Global Research

In just under six minutes, the grandson of the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende (murdered in a US-sponsored coup), tells the real story on Venezuela. 

You’ll never see Pablo Allende on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. The American people—mostly unthinking consumers of the corporate state’s propaganda—have bought into the lies, distortions, and half-truths about Venezuela (and Nicaragua and Cuba, explicitly targeted by Trump’s national security adviser, the psychopath John Bolton). .

.

I don’t believe socialism works. However, I don’t live in Venezuela, Cuba, or Nicaragua, and it’s none of my business what government or leader the people of these countries elect to represent them. 

Here is a primer on Venezuela, the sort you’ll never see on the above mentioned corporate, government narrative-reading “news” (propaganda) networks. 

*

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

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

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

SNC-Lavalin, the large Canadian engineering firm at the centre of the present Liberal government crisis engendered by the treatment of former Attorney General/Minister of Justice and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Jody Wilson-Raybould, is merely the tip of an enormous iceberg.

The gyrations of SNC-Lavalin to have a law passed (obscurely in a Liberal “Omnibus” Bill in 2018) that permits it (and giant firms like it) to write “deferred prosecution agreements” (in what is called a “remediation regime”) may be seen as nothing more than another private/corporate attack on the Rule of Law … supported by the present Canadian (Liberal) government in power. 

That government, I suggest, is acknowledging the growing reality of A Regime For The Very Rich Outside The Law … and a law for us, the unimportant others.  The move should be seen, I suggest, as a full-scale attack on The Rule of Law in Canada.

In briefest words: the kinds of agreement (already at work in some other Western nations) permit wrong-doers to escape criminal conviction by paying large sums of money and “repenting” their sins!!! (Remember that Fraud Charges may  normally occur in such matters, pointing to fairly long jail sentences for individuals, real people involved in the criminal charges normally set in motion.)  The Remediation Regime works to erase that possibility completely … so that individuals are never guilty of criminal acts! 

Might the process be seen as the bribery of governments by ‘wink-wink-nudge-nudge’‘friends’ who – anyway (as with SNC-Lavalin) give large sums to the Party that has become the government in power?  Might the process be seen as the actual codification of the separation of powerful (Deep State) organizations from the Rule of Law in national jurisdictions? The answer is, probably, “YES”. 

Canadians should observe the huge consideration that was given to SNC-Lavalin through the whole process.  The Corporation sought and received dozens and dozens of meetings [“more than 50 times”, Globe and Mail, A-11, Mar.1, 2019] with MP’s, cabinet ministers … over months and months to – in effect – move huge Private Corporations outside The Rule of Law while claiming they are merely assisting in a change in the application of The Rule of Law.

And then … And then … SNC–Lavalin appears to have used more lobbyist meetings in order to have Liberal ‘sympathizers’ (including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau) pressure the Attorney General of Canada to impose a deferred prosecution agreement against the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office. 

In that regard, the highest Civil Servant in Canada – supposedly clean of political colouring – Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council, entered the fray on behalf of SNC-Lavalin in attempts to force the hand of Jody Wilson-Raybould.  As an important member of a council much misunderstood – the Canadian Privy Council to the Queen of Canada (not to the Queen of the United Kingdom), and as highest Civil Servant (the actively non-political arm of government servants) Michael Wernick debased the position of Clerk of the Privy Council and of all Canadian Civil Servants, many will say, and should resign immediately to restore the confidence Canadians have in their historically admirable body of Civil Servants. 

If huge bribes are necessary to get contracts in some foreign countries which act outside The Rule of Law, then … SNC-Lavalin and the Liberal Party of Canada seem to be saying … ‘don’t work to bring those countries under The Rule of Law.  Instead, degrade Canada to their level of criminal behaviour as the normal state of “doing business”’.

That is a fact of present government (and Deep State criminal influence) in the Western World  that must be stopped in its tracks. That is the nine-tenths of the SNC-Lavalin Iceberg out-of-sight. That is, quite simply, the smoke-and-mirrors effort to con Canadians into thinking the removal of large corporations in Canada from the Rule of Law is, in fact, bringing them through special recognition into full relation to the Rule of Law! ! 

The tendency across the Western World (notably in Europe) is towards the creation of apparently democratic neo-liberal governments … which not long ago in history were called “proto-fascist” governments.  Whatever their apparent focus – national or international – their basic loyalty was and is to big Capital; their basic intention is to release great wealth from the restriction of the Rule of Law, their basic goal is to create a New World Order characterized by domination of a Deep State over all of the rest of life: human, ecological, spatial….

Canadians are indebted to Jody Wilson-Raybould and her integrity … bringing to the attention of the population not only the shabby values of the PM and PMO and of the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick … but also the destructive actions of large corporations in league with a Canadian government to pervert and/or by-pass The Rule of Law in Canada.

The “deferred prosecution” legislation for large corporations must be erased from Canadian legislation.  Which Party will promise that in the coming election??

Author’s Note: [Thirty Liberal MPs registered their opinions of the treatment of Jody Wilson-Raybould in the March 2 Globe and Mail. None saw her as being unfairly pressured by the PM or PMO or others to impose a deferred prosecution regime upon the Prosecutions Office. None mentioned that she was dumped from the position of Justice Minister and Attorney General when she refused to buckle to the pressure which, they are all confident, was never applied.]

*

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

Is the city of many nicknames ready for political change for the better, serving its residents more equitably?

Familiar nicknames include the Windy City, referring to political, not atmospheric, wind; Second City (to NY), Sinatra’s My Kind of Town, That Toddlin Town, for poet Carl Sandburg the City of Big Shoulders, among many others.

William “Big Bill” Thompson was Chicago’s last Republican mayor, his second of two terms ending in November 1931 – undemocratic Dems running the city since then with one exception.

The late Harold Washington’s 1983 mayoral triumph ushered in hoped for change, the city’s first Black mayor, after being nominated, saying “(w)e were slow to move from the protest movement into politics,” adding:

“We were lulled to sleep thinking that passing a few laws was enough. But we’ve got to be involved in the mainstream political activity. That’s what’s happening here in Chicago.”

He served until November 25, 1987, the city’s 41st mayor, a cut way above his predecessors and successors, dying prematurely in office at age-65, a tragic loss.

He was found slumped over his desk in city hall unconscious, rushed to nearby Northwestern Memorial Hospital where attempts to revive him failed – leaving supporters shocked, dismayed, and deeply saddened over the loss of the only mayor in memory who addressed the rights and well-being of ordinary city residents.

Heart failure took him, a larger than life figure in stature and physical size with an unhealthy enlarged heart, what the diagnosis of his death confirmed.

No one like him followed as city mayor. He was an exception to the rule. Long ago alderman Paddy Bowler saying “Chicago ain’t ready for reform” didn’t apply to Harold, what many Chicagoans called him affectionately.

Winners of Chicago Dem mayoral primary elections automatically go on to defeat GOP rivals in the general election, how it’s been for almost 90 years, this time no different with a twist.

Of the 14 Dem aspirants competing in the February 26 primary, six were African-Americans, two winning more voter support than others. They’ll meet in the general election for the mayoral post on April 2.

For the second time in Chicago history, a Black candidate will become mayor, the second woman ever to hold the post. Jane Byrne served as city mayor from April 1979 – April 1983.

A personal note: After leaving office and losing its perks, amenities, chauffeured limousines and all the rest, Byrne stood in front of me in the same line at our local bank, waiting like others to reach a teller to conduct our business – what city mayors have subordinates do for them along with other personal chores, no longer when returning to private life.

On April 2, either Toni Preckwinkle or Lori Lightfoot will become Chicago mayor, whether a crack in longtime machine politics is achieved remains to be seen.

Several progressive challengers entered the race to succeed establishment Mayor Rahm Emanuel, former congressman, Obama chief of staff and investment banker – known as Mayor 1%, serving the city’s privileged class, disdainful of its ordinary mass majority.

Preckwinkle and Lightfoot finishing ahead of other mayoral aspirants bore testimony to Chicagoans wanting political change – getting it another matter entirely, but hope springs eternal even in a city known for corrupt machine politics fed by deep-seated political patronage.

Machine favorite Bill Daley losing was a positive sign, brother of former Mayor Richard M. Daley, son of Richard J. Daley. The family ran Chicago for 43 years, supported by a rubber-stamp City Council, much the same under hardline neoliberal corporatist Emanuel.

The late Chicago-based Citizens Committee to Clean up the Courts chairman Sherman Skolnick called him the “acting deputy chief for North America of Mossad.”

His father, Benjamin, was involved in smuggling weapons to the Jewish Irgun underground terrorist group (co-led by future Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin) in Palestine pre-1948.

Emanuel served as an IDF volunteer during the 1991 Gulf War, holding dual US/Israeli citizenship, notoriously pro-war throughout his political career. He won’t be missed.

Hopefully Chicago’s next major will be more social-minded, cut out of the Harold Washington mold, supporters calling his time in office the city’s camelot period lost with his untimely death, his legacy dismantled by successors.

He was a people’s mayor, a community leader with ties to grassroots organizations, combined with political savvy, independent of city machine politics – all of the above reasons for his popularity, able to forge progressive multi-racial/multi-ethnic coalitions, successfully dealing with opposition machine pols.

His time in office was Chicago’s finest hour. Can it be resurrected by Preckwinkle or Lightfoot? Supporters believe they represent progressive social change.

Preckwinkle is president of the Cook Count Board of Commissioners, a former Chicago City Council member, an advocate of affordable housing, a living wage, and other social issues, a strong opponent of notorious city police brutality and use of excessive force against least advantaged residents.

Lightfoot was a federal prosecutor, earlier involved in investigating Chicago corruption. She formerly served as chief administrator of the city’s Department of Professional Standards, a defunct police oversight group.

Most recently, she serving as a senior equity partner in the Litigation and Conflict Resolution Group at Mayer Brown LLP, providing services for the firm’s clients. Her responsibilities included involvement on its Diversity and Inclusion Committee.

Weeks ahead of Chicago’s April general election, ordinary city residents hope their new mayor will serve all Chicagoans equitably – a positive sea change in pre-and-post Harold Washington’s tenure if things turn out this way.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Yes, Mr. Trump had to walk. As he didn’t get his way, he had the audacity to get up and walk out of a meeting with Kim Jong-un, the President of the DPRK, of North Korea. As arrogant as it behooves the king of a failing and crumbling empire. But did he walk by his own will? Or was he, the most “powerful man in the world”, coerced by his handlers, represented by former CIA boss, Mike Pompeo, to abandon the denuclearization negotiations, i.e. no concessions on killer sanctions, or as Kim Jong-un said,

“we would like to see the five sanctions (out of eleven) lifted, those that most harm our people and their economic well-being.”

Therefore, Pyongyang was ready to permanently shut down the Yongbyon nuclear complex, an important nuclear research center for DPRK. Kim Jong-un was also ready to invite international observers to witness the dismantling process, and he was ready to stop medium range missile testing – all for giving his people, the North Koreans a ‘breather’ – a better life.

He requested some of the most harming sanctions to be lifted. A reasonable request. And at the outset it looked like Trump was happy with this arrangement. He had already basically agreed to stopping the aggressive annual military maneuvers with South Korea on the borders of the DPRK.

In any case, Trump was in no hurry. This was the second of a series of one-to-one summits with Kim. Trumps ego seems to enjoy this publicity. Why not make it last a bit longer? Give a little bit, but not too much, so the talks continue – and he would still call the shots. But Trump didn’t even give a little bit. He gave nothing, zilch, zero. So, something happened. Pompeo was constantly by Trump’s side, except for the 45 minutes Trump and Kim had a truly one-to-one talk – of which so far nothing has penetrated into the public, other than that it was cordial.

The turn-around was sudden. Trump demanded full denuclearization before he would even talk about lifting sanctions. The give-nothing and demand-everything approach obviously didn’t fly with Mr. Kim. Trump apparently didn’t even want to talk about a long overdue peace agreement – technically DPRK and the US have been at war for the last 70 years. Stalemate. Trump walked. No written statement. Nothing.

“We will meet again. I actually enjoy our meetings” – or something to that effect he told the press, as he ‘walked’. All the focus on Mr. Trump. The narcissist. The big master who can command world leaders around the globe to meet with him, the one-man show, the self-styled brilliant negotiator, is raising expectations – but never delivers. And even, if there are mutually signed statements or legally binding agreements – Trump breaks them.

One of the latest flagrant breach of an international agreement, is the Iran Nuclear Deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in Vienna on 14 July 2015 between Iran, the P5+1, and the European Union. Instead of lifting sanctions – as was the deal, Trump imposed more sanctions and threatened the other signatories with more sanctions, if they didn’t follow Washington’s lead. That’s where we are in this world of deceit and more deception and lies. – How could Mr. Kim trust any word President Trump utters in his wonderfully colorful language that he uses for the common people to understand what he means!

But it seems all of this still does not explain everything that’s going on, be it with North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Afghanistan – and who knows – whatever other victim is in the crosshairs of the United States for regime change, for exploitation, economic and humanitarian strangulation.

Is Pompeo the answer? Did he boycott the Hanoi meeting? He is indeed the murderer-in-chief, as former CIA director, who doesn’t shy away from suggesting that if Mr. Kim Jong-un shows up dead one day – well don’t ask me or the CIA. Pompeo has watched over a long list of political assassinations – he insinuated a similar fate for Mr. Maduro. He is dishing out death threats left and right. And the world is not even stunned anymore, its common practice of the US of A – murdering ’inconvenient’ people. The CIA is the chief instrument for these killing; they have hundred years of practice – with an insane intensification after WWII.

Is Pompeo representing the “Deep Government”? – Which in desperation needs to show muscle; must demonstrate to the world that US hegemony is still reigning the globe. Alas, it’s a mere propaganda scheme, upheld by a bought corrupt western media system. It’s Goebbels lie-propaganda by a factor of hundred. “Let me control the media and I will turn any Nation into a herd of Pigs” (Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Propaganda Minister). Western society may already be converted into a ‘herd of pigs’.

Nothing could be farther from the truth, than what the western Anglo-Zion media propagates day-in-day out. It is beating the war drums. It becomes “common values” – and is believed and found natural by masses of people. “War is Peace” as the current opinion goes, openly propagated by such illustrious newspapers as the WashPost. Death and destruction are very, very profitable, for a few weapon industry oligarchs. Thus, the steaming Washington swamp – and add to it Hollywood – is still a brilliant example for the world and therefore, still intimidatingly relevant.

Ever-so-often, we, the public at large should be reminded of UN Resolution 1947: Propaganda for war is a war crime. This was echoed in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of November 3, 1947 that denounced war propaganda:

“The General Assembly condemns all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”

Back to DPRK and Donald Trump: On February 27 and 28, the two leaders of North Korea and the United States met to talk ‘de-nuclearizing’ of the northern part of the Korean Peninsula, and, of course, the lifting of the killer sanctions – and I must repeat time and again – totally illegal sanctions. All interference by one country in another sovereign nation, especially economic and military meddling, as the US is doing, is by all international standards, including the UN Charter, and by the rules of Human Rights – ILLEGAL. The world should remember – and light up, instead of falling asleep and nodding, when Washington’s arrogance hit another ‘un-aligned’ un-submissive country with economic sanctions. – Wake up, vassals, it may happen to you – while you are watching idiotic Hollywood soap.

Yes, Mr. Trump you should “walk”, not just out of summit meetings with leaders of other countries – but walk as far as to disappear for good in a distant cloud – and take Pompeo, Bolton and Abramsalong. The world would be a better place. Not good, but better – it might wake up and think about sovereignty, about solidarity, about friendship and about friendly trading again. What if a New Order of Peace, Harmony and of a Multipolar orld would be born? – Instead of the One World Order of aggression, exploitation and indiscriminate killing, currently driven by Washington and its crony vassal states.

What, then, would “Deep Government” do? Those who won’t relent until achieving full world hegemony, or as the PNAC (Plan for a New American Century) calls it – Full Spectrum Dominance.– Might it pull the ultimate trigger and eradicate civilization as we know it, humanity that we are supposed to be – into the abyss of extermination? – Would it invent a new clan of Trumpnicks to finish the job?

Mr. Kim traveled in good fate by train from Pyongyang to Hanoi, to the second meeting with the Donald, hoping to get some sanctions relief as was agreed when they met the first time, last June in Singapore. North Korea destroyed nuclear testing tunnels and a missile test stand. The US counterpart obligation was to begin denuclearization of South Korea and start peace talks. It didn’t happen. This time, Kim was ready to give up even more. According to Trump,

“they were willing to denuke a large portion of the areas that we wanted, but we couldn’t give up all of the sanctions for that, so we’ll continue to work and we’ll see. But we had to walk away from that particular suggestion. We had to walk away from that.”

This propaganda stint should show the world who is still the master. Kim wanted a better life for the people of the DPRK, a life without sanctions, a life of wellbeing that may develop with the strength and will of North Korea’s sovereign people. Trump just wanted his ego boosted – again and again. He is a sick man. In that sense he is ideal for the “Deep State”, for those who pull the strings from their invisible darkness. Imagine, the western world is run by a psychopath. To accept such leadership (sic), the vassalic west must be psychotic too. Are we, western un-civilization – for lack of a more accurate word – committing unwittingly suicide? There is no sanity left. We seem to have gone way beyond the point of no return.

Yes, Mr. Trump, it looks like you let your apparent noble thoughts for the summit be sabotaged by the bloody hands of Mike Pompeo, and maybe with a little help from John Bolton. Yes, you should be walking away; you should be walking away from Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Libya – and also Iran, all of which you attempt to suffocate with sanctions and more sanctions. In Iran it doesn’t work anymore. Iran has chosen the east – is moving towards the east, adapting to and soon will be integrating into eastern monetary systems, as well as political and military alliances, like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Is it possible that in the larger scheme of things empire’s last straw strategy is intimidating the world that there will be no concessions, no lifting of sanctions, no abandoning of the path of destruction for those nations who refuse to bend to Washington’s master and its European and South American puppets?

*

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.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21^stCentury; TeleSUR; The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is an Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead

The recent release of the proposed Green New Deal is a template, an outline identifying some of the most crucial issues facing the nation regarding climate change and a wish list of measures to address those issues. It contains a variety of inspired agenda items, many of which have been voiced by the Green Party and environmental fringe groups in Washington for over a decade. According to the Deal’s Fact Sheet, 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Deal.

Almost every Democrat throwing their hat into the 2020 presidential race backs it. And the Deal has gained wide approval in the climatology and atmospheric science communities; among hundreds of conservation, environmental, renewable energy, and social activist organizations; and within the younger generation. It has been a long time coming, and the question is whether it is too late. It is optimistic to think that we can reverse accelerating global warming trends and mitigate their impact by keeping the planet below the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 1.5 degree C warming mark for the next 12 years, and it is even more optimistic to think that Congress will be able to enact legislation like this without prioritizing the interests of the multinational corporations and lobbies that contribute to their re-election campaigns over the people who elected them.

It took no time for the Deal’s co-authors, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Democrat Senator Ed Markey, to be broadsided with disparaging criticisms by corporate leaders and political opponents, including old rank-and-file Democrats. The critics include the President of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, fossil fuel backer Terry O’Sullivan, who labeled the report a “fantasy manifesto” that will create “divisions and inequality.”  Billionaire Michael Bloomberg called it “pie in the sky.” And Pelosi and her multi-million dollar corporate colleagues are simply clueless about the “Green Dream or whatever they call it,” as Pelosi dismissed it. But there are plenty of legitimate criticisms too, and progressives would be wise not to let their desire to see pro-environmental legislation enacted at last blind them to the very real problems with Ocasio-Cortez and a legislative blueprint that could very easily become as much of a giveaway to multinational corporations as the Affordable Care Act was to insurance companies.

The Green New Deal largely relies for precedent upon the idealism behind great accomplishments in the US’ history when the nation succeeded in mobilizing to tackle difficult challenges that critics argued could never be accomplished.  Examples include FDR’s transformation of the private auto and manufacturing industries to meet military needs during World War 2, Eisenhower’s interstate highway system, and the achievement of JFK’s promise to reach the moon before the end of the 1960s.

Although Washington remains strait-jacked by the interests of the finance and energy lobbies, at the local level, constructive change is happening. Over one hundred cities across the country have issued statements pledging to transition to 100 percent renewable energy.₁ Unfortunately, their dateline targets are far off track, and the best case, Hawaii, is looking at reaching 100 percent clean energy efficiency in another 26 years. Farmers are forgoing energy-intensive chemical agriculture and transitioning to organic. And the public is becoming increasingly more aware and educated about their energy usage and slowly changing its consumption habits. Nevertheless, compared to other developed nations, the US lags far behind in reaching realistic targets to address the IPCC’s 1.5 degree prediction, which is overly conservative. Absent the IPCC’s statistical limitations, the actual time frame, according to most independent climate scientists, is more dire. We may have only 7 years to get off fossil fuels.

However, reaching the Deal’s goal is potentially doable if the country’s industries and finance giants get behind it. Sweden already gets over half of its energy from renewables. In 2015, Denmark’s wind farm industry reached 140 percent of energy demands. In 2016 Portugal reached a milestone by operating for four days without any fossil fuels.₂ Due to its favorable clean energy geothermal resources, Iceland generates the most clean energy per capita in the world; almost 90 percent of its total energy needs are satisfied by non-fossil fuel sources. Costa Rica has managed to run for over two months on 100 percent renewables. In 10 years, Uruguay’s unique public and private sector partnerships now supply 95 percent of its national energy needs with renewables.₃ Many other nations are also making aggressive efforts to power themselves exclusively with clean energy.  And where does the US stand?  According to the US Energy Information Administration, for 2017, non-fossil fuel sources only accounted for a dismal 20 percent of energy consumption.  And still 34 percent of fuel for our electric power sector relies on coal!₄ While getting off fossil fuel dependency is absolutely critical, the US’s electricity production only accounts for 28 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions (GHEs). While switching to renewable energy for electrical power needs is very likely achievable, the obstacles to reach the IPCC target are enormous.

In our estimation, several stumbling blocks may make it impossible for the US to eliminate fossil fuels during the next dozen years. Aside from opposition within with the Democratic Party by corporatists such as Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Steny Hoyer, the cost to overhaul all industry, manufacturing and current and new technological developments would be astronomical. A Republican-aligned think tank, the American Action Forum, recently published a report estimating the Green New Deal would cost between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over ten years, though the lion’s share of that sum relates to the Deal’s provision of jobs and healthcare for all, rather than its environmental measures. Eliminating carbon emissions from the power and transportation sector, the group said, would “only” cost between $8.3 and $12.3 trillion over a decade. The national debt is already almost $22 trillion and growing. Since Trump took office, the debt has increased $2 trillion, and there is no indication it will shrink. Increasingly extreme weather and its aftereffects will only further raise the debt.

A closer examination of these numbers is required. The “official” price tag of the “War on Terror,” which has laid waste to the Middle East over the last 20 years, creating an endless supply of future enemies by slaughtering entire villages full of civilians via depersonalized drone warfare, recently climbed north of $6 trillion,₅ and an investigation last year turned up an eye-popping $21 trillion in fraudulent budgeting by the Pentagon and the Department of Housing and Urban Development₆. Thousands of whistleblowers are swept under the rug by the Defense Department’s Inspector General every year in their efforts to call attention to waste and fraud within the wealthiest military in the world. The first-ever attempt to audit the Pentagon, performed last year, was an embarrassing failure, revealing $6.5 trillion had simply vanished.₇ The US spends nearly $1 trillion a year on “defense”₈– and while no one would suggest dismantling the American military, there are thousands of bases sprinkled around the world in countries the US does not belong, with undeclared conflicts raging in 134 countries.₉ Surely some of this largesse could be repurposed to save the planet.

There is always money in the budget for war, which currently eats up more than half of every dollar spent by the US government, despite the fact that the US is not facing any credible military threats from state actors. Despite the evidence-free charges it meddled in the 2016 election, Russia does not pose a threat to the US – indeed, Russian President Vladimir Putin in a recent speech expressed frustration that Russia was “banging on a locked door” regarding friendship between the two nations, rendered all but impossible with every round of draconian sanctions imposed as a form of legislative virtue-signaling by congressmen eager to demonstrate their allegiance in Cold War Part 2.₁₀ Even China prefers to flex its muscles economically, rather than militarily, spending trillions to build its Belt and Road throughout the developing world and amassing allies by funding large infrastructure projects – where the US has historically bullied poorer nations into submissions through military force. The Green New Deal would merely take roughly the yearly expenditure on the War on Terror and use it for constructive, rather than destructive, purposes. Troops returning from costly and destructive foreign wars could even be put to work planting trees or building infrastructure, much as environmental projects are undertaken in less wealthy nations.

Because that scary $12.3 trillion figure is the cost if the Green New Deal were undertaken in the typical American fashion of rolling out grand legislation. If environmental reforms were enacted the way other countries work, the figure would shrink dramatically. Unfortunately, Ocasio-Cortez is open about her wish to work with “business interests” to get the job done, just as Barack Obama was willing to work with the insurance companies to pass the Affordable Care Act, resulting in a ruinously expensive and flawed plan that forced Americans to buy health insurance they could not afford while subsidizing a tiny sliver of the population. Healthcare costs did not go down – they skyrocketed – and healthcare quality certainly did not improve. Involving corporations with their profit-above-all value system guarantees the Green New Deal will enrich wealthy conglomerates like Bechtel and Halliburton. These will receive the big contracts for building renewable infrastructure, repurposing existing infrastructure, etc. but will contract the work out to other, smaller companies while keeping most of the money as profit. The smaller companies will then outsource the jobs (constructing solar panels in the desert, say, or planting a hardy forest on now-barren disused farmland) to poorly-paid local firms, while keeping most of the remaining money as profit. The poorly-paid local firms will then do the jobs with the cheapest materials and shoddiest standards in the hope of retaining whatever funds are left for their CEOs and investors. This is the American way, and it is why any grand infrastructure or rebuilding project costs so much.

If enacted along the lines of past grand projects like the Affordable Care Act, the Green New Deal will essentially be a giveaway to the big corporations Ocasio-Cortez claims to oppose, with her champagne socialism, neoliberal economics degree, and unhealthy affection for the trappings of wealth and power. It is no secret that the very real climate catastrophe we all face has been weaponized by multinational interests interested in pushing global governance measures as the only “solution” to the climate change problem. Too often, this has made those rightly suspicious of the motives of government and the ruling class also doubt the existence of climate change, in a form of guilt by association. But taking action on a grand scale need not be ruinously expensive or involve an authoritarian clampdown on the rights of the individual. China assigned 60,000 soldiers to plant enough trees to cover an area the size of Ireland last year₁₁ with an aim toward eventually upping their forest coverage from 21 percent to 26 percent by 2035. Even Bangladesh – one of the poorest countries in the world – began planting one million trees in 2017 after rural deforestation had so denuded the countryside that farmers were dying from lightning strikes at high rates, copying a similar program in Thailand.₁₂India set a world record – twice! – using millions of volunteers to plant trees in order to bring its forests in line with the commitments it made under the Paris Agreement. With modern technology like “seed bombing,” a single airplane or drone can plant 900,000 trees in a day, dropping seeds encased in ready-to-grow soil bundles. This technology is already used in Africa, and it has advanced significantly beyond simply dropping seeds indiscriminately – modern seed bombing drones are equipped with imaging capability to ensure the seeds go where they are most likely to thrive.  None of this requires outsourcing, subcontracting, slicing and dicing profit margins, or any of the typically American approaches to the problem, and it will save billions.

Relying on the government to do the right thing almost invariably leaves one disappointed. If it was not Ocasio-Cortez pushing cooperation with the business community as an integral part of the Deal, it would be another congressperson. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and the US Chamber of Commerce – the “business lobby” – is so massive it’s difficult for lawmakers to see outside its edges. Add in the size of the “energy lobby” and it’s easy to see how lawmakers find it difficult to conceive of taking large-scale action in a way that does not primarily benefit large corporations. The voice of the people has not been heard in Washington in decades, and it’s doubtful it would be recognized if it was heard.

Moreover, although the US is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases (15 percent of global total emissions), China far surpasses us at 30 percent. Together with the European Union (10 percent) and India (6 percent), these four regions account for over half of all GHEs. The bottom 100 countries combined only contribute to 3.5 percent. Launching a universal, global environmental Marshall Plan may well be beyond humanity’s means. If we consider that China is currently constructing a single sprawling megapolis that will cover over 83,000 square miles — larger than Great Britain or New England — it is impossible to imagine how such a humongous urban operation could not be unsustainable and fossil-fuel dependent. The booming city of Jing-Jin-Ji will be the heaviest concentration of human beings on the planet, housing upwards of 130 million people, or the equivalent of the combined populations of the world’s four largest cities: Tokyo, New Delhi, Shanghai and Sao Paulo. And all of these residents will want the conveniences of a modern, western lifestyle: more cars, more meat on their tables and more energy-consuming luxuries.

Surprisingly, surveys seem to indicate that the Chinese are better-educated about climate change than the average American. After last year’s record-breaking heatwaves, droughts, deadly flash floods and a category 5 typhoon, 94 percent of Chinese polled said they believe climate change is happening now and 66 percent believe it is anthropocentric.  Seventy-three percent are willing to pay extra for climate-friendly products.  Yet similar to average Americans, the Chinese are not changing their consumption habits to adapt to the new climate reality. Likewise, similar to the US, the Chinese government is eager to press forward with unsustainable growth projects that will increase rather than decrease emissions.₁₃

Among the other stumbling blocks the Green New Deal faces is that Washington has unfortunately almost reached its goal of being totally energy independent. While we produce the most energy in the world, we also consume the most per capita.  The US has also risen to the third largest fossil fuel exporter, after Saudi Arabia and Russia. Together, these three nations account for 38 percent of the world’s total oil.₁₄ At the same time the US still needs to import petroleum, predominantly for our auto and transportation demands. Although the US now produces about 11 million barrels per day, it consumes almost 20 million barrels daily.₁₅ For natural gas production, the US is king, and is expected to reach over 90 billion cubic feet per day of production, according to the EIA.₁₆ Trump’s abhorrent policies have revitalized the coal industry and escalated production. Worse, the oil and coal industries are the recipients of monstrous corporate welfare to the tune of $20 billion in annual government subsidies.₁₇

Jeremy Brecher properly notes that “global warming has rightly been called history’s greatest market failure. Correcting it cannot be left to the market.”₁₈ Unlike the faux urgency for building a silly wall on the border, climate change is THE national emergency. It is a planetary emergency. Therefore, when thousands of large and small coal-gas-oil related companies reap enormous windfalls, employ almost 1.1 million workers  — compared to under 374,000 working full- or part-time in solar and 102,000 at wind firms — there is zero incentive for any of these major greenhouse gas emitters to leap off the gravy train and shift to cleaner, renewable forms of energy.₁₉

A second major obstacle to the Green New Deal is that all of our leading institutions, politicians, legislative policymakers and opinion leaders, think tanks and foundations, and the mainstream media that is controlled by these institutions, are not going to truthfully challenge the paradigm of free-market capitalism and the myth that constant economic growth and expansion will better society. This means we only have more toxic pollution, urban sprawl, destruction of the environment and habitats, and depletion of natural resources to look forward to, and with it, warmer seasons and more extreme weather events such as superstorms, droughts, wildfires, and floods.

This may be the 3,000-pound gorilla in the room. We are caught in the perpetual cycle of earning more in order to buy more and accumulate more debt. The transition of weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels to increase investment in renewables and the new technologies necessary to meet the IPCC benchmark means a tradeoff for a much slower or no-growth economy in order to reach a more sustainable and livable future.  It may require up to $10 trillion to re-engineer entire industries and infrastructures in order to reach anything close to zero emissions. Yet with America’s new wealthy class of 11 million millionaires governing private industries, investments and policy-making to keep the capitalist engine churning, enactment of the kind of green agenda proposed and demanded today is unlikely. Again, there is no incentive for the ruling elite to cut back on consumption. The legions of lobbyists in Washington will make every effort to scuttle the Green New Deal and ensure it is dead on arrival. The ruling class has no allegiance to nationality. It is the most unpatriotic class in the nation. When the stresses of climate change get tough or their personal security and assets are threatened, the ruling class have the means to pick up and move elsewhere.

Furthermore, the ruling class and the conservative populace — even those educated enough to agree on anthropocentric climate change – lean heavily upon Libertarian values, which means smaller government and more freedom for the free market. Looking at the Green New Deal from any angle, it is clear this plan will require handing over enormous power to Washington. Trust in all branches of government has already eroded to a level where even true progressives doubt anything good can come out of the duopoly in Washington. Therefore, a sizable percentage of the public will be deeply suspicious of the government’s will and competence in executing any legislation that emerges from the Deal’s current outline.

The free-market economy is polluting everything, creating seas of plastic, landfills of toxic junk, and stores of computers and electronic equipment. Forests and ecosystems are being leveled to expand growth. There is little to no time to dramatically change our steel, auto, and high tech industries. And private industries and the population’s collective consumption behaviors will not change overnight. While we commend the Green New Deal’s authors and the progressive caucus that backs it, we encourage the public not to become passive with high expectations that Washington is willing or capable of solving the climate crisis. There are no saviors. Blind faith should not be directed towards the compliance of Washington, nor to new technologies developed to pull us through.  We live in remarkably tense times; but drastic times require drastic measures. In fact, the Deal may not be radical enough. Gutting our military expenditure — the largest fossil fuel consumer as well as the top recipient of our tax dollars — and the Washington Consensus’ cowboy adventurism to instigate regime changes as the world burns is absent from its wish list.

Are there any solutions that are doable without the body politic of government standing in the way?  Reducing GHEs can no longer be regarded as solely a challenge for government and private industry. It is a responsibility of every individual.

First, the public must become deeply and consciously aware of the climate problem and how our lives and culture contribute to global warming. We must also become deeply and consciously aware of how our lives will change as the world deteriorates. Our education system has been a complete failure in teaching people about the basic science of climate change and the immediate and long-term impacts of global warming.  Nothing we can do will efficaciously change the melting of the Arctic ice, the warming oceans and environmental dead zones, multi-gigaton methane burps from the thawing permafrost, the decimation of insect populations that will contribute to national food crises, rising coastal waters and the next season of record-setting wildfires in the Western states. The next category 5 super-hurricane could be the final straw for many Floridians and residents living along the Gulf. Industrial over-consumption is depleting our aquifers. There are in fact hundreds of canaries in the coal mine, not just one.

Second, every person and family can begin to gradually transition to eating a plant-based diet. This does not need to be an abrupt change. We can start by going meatless for a single day every week and then increase the days. The agriculture industry generates anywhere between 10 and 40 percent of GHEs, primarily methane and nitrous oxide, depending upon which metrics are being used in the equations. The United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that livestock production accounts for about 14.5 percent of all human-caused emissions.₂₀ In the US, 42 percent of agricultural emissions come from the raising of livestock, and globally it accounts for approximately 16 percent of all human-induced GHEs.₂₁ When storage, transportation and distribution of meat and produce are added, the CO2 footprint rises substantially. Imagine the footprint of a single bushel of tomatoes traveling from a California farm to a Maine supermarket.  If a sufficient number of people also purchase more locally-grown food, this too would have an impact. These are two efforts — a meatless diet and buying locally — that every American can adopt in order to be part of the solution rather than the problem.

Third, our consumption behaviors are traveling on a high speed rail off a cliff. We have the will to make conscientious choices about our buying habits. There is only one solution to this and that is to downsize, purchase only what is essential for our needs and find other ways to increase the quality of our lives.  Before making a purchase, consider the item’s carbon footprint before it reaches your hands. As the world gets warmer and the economic and social stresses of life increase, inevitably a time will arrive when people will be forced to downsize. It will no longer be a matter of choice.

Finally, if it is within your financial means, find ways to increase your reliance on renewable clean energy sources. If you can install solar panels to get off the grid and become energy self-sufficient, it will pay off in the long term. Although there remains considerable debate on whether or not our global civilization has reached a “peak oil” moment, oil prices will unquestionably increase steadily in the future.

What the nation can do collectively is adequately if vaguely summarized in the Green New Deal. During a press conference following the report’s release, Sen. Markey and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez were clear that the plan at this time does not include any “individual prescriptions” for the issues outlined. The details and following legislation will be developed following Congressional vote and approval and the creation of a Congressional committee to develop the solutions. However, the Deal is clearly defined as a “national, industrial, economic mobilization plan.” It will take years for the US to become “greenhouse gas emission neutral.” The report notes that it will require “massive investment” to reduce existing and future greenhouse gases. It acknowledges it is crucial to develop and install “a national, energy-efficient smart grid,” upgrade our entire infrastructure, residential and industrial base for “state-of-the-art energy efficiency,” and eliminate GHE from the agricultural industry. The report also includes the need for expanding education and training for such a nationwide mobilization effort.

The report also finally acknowledges that America’s energy grid is a disaster. The majority of people and even most politicians are unaware our energy and power infrastructures are sorely inefficient.  In an analysis conducted by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories to evaluate US energy consumption, 59.1 percent of electricity generation was “rejected energy” — energy lost due to inefficiencies in power plants, engines, buildings, etc.₂₂ Almost all of this “rejected energy” is generated from coal, natural gas and petroleum. In the Livermore report, renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal barely contributed to any infrastructural energy loss.₂₃ And yet Washington, and the Trump administration in particular, find it economically feasible to subsidize these fossil fuel industries for their ineptitude, negligence towards energy efficiency and exorbitant waste. Even Ocasio-Cortez seems to believe progress can be achieved by working with these monuments to inefficiency. This is naïve at best, and disingenuous at worst. In a true capitalist system – such as our president pays lip service to at every opportunity – the best performers come out on top. Why, then, does the government continually prop up failed systems, from energy to banking? This money would be better invested in funding sustainable alternatives.

A simple fact that opponents of the Deal in private industry, Wall Street and climate change deniers fail to understand as a rule is that the enormous costs for implementing a New Deal are already here. And they have been increasing annually due to rising frequency and damages from extreme weather events due to humanity’s messing with the atmosphere and environment.  NASA conservatively reported $91 billion lost in damages due to climate change episodes in 2018 alone.₂₄ And the federal government’s most recent National Climate Assessment warns we will rapidly reach $500 billion per year in economic losses due to sea level rise and worsening weather, droughts, storms, floods and fires.₂₅

Next, it is sheer negligence that the federal and state governments have failed to upgrade our public transportation system. The US falls far behind even banana republics in its inefficient rail system compared to high speed 200-plus mph rails in China, France, Japan and elsewhere. Creating a new high-speed rail system across America may be too optimistic at this time; nevertheless, upgrading our trains between major urban hubs is perfectly doable immediately. This would mean high-speed rails between Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, Dallas and Houston, and Los Angeles, San Francisco and Las Vegas for starters. High speed trains between these city hubs would significantly reduce the carbon footprint of transportation and could even be faster than airlines after considering time spent at airports. It could also be accomplished at the state level through public-private partnerships. In addition, a tax incentive could be added for those who use public transportation.

Finally, the nation needs to act immediately upon a national reforestation program and roll back the Trump’s regressive orders to further devastate public land and ecosystems to increase corporate profits. Forests and trees are recognized as perhaps the most important natural resource to offset carbon emissions. China and India are making huge advances in reforesting their nations. China has reserved an area four times the size of the United Kingdom for reforestation. There are few areas on the planet with large swathes of forest canopies. Most are located in northern Canada, the Latin American countries in the Amazon basin, Scandinavia and Russia. Therefore, we would recommend a national conservation corps to start an aggressive reforestation campaign. If India can hold the world record in planting 66 million trees within a 12 hour period in 2017, and a single 53-year-old New Delhi resident can plant 1,100,000 trees in a single year, the US could reforest ourselves easily in a short period of time.

For all the Deal’s good points, it will go nowhere if the legislation that results is larded with giveaways to the same industries and corporations that led us to environmental and economic ruin in the first place. Ocasio-Cortez’s desire to liaise with these actors may be born out of a genuine desire for cooperation, but it is more likely her Democratic Socialism is being used as a more palatable face for the same rapacious neoliberalism that has created all the problems the Deal purports to solve. While we wait for government to get its act together and legislate its way out of this mess, we would be wise to begin solving as many problems as we can ourselves even as we hold our government representatives’ feet to the fire.

*

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

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including Poverty Inc and Deadly Deception.

Notes

1 Steinbrecher, Stephanie. “100 US Cities are Committed to 100 Percent Clean, Renewable Energy.” Sierra Club. 5 Dec 2018. https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2018/12/100-us-cities-are-committed-100-percent-clean-renewable-energy

2 Osborne, Samuel. “Sweden phases out fossil fuels in attempt to run completely off renewable energy.” Independent. 24 May 2016.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-phases-out-fossil-fuels-in-attempt-to-run-completely-off-renewable-energy-a7047306.html

3 “12 Countries Leading the Way in Renewable Energy.” Click Energy. 10 Aug 2017. https://www.clickenergy.com.au/news-blog/12-countries-leading-the-way-in-renewable-energy/

4 US Energy Information Administration. “Where Greenhouse Gases Come From.” Energy and the Environment Explained. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=environment_where_ghg_come_from Retrieved 27 Feb 2019.

5 Watson Institute of International & Public Affairs. “Costs of War.” Brown University. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar Retrieved 27 Feb 2019.

6 Skidmore, Mark and Andy Henion. “MSU scholars find $21 trillion in unauthorized government spending; defense department to conduct first-ever audit.” MSUToday. 11 Dec 2017. https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/msu-scholars-find-21-trillion-in-unauthorized-government-spending-defense-department-to-conduct/

7 Syrmopoulos, Jay. Audit: Pentagon Cannot Account for $6.5 Trillion Dollars in Taxpayer Money.” MintPress. 8 Aug 2016. https://www.mintpressnews.com/audit-pentagon-cannot-account-6-5-trillion-dollars-taxpayer-money/219246/

8 Cordesman, Anthony. “US Military Spending: The Cost of Wars.” Center for Strategic & International Studies. 10 Jul 2017. https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-military-spending-cost-wars

9 Turse, Nick. “America’s Secret War in 134 Countries.” The Nation. 16 Jan 2014. https://www.thenation.com/article/americas-secret-war-134-countries/

10 “Putin: Russia is not an enemy of US, but it will not be banging on a locked door.” FARS News Agency. 21 Feb 2019. https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/other/putin-russia-is-not-an-enemy-of-us-but-it-will-not-be-banging-on-a-locked-door/ar-BBTTCfE

11 Osborne, Samuel. “China reassigns 60,000 soldiers to plant trees in bid to fight pollution.”Independent. 13 Feb 2018. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-tree-plant-soldiers-reassign-climate-change-global-warming-deforestation-a8208836.html

12 “Bangladesh plants 1 million trees to cut lightning toll.” Straits Times. 24 Jan 2017. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/south-asia/bangladesh-plants-1-million-trees-to-cut-lightning-toll

13 Jing, Lin. “Does the Chinese public care about climate change?” China Dialogue. 21 Sep 2018. https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/10831-Does-the-Chinese-public-care-about-climate-change–

14 Wilson, Robert. “Which Countries Produce the Most Fossil Fuels?” The Energy Collective Group. 31 Jul 2014. https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/which-countries-produce-most-fossil-fuels

15 Gaffen, David and Ayenat Mersie. “US crude oil output hits 11 million barrels per day for first time ever.” Reuters. 18 Jul 2018. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-eia/us-crude-oil-output-hits-11-million-barrels-per-day-for-first-time-ever-idUSKBN1K81XT and US Energy Information Administration. “How much oil is consumed in the United States?” Frequently Asked Questions. 3 Oct 2018. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6

16 US Energy Information Administration. “Short Term Energy Outlook.” Analysis & Projections. 12 Feb 2019. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/natgas.php

17 Roberts, David. “Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought.” Vox. 26 Jul 2018. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-coal-oil-subsidies

18 Brecher, Jeremy. “The Green New Deal can work – here’s how.” AlterNet. 25 Feb 2019. https://www.alternet.org/2019/02/the-green-new-deal-can-work-heres-how/

19 2017 US Energy and Employment Report. Energy.gov. January 2017. https://www.energy.gov/downloads/2017-us-energy-and-employment-report

20 Gustin, Georgina. “Factory Farms Put Climate at Risk, Experts Say in Urging Health Officials to Speak Out.” Inside Climate News. 23 May 2017. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22052017/factory-farms-cafos-threaten-climate-change-world-heath-organization

21 Friedman, Lisa et.al. “The Meat Question, by the Numbers.” New York Times. 25 Jan 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warming.html

22 Fares, Robert. “Is the US Energy Independent?” Scientific American. 31 Oct 2016. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/is-the-u-s-energy-independent/

23 ibid.

24 Zorn, Justin Talbot et.al. “A Green New Deal is fiscally responsible. Climate inaction is not.” Guardian. 25 Feb 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/25/green-new-aoc-deal-fiscally-responsible-climate-inaction

25 Irfan, Umair. “3 big takeaways from the major new US climate report.” Vox. 24 Nov 2018. https://www.vox.com/2018/11/24/18109883/climate-report-2018-national-assessment

Jeremy Corbyn, head of the British Labor Party, over the weekend, called for the British government to freeze arms sales to Israel and to condemn it for the killing of Palestinians.

Corbyn’s remarks came after a United Nations report, which found that Israeli security forces may have committed war crimes killing scores of Palestinians and wounding more than 6,100 in weekly protests in the besieged Gaza Strip over the past year.

Corbyn posted a tweet on his Twitter account, saying

“The UN says Israel’s killings of demonstrators in Gaza – including children, paramedics and journalists – may constitute ‘war crimes or crimes against humanity.’”

He added, “The UK government must unequivocally condemn the killings and freeze arms sales to Israel.”

“The Commission found reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli snipers shot at journalists, health workers, children and persons with disabilities, knowing they were clearly recognizable as such.”

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

Featured image is from MEMO

105 heartfelt interviews with U.S. Soldiers traveling to and from war zones,  Military Families whose children were killed in Iraq, Veterans, and Youth. Intimately documented on film by Artists Sally Marr and Peter Dudar.

Arlington West is a 74-minute Art Film presenting “temporary cemeteries”in the sand, erected every Sunday by the Veterans For Peace in Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, Oceanside, and Huntington Beach.  Flag draped coffins and over 5,500 wooden crosses, affectionately placed, invites the public to honor the unacknowledged fallen U.S. soldiers from Iraq & Afghanistan, for us to lament the cost of the war.

Watch the trailer below.

Visitors write the name of the dead on slips of paper lining the ever-growing list of casualties and place it on a cross with fresh flowers and an American flag.

This presentation, now national, is a respite to express sentiments, a remembrance in silence or painful grief; for all to take time to honor the Soldiers, Marines, and Military Families who are paying the highest price for war. Children offer their intuitive wisdom. Veterans, survivors of the horrors of war, share their poignant experiences, and new recruits en route to combat speak of their enthusiasm, dedication and faith in their upcoming missions.

620,000 Iraq & Afghanistan War Veterans have either Traumatic Brain Injury or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – RAND Corp.  18 U.S. Veterans kill themselves EVERY SINGLE DAY…6,570 suicides per year in the V.A. – CBS News.

California alone has spent $132.6 billion on wars in Iraq & Afghanistan; 27,000 teachers were laid off statewide in 2009.  ARLINGTON WEST is both non-partisan and non-political, a proven pedagogical tool.  The U.S. Department of Education is now using this film for their “Wounded Warrior Initiative,” helping Educators in Colleges and Universities understand Soldiers’ issues involving PTSD as young Combat Vets attempt secondary education.

Returning from the Middle East conflict, many of the military, distressed, disillusioned, damaged, and having lost friends “in country” share reflections, as well as their fellow soldiers who are eager to return to war zones.

The military families arrive with photos, dog-tags, and mementos to adorn the crosses as they honor, weep and pray…sharing their innermost feelings with you, their fellow countrymen and women.

*

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 home of United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva is showcasing a poster-sized photograph of the Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara in its exhibition hallways.

In 2013, UNESCO, a branch of the U.N., included the “The Life and Works of Ernesto Che Guevara” into the Memory of the World Register.  The Memory of the World Registry is engaged in preserving and protecting valuable documents and writings of human heritage from destruction.

The inventory of documents of the Documentary Collection was originally submitted by Cuba and Bolivia to the Memory of the World Register in 2013. The documents include:

“Life and Works of Ernesto Che Guevara: from the originals manuscripts of its adolescence and youth to the campaign Diary in Bolivia”, 1007 documents ― grouped in a total of 8197 pages from 1928 to 1967, concerning his revolutionary work, essays, news paper articles, biographical materials and personal works, as well as his correspondence with different persons, and his family. Of these, 431 are manuscripts by Che and 567 are documents about Che or related to him. The collection also includes valuable iconographic material by and about Che, films, letters and museum pieces.”1

Source: @HillelNeuer/Twitter

The U.S. government and its critics, conveniently forgetting its own long list of war crimes, (from Hiroshima, to the Mỹ Lai Massacre in Vietnam, the Iran-Contra Affair, the Abu Graib torture scandal, the illegal invasion of Iraq, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum), came out against the U.N. in a brazen attempt to wipe out history that doesn’t exactly serve their purposes.  David T. Killion, the United States Permanent Representative to UNESCO wrote a letter to the U.N. urging the organization to censor the exhibit.

It is ironic that the words of Che Guevara spoken in 1964 to the U.N. are as true as they were then and still ring true today.  Guevara, at that time, addressed the U.N. General Assembly where he accused the United States of planning to overthrow the Cuba as well as other communist governments across Latin America.

“It must tie clearly established,” Major Guevara said, “that in the area of the Caribbean, maneuvers and preparations for aggression against Cuba are taking place—off the coast of Nicaragua, above all; in Costa Rica, in the Panama Canal Zone, in the Vieques Islands of Puerto Rico, in Florida and possibly in other parts of the territory of the United States. And also, perhaps, in Honduras, Cuban mercenaries are training, as well as mercenaries of other nationalities, with a purpose that cannot be peaceful.”

Ernesto Che Guevara was born on June 14, 1948 in Rosario, Argentina, and died by CIA-assisted assassination forces in La Higuera, in the southern province of Vallegrande, Bolivia  in 1967.

Approximately 100,000 visitors each year take guided tours of the Palais des Nations in Geneva.

*

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

T.K. Hernández is a journalist, co-founder and editor at the Cuba Business Report.

Note

1 unesco.org/…/documentary-collection-life-and-works-of-ernesto-che-guevara-from-the-originals-manuscripts-of-its-adolescence-and-youth-to-the-campaign-diary-in-bolivia

President Trump’s second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un last week was criticized by both parties in Washington long before Air Force One even touched down in Hanoi. Washington’s political class seemed terrified that the nearly 70 year state of “war” with North Korea might actually end. In the end the only positive thing they could say about the meeting was that Trump apparently walked away with nothing to show for it.

The location of the meeting – Hanoi, Vietnam – serves as a great example of what can be won in peace versus what is lost in war. After losing nearly 60,000 US service members in an unnecessary war that took a million Vietnamese lives, the US loss of the Vietnam war resulted not in a communist takeover of southeast Asia but something very different: the domino theory failed because communism was destined to fail. Now we are close trading partners with an increasingly pro-market Vietnam. The result of trade and exchange versus war is a better life for all.

Unfortunately for Washington, the real lesson of Vietnam has not been learned. That is why the Republicans, Democrats, and the entire mainstream media spoke as one against President Trump’s decision to take a bold step and actually meet again, one-on-one, with one of our “enemies” to see if we can avoid nuclear conflict.

One leading Democrat, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), attacked Trump for meeting with Kim because speaking to the North Korean “gives him legitimacy.” Does it make any sense that we should not even speak with our nuclear-armed adversaries because it gives them “legitimacy”? He’d rather have a nuclear war as long as Kim remains “illegitimate”? This is sadly the kind of thinking that prevails in Washington.

The media reported that Trump walked away from the meeting before the scheduled signing ceremony and closing press event. The talks broke down, it was reported, because Kim demanded an end to all sanctions before any reduction in North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. Washington sighed with relief and said all together, “better no deal than a bad deal.”

Meanwhile the North Koreans held a rare press conference clarifying that they only asked for partial sanctions relief in exchange for dismantling one of their main nuclear facilities. Further, press reports began to surface that National Security Advisor John Bolton threw additional demands on the table which led Kim to draw the meeting to an early close.

Who’s telling the truth? We likely won’t know. But given Bolton’s strong opposition to any kind of peace agreement with North Korea it’s hard to doubt that he had something to do with the blow-up of the summit. As the New York Times reported over the weekend, while Trump’s advisors were shocked when he decided to meet Kim face-to-face the first time for negotiations, John Bolton wasn’t worried at all. As the Times writes, “Mr. Bolton told colleagues not to worry. The negotiations, he said, would collapse on their own.” And so they did.

Will Trump continue to allow his diplomatic efforts to be undermined by his own staff? Let’s hope the president will ignore Washington, ignore the neocons, and continue to work for peace with North Korea.

*

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

Featured image is from The Transnational

A study of England’s farmland has found key earthworm types are rare or absent in two out of five fields and has led to the majority of farmers affected vowing to change the way they farm.

The results indicate widespread, historical over-cultivation, and may explain observed declines in other wildlife, such as the song thrush, that feed on these worms.

The #60minworms project was the first comprehensive worm survey concentrating solely on farmland and was carried out by farmers themselves – 57 percent of whom said they would now change their soil management practices as a result.

The scientist behind the survey, Dr Jackie Stroud, a NERC Soil Security Fellow at Rothamsted Research, said:

“Earthworms are sensitive and responsive to soil management which makes them an ideal soil health indicator.  The aim of this research was to find a baseline of farmland earthworm populations that would be useful and used by farmers to assess soil health now and in the future.”

Awesome example of citizen science making a difference. The results of Jackie Stroud's worm survey published today, suggesting huge savings could be made in farmland soil health monitoring.
Read more: https://t.co/M2l5b7eF8t@NFUtweets @Soil_Security @Operation_Earth @wormscience pic.twitter.com/TM5WmAMOOQ

— Rothamsted Research (@Rothamsted) February 21, 2019

Biologists categorise earthworms by ecological role – with surface dwelling and deep burrowing worms the types most sensitive to farming practices, whilst the topsoil worms are generally unaffected by over-cultivation.

Earthworms perform a number of useful ‘ecosystem services’, and high numbers of earthworms have been linked to enhanced plant productivity.

This new citizen science project published today in the journal PLOS One, has revealed most fields have good earthworm biodiversity – meaning an abundance of all three types of earthworms were seen.

In Spring 2018, the average field had 9 earthworms in every spadeful of soil, with top fields having three times that number. One in 10 fields had high earthworm numbers of more than 16 worms per spadeful.

However, the study also revealed that 42 percent of fields had poor earthworm biodiversity – meaning either very few or none of the surface dwelling and deep burrowing worms were seen.

The absence of deep burrowing worms on 16 percent of fields is concerning, says Dr Stroud, because they are ‘drainage worms’ with vertical burrows that aid water infiltration and ultimately helps combat waterlogging.

“The deep burrowing worms have slow reproduction rates so recovery in their populations could take a decade under changed management practices.  In fact, we know very little about earthworm recovery rates.”

More than 1300 hectares were surveyed from all over England for the project, including fields managed under arable, potatoes, horticulture and pasture.

Each farmer volunteered to dig 10 regularly spaced pits across their field to make the observations, and an identification guide allowed them to allocate any sightings to one of the three main types of earthworm.

The success of this pilot project has already led to a much larger study, which recently concluded, says Dr Stroud.

“Working with farmers led to the redesign of the pilot survey, culminating in a shorter, more efficient field assessment and a co-created earthworm identification guide, to help improve farmer confidence in earthworm monitoring.

“These improvements were well received, with farmers all over the country spending an hour of their time digging five soil pits and assessing their earthworm populations in the Autumn.”

Empowering farmers to survey their own soils would save about £14 million in soil health monitoring if rolled out nationally, she added.

Healthy Soils were not a headline indicator for the draft DEFRA 25-year plan for the environment, so the DEFRA policy aspiration of achieving sustainable soils is currently unclear.

Despite this, soil health is widely regarded as vital for both farming and the environment.

Dr Stroud said:

“Decisions made above the ground, whether by farmers or policy makers, influence the billions of earthworms that are engineering the soil ecosystem below the ground.

“Earthworms influence carbon cycling, water infiltration, pesticide movement, greenhouse gas emissions, plant productivity, the breeding success of birds and even the susceptibility of plants to insect attack.”

However, she added, as earthworms are sensitive to various farming practices, including tillage, rotations, cover cropping, organic matter additions, and pesticides, we need to do more to look after them.

“Crucially, working together with farmers, we now know typical earthworm numbers in agricultural soils and between us have developed a quick method for ongoing monitoring.  Many farmers have reported they plan to survey again this Spring following benchmarking their fields last year.

“Soil health is complicated, but the path to doing things differently has to begin somewhere.”

The work is funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) with facilities provided by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC).

*

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

They could not hold on.  A small – and in the scheme of things negligible group – split from the British Labour mothership last month in an effort to salvage some self-described form of credibility.  In truth, they were the original sceptics of Jeremy Corbyn, the pro-New Labour grouping indifferent, even disbelieving, about the predations made by Tony Blair during his reign. Thinking that he would remain on both backbench and in museum, a historical relic of Labour values supposedly done away with under Blair’s rule of spinning and cunning, some even put Corbyn up for the Labour leadership. As things transpired, the tired technocrats, focus groupies, and a range of other associates of Tone’s worldview were given a rude shock with the ascendancy of Corbyn and Momentum.

The split, comprising Chris Leslie, Luciana Berger, Ann Coffey, Chuka Umunna, Mike Gapes, Angela Smith and Gavin Shuker, should have happened sooner.  But times are good to make shallow decisions short on policy but noisy with neglected values.  Britain remains chaotically disposed and unruly; its Prime Minister remains desperate and hoping for an extension on negotiations regarding an exit from the European Union. Papers associated with the left of British politics were chewing over the decision to form a new grouping.  The resignations, claimed the Guardian, “are a mistake, but they are also a warning.  Like it or not, and a few on all wings have always disliked it, the Labour party is not a centralist party.”

Chris Leslie used the familiar themes of hostage taking that have come to symbolise the divide in Britain’s left.  “The Labour Party we joined, what we campaigned for and believed in is no longer today’s Labour Party… it has now been hijacked by the machine politics of the hard left.”  Labour had betrayed Europe and enabled, according to Leslie, the conditions for May’s Brexit to take place.   The “public” had been denied “a final say”.  (Matters of the public are relative: the public did have a say in 2016, but a narrative that is digging its way into the books is that it was illegitimate, stolen, an act of grand and cruel deception, ergo invalid.)

Berger felt “embarrassed” at her party, claiming that its values of equality had been “undermined and attacked.”  For her, the movement had mutated, fed by “a culture of bullying, bigotry and intimidation.”

The Independent Group, as they have termed themselves, have also been swelled by three Tory recruits, a point which made the Financial Times exaggerate its significance (no less than “the fifth largest bloc in the House of Commons”!).  In a sense, they were merely peelers from the periphery, and fairly flip-floppy on that score.  All have now reached the conclusion that Brexit is a bad idea, wish for a second referendum to reverse the rot and loathe the Eurosceptic grouping within their party.  Amongst the three, though, are curious streaks of variation.  Sarah Wollaston had embraced the Eurosceptic stance but felt troubled by the claim from Brexit campaigners that leaving the EU would result in £350m being put into the National Health Service.  Heidi Allen, by way of contrast, was always a Remain supporter.

The language of departure, and of being left behind, is standard political fare.  Anna Soubry spoke about not leaving the Conservative Party; it was her party, rather, that had left her.  And so Tom Crewe reminds us in the London Review of Books of Joseph Chamberlain when he founded the Liberal Unionist Party in an act of defection in 1886: “We are liberals and unchanged, even though our leader has deserted us.”  The issue then for the Liberals was Home Rule for Ireland; the Liberal Unionists went on to get 77 MPs elected.

If Labour does succumb to a cathartic slaughter, these are things best done in collective drubbings.  There is not yet the feeling that this could be another “Gang of Four” moment that led to the formation of the SDP in the 1981, along with the gathering of 35 MPs into its ranks.

And Corbyn’s popularity remains undervalued and hard to estimate in any polling performance, even if he has not acted, in decisive terms, as a fully engaged and constructive opposition leader.  Like other political phenomena who have managed to burst through the conventional tedium of statistical prediction and dull projection, he not only survived but came through mightily at the last general election.  This served to show the sheer divisions present in British politics.  The Independent Group, as has been pointed out by Rod Liddle, cannot merely survive on anti-Corbyn mania.  At some point, it will have to come through with a few ideas to hang on a hook or two.

Anti-party parties eventually have that perennial habit of becoming another political movement that will either sink, float or be absorbed.  In this case, the obvious disruption to the Independent Group will come from Vince Cable’s Liberal Democrats, who are currently polling at 7 percent.  The question to ask in 2019, poses Crew, “is not whether a ‘centre’ exists but whether political circumstances have once again made ‘centrism’ a viable political strategy.”

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Red Pepper

The Ukraine courts are still dependent on political authorities, and the special service is used to carry out political schemes and to fight inconvenient points of view and dissent, rather than to protect national security. — Imprisoned Ukrainian-Russian journalist Kirill Vyshinsky tells Eva Bartlett.

***

KHERSON, UKRAINE (Interview) — Ukrainian-Russian journalist Kirill Vyshinsky has been imprisoned by Ukraine since his May 2018 arrest on yet unproven allegations of “high treason” and of conducting an “information war” against Ukraine in his role as chief editor of RIA Novosti Ukraine news agency.

To date, Vyshinsky has not been allowed a trial, the Ukrainian authorities instead repeatedly prolonging his pre-trial detention and delaying his right to justice.

In November, 2018, I spoke with journalist Vladimir Rodzianko about the case of Kirill Vyshinsky. In our interview, Rodzianko explained Vyshinsky’s May 2018 arrest, Vyshinsky’s work as an editor, the absurdities of Ukraine’s accusations against Vyshinsky, and the lack of outcry on his imprisonment.

Through intermediaries, I was later able to interview the imprisoned journalist, via email. While his replies came at the end of 2018, my intermediaries just recently were able to provide a translated transcript of Vyshinsky’s words.

More recently, I went to Kiev to interview Vyshinsky’s defense lawyer, Mr. Andriy Domanskyy. That interview will be published in the near future. While conducting the interview with Mr. Domanskyy on February 19, he received a phone call from the Kherson Court informing him that during the February 21 pleading, the court would limit the time during which Vyshinsky and Domanskyy could read the case files–case files amounting to 31 volumes.

Below is my correspondence with Kirill Vyshinsky.

Eva Bartlett: What do you believe was the motivation for the Ukrainian authorities to arrest and detain you?

Kirill Vyshinsky: My detention and arrest represent an attempt by the Ukrainian authorities to bolster the declining popularity of President [Petro] Poroshenko in this election year. How? First, my arrest was used to stoke another scandal involving a story about “terrible Russian propaganda.” I’m a journalist, a citizen of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and my arrest can be explained as part of the fight against “Russian propaganda.”

Second, from the very first hours of my detention, without a trial and even before pre-trial restrictions were set for me, high-ranking Ukrainian politicians started talking about the need to swap me for a Ukrainian convicted in the Russian Federation. Swaps are a favorite PR topic of the current Ukrainian government, which, in the past five years, has been unable to accomplish anything to benefit the country’s economy, achieve peace in Ukraine, or resolve the civil conflict in Donbass. This government did nothing to improve the well-being and safety of its citizens, so it was looking for other ways to score electoral points. Anti-Russian hysteria and PR around a prisoner swap is one such way.

EB: Had the Ukrainian authorities harassed you prior to May 2018?

KV: Nothing happened before May 2018, this is what amazes me! Accusations

against me in the case investigated by the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) are connected with posts on the website that I run dating back to the spring of 2014.

The posts were made in the spring of 2014. According to the SBU, they represented a threat to the national security of Ukraine, but they remembered them only in 2018! And this is despite the fact that the SBU and Ukraine’s Ministry of Press and Information (another supervisory authority) have been regularly publishing lists of websites that were a “threat to national information security,” while my website was never listed!! And then, in May 2018, I was arrested.

EB: The authorities accuse you of “treason”. How would you counter this? What had you been covering in Ukraine?

KV: I believe that accusing me of treason is false and absurd. None of the posts they are using to incriminate me are under my byline. These texts were submitted by our contributors, who shared their point of view on the developments in Ukraine in the spring of 2014, when the referendum was held in Crimea, and everything was just getting started in Donbass. All these materials are from the Opinion and Point of View sections, and each of them is followed by a disclaimer that “the author’s views do not necessarily represent those of the editorial board.”

From the vast number of texts that were published in the spring of 2014, the SBU picked only about 15 that they deemed “treasonous.” They simply ignored other texts with other views posted on our website and accuse me of conducting “special operations.” Again, they accuse me of conducting an “information war” for the mere fact that we posted a variety of opinions on our website. What does the fact that I impartially let people speak in support of Maidan or against it have to do with special operations?

As for the events that I covered, ours is a news website, and we post many texts on social and political issues. None of the texts that are included in the SBU files were written by me. I’m accused of providing an opportunity to speak about the situation in the country to people whose opinion is inconvenient for official Kiev. That’s all there is to it.

EB: How did your coverage of the proposed autocephaly for a ‘national Ukrainian church’ influence your detention?

KV: This is the most absurd accusation! This is the only episode from 2018. We posted a news piece on our website, in which Ukrainian political scientist Dmitry Korneychuk expressed skepticism about the possibility of granting autocephaly [a form of self-governance exceeding basic autonomy] to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The same news piece included the point of view of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has argued for the need for autocephaly!! It was a classic piece of journalism providing two points of view, for and against, where the reader has to decide which one is more credible.

However, the SBU believed that posting this material was part of my personal war against the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church!! I read this text out more than once in court. In it, the view “against” autocephaly takes up 11 lines, whereas the case “for” autocephaly is laid out in 17 lines, and I’m being accused of conducting a special operation against Ukrainian autocephaly!

EB: How have you been treated in prison? Do you have access to doctors? How has your health been since in detention? Are you allowed visitors and if so, under what conditions?

KV: I consider the prison conditions to be tolerable by Ukrainian standards, although access to medical care is quite limited. The prison medical unit was downsized, and I had to wait for a specialist doctor appointment for months. To alleviate acute neuralgia pain, I was given …diphenhydramine! It’s like treating acute heart pain with vitamin C. It won’t make things worse, but it doesn’t do much to help, either.

I feel pretty good right now, but this is definitely not due to the prison medicine but to the efforts of my lawyers and the medications they passed me. Once a month, my father comes to see me. We talk through a phone, separated by a glass partition.

EB: How many times has your trial been delayed? What were the reasons given for the delay? Do you feel that you will be given a fair trial?

KV: The issue is not about adjourned hearings, but the fact that the SBU keeps extending the investigation all the time, citing the need to conduct some kind of expert analysis in addition to the one that is already filed in the case. That is why I have been in jail for seven months now. The charges are absurd, the evidence does not include any text that was written by me, but the SBU is acting upon a political order issued by the Ukrainian authorities, which is to keep me in prison while the authorities try to net some political dividends from my arrest. It has nothing to do with justice. They just want me in prison.

EB: Have any international bodies supporting journalists, or any international human rights organizations, been in contact with you about your imprisonment?

KV: Yes, the UN Monitoring Mission in Ukraine and the Red Cross office in Ukraine visited me. Representatives of the OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] mission regularly attend my court hearings in order to stay up to date on my case. Several international journalism organizations — such as the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Press Club Brussels Europe — my colleagues from Russia, and many friends spoke in my support, and I thank everyone so much! I am counting, primarily, on moral support and the ability to get as much information out about my actual case as possible, as opposed to what is published in the Ukrainian media at the behest of the SBU.

EB: Do you have any message you’d like to convey about this entire ordeal?

KV: My main takeaway from the past six months is huge disappointment in the level of political power in Ukraine and the state of its judicial system. Despite declarations about Ukraine’s “European choice,” the courts are still dependent on political authorities, and the special service is used to carry out political schemes and to fight inconvenient points of view and dissent, rather than to protect national security.

Kirill Vyshinsky

December 26, 2018, Kherson Detention Center

*

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

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine. She is a recipient of the International Journalism Award for International Reporting. Visit her personal blog, In Gaza, and support her work on Patreon.

Featured image is from RFE/RL

VIPSers Binney & Johnson use the forensics that the FBI avoided doing. (See this)

Thinking back, President Barack Obama dropped a huge hint two days before he left office, using his last press conference to point out that the “conclusions of the intelligence community” regarding how WikiLeaks received the DNC emails were “inconclusive.”  The nerve! Daring to say that just 13 days after the U.S. intelligence Gang of Four briefed Obama up and down on their evidence-free “assessment” that WikiLeaks got the DNC emails via a Russian hack.

This was one time Obama summoned the courage to face down James (the-Russians-are-almost-genetically-driven-to-deceive) Clapper and other intelligence chiefs.  After all, Obama is a lawyer.  He “does evidence.”  In contrast, ex-CIA Director John Brennan, told Congress that he does not “do evidence.”

Back in the day, the intelligence community “did evidence.”  As soon as the evidence-impoverished “Intelligence Community Assessment” was published on January 6, 2017, members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) smelled a rat.  That same day, former NSA Technical Director William Binney and Ray published “The Dubious Case on Russian Hacking”.

Then came “The Gaping Holes of Russia-gate,” and in July 2017 VIPS published their key forensic-based study “Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russian Hack’ Evidence,” followed by “More Holes in the Russia-gate Narrative.” by Binney and Ray.

Even Michael Cohen admitted yesterday that he had no “direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia.” But, he added, “I have my suspicions.”  We intelligence analysts, back in the day, did not “do suspicions.”

There are 1,001 other reasons to impeach President Donald Trump, if Nancy Pelosi had the courage.  But politics, not the Constitution, reigns supreme in the people’s House to which Founders bestowed an orderly political process to get rid of such a president.  Shame on them all.

*

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock/cunaplus

The internet has unleashed human knowledge. Never before has it been so easy to learn so much. Of course, it has also drowned us in distraction and created a breeding ground for trolls and misinformation, but if the internet is redeemed by anything, it is its liberation of education.

When it comes to accessing this ocean of information, we have two basic choices: wired or Wi-Fi. The vast majority of schools have embraced the wireless revolution. It’s easy to see why. Compared to wired internet, wireless is simpler, cheaper, and faster for schools to install.

Today, students are trading notebooks and textbooks for laptops, cellphones, iPads, and all manner of “smart” devices connected to a potent wireless infrastructure that lets them be used virtually anywhere on school grounds.

But that wireless web comes with a devastating downside. Doctors and scientists say that the students and teachers who attend these schools are risking their health.

Radiation Dangers

Dr. Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University made a grave case about the dangers involved in his paper, “Wi-Fi is An Important Threat to Human Health,” published in the July 2018 issue of Environmental Research.

“The placement of Wi-Fi into schools around the country may well be a high-level threat to the health of our children as well being a threat to teachers and any very sensitive fetuses teachers may be carrying, as well,” Pall writes.

Since Wi-Fi is found everywhere from private homes to public spaces, Pall’s alarming claim seems hard to fathom. And yet his evidence is compelling: 23 controlled scientific studies demonstrating numerous adverse effects to Wi-Fi radiation exposure. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg—there are dozens more studies on Wi-Fi harms which were not included in the paper.

Wireless radiation has become commonplace despite well-documented evidence of its harm, with thousands of studies going back several decades demonstrating health problems associated with exposure. Some of the strongest evidence came last year from the final report of a $30 million, 19-year study funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It was conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP)—the federal agency tasked with testing toxins—and was designed to be the final word on whether wireless radiation was harmful. It showed clear evidence of cancer and DNA damage linked to cellphone use.

Concentrated Risk

Schools are particularly worrisome, experts say, because they are where the most intense concentration of wireless radiation is found today. The Wi-Fi systems schools have adopted are much more comprehensive than your average home or coffee shop Wi-Fi. These commercial grade systems use several routers or “access points” throughout the classroom, often in the ceiling above students’ heads. Now, add in all the radiation spewing from all the wireless devices operated by each student, and you’ll find that kids are spending up to seven hours per day in a thick soup of electro-smog.

Even worse, the people we place in this remarkably concentrated field of wireless radiation are more vulnerable to it. Compared to adults, children are smaller and have smaller and thinner skulls so the radiation penetrates more easily and gets to larger parts of the brain. Also problematic, children’s’ immune and nervous systems are still developing. Plus, kids’ cells divide at a faster rate, which increases the risk for mutations that can lead to cancer.

According to Pall, these factors make children more susceptible to the disease processes that wireless radiation has been consistently shown to cause: oxidative stress (which can lead to cancer and non-cancerous conditions, as well as DNA damage), sperm and testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects, cell death, changes to the endocrine system, and calcium overload.

Evidence of Illness

These disease processes aren’t merely theoretical. Epidemiological studies conducted by Dr. Lennart Hardell, an oncologist at Orebro University Hospital in Sweden, showed that children exposed to this radiation are more likely to develop cancer and develop it quicker.

Other doctors and scientists say exposure is likely a significant contributing factor to the rising rates of other childhood diseases. Dr. Hugh Taylor, a professor and chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, has shown that fetal exposure to wireless radiation affects neuro-development and behavior and can lead to Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)— a condition that has doubled in the past 10 years.

Harvard Medical School professor and a pediatric neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Dr. Martha Herbert, makes a compelling argument that the rise in autism spectrum disorders may also be related to our rise in wireless radiation exposure.

Herbert’s 60-page report from 2012 doesn’t provide evidence of cause, but it does reveal several similarities between symptoms known to occur with wireless radiation and biological manifestations in autism, such as cellular stress, tissue damage, protein misfolding, and injury of membranes.

Herbert describes autism, not as a condition of a broken brain, but of a brain that has a hard time regulating itself. And she believes that if such a brain is caught in a cloud of wireless radiation, it is confronted with a disruptive factor, making it even harder for behavior and biology to come into balance.

While the brains of children with autism may be most vulnerable to microwave radiation, Herbert says every brain is at the mercy of its influence.

“I really am concerned about people’s brains,” Herbert said. “It’s not a joke to have this stuff getting into these three pounds of delicate, gel-crystalline structure in our heads that does this amazing stuff. It wasn’t meant for this level of exposure.”

Electromagnetic Neurology

Herbert explains that, just like our wireless devices, our brain communicates with electromagnetic signaling. In fact, as our instruments have become more sensitive, scientists have discovered that each cell in our body uses electromagnetic signaling.

Autism was once considered strictly a genetic abnormality. But as knowledge of the condition has grown, researchers have uncovered a more complex landscape, where a host of environmental influences have shown an impact on gene expression.

This means that instead of one smoking gun tied to this fast growing condition (the latest estimate from the Centers for Disease Control is that one in every 40 children has autism, up from one in every 166 in 2005), there are likely many factors. Toxic chemicals, for example, have long been demonstrated to impact fetal brain development.

But Herbert argues that, due to electric nature of our bodies, wireless radiation may create more of a disruption than toxic chemicals.

“When you have a toxicant exposure, it can affect the brain, but it has to go through metabolic pathways that can influence the electromagnetics in order to do that,” Herbert said. “But when you have electromagnetic radiation, it’s a straight shot. It’s the same language, so it can be more instantaneous.”

Sick in Schools

Dafna Tachover is a former telecommunications officer turned lawyer whoadvocates for people harmed by wireless radiation. Her Supreme Court lawsuit in Israel led to the first limits on Wi-Fi in schools worldwide. Tachover showed evidence of 200 sick children from the Wi-Fi in just six schools.

Now in the United States, Tachover says she is contacted by several parents every week with children who have become sick from their school’s wireless system. She says the most common symptoms include headaches, increased sensitivity to noise, nose bleeds, concentration and memory problems, nausea, exhaustion, and hyperactivity.

“Unfortunately, these harms are not potential but existing, and at an epidemic scale,” Tachover said.

The acute or chronic illness that results from wireless radiation is known aselectromagnetic sensitivity. It’s the same illness the U.S. Navy dubbed “microwave sickness” when soldiers who had been working with technologies such as radar for extended periods of time displayed the same symptoms. The illness is named for the microwave frequencies that powers wireless technology. Those who contract microwave sickness can’t be in the presence of wireless radiation without painful and sometimes debilitating symptoms.

One child Tachover is working with is a 13-year-old girl from Oregon whose desk was directly under the classroom’s Wi-Fi router. After she developed microwave sickness, her parents enrolled her in a private Waldorf school, because they’re one of few schools that don’t use Wi-Fi.

In some cases, parents are forced to homeschool their children because they can’t get access to schools without Wi-Fi. In other cases, sick kids are forced to make do.

Tachover said one parent had two sons who developed microwave sickness. This mother urged her sons’ school to accommodate by hard wiring the classroom internet and even offered to pay for the accommodation, but the school refused. As a result, her children can only attend school for a few hours per week.

“When in the Wi-Fi environment they experience headaches, concentration problems, skin rashes and hyperactivity,” Tachover said.

Risk to Teachers

Microwave sickness can impact teachers who work in Wi-Fi too. Laurie Brown, a teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), says she knew nothing about the health impacts from wireless until her school installed a commercial grade Wi-Fi system in April of 2015. Today, she says the damage caused by this technology is impossible for her to ignore.

“We had Wi-Fi before, but the upgraded system now had two access points in every single classroom, adding a total of 190 access points to the school, including additional boosters to prevent any loss of connectivity,” Brown said. “All of this was for Common Core testing, and 21st-century teaching.”

During Common Core testing, each of Brown’s students used a wireless laptop (Chromebook) to access this new system. After just two hours in this new high tech environment, Brown started feeling several symptoms: tingling and burning in her skin, breathing problems, and a rising heart rate. Her ankles started itching and her nasal passages started to swell.

Symptoms grew worse and soon Brown could barely make it through the day. Before the new Wi-Fi system, Brown was rarely sick and had saved close to 800 hours of time off for illness. But after the installation of the new equipment, she was sick all the time. By the end of the school year, Brown was out at least two days every week.

“I just started to feel horrible,” she said. “I would go home from school feeling so lousy. I was never a headachy person, and I was getting all these headaches that were so strange.”

Brown knows of at least 10 teachers and staff members who complained of symptoms that they traced to the school’s Wi-Fi. Two retired, one from another school resigned, and at least three (including Brown) filed for workers compensation injuries with the LAUSD. All the claims were initially denied.

Brown is now on disability leave, but she would rather have her old life back. Today, if someone is just using a cellphone near her, Brown’s inflammatory symptoms, as well as other sometimes debilitating symptoms, can quickly return.

“It’s overwhelming and it’s sad because it takes away from the enjoyment of life and your lifestyle,” she said. “I’m someone who is accommodating, likes to please and is easy going. I wasn’t a high maintenance person. It makes me feel uncomfortable in my own skin to feel like I’m inconveniencing others.”

For schools that are willing to make accommodations, lives have been turned around. Appeals through the American with Disabilities Act have made some schools remove the Wi-Fi routers in the classrooms where there are microwave illness sufferers, even extending the router removal to neighboring classrooms when they still exert an influence.

Teacher Sheila Reavill contracted microwave sickness but she convinced her school to hardwire their internet access and connect laptops with an adapter. There is no Wi-Fi or Bluetooth in Reavill’s class, and the children who carry cellphones shut them off when they’re in the room.

“She says she not only she feels better in the classroom, but her students are also calmer and can focus better,” Tachover said.

Experts saw dangers in school Wi-Fi upgrades even before they were installed.  In 2013, Herbert wrote a warning letter to the LAUSD, citing the thousands of papers that have accumulated over decades which document adverse health and neurological impacts of electromagnetic frequency and radiofrequency radiation (EMF/RFR).

“EMF/RFR from Wi-Fi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function,” Herbert wrote. “This will make it harder for some children to learn, particularly those who are already having problems in the first place.”

The letter went viral, but the school district paid it little mind.

“You know who did react? The firefighters,” Herbert said. “They had this boondoggle going where they were putting cell towers right behind all the fire stations. So guess what? All the firefighters were getting sick.”

Pushing for Change

As more people become aware of the dangers associated with wireless radiation and Wi-Fi in schools, efforts are emerging from teachers unions, parent organizations, and physician groups to address the problem.

One widely proposed solution is for schools to adopt a wired system. This would allow students to have more reliable high-speed internet access but without the microwave radiation. The cost would only be slightly higher than a wireless system.

While installing a wired system would mean a greater cost up front, it could save schools millions in the long run, as well as ensuring the health of the children who attend these schools. Tachover says that most schools are not insured for health effects related to wireless radiation because most insurance companies learned their lesson from tobacco and asbestos and have made an exclusion with regard to wireless.

Some change may come in the form of new laws. In Massachusetts, seven bills have recently taken aim at the issue of wireless technology in a handful of schools.

Deb Mayer runs the Oregon chapter of Parents Across America (PAA). She says her organization has introduced three bills into the state legislature that target children’s increasing exposure to wireless radiation.

“We aren’t against technology. We’re against unsafe use and irresponsible use,” Mayer said.

One bill allows Wi-Fi wary parents to choose an alternative for their child. The bill also calls for kids to have recess so they get a chance to move around in the physical world for some part of their day.

The second bill focuses on better public understanding of the biological impact of wireless. It requires public and private schools to distribute information about the potential health risks of wireless network technology to employees, students and parents or guardians. It would also require the state’s Health Authority to examine peer-reviewed, independently funded studies on the effects of exposure to microwave radiation in schools and similar environments, particularly exposure that results from the use of wireless network technologies. It then calls on the Health Authority to create guidelines based on this review.

The bill that Mayer believes has the best chance of passing is one which calls for something wireless manufacturers already do, but writ large. Buried deeply in your cell phone manual are tips about using your device more safely. The bill asks to have these tips more explicit with clear warning labels so that consumers take safety more seriously.

Overall, that’s the biggest challenge—getting schools, lawmakers, and the public to treat the issue with the gravity it deserves.

“Getting people to believe that what we say is real and true is really a heavy lift because they don’t want to think there is a downside to their devices,” Mayer said. “And they especially don’t want to think that giving devices to their kids is a bad thing to do.”

Herbert says another reason why people may be resistant to see this problem is that all this wireless radiation may be affecting our judgment.

“Your judgment is intrinsically off when your brain function is altered in some way. You could be missing things—missing distinctions, or being disorganized in ways you don’t realize until you come out of it. Maybe you never come out of it,” Herbert said. “Just something to contemplate as we try and look at our increasing exposure to electromagnetic waves.”

*

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 Shutterstock

Mumia gave a speech to the Yale Rebel Law Students Conference through a recording from his prison cell. You may listen to it right below. Full transcript is also presented below.

.

.

.

***

Dear Friends at Yale Law School, dear Rebel Lawyers,

On the Move!

I greet you all as I endeavor to address the issue of rebel lawyers. When I think of the term, the first thing that comes to mind are jailhouse lawyers. They are by definition rebels who oppose the prison-industrial complex, especially in the courts. Jailhouse lawyers fight for freedom for themselves and others and sometimes they prevail. Some jailhouse lawyers, like John and Mo Africa of the MOVE Organization, defended themselves at trial and won acquittals.

Because such men and women aren’t trained in the law and do their work using logic and sheer will, they fall under the description of rebel lawyers, I think, but I’ve got a feeling that this isn’t what students at Yale Law think of when they use the term. If you’re really interested in that subject, I urge you to see my book Jailhouse Lawyers.

Let us return to rebel lawyers but with a peculiar twist. That’s because I’m speaking here of two revolutionary leaders who went to law school but found that the law and the systems that they lived under were so corrupt, so biased, so dominated by unjust political elites, that they learned that their very society had to be radically transformed before the law could be functional. I speak of two men who are rarely thought of as lawyers even though both studied law and one even briefly practiced it.

I speak of Fidel Castro and Nelson Mandela. Castro went to law school under the Cuban dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, a tool of US imperialism and a supporter of the American mafia. Mandela earned his law degree under the racist National Party, which ruled South Africa with brutality and what they called apartheid, Afrikaans for “separateness,” a system of domestic colonialism that deprived all Africans of their most fundamental human rights. Both Castro and Mandela rebelled against such unjust systems and joined revolutionary movements to transform those societies. They are therefore the very epitome of rebel lawyers. But again, unless I’m dead wrong, I don’t think there is a Fidel or a Nelson in this audience, but I’d be glad to be wrong.

Fidel Castro and Nelson Mandela

The next rebel lawyer is a little closer to the mark. He’s Clarence Darrow, who lived during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He was a brilliant lawyer, a socialist back when millions of Americans voted for socialists and atheists. In 1902, Darrow went to the Cook County jail in Chicago and spoke to the prisoners there about law. Here’s a little something of what he said.

“See what the law is when these men – the rich – get control of things, they make the law. They do not make the laws to protect anybody. Courts are not instruments of justice. When your case gets into court, it’ll make little difference whether you are guilty or innocent but it’s better if you have a smart lawyer and you cannot have a smart lawyer unless you have money. First and last, it’s a question of money. Those people who own the earth make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or pen around what they have and they fix the law so the fellow on the outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced for justice. We have no system for doing justice. Not the slightest in the world.”

Those are the words of Clarence Darrow (image on the right), one of the original rebel lawyers.

In September 1925, Dr. Ossian Sweet of Detroit was charged and convicted of murder after shooting at a mob of whites assembled to attack his home for being a black man who dared to move into a white area. When he was granted a retrial, Clarence Darrow took the defense case and won an acquittal. You, law students, should read the closing arguments, for you will read some of the finest arguments ever made in an American courtroom. I leave that to you if you’re interested.

I use Darrow as a model for rebel lawyers. For reasons you as law students have a wealth of doors open before you. Indeed, some of you will go into prosecutors’ offices and work to help build and strengthen the bulwark of mass incarceration. Why? Because the lure of power is powerful. How do you think mass incarceration came to be? Was it a mistake? No.

Back during the early 1980s, neoliberals took power in major American cities and waged war on black communities, led more often than not by Democrats like Philadelphia’s first black mayor, Wilson Goode, who brought the infamous MOVE bombing into being. Shortly before him, DA Edward Rendell would join with former mayor Frank Rizzo to give his blessing to the August 8, 1978, attack on MOVE. Several years later, Rendell would announce an end to the prevailing prison system by saying that prisons would no longer do rehabilitation. Their job, he said, was incapacitation.

Thus we saw the so-called blood war achieve hyper-status with neoliberals joining conservatives to enact mass incarceration on a scale the nation and world had never seen before. It should not therefore surprise us when we see that Pennsylvania has the highest number of juvenile lifers on earth. Bipartisanship between neoliberals and conservatives built the monster we now call mass incarceration. No so-called progressive prosecutor can or will unbuild it. That’s because it took the entire system – DAs, judges, cops, defense lawyers, and prison administrators, not to mention the media – to collaborate on a monstrous project like mass incarceration. Only mass resistance can abolish mass incarceration. In other words, only a mass movements, movements like Black Lives Matter or, for that matter, RebLaw, movements of law students who stay engaged after they become lawyers and say no to monsters like mass incarceration and its architects.

That’s why it’s important to make note of Darrow’s early days. He began his career as a corporate lawyer and made a pretty penny representing the people he would later call the men who rule the world. But his 1894 meeting with socialist, activist, and leader Eugene Victor Debs was transformative. Darrow resigned from his corporate clients and, at serious financial sacrifice, began representing those who opposed the economic elites. He represented Debs at a federal espionage trial four years later and lost. But Darrow, socialist antiracist, atheist, had begun his long walk as a rebel lawyer. He opposed the death penalty and represented 100 clients facing death and never had a single one go to death row.

And speaking of the death penalty, I want you to know that this isn’t my first trip to Yale, for in 1991 the Yale Law Journal published my essay called “Teetering on the Brink Between Life and Death.” It’s in volume 100. One of my lawyers was exalted, saying I made Law Review. I calmly replied, “Hmph. You’re right, and I didn’t take a class.”

I thank you for inviting me back and welcome the work to come to abolish mass incarceration.

From a Prison Nation, this is Mumia Abu-Jamal.

*

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

“Ah, mon cher, for anyone who is alone, without God and without a master, the weight of days is dreadful.  Hence one must choose a master, God being out of style.” – Albert Camus, The Fall

To be fascinated by another person who holds or symbolizes power is very common. It is often accompanied by a frisson of sexual excitement, whether repressed or acknowledged, explicitly or implicitly projected.  Masters need slaves and slaves need their masters.  The chief, the big man, the fascinating woman, the glamorous celebrity, the rich mogul, the powerful politician, while all standard vintage people without their accoutrements of prestigious (magical) power, magnetically attract many people wishing to surrender passively to the perceived superior power of what Carl Jung called the “mana-personality.”  However, such supernatural power or aura is in the eyes of the beholder, who wishes to be hypnotized and to fulfill his secret wish to be will-less.  As Dostoevsky has written,“Man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that great gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born.”  A smile, a song, or the projection of unconflicted authority – often that is all it takes for the spell to be cast.

Think of weasels.  They are very vicious and can be found all around the world.  Their cute faces belie their treacherous nature.  They have the ability to fascinate their victims – fascinate means to cast a spell upon or hypnotize (from the Latin, fascinare, to bewitch).  They do this by a stupefying song and dance, a facility that paralyzes those they prey upon before they pounce upon them.

Most people have never seen weasels in the wild, for they are secretive creatures who go about their killing clandestinely.  Whether they kill softly, I can’t say.  I’ve never heard their song, or the screaming of their victims.

Nevertheless, many people have been seduced by human weasels, who also court with a song and dance. These weasels come in all shapes and sizes.  Their faces are almost never as cute as their small fury cousins’ are, but their facial masks conceal similar tendencies and abilities: the talent to immobilize their victims through powerful seductive techniques.

It’s nothing new, of course.  It’s still the same old story, a gory story of the fight to dominate and control that is coterminous with human history or longer. It is an ancient myth that we still live by.  As in days of old, the siren song is often sexual in nature, not sexual in the passionately loving sense, not an encounter between two unknowns seeking to discover each other, but an instrumental sexual enticement wrapped in power, prestige, money, false charm and fake bravado whose purpose is domination.

There is a reason why the news is constantly filled with stories of a sexual nature: R. Kelly, Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, Robert Kraft, the “me too movement,” Catholic priests, and so many others without end.  Obviously, sex sells, and the corporate mass media are in the business of selling sexual titillation and political propaganda – two products that are not unconnected.

But there are many real victims here, people who have been used and abused by predators who traffic in human degradation for their sick pleasures.  Some of their victims have been fascinated, while others have been physically or mentally coerced.  Power corrupts, yes, but it also thrives on humiliating and using others, shaming them and destroying their innocence.

Living in a society of screens and spectacles, many people have lost a physical connection to other people.  This is the paradox of a sexually saturated, sadomasochistic mass media society.  Our bodies have become instruments in a spectral show of instrumental rationality and our relationships metamorphosed into shadows on the walls of our electronic devices.  Social life has become mass hallucination.  Everything and everyone has become a means to be used.  It is a society of mutual masturbators afraid to meet the unknown other in sexual intimacy.  Kate Julian chronicles aspects of this sexual recession in The Atlanticmagazine, “Why Are Young People Having So Little Sex.”  And it is not just young people.

While the United States has long been a hotbed for sexual scandals and media, FBI, and CIA exposure of the sexual lives of those they wish to destroy, today, when sex is a staple of the media where it is presented and discussed openly as if one were discussing another consumer product, the use of sexual blackmail and sexual muddling as a political tool of the “deep-state” propaganda apparatus is unmentionable, even as its significance is enhanced by electronic spying and the loss of privacy.  Jonathan Marshall puts it this way in “Sex Scandals and Sexual Blackmail in America’s Deep Politics”:

One outstanding consequence has been to elevate the importance of sexual blackmail and public exposure as tactics of covert political intrigues, just as they have been in espionage.  If information is power, the information about adultery, homosexuality, and other private sexual indiscretions by officials is power of a high order indeed.  Individuals and organizations that are adept at collecting and controlling such information – such as law enforcement, spies, private eyes, journalists and lawyers – thus play a key role in the hidden campaigns of the deep state.  One perverse measure of the importance of sex in America’s ‘deep politics’ is the paucity of systematic attention paid to it by political scientists.

Yet sexual blackmail is central to “deep-state” operations and political espionage, even as sexual trafficking and scandals mix with the omnipresent sexual intoxication of popular culture.  Like the term “deep-state” that is now a staple of the corporate mass media as the secret governing forces go deeper while seemingly becoming more exposed and shallow, the use of sex and sexual identity to confuse and confabulate is presented by the media as transparency.  It’s an old trick in new clothes.

Think of Julian Assange, an innocent man in a living hell in Room 101 of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for seven years.  Think sexual blackmail for telling the truth. Read John Pilger.

There are all kinds of weasels, and the spells they cast appeal to the very human desire to be fascinated.  Yet it’s a fool’s game.  Our society of the electronic spectacle of disembodied images and speculative “news” is meant to immobilize those who remain spectators.  It is black magic of the highest order.

So feel your pulse and take a walk in the woods.  If you encounter a weasel there, at least you’ll know it’s doing what comes naturally.  It’s the human weasels, those D. H. Lawrence called the “living dead,” who are out to get us.

As Lawrence warned, “Don’t let the living dead eat you up.”

*

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

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

According to conventional wisdom, there should be no serious talk of foreign military intervention in Venezuela. But these aren’t conventional times. The conventional playbook would adopt a strategy of foreign coordination of the Venezuelan opposition, economic sabotage, infiltration of the military, and manipulation of popular movements against the elected government. All this is being done, however, so far, not successfully. The frustrations of the Bolivarian movement’s enemies is palpable. Does this mean intervention is imminent? And what would such an intervention look like?

We know that the Trump administration met with Venezuelan coup plotters in 2017 and the Venezuelan opposition speaks openly of its coordination with the United States government. Officials in the U.S. and internationally have repeatedly called for the Venezuelan military and business people to take power, denouncing and refusing to recognize legitimate elections, and even having the audacity to “recognize” a “new president” in Venezuela who was not elected and who has no legitimate claim to office. Recent events have included the first ever attempted coup-by-drone, in August 2018; and the January 22nd mutiny by 27 National Guard troops led by a sergeant. One might infer a sense of desperation among the enemies of the Bolivarian government.

US National Security Advisor John Bolton called Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua a “Troika of Tyranny”, but the real triple threat faced by Latin America is the alliance of ultra-right administrations from the United States, Colombia, and Brazil of Donald Trump, Iván Duque, and Jair Bolsonaro, respectively. These Oligarchs of Overthrow have Venezuela in their sight, and military intervention is clearly an option on the table where they are seated.

Important circumstances have changed that had previously served as effective obstacles to intervention. Military engagements in the Middle East and Central Asia had made intervention in Venezuela untenable. In Colombia, the kind of military invasion advocated by former President Álvaro Uribe was impossible because the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) were committed to defending Venezuela from within should war break out. Today the FARC has transformed into a political party, the unarmed Revolutionary Alternative Common Force (still called FARC). Meanwhile, President Trump has announced troop withdrawals from both Syria and Afghanistan. Trump is not a man of peace, and he has openly expressed his support for a violent intervention in Venezuela.

Certainly, there is a long-standing connection between the Colombian military and the war in Afghanistan. Colombia has sent advisors, trainers, and special operations troops to Afghanistan, and there is a history of U.S. troop transfers between the two countries.  In fact, the application in Afghanistan of lessons learned from decades of protracted war in Colombia is an oft-mentioned theme among military officials. Regarding Syria, Venezuelan expert on unconventional warfare, Jorgé Negrón Valera wrote in October 2018 that, “A hypothesis of a direct conflict cannot be discarded. But all indications are that the the first thing on the Pentagon’s table will be Syria….” But as we enter 2019, the situation has changed. Should U.S. troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan and Syria, they could be well-suited for redeployment in a Colombia-based conflict with Venezuela.

Does all this mean that an invasion of Venezuela is imminent? Not at all. But it also doesn’t mean an invasion is not imminent, or that there are not scenarios that include other forms of military intervention. The US Empire and its Latin American partners want to use Venezuela as an example and put the nail in the coffin of socialist and popular advances in the region. They want it so badly that they are willing to consider options that had previously been unthinkable.

Back in the early 2000s, when then Colombian President Álvaro Uribe wanted the US to back him in a military assault on Venezuela, even an enthusiastic proponent of war like George W. Bush felt constrained to put the brakes on Uribe’s adventurous inclinations. At that time, traditional voices still were confident they could put together the coalition to force regime change. Nineteen years later, one cannot be surprised if some of that confidence has waned.

Until recently, talk about military intervention in Venezuela was roundly criticized and dismissed. Neither Wall Street nor the traditional right wing had any stomach for the disruption that would follow. But that was then, and this is now. Bess Levin makes this point in a September 2018 article published in Vanity Fair:

“Approximately one year ago, Donald Trump said that he was considering a ‘military option’ in Venezuela. At the time, virtually no one in Washington thought this was a good idea….

What has changed, alarmingly, is that now there are some people in Washington who have actually come around to the idea. Last month, Senator Marco Rubio said that… there is now a ‘very strong argument’ that the situation… could very well necessitate U.S. military involvement. Bloomberg notes that ‘security hawks with an interest in Latin America are taking positions in the administration, adding to a sense that Washington may be warming to intervention.”

There has been a series of statements by world and national leaders concerning military intervention in Venezuela. President Trump famously declared “We have many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option”. In September 2018, Trump said that, Venezuela, “…frankly, could be toppled very quickly by the military if the military decides to do that.”

Likewise, in September 2018, Luís Almagro, General Secretary of the Organization of American States said, “With regards to a military intervention aimed at overthrowing the regime of Nicolas Maduro, I think we should not exclude any option.” Latin American opposition to military intervention is widespread, and a subsequent vote to denounce Almagro’s comment was passed by the Lima Group, specifically tasked to find a solution to the Venezuelan crisis. Nevertheless, it is notable that Canada, Colombia, and Guayana refused back this censure.

Since then, the situation on the diplomatic front has only worsened. The OAS’ Almagro, all thirteen members of the Lima Group, and the U.S. government have released statements that they would not recognize the election of Nicholas Maduro as Venezuela’s President. Both Almagro and the U.S. State Department, in an act of brazen violation of Venezuelan sovereignty, have instead recognized the little-known Juan Guaidó, leader of the right-leaning National Assembly (as opposed to the more popular Constituent Assembly). While President Maduro was reelected overwhelmingly in May 2018, Guaido has not even run in a national election.  Former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and current Secretary of State Michael Pompeo released a statement on January 23 2019 saying,

“The United States recognizes Juan Guaidó as the new interim President of Venezuela, and strongly supports his courageous decision to assume that role pursuant to Article 233 of Venezuela’s constitution and supported by the National Assembly, in restoring democracy to Venezuela. As President Trump said, “The people of Venezuela have courageously spoken out against Maduro and his regime and demanded freedom and the rule of law.”

On the Colombian front, indications from President Iván Duque have been contradictory. Not only did Colombia refuse to censure Almagro’s comments, but its ambassador in Washington DC, Francisco Santos has insisted that “all options are on the table”. Nevertheless, Duque, in contrast with his mentor, Uribe, has said that the military option “is not the way.” On the other hand, Duque has called for increasing spending on Colombia’s air force and issued an order to put the air force on high alert. Following on the heels of Pompeo’s announcement, Duque declared his recognition of Guaidó as Venezuela’s president.

As mentioned earlier, the disarming of the FARC is a factor we must consider.

In a 2005 interview (while the FARC still existed as an armed force) conducted by Dick Emanuelsson and Ingrid Storgen, political analyst Heinz Dieterich makes the following points:

“There are 20,000 soldiers in the rear guard of an eventual military conflict between Colombia and Venezuela…. If these forces were not to exist, I am absolutely sure that today we would have the scenario that the Sandinistas had on the northern border with Honduras (in the 80s)…. Objectively, by its mere existence, they fundamentally make impossible whatever strategy of military or paramilitary destruction by the forces of the United States or Uribe.”

Similarly, in February 2005, the FARC made exclusively clear their position when FARC commander Raúl Reyes declared,

“In case of an invasion of our Venezuelan brothers by the United States War Hawks, the FARC would condemn it energetically and will offer its unconditional solidarity to the Bolivarian process of the country that saw the birth of our Liberator. In Bolívar we find everything.”

Now the FARC are demobilized and Raúl Reyes himself was killed in a camp in Ecuador, working out terms for the release of prisoners of war.

With this absence of the FARC, the presence and activity of Colombian paramilitaries has grown and intensified. As previously mentioned, on August 4 2018, Venezuela’s President Nicholas Maduros was targeted in an assassination attempt using drones. Venezuela says it has evidence that Colombian paramilitaries were involved. In October 2018, the Venezuelan military captured three Colombian paramilitaries in the state of Tachira along the border, citing evidence that the paramilitaries were in coordination with Colombian police and military. On November 5 2018, at least three members of the Venezuelan National Guard were killed in confrontations with Colombian paramilitaries in the state of Amazonas. On December 24, 2018, Venezuela captured nine Colombian paramilitaries entering the country to carry out a “mission in Caracas.” Maduro maintains that as many as 734 Venezuelan and Colombian mercenaries are preparing to commit false flag operations attacking military units on the border in order to escalate and confuse popular opinion, and to justify a potential intervention.

Negrón Valera instructs,

“Finally, we must understand that within the doctrine of Non-Conventional Warfare, aggression will not come in the traditional army against army form…. It will be the Colombian paramilitaries operating on the border, the U.S.’s armed wing in the region. Only this time it will have the full logistical and military support of Washington and the support of Colombia on the ground.”

Negrón Valera also notes the construction of wells in Colombia by the U.S. Army near the border with Venezuela as a possible precursor to intervention. He writes that,

“Let’s turn our attention to the tweet of the Commander of the Colombian National Army, Ricardo Gómez Nieto, who in the framework of the UNITAS naval exercises, speaks of his gratitude to the U.S. Army for its help in the ‘construction of a drinking water well’ in the community of Rumonero.

The same ‘altruistic’ strategy has been used by the US army in Afghanistan to consolidate itself in the territory.In any case, the important thing to highlight is that it was precisely in this part of Guajira that Colombia established in 2015 the Task Force on Combined Medium Arms (FUTAM), equipped with armored combat weapons, artillery, infantry, logistical support and army aviation. Only by looking at the map where the ‘water wells’ are built do we understand why Venezuela has a right to be concerned.”

Nevertheless, we must consider that there remain strong arguments that military invasion and other forms of intervention are not likely. It behooves us to soberly assess both Empire’s voices for and against such a war before we jump to any conclusions.

The main argument is that such an invasion or other interventions would be far too disruptive not only to their targets, but to all those involved. Such efforts would throw the economy into yet further crisis and fuel a flood of refugees. A coup or invasion would also likely spur a civil war that, in the absence of a strong Venezuelan military component, would depend on foreign troops to stabilize. That in and of itself would be so offensive to most Venezuelans that, be they supporters of the Bolivarian government or not, many would defend their national soil on patriotic grounds.

And that underscores the lack of popular backing for the Venezuelan opposition. Uruguayan journalist and Telesur cofounder Aram Aharonian observes,

“A Hinterlaces poll revealed that more than 64% of Venezuelans have an unfavorable opinion about the actions of rightwing leaders….There is another fact that stands out in the poll: 62% of Venezuelans prefer President Maduro to solve the economic problems of the country, while 34% prefer an opposition government. 61% blame economic problems on agents external to the government, such as the economic war, the fall of the price of oil, price speculation, and U.S. financial sanctions, while 37% attribute them to economic policies implemented by the government.

….However, it is clear that the US hawks may push for intervention: we must not let our guard down.”

Another factor that makes military intervention less plausible is the reality that the Venezuela military would not resist a military intervention alone. There are 1.6 million armed and trained civilian militia members ready to take to the streets to fight coup attempts and foreign invaders. At the same time, with the failures of the Colombian peace process, many former FARC insurgents are returning to the hills to join other armed groups and to perhaps form a new insurgency. The National Liberation Army (ELN) is still armed and several thousand strong. The ELN has claimed responsibility for a January 17 car bombing in Bogotá. Would the ELN be a pro-Bolivarian force within Colombia in the event of an invasion?

With or without an armed Colombian insurgency, there is a popular movement that can be expected to take the streets in Colombia in protest to any invasion. Colombia has a very large and well-organized opposition that could paralyze its streets with protest, should its people rise up to resist this war.

Internationally, countries such as Russia, China, and Cuba could be counted on to come to Venezuela’s defense, perhaps even with arms. On December 10, 2018, Russia openly sent two nuclear-capable bombers to Venezuela. Likewise, Mexico’s newly elected President Manuel Lopez Obrador has announced that Mexico will not participate in or support destabilization plans toward Venezuela.

When we weigh all the factors, it is not possible to say with any kind of certainty that there will be, or that there will not be, a foreign military intervention, invasion, or otherwise foreign directed coup in Venezuela. But Empire has been waiting a long time and faced failure after failure, so patience may be running thin. More, the prize of regime change in Venezuela, even with all the disruption and chaos that would entail, is that it would existentially threaten popular governments and movements throughout Latin America. We must not underestimate that temptation.

What is required of all those who stand in solidarity with Venezuela, and of all those who oppose Empire and its wars, is this: that we be ready for all eventualities on the table, including the military option. The best way to end a march toward war is to make sure that war never happens. To do that requires those who love peace to mobilize.

*

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 Venezuelanalysis

It looks like the embattled representative from Minnesota will end up like Cynthia McKinney, who was thrown out of Congress for the sin of criticizing the official narrative on 9/11.

She is also a fierce critic of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians (she sailed with activists on the Gaza-bound ships Dignity and Spirit of Humanity). McKinney deviated from the official narrative on Libya and she introduced articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush for committing war crimes and violating the Constitution. 

Rep. Ilhan Omar was sworn in a little over a month ago and in that time fellow members of Congress and the corporate propaganda media have attacked her for “antisemitism,” that is to say criticism of the apartheid state of Israel, which is a cardinal sin for members of Congress and, for that matter, anybody else. 

Both establishment Democrats and Republicans are taking turns bashing her, but the Republicans went further than simply denouncing her with strident soundbites. They have conflated her with the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. 

Rep. Ilhan Omar blasts GOP over poster linking her with the 9/11 attacks https://t.co/pC7o2NMou3 pic.twitter.com/xDkmP8azio

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) March 2, 2019

Meanwhile, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee demanded she apologize for a remark stating there are dual citizens in America doing the work of Israel. 

The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee called for freshman Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar to apologize after insinuating that pro-Israel groups are pushing "allegiance to a foreign country." https://t.co/QHy5pdpW56 pic.twitter.com/uabtQIjdj7

— CNN (@CNN) March 2, 2019

During the Bush regime, there were a number neocons holding dual US-Israel citizenship and they plotted a war that undeniably benefited Israel. These folks include Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, “Scooter” Libby, and others. 

Back in 2004, two years into the neocon war waged on Iraq, Bill and Kathleen Christison, both former CIA employees, wrote: 

The link between active promoters of Israeli interests and policymaking circles is stronger by several orders of magnitude in the Bush administration, which is peppered with people who have long records of activism on behalf of Israel in the United States, of policy advocacy in Israel, and of promoting an agenda for Israel often at odds with existing U.S. policy. These people, who can fairly be called Israeli loyalists, are now at all levels of government, from desk officers at the Defense Department to the deputy secretary level at both State and Defense, as well as on the National Security Council staff and in the vice president’s office.

“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” Omar said during a town hall Wednesday. 

Fair enough question, right? Wrong. 

Omar Facing More Accusations Of Anti-Semitism https://t.co/lCrlI3tbWa pic.twitter.com/B5TusRzcCe

— The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 2, 2019

“Representative Omar’s comments leveled that charge by invoking a vile anti-Semitic slur,” complained New York Rep. Eliot Engel. 

Others see the over-the-top efforts to defame Omar and remove her from Congress as endangering her safety. 

A core promise of America is the vigilant protection of free speech and the security of those who engage in it. While I strongly object to some of Rep. @ilhan Omar’s recent comments, the disgusting display in the WV Capitol and threats on her life are antithetical to our values. pic.twitter.com/R8qE6UbpDE

— Rep. Dean Phillips (@RepDeanPhillips) March 2, 2019

Just about every member of Congress is demanding she be shown the door. Here’s Sarah Palin, the fifteen minutes of fame darling of the Republican Party, desperately trying to remain relevant:

Even DEMOCRAT Chair Of House Foreign Affairs Committee Has HAD IT With Ilhan Omar’s FLAGRANT Anti-Semitism https://t.co/gXPlUDRtLq

— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) March 2, 2019

Finally, Ilhan Omar made a mistake when she said the reason she is being attacked is because she’s a Muslim, which is merely a bonus for her accusers. The fact is anybody who criticizes Israel—regardless of race, gender, or religion—will be targeted.

*

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

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

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MPR News

All forms of modern-day slavery affect an estimated 40 million or more people worldwide – mostly women and young girls, ongoing in scores of countries, including America and other Western nations.

Human trafficking and forced labor in the US exists mainly in the following forms: prostitution, pornography, and related sex services, domestic indentured servitude, agricultural slavery, industrial sweatshops, exploited restaurant and hotel workers, entertainment exploitation, and involuntary mail-order brides.

The above practices persist for lack of enforcement of laws and regulations, poor or no work conditions monitoring, and a strong demand for cheap labor, enabling unscrupulous employers and criminal networks to exploit powerless workers for profit.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) defines forced labor as “work or service…exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which said person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily.”

Forced child labor is:

“(a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labor, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;”

“(b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances;”

“(c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties;” and

“(d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.”

US laws against sex and other forms of human trafficking include:

The 1910 Mann Act prohibits trafficking individuals across state lines to engage in prostitution or related offenses.

The 1930 Tariff Act includes provisions, prohibiting imports of goods made from forced labor. The 2009 Customs and Facilitations and Trade Enforcement Reauthorization Act has similar provisions.

The 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act  combats trafficking in persons, especially for sex, slavery, and involuntary servitude.

The 2003 PROTECT Act protects children from human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

Section 7202 of the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act established the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center to combat the practice.

US Code, Title 22, Chapter 78 – Trafficking Victims Protection (2012) combats it in all forms, calling it “a contemporary manifestation of slavery whose victims are predominantly women and children…”

The problem with these laws is lax enforcement. America’s most vulnerable are poorly protected – all too often not at all.

Sex slavery in America is the nation’s most common form of involuntary servitude. Tied to organized crime, countless numbers of young women and girls are affected. Estimates range from 100,000 – 300,000.

According to a Justice Department assessment, pimps control at least 75% of exploited minors, intimidating them psychologically, threatening them with violence for noncompliance.

The Internet is a common recruiting tool, among other methods – targeting hundreds of thousands of runaway street girls and youths, luring them into prostitution, pornography, and related sex activities with false promises, holding them in bondage once involved.

Sex trafficking and other forms of involuntary servitude amount to a multi-billion dollar business. In 2014, the ILO estimated human trafficking earns around $150 billion annually worldwide – mostly from sex trafficking and exploitation.

It occurs in a variety of venues, including brothels, truck stops, at hotels and motels, residential apartments, as well as massage parlors fronting for prohibited prostitution and related sexual activities.

The issue made headlines when New England Patriots billionaire owner Robert Kraft was charged days earlier with two misdemeanor counts of paying for sex at an illicit massage parlor in Jupiter, Florida.

According to local police, body cam video evidence identified him during two visits to the so-called Orchids of Asia Day Spa. Around two dozens others will be charged separately – following a Palm Beach, Florida sex trafficking probe.

On the one hand, adult married men engaging in consensual sex with women above the legal age of consent in their state is no one’s business but their wives – provided women involved aren’t being exploited.

If sex with girls below the age of consent occurs, varying in the US by state, often below age-16 or 18, it’s a criminal offense even if voluntary, usually referred to as statutory rape or child molestation.

Soliciting sex at a massage parlor or other fronts for prostitution lets the practice connected to organized crime flourish – at the expense of exploited women and girls.

That’s why Kraft’s indulgence was abhorrent and a misdemeanor offense, likely resulting in a fine and perhaps mandated hours of community service.

Through a spokesman, he denied charges against him, a statement saying “(w)e categorically deny that Mr. Kraft engaged in any illegal activity. Because it is a judicial matter, we will not be commenting further.”

The massage parlor he visited faces more serious charges, the penalty to its managers likely to be much harsher, depending on specific violations committed, including likely human trafficking for sex.

Palm Beach County police said many women at the massage parlor Kraft visited were Chinese nationals – living at the establishment and not allowed to leave.

Ten similar county “spas” were investigated, around 300 arrest warrants issued, all establishments probed shuttered.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Online independent analysis of US-led wars, rampant corruption, corporate greed, civil rights and fraudulent monetary transactions is invariably relegated to the bottom rung of search engine results.

As a result we presently do not cover our monthly running costs which could eventually jeopardize our activities.

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis provided by Global Research on a daily basis?

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

*     *     *

We’re Killing Off Our Vital Insects Too

By F. William Engdahl, March 03, 2019

Recent independent scientific studies indicate that we are threatening our vital global insect population, including of bees, with widespread extinction through massive deployment of agriculture pesticides.

The Coup Against President Aristide 15 Years Later: The Clintons, the Canadians, and Western NGOs all Complicit in a Never-Ending Tragedy

By Michael Welch, Yves Engler, and Jean Saint-Vil, March 02, 2019

On February 29th 2004, fifteen years ago this week, following an insurgency by a rebel paramilitary army, U.S. Canadian, and French troops executed a coup d’etat against the democratically elected Haitian leader Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

The Pentagon’s “Ides of March”: Best Month to Go to War

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 02, 2019

There are ongoing military threats against Venezuela. Is a US sponsored war contemplated for March 2019?

Various scenarios are envisaged by Washington. Sofar there is no firm evidence regarding the nature or timeline of a US sponsored military operation directed against Venezuela.

Video: US Forces Steal Tons of Gold Captured by ISIS in Syria, Iraq

By South Front, March 02, 2019

According to Kurdish Bas News Agency, the US transferred about 50 tons of gold from areas seized from ISIS in Deir Ezzor province. The report says that the gold was withdrawn from Syria through the US military base in Ayn al-Arab. A part of it was allegedly shared with the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), which are the core of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

From Late Victorian Holocausts to 21st Century Imperialism: “Crocodile Tears” for Venezuela

By Colin Todhunter, March 01, 2019

On 26 February, Stephen Hickey, UK political coordinator at the United Nations, delivered a statement at the Security Council briefing on Venezuela that put the blame for the situation in that country on its government. He said that years of misrule and corruption have wrecked the Venezuelan economy and that the actions of the “Maduro regime” have led to economic collapse.

Returning Syrian Refugees Were Fleeing US Proxy War, Not “Assad”

By Tony Cartalucci, March 01, 2019

Huge numbers of Syrians have already returned to Syria – specifically to areas government forces have cleared of Western-armed and backed terrorists. This includes Aleppo, Homs, and Daraa.

The flood of returning refugees to government-held areas indicates Syrians were fleeing the US-backed proxy war against the Syrian government – not the Syrian government itself.

Cohen Knows What Trump Is Capable of. His Testimony Should Terrify Us.

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, March 01, 2019

On February 27, Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, testified before the House Oversight and Reform Committee for six hours. In two months, Cohen will begin serving a three-year prison sentence.

*

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

While Americans have rightly groaned and rebelled against President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency over his precious wall, which would rob Congress of its constitutional authority over spending, he has also used another false declaration of national emergency―most recently last week―that has been mostly unnoticed.

Every executive order that Trump has issued imposing economic sanctions on Venezuela includes a sentence declaring that the country is causing a “national emergency” for America and poses “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security” of the United States.

The fact that these absurd claims have gone unnoticed in the major media shows how weak the rule of law is in the United States in the arena of foreign policy―as legal scholars have noted. This is especially true for aggressive actions by our government that kill people in other countries.

And make no mistake about it: US sanctions on Venezuela are killing people, and have been killing people for some time, as opposition economist Francisco Rodríguez, the leading expert on the Venezuelan economy, has pointed out.

There are no estimates of the death toll from the sanctions, but given the experience of countries in similar situations, it is likely in the thousands or tens of thousands so far. And it will get rapidly worse if the most recent sanctions continue.

How do economic sanctions kill people? In general, they do so by damaging the economy. This includes loss of employment and income for people living on the margin, and, most importantly, reduced access to life-saving necessities such as medicines, medical supplies, and health care.

In Iraq in the 1990s, for example, the number of children who died from the sanctions was in the hundreds of thousands.

But the Venezuelan people have been even more vulnerable to US economic sanctions than Iraqis were. Venezuela is dependent on oil exports for almost all of the dollars the economy needs to import necessities such as medicine and food. This means that anything that reduces oil production is primarily hitting the general population by cutting off the dollars that both the private sector and government use to import goods for people’s basic needs, as well as for transport, spare parts, and most goods that the economy needs in order to function.

The Trump sanctions of August 2017 imposed a financial embargo that cut Venezuela off from most borrowing. This had an enormous impact on oil production, which had already been declining. The rate of decline accelerated rapidly; during the year following the sanctions, it would fall by 700,000 barrels a day, about three times as fast as it had fallen over the previous 20 months. This post-sanction acceleration in the loss of oil production amounts to the loss of more than $6 billion. For comparison, Venezuela, when the economy was growing, spent about $2 billion per year on medicines. Total goods imports for 2018 are estimated at $11.7 billion.

At the time of these sanctions, Venezuela was already suffering from a deep recession and balance-of-payments problems that necessitated a debt restructuring. To restructure the debt, the government has to be able to issue new bonds, but the US sanctions made this impossible.

The Trump sanctions—both the August 2017 sanctions and now the new oil embargo—also make it pretty near impossible for the government to take measures that would end the hyperinflation, currently estimated at 1.6 million percent annually. To stabilize hyperinflation, you have to restore faith in the domestic currency. This would very likely be done through creating a new exchange-rate system and other measures that would require access to the dollar-based international financial system—but the sanctions preclude that.

The sanctions imposed by the Obama administration in March 2015 (which also declared a “national emergency”) also had a very serious impact. This is well-known in financial institutions, but generally not reported in the major media, which treat these sanctions as they are advertised by the US government, as “sanctions against individuals.” But when the individuals are high-level government officials, for example the finance minister, the sanctions cause enormous problems, as these officials are cut off from necessary transactions in most of the world financial system.

Financial institutions increasingly turned away from Venezuela after March 2015, as they saw the risks of lending to a government that the United States was increasingly determined to topple―and, as the economy worsened, looked more likely to succeed in doing so. The Venezuelan private sector was cut off from vital access to credit, which contributed to the unprecedented, indeed almost unbelievable, 80 percent drop in imports over the past six years, which has devastated this import-dependent economy.

On January 23, the Trump administration announced that it was recognizing Juan Guaidó, currently head of the Venezuelan National Assembly, as “interim president” of the country. By doing so (together with politically allied countries), Washington basically imposed a trade embargo against Venezuela. This is because any revenue from oil sales to about three-quarters of Venezuela’s export markets―the United States and its allies―would no longer go to the government but to the “interim president.” Some temporary exceptions were carved out for US oil companies, but this embargo is still sweeping enough to rapidly multiply the economic damage, suffering, and death that the prior sanctions have caused.

A statement on the latest sanctions from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights noted, “Precipitating an economic and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela is not a foundation for the peaceful settlement of disputes.”

It is clear from their statements and actions that the Trump team―including National Security Adviser John Bolton, Senator Marco Rubio, and 1980s warcriminal and now special envoy to Venezuela Elliott Abrams―is not interested in a peaceful resolution of Venezuela’s crisis. They are not the type who worry about how many people will die along their road to regime change.

The real question is why prominent liberals, such as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, support this illegal and barbaric operation. Is it possible they don’t know what Trump and his sanctions are doing?

*

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

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC, and president of Just Foreign Policy. His latest book is Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy (2015, Oxford University Press).

In a win for free speech, a federal court in North Dakota recently dismissed a baseless $900 million lawsuit brought by the Dakota Access Pipeline company against Greenpeace and a number of individual protesters. The company should have learned its lesson. Instead, it refiled the case in state court.

These meritless cases are textbook examples of “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation,” or SLAPPs. This tactic is increasingly used by corporations to silence critics with expensive legal actions.

The pipeline company, Energy Transfer LP, filed the lawsuit in 2017 against Greenpeace organizations and others, including individual Standing Rock protesters. It relied on defamation law and the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, a federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity.

The company alleged that Greenpeace and the other defendants, in criticizing the pipeline’s potential environmental and cultural damage to the nearby Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, engaged in a criminal network of fraud and misinformation. The 231-page complaint described the defendants as a “network of not-for-profits and rogue eco-terrorist groups.”

The lawsuit rested on two theories, neither of which passed muster in federal court. First, the complaint argued that Greenpeace and the other defendants were engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the public and defame the company. Second, it claimed that the defendants were engaged in an “illegal Enterprise” targeting the company and should therefore be held liable for any illegal actions committed by those who simply shared a common opposition to the pipeline.

These accusations, wild as they seem, would set a dangerous precedent if accepted: Not only might a different decision bankrupt defendants like Greenpeace  — due to both litigation expenses and damages — and destroy the lives of the Standing Rock activists, but it could also erode the right of nonprofit organizations to speak out against corporate actions. Further, acceptance of the company’s legal arguments would make any advocacy group potentially liable for the conduct of its supporters and fellow travelers, even without any evidence of direct coordination.

The ACLU, along with a coalition of public interest groups, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Greenpeace and its partners and the individual Standing Rock protesters. We argued that Energy Transfer’s claims violate the First Amendment, which prohibits companies from suing critics out of existence just because their message is anathema to the corporate interests of the plaintiff. We also told the court that the RICO Act can’t be manipulated and exploited to suppress constitutionally protected speech.

The judge agreed and dismissed the case. His order concluded that

“Donating to people whose cause you support does not create a RICO enterprise,” and that “Posting articles written by people with similar beliefs does not create a RICO enterprise.”

The opinion chided the company for its hyperbolic complaint and vindicated the activists and organizations that sought to speak out on matters of serious public concern.

Last week, in a pigheaded display of its commitment to dragging Greenpeace, its partners, and the Standing Rock protesters through an expensive and unjustified lawsuit for as long as possible, the company refiled the case in state court. This new lawsuit rehashes the same, tired arguments that it presented in federal court, but relies exclusively on state laws.

While the federal court ruled in favor of free speech and common sense, and while the re-filed version of the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed, these cases represent an alarming trend in the suppression of public activism. That’s why the ACLU joined a number of other public interest groups in founding the Protect the Protest Task Force, a coalition dedicated to fighting SLAPP cases.

These unfounded lawsuits attempt to abuse the judicial system in order to suppress constitutionally protected expression by intimidating activists and advocates. The Protect the Protest Task Force provides support for organizations and individuals targeted as a result of their public interest advocacy.

Protesters and advocacy groups have the right to freely and vigorously criticize their opponents, even when their speech threatens to subvert corporate interests. These cases offer a grim reminder of our responsibility to hold companies accountable when they abuse the judicial system with stunt litigation transparently designed to intimidate and bankrupt their critics.

*

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

Nicola Morrow is Paralegal, ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

Featured image is from ACLU

Glyphosate—the active ingredient in Monsanto‘s Roundup weedkiller that some studies have linked to cancer—is also a secret ingredient in nearly 20 popular beers and wines.

That’s the finding of a new study from the education group U.S. PIRG, which found glyphosate in 19 of 20 wine and beer brands tested, including organic labels and brews.

BREAKING: Glyphosate, a key ingredient in #Roundup, has been found in wine and beer…even in organic brands. #BanRoundup https://t.co/PApgrpNFuV

— U.S. PIRG (@uspirg) February 25, 2019

The release of the study coincides with the beginning of the first federal trial against Monsanto and its new parent company Bayer over whether Roundup use caused a plaintiff’s cancer, USA Today reported Monday.

“With a federal court looking at the connection between Roundup and cancer today, we believe this is the perfect time to shine a spotlight on glyphosate,” study author and U.S. PIRG Toxic’s Director Kara Cook-Schultz told USA Today. “This chemical could prove a true risk to so many Americans’ health, and they should know that it is everywhere – including in many of their favorite drinks.”

The drink with the highest glyphosate concentration was Sutter Home Merlot, at 51.4 parts per billion (ppb). Popular beer brands like Coors Light, Miller Lite and Budweiser all had concentrations above 25 ppb. The full results of the study, from highest to lowest glyphosate concentration in ppb, are listed below.

Wines

1. Sutter Home Merlot: 51.4 ppb
2. Beringer Founders Estates Moscato: 42.6 ppb
3. Barefoot Cabernet Sauvignon: 36.3 ppb
4. Inkarri Malbec, Certified Organic: 5.3 ppb
5. Frey Organic Natural White: 4.8 ppb

Beers

1. Tsingtao Beer: 49.7 ppb
2. Coors Light: 31.1 ppb
3. Miller Lite: 29.8 ppb
4. Budweiser: 27.0 ppb
5. Corona Extra: 25.1 ppb
6. Heineken: 20.9 ppb
7. Guinness Draught: 20.3 ppb
8. Stella Artois: 18.7 ppb
9. Ace Perry Hard Cider: 14.5 ppb
10. Sierra Nevada Pale Ale: 11.8 ppb
11. New Belgium Fat Tire Amber Ale: 11.2 ppb
12. Sam Adams New England IPA: 11.0 ppb
13. Stella Artois Cidre: 9.1 ppb
14. Samuel Smith’s Organic Lager: 5.7 ppb

The only beverage tested that contained no glyphosate was Peak Beer Organic IPA.

The amounts found were far below the safety limits for glyphosate set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as Bayer toxicologist William Reeves told CBS News via a spokesperson.

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets daily exposure limits at least 100 times below levels shown to have no negative effect in safety studies,” Reeves said. “Assuming the greatest value reported, 51.4 ppb, is correct, a 125-pound adult would have to consume 308 gallons of wine per day, every day for life to reach the US Environmental Protection Agency’s glyphosate exposure limit for humans. To put 308 gallons into context, that would be more than a bottle of wine every minute, for life, without sleeping.”

However, the study noted that chemicals aren’t necessarily safe just because regulatory bodies say they are.

“While these levels of glyphosate are below EPA risk tolerances for beverages, it is possible that even low levels of glyphosate can be problematic. For example, in one study, scientists found that 1 part per trillion of glyphosate has the potential to stimulate the growth of breast cancer cells and disrupt the endocrine system,” the study said.

The EPA has found that glyphosate is not carcinogenic to humans, but the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer ruled it was a probable human carcinogen in 2015. More recently, a study released February found that those exposed to glyphosate were 41 percent more likely to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

In the first case to go to trial against Monsanto over Roundup last year, a jury ruled that exposure to glyphosate had caused the non-Hodgkin lymphoma of California groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson. Plaintiff Edwin Hardeman is making a similar claim in the first federal glyphosate trial that started Monday.

“Due to glyphosate’s many health risks and its ubiquitous nature in our food, water and alcohol, the use of glyphosate in the U.S. should be banned unless and until it can be proven safe,” the U.S. PIRG study advised.

*

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

Recent independent scientific studies indicate that we are threatening our vital global insect population, including of bees, with widespread extinction through massive deployment of agriculture pesticides. For most of us, insects such as flies or mosquitoes or wasps are nuisances to be avoided. Yet if the latest studies are any indication, we may be in danger of massive elimination of vital insects that maintain nature’s balance. The consequences to life on this planet are only now beginning to be seriously considered.

The first-ever worldwide study of declines of insect species and numbers has just been published by the journal, Biological Conservation. The conclusions are more than alarming. Among other conclusions the study found that over 40% of insect species are threatened with extinction.

The study found that habitat loss by the conversion to intensive agriculture is the main driver of the declines, as well as agrochemical pollutants such as glyphosate, neonicotinoids and other pesticides. The authors explain,

“Here, we present a comprehensive review of 73 historical reports of insect declines from across the globe, and systematically assess the underlying drivers. Our work reveals dramatic rates of decline that may lead to the extinction of 40% of the world’s insect species over the next few decades.”

The study notes recent analyses that indicate that extensive usage of pesticides is the primary factor responsible for the decline of birds in grasslands and aquatic organisms such as fish or frogs in streams.

Among other things the study cites results of a 27-year study of insect populations in select German protected nature preserves that found a “shocking 76% decline in flying insect biomass at several of Germany’s protected areas…an average 2.8% loss in insect biomass per year in habitats subject to rather low levels of human disturbance. Worryingly, the study shows a steady declining trend over nearly three decades. A study in rain-forests of Puerto Rico has reported biomass losses between 98% and 78% for ground-foraging and canopy-dwelling arthropods over a 36-year period and parallel declines in birds, frogs and lizards at the same areas…”

Especially alarming were the declines in bee populations, especially bumblebees. Since 1980 they found that wild bee species in Britain declined by 52% and 67% in the Netherlands. In the United States, the country which pioneered intensive agribusiness and wide use of chemicals after World War II, they found that wild bees were declining in 23% of the country between 2008 and 2013, mainly in the Midwest, Great Plains and the Mississippi valley. These were the areas where grain production, particularly GMO corn for biofuel production using glyphosate and other chemicals was prevalent. Overall the USA went from a peak in 1947 of six million honey bee colonies, down to less than half or some 2.5 million colonies today. The decline began immediately as widespread agriculture use of the organochloride insecticide DDT was employed. Decline has continued unabated even after DDT was banned in 1972 in the United States as DDT was replaced by glyphosate-based alternatives and other chemical pesticides.

Irreversible decline?

What is poorly understood by the larger public is the essential role that insects play to the entire order of nature and species preservation. As the report notes, “shrews, moles, hedgehogs, anteaters, lizards, amphibians, most bats, many birds and fish feed on insects or depend on them for rearing their offspring. Even if some declining insects might be replaced with others, it is difficult to envision how a net drop in overall insect biomass could be countered.” The study concludes among other sobering points that “the application of herbicides to cropland has had more negative impacts on both terrestrial and aquatic plants and insect biodiversity than any other agronomic practice.” The far most widely used herbicide in the world today is glyphosate and Monsanto Roundup based on glyphosate.

Another recent study by the California Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation reported that California’s monarch butterfly population is at an all-time low. From the 1980s when monitoring began to 2017, some 97% of monarch butterflies had disappeared. Then from 2017 to today another 85% decline was registered. The scientists claim the intensive agriculture use of pesticides, herbicides is the main cause.

Scientists at the University of Texas have identified in experiments that glyphosate, the controversial herbicide in Monsanto Roundup, harms the microbiota needed by honeybees for growing and resisting pathogens. This, combined with earlier studies linking the group of neonicotinoid pesticides to bee deaths, suggest we need an urgent review of the toxins being widely applied to our agriculture crops. Notably, the world’s largest purveyor of both neonicotinoids and of glyphosate-based Roundup today is the merged giant Monsanto/Bayer.

These studies all are putting the focus on an aspect of agrochemical damage that until now has been largely ignored. But insects make up the structural and functional base of many of the world’s ecosystems. A world without birds and bees would be one of catastrophic damage to all life on our planet. Without insects, entire ecosystems collapse. Rather than solving world hunger as the agribusiness industry likes to claim, their promotion of select pesticides such as glyphosate threaten to destroy the food system. Nobody in their right mind would want to do that, would they?

*

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

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

Featured image is from NEO

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

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

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

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

“It’s almost as though the greater the devastation caused by neoliberalism, the greater the outbreak of NGOs.

Nothing illustrates this more poignantly than the phenomenon of the US preparing to invade a country and simultaneously readying NGOs to go in and clean up the devastation.”

– Arundhati Roy (August 16, 2004) [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

On February 29th 2004, fifteen years ago this week, following an insurgency by a rebel paramilitary army, U.S. Canadian, and French troops executed a coup d’etat against the democratically elected Haitian leader Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

This incident was notable in a long history of imperialist interests determined to thwart any semblance of emancipation from foreign control.

From the arrival of Christopher Columbus through the slave trade, military interventions, occupation and U.S. backed tyrannies, far away powers have profited from the sweat and blood of the people of this island community. [2]

Yet, the spirit of resistance has flourished! Following the world’s first and only successful slave revolt, Haiti had established its independence in 1804. A popular uprising in the 1980s would lead to the collapse of the brutal U.S. backed Duvalier regime. And in spite of U.S. and CIA backed actions to sabotage Haitian democracy, an array of grassroots organizations prevailed in their efforts to elevate Aristide, an advocate for the poor, to the presidency in December 1990. [3]

Aristide’s advocacy for the Haitian people and refusal to implement policies favourable to offshore financial interests coming at the expense of his fellow Haitians led to his 1991 ouster by a CIA-backed coup. U.S. President Bill Clinton would return Aristide to Haiti on the condition he would grant amnesty to the brutal Haitian military and implement structural adjustment programs and other reforms demanded by the World Bank and the other instruments of the so-called ‘Washington Consensus.’ [4]

It was defiance of these conditions by Aristide and his Fanmi Lavalas Party that led to the 2004 coup. [5]

In the 15 years since, a colonial occupation has asserted itself on the island nation in the name of ‘peace-keeping’ and ‘humanitarian relief.’ A closer inspection however, reveals that what may be portrayed as philanthropic benevolence is in fact a disguise for the continued oppression of a people daring to defy white supremacist exploitation.

In recent weeks, Haitians are once again rising in opposition to a U.S. puppet government which ironically better fits the criticisms of corrupt and anti-democratic behaviour than does the Maduro government being condemned by the U.S. and Canada. [6]

This week’s Global Research News Hour radio program marks the 15 year anniversary of the 2004 coup and the consequent undermining of Haitian sovereignty with two interviews.

In the first half hour, Jean Saint-Vil elaborates on the historical and geopolitical context of the coup and the ongoing occupation, notes the ignoble efforts in the country by the U.N. and the Clintons among others, and speaks to both the morality and the wisdom of Western powers changing their relationship with Haitians and respecting their sovereignty.

We next speak with Yves Engler specifically about Canada’s role in the coup and the interests it is pursuing in the country. He speaks about how and why even progressive Canadian organizations are echoing the propaganda and talking points enabling the occupation. He discusses the presence of Canadian Special Forces on the ground in Haiti in the midst of recent popular upheaval there. He also brings up the Quebec engineering firm SNC Lavelin, currently making headlines in Ottawa, and takes note of that company’s involvement within Haiti along with its under-reported role within the architecture of Canadian foreign policy decision-making generally.

Jean Saint-Vil is a Haitian-Canadian writer and activist. He co-founder the Canada -Haiti Action Network and has visited Haiti several times before and since the 2004 coup.

Yves Engler is one of Canada’s foremost Canadian foreign policy critics and dissidents. He is the author of nine books on Canadian foreign policy including Canada in Haiti: Waging War on the Poor Majority (2005), which he co-authored with Anthony Fenton, The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy (2009), and his most recent, Left, Right: Marching to the Beat of Imperial Canada.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 250)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

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

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

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes: 

1. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17888.htm
2. Press for Conversion! (Issue #60), March 2007, pg 3-6; https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-sponsored-coup-detat-the-destabilization-of-haiti/5323726
3. ibid
4. ibid
5. idib
6. https://www.globalresearch.ca/canadian-policy-on-venezuela-haiti-reveals-hypocrisy-that-media-ignores/5669171

Abe Government’s Reluctant Admission 

After a long silence, the Abe government has finally admitted that the construction of a U.S. military base at Henoko-Oura Bay in Okinawa requires significant changes to the original land reclamation plan (see Asahi Shimbun). Parts of the seafloor of the construction site have proven to be extremely fragile, having the consistency of mayonnaise. To solidify the seafloor sufficiently to support a functional airport, a “sand compaction pile method” needs to be carried out (see this video for sand compaction pile method). Casing piles will be driven into the seafloor as deep as 60 meters (or 90 meters below the water surface), and the piles, which are hollow, will be filled from the top with sand and other compacting materials. Then the piles are raised or removed slowly leaving the compacting materials in the form of a pillar, thus solidifying the seafloor. This procedure is to be repeated 76,000 times, implanting 76,000 compacting pillars in the seafloor (see Ryukyu Shimpo). 

Source: Asahi Shimbun

Reclamation experts have said that while the sand compaction pile method has been successfully carried out in other regions within Japan, it has never been done to a depth of 90 meters, and there are no pile drivers in Japan capable of reaching to that depth. On this problem the government has so far offered no comment.

Sand Compacting Pile Method © FUDO TETRA. Original source

The government’s admission has critical implications not only for the Japanese government but also for the U.S. and international institutions.

The Japanese Government’s Pretense: No Adverse Impact on the Environment 

The Abe government’s admission has placed the government in a difficult situation.

Oura Bay and Base Construction (Feb. 3, 2019) © H. Yoshikawa

First, implanting 76,000 piles into the seafloor is certain to have a tremendous impact on, and cause irreversible changes to, the environment of Henoko-Oura Bay, one of the most biodiversity-rich marine environments in the world (see Okinawa Prefectural Government). This poses a significant challenge to the Japanese government’s pretense that the construction and operation of the base will not create adverse effects on the environment (hence base construction is legal).

The pretense was made possible by the Okinawa Defense Bureau’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (2012), which has been vehemently criticized for numerous flaws by experts and environmental NGOs. The government’s admission is the latest blow to the tainted EIA and to the government’s environmental claims concerning the viability of the Henoko-Oura Bay project. The EIA made no mention of the mayonnaise-like condition of the seafloor.

Ryukyu Shimpo Extra Edition. Okinawa Prefectural Government’s Revocation of Land Reclamation Permit

Second, the proposed changes (or any change of this magnitude) to the original construction plan require a new environmental impact study and approval from local governments. Given that Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki was elected in a special gubernatorial election in September 2018 on his pledge to fight the base construction, he is expected to deny any proposal for changes (see Ryukyu Shimpo). His refusal to permit construction will drag the entire base construction plan down, causing a halt or a long delay.

Japanese Government Resorts to its Usual Tactics

At this juncture, the Abe administration is downplaying the magnitude of its admission, insisting that construction work will continue. In fact, the Okinawa Defense Bureau is starting to build a new seawall in the area near the fragile seafloor (see The Japan Times). Many see this as the government’s attempt to create a fait accompli by giving the impression that construction work has passed the point of no return.

In short, the Japanese government is resorting to its usual tactics. Throughout its reckless pushing of the construction plan, every time environmental issues came to light, the Japanese government has attempted to sweep them under its administrative rug. It has repeatedly prevented examination of the issues and continued to insist that the “no environmental impact” study was sufficient, thus enabling construction to move forward despite engineering evidence of the dangers.

Most recently, in August 2018, when the Okinawan prefectural government revoked the land reclamation permit for base construction on the grounds of serious environmental and civil engineering problems (see the Okinawa Prefectural Government’s Revocation Documents in English), Ishii Keiichi, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Technology, and Tourism, came to the rescue, and denied the revocation. The Minister claimed that revocation of the permit would negatively impact the U.S.-Japan alliance and make it difficult to eliminate the dangers posed by the Futenma base at its current location (see The Japan Times). The suspension allowed construction work to resume while stifling the environmental and technical issues raised in the revocation documents.

Despite the Japanese government’s tactics, however, environmental issues persist. New problems are emerging and old problems are coming back to haunt the Japanese government.

U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Judicial System 

The Japanese government’s admission of the fragile seafloor and the need to implant 76,000 piles to solidify it has far-reaching implications beyond Henoko-Oura Bay, Okinawa, and Japan.

First of all, it challenges the claims made by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) in the U.S. court and could test the integrity of the U.S. judicial system.

In August 2018, the U.S. Federal District Court of Northern California ruled in favor of the DoD (the defendant) (see the Court Ruling), and against the coalition of civil society members from Okinawa, Japan and the U.S. (the plaintiffs), in a case fought under the jurisdiction of the U.S. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The Court accepted the DoD’s claims that prior to the start of base construction work, it had conducted a proper study regarding possible impact of the construction and operation of the base on the dugong, a manatee-like marine mammal, which is an internationally endangered species, Japan’s natural monument, and Okinawa’s cultural icon. The court accepted the DoD’s 2014 conclusion that the base would have no adverse impact on the dugong. It was this conclusion that finally allowed base construction work to start in July 2014.

Okinawa Dugongs. The Japanese Ministry of the Environment

Now the Japanese government’s admission calls into question the validity of DoD claims since the DoD heavily relied upon the Okinawa Defense Bureau’s EIA in conducting its study and reaching the no adverse impact conclusion. As mentioned above, the EIA did not mention the fragile seafloor or the need to drive 76,000 piles in the Dugong habitat.

More importantly, the fact that the DoD did not have this information puts the US court system in a complicated situation, as the case is now being reviewed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (see the Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Opening Brief).

In an appeals court, documents and evidence to be reviewed are usually limited to those that had previously been examined in the district court. In the dugong case, most of the documents and evidence examined in the district court came from the period before the DoD completed its environmental study and reached the 2014 no adverse impact conclusion. The current critical status of the dugong – no dugong has been observed in Henoko-Oura Bay since construction started and Dugong C has been entirely missing from the waters of Okinawa since 2015 – was not taken into consideration by the district court (see then Governor Onaga Takeshi’s letter to the DoD describing the current status of the dugong).

It is not known whether the appeals court will take the Japanese government’s admission into consideration. Nonetheless, the situation presents a critical test of the very objectives and mechanism of the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) and the integrity of the entire U.S. judicial system.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and UNESCO World Natural Heritage Nomination

The Abe government’s admission also presents a difficult test to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) because, as an advisory body to the UNESCO World Heritage programme, IUCN is involved in the nomination process of the “Northern part of Okinawa Island” for UNESCO World Natural Heritage status.

World Natural Heritage Nomination Document (Feb. 2019). The Japanese Ministry of the Environment

On February 1, the Japanese Ministry of the Environment submitted to IUCN its nomination of Amami-Oshima Island, Tokunoshima Island, the Northern Part of Okinawa Island, and Iriomote Island for World Natural Heritage status (see the Nomination document). This nomination is the Japanese government’s second attempt in the last two years and could be the last. In May 2018, the IUCN recommended that the nomination be “deferred,” (see the IUCN Evaluation 2018) and the Japanese government withdrew it. Among other things, the presence of the U.S. military’s Northern Training Area (NTA) located right next to the nominated area of the Northern Part of Okinawa Island made it difficult for the IUCN to approve the nomination.

Henoko-Oura Bay is not included in the nominated area of the “Northern Part of Okinawa Island.” However, Henoko-Oura Bay is just 10 miles away from the nominated area, and is an integral part of the ecosystem of northern Okinawa. It is inconceivable that the World Heritage nomination process (which will include IUCN experts’ field trip to the nominated area of the Northern Part of Okinawa Island) and the drilling of 76,000 piles into the seafloor in Henoko-Oura Bay can take place simultaneously without each affecting the other.

The Japanese government’s admission of the fragility of the seafloor and its relentless push for base construction in Henoko-Oura Bay is a stark reminder that when U.S. military base issues are at stake, Japanese environmental protection measures including EIA cease to function properly, and the Ministry of the Environment no longer behaves as a good steward of the environment. (For the honor of the Ministry, it should be emphasized that it did a fine job of preparing the environmental case for the other four areas inscribed as World Natural Heritage sites and is well-maintaining them).

The situation tests the integrity of IUCN as the world’s trusted institution for the conservation of nature.

U.S. and International Institutions Need to Call on the Japanese Government to Abandon its Destructive Plan

For more than twenty years, the people of Okinawa and members of international civil society have been urging the Japanese and U.S. Governments to abandon the base construction plan.

Save the Dugong Rally in San Francisco (June 2018) © Center for Biological Diversity

Okinawa already has too many U.S. military bases on its soil. The environment of Henoko-Oura Bay, with some 5,300 marines species including 262 endangered species and peaceful communities with rich cultural traditions, is by no means an ideal site for an environmentally intrusive military base and training area. It should be a place for international collaboration for environmental protection and conservation. It is time for the U.S. Government (the executive, legislative, and judicial branches) and IUCN to tell the Japanese Government to abandon this costly and destructive plan.

*

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

Yoshikawa Hideki is Nago-resident anthropologist teaching at Meio University and the University of the Ryukyus, International director of the Save the Dugong Campaign Center and Director of the Okinawa Environmental Justice Project. Author of several major articles on this site.

Washington’s anti-China strategy includes targeting its dominant companies, ones able to match or outdo America’s best for preeminence in key fields, notably high-tech ones.

It’s why Sabrina Meng Wanzhou was targeted, chief financial officer of Chinese tech giant Huawei Technologies, world leader in the race to roll out cellular mobile communications 5G technology, trillions of dollars of economic value at stake – $12.3 trillion by 2035, according to one estimate.

The stakes are huge. Chinese tech giants Huawei and ZTE are major players. Trump regime hardliners fear they’ll win the 5G race over US companies.

The technology is touted as able to support the next generation of Internet-connected devices infrastructure to smart cities and driverless cars.

America’s trade deficit with China is a minor issue by comparison, distracting from the major one, China heading toward being the world’s largest economy, along with becoming an industrial and technological powerhouse, what Washington aims to prevent.

Doing Washington’s dirty work, Canada unjustifiably arrested and detained Meng without just cause – phony accusations substituting for legitimate ones, improper claims about Huawei conspiring to violate (illegal) US sanctions on Iran, ones no nations should observe.

A US Justice Department 13-count indictment also charged Huawei with wire fraud, money laundering, intellectual property theft, and obstruction of justice.

The politicized indictment alleges Huawei and an affiliate company violated the 1977 US International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

It permits regulation of commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to an alleged threat to America by a foreign state – despite none existing since WW II ended, notably none posed by Russia, China, Iran, and other nations targeted by the US for regime change.

Meng is charged with bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud. The Trump regime formally requested Canada to extradite her to the US. Currently she’s illegally held under house arrest in Vancouver.

A second 10-count US indictment charges Huawei and its US affiliate with theft of trade secrets from T-Mobile USA, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice – also alleging Huawei “offer(ed) bonuses to employees who succeeded in stealing confidential information from other companies.”

China and Huawei deny US charges. Beijing’s Foreign Ministry accused Washington of using state power to subvert the operations of Chinese companies, notably high-tech ones like Huawei and ZTE – vowing to protect their legitimate rights.

Currently under house arrest in Vancouver, Canadian authorities approved Meng’s extradition to the US, acting on Trump regime orders.

Her attorney David Martin said what she’s charged with is not illegal in Canada. Extraditing her would violate Ottawa’s extradition agreement with the US, adding:

“Our client maintains that she is innocent of any wrongdoing and that the US prosecution and extradition constitutes an abuse of the processes of law.”

A lengthy legal battle is likely, China and Huawei surely to go all out for the interests of the nation, the company and Meng. Her next court appearance is scheduled for March 6.

On Friday, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson slammed Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, saying his credibility is at stake over this issue, demanding his government drop charges against Meng and release her from house arrest.

On March 2, China’s Global Times demanded Canada “stop meddling in the case of Meng Wanzhou due to its political nature.”

Spokesperson for Beijing’s embassy in Ottawa was quoted, saying

“(t)his is not merely a judicial case, but political persecution of a Chinese high-tech enterprise. The subsequent developments have proved this.”

Beijing believes what’s going on will ultimately be dealt with through Sino/US negotiations, not settled judicially. Attorney Long Liu called Meng’s targeting “a misstep by Canadian authorities.”

On Saturday, Beijing again called for Meng’s immediate release, its Foreign Ministry spokesperson saying

“(t)his is a serious political event. We once again urge the US to immediately withdraw the arrest warrant and extradition request for Meng Wanzhou.”

Academic Li Haidong called her arrest, detention, and ordered extradition to the US by Canada “an unfortunate decision…damag(ing) relations with China,” along with its “international image as a sovereign country with judicial independence,” adding:

Based on alleged US evidence released so far, extraditing Meng to America would be a “twisted (politically motivated) decision” – harmful to Canada’s interests, a “political scandal” if PM Trudeau bends to US interests on this issue.

According to political analyst Mei Xinyu,

“(t)he impact (of this case) is far-reaching. Canada’s move has set a very bad precedent for the international order of business and trade.”

If things aren’t equitably resolved, China’s relations with the US and Canada will be more negatively impacted than already.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from The Straits Times

In 1989, the US Marine invaded Panama to capture Manuel Antonio Noriega, the former Panamanian strongman, and flew him to Miami based on a 1988 indictment for drug smuggling and money laundering. He spent 17 years in prison in the United States. Later, he was jailed in France in 2010 before being extradited to his own country Panama. He died there of cancer on May 29, 2017.

In 2004, another coup d’état took place in Haiti, which toppled the duly elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide from power. The United States, via the DEA, imprisoned many disgraced Haitian officials in Miami. Among them were a Haitian police’s general director, a senator, and former president Aristide’s chief bodyguard.

All of them were convicted of drug trafficking.

In 2011, Hillary and Bill Clinton, without regard for the law or decency, installed Michel “Sweet Mickey” Martelly to power as president of Haiti. The latter is a well-known drug dealer and consumer. He shared more than the name “Sweet Mickey” with the late army lieutenant colonel, police chief, and Fort Bragg graduate, Joseph Michel “Sweet Mickey” Francois, a subsequently indicted drug smuggler and one of the main authors of the bloody first U.S-backed regime change (Sept. 30, 1991) that overthrew President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. In an interview with the New York Times, Martelly admitted being a cocaine user, and elsewhere he spoke about being a thief and crackhead. It is also noteworthy to highlight that he continues to be the spiritual leader of the PHTK ruling party, also known as “bandit légal” (legal bandit). Since 2011, the Haitian national palace has become a paradise for drug dealers, arms traffickers, and other human right violators.

In that same vein, Jacques Bedouin Kétant was arrested in Haiti in 2003. He was rapidly transferred to the United States to face drug accusations. A judge found him guilty of sending more than 30 kilos of cocaine to the states and sentenced him to 27 years in prison. On August 18, 2015, the US judicial system decided to deport Jacques Kétant back to Haiti after serving half of his previously scheduled prison term because the court found him to be very cooperative. Upon his return to Haiti, Mr. Kétant was picked up at the capital airport by two important individuals: Roro Nelson and Gracia Delva. Mr. Nelson is former president Michel Martelly’s closest and longtime friend; some people believed that he was there to welcome Mr. Kétant as per Mr. Martelly’s order. Similarly, Mr. Gracia Delva,  a seating senator, a deportee from the United States was also present at the airport to greet the convicted drug kingpin. Delva went as far to admit that his friend Jacques Kétant had given him a very expensive car. Here is a partial list of ex-president Martelly’s and current president Moise’s closest allies who are notorious for their criminal activities:

• Guy Philippe, elected senator (or selected as senator for others) but couldn’t take the oath because he was arrested by Haitian police and DEA agents. He was quickly transferred to the United States and soon pronounced guilty of money laundering drug monies. He is now serving a 9-year jail sentence in the U.S. Mr. Philippe and president Jovenel Moise waged their political campaign together.

• Hervé Fourcand: actual Haitian senator; he is implicated in many drug and arms trafficking in Haiti. For instance, when the so-called Leonard Désir was arrested in possession of 20 kilos of cocaine, he testified that the drug belonged to the senator who owns a private jet believed to be used for drug smuggling all over the country.

• Youri Latortue, also a senator, has been involved in drug activities, according to Wikileaks’ documents.

• Joseph Lambert, the current president of the Haiti Senate and actual president of the Haiti National Assembly is also the incriminated President Jovenel Moise’s close ally and one of former president Michel Martelly’s advisers. He has similarly been accused of having high-level connections with drug dealers and has been involved in other criminal activities;

• Senator Willot Joseph has been implicated in drug trafficking.

The Haitian Senate is a sanctuary for drug dealers and criminals. This article is presenting a small tip of the iceberg in terms of drug trafficking activities condoned by the actual Haitian government and its acolytes. The most troubling element of the puzzle is that the United States is aware of all those wrongdoings but has decided to turn a blind eye on everything.

President Jovenel Moïse was put in power last year (2017) by ex-president Michel Martelly via a fraudulent election, endorsed by the US/UN/NGO occupational forces. He had run a 2 year campaign that cost millions of dollars. Many suspected that drug money was involved in the process. Mr. Moïse had been indicted for money laundering just days before he took the oath as president. The justice department stopped the process because the constitution of the land doesn’t permit to prosecute a president in office; he is enjoying the sacred immunity for 5 years.

In 2010, it was well-documented, by many national electoral council members, that the Clintons (Bill and Hillary), under the Obama administration, outmaneuvered Ms. Myrlande Manigat to impose Michel “Sweet Mickey” Martelly as president of Haiti. The former individual is a university professor in Haiti and abroad. She completed her studies at the Sorbonne, the oldest and most prestigious university in France. Why did the Clintons inflict such a horrific pain on a country they have pretended to love so much?  Putting such a despised being as Martelly in power was the last blow to Haiti’s prestige.

Nowadays, the country is totally at the mercy of drug dealers, arms traffickers and corrupt leaders [aka “Legal Bandits) who have stolen and diverted an estimated $4 billion in US dollars. Impunity reigns supreme in this land directly occupied by US-led United Nations forces since 2004. With such high-level back-up, no one is talking; fear rules in Haiti. Haitian institutions are permeated in a terrible and repressive silence; freedom of speech replaced by the mafia code of silence – the cosa nostra’s Omerta Law.  Poverty and organized crime have struck out a big number of honest citizens who are forced to seek refuge and survival from the reigning repression and totalitarianism in other countries, such as Chile, Brazil, Mexico. Haiti is in total despair. No light can be seen at the end of the tunnel.

I have talked to some prominent Haitians in the diaspora and in Haiti who have thusly summarized and point to US responsibility in Haiti’s quagmire: “they broke it, they own it”. They believe that Washington has created the situation. Therefore, it has the moral responsibility to support the people’s efforts to regain their sovereignty in the interest of the rule of law and peaceful co-existence.

In Haiti, it has been rumored that the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is on the ground. Former president Joseph Martelly and his son, Olivier Martelly, would be among the targets. Nobody has either confirmed or denied these allegations. Tension runs high and the panic is palpable among the lawmakers and oligarchs engaged in corruption who may already be the subjects of sealed DEA indictments just as Guy Philippe was since 2005 but not arrested in Haiti by the DEA until 2017. The country is waiting!

The presidency is influenced directly by well-connected drug dealers. The Parliament is heavily ruled by active gun and drug traffickers. The legal system is the hands of gangsters and the wealthy but repugnant billionaires of the Caribbean.

Canadian diplomats abroad seek to shape coverage of their work. And the more nefarious their actions the harder they toil to “spin” what they’re doing as something positive.

During a recent interview Real News Network founder Paul Jay described how Canadian officials in Caracas attempted to shape his views of the country’s politics. Jay noted:

“My first trip to Venezuela in 2004, I was producing the big debate show on Canadian TV called Counterspin on CBC Newsworld. … I was a known quantity in Canada. And so when I was in Venezuela, I said I’ll go say hello to the Canadian embassy. I was trying to figure out what was going on in Venezuela. I figured some Counselor would pat me on the head and say welcome to Venezuela.

“No, I got the number two chargé d’affaires that greeted me and brings me into a meeting room with seven members of the opposition who then for two hours beat me over the head with how corrupt the regime was, how awful it was, and so on…

“What business does a Canadian embassy have with bringing a Canadian journalist into a room with opposition people, essentially trying to involve me in a conspiracy against the Venezuelan government. Canadian government role in Venezuela was promote and nurture the opposition.”

Around the same time Canadian officials sought to convince Jay that Hugo Chavez’s government was corrupt, former Montréal Gazette reporter Sue Montgomery had a similar experience in Port-au-Prince. In “Parachute Journalism in Haiti: Media Sourcing in the 2003-2004 Political Crisis”, Isabel Macdonald writes:

“Montgomery recalled being given anti-[President Jean-Bertrand] Aristide disinformation when she called the Canadian embassy immediately after she had been held up by armed men while driving through Port-au-Prince days before the [US/France/Canada] coup. Canada’s ambassador to Haiti, Kenneth Cook, told her, ‘We’ve got word that Aristide has given the order to the chimeres [purported pro- Aristide thugs] to do this kind of thing to international journalists because he’s not getting any support.’ According to Montgomery, Cook had urged her to tell the other international journalists who were staying at the same hotel: ‘I think you should let all your colleagues at the Montana know that it’s not safe for them.’”

Given only two days to prepare for her assignment, Montgomery was ripe for official manipulation. Though she later realized the ambassador’s claim was ridiculous, Montgomery told other journalists at Hotel Montana (where most international journalists stay in Port-au-Prince) that Aristide’s supporters were targeting them.

The Canadian embassy in Port-au-Prince succeeded in influencing Canadian reporters’ coverage of the country. In her MA thesis titled “Covering the coup: Canadian news reporting, journalists, and sources in the 2004 Haiti crisis,” Isabel Macdonald concludes that the reporters dispatched to Port-au-Prince largely took their cues from official Canada.

“My interviews revealed that journalists’ contacts with people working in the Canadian foreign policy establishment appear to have played a particularly important role in helping journalists to identify appropriate ‘legitimate’ sources.”

CBC reporter Neil Macdonald told Isabel Macdonald his most trusted sources for background information in Haiti came from Canadian diplomatic circles, notably the Canadian International Development Agency where his cousins worked. Macdonald also said he consulted the Canadian Ambassador in Port-au-Prince to determine the most credible human rights advocate in Haiti. Ambassador Cook directed him to Pierre Espérance, a coup backer who fabricated a “massacre” used to justify imprisoning the constitutional prime minister and interior minister. (When pressed for physical evidence Espérance actually said the 50 bodies “might have been eaten by wild dogs.”)

Almost all Canadian correspondents develop ties to diplomats in the field. Long-time Globe and Mail development reporter John Stackhouse acknowledges “Canadian political officers” in Indonesia for their “valuable insights” into the country during General Suharto’s rule. In Out of Poverty, Stackhouse also thanks “the Canadian diplomatic missions in Accra, Abidjan and Bamako [for their] … invaluable service in arranging interviews and field trips.” During a period in the mid-2000s when she wrote for the Globe and Mail and CBC, Madeleine Drohan conducted media workshops in Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya and elsewhere sponsored by the Canadian embassy, High Commission and Foreign Affairs (she taught journalist ethics!).

“One of the best Canadian foreign correspondents of the 1970s,” Jack Cahill discusses some ways diplomats relate to reporters in If You Don’t Like the War, Switch the Damn Thing Off!: The Adventures of a Foreign Correspondent. “The Canadian government”, the former Toronto Star reporter notes, “can be good to foreign correspondents if it thinks they are reliable and I had two passports, one for general purposes and one for difficult countries.”

In what may reflect his nationalism, Cahill dubs Canadian diplomats “more reliable” than their southern counterparts. Disparaging his US colleagues, he writes:

“There is little doubt, however, that some US foreign correspondents depend almost entirely on their embassies, and thus indirectly the CIA, for their information. It is, after all, the natural thing to be attracted to the truth as propounded by one’s own countrymen in the Embassy offices, at the official briefings, and on the cocktail circuit. It’s this information, with its American slant on world affairs, that eventually fills much of Canada’s and the Western world’s news space.”

Jay described his experience at the Embassy in Caracas mostly to highlight Canada’s long-standing hostility to the Hugo Chavez/Nicolas Maduro governments. But, his story also helps make sense of the dominant media’s alignment with Ottawa’s push for regime change in Venezuela today.

Globe and Mail Latin America correspondent Stephanie Nolen, for instance, promotes Canada’s last ambassador to Venezuela. Describing Ben Rowswell as “widely respected by Venezuelans while he was there”, Nolen recently retweeted Rowswell claiming:

“the coup happened in July 2017 when Maduro suspended the constitution. The question now is how to fill the void – by backing the president who uses force to remain in power after his term expires, or the leader of Venezuela’s last remaining democratically elected body?”

Rowswell has been quoted in at least a half dozen Globe and Mail articles about Venezuela in recent weeks.

Diplomats’ influence over international correspondents is one way the foreign policy establishment shapes discussion of Canadian foreign policy.

*

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

With Jeremy Hunt and Alan Duncan keenly poised to overthrow the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, in order to install a compliant neoliberal one, now is a good time to look at the aid which the Foreign Office has been sending to organisations under the nose of the Venezuelan government.   

Ideally, the public would expect that any aid resources are distributed on a nonpartisan and neutral basis. However, through exposures of US, UK and EU government support for the ‘opposition’ in Syria, we learned just how determined western governments were to back what were essentially NGO front organisations serving the needs extremist actors, and even terrorists, whose goals were perfectly dovetailed with the sponsors in the pursuit of regime change.

With that in mind, it should of considerable concern that a great deal of the UK foreign assistance funds are going to anti-Chavista organisations while the UK government is simultaneously supporting an attempted coup against the Maduro government. This concurrence of events is not merely coincidental – it is standard practice. UK governments have been doing this for years, and often in concert with the US and EU.  In certain cases, the ‘Aid’ has been gone to the materially more affluent neoliberal class to enable the spread of their influence and ideas.

The following list of organisations has been provided by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is part of what is hoped will be a broader look at all recent foreign aid from the UK to Venezuela. The total budget for this group of programs roughly totals £560,000 spanning over approximately 18-24 months. Although sums might appear to be modest, it’s worth noting that the UK channels its funding through open societies for which there is very little, if any transparency for the public. While amounts may seem small when given to subsidiary groups, they are normally much larger when going to the main body. The UK contribution should also be seen as just rubric in a larger structure of Western funds. Wherever the UK sends money, there is a large amount of EU and US money also, with funds funneled into the same Venezuelan groups in order to ‘influence,’ but also to divide Venezuelan society along various social and political lines.

1) Westminster Foundation for Democracy

The Westminster Foundation for Democracy has already been identified as an organisation involved in activity within the Venezuelan parliament.  Embedding its purpose in democracy and human rights rhetoric, and claiming to work ‘across the political divide,’ it has in fact worked entirely with the opposition Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD) which consists mainly of right-wing parties including Popular Will whose leader Juan Guaido has proclaimed himself Interim President of Venezuela.  Despite the UK Foreign Office imposing sanctions against Venezuelan leaders  and accusing them of repressive and illegal behaviour, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy would have us believe it has been given the privileged job of instructing the political divide,  the socialist government included, on how to legislate.   What is more likely is that it has collaborated with the right-wing opposition of the National Assembly to undermine the government.  Given that legislation is one of its stated objectives in working with the National Assembly, it is quite possible that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy has helped to construct some of the vehemently anti-government documentation produced by the National Assembly over the last couple of years.

But the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is not the only UK ‘Aid’ going to Venezuela  to push Foreign Office agenda. Transparencia Venezuela is a branch of Transparency International, an NGO dedicated to ‘uncovering corruption everywhere,’ and who receives its financial backing from numerous government, NGO, IO and billionaire philanthropic sources including George Soros’s umbrella Open Society Foundations and Pierre Omidyar’s Omidyar Network. The organisation’s literature states:

“We work together with governments, businesses and citizens to stop the abuse of power, bribery and secret deals.  As a global movement with one vision, we want a world free of corruption.”

🔴 OUT NOW! We analysed 180 countries to see how they scored in the fight against #corruption. Check out your country’s score now! #CPI2018

— Transparency Int'l (@anticorruption) January 29, 2019

This is a very well funded NGO, that has received large sums from the Department of International Development over the years.  Almost all of its funds come from the EU and US. It is of interest because, like other tools of Western governments such as Freedom House, that has a freedom index referred to frequently by Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt,  it provides  constructed data Western governments can use to justify their actions.  While Transparency International has an index for country corruption, there is no Western-funded liberal index for governments that arm jihadists,  or carry out regime change or interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations or openly lobby for Gulf State dictatorships committing genocide  in the hope of increasing arms sales.  Transparency International can be used to provide ammunition for Western governments, however.  It promotes the use of  Magnitsky Sanctions, created by the US but soon to be available to both the EU and the UK,  most likely to be used against mutual targets.  As part of its anti-corruption role, Transparency Venezuela’s work is designed to discredit the Supreme Court of Justice, which they call ‘Supreme Injustice’, as well as the elections and the government:

The judgments of the supreme court, dominated by the interests of the ruling party, have beaten venezuela’s democracy, undermine the rights of all citizens. For this reason, a group of civil associations decided to launch this digital project called “Supreme Injustice”, with the purpose of visualising the deviations of the Judiciary and to promote a debate that will contribute to improving justice in Venezuela.

Meanwhile, it may be amongst their reports, but there is no noticeable reference to the Bank of England‘s piracy of Venezuelan gold, possibly due to the fact Transparencia Venezuela receives UK funding. The fact this group has accepted UK funds during the build-up to the UK’s interventionist stance towards the Venezuelan government raises concerns, not just about the ethical behaviour of civil societies funded by Western governments but by the exploitative behaviour of the British Foreign Office.  Transparencia Venezuela has received funds from a government hostile to its own and has provided narratives of corruption and repression now useful to its funders  for regime change purposes.

2) National Council for Investment Promotion

One of the members of Transparencia Venezuela is Roberto Vollmer, millionaire owner of Ron Santa Teresa, a rum distiller in Venezuela that has managed to ‘flourish’ despite the economic crisis. He is a member of The Interamerican Dialogue, an organisation once rated as one of the top think tanks in the US. It is made up of US neocons and liberal interventionists such as Richard Haass, head of the Council on Foreign Relations and advisor to both Bush Presidents during the Iraq wars.  Last year Haass expressed his views on Venezuela:

“Latin America has largely avoided the geopolitics and wars that have plagued other parts of the world. But this holiday from history has ended.”

Another member is former Venezuelan politician Moises Naim, industry and commerce minister in 1989.  He introduced the IMF economic reform package which led to the “Caracazo” protests against free-market policies.  During the protests it is believed that up to 3,000 people were killed under the right-wing government. In one of its recent publications the Interamerican Dialogue makes it very clear its fully behind the removal of Maduro:

Mediation has been used repeatedly in recent years by the Maduro regime, when facing a serious challenge, to buy time, divide the opposition and disperse protesters. The constitutionally legitimate Guaidó government has shown it will not entertain such tactics this time

Vollmer is also head of the Venezuelan Council for Investment Promotion (CONAPRI) a recipient of UK ‘aid’ over recent years. Funded by the Foreign Office to build economic opportunity in Venezuela, its membership consists of multi-nationals, such as Shell, Nestle and IBM. The food and drinks conglomerate Empresas Polar, a subsidiary of PepsiCo, is also a member.  It is the largest private company in Venezuela, and has been described as ‘having a hegemony’ over corn-flour production. It is owned by billionaire Lorenzo Mendoza and has been implicated for years in hoarding products and selling them through the black market, a scam called bachaqueo.  The system has led to widespread shortages and a crisis for the poor while the corrupt wholesalers have made huge profits.  But it is not just hoarding that Mendoza is implicated in: in 2015 he was heard in a leaked audio of a conversation with former politician, Ricardo Hausman, discussing possible intervention in Venezuela’s economy by the IMF.  The IMF was rejected by Venezuela in 2007.  Mendoza also considered standing against Maduro as an outsider in the elections last year.

The members of CONAPRI, beneficiary of UK aid, form a group that would greatly benefit from the removal of the Maduro government.   CONAPRI is a reality check for those buying into the Western propaganda that Venezuela is collapsing through the failure of socialism.  It shows that the economy of Venezuela is basically a capitalist one that is tied to and influenced by global corporations and markets, despite its socialist programme. This is a problem for the Bolivarian revolution and an incentive for Western governments to drive their resource-hungry neoliberal agenda in Venezuela, an agenda that is now flagrantly interventionist.

Another firm favourite of the Foreign Office in Venezuela is the anti-government media.  Of those many anti-government press outlets in Venezuela, the Foreign Office has given funds to three, all of whom are promoting narratives supporting US pretexts for  intervention and regime change.

3) Efecto Cocuyo

This is a media set up by journalist Luz Mely Reyes who won the 2018 International Press Freedom Award. During her acceptance speech she spoke of the fear she felt in 1992 when there was an attempted coup against the government of the day. This coup attempt was led by Hugo Chavez.  Her position is openly partisan by virtue of the fact that he did not mention feeling any of the same fear during the massacring of Venezuelans shot dead under the right-wing government in 1998.  It should surprise no one then that a journalist from a ‘civil society’ at least partly funded by Western governments, should win an award while claiming Maduro is a dictator, given the award is celebrated by the same Western governments who are actively trying to topple that government.

#SepaQue El vicepresidente de #EEUU, Mike Pence, propuso ante el Grupo de Lima:
– Congelar los activos de Pdvsa en los países de la región
– Transferir los activos al Gobierno de Guaidó
– Restringir la entrega de visas al círculo cercano de Maduro https://t.co/QEbn0VodJI pic.twitter.com/syCDRiy11L

— Efecto Cocuyo (@EfectoCocuyo) February 26, 2019

Efecto Cocuyo’s pro-Guaido stance is evident, and resembles similar ‘opposition media’ efforts mounted by western powers in war zones like Aleppo Media Center in Syria, backed by French Foreign Ministry. These seemingly ‘independent’ outlets will act as the main image and propaganda source for western mainstream media outlets, the  It circulated claims of brutality and repression by government authorities during the violence erupting at the Colombian/Veneuelan border when Guaido and his supporters aimed to transport what was supposed to be humanitarian aid into Venezuela on 23rd February. Efecto Cocuyo reported:

“.. armed forces loyal to Maduro attacked and wounded unarmed demonstrators who demanded the entry of medical and food supplies into the country on the borders with Brazil and Colombia.”

But evidence soon came to light showing that supporters of Juan Guaido attempted to force lorries  across the border into Venezuela, and that right-wing activists initiated acts of violence involving Molotov cocktails.

This video found by @graffitiborrao appears to show the moment when an opposition guarimbero throws a Molotov cocktail on a truck loaded with US aid: pic.twitter.com/Z4Bg6dL4BR

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) February 24, 2019

4) Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Prensa (SNTP) (National Union of Press Workers)

Without providing any evidence, SNTP shares a message that implicates the Venezuelan government in the serious crime of kidnapping the journalist Daniel Garrido.  Serious accusations of State-funded violence are being made by anti-government outlets, with reference also to paramilitaries.  It is important to point out that there are many Colombian paramilitary groups in Venezuela and there is a history of right-wing opposition using paramilitaries for their political ends.

Noticias Telemundo repudia el secuestro y el robo del que fue víctima el periodista Daniel Garrido este #26Feb

Exige a Nicolás Maduro respeto por los reporteros en ejercicio dentro de #Venezuela y asegura que el "régimen político quiere silenciar a quienes informan". pic.twitter.com/6uE3JMgVWK

— SNTP (@sntpvenezuela) February 27, 2019

“Noticias Telemundo condemns the kidnapping and robbery carried out against Daniel Garrido on 26th Feb

We demand that Nicholas Maduro respects journalists operating in Venezuela and assert that the political regime wants to silence reporters”

The SNTP’s support of Guaido is quite clear in this post where it asks people to watch British billionaire Richard Branson’s Venezuela Live Aid concert, and defeat the censuring of the press by Maduro’s “dictatorship.” Watch:

#AlertaSNTP | Para vencer la censura de la dictadura de Nicolás Maduro, entra a este link y sigue viendo el concierto #VenezuelaAidLive, en la frontera colombo-venezolana #CensuraEsDictadura #22Feb https://t.co/M4BJygDuk9

— SNTP (@sntpvenezuela) February 22, 2019

5) Instituto Radiofonico Fe y Alegria

The Instituto Radiofonico Fe y Alegria is an education network which runs radio and media courses, and also has an online media. This mirrors similar ‘opposition media’ operations launched by the US, France and UK against Syria, including BBC Media Action in Syria. On 23rd February it posted a string of tweets following the events that took place and the eruption of violence around the lorries.  The tweets suggested government forces were carrying out needless attacks on people waiting for humanitarian aid.   They did not mention violent groups that attempted to cross from the Colombian side, or the hail of rocks and Molotov cocktails launched at the Venezuelan national guard protecting the border.  In addition, an article by Alegria y Fe about events on the 23rd February  suggests that violent attacks and killings carried out in Ureña and Santa Elena de Uairen  were by hooded thugs who follow Maduro. It ends with the notion that Maduro danced in the pool of blood. This is only one of many examples.

Violencia en la frontera fue “fundamentalmente” responsabilidad del Estado, según el Observatorio Venezolano de Violencia https://t.co/Xh0Pudtise pic.twitter.com/3QUK3dp2Z4

— Radio Fe y Alegría (@radiofeyalegria) February 26, 2019

“Violence on the border was ‘fundamentally’ the responsibility of the State, according to the Venezuelan Observatory of Violence”

Thus far, it seems that UK aid to Venezuela is designed to protect corporate interest, targeted at neoliberal organisations.  It is also aimed at individuals and groups from the liberal establishment which are ideologically opposed to the Bolivarian revolution and to Chavism, enabling the UK to establish networks inside Venezuela to serve the interests of British corporations.

UK aid to Venezuela has all the characteristics of a soft power tool kit, designed to expedite what is now a naked imperialist agenda. A simple look at UK aid going to Venezuela exposes the double standards of the UK government. Should we ever imagine that Russia might set-up shop half way across the world, or even inside UK Parliament under the pretext of ‘helping the Labour Party’ with legislation, or that Iran might fund the Morning Star which then supported China’s attempt to overthrow May’s government and install an unknown and unelected political actor to become PM – there would be deemed an international crisis.  Yet, the British Foreign Office is doing exactly that; meddling with impunity in Venezuela, proving once more their ‘international rules-based system’ is a relative concept, or worse – a fiction and a fantasy that only exists for a tiny privileged group in positions of power, and simply a euphemism for supremacy.

*

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 21cw

On 49th  Friday of Great March of Return and Breaking Siege, Israeli Forces Wound 83 Civilians, including 23 Children, Woman, 3 Paramedics, and Journalist. Report By The Palestinian Center For Human Right (PCHR).

On Friday evening, 01 March 2019, in excessive use of force against peaceful protesters on the 49th Friday of the March of Return and Breaking the Siege, Israeli forces wounded 83 civilians, including 23 children, a woman, three paramedics, and a journalist, in eastern Gaza Strip. The injury of three of the wounded civilians was reported serious.

According to observations by PCHR’s fieldworkers, the Israeli forces who stationed in prone positions and in military jeeps along the fence with Israel continued to use excessive force against the demonstrators by opening fire and firing tear gas canisters at them.

As a result, dozens of the demonstrators were hit with bullets and teargas canisters without posing any imminent threat or danger to the life of soldiers.

These new violations come one day after The United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry to investigate the violations committed in the oPt, published their findings and results during the period from 30 March to 31 December 2018.

These incidents confirm that Israel continues to violate the rules of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

It should be noted that The UN Commission found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli soldiers violated the international humanitarian law and international human rights law during the demonstrations of the Great March of Return.

Moreover, these violations may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity, and Israel should investigate them immediately.

On Friday, 01 March 2019, the incidents were as follows:

At approximately 15:00, thousands of civilians, including women, children and entire families, started swarming to the five encampments established by the Supreme National Authority of Great March of Return and Breaking the Siege adjacent to the border fence with Israel in eastern Gaza Strip cities.

Hundreds, including children and women, approached the border fence with Israel in front of each encampment and gathered tens of meters away from the main border fence, attempting to throw stones at the Israeli forces and firing incendiary balloons along the border fence.

Demonstrators chanted slogans, raised flags and, attempted to approach the border fence, set fire to tires and tried to throw stones at the Israeli forces.

Although the demonstrators gathered in areas open to the Israeli snipers stationed on the top of the sand berms and military watchtowers and inside and behind the military jeeps, the Israeli forces fired live and rubber bullets in addition to a barrage of tear gas canisters.

The Israeli shooting, which continued at around 17:30, resulted in the injury of 83 Palestinian civilians, including a child, a woman, a journalist, and  three paramedics.

Two of the wounded paramedics work at the Palestinian Civil Defense and the third one is a volunteer at PRCS, east of Rafah. The injury of 3 of the wounded civilians was reported serious.

In addition, dozens of demonstrators, paramedics and journalists suffered tear gas inhalation and seizures due to tear gas canisters that were fired by the Israeli forces from the military jeeps and riffles in the eastern Gaza Strip. Moreover, a PRCS ambulance was directly hit with a tear gas canister, east of Rafah.

The following table shows the number of civilian victims due to the Israeli forces’ suppression of the Great March of Return since its beginning on 30 March:

Among those wounded, 529 are in serious condition and 101 had their lower or upper limbs amputated; 89 lower-limb amputations, 2 upper-limb amputations, 10 finger amputations and 17 children had their limbs amputated according to the Ministry of Health.  The number of those wounded only include those wounded with live bullets and directly hit with tear gas canisters, as there have been thousand others who suffered tear gas inhalation and sustained bruises.

PCHR emphasizes that continuously targeting civilians, who exercise their right to peaceful assembly or while carrying out their humanitarian duty, is a serious violation of the rules of international law, international humanitarian law, the ICC Rome Statute and Fourth Geneva Convention. Thus, PCHR calls upon the ICC Prosecutor to open an official investigation in these crimes and to prosecute and hold accountable all those applying or involved in issuing orders within the Israeli Forces at the security and political echelons.

PCHR hereby condemns the excessive use of force and commission of crimes by the Israeli forces despite the prevailed calmness, believing it is as a result of Israel’s enjoying impunity thanks to the U.S. and so encouraging the Israeli forces to commit further crimes upon an official decision by the highest military and political echelons.

PCHR welcomes again the results of the international investigation into the Great March of Return; and:

1- Calls upon the UN Human Rights Council to adopt and ratify the report when it is discussed on 18 March at the 40th session of the Council.

2- Calls upon the Member States of the Human Rights Council to adopt a decision to renew the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry, in the light of the continuation of Return March and the ongoing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by the Israeli forces during the period following the Committee’s work period.

3- Calls upon the High Commissioner for Human Rights to submit the report to the International Criminal Court.

4- Reiterates its call for the Prosecutor of the ICC to open an official investigation to these crimes, and to pursue and hold accountable those involved in the issuance of decisions in the Israeli army at the political and security level and who carried out these decisions.

PCHR also reiterates its call upon the High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention to fulfill their obligations under Article 1; i.e., to respect and ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances and their obligations under Article 146 to prosecute persons alleged to commit grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

PCHR calls upon Switzerland, in its capacity as the Depository State for the Convention, to demand the High Contracting Parties to convene a meeting and ensure Israel’s respect for this Convention, noting that these grave breaches constitute war crimes under Article 147 of the same Convention and Protocol (I) Additional to the Geneva Conventions regarding the guarantee of Palestinian civilians’ right to protection in the occupied territories.

*

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

Featured image is from IMEMC

According to a 2009 Channel 4 Dispatches documentary, 50% of the then Conservative shadow cabinet were members of the CFI Friends of Israel lobby – (but now, that figure has risen to an estimated 80%).  The film also claimed that the pro-Israel lobby group were bankrolling the Tory party.  That was nearly ten years ago.  In the interim period the lobby has massively increased its influence within a Conservative party that has been in government during that period and the knowledge of that unsavoury relationship is a key driver of animosity against those in government and those in the general population who support this dangerous infiltration of foreign agents into both Houses of Parliament. (See this)

Today, bilateral trade with the Israeli state has mushroomed with the UK buying millions of pounds worth of Israeli-made generic drugs for the NHS together with valuable contracts for military drones and other defence and security systems and equipment notwithstanding that Israel is a non-NATO Member and the only undeclared nuclear-weapons state in the world. This bilateral trade is today worth US$3billion, with over 300 known Israeli companies currently operating in Britain.

Crucially, however, the Israeli government under Binyamin Netanyahu is still in gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 that requires a withdrawal of all (600,000) Israelis from the Occupied Territories including East Jerusalem. That clear contempt of the Netanyahu government for the will of the United Nations is a key driver of current antisemitism throughout the United Kingdom and beyond. (See this)

This frightening increase in antisemitic rhetoric across the political spectrum is today reminiscent of the Weimar Republic in the pre-war Germany of 1932 that led to the election of the Nazi party and eventually the horrors of the Holocaust.

A moratorium is now urgently required on all British government contracts with the Netanyahu regime until Israel fully implements the requirements of UN Security Council Resolution 2334.  Furthermore, legislation should be enacted to make it illegal for a sitting Member of Parliament to join any lobby acting for a foreign state.

*

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.

Putin’s approval rating is high, but it has declined over the past year. The decline is mainly related to domestic policy.  Apparently, the public perceives recent Kremlin economic policy as a continuation of the disastrous policies that Washington imposed on Russia in the 1990s when Russia was loaded up with foreign debt while state assets were privatized and plundered by oligarchs sponsored by the West who “cashed out” by selling the assets to foreigners. 

The approval rating of Putin and the government dropped  in response to the recent increases in the retirement age and value added tax. The former raised concerns about pension security and reminded Russians of the collapse of Soviet pensions.  The latter reduced consumer disposable income and lowered consumer demand and the economic growth rate.  These policies represent austerity imposed on the domestic population instead of on foreign creditors and reflect the neoliberal view that austerity leads to prosperity.

Russia is experiencing capital outflows due to the Russian private sector’s repayment of loans to Western creditors. Russia has experienced over $25 billion a year of capital outflows since the early 1990s, accumulating to over a trillion dollars. This money could have been invested in Russia itself to raise the productivity and living standards of its citizens. The outflow puts the ruble under pressure, and the interest payments draw money out of the country away from Russian uses.  If it were not for these outflows, the value of the ruble and Russian wages would be higher.

The US sanctions give Russians every reason not to repay their foreign loans; yet Russians continue to enable their own exploitation by foreigners, as neoliberal economists have told them that there is no alternative.

Russia’s economic problems are due to the looting of the country during the Yeltsin years, to the imposition of neoliberal economics by the Americans, and to financialization as a result of the privatizations.

Russia’s stock market became the darling of the West in the mid-1990s as underpriced mining, oil and infrastructure were sold for a fraction of their value to foreigners, thus transferring Russian income streams abroad instead of leaving the income to be invested in Russia. In effect, Russians were told that the way for their country to get rich was to let kleptocrats, oligarchs, and their U.S. and British stock brokers make hundreds of billions of dollars by privatizing Russia’s public domain.

Washington took advantage of the gullible and trusting Yeltsin government to do as much political and economic damage as possible to Russia. The country was torn apart.  Historic parts of Russia such as Ukraine were split off into separate countries.  Washington even insisted that Crimera, long a part of Russia and the country’s warm water port, was retained by Ukraine when the Soviet Union was dismembered.

People’s savings (called the “overhang”) were wiped out with hyperinflation. Privatization was not accompanied by new investment. The economy was not industrialized, but financialized. The proceeds from privatization were deposited by the Russian government in private banks where the money was used to privatize more Russian assets. The banking system thus served to finance the transfer of ownership, not to fund new investment, and the proceeds were transferred abroad. Russia was turned into a financial colony in which proconsuls created wealth at the top.

Today privatization continues in the de facto privatization of public assets, such as charging fees for use of federal highways.  As the Russian economic profession has been brainwashed by the Americans, the country is devoid of economic leadership.

We have pointed out on more than one occasion that it is nonsensical for Russia to indebt itself by borrowing abroad in order to finance investments. The Russians were sold a bill of goods that the central bank cannot issue rubles unless the rubles are backed by dollars.  This advice served to prevent Russia from using its own central bank to fund public infrastructure and private investment projects by issuing rubles.  In other words, Russia might as well not have a central bank.

Apparently, Russian economists do not understand that Russia does not spend borrowed foreign currencies inside Russia.  If Russia takes a foreign loan, the borrowed money goes into central bank reserves. The central bank then issues the ruble equivalent to be spent on the project, and the cost of the project goes up by the pointless interest paid to the foreign lender.

As far as we can tell, the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences is so brainwashed by neoliberal economics that their minds are closed to correct policies.  The failure of Russian economic leadership imposes far more costs on the Russian economy than do Washington’s sanctions.

Intellectual leadership is weak with many in the intellectual class favoring integration with the West rather than with the East. To be part of the West has been an important goal since Peter the First and Catherine the Great, and the Russian Atlanticist Integrationists cannot let go of the ancient goal.  This goal no longer makes sense. Not only does it imply Russian vassalage, but also Europe is no longer the center of power.  The East is rising, and China is the center and will be until the Chinese destroy themselves by copying the Western neoliberal policy of financializing the economy.

  Although Putin is a leader and has a sense of Russian purpose, many officials use their office not in service to Russia but in service to their own wealth, much of which is held abroad.  Corruption and embezzlement seem to be the purpose of many office holders.  Scandals abound among members of government and reflect badly on Putin and Medvedev.

The Russian government’s popularity was at a peak when the government showed it had the intelligence and will to reincorporate Crimea into Russia.  However, the Russian government, hoping to reassure Washington and Europe, refused the requests of the Luhansk and Donetsk republics to be reincorporated into Russia.  Russian nationalists, the majority of the population, saw this as kowtowing to the West.  Moreover, the Russian government’s decision  has resulted in Ukraine’s ongoing military assault on the breakaway republics and to the arming of Ukraine by the West.  Instead of acting decisively, the Russian government enabled the continuation of conflict that can be exploited by Washington.  The Russian people understand this even if the government does not.

By failing to show firmness, the Russian government encourages the crony system of oligarchs who want a government that they can use for their narrow interests. Their interests include participating in the system of Western plunder known as “globalism.” These client elites of the West oppose a powerful Russian state that could assert itself on the world stage and offer an alternative policy to the West’s policy of plunder.  The influence of this narrow interest group on government policy indicates that the Russian government is compromised.

Putin is trying to break free of the West’s grip by directing Russia’s economic orientation to the East.  His effort is helped by the American sanctions.  But Russia remains sufficiently mired in the Western system to be vulnerable to sanctions and is only slowly extracting itself.

Various aspects of Russia’s difficulties and transformation into a power with a foot in both West and East are discussed by commentators.  What goes unacknowledged is that Russian economic policy is constrained—indeed, crippled—by the neoliberal brainwashing given to Russian economists by the Americans in the 1990s.  Consequently, Russia is enfeebled by an economic policy that encourages privatization and foreign ownership, and by financialization of economic rents, that is, of income streams that do not result from productive investment but from such factors as location and rise in value due to public infrastructure development, such as a road built across a property. In a financialized economy credit is used to transfer property ownership instead of to finance new plant and equipment and construction of infrastructure.

The Russian government and central bank have been blinded to the fact that Russian infrastructure projects and private investment are not dependent on borrowing dollars abroad or by acquiring dollars by selling Russian assets to foreigners. Such projects can be financed by ruble creation by the Russian central bank.  Money that flows into productive projects that raise output is not inflationary.  Generally speaking, such projects lower costs.

For Russia to succeed, Russia needs an economic re-education and a government that finds its footing in Russian nationalism and discourages Western provocations with firmer responses.

It is our view that the Western world, indeed all of life, has an interest in a Russia too strong to be attacked or provoked as a strong Russia is the only way to curtail the Western aggression that is leading to nuclear 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.

This article was originally published on the website of the Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts and Prof. Michael Hudson are frequent contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from RussiaFeed

Article by the late William Blum. His important legacy

We can all agree I think that US foreign policy must be changed and that to achieve that the mind – not to mention the heart and soul – of the American public must be changed. But what do you think is the main barrier to achieving such a change in the American mind?

Each of you I’m sure has met many people who support American foreign policy, with whom you’ve argued and argued. You point out one horror after another, from Vietnam to Iraq to Libya; from bombings and invasions to torture. And nothing helps. Nothing moves these people.

Now why is that? Do these people have no social conscience? Are they just stupid? I think a better answer is that they have certain preconceptions. Consciously or unconsciously, they have certain basic beliefs about the United States and its foreign policy, and if you don’t deal with these basic beliefs you may as well be talking to a stone wall.

The most basic of these basic beliefs, I think, is a deeply-held conviction that no matter what the US does abroad, no matter how bad it may look, no matter what horror may result, the government of the United States means well. American leaders may make mistakes, they may blunder, they may lie, they may even on many occasions cause more harm than good, but they do mean well. Their intentions are always honorable, even noble. Of that the great majority of Americans are certain.

Frances Fitzgerald, in her famous study of American school textbooks, summarized the message of these books:

“The United States has been a kind of Salvation Army to the rest of the world: throughout history it had done little but dispense benefits to poor, ignorant, and diseased countries. The U.S. always acted in a disinterested fashion, always from the highest of motives; it gave, never took.”

And Americans genuinely wonder why the rest of the world can’t see how benevolent and self-sacrificing America has been. Even many people who take part in the anti-war movement have a hard time shaking off some of this mindset; they march to spur America — the America they love and worship and trust — they march to spur this noble America back onto its path of goodness.

Many of the citizens fall for US government propaganda justifying its military actions as often and as naively as Charlie Brown falling for Lucy’s football.  The American people are very much like the children of a Mafia boss who do not know what their father does for a living, and don’t want to know, but then they wonder why someone just threw a firebomb through the living room window.

This basic belief in America’s good intentions is often linked to “American exceptionalism”. Let’s look at just how exceptional America has been. Since the end of World War 2, the United States has:

• Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.
• Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.
• Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
• Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.
• Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.
• Led the world in torture; not only the torture performed directly by Americans upon foreigners, but providing torture equipment, torture manuals, lists of people to be tortured, and in-person guidance by American teachers, especially in Latin America.

This is indeed exceptional. No other country in all of history comes anywhere close to such a record. But it certainly makes it very difficult to believe that America means well.

So the next time you’re up against a stone wall … ask the person what the United States would have to do in its foreign policy to lose his or her support. What for this person would finally be TOO MUCH. Chances are the US has already done it. Keep in mind that our precious homeland, above all, seeks to dominate the world. For economic reasons, nationalistic reasons, ideological, Christian, and for other reasons, world hegemony has long been America’s bottom line. And let’s not forget the powerful Executive Branch officials whose salaries, promotions, agency budgets and future well-paying private sector jobs depend upon perpetual war. These leaders are not especially concerned about the consequences for the world of their wars. They’re not necessarily bad people; but they’re amoral, like a sociopath is.

Take the Middle East and South Asia. The people in those areas have suffered horribly because of Islamic fundamentalism. What they desperately need are secular governments, which have respect for different religions. And such governments were actually instituted in the recent past. But what has been the fate of those governments?

Well, in the late 1970s through much of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a secular government that was relatively progressive, with full rights for women, which is hard to believe, isn’t it? But even a Pentagon report of the time testified to the actuality of women’s rights in Afghanistan. And what happened to that government? The United States overthrew it, allowing the Taliban to come to power. So keep that in mind the next time you hear an American official say that we have to remain in Afghanistan for the sake of the women.

After Afghanistan came Iraq, another secular society, under Saddam Hussein. And the United States overthrew that government as well, and now the country has its share of crazed and bloody jihadists and fundamentalists; and women who are not covered up properly are sometimes running a serious risk.

Next came Libya; again, a secular country, under Moammar Gaddafi, who, like Saddam Hussein, had a tyrant side to him but could in important ways be benevolent and do some marvelous things. Gaddafi, for example, founded the African Union and gave the Libyan people the highest standard of living in Africa. So, of course, the United States overthrew that government as well. In 2011, with the help of NATO we bombed the people of Libya almost every day for more than six months.

Can anyone say that in all these interventions, or in any of them, the United States of America meant well?

When we attack Iran, will we mean well? Will we have the welfare of the Iranian people at heart? I suggest you keep such thoughts in mind the next time you’re having a discussion or argument with a flag-waving American.

*

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

William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Rogue State: a guide to the World’s Only Super Power . His latest book is: America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy. He can be reached at: [email protected]

Sources

For documentation on government overthrows, bombs dropped, attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, movement suppression — see Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II.

For documentation on covert interference in democratic elections — see chapter 18 of William Blum, “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”

For documentation on torture – see chapter 5 of William Blum, “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”

New plans to ramp up the largest wave of forced displacement in Palestine since 1967 are currently underway.

In response to pressure from far-right Nahala groups, a number of Israeli senior lawmakers agreed to the terms of an early February petition pushed forth by groups rallying in support of settling two million settlers in the West Bank, or ‘Judea and Samaria.’ 

The Nahala Movement, campaigning on an end to the two-state solution through a rapid settlement of all West Bank territory, joined the rightist factions in modeling a settlement vision pushed by former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, also an early member of the Lehi paramilitary organization.

Their statement read:

“I hereby commit to be loyal to the land of Israel, not to cede one inch of our inheritance from our forefathers. I hereby commit to act to realize the settlement plan for the settlement of 2 million Jews in Judea and Samaria in accordance with Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s plan, as well as to encourage and lead the redemption of all the lands throughout Judea and Samaria. I commit to act to cancel the declaration of two states for two peoples and replace it with the stately declaration: The land of Israel: One country for one people.”

The plan, upheld by New Right and Likud members, seeks to annex 61 percent of West Bank territory, threatening 297,000 Palestinians by the settlements.

In comparison, the 1967 mass exodus saw the displacement of between 280,000 and 325,000 Palestinians from their homes and lands.

The main proponents of the plan include former Jewish Home and now New Right members Naftali Bennett, the current Education Minister of the Zionist entity who recently accused Donald Trump of planning a “Palestinian state over our heads,” and Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked.

While mobilization of the most recent settlement project went into full force this week, it followed a trajectory that took root far before early February.

This plan falls under the framework of last summer’s Jewish nation-state law, the Section 7 of Israel’s Nation-State Law, which where “developing Jewish communities” was legitimized as a “national value” and that the Zionist entity would “act to encourage, promote, and establish them.”

Last October, Shaked said that she was for the total annexation of Area C, additionally recommending that ‘Israel’ nationalize the Palestinians living there as Israeli citizens in the process.

The right-wing faction estimated that “only 80,000” Palestinians living there would need citizenship.

In a January 2018 Knesset debate, Shaked vowed that Israel would remain in the occupied West Bank “for 5,000 years” in support of annexing the West Bank.

In January, Bennett and Shaked also supported the opening of a new ‘apartheid road’ connecting Jerusalem with the northern settlements was met with relative silence

Area C, under complete IOF control,  faces tight restrictions on issuing Israeli approved building permits.

As a result, Palestinian homes and buildings face routine demolitions and Palestinians systematically suffer from forced evictions and homelessness.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the West Bank, 73 Palestinian structures have been demolished and 119 Palestinians have been displaced in just the first two months of 2019 alone.

In the last two weeks of February, Israel demolished 26 of the total 73 Palestinian-owned structures, including seven structures, in occupied East Jerusalem.

Around 45 people were displaced by the mid-to-late February wave of demolitions.

According to Palestinian sources, Israel also destroyed parts of three donor supplied water connections, jeopardizing drinking water source of of 18,000 Palestinians in Area C.

The rapid demolitions are part of a renewed effort to spur a new wave of forced displacement of Palestinians.

According to Hadash MK and Professor Yousef Jabareen, the settlement plan would be followed by the construction of a new Arab ghetto in Galilee.

Disclosing the plans to Arabic-language radio station “Al-Shams,” or the Sun, Jabareen said that the ghetto will be built on an area of ​​3 thousand acres, constructing about 15,500 housing units for about 72 thousand people, displaced from places in northern ‘Israel’ and possibly from the West Bank.

“The plan did not take into account the situation of the Arab population and their needs, and there is a period of 60 days to appeal the plan,”  Professor Jabareen told Al-Shams.

The documents Jabareen referenced also plan for the occupation of over 260,000 acres of land in the Al-Naqab region and displacement of at least 26,000 Palestinians from towns and villages in area as well.

With less than six weeks left to the next Knesset elections, the new right-wing coalitions are attempting to consolidate their decision-making powers and expound upon illegal settlement expansions.

The recent indictments of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for bribery and fraud have posed a challenge to the current right wing administration and allied factions in forming a coalition.

A recent poll published on Israeli media showed a first-time reversal for the right block, with 59 seats as opposed to the center-left’s 61.

Fast tracking aggressive settlement expansion comes at the presence of the instability of the current administration.

In hopes of appealing the US and fearing resistance, Netanyahu had previously blocked the advancement of a number of bills aimed at annexing Ma’aleh Adumim and other  Jerusalem-area settlements in January 2018, which would bring them under jurisdiction of the Zionist-held city.

*

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 forces are reportedly transferring tons of gold from ISIS-held areas in Syria to the US.

According to Kurdish Bas News Agency, the US transferred about 50 tons of gold from areas seized from ISIS in Deir Ezzor province. The report says that the gold was withdrawn from Syria through the US military base in Ayn al-Arab. A part of it was allegedly shared with the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), which are the core of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

Separately, the Syrian state-run SANA news agency claimed that US forces relocated large boxes containing ISIS gold treasure from al-Dashisheh region in southern Hasakah.

The UK-based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights (SOHR) claimed that ISIS members in the Euphrates poses about 40 tons of gold, which is being used to buy a safe passage from the area besieged by US-backed forces. The SOHR claimed that the SDF and the US-led coalition “deliberately” do not attack the ISIS-held area in order to force ISIS to surrender its treasure.

On February 28, the SDF acknowledged that ISIS had released 24 SDF members, whom were captured by the terrorist group in the previous battles. The US-backed force also confirmed that it had paused its anti-ISIS operation claiming that this is done in order to avoid civilian casualties.

At the same time, according to reports, over 350 ISIS members surrendered to the SDF during the last few days.

Russia and Israel are considering to set up a working group with several other countries to address the issue of removing all foreign forces from Syria. First reports in this issue appeared on February 26, following a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Moscow.

Netanyahu said that the meeting with Putin was “good and productive” and revealed that he had shared intelligence information on Iranian deployment in Syria with him. The Israeli PM went on to say that Russia is also interested in removing all foreign powers from the war-torn country.

On February 28, Putin confirmed that the sides had discussed such an idea, which should allow to withdraw foreign forces and to normalize life in the war-torn country. However, so far, no details have been provided, which would allow suggesting how this kind of group could work. While Moscow and Tel Aviv have some level of understanding regarding the situation in Syria, there are little doubts that they may have a different understanding of the “foreign forces withdrawal” concept.

Meanwhile, the situation in the Idlib de-escalation zone is not improving. Reports about ceasefire violations appear in northern Lattakia, northern Hama and western Aleppo almost on a daily basis. This comes amid resumption of Syrian and reportedly Russian airstrikes on terrorist targets in some parts of the zone. According to local sources, just recently, Syrian and Russian warplanes hit several positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in southern Idlib.

*

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

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

My most natural starting point may be an account of what the secretary general of Pugwash, a German colleague, and I learned in Moscow on January 28 in meetings with Russia’s foreign minister and the appropriate deputy minister. Discussion at both meetings focused largely on U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control. Our hosts’ objective, not surprisingly, was to convince us that Russia had not breached the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and that, if the treaty collapsed as they expected, the fault would lie at the door of the United States.

The essence of their case was that the cruise missile which the United States believes to have been tested at ranges in excess of 2,000 kilometers has a maximum range of 480 kilometers, just below the INF threshold of 500 kilometers. This missile, known in Russia as the 9M729, is a variant, they said, of the 9M728, also known as the Iskander-M, which has a maximum range of 490 kilometers. The 729 is heavier than the 728, because of an improved on-board guidance system. But the fuel capacity is the same, so the maximum range is slightly shorter.

They were equally intent on spelling out the reasons they have for believing that the United States is in breach of the INF. They cited the Aegis Ashore launchers in Romania and, in the near future, Poland, which are capable of launching both ballistic interceptors and Tomahawk cruise missiles, heavy drones, and certain ballistic interceptors that have been in use in missile defense system tests.

They regretted that the United States had rejected a Russian proposal for reciprocal steps to resolve compliance concerns, for example reciprocal inspections of the 729 variant of the Iskander-M and of the Aegis Ashore launchers in Romania and Poland. Instead the United States was insisting that Russia destroy all 729s under U.S. supervision in addition to quarterly U.S. inspection visits to the 729 production plant.

U.S. rejection of the Russian reciprocal inspection proposal had not come as a surprise, they said, since during a visit to Moscow in October the National Security Advisor John Bolton had spoken of the INF’s demise as inevitable. Bolton had stressed that the U.S. government had decided to do away with the treaty and that he had come to inform, not to bargain or negotiate. It was not concern about Russian actions that had brought about the U.S. decision to kill off the treaty, he had said, but a desire to have a free hand to react to Chinese, North Korean, and Iranian missile threats in whatever way the United States judged best.

John Bolton meeting Vladimir Putin in Moscow (Source: LobeLog)

Lastly, before turning to the strategic dimension, the Russian officials underlined that, if the INF collapses, Russia would not be the first to deploy to the European theater (or in any other theater) any missiles banned by that treaty.

They then urged us to be in no doubt as to Russia’s wish to preserve New START, to extend it beyond February 2021, and to build on it through further reductions in strategic nuclear weapon systems and deployed warheads after 2026. This is official policy, they said. Past Russian voices to the contrary should be ignored. All Russian systems could be on the table.

At the same time, they wanted us to be aware of a Russian compliance concern. New START binds both parties to “irreversible convertibility” of weapon systems withdrawn from service to bring the number of systems remaining in service below agreed numerical ceilings. The Russian concern relates to 56 submarine ballistic missile tubes and 41 B52 bombers. In their view these systems have not been subjected to irreversible modifications and could quickly be brought back into service, making possible the delivery of an additional 1280 warheads.

They emphasized that they are anxious for a healthy strategic dialogue with U.S. counterparts but suspected that this wish wasn’t reciprocated. At U.S. request, they had made proposals for specific agenda items for a strategic dialogue meeting; these had been unanswered. Also without a response was a Russian proposal to repeat a past joint statement about the inadmissibility of nuclear war.

They feared that the demise of the INF would cast a long shadow over the 2020 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference. Continuing U.S. objections to progress on the 1995 Middle East WMD-free-zone proposal and continuing U.S. non-ratification of the 1996 nuclear test ban treaty would be aggravating factors.

This account, of course, may not correspond to objective reality in all respects. For instance, the Americans believe that the 729 is a variant of the 2000-plus km Kalibr sea-launched cruise missile, not of the short-range 9M728 Iskander-M. But now I’d like to offer a personal assessment of the outlook for nuclear arms control and non-proliferation.

Looking Ahead

If John Bolton says that the demise of the INF is inevitable—and that part of what we heard on January 28 seems entirely credible—then it probably is inevitable, because he is well-placed to deliver on his prediction. But last week a retired U.S. ambassador to Moscow urged me not to abandon hope. He saw promise in the Russian proposal for reciprocal inspections of the 729 missile and Aegis Ashore launchers, and he urged that Europe press Washington—presumably both the administration and Congress, especially the Democrat majority in the House—to agree to reciprocal inspections.

The following day I read that NATO’s secretary general had told NBC News that, although NATO is planning for a world without the INF and a Europe with more Russian missiles, its first priority is to save the treaty.

If, nonetheless, the 2 August deadline passes with the treaty unsaved, what then?

I do not share the NATO secretary general’s apparent certainty (if this is what he had in mind) that Russia will start deploying ground-launched intermediate range missiles on its European flank. On the contrary, I am inclined to take at face value the assurance we received on January 28—which has been repeated publicly, for instance by President Vladimir Putin on February 20—that Russia will not be the first to deploy to the European theater missiles banned by the INF.

This suggests to me that Europe should make clear to Washington that it does not want the United States to be the first to deploy INF-banned missiles in Europe and wants the United States to consider the option of a NATO-Russian joint declaration on non-first deployment, as a confidence-building measure.

Also to build confidence NATO and Russia could exchange information about existing ground-launched non-strategic missile deployments in Europe, and individual missile capabilities, directly or via an impartial non-governmental institution.

In other words, Europe should strive to avert the destabilizing effect of reciprocal intermediate-range ground-launched deployments, the risk being great that such deployments would create temporary imbalances and might lead to circumstances in which Russian decision-makers, believing essential Russian command-and-control centers and/or strategic nuclear assets to be at risk from an intermediate-range NATO first strike, opted for a Russian intermediate or strategic first strike.

Of course, a pressing problem is that the 729 missile has been deployed west of the Urals, and NATO is sure that it is an intermediate-range missile. This can create pressure for a countervailing NATO intermediate deployment. But there is an obvious alternative: for the United States to render its European Aegis Ashore launchers irreversibly incapable of launching Tomahawks in return for permanent Russian withdrawal of all 729s from the European theater. Perhaps this trade-off has been the Russian goal all along.

The deployment of INF-banned systems would be all the more destabilizing if one or more of those systems were hypersonic. The U.S. Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW), for instance, the U.S. hypersonic system most likely to become deployable in the next few years, is thought to have a maximum range of 6000 kilometers and to be capable of a speed in excess of Mach 8. This means that an AHW launched from East Anglia could reach Moscow 14-15 minutes later. Its deployment would probably prompt Russia to deploy the 1,000 kilometer Mach 9 hypersonic missile of which President Putin spoke on February 20. This is not the stuff that stable European security is made of!

Incidentally, I believe that Russian arms control experts look back on the deployment of intermediate nuclear-armed SS20 ballistic missiles to the European theater at the end of the 1970s as a mistake. That deployment led to U.S. counter-deployments of nuclear-armed ballistic and cruise missiles, and to a crisis in the autumn of 1983 when Moscow feared a NATO intermediate first strike to be imminent and came close to resolving to strike first.

At the Strategic Level

Those familiar with U.S. debates say that any hope of extending New START in early 2021 will evaporate if the INF is killed off. I don’t understand why that need be so. I prefer to focus on the assurances we received on January 28 that Russia sees an extension as desirable and in Russia’s interest. An extension would keep out of service those 56 submarine ballistic missile tubes and 41 B52s that Moscow believes could quickly be brought back into service if New START were to expire. And a strategic arms race would be very expensive. Moscow knows that from bitter experience.

In any case, Europe should do all it can to ensure that New START is extended, irrespective of whether the INF can be saved.

The implications of all this for the 2020 NPT Review Conference are not good. A large majority of NPT parties will see the demise of the INF as further evidence of Nuclear Weapon State (NWS) back-sliding in relation to what they view as a firm NWS commitment, via Article VI of the NPT, to do away with nuclear weapons. They are utterly fed up with the United States and its European allies trying to strengthen the non-proliferation provisions of the NPT while signalling through their decisions and actions that nuclear weapons are an essential source of U.S. and European security. It’s bad enough, in the eyes of most NPT parties, that all five NWS have embarked on the modernization of their nuclear forces and manifest no interest whatsoever in moving towards Global Zero. In addition, four of them have taken to attacking the 2018 Nuclear Ban Treaty, and two of them have yet to ratify the 1996 CTBT.

In a potential silver lining to all of this prospective frustration and anger, Europe has an additional argument against the deployment of missiles banned by the INF and in favor of extending New START. Whether such an argument will cut any ice in Washington under the present administration is moot, of course. U.S. officials can fairly argue that NPT non-nuclear weapon state parties have come to understand that it is in their interest to preserve the NPT, whether or not the NWS honor their part of the 1968 NPT bargain. Nonetheless, I hope Europe will exploit the approach of the 2020 Review Conference when making the case for New START extension, no INF-range ground-launched deployments in Europe, and a NATO-Russian no-first deployment declaration.

This article is based on a talk in London on February 23.

*

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

Peter Jenkins was a British career diplomat for 33 years, following studies at the Universities of Cambridge and Harvard. He served in Vienna (twice), Washington, Paris, Brasilia and Geneva. He specialized in global economic and security issues.

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

Dear Readers,

To understand the complex web of deceit aimed at luring the American people and the rest of the world into accepting a military solution which threatens the future of humanity, get your copy of Michel Chossudovsky’s international bestseller:

America’s War on Terrorism
by Michel Chossudovsky

Our Price: US$18.00
(List price: US $24.95, Canada C$29.95)

CLICK TO BUY (link to Global Research Online Store) 

Also available: purchase the PDF version of America’s “War on Terrorism”, sent directly to your email, and cut on mailing expenses!

PDF version: US $9.50

CLICK TO BUY! 

Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of September 11.

When people across the US and around the World find out that Al Qaeda is not an outside enemy but a creation of US foreign policy and the CIA, the legitimacy of the bipartisan war agenda will tumble like a deck of cards.”

Across the land, the image of an “outside enemy” is instilled in the consciousness of Americans. Al Qaeda is threatening America and the world. The repeal of democracy under the Patriot legislation is portrayed as a means to providing “domestic security” and upholding civil liberties.

The 9/11 Commission Report destroys the historical record of US covert support to international terrorism, while creating the illusion that America and “Western Civilization” are threatened. In turn, the various terrorist warnings and code orange alerts have created, across America, an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.

Synopsis

According to Chossudovsky, the “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalization is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

America’s “War on Terrorism” & The Dirty War on Syria: Click here to order 2 books for 1 price!

Ordering from within North America? Click here to take advantage of these bulk order special offers:

Reviews:

“Material this provocative and well researched must not be ignored.” –Scott Loughrey, Baltimore Sun

“Chossudovsky has written an alarming book that ought to serve as a wakeup call for every citizen in the World.” –Anthony Lafratta, Chapter-Indigo

Get your copy today!

Our Price US$18.00
(List price US $24.95, Canada C$29.95)

CLICK TO BUY!

Also available: purchase the PDF version of America’s “War on Terrorism”, sent directly to your email, and cut on mailing expenses!

PDF version  US $9.50

CLICK TO BUY!

Russia’s 21^st-century grand strategy of becoming the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia is one major step closer to fruition after Foreign Minister Lavrov offered to host peace talks between India and Pakistan, proving that Russia’s refusal to take sides between its decades-long and newfound partners is part and parcel of President Putin’s pragmatic approach to regional affairs.

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov sent shockwaves through South Asia on Thursday by announcing his country’s intent to host peace talks between India and Pakistan if they wish for it to do so, thereby heralding Russia’s return to the region and putting it one major step closer towards fulfilling its 21^st-century grand strategy of becoming the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia. This brief article will mostly serve as a collection of the author’s relevant pieces about the larger concepts that will be concisely touched upon on a point-by-point basis and should therefore be seen as a resource to rely on for better understanding Russia’s envisaged role in the Eastern Hemisphere.

All told, it’s nothing short of a game-changing geopolitical development that Russia would offer to host peace talks between India and Pakistan because it proves just how wildly successful President Putin’s “balancing” strategy has been thus far, considering how confident Moscow is that it can constructively apply this model to the two nuclear-armed Great Powers in South Asia. Russia has truly returned to the region and is poised to play an even larger role in it over the coming years, which will enable Moscow to more assertively counter the US’ plans to destabilize South Asia and therefore ensure the success of the emerging Multipolar World Order.

*

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

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

Accountability for his highest of high crimes of war, against humanity, including genocide are omitted from coming charges against him, a reported 55-page indictment explaining criminal charges against him in detail. 

Israeli attorney general Avichai Mandelblit equivocated endlessly over whether to act against Netanyahu – despite damning evidence against him obtained by police.

On February 28, Israeli media reported that he’ll be indicted on one count of bribery, two counts of fraud and breach of trust, citing the state’s justice ministry.

The die is cast. Netanyahu’s indictment on multiple counts could come once a required hearing is held – possibly not until after April 9 elections – called by Netanyahu, believing he’d be reelected, hoping a mandate would save him.

His lawyers pressed Mandelblit to delay any action until after the upcoming elections. The ploy failed, a letter by the AG to Netanyahu’s legal team saying the following:

“Suspending the regular work process, determined in advance, concerning the investigations…until after the date of the election would be a violation of the principle of equality before the law.”

“Waiting to release the decision is not in keeping with the public’s right to know,” adding prosecutors have been examining evidence for many months.

According to rules and standards regarding criminal investigations of politicians in the run-up to elections, there’s no justifiable reason to delay indictments until after they’re held.

A spokesman for Netanyahu’s office said

“(i)t seems the attorney general has given in to pressure from the left and the media (sic) to file an indictment against Prime Minister Netanyahu at any price – and before the election,” adding:

“The prime minister’s lawyers placed a request before the attorney general to carry out supplementary questioning of more than 60 important witnesses who haven’t been questioned in any of the cases.”

“The ink wasn’t yet dry, and they rushed to leak from the prosecutor’s office that there was no intention to check these essential witnesses.”

Last December, the State Prosecutor’s Office recommended indicting Netanyahu on two counts of bribery in so-called Cases 2000 and 4000.

The former involves Netanyahu getting caught red-handed on tape, negotiating a quid pro quo with Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon Mozes for more favorable broadsheet coverage in return for legislation prohibiting distribution of the free daily Israel Hayom, YA’s main competitor, owned by Netanyahu supporter Sheldon Adelson.

The latter case alleges police suspect Walla news owner/controlling shareholder of Bezeq telecommunications company Shaul Elovitch ordered favorable coverage of Netanyahu on his news site in return for benefits arranged for Bezeq.

A third so-called case 1000 involves lavish gifts Netanyahu received from Israeli billionaire Arnon Milchan in return for political favors.

He can stay in office and run for reelection while proceedings against him continue – despite a serious conflict of interest with him in charge of Israel’s justice ministry.

As for his status as prime minister, Israeli voters can settle the matter by defeating the ruling Fatah-led coalition on April 9.

Whether a public or private figure, he’s vulnerable to conviction and sentencing if damning evidence proves him guilty of charges.

Things dragged on endlessly for many months. It’ll likely be months longer before resolution of charges against him.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Israel, in fact, is unlike any European state. It does not have a democratic government that ratifies and/or abides by international and United Nations resolutions, agreements and conventions on human and civil rights, nuclear/chemical/biological weapons of mass destruction, or conforms to international law and the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

Israel is an undeclared nuclear weapons state that is also a major arms exporter to regimes and governments around the world – its largest weapons market currently being India’s politically dangerous anti-Islamist coalition – the nationalist Modi government whose air-force reportedly used Israeli-supplied, Spice-2000 bombs in its strike, this week, against activists inside Pakistan, making the potential for war between these two nuclear powers now a frightening possibility.

It is a timely warning both for Britain and Europe to review their national security systems and to carefully examine both their reliance on Israeli-supplied security systems/ military equipment and the extent of any sharing of military intelligence.

Far from being a peace-loving, typical democracy that is a party to international and United Nations Security Council resolutions, agreements and conventions on human and civil rights and nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction, the Israeli state is probably the third most powerfully weaponised state in the world with the potential to destroy an entire continent and is answerable to no one – least of all the UN Security Council.

The Israeli government is armed and funded by a US Congress that is heavily dependent if not controlled by the votes of more than 50 million Christian Zionist evangelicals who also determine the policy of AIPAC and, in turn, US foreign policy.   It is certainly not democratic government by any stretch of the imagination, and political corruption would appear to be endemic.

Numbers (in round figures)

There are 326 million Americans of whom approximately 55 million (17%) are evangelical Christian Zionists and just 6 million (2%) are self-identified as Jewish.

AIPAC – the Israel lobby – has a claimed membership of only 100,000 mainly Jewish Zionists but is nevertheless active in determining the composition of the US Congress which overwhelmingly supports the AIPAC agenda that, inter alia, supplies and arms Israel with billions of dollars of American tax-payers’ money, every twelve months.

There are approximately 8 million Israelis in former Palestine of whom 20% are Arab – now with reduced civil rights under an Israeli law recently enacted by the Netanyahu administration.

The international community is not dealing here with a state that adheres to any recognised rule of international law – it being a law unto itself. And that is a very serious problem indeed for global peace and international security.

*

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.

This week, the Indian-Pakistani conflict over the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir erupted with a bang when the Pakistani military declared on February 27 that it had shot down 2 Indian aircraft inside Pakistani airspace.

A spokesperson for the military Major General Asif Ghafoor said that one of the jets fell inside the Pakistani-controlled part of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, while the other fell inside the Indian-controlled part of the region. He said that “one Indian pilot was arrested by troops on the ground while two were in the area.” Later the captured pilot was identified as Wing Commander Abhi Nandan.

In turn, India’s External Affairs Ministry spokesperson, Raveesh Kumar, said that only one aircraft, a MiG-21 fighter, was shot down with the pilot missing in action. He said one Pakistani aircraft was shot down, something Pakistan denied.

Kumar claimed that the Pakistani military used its jets to “target military installations on the Indian side” but due to India’s “high state of readiness and alertness Pakistan’s attempts were foiled successfully.”

Meanwhile, an Indian military Mi-17 helicopter also crashed in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir. Most likely, the helicopter was downed as a part of the ongoing escalation.

A new round of tensions between the sides has been growing since February 14 when radical armed group Jaish-e-Muhammad carried out a suicide bombing in Indian-administered Kashmir killing at least 42 Indian paramilitary soldiers. According to existing data, the suicide bomber rammed his explosives-laden car into a bus carrying paramilitary troopers in Lethpora village, on the road which connects Srinagar with the region’s southern parts. The attacked bus was part of a convoy consisting of 78 vehicles with over 2,500 personnel. The February 14 attack became the deadliest in two decades of the Kashmir conflict.

Following the incident, the Indian government in fact blamed Pakistan for it and demanded the neighbor nation stop “supporting terrorists and terror groups operating from their [its] territory.” It also appealed to the “international community to support the proposal to list terrorists, including Jaish-e-Mohammed Chief Masood Azhar, as designated terrorists under the 1267 Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council.”

On February 26, Indian warplanes targeted an alleged camp of radical armed group Jaish-e-Muhammad in Pakistan’s Balakot area. The Indian side claimed that the strike was a “non-military pre-emptive action” and killed over 350 group members, including trainers and senior commanders. The Indian Foreign Ministry claimed that the airstrike was carried out as result of Pakistan’s inability to take measures to destroy the terrorist infrastructure themselves.

However, the Pakistani side commented on the attack by saying that the Indian strike did not result in any notable damage or casualties among alleged terrorists. Furthermore, Islamabad publicly rejects all accusations that it in any way assists insurgent group operating on the contact line between the two countries.

It should be noted that governments and media outlets of the both sides have a very specific manner of covering the conflict. They exaggerate casualties and guilt in escalation of their opponents and underestimate casualties and responsibility of themselves.

On February 28, the situation on the Pakistani-Indian contact line continued to escalate with both sides reinforcing their military positions, deploying additional troops and equipment and putting their nuclear forces on alert. According to some media outlets, there was even an exchange of artillery strikes.

Evaluating the recent public rhetoric of both sides it appears that while New Delhi and Islamabad are set to blame each other for the escalation, they are not interested in starting a hot regional conflict. Additionally, no global power appears to be interested in the development of this scenario.

On the other hand, this situation will lead to a further deterioration of the security situation in the region and contribute to the growth of Pakistani and Indian clandestine activities against each other. One of the key threats is that the ongoing proxy-style conflict is setting conditions for the development and expansion of radical ideologies prevalent in the insurgent groups operating in the region.

The events of February 26-27 once again show how the wretched policy of ignoring state sovereignty in the framework of military actions described as anti-terror efforts has once again led to negative consequences for regional security. While this does not justify the actions of the sides instigating the insurgency of groups with radical ideology and using radical methods, the implementation of this approach itself is often one of the reasons for repeated escalations.

A similar situation can be observed in Syria and Lebanon, where the Israeli military carries out illegal aerial operations and then appears to be wondering why this does not lead to the de-escalation of the regional conflicts.

*

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

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

After suffering a humiliating military defeat on the morning of 27 February when Pakistan shot down two of its MiGs that violated the country’s airspace and even captured one of its pilots, India went wild trying to distract its population by switching the subject of discussion to allegations that Islamabad violated the Geneva Convention of 1949 by airing footage of the captured pilot, but in reality Pakistan actually confirmed its adherence to this cornerstone of international law and simultaneously contributed to de-escalating the worst military crisis with its nuclear-armed neighbor since their 1971 war almost half a century ago.

A Desperate Distraction To Cover Up A Military Defeat

“Pakistan Turned The Latest Bollywood ‘Surgical Strike’ Flick Into Reality” on the morning of 27 February after it upheld the rules-based international order centered on the UN Charter’s principles about territorial integrity, sovereignty, and the right to defend oneself against aggression when it shot down two Indian MiGs that violated its airspace and even captured one of the pilots. This came as a total shock for the Mainstream Media-indoctrinated Indian masses who had mostly been convinced up until that point that Prime Minister Modi had “succeeded” in “putting Pakistan in its place” after “surgically striking” it on the unsubstantiated pretext that Islamabad was involved in the Pulwama attack. As the clichéd saying goes, “the truth hurts”, and the proverbial “bloody nose” that Pakistan gave India risked exposing the latter’s government-driven narrative as nothing more than pre-election propaganda for the incumbent BJP, which is why the state swiftly moved to distract the population as soon as possible.

Instead of taking responsibility for bringing the two nuclear-armed neighbors closer to all-out hostilities since any time after their 1971 war almost half a century ago and accepting the peacemaking overtures that Pakistani Prime Minister Khan maturely extended to his counterpart from a position of strength, Indian media obsessed over spinning video footage of their captured pilot as an alleged violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949. According to their weaponized narrative, Pakistan broke its commitment to this international pact by releasing footage of the captive, which Indian commentators claim was in contravention to Article 13’s clause specifically mandating that “prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.” While it’s debatable whether the pilot is actually a true “prisoner of war” or not, the Director General of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations confirmed that he’ll be “treated as per norms of military ethics”.

See It With Your Own Eyes

The problem, Indian pundits say, is that the footage of the captured pilot being saved from a local mob by the military, shown safely in custody, and then happily drinking tea supposedly made him a so-called “public curiosity” and is “proof” that Pakistan violated the Geneva Convention. Nothing could be further from the truth, however, since those three videos actually showed that the captured pilot is being treated in full accordance with the Geneva Convention and therefore contributed to de-escalating tensions with India. The Pakistani Armed Forces literally saved his life by rescuing him from a local mob, showing the world their principled commitment to international law that they were willing to also risk their own lives and potentially – if the situation came to do – also use non-lethal force or worse against their own enraged countrymen to ensure the safety of the Indian pilot. That says a lot about Pakistan’s military professionalism and was a proud moment for the country.

The second video showing the captured pilot standing while in custody was evidently meant to reassure the world that the prisoner was successfully brought to a safe space where he was no longer at risk of harm. This was important to signal because Pakistan preemptively thwarted a dangerous infowar escalation from the Indian side by doing this and confirming that the pilot was not only still alive, but in good enough of a condition to stand and say a few words. It’s very likely that had that video not come out as soon as it did, India – which “has more fake news than anywhere else in the world”, as confirmed by a recently released independent report by Microsoft – might have started disseminating fake news and possibly even edited video clips claiming to “prove” that he was “killed” and his body “mutilated” in order to “justify” forthcoming military moves that would have unquestionably escalated the situation.

It’s possibly because of how well he knows his countrymen’s mindset that the Indian pilot voluntarily chose to go on video and send an important peacemaking message to them and the rest of the world, all while calmly sipping tea that his Pakistani captors generously gave him. He said that “I would like to put this on record, and I will not change my statement if I go back to my country also. The officers of the Pakistani Army have looked after me very well. They are thorough gentlemen, starting from the captain who rescued me from the mob, and from the soldiers, and thereafter the officers of the unit which I was taken. This is what I would expect my army to behave as, and I’m very impressed by the Pakistani Army.” Had one expected this footage to be aired far and wide by Indian media, they’d be mistaken, since it’s actually being censored by the state.

State Censorship In The Self-Professed “World’s Largest Democracy”

“The Economic Times” reported that Indian security officials “said on Wednesday that the videos of the captured Indian Air Force pilot were being released on the internet as part of a psychological operation against India and netizens should desist from sharing them on social media”, adding that “It is aimed to demoralise the forces and people.” Because of this, media outlets have refused to share those three videos with their audiences, intending instead to continue fanning the flames of war as part of Modi’s re-election campaign by alleging that the captured pilot is being “mistreated” and that the Indian Armed Forces must promptly take revenge. As most state-driven policies of censorship have a tendency for doing, however, this is backfiring on India because all international media outlets of prominence have reported on that footage and it’s since gone viral on social media, so regular Indians can see that their government’s narrative about Pakistan’s ”mistreatment” of their pilot is false.

It’s precisely because the pilot praised the Pakistani Army and proved that his captors even risked their lives in order to save his own that India imposed a strict policy of censorship in a frantic bid to prevent its warmongering rhetoric from falling apart at the seams, hence the latest fake news narrative that Pakistan supposedly violated the Geneva Convention by releasing footage of the prisoner. New Delhi suffered such a humiliating military defeat on 27 February that it will do anything to distract its people from what happened and desperately try to gin up international support against Pakistan on the alleged basis that Islamabad brazenly violated international law despite the Pakistani state actually upholding the UN Charter by protecting its sovereign airspace from aggressive foreign intrusion. As for the weaponized infowar narrative that Pakistan “paraded” him around as a “public curiosity”, the videos actually prove that the country wanted to pre-emptively counter India’s expected fake news campaign about the pilot’s treatment and fate.

Concluding Thoughts

Yet another Indian infowar narrative is falling apart after the facts once again reveal that the country is pumping out fake news in order to discredit Pakistan and “justify” military aggression against it in support of Modi’s re-election campaign. Not only has no single shred of evidence been publicly presented proving that the Pakistani state was involved in the Pulwama attack nor has anything emerged to confirm India’s incredulous claims that its “surgical strike” killed 200-300 Jaish-e-Mohammed fighters, but the facts actually confirm the opposite, namely that Pakistan had nothing to do with Pulwama and that India’s highly publicized “strike” wasn’t even what it was portrayed as being and certainly didn’t kill a single soul. Likewise, India’s assertion that Pakistan violated the Geneva Convention is also disproven by the video evidence that its neighbor presented but which has been censored from Indian media on “national security” grounds, all in order to keep a “politically convenient” fake news narrative alive ahead of the country’s heated elections.

*

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

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

Featured image is from NDTV.com

On 26 February, Stephen Hickey, UK political coordinator at the United Nations, delivered a statement at the Security Council briefing on Venezuela that put the blame for the situation in that country on its government. He said that years of misrule and corruption have wrecked the Venezuelan economy and that the actions of the “Maduro regime” have led to economic collapse.

He continued by talking about the recent attempts to bring ‘aid’ into the country:

“… use of deadly violence against his (Maduro) own people and other concerning acts of aggression to block the supply of desperately needed humanitarian aid are simply repugnant… the Maduro regime’s oppressive policies affect… innocent civilians, including women and children, who lack access to essential medical and other basic supplies… ”

He then went on to talk about journalist Jorge Ramos being reportedly detained, later to be released and deported:

“As with the lack of freedom given to journalists, other essential freedoms – such as democratic ones – are simply not present in Venezuela… We stand with… Juan Guaidó in pursuit of our shared goal to bring peace and stability to Venezuela.”

We can but wonder what Hickey thinks about the illegal and arbitrary detention and needless suffering of Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for the best part of a decade courtesy of his own government.

Hickey argued that the only way to achieve peace and stability is by democratic transition through free and fair presidential elections, as demanded by ‘interim President Guaidó’ and the National Assembly, in line with the Venezuelan Constitution.

He stated:

“Until this is achieved, the current humanitarian crisis caused by the Maduro regime’s corrupt policies will continue… nothing short of free and fair presidential elections will do.”

In the meantime, Hickey called for additional sanctions against individual members of the Venezuelan government who he said had benefited from corrupt policies.

He concluded that:

“The Venezuelan people deserve a better future. They have suffered enough at the hands of the Maduro regime.”

Something for Hickey to consider

Here are a few facts for Stephen Hickey. In 2018, Maduro was re-elected president. A section of the opposition boycotted the election but the boycott failed: 9,389,056 people voted; 16 parties participated and six candidates stood for the presidency. Maduro won 6,248,864 votes, or 68 per cent. Renowned journalist John Pilger says that on election day he spoke to one of the 150 foreign election observers who told him the process had been entirely fair. There was no fraud and none of the lurid media claims stood up.

So what of the unelected Juan Guaidó whom Hickey calls the “interim president”?

Pilger notes that the Trump administration has presented Guaidó, a pop-up creation of the CIA-front National Endowment for Democracy, as the legitimate President of Venezuela. Guaidó was previously unheard of by 81 percent of the Venezuelan people and has been elected by no one.

And what of the people who are behind him (not ordinary Venezuelan people, but his backers in Washington)? Pilger says:

“As his “special envoy to Venezuela” (coup master), Trump has appointed a convicted felon, Elliot Abrams, whose intrigues in the service of Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush helped produce the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s and plunge central America into years of blood-soaked misery.”

Talking about the Western media biased reporting on Venezuela, Pilger adds that the country’s democratic record, human rights legislation, food programmes, healthcare initiatives and poverty reduction did not happen:

“The greatest literacy program in human history did not happen, just as the millions who march in support of Maduro and in memory of Chavez, do not exist.”

None of this happened in the warped world of Stephen Hickey either. He paints a wholly distorted picture of the situation in Venezuela, one which lays the blame for economic woes and their consequences at the door of Maduro and his ‘corrupt regime’. But this is a tried and tested strategy: bring a country to its knees and apportion blame on the political leaders of that country.

Countries like Venezuela have to a large extent been trapped by their colonial legacy and have very often become single commodity producers – in this case oil – and find it difficult to expand other sectors. In effect, they have found themselves extremely vulnerable. The US can squeeze the price of the commodity upon which such countries rely, while applying sanctions and cutting off financial lifelines. It then becomes that much easier to lay the blame for the consequences on a ‘corrupt regime’.

Prof Michael Hudson has outlined how debt and the US-controlled international monetary system has backed Maduro into a corner. He argues that Venezuela has become an oil monoculture, with revenue having been spent largely on importing food and other necessities, which it could have produced itself. In the case of food at least, many countries in the Global South have been adversely affected by the ‘globalisation of agriculture’ and have had their indigenous sectors undermined as a result of WTO policies and directives, debt and US-supported geopolitical lending strategies.

However, this is all an inconvenient truth for the likes of Hickey and the Western media. Talking about the BBC, John Pilger notes that it is “too difficult” for that media outlet to include any of this in its reporting:

“It is too difficult to report the collapse of oil prices since 2014 as largely the result of criminal machinations by Wall Street. It is too difficult to report the blocking of Venezuela’s access to the US-dominated international financial system as sabotage. It is too difficult to report Washington’s “sanctions” against Venezuela, which have caused the loss of at least $6 billion in Venezuela’s revenue since 2017, including $2 billion worth of imported medicines, as illegal, or the Bank of England’s refusal to return Venezuela’s gold reserves as an act of piracy.”

None of this is up for debate by the BBC or Hickey. He sits in the UN talking about, freedom, democracy and the rights and suffering of ordinary people, while failing to acknowledge the US or the UK’s own role in the denial of freedom and the perpetuation of suffering across the world.

From Syria to Iraq, the ‘squeezing out of life’

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009. And writing in The Guardian in 2013, Nafeez Ahmed discussed leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor, including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials, that confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting the “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within.”

But this is where Britain and the West’s concerns really lie: facilitating the geopolitical machinations of financial institutions, oil companies, arms manufacturers and profiteers. And it is no different this time around with Venezuela. Ordinary people are mere ‘collateral damage’ left dying in or fleeing war zones that the West and its allies created. The West’s brutal oil and gas wars are twisted as ‘humanitarian’ interventions for public consumption.

In 2014, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray told a meeting at St Andrews University in Scotland that Libya is now a disaster and 15,000 people were killed when NATO (British and French jets) bombed Sirte. The made-for-public narrative about that ‘intervention’ began with some tale about Gadhafi killing his own people, which turned out to be false. Now we are hearing similar about Maduro.

As far as Iraq is concerned, Murray said that he knew for certain that key British officials were fully aware that there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction. He said that invading Iraq wasn’t a mistake, it was a lie.

Over a million people have been killed via the US-led or US-backed attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. But this is the plan: to turn countries into vassal states of the US, or for those that resist to reconstruct (destroy) them into fractured territories.

Any eulogies to morality and humanitarianism must be seen for what they are: part of the ongoing psychological operations being waged on the public to encourage people to regard what is happening in the world as a disconnected array of events in need of Western intervention. These events are not for one minute to be regarded by the public as the planned brutality of empire and militarism.

Tim Anderson (author of ‘The Dirty War on Syria’) argues that where Syria was concerned Western culture in general favoured its worst traditions:

“the ‘imperial prerogative’ for intervention… reinforced by a ferocious campaign of war propaganda.”

We are now seeing it again, this time with Venezuela.

We might well ask who is Donald Trump, John Bolton or for that matter Stephen Hickey to dictate and engineer what the future of Venezuela should be? But this is what the US with the UK in support has been doing across the globe for decades. Control of oil is key to current events in Venezuela. But there is also the subtext of destroying any tendencies towards socialism across Latin America (and elsewhere) as well as the need of Western capital to expand into or create new markets: Washington’s hand-picked puppet Juan Guaido will facilitate the process and usher in a programme of ‘mass privatisation’ and ‘hyper-capitalism’.

In many respects, the US has learned its imperialist playbook from its former colonial master, the UK. In the book ‘Late Victorian Holocausts’, the author Mike Davis writes that millions in India were dying of starvation when Lord Lytton (head of the British government in India) said, “There is to be no interference of any kind on the part of government with the object of reducing the price of food”. He dismissed any idea of feeding the starving as “humanitarian hysterics”. There was plenty of food, but it was held back to preserve prices and serve the market.

Indian writer and politician Shashi Tharoor, notes a speech to the British House of Commons in 1935 by Winston Churchill who said that the slightest fall from the present standard of life in India means slow starvation and the actual squeezing out of life, not only of millions but of scores of millions of people. And that after almost 200 years of British rule. According to Tharoor, this “squeezing out of life” was realized at the hands of Churchill in the six to seven million Indian deaths in the WW2 Bengali Holocaust.

Despite Hickey’s crocodile tears, hundreds of thousands in various countries are still dying today due to the same imperialist mindset. Humanitarian hysterics are for public consumption as the “squeezing out of life” continues regardless.

*

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

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

Note: Following is the text of an address delivered by the author on Thursday February 28, 2019 at Henry Ford College in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. The event was held in honor of African American History Month. Azikiwe was invited to give this lecture by the African American Association.

***

This year’s African American History Month takes on an added significance due to the fact that it represents the 400^th anniversary of the beginning of slavery in the British colony of Virginia, in an area now known as the United States.

In acknowledgement of this anniversary, the West African government of Ghana has made an offer within the framework of the “Year of Return” for Black people in the Western Hemisphere that they are welcome to visit their ancestral homeland and to resettle if so desired. This declaration represents a continuation of the centuries-long efforts to reconnect Africans to the land from which they were torn asunder during the 15^th to the 19^th centuries.

During August 1619 a British ship under a Dutch flag transported stolen human cargo to the Jamestown Settlement. This colony would serve as a major entry point for Africans for more than another 200 years.

The Africans were kidnapped from the area which is known as Angola today in the Southwest region of the continent. This geographical region has a history of resistance to imperialism from the 17^th century to the present.

Queen Nzinga of the Mbundu people defied Portuguese efforts to colonize Luanda and consolidate their grip on the slave trade in the region. Her rule in the area was marked by a capacity to engage in military attacks as well as diplomatic engagements with both Portugal and The Netherlands.

An account of her contributions reveals:

“In 1626 Nzinga became Queen of the Mbundu when her brother committed suicide in the face of rising Portuguese demands for slave trade concessions.  Nzinga, however, refused to allow them to control her nation. In 1627, after forming alliances with former rival states, she led her army against the Portuguese, initiating a thirty-year war against them.  She exploited European rivalry by forging an alliance with the Dutch who had conquered Luanda in 1641. With their help, Nzinga defeated a Portuguese army in 1647. When the Dutch were in turn defeated by the Portuguese the following year and withdrew from Central Africa, Nzinga continued her struggle against the Portuguese. Now in her 60s she still personally led troops in battle.   She also orchestrated guerilla attacks on the Portuguese which would continue long after her death and inspire the ultimately successful 20th Century armed resistance against the Portuguese that resulted in independent Angola in 1975. Despite repeated attempts by the Portuguese and their allies to capture or kill Queen Nzinga, she died peacefully in her eighties on December 17, 1663.” (See this)

This historical episode is a reflection of the early forms of obstruction by African people against slavery and colonialism. The phenomenon of organized and spontaneous opposition to European domination would continue as more Africans were taken and enslaved in the Western Hemispheric outposts within North America, Central America, the Caribbean and South America.

The origins of British occupation of Virginia are to be found in the establishment of the London Company, sometimes referred to as the Virginia Company of London.  The business was a British joint-stock company founded in 1606 by a royal charter under the control of King James. Its purpose was to secure a British presence as colonizers along the east coast of North America.

This land turned over to the London Company encompassed the eastern coast of what became known as the United States beginning in the 34th parallel (Cape Fear) extending north to the 41st parallel (in Long Island Sound). Included in the Virginia Company and Colony, the London Company laid arbitrary claims to an enormous section of Atlantic and Inland Canada. The company then mandated the building of a 100-square-mile (260 km2) settlement. The expropriated land north of the 38th parallel was then divided up with the Plymouth Company, under an agreement that this company would not establish a colony within 100 miles (161 km) of the other settlement.

Therefore it is clear that the main purpose for the disempowerment of the Indigenous people and the enslavement of African people was the acquisition of land and the exploitation of labor for profit. From an historical perspective it was solely the European Americans who benefitted from the economic system of slavery.

Slave advertisement for the acquisition of Africans

The 20 or more Africans who were transported from Angola in August 1619 were sold off to land owners in the region. Between the years of 1619 to 1660, it is said that Africans brought to Virginia were indentured servants, similar to European people who were transported over to North America to work. Some Africans did win their freedom as early as the middle decades of the 17^th century. Nonetheless, these questions become secondary when viewing how the law was modified to justify the permanent enslavement of African people by the conclusion of the 17^th century.

Even the Encyclopedia of Virginia says of this period that:

“During most of the 1600s, Virginia’s labor force consisted primarily of white indentured servants and a handful of convict laborers, who in many cases were treated no better than slaves. Some Virginia Indians also worked as servants or, more often, were enslaved. In the 1670s, the ratio of white servants to enslaved Africans was four to one. But that changed dramatically during the next twenty years, so that by the early 1690s the ratio had reversed: there were now four times as many enslaved Africans as white servants in Virginia. By 1705, with the General Assembly’s passage of ‘An act concerning Servants and Slaves’ (also known as the Slave Code of 1705), slavery had become ensconced at all levels of Virginia society. Some historians explain this change by pointing to social shifts following Bacon’s Rebellion (1676–1677) that increased white Virginians’ hostility toward non-whites. This early form of racism led white Englishmen to think of dark-skinned peoples as inferior. Other historians point out that the move to slavery only occurred when the flow of servants from England fell off dramatically around 1680. Still others suggest that only at this time did the English, having established the Royal African Company in 1660, become more involved in the Atlantic slave trade. As a result, enslaved Africans became less expensive. To wealthy planters and small farmers a like, slaves made better long-term economic sense than indentured servants.” (See this)

All during the course of the 18^th century the number of enslaved Africans grew exponentially amid the thriving of the Atlantic Slave Trade. The 13 colonies and their leaders yearned for a separation from Britain when it appeared as if the institution of slavery would be formally prohibited.

Yearning for independence from Britain accelerated after several legal and legislative decisions portending the eventual dissolution of African chattel enslavement. After the Declaration of Independence and the defeat of London by 1783, the actual U.S. Constitutional apportionment of the House of Representatives was based upon the economic interests of the slaveholding class in the South.

The so-called three-fifths clause of the Constitution gave unwarranted political advantage to the slave states in order to maintain national unity. The unity was actually based on the overall national oppression of African people which would burst asunder after the elections of 1860 and the commencement of the Civil War the following year. The Civil War resulted in the military defeat of the Confederate states.

Africans were not deployed on the Union side of the War until after the defeats by the North during 1862. Plans were made by the Lincoln administration and the Union army for the possible evacuation of Washington, D.C. Nonetheless, a series of developments would reverse the course of the War.

These developments included the increasing flight and rebellion by enslaved Africans from the plantation system. There was also the decision made by Lincoln at the aegis of abolitionist leaders such as Frederick Douglass to arm the displaced African population which had been categorized as “contraband” during 1861-62. At least 186,000 Africans were enlisted in the Union army and by all accounts fought gallantly for the defeat of the slaveholding rebel states.

However, the question would not be resolved as to what the status of the Africans would be after the conclusion of the War. Although the 13^th Amendment had been vociferously debated in Congress as early as January 1865, there was no agreement in regard to the legal abolition of slavery in the U.S.

With the surrender of the Confederate Generals in April 1865, the passage of the 13^th Amendment was not solidified until the conclusion of that year. Moreover, the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862-1863 did not provide citizenship rights or self-determination to Africans living in the Confederate states. It would take the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution passed in 1868 which provided equal protection and due process to African people. Despite the passage of these two Constitutional Amendments the economic basis for the rise of the Confederacy was not completely destroyed.

The Economic Basis of the Politics of Enslavement

As we mentioned earlier, the business of trafficking and exploiting African labor was quite profitable to the extent that it was a prerequisite to industrial capitalism in Western Europe and North America. The internationalization of the capitalist mode of production and social relations transitioned the exploitative system from mercantilism to capitalism and modern-day imperialism.

V.I. Lenin argued in his book entitled “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism,” published in 1916 during the height of World War I, that the banks were the principal controllers of the global system which is effectively at the source of the contradictions between the workers, farmers on one side and the ruling class on the other. The growth of banking in earlier centuries is directly connected to the Atlantic Slave Trade. The capital accrued in the triangular methods of commerce was utilized to fuel the engines of industry.

Mass production of commodities became the mechanism for generating even greater profitability creating the extra capital to invest in the expansion of operations. Enslaved African labor produced the cotton, tobacco and sugar which were the main commodities marketed in both the colonies and the metropoles. The burgeoning mechanization of production was reliant heavily on raw agricultural products such as cotton.

Data related to the cultivation and export of cotton in the Southern U.S. indicate that the expansion westward and south was clearly related to the demand for cotton in the textile factories of the northern urban areas and Britain. Even after the beginning of the Civil War during 1861-1865, British industry continued their imports of cotton. It would take an international campaign targeting this link in order to build British support for the ending of African enslavement in the U.S.

After the ostensible ban on the international African slave trade the breeding and trafficking in human cargo escalated domestically. This process required even more draconian laws to socially contain the African population. Rebellions and flight from bondage were the underlying source of the paranoia of the slave masters facing financial ruin due to the unrest on the plantations and the declining rate of profit from the peculiar institution.

Banking then became closely linked with the insurance industry. The insuring of the life of enslaved Africans where the benefits claimed by the slave traders and masters further reinforced the commodification of human beings.

A study in the dialectical relationship between the British economy and African labor exploitation was conducted by Dr. Eric Williams of Trinidad. The 1944 book entitled “Capitalism and Slavery,” served as an indictment of the Triangular Trade.

Williams said of the banking industry in Britain:

“Many of the eighteenth century banks established in Liverpool and Manchester, the slaving metropolis and the cotton capital respectively, were directly associated with the triangular trade. Here large sums were needed for the cotton factories and for the canals which improved the means of communication between the two towns.  Typical of the eighteenth century banker is the transition from tradesman to merchant and then the further progression from merchant to banker. The term ‘merchant,’ in the eighteenth century context, not infrequently involved the gradations of slaver captain, privateer captain, privateer owner, before settling down on shore to the respectable business of commerce. The varied activities of a Liverpool businessman include: brewer, liquor merchant, grocer, spirit dealer, bill-broker, banker, etc.”

The banks supplied the loans for the expansion of the production of commodities. English labor was exploited as well. However, the rate of return on the exploitation of African labor far exceeded that of what became known as “free labor.” Many within Britain came to see the moral injustices of African enslavement anchored on religious grounds and stemming from the ideas of equality surfacing in the period of Enlightenment.

Nevertheless, the profits from this trade were quite lucrative surpassing anything witnessed in recorded history. Consequently, slavery continued as an economic system well into the latter decades of the 19^th century in Cuba and Brazil. A Civil War fought in the U.S. may have legally ended involuntary servitude there was still a protracted struggle to be waged to win any recognition of the human value of the African person.

This requires an examination of what was actually at stake in the U.S. Today and in the past it was frequently asserted that the maintenance of African enslavement was a question of state’s rights and sovereignty. In other cases the inhuman economic system was romanticized and linked with a mythical white southern gentlemanly culture with the grace of interpersonal interactions and benevolent treatment of the African people.

Yet the practice of beating, torture, rape, the disruption of families, lynching, etc., cannot be idealized by anyone other a racist. African people did not ask to be enslaved and they sought various means to liberate themselves from this horrendous experience.

Even those who were able to flee to areas where they would purportedly be safe from enslavement, there was always the slave catchers and others hell bent on sending people back into bondage. The concept of buying one’s own freedom seems counterintuitive, since people are theoretically born emancipated from ownership by others.

The debate over the character of the slave economy is an ongoing even within the 21^st century. Various views on the enslavement of Africans determine political positions on how best to make amends for the centuries-long injustice. If the nature of the system can be framed as being relatively benign it would obviously mean that there is no need to change the order of the current imperialist system. If the reverse is true, suggesting the overthrow of imperialism is the only adequate correction possible to democratize the world system as it stands in the contemporary era.

Du Bois in “Black Reconstruction in America” notes in the chapter entitled “The Planter” emphasizes:

“The ability of the slaveholder and landlord to sequester a large share of the profits of slave labor depended upon his exploitation of that labor, rather than upon high prices for his product in the market. In the world market, the merchants and manufacturers had all the advantage of unity, knowledge and purpose, and could hammer down the price of raw material. The slaveholder, therefore, saw Northern merchants and manufacturers enrich themselves from the results of Southern agriculture. He was angry and used all of his great political power to circumvent it. His only effective economic movement, however, could take place against the slave. He was forced, unless willing to take lower profits, continually to beat down the cost of his slave labor.”

This no doubt enhanced the brutal and repressive mechanism of containment. The drive for profits coupled with the competition for political control with the burgeoning industrialists of the North, heightened the social contradictions forcing an inevitable eruption of struggle leading to total warfare to determine the uncontestable dominance over the direction of the economic system.

In this same above-mentioned chapter, Du Bois says:

“But there was another motive which more and more strongly as time went on compelled the planter to cling to slavery. His political power was based on slavery. With four million slaves he could balance the votes of 2,400,000 Northern voters, while in the inconceivable event of their becoming free their votes would outnumber those of his Northern opponents, which was precisely what happened in 1868.”

Referring to the passage of the 14^th Amendment which granted “citizenship rights” to the formerly enslaved Africans, it invariably turned out that yet another amendment, the 15^th, would be needed to guarantee the franchise in 1870. With all three of these measures spanning the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments to the Constitution, notwithstanding the various Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1870 and 1875, this level of due process, access to the ballot and the holding of public office would only be supported by the Federal Reconstruction government influenced by the Radical Republicans until the compromise surrounding the contested 1876 presidential elections.

By the conclusion of the 1880s, and certainly at the dawn of the 20^th century, a re-enslavement in practice bolstered by state laws popularly referred to as Jim Crow, became paramount in the South as well as other regions of the U.S. Extra-judicial murder utilizing conspiratorial arrangements involving landowners, businesspeople, law-enforcement, the courts, and penal institutions, rendered African people to social status reminiscent of the years leading up to the Civil War.

The significance of the work of African American historian and social scientist Du Bois is highlighted in the following passages which further expose the slaveocracy: “As the economic power of the planter waned, his political power became more and more indispensable to the maintenance of his income and profits. Holding his industrial system secure by this political domination, the planter turned to the more systematic exploitation of his black labor. One method called for more land and the other for more slaves. Both meant not only increased crops but increased political power. It was a temptation that swept greed, religion, military pride and dreams of empire to its defense. There were two possibilities. He might follow the old method of the early West Indian sugar plantations: work his slaves without regard to their physical condition, until they died of over-work or exposure, and then buy new ones. The difficulty of this, however, was that the price of slaves, since the attempt to abolish the slave trade, was gradually rising. This in the deep South led to a strong and gradually increasing demand for the reopening of the African slave trade, just as modern industry demands cheaper and cheaper coolie labor in Asia and half-slave labor in African mines.”

Such a system of engrained exploitation and national oppression rationalized through institutional racism could only be disposed of through a revolutionary upheaval uprooting its economic base. This occurred partly during the Civil War and the following decades. At the same time the existence of racist labor market could still be utilized in the rural South and the industrialized North to weaken the struggle against the national oppressed and the working class in general.

African migration northward and westward accelerating on the eve of World War I was incentivized by higher wages and the imperative of restraining free white American and European immigrant labor seeking to organize against the horrible conditions prevailing in mines, plants, mills and foundries of the era. Racial segregation attempted to win over the European American worker to a false notion of superiority while in the same instance intensifying their exploitation as well.

As the urban areas expanded and agricultural production became more mechanized, there was the dislocation of millions from the white and African populations. In the cities, slums and unsanitary conditions were the norm. Yet the European could ostensibly take comfort in the fact that their social conditions were not as bad as the African Americans. This mentality prevails well into the 21^st century. It is responsible for the fragmentation of the working class and the renewed attempts aimed at the marginalization of the Black people.

Combined, the false sense of contentment among the Europeans and the continuing neo-colonial status of Africans in the U.S., serves as the illusory façade of social equilibrium amid expanding inequality and instability. These factors constitute the enormous challenges for those pressing for a thorough transformation of the status quo.

The Lingering Impact of the Atlantic Slave Trade in the 21^st Century

Often enough it is said by Conservatives that the historical existence of African enslavement should not have even the slightest residual effect on the political and social construct of U.S. society in the present period. Some five decades since the Civil Rights era of the post-World War II years provided the legal apparatus which could ensure the existence of equal opportunity for African Americans, so the axioms are articulated.

The statistical disparities between African Americans and Europeans have far less to do in the 21^st century with the legacy of institutional racism, national oppression and enslavement than the failure of the formerly enslaved to take advantage of the opportunities which are available to them. In other words, any degree of inequality and discrimination are secondary to the capacity of African Americans to gain their rightful place within U.S. society.

These same platitudes are extended to the conditions existing among African people on the continent and other parts of the world. Africa with all of its resources and human capital continues to suffer from poverty due to corruption and lack of moral fortitude among the people who seems to be governing these emerging nation-states.

Such a set of assumptions are inherently racist and ignore the realities of the present international system of economic exchange and authority. Until there is a complete break with the character of imperialism there cannot be total freedom for the oppressed.

How development is defined is a key component in grasping the exigencies of the African condition. African Guyanese historian Dr. Walter Rodney in his book “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa’ published in Tanzania in 1972 and circulated internationally draws upon the inherently dialectical character of underdevelopment and development.

Applying the principles of Marxist analysis known as historical materialism, Rodney stresses:

“A second and even more indispensable component of modern underdevelopment is that it expresses a particular relationship of exploitation: namely, the exploitation of one country by another. All of the countries named as ‘underdeveloped’ in the world are exploited by others; and the underdevelopment with which the world is now preoccupied is a product of capitalist, imperialist and colonialist exploitation. African and Asian societies were developing independently until they were taken over directly or indirectly by the capitalist powers. When that happened, exploitation increased and the export of surplus ensued, depriving the societies of the benefit of their natural resources and labor. That is an integral part of underdevelopment in the contemporary sense.”

This type of analysis is sometimes characterized as rigid or structuralist. Apologists for the current world order of inequality and subjugation of certain regions by the ruling class within others advances the notions of a gradual lifting of the masses from impoverishment. The instability of this development model, where limited quantitative growth ebbs and flows, is frequently explained in a similar fashion as the boom to bust cycle of the metropolitan capitalist system.

The underlying reasons behind this pendulum swing are the policy initiatives of politicians and parties, of which in essence are capitalist in their orientation. In the contemporary framework, the current President Donald Trump makes statements saying the U.S. economy is doing better than any other time in history. That the African American jobless rate is lower than it has ever been since data has been collected by the federal government.

These obviously false and preposterous claims are political in character. It is to say as was done during slavery that the African people are better off under the exploitative system. According to the racists there is no alternative to the domination of Europeans over Africans and other peoples of color in the world.

The truth of the matter is the problems of poverty and underdevelopment are systematic requiring the reconstruction of the economic system based upon the interests of the majority members of the exploited social class within society. Rodney addresses this necessity by point out:

“In some quarters, it has often been thought wise to substitute the term ‘developing’ for ‘underdeveloped’. One of the reasons for so doing is to avoid any unpleasantness which may be attached to the second term, which might be interpreted as meaning underdeveloped mentally, physically, morally or in any other respect. Actually, if ‘underdevelopment’ were related to anything other than comparing economies, then the most underdeveloped country in the world would be the U.S.A, which practices external oppression on a massive scale, while internally there is a blend of exploitation, brutality, and psychiatric disorder. However, on the economic level, it is best to remain with the word ‘underdeveloped’ rather than ‘developing’, because the latter creates the impression that all the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America are escaping from a state of economic backwardness relative to the industrial nations of the world, and that they are emancipating themselves from the relationship of exploitation. That is certainly not true, and many underdeveloped countries in Africa and elsewhere are becoming more underdeveloped in comparison with the world’s great powers, because their exploitation by the metropoles is being intensified in new ways.”

These words are even more poignant in the second decade of the 21^st century when the gap separating the wealthy and impoverished is rising to unprecedented levels. We live in an epoch where the thirst for unlimited profits is threatening the existence of the planet through the manufacture of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The potential imperilment of humanity is also driven by the failure to recognize the damage being done to the environment by the use of hazardous materials in the production and disposal process.

Shortages generated by the unequal distribution of fuel, food and energy resources can only exacerbate social tensions. These factors are by nature destabilizing. In order to maintain the existing order, the Pentagon and NATO have opened military bases around the globe spreading their influence while inequality persists.

Today the level of dislocation is greater than any time since the conclusion of World War II. United Nations agencies tasked to respond to humanitarian crises have documented that 75 million people are living as refugees or internally displaced persons. This situation is the result of imperialism which has waged war in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and other geo-political regions. Migrants are seeking admission into the western industrialized states whose military forces and exploitative economic institutions have repressed and exploited their counties of origin.

Rather than address these failed foreign policies, the leaders of the West are reverting back to the mythology of past centuries. They dream of building fortress states aimed at keeping out the poor and dispossessed. The contradiction in such thinking is made futile by the rapidly worsening conditions of the working class and poor within the metropoles themselves.

In this “Year of Return” there is much to contemplate in regard to the domestic and world situations. The current generations must organize to change the system fundamentally since the future of the planet depends upon what we do today. This is our mission extending beyond 2019 to ensure the future of humanity and the realization of social equality, prosperity and genuine development for 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.

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

All images in this article are from the author

A recent BBC segment titled, “The Syrians returning home after years of fleeing war,” contradicted 8 years of the British state media’s narratives regarding the war in Syria.

A synopsis of the short BBC video segment would read:

After years of people fleeing Syria and its civil war, there are now long queues to enter the country each day. Jordan opened its Jaber border crossing last October after Syrian government troops defeated rebels who had controlled the other side. 

Now several thousand people pass through each day. They include small-scale merchants reviving cross-border trade and returning Syrian refugees who hope to rebuild their lives.

Huge numbers of Syrians have already returned to Syria – specifically to areas government forces have cleared of Western-armed and backed terrorists. This includes Aleppo, Homs, and Daraa.

The flood of returning refugees to government-held areas indicates Syrians were fleeing the US-backed proxy war against the Syrian government – not the Syrian government itself.

What the BBC Has Previously Claimed  

Viewers and readers who invested trust in the BBC’s narratives over the past 8 years will be shocked to hear thousands of Syrians crowding the Jordanian-Syrian border daily to return to the war-ravaged nation.

The BBC has insisted for 8 years, millions of refugees had fled Syria to escape the nation’s “brutal dictator” Syrian President Bashar Al Assad – accused of “gassing his own people,” raining down “barrel bombs” that were both crude and “indiscriminate” but also paradoxically capable of pinpointing elementary schools and children’s hospitals, and whose “Shabiha” death squads lurked around every corner.

In 2016, a BBC article titled, “Syria conflict: Aleppo bombing shuts largest hospital,” uncritically repeated claims made by US-funded fronts operating in Aleppo during security operations to clear it of terrorists.

The BBC would eagerly report:

Russian and Syrian air raids on the rebel-held eastern half of the city of Aleppo have forced the closure of the largest hospital in the area and killed two people, a medical charity says. 

The Syrian American Medical Society, which supports the hospital, said it had been struck by barrel bombs.

The BBC – along with the rest of the Western media – have depicted bombs used by the Syrian military as “barrel bombs,” claiming that because of their crude construction, they could not be aimed and therefore were “indiscriminate” in nature.

A 2013 BBC article titled, “Syria conflict: Barrel bombs show brutality of war,” would claim:

…barrel bombs reportedly used again in Aleppo by Syrian government forces during recent days – are home-made, relatively crude and totally indiscriminate in their impact.

The barrel bomb is essentially a large, home-made incendiary device. An oil barrel or similar cylindrical container filled with petrol, nails or other crude shrapnel, along with explosives. With an appropriate fuse, they are simply rolled out of a helicopter.

The article would also claim such “barrel bombs” were, “in no sense accurate,” except of course – when they needed to be accurate for the sake of war propaganda – such as allegedly pinpointing US-funded “hospitals” in terrorist-held Aleppo.   

A 2017 BBC article titled, “Syria chemical ‘attack’: What we know,” would claim:

More than 80 people were killed in a suspected chemical attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun in north-western Syria on 4 April. 

Hundreds suffered symptoms consistent with reaction to a nerve agent after what the opposition and Western powers said was a Syrian government air strike on the area.

The report – of course – was based entirely on “witness” accounts, with OPCW inspectors unable to investigate the site due to the fact Khan Sheikhoun was – and still is – under Al Qaeda occupation. The BBC article intentionally omits that “samples” the OPCW examined lacked any verifiable chain of custody. In other words – the samples could have come from anywhere, including labs where they were likely fabricated.

The BBC has faithfully repeated every claim made by militants regarding chemical weapons throughout the war. The BBC has gone as far as claiming “Assad’s” repeated use of chemical weapons was a key factor in his victory – though failed categorically to explain how.

Why would people – enjoying refugee status in neighboring countries and even in Europe, risk returning to Syria where “brutal dictator” Bashar Al Assad not only still remains in power – but has decisively defeated his opponents through the use of “barrel bombs,” “chemical weapons,” and other forms of indescribable brutality?

The answer is simple – refugees were fleeing the US-backed war and the terrorists it had armed to divide and destroy the country – not the Syrian government. The vast majority of Syria’s displaced remained inside Syria – and simply moved into areas under government protection. Now with many other areas of the country having security restored by government forces with Russian and Iranian backing – hundreds of thousands more are returning from abroad, including from Europe – according to the BBC itself.

Great effort had been put into misrepresenting the refugee crisis the Syrian conflict triggered – specifically because the specifics of the crisis clearly revealed who Syrians were really fleeing and why. Analysis of Syria’s internally displaced refugees was intentionally and systematically omitted by the BBC and other Western media organizations in their reports over the years to obfuscate the fact refugees were fleeing militants, and voluntarily returning once militants were pushed out of various regions across Syria.

Explaining The BBC’s Reversal 

London-based security expert Charles Shoebridge in a short but insightful social media post would note:

When the preferred narrative becomes unsustainable, media manage this by switching to reporting as if for years they hadn’t suggested opposite. Also, UK govt (and BBC) know that UK will again have relations with Assad, which continuing to demonise him may make difficult to sell.

And of course – the BBC knows that any viewer or reader still investing trust in its daily and extensive propaganda efforts – will unlikely notice the sudden, dramatic shift in narrative regarding Syria.

BBC correspondents will claim that their past articles intentionally framing Syrian President Assad as a “madman” “gassing his own people” and raining “barrel bombs” on their heads were “balanced” because in the last paragraph, brief and marginalized statements from the Syrian or Russian governments refuting such accusations were also included.

A similar defense has been mounted since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq failed to turn up weapons of mass destruction after media organizations like the BBC assured the public of the necessity of that war.

The BBC has all but admitted to its 8 years of war propaganda aimed at the destruction of Syria. The very refugees it now reports are returning to Syria suffered the fate they have specifically because of the inability of media organizations like the BBC to honestly inform the public. The cost of the Syrian war helps remind the public why during the Nuremberg trials following World War 2, war propagandists were sent to the gallows alongside the trigger-pullers their lies helped enable.

While the BBC still enjoys vast amounts of impunity with no likelihood in the foreseeable future of ever being held accountable for its actions – it should be remembered at all times that the BBC is in the business of propaganda – and especially war propaganda – not “news.” This fact should be kept in mind whether its correspondents are covering the Middle East, South America, or Southeast Asia.

*

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

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

Featured image is from NEO

The failure of the Hanoi summit, from Beijing’s point of view, could yet turn out to be a success.

North Korea’s most important relationship is with China. The most important relationship for China is with the United States. In January a train carrying North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un stopped in Beijing on a chilly morning. China’s president Xi Jinping held talks with Kim to prep him for the Trump summit.

The exact details of the talks are of course shrouded in secrecy but it is not hard to imagine their general thrust. Xi probably instructed Kim to play hardball. Great, if you get what you want, fine, but in all probability even Trump, the dealmaker-in-chief, will not grant you the complete lifting of sanctions, would be a fair summing up of Xi’s argument. Trump retreating from Hanoi with empty pockets will make him even more prone to striking a trade deal with China, Beijing believes, to show the art of the deal is still alive. In the meantime China and Russia will invest in North Korea and the US will still be engaged. Not a bad outcome.

The Hanoi talks were meant to trade some form of sanctions relief by the US for a freeze or dismantling of nuclear facilities in North Korea. This is broadly what China and Russia want and is the foundation stone of any potential deal. Perhaps there was a deal in the offing and either Trump or Kim pushed for more. Perhaps the two sides had misread what the other was willing to do. Certainly the setting of the talks were seen through a different perspective in Asia than in the West.

In his State of the Union address last month Trump took credit for saving millions of lives by averting a “major war” on the Korean peninsula.

Holding talks with a country that until recently you seemed to be close to war with, in a country where you suffered your greatest military defeat seemed perplexing to many in Asia and hardly a good omen.

The Hanoi talks were not a complete failure. An agreement was struck to continue lower-level discussions to build on the momentum since the Singapore summit in June. China, and Russia too, will see this as an opening for further trade.

Trump’s short-term approach, his gushing praise of strongmen, the strident criticism of Europe, the undermining of NATO and his obsession with image at the expense of substance is being used against him in the international arena.

This month sees the start of China’s two sessions, the meetings of the parliament and advisory body. There will be little public debate and the applause and clapping will be more choreographed than spontaneous. But behind the scenes will be fierce discussions concerning all aspects of Chinese life.

But what matters to Beijing most is a trade deal with the US that it can sell as a success to the Chinese people.

Events in Hanoi have probably enhanced the possibility of this happening. Just two weeks ago, anyone suggesting that would have been considered naïve. The US needs China to help with North Korea and import more made-in-America products. China needs the US to buy more of its goods. Events in Hanoi, from Beijing’s perspective, ensure that this dynamic remains relevant and will provide the basis of a new trade deal. The Hanoi summit a failure? Not from Beijing’s point of view.

*

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

Tom Clifford is an Irish journalist based in China.

Featured image: Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead

*

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

Carla Stea is Global Research’s correspondent at United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y.

On February 27, Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, testified before the House Oversight and Reform Committee for six hours. In two months, Cohen will begin serving a three-year prison sentence. He pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations involving illegal hush money and falsely testifying to Congress that Trump Tower Moscow negotiations had ended before the campaign.

“The last time I appeared before Congress, I came to protect Mr. Trump. Today, I’m here to tell the truth about Mr. Trump,” Cohen testified. “I am not protecting Mr. Trump anymore.”

Cohen called Trump “a racist,” “a conman” and “a cheat,” who enlisted others to do his dirty work.

“Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That’s not how he operates.” He “would look me in the eye and tell me there’s no business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people.”

“In his way, he was telling me to lie,” Cohen testified. He added that Trump would say, “Michael, it never happened” or “It’s a lie.” Moreover, he said,

“Lying for Mr. Trump was normalized and no one around him questioned it. In fairness, no one questions it now.”

Trump “knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it,” according to Cohen. “And so, I lied about it, too — because Mr. Trump had made clear to me … that he wanted me to lie.”

Cohen said Trump knew ahead of time that the hacked Democratic National Committee emails would be released. When Cohen was in Trump’s office, Roger Stone called. Trump put him on speakerphone. Stone said Julian Assange had told him that within a couple of days there would be a massive email dump that would hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

“Trump is a cheat,” Cohen testified.

He described Trump inflating and deflating his assets as it suited his financial interests. Trump would direct Cohen to call small business owners to whom Trump owed money and tell them they would receive no payment or a reduced payment.

Cohen painted a picture of Trump strong-arming people like a mob boss. Trump didn’t directly threaten those he sought to intimidate, Cohen testified.

“He would use others.”

Cohen worked for Trump for 10 years. “Quite a few times,” on some 500 occasions, Trump ordered Cohen to threaten people. That’s mobster-like behavior.

Cohen Provided Evidence That Trump Was a Co-Conspirator

“Mr. Trump is a conman,” Cohen said. “He asked me to pay off an adult film star with whom he had an affair, and to lie to his wife about it, which I did.”

Trump told Cohen to say that Trump “was not knowledgeable of these reimbursements and he wasn’t knowledgeable of” what Cohen was doing.

Cohen displayed a copy of a $35,000 check written to him on Trump’s account, signed by Trump and dated August 1, 2017, while Trump was president. Cohen said the check was “pursuant to the cover-up, which was the basis of my guilty plea.” It was one of 11 payments Trump made to reimburse Cohen for the hush money he paid to porn star Stormy Daniels. This constituted obstruction of justice.

“The President of the United States thus wrote a check for the payment of hush money as part of a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws,” Cohen testified.

He told Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California) that Trump “directed transactions in conspiracy” with Trump, Don Jr. and Allen Weisselberg “as part of a criminal conspiracy of financial fraud.” Weisselberg is the CFO of The Trump Organization.

Cohen also characterized Trump as a co-conspirator to violate federal election law. According to Cohen, Trump had advance knowledge of the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner and a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin. Don Jr. arranged the meeting with the expectation of receiving dirt the Russian government had about Hillary Clinton. Cohen said he was in the room when Don Jr. whispered to his father, “The meeting is all set.” Trump said, “OK good … let me know.”

All co-conspirators are legally responsible for the acts of the other co-conspirators, even if they didn’t directly participate in those acts or are unaware of the details of the conspiracy. Trump need not have attended the June 9 meeting to be liable as a co-conspirator.

“Mr. Trump is a racist,” Cohen stated.

While Barack Obama was still president, Trump asked Cohen if he could name a country run by a Black person that wasn’t a “shithole,” a term Trump has used in the past. Once, when they drove through a “struggling neighborhood in Chicago,” Trump told Cohen only Black people could live that way. “And,” Cohen testified,

“he told me that Black people would never vote for him because they were too stupid.”

Republicans Upset That Cohen Stopped Lying to Congress for Trump

The Republicans on the committee mounted no objections to the substance of Cohen’s testimony. They attacked his credibility, noting that he’s going to prison for charges that include lying to Congress. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) called Cohen a “fraudster, cheat, convicted felon and, in two months, a federal inmate.”

But Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) charged that GOP committee members were angry because Cohen “stopped lying to Congress for the president.” Cohen told the committee,

“I did the same thing that you’re doing now, for 10 years. I protected Mr. Trump for 10 years.”

Trump “directed me to commit multiple felonies,” Cohen said. “I covered it up and protected his brand and him as well.”

Cohen explained why he agreed to testify even though he has nothing to gain and much to lose:

“I fear that if [Trump] loses the election in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transition of power.”

That is the most disturbing thing Cohen said. He knows better than anyone what Trump is capable of.

*

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

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

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

Featured image is from France 24

Ten weeks into the administration of progressive president Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), the Mexican right has made it clear how it plans to oppose him: not as an adversary to be defeated, but as an enemy to be destroyed. And in a war of this kind, as the Spanish saying goes, Todo vale. Anything goes.

The first of the false furors flared up even before AMLO took office, when former presidents Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderón – both from the conservative National Action Party (PAN) – criticized his decision to invite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to his inauguration, setting off a tempest-in-a-teapot firestorm within the nation’s corporate media. Inviting foreign heads of state to an inauguration, of course, is part and parcel of diplomatic protocol, something both Fox and Calderón had adhered to when inviting then-president Hugo Chávez to their respective ceremonies.

But hypocrisy was no object when it came to the PAN’s attempts to tie AMLO to the Bolivarian Revolution, an obsession that dated to the party’s shadowy attack ads in the 2006 election and repeated faithfully through last year’s campaign. When, during his inaugural speech in Congress, AMLO read out Maduro’s name among a list of the foreign leaders in attendance, deputies from the PAN leapt up on cue and, with cries of “Dictator!,” ran to the front of the chamber to unfurl a banner condemning the Venezuelan head of state (a stunt strangely not repeated for the president of Cuba, Miguel Díaz-Canel).

First Steps

AMLO’s first major initiative as president was to reduce the bloated salaries of the top federal bureaucracy, fulfilling a key campaign pledge; the Maximum Salaries Law, in fact, was the first to be passed by the MORENA Congressional majority when it took office in September of 2018. But opposition parties quickly challenged the law’s constitutionality, arguing that it violated the separation of powers.

Source: The Bullet

It was a strange argument to make, especially in light of the fact that Article 127 of the Mexican Constitution expressly stipulates that no public servant can earn more than the president; the law, in fact, was designed to enshrine the constitutional provision in secondary legislation. No matter. The leader of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in the Senate, Osorio Chong, fustigated against “a climate of lynching” against the judicial branch “propitiated by the government and its party,” going so far as to claim that the measure would encourage not only the removal of judges and magistrates but aggression against them.

The judges themselves then got into the swing of things, beating their breasts in a public display of inconformity that led some observers to wonder why they hadn’t bothered to protest in the same way the abuses of power, disappearances, and violence that led to some 267,000 homicides over the last two administrations.

The attempt to portray the judiciary as the victims was audacious, to say the least. Federal judges are among the highest paid members of the federal bureaucracy, with the eleven members of the Supreme Court – which proceeded to place a temporary stay on the Maximum Salaries Law – earning upwards of 600,000 pesos ($31,470 US) per month, including benefits, several times more than the president and more than the average Mexican makes in eight years (the justices have since agreed to reduce their base salary by 25 per cent for 2019).

But such was the fever to portray AMLO as an authoritarian dictator-in-waiting – and such was the president’s political acumen in choosing an initial battle that commanded near-unanimous popular support, forcing his knee-jerk opposition into a neat trap – that it was willing to defend the indefensible when the wisest course, seemingly, would have been to pick a smarter battle. But in a war of attrition, losing battles is part of the strategy. The key is to attack, always attack.

#AMLOAsesino

The day before Christmas, three weeks into the president’s term, a tragic accident gave the Mexican right another chance to strike. Ten minutes after taking off, the helicopter carrying the governor of the State of Puebla, Martha Erika Alonso, and her husband, former governor Rafael Moreno Valle, both from the PAN, crashed into a cornfield in the town of Santa María de Coronango, killing everyone on board.

The accident occurred just ten days after Alonso had belatedly taken the oath of office after defeating the MORENA candidate, Miguel Barbosa, in a judicially contested July election which, according to a study by the Iberoamerican University, contained “multiple and grave inconsistencies” that called into question the results.

Within hours, the hashtag #AMLOAsesino (AMLO Assassin) had become a national trending topic, which it was to remain for several hours. Closer investigation, however, revealed that, far from being a spontaneous outpouring of citizen internauts blaming AMLO for the accident, a deliberate campaign of defamation was at work.

According to an analysis performed by the news site Sinembargo.mx, the trend benefited from “artificial and coordinated support” by a series of anti-AMLO bots.

“The way in which the clusters gathered around the #AMLOAsesino trend showed that they did not arise from an organic dialogue in which users with distinct profiles converge and contribute different points of view,” stated author Ivonne Ojeda de la Torre.

She continued:

“The farm of recently created accounts that participated in the trend from the first moments after its appearance contributed to positioning [it] through simultaneous retweets and spam, distinguishing it from the organic dialogue that resulted from the tragedy … The tweets were published constantly, but without generating discussion, behavior that is characteristic of artificially amplified trends.”

The following day, De la Torre published a second analysis showing how, since 2011, the PRI has generated an army of bot accounts to create and promote trends, spread fake news, attack opponents, and buy votes, using money of doubtful origin that, unlike traditional campaign spending, is much harder to trace. In the days following the accident, moreover, residents of Puebla began receiving robocalls with a supposed survey asking whether the cause of the crash was “mechanical error” or a planned “attack.” The goal, clearly, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, was to sow doubts through innuendo and insinuation.

In a very overt accompaniment to this covert activity, former presidents Fox and Calderón again leapt into the fray to fan the flames in the most irresponsible of possible ways.

“We demand an explanation!” Fox wailed in a tweet. “It is hard to accept this coincidence after such a stiff democratic battle for Puebla.”

Calderón was only slightly more discreet, calling for “an impartial investigation into the causes of the accident.”

So feverish did the cyber-conspiracy theorizing become that AMLO, at his morning press conference on December 26, used unusually strong language to shut down the speculation.

“There’s been an environment created by the same conservatives as always,” he stated in response to a question about the accusations. “Not all, but a mean-spirited minority … These are neo-fascist groups that are very upset by the triumph of our movement and are trying to affect us, to stain us. They won’t succeed.”

Turning the Screws

On the foreign-relations front, there are also signs that the United States is beginning to turn its screws on AMLO. Although the Trump administration has systematically vilified Mexicans for years, his language regarding its new government has been surprisingly measured. Venezuela may have changed that.

On January 4, Mexico refused to sign the “Lima Accord” calling on Nicolás Maduro to stand down from his second presidential term, slated to begin on January 9. The accord was a product of the Lima Group, comprised of Canada and a dozen right-wing Latin American governments, whose purpose has been to provide soft cover for the United States by pushing for regime change in Venezuela. Even though Mexico is a part of the group, thanks to the previous Peña Nieto government, Deputy Foreign Minister Maximiliano Reyes declared in a statement:

“We call for reflection in the Lima Group about the consequences for Venezuelans of measures that seek to interfere in internal affairs.”

When, on January 23, the head of the Venezuelan National Assembly Juan Guaidó declared himself “interim president,” Mexico reiterated its position, citing Article 89 of the Mexican Constitution which mandates non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

“It’s not that we’re in favor or against. We’re following through with our institutional principles,” AMLO said in his daily news conference on January 24th.

In doing so, he was effectively resurrecting the Estrada Doctrine, which formed the basis of the nation’s independent foreign policy in the mid-twentieth century, even during the height of the Cold War. Named after Foreign Secretary Genaro Estrada (1930-32), the doctrine calls on Mexico to back the peaceful settlement of conflicts and neither support nor reject foreign governments or governments-in-transition, since to do so would be to violate state sovereignty. On January 25, Mexico offered to mediate a peaceful resolution to the conflict, in conjunction with Uruguay. Two weeks later, at the meeting of the International Contact Group in Montevideo, Mexico, Bolivia, and the Caribbean Community (Caricom) bucked the majority of attendees by refusing to sign the call for new elections in Venezuela.

The Mexican right, of course, fell over itself to attack the government’s position. On the same day as Guaidó’s self-proclamation, the PAN debuted a similarly self-proclaimed foreign policy by rushing to recognize him. Columnist Leo Zuckermann at the newspaper Excelsior declared AMLO to be “on the wrong side of history.” With slightly more nuance, analyst Carlos Bravo Regidor tweeted:

“The terms ‘non-intervention’ and ‘neutrality’ do not serve to explain the position of the Mexican foreign ministry regarding the Venezuelan crisis. To prefer mediation is to seek to intervene to defuse the situation; to promote negotiation in search of a political settlement is not to remain neutral.”

On January 29, American secretary of state Mike Pompeo cancelled a planned trip to Mexico to discuss the issue of Central American migrants traveling through the country to the US border. Although no explicit reason was offered for the cancellation, it came amid mounting controversy over Mexico’s position on Venezuela.

On the same day, the Wall Street rating agency Fitch downgraded the credit rating of the state oil company Petroleros Mexicanos (PEMEX) an entire point from BBB+ to BBB-, citing “unfunded pension requirements, negative equity and exposure to political interference risk.” The downgrade, which places PEMEX’s bonds just above junk status, will make it much more expensive for the company to borrow funds to upgrade its operations, neatly cancelling out the cost-cutting savings AMLO has sought to carry out. As PEMEX continues to contribute nearly a fifth of government revenues, even after being bled by a major privatization effort by former president Peña Nieto, this may also wind up squeezing the government’s ability to deliver on its social-spending promises.

At his daily press conference the next day, AMLO ridiculed both the decision and its timing:

“What these organizations do is very hypocritical … They allowed the looting [of Pemex], they endorsed the so-called energy reform, they knew that foreign investment didn’t arrive, investment in PEMEX didn’t increase and that was what caused the decline in petroleum production. And they never said anything.” He added, “They maintained a complicit silence and now that we’re rescuing PEMEX, they come out with their recommendations and … ratings.”

As if anticipating this changing mood, Time Magazine – ever a faithful mouthpiece of empire – plopped Mexico into its top-ten list of “biggest geopolitical risks of 2019.” In the words of editor-at-large Ian Bremmer, AMLO’s “bid to roll back the opening of Mexico’s economy, orthodox macroeconomic policies, privatizations, and deregulation threaten a return to the 1960s. In 2019, he’ll spend money Mexico doesn’t have on problems like poverty and security that resist straightforward solutions. And as he centralizes power, policymaking will become more erratic.”

The choice of decade is curious, as Mexican growth rates in the 1960s averaged some 6.5 per cent per year, three times higher than the neoliberal era inaugurated in 1982. Curious, as well, that his concerns do not extend to the case of Latin America’s other newly inaugurated president, Jair Bolsonaro. As Bremmer breezily concludes,

“the public, the media, and Brazil’s political institutions won’t allow space for any dangerous centralization of power.”

Avoiding Erosion

For now, AMLO’s position appears stable: latest polls give him a staggering 86 per cent approval rating, economic indicators are solid, and the machinations of the Mexican right – especially in light of the abject failures of recent conservative administrations – appear both overwrought and sophomoric. But as the screws continue to tighten, a number of options could be mobilized down the road, such as a combined media, diplomatic, and economic campaign to weaken, discredit, and isolate AMLO, one that brings together the domestic and international actors analyzed here.

Delegitimation, after all, is a gradual process of erosion, and when it comes to progressive governments, with their reduced margin for error, missteps that in themselves seem minor can prove fatal. It is imperative, then, that the radicalized political base that elected AMLO does not allow itself to become lulled into complacency by the false belief that winning office is the same as conquering power.

*

This was originally written by Helen McKenna and published on 13 December 2017. It was updated by Beccy Baird on 22 February 2019.  

***

Brexit has major implications for health and social care in England. Here we look at some of the latest developments that could impact the health and care system in England.

The deadline of 29 March 2019, set when Article 50 was triggered, is rapidly approaching but many important issues are still to be resolved. Brexit has already had an impact, especially on the recruitment and retention of EU nationals in some parts of the workforce which is contributing to shortages of key staff. In addition, the ongoing debate in parliament and uncertainty about whether a deal can be agreed mean considerable work has gone into preparations for a no-deal Brexit. The Department of Health and Social Care has published guidance for organisations to prepare contingency plans and has established a national operational response centre to lead on responding to any disruption to the delivery of health and care services.

Staffing

Across NHS trusts there is currently a shortage of more than 100,000 staff (representing 1 in 11 posts), severely affecting some key groups of essential staff, including nurses, many types of doctors, allied health professionals, and care staff. Vacancies in adult social care are rising, currently totally 110,000, with around 1 in 10 social worker and 1 in 11 care worker roles unfilled. International recruitment is a key factor in addressing these vacancies. Brexit and immigration policy will have an impact on the ability of the NHS to successfully fill these vacancies.

The policy of freedom of movement and mutual recognition of professional qualifications within the EU means that many health and social care professionals currently working in the UK have come from other EU countries. This includes nearly 62,000 (5.2 per cent)1 of the English NHS’s 1.2 million workforce and an estimated 104,000 (around 8 per cent)2 of the 1.3 million workers in England’s adult social care sector (NHS Digital 2018; Skills for Care 2018). The proportion of EU workers in both the NHS and the social care sector has grown over time, suggesting that both sectors have become increasingly reliant on EU migrants.

The UK has a greater proportion of doctors who qualified abroad working than in any other European country, except Ireland and Norway. Latest General Medical Council (GMC) data shows that the number of doctors from the European Economic Area (EEA) joining the medical register is holding steady (but still down 40 per cent on 2014 after new language requirements were introduced). A combination of relaxed visa restrictions and active recruitment by trusts means that the number of non-EEA doctors joining the register doubled between 2014 and 2017 (GMC 2018). However, some specialties not currently on the Home Office’s shortage occupation list are still facing difficulties, for example child and adolescent psychiatry.

Similarly the number of nurses and midwives from Europe leaving the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s register has doubled from 1,981 in 2015/16 to 3,692 in 2017/18, while the number joining fell by 91 per cent (Nursing and Midwifery Council 2018). This fall has been somewhat mitigated by more non-EEA nurses joining the register (Nursing and Midwifery Council 2018). However, even with both EEA and non-EEA registrants taken into account, these figures are considerably below the peak of around 16,000 international registrations in 2001/02. Although there are other contributing factors, including the introduction of new English language requirements in 2016, Brexit has had a significant impact (Murray 2017).

One of the main priorities in the first phase of the UK’s negotiations with the EU was clarifying the status of EU citizens currently living in the UK and of UK citizens living in other EU countries. Any EU Citizen currently living in the UK, including the 165,000 EEA staff already working in health and social care are able to apply for the EU Settlement Scheme. They will need to apply by June 2021 (December 2020 in in the event of no deal) in order to be able to stay in the UK.

The government published an immigration White Paper in December 2018 for a new skills-based immigration system to begin in 2021, treating EEA migrants in the same way as non-EEA migrants. It removes the limit on numbers of skilled workers but proposes an earnings threshold which is likely to impact the ability to attract certain health professionals to the NHS. The threshold has generated fierce debate, and the government is expected to consult for another year on where to set the salary threshold for skilled immigrants.

The white paper acknowledges England’s reliance on migrants in the social care workforce. However, it proposes that for a transitional period such workers would only be allowed to come for a limited time, with no entitlement to bring dependants. Again, this is likely to impact the ability of the social care system to attract sufficient workers. In the event of a no-deal Brexit, for an interim period EU citizens would be able to enter the UK as they do now but if they wish to stay longer than three months they would have to apply for permission under a new European Temporary Leave to Remain scheme. People who obtain this status would be entitled to live, work and study in the country for a further three years. Other workforce issues that will need to be addressed include:

• mutual recognition of qualifications: the current EU withdrawal bill suggests that there will be appropriate arrangements in the future relationship for reciprocal professional qualifications. Future arrangements about the process for health and care professionals (including UK citizens) who have an EU/EEA or Swiss qualification and who have not applied to have their qualification recognised by 29 March 2019 are currently before parliament.
• the additional cost implications for the NHS of needing to sponsor visas.
• the need to update employment law: protections for health and care staff regarding employment rights and health and safety at work currently covered by EU legislation. This would include the working time directive, although the current government has committed to preserving this after the UK leaves the EU. These are still under discussion.

Our position

The health and social care sectors have long relied on EU and other foreign nationals in all parts of the workforce and will continue to need them in future.

In the short term, we hope the recent announcement about the EU settlement scheme concerning the status of EU citizens currently living in the UK will provide them with reassurance and persuade as many as possible to stay and continue to make a valuable contribution to the health and social care workforce.

In the longer term, while we welcome efforts to increase the domestic NHS workforce, it will take time for many of these policies to result in extra staff on the front line. Providers of NHS and social care services need the ability to recruit staff from the EU and other countries when there are not enough resident workers to fill vacancies. We recommend a broadening of the shortage occupation lists to include a wider range of medical specialties, allied health professionals and social care managers.

We welcome discussions to lower the earnings cap for skilled workers but remain concerned that the current proposals will impact the ability of both the NHS and social care to recruit lower-skilled workers from the EU and elsewhere.

Finally, it is important to recognise that, while Brexit has the potential to compound workforce pressures, the recruitment and retention problems being experienced in health and social care predate the UK’s decision to leave the EU. International recruitment has been very effective in the past and we strongly recommend the government should create a robust and ethical infrastructure for recruiting internationally. Coming to work in the NHS is still not as easy as it should be, and for EEA migrants it is about to get more difficult.

Accessing treatment here and abroad

Currently, EU rules govern UK citizens’ access to health and care in the EU, and EU citizens’ access to UK services.

EU citizens are entitled to a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) which gives access to medically necessary, state-provided health care during a temporary stay in another EEA country.3 The cost of treatment under these schemes can be subsequently reclaimed from the visitor’s country of residence via reciprocal health care agreements. Around 27 million people currently hold European Health Insurance Cards issued by the UK (Fahy et al 2017).

In addition, under EU rules, people who come from elsewhere in the EU to live in the UK, or who leave the UK to live in another EU country, have access to health care on the same basis as nationals of that country.

Both sides in the Brexit negotiations have agreed in principle to preserve reciprocal health care rights until the end of the transition period, at least for those citizens already residing in another EU country. However, until the final outcome of the talks is known, uncertainty remains about the future. Estimates of the number of people this involves differ among the available sources. However, it has been suggested that there are around 1 million British migrants living in other EU countries, compared with around 3 million EU migrants living in the UK (Department for Exiting the European Union 2017c). UK citizens living abroad tend to be older, and therefore more likely to use health and care services, than EU citizens living in the UK. Were significant numbers of UK citizens to return to the UK this would have implications for health and care services.

In a no-deal scenario, the government will seek to protect current reciprocal healthcare rights through transitional bilateral agreements with other member states, which would include whether or how residents who are citizens of other states would be charged for services. However, there is no certainty on this so the current position is that the EHIC will no longer be valid so British citizens travelling to the EU would need to take out private travel insurance.

“McCarthyism” is a word thrown around a lot nowadays, and in the process its true meaning – and horror – has been increasingly obscured.

McCarthyism is not just the hounding of someone because their views are unpopular. It is the creation by the powerful of a perfect, self-rationalising system of incrimination – denying the victim a voice, even in their own defence. It presents the accused as an enemy so dangerous, their ideas so corrupting, that they must be silenced from the outset. Their only chance of rehabilitation is prostration before their accusers and utter repentance.

McCarthyism, in other words, is the modern political parallel of the witch hunt.

In an earlier era, the guilt of women accused of witchcraft was tested through the ducking stool. If a woman drowned, she was innocent; if she survived, she was guilty and burnt at the stake. A foolproof system that created an endless supply of the wicked, justifying the status and salaries of the men charged with hunting down ever more of these diabolical women.

And that is the Medieval equivalent of where the British Labour party has arrived, with the suspension of MP Chris Williamson for anti-semitism.

Revenge of the Blairites

Williamson, it should be noted, is widely seen as a key ally of Jeremy Corbyn, a democratic socialist who was propelled unexpectedly into the Labour leadership nearly four years ago by its members. His elevation infuriated most of the party’s MPs, who hanker for the return of the New Labour era under Tony Blair, when the party firmly occupied the political centre.

Corbyn’s success has also outraged vocal supporters of Israel both in the Labour party – some 80 MPs are stalwart members of Labour Friends of Israel – and in the UK media. Corbyn is the first British party leader in sight of power to prefer the Palestinians’ right to justice over Israel’s continuing oppression of the Palestinians.

For these reasons, the Blairite MPs have been trying to oust Corbyn any way they can. First through a failed re-run of the leadership contest and then by assisting the corporate media – which is equally opposed to Corbyn – in smearing him variously as a shambles, a misogynist, a sympathiser with terrorists, a Russian asset, and finally as an “enabler” of anti-semitism.

This last accusation has proved the most fruitful after the Israel lobby began to expand the definition of anti-semitism to include not just hatred of Jews but also criticism of Israel. Labour was eventually forced to accept a redefinition, formulated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, that conflates anti-Zionism – opposition to Israel’s violent creation on the Palestinians’ homeland – with anti-semitism.

Guilt by association

Once the mud stuck through repetition, a vocal group of Labour MPs began denouncing the party for being “institutionally anti-semitic”, “endemically anti-semitic” and a “cesspit of anti-semitism”. The slurs continued relentlessly, even as statistics proved the accusation to be groundless. The figures show that anti-semitism exists only in the margins of the party, as racism does in all walks of life.

Meanwhile, the smears overshadowed the very provable fact that anti-semitism and other forms of racism are rearing their head dangerously on the political right.

But the witchfinders were never interested in the political reality. They wanted a never-ending war – a policy of “zero tolerance” – to root out an evil in their midst, a supposed “hard left” given succour by Corbyn and his acolytes.

This is the context for understanding Williamson’s “crime”.

Despite the best efforts of our modern witchfinder generals to prove otherwise, Williamson has not been shown to have expressed hatred towards Jews, or even to have made a comment that could be interpreted as anti-semitic.

One of the most experienced of the witchfinders, Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland, indulged familiar McCarthyite tactics this week in trying to prove Williamson’s anti-semitism by association. The MP was what Freedland termed a “Jew baiter” because he has associated with people whom the witchfinders decree to be anti-semites.

‘Too apologetic’

Shortly before he found himself formally shunned by media commentators and his own parliamentary party, Williamson twice confirmed his guilt to the inquisitors.

First, he dared to challenge the authority of the witchfinders. He suggested that some of those being hounded out of Labour may not in fact be witches. Or more specifically, in the context of constant claims of a Labour “anti-semitism crisis”, he argued that the party had been “too apologetic” in dealing with the bad-faith efforts of those seeking to damage a Corbyn-led party.

In other words, Williamson suggested that Labour ought to be more proactively promoting the abundant evidence that it was indeed dealing with what he called the “scourge of anti-semitism”, and thereby demonstrate to the British public that Labour wasn’t “institutionally anti-semitic”. Labour members, he was pointing out, ought not to have to keep quiet as they were being endlessly slandered as anti-semites.

As Jewish Voice for Labour, a Jewish group supportive of Corbyn, noted:

The flood of exaggerated claims of antisemitism make it harder to deal with any real instances of antisemitism. The credibility of well-founded allegations is undermined by the less credible ones and real perpetrators are more likely not to be held to account. Crying wolf is dangerous when there are real wolves around the corner. This was the reality that Chris Williamson was drawing attention to.

Screenshot from Jewish Voice for Labour

As with all inquisitions, however, the witchfinders were not interested in what Williamson actually said, but in the threat he posed to the narrative they have created to destroy their enemy, Corbynism, and reassert their own power.

So his words were ripped from their context and presented as proof that he did indeed support witches.

He was denounced for saying what he had not: that Labour should not apologise for its anti-semitism. In this dishonest reformulation of Williamson’s statement, the witchfinders claimed to show that he had supported anti-semitism, that he consorted with witches.

No screening for documentary

Second, Williamson compounded his crime by publicly helping just such a readymade witch: a black Jewish woman named Jackie Walker.

He had booked a room in the British parliament building – the seat of our supposed democracy – so that audiences could see a new documentary on an earlier Labour witch hunt. More than two years ago the party suspended Walker over anti-semitism claims.

The screening was to inform Labour party members of the facts of her case in the run-up to a hearing in which, given the current atmosphere, it is likely she will be expelled. The screening was sponsored by Jewish Voice for Labour, which has also warned repeatedly that anti-semitism is being used malevolently to silence criticism of Israel and weaken Corbyn.

Walker was seen as a pivotal figure by those opposed to Corbyn. She was a co-founder of Momentum, the grassroots organisation established to support Corbyn after his election to the leadership and deal with the inevitable fallout from the Blairite wing of MPs.

Momentum expected a rough ride from this dominant faction, and they were not disappointed. The Blairites still held on to the party machinery and they had an ally in Tom Watson, who became Corbyn’s deputy.

Walker was one of the early victims of the confected claims of an Labour “anti-semitism crisis”. But she was not ready to roll over and accept her status as witch. She fought back.

From lynching to witch hunt

First, she produced a one-woman show about her treatment at the hands of the Labour party bureaucracy – framed in the context of decades of racist treatment of black people in the west – called The Lynching.

And then her story was turned into a documentary film, fittingly called Witch Hunt. It sets out very clearly the machinations of the Blairite wing of MPs, and Labour’s closely allied Israel lobby, in defaming Walker as part of their efforts to regain power over the party.

For people so ostensibly concerned about racism towards Jews, these witchfinders show little self-awareness about how obvious their own racism is in relation to some of the “witches” they have hunted down.

But that racism can only be understood if people have the chance to hear from Walker and other victims of the anti-semitism smears. Which is precisely why Williamson, who was trying to organise the screening of Witch Hunt, had to be dealt with too.

Party in disrepute

Walker is not the only prominent black anti-racism activist targeted. Marc Wadsworth, another longtime ally of Corbyn’s, and founder of the Anti-Racist Alliance, was “outed” last year in another confected anti-semitism scandal. The allegations of anti-semitism were impossible to stand up publicly, so finally he was booted out on a catch-all claim that he had brought the party “into disrepute”.

Jews who criticise Israel and support Corbyn’s solidarity with Palestinians have been picked off by the witchfinders too, cheered on by media commentators who claim this is being done in the service of a “zero tolerance” policy towards racism. As well as Walker, the targets have included Tony Greenstein, Moshe Machover, Martin Odoni, Glyn Secker and Cyril Chilson.

But as the battle in Labour has intensified to redefine anti-Zionism as anti-semitism, the deeper issues at stake have come to the fore. Jon Lansman, another founder of Momentum, recently stated:

“I don’t want any Jewish member in the party to be leaving. We are absolutely committed to making Labour a safe space.”

But there are a set of very obvious problems with that position, and they have gone entirely unexamined by those promoting the “institutional anti-semitism” and “zero tolerance” narratives.

Lobby’s covert actions exposed

First, it is impossible to be a home to all Jews in Labour, when the party’s Jewish members are themselves deeply split over key issues like whether Corbyn is a force for good and whether meaningful criticism of Israel should be allowed.

A fanatically pro-Israel organisation like the Jewish Labour Movement will never tolerate a Corbyn-led Labour party reaching power and supporting the Palestinian cause. To pretend otherwise is simple naivety or deception.

That fact was demonstrably proven two years ago in the Al Jazeera undercover documentary The Lobby into covert efforts by Israel and its UK lobbyists to undermine Corbyn from within his own party through groups like the JLM and MPs in Labour Friends of Israel. It was telling that the party machine, along with the corporate media, did its best to keep the documentary out of public view.

The MPs loudest about “institutional anti-semitism” in Labour were among those abandoning the party to join the Independent Group this month, preferring to ally with renegade Conservative MPs in an apparent attempt to frustrate a Corbyn-led party winning power.

Institutional racism on Palestinians

Further, if a proportion of Jewish Labour party members have such a heavy personal investment in Israel that they refuse to countenance any meaningful curbs on Israel’s abuses of Palestinians – and that has been underscored repeatedly by public comments from the JLM and Labour Friends of Israel – then keeping them inside the party will require cracking down on all but the flimsiest criticism of Israel. It will tie the party’s hands on supporting Palestinian rights.

In the name of protecting the “Israel right or wrong” crowd from what they consider to be anti-semitic abuse, Labour will have to provide institutional support for Israel’s racism towards Palestinians.

In doing so, it will in fact simply be returning to the status quo in the party before Corbyn, when Labour turned a blind eye over many decades to the Palestinians’ dispossession by European Zionists who created an ugly anachronistic state where rights accrue based on one’s ethnicity and religion rather than citizenship.

Those in Labour who reject Britain’s continuing complicity in such crimes – ones the UK set in motion with the Balfour Declaration – will find, as a result, that it is they who have no home in Labour. That includes significant numbers of anti-Zionist Jews, Palestinians, Muslims and Palestinian solidarity activists.

Safe space for whom?

If the creation of a “safe space” for Jews in the Labour party is code, as it appears to be, for a safe space for hardline Zionist Jews, it will inevitably require that the party become a hostile environment for those engaged in other anti-racism battles.

Stripped bare, what Lansman and the witchfinders are saying is that Zionist Jewish sensitivities in the party are the only ones that count, that anything and everything must be done to indulge them, even if it means abusing non-Zionist Jewish members, black members, Palestinian and Muslim members, and those expressing solidarity with Palestinians.

This is precisely the political black hole into which simplistic, kneejerk identity politics inevitably gets sucked.

Right now, the establishment – represented by Richard Dearlove, a former head of the MI6 – is maliciously trying to frame Corbyn’s main adviser, Seumas Milne (image on the right with Jeremy Corbyn), as a Kremlin asset.

While the witchfinders claim to have unearthed a “pattern of behaviour” in Williamson’s efforts to expose their smears, in fact the real pattern of behaviour is there for all to see: a concerted McCarthyite campaign to destroy Corbyn before he can reach No 10.

Corbyn’s allies are being picked off one by one, from grassroots activists like Walker and Wadsworth to higher-placed supporters like Williamson and Milne. Soon Corbyn will stand alone, exposed before the inquisition that has been prepared for him.

Then Labour can be restored to the Blairites, the members silenced until they leave and any hope of offering a political alternative to the establishment safely shelved. Ordinary people will again be made passive spectators as the rich carry on playing with their lives and their futures as though Britain was simply a rigged game of Monopoly.

If parliamentary politics returns to business as usual for the wealthy, taking to the streets looks increasingly like the only option. Maybe it’s time to dust off a Yellow Vest.

*

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

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

There’s no ambiguity about longstanding Israeli high crimes of war, against humanity, and slow-motion genocide in Gaza – similar crimes committed throughout the Territories for over half a century, accountability never forthcoming.

An entire Palestinian population is held hostage to Israeli apartheid.

On February 28, the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry (COI) report into (peaceful) Palestinian protests in Gaza weekly since last March 30 presented its damning findings – saying the following:

“No justification (has existed during the past 11 months) for Israel to shoot (Palestinians threatening no one) with live fire.”

According to COI chair Santiago Canton,

“(t)he Commission has reasonable grounds to believe that during the Great March of Return, Israeli soldiers committed violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Some of those violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity, and must be immediately investigated by Israel.”

In May 2018, weeks after Great March of Return protests began, the COI was formed “to investigate all alleged violations and abuses of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in” Gaza.

The COI report way understated the casualty count by live fire, rubber-coated steel bullets, toxic tear gas, and other forms of Israeli violence against peacefully demonstrating Gazans threatening no one.

Around 250 Gazans were killed, over 25,000 others injured, many seriously, including women, children, and clearly identified paramedics and journalists.

The COI report claimed

“(m)ore than 6,000 unarmed demonstrators were shot by (unthreatened IDF) snipers, another 3,098 injured by “bullet fragmentation, rubber-coated metal bullets or by hits from tear gas canisters.”

No Israeli soldiers were killed or injured by Palestinians during demonstrations. The COI cited four IDF soldiers wounded (perhaps by friendly fire), another killed “outside the protest sites.”

Palestinian protests were peaceful, ineffective stone-throwing and incendiary balloons alone used, harming no one.

In flagrant violation of international law, Israeli soldiers use live fire against nonviolent Palestinians when demonstrations are held.

On last Friday’s 48th Great March of Return protest, the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), based on field worker evidence, said the following:

“…Israeli forces…stationed in prone positions and in military jeeps along the fence with Israel continued to use excessive force against the demonstrators by opening fire and firing teargas canisters at them.”

“As a result, dozens of the demonstrators were hit with bullets and teargas canisters without posing any imminent threat or danger to the life of soldiers.”

Similar remarks followed each of the previous 47 Great March of Return protests. Israeli soldiers used live fire and other brute force against peacefully demonstrating Palestinians – accountability not forthcoming.

Its actions flagrantly violated international humanitarian law, including Fourth Geneva and Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court.

Israeli impunity encourages continued use of excessive force against defenseless Palestinians, including the highest of high crimes against peace. COI member Sara Hossain said the following:

“There can be no justification for killing and injuring journalists, medics, and persons who pose no imminent threat of death or serious injury to those around them.”

“Particularly alarming is the targeting of children and persons with disabilities. Many young persons’ lives have been altered forever” by loss of limbs and other disabling injuries – including from illegal use of exploding dum dum bullets.

The COI report said evidence showed

“Israeli snipers shot at journalists, health workers, children and persons with disabilities, knowing they were clearly recognizable as such.”

“Unless undertaken lawfully in self-defense, intentionally shooting a civilian not directly participating in hostilities is a war crime.”

“The Commission found reasonable grounds to believe that individual members of the Israeli Security Forces, in the course of their response to the demonstrations, killed and injured civilians who were neither directly participating in hostilities, nor posing an imminent threat. These serious human rights and humanitarian law violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity.”

There’s no maybe about it. IDF soldiers were given unlawful orders to use live fire at peacefully demonstrating Gazans.

The PCHR earlier said Israeli forces acted on orders from the “highest military and political echelons (to use) excessive force against the peaceful demonstrators who posed no threat to the life (or security) of Israeli soldiers.”

The COI was mandated by the UN Human Rights Council to determine accountability for deaths and injuries during Great March of Return protests.

Its report will be presented to the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, perhaps to the International Criminal Court as well.

Demanding Israel investigate its own high crimes of war and against humanity assures whitewash if anything is undertaken.

An independent tribunal with teeth is essential to hold Israeli military and civilian authorities accountable for longstanding  high crimes too egregious to ignore any longer.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

According to the Kremlin’s official website, President Putin never said anything about “Russia’s steadfast support for India’s efforts to protect its interests against cross-border terror attacks”, but that didn’t stop Prime Minister Modi’s office from misleadingly implying that he did as India continues doing whatever it can to save face after Pakistan gave it a “bloody nose” earlier this week and its decades-long partner in Moscow pragmatically signaled that it regards Islamabad and New Delhi as international equals by offering to host peace talks between them.

President Putin called Prime Minister Modi on Thursday in a conversation that covered Russia’s repeated condolences for the Pulwama attack, anti-terrorism, and the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) that will take place later this year in Vladivostok. Putin’s call came just hours after Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said that his country would host peace talks between India and Pakistan if they asked it to do so, meaning that the Russian leader’s outreach to his Indian counterpart should be seen as Moscow’s first move in that direction.

This explains why Putin’s pretext for calling Modi was to reiterate Russia’s condolences for the Pulwama attack, as it in turn allowed him to broach the topic of whether or not his counterpart was interested in Moscow hosting peace talks between his country and Pakistan. At no time during the conversation, however, is there any plausible indication that Putin walked back Russia’s neutral “balancing” position towards this conflict by taking India’s side, whether directly or through a euphemism. In fact, here’s what the Kremlin’s official website had to say about the call:

“In addition to the message sent earlier, Vladimir Putin once again conveyed his condolences to the people of India in connection with the killing of Indian security force personnel in a terrorist attack on February 14.

In this context, the two leaders condemned international terrorism and any methods used to support it stressing, the need to step up the uncompromising fight against the terrorist threat.

While discussing the crisis in relations between India and Pakistan, Vladimir Putin expressed hope for a prompt settlement.

Topical issues on the bilateral agenda were also touched upon. The Russian President emphasised that Russian-Indian cooperation was developing quite successfully as a privileged strategic partnership. The two sides expressed interest in further promoting interaction in all areas, including military-technical ties.

Vladimir Putin invited Narendra Modi to take part in the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok in September 2019 as the main guest. The two leaders agreed to continue personal contact.”

Nevertheless, that didn’t stop the Indian Prime Minister’s office from misportraying their conversation (bolded emphasis is the author’s own):

“The President of the Russian Federation H.E. Mr. Vladimir V. Putin called Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi on phone today.

President Putin expressed his deep condolences on the Pulwama terrorist attack. He also conveyed solidarity of the people of the Russian Federation with the people of India in the fight against terrorism.

The Prime Minister thanked President Putin for Russia’s steadfast support for India’s efforts to protect its interests against cross-border terror attacks, and renewed India’s commitment to strengthening bilateral cooperation in countering terrorism as a pillar of privileged and special strategic partnership. Both leaders agreed that the concerned should stop all support to terrorism.

Both the leaders also agreed that the growing cooperation between the two countries will take their Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership from strength to strength.

President Putin reiterated the invitation to the Prime Minister to attend the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok later this year. The Prime Minister welcomed the invitation and underscored the significance of growing economic cooperation, including in the Russian Far East, between the two countries.”

It’s categorically false that Russia ever expressed any “steadfast support for India’s efforts to protect its interests against cross-border terror attacks”, which is a euphemism for supporting India’s fake “surgical strike” against Pakistan, but New Delhi felt compelled to pretend that this was the case in order to save face after Islamabad gave it a “bloody nose” earlier this week. Furthermore, this false portrayal of reality might have also been another Indian infowar attack against Russia, albeit this time intended to as a last-ditch effort to provoke Pakistan into rejecting Moscow’s mediation offer.

Indian media, which is heavily influenced by the state (especially since the BJP returned to power in 2014), has been pushing the narrative that Russia’s relations with Pakistan are insincere and that Moscow would never regard Islamabad as being equal to New Delhi. This inaccurate notion was based on the arrogant belief that billions of dollars’ worth of business deals with Russia would somehow “buy off” the Kremlin and preempt its rapprochement with Pakistan, which was a failed policy if there ever was one because the two are now enjoying the fruits of a strategic partnership.

Russia’s 21^st-century grand strategy of becoming the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia precludes the taking of partisan sides in any conflict, let alone one as high-stakes as between India and Pakistan (and especially in light of Moscow’s diplomatic gains with the Taliban being the result of close coordination with Islamabad). That’s why objective observers should have known from the get-go that Modi’s office was misportraying his conversation with Putin after it misleadingly made it seem like Russia said something in connection with its supposedly “steadfast support for India’s efforts to protect its interests against cross-border terror attacks”.

India’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) dangerously seem to believe the Bollywood narratives that they propagate among the masses, which has contributed to them having an over-inflated sense of their country’s importance in International Relations and especially with Russia. Few Indians, let alone those in a policymaking capacity, could have imagined that Russia would regard India and Pakistan as being equals, as this contradicts decades of indoctrination but nevertheless proves just how much International Relations is changing at the dawn of the emerging Multipolar World Order.

Unable to accept this, yet also unable to decline Russia’s mediation offer lest it be regarded as an irredeemable American proxy (which Moscow already suspects that it might be on the way to becoming after Lavrov hinted as much earlier this week), India felt that it’s only recourse was to misportray Modi’s conversation with Putin in the naïve hopes that Pakistan would take its words at face value and overreact in such a way that it would refuse to let Russia host peace talks between it and India. Unsurprisingly, this infowar attack also failed.

Sputnik reported the following about Pakistani Foreign Minister Qureshi’s recent interview with CNN:

“Commenting on Russia’s willingness to mediate between India and Pakistan to try to ease bilateral tensions, Qureshi said that Islamabad is ready to accept such an offer.

“[Russian Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov has offered to mediate. I do not know about India but I want to say this to Russia, that Pakistan is ready to come to the table and de-escalate tensions,” Qureshi underlined.”

Unlike India, Pakistan has no problem with Russia returning to South Asia and expanding its “balancing” strategy to such a point that it can mediate between the region’s two nuclear-armed powers. India, however, feels as though Russia inflicted a mortal wound to its international prestige by regarding Pakistan as being equal to it, which it legally is in terms of international law but which New Delhi has refused to recognize due to its Bollywood belief in being an “exceptional superpower”. Going forward, this latest infowar trick might further erode Russia’s trust in India while simultaneously increasing its trust in Pakistan.

*

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

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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