Newly inaugurated Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro lives up to the label “Trump of the tropics” in many ways, including his misogynistic comments and a racist streak that surfaces in his disparaging treatment of minorities. But the similarity that is likely to have the broadest and most destructive effects is his disregard of the danger of planetary catastrophe through climate change. The presidency of Brazil is an especially important office in this regard because of its power over the fate of most of the Amazon rainforest.
Bolsonaro has long made clear his intention to destroy more of the forest, supposedly in the name of economic development and with visions of ever more cattle ranches and soybean farms. He has wasted no time in using his powers to that end. On his first full day in office, he issued an executive order giving the agriculture ministry authority to dispose of lands claimed by indigenous peoples. This measure clearly is a first step toward greater exploitation of the Amazon region by agribusiness. Besides reflecting Bolsonaro’s lack of concern for the environment, it also reflected his disdain for the native peoples of the region. He sees no value in protecting their cultures and way of life.
The Amazon is the world’s largest rainforest. It is an enormous carbon sink that breathes in carbon dioxide and breathes out twenty percent of the world’s oxygen. There is no other single ecosystem that is as important in preventing a runaway planetary greenhouse effect. Although parts of the rainforest are in other South American countries, sixty percent of it is in Brazil.
Much destruction preceded Bolsonaro. Earlier deforestation has meant that the great carbon sink already is absorbing significantly less carbon than it did as recently as a decade ago. Some previous Brazilian administrations gave serious attention to the problem and slowed the pace of deforestation. But in more recent years enforcement against deforestation has lapsed amid political turmoil that included the impeachment of former president Dilma Rousseff.
The current precariousness of the Amazon rainforest stems not only from the cutting and burning that already has taken place but also from feedback loops in which reduction of the forest sets in train natural processes that lead to further reduction. As the term “rainforest” might suggest, the jungle makes much of its own weather. Less rainforest means less rain. Further deforestation is likely to lead to dry savanna, not to something that is as green and wet as the existing jungle.
The lushness of the rainforest disguises how fragile the ecosystem is in other respects. The biological richness is confined to a thin layer, and the soil underneath is mostly poor and infertile. Would-be growers of crops and of grass for livestock come to realize that. But by the time such realization is great enough to have political impact, it may be too late to save the rainforest.
Earlier experience has provided some lessons in this regard that should have been heeded, including lessons involving North Americans. In the 1920s the industrialist Henry Ford established an operation in the Brazilian rainforest intended to produce rubber for the tires on automobiles the Fort Motor Company manufactured. The company cleared jungle to construct an entire town, known as Fordlandia. Among the problems the company encountered was the difficulty in industrializing the relevant botanical process. Rubber trees in the wild do well when widely scattered among other species; when put close together on Ford’s plantation they were easy prey for pests and disease. Ford abandoned the project after just a few years, without producing any rubber for those tires back in the United States.
Trumps of both the tropics and temperate zones have assaulted in various ways what is often called the international order, and the assault has been destructive. But that order, important as it is, does not offer an effective means of global governance when it comes to planetary patrimony such as the Brazilian rainforest, which history and line-drawing have placed under the control of a single government. Unfortunately, Bolsonaro answers politically not to the planet or to all its current and future inhabitants, but rather to a far smaller political base that his populist rhetoric sufficiently swayed to win him the presidency.
The “butterfly in Brazil” concept comes from the branch of mathematics known as chaos theory and concerns how small changes in initial conditions can lead to much larger systemic effects. The idea is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil could be part of what leads to a tornado in Texas. Bolsonaro in Brazil threatens to have climatic effects far worse than one tornado in Texas.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Paul R. Pillar is Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies of Georgetown University and an Associate Fellow of the Geneva Center for Security Policy.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Friday he intends to move towards a World War II peace treaty with Russia during a summit in Russia later this month. The treaty has been hindered for decades by a territorial dispute.
Abe is due to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in the 25th summit where they are expected to end a disagreement over a collection of islands seized by Soviet troops in the final days of the war.
“I’ll visit Russia later this month and intend to push forward with discussions towards a peace treaty,” he said, adding that there had been “absolutely no progress” on the issue for more than 70 years.
Abe said that, while there were no guarantees of an agreement, the two nations had been cooperating over issues concerning the islands, as well as economic issues, over the past two years “as never before.”
Putin caught Abe off guard in September when, on stage with the Japanese leader at a conference in Vladivostok, he suggested signing a peace treaty by year-end “without any pre-conditions.”
Abe later rejected the proposal, repeating Japan’s stance that the countries must resolve a question of sovereignty.
After the two met again in Singapore in November, the Japanese prime minister said they had agreed to advance negotiations based on a 1956 joint statement in which Moscow agreed to transfer the two smaller islands to Japan after a peace treaty was established.
Putin may be open to a deal now with the expectation that better ties will act as a counter-balance to China and draw more Japanese investment and technology, some experts say.
However, others doubt whether Putin really wants an agreement, partly because many Russian citizens are opposed to returning any of the islands, known in Japan as the Northern Territories and in Russia as the Southern Kurils.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The focus of this week’s instalment of the Global Research News Hour, and a general theme of this radio show, is to look at the big stories behind the attention-grabbing headlines. The hope is that a look at bigger picture issues can provide some platform for meaningful political discussion and action, rather than leave members of the global community distracted and spell-bound.
A regular annual feature since the show’s inception, Andy Lee Roth of Project Censored, elaborates on some of the 25 most significant stories of the year that got little to no attention from the corporate press. These include:
In the final half hour, we hear from three analysts who provide their takes on the most significant stories and developments from the past year.
Jack Rasmus outlines some of the fundamentals plaguing the U.S. and global economy, and looks at how signature events from the past year, including Trump’s tax cuts, is likely to affecta fiscal landscape of expanding financial bubbles.
Rick Rozoff takes a look at international geo-strategy and the growing tensions between NATO and rivals like Russia. Rozoff also examines the prospects for pressures within and outside NATO to contain the threat of full-blown conflict.
Dmitry Orlov believes that as a result of events over the past year, “the U.S. military-industrial complex has been neutralized.” He justifies this position, while also detailing how the global energy picture and the prospect of climate change is likely to impact the various players on the world stage.
One further note: one of the most important stories of 2018 has been Facebook’s partnership with the Atlantic Council, resulting in the purging of several pages and sites promoting anti-war and anti-establishment narratives, as well as the general suppression of political thought in a new McCarthyesque era. This is an important story which will be given much more thorough treatment in the weeks ahead.
Andy Lee Roth, is the Associate Director of Project Censored, a media research program which fosters student development of media literacy and critical thinking skills as applied to news media censorship in the United States.
Rick Rozoff is a journalist and anti-war activist. He also manages the STOP NATO list-serve. Many of his articles have been published at Global Research.
It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.
Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.
Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.
Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca
Speaking to journalists on Wednesday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohammed Ali al-Hakim laid out the latest step on the path to independence for Baghdad from the US concerning sanctions on Iran by Washington. Although Iraq currently has a 90-day waiver to trade with Iran issued on December 20th, Hakim let reporters know Iraq would be pursuing their own policy on Iran should the waiver not be renewed.
Hakim explained to reporters that
“These sanctions, the siege, or what is called the embargo,” imposed by the US is “unilateral, not international,” and Iraq is “not obliged [to follow] them.”
This is a big step for Baghdad to take in the face of pressure from Washington for Iraq to become “energy independent” with the help of US corporations exploiting their oil and gas resources. Instead, as explained by Hakim, Iraq would rather choose their own options for energy, even if that includes continuing the annual $12 billion in trade between Iraq and Iran flowing over US objections.
There are also discussions ongoing concerning increasing the amount of trade between Baghdad and Tehran despite US pressure. Iraqi President Barham Salih and his Iranian President Hassan Rouhani even doubled down on this during a recent meeting where Rouhani said that Tehran was willing to increase trade with Baghdad from the $12 billion a year mark to $20 billion.
Hakim assured reporters Iraq is already thinking of “solutions” to counteract any US threats to increased trade with Iran. According to Hakim, there are multiple options open to Baghdad “including dealing in Iraqi dinars in bilateral trade” as opposed to US dollars.
Iraqi Sovereignty: From Sanctions to Bases
This defiance to US sanctions is only the latest step in Iraq declaring independence from Washington. Another sign that the US is losing their grip on Baghdad was also made apparent last week when, after Trump made a surprise visit to US troops in Iraq, fueling outrage among Iraqi politicians.
Many Iraqi leaders called Trump’s surprise visit to their country a violation of their nation’s sovereignty. This has ended up leading to a wider backlash and resulted in multiple Iraqi politicians demanding a complete end to the US military presence in the country.
This all comes as the Trump regime is attempting to cement new positions in the Middle East by way of new bases on the Iraq-Syria border. According to some Iraqi MPs such as Badr al-Zaidi who has said that the new bases violate “agreements between Iraq and the US were on the pullout of foreign forces from Iraq after 2013.”
Even US-ally and supporter of the NATO occupation, former Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi rejected the “method of Trump’s visit,” saying “it was not appropriate to diplomatic mores and to relations with sovereign states.”
These insults to Iraq have led to a wave of Iraqi lawmakers demanding more than an apology and saying the Iraqi government would move to make a “parliamentary decision to expel (Trump’s) military forces” in the words of Qais Khazali, an Iraqi politician. Much like with the rejection of the Iran sanctions, Khazali also promised his faction of the government (backed by Shia militias) also had creative “solutions” to dealing with US pressure on Iraq including “experience and ability to get them out in another way that is well known to your forces, which were forced to withdraw in humiliation in 2011.”
All of these events paint a picture of a growing movement in Iraq to reject US control of the government there that has been in place since the fall of the government of Saddam Hussein in 2003. All the parties that opposed both Saddam and the US occupation are moving closer to the levers of power in Iraq and Baghdad is no longer under Washington’s thumb. The question now for Donald Trump is, will he leave Iraq like he is Syria or will this case take more convincing by the forces of resistance in Iraq?
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Although the United States is allegedly a democracy with a rule of law, it has taken 17 years for public pressure to bring about the first grand jury investigation of 9/11. Based on the work of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth led by Richard Gage, first responder and pilots organizations, books by David Ray Griffin and others, and eyewitness testimony, the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry has presented enough hard facts to the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York to force his compliance with the provisions of federal law that require the convening of a federal grand jury to investigate for the first time the attacks of September 11, 2001. (See this)
This puts the US Justice (sic) Department in an extraordinary position. Every informed person is aware that elements of the US government were involved either in the perpetration of the 9/11 attacks or in a coverup of the attacks. There will be tremendous pressures on the US Attorney’s office to have the grand jury dismiss the evidence as an unpatriotic conspiracy theory or otherwise maneuver to discredit the evidence presented by the Lawyers’ Committee, or modify the official account without totally discrediting it.
We can have hopes that the United States can establish the true story of its own Reichstag Fire, but I am not holding my breath that the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York can stand up to the powerful elements in the Deep State that perpetuated or covered up the 9/11 false flag attacks or that he is inclined to try.
What the 9/11 truthers and the Lawyers’ Committee have achieved is the destruction of the designation of 9/11 skeptics as “conspiracy theorists.” No US Attorney would convene a grand jury on the basis of a conspiracy theory. Clearly, the evidence is compelling that has put the US Attorney in an unenviable position.
The likely result will be comparable to the US Congress’ belated investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. No expert or informed person believed the obviously false story that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. All evidence pointed to a plot by the Joint Chiefs, CIA, and Secret Service whose right-wing leaders had concluded that President Kennedy was too “soft on communism” to do what was necessary for the US to prevail in the contest with the Soviet Union. Expert and public disbelief of the official story was so great that in 1976, 13 years after Kennedy’s assassination, Congress investigated. The real culprits were, of course, not identified, but two important results were forthcoming. One was the conclusion by the Select Committee on Assassinations that President Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy and not of a lone gunman. The other was the release of the top secret Project Northwoods, which revealed the Joint Chiefs’ plan presented to President Kennedy for the US government to kill US citizens and shoot down US airliners and place the blame on Castro in order to gain public acceptance for an invasion of Cuba.
The conclusion that a conspiracy, although unidentified, was involved in Kennedy’s assassination was the sop thrown to those who disputed the official lone gunman account. The revelation of Project Northwoods created awareness of a previously unknown US government plot that drew attention away from Kennedy’s assassination.
If the Lawyers’ Committee and the 9/11 truthers trust the US Attorney to go entirely by the facts, little will come of the grand jury. If the United States had a rule of law, something as serious as 9/11 could not have gone for 17 years without investigation.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Since the demise of the Soviet Union, almost 30 years ago, abuse and debasement of human rights concerns have served increasingly to create pretexts promoting Western dominance around the world. From former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to Iraq and Sudan, to Ivory Coast, Libya and Syria, to Myanmar and Ukraine, Western governments have used non governmental human rights organizations and abuse of the United Nations system to attack countries resisting the demands of US and allied elites and the governments they control. In Latin America, that dynamic has long targeted Cuba, more recently Venezuela, now Nicaragua and will soon attack Bolivia and probably Mexico too, if the new progressive government there shows too much independence. The US and European elites have stepped up their efforts at regime change in Latin America and the Caribbean so as to guarantee access to and control of the region’s abundant natural resources, because Chinese and Russian influence is blocking their accustomed control of the majority world in Eurasia and Africa.
Like Venezuela previously, Nicaragua has been targeted by the US dominated Organization of American States using local US and European funded non-profit proxies inside Nicaragua and Western corporate dominated non-governmental organizations. They have manipulated international and regional human rights institutions so as to violate fundamental precepts of international law like self-determination and non-intervention. Just as in the 1980s in Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique and elsewhere, and now both Venezuela and Nicaragua again, violent armed non-governmental actors have been used to destabilize the country and create a context allowing false reporting of human rights concerns so as to discredit revolutionary governments.
As independent US writer Max Blumenthal pointed out in an interview in July last year,
“… how I know that there was a regime change operation afoot – and when I say “regime change operation,” I mean an attack not just on a government but on the nation-state, a plan to reduce a country to a failed state like Libya – is that Ken Roth surfaced after the Nicaraguan government had essentially won and removed the roadblocks, allowing the economy which had bled $500 million to start functioning again, allowing citizens to start moving around. Ken Roth, the dictator of Human Rights Watch, who has been in the same position for 25 years, catering to a small cadre of billionaires and elite foundations with almost no constituency base, blamed the government for every single death. Meaning that zero Sandinistas died according to Ken Roth.”
Blumenthal’s insight into the inextricable relationship between human rights NGOs and Western corporate elites suggests a series of points which categorically undermine glib acceptance of false human rights accusations against Nicaragua. The Inter-American Commission for Human Rights, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are all guilty of extreme bad faith, non-compliance with basic norms and adherence to long discredited theoretical nostrums. In effect they are themselves all accomplices to very serious human rights violations by Nicaragua’s US supported armed oppposition. Four main considerations apply.
Firstly, on technical grounds none of these organizations have adhered even to the Huridocs guidelines, a tool created by and for Western government and corporate funded human rights organizations. The guidelines propose concepts and good practice in relation to fact-finding, documentation and monitoring of human rights violations. The IACHR, the UNOHCHR. Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have categorically failed to comply with the HURIDOCS guidelines. In terms of fact finding they systematically omit sources and facts that contradict or exclude their preferred finding. In terms of documentation they systematically exclude abundant documentation from Nicaraguan government ministries, from the public prosecutor’s office, from the legislature’s Truth and Justice Commission, from the Institute of Legal Medicine and from the Office of the Procurator for Human Rights.
All that information to a greater or lesser extent contradicts the bogus fact finding of the OAS, the UN and foreign NGOs. In terms of monitoring the situation in Nicaragua, all those institutions and organizations depend exclusively on virulently politically biased local media, NGOs and opposition activists. So even on their own terms, their methodology does not comply with basic concepts and standards and, thus, the kinds of cases they have built to justify their findings would never stand up to impartial legal scrutiny. One farcical aspect of their approach has been to accuse the Nicaraguan government of repressing local media when their main sources by far are abundant citations of false reports from those same local media relayed via dishonest local human rights NGOs.
Secondly, in theoretical terms, the approach of the IACHR, the UNOHCHR and foreign NGOs like Amnesty International has been to exclude violations by non-State actors, exactly the same faithless alibi they all used during the Cold War. But that theoretical framework has been outdated since 1993 when the UN Human Rights Convention in Vienna explicitly recognized the role of non-State actors in human rights abuses (thus recognizing how the US government and its allies used irregular forces, like the Contra in Nicaragua, RENAMO in Mozambique and UNITA in Angola, to apply systematic terrorism against civilian populations). As Carlos Emilio Lopez a leading Nicaraguan human rights activist and legislator has pointed out:
“In 1993, with the approval of the Vienna Declaration of Human Rights, the subject of respect for human rights was re-conceptualized. For many years it was considered that only States should respect human, rights but that understanding is already out of date. The reconceptualization of human rights is that States must respect human rights but companies, churches, organizations must also do so, social organizations, oligopolies, the media, people as individuals. In other words, we are all obliged to respect human rights, not only State institutions.”
Thus, every time Amnesty International or the IACHR claim their remit excludes non-State actors they are appealing to a theoretical framework 30 years out of date deliberately so as to wash their hands of abuses by political actors with whom they sympathize.
Thirdly, specifically with regard to Amnesty International, their organization has been corrupted and co-opted over many years now by corporate influence via links through their senior personnel with corporate globalization advocates whose explicit aim is to undermine and diminish the role of sovereign national states. Amnesty International’s Secretary General and senior directors, their International Board and its Secretary General’s Global Council freely advertise their background working either directly with multinational corporations, or with corporate funders or with other heavily corporate funded non profits. In this Amnesty International, like Human Rights Watch, is very similar to the Purpose/AVAAZ corporate human rights conglomerate. Their human rights activities are guided by emphatic neoliberal hostility to nation-State governments, such that their reporting deliberately sets out to exclude or discredit information from government or other official sources.
More broadly in Latin American and Caribbean, accompanying the encroaching cooptation of NGOs by corporate predators like Purpose, the overtly political Atlas network supports NGOs promoting extreme right wing policies across the region, thus facilitating the ascent to power of fascists like Jair Bolsonaro.
Fourthly, that corporate corruption and cooptation of Sean MacBride‘s original vision of the role and work of Amnesty International and similar organizations, is clearly manifest in their demonstrable bias in favor of US and allied coutnries foriegn policy priorities. In that regard, Professor Francis Boyle, among many others, has been an authoritative and trenchant critic of Amnesty International’s role in Palestine and elsewhere, whereby it downplays or minimizes violations by States allied to NATO countries. On the other hand, institutions like the IACHR and the UNOCHR and organizations like Amnesty international systematically exaggerate and even invent violations in countries targeted by NATO member country governments. Thus in Latin America, the current horrific record of human rights violations in Colombia and, until AMLO, in Mexico was played down and minimized, while events in Cuba, Venezuela and now Nicaragua have been systematically misrepresented.
All these concerns about the practical bad faith, theoretical dishonesty, corporate co-optation and outright political bias of human rights institutions and organizations should give any intellectually honest person of progressive views pause. People genuinely concerned about human rights should reassess what they think they know about Nicaragua and about Venezuela too. The US and allied elites are determined to use the governments, institutions and NGOs they have bought to destroy resistance to their domination in Latin America and the Caribbean. However, the 60th anniversary this year of Cuba’s revolution, together with the 40th anniversary of the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua and the 20th anniversary of Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution suggest they will not have things all their own way.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Disproportionate numbers of First Peoples are in Canadian prisons. The society arranges this fact to not seem that extraordinary. It could be argued that aboriginal peoples are political prisoners in North America, in or out of prison. Or that this is true for all minorities. Or that as the war on terror proceeds all Canadians may find themselves in a political prison.
Privilege and prejudice are clarified when we note that aboriginal men and women damaged in government (police) custody are not often plaintiffs in trials for damages. And properly, this account would run to several thousand pages listing the individual cases of First Peoples’ imprisonment, rising out of a society which feels compelled to treat the education of, the medical care of, the social services for, the nourishment of, the housing of, the remuneration for, First Peoples unjustly.
Unlike the U.S. Canada hasn’t used extreme long term incarceration of Indigenous leaders to discourage Indigenous movements’ protest actions. In the U.S. Leonard Peltierwas sentenced to two life imprisonment terms for a crime he likely didn’t commit. Non-Indigenous U.S. leaders of the people such as the Kennedy’s, Dr. King and Malcolm X, were simply shot, as Canada’s historical icon of revolt Louis Riel was simply hung. The many indigenous leaders in Canada maintain relatively low profiles and are more diffusely represented in these vast spaces of the land.
Image on the right: Omar Khadr
The only group of Canadian political prisoners which approaches the length of sentences of U.S. political prisoners is currently Canadians who are Muslim and who have been treated poorly in domestic prisons or left to the dogs in the custody of foreign agencies. In some cases Canada’s security agencies seemed to be outsourcing torture for information. Of Canadian Muslims damaged in custody, Maher Arar was awarded 11.5 million dollars in an out of court settlement concerning the Canadian government’s responsibility for his torture in Syria. Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin settled for about half of what each asked, 31.25 million apiece because of Canada’s assistance to the Syrian government in having them falsely arrested and tortured. Omar Khadr was to receive 10.5 million for Canada’s cooperation with the U.S. at Khadr’s incarceration and torture as minor child at Guantanamo.
One of the suits by Abousfian Abdelrazik whom the Canadian government left in the hands of Syrian torturers was settled out of court in 2017. In 2015 the Canadian government settled out of court a suit by Benamar Benatta whom it turned over to the FBI as a terrorist suspect: he was imprisoned 5 years before they decided he wasn’t a terrorist. Daniel Ameziane who sought political asylum in Canada from Algeria is suing Canada for 40 million dollars, after his torture in U.S. Guantanamo which he alleges was reliant on Canadian supplied information. and yielded the Canadians in turn information obtained by his torture (Ameziane, denied asylum in Canada was subsequently arrested in Pakistan by a bounty hunter and sent to Guantanamo). The five Muslim men detained (arrested without charge) for varying lengths of time in extreme conditions, under the mechanism of Canadian Security Certificates, were not found guilty of any crime and have not as far as I know initiated suits to compensate them for their arbitrary loss of rights, their suffering and the government’s attempts to ruin their lives.
What is unusual about the Canadian persecution of Canadian Muslims is that they have some chance for redress in Canadian courts for severe violations of their human rights. Here I’ll try to update several cases Night’s Lantern has encountered in the past, and these of Muslims, targeted under the U.S./ NATO programs of the wars on terror and Muslim countries. The cases suggest a domestic application of an aggressive foreign policy which has the intention of corporate resource acquisition by force.
Entirely ignored by the media is the case ofSaid Namouhwho was arrested in 2007 and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment with parole possible after ten years (yet facing deportation if paroled). The charges against him were for participating in terrorist activities. But he committed no crime of violence against anyone. There was no evidence linking him to alleged bomb-making or making real the prosecution’s suppositions of active terrorism. The star witness against him was an Israeli CEO of a U.S. defense industry intelligence provider who analyzed Namouh’s computer hard drive. Namouh’s “crimes” were primarily of internet communication, personal declarations, extremist associations, in other words – his beliefs, convictions. This case puzzles innocents because it is entirely legal to have beliefs and convictions and it is legal to share them. In 2018 Namouh was denied his first application for parole; the parole board noted his record in prison wasn’t exemplary, and it wasn’t but he didn’t try to kill anyone and he didn’t steal anyone’s dessert. The parole board (“La Commission des libérations conditionnelles”) isn’t likely to hear his case again until 2023. Yet there is a forfeit of the prisoner’s human rights and civil rights here, not because Namouh’s beliefs are unwise, unsafe, in some instances illegal, or against Canadian security interests, but because the punishment is the same as a mass murderer’s. He was in no way proven guilty of mass murder or any act of violence. His was a propaganda trial with a propaganda punishment.
Another level of shame is reached in the more obvious injustices of Canadian Security Certificates. One recognizes Stasi or Gestapo tactics which aren’t Canadian practices, and the government has restrained itself from using the certificates since early in the new millennium. All five of the Muslim men arrested under Canadian Security Certificates back in 2000 to 2003 have been released from prison through the efforts of their lawyers in one trial after another. Despite government challenges Canada’s judicial system has safeguarded some of humanity’s progress since the dark ages. The government’s attempts to justify in court application of Canadian Security Certificates has cost Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars. Mohamed Harkat, former Canadian Security Certificate detainee, imprisoned without a charge against him in 2002, now lives at home protected from prison by judicial decisions, with his Quebec born Canadian wife of nearly twenty years. Their lives are under threat every day with complete disruption by the government’s continuing intention to deport him to Algeria, where it’s believed he is in danger of torture or death.
Aside from the label of suspected terrorist assigned him by Canada’s security agencies, any refugee returned to Algeria is known to be at risk. In June 2018 Al-Jazeera reported 13,000 migrants left by Algeria in the Sahara desert within the last 14 months, subject to forced marches without water and food. The ordeal of Mohamed Harkat’s arrest without charges or public evidence against him has lasted year after year, placing him in prison, in solitary, on hunger strike, in house arrest with court ordered regimens, has subjected his wife to suffering and police abuse, subjected the family to legal expenses debts and charity without compensation. (Summary). If one wanted to inflict the conditions of a lasting torture on a family, either to obtain information or as one more threat to encourage the Muslim community to cooperate with government policies bordering on genocide in several Muslim countries, one might imagine inflicting on them the lives of Mohamed and Sophie Harkat. In a report to the UN Human Rights Council last Spring, Nils Melzer (the UN Special Rapporteur on torture) noted:
“Whenever States failed to exercise due diligence to protect migrants, punish perpetrators or provide remedies, they risk to become complicit in torture or ill-treatment.”
The injustices inherent in the government’s prosecution of a group branded the “Toronto 18” in 2006 by the press are less clearly defined and are difficult to explain. People are afraid to ask obvious questions about the group of minors and young men who were quite possibly guided into a horrible conspiracy by the several police agents among them to plan and organize a series of terrorist acts beyond the abilities of any in the group who weren’t police agents, to execute.
As soon as early reporting of the arrests entered court, the judge placed a gag order on reporting details of the trial or revealing the defendants’ names. Portions of the ban protecting minors seem to remain in force. The mechanism has also provided a means to keep out of public scrutiny any low-profile informants and the role they played in a “conspiracy” which some of the defendants were unwilling to recognize. The alleged crimes the “conspiracy” was charged with were horrific and frightening, particularly to a population with misgivings about U.S. and Canadian wars against Islamic countries, crimes against international law, guilt from Canada’s role in “Operation Desert Storm,” the initial US and Coalition bombing of Iraq, the destruction of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure, depriving the country’s children of a future. By the time the US and its coalition invaded Iraq in 2003 Canada refused full participation. Canada’s commitment to fighting in Afghanistan may also be considered complicity in a war of aggression and a number of the “Toronto 18” expressed anger at Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan. So the script for the “Toronto 18” was noticeably muzzy, vague except in the allegations of dastardly plots and plans, and the curiousness that young Canadian citizens who were in other respects bright students and entrepreneurs could be manipulated into over-expressing their imaginations and feelings about injustice.
In court eleven Canadian citizens accused were sentenced to prison. Charges against others were dropped or withdrawn. Of the accused, most just pleaded guilty. Four claimed their innocence but were convicted. Interestingly each case was different which one would not expect of a conspiracy. Charges relied heavily on the actions and testimony of a police informant (one is featured in official narratives) considered by some to have been a causative agent. The convicted did not have the knowledge or means to execute the terrorist actions they were found guilty of, and their actions required the professional help of the police informant(s). This troubled my own understanding of the case as it was revealed in the press, and the presence of this basic injustice may explain why post sentencing information about members of the “Toronto 18” remains scarce.
The justice of their trials in 2009-2010 may be further questioned after a recent ruling in Vancouver BC which found the RCMP basically responsible for the terrorist acts committed by John Nuttall and Amanda Korody. The couple were recent converts to Islam and recovering drug addicts, guided into a terrorist plot and supplied the knowledge and materials to commit terrorist crimes by RCMP undercover. A three judge appeals court affirmed the decision of the lower court that the RCMP had basically entrapped the defendants, who were then freed. The RCMP’s case was found to be “a travesty of justice.”. To begin to gather then this disparate group of the “Toronto 18” I mention eight of the eleven who were found guilty and sentenced:
Arrested when he was 18, Saad Gaya pleaded guilty in court in 2010 and was sentenced to 12 years in prison with pre-sentencing imprisonment of 3.5 years credited double. Gaya was to serve a remaining 4.5 years but was parole eligible in 18 months.
However the Crown was able to increase his sentence to 18 years. In 2016 the National Post reported he was granted day parole to attend graduate school.
Mohamed Dirie convicted for weapons smuggling in the “Toronto 18” plot he was sentenced to seven years including pre-sentencing time served. He was released in 2011, and is reported to have died fighting for “an extremist group” in Syria, 2013. Unconfirmed.
Zakaria Amara pleaded guilty in 2009 to charges in the “camp plot” conspiracy and to charges in the “bomb plot” conspiracy. In 2010 he was sentenced to 21 months in addition to time served for the first, and for the second, life imprisonment. He was incarcerated in Quebec and eligible for parole in ten years. In 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada refused to review his sentence.
Fahim Ahmad, sentenced to 16 years with double credit for pre-sentencing time served, was previously denied parole but will have completed his sentence and should be freed in 2018, according to The Toronto Star, and released early in 2018 according to the National Post. By 2019, I’ve found no notice of his release.
Shareef Abdelhaleem who maintained that he “had no intention of causing injury or bodily harm” and asked the judge to sentence him as the judge would a white Catholic…, was sentenced to life in prison, and with pre-sentencing time included, was parole eligible in ten years. His father was an engineer with Atomic Energy of Canada who had posted bail for Mohammad Mahjoub, the Security Certificate detainee. The father’s implication in the “conspiracy” was attempted. Of his son, the prisoner, Wikipedia quotes him: “I am the last person to be a threat…this whole thing was staged to impress the public, to give them fear.”
Steven Vikash Chand, a former Canadian forces reservist and new convert to Islam was found guilty of participation and advising a financial fraud to assist a terrorist group. He was sentenced to 10 years including time served, yielding a release in 2011.
Despite a recognized lack of serious involvement with the conspiracy group, Asad Ansari was sentenced in 2010 to six years five months for participating/contributing to a terrorist group, which amounted to time served. Like several others in the “Toronto 18” group, the government’s threat to withdraw his Canadian citizenship was canceled under a change in government and Royal Assent granted to Bill C-6 June 19, 2017.
Saad Khalid pled guilty in 2009 to intending to cause an explosion and was sentenced to 14 years in prison including 7 years served. He was said to be radicalized in prison and the Crown increased his sentence from 14 to 20 years.
These are long sentences in mens’ lives. This listing leaves three of the accused and found guilty prisoners uncounted, as well as the seven of those arrested and one way or another released. We can guess that most of those found guilty have by now served their time or reaching their parole date were quietly released. No one asks why children and young adults who were so normal in other respects leading the lives of innocents, imagined such horrific responses to their country’s crimes against innocent men women and children abroad.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. 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: Night’s Lantern.
Sources
“Canadian terrorist handed life sentence,” Les Perreaux, Feb. 17, 2017 / May 2, 2018, The Globe and Mail;
“Pas de libération conditionnelle pour Saïd Namouh,” Louis Cloutier, Feb. 7, 2018, TVA Nouvelles / MédiaQMI;
“B.C. Court of Appeal: Couple convicted in Victoria terror case entrapped by RCMP,” Amy Smart, Canadian Press, Dec. 19, 2018, Vancouver Sun;
“Bomb plotter sentenced to 12 years,” Michael Friscolanti, Jan. 18, 2010, Macleans;
“Toronto 18 member released on day payrole in middle of 18-year sentence,” The Canadian Press, Jan. 2, 2016, CBC News;
“‘Toronto 18’ convict granted day parole so he can go to graduate school,” Jan 1, 2016, National Post;
“Man convicted as part of Toronto 18 plot reportedly killed in Syria,” The Canadian Press Sep 26, 2013, Macleans;
“Canada revokes citizenship of Toronto 18 ringleader using new anti-terror law,” Sept. 26, 2015, National Post;
“Toronto 18 plotter reflects on a decade in prison,” Michelle Shephard, May 29, 2016, Toronto Star;
“Toronto 18 terror leader denied parole after telling psychologist he wants to fight ISIL,” Stewart Bell, May 30, 2017, National Post;
“Deported by Algeria, migrants abandoned in the Sahara Desert,” Victoria Gatenby, June 25, 2018, Al-Jazeera;
“Migration policies can amount to ill-treatment and torture, UN rights expert warns,” UN Human Rights Council, March 1, 2018, Reliefweb;
“Justice for Mohamed Harkat: stop his deportation to torture,” current [access:< http://www.justiceforharkat.com/news.php >;
“Guantanamo: Ex-inmate sues Canada for alleged torture,” Jillia n Kestler-D’Amours,” Nov. 10, 2017, Al-Jazeera;
In early January 2019, the military situation in Syria continued to develop in the framework of the existing trend with the terrorist threat in the Idlib de-escalation zone and the Turkish-Kurdish conflict as two main sources of tensions.
Over the past week, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has made a fresh push to expand its influence over Turkish-backed groups in western Aleppo, southern Idlib and northwestern Hama. After accusing the Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement of assassinating 4 HTS members, HTS launched an attack on Darat Izza along with several nearby settlements. Then, Hayat Tahir al-Sham expanded its activity into southern Idlib and northwestern Hama, where it captured the settlements of Faqie, Tramla, Arnaba, Shahranaz and Shir Mughar from Turkish-backed militant groups.
According to reports, the so-called National Front for Liberation (NFL), which is the main alliance of Turkish-backed militant groups in the area, was able to repel a HTS attack in southern Idlib, to recapture Tremla and Al-Ghadfah but has not been able to push back HTS near Ma’arat Al-Nu’man.
According to the Lebanese TV channel al-Mayadeen, over 180 militants have been killed in the fighting. Furthermore, both sides actively use mortars and other heavy weapons thus causing civilian casualties.
Even if the NFL with help from Ankara solves the current round of tensions within the militant-held area in northwestern Syria, the issue will remain while Hayat Tahrir al-Sham operates in the area. HTS is officially excluded from the de-escalation zone agreement, but Turkey and its proxies either unable or unwilling to neutralize it because it remains the most capable military force of the so-called opposition.
In its own turn, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham seeks to expand its influence in the area further in order to limit chances that it would become a non-useful tool of the Turkish foreign policy whereby it would become more profitable to eliminate it than to tolerate its existence.
A group of internally displaced persons left the al-Rukban refugee camp and returned to the government-held town of Mahin in southern Homs, the Sham FM radio station reported on January 3 citing Syrian officials. According to the report, the first group of IDPs consisted of 209 civilians, mainly women, children and elders. More people are expected to return from the camp in the upcoming few weeks. The al-Rukban refugee camp is located within the 55km de-escalation zone around the US-led coalition base in al-Tanaf. After the formal announcement of US troops withdrawal, a panic appeared among US-backed militant groups there. This allowed to facilitate the return of civilians from the refugee camp where a humanitarian crisis has been developing.
Another point of tensions is the area of Manbij. A large force of Turkish proxies is still deployed near the area despite reports about their alleged withdrawal. The further development of the situation will depend on the schedule of the expected withdrawal of US troops and the result of ongoing negotiations between Damascus and the YPG.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The worm has gotten into Apple, and is feasting with some consistency. Revenue has fallen. Chief executive Tim Cook is cranky. The celebrated front of Apple’s wealth – the iPhone with its range of glittering models – has not done as well as he would have hoped. Dreams of conquering Cathay (or, in modern terms, the Chinese market) have not quite materialised.
In a letter to Apple’s investors, Cook explained that “our revenue will be lower than our original guidance for the quarter, with other items remaining broadly in line with our guidance.” This somewhat optimistic assessment came with the heavily stressed caveat:
“While it will be a number of weeks before we complete and report our final results, we wanted to get some preliminary information to you now. Our final results may differ somewhat from these preliminary estimates.”
The reasons outlined were various, but Cook, in language designed to obfuscate with concealing woods for self-evident trees, suggested that the launches of various iPhone types would “affect our year-to-year compares.” That said, it “played out broadly in line with our expectations.” While Cook gives the impression of omniscience, he is far from convincing. Why go for the “unprecedented number of new products to ramp”, resulting in “supply constraints” which led to limiting “our sales of certain products during Q1 [the first quarter]”? Such is the nature of the credo.
Screengrab from Apple
Where matters were not so smooth to predict were those “macroeconomic” matters that do tend to drive CEOs potty with concern. While there was an expectation that the company would struggle for sales in “emerging markets”, the impact was “significantly greater… than we had projected.” China, in fact, remained the hair-tearing problem, singled out as the single biggest factor in revenue fall.
“In fact,” goes Cook’s letter of breezy blame, “most of our revenue shortfall to our guidance, and over 100 percent of our year-over-year worldwide revenue decline, occurred in Greater China across iPhone, Mac and iPhone.”
The slowing of China’s economy in the second half of 2018, with a slump in the September quarter being the second lowest in the last 25 years, deemed a significant factor.
The irritating tangle of world politics also features; as ever, Apple can hardly be responsible for errors or misjudgements, and prefers, when convenient, to point the finger to the appropriate catalyst. The United States has not made matters easy for the Apple bottom line in its trade war spat with Beijing.
“We believe that the economic environment in China has been further impacted by rising trade tensions with the United States.”
While it is never wise to consult the view of economists without caution (their oracular skills leave much to be desired), the feeling among the analysts is that a further contraction is nigh.
“We expect a much worse slowdown in the first half, followed by a more serious and aggressive government easing/stimulus centred on regulating the property market in big cities,” claims chief China economist at Nomura, Ting Lu. But chin up – a rebound is bound to happen in the latter part of 2019.
The Apple vision is, however, dogmatically optimistic, an indispensable quality to any cult. China remains customary dream and object, a frontier to conquer. It is stacked with Apple friendly innovators (“The iOS developer community in China is among the most innovative, creative, and vibrant in the world.”) and loyal customers who have “a very high level of engagement and satisfaction.”
Product fetishism only carries you so far. The iPhone models are not exactly blazing a trail of enthusiasm in other countries either. Users in Brazil, India, Russia and Turkey can count themselves as being more reluctant.
Some of this dampening is due, in no small part, to a certain cheek on the part of the tech giant, one nurtured by years of enthusiastic, entitled arrogance. In late 2017, for instance, the company revealed that it was slowing down iPhones with old batteries in an attempt to prevent undesired shutdowns. But the company did not feel any great desire to inform users of this fiddling, and it took the published findings of an iPhone user to replace his iPhone 6’s battery, thereby restoring performance to accepted levels, to kick the hornets’ nest.
“The fix was implemented via an update last January [2017], but Apple didn’t accurately inform users of what was going to happen to chemically aged batteries.”
Class action suits followed in the United States; Brazilian authorities insisted that the company inform iPhone users on how to have their batteries replaced within 10 days.
The bite on Apple has had its predictable shudder on the markets. Investors ran off some $75 billion on the company’s stocks. The Nasdaq fell by 3 percent; the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 2.8 percent. An environment of chaos has greeted us in 2019, and fittingly, Apple remains at the centre of it, a company as responsible for modern technological worship as any. As with any central dogma, disappointments are bound to happen, an irrepressible function of misplaced belief.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. 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]
Many years ago, I came across a pre-Islamic Arabic poem describing a camel running across the desert. Suddenly, the camel freezes in mid-stride. First, it looks backward in fear of what it was running from, and then it turns its glance forward – also in fear – toward the unknown that is its destination. It was this image that came to mind as 2018 came to an end and I sat down to write about the year that was and what we expect might unfold in the new year.
By any measure, 2018 was a tumultuous year, in no small way owing to President Trump’s unpredictable behavior. He has been, in a word, exhausting.
We began and ended 2018 with a short government shutdown owing to Trump’s insistence that Congress agree to fund the wall on the Mexican border, despite opposition from Democrats and some leaders in his own party. When Democrats offered the White House partial funding of the wall in an effort to secure a compromise on immigration reform, Trump balked and upped the ante demanding, in addition to his wall, an end to the diversity lottery and family unification – making disparaging remarks about immigrants from the African continent in the process. He also dramatically reduced the number of refugees admitted to the US and imposed new hardships on those seeking asylum. Added to this has been the Administration’s “family separation” policy which produced the nightmarish result of thousands of little children being taken from their parents at the border and sent to far-away locations. At year’s end, we once again have a government shutdown, no wall, and no indication that the White House is willing to compromise.
Image on the right: President Trump and North Korean President Kim Jong Un shake hands in summit room, June 12, 2018. (Office of the President of the United States/Public Domain)
In 2018, Trump also repeatedly upset international relations alienating allies both East and West. He frustrated Europe by unilaterally walking away from the Iran nuclear deal; outraged Arabs by moving the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem; imposed stiff new tariffs on imported steel and aluminum; once again acted unilaterally with a bizarre “love fests” with North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un and Russian President Vladimir Putin causing unease with NATO and South Korea and Japan; and then, at year’s end, surprised everyone by announcing that he was pulling all US forces out of Syria and drawing down US forces in Afghanistan.
2018 also witnessed upheaval within the Administration, itself. Trump lost or fired his Secretaries of State, Defense, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Interior, the Attorney General, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Security Advisor, the United Nations Ambassador, the White House Chief of Staff, Legal Counsel, and Director of Communications, and a dozen other senior White House officials.
During all this time, Trump spent the year besieged by the growing threat to his presidency posed by the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The Mueller probe and ancillary investigations have thus far taken a hefty toll. Five individuals who worked with the Trump campaign have been found guilty of crimes ranging from conspiracy to making false statements under oath. Add to this, Trump’s long-time personal attorney pleaded guilty to a number of financial crimes in which he implicated Trump. And the investigation is still underway.
If this were not enough, the President has compounded the exhaustion with his incessant tweeting. Each morning a wary public awakens to see what outrageous charges, defamatory rants or insults Trump has to offer. The news networks have unfortunately been accommodating since they spend the better part of each day amplifying his tweets discussing them as if they were “Breaking News.”
In the midst of this chaos, Trump has been successful in pursuing his agenda of undoing much of President Obama’s accomplishments. There was: a tax cut that resulted in a massive upward redistribution of wealth; a dismantling of regulations that protected consumers, the environment, natural resources, air and water, health and safety; an end to Obama-era education-related policies; and the gutting of Obama’s signature legislation reforming health insurance – which is now in danger of completely unraveling.
Not everything has been bad news. Trump did lend his support to a significant criminal justice reform bill that passed with bipartisan support. And he did renegotiate a new trade agreement with Mexico and Canada.
Despite these accomplishments, some good, mostly bad, it is the chaos that has dominated the news – and for this, the President can only blame himself. I am reminded of a line in T.S. Eliot’s “Four Quartets” where he describes the faces of passengers on the London Underground being “distracted from distractions, by distractions.” This has been our fate in 2018. We are almost unable to focus on one crisis before our attention is diverted by yet another: a mass shooting (once again in 2018, there has been almost one a day); upheaval in the White House; new Mueller indictments; or an incendiary Trump tweet. The result has been a near perpetual state of nervous anxiety.
So much for looking backward at the year we are leaving behind. The problem, of course, is that, like that camel in the poem, we can only feel apprehension as we now run head-long into the year that awaits us – 2019.
I learned a long time ago, that the true test we face in life is not how we accomplish the goals we set for ourselves, but how we confront the unexpected challenges that lay before us. We can only predict some of what 2019 will bring.
Democrats will be in control of the House of Representatives and they will not give Trump an easy time. They will begin the year with an inherited government shutdown and a president still insisting that they find $5 billion in the budget to build his wall (the one he had insisted would be paid for by Mexico). Any compromise they may reach with the White House will still need to be approved by the Republican-controlled Senate.
The New Year will also bring forward the results of Mueller’s investigation into Trump campaign collusion with the Russians during the 2016 election and whether or not Trump attempted to obstruct justice by impeding the investigation. Whether or not Democrats want to hold hearings on White House activities related to these or other matters, the Congress will, of necessity, have to react to the Mueller findings or to the Administration’s reactions to it (for example, by firing Mueller or attempting to bury his report).
The immigration crisis on our southern border will not let up, nor will the challenges to health care reform resulting from a number of court decisions which have put the stability of the current system in limbo.
Then there are crises in the world with which we’ll have contend. These we can’t predict. Will Turkey take advantage of the US departure to attack Kurdish forces in Syria? Will Israel attack Lebanon? Will the unconscionable behavior of the Iranian-backed militias in recently “liberated” areas of Iraq provoke a resurgence of Daesh2.0? Will the Taliban see the US draw-down as an opportunity and launch a Spring offensive? Will Netanyahu win again, will he be indicted, and will Palestinians react to the unbearable pressure they face at the hands of the Israeli occupation? Will the “Deal of the Century” ever see the light of day? And will Congress, as expected, continue to apply pressure Saudi Arabia, and what impact will that have on the continuing devastating war in Yemen? And then there’s China’s expansionist moves, Iran’s regional meddling, Russia’s continuing aggression in Ukraine, and what about Brexit?
The list of challenges is by no means complete, but it’s enough to cause us to know that we are hurtling into an uncertain future with good reason to be filled with apprehension.
Along the way, there will be distractions aplently. We’ll have the expected announcements of what may as many as three dozen Democratic presidential aspirants – each announcement will provide “Breaking News” for the networks. And, yes, there will be the endless stream of Trumpian tweets.
I understand the camel and I’m nervous and not a little exhausted.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The US will withdraw her troops from Syria. Will they really? – Let’s take Trump at his word, just for argument’s sake. Though in the meantime, RT reports that the withdrawal may be slower than anticipated, to allow Erdogan making his own “strategic arrangements”, while US troops depart. During his flash visit to the US troops in Iraq on Christmas Day, Mr. Trump already indicated that any US intervention – if necessary– would be launched from Iraq. Of course.
The US will not let go of such a strategic country with access to Four Seas, as promoted by President Bashar al-Assad, linking the Mediterranean, the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea and the Persian Gulf into an energy network. Washington had the full dominion of Syria in mind as the pivotal country in the Middle East, already when Washington first attempted to “negotiate” with Bashar’s dad, Háfez al-Ásad, in the late 1990s, and then after his death in 2000, the secret gnomes of Washington continued the process of coercion with Háfez’s son and heir, Bashar. To no avail, as we know.
Therefore, the question, “Will Syria ever Become a “Normal” Country Again?” – sounds almost rhetorical. Syria is one of those predestined countries to “fall”, decided by the empire, long before the ascension to the throne by Mr. Trump. Others include and are well outlined in the PNAC (Plan for a New American Century) – Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Sudan, Lebanon – and Iran. As we see, the plan is progressing nicely – and letting go of any of the ‘milestones’ within this plan – is simply not in the cards.
Deviations are not tolerated. That’s presumably why James “Mad Dog” Mattis resigned as Secretary of Defense upon Trump’s announcement to withdraw from Syria. The Pentagon has its mandate, given by the Military Industrial Complex.
So, war or peace (and war it is) has become full spectrum Pentagon territory, not to be meddled with. It has nothing to do with terrorism, or saving the world from terrorism – it is pure and simple ´calcule’for profit from the war machine, from stolen and confiscated oil and gas and, ultimately but not lastly, for full power dominance of the world. The Middle East is one of those focal points of the empire that needs to be plunged into eternal chaos.
Peace is never an option. Unless empire falls. But until then, the Middle East is a multi-purpose ‘gold mine’, in terms of resources, a test ground for the East-West arms race, a terrain for almost endless destruction – and reconstruction – and a bottomless source of a continuous and destabilizing flow of refugees to Europe. It’s all planned. No human suffering is able to halt this project – and we can but hope that Russia and China see clear on this, that they won’t fall for promises of peace, for make-believe withdrawals, for lies and deceit.
Will Syria ever become a ‘normal’ country again? – I opt for yes. But empire must fall. And fall it will. It’s a question of time and maybe strategy? – For hundreds of years, the Kurds are an ethnicity of between 25 and 35 million people. They inhabit a mountainous region straddling the borders of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran and a tiny bit of Armenia. They make up the fourth-largest ethnic group in the Middle East, but they have never obtained a permanent nation state.Wouldn’t this rearrangement of power in Syria due to the apparent US troop withdrawals be an opportunity to find a solution for the century old Kurdish “problem”?
President Assad might seize the opportunity to accept the Kurds ‘invitation’ to enter the city of Manbij, the current Kurdish stronghold in Syria. And this despite the fact that the Kurds have often fought against the Syrian military, either alongside the US/NATO forces or alongside ISIS. It’s time to rethink geopolitics in the Middle East, beginning with Syria. After all, Manbij is Syrian territory, and Turkey has no legitimate claim on any land within Syria. Except in the case of a possible land swap.
On these grounds Syria might want to initiate negotiations with Turkey, Iraq and Iran to finally establish within the borders of Syria and Iraq (and Iran, as it were), some kind of a Kurdish territory which might over time become a fully autonomous Kurdish Homeland, what today is already called, Kurdistan. Much like Israel was carved out of Palestine, except that Israel was an artificial creation, commanded by outside forces, with the specific purpose already 70 years ago to destabilize the region. Whereas Kurdistan would be a stabilizing factor, a natural process facilitated by the countries within the region.
There are, of course, other players with high stakes in this peace process, like Russia, Turkey and Iraq – and the two rogue nations, paradoxically bound together, Israel and Saudia Arabia. Two nations that have no right whatsoever to even come close to Syria. But they continue having US support, even with the apparent US withdrawal from Syria, or because of it, as they will now play the role of US proxies in fighting Mr. Assad’s legitimate regime.
Russia would most likely prefer no Turkish interference in Syria, for example the occupation of Manbij, but would rather see Syrian control of Syrian territory with negotiated land swap deals with neighboring countries, especially Turkey and Iraq, to bring eventually the Kurdish question to a solution. That is of course just the beginning. The easy part.
The current semi-offical Kurdistan is one of the oil richest territories of the region. At present these oil resources are divided more or less along the border divisions of Kurdistan, i.e. Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. For these countries hydrocarbon is a key factor in their economy. Therefore, the creation of an autonomous region within Syria, Iraq and Iran, called Kurdistan, might require not only an honest process and equitable division of the Black Gold, but also a withdrawal of Trukey from Kurdistan, i.e. through a land swap. The development towards a sovereign Kurdistan – no time frame might at this point be suggested – would require Kurdish concessions. In other words, peace and homeland have a price. However, this price will never even come close to the benefits of independence and peace.
At present, Kurdistan’s oil reserves are estimated at 45 billion gallon, almost a third of Iraq’s total untapped 150 billion gallons of petrol. The Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), with her capital, Erbil in Iraq (pop. about 900,000), would of course prefer becoming an independent state. But that is just not going to happen out of the blue. Therefore, peace in the region and a Kurdish Homeland is worth a negotiated land and petrol concession. And when would be a better moment for such thoughts and negotiations than NOW?
There are other signs that Syria is in the process of becoming a “normal” country again. The re-opening of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) embassy in Syria, may be considered a major public step to welcoming Bashar al-Assad back into the fold of the Arab League, from which Syria was banned at the beginning of the 2011 CIA induced war on Mr. Assad’s government. Bahrain has also announced it will reopen shortly diplomatic relations with Damascus. Is this move by the UAE and Bahrain the first step of a new “Arab solidarity”? – In any case, it signals a new recognition of Syria under President Assad.
With Syria becoming a fully autonomous and sovereign country again, where diplomatic missions are being re-established and where refugees return to help rebuild their nation, and where a new Kurdistan, may just be the dot bringing peace and stability to the region. Though that may succeed only without any Atlantist interference – being handled only as a regional project.
A last thought for those who are shaking their heads in disbelief, because of the political and economic volatility of Kurdistan, due to her exorbitant oil riches which are currently spread among four countries – listen! – peak oil is a thing of the past.
Hydrocarbons are rather rapidly being replaced as the key energy provider by alternative sources of energy, of which the Middle East also has plenty, but which cannot be stolen – solar energy. The East, foremost China, is rapidly developing new and more efficient ways of transferring sun light into electricity, with the appropriate storage technology that may make it possible to largely phase out hydrocarbons within the next generation.
Hence, the momentum is NOW – US troop withdrawals – to create a stabilizing Kurdistan and make Syria a “normal country again.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21stCentury; TeleSUR; The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
The year 2019 begins with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 2.0 already standing exposed as another corporate trade agreement with no one, including union leaders, having paid attention to what has just happened with respect to it. Specifically, the highly praised Labour chapter to the new trade agreement (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) that was formally signed in Buenos Aires on November 30 concluded with the following declaration. “It is the expectation of the Parties that Mexico shall adopt legislation described above before January 1, 2019. It is further understood that entry into force of the agreement may be delayed until such legislation becomes effective.”
The legislation described above in the Labour chapter would make sweeping improvements to Mexico’s labour laws and practices. It would give all Mexican workers meaningful free collective bargaining rights and the right to belong to labour organizations truly of their own and which would negotiate transparent collective bargaining agreements subject to their ratification. These anticipated improvements would end the prevalent ‘yellow’ unionism in Mexico in which fake unions legally exist in workplaces but do the bidding of their employers via protection contracts imposed on the workers they illegitimately claim to represent.
Promises made. Promises unkept.
No new labour legislation has been passed into law as of January 1, 2019 in Mexico let alone legislation making such sweeping, positive changes. Worse still, there are no indications whatsoever that Mexico’s new, ostensibly leftist government has any plans to enact such new legislation at any time in the foreseeable future. The implications of this are quite revealing and far reaching.
That this has not occurred nor is about to occur anytime soon is in fact wholly in line with the entirety of the provisions set out in NAFTA 2.0’s Labour chapter. This is readily apparent precisely because the Labour chapter is effectively meaningless and in practice represents a continuation of what was in the original NAFTA which came into force at the beginning of 1994. This destroys Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s facile claim that NAFTA 2.0 has some of the strongest labour provisions of any trade agreement Canada has ever signed.
The 1994 NAFTA had both labour and environmental side agreements. These agreements were mere window dressing. They only committed the parties to the agreement to live up to the requirements of their respective labour laws and they failed to do that. Those, like members of the San Antonio, Texas based Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras, who filed complaints under these NAFTA side agreements learned that filing a complaint was a worthless exercise in futility.
Window Dressing
The same can be expected with respect to the provisions of the Labour chapter in NAFTA 2.0. This is the case because the provisions set out in it are effectively no more than guidelines. No mechanism has been put in place for ongoing monitoring of the chapter’s guidelines and if these guidelines are violated there is no mechanism in place to meaningfully enforce them let alone swiftly enforce them. In effect, the provisions are again window dressing for a trade agreement which does what the same corporations whose interests were so well served by the 1994 NAFTA really want. It guarantees these corporations their highly desired access to a North American market subject to rules that generally serve them well. Accordingly, it is no wonder that NAFTA 2.0 has earned the praise of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, according to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland.
The provisions of the Labour chapter provide for the creation of a Labour Council. This misnamed Labour Council will be comprised of senior representatives of the three governments which are signatories to NAFTA 2.0. The council is formally tasked with ostensibly overseeing and administering the provisions of the Labour chapter. But it is telling indeed that this body given these tasks is only expected to meet every two years unless the Parties decide otherwise.
Most significantly, the Labour chapter stipulates that all of its decisions and reports “shall be made by consensus.” This could not be more revealing. This effectively means that any dispute that might go before it can only be resolved by consensus among the parties including whichever party or government the dispute is made against. If there ever was a procedural formula for contentious issues to quietly go away and die on the vine this is it.
As was the case with the 1994 NAFTA this assurance, in practical terms, of non-enforcement goes hand in hand with each party again only being expected to comply with and enforce its own labour laws. The prohibition of anything beyond that is explicit. The Labour chapter states in no uncertain terms, “Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to empower a Party’s authorities to undertake labour law enforcement activities in the territory of another Party.” Consequently, if Mexico’s labour laws are not overhauled, as the Labour chapter anticipated they would be, and continue, as they have since 1994, to be widely unenforced thereby benefiting employers, nothing really can or will be done about it. Simply stated, this is a prescription for more of the same of what workers across North America have experienced since NAFTA went into effect in 1994.
Auto Sector Provisions
These pronounced shortcomings of NAFTA 2.0 cast a long, dark shadow over the auto provisions of the trade agreement which some have naively claimed comprise great progress for autoworkers. Canadian autoworkers should find it particularly hard to take NAFTA 2.0’s auto provisions seriously given that the Canadian government has also signed onto the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which contains a weak 45% automotive content provision. Indeed, no one has yet clarified either how this 45% automotive content provision can be reconciled with the higher automotive content provisions of NAFTA 2.0 or if they cannot be reconciled which of the two agreements provisions will take precedence. These are critically important questions that demand answers. To date they have been met with deafening silence by all concerned.
More specifically, quite unlike the TPP, NAFTA 2.0 provides for a 75% North American content requirement as opposed to the 62.5% content requirement in the NAFTA of 1994 with North America including Mexico. Even if this increase is adhered to, it is quite modest. For example, had NAFTA 2.0 already been in place the new, higher North American content requirement would have not been an obstacle to GM’s current plans to close auto assembly plants (four in the USA and one in Canada) while not affecting any of their Mexican facilities. In the face of this hard reality Chrystia Freeland’s declaration that NAFTA 2.0 assures Canadian auto producers “preferential access to the U.S. market” must ring rather hollow for the workers at GM of Canada who are about to lose their jobs.
Then there is the claim that by 2024 40% of cars and 45% of trucks must be sourced from high wage facilities in North America meaning facilities where workers are paid $16.00 (U.S.) an hour. Assuming this is done it is worth pointing out that $16.00 (U.S.) an hour will be worth substantially less by 2024 given certain increases in the cost of living over the next five years. Even then who is to say that Mexican auto employers will not be inclined to pay the nominal 2.5% tariffs on cars entering the U.S. rather than sharply increasing the wages of their workers. Furthermore, in the absence of the anticipated labour law changes necessary to truly empower Mexican workers and end yellow unionism how will Mexican auto and auto parts workers ever be able to strive for wages equivalent to $16.00 (U.S.) an hour? They simply will not be able to.
A Better Deal for Who?
Arguably this can be said to be a better deal for some, like American dairy producers, who are gaining substantially more access to Canadian markets and to pharmaceutical corporations who will reap more profits from the extension of drug patents. But it does nothing for workers. To the contrary, it perpetuates the trade regime which has so adversely affected workers in all three countries over the last 25 years.
In view of these things, and measures like the indefinite continuation of U.S. President Donald Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs, there is no reason for workers to support NAFTA 2.0. Accordingly, a failure to seriously resist NAFTA 2.0’s passage into law in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico will amount to capitulation and the acceptance of an agreement that by design, like the original NAFTA, intrinsically serves the interests of Capital. There must be nothing less than coordinated and protracted resistance to NAFTA 2.0 across North America to stop it.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Bruce Allen is a former Vice-President of CAW Local 199 (now Unifor).
Wednesday night, as he went to Paris’s Concord Square to light candles to commemorate “yellow vest” protesters who have died during the movement, police arrested Eric Drouet. The pretext for this arrest, which tramples underfoot the constitutionally protected right to protest, was that this gathering had not been declared previously at the police prefecture. Drouet had called for a gathering on Concord Square in a Facebook video.
Surrounded by sympathizers, Drouet was first trapped and then grabbed by the police and finally carted off amid cries of “Shame!”, “Dictatorship!” and “Bastards!” from the crowd. He was placed in preventive detention, while other protesters were arrested for identity checks.
Drouet’s lawyer Khéops Lara denounced “a completely unjustified and arbitrary arrest,” which leaves Drouet facing up to six months in jail and a €7,500 fine. Lara explained:
“His ‘crime’ was to place candles (…) on Concord Square in Paris to commemorate the fallen ‘yellow vests’ who died from various causes during protests and blockades of highway intersections. Then he wanted to come together with a few friends and loved ones in a private area, a restaurant, to discuss and share viewpoints.”
The Paris prosecutor’s office alleges that Drouet organized “a demonstration without prior notification.” Junior Minister Olivier Dussopt told BFMTV:
“When you don’t play by the rules, it’s normal to pay the price.”
These accusations are absurd and point to the malignant growth of the police state in France. Drouet was not organizing a mass demonstration, which are often declared in police prefectures, but a meeting of a few individuals—which the state now is asserting it can ban.
Lara demanded an end to Drouet’s preventive detention, which the prosecutor’s office refused, and added:
“With the propaganda campaign against Eric Drouet vomited up by the police, the media and the politicians, the men and women of France’s lower classes are being insulted.”
The ruling class is indeed launching a signal: it intends to persecute all acts of genuine political opposition, even those protected by law, with its police machine. Faced with rising social anger among workers in France and internationally, who also oppose the union bureaucracies that have traditionally controlled and strangled working-class protests and strikes, the ruling class is reacting with repression. Beyond hordes of riot police and armored vehicles, it is using the pseudo-judicial lynching of prominent opposition figures.
Drouet has served as a spokesman for sections of the “yellow vest” movement opposed to French President Emmanuel Macron’s attempts to strangle the movement with sterile offers of talks. With Priscilla Ludosky, Drouet met Ecology Minister François de Rugy on November 28 to represent the “yellow vests” in talks with the government. Drouet brought down on him the hatred of the government and the media by turning down de Rugy’s offer, saying it did not satisfy the demands of the “yellow vests.”
Since then, Drouet has been the target of escalating police repression that is aimed ultimately at crushing and sidelining all members of the movement who emerge as obstacles to the state’s attempts to break up and demoralize the protests with offers of fruitless talks.
Drouet’s latest arrest provoked broad anger among the “yellow vests.” Already they have organized crowd-funding campaigns to finance Drouet’s legal expenses in the various cases concocted against him by the security forces.
In early December, as the growing movement faced ferocious repression of the Saturday protests, Drouet was placed in preventive detention and his home was targeted for a police search. He was accused of “provocation of the commission of a crime or misdemeanor” and “organizing an illicit protest.” The sole basis for these charges was that he had declared, during an interview with journalists on BFMTV, that he would like to go into the Elysée presidential palace.
On December 8, Drouet was arrested during the fourth weekend of protests in Paris, supposedly for “bearing a banned weapon of category D,” that is, a piece of wood, according to press reports, and for “participation in a grouping formed to commit violence or damages.” Drouet is to be tried for these charges on June 5.
This relentless targeting of Drouet underscores yet again that Macron and the European Union have no intention of responding to the demands of the “yellow vests” or of workers in struggle across Europe. The Macron government, isolated and hated by masses of workers, is terrified by the “yellow vest” movement. Yet in response, it is proposing only to step up the policies of austerity and militarism that intensify social inequality and provoked the opposition of the “yellow vests.”
In his New Year’s wishes on December 31, Macron insisted he would continue his social cuts targeting pensions, unemployment insurance and public sector wage levels. He also denounced the criticisms of his presidency formulated by the “yellow vests,” lecturing the French people: “Dignity, my dear fellow citizens, is also respecting everyone. And I must say, I have seen unimaginable things in recent times and heard the unacceptable.”
This is the dictatorial language of a banker-president who claimed at the time of his election that France lacks a king, and who now seems to want to apply for that position, despite the opposition of an overwhelming majority of the French population to his policies.
The task of defeating the persecution of Drouet falls to the working class. More than 70 percent of French people support the “yellow vests,” who have evoked broad sympathy from workers around the world. But the established political parties and the union bureaucracies, totally integrated into the state and already furious that the “yellow vests” have outflanked them, are violently hostile. They aim to nip in the bud the struggles in the working class that break out against Macron.
The way forward is to take the struggle out of their hands, mobilizing ever-larger sections of workers independently of, and against, the union bureaucracies in France and across Europe, in defense of democratic and social rights.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This week I published a column on how the Democratic Party seems to have jettisoned many of its defining values to simply become the anti-Trump party. The best example of that transformation is the automatic opposition to Trump’s decision to pull troops out of Syria and other countries. At the same time, liberal media outlets like CNN and MSNBC have been airing continual experts denouncing the “hasty” withdrawal.
Now veteran NBC award-winning journalistWilliam Arkin has resigned in protest of what he says is the unrelenting support of the network for endless wars. He notes that the anti-Trump agenda at the network has overwhelmed what used to be critical coverage of “the machine of perpetual war acceptance and conventional wisdom to challenge Hillary Clinton’s hawkishness.” Now the reflective anti-Trump response at the network has overwhelmed all such considerations, according to Arkin. While Arkin calls Trump “an ignorant and incompetent impostor,” he cites the transformation of NBC into an opposition network as the main reason for his departure.
In my recent speech at the Newseum, I raised the same issue over the change in national media coverage. While praising the investigative reporting of various outlets, I objected to the raw advocacy that you now see from hosts in being live and immediate opposition talking points against new developments in the Administration.
Arkin objected to the same pattern at NBC. In his email, Arkin states that he “argued endlessly with MSNBC about all things national security for years” as a military analyst and became “an often lone voice that was anti-nuclear and even anti-military, anti-military for me meaning opinionated but also highly knowledgeable, somewhat akin to a movie critic, loving my subject but also not shy about making judgements regarding the flops and the losers.” He added;
He specifically notes the reflective opposition to Trump as pushing NBC into the role of an advocate for endless war:
I do not know Arkin but his email again raises a rarely acknowledged concern in the mainstream media over the change in the tenor and balance of our coverage. Trump has changed not just the Democratic Party but the media — untethering both from core defining values.
Trump’s possible backtracking on withdrawal from Syria means he may have been once again outmaneuvered by the Deep State, says Virginia State Senator Dick Black.
Following the outcry after President Donald Trump’s announcement that he was pulling U.S. troops from Syria, it appears that Trump may be succumbing to political pressure. U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) visited the White House on Dec. 30 and afterward told reporters:
“We talked about Syria. He told me some things I didn’t know that made me feel a lot better about where we’re headed in Syria,” Graham said. Trump’s withdrawal plans are “slowing down in a smart way,” Graham said, according to NBC News.
”‘Graham described Trump’s decision as ‘a pause situation’ rather than a withdrawal, telling reporters, “I think the president’s taking this really seriously.”
Graham said:
“He promised to destroy ISIS. He’s going to keep that promise. We’re not there yet. But as I said today, we’re inside the 10-yard line, and the president understands the need to finish the job.”
***
The mainstream media refuses to acknowledge that the hardest fighting against ISIS and al Qaeda has been done by Syria and its allies. Indeed, we label Iran’s fight against Syrian terrorists as “malign activity,” ignoring the fact that al Qaeda in Syria [al Nusra] is the progeny of the al Qaeda force that highjacked jets and flew them into the Twin Towers and Pentagon, killing 3,000 Americans on 9-11.
Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Seymour Hersh, wrote that a Defense Intelligence Agency review of Syrian policy in 2013 revealed that clandestine CIA Program Timber Sycamore, had degenerated into a program that armed all terrorists indiscriminately, specifically including ISIS and al Qaeda. I seriously doubt that this was merely a program failure. There is strong evidence that the U.S. planned to overthrow Syria in 2001; the U.S. Embassy in Damascus issued a detailed strategy to destabilize Syria in 2006–long before the so-called “Arab Spring;” and that our focus has consistently been on toppling the duly elected, constitutional and UN-recognized government of Syria.
It’s sickening to hear these clowns repeatedly claim that “Assad murdered 500,000 of his people,” as though the U.S.-backed terrorists have played no role in the killings. I’ve viewed hundreds of beheadings and crucifixions online but none committed by Syria troops–all were proudly posted by the hellish filth that we’ve recruited, armed and trained for the past eight years. Major war crimes, like beheading 250 Syrian soldiers after running them across the desert in their underpants, were scarcely mentioned by the MSM.
During a five-hour drive across liberated Syria this September, I spoke with many people, from desert shepherds, to nuns and Muslim religious. There were palpable expressions of joy that the Syrian armed forces had liberated them from the terrorists. That was coupled with broad-based, unequivocal support for President Bashar al Assad and the Syrian Armed Forces.
This disastrous war would never have occurred without American planning and execution. And it would have ended years and hundreds of thousands of casualties ago had we closed our training and logistics bases in Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Syrian War had little to do with the “Arab Spring” and much to do with clandestine actions of CIA, MI-6, Mossad, Turkish MIT, French DGSE, Saudi GID and others, working with the savage Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. We trained and recruited far more terrorists than we killed, and we will encounter those survivors again, at other times and places.
It is instructive that, despite President Donald Trump’s strong directive on a rapid Syrian pull-out, apparently not one soldier or Marine has departed Syria. And the argument that they’re tied up with fighting ISIS doesn’t hold water. On Syria’s southern border, across from Jordan, lies the U.S. base at al Tanf. ISIS is nowhere around. Al Tanf’s sole purpose is to hold and defend the sovereign territory of Syria (using a 55 km no-fly zone). It denies Syria the right to restore order and provide aid to starving Syrians trapped in the American zone.
Al Tanf is the canary in the Syrian coal mine. If Trump’s pullout has any credibility, the 800 or so troops and equipment assigned there could be withdrawn across the Jordanian border within 24 hours. Their failure to do so suggests duplicity by our foreign policy shadow government. The Pentagon seems unresponsive to the Commander-in-Chief, and he has surrounded himself with advisors whose allegiance does not lie with him–or with the American people.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Republican Senator Richard H. Black represents the 13th district of Virginia, encompassing parts of both Loudoun and Prince Williams Counties in northern Virginia.
Very interesting interview with the Russian Sputnik of Jean-Louis Esquivié a General of the gendarmerie and right-hand man of the anti-terrorist unit of the Elysee in the 1980s. First of all, notice the following question asked by Sputnik.
Notice the formulation:
Sputnik: In your view, could terrorists “take advantage” of Yellow Vests calling for “marching to the Elysee Palace”?
The point is not the Yellow Vests as such, the point is the Elysee (I.e. Macron) has no defense against a possible popular “March on the Elysee Palace” but the police and the armed forces.
Even more interesting, the army and the police recognize the political and moral leading role of General Pierre De Villiers. De Villiers is the reference point for all the French, not so much because of his military career but because he is seen as the defender of the democratic and republican ideals the French people identify with.
In other words the shrinking political group around Macron (and his financial masters) has lost whatever popular consent they had and is now irrelevant. If they are still there it is because the armed forces is guaranteeing “public order”.
However, if some emergency situation (Gen Esquivie’s formulation: “if there was a significant danger”) would require it, then “we could count on a huge number of the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Defense people who are aware of the role they have played over the past month.”
Gen Esquivie clearly explains that the democratic and republican leader recognized by this coalition of popular masses and armed forces is Gen de Villiers, the former chief of General Staff hated by Macron. De Villiers resigned in 2017 when Macron made clear he intended to summarily fire him for having resisted Macron’s destructive globalism. In that moment, de Villiers became an hero for the armed forces and for a majority of the French.
The books written by De Villiers, that Gen Jean-Louis Esquivié is referring to, is a cultural and political offensive launcher by De Villiers after his resignation to explain to the French what is the meaning of real democratic leadership in a moment of crisis.
A real leader is not a despotic dictator who serves outside interests (like Macron). A leader is the person who incarnates and reestablish the ideals, the will and the interests of the people’s he represents against any attack from outside or inside.
Interestingly, a growing number of observers are noticing that a representative of the Yellow Vests has stated publicly that de Villiers should be elected president of France.
Is this the reverse of the British/Brennan/Soros’ Color Revolutions?
Is this the reverse of the 1968 Color Revolution (the French May) that led to a coup that forced President Charles de Gaulle to resign leaving the Elysee to the “former” Rothschild’s employee (just like Macron) Pompidou?
Is this the reverse of the French Revolution? Is this the real French Revolution?
“…for a month now there has been this demonstration of strength of these democratic and republican forces, which are the police and the army. We can observe it through three successive elements.
The first is the success of General de Villiers through his books and interviews. The second event is that the police, even with those terrible things like that of December 1, has managed to maintain order. The third element is that it is the police who are on the ground from the very beginning. In this turbulent period, it was thegovernment’s forces that were the stars.
(…)
If there was a significant danger, we could count on a huge number of the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Defense people who are aware of the role they have played over the past month.
The state security institutions have had an eminent, almost stronger role than the political ones, in maintaining order…”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
It is customary to speak of Western countries as democracies. In actual fact, the countries are oligarchies in which voting, which conveys the semblance that government is accountable to the people, seldom changes anything as elected officials are constrained by the power of organized interest groups. President Trump is the latest example. He has been blocked in his goal of reducing tensions with Russia.
The European Union has been an anti-democratic undertaking from the beginning. Deception was the method. At first it was a free trade zone. Then a common currency. Then unified fiscal policies which means centralization and political union with formerly sovereign countries becoming provinces in a European government. Countries that voted down joining were subjected to threats and browbeating and forced to vote again by which time the media had convinced the people that they had no alternative to joining or they would be “left behind” in a backwater existence.
Despite the facts, politicians maintained the fiction that EU member countries remained democratic and responsive to the will of their citizens. German Chancellor Merkel, who ended her career by her unilateral decision to impose a million or more illegal Third World immigrants on Germans and Germans’ resources, destroyed this fiction.
Merkel clearly does not care what the German people think. She revealed again her total distain for democracy at a recent event of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin where she condemned those who think political leaders should listen to the will of the people. The German people, she said, are just “individuals who are living in a country; they do not define the German people.” The German people are whoever migrates to Germany as a result of the UN Migration Pact that she signed despite its rejection by the German citizens of Germany. “Nation states,” Merkel declared, “must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty.” Politicians must not listen, she said, to the will of their citizens when it comes to questions of immigration, borders, and sovereignty.
The French president, Emmanuel Macron, backed her up. Macron declared that French “nationalism is treason.” In other words, it is treason to think that France is French. Patriotism, Macron said, is inclusion of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia into France. The way for the French to gain sovereignty is to surrender their sovereignty to the EU in Belgium and give up all control, not that any currently exists, over foreign affairs, migration, and budetary and fiscal policy.
Merkel and Macron speak of the submission of Germany and France to the New World Order, but they do not say what they understand the New World Order to be. Their words indicate that one of its features is the replacement of the German and French populations and cultures with those of the Third World, as in The Camp of the Saints.
In the US the New World Order means US hegemony over the world. The neoconservatives, who have controlled US foreign policy since the Clinton regime, believe that the US is “the indispensable nation” with the right and the responsibility to impose its ways on the world.
The globalist corporations understand the New World Order to be their immunity to laws of sovereign countries.
Others see the New World Order to be a Rothschild or other Jewish conspiracy to control the world economy and bleed it for their profits.
With so many different meanings, it is difficult to see which conspiracy against national existence is the threat. Or is it all of them?
Nevertheless, in the Western world, nationalism, the traditional basis of patriotism, now means, thanks to Identity Politics, “white supremacy.” According to Identity Politics, the ruling ideology in the US, white people must be disempowered and subjected to punishments for the assortment of crimes attributed to them.
Therefore, the views in the US, France, and Germany come to the same conclusion: white people are guilty and must give up their country to others. Any protests of this outlandish requirement is proof that whites should be strung up, and they likely will be with the support of their own governments. Do we see the first signs of it here? Will this, and this, and this, lead to this?
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Two terrible wars, two mighty destructions, but two absolutely opposite outcomes.
In Syria, it may be autumn now, but almost the entire country is blossoming again, literally rising from ashes. Two thousand miles east from there, Afghanistan is smashed against its ancient rocks, bleeding and broken. There, it does not really matter what season it is; life is simply dreadful and hope appears to be in permanent exile.
Damascus, the ancient and splendid capital of Syria, now the Syrian Arab Republic, is back to life again. People go out until late at night, there are events; there is music and vibrant social life. Not all, but many are smiling again. Checkpoints are diminishing, and now one does not even have to go through metal detectors in order to enter museums, cafes and some of the international hotels.
The people of Damascus are optimistic, some of them are ecstatic. They fought hard, they lost hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, but they won! They finally won, against all odds, supported by their true friends and comrades. They are proud of what they have achieved, and rightly so!
Humiliated on so many occasions, for so long, the Arab people suddenly rose and demonstrated to the world and to themselves that they can defeat invaders, no matter how powerful they are; no matter how canny and revolting their tactics are. As I wrote on several previous occasions, Aleppo is the ‘Stalingrad of the Middle East’. It is a mighty symbol. There, fascism and imperialism were stopped. Unsurprisingly, because of its stamina, courage and aptitude, the center of Pan-Arabism – Syria – has become, once again, the most important country for the freedom-loving people of the region.
Syria has many friends, among them China, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. But the most determined of them, the most reliable, remains Russia.
The Russians stood by its historical ally, even when things looked bad, almost hopeless; even when the terrorists trained and implanted into Syria by the West, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, were flattening entire ancient cities, and millions of refugees flowing out of the country, through the all seven gates of Damascus, and from all major cities, as well as towns and villages.
The Russians worked hard, often ‘behind the scenes’; on the diplomatic front, but also on the frontlines, providing essential air support, de-mining entire neighborhoods, helping with food supplies, logistics, strategy. Russians died in Syria, we do not know the precise numbers, but there definitely were casualties; some even say, ‘substantial’. However, Russia never waved its flag, never beat its chest in self-congratulatory gestures. What had to be done, was done, as an internationalist duty; quietly, proudly and with great courage and determination.
The Syrian people know all this; they understand, and they are grateful. For both nations, words are not necessary; at least not now. Their deep fraternal alliance is sealed. They fought together against darkness, terror and neo-colonialism, and they won.
When Russian military convoys pass through Syrian roads, there is no security. They stop at local eateries to refresh themselves, they talk to locals. When Russian people walk through Syrian cities, they feel no fear. They are not seen or treated as a ‘foreign military force’. They are now part of Syria. They are part of the family. Syrians make them feel at home.
*
In Kabul, I always face walls. Walls are all around me; concrete walls, as well as barbed wire.
Some walls are as tall as 4-5 storey buildings, with watchtowers on every corner, outfitted with bulletproof glass.
Local people, pedestrians, look like sleep-walkers. They are resigned. They are used to those hollow barrels of guns pointed at their heads, chests, feet, even at their children.
Almost everyone here is outraged by the occupation, but no one knows what to do; how to resist. The NATO invasion force is both brutal and overwhelming; its commanders and soldiers are cold, calculating, and merciless, obsessed with protecting themselves and only themselves.
Heavily armored British and US military convoys are ready to shoot at ‘anything that moves’ even in a vaguely hostile fashion.
Afghan people get killed, almost all of them‘surgically’ or ‘remotely’. Western lives are ‘too precious’ for engaging in honest man-to-man combat. Slaughtering is done by drones, by ‘smart bombs’, or by shooting from those monstrous vehicles that crisscross Afghan cities and the countryside.
During this outrageous occupation, it matters nil how many Afghan civilians get killed, as long as the US or European lives get spared. Most of the Western soldiers deployed in Afghanistan are professionals. They are not defending their country. They are paid to do ‘their job’, efficiently, at any price. And of course, “Safety First”. Safety for themselves.
After the West occupied Afghanistan in 2001, between 100,000 and 170,000 Afghan civilians have been killed. Millions were forced to leave their country as refugees. Afghanistan now ranks second from the bottom (after Yemen) in Asia, on the HDI list (Human Development Index, compiled by UNDP). Its life expectancy is the lowest in Asia (WHO).
*
I work in both Syria and Afghanistan, and consider it my duty to point at the differences between two countries, and these two wars.
Both Syria and Afghanistan were attacked by the West. One resisted and won, the other one was occupied by mainly North American and European forces, and consequently destroyed.
After working in some 160 countries on this planet, and after covering and witnessing countless wars and conflicts (most of them ignited or provoked by the West and its allies), I can clearly see the pattern: almost all the countries that fell into the ‘Western sphere of influence’are now ruined, plundered and destroyed; they are experiencing great disparities between the tiny number of ‘elites’ (individuals who collaborate with the West) and the great majority of those who live in poverty. Most of the countries with close ties to Russia or China (or both), are prospering and developing, enjoying self-governance and respect for their cultures, political systems, and economic structures.
It is only because of the corporate mass media and biased education system, as well as the almost fully pro-Western orientation of the ‘social media’, that these shocking contrasts between two blocs (yes, we have two major blocs of countries, again) are not constantly highlighted and discussed.
*
During my recent visit to Syria, I spoke to many people living in Damascus, Homs, and Ein Tarma.
What I witnessed could be often described as“joy through tears”. The price of victory has been steep. But joy it is, nevertheless. The unity of the Syrian people and their government is obvious and remarkable.
Anger towards the ‘rebels’ and towards the West is ubiquitous. I will soon describe the situation in my upcoming reports. But this time, I only wanted to compare the situation in two cities, two countries and two wars.
In Damascus, I feel like writing poetry, again. In Kabul, I am only inspired to write a long and depressing obituary.
I love both of these ancient cities, but of course, I love them differently.
Frankly speaking, in the 18 years of Western occupation, Kabul has been converted into a militarized, fragmented and colonized hell on earth. Everybody knows it: the poor know it, and even the government is aware of it.
In Kabul, entire neighborhoods already ‘gave up’. They are inhabited by individuals who are forced to live in gutters, or under bridges. Many of those people are stoned, hooked on locally made narcotics, the production of which is supported by the Western occupation armies. I saw and photographed a US military base openly surrounded by poppy plantations. I heard testimonies of local people, about the British military engaging in negotiations, and cooperating with the local narco-mafias.
Now the Western embassies, NGO’s and ‘international organizations’ operating in Afghanistan, have managed to intellectually and morally corrupt and indoctrinate a substantial group of local people, who are receiving scholarship, getting ‘trained’ in Europe, and are tugging the official line of the occupiers.
They are working day and night to legitimize the nightmare into which their country has been tossed.
But older people who still remember both the Soviet era and socialist Afghanistan, are predominantly ‘pro-Russian’, mourning in frustration those days of Afghan liberation, progress, and determined building of the nation. ‘Soviet’ bread factories, water channels, pipelines, electric high-voltage towers, and schools are still used to this day, all over the country. While, gender equality, secularism, and the anti-feudalist struggle of those days are now, during the Western occupation, de facto illegal.
Afghans are known to be proud and determined people. But now their pride has been broken, while determination has been drowned in the sea of pessimism and depression. The Western occupation did not bring peace, it did not bring prosperity, independence of democracy (if democracy is understood as the ‘rule of the people’).
These days, the biggest dream of a young man or woman in Kabul is to serve the occupiers – to get ‘educated’ in a Western-style school, and to get a job at a US embassy or at one of the UN agencies.
*
In Damascus, everyone is now talking about the rebuilding of the nation.
‘How and when will the damaged neighborhoods be rebuilt? Is the pre-war construction of the metro going to resume anytime soon? Is life going to be better than before?’
People cannot wait. I witnessed families, communities, restoring their own buildings, houses and streets.
Yes, in Damascus I saw true revolutionary optimism in action, optimism which I described in my recent book Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism”. Because the Syrian state itself is now, once again, increasingly revolutionary. The so-called ‘opposition’ has been mostly nothing else other than a Western-sponsored subversion; an attempt to take Syria back to the dark days of colonialism.
Damascus and the Syrian government do not need tremendous walls, enormous spy blimps levitating in the sky; they do not need armored vehicles at every corner and the omnipresent SUV’s with deadly machine guns.
On the other hand, the occupiers of Kabul need all those deadly symbols of power in order to maintain control. Still they cannot scare people into supporting or loving them.
In Damascus, I simply walked into the office of my fellow novelist, who happened to be the Syrian Minister of Education. In Kabul, I often have to pass through metal detectors even when I just want to visit a toilet.
In Damascus, there is hope, and life, at every corner. Cafes are packed, people talk, argue, laugh together, and smoke waterpipes. Museums and libraries are full of people too. The Opera House is performing; the zoo is flourishing, all despite the war, despite all the difficulties.
In Kabul, life stopped. Except for the traffic, and for traditional markets. Even the National Museum is now a fortress, and as a result, almost no one can be found inside.
People in Damascus are not too familiar with what goes on in Kabul. But they know plenty about Baghdad, Tripoli and Gaza. And they would rather die than allow themselves to be occupied by the West or its implants.
Two wars, two fates, two totally distinct cities.
The seven gates of Damascus are wide open. Refugees are returning from all directions, from all corners of the world. It is time for reconciliation, for rebuilding the nation, for making Syria even greater than it was before the conflict.
Kabul, often rocked by explosions, is fragmented by horrid walls. Engines of helicopters are roaring above. Blimps with their deadly eyes monitoring everything on the ground. Drones, tanks, huge armored vehicles. Beggars, homeless people, slums. Huge Afghan flag flying above Kabul. A ‘modified flag’, not the same as in the socialist past.
In Syria, finally the united nation has managed to defeat imperialism, fanaticism and sectarianism.
In Afghanistan, the nation got divided, then humiliated, then stripped of its former glory.
Damascus belongs to its people. In Kabul, people are dwarfed by concrete walls and military bases erected by foreign invaders.
In Damascus, people were fighting, even dying for their country and their city.
In Kabul, people are scared to even speak about fighting for freedom.
Damascus won. It is free again.
Kabul will win, too. Perhaps not today, not this year, but it will. I believe it will.
I love both cities. But one is now celebrating, while the other one is still suffering, in unimaginable pain.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
It did not take long for the market to flush today, when after a tentative drop following last night’s AAPL revenue guidance cut and the FX multi-flash crash, stocks took lows with the Dow plunging over 650 points this morning following the abysmal ISM Manufacturing report which showed that US mfg sentiment in December tumbled the most since October 2008.
Today’s drop has pushed the Dow to below the Dec 26 closing level, which preceded the historic 1000 point Dow move on December 27. Come to think of it, we are about 350 points from another 4-digit move in the Dow Jones, only this time to the downside.
While the S&P 500 fell more than 2%, today’s broad-based drop is being led by the Nasdaq, which is down over 3%, largely due to the Apple fiasco, which dragged the stock more than 10% lower, its biggest drop in over 5 years.
Other notable decliners include (per Bloomberg):
All 30 chipmakers in the Philadelphia Semi index fell, with Qorvo, Skyworks and Broadcom off at least 4.5 percent.
3M, Caterpillar and DowDuPont dropped at least 3 percent.
Bristol-Myers plunged 12 percent, while Celgene jumped 28 percent.
Carmakers reported monthly sales; GM and Ford both retreated.
Airlines tumbled after Delta cut its revenue forecast. American was off 9.5 percent.
“That Tim Cook and his company mentioned China as the reason behind the downturn in the company’s outlook seemed to hit exactly the pressure point traders and investors were already alarmed over,” Greg McKenna, markets strategist at McKenna Macro wrote in a client note. “That is, the China and global slowdown which seems to have been confirmed by Wednesday’s global manufacturing PMI data” and Thursday’s US ISm report.
A modest boost to stocks from Bristol-Myers’ bid to buy Celgene and a strong ADP print quickly faded after the dismal ISM report hit at 10am.
Stocks weren’t the only thing in freefall: so are Treasury yields led by the belly, with the 10Y tumbling below 2.60%, and down the 2.57% last, the lowest level since January 2018. In fact, today’s sharp move can best be compared to a car crash, if only for the TSY shorts.
Meanwhile, the 1Y yield is just 2bps away from surpassing the yield on the 10Y in today’s curve inversion watch.
Finally, with US recession fears front and center, the US Dollar is also tumbling while gold is surging.
And with everything going to hell in a hand basket, gold is just waiting for the right moment to pounce.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Macron terms yellow vest leaders ‘hateful mob’ in combative New Year’s address
Emmanuel Macron last night delivered a combative New Year’s address, vowing to push forward with economic reforms despite two-month long protests from what he termed a “hateful mob”.
The French President, whose televised address was broadcast from the Elysee Palace, acknowledged that “anger over injustices” lay behind the yellow vest movement that has scarred his second-year in office.
He said: “Ultraliberal and financial capitalism, too often guided by short term interests, is heading towards its demise.”
More than ever, Global Research needs your support. Our task as an independent media is to “Battle the Lie”.
“Lying” in mainstream journalism has become the “new normal”: mainstream journalists are pressured to comply. Some journalists refuse.
Lies, distortions and omissions are part of a multibillion dollar propaganda operation which sustains the “war narrative”.
While “Truth” is a powerful instrument, “the Lie” is generously funded by the lobby groups and corporate charities. And that is why we need the support of our readers.
Search engines and social media categorization highlight the corporate media narrative at the expense of critical analysis, which means that our content in their search results and news feeds is being pushed down.
Our finances have also taken a heavy hit. We currently do not cover the costs associated with running the website and are losing money every month.
The West and its allies in the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel have waged an eight year war against the Syrian people. The West has besieged, starved and deprived the Syrian people of humanitarian aid while pouring “aid” into the areas controlled by their extremist sectarian proxy armies.
As has become the normal practice, Christmas Day’s air raid by Israel directed against targets near Damascus was largely ignored by the US media. Given the fact that Israel has bombed Syria more than two hundred times, the attack itself, which wounded three soldiers at a warehouse, was not particularly notable.
Geopolitics trumped international justice again—just in time for Christmas. On December 21, a French court closed the long-running case against Rwandan President Paul Kagame and his inner circle for assassinating Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana and Burundian PresidentCyprien Ntaryamira on April 6, 1994, when a surface-to-air missile downed their plane over Rwanda’s capital Kigali.
Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
In response to domestic pressure, Trump agreed to extend the deadline for withdrawal of thousands of US troops from the northeaster Syrian province of al-Hasaka from the initial 30 days previously announced until April this year.
In less than two months, the yellow vests (“gilets jaunes”) movement in France has reshaped the political landscape in Europe. For a seventh straight week, demonstrations continued across the country even after concessions from a cowing President Emmanuel Macron while inspiring a wave of similar gatherings in neighboring states like Belgium and the Netherlands.
The flags flying over the guard gate of the prison in Lukavica were those of Bosnia and the European Union, and the US was officially involved in the imprisonment of the men there only through diplomatic channels, generous funding and the assistance of American trainers and advisers.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The West and its allies in the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel have waged an eight year war against the Syrian people. The West has besieged, starved and deprived the Syrian people of humanitarian aid while pouring “aid” into the areas controlled by their extremist sectarian proxy armies.
The West has violated international law and it has enabled the destruction of Syria’s history, heritage and cultural footprint. The West has behaved as a collective rogue state without conscience and without pity for a people its media has systematically dehumanised to enable such a crime to take place.
Christmas 2018 in Damascus, Old City, without mortars from Eastern Ghouta since its liberation in April 2018. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
Despite this war of attrition and despite battling disproportionate force, the Syrian people have refused to capitulate or to abandon their secularism in favour of an extremist tyranny that would destroy their society and persecute the minority communities into extinction. Christmas 2018 has demonstrated the victory of Syrian unity over the regime change project incubated in the West which is now a failed campaign lying in tatters at the feet of the self determination of the Syrian people, the valiant defence by the Syrian Arab Army and the steadfastness of the Syrian Government and its President, Bashar Al Assad.
In Aleppo I spoke with Pastor Ibrahim Nseir of Aleppo’s Presbyterian Church, whom I had also interviewed in 2017. The following is a mixture of quotes and paraphrase from our conversation on New Year’s Eve 2018/19.
Image on the right: Reverend Ibrahim Nseir, Presbyterian Church, Aleppo. December 31st 2018. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
The Presbyterian Church in the Old City of Aleppo was destroyed by the Western-backed terrorist groups in November 2012. An article in the Mennonite World Review in July 2018 described the destruction of the church – “In the old city of Aleppo, Syria, Ibrahim Nseir stands on the pile of rubble that used to be his church. The building where his congregation worshiped is now broken stones and dust. It’s a sunny day, the bright sky a stark contrast to the destruction on the ground.”
After eight years of resistance against the threat of persecution and mass exodus of Christians from Aleppo, Nseir remains defiant and upbeat about the future of Aleppo and Syria. Of the 300,000 Syrian Christians in Aleppo, only 30,000 remain. This is the legacy of sectarian oppression that has been imprinted upon Syria by Western hegemony and it will take generations for it to be turned around.
Nseir described the rebuilding process for the Presbyterian Church as difficult but he insisted that it would be rebuilt from its original stones to preserve its historical identity. For Nseir the priorities for Aleppo and Syria are to address the economic situation which has clearly taken a hit on many levels and is suffering in a typical post-war slump. Education is another top priority for this intelligent and enthusiastic Reverend. The intention is to create a center for retreats and conferences at the current Presbyterian Church offices in the center of Aleppo, including a student dormitory.
“We will increase educational capacity by 1000 in the very near future and continue to build upon this progress” Nseir told me.
Education, according to Nseir, is the greatest weapon against extremism and is the only way to re-habilitate children who spent seven of their formative years under occupation of extremist and sectarian factions who worked hard to brainwash almost an entire generation of Syria’s children.
“Ethically the West and the East are responsible for Syria’s destruction. This is not a “Christian” issue, it is a World issue.” Nseir insisted.
The role of the Western media in manufacturing consent for the collective punishment of the Syrian people was clearly a primary cause of the devastation that Nseir and other faith leaders across Syria are now dealing with:
“Western media played more than a negative role, they literally urged the terrorists to take action against the Syrian people by providing false information and blinding people in the West to what was really happening in Syria for eight years. This should never be forgotten.”
Nseir stressed that the healing process for children traumatised by the war would not be easy.
“How do you erase the hatred and horror planted in the brains of 7-10-year-old children by these fanatics? What do you expect from children who have played football with the head of a Syrian Araby Army soldier or who have witnessed the violent abuse of their mother by these terrorists or have seen their father executed by the armed groups? This is the greatest challenge for Humanity and for Syria to put right these terrible wrongs.”
Nseir spoke of the shocking estimated figures of 82,000 children whose father is unknown, referring to the huge number of young women raped or forced into multiple marriages by the terrorist groups and their fighters. How do these children regain their identity and re-integrate into Syrian society? The rebuilding of schools and hospitals must be a priority. The terrorists destroyed “the most developed hospital in the Middle East, Al Kindi” in 2013 and since then, and the destruction of more hospitals across Syria by the terrorist groups, Nseir told me Syria has seen an increase in Cancer and new diseases. Nseir also suggested that this may be attributed to the weapons used by the US Coalition proxies and the U.S itself, which include depleted uranium.
Another important challenge, according to Nseir, is the environnmental one. Syria needs to rebuild its natural environment which has also been hugely affected by the conflict. 100,000 trees have been destroyed in Aleppo alone which could lead eventually to desertification of the province if not dealt with. The Governor of Aleppo has recently planted 2,000 new trees but this is an issue that must be addressed with urgency for Nseir.
Nseir strongly believes that Western people should come to Syria independently to see the truth for themselves and report the truth as they see it without any agenda. The Church and the media in the West have maintained a sectarian, divisve narrative which is confusing for people in the West and far from reality.
Nseir addressed the position and status of Syria in the Middle East and described how it has not changed, all that has changed is the perception of Syria portrayed by the media and world leaders who have aligned themselves with the West’s criminal project to partition Syria into sectarian statelets and to remove the elected Syrian government from power by force:
“What has changed since 2011 in reality? Nothing. Syria has always been the protector of the Middle East before 2011, during the conflict and now. The only thing that has changed is the positions of those who turned against Syria, betrayed Syria and who now wish to come back to Syria for protection. We see the Gulf States now change their stance and the UAE has re-opened its embassy in Damascus. The Arab League will welcome Syria back into its fold. Nothing has changed, Syria has remained the same while others have been opportunists and traitors.”
The fact that Syria will forgive its betrayers is testament to what has given Syria victory over its enemies throughout history. With regards to the West, Nseir is not so forgiving:
“The West must go beyond simply stopping its financing of terrorism and the supply of weapons. The West must confess to its crimes against the Syrian people in order to be forgiven. The West must lift the economic sanctions which are a siege upon the Syrian people and it must allow the Syrian people to rebuild in peace without meddling in their affairs. The Syrian people will rebuild according to what the Syrian people want not what the East or the West want. The West has sold the idea that this war was against President Assad but in reality it was against the will of a nation and the people of that nation must be respected”.
Nseir confirmed that the western NGOs are nothing more than political instruments and devices who further the cause of war but he insisted that the West must effectively pay reparations to Syria and expect nothing in return. This is the only way the West can be forgiven by Syria.
Nseir told me that his church will be establishing a medical and health center in the coming months which will be open to everyone in Aleppo to offer medical check-ups and treatment for free. Staff will be trained to deal with the children afflicted by the effects of the war and the terrorist occupation and the plan is to eventually set up special schools to continue the work of rehabilitation for these children. This will enable the coming generations to stand against radicalism and terrorism in the future.
“The West has a duty to respect our dignity and territorial integrity. The Syrian Arab Army has saved the image of our God of Peace, Love and Unity – this has been a spiritual war in Syria not only a military war. The God of love has been embodied by the SAA and our allies and has been victorious over the God of terrorism and hatred. The whole world will change after this war and after Syria’s victory. Syria will be a transformational catalyst for all of Humanity. Syria was never going to be defeated, you only have to study our history to know this. Our society has always embraced diversity and this is the essence of our country. Fanaticism was never going to survive breathing the pure oxygen of our humanity. Actually this demonstrates the stupidity of leaders in the West – to even imagine that extremism has a place in our culture”. Nseir told me.
Nseir ended our talk by stating that the crisis in Syria must be an alarm bell for the country and for its leaders.
“We must re-prioritise our schedule, our agenda and make sure it is not only political but that we address all issues – religious, educational, health care. We must rethink our priorities to ensure a future of peace and stability. At the end I believe strongly that all the negative consequences of this terrible war will be transformed into positive consequences if we address them in the right way. Out of adversity are born the greatest opportunities for the future of Syria and Humanity.”
Horse rides on offer at the foot of the Citadel in the Old City of Aleppo. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Vanessa Beeley is an independent journalist, peace activist, photographer and associate editor at 21st Century Wire. Vanessa was a finalist for one of the most prestigious journalism awards – the 2017 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism – whose winners have included the likes of Robert Parry in 2017, Patrick Cockburn, Robert Fisk, Nick Davies and the Bureau for Investigative Journalism team. Please support her work at her Patreon account.
As has become the normal practice, Christmas Day’s air raid by Israel directed against targets near Damascus was largely ignored by the US media. Given the fact that Israel has bombed Syria more than two hundred times, the attack itself, which wounded three soldiers at a warehouse, was not particularly notable. But what was significant was the fact that it was the second time that Israel has used other planes to mask the approach of its own warplanes to the target. On this occasion, the masks consisted of two civilian airliners making their approaches to the airports in Beirut and Damascus. Fortunately, the Syrian Arab Air Defense Forces made the decision to delay the deployment of surface-to-air missiles and electronic jamming “to prevent a tragedy” and air traffic control was able to divert one of the passenger jets landing at Damascus to the reserve military airport in Khmeimim in southern Latakia.
Syrian anti-aircraft crews did manage to intercept and shoot down fourteen of the sixteen incoming missiles that were launched by six Israeli F-16 warplanes using US-made GPS-guided GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs). If the Syrian air defenses had been more reckless and gone after the F-16s themselves, they might have hit an airliner by mistake and hundreds of lives could have been lost.
The Russian Ministry of Defense, which was able to reconstruct the attack from radar imaging, condemned the incident, stating that “Provocative acts by the Israeli Air Force endangered two passenger jets when six of their F-16s carried out airstrikes on Syria from Lebanese airspace.” The terse Russian announcement reveals that beyond endangering hundreds of civilians, Israel had committed several war crimes in its action, which the Israeli government claimed was intended to destroy a shipment of Iranian-made Fajir-5 rockets, which was allegedly on its way to Hezbollah.
As Israel is not at war with Iran or Syria or Lebanon and it persists in attacking targets in Syria based on its own perception of threats, it meets the United Nations definition of an aggressor. And its violation of Lebanese air space to stage the attack on Syria was also an act of aggression. Both would normally be condemned in the UN Security Council but for the American veto protecting Israel.
Analysts have confirmed that the Israelis carried out the strikes in Syria by deliberately using scheduled airline departures and arrivals as cover to foil the improved and upgraded Syrian air defenses. Security sources in the region now believe that any civilian flights entering or leaving Damascus or Beirut are potentially in danger due to the Israeli tactics, which clearly accept endangering civilians to mask the movements of the warplanes.
The Israelis also used a Russian intelligence plane as a mask off the coast of Syria back in September, with fatal results for the crew after Syrian air defenses responded to the attack. Israel, of course, claimed innocence, insisting that it was the Syrians who shot down the Russian aircraft while the Israeli jets were legitimately targeting a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.”
The Russian aircraft was returning to base after a mission over the Mediterranean off the Syrian coast monitoring the activities of a French warship and at least one British RAF plane. As a large and relatively slow propeller driven aircraft on a routine intelligence gathering mission, the Ilyushin-20 had no reason to conceal its presence. It was apparently preparing to land at its airbase at Khmeimim when the incident took place.
Syrian air defenses were on high alert because Israel had attacked targets near Damascus on the previous day, including a Boeing 747 on the ground that Israel claimed to be transporting weapons.
The Israelis used four F-16 fighter bombers to stage the surprise night attack targeting sites near Latakia, close to the airbase being used by the Russians. They came in from the Mediterranean Sea using the Russian plane to mask their approach as the Ilyushin 20 would have presented a much larger radar profile for the air defenses.
The Israelis might have been expecting that the Syrians would not fire at all at the incoming planes knowing that one of them at least was being flown by their Russian allies. If that was the expectation, it proved wrong and it was indeed a Syrian S-200 ground to air missile directed by its guidance system to the larger target that brought down the plane and killed its fourteen crew members.
There was also a back story. The Israelis and Russian military had established a hotline precisely intended to avoid accidents. Israel reportedly used the line but only one minute before the incident took place, leaving no time for the Russian plane to take evasive action.
The Russian Ministry of Defense was irate. It saw the exploitation of the intelligence plane by the Israelis as a deliberate high-risk initiative. It warned “We consider these provocative actions by Israel as hostile. Fifteen Russian military service members have died because of the irresponsible actions of the Israeli military. This is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Russian-Israeli partnership. We reserve the right for an adequate response.”
It’s the same old story. Israel does risky things like attacking its neighbors because it knows it will pay no price due to Washington’s support. The downing of the Russian plane and the current endangering civil aviation has created a situation that could easily escalate. What Israel is really thinking when it seeks to create anarchy all around its borders is anyone’s guess, but it is, to be sure, in no one’s interest to allow the process to continue.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. 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.
Geopolitics trumped international justice again—just in time for Christmas. On December 21, a French court closed the long-running case against Rwandan President Paul Kagame and his inner circle for assassinating Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana and Burundian PresidentCyprien Ntaryamira on April 6, 1994, when a surface-to-air missile downed their plane over Rwanda’s capital Kigali.
Nearly twenty-five years later, there are still no convictions for the assassinations that turned first Rwanda, then the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), into a vast killing ground. Not in the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda (ICTR), where two investigations of Kagame were shut down, and where a judge told defense attorney Tiphaine Dickson, “We don’t investigate plane crashes [or Tutsis, only Hutus].” And not in the French or Spanish courts, where French and Spanish citizens claimed jurisdiction because their relatives died in the plane shot down or in the ensuing massacres.
The subtext of the Rwandan War and the Congo Wars was competition between the US/UK and France. France, which was then the dominant power in the region, had been the patron of Habyarimana’s Hutu government; the US and UK backed Kagame’s invading Tutsi army, which emerged victorious in 1994, declared that English would from thereon be Rwanda’s international business language, then invaded and occupied French-speaking Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) two years later.
France and Rwanda have engaged in a bitter argument off and on for all these years about who was responsible for the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. Their embassies have often been closed in one another’s capitals, and France pulled out of the 20th anniversary commemoration in Kigali after President Kagame once again accused France of participating in the killing.
One of the recurring points of contention is Opération Turquoise, France’s emergency relief response, which began on June 23, 1994, several weeks before General Paul Kagame (now President Paul Kagame) seized power in Kigali. Some French officials who were in office at the time, most notably former French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé, have maintained that Opération Turquoise created a humanitarian corridor for Rwandan Hutus fleeing into Zaire, for fear of being massacred by General Kagame’s advancing Tutsi army. Kagame’s government has claimed that France instead provided an escape route for Hutus guilty of genocide, although the vast majority flooding into Zaire were civilians, including women, children, and the elderly. According to the 2010 UN Mapping Report on Human Rights Abuse in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1993-2003, Kagame’s troops followed the refugees into Zaire and massacred as many as 250,000.
In “Dying to Live: A Rwandan Family’s Five-Year Flight Across the Congo,” Pierre-Claver Ndacyayisenga describes how he and his family and 300,000 more Rwandan Hutus fled Kagame’s advancing army all the way through the Congolese jungle, from east to west, as many more died of hardship or were massacred by Kagame’s troops along the way.
The authors of the UN Mapping Report said that the massacres in Congo would most likely be ruled a genocide if a case were brought to court, but none has been and none ever will be without a major geopolitical shift in power. In 2013, in one of his many cynical moments, Bill Clinton told BBC journalist Komla Dumor that he would not condemn his friend Paul Kagame for murdering the refugees because “it hasn’t been adjudicated.” (And because it happened on his watch, with his support, as did the 1998 Rwandan and Ugandan invasions of DRC, during which Kagame and Uganda’s Museveni became what another UN report called “the godfathers of the illegal exploitation of natural resources and the continuation of the conflict in the DRC.”)
France of course wants its share, and French officials now in power have decided to close the case against Kagame in order to secure access to Congo’s riches, which he significantly controls. The court’s ruling came shortly after Rwandan Foreign Minister Louise Mushikiwabo became Secretary-General of La Francophonie, an international organization similar to the British Commonwealth, in what was widely perceived to be another concession to smooth French-Rwandan relations and ease France’s access to Congo’s riches.
Kayumba Nyamwasa, former Rwandan General, Chief of Army Staff, and Chief of Military Intelligence, was also named as a defendant in the French indictment. Speaking to Jane Corbin in the BBC video “Rwanda’s Untold Story,” he said that Kagame most definitely ordered his troops to shoot down the plane carrying the Rwandan and Burundian presidents:
Jane Corbin:Who do you believe was behind the shooting down of the plane?
Kayumba Nyamwasa: Paul Kagame undoubtedly.
JC:Paul Kagame?
KN:Oh yes, oh yes.
JC: You know that?
KN: One hundred percent.
JC: Were you at meetings where it was discussed?
KN: Well, I know. I was in a position to know, and he knows I was in a position to know. And he knows that.
BBC interjection:General Nyamwasa has offered to cut a deal with the French judge totestify.
JC: If you discuss these matters with the judge and it implicates you yourself, are you willing to do that?
KN:Obviously. If it implicated me? Why not? Because I think that truth is what matters.
Closing the case is not acquitting
The French court said they were closing the case for lack of “credible” and “significant” evidence despite abundant such evidence. That does not mean, however, that they acquitted Kagame, Nyamwasa, or anyone else who was in Kagame’s inner circle at the time Habyarimana and Ntaryamira were assassinated. As Rwandan American legal scholar Charles Kambanda said, “This is a political decision which could well be superseded by another political decision to reopen the file when there is additional ‘credible’ and ‘significant’ evidence.” In other words, France has mollified Kagame for now, but it’s kept a knife behind its back.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. She can be reached at [email protected]. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
In the summer of 1945, President Harry Truman (image right) found himself searching for a decisive blow against the Empire of Japan. Despite the many Allied victories during 1944 and 1945, Truman believed Emperor Hirohito would urge his generals to fight on.
America suffered 76,000 casualties at the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and the Truman administration anticipated that a prolonged invasion of mainland Japan would bring even more devastating numbers. Even so, plans were drawn up to invade Japan under the name Operation Downfall.
The estimates for the potential carnage were sobering; the Joint Chiefs of Staff pegged the expected casualties at 1.2 million. Staff for Admiral Chester Nimitz and General Douglas MacArthur both expected over 1,000 casualties per day, while the personnel at the Department of the Navy thought the totals would run as high as 4 million, with the Japanese incurring up to 10 million of their own. The Los Angeles Times was a bit more optimistic, projecting 1 million casualties.
With those numbers, it’s no wonder the US opted to (literally) take the nuclear option by dropping Little Boy on Hiroshima on August 6, and then Fat Man on Nagasaki on August 9. Japan formally surrendered 24 days later, sparing potentially millions of U.S. servicemen, and vindicating the horrifying-yet-necessary bombings.
At least this is the common narrative that we’re all taught in grade school. But like so many historical narratives, it’s an oversimplification and historically obtuse.
Hiroshima, August 7, 1945
When Truman signed off on the deployment of the newly-developed atomic bombs, he was convinced that the Japanese were planning to prosecute the war to the bitter end. Many have argued that the casualty estimates compelled him to err on the side of caution for the lives of his boys in the Pacific. But this ignores the fact that other significant figures surrounding Truman came to the opposite conclusion. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, chief among the naysayers, said,
“I was against (use of the atomic bomb) on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”
Although he made this statement publicly in 1963, he made the same argument to then Secretary of War Henry Stimson in 1945, as recounted in his memoirs:
“I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’”
Another prominent figure who echoed Eisenhower’s sentiments was Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy. He ranked as the senior-most United States military officer on active duty during World War II and was among Truman’s chief military advisors. In his 1950 book I Was There, Leahy wrote,
“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.”
With mainland Japan under a blockade, Japanese forces in China and Korea were effectively cut off from reinforcements and supplies.
Ward Wilson of Foreign Policywrote that the most solemn day for Japan was August 9, which was the first day that the Japanese Supreme Council met to seriously discuss surrender. The date is significant because it wasn’t the day after the Hiroshima bombing, but rather the day the Soviet Union entered the Pacific Theatre by invading Japanese-occupied Manchuria on three fronts. Prior to August 8, the Japanese had hoped that Russia would play the role of intermediary in negotiating an end to the war, but when the Russians turned against Japan, they became an even bigger threat than America, as indicated by documents from leading Japanese officials at the time.
Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows:
“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered.
Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Alan Mosley is the host of The Gold Standard with Alan Mosley, which talks current events, politics, and pop culture from a libertarian perspective. It is a proud product of “little L productions,” and can be found on various podcasting platforms including iTunes, Stitcher, and Google Play, as well as YouTube. More info on Alan, including his social media handles (for now!) and more can be found at his website, thegoldstandardpodcast.com.
As the new Congress is sworn in, the clock has run out for sitting lawmakers to sign on to the Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to reverse the FCC’s resoundingly unpopular repeal of net neutrality. But the fight to restore the free and open Internet is far from over.
Fight for the Future, one of the nation’s leading digital rights organizations that has spearheaded the fight for net neutrality, issued the following statement, which can be attributed to Deputy Director, Evan Greer (pronouns: she/her):
“We just shined a giant spotlight on corruption in Congress. Every single lawmaker who voted against the CRA in the Senate or failed to sign on to the discharge petition in the House has exposed themselves as industry puppets. They put the interests of telecom giants like Comcast and AT&T over the basic rights of their constituents.
We used the CRA as a powerful tool to get lawmakers on the record. Pundits claimed it would never pass the Senate –– but we channeled Internet outrage into real political power and got more than enough votes. If House leadership had allowed a vote on the CRA, we likely would have won that too. Instead, we used a discharge petition to get a record number of lawmakers publicly in support of strong net neutrality protections.
The CRA was a simple up or down vote on the free and open Internet. Now that the clock has run out, every single American knows exactly where their representatives stand.
Ajit Pai’s feeble attempt to celebrate the passing of the CRA deadline is laughable. His claim that broadband speeds are up is the tech policy equivalent of “it’s snowing outside, therefore climate change is a hoax.”
Dozens of anti-net neutrality members of Congress have already lost their jobs, and supporters of the open Internet will soon chair the key committees that provide oversight for the FCC. Ajit Pai won’t be laughing long when he has finally has to answer questions like why his agency lied to the media about a DDoS attack that never happened.
It’s an uphill battle, but we are winning the fight to restore net neutrality. The Internet freedom movement is stronger than it’s ever been as we head into 2019. We’ll keep fighting in the states, in the courts, and in Congress. It’s only a matter of time before net neutrality is the law of the land again.”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kari Polanyi Levitt is Emeritus Professor of Economics from McGill University in Montreal, Canada. She was born in Vienna in 1923 to the well‐known intellectual Karl Polanyi, and grew up there during the famous years of Red Vienna. She was educated in England before and during World War II, obtaining her BSc in Economics and the Farr Medal in Statistics from the London School of Economics in 1947. Following 10 years of engagement in trade union research in Toronto, she obtained her MA in Economics from the University of Toronto in 1959 and an appointment in the Department of Economics at McGill University in 1961, where her particular teaching interests were in Techniques of Development Planning and Development Economics. She has inspired generations of students with the vision she has continued to advance for six decades.
Kari has been involved in the field of development economics since its origins, as a student of several of the pioneers of the field and later as one of its pioneers herself, within the more radical tangents of structuralist development economics. Her important contributions to the field include her groundbreaking work with Lloyd Best in the late 1960s on developing the Plantation Economy paradigm, republished as Essays on the Theory of Plantation Economy (Best and Polanyi Levitt, 2009) and her seminal book, Silent Surrender: The Multinational Corporation in Canada (Polanyi Levitt, 1970), which galvanized the political Left in Canada, her adopted country.
She has maintained a continuous relationship with the University of the West Indies (UWI) since her first contact there in 1960, including collaboration with Alister McIntyre and Lloyd Best. She has also served as Visiting Professor at UWI on several occasions and was appointed the first George Beckford Professor of Caribbean Political Economy from 1995 to 1997, where she compiled The George Beckford Papers (Beckford and Polanyi Levitt, 2000). A collection of her writings on Caribbean issues was published as Reclaiming Development: Independent Thought and Caribbean Community (2005), and a collection of her writings on her father and on contemporary economic development as From the Great Transformation to the Great Financialization (2013).
Kari is a founding member of the Canadian Association for the Study of International Development (CASID), which has awarded an annual essay prize in her honour since 2000. Together with Mel Watkins, she was the first recipient of the John Kenneth Galbraith Prize from the Progressive Economics Forum of Canada in 2008 and was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of the West Indies in the same year. She is the Honorary President of the Karl Polanyi Institute of Political Economy, established in 1988 and based at Concordia University in Montreal. She was also inducted into the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 2004 as an honorary member.
***
Andrew Fischer: How did you get into development economics? As a young student during the war years, were you initially interested in development economics?
Kari Polanyi Levitt: No. During the war, the London School of Economics campus was relocated to Cambridge. All of the senior LSE staff were in London running the war effort — Lionel Robins, Professor Paich, Professor R.G.D. Allen — they were not in Cambridge. So we had enemy aliens and colonials as lecturers. The enemy aliens were people like Hayek and Mannheim, and Nicky Kaldor of course, Europeans with heavy accents. They had British passports, but they were not really British, so they were not in the inner circles of the Establishment running the war. Arthur Lewis was actually the only colonial. He was the first black person ever to be employed by London University. So the School was fascinating; it was really wonderful for us as students. We had the freedom of the city of Cambridge: we could live anywhere we wanted, and we could attend Cambridge University lectures; I could listen to Joan Robinson, Maurice Dobbs … Keynes was not there — he was in London running the war, so I never heard Keynes lecture.
Arthur Lewis gave the introductory lectures on economics at LSE. He drew this graph showing the marginal product of labour and the wage rate. He showed employment would be increased by reducing the wage rate. I gathered up all of my courage and decided to talk to him after the lecture. I said, ‘Sir, excuse me, but I don’t believe that. Before the war, we had 3 million unemployed and they couldn’t get employment at any wage’. So he asked my name and he said, ‘Miss Polanyi, I assume that you have come here to study the science of economics. When you have mastered it, you may return and we will discuss the matter’. [Kari laughs.] You know, he had quite a high pitched voice, he was quite thin at that time, and he looked hungry. Later he became quite portly.
In the second year he gave a class that made an important impression on me. He was obviously writing a textbook and he was giving us the chapters as he was writing it. It was an economic survey from 1919–39, and that is where I first learned about the declining terms of trade of the countries producing agricultural products, Latin America and the Caribbean. But he also presented an account of Hitler’s Germany — and of Russia, England, and the colonies.
But I myself was not at all interested in developing countries, or colonies. I was going to be a labour economist. I wanted to service the labour movement. I worked during two summer vacations in factories and during another summer we made a famous survey on the nutritional state of the British working population, for the Ministry of Food. This survey was done over several years. The result, if nutrition is measured by weight according to height, was that nutrition improved during the war. I also used to offer my help to the Labour Research Department, an independent labour research unit. When I was called up for National Service, I got my first real job, with the Amalgamated Engineering Unit in the research department, on recommendation from the Labour Research Department.
When the war was over, I went back to the LSE to finish my undergraduate degree. In 1947, I found myself in Canada. Joe [Levitt], my fiancé, had arranged for me to enrol in the Master’s programme at the University of Toronto and to be a teaching assistant. I was very disappointed with the University of Toronto. I found it a dull and depressing place, although I enjoyed teaching a course on English economic history.
I left the university and presented myself at a factory called Acme Screw and Gear Company in Toronto. Of course I lied about my qualifications, never told them I had been to university or anything, and I got a job there. I was there for a year and thoroughly enjoyed the life. So, okay, I am now in the labour movement … but when colleagues discovered I was ‘wasting my time’ in a factory, they offered me employment with the United Electrical Union Labour Research Department. Later I worked for the Mine, Mills and Smelter Workers Union, as a journalist. There I had to produce a 16‐page tabloid every month. I enjoyed the work. Eventually I decided I would enrol in graduate studies at the University of Toronto and that is when I became interested in development economics.
AF: How did you become interested?
KPL: The first time I came across that literature was in the 1950s. Because I had a strong mathematics background, I became interested in making input‐output tables for inter‐industry modelling. Professor Keirstead at the University of Toronto came from the Maritimes [in Canada] and had connections with Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, and he got me jobs in the summer working for them. I did one study for them on migration. Then I got interested in doing work for them on regional economic planning, for the so‐called underdeveloped provinces of Canada, the maritime region — regional underdevelopment. That got me interested in starting to do regional input‐output tables and I developed that when I came to McGill [in Montreal]. So, I came to development economics also through my interest in planning and applying that to regional economic underdevelopment.
AF: Was that around the time that you first started going to Jamaica?
KPL: I started at McGill in 1961, right after Jamaica. Professor Keirstead was a friend of Arthur Lewis. He spent a sabbatical in Jamaica with his wife and undertook to do some studies for what was then the Federal Government of the West Indies. So he sent for a student, which ended up being me. I arrived in Jamaica in 1960. I arrived right in the middle of the Federal Government of the West Indies: it started in 1958 and collapsed in 1962.
Alistair McIntyre was teaching in Jamaica at that time. The campus of the University of West Indies [UWI] was dominated by expatriate British. In economics, Alistair McIntyre was one of the few West Indians and Lloyd Best had just been hired, as a junior fellow, at the Institute of Social Economic Research. He was supposed to be making estimates of national income for the small islands, but that did not match his interests, and being Mr Best, he decided he would follow his interests. I do not blame him, but his interest was in West Indian history.
AF: So then you started working with him around that time?
KPL: Well, that is when I met him … but I was interested in planning techniques. I knew more about techniques than about the substance, of course. So we thought we would do something together. He had gone to Guyana and then, when he came back in 1964, we started what became the Plantation Model.
At McGill, I couldn’t teach development because another professor was teaching that, so I taught a course in planning techniques. I managed to supply Statistics Canada with quite a few students. McIntyre, in particular, kept sending me students, to supervise their graduate work at McGill.
AF: You were also writing Silent Surrender during that time?
KPL: I was approached by Charles Taylor,1 who was a colleague, to write a position paper for the NDP [New Democratic Party]2 on the issue of foreign ownership. We are talking about the early 1960s. Charles Taylor was a possible candidate for the leadership of the NDP and his candidature was being pushed by David Lewis, who was the leader of the party. (David Lewis was the father of Stephen Lewis and grandfather of Avy Lewis, who is married to Naomi Klein.) That brought me to an NDP convention. The NDP was not interested in getting involved with anything that was too radical sounding — the NDP was quite conservative.
I said, yes, I was interested because the majority opinion in the NDP was that foreign ownership was not a problem. If it was good for economic growth then whatever was done with the economic growth was another issue. The first thing I did was to distinguish between portfolio and direct investment. The argument had been simply about foreign investment, but we got onto this thing about the effect of the branch plant, and of the sale of so many Canadian companies to American companies. This had a dynamic effect because I was then asked to meet, for a whole weekend, with the national executive of the NDP. The book Silent Surrender really came out of that.
But then when I met Lloyd, I became interested in the plantation economy. There was a relationship, in a sense, between Canada, as a country that was increasingly dominated by the whole subsidiaries and branch plants of foreign companies, and the Caribbean, which was a typical case of islands involved in multinational mining and extractive activity in oil and bauxite. We wrote some interesting things together. It was Lloyd who persuaded me to publish what I had by 1968, in the New World Quarterly,3 under the title of ‘Economic Dependence and Political Disintegration: The Case of Canada’. And that began a kind of new existence. It was reprinted by Cy Gonick and at the time it became a minor sensation in Canada, until I was approached by Macmillan of Canada.
Then I got help, both from the NDP but particularly from Eric Keirens. Eric was a remarkable fellow, very independent minded. He was a capitalist, he was a former president of the Montreal stock exchange, and at McGill he was a professor of commerce. He became a close friend and he gave me a lot of good material for Silent Surrender because he really believed in the independence of Canada. He did not like the Americans buying up all of these companies, or the Canadians who were sending out everything to the Americans. Eventually, I had a book. Silent Surrender was finished in 1969, published in 1970. The publisher sent a copy to be evaluated by an economist at University of Toronto, who rejected it; he said this was political and not economics, it was ideological, it was whatever. But the publisher liked it and so the publisher asked if I knew someone else who I could send it to, and I said, send it to Mel Watkins. So they sent it to Mel and the rest is history. He just loved it and wrote the introduction for it.
Meanwhile, Lloyd had been at McGill from 1966 to 1968. We got some money from UNIDO for a project called ‘Export‐propelled growth and industrialization in the Caribbean’. He left to go back home in 1968 and in 1969 there was a possibility I could go to Trinidad to continue work with him on the completion of this plantation economy model. Actually, CIDA [the Canadian International Development Agency, which was going to fund her] tried to block me, by getting UWI to say that they no longer wanted someone working in social sciences. However, by that time, my good friend William Demas, who had been long‐time economic advisor to Dr William [Eric William, the first prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago and author of Capitalism and Slavery (1944)], knowing that I had wanted to come to Trinidad and was preparing to do so, said, well, would you consider coming to develop the data base for the next 5‐year plan? So, I agreed. For that he got support from the IMF. I finally went there in 1969 with money from the IMF, technical assistance. The IMF didn’t have any problem with me — all of the problems I had originated in Ottawa. I guess they went back to the issues of Sir George Williams,4 the black writers’ conference, and a whole lot of West Indian politics here in Montreal.
From 1969 to 1973 I was going back and forth and we really did amazing work. We worked with a team of young graduates from UWI and with statisticians from the Central Statistical Office. We developed a very innovative Trinidad and Tobago system of national accounts, based on what was then the new UN system of national accounts, but modified to make it conform to the structure of a petroleum economy. In 1973 that was terminated abruptly, because of the political situation there.
AF: Can you elaborate on the Plantation Economy?
KPL: I think it is important because most of my work has been done with regard to the Caribbean or with regard to world history. The Caribbean has been so important in terms of what we call the international framework, within which the plantation economy existed and continues to exist. There are four aspects of the world, of the external environment, in which the plantations were organized. To my mind, the four points continue to be very useful for understanding the structure of international trade and investment, and the shifting political spheres of influence.
The four aspects are: the division of the world by the Pope between Spain and Portugal, one east, one west; the navigation acts, the lines of communication; of course, the division of labour between primary commodities and manufactures; and finally the importance of what we call the metropolitan exchange standard. The fourth in particular remains important to this day, with the whole debate about the continuing importance of the American dollar as reserve currency in spite of the relative decline of the United States.
You know, it was a dramatic way of emphasizing that what we have in the English‐speaking Caribbean — well, in all of the islands, even in the small ones — does not approximate an economy as described in textbooks of economics. The representative firm, as [Alfred] Marshall called it, is not the family‐owned enterprise, but the subsidiary of a foreign company with extractive activity. We had in mind the petroleum industry of Trinidad, the bauxite of Jamaica, for example. So then, in looking at this and the historical path, it led to the plantation, which was set up by foreign capital with the express purpose of utilizing African labour to produce a commodity of high value for international markets. Then we explored the internal organizations of the plantations, the relation between planter and merchant. That is, the relationship between the organization of the production and the organization of the distribution, the finance, the access to markets, etc. — what in Marxist language would be the sphere of circulation, and the predominance of the sphere of circulation over the process of production.
AF: Which is the inverse of the basic Marxist understanding of capitalist development.
KPL: It is also the inverse of economics in general, because very much of classical economics is about the real economy. In fact, Keynes’s principal quarrel with what he called the classics was because they ignored money. So they ignored the sphere of circulation.
AF: Much of modern economics continues to ignore money in that sense.
KPL: Indeed. I mean, this nonsense about the microeconomic foundations of macroeconomics is an effort to ignore money. Of course, people have to be confronted with the fact that, in historic terms, the great divide — between North and South, or between West and East, or however you wish to put it — really began with the industrial revolution in Britain and did not begin to take off until the early 19th century. However, this was not only due to huge spurts of growth in Europe and its offshoots, as [Angus] Maddison calls them, being the United States, Canada, Australia. It was also due to the negative reduction in growth in India, and particularly in China in the 19th century, which the Chinese now regard as their great humiliation.
Moreover, the three centuries that preceded the industrial revolution were enormously important because the really existing capitalism happened in the relatively small nations on the Atlantic periphery of the Eurasian continent: Spain, Portugal, France, The Netherlands and England. It did not happen in the more ancient civilization of China, or of India, or of the whole Hellenic Mediterranean region. It’s a big historical question. It could have, but it did not happen in the great empires. It happened in these rather small and rather recent nation states. This really existing capitalism from Western Europe came together with the voyages of discovery, the conquest of the Americas. If we consider these three centuries, 1500 to 1800, that mercantilist era was characterized by what I call commerce and conquest, trade and war. The war was almost entirely maritime. Historians talk about perpetual trade and war in the Caribbean.
What happened with the Renaissance — with the voyages of Vasco da Gama and then Columbus — is that these European states extended their territory to embrace all of the Americas. If Western Europe had not been able to expand to embrace all of the Americas, they would not have been the power that they became. An interesting example is The Netherlands. The Dutch were so successful, they built the first great commercial empire that went from the Baltic to the spice islands of Indonesia, and they established Amsterdam as the premier financial centre of Europe, but with the small population they had, they couldn’t carry it any further.
Trade and war were there in the traditions of these countries of Western Europe that became the predominant metropolitan powers, from the beginning. From the beginning, there was expansion and conquest. And so, the relationship of trade and warfare, commerce and conquest, and the element of centres and peripheries, were all there from the get‐go in the Western capitalist countries, before industrial capitalism. One could talk not about two globalizations but about three, to think of the expansion from the beginning.
It then continued with the better‐known free trade imperialism, and the empires, in the latter part of the 19th century, the conquest of Africa and Asia, etc. As our friend Eric Hobsbawm writes, quite correctly, without the previous mercantile colonial system, the revolution in the spinning industry in Britain, British textiles, would not have had markets to sell their rather poor cotton products. They could be sold only in the colonial trade, they could not be sold otherwise. So the old mercantilist order that was dissolved somewhat with the coming of free trade in England and in Europe had served the purpose of providing the original markets, including India of course, where British cotton goods were sold by the East India company, and Britain put enormous tariffs against the importation of Indian cotton — a well‐known story.
AF: And you derived these insights from your work on the Plantation Economy?
KPL: I think there is also something to be learnt from the structure of the early chartered companies, in terms of what I call the symbiotic relationship between the political authority, the monarch, and the merchant in the accumulation of territory and wealth, and the way the chartered companies were made into almost autonomous entities. The sovereign granted monopoly rights to merchant companies to establish exclusivist relations with foreign rulers in Asia and Africa. They were given the power to build ports and forts, dispense justice, and so forth. I make the comparison with the multinational corporations, which I call the new mercantilism.
That line of thinking leads us to another important similarity, and that is the emphasis on the importance of who controls communication. In the work that we did on the Plantation Economy, the merchant had superior power over the planter. The chartered companies were large and powerful business enterprises compared with the multitude of producers whose access to metropolitan markets they controlled. The merchant had control of the market overseas, in the metropole, the source of much of the capital, the actual control over the means of transportation. The producers — the planters — were in a subsidiary position. The merchant sold the goods and also supplied the inputs and could take his cut.
Today, with the information revolution, we are seeing enormous structures of power accrue to those who control channels of communication. But even before we had the phenomenon of the Amazons, the Googles, etc., in the production chains, which we are very familiar with, it was very very clear that the control and the profit accrue principally to the platform that organizes the chain. The producers, the capitalists as much as the workers who produce the various inputs that are assembled, etc., are in a subordinate position to those who are controlling this whole process. The deindustrialization that has happened in the Western countries has created big problems but it has not impoverished these countries in terms of GDP (for lack of a better measure). They have gained in various kinds of fees and profits and interest, and other kinds of incomes, and have moved towards the top of the income distribution. We know about the unfavourable distribution. But the control of channels of communication, what used to be the navigation acts in the mercantilist system, is something that has carried right through to the present: communication gives control. Information technology today has been greeted positively, obviously with some good reason, but it has some very big issues regarding power.
Hence, from the very origins of European hegemony, we see the predominance of metropolitan finance over production in the peripheries, in contrast with the predominance of production over finance in the centre. Viewed from the periphery, merchants remained central. They distributed and sold the products of the emerging English industrial system in colonial markets, and the sugar and other commodities of the slave plantations in international markets. Merchants controlled the channels of international commerce, including finance, insurance and shipping.
These aspects supported the establishment of European hegemony throughout these centuries. The evolution of capitalism needs to be understood in light of these 300 years of mercantilist conquest and unequal trade, which transformed the peripheries and integrated them into the production networks of the centre in various differentiated ways before the advent of industrial capitalism. There was no radical break between mercantilism and English capitalism from the perspective of the periphery. US capitalism also shows a similar continuity, although the major innovation of US corporations was to merge production with distribution.
AF: So the Plantation Economy helped you understand economic development more generally?
KPL: Yes, but you see, the Plantation Economy was also something special, in a sense unique to the Caribbean. Of course, plantations have been set up in other countries. Interestingly, a colleague of mine has been doing research on the fact that when the planters were compensated for the loss of their slaves, at the time of emancipation, many of them, with connections within the British empire, established plantations in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and so forth. But those were not based on slave labour.
When we developed this idea, in the 1960s, those were very different times, they were times of radical social political movements. We had in Trinidad, in 1970, what was called a black power revolution, an uprising. So the political idea that in some ways not very much has changed since the days of the slave plantation was something that people could sense.
AF: You have argued that modern capitalism is returning to its mercantilist origins and you have drawn parallels to the Plantation Economy. Can you explain?
KPL: This is what some people have called extractive imperialism. In my book Silent Surrender, there is a chapter called ‘From the Old Mercantilism to the New’. In the old mercantilism, again, the representative firm was a joint stock corporation, the chartered companies; they received their monopolies from the sovereign; there were many shareholders; they were adventurers, etc. I saw similarities with the gigantic multinational corporations, also similarities in the sense that the centre, the head office, is in control of a variety of locations, and again how control over communication is so central to the organization of both of the old chartered companies and the modern multinational corporations.
AF: And you were writing this already in the late 1960s …
KPL: Yes. And it is still relevant today — more so than ever I think. I was working on Silent Surrender, which was on the effects of the multinational corporations on host countries in the developed world, the US–Canada relationship, at the same time as I was working on plantation economies with Lloyd Best, so I have always seen the connections. People have found it strange that I would see any similarities between American companies buying up Canadian industries and what is going on in the islands of the Caribbean.
And we are now seeing a certain regression of capitalism to these mercantilist origins in the capitalist heartlands in the US, the UK and even in continental Europe. This regression is commonly referred to as ‘financialization’, meaning the growing dominance of finance and commerce over production. This is best seen in terms of the concentration of power in multinational corporations, which increasingly do not directly produce anything but, instead, organize production and distribution. Hence, production has become increasingly subservient and subordinated to commerce through subcontracting and outsourcing in various ways, and through proprietary arrangements and monopsonistic structures of buyers vis‐à‐vis producers. This is a very different reality from that of industrial capitalism in its heyday and from the descriptions of firms in typical microeconomics textbooks. It can be seen as a certain type of degeneration of capitalism in comparison to the age when industrial capitalism was based on innovation in production rather than innovation in financial and proprietary arrangements, which is why we call it a predatory form of capitalism.
However, the mercantilist origins of this predatory capitalism are best viewed from the peripheries. This is in contrast to the common approach that views such predatory capitalism as somehow a perversion from the idealized classical forms of capitalism that emerged in Europe on the basis of the primacy of productive innovation over commerce. The early mercantilist origin of capitalism in the peripheries sheds light on the continuity of commerce over production, especially but not only in these peripheries, from slavery to the emergence of transnational corporations as a form of ‘new mercantilism’ controlling commerce in the peripheries. At both ends of the historical spectrum, the imbalance of power relations in international trade is rooted in this imbalance of commerce over production, whereby production in peripheries is subservient to commerce controlled by mercantilist or new mercantilist corporations. It is for this reason that Marxist models of capitalists exploiting labour are not very appropriate for understanding the economic dependency and exploitation of countries that are incorporated as peripheries into the international capitalist system.
Rather, it is quite tenable to suggest that the future of the capitalist centres can be seen in the history of the peripheries. For instance, those of us working on the Caribbean used to think that the short view was a peculiarity of the Plantation Economy, whereas now a similar short view has become generalized to the economies of the centres, such as in the US and the UK. This short view is the view of commerce: when prospects look good for your export crop, you borrow and expand; when times turn bad, you have no resources to diversify, so you stay in the same staple crop and you borrow to try to maintain your standard of living; when borrowing is no longer possible, you mortgage your land; when that is no longer possible, you consume capital. In the days of slavery, consuming capital meant overworking and starving your slaves. In contemporary times, it means laying off public servants and reducing public expenditures on education and health, which is equivalent to consuming the human capital of a population.
AF: If I recall correctly, you have said that the first application of scientific methods of organizing labour was on the slave plantations. Do you think this influenced Adam Smith?
KPL: What I said is that a plantation with 3,000 slaves implied an industrial organization that makes Adam Smith’s pin factory look miniscule in terms of the division of labour. It was mind blowing, when I was taken in Jamaica, somewhere not too far from Antigua Bay, to the Good Hope Plantation, which had 3,000 slaves. I mean, how do you organize something like that? You are going to have people who will be rebellious, run away to the hills, and the organization and the accounting, and all the different aspects of that operation … We are talking about the late 18th century, and what you had in Britain at the time was largely artisanal industry, nothing was organized on a big scale. Possibly on a physical scale, such as the sheep pasture, but not in terms of labour.
What I said, which my colleague Lloyd Best did not like to hear, did not agree with, is that I thought that the production of sugar on slave plantations was in every sense a capitalist operation, organized with European capital, with the exception of the labour regime, which was not wage labour but slave labour. But the labour power embodied in these human machines was valued, the amount of work that could be extracted from them, according to their size and age and health, was estimated, and so on. So it seems to me to be obvious that this preceded the more scientific management of production in English agriculture.
Marxist definitions tend to define capitalism as private ownership of property and wage labour. But if you look at capitalism in terms of the production of something for the sheer purpose of selling it at a profit, then the plantations have major attributes of tropical agrarian‐style capitalism. They also constituted the first major investment of capital in an overseas location for this purpose.
In the case of the English colonies, as I have noted, there are also remarkable similarities between these particular characteristics and the English agricultural revolution and the role played by English oligarchic landed classes, the same landed classes whose younger sons were sent to the colonies and became part of the planter classes. The plantocracy and the English landed oligarchy are largely the same families, the same people.
This long view highlights how the Caribbean slave plantations were, in many respects, at the genesis of capitalism and the plantations were entirely capitalist enterprises; the sole difference with the modern factory system lay in the fact that the labour was unfree. Indeed, the slave trade only derived its profitability from the profitability of the slave plantations. Sugar was the largest single import of Britain, constituting close to one‐quarter of the value of all British imports in the 18th century. At the same time, the capitalist agriculture that was evolving in Britain was often developed by the same families that were involved in the Caribbean slave plantations. This synergy of mercantilism remains a hugely underemphasized, if not ignored, aspect in the Eurocentric debates on the origins of capitalism in Northwest Europe, which usually focus on internal causes such as agrarian transformations in the English countryside rather than the more global commercial origins of these transformations.
AF: How does this relate to a similar emphasis of production in early development economics?
KPL: The fact that really existing capitalism happened in the relatively small nations on the Atlantic periphery of the Eurasian continent accounts for the fact that GDP per capita in Western Europe — in all the statistics, the Maddison estimates — was significantly higher than in Eastern Europe, and remains so to this day. Now, what is Western Europe? It borders the Atlantic, it has special relationships with different areas of the world.
So, when we come to the [early] development economists and the importance of people like Gerschenkron, Rosenstein Rodan, they were living in regions of the world that were backward in relation to Western Europe. Gerschenkron was of course Russian (born in the Ukraine) and much of his work was done on the rise of Tsarist Russia.
AF: ‘Backward’ is not a very popular term these days … can you clarify?
KPL: Well, backward, absolutely, backward. Economically underdeveloped. Economically backward. At the time of the Russian revolution in 1917, this is a country hugely dominated by a peasantry, with some cities, with some industrial establishments, actually mostly with foreign capital, and some modern technology. This is part of the story of the Russian revolution and the Soviet Communist Party, which considered itself to be a vanguard party based on the working class, but the working class was extremely small, in relationship to a vast peasantry, and they came into conflict, of course. The whole history of the early decades of the Soviet revolution was really about conflicts between the peasantry and the prevailing regime that was based on urban and industrial regions.
Gerschenkron and others understood the problems of economic underdevelopment because they could understand it in terms of their own countries in relation to Western Europe. Thinkers like Arthur Lewis came from the colonies and so also had this perspective, but what is not so obvious and perhaps not so well understood is the relationship within Europe, of East Europe to the West. Europe is deeply divided in that way.
AF: Eric Reinert also gives a lot of emphasis to the Eastern European experience and to the early development economists who came out of that experience. Is your view somewhat different?
KPL: It is very different. I have a real problem with Reinert, in particular with his book on why poor countries remain poor (Reinert, 2007). It has a very strong bias against agriculture. Okay, understood, economic development does proceed from agricultural to industrial civilizations, yes, but his book is so negative with regard to agriculture, whereas in our world, if we wish to save this planet from the way in which humanity is moving to destroy it, it is the physical environment that we have to be concerned with, it is the way we produce the food that we require without destroying the basis of the whole ecosystem.
Reinert’s book tends towards a streamlined interpretation of development economics along the dominant theme of increasing returns to scale, which appears to be his way of dealing with industrialization. He draws exclusively from the European continental experiences and economists such as Ragnar Nurkse, whereas the driving force of capitalist expansion into the non‐European peripheries, and the way that capitalism shaped the rest of the world through trade, war, commerce and conquest, originally emanated from countries of the Atlantic seaboard such as The Netherlands, the UK and France. Similarly, the origins of classical political economy also came from these countries, particularly the UK. Hence, his narrow focus and emphasis on increasing returns not only dismisses the role of agriculture (and Adam Smith, for whom the quintessential capitalist was a farmer), but it also dismisses the origins of the European expansion into the non‐European world, the origins of classical political economy, and the effects of both on Latin America and other regions of the non‐European periphery. My own analysis places these themes centre stage.
Again, what I am saying is that the really existing capitalist system was born in England and in some neighbouring states, and had within it, as far as I am concerned, commerce and conquest, trade and war, from the beginning. That does not play the same role in the development of the Hapsburg Empire, or for that matter in the Tsarist Empire, or the unification of Germany. But I think it carries over into the era of American hegemony.
Gerschenkron is the classic in terms of the development of the latecomers. I take all of that. That is certainly part of the doctrine of the development economists. But, in terms of the significance for developing countries that are, by and large, more rural and agricultural, or at least were until not very long ago, the dismissal of agriculture and the way in which Reinert sees agriculture only as backwardness is not helpful, I think. So much of Arthur Lewis, for instance, is an argument for the need to increase productivity in the food‐producing sector in order to raise the supply price of labour to industry.
Then you have in Adam Smith a very strong line of argument favouring domestic investment, particularly in farming actually, over the activities of the big merchant adventurer companies. He called this the natural path. Now, what did Adam Smith mean by the natural path? I think he meant the progression from agricultural production into the processing of food, the processing of hides, the processing of tissue, fabric, etc., from the ground up, so to speak, as distinct from that dismissal of agriculture. So, in a way, the natural path would be one that would be obviously followed by the great empires, such as China, which of course Adam Smith admired very much. This is distinct from a kind of development that sees maybe the cities as the source of modernization and development, and the countryside as backward. That would be more Reinert.
AF: But as you yourself point out, the actual path of development of North Atlantic capitalism was the unnatural path through mercantilism, not the natural path.
KPL: Yes and no, because there was also the agricultural revolution. Remember, that is something missing from the stories of European bourgeois capitalism — the fact that capitalist principles, of investment of money to make profit, were first applied in England to agriculture, between the sheep raising, which was an export activity, and the wheat cultivation, which was for the domestic market. Arthur Lewis took that with him into his theory, because he was trained in England and owed so much to his English education, and he talked about the need to modernize and raise productivity in agriculture. I think he learnt that, really, from the application of the English model.
AF: But as you just noted, much of this investment in the land in England was itself partly financed by wealth coming from the plantations.
KPL: Absolutely. The roots of the Anglo Saxon model, if you wish, differ from China, for example, as a country which had all the other attributes for developing capitalism, but didn’t. It differs in two ways. One was a particularly English thing, the role played by the rural oligarchy; it was called the improvement, or the agricultural revolution. The tenant farmers were not peasants anymore, they were farmers, meaning they were farming for profits, on land owned by landowners, and they were paying rents. Both of these classes were engaged in agriculture. That is one. And the other difference of course is what we have been saying — their expansionism, commerce and conquest. They were facing the sea and all the expansion was maritime. This aspect was very different from what might be the more natural path, not depending on foreign conquest. The city states of the Mediterranean that came before The Netherlands and England — Venice and Genoa — were also engaged in trade and in war, but there was no agriculture. So, with the early Italian economists that Reinert cites, it was all about the benefits of trade and the division of labour, but not agriculture.
You see, at the centre of the Italian city‐states is a city. A town, a bourgeois town, burgers. I mean, the word bourgeois comes from burger, which means citizen of a town with a wall around it, which is a burg. European continental development is so much to do with the role of the towns with regard to the countryside. Feudalism was principally concerned with the relationship of feudal authorities, princes, who have to contend with controlling the food supply surrounding them. This was so different from the English story.
To my mind Celso Furtado was one of the few people who understood that the English oligarchs, the landowners, were entrepreneurially minded, unlike the Europeans. The French were the opposite. The French landowners resisted and all progress was within the cities. In England in the 18th century, it was the landed estates where the aristocracy carried on their social life. The Jamaican great houses replicated the English country estates, which they were familiar with because a lot of those families came from the landed gentry of England. But that landed gentry of England was improving. I have always found that fascinating because they talk about a bourgeoisie, but the bourgeoisie derives from the European concept of the town people, as distinct from the gentry and the landowners. But the English bourgeoisie was rurally based.
AF: There is no example of modern growth based on industrialization that followed the natural path, is there?
KPL: Well, no, because once the industrial revolution started where it started, which was in Western Europe, it then spread through Europe and then in many ways industrialization came from imitation, from import substitution. So it was something coming from abroad in trade, as manufactured goods, and countries figured out they wanted to produce that themselves. On that I think we are back to Latin American structuralists, particularly Furtado, who points out that modernization, the modern lifestyle and industrialization, came to the commodity‐exporting peripheries through consumption, not production. It came because the classes that had more disposable income purchased the imports, which eventually these countries undertook to produce domestically. But access to industrial civilization was not through the imitation of production but through replacing the imports directly. So that is already a different path.
It is also really important to remember that Adam Smith did not see the industrial revolution himself. Even Ricardo, who wrote a generation later, added on a famous chapter at the end of his book called ‘On machinery’. So if machinery is just a final note you put on there, you are obviously not talking about industrial capitalism, in which the machine plays a critical role.
AF: If I dare to paraphrase, we might say that while mercantilism was an ‘unnatural path’, it nonetheless supported capitalist development in the metropole, whereas it undermined such development in the peripheries. This is an argument that falls clearly into the dependency tradition. Do you locate your arguments within this tradition? Or do you prefer to stay away from such labels?
KPL: Well, first of all, I think that this designation of dependency is actually a metropolitan term, along with world systems, which has been superimposed on a lot of other work. I guess the brief answer to your question would be yes, but I don’t think labelling is particularly helpful.
I think what is helpful — and what I think is a definition of development — is the recognition that there are economies that have been shaped by the domination of metropolitan structures of power. And they are not underdeveloped. I do not believe in some sort of natural stages of progression, that they are underdeveloped because they are agricultural, but rather that these structures — social, economic and political structures — have been created not by following a natural path, to use that idea, but by their encounter with the dominant powers of the metropolitan. I still think that Celso Furtado explains this the best.
Now the emphasis that some people make, say Andre Gunder Frank, or [Arghiri] Emmanuel, that there is an unequal exchange, is so obvious that it is not even interesting. What is really at issue is the way these economies have been shaped by the historical reality. And that is very different in different parts of the world. I always say that the language of centre and periphery comes from Prebisch and Latin America. The phenomenon is particularly clear in the case of the Americas.
As Lloyd Best and I described it, there were three different kinds of colonization. There were colonies of conquest, principally those of Latin America, where they got the gold and the silver. Silver was enormously important. It demonstrated that Europe did not have the quality of industrial goods that were made in China and in the East. Europeans did not have commodities to balance what they wanted from the East — the trade of spices, of porcelain, of silk, etc. — so they had to be balanced by silver. The silver assisted enormously in that trade.
Then there were colonies of settlement, which between them largely destroyed the indigenous populations, marginalized them, enslaved them, dispossessed them. And then there were what we call the colonies of exploitation, sheer exploitation, the plantation economies. These brought African slave labour to achieve what was really the first large‐scale production of trade goods, organized by the Europeans in Brazil, in the Caribbean, and then in the southern United States, to produce sugar, cotton, tobacco, whatever.
In all of the Americas, the states that have arisen, that were created, all speak a European language, all have some variant or another of a Christian religion, many of them are settled, in both the North and the South Americas, by Europeans. Because of the richness and resources of the Americas, they were destined to become industrial sources of food and raw materials, and later minerals. So they were peripheries, but peripheries in the purer sense of the term as commodity‐supplying regions. Africa was also involved in that.
The extension of Europe eastwards — the trading companies from the Levant to the Indian ocean, to India, and the China Seas and the Spice Islands — was initially of lesser importance and also of lesser value than the kind of primitive accumulation or transfer of resources that was organized from the Americas. It was also fundamentally different given that it was based on exploration and trade. In the early mercantilist period, wherever Europeans traded in the East, they were just one more trader among many others. They did not uproot the social structure of the villages in the countryside in this earlier period. Even later, their colonies in Asia were not colonies of settlement. As a result, the elites in these eastern peripheries were not of European origin because there was little or no European settlement. In most of Asia, Christianity was not or could not be imposed on any significant scale, in contrast to Latin America where Christianization became all‐pervasive, even among indigenous peoples. In this sense, the western regions were truly peripheries, in the classic understanding of the word, whereas the eastern regions were much less so.
AF: But for you, the fundamental expression of structuralism is how these countries encounter the dominant structures of power. So, couldn’t you apply that to, say, Southeast Asia, where the encounter with the dominant power had an impact on the structure of the economy and society?
KPL: Of course you can, but you also have to take into account the previous civilizations and societies that were in Southeast Asia, and it was those that fed the independence movements there. I mean, there was a big struggle. When I was a student in England, I knew young students from Malaysia who went back and were fighting the British in the jungle. But they were fighting the British in the jungle to reclaim what they considered to be their country. That is a different story from Latin America.
You had huge famines in India and China. That was British imperialism, but it was superimposed on an existing society. You see, we did not have that in the Americas; the existing societies were destroyed. They were not incorporated, they were really eliminated.
This basic difference between the western and eastern regions of the periphery is profound. It arguably carries right through to the present and is a crucial determining factor in the differential developments of these two broadly defined peripheral regions of global capitalism. It highlights what has become known as the two great divergences, which we started to notice only after the 1970s. One divergence has been between North and South, while the other has been between the industrializing eastern and the primary‐commodity export‐dependent western parts of the periphery. Notably, the latter — Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa — all underwent structural adjustment programmes in the 1980s. From the short perspective of an otherwise long lifetime, it is interesting to note that there was no clue of these divergences in 1950.
AF: How do you position these ideas with those of World Systems theory, such as the work of Immanuel Wallerstein?
KPL: Wallerstein has been a successful and useful academic entrepreneur, who has turned out very little work of any originality, but has that capacity for seeing what others have done and marketing it with words like this, ‘world systems’. I think the greatest of the scholars, on whose work he has drawn, is [Giovanni] Arrighi. In Arrighi’s work, you can really see the path he has taken, from being a leftist Trotskyist, Maoist Italian leftist, to the first book, The Geometry of Imperialism (Arrighi, 1983), to the rest.
Gunder Frank (the early Gunder Frank) really saw this world system as beginning with the voyages of Columbus. But Gunder Frank again was very different: he was the opposite of the successful entrepreneur. He was, I think, quite a genius, who had a lot of problems of organizing his life and of dealing with depression, for instance, but he had the insight to say: ‘Whoa! Hold on! The Third World did not begin in Latin America. You really need to go back a few thousand years’. That is the ReOrient book (Frank, 1998). I find it a very courageous book. Gunder Frank established his reputation on the concept of the development of underdevelopment, and then in ReOrient he basically dismissed all the greats — Marx, Polanyi, Braudel, even his younger self — as Eurocentric. Interestingly, the only one who escaped this dismissal was Adam Smith.
As for Immanuel Wallerstein, I have known him for a long time. He first came to our attention in a newsletter that he circulated. In those days it was a way of drawing attention to yourself. It is perfectly legitimate. Nowadays we would call it a blog, but in those days it was a newsletter, and among the persons who received it was my father [Karl Polanyi]. My father was living in Canada already and Wallerstein tried very hard to make himself known to Karl Polanyi, who really was not terribly interested, except that Wallerstein was very close friends with Terence Hopkins. Terry Hopkins was a student of my father, and my father loved him, I mean, he loved all his students.
Then I knew Wallerstein when he was here at McGill teaching sociology in the late 1960s, but his creation of this World Systems theory came later. It is a powerful idea on which he has built his career. When he presented it at the first Karl Polanyi conference [Hungary 1986], people thought he got this from Polanyi. Other people thought he had gotten it from the work of Lloyd Best and myself, you know, the four characteristics that I was telling you about, because Terry Hopkins would share our working drafts with him. His book also has a massive amount of copying of quotations of Braudel. There is nothing original. You see, Wallerstein invented ‘world systems’, the concept. He has been a very successful and systematic entrepreneur in organizing this concept.
AF: It is interesting that Wallerstein has become one of the central lineage references of the post‐development and decoloniality scholarship.
KPL: What does this mean, this coloniality? I don’t know what they are talking about. I mean, Canada has many traces of its colonial origins, that is a fact, but is that coloniality? Or does it mean that the relations that Canada has developed with indigenous people are of a colonial kind?
AF: The arguments are also often related to a critique of a Eurocentric vision of development as industrialization and so on.
KPL: Well, industrialization, we have to defend that. Industrialization was key. As Deepak Nayyar wrote (Nayyar, 2013), it was catch‐up. It was the idea that if we are going to be independent, we must be as good as or better than those old colonial powers. People who then criticize industrialization because it is dirty, because it uses carbon fuels, for whatever reason — I think one has to resist those arguments.
AF: These views have also tended to encourage a sort of anti‐statism, feeding into the neoliberal critique of the state.
KPL: This is where the anti‐statism from the left and the right meet. The whole attack on the idea of government as innately corrupt is where left meets right. It is a big problem for the left, because it is very appealing. This is the point I have been making: the hostility to the state is a commonality between left‐wing anarchism and libertarian liberalism. And that, I think, is really a problem because I insist that we cannot dismiss the importance of the modern state.
Also, people keep talking to me about civil society, but I say why do we need this idea of civil society? What is wrong with society? The origin of this notion of civil society goes back to the Cold War, to critiques of the Soviet Union on the basis of the authoritarian nature of the state and the support given by the Western powers to anyone agitating against the state, and they call that civil society. And then with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the term was taken over to label all of these bottom‐up things as civil society. To my mind, this is a very confusing concept. And it is very compatible with neoliberalism. That’s a big problem.
AF: Human rights have also been co‐opted in a similar manner.
KPL: This is also unfortunate, because if you remember the words of the famous ‘Internationale’ in German [Kari starts singing in German, until she gets to menschenrechte] — that’s human rights. These were revolutionary concepts, of human rights, menschenrechte. Funnily enough, the English translation gets away from this. The English translation of the chorus of the ‘Internationale’ is ‘the human race’. But the German is menschenrechte, which is human rights. It is very interesting.
With the right to development, for instance, it is only the state that can realize the right to development of the individuals that compose the society. That actually is the case with all of the social and economic rights. They are rights of individuals, but only individuals who are in a society that has a state that can move to realize those rights. The right to development is similar.
AF: Can you elaborate on the right to development? You have written about this.
KPL: Well, the right to development was the last gasp of the United Nations, in terms of their very important role in assisting developing countries to undertake structural transformation towards development. It was very clear at the end of the 1970s, and after the various United Nations initiatives for the New International Economic Order, that the countries of Europe, the capitalist centres, were going to dig in. There was going to be no negotiation. The project at that time was something called the Common Fund. It was an UNCTAD initiative, in the first development decade of the 1960s, with Prebisch in charge, but then it came up again in the 1970s and the 1980s. The proposal was that there should be a common fund of several billion dollars, but it really never happened. There were some individuals associated with the UN who wrote a very interesting mea culpa. They acknowledged that they did not counter the thrust towards what we now call neoliberalism in the 1980s, the dismantling of policies that were supported by the UN in earlier times.
So, in the mid‐1980s there was a resolution in the UN General Assembly on the Right to Development. I suppose it was in the spirit of the economic and social rights that go all the way back to the original UN declaration. But the right to development is like all human rights. It is an individual right, but it is the kind of individual right that cannot be achieved except by collective action. No individual can individually cause economic development to happen because it is something that requires, as far as I am concerned, a role for the state.
Later — when we come to the human development story at the end of the 1980s — it was importantly influenced by Amartya Sen. The person behind it was Ul Haq, but he used the authority of Sen, particularly with regard to the treatment of income — the idea that there is a diminishing utility of income. But increasingly there was a tendency to individualize these rights. You know, in some ways Amartya Sen contributed to the neoliberal ideology, in terms of the interpretation of development as a human right of each and every individual.
AF: He is very clearly and unabashedly a liberal theorist.
KPL: And we then come to the human rights agenda. Now, human rights — I mean, who can quarrel with human rights? You can’t. But on the other hand, global human rights is a complement to the neoliberal ideology. It is very effective in justifying the various policies of neoliberalism. Moreover, by eliminating the nation, by removing the nation from the vocabulary, by removing the word international and substituting this word global, you put the nation out of sight, out of mind, and you are substituting a global view, and global human rights, for what used to be international solidarity. International solidarity is the recognition of solidarity between peoples in different nations and contexts, fighting for whatever. That has been, I think, appropriated by the change of language to global. We talk about the global economy but I question just what this global economy is. I don’t say it doesn’t exist, but it is not a global version of a national economy.
I also read it in what my father was writing about the 19th century world market. He said really there was no such thing as the world market. For any one nation, the world market is the markets in all the other countries. Each of them is under the jurisdiction of a national government and each of them, at that time, had a national currency. The only way that becomes a world market is by tying the value of these currencies, for instance by making them equivalent to a certain amount of gold. That then creates what can be considered a world market. But each of these currencies is nevertheless based within nation states, where the laws and whatever goes on there are according to the institutions of that nation.
I think that what we have seen with globalization is the creation of truly global power structures, but they are private. They are either multinational corporations, where the corporation is organized as an entity that operates in very many different parts of the world, but it has a centre. Or you have financial funds or whatever that are directed in a certain way, buy and sell all over the place. But these are not equivalent to a national economy which operates within national institutions and a national political framework. There is no global framework, there are no global institutions that replicate on a big scale what goes on within a nation.
AF: So what do you think of the argument that we need to shift our terminology from international to global development?
KPL: I absolutely object. I object to every elimination of the word national or international. This word global has been co‐opted to substitute for international — international — solidarity. International has been wiped out by this word global. As I have said before, language matters. When you have global, what disappears is the nation. International disappears, and now we are supposed to have global human rights, this global economy, this global civil society. It doesn’t exist, actually.
We should really just talk about the trajectory and evolution of capitalism. That is why I appreciate Furtado so much, because he was so strong on the importance of the nation: the importance of national development, the importance of self‐reliance, of strengthening domestic savings and investment, of strengthening internal links, and basically of controlling and limiting the international, the involvement in the whole export model, we know the story.
AF: Was there a ‘golden age’ of capitalism?
KPL: It was a golden age really only in Europe and the well‐to‐do countries. Particularly in Western Europe, these 30 so‐called golden years were probably the best that capitalism could offer, given the fact that you had very strong socialist parties and a strong socialist tradition in Europe, and the capitalist business, which was profitable in that period of 30 years, was underpinned by a very powerful system of social security. But on the whole, these 30 golden years were also very advantageous for development. The role for the state that really comes through so clearly in Keynes was also an advantage, for supporting developmentalism.
The Bretton Woods era was also advantageous — although I think that we tend to look back and glorify the Bretton Woods arrangements and ascribe to them benefits which should really be attributed to the capacity of the United States to have so generously financed a lot of things in that period. The Marshall Plan was the obvious example, and similar kinds of expenditures that assisted in the recovery of Japan. The US was very powerful. This was the glorious period of US hegemony; it has been ascribed to the Bretton Woods financial order, but behind that order was the presence of the US as a world power that was in a strong enough position to extend external finance.
AF: To South Korea and Taiwan as well.
KPL: Yes, very much so — something it is no longer able to do. The US has become a massive debtor country. But those 30 years — what the United Nations calls the golden years of capitalism — were really the prime of the hegemony of the United States. Think of the way in which they folded Europe into their security concerns, the way in which, particularly in Germany of course, they extended, if you wish, the market. The Marshall Plan was remarkable, something like 2 per cent of GDP. Compared to so‐called foreign aid now, which is very much less than 1 per cent of anyone’s GDP, apart perhaps from the Scandinavian countries … I think the whole importance of overseas development assistance is enormously diminished.
AF: One of the criticisms of developmentalism in the 1960s and 1970s was that it became associated with authoritarian governments, corruption and so on.
KPL: Whether we are looking at the early industrial revolution in England or at catch‐up industrialization — Bismarck’s Germany, Tsarist Russia at the end of the 19th century, as Gerschenkron has described, Japan of course, which became an authoritarian imperialist power, the Soviet Union — in every one of these cases, industrialization, the catch‐up to modern technology, was characterized by a political regime that was authoritarian. That includes England — certainly the masses of people had no vote at that time. You really cannot call that a democracy. So, that process of achieving a very high rate of savings, of suppressing consumption, of transformation from an agricultural into a modern industrial society, is really a very difficult one. The one exception was the United States, on account of the vastness of the land settled — land stolen from the indigenous populations that were largely destroyed and certainly marginalized.
So, the association of capitalism with democracy is a very questionable one, particularly in the ascent, in the catch‐up period, in the difficult periods of high rates of savings, suppressed consumption, and movements of peoples. I would say that one has to look at the historical process and where it has happened. Similarly in the four little tigers [South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore], they call themselves democracies now, but they were not democracies. You have China, it is a one‐party state. Thank god for that. I could not imagine the dangers and chaos that would ensue if they introduce party politics in China. Really, I think the world would not be safe.
AF: Some scholars, such as Thandika Mkandawire, argue for democratic developmental states.
KPL: Yes, I would argue for that too, because of technological progress. So much of what we used to find difficult to produce and therefore very valuable is now very common, very cheap. We have benefited from the technology that has been developed … Yes, I am seeing what has happened in history, but this is not necessarily what must continue to happen.
That being said, what we are seeing now is a trend of authoritarian governments, with popular support. We see it in Turkey, in the Philippines, in India, in Hungary, Poland … These are rising powers. And these regimes, whatever they are, they are not Western liberal democracies, that is for sure. It is not clear how many Western liberal democracies are going to survive anywhere. It is hard not to recognize the rise of authoritarian regimes — and they are not on the left.
AF: Many argue, even often from the left, that globalization has reduced the effectiveness of nation states and made them powerless to do the types of things they used to be able to do in terms of regulating capital, taxation, and so on, because it is so easy for corporations to bypass governments.
KPL: That is a very real phenomenon. The reduction of the capacities of nation states to govern is a reality. It is very well illustrated by the way that corporations escape taxation. But the critique or the comments usually claim that this is not only a reality, but also desirable, in the sense that national boundaries are passé, irrelevant, and an efficient modern organization requires global governance, an international financial order. I don’t know. As far as I am concerned, this is not anything that is within sight. If it were within sight, it would be extremely repressive and authoritarian, because I believe the further you move away from where people can influence in some way the outcome, the political outcome, the further you move from any form of democracy, toward a totalitarian authoritarian control. So the supranational organizations that we have — the Bank of International Settlements, the G7, or whatever — those are centres of political decision making that are furthest removed from popular influence of any kind.
AF: Given the nature of very powerful multinational corporations that wield so much power and wealth in the global economy, don’t we need forms of international governance that can regulate them? That’s the argument for the European Union. If you do not have a regional level of government that is able to regulate…
KPL: You see, the European Union is a very good example of what can happen, what has happened. A union is preferable, it can achieve many good things, such as the movement of people, which has been the greatest single achievement. But it is precisely where the union is strong, which is acting in the common interest of all of the banks, that has impacted most negatively on the policy space and, if you wish, the democratic process of the constituent nations. What has been constructed in the European Union, what comes out of Brussels, represents the interests of finance and banks.
AF: But still, how do democratic forces negotiate with and attempt to regulate these very powerful transnational economic organizations, international banks, large corporations, large global mining companies that have thousands of subsidiaries and armies of accountants and lawyers working for them?
KPL: The answer of course is that I do not know. However, I would say the danger with any kind of regulation is that these powerful organizations take charge to self‐regulate. I really believe that we have to strengthen the regional dimensions of the world order. The individual nations are not powerful enough — they can be taken advantage of in international regulations, so that instead of regulating the multinationals, the multinationals write the rules and enforce them. The problem then is representation at the regional level, as with the European Union. But it is more likely to be able to assert the political leverage of the populations of the constituent nations at the regional level than it is at the global level.
AF: Even at the national level — if you look at the US for instance, political power is captured by very powerful economic interests.
KPL: Yes, but whatever progress has been made in modern times toward what might be called some form of democracy has been made at the national level. What we had previously — and it was accepted — was a large number of countries with very solid, nationally owned enterprises, including national banks, banks that were not privately owned. In that sense, there has been a huge regression in the last 40 years, in the neoliberal counter‐revolution that rolled back so much of the public control over investment and capital.
AF: Are you pessimistic about the future?
KPL: I guess we have to come back to that old quote by Gramsci, pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. I do not know any other way to live except to see some possibilities of a good future, because if you were really totally convinced that the world is going to perdition, then there is no point in anything …
But I think a more meaningful question is how I see current developments, because I really do see a crisis of liberal capitalism. I see capitalism as an economic and social order having reached a stage that I describe as financialized rentier capital, which is no longer able to sustain the kind of social and political order that we have had and that has served us well. It is no longer able to sustain a certain level of societal coherence — let’s call it democratic representational government and all of these things. These systems seem to have deteriorated to the point where 70 per cent of Americans don’t believe in either political party; young people increasingly do not believe in politics of the representational liberal variety; and we are seeing the rise of authoritarian governments that have popular support. Let’s face it, whether it is Erdogan in Turkey, or Putin in Russia, there is support.
AF: Just to be provocative, since I’ve known you, you have always seen the system as on the verge of crisis [Kari laughs], and wisely so, but one of the things that is so striking over the last 30 or more years is the resilience of the neoliberal capitalist system. Even though analytically, intellectually, we see it converging towards crisis, it somehow manages to sustain itself. It is resilient.
KPL: I would argue that the demise of the Soviet Union in 1990 put new wind into the neoliberal sails — the TINA effect — ‘there is no alternative’. Since that time, it has sustained itself by progressive financialization, by creating structures of debt that have served to balloon and sustain real progress, yes, and increasingly the creation of rents. That is, the extension of private ownership into areas of knowledge which really are social, which should not be private, and the creation of scarcities and rents which yield income, but only for those who own. We have seen the progressive deterioration of income distribution, internally, within almost all countries. The increase in internal differentiation is, I think, universal, even if at a global scale there might have been a reduction in inequality because so many people have been raised from abject poverty, particularly but not exclusively in China.
As I keep saying, we still live in nations, we live in countries, the only governments we have are national, by and large. We might move from one place to another, but we still do so in the framework of national societies, and they have all become more unequal, and therefore they have all become more contentious in some ways.
AF: Do you see this as a dangerous development?
KPL: I don’t think the world has been as dangerously disordered as it is now, since the outbreak of World War I, although we did not know it at the time.
AF: And in your mind this is due to neoliberalism?
KPL: Together with the neoliberalist ideology of human rights. But the human rights that are singled out as the most important to the West are rights (or so‐called rights, or apparent rights, or claimed‐to‐be rights) which are basically not acceptable to the majority of people in this world. Like gay marriage, which is really contrary to prevailing belief systems in very many different societies in this world, including our own. But the fact is that the West — particularly the Americans, I must say — have championed some of these liberal causes at a time when people have reason to be fearful of what is going on in the world. They are fearful because of wars, because of the displacement of people — and it is not only the refugees who are displaced, and who have cause to be fearful, but also people in the countries into which these refugees have been pouring in large numbers, who are fearful of receiving them — and because of this perpetual ‘war on terror’ that the West has created and that makes people fearful. I don’t even know what it is that they are fearful about, but it gives people the wish to find some strong personality or government that will protect them from these perceived dangers. It seems to me to be kind of obvious. Also, of course, those who are more comfortable with this liberal discourse are the privileged of our society. So that leaves others in the society who are the disadvantaged, who know that they are or feel that they are, whether it is the result of disappearing employment or disappearing community.
AF: Isn’t that a common explanation for the rise of Trump in terms of locating it in the support of working classes and those disenfranchised by globalization? A lot of studies have in fact shown that that is not necessarily the case: it might have been a marginal factor, but there are also a lot of strong and powerful interests behind people like Trump.
KPL: Yes, but what Trump can do is to use the democratic system to get people behind him and build a popular movement, to capture the leadership over people who are going to validate him and his crowd in political terms. The fact that Trump and those around him are there to make themselves richer than before — and many of them are already very rich — is neither here nor there. It is the fact that he has the ability to capture the discontent, to express it. But what is new about that? That is the fascist appeal: it happened in the 1930s too.
AF: So, are you worried about the return of fascism?
KPL: Well, that depends on what you mean by fascism, really. My understanding of fascism comes from Europe of the 1930s, because that is where the word came from. The word fascism first came from Italy, from Mussolini’s version of national socialism. Hitler’s movement was also called national socialism — that is how we got the word Nazi. The initial adversaries were the socialists, who made class the basis of their solidarity. The fascist movement, which was a corporatist one, was to replace the solidarity of the working class by some form of solidarity of nation, of nationalism — hence the term national socialism. That nationalism, particularly evident in Germany, was strengthened by having adversaries, which is where it found the racialism. So that the German nation is superior to other Europeans, who are lesser breeds.
To my mind, fascism is opposed to socialism, but neither socialism nor fascism are individualistic liberal capitalism. Democracy is a relative of individualistic capital. I look at it in the Austrian way: in the 1930s, there was a fear on the part of the Austrian ruling classes about the perceived dangers of socialist parties, socialist militias, socialism. There was an effort to generate militias — called Heimwehr in Austria; in Germany they were called something else — in order to arm themselves with some power. But their aim was to maintain the basic structure of the system, to maintain the ruling classes, to continue to be the ruling classes. That was fascism.
There was also a racial element which singled out the Jews, especially. I think this was particularly European, where Jews played a particular kind of role in the societies where they became scapegoats. But I do not see fascism as necessarily identified with anti‐Semitism. Rather, it is a strategy of the ruling classes — including what were the industrial ruling classes of that time, as well as the other traditional ruling classes, the landed aristocracy — to maintain power by offering people a solidarity of nation rather than a solidarity of class. That is how I understand it in the 1930s.
So, it is interesting if you look at Trump in those terms, or even Brexit for that matter, or Italy … Definitely there is an appeal to solidarity and togetherness, whether it is more of nation or of people, and it plays to the sentiment of heimat in German, patrie in French. I don’t know what you call it in English. Maybe we do not have a word for it in the Anglosphere. Patriotism comes from the French. Fatherland already sounds fascist, it sounds German. Heimat is a very lovely phrase. It translates into homeland. We think of that as being some kind of nasty militia homeland, but homeland in German means country. It is an appealing word.
Fascism was not necessarily expansionist either. The issues with Franco were not external to Spain, they really were about the overthrow of the Republic because the Republic was feared to be socialistic. In the case of Mussolini, certainly Italians felt that they were entitled to some colonies too — ‘look at the British, the French and the Belgians, we want some too, we are going to go to Abyssinia’ — but I do not think it was a major element, because you did not have it with Franco. You did not have it with the Austrian fascists. They were not expansionist. If anything they were fearful of the Germans, and the upper classes were divided about whether to make a kind of local version of right‐wing fascism, with the heimatand so on, or whether to go with the Nazis. Austrian patriotism worked for them in a sense of nationalism against the Germans. ‘After all, we were the Great Hapsburg Empire, who are these Teutonic come‐lately god‐damned Germans? They are not civilized, they have not been here for very long, compared to the grandeur of the Hapsburg Empire, blah blah blah …’. But they were not expansionist, more defensive.
I think things like ‘Make America Great Again’ are typically fascist, kind of national. But behind fascists are the old ruling classes. I think that is a characteristic of fascism. On the other hand, there is also a deep cleavage within the ruling classes and the elites in the US today, between the neoliberal supporters of globalization and these more nationalistic elites.
AF: What role has neoliberalism — understood as a counter‐revolution that has bolstered the power of capital over labour — played in this?
KPL: I think there are two kinds of roots that we need to look at with regard to neoliberalism. One of them is in terms of the creation of the ideology. The difference between neoliberalism and classical liberalism — the John Stuart Mill kind of liberalism — was the circumstances that gave rise to the former, which seem to have been the death of liberalism, compared to the Soviet Union, the New Deal, etc. But the point of Hayek and company was not to diminish the role of the state. The point was to change it and in a sense to use the state, and the regulations and the rules that govern society, to ensure the rights of property. So it was quite a strong state in many ways, but it was a strong state for the purpose of protecting property from the rabble, in other words, from the functioning of democratic rules and regulations. That is the ideology and it is important. When Hayek got his Nobel Prize in 1974, it was a legitimation of the creed, even though the prize had to be shared with Myrdal. And [Milton] Friedman got one shortly after.
The other root is the one of policy, which is equally important. Because when they say that there was a counter‐revolution in the 1970s, I believe that counter‐revolution was predicted in a sense by Kalecki, in the lecture that he delivered to the Marshall society in 1942. I was there and I heard him lecture. What he was saying with his Marxist‐type building blocks, with department one and department two instead of consumption goods and investment goods, was that in conditions of full employment the position of workers would be strengthened. And although it might be profitable for the capitalists — they continue to make profits under this kind of system of shared productivity — they would lose their relative power. Kalecki suggested that they would not be content to lose relative power.
I think that is exactly what was happening. They were losing power, they were being challenged in various ways. When you put that together with foreign affairs — the movement against the war in Vietnam, revolutions of various kinds from Afghanistan to Nicaragua, Iran, the hostage crisis (very humiliating to the Carter regime) — there was a sense of ungovernability. There was talk about whether democracy is ungovernable. Then you had the Trilateral Commission of Japan, Europe and America in 1973, and the first convening of what became the G7 in 1975. It was the first time that the major capitalist powers had created a group expressing concern with the increasing disorder in the world, both domestically with stagflation and internationally with these apparent gains in the New International Economic Order, OPEC and the oil crisis, and all of that, a combination of circumstances. It was really a class position and it played itself out in terms of the governing classes making the case that a change of direction was needed, a regime change as somebody called it, towards what we then came to know as the neoliberal regime. So I think these go in parallel — what happens in reality and what is constructed as an ideology.
AF: Any last words?
KPL: I think there are a number of people who have proven their perceptions to be worth listening to, who have been warning us about where we are taking the world with technology. These include my father, but also many others, such as Albert Einstein. I like to cite Einstein, who said that we must be certain that the creations of our mind shall be of benefit and not a curse to mankind. And among the creations of our mind are our scientific attitude, our belief in science and technology. Economics is also a creation of our mind and I think it is one that should be questioned.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Andrew M. Fischer ([email protected]) is Associate Professor at the Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, The Netherlands, and member of the editorial board of Development and Change. His most recent book, Poverty as Ideology (Zed, 2018), was awarded the International Studies in Poverty Prize by the Comparative Research Programme on Poverty (CROP) and by Zed Books. He received his BA and MA in Economics from McGill University in Canada, and his PhD in Development Studies from the London School of Economics. He has been involved in development studies or developing countries for over 30 years.
Notes
1. Charles Taylor is a well‐known Canadian philosopher.
In a few hours it will be another new year, 2019. I can remember when 1984 seemed far in the future, both as a calendar date and George Orwell’s predicted dystopia, to which 9/11 and the digital revolution gave birth in the 21st century. Now I find myself 25 years past 1984 and a stranger in a strange land.
Over these holidays two occurrances brought the strangeness of the present time home to me.
One was the arrival of the memoir, From the Cast-Iron Shore (University of Notre Dame Press, 2019) by my friend and onetime colleague, Francis Oakley, an historian of the medieval era and past president of Williams College. The other was the report that a Japanese man had married a hologram. (See this)
Little doubt that feminism has made women troublesome, but preference for a hologram indicates a shifting preference for the virtual over the real. Many in the younger generations have friends they have never met face to face. They join together in teams to play Internet games, or they open themselves to the world of strangers on Facebook. It seems that digital interaction with people thousands of miles away is replacing the human interaction of a sports team or a date consisting or male-female face-to-face interaction.
I have read reports that young women pay for their university educations, if education it is, by engaging in digital sex work. They display themselves naked and provocatively in various sexual positions assessible on the Internet while engaging in sexual conversation, and the young men find this form of sexual engagement preferable to face to face contact with a woman. The saying is: “It is cheaper than a date and without commitments.”
On beaches I observe attractive women clothed in little but two shoe strings, a sight that would have driven the young men in my day crazy with lust, totally ignored by guys fixated on their cell phones. I sometimes think that people will stop going to beaches as they will prefer the virtual experience to the real one.
Francis’ memoir reminds me that the world he and I knew is over and done with, and that the kind of education that we got, him more than me, is no longer attainable.
The memoir reminds me that the rise of a poor Irish boy, via a Jesuit education and an Oxford scholarship to the presidency of America’s most prestigeous college, and my own rise to Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, normally a post conveyed to members of the financial elite, is something that no longer takes place. The ladders of upward mobility have been taken down. The middle class itself is declining into poverty.
Francis tells of the Irish farms of his relatives. The homes had no running water, and some not even an outhouse. My own grandparents farm did have an outhouse, but no running water. Water was obtained by going outside to the wellhouse and lowering the bucket into the well, and when filled drawing the bucket back up. The only hot water available was obtained by heating it on a wood stove where meals were cooked. The kitchen wood stove was usually the only heat for the house.
Francis, who attended Oxford in the decade following World War II, reports that there was no running water in his rooms. A scout, defined as “a domestic worker at a college at Oxford University,” brought a porcelain basin and a jug of hot water to the rooms in the mornings.
When I was at Oxford, as a rare post-graduate at Merton College, in the second decade after World War II, I could only stay in rooms during summers when I returned for collaborations with my former professor. If memory serves, there was running cold water, but full bathroom facilities were located outside the rooms. It wasn’t that much different from my undergraduate days at Georgia Tech where bathroom facilities were located at the end of each hall of rooms.
If time and events permit, I intend to return to Francis’ memoir, which is full of information about how the past, despite the hardships, produced more successful and more honorable people than we have around us today.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Otto von Bismarck once said, “People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.” For decades, a common myth pervading the American political arena has been that the left is anti-war. But they are as much opposed to war as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) – at least he is honest about his appetite for blood and desire for perpetual regime change, no matter who occupies the Oval Office. So, from where did this mendacity come?
In 2008, the United States was entrenched in an election battle and two major wars – Afghanistan and Iraq. The Democrats portrayed themselves as the anti-war party, promising to correct the foreign disasters of the incumbent administration. Since then, it’s as if former President George W. Bush never departed. The Democrats have championed military interventions, twiddled their thumbs under President Barack Obama, and nominated a hawk to lead the party in 2016.
Progressives, the same ones who, under Republican administrations, routinely held massive anti-war rallies on days that ended in “y,” have been eerily silent for the last ten years.
Today, the left has united with the neoconservatives in opposition to President Donald Trump’s decision to bring 2,000 troops home from Syria and potential plans to withdraw from Afghanistan. Because they loathe Trump so much and don’t want him to be portrayed as a more peaceful president than his predecessor, leftists demand that U.S. forces permanently stay in the region, facing death or serious injury.
Is this a case of Freaky Friday politics, or has the left always been pro-war?
Anti-War Democrats, Please Stand Up
Attempting to locate a handful of consistent anti-war Democrats is like trying to spot Vice President Mike Pence with a woman other than his wife at a restaurant: It’s never going to happen.
Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the man who switches from Independent to Democrat when it suits the occasion, has come out of the closet on occasion as a hawk. In addition to supporting the so-called Little War in Kosovo in the 1990s, Sanders revealed to ABC News in September 2015 that the U.S. could use its military forces when not attacked and apply sanctions on adversaries.
For the last century, virtually every war, invasion, and occupation have been given the stamp of approval by Democrats. President Woodrow Wilson dragged the U.S. into one of those wars-to-end-all- wars fiascos. President Harry Truman sent thousands of young men to their deaths in Korea, setting the stage for perpetual global interventionism. President Lyndon Baines Johnson escalated American involvement in Vietnam. The Democratic leadership approved of the Iraq War, and Obama destabilized an entire region, killed American citizens, and intensified the drone bombing campaign.
Outside of Capitol Hill, the predominantly left-leaning mainstream media have never seen a war it didn’t like. In the last two years alone, the vacuous TV commentators have employed the same two strategies: Demand action against Russia (eh, Paul Begala?) and oppose President Trump for using diplomacy and other tactics to institute peace.
So, how exactly is the left anti-war?
The Born-Again Right
When it comes to foreign policy, there are now three wings of the GOP: hawks, doves, and those who realize the doctrine of the last 20 years has failed.
One of the biggest surprises since Trump’s election is that the right has become increasingly more cautious about seeking dragons to slay and erecting Old Glory on every plot of land in the world. House Republicans have slashed foreign aid in the billions, Senate Republicans have voted to end America’s role in Yemen’s humanitarian crisis, and prominent figures in the White House have asked one simple question: Why should the United States be the policeman of the world?
Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to the president, recently dismantled the hawkish Counterfeit News Network when he told Wolf Blitzer:
“What I’m talking about, Wolf, is the big picture of a country that through several administrations had an absolutely catastrophic foreign policy that cost trillions and trillions of dollars and thousands and thousands of lives and made the Middle East more unstable and more dangerous. And let’s talk about Syria. Let’s talk about the fact — ISIS is the enemy of Russia. ISIS is the enemy of Assad. ISIS is the enemy of Turkey. Are we supposed to stay in Syria generation after generation, spilling American blood to fight the enemies of all those countries?”
Comments that should draw praise from the left have been met with mockery and scorn.
US Foreign Policy
H.L. Mencken was right when he said that “every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” There is no other area in government that should instill more shame in the population than foreign policy.
The political theater of sending young men and women overseas to fight in wars is a tragicomedy: a comedy for those who don’t have to wield a weapon and a tragedy for those who do. It is easy and comfortable for politicians and pundits, a paltry few of whom have ever done any of the fighting, to shout platitudes as if they were reincarnated John Waynes.
It’s clear that politicians of all stripes have blood on their hands. The only difference is that some policymakers showcase this human flesh with pride, while others pretend to be benevolent. Trump’s foreign policy has not been perfect, but it has been far superior to what has transpired over the years. To rebuke the president’s withdrawal of soldiers in an NPC-like manner makes you complicit to atrocity.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, and Defence Secretary are all fighting fires of their own making, whilst stabbing each other in the back. The Tory leadership battle is definitely underway and demonstrates their continued descent into what very soon might be oblivion for one of Europe’s most successful political parties ever.
The government has declared a “major incident” in the Channel following a sudden increase in the number of migrants attempting to reach the UK on small boats.
To be more accurate, it was the Home Secretary Sajid Javid who described the increase as a “very serious concern”. He has even brought back two Navy patrol vessels from overseas as part of efforts to stem the number of attempted crossings.
This ‘major incident’ of very serious concern’ as Javid puts it, in reality, is as follows.
The population of Britain today 66.86 million.
The number of migrants who have attempted to travel to the UK on small boats for the entire period of 2018 is just 539. And 227 of these migrants were intercepted by the French authorities before leaving France. That leaves 312 who made the attempt to cross the Channel. That is less than one migrant per 2 million of population in Britain.
If Britain’s government have decided this is a major incident and are struggling to cope without military intervention, then the country is finished.
By comparison, Greece has had 885,000 migrants landing on their shores since 2015 with a population of barely 11 million. That’s one immigrant in every 12 Greeks. At one point, Europe was seeing over 10,000 migrants a day arrive mainly because Western forces (Britain and France) attacked and destroyed Libya, known as the cork to the African migrant bottleneck, whilst engaging at the same time in the wreckage of the Middle East.
Another comparison could be that over 550 British (England and Wales) homeless people have died on the streets of Britain during 2018 – that is not of ‘very serious concern’ to the government, even though, these numbers are highest on record. Perhaps a ‘very serious concern’ would be that health and social care spending cuts have been directly linked to 120,000 excess deaths in England since the Tories came to power but that an additional 100 deaths happen EVERY DAY in England because of it. Somehow neither of these crises demand the mobilisation of Britain’s resources to help out.
So what else is going on here?
Not content with dividing society, destroying confidence in British business, being the architects of a predictable and costly recession that now threatens the livelihoods of countless hard-working Briton’s – senior Tories think that Brexit is the ideal opportunity to start canvassing for the top job, knowing full well that Theresa May politically represents little more than a dead body in the water.
Home Secretary Javid took the lead by courageously abandoning his £850 a night South African safari to save the nation from a surge of boats filled to the rafters with invading migrants.
Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, once the most hated politician in British politics was is in Asia boasting the UK’s post-Brexit “global influence” that Britain just lost through … Brexit. He, of course, is also fighting fires back home for charging forced marriage victims rescue fees. It’s all a bit ‘Windrushy’ and hostile and dare I say – just a little tinged with a spattering of Tory racism we are so used to today.
When Gavin Williamson was given the job as Defence Secretary there was a raft of objection from colleagues. One colleague very charitably said (among many who were far more forthright) – “Gavin Williamson is an oily, greasy ingratiator who is now in a job where his severe limitations will be on display.” Williamson has also been on leadership manoeuvres too. Remarkably, he’s been bleating that the UK should open military bases in the Far East and the Caribbean to become a global player after Brexit, forgetting completely that there have been serious cutbacks in the armed forces and Britain could hardly defend itself against any invader in its current state.
Mr Javid was then forced into an embarrassing U-turn by calling on border patrol vessels from the Mediterranean in the first place. He decided he could indeed use the services of his colleague Mr Williamson while undermining his Immigration Minister Caroline Nokes at the same time.
However, Mr Williamson was also on the offensive against his new rival Mr Javid. When offering the aforementioned military assistance to prevent migrants crossing the channel from France, Williamson demanded to know who should pay the £20,000-a-day cost of the vessel, HMS Mersey, the MoD or the Home Office.
This change of political sentiment will likely stay unless the Tories unite and show leadership – which they won’t.
The only silver lining for the Tories is that with Mr Corbyn at Labour’s helm, he is likely to lose this lead and the massive opportunity that Tory disintegration brings due to his own inability to unite Labour against factional infighting and the fact that he now going against the majority of Labour supporters who now want a second EU referendum.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
In response to domestic pressure, Trump agreed to extend the deadline for withdrawal of thousands of US troops from the northeaster Syrian province of al-Hasaka from the initial 30 days previously announced until April this year. Journalistic warmongers and hawks in think-tanks and among the US establishment have been railing at Trump with implausible arguments for maintaining the presence of US forces in Syria. The attacks on Trump are mainly justified on the pretext of protecting the US allies, the Kurds, from possible extermination by the Turks. Other analysts dare to repeat the absurd US mantra that “ISIS has between 20,000 and 30,000 militants in Syria and Iraq” to justify the continuous occupation of northeast Syria. If these arguments were not enough, others claim that Trump would be delivering the north of Syria to Iranian and Russian scarecrows, or that he would be facilitating the “Iranian-Baghdad-Damascus-Beirut connection”. Trump remains determined to pull out, despite his allies Israel, France and the UK begging him to stay longer in the Levant.
No delay will change the fate of al-Hasaka province or the unfolding course of events: 2019 will mark the return of the northeast province to the control of the Syria government forces; Turkey is choosing its camp; and the Arabs – afraid of becoming orphans like the Kurds – are overwhelming Assad with their warmth, acting as though they had not been waging war on his country since 2011.
As far as concerns the Kurds in al-Hasaka, based in the north-east of the Syrian province, they have offered themselves as human shields to Trump’s forces since they considered themselves US allies. Today, following Trump’s decision to withdraw his occupation forces, they have come to the clear recognition: the US can’t be trusted as an ally. Indeed, president Donald Trump did not consult with his European allies and certainly not with the YPG/SDF Kurds of Syria before deciding on withdrawal of his forces. The YPG, a branch of the PKK in Syria, understand that the continuous presence of the US forces as occupation troops imposes the burden of rebuilding the destroyed cities and infrastructure on the Kurds. Trump is not willing to undertake this reconstruction, and is failing to gather enough financial aid for this purpose from the Arab oil-rich countries who understand that the war in Syria is over.
It is thus clear that the current US establishment is not willing to invest in al-Hasaka province, and neither are the Arab allies who see no benefit in continuing to support “regime change” in Syria. The Arabs are engaged today in reopening their embassies in Damascus in an attempt to repair relationships they ruined during seven years of war. Sudan, the Emirates, Bahrein have all resumed official relations with the Syrian government, and soon Kuwait will do the same. Other countries are expected to follow suit. Saudi Arabia is not against the idea. Indeed, Sudan, Bahrein and the Emirates are very close allies to Saudi Arabia and would never move forward towards president Bashar al-Assad without Riyadh’s consent.
Saudi Arabia has been sending many positive signals to Damascus: the opening of the Syrian-Jordanian Naseeb crossing was not without its blessing, and Saudi Arabia is expected to play a positive role during the forthcoming European-Arab league meeting expected in February 24 in Cairo, Egypt. Saudi Arabia has never cut contacts with Syria since King Salman took power: in 2015, through a Russian initiative, Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman met with the Syrian president’s security envoy General Ali Mamlouk at Riyadh airport to explain that he inherited the anti-Assad policy from the previous Saudi ruler and that he would like to see some distance between Iran and the Levant. Mamlouk has maintained direct links with Brigadier Khaled Bin Ali Bin Abdallah al-Hneydan, the Saudi intelligence chief. He explained that Syria is faithful to its friends, the Iranians, and is not willing to limit its relationship with Tehran, although Syria does not on that account wish to be alienated from other Arab countries. Mamlouk’s recent visit to Egypt carried one message from Assad to the Arab league: “Syria did not split from the Arab League but it was the Arabs who detached themselves from Syria in 2012. Those who pushed Damascus out can bring it back in”. Also, Saudi Arabia removed Adel al-Jubeir from his previous ministerial position as a Foreign Minister, he who repeatedly called throughout the years of war for the removal of Assad “by diplomatic or military means” is no longer fit as a future link between Saudi Arabia and Syria.
Damascus finds itself in a stronger position in 2019 than it has in the last seven years of war. Turkey is not willing to stand against Assad, but is relying on Iran and Russia to establish a proxy relationship with Damascus. President Erdogan needs Russia and Iran as strategic commercial allies. He knows that the US is not a reliable partner since it has armed Turkey’s enemies, the Kurdish YPG/PKK in Syria, to the teeth, on the pretext of fighting ISIS. He also is aware that Assad could support attacks inside Turkish borders by Kurds and Arab tribes if Turkey doesn’t align itself in a partnership with Russia, Iran and Syria. Turkey would suffer if Syria were to line up with the UAE and Saudi against it. The US Gulf allies, notably the Emirates, do not hide their animosity towards Ankara. The UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash says his country wants to return to friendship with Syria and aims to “stand against the Iranian and Turkish fronts in the region [of the Middle East]”.
This is forcing Erdogan to define a friendlier strategy towards Syria – without necessarily standing against the US since he does not plan to step out of NATO in the near future – by maintaining a harmonious relationship with his partners in the Levant, Russia and Iran. These are the best channels for Turkey to coordinate the presence of its forces and proxies in Syria and to avoid collision with the forces of the Syrian government. This was the context of the Russian-Turkish meeting in Moscow in late December 2018, where Erdogan agreed to refrain from replacing US forces in Manbij, allowing the US to withdraw first so that the Syrian Army can move in and later disarm the YPG/PKK in due course. Moreover, Erdogan doesn’t want to see Assad joining the emerging Arab front against Turkey. Likewise, the Arab countries who are suddenly showing care and affection for Assad seem to want to keep their options open by bringing Damascus closer in case of a Trump U-turn against them, as he has turned away from the PKK Kurds in Syria.
But Turkey has still another problem to digest: Idlib and the jihadists. In rural Aleppo and rural Idlib, the jihadists of HTS (Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, i.e. ex-Nusra) have decided to cripple the pro-Turkish forces of Noureddine Zengi and have managed to take control of all fronts against the Syrian army. HTS took advantage of the presence of the bulk of pro-Turkish forces on Manbij front to attack the remnants forces left behind. These jihadists, supported by Turkistani militants, have never respected the cease-fire established in Astana by Turkey, Russia, and Iran. Their continuous violations have triggered many harsh Russian responses. If they decide to attack the Syrian army’s defence lines in large numbers, the ceasefire will no longer be valid. Syria will have to fight back, with support from its allies and Russia. The timing – if this takes place before the US withdrawal – will be inappropriate.
Regardless of the situation on the Idlib front, the government of Damascus is determined to regain the territory under jihadist control whenever the occasion for battle presents itself.
But these are not the only jihadists left in Syria: ISIS still occupy five to six villages along the Euphrates river where US forces have given them quiet protection for many months. These villages are the only physical geography still under ISIS control in Syria and Iraq, yet the Pentagon ridiculously claims there are 20,000 to 30,000 ISIS militants in the two countries. Syrian intelligence estimates the number of ISIS militants in the Euphrates villages as less than 1500. In Iraq there remain ISIS sleeper cells yet, unless the Pentagon has details on every single sleeper cell, it is impossible to count the number of ISIS supporters in various Iraqi cities. Iraqi counter-terrorism units and Hashd al-Shaabi have established tight control on all provinces and have infiltrated many ISIS cells, quietly arresting many of them on a regular basis. Iraqi security forces estimate the number of ISIS militants at between 1500 and 2000 all over Iraq. The number of car bombs and “spectacular attacks” has been insignificant in Mesopotamia in the last months. There is no doubt that ISIS can attack isolated objectives or soft targets in remote villages or travel by night in small groups to demonstrate a presence. But there is also no doubt that its “Islamic State” has been thrown irretrievably into the bin of history. The impossibly high Pentagon estimates can only be interpreted as part of an effort to justify an indefinite US presence in Syria and Iraq.
No matter whether Trump decides to delay or speed up his withdrawal, the Kurdish YPG/PKK have chosen their camp next to Damascus. The sooner US troops pull out the better, if they wish to avoid a vindictive reaction from those who offered themselves as human shield for years and lost thousands of men and women for their dream of Rojava. No matter how long the US holds onto its hostility against the Syrian government, the Arabs are ready to invest in the reconstruction of the Levant, to atone for their sin of financing the war for years, and to return the prestigious Syrian state to their fold.
No one is more interested than the Syrian army in defeating ISIS and making sure there will be no return to an “Islamic State”. For this to happen, Assad needs to eliminate al-Qaeda and all jihadists in Syria: Turkey would be happy to lift this burden from its shoulders, and Russia and Iran consider the extermination of Takfiris in the Levant as vital for their national security.
Turkey will take further positive steps towards Assad, who today enjoys a more prestigious position than at any time since 2011. Indeed the Levant is returning to the centre of Middle East and world attention in a stronger position than in 2011. Syria has advanced precision missiles that can hit any building in Israel. Assad also has an air defence system he would have never dreamt of before 2011 thanks to Israel’s continuous violation of its airspace and its defiance of Russian authority. Hezbollah has constructed bases for its long and medium range precision missiles in the mountains and has created a bond with Syria that it could never have established if not for the war. Iran has established a strategic brotherhood with Syria thanks to its role in defeating the regime change plan. NATO’s support for the growth of ISIS has created a bond between Syria and Iraq that no Muslim or Baathist link could ever have created: Iraq has a “carte blanche” to bomb ISIS locations in Syria without the consent of the Syrian leadership (following Assad’s total blessing to the Iraqi leadership to join in the fight on ISIS), and the Iraqi security forces can walk into Syria anytime they see fit to fight ISIS. The anti-Israel axis has never been stronger than it is today. That is the result of 2011-2018 war imposed on Syria.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
A legal team is being put together in order to file lawsuits against NATO countries that took part in the 1999 bombing of Serbia. The team of experts is led by Mr Srdjan Aleksic, a well known Nis-based lawyer. The legal team will put together cases backed by firm material evidence, collected from medical documents that indicate a causal relationship between NATO’s use of (depleted) uranium ammunition, and the increased number of cancer cases in Serbia. Mr Aleksic is visiting Melbourne for few days and he has joind us to talk about his initiative in more details.
“Between 10 and 15 tons of uranium have been dropped on the territory of then Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). The number of those ill with cancer is alarming. 2.5 percent of Serbia’s population is diagnosed with malignant diseases each year, i.e., 33,000 people. One child is diagnosed every day. Since 1999, the number of cancer patients has grown five times. The population is falling ill on a mass scale, especially in southern Serbia and in Kosovo and Metohija,” Aleksic said.
Jelena i Srdjan Aleksic (SBS Serbian)
He stressed that during the aggression, so-called hazard facilities – chemical and petrochemical industry sites – have also been targeted, although this is prohibited by international law of war.
“Our prominent scientists, doctors, oncologists – who have been researching this for years – will take part in preparing the lawsuits. The fact that a court in Italy found the state guilty for sending their Carabinieri to Kosovo and Metohija, to locations attacked with depleted uranium, speaks in favor of the veracity of our claim. 45 soldiers got cancer, and Italy has been paying big damages for this. Our claim is based precisely on this – that even the soldiers who took part in the aggression have gotten sick, and that their countries have been paying damages because of this,” says Aleksic.
According to Aleksic, “it is very important to study and prepare the lawsuits well” – because some others filed against NATO members have been thrown out in the meantime.
There is also a documentary filmed with the support of Serbian lawyer Srdjan Aleksic, whose native village in southern Serbia was bombed during the NATO bombing campaign. As a result, the region’s environment was contaminated with depleted uranium. Aleksic’s mother, just like dozens of his fellow villages, friends and relatives, died of cancer several years after the bombing, his father was also diagnosed with a malicious tumor.
“The “Uranium-238. My story” documentary tells about NATO bombings and the radioactive pollution of Serbia’s southern regions and the territory of Kosovo and Metohija which were considered environmentally pristine prior to the attack,” Aleksaic said.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
“”The rich are only defeated when running for their lives.” — C.L.R. James, The Black Jacobins
In less than two months, the yellow vests (“gilets jaunes”) movement in France has reshaped the political landscape in Europe. For a seventh straight week, demonstrations continued across the country even after concessions from a cowing President Emmanuel Macron while inspiring a wave of similar gatherings in neighboring states like Belgium and the Netherlands. Just as el-Sisi’s dictatorship banned the sale of high-visibility vests to prevent copycat rallies in Egypt, corporate media has predictably worked overtime trying to demonize the spontaneous and mostly leaderless working class movement in the hopes it will not spread elsewhere.
The media oligopoly initially attempted to ignore the insurrection altogether, but when forced to reckon with the yellow vests they maligned the incendiary marchers using horseshoe theory to suggest a confluence between far left and far right supporters of Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen. To the surprise of no one, mainstream pundits have also stoked fears of ‘Russian interference’ behind the unrest. We can assume that if the safety vests were ready-made off the assembly line of NGOs like the raised fist flags of Serbia’s OTPOR! movement, the presstitutes would be telling a different story.
It turned out that a crisis was not averted but merely postponed when Macron defeated his demagogue opponent Le Pen in the 2017 French election. While it is true that the gilets jaunes were partly impelled by an increase on fuel prices, contrary to the prevailing narrative their official demands are not limited to a carbon tax. They also consist of explicit ultimatums to increase the minimum wage, improve the standard of living, and an end to austerity, among other legitimate grievances. Since taking office, Macron has declared war on trade unions while pushing through enormous tax breaks for the wealthy (like himself) — it was just a matter of time until the French people had enough of the country’s privatization. It is only a shock to the oblivious establishment why the former Rothschild banker-turned-politician, who addressed the nation seated at a gold desk while Paris was ablaze, is suddenly in jeopardy of losing power. The status quo’s incognizance is reminiscent of Marie Antoinette who during the 18th century when told the peasants had no bread famously replied, “let them eat cake” as the masses starved under her husband Louis XIV.
While the media’s conspicuous blackout of coverage is partly to blame, the deafening silence from across the Atlantic in the United States is really because of the lack of class consciousness on its political left. With the exception of Occupy Wall Street, the American left has been so preoccupied with an endless race to the bottom in the two party ‘culture wars’ it is unable to comprehend an upheaval undivided by the contaminants of identity politics. A political opposition that isn’t fractured on social issues is simply unimaginable. Not to say the masses in France are exempt from the internal contradictions of the working class, but the fetishization of lifestyle politics in the U.S. has truly become its weakness. We will have to wait and see whether the yellow vests transform into a global movement or arrive in America, but for now the seeming lack of solidarity stateside equates to a complicity with Macron’s agenda.
It serves as a reminder of the historically revisionist understanding of French politics in the U.S. that is long-established. The middle class dominated left-wing in America ascribes to a historical reinterpretation of the French Revolution that is a large contributor of its aversion to transformative praxis in favor of incrementalism. The late Italian Marxist philosopher and historian Domenico Losurdo, who died in June of this year, offered the most thorough understanding of its misreading of history in seminal works such as War and Revolution: Rethinking the Twentieth Century. The liberal rereading of the French Revolution is the ideological basis for its rejection of the revolutionary tradition from the Jacobins to the Bolsheviks that has neutralized the modern left to this day.
According to its revised history, the inevitable outcome of comprehensive systemic change is Robespierre’s so-called ‘Reign of Terror’, or the ‘purges’ of the Stalin era in the Soviet Union. In its view, what began with the Locke and Montesquieu-influenced reforms of the constitutional monarchy was ‘hijacked’ by the radical Jacobin and sans-culotte factions. Losurdo explains that counter-revolutionaries eager to discredit the image of rebellion overemphasize its violence and bloodshed, and never properly contextualize it as self-defense against the real reign of terror by the ruling class. The idea behind this recasting of history is to conflate revolutionary politics with Nazi Germany whose racially-motivated genocide was truly the inheritor of the legacy of European colonialism, not the ancestry of the Jacobins or the Russian Revolution.
Maximilien Robespierre’s real crime in the eyes of bourgeois historians was attempting to fulfill the egalitarian ideals of republicanism by transferring political power from the aristocracy and nouveaux riche directly into the hands of the working class, just as the Paris Commune did nearly 80 years later. It is for this reason he subsequently became one of the most misunderstood and unfairly maligned figures in world history, perhaps one day to be absolved. The U.S. reaction to the yellow vests is a continuation of the denial and suppression of the class conflict inherent in the French Revolution which continues to seethe beneath the surfaces of capitalism today.
In today’s political climate, it is easy to forget that there have been periods where the American left was actually engaged with the crisis of global capitalism. In what seems like aeons ago, the anti-globalization movement in the wake of NAFTA culminated in huge protests in Seattle in 1999 which saw nearly 50,000 march against the World Trade Organization. Following the 2008 financial collapse, it briefly reemerged in the Occupy movement which was also swiftly put down by corporate-state repression. Currently, the political space once inhabited by the anti-globalization left has been supplanted by the ‘anti-globalist’ rhetoric mostly associated with right-wing populism.
Globalism and globalization may have qualitatively different meanings, but they nevertheless are interrelated. Although it is shortsighted, there are core accuracies in the former’s narrative that should be acknowledged. The idea of a shadowy world government isn’t exclusively adhered to by anti-establishment conservatives and it is right to suspect there is a worldwide cabal of secretive billionaire power brokers controlling events behind the scenes. There is indeed a ‘new world order’ with zero regard for the sovereignty of nation states, just as there is a ‘deep state.’ However, it is a ruling class not of paranoiac imagination but real life, and a right-wing billionaire like Robert Mercer is as much a globalist as George Soros.
Ever since capitalism emerged it has always been global. The current economic crisis is its latest cyclical downturn, impoverishing and alienating working people whose increasing hardship is what has led to the trending rejection of the EU. Imperialism has exported capital leading to the destruction of jobs in the home sectors of Western nations while outsourcing them to the third world. Over time, deep disgruntlement among the working class has grown toward an economic system that is clearly rigged against them, where the skewed distribution of capital gains and widespread tax evasion on the part of big business is camouflaged as buoyant economic growth. When it came crashing down in the last recession, the financial institutions responsible were bailed out using tax payer money instead of facing any consequences. Such grotesque unfairness has only been amplified by the austerity further transferring the burden from the 1% to the poor.
Before the gilets jaunes, the U.K.’s Brexit referendum in 2016 laid bare these deep class divisions within the European Union. One of the most significant events in the continent since WWII, it has ultimately threatened to reshape the Occident’s status in the post-war order as a whole. Brexit manifested out of divisions within Britain’s political parties, especially the Torys, which had been plagued for years by internal dispute over the EU. Those in power were blind to the warning signs of discontent toward a world economy in crisis and were shocked by the plebiscite in which the working class defied the powers that be against all odds with more than half voting to leave.
In general, well-to-do Brits were hard remainers while those suffering most severely from the destruction of industry, unemployment and austerity overwhelmingly chose to leave in what was described as a “peasants revolt” by the media. The value of the pound sterling quickly plunged and not long after the status of the United Kingdom as a whole came into question as Britain found itself at odds with Scotland’s unanimous decision to remain. Brexit tugged at the bonds holding the EU together and suddenly the collective standing clout of its member states is at stake in a potential breakup of the entire bloc.
Euroscepticism is also by no means a distinctly British phenomenon, as distrust has soared in countries hit the hardest by neoliberalism like Greece (80%), with Spain and France not far behind. In fact, before there was Brexit there was fear among the elite of a ‘Grexit.’ In response to its unprecedented debt crisis manufactured by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Greek people elected the Coalition of the Radical Left, SYRIZA, to a majority of legislative seats to the Hellenic Parliament during its 2015 bailout referendum. Unfortunately, the synthetic alliance turned out to be anything but radical and a trojan horse of the establishment. SYRIZA was elected on its promise to rescind the terms of Greek membership in the EU, but shortly after taking office it betrayed its constituency and agreed to the troika’s mass privatization. Even its former finance minister Yanis Varousfakis admitted that SYRIZA was a controlled opposition and auxiliary of the Soros Foundation.
Apart from suffering collective amnesia regarding the EU’s neoliberal policies, apparently the modern left is also in serious need of a history lesson regarding the EU federation’s fascist origins. It has been truly puzzling to see self-proclaimed progressives mourning Britain’s decision to withdraw from a continental union that was historically masterminded by former fifth columnists of Nazi Germany. It was in the aftermath of WWII’s devastation that the 1951 Treaty of Paris established the nucleus of the EU in the European Coal and Steel Community, a cooperative union formed by France, Italy, West Germany, and the three Benelux states (Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands). The Europe Declaration charter stated:
“By the signature of this Treaty, the involved parties give proof of their determination to create the first supranational institution and that thus they are laying the true foundation of an organized Europe. This Europe remains open to all European countries that have freedom of choice. We profoundly hope that other countries will join us in our common endeavor.”
The idea of forming a “supranational” union was conceived by the French statesman Robert Schuman, who during the outbreak of WWII served as the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees in the Reynaud government. When Nazi Germany invaded France in 1940, Schuman by all accounts willingly voted to grant absolute dictatorial powers to Marshall Philippe Pétain to become Head of State of the newly formed Vichy government, the puppet regime that ruled Nazi-occupied France until the Allied invasion in 1944. By doing so, he retained his position in parliament, though he later chose to resign. Following the war, like all Vichy collaborators Schuman was initially charged with the offense of indignité nationale (“national unworthiness”) and stripped of his civil rights as a traitor.
More than 4,000 alleged quislings were summarily executed following Operation Overlord and the Normandy landings, but the future EU designer was fortunate enough to have friends in high places. Schuman’s clemency was granted by none other than General Charles de Gaulle himself, the leader of the resistance during the war and future French President. Instantly, Schuman’s turncoat reputation was rehabilitated and his wartime activity whitewashed. Even though he had knowingly voted full authority to Pétain, the retention of his post in the Vichy government was veneered to have occurred somehow without his knowledge or consent.
Marshal Pétain meets with Adolf Hitler in 1940.
Schuman is officially regarded as one of the eleven men who were ‘founding fathers’ of what later became the EU. One of the other major figures that contributed to the federal integration of the continent was Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Nuremberg Trials may have tried and executed most of the top leadership of the Nazi Party, but the post-war government that became West Germany was saturated with former Third Reich officials. Despite the purported post-war ‘denazification’ policy inscribed in the Potsdam agreement, many figures who had directly participated in the Holocaust were appointed to high positions in Adenauer’s administration and never prosecuted for their atrocities.
One such war criminal was the former Ministry of the Interior and drafter of the Nuremberg race statutes, Hans Globke, who became Adenauer’s right hand man as his Secretary of State and Chief of Staff. Adenauer also successfully lobbied the Allies to free most of the Wehrmacht war criminals in their custody, winning the support of then U.S. General and future President Dwight Eisenhower. By 1951, motivated by the desire to quickly rearm and integrate West Germany into NATO in the new Cold War, the policy of denazification was prematurely ended and countless offenders were allowed to reenter branches of government, military and public service. Their crimes against humanity took a backseat to the greater imperialist priority of rearmament against East Germany and the Soviets.
In the years following WWII, there was also concern among the elite of anti-Americanism growing in Western Europe. The annual Bilderberg Group conference was established in 1954 by Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, himself a former Reiter-SS Corps and Nazi Party member, to promote ‘Atlanticism’ and facilitate cooperation between American and European leaders. Invitations to the Bilderberg club meetings were extended to only the most exclusive paragons in politics, academia, the media, industry, and finance. In 2009, WikiLeaks revealed that it was at the infamous assembly where the hidden agenda of the European Coal and Steel Community, later the EU, was set:
“E. European Unity: The discussion on this subject revealed general support for the idea of European integration and unification among the participants from the six countries of the European Coal and Steel Community, and a recognition of the urgency of the problem. While members of the group held different views as to the method by which a common market could be set up, there was a general recognition of the dangers inherent in the present divided markets of Europe and the pressing need to bring the German people, together with the other peoples of Europe, into a common market. That the six countries of the Coal and Steel Community had definitely decided to establish a common market and that experts were now working this out was felt to be a most encouraging step forward and it was hoped that other countries would subsequently join it.”
Prince Bernard presides over the first annual Bilderberg meeting in 1954.
At the 1955 conference, the rudimentary idea for a European currency or what became the Eurozone was even discussed, three years before the Treaty of Rome which established the European Economic Community, without the public’s knowledge:
“A European speaker expressed concern about the need to achieve a common currency, and indicated that in his view this necessarily implied the creation of a central political authority.”
The mysterious Bilderberg gatherings are still held to this day under notorious secrecy and are frequently the subject of wild speculation. One can imagine a topic behind the scenes at this year’s meeting would be how to address the growth of anti-EU ‘populism’ and uprisings like the gilet jaunes. Hitlerite expansionism had been carried out on the Führer’s vision for a European federation in the Third Reich — in many respects, the EU is a rebranded realization of his plans for empire-building. How ironic that liberals are clinging to a multinational political union founded by fascist colluders while the same economic bloc is being opposed by today’s far right after its new Islamophobic facelift.
While nationalism may have played an instrumental role in Brexit, there is a manufactured hysteria hatched by the establishment which successfully reduced the complex range of reasons for the Leave EU vote to racism and flag-waving. They are now repeating this pattern by overstating the presence of the far right among the yellow vests. Such delirium not only demonizes workers but coercively repositions the left into supporting something it otherwise shouldn’t — the EU and by default its laissez-faire policies — thereby driving the masses further into the arms of the same far right. Echoes of this can be seen in the U.S. with the vapid response to journalist Angela Nagle’s recent article about the immigration crisis on the southern border. The faux-left built a straw man in their attack on Nagle, who dared to acknowledge that the establishment only really wants ‘open borders’ for an endless supply of low-wage labor from regions in the global south destabilized by U.S. militarism and trade liberalization. Aligning itself with the hollow, symbolic gestures of centrists has only deteriorated the standards of the left participating in such vacuousness and dragged down to the level of liberals.
There is no doubt Brexit and Trump pushed the xenophobia button and could not have come about without it. However, such criticism means nothing when it comes from moral posturers who claim to “stand with refugees” while supporting the very ‘humanitarian’ interventionist policies displacing them. Nativism was not the sole reason the majority voted to leave the EU and many working class minorities also were Brexiters. Of course their fellow workers and migrants are not the true cause of their misery. After all, it was not just chattel slaves who came to the U.S. unwillingly but European immigrants fleeing continental wars and starvation as well — the crisis in the EU today is no different.
Fundamentally, migrants seek asylum on Europe’s doorstep because of NATO’s imperial expansion and the unexpected arrival of Brexit has threatened to weaken the EU’s military arm. Already desperate to reinvent itself and a new enemy in Russia despite its functional obsolescence, the shock of the referendum has inconveniently undermined NATO’s ability to pressure Moscow and Beijing, a step forward for mitigating world peace in the long run and a silver lining to its outcome. It is the task of the left to reject the EU’s neoliberal project while transmitting the message that capital, not refugees, is the cause of the plight of the masses. It is also necessary to have faith in the people, something cynical liberals lack. Racism may historically be the achilles heel of the working class but underlying Brexit, the election of Trump, and the yellow vests is the spirit of defiance in working people, albeit one of political confusion in need of guidance.
If the yellow vests are today’s sans-culottes, like those which became the revolutionary partisans in the French Revolution, they will eventually need a Jacobin Club. Relatively progressive but ultimately reformist figures like Mélenchon are no such spearhead and will only lead them down the same dead end of SYRIZA. The absence of any such vanguard has forced the working class to take matters into their own hands in the interim. If history is any guide, the gilets jaunes will be stamped out until a new cadre takes the reins whose objective is, as Lenin said, “not to champion the degrading of the revolutionary to the level of an amateur, but to raise the amateurs to the level of revolutionaries.” We also cannot fall into ideological fantasies that we live in permanent revolutionary circumstances or that a spontaneous uprising can become comprehensive simply because of ingenious leadership. Nevertheless, as Mao Tse-Tung wrote, “a single spark can start a prairie fire” and hopefully the yellow vests are that flame.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
My father was a doctor in the British Royal Navy, and I grew up traveling by troop-ship between the last outposts of the British Empire – Trincomalee, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Malta, Aden, Singapore – and living in and around naval dockyards in England and Scotland.
The British naval bases where I grew up and the fading empire they supported are now part of history. Chatham Dockyard. a working dockyard for over 400 years, is now a museum and tourist attraction. Trincomalee Dockyard, where I was born, has been in the news as a site where the Sri Lankan Navy is accused of torturing and disappearing Tamil prisoners during the Sri Lankan civil war.
Since the late 1970s, I have lived in California and Florida, grappling with the contradictions of U.S. empire like other Americans. The US does not have an internationally recognized territorial empire like the British or Ottoman Empires. American politicians routinely deny that the United States maintains or seeks an empire at all, even as they insist that its interests extend across the entire world, and as its policies impact the lives – and threaten the future – of people everywhere.
So how are we to understand this phenomenon of US empire, which is so central to all our lives and our future, and yet whose structure remains hidden and covert?
InEthnographies of US Empire, co-edited by Carol McGranahan of the University of Colorado and John F. Collins of CUNY, twenty-four anthropologists studied groups of people whose lives are shaped by the US empire and their interactions with it. Their subjects ranged from indigenous peoples in the US and Hawaii to call center workers in the Philippines to the forcibly exiled people of Diego Garcia.
Many of the ethnographies highlighted the seeming contradiction of an actually existing global empire in a post-colonial world where nearly all countries are internationally recognized as independent and sovereign.
Stratified Sovereignty
The final entry in Etnhographies of US Empire arrived at the most comprehensive analysis of the stratified and complex patterns of sovereignty through which formally independent states and their citizens nonetheless fall under the overarching sovereignty of the US empire.
By 2001, most of these 660 men had made new homes in Bosnia. Many had married Bosnian women and had Bosnian families. All had been granted Bosnian citizenship in recognition of their role in their adopted country’s independence. But after the crimes of September 11th 2001, the US government saw these former mujahideen as inherently dangerous, and insisted that they must be “denaturalized” and “repatriated.”
At first, this was done through an extrajudicial process of “rendition,” but after 2005 it was institutionalized in a nine-member State Commission (which included a US Army officer and a British immigration official) to strip people of Bosnian citizenship; a “Reception Center for Irregular Migrants,” a prison built at European Union expense on the edge of a refugee camp for Bosnian Serbs in Lukavica on the outskirts of Sarajevo; and a “Service for Foreigners’ Affairs” under Bosnia’s Ministry of Security, organized, trained and equipped by US advisers at US taxpayer expense, to run the prison and conduct deportations.
Darryl Li visited, studied and stayed in contact with some of these men and their Bosnian families for several years. He observed how, while the US exercised supreme sovereignty over these men and their fate, the US role was carefully hidden behind and operated through the formal sovereignty of Bosnia Hercegovina; and also how the fates of groups of men of different nationalities were governed by US imperial relations with the various countries they came from and to where they could be “repatriated.”
Most Egyptian men were sent back to Egypt, a reliable US ally, where they were imprisoned, tortured and, in many cases, disappeared, according to their Bosnian families. By contrast, six men from Algeria were rendered to the US concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. They were imprisoned there until they won a landmark case in the US Supreme Court that allowed them to sue for habeas corpus in US courts, and they were finally released in 2009, 2010 and 2013.
A Syrian-Bosnian man named Abu Hamza became the de facto leader of resistance to the denaturalizations and deportations. He was imprisoned for 7-1/2 years at the Lukavica prison, during most of which time the US and its allies fought a bloody but failed proxy war to install a more subservient regime in his country of origin. He was finally released in 2016 to rejoin his Bosnian family.
When Darryl Li first visited Abu Hamza at the prison in Lukavica in 2009, he was dressed in an orange jalabiyya and baseball cap, on which he had stenciled the word “BOSNATANAMO.” He had made this uniform for himself to highlight the parallels between the plight of prisoners at Lukavica and Guantanamo.
The flags flying over the guard gate of the prison in Lukavica were those of Bosnia and the European Union, and the US was officially involved in the imprisonment of the men there only through diplomatic channels, generous funding and the assistance of American trainers and advisers. And yet the US empire was the thinly veiled power behind the very existence of the prison and all that happened there.
Darryl Li compared the fates of the men in Bosnia with other cases of post-9/11 US detention, and found a similar pattern throughout the USgulag, in which the fates of people from specific countries were largely determined by the nature of US imperial relations with the countries involved.
For example, four British men detained in Pakistan and sent to Guantanamo were among the first prisoners to be released and repatriated, and returned home to relatively normal lives in the U.K. By contrast, Li met a Palestinian man in Gaza in 2007 who was “repatriated” there despite never having lived there before. He was born in Jordan and grew up in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where he was arrested and handed over to US forces. After several years in US military and CIA prisons, mostly in Afghanistan, he was sent back to Jordan, handed over to Israel and banished to Gaza.
In all these cases, Li observed how the US empire maintained a systematic and overarching sovereignty over the people and countries involved, not by completely ignoring the sovereignty of Bosnia, Egypt, the U.K and other countries, but by selectively and opportunistically exercising its own power through their nominally independent political and legal systems and the particulars of its relations with each of them.
Darryl Li’s research revealed an international system of stratified sovereignty, in which people’s lives were subject to the overarching imperial sovereignty of the US empire as well as to the sovereignty of their own countries.
Empire, not exception.
The US concentration camp at Guantanamo in Cuba is widely viewed as a glaring exception to US and international rules of law. Darryl Li noted that the prisoners are not the only non-Americans and non-Cubans living at Guantanamo, which also has a civilian staff of janitors, cooks and other workers, mostly from Jamaica and the Philippines. Like the prisoners and their American guards, these workers also live under the stratified sovereignty of the US Empire.
“Both third-country national prisoners and workers at GTMO share the predicament of dwelling in a space between the juridical protections of their governments, the local state and the US hegemon,” Li observed.
Darryl Li concluded that this framework of stratified sovereignty, in which people live under the sovereignty of both their own country and that of the US empire, is not an exception, but a norm of life in the US empire. So the shared predicament of workers and prisoners at Guantanamo is a striking example of how the US empire works, not an exception to it.
Other seemingly exceptional cases can also be better understood as examples of this actually existing imperial system of stratified sovereignty.
Consortium News has closely followed and reported on Julian Assange’s precarious asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. In Julian’s case, US imperial power has worked through a network of four nominally independent but subordinate states – Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Ecuador – to corner him in London for over six years and prevent him from regaining his freedom. And it may soon succeed in rendering him to the US in shackles.
If this is what happens to Julian, his fate will not differ substantially from that of people who dared to defy the formal, territorial empires of the past. The Saudis conquered most of Arabia in the late 18th century, but their leader Abdullah bin Saud was defeated, captured, rendered in chains to Istanbul and beheaded at the order of the Ottoman Sultan in 1818.
Until 1830, the British Royal Navy brought mutineers, smugglers and pirates captured on the high seas around the world back to London to be hung (slowly, in the case of pirates) at Execution Dock on the Thames. The most notorious pirates’ bodies were covered in tar and hung in chains from a gibbet on the riverbank as a warning against piracy to sailors on passing ships.
If anything can save Julian Assange from a 21st century version of their fate at the hands of today’s imperial power, it is empire-wide public outrage and the fear of US officials that such a naked display of imperial power will give their game away.
But fear of exposing its brutality and criminality rarely constrains the US empire. Since 2001, the US has been more ready than ever to attack or invade other countries at will, with no regard for US or international law, and to kidnap or extradite people from around the world to face imperial retribution in US prisons and courts.
Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, now detained in Canada, is the latest victim of US imperial power. At least 26 US and foreign banks have paid fines of billions of dollars for violating US sanctions on Iran, but none of their executives have been arrested and threatened with 30 year prison terms. In launching a trade war with China, challenging Chinese sovereignty to trade with Iran and holding Meng Wanzhou as a hostage or bargaining chip in these disputes, the US is displaying a dogged determination to keep expanding its imperial ambitions.
The case of NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden illustrates that there are geographic limits to US imperial power. By escaping first to Hong Kong and then to Russia, Edward evaded capture or extradition. But his narrow escape and the very narrow choices available to him are themselves an illustration of how few places on Earth remain safely beyond the reach of US imperial power.
The End of Empire
The corrosive and debilitating impact of US empire on the sovereignty of other countries has been obvious to its detractors for a long time.
In the introduction to his 1965 book, Neo-Colonialism: the Last Stage of Imperialism, President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana wrote, “The essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside.”
Darryl Li quoted Nkrumah’s verdict that this is, “…the worst form of imperialism. For those who practice it, it means power without responsibility, and for those who suffer from it, it means exploitation without redress.”
Nkrumah was deposed in a military coup orchestrated by the CIA the year after his words were published, but his critique remains, begging serious questions, “How long will the world tolerate this irresponsible form of empire?” Or even, ” Will we allow this ‘last stage of imperialism’ to be the last stage of our civilization?”
The way the US empire exercises power through stratified layers of sovereignty is both a strength and a weakness. For a brief period in history, it has enabled the US to wield imperial power in an otherwise post-colonial world, as Nkrumah described.
But Nkrumah had good reason to call this the last stage of imperialism. Once the US empire’s subject nations decide to claim in full the legal sovereignty they gained in the 20th century, and reject the US’s anachronistic imperial ambitions to dominate and exploit their institutions, their people and their future, this empire cannot permanently hold them back any more than the British or Ottoman Empires could.
This irresponsible empire has squandered the resources of our own and other nations, and spawned existential dangers that threaten the whole world, from nuclear war to environmental crisis. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has gradually advanced the hands of its Doomsday Clock from 17 minutes to midnight in 1994 up to 2 minutes to midnight in 2018.
The US’s system of “managed democracy” or “inverted totalitarianism”concentrates ever-growing wealth and power in the hands of a corrupt ruling class, increasingly subjecting the American public to the same “exploitation without redress” as the US empire’s foreign subjects and preventing us from tackling serious or even existential problems.
This self-reinforcing vicious circle endangers us all, not least those of us who live at the heart of this corrupt and ultimately self-destructive empire. So we Americans share the vital interest of the rest of the world in dismantling the US empire and starting to work with all our neighbors to build a peaceful, just and sustainable post-imperial future that we all can share.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Nicolas J S Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. He is a researcher for CODEPINK and a freelance writer whose work is published by a wide range of independent, non-corporate media.
It’s headquartered in Washington – with branch offices in Tel Aviv, Brussels, Berlin, London, Paris, other European capitals, and elsewhere worldwide.
It’s scourge threatens everyone everywhere, its diabolical agenda hostile to peace, equity and justice, to the public welfare, we the people meaning the privileged class exclusively, ordinary people exploited, not served.
The rage of ruling authorities in America and its junior partners to dominate and exploit aims to transform all countries into ruler-serf societies, unsafe and unfit to live in – Washington rules overriding international and sovereign state laws, US-controlled NATO operating as a global military, manufactured crises unjustifiably justifying endless wars against invented enemies, nonbelievers eliminated.
When governments fail their people, the way things are today in the West and elsewhere globally, they forfeit their right to rule, civil disobedience an essential tool to invoke for change, popular revolution the only solution.
Nothing else can work. Martin Luther King once said that disobeying unjust laws, accepting punishment, arousing public awareness through nonviolent civil disobedience “express(es) the highest respect for law” the way it should be, serving everyone equitably, adding:
“(N)on-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.” He championed “creative protest,” believing passivity is no option in the face of injustice.
Henry David Thoreau’s essay on civil disobedience, titled “Resistance to Civil Government” said the following:
“The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.”
“All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.”
“Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?”
The state “is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion…They can only force me to obey a higher law than I.”
Thoreau argued that no one is obligated to surrender their conscience to injustice. What’s fundamentally wrong should be challenged for change.
People have power when they use it, challenging unjust authority a duty, the only way to change the wrongs of ruling authorities.
Resistance is absent in America and other Western societies, Yellow Vest protests in France an exception, what’s needed universally at a time of endless wars, eroding social justice, increasing police state harshness – governments serving privileged interests exclusively at the expense of beneficial social change they abhor.
Electoral participation doesn’t work, voting a waste of time in the West and most elsewhere. Dirty business as usual always wins, notably in America, a money-controlled one-party state with two extremist right wings, pretending otherwise – a fantasy democracy, not the real thing.
Legislators serve powerful interests, laws enacted to serve them. Dominant media support what demands condemnation. Accountability to all segments of society is absent.
Over half of the US electorate abstaining from exercising their franchise is testimony to their powerlessness over how they’re ill-served by ruling authorities in Washington.
Throwing out bums for new ones each election cycle assures when things change they stay the same, the way it is in America, the West, Israel, and elsewhere.
Entrenched power yields nothing unless forced. It’s true in the public and private sectors. Years of labor organizing against long odds in America, taking to the streets, sustaining strikes, boycotts, and other work stoppages, battling monied interests, putting rank-and-file lives on the line for equitable treatment won important labor rights.
When energy waned and union bosses sold out to management, virtually everything gained was lost, organized labor today a shadow of its long ago peak strength.
The same holds in all segments of society, government and the courts in cahoots with dominant monied interests at the expense of ordinary people in America and elsewhere.
Failing to resist what’s intolerable assures unacceptable conditions steadily worsening. Challenging authority is needed, in America most of all.
It’s no simple task at a time when government is the handmaiden of business, public and private corruption extreme, electoral politics deeply flawed, along with growing tyranny, heading toward becoming full-blown if not challenged by popular upheaval, collective resistance, civil disobedience – in big cities and small, urban and rural areas, sustaining a movement for revolutionary change.
It’s unattainable any other way. American exceptionalism, moral superiority, and the indispensable state don’t exist – an increasingly totalitarian plutocracy, not a democracy, permanently at war against invented enemies.
The nation’s resources increasingly go for militarism, warmaking, and corporate handouts, ordinary Americans exploited, not equitably served, things worsening, not improving.
Full-blown tyranny may be another major homeland false flag away, another 9/11 type incident, martial law instituted on the phony pretext of protecting national security at a time the nation’s only threats are invented ones.
As long as dark forces running America go unchallenged, their rage for dominance may doom us all – by enslavement, nuclear armageddon, or ecocide.
The only solution is popular revolution, challenging authority, refusing to accept the unacceptable, defying the status quo for peace, equity and justice for everyone everywhere.
There’s no alternative to living free and safe – polar opposite how things are today.
America is far and away the most egregious human rights offender in world history, harming more people globally over a longer duration than any other nation.
If not challenged and stopped, we all may be doomed.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author 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.”
How low can a country governed by an unbridled greed, a notorious lack of morals and ubiquitous servility to its neo-colonialist masters, really sink?
And how can people tolerate lies, the naked cynicism and fanatical incompetence of the rulers? Can the regime in Indonesia, which was created in 1965, and then nurtured by the West, really get away with absolutely everything, even, literally, murder?
As I write this report, it has been confirmed that the tsunami which struck West Java on the 22nd of December, 2018, killed hundreds of people. It is almost certain that the death toll will soon climb to thousands.
Yesterday, I drove to West coast of Java. I witnessed devastation, but I also observed, as on so many previous occasions, absolute collapse of the state functions, its phlegmatic unwillingness to mobilize, as well as absolutely shocking helplessness of the victims.
During an entire day, along the entire coast, I did not encounter one single foreign journalist, while the local press, corrupt and unprofessional, kept reporting only what it was paid and ordered to report, even arranging ‘positive’ shots, instead of exposing harsh reality.
*
I gave myself 3 hours to write this report; only 3 hours, and not a minute more. That is how long my late evening flight from Jakarta to Bangkok will last. There is no time to delay what has to be urgently said. No time for ‘flowery reporting’. People are dying. Now it is December 25. The day before yesterday it was announced that at least 222 human lives were terminated. Yesterday the count stood at 370. Now, before my plane takes off, it is close to 500. What should we expect tomorrow; a thousand? Are we going to be informed in one week that several thousand men, women and children were swept away, crashed, torn apart, drowned, and starved to death?
Miserable structures could not withstand tidal wave
As in 2004 when a quarter of million people, mostly in Aceh, vanished after a devastating tidal wave, I have to repeat now what I declared then: in Indonesia, it is not a tsunami that murders; it is not at all. The regime imposed on this miserably poor country by the West, in 1965, reduced the entire archipelago to a monolithic, unproductive, resigned, awfully religious cluster of islands stripped off almost all of its natural resources as well as original fauna and flora; islands polluted, inhabited by uneducated and increasingly aggressive and intolerant people; both victimizers and victims at the same time.
These people cannot fight or resist, anymore. They only brutalize each other, never their immoral rulers.
*
Mrs. Rani from Cinangka, Anyer, used to be the owner of a tiny restaurant selling fresh fish from the nearby sea. Now she is standing next to her destroyed hut. First, she appears to be angry, but then she breaks down, begins hugging us desperately as if we were her last hope, crying bitterly:
“The government does nothing, absolutely nothing for us. President Jokowi passed by here, in his motorcade, but he did not even slow down, at least to ask and see how we are doing. Nobody cares about us!”
“When the tsunami hit, we were sleeping. And my husband and I went out of the house and ran to that coconut tree across the road; you see, over there… In my mind, I still see my grilled fish tiny restaurant (warung) as if it was standing and safe. People shouted at us to go further up the hill, towards a safer place. But when we returned in the morning, to search for our house and restaurant, we were shocked – it was totally looted out by thugs!”
“Now, not only don’t I have a place to live, anymore, my only source of income is also gone.”
As always when natural or man-made disasters strike in Indonesia, the only things one can hear are the sobs of the victims and the ridiculous honking of the sirens and horns, most of them belonging to private cars that are pretending to be on an important ‘mission’.
Coming from Jakarta – hanging around, doing nothing
But almost nothing moves. Heavy equipment like bulldozers and excavators, are there, but standing still, drivers and operators are either smoking or just staring in the distance. The sky is empty – no helicopters, no amphibious planes have been visible for the entire day that I worked in the area (later I was confidentially told that Indonesia doesn’t really have enough choppers, and hardly any pilots trained to fly them).
The entire coast is covered by Poskos(posts) that are, at least in theory, erected there, in order to provide relief to the victims. But most of them belong to political parties, or to religious organizations, interested only in showing off and in promoting their own agenda. There are extreme-right-wing groups like Pemuda Pancasila, with members snapping selfies of each other: or having leisure lunches and dinners at what had still survived of the local restaurants.
Extreme right-wing groups at tsunami area
Islamists in white robes are pointing their thumbs towards the sky, laughing loudly and ridiculously, and shouting “Prabowo – Sandi”referring to the presidential and vice-presidential candidate. Prabowo, a former army general, is a brutal military man, known to have committed countless crimes against humanity while serving in the plundered West Papua, and during the anti-government demonstration that rocked the capital many years ago. His posters are visible everywhere along the coast, and his people pose for cameras and for mobile phones, promoting their movement all along the ruined beaches.
Poskos are always full of people, those individuals who are constantly pushing their idiotic speeches, shouting slogans, but above all, taking photos of each other. I saw something similar in 2004 in Aceh. While the Japanese, Singaporeans and other foreigners were working, desperately trying to save the lives of the victims, the Indonesian NGO’s and ‘volunteers’ were laughing, taking photos of each other, and promoting their religious and political agendas.
Religious cadres laughing while promoting their own agenda
Disaster or no disaster, almost every man here is puffing on his cigarette. There is always plenty of time for religion, for taking selfies, for a little cyber chat, and of course, for a smoke. And while everyone is busy banging into their phones and exhaling smoke, almost no one is working.
This is a perfect warning to the world: what happens to a country fully abandoned to Western neo-colonialism, to religion, consumerism, corruption, as well as intellectual and moral void.
We are passing Posko PKS Peduli(Post of the ‘PKS Care’). PKS party belongs to Prabowo’s coalition. The post is well-visible, noticeable, full of slogans. It is there solely to attract voters, not to save victims.
*
After progressing further south, we exit the main road at Sukarame Village, drive again, then walk up to a hill, towards a ‘camp’, where the people displaced by the nearby coastal disaster area are supposed to be taken care of by the authorities.
What we encounter there is self-explanatory, and I make sure to record the situation visually.
As elsewhere in Indonesia, the area is overtaken by thugs who are ‘regulating traffic’ and arranging parking spaces, for a fee. For them, as for almost everyone else with the exception of the victims, all of this is a great business opportunity. They are bossing drivers around, maximizing both space and the profits. At one point it begins to rain.
At night in a village destroyed by tsunami
We are following displaced people. Soon, a ‘tent city’ appears.
It consists of three tents at the lower part of the hill, and of few more a bit higher up. The tents are blue, and they are not yet assembled.
“Is that all?” I ask a man who is smoking even in the rain, periodically snapping his own selfie.
“Yes, it is,” he answers, phlegmatically.
Mr. Karid from Cibenda village recalls:
“My son who is the caretaker of a villa on the coast, suffers from a broken leg and he lost one of his children. This grandson of mine was only 6 years old. I had to go back and forth between taking care of my son and also taking care of the funeral of my grandchild.”
No one seems to be paying attention to the victims. They were told that the second wave may hit at any moment, and they are moving up, towards the highest ground, spontaneously.
“Do they help you?” We ask.
“Not really,” comes the reply, immediately. By now, it is a quite standard answer. “They don’t even give us real food”.
Then it happens: some 20 police officers on expensive motorcycles, wearing yellow wests, arrive on the scene.
Police posing, doing nothing
They walk slowly towards those parts of the tents lying on the grass and begin… Not working, no: they begin posing!
I film.
There are two men, one photographing for social media, the other in police uniform, giving precise instruction to the police officers, how to stand and how to pretend that they are actually working.
I keep filming.
Slowly, extremely slowly, those 20 well-fed men began putting together the frame of one tent. Others watched smoking and photographing.
After one part of the tent was assembled, police officers gathered in a circle and began chatting.
It was now raining, heavily. Victims were slowly walking by: no one pays any attention to them.
Down at the side of the road, I saw something that may resemble a local TV crew, dragging the operator of a huge excavator, to his cabin. A man climbed up, put his hands on the control, and… nothing. No roar of the engine, no movement. He was being photographed from below. When he climbed down, he is interviewed, his idle heavy equipment clearly visible behind his back.
Not far from the scene, people are searching through the rubble, for their belongings, for their ID papers and who knows, perhaps even for their loved ones.
While the Indonesian public and the world is shown what they are supposed to see: a natural disaster and the nation mobilizing to help its fellow citizens.
But nothing moves. Only those countless vehicles belonging to the NGOs and the right-wing political parties (there are no left-wing parties in this country), are blocking the streets, creating traffic jams. People on board are honking, blasting sirens, trying to look macho and determined, while doing nothing substantial, except what they do all their lives: smoking, sitting in endless traffic jams, and listening to junk music.
And the people, hundreds or perhaps thousands of them, are dying just few meters away.
*
And the sky is still clear: there are no helicopters or airplanes, even when it begins to rain, or when it stops raining.
And there are no battleships visible near the coast.
The Indonesian army has been well known for fighting, killing and raping its women and children, after the 1965 military coup, or in East Timor or now, in West Papua. It is also very good at protecting Western mining companies against the people, local victims. It is not here to defend its citizens: on the contrary. It commonly commits treason, but instead of being court-martialed and facing a firing squad, it is being praised and continuously rewarded with cash, training and equipment from the West.
The same can be said about the Indonesian academia and media. They are not here to tell the truth and defend the nation. They are paid to be quiet and to say what is ordered ‘from above’ and from abroad.
And no foreign media would go where I am routinely working. I am always alone here, no matter what horrors are occurring around me. The fascist, pro-Western, religious regime here reduced the Indonesian people into submissive, self-centered cowards. I don’t care. They are willing to betray, even to kill, for their own privileges. So I am trying to perform their duties, instead.
It is their problem what they do. While it is my obligation to document. Alone or not alone.
*
Some 60 kilometers further south, everything stops. By the time we arrive, it is late at night. The road is heavily damaged. This is ‘the border’. No private vehicles can pass.
Behind this point, the destruction is, most likely, even more horrid.
Were this to be a ‘normal’, read ‘not collapsed country’, there would be countless military heavy vehicles repairing the road. There would be provisory lights, thousands of experts and military men building the bridges, filling deep ditches. Helicopters would be flying, and big NAVY ships would be providing support from the sea. There would be a constant, determined fight to save human lives.
I saw it in Japan and in Chile. In Chile, after a terrible tsunami, the entire nation mobilized. The motorway was clogged with constant streams of vehicles, bringing to the devastated areas pre-fabricated wooden houses of high quality, bringing water, gas, food, medical supplies. To witness such mobilization performed by the then, still, socialist government, made one feel proud to be a human being. As a result, very few people died. Everyone got taken care of, re-housed and compensated by the government.
Here, in Indonesia, at the ghostly, destroyed village of Cikujang, we only encountered two men sitting among the rubble of destroyed house. They reluctantly explained:
“Our car got stuck in a deep ditch. Engine died. Now we are just waiting that someone will rescue us”.
All around – darkness and destruction. Carcasses of cars and motorcycles, collapsed houses, personal belongings of people scattered all around. I am trying to film and photograph, using the high beam of the car. What I see is not for the faint-hearted.
As I am working, I am aware of the warnings: the second tsunami wave can strike at any moment. If it does, my tiny crew and I will get fucked. But we have to work, because behind our backs, somewhere in the total darkness, there are tens of thousands of people, cut off from any help, abandoned by this monstrous nightmarish system.
Up the hill, we find an old scout center. There, many victims are gathered.
Mr. Iwan, the leader of this provisory camp of displaced people, readily explains:
“We have five people who lost their lives, 4 are already buried but we are still missing 1 person. “
People are praying. No one dares to blame the government or the system. To them, it is all normal.
We are told, again and again, that there is absolutely no way to go any further. We try, but confronted with flooded road, finally turn back.
There is no activity. No action. Behind this line, most likely thousands of people are dying.
*
It is now clear that the early warning system failed the people of West Java.
It was reported that it was ‘vandalized’. In fact, it was stolen. Supplied by Malaysia, Germany and UK, it was looted by local folks. And the government knew it, and did nothing at all to replace it.
In Vietnam or China, officials who allow such a disaster to take place, would be facing a firing squad, for treason.
In Indonesia, the entire system is mobilized to cover up what has taken place, and what is still taking place while this report goes to print: the ineptness of the government, of the armed forces, the tremendous greed of the NGO’s and private individuals of the country.
In Indonesia, human lives are worth absolutely nothing. Public welfare means nothing as well. The only thing that matters is profit, plus religious rituals. And the big natural disasters like this one are truly great opportunities to enrich even further those corrupt gurus of turbo-capitalism.
While thousands of families have irreversibly lost their homes and small businesses, the entire nation is mourning a pop band from Jakarta, called ‘Seventeen,’ which was performing for the elites in an exclusive beach resort, when tsunami hit the area. All band members died except their lead vocalist.
I have worked in 160 countries of the world; I have seen a lot, really a lot, but nothing so morally collapsed and corrupt as the Indonesian regime. And I have never encountered any establishment so capable of covering-up its own crimes.
*
Now most of the reports are repeating ‘how and why this tsunami occurred’. People who know nothing about science, are repeating like idiots about some underwater plates moving, about an explosion of a volcano, and other ‘technical’ issues.
But what really happened here, as has already happened so many times this year, and every other single year, is that people died for absolutely ridiculous and preventable reasons: the unwillingness of the regime to spend money on anything that does not generate ‘profit’ (like an early tsunami warning system), pathetic, laughable ‘city planning’ as well as the lack of enforceable regulations for both urban and rural areas located in danger zones, plus the endemic corruption, terrible education and therefore lack of any vision or enthusiasm, as well as many other factors along these lines.
The victims in West Java are, as it always happens here, resigned – they are as locals saypasrah. Poor people, the great majority of Indonesian citizens, are submissive. They repeat what the ‘elites’, the West and religious ‘leaders’ want them to repeat: that they are ‘grateful to God’ even for being alive. I hear it in the slums, and in devastated areas. By now, people here have nothing against their tormentors; against capitalism or imperialism (they don’t even know what these terms really symbolize). They steal from each other, but do not dare to fight those who are robbing them on a greater scale.
By not providing basic services, the state is murdering thousands, more precisely millions, annually. Now it has done it again. The definition of a ‘failed state’ is precisely that: the ‘inability to provide basic services to its citizens’. Full stop.
And my 3 hours are now up. The plane is descending.
I have just witnessed mass murder, in Java, Indonesia. Not a ‘natural disaster’, but mass murder. There is no time for elegant reporting. This is what I saw, and therefore, this is what I write. Tens of thousands are still left behind on the coast, with almost no help. The Indonesian ‘elites’ are now making profits from their suffering. It is already dark in Bangkok, where I am landing.
It must be horribly dark ‘back there’, in Banten: dark and frightening.
I am writing this in order to warn the world: let us all unite against the regimes that have been implanted by the West in the colonies. Let us not allow such genocides to happen again and again!
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
On December 9 William Blum died. He was one of the great truth-tellers of this or any other era and an example of everything a real journalist should be.
Blum began working for the US State Department as a computer programmer in the mid-’60s but the man who declared that he wanted to “take part in the great anti-communist crusade” had the scales fall from his eyes as the Vietnam war unfolded and he quit, founding The Washington Free Press, one of the New Left’s first independent newspapers.
Bill held a passionate determination to tell the truth about US foreign policy aims, and this he did for the rest of his life. Two of his books in particular should be required reading for us all, but especially for anyone with aspirations to be a journalist (rather than a state stenographer as most end up).
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower are vital records of the rapacious truth of US policy when it comes to other nations: a violent, predatory blueprint underpinned by an utter contempt for democracy.
We need this record, because the big lie of the US as a force for good in the world is continually propagated by a corporate media fundamentally aligned with state power. Stark proof of this can be seen every single day on the BBC, ITN, Sky or Channel 4 News. Sceptical that the latter should be so maligned? You could read my series, What’s Wrong With Channel 4 News? at bsnews.info or check out 21st Century Wire’s Ch4N archive. And as for “liberal” newspapers like the Guardian, just visit the Media Lens archive for evidence of its shameful record of cheerleading for every illegal and immoral war you could name.
There is simply nowhere to go in the corporate media for an alternative to the big lie. And that is why Bill Blum’s work is indispensable. His chronicle stands as a mighty refutation of the huge deception that seeks to wipe the truth from the historical record so that the public is primed to accept whichever false justification is presented to it for the next murderous military intervention. But these rationales cannot stand if we are armed with the knowledge of what really happened, and Blum has left us, along with his books and many articles, one of the most effective weapons with which to counter the myth of a benevolent United States in its relations with the rest of the world.
Go to williamblum.org and you will find a page with the words:
“Overthrowing Other People’s Governments — The Master List. Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the second world war. (*indicates successful ouster of a government).”
And then comes the list itself, beginning with:
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953*
Guatemala 1954*
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
And on it goes, citing 57 countries in all and bringing us all the way up to the present day. The list is all the more powerful for its succinctness, each entry a tragedy and a crime, with incalculable suffering behind it. The document is stark and it is shocking and we need it now as much as ever.
Comedian Rob Newman, during his quite brilliant show A History of Oil, recounts that he was listening to the Today Programme on BBC’s Radio 4 and noticed that the headline being repeated, “on the hour, every hour” was this: “The G8 has today endorsed an American plan to bring democracy to the Middle East.” There it is, the big lie.
No corporate journalist ever questions it, having been carefully “selected for obedience” as they are, the result being that the least independent minded and most slavish of all are the Jon Snows, Krishnan Guru-Murthys and the other gallery of well-known faces in the mainstream media landscape, no matter how radical and maverick they believe themselves to be.
Newman tells his audience: “There is in our own time an absolute taboo among the corporate news media and the political class against mentioning anything to do with the strategic and economic reasons for war.” And that is exactly why the Master List is so important — we are in a constant fight to keep the truth of the historical record alive in the face of a relentless propaganda machine and the stakes are as high as they could be.
The corporate media has blood on its hands — I do not say that lightly. Because without the amplification of the big lie, these blood-soaked invasions could never have been dressed up as “humanitarian” interventions in which literally millions of innocent people have suffered and died.
Of course, corporate journalists do not take kindly to being exposed by real journalists, which is why the New York Times used this headline to report Bill’s death: “William Blum, US policy critic cited by bin Laden, dies at 85”.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), the US-based media watch group, commented: “Yes, to the Times, the most important thing about Bill Blum’s life is that Osama bin Laden once remarked to Americans, in a tape released from hiding, that Rogue State would be ‘useful for you to read’ … Should (Blum) have denied that his book would be ‘useful…to read,’ or wished aloud that bin Laden had been a supporter of the State Department’s policies? There are certainly some policies where you’d find the State Department, al-Qaida and the New York Times on one side, and Blum on the other.”
Considering the fact that the US has long colluded with radical Islam and is doing so right now in its financial and military support for jihadist terrorists in Syria, including al-Nusra (al-Qaida in Syria), the word irony doesn’t really cover it. And for Britain’s own long record of colluding with Islamists, even as the public was told these were the enemy we must all fear and despise, see the book Secret Affairs by Mark Curtis.
We would all, I hope, wish to evolve during our short time on this troubled planet, and Bill Blum appears to have been on a path of accelerated growth. From the belly of the beast to independence and freedom, he shared his journey and the vital knowledge and insights he gained along the way. Read his work — you might just be moved to send every corporate journalist you see repeating the big lie a copy of The Master List.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The National Gathering of Martyrs’ Families has stated in its annual report for the year 2018 that Israeli soldiers have killed 312 Palestinians, including women and children, and added that this number is four times higher than the year 2017.
Mohammad Sbeihat, the Secretary-General of the Gathering, has reported that Israel and its occupation forces are encouraged by the silence of the international community, and expressed its support of the calls of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to prosecute Israel in international courts for its escalating crimes and violations.
Sbeihat added that the Gathering has thoroughly documented the Israeli violations in all governorates during the year, including reports from various human rights organizations.
The documentations reveal the following:
The number of Palestinians who were killed by Israeli army fire in 2018 is 312, including 310 who were shot with live ammunition, and two who died from the severe effects of teargas inhalation.
271 Palestinians were killed in several parts of the Gaza Strip.
42 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank.
Six of the slain Palestinians are females.
306 of the slain Palestinians are males.
The youngster slain Palestinians is Laila al-Ghandour, only eight months of age, and the oldest is Ibrahim Ahmad al-‘Arrouqi, 74.
Fifty-seven of the slain Palestinians in 2018 are children (below the age of 18).
Approximately one Palestinian was killed every 28 hours, which means that, comparing to the year 2017, the average is four times higher, as Israel killed 74 Palestinians.
The month that witnessed the highest numbers of deaths by Israeli fire was May, as the soldiers have killed 89 Palestinians.
The Average age of the slain Palestinians was 24.
The number of married Palestinians killed by the army is 107, 104 of them were males and 3 females.
Israel is still holding the corpses of twenty Palestinians who were killed in 2018. This is added to 38 corpses of Palestinians killed by the army in 2015 and remain held by Israel.
The total number of corpses of slain Palestinians held by Israel since the year 1965 is 284.
Israeli forces have killed 145 Palestinians in 2015.
Israeli forces have killed 127 Palestinians in 2016.
Israeli forces have killed 74 Palestinians in 2017.
Israeli forces have killed 312 Palestinians in 2018.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
American journalism has become in its mainstream exponents a compendium of half-truths and out-and-out lies. The public, though poorly informed on most issues as a result, has generally figured out that it is being hoodwinked and trust in the Fourth Estate has plummeted over the past twenty years. The skepticism about what is being reported has enabled President Donald Trump and other politicians to evade serious questions about policy by claiming that what is being reported is little more than “fake news.”
No news is more fake than the reporting in the U.S. media that relates to the state of Israel. Former Illinois congressman Paul Findley in his seminal bookThey Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby observed that nearly all the foreign press correspondents working out of Israel are Jewish while most of the editors that they report to at news desks are also Jews, guaranteeing that the articles that eventually surface in the newspapers will be carefully constructed to minimize any criticism of the Jewish state. The same goes for television news, particularly on cable news stations like CNN.
A particularly galling aspect of the sanitization of news reports regarding Israel is the underlying assumption that Israelis share American values and interests, to include freedom and democracy. This leads to the perception that Israelis are just like Americans with Israel’s enemies being America’s enemies. Given that, it is natural to believe that the United States and Israel are permanent allies and friends and that it is in the U.S. interest to do whatever is necessary to support Israel, including providing billions of dollars in aid to a country that is already wealthy as well as unlimited political cover in international bodies like the United Nations.
That bogus but nevertheless seemingly eternal bond is essentially the point from which a December 26th op-ed in The New York Times departs. The piece is by one of the Times’ resident opinion writers Bret Stephens and is entitled Donald Trump is Bad for Israel.
Stephens gets to the point rather quickly, claiming that “The president has abruptly undermined Israel’s security following a phone call with an Islamist strongman in Turkey. So much for the idea, common on the right, that this is the most pro-Israel administration ever. I write this as someone who supported Trump moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and who praised his decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal as courageous and correct. I also would have opposed the president’s decision to remove U.S. forces from Syria under nearly any circumstances. Contrary to the invidious myth that neoconservatives always put Israel first, the reasons for staying in Syria have everything to do with core U.S. interests. Among them: Keeping ISIS beaten, keeping faith with the Kurds, maintaining leverage in Syria and preventing Russia and Iran from consolidating their grip on the Levant.”
The beauty of Stephens overwrought prose is that the careful reader might realize from the git-go that the argument being promoted makes no sense. Bret has a big heart for the Kurds but the Palestinians are invisible in his piece while his knowledge of other developments in the Middle East is superficial. First of all, the phone call with Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had nothing to do with “undermining Israel’s security.” It concerned the northern border of Syria, which Turkey shares, and arrangements for working with the Kurds, which is a vital interest for both Ankara and Washington. And it might be added that from a U.S. national security point of view Turkey is an essential partner for the United States in the region while Israel is not, no matter what it pretends to be.
Stephens then goes on to demonstrate what he claims to be a libel, that for him and other neocons Israel always comes first, an odd assertion given the fact that he spends 80% of his article discussing what is or isn’t good for Israel. He supports the U.S. Embassy move to Jerusalem, the end of the nuclear agreement with Iran, both of which were applauded in Israel but which are extremely damaging to American interests. He attacks the planned withdrawal from Syria because it is a “core interest” for the U.S., which is complete nonsense.
Contrary to Stephens’ no evidence assertion, Russia and Iran have neither the resources nor the desire to “consolidate[e] their grip on the Levant” while it is the United States has no right and no real interest to “maintain leverage” on Syria by invading and occupying the country. But, of course, invading and occupying are practices that Israel is good at, so Stephens’ brain fart on the issue can perhaps be attributed to confusion over whose bad policies he was defending. Stephens also demonstrate confusion over his insistence that the U.S. must “resist foreign aggressors…the Russians and Iranians in Syria in this decade,” suggesting that he is unaware that both nations are providing assistance at the request of the legitimate government in Damascus. It is the U.S. and Israel that are the aggressors in Syria.
Stephens then looks at the situation from the “Israeli standpoint,” which is presumably is easy for him to do as that is how he looks at everything given the fact that he is far more concerned about Israel’s interests than those of the United States. Indeed, all of his opinions are based on the assumption that U.S. policy should be supportive of a rightwing Israeli government, that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has recently been indicted for corruption and has called for an early election to subvert the process.
Bret finally comes to the point, writing that “What Israel most needs from the U.S. today is what it needed at its birth in 1948: an America committed to defending the liberal-international order against totalitarian enemies, as opposed to one that conducts a purely transactional foreign policy based on the needs of the moment or the whims of a president.”
Stephens then expands on what it means to be liberal-international: “It means we should oppose militant religious fundamentalism, whether it is Wahhabis in Riyadh or Khomeinists in Tehran or Muslim Brothers in Cairo and Ankara. It means we should advocate human rights, civil liberties, and democratic institutions, in that order.”
Bret also throws America’s two most recent presidents under the bus in his jeremiad, saying “During the eight years of the Obama presidency, I thought U.S. policy toward Israel — the hectoring, the incompetent diplomatic interventions, the moral equivocations, the Iran deal, the backstabbing at the U.N. — couldn’t get worse. As with so much else, Donald Trump succeeds in making his predecessors look good.” He then asks “Is any of this good for Israel?” and he answers “no.”
Bret Stephens in his complaining reveals himself to be undeniably all about Israel, but consider what he is actually saying. He claims to be against “militant religious fundamentalism,” but isn’t that what Israeli Zionism is all about, with more than a dash of racism and fanaticism thrown in for good measure? One Israeli Chief Rabbi has called black people “monkeys” while another has declared that gentiles cannot live in Israel. Right-wing religious fundamentalist parties currently are in power with Netanyahu and are policy making for the Israeli Government: Shas, Jewish Home, and United Torah Judaism. None of them could be regarded as a moderating influence on their thuggish serial financial lawbreaker Prime Minister.
And isn’t Israel’s record on human rights and civil liberties among the worst in the world? Here is the Human Rights Watch’s assessment of Israel:
“Israel maintains entrenched discriminatory systems that treat Palestinians unequally. Its 50-year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza involves systematic rights abuses, including collective punishment, routine use of excessive lethal force, and prolonged administrative detention without charge or trial for hundreds. It builds and supports illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, expropriating Palestinian land and imposing burdens on Palestinians but not on settlers, restricting their access to basic services and making it nearly impossible for them to build in much of the West Bank without risking demolition. Israel’s decade-long closure of Gaza, supported by Egypt, severely restricts the movement of people and goods, with devastating humanitarian impact.”
Israel, if one is considering the entire population under its rule, is among the most undemocratic states that chooses to call itself democratic. Much of the population living in lands that Israel claims cannot vote, they have no freedom of movement in their homeland, and they have no right of return to homes that they were forced to abandon. Israeli army snipers blithely shoot unarmed demonstrators while Netanyahu’s government kills, beats and imprisons children. And the Jewish state does not even operate very democratically even inside Israel itself, with special rights for Jewish citizens and areas and whole towns where Muslims or Christians are not allowed to buy property or reside.
It is time for American Jews like Bret Stephens to come to the realization that not everything that is good for Israel is good for the U.S. The strategic interests of the two countries, if they were openly discussed in either the media or in congress, would be seen to be often in direct conflict. Somehow in Stephens’ twisted mind the 1948 theft of Palestinian lands and the imposition of an apartheid system to control the people is in some way representative of a liberal world order.
If one were to suggest that Stephens should move to Israel since his primary loyalty clearly lies there, there would be accusations of anti-Semitism, but in a sense, it is far better to have him stick around blathering from the pulpit of The New York Times. When he writes so ineptly about how Donald Trump Is Bad for Israel the real message that comes through loud and clear is how bad Israel is for America.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
With the infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident as historical precedent, there’s a real possibility that the U.S. government could stage an incident in the Persian Gulf that would allow the Trump administration to push for military intervention in the Persian Gulf targeting Iran.
***
Earlier this week, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani repeated an earlier threat to block ships from leaving the Persian Gulf if the U.S. government continues to seek to block Iranian oil exports. Rouhani’s comments came a day after the U.S. sent an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf on Monday in an apparent “show of force,” ending the longest period the U.S. had gone without an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf over the past two decades.
While some – at the time – anticipated that the U.S.’ deployment of the aircraft carrier was an empty threat meant to intimidate Iran, new developments suggest that there may soon be a military showdown in the Persian Gulf’s strategic Strait of Hormuz as Iranian and regional media have reported that the Iranian Navy has deployed a large naval contingent of 58 fleets to the northern waters of the Indian Ocean near the Persian Gulf. According to Iranian naval commander Rear Admiral Hossein Khanzadi, the naval contingent is closely monitoring the area as they await orders from the Iranian government.
The large deployment follows President Rouhani’s recent comments delivered on Tuesday in Iran’s Semnan Province. Rouhani stated that
“If someday, the United States decides to block Iran’s oil [exports], no oil will be exported from the Persian Gulf.”
Rouhani had made a similar threat earlier this year in July. An estimated 30 percent of the world’s seaborne oil passes through the Persian Gulf and thus the Gulf’s chokepoint – the Strait of Hormuz – which Iran claims to “completely control.”
A day prior to Rouhani’s speech, on Monday, the U.S. military revealed that the U.S.S. John C. Stennis and its accompanying ships will pass through the Indian Ocean and arrive in the Persian Gulf by the end of this week. While officials claimed that the deployment had been previously scheduled, officials also told the Wall Street Journal that the carrier’s deployment was a direct response to Iran’s influence in the Middle East.
Notably, the Trump administration, on the same day as the announcement of the Stennis’ deployment, asked Europe to impose new sanctions on Iran and withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, after U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed that Iran had test-fired a ballistic missile that violated the deal. The U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the deal in May, while other signatories have fought to keep the deal alive, as Iran had consistently complied with the conditions of the accord.
Given the recent news of the Iranian naval deployment to the northern Indian Ocean, there is an increased chance that the U.S.S. Stennis will pass in close proximity to where the Iranian naval ships are awaiting orders from Tehran.
As a result, concerns are growing that the tensions between Iran and the U.S. could soon spark a military conflict. Indeed, just last week, Brian Hook – the U.S. State Department’s special representative on Iran — announced during a press conference that the U.S. would “not hesitate to use military force [against Iran] when our interests are threatened,” adding that the Trump administration has “the military option on the table.”
Right on Bolton’s regime-change schedule?
Considering that top administration officials like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have long sought war with Iran, Hook’s recent statement, as well as the recent deployments near the Strait of Hormuz by both the Iranian and American navies, cannot be taken lightly.
In addition, there is the possibility that the U.S. government could stage an incident in the Persian Gulf that would allow the Trump administration to push for military intervention in the Persian Gulf targeting Iran. Indeed, there is historical precedent for such action in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which ultimately led to the escalation of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, through the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
However, the two Gulf of Tonkin incidents that were used to justify the subsequent war in Vietnam were not what they appeared, as the first incident – which was described as an “unprovoked” attack on the U.S.S. Maddox during a “routine patrol” – actually involved the U.S. firing first, while the Maddox was involved in an aggressive intelligence-gathering operation at the time of the incident. The second Gulf of Tonkin incident was later revealed to have been made up entirely, but was used as the launching pad for the Vietnam War that left millions of Vietnamese dead and killed over 50,000 Americans.
Could the Trump administration gin up such an act again, now that Iran is undeniably in its crosshairs? Given the history of fabricating and twisting intelligence regarding Iran by current National Security Adviser John Bolton, it is a definite possibility. This is especially troublesome, not only in light of the aforementioned developments near the Persian Gulf, but also considering that Bolton last year promised regime change in Tehran before 2019 – just a little over three weeks away.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.
As we enter the New Year we wish you all a happy and healthy 2019. Support from our readers has always played a key role in keeping GlobalResearch.ca online, especially since we refuse to take any form of corporate funding which would inevitably compromise our content. “Telling the truth” however is not a money-making proposition. Online independent analysis of US-led wars, rampant corruption, corporate greed, civil rights and fraudulent monetary transactions is invariably relegated to the bottom rung of search engine results. As a result we presently do not cover our monthly running costs which could eventually jeopardize our activities.
We have 1.9 million page views a month and just under 50,000 subscribers to our newsletter, yet only a few thousand readers have contributed to Global Research. We are deeply indebted to those people who have already made contributions. We are now asking the remaining 99%, can you help us keep this unique online resource alive and well in 2019 and beyond? We need a major push in terms of donations in these first few weeks of the year to stay on course.
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.
Traditionally focused on ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim Islam, Saudi funding in the era of crown prince Mohammed bin Salman has been streamlined and finetuned to ensure that it serves his geopolitical ambitions, primarily stymying the expansion of Iranian influence in the Middle East and North Africa and enhancing the kingdom’s global impact.
The effort, however, has so far produced a mixed bag. Spending is down but more targeted. Saudi Arabia has handed over control of the Grand Mosque in Brussels in a move designed to demonstrate its newly found moderation and reduce the reputational damage of a Saudi ultra-conservative management that had become contentious in Belgium.
To be sure, Prince Mohammed has lifted the ban on women’s driving, enhanced women’s work and leisure opportunities and kickstarted the creation of a modern entertainment industry but none of these measures amount to his promise to foster an unidentified but truly moderate form of Islam.
The prince’s moves, moreover, have been accompanied by an embrace of the European right and far-right as well as Western ultra-conservative groups that by and large are hardly beacons of tolerance and mutual respect.
“Saudi Arabia with MBS as Crown Prince has not been advocating Islamic religious reform,” said Middle East scholar HA Hellyer, referring to the Saudi leader by his initials.
“The existing Saudi religious establishment has not been encouraged to engage in a genuine rethinking of its ideas that draws it closer to the normative Sunni mainstream, nor listen to existing Saudi religious scholars who advocate more normative and mainstream approaches. Rather, the establishment has been muzzled. MBS’s ‘reforms’ in this arena are about centralizing power—they are not about restoring the Saudi religious establishment to a normative Sunnism,” Mr. Hellyer added.
Prince Mohammed’s interest in non-Muslim ultra-conservative groups in the West fits a global pattern, highlighted by political scientists Yascha Mounk and Roberto Stefan Foa, in which technological advances and the increased importance of soft power that lie at the root of Russian intervention in elections in the United States and Europe, have informed the information and public relations policies of multiple autocratic states.
“Indeed, China is already stepping up ideological pressure on its overseas residents and establishing influential Confucius Institutes in major centres of learning. And over the past two years, Saudi Arabia has dramatically upped its payments to registered U.S. lobbyists, increasing the number of registered foreign agents working on its behalf from 25 to 145… The rise of authoritarian soft power is already apparent across a variety of domains, including academia, popular culture, foreign investment, and development aid,” Messrs. Mounk and Foa said.
Saudi Arabia alongside other Gulf states, including the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman and Kuwait, as well as China, have furthermore been major donors to Western universities and think tanks and developed media outlets of their own such as Qatar’s Al Jazeera, Turkey’s TRT World China’s CCTV, and Russia’s RT that reach global audiences. They compete with the likes of the BBC and CNN.
The Saudi effort to do so by garnering conservative, right-wing and far-right support was evident in Northern Ireland.
Investigating a remarkable campaign by Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), a key support pillar of British prime minister Teresa May’s government, in favour of Britain’s exit from the European Union, Irish Times columnist Fintan O’Toole suggested that a senior member of Saudi Arabia’s ruling family and former head of the country’s intelligence service, Prince Nawwaf bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, as well as its just replaced ambassador to Britain, had funded the anti-Brexit effort through a commercial tie-up with a relatively obscure Scottish conservative activist of modest means, Richard Cook.
The ambassador, Prince Nawaf’s son, Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf al Saud, was Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Britain until last month’s Saudi cabinet reshuffle.
“It may be entirely co-incidental that the man who channelled £425,622 to the DUP had such extremely high-level Saudi connections. We simply don’t know. We also don’t know whether the… Saudi ambassador had any knowledge of his father’s connection to Richard Cook,” Mr. O’Toole said.
One package destined for a member of the House of Lords included seaweed and garlic mayonnaise; smoked salmon, trout and mussels; and a kilogram of Stilton cheese. Others contained bottles of claret, white wine, champagne, and Talisker whisky despite the kingdom’s ban of alcohol.
Writing on LobeLog, Mr. Mamedov said the kingdom frequently worked through the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) bloc, the third largest grouping in the European parliament. Saudi Arabia also enjoyed the support of European parliament member Mario Borghezio of Italy’s Lega, who is a member of Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF), a bloc of far-right parties in the parliament.
The kingdom’s strategy, in a twist of irony, although in pursuit of different goals, resembles to a degree that of one of its nemeses, Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim non-governmental organization that has opposition to Saudi Arabia’s puritan strand of Islam carved into its DNA and has forged close ties to the European right and far-right in its bid to reform the faith.
The Saudi strategy could prove tricky, particularly in the United States, dependent on the evolution of US special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into foreign interference in the 2016 election that brought President Donald J. Trump to office.
Mr. Mueller reportedly is set in court filings to unveil efforts by Saudi Arabia, its reputation in the US tarnished by the Khashoggi killing, and the United Arab Emirates, the kingdom’s closest ally, to influence American politics.
Individualism, Loving Oneself… A few years ago “I married myself”, but we’ve reconsidered and have filed for divorce. It’s no one’s fault really, but we are emotionally devastated nevertheless. At least we have no children. Sologamy didn’t seem to suit us. We had acted impetuously. I had gotten the idea after hearing a NPR radio report about a woman who fell in love with herself and said that after she tied the knot she had never been happier.
The world was getting me down at the time with all the political news about the Russians coming and insinuating themselves between me and you and all good Americans who had just wanted to elect Hilary Clinton and be happy. And as I was thinking about this happy married couple – the woman and herself, not Bill and Hillary – I chanced upon a New York Times article in a coffee shop that convinced me to take the plunge.
It was a weird article that jumped out at me about transracialism and transgenderism and this big debate about these big words and a big philosopher who claims if you can self-identify as a different sex, or is it gender – I can never get them straight – you should also be able to self-identify as a different race. It was a long article with a lot of people arguing back and forth about self-identifying as this and that and what names to call themselves and I couldn’t concentrate on it all but I got the gist of the professor’s point and thought this might be for me, it might help me get OK and happy, which was my goal. So I self-identified as I and me, a couple, and we said I do and I do too in a private ceremony. I really wanted to be happy like that woman and to forget all the stuff about Trump being in bed with the Russians, and the Russians trying to get into our heads and voting booths, maybe even our beds where they would whisper lies about capitalism being immoral and other sweet nothings meant to confuse us about our identities and what was right and wrong. I figured going to bed with myself might help me forget.
But it hasn’t worked out as we expected. Last night, we had a little New Year’s Eve party and had a few anime hologram friends over. As usual, we talked about the past year and old times and old friends and sang a few lines of Auld Lang Syne as we toasted left hand to right with some nice Prosecco with pomegranate juice since we heard that was the drink all the smart set use to celebrate their clever happiness. But then we got to arguing, and between you and me, it wasn’t pretty. Our friends were mortified. It was a scene straight out of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? The Prosecco had gone to our head, so we don’t remember all the scathing interchanges, but I do know our anime friends said not a word and that me said to I at one point words that seemed to echo Martha and George’s. Martha: “Truth or Illusion, George; you don’t know the difference.” George: “No, but we must carry on as if we did.” Martha: “Amen.”
So now it’s the day after and we must carry on “as if.” Amen, indeed! And though our head hurts a bit, we have been talking over coffee and have decided to split up, amicably of course. It’s a new year, and like most people, we want to make a fresh start. I wish me the best and know me reciprocates. We will now go separate ways but it will be very lonely. Facebook friends might help somewhat, but they are no substitute for the intimacy of the past few years. Who will now help me make it through the night? And what about poor I? Forgive me, but I am so confused and have a hell of a headache.
Although I want 2019 to be a happy year, if 2018 is any gauge, 2019 will be a long night from hell politically and culturally, with fake news everywhere and our Russian enemies infiltrating our minds at every turn with backstopping and sheep dipping their spies throughout the media and academia. It’s so lonely trying to make sense of it all. Without my me-spouse, it can only get worse. Even CNN’s Anderson Cooper’s New Year’s Eve words of comfort to the lonely from Times Square don’t help much. Like Fox News’s “Fox and Friends,” Anderson is always there with a helping hand, and when I and me were arguing, I could always go to my true friends in the media for a dose of truth and sustenance. They know all about the Russian threat.
But while I am grateful for their comfort in these confusing times, I need more. With apologies to Kris Kristofferson, but loving me was easier that anything I’ll ever do again. I need easy, real easy, easier even than when I would say something and me would disagree but we would let it slide for the sake of our relationship. It was easier that way. But our relationship was probably doomed from the start.
But thank God for technology and CNN that has alerted me to a new technological possibility with a report about a Japanese man, Akihito Kondo, a school administrator, who fell in love years ago with Miku, a cyber-celebrity hologram. He has finally taken the plunge and married Miku in a lovely ceremony in front of 39 people. Kondo seems radiantly happy and not at all confused.
Such a possibility was right in front of my nose all along: my anime hologram friends who watched me and I get drunk last night. One of them – Meto – is cute as a button and is always looking to snuggle and comfort others. If she will have me, I will propose after a dignified waiting period, maybe an hour or so.
I will carry on as if loving her will be easier than anything I’ve ever done before.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Finding that President Donald Trump became “increasingly unmoored from the truth in 2018,” the Washington Post reports that the president told lies to the American public at about three times the rate he did the previous year—when voters and the media were already expressing shock at the repeated false statements coming from the White House.
According to Glenn Kessler, author of the Post‘s Fact Checker column, during his “year of unprecedented deception,” Trump told an average of 15 lies per day in 2018, bringing the total number of documented lies since he took office in January 2017 to 7,645.
At the beginning of 2018, according to the paper’s tally, the president had told about 2,000 lies while in office.
“Trump began 2018 on a similar pace as last year,” reported Kessler. “Through May, he generally averaged about 200 to 250 false claims a month. But his rate suddenly exploded in June, when he topped 500 falsehoods, as he appeared to shift to campaign mode. He uttered almost 500 more in both July and August, almost 600 in September, more than 1,200 in October and almost 900 in November. In December, Trump drifted back to the mid-200s.”
The president’s rate of lying exploded around the time that his administration’s family separation policy provoked international outrage. The president made two of his biggest false claims of the year at that time, saying that the White House had not adopted a policy of separating families who cross the U.S.-Mexico border but was simply following existing laws passed by Congress.
“The American public deserves to know what our government has been thinking in terms of how to carry out these extremely devastating policies,” Emily Creighton of the American Immigration Council toldThe Intercept in September, after a Department of Homeland Security memo confirmed that the practice was indeed proposed and approved by the Trump administration.
Along with lies that affected the lives of thousands of families who were seeking asylum, Trump denied that he had imposed a significant number of tariffs, when he had actually introduced $305 billion in tariffs on numerous imports; fabricated a claim by the Palm Beach Post that he was to blame for traffic jams; lied about the number of attendees at his rallies; repeatedly lied that the suspect in a 2017 attack in New York in which eight pedestrians were killed by a pickup truck had brought two dozen relatives to the U.S. through family-based migration; and told thousands of other falsehoods.
On Twitter, Kessler’s Post colleague, Greg Sargent, wrote that Trump’s repeated lies must be understood as a coordinated disinformation campaign, not simply a collection of lies about various matters.
“Why does Trump lie *all the time* about *everything,* even the most trivial, easily disprovable matters?” Sargent wrote. “The frequency and the audacity of Trump’s disinformation is the *whole point* of it—to wear you down. More and more of the lies slip past, undetected and uncorrected.”
1) As Trump ends the year with a flood of lies about his wall, we need to recapture a core truth about this presidency.
Trump isn't “twisting the truth” or “stubbornly refusing to admit error.”
6) Once Trump’s lying is understood as concerted and deliberate disinformation, it becomes clear that the frequency and audacity of it is *the whole point.*
On 14 December, the Okinawa Defense Agency officially began reclamation work in preparation for the building of a massive US Marine Corps airbase at Henoko, in Northern Okinawa. I use the word “officially” advisedly: they announced it well in advance, with what could almost be called fanfare. The people opposing this base – the folks carrying out the six-day-a-week sit-in at the construction site and the dock where the ships are being loaded with dirt – call this “construction for show” (misekake koji). As they understand it, the Okinawa Defense Agency is trying to persuade them, and the Prefectural Government, that all is lost, that they should give up their protest and stay home, so that full-fledged construction can finally begin. And so at every turning point in their preparations the Agency stages a performance, a kind of ceremony, the not-so-hidden message of which is “now there is no turning back: resign yourselves to the inevitable and give up”.
Of course, the “performance” is doing serious damage: from the 14th real dirt and crushed rock is really being dumped into real seawater of Henoko Bay. If the lawyers and the Prefectural officials are correct, this is also illegal – that is to say, criminal – behavior. But if the Defense Agency was expecting that 14 December would be the decisive turning point, which would cause the protesters to lapse into spiritless resignation – as they had hoped the November Governor’s election would be – they are in for another major disappointment.
I took the Shimagurumi Kaigi charter bus to Henoko twice just before the big day – Saturday December 8th and Wednesday the 12th – and again on the day itself, Friday the 14th. Here I will report on some of the things that people were talking about, and in what spirit, on the bus and at the gate.
On Saturday the 8th, when we arrived at Henoko we found that there were two big busloads, about 100 main island Japanese, visiting from the big All-Japan Prefectural and Municipal Workers’ Union (JICHIRO) in addition to the local anti-base activists. It was nice to see so many young people there; most of the regular sit-inners are retired folks. Oshiro Satoru – the number two person at the Peace Center next to Yamashiro Hiroji –was explaining things. The following is the gist of how he and others are defining the situation:
The Japanese Government had hoped to destroy the anti-base movement in the Governor’s election last month: if their candidate had been elected he would have given them all the permits they need to proceed with construction. But they lost by a 70,000-vote margin. Now they are hoping to defeat us in the Prefectural referendum in February. What they are doing now at the construction site is work they think they can do without permits from the Prefecture. Actually there are still many things they need to do that they can’t do without the prefecture’s cooperation. And they are taking a big risk dumping dirt into that area, because the seawall around it is only half the height necessary to retain it. When the Prefecture ordered them last week to stop loading dirt from the Ryukyu Cement property because they have no permit to do that, they started loading dirt from a different place.
The red line indicates the proposed sea wall, the interior of which is to be filled. At this time the sea wall indicated by K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4, N-3 and N-5 has been completed (that is, completed in the sense of connected; it still needs to be about twice that height above the water). These are all on the Henoko side of the peninsula. Oura Bay is on the other side, So far no sea wall construction has begun there. The area between N-3 and N-5 is where rocks and dirt are being dumped now. As it is surrounded by seawall, it’s possible, but not certain, that the fill will not leak through, or wash over, the sea wall. The narrow blue line indicates the boundary of the No Trespassing area. The dotted yellow lines indicate the location of the earthquake faults. The wide blue lines forming a “V” indicate the sites of the two proposed airstrips. The area where soft sea bottom has been discovered is around C-1, which places it directly below one of the airstrips. This photograph was kindly provided by Okuma Masanori, who took it using a drone.
The problem is that the dirt at that different place, or much of it, is Okinawan red earth, and there are laws against dumping that into the ocean. More precisely, they’re dumping it into a small area enclosed by seawall (4% of the total landfill volume) on the Henoko Bay side of the peninsula. On the Oura Bay side there is as yet no seawall nor, as far as we know, a feasible plan for building one. Their plan to build one of caissons (massive hollow blocks of concrete) was destroyed by the discovery that much of the sea bottom has the resilience of mayonnaise. But by filling this small area on the Henoko Bay side where the sea bottom is firm, they are hoping to make it look as though everything is proceeding on schedule.
Engineering note: The “mayonnaise” label refers to soil with a resilience of, in engineering terms, an N-value of zero. This is determined by the Standard Penetration Test. In this straightforward test, a soil boring tube is placed vertically on the surface of the soil to be tested, and a slide hammer is dropped on to it from a height of 30 inches. The N-value is the number of blows required to drive the tube down twelve inches. The N-value of zero found in some areas of Oura Bay means that there no blows were needed; the tube went down twelve inches and more from its own weight. So it has about the resilience of mayonnaise. If you dove down and got a look at it, you’d probably call it slime. Needless to say, these tests were carried out by the Okinawa Defense Bureau, not the anti-base people, who have no access to the areas being tested.
One ship holds about 200 truckloads of fill. Assuming that one shipload a day, plus their fleet of dump trucks, succeeds in unloading at the site, it’s estimated that reclamation would still take five years. But before they begin reclamation on the Oura Bay side they have to build the sea wall there, and before they build the sea wall they have to figure out how to do that. The discovery that much of the sea bottom there is a 40-meter layer of slime has sent them back to the drawing boards. No one can say for sure how long it will take them to firm up the sea bottom (assuming it is possible) because no one knows by what method they will attempt that. One person at the gate said maybe they could do it by drilling “cores” in the sea bottom and filling each with sand. [Where the sea bottom is slime, I assume this would mean lowering huge concrete tubes into the muck, and as they sink, emptying out their interiors with a clamshell until they finally hit something solid, then dumping sand into the empty tubes.] That person estimated it would require 20,000 cores to do the job. Of course, none of this was in the original job description. But the Defense Bureau is not at that stage yet. The fact that they are still boring the sea bottom for soil samples means that, far from having found a solution, they haven’t yet got a clear idea of the problem.
Retired Engineer Okuma Masanori explained about the red dirt. Much of what the Defense Bureau is claiming to be crushed rock is in fact red dirt. Crushed rock or even sand will sink right to the bottom; red dirt, however, dissolves, becoming a spongy mess where it finally gets to the bottom and clouding the water where it doesn’t. It is very destructive of sea life, and Okinawa has strict laws to prevent it getting into the water. Okuma also reminded us that he is planning to bring in several seismologists to begin testing to determine scientifically the likelihood of there being an active fault beneath the site.
On Saturday the 8th no dump truck attempted to enter the construction site.
Wednesday the 12th. On the 9:00 AM bus there was the usual mood-making talk (these tour buses have microphones), laughter and singing (people say that uchinaaguchi is an almost-dead language, but it is always the jokes in uchinaaguchi that get the biggest laughs). Higa san, the woman who regularly coordinates the Wednesday buses, after venting her anger at the week’s events, announced (as she has done before), “I have quit being Japanese. I resign. I’m Uchinanchu.”
Chinen san (who claims to have taken this bus more than 700 times, always sits in the rearmost seat, and is a marvelous raconteur – the bus regulars call his raps “Chinen-bushi”) gave a long and impassioned explanation of why we must not/will not be discouraged. This teaches us something important, he said. We put everything we had into getting Tamaki Denny elected, he wins by a big margin, and they just ignore us. But no matter how much they bully us, we will never change. I’m going to keep up the fight until I drop. And I’m in this fight with the intention of winning. We are not going to lose the referendum – we have 70-80% against the base. I think that even if everything went well for them, finishing the base would still take them another 20 years. Anyway, the 14th is the day the real fight begins! (For this last he got a big applause.)
At the gate Akamine Seiken (the head of the JCP’s Okinawa chapter, and Lower House Diet member elected from Okinawa) reported that the Government’s stubbornness and illegal behavior (including using red dirt) was beginning to anger Diet members who had up to now claimed to be neutral.
The big event at the gate that day was the return of Yamashiro Hiroji after spending some time in the hospital (someone told me it was for irregular heartbeats; friends were urging him not to get too excited). Among other things he said he was unhappy that Governor Tamaki was not exploiting all of the Defense Bureau’s illegalities that he could be using. “He needs to listen to Kitaueda (Tsuyoshi) san!” (the other retired engineer participating in the movement). Yamashiro and others talked about the ballooning cost estimates. The original estimate was 231 billion yen; the present estimate is 2.5 trillion yen, (22.12 billion dollars) an increase of ten times (from the audience a woman’s voice: “Twelve times! Twelve times!). And it’s estimated that half of the increase is for security (Hundreds of riot police are being put up not in barracks but in an expensive resort hotel near Henoko).
On Wednesday the 12th, the regular three convoys of dump trucks made it into the construction site, being delayed the 20 or 25 minutes it took the riot police to haul the sit-inners away from the gate.
On Friday the 14th – the day the Defense Bureau had announced as the day they would take the fateful step of actually beginning to dump landfill into the water – when I arrived at the bus stop in front of the Prefectural Office Building, people were lined up hoping to get on the 9:00 AM bus, which was filling rapidly. In the end 54 people were seated, what looked like a dozen people were left behind, and another dozen or so at the bus stop on the other side of town. (Some of these people probably got to Henoko in their own cars).
On the bus there were a number of people from mainland Japan, and as usual the mike was handed to them first so they could give self-introductions, which are always applauded. When we arrived at the construction gate where the sit-ins take place we found it was locked shut, and about a thousand people were sitting in front of it or standing across the street. It was clear that the Defense Bureau was not going to send any convoys that day. The widow of Onaga Takeshi, the deceased former Governor of Okinawa, was introduced; to my knowledge that was the first time she had participated in the sit-in. As usual, when the numbers are large and it is mostly the leaders who speak, the content is less interesting than when grass roots folk speak, as on the bus. But with no trucks coming, there was nothing to do but talk and sing. The 1950s/60s Okinawa reversion anthem was sung – more than once as I recall – with the Yamato Japanese singing it in the old way – “Give us back Okinawa” (“Okinawa wo kaese”) – and the Uchinanchu singing it with a slight alteration – “Give Okinawa back to Okinawa” (“Okinawa e kaese”).
After a while we moved from the construction gate to the main gate of Camp Schwab, chanting and singing, and stopped there. With that many people, this meant that the main gate was effectively closed. What happened next was interesting. It’s a rule of the movement that we block only construction vehicles, not private cars or even military trucks. Some of the movement leaders wanted to observe that rule, some of the grass roots sit-inners didn’t. The leaders slowly and gently urged people back to make a passage for vehicles entering and exiting. A small unit of riot policemen standing inside the base approached, stood on the other side of the yellow border line, and watched carefully to see how this would go. Most of the people moved back, grudgingly, but there were two men who wouldn’t. They stood just far enough ahead of the others to prevent a car from getting through. After watching this for some time, two riot police officers crossed the yellow line, walked over to the two resisters, and with talk and little nudges, tried to move them back. It took some time but after a while I guess the two decided they had done enough, and moved back. For better or for worse, a confrontation was avoided. (No, the riot policemen are not always that gentle. But the non-violent behavior of the sit-inners does have an effect on them.)
From there we moved down to the beach by Henoko Harbor, where there was a rally. Not much to report from that: the speakers were mainly political party representatives and elected officials, who speak mostly boilerplate. But these events are effective as a show of force, as each speaker represents an organization comprised of committed members, a fact from which sit-inners can take courage.
The conclusion I draw from these anecdotes – which I already stated at the beginning of this report – is that the Defense Bureau’s strategy of trying to persuade the Okinawans to “resign themselves to the inevitable” is not working. The bullying, rather than leading to spiritless disappointment, is generating spirited anger. They have seen through the Bureau’s strategy, and are arming themselves to thwart it. As one person on the bus put it, ”The day we resign ourselves, that’s the day we lose.”
Afterword: On the 15th, the day after reclamation began, the neighborhood association of the area where I live had its year-end gathering (bonenkai). I’ve been to a lot of events like this, and as they are attended by people of all sorts of political persuasion, controversial subjects are never mentioned. But this year was an exception. Somehow Henoko got mentioned, and once the ice was broken, the party broke up into three or four knots of people talking about Henoko – most of them angrily. The young fellow sitting across from me told me that he worked on base, but that he voted for Tamaki Denny. Our neighbor who used to be head of the Okinawa Public Safety Commission which oversees the Riot Police, found herself on the defensive. All of this, in my experience anyway, unprecedented.
To quote a wise American philosopher, “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over.“
Postscript
On 22 December, the morning after this article was sent to APJ/Japan Focus, both of the Okinawan newspapers carried on their front pages a stunning piece of news, The Japanese government, by a decision of the Cabinet, had decided that the money allocated to the Okinawa Defense Bureau for the beginning of seawall construction in 2018 on Oura Bay has to be returned to the treasury, as no such work had been done. Moreover, no money has been allocated for that purpose in the 2019 budget. The government official reporting this was quoted as saying that it is impossible to say now when construction will begin, except that it will be “2020 or after”.So that’s an additional delay of two years at least. At the time of writing this postscript, Dec. 25, this has not been reported in any of the mainstream Japanese media, and nothing at all has been reported in English.
Experienced observers of politics know that if you want to find out what is really going on inside a government, follow the money.
That is, look at the budget.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
C. Douglas Lummis is presently Visiting Professor in the Okinawa International University Graduate School. An editor of the Asia-Pacific Journal, he is the author of Radical Democracy (Cornell) and [in Japanese translation] Iwanami.
For seventeen years, Global Research, together with partner independent media organizations, has sought Truth in Media with a view to eventually “disarming” the corporate media’s disinformation crusade.
In 2019, we call upon our readers to participate in an important endeavor.
Our objective is to recruit one thousand committed “volunteers” among our 50,000 Newsletter subscribers to support the distribution of Global Research articles (email lists, social media, crossposts).
Do not send us money. Under Plan A, we call upon our readers to donate 5 minutes a day to Global Research.
Global Research Volunteer Members can contact us at [email protected] for consultations and guidelines.
If, however, you are pressed for time in the course of a busy day, consider Plan B, Consider Making a Donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member.
Multiple wars, coups, sanctions and trade disputes dominated the US political agenda. War budgets grew, military sales increased and frictions between the US and Saudi Arabia bubbled to the surface . . . and dissipated.
The fingerprints of U.S. imperialism can be found all over the manufactured insurrection in Syria, in keeping with the ultimate goal of destabilization and eventual “regime change” through fomenting a sectarian civil war. Former NATO commander Wesley Clark has gone on record as stating that Syria was on a list of targeted nations to be toppled by the U.S. as early as 2001.
Giuliani’s reasoning in the interview is similar to the reasoning New York Times Deputy General Counsel David McCraw offered when he told judges at the US Ninth Circuit’s annual judicial conference in July that he thought Assange is “sort of in a classic publisher’s position” and that “the law would have a very hard time drawing a distinction between The New York Times and WikiLeaks.”
Getting out of Syria and hopefully eventually Afghanistan is the best thing that Trump has done for America so far, if he has the guts to actually do it. Both are wars that were unnecessary from day one and are now unwinnable in any real way.
In the period between the conclusion of the Spanish-American War in 1898 and the victory of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the US exercised imperial power over Cuba, exploiting its natural and human resources, and dictating its domestic and foreign policies.
Canadians are being victimized by criminal war propaganda. War with Syria, (Russia, China etc.) IS NOT serving our interests. Politicians who demonize these countries, and support “regime change” wars of aggression, do not represent our interests.
A rough estimate of four million Muslims have died as a result of US-led wars in the Middle East – dating to the early 1990s Gulf War against Iraq. The Gulf War was waged by the US, with France, Britain and Saudi Arabia providing welcome support.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The evolving US-China trade war, which reached a dangerous level of US tariffs being imposed on $200 billion worth of imports from China, has been holding center stage in international relations discussions in 2018. But Beijing’s tit-for-tat response to the US is far from the only strategic weapon it has been deploying. What is less discussed in the context of the US-China strategic conflict, and is arguably of greater significance, is Beijing’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI), which encompasses projects involving over 70 countries and counting (in Eurasia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa and now in Latin America), in infrastructure projects worth more than $1 trillion and counting. Strategically the BRI draws countries into China’s orbit, through the building of infrastructure financed through loans from Chinese and China-promoted banks.1 The initiative is now just on five years old and already encompasses countries that account for half the world’s economic activity. These countries now form the world’s largest trade and investment area. The BRI has come in for much criticism, with articles in both the Financial Times and the New York Times among others querying its long-term viability.2 By contrast, an evaluation published by The Economist provides a balanced account of the BRI and its prospects, while pointing to some clear sources of concern (that will be elaborated below).3
The US Congress recognized the significance of the BRI’s five-year milestone by staging Senate hearings on the initiative – the first by the US legislature on this significant foreign policy challenge to the US. Leading scholars advanced testimony at these hearings of the Congressional US-China Economic and Security Review Commission (staged on Jan 25 2018) providing a summary and analysis of the progress achieved in the first five years of the initiative.4 Most commentary on the Belt & Road Initiative recognizes the grandeur of the vision and the scale of its execution, but also the challenges it poses for other great powers, in particular the United States.5 But there is also much critical commentary, mainly focused on the issue as to whether countries engaging in BRI projects are entering “debt traps” or, even worse, whether they are setting themselves up to become constituent parts of an emerging Chinese empire.
One recent commentary from the Washington, DC-based Center for Global Development, identifies eight developing countries (all relatively weak or marginal players, apart from Pakistan) that are said to be in particular danger of falling into debt arrears – these countries being Djibouti, Kyrgistan, Laos, the Maldives, Mongolia, Montenegro, Tajikistan and Pakistan.6 The eight include small countries that have long wished for closer relations with China, like Tajikistan and others that are buttressed by very large and substantial commitments on the part of China, such as Pakistan. The issues raised are substantial and call for some engagement. The case of Sri Lanka raises particular concerns, with its transfer to China of ownership of the Hambantota port as Sri Lanka was unable to meet debt repayments on the project.7 This and other projects deserve scrutiny.
This article provides an assessment of the design and implementation of the BRI, recognizing it as an important extension abroad of China’s development model, and viewing it as an important element of China’s soft power complement to its growing hard power military development, before addressing the issue as to whether it represents a series of “debt traps” for the countries involved.8 I begin by seeking to understand the BRI from the perspective of Chinese planners– what is it aiming for, how is it going about achieving these aims, and what expertise and resources is it bringing to the task? How does the Belt and Road Initiative build on, and affect, China’s own development strategy, in particular the balance between debt-fuelled infrastructure development and strategic industry development? This provides the context for asking what are the risks being run by the countries that are signing up for involvement with the BRI – as well as the risks being run by China itself.
It is widely recognized that China has brought about a far-reaching urbanization and industrialization on its own soil, in the 40 years since Deng Xiaoping ushered in the “reform and opening” period after 1978. In decade after decade of unprecedented growth, averaging close to 10% per annum, China built cities and laid down infrastructure at a scale never before attempted, or accomplished, by any developing country. China’s strategy of state-led growth, with the Chinese Communist Party firmly in control, and state-owned enterprises leading the way, initially at home and then increasingly abroad, has established a new norm for development that is attracting great interest from other developing countries in South, Southeast and Central Asia, Africa, and Latin America, many of whom had been struggling under the weight of the nostrums of the World Bank and IMF and the “Washington Consensus”. Central to China’s performance has been its rapid build-up in export earnings and foreign exchange reserves, which have enabled its policy banks like the China Development Bank (CDB) and Export-Import Bank (China Exim Bank) to provide Chinese firms with long lines of credit as they venture abroad. This has reinforced their position in international competition and most recently has enabled Chinese firms to gain positions of leadership in emerging sectors such as electronics, renewable energy and electric vehicles, widely viewed as strategic industries for the future.
The BRI now proposes to achieve similarly impressive results outside China, exporting China’s model of infrastructure-led development and providing Chinese-led finance as the driver. Funds are being channelled by the 70-plus participating countries into such projects as building bridges, railways, pipelines, hydroelectric dams, highways, power grids, with Chinese banks as well as new multilateral development banks such as the China-sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) providing the majority of funding.9 Here China is providing finance via lines of credit created by these financial institutions, in the same way that it has financed its own domestic development. The difference this time, of course, is that the Chinese State and Chinese Communist Party are not able to control the process directly, as was possible in the domestic setting.10 The New York Times characterized the BRI as a “modern-day version of the Marshall Plan, America’s reconstruction effort after World War II” – except that China’s strategy is “bolder, more expensive and far riskier”.11
In this article I seek to characterize the model of state-led development pursued by China as prelude to discussing its internationalization as the New Silk Roads strategy, or “Belt and Road Initiative”.12 How are we to characterize this expansion of China’s influence across its neighboring countries and now extending globally, e.g. to Latin America and Africa? China’s expansion poses unique issues since its rise is clearly backed by hegemonic ambitions, at least within its own region. In the case of China’s BRI there is the persuasive power of finance (provided by the Chinese policy banks like CDB and China Exim Bank and the new multilateral banks like AIIB or NDB) backed by non-financial elements of Chinese diplomacy – such as student scholarships offered abroad, or the efforts of the Confucius Institutes to promote Chinese culture.13
Finance of course can be very persuasive. Countries accepting Chinese largesse could be making well-informed decisions with a view to building their infrastructure as basis for growing their output and exports – or they could be lured into making short-sighted or ill-advised judgments that can end in some form of ‘debt bondage’ (or locked into projects that might have little relevance to the country concerned, and might be mere vanity projects for a country’s ruler). Countries with records of political unrest and terrorism might find China taking steps to secure its own companies’ operations and personnel, in ways that might seem to contradict China’s expressed principle of non-interference in others’ affairs. China’s interests are generally well protected since the loans advanced are frequently tied to contracting with Chinese firms for construction, and they frequently employ Chinese suppliers and labor. The BRI is a pragmatic initiative and must be viewed through the lens of China’s own developmental ambitions; it is far from being merely a charitable exercise.
The name BRI
Like other commentators (e.g. Leverett and Wu 2016) I will refer to China’s grand strategy that is officially known as “Belt and Road Initiative” as its New Silk Roads strategy. Indeed, as announced by President Xi Jinping in 2013, the Initiative consists of two components, one the land-based Silk Road Economic Belt, and one the sea-based 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. These became integrated as the “One Belt One Road” strategy and now, officially, as the “Belt and Road Initiative”.14 It makes abundant sense to call this what it really is – namely a New Silk Roads strategy, or initiative – with the proviso that its geographic scope now extends far beyond what was historically called the “Silk Road”.
This is the story that China is now telling the world to boost its soft power. It is carefully and astutely crafted to take advantage of moves by the US as the current hegemon. When the US announced its “pivot to Asia” under the Obama Administration, this spelt intensified US focus on the Pacific – and so China’s BRI has turned westward, to Central Asia (where the US is largely absent), the Middle East (West Asia) and Africa.15 China has found ready acceptance of its influence in the “-stan” countries, with its provision of financing and technical expertise to support construction of pipelines, roads, railways and high-speed rail (HSR), dry ports and airports, hydroelectric dams, which both improve communications between China and the region (and beyond, to Europe) and provide unparalleled opportunities for development for the countries concerned. This is emerging as one of the central features of US-China “great power rivalry”.16
The infrastructure proposals under BRI
The land-based corridors bundled together as the Silk Road Economic Belt cover a variety of routes. There is a “northern” route, going from western China via Xinjiang province through Kazakhstan and Russia to western Europe; and a “southern” route again leading from Xinjiang through the Central Asian countries Kyrgistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, via Iran and Turkey, into southern Europe. The complementary sea routes are called the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, expanding sea-based commerce between China and Southeast Asia, South Asia (e.g. Sri Lanka and Pakistan) and Africa, in ways that diminish China’s reliance on the Malacca Strait between Singapore and Malaysia, and the more southerly Sunda Strait and Lombok Strait (Fig. 1). A “Polar Silk Road” traversing the Arctic, was added in 2018.17 But enumerating all the corridors is not all that significant since it is by now clear that the scope of the project is global, with new projects in South America and Africa being signed up in 2017/2018.18 So already the BRI has moved beyond a “westward” or “Go West” initiative to encompass global ambitions to assist countries in securing financial assistance from China in building local infrastructure (via trade and investment as well as traditional aid activities).
Figure 1. The Belt and Road Initiative – land corridors and sea lanes (Source: Wikimedia)
There are in fact six economic corridors making up the land-based Silk Road Economic Belt. The land corridors include the New Eurasian land Bridge, encompassing many new rail connections across Eurasia; the China-Mongolia-Russia corridor (a north-south connection); the China Central Asia-West Asia corridor; the China-Indochina Peninsula Corridor; the Bangladesh-China-Myanmar corridor; and the most ambitious of all, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. The largest and most ambitious of these is the CPEC, which promises to make Pakistan a long-term partner of China with clear benefits for Pakistan itself in terms of its own industrialization and development, and for China in the form of development that promises to stabilize the political situation in Pakistan and ease its fostering of radical Islamist terrorist initiatives. (Note how this counters the Soviet and later Russian tilt towards India.) The CPEC encompasses proposals that together amount to approximately $62 billion in transport, power and infrastructure projects. Notably the CPEC also counts a strategic port in the western tip of Pakistan, bordering on the Arabian Sea, at Gwadar.
Gwadar and Hambantota
Two port developments in Pakistan and Sri Lanka illustrate some of the positives and clear negatives in the BRI. Gwadar is a port at the western extremity of Pakistan, bordering on the Arabian Sea and linked to Kunming in southwest China by rail, road and pipeline projects that are viewed as part of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor. The contract to expand the port of Gwadar has been won by the China Overseas Port Holding Company (COPHC). The whole project involves not just the port but an associated Export Processing Zone as well as road and rail projects and an international airport. It is thus a project to which China attaches great significance, and which potentially holds great promise for Pakistan. So far it has evaded “debt trap” implications, but these remain at the forefront of international concern.
The Hambantota port has been open since 2010, but facing debt distress the Sri Lankan government made a debt-for equity swap, extending a 99-year lease to the Chinese state-owned company China Merchants Ports (CMP), for a price of $1.3 billion.19 After incurring heavy losses, a debt-for-equity swap was proposed in 2016, granting the China state-owned port operator CMP, an 80% stake in the company, in return for guarantees that it would make substantial investments to make the port profitable (totalling $1.12 billion in a public-private investment structure, and divesting 20% to a local Sri Lankan company within ten years. In July 2017 a settlement was reached leasing 70% of the port to CMP rather than the proposed 80% for a 99-year leasing period.20 So this is a case where a Sri Lankan government overstretched itself and ended in debt arrears to China – a situation that had to be remedied (in a fashion) by a subsequent Sri Lankan government through an arrangement with its Chinese counterpart.21 Of course India is disturbed by these developments because it is embroiled in security disputes with both Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Gwadar is probably more important from both China’s and India’s perspective because of the overland links it offers (rail, road, pipelines) between the port and western regions of China.
Fig. 2. Chinese port projects as part of the BRI (Source: C4ADS report22)
The Hambantota port in Sri Lanka and the Gwadar port in Pakistan, bordering on the Arabian Sea, are clearly two of the “string of pearls” that China has been sowing along the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. (See Fig. 2, a chart taken from C4ADS report, May 2018.23) There are ample reasons for China to want to have a measure of control over these developments. In the case of Gwadar the new port and the associated communication routes from southwestern China open up possibilities for oil to be brought direct to China overland or via pipeline. In complementary fashion, exports from southwest China are to be shipped out via this Indian Ocean port rather than from the east coast of China and the extended sea lanes that go to Europe, South America and Africa.24 These are all attractive in geopolitical terms. In this way the BRI initiative involving Gwadar can be seen to encompass China’s geopolitical interests complementing the transport and economic interests served by the port. China has accepted proposals from the relevant governments but refused to make the conditions of the loans public or to make the tendering processes transparent – which leads to well justified suspicion that these processes have something to hide.25
The international political economy of China’s rise
What light does International Relations theory shed on the BRI and looming China-US power relations? The influential US international relations theorist John Mearsheimer deploys his framework of “offensive realism” to argue from the historical record that China is likely to be imitating in the 21st century what the US did in the 20th century. The US rose to become a regional hegemon in the western hemisphere in the 20th century and then forcibly kept other states from becoming hegemons themselves – first Imperial Germany, then Nazi Germany, then Imperial Japan and then the Soviet Union. Mearsheimer argues that this is what the US actually did – despite its liberal rhetoric. He argues that China has understandable aspirations to be a Great Power – and that this will lead it to seek to become a regional hegemon in Asia, which will be its base from which it will be able to roam the world, just as the US roams the world today because it is secure in the western hemisphere. Mearsheimer argues that China has been a smart player in seeking to reassure everyone – and in particular the US – that its rise is peaceful (while if its reassurances on this point have less credibility, even under Obama, and certainly under Trump).
Mearsheimer most recently argues (in conversation with Peter Navarro, a leading China hawk in the Trump administration26) that the Chinese understand full well what happened to Imperial Germany, then what happened to the Soviet Union – and they do not want to end up committing national suicide. So the Chinese are thinking how best to maximize their power in smart and sophisticated ways. Mearsheimer’s argument is that, given the “tragedy of Great Power politics”, the Chinese are likely to pursue regional hegemony but do so in a smart way, without disturbing or antagonizing their neighbors or the US. He sees China as being only moderately successful in this (a bit too trigger-happy over islands in the South China Sea, and perhaps provoking the US into a tariff/trade war).27
The BRI – or more generally, the New Silk Road (NSR) strategy – is a smart and sophisticated strategy of this kind. It enhances China’s economic power and brings a number of countries into China’s economic orbit, without deliberately antagonizing or threatening the US in doing so. The hegemonic ambitions of both the US and China (as recognized by realists like Mearsheimer) play out in a multi-faceted relationship, which gives rise to open conflict at times (such as in the current trade war) but has further implications such as in the negotiations over North Korea, a Korean War peace treaty, and nuclear weapons control, and much else besides. Without involving the cumbersome machinery of a treaty, or a new international organization, the NSR strategy aligns dozens of countries with China in a common quest for improved communications infrastructure development while seeking to leave US interests nominally intact.
Joseph Nye also uses an alternative concept of “soft power” – which was developed to explain the capacity of the US to maintain its global dominance through aligning interests with allies and at the same time seeking to crush military rivals. Now Nye uses the same concept as a means of evaluating China’s strategy, and why it has been so far successful in moderating international reaction to its rise. Nye too argues that countries deploy both “hard” and “soft power” but that they increasingly do so in a smart way – what he calls “smart power”.28 In this context, China’s BRI is an interesting case of a country seeking to enhance its “smart power” – but meeting determined resistance from the incumbent – in this case the US with Trump’s trade war initiatives.29
The security dilemma – and how China is moderating it
The field of international relations certainly has its share of sweeping theories – like “offensive realism” and “soft power”. But a nuanced approach is also perfectly feasible to moderate the sweeping claims of structural realism – as in the case of the theory of the “security dilemma”. This theory holds that structural realism explains much of the endless search for security on the part of nation states – but it is focused on the case where “one state’s efforts to increase its own security reduces the security of others” (as elaborated in Foreign Affairs by Charles Glaser).30 If states in an anarchic international system face a strong security dilemma, then actions taken to enhance their own security could and probably will be viewed as hostile acts by other states.
But if the security dilemma can be moderated, then states face less chance of their security-enhancing actions being misinterpreted by other states. This is, I suggest, the case of China’s Silk Roads initiatives. This initiative is one of creating a community of states that have common interests in the building of infrastructure with China’s financial assistance – perhaps the central feature of the Belt and Road Initiative. Provided China does not mis-manage the consequences of states falling into debt arrears, the multiple projects promise benefits for China as well as decidedly for the countries concerned. If China were to demonstrate creditor restraint, and not threaten to acquire assets where repayments have fallen into arrears, there would be little provocation of other states or a fear of neo-imperial aggrandizement. But if on the other hand China views indebtedness as a “debt trap” leading at the first opportunity to a conversion of debt to equity, with assets passing into the hands of Chinese state-owned enterprises, then other states would be justifiably alarmed at China’s aggrandizing intentions, and the speed at which the transition is taking place. It remains to be seen how China will handle these issues.
The international relations and international political economy lens is focused on great power relations, but to really comprehend the magnitude of the New Silk Roads strategy we have to bring the funding mechanisms into clear focus, and in particular the role played by debt, or the credit supplied by China’s policy banks.31
Debt — and the New Silk Roads strategy
What are the credit arrangements provided by China to neighboring countries as part of the BRI, and what is the record so far with the debts created? There have been some high-profile cases of assets involving repayment arrears where debt has been converted to equity. The cases of Pakistan, with the Gwadar port, and Sri Lanka with the Hambantota port, are signal instances. This is the downside.
But there have also been cases where China has demonstrated restraint. According to a recent report from Nomura, China extended debt relief to 28 out of 31 of the most heavily indebted countries in the world – and totally cancelled the debts owing in the cases of Afghanistan, Guinea and Burundi.32 China continues to handle these incidents on a case-by-case basis – but the flexibility and tolerance shown in many cases is surely important. An historical example is relevant. China’s approach is conducted in more or less the same way that Rome used to handle cases over 2000 years ago, refusing to generalize solutions found in one case to others. Scholars have argued that this pragmatic approach was one of the factors involved in the seemingly unstoppable rise of Rome. This latitude of flexibility of course favors China with its large trade surplus – and China continues to go its own way in terms and conditions imposed as part of its lending activities. (Efforts to bring it into line with groups of creditor countries recognizing common rules and procedures, such as the Paris Club of creditor countries, have so far been unavailing.)33
Senior Chinese officials in finance have expressed concerns regarding this somewhat loose approach being taken by Chinese financial institutions (i.e. not being tough enough with creditors). The former governor of the People’s Bank of China (PBoC), the central bank, has framed the discussion in terms of the scale of the anticipated lending. He sees investment demand in the Asia Pacific region as totalling around US$500 billion each year – with government-backed funding being able to cover $200 billion, leaving $300 billion for the private sector to cover. In the case of the BRI the investment gap would be more like $600 billion per year. So far Chinese banks have invested $200 billion in loans to 2600 BRI projects.34 New institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS bank, the New Development Bank, along with entities like the Silk Road Fund, are all pouring funds into BRI projects – with implications that remain to be analyzed.35
Prominent critiques like that mounted by the Center for Global Development (Hurley et al. 2017) turn on somewhat arbitrary criteria for defining a “debt trap”. The CGD report identifies 23 countries involved in BRI projects which appear to be at risk of debt distress; it then constructs a lending pipeline for each project; and on the basis of this chooses eight countries as being vulnerable to debt arrears problems. But the theory behind this methodology is based on analyses of countries that have gone into default, or IMF analyses of sovereign debt risk – not on analyses of China’s own development experience involving the power of debt. So it is only sensible to examine China’s experience of debt-fuelled infrastructure development as prelude to examining the methodology of the BRI.
Theory underpinning BRI: China’s evolving development strategy
Before discussing the significance of the debt provisions of the various projects bundled together as the Belt & Road Initiative, we must examine the state-led development model that China has pursued, and the role played by policy development banks in the process such as the China Development Bank (CDB). China has risen to prominence in the wake of the prior success of other East Asian countries, starting with Japan in the 1960s and 1970s, followed by that of South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore in the 1970s and 1980s (the East Asian Tigers). Debate over the source of their success has been sharp, culminating in the contested conclusions of the World Bank study published in 1997 as “The East Asian Miracle”.36 Of course the key to these East Asian successes was the role played by the state – in this case, following the terminological innovation of Chalmers Johnson, the “developmental state”. But China is no mere extrapolation of the developmental states and their strategies pioneered by Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan.37
For a start China is a very large country, and its central state has relations mainly with provincial governments and not directly with China’s businesses or citizens (while acknowledging that China’s state banks provide such a link and dominate lending to business). If anything, China may be conceptualized as having a coordinated portfolio of “developmental states” operating at the provincial level, many of which are comparable in size and scale to the national developmental states that emerged in East Asia (specifically, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore et al). Secondly China has a very large domestic market which it has been able to use to great effect in attracting foreign direct investment and in some cases imposing the requirement of technology transfer, particularly via joint ventures, in a way that was not feasible for the earlier and developmental states of East Asia.38 Thirdly China has not been content to pursue simply the goal of “catch-up” as was practised initially by the earlier East Asian developmental states, but it has explicitly stated its goal of leapfrogging to the technological lead, particularly in areas judged to be strategic industries of the future such as robotics, artificial intelligence and pharmaceuticals (known as Industry 4.0 after the nomenclature favoured by the World Economic Forum) and green industries such as renewable energy, batteries and electric vehicles.
Recent analysis of China’s evolution from “imitation” to “innovation” by China specialists indicates that China is moving towards higher productivity and higher levels of innovation – as measured for example by patent filings.39 There seems little likelihood that China will find itself thwarted by the so-called “Middle-Income Trap” where a rising country finds itself unable to break into higher levels of productivity and innovation. But the aspect of development that does not appear to be given sufficient emphasis in these analyses is the question of debt.
The role played by debt in China’s development strategy looms larger than in earlier East Asian developmental states. This is closely linked to the fact that China’s modernization and industrialization have been strongly associated with urbanization, to an extent that dwarfs the challenges faced by earlier industrializers. Debt-fuelled and state-driven urbanization has been the signature of China’s development – as now transferred across to an international and global setting in the form of the New Silk Roads strategy.40 Urbanization in China has involved a central focus on the building of infrastructure – at a scale and pace that makes China an outlier amongst developing countries, even granting that infrastructure building was an important component of development strategy in East Asian countries like Korea and Taiwan. China is now one of the world leaders in the building of new cities and the rail and road transportation projects that link them.
China’s debt-driven infrastructure development of recent decades finds its theoretical counterpart in the theory of growth in urban land values that can be captured by public authorities for investment in infrastructure. This process, driven by state-owned development banks like the China Development Bank, seems to be one important engine of China’s debt-driven domestic infrastructure development. The scholarly consensus in China’s case is that this pattern of development has been pursued as a high priority, with emphasis on the role played by local and provincial governments in driving their own local growth metrics. The scholarly literature has focused on the impact of local debt build-up and its potential long-term consequences.41
While China has fashioned this combination in its own domestic setting, the BRI represents a colossal project to apply the same theory in an international setting, where it is not the Chinese state driving the process in its own domestic setting but China financing a process that spans multiple national jurisdictions. Never has an international project been attempted before at such scale. The risks are enormous – as are the potential rewards both for China’s status as an international leader and the development fillip the projects promise to give the participating industrializing countries.
In China urban developments have been based on the creation of local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) which capture improved values in land acquired at agricultural rates. Development banks like the China Development Bank have led this process, setting up the LGFVs which acquire land at agricultural prices in their local government area and then sell it to developers, utilizing the profits to finance infrastructure building.42 This is basically how China has been able to urbanize and industrialize at such a rapid rate over the past several decades. It was the CDB under its governor Chen Yuan that developed the theory and practice underpinning this process – with its dual emphasis on privatization of public assets and debt-driven development.43
A central theoretical strand that underpins the BRI is this idea of debt-driven development – a process of universal significance and recognition in both public and private sectors. It is widely recognized in business that an underperforming asset can be transformed into a high-performing asset and source of profit by making a capital investment that improves the asset, financed by debt. From the perspective of the lender, the collateral for the loan is the future profits to be achieved by the activities that make use of the improved asset. From the perspective of the borrower, the asset is turned into a source of profit by the investment that is financed by the debt. The debt fuels growth, which generates profits. This is how smart businesses view the process of growth and investment, and why smart businesses always carry some debt on their balance sheets.
In the case of the CDB and Chinese industrial development, it has been the CDB and its capacity to provide long credit lines that has helped to turn Chinese firms like Huawei and ZTE into international champions – complementing their clear strategies of shifting rapidly to innovation and capability enhancement. Huawei was able to move into international competition in the 21st century backed by a line of credit from the CDB of $30 billion, while ZTE was likewise backed by a line of credit of $15 billion. The CDB was able to create these impressive lines of credit by issuing bonds on the China and international markets, backed by its state-owned status that meant that the bonds carried low risk because of their quasi sovereign security status.44
Development banks are policy banks, usually state-owned, that direct their activities towards achieving policy goals of growth and development. There are national DBs, some of which grow to be very large like the China Development Bank (CDB) and the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDeS); and there are multilateral development banks, led by institutions like the World Bank, the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the new banks created by China and others to accompany and complement the Belt and Road Initiative, namely the BRICS-based New Development Bank (NDB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). All these institutions are able to mobilize finance for infrastructure development.45
So, China and its leading policy banks like the CDB and China Exim Bank have long experience of utilizing debt as the fuel that drives growth and future profits. It would be perverse to view a smart company formulating a business strategy to invade a new business segment, where the invasion is to be financed by debt, with the intent of repaying the loan in terms of capital and interest through the profits thereby earned, as entering a “debt trap”. Such “debt traps” abound in capitalism for the very good reason that this is how entrepreneurial firms can challenge incumbent firms to create new surges of business development. Schumpeter explained how such debt places these entrepreneurial firms on a ”level playing field” with large, established firms, allowing the smaller firms to creatively destroy the older, established firms and make way for the new.46
Now in the case of the BRI, all this experience by China and the CDB in a domestic setting, or in the international setting where the CDB is promoting and assisting Chinese firms in ‘going out’ into international competition, is being put to use in a completely new foreign setting. In place of the Chinese state managing the process in its own domestic arena, it is China and its lending institutions seeking to influence the behavior of 60-plus foreign governments and guiding the process of development through arms-length financing, again either through the CDB or through new multilateral development banks like the AIIB or the new BRICs development bank, the New Development Bank (NDB), launched in July 2014 with initial capital of $100 billion.47
In the case of the BRI China is entrusting investment funds to projects that are under the ultimate control of national governments that have their own agendas as well as seeking to work on positive terms with China. Chinese financing executed through the CDB and China Exim Bank will of course carry provisos like the requirement that Chinese firms be involved in carrying out a certain proportion of contractual works, such as engineering for high-speed rail projects or the building of bridges, or pipelines or hydroelectric dams. In his new study High-Speed Empire, journalist Will Doig provides on the ground reportage from Southeast Asia on how this process of mutual advantage unfolds, in the context of the long-discussed Pan-Asia Railway – where decisions do not always go China’s way, as in the recent roll-back of Chinese loans taken by the new Malaysian government and the more cautious approach being taken to Chinese loans by the Myanmar government.48
The link with industrial strategy: The BRI as an outlet for China’s excess capacity
There are many strategic goals that can be viewed as being fulfilled by the BRI. One aspect of the BRI that has attracted international comment is the potential for China to extend and elaborate on strategic industrial goals by linking them to the BRI. Take the case where overseas projects may be viewed as providing an outlet for excess capacity being experienced in China’s domestic market. During China’s own industrialization (from the period of US-China opening in the 1970s), it was the beneficiary of export of industrial capacity from advanced countries like Germany or Japan, which saw it in their interest to offload factories and manufacturing equipment that had become surplus to requirements. Now the Chinese can see the potential for behaving in the same way where the recipients of its excess manufacturing capacity could be in Southeast Asia or Central Asia, via projects brought under the umbrella of the BRI (and involving the export not just, e.g. of steel, but of steel mills).49
China’s State Council, for example, has identified the BRI as a means through which the domestic steel industry may “export” excess capacity, while enhancing its international competitiveness. One means through which this economic strategic goal may be accomplished is through the supply of steel for new railroads to be constructed under the BRI.50 In line with the State Council’s directive, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has identified 20,000 km of new railroads to be constructed under the BRI, potentially creating export demand for 85 million tons of Chinese produced steel. At the same time, the MIIT views BRI as a means of diversifying exports to countries like Vietnam, Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia. China’s Premier Li Keqiang is on the record as stating that a main objective of the government is to reduce industrial over-capacity through promotion of the BRI.51
The export of surplus capacity is one aspect of China’s industrial strategy where the BRI can be viewed as providing complementary projects at an international level, consistent with the goal to globalize China’s industries. More ambitiously, BRI projects can be viewed as providing opportunities for the export of Chinese technology, know-how, and standards. High-speed rail projects are the exemplary cases of such a strategy, where China has poured huge efforts into securing technology from the EU and Japan and is now bidding hard, via the BRI, for HSR projects such as the Djakarta to Bandung railway in Indonesia. China fought hard against Japan to win this contract from the Indonesian government, and while it is likely to lose money on the deal, it is viewed in Beijing as an opportunity to extend Chinese technology and standards into the international domain and win good will, via the BRI. It is not without merit to describe China’s BRI strategy as one involving the quest to capture not just overseas markets, but overseas supply chains themselves.52
Monetary dimensions of BRI: One Belt, One Road, One Trade Area, One Currency
An important Chinese aim for the BRI as well as the associated financial institutions, the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) and the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), is to promote the use of the Chinese currency (yuan, or RMB) as a vehicle of trade. It has long been a strategic goal of China to internationalize the yuan, but the trading volumes have worked against this in the past, as well as the limited convertibility of the RMB. Now with the BRI the conditions for internationalization are more favorable. The countries aligned with China through the BRI form a significant monetary bloc, and many already accept the yuan as payment for commodities supplied to China, and as means of payment for goods supplied from China.52 In Pakistan with its large China Pakistan Economic Corridor the yuan is already the dominant currency held by the central bank in its reserves. At the end of June 2018, the cumulative total of China’s commodity trade with countries aligned with the BRI reached the equivalent of US$5 trillion – with the yuan being the primary vehicle for this enormous trade volume.54 According to the HSBC, the BRI is likely to add an extra $2.5 trillion in new trade internationally each year.55
A significant boost to the internationalization of the yuan has been its use in trade in oil, with countries like Russia, Iran (China’s two most important oil suppliers) and Venezuela already accepting the yuan in payment for oil deliveries, and China making the yuan more attractive by ensuring that it is fully convertible into gold on the Shanghai and Hong Kong markets. There is wide speculation that Saudi Arabia will be induced to follow suit, ensuring that a significant proportion of global trade in oil is conducted not in the US dollar but in Chinese yuan. These moves are complemented by China’s issuing a futures contract for oil on the Shanghai International Energy Exchange, which has been trading in significant volumes since its launch on March 26, 2018. In their first four months of trading these futures contracts (by the end of July) had reached a cumulative total of 3.67 trillion yuan (equivalent of US$538 billion) in transaction value. It is widely anticipated that this futures contract will provide a yuan-denominated crude oil benchmark that rivals the Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) current benchmarks that are traded principally in London and New York.56
BRI trade and investment conducted in yuan promises to promote Chinese soft power while serving as a means for countries to evade US sanctions. Both Russia and Iran are selling oil to China and accepting payment in yuan, as a response to sanctions imposed on these countries by the US. China also views the emergence of yuan-denominated oil contracts as a means for Chinese companies to buy oil and gas in their own currency, thereby avoiding exposure to foreign currency fluctuations. Given that China is now the world’s largest oil importer, these initiatives frame the emergence of a multipolar world with a significant role played by a yuan currency area.
More generally, China is looking to utilize the BRI as a means of promoting trade between itself and countries that sign up for BRI projects – thus enhancing trade within a newly emerged yuan currency area. The World Bank has been monitoring these trade-related aspects of the BRI, and reports that trade linkages between BRI countries have proliferated, while production networks centered on China have also intensified since the BRI was initiated.57 These are benign influences – and they carry implications for wider industrial development and for the internationalization of China’s currency, the yuan. Perhaps it is overstating the case to assert that the BRI, in creating a dominant trade area, is likely to set the future rules of international trade and competition – as done recently by the CEO of Siemens, Joe Kaeser – but one can see the point that the BRI is so much more than just a series of infrastructure projects.58
Is the BRI promoting green or black development?
While the BRI is couched in general trade and investment terms, in practice much rests on whether its investments promote green or black (fossil fuelled) industrial development on a global scale. The World Resources Institute looked at this issue in a recent report, finding that the Chinese government “has taken initial steps to incorporate environmentally sustainable, or green, strategies and objectives into BRI – but in very high-level and conceptual terms.”59 Against this, the WRI report cites results from the Global Development Policy Center that claim that most Chinese deals in energy and transportation over the period 2014 to 2017 were tied to carbon-intensive sectors.60 These findings can be traced to the research efforts of the China’s Global Energy Finance (CGEF) database housed at Boston University (see website) which is based on analysis of lending abroad in BRI countries by the China Development Bank (CDB) and China Export/Import Bank (China Exim Bank). The negative conclusions reported by the WRI/GDPC researchers are at variance with the analysis provided by myself and Carol Xin Huang, using the same database, as reported in this journal. Our conclusion: “There is no doubt about the reality of China’s green shift in electric power generation in the domestic arena. What we are demonstrating in this article, using data from the BU CGEF, is that a comparable green shift is occurring in China’s energy investments globally, if not to the same degree as is found in China itself.”61
So the jury is out as to whether China’s loans through CDB and China Exim Bank around the world, and specifically to BRI countries, are promoting green over black investments. Resolution awaits further data being provided by China’s institutions and BRI recipient countries. In the meantime, much can be gleaned by examining the policy statements of lending institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) and the Silk Road Fund – all of which have strong commitments to funding green infrastructure around the world. And there are policy prescriptions like the Green Investment Principles, or guidelines on making Belt and Road construction greener, issued by Beijing and London in December 2018.62 Meanwhile China is now second only to the US in issuing green bonds, as vehicles for attracting investment in green projects around the world; China’s issuances in the first half of 2018 topped $10 billion, while those from US institutions came to $18 bn. China’s green bond issuances, which cumulatively reached $60 billion by 2018, provide finance for green investments around the world, including in BRI projects, involving Chinese companies.63 While there are still some discrepancies between the standards governing Chinese green bond issuances and those from European, American or Japanese sources, there is convergence in projects considered to fall within green bond financing guidelines.64 These then are the financial drivers of a greening of the Belt and Road Initiative.
Risks and downside factors in the BRI
Given its scale and its involvement of multiple sovereign state players, the BRI is clearly hostage to international developments that could be quite beyond China’s control. But there are factors that multiply the risks that China is running and which could be addressed in a timely fashion – if the Chinese leadership chose to do so. The obvious points of weakness concern the lack of transparency or general rules in the granting of credit and the terms on which countries are allowed to borrow from Chinese or Chinese-influenced banks and multilateral institutions. To date the lending criteria seem to be governed more by willingness to borrow than by informed analysis of ability to repay from the profits generated by the project being financed – as would be the case with World Bank loans, for example. The multilateral banks like the AIIB are taking steps to raise their transparency and the publicizing of terms on which loans are granted.
The same cannot be said for the practices of the CDB or China Exim Bank, which are under direct Chinese state control. One can understand that China is seeking to promote the BRI as a major foreign policy initiative, and in doing so is liable to grant loans to countries or governments on sometimes flimsy evidence of credit-worthiness. This generates opportunities for secrecy and corruption that are clearly evident in cases like Sri Lanka and Malaysia (where the borrowing activities of the previous government have been reversed by the incoming Mahathir-led government), or where there is mounting evidence that poorly conceived programs are leading to financial problems in host countries – as in cases like Kenya, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Such negative outcomes may reflect the willingness of the Chinese to accommodate the preferences of host country governments. If the hosts focus on projects and programs that promote their countries’ national interests, the Chinese will cooperate, to the mutual benefit of both parties. But if the hosts’ main interests are to secure personal benefits for a few leaders – as apparently in the cases of Sri Lanka and Malaysia – then the Chinese are also happy to oblige. So the results are a mixed set of outcomes – from projects that are of clear benefit to the host country to vanity projects that are of benefit only to a particular leader and his/her family.65 The indirect critiques of bodies like the IMF concerning the BRI are clearly directed at seeking to bring the various projects under some common set of transparency guidelines and lending rules that would minimize the prospects for negative outcomes – even if there is as yet little evidence of moves in this direction.
Meanwhile China is discovering the security implications of many of its BRI-related investments, as unrest is provoked or exacerbated in areas of geopolitical tension. China’s BRI-related investments in Pakistan have involved opening up mineral deposits in Baluchistan, provoking several terrorist attacks claimed by the Baluchi Liberation Army. This has prompted China to form a Marine Corps, modelled on the US Marines, as a first line of defence to protect BRI projects.66 The possibilities for such security concerns to spill over into militarization of the BRI region are clear and ominous.
Concluding remarks
It is difficult not to be impressed by the sheer scale and bravado of China’s New Silk Roads strategy. At a time when the US is looking inwards, and adopting profoundly protectionist stances, China is looking outwards and globally, offering a strong defence of economic openness and assisting developing countries with financial support for their own infrastructure building projects. For seven decades since its victory in World War II the international initiative lay overwhelmingly with the US, and to some extent the EU, in terms of the governance of the world economy. Suddenly China is there and precisely at a moment when the US is looking inward and emphasizing short-term goals. The Belt & Road Initiative can be justified for China as part of an immense “soft power” push, but no less significantly as a means of extending China’s power and reach internationally, to protect the sea lanes carrying its commercial produce, both imports (particularly oil) and exports of its manufactured goods. At the same time the new strategy represents an enormous development boost for dozens of countries that have been held back previously by the heavy demands of the IMF and World Bank.
From the perspective of China, the BRI strategy involves the use of debt as the fuel of industrialization and development, via infrastructure development, with a powerful role to be played by state-owned development banks like the CDB and Exim Bank and new multilateral banks like the AIIB and NDB – albeit in ways where transparency and general rules could be greatly strengthened. China itself has utilized this strategy of debt-fuelled development (without ever defaulting) and urbanization, with a prominent role played by the CDB – and is now extending this experience beyond its borders to the Eurasian continent and beyond to Africa and Latin America. The goals of the BRI need to be evaluated from such a perspective, as extending China’s own development strategies to a swathe of countries being brought within China’s influence by becoming involved in the infrastructure projects created by the BRI. As The Economist puts it, this is nothing less than “a vastly ambitious plan to connect the world.”67 Likewise it is hard to disagree with the New York Times’ assessment that the BRI constitutes a modern-day version of the Marshall Plan which refloated Europe in the aftermath of World War II.68
In such a vast and ambitious project there are bound to be mis-steps and falters along the way – not least the environmental costs of such mega-projects. Some countries will doubtless get themselves into too much debt and will be appealing to China to bail them out. China has so far displayed a willingness to do so, but on strict terms and without a sense of sending countries to “debtors’ prison”. On the other hand, countries would be well advised to view China’s generosity as something not to be taken advantage of, for enforced debt-for-equity swaps can and will lead to cases of transfer of sovereignty over key assets – as experienced by Sri Lanka with the port of Hambantota. But to see China’s strategy as simply seeking to ensnare countries in “debt traps” is to misread its ambitions, to misdiagnose its methods, and to ignore the outcome in the vast majority of cases.
So far the US has attempted to curb China’s strategic ambitions with a clumsy trade war involving escalating tariffs imposed on Chinese imports – while leaving itself vulnerable to counter-tariffs imposed by China on US agricultural exports, and (no doubt soon enough) on high tech exports from Silicon Valley. Meanwhile China’s global ambitions for its New Silk Roads strategy, involving debt-fuelled infrastructure investment around the globe, drawing countries firmly into its sphere of influence, goes largely unanswered. Until the US and allies in Japan and the EU can find a way to respond to China’s BRI, to provide alternative funding for alternative infrastructure projects at the scale envisaged by China, the game will be lost.69 The New Silk Roads strategy is China’s ‘grand strategy’ for the 21st century, and it is not to be under-estimated.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
John A. Mathews is Emeritus Professor of Management at MQ University Sydney, in the Faculty of Business and Economics. and formerly Eni Chair of Competitive Dynamics and Global Strategy at LUISS Guido Carli University in Rome.
Sources
Amsden, A. 1998. Why isn’t the whole world experimenting with the East Asian model to develop? Review of the East Asian Miracle, World Development, 22 (4): 627-633.
Ansar, A., Flyvbjerg, B., Budzier, A. and Lunn, D. 2016 Does infrastructure investment lead to economic growth or economic fragility? Evidence from China, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 32 (3): 360-390.
Brandt, L., Ma, D. and Rawski, T.G. 2014. From divergence to convergence: Reevaluating the history behind China’s economic boom, Journal of Economic Literature, 52 (1): 45-123.
Chan, L.-H. 2017. Soft balancing against the US ‘pivot to Asia’: China’s geostrategic rationale for establishing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 71 (6): 568-590.
Chu, W.-W. 2011. How the Chinese government promoted a global automobile industry, Industrial and Corporate Change, 20 (5): 1235-1276.
Doig, W. 2018. High-Speed Empire: Chinese Expansion and the Future of Southeast Asia. New York: Columbia Global Reports.
Duchâtel, M. and Duplaix, A.S. 2018. Blue China: Navigating the Maritime Silk Road to Europe, Policy Brief(23 April 2018). European Council on Foreign Relations.
Mearsheimer, J. 2014. Can China rise peacefully?The National Interest. New concluding chapter to the book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, University of Chicago Press
Munir, W. and Gallagher, K.P. 2018. Scaling up lending at the Multi-Lateral Development Banks: Benefits and costs of expanding and optimizing MDB balance sheets. GEGI WP 013-4/2018. Global Economic Governance Initiative, Boston University/Global Development Policy Center.
Nye, J. 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Power in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.
Nye, J. 2009. Get smart: Combining hard and soft power, Foreign Affairs, 88 (4): 160-163.
Pan, F., Zhang, F., Zhu, S. and Wojcik, D. 2017. Developing by borrowing? Inter-jurisdictional competition, land finance and local debt accumulation in China, Urban Studies, 54 (4): 897-916.
Rolland, N. 2017a. China’s “Belt and Road Initiative”: Underwhelming or game-changer? The Washington Quarterly, 40 (1): 127-142.
Rolland, N. 2017b. China’s Eurasian Century? Political and Strategic Implications of the Belt and Road Initiative. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Asian Research.
Ru, H. 2018. Government credit, a double-edged sword: Evidence from the China Development Bank, The Journal of Finance, 73 (1): 275-316.
Sanderson, H. and Forsyth, M. 2013. China’s Superbank: Debt, Oil and Influence – How China Development Bank is Rewriting the Rules of Finance. Singapore: John Wiley/Bloomberg Press.
Schumpeter, J.A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Bros.
Spence, J., Wolf, M., Tellis, A., Kharas, H., Pei, M., Brzezinski, Z. and Mearsheimer, J. 2005. Panel discussion: China Rising – How the Asian Colossus is changing the world, Foreign Policy, (Jan/Feb 2005): 43-58.
Tsui, K.Y. 2011. China’s infrastructure investment boom and local debt crisis, Eurasian Geography and Economics, 52 (5): 686-711.
Wang, H. 2017. New Multilateral Development Banks: Opportunities and challenges for global governance, Global Policy, 8 (1): 113-118.
Wang, Jisi 2011. China’s search for a grand strategy: A rising great power finds its way, Foreign Affairs, 90 (2): 68-79.
Wei, Shang-Jin, Xie, Zhuan and Zhang, Xiaobo 2017. “Made in China” to “Innovated in China”: Necessity, prospect, and challenges, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31 (1): 49-70.
Wen, L., Butsic, V., Stapp, J.R., and Zhang, A. 2017. Can China’s land coupon program activate rural assets? An empirical investigation of program characteristics and results of Chongqing, Habitat International, 59: 80-89.
Wuthnow, J. 2017. Chinese perspectives on the Belt and Road Initiative: Strategic rationales, risks, and implication, China Strategic Perspectives No. 12. Center for Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Institute for National Strategic Studies, Washington, DC.
Yağcı, Mustafa, 2018. Rethinking soft power in light of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 15 (57): 67-78.
Zhao, M. 2015. “March westwards” and a new look at China’s grand strategy, Mediterranean Quarterly, 26 (1): 97-116.
Notes
1 Many organizations now monitor the evolving Belt and Road Initiative. The World Bank for example maintains a website here.
The Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS) webpage provides a “BRI Tracker”. Business Insider puts the number of countries involved as of 2018 at 71, accounting for 33% of world GDP (and hence for approx. $26.7 trillion in economic activity). A full list of the countries involved can be found at the website of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council.
5 See the written contributions from scholars testifying at the US Congressional hearings, in particular Nadege Rolland, Joel Wuthnow, Joshua Eisenman and Jonathan Hillman. For their scholarly contributions, see Rolland (2017a; 2017b), Wuthnow (2017), Eisenman and Stewart (2017), Hillman (2018a).
6 See the report from the Center for Global Development by Hurley, Morris and Portelance (2018).
8 In this article I treat the BRI as a series of financial and investment initiatives, separate from and perhaps complementing strategic security and military initiatives like the creation of a Chinese military base in Djibouti and the series of aggressive initiatives in the South China Sea. These all feature as aspects of China’s emerging bid for hegemonic status, which have intensified in the recent period of Xi Jinping’s presidency – but the financial and investment aspects as captured in the BRI deserve analysis in their own right.
9 Some of the countries involved include the ‘stans of Central Asia, Russia, Afghanistan, South Asia – Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh (but not India), Southeast Asia (including Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar et al) and now countries in Africa as well as Latin America.
10 China has been careful to promote these new multilateral banks as complementary to existing west-backed institutions like the World Bank and the Japan-based Asian Investment Bank, rather than as direct competitors.
11 See ‘The world, built by China’, by Derek Watkins, K.K. Rebecca Lai and Keith Bradsher, New York Times, Nov 18 2018.
12 The Hong Kong Trade Development Council (HKTDC) maintains a web-based scrutiny of developments with the Belt & Road Initiative. For profiles of BRI projects, see HKTDC. For informed commentary, see expositions from such research bodies as the Lowy Institute, e.g. Cai (2017), and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), e.g. Hillman (2018b).
13 As noted above, this article focuses on the financial and investment initiatives being taken by China as captured in the BRI, without examining the initiatives being taken in the military and security spheres. The sheer scale of the BRI calls for analysis of its initiatives in their own right.
14 The name “Belt and Road Initiative” has itself followed an interesting evolution. Five years ago, at the launch by President Xi Jinping, the terms used were “Silk Road Economic Belt” (encompassing six “corridors” such as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor CPEC) and the “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” – both conjuring up major infrastructure projects linking Eurasian cities by road, rail, air and sea and involving new ports, airports, pipelines, high-speed rail, new freight services, electric power grid interconnections and so on. It then came to be known as “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) and finally, in an official publication of the National Development and Reform Commission (ND&RC) issued in March 2015, as the “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI) – with the ND&RC specifying that English translations of the Chinese term “Yidai Yilu” (with its melodic tones) should not include “strategy” or “vision’ but insists that it should be viewed as a “process” or an “Initiative” (See the Chinese website)
15 It is probably worth noting that while the US “pivot to Asia” was never really followed through with investment and financial commitments, the Chinese initiatives certainly did.
16 The US-China rivalry, as evidenced in many of the projects associated with the belt and Road Initiative, is covered by recent articles in the New York Times, such as James Millward, ‘Is China a colonial power?’, New York Times, May 4 2018; or David Barboza, Marc Santora and Alexandra Stevenson, ‘China seeks influence in Europe, one business deal at a time’, New York Times, August 12 2918.
17 The “Polar Silk Road” encompassing Arctic sea routes past the melting Arctic ice cap, was announced at the 2018 meeting of the World Economic Forum, at Davos. See ‘At Davos, the real star may have been China, not Trump’ by Keith Bradsher, New York Times, Jan 28 2018.
18 China issued an invitation to Latin American countries to join the BRI, in January 2018 – via a speech from Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Santiago, Chile. See ‘China invites Latin America to join One belt, One Road’, Reuters, Jan 23 2018.
21 It is worth noting that China is the largest trade partner of both Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
22 Note that this map from C4ADS omits the Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea, which are a source of so much geopolitical conflict in the current period.
24 This aspect of the BRI can be linked to the Go West strategy … diversifying industry including electronics from the East coast (Guangdong, Shanghai) to western regions such as Sichuan, or Chongqing.
25 Of course the Gwadar port proposals have received a setback with Pakistan having to seek a bailout from the IMF in talks that have been underway since October 2018, and likely to continue into 2019. Pakistan has been looking to both China and Saudi Arabia as alternative sources of bailout, but it seems that the IMF is going to have to provide funding after all. See ‘IMF warns Pakistan of risks of working with China’, by Xie Yu, South China Morning Post, 9 Oct 2018.
27 See Mearsheimer (2014). The current US-China trade war is a vindication of his position. For the celebrated debate between Mearsheimer and Brzezinski on offensive realism, see Spence et al (2005).
28 See Nye 2004 and then 2009; 2017
29 See Yağcı 2018 for discussion on this point. It is worth noting that while the US was fighting multiple wars, China for the most part remained at peace, though it provided military support in Korea, Vietnam, and went to war with Vietnam and others. Now, however, it is exercising greater geopolitical leverage of which the disputed claims (and China’s arrogance) in the South China Sea are most notable.
30 See Glaser (2011) for an application of “security dilemma” reasoning to the case of China; for an extended discussion in the abstract, prior to the clear rise of China, see Glaser (1997).
31 Some scholars and analysts refer to this aspect of China’s strategy as “economic diplomacy” in the sense that it represents an economic aspect of diplomatic activity and a framing of diplomatic initiatives around economic goals. For such a discussion relevant to the Belt and Road Initiative, see Heath (2016).
33 The Paris Club of creditor countries goes back to the debt crisis engulfing developing countries in the 1980s; it turned on efforts by creditor countries like the US and EU members to provide debt relief without undermining the IMF and its conditionality requirements. An analysis at the time is provided by Riefel in 1985 in the Princeton Essays in International Finance.
35 In the first five months of 2018, Chinese companies signed contracts worth $36.2 billion across all economic sectors – according to the New York Times (‘China taps brakes on its global push for influence’, by Keith Bradsher, New York Times, June 28 2018)
36 See World Bank 1997 report, The East Asian Miracle. For outstanding reviews and debate, see Alice Amsden, ‘Why isn’t the whole world experimenting with the East Asian model to develop?’ (Amsden 1998), or Dani Rodrik, ‘King Kong meets Godzilla: The World Bank and the East Asian Miracle’.
37 For analyses of China’s development model, from an historical perspective, see for example Brandt, Ma and Rawski (2014). Wan-wen Chu at Academia Sinica in Taiwan provides a penetrating analysis of China’s industrial strategy at provincial levels (Chu 2011).
38 Much of the early investment in the 1980s and 1990s did not so much target the Chinese domestic market as its cheap, disciplined labor to produce for export; this was also the Chinese government idea underpinning the Free Trade Zones. Later, industries such as electronics and auto would tap China’s vast internal market.
39 See for example the recent study by Wei, Xie and Zhang (2017), which takes the story to the year 2014, and demonstrates striking gains in both productivity and innovation in China as measured by patent filings from 1995 to 2014. A study from the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) issued in 2018 argued that China is now driving international patent applications to record heights – see the summary.
40 Of course China’s strategies of infrastructure-driven growth and development have not gone unchallenged. In Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Ansar et al (2016) challenge the premises of Chinese success.
41 For critical discussions in this vein, see Tsui (2011) and more recently Pan, Zhang, Zhu and Wojcik (2017).
42 There has been criticism of China’s approach to urban redevelopment based on CDB practices of debt management, with cases of underpayment to agricultural land holders who are subject to compulsory acquisition orders. No doubt there have been cases of such underpayment, but the overall strategy does not depend on this aspect. There seem to be fewer cases as market reforms are introduced at local level (Wen et al 2017).
43 For an insightful book-length account of the workings of the CDB, see Sanderson and Forsyth (2013). Ru (2018) provides a scholarly analysis of the workings of the CDB as development institution, arguing on the basis of data provided by the CDB that the bank “crowds-in” private investment, thus acting as a catalyst for further development.
44 Of course the current US-launched trade war complicates these considerations of prospects for firms like ZTE and Huawei.
45 On the positive role played by Multilateral Development Banks (like the ADB and AIIB) see Munir and Gallagher 2018.
46 See Schumpeter (1942) for the original exposition of creative destruction as a key mechanism of capitalist innovation.
47 Financing by China so far is impressive, with the Silk Road Fund announcing a goal of $40 billion in equity investments (with funds of $680 million being allocated by August 2017); the AIIB with BRI investments of $3.7 billion by 2017; and the CDB with huge loans of $110 billion to BRI projects by January 2018. On top of these lending arrangements, the CDB and China Exim Bank have announced separate BRI funds amounting to $36.2 billion and $18.8 billion, respectively, at the 2017 Belt and Road Summit staged in Beijing. For details on these financial commitments, see the report from ING, ‘China’s Belt and Road: Bigger than the Marshall Plan?’, 6 June 2018.
49 Another dimension is that climate crisis and environmental pollution requires that China cut back on e.g. steel production and it has closed some major mines while seeking also to create new green industries such as renewables and new energy vehicles.
58 Joe Kaeser, CEO of Siemens, is quoted in the NYT as saying: “The China One Belt, One Road is going to be the new WTO – like it or not”. See ‘At Davos, the real star may have been China, not Trump’, by Keith Bradsher, New York Times, Jan 28 2018.
60 The data reported are that greenfield investments in coal, oil and gas-fired power plants globally by Chinese sources, 2014 to 2017, amounted to over $30 billion (mostly provided by state-owned enterprises), while investments in solar PV and wind, respectively, amounted to just over $5 bn and just under $5 bn (overwhelmingly provided by privately owned firms) See Fig 15 in Zhou et al 2018, p. 19.
62 The Green Investment Principles were formulated and published by the Green Finance Committee (GFC) of the China Society for Finance and Banking (chaired by Dr Ma Jun, a member of the People’s Bank of China Monetary Policy Committee) and the Green Finance Initiative (GFI) of the City of London, chaired by Sir Roger Gifford. See ‘China, UK publish guidelines to make Belt & Road construction greener’, Xinhua, 1 Dec 2018.
64 For example, there is convergence in projects emanating from China that involve renewable energies and energy storage. But there are discrepancies, as noted by Climate Bonds Initiative, in projects that involve retrofitting on coal power plants, or projects involving “clean coal”. See the Climate Bonds Initiative China Annual Report 2017.
65 I would like to thank a reviewer, Professor Thomas Rawski, for this insight.
69 A small step in such a direction is evidenced by the trilateral announcement from the US, Japan and Australia of the possibility of finance for infrastructure development being provided from joint initiatives from the three countries, according to a statement from Australia’s then Foreign Minister Ms Julie Bishop, at the end of July. See report in The Australian, July 31 2018, “Australia, US, Japan to offer infrastructure lending in Asia-Pacific region”.
There will be important opportunities in the next few years to advance the movement for economic, racial and environmental justice as well as peace. This article will focus on three opportunities: the 2020 elections, the decline of US empire and an economic slowdown.
The movement is in a stronger position than it has been in for years. The current movement took off during Occupy in 2011. Occupy’s headline was “We Are The 99%,” which emphasized inequality and money corrupting government. Occupy included every major front of struggle, e.g., economic insecurity, racial injustice, climate change, massive debt, never-ending wars, the crisis of capitalism and more.
Since then, the movement has grown and matured. We have majority support on many issues, have more experience and are organized to take advantage of upcoming opportunities.
The 2020 Elections: Focus On The Issues
Although the movement is independent of elections, the 2020 elections will present numerous opportunities to build a national consensus on issues. Our actions over the next two years can shape the election narrative.
The movement has already impacted the electoral process. Senator Sanders ran a more successful campaign than expected by focusing on movement issues, e.g., inequality, improved Medicare for all and free college. The movement created an environment where new Members of Congress such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (Minn.), won campaigning on our issues.
The media and political parties will make the elections a beauty contest about personalities to avoid the issues. We must keep issues front and center, including confronting candidates, even seeming allies, to demand they represent us. Doing so will build national consensus so our issues cannot be ignored no matter who is elected.
The movement should not be limited by ‘political realities.’ We need to demand what is necessary, a People’s Agenda, to solve the crises the nation and planet face.
Since the 2016 election, our issues have grown in popularity. Democratic candidates must support improved Medicare for all if they want to be the nominee as 85% of Democrats support it. Support is strong among independent voters, the largest bloc, and now a majority of Republican voters support Medicare for all.
Similarly, the Green New Deal, which has been raised by Greens since 2006, has now entered the Democratic Party dialogue, although Democratic leadership is fighting it. The Green Party version of the proposal requires a rapid transition to a clean energy economy, living wage jobs, public ownership, cutting the budget of the biggest polluter, the military, and building the social safety net. The Democratic Party version will not push for these system-wide changes.
Dramatic changes are needed in multiple federal agencies to confront climate change. Thanks to Beyond Extreme Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is being forced to consider the climate impact of new energy infrastructure. The FERC must prioritize wind, solar, tidal and other clean energy sources while restricting oil and gas, coal and nuclear. FERC either needs to be part of the energy transformation or be disbanded.
Likewise, the corporate take-over of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Interior Department needs to be reversed. Recent reports indicate urgent and aggressive action is needed. Obama’s “all of the above” approach and business as usual won’t suffice. People who have taken action on climate change should lead those agencies.
The economy is a deciding factor in elections. Do people feel economically secure, are their salaries increasing, do their children have opportunities? A popular position for candidates to take is ending corporate trade. Candidates need to pledge to remake trade so it puts people and planet before big business.
Workers have been under attack for decades by both Wall Street-funded parties. The movement should use the coming elections to push for a national jobs program, a living wage higher than $15 an hour, and a basic income for all. The right to organize unions must be restored and laws are needed to encourage worker-ownership through cooperatives so workers share in the profits they create and participate in decision-making for their workplace.
Demand A Responsible End to US Empire
Current US foreign policy is expensive, destructive and creates chaos around the world. Movement building to end US militarism and never-ending war are needed.
The national security strategy of the US is great power conflict, i.e. conflict with Russia and China. Obama’s Asian Pivot has evolved into aggressive actions under Trump, along with counterproductive tariffs that threaten the global economy. Russia has become the scapegoat for many problems in the US, such as Clinton’s failed election. The US is lining Russia’s border with NATO military bases while threatening to escalate the conflict in Ukraine and starting a nuclear arms race.
A radical shift is needed with Russia and China. Detente with Russia is needed in order to end the arms race, stop military belligerence and remove bases from their border. The US should develop a win-win relationship with China. If the two largest economies can work together, they can ameliorate many global problems, e.g. poverty, the climate crisis and economic insecurity.
The withdrawal of troops from Syria and Afghanistan needs to be pushed. The movement should demand a full withdrawal including ground troops, Air Force, contractors, and the CIA and a stop to the funding of proxy forces. This should be followed by a full withdrawal from Iraq. Rather than war with Iran, the US should end the Middle East quagmire, which has trapped the US this entire century.
In Latin America, the US has been very destructive. Central American governments in the US orbit are wracked with poverty, misery, and violence causing many to flee north toward the US. Brazil, which had been moving in a positive direction, now has an extreme right-wing government supported by the US.
The economic war, attempted coups and assassinations and military threats on Venezuela are destructive. Russia has sent troops to Venezuela and is considering sending more to counter US threats. The US should be seeking a partnership with Venezuela, not domination.
Economic sanctions are now being used against Nicaragua, one of the poorest countries in our hemisphere, after a violent US-supported uprising organized with oligarchs, US-funded NGOs and the Catholic Church. The attack on Nicaragua reignites the Contra War of the Reagan era, targeting a government that resists US domination.
The US is expanding militarism in Latin America by bringing NATO to Colombia. Under their right-wing government, there is extreme violence against labor, environmentalists and Afro-Colombians as well as constant threats to its neighbor, Venezuela. The US relationship with Colombia is a source of instability in the region and needs to transform into a relationship of stability and de-militarization.
Africa is becoming a 21st Century battleground. The US is militarizing Africa through AFRICOM while China is pursuing a win-win economic strategy in Africa. US-China competition in Africa could become another quagmire, i.e. draining US resources while causing destruction and chaos for Africa.
Closing US and NATO foreign bases is a key step to ending empire. On 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, people are organizing in response. There will be a major march on the Saturday before and events throughout the week calling for an end to NATO, as well as highlighting the triple evils King emphasized: militarism, racism and consumerism caused by capitalism. We can create a movement of movements event and change the political dialogue in the US.
These issues show a failing empire They are opportunities to change the course of US foreign policy. Working with people across the country, Popular Resistance will help build the peace movement through regional Peace Congresses in 2019 and a national Peace Congress in 2020. Contact us at [email protected] if you want to participate in these.
Opportunities For Economic Transformation
The weak stock market in December portends an economic slowdown or collapse worse than 2008. There are other troubling signs, e.g. high government, business, and personal, including student, debt, a fragile international economy, tariff wars and sanctions that create international economic confusion, among others. Further, the US is overdue for a “correction,” recession or worse. Even with the Republican tax cut that caused large buy-backs of stock to grow the stock market, the market is now faltering.
The fundamentals of the US economy have been flawed for years. The wealth divide has been expanding, leaving most people in the US economically insecure, since ‘trickle down economics’ began under Reagan. Corporate trade agreements since Clinton have hollowed out the Midwest economy leaving fly-over states insecure. Urban areas have been neglected leaving primarily communities of color impoverished. Abusive police and mass incarceration have been used to prevent justified uprisings. Military spending takes more than 60% of federal discretionary spending while the social safety net has been shredded.
Unlike 2008, the movement is positioned to push for changes in the economy. An economic downturn will weaken those in power as they will be justifiably blamed. The president, who campaigned on the economic insecurity of workers and the middle class, has governed on behalf of the wealthy. The economic downturn will impact him more than Mueller or the 16 other Trump investigations.
An economic slump will be an opportunity for the movement to push for a new economy. Our It’s Our Economy project puts forward a vision for a new economy based on economic democracy that empowers people through worker-owned businesses, a national jobs program, guaranteed basic income and more.
Economic democracy includes public programs that serve the public interest, e.g., public banks that work with community banks and credit unions to meet the necessities of the people, not serve investors. It includes public utilities and democratized energy production so every home and business is an energy producer spreading the profits, rather than funneling them to concentrated corporations.
Economic democracy also includes confronting issues of communication, equal access to a free and open internet, i.e., net neutrality and high-speed Internet in rural and poor communities. The expanding censorship of social media must be confronted through extending freedom of speech and press along with privacy protections.
If the movement continues to build power and put forward transformational programs such as those outlined above, the next two years will be the beginning of a decade of positive change. We need to prepare now. Over this holiday, we encourage you to listen to this interview with Kali Akuno for more wisdom on how to make transformation a reality.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.
All images in this article are from PR except for the featured image from Rise Up Times
Christmas celebrations have literally radiated out across Syria and western media was curiously silent in the face of such displays of unity and solidarity among Syria’s diverse peoples.
Syrians saw off the year 2018 under a glittering canopy of festive lights and elaborate decorations adorn the streets of many cities, towns and villages throughout much of the country.
Izraa, a town in the southern province of Daraa, was liberated from US Coalition client terrorism in July 2018 after the surrender of the armed groups. Residents celebrated Christmas for the first time in seven years and they celebrated in style.
In Damascus, people poured onto the streets of the Old City without fear of a rain of mortars from extremist groups in Eastern Ghouta, an area fully cleansed of armed groups, by the Syrian Arab Army and allies in April 2018. I walked among the thousands of civilians who gathered around the towering Christmas trees and jostled each other to take selfies next to the myriad of Christmas displays that lined the streets.
In 2018 this was not only a “Christian” festival, this was a rebirth of the Syrian celebration of life and a symbol of victory over international terrorism – a vindication of all that Syria has represented and defended for seven long and arduous years spent battling western-backed ideological extremism that would tear apart the secular fabric of Syrian society and reduce it to sectarian hatred and ensure the extinction of minority communities in a country that has embraced diversity for centuries.
During his Christmas Eve sermon in 1967, Martin Luther King said “We must either learn to live together as brothers or we are going to perish together as fools”. While NATO-aligned media in the West has maintained a sectarian narrative with regards to the Syrian conflict and has dehumanised the Syrian people who have stood by their Government, their President, their Army and their allies – Syria has resolutely drawn together the threads of its cultural tapestry in defiance of such simplistic narratives and has confounded its enemies who underestimated the power of a people who have withstood centuries of invasion and instability.
Dr Hadi Yazjii is a Syrian American physician who spent the first two decades of his life in Syria before moving to the US. He told me:
“Given the fact that modern-day Syria and ancient Syria (including Damascus and Antioch) has been the actual place that is responsible for spreading Christianity to Europe, Syrians feel a special sense of universality, responsibility and pride in their heritage which transcends the pure religious celebration. Christmas reflects the sacred secular status of Syria and the Levant”.
This fierce belief in a secular heritage has been the life-force of the Syrian resistance against the FUKUS military adventurism and Gulf State, Turkish and Israeli sponsorship of extremism in the region. The ancient Christian town of Maaloula was invaded by Nusra Front and subsidiaries in September 2013. During the attack, three unarmed men from Maaloula were executed in cold blood, one after the other, as each one refused to convert to Islam. This stubborn resistance against ideological tyranny and persecution is what has enabled Syria to endure the hardship and suffering foisted upon them by the West and to emerge victorious despite the bloodshed and devastation that has affected every family and community.
After Damascus, I traveled to the Syrian Christian towns of Al Skeilbiyyeh and Mhardeh to the north of Hama province, bordering territory controlled by Nusra Front (rebranded as Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham or HTS) who dominate the assorted extremist armed groups that occupy Idlib. Both towns have received thousands of mortars from the terrorist entities encamped on their borders, less than 500 meters away from the towns at certain points.
In Al Skeilbiyyeh, volunteers worked for fifty days on the production of a lavish and gloriously flamboyant Christmas carnival that spilled colour and joy onto streets that have been scarred by rockets and mortars for the last seven years. I spoke to the organisers who told me that they feel a deepening sense of security in recent months. For them, and all residents I spoke to, 2018 signified a shift away the uncertainty of previous years towards greater stability. This important shift was entirely attributed to the heroism of the volunteer Syrian National Defence forces and their commander, Nabel Alabdalla, who have valiantly defended the town and its people alongside the Syrian Arab Army and allies.
On the 27th December the “Coral Annunciation” a local group of young musicians and singers brought the house down in Al Skeilbiyyeh. Students from the town sang and played their hearts out to a packed audience. Stunning is the only way to describe their powerful presentation of the victorious spirit of this town and of Syria. Celebrations after this spectacular event went on until the early hours of the following morning as Nusra Front lay in wait in the darkness less than 1km away from the revelry.
In September 2018 both Al Skeilbiyyeh and Mhardeh had come under attack from the Western-backed armed groups who targeted the towns with prohibited cluster munitions. In Mhardeh thirteen civilians were martyred as a result of this heinous attack which was barely acknowledged by western media or the international community.
Mhardeh resident,Shade Yousef Shehda, suffered overwhelming loss in this attack. Shadi’s mother Afifeh, his wife Rama, his eldest daughter Maria, six-year-old son, Fadi and his two-year-old daughter Stefani were martyred on the 7th September 2018, “sliced to pieces” by the missiles that had been launched by the extremist groups.
I met with Shade in September and again three days after Christmas 2018 when he spoke to me of his refusal to be driven from his town or his country by the terrorist attacks, despite the unimaginable grief he was still processing. Shade told me that, he would never leave Mhardeh:
“I offered to my mother, Syria, the most precious things in my life – my mother, my wife and my three children but despite this I celebrated Christmas in Mhardeh because Mhardeh is the ‘Sun City”, the source of life. In spite of everything, I am ready to sacrifice myself for Mhardeh and for Syria. My family watered the soil with their blood and I am ready to do the same”
If, in the face of such devastation, the flame of resistance can still burn so brightly in the hearts of the most profoundly affected in Syria – what hope does extremism have of victory in a land of such courage and steadfastness?
Simon Al-Wakil, commander of the Syrian National Defence Forces in Mhardeh explained why 2018 was such an important Christmas for all of Syria:
“The Syrian Arab Army and their allies have liberated many regions in Syria, regions which were under the control of the terrorist groups. Our Army has restored security and safety to these regions which means safety and security for our churches, our families and our children – for all Syrians”
While the tree-lighting ceremonies and festivity lit up the night sky in 85% of Syrian territory liberated from the West’s proxy invaders and their auxiliaries, in Idlib no such celebrations were permitted by the sectarian tyrants that permeate the occupying forces supported by the US Coalition. The desecration of churches and theft of historic artefacts from Christian towns in Idlib province is the legacy of the illegal armed groups promoted by the West as purveyors of “Democracy”
@Charles_Lister That's me at entrance to Al-Quneyah and in Yacoubieh. Used to attend mass at same Church. Most of the Christian residents of the two sister villages had to flee after your FSA and Annusra occupied them. Cross+Virgin Mary statue removed. very few stayed pic.twitter.com/LcpFPTPRtW
In August 2018, “moderate rebel” promoter, Charles Lister, attempted to whitewash the sectarian crimes of the extremist groups in Idlib by claiming that the Christian communities of Al Quneyah and Yacoubieh had remained almost “entirely intact” despite the terrorist invasion. Syrian analyst and journalist, Camille Otrakji, immediately discredited this claim by describing the defacing of the local churches by the armed groups and the exodus of the majority of the residents after occupation. According to Otrakji:
“Al Nusra removed Mother Mary’s statue at the village center and broke or covered all the crosses. They forced the Christian residents who remained to attend their Salafi religious education”.
In September 2017 relatives of residents in Yacoubieh spoke of White Helmet involvement in the theft of homes and their occupation by the terrorist groups in preparation for the sectarian despotism that would follow. The White Helmets and their western PR agencies have extolled the virtues of their proclaimed “impartiality” yet this UK/US intelligence-midwived “propaganda construct” has consistently demonstrated its partiality to sectarian violence in Syria.
While assuming the “humanitarian”and ethical moral high ground in the Syrian conflict, effectively the West has been the greatest threat to the Christian communities in Syria and the Middle East through its invasive foreign policy and sponsorship of the extremist armed groups that threaten to ethnically cleanse these communities from the region.
The targeting of all Syrian minority communities is the direct result of the US coalition’s criminal intervention in the affairs of a sovereign nation and the fomenting of a violent insurgency against the Syrian government. As Syria’s territorial integrity is almost fully restored and her people return to peace and security, Christmas 2018 represents the triumph of Syrian secularism over externally incited brutal sectarianism and brings with it hope and optimism for the future of Syria and the region.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
They year 2018 ended with bitter partisan conflicts over narrow issues. Over seventy percent of the federal budget was approved by both parties and another twenty-nine percent was delayed because of a conflict over ‘border security’ involving expenditures of less than one hundredth of one percent.
Multiple wars, coups, sanctions and trade disputes dominated the US political agenda. War budgets grew, military sales increased and frictions between the US and Saudi Arabia bubbled to the surface . . . and dissipated.
We will proceed to provide a realistic assessment of the US in world politics during the past year, as a prelude to what we can expect in the coming year – 2019.
US policy followed along the lines of previous presidents and military advisers: pursuing wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia; adding military bases in Eastern Europe and the Baltics; promoting economic sanction against Iran, Russia, China and North Korea and adding minor ones against traditional allies in Europe and East Asia.
These measures did not radically alter trade relations even as divergences emerged between the President and his senior cabinet Generals, several of whom resigned.
Resignations and dismissals in the executive branch reflected the division over President Trump’s military withdrawals from Syria and Afghanistan, his efforts to lower military costs and losses in regions of no profit or progress. Trump’s opponents objected to his long-term commitments and efforts to finance economic spending and growth at home and abroad.
The Democratic Party pushed hard to increase or at least maintain a military presence and commitments and to engage in symbolic hostile gesture against Russia (Russophobia) and North Korea.
Shadow boxing highlighted internal partisan disagreements over immigration. Trump promised a border wall, the Democrats a fence. Both followed the same restrictive immigration policies and expelled millions of Central Americans and Mexicans, as did their predecessors.
Domestic policy, especially the major reduction of taxes for the very rich, was wholeheartedly backed by both parties. Despite their political propaganda divergences the Democrats voted for the rich and denounced the Republicans. The Republicans took credit for the tax ‘reform’ and credited it for ‘economic growth”.
Both parties and branches of government called for billion-dollar infrastructures funding and nothing was done. Both engaged in partisan ‘conflicts’ over healthcare and educational reforms but nothing was done.
The respectable press blamed President Trump for avoiding wars, colluding with Russia and threatening the global free-market economy, without recognizing the collaboration of the Democrats who engaged in their own version of global warfare.
In real terms, the two parties followed parallel policies at home and abroad, while engaging in harsh rhetorical combat.
The key issue was the intense partisan warfare over which party could gain control of the seats of power, patronage and ‘rents’ from financial and real estate transactions.
Stock markets rose and fell but inequalities deepened, and debt multiplied, and the markets increasingly depended on state billion-dollar subsidies from national, regional and local governments.
The Year 2019: Continuities and Ruptures
Economicstrategies and policies will be at the forefront throughout 2019. For the business elite the central issue in dispute will be the so-called ‘trade war’, which President Trump and his economic advisers are pursuing against China.
If the Trump administration secures concessions from President Xi Jinping, it will be confined to financial openings for US investors and a greater role for US exports. The US will push a greater role for the Chinese private sector willing to share markets rather than State sector growth.
If the US demands wholesale dismantling of China’s state direction and regulation of the economy then a trade war is inevitable. The results will disconnect the entire global economy and disrupt US business linkages.
The stock market will plunge, markets will become more volatile and the top 500 multi-nationals will disinvest and suffer deep losses which will ripple throughout the business sector.
The US is counting on several allies of dubious reliability. A sector of the Chinese neo-liberal academic elite is leading the charge to marginalize the role of the state, reduce regulations and limit China’s large scale overseas projects.
While influential in some policy sectors, the pro-US academics have yet to dictate policy to the Chinese Communist Party leaders.
The US has attempted to create an anti-China alliance, with Asian and EU countries. The problem is that the US protectionist trade policy is equally prejudicial to these would-be trade allies.
Without influential allies in and out of China, the US may attempt to deepen its domestic market and/or turn to increasing its military presence encircling China. The problem, however, is that Washington under Trump is turning away from military intervention in the Middle East and South Asia and has turned toward a ‘business first’ agenda.
In any case the key to the advance or decline of the US economy in 2019 depends on the outcome of the trade war with China.
The second problematical area in 2019 is the political war between and within the Pentagon and President Trump’s security operatives.
Trump’s business priorities and rapid-fire ousting of Generals promoting losing and costly wars – in Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere – has provoked a formidable hostile coalition of Democrats controlling Congress, the majority of the Pentagon and their military allies in the mass media.
If Trump is able to shift from ‘military’ to ‘economic’ imperialism he will be able to rebuild his domestic support and to finance popular multi-billion-dollar infrastructure projects.
If Trump succumbs to the military metaphysics which is promoted by the liberal- neo-conservative-Zionist coalition and falls prey to Middle East wars, Russophobia and China/North Korea war- baiting, the Trump business first coalition will divide and collapse.
The domestic economy is likely to end its growth and stagnate unless Trump can convince the business elite to invest in the domestic economy, including higher wages and social spending. A dubious proposition!
If Trump relies on the ‘invisible hand’ of the market his domestic protectionist market strategy will fail to sustain growth, regardless of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy.
Conclusion
The Year 2019 will experience greater domestic conflicts over issues that intersect between trade and military wars. The Party disputes will deepen and paralyze policy making .The inability to fashion bi-partisan economic alliances will continue, but party warfare will not prevent any changes in military and social budgets. If the Democrats sieze the initiative and impose their military agenda, we will witness the prolongation of regional wars and economic stagnation.
If Trump triumphs in imposing his economic agenda and reaches a strategic trade agreement with China, the economy will continue to grow but at a snail’s pace as the tax-handout stimulus will not raise investments as profits are pocketed.
In sum, 2019 will be a year of great uncertainties in which the divisions between parties, over markets and militarism will deepen, and prevent any decisive shift in strategic policies. Only a dramatic removal from power of the key political actors in both parties will shift the balance of power between the protagonists of multiple wars and their opposition in popular movements.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award winning author Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
In many ways it is painful to reflect on the year 2018; a year of vital opportunities lost when so much is at stake.
Whether politically, militarily, socially, economically, financially or ecologically, humanity took some giant strides backwards while passing up endless opportunities to make a positive difference in our world.
Let me, very briefly, identify some of the more crucial backward steps, starting with the recognition by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in January that the year had already started badly when they moved the Doomsday Clock to two minutes to midnight, the closest it has ever been to ‘doomsday’ (and equal to 1953 when the Soviet Union first exploded a thermonuclear weapon matching the US capacity). See ‘It is now two minutes to midnight’.
This change reflected the perilous state of our world, particularly given the renewed threat of nuclear war and the ongoing climate catastrophe. It didn’t even mention the massive and unrelenting assault on the biosphere (apart from the climate) nor, of course, the ongoing monumental atrocities against fellow human beings.
Some Lowlights of 2018
The global elite, using key elite fora such as the Group of 30, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group and the World Economic Forum, continued to plan, generate and exacerbate the many ongoing wars, deepening exploitation within the global economy, climate and environmental destruction, and the refugee crisis, among many other violent impacts, in pursuit of greater elite power, profit and privilege.
International organizations (such as the United Nations, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund) and national governments used military forces, legal systems, police forces and prison systems around the world to serve the global elite by defending its interests against the bulk of the human population, including those individuals and organizations audacious enough to challenge elite power, profit and privilege.
War and other military violence continued to rage across the planet wreaking devastation on many countries and regions, particularly in the Middle East and Africa. If you missed this, read what is happening to Yemen, described as ‘ the world’s worst [humanitarian] crisis in decades’ with ‘three quarters of the entire Yemeni population – 22 million women, children and men – dependent on some form of humanitarian assistance to survive.’ See ‘Yemen: UN chief hails “signs of hope” in world’s worst man-made humanitarian disaster’.
Not content with the nature and extent of the military violence they are inflicting already, during 2018 elites continued to plan how to do it more effectively in future with research and development of artificial intelligence just one manifestation of this: ‘an “arms race in AI” is now underway, with the U.S., China, Russia, and other nations (including Britain, Israel, and South Korea) seeking to gain a critical advantage in the weaponization of artificial intelligence and robotics’ so that ‘artificial intelligence will be applied to every aspect of warfare, from logistics and surveillance to target identification and battle management’. See ‘“Alexa, Launch Our Nukes!” Artificial Intelligence and the Future of War’.
The United States government unilaterally withdrew from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (which limits the deployment of intermediate range nuclear weapons).
Another significant proportion of global private financial wealth – conservatively estimated by the Tax Justice Network in 2010 to already total between $US21 and $US32 trillion – has been invested virtually tax-free through the world’s still-expanding black hole of more than 80 ‘offshore’ tax havens (such as the City of London Corporation, Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, Nauru, St. Kitts, Antigua, Tortola, Switzerland, the Channel Islands, Monaco, Cyprus, Gibraltar and Liechtenstein). This is just financial wealth. ‘A big share of the real estate, yachts, racehorses, gold bricks – and many other things that count as non-financial wealth – are also owned via offshore structures where it is impossible to identify the owners.’ See Tax Justice Network.
Controlled by the global elite, Wall Street and other major banks manage this monstrous diversion of wealth under Government protection. ‘Their business is fraud and grand theft.’ Tax haven locations offer more than tax avoidance. ‘Almost anything goes on.’ It includes ‘bribery, illegal gambling, money laundering, human and sex trafficking, arms dealing, toxic waste dumping, conflict diamonds and endangered species trafficking, bootlegged software, and endless other lawless practices.’ See ‘Trillions Stashed in Offshore Tax Havens’.
The world’s major corporations continued to inflict enormous ongoing violence (in a myriad of ways) in their pursuit of endless profit at the expense of living beings (human and otherwise) and Earth’s biosphere by producing and marketing a wide range of life-destroying products ranging from nuclear weapons and nuclear power to junk food, pharmaceutical drugs, synthetic poisons and genetically mutilated organisms (GMOs). These corporations include those involved in the following industries: weapons manufacturers, major banks and their ‘industry groups’ like the International Monetary Conference, asset management firms, investment companies, financial services companies, fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas) corporations, technology corporations, media corporations, major marketing and public relations corporations, agrochemical (pesticides, seeds, fertilizers) giants, pharmaceutical corporations, biotechnology (genetic mutilation) corporations, mining corporations, nuclear power corporations, food multinationals and water corporations. You can see a list of the major corporations in this article: ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.
36,500,000 human beings (mainly in Africa, Asia and Central/South America) were starved to death.
18,250,000 children were killed by adults in wars, by starving them to death, and in a large variety of other ways.
8,000,000 children were trafficked into sexual slavery; executed in sacrificial killings after being kidnapped; bred to be sold as a ‘cash crop’ for sexual violation, to produce child pornography (‘kiddie porn’) and ‘snuff’ movies (in which children are killed during the filming); ritually tortured and murdered as well as raped by dogs trained for the purpose. See ‘Humanity’s “Dirty Little Secret”: Starving, Enslaving, Raping, Torturing and Killing our Children’.
Hundreds of thousands of individuals were kidnapped or tricked into slavery, which now denies 46,000,000 human beings the right to live the life of their choice, condemning many individuals – especially women and children – to lives of sexual slavery, forced labor or as child soldiers. See ‘The Global Slavery Index’and ‘46 million people living as slaves, latest global index reveals’.
Well over 100,000 people (particularly Falun Gong practitioners) in China, where an extensive state-controlled program is conducted, were subjected to forced organ removal for the trade in human organs. See Bloody Harvestand The Slaughter.
15,750,000 people were displaced by war, persecution or famine. There are now 68,500,000 people, more that half of whom are children and 10,000,000 of whom are stateless, who have been forcibly displaced worldwide and remain precariously unsettled, usually in adverse circumstances. One person in the world is forcibly displaced every two seconds. See ‘Figures at a Glance’.
Millions of people were made homeless in their own country as a result of war, persecution, ‘natural’ disasters, internal conflict, poverty or as a result of elite-driven national economic policy. The last time a global survey was attempted – by the United Nations back in 2005 – an estimated 100 million people were homeless worldwide. As many as 1.6 billion people lack adequate housing (living in slums, for example). See ‘Global Homelessness Statistics’.
73,000 species of life (plants, birds, animals, fish, amphibians, insects and reptiles) on Earth were driven to extinction with the worldwide loss of insects, including vital pollinators such as bees, now between 75% and 90%, depending on the species. See ‘Insect Decimation Upstages Global Warming’. Have you seen a butterfly recently?
Separately from global species extinctions, Earth continued to experience ‘a huge episode of population declines and extirpations, which will have negative cascading consequences on ecosystem functioning and services vital to sustaining civilization. We describe this as a “biological annihilation” to highlight the current magnitude of Earth’s ongoing sixth major extinction event.’ Moreover, local population extinctions ‘are orders of magnitude more frequent than species extinctions. Population extinctions, however, are a prelude to species extinctions, so Earth’s sixth mass extinction episode has proceeded further than most assume.’ See ‘Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines’ and ‘Biological Annihilation on Earth Accelerating’.
Wildlife trafficking, worth up to $20 billion in 2018, is pushing many endangered species to the brink of extinction. Illegal wildlife products include jewelry, traditional medicine, clothing, furniture, and souvenirs, as well as some exotic pets, most of which are sold to unaware/unconcerned consumers in the West. See, for example, Stop Wildlife Trafficking.
Vast quantities of soil were washed away as we destroyed the rainforests, and enormous quantities of both inorganic constituents (such as heavy metals like cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc) and organic pollutants (particularly synthetic chemicals in the form of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides) were dumped into the soil as well, thus reducing its nutrients and killing the microbes within it. We also contaminated enormous quantities of soil with radioactive waste. See Soil-net, ‘Glyphosate effects on soil rhizosphere-associated bacterial communities’ and ‘Disposing of Nuclear Waste is a Challenge for Humanity’.
90 billion land animals and 60 billion marine animals were killed for human consumption, more than 100 million animals were killed for laboratory purposes in the United States alone and there were other animal deaths in shelters, zoos and in blood sports. See ‘How Many Animals Are Killed Each Year?’
In addition, 40 million animals were killed for their fur. Approximately 30 million of these animals were raised on fur farms and killed, about 10 million wild animals were trapped and killed, and hundreds of thousands of seals were killed for their fur. See ‘How Many Animals are Killed Each Year?’
Farming of animals for human consumption released 7,100,000,000 tonnes of CO2-equivalent into Earth’s atmosphere. About 44% of livestock emissions were in the form of methane (which was 44% of anthropogenic CH4 emissions), 29% as Nitrous Oxide (which was 53% of anthropogenic N2O emissions) and 27% as Carbon Dioxide (which was 5% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions). See ‘GHG Emissions by Livestock’.
Human use of fossil fuels and farming of animals released 3.2 million metric tons of (CO2 equivalent) nitrous oxide (N2O) into Earth’s atmosphere. See ‘Nitrous oxide emissions’.
As a result of previous greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the consequent rise of about one degree celsius in the global temperature, causing the melting of Arctic permafrost and undersea methane ice clathrates, an incalculable quantity of methane was uncontrollably released into the atmosphere during 2018 (with the quantity being released getting ever closer to ‘exploding’). See ‘7,000 underground gas bubbles poised to “explode” in Arctic’ and ‘Release of Arctic Methane “May Be Apocalyptic,” Study Warns’.
Ice in the Antarctic is melting at a record-breaking rate, losing 219 billion tonnes of ice in 2018 at a rate that has accelerated threefold in the last five years. See ‘Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show’.
Earth’s fresh water and ground water was further depleted and contaminated. These contaminants included bacteria, viruses and household chemicals from faulty septic systems; hazardous wastes from abandoned and uncontrolled hazardous waste sites (of which there are over 20,000 in the USA alone); leaks from landfill items such as car battery acid, paint and household cleaners; the pesticides, herbicides and other poisons used on farms and home gardens; radioactive waste from nuclear tests; and the chemical contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in search of shale gas, for which about 750 chemicals and components, some extremely toxic and carcinogenic like lead and benzene, have been used. See ‘Groundwater contamination’, ‘Groundwater drunk by BILLIONS of people may be contaminated by radioactive material spread across the world by nuclear testing in the 1950s’ and ‘Fracking chemicals’.
The longstanding covert military use of geoengineering – spraying tens of millions of tons of highly toxic metals (including aluminium, barium and strontium) and toxic coal fly ash nanoparticulates (containing arsenic, chromium, thallium, chlorine, bromine, fluorine, iodine, mercury and radioactive elements) into the atmosphere from jet aircraft to weaponize the atmosphere and weather – in order to enhance elite control of human populations, continued unchecked. Geoengneering is systematically destroying Earth’s ozone layer – which blocks the deadly portion of solar radiation, UV-C and most UV-B, from reaching Earth’s surface – as well as adversely altering Earth’s weather patterns and polluting its air, water and soil at incredible cost to the health and well-being of living organisms and the biosphere. See ‘Geoengineering Watch’.
As one outcome of our dysfunctional parenting model and political systems, fascism continued to rise around the world. See ‘The Psychology of Fascism’.
Despite the belief that we have ‘the right to privacy’, privacy (in any sense of the word) was ongoingly eroded in 2018 and is now effectively non-existent, particularly thanks to Alphabet (owner of Google). Taken together, ‘Uber, Amazon, Facebook, eBay, Tinder, Apple, Lyft, Foursquare, Airbnb, Spotify, Instagram, Twitter, Angry Birds… have turned our computers and phones into bugs that are plugged in to a vast corporate-owned surveillance network. Where we go, what we do, what we talk about, who we talk to, and who we see – everything is recorded and, at some point, leveraged for value.’ Moreover, given Google’s integrated relationship with the US government, the US military, the CIA, and major US weapons manufacturers, there isn’t really anything you can do that isn’t known by those who want to know it. In essence, Google is ‘a powerful global corporation with its own political agenda and a mission to maximise profits for shareholders’ and it partly achieves this by expanding the surveillance programs of the national security state at the direction of the global elite. See ‘Google’s Earth: How the Tech Giant Is Helping the State Spy on Us’ and the documentary ‘The Modern Surveillance State’.
The corporate media, education and entertainment industries continued to distract us from reality ensuring that most people remain oblivious to our predicament and their own role in it, let alone what they can do to respond powerfully.
While the above list of the setbacks humanity and the Earth suffered in 2018 is very incomplete, it still provides clear evidence that humanity is rapidly entering a dystopian future far more horrific than the worst novel or film in the genre. The good news is that, at the current rate, this dystopian world will be shortlived as humans drive themselves over the edge of extinction. See ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’.
But so that the picture is clear and ‘balanced’: were there any gains made against this onslaught?
Of course, it goes without saying that the global elite, international organizations (such as the United Nations), governments, corporations and other elite agents continued to live in delusion/denial endlessly blocking any initiative requiring serious action that would cut into corporate profits, or arguing over tangential issues of insignificant consequence to humanity’s future.
In short, I could find no record of official efforts during the year to plan for the development and implementation of a comprehensive, just and sustainable peace, but perhaps I missed it.
Separately from this, there have been some minor activist gains: for example, some western banks and insurance companies are no longer financially supporting the expansion of the western weapons industry and the western coal industry, some rainforest groups have managed to save portions of Earth’s rainforest heritage, and activist groups continue to work on a variety of issues sometimes making modest gains.
In essence however, as you probably realize, many of the issues above are not even being tackled and, even when they are, activist efforts have been hampered by inadequate analysis of the forces driving conflicts and problems, limited vision (particularly unambitious aims such as those in relation to ending war and the climate catastrophe), unsophisticated strategy (necessary to have profound impact against a deeply entrenched, highly organized and well-resourced opponent, with the endless lobbying of elite institutions, such as governments and corporations, despite this effort simply absorbing and dissipating our dissent, as is intended – as Mark Twain once noted: ‘If voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.’) and failure to make the difficult decisions to promote necessary solutions that are ‘unpopular’.
Fundamentally, these ‘difficult decisions’ include the vital need to campaign for the human population, particularly in the West, to substantially reduce their consumption – by 80% – involving both energy and resources of every kind as the central feature of any strategy to curtail destruction of the environment and climate, to undermine capitalism and to eliminate the primary driver of war: violent resource acquisition from Middle Eastern and developing nations for the production of consumer goods and services for western consumers.
While we live in the delusion that we can simply substitute renewable energy for fossil fuels and nuclear power (or believe such delusions that a 1.5 degrees celsius increase above the preindustrial temperature is acceptable or that we have an ‘end of century’ timeframe to solve the climate crisis), we ignore the fundamental reality that Earth’s biosphere is under siege on many fronts as a result of our endless extraction of its natural resources – such as fresh water, minerals, timber and, again, fossil fuels – for consumer production and the provision of services that go well beyond energy.
In short, for example, we will not save the world’s rainforests because we switch to renewable energy. We must reduce demand for the consumer products that require rainforest inputs. We must stop mining the Earth for minerals that end up in our mobile phones, computers, vehicles, ships and aircraft by not using the products and services these minerals make possible. We must stop eating meat and other animal products. And so the list goes on.
Forecasting 2019
In many ways it is painful to forecast what will happen in 2019 mainly because of the absurd simplicity of doing so: It will be another year when vital opportunities will be lost when so much is at stake.
Given the insanity of the global elite – see ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’– which will continue to drive the dynamics producing the lowlights mentioned above with the active complicity of their agents in governments and corporations coupled with a human population that is largely terrified, self-hating and powerless to resist – see ‘In Defense of the Human Individual’– it is a straightforward task to forecast what will happen in 2019.
So let me forecast 40 lowlights for 2019:
See list above.
See list above.
See list above. …….
See list above.
So unless you play your part, 2019 and the few years thereafter will simply be increasingly worse versions of 2018 and it will all be over by 2026. See ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’ which cites a wide range of scientific and other evidence which you are welcome to consider for yourself if this date seems premature.
Responding Powerfully
If you already feel able to act powerfully in response to this multifaceted crisis, in a way that will have strategic impact, you are invited to consider joining those participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’, which outlines a simple plan for you to systematically reduce your consumption, by at least 80%, involving both energy and resources of every kind – water, household energy, transport fuels, metals, meat, paper and plastic – while dramatically expanding your individual and community self-reliance in 16 areas, so that all environmental and climate concerns are effectively addressed.
If you are also interested in conducting or participating in a campaign to systematically address one of the issues identified above, you are welcome to consider acting strategically in the way that Mohandas K. Gandhi did. Whether you are engaged in a peace, climate, environment or social justice campaign, the 12-point strategic framework and principles are the same. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy. And, for example, you can see a basic list of the strategic goals necessary to end war and halt the climate catastrophe. See ‘Strategic Aims’.
If you want to know how to nonviolently defend against a foreign invading power or a political/military coup, to liberate your country from a dictatorship or a foreign occupation, or to defeat a genocidal assault, you will learn how to do so in ‘Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy’.
If you are interested in nurturing children to live by their conscience and to gain the courage necessary to resist elite violence fearlessly, while living sustainably despite the entreaties of capitalism to over-consume, then you are welcome to make ‘My Promise to Children’.
To reiterate: capitalism, war and destruction of the environment and climate are outcomes of our dysfunctional parenting of children which distorts their intellectual and emotional capacities, destroys their conscience and courage, and actively teaches them to over-consume as compensation for having vital emotional needs denied. See ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’.
If your own intellectual and/or emotional functionality is the issue and you have the self-awareness to perceive that, and wish to access the conscience and courage that would enable you to act powerfully, try ‘Putting Feelings First’.
In summary: if we do not rapidly, systematically and substantially reduce our consumption in several key areas and radically alter our parenting model, while resisting elite violence strategically on several fronts, homo sapiens will enter Earth’s fossil record within a few years. Given the fear, self-hatred and powerlessness that paralyses most humans, your choices in these regards are even more vital than you realize.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Bombing operations by the United States military against the Horn of Africa state of Somalia have escalated during the course of 2018.
Once the administration of President Donald Trump came into office nearly two years ago, purported “restrictions” placed on Pentagon operations through the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) were lifted.
Nonetheless, this notion of lifting restraints on aerial strikes against what is said to be “terrorists” operating inside the country should not be misunderstood on the continent or in the international community. The war against Somalia is part and parcel of numerous attempts to install surrogate regimes in the mode of Washington, efforts which can be traced back for decades.
There is also the enhancement of special commando units which although claiming to have a principal focus on training of the Somalian National Army (SNA), are directly engaged in attacks against identified “enemies” which include the two major factions of Al-Shabaab. As a result of the escalating AFRICOM involvement, dozens of people have lost their lives over the last several months.
A regional military peacekeeping force known as the African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM) has been operating in the country for over 11 years. The more than 20,000 troops from AMISOM have grown war weary due to the fact that no foreseeable end to the war in Somalia is apparent.
At the same time in 2018 Washington has reestablished a diplomatic mission in Mogadishu after 28 years. In 1991, the U.S.-backed government of Mohamed Siad Barre collapsed and since this time period there have been periodic direct invasions (1992-1994), the utilization of surrogate regional armies (2006-2009) and ongoing diplomatic maneuvering in the quest for potential profits from the exploration of petroleum resources in the north of the country.
In neighboring Ethiopia and Eritrea, the two nations which had been at war since 1998, reached a peace agreement in July. Heads-of-state from both governments, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia and Isaisis Afwerki of Eritrea, have visited each other’s respective capitals of Addis Ababa and Asmara. There is much optimism that these developments hold promise for the opening up of trade and joint economic projects in the Horn of Africa. United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions against Eritrea have been lifted in light of the peace agreements in the region.
However, looking at the fact that the signing of at least one of the agreements between Asmara and Addis Ababa during September took place in Saudi Arabia while the United Arab Emirates (UAE) played a role in facilitating talks gave pause to many inside and outside of Africa. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are continuing to carry out a genocidal war on behalf of imperialism in Yemen. These monarchies are notorious for violating the political and human rights of their own citizens and residents.
Motivations for this rapprochement in the Horn of Africa carry the possibility of strong financial benefits for Abu Dhabi and Riyadh through the construction of an oil pipeline in the region. Military considerations as well in the efforts to isolate the Islamic Republic of Iran from cultivating diplomatic relations with Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Djibouti can only serve the interests of Washington and its allies among the Gulf monarchies.
A report published by the Belgium-based International Crisis Group in November emphasized:
“In its anti-Iran drive, Riyadh sought assistance from past allies Sudan and Eritrea, both of which had strengthened ties with Tehran while all three countries were under international sanctions. Beginning in the 1990s, Sudan had built its defense industry with Iranian assistance and know-how; Eritrea had offered use of its port, Assab, to the Iranian navy. In 2014, however, both countries ejected Iranian diplomats. A year later, both agreed to contribute troops and resources for the Yemen war.” (Eritrea Hub, Nov. 7)
This same article goes on to illustrate how:
“The UAE took de facto responsibility for operations in Yemen’s south and quickly found itself in need of a naval and air base along the Red Sea. The natural candidate was Djibouti, where DP World had built the port. By then, however, Abu Dhabi’s relationship with Djibouti was souring over allegations of corruption related to DP World’s contract (DP World disputes the allegations). Officials from the two countries had a falling-out in April 2015, when the UAE, with DP World’s infrastructure, sought to use Djibouti as a military launching pad into Yemen. The Saudi-led coalition turned to another port, Eritrea’s Assab. Riyadh signed a security agreement also that April to use Assab, leaving Abu Dhabi to carry out the deal’s terms. By September, the Emirati military was flying fighter-bombers from the Eritrean coastline.”
A meeting between the leaders of Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea in Mogadishu was historic as well since Asmara has been accused of supporting al-Shabaab, a charge in which it has vehemently denied over the years. Other complications in interstate relations stem from the territorial dispute simmering for a considerable time period between Djibouti and Eritrea.
Somalia conflict map
The United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres has spoken to the disagreement while expressing optimism over the meeting also held in Saudi Arabia, bringing together Eritrean President Afwerki and his Djiboutian counterpart Ismail Omar Gullen. A report on the meeting said that this disagreement:
“started over 10 years ago and stems from a border dispute over the status of Dumeira Mountain and Dumeira Island, off the coast of both Djibouti and Eritrea, which have been claimed by both nations. The meeting in Jeddah follows a request made in July by Djibouti’s ambassador to the UN, Mohamed Siad Doualeh, for help in settling the dispute with Eritrea. On Sunday (September 16), the UN chief applauded another major step for peace in the region with the signing of the peace agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which ended decades of hostilities over a disputed border area.” (UN News Center, Sept. 18)
Djibouti is the foremost outpost of AFRICOM on the continent. Thousands of U.S. troops are stationed at Camp Lemonnier which is also utilized by France, Italy, Spain and Japan. The People’s Republic of China has a small presence in Djibouti for the sole purpose of resupplying its troops involved in peacekeeping operations in the region.
Unity efforts among these Horn of Africa states cannot be viewed without considering the role of imperialist-allied military forces. All of these western capitalist governments are there in order to advance their own exploitative and containment strategies which are divergent from the interests of the masses of people on the continent and the Arabian Peninsula.
Southern Africa in Transition: The Land Question and the Quest for Sustainable Sovereignty in South Africa and Zimbabwe
Image on the right: South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and Foreign Minister Lindiwe Sisulu at AfCFTA in Kigali, Rwanda, March 20-21, 2018
President Cyril Ramaphosa inherited a South African economy which is facing recession due to high unemployment, declining export earnings and the uncertainty among multi-national corporations over the intensifying debate surrounding proposals for a radical land redistribution program. Elections could take place in South Africa, the continent’s most industrialized state, within less than four months where the ruling African National Congress (ANC) will once again seek to remain the majority party.
The ANC has been dominant in every administration since the overthrow of apartheid in 1994 when liberation movement leader President Nelson Mandela went from being the most prominent political prisoner of the 1980s to occupying the halls of government in Pretoria and Cape Town. Ramaphosa must engage in a delicate balancing act of trying to maintain some semblance of economic stability while at the same time seriously addressing the aspirations and concrete needs of the workers, farmers and youth of South Africa.
Image below: Zimbabwe President Emmerson Mnangagwa and First Lady Auxilia at his inauguration after winning the July 30, 2018 national election.
Many lessons can be learned from neighboring Zimbabwe where after over one year of the presidency of Emmerson Mnangagwa, Harare is still under the sanctions regime established by London and Washington, a blockade which has lasted for two decades. The Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) ruling party has maintained its grip on power since national liberation in 1980.
The internationally monitored harmonized elections on July 30 sent ZANU-PF back into the government in Harare. Yet western sanctions remain in force because the real objective of the capitalist states is not bourgeois democracy in Zimbabwe. Imperialism seeks to reverse the revolutionary trajectory through the overthrowing of ZANU-PF, a party born in the struggle against settler-colonialism.
South Africa could very well be subjected to similar sanctions if the ANC government moves to expropriate land and mining interests from the multi-national firms which are appendages of international finance capital. U.S. President Trump has already warned of grave consequences if the European settler farmers who stole land from the African people are forced to relinquish their farms and extractive industries.
The Republic of Namibia, which was under the occupation of the racist apartheid regime up until 1990, is also discussing land reform. Herero and Nama communities have initiated legal actions demanding reparations for the genocide inflicted upon them by Germany in the early years of the 20thcentury.
All of these states, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia, won their independence through a combined methodology of mass, trade union and armed struggles. Although they have not been able to move towards a non-capitalist economic system, the character of their respective movements were the beneficiaries of international solidarity from the socialist states of the former Soviet Union, the still existing People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Cuba. Angola and Mozambique as rear bases of the national liberation movements from the mid-1970s through the early 1990s underwent their own experiments in socialist orientation during the initial years of independence.
The Southern African Development Community (SADC) remains the most stable and unified regional grouping on the continent. SADC is committed to opposing internal conflicts from its furthest northern affiliate of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) down through Mozambique, Malawi, Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Zambia and others all the way out into the Indian Ocean member-states of the Union of Comoros, Seychelles and Madagascar. In order for this process to reach its ultimate realization the sub-continent must eventually merge with other regional organizations for the implementation of workable All-African free trade zone enforced through viable legislative structures which are backed up by an integrated military high command operating independently of the Pentagon, NATO and its allies.
Reconstructing Africa: The Imperatives of Sustainable Sovereignty
These developments over 2018 in various areas of Africa only confirms our thesis that in order for the AU member-states to achieve genuine development a concerted unification campaign involving all major elements within contemporary society must be launched. There is literally everything which is needed for such a program internally: an abundance of natural resources, agricultural potential, a burgeoning workforce, essential and strategic waterways along with an ideological heritage which speaks directly to the necessity of unification along an anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist path.
This Revolutionary Pan-African development program has and will continue to be opposed by the leading imperialist centers located in Western Europe and North America. The empowerment of Europe, and subsequently the U.S., was derived from the enslavement, colonization and neo-colonization of Africa and other regions of the globe.
Therefore it is only logical to consider that the workers, farmers and other popular strata in Africa will only overcome their plight of impoverishment and social instability through a concerted movement to eradicate the final vestiges of western domination. Such a course of action will require courage, programmatic conviction and political discipline aimed at acquiring a secure existence independent of the institutions of national oppression and economic exploitation.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
“Earth is now substantially out of energy balance. The amount of solar energy that Earth absorbs exceeds the energy radiated back to space. The principal manifestations of this energy imbalance are continued global warming on decadal time scales and continued increase in ocean heat content” (James Hansen 2018).
“The people have no voice since they have no information” …“No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity – much less dissent” (Gore Vidal)
With the exception of the few who comprehend the nature of a Faustian Bargain[1], some billionaires, captains of industry and their political and media mouthpieces are driving humanity toward self-destruction through the two biggest enterprises on Earth, the fossil fuel industry, which is devastating the Earth atmosphere, and the industrial-military machine leading toward nuclear war. The rest of the world is dragged subconsciously, induced by bread and circuses.
By close analogy with the tobacco denial syndrome[2], albeit with consequences affecting the entire Earth, the fossil fuel industry has been paying climate pseudoscientists to propagate fabricated untruths regarding the origins and consequences of global warming, widely disseminated by the media.
Despite irrefutable evidence for global warming, such fabrications are still quoted by pro-coal lobbies and compliant politicians, including:
Denial of basic laws of physics, i.e. the blackbody radiation laws of Plank, Stefan-Boltzmann and Kirchhoff[3]
Denial of direct observations and measurements in nature, in particular the sharp rises of temperatures, ice melt rates, sea level rise and extreme weather events.
Denial of the global warming origin of extreme weather events, i.e. the closely monitored rise in storms, hurricanes, fires and droughts in several parts of the world.[4]
Denial of the bulk of the peer-reviewed literature summed up in the IPCC reports.
Denial of conclusions of the world’s premier climate research organizations (NASA, NOAA, NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Centre), Hadley-Met, Tindale, Potsdam, WMO (World Meteorological Organization), CSIRO, BOM and other organizations).
In view of the rapidly growing direct evidence from the increase in extreme weather events, the common tactic has changed from outright denial to a minimization of the significance and consequences of the shift in state of the climate.
Whereas news items channeled by international news agencies regarding extreme weather events are generally reported, at least by national broadcasters, the plethora of discussion and debate programs on TV and radio stations mostly overlook the enhanced toxic effects of carbon gases[5], or relegate it behind sports and entertainment news. In most instances discussion panels focus on the inside political machinations rather than the critical issues themselves.
According to Mary Debrett[6]:
“We are now in the middle of perfect storm of miscommunication about climate change. Various factors have converged to confound rational public conversation. Public opinion polling indicates that although there is widespread acceptance of climate change resulting from human activities, the public’s preparedness to pay for action to mitigate climate change is actually declining – even as climate scientists warn of the increasing urgency for action. These results signal a serious problem in the public communication of climate change. They reflect this perfect storm – where tensions between the media, politicians and various lobby groups have made it impossible for scientists and others with appropriate expertise, to cut through”
The major influence the media exerts on public opinion[7], and the extent to which it can be referred to as the “tail which wags the political dog”, allows it nearly as much, or more, political power as political leaders, chief bureaucrats and heads of corporation. A power accompanied with little responsibility.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr Andrew Glikson, Earth and Paleo-climate science, Australia National University (ANU) School of Anthropology and Archaeology, ANU Planetary Science Institute, ANU Climate Change Institute, Honorary Associate Professor, Geothermal Energy Centre of Excellence, University of Queensland. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Notes
[1]To “strike a Faustian bargain” is to be willing to sacrifice anything to satisfy a limitless desire for knowledge or power.
This article was originally crossposted on GR in July 2017.
The fingerprints of U.S. imperialism can be found all over the manufactured insurrection in Syria, in keeping with the ultimate goal of destabilization and eventual “regime change” through fomenting a sectarian civil war. Former NATO commander Wesley Clark has gone on record as stating that Syria was on a list of targeted nations to be toppled by the U.S. as early as 2001. In 2002, former Secretary of State John Bolton gave a speech titled “Beyond the Axis of Evil” that listed Syria as a handful of nations that could expect to be targeted.
Fast forward to 2011, when an uprising was manufactured in the Syrian city of Dara’a, and Syrians desperate for economic change joined the calls for “freedom.” Mainstream media outlets have largely described the uprisings as being part of a “protest movement” made up of demonstrators who demand the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
But in reality, the main organizers and leaders of this so-called protest movement have been revealed to be U.S.-backed insurgents and foreign militants who have been armed, trained and funded by U.S. and NATO proxies for the purpose of destabilizing Syria though sectarianism.
CIA-backed Muslim Brotherhood assets were already in place to snipe at both police and protesters the day the first demonstrations broke out. Since then, the CIA has funneled hundreds of billions of dollars, as well as staggering amounts of arms, to jihadist recruits, many of whom have poured into Syria from surrounding countries.
The narrative most commonly put forth in mainstream media portrays the Syrian conflict as a popular uprising. However, a closer examination of the events that occurred in Dara’a in March 2011 – commonly described as the beginning of the conflict – reveals substantial and compelling evidence that not only contradicts the mainstream media’s portrayal but also strongly suggests the involvement, both financially and militarily, of outside influences and actuators.
Dore Gold and Anwar Eshki shake hands at a CFR event, as Elliott Abrams looks on.
The evidence of such involvement has piled up in the years since the conflict started. In 2012, Saudi General Anwar Al-Eshki admitted in a BBC interview that his government had financed Salafist Muslim Brotherhood elements and had sent weapons to the Al-Omari Mosque, some of which were later discovered and seized by Syrian security forces. These Salafist elements went on to form the backbone of the “Free Syrian Army,” a guerrilla force that has the stated goal of bringing down Assad and his government.
The Salafists have done much to terrorize the civilian population of Syria. In Karak, a village near Dara’a, villagers were forced to join anti-government protests and remove photos of Assad from their homes. Those who refused were killed.
“People want to go out and peacefully ask for certain changes, but Muslim Salafi groups are sneaking in with their goal, which is not to make changes for the betterment of Syria but to take over the country with their agenda,” one Syrian Christian leader told the International Christian Concern.
The following timeline portrays Syria’s descent into “civil war” as part of U.S.- and NATO-backed efforts to destabilize the country and achieve their ultimate goal of regime change.
Before the “revolution,” the U.S. makes an enemy out of Syria
2001:
Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, a classified plot is revealed to U.S. Army General Wesley Clark. He is informed that the U.S. plans to attack and destroy the governments of seven countries for the purpose of intimidating terrorists: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
The U.S. State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy organizes and implements the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon – a movement directly aimed at undermining Syrian-Iranian influence in Lebanon in favor of Western-backed proxies.
Ziad Abdel Nour, an associate of Bush administration policymakers and president of the United States Committee for a Free Lebanon, admitted the following when asked about the future of Syria:
“Both the Syrian and Lebanese regimes will be changed – whether they like it or not – whether it’s going to be a military coup or something else…and we are working on it. We know already exactly who’s going to be the replacements. We’re working on it with the Bush administration.”
2007:
Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker reveals that the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as the Syrian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, are assembling, arming, training and funding sectarian extremists, many of whom have direct ties to al-Qaeda. Their goal is to exploit the sectarian divide between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Hersh’s report indicated that the extremists would be strategically located so that they would be able to cross into Syria.
2009:
The Brookings Institution publishes a report titled “Which Path to Persia?” that details a “new American strategy for Iran.” In the report, the institute states the importance of neutralizing Syrian influence before any attack on Iran can be carried out.
2009:
Top British officials tell former French Minister for Foreign Affairs, Roland Dumas, that they were “preparing something in Syria.” He claimed they were organizing an “invasion of rebels” in a 2013 interview with French TV station LCP.
The “revolution” begins – armed rebels masquerade as “protesters.”
Jan. 17, 2011:
Prior to the anti-government insurgency, and in response to popular pressure, the Syrian government “increased the heating oil allowance for public workers by 72 percent to the equivalent of $33 a month.”
Late January 2011:
A page is created on Facebook called The Syrian Revolution 2011. It announced that “Day of Rage” protests would be held on Feb. 4 and 5.
Feb. 4-5, 2011:
The “Day of Rage” protests that were called for on Facebook fizzle and are largely uneventful.
Feb. 9, 2011:
The government lifts its ban on Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter. The bans had been in place since 2007.
Feb. 13, 2011:
The government, through its newly-established National Social Aid Fund, starts offering transfer payments to help Syria’s 420,000 poorest families.
Feb. 15, 2011:
The Syrian government “reduced duties on a range of basic foodstuffs, including rice, tea, powdered milk, coffee, and bananas. It also lowered taxes on vegetable oil, margarine, unroasted coffee, and sugar.”
“Protesters then forced their way through security barriers and headed toward the Baath Party headquarters and other government symbols. In addition to the party headquarters, protesters burned the town’s main courthouse and a branch of the SyriaTel phone company, which is owned by Rami Makhlouf, a cousin of the president.”
“A front-page story in the government-run Teshreen daily on Tuesday, Dara’a cleric Sheik Ahmad al-Sayasina was quoted as saying, “There were elements from outside Dara’a determined to burn and destroy public property … These unknown assailants want to harm the reputation of the sons of Hauran.” The cleric reportedly said, “The people of Dara’a affirm that recent events are not part of their tradition or custom.”
March – May 2011:
“There were signs from the very start that armed groups were involved,” journalist and author Robert Fisk recalls after seeing a tape from “the very early days of the ‘rising’ showing men with pistols and Kalashnikovs in a Daraa demonstration.”
He recalls another event in May 2011, when “an Al Jazeera crew filmed armed men shooting at Syrian troops a few hundred meters from the northern border with Lebanon, but the channel declined to air the footage.”
After sending a delegation to Dara’a to investigate events, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad sacks the city’s unpopular governor, Faysal Kalthum, and orders the release of the fifteen teenagers who were detained for writing graffiti that featured anti-government slogans.
According to at least two dissident websites, protesters had given the Syrian government until the morning of March 25 to meet a list of demands that were relayed to the president by his delegation. The demands included lifting a 48-year-old emergency law and releasing all political prisoners. If the demands were not met, they said March 25 would become the “Friday of the Martyrs” throughout the country.
“From the start, the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start, I saw armed demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.”
Nine Syrian soldiers are ambushed on a bus and fatally shot.
Syrian soldiers and police officers are assassinated throughout April. Opposition forces claimed they were executed for desertion from the Syrian army, although video footage from their funerals refutes this claim.
Assad supporters rally against opposition, political reform arrives
Assad announces a national dialogue to begin a process of constitutional reform. One of the major demands is for an end to the constitutional privileges afforded to the Ba’ath party.
November 2011:
Assad supporters hold more marches, most notably in the cities of Homs and Dara’a. Both cities are described by some as the “capital” and “birthplace,” respectively, of the so-called “revolution.”
Syria’s parliamentary elections are held according to the new constitution to determine the composition of the 250-seat People’s Council. The elections see a 51-percent participation rate among the electorate. The National Progressive Front, a political alliance of Syrian parties that includes the Ba’ath party, wins 168 seats. An opposition coalition of political parties called the Popular Front for Change and Liberation contests the NPF, but wins just five seats.
CIA confirmed providing arms to anti-Assad rebels, presidential election follows
A well-equipped Syrian rebel using a US-made BGM-71 TOW against the Syrian Arab Army. (YouTube Screenshot)
August 2012:
According to a Department of Defense document released by Judicial Watch, the West, Gulf countries and Turkey support the opposition, while China, Russia, and Iran support Assad’s regime. The document also confirms that Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (also known as al-Qaeda) are responsible for driving much of the ongoing insurgency in Syria.
Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. Focused on exposing the lies and propaganda in mainstream media news, as it relates to domestic and foreign policy with an emphasis on the Middle East. Contributed to various radio shows, news publications and spoken at forums. For media inquiries please email [email protected].
The organizations, including Sierra Club, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Center for Biological Diversity and Columbia Riverkeeper, disputed claims made by the refinery’s backers about the climate benefits of building the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery. More than 25,000 comments from the public were submitted in opposition to the methanol refinery.
“Governor Inslee and the Washington Department of Ecology need to be climate champions and deny this project,” said Jasmine Zimmer-Stucky, senior organizer for Columbia Riverkeeper. “We’re calling on Governor Inslee and Ecology to scrutinize the corporation’s misleading and incomplete evaluation of building the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery and see the project for what it is: a mega climate polluter.”
“It’s appalling that we’re even still considering this disaster of a project,” said Jared Margolis, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This dirty refinery would harm communities and wildlife along the Columbia River and fuel the climate catastrophe Washington is supposed to help curb, not escalate. Governor Inslee shouldn’t let corporate profits come before our neighbors’ health.”
Highlights from the “draft supplemental environmental impact statement” comments include:
The draft study relies on an implausible methane leakage rate of 0.32 percent to evaluate the amount of greenhouse gases that will be emitted by upstream activity, including producing, processing and transporting gas to the Kalama refinery.
The draft relies on discredited and outdated “bottom-up” methane leakage evaluation metrics that underestimate the climate-disrupting impact of methane rather than a more recent top-down approach. Bottom-up studies use an estimate of the average emissions from an individual piece of equipment or an individual event.
The draft uses unsupported claims that the gas received at the Kalama facility would be from Canada, “primarily from the Montney formation in British Columbia.” A similar environmental review for the proposed Tacoma LNG facility made the same questionable claim and was met with skepticism from the Washington attorney general. Both reviews were conducted by the same environmental consulting firm.
The draft fails to use the proper 20-year global warming potential of methane gas — the primary ingredient in natural gas — and instead relies on the long-term 100-year impact. Twenty years is a far more relevant time scale for discussing climate impacts due to methane pollution than 100 years. Using the 20-year GWP of methane significantly increases the life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the Kalama methanol refinery.
The draft relies on highly speculative assumptions about global methanol markets and China’s use of coal-based methanol production. The report relies on a series of questionable assumptions about global methanol markets, energy commodity prices, Chinese government policy and U.S.-China trade relations to conclude the project results in a net climate benefit.
The study fails to properly account for the greenhouse gas impacts of methanol as a fuel source, a probable use of the methanol produced in Kalama. An April 2017 China Daily article quotes We Lebin, the chairman of the Kalama project’s parent company, saying that the plant’s output could “replace diesel, coal and gas with methanol to power vehicles.” Lebin doubled down on the claims in a December 2017 Reuters article, saying that, “[the company] also wants to drive use of methanol as a transportation fuel for cars and ships.” Yet the report does not analyze the greenhouse gas impacts of using the facility’s methanol as fuel in comparison to non-fossil alternatives such as electric vehicles.
The following organizations submitted the comments: Columbia Riverkeeper, Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, Stand.earth, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, Food and Water Watch, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, 350 PDX, Rogue Climate, 350 Seattle, 350 Tacoma, 350 Eastside, Bark, Green Energy Institute, Center for Sustainable Economy and Cascadia Wildlands.
The comment period on the draft study closes today at 5 p.m. Lifecycle Associates, the environmental contractor hired by Northwest Innovation Works to complete the report for the Port of Kalama and Cowlitz County, will produce a final study, called a “final supplemental environmental impact statement.” Cowlitz County and the Washington Department of Ecology will review it. Commenters are calling on the county and ecology department to deny the Shoreline Conditional Use permit requested by Northwest Innovation Works.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
In a surprise order signed Dec. 27, a Philadelphia Common Pleas supervising judge has offered a new chance in 2019 for Mumia Abu-Jamal to challenge his 1982 conviction for the murder of white Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.
Specifically, Judge Leon Tucker has ordered the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to reconsider four Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) hearings and petitions for hearings in the Abu-Jamal case that the state’s high court had summarily rejected under questionable circumstances over the years.
The world-famous prisoner, journalist and political activist Abu-Jamal, better known to both his supporters and his enemies around the globe as simply Mumia, has spent 37 years in jail, most of that time in solitary confinement and on death row. His death sentence was initially vacated on constitutional grounds by Federal District Court Judge William Yohn in December, 2001 but at the insistence of the Philadelphia DA’s office, he remained held on death row until that office’s appeals were exhausted a decade later by the decision of an appellate court.
Barring a pardon, which in Pennsylvania is not remotely likely, particularly in this politically fraught case involving a prisoner who hasn’t shied away of writing scathing reports on prison life from death row, the only way for Abu-Jamal to avoid dying in jail at this point is for him to have his conviction overturned and a new trial ordered. This is what PCRA hearings seek to do by presenting new evidence of innocence or by challenging trial errors, witness recantations or prosecutorial misconduct in the original trial.
This can get harder and harder to do as time goes by, as normally only new information relating to innocence — for example a witness recantation or other new evidence — can lead to a new PCRA hearing.
However, after two years of a bitterly contested hearing, Judge Tucker ruled that the four Abu-Jamal PCRAs in question had all been improperly rejected by a state Supreme Court that since 1994 included, and that between 2008 and 2014 was headed by Justice Ronald Castille.
The issue is that Castille from 1986 to 1991 had been Philadelphia’s district attorney, a position that had him overseeing the Commonwealth’s legal response to the appeal efforts of Abu-Jamal, unarguably the politically hottest case facing the DA’s appellate legal team. Judge Tucker decided, based upon established court precedent, that because of those years as DA, Justice Castille should have recused himself from considering those PCRA requests. Because he for whatever reason refused to do so — joining the court majority in rejecting all four of the requests including three that never even got a hearing or heard witness testimony —now the Abu-Jamal’s defense team gets to resubmit them all to a high court that no longer includes the ethically challenged Castille, who had to retire because of age in 2014.
Image on the right: Pennsylvania Common Pleas Supervising Judge Leon Tucker
As Tucker wrote in his 37-page decision signed on Dec. 27:
“…the claim of bias, prejudice, and the refusal of former Justice Castille to recuse himself from Petitioner’s PCRA appeals is worthy of consideration as true justice must be completely just without even a hint of partiality, lack of integrity or impropriety. Regardless of the underlying guilty verdict of the first degree murder charge, and regardless if the tribunal was trial or appellate, Petitioner is entitled to an unbiased tribunal, without even the appearance of impropriety.”
Judge Tucker, in his order, was particularly critical of several memos by then-DA Castille that an intense search by current DA Larry Krasner concluded were mysteriously missing from the Abu-Jamal case file in the DA’s office. The existence of those memos is proven because memos referring to them were found in the DA’s files.
Judge Tucker wrote:
“This court finds that the Commonwealth had a duty to preserve the memo by Mr. Castille to Ms. Barthold. The Commonwealth argues that there was no duty to preserve the memo. However, the Commonwealth has been involved in post-conviction death penalty case litigation regarding his particular case since 1983. Therefore, the Commonwealth knew or should have known that litigation in this death ase matter was likely and preservation of all documents relating to this case should be preserved. It is ironic that the Commonwealth accepts no responsibility for the preservation of the memo request from Mr. Castille yet has been able to retain the responsive document from Ms. Barthold that the memo request from Mr. Castille was attached to. Likewise, this court finds that it was foreseeable that the misplacement of the death penalty case documents could be prejudicial to the Petitioner.”
Image below: Ex-Philadelphia DA (1986-91), ex-PA Supreme Court Justice (94-2008) and ex-Chief Justice (2008-2014) Ronald Castille ran for the high court touting his record tally of death sentences, but had a serious ethical problem when it came to recusals involving death penalty cases before him.
A sharp rebuke of the former Chief Justice, the Tucker order for a reconsideration of the four rejected PCRAs also represents a huge turning point in how Pennsylvania courts have handled Abu-Jamal’s tortuous and tortured journey through the state’s corrupt legal system.
His case, from the moment he was arrested, when police left him cuffed and unattended for over half an hour in a police van, bleeding internally from a chest wound caused by a police bullet that critically pierced his lung and liver, has been plagued by official abuse, bias and corruption. This includes prosecution witnesses who were coached to lie and a high-profile murder trial in which the presiding judge was overheard telling his court tip, following a day of jury selection, “…yeah, and I’m going to help them fry the nigger.” The scandalously flawed and corrupt trial was followed by a corrupted appeals process that featured a governor, Republican Tom Ridge, secretly obtaining privileged communications between the incarcerated Abu-Jamal and his attorneys. These communications, forwarded by SCI Green prison officials to the governor and forwarded to the Philadelphia DA’s office, tipped prosecutors off to the timing of a defense appeal. Among other things, this allowed the DA and governor to have Abu-Jamal’s execution date set for a date just weeks after the PCRA hearing, enabling the presiding Judge Sabo to rush the defense and cut off witness testimony, supposedly in order not to miss the execution date.
Abu-Jamal also had several avenues of appeal of his conviction and sentence that were made available to other death row prisoners declared inapplicable in his case (a pattern of selective application of precedent that my colleague, journalist Linn Washington, has condemned as “the Mumia exception”).
As well, white Philadelphia police, in uniform and on the public payroll, have routinely been permitted to pack court hearings during Abu-Jamal’s appeals, including in the latest case in Judge Tucker’s courtroom, inevitably putting pressure on judges who have to face re-election and who know the political power of the Fraternal Order of Police in Philadelphia and the state of Pennsylvania in those races.
Perhaps feeling that FOP pressure, while Judge Tucker did courageously grant Abu-Jamal another shot at having his PCRAs more fairly considered by a state court, he also put limitations on those re-hearings he ordered. He said that they cannot be “re-briefed,” but must be reconsidered based only on resubmissions of the original briefs written by Abu-Jamal’s various attorneys during that period: Leonard Weinglass (now deceased) and Daniel Williams, Eliot Grossman and Marlene Kamish (the latter also deceased), and the current legal team of Widener University Law School Prof. Judith Ritter and NAACP Legal Defense Fund Director Sam Spital.
Ritter says that Abu-Jamal’s defense team can challenge that restriction and seek an opportunity to update the briefs, but there is no guarantee that would be allowed.
Ritter adds that there is no guarantee that the new state Supreme Court will even review the four PCRA requests at all. As she explains, “It’s only death penalty cases that go automatically to the State Supreme Court for consideration. And since Abu-Jamal is no longer on death row, the Supreme Court could say the PCRA petitions should be decided by a Superior Court judge” — a lower tier of the state court system.
Ritter says Abu-Jamal will argue, however, that since the four PCRA petitions denied by the Castille-tainted Supreme Court were filed while he was still facing execution, they should be treated the way they should have been when initially filed, as though he were still facing execution, and be taken up anew directly by the state’s Supreme Court.
It remains to be seen what aspects of his four earlier rejected PCRAs Abu-Jamal will be able to appeal. The rejected PCRA filed by attorneys Weinglass and Williams addressed a number of critical issues including the integrity of prosecution witnesses, the intimidation of defense witnesses, withheld evidence and the improper removal of qualified potential black jury panelists. Any one of these issues, as well as others that were raised in 1995, if upheld, could open the door to a new trial for Abu-Jamal. The same goes for issues raised in the other PCRAs that never got a hearing.
Ritter says Tucker’s order strictly limits any reviews of old PCRA petitions to the issues raised in the initial improperly rejected briefs. New issues, she says, cannot be raised at any of those re-hearings.
Still, while it may be a long-shot, a reconsideration of the four PCRA hearings tarnished by Chief Justice Castille’s unwillingness to recuse himself from considering and voting on them, does offer a chance for a new Supreme Court panel of judges to weigh the issues raised, and potentially to find something that sufficiently changes the evidence in the case or exposes a procedural flaw of such consequence that a new trial might be required.
There is even the possibility that, if the current Pennsylvania Supreme Court were to reject all four of the reconsidered PRCA requests, the defense could file a habeas corpus petition and obtain a new hearing in federal district court, where political pressures from groups like the Fraternal Order of Police would be less significant because federal judges, unlike Pennsylvania’s state judges, serve lifetime appointments.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dave Lindorff, a member of the collectively run alternative news site ThisCantBeHappening!, is author of Killing Time: An investigation into the death-penalty case of Mumia Abu-Jamal (Common Courage Press, 2003).
President Donald Trump would do well to listen to Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s Russiagate investigation lawyers, concerning the propriety of prosecuting Julian Assange of WikiLeaks who has lived in the Ecuador embassy in London since 2012 to avoid extradition to the United States. Interviewed Sunday at the Fox News show Fox & Friends, Giuliani made it clear that he believes Assange should not be prosecuted for the publishing of US government information. Assange took part in First Amendment-protected activity, Giuliani explains, as did the New York Times and the Washington Post decades earlier when they published the US government’s Pentagon Papers containing many revelations about US activities related to the Vietnam War.
Here is Giuliani’s discussion of the matter in the interview:
It’s a First Amendment issue, right? It isn’t stolen property. I mean, it is stolen property, but it has a different nature when it’s information. So, let’s take the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers were stolen property, weren’t they? They were stolen from the Pentagon — given to the New York Times and the Washington Post. Nobody went to jail in the New York Times and the Washington Post. We’ve had revelations during the [George W.] Bush administration — Abu Ghraib, all of that. It’s stolen property, taken from the government against the law. Once it gets to a media publication, they can publish it. They can publish it for the purpose of informing people. You can’t put Assange in a different position than that. He was a guy that communicated. We may not like what he communicates, but he was a media facility, he was putting that information out. Every newspaper, station grabbed it and published it.
Giuliani’s reasoning in the interview is similar to the reasoning New York Times Deputy General Counsel David McCraw offered when he told judges at the US Ninth Circuit’s annual judicial conference in July that he thought Assange is “sort of in a classic publisher’s position” and that “the law would have a very hard time drawing a distinction between The New York Times and WikiLeaks.”
Hopefully, the president will hear this sound, liberty-advancing reasoning, whether from Giuliani or someone else, and make a public and binding assurance that the US government will not seek the arrest, prosecution, or punishment of Assange.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Liberal interventionists in the media want America’s wars to continue forever. Last Thursday I actually turned on “PBS Newshour” with Judy Woodruff, which I never watch, but the other offerings on television were dismal, and I was flipping channels. She had on as guests her regular commentator Mark Shields and Michael Gerson of The Washington Post. Shields is a hardcore liberal and Gerson is a neoconservative longtime critic of Donald Trump, presumably filling in for regular PBS “conservative” David Brooks. The discussion was about Syria and the resignation of Secretary of Defense James Mattis.
Woodruff had had the pathologically ambitious Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on earlier, which was a bullet I quite happily dodged. He reportedly said that Trump was “about to make a major blunder on Syria,” aligning him with fellow Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham (S.C.), who said pretty much the same thing.
Given the fact that NPR has a bobo audience that it answers to, I fully expected that there would be a lot of tap dancing about the events of the week but was somewhat surprised to hear nothing but damnation from Shields and Gerson about how the Trump move would do grave if not fatal damage to U.S. national security and how the president, unlike seasoned patriot Mattis, cannot distinguish right from wrong. Gerson said, “You know, you look at his [Mattis’s] resignation letter, which coldly and rationally said to the president, you do not understand our friends, and you do not understand our enemies.”
As America’s self-defined friends in the Middle East might best be described as “frenemies,” I was wondering if either Shields or Gerson (or Rubio) ever venture past the comics pages of their daily newspapers. As they all spend their time in Washington, that newspaper would be The Washington Post, which perhaps explains things, as the paper’s vitriol against Trump and the Syria move has been astonishing by any measure.
In other words, the PBS coverage of a major story was all pure improvisation, straight out of the establishment playbook, and Woodruff wasn’t even canny enough to push back.
Getting out of Syria and hopefully eventually Afghanistan is the best thing that Trump has done for America so far, if he has the guts to actually do it. Both are wars that were unnecessary from day one and are now unwinnable in any real way. They largely keep going fueled by the lies coming from “friends” like Saudi Arabia and Israel aided and abetted by the defense contractor community and the quislings in Congress who are willing to sell out completely to the military-industrial complex because it creates “jobs” in their constituencies.
When I could take no more, I flipped channels and “Democracy Now!” came up, another program I find nearly as loathsome for its unctuous goodliness as PBS news. Amy Goodman fortunately had history professor Andrew Bacevich on, and he explained, citing the general’s letter of resignation, how Mattis “when he talked about his four decades of engagement with these matters, is very telling. He represents the establishment’s perspective, that has evolved over the course of those four decades. And for anyone who says—who looks at U.S. policy over the past four decades, particularly in the Middle East, and says, ‘Yeah, it’s really gone well,’ then I would think that they would view Mattis’s resignation as a disappointment.
Now, when Trump ran for the presidency, he denounced our wars in the Middle East. He promised to withdraw militarily from the Middle East. Two years into his presidency, that hasn’t happened. And in many respects, Mattis has been among those who have frustrated the president’s efforts. Now, I’m in the camp who thinks that we ought to wind down these wars, that we’ve got more important things to do.”
Bacevich also pointed out that the prevailing establishment foreign policy is both morally and practically wrong and unsustainable. He hoped that Trump would prevail against the tremendous pressure that is being exerted against him to recant. I said “bravo” and turned off the TV.
Here is my problem with liberals like Shields and neocons like Gerson: They hate Trump so much that they will do anything to bring him down, even when he is doing something that is manifestly good for the country. Gerson at least is consistent in that he hates Trump and likes America’s wars, but what about Shields and Woodruff? You would think that ending a conflict in which most of the casualties are civilians would be praised by them and the broader social justice warrior community, but where are the liberals supporting Trump on this bold step to disengage from endless and pointless war in the Middle East, either in the media or among the politicians and punditry? MSNBC’s resident progressive screamer Rachel Maddow has been practically foaming at the mouth about Trump since the announcement of the withdrawal was made.
There are indeed some exceptions among genuine liberals who actually have a conscience rather than just a bunch of grievances, to include Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), who tweeted, “The hysterical reaction to the decision to withdraw troops from Syria is astonishing and shows just how attached to war some are. Lindsey Graham and others want us to continue our regime change war in Syria and to go to war with Iran. That’s why they’re so upset.”
But in general, reliable leftists have become invisible regarding withdrawing from Syria, a complete reversal to what they were saying some months ago when Trump seemed prepared to stay the course. As a completely unscientific survey of liberal opinion on the issue I cruised through the names of the many friends I have on Facebook that are of progressive persuasion and could not find a single one who was supporting the president. Hypocrisy? Obama’s belligerency, including Syria, which he turned into a war and almost succeeded in escalating into something much bigger, is given a pass while anything Trump does is sheer unmitigated evil.
Trump is under intense pressure from all sides to reverse his decision on Syria and also regarding Afghanistan, which will see a 50% reduction in force. But it is up to all Americans who care about the future of this country to speak up in support of ending the wars that have bled us for the past 17 years. If liberals and neocons cannot bear the thought of supporting a president they loathe who is actually doing something right for a change, we will all regret the failure to end the cycle of war and retribution that has roiled the Middle East since the United States invaded Iraq based on lies in 2003.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Other articles by Giraldi can be found on the website of the Unz Review. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
London, New Year’s Eve 2018. It is a very English middle-class trait: the world will end if the price of a certain life style goes up. Certain services will be cut. Access to certain travel destinations might be restricted. (The usual European haunts in France and Spain rendered dearer if not inaccessible.) But there is no denying that the attitude to the New Year from this side of the world is one of gloom made normal.
Not a day goes by without a digest of panicked revelations about what will happen in the event of a “no-deal Brexit”. A lack of certainty has propelled a set of speculations so thick as to be asphyxiating. But there is always room for more, the next desperate act of a government so cadaverous it can only give vague clues that it is still alive, wincing, dodging and avoiding what faces the United Kingdom before the mandarins in Brussels and the nostalgia driven addicts in the Conservative Party.
London itself is the ground-zero of teeth-chattering panic. Stockpiling of essentials (and various non-essentials) is taking place in a manner reminiscent of the doom that might arise from nuclear holocaust or a crippling blockade initiated by a foreign power. These fears are not entirely irrational: no one knows what might happen to the smooth exchange of goods ands services with the EU in the absence of any clear set of guidelines.
The latest manifestations of this sense of heightened neuroses can be found in three ferry contracts that have been awarded to French, British and Danish companies. But the means of shipping do not combat paperwork on the ground, the sort is bound to mount once Britain’s departure from the EU bloc is enforced. Chief Executive of the UK Chamber of Shipping Bob Sanguinettiputs it bluntly:
“Government is rightly preparing for every eventuality… but it is not clear that government-chartered ships can move goods faster or more efficiently than the private sector.”
The issue of customs remains an obstacle that threatens to hove into view with disrupting menace.
That said, the eve of 2019 featured a comic affair with a bitterly ironic dimension, an episode that rapidly came to be known in Twitterland as Ferrygate, more conventionally termed the Seaborne Freight controversy. It began with murmurs printed in the Financial Times from the May government that a no-deal Brexit could see the Dover corridor, comprising the port and tunnel, run at between 12-25 percent of normal capacity for half a year. Given that the proportion of trade being handled through the corridor comes to an eye-popping 52 percent of value of the total trade in goods with the EU (some £422.6 billion), this is more than troubling.
This doomsday scenario was somewhat papered over by the farcical circumstances behind one of the ferry contracts – the British one no less – that was meant to be yet another emergency measure, part of a broader £107.7 million arrangement. The purpose of the contract will be to provide substitutable capacity to handle exiting volumes of trade that would have otherwise gone through the Dover corridor.
But the jokes piled on quickly: Seaborne Freight, having won a £13.8 million contract to operate ferries on a Ramsgate to Ostend route, had never previously operated ferries and had no intention of doing so till touching distance of the scheduled departure date from the EU.
“It has no ships and no trading history,” observedPaul Messenger, Conservative county councillor for Ramsgate, “so how can due diligence be done?”
The Department of Transport finds itself in a state of pulsating anxiety, churning out the paperwork of woe. The choice of words in its documents supplies more than a hint about what is coming, even if they genuinely cannot imagine what that might be. Such agreements are being put in place to counter “unforeseeable” situations, which is more than mildly absurd given that those situations are precisely that: unforeseeable.
The entire Brexit reaction has been characterised by a total absence of planning, which propels the circular reasoning that you cannot plan for what you simply do not know. This feeds the apocalyptic scenarios of empty supermarket shelves and absentee workers in industries characterised by the employ of vast numbers of EU citizens.
It has also bred a total mistrust. Plans circulate with a giddying confusion that show lack of consultation and engagement. Major motorworks, by way of example, have focused on the port of Dover. The plan (dare one use the word?) is to turn the M26 motorway into a holding area for hundreds of heavy vehicles to permit traffic greater freedom to move. In October, local MP Tom Tugendhat, Conservative chair of the foreign affairs committee, was seething in the House of Commons:
“It’s come to a pretty pass when [an MP] finds out that works have begun on a motorway to turn that motorway into a parking lot without consultation either with the local community or with surrounding [MPs].”
Fittingly absurd, though not as much as awarding a ferry contract to a company without ships.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
The world is pulsing with hundreds of millions of people desperate to flee their homes under the weight of the crisis of world capitalism. According to a recent Gallup study, a sixth of the world’s adult population—some 750 million people, not including children—want to flee their home countries to escape war, poverty, conflict and disease.
The statistics expose the devastating impact of decades of imperialist war and corporate exploitation. In the more than quarter-century since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the ruling classes of the major powers, led by the United States, have unleashed an unprecedented wave of military plunder and social counterrevolution, killing millions and laying waste to broad swaths of the world.
A third of the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa want to escape. The region, which is rich in minerals and oil coveted by French, Dutch, Belgian and American corporations, has a life expectancy of 46, while 70 percent of the population lives on less than $2 per day.
In Latin America, 27 percent of people want to leave their home countries to escape the aftermath of US invasion, IMF austerity and US-backed dictatorships.
Twenty-six percent of Eastern Europeans want to flee the near-universal devastation that has followed the privatization of state industries by the Stalinist bureaucrats-turned-oligarchs.
Twenty-four percent of Middle Easterners and North Africans wish to leave in search of shelter from the storm of bombs and missiles that the US has rained down upon the region since the Persian Gulf War.
In 13 countries, nearly half or more of the adult population finds life unbearable.
In Sierra Leone, a country ravaged by the bloody fight to turn over diamonds to European jewelers, 71 percent of adults want to flee. In Haiti, 63 percent want to leave after more than a century of American invasions and occupations.
Fifty-two percent of Salvadorans and 47 percent of Hondurans want to escape the violence, poverty and corruption that dominate Central America following the civil wars of the 1980s and 1990s. Forty-eight percent of Nigerians want to leave their country, bled white from the extraction of crude oil by Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell.
This year, the ruling classes of Europe and North America implemented unprecedented anti-immigrant policies and inflamed xenophobic sentiment to distract from growing social inequality and strengthen far-right forces that will be used against the working class.
In June, the European Union agreed to cut migration and erect concentration camps to house immigrants in North Africa.
In August, French President Emmanuel Macron signed a law slashing asylum eligibility.
Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini repeated threats to deport 500,000 immigrants and the entire Roma population. In the United Kingdom, the Tory government is preparing a Brexit deal that may cut the country off to Eastern European immigrants. In Germany, the neo-Nazi Alternative for Germany held anti-immigrant demonstrations this summer with the encouragement of the state.
Nowhere is the anti-immigrant scapegoating more fierce and dangerous than in the United States. In April, the Trump administration began separating children from their families at the US-Mexico border and erected tent-city internment centers to house the children.
In October, Trump deployed thousands of troops to the southern border. Thousands of participants in the Central American migrant caravan have been sleeping in the streets of Tijuana for months. When two Guatemalan children died in US custody this month, the government blamed their impoverished indigenous parents.
“Left” populist demagogues around the world play the most criminal role, justifying the anti-immigrant measures of the far-right and attempting to poison the working class with nationalism. In the United Kingdom, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn echoed United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage when he told a Scottish Labour conference in March that Britain should curb the entrance of foreign workers.
In Mexico, the new government of “left” nationalist Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) made a deal this month with Trump to detain Central American refugees in Mexico and block them from exercising their right to asylum in the US.
In Greece, the government of the Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) has jailed hundreds of thousands of refugees in internment camps and recently deployed police to brutally assault immigrants attempting to cross the Evros River from Turkey.
Syriza’s position on immigration is summed up in a recent report from Human Rights Watch:
Abuse [by Greek police] included beatings with hands and batons, kicking and, in one case, the use of what appeared to be a stun gun. In another case, a Moroccan man said a masked man dragged him by his hair, forced him to kneel on the ground, held a knife to his throat, and subjected him to a mock execution. Others pushed back include a pregnant 19-year-old woman from Afrin, Syria and a woman from Afghanistan who said Greek authorities took away her two young children’s shoes.
In the US, Bernie Sanders begged Trump in January to “work with us to make sure we have strong border security.”
Earlier this month, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) wrote a statement titled “Toward a Left Position on Immigration,” which includes the subsection “It’s Not About Open Borders.”
The DSA writes:
“The actual alternative to the current existing immigration policy is not ‘open borders.’ It is enforcement of existing employment laws, followed by the development of new employment and immigration laws, leading to a fair, pro-worker system of immigration.”
This is a thinly veiled, foul appeal to anti-immigrant nationalism and chauvinism, in no basic way different from that of the trade union bureaucracy, the Trump administration and neo-fascists such as Stephen Bannon.
With such actions and statements, Corbyn, Syriza, AMLO, Sanders and the DSA expose their hostility to the international working class and to socialism. They are pledging—or in the case of Syriza and AMLO have already shown—that they will use state violence against workers demanding a redress of their grievances.
In contrast to nationalist groups like the DSA that defend the existence of national boundaries, the Socialist Equality Party fights for socialist internationalism and rejects the lie that any ruling class has the right to jail desperate workers escaping imperialist war or prevent them from seeking safety and a better life in another country. Immigrant workers are not to blame for growing poverty and declining living conditions in Europe and America. The real enemies of the workers are the same imperialist governments and transnational corporations that are responsible for forcing immigrants from their homes in the first place.
The Socialist Equality Party demands the immediate release of all interned immigrants and the provision of trillions of dollars, confiscated from the banks and corporations, to provide all immigrants with decent-paying jobs, housing, social services, education and safe passage to a destination of their choosing without fear of deportation.
Capitalism has turned broad swaths of the world into a foul prison, holding workers and the poor in nation-state straitjackets from which a sixth of the world is fighting to escape. Socialist revolution will free the productive process from the control of the world’s oligarchs, abolish national boundaries and guarantee the right of all workers to travel the world in peace.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The 
-1.jpg)
