans. It is a display of efforts to the people of America that we haven’t lost the war to the Taliban.
Amid peace talks, as a close observer, I can notice a rise of optimism and favoritism in relation to the US among many Afghans who have been misled and who fail to understand the unspoken facts regarding the US-NATO war. In this regard, propaganda is paying off. It’s bringing “a new life” to the US occupation of Afghanistan.
What the weary people of Afghanistan want as an outcome of the overhyped Doha talks is a meaningful and permanent truce as well as the establishment of peace to bring an end to daily casualties occurring across the country.
The Western media tend to focus on selected issues pertaining to the US-Taliban meetings, e.g. The US proposal of a five-year troop withdrawal schedule; whereas the Taliban negotiators insist upon a total withdrawal within a one year period.
Even if the US troop withdrawal takes effect, it will never be an all-out plan. The Trump Administration believes, that more US forces on the ground means a larger military budget that needs to be slashed, as it did with reversal of many domestic plans to cut huge costs. The US will possibly bring down the number of soldiers from 15,000 to 8,000 that would be enough to maintain operations in nine mega bases throughout Afghanistan and serve as mouth-shutting response to critics.
In the same way, President Trump has ordered to slash the number of US security forces at the US Embassy in Kabul that amounts to 1,400 and replace them with trained and loyal Afghan forces, according to the Afghan media. This scheme will apply in other areas including military bases that will help cut millions of dollars for Washington.
This so-called cost reduction policy was dictated during the Trump Administration, and it doesn’t necessarily mean the withdrawal of US forces, nor the abandonment of US military presence. When addressing US servicemen in Iraq, Trump said that we can’t serve as International Police and “defend these countries”, unless they pay for the costs. He pointed out:
“Our troops are deployed in countries that you might not know their names, isn’t it ridiculous”
The Doha-based negotiations was highlighted when US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that he hopes there is sufficient progress in deliberations for him to travel in the next couple of weeks to so to speak “move it further”. Of course, his comments were meant to throw weight behind it. His comments contradict his early remarks that called the Taliban a “terrorist group”. In his speech to Future Farmers of America, he said:
“I have a team on the ground right now trying to negotiate with the Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan, trying to find a way to achieve an Afghanistan that’s not at war, that’s not engaged in violence, that doesn’t present a threat to the United States of America”
This US-led campaign is also aimed at confusing both the international and national leaders involved in some way in Afghanistan’s war. The US has to work in such a way as to retain EU support for the war in Afghanistan, because they have too grown fed up with the issue of the Taliban, with regard to underlying costs of deploying their troops in Afghanistan.
The US-Europe tensions, China and US competition, India-Pakistan rivalry, Iran-US hostility, Israel-Iran enmity, Saudi-led promotion of Wahhabism, US-Russia arms race, and many more conflicts have a concrete bearing on Afghanistan which constitutes a geopolitical hub in central Asia.
Afghanistan’s death toll has reached a record level as media reports 100 to 200 dead every week. Former Afghan security advisor Hanif Atmar who is running for president in 2019 said in a gathering held on “8 March” in Kabul that almost 51,000 Afghans have been killed and 98,000 injured only in the last five years, according to Voice of America Dari. This figure stands in sharp contrast to UNAMA’s biannual report on Afghan casualities that usually release manipulated statistics on death toll.
Iran and Russia have also armed their own brand of militants inside Afghanistan in the border regions with Central Asian countries.
Washington is now working to dissolve the Taliban group into the power base of Afghanistan, on the one hand, to demonstrate that it has won the Afghan war not by military means but through diplomatic channels, and on the other hand, it seeks to integrate the militant group into its puppet government in Afghanistan to protect its strategic interests and jointly call for another war against ISIS or Al-Qaeda.
The Taliban’s project has long been outdated as the group’s size and strength, by comparison, has questioned the US power in the face of Americans and rest of the world.
In 2007, United States Geological Service (USGS) survey discovered nearly $1 trillion in mineral deposits in Afghanistan, according to mining.com. Five years ago, it was found that this poor country has $3 trillion worth of underground deposits including oil and gas, iron ore, gold, copper and lithium. The USGS used high-tech radiation in mapping and collecting information about exact sites of reserves. It used hyper-spectral imaging technology and shared the gathered data with mine firms.
Evidence reveals that the UK was cognizant of these reserves and their value ten years ago, according to the Afghan media (Afghan Paper), but refrained from disclosing any information to the public, which came to surface some years ago when the UK was at odds with the US over these minerals situated mainly in southern Afghan province of Helmand, where US later stationed thousands of its troops in addition to nearly 10,000 British troops already deployed in only one province that was not wholly in war.
According to recent data, there are almost 1,400 registered mines in Afghanistan, while the US has discovered more than twice that number. Despite this wealth of mineral resources, the impoverished people of Afghanistan have not seen the potential proceeds of billions of dollars worth of minerals, which could contribute the economic development of key sectors of the economy, resulting in tangible changes in the country’s living standards.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
March 16th, 2019 by Center For Biological Diversity
Scientists announced today that only 10 vaquita porpoises likely remain in the world and that the animal’s extinction is virtually assured without bold and immediate action.
The vaquita, the world’s smallest and most endangered cetacean, is found only in Mexico’s northern Gulf of California. The release of the new vaquita estimate comes just two days after reports of the possible first vaquita mortality of 2019. More details are expected in the coming days.
Today’s announcement from the International Committee for the Recovery of the Vaquita also calls on Mexico President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to end all gillnet fishing and adopt a “zero tolerance” policy of enforcement in the vaquita’s small remaining habitat. The committee is an international team of scientific experts assembled in 1996 to assist in vaquita recovery efforts.
“One of Earth’s most incredible creatures is about to be wiped off the planet forever,” said Sarah Uhlemann, international program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Yet Mexico has only made paper promises to protect these porpoises from deadly nets, without enforcement on the water. Time is running out for President Lopez Obrador to stop all gillnet fishing and save the vaquita.”
The vaquita faces a single threat: entanglement in illegal gillnets set for shrimp and various fish species, including endangered totoaba. Totoaba swim bladders are illegally exported by organized criminal syndicates from Mexico to China, where they are highly valued for their perceived medicinal properties.
Despite efforts in Mexico to curb gillnet fishing of shrimp and other fish and efforts in China to reduce demand for totoaba, the vaquita’s population dropped 50 percent in 2018, leaving an estimate of around 10 remaining vaquita, with no more than 22 and perhaps as few as six.
“There is only the tiniest sliver of hope remaining for the vaquita,” said Kate O’Connell, a marine wildlife consultant with the Animal Welfare Institute. “Mexico must act decisively to ensure that all gillnet fishing is brought to an end throughout the Upper Gulf. If the vaquita is not immediately protected from this deadly fishing gear, it will go extinct on President Lopez Obrador’s watch.”
In 2017, in the face of international pressure, Mexico banned the use of most gillnets within the vaquita’s range, but enforcement has been lacking. For example, during the 2018 illegal totoaba fishing season, nearly 400 active totoaba gillnets were documented in a small portion of the vaquita’s range, and gillnets continue to be found within the vaquita refuge. Recent violence against conservationists in the region has limited critically important net removal efforts.
“If Mexico doesn’t want to be guilty of wiping out a species, it needs to secure 100 percent gillnet-free habitat now,” said Zak Smith, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Marine Mammal Protection Project. “What’s happening to the vaquita is a disgrace and entirely preventable, yet the Obrador administration has not committed to a robust vaquita recovery plan and has already missed deadlines on vaquita conservation commitments.”
“The organized criminal networks trafficking totoaba swim bladders from Mexico to China are responsible for the illegal fishing nets driving the vaquita to extinction,” said Clare Perry, ocean campaign leader for the Environmental Investigation Agency. “Unless Mexico gets serious about enforcement and works with China and key transit countries to dismantle those networks, there is no hope for the remaining vaquita.”
Despite the marine mammal’s alarming decline, the international committee emphasized that the vaquita is not extinct and that recovery remains possible. They are still producing offspring, and the remaining animals are healthy, showing no signs of disease or malnutrition. The international community plays a critical role in vaquita conservation.
In 2018 a U.S. court temporarily banned the import of seafood caught with dangerous gillnets in vaquita habitat. This year parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the World Heritage Convention are considering additional conservation measures for the vaquita and totoaba.
*
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 Center for Biological Diversity
Google’s parent company Alphabet Inc. is on the verge of launching what the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) says will be the world’s first commercial drone delivery service in Australia.
Wing, a subsidiary of Alphabet has been testing its drone delivery service over Bonython, a suburb of Tuggeranong, a township in southern Canberra. The year-long trial, called Project Wing, wrapped up last week; now the company is planning for a commercial launch in June.
Wing says its drones will be able to deliver small items, such as food and medication, but residents of Canberra, where the program was tested and will soon be ready for commercial flight, are furious about drones buzzing above.
Here is how Wing’s drone works
Alphabet and Wing are expected to face a fierce fight before the delivery program takes off, according to ABC.
In response to the public backlash, Wing recently tested a quieter version of its delivery drone.
“We’re trying to be as transparent and as open as we can,” Project Wing CEO James Burgess told the Canberra Times.
Many Bonython residents told local Government officials the invasive drones had brought people to madness, and residents told police if the government did not intervene, they would shoot the drones out of the sky.
“It is not inevitable, if the Government can be convinced that the great majority of Canberrans don’t want it,” local Neville Sheather said.
Sheather leads Bonython Against Drones, a group that is trying to stop the progress of Alphabet and Wing from commercializing the delivery service.
Even some advocates of drones, like Professor Roger Clarke, have said Project Wing had developed too quickly.
“We’ve got to get the different segments of the public represented in these discussions, and they haven’t been,” Professor Clarke said.
Clarke said Project Wing had been rushed through testing and is not following the traditional process of assessing new technologies.
“Things fall out of the sky, it’s quite hard to get drones to work properly, it’s quite hard to deal with drones when they lose communications … we should be treating it that way and applying the precautionary principle and getting out ahead of the problem.”
Australian Capital Territory Minister Andrew Barr denied claims the government was allowing Project Wing to be expedited during the testing phase.
Instead, he warned that if Canberra and its residents did not accept the drone delivery service, it would fall behind the technological curve.
“Our choice is are we involved, are we trialing, are we engaging, are we finding ways to make this technology work in a way that benefits people, or are we just going to sit back and let it happen?” he said.
Wing and Google are currently waiting for government approval to begin their next test in Gungahlin, limited to five suburbs: Crace, Palmerston, Franklin, Gungahlin, and Mitchell.
The company expects to start drone deliveries midway this year.
Just wait until drone delivery services come to the US. The public backlash will be much 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.
March 16th, 2019 by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) is devasted and deeply upset by today’s horrific attack on two New Zealand mosques, where 49 people were senselessly killed and dozens more injured. In the wake of this terrible tragedy, CJPME renews its call for the Canadian government to stand up for Muslims in all communities by designating January 29th as a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Islamophobia.
Early this morning, news broke that gunmen had opened fire at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. Police have taken four people into custody who they believe to be responsible for this massacre. In a now-deleted Twitter account, one of the alleged gunmen posted a racist 87-page manifesto citing anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim motivations for the attack. He also posted a picture suggesting he was horribly inspired by Alexandre Bissonnette – the man who murdered six Muslim men while they were praying in the 2017 Quebec City Mosque Massacre.
CJPME President Thomas Woodley responded,
“Canadians are sadly familiar with the lethal consequences of Islamophobia in Canada. We extend our deepest sympathy and solidarity with Muslims in Christchurch and around the world on this dark day.”
CJPME points out that this latest attack highlights the fact that Islamophobia is an increasingly alarming worldwide scourge that must be addressed by all governments. As a response to growing Islamophobia in Canada, last fall, CJPME and the Canadian Muslim Forum (FMC-CMF) launched the “I Remember January 29th” campaign. This campaign calls on the Canadian government to designate January 29th – the anniversary of the Quebec City Mosque Massacre – as a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Islamophobia and other forms of religious discrimination, as per the February 2018 report from Parliament’s Heritage Committee. In the aftermath of yet another tragic massacre, CJPME renews this urgent call for the Canadian government to stand up and support our Muslim co-citizens.
Like New Zealand, Canada has seen a growing trend of Islamophobia over the past several years. Statistics Canada’s recent police-reported hate crimes report showed that, of all targeted groups, Muslim-Canadians have experienced the highest increase in hate crimes, with the number more than doubling over the 2016-2017 period. Last year, an EKOS Research survey confirmed that Islamophobia is a persistent challenge to Canada’s multicultural society. Nonetheless, the survey also made clear that many Canadians recognize the problem of religious discrimination and Islamophobia in Canada, stand firmly opposed to it, and expect the government to take measures to address it. The Canadian government now more than ever must provide support for Muslim Canadians.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
A number of recent speeches by US President Donald Trump have featured Cold War Era rhetoric, including the claim that in ‘the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country’. This statement was made in the State of the Union Address, in which Trump also claimed that socialist policies have failed in Venezuela, transforming it from ‘the wealthiest in South America into a state of abject poverty and despair.’[i]In a subsequent speech, delivered in Miami on February 18, 2019, Trump called Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro a ‘Cuban puppet’ and stated that ‘the Venezuelan military are risking their lives, and Venezuela’s future, for a man controlled by the Cuban military and protected by a private army of Cuban soldiers.’ He went on to proclaim that ‘The twilight hour of socialism has arrived in our hemisphere, and frankly in many, many places around the world. The days of socialism and communism are numbered not only in Venezuela but in Nicaragua and in Cuba as well.’
Many key members of the Trump administration promote the view that ‘Cuba is the true imperialist power in Venezuela.’ Among the leading players in the current anti-communist and neo-imperialist crusade being perpetrated by the US government include: current US vice-president Mike Pence; Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State since April 26, 2018; Florida Senator Marco Rubio[ii]; John Bolton[iii], National Security Advisor since April 9, 2018; Mauricio Claver-Carone[iv], senior director of the National Security Council’s Western Hemisphere affairs division since fall 2018; Elliot Abrams[v], Special Representative for Venezuela since January 25, 2019; and, Mark Andrew Green, Administrator of USAID since August 7, 2017. All of them are well-known for holding strong anti-Castro views, opposing the Obama administration’s engagement with Cuba, and being proponents of aggressive regime change strategies in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.
US hostility towards Cuba has been ramped up during the Trump Presidency, as travel and trade restrictions previously lifted by the Obama administration have been reinstated based on the premise that these policies only benefited Cuba’s despotic and oppressive regime while ignoring the needs of ordinary Cubans. Under the Obama agreement, diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba were officially normalized on December 17, 2014. Additionally, a number of trade and travel agreements were signed between the two countries, including contracts for business deals between Havana and 60 American companies. These measures contributed a 60% increase in American tourism to the island between 2014 and 2016. However, actions taken by the Trump administration have reversed much of this progress by making it more difficult for Americans to visit Cuba and prohibiting commerce with Cuban businesses. In November 2017, the US Department of State webpage listed 180 ‘entities’ in Cuba with whom financial business would be immediately forbidden[vi]. Approximately twelve months later, on November 14 2018, 26 new entities in Cuba were added to the list[vii].
On November 1, 2018, National Security Adviser John Bolton[viii]announced Washington’s intention to activate Title III of the Helms-Burton Act[ix](also known as the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996), which was passed in 1996 with the intent of strengthening the embargo against the Castro government. The Helms-Burton Act consists of four specific titles designed to extend the original commercial, economic, and financial embargo against Cuba in an effort to discourage non-US companies from investing in the country. Title I is a clause permitting the ‘enforcement of the economic embargo of Cuba’ through a variety of means including: ‘prohibition against indirect financing of Cuba’, ‘opposition to Cuban membership in international financial institutions’, and ‘opposition to termination of the suspension of the Cuban Government from participation in the Organization of American States’[x]. Title II calls for the provision of ‘assistance to a free and independent Cuba’, and advocates ‘policy toward a transition government and a democratically elected government in Cuba.’[xi]Meanwhile, Title IV allows for the ‘exclusion from the United States of aliens who have confiscated property of United States nationals or who traffic in such property.’[xii]
The most controversial provision of the Helms-Burton Act is Title III, which allows for the ‘protection of property rights of United States nationals.’ More specifically, it permits American citizens, including naturalized Cuban-Americans, to sue any foreign company conducting business that involves properties that were owned by American citizens before being confiscated by the Cuban socialist government after the 1959 Revolution. Shortly after its passage, the Helms-Burton Act was condemned by several countries with business interests on the island, as well as allies of Cuba, including Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, the UK, and the European Union, which actually fileda complaint against the US with the World Trade Organization in 1996. ‘The WTO complaint against the U.S. raises a list of possible inconsistencies with various parts of the WTO treaty texts.’[xiii]Furthermore, officials from many countries declared that ‘the United States was unlawfully exercising its jurisdiction extraterritorially, in that it was threatening to punish lawful activity – trade, investment, and tourism – carried out by residents of, say, Canada or Great Britain with an independent country, Cuba.’[xiv]
Title III has never been enacted up to this point over concerns that it might alienate US allies with investments in Cuba. President Bill Clinton initially suspended Title III after the Helms-Burton Act was passed in 1996, and this suspension was renewed on a six month basis by every sitting President ever since, including President Trump during his first two years in office. However, it appears that long-standing tradition is about to change as, in November 2018, National Security Adviser John Bolton announced the Trump administration’s intention to activate Title III, stating: ‘This time, we’ll give it a very serious review.’ Subsequently, in mid-January 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo indicated that Washington would only suspend Title III for a period 45 days instead of the usual six months, meaning it could be enacted at the end of February 2019.
Then, on March 4,,2019, the Trump Administration announced that the full application of Title III would be suspended until April 17, but that lawsuits could be brought against approximately 200 Cuban state-owned businesses on Washington’s ‘black list’, beginning on March 19. Many of the entities included on the ‘black list’ have been operating as joint ventures with prominent foreign companies like British tobacco giant Imperial Brands, French beverage-maker Pernod-Ricard, and many Spanish-owned hotel and resort companies like Meliá Hotels International, Memories Resorts & Spa, Ocean by H10 Hotels, and Iberostar Hotels & Resorts.
In addition to activating Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, National Security Adviser Bolton also recently announced that further sanctions would be placed against Cuba, and that the island nation would once again be added to the US list of state sponsors of international terrorism[xv], having been removed in 2015 as part of the deal to re-establish diplomatic relations with the US. These efforts on the part of the Trump administration represent a continuation of the long-standing US foreign policy stance towards Cuba, which aims to destabilize and directly impact the island’s struggling economy and create desperation and hardship among ordinary Cubans to encourage them to overthrow their socialist government.
In response to the aggressive and provocative statements and actions of the Trump administration, Cuba’s president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, stated that Cubans ‘vigorously reject this new provocation, meddling, threatening and bullying, in violation of international law.’ Cuban Foreign Minister, Bruno Rodriguez, also characterized the Trump policies towards Cuba as a provocation and describing the US stance as ‘irresponsible hostility aimed at hardening the blockade on Cuba.’
The application of Title III will likely engender tensions between Washington and some of its allies in Canada, Europe, Latin American and the Caribbean. However, while this course of action will reverse the recent progress in Cuba-US relations, harm Cuba’s economy, and exacerbate hardships faced by ordinary Cubans, it will not facilitate the destruction of the socialist government. Washington has been trying to destroy Cuba’s socialist regime for six decades through a variety of tactics including the funding Cuban exiles to organize terrorist attacks and sabotage the island’s economy, and through CIA efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro. However, Cuban socialism has withstood these efforts while achieving a number of impressive accomplishments, including ‘attaining full employment, providing universal health care services and universal access to free education, and achieving higher life expectancy, lower child mortality, lower child malnutrition, and lower poverty rates compared to any other Latin American country… In addition to its success in areas of human development, Cuba has also been active in providing practical foreign aid in the form of sending highly-trained specialists, such as teachers, doctors, and engineers, to developing countries where they are needed.’[xvi]There is no reason to believe that the Trump administration’s newly rediscovered anti-communism and anti-Cuba vision will produce a different result.
Why have American presidents have been so aggressive in targeting Cuba for the last sixty years? According to Fidel Castro (1995), its ‘Because no other country has done more for its people. It’s the hatred of the ideas that Cuba represents.’
Perhaps Washington is threatened by the possibility that the success of socialism in Cuba might lead to the popularization of the idea that workable alternatives to free-market capitalism actually exist. This could explain why the US has been actively sabotaging efforts on the part of countries like Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, among many others, to achieve more egalitarian societies, limit the power of corporations, and prioritize the common good and well-being of their people.
Despite their lofty rhetoric, the neo-imperialist ambitions of American leaders are not concerned with the well-being, freedom, or human rights of Cubans, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, ‘What they want is to exploit the natural resources of…countries and exploit the peoples’ (Castro, Fidel 2007). However, ‘Washington cannot tell the American people that the real purpose of its gargantuan military expenditures and belligerent interventions is to make the world safe for General Motors, General Electric, General Dynamics, and all the other generals’ (Parenti, Michael 1995).
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Global Research contributor Dr. Birsen Filip holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Ottawa.
[ii]Rubio often states that his family escaped communism ‘even though his parents actually immigrated to the U.S. during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista.’ He has been actively encouraging president Trump to take a stronger stance on Cuba.
[iii]In 2002, Bolton advocated for tightening the embargo against Cuba based on unfounded allegation that the island was developing biological weapons.
[iv]Prior to entering president Trump’s administration, Mauricio Claver-Carone did not have any experience in domestic and international politics, aside from lobbying for an aggressive American policy towards Venezuela’s socialist government, on the basis of accusations that the Chavez and Maduro’s administrations had strong ties to the Castro regime. He was also executive director of the US Cuba Democracy PAC (one of the most important political organizations supporting the embargo).
[v]On January 25, 2019, Pompeo appointed Elliott Abrams as the United States’ Special Representative for Venezuela. Abrams was Assistant Secretary of State during the Reagan years. In 1984, he was accused of ‘covering up atrocities committed by the military forces of U.S.-backed governments, including those in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, and the rebel Contras in Nicaragua’ by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. He was also convicted of committing crimes related to the Iran-contra scandal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams
[viii]John Bolton is a neo-imperialist and anti-communist, who has previously advocated for regime change in Syria, Libya, Iran and North Korea. He also encouraged policies against Cuba during the George W. Bush administration, claiming that the island was developing biological weapons.
[ix]The Hems-Burton Act was introduced because Americans were frustrated that Cuban socialism was able to survive the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was designed to demolish economic life in Cuba, and bring hunger and desperation to the island in order to facilitate the overthrow of the socialist government and remake Cuba into a playground for Americans.
Does it pay ‘to be good’? Is it still possible to play by the rules in this mad world, governed by brigands?
What if the rules are defined and ratified by all countries of the world, but a small group of the strongest (militarily) nations totally ignores them, while using its professional propagandists to reinterpret them in the most bizarre ways?
Describing the world, I often feel that I am back in my primary school.
When I was a child, I had the misfortune of growing up in a racist Czechoslovakia. Being born in the Soviet Union, and having an half Russian and half Asian mother, I was brutally beaten up between classes, from the age of seven. I was systematically attacked by a gang of boys, and humiliated and hit for having ‘Asian ears’, for having an ‘Asian mother’, for being Russian. During winters, my shoes were taken out into the bitter cold and pissed into. The urine turned into ice. The only consolation was that ‘at least’ I was Russian and Chinese. If I was a Gypsy (Roma) boy, I would most likely not have made it, at least without losing an eye, or without having my hands broken.
I tried to be polite. I did my best to ‘play by the rules’. I fought back, first only half-heartedly.
Until one day, when a kid who lived next door, fired his air gun and barely missed my eye. Just like that, simply because I was Russian… and Asian, just because he had nothing better to do, at that particular moment. And because he felt so proud to be Czech and European. Also, because I refused to eat their shit, to accept their ‘superiority’, and humiliate myself in front of them. Both mother and I were miserable in Czechoslovakia, both of us dreamt about our Leningrad. But she made a personal mistake and we were stuck in a hostile, provincial and bombastic society which wanted to “go back to Europe”, and once again be part of the bloc of countries, which has been ruling and oppressing the world, for centuries.
The air gun and almost losing my eye turned out to be the last straw. I teamed up with my friend, Karel, whose only ‘guilt’ was that at 10, he weighed almost 100 kilograms. It was not his fault, it was a genetic issue, but the kids also ridiculed him, eventually turning him into a punching bag. He was a gentle, good-natured kid who loved music and science-fiction novels. We were friends. We used to plan our space travels towards the distant galaxies, together. But at that point, we said ‘enough’! We hit back, terribly. After two or three years of suffering, we began fighting the gang, with the same force and brutality that they had applied towards us and in fact towards all those around us who were ‘different’, or at least weak and defenseless.
And we won. Not by reason, but by courage and strength. I wish we did not have to fight, but we had no choice. We soon discovered, how strong we were. And once we began, the only way to survive was to win the battle. And we did win. The kids, who used to torment us, were actually cowards. Once we won and secured some respect, we also began sheltering and protecting the ‘others’, mainly weak boys and girls from our school, who were also suffering attacks from the gang of those ‘normal’, white, and mainstream Czechs.
*
There are self-proclaimed rulers of the world: Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. And there are two other groups: the nations which are fully cooperating with the West (such as Indonesia, Thailand, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, South Korea, Colombia or Uganda), and those that are decisively refusing to accept Western dictates, such as Russia, China, DPRK, Syria, Eritrea, Iran, South Africa, Venezuela, Cuba, and Bolivia.
The first group does almost nothing to change the world. It goes with the flow. It accepts the rule of the bullies. It collaborates, and while it is at it, tries to at least gain some privileges, most of the time unsuccessfully.
The second group is well aware of the dismal state of the world. It maneuvers, resists, and sometimes fights for its survival, or for the survival of others. It tries to stick to its principles, or to what used to be called ‘universal values’.
But can it really survive without confrontation?
The West does not tolerate any dissent. Its culture has been, for centuries, exceedingly aggressive, bellicose, and extremist: “You are with us, that is ‘under us’, or you are against us. If against us, you will be crushed and shackled, robbed, raped, beaten and in the end, forced to do what we order, anyway.”
Russia is perhaps the only nation which has survived, unconquered and for centuries, but at the unimaginable price of tens of millions of its people. It has been invaded, again and again, by the Scandinavians, French, Brits, Germans, and even Czechs. The attacks occurred regularly, justified by bizarre rhetoric: ‘Russia was strong’, or ‘it was weak’. It was attacked ‘because of its Great October Socialist Revolution’, or simply because it was Communist. Any grotesque ‘justification’ was just fine, as far as the West was concerned. Russia had to be invaded, plundered and terribly injured just because it was resisting, because it stood on its feet, and free.
Even the great China could not withstand Western assaults. It was broken, divided, humiliated; its capital city ransacked by the French and Brits.
Nothing and no one could survive the Western assaults: in the end, not even the proud and determined Afghanistan.
*
A Chinese scholar Li Gang wrote in his “The Way We Think: Chinese View of Life Philosophy”:
“Harmony” is an important category of thought in traditional Chinese culture. Although the concept initially comes from philosophy, it stands for a stable and integrated social life. It directly influences Chinese people’s way of thinking and dealing with the world… In the ancient classic works of China, “harmony” can, in essence, be understood as being harmonious. Ancient people stressed the harmony of the universe and the natural environment, the harmony between humans and nature, and what is more, the harmony between people… Traditional Chinese people take the principle as a way of life and they try their best to have friendly and harmonious relations. In order to reach “harmony”, people treat each other with sincerity, tolerance and love, and do not interfere in other people’s business. As the saying goes, “Well water does not intrude into river water”
Could anything be further from the philosophy of Western culture, which is based on the constant need to interfere, conquer and control?
Can countries like China, or Iran, or Russia, really survive in a world that is being controlled by aggressive European and North American dogmas?
Or more precisely: could they survive peacefully, without being dragged into bloodstained confrontations?
*
The onset of the 21st Century is clearly indicating that ‘peaceful resistance’ to brutal Western attacks is counter-productive.
Begging for peace, at forums such as the United Nations, has been leading absolutely nowhere. One country after another has collapsed, and had no chance to be treated justly and to be protected by international law: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya.
The West and its allies like Saudi Arabia or Israel are always above the law. Or more precisely, they are the law. They twist and modify the law however it suits them; their political or business interests.
Harmony? No, they are absolutely not interested in things like harmony. And even if a huge country like China is, then it is seen as weak, and immediately taken advantage of.
Can the world survive if a group of countries plays totally against all the rules, while most of the planet tries to stick, meticulously, to international laws and regulations?
It can, but it would create a totally twisted, totally perverse world, as ours actually already is. It would be a world of impunity on one end, and of fear, slavery and servility at the other.
And it is not going to be a ‘peaceful world’, anyway, because the oppressor will always want more and more; it will not be satisfied until it is in total, absolute control of the planet.
Accepting tyranny is not an option.
So then, what is? Are we too scared to pronounce it?
If a country is attacked, it should defend itself, and fight.
As Russia did on so many occasions. As Syria is doing, at great sacrifice, but proudly. As Venezuela will and should do, if assaulted.
China and Russia are two great cultures, which were to some extent influenced by the West. When I say ‘influenced’, I mean forcefully ‘penetrated’, broken into, brutally violated. During that violent interaction, some positive elements of Western culture assimilated in the brains of its victims: music, food, even city planning. But the overall impact was extremely negative, and both China and Russia suffered, and have been suffering, greatly.
For decades, the West has been unleashing its propaganda and destructive forces, to ‘contain’ and devastate both countries at their core. The Soviet Union was tricked into Afghanistan and into a financially unsustainable arms race, and literally broken into pieces. For several dark years, Russia was facing confusion, intellectual, moral and social chaos, as well as humiliation. China got penetrated with extreme ‘market forces’, its academic institutions were infiltrated by armies of anti-Communist ‘intellectual’ warriors from Europe and North America.
The results were devastating. Both countries – China and Russia – were practically under attack, and forced to fight for their survival.
Both countries managed to identify the threat. They fought back, regrouped, and endured. Their cultures and their identities survived.
China is now a confident and powerful nation, under the leadership of President Xi Jinping. Present-day Russia under the presidency of Vladimir Putin is one of the mightiest nations on earth, not only militarily, but also morally, intellectually and scientifically.
This is precisely what the West cannot ‘forgive’. With each new brilliant electric vehicle China produces, with each village embracing the so-called “Ecological Civilization”, the West panics, smears China, portrays it as an evil state. The more internationalist Russia becomes, the more it protects nations ruined by the West – be it Syria or Venezuela – more relentless are West’s attacks against its President, and its people.
Both China and Russia are using diplomacy for as long as it is constructive, but this time, when confronted with force, they indicate their willingness to use strength to defend themselves.
They are well aware of the fact that this is the only way to survive.
For China, harmony is essential. Russia also has developed its own concept of global harmony based on internationalist principles. There is hardly any doubt that under the leadership of China and Russia, our world would be able to tackle the most profound problems that it has been facing.
But harmony can only be implemented when there is global concept of goodwill, or at least a decisive dedication to save the world.
If a group of powerful nations is only obsessed with profits, control and plunder, and if it behaves like a thug for several long centuries, one has to act, and to defend the world; if there is no alternative, by force!
Only after victory, can true harmony be aimed at.
At the beginning of this essay, I told a story from my childhood, which I find symbolic.
One can compromise, one can be diplomatic, but never if one’s dignity and freedom was at risk. One can never negotiate indefinitely with those who are starving and enslaving billions of human beings, all over the world.
Venezuela, Syria, Afghanistan and so many countries are now bleeding. Soon, Iran could be confronted. And Nicaragua. And DPRK. And perhaps China and Russia themselves could face yet another Western invasion.
A ‘harmonious world’ may have to be built later; definitely one day, but a little bit later.
First, we have to make sure that our humanity survives and that Western fascism cannot consume further millions of innocent human lives.
Like me and my big childhood friend Karel at an elementary school in former Czechoslovakia; Russia and China may have to once again stand up and confront ‘unharmonious barbarity’; they may have to fight, in order to prevent an even greater disaster.
They do not want to; they will do everything possible to prevent war. But the war is already raging. Western colonialism is back. The brutal gang of North American and European countries is blocking the road, clenching fists, shooting at everyone who dares to look up, and to meet their gaze: “Would you dare?” their eyes are saying.
“Yes, we would!” is the only correct answer.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are China and Ecological Civilization with John B. Cobb, Jr., Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.
Going into the third year of President Trump’s presidency, it is necessary to draw a balance sheet on who is winning and/or losing.
We will proceed by first analyzing domestic outcomes and then turn to foreign policy.
Power Bases of the Parties
The Democrats secured a majority in Congress, but the Republican retained their majority in the Senate; Trump’s appointments to the Supreme Court secured a majority.
The Democrats received the support of four major television propaganda outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR), to one for the Republicans (FOX). The news print media reflected a similar advantage for the Democrats – the NY Times, the Washington Post, The Financial Times backed the Democrats while the Wall Street Journalleaned to President Trump with notable exceptions on trade policy.
Party Successes and Failures
The Democrats succeeded in diverting President Trump from most of his political agenda via prolonged ‘hearings’ on Russia, and charges of Trump collusion ; the Mueller investigation; the funding of the US-Mexico border; and other peripheral issues.
President Trump succeeded in major tax cuts for the wealthy – with the support of the Congressional Democrats – a major win.
The principal programmatic issues proposed by both parties were never raised.
The Democrats ecological agenda and international accords were defeated by Trump; on the other hand the Republicans failed to reverse most of the existing environmental agreements.
Trump succeeded in reversing or revising US trade agreements especially the Trans Pacific Partnership, the US-Iran Nuclear (and sanctions) Agreement, and revision of NAFTA. The Democrats were divided and ineffective critics.
While both the President and Congress claimed to support a massive multi-billion-dollar federal infrastructure program to rebuild the crumbling structures, nothing was done.
The Trump administration promise to ‘re-industrialize’ the US was a failure, as several major manufacturers left, and a few returned to the US.
Growth was largely in the ‘service sector’ especially at the high end of finance and the low end – in nursing homes, restaurants and cleaners.
Democrats promoted the elite in Silicon Valley and billionaire retailers like Amazon.
In a word the economic policies of both the President and Congress failed to promote ‘structural changes’; their major tax reforms were regressive; severe income inequalities remained in place.
Trump increased gender, racial and sexual discrimination, while the Democrats opposed his policies with mixed results.
Trump encouraged the far-right to mobilize against abortion and in support of police violence against Afro-Americans; the Democratic Party provided verbal opposition to Trump’s rollback; most of their energy was directed to peripheral issues —Trump’s sexual escapades and other personality issues.
Foreign Policy
President Trump’s electoral agenda promised to end US military intervention in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. The Democrats were opposed and condemned his ‘appeasement’. The Democratic Congress joined forces with Trump’s neo-conservative cabinet and Senate hawks in reversing Trump’s agenda – he retained troop everywhere; and extended sanctions against Russia, Iran, Venezuela and China.
The Democrats joined with US multi-national corporations in defense of ‘globalization or free trade, defeating Trump’s initial protectionist “America First” policies. In the end Trump combined the worst trade policies of the Democrats in Congress with the war policies of key senior Cabinet members (Pompeo, Bolton, Abrams et al.).
Trump followed and deepened the Congressional Democrats war policies. Under Democratic pressure Trump retained US troops in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan; supported Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen; backed Israel’s conquest of Palestine; recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and increased military aid to Netanyahu.
Led by the Democrats, Trump’s administration equated criticism of Israeli war crimes with ‘anti-Semitism’ and sought to make it a criminal offense.
Trump’s original overtures to improving relations with Russia were reversed. Under Democratic pressure via the Mueller ‘show trials’ the Trump Administration joined the anti-Russia chorus.
Likewise with China, Democrats demanded a ‘turn to Asia’ which included trade sanctions and restrictions; Trump went one step further by promoting a trade war.
Trump recognized North Korea as a trading partner, the Democrats condemned his opening. Trump capitulated and embraced non-reciprocal negotiations.
Trump’s adoption of the Democrats hardline foreign policy served only as a propaganda tool for the Democrats to condemn his failure to implement it through a coalition with allies
Trump sanctions and coup policies directed against Venezuela’s elected government followed in the footsteps of the Obama regime – with greater force. The majority of both parties –with the exception of a handful of junior Democratic Congresspeople–support US intervention including a pending US military invasion.
While Trump broke the Iran nuclear agreement negotiated by Obama, many if not most of the Democrats did not object because of their close ties to Israel.
Conclusion
Neither President Trump nor the Democratic Congress has secured clear and decisive victory in their ongoing political conflicts and spats.
Trump has failed to reduce the trade deficit – in fact it has risen over the past two years.
Democrats have trumpeted the result but cannot claim that they have an alternative. Trump succeeded in raising the military budget with the backing of the Democrats, ignoring social needs. Trump succeeded in reducing taxes for the rich. Despite critics on the left of the Democratic Party, most of its leaders joined the Republicans, simply mouthing verbal criticism of Trump’s tax giveaway as ‘one-sided’.
Trump has been defeated on the issues of abortion, gay and minority rights but the Democrats have failed to advance the struggles, especially the issues of police violence against racial minorities.
Trump has blocked any attempt to introduce a national public health program for all. But a majority of Democratic legislators have sided with Trump, despite the fact that the voters from both parties support it.
The biggest victory for the Democrats has been to divertTrump from his political and economic agendathrough public hearings and Congressional investigations into his hush money payoffs, private real estate deals, dubious tax payments and his supposed meetings and chats with “the Russians”.
Trumpinitiallypromised to reduce the US military presence but under pressure from his own Cabinet and advisors, recommitted US troops to all the losing war zones – including the US originated wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia and Libya.
Likewise, Trump opened the door to negotiations with Russia and North Korea but retracted under attack from his Cabinet and the Democratic majority.
In a perverse manner, the Democratic Congress has defeated Trump on his initial peace initiatives and scored wins in lowering funding for the President’s Mexican border wall.
In sum, the Democrats ‘victories’ have exacerbated the state’s global war agenda.
The Democrats domestic victories have led to the blocking of parts of Trump’s reactionary domestic program.
The ‘victories’ of both parties have had a regressive effect on the vast majority of workers and employees.
At most, political diversion has prevented further regression.
Clearly, the so-called ‘division of powers’, ‘competitive parties’ and ‘bipartisan’ politics have not led to ‘representative government’ or democratic results.
Regardless of whether one party or the other wins, the people lose. In the best of current circumstances, the best outcome is when both parties prevent each other from imposing their policies.
***
Addendum
Trump’s 2020 Budget
The score card on Trump’s 2020 budget is designed to secure the support of (1) the military industrial complex by adding over $208 billion to war spending, (2) upper class plutocrats through tax reductions, and (3) satisfied bankers by reducing the fiscal deficit savaging essential popular programs including cutting $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and $845 million from Medicare over the next decade.
Trump proposes to slash $25 billion from Social Security and disability spending (SSI) over the same deadly decade.
Trump plans to cut $448 billion from food stamps, temporary assistance for needy families, student loans, housing assistance etc.
His payola for the corporate oil and gas oligarchs includes a 70% reduction of research and development of renewable energy.
Trump’s budget is a ‘poverty program’ against wage and salaried workers.
Trump wants $8.6 billion for the Mexican border wall, which the Democrats will resist up to a point.
Trump scores highfor the elite, but lowfor the working class. But the Democrats have yet to challenge Trump’s war budget; they are deeply divided over whether to reverse his priorities and reallocate the military budget to social expenditures and increase taxes to balance the budget.
It is likely that Trump’s political losses may be shared by the Democrat’s ‘status quo’ policies. As the Democrats seek to secure corporate funding they too will seek compromises and bipartisan deals – corporate approval may carry the vote in the face of the Democrats failure to mobilize the social base for a progressive social agenda. Trump has embraced a radical corporate class struggle from above. Will the Democrats in Washington seek to accommodate the President, as his class collaborators, or take the unusual path of backing class struggle from below?
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award winning author Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Loyal readers of New Matilda should remember One Path Network, a Muslim video production studio and media company in Sydney. They produced the first devastating report exposing Channel Seven’s favourite purported Muslim leader and sheikh, Mohammed Tawhidi.
Their calm and factual retort to Tawhidi’s lurid claims about Muslim conspiracies in Australia left his credibility in shreds.
The OPN team has come up with a new report on Islamophobia in Australian media. Disappointingly, I don’t think it has received any media coverage. Thus, New Matilda is proud to bring you a brief summary of its findings, and a few accompanying comments.
A quick summary of the report, complete with flashy graphs and images, and an accompanying short video, can be seen at this link. There’s also a longer PDF version, which can be downloaded at the site, and runs to 44 pages, though about 20 pages are devoted to front pages about Muslims. More on that shortly.
Image on the right: Mohammed Tawhidi, a self-proclaimed Imam from South Australia.
The report investigates how five newspapers covered Islam in 2017. Their primary metrics were a numerical count of certain types of stories, number of front pages, a few case studies, and a brief look at a handful of columnists reporting on Islam.
The newspapers were all Murdoch’s: the Australian, Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, Courier Mail, and Adelaide Advertiser.
Articles were regarded as “negative articles written about Islam”, if they “referred to Islam or Muslims alongside words like violence, extremism, terrorism or radical”. It should be noted – this is a pretty expansive definition. A story that accurately reported a noteworthy incident of Muslim violence, without being inflammatory or misrepresenting material facts, and which had the respectful cooperation of Muslims, would still be caught up under this definition.
Indeed, the definition could go further. A report that noted Muslim women in a non-government organisation helping victims of domestic violence might also be caught up under this definition. It should also be noted – there is an implicit slippage, in the sense that a negative story about Muslims isn’t necessarily a story about Islam. Thus, I would argue that the definition may be overbroad.
With that proviso, it’s not much of a secret that the Murdoch press constantly attacks Islam and Muslims. So, given this definition, how frequent were stories featuring Muslims or Islam in a negative sense?
There were 2,891 of them. That’s almost 3,000 negative stories relating to Islam in one year. Which is an incredible amount. That’s almost eight stories a day, every day, for the whole year, somehow relating Muslims to terrorism or violence or whatever.
It’s a shame that the study didn’t investigate other media more fully. It would be interesting to know how they compare. The website guide to the report features an interesting comparison of Fairfax and Murdoch articles about Islam (in the sense explained above). Interestingly, though Fairfax has considerably less coverage of Muslims than the Murdoch press, it’s still pretty substantial, at over 100 every month. That is, over three negative stories every day at the less Islam-obsessed Fairfax. And even this gives an unfair disproportionate advantage to Fairfax – it is not clear which Fairfax publications were taken into consideration in this count.
The next metric is front pages. Here, the numbers are pretty stark. 152 front pages relating to Islam or Muslims in a negative way. The graph gives an idea of how regular that is, though it seems likely on some days multiple papers had Islam related stories on the front page.
The front pages blur out the non-Islam related stuff, and make the content of interest in focus. This is an idea of what those front pages looked like:
Again, a weakness in this study is the overly broad definition. One interesting case is a Daily Telegraphstory headlined “A KICK IN THE ASSAD”, about the Trump administration bombing Syria. To my mind, that story doesn’t relate to Islam in any serious sense. Yet funnily enough, the bottom of the page says: “NSW TERROR: ISIS LINK TO SERVO STABBING MURDER”. The Tele was determined to claim its space in this report.
The report turns to case studies, what is calls “ridiculous highlights” from the year. The first example is the coverage of terrorism. They observe that “a casual observer would not be faulted for thinking that Australia was actively engaged in daily combat on its streets. In fact, it would hardly be surprising if that was the perception in the offices of the Daily Telegraph and The Australian.”
The section on Yassmin Abdel-Magied reaches a staggering count of over 200 articles about her. This obsession is utterly deranged. I fear that this year too, we’ll continue to see Murdoch hacks trolling her social media to find new anodyne liberal tweets to feign outrage over.
Possibly the most revealing part of the study relates to opinion writers at the Murdoch press. We all know their positions. Yet it is striking to see their obsession with Islam quantified. All of them write about Islam a lot. Miranda Devine, one of the least devoted Islam bashers, made 16 per cent of her 185 op eds about Islam. Janet Albrechtsen weighed in at 27 per cent, a bit less than Greg Sheridan at 29 per cent. Andrew Bolt and Rita Panahi came in at 38 per cent and 37 per cent – particularly impressive for Bolt, who produced 473 opinion pieces in the year (I suspect this counts blog items). Jennifer Oriel wrote 48 op eds, and over half were about Islam.
What is striking about this to me is that this is like a kind of one-sided cultural war. When the Australiandecided to promote Keith Windschuttle, progressive academics rallied to defend historical truth. When they trash climate change science, other media covers the actual record of what’s happening to the world. When the Murdoch press run anti-feminist claptrap, there are plenty of feminists at Fairfax and the Guardian to strike back.
But there is no serious mainstream contestation of this constant drumbeat of anti-Muslim and anti-Islam stories and op eds. These are hundreds of op eds demonising Islam, without any real response. There are apparently no Muslims working at (say) ABC or Fairfax to give a different take on these issues, or complain about what the Murdoch press is doing.
The report concludes with some brief analysis and statistics, which are kind of incredible when paired. One is the finding from an Australian National University study that 71 per cent of Australians were concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism. A reasonable finding, one might think, given the nature of media coverage of Muslims (I really wish One Path would do a follow-up study on other media outlets).
Yet Griffith University researchers found the second statistic: 70 per cent of Australians think they know “little to nothing” about Islam and Muslims. Which raises an obvious question about what public opinion might be like if the media in Australia did its job differently.
My major reservation about the study is the broad definition of negative stories about Islam. If we simply regard these as stories about Islam or Muslims connected to violence, terrorism, and extremism, then the findings remain shocking. This is a constant, endless deluge of stories about Islam and Muslims. The vast majority receive no counter-argument or response, whether in the Murdoch press or elsewhere.
There are no ensconced media platforms for Muslims to write about Islamophobia in Australia with the kind of relentlessness of a Bolt or Oriel. The study shows a vast media empire endlessly picking on a small Australian minority before a huge audience, without offering the victims any way of defending their names and religion before that audience.
And the study that documented this is being ignored.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Michael Brull writes twice a week for New Matilda. He has written for a range of other publications, including Overland, Crikey, ABC’s Drum, the Guardian and elsewhere. His writings can be followed at his public Facebook page (click on the icon below right).
All images in this article are from New Matilda unless otherwise stated
Five weapons were said to have been used, all inscribed with symbols, numbers and insignia. The individual charged with the shootings at two Christchurch mosques that left 49 dead was an Australian with, it is alleged, a simple purpose: inflict death, and on specific communities in worship. Even as the carnage became clear, Christchurch was already the epicentre of twenty-four hour news television, supplying a ghoulish spectacle. Saturation coverage followed, and continues to do so, a point that will warm the attacker’s blood (his entire effort was streamed on live video on Facebook).
The alleged perpetrator, one Brenton Harrison Tarrant, left an unstirring piece – to call it a manifesto would be far-fetched – for those interested before the attack. It is a document of banality and off target assumptions. “Who are you?” he asks himself, suggesting an inner voice in need of reassurance and clarity. “Just an ordinary White man, 28 years old. Born in Australia to a working class, low income family.” Stock: “Scottish, Irish and English”; a “regular childhood without any great issues”.
He did not like education, “barely achieving a passing grade.” Universities did not offer anything of interest. He invested money in Bitconnect, then travelled. A sense of cognitive dissonance follows; Tarrant had recently worked part time “as a kebab removalist”.
No criminal record, no watch list, no registry. Nothing to suggest a tendency towards mass murder, disrespect or mania. What Tarrant did have was a desire to avenge individuals he felt a kinship for, suggesting that the dull witted are just as capable of killing as the charismatically ideological. The “radical”, rooted nature of violence lies dormant in many; all that is required is a match.
The simple language of the note resembled that of various European populist platforms, albeit trimmed of deep historical flourishes: fear the Islamic invader; take to the barricades to repel the forces of Allah. Interestingly enough, Tarrant leaves the detail of the invaders unclear, given that European lands have received all manner of invasions over its existence, of which the Ottoman and Islamic is but one stream. The broad statement strikes a note of nonsense:
“To take revenge on the invaders for the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by foreign invaders in European lands throughout history.”
Other statements of motivation follow: the “enslavement of millions of Europeans from their lands by the Islamic slavers”; “the thousands of European lives lost to terror attacks throughout European lands”. Rather conveniently, and in manipulative fashion, the spirit of young Ebba Åkerlund, who died in 2017 in a terror attack in Sweden, is also channelled. It was not sufficient to merely mention her; the eleven-year old inspired the shooter to name rifles after her. “How the hell,” expressed stunned father Stefan Åkerlund, “can we ever get to mourn in peace?”
The problem with any such event is the risk of immoderate response. Sensible comments have been noted: the risks posed by non-Islamic terrorists have tended to be neglected in budgets and rhetoric, though US President Donald Trump is, unsurprisingly, insisting that militant white nationalism is fringe worthy rather than common. Under the John Key government, the overwhelming focus of funding intelligence and security efforts was directed at the phantom menace of Islam, burrowing deep into the suburbs. Watch lists of suspects were constantly noted; the fear of returned “radicalised” fighters was constantly iterated. To add a greater sense of purpose to the mission, New Zealand troops were deployed to Iraq to fight the troops of Islamic State. “Get some guts!” exclaimed Key to his opposition counterpart, Andrew Little, who seemed somewhat half-hearted in committing to the effort.
Other policy recommendations, still embryonic and possibly never to fly, are making their errands. There are suggestions of deploying around the clock security personnel to mosques in various countries, something that risks militarising places of worship.
Vengeful rebuke can also find room in legislative and executive action. In New Zealand, reforms to gun laws are being promised. (These are already strict, and it is by no means clear if safety would be improved by such changes.) In Australia, Tony Burke of the Labor Party suggests punishing hate speech and denying visas to certain right wing advocates of the white supremacist persuasion. Australia’s immigration system is sufficiently intolerant and erratic enough to deny visas to those who might interfere with the false tranquillity of its society but a suspicious paternalism remains the enemy of free speech. Debate, in short, cannot be trusted.
The move to further push tech companies to reign in violent content will also receive a mighty boost. The response from such companies as Facebook thus far is one of optimism: last year, some 99 percent of content linked with terrorism content promoted by Islamic State and al-Qaeda was successfully purged by artificial intelligence. Calls to do the same for other sources of inspiration are bound to follow.
There is also a stark, uncomfortable reality: no one is safe. The entire field of terrorist and anti-terrorist studies is replete with charlatan impulses and the promise of placebo styled security. There are fictional projections and assessments about whether an attack is “imminent” or “probable”. There are calls to be vigilant and report the suspicious. Political leaders give firm reassurances that all will be safe, a point that, quite frankly, can never be guaranteed.
The actions of Friday demonstrate the ease with which an act of mass killing can take place, the damage than can arise from attacking freely open spaces where people commune. Extremism is said to lack a face or an ideology, but on Friday, it manifested in an all too human form.
*
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]
US Afghan aggression and occupation of parts of the country remain largely unchanged after over 17 years.
Afghanistan reflects what CIA officials once called Vietnam – “the grand illusion of the American cause,” a conflict impossible to win. Yet it persists with no prospect for meaningful resolution.
US Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis earlier assessed conditions in the country after touring occupied areas for weeks, speaking to commanders, lower-ranking soldiers, Afghan security officials, civilians, and village elders.
He minced no words saying
“(h)ow many more men must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding,” adding:
“Senior ranking US military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the US Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable.”
“This deception has damaged America’s credibility among both our allies and enemies, severely limiting our ability to reach a political solution to the war in Afghanistan.”
Wherever he went,
“the tactical situation was bad to abysmal…witness(ing) the absence of success on virtually every level” – things perhaps worse now than earlier, the nation and its people devastated by endless US war.
The US came to stay, not leave, permanent occupation planned, wanting the country’s resources plundered.
They include barite, chromite, coal, cobalt, copper, gold, iron ore, lead, enormous amounts of highly-valued lithium and other rare earth metals vital for high tech products, natural gas, oil, precious and semi-precious stones, potash, salt, sulfur, talc, zinc, among other minerals.
They represent potentially trillions of dollars of economic value, a treasure Washington has no intention of relinquishing. US policymakers also aim to traverse the country with oil and gas pipelines.
Its territory is used as part of a greater plan to encircle Russia and China. Taliban forces control half or more of the country. US-controlled puppet rule was installed in Kabul – figures Taliban officials won’t talk to because of their illegitimacy.
Afghanistan is the world’s largest opium producer, used for heroin production. What the Taliban eradicated pre-9/11, the US restored.
It’s a bonanza for money-laundering Western banks, the CIA relying on drugs trafficking as a revenue source, and other organized crime, tens of billions of dollars annually at stake – why the US is complicit in what’s going on at the highest official levels.
Trump regime envoy for talks with Taliban officials Zalmay Khalilzad formerly was Bush/Cheney’s ambassador to occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, later their UN envoy, a hardcore neocon extremist, supporting Washington’s imperial agenda, hostile to peace, equity and justice.
On February 25, so-called peace talks between Taliban officials and Khalilzad began in Qatar. There’s virtually no chance of anything from them benefitting long-suffering Afghans if any agreement if struck.
Nor is there any prospect for Washington admitting defeat and exiting the country altogether – similar to its humiliating April 1975 Vietnam withdrawal.
It was the longest US war in modern times until naked aggression in Afghanistan was launched in October 2017, weeks post-9/11, plans for attacking the nation prepared months in advance. All wars require extensive planning.
Whatever the US may agree on in the days and weeks ahead with the Taliban won’t be worth the paper it’s written on, a nation repeatedly breaching deals – most recently the JCPOA Iran nuclear agreement.
Two summits with North Korea failed over unacceptable demands made in return for hollow promises.
That said, here’s where things stand on Wednesday, according to Khalilzad and the Taliban. Via Twitter, the Trump regime envoy said the following:
“Peace requires agreement on four issues: counter-terrorism assurances, troop withdrawal, intra-Afghan dialogue, and a comprehensive ceasefire.
We “agreed in principle on…four elements. We’re now agreed in draft (form) on the first two.”
A Taliban spokesman said progress was made on withdrawing all foreign forces from Afghanistan, short of setting a timeline, as well as agreeing on US-sought assurances on the future of security in the country if Pentagon and allied troops pull out.
The NYT published a Reuters report, saying the US wants assurances from the Taliban “not (to) allow militant groups (ISIS, al-Qaeda, etc.) to use Afghanistan to stage attacks.”
The Washington Post published an AP News report, saying both “sides have reached a draft agreement on the withdrawal of US troops,” along with the Taliban agreeing not to let territory it controls become “a haven for terrorists (ISIS, al-Qaeda, etc.).
NBC News said the US got a commitment from the Taliban “to cut all ties (sic) with al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups” its leadership opposes.
The US supports these jihadists, using them a proxy forces in its war theaters, including in Afghanistan against the Taliban. Its leadership wants them eliminated from the country.
Notably, no breakthroughs were achieved on any issues – nor is it likely in further talks whatever possible accommodations both sides may agree on in principle.
Republicans and undemocratic Dems intend permanent occupation of Afghanistan. Anything agreed to otherwise on paper is virtually certain to be breached by US officials.
Taliban authorities are savvy, knowing the hazards of dealing with imperial Washington. They likely hope for anything positive from talks – well aware that US officials can never be trusted.
*
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.”
The Syrian conflict influences not only the balance of power in the Middle East, but also strategies and military programs of the powers involved.
There is no secret that over the past years the Russian Armed Forces have used Syria as a test ground for some of its newest weapons and equipment, from cruise missiles to modern aircraft, and then have employed the gained experience for an extensive modernization of its forces.
In turn, Israel seems to have found a way to exploit the “Russian threat” narrative and a complicated situation on the Syrian battle ground as a tool to promote its own weapons and equipment.
Israel Aerospace Industrie (IAI), Israel’s prime aerospace and aviation manufacturer, which designs and builds civil aircraft, drones, fighter aircraft, missile, avionics, and space-based systems, released two promo videos, which could be considered as a clear example of this approach.
One of the videos is dedicated to the Mini Harpy tactical loitering munition. The weapon is said to be combining capabilities from IAI’s two previous flagship loitering munitions, the Harop and Harpy that have both the ability to lock on to radiation-emitting threats like radar with man-in-the-loop electro-optical guidance. According to IAI, the weapon is electrically powered, weights 45 kg and carries a shaped charge weighing about 8 kg. However, one of the most interesting things is that the Mini Harpy promo includes an animation showing how the weapon destroys an apparent Russian all-altitude surveillance radar 96L6, which can be used in both S-300 and S-400 air defense systems, something what has never happened in reality.
In another video, this time promoting the Barak-8 air defense system, the Israeli defense contractor demonstrated animated versions of Ka-50 attack helicopters and Su-27 fighter jets as enemy targets, which then were destroyed. The Ka-50 Black Shark serial production was halted in 2009 and the attack helicopter is now more in service with the Russian Armed Forces. The Su-27 is still in service with the Russian military.
These videos go in the course of the Israeli government narrative, which has repeatedly threatened to destroy S-300 air defense systems, if they are being employed against its aircraft attacking Syria. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) also released two videos showing destruction of Russian-made Pantsir-S short- to medium- range system operated by the Syrian military.
The IDF shunned delicately a shot down of its modernized F-16I jet by a Syrian S-200 missile in February 2018. Probably, this is bad for business. Despite this, all the aforementioned Israeli actions are mainly designed to display the alleged Israeli military superiority and advantages of its weapons and equipment.
To achieve this goal, Tel Aviv is openly exploiting a relatively soft position of Russia towards Israeli actions in Syria and Moscow’s readiness to cooperate with all sides to defeat terrorists and put an end or at least de-escalate the conflict. It is also apparent that a part of the Israeli leadership works to show that this Russian approach is a sign of weakness.
The problem of this behavior is that it seems that the Israeli military occasionally falls in the trap of its own propaganda. This leads to IL-20-like incidents when hostile Israeli actions led to the shot down of the Russian intelligence plane and Moscow responded by a series of public steps to ensure safety of its troops and the most important opted to deliver the S-300 to the Syrian military and establish a united air defense network in the war-torn country.
The further Israeli actions of this kind may eventually lead to the another round of escalation in Syria and once again put the region on the edge of a hot regional war.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Blatant disinformation spews from the western media. And law is never mentioned. Sen.Mark Rubio can threaten a most cruel assassination of Nicolas Maduro, whilst Trump, Bolton (1) and Pence promise that ‘everything is on the table’. Psychopaths join together very easily and according to Hare (2) they make up about 4% of all populations worldwide.
What the voters in all those ‘democratic’ nations fail to realise is that the characteristics of the psychopath make for an easy ascent of the greasy pole. Charm, lying and an able tongue are a few.
But how are they sustained? How do they escape preventive detention?
Of course, the ‘media’ is key. It works on the in-built prejudices of the subject populations, which it helps to generate. It makes sure they are not informed and that the big lies sink in with ease. I recall reading that the Third Reich found value in the polished, cunning British propaganda.
The reporting of the Syrian ‘civil war’ by the BBC is a prime example. In these islands the BBC/State Propagandist is ace.
To respond to it one needs to listen to the audio or watch the television so one can laboriously record the words. At one time the flagship programme, Today, produced a transcript of the whole three hours. With word recognition technology that would be easy to revive but that will not happen. The fact is that in every hour of its national and World Service Broadcasts there is cardinal omission, usually of the victim nation’s voice, distortion or frank lies. There is much more, and the BBC is skilled at inserting important nuances. As a lonely individual in an ocean of lies, it is impossible to keep up.
Here are a few fragments of its recent output.
a.
Dear Mr Landale, 8-02-19
I saw you speak on the BBC1 evening news about 4 days ago. Venezuela, in spite of its vast mineral wealth, has been destabilized. Corruption by the rich and perhaps poor governance are two factors, but another are the sanctions installed in 2015 by the USA against international law. We know the latter is worse than hollow. I do not know whether other countries have been strong armed in collaborating with these sanctions as with Iran.
I believe you did not mention sanctions in your piece. BBC coverage of this country in these last few weeks has been unbalanced. Will Grant in Cuba does better. (Ed. He does not it seems)
yours sincerely David Halpin FRCS
No reply
b.
A BBC report on the paralympics from Dubai. An 18 yr old lady swimmer was interviewed. It was not mentioned that the games had been moved from Malaysia, nor that the following statement was made by it 27-01-19 –
Malaysia’s Minister of Youth and Sports, Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman, said the country stood by its decision to bar Israeli athletes.
“If hosting an international sporting event is more important than standing up for our Palestinian brothers and sisters who get murdered, maimed and tortured by the Netanyahu regime, that means Malaysia has truly lost its moral compass,” he said in a statement. (3)
The British State Broadcaster could not say these truths to the millions. No coverage by the BBC.
c.
Chris Mason (image on the right, from his twitter account), a BBC Westminster correspondent is engaging. He was speaking of the critical reaction to the loss of Shamima Begum’s third baby in a refugee camp in Syria. She had gone to live with the ‘jihadis’ at age 15 with two girlfriends. Home Secretary Sajid Javid had stripped British citizenship from her. (It emerged he had done the same to two other women previously.)
He failed to say that the UK had supported some of these super-terrorists who came from outside Syria. The PM and the then Foreign Secretary had both stated their intention of ‘toppling Assad’. The aim of this proxy destruction of an ancient country was clear. So their shunning of this young woman and her three dead babies was a montrous hypocrisy. The BBC did its duty and joined in. And massaged it further by speaking of the UK giving £170 million ‘to Syria’.
At another time it reported that a UK government spokesman said the death of any child was “tragic and deeply distressing for the family”. As it was to the hundreds of dear children and their mothers who fleeing from the manufactured war drowned in the Mediterranean Sea. Or those that were blown apart or maimed by the ‘jihadis’ as ordered by Saudi Arabia and its slaves to money.
Image below is a screenshot from a BBC report (by the author)
The BBC pumped out massive black propaganda to justify the illegal wars on Iraq and Libya, and continues to distort completely the maelstrom of suffering and destruction brought by plan to Syria. The journalist, Robert Stuart, ‘contended that sequences filmed by BBC personnel and others at Atareb Hospital, Aleppo on 26 August 2013 purporting to show the aftermath of an incendiary bomb attack on a nearby school are largely, if not entirely, staged.’ His evidence is here. (4)
The BBC distracts with much ‘entertainment’, including sport, and now has trailers with fast changing mindless images. It appears to be attempting to further shrink thought and morality. The other night at a Comic Relief show in a theatre with a largely female audience, three naked men were on the stage. They kept swapping balloons from their chests to genitalia, and turned to present their ugly backsides to a largely embarassed audience.
There are peerless BBC programmes. Among them are Countryfile, which centres on farming and the beauty of the British Isles, and Call the Midwife. This recalled the caring spirit and the energy of the young NHS. Within its ranks there are moral, imaginative and very talented people. But they cannot have much influence on the output.
The ether is dominated by the psychopath with talk of endless aggressive war including sanctions, as with the collective, long and increasing punishment of two million people in Gaza.
Please someone, take Bolton and show him a tight flower bud in midwinter and later as it emerges in all its beauty and intricacy. Take Trump, alone, and see the mother suckling her tiny baby. An ultimate symbol of peace.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
David Halpin FRCS is a retired orthopaedic and trauma surgeon who yearns for peace and especially in Palestine. He has also spent much time, with a few others, pleading for an inquest on Dr David Kelly, which uniquely has never happened. The NHS is his other major concern. His woodlands that he planted give some peace.
In the 1961 Hollywood film Splendor in the Grass, the protagonist’s oil-wealthy father got his academically unqualified son admitted to Yale.
Though unexplained in the film, he likely bought his admission, his influence not enough to prevent his son’s expulsion for failing grades.
Nor did the film explain if the father was a Yale alum, wanting his son given preferential legacy treatment, commonplace in the US.
According to Inside Higher Ed, 42% of private colleges and universities, as well as 6% of public ones consider legacy status a factor in admissions.
At the same time, MIT, Caltech, the University of California, and other US schools say legacy isn’t an admissions practice. At many other schools, it’s somewhat advantageous.
Overall, legacy freshmen have lower GPAs and SAT scores than others admitted. Their academic performance is poorer. Wealthy parents use money and influence to assure admittance of children to preferred higher education destinations.
Harvard is one of many examples of how the system works, 29% of its incoming class of 2021 comprised of legacy students. Applicants of university alums are three times more likely to be admitted than others.
At most of the nation’s elite schools, applicants of alumni have a significant leg up on others. Most often, they’re white with wealthy parents, able and willing to donate substantially to fundraising drives.
Money can’t buy everything, but all too often it’s a way to buy entrance to elite US colleges and universities.
Author Chad Coffman called the system “Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions” in his book by this title.
It discusses the origin and history of legacy preferences, including their impact on alumni fundraising, philosophical issues of the practice, and their civil rights implications.
A personal note: In 1952, I was admitted to the Harvard class of 1956 with no preferential legacy help. To this day, I consider it the luck of the draw.
Though my good grades and extracurricular activities qualified me for admittance, many others turned down were equally or more qualified.
Neither of my parents attended college. I had nothing special going for me – other than growing up in Boston across the river from Harvard in Cambridge.
Proximity helped. Many of my classmates were from greater Boston, Massachusetts, New England, and the northeast overall.
My mother later earned a Harvard degree, attending evening classes for $5 a course. She and I took some of the same courses with the same professors, I during daytime hours.
My freshman tuition was $600, $1,000 my senior year. Anyone could attend evening classes. My mother yearned for the degree she never had, graduating with me in the same class – the total cost of her degree around $175.
To this day, I believe we were the only mother and son to be members of the same Harvard graduating class – a routine achievement for me, an extraordinary one for her with everything on her plate at the time, a master juggler giving proper attention to all her obligations.
On March 12, federal prosecutors disclosed indictments and complaints against 50 individuals. They followed an investigation into alleged bribery and mail fraud by wealthy parents to secure admission for their children to at least eight universities.
The most extensive case of its kind indicted prominent individuals – allegedly paying universities over $25 million between 2011 and 2018 – the investigation nicknamed Operation Varsity Blues, taken from the 1999 Hollywood film of the same name.
Allegations include bribing college entrance exam administrators to facilitate cheating on exams.
Other charges include bribing varsity coaches to choose unqualified applicants, aiding their admission to schools, and using charitable organizations to conceal to the source and nature of money laundered bribes.
FBI special agent Joseph Bonavolonta called the scheme as “a sham that strikes at the core of the college admissions process.”
Preferential treatment given legacy applicants, along with the power of money in the US made the scheme possible – what level playing field admissions practices could have prevented.
Affirmative action isn’t the same thing – US colleges and universities giving special consideration to racial minorities, women, and other discriminated against groups to counter generations of unfair practices.
The landmark 1954 Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education held that “separate educational facilities (are) inherently unequal” and unconstitutional.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination against students and college applicants on the basis of race or gender.
In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan’s Law School affirmative action admissions policy.
In Fisher v. University of Texas (2016), the High Court preserved the constitutionality of race-based admissions.
Writing for the majority, conservative Justice Kennedy highlighted the importance of “student body diversity,” calling it “central to its identity and educational mission.”
Yet in July 2018, the Trump regime ordered the practice abandoned, falsely calling it “beyond the requirements of the Constitution.”
The US Commission on Civil Rights accused Trump’s Justice Department and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos with “repeated refusal” to enforce federal civil rights, calling their actions “particularly troubling.”
Regardless of US constitutional and statute laws, preferential treatment is the American way.
In dozens of elite US colleges and universities, more students from the top 1% of families by income comprise their student bodies than all others from households earning $65,000 or less annually, according to an Opportunity Insights report.
Money may not buy happiness, but it can buy admittance to top US colleges and universities, even for unqualified students.
*
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.”
Electromagnetic Press has produced a new book by Bruce Clark, scholarly expert and ‘hands-on’ activist in the matter of North American indigenous peoples’ history, philosophy, and – especially – the reality of their present legal being, their rights, and their status in the activity of the higher courts.
Central to his argument, Bruce Clark makes clear that the constitutional and (therefore) luminously obvious thread of law (and precedent) leading from the eighteenth century (especially from the Royal Proclamation of 1763) defines the independent and autonomous legal being of today’s indigenous people living on “unceded” land – land not having been subjected to voluntary sale or other voluntary alienation.
In the very simplest terms, it may be said, Clark observes, that all the courts of Canada [the USA presents another jurisdiction – equally malevolent] – all the legal and judicial Establishments of Canada magisterially choose to violate the Constitutionally constructed law and the precedents developing from it … and so violate the rights and persons of indigenous peoples in Canada. Apart from the Constitution and precedents growing from the eighteenth century, the government of John A. Macdonald, Canada’s first prime minister, created the Indian Act and the Residential Schools structure – seen by many as (whatever may have been intended) genocidal actions continuing into the present. And the Province of B.C. passed (ultra vires) a law alienating indigenous land from indigenous control. Thus – we have the title of Bruce Clark’s most recent book: Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial Suppression of the “Existing” Aboriginal Rights. (www.electromagneticprint.com)
That primary fact is worth repeating: Bruce Clark alleges the Courts, the Legal, and the Judicial Establishments in Canada act, concerning the indigenous people, in open contempt of the Constitutionally constructed Rule of Law in the country we designate by the name Canada – of which those Establishments are a part.
Bruce Clark’s book is made up largely of essays published in Dissident Voices over the past ten years or so. As a result, certain key arguments and presentations of historical and “legal” fact are repeated in a way that gives them exceptional force. The historical structure of both the undeniable independence of North America’s indigenous population and the unbroken violation of that status by the “settler populations” is presented in a way that throws light upon the real functioning of the whole of Canadian society. Bruce Clark tends to see indigenous legal fact and history as unique, and – in important ways – it is.
But it may be wrong to suggest that the ‘habit of mind’ employed to produce a complete reshaping of law and the ‘judge-making’ of a false reality into which all indigenous matters are placed is unique to what would have been called a few decades ago “Indian Affairs”.
One is sorely tempted to make comparisons – which are visibly there – between the treatment of Canada’s indigenous people under a ‘mangled Rule of Law’ and the attempts (which have already been successful in other “democracies”) to vacate gigantic corporations (SNC-Lavalin, and its kind) from criminal prosecution and deliver them to a gray area of what Roman Catholics might call “Penance and Absolution”. Indigenous people are mangled in a Corporate-inspired expression of greed and larceny, Clark suggests, transmuted into judge-and-Legal-Establishment-made law. Corporations like SNC-Lavalin have ‘special’ legislation created for them alone, so that no individual in their ranks will face adjudication under a common Rule of Law … ever … because “deferred prosecution” agreements will remove them from any universal Rule of Law… and its meaningful punishments.
What the Justin Trudeau Liberals passed (semi-secretively) in a budget package of legislation (one of the famous “Omnibus” bills: 2018) is, I suggest, an attempt to legitimize a special “approach”, a special jurisdictional and juridical handling of alleged violations of the Rule of Law in Canada which will place large private corporations in a special category subjected to special treatment. That – according to Bruce Clark – is what has been done, negatively, (without any visible legislation) to the indigenous people of Canada by judge and court-made illegitimate precedent. And instead of lightening the load pressing upon the indigenous people, the “dimension” of the law which they are forced to inhabit assures that, for instance, a fake (powerless) “right of consultation” usurps their right of full, independent being. When they appear in a Canadian court, they are subjected to a regime that is unique … and nowhere ratified Constitutionally.
Bruce Clark reports his own dramatic confrontation with Established Power (as distinct from ‘legitimate power’) during which time he was declared in criminal contempt, was jailed for a time, and was disbarred permanently from the elegant and prestigious practice of law in Canada.
His book confronts us with reality. Canadian judicial and legal structures deliver injustice frequently and institutionally often enough to cause major concern to Canadians because of persistent and determined [improper] legal and judicial action undertaken to disallow the clear, independent status and power of the indigenous people and to saddle them with a “right of [dependent] consultation”. As a result no action taken by indigenous people can (in the Canadian courts) be adjudicated with respect to their real, historically founded status, Clark argues. And so they are cheated of justice in every case.
Moving from indigenous reality … to provide a comparison … in the Nuttall/Korody case (concerning an RCMP faked Islamic Terrorist Event at the B.C. Legislature grounds on July 1, 2013) years of injustice were forced upon the two falsely accused innocents, but both Defence lawyers and B.C. Supreme Court judge, Justice Catherine Bruce, extracted the two from the false accusations by a highly organized RCMP Force. Justice Bruce wrote a superb judgement exposing the RCMP’s alleged criminal behaviour. Her judgement was upheld by three B.C. Appellate Division justices in late 2018.
And then: nothing. Nothing. The Crown, the federal Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of British Columbia, members of the British Columbia legislature in all Parties, members of the Mainstream Press and Media have maintained stoney silence, failing to demand that criminal charges be laid against every RCMP officer and any other Canadian involved in the entrapment, the preparation of a false criminal case, the incarceration, and the trial of the innocent two … and demanding full and complete restitution and compensation to the two victims for what is almost certainly a criminal conspiracy by RCMP officers and unnamed others….
What is plain in the matter is that the extraordinary work of Defence Counsel and Justice Catherine Bruce – to prevent the success of major, highly organized criminal activity by the RCMP – is something that Mainstream Power in Canada wishes to mask, to ignore. I would suggest that parallel to the false judicial and legal actions in Canada that create a completely contained corrupt world of “law” for indigenous people that Bruce Clark argues exists … there also exists – in matters involving what may be called the instruments (and the people) possessing real power in Canada (outside of indigenous issues) – a consistently corrupt legal/judicial administration is at work to prevent action taken to assure that The Rule of Law in Canada prevails. The falsely staged Islamic Terrorist Event at B.C.’s Legislature grounds which viciously victimized two innocent Canadians – and which ALL of the responsible authorities in Canada are trying to ignore … is only one lamentable example.
Though many, many instances might be brought forward to underscore that truth, no case can be more instructive, perhaps, than the huge, multi-million dollar, nearly ten-year history involving the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to the CNR and a more than three year trial (2007-2010) of what I choose to call victims chosen to mask the major wrong-doing and the major actors undertaking the wrong-doing who should have been the accused in the case.
The imperfect Wikipedia entry (avoiding the major archived independent website on the issue) about the BC Rail Scandal, employing only ‘acceptable’ Mainstream Press and Media sources, fails to report the absolutely primary fact. Much, much about the scandal can be argued about … but not the finding late in the trial – when Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett had been promoted off the trial to Appeals Court; and the choice was made by Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm (he announced that he had made his choice in my presence) of Justice Anne MacKenzie to complete the Supreme Court trial.
In late 2009 it was revealed that the Special Crown Prosecutor – appointed in 2003 and (therefore, normally) associated with RCMP investigations, with the preparation of charges against Dave Basi, Bobby Virk, and Aneal Basi, and then with fulfilling the role as primary Crown actor in the trial of the three accused – that he was named Special Crown Prosecutor in clear violation of the legislation creating and declaring the terms of such an appointment.
Stated simply … such an appointed person must be free of any possible bias – and the legislation says in addition … must be free of the possibility of even the perception of bias. The Special Crown Prosecutor in the case against Dave Basi, Bobby Virk, and Aneal Basi was for eleven years partner and colleague of the Deputy Attorney General and for seven years partner and colleague of the Attorney General from whose office his appointment was made as Special Crown Prosecutor under the premiership of Liberal Gordon Campbell at whose feet was laid the whole impetus for the so-called “sale” of BC Rail to the CNR: and, therefore, also, at whose feet were laid many of theallegations of impropriety in the case. (The Attorney General was, of course, a member of the B.C. Cabinet headed by the premier, Gordon Campbell.)
The revealed fact of the illegitimate appointment of the Special Crown Prosecutor in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case rendered, in my judgement, everything about the casenull and void, without legitimacy – erasing every action in the process. I wrote to the Chief Justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court and the Associate Chief Justice as responsibles in the matter. In two correspondence attempts to have them assume their responsibilities in the matter – they refused. I wrote to the judge on the case … and she refused to act in any fashion in relation to the improper appointment and the improper presence in her courtroom of an illegitimately appointed Special Crown Prosecutor. I wrote to the Canadian Judicial Council – the top appeal body concerning the behaviour of the judiciary in Canada. (The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is ‘nominal’ head of the CJC.) I asked them to name the judge on the case as acting improperly in the matter of an illegitimate Special Crown Prosecutor acting in her Court. The Canadian Judicial Council refused to acknowledge any improper behaviour on the part of the judge on the case.
The picture that appears of the legal and (especially) the judicial Establishments in that short accounting leaves little more to be said.
The brutal findings by Bruce Clark… and, indeed, the brutal treatment he, himself, has been subjected to … point to a Rule of Law relating to the Indigenous Peoples that needs complete overhaul… in fact – complete restructuring. But, alas, in its shadow world – the world in which the Legal and Judicial Establishments act in areas other than those concerning indigenous persons and the rights of their communities – the actions of what must be called the Legal Establishment and the Judicial Establishment – mirror, I suggest, with depressing regularity, the same dismissal of Constitutional reality.
And they replace it, I believe, with ‘assumptions of purity’ that are used to protect the political and corporate powers enriching themselves and increasing their power at the cost of fundamental justice. The Rule of Law, and the will of the people are blind-sided by the unanimity of evil-doers and their supporters in the Mainstream Press and Media. That fact suggests the so-called “Criminal Justice System” – meaning the operation of the Legal and the Judicial Establishments in Canada (including the treatment of indigenous people) must be swept aside. The structure must be trashed. The whole fabric of law and justice – especially as it is practised within ‘the system’ in Canada – must be completely reconstructed.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The hypocrisy is head spinning. As Justin Trudeau lectures audiences on the need to uphold Venezuela’s constitution the Liberals have recognized a completely illegitimate president in Honduras. What’s more, they’ve formally allied with that government in demanding Venezuela’s president follow their (incorrect) reading of that country’s constitution.
In November 2017 Ottawa’s anti-Venezuela “Lima Group” ally Juan Orlando Hernandez (JOH) defied the Honduran constitution to run for a second term. At Hernandez’ request the four Supreme Court members appointed by his National Party overruled an article in the constitution explicitly prohibiting re-election.
JOH then ‘won’ a highly questionable poll. With 60 per cent of votes counted opposition candidate Salvador Nasralla lead by five-points. The electoral council then went silent for 36 hours and when reporting resumed JOH had a small lead.
In the three weeks between the election and JOH’s official proclamation as president, government forces killed at least 30 pro-democracy demonstrators in the Central American country of nine million. More than a thousand were detained under a post-election state of emergency. Many of those jailed for protesting the electoral fraud, including prominent activist Edwin Espinal, who is married to Canadian human rights campaigner Karen Spring, remain in jail.
Ottawa immediately endorsed the electoral farce in Honduras. Following Washington, Global Affairs tweeted that Canada “acknowledges confirmation of Juan Orlando Hernandez as President of Honduras.” Tyler Shipley, author of Ottawa and Empire: Canada and the Military Coup in Honduras, responded:
“Wow, Canada sinks to new lows with this. The entire world knows that the Honduran dictatorship has stolen an election, even the OAS (an organization which skews right) has demanded that new elections be held because of the level of sketchiness here. And — as it has for over eight years — Canada is at the forefront of protecting and legitimizing this regime built on fraud and violence. Even after all my years of research on this, I’m stunned that [foreign minister Chrystia] Freeland would go this far; I expected Canada to stay quiet until JOH had fully consolidated his power. Instead Canada is doing the heavy lifting of that consolidation.”
In 2009 Ottawa backed the Honduran military’s removal of elected president Manuel Zelaya, which was justified on the grounds he was seeking to defy the constitution by running for a second term. (In fact, Zelaya simply put forward a plan to hold a non-binding public poll on whether to hold consultations to reopen the constitution.) After the coup Ottawa failed to suspend aid to the military government or exclude the Honduran military from its Military Training Assistance Programme.
A number of major Canadian corporations, notably Gildan and Goldcorp, were unhappy with some modest social democratic reforms implemented by Zelaya. Additionally, a year before the coup Honduras joined the Hugo Chavez led Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our Americas (ALBA), which was a response to North American capitalist domination of the region.
JOH’s National Party won the presidency and he took charge of the national assembly in the post-coup elections, which were boycotted by the UN, Organization of American States and most Hondurans.
Since JOH stole an election that he shouldn’t have been able to participate in the Trudeau government has continued to work with his government. I found no indication that Canadian aid has been reduced and Canadian diplomats in central America have repeatedly met Honduran representatives. JOH’s Foreign Minister, Maria Dolores Aguero, attended a Women Foreign Ministers’ Meeting Canada organized in Montreal four months ago. Recently Canadian diplomats have lauded the “bonds of friendship between the governments of Canada and Honduras” and “excellent relations that exist between both countries.” Canada’s ambassador James K. Hill retweeted a US Embassy statement noting, “we congratulatePresident Juan Orlando Hernandez for taking the initiative to reaffirm the commitment of his administration to fight against corruption and impunity” through an OAS initiative.
Con la finalidad de fortalecer los lazos de amistad entre los gobiernos de Canadá y Honduras, la cónsul del país del norte Chloé Maltais Boiswert, se reunió con el subcomisionado nacional de #Copeco@CarlosACordero2, con el objetivo de conocer el funcionamiento de la institución. pic.twitter.com/Isf84HsoKM
While they praise JOH’s fight against impunity, Canadian officials have refused repeated requests by Canadian activists and relatives to help secure Edwin Espinal’s release from prison. In response to their indifference to Espinal’s plight, Rights Action director Grahame Russell recently wrote,
“have the Canadian and U.S. governments simply agreed not to criticize the Honduran regime’s appalling human rights record … in exchange for Honduras agreeing to be a ‘democratic ally’ in the U.S. and Canadian-led efforts at forced government change in Venezuela?”
Honduras is a member of the “Lima Group” of countries pushing to oust Nicolas Maduro’s government in Venezuela. Last month Trudeau was photographed with the Honduran foreign minister at the “Lima Group” meeting in Ottawa.
To justify recognizing the head of Venezuela’s national assembly, Juan Guaidó, as president the “Lima Group” and Trudeau personally have cited “the need to respect the Venezuelan Constitution.” The Prime Minister even responded to someone who yelled “hands off Venezuela” at a town hall by lecturing the audience on article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution, which he (incorrectly) claims grants Guaidó the presidency.
Why the great concern for Venezuela’s constitution and indifference to Honduras’? Why didn’t Trudeau recognize Salvador Nasralla as president of Honduras? Nasralla’s claim to his country’s presidency is far more legitimate than Guaidó’s.
The hypocrisy in Trudeau allying with the illegitimate president of Honduras to demand Venezuela succumb to their interpretation of that country’s constitution would be absurdly funny if it didn’t put so many lives at risk.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: Honduras Foreign Minister Maria Dolores Agüero with Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland discussing Venezuela.
The rapidly declining living conditions in the Gaza Strip and occupied territories has endangered the most basic of internationally recognised of human rights, as children continue to be collateral damage in what can be boiled down to a political standoff. The difference to almost all modern countries is that Israel uses extreme force to break the deadlock.
It is now sadly a fact that more children than Palestinian fighters are being killed in the offensive on Gaza by the state of Israel. This in itself should be shocking until you see the numbers. 28 per cent killed are five years and under, 92 per cent are sixteen and under with 8 per cent aged 17 and 18 – but still classed as minors. More babies aged under 24 months die than those aged over 16 years.
Then there are the incarcerations. The Isreali Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories records them. It shows that in the ten years from 2008 to 2018 – a staggering 2,370 children have been sent to Israeli prisons. At the end of January 2019, 209 Palestinian children were held in Israeli prisons as security detainees and prisoners.
In January this year, the General Federation of Palestinian Trade Unions (PGFTU) warned that the poverty rate in the Gaza Strip has exceeded 80 per cent for the wider population. The numbers for mental health problems, access to health care or the basics such as access to clean water, electricity and sanitation are dire.
It shames Britain, that a country, ranked by the World Justice Project as the 8th most law-abiding country in the world actively supports a regime with weapons of death and destruction, described by organisations such as War on Want and the United Nations as an apartheid state. Others, including Human Rights Watch, accuse Israel of war crimes against defenceless Palestinians.
To enable that support, a media blackout is required in Britain. Here, Mark Curtis unravels the grizzly truth of Britain’s involvement in this ghastly and illegal aggression and what is really going on behind the scenes.
Image on the right: International Trade Secretary Liam Fox meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (Source: gov.uk)
Britain’s international trade secretary, Liam Fox, recently visited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pledging to increase trade and investment between the two countries, which already stands at a record $9bn.
While more than 230 Palestinians have been killed and thousands more injured by Israeli forces since March, London’s ties with Tel Aviv are growing ever stronger.
Yet, I cannot find a single article in the British “mainstream” media noting the depth of supportive UK policies towards Israel. This media blackout is allowing Britain to continue backing Israeli aggression in the occupied territories with impunity.
Arms as usual
In the two years 2016 and 2017, when Theresa May has been prime minister, the UK sold £402m worth of military goods to Israel, including components for combat aircraft, tanks, drones and military communications. As Prince William visited Israel in late June, the UK approved export licences for 34 types of military-related equipment.
These arms exports have been authorised while Palestinians risk their lives in the Great March of Return demonstrations on the perimeter fence between Gaza and Israel. Some 33 children were among those killed, alongside more than 24,000 Palestinians injured. Dozens of people have had limbs amputated, including 15 children, while the UN reports that 1,200 patients will require long-term limb reconstruction.
But many services are unavailable in Gaza as the healthcare system grapples with the massive influx of casualties. By the end of October, only 74 of 335 exit-permit applications had been approved by Israeli authorities for injured Palestinians needing attention outside of Gaza.
Documents revealed by Edward Snowden in 2014 showed that the US National Security Agency was providing to its Israeli counterpart, the Israeli SIGINT National Unit (ISNU, also known as Unit 8200) data used to monitor and target Palestinians.
A key partner of the NSA and ISNU was shown to be Britain’s spy centre, GCHQ, which was feeding the Israelis selected communications data it collected. In 2009, during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza that left nearly 1,400 people dead, included 344 children, this involved sharing information on Palestinians.
A ‘strong partnership’
Is the UK doing this now? Last year, Robert Hannigan, the outgoing director of GCHQ, said that his organisation had a “strong partnership with our Israeli counterparts in signals intelligence” and that “we are building on an excellent cyber relationship with a range of Israeli bodies”.
Earlier this year, Hannigan became chair of BlueVoyant Europe, a global cybersecurity firm whose operations are managed by, among others, a former deputy commander of Unit 8200, and a former division head in the Israeli security agency Shin Bet. Another key player in the firm is former British minister Lord Mandelson, who chairs BlueVoyant’s European Advisory Group.
Cybersecurity has become a key area of UK-Israeli cooperation. A recent report by the British Israeli lobby group, Bicom, notes that “government-to-government cooperation between the UK and Israel in cybersecurity is strong and has been described by a senior UK official as a ‘first-order partnership’”.
It added that “there are close working relationships between the countries’ national cybersecurity agencies and acknowledged cross-fertilisation in the development of their national security strategies”.
Indeed, the report notes that “it is perhaps no coincidence” that the former UK ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, returned from his posting in Tel Aviv in 2015 to become director of cybersecurity at the UK Cabinet Office.
In striking evidence of Britain’s reliance on Israel’s cybersecurity sector is the report’s claim that since major British banks are clients of many Israeli cyber companies, “the vast majority of digital transactions and credit card e-commerce in the UK is essentially protected by Israeli technologies”.
Deepening military relations
As I documented in an article for Middle East Eye in June, the UK’s military relationship with Israel is extensive, covering areas such as naval cooperation and the provision of components for Israeli nuclear-armed submarines. But the lack of journalistic investigations means that few details have emerged on many programmes.
In September, the government revealed that it was providing military training to Israel. This followed news in 2016 that British military pilots were due to be trained by a company owned by Israeli arms firm Elbit Systems.
Training is longstanding: in 2011, it was revealed that British soldiers were being trained in Israel in the use of drones that had been “field-tested on Palestinians” during the 2009 war in Gaza.
The contracts keep coming. Earlier this year, the UK’s Ministry of Defence agreed to a contract worth up to $52m to purchase a battlefield management application from Elbit Systems UK, while Israel’s armour specialist, Plasan, was selected by the UK Ministry of Defence to design and produce armour protection for Britain’s new Type 26 frigates being built by BAE Systems in Glasgow.
At the Conservative Party conference in October, senior government figures queued up at an event hosted by Conservative Friends of Israel to defend Israeli actions in the occupied territories. Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson stated: “In terms of defence, Britain and Israel are working increasingly closely together. There’s a real bond.”
“I am looking forward to an enhanced and even more ambitious trade and investment relationship with Israel as we work closer together going forward into the future.”
Netanyahu replied:
“Britain is in fact our largest trade partner in Europe … we value the friendship, we value the prospects for the future.”
Fox and Williamson are continuing the strategy of their boss, Theresa May, who has said of Israel:
“I want to build the strongest and deepest possible relationship between our two countries.”
Yet, the reality of what this means in practice – especially in terms of British military and intelligence support for Israel, and how this facilitates Israeli aggression – is simply not being reported in the British media. The longer that continues, the easier it will be for Israel to continue to act with impunity for its crimes.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
House Democrats, indigenous tribal leaders, and public land protection advocates all rebuked the Trump administration’s downsizing of two national monuments Wednesday, arguing that President Donald Trump and former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke acted illegally by conducting what at least one critic called a “sham” review process.
The administration acted in the interest of pro-fossil fuel lawmakers, the oil and gas industry, and other monument opponents when they conducted a hasty review of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in 2017, critics argued.
The House Natural Resources Committee invited several witnesses to testify at a hearing entitled “Forgotten Voices,” including three representatives from native tribes which had vocally opposed President Donald Trump’s decision to shrink the two monuments by about two million acres in 2017, citing their sacred connection to the lands.
“To Hopi people, the Bears Ears National Monument is a spiritually occupied landscape,” saidClark Tenakhongva, vice chairman of the Hopi tribe, at the hearing. “This land is a testament of Hopi stewardship through thousands of years, manifested by the ‘footprints’ of ancient villages, sacred springs, migration routes, pilgrimage trails, [and] artifacts.”
Clark W. Tenakhongva, Vice Chair, Hopi Tribe: “Bears Ears National Monument is spiritually occupied landscape … a testament of Hopi stewardship through thousands of years, manifested by the footprints” of ancient villages and cultural sites. #StandWithBearsEars#MonumentsForAllpic.twitter.com/AEPeeGTKMj
Rep. Deb Haaland (D-N.M.), one of two Native American women who made history when they were elected to Congress last year, expressed solidarity with the Hopi and other tribes.
“I can say the bones of my ancestors are buried in Bears Ears,” Haaland said. “It’s easy to get emotional about tribal land when your ancestors have lived there for generations and it’s only because of them that you’re able to sit here today…I appreciate local tribes for coming so far to explain why this land is important.”
Committee Chairman Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) noted in his opening remarks that the Interior Department’s own inspector general had found the review conducted by Zinke to be unsatisfactory, and Zinke himself to be apparently unconcerned with whether the process was “legal, whether it was improperly influenced, or whether it best protected public lands.”
“When my colleagues read the full report they will say administration’s process was hollow and improper,” Grijalva said. “Industry was given special consideration in this process…and the voice of the American people was ignored.”
In 2017 Trump & former Sec Zinke perpetrated the largest public lands protection rollback in modern American history. They ignored sovereign tribes, local communities & public opinion. Today this illegal action by the Trump admin gets the scrutiny it deserves. #MonumentsForAllpic.twitter.com/7VdDVIPFCd
In addition to Tenakhongva, two other witnesses at the hearing—Tony Small, vice chairman of the Ute Tribe, and Carleton Bowekaty, lieutenant governor of the Pueblo of Zuni—described how they were given just an hour of Zinke’s time during the review process, while monument opponents were able to join the secretary on his four-day tour of the lands. The inequity amounted to a violation of the Antiquities Act, they argued.
“The current administration,” Bowekaty said, “conducted a National Monument review that largely ignored tribal interests and concerns. It appears that this so-called review was conducted with a pre-determined objective of justifying executive action—action which we are now challenging in federal court—to greatly reduce the area protected by the Bears Ears National Monument so that excluded lands can be available for mineral exploration and development.”
“President Trump’s unprecedented proclamation revoking Bears Ears and replacing it with two small monument units violates the Antiquities Act and exceeds the power delegated to the president by Congress,” testified Small.
“The Antiquities Act does not authorize a president to rescind or modify national monuments created by their predecessors, and certainly does not authorize them to revoke and replace existing monuments with smaller ones as has been attempted here,” he added.
As the hearing was underway, the Western Values Project released an analysis of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by the Utah Bureau of Land Management, which showed that the Interior Department misrepresented findings regarding the monuments’ effects on Utah’s economy.
“The Trump Administration steamrolled expertise on the ground in Utah in order to push a narrow political agenda from Washington, D.C.,” said the group’s executive director, Chris Saeger, in a statement.
“It is my firm belief that this was a pre-destined outcome and everything since has been to justify that outcome,” Grijalva concluded at the hearing.
*
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.
Featured image: Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument’s boundaries were reduced by about 47 percent after the Interior Department’s review last year. (Photo: Bureau of Land Managment/Flickr/cc)
Can you 
