Trump Regime Pursuing Nuclear Technology Sales to the Saudis

February 21st, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Saudi Arabia is a fascist dictatorship run in cahoots with religious extremists – the Middle East’s most dangerous regime after Israel. 

Other than nations already with nukes, it’s likely the last regime on earth anti-war activists would want to be nuclearized with a potential military component.

The possibility should terrify everyone, mass destruction regionally and beyond greatly heightened if the Saudis have this capability.

A US House Oversight and Reform Committee report raised the issue, saying the following:

“(M)ultiple whistleblowers came forward to warn about efforts inside the White House to rush the transfer of highly sensitive US nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia in potential violation of the Atomic Energy Act and without review by Congress as required by law—efforts that may be ongoing to this day,” adding:

Trump regime relations with the Saudis are “shrouded in secrecy,” Jared Kushner involved with crown prince Mohammad bin Salman on what’s going on – MBS once saying he’s got Trump’s son-in-law “in his pocket.”

Saudi Arabla is a highly valued US client state, the most important in the Arab world one because of its huge oil reserves and around $750 billion of its wealth invested in US assets.

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

Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal earlier said he bailed Trump out twice. Businessman Trump created and registered eight companies to do business in Saudi Arabia.

During an August 2015 campaign rally, he said

“Saudi Arabia, I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.”

According to the Wall Street Journal in January 2017, the Washington-based Trump International Hotel was paid about $270,000 by the Saudi lobbying firm Qorvis MSLGroup – for lodging, catering, and related expenses – plus another $200,000 spent at the hotel.

As president, Trump chose Saudi Arabia for his first foreign trip, sealing what he called a $110 billion arms deal, along with a memorandum of intent to supply the kingdom with weapons worth around $350 billion over the next decade.

Much of the $110 billion deal was ordered before his tenure began, worth tens of billions of dollars,  much less than Trump’s touted figure.

The $350 billion figure exists on paper alone. Saudi purchases over the next decade will likely be far short of this inflated amount.

Whatever comes to fruition or not, Trump clearly wants as much Saudi revenue coming to the US as possible. Selling highly sensitive nuclear technology to the kingdom would be reckless, a threat to regional and world security.

According to the House report, the Trump regime is fast-tracking “the transfer of highly sensitive US nuclear technology” to the kingdom without required congressional review – in violation of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, US law regulating civilian and military uses of nuclear material.

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

The House Oversight and Reform  Committee is investigating allegations of Trump regime efforts to sell sensitive nuclear technology to the Saudis that can be used to develop and produce nukes.

Kushner, former national security advisor Mike Flynn and Trump fundraiser Thomas Barrack reportedly support the scheme backed by US commercial interests, standing to make billions of dollars constructing and operating nuclear facilities in the kingdom.

Last year, MBS said “(w)ithout a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.” The Islamic Republic abhors these weapons, wanting them eliminated everywhere.

According to the House report,

“whistleblowers who came forward have expressed significant concerns about the potential procedural and legal violations connected with rushing through a plan to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.”

“They have warned of conflicts of interest among top White House advisers that could implicate federal criminal statutes. They have also warned about a working environment inside the White House marked by chaos, dysfunction, and backbiting.”

“And they have warned about political appointees ignoring directives from top ethics advisors at the White House who repeatedly and unsuccessfully ordered senior Trump Administration officials to halt their efforts.”

The White House allegedly aims to pursue a “Trump Middle East Marshall Plan,” involving the construction and operation of “dozens of (regional) nuclear power plants” in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan through a company called International Peace Power & Prosperity (IP3).

The House report warned that Trump met last week with “nuclear power developers at the White House about sharing nuclear technology with countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.”

According to the whistleblowers, the Saudis refuse to agree on prohibitions against enriching uranium and processing plutonium unlike other regional countries.

IP3 maintains Russia and China seek to build and operate Middle East nuclear power plants – dubiously claiming only the US can assure nuclear safety, security and regulatory oversight.

In her books titled “Nuclear Madness,” “Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer,” and “The New Nuclear Danger,” Helen Caldicott explained that nuclear power plants are atom bomb factories.

A 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor produces 500 pounds of plutonium annually, 10 pounds alone needed as fuel for a bomb able to devastate a large city, irradiate it, and make it too unsafe for human habitation.

Of all energy forms, nuclear power is the most dangerous. Safe, renewable energy sources are the only acceptable ones – including wind, solar, hydroelectric, biomass, ocean, and geothermal.

Saving the planet and its life forms may depend on shifting from fossil and nuclear energy to these sources exclusively.

*

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.

Defense Secretaries Sound the Alarm

This first quote was an important admission from Robert Gates, as Defense Secretary during the second-term of the Bush Administration and first-term of the Obama Administration, it was his responsibility to sign off on Pentagon spending. This is also why Gates’ Secretary of Defense predecessor Donald Rumsfeld, in his now infamous speech at the Pentagon on September 10, 2001, said it was time to “declare war” on Pentagon waste for not being able to account for $2.3 trillion.

Here’s a little-known speech on Pentagon accounting that Robert Gates gave on May 2011 at the American Enterprise Institute:

“My staff and I learned that it was nearly impossible to get accurate information and answers to questions such as ‘how much money did you spend’ and ‘how many people do you have?’….

The efficiencies project also showed that the current apparatus for managing people and money across the DoD enterprise is woefully inadequate.

The agencies, field activities, joint headquarters, and support staff functions of the department operate as a semi-feudal system – an amalgam of fiefdoms without centralized mechanisms to allocate resources, track expenditures, and measure results relative to the department’s overall priorities.”

Reuters was one of a handful of news outlets to report on Gates’ shocking comments. They also got additional mind-blowing quotes from former Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England. He spoke about the financing and accounting operations throughout the Pentagon that lack oversight:

“No one can even agree on how many of these accounting and business systems are in use. The Pentagon itself puts the number at 2,200 spread throughout the military services and other defense agencies.”

“A January 2012 report by a task force of the Defense Business Board, an advisory group of business leaders appointed by the secretary of defense, put the number at around 5,000.”

“There are thousands and thousands of systems,” former Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England said in an interview. “I’m not sure anybody knows how many systems there are.”

Given what we know now, Donald Rumsfeld’s September 10, 2001 speech at the Pentagon is of historical significance. Here are excerpts from that speech:

“The topic today is an adversary that poses a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America.

This adversary is one of the world’s last bastions of central planning. It governs by dictating five-year plans. From a single capital, it attempts to impose its demands across time zones, continents, oceans and beyond.

With brutal consistency, it stifles free thought and crushes new ideas. It disrupts the defense of the United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk.

Perhaps this adversary sounds like the former Soviet Union, but that enemy is gone: our foes are more subtle and implacable today. You may think I’m describing one of the last decrepit dictators of the world. But their day, too, is almost past, and they cannot match the strength and size of this adversary.

The adversary is closer to home. It’s the Pentagon bureaucracy.

In this building… money disappears into duplicative duties and bloated bureaucracy…. An average American family works an entire year to generate $6,000 in income taxes. Here we spill many times that amount every hour by duplication and by inattention.

That’s wrong. It’s wrong because national defense depends on public trust, and trust, in turn, hinges on respect for the hardworking people of America and the tax dollars they earn….

According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.

We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it’s stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible…

Why is DOD one of the last organizations around that still cuts its own checks? …

There’s a myth, sort of a legend, that money enters this building and disappears, like a bright light into a black hole, never to be seen again.

In truth, there is a real person at the other end of every dollar, a real person who’s in charge of every domain, and that means that there will be real consequences from, and real resistance to, fundamental change….

And let there be no mistake, it is a matter of life and death. Our job is defending America, and if we cannot change the way we do business, then we cannot do our job well, and we must.

So today we declare war on bureaucracy….

I’ve read that there are those who will oppose our every effort to save taxpayers’ money…. Well, fine, if there’s to be a struggle, so be it….

It’s about respect for taxpayers’ dollars. A cab driver in New York City ought to be able to feel confident that we care about those dollars.

It’s about professionalism, and it’s also about our respect for ourselves, about how we feel about seeing GAO reports describing waste and mismanagement and money down a rat hole.”

Of course, the day after that speech was 9/11. In a very interesting coincidence, the part of the Pentagon that got hit was where accounting offices were. 34 Pentagon accountants were killed that day. Here’s how it was summed up in the “Official U.S. Government Historical Office” report:

“Of the Managerial Accounting Division’s 12 members present, only 3 survived. For these three the fireball and partial collapse of a wall almost proved their undoing; not one escaped without injury. All told, 34 of the 40 members of the Program and Budget and Managerial Accounting Divisions present that morning perished.”

The only report in the mainstream media that I could find, which followed up on Rumsfeld’s September 10th speech, was from CBS News. This brief report featured shocking quotes from three Pentagon insiders who were in a position to know what was happening.

The War On Waste

On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, “the adversary’s closer to home. It’s the Pentagon bureaucracy,” he said.

He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat. “In fact, it could be said it’s a matter of life and death,” he said.

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11– the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

Just last week President Bush announced, “my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending.”

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

“According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,” Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that’s $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America.

To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

“We know it’s gone. But we don’t know what they spent it on,” said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency’s balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records.

“The director looked at me and said ‘Why do you care about this stuff?’ It took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job,” said Minnery.

He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off. “They have to cover it up,” he said. “That’s where the corruption comes in. They have to cover up the fact that they can’t do the job.”

The Pentagon’s Inspector General “partially substantiated” several of Minnery’s allegations but could not prove officials tried “to manipulate the financial statements.” Twenty years ago, Department of Defense Analyst Franklin C. [Chuck] Spinney made headlines exposing what he calls the “accounting games.” He’s still there, and although he does not speak for the Pentagon, he believes the problem has gotten worse.

“Those numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year,” he said.

Another critic of Pentagon waste, Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, commanded the Navy’s 2nd Fleet the first time Donald Rumsfeld served as Defense Secretary, in 1976. In his opinion, “With good financial oversight we could find $48 billion in loose change in that building, without having to hit the taxpayers.”

Here’s the TV version of this report:

Read full article here.

*

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

Featured image is from Jared Rodriguez / Truthout

We commit a big fallacy when we assume that our educational accomplishments are our individual achievements. We like to believe that we are born with a certain innate talent that makes us intellectually superior to all the rest.

But the fact of the matter is that our innate talents aren’t all that different. Some people are born with genes that make them grow to being six-feet tall, whereas others are a few inches shorter; these are all minor differences of genetics, nevertheless.

The difference of innate intelligence amongst people belonging to all races is quite similar. It’s our environment, family, culture and educational institutions which are primarily responsible for our cognitive abilities and critical faculties.

In this regard, capitalism works like outdated monarchy: a person born in a rich and educated family is by default a prince; he has access to all the modes of learning: such as parental guidance, best educational institutions, books, libraries and internet; peer pressure as a motivation, and intellectual discussions and debates with well-informed teachers, family members and close friends further hone one’s cognitive abilities.

A poor peasant, on the other hand, lacks the wherewithal to educate himself and his children to that level. Thus, when the neoliberals blame the uneducated for their lack of education, they are actually blaming the victims for their misfortunes. They ought to blame the structural injustices and the capitalist system which engenders social stratification and consequent inequality of educational opportunities.

It bears mentioning, however, that I’ve written this article in the context of the Third World’s stratified educational systems where we have markedly different educational institutions that impart elementary education to the children of the elite and the masses.

The public schools of the developed world provide quality education to all the citizens, irrespective of their social class, because in a country like the UK, the budgetary allocation for public education is more than $50 billion for a population of 65 million, while in a Third World country, like Pakistan, the education budget is roughly $5 billion for a population of more than 200 million. Thus, equality of opportunity, which is directly linked to the equality of education, has been ensured in the developed world, but not in the Third World.

In the Third World developing countries, especially in Pakistan, there are four distinct types of educational institutions that impart elementary education to citizens:

Firstly: The elite English-medium schools that offer courses in O/A Levels, and Junior and Senior Cambridge. The quality of education in such institutions is quite good, but their tuition fee and other expenses are so exorbitant that only the upper middle class can admit their children in such schools.

Secondly: The Urdu-medium public and private sector schools that cater to the educational needs of the children of the middle and lower middle classes. Though such institutions are often misrepresented as “English-medium,” because the textbooks are in English, the lingua franca in such schools is generally Urdu; and their quality of education is average, at best.

Thirdly: The government schools that are run by the provincial education departments. The tuition fee in such schools is quite nominal and so is the standard of education that they impart. Such institutions cater to the educational needs of the children of the poor classes.

Fourthly: The religious seminaries, or madrassas, that are funded by the Islamic charities and endowments, and that impart religious education to the children of the poorest of the poor.

These petrodollars-funded madrassas offer the kind of incentives which are lacking even in government schools, like free boarding and lodging, meals for the poor students, free of cost books and stationery; and some generously funded madrassas even give monthly stipends to their students.

The poor folk who admit their children in madrassas, in a way, outsource the upbringing of their children to the madrassas; because, for all practical purposes, such children are raised by religious clerics.

Regardless, in today’s complex world, without education, people are not equipped to survive. For instance: if I go to China and I don’t understand the Chinese language, I’ll be needing a tour guide with me all the time.

Similarly, those of us who can’t read and write, they can survive due to their traditional social networks in villages, but not in modern cities. And the innumerate who can’t do math, they cannot succeed in business. If you want to register a property or a vehicle to your name, and you don’t know the law and the understanding of how the system works, you can run into a lot of trouble.

Therefore, education is imperative for survival in today’s complex world. Biological evolution is based on the cardinal principle of natural selection and the survival of the fittest; thus, fitness to the environment is the only law that ensures our survival. But that fitness is bestowed upon us by nature; and like I have argued earlier, that in today’s complex, man-made world, every newborn child is unfit to survive until he gets proper education.

More to the point, the lack of fitness of an individual, or a social group, is not their fault, it is the fault of the society as a whole. If you are fortunate enough to have been born in upper middle class family, by default you will be equipped with all the necessary tools that are required for survival and progress; but if you have not been properly educated to understand and deal with today’s complex modern societies, then you will remain an unfit peasant.

Finally, and in a nutshell, equality of opportunity, which is the fundamental axiom of the modern egalitarian worldview, is directly linked to the equality of education, or at least, the equality of educational opportunities.

In the capitalist neoliberal societies of the Third World, however, only the children of the upper classes get proper education which is essential for upward social mobility, whereas the children of the masses get barely sufficient education which might be enough for becoming clerks and technicians, but as far as honing one’s cognitive abilities and critical faculties are concerned, their optimal potential is not realized.

*

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

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Education and the Capitalist Myth of Equality of Opportunity

It does seem specific.  A middle class concern centred on a man and an elderly woman, a sort of surrogate, irritating mother type of indulgent wisdom and uncertain past, seemingly irritating yet, on some level, fulfilling.  Alan Bennett writes prose that moves gracefully, a sort of tender glaze of tea, cocoa and the fire place.  But it was Bennett who brought, into being, this figure who provided haunting teases, provocations and awareness.

It’s all about a van, this un-priestly domain of living, and its indomitable occupant, a certain Miss Mary (or Margaret?) Shepherd, who proffers manners godly but prefers, often, a distinctly profane form of living.  The van itself, poor condition, appears in Gloucester Crescent, north London.  Movement followed, a kind of inexorable progression.  Eventually, number 23 – Bennett’s residence – became a home.  She would stay for fifteen years. 

These are fifteen years that waver between emotions, though one is consistent. “One seldom was able to do her a good turn without some thoughts of strangulation,” remembers Bennett.  During her stay, she is effusive about receiving “guidance from the Virgin Mary” and claims to being horrendously busy.  She sells tracts.  “I sell them, but so far as authorship is concerned I’ll say they are anonymous and that’s as far as I am prepared to go.” 

She becomes a feature of Gloucester Crescent.  For some, its pity – and these are given short shrift; then there the youths keen to get a look.  Even police on the beat, as Bennett recalls, were happy to have their little stab of curiosity to “enliven a dull hour of their beat.”  She becomes an object of village persecution, from stall holders to children.  Drunks smash the windows of the van.  The vehicle, at stages, is given a violent rocking.  But she maintains, throughout, a degree of equanimity.  She even has time to tell Bennett that she witnessed “a ginger feller I saw in Parkway in company with Mr Khrushchev. Has he disappeared recently?”

Then there is the sanitation – or its conspicuous lack of.  Concealment and blame are the order of the day: Yardley dusting power is used generously; and, when in doubt, some other cause is identified as being responsible for the “Susie Wong”. 

For Bennett, charity is not unadulterated.  This, perhaps, is the lingering lesson of this encounter.  He quotes, at the start of his account of Miss S in Writing Home, William Hazlitt’s observations in “On the Knowledge of Character” (1822): “Good nature, or what is often considered as such, is the most selfish of all virtues: it is nine times out of ten mere indolence of disposition.” 

There is guilt, self-interest and anger in such a disposition.  The repeated attacks and attention eventually see Miss S find her way into a form of tenancy in the garden, security that provides scant comfort for Bennett.  He wanted “a quiet life as much as, and possibly more than, she did.  In the garden she was at least out of harm’s way.” 

When Miss S finally moves off the mortal coil, having bathed, given a set of fresh clothes and clean sheets, Bennett finds himself searching her van searching for clues as to what made her live the way she did.  He was surprised to find it all rather ordinary, in fact, as ordinary as the lives of others, particularly his own mother: kitchen utensils, soap, talcum powder, hoarded toilet rolls. “The more I laboured, the less peculiar the van seemed – its proprieties and aspirations no different from those with which I had been brought up.” And there are the savings, some £6,000.   

Two remarkable women have entered this figure (figuratively speaking), attempting to capture the essence of that Lady in the Van.  Maggie Smith, who played Miss S in the 1999 stage production and then in the film version in 2015, is inimitable, hard bitten, and impossible.  Miriam Margolyes adds a tender dimension to the Melbourne stage, using her entire frame to convey presence.  She does not match the original description of Miss S by Bennett in any convincing sense: “Nearly six foot, she was a commanding figure” though the outfit is correct enough: “greasy raincoat, orange skirt, Ben Hogan golfing cap and carpet slippers.”  Height is compensated for in terms of sheer billowing character.   

The display at the Melbourne Theatre Company’s production falters a tad with the two figures playing Bennett – such bifurcations can be a tricky business.  One Alan is bad enough, but we are left with two, voices teasing, adjusting, cajoling each other like lingering lovers.  It is clear that somewhere there, a demon is meant to push the angel over, though neither is entirely demonic nor angelic. 

Critics, worried about their brief, will attempt to read things into matters that do not exist.  Smith is the naturally hardened one, immune to brittle senses yet aware; and Margolyes has a certain heavenly struck sense about her, touching amidst the faecal spread and confessions.  Both figures may well have played an inscrutable character disposed to a certain urine smell and the incontinence pad but both supply the necessary boldness for the role in contrast to the timid Bennett, who lives, in Camus’s words, “slightly the opposite of expressing.”  Fittingly, they stretch the bounds of charity, showing, as it were, its selfish virtuousness.

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Most Selfish of Virtues: Alan Bennett’s “Lady in the Van”

Western governments are indirectly promoting hostile narratives against Russia simultaneously with censoring those that are supposedly “Russian-linked”.

***

It is obvious that the US and Russia are at loggerheads in a New Cold War, one which is taking a completely different form than the previous one that lasted almost half of the last century and is being fought in totally new domains. One of these is the global information space, which was naively assumed by many would forever remain a forum of free speech and independent thought but is increasingly becoming ever the more dystopian because of the West’s anti-Russian infowar.

Western governments are indirectly promoting hostile narratives against Russia simultaneously with censoring those that are supposedly “Russian-linked” and go against their own interests in an extensive campaign that’s changing the very nature of how people all across the world receive information and even use the internet. Both of these tactics are being undertaken in a way that allows their true perpetrators to retain the veneer of “plausible deniability” in order to avoid taking responsibility for their actions and risk undermining their own self-professed “values”.

One of the most common modus operandi is for Western governments to fund various think tanks and “NGOs” or have “friendly philanthropists” like George Soros’ Open Society Foundation do so in their place. The first-mentioned approach makes any recipient “NGOs” more like “GONGOs”, or “government-organized NGOs”, while the second results in a more “plausibly deniable” connection and seems to be the preferred method nowadays. In any case, the think tanks/ ”NGOs”/ GONGOs oftentimes then go on to invent and/or peddle government-supporting anti-Russian narratives.

Sometimes they even establish “shell” entities (the notorious “matryoskas” that Russia’s always accused of creating) like “new media” outlets and “crowd-sourced” “investigative” ventures. These in turn invent and/or peddle the said weaponized narratives, even directly engaging with Mainstream Media or “legacy media” outlets to amplify them across the world, such as what prominently happened with MH-17 and the Skripal saga. Other times, however, these Western-government-backed actors (think tanks/”NGOs”/GONGOs/”new media”/”crowd-sourced” “investigative” ventures) also participate in censorship schemes.

RT revealed how the “Alliance for Securing Democracy”, part of the American- and –German-financed “German Marshall Fund”, “tipped off” CNN to what it alleged were “Russian-linked” Facebook pages that were later removed from Facebook for supposedly violating the platform’s new unpublished rules that the company says it’s progressively rolling out behind the scenes. The pages were managed by Maffick Media, a company partly owned by RT subsidiary Ruptly, and the fact that this wasn’t prominently mentioned was exploited as the pretext for Facebook to censor them.

It shouldn’t be forgotten how a US government-funded think tank got the ball rolling and ultimately resulted in this outcome, strongly implying that American authorities might have had an indirect hand in orchestrating this entire infowar operation. That’s probably just the proverbial tip of the iceberg, however, since these methods were likely occurring for a while before they were brought to the public’s attention by RT after its popular affiliated pages were scrubbed from the social media site.

Of note, those pages collectively generated over a billion views and had tens of millions of subscribers, suggesting that they were probably targeted in order to send a message to the rest of the world that no one is untouchable and that anyone can fall victim to Facebook’s selective imposition of secret standards for infowar purposes. Despite the US governments’ best efforts to act like it wasn’t involved, the paper trail left by the “Alliance for Securing Democracy” says otherwise.

Altogether, the bigger picture that’s beginning to become more apparent is that Western governments are waging an anti-Russian infowar by hook or by crook, relying more upon proxies in order to retain “plausible deniability” and avoid undermining their self-professed “values” than directly spreading fake news and censoring “politically inconvenient” narratives. This trend can be expected to become more popular in the coming future, but it’s also foreseeable the genuinely independent investigative journalists will continue to expose these connections and shed light on the manipulative game being played on people’s minds.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoRos.

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

Featured image is from InfoRos

Jewish communities in Britain and France, London and Paris, together with the rest of Europe are now reconsidering their unqualified support for the state of Israel in terms of money and arms which they concede are used for the subjugation of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories. They have previously always maintained that this was necessary in order that the state of Israel survives as a political entity for otherwise it would be overrun by Muslim Arabs who have a higher birth-rate, generally, than the Indigenous Israeli.

Now, however, they are forced to come to the conclusion that such support for such a regime can only realistically be described as, at best, anti-democratic and, at worst, bordering on fascism or neo-colonialism whereby the indigenous Arab people are subjected to continuous harassment and violence, and  in many cases being actually killed by the occupying security forces.   To support such is not only contrary to Jewish law and ethics but is now clearly counter-productive. The policies of the hard-Right Israeli government have caused an increasing reaction throughout the world but particularly so in Europe and also in America, that now manifests itself as antisemitism i.e.  it now tars every Jew as a latent supporter of neo-colonial ideology.

There have been warnings both to the Israeli government and to religious and civic leaders of the Jewish communities throughout Europe over many years but they made a decision not to listen. This was partly due to the fact that the largest Jewish community outside Israel, i.e. in the Diaspora, is in the United States of America which is governed essentially by the US Congress.  Congress, in turn, is heavily influenced by the Israel lobby, AIPAC, which although not the most powerful in either financial or membership terms is nevertheless considered the most influential upon the US legislative process and upon the Presidency in respect of foreign policy.

The means that AIPAC is able to use its influence to indiscriminately support Israel’s hard-Right government with billions of dollars of aid and arms in its illegal occupation of Palestinian land and settlements in which over 600,000 Israelis now live in direct violation of the will of the UN Security Council.  All this has now culminated in an increasing backlash of animosity not only against Israel itself but also against all those who either overtly or covertly support the extreme Right-wing policies of the Netanyahu government.

As indicated, this feeling of animosity against Israeli policy has now morphed into overt antisemitism whereby most Jewish communities are now seen and labelled as pro-Israel and anti-democratic. The consequences of this scenario are immensely serious. It means that the half a million Jews in France and the quarter of a million in Britain now live in, if not fear then in apprehension of a period in Europe similar to that of the 1930s in Germany whereby antisemitism grew exponentially and which, of course, led to the horrors of the Holocaust. It is not expected that there will be another Holocaust but it is anticipated, in many (Jewish) quarters, that there may well be an exodus of Jews from the Diaspora to Israel as the only sanctuary available. This is in view of that which has transpired but which has only transpired owing to the extraordinary arrogance, or possibly stupidity, of the indiscriminate support for a regime whose policies are clearly anathema to the average European and in opposition to the principles of western democracy.

Of course, the other side of the coin, from the Israeli perspective is that it is more than happy for all Jews in the Diaspora – that is the majority of the global Jewish population, to sell-up and bring themselves and all their assets to the state of Israel.  That is an objective that has been articulated by more than one Israeli government minister as being, from the point of view of the Israeli state, the optimum scenario but from the point of view of the approximately eight million in the Jewish Diaspora, would be a disaster if not a complete catastrophe.

*

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

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: For News: 03/09/14: Israel’s Draft: New York –  Some of the thousands of Orthodox Jews in a prayerful demonstration on Water St. in the Wall St. area.  They are demonstrating against a mandatory draft in Israel.    Photo by Helayne Seidman

Obstructed Justice: Law and Disorder in the Klan Age

February 21st, 2019 by Greg Guma

Forty years after the Civil War and Emancipation Proclamation it still wasn’t safe to be free and black in Kentucky. For Celia Mudd, who was born into slavery but had inherited the Lancaster farm in Bardstown, it was time to defend her rights. Here is chapter four of a new work in progress called Inheritance.

***

Celia awoke suddenly after a fitful sleep that climaxed with images of an angry mob storming the farmhouse. Even half-conscious she knew it was just her imagination. Still, the first thing she did was rush to the window and check outside.

Nothing had changed. From the front of the two-story building she could see the courtyard, the open gate at the edge of the property, and beyond that Plum Run Road winding toward Bardstown. The only person around was young Sam, her half-brother, humming absently as he led a buggy out of the barn.

In the dream a terrifying crowd had surrounded her home, torches blazing, taunting her to come out and meet her maker. Some wore Klan hoods or masks, but many of the faces were recognizable in the flickering light. Horrified, she saw neighbors, white folks who had never expressed anything remotely like this kind of rage. And respected pillars of Bardstown, people who always treated her with, if not convincing respect, at least a formal civility. Now they were out for her blood.

It was like one of those awful tales Celia often read in the papers. Usually, the victims were kidnapped from jail in the middle of the night and strung up at the edge of town, left there for children to see on their way to school. In Shelbyville not more than a year ago, Jimbo Fields and Clarence Garnett had been lynched from a railroad trestle less than a mile from the center of town. The next day they were still hanging when Methodists from all over the state arrived for a convention, a gruesome reminder of southern “justice” and what could happen to blacks when whites needed someone to blame.

They were just boys, teenagers accused of killing a white man who sometimes shared a bed with their mother. But they got no trial. The jail was stormed within days of their arrest.

No one was threatening Celia, at least overtly. But whenever she thought about the trial that would start today, she couldn’t help but suspect that if the verdict went in her favor, night riders might someday come for her and her family. Dozens of black folks had met Judge Lynch in the last few years. In fact, things seemed to be getting worse rather than better. Forty years after the Emancipation Proclamation and it still wasn’t always safe to be free and black in Kentucky.

“Mornin’, Miss Cely,” shouted young Sam from the yard. “When we goin’ to town?”

The words jerked Celia back to reality, reminding her that, no matter what her private fears, this day could not be avoided. It had been coming for almost a year, since the moment Boss Sam signed his will. At times she wondered whether, if she’d known in advance what he was planning to do, she could or would have tried to stop him. Very likely, Sam would not have taken kindly to such talk. Even on his best days, when he wasn’t raving about his brother’s greed or some plot against him, the old man wasn’t one to accept advice once his mind was made up. Beyond that, though he’d confided in his final months that she was the only person on earth he truly trusted, he rarely let Celia forget that she was also a servant.

But Celia was no one’s servant anymore. She was the mistress of this house, for the moment. And as such, she had no time to be paralyzed by nightmares.

“Mornin’,” she replied, waving at the shy, sturdy young fellow. Very much like his father, young Sam was large, light-skinned and handsome. Also like Jack Barnes, the quiet giant who had married her mother after the Civil War, he treated Celia with a deference that made her feel responsible and oddly maternal.

“Things don’t get started til about ten,” she explained. “Lawyers don’t keep the same hours as farm folks.”

Sam guffawed, half-embarrassed to have a laugh at the expense of those intimidating men in high collars and stiff suits. “I know it,” he said. “But mama say you got to talk with mista Halstead. She tol’ me to git Ezekiel hitched up and ready to go by nine.”

“Well, mama knows best.” The remark carried a hint of skepticism Sam didn’t catch. Celia turned away from the window, grabbed her housecoat, and rushed through the dining room. Beyond it was the breezeway that connected the main building to the kitchen. She could hear clattering dishes and smell sausage cooking on the fire.

“Mama, you at it already?”

“Somebody’s got to get this family going,” replied Emily. Celia rolled her eyes and marched in to find her mother happily setting the table.

She had asked Emily to stay over last night, but hadn’t counted on her taking charge. She should have known better. At 69 years old Emily Barnes was as active as ever. She lived on a five acre plot down the road, managing not only to take care of her own home and good-natured, though somewhat lazy man, but also to help sister Annie with the cooking down at the Talbott Tavern, plus keep Celia on her toes.

Sometimes it was irritating to have her mother set the pace. Emily could barely read, knew nothing about business, and didn’t understand the complexity of managing an 840 acre farm, with a foreman who wasn’t used to being told what to do by a Black woman he didn’t consider his equal. Then again, Emily’s specialty had always been getting people, especially men, to do what she wanted, an area in which Celia had scant experience.

Nat W. Halstead was a good example. As executor of Sam Lancaster’s will, the prominent local lawyer was supposed to represent Celia’s interest in the case. But he rarely discussed it with her, preferring to develop strategy with Sam’s cousin Button Willett. When she asked Halstead to explain exactly what Robert wanted to prove in court, he simply told her not to worry.

“He’s just jealous of your good fortune,” said Halstead, using the just-folks manner that worked so well in the courtroom. “So he’s claiming the will isn’t legal. Robert never did agree with anything Sam did. Why would he start now? You let us handle it, Miss. The law is men’s work.”

But it’s my life, she thought back then. I’m the one everybody whispers about. I’m the one they think stole this white man’s inheritance. But she didn’t say it, and might have entered the county courthouse without understanding the real issues if not for her mother. One day, as Halstead and his crew were leaving Talbott Tavern, Emily ambushed him outside, sweet as pie but impossible to shake. Without a hint of aggression she made it clear that if he didn’t want to bring his main client into his full confidence, maybe her daughter needed a different lawyer.

It would be sad, she said coyly, since he had always been such a friend to the Negro people and was clearly the best person they could hope to find. It was part threat, part seduction.

The next day Halstead was at the farm having tea and outlining the history of the case. What Robert’s lawyers hoped to prove was that his brother wasn’t competent to understand the will he had signed. They probably wouldn’t make a direct attack on Celia in court, but they would attempt to show that Button Willett arranged everything and that the people who witnessed the will weren’t qualified to know whether Sam was right in the head. They would bring in doctors and friends to say he’d gone crazy. Why else would he leave almost everything to a Negro servant?

It wasn’t a bad argument. She could hardly believe what he had done herself.

“You go back and get into that pretty blue dress,” Emily commanded, then swept back a whisp of wavy grey hair. Celia could see hints of the light brown that had helped make her a striking sight in her youth. “And don’t forget a coat,” she said. “It may look like summer but it’s still February.”

“Right, mama. But you told Sam I had to talk with Halstead today. I thought we had everything worked out.”

“Sure, them men got things worked out for themselves. But this is your land Celia, and you got to make sure that old boy knows who he’s working for. People saying you tricked Boss Sam.”

Celia wanted to argue, but what was the point? For Emily, the issue wasn’t what a judge or jury thought, but what people in Bardstown believed. As she saw it, Celia’s honor was on trial. In a way she was right. But a lawyer couldn’t do much in the court of public opinion. That was a case Celia had to win on her own.

While dressing her mind raced over the same questions she had been asking herself for weeks. Could they win against such a formidable opponent and his herd of lawyers? Robert had spared no expense on his team. But more important, would the jury be fair? Could a group of white folks, trying to decide between the claim of a black servant and the charges of a respected white banker, see the truth and do what was right? Did her dedication to Boss Sam and the Lancaster family for all those years count for anything?

She stared at the mirror and carefully examined what the jurors would see. She wasn’t used to evaluating her own appearance. She couldn’t escape the feeling that it was giving in to the sin of pride. But everything had to be right today.

Could the jury and townsfolk believe that she had taken advantage of a dying man? It didn’t seem possible. Yet when land and money were involved, people often suspected the worst.

Satisfied that she was ready, she returned to the breezeway and ate quietly as Emily prepared for the trip. Afterward she visited her old bedroom behind Boss Sam’s, passing on the way through the formal dining room. Jim Hardy was sitting at the long table and nodded somberly. The stoic foreman, who used to take meals with Boss Sam and the white guests who often stayed at the farm, now preferred to eat alone.

In the tiny cubicle Celia sat on the bed and closed her eyes. She knew the place by heart: narrow bed by the wall, marble-top table with a crock pitcher and wash basin, and her primitive, hand-carved rocking chair. This dim, windowless space had been her private world, and also her prison from the age of thirteen, when Ann Lancaster brought her in from the cold, two-room former slave cabin.

A few months after Sam passed on she had moved into his old room, the bedroom across the room from the parlor. Moving to the chair in front of the fireplace she fingered her rosary and said a prayer for Missus Ann, her former master and earliest teacher. She also prayed for Ann’s troubled son Matt, a man-child who never emerged from the shadow of his two domineering brothers. He had died in her arms nine years ago.

And she prayed for Boss Sam. Ah, Sam! She couldn’t remember a time when he was not at the center of her life, as owner, mentor, employer, object of her juvenile infatuation, or general architect of her fate.

Before she knew it, Emily summoned her to the buggy. Young Sam had changed into button shoes and a too-tight Mayfield suit on loan from his father. Holding the reigns, he reached down to help Celia aboard, eyes wide as he contemplated his first time inside the Nelson County Courthouse. The impressive new building had been constructed less than ten years ago, replacing the old stone courthouse that had stood at the center of Bardstown for more than a century.

The story was that in 1785 William Bard had donated two acres for a courthouse, jail and other public buildings. At the time the town was known as Salem, and most of the land was owned by William’s brother David and one John Cockey Owings. David Bard was from Pennsylvania and never lived in Nelson County, instead receiving a thousand acres through a grant from the governor of Virginia. By the time William arrived to look over the location and dispose of some property, the population had grown from an initial settlement of 33 to more than 200. That meant it rivaled Louisville and Lexington. In return for the gift, the town was renamed for its benefactor.

Bardstown grew and prospered over the next decades as immigrants from Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, even some New York and New Jersey adventurers, were attracted by its emerging reputation as the Athens of the West. Despite frontier status it became known as a genteel oasis in the wild bluegrass region. Schools flourished, first a grammar school, then Old Town Academy, the Female Institute, St. Thomas Seminary and St. Joseph’s College, eventually making the town famous throughout the South.

Catholic missionaries also put down roots, eventually drawing enough attention to have Bardstown designated as one of four new dioceses in 1808, right up there with Philadelphia, Boston and New York. Then came St. Joseph’s Proto-Cathedral, built about ten year later, complete with golden tabernacle and candlesticks, not to mention a dozen paintings said to be donated by Pope Leo XII and both French and Sicilian royalty.

By the time Celia was born the glory days were over. The seat of the diocese had been moved to Louisville as a steamboat-driven commercial explosion made it the commonwealth’s first city. People slowly drifted away, leaving Bardstown with faded memories of a noble past. That imposing courthouse, encircled by a diminutive cityscape, served as a reminder of earlier grandeur. For people like Young Sam and Celia, who thought of justice as a faint promise too often betrayed, it was a sterile monument that held little relevance and a hint a dread.

They barely spoke at the start of the five-mile trip, trying to enjoy the sunshine and unusually mild weather. The road was rough with potholes from the winter months. The tree-lined road looked bleak. Emily had her rosary out, praying the mysteries from the annunciation to the coronation. But Sam couldn’t restrain himself for very long.

“Is they gonna take the farm away? Mista Hardy say people in town’s pretty mad at you.”

“I guess that’s right,” said Celia. “But we get a trial, and they have to prove that Boss Sam’s will ain’t right. That’s not so easy to do. In the meantime we stay where we are.”

Sam said it didn’t seem fair for Robert Lancaster to win. “He never cared about that old place.”

“Well, there’s fair and there’s the law. And they’re not the same thing,” Celia said.

“And then there’s Kentucky law,” Emily added. They instinctively knew what she meant. The law of the gun and the rope. It had even claimed the life of the state’s last governor, burning in the state’s image as an outlaw land where feuds were bloody and not even a powerful white politician was safe if he made the wrong enemies.

The assassination was still big news three years after the fact. Attorney General William Taylor, who was ultimately declared the loser to William Goebel in the election for governor in 1900, had fled the state after being charged as an accessory in the murder of his rival. Three men convicted of the crime, one of them the Republican former secretary of state, had appealed the verdict and won new trials. Most people felt that original judge was biased, most jurors were Democratic loyalists, and some witnesses had lied. The quarreling was so fierce that people sometimes shot each other dead. Businesses were breaking up, even churches were coming apart.

Governor-elect Goebel was shot while walking to the state capitol just days before he was supposed to be sworn in. For some it was justice, those who called him Boss Bill and claimed that he had ruthlessly murdered a man, an old Confederate fighter and fellow Democrat, on the streets of Covington. Ruthless murderer or not, Goebel went free and his victim’s wife went insane. They also said he was trying to impose a one-party tyranny on the state, using the new Board of Election Commissioners to stack local precincts and control the race for governor. He was a German blueblood, they said, a demagogue devoted only to the pursuit of power.

Maybe some of it was true. But as Celia saw it, he was also trying to change things for the better, challenging the Louisville & Nashville railroad’s hold on the state and fighting for the common man. The Republicans had gone too conservative, and the Democrats needed someone like Boss Bill to shake them up. Whatever his faults, Goebel certainly didn’t deserve to be killed. If things had gone much further, it could have led to another Civil War in Kentucky, this time with the fighting along party lines.

It took three days for Goebel to die. In the meantime Taylor, who had been sworn in as governor based on the Election Commission’s initial findings, called out the militia and declared a “state of insurrection.” His apparent plan was to stop the investigating committee appointed by the legislature from delivering its report that Goebel had actually won the race. Armed soldiers blocked Democratic lawmakers from entering the capitol. They met anyway, in secret with no Republicans on hand, and declared the dying man governor. His only official act was to order the militia home and call the legislature back into session.

The new administration quickly assembled its own militia, facing down the Gatling guns pointed across the capitol lawn. Thousands of men stayed out there for two days, neither side looking ready to budge. But once Goebel was dead tempers cooled a bit and everyone involved decided to let the courts settle the issue. The decision took months, and that left the state with no one in charge, a formula for more chaos.

When the smoke eventually cleared and the US Supreme Court had spoken, Kentucky had a Democrat as governor after all: John Crepps Wickliffe Beckham, lawyer and bluegrass aristocrat, Bardstown native and, at 30 years old, the youngest man ever to hold the office. They called him the Boy Governor. But when it came to politics Beckham was no sapling. He had already been Speaker of the House and managed to get himself on Goebel’s ticket as lieutenant governor.

Things settled down after that. But in Bardstown the hostility that had sparked Kentucky’s latest brush with war was still close to the surface. Some considered Beckham a source of pride, a local boy trying to bring his state back from the brink, a cautious reformer who talked about stopping child labor, training more teachers, and regulating the insurances companies. He also had bitter enemies, among them another Bardstown-born power broker, Ben Johnson, a wealthy Catholic challenging him for control of the party.

Celia had no illusions about the new governor. She believed the rumors about his support for segregating Berea, the last integrated college in the south, and how he had stopped going after the railroads to get elected. Just last year he had supported a law eliminating the right of women to vote in school elections.

What could you expect, she thought. The people who ran this state didn’t even think a judge or sheriff who did nothing to stop a lynching should be cast out of office.

Many locals also worried that Beckham might come out for prohibition. Support had been growing for years in the home of Bourbon. In Bardstown, the state’s distillery center, the debate divided neighbors and families. Too many jobs and too much money was at stake. Celia had been a prohibitionist for as long as she could remember, yet never dared to voice her opinion to Boss Sam. What could she have said? Close down the Lancaster distillery, one of the family’s main sources of income, because Demon Rum was a destroyer of lives? Because it had played a part in killing Sam’s own brother. He had often made his views plain: it was just business, not a moral quandary. And anyway, you could never legislate drinking out of existence.

After Emily’s comment about Kentucky law there wasn’t much more to say. If Celia lost in court, she’d be out of a home, a Black woman with no prospects and nothing to show for decades of service. But at least she might be safe from the anger of all those white folks who thought she had slept with a crazy old man to steal his land. If she won, on the other hand, last night’s dream might well become reality.

She sat erect as they approached the courthouse, determined not to reveal her fear. The streets were packed, a tangle of horses, buggies and whispering, finger-pointing pedestrians. The curious had come from as far as Louisville some 40 miles away. A large contingent had also made the trip from Marion County, since one of its prominent citizens was the plaintiff. Most people considered the outcome of the proceedings a foregone conclusion. After all, R. B. Lancaster was the only legal heir, blood kin. And Celia Mudd was just a nigger, a former slave at that. And still, the air bristled with anticipation. The mood combined the rough-and-ready gaiety of a carnival with the anxious energy of a high-stakes horse race.

Young Sam reined Ezekiel to a halt directly in front of the courthouse. For a long moment no one moved. Celia turned her head slowly, taking in the cluster of lawyers, white matrons in their bustled overskirts and high top shoes, sour-faced husbands, and her own clan, much more modestly attired as they huddled beside the door. Everyone was watching her. The silence was unnerving. But she forced back a frown, took a deep breath, and nudged Sam to get moving.

Leaping off, he rushed around to the brick sidewalk, helping Celia and Emily down from the buggy. As he did so, Celia could feel his whole body shaking. “Don’t fret, little brother,” she whispered. “At least we’ve got God on our side.”

She didn’t really believe that God took sides in court, but knew it would calm him down. Then she linked arms with her mother and walked defiantly through the crowd.

The Rest of the Story

It was an epic trial, dramatized in Celia’s Land, written with Georgia Davis Powers, and in my new book, Inheritance. Both also explore Celia’s life at the Lancaster farm in the years between 1865 and the early Twentieth Century.

On February 28, 1903, to the surprise of many Nelson County residents, an all white, all male jury ruled that Sam Lancaster’s will was valid. Predictably, his brother Robert challenged the decision and the case continued for four more years. He and his sons eventually took their complaint to the state’s highest court, the Kentucky Court of Appeals. But before all the testimony could even be reviewed, Robert Lancaster died in May 1904.

His two sons still didn’t give up. But in February 1907 Celia finally prevailed when the Appeals Court decided not to reverse the original ruling. Now a landowner, one of her first moves was to borrow $13,000 from the local bank, a loan she repaid in just three years. She also sold 325 acres. Having learned from Sam, and gradually assuming direct responsibility over the years, she had become a competent business woman.

Some locals never accepted her. Sometimes she would pick up the phone and hear women gossiping on the party line. But the night riders never came, and Celia ultimately became known as a respected and generous member of the community.

After Sam’s death she began a second life: the quiet, dignified manager of a working farm. Charles Crawford, a ruggedly handsome widower who lived on Plum Run Road, soon took a serious interest. Although much younger, he actively pursued Celia at first by driving her to church at St. Joseph’s Cathedral. They finally married in 1910 and remained together for thirty years.

Over the next decades Celia became a role model and a benefactor, especially for members of her family. When her sister Annie’s husband died, leaving her with six children, Celia said not to worry, and paid for three of the girls to attend a Catholic school in Ohio. Two of the older boys got jobs on the farm. When the family of another sister became destitute after her husband sustained a back injury, Celia bought them a home.

Beyond employing and helping family members, she especially encouraged the girls to get an education. Some attended St. Monica’s Colored Catholic School, walking miles to school in shoes she bought for them. Celia never did have biological children of her own, but she became a surrogate mother for many.

“I want my people to progress,” she often said, “and the only way they can is to have an opportunity for an education. If it means leaving the county, so be it.” Fortunately, Celia didn’t have to leave, and lived long enough to see many nieces and nephews graduate from high school. Another achievement in an amazing life.

*

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: Greg Guma/For Preservation & Change.

Featured image: The former Lancaster home, inherited by Celia Mudd in 1903.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obstructed Justice: Law and Disorder in the Klan Age

What If They Started a War and No One Showed Up?

February 21st, 2019 by Philip Giraldi

The humiliation of United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Warsaw last week was a good thing. The ancient Greeks, exercising their demonstrated ability to synthesize defining characteristics, had a word for it: hubris. Hubris is when one develops an extreme and unreasonable feeling of confidence in a certain course of action that inevitably leads to one’s downfall when that conceit proves to be based on false principles.

Pompeo was in Warsaw for a “summit” arranged by the US State Department in partnership with the Polish government to discuss with representatives of sixty nations what to do about the fractious situation in the Middle East. In advance, he promised that the meeting would “deliver really good outcomes.” The gathering was initially conceived as a “war against Iran” precursor, intended to pull together a coalition against the Persians, but when it became clear that many of the potential participants would balk at such a designation, it assumed a broader agenda concerning “Peace and Security in the Middle East.”

Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria were not, not surprisingly, invited as some of them were the expected targets of whatever remedial action the conference might recommend. Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu was, of course, present, tweeting in advance of the gathering that it would be all about “war against Iran.” He also characteristically delivered a warning that Iran was planning a “second holocaust” for his country.

Many countries, including regional power Turkey, and global powers Russia and China refused to participate at all. The European Union, the French and the Germans all sent career diplomats to the meeting rather than their Foreign Ministers while Britain’s Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt only agreed to attend at the last minute after he was granted his wish to head a discussion session on Yemen.

The meeting was overshadowed by the context in which it took place, something that Pompeo was apparently too tone deaf to appreciate. The Europeans, to include close allies Britain, France and Germany have all been openly opposed to the White House’s completely irrational decision last year to exit from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which placed limits verified by intrusive inspections on Iran’s nuclear program.  America’s closest allies made clear that they object to being told how and with whom they are permitted to do business, and they were finally doing something about it. Even US intelligence confirms that Iran has been fully compliant with the nuclear agreement, but the dunces in the White House are too blinded by hubris to change course.

The week before the conference opened the British, French and Germans also, perhaps deliberately, declared their intention to launch a “special purpose vehicle” barter system that would enable purchases of Iranian oil after the May 5th deadline which the United States had unilaterally declared for the initiation of sanctions prohibiting such activity. Washington has declared that any countries disregarding its sanctions against Iran would be themselves subject to secondary sanctions implemented through the US Treasury’s ability to both control and restrict access to the dollar denominated financial markets. Nevertheless, the action by the Europeans served as confirmation that much of the world wants to do business with Iran even if the White House says “no.”

Present with the US delegation in Warsaw were Pompeo, Vice President Mike Pence, National Security Adviser John Bolton, Special Adviser Jared Kushner, and President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. “America’s Rabbi” Shmuley Boteach also appeared in an unofficial capacity. All of the Administration officials took the stage at one point or another to denounce Iran as the “world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism,” which appeared to resonate with Netanyahu but hardly anyone else. There was also considerable spontaneous theater provided by the American cast of characters in the lead-up to the conference itself.

In an interview with CBS News before the meetings, Pompeo indicated his pleasure over the impact of the existing sanctions on Iran. When asked if there had been any sign “…that this pressure is pushing Iran to negotiate with the US?” he responded that

“Things are much worse for the Iranian people, and we’re convinced that will lead the Iranian people to rise up and change the behavior of the regime.”

The suggestion that Washington believes in starving the very people it is claiming to want to help to bring about a violent uprising clearly did not disturb Pompeo in the least. And he exhibited no appreciation of the fact that pressuring Iran’s government is actually the best way to strengthen it as the Iranian people have been rallying against the economic warfare being waged by the United States.

Not to be upstaged by Pompeo, John Bolton, in a video released on the Monday before the conference opened on Wednesday, celebrated in his own unique fashion the 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution, which the people of Iran have recently been commemorating. Bolton called Iran “the central banker of international terrorism” and declared it guilty of “tyrannizing its own people and terrorizing the world.” The video concluded with a direct threat to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:

“I don’t think you’ll have many more anniversaries to enjoy.”

Also during the lead-up to the conference, Rudy Giuliani was featured at a pep rally in downtown Warsaw for the “cult-like” terrorist group Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an organization for which he has served as a paid lobbyist. He told a crowd of MEK supporters that “If we don’t have a peaceful, democratic Iran then no matter what we do we’ll have turmoil, difficulties, problems in the Middle East. Everyone agrees that Iran is the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world. That has to tell you something: Iran is a country you can’t rely on, do business with, can’t trust.” He added that their government consists of “assassins, they are murderers and they should be out of power.” Afterwards, Rudy would not disclose how much he had been paid to make the speech.

But it was Vice President Pence who took the prize for unmitigated gall in his address to the conferees in which he accused the Europeans of something close to treason: “They call this scheme a ‘Special Purpose Vehicle.’ We call it an effort to break American sanctions against Iran’s murderous revolutionary regime.’’ He insisted that

“The time has come for our European partners to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and join with us as we bring the economic and diplomatic pressure necessary to give the Iranian people, the region and the world the peace, security and freedom they deserve.”

Pence might just as well have said “my way or the highway” or quoted George W. Bush’s line, “you’re either with us or against us.” The audience, including a large number of Washington-sycophants, responded with silence, unimpressed by Pence’s fulminations and his demands.

The Warsaw Summit did not produce the results envisioned by the White House, which were to pull together a group willing to escalate pressure on Iran before attacking it, while simultaneously generating support for Jared Kushner’s much discussed Israel/Palestine peace plan, due to be unveiled in April. The American plan will basically give Netanyahu everything he wants while relegating the Palestinians to the status of a non-people. As a result of the lukewarm reception in Warsaw, even from Arab states that truly hate Iran, Washington is now weaker in the Middle East than ever before. That is a good thing as the policies being embraced by Trump, Bolton, Pompeo, Giuliani and Kushner are not only an embarrassment, they are a potential disaster for everyone in the region as well as for the United States.

*

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

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Twitter via SCF


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

The orchestrated campaign to remove the elected government in Venezuela and replace it with a puppet authority willing to serve U.S. economic and political interests has now reached a critical moment, one which may well end in a bloody civil war, a foreign military invasion, or both.

That this ‘regime change’ operation has been built on a mountain of lies, is hypocritical to its very core, and violates every principle of international law – including the UN and OAS Charters – doesn’t seem to bother in the least its architects in Washington or Ottawa. But it should alarm everyone who values peace and social justice, and who wants to avert a real humanitarian catastrophe.

The time to act is now, to stop this attempted right-wing coup d’état and prevent foreign military intervention which would only bring great hardship, suffering and loss of life on the Venezuelan people!

The manufactured political crisis did not start on January 23rd when the far-right usurper Juan Guaidó declared himself ‘interim president’ and was quickly recognized by the U.S., Canada and other Western powers, and right-wing governments such as Brazil, Colombia and Peru in Latin America. In fact, the campaign to destabilize the Venezuelan economy and prepare conditions for the attempted ouster of democratically-elected President Nicolas Maduro and his government began long ago.

Ever since Hugo Chavez won the presidency in 1998 and subsequently launched progressive social changes with majority popular support – public housing, literacy and healthcare campaigns, and the nationalization of oil – U.S. imperialism has sought to subvert the Bolivarian Revolution and reestablish control over the Venezuelan people and their oil and other natural resources. Washington masterminded an abortive coup (2002), a failed business strike (2003), and a series of violent street protests (most recently in 2014 and 2017).

The economic shortages and hardships touted by the western mass media today were not caused by government mismanagement or the ‘failure of socialism’ but rather by ever-tightening economic sanctions imposed unilaterally by the U.S. and its closest allies; by the collapse of world oil prices starting in 2014; and by the artificial shortages and currency manipulations of capitalist enterprises inside the country, forces that retain tremendous power within the domestic economy to this day.

It is in fact the same strategy used in Chile back in the early 1970s to destabilize the progressive government of Salvador Allende, before a fascist coup led by General Pinochet left more than 3,000 dead, and many more thousands tortured and driven into exile.

But the Maduro government, its military and its mass base among working people have stood firm against all of these pressures and threats. That is why the U.S. is now trying to use ‘humanitarian aid’ as a ‘Trojan horse’ to provoke a border conflict, providing a pretext to invade and occupy the country. Reports have already surfaced that US special ops forces have been covertly re-positioned near the Venezuelan frontier for precisely this purpose.

This economic war, the open demands on the military to overthrow their own government, and the possibility of foreign military aggression – all this is a gross violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty and independence, and the right of the Venezuelan people to self-determination.

We condemn the shameful role which PM Trudeau, Minister Chrystia Freeland and the Canadian government are playing in this despicable ‘regime change’ operation. Instead of ‘fronting’ for U.S. imperial ambitions, Canada should get out of the Lima Group, end the onerous economic sanctions, and support a political solution to this crisis which it has helped to create and exploit.

The Canadian Peace Congress welcomes the fact that many labour, peace, solidarity and other mass organizations and movements have found their voice to speak out against this unfolding outrage. We appeal to all progressive and democratically-minded organizations and individuals to overcome every hesitation, and every attempt to silence our dissent, and speak out now for peace and for respect of international law!

No Sanctions!  No Coup d’État! No Military Intervention!

Hands Off Venezuela!

Join the actions this Saturday, Feb. 23

Demonstrations, marches and other actions with take place this Saturday in many centres across Canada. Protests are scheduled in Washington DC and dozens of other cities in the U.S.; in Europe, throughout Latin America, and in South and East Asia. It is truly an International Day to say “No War on Venezuela!”

If you are in or close to any of the actions listed below, we strongly urge you to consider participating. If your city or region is not listed, there still may be actions locally that somehow missed our list, so please check,. Or consider organizing an action yourself – a protest, picket at an MP’s office, an educational event, even a kitchen party to write letters to your local newspaper!

Here’s what’s on so far (alphabetically by city):

Calgary, AB

Saturday, February 23 | 12pm
615 MacLead Trl SE

Courtenay, BC

Saturday, February 23 | 1pm

Courtenay Public Library [300 6th Street]

– Organized by Comox Valley Peace Group

Edmonton, AB

Saturday, February 23 | 1pm

Old Strathcona Farmers’ Market [10310 83 Avenue Northwest]

– Organized by Edmonton Coalition Against War and Racism

Halifax, NS

Saturday, February 23 | 1pm
Peace and Freedom Park (formerly Cornwallis Park) | Hollis St.

– Organized by Alliance for Venezuela Halifax and the Halifax Peace Council

London, ON

Saturday, February 23 | 12pm
NW corner of Victoria Park

– Co-hosted by Communist Party of Canada – Forest City Club; People for Peace, London, Ontario; and London Common Front

Montreal, QC

Saturday, February 23 | 2pm
Carré Philipps [Rue Saint-Catherine & Union]

Ottawa, ON

Saturday, February 23 | 12pm
Gather at the Prime Minister’s office [ 80 Wellington St.] for a march to the U.S. Embassy!

Regina, SK

Saturday, February 23 | 2pm
City Hall, Peace Fountain [2410 Victoria Ave.]

– Organized by the Regina Peace Council

Toronto, ON

Saturday, February 23 | 11am
Rally Outside CBC Office – 250 Front Street West | March to Bay Street/ Financial District

– Organized by the Venezuela Solidarity Committee 

Winnipeg, MB

Saturday, February 23 | 1pm

Gerald James Lynch Park, south side Osborne Street Bridge (near Osborne and Roslyn)

– Hosted by Venezuela Peace Committee  

Vancouver, BC

Saturday, February 23 | 12pm
Gather in front of the CBC at Georgia and Hamilton Streets

– Rally organized by the Venezuela Peace and Solidarity Committee (Vancouver)

*

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 New Eastern Outlook

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canadian Peace Congress: Act Now to Defend Venezuela’s Sovereignty! No Sanctions! No Coup d’État! No Military Intervention!
  • Tags: , ,

The Fake News About Humanitarian Aid and Venezuela

February 21st, 2019 by Alan MacLeod

In recent times the international media, including many who promised to “resist” the dangerous commander-in-chief Donald Trump, have been awash with stories about Nicolas Maduro blocking US “humanitarian aid” reaching Venezuela. Maduro is said to have even blocked a bridge in his desperation to starve his own people (see, for example, CNN, CBC, Associated Press, BBC, NPR, ABC, Bloomberg, The Guardian). A constant flow of stories such as this have served to establish a narrative of a dictator blocking a benevolent US government from helping its desperate people. Something must be done!

Virtually unreported in the humanitarian aid story are several inconvenient truths that contradict the official US government narrative the media is so closely parroting. Firstly, the “aid” is not recognized as such at all. For shipments to qualify as aid, they must be given indiscriminately. The US “aid” appears destined only for Juan Guaidó, the US-backed self-appointed president. The Red Cross and the United Nations have refused to help the US or to recognize Trump’s shipments as aid. Indeed, the United Nations has formally condemned the US’ actions in Venezuela. For their part, the Venezuelan government has been very eager to accept genuine aid, and is currently working with the UN to distribute supplies.

The UN Human Rights Council denounced Trump’s sanctions (illegal even under OAS law), noting that they specifically target “the poor and most vulnerable classes”, calling on all member states to break them and even began discussing reparations that the US should pay to Venezuela. The sanctions have had a devastating effect on the country’s economy, reducing its oil output by 50 percent, according to the opposition’s own economics czar.  Furthermore, Trump has threatened anyone breaking the sanctions with up to 30 years imprisonment. One UN special rapporteur described the sanctions as akin to a medieval siege and declared them a “crime against humanity.” Thus, much of Venezuela’s crisis is actually manufactured in Washington, though you would be extremely hard pressed to understand that from mainstream coverage.

The appointment of the notorious Elliott Abrams should be a major red flag for anyone believing that the US government’s actions are benign. Abrams was responsible for organizing death squads across the region in the 1980s that carried out mass slaughters and genocide in Central America and was also prosecuted for selling arms to Iran to fund the Contra death squads, famously sending them weapons under the guise of humanitarian aid. History now repeats itself, as the Venezuelan government intercepted a shipment from Miami containing assault weapons, ammunition and military-grade radios on a Boeing 767 that had made nearly 40 round trips from the US to the region this year alone. Thus, the person famously caught for sending guns under the cover of aid to Nicaragua may already be sending guns under the cover of aid to Venezuela.

In short, there is more than ample reason for Venezuelans to be highly skeptical of any help the US claims to be offering, especially considering the terrible harm the US has wrought on its economy. The $20 million shipment of “aid” is a drop in the ocean in comparison to the effect of the sanctions, estimated to be tens of billions of dollars. The “aid” therefore constitutes about what Venezuela loses every eight hours due to the sanctions. The very obvious thing any American with a genuine desire to help the Venezuelan people would advocate is to end the illegal sanctions and begin paying reparations.

Yet all this has been almost completely ignored by the mainstream media, marching in lockstep with the Trump administration’s regime change agenda. Instead it presents a socialist dictatorship intent on spurning good faith US efforts to help its stricken people in an attempt to establish the grounds for escalation of US actions in the country. In 2017 the US blocked genuine Venezuelan aid to the victims of Hurricane Harvey. Yet this was not seen as the justification for an invasion of the US.

The final piece in this farcical puzzle is that the bridge Maduro supposedly blocked to stop aid reaching the country has, in fact, never been opened and the barriers blocking the way have been in place since at least 2016, as five minutes on Google would have shown. Yet virtually the entire media – so obsessed with fact-checking everything Donald Trump says – went along with his administration’s PR stunt. That it was immediately exposed as a hoax meant nothing to the media outlets in question, who have not deleted or modified their stories since publication. Printing fake news about official enemies will not result in a ban from Twitter or deletion from Facebook, it seems. However, merely expressing an alternative opinion has done.

The Venezuelan case proves the lie that the media genuinely cares about honest reporting, countering fake news and resisting Trump. When it comes to serving an imperial agenda, all is jettisoned out the window in favor of regime change propaganda.

*

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

Alan MacLeod is a member of the Glasgow University Media Group. His latest book, Bad News From Venezuela: 20 Years of Fake News and Misreporting, was published by Routledge in April.

Dollar Dominance and the Third World

February 21st, 2019 by Enzo Calandra

The history of international political economy has consisted of several monetary regimes, each corresponding to a particular stage of capitalist development and possessing traits which reflect said stage.

In order to illuminate the dynamics of the dollar regime, I will compare its unipolar nature to that of the Gold Standard (1870-1914). I will analyze the key political/historical events which led to the establishment of dollar dominance, such as the Second World War and the 1973 Oil Crisis. Finally, in this paper I argue that the tendency to de-dollarize is inevitable due to internal contradictions within the neoliberal political economy, and that Third World nations under the leadership of China are laying the foundations for a multipolar monetary regime at last free from Western colonial domination.

The brutal and crusading barbarism of the US has claimed the lives of millions in the interest of maintaining dollar dominance. In terms of power polarity, the dollar “non-system” of today differs little from the Gold Standard of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in which Britain, as the leading imperialist country, imposed upon the world a favorable economic regime controlled by its Central Bank:

“Britain’s singular position in the world economy protected her balance of payments from shocks and allowed sterling to anchor the international system” (Eichengreen 41).

Similarly, the US position as global hegemon anchors the dollar as fiat currency and prevents it from feeling negative fluctuations of the world market. An important distinction can be drawn here, however, in that US power actually extends further than Britain’s ever did as Britain could not (despite the best efforts of centuries of alchemical experiments) produce goldor create value out of thin air, where the US, due to the nature of the dollar regime, can.

The Gold Standard was established and maintained through violent conquest over smaller nations. Similarly, the US regularly conducts imperialist wars to maintain dollar dominance. Iraq and Libya stand as the most quintessential example of countries brutally destroyed on the altar of the dollar.

These wars, disguised as attempts to “spread democracy,” are rather directly related to questions of international political economy. In the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein declared his intention to trade his oil using Euros instead of dollars. Later on, when discussing the petrodollarI will show why the idea of oil being traded in anything but dollars was considered such a huge threat to US hegemony. Suffice to say, the “Iraq war is mostly about… the unspoken but overarching macroeconomic threats to the U.S. dollar from the euro” (Clark 3).

The US-French war on Libya was provoked after Gaddafi announced his intention to trade Libya’s oil using a Gold-based African currency. Hillary Clinton’s own emails show grave concern at “the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at ‘143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,’ posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency” (Hoff).

These examples serve to show the deeply unequal distribution of power under the current international system, in which peripheral countries are brutally exploited and destroyed if they refuse to conform. All capitalist world market systems have been predicated upon the ruthless exploitation of the Third World, and the realities of capitalist exploitation have remained fundamentally unchanged throughout the centuries, from the discovery of silver in South America, to the Gold Standard, through Neoliberalism. De-dollarization efforts led by China represent a possibility of breaking this oppressive historical pattern of monetary policy as a tool of colonialism and imperialism.

Now that we have situated the dollar regime alongside past monetary systems, let us take a deeper look into its origins and functions. The US was the only Western country who did not have fighting on its homeland during WWII. As a result it was in the unique position to aid the recovery in Europe, and was the key founder of the IMF and World Bank which provided liquidity to reawakened international markets.

During the Bretton Woods conference, John Maynard Keynes advocated for the creation of an international bank with its own currency called a “Bancor” to serve this aim. “But there was one country – at the time the world’s biggest creditor – in which his proposal was less welcome. The head of the American delegation at Bretton Woods, Harry Dexter White, responded to Keynes’s idea thus: ‘We have been perfectly adamant on that point. We have taken the position of absolutely no’” (Monbiot).

This intransigence on the part of the US led the dollar to be pegged to gold at $35 an ounce and serve along with gold as the world’s reserve currency. While Third World nations were allowed to participate in Bretton Woods, they were still relegated to a second class status:

“Not unlike their experience under the gold standard, (developing countries) were subject to exceptionally severe balance-of payments shocks, which they met by devaluing more frequently than was the practice in the industrial world” (Eichengreen 48).

Robert Triffin predicted the demise of the Bretton Woods system. The Triffin Dilemma asserts a contradiction between confidence and liquidity inherent to a world reserve currency. This dilemma contributed to the “Nixon shock”of 1971. Underlying this move by Nixon were both geopolitical and economic pressures. In the realm of foreign policy, the US had just conducted the brutal destruction of Vietnam which cost $141 billion USD1. European countries began to resent a “monetary system that… facilitated US adventures abroad, particularly, of course, in Vietnam” (Gowa 28).

All this military spending began to exceed the gold reserves held by the Fed, prompting European countries (most notably France under De Gaulle) to try to get their gold back. This confluence of factors led Nixon to float the US dollar and end convertibility, destroying the Bretton Woods system. Being that the dollar was still the reserve currency, the US gained the “exorbitant privilege” of being able to print dollars without having to back them up with gold. The suspension of convertibility caused a crisis of confidence in the dollar. In order to reinvigorate use of the USD it was pegged (in a loose sense) to barrels of oil provided by Saudi Arabia in a secret agreement that would shape American foreign policy for the next 40-50 years.

The petrodollar system is the means by which the US is able to control the world oil market. Oil is to the globalized neoliberal market what stone was to the Stone Age. By controlling oil trade through the petrodollar the US is able to further dominate the world market and weaponize it to its aims. In 1973, several OPEC countries declared an embargo on trading oil with the US due to its support of Israel. As a response to this crisis, “the (Nixon) administration hatched an unprecedented do-or-die plan that would come to influence just about every aspect of U.S.-Saudi relations over the next four decades. The basic framework was strikingly simple. The U.S. would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide the kingdom military aid and equipment. In return, the Saudis would plow billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending” (Wong). This agreement for the Saudis to price their oil exclusively in USD led to the creation of the petrodollar. All nations need oil for the functioning of their economies, so by tying the USD to Middle East oil, the US has effectively guaranteed a high demand for USD after the loss in confidence provoked by the Nixon shock.

Another crucial part of this arrangement is that the surpluses of oil producing countries be reinvested in western banks. This is a peculiar characteristic of the petrodollar regime in which capital flowed fully back into US treasury securities, then to developing nations in the form of loans. “Commercial banks were eager to make profitable loans to governments and state-owned entities (as well as private companies) in developing countries, using the dollars flowing from the Middle Eastern countries. Developing countries, particularly in Latin America, were also eager to borrow relatively cheap money from the banks” (Carrasco). This process led to the debt enslavement of much of the Third World as these loans became increasingly too large to pay off. In response, the IMF stepped in and restructured the debt while introducing structural adjustment policies. As I mentioned earlier, this process of “petrodollar recycling” bears the fundamental characteristics of traditional colonialism, with power centers in the West creating unequal and oppressive conditions in Third World nations in order to extract wealth. “IMF stabilization programs typically included drastic reductions in government spending in order to reduce fiscal deficits, a tight monetary policy to curb inflation, and steep currency devaluations in order to increase exports” (Carrasco). While it sounds benign in the quote above, “drastic reductions in government spending” during this period undoubtedly led to great human suffering. Contrast the position of Third World debt peonage and immiseration to that of the US, who merely has to print dollars (worth pennies) to pay for its oil and to manage itsbalance of payments.

In 1917, Lenin declared the development of monopoly capitalism to be a new stage of capitalist development which he called “Imperialism.” In contrast to traditional colonialism, in which raw materials flowed from periphery countries to the core for manufacturing, imperialism functioned by core countries exporting finance capital and not commodities. Lenin spoke of monopoly capitalism as whole of a nation’s capitalist system of production being harnessed by the will of one or several capitalists:

“Scattered capitalists are transformed into a single collective capitalist… When these operations grow to enormous dimensions we find that a handful of monopolists control all the operations, both commercial and industrial, of the whole of capitalist society” (Lenin 35).

Despite the optimism of Lenin that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, it would seem that an even higher stage has been reached, that of Late stage capitalism (Neoliberalism), centered in the US around the US-Saudi petrodollar and enforced by the US military, and that this is the final expression of capitalism’s abstracting, centralizing tendencies.

The condition of imperialism contained 3 major contradictions. I will first outline these contradictions, and afterward attempt an analysis of the contradictions of the neoliberal political economy rooted in Lenin’s analysis of imperialism. This list of contradictions comes from the CPGB website.The explanations are my own.

  1. The contradiction between labor and capital

This is a fundamental contradiction in the capitalist mode of production. In the age of imperialism, “the concentration of production and capital developed to such a high stage that it created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life” (Lenin 89). In other words, financial and banking oligarchies have come to dominate every facet of domestic society within the imperialist nation.

  1. The contradictions within imperialist factions

We can see this in the Scramble for Africa, in which the “territorial division of the whole world among the great capitalist powers is completed” (Lenin 89). This concept explains the origins of the First World War.

  1. The contradiction between the imperialist core and the exploited masses Funneling finance capital into the Third World has created a proletariat where there wasn’t one before. This contradiction was negated by the heroic national liberation movements of the 20th century.

Since 1917, however, we have seen several developments in the relations of production within the international political economy. The centralization of the national bourgeoisie observed by Lenin has began to take place transnationally, coinciding with the rise of the USD as a transnational currency. National capital, around which Lenin centers his analysis, has largely been supplanted by a new form of transnational capital and a transnational capitalist class which rose in tandem with the weakening of the nation state’s economic influence. This denationalization of financial capital is one of the most salient aspects of our new neoliberal stage, with transnational institutions such as the IMF and World Bank serving as economic imperialists in the form of structural adjustment policies on the behalf of the transnational bourgeoisie.

Exploitative finance capital no longer comes from national monopolies but supranational organizations. The US military, as demonstrated in the first part of this paper, serves as the armed wing of the transnational bourgeoisie. The dollar is its means of financial control, particularly over oil, which is the basis of the global economy. The monopolization and financialization which took place in the era of imperialism laid the foundation for the totally abstract neoliberal market we see today in which the dollar can be printed ad infinitum by the US for its balance of payments deficits while Third World nations toil in cyclical debt, superexploitation, and Lumpen proletarianization. Following Lenin, we can see the internal contradictions of imperialism as having evolved in the following ways:

  1. The contradiction of labor and capital on a transnational scale

“In the United States, the size of the financial sector as a percentage of gross domestic product has grown from 2.8 percent in 1950 to 7.9 percent in 2012… Individuals working in the U.S. finance sector have experienced a 70 percent increase in their incomes relative to workers in other sector since 1980.”3

The financial crisis of 2008 nearly wiped out the world economy, and a similar crisis now would likely do just that. In contrast to the total subjugation of the proletariat described by Lenin under monopoly capitalism, Western countries have entered a stage of Post-Fordism, in which authority has largely become diffused, and service, administrative, and part time labor have come to prominence. Horizontalization (visible in say, the “sharing economy”) has provided unique opportunities to socialize these new means of production. It is clear that since Lenin’s Imperialism this 1st contradiction has only deepened and evolved, from the creation of a monopoly in one nation, to monopolies in the form of supranational institutions such as the IMF which provide finance capital and commit economic violence on Third World nations through the gutting of their social services. The IMF provides the structural policies which lead to mass capital flows from the “Third World” or “Global South” to the West.

  1. The contradiction between a decaying West and a rising multipolar bloc Colonialism, imperialism, neoliberalism…These oppressive world systems, each rooted in the last, seem to have reached their final form, as the debt-ridden West appears to be on its last legs. Inter-imperialist conflict has largely been subsumed under the US hegemony. The US flag provides acommon enemy for oppressed people across the world. Acting on behalf of the transnational capitalist class they have given this apparitional figure a face, and placed a target firmly on its back. Therise of China and Russia point to the unseating of the West as world hegemon. Syria will be seen as a critical turning point in International Relations, as Russia, China, Hezbollah and the Syrian Arab Republic were able to check US power, multipolarity succeeding over unipolarity.
  1. The contradiction between supranational institutions and transnational proletariat 

Financial capital has expanded its influence, and the increase in global interconnectivity has permitted unprecedentedly large capital flows which have had a devastating impact on Third World workers. Now a capitalist can set up a factory, exploit a population, and abandon production when it becomes more profitable elsewhere. Capital is allowed to flow freely while labor migration is restricted by increasingly militarized national borders. This has led to an explosion in lumpen proletarianization, with much of the world living in slums and unemployed. The international division of labor has also become more pronounced, as a strike in a Amazon factory in Brazil would effect one in the US and vice versa. This new mode of production encourages transitional cooperation of the proletariat. Just as the export of financial capital to the Third World under imperialism created a proletarianized Third World capable of achieving national liberation, transnational finance capital has birthed for the first time a transnational proletariat capable of conducting intercommunal revolution. The neoliberal world order hasdeepened global inequalities to unprecedented levels and created a mass of lumpen proletariat will nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Related to contradiction #3, there seems to be a new contradiction at the heart of the international political economy, namely

  1. The contradiction of the USD as a national and international currency

The US is able to create value out of thin air by printing dollars. This has been called the “exorbitant privilege” of the US. On a surface level this is clearly untenable, as value is created by labor, and the value of USD exists only at the level of abstraction. In terms of international political economy, the situation becomes even more precarious. Why would nations such as Russia and China, whom the US considers enemies, continue to accept and prop up the USD, especially when the use of the USD as reserve currency allows for military intervention in, say, Syria, where Russia and China are fighting opposite the US? How long will the world pay for US imperialism? To further complicate the picture, the West is in huge amounts of debt, and is only able to continue its balance of payments by sliding further and further into it. This system cannot persist forever and will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. De-dollarization has become imperative for Third World nations.

The dollar is essential to the neoliberal world market.

“Today the US dollar is undoubtedly the top international currency. This is true for its public and private international roles… at least 37 of the 1461 currencies of IMF members are pegged to the dollar” (Williamson 75).

Therefore, for countries attempting to escape the cyclical crises and contradictions of the neoliberal world market, de-dollarization becomes a top priority. China is providing an example for other formally colonized nations to develop their productive forces and compete on the same level as the West, de-dollarization being an important step in this process. To quote Professor Cohen,

“For many, the arrival of the dollar’s new rivals is a welcome development. A broader multi-currency system, it is argued, will widen the range of choice for market actors, thus making it harder for the United States to act in arbitrary, unilateral fashion” (Cohen 44).

I consider myself one of the “many” mentioned by the Professor. I will now asses the petroyuan as a potential rival to dollar dominance.

As mentioned earlier, oil is the fuel of the international economy. For a nation to be able to undermine US domination in the world economy it would have to wrestle control over the trade of oil away from the dollar. We can see China taking steps in this direction by asserting the yuan as a medium of international trade, specifically in oil markets. One important step occurred in March of last year, when China announced the creation of an oil futures market on the Shanghai International Energy Exchange.

“Since their launch… Shanghai crude futures have stolen market share from the incumbent benchmarks – Europe’s Brent and U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) – which trade oil derivatives worth trillions of dollars every year” (Gloystein).

While lagging far behind oil contracts in the US and Europe, in China we see a world historical milestone in which a formally colonized nation has risen to be able to challenge the West on every level— militarily, technologically, and financially. While the yuan remains weak, my hope is that the inevitable process of de-dollarization leads to the creation of a more just and equitable monetary regime, leaving past oppressive systems in the dustbin of history where they belong.

*

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

Enzo Calandra is a student of Political Science at the University of California, Sta. Barbara.

Sources

Carrasco, Enrique R. “The 1980s: The Debt Crisis & The Lost Decade.” The University of Iowa Center for International Finance and Development, University of Iowa Press, 2011, web.archive.org/web/20110606041529/http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/ebook2/contents/part1-V.shtml.

Clark, William. The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic andGeostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth. 2003,web.cs.iastate.edu/~prabhu/gmonpolitics/Clark.pdf.

Cohen, Benjamin. “Global Governance at Risk.” Global Governance at Risk, by David Held, Polity, 2013, pp. 31–50.

Eichengreen, Barry. Globalizing Capital: a History on the International Monetary System. Leuven University Press, 1996.

Gloystein, Henning. “Shanghai Crude Futures Eat into Western Benchmarks as China Pushes…” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 30 Aug. 2018, www.reuters.com/article/us-china-crude-oil-futures-analysis/shanghai-crude-futures-eat-into-western-benchmarks-as-china-pushes-yuan-idUSKCN1LF2RE.

Gowa, Joanne. Closing the Gold Window: Domestic Politics and the End of Bretton Woods. 1980.

Hoff, Brad. “Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention.” Foreign PolicyJournal, Foreign Policy Journal, 28 Feb. 2018,www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/.

Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. International Publishers, 1939.

Monbiot, George. “George Monbiot: Lord Keynes Really Did Propose the International Monetary Fund.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 18 Nov. 2008, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/18/lord-keynes-international-monetary-fund.

Williamson, John. Chapter three: The dollar and US power, Adelphi Papers, (2013)

Wong, Andrea. “The Untold Story Behind Saudi Arabia’s 41-Year U.S. Debt Secret.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 30 May 2016, www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret.

Notes

1. https://www.nytimes.com/1975/05/01/archives/us-spent-141billion-in-vietnam-in-14-years.html

2. https://www.cpgb-ml.org/2004/10/01/news/theory/three-contradictions-of-imperialism-marxism-leninism/

3. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financialization.asp

Why Canada Should Withdraw from NATO

February 21st, 2019 by Science for Peace

Hon. Lloyd Longfield MP

February 20, 2019

Dear Lloyd,

I am a longstanding member of Science for Peace, Canada’s most renowned scientific community for peace research and advocacy over more than 30 years centered in the Department of Physics of the University of Toronto.  Its co-founding president was George Ignatieff whose son later led the Liberal party of Canada.  So the positions Science for Peace adopts are not marginal and very seriously thought through.

The attached brief position paper advocating withdrawal from NATO is the result of years of research, debate and vigorous membership discussion which represents the overwhelmingly supported position of Science for Peace.  It rightly advises that Canada in NATO is now in repeated violation of United Nations Treaty and Declaration in military aggressions under international law, and  the President’s covering letter emphasizes the need “to oppose global trends towards militarizing the many urgent and devastating humanitarian situations”. I urge you to communicate these issues to your constituency and colleagues in the knowledge that the position paper and letter have also been sent to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister.

NATO’s increasingly warlike policies far beyond the North Atlantic regional alliance it was founded on, coupled with US-led demands for ever more needed public money to finance its non-defensive policies of nuclear and military domination across continents, are directly opposed to Canada’s common life and public interest, especially with Canada and the world’s environmental defence so threatened and underfunded at the same time.

This is a repressed turning-point issue of our age which the responsible federal government must come to grips with for its integrity as well as for Canada and humanity’s future.

faithfully yours,

John McMurtry, Ph.D (University College London),

Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Professor of Philosophy,

University Professor Emeritus, University of Guelph Ontario, Canada


The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau

Prime Minister

House of Commons

Ottawa

Dear Prime Minister:

Re: Canada’s Withdrawal from NATO

Science for Peace calls on the Government of Canada to withdraw from NATO and to cease from colluding with NATO’s pretence of pursuing defensive goals. In addition, we urge the government to join in condemning NATO’s violations of international peace and security.

Finally, we call on the Canadian government to sign the United Nations’ treaty to ban nuclear weapons and to work towards dismantling NATO altogether.  Canada can, and should, do more to oppose global trends towards militarizing the many urgent and devastating humanitarian situations.

I attach a brief position paper, prepared by Science for Peace, which explains the reasoning behind our proposals for a major foreign-policy shift by your government.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Sandbrook DPhil, FRSC

Acting President

c.c. The Hon. Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs; The Hon. Andrew Scheer, Leader of the Opposition


Why Canada Should Withdraw from NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed (1949) under a Treaty renouncing “the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” The Treaty calls for military action only in response to an attack upon a member. By reserving the liberty of deciding when military action is required, it usurps the authority the UN Charter supposedly confers on the Security Council to make such decisions. But NATO’s assault on world peace goes much farther. Plainly, its many military initiatives (as in former Yugoslavia in 1992 and 1999, and in Libya in 2011) and its military “exercises” threatening Russia on its very borders (up to the present) have violated NATO’s self-declared limitations. One might regard this as sufficient reason for a peace-seeking member nation to withdraw.

Almost from its beginning, NATO has committed a still more serious breach of the spirit and letter of international agreements: it systematically strives to impose its will by the threat of nuclear war. On the one hand, Science for Peace can not condone Canada’s adherence to an alliance which insists on its readiness to be the first to resort to nuclear arms (discussed, e.g., by the Arms Control Association); but on the other hand, even were NATO abruptly to accept the principle of No First Use, the use or threat of nuclear war even in retaliation incurs absolutely unacceptable danger to the survival of humanity and must be repudiated. The rationale of nuclear deterrence, far from shielding Canada or anyone under a “nuclear umbrella”, acts to multiply the ways a nuclear war may be triggered, and magnifies the destruction it threatens1.

Despite the increasingly potent threats to human survival through nuclear war and climate change, the public is largely uninformed by media, the government, and to a great extent within academia. Knowing the historical context is essential. With regard to laws and implementation of regulations that need to truthfully provide human security:

“The malleable, indeterminate, and oft-ignored ‘rules’ of the [U.N.] Charter concerning use of force can plausibly be marshaled to support virtually any U.S. military action deemed in the national interest. Limited or ambiguous U.N. Security Council approval, where available, is easily stretched.”2

In 1996 the International Court of Justice declared that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles of humanitarian law”and yet there is silence about these threats coming from President Trump or implicitly from NATO’s first-use policy.

Similarly indeterminate and lacking in meaningful constraints have been the agreements around nuclear weapons. The U.N. Non-Proliferation Treaty has not resulted in sanctions or limit-setting in any of the states already possessing nuclear weapons and has not addressed former president Obama’s $1.1 trillion allocation for nuclear weapons proliferation. The public is uninformed about the significant escalation of danger since 1991: George W. Bush’s withdrawal from the Anti Ballistic Defense Treaty with the consequent development of a missile defense system that effectually increases NATO’s belief that after a first strike a missile defense system could stop a nuclear counter-attack and that a nuclear war is winnable.

Challenging the ambiguity and compromises of the U.N. Security Council in order to address the mounting threats of human extinction, non-NATO nations and civil society members joined together to implement a nuclear ban treaty. Canada, bowing to NATO pressure, did not even participate in the meetings leading up to the treaty. Canada is also bowing to NATO pressure to increase military spending.

Science for Peace calls on the Government of Canada not only to withdraw from NATO and to cease from colluding with NATO’s pretence of pursuing defensive goals, but to join in condemning its violations of international peace and security. We call on the Canadian government to also sign the treaty to ban nuclear weapons and to work towards dismantling NATO altogether and to oppose the global trends towards militarizing the many urgent and devastating humanitarian situations.

Lastly, it is the responsibility of an informed public to engage politically and demand the deep changes required for human survival.

*

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

Notes

1Daniel Ellsberg. The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner. Bloomsbury. New York. 2017.

2P. 99-101. Michael Glennon. National Security and Double Government. Oxford University Press: Oxford 2015.

3P. 213. Mohammed Elbaradei. “Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe” in Richard Falk and David Krieger, At the Nuclear Precipice: catastrophe or transformation?Palgrave. New York. 2008.

Featured image is from http://nousnatobases.org

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Canada Should Withdraw from NATO
  • Tags:

The United States and its NATO partners are attempting to make the case for Washington’s decision to abandon the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

Claims that the Russian Federation has been violating the treaty have yet to be substantiated with anything resembling credible evidence. Also missing is any rational explanation as to why Russia would develop or deploy nuclear weapons capable of launching a nuclear strike on Europe without warning – a scenario the INF Treaty was created to deter.

Bloomberg in its article, “Nuclear Fears Haunt Leaders With U.S.-Russian Arms Pact’s Demise,” would claim:

Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s top civilian, cited recent Russian deployments and evoked a Cold War-style threat of nuclear destruction at a global conference of security and defense officials this weekend in Munich, the baroque German metropolis that’s one of Europe’s richest cities.

“These missiles are mobile, easy to hide and nuclear-capable,” Stoltenberg said. “They can reach European cities, like Munich, with little warning.”

Stoltenberg, the rest of NATO, Washington, and the many media organizations that work for and answer to both have failed categorically to explain why Russia would ever use nuclear-capable missiles against cities “like Munich, with little warning.”

Would Moscow Nuke Russia’s Closest Trade Partners? 

While Russia has invested greatly in recent years to expand its economic trade with Asia, it is still heavily dependent on trade with Europe.

The Harvard Atlas of Economic Complexity reveals not only Europe as the most important region for Russian trade, particularly for Russian exports, but nations like the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy as among Russia’s top trade partners.

Russia is currently working with Germany on its Nord Stream 2 pipeline – a pipeline transporting Russian hydrocarbons to Western Europe without passing through politically unstable nations like Ukraine. The project is a keystone of recent Russian efforts to modernize and adapt its hydrocarbon industry around complications arising from US interference across Europe – particularly in the form of the US-engineered 2014 coup in Ukraine and NATO’s constant US-led expansion along Russian borders.

And Russian companies aren’t the only ones benefiting from Nord Stream 2 or other economic ties between Russia and Europe. Russia imports more from Germany than any other European nation, and Germany is only second to China among all nations Russia imports goods from.

It is highly unlikely Russia is going to launch nuclear missiles at “Munich, with little warning” – because to do so would be entirely without rational justification. Characters like Stoltenberg and the rest of NATO gloss over this obvious gap in their narrative to sell Russia as an unpredictable adversary and an enduring threat to Western Europe, as well as the United States. But by filling in this obvious gap in NATO’s logic, we can see who really benefits from turning Europe into a potential nuclear battlefield by stationing short-range nuclear weapons across the region.

Nuclear Battlefield Europe

It is Washington, not Germany nor Russia that opposes the Nord Stream 2 project. It is Washington who seeks to drive a wedge between Western European and Russian economic trade. It is Washington who seeks to galvanize – or coerce – Europe into a united front against Russia – even if it means compromising regional stability – both in terms of economics and security.

Washington – by withdrawing from the INF Treaty – doesn’t jeopardize the security of its own territory – but opens up a new dimension to an already ongoing nuclear arms race in the heart of Western Europe. It will be Western Europeans and Russians who face the consequences that emerge from the abandoning of the INF Treaty and any unpredictable – or even accidental – incidents that result from the stationing of short-range nuclear weapons across the region.

As pointed out many times before – NATO itself more than any external threat – represents the greatest danger to its member states in terms of pilfering national treasuries, miring nations in protracted wars and occupations thousands of miles from their own shores, and exposing member nations to the consequences of these wars including the deluge of refugees fleeing to Europe from them.

The US – by causing chaos and division both within Europe and between Europe and its trade partners – is able to continue exercising control over the continent – literally an ocean away from Washington DC.

The withdrawal from the INF Treaty and the dangerous arms race sure to follow is another example of the US playing the roles of arsonist and fire brigade as a means to maintain the relevance of the international order it constructed over the last century – an order the US serves as the self-appointed leader of.

In terms of simple economics and genuine European security – the United States could not be more irrelevant.

While Germany maintains the United States as its top export destination – the overall European and Asian regions by far contribute more to the German economy. Any instability or crisis in Europe would have an impact on the German economy its trade with the US would in no way compensate for. In terms of imports, the role of the US is even less.

While European trade with Russia is relatively small in comparison to inter-European trade, or with partners in Asia or even the US – Russian hydrocarbons serve an important role in European energy security. And while the cutting of ties between Europe and Russia would certainly hurt Russia more – the chaos used to cut those ties may disrupt stability within Europe itself – chaos that would impact inter-European trade – trade that ties with the US or Asia would not compensate for.

Washington plays a dangerous game, with short-range nuclear missiles being the latest point of leverage it seeks to use in prying Europe away from Russia. It is another illustration of just which nation’s government truly poses the greater threat not only to Europe, but to global peace, security and stability in general.

*

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.

All images in this article are from the author


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

WWIII Scenario

Trump and the World Economy

February 21st, 2019 by Leo Panitch

Martin Thomas (MT): I can see four main sorts of possible outcomes to be considered from Trump’s economic jousting.

One: it may reshape some deals, like NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement] to the USA’s advantage or imagined advantage, but after a flurry relations in the world markets will settle down much as before.

Two: By generally shaking up trade relations, and putting pressure on some of China’s protectionist policies, economic life around the world may settle after the jousting into a more “globalized” form, more subject to world-market rules.

Three: The jousting leaves a world-market system operating in much the same way as now, but with the USA now a rogue state on the edge of it rather than the pivotal state in the system. Maybe the system is organized around a new pivot, maybe China.

Four: The jousting begins a serious unravelling of the world-market order, a contraction of supply chains, a re-raising of trade barriers, a push to economic nationalism. The shift is moderate and limited for now, but escalates in the next big economic crisis.

Some articles in the new Socialist Register argue cogently that the third option is not a real possibility. What do you think about the others? And does this list map out accurately the possibilities we should consider?

Leo Panitch (LP): The list is about right. The main question, though, is: will the effects of Trump’s regime, not just his antics at an international level but his presidency itself, be to render the key American state institutions that have been responsible for firefighting financial crises incapable of being effective firefighters.

MT: Yes. As you argue in your book with Sam Gindin, The Making of Global Capitalism, the current world market order has not just evolved automatically: it has been made and managed by the U.S. state…

LP: The U.S. is already acting as a rogue state under Trump. But the system is so dependent on the role of the U.S. state within it, and the American economy, and the American dollar, so that it is difficult to see how the system can dispense with the centrality of the United States.

If Trump’s effects are longstanding, we may face a very dysfunctional system, but one that is not open to reorganization.

In that framework, and with the rise of right-wing xenophobic nationalisms, with some added militarist dimensions, I fear that this could lead to conditions of extreme nationalisms facing off against each other.

The limiting aspect is the degree of integration of the world bourgeoisies with one another. The kind of shift that the Ruhr industrialists [in Germany] undertook between 1928 and 1932 to back the Nazis is hard to see as on the cards given the degree of capitalist integration. That’s where the cloudy crystal ball leaves us.

MT: The centrality of the U.S. in managing the world economic order has not diminished, despite the 2008 crash and despite the fiasco of U.S. policy in Iraq. China’s holdings of Treasury paper are bigger than they were, not smaller. The dollar’s role in world trade has increased, not diminished.

LP: Yes, 88 per cent of transactions are now conducted through the dollar.

MT: At the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a common theory about it was that the USA was doing it in order to head off the euro taking over from the dollar at the centre of world trade.

LP: There were, possibly, policy-makers in the United States who thought that way. There were certainly loads of left-wing commentators who explained it that way. Neither group had much purchase on reality. As we see with Trump, sometimes U.S. policies are undertaken for reasons which are delusional. But most of the arguments inside the Bush administration were, I think, opportunist, of a militarist kind, or about re-establishing the supremacy of the executive vis-à-vis Congress.

Why the argument about the euro becoming the vehicle currency for Iraqi oil sales leading to its replacing the dollar as the world currency was other-worldly… even if you sold oil in euros, those could be exchanged in milliseconds for dollars. Insofar as big capitalists, institutional funds, corporations and so on find the dollar more useful, it is for a multitude of specific reasons to each of them. The dollar doesn’t hang there in mid-air. Its role is embedded in a set of institutions and practices and skills and knowledge which capitalists pay one another for.

The centrality of the City of London in changing the world’s currencies into dollars through derivatives markets and so on is deeply embedded in the institutions of the City of London, including the American banks operating there and the capitalist skills and knowledge built over centuries of British merchant banking. There is no other set of institutions now capable of replacing them. And that’s why, although there will be some marginal movements of jobs from the City of London, even the Bank of England’s most recent warnings about the effects of Brexit do not talk about the City of London being displaced from the role it plays in the dollar markets of the world.

In this very dysfunctional world, affected by Trump’s ascension to the presidency, it is remarkable that the dollar continues to have its centrality. That’s partly because the American economy has done relatively well, compared to others, in the decade since the fourth great crisis of capitalism, but it is also to do with the centrality of the institutions which sustain the dollar in the quotidian workings of global capitalism. But in the end it is because of capitalists’ confidence in the American state as the ultimate guarantor of property and value and wealth and capital, that the dollar remains so central.

MT: In your Socialist Register article with Sam Gindin (“Trumping the Empire”), you refer to the possibility of the central banks becoming the saviour of the existing order.

LP: This is a great irony. The motivation that drove making central banks independent from elected governments, especially in the era of globalization over the last 30 or 40 years, with the IMF virtually dictating to states that central banks must be made independent, was precisely to remove them from democratic pressures.

Above all, the motivation was the fear that working people, as voters, would opt for monetary policies that would provide room for wage increases – that would open the inflationary space that governments have been guarding against since they defeated trade unions in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Now these right-wing patriotic scoundrels who are being elected find that they can’t force the central banks to do their bidding so easily – above all Trump, and in relation to the Federal Reserve.

That really matters. There is plenty of evidence that the Treasury is being severely hampered by the Trump administration in the role it can play as a firefighter and as a functional actor in the global system.

You see that in the G20 meeting in Argentina [30 November and 1 December]. The G20 is essentially a creation of the United States Treasury, which always wrote the communiqués that were then signed by the finance ministers or by the heads of state. Now its is the senior officials of the other finance ministries who have to scramble to produce consensual texts, and the G20 can’t get the U.S. to sign on to them.

Just recently the Financial Times commented on the appointment of Randal Quarles to head the world Financial Stability Board. Quarles has been a long-time senior figure in the Federal Reserve, a smart functionary of the reproduction of capitalist social relations at a global level. The FSB, created in the wake of the 2008 crisis, was headed by Mark Carney [governor of the Bank of England] before him, and before that by Mario Draghi [chief of the European Central Bank]. The appointment of Quarles indicates that the Fed is putting a lot of resources into infrastructure which will keep the links between the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, and the Federal Reserve of a kind that will allow them to do the super-intendence over the transfers of dollars between the central banks and the general sort of coordination and firefighting that was done after 2008. That would indicate that the system is not quite as dysfunctional as it appears to be.

MT: You’ve discussed the possibility that the end-effect of Trump’s jousting will be to open up the Chinese economy more to world markets.

LP: Ever since Trump was elected, you’ve seen the Chinese, especially Xi, plugging the theme that the United States needs to live up to its global responsibilities.

China is the capitalist late-developer which has relied most in the whole history of capitalist development on foreign direct investment. In our essay in the new Socialist Register, Gindin and I quote Xi saying this earlier this year to a group of visiting foreign capitalists that they are going to remove some of their restrictions on foreign capital becoming majority owners of Chinese firms and on foreign financial institutions operating in China.

Removing those restrictions on foreign financial institutions has long been a main goal of Wall Street and previous American administrations – to allow a larger role in China for Goldman Sachs and the rest of them. The Chinese have also signalled that they will not be protecting as much their rights to technology transfer when firms invest in China. So Xi is prepared to move quite a distance. There are internal pressures from many Chinese capitalists themselves, who want a loosening of China’s capital controls.

The Chinese are very much the takers of this trade war. They are responding, to be sure, in ways which are designed to inflict some harm on, for example, American farmers producing soy which is exported to China, and are having some effects on U.S. construction companies who rely on Chinese wood products. But the Chinese are not leading this trade war. They are trying to find ways to mollify Trump. All this suggests to me that it is possible that Trump will get his way.

At the same time, the Chinese Communist-capitalists are also nationalists. All of the great Third World Communist-revolutionary movements were in very good part nationalist movements.

How far they can be pushed is a significant question. If you read the essays by Lin Chun and Sean Starrs in Socialist Register 2019, the heavy dose of nationalism that defines the ideology of this Chinese leadership, and especially Xi, may mean that they can’t be pushed too far.

On 1 December, Canadian authorities, at the demand of the U.S. seeking her extradition, arrested Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of Huawei and daughter of the founder, someone who has been described as a member of Chinese corporate royalty, on the grounds that her firm has allegedly been involved in breaching American sanctions against Iran. This has produced a furore in China. These things can get out of hand.

It would be misleading, when we look at the structural conditions that put limits on the whole system falling apart, to think that these contingent things can’t have effect. We need to watch this closely. It is not only people of our political orientation who are watching Washington with bated breath.

American capitalists, and the world’s capitalists, are watching with bated breath.

MT: It’s said that the economic jousting between the USA and China isn’t fundamentally about tariffs and trade; it’s about technology transfer and the U.S. wanting to maintain its technological lead.

LP: That’s an important dimension. A lot is done in the U.S., for example on microchips, to limit the Chinese to being assemblers. The Chinese have a very explicit goal of becoming, by the 2030s, fully adept in the technologies themselves. It is clearly a concern of the Americans.

The technology transfer issue has long-term economic dimensions to it, but it also has military-strategic-intelligence dimensions. It does reflect – some of the kinds of behaviour and motivations that defined the old inter-imperial rivalries. Some of it has to do with the capacities of rival military and security apparatuses. The fact that China and Russia are not in NATO and are not in the global intelligence and security establishment that operates under the rubric of the United States. The so-called “five eyes,” Anglo-American countries (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), are at the core of that establishment. The key historical determinant even of Clinton’s and Blair’s view of the world was that Russia and China were not subjected to postwar state reconstruction by American military occupation as Japan and Western Europe were.

MT: The new Socialist Register has material expressing a sceptical view on the prospects of the Belt and Road Initiative [Chinese-sponsored infrastructure development and investment in a range of countries, launched since 2013, to develop a new China-centred trade network].

LP: Yes, I think, we have to take the evidence on this in the outstanding essays by Sean Starrs and Lin Chun very seriously. They show very clearly not only the economic contradictions which have emerged with the Belt and Road Initiative, but also the extent to which China is seen by many other states in southeast Asia in the light of a an imperial power posing the main threat to their national sovereignty.

This is what most people overlook when they see China as forming Asia as a whole into a regional counter-power to the USA, and especially in south-east Asia, China is seen by other nationalist forces as their main enemy. That dimension is largely overlooked when people speak of a multipolar world in which China dominates Asia. As well as the economic limits of the Belt and Road Initiative, there is a very important historical, cultural-nationalist-imperial dimension.

MT: World capitalism is much more integrated in the late 20s and early 30s, and you mentioned that when saying that it is hard to think of the bourgeoisie in any country swinging behind ultra-nationalist forces as heavy industry in Germany swung behind the Nazis.

But there’s another variant historically. In the period up to World War One, people like Bernstein would argue that the degree of integration of capital across borders was such as to make war less and less likely. Writers like Trotsky responded that it was an integration which tended to set up large rival alliances.

The world order became one, not just of molecular struggles between states, but of jousting between large rival alliances. That created the conditions for World War One.

There was a lot of talk in the early 90s about world capitalism developing into three great regional blocs, one dominated by the U.S., one dominated by the EU, and one dominated by Japan. It was mistaken.

What you’ve said about China is an argument against reviving that regional-bloc thesis today. Does that mean the thesis is pretty much ruled out?

LP: Who knows? Karl Kautsky (1854 – 1938) around World War One saw a ruling-class condominium developing among the big capitalist states, along the lines of the Paris discussions which led to the Treaty of Versailles. It didn’t turn out to be all that stable, did it? The flaw in Kautsky’s understanding was that he saw it as a matter of coordination among ruling classes who were accumulating still within the boundaries of their own states or territorial empires. But especially in the second half of the 20th century there was an interpenetration of capital around the world – the material, structural underpinning to the trade and investment agreements made by governments.

It became a different world than that of World War One.

The question we began discussing today was whether the political effects of the current Trump administration will be so dysfunctional as to get in the way of the reproduction of the integration. This is so important to analyse precisely because the economic integration has also produced contradictions, which are increasingly severe in the 21st century. These contradictions partly have to do with the crisis-prone nature of the very volatile global financial system which is essential to tying together global production. They also have to do with the domestic consequences, in class terms, of the ever-greater inequalities of power, income, and wealth which this integrated capitalism produces as states compete to get capital landing inside of them.

Insofar as the world we are living in is increasingly prone to severe contradictions, extending beyond the two I have mentioned to all kinds of morbid symptoms ranging from the climate crisis to the migration crisis and the xenophobia that attends it, we need to see those symptoms as opening up possibilities in terms of revolutionary transformations within particular states which would then have international implications.

But, at the same time, given the weaknesses of the left and of the working classes, those transformations are not going to be triggered by the type of events we’ve seen in Paris [with the “gilets jaunes”], that is, another round of inflammatory protest movements. Since the 1930s, some Trotskyist analysis has been premised on the notion that capitalism is over-ripe for revolution… and thus its fall can be triggered by unexpected conflagrations of any type, which will then have international effects like a falling row of dominoes. I am not of the view that capitalism is, in its material base, “over-ripe for revolution.”

MT: I agree. I know that idea has become a common theme in would-be Trotskyist literature, but I think it comes more from Third Period Stalinism.

LP: So it does.

*

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 Workers’ Liberty.

Leo Panitch is emeritus professor of political science at York University, co-editor (with Greg Albo) of the Socialist Register and author (with Sam Gindin) of The Making of Global Capitalism (Verso).

Images in this article are from The Bullet unless otherwise stated

Russia will press for putting the White Helmets on trial for crimes committed in Syria, including faked videos of chemical attacks, the director of the Foreign Ministry’s department of new challenges and threats, Ilya Rogachyov, told TASS in an interview on February 20.

“The leading Western countries have failed to place the struggle against terrorism above their own time-serving political interests. In the sphere of international counter-terrorist cooperation various selective approaches thrive. Terrorists are rated as ‘bad’ and ‘not very bad’. Countries are being forced to agree with the concept of ‘resistance to violent extremism’ and its dangerous elements that create situations for ousting ‘disfavored’ governments,” Rogachyov said. “The Western sponsors are keen to present the contractors on their payroll in a favorable light as ‘envoys of peace’ in order to use this as a cover to push ahead with political destabilization scenarios.”

“We are determined to push ahead with and safeguard Russia’s foreign policy positions in order to ensure the White Helmets’ crimes in Syria and their attempts to mislead the international community by means of fake chemical weapons attacks attributed to the Syrian government forces, just as any other terrorist activity, should be thoroughly investigated and put on trial,” Rogachyov said.

*

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

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

Featured image is from PravdaReport

Recently I have had several journalists, academics and progressive activists ask me my opinion on some of the key economic questions of the day. Here are some of my replies: on Trump tax cuts and US growth, current immigration debates, wages, expanding income inequality in the US, on what is the real rate of inflation today, and whether proposals for universal guaranteed income, debt jubilee, Modern Money Theory, green new deal are solutions to today’s economic problems.

Question 1: Is US economic growth under Trump due to his tax cut policy and what is the future of average or low wage Americans today?

Dr. Rasmus: The nominally higher US GDP growth in 2017-18 has little to do with the Trump tax cuts. The Trump tax cuts passed in early 2018 amounted to more than $4.5 trillion over the decade, targeting to wealthy households, businesses, investors and corporations, which have been ‘front-loaded’ in 2018. Offsetting this are $1.5 trillion in tax hikes for wage earners, that begins to hit this year and accelerates after 2022. Assumptions about 3% GDP growth for another decade, with no recession, produces a further offsetting of $1.5 trillion. The net result supposedly is the $1.5 trillion reported by the press. But the $4.5 trillion cuts for business and investors have not gone into real investment and generated the Trump 2017-18 GDP growth rates.

Real investment in structures and equipment declined steadily over 2018 as the Trump tax cuts took effect: measured in percent terms compared to the preceding quarter, residential construction was negative every quarter in 2018. Commercial construction, with a lag, turned negative in the second half of 2018. And equipment spending fell from 8.5% in the first quarter to 3.4% by October 2018.

So if the Trump tax cuts did not go into real investment, creating real employment and real GDP where did it go? It went into stock buybacks, dividend payouts, and M&A activity. Several US banks’ research departments estimate buybacks plus dividends for just the Fortune 500 largest companies in the US will reach a record $1.3 trillion in 2018. Add the largest 2000 or 5000 companies and its close to $2 trillion. Hundreds of billions more for M&A. This diversion of the Trump tax cuts to financial markets is the main determinant driving stock markets (even after corrections) and other financial asset markets.

The government grossly over-reports wage gains for the average and low paid workers in the US. Independent source reports show that more than half of US workers received no wage gain at all in 2018. The official reported wage gains of 3% are skewed to the top 10% of the labor force, dragging up the ‘average’ wage. Moreover, the data is for full time employed only, leaving out tens of millions of part time-temp workers’ wages. And it doesn’t adequately account for local taxes and interest on debt that reduces the take home wage further. Then inflation is under-estimated, making the real wage appear higher. So average workers at best stagnated, with most experiencing a decline in real wages. The rate of inflation in the US is especially under-estimated for median worker family households, while inflation is rising for rents, medical, education, and other major items in household budgets. So the immediate future will mean even less real wage gains for the majority of US workers. If workers were doing so well today, as Trump and the business and mainstream press report, why is it that 7 million of them have defaulted on their auto loans? Probably a like amount for education loans, the defaults of which are grossly under-reported. And why is credit card, auto loans, and education loan debt now all over $1 trillion each? And total household debt load approaching $14 trillion?

Question 2: With undocumented immigrants at 10-12 million, do you believe Trump’s claim that immigrants are invading the US economy?

Dr. Rasmus: Immigrants are certainly not invading the US. The 10-12 million number has been stable for several years. And for immigrants for some countries, like Mexico, the numbers are in sharp decline. It is true that more immigrants are coming from central American countries like Honduras, Salvador and Guatemala. But that is due to the economic crises and violent breakdown of the social order in those countries, which is due largely to US support for the corrupt elites of those countries who encourage the gang violence in their countries and do nothing about the economic crises. If there is a problem with immigration in the US, it is a problem of highly educated tech workers being brought in on H1-B and L-1 visas, and rich Asians who can buy themselves a ‘green card’ residency by promising to spend $50,000 when they come. These groups are taking the best jobs, the high paying tech and other professional jobs, and have been since the 1990s. But Trump is agreeing with the US tech companies to keep bringing them in, taking jobs US workers should and could get. Trump’s immigration policy and draconian action against immigrants from Latin America and elsewhere is about his re-election plans in 2020. By creating ‘enemies’ within and outside the US, he diverts his political base from the real problems of America. Blame the foreigner in our midst has always been a useful fascist argument. And Trump is marching down that road, as witnessed in his latest Constitutional power grab by declaring national emergencies to build his Wall and invoking phony national security to justify his trade wars.

Question 3: Do you believe the widening gap between rich and poor in the era of Trump can boost Americans interest in socialism?

Dr. Rasmus: The income and wealth gaps in the US are not only widening but doing so at an accelerating pace. US neoliberal policy under Obama was to subsidize capital incomes through Federal Reserve cheap money and by extending and expanding his predecessor, George W. Bush, tax cuts for business and investors. He gave more than $5 trillion in tax cuts to business and investors, more than even Bush. Trump policy has accelerated the tax cuts even further and he’s now stopped the Fed from raising interest rates. So we have subsidization on steroids now by both fiscal and monetary policy. The direct consequence is booming stock and corporate bond markets, fed by $1 trillion annual stock buybacks and dividend payouts every year since 2011 (now at record $1.3 trillion in 2018). As wage incomes for the 90% of Americans remain stagnant, barely rise, or decline, the direct consequence is accelerating income inequality and wealth gaps. But it’s mainly due to the shift toward financial profits by American (and increasingly global) capitalists that’s been building since the 1980s.

Will this boost interest in socialism? It already has. A clear majority, well over 60%, of people aged 34 and younger in the work force, have indicated in various recent polls that they prefer socialism over capitalism. It’s not by accident, therefore, that Trump and the US business press has been launching an offensive to attack the idea of socialism once again. This shift in public opinion will continue as the Trump policies continue to create a growing gap in income, wealth and opportunity in America.

Question 4: Some critics of US economic statistics on inflation say that inflation may be as high as 9.6% or at least more than 5%. What’s your view on this?

Dr. Rasmus: I agree the CPI rate is actually higher. I don’t think it’s 9.6%, but certainly not 2.1% (core) or 2.4% (headline). The Shadow Stats source has long critiqued US stats, including inflation. Also, employment and wage data, both of which I’ve been criticizing this past year. The CPI is higher than reported for several reasons. First, as Shadow Stats notes, they make arbitrary assumptions about product quality improvements that lower the actual rate. Second, they use what’s called ‘chain price indexing’ that smooths out, and lowers, the rate over time. Third, the weights for the basket of goods in the CPI is outdated. This is especially true for median income and below families. There should be different weights and definition of the basket for different levels of income, but there isn’t. Middle income and below families are experiencing greater inflation due to rising drug and health prices, rising local taxes and utilities, rising interest rates on mortgages, and rising rents. Rent prices are under-reported in particular since they are smoothed out by including what’s called ‘imputed rents’; that is, assumptions about home owners paying themselves a rent (yes, that’s illogical but true in the methodology), which hasn’t changed much for years but, when added to direct rents, results in a lower average. There’s also issues with how the data is collected on prices.

Of course, we’re talking here about prices for goods and services. Not prices for financial assets which have accelerated several fold since 2009, as bubbles have grown. I suspect that real CPI is about 3.5% to 4%, not the 2.1%. That of course means that real US GDP is not 3% in 2018 but actually less than 1% in real terms. (The price index for GDP real adjustment is the GDP deflator index, which is notoriously even lower than the CPI (or the PCE, which the Fed uses).

Watch the first quarter 2019 GDP come in closer to 1% in official reporting later this spring. That means the Trump tax cuts of more than $4 trillion over the coming decade, front loaded in 2018, have had very little effect on real GDP. Most of it has gone to stock buybacks, dividend payouts and M&A financing. Buybacks pus dividends for the just the Fortune 500 will equal around $1.3 trillion for 2018, a record. Real investment has been sliding throughout 2018, when the tax cuts took effect. Residential construction contracted every quarter. Commercial construction lagged, but turned negative as well in the second half of the year. And equipment investment declined from 8.5% at the beginning of 2018 to 3%-4% by the end. It’s a real fiction that Trump tax cuts are responsible for the 3% plus growth in 2018. It’s mostly been due to government spending, especially defense, and to consumption driven by household debt for the bottom 80%, although nicely rising compensation for the top 10% has driven consumption as well. Trump cut paycheck withholding in 2018 so that average households would think the tax cut was putting more money in their wallets. But it wasn’t. And now, in 2019, most households will start feeling the bite of more taxes. The $4 to $4.5 trillion actual Trump tax cuts are going to the wealthiest individuals, businesses, and corporations, especially the US multinationals. That will be offset by $1.5 trillion in tax hikes for wage earners, which really starts to hit about 2022. Plus phony assumptions about 3% plus GDP growth rates for the next decade, with no recession. That’s how Trump gets his $1.5 trillion total deficit from the tax cuts. It’s a big fiction that the press also fails to report. Reporters are either stupid or the policy is to report the $1.5 trillion.

In other words, it’s not just price stats that are inaccurate, but GDP, wages and jobs data as well. The only thing holding up the house of cards is debt. For households now approaching $14 trillion. For the national government now $22 trillion (and going to $34 trillion by 2028). For state and local governments, trillions more. And for private business well over $20 trillion more. A big problem with leveraged loan debt, junk rate corporate debt, half of investment grade (i.e. BBB) which is also ‘junk’, and who knows what in derivatives and margin borrowing by investors.

Question 5: Progressive proponents of public banking, and what’s called modern monetary theory, both believe that the Federal Reserve could simply create money for all citizens’ economic benefit, not just for the banks. What’s your view on this? And specifically on the idea of a guaranteed basic income, what’s called a debt jubilee of legal forgiveness of debts of households, and a green new deal?

Dr. Rasmus: The Fed isn’t feeding the banks to avoid a recession; the Fed is feeding the financial markets to prevent a third major contraction since Feb. 2018 that is coming. Cheap money in excess keeps rates low (or in this case prevents them from rising further). But the money doesn’t go into real investment. It goes into asset markets (or flows offshore to emerging markets), or into M&A activity, or into stock buybacks and dividend payouts in the trillions annually (this year $1.3 trillion, after 6 years of an average of a trillion a year).

Yes, the Fed could provide credit to households and non-banks, but that’s not why it was created. It was created, like all central banks, to subsidize the banks with cheap credit and to bail them out when they binge too much and create a crisis. In the postscript to my 2017 book, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’, I provide language for legislation (and a constitutional amendment) that would radically change the mission of the Fed to serve all society not just bankers and investors. But the Fed was set up in 1913 to only lend to the banks, and since 2018 the shadow banks which now control more assets than the commercial banks like Chase, Wells, Citi, etc.

As for proposing a Debt Jubilee that’s just nonsense. So long as there’s a capitalist system the capitalists will never allow a debt forgiveness on a major scale. You’d have to change the system before to allow it.

What about guaranteed basic income? Something like that is inevitable. McKinsey Consultants recently estimated that Artificial Intelligence technology, or AI, will destroy 30% of all the job occupations in the US by 2030. Already more than 50 million of the US labor force are part time, temp, gig or what’s called ‘contingent’ or precariat labor force. They’re working two and three part time jobs to make ends meet and still can’t. AI will drive that total to well over half of the labor force. The system just can’t manage that many low and underpaid workers. Consumption will collapse, despite providing ever more household debt to fund consumption. However, as most are proposing guaranteed basic income now, it smacks of welfare and that makes it an easy ideological target for capitalists. It’s all about raising wages and creating real jobs that families can survive on. We need to be more creative than just UBI. But it does bring attention to the crisis of insufficient wage income for tens of millions of Americans, mostly young workers and the older that are forced to work into their seventies and until they drop.

Funding medicare for all? It’s possible to envision how the Fed, as the epicenter of a public banking system (part of my proposal) could provide funding for the infrastructure for medicare for all, in a new layer of clinics and public doctor offices locally. But the real funding for Medicare for all should come from taxing financial markets. That would be more acceptable to voters. Ditto for Green New Deal initiatives.

Progressives enamored with public banking or other monetary solutions (i.e. Modern Monetary Theory advocates) tend to over estimate the potential for monetary solutions to the economic crisis now maturing long run, as real investment continues to slow, productivity falls, prices tend toward stagnation and deflation (wages, interest rates, goods & services), global growth slows, and capitalists turn increasingly to financial asset markets to make their profits instead of past approaches of making things and new services that are useful and provide income for consumption. That is the ‘slow grinding crisis’ of capitalism today.

I support a public bank, but only as a small part of a larger solution that must include fiscal policy, industrial policy, and external (trade, exchange rate, money flows) policies. Money and banking are only part of the new program needed. But the program means nothing without political organization. The lack of that is the key characteristic of the time we live in. It all comes down to the organization question. Where can people turn to participate in realizing the new ideas? Not the Democratic Party. Certain not the Trumpublicans (there’s no Republican Party left, it’s now Trump’s). And the unions, as they grow weaker, turn to the Dems to save their ass. So forget a labor party based on the unions. That’s nostalgia of the 1930s. Won’t come again.

MMT theory is just another equilibrium theory that concludes that money can be created without limit, just use it for progressive programs. I don’t believe that. The Fed’s free money for the bankers and investors since 1980, and especially since 2000, and accelerating after 2009, is leading to unsustainable deficits and debt. The $22 trillion will be $34 trillion in less than ten years. And the interest on it will be $900 billion a year, per the CBO. That means capitalists will either have to give up their tax cuts, reduce their war spending budget, or….massively attack social security, medicare, education, etc. Guess which one is coming? The Trumpublicans make no apologies for it; and the Dems lie about how they won’t either.

Meanwhile, Sanders keeps acting the political Don Quixote tilting at the Dem party, trying to reform it, which keeps shitting on him and will do so perpetually. The Warrens, Bookers, and other ersatz progressives will ‘talk the talk’, the Dem party moneybags and leaders will encourage them to do so in order to outflank and dissipate Sanders’ progressive message, but in the end whomever of the progressives gets the next Dem presidential 2020 nomination, the Party leaders will ditch their proposals and programs and bring them in line. Don’t forget Obama in 2008, sounding like a progressive, but once in office put the bankers back in charge of his administration. But Biden’s the front runner anyway. So it’s not likely the party will even choose Warren, Booker, or any of the other ersatz progressive wannabes and Sanders clones.

In short, while I’ve probably written more about central bankers and financial markets than most ‘on the left’ (latest book coming in March is ‘Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed’), I’m not a proponent of primary reliance on monetary policy and banking system restructuring as a solution. And nothing matters without having first resolved the ‘organization question’.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Jack Rasmus.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Big Economic Questions of the Day: Trump Tax Cuts, Economic Growth, Inflation. Monetary Policy. Undocumented Immigrants
  • Tags: ,

One of the latest American scandals revolves around former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s alleged breach of ethical norms in trying to secretly push through a nuclear energy deal with the Saudis which might have even been illegal if he tried to circumvent the so-called “123 agreement”, though his partnered company at the time hit back against these accusations and the claims that this represented a conflict of interest by defending their actions as necessary for the US to compete with Russia.

The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives just opened an investigation into whether former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn breached ethical norms by trying to secretly push through a nuclear energy deal with the Saudis, one that might have also been illegal if he tried to circumvent the so-called “123 agreement” that entails safety guarantees and prevents the recipient state from abusing this technology to potentially develop nuclear weapons.

Critics are also decrying the optics of an obvious conflict of interest after it was revealed that he was an advisor for a subsidiary of the IP3 International company that ended up officially making the proposal during the first weeks of Trump’s Presidency while Flynn was still with the Administration, though the company defended its actions by saying that everything it did was within the law and designed to help the US compete with Russia in the Kingdom.

Most observers have probably paid little if no attention to it, but Russia has leveraged its world-class nuclear energy expertise over the years in order to expand its influence in accordance with the model that the author wrote about in his September 2017 article about how “Russia’s nuclear diplomacy has returned Moscow’s global strategic reach”. The gist is that Moscow understands that all nuclear energy deals are more than just about constructing a reactor but tacitly entail the clinching of a strategic partnership that transcends the energy sphere and lays the trust-building basis for more comprehensive state-to-state relations further down the line. One month later, the Saudi King paid the first-ever visit to Russia in history, which prompted the author to ask whether Saudi Arabia was recalibrating its grand strategy in a piece that he published at the time titled “Is Saudi Arabia’s Grand Strategy Shifting?

Evidently it was, or at least enough to convince Rosatom to announce a month afterwards in November 2017 that it wants to take part in a bid to construct 16 nuclear reactors in the Kingdom, a full 15 more than Russia built in nearby Iran. While no tangible work has been undertaken in this respect thus far, that doesn’t mean that Russian-Saudi ties haven’t continued to improve in the intervening period. The Khashoggi scandal saw Saudi Arabia’s former Western “partners” team up against it in an effort to put multilateral pressure on the country and “isolate” it, which failed because of Russia’s refusal to jump on the bandwagon. That’s why the author remarked last fall that “It Turns Out That Saudi Arabia Isn’t Exactly An American Puppet After All”, which was confirmed by President Putin and Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) famously sharing a brotherly handshake at the G20 in defiance of the West.

That wasn’t the first time that the two leaders behaved real chummy in public either, since MBS reappeared in Russia after a suspicious month-long absence from public life during the opening match of the World Cup in Moscow, the significance of which the author elaborated upon in his piece titled “He Lives! MBS’ First Foreign Trip Since His Disappearance Will Be To Moscow”. The Putin-MBS bonhomie is attributable every bit as much to their two Great Powers’ converging geopolitical interests in the Mideast and overlapping energy ones in OPEC+ as it is to their personal affinity for one another. President Putin has tremendous respect for the young Saudi’s extraordinarily rapid rise to power in such a cutthroat environment as his Kingdom’s royal politics, while MBS deeply appreciates that the Russian leader did the sword dance with his father during his visit in 2007 and even received the Order of King Abdulaziz:

Photo ITAR-TASS / Dmitry Astakhov

With the world having seen the writing on the wall over a decade ago that Russian-Saudi relations were increasingly taking on the strategic nature that they’d later unquestionably embody almost a year after Trump’s election following the Saudi King’s visit to Moscow, it’s little wonder that IP3 International realized that it would have to act fast through Flynn if the US wanted to stand any chance of competing with Russia in the Kingdom, ergo the ongoing scandal over the former National Security Advisor’s alleged promotion of his partner’s nuclear energy deal. That’s not to say that anything illegal transpired, but just that there was veritably a sense of urgency to push through the proposal in order to not lose out to the Russians, so it’s conceivable that some ethical corners might have been cut along the way.

About those, there’s nothing new about potential conflicts of interest occurring in the US or anywhere else in the world for that matter, and it’s an illusion to believe that nuclear energy deals are always concluded after a period of truly competitive bidding results in the recipient state making a strictly independent decision on which country to partner with. That said, it does appear as though IP3 International skirted the US’ “official ethical norms” by more than likely using Flynn as their “deep state” lobbyist for promoting their plans, which they justified in the interests of competing with Russia. Seeing as how US-Saudi ties have only gotten worse in the past two years while Russian-Saudi ones have unprecedentedly improved to their best-ever point in history, it can be said that this risky gambit failed and now Flynn might be forced to pay the consequences.

*

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 Photo ITAR-TASS / Vladimir Rodionov

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

At present we are not covering our monthly costs. The support of our readers is much appreciated. 

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

*     *     *

Canadian Policy on Venezuela, Haiti Reveals Hypocrisy that Media Ignores

By Yves Engler, February 20, 2019

If the dominant media was serious about holding the Canadian government to account for its foreign policy decisions, there would be numerous stories pointing out the hypocrisy of Ottawa’s response to recent political developments in Haiti and Venezuela.

Venezuela Expels Euro Deputies Amid Reports of Talks with Washington

By Paul Dobson, February 20, 2019

The European politicians, who travelled in a personal capacity, had previously been warned through diplomatic channels that they would not be allowed in the country, but the group opted to proceed with the trip.

Video: Staged Chemical Attack Videos and Other Trends in Modern Propaganda

By South Front, February 20, 2019

The scandal regarding the fake hospital video published by the White Helmets as a proof of the Douma chemical attack has reached its peak in the media and has caused reaction on the diplomatic level.

Political Correctness Demands Diversity in Everything but Thought

By William Blum, February 20, 2019

The Islamic State, you see, is composed of Muslims, and the United States and its Western allies have bombed many Muslim countries in the recent past killing thousands of Muslims and causing widespread horror. Therefore, whatever ISIS and its allies do is “revenge”, simple revenge, and should not be condemned by anyone calling himself a progressive; least of all should violence be carried out against these poor aggrieved jihadists.

Survey Reveals Many Jewish Canadians Critical of Israel

By Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, February 20, 2019

The survey, conducted by EKOS Research from June to September 2018, reveals that contrary to public opinion, Jewish Canadians have a broad range of opinions on Israel-Palestine. It also reveals that a significant number of Jewish Canadians are critical of the Israeli government and its human rights abuses against Palestinians.

Military Coups, Regime Change…: The CIA Has Interfered In Over 81 Foreign Elections…

By Nina Agrawal, February 20, 2019

The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it’s done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

Challenging Dollar Hegemony: Russia and China Are Containing America’s Attempts to “Reshape the World Order”

By Federico Pieraccini, February 19, 2019

China and Russia are leading this historic transition while being careful to avoid direct war with the United States. To succeed in this endeavor, they use a hybrid strategy involving diplomacy, military support to allies, and economic guarantees to countries under Washington’s attack.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Political Correctness Demands Diversity in Everything but Thought

2018 was a pivotal year for data protection. First the Cambridge Analytica scandal put a spotlight on Facebook’s questionable privacy practices. Then the new Data Protection Act and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) forced businesses to better handle personal data.

As these events continue to develop, 2019 is shaping up to be a similarly consequential year for free speech online as new forms of digital censorship assert themselves in the UK and EU.

Of chief concern in the UK are several initiatives within the Government’s grand plan to “make Britain the safest place in the world to be online”, known as the Digital Charter. Its founding document proclaims “the same rights that people have offline must be protected online.”  That sounds a lot like Open Rights Group’s mission! What’s not to like?

Well, just as surveillance programmes created in the name of national security proved detrimental to privacy rights, new Internet regulations targeting “harmful content” risk curtailing free expression.

The Digital Charter’s remit is staggeringly broad. It addresses just about every conceivable evil on the Internet from bullying and hate speech to copyright infringement, child pornography and terrorist propaganda. With so many initiatives developing simultaneously it can be easy to get lost.

To gain clarity, Open Rights Group published a report surveying the current state of digital censorship in the UK. The report is broken up into two main sections –  formal censorship practices like copyright and pornography blocking, and informal censorship practices including ISP filtering and counter terrorism activity. The report shows how authorities, while often engaging in important work, can be prone to mistakes and unaccountable takedowns that lack independent means of redress.

Over the coming weeks we’ll post a series of excerpts from the report covering the following:

Formal censorship practices

  • Copyright blocking injunctions

  • BBFC pornography blocking

  • BBFC requests to “Ancillary Service Providers”

Informal censorship practices

  • Nominet domain suspensions

  • The Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU)

  • The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF)

  • ISP content filtering

The big picture

Take a step back from the many measures encompassed within the Digital Charter and a clear pattern emerges. When it comes to web blocking, the same rules do not apply online as offline. Many powers and practices the government employs to remove online content would be deemed unacceptable and arbitrary if they were applied to offline publications.

Part II of our report is in the works and will focus on threats to free speech within yet another branch of the Digital Charter known as the Internet Safety 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.

Featured image is from Distract The Media

Foreign Minister Arreaza has confirmed meeting twice with US Special Envoy Abrams despite denials by the latter of any dialogue with Caracas.

***

Venezuelan authorities have expelled six deputies of the European Parliament (EP) this Sunday after denying them entrance to the country.

The European politicians, who travelled in a personal capacity, had previously been warned through diplomatic channels that they would not be allowed in the country, but the group opted to proceed with the trip.

The delegation was made up of MEP Esteban Gonzalez Pons, MEP Jose Ignacio Salafranca, and MEP Gabriel Mato, all from Spain’s hard-right Popular Party. Also present were MEP Juan Salafranca from Spain’s European People’s Party; MEP Esther de Lange of the Dutch Christian Democratic party, and MEP Paulo Rangel from Portugal’s Social Democratic Party.

Amongst other planned activities, they were to meet with self-proclaimed “Interim President” Juan Guaido while in Caracas. The EP and a number of European countries have followed the US in recognising Guaido as the legitimate president of the country.

Following their denied entry, the deputies accepted an invitation from Colombia’s Foreign Ministry to travel to the Venezuelan-Colombian border city of Cucuta to attend a concert sponsored by Virgin CEO Richard Branson on Saturday, when Guaido plans to see US-supplied “humanitarian aid” cross the border, despite orders from Maduro to block it.

Venezuela’s Foreign Office justified the MEPs’ expulsion, claiming the right-leaning politicians were looking to “conspire” while in the country.

“The group of Euro deputies which looked to visit the country with conspiring objectives had been informed some days ago that they would not be allowed in, and we insisted that they desist [from travelling] so as to avoid another provocation,” Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza stated Monday.

“[The Venezuelan government] will not allow the European extreme right from breaking the peace and stability of the country with another grotesque act of intervention. Venezuela must be respected!” he continued.

EP President Antonio Tajani reacted angrily to the move, calling on the European Council to take reciprocal measures against what he called “the latest outrage.”

“Maduro’s regime stops MEPs from doing their job by expelling them. More proof that he is a dictator. I hope that the European Council will respond with measures in line with this latest outrage,” he stated.

The diplomatic incident comes as reports emerged of dialogue between the Trump administration and senior Maduro government officials.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza confirmed reports that he had held two meetings with US Special Envoy to Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, both in US territory. He also stated that there is to be another encounter next week.

Unnamed sources told the Associated Press that the meetings took place on January 26 and February 11, both at the request of US authorities.

“[Abrams] was accompanied by Under-Secretary of State Kimberly Breier (…) there were moments of tension, there are deep differences, but at the same time there are shared concerns,” Arreaza told teleSUR.

“If we have to meet with the Devil himself, if we have to go to the center of the Earth (…) to defend the sovereignty of Venezuela and demand respect (…) we will, and we are,” he continued.

While few details of the meetings have been made public, it has been reported that Abrams was invited to visit Venezuela “privately, publically, or secretly,” yet it is unclear if the US Special Envoy will take Caracas up on the offer.

*

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 El Estimulo

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Venezuela Expels Euro Deputies Amid Reports of Talks with Washington

Foreign intervention has pushed many Middle Eastern populations into poverty, at the same time making them more determined to confront and reject the global domination sought by the USA. The number of Middle Eastern countries and non-state actors opposed to the US coalition is relatively small and weak by comparison with the opposite camp, but they have nevertheless shaken the richer and strongest superpower together with its oil-rich Middle Eastern allies who were the investors and the instigators of recent wars. They have coalesced as a Resistance movement attracting global support, even in the face of unprecedented propaganda warfare in the mass media.

The soft power of the US coalition has been undermined domestically and abroad from the blatant deceit intrinsic in the project of supporting jihadist takfiri gangs to terrorize, rape and kill Christian, Sunni, secular, and other civilian populations while allegedly fighting a global war on Islamic terrorism.

The small countries targeted by the US coalition are theoretically and strategically important due to their vicinity to Israel. Notwithstanding the scarcity of their resources and their relatively small number of allies in comparison with the opposite camp, they have rejected any reconciliation on the terms offered by Israel.

Israel itself is progressively revealing more overt reconciliation and ties with oil-rich Arab countries: we see Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strolling in Warsaw, discussing and shaking hands with Arab leaders. These are obviously not first meetings: recent years have shown a progressively warming rapport and openness between Israel and many Arab leaders.

These Middle East countries have long been supportive of Israel’s aggression against Lebanon and its inhabitants. And in the last decade, this support expanded to include a plot against the Palestinians, Syria and Iraq.

The US has exerted huge pressure on Syria since 2003, following the invasion of Iraq. During Secretary of State Colin Powell’s visit to Damascus in March 2003 he offered long-lasting governance to President Bashar al-Assad in exchange for submission: Assad was asked to sell out Hamas and Hezbollah, and thus join the road map for the “new Middle East”.

When Powell’s intimidation failed, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the US’s main Arab allies and the countries responsible for cash pay-outs to help the US establishment achieve its goals (and those of Israel), promised to inject untold gold and wealth into Syria.

Assad was not willing to comply with this US-Saudi influence and pressure. The influence belonged to the US; Saudi Arabia and Qatar stood behind, holding the moneybags. A war against the Syrian state became essential, and its objectives and prospective benefits immense.

In a few paragraphs, this is what the seven years of war in Syria were about:

The Palestinian cause was pushed to the periphery by the mushrooming of ISIS, a group that terrorised the Middle East and participated in the destruction of the region’s infrastructure, killing thousands of its people and draining its wealth. It was also responsible for numerous attacks around the globe, extending from the Middle East into Europe. ISIS didn’t attack Israel even though it was based on its borders under the name of “Jayesh Khaled Bin al-Waleed.” Nor did al-Qaeda attack Israel, although it also bordered Israel for years, enjoying Israeli intelligence support–and even medical care!

All this was done in order to destroy Syria: dividing the state into zones of influence, with Turkey taking a big chunk (Aleppo, Afrin, Idlib); the Kurds realising their dream by taking over Arab and Assyrian lands in the northeast to create a land of Rojava linked with Iraqi Kurdistan; Israel taking the Golan Heights permanently and creating a buffer zone by grabbing more territory in Quneitra; creating a failed state where jihadist and mercenary groups would fight each other endlessly for dominance; gathering all jihadists into their favourite and most sacred destination (Bilad al-Sham – The Levant) and sealing them into “Islamic Emirates”.

It also involved, strategically, stopping the flow of weapons from Iran through Damascus to Hezbollah in Lebanon; weakening the Iranian-Syrian-Iraqi-Lebanese “Axis of Resistance” by removing Syria from it; preparing for another war against Lebanon once Syria was wiped off the map; stealing Syria’s oil and gas resources on land and in the Mediterranean; building a gas pipeline from Qatar to Europe to cripple Russia’s economy; and finally removing Russia from the Levant together with its naval base on the coast.

At no point in the Syrian war was a single leader proposed to rule the country and replace Bashar al-Assad. The plan was to establish a zone of anarchy with no ruler; Syria was expected to become the jungle of the Middle East.

It was a plan bigger than Assad and much bigger than the Syrians. Hundreds of billions of dollars were invested by Middle Eastern countries – Saudi Arabia and Qatar – to kill Syrians, destroy their country and accomplish the above objectives. It was a crime against an entire population with the watchful complicity of the modern and “democratic” world.

Many pretexts were given for the Syrian war. It was not only about regime change. It was about creating a jungle state. Think tanks, journalists, academics, ambassadors all joined the fiesta by collaborating in the slaughter of Syrians. Crocodile tears were shed over “humanitarian catastrophes” in Syria even as the poorest country in the Middle East, the Yemen, was and still is being slaughtered while the same mainstream media avert their gaze and conceal the nature of the conflict from the general public.

Anyone who understood the game, or even part of it, was called “Assadist”, a designation meant as an insult. The savage irony? This epithet “Assadist” was freely wielded by the US chattering class- who themselves have evidently never publicly counted and acknowledged the millions killed by the US political establishment over the centuries.

So, what has this global intervention brought about?

Russia has returned to the Levant after a long hibernation. Its essential role has been to stand against the US world hegemony without provoking, or even trying to provoke, a war with Washington. Moscow demonstrated its new weapons, opening markets for its military industry, and showed its military competence without falling into the many traps laid in the Levant during its active presence. It created the Astana agreement to bypass UN efforts to manipulate negotiations, and it isolated the war into several regions and compartments to deal with each part separately. Putin exhibited a shrewd military mind in dealing successfully with the “mother of all wars” in Syria. He ventured skilfully into US territory against its hegemonic goals, and he has created powerful and lasting strategic alliances with Turkey (a NATO member) and Iran.

Iran found fertile ground in Syria to consolidate the “Axis of the Resistance” when the country’s inhabitants (Christian, Sunni, Druse, secular people and other minorities) realised that the survival of their families and their country were at stake. It managed to rebuild Syria’s arsenal and succeeded in supplying Hezbollah with the most sophisticated weapons needed for a classic guerrilla-style war to stop Israel from attacking Lebanon. Assad is grateful for the loyalty of these partners who took the side of Syria even as the world was conspiring to destroy it.

Iran has adopted a new ideology: it is not an Islamic or a Christian ideology but a new one that emerged in the last seven years of war. It is the “Ideology of Resistance”, an ideology that goes beyond religion. This new ideology imposed itself even on clerical Iran and on Hezbollah who have abandonned any goal of exporting an Islamic Republic: instead they support any population ready to stand against the destructive US hegemony over the world.

For Iran, it is no longer a question of spreading Shiism or converting secular people, Sunni or Christians. The goal is for all to identify the real enemy and to stand against it. That is what the West’s intervention in the Middle East is creating. It has certainly succeeded in impoverishing the region: but it has also elicited pushback from a powerful front. This new front appears stronger and more effective than the forces unleashed by the hundreds of billions spent by the opposing coalition for the purpose of spreading destruction in order to ensure US dominance.

*

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

Imran Khan’s “Socialist Revolution” in Pakistan

February 20th, 2019 by Nauman Sadiq

In order to assess the prospects of Imran Khan’s Pakistan Movement for Justice (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf) as a political institution, we need to study its composition. With the benefit of hindsight, it seems the worst decision Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif took in his political career after returning from exile in November 2007 was his refusal to accept Musharraf-allied Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) defectors back into the folds of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).

After that show of moral uprightness in the essentially unprincipled realpolitik of Pakistan, the cronies of Pakistan’s former dictator General Pervez Musharraf joined Imran Khan’s Pakistan Movement for Justice in droves and gave birth to a third nation-wide political force in Pakistan besides Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP).

If we take a cursory look at the Pakistan Movement for Justice’s membership, it is a hodgepodge of electable politicians from various political parties, but most of all from the former stalwarts of the Musharraf-allied Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q).

Here is a list of a few names who were previously the acolytes of General Pervez Musharraf and are now the ‘untainted’ leaders of Imran Khan’s Pakistan Movement for Justice which has launched a nation-wide crusade against corruption in Pakistan: Jahangir Tareen, a billionaire businessman who was formerly a minister in General Musharraf’s cabinet; Sheikh Rasheed, although he has not formally joined Imran Khan’s political party, he has become closer to Imran Khan than any other leader except Imran Khan’s virtual sidekick, Jahangir Tareen, and has been appointed minister for railways in Imran Khan’s cabinet; and Shah Mehmood Qureshi, a former stalwart of Pakistan People’s Party who served as Pakistan’s foreign minister from 2008 to 2011 until he was disgracefully forced to resign after the Raymond Davis affair and the US Navy Seals operation in Abbottabad in 2011 in which Osama bin Laden was killed, though he has once again been appointed foreign minister in Imran Khan’s new cabinet last year.

I would implore the readers to allow me to scribble a tongue-in-cheek rant here on Imran Khan’s “Naya Pakistan (New Pakistan) Revolution”: This struggle for revolution isn’t the first of its kind in Pakistan and it won’t be the last. The first such “socialist revolution” took place back in 1953 against the unjust status quo of Pakistan’s slain Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan and Khawaja Nazimuddin’s Muslim League.

The revolutionary heroes of yore, Ghulam Muhammad, Iskander Mirza and General Ayub Khan, laid the foundations of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” in Pakistan. The first lasted from 1958 to 1971, and its outcome was the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshis and the separation of East Pakistan.

The second such “socialist revolution” occurred against the “elected dictatorship” of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1977 and the “revolutionary messiah,” General Zia-ul-Haq, ruled Pakistan from 1977 to 1988 with an iron hand. After sufficiently consolidating the gains of the “revolution” in Pakistan, he also exported the “revolution” throughout the Af-Pak region.

The immediate outcome of the “revolution” was the destabilization of the whole region. It spawned many tadpole “revolutionaries” whose names we now hear in the news every day, such as the Taliban, the Haqqanis, Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba.

The last such “Marxist-Leninist revolution” took place against the “monopoly capitalism” and “corrupt cronyism” of Benazir Bhutto’s People’s Party and Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League in 1999.

On a serious note, however, the reason why Imran Khan is desperate now is that despite forming the provincial government and ruling the northwestern Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province for five years from 2013 to 2018 and then forming the government in the center last year, he has no tangible achievements to show. Criticizing the government from opposition benches and making electoral promises is always easy, but showing visible improvement in the affairs of governance is a hard sell.

The electoral pledges of cracking down on corruption and doing away with bureaucratic red-tape might earn him a few brownie points in front of his immature audience, but to treat the malady of corruption, we must first accurately identify the root causes of corruption. Corruption and economy are inter-linked. The governments of prosperous, developed countries can afford to pay adequate salaries to their public servants; and if public servants are paid well, then they don’t have the incentive to be corrupt.

There are two types of corruption: need-based corruption and greed-based corruption. Need-based corruption is the kind of corruption in which a poor police constable, who has a large family to support, earns a meager salary; he then augments his salary by taking bribes to make ends meet. I am not justifying his crime, but only describing the factual position.

Whereas the instance of greed-based corruption, which is often legitimized, is the corporate exploitation of resources and workforce by behemoth multinational corporations whose wealth is measured in hundreds of billions of dollars, far more than the total size of the economies of developing countries.

After establishing the fact that corruption and economy are inter-linked, we need to ask Prime Minister Imran Khan what is his economic vision to improve Pakistan’s economy, and on what basis does he claim to improve the economy on a nation-wide scale when he failed to make any visible improvement in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province during the Pakistan Movement for Justice’s five-year rule in the province from 2013 to 2018?

Finally, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) are the experienced political parties in Pakistan. They learned their lesson from the politics of confrontation during the 1990s that Pakistan’s military establishment employs the Machiavellian divide-and-conquer tactic of hobnobbing with weaker political parties against stronger political forces in order to disrupt the democratic process and maintain the establishment’s stranglehold on its traditional domain, the security and defense policy of Pakistan.

The new entrant in Pakistan’s political landscape, Imran Khan’s Pakistan Movement for Justice, will also learn this lesson after paying the price of colluding with the establishment, but by then, it might be too late.

*

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

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and the Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

If the dominant media was serious about holding the Canadian government to account for its foreign policy decisions, there would be numerous stories pointing out the hypocrisy of Ottawa’s response to recent political developments in Haiti and Venezuela.

Instead silence, or worse, cheer-leading.

Venezuela is a deeply divided society. Maybe a quarter of Venezuelans want the president removed by (almost) any means. A similar proportion backs Nicolas Maduro. A larger share of the population oscillates between these two poles, though they generally prefer the president to opposition forces that support economic sanctions and a possible invasion.

There are many legitimate criticisms of Maduro, including questions about his electoral bonafides after a presidential recall referendum was scuttled and the Constituent Assembly usurped the power of the opposition dominated National Assembly (of course many opposition actors’ democratic credentials are far more tainted). But, the presidential election in May demonstrates that Maduro and his PSUV party maintain considerable support. Despite the opposition boycott, the turnout was over 40% and Maduro received a higher proportion of the overall vote than leaders in the US, Canada and elsewhere. Additionally, Venezuela has an efficient and transparent electoral system — “best in the world” according to Jimmy Carter in 2012 — and it was the government that requested more international electoral observers.

Unlike Venezuela, Haiti is not divided. Basically, everyone wants the current “president” to go. While the slums have made that clear for months, important segments of the establishment (Reginald Boulos, Youri Latortue, Chamber of Commerce, etc) have turned on Jovenel Moïse. Reliable polling is limited, but it’s possible 9 in 10 Haitians want President Moïse to leave immediately. Many of them are strongly committed to that view, which is why the country’s urban areas have been largely paralyzed since February 7.

In a bid to squelch the protests, government forces (and their allies) have killed dozens in recent months. If you include the terrible massacre reported here and here in the Port-au-Prince neighborhood of La Saline on November 11-13 that number rises far above 100.

Even prior to recent protests the president’s claim to legitimacy was paper-thin. Moïse assumed the job through voter suppression and electoral  fraud. Voter turnout was 18%. His predecessor and sponsor, Michel Martelly, only held elections after significant protests. For his part, Martelly took office with about 16 per cent of the vote, since the election was largely boycotted. After the first round, US and Canadian representatives pressured the electoral council to replace the second-place candidate, Jude Celestin, with Martelly in the runoff.

While you won’t have read about it in the mainstream media, recent protests in Haiti are connected to Venezuela. The protesters’ main demand is accountability for the billions of dollars pilfered from Petrocaribe, a discounted oil program set up by Venezuela in 2006. In the summer demonstrators forced out Moïse’s prime minister over an effort to eliminate fuel subsidies and calls for the president to go have swelled since then. Adding to popular disgust with Moïse, his government succumbed to US/Canadian pressure to vote against Venezuela at the OAS last month.

So what has been Ottawa’s response to the popular protests in Haiti? Has Global Affairs Canada released a statement supporting the will of the people? Has Canada built a regional coalition to remove the president? Has Canada’s PM called other international leaders to lobby them to join his effort to remove Haiti’s President? Have they made a major aid announcement designed to elicit regime change? Have they asked the International Criminal Court to investigate the Haitian government? Has Justin Trudeau called the Haitian President a “brutal dictator”?

In fact, it’s the exact opposite to the situation in Venezuela. The only reason the Haitian president is hanging on is because of support from the so-called “Core Group” of “Friends of Haiti”. Comprising the ambassadors of Canada, France, Brazil, Germany and the US, as well as representatives of Spain, EU and OAS, the “Core Group” released a statement  last week “acknowledging the professionalism shown by the Haitian National Police.” The statement condescendingly “reiterated the fact that in a democracy change must come through the ballot box, and not through violence.” The “Core Group’s” previous responses  to the protests expressed stronger support of the unpopular government. As I detailed  10 weeks ago in a story headlined “Canada backs Haitian government, even as police force kills demonstrators”, Ottawa has provided countless forms of support to Moïse’s unpopular government. Since then Justin Trudeau had a “very productive meeting” with Haitian Prime Minister Jean Henry Ceant, International development minister Marie-Claude Bibeau‏ declared a desire to “come to the aid” of the Haitian government and Global Affairs Canada released a statement declaring that “acts of political violence have no place in the democratic process.” Trudeau’s government has provided various forms of support to the repressive police that maintains Moïse’s rule. Since Paul Martin’s Liberals played an important role  in violently ousting Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s government in 2004 Canada has financed, trained and overseen the Haitian National Police. As took place  the night Aristide was forced out of the country by US Marines, Canadian troops  were recently photographed patrolling the Port-au-Prince airport.

Taking their cue from Ottawa, the dominant media have downplayed the scope of the recent protests and repression in Haiti. There have been few (any?) stories about protesters putting their bodies on the line for freedom and the greater good. Instead the media has focused on the difficulties faced by a small number of Canadian tourists, missionaries and aid workers. While the long-impoverished country of 12 million people is going through a very important political moment, Canada’s racist/nationalist media is engrossed in the plight of Canucks stuck at an all-inclusive resort!

The incredible hypocrisy in Ottawa’s response to recent political developments in Haiti and Venezuela is shameful. Why has no major media dared contrast the two?

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canadian Policy on Venezuela, Haiti Reveals Hypocrisy that Media Ignores
  • Tags: , ,

The scandal regarding the fake hospital video published by the White Helmets as a proof of the Douma chemical attack has reached its peak in the media and has caused reaction on the diplomatic level.

On February 13, BBC Syria’s producer Riam Dalati came out with a statement that “After almost 6 months of investigations”  “[I] can prove without a doubt that the Douma Hospital scene was staged” and “no fatalities had occurred in the hospital.” Dalati added that he believes that “the attack did happen” but no Sarin was used and “everything else around the attack was manufactured for maximum effect.”

“I can tell you that Jaysh al-Islam ruled Douma with an iron fist. They coopted activists, doctors and humanitarians with fear and intimidation. In fact, one of the 3 or 4 people filming the scene was Dr. Abu Bakr Hanan, a “brute and shifty” doctor affiliated with Jaysh Al-Islam. The narrative was that “there weren’t enough drs [doctors]” but here is one filming and not taking part of the rescue efforts. Will keep the rest for later,” he wrote in a tweet chain on the topic.

An interesting fact that despite the confidence that the attack did take place and no Sarin was used, Dalati was not able to name the chemical substance used and said that it is up to the OPCW to make conclusions.

Even this halfway contradiction to the “Assad did it” version caused a wide attention because BBC was among the mainstream media organizations fueling anti-Assad hysteria when the video first appeared in April 2018. This joint propaganda effort became a formal justification of the US-led cruise missile attack on Syria.

Dalati’s statement widely circulated independent media organizations and was even commented by the Russian defense and foreign ministries. Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova described the revelation as a “theater of absurd.”

“Over the past years, and not only in Syria, we have seen just a tragic farce performed by the Western community and mass media, which on the one hand, speak about the high democratic goals and how they care about the civilians of a sovereign state, and on the other hand, they just do not give a damn about all laws, the international law, freedoms and rights of a nation and certain people,” Zakharova stressed.

She compared this case with the situation developing around Iraq prior to the start of the US intervention and recalled how then US ambassador to the UN Colin Powell was convincing the international community that there is a need to rescue “Iraq, Iraqi nation and democracy”.

The Russian Defense Ministry also commented on the issue by saying that Russia is not surprised by the appearance of new discrediting details.

“Many of today’s top-ranking politicians in the United States and Europe, then tearing their throats in ‘defending the peaceful Syrians from the terrible chemical attacks of the regime” and sanctioning missile and air strikes on Syria, will try to forget the topic in order to avoid moral, political and criminal liability,” defense ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov said.

An interesting fact is that mainstream media outlets and Western diplomats in fact ignored this situation. Furthermore, BBC officially stated that its Syria producer acted on his own and his claims are “personal opinions”, distancing itself from his conduct.

The Douma attack was not the first and only case when studio work was presented by the US-led block as a decisive evidence justifying its actions in the conflict. After the April 2017 attack in Khan Shaykhun, experts voiced concern that the video released by the White Helmets as a proof of the chemical attack conducted by the Assad regime was staged.

In fact, weaponized disinformation campaigns, staged videos and fake news are common approaches used by the US military and special services to promote their own agenda around the world. The US was actively using these tools during its intervention in Iraq and after it.

According to the later revelations, the employed programs were varying from placing Pentagon-provided articles in Iraqi newspapers as “unbiased news” to producing footage, which were made to look as if they had been “created by Arabic TV,” and CDs with fake al-Qaeda videos, which then distributed through various channels.

The employed propaganda approaches are constantly evolving. Therefore, propaganda coverage of the conflict in Syria has some differences with those which were observed in Iraq. Now, mainstream media, the Pentagon, the intelligence services and diplomats are actively using Hollywood-style approaches. This style of the coverage is based on providing catchy, even if horrible, pictures and videos influencing the emotions of the audience rather than convincing it with logical conclusions.

Just like with Hollywood movies, the mainstream news has increasingly been turning away from the logical narration of stories with realistic motivations to emotional judgements based on anonymous sources, non-verified images, pocket citizen journalists and even open speculation. The content developed within the framework of this approach is usually based on the results of social and psychological research. This allows results to be maximised by the targetted development of content and appropriate segmentation of the audience. An interesting and successful example of this audience reaction modelling can be seen in the mainstream media coverage of the Salisbury incident, which gave rise to large-scale hysteria in Western countries about Russian spies.

Considering that US defense officials openly admit that the Pentagon, as well as other institutions, are going to develop their influencing tools and irregular warfare capabilities further, it should be expected that the intensity and sophistication of disinformation campaigns waged around the globe will continue to increase.

*

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

In remembrance of the late William Blum, his legacy Lives.

***

For 50 years I’ve been painstakingly cataloguing the brutal militarism and human-rights violations of US foreign policy, building up in the process a very loyal audience.

To my great surprise, when I recently wrote about the brutal militarism and human-rights violations of the Islamic State, I received more criticism from my readers than I’ve gotten for anything I’ve ever written. Dozens of them asked to be removed from my mailing list, as many as I’d normally get in a full year. Others were convinced that it couldn’t actually be me who was the author of such words, that I must have been hacked. Some wondered whether my recent illness had affected my mind. Literally! And almost all of the Internet magazines which regularly print me did not do so with this article.

Now why should this be?

My crime was being politically incorrect. The Islamic State, you see, is composed of Muslims, and the United States and its Western allies have bombed many Muslim countries in the recent past killing thousands of Muslims and causing widespread horror. Therefore, whatever ISIS and its allies do is “revenge”, simple revenge, and should not be condemned by anyone calling himself a progressive; least of all should violence be carried out against these poor aggrieved jihadists.

Moreover, inasmuch as ISIS is the offspring of religion, this adds to my political incorrectness: I’m attacking religion, God forgive me.

Totally irrelevant to my critics is the fact that the religious teachings of ISIS embrace murderous jihad and the heavenly rewards for suicide bombings and martyrdom. This, they insist, is not the real Islam, a religion of peace and scholarly pursuits. Well, one can argue, Naziism was not the real Germany of Goethe and Schiller, of Bach and Brahms. Fortunately, that didn’t keep the world from destroying the Third Reich.

We should also consider this: From the 1950s to the 1980s the United States carried out atrocities against Latin America, including numerous bombings, without the natives ever resorting to the repulsive uncivilized kind of retaliation as employed by ISIS. Latin American leftists took their revenge out on concrete representatives of the American empire: diplomatic, military and corporate targets, not markets, theatres, nightclubs, hospitals, restaurants or churches. The ISIS victims have included many Muslims, perhaps even some friends of the terrorists, for all they knew or cared.

It doesn’t matter to my critics that in my writing I have regularly given clear recognition to the crimes against humanity carried out by the West against the Islamic world. I am still not allowed to criticize the armed forces of Islam, for all of the above stated reasons plus the claim that the United States “created” ISIS.

Regarding this last argument: It’s certainly true that US foreign policy played an indispensable role in the rise of ISIS. Without Washington’s overthrow of secular governments in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and – now in process – Syria, there would today be no ISIS. It’s also true that many American weapons, intentionally and unintentionally, have wound up in the hands of terrorist groups. But the word “created” implies intention, that the United States wanted to purposely and consciously bring to life the Frankenstein monster that we know and love as ISIS.

So, you wonder, how do we rid the world of the Islamic State? I’m afraid it may already be too late. The barn door is wide open and all the horses have escaped. It’s not easy for an old anti-imperialist like myself, but I support Western military and economic power to crush the unspeakable evil of ISIS. The West has actually made good progress with seriously hampering ISIS oil sales and financial transactions. As a result, it appears that ISIS may well be running out of money, with defections of unpaid soldiers increasing.

The West should also forget about regime change in Syria and join forces with Russia against the terrorists.

And my readers, and many like them, have to learn to stop turning the other cheek when someone yelling “Allahu Akbar” drives a machete into their skull.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Political Correctness Demands Diversity in Everything but Thought

College “for the People” Who Can Pay

February 20th, 2019 by School Magazine

Preface:

In 2011, The Quebec Liberal government of Jean Charest decided to hike post-secondary school tuition fees by 75 percent over a five-year period. This move mobilized students across Quebec and by 2012 a demonstration in Montreal brought out between 100 000 and 200 000 people. About 310 000 out of a total 400 000 students across the province were out on strike. The symbol of their protest was a small red patch anyone could make and attach with a safety pin. In August 2012, Charest’s government was defeated in an election and the increase was repealed.

Last Monday, several hundred students gathered in the slush in front Queen’s Park. Many of them wore the same small red patches pinned to their coats – the symbol of the fight in Quebec against the tuition fee hike.

The red patch – a fine counter symbol to Tory blue.

*

There’s a chill on higher education. It’s something students and parents in elementary and secondary schools would do well to watch.

In the middle of January, Doug Ford said he planned to cut tuition fees for post-secondary students by 10 per cent starting September 2019. That would amount to about $340 for a college student and $660 for an arts and science undergraduate in university. This  according to his government, was to “keep more money in the pockets of Ontario’s students.”

Well, some of them at least.

It will be a help for students who can already afford to pay the full fare, for example. They get to hang onto that 10 per cent cut in fees.  But that’s about the only good news in this story. According to Training Colleges and Universities Minister, Merrilee Fullerton, the government doesn’t plan to make up for the loss of revenue to the post-secondary schools that bear the cut. It’s up to them to come up a way to cope with the loss of about $440 million dollars – what that tuition fee cut amounts to.

Last June, according to the Globe and Mail, representatives from colleges and universities called on the government to increase funding to universities so they could maintain quality of instruction. The former Liberal government had put a 1 percent raise in the 2018 budget. Post-secondary institutions are not swimming in money.

Doug Ford’s other shoe

Then there’s the matter of the “other shoe dropping.”  Mr. Ford didn’t happen to mention right away, that while he was giving a tuition cut with one hand, with the other he was taking away free tuition for lower income students. It’s another of the many “efficiencies” the Tories neglected to specify during the election, but would help enable them to forego funds from the cap and trade agreement while they handed out an income tax cut for some Ontarians.

Families earning up to $140 000 per year qualify for some funding and those earning less than $50 000 could see up to 82 percent of tuition in the form of grants. But the big change is that many Ontario Student Assistance Plan (OSAP) grants will become loans. Up until now, low-income students could qualify for grants covering all of their tuition.

And along with a 10 percent drop in tuition fees, comes the same-size slice taken out of any OSAP grant. The bottom line is that lower- and middle-income students will end up paying more for the same education.

Higher debt for lower income students

NDP Training Colleges and Universities critic, Chris Glover says these changes are “making it easier for the wealthiest students and imposing higher cost and debt on others.” He adds that the government would scrap the six-month debt-free period. As soon as students graduate, they would have to start paying back their loans with no time to get a job and earn some money. In an already expensive world – and one which requires higher education to get any adequately paying job, debt loads will just go up. That debt load is now, on average, $27 000 per student. But it could go as high as $300 000 according to Mr. Glover.

He wrote his PHD thesis on student debt and effects it has on mental health and success in school. Right now, he says, 46 percent Ontario post-secondary students are in jeopardy of experiencing serous anxiety problems, on the 5-point Mental Health Inventory, due to financial pressures. This in turn can lead students to cut short their education as they look for work to meet living expenses – or simply not do as well in their courses.

At a Queen’s Park demonstration on Monday university students spoke about this. One, a graduate student at U of Toronto, figured that he might need to give up his studies; it was just going to be too expensive to continue on. Another, wearing a red patch to protest the fee hikes, had planned to start teacher’s college soon: “I knew I was going to go to university because the government was going to help me,” he said.  But at age 30, with two kids at home, that plan is very much up in the air.

In another twist to this story, Chris Glover points out that Premier Ford wants to allow students to opt out of paying for university groups like student unions, something he thinks is meant to undermine them so students can’t organize to fight further cuts to their education.

Doug Ford’s latest move, like so many others, comes out dressed up in his “for the people banner” and perversely, with a little closer look, is just the opposite. Students, needing to pay for their -now essential- education, do so with reduced minimum wages and increased debts that must be paid sooner.

The question with anything this government does “for the people” should always be: Which people?

Increasingly, the answer is: the ones who can afford to pay.

*

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

For more than a decade Venezuela has aided the governments of Haiti and the Dominican Republic through a preferential system known as Petrocaribe, and the people of those nations are not taking their governments’ support for the US coup in Venezuela lightly (Ariel Fornani in Haitian Times*)

***

As Judas betrayed the Son of Man with a kiss for 20 pieces of silver, the institutionally corrupt governments in Port-au-Prince and Santo Domingo have written another sad chapter in their nation’s history.

Ironically, it was Venezuela that helped to develop the island’s energy infrastructure in recent years. A key part of this is the REFIDOMSA oil refinery in the Dominican Republic which the Venezuelan government helped to develop and partially owns, and which has also been used to help alleviate increased fuel demands and shortages in Haiti.

For more than a decade Venezuela has aided the governments of Haiti and the Dominican Republic through a preferential system known as Petrocaribe, which provided subsidized crude oil prices to meet the countries critical energy demands.  The Petrocaribe oil agreement, allowed for governments to pay only 60 per cent of the oil shipments they purchase from Venezuela. The remaining 40 per cent could be financed over 25 years at 1 per cent interest, as long as oil prices stayed above $40 per barrel. This allowed for tremendous savings, and money that (according to the agreement) was supposed to be used for socially beneficial purposes.

Countries such as Nicaragua, Jamaica, Cuba, and many islands in the eastern Caribbean have successfully utilized Petrocaribe funds and other Venezuelan support mechanisms, investing in vital infrastructure, education, healthcare, and have used the funding to avoid austerity deals with the IMF and other international financial institutions. Corrupt politicians in Hispaniola, though, whose regimes are closely aligned with Washington, have by contrast become well-known for robbing many of the funds meant for the social needs of their population.

For this reason, the date of January 10, 2019, will go down in the historical memory of the Dominican and Haitian peoples, as an ignominious reminder of the historically aberrant role of the Organization of American States (OAS), when that body was used as a front by neo-conservative policymakers in Washington. It was on that date that the governments of Haiti and the Dominican Republic voted to no longer recognize Venezuela’s legitimately elected president.

The people of Hispaniola, on both sides of the island, are waking up. They are coming to understand how the political orders in their countries are being managed by Washington and how local corrupt elites are stealing the solidarity funds sent by Venezuela while failing to meet the needs of the local population. Haitians and Dominicans are organizing protests, meeting at homes and schools to discuss what is happening, learning on social media and through news spread over Whats App and Facebook. Hispaniola’s betrayal of Venezuela will not be taken lightly.

The people of Hispaniola know better. They know that it was the U.S., not Venezuela, that twice invaded and occupied the Dominican Republic; they know of the multiple coups and occupations that the U.S. has carried out in Haiti. The Dominican collective memory still bears the deep scars of the over 2,000 Dominicans that perished during the invasion of Santo Domingo by the U. S. marines in April, 1965. (Dominican historians calculate that the actual figure of deaths including civilians and military during the 1965 invasion and occupation, could have been as high as 5,000). Haitians still march annually protesting the 1991 and 2004 coup d’états, which cost the lives of so many thousands, as many human rights studies verified, such as a paper in the Lancet Medical Journal that found that upward of 8,000 people were killed as a result of the 2004 coup and pro-US paramilitary violence. A decade prior it was estimated that more than 10,000 were killed in the wake of the 1991 coup.

We need also to remember how the U.S. supported the ruthless Trujillo and Duvalierist dictatorships. We must not forget the first U. S. invasion and occupation of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, that took place in the early 20th century during the Era of Gunboat Diplomacy in the Central-American and Caribbean Basin.

It is against this compelling and stark historical background, that we are confronted again with tumultuous events in the region, when the U. S. is once more employing the infamous and wholly discredited OAS, in its theatrical charade to lend an air of “legitimacy” to the recent lopsided vote against Venezuela. While 14 of the CARICOM states, Mexico, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Uruguay, Cuba, Russia, Turkey, China, Iran, India, South Africa, and nearly all of the states in mother Africa continue to recognize the elected government, the U.S. has found support from its rightwing and neoliberal allied governments across Latin America, Europe, and in Israel. Shockingly, the Dominican Republic and Haiti joined with the U.S. in denouncing Bolivarian Venezuela.

This eerily reminds some of us old enough to remember, of those similarly turbulent days in the hemisphere during 1962, when an OAS meeting took place in a beach resort known as Punta del Este, Uruguay as Cuba was removed from the body. It was at that OAS meeting, that the legendary Foreign Minister of Cuba Dr. Raul Roa, forever baptized that odious organization as “The Ministry of Yankee Colonies.”

Dominicans won’t accept their government stabbing Caracas in the back

Precisely because of these historical realities that transpired in Hispaniola and the region, vis-à-vis the “Colossus of the North”, the popular movements and social organizations of the Dominican Republic have again assumed their vanguard roles as national leaders, mobilizing throughout the country, reminding the people of the historic legacy serving as background to current events, once again building up the people’s collective consciousness, illustrating that these latest events have not happened in a vacuum.  Within this context, a broad coalition of popular movements and organizations, scheduled a vigil on February 5, 2019, in Santiago, the heart of the northern Cibao region of the country, comprising 13 key provinces which have played a determining role in this country’s history, going back all the way to its independence in the mid 19th Century.

The deep solidarity bonds of Venezuela towards the Dominican nation can be traced further back in time, when in 1930 the first outflow of Dominican exiles began arriving in the “Patria de Bolivar”, fleeing the U.S. backed Trujillo’s dictatorship. Professor Juan Bosch, a legendary figure of Dominican history and who in 1962 became the first democratically elected President after the fall of Trujillo, arrived in this first contingent of Dominican exiles in Venezuela.  Bolivar’s homeland in turn became the safe harbour of patriotic activism against Trujillo, by the Dominican diaspora.  This anti-Trujillo militancy from Venezuela became so intense, that the “Satrap of the Caribbean” as Trujillo was sometimes known, ordered an assassination attempt against President Betancourt of Venezuela in 1960.  The Dictator Trujillo was finally assassinated in 1961.

After the fall of Trujillo and the ascent to power in Dominican Republic of another lackey of U. S. imperialism-President Joaquin Balaguer, whose elections in 1966 were known to have been financed by the U. S. Department of State according to declassified files, over 2,000 Dominican combatants that participated in the Constitutionalist Revolution of 1965, arrived in Venezuela. Afterwards during the re-election of Balaguer in 1971-72, hundreds of Dominicans also migrated to Venezuela. The situation in D. R. then became so untenable for many Dominicans due to Balaguer’s fierce persecution of opponents, it is estimated upwards of 60,000 of them migrated to Venezuela.  Eventually, the Dominican diaspora in Venezuela became the largest migration inflow from the insular Caribbean, up to the ascent to power of Chavez, at which time Cubans began to increasingly arrive in Venezuela, composing in part the core of Chavez’s “Mision Barrio Adentro” massive health clinics projects, in the poor neighbourhoods of the country.

In summary, the brotherly hospitality and solidarity afforded to Dominicans in Venezuela, throughout 20thCentury migratory periods, along with the aforementioned fact of Venezuela’s consistent solidarity with Dominican Republic through the generous Petrocaribe oil agreement, this honourable background stands in stark contrast to D. R.’s “Kiss of Judas” vote at the OAS against Venezuela, on January 10, 2019. This “Kiss of Judas” comes at a time when Bolivarian Venezuela faces a mounting economic war undertaken by the U.S. and its allies, compounded by a huge decline in the international price of oil.With Dominicans aware of their history and learning the truth about the empire’s actions in the region, in the coming months, it appears very likely that the elite consensus in Dominican politics will begin to be shaken, as Danilo Medina faces a crisis of legitimacy.

Jovenel Moïse’s treason and the oncoming tidal wave of resistance

It was Haitians who stood out within our concert of colonized Caribbean nations, as the people which decisively proved in the field of battle, that the very best of Europe could be defeated in war when it finally gained independence from France in 1804.   Venezuela’s and Haiti’s history is also intertwined, when in 1816 Petion gave arms, money and men to Bolivar, for the cause of independence of Venezuela, which in turn eventually liberated Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia from imperial Spain.

More recently, during the second Presidency of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Venezuela was one of the only countries which kept providing financial support to the Haitian government as it was embargoed and undermined by the George Bush administration. Furthermore, it was Chavez who was the only Latin American leader who forcefully denounced the 2004 coup against Aristide. Afterwards, during the Preval and then the rightwing Martelly and Moise regimes, Venezuela continued its unconditional solidarity with the people of Haiti, through its Petrocaribe agreement, as well as providing financial assistance for infrastructure projects. Venezuela has never required the conditionalities, nor the political alignment, for its aid, as have the supranational agencies and countries of the north. A true friend.

Regarding Venezuela and Haiti we must remember, that during Chavez’s tenure and following Haiti’s catastrophic 2010 earthquake, the leader of the Bolivarian Revolution soon thereafter announced Venezuela would “write off” Haiti’s undisclosed oil debts.  At an ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas) foreign ministers’ meeting after the earthquake, Chavez remarked that “it wasn’t Haiti that had a debt with Venezuela, but just the opposite Venezuela had a debt with that nation.”  He also mentioned that an initial donation of $10 million would be disbursed to Haiti for emergency energy needs, along with an additional $100 million “for starters” towards infrastructure projects. Additionally, Chavez mentioned, one part of ALBA assistance to Haiti would consist of fuel distribution via “mobile service stations” to be up and running within a few weeks.  The ALBA plan of aid for Haiti also included support for such sectors as agriculture production, food imports and distribution, and immigration amnesty for Haitians living illegally in the bloc’s member-states. At that time also, Cuba and Venezuela sent assistance and aid workers to Haiti within days of the magnitude-7.0 earthquake that left an estimated 150,000-200,000 dead and more than a million people homeless.

To illustrate that unique internationalist relationship between Venezuela and Haiti, we must witness the Venezolana de Television report of Chavez’s trip to Haiti in 2007, exemplifying the close emotional bond between these two Caribbean nations, which Chavez in great measure revived as he recuperated its historic memory jogging openly with the peoples of Cite Soleil and Bel Air through the streets of Port-au-Prince.  In this report, you will witness the incredible feat of Chavez leaving his vehicle, as he actually joins the joyful masses in Port Au Prince, which are jogging in unison along his motorcade.  On the other side of the historical spectrum, when Nixon as Vice President visited Venezuela in 1958 the total opposite occurred at that time.  Instead of joyful crowds awaiting Nixon, enraged Venezuelans violently assaulted his limousine, manifesting the people’s rebuke of the U. S.’s close collaboration with the ruthless dictatorship of Perez Jimenez, which had recently ended.

As Moïse’s unpopular government has been caught up in corruption scandals and as complaints grow over the worsening economic situation and a lack of government support for the poor, in recent months the USPGN (Moïse’s own personal security forces) took part in a violent massacre targeting an anti-government slum.

With Moïse facing mass protests his government increasingly takes its cues from Washington.

With regards to Jovenel Moïse’s government’s treasonous vote against Venezuela at the OAS, another of its aberrant dimensions was its diametrical position vis-à-vis the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), of which Haiti is a member. CARICOM’s position has been unequivocal in contravention to the virtually neocolonial position of OAS Secretary Almagro, who by all reasonable standards has become a virtual mouthpiece of Uncle Sam at the “Ministry of Yankee Colonies.”  CARICOM on the one hand recognizes the legitimacy of President Maduro of Venezuela, while the OAS secretary general Luis Almagro has recognized the so-called “self-proclaimed” interim President of Venezuela, Juan Guaido.

Haiti has long been in the crosshairs of the Empire and its local proxies. In recent years top elites have sought to restructure the county’s economy and political scene. This has come after the U.S. and its allies have essentially neutralized the country’s sovereignty and independence, heavily influencing, installing regimes, or supporting political processes that relied on heavy vote suppression and years of political disenfranchisement (such as in 2016 with one of the lowest percentages of voter participation in the world).  This is the same unpopular and corrupt regime, which has been the subject of massive nationwide protests against its misuse of Venezuela’s Petrocaribe funds, starting in August, 2018, and which continually burst out throughout the following months and into February, 2019.

These protests were practically made invisible by Western mainstream media, even as their brutal repression has been well documented by citizen journalists and local grassroots groups.

Hispaniola Rising!

In spite of the backstabbing vote of the corrupt Dominican and Haitian administration’s against Venezuela at the OAS, the people of Hispaniola’s solidarity with Venezuela has been manifest in many ways.Huge marches backed by many grassroots groups and Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas party have called for an end to the foreign occupation and new sovereign elections, while a smaller opposition party Pitit Dessalin has planned demonstrations in support of the legitimacy of President Maduro. Already Haitian paramilitary and police forces are being used to brutally attack these demonstrations. Meanwhile, on the other side of Hispaniola, on February 17, 2019, a massive demonstration in support of Venezuela is scheduled to take place, at the Parque Independencia of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.  Student groups and activist circles across the country are being mobilized and are coming to understand the threat that Trump and his neo-con allies present.

In view of all the aforementioned, this writer while not an expert on geopolitics or history, by virtue of the fact of having been born in the Caribbean, and having closely observed its regional history since childhood and comprising many decades, I have reasonably concluded that this recent crisis between Venezuela and the Empire (or the “Colossus of the North”), could perhaps be opening a new threshold in the correlation of forces in the hemisphere, to the point where we could almost start leaning towards the conclusion, that perhaps the United States of America is no longer the absolute master of this hemisphere, say as it was the case prior to the Cuban Revolution of 1959.

What we are witnessing now are key nations such as Venezuela deciding to chart a course in favour of their own people, implementing the re-foundation of the nation-state, while further steering away from the imperial diktat. At the same time, it is obvious that the Empire while commencing its decline, still exerts plenty of hemispheric muscle, as the treacherous OAS vote of Haiti and Dominican Republic has shown, in spite of Venezuela’s committed and honourable solidarity record with these two sister nations.  Informing the younger generations about the history of the U.S. empire in the region, about the role of soft power in the media, and what is happening around the region today is vital. Also vital are creating new bonds and working to unify popular sectors to oppose the plans of Washington and their clients, to once again build south-south bonds and regional development from below.

*

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 Haitian Times, and on Tony Seed’s Weblog

This article was originally published on April 24, 2004.

Author’s note: 

What the British Labour government initiated in 2004 has now reached, not only fruition but is now sweeping the ‘democratic’ West as the crisis of capital intensifies and opposition to neoliberalism intensifies. I call it what it is, Fascism. Maybe not the Fascism of Hitler or Mussolini, there are no jackboots, they don’t need them this time, they have built the corporate-security state, a state that has us all on file, a state that records our movements, a state that knows what we read, who we see,  a state that now works in tandem with its corporate masters just as Mussolini’s Fascism did, a state that makes Orwell’s 1984 amateurish by comparison.  Reading through it, I don’t think I need to alter one word.

***

“Someone must have slandered Joseph K., for one morning, without having done anything truly wrong, he was arrested.” – Franz Kafka, ‘The Trial’

It’s a beautiful day in London, the first real spring day, warm and sunny. A light lunch in Brockwell Park here in South London with a friend, a chance to soak up some sun and generate a little extra vitamin D, and try and order my thoughts somewhat for what was left of the day.

I suppose the first thing that comes to mind is that the unremitting propaganda campaign being waged by Home Secretary Blunkett is starting to pay ‘dividends’ but the idea that detaining people without trial for an indefinite period to the point that they start to crack up and go mad seems not to have made people wonder one bit about the police state that is steadily and inexorably being constructed here. A police state that will eventually impact on dissent of any kind let alone the fertiliser variety or my pal Edward Teague’s suppository-induced weapon of anal destruction, or WAD as it’s known in the ‘terror trade’.

The decades long war on communism, one of the precepts of which was the idea that communist regimes locked up people without trial or due process seems to have escaped most people’s notice as the war on terror gains traction if not against the actual terrorists, then those for whom they come in the morning.

The idea that people can be detained not on the basis of what they’ve done but firstly, upon who they know and secondly on what they might do, are the foundation stones of the police state. We used to call it guilt by association (those familiar with the worst aspects of the Cold War in the 1950s will know exactly what I’m talking about. For those who don’t, I advise you do some reading up on it as it will surely be your door that they’ll be knocking on next, shortly after mine).

Just think about Blunkett’s secret court and how it operates behind closed doors, with the accused allowed to see neither the ‘evidence’, the charges nor to cross examine their accusers and all of it under the pretext that revealing the sources or their accusers might reveal information damaging to the state. It’s a no-win situation, the stuff nightmares are made of. No wonder the accused locked up in Belmarsh high security prison are going mad.

The never-ending ‘revelations’ about plots, plots that never materialize except in the minds of the accusers, in an Alice-in-Wonderland world of mirrors. ‘G’, just like Kafka’s ‘K’ is “a lonely, isolated individual” set against “the impenetrable, incomprehensible, bureaucratic and juridical nightmares of an impersonal, unfeeling world.” And ‘K’ must also defend himself against accusers who are never revealed to him and with accusations that are also never put before him.

Joseph K’s world and the worlds of ‘M’ and ‘G’ are identical, only the world of ‘K’ was ‘fiction’ and the world’s of ‘G’ and ‘M’ are all too real. But unlike ‘K’, ‘G’, ‘M’ and their fellow accused are actually worse off as they don’t even get a trial, they just get disappeared into the bowels of Blunkett’s police state.

Amazingly, or perhaps not so amazingly, why does the Brit public never stop to ask the state why none of these ‘plots’ ever materialize? Today, for example, there are vague mutterings about some undefined ‘threat’ to a Manchester United football game that just as with the equally vague ‘threat’ to London Underground the other week also never materialized. So too with the fantasies about anthrax, ricin, osmium tetroxide and alike, these stories are designed simply to put the heeby-jeebies into the public, softening them up for the introduction of ever more repressive laws, all ‘for their own good’ of course. ‘We must take away your freedom in order to preserve it.’

A scant few months ago, most people were opposed to carrying an ID card but now, according to the latest polls, they’re in favour of it (except they don’t want to pay forty quid for the ‘privilege’ of being tagged for the rest of their lives). And what happens if you refuse to cough up the cash I wonder?

When taken as a whole, a pattern is revealed that relies on scare tactics about disasters that never materialize. Why? Because our ever-vigilant forces of law and order [sic] are forever on their guard and as with all such propositions that require ‘proving’ a negative, to succeed they depend on our acquiescing to irrational and unsubstantiated fears.

So for example, the boss of London’s Metropolitan police made a statement a few weeks back that “it wasn’t a question of if, but of when” some terrible calamity was going to befall us. Deconstruct this innocuous statement and you realize that “when” extends into the indefinite future, perhaps for years or even for decades! This assures that any laws passed for ‘threats’ to us ‘now’ also work for any ‘threats’ that may occur at any time between and now and the end of eternity.

Wracking up the terror quotient has been the objective over the years since 911 slowly but surely, and slowly but surely we have allowed ourselves to be swayed by the doomsayers, for obviously, the odds are that sooner or later something will go bang, it’s merely statistics. But of course, we’ll never know who made the bang but it will be assumed that it’s Al-Qu’eda, even if careful analysis of the ‘evidence’ reveals not a shred of proof that Al-Qu’eda actually exists except in the minds of the state’s propagandists. What we do know for sure is that Osama was most definitely a paid CIA asset from around 1989 and for all I know, he possibly still is (maybe that’s why, conveniently, he never gets found).

And the increasing terrorisation of the population with various and sundry tales of doom are increasing in direction proportion to the failure of the occupation of Iraq as well as the failure to find our latter-day ‘Scarlet Pimpernel’.

But even assuming that there is a real threat from mad (or even sober-minded) bombers bent on destroying western civilisation (such as it is), if the threat from the unfortunate individuals incarcerated in our own ‘very British’ Gulag is real, then surely by any sane measure, bringing them into a court of law is the best way to demonstrate to the public that the threat is indeed real rather than invention of the security state.

It should surely be obvious even to a person of Home Secretary Blunkett’s limited intellectual capacity, that just as with the Stalinist denunciations of ‘traitors’, ‘terrorists’ and ‘counter-revolutionaries’ all of which also took place in secret, anyone can denounce anyone and for any reason as that was in fact, exactly what happened under Stalin. Who is to say, failing evidence to the contrary that invisible accusers are invisible precisely because they don’t actually exist, anymore than the basis of the state’s fallacious accusations do. But who is to know? We’ll never know any more than the unfortunate accused.

The awful irony of the situation is that Stalin’s ‘counter-revolutionary’ and ‘enemy of the people’ need only be replaced with ‘Muslim fanatic’ and ‘enemy of civilisation’, the rest of Stalin’s show trial accusations can be used pretty well verbatim, although they might have to airbrush out all references to ‘comrade’ this and ‘comrade’ that.

I might add that alongside this nightmare scenario, young people here are also in for the Blunkett ‘treatment’ under the cover of his ‘anti-social behaviour’ legislation that would criminalise two or more ‘young’ people ‘congregating’ even as they wait to cross the road.

By the time the populace wake up to what’s happening it’ll be too late to do anything about it. Surely food for thought for all those Labour supporters who would railroad reticent labourites into voting for Labour in the next election just to keep the Tories out.

*

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: Investigating Imperialism.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘K’ Metamorphoses into ‘G’. “We must Take Away your Freedom in Order to Preserve It”

Survey Reveals Many Jewish Canadians Critical of Israel

February 20th, 2019 by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) welcomes the results of a national survey co-sponsored by Independent Jewish Voices Canada (IJV) and United Jewish People’s Order (UJPO) on Jewish Canadians opinion toward Israel-Palestine. The survey, conducted by EKOS Research from June to September 2018, reveals that contrary to public opinion, Jewish Canadians have a broad range of opinions on Israel-Palestine. It also reveals that a significant number of Jewish Canadians are critical of the Israeli government and its human rights abuses against Palestinians.

CJPME points out that while the Jewish community is often portrayed as staunchly pro-Israel, Jewish opinion on Israel is much more wide-ranging, as more than a third (37%) of Jewish Canadians hold a negative opinion of the Israeli government.

While our Canadian politicians continue to argue that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, the majority of Jewish-Canadians themselves (58%) do not believe criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Moreover, nearly a third of Jewish Canadians (30%) believe that the Palestinian call for a boycott of Israel is reasonable, condemning the Canadian government’s 2016 motion to denounce human rights activists who endorse a boycott of Israel. In fact, nearly half of Jewish Canadian participants (48%) recognized that accusations of antisemitism are often leveraged to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies.

CJPME notes that a 2017 survey sponsored by CJPME and IJV revealed that Canadian government policy on Israel is not representative of most Canadians’ views.

As the IJV-UJPO survey author Diana Ralph argues, the latest survey results support these findings:.

“Like Canadians generally, many Jewish Canadians do not support Canada’s uncritically pro-Israel stance.”

CJPME President Thomas Woodley agreed,

“The Canadian government is out of touch with Canadian opinion on Israel-Palestine. If Canadian Jews can be critical of Israel, why is our government silent when it comes to Israeli human rights abuses?”

CJPME calls on the Canadian government to hold Israel to account for its human rights abuses, in reflecting Canadians’ desire for a just and peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

CJPME points out that the joint IJV-UJPO survey is the first survey in Canadian history to specifically survey Jewish Canadians on their opinions toward Israel. A full report and all survey results can be found here.

*

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

Timely article first posted on Global Research in January 2017, prior to the inauguration of president Donald Trump.

***

The CIA has accused Russia of interfering in the 2016 presidential election (with absolutely zero evidence) by hacking into Democratic and Republican computer networks and selectively releasing emails.

But critics might point out the U.S. has done similar things.

The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it’s done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

That number doesn’t include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn’t like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring.

Levin defines intervention as “a costly act which is designed to determine the election results [in favor of] one of the two sides.”

These acts, carried out in secret two-thirds of the time, include funding the election campaigns of specific parties, disseminating misinformation or propaganda, training locals of only one side in various campaigning or get-out-the-vote techniques, helping one side design their campaign materials, making public pronouncements or threats in favor of or against a candidate, and providing or withdrawing foreign aid.

In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of “partisan electoral interventions” to be only about a 3% increase in vote share.

The U.S. hasn’t been the only one trying to interfere in other countries’ elections, according to Levin’s data.

Russia attempted to sway 36 foreign elections from the end of World War II to the turn of the century – meaning that, in total, at least one of the two great powers of the 20th century intervened in about 1 of every 9 competitive, national-level executive elections in that time period.

Italy’s 1948 general election is an early example of a race where U.S. actions probably influenced the outcome.

“We threw everything, including the kitchen sink” at helping the Christian Democrats beat the Communists in Italy, said Levin, including covertly delivering “bags of money” to cover campaign expenses, sending experts to help run the campaign, subsidizing “pork” projects like land reclamation, and threatening publicly to end U.S. aid to Italy if the Communists were elected.

Levin said that U.S. intervention probably played an important role in preventing a Communist Party victory, not just in 1948, but in seven subsequent Italian elections.

Throughout the Cold War, U.S. involvement in foreign elections was mainly motivated by the goal of containing communism, said Thomas Carothers, a foreign policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“The U.S. didn’t want to see left-wing governments elected, and so it did engage fairly often in trying to influence elections in other countries,” Carothers said.

This approach carried over into the immediate post-Soviet period.

In the 1990 Nicaragua elections, the CIA leaked damaging information on alleged corruption by the Marxist Sandinistas to German newspapers, according to Levin.

The opposition used those reports against the Sandinista candidate, Daniel Ortega. He lost to opposition candidate Violeta Chamorro.

In Czechoslovakia that same year, the U.S. provided training and campaign funding to Vaclav Havel’s party and its Slovak affiliate as they planned for the country’s first democratic election after its transition away from communism.

“The thinking was that we wanted to make sure communism was dead and buried,” said Levin.

Even after that, the U.S. continued trying to influence elections in its favor.

In Haiti after the 1986 overthrow of dictator and U.S. ally Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, the CIA sought to support particular candidates and undermine Jean-Bertrande Aristide, a Roman Catholic priest and proponent of liberation theology.

The New York Times reported in the 1990s that the CIA had on its payroll members of the military junta that would ultimately unseat Aristide after he was democratically elected in a landslide over Marc Bazin, a former World Bank official and finance minister favored by the U.S.

The U.S. also attempted to sway Russian elections. In 1996, with the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and the Russian economy flailing, President Clinton endorsed a $10.2-billion loan from the International Monetary Fund linked to privatization, trade liberalization and other measures that would move Russia toward a capitalist economy.

Yeltsin used the loan to bolster his popular support, telling voters that only he had the reformist credentials to secure such loans, according to media reports at the time.

He used the money, in part, for social spending before the election, including payment of back wages and pensions.

In the Middle East, the U.S. has aimed to bolster candidates who could further the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

In 1996, seeking to fulfill the legacy of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the peace accords the U.S. brokered, Clinton openly supported Shimon Peres, convening a peace summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheik to boost his popular support and inviting him to a meeting at the White House a month before the election.

“We were persuaded that if [Likud candidate Benjamin] Netanyahu were elected, the peace process would be closed for the season,” said Aaron David Miller, who worked at the State Department at the time.

In 1999, in a more subtle effort to sway the election, top Clinton strategists, including James Carville, were sent to advise Labor candidate Ehud Barak in the election against Netanyahu.

In Yugoslavia, the U.S. and NATO had long sought to cut off Serbian nationalist and Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic from the international system through economic sanctions and military action.

In 2000, the U.S. spent millions of dollars in aid for political parties, campaign costs and independent media. Funding and broadcast equipment provided to the media arms of the opposition were a decisive factor in electing opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as Yugoslav president, according to Levin.

“If it wouldn’t have been for overt intervention… Milosevic would have been very likely to have won another term,” he said.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Military Coups, Regime Change…: The CIA Has Interfered In Over 81 Foreign Elections…

Military, Deep State and the American Innocence

February 20th, 2019 by Chris Kanthan

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

Incisive and timely article first posted by Global Research on July 22, 2018

While only 11% of Americans trust Congress, a whopping 74% have a “great deal or quite a lot of” trust in the military, which also vastly outperforms newspapers (23%) and even the U.S. Supreme Court (37%). Similarly, the CIA and the FBI get an “excellent” rating from 58% of Americans. While reverence to military is quite common all over the world – perhaps related to evolutionary fear – it behooves us to be a bit more critical and objective. Like the Old Testament characters who never asked Moses for evidence regarding the burning bush, Americans blindly accept all verdicts from the intelligence agencies. The rise of the colossal military and the “Deep State” are new phenomenons in American history, and a dispassionate scrutiny underscores the need for more vigilance on our part.

Military-industrial complex – Eisenhower

While many Americans consider it heretical to question the U.S. military, none other than a five-star military general and U.S. president did just that. In an extraordinary farewell speech in 1961, Eisenhower went on national TV and said, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Such a speech would now be derided as a conspiracy theory and even labeled as treasonous.

CIA – Truman

Guess who thought that the CIA had turned into an American Gestapo? Harry Truman, the US president who created the CIA. He said in his biography, “Those fellows in the CIA don’t just report on wars, they go out and make their own (wars), and there’s nobody to keep track of what they’re up to. They spend billions of dollars on stirring up trouble. The CIA has become a government all of its own.”

Former Director of the CIA, William Colby, described CIA’s culture in his memoiras follows: “cult of intelligence … that held itself to be above the normal processes of society, with its own rationale and justification, beyond the restraints of the Constitution …”

Election meddling and coups by the CIA

Since World War II, the CIA has meddled in more than 80 foreign elections around the world (doesn’t include coups and regime changes!).

The US Senate’s Church Committee in 1975 documented several instances of US meddling in other nations. The operations included suitcases of cash to bribe politicians and voters, manuals for psychological warfare, sensational fake news, organized mass protests, armed violent oppositions etc.

Starting in the 1980’s, the Deep State refined its plans for regime changes, resorting to the use of sophisticated NGO’s such as the USAID, NED and Open Society Foundations of George Soros, which all specialize in mass propaganda and color revolutions.

When asked a few months ago, if we still meddle in other countries’ elections, CIA director James Woolsey grinned and responded, “myum, myum, myum.”

There are incontrovertible proofs for some of the coups, thanks to declassified CIA documents – for example, the overthrow of democratically elected leaders in Iran in 1953 and in Guatemala in 1954.

Assassinations

Recently released “JFK Files” from the CIA archives show detailed plans to assassinate Fidel Castro that included exploding cigars and tuberculosis-laced diving suit. Other leaders targeted in these documents include General Trujillo of Dominican Republic and Patrice Lumumba of Congo.

William Blum has done extensive research and documented numerous foreign assassinations – successful and attempted – by the CIA and/or the US military.

Theoretically, nothing stops the killing machine in operating within the US. Even intellectuals like David Talbot – founder of Salon magazine and editor of Time Magazine – are convinced that some from the top echelons of the CIA assassinated JFK.

President Truman also seemed to suggest the same when he wrote an extraordinary op-ed in Washington Post one month after JFK’s assassinationsaying that CIA’s covert operations must be terminated.

By the way, the phrase “conspiracy theorist” was invented by the CIA in 1967 to discredit anyone challenging the official narratives!

Coddling dictators and tyrants

Right now, the U.S. arms/funds about 3 in 4 of all dictators around the world! How’s that for spreading freedom and democracy? The U.S. has supported and installed numerous brutal tyrants and authoritarians all over the world in the last century. Suharto in Indonesia, for example, killed two million people, but was loved by the West, since he let western corporations exploit his people and plunder his country.

Nazis and Jihadists

After the defeat of Hitler, the U.S. recruited more than 1000 Nazis, including high-ranking officials, to work against the Soviet Union.

Under Operation Paperclip, the CIA brought numerous Nazi scientists into the U.S.

As I explain in my book, Deconstructing the Syrian War, the U.S. has trained, armed and funded Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Libya, Syria etc. to wage proxy wars.

Drug Trafficking

From 1950 to 1975, the CIA – using a fleet of planes and helicopters known as Air America – was involved in massive heroin trafficking from the Golden Trianglearea in Myanmar, Thailand and Laos.

After the Vietnam War, the Deep State in the 1980s used heroin in Afghanistan to fight the USSR and cocaine in Central America to fight leftist leaders. According to Gary Webb, the CIA also imported cocaine into the U.S.

In 1998, a Congressman entered into official records a shocking document called “A Tangled Web: A History of CIA Complicity in Drug International Trafficking” that summarizes CIA’s nefarious drug activities from 1947 to 1996.

Since the US invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, opium cultivation there has exploded. Correlation or causation? As a NY Times investigation revealed in 2009, the biggest Afghan drug dealer was on the CIA payroll.

Propaganda and Psy Ops

CIA’s Operation Mockingbird was an extensive operation to infiltrate and control all the major news organizations. Over the decades, the CIA and the Pentagon have actively participated in over 800 major movies and 1000 TV shows to make sure that the right (propaganda) message reaches the audience!

Declassified documents on MK-Ultra and other mind-control and brainwashing programs and experiments – LSD and numerous other drugs, hypnosis, electric shock etc. – are right out of a sci-fi horror movie.

Wars and lies

Remember all the deceit and fearmongering that convinced us to go to Iraq war after 9/11?

  • Saddam was trying to buy Uranium
  • He had reconstituted nuclear weapons;
  • There will be “mushroom cloud” in the U.S.
  • He had biological weapons in mobile labs
  • He could launch chemical weapons against Israel and British soldiers (in Cyprus) in just 45 minutes

Through innuendos and bold lies, the Establishment convinced 70% of Americansthat Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and even the Anthrax attack that followed.

Go back in history, there are many such lies, including the Gulf of Tonkin claim that helped the U.S. launch the Vietnam War.

Wars and Corporatism

Every American should read General Smedley Butler’s amazing testimony titled, “War is a Racket.”

John Perkins’ book, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” is another must read to understand how banks and corporations drive geopolitics, coups, regime changes and wars in the 21st century.

False flag Attacks

Somehow, it’s psychologically hard for people to think that their government might stage false flag attacks. However, as recently declassified documents show, the CIA had many such ideas – killing boatloads of Cuban refugees or blowing up ships and then blaming Fidel Castro; carrying out “terror campaigns” – their own words – with bombs in Miami and Washington D.C. to frame Castro; and buying Russian planes to attack U.S. soldiers to start a war with the Soviet Union. Shockingly, these plans got approved all the way up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and only got stopped by JFK or his brother.

There are convincing evidence to prove the CIA carried out similar false flag attacks – Operation Gladio – in Europe in the 1950’s through the 1970’s to blame the communists and shift the political landscape to the right.

In recent years in Libya, Syria and Ukraine, false flag attacks were used to launch the regime change operations. Wild accusations such as the Novichok poisoning in the U.K. by Russia also bear all the hallmarks of fake or false flag attacks.

Torture and Human Experiments

While our politicians are skilled at crying crocodile tears over human rights abuses by our geopolitical adversaries, the CIA runs secret torture prisons in many countries to avoid scrutiny. Sometimes we do it ourselves, like in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, Iraq.

According to a 1994 government report, hundreds of thousands of Americans were subjected to unethical radiological, chemical, biological and medical experiments between 1940 and 1974. The U.S. military even conductedbiological warfare testing on the entire city of San Francisco!

Nuking 1200 Cities

Another deeply held American belief is that our elites always hold high moral standards, value lives and are compassionate. In September 1945, merely one month after Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the U.S. military drew up plans to drop 204 atomic bombs on 66 cities in the USSR, who was our ally during World War II and still an ally at that time!

Then a decade later, in 1956, the U.S. military had detailed plans to drop 2,000+ atom and hydrogen bombs on 1,200 cities in Russia, China and Eastern Europe. This would have immediately killed 500 million people, 99% innocent civilians. Think about what kind of evil monsters and sociopaths would come up with such genocidal ideas. Also, if they had carried out their psychopathic plan, the nuclear fallout might have ended the entire human race.

Perpetual Wars

Since 9/11, the U.S./NATO wars have already cost $5.6 trillion and killed 5 to 7 million people, but clever propaganda hide or justify such atrocities. In the 1990s, half a million Iraqi children died from U.S. sanctions, which Sec. of State Madeleine Albright said was “worth it.”

Wars and conflicts are extremely profitable for the military-banking-intelligence complex, which uses the soldiers as pawns. 2.7 million Americans have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11; and more than 400,000 of them suffer from PTSD.

If diplomacy, free trade and fair wages become the norm, we wouldn’t need 800 military bases in 140 countries to prop up friendly dictators, bully competitors, and enforce the Ponzi scheme of the Petrodollar regime.

The unsustainable Empire thrives because we cannot question or challenge it.

Mass Surveillance

In the land of the free, Americans don’t mind NSA spying on them. While many assume that it’s to protect us from terrorists, Edward Snowden revealed that the mass collection of phone calls has been going on since 1985. If the spooks have dirt on every single American, it’s no wonder that no politician speaks out against the Orwellian nightmare.

The attacks on Wikileaks and Julian Assange also reveal how much the Deep State hates transparency and accountability.

Conclusion

The zeitgeist in America demands blind support for military, defense industry and the intelligence community. Like fish in the water, Americans have lost the ability to notice the pervasive and omnipresent propaganda. However, we owe it ourselves to be more knowledgeable and objective in processing and reacting to information. We also need to be more cynical about our government and the mass media. Freedom, liberty and prosperity are not achieved and maintained through willful ignorance, blind allegiance and naïve faith.

*

This article was originally published on NationofChange.

Chris Kanthan is the author of two new books: “What the Heck happened to the USA?” and “Deconstructing the Syrian War.” Chris lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, has traveled to 35 countries, and writes about world affairs, politics, economy and health. His other book is “Deconstructing Monsanto.”

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Military, Deep State and the American Innocence

Securing the Future Of “Truly Independent” News

February 19th, 2019 by The Global Research Team

“I have been reading GlobalResearch.ca for many years and have yet to find another site of a similar quality with respect to its being truly independent, well informed, analytically deep, close to many different realities of this world, and reader-friendly. I cannot imagine renouncing my daily perusal of GlobalResearch.ca articles.”

Claudia von Werlhof is Professor of Political Science and Women’s Studies at the University of Innsbruck, Austria.

Dear Readers,

At present we are struggling to meet our monthly costs and are in fact running a deficit. However, we have a large readership for which we are extremely thankful. If each of our readers made a donation, large or small, or took out a membership with us, we would be well on our way to remedying the situation.

If, like Prof. von Werlhof, you value what we do and the perspective we bring to world events every day (for free!), please donate or become a member now by clicking below.

Click to donate:

DONATIONS BY POST:

To donate by post, kindly send a cheque or international money order, made out to CRG, to our postal address:

Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
P.O. Box 55019
11, Notre-Dame Ouest
Montreal, QC
CANADA  H2Y 4A7

Payment by check is accepted in US or Canadian dollars, GBP & EUR.


Global Research Annual Membership – $95.00/year

All new members (annual basis) as well as all membership renewal (annual basis) will receive a FREE copy of “Voices from Syria” by Mark Taliano, as well as a FREE copy of “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century“, edited by Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

 

Global Research Annual Membership – $48.00/year

(Students / Seniors / Low-Income)

All new members (annual basis) as well as all membership renewals (annual basis) will receive a FREE copy (in PDF format) of “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century“, edited by Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, as well as a copy (in PDF format) of “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

 

Global Research Monthly Membership – $9.50/month

All new members (monthly basis) will receive a FREE copy (in PDF format) of “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

 

Global Research Monthly Membership – $5.00/month

(Students / Seniors / Low-Income)

All new members (monthly basis) will receive a FREE copy (in PDF format) of “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

 

Sustainer Member – $200/per year

Help support Global Research with an annual membership payment of $200.00. Each Sustainer Member will receive any two books of their choice from our Online Store, as well as a FREE copy of  “The Globalization of War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

FOR FULL DETAILS AND OPTIONS, PLEASE VISIT OUR MEMBERSHIP PAGE

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Securing the Future Of “Truly Independent” News

Fortunately the world today is very different from that of 2003, Washington’s decrees are less effective in determining the world order. But in spite of this new, more balanced division of power amongst several powers, Washington appears ever more aggressive towards allies and enemies alike, regardless of which US president is in office.

China and Russia are leading this historic transition while being careful to avoid direct war with the United States. To succeed in this endeavor, they use a hybrid strategy involving diplomacy, military support to allies, and economic guarantees to countries under Washington’s attack.

The United States considers the whole planet its playground. Its military and political doctrine is based on the concept of liberal hegemony, as explained by political scientist John Mearsheimer. This imperialistic attitude has, over time, created a coordinated and semi-official front of countries resisting this liberal hegemony. The recent events in Venezuela indicate why cooperation between these counter-hegemonic countries is essential to accelerating the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar reality, where the damage US imperialism is able to bring about is diminished.

Moscow and Beijing lead the world by hindering Washington

Moscow and Beijing, following a complex relationship from the period of the Cold War, have managed to achieve a confluence of interests in their grand objectives over the coming years. The understanding they have come to mainly revolves around stemming the chaos Washington has unleashed on the world.

The guiding principle of the US military-intelligence apparatus is that if a country cannot be controlled (such as Iraq following the 2003 invasion), then it has to be destroyed in order to save it from falling into Sino-Russian camp. This is what the United States has attempted to do with Syria, and what it intends to do with Venezuela.

The Middle East is an area that has drawn global attention for some time, with Washington clearly interested in supporting its Israeli and Saudi allies in the region. Israel pursues a foreign policy aimed at dismantling the Iranian and Syrian states. Saudi Arabia also pursues a similar strategy against Iran and Syria, in addition to fueling a rift within the Arab world stemming from its differences with Qatar.

The foreign-policy decisions of Israel and Saudi Arabia have been supported by Washington for decades, for two very specific reasons: the influence of the Israel lobby in the US, and the need to ensure that Saudi Arabia and the OPEC countries sell oil in US dollars, thereby preserving the role of the US dollar as the global reserve currency.

The US dollar remaining the global reserve currency is essential to Washington being able to maintain her role as superpower and is crucial to her hybrid strategy against her geopolitical rivals. Sanctions are a good example of how Washington uses the global financial and economic system, based on the US dollar, as a weapon against her enemies. In the case of the Middle East, Iran is the main target, with sanctions aimed at preventing the Islamic Republic from trading on foreign banking systems. Washington has vetoed Syria’s ability to procure contracts to reconstruct the country, with European companies being threatened that they risk no longer being able to work in the US if they accept to work in Syria.

Beijing and Moscow have a clear diplomatic strategy, jointly rejecting countless motions advanced by the US, the UK and France at the United Nations Security Council condemning Iran and Syria. On the military front, Russia continues her presence in Syria. China’s economic efforts, although not yet fully visible in Syria and Iran, will be the essential part of reviving these countries destroyed by years of war inflicted by Washington and her allies.

China and Russia’s containment strategy in the Middle East aims to defend Syria and Iran diplomatically using international law, something that is continuously ridden roughshod over by the US and her regional allies. Russia’s military action has been crucial to curbing and defeating the inhuman aggression launched against Syria, and has also drawn a red line that Israel cannot cross in its efforts to attack Iran. The defeat of the United States in Syria has created an encouraging precedent for the rest of the world. Washington has been forced to abandon the original plans to getting rid of Assad.

Syria will be remembered in the future as the beginning of the multipolar revolution, whereby the United States was contained in military-conventional terms as a result of the coordinated actions of China and Russia.

China’s economic contribution provides for such urgent needs as the supply of food, government loans, and medicines to countries under Washington’s economic siege. So long as the global financial system remains anchored to the US dollar, Washington remains able to cause a lot of pain to countries refusing to obey her diktats.

The effectiveness of economic sanctions varies from country to country. The Russian Federation used sanctions imposed by the West as an impetus to obtain a complete, or almost autonomous, refinancing of its main foreign debt, as well as to producing at home what had previously been imported from abroad. Russia’s long-term strategy is to open up to China and other Asian countries as the main market for imports and exports, reducing contacts with the Europeans if countries like France and Germany continue in their hostility towards the Russian Federation.

Thanks to Chinese investments, together with planned projects like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the hegemony of the US dollar is under threat in the medium to long term. The Chinese initiatives in the fields of infrastructure, energy, rail, road and technology connections among dozens of countries, added to the continuing need for oil, will drive ever-increasing consumption of oil in Asia that is currently paid for in US dollars.

Moscow is in a privileged position, enjoying good relations with all the major producers of oil and LNG, from Qatar to Saudi Arabia, and including Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria. Moscow’s good relations with Riyadh are ultimately aimed at the creation of an OPEC+ arrangement that includes Russia.

Particular attention should be given to the situation in Venezuela, one of the most important countries in OPEC. Riyadh sent to Caracas in recent weeks a tanker carrying two million barrels of oil, and Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has taken a neutral stance regarding Venezuela, maintaining a predictable balance between Washington and Caracas.

These joint initiatives, led by Moscow and Beijing, are aimed at reducing the use of the US dollar by countries that are involved in the BRI and adhere to the OPEC+ format. This diversification away from the US dollar, to cover financial transactions between countries involving investment, oil and LNG, will see the progressive abandonment of the US dollar as a result of agreements that increasingly do away with the dollar.

For the moment, Riyadh does not seem intent on losing US military protection. But recent events to do with Khashoggi, as well as the failure to list Saudi Aramco on the New York or London stock exchanges, have severely undermined the confidence of the Saudi royal family in her American allies. The meeting between Putin and MBS at the G20 in Bueno Aires seemed to signal a clear message to Washington as well as the future of the US dollar.

Moscow and Beijing’s military, economic and diplomatic efforts see their culmination in the Astana process. Turkey is one of the principle countries behind the aggression against Syria; but Moscow and Tehran have incorporated it into the process of containing the regional chaos spawned by the United States. Thanks to timely agreements in Syria known as “deconfliction zones”, Damascus has advanced, city by city, to clear the country of the terrorists financed by Washington, Riyadh and Ankara.

Qatar, an economic guarantor of Turkey, which in return offers military protection to Doha, is also moving away from the Israeli-Saudi camp as a result of Sino-Russian efforts in the energy, diplomatic and military fields. Doha’s move has also been because of the fratricidal diplomatic-economic war launched by Riyadh against Doha, being yet another example of the contagious effect of the chaos created by Washington, especially on US allies Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Washington loses military influence in the region thanks to the presence of Moscow, and this leads traditional US allies like Turkey and Qatar to gravitate towards a field composed essentially of the countries opposed to Washington.

Washington’s military and diplomatic defeat in the region will in the long run make it possible to change the economic structure of the Middle East. A multipolar reality will prevail, where regional powers like Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran will feel compelled to interact economically with the whole Eurasian continent as part of the Belt and Road Initiative.

The basic principle for Moscow and Beijing is the use of military, economic and diplomatic means to contain the United States in its unceasing drive to kill, steal and destroy.

From the Middle East to Asia

Beijing has focussed in Asia on the diplomatic field, facilitating talks between North and South Korea, accelerating the internal dialogue on the peninsula, thereby excluding external actors like the United States (who only have the intention of sabotaging the talks). Beijing’s military component has also played an important role, although never used directly as the Russian Federation did in Syria. Washington’s options vis-a-vis the Korean peninsular were strongly limited by the fact that bordering the DPRK were huge nuclear and conventional forces, that is to say, the deterrence offered by Russia and China. The combined military power of the DPRK, Russia and China made any hypothetical invasion and bombing of Pyongyang an impractical option for the United States.

As in the past, the economic lifeline extended to Pyongyang by Moscow and Beijing proved to be decisive in limiting the effects of the embargo and the complete financial war that Washington had declared on North Korea. Beijing and Moscow’s skilled diplomatic work with Seoul produced an effect similar to that of Turkey in the Middle East, with South Korea slowly seeming to drift towards the multipolar world offered by Russia and China, with important economic implications and prospects for unification of the peninsula.

Russia and China – through a combination of playing a clever game of diplomacy, military deterrence, and offering to the Korean peninsula the prospect of economic investment through the BRI – have managed to frustrate Washington’s efforts to unleash chaos on their borders via the Korean peninsula.

The United States seems to be losing its imperialistic mojo most significantly in Asia and the Middle East, not only militarily but also diplomatically and economically.

The situation is different in Europe and Venezuela, two geographical areas where Washington still enjoys greater geopolitical weight than in Asia and the Middle East. In both cases, the effectiveness of the two Sino-Russian resistance – in military, economic and diplomatic terms – is more limited, for different reasons. This situation, in line with the principle of America First and the return to the Monroe doctrine, will be the subject of the next article.

*

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

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

According to Russian media, yet to be confirmed, “A False Flag is Brewing” under the Cloak of the so-called “Humanitarian Convoy for Venezuela” (TASS)

The alleged false flag operation is intended to justify “an outside invasion” of Venezuela by one or more foreign powers. The false flag is slated to result in the deaths of civilians. 

According to Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova at a press conference last week: 

A provocation, involving victims, is being put together under the guise of a humanitarian convoy,” Zakharova stressed. “They need it just as a pretext to use outside force, and everyone should understand that.”

“The possibility of a military intervention is just a red line for all of Latin America and the entire global community in general, which considers itself to be civilized,” she emphasized.

“We believe it is imperative to refrain from steps or statements that could trigger an escalation of tensions in Venezuela, in particular, from any appeals to Venezuela’s armed forces fraught with their involvement in a domestic civil standoff,” Zakharova went on to say. “We keep repeating that the international community’s task is to promote mutual understanding between various political forces in Venezuela.” (quoted by TASS)

According to Sputnik, the above Russian Foreign Ministry statement was made following direct contacts between the “US and  members of Venezuela’s army, urging them to pledge allegiance to opposition leader Juan Guaido. … The Russian Foreign Ministry has warned of an increasing number of signs that a military coup in Venezuela is becoming the “West’s priority”.

 

Trump’s Big Lie Pledge to Lower Drug Prices

February 19th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Time and again, Trump promises one thing for ordinary Americans and does something entirely different.  

Candidate Trump pledged to let Medicare negotiate discounts for prescription drugs. Straightaway in office, he yielded to Pharma lobbyists, abandoning his promise, falsely claiming “smaller, younger companies” would be harmed.

Last May, he said major drug companies will be announcing “massive drug price cuts” voluntarily – with no further elaboration. It never happened.

He repeated the pledge throughout the year, saying drugmakers are “getting away with murder.”

During his first two years in office, far more drug price increases occurred than cuts. According to AP News, in January through July last year, “there were 96 price hikes for every cut.”

Trump’s Health and Human Services secretary Alex Azar formerly was president of Lilly USA LLC, Eli Lilly’s largest affiliate company.

In 2012, he headed Lilly’s US operations, was also involved in its international and government affairs work. As HHS secretary, he’s serving Big Pharma interests, not US consumers. They’re paying on average double for drugs compared to their counterparts in other Western countries.

Last summer, Azar conceded that drug prices won’t be falling any time soon. He failed to explain they virtually always rise on average annually, 2019 no exception.

In December, Reuters reported that around 30 drug companies said they intend raising prices in early 2019, hikes ranging from about 5 – 10% on average, making many more unaffordable for millions of Americans than already.

The Wall Street Journal noted that hikes in drug prices continue to exceed inflation. Software firm Rx Savings Solutions said the average increase it saw straightaway in the new year was $6.3%. It may be much greater by yearend.

On February 12, a white House statement headlined “No more paying for the rich world’s medicine,” saying:

“Putting American patients first has been core to President Trump’s agenda since day one.” Polar opposite it true.

Last week, he lied saying “(t)he next major priority for me, and for all of us, should be to lower the cost of healthcare and prescription drugs, and to protect patients with preexisting conditions.”

Despite sizable increases in drug prices during his first two years in office, further increases in 2019 so far, the statement further lied claiming “President Trump’s efforts to put patients in control have resulted in the single largest decline in drug prices in 46 years.”

Instead of working to make drug prices more affordable, his agenda is polar opposite. In December, he proposed letting insurers providing Medicare Part D drug coverage no longer protect certain classes of pricy drugs from being higher priced.

According to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator Seema Verma, under his proposal, Medicare plans could “exclude from their formularies protected class drugs with price increases that are greater than inflation, as well as certain new drug formulations that are not a significant innovation over the original product.”

Drug classes the above applies to are some of the most expensive – for cancer, psychiatric treatment, and other costly illnesses, six protected drug classes in all, accounting for around one-third of drug coverage under Medicare Part D.

Trump’s touted US/Mexico/Canada Agreement (USMCA – NAFTA 2.0) is a corporate coup d’etat, written by and agreed to by lawyers representing their interests.

It’s all about prioritizing profits and other interests at the expense of workers, consumers, and ecosanity in the three countries.

It also assures steadily higher drug prices. Over 70 US health, consumer, and other public interest groups denounced NAFTA 2.0 for permitting higher prices.

Representing millions of ordinary Americans, they launched a campaign to remove monopoly protections for drug giants in the so-called US/Mexico/Canada agreement.

They demand giveaways to Big Pharma end, wanting drug prices lowered, not raised. They slammed USMCA terms that “lock in place existing US policies that have led to high medicine prices, undermining the authority of this and future Congresses to implement important reforms to expand generic and biosimilar competition, lower medicine prices and expand access.”

The new agreement is worse than original NAFTA by granting drug companies monopoly rights to facilitate high prices, permitting them to go steadily higher, including by avoiding competition from generics.

Millions of Americans forgo using expensive drugs because they’re unaffordable. Dozens of groups petitioned Congress by letter to demand that USMCA provisions “undermin(ing) affordable access to medicines” be stricken from the measure when voted on by House and Senate measures.

Signatory groups include Consumer Reports, Alliance for Retired Americans, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Families USA, Global Justice Institute, Justice in Aging, Clinicians for Progressive Care, Medicare Rights Center, and Public Citizen, among many others.

Public Citizen President Robert Weissman said the following:

“With consumer anger mounting, Big Pharma aims to use NAFTA 2.0 to lock in the government-granted monopolies that give drug corporations their power to price gouge consumers in the United States and around the world.”

“The idea was to sneak a provision into the trade deal that would prevent the United States, Canada or Mexico from reducing monopoly terms in their domestic law for cancer and other important medicines.”

“But here’s the bad news for Big Pharma: Congress is aware of the pharmaceutical corporations’ sneaky effort to lock in high drug prices using NAFTA 2.0, and if those terms are not eliminated, it’s hard to imagine how a deal gets through Congress.”

Here’s the January 22, 2019 letter to Congress.

*

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.

Selected Articles: Consequences of Imperialism

February 19th, 2019 by Global Research News

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

At present we are not covering our monthly costs. The support of our readers is much appreciated. 

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

*     *     *

How Much of Venezuela’s Crisis Is Really Maduro’s Fault?

By Steve Ellner, February 19, 2019

The Venezuelan opposition frequently argues that neither the sanctions nor depressed international oil prices are to blame for the nation’s economic difficulties, only the mismanagement of the economy.

Yellow Vests and Red Unions Strike Together

By Richard Greeman, February 19, 2019

On Tuesday, February 5, as the government of Emmanuel Macron pushed harsh repressive laws against demonstrators through the National Assembly, the Yellow Vests joined with France’s unions for the first time in a day-long, nation-wide “General Strike.”

Trump Declares Global War on Socialism

By Bill Van Auken, February 19, 2019

US President Donald Trump unleashed a global tirade against socialism at a Florida university Monday, in which he targeted Venezuela as the front line in this fascistic crusade.

Who’s Behind the Attacks in Iran? Pakistan Has to Choose Between Saudi Arabia and Iran

By Masud Wadan, February 19, 2019

Historically, Pakistan has no feud with Iran and the latter was the first to recognize Pakistan when it gained independence in 1947, but siding with Saudi Arabia will keep Iran at arm’s length from Pakistan.

Melting Ice Sheets and Weakened Polar Fronts: Onset of Climate Tipping Points

By Dr. Andrew Glikson, February 18, 2019

The state of the climate constitutes a confluence of multiple processes, the primary factors being solar insolation and the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere.

In Countries Destroyed by the West, People Should Stop Admiring the U.S. and Europe

By Andre Vltchek, February 18, 2019

It may sound incredible, but it is true: in countries that have been damaged, even totally robbed and destroyed by the West, many people are still enamored with Europe and North America.

Is Venezuela Canada’s Modern Day El Dorado?

By Nino Pagliccia, February 18, 2019

The search for gold in the mythical place of El Dorado in Latin America drew armies of Spanish conquistadors in the 16th century and caused many deaths of indigenous people. The gold remained elusive but Spain colonized most of the region and exploited other riches until the Latin American independence movements of the 19th century.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Consequences of Imperialism

Historian and U.K. analyst Mark Curtis checks out the Twitter accounts of journalists whose names have been associated with the Integrity Initiative, a British “counter disinformation” program.

***

The U.K.-financed Integrity Initiative, managed by the Institute for Statecraft, is ostensibly a “counter disinformation” program to challenge Russian information operations. However, it has been revealed that the Integrity Initiative Twitter handle and some individuals associated with this program have also been tweeting messages attacking Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. This takes on special meaning in light of the numerous U.K. military and intelligence personnel associated with the program, documented in an important briefing by academics in the Working Group on Syria Propaganda and Media.

Several journalists have been named as associated with the Integrity Initiative, either in program “clusters” or having been invited to an Integrity Initiative event, in the documents that have been posted online. (For more on this see section 7.1 of this briefing note, the “UK” section of the “Xcountry” document and journalists invited to speak at an Integrity Initiative event in London in November 2018.)

Analysis of 11 of these individuals has been undertaken to assess to what extent their tweets have linked Corbyn unfairly (for a definition see below) to Russia. The results show two things:

  • first, the smearing of Corbyn about Russia is more extensive than has been revealed so far;
  • second, many of the same individuals have also been attacking a second target – Julian Assange, trying to also falsely link him to the Kremlin.

Many of these 11 individuals are associated with The Times and The Guardian in the U.K. and the Atlantic Council in the U.S. The research does not show, however, that these tweets are associated with the Integrity Initiative (see further below).

Linking Corbyn to Russia

The Integrity Initiative said in a tweet, “we are not ‘anti-Russian’ and do not ‘target’ Mr Corbyn.” However, that tweet was preceded by the following tweets:

  • “Skripal poisoning: It’s time for the Corbyn left to confront its Putin problem.”
  • “An alleged British Corbyn supporter wants to vote for Putin.”
  • “’Mr Corbyn was a ‘useful idiot’, in the phrase apocryphally attributed to Lenin. His visceral anti-Westernism helped the Kremlin cause, as surely as if he had been secretly peddling Westminster tittle-tattle for money.’” This tweet was a quote from an article by Edward Lucas in The Times, “Corbyn’s sickening support of Soviet Empire.”

Here are examples of tweets from the 11 individuals.

Times columnist Edward Lucas has published an article on the Integrity Initiative website and been quoted as saying that his work with the Initiative has not been paid or involved anything improper. (See section 7.1.3 of this briefing note.) On Twitter, he has accused Corbyn of having blind spots on Putin’s plutocracy and Kremlin imperialism.”

Lucas has also tweeted:

  • “Why does Corbyn not see that Russia is imperialist and Ukrainians are victims?” and  “It’s not just Corbyn. Here’s Swedish leftie @AsaLinderborg explaining why Nato not Putin is the real threat to peace” – linking to the latter’s article in a Swedish newspaper.
  • “German hard-leftist GDR-loving wall-defending @SWagenknecht congratulates Corbyn on win” [in the Labour leadership contest]
  • “More excellent stuff on Corbyn’s love of plutocrats so long as they are Russian.”

In another tweet, he praised as brilliant an article about Corbyn “playing into Russia’s hands on the Scribal poisoning.”

Deborah Haynes, until recently defence editor of The Times and now foreign affairs editor at Sky News, has tweeted:

Haynes has also tweeted about Corbyn “displaying staggering naivety and a complete failure to understand this state-sponsored attack by Russia on the UK. Appalling. Is he for real?”

Haynes has also tweeted: “Incredible that @jeremycorbynis attempting to score party-political points in wake of hugely significant statement by @theresa_may on Skripal attack by Russia.”

Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum has tweeted that Corbyn is a “useful idiot” of Russia; about a “precise echo of Kremlin propaganda from Corbyn,” and that “Surprise! Russia sides with Corbyn against Cameron.”

Below is another.

David Clark, a former adviser to the late Labour PM, Robin Cook, has tweeted that Corbyn is an “apologist” for Putin.  Below is another of Clark’s tweets.

Anders Aslund of the Atlantic Council in the U.S. has tweeted, referring to Corbyn: “Once a communist always so.”

His colleague at the Atlantic Council, Ben Nimmo, sent the following three tweets on Corbyn’s candidacy for the Labour leadership in August 2015:

  • “Why Russia loves Corbyn, in one headline”
  • “Russia’s certainly pushing Corbyn’s candidacy”
  • “From Russia with coverage – how RT is campaigning for Jeremy Corbyn.” Here’s one more, promoting a piece he wrote for the Daily Beast:

Natalie Nougayrede, Guardian columnist and on its editorial board, has tweeted this:

Nougayrede also retweeted an article by Jeremy Corbyn isn’t anti-war. He’s just anti-West.”

Three Guardian/Observer-linked journalists were invited to speak at an Integrity Initiative event in London in November 2018: Carole Cadwalladr, Nick Cohen and James Ball.

Cadwalladr has tweeted that “Labour has a Russia problem,” that Corbyn adviser Seumas Milne is “pro-Putin” and that “Milne’s support for Putin has made him a Russian propaganda tool.” One of Cadwalladr’s tweets noted:

  • “Here’s Corbyn’s principal advisor Seamus Milne on RT explaining why it was the fault of NATO aggression that Russia invaded Ukraine.

Another by Cadwalladr:

Nick Cohen has tweeted that “Labour is led by Putin fans” and: “What is worse? Farage and Corbyn and twitter trolls divert attention from Russia’s political assassinations because they believe Putin is innocent or because they are morally corrupt?” He has also retweeted an Observer article of his claiming that Labour leaders have promoted “endorsements of Russian imperialism” and that Corbyn’s policy has given Russia “a free pass” in Syria.

Here is another:

James Ball has tweeted a link to his own article in the New Statesman saying that Corbyn is “playing into Russia’s hands on the Skripal poisoning” and accusing Corbyn to the effect that he “took money from Russia Today.”

Linking Assange to the Kremlin

Many of the same individuals have also been tweeting false statements about Julian Assange and Russia.

The Integrity Initiative twitter site itself retweeted a Guardian smear article about a lawyer, Adam Waldman, visiting the Wikileaks founder.

It also tweeted: “If you still believe Assange is some kind of hero, you deserve pity at best.”

Anders Aslund has tweeted that Assange “represents certain Russian agencies” that “Wikileaks, Assange & Snowden are nothing but highly successful Russian special operations” and “Kremlin agents” and that “Assange is collaborating w[ith] Russia Today as program host. Would be strange if not full-fledged agent.”

Cadwalladr has also sought to overtly link Assange to the Kremlin.  She has tweeted that “Assange & Milne… are both Russian propaganda tools,” that Assange is a “special friend” of Russian intelligence and that Wikileaks has “colluded with…the Kremlin.”

In addition, Cadwalladr has tweeted several times that “Assange was in direct communication with Russian intelligence in 2016” and that “Wikileaks sought assistance from Russian intelligence officers to disrupt the US presidential election.” Cadwalladr is here claiming that Wikileaks knowingly colluded with Russian intelligence by releasing the files on the Democratic Party in 2016: in fact, this is not known or proven at all, while numerous media outlets also published or had contacts with Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks in 2016 – though do not figure as targets in her attacks.

Nick Cohen has also made many smears against Julian Assange, variously calling him a “Russian stooge,”  a “Putin agent,”  “pro-Putin,” a “Russian toady”, that he “works for Russia propaganda machine” while “Wikileaks will think whatever Putin tells it to think.”

David Leask, chief reporter of The Herald (Scotland), has described Assange as a “Kremlin proxy” while Anne Applebaum tweeted: “’Wikileaks is a front for Russian intelligence,’” linking to an article of the same headline. Edward Lucas retweeted his Times article suggesting that Assange and Wikileaks are part of the “Kremlin-loving camp”while David Clark has tweeted that “Assange is an active accomplice” of autocrats such as Putin.

Need for further research

There are some key points to be made about this analysis.

First, some of the tweets made by these individuals on Corbyn and Assange, not all of which are included here, are fair comment, even if, in my view, they are usually wrong. But others go beyond this, inferring that Corbyn (and Assange) are in effect agents of Russia and/or are willingly and knowingly amplifying Russia’s agenda, as little more than “tools” – with no evidence provided (understandably, since there is none). There is also sometimes the association of Corbyn with former communists. These areas are held to constitute smearing.

Second, it is not known and certainly not proven that these tweets are associated with the Integrity Initiative. Little is known of the internal workings of the Initiative. It is possible that some of the individuals may have been chosen by the Integrity Initiative to be associated with it precisely because of their pre-existing criticism of Russia or their willingness to accuse figures such as Corbyn with association with Russia. While I am not suggesting that these individuals’ tweets are necessarily linked to their role in the Integrity Initiative, there does appear to be something of a pattern among these people of smearing both Corbyn and Assange.

Third, and equally important, this is not a full analysis of these individuals’ outputs: it is limited to their tweets. Neither is it a full analysis of the false linking to Russia by individuals associated with the Integrity Initiative: several other journalists and figures named in the documents are not analysed here. Again, further research is needed.

*

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 Curtis is an historian and analyst of U.K. foreign policy and international development and the author of six books, the latest being an updated edition of “Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam.”

Featured image is from Global Justice

Black Alliance for Peace: Struggle in Haiti and Venezuela Connected

February 19th, 2019 by Black Alliance for Peace

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) remains in steadfast solidarity with the people of Haiti, whose revolutionary spirit in 1791 showed the world what is possible when Africans organize and struggle together to remove their shackles and dispose of their oppressors.

The recent revelation that Haitian President Jovenel Moïse embezzled nearly $4 billion Venezuela had loaned the island nation a decade ago caused the popular uprising taking place in the country. And this is where we see where U.S. interventions in Venezuela and Haiti connect.

Moïse is nothing more than a puppet controlled by the U.S. government to disallow Haitian self-determination.

The Haitian people are no strangers to the tentacles of U.S. interventionism, which has been in place since the 19-year occupation commenced by President Woodrow Wilson in 1915. The occupation included the seizure and relocation of Haiti’s financial reserves to the United States, as well as a re-write of the nation’s constitution, which allowed foreign entities to enjoy land-owning rights.

Over time, the actors associated with the U.S. stranglehold on Haiti and its right to self-determination may have changed—from Wilson, to Clinton, to Obama—but the strategy and modus operandi have remained consistent. The method involves financial manipulation, election rigging and racketeering. We are witnessing a parallel between 1929—when U.S. military forces suppressed a nationwide strike in Haiti and peaceful demonstrations by firing live ammunition on 1,500 people—and recently as Haitians have protested, demanding the ouster of U.S.-backed Moïse.

Moïse’s grip on power is being pried from his fingers as police officers continue to defy his orders, stand down and refuse to fire on protesters.

Continued U.S. oppression of Haiti was most recently demonstrated when U.S. sanctions against Venezuela made it impossible for Haiti to repay their loan as part of the PetroCaribe deal, thereby ending the arrangement in 2017. Moïse further demonstrated his loyalty to the United States when he directed his ministers to support a U.S.-engineered vote at the Organization of American States (OAS) that declared the illegitimacy of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

As internationalists who understand the interconnectedness of oppressed peoples’ struggles, BAP declares its solidarity with the people of Haiti in the struggle to end U.S. imperialism in Haiti, Venezuela and all republics of the Caribbean and Latin America. The people of Haiti are once again attempting to win back their nation. All who believe in principle of self-determination should stand with them.

*

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

Postmodernism: A Realm Beyond Renaissance Humanism

February 19th, 2019 by Nauman Sadiq

There is a fundamental distinction between scientism, or scientific worldview, which is an ideology based on unproven hypotheses and empirically proven science. Karl Popper addressed the demarcation problem between scientific worldview and science proper (empirical and verifiable science) in his theory of falsifiability.  

Take biological evolution, for instance: natural selection is a scientifically proven fact; it can be said about speciation that it is the logical extension of natural selection; but how can “primordial hot soup theory” regarding the origins of life be designated as science?

There are obvious shortcomings in scientific worldview that need to be addressed. Therefore, teaching biological evolution in public schools without teaching valid criticism on the theory of evolution and its corollary, scientism, is nothing short of indoctrinating children. As the adage goes: “Teach a child a religion and you indoctrinate him, teach him many and you inoculate him.”

Regarding postmodernism, it is a belief in the subjectivity of existence, a post-human condition and a context-based empirical as opposed to ideological approach to social and moral issues. All the latest moral theories, like virtue ethics for instance, emphasize the importance of affect or emotion over reason.

It’s regrettable that Renaissance humanism derives its moral inspiration exclusively from rationalism; the utilitarian maxima, for example: the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers. But it reductively defines happiness in simplistic pleasure-pain equations.

Virtue ethics posits that morality is based neither on consequentialism nor on any deontological principle. More than the consequences of an action, it concerns itself with how the action reflects on the moral character of an individual. Human beings are moral beings, which means they have a hardwired sense of justice.

I would not get into the meaningless nature vs. nurture debate. By nature, human beings are merely tabula rasa; our mindsets are structured by our social environment. Moreover, it’s our upbringing and culture which make us moral beings.

Like I have argued earlier, that morality is based less on reason and more on affect or emotion. Reason falls well short, the best it can come up with is reciprocal altruism, which by definition isn’t “altruism” at all, since altruism implies self-sacrifice; and without it, it is merely selfish reciprocity of you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.

All morality is based on love, compassion and empathy. And what is the fountainhead of love? It is the institution of family which infuses compassion in its members: the love between parents, children and siblings; and this familial love then transcends immediate family and encompasses the entire mankind.

Since the Renaissance humanism onwards, we have taken an essentialist approach toward social and moral issues: that all traditional values are essentially redundant and all modern values are worth-emulating; a rationalistic fallacy which derives everything from deduction and rarely from induction and observation.

There are two types of traditionalisms: unconscious traditionalism and deliberate traditionalism. Deliberate traditions are a set of values which were devised during the agricultural phase of social evolution for the wellbeing of individual and the social cohesion of group. Whereas unconscious traditions are the beliefs and superstitions which develop spontaneously without any conscious design and therefore are more harmful than beneficial, as such.

A better social and moral paradigm should retain the time-tested and empirically proven deliberate traditions and eradicate harmful customs. Although I do concede that priorities change over time in the light of new discoveries; some of the deliberate traditions might also not meet the requirements of modern times.

While devising a new model, however, it should be kept in mind that an empirically proven fact must always take precedence over any theoretically derived reform: the onus lies on the reformer to prove beyond doubt that suggested reform is an improvement on the original tradition as it was practiced over the course of centuries.

Regardless, it is also a fact that most social and moral values are basically survival instincts, but here we must keep in mind that they are the survival instincts of social groups, not individuals. Human beings are socially constituted and socially situated.

Throughout our anthropological history, we lived in social groups. During our nomado-pastoral phase, we survived not because of our physical superiority over all other species, but because of our intelligence and social cohesion. We were pack-hunters who were far more innovative than any other known specie, which gave us a comparative advantage in the race for survival.

All I am trying to say is that an individual is important but he is only secondary to the group and the collective survival instincts – which include empathy and altruism for fellow beings – must constitute an integral part of comprehensive new scheme of morality.

Let me clarify, however, that I am not against individual autonomy; it’s only when the individual self-interest collides with the collective interest that we face a dilemma. In such a scenario, in my opinion, collective interest must prevail over individual interest.

Notwithstanding, individualists generally posit that an individual holds a central position in society; the way I see it, however, being human is inextricably interlinked with the institution of family. The only things that separates human beings from the rest of species is their innate potential to acquire knowledge, but knowledge alone is not sufficient for our collective survival due to excessive and manifest intra-special violence; unless we have social cohesion which comes from love, compassion and empathy, we are likely to self-destruct as a specie.

The aforementioned empathy and altruism, however, are imparted by the institution of family; within which, spouses love each other and their children, and in turn, children love their parents and siblings. This familial love then transcends the immediate environs of family and encompasses the entire humanity. Thus, without the institution of family there will be no humanity, or individual, in the long run due to intra-special violence.

Additionally, some social scientists draw our attention to the supposed “unnaturalness” of the institution of family and the practice of polygamy and polyamory etc. in the primitive tribal societies, but if we take a cursory look at the history of mankind, there have been two distinct phases of cultural development: the pre-Renaissance social evolution and the post-Renaissance social evolution.

Most of our cultural, scientific and technological accomplishments are attributed to the latter phase that has only lasted for a few centuries, and the institution of family has always played a pivotal role in the social advancement of that era. Empirically speaking, we must base our scientific assumptions on the proven and verifiable evidence and not some cock and bull stories peddled by reductive biologists and anthropologists.

Regarding the erosion of the institution of family, I am of the opinion, that it has primarily been the fault of the mass entertainment media that has caused an unnatural obsession with glamor and consequent sexualization of modern societies.

In order to sum it up in a nutshell, techno-scientific progress alone cannot ensure the survival and well-being of individuals in the long run; unless we are able to bring up individuals, who, along with intelligence and knowledge, also possess love, compassion and empathy; and such sentiments cannot be taught in schools and academies, which makes family an indispensable social institution which is necessary for our collective well-being and progress.

*

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

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Postmodernism: A Realm Beyond Renaissance Humanism

This article was originally crossposted on Global Research in April 2018.

In the current crisis with Moscow, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has written that “Russia cannot break international rules with impunity”.

Britain, along with Russia, has a particular obligation to uphold international law since it is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Last year, Attorney General Jeremy Wright said the UK was “a world leader in promoting, defending and shaping international law”.

Yet the reality is different: Britain has been promoting at least seven foreign policies that can be strongly argued to be violating international law, and which make a mockery of its current demonisation of Russia.

Israeli goods and Gaza blockade

The first two concern Israel. Although Britain regards Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as illegal, in line with international law, it permits trade with “Israeli” goods from those illegal settlements and does not even keep a record of imports into the UK from them.

Yet UN Security Council resolutions require all states to “distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”.

Israel’s blockade of Gaza is widely regarded as illegal, including by senior UN officials, a UN independent panel of expertsAmnesty International and the Red Cross, partly since it inflicts “collective punishment” on an entire population. Through its naval blockade, the Israeli Navy restricts Palestinians’ fishing rights, even firing on local fishermen, and intercepts ships delivering humanitarian aid.

Yet Britain, failing to uphold its obligation “to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law”, regularly collaborates with the navy enforcing the illegal blockade. In December 2017 and November 2016, British warships held military exercises with their Israeli counterparts.

“We’ve operated with several Israel Navy ships, practising communications and manoeuvring” and have a “great relationship with the Israeli Navy”, UK naval commanders have said.

Wars in Yemen, Syria, Iraq

The war in Yemen is a further example. Ministers have consistently told Parliament that Britain is “not a party” to the conflict – presumably since this would formally implicate Britain in the violations of humanitarian law of which Saudi Arabia is accused.

London’s claim is nonsense: It is arming, advising and training the Saudis and maintaining their aircraft bombing Yemen, many of which have targeted civilians, as the British government has long known.

UN Security Council Resolution 2286 of 2016 also calls on all states to “end impunity and to ensure those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law are held to account”. Yet Britain is doing the opposite – it ensures the Saudis remain unaccountable by allowing them to conduct their own investigations into alleged war crimes.

A fourth policy concerns the RAF’s secret drone war, which involves a fleet of “Reaper” drones operating since 2007 to strike targets in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. The UK/US spy base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire also facilitates US drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia.

The targeted killing of terrorists (and the use of force generally) is only lawful in self–defence or following UN authorisation, and thus the drone programme is widely regarded as illegal.

When British drones killed two Britons in Syria in 2015, the government unconvincingly argued it was in “self-defence” to counter an “imminent attack”. Rather, as a House of Commons legal briefing argues, such strikes could set a dangerous precedent that other actors or organisations may follow.

Ministers remain unaccountable

There is a good reason why the UK never admits to undertaking covert action. As the same House of Commons briefing notes, “assistance to opposition forces is illegal”.

A precedent was set in the Nicaragua case in the 1980s, when US-backed covert forces tried to overthrow the Sandinista government. The International Court of Justice held that a third state may not forcibly help the opposition to overthrow a government because it would breach the principle of non-intervention and prohibition on the use of force.

This means that Britain has been acting illegally in its years-long covert operation in Syria, and anywhere else it deploys covert forces without agreement from the host state.

In the case of the Chagos islands, Britain has permanently violated international law since it expelled the inhabitants in the 1960s to make way for a US military base on Diego Garcia. Harold Wilson’s government separated the islands from Mauritius in 1965 in breach of UN Resolution 1514, which banned the breakup of colonies before independence. It formed a new colonial entity, the British Indian Ocean Territory.

Last June, the UK was defeated at the UN when a large majority of countries supported a Mauritius-backed resolution to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legal status of the Chagos Islands.

In 2015, a UN Tribunal ruled that the UK’s proposed “marine protected area” around the islands – which was really a ruse to keep the islanders from returning – was illegal since it undermined the rights of Mauritius. The Chagos islands remain a UK-occupied territory.

Face facts: UK is a rogue state

Finally, there is the 2011 war in Libya, for which British ministers remain unaccountable. While Tony Blair is widely accused of acting illegally in invading Iraq, UK Prime Minister David Cameron often escapes condemnation for the UK/NATO military intervention that overthrew the Gaddafi regime.

Yet this war was surely a violation of UN Resolution 1973, which authorised member states to use “all necessary measures” to prevent attacks on civilians but did not authorise the use of ground troops – which Britain secretly deployed to Libya – or regime change.

Indeed, Cameron himself told Parliament in March 2011 that the UN resolution “explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from power by military means”.

This list of wayward policies is by no means exhaustive. The UK does not deserve its place on the UN Security Council when it is a consistent violator of the principles it is meant to uphold: It is like having a gangster as a judge.

To call Britain a rogue state is not to take an ideological position so much as to describe a basic fact in current international affairs.

*

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 Curtis is a historian and analyst of UK foreign policy and international development and the author of six books, the latest being  an updated edition of Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam.

Featured image: The RAF’s use of Reaper drones since 2007 has hit targets in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (Open Government License) 

Walter Jones and the Vote to End US War on Yemen

February 19th, 2019 by Rep. Ron Paul

In a fitting legacy for my friend Walter Jones, Jr. who passed away last week, the US House made history by voting in favor of H.J.Res. 37, a resolution “Directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress.” As George O’Neill wrote in the American Conservative magazine this week, the historic 248-177 victory for a bill demanding the end of the US participation in the nearly five year Saudi war of aggression “reflects how many hearts and minds were influenced by the late Congressman’s tireless efforts.”

Walter Jones did not care who controlled Congress. He was happy to join forces with any Member to end the senseless US global military empire, which sends thousands of young men and women off to patrol foreign borders, overthrow foreign governments, and needlessly put themselves at risk in missions that have nothing to do with the safety and security of the United States.

US participation in the Saudi war on Yemen is a classic example of the abuse of the US military that made Walter Jones most angry. When the Saudis decided in 2015 that they wanted their puppet to be Yemen’s president, they launched a brutal and inhuman war that many call the worst humanitarian disaster of our time. Millions face starvation as Saudi bombs and US sanctions combine to create a hell on earth that is unrelated in any way to US national security.

Why this ongoing support for Saudi death and destruction in Yemen? Washington’s neocons have successfully promoted the lie that the Saudi attack on Yemen is all about preventing Iran from gaining more strength in the Middle East. Ironically it was the neocon-backed US attack on Iraq in 2003 that provided the biggest boost for Iranian influence in the region. Now, after Iraq’s “liberation,” Baghdad’s ties to Tehran are closer than ever.

Meanwhile, who exactly are we supporting in Yemen? Even CNN, normally a big backer of US military actions overseas, has noticed something funny about US participation in the Saudi war on Yemen. As a CNN investigation found this month, “Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners have transferred American-made weapons to al Qaeda-linked fighters, hardline Salafi militias, and other factions waging war in Yemen, in violation of their agreements with the United States.” Does that sound like we are on the side of the “good guys” in this battle? We are helping the Saudis arm al-Qaeda? Is this really a smart move?

So we should be encouraged that Walter Jones’ legacy is being honored in the House vote to end the US participation in the Yemen war. While US “humanitarian” aid is being used as a weapon for regime change in Venezuela, the warmongers in Washington have never lifted a finger to help those suffering from a real genocide in Yemen.

If the Yemen War Powers resolution passes the Senate, which is likely, Congress will have provoked the first veto from President Trump. Such a veto should not discourage us. Even the strongest army cannot stop an idea whose time has come. Ending senseless US wars is an idea whose time has come. We can thank Walter Jones for his role in making it so.

*

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

There are several factors for Venezuela’s economic crisis, but you wouldn’t know it by listening to U.S. leaders or following corporate media, writes Steve Ellner.

***

The recognition by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Joe Biden of Juan Guaidó as Venezuelan president is the latest demonstration of the consensus in Washington over the nefariousness of the Nicolás Maduro government. Not since Fidel Castro’s early years in power has a Latin American head of state been so consistently demonized. But the 1960s was the peak of the Cold War polarization that placed Cuba plainly in the enemy camp, and unlike Venezuela today, that nation had a one-party system.

The scope of that consensus was evident by the recent faceoff between two figures as far apart as President Donald Trump and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In his State of the Union address, Trump attributed Venezuela’s economic crisis to the failed system of socialism. Ocasio-Cortez responded by arguing that the Venezuelan case is “an issue of authoritarian regime versus democracy.”

Taken together, the comments by Trump and Ocasio-Cortez complement one another. According to the narrative that dominates Washington, Venezuela is a disaster from both economic and political viewpoints. The exclusive blame for the sorry state of the economy and for the country’s allegedly authoritarian rule lays with Maduro and his cohorts.

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media have refrained from questioning these assumptions. Most of their reporting puts the accent mark on state incompetence and corruption, while skirting the detrimental effects of the economic sanctions implemented by the Trump administration.

In addition, many on the left point to the economic sanctions as responsible, at least in part, for the nation’s pressing economic difficulties, but few critically examine the mainstream’s characterization of the state of Venezuelan democracy. Some oppose the sanctions but join the opposition in bashing the Maduro government.

A recent article by Gabriel Hetland, for instance, posted by Jacobin and NACLA: Report on the Americas claims that Maduro “holds onto power through authoritarian means.” The author then turns to the nation’s economic difficulties by arguing that “the primary driver is the government’s mismanagement of its oil revenue” and corruption.

During my participation in a two-month Venezuelan solidarity tour late last year in the U.S. and Canada, I often heard the statement that knowing the specifics about Venezuela’s economic and political problems is not essential because the bottom line is the illegality of Trump’s sanctions and threats of military intervention. But does international law end the discussion?

If it could be proven that Maduro is a dictator and a totally incompetent ruler, would people enthusiastically rally behind his government in opposition to foreign intervention? I don’t think so. Undoubtedly, it is necessary to take a close look at both political and economic fronts because the effectiveness of solidarity efforts hinges on the specifics. The dominant narrative about Maduro and its assumptions cannot be taken at face value, even while there are elements of truth in it.

How Far Back Do the Economic Problems Go?

The Venezuelan opposition frequently argues that neither the sanctions nor depressed international oil prices are to blame for the nation’s economic difficulties, only the mismanagement of the economy. At best, declining oil prices contributed to the problems but were not a root cause. Some opposition analysts deny or minimize the importance of oil prices as a factor by pointing out that the economies of other OPEC nations are as dependent on oil exports as that of Venezuela but have not plummeted to the same levels.

The opposition’s central argument here is that Venezuela’s dire economic problems predate Trump’s implementation of sanctions and even predate the sharp decline in international oil prices beginning mid-2014. That is, government follies with disastrous effects came first, followed by the decline in oil prices and then the sanctions. Two-time presidential candidate for the opposition Henrique Capriles claimed that the crisis began prior to the fall of oil prices but for a long time was “ignored, repressed and covered up” by the government.

 Petare, Caracas, 2014. (The Photographer via Wikimedia)

Petare, Caracas, 2014. (The Photographer via Wikimedia)

There are two fallacies in this line of thinking. In the first place, the so-called economic war against Venezuela, which eventually included the Trump-imposed sanctions, preceded everything else. Washington almost from the beginning of Hugo Chávez’s presidency in 1999 did not stand by idly while he defied the neoliberal Washington consensus as well as U.S. hegemony. Washington’s hostility seriously harmed the economy in multiple ways.

For instance, the George W. Bush administration banned the sale of spare parts for the Venezuelan Air Force’s costly F-16 fighter jets in 2006, forcing the country to turn to Russia for the purchase of 24 Sukhoi SU-30 fighter planes. Furthermore, the international sanctions did not begin with Trump, but rather Obama in 2015 which were justified by his executive order calling Venezuela a threat to U.S. national security. That order was followed by an avalanche of pull-outs from Venezuela by multinationals including Ford, Kimberly Clark, General Motors, Kellogg’s and nearly all the international airlines.

In the second place, oil prices under Maduro have not only been low since 2014 but nosedived, just the opposite of what happened under Chávez. This is particularly problematic because high prices create expectations and commitments that then get transformed into frustration and anger when they precipitously drop. Prices are currently slightly over half of what they were before the decline, in spite of their modest recovery since 2017.

Three factors explain Venezuela’s economic woes, not one: low oil prices, the “economic war” against Venezuela, and mistaken policies. Prominent in the latter category is Maduro’s lethargic response to the problem of the widening disparity between official prices set by the government on certain items in short supply and their prices on the black market. The government has encountered major problems in distributing basic commodities forcing Venezuelans to buy those same goods on the higher-priced black market. The system is conducive to corruption and contraband as many of the products that are supposed to be retailed at reduced prices end up being sold on the black market or sent off to neighboring Colombia.

The Dictatorship Label Repeated a Thousand Times

The media are in desperate need of good fact-checkers in their reporting on Venezuela. Statements about Venezuelan democracy range from blatantly misleading to accurate with most lying between the two extremes. An example of the former is the Guardian’s claim that the Venezuelan government “controls most TV and radio stations which transmit a constant stream of pro-Maduro propaganda.” In fact, of those who tune into Venezuelan TV channels, 80 percent watch the three major private channels (Venevisión, Televén, and Globovisión) which cannot be seriously accused of being pro-government.

At the other extreme is Hetland’s assertion in his Jacobin-NACLA piece that the decision to strip Henrique Capriles of his right to run for office as a result of corruption charges was politically motivated. The statement is accurate. Actually, the move was worse than what Hetland discusses. For some time before that, Capriles, whose political positions have vacillated considerably, favored a less intransigent stance toward the government than those on the radical right, which has largely dominated the opposition of late. The move, in effect, played into the hands of the radicals and undermined efforts to bring about a much-needed national dialogue.

Those who call Maduro a dictator make two basic assertions. In the first place, the government is alleged to have brutally repressed the four-month long peaceful demonstrations designed to bring about regime change carried out in 2014 and then 2017. In fact, the protests were hardly peaceful. Six National Guardsmen and two policemen were killed in 2014 and protestors fired into an air force base in Caracas and attacked a number of police stations in Táchira in 2017. There are different versions of the circumstances surrounding the numerous fatalities in 2014 and 2017, thus requiring an impartial analysis, which the media has hardly attempted to present. Police repression is reprehensible – and repression there was on both occasions – regardless of circumstances, but the context has to be brought into the picture.

Smoke and fires, Caracas, 2014. (Prensa Presidencial, Govt. of Venezuela via Wikimedia)

Smoke and fires, Caracas, 2014. (Prensa Presidencial, Govt. of Venezuela via Wikimedia)

In the second place, the opposition denies that Maduro’s re-election in May of last year was legitimate because the election was called for by the National Constituent Assembly (ANC), whose existence allegedly has no legal basis. One of the nation’s foremost constitutional lawyers, Hermann Escarrá, has defended the ANC’s legality, while others formulate plausible arguments to the contrary. Again, the mainstream media has failed to present both sides or to objectively analyze the issue. Nearly all the opposition parties that refused to participate in the presidential elections in 2018, however, did participate in the gubernatorial elections of the preceding year that were convened by the same ANC. The justification for Juan Guaidó’s self-proclamation as Venezuelan president on Jan. 23 was predicated on the illegitimacy of the ANC.

Violation of democratic norms and cases of police repression do not in themselves demonstrate that a government is authoritarian or dictatorial. If they did, the United States would hardly be considered democratic. The real defining issue is whether electoral fraud takes place in which votes are not correctly counted. That accusation has been largely absent in the controversy over recent elections, even among leaders of the radical opposition.

The mainstream media and Washington politicians freely call Maduro an “autocrat” a “dictator” and “authoritarian.” More than anything that is said about Venezuela’s economic difficulties, the use of these terms has had a profound effect on policy making. A nation’s economic problems should not justify intervention of any sort. The real issue of contention, therefore, is the state of Venezuelan democracy as depicted by the dominant narrative. Amazingly enough, there is no major actor in mainstream politics and the mainstream media willing to challenge that narrative with all its questionable claims regarding the Maduro government.

*

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

Steve Ellner is a retired professor from Venezuela’s University of the East and is currently associate managing editor of “Latin American Perspectives.” Among his over a dozen books on Latin America is his edited “The Pink Tide Experiences: Breakthroughs and Shortcomings in Twenty-First Century Latin America” (Rowman & Littlefield, 2019).

Featured image is from Cancillería del Ecuador via Flickr

American-Style Drone Warfare and How and When Humans Count

February 19th, 2019 by William J. Astore

When do humans count in drone warfare, and when do they not?

I thought of this question as I read Christopher Fuller’s “See It/Shoot It: The Secret History of the CIA’s Lethal Drone Program.”  Revealingly, U.S. pilots and crews who operate these drones, such as Predators and Reapers, reject the terminology of “drones” and UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) or UAS (unmanned aerial system).  They prefer the term RPA, or remotely piloted aircraft.  They want to be known as the essential humans in the loop, they want to stand out, they want to count for something, and in fact the Department of Defense at various times has suggested a new “drone medal” to recognize their service.

Whereas American pilots want to stand up and be recognized as the pilots of their “remote aircraft,” the Pentagon doesn’t want to think about the targets of these drones as human beings. Civilian casualties are grouped and shrouded under the term “collateral damage,” a nasty euphemism that combines a banking term (collateral) with the concept of damage that hints at reversibility and repair.  But collateral damage really means innocents blown up and blasted by missiles.  Shouldn’t these humans count?

Another term that Fuller discusses is “neutralization.”  The U.S. counterterrorism goal is to “neutralize” opponents, meaning, as Fuller notes, “killing, rendition, and imprisonment.”  Again, with a word like neutralization, we’re not encouraged to think of those being attacked as humans.  We’re just “neutralizing” a threat, right?  A terrorist, not a fellow human being.  Right?

Interestingly, the whole idea of terrorism is something they do, not us.  Why?  Because the U.S. defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”  Note that word: subnational.  By this definition, nations do not commit terrorism, which is handy for the U.S., which presents its drone attacks as defensive or proactive or preemptive.

Finally, the Pentagon and the CIA are at pains to assert they take the utmost care in reducing “collateral damage” in their “neutralization” efforts.  Yet as Fuller notes in his book (page 214), “the U.S. government did not always know the identity or affiliations of those killed in its drone strikes.”

So who counts, and who doesn’t?  Whose humanity is to be celebrated (pilots of RPAs?), and whose humanity (innocent victims) is to be suppressed?

*

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 Bracing Views

Yellow Vests and Red Unions Strike Together

February 19th, 2019 by Richard Greeman

On Tuesday, February 5, as the government of Emmanuel Macron pushed harsh repressive laws against demonstrators through the National Assembly, the Yellow Vests joined with France’s unions for the first time in a day-long, nation-wide “General Strike.”

At the very moment when in Paris the lower house was voting to implement Macron’s proposed laws designed to suppress public demonstrations (a legal right protected in both the French Constitution and the UN Human Rights Declaration), tens of thousands of their constituents were out in the streets all over the country demonstrating and striking against Macron’s authoritarian, neoliberal government. The demonstrators’ demands ranged from better salaries and retirement benefits, restoration of public services, equitable tax codes, an end to police brutality, and banning the use of “flash-balls” on demonstrators, to Macron’s resignation and the instauration of participatory democracy.

Deaf to the angry people’s legitimate grievances, unwilling to deal with them, Macron has given himself no other choice than to legislate new repressive legal restrictions to suppress their continued free expression. This resort to open repression can only serve to discredit the government’s handling of a crisis largely of his own making, treating a spontaneous social movement among the 99% as if it were a terrorist or fascist conspiracy. The unpopular President’s repressive tactics will inevitably backfire on him. The French are extremely protective of their liberties, and Macron’s monarchical arrogance can only remind them of how their ancestors dealt with Louis XVI.

Moreover, the Yellow Vests, who have been a painful thorn in Macron’s side since last November, were now demonstrating together with the French labour unions, whom he thought he had tamed last Spring. This convergence came in response to a call for a one-day “General Strike” issued by the Confédération générale du travail (CGT) and Solidaires, who for the first time invited “any Yellow Vests who felt like it” to join. In the event, quite a few did feel like it, despite the CGT’s previous hostility to the Yellow Vests and despite their own fundamental suspicion of all “representative” structures, like established parties and unions (whom the Yellow Vests justifiably fear would attempt to co-opt them, speak in their name, and sell them out).

A Day of Action and Convergence

For a “first date” the one-day Strike came off very well, somewhat to the surprise of both parties. And if this tentative Red-Yellow alliance continues to solidify (and there is every indication that it will), France will likely become ungovernable and the ruling classes will be up against the wall. What might happen next is rich in possibility, for the French, with their long history of popular revolutions, have been singularly inventive in coming up with new political arrangements. For now, let us look more closely at what may, in retrospect, be an historic day.

The Strike began at exactly midnight when a rowdy crowd of 200-300 demonstrators near Paris blocked the giant Rungis produce market (which replaced Les Halles, the legendary “Belly of Paris”), cutting off food to the capital with trucks lining up on the outskirts. You can see the Yellow Vests among the Red flags of the CGT in this video from Le Parisien. They even set up a barricade. In the early hours, there were also blockages at the airport of Nantes and at the University there, at a key toll-gate near Toulouse, while in Grenoble transport was disturbed all morning.

All told there were demonstrations in at least 160 different localities, all different in size and conduct, mostly improvised by people on the spot at the last minute. There were big ones in the Channel ports Le Harvre, Rouen and Caen. In Strasbourg about 1500, in Lyon 5000 including 500 Yellow vests. In Marseille the Yellow Vest march converged with the CGT at the Stock Exchange, a shift of targets for the Yellow Vests from government to finance capital.

In Paris, instead of the usual union march through the popular quarters from the Bastille to Nation, the CGT-led strikers invaded the fancy Right Bank territory, violently contested for twelve weeks by the Yellow Vests, marching boldly up the Rue de Rivoli with its luxurious shop-windows (and construction sites with bricks lying around). They then held an impromptu rally at a major intersection, tying up traffic and baffling the police.1

Here in Montpellier, as elsewhere in France, the crowd was big, but no bigger than some of the previous Saturday Yellow Vest demos – as was the case all over France. But this Tuesday it was largely a union crowd. On the other hand, after weeks of gassing peaceful protestors, the police presence was extremely discrete, and one Gendarme was filmed explaining to the Yellow Vests protestors that the Gendarmes had “nothing against them,” that his family supported the movement, explaining that they were soldiers and sworn to obey orders (the Gendarmerie being under the military). The Yellow Vests answered that they “had nothing against the Gendarmes either.” See the amazing video.

When I arrived at the gathering point, the loudspeakers of the CGT sound-truck were blaring out a long boring speech – complicated stuff concerning the Euro. No possibility of conversation, much less convergence. Next up the line came a contingent of CGT people, quite a number of whom were wearing yellow vests with bright red CGT emblems on them. This “dual” identity underscores the naturalness of the convergence of the two movements of working-class people who have nearly identical economic goals and all the same enemies. Like the Red-Yellow CGT activists, nearly every Yellow Vest has by now personalized her/his attire, inscribing slogans on them like “End of Month/End of World: Same Combat,” “Macron Resign!” “Down with Capitalism” and the very popular “Government of the People, By the People and for the People” (The French haven’t a clue they’re quoting Lincoln, an American!).

At the front of the column, after the CGT banner, were the Yellow Vests, perhaps 200 strong behind our banner and singing aloud. I was a little disappointed by the low turnout of Yellow Vests. Also that they didn’t go back and fraternize and mingle with the union folk, as one woman proposed and as I attempted, in spite of the loud recorded CGT music. At the end of the march, our Montpellier Yellow Vest had planned to hold an open-mike speakout, but that didn’t come off either. However, as comrades kept reminding me, it was an important first step, and we’ll be back. We make our road by walking.

Who Are these Yellow Vests?

Since November 17, 2018, the popular, nation-wide, self-organized Yellow Vests movement has been keeping up the pressure on the neoliberal Macron regime with daily protests at traffic circles and weekly demonstrations in dozens of cities. It is made up of average, lower middle-class French people, mostly provincials, whose lives have gotten worse under neoliberal policies. They are mostly “little people” who are struggling to make ends meet and are tired of being ignored and humiliated by France’s elites.

Last November, they began to turn off their TVs, come out of their houses, join together at traffic circles and toll booths, get to know each other, grill sausages and feel empowered, rather than isolated and helpless. They thus humanized these “noplaces” or non-places created by the automobile civilization that had stripped their villages of post-offices, bakeries and cafés, forcing them to spend two hours every workday in their cars.

The Yellow vests represent a demographic cross section of France – naturally minus the top 2% or 3%. And, unfortunately, for the moment, minus the approximately 10 per cent of France’s doubly oppressed, discriminated immigrant communities: Arabs, Berbers, Black Africans and other immigrants who do most of the dirty jobs, who are rarely seen in civil service jobs, and whose youth riots in the Banlieues (Projects) seriously challenged President Sarkozy in 2005. (Partly due to my suggestion, the Montpellier Yellow Vests are starting to reach out to the immigrant communities.)

Coming from many different backgrounds, the Yellow Vests wisely chose to put aside their political differences and party preferences, avoid pointless arguments, and focus on the struggle that unites them, each speaking for her or himself (alternating genders to maintain parity). As the weekly protests continued, the Yellow Vests were slowly refining their goals and tactics and discovering how to organize themselves while retaining their autonomy. After more than two months, on January 25-27, delegates from 75 local Yellow Vest Assemblies came together in the town of Commercy (Lorraine) for their first “Assembly of Assemblies” and wrote a democratic, egalitarian, anti-racist Declaration (discussed below) which soon achieved a consensus around the country. Thus, a functioning federation with common goals is now emerging.

Remarkably, the Yellow Vests’ rebellion has persisted week after week despite a government campaign of brutal police repression – including thousands of injuries (some serious), several deaths, a thousand arrests, and routine tear-gassing of peaceful groups. The Yellow Vests have persisted despite being constantly vilified by the government and media as fascists, violent terrorists, “a hate-filled mob” (Macron) etc. Yet, amazingly, according to the latest polls, 77% of French people at large think their mobilization is “justified” (up from 74% in January).

Most remarkable of all, they have wrung some actual concessions from Macron, who, after disdainfully declaring he would “never” give in to an unruly mob, was forced to rescind the tax on Diesel fuel that the movement had originally crystalized around, and promised a raise in the minimum wage and a cut in taxes on retirement income (both of which turned out to be shams on close examination).

These practical victories, won by an autonomous group that refuses to anoint leaders or to negotiate, have deeply embarrassed the French labour movement and particularly the “militant” CGT (General Confederation of Labour, historically affiliated with the French Communist Party) which, after months of stop-and-go strikes last Spring, failed to block the implementation of Macron’s neoliberal “reforms,” which took away many benefits won by French labour during the great struggles of the past.2

The defeated strikers returned to work last September with their tails between their legs, simmering mad; and it was out this void of active opposition to Macron’s ongoing neoliberal offensive that the Yellow Vests spontaneously emerged and spread across the country, with their spectacular direct-action tactics. Many union members, more or less disgusted with their leaders, joined the Yellow Vests from the start. The Yellow Vests organized themselves via Facebook pages, socialized in traffic circles and parking lots and grew into an autonomous social movement. They stood up for themselves and for the rest of France’s working poor, unemployed, single mothers, and retired people. They spontaneously organized mass civil disobedience, successfully opposing Macron’s economic program of taking from the poor and giving to the rich (from whose soft white hands the wealth will theoretically “trickle down”).

The CGT

The immediate response to the rise of the Yellow Vests on the part of the CGT and its leader, the unsmiling, mustachioed Martinez (picked by Central Casting for the “tough-guy” part) was suspicion (‘petty-bourgeois fascists?’) and hostility. Martinez and the other union bureaucrats could not help seeing the Yellow Vests as competitors, and thus, as a threat to their own hegemonic status as official representatives of the workers – especially after Macron’s “concessions.”

After shocking reports of police violence unleashed by Macron’s government against the Yellow Vests’ third Saturday demonstration, and in direct response to an appeal for calm from Macron, on December 6, the leaders of the CGT and all the other labour federations except for Solidaires, signed a Déclaration of solidarity – not of solidarity with the injured and arrested demonstrators, but with the Macron government, the alleged representative of the “peaceful republican order!” In return for what many described as a “betrayal,” the labour movement’s clique of professional negotiators accepted Macron’s invitation to “resume the social dialogue” – that is to allow them to sit at the table with him and negotiate more give-backs of workers’ rights.

The union leadership’s pledge of allegiance to the neoliberal flag did not go down well in the union ranks. And so, the very next day, Martinez and the other union leaders spun in the wind like weathercocks, started acting militant, and called for a national labour demonstration (legal) on Friday, December 14. The union leaders’ strike demands covered the same basic economic demands as the Yellow Vests. The event was to be a demonstration of power, a public-relations leadership challenge, and it was pointedly planned for Friday, not Saturday – the Yellow Vests’ demonstration day (the only free day for many of them, for example single parents, workers in offices and small businesses who don’t have strike pay or legal rights to strike). The Friday, December 14th union demonstrations were hardly imposing compared to Saturday’s Yellow Vest events, so the ploy fizzled.

Two months later, the CGT’s issued another call for a one-day “General Strike” on February 5 (a Tuesday). It seemed like a replay of the same ploy, but in a gesture toward the more and more obvious need for “convergence,” Martinez opened a crack for Yellow Vests “to join if they wished” (as he said the day before the Strike). However, the next day, blowing with a different wind, he changed his tune and actually made some sensible remarks about convergence:

“People have been saying for more than two months that we must talk and find common demands. We have them. There is no reason we shouldn’t march side by side, the ones behind the others. What is important is to have a successful first day of action together, because I find that the bosses have been let off easy [by the Yellow Vests – Ed.] and it is time to bring to account the big bosses of this country.”

Martinez’s remark about needing to attack the big bosses was both pointed and to the point. The Yellow Vests, given their broad and varied social composition, have naturally focused on the consumer issues they have in common as working folk struggling to make ends meet – high prices, unfair taxes and declining social services – directing their anger at the government, the media, and the political elite. Their signs often denounce “capitalism,” but as a group they have no direct relationship with big industry and finance, in whose interest Macron rules. Yet clearly, only with the active participation of France’s organized workers can this broad popular movement succeed – for example through an unlimited general strike with occupations of workplaces and public spaces as in 1968.

The Opening of Chapter Two in the Movement?

More encouraging, Martinez’s co-organizer of the February 5th strike, Cécile Gondar-Lalanne, whose union Sud-Solidaires has been supportive of the Yellow Vests from the start, declared, “If today works out, we must look forward to doing it again, to constructing a common movement.” To this observer, such a convergence of the Reds with the Yellows, if it develops, might release a revolutionary power greater than anything we have seen in modern history.

The Yellows, composed of a cross-section of the common people in the provinces, already have the support of the vast majority of French people. They have held off the government for thirteen weeks and show no sign of relenting. The Reds, meaning the organized workers, have the power to strike and bring a halt to France’s major industries, transportation, energy, and all public services, as they did in 1936 and 1968. United, the Reds and the Yellows have the potential to change the system, and many of the Yellows clearly have system change on their agenda.

System change is definitely not on the agenda of Martinez and the other union bureaucrats, whose social status, like that of the members of the National Assembly, depends on their role as the official “representatives” of their constituents within the existing system. Given the pressure from below, Martinez has no choice but to play at “convergence” with the Yellow Vests today, but it is only to outmanoeuvre them and secure his official status as labour’s representatives. This is precisely what the Yellow Vests feared from the start when they founded their movement on autonomy – perhaps remembering the dismal role played by the CGT in ending the general strike and popular uprising that shook up the De Gaulle regime in 1968 (and whose 50th anniversary was being celebrated all over the media all last year).

So Red-Yellow convergence is taking place in a conflictual context pitting the traditionally hierarchical, vertical discipline of the CGT and other French labour organizations against the innovative, horizontal self-organization of the proudly autonomous Yellow Vests. The presence, observed in Montpellier and on the videos of the February 5th event, of demonstrators with big red CGT badges on their Yellow Vests, is already significant. The fact that these Red-Yellow (Orange?) activists dare to openly display their independence within the tightly organized culture of the CGT is a sign of cracks opening in that bureaucratic structure through which imaginative wildcat initiatives may emerge.

Convergence is also developing from below, through mutual understanding. According to the investigative journalism site Médiapart (whose coverage of this event was superb), “a not very militant” CGT member, who has been out with his Yellow Vest on the roundabouts and demonstrated every Saturday, remarked that “there are lots of employees who can’t strike, who work in small shops and whose relations with their bosses are too direct. But they understand that the problem is big capital.”

In Paris, a young man up from Lognes with his wife (who had never before demonstrated) and his Yellow Vest group held out a CGT flyer showing a red arm and a yellow arm holding each other’s hands. He concluded, “Today may be the beginning of Chapter Two of our movement. We must all converge!”

Two railroad workers on the Paris-East line share his hopes. “The CGT has always been a fighting union, we’re on the side of labour, not capital. Before taking a definite position on the Yellow Vests, we needed to wait to see how this movement was going to clarify its outlook. Now, their discussions and demands are interesting, indeed attractive, rather leftist,” they judged. “This movement has evolved on the ideological plane; the Yellow Vests have become conscious through their struggle. It’s time to converge, to join together.”

Yellow Vests’ Self-Education in Action

Over time, the Yellow Vests’ objectives have indeed deepened, as evidenced by the evolution of the home-made signs at demonstrations, by lists of progressive demands from various local groups, and finally, at the end of January 2018, by a Declaration (reproduced below) voted by a “General Assembly of General Assemblies” attended by Yellow Vests mandated by some 75 different local groups. A second Assembly, bringing together many more groups, is being prepared as the Yellow Vests structure themselves in a loose federation and learn to represent themselves through delegates selected (always one woman and one man) with limited mandates and subject to recall (the system of the Paris Commune of 1871).

The Commercy Declaration defines their goals as “dignity,” an “end to inequality,” “free public services,” “higher” salaries, retirements, etc., taxing the super-rich to pay for them and the restructuring of France as a participatory democracy through referendums. At the same time, in response to charges by Macron, the media, and any number of groups on the far Left, The Yellow Vests Declaration declares, “We are neither racist, nor sexist, nor homophobic, we are proud to come together with our differences to build a society of solidarity.” Although this radical Declaration is not a binding program, it expresses a consensus and has been quickly adopted by many Yellow Vest groups, who are looking forward to a larger nationwide Assembly of Assemblies in two months.

The investigative site Médiapart sent two reporters up to Commercy after the Assembly of Assemblies and filmed their conversations with a couple of dozen local Yellow Vests, giving us an intimate view of how this diverse group interacts and makes decisions – a long process of patience, respect, tolerance, and conscious self-education. They explain how each individual brings pieces of the truth from her/his knowledge and experience, from which a consensus is achieved. (Or not achieved, on subjects where they are not ready to decide and sweep under the rug until they are.)

“Linked by common struggle, pooling their knowledge, they are tapping into ‘the Wisdom of Crowds’ long known to socialists and recently studied by psychologists.”

The atmosphere is one of trust and comradeship and active listening. Interventions are short and to the point. Viewing the video, I was struck by the contrast between the locals’ discourse and that of the two academic sociologists, both charming and well intentioned, who tended to go on and on and talk over each other, adding very little. The local Yellow Vests, whatever their education levels, have all learned to express themselves in public succinctly, and some have become quite eloquent. Linked by common struggle, pooling their knowledge, they are tapping into ‘the Wisdom of Crowds’ long known to socialists and recently studied by psychologists.

They also have fun and laugh a lot. For example, here in Montpellier, the first report on the Agenda of last Sunday’s General Assembly was on the question of how to curse and insult the “forces or order” (cops). The rapporteur went through a whole list of insults which, like “cocksucker,” are offensive to gays, or women, or sex itself. It was both hilarious and instructive. He then proposed a number of really nasty, but politically correct insults, and his report was approved by the group. This Saturday we are going to demonstrate wearing masks, to mock the government’s vicious liberticidal anti-demonstration laws which criminalize covering your face.

Macron’s Throne Is Shaky

As for Macron, his popularity hovering around 22%, thanks to his regal pretensions, inflexible neoliberal orthodoxy, methodical use of violence to suppress the expression of legitimate citizen grievances and criticism, and his contemptuous way of talking down to his angry subjects. This figure is slightly above the 18% of the 2017 Presidential vote he got on the first round, before being elected as the only alternative to “the fascist LePen.” Compare this with approval of the Yellow Vests, which stands at 77%. The French hate nothing worse than being talked down to and taken for jerks, and Macron is his own worst enemy, for example when he declared that the presumably lazy French had “lost the taste for effort” – when more than half of them are breaking their backs just to survive.

Macron’s latest ploy is the “Great Debate,” a public-relations charade designed to counter the Notebooks of Grievances being circulated by the Yellow Vests in imitation of the Cahiers de Doléances of the 1789 Revolution. The “Great Debate” consists of a series of programmed meetings between Macron or one of his Ministers and the elected Mayors of a region. Hardly democratic, considering how many mayors are the tools of local real estate interests and political mafias. Nonetheless, some mayors are actually honest and sincere, and at the very first televised “Debate,” the first mayor to take the floor made a searing critique of Macron and his handling of the crisis. Now questions are filtered in advance. Whom does Macron think he’s fooling?

Curiously, the French public intellectuals and philosophers, who occupy a much larger space in the media than their American counterparts, have mostly turned a cold shoulder to the Yellow Vests. If I’m not mistaken, only two have seriously taken up their defense: the popular libertarian philosopher Michel Onfray (author of 100 books) and the historian-anthopologist-essayist Emmanuel Todd. They alone carry on the contrarian tradition of Voltaire, Zola, and Sartre into the 21st century, our epoch in which the mediatized intellectuals, like the media personalities, the media owners, the politicians, and the labour leaders have all become integral parts of what the French call “the political class.”

Meanwhile, Macron is traveling outside of France and playing a role in international affairs to deflect from the intractable crisis at home, while the media keep up a business-as-usual façade, respectfully reporting the Great Debate and reducing the Yellow Vest insurrection to a weekly tally of the number of demonstrators (aren’t they declining yet?), the number of arrests, and the number of cars burnt. I suppose that, like frightened little kids, the French elites think that if they hide their eyes, all these angry little people will go away, but they won’t. What will Act XIII (or Chapter Two) reveal?


Appendix

Call from the First Assembly of Assemblies of the Yellow Vests

We, the Yellow Vests of the roundabouts, of the parking lots, of the squares, of the assemblies, rallies and demonstrations, have gathered on January 26 and 27, 2019, as an ‘Assembly of Assemblies’, bringing together a hundred delegations, in response to a call by the Yellow Vests of Commercy.

Since November 17, from the smallest village, from the rural world to the largest city, we have risen up against this deeply violent, unjust and unbearable society. We will no longer let ourselves be pushed around! We are rebelling against the high cost of living, precariousness and poverty. For our loved ones, our families and our children, we want only to live in dignity. It’s unacceptable that 26 billionaires own as much as half of humanity. Let’s share the wealth and not the poverty! Let’s put an end to social inequality! We demand an immediate increase in wages, social minima, allowances and pensions; the unconditional right to housing and health, to education; and free public services for all.

It is for all these rights that we are occupying roundabouts on a daily basis, that we organize actions and demonstrations, that we discuss everywhere. With our yellow vests we retake the floor, we who have never had it.

And how has the government responded? With repression, contempt, denigration. Many dead and thousands wounded, massive use of firearms that mutilate, blind, injure and traumatize. More than 1,000 individuals have been arbitrarily detained and sentenced. And now the new ‘anti-wrecker’ law is applied to stop us from demonstrating. We condemn all such violence against protesters, whether from the police or violent gangs. None of this will stop us! To demonstrate is a fundamental right. End impunity for the police! Amnesty for all the victims of repression!

And what a dirty trick is the so-called great national debate – in fact, it’s just a government propaganda campaign that manipulates our desire to debate and decide! True democracy, as we practice it in our assemblies, in our roundabouts, is neither on television nor in the fake roundtables organized by Macron.

After having insulted us and treated us as less than nothing, now he points to us as a hateful fascistic and xenophobic mob. But we are quite the opposite: neither racist, nor sexist, nor homophobic, we are proud to come together with our differences to build a society of solidarity.

We are strengthened by the diversity of our discussions. At this very moment, hundreds of assemblies are developing and proposing their own demands. These concern real democracy, social and tax justice, working conditions, ecological and climatic justice, and the end of discrimination. Among the claims and strategic proposals that are the most debated, we find: the eradication of poverty in all its forms, the transformation of institutions (citizen’s initiative referenda, constituent assembly, abolition of the privileges of elected officials …), the ecological transition (energy injustice, industrial pollution…), the equality and the taking into account of all regardless of their nationality (people with disabilities, male/female equality, an end to the neglect of popular neighborhoods, the rural world and the DOM-TOM [overseas territories] …).

We, the Yellow Vests, invite everyone to join us with their own means and abilities. We call for continuation of the acts of protest (act 12, against police violence at the police stations; acts 13, 14 …), to continue the occupations of the roundabouts and the economic blockades, to build a massive strike starting on February 5th. We call for committees to be formed at workplaces, at schools and everywhere else so that this strike can be built from the bottom up by the strikers themselves. Let’s take things into our own hands! Do not remain alone – join us!

Let’s organize ourselves in a democratic, autonomous and independent way! This assembly of assemblies is an important step that enables us to discuss our demands and our means of action. Let us federate to transform society!

We urge all Yellow Vests to circulate this call. If as a group of Yellow Vests you agree, add your signature and send it to Commercy ([email protected]). Do not hesitate to discuss and formulate proposals for the next ‘Assemblies of the Assemblies’, which we are preparing for right now. Down with Macron – power to the people, for the people and by the people!

*

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

Richard Greeman has been active since 1957 in civil rights, anti-war, anti-nuke, environmental and labour struggles in the U.S., Latin America, France (where he has been a longtime resident) and Russia (where he helped found the Praxis Research and Education Center in 1997). He maintains a blog at richardgreeman.org.

Notes

  1. Information from the investigative journalism website subscriber-supported website, Médiapart at whose studio Macron’s justice department recent attempted to conduct a warantless search, scandalizing civil libertarians.
  2. Please see: Richard Greeman “Spontaneous Teachers’ Strikes Sweep Conservative U.S. States. French Strikes Remain Stalled.”

Featured image is from The Bullet

Venezuelan Health Minister Carlos Alvarado announced Thursday the arrival of 933 tons of medicines and medical supplies from China, Cuba, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and some direct purchases’ from the Ministry.

The Minister, from the port of La Guaira, in Vargas state, specified that the cargo totals 64 containers, which periodically enter Venezuela with supplies, despite the economic war and the blockade of investments made abroad to the Bolivarian Executive.

Alvarado, stressed that in response to the request of the National Assembly, Parliament in contempt since 2016, to enter the nation ‘humanitarian aid’ for the alleged crisis that Venezuelans are going through in the sector, is paradoxical as the opposition can not recognize and address the sanctions that impede Venezuela’s free development.

‘It is not strange that we are receiving containers here in the port of La Guaira’, said the director, while detailing that most of the medicines and materials come from cooperation agreements with Cuba and China.

He also stressed that the Ministry made some ‘direct purchases’ in the international market with companies not yet blocked by the U.S. Government.

Alvarado also stressed that some inputs come from PAHO’s revolving and strategic fund.

He also added that the cargo received this Thursday contains ‘more than 18 million units of medicines’ among ‘anesthetics, vaccines, and antibiotics, nutrients for pregnant women, antipyretics, analgesics, gastric protectors and physiological solutions.

Besides, 22,575 units of spare parts for medical equipment, 192,000 kits for diagnostic tests and ‘more than 100,000 for cytology’ were also received.

The Minister also assured that the investment is approximately 25 million euros.

*

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 Prensa Latina

Trump Declares Global War on Socialism

February 19th, 2019 by Bill Van Auken

US President Donald Trump unleashed a global tirade against socialism at a Florida university Monday, in which he targeted Venezuela as the front line in this fascistic crusade.

Delivered to a hand-picked audience of Republican operatives and right-wing Venezuelan and Cuban exiles chanting “USA, USA, USA” and “Trump, Trump, Trump,” both the speech—and the response to it—had a fascistic character. It resurrected the language not only of McCarthyism and the John Birch Society in the United States of the 1950s, but those of Mussolini and Hitler in the Europe of the 1930s.

Mimicking the fascist dictators, the president’s hysterical antisocialism was combined with imperialist warmongering. Trump delivered an ultimatum to the Venezuelan military to either capitulate to US regime change or be slaughtered. He made it clear that Washington views the coup against the government of Nicolas Maduro as only the first step in a hemisphere-wide war to overthrow the governments of Nicaragua and Cuba and eradicate the growing influence of the US’s geopolitical rivals—China and Russia—in Latin America.

For Trump, the speech in Miami no doubt represented one of the first salvos in his 2020 election campaign, in which he intends to mobilize the most ultra-right elements in the United States. He intends to place the Democrats on the defensive, compelling them to deny any connection to “socialism” or “leftism.” He is likewise counting on their congenital cowardice: that none of them will come out to warn the American people that the man in the White House has—as aides have revealed—studied the speeches and writings of Adolf Hitler and is carrying out policies that lead to outright dictatorship and police-state repression.

Trump’s speech, replete with vows of a global crusade against “communism and socialism,” reflected growing fears within the US ruling oligarchy—not of the insipid politics of the likes of Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—but rather of a dangerous challenge from below to their power and wealth. This ruling layer is rattled by a steady growth of strikes, including those breaking out in opposition to the existing unions, as well a widespread radicalization of both workers and youth. Recent polls have increasingly expressed the preference of the younger generation for socialism over capitalism. This fear among America’s billionaires and multimillionaires provides a core constituency for the fascistic agenda being promulgated by Donald Trump.

The speech also comes only a few days after the declaration of a state of emergency, whose immediate purpose is to utilize the military to build a wall along the US-Mexico border. However, the implications are far broader. The declaration is a frontal assault on core constitutional norms and democratic rights, targeted at the growth of social opposition within the United States. Trump and his chief advisors are operating off a fascist playbook.

In his anticommunist tirade, Trump declared that “socialism by its very nature does not respect borders,” and is “always seeking to expand,” a complaint that reflects fears within the ruling class of the growing international movement of the working class. This includes the outbreak of strikes by Mexican workers in maquiladora plants that feed the US auto industry on the same US border that Trump wants to wall off.

Against this incipient expression of the international unity of the working class, Trump spouts the poison of nationalism and xenophobia, echoing the fascists of the 1930s.

“The twilight hour of socialism has arrived in our hemisphere,” Trump recited from a speech that was drafted by his fascistic aide Stephen Miller.

Socialism, he proclaimed, was “about one thing only, power for the ruling class.” It delivered, he said, only “corruption, exploitation and decay.” How this definition differed in the slightest from the government and the social order over which he himself presides, Trump failed to explain.

In relation to Venezuela, Trump declared in his speech that Washington seeks “a peaceful transfer of power, but all options are open.”

This direct threat of a US military intervention comes as the Pentagon has become increasingly involved in a transparent provocation on Venezuela’s border, using US Air Force C-17 cargo planes to fly cargos that are described as “humanitarian aid” into the Colombian border city of Cúcuta. Washington has a well-known record of employing similar “humanitarian” charades in Central America and elsewhere as a means of delivering arms to terrorist forces.

The aim of the stockpiling of USAID supplies on the border is to provoke a confrontation with the Venezuelan military that can then be used as the pretext for direct US military intervention.

Trump’s fusion of US imperialism’s ambition to enslave Latin America with rabid anticommunism must lead, if not stopped, to a hemispheric war and mass repression within the US.

Within this political context, special note should be taken of Trump’s increasingly violent threats against those whom he perceives as his personal enemies. His demand for “retribution” against Alec Baldwin, whose latest Saturday Night Live parody of Trump angered the president, was nothing less than an incitement for a physical assault on the actor. This political episode must be taken seriously. However, as is to be expected, the threat against Baldwin, as well as Trump’s tirade in Florida, was ignored in the Monday evening news broadcasts of the major television 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.

Featured image is from WSWS

The US is the only developed nation without some form of universal health coverage. The world’s richest nation doesn’t give a hoot about its ordinary people, serving its privileged class exclusively.

Along with food, shelter and clothing, healthcare is a fundamental human right. Yet it’s commodified and unaffordable for growing millions of Americans because of its high cost – around double what people in other developed countries pay, an untenable situation.

In America, healthcare is rationed based on the ability to pay. It’s a boon to enrich insurers, drug companies and large hospital chains – at the expense of unaffordability for countless millions.

Around 30 million Americans are uninsured, most others way underinsured – for countless numbers one high-cost illness away from medical bankruptcy.

Around two million Americans are faced with it annually because of unaffordable medical expenses, including insured individuals.

Obamacare was a bandaid solution, written by healthcare industry providers, serving their interests, not patients, making a dysfunctional system worse. It’s why medical bankruptcies are a festering issue.

An estimated 56 million Americans suffer from the ravages of unaffordable medical expenses annually – at times forced to choose between paying rent or servicing mortgages and high medical expenses.

The problem is worsening as incomes fail to keep pace with medical costs, rising faster than inflation, notably insurance and prescription drugs. Once cheap in America long ago, they’re exorbitantly priced today.

In 2017, 45% of Americans said they’d be hard-pressed to pay an unexpected $500 medical expense unless able to get loan help, either repaying it over time or not at all, according to one study.

Most insured Americans use all or most of their savings to pay medical expenses. A common way to cut costs is by skipping medications. It risks making a bad situation worse.

Yet tens of millions of Americans choose this option because of affordability, including individuals with prescription drug coverage, struggling with the high cost of co-payments.

For patients with cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and/or other major illnesses, skipping medications can be fatal. Delaying them can make overall health worse.

A Pew Research study found “a substantial majority (of Americans) consider quality health care unaffordable.”

According to BankruptcyLaws.com, “(m)edical  bankruptcy is only available to those individuals who are considered a ‘medically distressed’ debtor.”

It applies to individuals with at least 25% of their annual income going for medical or related expenses.

Individuals accruing the same percentage through lost wages or unpaid leave for at least a month because of illness or injury also qualify.

The US Bankruptcy Code makes no distinction between medical and other type debts – mortgage, student loans and credit cards the major categories.

Most often, student loans are not dischargeable through bankruptcy. Over 44 million borrowers have a collective $1.5 trillion debt obligation, $37,172 on average for the class of 2016.

Outstanding student loans are the second highest consumer debt category after mortgages – most individuals unable to qualify for relief through bankruptcy.

The so-called Brunner standard is the legal test in circuit court proceedings. It requires proving extreme hardship likely to continue for the term of indebtedness, along with having shown good faith efforts to repay.

Most often, student loans must be repaid as long as they remain outstanding. Federal laws mandate it, the extreme hardship exception aside.

If future federal legislation affects medical indebtedness the same way, millions of Americans may be unable to discharge their debt through bankruptcy.

Medical bankruptcy is a major issue, worsening as healthcare becomes more unaffordable for millions of Americans.

A study published by the American Public Health Association (APHA) showed medical expenses contributed to two-thirds of all bankruptcies in America.

The figure is virtually unchanged since enactment of Obamacare in 2010. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act left healthcare unaffordable for tens of millions of Americans.

The APHA study found middle-Americans must vulnerable to medical bankruptcy, Obamacare not helping them.

Poor Americans are less likely to seek bankruptcy as an option for relief from unpayable medical expenses because they have few, if any, assets to protect. They also can’t afford legal help for court proceedings.

Bankruptcy filers for medical reasons are in worse health and more likely to skip needed treatments and medications, according to the study findings.

Americans can have whatever they want based on the ability to pay. Millions can’t afford essentials to life like proper healthcare.

The only solution is universal coverage, Medicare for all – everyone in, no one left out.

According to Physicians for a National Health Program, eliminating insurers, providing no one with healthcare, will save about $500 billion annually – relieving physicians and hospitals of a bureaucratic nightmare.

It would also free up this money for universal coverage, the only equitable option.

*

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.

Suicide Bombings in India and Iran

February 19th, 2019 by Great Game India

On the afternoon of 14th February, 2019 a convoy of vehicles along the Indian Jammu Srinagar National Highway carrying Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was targeted by terrorists with a car bomb at Awantipora in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pulwama district. Responsibility of the Pulwama attack was attributed to the Pakistan-based terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammad.

A similar bombing took place in Iran a day earlier. Pulwama attack mirrors a suicide bombing in Iran’s Sistan-Baluchestan border province a day earlier which left 27 elite Revolutionary Guards dead and 13 others wounded. A unit of Revolutionary Guards in south-eastern Iran was returning in a bus from the Pakistan border on Wednesday when an explosive-laden car blew up on Khash-Zahedan road, killing all security personnel on board.

According to sources in security agencies, the modus operandi was similar—ramming an explosive-laden vehicle into a bus carrying soldiers. In both cases, the terror outfits that claimed responsibility for the bombings have the same first name – Jaish.

The so-called Jaish ul-Adl terrorist group, which is linked to al-Qaeda, claimed responsibility for the bombing. The terrorist outfit was formed in 2012 by members of the Pakistan-based Jundallah, another terror group dismantled by Iranian intelligence forces in 2010 after its ringleader Abdolmalek Rigi was executed.

By nightfall on the same day India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) released a statement condemning the terror attack in Pulwama attributing it to Pakistan-based terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammad.

This heinous and despicable act has been perpetrated by Jaish-e-Mohammed, a Pakistan-based and supported terrorist organisation proscribed by the United Nations and other countries.  This terror group is led by the international terrorist Masood Azhar, who has been given full freedom by Government of Pakistan to operate and expand his terror infrastructure in territories under the control of Pakistan and to carry out attacks in India and elsewhere with impunity.

We strongly reiterate our appeal to all members of the international community to  support the proposal to list terrorists, including JeM Chief Masood Azhar, as a designated terrorist under the 1267 Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council and to ban terrorist organisations operating from territories controlled by Pakistan.

Official sources said that the attack was carried out by one Adil Ahmad Dar alias “Waqas Commando”. A resident of Kakapora, he had joined the terror outfit last year. He was also known as “Adil Ahmad Gaadi Takranewala”, meaning the one who will crash the vehicle.

However, in contrast to the Indian response the Iranians not only identified the players on the ground but also its state sponsorship and the regimes pulling the string from the background uncovering the geopolitical players involved.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei denounced the attack, saying the spy agencies of certain regional and trans-regional countries certainly had a hand in this crime: 

“It is certain that the perpetrators of this crime were linked to spy agencies of certain regional and trans-regional countries and the country’s relevant organizations must focus on that and seriously pursue it.”

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif raised suspicion about the attack’s possible links to an anti-Iran summit co-hosted by the US and Poland, which kicked off in Warsaw on a day earlier. President Hassan Rouhani also described the US and the Israeli regime as the “root causes of terror” in the Middle East region as he condemned the deadly attack on the IRGC forces.

The chief commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) warned Saudi Arabia and the UAE that they could face retaliatory measures for supporting terrorists on behalf of the US and Israel. General Mohammad Ali Jafari said,

“The patience that the establishment once exercised against conspiracies and reactionary regimes in the region, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE which carry out these acts on orders from the US and Israel, will be different and we will definitely take reparative measures”.

The simultaneous attack on both Iran and India has raised tensions in Asia and certainly brought the focus on terror activities emanating from Pakistani soil. What remains to be seen however is how far two nations would go to uncover and resolve the root cause of the problem.

*

Abridged report from GreatGameIndia wiki on Pulwama Attack.

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 NDTV.com

Historically, Pakistan has no feud with Iran and the latter was the first to recognize Pakistan when it gained independence in 1947, but siding with Saudi Arabia will keep Iran at arm’s length from Pakistan. A terrorist attack targeted a bus carrying Iranian Revolutionary Guards troops in southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchistan that killed 27 and injured many. The attack was immediately claimed by Pakistan-based Jaish Al-Adl (Army of Justice), which Iran believes is funded by Saudi Arabia.

For years, Iran and Saudi Arabia used Pakistan as a battleground for their proxy sectarian war and when Pakistan started to support the Sunni Taliban organization in Afghanistan, it erected problems for “Shia Iran”.

Pakistan stole Saudi Arabia’s attention in parallel with the US’ regional policies. The US turned to Pakistan as a strong ally in latter half of 20thcentury for two key reasons: The Iranian Revolution in 1970s and “Soviet invasion” of Afghanistan. For Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s proximity to Iran was among motives to build sustainable ties with Islamabad.

In the wake of Wednesday’s attack, Iran demanded Pakistan take action against the local militant group or face retaliatory measures. Revolutionary Guards Commander Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari accused “Pakistan’s security forces” of Wednesday’s attack on Iranian armed forces, in remarks state TV aired Saturday.

“Pakistan’s government, who has housed these anti-revolutionaries and threats to Islam, knows where they are and they are supported by Pakistan’s security forces”, said Jafari.

“If Pakistan fails to punish them in the near future, Iran will do so based on international law and will retaliate against the terrorists”, he warned.

Jafari said Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are conspiring with the US and the Zionist regime to foment attacks such as Wednesday’s suicide bombing.

Jaish Al-Adl was formed in 2012 out of the Jundallah (“Soldiers of God”) militia, which waged a deadly insurgency for a decade before it was severely weakened by the capture and execution of its leader Abdulmalek Rigiby Iran in 2010.

When the Washington led ‘international community’ turned its heat up on Saudi Arabia over Jamal Khashoggi’s murder, Pakistan gave a warm hand to Riyadh. As a strategic ally of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan’s first overseas trip was made to Riyadh. Aside from pledging of $6b to Pakistan months ago, Mohammad bin Salman who visited Islamabad this weekend along with his over one thousand entourage including investors and government officials, laid bare a surprise investment package.

Saudi Arabia plans to invest up to $20b in Pakistan especially in the energy sector and building up a new oil refinery in coastal city of Gwadar. Authorities in Islamabad said that two five star hotels had been ordered to cancel all advance bookings to reserve rooms for the prince’s entourage. Civil aviation authorities have been told to reschedule flights during the prince’s arrival and departure.

Just like other powers seeking concessions in return for huge funds, Saudi Arabia’s financial assistance with Pakistan is not void of conditions. As a nuclear-armed power, Pakistan is viewed beyond an ordinary country by Riyadh.

Recently, the US Senate introduced proposal to block Saudi Arabia from possessing nuclear weapons in the future. The financial crisis-hit Pakistan is in high demand of foreign aids which Saudi Arabia knows how to resolve in exchange for what Pakistan has and Riyadh not.

Saudi officials’ visit comes as regional tensions heightened after neighboring India accused Islamabad of harboring militants behind a deadly attack in Indian-administered Kashmir. At least 41 paramilitary troops were killed in a suicide blast Thursday, with Indian media reporting that Pakistan- based Islamist group Jaish-e Mohammad had claimed responsibility.

In the past, Pakistan and Iran have exchanged mortar shells in the border regions. In March 2018, Islamabad claimed that several mortar shells had been fired from Iran that hit Pakistan’s Panjgur district.

Wednesday’s suicide attack in the border region of Iran is widely believed to have been carried out in connection with MBS’s visit of Islamabad. Saudi Arabia might want to destroy Pakistan’s ties with Iran on the brink of MBS’s visit or Israel might seek to throw the responsibility of the blast on Saudi Arabia ahead of its Pakistan visit. The visit of Saudi officials from Islamabad which Iran tried to normalize with, will only add insult to the injury of latest Iran attack.

The Iran attack was plotted just ahead of the landmark state visit to Pakistan in order to downplay the reactions from Pakistani government that was heavily-engaged in welcoming Saudi officials.

On February 11, the Jerusalem Post wrote quoting Russian and Iranian media that Israeli troops are collecting intelligence on Iranian military movements around the Persian Gulf.

According to Iran’s Tasnim news agency, Israeli troops are operating out of a US Air Force base in Shind and in the western Afghanistan province of Herat, some 75 kilometers from the Iranian border and were collecting intelligence on Iranian movements around the Persian Gulf region.

Russian Sputnik quoted an expert on Israel as saying that the Israeli troops were operating under the framework of American forces stationed there and that the activity was carried out with the knowledge and approval of the Afghan government.

Unlike before, Iran openly warned Islamabad of “paying a heavy price” for the incident. Iran is cautious in the war of words with Pakistan because it realizes that other elements are subtly or tacitly exploiting Pakistan’s territory to attack on Iran. The Islamic regime doesn’t wish to add another enemy to the list. On the other hand, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan announced in August 2018 that it backs Iran in its row with the US over nuclear deal.

In one of Jaish Al-Adl’s latest operations in October 2018, it abducted 12 Iranian security personnel near Zahedan along the Iran-Pakistan border. In that incident, Pakistani security forces helped Iran recover at least five of the 12 abductees from the armed group.

In December last year, a powerful car bombing hit the port city of Chahbahar, which left four police officers dead and 42 others wounded. In December 2010, 41 people were killed and 90 others wounded after a suicide attack near a mosque in Chahbahar. Other recent raids include the deadly attack in Ahvaz that killed 29 people.

Iran, more or less, feels hurt with attacks on Shia Muslims in the region. Shia Muslims in Pakistan have long been kidnapped, killed and violently attacked even in the large cities. Many Shia Muslims have been forced to leave Pakistan and take refuge abroad due to such threats. Shia Muslims have also suffered brutally in parts of Afghanistan as powerful blasts have killed dozens in each attack which have often been claimed by Islamist groups based in Pakistan. Besides Pakistan, Afghanistan also serves as battlefield for proxy war between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran.

In Pakistan, Saudi Arabia carries more influence than Iran, but in Afghanistan, Tehran has gained stronger foothold as compared to Riyadh.

*

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 MPC Journal

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Who’s Behind the Attacks in Iran? Pakistan Has to Choose Between Saudi Arabia and Iran
  • Tags: , ,

Over the past few days, the military situation has notably escalated in central and western Syria.

On February 15, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) backed up by pro-government militias launched a scale combing operation in the deserts of Damascus, Deir Ezzor, Raqqa and Homs.

The operation covers the desert area between the western Deir Ezzor countryside and the Bishri mount in southern Raqqa; between the historical city of Palmyra in eastern Homs and the Ghurab mount in the Damascus desert; and the northeastern part of the Damascus desert that reaches the Syrian-Iraqi border. This effort is designed to improve the shake security and prevent large attacks by ISIS cells on government-controlled areas.

Another growing point of instability in the so-called Idlib de-escalation zone. During the past 3 days, the SAA and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham-led forces were constantly involved in exchange of artillery strikes and even sporadic clashes in these areas. Especially intense militant shelling hit the towns of al-Suqaylabiyah, Masyaf, Mahardah and Salhab along with a nearby power plant in northern Hama. In response, the SAA targeted artillery positions of militant groups involved in these attacks near Qalaat al-Madiq, Hirsh al-Qasabiyah, Maarrat al-Nu’man, al-Lataminah and Kafr Zita.

At the same time, the Russian side sends mixed signals about the agreements regarding the situation in the Idlib zone by Turkey, Russia and Iran. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that there is a need to make “steps aimed at clearing Idlib from terrorist groups”, but noted that this does not mean a military operation.

However, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that “it’s up to the military to design a plan in accordance with the international humanitarian law requirements”. He also said that Ankara and Moscow had reached an agreement to “try to establish a step-by-step approach, making several areas of joint patrol inside the zone of de-escalation”. It remains unclear how Russian forces can find themselves involved in any patrols in the area because a vast majority of it is controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the former branch of al-Qaeda in Syria.

The US-led coalition and its proxies known in the mainstream media as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are also facing a problem. ISIS is de-facto defeated in the Hajin pocket. However, nobody is hurrying up to finalize the operation and announce the victory because this will eliminate the only formal justification of the illegal US invasion in the country.

Colonel Francois-Regis Legrier, who has been in charge of directing French artillery supporting the SDF since October, faced punishment after making critical remarks regarding the U.S.-led coalition’s operation against ISIS, according to the French military.

The reason is that Colonel Legrier openly admitted that the coalition was not hurrying up to defeat ISIS and this had greatly increased the death toll among civilians and the levels of destruction.

“We have massively destroyed the infrastructure and given the population a disgusting image of what may be a Western-style liberation leaving behind the seeds of an imminent resurgence of a new adversary,” he wrote in an article published by the National Defence Review.

Earlier, General Joseph Votel, commander of US Central Command, claimed that ISIS is far from defeated and insisted that a Syrian withdrawal would be unwise. He also said that the SDF could not defeat the terror group without continued US assistance. These remarks as well as the case of Colonel Legrier are another example of the disconnect between the publicly declared goals of the coalition presence in Syria and its real purposes.

*

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

Venezuela Under Washington’s Gun

February 19th, 2019 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

A full court press is taking place in Florida today (Presidents Day) with Republicans, Democrats, expatriates from Cuba and Venezuela and the warmonger ministry of propaganda that constitutes the US media all denouncing Maduro and blaming him for the hardships imposed on Venezuelans by Washington’s sanctions and attacks on Venezuela’s currency.

Even “liberal” NPR is reading off the same fascist warmonger script. NPR managed to report on Venezuela without mentioning the sanctions, without mentioning the theft of Venezuela’s gold foolishly entrusted to the US and British central banks, or the orchestrated protests funded by US-financed NGOs that are small in comparison with the crowds that support Maduro that are never mentioned in the US media. In other words, NPR is just another part of the whorehouse brigade.

What Americans forget, or never knew, is that the Cuban expatriates are the descendents of the corrupt Batista crowd that had looted Cuba for years and were thrown out of Cuba by Castro. The Venezuelan expatriates are from the rich elite that couldn’t adjust to Chavez running the country for the people instead of for them, and some of these expatriates were involved in the failed CIA coup against Chavez. All of these expatriates are nothing but shills for Washington’s takeover so that they can get back in on the take.

It is discouraging to see Trump, who the Democrats, the media, and the military/security complex are attempting to chase out of office participate in the attempt to chase Maduro out of office.

It is discouraging to see Washington’s vassals in Europe and in the Organization of American States throw all truth to the wind and line up with Washington’s lies.

It is discouraging that within Western civilization lies dominate all aspects of domestic and international policy. Truth has been stamped out.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

Featured image is from YourNewsWire

“For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught
To say the things he truly feels and not the words of one who kneels.”
Paul Anka My Way

“Oh! isn’t it a pity, such a pretty girl as I
Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?
Oh! I cannot be a slave, I will not be a slave,
For I’m so fond of liberty,
That I cannot be a slave.”
Lowell Mill girls protest song in 1836 strike.

The rise of the superheroes in cinema is demonstrated by the proliferation of superhero films today and is a phenomenon that is unprecedented in culture. Many superhero films are based on superhero comics while some are original for the screen, some are based on animated television series, and others are based on Japanese manga and television shows.

This essay will look at the history and origins of superheroes in Romantic ideas, comparing them to an opposing ideology of working class heroes who compete with superheroes for the attention of the oppressed masses who are to be ‘freed’ and/or saved, especially in the 20th century.

According to Cooper Hood in Screen Rant:

“2019 will be the year of superhero movies, seeing the release of a record-setting amount: a whopping eleven films. As the superhero movie craze continues, next year looks poised to be the prime example of how invested Hollywood as a whole really is. There’s the usual amount of Marvel movies, but increased output from Warner Bros. and DC, as well as some final Fox X-Men titles. All of these make up an astonishing ten confirmed 2019 superhero movies.”

This is nearly double the 2018 output of six live-action superhero movies: Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War, Deadpool 2, Ant-Man & the Wasp, Venom and Aquaman.

Superheroes take their inspiration from earlier heroes such as Robin Hood and the Scarlet Pimpernel but the idea originates in Romantic ideas about heroes that save the world and the powers of the superhero.

Despite their designation as science fiction, superheroes have their ideological roots in the anti-science, individualistic philosophy of Romanticism.

What is Romanticism?

Romanticism is a movement in the arts and literature that emphasises inspiration, subjectivity, and the primacy of the individual and originated in the late 18th century. It was also a reaction to the Industrial Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, and in particular, the scientific rationalization of nature — all components of modernity.

In the The Roots of Romanticism, Isaiah Berlin discusses the Romantic’s negative view of science:

“The only persons who have ever made sense of reality are those who understand that to try to circumscribe things, to try to nail them down, to try to describe them, no matter how scrupulously, is a vain task. This will be true not only of science, which does this by means of the most rigorous generalisations of (to the Romantics) the most external and empty kind, but even of scrupulous writers, scrupulous describers of experience – realists, naturalists, those who belong to the school of the flow of consciousness, [e.g. Proust and Tolstoy] labour under the illusion that it is possible once and for all to write down, to describe, to give any finality to the process which they are trying to catch, which they are trying to nail down, unreality and fantasy will result.” [1]

Thus the Romantics fundamentally oppose the general values and objectives of science and in particular Realist and Naturalist artists who use scientific knowledge or methods to develop their art. It goes without saying then that on a philosophical level scientific ideas about the progress of mankind are also rejected by the Romantics.

This is because for the Romantics, “new abysses open, and these abysses open to yet other abysses.” [2] However, scientists understand that new abysses open as they dig deeper into new levels of understanding. Yet, they are not afraid and they don’t throw up their hands in frustration or despair: they see these discoveries as new paths and concepts also to be explored fearlessly.

Berlin believes that one of the most influential writers against the science-based Enlightenment and who began the Romantic backlash was Johann Georg Hamann who believed, according to Berlin, that “the sciences were very well for their own purposes” but that:

“this is not what men ultimately sought. If you asked yourself what were men after, what did men really want, you would see that what they really wanted was not at all what Voltaire supposed they wanted. Voltaire thought that they wanted happiness, contentment, peace, but this was not true. What men wanted was for all their faculties to play in the richest and most violent possible fashion. What men wanted was to create, what men wanted was to make, and if this making led to clashes, if it led to wars, if it led to struggles then this was part of the human lot.” [3]

This view of violence and war as irrational chaos that cannot be controlled is also an element of superhero narratives which the superhero tries to overcome.

“The Reign of the Superman”, short story by Jerry Siegel (January 1933).

Superheroes: emotions over logic

These ideas of individualism, emotion, personalised motivations and cynicism towards the concept of a progressive society are all part of the Superhero psyche. Mason Woodard writes:

“One of the first Romantic elements of Batman is his motivation. He is a vigilante, sometimes hunted by Gotham Police. But the reason Bruce fights crime even in face of the law is because a common criminal murdered his parents when Wayne was just a boy. The emotion of avenging his parents and stopping this from happening drives him far more. This is an example of emotions over logic, a Romantic idea. […] One component of Romanticism embodied by Superman is to trust your instincts and emotions before logic and reasoning. Superman will often be seen saving his love, Lois Lane, or a group of kids in the midst of a massive fight, even when a logical analysis tells you to sacrifice the people and finish off the baddie (even though Superman does win in the end).”

Thus the personalised empathy of the superhero covers over the narcissism of a costumed attention-seeker.

The Golden Age and the Warrior

The Romantics looked back to the Golden Age of the autonomous, powerful warrior who looks after his tribe and is the earliest version of this idea – the peasant as noble savage.  The Golden Age denotes “a period of primordial peace, harmony, stability, and prosperity. During this age peace and harmony prevailed, people did not have to work to feed themselves, for the earth provided food in abundance. They lived to a very old age with a youthful appearance, eventually dying peacefully, with spirits living on as “guardians”.”

There may have been some material basis for the concept of a Golden Age. Old European culture, for example, is believed to have centred around a nature-based ideology that was gradually replaced by an anti-nature, patriarchal, warrior society when Europe was invaded by the Kurgan peoples from c. 4000 to 1000 BC. It was believed to have been a tumultuous and disastrous time for the peoples of Old Europe and may have led to the concept of the Fall. The idea of a fall, the end of a Golden Age, is a common theme in many ancient cultures around the world. Richard Heinberg, in Memories and Visions of Paradise, examines various myths from around the world and finds common themes such as sacred trees, rivers and mountains, wise peoples who were moral and unselfish, and in harmony with nature and described heavenly and earthly paradises.

The Romantic view of the Golden Age was a reaction to the contemporary slave-like conditions of the working class in factories and mills. Romantic rejection of modernity was rooted in this over-rationalisation of the worker and its affect on the human spirit. This rationalisation could be seen as the continuation of earlier slavery but in a modern day form as ‘wage slavery’.

‘Supermen’ or ‘Übermensch [Overmen]’

This modern slavery had a profound affect on Nietzsche (image on the right) who defined the first ‘Supermen’ or ‘Übermensch [Overmen]’ (super – Latin: over/beyond) as a goal humanity can set for itself. The Overman would be a new human who was to be neither master nor slave and all human life would be given meaning by how it advanced a new generation of human beings. Like Marx, Nietzsche recognised the social uses of religion to divert attention and action away from the exploitative nature of the social and economic system itself. The individualism of Nietzsche’s ideas also attracted the anarchists. According to Spencer Sunshine:

“There were many things that drew anarchists to Nietzsche: his hatred of the state; his disgust for the mindless social behavior of ‘herds’; his anti-Christianity; his distrust of the effect of both the market and the State on cultural production; his desire for an ‘overman’ — that is, for a new human who was to be neither master nor slave; his praise of the ecstatic and creative self, with the artist as his prototype, who could say, ‘Yes’ to the self-creation of a new world on the basis of nothing; and his forwarding of the ‘transvaluation of values’ as source of change, as opposed to a Marxist conception of class struggle and the dialectic of a linear history.”

While Marx and the Anarchists had opposing views on the role of the state, what Marx did have in common with anarchist thinkers like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin was the belief that wage slavery was a class condition in place due to the existence of private property and the state. This class situation was based on the lack of direct access to, or ownership by workers of, the means of production.

Henceforth the working class took to the stage as social classes started lifting themselves up particularly in the aftermath of the revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries.

In the 20th century the battle was on for who would become the saviours of the oppressed – the fictional superheroes who fought crime or working class leaders who advocated social change? On a philosophical level the battle between Romanticism and Enlightenment ideas resurfaced between elite individualism and the opposing collectivist historical materialism of Marx.

Working class heroes

In Ireland, for example, the changing relationship between the master and the slave could be seen in the formation of the Irish Citizens Army (ICA) by James Larkin, James Connolly and Jack White on 23 November 1913. Connolly wrote of the ICA in Workers’ Republic in 1915:

“An armed organisation of the Irish working class is a phenomenon in Ireland. Hitherto the workers of Ireland have fought as parts of the armies led by their masters, never as a member of any army officered, trained and inspired by men of their own class. Now, with arms in their hands, they propose to steer their own course, to carve their own future.”

James Connolly (image on the left), an Irish working class hero, led the ICA into a failed uprising against British colonialism in 1916 and was executed by the British not long after. He was a self-taught scholar, a socialist, and an outstanding Labour leader of Ireland. While some may see the uprising as a failed Romantic gesture this could not be further from the truth from Connolly’s philosophical and ideological perspective.

Superhero reified

Ultimately the question has to be asked – do superheroes ‘save’ the people? Of course they are symbolic heroic figures and so do not save anyone. Is it possible then to become a real life ‘superhero’? This idea is developed in the film Kick-Ass where a fictional ‘reification’ of the superhero concept happens. Kick-Ass “tells the story of an ordinary teenager, Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), who sets out to become a real-life superhero, calling himself “Kick-Ass”. Dave gets caught up in a bigger fight when he meets Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage), a former cop who, in his quest to bring down the crime boss Frank D’Amico (Mark Strong) and his son Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), has trained his eleven-year-old daughter (Chloë Grace Moretz) to be the ruthless vigilante Hit-Girl.”

While initially Kick-Ass is constantly getting his ass kicked by thugs precisely because he does not have super powers, he eventually saves the day by arriving on the scene strapped to a jet pack fitted with miniguns and kills the remaining thugs. Thus in the ‘real world’ Kick-Ass has to resort to ‘real weapons’ and falls into the normal superhero pattern of solving crimes with the usual extra-juridical killing and cathartic ending.

Problems of Romanticism

Overall then, there are different problems associated with superheroes, particularly from the point of view of the very people to be saved. At first, in an era of socio/political cynicism and helplessness in the face of poverty, corruption and crime, superheroes are cathartic as we purge our emotions watching the difficulties they have ‘solving’ our problems. In this way action is shifted sideways as we wait for a hero to arrive rather than being active ourselves.

Secondly, the ideology of superheroes comes from above, from elites, and not from below, from the masses themselves and therefore is directed towards the agendas of elites. Superheroes are bourgeois vigilantes who ultimately do not question the structure of society itself but merely try and solve the problems created by structural inequality.  Emotions are poured into superhero individualists who battle against crime while diverting attention away from questions of collective control of society and progress.

Thirdly, they represent the anti-logical emotionalism of Romanticism, itself a reaction to science and enlightenment. While described as science fiction, superheroes are given fanciful powers that have more in common with the ancient Greek gods than modern science.

To give them credibility in providing results for the struggling oppressed, superheroes must have super powers, (as people know you need more than an individual poor-man’s resources to battle against the system itself), ergo, the need ultimately for the superpower of working class solidarity and collectivist action to bring about real changes in society.

*

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

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Notes

[1] The Roots of Romanticism: Second Edition (The A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts) (Princeton Uni Press, Princeton, 2013) by Isaiah Berlin (Author), Henry Hardy (Editor), John Gray (Foreword), p140

[2] The Roots of Romanticism: Second Edition (The A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts) (Princeton Uni Press, Princeton, 2013) by Isaiah Berlin (Author), Henry Hardy (Editor), John Gray (Foreword), p140

[3] The Roots of Romanticism: Second Edition (The A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts) (Princeton Uni Press, Princeton, 2013) by Isaiah Berlin (Author), Henry Hardy (Editor), John Gray (Foreword), p50

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Romanticism and the Rise of the Superheroes: Who Are the Saviours of the Oppressed?

A New Despotism in the Era of Surveillance Capitalism

February 19th, 2019 by Prof. Sam Ben-Meir

There is a fascinating chapter toward the end of Alexis de Toqueville’s Democracy in America titled “What Kind of Despotism Do Democratic Nations Have to Fear?” in which the author attempted something truly extraordinary – to describe a social condition which humankind had never before encountered. We find him trying to put his finger on something which does not yet exist, but which – in his extraordinary political imagination – he was able to foresee with startling clarity.

I maintain that we have good reason to fear that the business model of commercial surveillance – pioneered by Google and adopted by Facebook, among others – is serving to undermine the foundations of our democracy. Shoshana Zuboff explains in her new book, The Age of Surveillance Capital (Public Affairs, 2019), that the system works by treating human experience as “free raw material for translation into behavioral data. Although some of these data are applied to service improvements, the rest are declared as proprietary behavioral surplus, fed into advanced manufacturing processes known as ‘machine intelligence,’ and fabricated into prediction products that anticipate what you will do now, soon and later. Finally, these prediction products are traded in a new kind of marketplace that I call behavioral futures markets. Surveillance capitalists have grown immensely wealthy from these trading operations, for many companies are willing to lay bets on our future behavior.”

In effect, we are becoming the subject of a new insidious, subtle, and almost invisible form of subjugation that was foreseen with uncanny ability by Tocqueville in 1849. Over a hundred and seventy-five years ago, Tocqueville wrote:

“The kind of oppression with which democratic peoples are threatened will resemble nothing that has proceeded it in the world.”

He goes on to describe the elevation of

“an immense tutelary power … which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power, if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves, provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that.”

In Time magazine’s January seventeenth article “I Mentored Mark Zuckerberg, But I Can’t Stay Silent” author Roger McNamee observes,

“One of the best ways to manipulate attention is to appeal to outrage and fear, emotions that increase engagement. Facebook’s algorithms give users what they want, so each person’s News Feed becomes a unique and personal reality, a filter bubble that creates the illusion that most people the user knows believe the same things.”

The notion of a bubble here is a useful one: central to the work of Jakob von Uexküll, an Estonian-born biologist and one of the fathers of biosemiotics, is the concept of the umwelt – or ‘surrounding-world’ – the ‘soap-bubble’ that each creature creates for itself and which constitutes their experiential world. The umwelt is composed of signs as bearers of meaning, and for each organism the umwelt is the whole of their reality. What distinguishes us as human beings is that our umwelt is not fixed, immobile, rigid, or static. One of the ways we can understand the effect of Facebook’s algorithms on its users is that the umwelt each user inhabits runs the danger of effectively shrinking: growing smaller and ever more calcified.

In “How Facebook’s Algorithm Suppresses Content Diversity and How the Newsfeed Rules Your Clicks,” the author Zeynep Tufekci asserts that researchers were able to definitively conclude that, by a measurable amount, Facebook’s newsfeed algorithm reduces a user’s exposure to “…ideologically diverse, cross-cutting content…”  By assuring that we are exposed only to that which we are likely to approve of and assent to, our umwelt – or social reality – is that much more diminished and homogenized.

Facebook’s business model has far-reaching implications, especially in terms of our ability to empathize with others – others who may not be like, or think like, ourselves. This had devastating results in Myanmar where Facebook became a tool for ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya. While it certainly may not have been its intention, Facebook has become a “forum for tribalism” promoting a “simplistic version of ‘community’” while arguably “harming democracy, science and public health” – as Siva Vaidhyanathan suggests in Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Much of my research has shown that there is a close relationship between empathy and our ability to creatively reconstruct the umwelt of the other. While one cannot share his or her umwelt – each of us remains in our own soap-bubble, as it were – we can participate in a common umwelt, which in many ways is purportedly the stated goal of social media. It is ironic that Facebook, which claims to prize connectivity above all, has in fact, contributed to producing the opposite result – where each of us fixed in a vapid and hardened bubble of isolation.

In the face of an American government that is increasingly retreating from its responsibilities, we must recognize that Facebook, Google, and Amazon are the new leviathans. In serving users only those posts with which they will agree, Facebook is like Tocqueville’s ‘tutelary’s power’ which “everyday … renders the employment of free will less useful, and more rare; it confines the action of the will in a smaller space, and little by little steals the very use of free will from each citizen.” These companies do not simply want to automate information: as Zuboff observes, “the goal now is to automate us… to produce ignorance by circumventing individual awareness and thus eliminate any possibility of self-determination.”

Facebook’s business model represents a new insidious form of subjugation that does not tyrannize, but as Vaidhyanathan observes, “it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.”

Facebook has contributed its share to the deterioration of epistemic norms and has helped to usher in the era of so-called post-truth. The motivation behind this disdain for truth as such, has always been the same – namely, it serves the bottom line. As McNamee puts it: “on Facebook, information and disinformation look the same; the only difference is that disinformation generates more revenue, so it gets better treatment.”

Over a two-year period preceding the 2016 election, one hundred and twenty-six million Americans saw Russian-backed content. Facebook was at best reckless in the rampant and deliberate spread of disinformation through fake Russian accounts; which is to say that by allowing the proliferation of fake news, Facebook incontrovertibly helped Donald Trump to become the President of the United States. Facebook has provided fertile ground for the spread of grossly irresponsible conspiracy theories and “hopelessly inaccurate viral posts.”

Like many others, McNamee suggests that users should have control over their own data and metadata – as if data ownership is the solution to the scourge of surveillance capitalism. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it fails to ask the more elementary question of whether such data should exist at all. As Zuboff observes “It’s like negotiating how many hours a day a seven-year-old should be allowed to work, rather than contesting the fundamental legitimacy of child labor.” Surveillance capitalism represents a new form of despotism, one that is harming our capacity for individual autonomy in order that behavioral data can continue to be generated unimpeded, supplying markets and the advertisers that are Google’s and Facebook’s real customers.

We are becoming the kind of solipsistic and atomistic society that Tocqueville foresaw, “an enumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose … each of them, withdrawn, and apart, is like a stranger to the destiny of all the others… As for dwelling with his fellow citizens, he is beside them, but he does not see them; he touches them and does not feel them.” Alexis de Tocqueville warned us that oppression may take forms which are gentle, quiet, calm, but nonetheless, inimical to genuine freedom. To adequately respond to the problem will require more than demanding greater privacy or data ownership – it will involve a radical questioning of our basic assumptions, and a new understanding of what democracy means and entails in the age of capitalistic surveillance.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Legal Loop

Size Matters: The Demise of Airbus A380

February 19th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The aircraft business has always been a dear affair.  More than other forms of transport, it remains susceptible to oscillating costs (materials, fuel), ever at the mercy of the uncontrollable.  The Airbus A380 was meant to be a giant’s contribution to aviation.  In time, its makers came to the conclusion that the bird had already flown.

In the solemn words of outgoing Airbus chief executive Tom Enders, “We have no sustainable A380 backlog and hence no basis to sustain production, despite all our sales efforts with other airlines in recent years.”

As much as it was a “technical wonder” (an “outstanding engineering and industrial achievement” boasted Enders), the A380 simply did not have the momentum financially to carry the company.  To a large extent, this may have been embedded in the mission itself: to outperform, at quite literally all cost, the Boeing 747, the super mega jet dream born in 1988 when Airbus engineers went to work on designing an ultra-high-capacity-airliner (UHCA).  This would entail the guzzling addition of four jet engines, and an ongoing headache to the accountants. 

The consequences of this vain if admired project have been more than head-ache inducing.  Carriers who have gone for purchases of the divine beast have underperformed on the revenue side of things. Such large entities, to make matters viable, need orders covering up to four-fifths of the seats.  This leads to incentives to discount prices and seek promotions.  In the penny-pinching world of air travel, this is a tall order. 

And big it is.  The A380 was advertised for its breezy size and proportions – 73 metres in length, 80 metres wide, able to ferry 550 to 800 passengers, depending on type, on two complete decks.  Floor space was increased dramatically (some 49 percent), with additional seating being a mere 35 percent from the previous largest aircraft.  The comfort factor was enhanced: more passenger room, and less noise.  In a machine sense, it made many in the aeronautical side of things salivate: modern computerised systems; powerful Rolls-Royce reactors.  A truly big toy.

The transport routes favouring hubs (Dubai and Singapore) were originally the target of the A380.  Megacities would proliferate; traffic between them would necessitate bigger planes to cope with capacity issues.  Congestion would thereby be reduced.  But there were delays – some eighteen months – before it finally made its maiden flight on April 7, 2005. 

Then came a change in strategy from hub destinations.  A diversification of travel routes took place.  Appropriate capacity for destinations was simply not there.  The market has also grown at a lesser rate.  Projections, in other words, have not been met. 

In 2015, it was already clear that the A380 was more than struggling. No new orders were taken. The order book then stood at 317 units, with Airbus needing to make it to 420 to break even. (The original projection had been 270, but delays and currency fluctuations will do that sort of thing.) 

The arrival of fuel-efficient, longer-haul flights have also become something of a curse.  The Boeing 787 and Airbus’ own A350 have done more than simply pique interest.  A move in their direction signals a greater interest in the More Electric Aircraft generation.  Qantas Airways Ltd. is seen as an example: initially enthusiastic about Emirates, having made an alliance in 2013, it has moved with greater enthusiasm towards Cathay, courtesy of the 787. This means that the traditional hub destinations like Dubai can be by-passed.

The largest purchaser of the A380 – Emirates – has done its best to keep orders coming in for the company.  (In of itself, this suggests dangers to both purchaser and supplier.)  Gross orders as of January 31, 2019 show Emirates coming in at a staggering 162, with Singapore Airlines a very distant second at 24. Since 2008, it has made the airline its centrepiece.  Emirates’ tastes are also fairly unique, being the only major airline preferring large, twin-aisle, wide-bodied jets.

But the airline is looking elsewhere, downsizing to the smaller A350 or A330.  The numbers are eye popping: of the 56 aircraft still on the order line, 53 are set for Emirates; but Dubai’s national carrier was contemplating switching 20 orders of the Airbus SE 380.  Confirmation that it would cut orders for the A380 by 39 was enough of a call for Enders.

There are, however, still a few tricks available in the A380 bag.  Emirates, for one, managed to do the unusual thing of having increasing numbers of passengers while reducing departures.  It won’t and has not saved the continued production of the A380, but that large creature of avionics is set to be around for a time before a full, unpensioned retirement.  In Enders’ romantic reflection, the A380 would be roaming “the skies for many years to come”.

*

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 Gulf News

The transnational region of Balochistan risks becoming another Kurdistan-like fault line as long as Iran continues to be tricked into worsening relations with Pakistan, with the worst-case scenario being that the Golden Ring’s weakest link undermines the entire geopolitical project that it has such a serious stake in securing.

“Blood Borders”

Iran’s uncharacteristically bellicose rhetoric against Pakistan in the aftermath of a recent terrorist attack along their shared border in the transnational region of Balochistan risks replicating the Kurdish scenario of turning this issue into an instrument of international leverage against both of them by third-party intelligence agencies for divide-and-rule purposes. Retired US Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters infamously published his 2006 policy proposal about geopolitically engineering “Blood Borders” across the so-called “Greater Middle East”, crucially including both Kurdistan and Balochistan as integral “independent” components of his desired future vision, which was used as the partial basis by the author in summer 2016 to elaborate on the various Hybrid War scenarios that the US could employ against Iran as it seeks to ramp up unconventional pressure against it.

India’s Indirect Involvement

Everything began to heat up in 2017 when the US began simultaneously experimenting with the weaponized worsening of both geopolitical fault lines against Iran, but the Islamic Republic seemed to have successfully weathered the storm. The Kurdish issue has comparatively calmed down since then as a result of Iran’s multilateral cooperation with its partners (principally among them Turkey), while the spring 2017 terrorist provocation along the Pakistani border didn’t trick Iran into blaming its neighbor like it’s doing now (which the author warned against doing at the time). About the second-mentioned incident, the joint Indo-American Hybrid War on CPEC has predictably destabilized Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan province, which contributed to last year’s terrorist attack on Chabahar and the most recent one that caused such a stir last week.

To be clear, India doesn’t have an interest in waging a proxy war against its North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) partner through which it hopes to one day obtain reliable transit access to the Russian, Central Asian, and Afghan marketplaces, but its irresponsibly myopic obsession with stopping CPEC at all costs blinded some of its decision makers to the obvious blowback risks associated with this Hybrid War plot. At the same time, however, some Indian strategists might have foreseen this eventuality but wagered that Iran would take the bait and blame Pakistan, which it finally ended up doing after this latest incident. That’s not to say that India had a direct hand in what happened, but just that it knowingly shaped the regional security conditions that made it possible.

Tehran Takes The Bait

Iran fell for this false flag because of historical reasons, its “perfect timing”, and the growing “deep state” divisions within the country’s military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies. Iranian-Pakistani relations were uneasy for years after the 1979 Revolution and Tehran always suspected that Islamabad harbored anti-government militants at Riyadh’s behest, which brings one to the specific timing of the provocation itself. The suicide bombing took place just days before Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) travelled to Pakistan and signed over $20 billion of deals to complement the commitment that he made to the country last year during Prime Minister Khan’s visit to the Kingdom. From a zero-sum security-centric perspective, some in Iran might have thought that “history was repeating itself” and that both countries were conspiring against it.

It’ll be touched upon in a little bit why that theory isn’t true, but for now it’s pertinent to explain why some in Iran would even believe this in the first place. The country’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) are usually understood as being divided between “moderate”/reformist” and “conservative”/”principalist” factions, with the former usually concentrating their influence in the diplomatic wing while the latter are known to be associated with the military and intelligence services. This “deep state” division was on full display over the past week when the Iranian Ambassador to Pakistan spoke about his country’s eagerness to join CPEC despite what happened while security representatives blamed Pakistan – and specifically its ISI intelligence agency – for supposedly having a role in the recent terrorist attack.

“Cutting Off The Nose To Spite The Face”

Geopolitical analyst Adam Garrie did a fine job explaining the ridiculousness behind this “reasoning”, as well as citing social media commentary that ironically noted that Iran and “Israel” share the same stance as India’s in tacitly blaming Pakistan for last week’s Pulwama attack. It’s interesting that Iran, which has itself has been a victim of many terrorist conspiracies over the decades, is paying no attention to the possibility that Pakistan is being set up to look like a so-called “state sponsor of terrorism” against both of its neighbors in order to establish the pretext for the US to potentially sanction CPEC on that basis if the ongoing Taliban peace talks somehow end up falling through. For all intents and purposes, Iran’s reaction plays right into the US’ hands.

By diplomatically teaming up with India and blaming Pakistan for the latest terrorist attack against it, Iran is increasing its strategic dependence on the US’ ally as the most reliable long-term pressure valve against the effect of American sanctions (or so it’s been [mis]led to believe). Not only that, but Iran is proverbially “cutting off its nose to spite its face” by implying Indian-like rhetoric to carry out a “surgical strike” against Pakistan because it’s recklessly reversing years of hard work that its diplomats put into improving relations with its neighbor and restoring mutual trust. Worse still, the long-term consequences of a Kurdistan-like regional fault line erupting between Iran and Pakistan over Balochistan could undermine the Golden Ring geopolitical project that Iran has such a serious stake in securing.

The Worst-Case Scenario

While Pakistan is the pivot state on which this entire construction depends, the Golden Ring would nevertheless be dealt a heavy blow if Iran isn’t fully on board because its weakest link could “open up the gates” to US-approved Indian influence right into its Central Asian core in order to tacitly “contain China”, which might actually be why the US issued India a waiver for Chabahar late last year in preparing for this scenario’s eventual fulfillment following the exploitation of an inevitable Hybrid War “blowback” provocation like what happened last week. Iran would be mistaken, however, for thinking that its strategic security can be assured more by US-allied India than China and the other multipolar Great Powers of the Golden Ring, but it might also have something else in mind.

Iran understands its geostrategic importance, both in general and specifically in terms of how it could be used by the US through India to “contain China”, so some of its “deep state” factions might be betting that they can reach a quid-pro-quo with America whereby Washington relieves some of the Hybrid War pressure upon it in exchange for Tehran facilitating New Delhi’s access to the Golden Ring’s Central Asian core. Taken to its logical extent, this school of thought might even be of the conviction that aligning too closely with the Golden Ring might “trigger” the US to intensify its destabilization operations against their country, figuring that it’s better to “conveniently” take advantage of the latest attack to shift the pressure onto Pakistan instead.

Making The Best Of A Bad Situation

That’s just the worst-case scenario, though, and it’s possible that events might not unfold entirely like that, or that Iran is even considering such a Machiavellian strategy in the first place. Having said that, it’s extremely unlikely that any “best-case scenario” will materialize because Iran crossed the Rubicon by directly blaming the ISI for supporting terrorism, thus drawing the consternation of many patriotic Pakistanis who deeply appreciate this institution’s irreplaceable role in defending their country from that said scourge. Bilateral ties will probably take some time to recover from the self-inflicted damage that Iran wrought to them with this outburst even if it explains behind closed doors how its “deep state” divisions were the cause of it, but that doesn’t mean that all is lost for now.

If Iran has the political willpower, then it can make the best out of this bad situation that its official representatives are responsible for by showing a sincere desire to deepen security cooperation with Pakistan along their shared border. Going further, the two countries could combine their relevant military and socio-economic resources into creating a comprehensive “Democratic Security” strategy for sustainably stabilizing the transnational Balochistan region between them, possibly even securing some Chinese funds for this through an initiative that the author suggested late last year could eventually be branded as “BRI-Aid”. There’s no better time than now for Balochistan to transform from a “Blood Borders” barrier to regional integration into a CPEC+ bridge for facilitating the Golden Ring, but the ball is completely in Iran’s court.

Concluding Thoughts

As regrettable as it is to see, Iran took the bait and fell for the Hybrid War plot of blaming Pakistan for the latest terrorist attack along their shared border in Balochistan, which has had the immediate consequence of reviving the US’ “Blood Borders” scenario in the region as a Kurdistan-like wedge develops between these two Muslim Great Powers. Iran dealt enormous damage to bilateral relations with its reckless rhetoric holding the ISI responsible for what happened, but the worst-case (though nevertheless realistic) scenario of the Islamic Republic counterintuitively serving as the US’ indirect Indian-led access route to the Golden Ring’s Central Asian core can still be avoided if Tehran has the political will to team up with Islamabad against terrorism and turn Balochistan into a bridge for regional integration.

*

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.

The political system in the United States is a plutocracy, one that works for the benefit of the wealthy, not the people. Although we face growing crises on multiple fronts – economic insecurity, a violent and racist state, environmental devastation, never-ending wars and more – neither of the Wall Street-funded political parties will take action to respond. Instead, they are helping the rich get richer.

The wealth divide has gotten so severe that three people have more wealth than the bottom 50% of people in the country. Without the support of the rich, it is nearly impossible to compete in elections. In 2016, more than $6.5 billion was spent on the federal elections, a record that will surely be broken in 2020. More than half that money came from less than 400 people, from fewer than 150 families.

People are aware of this corruption and are leaving the two Wall Street parties. According to the census, 21.4% of people do not register to vote, and in 2018, less than a majority of registered voters voted. According to Pew Research, independents (40% of voters) outnumber Democrats (30%) and Republicans (24%). The largest category of registered voters is non-voters. Yet, the media primarily covers those who run within the two parties, or billionaire independent candidates who do not represent the views of most people.

This raises a question for social movements: What can be done to advance our agenda over the next two years when attention will be devoted mostly to two parties and the presidential race?

Source: Institute for Policy studies, Forbes.

Progressives Failed to Make the Democratic Party a Left-Progressive Party

People in the United States are trapped in an electoral system of two parties. Some progressives have tried — once again — to remake the Democratic Party into a people’s party.

We interviewed Nick Brana, a former top political organizer for the Sanders presidential campaign, on the Popular Resistance podcast, which will be aired Monday, about his analysis of the Democratic Party. Brana describes the efforts of progressives to push the party to the left over the past three years and how they were stopped at every turn. They tried to:

  • Change the Democratic Party Platform: The platform is nonbinding and meaningless but even so, the Party scrapped the platform passed by the delegates the following year and replaced it with a more conservative one called the “Better Deal.”
  • Replace the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair. They discovered the chair is picked by the DNC, which is made up of corporate lobbyists, consultants, and superdelegates, who picked Hillary Clinton’s candidate Tom Perez, over Rep. Keith Ellison, former co-chair of the Progressive Caucus.
  • Replace the DNC membership with grassroots activists. Instead, at the DNC’s  2017 fall meeting, the Party purged progressives from the DNC, making it more corporate and elitist.
  • Fix the Presidential primary process after it was disclosed that the DNC weighted the scale in favor of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The Democrats rigged the Rules Commission to accomplish the opposite, i.e., kept closed primaries to shut out progressive independent voters, kept joint fundraising agreements between the DNC and presidential campaigns, slashed the number of states that hold caucuses, which favor progressive candidates, and refused to eliminate superdelegates, moving them to the second ballot at the convention but reserving the right to force a second ballot if they choose.

Further cementing their power, Democrats added a “loyalty oath” which allows the DNC chair to unilaterally deny candidates access to the ballot if he deems the candidate has been insufficiently “faithful” to the Party during their life. And the DNC did nothing to remove corporate and billionaire money from the primary or the Party, ensuring Wall Street can continue purchasing its politicians.

The results of the 2018 election show the Blue Wave was really a Corporate Wave. Brana describes how only two progressives out of 435 members of Congress unseated House Democrats in all of 2018: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley. When Pelosi was challenged as leader of the House Democrats, she was challenged from a right-wing Blue Dog Democrat, not a progressive Democrat, with many “progressives” including AOC and Rep. Jayapal speaking up for Pelosi’s progressive credentials.

In contrast to the failure of progressives, the militarists had a banner 2018 election. The 11 former intelligence officials and veterans were the largest groups of victorious Democratic challengers in Republican districts. Throughout the 2018 election cycle, Democratic Party leaders worked against progressive candidates, for instance pushing them to oppose Medicare for all.

This is an old story that each generation learns for itself: the Democratic Party cannot be remade into a people’s party. It has been a big business party from its founding as a slaveholders party in the early 1800s, when slaves were the most valuable “property” in the country, to its Wall Street funding today. Lance Selfa, in “The Democrats: A Critical History,” shows how the Democratic Party has consistently betrayed the needs of ordinary people while pursuing an agenda favorable to Wall Street and US imperialism. He shows how political movements from the union and workers movements to the civil rights movement to the antiwar movement, among others, have been betrayed and undermined by the Democratic Party.

Social Movements Must Be Independent of the Corporate Parties

The lesson is mass movements need to build their own party. The movement should not be distracted by the media and bi-partisan politicos who urge us to vote against what is necessary for the people and planet. At this time of crisis, we cannot settle for false non-solutions.

Howie Hawkins, one of the founders of the Green Party and the first candidate to campaign on a Green New Deal, describes, in From The Bottom Up: The Case For An Independent Left Party, how Trumpism is weakening as its rhetoric of economic populism has turned into extreme reactionary Republicanism for the millionaires and billionaires. He explains that Democrats are not the answer either, as “they won’t replace austerity capitalism and militaristic imperialism to which the Democratic Party is committed.”

The result, writes Hawkins, is we must commit ourselves “to build an independent, membership-based working-class party.” Even the New Deal-type reforms of Bernie Sanders “do not end the oppression, alienation, and disempowerment of working people” and do not stop “capitalism’s competitive drive for mindless growth that is devouring the environment and roasting the planet.”

Hawkins urges an ecosocialist party that creates economic democracy, i.e. social ownership of the means of production for democratic planning and allocation of economic surpluses as well as confronting the climate crisis. He explains socialism is a “movement of the working class acting for itself, independently, for its own freedom.”

He urges membership-based parties building from the local level that are independent of the two corporate-funded parties.  Local branches would educate people on issues to support a mass movement for transformational change. Hawkins is a long-time anti-racism activist. He became politically active as a teenager when he saw the mistreatment of the Mississippi Freedom Democrats, who elected sharecropper Fannie Lou Hamer as their co-chair. He believes a left party must confront racial and ethnic tensions that have divided the working class throughout its history.

Hawkins points out the reasons why the time is ripe for this. Two-thirds of people are from the working class compared to one-third in 1900. The middle class (e.g. teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, technicians) holds progressive positions on policy issues creating super-majority support for critical issues on our agenda. The working and middle classes are better educated than ever. Over the last forty years, their living standards have declined, especially the younger cohort that is starting life in debt like no other generation. Finally, the environmental crisis is upon us and can no longer be ignored creating a decisive need for radical remaking of the economy.

Critical Issues To Educate And Mobilize Around

Popular Resistance identified a 16 point People’s Agenda for economic, racial and environmental justice as well as peace.  Three issues on which we should focus our organizing over the next few years include:

National Improved Medicare For All: The transformation of healthcare in the US from an insurance-based market system to a national public health system is an urgent need with over 100,000 deaths annually that would not occur if we had a system like the UK or France, two-thirds of bankruptcies (more than 500,000 per year) are due to medical illness even though most of those who were bankrupted had insurance, 29 million people do not have health insurance and 87 million people are underinsured.

While many Democrats are supporting expanded and improved Medicare for all, including presidential candidates, the movement needs to push them to truly mean it and not to support fake solutions that use our language, e.g. Medicare for some (public options, Medicare buy-ins and reducing the age of Medicare). Winning Medicare for all will not only improve the health of everyone, it will be a great economic equalizer for the poor, elderly and communities of color. This is an issue we can win if we continue to educate and organize around it.

Join our Health Over Profit for Everyone campaign.

Enacting a Green New Deal. The Green New deal has been advocated for since 2006, first by Global Greens, then by Green Party candidates at the state level and then by Jill Stein in her two presidential runs. The issue is now part of the political agenda thanks to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She and Senator Ed Markey led the introduction of a framework for a Green New Deal, which is supported by more than 50 Democrats including many presidential candidates.

Their resolution is a framework that the movement needs to educate and organize to make into real legislation to urgently confront the climate crisis, which has been mishandled by successive US presidents. The movement must unite for a real Green New Deal.

The Green New Deal has the potential to not only confront the climate crisis by shifting to a carbon-free/nuclear-free energy economy but to also shift to a new economy that is fairer and provides economic security. Remaking energy so it serves the people, including socializing energy systems, e.g. public utilities, could also provide living wage jobs and strengthen worker’s rights. It will require the remaking of housing, which could include social housing for millions of people, a shift from agribusiness to regenerative agriculture and remaking finance to include public banks to pay for a Green New Deal. The Democratic leadership is already seeking to kill the Green New Deal, so the movement has its work cut out for it.

Stopping Wars and Ending US Empire: US empire is in decline but is still causing great destruction and chaos around the world. US militarism is expensive. The empire economy does not serve people, causing destabilization, death and mass migration abroad as well as austerity measures at home. Over the next decade, the movement has an opportunity to define how we end empire in the least destructive way possible.

As US dominance wanes, the US is escalating conflicts with other great powers. The US needs to end 15 years of failed wars in the Middle East and 18 years in Afghanistan. In Latin America, US continues to be regime change against governments that seek to represent the interests of their people especially in Venezuela where the threat of militarism is escalating, but also in Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Cuba. The migrant issue being used by Trump to build a wall along the US-Mexican border is created by US policies in Central America. And, the US needs to stop the militarization of Africa and its neocolonial occupation by Africom.

Take action: Participate in the Feb. 23, 2019, international day of action against the US intervention in Venezuela and the “Hands-Off” national protest in Washington, DC on March 16, 2019.

There will also be actions around April 4, when NATO holds its 70th-anniversary meeting in Washington, DC, on the same day as the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s death and his Beyond Vietnam speech.

Join the Spring Actions against NATO in Washington, DC.

While the US lives in a mirage democracy with manipulated elections, there is a lot of work we can do to build a mass movement that changes the direction of the country. This includes building independent political parties to represent that movement in 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.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

The relatively small amount of scrutiny William Barr fell under from Congress and Beltway thought leaders speaks to a conformity of their ideologies. But to understand what America’s new top law enforcement official really signifies as a veteran swamp creature, it is necessary to revisit Cold War history.

***

Congress’ confirmation of William Barr as Attorney General for the United States on Thursday has come and gone with comparatively little commotion compared to that attending his predecessor, Jeff Sessions, or Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Most media attention fixated on the potential for Barr to undermine the work of his former colleague and close collaborator, Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

The relatively small amount of scrutiny Barr fell under from Congress and Beltway thought leaders speaks to a conformity of their ideologies. But to understand what America’s new top law enforcement official really signifies as a veteran swamp creature, it is necessary to revisit Cold War history.

Despite being lauded by doves in the later stages of the Vietnam War, Robert Kennedy (RFK) remained unapologetic about his involvement in the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba during the Kennedy administration. In a statement four days after the invasion, then-Attorney General RFK seemingly denied U.S. involvement in the paramilitary assault on Playa Giron.

As the world knew full well that it was the U.S. behind the incursion, his brother, President John F. Kennedy, had to discontinue airstrikes after the Cuban military secured the bay.

In his declassified diary, RFK wrote in May 1961 regarding the failed Bay of Pigs invasion,

“If we do not get back to a position where nations have some respect, and even fear [illegible], we shall never beat these bastards.”

And so RFK, working with the CIA, went on to greenlight the U.S.’s post-Bay of Pigs regime-change policy for Cuba: Operation Mongoose, which was “designed to do what the Bay of Pigs invasion failed to do: remove the Communist Castro regime from power in Cuba,” according to the State Department’s Office of the Historian. Mongoose included:

[A] coordinated program of political, psychological, military, sabotage, and intelligence operations, as well as proposed assassination attempts on key political leaders, including [Fidel] Castro. Monthly components of the operation were to be set in place to destabilize the communist regime, including the publication of Anti-Castro propaganda, provision of armaments for militant opposition groups, and establishment of guerilla bases throughout the country, all leading up to preparations for an October 1962 military intervention in Cuba.”

To secure these objectives — some of which, like the 1962 military intervention, failed to come to fruition– the CIA poisoned scuba diving gear, which was then gifted to Fidel Castro, and teamed up with Mafia hitmen, RFK’s supposed political enemies. In the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis and during the U.S. naval blockade, Mongoose agents killed 400 petrochemical workers.

RFK’s declassified diary demonstrates a turning point in U.S. foreign policy, one in which the office of attorney general would go on to play a more decisive role in often illegal foreign policy, from the waging of wars to crafting policies regarding the rights — or lack thereof — of detainees at American foreign military bases and black sites.

Barr greeting President Ronald Reagan in 1983 (Public Domain)

When William Barr came to the first Bush Administration in 1989 to take on the job, he had a precedent to implement wide-ranging legal justifications for the national and transnational neoconservative agenda that has defined U.S. policy since the Reagan-Bush era. His reappointment to the post is all the more troubling because it shows that Barr’s oversight of the Department of Justice will be an even more effective and seasoned conduit for the justification of empire. And, like the best pro-empire operatives America has to offer, Barr got his start at the Central Intelligence Agency.

William Barr’s undercover roots

William Barr worked at the CIA when Bush Sr. was director of the agency during the Ford Administration. In 1976 Bush appointed Barr to his first government position in the CIA’s legal office, where he worked with Ted Shackley and Felix Rodriguez, key planners of the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Operation Mongoose terror campaign, as well as of Operation Phoenix, a CIA campaign in South Vietnam that tortured and killed tens of thousands of Viet Cong leaders and sympathizers. Shackley had also directed the CIA war in Laos and used drug trafficking to finance and arm militias against the communist Pathet Lao movement. Covering for these these monumental acts of criminality, Barr was able to contribute to the intelligence community’s Cold War recklessness, successfully stonewalling congressional probes into CIA abuses.

The CIA was instrumental in the 1973 coup against the government of Salvador Allende, which installed Pinochet’s dictatorship in Chile. William Barr and and his boss Malcolm Wilkey paid off Chileans in the United States, who were aware the CIA had infiltrated and egged on the atrocities of Augusto Pinochet’s secret police force, to keep them quiet.

George Bush Sr.’s loyal legal lackey

After becoming vice president, Bush Sr. apparently brought his CIA subordinate over to the Reagan White House. In 1982, Barr landed a job as a lawyer for the Domestic Policy Council of the administration, according to the New York Times.

His distinctions in furtherance of empire are what attracted Bush after he became president in 1989, and so he appointed Barr to lead the Department of Justice’s (DoJ) Office of Legal Counsel, which is tasked with giving legal advice to the president.

It was natural for Bush to tap his legal assistant in the CIA for a job at the DoJ: the Cold War-era Bush White House, like the War on Terror-era one, was a significant time for the maturation of the intractable, national security-oriented arm of the modern American state, and Barr fit the role perfectly.

As head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Barr crafted justifications for the invasion of Panama, writing in an opinion that the Bush Administration had the power to invade foreign soil to arrest terrorists and drug traffickers, in violation of international legal standards.

In this role, Barr also authored an opinion that concluded that U.S. law allows FBI agents to arrest people charged with crimes in the U.S. while they are overseas, without obtaining permission from the country in which they are caught. According to a New York Times article that touted Barr’s “low-key style” in its headline, the House of Representatives’ Judiciary Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law sought to obtain the opinion, nearly sparking a constitutional crisis. Barr was later tasked with negotiating with the committee, and eventually reached a compromise.

One of the priorities of the Bush Administration was guaranteeing the flow of profits from the Panamanian money-laundering business community. At the time, Panamanian dictator — and CIA asset from as early as the Nixon Administration — Manuel Noriega was in power but growing increasingly disobedient. He refused to let the U.S. renegotiate the existence of 14 military bases in Panama and hosted the Contadora Group’s summit on building peace in Central America. The Contadora Group advocated a diplomatic arrangement supported by socialist Nicaragua, but opposed by the U.S. After mounting a campaign of deception in the U.S. corporate media and escalating harassment of Panamanian civilians by U.S. troops, corporate America’s bloodlust for regime change was sharpening, and Noriega was eventually indicted by two Florida grand juries on drug trafficking charges.

The fact that Noriega did the bulk of his drug trafficking with knowledge of and open support from several U.S. presidential administrations was conveniently ignored by U.S. law enforcement. Four days after a provocation by U.S. Marines on patrol against the Panamanian Defense Forces that left one Marine dead and a U.S. naval officer and his wife detained, boots were deployed on the ground in Panama, ostensibly to catch Noriega. Barr crafted the official justification for this operation, opining that the White House had the power to arrest terrorists overseas even if it violated international law.

The U.S. military targeted poor neighborhoods in Panamanian cities such as El Chorrillo and San Miguelito. Union leaders, cultural activists, professors, and journalists critical of the invasion were rounded up and arrested by U.S. forces, often without warrants or charges.

Barr would go on to get a promotion to Deputy Attorney General in 1990. In this role, he advised Bush that as president he had the authority to unilaterally invade Iraq — without approval from Congress. However, Barr urged the president to seek a non-binding resolution from Congress nonetheless, which he did.

Chip Gibbons, policy and legislative counsel for Defending Rights & Dissent, told MintPress News:

It’s impossible to understand how expansive Barr’s views of war powers are. The idea that a president could unilaterally launch a large scale offensive military action, as Barr argued in the run up to the first Gulf War, is well outside the mainstream.”

Barr’s career has demonstrated that he believes the president has an expansive array of powers. While such views are always troubling, given Trump’s willingness to use executive power to carry out an authoritarian agenda — from his Muslim ban to his border wall — having Barr in White House at this juncture is incredibly disturbing.”

Barr has publicly backed both Trump’s Muslim ban and his proposed border wall.

Panama and Iraq were not the only places where Barr advised the president that he did not need approval from Congress to go to war. Barr used the same justifications he used for the U.S. invasions in Panama and Iraq to push for Bush’s invasion of Somalia during the Somali Civil War amid the displacements of tens of thousands. In a memo to Bush, Barr personally concluded the president had the right to intervene.

Barr defended FBI racial profiling against Arab-Americans in the run-up to the war in the Persian Gulf. As a result, hundreds of Arab-Americans wereinterrogated by the FBI about their political views, travel plans, and whether or not they knew terrorists. After community activists protested, Barr said the FBI program was necessary “to solicit information about potential terrorist activity and to request the future assistance of these individuals.”

Going to Guantanamo

With the Bush Administration satisfied by his legal deputy’s destabilizing accomplishments, Barr was confirmed as attorney general in 1991.

As MintPress News previously reported, Barr was, before long, adding to the long-running tortures the U.S. has inflicted on the people of Haiti. As Haitians fled the death squads associated with the CIA-backed military junta that overthrew President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1991 to seek asylum in the United States, the U.S. Coast Guard destroyed their boats and took them aboard so that they would not have to process their asylum claims on American soil. To reduce its liability, the United States called these refugees “economic migrants,” according to A. Naomi Paik, author of “Carceral Quarantine at Guantánamo: Legacies of US Imprisonment of Haitian Refugees, 1991 – 1994.”

Eventually, courts challenged the policy, and so the refugees were brought to the U.S. naval station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to have their asylum claims assessed. Bush Sr.’s State Department sought to have the refugees sent to Belize and Honduras, but the countries demanded that the Haitians be tested for HIV. The American then conducted HIV tests on every person whom it had assessed to have a legitimate asylum claim.

A 1987 federal law in the United States at the time, however, forbade the U.S. from accepting refugees with HIV. It was part of the homophobic, and often racist U.S. policies during the AIDS crisis, which included the Center for Disease Control’s labeling of people of Haitian origins as particularly “at-risk” for the condition. Barr’s first boss in the White House, Ronald Reagan, ran an administration that openly mocked the AIDS epidemic.

Since the people who tested positive for HIV already had their asylum claims affirmed, it was illegal for the U.S. to deport them back to Haiti. Enter William Barr, whose solution was to indefinitely detain the refugees at Guantanamo.

Years later, Barr lashed out against his detractors at the time, saying:

What do you want me to do? You want 80,000 Haitians to descend on Florida several months before the [1992] election? Come on, give me a break… Florida will go ape. …

Their position was, ‘Guantanamo is a military base, and why were all these people here, the HIV people, all these other people? How long are you going to be on our property with this unseemly business?’ I’d say, ‘until it’s over. But we’re not bringing these people into the United States.’”

According to Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), even Dick Cheney was against the scheme. “When you’re to the right of Dick Cheney on Guantanamo, you know you’ve gone too far,” Blumenthal told The Daily Beast. But the Senator’s many tweets about Barr pick a different bone, focusing on the idea that Barr may interfere with the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

While Barr sought to avoid an election scandal, some 12,000 Haitians — among them 300 HIV patients, according to the ACLU — were subjected to abysmal conditions at the naval base. Food was covered with maggots and everyone was forced to live in makeshift barracks with missing windows. Women were reportedly given forced birth control injections, and the U.S. military would periodically be called in to crack down on protests and hunger strikes.

Federal judge Sterling Johnson ruled in 1993 that the Haitian refugees could not be indefinitely detained. Johnson wrote:

Although the defendants euphemistically refer to its Guantanamo operation as a ‘humanitarian camp,’ the facts disclose that it is nothing more than an HIV prison camp presenting potential public health risks to the Haitians held there.”

Despite the ruling, the damage was already done in many ways. Even though Johnson had ruled the facility an unconstitutional ”HIV prison camp,” the U.S. government refused to allow in the refugees unless a settlement was struck with their lawyers that would prevent any legal precedents from pertaining to the rights of Guantanamo detainees under U.S. law. One of the lawyers on the case later remarked:

I, for one, initially balked, thinking that we might need that precedent in the future. But my colleagues soon convinced me that there was no real choice: Our duty to our clients demanded that we put their personal freedom first.”

The lack of precedent regarding the application of U.S. laws at the prison camp continues today. Following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, Guantanamo Bay would become host to the detainee abuse and torture that tainted the War on Terror, in many ways beyond repair in the eyes of the American public. Had Judge Sterling been able to set a precedent, inmates at Guantanamo today would be guaranteed more rights, such as the right to a speedy trial. Instead, many detainees remain at Guantanamo without charge.

While Barr’s lawlessness on the Cuban island rivals that of his predecessor, RFK, Barr aimed to be more than another cog in the Cold War machine. After all, he was confirmed as Attorney General in November 1991, just one month before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Seeking a new enemy, he turned to Reagan’s war on drugs for inspiration.

From Cold War warrior to drug warrior

A conservative backlash to the civil rights movement inspired the racial caste system of mass incarceration in the 1980’s. With newfound power as AG, Barr enthusiastically participated in furthering this racial caste system with his policies surrounding immigration, natural disaster management, and the War on Drugs.

During Bush’s reign over the War on Drugs, Barr “transferred Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration agents to ‘violent crime’ duty from other assignments and called for detaining more suspects without bail,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

In his career at the DoJ, Barr pushed stricter penalties for drug usage; appropriations to the FBI, DEA, and INS; and militarizing prisons through the Crime Control Act of 1990.

While advocating for harsher penalties for criminals, Barr also pioneered methods to catch more of them — methods that, like his role in negotiating a settlement to avoid a legal precedent relating to Guantanamo, would go on to have disastrous consequences for American rule of law.

As MintPress News previously reported, Barr helped draft a Drug Enforcement Administration program that saw the agency ordering phone companies to turn over lists of phone calls made from the U.S. to a dozen countries, eventually reaching more than 100 nations, according to the ACLU. His partner in the program and deputy at the DoJ was Robert Mueller – the same Robert Mueller whose work Democrats have feared could be compromised should Barr again becoming his boss. Barr and Mueller’s DEA program would go on to serve as the “blueprint” for the National Security Agency’s illegal mass surveillance program under the 2001 Patriot Act. Barr would later argue that the NSA program didn’t go far enough.

Barr promoted the expansion of the death penalty as a tool in the drug war, and argued in favor of airstrikes in Peru to smash up drug operations.

He also expanded the capacity of pretrial detentions. The Prison Policy Initiative attributes this as the driving cause for the jailed (pre-trial) population jumping from 223,568 to 472,607 people between 1993 and 2008, primarily impacting black and Latino communities.

Barr submitted the DoJ report, “The Case for More Incarceration,” when the U.S. already led the world in per capita incarceration. In this document, Barr declared that “we are not over-incarcerating” and “a failure to incarcerate hurts black Americans most.” With these principles in mind, Barr led the charge to imprison then-unprecedented numbers of Americans.

Barr’s oversight of the Department of Justice propelled the prison population to 4.9 million people by 1993. After leaving the DoJ in 1992, Barr continued to cheer on the drug war and mass incarceration from the sidelines, calling it a “long-term struggle” like the Cold War. In the 1990s, Barr defended restricting parole, mandatory minimums, and harsher sentences for crack cocaine over powder cocaine in Virginia – a policy long blamed by critics for ramping up the over-incarceration of black Americans.

At the DoJ, Barr saw the LA riots as an opportunity to crack down on immigration and ramp up militarization of inner-cities. After a decision was made to use the military to quell the riots, Barr told Bush Sr. “the names of the gangs that were involved, that the violence was largely street gang activity, big-time gang, not like street gangs in the 1950s.” Barr’s direct approach to the uprising in LA was not his first attempt at riot control. His first year at the DoJ saw him sending in the military to suppress unrest after the abysmal government response to Hurricane Hugo in St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

In the wake of the LA riots, Barr said “the problem of immigration enforcement — making sure we have a fair set of rules and then enforce them — I think that’s certainly relevant to the problems we’re seeing in Los Angeles,” deflecting blame from the LAPD beating of Rodney King and decades of racial and economic inequalities in the city.

Barr’s battle against immigration included his oversight of one of the first attempts at a border wall with Mexico: a 14-mile wall near San Diego.

In the wake of Barr’s confirmation, there are more pertinent concerns for the general public aside from his position on the Russia investigation. The erosion of civil liberties, the militarization of American communities, and the escalation of the War on Drugs and War on Terror are all the more likely with Barr in government.

*

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

Alexander Rubinstein is a staff writer for MintPress News based in Washington, DC. He reports on police, prisons and protests in the United States and the United States’ policing of the world. He previously reported for RT and Sputnik News.

Fighting Pipelines, Defending Sovereignty

February 19th, 2019 by The Bullet

We are writing to express deep gratitude to the Wet’suwet’en People who have been acting with formidable vision and strength to defend their people and territories from pipeline development, and have been facing violent incursions from RCMP and industry for doing so. They have been holding this line for years and caring for the lands and waters for countless generations. For us and for many others, the Unist´ot´en camp represents resurgence, reconnection, creativity, and relationship to the land. The long-term struggle of the Wet´suwet´en is a legitimate, legally sanctioned struggle for rights, autonomy and sovereignty on their unceded territories. These efforts benefit all Canadians. We send our deepest thanks.

We are also writing to denounce the actions of the federal government, the BC government and the RCMP. We ask that the illegal work on Unist’ot’en territory by Coastal Gas Link be immediately stopped. We request that the federal and provincial governments respect Indigenous rights as outlined in our constitution, in countless court rulings, as well as the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous people (UNDRIP) and ‘Anuc niwh’it’en (Wet’suwet’en law). We ask that Canadian leaders and politicians stop militarization, stop communicating false or biased information, and stop dividing communities. We reject the current campaign of disinformation, particularly statements that claim that all communities have signed on to the pipeline, which disregard the very important question of disputes over jurisdiction of territories between band councils and hereditary governance. In the Delgamuukw trial, the hereditary chiefs of the Wet´suwet´en were recognized as the rightful title holders, and their underlying sovereignty over the territory was established by Canada’s highest court. We urge both federal and provincial governments to understand the crucial distinction between consultation and consent, and to act accordingly.

Oppose Extreme Energy Projects

We firmly oppose the Trans-Canada pipeline project and other extreme energy projects being developed that are threatening Indigenous lands. According to the latest scientific evidence there is still some possibility that catastrophic climate change can be slowed or arrested, but this goal requires an immediate phase-out of fossil fuel infrastructure (Millar et al., 2017, Smith et al., 2019). And we request the Governments heed the call of scientists who have made it clear that new fossil fuel infrastructure present the source of the world’s most threatening emissions, and would carry us toward dramatic increases in global temperature (Davis et al., 2010).

This applies to natural gas production and transport, because it also locks in fossil fuel use. The world needs to move straight to renewable energy sources, and as quickly as possible. Natural gas must not be seen as a transition fuel that will “bridge the gap” between high and low-carbon energy systems (Stephenson et al. 2012). Shale gas development and its related infrastructure will have very serious impacts not only on the territories of the Indigenous peoples that inhabit the province of British Columbia, but on areas of extraction in the northeast, along the territories and watersheds the pipeline will cross, and particularly on coastal communities, salmon habitat in rivers, and the remaining marine life in the Salish Sea and K̲andaliig̲wii (the Hecate Strait), that all will be impacted by increased tanker traffic.

Current governance processes have failed to adequately protect environment and treaty rights (Garvie & Shaw, 2016). To meet Canada’s climate targets and Canada’s commitments to reconciliation, the Canadian government needs to stop forcing gas pipelines violently through Indigenous lands.

We are also writing to encourage all Canadians to actively support the Wet’suwet’en people as they continue to demonstrate their commitment to protect their lands and waters. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report has warned that we have only 12 years to meet the challenge of limiting increasing temperatures to 1.5 degrees (IPCC, 2018). Even at this historic juncture, we see no sign that our existing governments are capable of dealing with the current challenges all Canadians face. The twin crises of climate chaos and rising inequality are getting worse, not better. Research shows that substantial and swift transformation of our societies will be necessary in order to meet our climate and reconciliation goals (Scoones et al., 2015); however, our current economic and political systems are failing to heed these calls and move us toward a sustainable and just future. This is because these very economic and political systems facilitate the accumulation of wealth through the continued seizure of Indigenous land and the pillaging of the natural world. We cannot leave it to these failing systems to guide us.

What is needed is inspired visions and new systems that are able to guide us toward a much more just and sustainable future. The Wet’suwet’en people, and other communities defending their lands and waters across the world, are showing us better systems of decision making, along with better ways of living together and with the land. Our best hope for justice and sustainability in Canada lies with communities like the Wet’suwet’en nation, who take their relationship and responsibilities to their lands and waters so seriously that they will risk all they have to defend it. Our hope also lies with the many Canadians respecting and actively supporting the rights of these Indigenous communities to take care of their territories.

The Unist’ot’en camp houses a healing center, envisioned as a space to heal from the trauma suffered by so many First Nations in Canada due to colonial and extractivist violence. Projects such as the Trans-Canada pipeline perpetuate this violence. To invade this camp, to disrupt this space of healing, is particularly unconscionable. Canadians have pledged to work toward reconciliation to try to heal the injustices borne by Indigenous peoples; and this healing must also include the lands which we all inhabit. To begin to heal these relationships, the kind of violence seen recently in BC must end.

See complete list of signatories here.

To find ways you can support the Wet’suwet’en people, click here.

*

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

Sources

Davis, S. J., Caldeira, K., & Matthews, H. D. (2010). “Future CO2 emissions and climate change from existing energy infrastructure,” Science, 329(5997), 1330-1333.

Garvie, K.H. and Shaw, K., 2016. “Shale gas development and community response: perspectives from Treaty 8 territory, British Columbia,” Local Environment, 21(8), pp.1009-1028.

Millar, R.J., Fuglestvedt, J.S., Friedlingstein, P., Rogelj, J., Grubb, M.J., Matthews, H.D., Skeie, R.B., Forster, P.M., Frame, D.J. and Allen, M.R. (2017) “Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 C,” Nature Geoscience, 10(10), p.741.

Scoones, I., Leach, M., & Newell, P. (Eds.). (2015). The politics of green transformations, Routledge.

Smith, C.J., Forster, P.M., Allen, M., Fuglestvedt, J., Millar, R.J., Rogelj, J. and Zickfeld, K., (2019). Current fossil fuel infrastructure does not yet commit us to 1.5° C warming. Nature Communications, 10(1), p.101.

Stephenson, E., Doukas, A. and Shaw, K., (2012). “Greenwashing gas: Might a ‘transition fuel’ label legitimize carbon-intensive natural gas development?Energy Policy, 46, pp.452-459.

IPCC Special Report on Global Warming (2018)

Featured image is from Michael Toledano

On December 27, Judge Leon Tucker, surprised and pleased Mumia supporters by ruling that Mumia was entitled to a new appeal of his case because a Supreme Court Judge, Ronald Castille, who had worked in the District Attorney’s Office prior to becoming a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Judge, should have recused himself from the case when it came before him at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Mumia was thus granted an opportunity for a review of his whole appeals process review, a major breakthrough in opening up the possibility of his release. Regardless of this very significant and unusual ruling, Mumia should have course been released long ago, in fact, never even been arrested since he is an innocent political prisoner, clearly framed by the police (the Fraternal Order of Police playing a major role), the prosecutors, and the judiciary, with the cooperation of other significant players because of his effectiveness as a political activist and well-known writer and journalist.

To the surprise and extreme disappointment of some, who had expected “progressive District Attorney” Krasner to play a positive role in this case, as he had promised during his campaign to do with all cases of miscarriage of “justice”, Krasner appealed the judge’s ruling, thus closing off the possibility of a quick process potentially leading to Mumia’s release.

As word, and organizing to pressure Krasner to change his position, spread, a group of students at Yale Law School took a dramatic position in “disinviting” Krasner as a keynote speaker at a conference at Yale on “rebellious lawyers”.  See letter below where the students ask Krasner to withdraw his appeal of Judge Tucker’s ruling if he wishes to speak at the conference.  Mumia Abu-Jamal was invited to replace Krasner as speaker at the conference.

Additionally, on December 28, Krasner announced that he found six boxes of Mumia materials marked with Mumia’s name, that had not been discovered before and were therefore not reviewed in the court proceedings of the past two years!  He passed that information on to Judge Tucker on January 3, 2019 and released it to the public on January 9th, 2019.  On January 25, 2019 District Attorney Krasner gave notice of his appeal of Judge Tucker’s ruling!

Because of Krasner’s appeal, the boxes will now not be reviewed until AFTER Krasner’s appeal.  Though the six boxes were reviewed by Mumia’s attorneys, neither the original six nor the subsequent 100 will not be evaluated in court until the Krasner’s appeal is completed.  That could be another year or so.  But all these boxes are very significant and likely to hold information that could point to the frameup we’ve been charging.

Suzanne Ross, International Spokesperson, International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal


Below is the statement from the Yale Law students. 

UNDER PRESSURE, YALE REBLAW CONF RESCINDS KEYNOTE OFFER TO PHILLY D.A. LARRY KRASNER: Instead Invites Political Prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal

Organizers of the Rebellious Lawyering (RebLaw) conference at Yale Law School rescinded a speaking invitation to Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner (see attached). The celebrated “progressive” DA was scheduled be one of the keynote speakers at the 25 year-old conference on the weekend of Feb. 15-16, 2019. But earlier this week a coalition of Harvard law students and lawyers wrote to conference organizers saying that Philadelphia prosecutors could not be counted in the tradition of rebellious lawyers. Their impassioned letter condemned DA Krasner’s decision to appeal a recent court order that granted Mumia Abu-Jamal the right to re-appeal his conviction. The letter also challenged the notion that a prosecutor could hold that title.

In their letter to RebLaw, they said,

“The so-called progressive Larry Krasner is hell-bent on keeping [Mumia’s case] out of the appellate process. Larry Krasner was voted into office by the Black, working-class people of Philadelphia, but in the hour of truth he has upheld the rulings of racist judges [in this case] and is doing the bidding of one of the country’s most corrupt and homicidal police forces.”

The signers added:

“Prosecutors, those managers of the oppressive state, regardless of the rhetoric they may espouse during a campaign, should not be invited to speak at a conference for Rebellious Lawyering.”

Harvard Law student signator Anneke Dunbar-Gronke noted

“Krasner will go down in history as the well-meaning, “progressive” DA who opposed justice in the case of the Nelson Mandela of our time.”

Another Harvard Law student signator Felipe Hernández concluded,

“The lesson here is that in the mind of a progressive DA, justice is doled out selectively and only when there is no real political risk involved. Thankfully the conference participants will hear from Mumia, an actual jailhouse lawyer—and pinnacle of rebellious lawyering.”

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mumia Abu Jamal: Protests Against District Attorney Krasner’s Appeal of Judge Tucker’s Ruling
  • Tags: ,

Imperial logic I: External crises distract from internal ones

Empires with internal problems tend to create external crises to distract the public opinion and unite their political and economical ruling class in a fictitious nationalistic fervor. The current United States policy of overt regime change in Venezuela, backed entirely by its NATO vassals, follows an evergreen imperial playbook of creating new crises to obscure failures and divisions.

In addition to the administration’s overall incompetence, the legal investigations through the Mueller inquiry, and the failure to deliver to its MAGA sycophants their big wall, it has passed unnoticed, and it will never be admitted by US officials or media that the US imperial wars in Afghanistan and Syria are in fact lost. Assad will remain in power, and the US administration has publicly admitted that it was negotiating with the Taliban. The temptation for the empire’s ideologues is too strong not to follow the precept: when you have lost a war, you declare victory and you leave. And next time around, you try to pick a weaker target.

Imperial logic II: A state of war must be permanent

A prime example of this in recent history was the way the events of September 11, 2001 were used internally to justify the emergence of a police state, using far-reaching legislation like thePatriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

Externally, 911 was successfully used by the US to trigger, almost immediately, an invasion of Afghanistan with the entire NATO membership under the hospice of the military alliance’s Article 5, which stipulates that an attack on one member is an attack on all. This was the very first time, since the creation of NATO in 1949, that Article 5 was put into force.

With the US public opinion still largely revengeful, misinformed by media manipulations, and eager to wage war, two years later, in 2003, it was fairly simple for the Bush administration and its neocons to sell the invasion of Iraq as a war of necessity, and not for what it truly was: a war of choice, for oil and greater control of the Middle East. Cynically, the aftermath of 9/11/2001 gave the empire and its powerful military-industrial complex two wars for the price of one.

Imperial logic III: People are collateral damage of “Realpolitik”

Great moral principles of altruistic universal humanitarian concerns are almost never at stake in these instances. They are mainly smoke screens to hide the board of a cold, Machiavellian, and complex chess game where innocent bystanders often perish by the millions. They are the acceptable collateral damage of realpolitik’s grand strategists. Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the true guiding principle of US imperial realpolitik, and all US foreign policy decisions that derived from it, was to stop the so-called communist domino effect.

Communist domino effect: three simple words for a game that killed millions of innocent people worldwide, first in Korea in the early 1950s, then in Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, and later, under the tutelage of some of the very same criminal architects, in Central and South American countries like Chile. Now in their golden years, most of these murderous policymakers, like Henry Kissinger, enjoy an active retirement with honors, respect and, unlike their colleague Robert McNamara, not a hint of remorse.

One of these policymakers, a veteran of US imperialism in Central America and also one of the staunchest advocates of Iraq’s invasion in 2003, has made a come back. He is neocon extraordinaire Elliot Abrams. Abrams has been rewarded for his actions in the Iran-Contra affair, El Salvador, and Nicaragua with a nomination as Special Envoy of the Trump administration for Venezuela. In other words, Abrams is in charge of the US-sponsored coup task force against Venezuela’s legitimately elected President Nicolas Maduro.

Defeating imperial logic: The Cuban and Syrian lessons

There are many others examples in history where in a David versus Goliath fight, the little guy who, on paper, did not stand a chance eventually through sheer determination, organization and vast popular support, won on the battlefield. Vietnam is obviously a special case in this regard, as the Vietcong of Ho Chi Minh managed to defeat, almost back to back, the old colonial masters of the French empire in the 1950s, and of course soon thereafter, the US empire.

In the early 1960s, during the Cuban missile crisis, Castro’s days seemed to be numbered. More recently, in Syria, all the lips of the NATO coalition, Israel and Gulf State allies were chanting in unison that as a precondition for resolving the Syrian crisis, “Assad must go!” By 2017, however, some coalition members such as Qatar, France and Germany were not so adamant about the “Assad must go” mantra. Not only did Bashar al-Assad not go, but also, as matter of fact, he is regaining control of his entire country, on his own terms.

Castro outsmarted the empire’s CIA hitmen 600 times

Nicolas Maduro’s predecessor and mentor, Hugo Chavez, had in Fidel Castro a source of inspiration and the guidance of a father figure. Chavez, like other neo-Marxists, looked up to Fidel for leading a successful revolution, through military action, which had toppled the corrupt regime of Fulgencio Batista. This regime was not only a docile servant of the US government but was also directly associated with the Mafia’s criminal activities in Cuba in the era of Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky. With Batista’s complicity, American gangsters had turned Cuba into a gambling and prostitution paradise where the US’ unscrupulous rich went to play. Castro shut down the bordello that had become Cuba and proudly rebuilt his island, and he consciously set out to transform Cuba slowly and steadily into a socialist country.

Needless to say, the shutdown of their depraved and lucrative tropical paradise was unacceptable for the US empire’s ruling elites. Against all odds, the Cuban communist leader managed to defy one US administration after another, and without compromise remained at the helm of the Cuban revolution. It was not for a lack of trying either to invade Cuba, as in the Bay of Pigs botched invasion episode, or to cook up countless assassination attempts on Castro’s person. Starting almost immediately after he took power in 1959, Castro was the target of CIA assassination attempts. From the Kennedy era all the way to the Clinton administrations, Fidel Castro survived more than 600 plots to kill him. Some of the attempts involved collaborations of the Mafia with the CIA. Castro once said, “if surviving assassination attempts were an Olympic event, I would win the gold medal!” It has to be added that, at least so far, Fidel Castro has also won a posthumous gold medal for ensuring the legacy of the Cuban revolution.

Assad: military might and striking the right alliances

Almost eight years ago, some people in quiet mansions, regal palaces or discrete offices in Washington, Riyadh, Doha, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv or undisclosed locations came up with what appeared to be an excellent plan. They would hijack some of the genuine energy of the Arab Spring then quickly sponsor it with a huge arsenal, while hiring some supposed good Djihadists soldiers-of-fortune as the main muscle to get rid of the uncooperative Bashar al-Assad. In what I called in May 2013, an “unholy alliance to wreck and exploit,” the Western and Gulf States coalition to topple Assad was born. In the US, the late Senator John McCain was one of the cheerleaders of the so-called Free Syrian Army.

Eight years later, with Syria in ruins, 350,000 people dead, around 4.5 million refugees still scattered principally in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, Assad has prevailed in a bittersweet victory, considering that his country has been wrecked as a battleground for proxy wars. Bashar al-Assad did not win on his own. He managed to retain complete loyalty from the Syrian army during the past eight gruesome years. Assad also could count on the military involvement of dependable allies Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran and, of course, a critical impact of Russia once Putin’s administration decided to commit military assets and troops.

Maduro can keep Uncle Sam’s hands off Venezuela

One can only hope that Venezuela’s US-sponsored coup attempt using the subterfuge of a phony revolution does not follow the track of Syria in terms of the mayhem. However, the analogies are numerous between Maduro’s situation today and that of Assad in 2011. First, Maduro has at his disposal a reasonably well-equipped military as well as the Chavista militia. To defeat the unfolding coup attempt, the loyalty of the armed forces has to be ironclad. Second, just as Assad has done, Maduro must work to cultivate, in pragmatic ways, both regional and worldwide alliances.

Cuba will do a lot to help. But will Mexico, Bolivia, and Uruguay go beyond diplomatic posturing in their solidarity with Maduro against NATO’s imperialism? How involved and how far, either economically or, in a worse-case scenario, militarily are Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran willing to go? In geopolitics, unlike diplomacy, only actions talk. Venezuela has a massive bargaining chip in the form of the mostly untapped biggest oil reserve in the world. This is Maduro’s ultimate ace in this game, and it should be used shrewdly. In realpolitiks, friends might be temporary, and they always want something. This is not an altruistic environment.

*

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: News Junkie Post.

Gilbert Mercier is the author of The Orwellian Empire.