That is all too often the racist mantra among Conservative MPs, certain individuals and communities, leaders, teachers and members of the clergy.  This is the often unspoken position also in our parliament here in Britain where it is considered politically correct, if not essential, to be a member of the over-active Friends of Israel Lobbies in Westminster – that is if you want to be any part of the governing elite. 

Then you must be willing also to denigrate anything and anyone who has the audacity to criticise the eleven year-old blockade against a 1.8 million civilian population in Gaza who are deprived of essential goods, services, water, electricity and medicines by the Israeli government headed by Likud Zionist extremist, Binyamin Netanyahu, in its failed attempt at regime change.

You must also be willing to approve British export licences for military equipment that may eventually be used to assist the Israeli authorities in its continued theft of Palestinian land and its illegal settlement of 600,000 of its citizens in the Occupied Territories in specific violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2334.

You will also, no doubt, approve the export of millions of £’s of UK tax-exempt charitable funds every year to the state of Israel with no enforced restriction against their use in maintaining the oppression of the indigenous Palestinian by the heavily-armed IDF militia.

Is it any wonder there is now a backlash against such grossly prejudiced, racial profiling and oppression of a now dispossessed people who have been the major indigenous nation of Palestine continuously for at least one thousand, two hundred (1,200) years?

(Maybe you should read and absorb that last sentence again!)

Finally, would you consider the foregoing to be: factually substantiated information that is of legitimate and genuine humanitarian concern, pro-democratic, pro-civil and human rights, pro-the authority of the United Nations and pro the rule of law – or would you term such verified information in the public domain to be antisemitic?

*

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

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

Selected Articles: New US Economic Sanctions

September 20th, 2018 by Global Research News

Global Research has over 50,000 subscribers to our Newsletter.

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

Global Research provides penetrating analysis of world events. The articles published by this invaluable website pull no punches in reporting on global power relations. – Marjorie Cohn, Professor Emerita, Thomas Jefferson School of Law

*     *     *

New US Trade Sanctions Against China

By Peter Koenig and Press TV, September 20, 2018

New Trade Sanctions by the US in the form of tariffs on US$ 200 billion Chinese exports to the US – China in a tit-for-tat move imposed new tariffs on 60 billion of US goods to China.

Syria, the United Nations, and the “Slobodan Milosevic Treatment”

By Kurt Nimmo, September 20, 2018

It’s long been obvious the United Nations is a rubber stamp lapdog of the United States. It set the stage for a decade of sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and piled sanctions of Libya that resulted in the US and NATO (another lapdog) taking military action that killed around 30,000 Libyans. 

Two African Heroes Leave Prison in Rwanda

By Ann Garrison, September 20, 2018

On September 15, Rwandan political prisoners Victoire Ingabire and Kizito Mihigo walked out of Nyarugenge Prison in Rwanda’s capital, along with nearly 2000 more Rwandan prisoners whom President Paul Kagame had granted “executive clemency.” Members of local and international media surrounded them with still and video cameras as they emerged.

Hold the Front Page. The Reporters Are Missing.

By John Pilger, September 20, 2018

Hersh revealed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the secret bombing of Cambodia, Parry exposed Iran-Contra, a drugs and gun-running conspiracy that led to the White House. In 2016, they separately produced compelling evidence that the Assad government in Syria had not used chemical weapons. They were not forgiven.

Video: The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire

By Independent POV, September 20, 2018

The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire, is a documentary film that shows how Britain transformed from a colonial power into a global financial power. At the demise of empire, City of London financial interests created a web of offshore secrecy jurisdictions that captured wealth from across the globe and hid it in a web of offshore islands.

US Sanctions Reach a Turning Point. De-Dollarization and Collusion against the U.S.

By Karsten Riise, September 20, 2018

The US economy is already less than a quarter of the world’s GDP in USD dollars, and in 2023 it will fall to only just about one fifth of the world (source: IMF). The non-US part, the 4 fifths of the world economy (now including the EU and China, constitute an increasingly advanced group, and they are about to collude against the US sanctions regime. Collusion is the result of parallel interests, and the EU may not actually (or at least publicly) coordinate all its counter-sanctions with other major power centers.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: New US Economic Sanctions

Hothouse Earth

September 20th, 2018 by Robert Hunziker

An interesting new study: “Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene,” Will Steffen, Johan Rockström et al, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Aug. 6, 2018 lays out the pathway for Earth entering a Hothouse Climate State.

“Our planet is still in danger of becoming a ‘Hothouse’ Earth despite our current efforts to manage global warming.”

Counter-intuitively, that sounds like a breath of fresh air, meaning, get the bad news out of the way ahead of time so people can brace for it, no surprises. Assuming the Hothouse Planet happens, certain areas would be uninhabitable as global temps crank up to 4C-to-5C beyond pre-industrial. The planet would be gnarled and unattractive, a nasty place to live, no more Goldilocks climate. And, all kinds of warfare would breakout as mobs vie for tillable land.

The article’s general thesis is that, as of today, the planet retains its Goldilocks “not too hot, not too cold” swagger because of a series of natural mechanisms that “maintain a balance,” for example, carbon sinks, like the ocean or like the Amazon Rain Forest keep the balance in place. In fact, the study identifies ten tipping elements that maintain a balance for the planet, any one of which, once out of whack, would cascade into all the others, bringing on the onset of a hothouse planet.

Assuming the world exceeds the 2C pre-industrial marker set by the Paris Agreement, the study envisions a dangerous out of control spiral downwards, as planetary mechanisms crash in domino fashion, resulting in a planetary climate hothouse. Maybe that’s what happened to Venus (865F, CO2 950,000 ppm) millennia ago.

According to the PNAS article, hothouse prevention is reducing carbon emissions ASAP with countries working together towards a common goal, including decarbonization, enhancement of carbon sinks, blah-blah-blah. Stop right there! The U.S. is already out of the “deal” and furthermore it’s a pipedream to assume countries will come together globally to save the planet. Since the dawn of civilization, tribes, then empires, then nation/states have been fighting like cats and dogs locked together in a crowded teeny-weeny room.

Here’s the issue as outlined by the study: It only takes one of the mechanisms to break down and topple all of the others. Ipso facto, that presents a problem today. The “tipping elements,” of which there are ten, include: (1) thawing permafrost (2) loss of coral reefs (3) loss of Arctic summer sea ice. Those three mechanisms alone, according to some pretty smart scientists, are already goners, or very, very close to goners.

What if the “tipping elements” mentioned in the study have already “tipped” or tip way ahead of plan? Then what happens, as the world grinds away towards reduction of carbon emissions whilst on the pathway to 2C? After all, scientific models have been pretty shabby now for decades, missing nasty climate events by a country mile. Time and again, the science is behind the climatic events, not ahead, not by a long shot.

Therefore, the Planet Hothouse study poses an interesting supposition: What if climate scientists have been way too optimistic, too sanguine, too upbeat and not scaring people nearly enough?

In point of fact, there’s a strong rationale for questioning the validity of climate models. For example, frequently scientists say how “surprised” they are at “how much faster things are happening than models predicted.” This happens way too often to find comfort in science models.

After several years of repeatedly hearing apologetic scientists claim the climate system is not following their models, meaning, bad stuff is happening much faster than models predicted, it becomes increasingly obvious that climate change could be closer to an out of control beast than anybody realizes. After all, the track record is all about “surprised scientists.”

The “science is late to the party” phenomena is not necessarily the fault of scientists as climate change (crisis) is on an unprecedented pathway, not following any playbooks. Come to find out, there’s no script, only models.

For example, when questioned about collapsing ice in West Antarctica, Adrian Jenkins, glaciologist, British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge said: “It was just beyond our concept that a glacier would melt that fast.”

Really! “Beyond our concept that a glacier would melt that fast!”

Helen Amanda Fricker, glaciologist, Scripps Institution of Oceanography and her team found that from 1994 to 2012, the amount of ice disappearing from all Antarctic ice shelves, not just the ones in the Amundsen Sea, increased 12-fold, from six cubic miles to 74 cubic miles per year. That was six years ago; it’s only gotten worse. Increased 12-fold… you’ve gotta be kidding…. that’s like comparing the performance of the Wright brothers to the Apollo moon landing!

“I think it’s time for us scientists to stop being so cautious about communicating the risks.” (Helen Amanda Fricker) Oh, finally, reality hits home!

The “Mass Balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017,” Nature, 219-222 (2018) shows the rate of ice loss from West Antarctica increasing from 53B to 159B tonnes per year. Nobody came close to predicting that in 1992, in 2002, or in 2012. No models said that would happen at that rate.

In fact, similar to the stock market, West Antarctic ice loss is in a bull market that just won’t quit, exceeding all expectations, blowing away all predictions. Not only, but two recent studies found Antarctic melt, similar to the stock market, at a “record-breaking rate.” Therefore, warning that sea level rises could have catastrophic consequences for cities. Duh!

Consider: Antarctic ice loss has accelerated threefold in the last five years; that’s a faster rate than the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which increased from 15,000 to 25,000 over the past five years or a powerhouse 67% in a raging bull market. Still, stocks look like wimps compared to Antarctica’s 5xs faster rate of ice loss. Curiously, and maybe not so coincidentally, the faster stock markets rise, the faster ice melts.

Greenland’s surface melt doubled from 1992-2011. According to Isabella Velicogna, University of California, “Nobody expected the ice sheet to lose so much mass so quickly… Things are happening a lot faster than we expected.”

“Happening a lot faster than we expected” has become the motto of climate science. “Nobody expected it to lose mass so quickly.” These expressions, or rather exasperation retorts, are indicative of a climate crisis that is rapidly galloping ahead of the science.

Maybe the Hothouse Earth study in PNAS is on-track but too late to the party.

Which begs the million-dollar question: What if 2C hits much sooner than the models expect?

Then what?

The answer is straightforward: The world turns into a hellhole much faster than the models predicted.

*

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 Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hothouse Earth

Hundreds of Israeli Citizens Sign Letter Expressing Support for Jeremy Corbyn

September 20th, 2018 by Communist Party of Israel

Hundreds of Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs, have in the last few days signed a letter expressing support for the leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corby. The letter will be sent to Labour’s Annual Conference that will take place in Liverpool starting next Sunday, September 23, and continue until Wednesday, September 26. The letter of support reads as follows:

“We are Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel, committed to civil equality within Israel, to an end to the occupation and the blockade of Gaza, to a just peace and justice for the Palestinian refugees. The solidarity of progressive forces abroad is vital to our struggle, and we therefore welcomed the election of Jeremy Corbyn, a committed campaigner for peace, as leader of the British Labour Party.”

“Since his election, Corbyn has been subjected to sustained attacks for his supposed friendliness to antisemitism. We reject the substance of these accusations completely, and we note that some of Corbyn’s accusers, such as Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu, are themselves notorious racists and allies of known anti-Semites, such as Viktor Orbán and the Polish nationalists. We also note that, even as many of Corbyn’s critics claim to respect the right to criticize Israel in theory, in practice their attacks seem designed to shut down debate on Israel-Palestine and prevent a future Labour government from applying any real pressure on Israel to change its policies.”

“At the same time, we recognize the reality of antisemitism, including on the left, and we applaud Labour’s sustained efforts to fight it within its ranks. These efforts are free from the hypocrisy of the right, which decries antisemitism, real and imagined, while openly encouraging racism of other kinds. In a global climate of rising fascism, this hypocrisy is extremely dangerous. In order to combat it, it is absolutely necessary to repudiate antisemitism while also standing up for Palestinian rights and for socialism. We call upon all friends of Israeli-Palestinian peace to join the Labour Party’s leadership in its unequivocal commitment to creating a politics free of hate and prejudice, and to support us in working together toward a future without oppression and discrimination in Israel and Palestine. Labour friends, we wish you success in your upcoming National Conference and in the struggles ahead.”

Add your signature to the letter of support for Jeremy Corbyn here.

*

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

Featured image is from CPI.

CNN recently discovered a paradox.  How was it possible, they asked, that in 1989, Viktor Orban, at the time a Western-acclaimed liberal opposition leader, was calling for Soviet troops to leave Hungary, and now that he is Prime Minister, he is cozying up to Vladimir Putin?

For the same reason, dummy.

Orban wanted his country to be independent then, and he wants it to be independent now.

In 1989, Hungary was a satellite of the Soviet Union.  Whatever Hungarians wanted, they had to follow directives from Moscow and adhere to Soviet communist ideology. 

Today, Hungary is ordered to follow directives from Brussels and adhere to the EU ideology, a k a “our common values”.

But what exactly are those “common values”?

Not so very, very long ago, “the West”, that is, both America and Europe, claimed devotion to “Christian values”.  Those values were evoked in Western condemnation of the Soviet Union.

That is out.  These days, indeed, one of the reasons why Viktor Orban is considered a threat to our European values is his reference to a Hungarian conception of “the Christian character of Europe, the role of nations and cultures”.  The revival of Christianity in Hungary, as in Russia, is regarded in the West as deeply suspect.

So it’s understood, Christianity is no longer a “Western value”.  What has taken its place?  That should be obvious: today “our common values” essentially mean democracy and free elections.

Image result for Guy Verhofstadt

Guess again.  Orban was recently re-elected by a landslide.  Leading EU liberal Guy Verhofstadt (image on the right) called this “an electoral mandate to roll back democracy in Hungary.” 

Since elections can “roll back democracy”, they cannot be the essence of “our common values”.  People can vote wrong; that is called “populism” and is a bad thing.

The real, functional common values of the European Union are spelled out in its treaties: the four freedoms. No, not freedom of speech, since many Member States have laws against “hate speech”, which can cover a lot of ground since its meaning is open to wide interpretation. No, the obligatory four freedoms of the EU are free movement of goods, services, persons and capital throughout the Union. Open borders.  That is the essence of the European Union, the dogma of the Free Market. 

The problem with the Open Border doctrine is that it doesn’t know where to stop.  Or it doesn’t stop anywhere.  When Angela Merkel announced that hundreds of thousands of refugees were welcome in Germany, the announcement was interpreted as an open invitation by immigrants of all sorts, who began to stream into Europe. This unilateral German decision automatically applied to the whole of the EU, with its lack of internal borders.  Given German clout, Open Borders became the essential “European common value”, and welcoming immigrants the essence of human rights.  

Very contrasting ideological and practical considerations contribute to the idealization of Open Borders.  To name a few: 

  • Economic liberals maintain that because Europe is aging, it needs young immigrant workers to pay for the pensions of retired workers.
  • Many Jewish activists feel threatened by national majorities and feel safer in a society made up of ethnic minorities.
  • More discreetly, certain entrepreneurs favor mass immigration because growing competition in the labor market brings down wages.
  • Many artistically inclined people consider ethnic diversity to be more creative and more fun.
  • Certain anarchist or Trotskyist sects believe that uprooted immigrants are the “agent” of the revolution that the Western proletariat failed to produce.
  • Many Europeans accept the idea that nation states are the cause of war, concluding that every way of destroying them is welcome.
  • International financial investors naturally want to remove all obstacles to their investments and thus promote Open Borders as The Future.
  • There are even a few powerful schemers who see “diversity” as the basis of divide and rule, by breaking solidarity into ethnic pieces.
  • There are good people who want to help all humanity in distress.  

This combination of contrasting, even opposing motivations does not add up to a majority in every country.  Notably not in Hungary.

It should be noted that Hungary is a small Central European country of less than ten million inhabitants, which never had a colonial empire and thus has no historic relationship with peoples in Africa and Asia as do Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium.  As one of the losers in World War I, Hungary lost a large amount of territory to its neighbors, notably to Romania.  The rare and difficult Hungarian language would be seriously challenged by mass immigration. It is probably safe to say that the majority of people in Hungary tend to be attached to their national identity and feel it would be threatened by massive immigration from radically different cultures. It may not be nice of them, and like everyone they can change. But for now, that is how they vote.

In particular, they recently voted massively to re-elect Victor Orban, obviously endorsing his refusal of uncontrolled immigration. This is what has spurred scrutiny of Orban’s leadership for signs of incumbent dictatorship.  The EU is taking steps to strip Hungary of its political rights as a result. On September 14, Victor Orban made his position clear in a speech to the (largely rubber stamp) European Parliament in Strasbourg: 

 “Let’s be frank. They want to condemn Hungary and the Hungarians who have decided that our country will not be an immigration country. With all due respect, but as firmly as possible, I reject the threats of the pro-immigration forces, their blackmail of Hungary and the Hungarians, all based on lies. I inform you respectfully that however you decide, Hungary will stop illegal immigration, and defend its borders, against you if necessary.”

This was greeted with outrage.

Former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt, currently president of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group in the European Parliament and an ardent European federalist, responded furiously that “we cannot let far right populist governments drag democratic European states into the orbit of Vladimir Putin!”  

In a tweet to his EP colleagues, Verhofstadt warned:

“We are in an existential battle for the survival of the European project. … For Europe’s sake, we need to stop him!” 

CNN approvingly ran an opinion piece from Verhofstadt describing Hungary as a “threat to international order”.

“In the coming weeks and months, the international community — and the United States in particular — must heed our warning and act: Hungary’s government is a threat to the rules-based international order,” he wrote.

“European governments and the US have a moral obligation to intervene”, Verhofstadt continued. “We cannot stand aside and let populist, far-right governments drag democratic European states into Vladimir Putin’s orbit and undermine the postwar international norms.”

Next come sanctions:

“Political and financial costs must be attached to governments pursuing an authoritarian path and support provided to civil society organizations…” 

Verhofstadt concluded:

“This is not in the interests of the people of America or Europe. We need to stop him — now.”

Verhofstadt’s appeal to America to “stop” the Hungarian prime minister sounds like nothing so much as appeals to Brezhnev by hard-line communists to send the tanks into reformist Czechoslovakia in 1968.  

However, this appeal for intervention was not addressed to President Trump, who is in the same doghouse as Orban among the Atlanticists, but rather to the deep state forces which the Belgian fanatic assumes are still in power in Washington.

At the start of his CNN article, Verhofstadt paid tribute to “the late, great, John McCain, who once described Orban as ‘a fascist in bed with Putin’…” That is the McCain who went around the world as head of the Republican branch of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) encouraging and financing dissident groups to rebel against their respective governments, in preparation for U.S. intervention.  Oh Senator McCain, where are you now that we need you for a little regime change in Budapest?

Orban’s reputation in the West as dictator is unquestionably linked to his intense conflict with Hungarian-born financier George Soros, whose Open Society foundation (OSF) finances all manner of initiatives to promote his dream of a borderless society, notably in Eastern Europe.  Soros operations could be considered privatized U.S. foreign policy, along the same lines as McCain, and innocently “non-governmental”.  One OSF initiative is the private Budapest-based Central European University whose rector is open society advocate Michael Ignatieff.  Hungary recently imposed a 25% tax on money spent by nongovernmental organizations on programs that “directly or indirectly aim to promote immigration,” which affects the CEU.  This is part of a recently adopted package of anti-immigration measures known as the “Stop Soros” bill.  

Hungarian measures against Soros’ interference are of course denounced in the West as a grave violation of human rights, while in the United States, prosecutors search frantically for the slightest indication of Russian interference or Russian agents.

In another blow against the international rules-based order, the Hungarian prime minister’s office recently announced that the government will cease to fund university courses in gender studies, on the grounds that they “cannot be justified scientifically” and attract too few students to be worthwhile. Although privately funded and thus able to continue its own gender studies program, the CEU was “astonished” and called the measure “without any justification or antecedent.” 

Like the Soviet Union, the European Union is not merely an undemocratic institutional framework promoting a specific economic system; it is also the vehicle of an ideology and a planetary project.  Both are based on a dogma as to what is good for the world: communism for the first, “openness” for the second.  Both in varying ways demand of people virtues they may not share: a forced equality, a forced generosity.  All this can sound good, but such ideals become methods of manipulation.  Forcing ideals on people eventually runs up against stubborn resistance.

There are differing reasons to be against immigration just as to be for it. The idea of democracy was to sort out and choose between ideals and practical interests by free discussion and in the end a show of hands: an informed vote. The liberal Authoritarian Center represented by Verhofstadt seeks to impose its values, aspirations, even its version of the facts on citizens who are denounced as “populists” if they disagree.  Under communism, dissidents were called “enemies of the people”. For the liberal globalists, they are “populists” – that is, the people.  If people are told constantly that the choice is between a left that advocates mass immigration and a right that rejects it, the swing to the right is unstoppable.

*

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

Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions. Her new book is Queen of Chaos: the Misadventures of Hillary Clinton. The memoirs of Diana Johnstone’s father Paul H. Johnstone, From MAD to Madness, was published by Clarity Press, with her commentary. She can be reached at [email protected].  Diana Johnstone is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization  (CRG). 

New US Trade Sanctions Against China

September 20th, 2018 by Peter Koenig

New Trade Sanctions by the US in the form of tariffs on US$ 200 billion Chinese exports to the US – China in a tit-for-tat move imposed new tariffs on 60 billion of US goods to China.

China’s prime minister speaks out about the rise of unilateralism, saying the approach to trade will not solve any problems.

Li Keqiang made the comment at the World Economic Forum in the Chinese city of Tianjin. He said multilateralism should be upheld and the basic principle of free trade should be maintained. The Chinese premier said the trend of globalization is unstoppable, even though there are flaws in the process. Li’s comments come amid heightened trade tensions between China and the United States. Beijing imposed tariffs on 60 more billion dollars-worth of American imports in a tit-for-tat response to Washington’s levies on 200-billion dollars of Chinese goods.

***

PressTV: What is your take on this?

Peter Koenig: These are indeed “trade sanctions”. US-imposed trade sanctions. Of course, the Chinese are right, in a world that strives for free trade – unilateralism as demonstrated by the Trump Administration’s-imposed tariffs – is working in the opposite direction.

Two comments, if I may:

First, personally – I have been doubting from the beginning that globalization – and especially globalization in terms of “free trade” is a good thing. There is nothing FREE.

Free trade among equals is one thing, but “free trade” American style, where they call the shots – is of course not what is intended. The weaker always suffers- and I am not referring to China – China doesn’t really suffer, they dominate the entire Asian market, having overtaken the US in Asia about three years ago – but I’m talking in general about developing countries that have to accept highly subsidized US and EU goods in order to stay within these “free trade deals”.

And we see that the west cannot be trusted, i.e. President Trump. He is making his own rules. Therefore, free trade and the related globalization is in my opinion not a good thing. It has hurt too many people of mostly poor countries over the past 30-some years, when neoliberalism started driving the agenda of “globalized free trade”.

Trading among friendly nations, nations that share the same objective, the same political and economic ideology, would be a much preferable alternative. There, nobody can bully another nation into accept his conditions.

This is something we may want to move back to – trading among friendly and culturally aligned nations, where trading is a win-win for both parties.

The second point I wanted to make, is maybe more important: These tariff impositions have nothing really to do with trade. The Chinese know it and the US Administration knows it.

They, the tariffs, have everything to do with pulling down, weakening the Yuan, the very strong Chinese Yuan, and by doing so, the Chinese economy. The Yuan is an officially declared reserve currency – recognized by the IMF – and is fast replacing the dollar as the key reserve currency in the world.

That is what Washington is afraid of – and rightly so. Once the dollar ceases being the main reserve currency, the demand for the dollar will decline, and the hegemonic role for the dollar is gone – which may mean the collapse of the dollar-empire — and in the end the end of the empire altogether.

Already the biggest hydrocarbon producers and consumers in the world, China, Russia, Venezuela and Iran – are no longer using the dollar for their trade deals, but local currencies or the gold-convertible Chinese Yuan.

So, the end of the dollar hegemony is coming sooner or later, but Washington wants to delay it as long as possible, hoping for a miracle, or actually even preparing for a military intervention to save the dollar.

*

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

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 21st Century; 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.

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

It’s long been obvious the United Nations is a rubber stamp lapdog of the United States. It set the stage for a decade of sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and piled sanctions of Libya that resulted in the US and NATO (another lapdog) taking military action that killed around 30,000 Libyans. 

Now that supposedly august body has signaled it will investigate war crimes in Syria. 

The Associated Press reports the “resolution adopted by the assembly said the body, known as the ‘International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism,’ would help collect and analyze evidence of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law ‘to facilitate and expedite fair and independent criminal proceedings.’”

There is nothing fair and independent about it. If it were truly fair, the top human rights violator, the United States government and its Pentagon, would be at the top of the UN’s to-do list. 

The US is responsible for the “civil war” in Syria. It has agitated for “regime change” since at least 2005 under the guise of “democracy promotion,” well before the CIA sent operatives—many were “rebels” that participated in the US-NATO Libyan massacre—into the city of Deraa to stir up trouble.

“The staged uprising in Deraa had some locals in the street who were unaware of their participation in a CIA-Hollywood production,” writes Steven Sahiounie. “They were the unpaid extras in the scene about to be shot. These unaware extras had grievances, perhaps lasting a generation or more, and perhaps rooted in Wahhabism, which is a political ideology exported globally by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Royal family and their paid officials.”

The Libya rebels who killed Gaddafi were at the Omari Mosque in Deraa stockpiling weapons.

“The participation of local Muslim Brotherhood followers, who would assist the foreign Libyan mercenaries/terrorists, was an essential part of the CIA plan, which was well scripted and directed from Jordan,” Sahiounie explains. 

“The CIA agents running the Deraa operation from their office in Jordan had already provided the weapons and cash needed to fuel the flames of revolution in Syria. With enough money and weapons, you can start a revolution anywhere in the world.”

It was this manufactured “revolution” that resulted in a brutal war and the death of more than half a million people, all of them—according to the corporate propaganda media—slaughtered by al-Assad and his Syrian Arab Army. 

You can bet this wasn’t a topic of discussion at the United Nations. The attempt to indict and prosecute al-Assad and other Syrian officials for war crimes is undoubtedly a directive handed down by the United States and its bulldog ambassador, Nikki Haley. 

This politically motivated “investigation” by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council—which, incidentally, the US removed itself from—will base its prearranged conclusion on a fairy tale: the unproven and White Helmet staged fake chemical attacks in Syria. 

Because al-Assad will not leave office willingly (having been elected by the Syrian people), the only option appears to be the Slobodan Milošević treatment. This Serbian, the former president of the late Yugoslavia—which was chopped into bantustans by NATO and the United States following a sustained bombing campaign by Bill Clinton—was arrested and sent to The Hague to face prosecution for war crimes. He subsequently died while in confinement. 

I’m not saying Milošević was a nice guy. It is said he killed his political opponents. However, his alleged crimes, when compared to the behavior of US client states and partners—Israel and Saudi Arabia come to mind—are paltry by way of comparison. 

It should be noted that after Milošević died, the International Court of Justice concluded separately in the Bosnian Genocide Case that there was no evidence linking him to the [alleged] genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces during the Bosnian War.

This is basically the same routine the US and the UN want to pull on al-Assad. It’s a Plan B to have him removed following the failure of the US, its partners and proxies, to remove him through orchestrated violence and murder. 

And it is perfectly timed. Last week Syria’s UN ambassador, Bashar Ja’afari, said in a letter to General Assembly President Miroslav Lajcak that the upcoming investigation is another destructive action by its sponsors, Qatar and Liechtenstein.

Ja’afari hit the nail square on the head. He said the UN decision arrives during a “delicate stage” in negotiations to end the war. He added “some governments… have supported chaos and terrorism in Syria” as part of “their war on global terrorism,” which is farcical as the White Helmet chemical attacks. 

Furthermore, the Syrian UN ambassador said the body has ditched its supposed neutrality—which, of course, it never had—and is obedient as a trained lapdog. He charged the UN is responding “to political and financial pressure and the polarization practices of some member states, especially those supporting the investigative body.”

Meanwhile, the US and Israel continue to violate the UN charter by bombing and occupying a significant part of the country. These two renegade nations should be at the top of the list of candidates to be indicted and prosecuted for war crimes. 

But then a lapdog never bites the hand that feeds. 

*

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: Another Day in the Empire.

On September 19, multiple reports appeared in some Arab, Western and Russian media claiming that the Russian Military Police arrested all service members of the 44th brigade of the Syrian Arab Air Defense Forces in the Syrian province of Lattakia over their involvement in the incident with the Russian IL-20 military plane on September 17. Then, the servicemen were allegedly moved to a jail at Hmeimim airbase.

One of the key sources of these reports was the Hammurabi’s Justice News blog well known for its links to US-backed militant groups in at-Tanf and the US-led coalition. The blog was not able to provide any evidence confirming its claims. Furthermore, a source in the SADF told SouthFront that the 44th brigade does not even exist.

Syrian pro-government sources described this kind of reports as another attempt to drive a wedge within the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance using the IL-20 incident.

On the same day, the Russian Armed Forces kicked off snap drills in the eastern Mediterranean, which will last until September 26. Some experts claimed that the drills are a show of force and a warning to Israel following official statements by top Russian officials that the Israeli actions, which led to the IL-20 shootdown on September 17, are unacceptable.

Adviser to Turkish President Erdogan, Yasin Aktay, openly described the Israeli attack as an attempt to sabotage the Russian-Turkish agreement on the Idlib demilitarized zone.

Meanwhile, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) repelled an ISIS attack on their positions in the settlement of al-Baghuz al-Fawqani in the province of Deir Ezzor. The SDF reportedly destroyed two VBIEDs and then attacked ISIS positions near al-Shaddadah and al-Kasrah.

Now, SDF units are developing advance in the direction of al-Susah.

The Russian military is making steps to upgrade security on its bases in Syria and installation of upgraded control systems is one of the technical solutions it is currently working at, Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov told media on September 19. Earlier, the Russian president vowed that security of Russian troops deployed in the war-torn country will be boosted.

*

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

“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document.

The reality we must come to terms with, however, is that in the America we live in today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

“We the people” have been terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance by a government that cares nothing for our lives or our liberties.

The bogeyman’s names and faces may change over time (terrorism, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, etc.), but the end result remains the same: our unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security.

Thus, in the so-called named of national security, the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded to such an extent that what we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago.

Most of the damage, however, has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—which historically served as the bulwark from government abuse.

A recitation of the Bill of Rights—set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches (all sanctioned by Congress, the White House, the courts and the like)—would understandably sound more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we truly possess.

Here is what it means to live under the Constitution today.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone.

Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being arrested and charged with bogus “contempt of cop” charges such as “disrupting the peace” or “resisting arrest” for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Essentially, this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government. Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited for the battlefield. As such, this amendment has been rendered null and void.

The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with heavily armed SWAT teams, military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or invading you, unless they have some evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance (corporate and otherwise) and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors.

The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. Yet when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears. However, as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize, the power of the jury to nullify the government’s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated. Jury nullification reminds the government that “we the people” retain the power to ultimately determine what laws are just.

The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether.

The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so.

As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC, power elite—the president, Congress and the courts. Indeed, the federal governmental bureaucracy has grown so large that it has made local and state legislatures relatively irrelevant. Through its many agencies and regulations, the federal government has stripped states of the right to regulate countless issues that were originally governed at the local level.

If there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded.

Yet those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that the government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.

It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution opens with these three powerful words: “We the people.” As the Preamble proclaims:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

In other words, we have the power to make and break the government. We are the masters and they are the servants. We the American people—the citizenry—are the arbiters and ultimate guardians of America’s welfare, defense, liberty, laws and prosperity.

Still, it’s hard to be a good citizen if you don’t know anything about your rights or how the government is supposed to operate.

As the National Review rightly asks, “How can Americans possibly make intelligent and informed political choices if they don’t understand the fundamental structure of their government? American citizens have the right to self-government, but it seems that we increasingly lack the capacity for it.”

Americans are constitutionally illiterate.

Most citizens have little, if any, knowledge about their basic rights. And our educational system does a poor job of teaching the basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For instance, when Newsweek asked 1,000 adult U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test44% were unable to define the Bill of Rights.

A survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that a little more than one-third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, while another one-third (35 percent) could not name a single one. Only a quarter of Americans (27 percent) know it takes a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. One in five Americans (21 percent) incorrectly thinks that a 5-4 Supreme Court decision is sent back to Congress for reconsideration. And more than half of Americans do not know which party controls the House and Senate.

A 2006 survey by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that only one out of a thousand adults could identify the five rights protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, more than half (52%) of the respondents could name at least two of the characters in the animated Simpsonstelevision family, and 20% could name all five. And although half could name none of the freedoms in the First Amendment, a majority (54%) could name at least one of the three judges on the TV program American Idol, 41% could name two and one-fourth could name all three.

It gets worse.

Many who responded to the survey had a strange conception of what was in the First Amendment. For example, 21% said the “right to own a pet” was listed someplace between “Congress shall make no law” and “redress of grievances.” Some 17% said that the First Amendment contained the “right to drive a car,” and 38% believed that “taking the Fifth” was part of the First Amendment.

Teachers and school administrators do not fare much better. A study conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis found that one educator in five was unable to name any of the freedoms in the First Amendment.

In fact, while some educators want students to learn about freedom, they do not necessarily want them to exercise their freedoms in school. As the researchers conclude,

“Most educators think that students already have enough freedom, and that restrictions on freedom in the school are necessary. Many support filtering the Internet, censoring T-shirts, disallowing student distribution of political or religious material, and conducting prior review of school newspapers.”

Government leaders and politicians are also ill-informed. Although they take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution against “enemies foreign and domestic,” their lack of education about our fundamental rights often causes them to be enemies of the Bill of Rights.

So what’s the solution?

Thomas Jefferson recognized that a citizenry educated on “their rights, interests, and duties”  is the only real assurance that freedom will survive.

As Jefferson wrote in 1820:

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of our society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

From the President on down, anyone taking public office should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should be held accountable for upholding their precepts. One way to ensure this would be to require government leaders to take a course on the Constitution and pass a thorough examination thereof before being allowed to take office.

Some critics are advocating that students pass the United States citizenship exam in order to graduate from high school. Others recommend that it must be a prerequisite for attending college. I’d go so far as to argue that students should have to pass the citizenship exam before graduating from grade school.

Here’s an idea to get educated and take a stand for freedom: anyone who signs up to become a member of The Rutherford Institute gets a wallet-sized Bill of Rights card and a Know Your Rights card. Use this card to teach your children the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights.

If this constitutional illiteracy is not remedied and soon, freedom in America will be doomed.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we have managed to keep the wolf at bay so far. Barely.

Our national priorities need to be re-prioritized. For instance, some argue that we need to make America great again. I, for one, would prefer to make America free again.

As actor-turned-activist Richard Dreyfuss warned:

Unless we teach the ideas that make America a miracle of government, it will go away in your kids’ lifetimes, and we will be a fable.You have to find the time and creativity to teach it in schools, and if you don’t, you will lose it. You will lose it to the darkness, and what this country represents is a tiny twinkle of light in a history of oppression and darkness and cruelty. If it lasts for more than our lifetime, for more than our kids’ lifetime, it is only because we put some effort into teaching what it is, the ideas of America: the idea of opportunity, mobility, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly.”

*

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

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Suspending the Constitution: In America Today, the Government Does Whatever It Wants

Saudi Inc.: The Arabian Kingdom’s Pursuit of Power and Profit

September 20th, 2018 by James M. Dorsey

Ellen R. Wald’s timely, well-written history of the Saudi national oil company, Saudi Inc. The Arabian Kingdom’s Pursuit of Power and Profit (Pegasus Books, 2018), is as much the story of the Saudi oil industry as it is of the ruling Al Saud family’s reliance on black gold to ensure the survival of its regime.

In painting a picture of the Al Saud’s long-term strategy to build up over decades the know-how and expertise needed to run an oil industry and their determination to ultimately after almost half a century take over ownership in a legal, orderly, commercial transaction, Wald contrasts the kingdom’s approach in colourful and painstaking detail with nationalisations as they occurred in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East.

It is also the story of a US government that increasingly saw Saudi oil as crucial to its post-World War Two global military operations and was determined to ensure that American oilmen, despite their arrogant underestimation of Saudis whom they saw as Bedouins and willingness to bend the truth to enhance their profit margins, were sufficiently accommodating to avoid British mistakes in Iran that resulted in nationalisation and a US-British backed coup to roll back the Iranian takeover.

Wald’s book provides essential background for the role that the Saudi Arabian Oil Company better known as Aramco plays in Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s effort to ween the kingdom off its dependency on oil revenues and diversify its economy. It is essential reading for anyone interested in the kingdom’s future as one of the world’s foremost oil producers at a time of significant economic change.

*

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

James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.


Image result for Saudi Inc.: The Arabian Kingdom’s Pursuit of Power and Profit

Title: Saudi, Inc.: The Arabian Kingdom’s Pursuit of Profit and Power

Author: Ellen R. Wald

Publisher: Pegasus Books; 1 edition (April 3, 2018)

ISBN-10: 168177660X

ISBN-13: 978-1681776606

Click here to order.

.

.

.

This essay is inspired by Professor James Petras’s article, describing that the US never wins wars despite trillions of investments in her war budget and obvious military superiority.

Professor Petras is of course right, the United States is currently engaged in seven bloody wars around the globe (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya) and has not been winning one, including WWII. The question is: Why is that?

To these wars, you may want to add the totally destructive and human rights adverse war that literally slaughters unarmed civilians, including thousands of children, in an open-air prison, Gaza, the US proxy war on Palestine, carried out by Israel; plus, warmongering on Iran, Venezuela and North Korea. Let alone the new style wars – the trade wars with China, Europe, and to some extent, Mexico and Canada, as well as the war of sanctions, starting with Russia and reaching around the world – the fiefdom of economic wars also illegal by any book of international economics.

Other wars and conflicts, that were never intended to be won, include the dismantlement of Yugoslavia by the Clinton / NATO wars of the 1990s, the so-called Balkanization of Yugoslavia, ‘Balkanization’, a term now used for other empire-led partitions in the world, à la “divide to conquer”. Many of the former Yugoslav Republics are still not at peace internally and among each other. President Tito, a Maoist socialist leader was able to keep the country peacefully together and make out of Yugoslavia one of the most prosperous countries in Europe in the seventies and 1980s. How could this be allowed, socioeconomic wellbeing in a socialist country? – Never. It had to be destroyed. At the same time NATO forces advanced their bases closer to Moscow. But no war was won. Conflicts are still ongoing, “justifying” the presence of NATO, for European and US “national security”.   

Then, let’s not forget the various Central American conflicts, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, the 8-year Iraq – Iran war – and many more, have created havoc and disorder, and foremost killed millions of people and weakened the countries affected. They put the population into misery and constant fear – and they keep requiring weapons to maintain internal hostilities, warfare and terror to this day.
 
All of these wars are totally unlawful and prohibited by any international standards of law. But the special and exceptional nation doesn’t observe them. President Trump’s bully National security Advisor, John Bolton, recently threatened the ICC and its judges with ‘sanctions’ in case the dare prosecution of Israeli and American war criminals. And the world doesn’t seem to care, and, instead, accepts the bully’s rule, afraid of the constant saber-rattling and threats being thrown out at the resisters of this world. Even the United Nations, including the 15-member Security Council, is afraid to stand up to the bully – 191 countries against 2 (US and Israel) is a no go?

None of these wars, hot wars or cold wars, has ever been won. Nor were they intended to be won. And there are no signs that future US-led wars will ever be won; irrespective of the trillions of dollars spent on them, and irrespective of the trillions to come in the future to maintain these wars and to start new ones. If we, the 191 UN member nations allow these wars to continue, that is. – Again, why is that?

Image on the right: Victoria Nuland

The answer is simple. It is not in the interest of the United States to win any wars.

The reasons are several. A won war theoretically brings peace, meaning no more weapons, no more fighting, no more destruction, no more terror and fear, no more insane profits for the war industry – but foremost, a country at peace is more difficult to manipulate and starve into submission than a country maintained at a level of constant conflict – conflict that not even a regime change will end, as we are seeing in so many cases around the world. Case in point, one of the latest ones being the Ukraine, after the US-NATO-EU instigated February 2014 Maidan coup, prepared with a long hand, in Victoria Nuland’s word, then Assistant Secretary of State, we spent more than 5 years and 5 billion dollars to bring about a regime change and democracy to the Ukraine.

Today, there is a “civil war” waging in eastern Ukraine, the Russian leaning Donbass area (about 90% Russian speaking and 75% Russian nationals), fueled by the ‘new’ Washington installed Poroshenko Nazi government. Thousands were killed, literally in cold blood by the US military-advised and assisted Kiev army, and an estimated more than 2 million fled to Russia. The total Ukraine population is about 44 million (2018 est.), with a landmass of about 604,000 km2, of which the Donbass area (Donetsk Province) is the most densely populated, counting for about 10% of population and about 27,000 km2.

Could this Kiev war of aggression end? – Yes, if the West would let go of the Donbass area which in any case will never submit to the Kiev regime and which has already requested to be incorporated into Russia. It would instantly stop the killing, the misery and destruction by western powers driven Nazi Kiev. But that’s not in the interest of the west, NATO, EU and especially not Washington – chaos and despair make for easy manipulation of people, for exploitation of this immensely rich country, both in agricultural potential – Ukraine used to be called the bread basket of Russia – and in natural resources in the ground; and for steadily advancing closer to the doorsteps of Moscow. That’s the intention. 

In fact, Washington and its western EU vassal allies are relentlessly accusing Russia for meddling in the Ukraine, in not adhering to the Minsk accords. They are ‘sanctioning’ Russia for not respecting the Minsk Protocol (Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany agreed on 11 February 2015 to a package of measures to alleviate the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine), when in fact, the complete opposite is true. The west disregards the key points of the accord – no interference. But western propaganda and deceit-media brainwash western populations into believing in the Russian evil. The only ones meddling and supplying Kiev’s Nazi Regime with weapons and “military advisors” is the west. 

The going strategy is lie-propaganda, so the western public, totally embalmed with western falsehoods, believes it is always Russia. Russians, led by President Putin, are the bad guys. The media war is part of the west’s war on Russia. The idea is, never let go of an ongoing conflict – no matter the cost in lives and in money. It’s so easy. Why isn’t that addressed in many analyses that still pretend the US is losing wars instead of winning them? – Its 101 of western geopolitics.

*

For those who don’t know, the US State Department has clearly exposed it’s plans to guarantee world primacy to the Senate’s Foreign Relations Commission. Assistant Secretary of State, Wess Mitchell, has declared that the United States is punishing Russia, because Moscow is impeding Washington from establishing supremacy over the world. It gets as blunt as that. The US openly recognizes the reason for their fight against Russia, and that Washington would not accept anything less than a full capitulation.

The full supremacy over the world is not possible without controlling the entire landmass of Eurasia – which for now they, the US, does not dominate. Mitchell added, contrary to optimistic hypothesis of earlier administrations, Russia and China are the most serious contenders to impede materially and ideologically the supremacy of the United States in the 21st Century, in a reference to the PNAC, Plan for a New American Century.

Then Mitchell launched a bomb, “It is always of primordial interest for the United States’ national security to impede the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers.” – This clearly means that the United States will shy away from nothing in the pursuit of this goal – meaning an outright war – nuclear or other – massive killing and total destruction – to reach that goal. This explains the myriad false accusations, ranging from outright insults at the UN by a lunatic Nikki Haley, the never-ending saga of the Skripal poisoning, to Russian meddling in the 2016 US elections – and whatever else suits the political circumstances to bash Russia. And these fabricated lies come mostly from Washington and London – and the rest of the western vassals just follows.

“War is hugely profitable. It creates so much money because it’s so easy to spend money very fast. There are huge fortunes to be made. So, there is always an encouragement to promote war and keep it going, to make sure that we identify people who are ‘others’ whom we can legitimately make war upon.” Roger Waters, Co-founder of the rock band Pink Floyd.

Russia today is attacked by economic and trade “sanctions”, by travel bans, by confiscated assets they have in the west. The Cold War which propagated the Soviet Union as an invasive threat to the world, was a flagrant and absolute lie from A to Z. It forced the Soviet Union, thrown into abject poverty by saving the west from Hitler during WWII – yes, it was the Soviet Union, not the US of A and her western ‘allies’ that defeated Hitler’s army – losing between 25 and 30 million people! – Imagine! – by saving Europe, the Soviet Union became unimaginably devastated and poor. 

The US propaganda created the concept of the Iron Curtain which basically forbade the west to see behind this imaginary shield to find out what the USSR really was after WWII – made destitute to the bones by the second World War. Yet this Cold War and Iron Curtain propaganda managed to make the western world believe that it is under a vital threat of a USSR invasion day-in-day-out, and that Europe with NATO must be ready to fend off any imaginary attack from the Soviet Union. It forced the Soviet Union to using all her workers’ accumulated capital to arm themselves, to be able to defend themselves from any possible western aggression, instead of using these economic resources to rebuild their country, their economy, their social systems. That’s the west – the lying, utterly and constantly deceiving west. Wake up, people!!!

Here you have it, confirmed by Wess Mitchell. The US would rather pull the rest of the world with it into a bottomless and an apocalyptic abyss with its sheer military power, than to lose and not reaching her goal. That’s the unforgiving ruling of the deep state, those that have been pulling the strings behind every US president for the last 200 years. – Unless the new alliances of the East – i.e. the SCO, BRICS, Eurasian Economic Union – half the world’s population and a third of the globes economic output – are able to subdue the United States economically, we may as well we doomed.
—-

As the seven present ongoing wars speak for themselves, chaos – no end in sight and intended – allow me to go back to a few other wars that were not won, on purpose, of course. Let’s look again at WWII and its sister wars, economic wars and conflicts. Planning of WWII started soon after the Great Depression of 1928 to 1933 – and beyond. Hitler was a ‘convenient’ stooge. War is not only hugely profitable, but it boosts and sustains the economy of just about every sector. And the major objective for the US then was eliminating the Bolshevik communist threat, the Soviet Union. Today its demonizing President Putin and, if possible, bring about regime change in Russia. That’s on top of Washington’s wish list.

In the midst of the Great Depression, in 1931, the US created the Bank for International Settlement in Basel, Switzerland, conveniently located at the border to Germany. The BIS, totally privately owned and controlled by the Rothchild clan, was officially intended for settling war compensation payments by Germany. Though, unknown to most people, Germany has paid almost no compensation for either WWI and WWII. Most of the debt was simply forgiven. Germany was an important player in Washington’s attempt to eliminating the “communist curse” of the USSR. The BIS was used by the FED via Wall Street banks to finance Hitler’s war against the Soviet Union. 

As usual, the US was dancing on two weddings: Pretending to fight Hitler’s Germany, but really supporting Hitler against Moscow. Sounds familiar? – Pretending to fight ISIS and other terrorists in the Middle East and around the world, but in reality, having been instrumental in creating, training, funding and arming the terror jihadists. When WWII was won by the Soviet army at a huge human sacrifice, the US, her allies and NATO marched in – shouting victory. And to this day these are the lessons taught in western schools, by western history books, largely ignoring the tremendous credit attributable to the Soviet Union, to the Russian people.

And since the USSR was not defeated, the Cold War had to be invented – and eventually with the help of Washington stooges, Michael Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin, the west brought down the Soviet Union – preparing the way for a unipolar world. This grandiose goal of the exceptional nation was however – and very fortunately – stopped in its slippery tracks by the ascent of Russian President Putin.

But that’s not all. For dominating Russia, Europe had to be ‘colonized’ – made into a “European Union” (EU) that was never meant to be a real union, as in the United States of America. The idea of a European Union was first planted shortly after WWII by the CIA, then taken over by the Club of Rome – and promoted through numerous conventions all the way to the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. The next logical step was to give the EU a Constitution, to make the EU into a consolidated Federation of European States, with common economic, defense and foreign relations strategies. But this was never to be. 

The former French President, Giscard d’Estaing (1974 – 1981), was given the task to lead the drafting of an EU Constitution. He had strict instructions, though unknown to most, to prepare a document that would not be ratified by member states, as it would have bluntly transferred most of the EU nations sovereignty to Brussels. And so, the constitution was rejected, starting by France. Most countries didn’t even vote on the Constitution. And so, a federation of a United Europe didn’t happen. That would have been an unbeatable competition to the US, economically and militarily. NATO was eventually to take the role of unifying Europe – under the control of Washington. Today, the EU is ever more integrated into NATO.

What happened in parallel to the construct of a (non) European Union, was the European financial and economic colonization or enslavement, through the Bretton Woods Agreements in 1944. They created the World Bank, to manage the Marshall Plan, the US-sponsored European reconstruction fund, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to monitor and regulate the gold standard (US$ 35 / Troy Ounce), vis-à-vis the so-called convertible mostly European currencies. In fact, the Marshall Plan, denominated in US-dollars, was the first step towards a common European currency, prompted by the Nixon Administration’s exiting the gold standard in 1971, eventually leading to the Euro, a fiat currency created according to the image of the US dollar. The Euro, the little brother of the US fiat dollar, thus, became a currency, with which the European economic, financial and monetary policies are being manipulated by outside forces, i.e. the FED and Wall Street. The current President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, is a former Goldman Sachs executive.

These are wars, albeit the latter ones, economic wars, being constantly waged, but not won. They create chaos, illusions, believes in lies, manipulating and mobilizing people into the direction the masters of and behind Washington want them to move. These are the same masters that have been in control of the west for the last 200 years; and unknown to the vast majority of the western population, these masters are a small group of banking and financial clans that control the western monetary system, as we know it today. It was brought into existence in 1913, by the Federal Reserve Act. These masters control the FED, Wall Street and the BIS – also called the central banks of central banks, as it – the BIS – controls all but a handful of the world’s central banks. 

This fiat financial system is debt-funding wars, conflicts and proxy hostilities around the world. Debt that is largely carried in the form of US treasury bills as other countries’ reserves. The continuation of wars is crucial for the system’s survival. It’s hugely profitable. If a war was won, peace would break out – no war industry profit there, no debt-rent for banks from peace. Wars must go on – and the exceptional nation may prevail, with the world’s largest military-security budget, the deadliest weapons and a national debt, called ‘unmet obligations’ by the US General Accounting Office (GAO) – of about 150 trillion dollars – about seven and a half times the US GDP. We are living in the west in a pyramid monetary fraud – that only wars can sustain, until – yes, until, a different, honest system, based on real economic and peaceful output, will gradually replace the dollar’s hegemony and its role as a world reserve currency. It’s happening as these lines go to print. Eastern economies, like the Chinese, with China’s gold-convertible Yuan, and a national debt of only about 40% of GDP, is gradually taking over the international reserve role of the US dollar. 

The US of A, therefore, will do whatever she can to continue, demonizing Russia and China, provoke them into a hot war, because dominating, and outright ‘owning’ the Eurasian landmass is the ultimate objective of the killer Empire.

*

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

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 21st Century; 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. 

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The United States of America – The Real Reason Why They Are Never Winning Their Wars

Two African Heroes Leave Prison in Rwanda

September 20th, 2018 by Ann Garrison

On September 15, Rwandan political prisoners Victoire Ingabire and Kizito Mihigo walked out of Nyarugenge Prison in Rwanda’s capital, along with nearly 2000 more Rwandan prisoners whom President Paul Kagame had granted “executive clemency.” Members of local and international media surrounded them with still and video cameras as they emerged.

Victoire Ingabire is a politician and member of Rwanda’s Hutu ethnic majority. She had been sentenced to 15 years in prison for terrorism and minimizing the Rwandan Genocide after she attempted to run against President Paul Kagame in 2010. She served eight years, including five in solitary confinement, before her release this week.

Kizito Mihigo is a gospel singer and a member of Rwanda’s Tutsi minority, who went to prison in 2015 for terrorism, plotting to kill President Kagame, and minimizing genocide. He had just recorded a music video in which he sang that both Hutu and Tutsi had lost loved ones in the 1994 massacres known as the Rwandan Genocide, and that both must acknowledge one another’s suffering to reconcile.

Victoire, as she is commonly known, has often said the same, as in this statement added to “Song for Madame Victoire Ingabire,” which was recorded to celebrate her heroism while she remained in prison.

Let me tell all Rwandans that what we wish for is that all of us should work together, to make sure that such a tragedy will never take place again. That is one of the reasons why the political party FDU made a decision to return to the country peacefully, without resorting to violence as many people think that the solution to Rwanda’s problems is to resort to armed struggle. We do not believe that shedding blood should resolve problems. When one sheds blood, the blood comes back to haunt him or her.
Charging these two Rwandan leaders with terrorism was ludicrous to say the least.

Going forward

Victoire emerged wearing a bright red dress and lime green jacket, the colors of her political party, Unified Democratic Forces (UDF), which has not been allowed to register and was therefore unable to field her as a candidate against President Paul Kagame in 2010. Rwandan prisoners’ heads are shaven, but it looked as though she’d been allowed to let hers grow into a short natural for perhaps a week or more.

Kizito, as he is commonly known, emerged in an orange cap and a white and orange t-shirt, both bearing the logo of Kizito Mihigo pour la Paix (KMP), the foundation he created to promote peace.

President Paul Kagame granted Victoire “executive clemency,” which will not allow her to run for political office. For that Kagame would have to convert her executive clemency release to “unconditional release.” Both Victoire and Kizito are on parole, required to report to authorities once a month. Victoire is unable to leave the country to meet her two grandchildren, both of whom were born in the Netherlands during her imprisonment.

According to Marcelline Nduwamungu, a founding member of Réseau international des femmes pour la démocratie et la paix (Women’s International Network for Democracy and Peace), Victoire has returned to a house in Kigali that a group of her supporters lived in to advocate for her and prepare food to take to her in prison. They’re all in prison now, so she returned to an empty house. Phone and internet connections are still being arranged, but Deutsche Welle succeeded in arranging an interview, in which she said that she would continue trying to open political space and free all political prisoners, and that she did not fear returning to prison herself. She also said:

“I never, never, never, never confessed that I committed any crime in Rwanda. I did not do it and I did not ask for forgiveness for a crime I did not commit.”

Why now?

Many people have asked why Kagame chose to release Victoire, Kizito and more than 2000 other prisoners now. Victoire herself told Deutsche Welle:

“I don’t know if there is any other tactic [behind my release]. I still believe that he did it because he thinks it is time to open the political space in Rwanda because that is the only guarantee to the security, to the sustainable development in our country. And it is the better solution to better prepare the future generation of our country.”

No one who is not in Kagame’s confidence can know what motivated him, but this is the context in which he released Victoire, Kizito, and more than 2000 other prisoners:

1) The African Court of Human and People’s Rights (AFCHPR) ruled, in December 2017, that Rwanda had violated Victoire’s civil rights according to the Rwandan constitution, and that they should free her and pay reparations. The AFCHPR is the African Union’s highest court, and Kagame is the current president of the African Union, a position that rotates between the continent’s five regions. Many, including the African Bar Association, have pointed out that the president of the African Union should respect its regional and continental courts.

2) Victoire and Kizito Mihigo are both celebrity prisoners known outside Rwanda. In 2016, a Spanish representative to the European Parliament introduced a resolution calling for Victoire’s freedom and succeeded in getting it passed.

3) The most prominent Western powers and politicians have heroized Kagame, enshrined his legally enforced lies about the 1994 genocide, and applauded his ascent to the presidency of the African Union, so they may have demanded he polish his image. The powerful Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution invited him to talk about neoliberal reform as soon as it was announced that he’d be the next AU president.

4) President Kagame is quarreling with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, whose international reputation has taken a nose dive because his goons beat up Afropop star Bobi Wine so badly that he had to leave the country in a wheelchair, after a long list of internationally known musicians and other prominent figures demanded his release from prison. Wine, still walking with a cane, has appeared on the Voice of America’s Straight Talk Africa and testified in Congress, which could mean the beginning of the end for Museveni. Kagame and Museveni are both longstanding US allies and “military partners” on the African continent, and Kagame would do well to appear as the more respectable partner.

*

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].

It’s fitting that the same society that produced George Orwell with his warnings of a totalitarian dystopia stacked with all-prying monitors, surveillance and paranoia should yield up some of the most invasive surveillance regimes imaginable.  While some states have found the revelations from Edward Snowden the sort that should initiate, at the very least, modest changes, the United Kingdom preferred opposite approach.  It had, after all, been an indispensable ally to the US National Security Agency, its equivalent GCHQ always intent on going one better.

In 2016, the Snooper’s Charter, a name so innocuous as to imply impressive cuddliness, found its way onto Britain’s law books after two failed efforts.  That instrument’s more officious, and appropriate title, was the Investigatory Powers Act, deemed by Snowden “the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy.”  As Paul Bernal suggested in The Conversation on its passage,

“It is not a modernisation of existing law, but something qualitatively different, something that intrudes upon every UK citizen’s life in a way that would even a decade ago have been inconceivable.”

Various efforts in Britain have been mounted against the all-consuming beast of mass surveillance.  The UK Court of Appeal did find in 2015 that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) failed to place adequate restrictions upon police officers in their attempts to access personal information, including web browsing history and phone records.  The discerning judges noted the absence of an independent overseer and appropriate safeguards that might have saved the legislation.

Last Thursday, the European Court of Human Rights took a rather different view from the national security boffins in the case of Big Brother Watch and Others v the United Kingdom.  The legality of three different surveillance forms featured in the complaint by 16 applicants, launched in the immediate aftermath of Snowden’s disclosures: the bulk interception of communications; the sharing of intelligence with foreign governments; the obtaining of communications data from communications service providers. 

While the applicants did not shun all forms of bulk interception, the relevant claim was that such a regime could hardly be seen to have “the quality of law because it was so complex as to be inaccessible to the public and to the Government” lacking “clear and binding legal guidelines” and “sufficient guarantees against abuse.”

The submission by the UK government was predictably heavy on the issues of threat, security and danger.  The greatest temptation of tyrants is the claim that what is being combated is new, fresh and entirely modern.  National security threats abound like a miasmic phenomenon, and not just that old nagging matter of terrorism.  There was a degree of “sophistication” terrorists and criminals had adopted in communicating over the Internet so as to avoid detection. Encryption was being used; the volume of communications was so vast as to enable concealment. 

By five votes to two, the Chamber found that the bulk interception regime violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights covering the respect for private and family life, home and correspondence.  The failing here was a conspicuous lack of oversight in selecting Internet bearers for targets of interception.  There was also an inadequate system in filtering, searching and selecting any salient intercepted communications; and there was a pronounced lack of pertinent safeguards concerning “related communications data”.  Bulk interception did not, in of itself, violate the Convention; but clearly defined criteria was the essence of validity.

By six votes to one, the Chamber found that obtaining communications data from those in the communications industry also breached the protections of Article 8.  Article 10 of the Convention covering freedom of expression, holding opinions, and the imparting and receipt of information was also found to have been offended by both the bulk interception regime and obtaining communications from service providers. 

The judges noted that the second and third applications involved “investigative journalists who have reported on issues such a CIA torture, counterterrorism, drone warfare, and the Iraq war logs [accepting] that they were potentially at risk of having their communications obtained by the United Kingdom authorities”.   

The judges did, however, fail to bite on several fronts.   Sharing intelligence with foreign governments could not be considered a violation of either Article 8 or 10.  (This, in of itself, raises a set of problems given Britain’s security ties with various unsavoury states who might be all too happy to receive the UK’s bounty.)  On the issue of whether the surveillance regime breached Article 6 (covering the right to a fair trial), and the inadequacy of domestic processes in challenging surveillance measures suggesting a violation of Article 14 (prohibiting discrimination), the court remained unmoved. 

The response of the UK government has been one of readjustment and sweetening.  Whilst “careful consideration” would be given to the ruling, a new “double lock” oversight process, according to a spokesperson, had been introduced in the 2016 legislation. The process involved agreement between an independent judicial commissioner and the authorising secretary of state in executing search warrants.  It is precisely such measures that must be regarded as the mandatory softeners in otherwise extreme security measures that never do what they claim to.   

Despite the recent horror of her premiership, Prime Minister Theresa May, a figure instrumental in building the new British security state, can take comfort from Brexit in one fundamental respect: At the very least she might be able to prize Britannia away from the clutches of a European human rights court that continues to correct wayward member states obsessed with surveillance. 

*

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. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Konbini.com

Hold the Front Page. The Reporters Are Missing.

September 20th, 2018 by John Pilger

The death of Robert Parry earlier this year felt like a farewell to the age of the reporter. Parry was “a trailblazer for independent journalism”, wrote Seymour Hersh, with whom he shared much in common.

Hersh revealed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the secret bombing of Cambodia, Parry exposed Iran-Contra, a drugs and gun-running conspiracy that led to the White House. In 2016, they separately produced compelling evidence that the Assad government in Syria had not used chemical weapons. They were not forgiven.

Driven from the “mainstream”, Hersh must publish his work outside the United States. Parry set up his own independent news website Consortium News, where, in a final piece following a stroke, he referred to journalism’s veneration of “approved opinions” while “unapproved evidence is brushed aside or disparaged regardless of its quality.”  

Image on the right: Robert Parry

Although journalism was always a loose extension of establishment power, something has changed in recent years. Dissent tolerated when I joined a national newspaper in Britain in the 1960s has regressed to a metaphoric underground as liberal capitalism moves towards a form of corporate dictatorship. This is a seismic shift, with journalists policing the new “groupthink”, as Parry called it, dispensing its myths and distractions, pursuing its enemies.

Witness the witch-hunts against refugees and immigrants, the willful abandonment by the “MeToo” zealots of our oldest freedom, presumption of innocence, the anti-Russia racism and anti-Brexit hysteria, the growing anti-China campaign and the suppression of a warning of world war.

With many if not most independent journalists barred or ejected from the “mainstream”, a corner of the Internet has become a vital source of disclosure and evidence-based analysis: true journalism. Sites such as wikileaks.org, consortiumnews.com, wsws.org, truthdig.com, globalresearch.ca, counterpunch.org and informationclearinghouse.com are required reading for those trying to make sense of a world in which science and technology advance wondrously while political and economic life in the fearful “democracies” regress behind a media facade of narcissistic spectacle.  

In Britain, just one website offers consistently independent media criticism. This is the remarkable Media Lens — remarkable partly because its founders and editors as well as its only writers, David Edwards and David Cromwell, since 2001 have concentrated their gaze not on the usual suspects, the Tory press, but the paragons of reputable liberal journalism: the BBC, the Guardian, Channel 4 News.

Their method is simple. Meticulous in their research, they are respectful and polite when they ask why a journalist why he or she produced such a one-sided report, or failed to disclose essential facts or promoted discredited myths.  

The replies they receive are often defensive, at times abusive; some are hysterical, as if they have pushed back a screen on a protected species.

I would say Media Lens has shattered a silence about corporate journalism. Like Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in Manufacturing Consent, they represent a Fifth Estate that deconstructs and demystifies the media’s power.

What is especially interesting about them is that neither is a journalist. David Edwards is a former teacher, David Cromwell is an oceanographer. Yet, their understanding of the morality of journalism — a term rarely used; let’s call it true objectivity —  is a bracing quality of their online Media Lens dispatches.

I think their work is heroic and I would place a copy of their just published book, Propaganda Blitz, in every journalism school that services the corporate system, as they all do. 

Take the chapter, Dismantling the National Health Service, in which Edwards and Cromwell describe the critical part played by journalists in the crisis facing Britain’s pioneering health service.

The NHS crisis is the product of a political and media construct known as “austerity”, with its deceitful, weasel language of “efficiency savings”  (the BBC term for slashing public expenditure) and “hard choices” (the willful destruction of the premises of civilised life in modern Britain).

“Austerity” is an invention. Britain is a rich country with a debt owed by its crooked banks, not its people. The resources that would comfortably fund the National Health Service have been stolen in broad daylight by the few allowed to avoid and evade billions in taxes. 

Using a vocabulary of corporate euphemisms, the publicly-funded Health Service is being deliberately run down by free market fanatics, to justify its selling-off . The Labour Party of Jeremy Corbyn may appear to oppose this, but is it? The answer is very likely no. Little of any of this is alluded to in the media, let alone explained.

Edwards and Cromwell have dissected the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, whose innocuous title belies its dire consequences. Unknown to most of the population, the Act ends the legal obligation of British governments to provide universal free health care: the bedrock on which the NHS was set up following the Second World War. Private companies can now insinuate themselves into the NHS, piece by piece.

Where, asks Edwards and Cromwell, was the BBC while this momentous Bill was making its way through Parliament? With a statutory commitment to “providing a breadth of view” and to properly inform the public of “matters of public policy”, the BBC never spelt out the threat posed to one of the nation’s most cherished institutions.  A BBC headline said: “Bill which gives power to GPs passes.” This was pure state propaganda.

There is a striking similarity with the BBC’s coverage of Prime Minister Tony Blair‘s lawless invasion of Iraq in 2003, which left a million dead and many more dispossessed.   A study by the University of Wales, Cardiff, found that the BBC reflected the government line “overwhelmingly” while relegating reports of civilian suffering. A Media Tenor study placed the BBC at the bottom of a league of western broadcasters in the time they gave to opponents of the invasion. The corporation’s much-vaunted “principle” of impartiality was never a consideration.

One of the most telling chapters in Propaganda Blitz describes the smear campaigns mounted by journalists against dissenters, political mavericks and whistleblowers. The Guardian’s campaign against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is the most disturbing.

Assange, whose epic WikiLeaks disclosures brought fame, journalism prizes and largesse to the Guardian, was abandoned when he was no longer useful. He was then subjected to a vituperative – and cowardly — onslaught of a kind I have rarely known.

With not a penny going to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The book’s authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as a “damaged personality” and “callous”. They also disclosed the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables.  

With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police outside, gloated on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh”.  

Image result for Suzanne Moore

The Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore (image on the left) wrote,

“I bet Assange is stuffing himself full of flattened guinea pigs. He really is the most massive turd.”

Moore, who describes herself as a feminist, later complained that, after attacking Assange, she had suffered “vile abuse”. Edwards and Cromwell wrote to her:

“That’s a real shame, sorry to hear that. But how would you describe calling someone ‘the most massive turd’? Vile abuse?” 

Moore replied that no, she would not, adding,

“I would advise you to stop being so bloody patronising.” 

Her former Guardian colleague James Ball wrote,

“It’s difficult to imagine what Ecuador’s London embassy smells like more than five and a half years after Julian Assange moved in.”

Such slow-witted viciousness appeared in a newspaper described by its editor, Katharine Viner, as “thoughtful and progressive”. What is the root of this vindictiveness?  Is it jealousy, a perverse recognition that Assange has achieved more journalistic firsts than his snipers can claim in a lifetime? Is it that he refuses to be “one of us” and shames those who have long sold out the independence of journalism?  

Journalism students should study this to understand that the source of “fake news” is not only trollism, or the likes of Fox news, or Donald Trump, but a journalism self-anointed with a false respectability: a liberal journalism that claims to challenge corrupt state power but, in reality, courts and protects it, and colludes with it. The amorality of the years of Tony Blair, whom the Guardian has failed to rehabilitate, is its echo.

“[It is] an age in which people yearn for new ideas and fresh alternatives,” wrote Katharine Viner.

Her political writer Jonathan Freedland dismissed the yearning of young people who supported the modest policies of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn as “a form of narcissism”. 

“How did this man ….,” brayed the Guardian’s Zoe Williams, “get on the ballot in the first place?” 

A choir of the paper’s precocious windbags joined in, thereafter queuing to fall on their blunt swords when Corbyn came close to winning the 2017 general election in spite of the media.

Complex stories are reported to a cult-like formula of bias, hearsay and omission: Brexit, Venezuela, Russia, Syria. On Syria, only the investigations of a group of independent journalists have countered this, revealing the network of Anglo-American backing of jihadists in Syria, including those related to ISIS.  

Supported by a “psyops” campaign funded by the British Foreign Office and the US Agency of International Aid, the aim is to hoodwink the Western public and speed the overthrow the government in Damascus, regardless of the medieval alternative and the risk of war with Russia.

The Syria Campaign, set up by a New York PR agency, Purpose, funds a group known as the White Helmets, who claim falsely to be “Syria Civil Defence” and are seen uncritically on TV news and social media, apparently rescuing the victims of bombing, which they film and edit themselves, though viewers are unlikely to be told this. George Clooney is a fan.

The White Helmets are appendages to the jihadists with whom they share addresses. Their media-smart uniforms and equipment are supplied by their Western paymasters. That their exploits are not questioned by major news organisations is an indication of how deep the influence of state-backed PR now runs in the media. As Robert Fisk noted recently, no “mainstream” reporter reports Syria, from Syria.      

In what is known as a hatchet job, a Guardian reporter based in San Francisco, Olivia Solon, who has never visited Syria, was allowed to smear the substantiated investigative work of journalists Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett on the White Helmets as “propagated online by a network of anti-imperialist activists, conspiracy theorists and trolls with the support of the Russian government”.

This abuse was published without permitting a single correction, let alone a right-of-reply. The Guardian Comment page was blocked, as Edwards and Cromwell document.  I saw the list of questions Solon sent to Beeley, which reads like a McCarthyite charge sheet — “Have you ever been invited to North Korea?”  

So much of the mainstream has descended to this level. Subjectivism is all; slogans and outrage are proof enough. What matters is the “perception”.

When he was US commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus declared what he called “a war of perception… conducted continuously using the news media”. What really mattered was not the facts but the way the story played in the United States. The undeclared enemy was, as always, an informed and critical public at home. 

Nothing has changed. In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler’s film-maker, whose propaganda mesmerised the German public.

She told me the “messages” of her films were dependent not on “orders from above”, but on the “submissive void” of an uninformed public.  

“Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie?” I asked.

“Everyone,” she said. “Propaganda always wins, if you allow it.”

Propaganda Blitz by David Edwards and David Cromwell is published by Pluto.

Video: The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire

September 20th, 2018 by Independent POV

The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire, is a documentary film that shows how Britain transformed from a colonial power into a global financial power. At the demise of empire, City of London financial interests created a web of offshore secrecy jurisdictions that captured wealth from across the globe and hid it in a web of offshore islands.

Today, up to half of global offshore wealth is hidden in British offshore jurisdictions and Britain and its offshore jurisdictions are the largest global players in the world of international finance. How did this come about, and what impact does it have on the world today? This is what the Spider’s Web sets out to investigate.

The documentary features contributions from John Christensen a former economic adviser to the Secrecy Jurisdiction of Jersey, internationally renowned economist Michael Hudson, former investigating magistrate Eva Joly and Financial Journalist/Author Nicholas Shaxson whose book Treasure Islands served as the main source for the film.

*

Sponsor the next film on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/independentdo…

Share this documentary with your friends, and ask sites to feature it: https://twitter.com/spiderswebfilm https://www.facebook.com/Spiderswebfilm/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6483026/

Translate this documentary here on youtube or contact us for the .srt file [email protected]

For those interested to learn more about tax justice and financial secrecy, read about the Tax Justice Network’s campaigning and regular blogs – become part of the movement for change and listen to the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast/radio show the Taxcast https://www.taxjustice.net/taxcast/

Review on Open Democracy: https://www.opendemocracy.net/newecon…

Review on Filmotomy: https://filmotomy.com/the-spiders-web…

Website: www.spiderswebfilm.com Spanish Version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85dsT…

French Version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hizj_…

Italian Version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwmvX…

Subtitles: French, Spanish, German, Italian, Russian, Arabic, Korean, Hungarian, English, Turkish.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire

A defining moment for the US sanctions regime

Each year, the USA finds a new country or group of countries to target with sanctions. Each year the USA adds about 1,000 individuals to its ever longer sanctions list. Now, US sanctions are coming to a turning point.

Up till now, the EU – representing around the same percentage of the world economy as the USA – was sitting put, as the USA grew its sanctions regime to ever more bizarre proportions. Together, the USA and the EU constituted nearly half of the world’s economy, and US sanctions previously “only” used to target the other half of the world’s economies. Hitherto, the EU had no compelling reasons to strain its relations with the USA because US sanctions do not affect them.

But now, “secondary sanctions” regarding Iran also hit hard at strategic EU companies and financial institutions and negatively affect EU global strategic interests in energy from the Persian Gulf, US sanctions in effect attack the liberty, security and sovereignty of its biggest group of friends, the EU.

Thus, we have now come to a defining moment for the global sanctions regime, run by the USA.

The US economy is already less than a quarter of the world’s GDP in USD dollars, and in 2023 it will fall to only just about one fifth of the world (source: IMF). The non-US part, the 4 fifths of the world economy (now including the EU and China, constitute an increasingly advanced group, and they are about to collude against the US sanctions regime. Collusion is the result of parallel interests, and the EU may not actually (or at least publicly) coordinate all its counter-sanctions with other major power centers.

We talk about the world’s most powerful and complex political-economic structures starting to fundamental change, here.

So we need to analyze the bigger picture, how complete systems of counter-strategies against present and possible future US sanctions are being planned and implemented by strong powers around the world – all directed (but maybe only sometimes coordinated) against the USA. These systems of counter-strategies will include, but not be limited to, the following:

Finance

Payment transfer streams will develop to avoid US banks – hurting the global position of the USA’s major “growth-industry”. It will be a chance (as well as a good excuse) for the EU, China, Japan, India and everybody else, to nationalistically promote THEIR banks in the international system at the expense of US banks.

Looking at the long-term trend, the US financial industry has become really the ONLY big growth industry which drives upwards the USA economy. No other sector in the US economy has the combination of size and growth, that finance has (weapons are a bit the same, but finance is unique in size) – so this will be very hard for the USA.

US banks hitherto have a central role in facilitating all global money transfers, and a lot of international money transfers between third-countries somehow technically go via the USA. This system architecture will now be stopped – not just by China, but also by the EU and probably by India.

Everybody outside the USA will be reluctant to let their money be touched by US financial institutions, or let their money touch US shores even for a milli-second. And of course, the EU and China know how to engineer legal and technical solutions for this.

The growth of US credit card systems will be impeded. Instead cards from China & EU (and India?) will take bigger shares of this profitable and fast growing world market. Russia was the first country on this trend, kicking out all US credit card companies, and inviting in the Chinese credit card system. The EU may well strengthen the role of EU credit cards, and create actions which “incidentally” (oops!?) will hurt US credit cards in EU markets. The finance center of London, UK will after Brexit be caught in this cross-fire between the EU and the USA – if the UK sides with the USA against EU counter-sanction initiatives, the EU may develop strong tools to draw UK credit-card business into EU-jurisdiction.

New global IT money transfer system regimes, which counteract US influence on SWIFT, will erode US political influence. The SWIFT system is based in Brussels, but under heavy US political influence. Russia has already built itself an alternative to that. The EU can no longer accept that the US might be able hurt EU companies on their SWIFT transfers. The EU will therefore have to take actions either to liberate SWIFT from US control, or to create a parallel EU-system.

Avoid Wall Street

Why should countries take up loans in the US, if they can have the same loans without risk of future sanctions from China or even the EU?

The IPO of the Saudi ARAMCO oil company has been stalled – unconfirmed information states that fear of US courts reaching out against Saudi assets after 11 September, is part of the reason. Already, the trend is that the biggest IPOs in the world move to Asia.

De-dollarization

The EU now will shift trade of energy from dollars to Euro – this trend will diminish dollars in other international trade. Trillions of international dollars from trade may come back to the USA – risking inflation and economic crisis. Gold is according to unconfirmed reports being speedily bought up by governments, not only by Russia and China, but even Turkey, recently also hit by US sanctions.

Strategic supply

Airbus cannot deliver airplanes to Iran, because among other things, vital parts are sourced in the USA. This will change. Strategic supply chains will morph to avoid US sub-suppliers, carriers (ships, airplanes, IT), technology, service partners etc – fundamentally hurting the US global position. We are not speaking used-cars, here, we speak strategic business sectors. The EU and China may not state this anti-US sourcing publicly as an official policy, they will just pull the strings to do it VERY effectively in strategic sectors.

Also, US deliveries in other strategic sectors like food (grain and soy from US farmers) and US energy will be affected by counter-sanctions. China sheds US soybeans and pushes their price down – the EU (less dependent hereof) may then use picking-up cheap surplus soybeans from the USA as a bargaining card. The idea of larger US delivery of LNG to the EU probably will be mostly words, but the amounts of LNG from the USA to the EU may possibly only increase marginally. The EU may even come to a cold calculation, that the EU in the gas sector might have a more maneuverable partner with Russia than with the USA. The EU has in several aspects a substantially advantageous size-relation towards Russia, and not towards the USA, and while Russia enjoys a good relationship with China, Russia will like to balance its relations too.

Tourism and education

Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries in the world, and the USA sells its cultural influence to all tourists coming. University education is not only a strategic business to finance national research, universities are also a cornerstone for the USA to influence future management generations around the world. Why not send tourists and students to other places than the USA? Chinese tourists and students are of significant importance to the USA, and China has plenty of other destinations to send tourists and students other than to the USA.

Using the state to shield business

As a counter-sanction, the EU now moves central banks and state-owned companies into the fray as financing, business partners and intermediate partners, when dealing with Iran. US sanctions on EU state-owned entities can then amount to a US declaration of (economic) war, not only against EU private entities, but directly against EU states.

Buying other than US weapons

The EU recently is implementing a grand and ambitious strategy to increase its own weapons-industry – independent of the USA. To increase the strength of EU weapons-makers, the EU will need to minimize imports of US weapons. The EU will have to make their own, only importing as few items as possible from the USA. Saudi Arabia is by far one of the world’s biggest arms purchasers – and nearly all is bought form the USA. However, should the bromance between the leaderships of Saudi Arabia and the USA cool down, Saudi Arabia would be well advised to diversify their weapons sources too. And Saudi Arabia even already has Eurofighters from the EU and embryonic arms-relations with Russia and to build on.

The collusion against the USA

US trade war unites the EU, China, India, the rest of the world (even the UK) against US interests. With aggressive, unilateral trade-war, started by the US, all the rest of the world will now have even more motives to coordinate their counter-strategies to the US sanctions regime.

The EU may seem slow to react – and this may lure US politicians in their hubris to believe that the EU cannot or will not. But believe me, the EU will – because this has become a strategic must. The EU has seen the hand-writing of US sanctions on their wall – they will think this through, plan and make deep preparations to create EU sovereignty from US control. Just read between the lines of EU’s Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s recent State of the Union speech. When the EU rolls out their US counter-sanction measures, it will be big, comprehensive and VERY effective.

Negative changes for the USA will last

Once alternative systems to US banks, finance, the US dollars etc. have developed and matured, they will NOT go away.

The USA is in its hubris about to destroy its global claim for economic hegemony – and that is a good thing.

*

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

Karsten Riise is Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from University of Copenhagen. Former senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden with a responsibility of US Dollars 1 billion. At time of appointment, the youngest and the first non-German in that top-position within Mercedes-Benz’ worldwide sales organization.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Sanctions Reach a Turning Point. De-Dollarization and Collusion against the U.S.

Russia Reveals the MH17 ‘Smoking Gun’

September 19th, 2018 by Pepe Escobar

The Russian Defense Ministry may have finally unveiled the “smoking gun” able to solve the mystery surrounding Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, shot down on July 17, 2014 over the Donetsk Oblast, a province in eastern Ukraine.

The MH17 crash killed 283 passengers from 10 different countries and 15 crew members. A Joint Investigation Team (JIT) from Malaysia, the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium and Ukraine – but not Russia – seemed to reach a controversial verdict: Moscow did it.

Well, not really, according to a detailed presentation by Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov and Lt. Gen. Nikolai Parshin, head of the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate.

“Once we had the nozzle and engine numbers, we were able to find out the missile’s number.”

So now we know, via declassified files, that the engine of the missile 9D131 allegedly had the serial number 8869032. And a “passport” for the nozzle cluster 9D13105000 carried the number 8-30-113. The actual missile number was 886847349, they said.

The Defense Ministry established that numbers for the components of the 9M38 missile and the number of units noted in the technical documentation stored at the Dolgoprudny Research and Production Enterprise, outside Moscow, are the same.

So, they were able to establish that the missile was made in Dolgoprudny in 1986 and that it was delivered by rail on December 29, 1986 to military unit 20152 deployed to Ukraine – and never returned to Russia.

According to Parshin, this Ukrainian military unit is now called the 223rd anti-aircraft defense regiment of the Ukrainian armed forces, was renamed by a decree from the Ukraine presidential office.

“Currently, this unit is located in the city of Stryi in the Lviv region, [and] they still have the Buk systems. It is noteworthy that units of the 223 regiment have, since 2014, repeatedly been involved in the so-called anti-terror operation in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.”

All documents for the Buk missile system are still stored in Dolgoprudny, and the JIT will be able to examine them. Moscow has already sent the new information to the Netherlands.

Meanwhile, Russian Investigative Committee spokeswoman Svetlana Petrenko also challenged video footage used by Bellingcat, a UK-based citizen journalist group, allegedly proving that a self-propelled firing system of the Russian 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade was involved in the downing of MH17.

A political football of immense proportions

There’s more – and it does not look good for Kiev. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Konashenkov said:

“We have an audio recording of telephone conversations of Ukrainian servicemen made in 2016. An analysis of its content confirms earlier made conclusions about the direct involvement of the Ukrainian side in the crash of the Malaysian Boeing.”

The voice on the intercepted audio allegedly comes from Ukrainian Armed Forces Col. Ruslan Grinchak, in Odessa, during an exercise called Rubezh-2016. Grinchak was part of a brigade responsible for radar control. His unit actually tracked the MH17 flight in 2014.

Discussing the risk of flying through restricted airspace, Grinchak says that unless restrictions are followed “We’ll f***ing f**k up another Malaysian Boeing. What he said was actually published by Ukrainian media outlets.

Konashenkov stressed that Kiev provided no radar data whatsoever to Dutch investigators. He also said that all documents from the Ukrainian unit which received the Buk missile back in 1986 should be more than relevant for the investigation. Or Kiev could simply say they have been destroyed.

Image result for joint investigation team

The ball is now in the JIT court. Moscow has always insisted, in detail, that the investigation has been biased from the start. It never obtained any key evidence from Kiev, relied on sources such as Bellingcat, and totally ignored evidence provided by Russia.

This is a political football of immense proportions – at the heart of the Maidan coup and subsequent, relentless demonization of Russia. But in terms of the human tragedy, the thing that really matters is to establish incontrovertible MH17 facts.

In a statement, the Joint Investigation Team seems to admit as much:

“The JIT has taken note of the information that has been publicly presented by the authorities of the Russian Federation for the first time today … The JIT will meticulously study the materials presented today as soon as the Russian Federation makes the relevant documents available to the JIT as requested in May 2018 and required by UNSC resolution 2166.”

So, will Kiev agree to investigate itself?

New information ‘to be assessed’

Meanwhile, the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team said on Monday it had requested information on serial numbers on missile components in May 2018, AFP reported.

“The JIT will carefully study the information brought out by the Russian Federation” once the documents are made available, it said in a statement. It added that some information previously provided publicly by Russia such as the alleged presence of a Ukrainian jet near the airliner on radar images “was actually incorrect”.

Also on Monday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed a decree not to extend an official friendship agreement with Russia.

*

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

Social Media and The Process of Deplatforming. Germaine Greer

September 19th, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The flexibility of English, and thriving sign that it is not a dead language, permits repeated atrocities to be committed in the name of new terms.  We are told that what is new is supposedly good, a sign of evolution. More accurately, such terms simply describe an old phenomenon, giving the false impression that the novel has appeared before the old. 

The term “deplatforming” is de rigueur at the moment, a creature of the social media age and lecture circuit.  Invitations to writers’ festivals can be withdrawn at a moment’s notice because the invitee has either not observed the current fashion, or has done something distinctly against it.  Users of social media have their carpet, or platform, as it were, taken from under them.  

The star recipient of that treatment was Alex Jones, who has found himself, and his Infowars, expelled beyond the city gates of social media babble. Social media giants, pressured by the very individuals who believe that free speech is vital oxygen to the body politic, have taken it upon themselves to police expression.

“It’s implausible to imagine a future,” observed a bleak David Harsanyi, “in which liberal activists don’t demand that Republican groups be de-platformed.”

A creature of argumentation and debate very different to Jones is Germaine Greer, a permanent voice of insurrection whose The Female Eunuch still retains, even after a half-century, the sense of being both iconoclastic and holy.  When your book becomes a household weapon of feminist liberation, an item to be found on reading lists to perturb, you know you have made it.  While she has never quite emulated the initial triumph of that deliciously confronting text, she has always managed to take stage and floor, to back into the limelight.  Her enemies are many, and there are as many amongst the fractious sisterhood as they are outside it. Having never been a full card carrying ideologue, Greer has never, thankfully, belonged. 

On the ABC’s Q&A program, Greer was again found showing how her opinions and essays can still strike appropriate chords, ruffle the occasional, fixed feather and disrupt the nonchalant with a discomforting start.  On this occasion, it was rape, that tool of power, appropriation and control that has preoccupied analysts of sexuality since cognition was discovered.   Greer’s reaction was hardly surprising, a no-nonsense slap down on how victimhood should be treated. 

“Trauma is something that is dictated really by the sufferer.  You know, I can’t bear huntsman spiders.  It is not their fault. It’s my fault… I decided to be frightened of them.” 

The program merely saw a reiteration of Greer’s views outlined in her latest essay On Rape, which does not disparage victims but provides a trenchant critique of the justice system that reduces such victims to the minutiae of “evidence”. 

“Rape,” she contends, “is a jagged outcrop in the vast monotonous landscape of bad sex; we can only understand its prevalence and our inability to deal with it if we position it correctly within the psychopathology of daily life.”   

It is “banal rape” that poses the greatest problem, wrapped, as it were, in the dilemmas of the incommunicable, the gulf between sexual participants.  To that end, and here, Greer supplies the kindling for her critics, a different sentencing regime is required, one that focuses on convicting “on the assault charges while leaving the rape issue moot”. 

It is such views that have seen Greer disinvited to the Brisbane Writers’ festival, a move which has been couched in the lingo of organisational guff.  Melbourne University Press publisher Louise Adler was far from impressed by the decision of the organisers, claiming that it “seems counter to the ethos of freedom of speech”.   

The response from the festival was resoundingly cowardly:

“Brisbane writers’ festival does not shy away from controversy or challenging ideas, but as all festival organisers know, it’s invariably difficult to choose between the many authors currently promoting books and the need to provide engaging choices for our audience along a curatorial theme.”

There will always be fashions and tyrannies of thought, attempts to close off argumentation if not ignore it altogether.  Liz Duck-Chong reflects this tendency, and finds it necessary to preface any views with the identity descriptor “trans” (because identities are mysterious, self-justifying ideas rather than markers). Having accepted with a heavy reluctance that there is a “market place of ideas”, she proceeds to dictate, akin to a book banning commissar, what constitutes that market.  “Greer and her ilk” are not “worth listening to” and have nothing to add to the “on going conversation”.  Talk about tolerance is “tired”, an old excuse best left by the wayside.  What such opinions do is remind us that the oldest of ideas, intolerance, remains ever threatening, the censor, a dangerous reality.  The market place is enjoyable, till you encounter ideas you do not like. 

It is important to note that Australia had, at one point, a censorship record of such astounding ferocity it rivalled that of Ireland.  Books of interest were not published for fear of stirring scurrilous thoughts or fostering wayward behaviour.  Banning as an instinct of paternal control came first.  To remove Greer, a well read, tutored figure strides ahead of many of her critics, is to deny audiences not merely an intellectual draught of consequence but a poking sense of fun.  Disliking her ideas is hardly an excuse to avoid entertaining them.   

As for Greer herself, some humour prevails.

“The Brisbane writers’ festival is very hard work.  So, to be uninvited to what is possibly the dreariest literary festival in the world, with zero hospitality and no fun at all, is a great relief.” 

*

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. Email: [email protected] 

“Corporations should not be involved in any aspect of the democratic process. They should not be involved in education at any level. They should not be involved in health care. They should not be involved in the administration of social services. They should not be involved in the administration of justice. WHY? Because they are incapable of understanding and conforming to higher human aspirations and needs. Better to leave these areas to government, and to non-profit organizations, both of which are administered by humans in the human interest…The corporation is sociopathic in its disregard for human goals and values; in fact its behavior fits the World Health Organization’s criteria for defining the psychopath.” – Wade Rowland, author of Greed, Inc. Why Corporations Rule the World. (Roland’s book was written 5 years before the 2010 US Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United ruling that gave greedy, super-wealthy, sociopathic corporations the same rights as normal citizens with regard to spending unlimited amounts of money on election campaigns.)

Image result for When Corporations Rule the World

I have a heavily-underlined book in my library that was written in 1995 by David C. Korten. It was titled “When Corporations Rule the World”. Around the time that the book was published, I was a small-town family practitioner still trying mightily to follow the Hippocratic Oath, which I took back in 1968. I was also still trying to honor my patient’s inalienable right to be fully informed about the risks and benefits of any drug I was considering prescribing before he or she consented to the prescription. It was time-consuming to follow those ethical principles.

Korten followed up with a sequel in 1999. He titled that book “The Post-Corporate World”. Here is an excerpt from page 7 of the sequel that nicely summarizes what he was warning his readers about:

“’When Corporations Rule the World’ told the new story as I had come to understand it: 

“Our relentless pursuit of economic growth is accelerating the break-down of the planet’s life support systems, intensifying resource competition, widening the gap between rich and poor, and undermining the values and relationships of family and community. The growing concentration of power in global corporations and financial institutions is stripping governments – democratic and otherwise – of their ability to set economic, social, and environmental priorities in the larger common interest. 

“Driven by a single-minded dedication to generating ever greater profits for the benefit of their investors, global corporations and financial institutions have turned their economic power into political power. They now dominate the decision processes of governments and are rewriting the rules of world commerce through international trade and investment agreements to allow themselves to expand their profits without regard to the social and environmental consequences borne by the larger society. Continuing with business as usual will almost certainly lead to economic, social, and environmental collapse.

“To a considerable extent the problem originates with the United States. Its representatives are the primary marketeers of the false promises of consumerism and the foremost advocates of the market deregulation, free trade, and privatization policies that are advancing the global consolidation of corporate power and the corresponding corruption of democratic institutions. 

“Resolving the crisis depends on civil societies, mobilizing to reclaim the power that corporations and global financial markets have usurped. Our best hope for the future lies with locally owned and managed economies that rely predominantly on local resources to meet the livelihood needs of their members in ways that maintain a balance with the earth. Such a shift in institutional structures and priorities may open the way to eliminating deprivation and extreme inequality from the human experience. Instituting true citizen democracy and releasing presently unrealized potential for individual and collective growth and creativity.”

In 2005, Wade Rowland wrote a book titled “Greed, Inc. why Corporations Rule our World.” Other similarly-themed books on my library shelves that warned about the evils of global capitalism include Antony Sutton’s “Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler” (1976) and William Greider’s “Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democracy” (1992).

I am saddened to admit that I was so late in understanding that what these authors were warning their readers about in their books, and that is this: the evils of global capitalism also applies also to the medical, psychiatric, pediatric, family practice, pharmaceutical, vaccine, medical device industries, etc, each of which once was physician-controlled and therefore altruistically adhered to the “first do no harm” oath – the Hippocratic Oath pledge that all physicians take when they graduate from medical school. Times have changed – and not for the betterment of either our profession or our patients.

Three decades into my practice of medicine (about the time that Korten wrote his book), I painfully experienced the hostile takeover of my small, independently-owned and operated rural family practice clinic in Pine River, Minnesota. The takeover was orchestrated by a new corporate entity called Essentia Health, a branch of which was located in Brainerd, MN, a larger community 30 miles south of my clinic where the area hospital was located. Essentia was later to become a medical corporate power-house based in Duluth, with scores of profit-making locations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and even Idaho.

At the time of the takeover, I was still trying hard to honor the Hippocratic Oath and the Principle of Informed Consent, but my business manager was always complaining about how I spent “too much time” with my patients. (And my family was understandably complaining about how I spent too much time after hours at the clinic finishing up my charting.) My patients didn’t complain however, and that was what counted to me. I chose to leave that practice before Essentia took control over the clinic. I don’t think that I would have tolerated working for Essentia for very long. 

Essentia is probably no different in its corporate structure than any other giant, for-profit medical corporation. Essentia’s website says:

“Essentia Health is an integrated health system serving patients in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Idaho.

“Headquartered in Duluth, Minnesota, Essentia Health combines the strengths and talents of 14,700 employees, including more than 1,900 physicians and advanced practitioners, who serve our patients and communities through the mission of being called to make a healthy difference in people’s lives.

“Essentia Health, which includes many Catholic facilities, is guided by the values of Quality, Hospitality, Respect, Joy, Justice, Stewardship, and Teamwork. The organization lives out its mission by having a patient-centered focus at 15 hospitals, 74 clinics, six long-term care facilities, three assisted living facilities, three independent living facilities, five ambulance services and one research institute.”

It hadn’t been many years after my graduation from the University of Minnesota Medical School that I became uncomfortable with the politics of the American Medical Association and even my Minnesota Academy of Family Practice, which – despite their flowery proclamations of being highly ethical organizations where the patient came first – I later came to understand were mainly lobbying groups for whatever legislation or new technology was considered profitable for the industry.

But it took me awhile before I became aware of how much Big Pharma corporations were in control of the medical profession. I guess my first clue was the prevalence of the salesmen and saleswomen (we called them “drug reps”) from every conceivable pharmaceutical or medical device company that was targeting me to prescribe their latest, patent-protected and therefore most expensive drug or product. 

The drug reps always managed to act very friendly – as do all successful salespersons – to all the clinic staff members. The reps were always well-dressed, attractive (especially the women) and always came bearing gifts of food and free drug samples of their products – as an incentive for me to hand out their samples to some of my patients who would then be expected to come back for a follow-up office visit and a potential prescription for life that the patient would hopefully (for the drug company) be perpetually refilling. I later tumbled to the fact that the drug rep would be getting a cut of the profits for as long as the patient continued to take the drug, which explained the enthusiasm of the reps. The best drug reps made better money than most of the physician-targets that they were seducing to prescribe their corporation’s drugs. Of course, the CEO’s were making tens of millions of dollars off the same sales, and I was contributing to their schemes.

The drug rep would also often leave me with official-looking medical journal articles that supposedly provided “evidence” of the wonders of the new drug. Of course, I rarely had the time to actually read these reprint hand-outs with any thoroughness or skepticism. It was only much later that I discovered that many of these articles were ghost-written aby paid writers from Big Pharma and/or published in obscure journals that were often illegitimate or even non-existent. 

I could tell a hundred similar stories about cunning of the huge multinational medical/pharmaceutical/vaccine “Corporations that Rule the Healthcare World” that would explain why I have lost any pride that I once had in my once honorable profession and now am embarrassed by my profession’s gradual acquiescence to greedy global corporations that meet the definition of sociopathic entities. Being sociopathic, the spokespersons for Big Pharma and Big Vaccine can’t help being serial liars when they try to sell physicians on the so-called “benefits” of their unaffordable patented and over-prescribed products that are so heavily advertised on TV that patients come in demanding to have the newest relatively untested drug or vaccine or other product prescribed for them – as long as the don’t have to pay for it out of pocket.

The Big Pharma propaganda campaigns are much more potent today than in the days before my retirement a decade ago. At least back then there were no drugs (oral or injectable) that cost tens of thousands of dollars per year. Now there are dozens and dozens of drugs that can cost $60,000 to $120,000 per year! Even wealthy patients would refuse to pay out of pocket for such drugs, so insurance companies are being forced to raise premium rates dramatically. And the sociopaths in Big Pharma and Big Vaccine feel no guilt. It is just the way business is done.

What pains me the most is witnessing the huge influence that the massive propaganda campaigns have over both the prescribers of the risky drugs and vaccines and the patients of those prescribers, despite the huge amount of valid scientific information that is never advertised or even written about in the mainstream media, which is addicted to the huge sums of money from Big Pharma and Big Vaccine.

The immense amount of financial power that the soulless pharmaceutical and vaccine corporations have has been overwhelming, thanks to the huge advertising budgets and the reality of the thousands of non-scientist medical journalists who write about what the corporation feed to them. 

Giving short shrift to the informed consent principle is legal nowadays, for there is another principle called the “Community Standard of Care” which is a legal principle that has nothing to do with medical ethics. I don’t recall being taught about it when I went to med school. Below is one definition of “standard of care” that I found on the internet: 

In legal terms, (standard of care is) the level at which the average, prudent medical provider in a given community would practice. It is how similarly qualified practitioners would have managed the patient’s care under the same or similar circumstances. The medical malpractice plaintiff must establish the appropriate standard of care and demonstrate that the standard of care has been breached.”

In other words, the standard of care in one community could be considered malpractice in another community depending on what is considered normal or average. So an injured patient-victim of malpractice in one community couldn’t sue for malpractice if the “guilty” physician was practicing in a way that was considered normal or average in that community.

Corrupt capitalist principles – including the need for the individual physician to be highly “efficient” and “profitable” and “quick” has gradually taken over the once honorable practice of medicine. Fulfilling the Fully Informed Consent principle is too time-consuming to be fulfilled when there are dozens of potential adverse effects from every drug or vaccine that should be explained in detail to the patient. Those adverse effects include immediate reactions; delayed reactions (which are often not recognized [and even illogically and diabolically denied] by the physician); permanent disability; and even death. 

No physician that is employed by a large healthcare corporation is allowed the valuable time to explain to the patient about the many potential adverse events, so physicians and nurses have been told by their corporate rulers to just mention a handful of the problems. Giving short shrift to fully informing patients of side effects and then obtaining informed consent (signed or unsigned) from the patient has now evolved into what is a new standard of care in most communities. 

Essentially all Big Healthcare, Big Pharmaceutical and Big Vaccine Corporations are now managed by non-physicians who have Masters of Business Administration (MBA) degrees.

***

Following are a number of quotes that refer to the ethical problems and even the criminal activities of medical-related corporations that have taken control over what once were ethical endeavors. 

Let the prescriber and the patients of the prescribers beware.

***

“The corporation is a true Frankenstein’s monster – an artificial person run amok, responsible only to its own soulless self…representing capitalism at its very purest, completely unconcerned with anything save profit and power.” – William Dugger, author of Corporate Hegemony. 

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical (and vaccine) industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”  – Arnold Seymour Relman, MD (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine

“The case against (corporate) science is straightforward: much of the scientific (and medical) literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” – Richard Horton, MD, Editor-in-chief of the highly esteemed British medical journal the Lancet

“Industry-controlled ‘science’ is not really science but a smokescreen to pave the way for products that may be harmful – but what do they care as long as they profit? There are many great scientists but there are also some who are willing to be hired to ‘prove’ that something doesn’t cause cancer, or that something is ‘safe’. You cannot trust the EPA, the FDA, or industry science.” – Blogger

 “The only time the “cure” word is used anymore is by corporate research organizations (and patient advocacy groups) when they solicit funds from the public during their annual charity drives or their ‘walks for the cure’. Clearly all of the financial incentives are to mount a never-ending, unsuccessful search for the cure without ever actually finding it.” – quote from www.healingmatters.com

“The transcripts of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufacturers on the strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence,” and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text (i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website.” – Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).” — Dr Marcia Angell, former Editor in Chief of the NEJM

“So-called ‘vaccinologists’ are so blinded by their obsession with forcing vaccines on society that they never even considered that there might be factors involved that could greatly affect human health…’vaccinologists’ like to think in concrete terms-that is, they are very narrow in their thinking and wear blinders that prevent them from seeing the numerous problems occurring with large numbers of vaccinations in infants and children. Their goal in life is to vaccinate as many people as possible with an ever-growing number of vaccines.” — Russell Blaylock, MD

“For two years, I have worked with a team of doctors and respected scientific researchers to assemble every published study on Thimerosal, the mercury-based vaccine preservative still present in dangerous concentrations in US flu vaccines and pediatric vaccines worldwide. We have assembled and digested close to five hundred peer reviewed published pharmacological, toxicological, clinical, animal and human epidemiological studies in leading publications. These studies overwhelmingly implicate Thimerosal in a host of neurological injuries including ADD, ADHD, Speech delay, Language Delay, Tics, Misery Disorder and Autism.” – Robert F. Kennedy, JR

“The FDA is there to serve the drug industry. It is NOT there to serve the public.” – Dr. David Graham, Senior Official in the FDA’s Office of Drug Safety (2005)

“You are not going to solve the contagious disease problem of immunocompromised children who are growing up in awful conditions by subjecting them to a barrage of vaccines…the first thing that must be done – before over-vaccinating them – is to provide hygienically controlled living conditions, fresh water, sanitation, good nutrition, etc.” – John D. Stone (parent of a vaccine-injured child)

“Of course the biggest problem with Andy Wakefield was that he actually listened carefully to the parents of his vaccine-injured patients, believed them, took thorough medical histories, did appropriate tests and made accurate diagnoses… where would the practice of medicine wind up if all physicians did that?” – John D. Stone

 “If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been “taken”. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” – Carl Sagan, author of “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

 “Mercury at one month of age is not the same as mercury at three months, at 12 months, prenatal mercury, later mercury. There is a whole range of plausible outcomes from mercury.” When asked about the risk of aluminum adjuvant toxicity, Verstraeten stated: “the results were almost identical to ethylmercury.” – Dr Tom Verstraeten, senior CDC epidemiologist

“It should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials. All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children (from other causes) than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though a vaccine may protect children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.” — Dr. Peter Aaby

“In the field of chemical toxicology it is universally recognized that combinations of toxins may bring exponential increases of toxicity; ie, a combination of two chemicals may bring a 10-fold increase in toxicity, three chemicals 100-fold increases. This same principle almost certainly applies to the immunosuppressive effects of viral vaccines when administered in combination, as with the MMR vaccine, among which the measles vaccine is (known to be) exceptionally immunosuppresive.” – Harold Buttram, MD 

“Prior to the mercury phase-out (pre-2000), babies received 3,925 micrograms (mcg) of aluminum in their first year-and-a-half of life. After pneumococcal and hepatitis A vaccines were added to the immunization schedule, babies began receiving 4,925 mcg of aluminum during the same age period—a 25% increase. In 2011, CDC recommended that pregnant women receive a pertussis vaccine (Tdap), which also contains aluminum. Studies show that aluminum crosses the placenta and accumulates in fetal tissue. Thus, millions of babies in utero, infants, and young children were injected with, and continue to receive, unnaturally high doses of neurotoxic substances—mercury and aluminum—long after unsuspecting parents were led to believe that vaccines were purified and made safe.” – Neil Z. Miller

“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell

*

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 Kohls is a retired physician who practiced holistic mental health care for the last decade of his career. In his practice he often dealt with the horrific psychological consequences of veterans (and civilians) who had suffered psychological, neurological and/or spiritual trauma during incidents of violence (including basic training and combat).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on When Pharmaceutical, Vaccine and Medical Device Corporations Rule the World’s Healthcare Industries: Too Late, It Already Happened
  • Tags: ,

US military veteran and congresswomen for Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard, has slammed US foreign policy in Syria.

Arming al-Qaeda

On the 13th of September, Gabbard told [23:06] comedian and satirist Jimmy Dore:

“Since 2011 both overtly and covertly, the United States has been providing arms, intelligence, and equipment to fighters who are allied with, fighting along side, working with, al Qaeda in this regime change war.

So these very same terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. We’ve been supporting for years, as this ground force to fight in this regime change war that we have been quietly waging now for seven years.”

 


These statements are strikingly up front, given the fact that these policies began under Democratic Party President Barack Obama.

On the 17th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Gabbard also criticised Trump’s opposition the Syrian government’s plans to retake Idlib, by way of tweet:

It would be simplistic to see every anti-government rebel group in Syria as being ideologically identical.

But the earliest evidence, including from western establishment sources that support intervention in Syria, is that the dominant ideology among the majority of the armed opposition groups has long been fairly reactionary.

Supporting sectarianism and reactionary Islam

An US defense intelligence agency (DIA) report dated August 2012 put it bluntly [pdf, 3]:

“A. Internally, events are taking a clear sectarian direction

B. The Salafist (sic), the Muslim Brotherhood, and [Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.

C. The West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey support the Opposition; While Russia, China and Iran support the Regime.”

Operation Timber Sycamore

The New York Times (NYT) reported, five years into the war, that the US had been arming and training Syrian rebels, in alliance with Gulf states like Saudi Arabia. Establishment economist and former member of the ‘Chicago Boys’ Jeffrey Sachs also noted this policy in an unusually candid discussion on MSNBC. Although the ‘paper of record’ implies that the US only started funneling weapons to rebels in 2013 (under a programme code-named Timber Sycamore) the evidence suggests otherwise.

Investigative journalist Gareth Porter revealed last year how the same 2012 DIA report shows that the US funneled large amounts of weapons, with incredibly destructive potential, into Syria via Libya as early as October 2011.

Porter describes how the CIA facilitated at least:

“2,750 tons of arms bound ultimately for Syria from October 2011 through August 2012.”

Each container shipped included:

“500 sniper rifles, 100 RPG (rocket propelled grenade launchers) along with 300 RPG rounds and 400 howitzers. Each arms shipment encompassed as many as ten shipping containers, it reported, each of which held about 48,000 pounds of cargo.”

Establishment way of thinking

Alexander Decina also penned a very informative article on this subject in 2017. Decina, who is a Research Associate with The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) argued that policymakers should stop searching for so called ‘moderate rebels’. The role of the CFR in shaping US policy is difficult to overstate.

Presidential candidate and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton once told the CFR:

“[I]t’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department.

We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

With friends like these

Decina  writes:

“U.S.-backed and ostensibly moderate groups have even turned their fire on U.S. personnel. In late August, weeks after Free Syrian Army units first fired on U.S. patrols north of Manbij, U.S. troops finally fired back. One of the groups allegedly involved in the latest incident, the Sultan Murad Division, had received U.S. TOW missiles as late as February 2016.

Beyond these problematic U.S.-armed groups, a number of others that Washington has refrained from arming yet declined to blacklist—thus leaving open the door for Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia to support them—are even more troublesome. These have included Ahrar al-Sham, Jaish al-Islam, and others that have fought al-Qaeda at times, most notably this past July, but have also cooperated closely and formed robust umbrella organizations with the transnational jihadist group. Despite insisting upon their moderate nature, these groups have certainly committed their own atrocities.”

and:

“Basing groups’ moderation on their waving the FSA flag, memorizing talking points about pluralism, and objecting to al-Qaeda has proven insufficient.”

Turkish backed FSA rebels celebrate in Afrin City centre after sacking it and driving out tens of thousands of residents (Source: author)

He suggests policy makers instead:

“ought to think of the opposition in three categories: viable partners, irreconcilables, and unknowns.”

Decina’s recommendations could well have been the outlook of policy makers since the very beginning of the conflict.

Arming Al Qaeda

In 2015 US special forces (SF) veteran – turned journalist- Jack Murphy exposed dissension among the ranks of US troops engaged in covert (and illegal) military operations inside Syria.

He writes:

“Nobody believes in it. You’re like, ‘Fuck this,’” a former Green Beret says of America’s covert and clandestine programs to train and arm Syrian militias. “Everyone on the ground knows they are jihadis. No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort, and they know they are just training the next generation of jihadis, so they are sabotaging it by saying, ‘Fuck it, who cares?’”

“The Syria covert action program is [CIA Director John] Brennan’s baby,” a former CIA officer told SOFREP. Weapons were provided to the FSA by the CIA … after receiving permission from the White House via a presidential finding.

He continues:

The FSA made for a viable partner force for the CIA on the surface, as they were anti-regime, ostensibly having the same goal as the seventh floor at Langley.

… As early as 2013, FSA commanders were defecting with their entire units to join al-Nusra. There, they still retain the FSA monicker, but it is merely for show, to give the appearance of secularism so they can maintain access to weaponry provided by the CIA and Saudi intelligence services. The reality is that the FSA is little more than a cover for the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra.

In January this year, FSA rebels allied with the invading Turkish army to ethnically cleanse Afrin of its Syrian Kurdish population, and remove the Kurdish-led democratic government established there. And today Idlib is dominated by an amalgamation of right-wing reactionary groups.

It is also worth noting that as early as January 2012 It was reported that British special forces and spies were working with FSA rebels in Libya, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.

Beware of the NATO powers arming rebels

The point is that Tulsi Gabbard’s critique of US foreign policy in Syria is not based on rumor or speculation but rather well-documented facts.

Whatever the crimes of the Syrian state, the British and American governments are not honest actors. Their actions in Syria have not only fueled the devastation in the country but completely violate international law.

All this needs to be remembered as voices from the US and UK continue to threatened further military involvement in the country and as Turkey steps up its military presence in defence of the rebels in Idlib province.

*

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

Mohamed Elmaazi obtained his LLB from SOAS and Masters in International and Comparative law from the American University in Cairo. He worked in human rights law for a number of years before shifting to journalism. He occasionally reports for The Real News Network and currently writes for Open Democracy and The Canary. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

An implementation of the demilitarized zone agreement in Idlib reached during face-to-face talks between Russian and Turkish presidents on September 17 has appeared to be not a simple task as it has been pointed out by many experts.

On September 18, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda), the Islamic Turkistan Party, Jaish al-Izza and Hourras Addin refused to respect the agreement and to withdraw its forces and military equipment from the contact line.

On the same day, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu stated that work to establish a new security system in the Idlib de-escalation zone had started. He recalled that all heavy weapons have to be withdrawn from the demilitarized zone by October 10 and radical groups have to withdraw their forces by October 15.

So, Turkey and the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance have to force the militants to obey the agreement if they seek to enforce the demilitarized zone in time. Pro-militant media outlets have already started spreading speculations that Damascus will not act up to its part of the agreement thus creating a media environment to justify actions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its allies.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) ambushed two groups of ISIS members in the Homs-Deir Ezzor desert. Two ISIS members were killed and seven arrested as well as some weapons and six motorcycles were seized by government troops in the area 30 km southwest of Palmyra. Separately, the SAA arrested seven ISIS members and seized 10 motorcycles, 146 pieces of hashish and 14 bags of Captagon containing 10 thousand pills in the area of Froua 70km southeast of Palmyra.

The situation is developing over the downed Russian IL-20 during a September 17 Israeli strike on Syria. Following the attack Defense Minister Shoigu stated that Israel is the side bearing a full responsibility for the incident and added that Moscow reserves “the right to respond”. President Putin described the incident as a string of tragic circumstances. “As for retaliatory measures, they will be first and foremost aimed at additionally ensuring the security of our military personnel and facilities in Syria,” Putin stated.

The Israeli Defense Forces and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed their “regret” at the loss of the Russian lives. Nonetheless, the Israeli side claimed Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are the side responsible for this situation.

There are currently two versions of the shot down: Russia says that Israeli F-16 warplanes used the IL-20 plane as cover to hide from Syrian air defense fire. Israel claims that the IL-20 was shot down by indiscriminate fire from the Syrian Air Defense Forces and there were not Israeli warplanes in the area when the incident took place.

The situation is developing. However, it’s clear that the September 17 incident will further complicate the de-escalation in the region.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Al Qaeda Militants Reject Demilitarization Zone Agreement in Idlib

Russia’s Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu officially stated that Israel bears full responsibility for the downning of Russian IL-20 plane off Syrian coast because its actions had led to this situation.

“The blame for the downing of the Russian plane and the deaths of its crew members lies squarely on the Israeli side,” Shoigu said during a convesation with Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman on the phone. “The actions of the Israeli military were not in keeping with the spirit of the Russian-Israeli partnership, so we reserve the right to respond.”

Earlier, the Russian Defense Ministry revealed that Israeli warplanes used the IL-20 to hide from Syrian air defense fire during the September 17 strike on targets in the war-torn country.

On September 4, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) stated that over the last 1.5 years Israel has carried out around 200 airstrikes on Syria using 800 munitions. The scale of the strikes shows Israel’s long-standing intention to remain a powerbroker in the ongoing Syrian conflict. It’s interesting to note that in most of the cases, the IDF strikes led to a further escalation of the war thus making situation more complicated.

The situation is developing.

*

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

Featured image is from TASS.

It appears that the Russians have pressed the pause button on their plans for an offensive alongside the Syrian government to retake Idlib. By the time they return to play mode the martial music may have changed.

New US policies for Syria

Without fanfare the US has just reformulated its position to create the conditions for it to launch devastating strikes on Syria no longer just on the pretext of alleged use of chemical weapons but on any ‘humanitarian’ pretext the US sees fit. In an interview with the Washington Post on 6 September, James Jeffrey, the hawkish new Special Envoy for Syria fresh from the neocon incubator of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, did not mince words:

“We’ve started using new language,” Jeffrey said, referring to previous warnings against the use of chemical weapons. Now, he said, the United States will not tolerate “an attack. Period.”

“Any offensive is to us objectionable as a reckless escalation” he said. “You add to that, if you use chemical weapons, or create refu¬gee flows or attack innocent civilians.”

Jeffrey’s remarks were little noticed because he was that day announcing something else more immediately striking: a ‘new’ policy on Syria involving cancellation of Trump’s announced departure of US troops before the end of 2018 and instatement of a plan to stay on indefinitely until achievement of the twin goals of removing all trace of the Iranian presence in Syria and installation of a Syrian government which would meet US conditions – conditions which President Asad would by Jeffrey’s own admission not be likely to meet.

The headlines naturally focussed on this latest Washington folly – do they think Iran will up sticks as long as there is a single US soldier on Syrian soil, or that there is Syrian Mandela waiting in the wings? – and the importance of the remarks about Idlib was missed. Yet those words may be about to bring the world to the brink of global war.

New doctrine for US intervention

What Jeffreys was saying was quite clear. That with or without alleged use of chemical weapons, a sudden exodus of frightened civilians from a part of Idlib, use of the fabled ‘barrel bombs’, or launch of a major offensive will be taken by the US as a trigger for drastic and probably sustained bombing aimed at bringing the government of Syria to its knees.

Until now successive US administrations have been careful to draw the red line for intervention in Syria at use of chemical weapons, presumably on the grounds that there is universal agreement and international law to the effect that use of prohibited weapons is taboo. WMD after all were the casus belli for Iraq, even if it turned out to be false. Now suddenly we have a new, broader and consequently more dangerous doctrine.

The State Department has not yet favoured the American public, Congress or anyone else with an explanation or justification for the change, but we can speculate. Can it be, for example, that US policy makers realise that when the next alleged use of chemical weapons occurs in Syria, as surely it will, it will be more difficult to sell intervention to the public than the first two times because the game has now been rumbled? Not only has the idea that the White Helmets might not be all they seem entered the bloodstream of media discourse, but the OPCW inspectors, able for once after Douma actually to visit a crime site, failed to find any proof of use of prohibited weapons. Add to that those pesky Russians unhelpfully telling the world exactly how and where the White Helmets were going to stage their next Oscar-winning performances. So why bother with all that rigmarole over chemical weapons when Western opinion is already sufficiently primed to accept any intervention whatever as long as it is somehow ‘humanitarian’ and doing down the evil Russians?

Responsibility to Protect

Step up ‘Responsibility to Protect’, the innocuous-sounding UN-approved doctrine beloved of interventionists of both Left and Right. Never mind that most legal scholars utterly reject the notion that this doctrine legalises armed aggression other than with Security Council approval or in self-defence. Was it not effectively invoked in the British government’s legal position statement provided at the time of the post-Douma strikes? (The US administration, knowing their audience, never bothered to provide any legal justification whatever.)

Slight snag: although the British government have preemptively sought with their legal statement to give themselves cover to commit acts of war on a whim, and without recourse to Parliament, as long as it can be dressed up as humanitarian, nevertheless there might be considerable disquiet in Parliament and possibly even among service chiefs were the government to appear to be about to launch strikes alongside the US had there not been even the appearance of a chemical weapons incident. For this reason it is likely that the British government will attempt to persuade the US not to give up just yet on chlorine.

Is it this new amplified threat – of strikes whether or not Asad obliges or appears to oblige with suicidal use of chlorine – which has given the Russians reasons to call off the dogs, pro tem at least? Probably not, because the Russians were taking it as read that fake chemical attacks were coming anyway. They will take note however that the US has just effectively lowered the bar on its own next heavy intervention in Syria and will not be deterred by any blowing of the gaff.

For those who naively but sincerely believed that if Asad laid off the chlorine he would not get bombed the world has suddenly become a lot more dangerous. For realists however the new doctrine merely removes a hypocrisy, or rather introduces an inflexion into the hypocrisy, whereby the itch felt by those salivating at the prospect of striking Syria, Russia and Iran can be masked as a humanitarian concern which goes beyond abhorrence of chemical weapons.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Idlib: Lull Before the Hurricane. New US Military Doctrine for Intervention in Syria

Yemen’s Descent into Hell

September 19th, 2018 by Prof. Rajan Menon

It’s the war from hell, the savage one that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, along with seven other Middle Eastern and North African states, have been waging in Yemen since March 2015, with fulsome support from the Pentagon and American weapons galore. It’s got everything. Dead children in the dozens, a never-ending air campaign that pays scant heed to civilians, famine, cholera, you name it. No wonder it’s facing mounting criticism in Congress and from human rights groups. Still, ever since President Donald Trump (like Barack Obama before him) embraced the Saudi-led coalition as this country’s righteous knight errant in the Middle East, the fight against impoverished Yemen’s Houthi rebels — who have, in turn, been typecast as Iran’s cats-paw — has only grown fiercer. Meanwhile, the al-Qaeda affiliate there continues to expand.

For years now, a relentless Saudi air campaign (quite literally fueled by the U.S. military) has hit endless civilian targets, using American smart bombs and missiles, without a peep of protest or complaint from Washington. Only a highly publicized, completely over-the-top slaughter recently forced the Pentagon to finally do a little mild finger wagging. On August 7th, an airstrike hit a school bus — with a laser-guided bomb made by Lockheed Martin — in northern Yemen, killing 51 people, 40 of them schoolchildren. Seventy-nine others were wounded, including 56 children. Soon after, a U.N. Security Council-appointed group of experts issued a report detailing numerous other egregious attacks on Yemeni civilians, including people attending weddings and funerals. Perhaps the worst among them killed 137 people and wounded 695 others at a funeral in Sana’a, Yemen’s capital, this April.

The attack on those schoolchildren and the U.N. report amplified a growing global outcry against the carnage in Yemen. In response, on August 28th, Secretary of Defense James Mattis let it be known that the Trump administration’s support for the Persian Gulf potentates’ military campaign should not be considered unreserved, that the Saudis and their allies must do “everything humanly possible to avoid any innocent loss of life.” Considering that they haven’t come close to meeting such a standard since the war started nearly five years ago and that the Trump administration clearly has no intention of reducing its support for the Saudis or their war, Mattis’s new yardstick amounted to a cruel joke — at the expense of Yemeni civilians.

The Statistics of Suffering

Some appalling numbers document the anguish Yemenis have endured. Saudi and Emirati warplanes officially have killed — and it’s considered a conservative estimate — 6,475 civilians and wounded more than 10,000 others since 2015. Targets struck have included farms, homes, marketplaces, hospitals, schools, and mosques, as well as ancient historic sites in Sana’a. And such incidents haven’t been one-off attacks. They have happened repeatedly.

By April 2018, the Saudi-led coalition had conducted 17,243 airstrikes across Yemen, hitting 386 farms, 212 schools, 183 markets, and 44 mosques. Such statistics make laughable the repeated claims of the Saudis and their allies that such “incidents” should be chalked up to understandable errors and that they take every reasonable precaution to protect innocents. Statistics compiled by the independent Yemen Data Project make it clear that the Gulf monarchs don’t lie awake at night lamenting the deaths of Yemeni civilians.

Infographic: Saudi Arabia's Devastating Aerial Bombardment In Yemen | Statista

Saudi Arabia and its partners have accused the Houthis, the rebels with whom they have been in such a deadly struggle, of also attacking Yemeni civilians, a charge Human Rights Watch has validated. Yet such a they-do-it-too defense hardly excuses the relentless bombing of non-military sites by a coalition that has overwhelming superiority in firepower. Houthi crimes pale by comparison.

And when it comes to the destruction of civilian lives and livelihoods, believe it or not, that may be the least of it. Take the naval blockade of the country by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that cut the number of ships docking in the Houthi-controlled port of Hodeida from 129 between January and August 2014 to 21 in the same months of 2017. The result: far less food and medicine entered the country, creating a disaster for Yemenis.

That country, the Arab world’s poorest, has long relied on imports for a staggering 85% of its food, fuel, and medicine, so when prices soared, famine spread, while hunger and malnutrition skyrocketed. Nearly 18 million Yemenis now rely on emergency food aid to survive: that’s an unbelievable 80% of the population. According to the World Bank, “8.4 million more are on the brink of famine.” In December 2017, following a barrage of bad publicity, the Saudi-Emirati blockade was eased marginally, but it had already set in motion a spiral of death.

The blockade also contributed to a cholera epidemic, which the shortage of medicines only exacerbated. According to a World Health Organization report, between April 2017 and July 2018, there were more than 1.1 million cholera cases there. At least 2,310 people died from the disease, most of them children. It is believed to be the worst cholera outbreak since statistics began to be compiled in 1949. At 800,000 cases between 2010 and 2017, Haiti held the previous record, one that the Yemenis surpassed within half a year of the first cases appearing. The prime contributors to the epidemic: drinking water contaminated by rotting garbage (uncollected because of the war), devastated sewage systems, and water filtration plants that stopped running due to lack of fuel — all the result of the horrendous bombing campaign.

Wartime economic blockades starve and sicken civilians and soldiers alike and so amount to a war crime. The Saudi-Emirati claim that the blockade’s sole purpose is to stanch the flow of Iranian arms to the Houthis is nonsense, nor can it be considered a legitimate act of self-defense, even though it was instituted after the Houthis fired ballistic missiles at the airport in the Saudi capital and the residence of that country’s monarch. (Both were shot down by Saudi air defenses and were clear responses to coalition airstrikes on Houthi-held territory that killed 136 civilians.) By the standards of international humanitarian law or simply common sense, choking off Yemen’s imports was a disproportionate response, and clairvoyance wasn’t required to foresee the calamitous consequences to follow.

True to form, President Trump’s U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley, echoed Saudi charges that the Houthi missiles were Iranian-supplied Qiam-1s and condemned that country’s interference in Yemen. Given the scale of destruction by a foreign coalition using armaments and technical assistance provided by the United States (and Britain), her comments, in less grim circumstances, would have been laughable.

Those American-supplied weapons have included cluster munitions, which pose a particular hazard to civilians because, when dropped from a plane, their devastating bomblets often disperse over enormous areas. (Such bombs are banned under a 2008 treaty signed by 120 countries that neither Riyadh nor Washington has joined.) In May 2016, the Obama White House confirmed that it had stopped sending such weapons to Saudi Arabia, which then continued to use Brazilian-madevariants. However, other American arms have continued to flow to Saudi Arabia, while its warplanes rely on U.S. Air Force tankers for mid-air refueling (88 million pounds of fuel as of this January according to a Central Command spokeswoman), while the Saudi military has received regular intelligence information and targeting advice from the Pentagon since the war began. And with the advent of Donald Trump, such military involvement has only deepened: U.S. Special Operations forces are now on the Saudi-Yemen border, helping to find and attack Houthi redoubts.

In June 2018, ignoring U.S. opposition, the Saudi coalition heightened the risk to Yemeni civilians yet more by launching an offensive (“Golden Victory”) to capture the port of Hodeida. (So much for the Pentagon’s standard claim that supporting the war gives the U.S. influence over how it is waged and so limits civilian casualties.) Saudi and Emirati airpower and warships supported Emirati and Sudanese troops on the ground joined by allied Yemeni militias. The advance, however, quickly stalled in the face of Houthi resistance, though only after at least 50,000 families had fled Hodeida and basic services for the remaining 350,000 were disrupted, creating fears of a new outbreak of cholera.

The Roots of War

Yemen’s progression to its present state of perdition began as the Arab Spring’s gales swept through the Middle East in 2011, uprooting or shaking regimes from Tunisia to Syria. Street demonstrations grew against Yemen’s strongman, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and only gathered strength as he attempted to quell them. In response, he allied ever more strongly with Saudi Arabia and the United States, alienating the Houthis, whose main bastion, the governate of Saada, abuts the Saudi border. Adherents of Zaydi Islam, the Houthis played a pivotal role in creating a political movement, Ansar Allah, in 1992 to assert the interests of their community against the country’s Sunni majority. In an effort to undercut them, the Saudis have long promoted radical Sunni religious leaders in Yemen’s north, while intermittently raiding Houthi territories.

As a Houthi rebellion began, Saleh tried to make himself an even more indispensable ally of Washington in its post-9/11 anti-terrorist campaigns, notably against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a growing local franchise of al-Qaeda. For good measure, he joined the Saudis in painting the Houthis little more than tools of an Iran that Washington and Riyadh both loathed. When those powers nonetheless came to see the Yemeni autocrat as a political liability, they helped oust him and transfer power to his deputy, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi. Such moves failed to calm the waters, as the country started to disintegrate and Saudi-U.S. efforts to consolidate the transition from Saleh to Hadi unraveled.

Meanwhile, regular American drone strikes against AQAP angered many Yemenis. In their eyes, not only did the attacks violate Yemen’s sovereignty, they intermittently killed civilians. Hadi’s praise for the drone campaign only discredited him further. AQAP’s power continued to grow, resentment in southern Yemen rose, and criminal gangs and warlords began to operate with impunity in its cities, highlighting the Hadi government’s ineffectuality. Neoliberal economic reforms only further enriched a clutch of families that had long controlled much of Yemen’s wealth, while the economic plight of most Yemenis worsened radically. The unemployment rate was nearly 14% in 2017 (and exceeded 25% for young people), while the poverty rate rose precipitously, as did inflation.

It was a formula for disaster and when Hadi proposed a plan to create a federal system for Yemen, the Houthis were infuriated. New boundaries would, among other things, have cut their homeland off from the Red Sea coast. So they gave up on his government and girded for battle. Soon, their forces were advancing southward. In September 2014, they captured the capital, Sana’a, and proclaimed a new national government. The following March, they occupied Aden in southern Yemen and Hadi, whose government had moved there, promptly fled across the border to Riyadh. The first Saudi airstrikes against Sana’a were launched in March 2015 and Yemen’s descent to hell began.

The American Role

The commonplace rendition of the war in Yemen pits a U.S.-backed Saudi coalition against the Houthis, cast as agents of Iran and evidence of its increasing influence in the Middle East. Combatting terrorism and countering Iran became the basis for Washington’s support of the Saudi-led war. Predictably, as this cartoonish portrayal of a complicated civil war gained ground in the mainstream American media and among Beltway pundits (as well, of course, as in the Pentagon and White House), inconvenient facts were shunted aside.

Still, all these years and all those dead later, it’s worth considering some of those facts. There are, for instance, significant differences between the Houthis’ Zaydi variant of Shia Islam and the Twelver Shiism dominant in Iran — and some similarities between Zaydis and Sunnis — which makes the ubiquitous claims about a Iran-Houthi faith-based pact shaky. Moreover, Iran did not jump into the fray during the violent 2004-2010 clashes between Saleh and the Houthis and did not have longstanding ties to them either. In addition, contrary to the prevailing view in Washington, Iran is unlikely to be their main source of weaponry and support. Sheer distance and the Saudi coalition’s naval blockade have made it next to impossible for Iran to supply arms to the Houthis in the volume alleged. Besides, having pillaged various military bases during their march toward Aden, the Houthis do not lack for weaponry. Iran’s influence in Yemen has undoubtedly increased since 2015, but reducing the intricacies of that country’s internal crisis to Iranian meddling and a Tehran-led Shiite bloc expanding from Syria to the Arabian Peninsula amounts to, at best, a massive oversimplification.

The obsession of Trump and his key advisers with Iran (a remarkable number of them are Iranophobes) and The Donald’s obsession with plugging American arms makers and hawking their wares helps explain their embrace of the House of Saud and continuing support for its never-ending assault on Yemen. (Jared Kushner’s bromance with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman undoubtedly played a part as well.) None of that, however, explains the full-scale American backing for the Saudi-led intervention there in the Obama years. Even as his administration denounced Bashar al-Assad’s slaughter of Syrian civilians, his officials seemed unmoved by the suffering war was inflicting on Yemenis. In fact, the Obama administration offered $115 billion worth of weaponry to Riyadh, including a $1.15 billion package finalized in August 2016, when the scale of Yemen’s catastrophe was already all too obvious.

In recent years, opposition to the war in Congress has been on the rise, with Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna playing prominent roles in mobilizing it. But such congressional critics had no effect on Obama’s war policy and are unlikely to sway Trump’s. They face formidable barriers. The mainstream narrative on the war remains powerful, while the Gulf monarchies continue to buy vast quantities of American weaponry. And don’t forget the impressive, money-is-no-object Saudi-Emirati lobbying operation in Washington.

That, then, is the context for the Pentagon’s gentle warning about the limits of U.S. support for the bombing campaign in Yemen and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s subsequent certification, as required by Congress, that the Saudis and Emiratis were taking perfectly credible action to lower civilian casualties — without which the U.S. military could not continue refueling their planes. (Mattis “endorsed and fully supported” Pompeo’s statement.)  As the fifth anniversary of this appalling war approaches, American-made arms and logistical aid remain essential to it.  Consider President Trump’s much-ballyhooed arms sales to the Saudis, even if they don’t total $100 billion (as he claimed): Why then would the Saudi and Emirati monarchs worry that the White House might actually do something like cutting off those lucrative sales or terminating the back-end support for their bombing campaign?

One thing is obvious: U.S. policy in Yemen won’t achieve its declared goals of defeating terrorism and rolling back Iran. After all, its drone strikes began there in 2002 under George W. Bush. Under Obama, as in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, drones became Washington’s anti-terrorist weapon of choice. There were 154 drone strikes in Yemen during the Obama years according to the most reliable high-end estimates, and civilian casualties ranged between 83 and 101. Under Trump they soared quickly, from 21 in 2016 to 131 in 2017.

The reliance on drone attacks has bolstered al-Qaeda’s narrative that the American war on terror amounts to a war on Muslims, whose lives are deemed expendable. And so many years later, in the chaos of Yemen, the group’s power and reach is only growing. The U.S.-backed, Saudi-led intervention is also likely to prove not just self-defeating but self-prophetic. It seems to be cementing an alliance between Iran and the Houthis who, though they have been pushed out of Aden, still control a big chunk of Yemen. Meanwhile, in a move that could make the war even deadlier, the Emiratis appear to be striking out on their own, supporting secession in southern Yemen. There’s not much to show on the anti-terrorism front either. Indeed, the Saudi coalition’s airstrikes and U.S. drone attacks may be moving Yemenis, enraged by the destruction of their homes and livelihoods and the deaths of loved ones, toward AQAP. In short, a war on terror has turned into a war of and for terror.

In Yemen, the United States backs a grim military intervention for which — unless you are a weapons company — it is hard to find any justification, practical or moral. Unfortunately, it is even harder to imagine President Trump or the Pentagon reaching such a conclusion and changing course.

*

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

Rajan Menon, a TomDispatch regular, is the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of International Relations at the Powell School, City College of New York, and Senior Research Fellow at Columbia University’s Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. He is the author, most recently, of The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Yemen’s Descent into Hell

GMO Lobby Plots to Corrupt EU Court Ruling on Gene Editing

September 19th, 2018 by F. William Engdahl

The GMO lobby, led by Bayer/Monsanto, Syngenta and others have begun to develop a counter-attack to try to neutralize the unexpected and, for them, devastating EU Court of Justice ruling in July requiring that plants modified through so-called gene-editing DNA techniques must submit to the same licensing risk-assessment procedures as all other GMO plants. The ruling caught the GMO industry off-guard. Now they prepare a counter-attack as we might expect from the developers of Agent Orange, neonicotinoids or similar toxins.

On July 25, in a rare ruling in opposition to the recommendation of the European Union Advocate General, judges of the European Court of Justice held that products from new gene editing (GE) techniques are to be considered genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and as such are covered by existing EU GMO regulation. Contrary to the United States where the US Government, since the time of President G.H.W. Bush, has refused to regulate GMO plants arguing the phony claim they are “substantially equivalent” to conventional corn, soybeans or other plants, the EU has strict requirements before licensing and to date only one GMO crop, a patented corn variety is grown legally, that only in Spain.

The EU court ruling dealt a stunning blow to the GMO “biotech” industry which had been arguing their gene editing technologies were not GMO and needed no special regulatory oversight. They planned to sneak new and highly dangerous forms of genetic modification of plants in through the back door. DowDuPont had filed around 50 international patent applications for gene editing and plants, followed by Bayer-Monsanto with around 30 applications. Now under the ruling all gene edited products in the EU must first be fully tested and its products labelled.

The European Court ruling drew a sharp attack from US Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue. Purdue issued an official statement declaring,

“Government policies should encourage scientific innovation without creating unnecessary barriers or unjustifiably stigmatizing new technologies. Unfortunately, this week’s ECJ ruling is a setback in this regard in that it narrowly considers newer genome editing methods to be within the scope of the European Union’s regressive and outdated regulations governing genetically modified organisms.”

In the UK a group of 33 industry and research centers as well as pro-GMO farmers have delivered a letter to the British Government Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. The letter protests the July EU Court ruling requiring gene-edited plant varieties to undergo the same risk testing and licensing as other GMO plants. They declare,

“We feel there are significant questions that must be addressed urgently by government if the UK is to retain its strength in plant genetics, to use innovation to boost productivity and competitiveness, and to meet the challenges of nutritional health and environmental protection.”

Behind the progressive-sounding words lie the interests of the major GMO industry firms. Among the 33 signers are Bayer/Monsanto—today the world’s largest holder of GMO patents and related agri-chemicals; Syngenta of Basle, now owned by a Chinese state chemicals company; German GMO and agrichemicals giant BASF; and the UK Agricultural Biotechnology Council, a front for the GMO companies and founded by Monsanto, Bayer et al. The appeal to the UK government misleadingly argues that costs associated with conducting field trials under GMO regulations are extremely restrictive to research institutes and also to small biotech companies, conveniently omitting the leading role of Bayer and other GMO agribusiness giants. They also argue that they desire to “explore the potential to deliver innovative solutions to tackle world hunger…” To date no GMO plant nor gene-edited one has created a solution to world hunger. That’s not what it’s all about.

Change EU GMO Law?

While the European Court decision mandating gene-edited species be treated with the same regulatory regime as GMO varieties before they can be sold in the EU hits the burgeoning gene-editing industry, there are already indications that pro-gene-editing forces are consulting with their allies within the EU Commission about how to rewrite the EU GMO legislation to exempt gene-editing.

Lawyers with a Holland law firm hired by the pro-gene-editing group, New Breeding Techniques (NBT) Platform—NBT is a euphemism for gene editing–commenting on what industry options are, stated, “What could happen at a later stage is that (EU-w.e.) policy makers realize the severe consequences of the ruling or its subsequent developments and thus decide to facilitate the risk assessment for new techniques, enabling a modification of Directive 2001/18 in favor of the NBTs.” The industry lawyers conclude,

“After the ECJ ruling, it is now up to the industry to provide sound evidence that certain new techniques of muta-genesis are as safe or even safer than traditional ones.”

Safe?

This court ruling will prove increasingly challenging even for Bayer and such multinationals accustomed to get their way in Brussels. More reports are being published detailing serious dangers and risks of so-called safe gene-editing techniques and results. A study just released by Dr. Janet Cotter of Logos Environmental UK consultancy and Friends of the Earth US, notes alarming defects in the applications of gene-editing techniques including “large deletions and rearrangements of DNA near the target site that were not intended by researchers.” Another study found that cells genetically engineered with CRISPR, the most-prominent gene-editing technique at present, “have the potential to seed tumors” or may initiate tumorigenic mutations. Another study found that gene-editing with certain soybeans had “off-target effects, in which gene editing occurred at unintended locations with DNA sequences.”

Gene-editing, which is being widely hyped in recent months by such Monsanto friends as Bill Gates and global agribusiness, involves new techniques to alter the genetic material of plants, animals and even bacteria, using “molecular scissors” aimed at a specific part of the organism’s DNA and used to cut that DNA. Gene Drive gene editing, which is being heavily funded by the Pentagon’s DARPA, aims to force a genetic modification to spread through an entire population, whether of mosquitoes or potentially humans, in just a few generations. The scientist who first suggested developing gene drives in gene editing, Harvard biologist Kevin Esvelt, has publicly warned that development of gene editing in conjunction with gene drive technologies have alarming potential to go awry. He notes how often CRISPR messes up and the likelihood of protective mutations arising, making even benign gene drives aggressive. He stresses,

“Just a few engineered organisms could irrevocably alter an ecosystem.”

Some 170 civil society organizations from around the globe are urging a moratorium on a form of gene-editing known as gene-drives, warning they could “foster far-reaching, harmful impacts if any unintended effects were to occur.” The Cotter report further stresses, “if the chemistry of a gene-edited plant or animal were changed by the misreading of DNA, it could produce a compound that is toxic to the wildlife that feeds on it.” That is no minor issue. The point is that the gene-editing companies are doing their experiments in especially the USA, completely without government oversight or regulation.

If there is a sunray of sanity in the ruling of the EU Court on regulating gene-edited species, across the Atlantic the approach of the US Government is hardly safe, and totally ignores the Precautionary Principle applied in the EU. The Precautionary Principle states that,

“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”

The US Department of Agriculture recently ruled that gene-edited plants or even animals were the same as conventional plants or animals and needed no special safety tests, a mad decision to put it mildly. The new wave of GMO called gene-editing is anything but a step forward for mankind based on evidence to date. The technology, in use since 2012 is simply untested and far too experimental to be let loose on mankind. Why is there such a rush by the US authorities or folks like Bill Gates to spread this? Could it have something to do with eugenics?

*

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

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

See below: Engdahl’s outstanding analysis in his book on Genetic Manipulation published by Global Research. 

Featured image is from the author.


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

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

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

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

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

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

The re-negotiation of NAFTA ramped up again this week as Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland heads back to Washington for talks on Thursday. The business press is calling this latest round of talks crucial. 

Bloomberg News reported (Sept. 17),

“Without a deal this week, there’s likely little hope that text of a trilateral pact can be published by Sept. 30 … If text isn’t published by then, a deal probably can’t be signed before Andras Manuel Lopez Obrador takes office as Mexico’s president Dec. 1. Then the next step would be up [to] the U.S. – it could extend the clock a bit for further talks, or ramp up fights with Canada and Congress by trying to go ahead with Mexico only.” [1]

Significant issues remain to be settled between Canada and the U.S. Bloomberg News is reporting that those “core” issues include: cultural exemptions, dairy, cross-border shopping, pharmaceuticals, intellectual property, and dispute panels. [2] In the latter category, Bloomberg mentions only Chapter 19 (the panels that deal with dumping and tariffs). No mention is made of Chapter 11 and the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clause that allows foreign companies to sue governments for lost future profits (in secret and private tribunals) if they feel their investments have been treated unfairly by government policy.

With Chapter 11 (and ISDS) not mentioned by Bloomberg, does that mean it’s been sorted out by the NAFTA negotiators? At this point, only the negotiators know for sure, and they’re not saying. But here’s a clue: on September 12, more than 300 U.S. state lawmakers released a letter stating that they “strongly support” U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer’s efforts to eliminate NAFTA’s ISDS system. [3]

Maralyn Chase, a Democratic state senator from Washington State told truthout.org,

“If reports are true – that ISDS has been largely gutted from NAFTA – and if that s in the final text, that would be an immense improvement for state lawmaking.” [4]

Truthout.org reported (Sept. 13),

“Negotiations with Canada are ongoing, but the US recently announced a preliminary agreement to rework NAFTA between Canada and Mexico. Under that version of the deal, ISDS would be eliminated in Canada and the U.S. In Mexico, ISDS would be heavily scaled back … [and] would only be available in cases involving the direct expropriation of property by the government.” [5] 

However, a CBC News report (Sept. 8) says that in the preliminary agreement between the U.S. and Mexico,

“the two countries wanted ISDS to be ‘limited’ to cases of expropriation, bias against foreign companies, or failure to treat all trading partners equally.” [6]

This same report suggests that “’old-fashioned ISDS’ would remain in play for certain sectors: oil and gas, infrastructure, energy generation and telecommunications” that have contracts with the government.  

Politico.com has reported (Aug. 20) that

“The U.S. wants only companies that are headquartered in the U.S. and led by a ‘U.S. person’ to be eligible to file investment claims. That would preclude U.S. subsidiaries of foreign parent companies from using the dispute mechanism…” [7]

Obviously, nothing can be said with certainty until (and if) the text of the preliminary agreement is released. But major industry groups in Canada and the U.S. have been fighting to preserve the ISDS system in NAFTA, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and others.

Tellingly, less than a month ago, Zero Hedge reported (Aug. 25) that Mexico and Canada have “favored keeping the [ISDS] provisions, believing they bolster the confidence of investors.” [7]

Of the three NAFTA governments, Canada has been sued the most often under ISDS, and in 41 lawsuits (that we know of), Canada has already paid out more than $200 million in settlements, well over $67 million in legal fees, faces a $570 million charge under the recent tribunal ruling on Bilcon, and still faces billions more in ISDS lawsuits under NAFTA. Nonetheless, the Canadian federal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (and Stephen Harper before him) has long insisted on retaining ISDS in its various trade deals and investment treaties.

While media pundits have called that insistence “odd” and “curious” and “inexplicable”, I decided to try to find the explanation for it. 

In my latest book, Bypassing Dystopia, published in May 2018 (Watershed Sentinel Books) I devote a lengthy section to unravelling the mystery of why Canada keeps on insisting on ISDS in trade deals. 

What I found isn’t pretty. As it turns out, it’s not only fat-cat Canadian lawyers and legal firms that make a bundle off ISDS, but also third-party funders of the lawsuits, and entire industries like the Canadian mining industry. Canadian federal administrations have not only been reluctant to jettison ISDS, they have even assisted Canadian corporations in launching at least 55 such lawsuits, usually because of a target government’s environmental policies. As a result, Canadian multinational corporations and investors are the fifth most prolific users of ISDS lawsuits in the world, according to international statistics.

But now the investor-state dispute settlement clause has become so widely known by the public and so widely hated across most of the planet, that the list of countries that refuse to sign trade or investment deals which include ISDS is growing: India, South Africa, Indonesia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Australia, Bolivia, Argentina, Norway, and even members of the EU are balking at full ratification of the Canada-EU deal (CETA) because of it. 

Now, even the Trudeau government appears to be getting the message.

On September 8, CBC News reported that on August 14,

“Canada launched a public consultation period … to review all its foreign investment treaties – including 34 bilateral investment treaties as well as the investment provisions included in an additional 20 trade agreements.” [8]

International Trade Diversification Minister Jim Carr told CBC News that

“the consultation amounts to the first ‘major review’ of Canada’s investor protection agreements in a decade.” 

As far as I can determine, that CBC report of Sept. 8 (more than 2 weeks after the launch of the public consultation) was the first (and still only) mention of it in the press. To date, no NGO in Canada has mentioned this public consultation: not even the Council of Canadians, which has long fought against ISDS and other controversial trade issues. 

Half-heartedly or not, the Canadian government is asking Canadians to provide input on its review of ISDS and some other issues. Navigating the government website can be confusing, but here is the method I used to reach the appropriate online consultation form. Google “government of Canada public consultations trade”; click on “Free Trade Agreements (FTA) Consultations – Global Affairs Canada”; then click on “Active consultations: Consulting Canadians on the renegotiation of NAFTA with the U.S. and Mexico.” 

They probably expect no members of the public to respond. Why not surprise them?

*

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

Joyce Nelson’s latest book is Bypassing Dystopia: Hope-filled Challenges to Corporate Rule (Watershed Sentinel Books, 2018). It is the sequel to Beyond Banksters: Resisting the New Feudalism (Watershed Sentinel Books, 2016). Nelson can be reached via www.joycenelson.ca

Notes

[1] Josh Wingrove (Bloomberg News), “U.S.-Canada NAFTA talks are poised to come to a head this week,” Financial Post, September 17, 2018.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Mike Ludwig, “Hundreds of State Lawmakers Want a NAFTA Without Corporate Tribunals,” truthout.org, September 13, 2018.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Janyce McGregor, “Why NAFTA’s unloved investor-state dispute chapter may be in rouble,” CBC News, September 8, 2018.

[7] Megan Cassella, “Dog days are busy days on trade,” politico.com, August 20, 2018.

[8] Tyler Durden, “’Big Trade Agreement Could Be Happening Soon’: U.S. Mexico On Verge Of Resolving Key Nafta Negotiation Hurdles,” zerohedge.com, August 25, 2018.  

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada and the Renegotiation of NAFTA: What’s Happening with the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)?
  • Tags: , , ,

NATO’s Fascist Wedge in Ukraine

September 19th, 2018 by Alex Gordon

The latest advert for Ukraine’s armed forces depicts chiselled military hunks over a caption: “THEY WILL PROTECT YOUR INVESTMENTS — Ukrainian Army: protecting the borders of civilisation.”

In reality, Russia was Ukraine’s largest single investor in the first six months of 2018, comprising 34.6 per cent of total foreign direct investment.

Advertising slogans for Ukraine’s army targeted at English-speaking investors are a sign of increasing desperation within ruling circles.

Recent public reports of the mafia running Odessa, Ukraine’s largest port, were linked via the Paradise Papers in a BBC investigation to money laundering in London’s property market by Alexander “The Don” Angert and his enforcer Hennady Trukhanov, currently Odessa’s mayor.

Ukraine’s real economy meanwhile is flatlining. GDP collapsed from $183 billion (£139bn) per annum in 2013 to $93bn (£70bn) last year.

The average Ukrainian wage today is €190 (£170) per month. In May rail workers shut down production at Ukraine’s largest steel mill in wage protests against owners ArcelorMittal.

Daily shelling of urban areas and civilian infrastructure by Ukraine’s army and their allied fascist paramilitary formations affects 60 per cent of the population of the Donbass living along the heavily mined 457km contact line with the breakaway Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics.

Food insecurity has doubled in Ukraine since 2016, now affecting 1.2 million people, alongside escalating cases of multidrug-resistant TB, HIV and even polio.

Ukraine’s Right Sector rally in Kiev in 2015 (Source: author)

According to the UN refugee agency, Ukraine currently has 1.8 million internally displaced persons and the World Health Organisation records 4.4 million affected by the war in the east, of whom 3.4 million require humanitarian assistance and protection. Over 10,000 have died.

In this human catastrophe, it is remarkable that the British government’s gift of another £35 million in aid to Ukraine’s military announced in June 2018 receives so little media attention.

Britain’s latest donation is in addition to £850,000 of “non-lethal” military equipment announced by then Tory defence secretary Michael Fallon in March 2015.

Around 100 British military trainers were deployed to run 30 courses for infantry, medical and logistics corps across 14 military sites in the Ukraine.

Britain also installed a “senior adviser” inside Ukraine’s defence ministry, no doubt, given Ukraine’s epically corrupt politics, to ensure British largesse is greasing the right palms.

British military funding of Ukraine, however, is dwarfed by that of Canada and the United States.

In April this year the US supplied Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and in May 2018 the US Congress approved $250m of military funding, specifically including deliveries of lethal weaponry.

Just two weeks ago on September 1, President Donald Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker (a neocon, acolyte of senator John McCain, previously appointed by George Bush as US ambassador to Nato) announced further US arms supplies would follow, boasting of rising anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine.

One day earlier, a terrorist bomb in a central Donetsk cafe killed Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the Donetsk People’s Republic.

Ukraine is where the new cold war has tipped into a hot war.

However, Ukraine’s endemic corruption, state instability and poor-quality armed forces have proved to be constraints on Nato ambitions.

These constraints have reinforced a reliance on far-right militias, with links to organised crime and neonazi, white supremacist groups.

Socialists have long warned against the dangers of Western states nurturing far-right Ukrainian political forces.

In June 2018, Labour MSP Neil Findlay criticised a visit to the Scottish Parliament by Andriy Parubiy, a founder of the neonazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (SNPU), saying:

“I would prefer to know the next time I am asked to welcome a racist, fascist nazi to this parliament.”

Predictably, the Labour MSP was accused of having “tallied perfectly with Kremlin messaging.”

More recently, however, “Bellingcat” (an “open source, social media investigation” website with a pronounced pro-Nato reputation) has warned about Western financial, military and political support for Ukrainian neonazis.

This suggests that Nato countries’ increasing reliance on openly neonazi paramilitaries to maintain the current pro-Western regime in power in Ukraine is causing serious concerns.

On August 30, Bellingcat published a report (“Ukrainian Far-Right Fighters, White Supremacists Trained by Major European Security Firm”) by Oleksiy Kuzmenko, detailing the “sophisticated training geared towards combat application” delivered since 2016 by the European Security Academy (ESA) to Ukraine’s neonazi Azov Battalion, now part of Ukraine’s National Guard.

Californian Congressman Ro Khanna, a strong critic of Azov, claimed in May 2018 that the “battalion has very much engaged in incidents of neonazism.”

Khanna characterizes Azov as a “neonazi battalion” and promoted the 2018 US Congressional ban on the use of US budget funds “to provide arms, training, or other assistance to the Azov Battalion.”

Based in Wroclaw, Poland, ESA is Europe’s largest private military training agency. Serving British soldiers are sent there on specialist training and security courses paid for by the British government as part of “resettlement programmes” to prepare them for the world of private security contractors in civvy street.

Azov Battalion veterans and activists in Azov’s political party, The National Corps, received special-ops training at ESA’s training centre in Poland along with activists of other far-right organisations in Ukraine linked to attacks on Roma, LGBT persons and civil rights activists.

 

Members of Azov’s aggressively expanding street force, the National Militia, which attacks minorities in Ukraine and seeks to mirror law-enforcement to enforce “Ukrainian order,” also received ESA training.

Yet another, Tradition and Order, “an aggressively expanding violent ultra-nationalist organisation,” at least one of whose leaders is a self-admitted “national-socialist” with a penchant for nazi salutes, also attended an ESA course in Poland.

Politicians like Neil Findlay have shown that it is possible to stand up against the normalisation of the far right in Ukrainian politics.

It is now essential that the Westminster government is held to account for its funding and training of far-right, Ukrainian paramilitaries.

*

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

Featured image is from Crisis Group.

A new official report produced by the Norwegian government illustrates the continuing absurdity of NATO expansion and foreign adventurism in places very far away from the “North Atlantic” explicit in the name North Atlantic Treaty Organization — places like Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine or Syria. 

Top Norwegian officials have now admitted they “had very limited knowledge” of events unfolding in Libya during 2010 and 2011, prior to NATO’s military intervention on behalf of anti-Gaddafi rebels a war that resulted in regime change and a failed state ruled by competing governments and extremist militias to this day. Norway enthusiastically joined the US, UK, and French led bombing of the country initiated in March 2011 even knowing full well its military knew next to nothing of what was unfolding on the ground.

But what did decision-makers have to go on? Consider this absurd admission from the official report“In such situations, decision-makers often rely on information from media and other countries,” the report reads.

The commission that produced the report was chaired by former Foreign Minister Jan Petersen, and ultimately concluded that politicians in Oslo dragged the nation into the US-led bombing campaign with no regard for what could come next.

The commission report states that there were “no written sources” that so much as attempted to assess the nature of the conflict Norway was about to join. The officials failed to “assess the type of conflict Norway was taking part in” it finds.

NATO’s name for the operation was the US code name ‘Operation Odyssey Dawn,’ and Norway flew 596 strike missions during the first five months of the NATO intervention, dropping 588 bombs on Libyan targets, according to the report. Norway had provided six F-16 fighter jets and its pilots were reported to have conducted 10 percent of all coalition strikes against pro-Gaddafi forces.

Norway’s former Center Party leader Liv Signe Navarsete said of the final report:

 “When you look at what happened next, with Libya becoming a hotspot of terrorism, this is not a decision to be proud of.”

The war had been sold to the European public on “humanitarian” grounds and included sensational atrocity stories, many which were later proven false, painting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi as an irrational homicidal maniac.

One notable story explicitly promoted by the State Department as well as US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice was the Viagra-fueled mass rape story, which claimed that Gaddafi had supposedly supplied his troops with Viagra in order to unleash sexual terrorism on the civilian population. Amnesty International and other human rights investigators later the proved the story completely false.

Some Norwegian politicians now claim the country was hoodwinked into another US-led regime change operation similar to the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003. However, considering European leaders had the glaringly obvious example of Iraq and the lies it was built on so recent in history, this appears yet more excuse making designed to evade public responsibility.

Libya has long been forgotten in Western mainstream media, but has come back into headlines as a small civil war has lately erupted within areas under control of the UN-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli. Since Gaddafi’s overthrow the country has been fought over by three (and at times up to four) competing governments while the streets are ruled by Islamist militias, including in some areas ISIS terrorists.

According to a CNN report last year, open air slave markets have since come into existence as Libya remains largely lawless and as a once stable national infrastructure and economy has crumbled.

*

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

All images in this article are from Zero Hedge.

“This isn’t the first time that the evidence is very clear that we have aligned ourselves with al-Qaeda when we think it’s temporarily of benefit to our foreign policy,” declared former United States House of Representatives member and presidential candidate Ron Paul last week in regard to US policy toward Syria and the developing situation in Idlib, Syria. Paul made the comment in an interview at RT focused on recent developments in Syria.

Paul’s assessment came shortly after the interviewer played video of Brett McGurk, the US special presidential envoy to the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, calling Idlib a year back “the largest al-Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.”

The US government’s antagonism toward efforts by the Syria government, aided by allied nations, to take back control of Idlib, makes more sense when US foreign policy toward Syria is understood in the context Paul provides in the interview. Paul explains that, while the US has used opposition to al-Qaeda “as the excuse” for US intervention in Syria, he believes instead “we’re there for other reasons.” Those reasons, Paul says, include opposition to Iran and Russia that are supporting Syrian military forces, as well as that “we think al-Quaeda will help our position — the United States position — to get rid of [Syria President Bashar al-Assad].”

Many Americans tolerate the US “trying to maintain a modern-day empire” via interventions including in Syria because they are not well informed about the matter, suggests Paul. To help cure this problem, Paul says he is trying with the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, which he founded after leaving the House of Representatives, “to alert people to the danger that is involved with our foreign policy.”

So what should the US do in Syria? “Leave as soon as possible,” advises Paul.

Watch Paul’s interview here:

The disconnect between Saudi imperatives and the expectations of Western governments and financial markets who repeatedly focussed on unmet Saudi time indications of the Aramco IPO rather than broader policy statements fit a pattern of misperceptions.

A Saudi decision to indefinitely delay an initial public offering (IPO) of five percent of the Saudi Arabian Oil Company or Aramco, the Saudi state-owned oil company, has further dented investor confidence and fuelled debate about Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s ability to push economic reform. It has even prompted speculation that his assertive policies, including the Kingdom’s ill-fated military intervention in Yemen, harsh response to Canadian human rights criticism and failed Saudi-United Arab Emirates-led diplomatic and economic boycott of Qatar, could dampen his prospects of eventually ascending the throne.No doubt, Prince Mohammed touted the IPO, projected as the world’s largest with a US$ 100 billion price tag, as a litmus test of the Kingdom’s willingness to diversify and reform its economy. There is also little doubt that Prince Mohammed may have been too ambitions in his US$ 2 trillion valuation of Aramco, misread market conditions, and underestimated political and bureaucratic resistance to transparency requirements associated with a public offering of what The Economist once dubbed “the world’s biggest, most coveted and secretive oil company.”As a result, the indefinite delay, ordered by King Salman in his second intervention this year to curb the Crown Prince’s policies, was widely perceived as yet another failure of a young, inexperienced, and often impetuous crown prince. Yet, it could prove to be a blessing in disguise given that international financial markets currently value national oil companies at a steep discount. The delay, moreover, does not leave the Kingdom without options, including a long suggested private equity sale.

The Beginning of the End?Saudi oil minister Khalid Al Falih was emphatic in his insistence that the Kingdom remained committed to an Aramco initial public offering in his August 2018 announcement that the IPO had been indefinitely delayed.

“The government remains committed to the IPO of Saudi Aramco at a time of its own choosing when conditions are optimum,” Al Falih said in a statement. (1)

The statement put an end to speculation about the timing and fate of the offering that had been originally planned for 2017. To be fair, Al Falih had long maintained that the Kingdom was not bound by a timetable.

“Timing isn’t critical for the government of Saudi Arabia,” he said more than a year before the final postponement. (2)

The disconnect between Saudi imperatives and the expectations of Western governments and financial markets who repeatedly focussed on unmet Saudi time indications of the IPO rather than broader policy statements fit a pattern of misperceptions that dates back to the days of Aramco’s founding by US oil companies that at the time had a major stake in what was then a US registered entity, the Arabian American Oil Company when American oilmen repeatedly underestimated their Saudi counterparts and misread their intentions. (3)

Source: Bloomberg

Western analysts, in what could be a similar disconnect, have suggested that the delay could prove to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

“MBS is not a reformer and nor is he a strongman since, with a stroke of a pen, his father can alter the succession and strip him of his power. That may happen soon, given the growing clamour from angry princes. Perhaps that is why MBS slept on a heavily guarded yacht moored off Jeddah all summer,” said author Michael Burleigh, referring to Bin Salman by his initials. (4)

The analysts position the delay of the IPO as the last of a string of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s policy fiascos, including the ill-fated 3.5-year-long war in Yemen that has significantly damaged the Kingdom’s image and projection of itself as a military power; (5) a crude attempt to control Lebanese politics by arm twisting prime minister Saad Hariri to briefly resign; (6) an out-of-proportion almost hysteric response to Canadian human rights criticism; (7) an asset and power grab dressed up as an anti-corruption campaign; (8) and a crackdown on critics of any stripe.(9)

The fact that Bin Salman’s father, King Salman, had by ordering the delay of the IPO, (10) intervened for the second time within a matter of months to curb his son’s policy initiatives fuelled speculation that the move may be the beginning of his son’s end. Salman had stepped in earlier to put an end to Bin Salman’s tiptoeing around condemning US President Donald J. Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. (11)

Bin Salman’s drawbacks notwithstanding, King Salman, an ailing octogenarian, may not want his legacy to be admitting to appointing a son as his heir who dragged the ruling Al Sauds’ kingdom down. More likely is that Bin Salman will quietly be put on a tighter leash. The delay of the IPO, positioned as the crown jewel of Vision 2030, Bin Salman’s economic and social reform program, (12) will, moreover increase pressure on him to deliver on promises of jobs and greater opportunity.

To do so, Bin Salman will have to redress the balance sheet of his three years in office that so far is heavy on failures and short on successes that largely involved low-hanging fruit like the lifting of a ban on women’s driving and granting of greater social and professional opportunities but have stopped short of abolishing, for example, male guardianship of women. That inevitably will require initiatives that restore confidence in his ability to deliver irrespective of if or when a stake of Aramco is publicly or privately sold.

Source: MEED

A Blessing in Disguise?

In the ultimate analysis, the delay of the IPO of Aramco, the world’s largest private oil company with estimated hydrocarbon reserves of 261 billion barrels or ten times those of ExxonMobil and one of the world’s lowest production break even points, could prove to be in Bin Salman’s string of failures the one blessing in disguise. No doubt, an IPO would have raised a substantial amount even if it likely would have been below Bin Salman’s unrealistic expectation of a US$100 billion yield and it would have made good on the crown prince’s promise of a more transparent, more user-friendly business environment.

The delay, however, at least temporarily resolves a number of technical or more principle issues associated with the public offering. The most immediate was timing given that the current market climate does not favour national oil companies.

“National oil companies probably have much deeper reserves than the international oil companies, and yet they still don’t get massive premium valuations; they get discounted valuations. It makes a huge amount of sense because if they ultimately destroyed value by going too quickly or if they weren’t able to realise the prices they’d like to see, then quite frankly it makes sense for them to delay things a little bit,” said Hootan Yazhari, head of Middle East, North Africa and frontier markets at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. (13)

The delay also shields the Kingdom and Bin Salman from embarrassment with markets likely to put Aramco’s value at far below the crown prince’s US$2 trillion expectation. Moreover, Saudi Arabia’s effort to raise funds to finance reforms and fill the coffers of its Public Investment Fund (PIF), the Kingdom’s sovereign wealth fund envisioned as the motor of economic diversification, was not wholly dependent on an IPO that risked further dividing the ruling family as well as powerful parts of the bureaucracy. Many in the family and bureaucracy were believed to be opposed to the move for multiple reasons, including the associated transparency requirements that could expose profits reaped by the ruling family, a belief that it amounted to a rollback of Saudization of Aramco and a return of the Kingdom’s foremost asset to non-nationals and fears that the process could give Bin Salman the kind of control of Aramco that Saudi rulers have eschewed for decades in their bid to maintain the company as the mainstay of their rule. Some of the opponents’ arguments also complicated prospects for a possible private equity sale to a Chinese state-owned entity.

The opposition’s success in delaying the IPO could, however, prove to be a double-edged sword. Aramco achievements were for the better part of a century vested in the fact that it has been able to operate on principles of American corporate management even after the Saudis bought out the American shareholders in the 1980s and in 1988 moved Aramco’s incorporation from Delaware to the Kingdom. While much of the Saudi leadership understood that those principles guaranteed it the cash flow and geopolitical influence it needed to maintain its grip on power, Aramco was largely able to fend off occasional attempts by the government to gain direct control of the company’s finances rather than depend on its tax, royalty and dividend payments even if was forced to make minor concessions. (14) Those concessions are reflected in the fact that Aramco owns a string of soccer fields, acts as project manager for some of the government’s non-oil developments, and operates a hospital system that services close to 400,000 people.

Source: Bloomberg

Nonetheless, the guiding principle that ensured Western-style commercial management threatens to be violated as Bin Salman looks at alternative sources to compensate for the immediate loss of the US$100 billion Aramco IPO windfall. A US11 billion syndicated bank loan secured by the Kingdom in September 2018 accounts for only 11 percent of the loss. (15) Bin Salman is counting on raising and additional US$70 billion by engineering the acquisition by Aramco of the 70 percent stake in petrochemicals, minerals and metals producer Saudi Basic Industries Corp or SABIC from the Public Investment Fund. Aramco’s management, in an effort to fend off Bin Salman’s attempt to use the company as a fundraising vehicle, has argued that the government was overpricing SABIC and demanded that the price be discounted by up to 25 percent. (16) A sale below SABIC’s market price would not only inject less capital into the sovereign-wealth fund, but also drive down the company’s shares listed on Tadawul, the Saudi stock exchange with a market capitalization of US$95 billion.

“The prized assets of the state, like Aramco and SABIC, should not be used as cash cows to feed the experiments of the PIF’s outward investment strategies,” cautioned political economist Karen E. Young. (17)

To be fair, an acquisition of SABIC would have in principle some merit given Aramco’s bet on the future that includes a belief that the creation of increased more demand for crude in the chemical sector can counter expectations that fossil fuels are in decline. To create demand, Aramco is developing technologies that will help convert crude directly into chemicals without refining it first into lighter products such as naphtha, a process that could costs by some 30 percent. Using oil as feedstock would “secure a large and reliable home for our future oil production,” said Aramco CEO Amin Nasser. (18)

Nevertheless, the indefinite delay of the IPO was bound to have serious consequences with or without a compensatory acquisition of SABIC. Rating agency Moody’s Investor Service warned that the Kingdom’s significant reliance on debt would increase liability risks and exert negative pressure on its credit profile.

“The postponement of the IPO implies that the economic diversification envisaged by the government will either need to be scaled back or financed by higher direct or indirect public-sector debt issuance,” Moody’s said. (19)

The Kingdom’s problems are compounded by the fact that continued uncertainty about the fate of the Aramco IPO and Bin Salma’s broader reform program has prompted capital to head for the exit. JP Morgan estimated that capital outflows of Saudi residents in Saudi Arabia would be US$65 billion in 2018 or 8.4 percent of GDP, admittedly less than the US$80 billion last year but nonetheless a continuous bleed. Similarly, Standard Chartered reported US$14.4 billion in outward portfolio investment into foreign equities in the first quarter of 2018, the largest surge since 2008.

“This flight signals the dimming of the optimism surrounding Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030 economic plan,” Young said. (20)

If the Aramco IPO in Bin Salman’s vision was in part intended to promote transparency in Saudi Arabia and convince foreign investors that the Kingdom was rolling out an environment friendly to investors and the conduct of business, its indefinite delay sends a very different message.

“Whether…foreign enterprises will risk their own capital in Saudi ventures…remains to be seen. The failure of the Saudi Aramco IPO has highlighted the mismatch between the needs of foreign investors and Saudi Arabia’s current investment environment,” said Stephen Grand, executive director of the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Strategy Task Force. (21)

Ironically, Aramco, as long as it was actively pursuing an IPO, Bin Salman a degree of cover for his repression of all dissent and his detention last year of hundreds of prominent businessmen, serving and former officials, and members of the ruling family in a power grab and asset shakedown dressed up as an anti-corruption campaign by positioning the sale of a stake in the company as an effort to enhance transparency.

“I believe it is in the interest of the Saudi market, and it is in the interest of Aramco, and it is for the interest of more transparency, and to counter corruption, if any, that may be circling around Aramco,” Bin Salman said when he first suggested a public offering. (22)

External factors making a listing of Aramco shares in either New York or London, Bin Salman’s preferred exchanges because of their positioning among investors and the associated political benefits, difficult contributed to the IPO’s indefinite delay. Lawyers advising Bin Salman and Aramco pointed out that a listing on the New York Stock Exchange would potentially make Aramco liable to claims of victims of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. Fifteen of the 19 perpetrators were Saudi nationals. US District Judge George Daniels in New York agreed in March to allow a class action suit filed on behalf of 1,500 injured 9/11 survivors and 850 family members of fatal casualties, (23) alleging that Saudi Arabia “knowingly provided material support and resources to the al Qaeda terrorist organization and facilitated the September 11th attacks.” The suit was filed under a bill passed by the US Senate in 2016, Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), that allows civil lawsuits by victims of “international terrorism” to proceed in US courts against sovereign states. (24)

A bipartisan proposal in Congress to subject oil producers to US anti-trust laws that would allow Saudi Arabia and other members of the Organization of Oil-Exporting Countries (OPEC) to be sued if it were believed to have manipulated the market by colluding to control supply further clouded prospects for a US listing. (25) To prevent the bill, the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, or NOPEC, from being tabled, Saudi Arabia hired Ted Olson, a high-powered solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration. (26)

A listing in London became problematic after the Investment Association, a fund manager lobby group, accused a British financial markets regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), of watering down its rules to attract the Saudi IPO. (27) The complaint prompted the chairs of parliament’s Treasury and Business Select Committees to raise the issue, making it less likely that Aramco would be able to evade the kind of transparency issues associated with a listing on Western stock exchange. (28)

Conclusion

The indefinite delay of the Aramco IPO has dealt a boy blow to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s efforts to reform and diversify the Kingdom’s economy. It has also further dented foreign investor confidence, a pillar of Bin Salman’s reform effort. The crown prince’s effort to compensate for the loss of expected proceeds of up to US100 billion from the sale has forced him to look for funds elsewhere. His proposed acquisition by Aramco of a majority stake in petrochemicals giant SABIC threatens to undermine the managerial independence of the oil company, the rock bed of Saudi rule since the Kingdom was founded in 1932.

The delay of the IPO is nonetheless not all bad news even if it has called into question the future of Saudi reform and even sparked speculation about Bin Salman’s future. Bin Salman is not left without options. The Kingdom continues to enjoy access to international financial markets and retains the option of a private equity sale. Moreover, discounts of national oil companies by financial markets favour a delay of the IPO.

That does not necessarily shield Bin Salman. He may nevertheless be down, but he is not out. The delay, however, makes it all the more imperative for Bin Salman to meet expectations of a predominantly young Saudi population by delivering job creation and enhanced economic and social opportunity. That could be a tough nut to crack in the absence of domestic and foreign investor confidence in the crown prince’s ability to deliver.

*

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 Al Jazeera Center for Studies.

James M. Dorsey is a Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and co-host of the New Books in Middle Eastern Studies podcast.James is the author of “The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer”. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(1)  Jennifer Gnana, Saudi Arabia ‘fully committed’ to Aramco IPO, oil minister says, The National, 23 August 2018, https://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/saudi-arabia-fully-committed-to-aramco-ipo-oil-minister-says-1.762866

(2) Javier Blas and Francois De Beaupuy, Saudi Oil Minister Says Timing of Aramco IPO ‘Isn’t Critical,’ Bloomberg, 21 June 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-21/saudi-oil-minister-says-timing-of-aramco-ipo-isn-t-critical

(3) Ellen R. Wald, Saudi Inc. The Arabian Kingdoms Pursuit of Power and Profit, New York: Pegasus Books Ltd. 2018

(4) Michael Burleigh, Young Saudi pretender’s days are numbered, The Times, 14 September 2018, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/young-saudi-pretender-s-days-are-numbered-hkhqs0239?shareToken=c5d15ffe552707d0f48ed75ea9978754

(5) Jamal Khashoggi, Opinion | Saudi Arabia’s crown prince must restore dignity to his country — by ending Yemen’s cruel war, The Washington Post, 12 September 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/09/11/saudi-arabias-crown-prince-must-restore-dignity-to-his-country-by-ending-yemens-cruel-war/

(6) Reuters, Lebanon’s Hariri in Riyadh for first time since crisis, 28 February 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-lebanon-hariri/lebanons-hariri-in-riyadh-for-first-time-since-crisis-idUSKCN1GC0GO

(7) Sinéad Baker, The full timeline of Canada and Saudi Arabia’s escalating feud over jailed human rights activists, Business Insider, 24 August 2018, https://www.businessinsider.sg/timeline-of-canada-saudi-arabia-diplomatic-feud-over-human-rights-2018-8/?r=US&IR=T

(8) James M. Dorsey, Tackling Corruption: Why Saudi Prince Mohammed’s approach raises questions, The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer, 25 November 2017, https://mideastsoccer.blogspot.com/2017/11/tackling-corruption-why-saudi-prince.html

(9) United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism on his mission to Saudi Arabia, 6 June 2018, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Terrorism/SR/A.HRC.40.%20XX.Add.2SaudiArabiaMission.pdf

(10) Reuters, Exclusive: Saudi king tipped the scale against Aramco IPO plans, 27 August 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-aramco-ipo-king-exclusive/exclusive-saudi-king-tipped-the-scale-against-aramco-ipo-plans-idUSKCN1LC1MX

(11) Amir Tibon, Saudi King Tells U.S. That Peace Plan Must Include East Jerusalem as Palestinian Capital, Haaretz, 29 July 2018, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/saudis-say-u-s-peace-plan-must-include-e-j-l-as-palestinian-capital-1.6319323

(12) Saudi Vision 2030, 25 April 2016, http://vision2030.gov.sa/en

(13) Jennifer Gnana, A delay in Aramco IPO is in the interest of the Saudi energy industry, The National, 30 August 2018, https://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/a-delay-in-aramco-ipo-is-in-the-interest-of-the-saudi-energy-industry-1.764973

(14) Ibid. Wald, Saudi Inc.

(15) Dasha Afanasieva, Saudi sovereign fund PIF raises $11 billion loan: source, Reuters, 24 August 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-aramco-ipo-loan/saudi-sovereign-fund-pif-raises-11-billion-loan-source-idUSKCN1L90WK

(16) Summer Said and Rory Jones, Aramco Fights $70 Billion Price Tag for Saudi Chemicals Giant, The Wall Street Journal, 12 September 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/aramco-argues-over-right-price-for-sabic-1536765506

(17) Karen E. Young, Saudi Arabia’s Problem Isn’t the Canada Fight, It’s Capital Flight, Bloomberg, 17 August 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-16/trump-needs-allies-for-the-great-u-s-china-trade-divorce

(18) Wael Mahdi, Saudi Aramco turns to tech to power future of oil, Arab News, 8 September 2018, http://www.arabnews.com/node/1368991

(19) Agence France Press, With Aramco IPO shelved, Saudi Arabia’s PIF looks to tech, mega city, 5 September 2018, https://www.arabianbusiness.com/energy/403634-with-aramco-ipo-shelved-saudi-arabias-pif-looks-to-tech-mega-city-projects

(20) Ibid. Young, Saudi Arabia’s Problem

(21) Stephen Grand, Saudi’s Vision 2030 Continues to Solicit Concerns, Atlantic Council, 11 September 2018, http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/saudi-s-vision-2030-continues-to-solicit-concerns

(22) The Economist, Transcript: Interview with Muhammad bin Salman, 6 January 2016, https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2016/01/06/transcript-interview-with-muhammad-bin-salman

(23) United States District Court Southern District of New York, Plaintiffs v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 20 March 2017, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57fbbfa88419c2de35c1639d/t/58d03556ff7c50abde86720f/1490040171270/Ashton-v-KSA-2017.pdf

(24) Ali Harb, The 9/11 lawsuit looming over Saudi Arabia’s ambitions, Middle East Eye, 11 September 2018, https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/analysis-911-lawsuit-looms-over-saudi-arabias-economic-and-political-plans-1232597998

(25) House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Bipartisan Lawmakers Applaud the Introduction of NOPEC Legislation, 24 May 2018, https://judiciary.house.gov/press-release/bipartisan-lawmakers-applaud-the-introduction-of-nopec-legislation/

(26) Jack Detsch, Saudi Arabia hires star lawyer to fight anti-oil cartel bill, Al-Monitor, 13 September 2018, https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/09/saudi-arabia-hire-lawyer-oil-bill.html

(27) Adam Vaughan, FCA’s rule change to lure Saudi Aramco prompts criticism, The Guardian, 8 June 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/08/fca-rule-change-to-lure-saudi-aramco-prompts-criticism

(28) Lucy Burton, MPs grill City watchdog on Saudi Aramco game plan, The Telegraph, 8 September 2018, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/08/mps-grill-city-watchdog-saudi-aramco-game-plan/

IMF (Again) Makes a Fool of Itself Over Brexit

September 19th, 2018 by Rodney Atkinson

Joining that merry band of doom mongers (HM Treasury, the Bank of England and Chancellor Hammond) the IMF’s Christine Lagarde has again warned of “substantial costs” of a no deal Brexit. In fact of course there is no such thing as “no deal” – we simply go to the World Trade organisation deal, like most of the world’s nations – saving on the way big duties on imports from the rest of the world on cars, food and clothing and saving 40 billion Euros in contributions to the EU budget! The “substantial costs” are in having a deal!

George Osborne-sponsored IMF Head Lagarde (who was found guilty by a French Court of negligence for failing to challenge a Euro 400m payout to a friend of French President Nicolas Sarkozy) has continued that organisation’s negligence and incompetence.

It was in April 2013 that the IMF’s Chief Economist attacked the UK’s deficit reduction programme and warned of “playing with fire”. The following year the UK’s growth rate was 2.9% and that economist had to apologise.

Lagarde said that leaving the EU would be a blow to the UK economy because “Countries trade mainly with their neighbours”. But the USA, thousands of miles away, is the UK’s biggest export market! The UK has a consistent trade surplus with the USA and a consistent large deficit with the EU.

Lagarde further claimed that the UK was suffering from a lack of capital investment because of the threat of Brexit. But the overall picture is the opposite. There has been since January 2016 a 6% increase in UK Gross Fixed Capital Formation – from £81bn to £86bn.

When the IMF made a fool of itself in 2013-14 the UK was still showing far healthier growth than the stagnant EU. Today Lagarde says we are in trouble – after 20 years (since the Euro was launched) of greatly outperforming the EU. That is why we have nearly 3 million EU “citizens” working in the UK.

Even today the IMF has just increased its growth forecast for the UK from 1.4 to 1.5% and while we have just posted a 0.6% growth in the quarter to July the Eurozone growth rate was 0.3% which was the slowest growth rate since 2016 (when we voted to leave!) and the IMF says:

“Forecasts for 2018 growth have been revised down for Germany and France after activity softened more than expected in the first quarter, and in Italy”

Corporatist Forecaster Elites

Once again a large State corporatist institution has made a fool of itself in its analysis and forecasting. It is a catching disease, but inevitable from those who have comfortable careers and salaries – whether they are proved right or wrong.

Outside in the real world the rest of us, acting in democratic markets and responsible to our fellow citizens, have to absorb the cost of their failures and get on with life. When we rise up and tell them that staying in the EU would be a disaster the supranational elitists can’t believe it – no wonder. While mass unemployment and social collapse have characterised the EU for 20 years the scribblers have sailed on regardless in their unearned luxury!

*

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 Freenations.

On the 17th of September, an important meeting was held in Sochi between Erdogan and Putin to discuss Syria, in particular Idlib. A few hours after the agreement between the two leaders was reached, there was a French-Israeli strike on Syria’s coastal area of Latakia, causing the loss of a Russian Air Force Il-20 aircraft and bringing the world to the brink of a thermonuclear war.

The agreement between Erdogan and Putin over the province of Idlib was reached after five hours of discussions and proposals. Ultimately, as explained by RT, the agreement concerns a 15-20 kilometer demilitarized zone, the identification of terrorist groups to fight, and combined patrols by Turkish and Russian soldiers on the borders of Idlib to monitor the situation and the opening of main roads between Hama, Damascus and Aleppo over the next few months.

RT specifies:

“[Erdogan and Putin] We’ve agreed to create a demilitarized zone between the government troops and militants before October 15. The zone will be 15 to 20 kms wide, with full withdrawal of hardline militants from there, including the Jabhat Al-Nusra. As part of solving the deadlock, all heavy weaponry, including tanks and artillery, will be withdrawn from the zone before October 10. The area will be patrolled by Turkish and Russian military units. Before the end of the year, roads between Aleppo and Hama, and Aleppo and Latakia must be reopened for transit traffic. The agreement has received general support from the Syrian government.”

There were manifold goals for the talks between Erdogan and Putin. For the Kremlin there were innumerable points to be clarified and points of tension to be softened. One of the reasons why Russia and Turkey decided to sit around a table and discuss the imminent Syrian offensive in Idlib was the shared concern surrounding possible Western reactions. Moscow wants to avoid offering France, the UK and the US a pretext to strike Syrian forces in response to the umpteenth false-flag chemical attack. This would once again raise tensions, risking a direct confrontation between Russian and Western armed forces. In the unfortunate event of Russia exchanging fire with such aggressor countries, relations between Moscow and the European capitals would be further damaged, perhaps this time irremediably.

Moscow would thus be reluctant to press Damascus to pursue an offensive in Idlib. It is even probable that Xi Jinping and Putin discussed the best solution for Idlib during their recent meeting, perhaps imagining an agreement with Turkey in order to avoid an escalation of international tensions at a time when sanctions and tariffs have already upset the economic environment as well as relations between countries. Putin and Xi Jinping must consider factors beyond Syria alone, finding workable solutions to contain the chaos of the US-led world order.

Damascus of course does not shy away from an offensive on Idlib but understands the needs of its allies. Moreover, it is well aware that it will be able to take advantage of this pause to resupply and allow its troops some rest as well as engage in military planning for new offensives in other areas of the country, perhaps in Al-Tanf.

The reason why Turkey has accepted the agreement on Idlib stems from Erdogan’s weak position. After having antagonized his European and American allies, he can only rely on Russia and Iran (as well as Qatar) as his remaining lifeline. The defense of Idlib and its terrorists would have put Erdogan in direct opposition to Russia and Iran, forsaking his last remaining sources of political support.

Had there been a failure to reach an agreement on Idlib between Ankara and Moscow, then the risk of Russia and Syria going to war with Turkey, or with Israel, France, the UK and the US would have been quite possible, though one trusts cooler heads would have prevailed given the stakes. With Trump in office and the midterm elections in November 4, 2018, it is better not to take excessive risks, especially with a wag-the-dog scenario being a part of the American foreign-policy playbook.

For Turkey, a failed agreement would have had disastrous consequences, with potentially millions of refugees fleeing from Idlib into Turkey, provoking a possible civil war. Moreover, Syria and Russia would have liberated the territory, eliminating Turkish influence in Syria. The chances of a confrontation between Moscow and Ankara, even beyond the military sphere, would have become high, with enormous repercussions for the stability of Turkey and its ambitions as a leading country in the region. A hot war would have destroyed the last three years of rapprochement with Moscow, the good economic and political relationship with Iran, and a potential source of financial diversification in Beijing. It would have been unprecedented disaster, which could easily have resulted in a coup by thousands of jihadists returning home from Syria, angry at Turkey not protecting them from the advancing Syrian Arab Army.

The West Hates Peace in Syria: From De-Escalation to Almost World War III in Just Two Hours

Source: author

If there was any doubt that some factions in the West were unhappy with the agreement between Turkey and Russia, it was enough to wait a few hours after Putin and Erdogan met to see the West’s reckless war machine in action. Four Israeli F-16 jets and a French frigate (possibly also a US presence) launched a missile attack on Syria. This time, unlike previous times, there was no justifying reason offered, such as an alleged use of chemical weapons. They were in reality protesting implicitly against the agreement just reached between Turkey and Russia that should guarantee Assad control over the whole territory of Syria, something unacceptable to all of Syria’s enemies.

It is also possible that under the direction of the US, France and Israel hoped that by attacking a Russian aircraft, a disjointed reaction from Moscow would have been provoked, escalating the conflict and providing the US and her allies the opportunity to enter the Syrian conflict directly. The downing of the Russian II-20 would therefore have been a planned provocation. Fortunately for the rest of the world, Moscow maintained a calm attitude at that moment, and together with Syrian systems, virtually knocked down or diverted all the missiles fired. Israel used the larger radar cross-section of the Russian Il-20 to screen its F16s, thus deceiving the Syrian S-200 defense systems and causing the downing. As TASS reported, Israel did not respect the agreements reached with Moscow regarding the rules of engagement. Tel Aviv warned Moscow only one minute before attacking, leaving little time for the Il-20 to move to safety and land in Latakia. Specifically, the words reported by official Russian sources leave little room for interpretation:

The Israeli warplanes approached at a low altitude and created a dangerous situation for other aircraft and vessels in the region. The Israeli pilots used the Russian plane as cover and set it up to be targeted by the Syrian air defense forces. As a consequence, the Il-20, which has a radar cross-section much larger than the F-16, was shot down by an S-200 missile system. 15 Russian military service members have died as a result.

The Israelis must have known that the Russian plane was present in the area, but this did not stop them from executing the provocation. Israel also failed to warn Russia about the planned operation in advance. The warning came just a minute before the attack started, which did not leave time to move the Russian plane to a safe area. 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.

The Russian reaction will be measured and strategically effective. It is even possible that the consequences of this attack will lead Moscow to change its assessment of weapons systems sold abroad. The worst scenario for Tel Aviv and her allies could be Syria being armed with S-300s and Iran with S-400s. As often happens, the considered Russian response will eventually improve the global environment in which the Moscow and her allies operate. The Russian Federation is not ruling anything out, and has the political right to equip its closest allies with game-changing technology in order to deter possible conflicts in the future.

The United States and her allies were hoping that the Russians and Syrians would advance on Idlib, thereby providing them with the opportunity to implement their well-rehearsed routine. There would be a false-flag chemical attack allegedly committed by Assad’s troops, which would provide justification for a massive attack to try and degrade the performance of the Syrian air defense with a view to facilitating future attacks. Without the Syrians and Russians advancing on Idlib, the need for a fake chemical attack disappears, and with it the excuse to attack the country. This increases the frustration of Western countries, who lose their justifying reasons to launch their missiles. The actions off the coast of Latakia of the French and Israelis should therefore be understood as an agitated reaction to unexpected developments that were frustrating their plans.

As this latest attack showed, the West’s actions are a lashing out with no possibility of changing events on the ground or advancing their goals in Syria. The missiles launched were directed against the agreement made by Putin and Erdogan.

For Turkey, the next possible steps are very much based on the American presence in the northeast of Syria alongside SDF troops as well as on American monetary and financial attacks against the country. The US and Turkey are clearly on a collision course. Putin and Assad’s gambit was done in order to avoid attacking Idlib, thereby forcing Erdogan to an agreement with the US. But in this way, the agreement between Trump and Erdogan remains impossible, as Ankara cannot reconcile with Washington. Erdogan cannot grant the release of Pastor Bronson, and the pastor happens to be an excellent excuse for Trump to energize his evangelical base, critical to the midterm elections in November. Moreover, Ankara considers the US presence on the border between Syria and Turkey to be illegal, because the US favors the SDF, which Turkey considers to be a terrorist group that threatens the territorial integrity of Syria and Turkey.

The situation does not change immediately for the US. There is no intention to move away from the northeast of Syria, given that this presence is considered strategic in a country where the US does not have direct relations with the central government and aims to prolong the chaos as long as possible in lieu of being able to control the country. In this sense, the SDF are essential for allowing the US a presence on Syrian territory. Erdogan’s unofficial proposal to replace the SDF with their preferred FSA in the area under US control north of the Euphrates will not be taken seriously. Although the US does not intend to betray the Kurds for now, it is nevertheless clear that some branches of the SDF are in contact with Damascus to lay the groundwork for a Syria without the US. It could be said that in the very short term the Kurds are aligned with US interests, but in the medium to long term, there is no possibility of a prolonged US presence in Syria, and the Kurds are aware of this. It is therefore not surprising that draft negotiations between the SDF and the central governing authority in Damascus are already underway.

Undoubtedly the agreement between Erdogan and Putin puts the US on the spot, with Damascus considering an advancement towards Al-Tanf or other areas illegally occupied by US troops. The offensive against Idlib would have, among other things, given more time to the US and her allies to cement their presence in Syria.

Ultimately, Syrians and Russians have plenty of time to proceed with the liberation of Idlib and the rest of the country. Erdogan is increasingly isolated and without allies, under siege from multiple directions and by multiple means, namely, financial, economic, political and diplomatic.

Russians and Syrians will be able to patrol the demilitarized zone, gather intelligence, strike terrorists, and Erdogan will be left with little option than to register his protest but nothing more. This time, the agreement will allow Russia and Syria to gather all the information necessary for precision strikes, with the primary objective of wiping out the jihadist command center.

It is worth remembering the previous example of an agreement between Turkey, Russia and Iran. The ceasefire of more than a year ago, with the creation of deconfliction zones, was interpreted with skepticism by many friends of Syria. There were assumptions at the time that Syria would be partitioned. But a year and a half later, the reality is completely different. The areas of deconfliction no longer exist, and only one is left in Idlib itself.

With the diplomatic, economic, military and political skills and astuteness of China, Russia, Iran and Syria, Idlib will also be freed from the jihadist plague, in spite of Western and Israeli interventions to protect their proxies in the country.

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The West Hates Peace in Syria: From De-Escalation to Almost World War III in Just Two Hours

Western and Russian media sources have reported an alleged joint Israeli-French strike on Syria on September 17. The attack included Israeli warplanes and French missile frigates operating in the Mediterranean off Syria’s coast. Amid the attack, a Russian Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft with 14 service members aboard disappeared.

The attack immediately prompted commentators, analysts, and pundits to call for an immediate retaliation to the unprovoked military aggression, warning that a failure to react would leave Russia looking weak. Some commentators even called for Russian President Vladimir Putin to step down.

Not the First Provocation 

Yet the attack is reminiscent of the 2015 Turkish downing of a Russian warplane – after which similar calls for retaliation were made, coupled with similar condemnations of Russia as “weak.” And since 2015, Russia’s patient and methodical approach to aiding Syria in its proxy war with the US-NATO-GCC and Israel has nonetheless paid off huge dividends.

Russia would later aid Syria in retaking the northern city of Aleppo. Palmyra would be retaken from the so-called Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS) –  Homs, Hama, Eastern Ghouta, and the southern city of Daraa would also be retaken – leaving virtually everything west of the Euphrates River under the control of Damascus.

In fact, the near precipice of total victory was achieved by Russia and its allies ignoring serial provocations carried out by the US-NATO-GCC and Israel, and simply focusing on the task of systematically restoring security and stability to the conflict-ridden nation.

Russian-backed Syrian forces are now staged at the edge of Idlib. So far tilted has the balance of power tipped in Damascus’ favor that even Turkey has found itself seeking negotiations with Russia over the last remaining territory still held by the West’s proxy forces.

The Reality of Western Provocations

Syria and its allies were winning the proxy war for the nation’s future before Israel and France attacked, and they are still winning the proxy war in the aftermath of the joint strike. Syria has weathered hundreds of such attacks – big and small – throughout the past 7 years.

Israeli warplanes have been operating at a distance, using standoff weapons. French missiles launched from frigates also constitute a standoff strategy, avoiding the risk of overflying Syrian territory and being targeted or shot down by Syrian air defenses.

Modern warfare doctrine admits that no war can be won with air power alone. This means that a nation flying sorties over a targeted nation cannot achieve victory without ground forces coordinating with air power from below. If air power alone over a nation makes it impossible to achieve victory, standoff air power makes victory even more futile.

But there is another possible motive behind the West’s serial attacks. Modern electronic warfare includes the detection and countering of air defense systems. Each time an air defense system is activated, its position and characteristics can be ascertained. Even if air defense systems are mobile, the information they provide during a provocation while attempting to detect and fire at targets is invaluable to military planning.

Should Russia engage its most sophisticated air defense systems during provocations, affording the West a complete picture of both its technology in general and the disposition of its defenses in Syria specifically, should the West decide to launch a knock-out blow through a full-scale air assault, it could do so much more effectively.

This is precisely what the US did in 1990 during Operation Desert Storm when taking on Iraq’s formidable air defenses. The initial air campaign was preceded by the use of some 40 BQM-74C target drones used to trick Iraqi air defenses into turning on their equipment which was being monitored by US electronic warfare aircraft flying along the Iraqi-Saudi border. It was the disclosure of the disposition and characteristics of Iraq’s anti-aircraft systems more than any sort of “stealth” technology that allowed the US to then overwhelm Iraqi air defenses.

Considering that hundreds of provocations have been launched against Syria, we can assume that somewhere among them, serious attempts at electronic surveillance and reconnaissance have taken place. We can also assume that competent Russian military leadership has been aware of this and has taken measures to safeguard the disposition and capabilities of its premier air defense systems until it is absolutely essential to reveal them.

The Best Revenge Will Be Victory Over NATO 

Downed Syrian and Russian aircraft, or casualties inflicted upon Syrian forces and their allies on the battlefield are difficult as human beings to watch without stirring desires for immediate revenge. Yet it must be kept in mind that immediate revenge rarely serves well long-term strategies toward victory.

Ancient Chinese warlord and strategist Sun Tzu in his timeless treatise, “The Art of War,” would warn contemporary and future generals about the dangers of caving to emotions at the expense of sound strategy. He would state (emphasis added):

Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical.

No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique.

If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are.

Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content.

But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life.

Hence the enlightened ruler is heedful, and the good general full of caution. This is the way to keep a country at peace and an army intact.

It is not to Russia’s advantage to sink French frigates or expose the full capabilities of its air defense systems to shoot down a handful of Israeli warplanes to satisfy public desires for immediate revenge or to protect nonexistent notions of Russian invincibility.

Instead, it is to Russia’s advantage to simply win the proxy war in Syria. Just as in 2015 when calls for immediate revenge were made regarding a Turkish-downed Russian warplane, Syria, Russia, and Iran will continue moving forward – slowly and methodically – to secure Syrian territory from foreign proxies seeking to divide and destroy the country, springboard into Iran, and eventually work their way into southern Russia.

Avenging serial provocations is infinitesimally less important than overall victory in Syria. The fate of Syria as a nation, Iran’s security and stability as a result, and even Russia’s own self-preservation is on the line. The awesome responsibility of those who have planned and executed Syria’s incremental victory over proxy forces backed by the largest, most powerful economies and military forces on Earth could greatly benefit from a public able to understand the difference between short-term gratification and long-term success and how the former almost certainly and recklessly endangers the latter.

The greatest possible “revenge” to exact upon those who inflicted this war upon the Syrian people, is their absolute and total defeat.

*

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

Tony Cartalucci is Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

In an act of intentional deception, Israel used a Russian airplane to cloak an Israeli attack on a Syrian ground position, with the consequence that Syrian air defense missiles downed the Russian airplane with the lost of 15 Russian military lives.

In the words of the Russian Ministry of Defense:

“The Israeli pilots used the Russian plane as cover and set it up to be targeted by the Syrian air defense forces. As a consequence, the Il-20, which has radar cross-section much larger than the [Israeli] F-16, was shot down by an S-200 system missile.”

Russian Defense Minister Shoigu said:

“The blame for the downing of the Russian plane and the deaths of its crew members lies squarely on the Israeli side. The actions of the Israeli military were not in keeping with the spirit of the Russian-Israeli partnership, so we reserve the right to respond.” (See this and this)

For a few minutes it looked like Israel was finally to be held accountable for its reckless and irresponsible actions, but it was not to be. Russian President Putin contradicted his Defense Minister by declaring the loss of Russian lives to be “accidental,” a result of a “chain of tragic circumstances.”

One wonders how Israel does it. President Putin covered up for Israel’s destruction of the Russian IL-20 just as President Johnson covered up for Israel’s murderous attack on the USS Liberty that resulted in 208 US Navy casualties. (See this) As Israel gets away with everything, including routine massacres of unarmed Palestinian women and children, there is no reason to expect Israel to change its behavior.

Putin, however, might have to change his behavior or go to full-scale war. I have long admired and defended Putin’s refusal to escalate conflict by refusing to reply to provocation with provocation.

Putin understands that he is dealing with irrationality both in Washington and the West generally and in Israel. He doesn’t want to see this irrationality erupt in nuclear war. Everyone should admire Putin for his rectitude. Nevertheless, when dealing with bullies, which is what Washington and Israel are, there is a downside to Putin’s policy of turning the other cheek. Acceptance of provocations and insults leads to more provocations and insults.

Although this is history’s lesson, I learned it from the American TV program, Kung Fu, about a Shaolin priest, Caine, on the American western frontier during the 1800s who ignores provocations until he has no alternative but to fight.

This is what Putin is doing. Putin’s disinclination to fight encouraged “Russia’s partner” Netanyahu to demonstrate that Israel has the same power over Russia that Israel has over the US. Netanyahu wasn’t the least bit fearful of sacrificing 15 Russian lives in order to successfully attack a Syrian site. Netanyahu knew that only Putin would suffer any adverse consequences.

The consequences for Putin are serious. Russian nationalists, as opposed to the pro-American Atlanticist Integrationists, are angry that Putin will not defend Russia’s honor. The Russian military is incensed that Putin, for Israel’s sake, cut the legs off of the beloved Defense Minister. According to some reports that I cannot verify, confidence in Putin is eroding as Russians hear from the Jewish controlled elements of the Russian media that Putin, by deflecting the murderous incident, is strengthening the Russian-Israeli relationship. One Internet site actually has the headline: “Putin to Powers Attacking Syria: Please Keep Getting My Soldiers Killed, I Won’t Do Anything About It.”

The consequences for Putin and for Syria could be worse than serious. Putin had just called off the announced Russian/Syrian liberation of Idlib province from the terrorists, euphemistically called “the Syrian opposition” by the Russian government, in a concession to Turkey’s President Erdogan, who also shot down a Russian aircraft. What does this tell Washington and its well-paid terrorist allies?

It tells them that Russia is easily stymied and that Idlib is secure in Washington’s hands while forces there are built up for a renewal of the effort to turn Syria, like Libya, like Iraq, like Yeman, like Somalia, into a wasteland.

Israel wants Syria as a wasteland, like Iraq, and intends to produce that outcome in Iran as well. Israel wants the water resources of southern Lebanon, but the Hezbollah militia, supported and supplied by Syria and Iran is in the way. Twice the Israeli Army sent to occupy southern Lebanon was defeated and driven out by Hezbollah. Israel cannot risk a third defeat, so Israel uses its American puppet. Indeed, the only reason Washington has been at war in the Middle East for the entirety of the 21st century is because Washington is serving Israel’s agenda.

It is difficult to believe that the Russian government is so poorly advised that it does not understand this. The “Russian-Israeli partnership” described by Russian Defense Minister Shoigu can be based on nothing other than Russian ignorance.

The two countries have totally different agendas in the Middle East. Israel is attempting to use Washington to eliminate governments independent of Washington’s Israeli-directed foreign policy in the Middle East as these governments are a constraint on Israeli expansion. Russia is attempting to prevent the spread of the US-supported jihadists to Russia’s borders, or so I think or thought.

My understanding, however, is being challenged. I am contradicted by Russian nationalists who maintain that Putin, misunderstanding that the jihadists terrorists are an American organized and supported force, went into Syria in order to show his solidarity with “America’s war against terrorism.” I find it difficult to believe that Putin, even surrounded by American-worshipping Atlanticist Integrationists, could possibly be this misinformed. But who knows? When did the US last have an informed president? Informed by the real facts, not by the special interests whispering into his ear.

I am concerned that Putin, by giving in to Turkey, by covering up for Israel, by calling off the liberation of Idlib province, and by his previous non-responses has set himself up for his next test, which could be in Ukraine. By his refusal to accept the breakaway Russian republics of Donetsk and Luhansk back into Russia where they belong, Putin has allowed this sore to fester. Washington has used the opportunity to arm its Ukrainian puppet and is betting that Putin will refuse to defend the breakaway Russians just as he refused to defend the Russian military from Israel in Syria.

Sooner or later Putin is going to find himself in the identical position as Caine. He will have to fight or surrender. By waiting Putin guarantees that provocations will increase in intensity until there is no alternative to putting the Russian foot down in a major way. Thus, the avoidance of conflict guarantees the conflict, but a larger, more dangerous one.

I was astonished to read that the Russian Defense Minister spoke of a “Russian-Israeli partnership.” I was even more astonished to learn that Russia, which has been engaged for some years in the liberation of Syria from Western supported terrorists, permits Israel and France to attack Syria. Russia can wipe Israel and France off the face of the earth in a few minutes with zero cost to Russia, but Russia accepts constraints and defeats from insignificant military powers.

The Russian military reports that, at the same time the Russian aircraft was destroyed by Israeli deception, missiles were fired from the French frigate FS Auvergne, apparently at the same target in Syria’s Latakia province that were struck by the Israeli aircraft. What sense does it make for Russia, intent on liberating one province, to allow Israeli and French attacks on another Syrian province?

In my opinion, Russia’s inability to stand firm in the face of Western and Israeli aggression will be the principal cause of World War Three in which we will all die and the planet as well.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Can Russia Survive Her “Partnerships”? Has Putin Made a Strategic Miscalculation?

Russia-USA-Iran and Syria – A Continuous Struggle to Avoid War

September 19th, 2018 by Elijah J. Magnier

The Syrian defence system shot down by mistake a Russian Ilyushin IL-20M 90924 surveillance plane in Syria with 15 servicemen on board on Monday evening, the day after an Israeli F-16 destroyed an Iranian military cargo plane on the Damascus airport runway killing the second pilot. Simultaneously with the downing of the Russian plane, four Israeli F-16s attacked Syrian and Iranian military targets around the northern city of Latakia. The Syrian air defence system responded against the incoming missiles and hit the Russian plane while in landing position over the Hamymeen military airport. This took place only hours after the signing of a deal between presidents Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan to halt the battle of Idlib and defuse the possibility of seeing Syrian army barracks and military airports destroyed. Who is pushing for a wider war and why are Russia and Iran refraining from responding to the many provocations in Syria?

War drums sounded loudly over the Levant the last few months after Syria and its allies, mainly Russia, liberated the south of the country and directed all military resources towards the northern city of Idlib. This city is under Turkish control but hosts fewer than 2 million inhabitants, of whom tens of thousands are jihadists and heavily armed Turkish proxies. The US and Europe voiced their will to bomb Syria “if chemical bombs are used against the city”. That was a clear invitation for specialised groups in Idlib to stage an attack and give an excuse for US-EU forces to unleash their firepower and destroy the Syrian army’s air power and airports. That is indeed the key to the Russian/Syrian/Iranian lack of reaction to Israel’s many provocations and to the Russian-Turkish deal to suspend the war in Idlib.

Decision-making sources said

“Russia was seriously concerned about the US and European intention to destroy the Syrian army in the event of a staged chemical attack. The US had managed to gather behind it a coalition including Britain, France and Germany to bomb Syria, making it very difficult for Russia to react militarily. Putin is aware of US intentions and is not in Syria to start WWIII but to stop the war. But it goes against US interests to see Syria recovering and Russia expanding its control in the Middle East”.

201891819419328636728942593282532.jpg

The Turkish-Russian deal to postpone the battle of Idlib, blessed by the central government in Damascus and arrived at following several Iranian mediations, aims to keep Ankara close to the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus line and to prevent a wider war in Syria. As an example, it took the Syrian army three years to prepare and equip the Shuay’rat military airport and three minutes for the US to put it out of commission for another 3 years. Russia, Syria and Iran would like to avoid any further burden on Syria’s economy and capabilities. Moreover, a weak Syrian Army would give more incentives for over 60,000 – 70,000 jihadists and rebels in Idlib and environs to break siege and move towards Aleppo, widening the war and creating more opportunities for the enemies of Syrian unity to regain strength.

Damascus is happy to calm down the war atmosphere and to give more time for Ankara either to disarm the jihadists, to attack them, or to merge many of them with its proxies. The Syrian government benefits from the deal, if it is respected, by seeing all heavy weapons confiscated by Turkey, as stipulated by the deal, greatly reducing the military capability of jihadists and rebels.

Moreover, what was not announced officially is Turkey’s guarantee that no chemical attack will be staged in Idlib to “provoke” the long-heralded US-EU bombing of Syria.

On Sunday evening Israel fired missiles against an Iranian cargo plane on the Damascus airport runway. The Israeli missiles didn’t aim directly at the plane and hit next to it. But they were close enough to torch the plane and kill the assistant pilot. This was an unprecedented by Israel, the first of its kind against such a target in the 7 year war in Syria.

According to decision makers in Syria, the Israelis had asked Russia to “prevent the flow of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah and Syria”. Moscow answered Tel Aviv: this struggle is not part of its business and  it is not ready to police the movement of weapons from Iran to its allies.

Idem, when Iran asked Russia to force on Israel the cessation of attacks in Syria against its allies and its forces, Moscow gave the same answer: “we are not ready to take part in your struggle with Israel”.

DnXm5mUXsAAj0xi.jpg

But after the Iranian defence minister promised to supply Syria (Russia refrained from delivering the S-300) with anti-air missiles, capable of endangering the Israeli jets over Syria and Lebanon, Israel decided to move a step forward. This is why Israel decided to bomb any cargo that might improve Syrian capabilities and any weapons factories in Syria developing precision missiles. Nevertheless, according to sources in Syria, Iran has imported enough technology and missiles to its allies so that Israeli jets are not able to damage Syrian missile capabilities nor those of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

“Even if Iran loses 15 cargo planes in Syria, this won’t stop it from providing the necessary help to its allies”, said the source.

A few hours after the Russian-Turkish Idlib deal, Israeli jets fired against a military facility working on developing Syrian military capabilities. Four missiles hit the target and others were intercepted by the Syrian defence system. Nevertheless, a Russian Surveillance plane was also hit by a Syrian missile while manoeuvring for landing 27 km from Banias (where the debris were found).

“Russia has paid a heavy price for its unwillingness to exploit its superpower position in Syria, and for its failure to prevent any external force (US, EU or Israel) from bombing its allies in a theatre under its own control and dominance. In order to protect a perimeter where its forces were deployed, the US attacked and killed hundreds of Syrians in the al Tharda mountains under Obama, and hundreds more in Deir-Ezzour and al-Badiya. By contrast Israeli missiles flew over the Hmaymeen Russian-Syrian airport and the US Tomahawks which hit the Shuay’rat airport travelled over the heads of Russian forces”, said the source which is part of the Russian command in Syria.

The downing of the Russian plane is expected to impose on Israel full coordination and approval for its flights over Syria hours before the strike, in order for Russia to maintain its neutral position. This will also give Syria and its allies the possibility to await Israeli missiles and jets and remove sensitive weapons to limit damage.

Moscow has paid a certain price but Israel has lost advantage, which is to the benefit of Russia’s allies. The Israeli promenade over Syria may not end there, because Israel has never been restricted in “defending its national security”, as Tel Aviv always says to justify any act of war or aggression against another state or group. Israel’s violations of Syrian airspace may not cease completely but will slow down  for a few days, enough to allow Iran and allies to rebuild any capability destroyed.

Iran, Russia and Syria did not stop the battle of Idlib – to avoid a war – in order to be trapped in a new war triggered by Israel or the US. This is what prevents Russia, Iran and Syria from giving the US, Israel and Europe any pretext for triggering a war, at the cost of looking weak in front of the world. These very risky decisions are made to allow Syria to stand on its feet again. They are essential to thwarting warmongers in the US establishment. And they are necessary if the economies of the three countries are to flourish rather than wasting all their resources on a useless war with Syria as its platform.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia-USA-Iran and Syria – A Continuous Struggle to Avoid War

How the Trump Administration Is Pressuring Palestine

September 19th, 2018 by Paul R. Pillar

The Trump administration’s policies that bow totally to Israeli government desires have emboldened that government in both its words and its actions.

Nothing was said in the agreements of either Camp David or Oslo about the construction of Israeli settlements in occupied territory. Levy considers this a “critical mistake” in the Oslo agreements and a “trap” that the Palestinians fell into. The enjoyment of additional living space at the expense of the Palestinians who were already there, backed by the PA’s auxiliary security function helping to keep rejectionist violence under control, has made it all the more comfortable for many Israelis to continue the supposedly temporary arrangements in perpetuity, and never to define their own country’s final boundaries.

As enough time goes by, the temporary gets treated more and more as permanent. Last year marked fifty years since the beginning of the Israeli occupation. This month marks forty years since Camp David and twenty-five years since Oslo. Entire generations have grown up in the interim. Not only the passage of time but also the Israeli colonization project in the West Bank have made a viable Palestinian state increasingly unfeasible. Israeli leaders—including ministers in Netanyahu’s government, and when he is talking to Israeli audiences, Netanyahu himself—have become quite open and frank that they will never agree to a Palestinian state.

U.S. Influence

The Trump administration’s policies that bow totally to Israeli government desires have emboldened that government in both its words and its actions. The administration has given new meaning to the term “take off the table” in international conflicts. As the Trump administration uses it, the term means acceding entirely to one side’s position while getting nothing in return and ignoring interests of the other side.

The administration’s most recent moves regarding Palestinian refugees have highlighted how indefinite perpetuation of a temporary arrangement can be part of an effort to take an issue “off the table” in another way. The administration says only those Palestinians originally driven from their homes (during Israel’s founding war seventy years ago or the Six-Day War fifty-one years ago) should count as refugees, and their descendants should not. Contrary to Israeli claims, counting descendants as refugees is standard practice in defining other refugee populations around the world. But if you don’t count them, then just let enough years go by and—bingo—no more refugees, no more refugee issue, and no need to discuss something like “right of return.” Of course, in the real world, neither people nor whole nationalities vanish that way, and neither do their national aspirations and the trouble that ensues when those aspirations are suppressed.

The Trump administration claims that its collective punishment of Palestinians, including its termination of funding for humanitarian assistance and closing of the PLO office in Washington, is intended to induce Palestinians to negotiate. But Palestinian leaders are not refusing to negotiate; they are refusing to do so on terms dictated by the Trump administration, which has so clearly forfeited any claim to be an honest broker, or that are based on their side preemptively conceding on major issues such as the status of Jerusalem.

Amid the years of claims and counterclaims about which side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is most responsible for the ostensible goal of Camp David and Oslo never being realized, the question of who most wants to negotiate is rather simple. Look for the side that, in addition to having the power to change things on the ground by itself, has grown comfortable with indefinite perpetuation of a supposedly temporary status quo. That’s the side that doesn’t want to negotiate. The side that is suffering most under that status quo and that is powerless to change it by itself is the side that does.

*

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 a contributing editor at the National Interest and the author of Why America Misunderstands the World.

The anonymous New York Times op-ed  (9/5/18), purportedly written by a senior Trump administration official, coupled with the release of Bob Woodward’s new book, Fear—itself full of White House back-stabbing and anonymous quotes—unleashed a veritable tsunami of breathless press speculation last week. But lost amidst the deluge was a Trump administration story that will have deadly, far-reaching consequences long after the Times op-ed is forgotten and Woodward’s book hits the discount pile. That’s because Trump effectively endorsed endless US war in Syria last week, and almost no one in the press noticed.

There were a few lonely exceptions. The Washington Post (9/6/18) spelled out the new Trump administration policy quite clearly, though the banality with which US foreign policy is described belies the Groundhog Day nature of the goals being established (emphasis added):

President Trump, who just five months ago said he wanted “to get out” of Syria and bring US troops home soon, has agreed to a new strategy that indefinitely extends the military effort there and launches a major diplomatic push to achieve American objectives, according to senior State Department officials…. US forces are to remain in the country to ensure an Iranian departure and the “enduring defeat” of the Islamic State.

This kind of open-ended commitment and nebulous criteria for withdrawal all but consign the US to Syria forever. And the stipulation of an Iranian departure from Syria as a necessary end-state for redeployment would seem to strip away any last veneer that the 2001 AUMF can be used to justify the US presence there. But these thorny questions were conspicuously absent from a press corps that barely noticed the sea change underway in our Syria policy this week.

The Associated Press (9/6/18) also covered the story, but its effort left much to be desired. Its ponderous headline, “US Plays Down Talk of Imminent Pullout of Forces From Syria,” entirely missed the point of what this president had just committed to. Likewise, the article’s lead was a jumble of disingenuous and contradictory official statements that the reporter never bothered to deconstruct or challenge.

Instead, the AP allowed Trump’s special representative for Syria, James Jeffrey, to spin away, demanding an “enduring defeat” of ISIS while also casually claiming that “means we’re not in a hurry to get out,” and then adding that this didn’t necessarily require a long-term military presence in the country. All this in the first two paragraphs. Readers who weren’t already dizzy from hearing the press dutifully pass along the same shopworn clichés used to justify our multi-decade wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could be forgiven for having a case of journalistic whiplash as well.

AP: US Plays Down Talk of Imminent Pullout of Forces From Syria

Fox News (9/6/18) was one of several outlets that relied on AP to cover the announcement that the US military would be occupying Syria for the foreseeable future.

The AP’s muddled, one-day story was important, however, because it represented the bulk of print and online press coverage of the White House creating one more permanent front in the “global war on terror.” The New York Times, ABC News and Fox News didn’t bother to report their own stories, instead relying on the AP for their only coverage. USA Today failed to cover the news at all. Only the Wall Street Journal (9/9/18) bothered to conduct a thorough news analysis of the far-reaching repercussions of this new embrace of a military occupation of eastern Syria, highlighting the perilous journey it would set US foreign policy on once again.

Despite the dearth of coverage in its news pages, the Timeseditorial board did, however, take the time to write an editorial (9/8/18) on the Trump administration’s new Syria policy—in order to tacitly support it. (As FAIR has previously noted—3/27/17—this move is in keeping with the Times’ long track record of supporting every overseas US military campaign for the past 30 years.) In its Sunday Review column, the paper matter-of-factly endorses the Trump plan of keeping more than 2,000 US troops in Syria as “leverage,” while also not-so-subtly echoing Trump’s “take the oil” campaign rhetoric (“Mr. Assad will have to change his behavior to get control of that area’s oil and gas resources”), the better to blackmail President Bashar Assad into complying with US diplomatic demands.

As bad as the print coverage was, TV news was worse. On the all-important Sunday morning TV news shows, the new policy of open-ended commitment to military intervention in Syria barely even registered. ABC, NBC and CNN ignored the news on their respective programs. Fox News Sunday (9/9/18) spent two minutes on Syria during its interview with Vice President Mike Pence, but only to press him to promise a US military response to any Syrian government attack on the rebel stronghold in Idlib. The administration’s new “enduring defeat of ISIS” posture went unmentioned. Only on CBS News Face the Nation (9/9/18), which discussed Syria for all of 20 seconds, did Washington Post reporter David Nakamura briefly note, as an aside, that “there’s now reports that said [Trump has] committed now to a longer-term strategy, and it’s not going to be simple.” That was it.

Meet the Press: Fear and Resistance

By contrast, the Sunday news shows gorged themselves on the anonymous New York Times op-ed story. And while its claims of an “active resistance” certainly broke new ground, there have also been plenty of previous accounts of internal staff pushback and rank Oval Office dysfunction throughout Trump’s time in office. Nevertheless, the mainstream media couldn’t get enough of this story. NBC’sMeet the Press (9/9/18) devoted a solid 20 minutes to the op-ed. (Note: the coverage on the Sunday shows often merged with coverage of Woodward’s Fear, making precise measurements difficult). Fox News Sunday (9/9/18) spent around 18 minutes on the op-ed, repeatedly returning to it across multiple interviews. ABC’s This Week (9/9/18) had roughly 15 minutes on the op-ed. CNN’s State of the Union (9/9/18): 13 minutes. CBS’s Face the Nation devoted the least amount to time—five minutes—to the Times op-ed.

The time differences between the coverage of these two stories couldn’t be more stark. Out of roughly 220 minutes of high-profile TV news airtime this past Sunday, the former got all of five seconds of direct coverage, on one show. The latter, on the other hand, enjoyed around 70 minutes across all five networks. Put another way, the mainstream media devoted 840 times more airtime to the palace intrigue of the Times op-ed than to Trump’s commitment to indefinitely occupy and conduct combat operations in yet another Middle Eastern country. This level of asymmetric focus demonstrates a collective news judgment that is seriously out of whack.

It isn’t just Sunday mornings, either. Syria coverage has been completely missing from the NBC Nightly News and ABC World News Tonight evening broadcasts during the past week. CBS Evening News did cover the potential humanitarian disaster in Idlib on Monday (9/10/18), but it too left out any mention of Trump’s major decision to maintain an indefinite military presence inside Syria. Whereas coverage of the Times op-ed swept across all three networks’ broadcasts last Wednesday, Thursday and Friday (Both NBC and ABC evening broadcasts revisited the op-ed story again on this past Monday), sometimes spanning multiple blocks of airtime (ABC World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News, CBS Evening News).

Cable news was, unsurprisingly, awash in programs and panels speculating over the Times op-ed ad nauseam; Syria war policy coverage was almost blacked out. CNN (9/7/18) ran an online story on the Syria news with an admirably accurate headline—“US Envoy to Syria Says US Will Stay Until There Is an ‘Enduring Defeat’ of ISIS”—but the network notably didn’t devote any panel show debates or other on-air coverage of significance to this new Syria policy by the Trump administration. Similarly, MSNBC offered minimal coverage of Syria, and even those anchors that took the time to dig into the civil war, like Ali Velshi (9/8/18), didn’t note Trump’s 180-degree policy shift on military occupation.

CBS did produce a segment (9/8/18) on the new Syria policy for its digital streaming channel, but it buried the real news under a bland, misleading headline: “US to Keep Military Presence in Syria.” Moreover, the report produced a few moments of stark cognitive dissonance. For example, halfway through the segment on the many factions fighting in Syria, the CBSN Live host asked the expert she was interviewing:

Do you get the sense that there will be some sort of military action taken at this point by the United States. Are we closer to intervening?

She was specifically referring to military action against a Syrian government assault on Idlib in northwest Syria, but the language was still striking, as it served to disappear the reality that the US has already been heavily intervening in Syria for years now—via a CIA-funded pro-rebel campaign, two missile attacks against Assad, as well as the deployment of thousands of US combat troops and more than  100,000 munitions  dropped to fight ISIS. The fact that the US has maintained a broad—and now growing—combat footprint in Syria continues to be so overlooked by the establishment press that even prominent New York Times columnists have forgotten it (FAIR.org, 9/6/18).

Seventeen years after 9/11, the corporate media still finds itself overwhelmingly making the same mistakes when it comes to its war coverage: obsessing over shiny, ephemeral Beltway distractions while the most important, consequential stories get either ignored or buried. But as our nation’s military campaigns spread across even more of the globe under Trump, journalism must break free of an institutional groupthink that makes it increasingly complicit with a policy of endless war.

If US soldiers are still fighting and dying and killing in Syria 17 years from now, solving the whodunit of how this tragedy came to pass won’t be that difficult; the press could start by looking at what it chose to cover this week.

*

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

Reed Richardson is a media critic and writer whose work has appeared in The Nation, AlterNet, Harvard University’s Nieman Reports and the textbook Media Ethics (Current Controversies).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on As Trump Commits to Endless War, Corporate Media Obsess Over Anonymous Op-Ed

On the day the Ford government’s ham-fisted attempt to alter the balance of political forces in Toronto came to a head in open confrontation with the judiciary, the international media’s attention was focused on a far right political party winning third place in the Swedish election with 17 per cent of the vote.

Any mention abroad of what was happening in Ontario – with a population larger than Sweden’s, and where the party in government had recently secured over 40 per cent of the vote – was notably thin on the ground.

Yet the rapidity, as well as the scope, of the new Ontario government’s intervention to change the basis of a municipal election that was already in motion in one of the world’s leading cities arguably exceeds what any other far right government has yet done.

The disdain for conventional democratic political norms, alongside the very explicitness of the intent to thereby secure a considerable narrowing of the political space, has been especially breathtaking.

In Defiance of the Courts

In justifying his use of the notwithstanding clause in defiance of the judicial ruling last Monday, Premier Doug Ford had the temerity to claim that

“the only people who are fighting this move are a small group of left-wing councillors … along with a network of activist groups who have entrenched themselves in power under the status quo.”

This was of course patently untrue. The opposition to the arbitrary intervention to changing Toronto’s democratic representative format amidst the 2018 election has been remarkably broad based.

Protesters lining up outside Queen’s Park , for the special midnight session. (Source: The Bullet)

But this statement is of a piece with the neo-McCarthyite tone of the loudly trumpeted expression of intent all along to use provincial powers mainly to get rid of the “lefties” on Toronto City Council. Some might want to quibble over how far to the left these alleged “lefties” actually are. But that is precisely the point. Especially when the derision of all “lefties” is combined with the derision of “activists groups” in general, the political target involves a very considerable part of the political spectrum.

Many have portrayed Ford’s intervention as a fit of pique – getting back at those who stood up to him during his brother’s term as mayor. This takes attention away from what the provincial intervention in Toronto’s political scene was designed to accomplish, not by looking back, but by looking forward. It sought to alter the overall political balance of forces this government would face over the next four years.

The security of a government with a majority in the legislature – even if secured with only a plurality of the votes – means that the playing out of substantive democracy must take place on the broader political field. This terrain encompasses activist groups, as well as the powers-that-be so deeply entrenched they don’t need to be very visibly active.

But it also includes other levels of government, in this case reflecting the very different balance of forces that would have been yielded within months of the provincial election if the process already in train for the election of councillors in Canada’s preeminent city was allowed to go ahead undisturbed.

Ford’s intervention in the 2018 Toronto election was thus designed to secure a very substantive closure of democratic political space, whatever its formal constitutional legality.

The judicial ruling last Monday showed it did not even meet that standard, but in substantive democratic terms, the few previous uses of the notwithstanding clause pale in significance in comparison with its deployment in this case.

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Authoritarian Fordism in Ontario Trumps the Far Right Elsewhere
  • Tags:

Global Research Editor’s Note

According to a Reuters report “Nestle, Unilever & Coca-Cola are among bidders for GlaxoSmithKline’s Indian Horlicks nutrition business, expected to fetch more than $4 billion”.

Also of relevance is the privatization of water in relation to the upcoming October elections in Brazil.

CocaCola and Nestle have denied the reports. Nestle has also clarified (quoting news reports which deny the privatization of the aquifer):

Nestlé does not extract water from any part of the Guarani Aquifer in South America, including in Brazil.

We have no plans to do so and neither are we discussing this matter with the Brazilian authorities.

Suggestions to the contrary in stories online are incorrect.

We are fully committed to water stewardship and the human right to water.

We are fully committed to water stewardship and the human right to water.

An AFP Report has clarified that:

“CocaCola  and Nestle are not going to privatise the Guarani Aquifer, … The information was first shared in the Correio do Brasil in 2016,  quoting an unknown senior official at the National Water Agency”. … The Guarani Aquifer was never one of the 34 infrastructures which Temer had announced were to be sold by the government in order to boost the economy and bring it out of recession under the Investment Partnership Programme, an IPP spokesperson told AFP.”

 

According to Mint Press

In Brazil, intense lobbying has been underway since at least 2016 to tap into the aquifer. These efforts fell under the spotlight late last month (February 2018) at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where private talks were reported between Brazil’s President Michel Temer and a range of top executives with interests in the aquifer…”

Invariably, the model for the extraction of natural resources including water is not outright “privatization” but the granting of concessions (long term leases) to private corporations, while retaining formal public ownership.

For Nestle’s insidious role in the water business, See the report on Nestle by Bloomberg

***

Private companies such as Coca-Cola and Nestlé are allegedly in the process of acquiring private ownership of the largest reserve of water, known as the Guarani Aquifer, in South America. The aquifer is located beneath the surface of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay and is the second largest-known aquifer system in the world.

Reported by Correio do Brasil the major transnational conglomerates are “striding forward” with their negotiations to privatize the aquifer system. Meetings have already been reserved with authorities of the Brazil’s Temer government to outline procedures required for private companies to exploit the water sources. The concession contracts would last more than 100 years.

The first public conversation about this dilemma was scheduled on the same day the process of voting for the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff was opened. As Central Politico reports,

This coincidence was fatal for the adjournment of the meeting.”

“There must be another list of projects to be granted or privatized in the medium term, with auctions that may occur in up to one year, such as Electrobras energy distributors and freshwater sources,”  [translated from Portuguese].

This issue extends beyond South America. Humanity will be affected by the decision to privatize the second-largest aquifer system in the world. Essentially, the corporations are profiting of a natural resource that should be freely available to all.

Under the Guarani Aquifer Project’s Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development Project, known as ANA’s Guarani Aquifer Project (SAG), the aquifer would be managed and preserved for present and future generations. Following the conservatives’ victory in Argentina and the coup d’état, pressed for by the ultra right in Paraguay and Brazil, only Uruguay was left to vote on the privatization of the aquifer.

Approximately two-thirds (1.2 million km²) of the reserve is located in Brazilian territory, specifically in the states of Goiás, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Paraná, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul. Future generations will ultimately suffer if this deal goes through, which is why human rights organizations around the world are getting involved.

“Organized civil society is alert to possible privatization strategies of transnational economic groups. Since 2003, the Organization of American States (OAS) and the World Bank, through the Global Environment Facility (GEF), have implemented the Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development project to gather and develop research on the Guarani Aquifer , with the objective of implementing a common institutional, legal and technical model for MERCOSUR countries,” says a document from the Human Rights Organization Terra de Direitos.

Nothing will change if we sit idly by and watch greedy corporations exploit the environment and snatch precious resources from present and future generations. Forward this article.

*

Amanda Froelich is an RHN, plant-based chef, freelance writer with 6+ years of experience, Reiki master therapist, world traveler and enthusiast of everything to do with animal rights, sustainability, cannabis and conscious living. I share healthy recipes at Bloom for Life and cannabis-infused treats at My Stoned Kitchen.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons.

Israel, Turkey Hold Secret Talks in UAE

September 19th, 2018 by Middle East Monitor

Israeli and Turkish envoys yesterday flew to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to hold secret backchannel talks on restoring diplomatic relations.

According to a Hebrew language report by Ynet,

“an Israeli executive jet and a Turkish government executive plane took off at 09:00 [GMT] to the United Arab Emirates and stopped for a short time. The planes landed in Abu Dhabi at 14:30 and took off again [Monday] morning.”

The Times of Israel added that both aircrafts flew via the Jordanian capital Amman, but while “the flights are believed to be connected to the ongoing talks […] neither government has confirmed their purpose”.

It is not known exactly what will be discussed by the two parties, but if the secret talks prove successful they are expected to return their respective ambassadors in early October, after the Jewish holiday season draws to a close, according to the Times of Israel.

Relations between Israel and Turkey have been severed since May when both countries became embroiled in a diplomatic spat against the backdrop of the US embassy move to Jerusalem and the Israeli massacre of Palestinian protesters during the Great March of Return in the besieged Gaza Strip. On 15 May, Turkey asked Israeli Ambassador Eitan Naeh to leave the country. In retaliation, Turkey’s consul general in Jerusalem Gurcan Turkoglu was summoned by the Israeli Foreign Ministry and asked to leave.

Relations were further soured when Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, took to Twitter to condemn Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He tweeted:

“Netanyahu is the PM of an apartheid state that has occupied a defenseless people’s lands for 60+ yrs in violation of UN resolutions. He has the blood of Palestinians on his hands and can’t cover up crimes by attacking Turkey.”

Netanyahu responded via Twitter, saying:

“Erdogan is among Hamas’s biggest supporters and there is no doubt that he well understands terrorism and slaughter. I suggest that he not preach morality to us.”

The crisis deepened on 17 May when Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Recep Akdag claimed that the Israeli and Egyptian governments had prevented a Turkish aircraft from transporting Palestinians injured in the Great March from Gaza to Turkey. Akdag called on the World Health Organisation (WHO) to intervene, explaining:

“I called the head of the World Health Organization and asked for support, similar to what they have done in the 2014 crisis when they put pressure on [Israel].”

Image result for AsiaGlobal Technology UAE

That the talks are being held in the UAE will also be seen as significant in light of the Gulf state’s normalisation of relations with Israel. In September, the UAE agreed to allow the Israeli national anthem to be played and the flag to be flown at an international judo tournament slated to be held in Abu Dhabi next month. The tournament will also see Israeli and Emirati judoists compete side by side.

Israel-UAE relations have also extended to security and political fields. In August it emerged that the UAE purchases Israeli security technology via a firm called Asia Global Technology, which is run by Israeli-American businessman Mati Kochavi. In June, an exposé by the New Yorker revealed that Israel and the UAE have been engaged in secret normalisation talks since the Oslo Accords of the 1990s. These meetings discussed the possibility of the UAE purchasing F-16 fighter jets from the US, which are known to be comprised of Israeli technology. The Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed Bin Zayed, also gave his blessing for delegations of influential American Jews to be brought to Abu Dhabi to meet with Emirati officials and establish an intelligence-sharing relationship.

*

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

First published by Global Research on September 12, 2015

The outlawing of narcotic drugs at the start of the Twentieth Century, the turning of the matter from public health to social control, coincided with American’s imperial Open Door policy and the belief that the government had an obligation to American industrialists to create markets in every nation in the world, whether those nations liked it or not.

Civic institutions, like public education, were required to sanctify this policy, while “security” bureaucracies were established to ensure the citizenry conformed to the state ideology. Secret services, both public and private, were likewise established to promote the expansion of private American economic interests overseas.

It takes a book to explain the economic foundations of the war on drugs, and the reasons behind the regulation of the medical, pharmaceutical and drug manufacturers industries. Suffice it to say that by 1943, the nations of the “free world” were relying on America for their opium derivatives, under the guardianship of Harry Anslinger, the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN).

Narcotic drugs are a strategic resource, and when Anslinger learned that Peru had built a cocaine factory, he and the Board of Economic Warfare confiscated its product before it could be sold to Germany or Japan. In another instance, Anslinger and his counterpart at the State Department prevented a drug manufacturer in Argentina from selling drugs to Germany.

At the same time, according to Douglas Clark Kinder and William O. Walker III in their article, “Stable Force In a Storm: Harry J. Anslinger and United States Narcotic Policy, 1930-1962,” Anslinger permitted “an American company to ship drugs to Southeast Asia despite receiving intelligence reports that French authorities were permitting opiate smuggling into China and collaborating with Japanese drug traffickers.”

Federal drug law enforcement’s relationship with the espionage establishment matured with the creation of CIA’s predecessor organization, the Office of Strategic Services. Prior to the Second World War, the FBN was the government agency most adept at conducting covert operations at home and abroad. As a result, OSS chief William Donovan asked Anslinger to provide seasoned FBN agents to help organize the OSS and train its agents to work undercover, avoid security forces in hostile nations, manage agent networks, and engage in sabotage and subversion.

The relationship expanded during the war, when FBN executives and agents worked with OSS scientists in domestic “truth drug” experiments involving marijuana. The “extra-legal” nature of the relationship continued after the war: when the CIA decided to test LSD on unsuspecting American citizens, FBN agents were chosen to operate the safehouses where the experiments were conducted.

The relationship was formalized overseas in 1951, when Agent Charlie Siragusa opened an office in Rome and began to develop the FBN’s foreign operations. In the 1950s, FBN agents posted overseas spent half their time doing “favors” for the CIA, such as investigating diversions of strategic materials behind the Iron Curtain. A handful of FBN agents were actually recruited into the CIA while maintaining their FBN credentials as cover.

Officially, FBN agents set limits. Siragusa, for example, claimed to object when the CIA asked him to mount a “controlled delivery” into the U.S. as a way of identifying the American members of a smuggling ring with Communist affiliations.

As Siragusa said,

“The FBN could never knowingly allow two pounds of heroin to be delivered into the United States and be pushed to Mafia customers in the New York City area, even if in the long run we could seize a bigger haul.” [For citations to this and other quotations/interviews, as well as documents, please refer to the author’s books, The Strength of the Wolf: The Secret History of America’s War on Drugs (Verso 2004) and The Strength of the Pack: The Personalities, Politics, and Espionage Intrigues that Shaped the DEA (TrineDay 2009). See also www.douglasvalentine.com]

And in 1960, when the CIA asked him to recruit assassins from his stable of underworld contacts, Siragusa again claimed to have refused. But drug traffickers, including, most prominently, Santo Trafficante Jr, were soon participating in CIA attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro.

As the dominant partner in the relationship, the CIA exploited its affinity with the FBN. “Like the CIA,” FBN Agent Robert DeFauw explained, “narcotic agents mount covert operations. We pose as members of the narcotics trade. The big difference is that we were in foreign countries legally, and through our police and intelligence sources, we could check out just about anyone or anything. Not only that, we were operational. So the CIA jumped in our stirrups.”

Jumping in the FBN’s stirrups afforded the CIA deniability, which is turn affords it impunity. To ensure that the CIA’s criminal activities are not revealed, narcotic agents are organized militarily within an inviolable chain of command. Highly indoctrinated, they blindly obey based on a “need to know.” This institutionalized ignorance sustains the illusion of righteousness, in the name of national security, upon which their motivation depends.

As FBN Agent Martin Pera explained, “Most FBN agents were corrupted by the lure of the underworld. They thought they could check their morality at the door – go out and lie, cheat, and steal – then come back and retrieve it. But you can’t. In fact, if you’re successful because you can lie, cheat, and steal, those things become tools you use in the bureaucracy.”

Institutionalized corruption began at headquarters, where FBN executives provided cover for CIA assets engaged in drug trafficking. In 1966, Agent John Evans was assigned as an assistant to enforcement chief John Enright.

“And that’s when I got to see what the CIA was doing,” Evans said. “I saw a report on the Kuomintang saying they were the biggest drug dealers in the world, and that the CIA was underwriting them. Air America was transporting tons of Kuomintang opium.” Evans bristled. “I took the report to Enright.  He said, ‘Leave it here.  Forget about it.’

“Other things came to my attention,” Evans added, “that proved that the CIA contributed to drug use in America. We were in constant conflict with the CIA because it was hiding its budget in ours, and because CIA people were smuggling drugs into the US. We weren’t allowed to tell, and that fostered corruption in the Bureau.”

Heroin smuggled by “CIA people” into the U.S. was channeled by Mafia distributors primarily to African-American communities. Local narcotic agents then targeted disenfranchised blacks as an easy way of preserving the white ruling class’s privileges.

“We didn’t need a search warrant,” explains New Orleans narcotics officer Clarence Giarusso. “It allowed us to meet our quota. And it was on-going. If I find dope on a black man, I can put him in jail for a few days. He’s got no money for a lawyer and the courts are ready to convict. There’s no expectation on the jury’s part that we have to make a case.

So rather than go cold turkey, the addict becomes an informant, which means I can make more cases in the neighborhood, which is all we’re interested in. We don’t care about Carlos Marcello or the Mafia. City cops have no interest in who brings dope in. That’s the job of the federal agents.

The Establishment’s race and class privileges have always been equated with national security, and FBN executives dutifully preserved the social order. Not until 1968, when Civil Rights reforms were imposed upon government bureaucracies, were black FBN agents allowed to become supervisors and manage white agents.

The war on drugs is largely a projection of two things: the racism that has defined America since its inception, and the government policy of allowing political allies to traffic in narcotics. These unstated but official policies reinforce the belief among CIA and drug law enforcement officials that the Bill of Rights is an obstacle to national security.

Blanket immunity from prosecution for turning these policies into practice engenders a belief among bureaucrats that they are above the law, which fosters corruption in other forms. FBN agents, for example, routinely “created a crime” by breaking and entering, planting evidence, using illegal wiretaps, and falsifying reports. They tampered with heroin, transferred it to informants for sale, and even murdered other agents who threatened to expose them.

All of this was secretly known at the highest level of government, and in 1965 the Treasury Department launched a corruption investigation of the FBN. Headed by Andrew Tartaglino, the investigation ended in 1968 with the resignation of 32 agents and the indictment of five. That same year the FBN was reconstructed in the Department of Justice as the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD).

But, as Tartaglino said dejectedly, “The job was only half done.”

First Infestation

Richard Nixon was elected president based on a vow to restore “law and order” to America. To prove that it intended to keep that promise, the White House in 1969 launched Operation Intercept along the Mexican border. This massive “stop and search” operation so badly damaged relations with Mexico, however, that National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger formed the Ad Hoc Committee on Narcotics (the Heroin Committee), to coordinate drug policy and prevent further diplomatic disasters.

The Heroin Committee was composed of cabinet members represented by their deputies. James Ludlum represented CIA Director Richard Helms. A member of the CIA’s Counter-Intelligence staff, Ludlum had been the CIA’s liaison officer to the FBN since 1962.

“When Kissinger set up the Heroin Committee,” Ludlum recalled, “the CIA certainly didn’t take it seriously, because drug control wasn’t part of their mission.”

Indeed, as John Evans noted above, and as the government was aware, the CIA for years had sanctioned the heroin traffic from the Golden Triangle region of Burma, Thailand and Laos into South Vietnam as a way of rewarding top foreign officials for advancing U.S. policies. This reality presented the Nixon White House with a dilemma, given that addiction among U.S. troops in Vietnam was soaring, and that massive amounts of Southeast Asian heroin were being smuggled into the U.S., for use by middle-class white kids on the verge of revolution.

Nixon’s response was to make drug law enforcement part of the CIA’s mission. Although reluctant to betray the CIA’s clients in South Vietnam, Helms told Ludlum: “We’re going to break their rice bowls.”

This betrayal occurred incrementally. Fred Dick, the BNDD agent assigned to Saigon, passed the names of the complicit military officers and politicians to the White House. But, as Dick recalled, “Ambassador [Ellsworth] Bunker called a meeting in Saigon at which CIA Station Chief Ted Shackley appeared and explained that there was ‘a delicate balance.’ What he said, in effect, was that no one was willing to do anything.”

Meanwhile, to protect its global network of drug trafficking assets, the CIA began infiltrating the BNDD and commandeering its internal security, intelligence, and foreign operations branches. This massive reorganization required the placement of CIA officers in influential positions in every federal agency concerned with drug law enforcement.

CIA Officer Paul Van Marx, for example, was assigned as the U.S. Ambassador to France’s assistant on narcotics. From this vantage point, Van Marx ensured that BNDD conspiracy cases against European traffickers did not compromise CIA operations and assets. Van Marx also vetted potential BNDD assets to make sure they were not enemy spies.

The FBN never had more than 16 agents stationed overseas, but Nixon dramatically increased funding for the BNDD and hundreds of agents were posted abroad. The success of these overseas agents soon came to depend on CIA intelligence, as BNDD Director John Ingersoll understood.

BNDD agents immediately felt the impact of the CIA’s involvement in drug law enforcement operations within the United States. Operation Eagle was the flashpoint. Launched in 1970, Eagle targeted anti-Castro Cubans smuggling cocaine from Latin America to the Trafficante organization in Florida. Of the dozens of traffickers arrested in June, many were found to be members of Operation 40, a CIA terror organization active in the U.S., the Caribbean, Central and South America, and Mexico.

The revelation that CIA drug smuggling assets were operating within the U.S. led to the assignment of CIA officers as counterparts to mid-level BNDD enforcement officials, including Latin American division chief Jerry Strickler. Like Van Marks in France, these CIA officers served to protect CIA assets from exposure, while facilitating their recruitment as informants for the BNDD.

Many Cuban exiles arrested in Operation Eagle were indeed hired by the BNDD and sent throughout Latin America. They got “fantastic intelligence,” Strickler noted. But many were secretly serving the CIA and playing a double game.

Second Infestation

By 1970, BNDD Director Ingersoll’s inspections staff had gathered enough evidence to warrant the investigation of dozens of corrupt FBN agents who had risen to management positions in the BNDD. But Ingersoll could not investigate his top managers while simultaneously investigating drug traffickers. So he asked CIA Director Helms for help building a “counter-intelligence” capacity within the BNDD.

The result was Operation Twofold, in which 19 CIA officers were infiltrated into the BNDD, ostensibly to spy on corrupt BNDD officials. According to the BNDD’s Chief Inspector Patrick Fuller, “A corporation engaged in law enforcement hired three CIA officers posing as private businessmen to do the contact and interview work.”

CIA recruiter Jerry Soul, a former Operation 40 case officer, primarily selected officers whose careers had stalled due to the gradual reduction of forces in Southeast Asia. Those hired were put through the BNDD’s training course and assigned to spy on a particular regional director. No records were kept and some participants have never been identified.

Charles Gutensohn was a typical Twofold “torpedo.” Prior to his recruitment into the BNDD, Gutensohn had spent two years at the CIA’s base in Pakse, a major heroin transit point between Laos and South Vietnam. “Fuller said that when we communicated, I was to be known as Leo Adams for Los Angeles,” Gutensohn said. “He was to be Walter DeCarlo, for Washington, DC.”

Gutensohn’s cover, however, was blown before he got to Los Angeles. “Someone at headquarters was talking and everyone knew,” he recalled. “About a month after I arrived, one of the agents said to me, ‘I hear that Pat Fuller signed your credentials’.”

Twofold, which existed at least until 1974, was deemed by the Rockefeller Commission to have “violated the 1947 Act which prohibits the CIA’s participation in law enforcement activities.” It also, as shall be discussed later, served as a cover for clandestine CIA operations.

Third Infestation

The Nixon White House blamed the BNDD’s failure to stop international drug trafficking on its underdeveloped intelligence capabilities, a situation that opened the door to further CIA infiltration. In late 1970, CIA Director Helms arranged for his recently retired chief of continuing intelligence, E. Drexel Godfrey, to review BNDD intelligence procedures. Among other things, Godfrey recommended that the BNDD create regional intelligence units (RIUs) and an office of strategic intelligence (SI0).

The RIUs were up and running by 1971 with CIA officers often assigned as analysts, prompting BNDD agents to view the RIUs with suspicion, as repositories for Twofold torpedoes.

The SIO was harder to implement, given its arcane function as a tool to help top managers formulate plans and strategies “in the political sphere.” As SIO Director John Warner explained, “We needed to understand the political climate in Thailand in order to address the problem. We needed to know what kind of protection the Thai police were affording traffickers. We were looking for an intelligence office that could deal with those sorts of issues, on the ground, overseas.”

Organizing the SIO fell to CIA officers Adrian Swain and Tom Tripodi, both of whom were recruited into the BNDD. In April 1971 they accompanied Ingersoll to Saigon, where Station Chief Shackley briefed them. Through his CIA contacts, Swain obtained maps of drug-smuggling routes in Southeast Asia.

Upon their return to the U.S., Swain and Tripodi expressed frustration that the CIA had access to people capable of providing the BNDD with intelligence, but these people “were involved in narcotics trafficking and the CIA did not want to identify them.”

Seeking a way to circumvent the CIA, they recommended the creation of a “special operations or strategic operations staff” that would function as the BNDD’s own CIA “using a backdoor approach to gather intelligence in support of operations.” Those operations would rely on “longer range, deep penetration, clandestine assets, who remain undercover, do not appear during the course of any trial and are recruited and directed by the Special Operations agents on a covert basis.”

The White House approved the plan and in May 1971, Kissinger presented a $120 million drug control proposal, of which $50 million was earmarked for special operations. Three weeks later Nixon declared “war on drugs,” at which point Congress responded with funding for the SIO and authorization for the extra-legal operations Swain and Tripodi envisioned.

SIO Director Warner was given a seat on the U.S. Intelligence Board so the SIO could obtain raw intelligence from the CIA. But, in return, the SIO was compelled to adopt CIA security procedures. A CIA officer established the SIO’s file room and computer system; safes and steel doors were installed; and witting agents had to obtain CIA clearances.

Active-duty CIA officers were assigned to the SIO as desk officers for Europe and the Middle East, the Far East, and Latin America. Tripodi was assigned as chief of operations. Tripodi had spent the previous six years in the CIA’s Security Research Services, where his duties included the penetration of peace groups, as well as setting up firms to conduct black bag jobs. Notably, White House “Plumber” E. Howard Hunt inherited Tripodi’s Special Operations unit, which included several of the Watergate burglars.

Tripodi liaised with the CIA on matters of mutual interest and the covert collection of narcotics intelligence outside of routine BNDD channels. As part of his operational plan, code-named Medusa, Tripodi proposed that SIO agents hire foreign nationals to blow up contrabandista planes while they were refueling at clandestine air strips. Another proposal called for ambushing traffickers in America, and taking their drugs and money.

Enter Lucien Conein

The creation of the SIO coincided with the assignment of CIA officer Lucien Conein to the BNDD. As a member of the OSS, Conein had parachuted into France to form resistance cells that included Corsican gangsters. As a CIA officer, Conein in 1954 was assigned to Vietnam to organize anti-communist forces, and in 1963 achieved infamy as the intermediary between the Kennedy White House and the cabal of generals that murdered President Diem.

Historian Alfred McCoy has alleged that, in 1965, Conein arranged a truce between the CIA and drug trafficking Corsicans in Saigon. The truce, according to McCoy, allowed the Corsicans to traffic, as long as they served as contact men for the CIA. The truce also endowed the Corsicans with “free passage” at a time when Marseilles’ heroin labs were turning from Turkish to Southeast Asian morphine base.

Conein denied McCoy’s allegation and insisted that his meeting with the Corsicans was solely to resolve a problem caused by Daniel Ellsberg’s “peccadilloes with the mistress of a Corsican.”

It is impossible to know who is telling the truth. What is known is that in July 1971, on Howard Hunt’s recommendation, the White House hired Conein as an expert on Corsican drug traffickers in Southeast Asia. Conein was assigned as a consultant to the SIO’s Far East Asia desk. His activities will soon be discussed in greater detail.

The Parallel Mechanism

In September 1971, the Heroin Committee was reorganized as the Cabinet Committee for International Narcotics Control (CCINC) under Secretary of State William Rogers. CCINC’s mandate was to “set policies which relate international considerations to domestic considerations.” By 1975, its budget amounted to $875 million, and the war on drugs had become a most profitable industry.

Concurrently, the CIA formed a unilateral drug unit in its operations division under Seymour Bolten. Known as the Special Assistant to the Director for the Coordination of Narcotics, Bolten directed CIA division and station chiefs in unilateral drug control operations. In doing this, Bolten worked closely with Ted Shackley, who in 1972 was appointed head of the CIA’s Western Hemisphere Division. Bolten and Shackley had worked together in post-war Germany, as well as in anti-Castro Cubans operations in the early 1960s. Their collaboration would grease federal drug law enforcement’s skid into oblivion.

“Bolten screwed us,” BNDD’s Latin American division chief Jerry Strickler said emphatically. “And so did Shackley.”

Bolten “screwed” the BNDD, and the American judicial system, by setting up a “parallel mechanism” based on a computerized register of international drug traffickers and a CIA-staffed communications crew that intercepted calls from drug traffickers inside the U.S. to their accomplices around the world. The International Narcotics Information Network (INIS) was modeled on a computerized management information system Shackley had used to terrorize the underground resistance in South Vietnam.

Bolten’s staff also “re-tooled” dozens of CIA officers and slipped them into the BNDD. Several went to Lou Conein at the SIO for clandestine, highly illegal operations.

Factions within the CIA and military were opposed to Bolten’s parallel mechanism, but CIA Executive Director William Colby supported Bolten’s plan to preempt the BNDD and use its agents and informants for unilateral CIA purposes. The White House also supported the plan for political purposes related to Watergate. Top BNDD officials who resisted were expunged; those who cooperated were rewarded.

Bureau of Narcotics Covert Intelligence Network 

In September 1972, DCI Helms (then immersed in Watergate intrigues), told BNDD Director Ingersoll that the CIA had prepared files on specific drug traffickers in Miami, the Florida Keys, and the Caribbean. Helms said the CIA would provide Ingersoll with assets to pursue the traffickers and develop information on targets of opportunity. The CIA would also provide operational, technical, and financial support.

The result was the Bureau of Narcotics Covert Intelligence Network (BUNCIN) whose methodology reflected Tripodi’s Medusa Plan and included “provocations, inducement to desertion, creating confusion and apprehension.”

Some BUNCIN intelligence activities were directed against “senior foreign government officials” and were “blamed on other government agencies or even on the intelligence services of other nations.” Other BUNCIN activities were directed against American civic and political groups.

BNDD officials managed BUNCIN’s legal activities, while Conein at the SIO managed its political and CIA aspects. According to Conein’s administrative deputy, Rich Kobakoff, “BUNCIN was an experiment in how to finesse the law. The end product was intelligence, not seizures or arrests.”

CIA officers Robert Medell and William Logay were selected to manage BUNCIN.

A Bay of Pigs veteran born in Cuba, Medell was initially assigned to the Twofold program. Medell was BUNCIN’s “covert” agent and recruited its principal agents. All of his assets had previously worked for the CIA, and all believed they were working for it again.

Medell started running agents in March 1973 with the stated goal of penetrating the Trafficante organization. To this end the BNDD’s Enforcement Chief, Andy Tartaglino, introduced Medell to Sal Caneba, a retired Mafioso who had been in business with Trafficante in the 1950s. Caneba in one day identified the head of the Cuban side of the Trafficante family, as well as its organizational structure.

But the CIA refused to allow the BNDD to pursue the investigation, because it had employed Trafficante in its assassination attempts against Fidel Castro, and because Trafficante’s Operation 40 associates were performing similar functions for the CIA around the world.

Medell’s Principal Agent was Bay of Pigs veteran Guillermo Tabraue, whom the CIA paid $1,400 a week. While receiving this princely sum, Tabraue participated in the “Alvarez-Cruz” drug smuggling ring.

Medell also recruited agents from Manuel Artime’s anti-Castro Cuban organization. Former CIA officer and White House “Plumber” Howard Hunt, notably, had been Artime’s case officer for years, and many members of Artime’s organization had worked for Ted Shackley while Shackley was the CIA’s station chief in Miami.

Bill Logay was the “overt” agent assigned to the BUNCIN office in Miami. Logay had been Shackley’s bodyguard in Saigon in 1969. From 1970-1971, Logay had served as a special police liaison and drug coordinator in Saigon’s Precinct 5. Logay was also asked to join Twofold, but claims to have refused.

Medell and Logay’s reports were hand delivered to BNDD headquarters via the Defense Department’s classified courier service. The Defense Department was in charge of emergency planning and provided BUNCIN agents with special communications equipment. The CIA supplied BUNCIN’s assets with forged IDs that enabled them to work for foreign governments, including Panama, Venezuela and Costa Rica.

Like Twofold, BUNCIN had two agendas. One, according to Chief Inspector Fuller, “was told” and had a narcotics mission. The other provided cover for the Plumbers. Orders for the domestic political facet emanated from the White House and passed through Conein to “Plumber” Gordon Liddy and his “Operation Gemstone” squad of exile Cuban terrorists from the Artime organization.

Enforcement chief Tartaglino was unhappy with the arrangement and gave Agent Ralph Frias the job of screening anti-Castro Cubans sent by the White House to the BNDD. Frias was assigned to International Affairs chief George Belk. When Nixon’s White House chief of staff H.R. “Bob” Haldeman sent over three Cubans, Frias interviewed them and realized they were “plants.” Those three were not hired, but, Frias lamented, many others were successfully infiltrated inside the BNDD and other federal agencies.

Under BUNCIN cover, CIA anti-Castro assets reportedly kidnapped and assassinated people in Colombia and Mexico. BUNCIN’s White House sponsors also sent CIA anti-Castro Cuban assets to gather dirt on Democratic politicians in Key West. With BUNCIN, federal drug law enforcement sank to new lows of political repression and corruption.

Novo Yardley

The Nixon White House introduced the “operations by committee” management method to ensure control over its illegal drug operations. But as agencies involved in drug law enforcement pooled resources, the BNDD’s mission was diluted and diminished.

And, as the preeminent agency in the federal government, the CIA not only separated itself from the BNDD as part of Bolten’s parallel mechanism, it rode off into the sunset on the BNDD’s horse. For example, at their introductory meeting in Mexico City in 1972, Ted Shackley told Latin American division chief Strickler to hand over all BNDD files, informant lists, and cable traffic.

According to Strickler, “Bad things happened.” The worst abuse was that the CIA allowed drug shipments into the U.S. without telling the BNDD.

“Individual stations allowed this,” SIO Director John Warner confirmed.

In so far as evidence acquired by CIA electronic surveillance is inadmissible in court, the CIA was able to protect its controlled deliveries into the U.S. merely by monitoring them. Numerous investigations had to be terminated as a result. Likewise, dozens of prosecutions were dismissed on national security grounds due to the participation of CIA assets operating around the world.

Strickler knew which CIA people were guilty of sabotaging cases in Latin America, and wanted to indict them. And so, at Bolten’s insistence, Strickler was reassigned. Meanwhile, CIA assets from Bolten’s unilateral drug unit were kidnapping and assassinating traffickers as part of Operation Twofold.

BNDD Director Ingersoll confirmed the existence of this covert facet of Twofold. Its purpose, he said, was to put people in deep cover in the U.S. to develop intelligence on drug trafficking, particularly from South America. The regional directors weren’t aware of it. Ingersoll said he got approval from Attorney General John Mitchell and passed the operation on to John Bartels, the first administrator of the DEA. He said the unit did not operate inside the U.S., which is why he thought it was legal.

Ingersoll added that he was surprised that no one from the Rockefeller Commission asked him about it.

Joseph DiGennaro’s entry into the covert facet of Operation Twofold began when a family friend, who knew CIA officer Jim Ludlum, suggested that he apply for a job with the BNDD. Then working as a stockbroker in New York, DiGennaro met Fuller in August 1971 in Washington. Fuller gave DiGennaro the code name Novo Yardley, based on his posting in New York, and as a play on the name of the famous codebreaker.

After DiGennaro obtained the required clearances, he was told that he and several other recruits were being “spun-off” from Twofold into the CIA’s “operational” unit. The background check took 14 months, during which time he received intensive combat and trade-craft training.

In October 1972 he was sent to New York City and assigned to an enforcement group as a cover. His paychecks came from BNDD funds, but the program was reimbursed by the CIA through the Bureau of Mines. The program was authorized by the “appropriate” Congressional committee.

DiGennaro’s unit was managed by the CIA’s Special Operations Division in conjunction with the military, which provided assets within foreign military services to keep ex-filtration routes (air corridors and roads) open. The military cleared air space when captured suspects were brought into the U.S. DiGennaro spent most of his time in South America, but the unit operated worldwide. The CIA unit numbered about 40 men, including experts in printing, forgery, maritime operations, and telecommunications.

DiGennaro would check with Fuller and take sick time or annual leave to go on missions. There were lots of missions. As his BNDD group supervisor in New York said, “Joey was never in the office.”

The job was tracking down, kidnapping, and, if they resisted, killing drug traffickers. Kidnapped targets were incapacitated by drugs and dumped in the U.S. As DEA Agent Gerry Carey recalled, “We’d get a call that there was ‘a present’ waiting for us on the corner of 116th Street and Sixth Avenue. We’d go there and find some guy, who’d been indicted in the Eastern District of New York, handcuffed to a telephone pole. We’d take him to a safe house for questioning and, if possible, turn him into an informer. Sometimes we’d have him in custody for months. But what did he know?”

If you’re a Corsican drug dealer in Argentina, and men with police credentials arrest you, how do you know it’s a CIA operation? DiGennaro’s last operation in 1977 involved the recovery of a satellite that had fallen into a drug dealer’s hands. Such was the extent of the CIA’s “parallel mechanism.”

The Dirty Dozen

With the formation of the Drug Enforcement Administration in July 1973, BUNCIN was renamed the DEA Clandestine Operations Network (DEACON 1). A number of additional DEACONs were developed through Special Field Intelligence Programs (SFIP). As an extension of BUNCIN, DEACON 1 developed intelligence on traffickers in Costa Rica, Ohio and New Jersey; politicians in Florida; terrorists and gun runners; the sale of boats and helicopters to Cuba; and the Trafficante organization.

Under DEA chief John Bartels, administrative control fell under Enforcement Chief George Belk and his Special Projects assistant Philip Smith. Through Belk and Smith, the Office of Special Projects had become a major facet of Bolten’s parallel mechanism. It housed the DEA’s air wing (staffed largely by CIA officers), conducted “research programs” with the CIA, provided technical aids and documentation to agents, and handled fugitive searches.

As part of DEACON 1, Smith sent covert agent Bob Medell “to Caracas or Bogota to develop a network of agents.” As Smith noted in a memorandum, reimbursement for Medell “is being made in backchannel fashion to CIA under payments to other agencies and is not counted as a position against us.”

Thoroughly suborned by Bolten and the CIA, DEA Administrator Bartels established a priority on foreign clandestine narcotics collection. And when Belk proposed a special operations group in intelligence, Bartels immediately approved it. In March 1974, Belk assigned the group to Lou Conein.

As chief of the Intelligence Group/Operations (IGO), Conein administered the DEA Special Operations Group (DEASOG), SFIP and National Intelligence Officers (NIO) programs. The chain of command, however, was “unclear” and while Medell reported administratively to Smith, Conein managed operations through a separate chain of command reaching to William Colby, who had risen to the rank of CIA Director concurrent with the formation of the DEA.

Conein had worked for Colby for many years in Vietnam, for through Colby he hired a “dirty dozen” CIA officers to staff DEASOG. As NIOs (not regular gun-toting DEA agents), the DEASOG officers did not buy narcotics or appear in court, but instead used standard CIA operating procedures to recruit assets and set up agent networks for the long-range collection of intelligence on trafficking groups. They had no connection to the DEA and were housed in a safe house outside headquarters in downtown Washington, DC.

The first DEASOG recruits were CIA officers Elias P. Chavez and Nicholas Zapata. Both had paramilitary and drug control experience in Laos. Colby’s personnel assistant Jack Mathews had been Chavez’s case officer at the Long Thien base, where General Vang Pao ran his secret drug-smuggling army under Ted Shackley’s auspices from 1966-1968.

A group of eight CIA officers followed: Wesley Dyckman, a Chinese linguist with service in Vietnam, was assigned to San Francisco. Louis J. Davis, a veteran of Vietnam and Laos, was assigned to the Chicago Regional Intelligence Unit. Christopher Thompson from the CIA’s Phoenix Program in Vietnam went to San Antonio. Hugh E. Murray, veteran of Pakse and Bolivia (where he participated in the capture of Che Guevara), was sent to Tucson.  Thomas D. McPhaul had worked with Conein in Vietnam, and was sent to Dallas. Thomas L. Briggs, a veteran of Laos and a friend of Shackley’s, went to Mexico. Vernon J. Goertz, a Shackley friend who had participated in the Allende coup, went to Venezuela. David A. Scherman, a Conein friend and former manager of the CIA’s interrogation center in Da Nang, was sent to sunny San Diego.

Gary Mattocks, who ran CIA counter-terror teams in Vietnam’s Delta, and interrogator Robert Simon were the eleventh and twelfth members. Terry Baldwin, Barry Carew and Joseph Lagattuta joined later.

According to Davis, Conein created DEASOG specifically to do Phoenix program-style jobs overseas: the type where a paramilitary officer breaks into a trafficker’s house, takes his drugs, and slits his throat. The NIOs were to operate overseas where they would target traffickers the police couldn’t reach, like a prime minister’s son or the police chief in Acapulco if he was the local drug boss. If they couldn’t assassinate the target, they would bomb his labs or use psychological warfare to make him look like he was a DEA informant, so his own people would kill him.

The DEASOG people “would be breaking the law,” Davis observed, “but they didn’t have arrest powers overseas anyway.”

Conein envisioned 50 NIOs operating worldwide by 1977. But a slew of Watergate-related scandals forced the DEA to curtail its NIO program and reorganize its covert operations staff and functions in ways that have corrupted federal drug law enforcement beyond repair.

Assassination Scandals

The first scandal focused on DEACON 3, which targeted the Aviles-Perez organization in Mexico. Eli Chavez, Nick Zapata and Barry Carew were the NIOs assigned.

A veteran CIA officer who spoke Spanish, Carew had served as a special police adviser in Saigon before joining the BNDD. Carew was assigned as Conein’s Latin American desk officer and managed Chavez and Zapata (aka “the Mexican Assassin”) in Mexico. According to Chavez, a White House Task Force under Howard Hunt had started the DEACON 3 case. The Task force provided photographs of the Aviles Perez compound in Mexico, from whence truckloads of marijuana were shipped to the U.S.

Funds were allotted in February 1974, at which point Chavez and Zapata traveled to Mexico City as representatives of the North American Alarm and Fire Systems Company. In Mazatlán, they met with Carew, who stayed at a fancy hotel and played tennis every day, while Chavez and Zapata, whom Conein referred to as “pepper-bellies,” fumed in a flea-bag motel.

An informant arranged for Chavez, posing as a buyer, to meet Perez. A deal was struck, but DEA chief John Bartels made the mistake of instructing Chavez to brief the DEA’s regional director in Mexico City before making “the buy.”

At this meeting, the DEACON 3 agents presented their operational plan. But when the subject of “neutralizing” Perez came up, analyst Joan Banister took this to mean assassination. Bannister reported her suspicions to DEA headquarters, where the anti-CIA faction leaked her report to Washington Post columnist Jack Anderson.

Anderson’s allegation that the DEA was providing cover for a CIA assassination unit included revelations that the Senate had investigated IGO chief Conein for shopping around for assassination devices, like exploding ashtrays and telephones. Conein managed to keep his job, but the trail led to his comrade from the OSS, Mitch Werbell.

A deniable asset Conein used for parallel operations, Werbell had tried to sell several thousand silenced machine pistols to DEACON 1 target Robert Vesco, then living in Costa Rica surrounded by drug trafficking Cuban exiles in the Trafficante organization. Trafficante was also, at the time, living in Costa Rica as a guest of President Figueres whose son had purchased weapons from Werbell and used them to arm a death squad he formed with DEACON 1 asset Carlos Rumbault, a notorious anti-Castro Cuban terrorist and fugitive drug smuggler.

Meanwhile, in February 1974, DEA Agent Anthony Triponi, a former Green Beret and member of Operation Twofold, was admitted to St. Luke’s Hospital in New York “suffering from hypertension.” DEA inspectors found Triponi in the psychiatric ward, distraught because he had broken his “cover” and now his “special code” would have to be changed.

Thinking he was insane, the DEA inspectors called former chief inspector Patrick Fuller in California, just to be sure. As it turned out, everything Triponi had said about Twofold was true! The incredulous DEA inspectors called the CIA and were stunned when they were told: “If you release the story, we will destroy you.”

By 1975, Congress and the Justice Department were investigating the DEA’s relations with the CIA. In the process they stumbled on, among other things, plots to assassinate Torrijos and Noriega in Panama, as well as Tripodi’s Medusa Program.

In a draft report, one DEA inspector described Medusa as follows: “Topics considered as options included psychological terror tactics, substitution of placebos to discredit traffickers, use of incendiaries to destroy conversion laboratories, and disinformation to cause internal warfare between drug trafficking organizations; other methods under consideration involved blackmail, use of psychopharmacological techniques, bribery and even terminal sanctions.”

The Cover-Up

Despite the flurry of investigations, Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford, reconfirmed the CIA’s narcotic intelligence collection arrangement with DEA, and the CIA continued to have its way. Much of its success is attributed to Seymour Bolten, whose staff handled “all requests for files from the Church Committee,” which concluded that allegations of drug smuggling by CIA assets and proprietaries “lacked substance.”

The Rockefeller Commission likewise gave the CIA a clean bill of health, falsely stating that the Twofold inspections project was terminated in 1973. The Commission completely covered-up the existence of the operation unit hidden within the inspections program.

Ford did task the Justice Department to investigate “allegations of fraud, irregularity, and misconduct” in the DEA. The so-called DeFeo investigation lasted through July 1975, and included allegations that DEA officials had discussed killing Omar Torrijos and Manuel Noriega. In March 1976, Deputy Attorney General Richard Thornburgh announced there were no findings to warrant criminal prosecutions.

In 1976, Congresswoman Bella Abzug submitted questions to new Director of Central Intelligence George H.W. Bush, about the CIA’s central role in international drug trafficking. Bush’s response was to cite a 1954 agreement with the Justice Department gave the CIA the right to block prosecution or keep its crimes secret in the name of national security.

In its report, the Abzug Committee said: “It was ironic that the CIA should be given responsibility of narcotic intelligence, particularly since they are supporting the prime movers.”

The Mansfield Amendment of 1976 sought to curtail the DEA’s extra-legal activities abroad by prohibiting agents from kidnapping or conducting unilateral actions without the consent of the host government. The CIA, of course, was exempt and continued to sabotage DEA cases against its movers, while further tightening its stranglehold on the DEA’s enforcement and intelligence capabilities.

In 1977, the DEA’s Assistant Administrator for Enforcement sent a memo, co-signed by the six enforcement division chiefs, to DEA chief Peter Bensinger. As the memo stated, “All were unanimous in their belief that present CIA programs were likely to cause serious future problems for DEA, both foreign and domestic.”

They specifically cited controlled deliveries enabled by CIA electronic surveillance and the fact that the CIA “will not respond positively to any discovery motion.” They complained that “Many of the subjects who appear in these CIA- promoted or controlled surveillances regularly travel to the United States in furtherance of their trafficking activities.” The “de facto immunity” from prosecution enabled the CIA assets to “operate much more openly and effectively.”

But then DEA chief Peter Bensinger suffered the CIA at the expense of America’s citizens and the DEA’s integrity. Under Bensinger the DEA created its CENTAC program to target drug trafficking organization worldwide through the early 1980s. But the CIA subverted the CENTAC: as its director Dennis Dayle famously said, “The major targets of my investigations almost invariably turned out to be working for the CIA.”

Murder and Mayhem

DEACON 1 inherited BUNCIN’s anti-Castro Cuban assets from Brigade 2506, which the CIA organized to invade Cuba in 1960. Controlled by Nixon’s secret political police, these CIA assets, operating under DEA cover, had parallel assignments involving “extremist groups and terrorism, and information of a political nature.”

Noriega and Moises Torrijos in Panama were targets, as was fugitive financier and Nixon campaign contributor Robert Vesco in Costa Rica, who was suspected of being a middle man in drug and money-laundering operations of value to the CIA.

DEACON 1’s problems began when overt agent Bill Logay charged that covert agent Bob Medell’s anti-Castro Cuban assets had penetrated the DEA on behalf of the Trafficante organization. DEACON 1 secretary Cecelia Plicet fanned the flames by claiming that Conein and Medell were using Principal Agent Tabraue to circumvent the DEA.

In what amounted to an endless succession of controlled deliveries, Tabraue was financing loads of cocaine and using DEACON 1’s Cuban assets to smuggle them into the U.S. Plicet said that Medell and Conein worked for “the other side” and wanted the DEA to fail. These accusations prompted an investigation, after which Logay was reassigned to inspections and Medell was reassigned and replaced by Gary Mattocks, an NIO member of the Dirty Dozen.

According to Mattocks, Shackley helped Colby set up DEASOG and brought in “his” people, including Tom Clines, whom Shackley placed in charge of the CIA’s Caribbean operations. Clines, like Shackley and Bolten, knew all the exile Cuban terrorists and traffickers on the DEASOG payroll. CIA officer Vernon Goertz worked for Clines in Caracas as part of the CIA’s parallel mechanism under DEASOG cover.

As cover for his DEACON 1 activities, Mattocks set up a front company designed to improve relations between Cuban and American businessmen. Meanwhile, through the CIA, he recruited members of the Artime organization including Watergate burglars Rolando Martinez and Bernard Barker, as well as Che Guevara’s murderer, Felix Rodriguez. These anti-Castro terrorists were allegedly part of an Operation 40 assassination squad that Shackley and Clines employed for private as well as professional purposes.

In late 1974, DEACON 1 crashed and burned when interrogator Robert Simon’s daughter was murdered in a drive-by shooting by crazed anti-Castro Cubans. Simon at the time was managing the CIA’s drug data base and had linked the exile Cuban drug traffickers with “a foreign terrorist organization.” As Mattocks explained, “It got bad after the Brigaders found out Simon was after them.”

None of the CIA’s terrorists, however, were ever arrested. Instead, Conein issued a directive prohibiting DEACON 1 assets from reporting on domestic political affairs or terrorist activities and the tragedy was swept under the carpet for reasons of national security.

DEACON 1 unceremoniously ended in 1975 after Agent Fred Dick was assigned to head the DEA’s Caribbean Basin Group. In that capacity Dick visited the DEACON 1 safe house and found, in his words, “a clandestine CIA unit using miscreants from Bay of Pigs, guys who were blowing up planes.” Dick hit the ceiling and in August 1975 DEACON I was terminated.

No new DEACONs were initiated and the others quietly ran their course. Undeterred, the CIA redeployed its anti-Castro Cuban miscreant assets, some of whom established the terror organization CORU in 1977. Others would go to work for Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North, a key National Security Council aide under President Ronald Reagan in the Iran-Contra drug and terror network.

Conein’s IGO was disbanded in 1976 after a grand jury sought DEACON I intelligence regarding several drug busts. But CIA acquired intelligence cannot be used in prosecutions, and the CIA refused to identify its assets in court, with the result that 27 prosecutions were dismissed on national security grounds.

Gary Mattocks was thereafter unwelcomed in the DEA. But his patron Ted Shackley had become DCI George Bush’s assistant deputy director for operations and Shackley kindly rehired Mattocks into the CIA and assigned him to the CIA’s narcotics unit in Peru.

At the time, Santiago Ocampo was purchasing cocaine in Peru and his partner Matta Ballesteros was flying it to the usual Cuban miscreants in Miami. One of the receivers, Francisco Chanes, an erstwhile DEACON asset, owned two seafood companies that would soon allegedly come to serve as fronts in Oliver North’s Contra supply network, receiving and distributing tons of Contra cocaine.

Mattocks himself soon joined the Contra support operation as Eden Pastrora’s case officer. In that capacity Mattocks was present in 1984 when CIA officers handed pilot Barry Seal a camera and told him to take photographs of Sandinista official Federico Vaughn loading bags of cocaine onto Seal’s plane. A DEA “special employee,” Seal was running drugs for Jorge Ochoa Vasquez and purportedly using Nicaragua as a transit point for his deliveries.

North asked DEA officials to instruct Seal, who was returning to Ochoa with $1.5 million, to deliver the cash to the Contras. When the DEA officials refused, North leaked a blurry photo, purportedly of Vaughn, to the right-wing Washington Times. For partisan political purposes, on behalf of the Reagan administration, Oliver North blew the DEA’s biggest case at the time, and the DEA did nothing about it, even though DEA Administrator Jack Lawn said in 1988, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, that leaking the photo “severely jeopardized the lives” of agents.

The circle was squared in 1989 when the CIA instructed Gary Mattocks to testify as a defense witness at the trial of DEACON 1 Principal Agent Gabriel Tabraue. Although Tabraue had earned $75 million from drug trafficking, while working as a CIA and DEA asset, the judge declared a mistrial based on Mattocks’s testimony. Tabraue was released. Some people inferred that President George H.W. Bush had personally ordered Mattocks to dynamite the case.

The CIA’s use of the DEA to employ terrorists would continue apace. For example, in 1981, DEA Agent Dick Salmi recruited Roberto Cabrillo, a drug smuggling member of CORU, an organization of murderous Cuban exiles formed by drug smuggler Frank Castro and Luis Posada while George Bush was DCI.

The DEA arrested Castro in 1981, but the CIA engineered his release and hired him to establish a Contra training camp in the Florida Everglades. Posada reportedly managed resupply and drug shipments for the Contras in El Salvador, in cahoots with Felix Rodriguez. Charged in Venezuela with blowing up a Cuban airliner and killing 73 people in 1976, Posada was shielded from extradition by George W. Bush in the mid-2000s.

Having been politically castrated by the CIA, DEA officials merely warned its CORU assets to stop bombing people in the U.S. It could maim and kill people anywhere else, just not here in the sacred homeland. By then, Salmi noted, the Justice Department had a special “grey-mail section” to fix cases involving CIA terrorists and drug dealers.

The Hoax

DCI William Webster formed the CIA’s Counter-Narcotics Center in 1988. Staffed by over 100 agents, it ostensibly became the springboard for the covert penetration of, and paramilitary operations against, top traffickers protected by high-tech security firms, lawyers and well-armed private armies.

The CNC brought together, under CIA control, every federal agency involved in the drug wars. Former CIA officer and erstwhile Twofold member, Terry Burke, then serving as the DEA’s Deputy for Operations, was allowed to send one liaison officer to the CNC.

The CNC quickly showed its true colors. In the late 1990, Customs agents in Miami seized a ton of pure cocaine from Venezuela. To their surprise, a Venezuelan undercover agent said the CIA had approved the delivery. DEA Administrator Robert Bonner ordered an investigation and discovered that the CIA had, in fact, shipped the load from its warehouse in Venezuela.

The “controlled deliveries” were managed by CIA officer Mark McFarlin, a veteran of Reagan’s terror campaign in El Salvador. Bonner wanted to indict McFarlin, but was prevented from doing so because Venezuela was in the process of fighting off a rebellion led by leftist Hugo Chavez. This same scenario has been playing out in Afghanistan for the last 15 years, largely through the DEA’s Special Operations Division (SOD), which provides cover for CIA operations worldwide.

The ultimate and inevitable result of American imperialism, the SOD job is not simply to “create a crime,” as freewheeling FBN agents did in the old days, but to “recreate a crime” so it is prosecutable, despite whatever extra-legal methods were employed to obtain the evidence before it is passed along to law enforcement agencies so they can make arrests without revealing what prompted their suspicions.

Reuters reported in 2013,

“The unit of the DEA that distributes the information is called the Special Operations Division, or SOD. Two dozen partner agencies comprise the unit, including the FBI, CIA, NSA, Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Homeland Security. It was created in 1994 to combat Latin American drug cartels and has grown from several dozen employees to several hundred.”

The utilization of information from the SOD, which operates out of a secret location in Virginia, “cannot be revealed or discussed in any investigative function,” according to an internal document cited by Reuters, which added that agents are specifically directed “to omit the SOD’s involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony.”

Agents are told to use “parallel construction” to build their cases without reference to SOD’s tips which may come from sensitive “intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records,” Reuters reported.

Citing a former federal agent, Reuters reported that SOD operators would tell law enforcement officials in the U.S. to be at a certain place at a certain time and to look for a certain vehicle which would then be stopped and searched on some pretext. “After an arrest was made, agents then pretended that their investigation began with the traffic stop, not with the SOD tip, the former agent said,” Reuters reported.

An anonymous senior DEA official told Reuters that this “parallel construction” approach is “decades old, a bedrock concept” for law enforcement. The SOD’s approach follows Twofold techniques and Bolten’s parallel mechanism from the early 1970s.

To put it simply, lying to frame defendants, which has always been unstated policy, is now official policy: no longer considered corruption, it is how your government manages the judicial system on behalf of the rich political elite.

As outlined in this article, the process tracks back to Nixon, the formation of the BNDD, and the creation of a secret political police force out of the White House. As Agent Bowman Taylor caustically observed, “I used to think we were fighting the drug business, but after they formed the BNDD, I realized we were feeding it.”

The corruption was first “collateral” – as a function of national security performed by the CIA in secret – but has now become “integral,’ the essence of empire run amok.

Washington has attempted to block the inter-Korean dialogue and sabotage the peace process.

The negotiations with Pyongyang (on behalf of the Trump administration) are led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who is accused by the DPRK of carrying out “gangster like tactics”.

The Trump administration has no intention of reaching a peace agreement which would annul the Armistice Agreement of 1953. Under this agreement the US and the DPRK are still at war. 

It is therefore essential for the DPRK and ROK within the framework of the inter-Korean dialogue to reach a bilateral agreement which would render the 1953 armistice (US, DPRK, China) null and void. 

How to achieve this objective?

A workable ROK-DPRK Peace Agreement requires the prior annulment of OPCON (Operational Control) and the Repeal of the ROK-US Combined Forces Command (CFC) which puts all ROK military forces “in times of war” under the command of a U.S. General appointed by the Pentagon. This procedure is a preamble to the de facto repeal of the 1953 armistice.

 

In 2014, the government of  (impeached) President Park Geun-hye was pressured by Washington to extend the OPCON (Operational Control) agreement “until the mid-2020s”. As a result of a decision by an impeached president who violated her oath of office, all ROK forces were to remain under the command of a US General rather than under that of the command of the ROK President and Commander in Chief. At present the US has more than 600,000 active South Korean Forces under its command. (i.e. the Commander of United States Forces Korea, (USFK) is also Commander of the ROK-U.S. CFC).

Why is the repeal of the Combined Forces Command (CFC) a prerequisite to establishing peace on the Korean peninsula?

A Peace Treaty cannot reasonably be implemented if the armed forces of the ROK are under the command of a foreign government. The annulment of the OPCON agreement as well as the repeal of the ROK – US Combined Forces Command (CFC) structure is a sine qua non condition to reaching a Peace Treaty.  

We are dealing with a diabolical military agenda formulated in Washington: The US seeks under the Combined Forces Command to mobilize the forces of South Korea against the Korean Nation. If a war were to be carried out by the US, all ROK forces under US command would be used against the Korean people. The annulment of the CDC is therefore crucial. A prerequisite to the implementation of the April 27 agreement is that the ROK government of president Moon Jae-in have full jurisdiction over its armed forces.

The legal formulation of this bilateral entente is crucial. The bilateral arrangement would in effect bypass Washington’s refusal. It would establish the basis of peace on the Korean peninsula, without foreign intervention, namely without Washington dictating its conditions. It would require as a second step (following the annulment of the Joint Forces command) the withdrawal of all US troops from the ROK.

Moreover, it should be noted that the militarization of  the ROK under the OPCOM agreement, including the development of new military bases, is also intent upon using the Korean peninsula as a military launchpad threatening both China and Russia. Under OPCON, “in the case of war”, the entire forces of the ROK could be mobilized under US command against China or Russia.

This article, first published on GR in January 2017, provides an understanding of the history of the war on Syria, from the outset in mid-March 2011.

The U.S./NATO line

If you try to follow events in the mainstream media (MSM), you may have noticed that they routinely refer to Syrian president Bashar al Assad as a “brutal dictator”. Assad is supposed to have responded to peaceful protests with repressive violence and by “killing his own people”. The U.S., UK, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar continue to maintain that “Assad must go”.

I disagree with all of that, as I’ll explain in this article.

I spent 25 years prosecuting lies in commerce for the attorneys general of New York and Oregon. I prepared this primer to help you cut through the lies and get at the truth about Syria.

Much of this article is a string of excerpts from the excellent work of authors I’ve come to trust and citations or links to sources for further information and analysis.

International law, morality, and the sovereignty of the people

Since Syria has not threatened the United States in any way, let alone attacked us, our government has no right to try to overthrow the Syrian government. The UN Charter prohibits pre-emptive aggression against other sovereign states unless the UN Security Council authorizes it. The United States signed the UN Charter, so as a treaty, it is the “Supreme Law of the Land” under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. So the U.S. attempt to overthrow the government of Syria violates U.S. as well as international law.

The effort to overthrow the Syrian government is also immoral, because of the suffering and death it has caused and because of its destabilizing effect, which causes even more suffering and death and has assisted the rise of ISIS.

The effort to overthrow Assad is an arrogant interference with the sovereignty of the Syrian people, who have a right to choose their own government. In this case, they have chosen their government overwhelmingly: Syria’s president Bashar al Assad is not only the democratically elected leader of his country but has at all times, both before the violence began and throughout the conflict, been immensely popular within Syria. This popularity would be impossible to explain if the violence that began in March 2011 was initiated by the government. I try to show here that the violence was initiated by elements who pushed aside peaceful protestors and committed a great many murders and then managed, through manipulation of the big media, to blame that on the Syrian government.

The Syrian government

Although the effort to overthrow the Syrian government is unlawful, many Americans seem to feel it’s okay to interfere with foreign governments that are said to oppress their own people. I don’t claim that the Syrian government is perfect, but again, it’s up to the Syrian people to choose their government.

Washington has a history of undermining and overthrowing governments that don’t play ball with U.S./Western corporations and investors. And Islamic fundamentalists like the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, ISIS, and others pose continuing threats to stability in the Middle East. So I’ve come to believe that a government in the Middle East may have to be authoritarian to some degree in order to stay in power. And in Syria there is tolerance for different viewpoints, religions and ethnicities, such that a certain amount of what might be called “repression” of some forms of dissent seems to be a fair trade-off, and one that most Syrians clearly prefer.

In the years before the present conflict began in 2011, the Syrian government tried to institute constitutional reforms, thus becoming less repressive. But that effort has been undermined by the attempt to overthrow it by force and violence.

Sectarian vs. secular government; not a civil war

A basic conflict is between those who want a sectarian (religious) government, which would also be repressive, in different ways, and a secular (nonreligious) government, such as Syria now has. The conflict in Syria has never been a war between competing Islamic sects, or even a civil war. Rather, it is a war waged by some Syrian rebels and a great many foreigners, who want to overthrow the legitimate government and, with it, Syria’s secular, inclusive and tolerant society and to establish a radical Islamic government and society. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and the U.S. itself have been backing those extremists as part of their effort to dominate the Middle East and control its energy resources.

By the way, I’m now 70, but I still remember what it felt like to be 12 years old. Wait – what does that have to do with the war on Syria, and this article? My answer may be what it’s all about, from the viewpoint of Syrians, most of whom have remained in Syria, despite the war.

In late September, a U.S.-Russia agreement called for the supposedly “moderate rebels” in Syria to separate themselves from al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front (sometimes called al Qaeda’s Syrian “franchise”. (Al Qaeda, as you may recall, is the organization formerly led by Osama bin Laden that is said to have brought down the Twin Towers in New York). The U.S. and Russia would then cooperate in attacking the Nusra Front and ISIS (also known as ISIL, or Daesh).

Unless you’re a terrorist, what’s not to like about such an agreement? Well, the problem was that the “moderate rebels” refused to follow the U.S.-Russia agreement and separate from the terrorists, and instead renewed their alliance with them. In particular, Nour al-Din al-Zinki– reportedly one of the largest factions in Aleppo–said they were joining a broad alliance dominated by the Nusra Front.

If you’ve followed me this far, you’re probably still wondering what this has to do with remembering what it’s like to be 12 years old. The connection is this: Nour al-Din al-Zinki recently filmed themselves taunting and then beheading a 12-year-old boy.

I’ve seen one of the photos of the boy circulated by al-Zinki, and the image haunts me. He doesn’t even look 12 years old; I would guess 10 or 11. He has what looks like intra-venous tubing hanging from one arm; I understand he’d been receiving medical treatment when he was kidnapped. He was taunted by a group of men, who then laid him face-down in the back of a pickup truck, tied his hands behind his back, and as he whimpered, one of them ran a large knife across his throat and cut off his head.

I couldn’t make such a thing up, and I wouldn’t if I could. My nightmares are not that bad. But these al-Zinki guys – or should I say, monsters, or devils – not only did all this but made a video of themselves doing it and reveled in their atrocity.

Imagine, if you will, being captured, taunted and beheaded by demons two or three times your size. You can read about it, get a link to the group’s You Tube video, and see a screenshot here.

The photo that haunts me shows the boy closer up. It’s posted in CIA Rebels Behead Kid And Other U.S. Successes in Syria by Moon of Alabama, 19 July 2016.

So here’s what I think: Most Syrians, as I mentioned, have stayed in Syria, seeking the protection of their government and army. They want to maintain their tolerant, secular society. But as that’s being shredded by jihadist violence and mayhem, they’re also terrified that their country will be taken over by ghouls like the al-Zinki jihadists who beheaded that boy, and that they and their families and loved ones will then face similar fates.

Some of them want government reform. But they don’t back the terrorists to get it. In fact, they’re glad to see those Russian planes in the sky, invited by their government, and they back the Syrian Arab Army and Bashar Assad. Many probably think Assad and the army are being a little too nice to the terrorist opposition that has invaded their country.

You won’t know what to make of this suggestion, if you think most Syrians are trying to get out of their country and go to Europe. Media sensationalism and inadequate reporting, or suppression of the truth, about the “immigrant crisis” faced by many European countries may give you that impression. But in fact, as reported by Tim Anderson (in The Dirty War on Syria, Chapter 14), most Syrians have chosen to remain in Syria under the protection of their government and Army:

… The online ‘war of maps’ miss this[:] When commentators [speak] of how much ‘territory’ one or other Islamist group controlled, they generally [do] not observe that the Government [has] maintained control of the great majority of the populated areas and most of the displaced population sought refuge in those government controlled cities. By 2015 blackouts and shortages were worse, but schools, health centres, sports facilities were functioning. While life was hardly normal, everyday life did carry on. People were surviving, and resisting. This reality was hardly visible in the western media, which has persistently spread lies about the character of the conflict. In particular, they have tried to hide NATO’s backing for the extremist groups, while trumpeting the advances of those same groups and ignoring the Syrian Army’s counter-offensives.

Fact check one: there never were any ‘moderate rebels’. A … genuine political reform movement was displaced by a Saudi-backed Islamist insurrection, over March- April 2011. … Years later ordinary Syrians call all these groups ‘Daesh’ (ISIS), ‘terrorists’ or ‘mercenaries’, not bothering with the different brand names. … Genocidal statements by ‘moderate rebel’ leaders underline the limited difference between the genocidal ‘moderates’ and the genocidal extremists. FSA leader Lamia Nahas wrote: ‘the more arrogant Syria’s minorities become I become more certain that there should be a holocaust to exterminate them from existence and I request [God’s] mercy upon Hitler who burned the Jews of his time and Sultan Abdul-Hamid who exterminated the Armenians’ (The Angry Arab 2015). … The genocidal fervour of these ‘moderates’ is no different than that of Nusra or ISIS. The character of the armed conflict has always been between an authoritarian but pluralist and socially inclusive state, and Saudi-style sectarian Islamists, acting as proxy armies for the big powers.

Fact check two: almost all the atrocities blamed on the Syrian Army have been committed by western-backed Islamists, as part of their strategy to attract more foreign military backing. Their claims are repeated by the western media, fed by partisan Islamist sources and amplified by embedded ‘watchdogs’, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The Syrian Army has indeed executed captured terrorists, and the secret police continue to detain and probably mistreat those suspected of collaborating with terrorists. But this is an army which enjoys very strong public support. Syrian people know their enemy and back their Army. The armed gangs, on the other hand, openly boast of their atrocities.

Then who started the war?

Determining how the initial disturbances occurred, in March 2011, and grew into the present conflict is complicated by the fact that at first, it was not always clear who was engaging in violence. The government tried to downplay the violence so as to maintain order and the morale of the Syrian Arab Army, as many of the first victims were Syrian soldiers.

Who can you trust to tell the truth?

All this raises the question of whom to believe. Those trying to overthrow the Syrian government have waged almost incredibly sophisticated and effective propaganda warfare right from the beginning, so there is conflicting “evidence” on many of the critical events. But I believe a great deal of the “evidence” dished out by the mainstream media was actually fabricated by the terrorists. More on that further below.

I have identified sources that seem to me credible, for example, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.; Australian professor Tim Anderson; commentator and analyst Sharmine Narwani (all, and others, quoted below); and Father Frans van der Lugt, a Dutch Jesuit priest who was murdered in Homs, Syria in early 2014.3 Father van der Lugt wrote in January 2012:

Most of the citizens of Syria do not support the opposition. Even a country like Qatar [which had spent billions to finance foreign terrorists in Syria] has stated this following an opinion survey. Therefore, you also cannot say that this is a popular uprising. The majority of people are not part of the rebellion and certainly not part of the armed rebellion. What is occurring is, above all, a struggle between the army and armed Sunni groups that aim to overturn the Alawite regime and take power.

“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.4

Provocateurs

I’m also inclined to believe some of the evidence I rely on here because of the similarity with situations I know of elsewhere. For example, I studied the coup in Ukraine in some detail and am persuaded that the snipers firing in Maidan Square were provocateurs who shot both police and protesters in order to foment more violence. (I wrote about this, and the Ukraine situation more generally here.) So when I see claims of similar conduct in Syria, it has a plausibility based in part on how it seems to follow the same pattern the U.S. has used to destabilize and overthrow governments in other countries.5

The current situation and articles reporting and discussing it, are presented at the end of this article. But first:

Background

U.S. interference in the domestic affairs of Syria began in 1949. The details are reported in an excellent article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Mr. Kennedy provides a great many important facts and comments and also identifies many of his sources, which I skip here for the sake of brevity. I quote only a few paragraphs for historical background and context.

Mr. Kennedy is no fan of Bashar al Assad and refers to him in uncomplimentary terms. But he clearly explains the motives of the governments that want to overthrow the Assad government, mainly Assad’s refusal to allow the construction of a pipeline through Syria for the transport of natural gas to Europe, a project desired by Qatar and its Gulf and Western allies.

From Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, ‘Why the Arabs don’t want us in Syria’, March 1, 2016:6

In part because my father was murdered by an Arab, I’ve made an effort to understand the impact of U.S. policy in the Mideast and particularly the factors that sometimes motivate bloodthirsty responses from the Islamic world against our country.

… During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism … particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. …

The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949. …Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March 1949, Syria’s democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American project … [I]n retaliation … the CIA engineered a coup replacing al-Quwatli with the CIA’s handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za’im. …

…The Syrian people again tried democracy in 1955, re-electing al-Quwatli and his National Party. Al-Quwatli was still a Cold War neutralist, but, stung by American involvement in his ouster, he now leaned toward the Soviet camp. That posture caused CIA Director Dulles to send his two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone, to Damascus. …

But … CIA money failed to corrupt the Syrian military officers. The soldiers reported the CIA’s bribery attempts to the Ba’athist regime. In response, the Syrian army invaded the American Embassy, taking Stone prisoner. After harsh interrogation, Stone made a televised confession of his roles in the Iranian coup and the CIA’s aborted attempt to overthrow Syria’s legitimate government. The Eisenhower White House hollowly dismissed Stone’s confession as “fabrications” and “slanders,” a denial swallowed whole by the American press, led by the New York Times and believed by the American people. …

Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. … In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria “to protect the interests of our Russian ally.”

… Soon after [that] … the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria. It is important to note that this was well before the Arab Spring-engendered uprising against Assad.

Bashar Assad’s family is Alawite, a Muslim sect widely perceived as aligned with the Shiite camp. … Before the war started, according to [journalist Seymour] Hersh, Assad was moving to liberalize the country. … Assad’s regime was deliberately secular and Syria was impressively diverse. The Syrian government and military, for example, were 80 percent Sunni. Assad maintained peace among his diverse peoples by a strong, disciplined army loyal to the Assad family, an allegiance secured by a nationally esteemed and highly paid officer corps, a coldly efficient intelligence apparatus and a penchant for brutality that, prior to the war, was rather moderate compared to those of other Mideast leaders, including our current allies. According to Hersh, “He certainly wasn’t beheading people every Wednesday like the Saudis do in Mecca.”

… By the spring of 2011, there were small, peaceful demonstrations in Damascus against repression by Assad’s regime. … However, WikiLeaks cables indicate that the CIA was already on the ground in Syria. …

The idea of fomenting a Sunni-Shiite civil war to weaken the Syrian and Iranian regimes [and thus] to maintain control of the region’s petrochemical supplies was not a novel notion. … A damning 2008 Pentagon-funded Rand report … recommended using “covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare” to enforce a “divide and rule” strategy. …

… Two years before ISIL throat cutters stepped on the world stage, a seven-page August 12, 2012, study by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, obtained by the right-wing group Judicial Watch, warned that … “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI ([Al-Qaeda Iraq,] now ISIS), are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.”

Using U.S. and Gulf state funding, these groups had turned the peaceful protests against Bashar Assad toward “a clear sectarian (Shiite vs. Sunni) direction.” …

Not coincidentally, the regions of Syria occupied by the Islamic State exactly encompass the proposed route of the Qatari pipeline. (Emphasis added.)

… Beginning in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI [Al-Qaeda Iraq] fighters into Syria. In April 2013, having entered Syria, AQI changed its name to ISIL. According to Dexter Filkins of the New Yorker, “ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi generals. … Many are members of Saddam Hussein’s secular Ba’ath Party who converted to radical Islam in American prisons.” …

But then, in 2014, our Sunni proxies horrified the American people by severing heads and driving a million refugees toward Europe. …

Tim Anderson’s Book, The Dirty War on Syria

160119-DirtyWarCover-Print.jpg

A professor in Australia has written a book that tells the whole story in depth. Tim Anderson’s The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance can be ordered here. You can read the introductory chapter and table of contents here. Prof. Anderson’s book is short, clear, and illustrated with helpful poster-like issue summaries (one of which appears below), and develops a much more detailed analysis than I can provide here.

Summary/overview:

The U.S. effort to undermine Assad, and to overthrow his government and replace it with one more friendly to U.S. and Western investors, was to be the latest installment of the overall U.S. program, pursued consistently since the end of World War II, to control the world in the interests of U.S. elites, including the military-industrial complex, multinational corporations generally and their investors, and the hegemony-hungry political leadership.7

To summarize the situation briefly, this graphic is from Prof. Anderson’s preface to his book:8

Further excerpts from the preface of The Dirty War On Syria:

… The British-Australian journalist Philip Knightley pointed out that war propaganda typically involves ‘a depressingly predictable pattern’ of demonising the enemy leader, then demonising the enemy people through atrocity stories, real or imagined (Knightley 2001). Accordingly, a mild-mannered eye doctor called Bashar al Assad became the ‘new evil’ in the world and, according to consistent western media reports, the Syrian Army did nothing but kill civilians for more than four years. To this day, many imagine the Syrian conflict is a ‘civil war’, a ‘popular revolt’ or some sort of internal sectarian conflict. …

… After the demonisation of Syrian leader Bashar al Assad began, a virtual information blockade was constructed against anything which might undermine the wartime storyline. Very few sensible western perspectives on Syria emerged after 2011, as critical voices were effectively blacklisted…

Excerpts from chapter five of The Dirty War On Syria:

Bashar al Assad and Political Reform:

President Hafez al Assad [father of the current president, Bashar al Assad] had brought three decades of internal stability to Syria, after the turmoil of the 1960s. … There were substantial improvements in education and health, including universal vaccination and improved literacy for women. Between 1970 and 2010 infant mortality fell from 132 to 14 (per 1,000), while maternal mortality fell from 482 to 45 (per 100,000). … (Sen, Al- Faisal and Al-Saleh 2012: 196)9 Electricity supply to rural areas rose from 2% in 1963 to 95% in 1992 (Hinnebusch 2012: 2) Traditions of social pluralism combined with advances in education drove the human development of the country well ahead of many of the more wealthy states in the region.

Nevertheless, … the system built by Hafez al Assad … also remained an authoritarian one-party system …. U.S. intelligence observed that the crushing of the Muslim Brotherhood’s insurrections in the early 1980s was welcomed by most Syrians. (DIA 1982, vii) Yet, after that …‘The feared Syrian secret police’ were ever vigilant for Zionist spies and new Muslim Brotherhood conspiracies, but this meant they also harassed a wider range of government critics. (Seale 1988: 335) … On top of this, there was resentment at the corruption built on cronyism through Ba’ath Party networks. Bashar faced all this when he came to the top job.

… At the start of the millennium, Bashar al Assad … was widely seen as an agent of reform, but …[t]here were no dramatic political reforms, despite the widespread complaints of corruption (Otrakji 2012). However his socio-economic reforms involved giving new impetus to mass education and citizenship, with a controlled economic liberalisation which opened up new markets, yet without the privatisations that had swept Eastern Europe. He released several thousand political prisoners, mainly Islamists and their sympathisers (Landis and Pace 2007: 47) … Despite the market reforms, Syria maintained its virtually free health and education system. State universities also remain virtually free, to this day, with several hundred thousand enrolled students. …

With the rallies of February-March 2011 there was a further burst of political activity. …Most of the domestic opposition groups … did not support either armed attacks on the state or the involvement of foreign powers. Most remained in Syria and some … rallied to the government. Others, while not supporting the government, backed the state and the army. …

What became known in western circles as ‘the opposition’ were mostly exiles and the Islamists who had initiated the violence.

… Informed critics have observed that the violent conflict in Syria has always been between a pluralist state and sectarian Islamists, backed by the big powers. … (Ramadani 2012).

A Turkish poll in late 2011 showed Syrians … 91% opposed [to] (and 5% supportive of) violent protest (TESEV 2012). Ramadani reconciles these two trends by suggesting that, after the initial movement away from the Government in 2011, ‘popular support shifted back’ when Syrians saw the sectarians and the Saudi-Qatari cabal behind the violence (Ramadani 2012). …

… Despite their anti-Syrian bias, some western sources exposed other ‘false flag’ massacres.

[Examples omitted; see the original.] The August 2013 chemical weapons incident in East Ghouta was widely blamed on the Assad Government. Yet all independent evidence exposed this as yet another ‘false flag’. [10]

… Syria’s strongest secular tradition is embedded in the Army. With about half a million members, both regulars and conscripts, the army is drawn from all the country’s communities (Sunni, Alawi, Shiia, Christian, Druze, Kurd, Armenian, Assyrian, etc), which all identify as ‘Syrian’. …

[M]ost of the several million Syrians, displaced by the conflict, have not left the country but rather have moved to other parts under Army protection. This is not really explicable if the Army were indeed engaged in ‘indiscriminate’ attacks on civilians. A repressive army invokes fear and loathing in a population, yet in Damascus one can see that people do not cower as they pass through the many army road blocks, set up to protect against ‘rebel’ car bombs.

… Syrians know that their Army represents pluralist Syria and has been fighting sectarian, foreign backed terrorism. This Army did not fracture on sectarian lines, as the sectarian gangs had hoped, and defections have been small, certainly less than 2%.

The Syrian Election of 2014

[M]any western nations declared Syria’s [2014] elections ‘fixed’, before they were held. … These were the same governments trying to overthrow the Syrian Government (Herring 2014). The Washington-run Voice of America falsely claimed that Syria ‘would not permit international observers’ (VOA 2014). In fact, over a hundred election observers came from India, Brazil, Russia, China, South Africa, Iran and Latin America, along with non-official observers from the U.S.A and Canada (KNN 2014; Bartlett 2014). …

The international media recognised the massive turnout, both in Syria and from the refugees in Lebanon, with some sources grudgingly admitting that ‘getting people to turn out in large numbers, especially outside Syria, is a huge victory in and of itself’ (Dark 2014). Associated Press reported on crowds of tens of thousands, in a ‘carnival like atmosphere’ in Damascus and Latakia, with ‘long lines’ of voters in Homs (FNA 2014a). AP … concluded that President Assad had ‘maintained significant support among large sections of the population’ (FNA 2014b). …

Bashar al Assad won this election convincingly, with 88.7% of the vote (AP 2014). Hassan al Nouri and Maher Hajjar gained 4.3% and 3.2% respectively (Aji 2014). With a 73.4% turnout (or 11.6 million of the 15.8 million eligible voters), that meant he had 10.3 million votes or 64% of all eligible voters. Even if every single person who was unable to vote was against him, this was a convincing mandate. … Associated Press reasonably concluded that Assad’s support was not just from minorities, but had to do with his legacy of opening up the economy, his support for women, the real benefits in education, health and electricity and, last but not least, the President’s capacity to move decisively against the sectarian armed groups (AP 2014).

Eva Bartlett provides further details in Deconstructing the NATO Narrative on Syria, Oct 10, 2015:

Million Person Marches. On March 29, 2011 (less than two weeks into the fantasy ‘revolution’) over 6 million people across Syria took to the streets in support of President al-Assad. In June, a reported hundreds of thousands marched in Damascus in support of the president, with a 2.3 km long Syrian flag. In November, 2011 (9 months into the chaos), masses again held demonstrations supporting President al-Assad, notably in Homs (the so-called “capital of the ‘revolution’”), Dara’a (the so-called “birthplace of the ‘revolution’”), Deir ez-Zour, Raqqa, Latakia, and Damascus.

Mass demonstrations like this have occurred repeatedly since, including in March 2012, in May 2014 in the lead-up to Presidential elections, and in June 2015, to note just some of the larger rallies.

In May 2013, it was reported that even NATO recognized the Syrian president’s increased popularity. “The data, relayed to NATO over the last month, asserted that 70 percent of Syrians support” the Assad government. At present, the number is now at least 80 percent.

The most telling barometer of Assad’s support base was the Presidential elections in June 2014, which saw 74 percent (11.6 million) of 15.8 million registered Syrian voters vote, with President al-Assad winning 88 percent of the votes. The lengths Syrians outside of Syria went to in order to vote included flooding the Syrian embassy in Beirut for two full days (and walking several kilometres to get there) and flying from countries with closed Syrian embassies to Damascus airport simply to cast their votes. Within Syria, Syrians braved terrorist mortars and rockets designed to keep them from voting; 151 shells were fired on Damascus alone, killing 5 and maiming 33 Syrians…

The Syrian Constitution and the process of political reform

The following is taken from Stephen Gowans article, ‘What the Syrian Constitution says about Assad and the Rebels’, May 21, 2013. See the article for the sources cited in bracketed footnotes below, and for many additional details of the new Syrian constitution.

In response to protestors’ demands, Damascus made a number of concessions that were neither superficial nor partial.

First, it cancelled the long-standing abridgment of civil liberties that had been authorized by the emergency law. The law, invoked because Syria is technically in a state of war with Israel, gave Damascus powers it needed to safeguard the security of the state in wartime, a measure states at war routinely take. Many Syrians, however, chaffed under the law, and regarded it as unduly restrictive. Bowing to popular pressure, the government lifted the security measures.

Second, the government proposed a new constitution to accommodate protestors’ demands to strip the Ba’ath Party of its special status, which had reserved for it a lead role in Syrian society. Additionally, the presidency would be open to anyone meeting basic residency, age and citizenship requirements. Presidential elections would be held by secret vote every seven years under a system of universal suffrage.

Here was the multi-party democracy the opposition was said to have clamored for. A protest movement thirsting for a democratic, pluralist society could accept the offer, its aspirations fulfilled. The constitution was put to a referendum and approved. New parliamentary multi-party elections were held. Multi-candidate presidential elections were set for 2014. A new democratic dawn had arrived. The rebels could lay down their arms and enjoy the fruits of their victory.

Or so you might expect. Instead, the insurrectionists escalated their war against Damascus, rejecting the reforms, explaining that they had arrived too late. Too late? Does pluralist democracy turn into a pumpkin unless it arrives before the clock strikes twelve? Washington, London and Paris also dismissed Assad’s concessions. They were “meaningless,” they said, without explaining why. [7] And yet the reforms were all the rebels had asked for and that the West had demanded. How could they be meaningless? Democrats, those seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict, and the Assad government, could hardly be blamed for concluding that ‘democracy was not the driving force of the revolt.’ [8]

Order Tim Anderson’s “The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance” here.

Origins of the conflict

The above-quoted article by Eva Bartlett rebuts the U.S./NATO/MSM (mainstream media) version in some detail. Moving from the demonstration of President Assad’s continuing popularity, Ms. Bartlett’s article provides links to investigative reports by Professor Tim Anderson, Sharmine Narwani, and others, regarding the origins of the current conflict and the effort to discredit Bashar al Assad’s government. Excerpts of particular interest:

…From the beginning, in Dara’a and throughout Syria, armed protesters were firing upon, and butchering, security forces and civilians. Tim Anderson’s ‘Syria: how the violence began, in Daraa’ pointed out that police were killed by snipers in the March 17/18 protests; the Syrian army was only brought to Dara’a following the murder of the policemen. Additionally, a storage of protesters’ weapons was found in Dara’a’s al- Omari mosque.

Prem Shankar Jha’s, ‘Who Fired The First Shot?’ described the slaughter of 20 Syrian soldiers outside Dara’a a month later, ‘by cutting their throats, and cutting off the head of one of the soldiers.’ …

In ‘Syria: The Hidden Massacre’, Sharmine Narwani investigated the early massacres of Syrian soldiers, noting that many of the murders occurred even after the Syrian government had abolished the state security courts, lifted the state of emergency, granted general amnesties, and recognized the right to peaceful protest.

The April 10, 2011 murder of Banyas farmer Nidal Janoud was one of the first horrific murders of Syrian civilians by so-called “unarmed protesters.” Face gashed open, mutilated and bleeding, Janoud was paraded by an armed mob, who then hacked him to death.

Father Frans Van der Ludt—the Dutch priest living in Syria for nearly 5 decades prior to his April 7, 2014 assassination by militants occupying the old city of Homs—
wrote (repeatedly) of the ‘armed demonstrators’ he saw in early protests, ‘who began to shoot at the police first.’

May 2011 video footage of later-resigned Al Jazeera journalist Ali Hashem shows fighters entering Syria from Lebanon, carrying guns and RPGs (Hashem stated he’d likewise seen fighters entering in April). Al Jazeera refused to air the May footage, telling Hashem to ‘forget there are armed men.’ [See: Sharmine Narwani’s ‘Surprise Video Changes Syria “Timeline’ here] Unarmed protesters?

In the case of Daraa, and the attacks that moved to Homs and surrounding areas in April 2011, the clearly stated aim was once again to topple the secular or “infidel-Alawi” regime. The front-line U.S. collaborators were Saudi Arabia and Qatar, then Turkey.11

From Sharmine Narwani, How narratives killed the Syrian people:12 (from RT.com, March 23, 2016)

… How words kill
Four key narratives were spun ad nauseam in every mainstream Western media outlet, beginning in March 2011 and gaining steam in the coming months. – The Dictator is killing his “own people.”

– The protests are “peaceful.”
– The opposition is “unarmed.”
– This is a “popular revolution.”

… With the benefit of hindsight, let’s look at these Syria narratives five years into the conflict:

We know now that several thousand Syrian security forces were killed in the first year, beginning March 23, 2011. We therefore also know that the opposition was “armed” from the start of the conflict. We have visual evidence of gunmen entering Syria across the Lebanese border in April and May 2011. We know from the testimonies of impartial observers that gunmen were targeting civilians in acts of terrorism and that “protests” were not all “peaceful”.

The Arab League mission conducted a month-long investigation inside Syria in late 2011 and reported:

“In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the observer mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed.”

… Furthermore, we also now know that whatever Syria was, it was no “popular revolution.” The Syrian army has remained intact, even after blanket media coverage of mass defections. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians continued to march in unreported demonstrations in support of the president. The state’s institutions and government and business elite have largely remained loyal to Assad. Minority groups – Alawites, Christians, Kurds, Druze, Shia, and the Baath Party, which is majority Sunni – did not join the opposition against the government. And the major urban areas and population centers remain under the state’s umbrella, with few exceptions.

A genuine “revolution,” after all, does not have operation rooms in Jordan and Turkey. Nor is a “popular” revolution financed, armed and assisted by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., UK and France.

From Prem Shankar Jha, Who Fired the First Shot?: (Hands Off Syria Sydney, Feb 27, 2014)

Who Fired the First Shot?

… Syrians whom I interviewed in October 2012 in Damascus … [told this] story[:] Assad had sincerely wished to start the transition to democracy a decade earlier, but was forced to postpone the changeover repeatedly by the growing turmoil in Syria’s neighbourhood —the U.S.’ invasion of Iraq in 2003; the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri and the concerted bid to force Syria out of Lebanon in 2004; Washington’s decision to break diplomatic relations with Damascus in 2005; Israel’s attack on Lebanon in 2006, its blockade of Palestine in 2007, and its bombing of Gaza in 2009. Faisal Al Mekdad, Syria’s vice minister for foreign affairs and its former permanent representative at the UN, summed up Assad’s dilemma as follows: “Each of these events reminded us of the need for unity in the face of external pressures and threats, and forced us to postpone democratization for fear of setting off fresh internal conflicts and forcing adjustments when we could least afford them’.

Was there a spontaneous protest and was it peaceful? … Syrians I talked to in October 2012, and resident diplomats concurred, that there had been no spontaneous popular upsurge against the regime in Syria, and that the civil war was a fructification of plans for regime change that had been hatched much earlier and brought forward because the opportunity provided by the ‘Arab Spring’, and western liberals’ ecstatic response to it, was too good to miss.

Damascus first became aware of the conspiracy when trouble broke out on March 18, 2011 in Dera’a, a small city astride the Syria – Jordan border. A peaceful demonstration demanding some political changes in the local administration and lowering of diesel prices turned violent when shots were fired killing four persons. The international media, led by the Qatar-based Al Jazeera, and the Riyadh-based Al Arabiya television channels immediately accused Assad’s forces of firing into the crowd to disperse it.

The Syrian government’s version of what had happened was entirely different. The first shots, it claimed, were fired on March 18 … by armed men who had infiltrated the procession and, at a pre-determined moment, begun to shoot at the security police. That is why, of the four persons killed on that day, one was a policeman. However, according to Dr Mekdad, what convinced the government that the Dera’a uprising was part of a larger conspiracy was what happened when the police sent for reinforcements. Armed men ambushed one of the trucks as it entered Dera’a and killed all the soldiers in it. [Emphasis added.]

The Syrian government chose not to publicise this for fear of demoralizing its soldiers. But … [i]ncontrovertible confirmation came a month later when ‘peaceful protesters’ stopped an army truck outside Dera’a and again killed all the 20 soldiers in it. But this time they did so by cutting their throats. This was the sanctified method of killing that the ‘Afghanis’, as the Afghanistan-returned Jihadis were called in Algeria, had used to kill more than ten thousand villagers during two years of bitter insurgency after the First Afghan war. It was to be seen over and over again in Syria in the coming months.

The Syrian government again chose to remain silent, and the only whiff of this event in the media was a rebel claim that they had captured and burnt an armoured personnel carrier. But in Damascus the U.S. Ambassador, Robert Ford, told a group of Ambassadors that included the Indian ambassador, that the Syrian insurgency had been infiltrated by Al Qaeda. He had come to this conclusion because, in addition to cutting throats, the insurgents had cut off the head of one of the soldiers. …

… [T]he insurgents, now labeled and recognized by the west as the “Free Syrian Army” followed a set pattern of attack: This was to descend without warning on small towns, Alaouite villages and small army and police posts in hundreds, overwhelm them. After they surrendered, the insurgents would kill local officials, civilians they deemed to be pro-Assad and soldiers who would not desert to them, and claim that these were in fact deserters whom the government forces had executed after a successful counter attack. Two such episodes captured worldwide attention in 2011.

In Jisr al Shugour, a medium sized town in the northern border province of Idlib, the international media reported, based upon rebel claims, that the government had brought in not only tanks but also helicopters to bomb the town from the air – the first resort to air power against ‘protestors’. When some soldiers, who were disgusted by the indiscriminate carnage, attempted to defect the Syrian troops killed them. The indiscriminate firing forced civilians to flee to nearby villages. Some crossed over to Turkey. [Emphasis added.]

This claim captured the headlines in the western media for days, but the story pieced together by a diplomat whom the Syrian government took to Jisr-al Shugour when the town had been recaptured, was however very different. In the beginning of June 2011 some five to six hundred fighters of the Free Syrian Army suddenly laid siege to the town for 48 hours. When the army sent in reinforcements the rebels, who had mined a bridge on the approach road blew it up as a truck was passing over it, killed the soldiers and cut the only access to the town by road. Two days later, when they overwhelmed the garrison, instead of taking them prisoner they killed all of them, many by cutting their throats, threw their bodies into the Orontes river, and later posted videos claiming that these were army defectors whom the Syrian forces had killed.

This was corroborated two months later by a resident of the town who came the Indian embassy to get a visa. According to him between 500 and 600 rebels had descended upon the town from Turkey. On the way they stopped a bus, shot six of its passengers and spread the word that army had done it. Many people believed them, were enraged and stood by as the hunt for fleeing soldiers and supporters of the government began. Some joined in the hunt. In all, he said, the number of soldiers and government supporters killed and dumped in the Orontes was not 120 but close to 300. This was the first of dozens of similar war crimes by the FSA.

Order Tim Anderson’s “The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance” here.

From Sharmine Narwani, Syria: The hidden massacre RT.com, May 7, 2014

Just recently a Tunisian jihadist who goes by the name Abu Qusay, told Tunisian television that his “task” in Syria was to destroy and desecrate mosques with Sunni names (Abu Bakr mosque, Othman mosque, etc) in false-flag sectarian attacks to encourage defection by Syrian soldiers, the majority of whom are Sunni. One of the things he did was scrawling pro-government and blasphemous slogans on mosque walls like “Only God, Syria and Bashar.” It was a “tactic” he says, to get the soldiers to “come on our side” so that the army “can become weak.” …

A member of the large Hariri family in Daraa, who was there in March and April 2011, says people are confused and that many “loyalties have changed two or three times from March 2011 till now. They were originally all with the government. Then suddenly changed against the government – but now I think maybe 50% or more came back to the Syrian regime.”

The province was largely pro-government before things kicked off. According to the UAE paper The National, “Daraa had long had a reputation as being solidly pro-Assad, with many regime figures recruited from the area.”

… HRW [Human Rights Watch] admits “that protestors had killed members of security forces” but caveats it by saying they “only used violence against the security forces and destroyed government property in response to killings by the security forces or…to secure the release of wounded demonstrators captured by the security forces and believed to be at risk of further harm.”

We know that this is not true – the April 10 shootings of the nine soldiers on a bus in Banyas was an unprovoked ambush. So, for instance, was the killing of General Abdo Khodr al-Tallawi, killed alongside his two sons and a nephew in Homs on April 17. That same day in the pro-government al-Zahra neighborhood in Homs, off-duty Syrian army commander Iyad Kamel Harfoush was gunned down when he went outside his home to investigate gunshots. Two days later, Hama-born off-duty Colonel Mohammad Abdo Khadour was killed in his car. And all of this only in the first month of unrest. [Emphasis added.]

In 2012, HRW’s Syria researcher Ole Solvag told me that he had documented violence “against captured soldiers and civilians” and that “there were sometimes weapons in the crowds and some demonstrators opened fire against government forces.”

But was it because the protestors were genuinely aggrieved with violence directed at them by security forces? Or were they “armed gangs” as the Syrian government claims? Or – were there provocateurs shooting at one or both sides?

[More on provocateurs:] … Discussion about the role of provocateurs in stirring up conflict has made some headlines since Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet’s leaked phone conversation with the EU’s Catherine Ashton disclosed suspicions that pro-west snipers had killed both Ukranian security forces and civilians during the Euromaidan protests.

Says Paet: “All the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides…and it’s really disturbing that now the new (pro-western) coalition, they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened.”

A recent German TV investigation the sniper shootings confirms much about these allegations, and has opened the door to contesting versions of events in Ukraine that did not exist for most of the Syrian conflict – at least not in the media or in international forums. …

Since early 2011 alone, we have heard allegations of “unknown” snipers targeting crowds and security forces in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Ukraine. What could be more effective at turning populations against authority than the unprovoked killing of unarmed innocents? By the same token, what could better ensure a reaction from the security forces of any nation than the gunning down of one or more of their own? …

An alternative approach, from Stephen Gowans:

I have presented here a somewhat detailed account of direct evidence, including eye-witness accounts, and analysis from sources I find credible, regarding the violence that began in March 2011. By identifying what I take to be the actual sources of that violence, I try to show that it did not arise from any widespread dissatisfaction with the government or “revolutionary distemper,” and was not initiated by the Syrian government, but by violent Islamists who tried to and failed to incite a popular uprising. Stephen Gowans draws a similar conclusion but from a different angle, arguing that there simply was no widespread dissatisfaction from which the current conflict could have grown, or as Gowans puts it, “The Revolutionary Distemper in Syria … Wasn’t.” A brief excerpt illustrates Gowan’s approach:

There is a shibboleth in some circles that … the uprising in Syria ‘began as a response to the Syrian government’s neoliberal policies and brutality,’ and that ‘the revolutionary content of the rebel side in Syria has been sidelined by a hodgepodge of Saudi and Qatari-financed jihadists.’ This theory appears, as far as I can tell, to be based on argument by assertion, not evidence.

[An impressive photo of a huge demonstration in 2011 supporting Syria’s secular Arab nationalist government that appears in Gowans’ article is omitted here.]

A review of press reports in the weeks immediately preceding and following the mid- March 2011 outbreak of riots in Daraa—usually recognized as the beginning of the uprising—offers no indication that Syria was in the grips of a revolutionary distemper, whether anti-neo-liberal or otherwise. On the contrary, reporters representing Time magazine and the New York Times referred to the government as having broad support, of critics conceding that Assad was popular, and of Syrians exhibiting little interest in protest. At the same time, they described the unrest as a series of riots involving hundreds, and not thousands or tens of thousands of people, guided by a largely Islamist agenda and exhibiting a violent character.

Time magazine reported that two jihadist groups that would later play lead roles in the insurgency, Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham, were already in operation on the eve of the riots, while a mere three months earlier, leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood voiced “their hope for a civil revolt in Syria.” The Muslim Brothers, who had decades earlier declared a blood feud with Syria’s ruling Ba’athist Party, objecting violently to the party’s secularism, had been embroiled in a life and death struggle with secular Arab nationalists since the 1960s, and had engaged in street battles with Ba’athist partisans from the late 1940s. (In one such battle, Hafez al-Assad, the current president’s father, who himself would serve as president from 1970 to 2000, was knifed by a Muslim Brother adversary.) The Brotherhood’s leaders, beginning in 2007, met frequently with the U.S. State Department and the U.S. National Security Council, as well as with the U.S. government-funded Middle East Partnership Initiative, which had taken on the overt role of funding overseas overthrow organizations—a task the CIA had previously done covertly.

The Revolutionary Distemper in Syria That Wasn’t

What about the sarin gas attack?

It remains commonplace to accuse Assad of the sarin gas attack of August 2013 (as recently as the December 22, 2016 issue of The New York Review of Books, discussed below under “The current situation”), even though it has been shown that the attack was most likely a “false flag” attempting to frame Assad for the work of terrorist rebels aided by Turkey. (See Seymour Hersh, The Red Line and the Rat Line: Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels, London Review of Books Vol. 36 No. 8 · 17 April 2014, pp 21-24, online: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour- m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line.) There are further discussion and citations on this topic above, text at endnote 7. Seymour Hersh provided further information last April, in an interview tied to Hersh’s new book, The Killing of Osama Bin Laden. The following is taken from that interview, which is posted at AlterNet http://www.alternet.org/world/exclusive-interview- seymour-hersh-dishes-saudi-oil-money-bribes-and-killing-osama-bin-laden:

Let me talk to you about the sarin story [the sarin gas attack in Ghouta, a suburb near Damascus, which the U.S. government attributed to the Assad regime] because it really is in my craw. In this article that was this long series of interviews [of Obama] by Jeff Goldberg…he says, without citing the source (you have to presume it was the president because he’s talking to him all the time) that the head of National Intelligence, General [James] Clapper, said to him very early after the [sarin] incident took place, “Hey, it’s not a slam dunk.”

You have to understand in the intelligence community—Tenet [Bush-era CIA director who infamously said Iraqi WMD was a “slam dunk”] is the one who said that about the war in Baghdad—that’s a serious comment. That means you’ve got a problem with the intelligence. As you know I wrote a story that said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs told the president that information the same day. I now know more about it.

The president’s explanation for [not bombing Syria] was that the Syrians agreed that night, rather than be bombed, they’d give up their chemical weapons arsenal, which in this article in the Atlantic, Goldberg said they [the Syrians] had never disclosed before. This is ludicrous. Lavrov [Russia’s Foreign Minister] and Kerry had talked about it for a year—getting rid of the arsenal—because it was under threat from the rebels.

The issue was not that they [the Syrians] suddenly caved in. [Before the Ghouta attack] there was a G-20 summit and Putin and Bashar met for an hour. There was an official briefing from Ben Rhodes and he said they talked about the chemical weapons issue and what to do. The issue was that Bashar couldn’t pay for it—it cost more than a billion bucks. The Russians said, ‘Hey, we can’t pay it all. Oil prices are going down and we’re hurt for money.’ And so, all that happened was we agreed to handle it. We took care of a lot of the costs of it.

Guess what? We had a ship, it was called the Cape Maid, it was parked out in the Med. The Syrians would let us destroy this stuff [the chemical weapons]… there was 1,308 tons that was shipped to the port…and we had, guess what, a forensic unit out there. Wouldn’t we like to really prove—here we have all his sarin and we had sarin from what happened in Ghouta, the UN had a team there and got samples—guess what?

It didn’t match. But we didn’t hear that. I now know it, I’m going to write a lot about it.

Guess what else we know from the forensic analysis we have (we had all the missiles in their arsenal). Nothing in their arsenal had anything close to what was on the ground in Ghouta. A lot of people I know, nobody’s going to go on the record, but the people I know said we couldn’t make a connection, there was no connection between what was given to us by Bashar and what was used in Ghouta. That to me is interesting. That doesn’t prove anything, but it opens up a door to further investigation and further questioning.

Order Tim Anderson’s “The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance” here.

The current situation (as of December 27, 2016):

I’ve outlined “from the ground up,” so to speak, my reasons for disbelieving the basic U.S. government line on Syria and much or all of what I see in the mainstream media. Of course, events continue to unfold, and so does the useful commentary.

As I write, the Syrian Government has reportedly driven the terrorists from Aleppo, but ISIS has meanwhile recaptured Palmyra. While President-elect Trump has indicated he would cooperate with Russia in combating terrorism – and presumably, abandon the U.S. effort to unseat Bashar al Assad – pressure continues from influential quarters to maintain opposition to Assad.

For example, an item has just appeared in The New York Review of Books, arguing that both Russia and Syria have committed war crimes in the ongoing conflict, and that the Trump administration should increase pressure on Russia to curtail what the article calls Assad’s atrocities. (Kenneth Roth, “What Trump Should Do In Syria,” December 22, 2016 issue.) A detailed response would take up too much of my time and yours, but some answer seems warranted. Suffice it to say that the NYRB article is written by Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch (HRW) and that in my view, from having followed the Syrian conflict and related stories for some time, neither HRW nor Amnesty International has the credibility with me that they used to have. In particular, the NYRB piece trots out and repeats the old sarin gas story, now thoroughly debunked. Beyond that, I would point to this entire primer/essay as refutation of the work of that other man named Roth (no relation of mine, I’m glad to say). See especially the narrative immediately above, the interview with Paul Larudee immediately below, and the narrative and sources cited in endnote ix.

For another indication of the continuing nature of the U.S. threat to Syria, see Patrick Henningsen, ‘New Obama Executive Action Opens Door to Unlimited Arms for Salafi Terrorists in Syria’, December 8, 2016; and for further indication of the continuing terrorist threat and the need for responsive action, see ‘Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Legislation to Stop Arming Terrorists], December 8, 2016 Press Release, here.

Here are some further excerpts from some of the most useful and informative recent materials:

*From Paul Larudee, ‘The reporting on Syrian conflict is unusual for the extent of fabricated information’ (August 31, 2016)

Muslim Press: How do you analyze the operation to liberate Aleppo?

Paul Larudee: … Of course, it’s possible to carpet bomb East Aleppo into oblivion, but there is still a large civilian population there, so the Syrian government is not doing that, and they set up three areas for the civilians to leave the area. This is how the Syrian army has retaken most areas, such as Homs, Ghouta, Qalamoun, etc. It’s why they have one of the lowest civilian/combatant casualty ratios of any war, even though the number of total casualties over five years is a great tragedy. …

MP: What’s your take on the media outlets that report the Syrian conflict? Do they portray a true image of the war with concrete facts and evidence?

Paul Larudee: More than 2500 years ago, the Greek playwright Aeschylus wrote, “In war, truth is the first casualty.” This has not changed. As usual, the media are being used as instruments of war, and even the NGOs are providing false and biased information according to the source of their funding. However, I must say that the reporting on Syria is unusual for the extent of fabricated information, including photos and videos that are no more than theater or are real but from totally different origins than reported. Some are reused from other places and sometimes not even Syrian. Caveat emptor! [Emphasis added.]13

MP: Syrian Army has been accused of starving out the residents, using barrel bombs and chemical weapons against civilians. What could you say about this?

Paul Larudee: This is war. We have to be realistic. The Syrian government makes every effort to get civilians to leave a war zone, and offers support services to those who do. But some of them still don’t leave, either because they are afraid of what might happen to their homes or because the terrorists use them as “human shields” and prevent them from leaving, or for their own reasons. In this case it is not unusual for government forces to besiege the area. This is less dangerous to the civilian population and to the soldiers (whose lives are also important) than sending the army in to fight door to door. Under these circumstances it is often difficult for the population to get supplies. In some situations, the starvation has been real, as in Ghouta and the last days of Homs before liberation, but it has also been fabricated or exaggerated, as in Madaya. Keep in mind that the anti-government fighters do the same, as with the sieges of the towns of Foua and Kafarya, which have lasted for years.

The difference is that they often do not end with respect for the lives of the captured population. By contrast, when most of the civilian population has left, the government tries to end the siege peacefully, often by offering amnesty to the fighters. Those who refuse are then often attacked by aerial bombardment and other weapons of war that are most likely to spare the lives of the soldiers. This usually ends in surrender.

“Barrel bombs” are just simple gravity bombs that are made in Syria. They are not fundamentally different from other bombs dropped from aircraft except that they are much less expensive to produce and use, and must be dropped from helicopters because they would be less accurate from jet aircraft. The western media and governments hypocritically argue that “barrel bombs” are inhuman. Their governments use different bombs that are just as destructive or even more so, but they can demonize “barrel bombs” because they do not use them…

*From “Standing By Syria,” by Margaret Kimberley reposted from the Freedom Rider column for Black Agenda Report:

Focusing on Assad’s government and treatment of his people may seem like a reasonable thing to do. Most people who call themselves anti-war are serious in their concern for humanity. But the most basic human right, the right to survive, was taken from 400,000 people because the American president decided to add one more notch on his gun. Whether intended or not, criticism of the victimized government makes the case for further aggression.

The al-Nusra Front may change its name in a public relations effort, but it is still al Qaeda and still an ally of the United States. The unpredictable Donald Trump may not be able to explain that he spoke the truth when he accused Obama and Clinton of being ISIS supporters, but the anti-war movement should be able to explain without any problem. Cessations of hostilities are a sham meant to protect American assets whenever Assad is winning. If concern for the wellbeing of Syrians is a paramount concern, then the American anti-war movement must be united in condemning their own government without reservation or hesitation.

*From AP Exclusive: Assad blames U.S. for collapse of Syria truce (September 22, 2016):

The war has been defined by gruesome photos and video posted in the aftermath of bloody attacks or documenting the plight of children in particular. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, and once-thriving cities have been ravaged, with entire blocks reduced to rubble. The images have galvanized public opinion worldwide — but [Syrian president Bashar] Assad, while acknowledging that the war had been “savage,” said the accounts should not be automatically believed.

“Those witnesses only appear when there’s an accusation against the Syrian army or the Russian (army), but when the terrorists commit a crime or massacre … you don’t see any witnesses,” he said. What a coincidence.” …

Assad dismissed the U.S. account [of the U.S. attack on Syrian government troops], saying the attack targeted a “huge” area for more than an hour.

“It wasn’t an accident by one airplane… It was four airplanes,” Assad said. “You don’t commit a mistake for more than one hour.” …

Asked about … the use of indiscriminate weapons, Assad said there’s no difference between bombs: “When you have terrorists, you don’t throw at them balloons, or you don’t use rubber sticks. … You have to use armaments.”

A full transcript of this AP interview with Syrian president Assad is here.

*How might the war end?

Mr. Assad believes the war could end quickly if foreign governments supporting the terrorists would withdraw their support. Responding to a question about when … Syrians who fled the war can return, Assad said:

If we look at it according to the internal Syrian factors, I would say it’s very soon, a few months, and I’m sure about that, I’m not exaggerating, but when you talk about it as part of a global conflict and a regional conflict, when you have many external factors that you don’t control, it’s going to drag on and no-one in this world can tell you when but the countries, the governments, the officials who support directly the terrorists. Only they know, because they know when they’re going to stop supporting those terrorists, and this is where the situation in Syria is going to be solved without any real obstacles.14

*More from “Why the Arabs don’t want us in Syria” by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, quoted above:

What is the answer? … Using the same imagery and language that supported our 2003 war against Saddam Hussein, our political leaders led Americans to believe that our Syrian intervention is an idealistic war against tyranny, terrorism and religious fanaticism. … But … only when we see this conflict as a proxy war over a pipeline do events become comprehensible. … The million refugees now flooding into Europe are refugees of a pipeline war and CIA blundering. …

… Let’s face it; what we call the “war on terror” is really just another oil war. We’ve squandered $6 trillion on three wars abroad and on constructing a national security warfare state at home since oilman Dick Cheney declared the “Long War” in 2001. The only winners have been the military contractors and oil companies that have pocketed historic profits, the intelligence agencies that have grown exponentially in power and influence to the detriment of our freedoms and the jihadists who invariably used our interventions as their most effective recruiting tool. We have compromised our values, butchered our own youth, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, subverted our idealism and squandered our national treasures in fruitless and costly adventures abroad. …

… Over the past seven decades, the Dulles brothers, the Cheney gang, the neocons and their ilk have … deployed our military and intelligence apparatus to serve the mercantile interests of large corporations and particularly, the petroleum companies and military contractors that have literally made a killing from these conflicts.

It’s time for Americans to turn America away from this new imperialism and back to the path of idealism and democracy. We should let the Arabs govern Arabia and turn our energies to the great endeavor of nation building at home. We need to begin this process, not by invading Syria, but by ending the ruinous addiction to oil that has warped U.S. foreign policy for half a century.

Order Tim Anderson’s “The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance” here.

*From Tim Anderson, The Dirty War on Syria, Chapter 14, “Toward A New Middle East”:

‘No foreign officials might determine the future of Syria, the future of Syria’s political system or the individuals who should govern Syria. This is the Syrian peoples’ decision.’- Bashar al Assad, 2015

… Washington and its minions have been obsessive and intransigent in their aim to isolate and exclude President Assad from a future Syrian Government. … This futile demand really illustrates how little respect Washington has for international law. [Emphasis added.] [T]he Geneva agreements of 2012 … stress that ‘It is for the Syrian people to determine the future of the country’ (TASS 2015; UN 2012). That is a simple but fundamental point that Washington does not want to understand. Russian President Putin is generally diplomatic to his western ‘partners’, however on one occasion he said: ‘Rise above the endless desire to dominate. You must stop acting out of imperialistic ambitions. Do not poison the consciousness of millions of people, like there can be no other way but imperialistic politics’ (Putin 2015). …

Washington’s ‘Plan B’ for Syria has been a weakening and eventual dismemberment of the country. This is helpfully spelt out by a Brookings Institute paper of June 2015 (O’Hanlon 2015). This plan quite brazenly calls for Washington to break its ‘Syria problem’ into ‘a number of localised components … envisioning ultimately a more confederal Syria made up of autonomous zones rather than being ruled by a strong central government’ (O’Hanlon 2015: 3). …

… Russia, legally invited to Syria, repeatedly requested U.S. cooperation, thus calling Washington’s bluff. Washington … had pretended not to own ISIS, failed to attack the terrorist group when Syrian towns were assailed and falsely pretended there was a fundamental difference between ISIS and the other ‘moderate rebels’. However Russia agreed with Syria that all the anti-government armed groups were sectarian terrorists. The U.S. refused to identify any of their ‘moderate rebel’ groups, so Russia [beginning in late September 2015] … attacked them all. In face of this, the U.S. protested that their ‘moderates’ were being targeted, or that the Russians were ‘killing civilians’. …

… Syrians, including most devout Sunni Muslims, reject that head-chopping, vicious and sectarian perversion of Islam promoted by the Gulf monarchies. This is no sectarian or Shia-Sunni war, but a classical imperial war, using proxy armies.

*On the battle for Aleppo

Mainstream media coverage of Syria has lately focused on what the U.S. calls “war crimes” in the battle for Aleppo, Syria’s largest city. But most Western media never get any closer to Aleppo than Beirut, which is not even in Syria. For their information, these media often rely on the U.S. government or groups like the White Helmets, who get funding from the U.S. and others attempting to overthrow the Syrian government. As veteran journalist Patrick Cockburn points out:

Unsurprisingly, foreign journalists covering developments in east Aleppo and rebel-held areas of Syria overwhelmingly do so from Lebanon or Turkey. A number of intrepid correspondents who tried to do eyewitness reporting from rebel-held areas swiftly found themselves tipped into the boots of cars or otherwise incarcerated.

Experience shows that foreign reporters are quite right not to trust their lives even to the most moderate of the armed opposition inside Syria. But, strangely enough, the same media organisations continue to put their trust in the veracity of information coming out of areas under the control of these same potential kidnappers and hostage takers. They would probably defend themselves by saying they rely on non-partisan activists, but all the evidence is that these can only operate in east Aleppo under license from the al- Qaeda-type groups.

It is inevitable that an opposition movement fighting for its life in wartime will only produce, or allow to be produced by others, information that is essentially propaganda for its own side. The fault lies not with them but a media that allows itself to be spoon-fed with dubious or one-sided stories.

For instance, the film coming out of east Aleppo in recent weeks focuses almost exclusively on heartrending scenes of human tragedy such as the death or maiming of civilians. One seldom sees shots of the 10,000 fighters, whether they are wounded or alive and well.” Patrick Cockburn, “Why Everything You’ve Read About Syria and Iraq Could be Wrong,” December 2, 2016 (posted here.)

However, photo-journalist Vanessa Beeley recently traveled to Syria, including Aleppo, and has issued a two-part report, both exposing the so-called “White Helmets” and interviewing members of Syria’s real civil defense, that you can see and read here and here.

More than 1.5 million civilians live in government-held western Aleppo, including 600,000 who fled eastern Aleppo. The Aleppo Medical Association estimated that about 200,000 were living in terrorist-occupied eastern Aleppo, including 50,000 so-called “rebels” and their families, before the Syrian Army and its allies recently recaptured the whole of the city.

Government forces could have flattened eastern Aleppo long ago, but held back out of concern for civilians. Assad recently offered readjustment help to civilians leaving eastern Aleppo, and even to Syrian fighters who lay down their arms. But the insurgents continued pounding western Aleppo daily with weapons, including “hell cannons” firing gas canisters packed with explosives, glass, shrapnel and even chemicals. The terrorist bombardment of western Aleppo with such weapons caused horrific harm to civilians there, including children, but was seemingly invisible to the mainstream media.

*Analyst Pepe Escobar concludes that the U.S. is managing the siege of Mosul in such a way as to allow jihadists to escape Mosul so they can join the Islamic State fighters in Syria. Pepe Escobar, The Aleppo / Mosul Riddle, see this October 21, 2016).

***

The myth of the “moderate rebels,” Assad’s continuing support in Syria, the real reasons for U.S. intervention in Syria, delusions still prevailing in official Washington and parroted by mainstream media, the ordeal of the Syrian people, and the risks the continuing conflict poses for world peace. Additional materials on these topics and others are listed here in chronological order by date of publication.

Eva Bartlett, Liberated Homs Residents Challenge Notion of “Revolution,” July 8, 2014, http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/07/liberated-homs-residents-challenge-notion-of-revolution/

Eva Bartlett, Western corporate media ‘disappears’ over 1.5 million Syrians and 4,000 doctors, https://www.sott.net/article/325238-Western-corporate-media-disappears-over-1-5- million-Syrians-and-4000-doctors, August 14, 2016

Prof. Tim Anderson, Why Syrians Support Bashar al Assad, Global Research, September 30, 2014, http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-syrians-support-bashar-al-assad/5405208.

Mike Whitney, Everything You Needed to Know About Syria in 8 Minutes, October 30, 2015, http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/30/everything-you-needed-to-know-about-syria-in- 8-minutes/.

Prof. Tim Anderson, Syria: ‘Moderate Rebel’ Massacres and Everyday Propaganda, December 16, 2015, Telesur;

http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/2016/01/03/syria- moderate-rebel-massacres-and-everyday-propaganda/January 3, 2016.

Mairead Maguire | (Inter Press Service), Syrian Peace Groups: This is not a Civil War, it is a Set of Foreign Invasions, January 5, 2016,

http://www.juancole.com/2016/01/syrian-peace- groups-this-is-not-a-civil-war-it-is-a-set-of-foreign-invasions.html and

http://peacenews.org/2016/01/05/syrian-peace-groups-this-is-not-a-civil-war-it-is-a-set-of- foreign-invasions/.

Stephen Gowans, U.S. Role as State Sponsor of Terrorism Acknowledged in U.S. Congressional Research Service Report on Syria Conflict, Global Research, January 11, 2016, what’s left 10 January 2016.

Bouthaina Shaaban, The Rise of ISIS and Other Extremist Groups: the role of the West and Regional Powers,” Jan 29, 2016, Counter Punch, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/29/the- rise-of-isis-and-other-extremist-groups-the-role-of-the-west-and-regional-powers/

Philip Giraldi, Delusions on Syria prevail in official Washington, February 2, 2016, http://www.unz.com/article/an-improbable-solution/.

‘Russian operation in Syria is our salvation’ – top Syrian Catholic bishop to RT, Published time: 18 Feb, 2016 21:25, http://on.rt.com/74vu

Stephen Kinzer, The media are misleading the public on Syria, February 18, 2016,

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-public- syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html?event=event25

Vanessa Beeley, Syria: Aleppo Doctor Demolishes Imperialist Propaganda and Media Warmongering, June 15, 2016,

http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/06/15/syria-aleppo-doctor- demolishes-imperialist-propaganda-and-media-warmongering/

Alexander Mercouris, Washington does the unthinkable, kills Syrian troops and helps ISIS, September 18, 2016,

http://theduran.com/as-moscow-complains-about-us-foot-dragging- washingtons-throws-a-tantrum-bombs-syrian-troops-and-helps-isis/

Finian Cunningham, Syria Shows U.S. Under Military Rule, September 20, 2016, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/20160920/1045507773/syria-shows-us-under-military- rule.html

Mike Whitney, Rogue Mission: Did the Pentagon Bomb Syrian Army to Kill Ceasefire Deal?, September 20, 2016,

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/20/rogue-mission-did- the-pentagon-bomb-syrian-army-to-kill-ceasefire-deal/

Vanessa Beeley, Journey To Aleppo: Exposing The Truth Buried Under NATO Propaganda, September 20, 2016,

http://www.mintpressnews.com/journey-to-aleppo-exposing- the-truth-buried-under-nato-propaganda/220563/ (Part I) and

http://www.mintpressnews.com/journey-aleppo-part-ii-syria-civil-defense-aleppo-medical- association-real-syrians-helping-real-syrians/220817/ (Part II).

Alexander Mercouris, Making up the news: How the Western media misreported the Syrian convoy attack, September 21, 2016,

http://theduran.com/making-news-western-media- misreported-syrian-convoy-attack/

Felicity Arbuthnot, Syria: Attack on Aid Convoy Kills Twenty, Destroys Aid, And Obliterates U.S. War Crimes in Support of ISIS-Daesh Terror Group?, September 21 2016,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-attack-on-aid-convoy-kills-twenty-destroys-aid-and- obliterates-us-war-crimes-in-support-of-isis-daesh-terror-group/5547059

Vanessa Beeley, The REAL Syria Civil Defence Expose Nato’s ‘White Helmets’ as Terrorist-Linked Imposters, September 23, 2016,

http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/09/23/exclusive-the-real-syria-civil-defence-expose-natos- white-helmets-as-terrorist-linked-imposters/

RT.com, Sunday, Sept 25, 2016, West still arming Al-Nusra in Syria, peace almost impossible, Russia’s UN envoy tells Security Council mtg

James W Carden, How Libyan ‘Regime Change’ Lies Echo in Syria,

How Libyan ‘Regime Change’ Lies Echo in Syria

Consortium News, September 25, 2016 (The mainstream U.S. media has largely ignored a U.K. report on the West’s lies used to justify the Libyan “regime change,” all the better to protect the ongoing falsehoods used in Syria.)

Robert Parry, New ‘group think’ for war with Syria/Russia, Consortium News, Oct 5, 2016

Diana Johnstone, Destroying Syria: A Joint Criminal Enterprise,

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/04/overthrowing-the-syrian-government-a-joint-criminal- enterprise/ (October 4, 2016),

and On Assad and Syria: a Reply to a Reader,

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/06/on-assad-and-syria-a-reply-to-a-reader/ (October 6, 2016).

Mike Whitney, Obama Stepped Back From Brink, Will Hillary? (October 12, 2016),

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/12/obama-stepped-back-from-brink-will-hillary/ .

Although this piece was written before the recent presidential election, I include it here because in it Mike Whitney develops what I think is a useful analogy:

The American people need to understand what’s going on in Syria. Unfortunately, the major media only publish Washington-friendly propaganda which makes it difficult to separate fact from fiction. The best way to cut through the lies and misinformation, is by using a simple analogy that will help readers to see that Syria is not in the throes of a confusing, sectarian civil war, but the victim of another regime change operation launched by Washington to topple the government of Bashar al Assad.

With that in mind, try to imagine if striking garment workers in New York City decided to arm themselves and take over parts of lower Manhattan. And, let’s say, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decided that he could increase his geopolitical influence by recruiting Islamic extremists and sending them to New York to join the striking workers. Let’s say, Trudeau’s plan succeeds and the rebel militias are able to seize a broad swath of U.S. territory including most of the east coast stretching all the way to the mid-west. Then– over the course of the next five years– these same jihadist forces proceed to destroy most of the civilian infrastructure across the country, force millions of people from their homes and businesses, and demand that President Obama step down from office so they can replace him with an Islamic regime that would enforce strict Sharia law.

I would take issue with only one point: My understanding, largely from Steve Gowans’ terrific piece, is that the original March 2011 protesters were some combination of Muslim Brotherhood jihadists and terrorists imported from Libya. So the jihadists were not sent later, but were already there from the start, and many were not indigenous to Syria; so I don’t really think that combination of domestic and imported extremists can be fairly compared with hypothetical striking NYC garment workers. But if we clarify that point about the origin of the conflict, the analogy holds, and is highly illuminating.

Rick Sterling, The ‘White Helmets’ controversy in Syria (October 23, 2016),

The ‘White Helmets’ Controversy

John Laforge, U.S. Uranium Weapons Have Been Used in Syria (October 28, 2016),

US Uranium Weapons Have Been Used in Syria

Dan Glazebrook, Syria: the U.S. Will Never Separate Its Fighters from Al Qaeda Because It Depends on Them (November 7, 2016),

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/07/syria-the-us- will-never-separate-its-fighters-from-al-qaeda-because-it-depends-on-them/ (originally appeared in RT.com)

Roger Annis, No to Western intervention in Syria and Ukraine, no to its left-wing apologists (November 12, 2016),

http://rogerannis.com/no-to-western-intervention-in-syria-and-ukraine-no- to-its-left-wing-apologists/

Alexander Mercouris, Here’s why reports of intentional hospital bombings in Syria are false (November 21, 2016),

http://theduran.com/heres-why-reports-of-intentional-hospital-bombings- in-syria-are-false/

Patrick Cockburn, Why Everything You’ve Read About Syria and Iraq Could be Wrong (December 2, 2016),

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/02/why-everything-youve-read- about-syria-and-iraq-could-be-wrong/

Robert Parry, How War Propaganda Keeps on Killing (December 7, 2016), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45988.htm

Aleppo Liberation Exposed Mainstream Media and Their Lies About Syria (December 16, 2016) (Radio Sputnik interview with Vanessa Beeley, investigative journalist and peace activist, who had just returned from the city),

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201612161048664425- aleppo-liberation-media-lies/

Patrick Cockburn, There’s more propaganda than news coming out of Aleppo this week (December 17, 2016),

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/aleppo-crisis-syrian-war-bashar-al- assad-isis-more-propaganda-than-news-a7479901.html

‘I saw no evidence of executions in Syria as reported by White Helmets & MSM sources’

(interviews with Vanessa Beeley and Rick Sterling) (18 Dec, 2016), http://on.rt.com/7y0e

Mainstream Media on Syria and Russia; “Fake News,” By Joe Clifford, Global Research (December 18, 2016),

http://www.globalresearch.ca/mainstream-media-on-syria-and-russia-fake- news/5563257

Dennis J Bernstein, Extracting Aleppo from the Propaganda (interview with photojournalist Eva Bartlett) (December 20, 2016),

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/20/extracting-aleppo- from-the-propaganda/

Vanessa Beeley, Dr Bouthaina Shaaban’s Message to the West, ‘Corporate Media has Caused Death and Destruction in Syria’ (interview) (December 20, 2016), 21st Century Wire,

http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/12/20/syria-dr-bouthaina-shaabans-message-to-the-west- corporate-media-has-caused-death-and-destruction-in-syria/

Vanessa Beeley, East Aleppo Video Diaries: Hanano Testimonies that Shatter Corporate Media Propaganda Myths (December 22, 2016),

http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/12/22/east- aleppo-video-diaries-hanano-testimonies-that-shatter-corporate-media-propaganda-myths/

Resources to follow up and keep track:

Events are unfolding with such rapidity and complexity that it’s hard to keep up in your spare time, as I have been. Maybe it takes a “fire in the gut” to be motivated to even try. And I think it’s fair to say that I do have that fire. I feel compelled to track what’s happening as best I can, in part because I’m still afraid U.S. aggression and recklessness may lead to World War III and with it, the end of the world as we know it; and partly because I now feel for the Syrian people and the horrific ordeal they’re being put through, largely by “my own” (U.S.) government and its allies, including the UK, France, Australia, and Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which I understand are among the most repressive regimes on Earth.

I wrote this article to help you develop your own understanding of the situation, independently of the mainstream media that are dominated by the U.S. perspective. To track developments going forward, I’d suggest looking for more from the authors of the articles I’ve cited, whose work is excellent. I’ve never met any of them, but have come to trust their work and with some, I’ve had communication via email. In addition, many of the articles appear on websites that may be useful places to look for continuing updates.

I would especially recommend www.newcoldwar.org, as it covers well a variety of topics, including the continuing conflict in Ukraine as well as material on Syria, and other issues related to what I believe is already a New Cold War, and the threat of escalation that poses.

Regarding Syria, an extensive list is provided as Chapter 15 of Tim Anderson’s book, The Dirty War on Syria, which as I mentioned is available at

https://store.globalresearch.ca/store/the-dirty- war-on-syria-washington-regime-change-and-resistance-pdf/.

Notes:

1 While I don’t know as much as I hope to learn about the Deep State or “shadow government,” I use those terms to refer to a collection of individuals and structures that appear to have had substantial influence on the policies of several administrations, and to be in part responsible for the continuity of U.S. foreign policy from one administration to the next, especially since the Reagan administration. For an elaborate discussion and analysis, see Mike Lofgren, Anatomy of the Deep State (February 21, 2014), at http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep- state/. Ron Paul’s much briefer statement regarding pressure on Trump from the Deep State and “shadow government” seems to me right on the money; see “Trump should resist neocon & shadow gov’t influence to justify people’s hopes – Ron Paul to RT” (11 Nov, 2016), at http://on.rt.com/7upw. (By the way, I take the recent efforts to discredit RT.com as a credible source of useful news and information to be disinformative, part of the larger effort to discredit Russian president Putin and apparently, Russia itself.) And although I don’t necessarily endorse every word of it, perhaps in part, again, because I don’t as yet know as much as I hope to, Paul Larudee’s 4-page piece on the neocons (short for “neoconservatives,” although their policies are anything but consistent with what has traditionally been called conservatism) is word-for-word the most informative I’ve seen, including identification of the neocons, a short summary of their history, and their linkages with a number of so-called “think tanks.” See “The Neocon in the Oval Office” (August 31st, 2016), at http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/08/the-neocon-in-the-oval- office/.

The hysterical allegations of Russian hacking to interfere with the recent U.S. election are a prime example of the baseless demonization of Russia. An organization of intelligence veterans who have the expertise to know point out that U.S. intelligence has the capability of presenting hard evidence of any such hacking and has not done so. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity state bluntly: “We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child’s play to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack.” They then explain the difference between leaking and hacking. See U.S. Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims (December 12, 2016), https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/.

2 See, for example, ‘Russian operation in Syria is our salvation’ – top Syrian Catholic bishop to RT, Published time: 18 Feb, 2016 21:25, http://on.rt.com/74vu. By the way, Nour al-Din al- Zinki, the group responsible for the atrocity I describe, is part of the U.S.-backed Revolutionary Command Council and has received TOW anti-tank missiles courtesy of the CIA.

3 Full disclosure: In my youth I was trained in critical thinking and other skills in part by Jesuit priests at Fordham University in New York.

4 Father Frans on the Syrian Rebellion: The “Protestors” Shot First http://www.trans-int.com/wordpress/index.php/2014/04/14/father-frans-on-the-syrian-rebellion- the-protestors-shot-first/. Posted by John Rosenthal

5 I’ve just read an article that illustrates this point, about similar U.S. strategies in different countries, in greater detail. The countries involved are Libya and Syria, and the article is James Carden, How Libyan ‘Regime Change’ Lies Echo in Syria, September 25, 2016, posted at https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/25/how-libyan-regime-change-lies-echo-in-syria/.

6 http://www.politico.eu/author/robert-f-kennedy-jr/. This article has been updated to identify Robert Kennedy as U.S. Attorney General. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the president of Waterkeeper Alliance. His newest book is Thimerosal: Let The Science Speak.

7 See, for example, Noam Chomsky, “The Right Turn in U.S. International and Security Policy,” University of Colorado at Boulder (October 22, 1986), available from Alternative Radio, www.alternativeradio.org (1-800-444-1977); Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, (2003).

8 As I was finalizing this draft, I came across an article that does such a terrific job of reviewing the facts and evidence that I want to mention it here. My approach in this article is to review in some detail eye-witness and other accounts that show how the violence occurred, but for another insightful analysis taking a different approach, see Stephen Gowans, The Revolutionary Distemper in Syria That Wasn’t https://gowans.wordpress.com/2016/10/22/the-revolutionary- distemper-in-syria-that-wasnt/ (October 22, 2016). There’s a great deal more in the article, but one of the main things it does is to argue that the violence that began in March 2011 was not a popular uprising, as there is absolutely no evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with the Assad government in Syria at that time. I’m very much looking forward to Gowans’ book, Washington’s Long War on Syria, forthcoming in April 2017.

Another useful overview and analysis that has just appeared is by Gary Leupp, An Urgently Necessary Briefing on Syria, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/14/an-urgently-necessary- briefing-on-syria/ (October 14, 2016).

9 In his book Prof. Anderson provides abbreviated citations in parentheses to sources that support the text, then at the end of each chapter, provides a detailed listing of each source. In this article I provide only the abbreviated citations; to get the full citation, please see the book, which is now available in both pdf and hard copy.

10 In reality, the Damascus sarin gas attack was carried out by an opposition group with the goal of forcing the U.S. to directly attack the Syrian government. Soon after the event, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity issued a statement reporting “the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident”. Later on, Seymour Hersh wrote two lengthy investigations pointing to Jabhat al Nusra with Turkish support being culpable. Investigative journalist Robert Parry exposed the Human Rights Watch analysis blaming the Syrian government as a “junk heap of bad evidence”. [https://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/07/the-collapsing-syria-sarin-case/; see further, https://consortiumnews.com/2014/01/21/human-rights-watchs-syria-dilemma/;
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/08/un-team-heard-claims-of-staged-chemical-attacks/.] In the Turkish parliament, Turkish deputies presented documents showing that Turkey provided sarin to Syrian “rebels”. A detailed examination and analysis of all fact based stories is online at whoghouta.blogspot.com. Their conclusion is that “The only plausible scenario that fits the evidence is an attack by opposition forces.” Rick Sterling, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/06/socialists-supporting-nato-and-us-empire-a-response- to-ashley-smith/. There is some further information toward the end of this article.

11 This last statement is taken from History of U.S.-NATO’s “Covert War” on Syria: Daraa March 2011, Chapter 4 of Tim Anderson’s book, which is posted at http://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-us-natos-covert-war-on-syria-daraa-march- 2011/5492182.

12 http://on.rt.com/77za Published time: 23 Mar, 2016 17:27 Edited time: 23 Mar, 2016 19:58. Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Middle East geopolitics. She is a former senior associate at St. Antony’s College, Oxford University and has a master’s degree in International Relations from Columbia University. Sharmine has written commentary for a wide array of publications, including Al Akhbar English, the New York Times, the Guardian, Asia Times Online, Salon.com, U.S.A Today, the Huffington Post, Al Jazeera English, BRICS Post and others. You can follow her on Twitter at @snarwani.

13 Regarding the fabrication and falsification of evidence, Rick Sterling did an exhaustive examination and analysis of one of the most famous items, the so-called “Caesar” photos. He summed it up this way: “The most highly publicized accusation of rampant torture and murder by Syrian authorities is the case of ‘Caesar’. The individual known as ‘Caesar’ was presented as a defecting Syrian photographer who had 55,000 photos documenting 11,000 Syrians tortured by the brutal Assad dictatorship. At the time, among mainstream media only the Christian Science Monitor was skeptical, describing it as ‘a well timed propaganda exercise’. In the past year it has been discovered that nearly half the photos show the opposite of what is claimed. The Caesar story is essentially a fraud funded by Qatar with ‘for hire’ lawyers giving it a professional veneer and massive mainstream media promotion.” Mr. Sterling’s full report, The Caesar Photo Fraud that Undermined Syrian Negotiations: 12 Problems with the Story of Mass Torture and Execution in Syria, can be viewed at http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/2016/03/03/the-caesar-photo-fraud-that-undermined- syrian-negotiations/. However, be forewarned, the report contains and reviews a great many ghastly photographs.

14 From ALL OUT FIGHT FOR ALEPPO BEGINS – SAA Major Offensive – complete report, Fort Russ News, J. Flores with collated and original sources, posted at http://www.fort- russ.com/2016/09/breaking-all-out-fight-for-aleppo.html.


ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-8-4

Year: 2016

Pages: 240

Author: Tim Anderson

List Price: $23.95

Special Price: $15.00

The Dirty War on Syria 

by Professor Tim Anderson

click to purchase, directly from Global Research Publishers

Reviews:

Tim Anderson  has written the best systematic critique of western fabrications justifying the war against the Assad government. 

No other text brings together all the major accusations and their effective refutation.

This text is essential reading for all peace and justice activists.  -James Petras, Author and Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Tim Anderson’s important new book, titled “The Dirty War on Syria” discusses US naked aggression – “rely(ing) on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory,” he explains.

ISIS is the pretext for endless war without mercy, Assad the target, regime change the objective, wanting pro-Western puppet governance replacing Syrian sovereign independence.

There’s nothing civil about war in Syria, raped by US imperialism, partnered with rogue allies. Anderson’s book is essential reading to understand what’s going on. Stephen Lendman, Distinguished Author and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Host of the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Professor Anderson demonstrates unequivocally through carefully documented research that America’s “Moderate Opposition” are bona fide Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists created and protected by the US and its allies, recruited  and trained by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, in liaison with Washington and Brussels.

Through careful analysis, professor Anderson reveals the “unspoken truth”: the “war on terrorism” is fake, the United States is a “State sponsor of terrorism” involved in a criminal undertaking. Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, Professor of Economics (Emeritus), University of Ottawa.

Click here to order Tim Anderson’s Book

  • Posted in Archives, English
  • Comments Off on What’s Really Happening in Syria: Who Started the War, Who Can You Trust to Tell the Truth?

Selected Articles: The Downing of Russian Aircraft Over Syria

September 19th, 2018 by Global Research News

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis we provide, free of charge, on a daily basis? Do you think this resource should be maintained and preserved as a research tool for future generations? Bringing you 24/7 updates from all over the globe has real costs associated with it. Please give what you can to help us meet these costs! Click below to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

*     *     *

Video: Syrian Forces Accidentally Shot Down Russian IL-20

By South Front, September 18, 2018

In the evening of September 17, the Syrian province of Latakia came under a large-scale aerial attack, which targeted a power station as well as two facilities belonging to the Syrian military. There were also reports on air strikes in other parts of the country but they were not confirmed.

Israel-Russia Relations and the Downing of Russian Aircraft over Syria

By Andrew Korybko, September 18, 2018

Two of the latest developments suggest that Russia and “Israel” are backing away from the “crisis” that some in Alt-Media eagerly hoped would transpire between them as a result of the downing of a Russian Jet.

Media Ignores Israeli Role in Downing of Russian Aircraft in Syria

By Kurt Nimmo, September 18, 2018

The Pentagon and State Department directed media insinuate the tragedy was the fault of the Russians, who got in the way of yet another—there are hundreds—illegal Israeli attack on Syria. The illegality of these persistent attacks on Syrian sovereignty is rarely if ever pointed out by the national security state’s scribes and teleprompter readers. 

The Bluffer’s Guide to Bombing Syria

By Peter Ford, September 17, 2018

The propaganda mills of the British and American governments – spokespersons, media, think tanks – are working overtime churning out ‘talking points’ to justify the upcoming large scale bombing of Syria on the pretext of use of prohibited weapons.

The Liberation of Idlib: Turkey Is in the Way, with Russia Slowing Down

By Elijah J. Magnier, September 17, 2018

Turkey is pushing further reinforcements of troops, commando units and tanks into the northern Syrian city of Idlib and around it, for a specific objective: to disrupt the attack against the city by the Syrian forces and their allies supported by Russia. Ankara is indeed taking advantage of the Russian slowing down of its strategy to liberate the city from jihadists (including al-Qaeda) due to the US threat to bomb the Syrian Army and government forces under that excuse of “using chemical weapons”.

Emboldened by Trump, Israel Bombs Damascus International Airport

By Miri Wood, September 16, 2018

Emboldened by Trump’s continuing threats to protect al-Qaeda in Syria, Israel has chosen the joyous occasion of the Damascus 60th International Fair…to bomb Damascus International Airport. Not that it matters to Israel — or to Trump — it is a war crime to bomb civilian planes and airports. Several missiles were intercepted by Syria’s air defense system and no casualties have been reported at this writing.

*

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

Korea and the United States: Negotiating a Peace Treaty?

September 18th, 2018 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

UPDATE:  This article was first published on May 16, 2018 following the historic meeting between the two leaders.

A third historic 3 day meeting between Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un commenced in Pyongyang on September 18, 2018. 

Visibly the United States with Secretary of State Pompeo in charge of negotiations is intent upon undermining the inter-Korean dialogue.

***

I extend my greetings to the Korea International Peace Forum (KIPF)

My thoughts are with the people of Korea in their quest for peace, unification and national sovereignty.

The pathbreaking April 27 Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula signed by Chairman Kim Jong-un and President Moon Jae-in constitutes an expression of solidarity and commitment. It reaffirms that there is only one Korean Nation. It lays the groundwork for cooperation, reunification and demilitarization of the Korean peninsula.

While the inter-Korean dialogue initiated prior to the winter Olympic games has set the stage for an era of cooperation and reconciliation between North and South, it does in in itself ensure the U.S. demilitarization of the Korean peninsula.

 

 

U.S. Foreign Policy is based on the Art of Deception.

It would be a grave mistake for North Korea to unilaterally give up its powers of nuclear deterrence without a corresponding commitment on the part of the United States.

The Kim-Pompeo secret Easter March negotiations in Pyongyang involving intelligence and national security officials from the US, ROK and DPRK have set the stage for the formulation of a US agenda, requiring unilateral concessions on the part of the DPRK.  And it is this agenda which will be upheld by Washington in the forthcoming Kim-Trump summit in Singapore on June 12.

In the words of Trump in relation to the Singapore Summit: “We will both try [Kim and myself] to make it a very special moment for World Peace!”

How?  Will the US abandon its military ambitions? Highly unlikely. Barely a couple of months back Trump was threatening North Korea with a so-called “bloody nose” attack.

In recent developments, the DPRK cancelled its May 16 high-level inter-Korean talks with the ROK in response to the US-South Korea military exercises, which violate the spirit of the Panmunjom Declaration. According to the North Korean KCNA media report:

This exercise targeting us, which is being carried out across South Korea and targeting us, is a flagrant challenge to the Panmunjom Declaration and an intentional military provocation running counter to the positive political development on the Korean Peninsula. … The United States will also have to undertake careful deliberations about the fate of the planned North Korea-US summit in light of this provocative military ruckus jointly conducted with the South Korean authorities.

These war games ordered by President Trump were carried out under the Joint ROK-US Combined Forces Command (CFC) which puts all ROK military forces “in times of war” under the command of the Pentagon. Reports suggest that ROK president Moon Jae-in was firmly opposed to the war games, but was not in a position (under the clauses of the Joint ROK-US CFC agreement) to veto them.

As examined later in this article, the repeal of the Joint ROK-US CFC agreement is a prerequisite for the implementation of a meaningful Peace Treaty.

Repeal of the Iran Nuclear Agreement. Is It Relevant to Korea?

The recent repeal of the Iran nuclear agreement by Donald Trump coupled with the imposition on Tehran of extensive economic sanctions should serve as an example to Korea. The US administration cannot be trusted. Senior officials in Trump’s cabinet are intent upon destabilizing the inter-Korean dialogue.

The repeal of the Iran nuclear agreement bears obvious  similarities to the US’ contradictory stance with regard to North Korea.

Moreover, war against both Iran and North Korea are part of the same global military agenda. Confirmed by a 2007 (leaked) classified Pentagon document which envisaged a simulated scenario of global warfare, the US is intent upon waging war against four non-compliant countries: Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.

In 2007, under what was called the Vigilant Shield war games, they were simulating a war with four fictitious countries, which were called Irmingham, Ruebek, Churia, and Nemazee

Now, Irmingham is Iran, Ruebek is Russia, Churia is China and Nemazee is North Korea.

And this is a very detailed scenario which I analysed in my book, and it starts with a road to conflict, it’s a simulation of the whole sequence of events which ultimately leads to World War III. And to say that they’re not into envisaging and analyzing World War III… they are! (Interview with Michel Chossudovsky, April 2018)

Michel Chossudovsky: Towards a World War III Scenario: The Danger of Nuclear War 

Moreover, with regard to the nuclear issue, what the U.S. seeks is to establish a Worldwide hegemony (monopoly) in the ownership and use of nuclear weapons, supported by a 1.3 trillion dollar nuclear weapons program.

Under these circumstances, the unilateral denuclearization of the Korean peninsula does not ensure the security of the Korean nation. Quite the opposite. The power of deterrence has been lost. The US can continue to threaten Korea, it can launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack directed against the Korean peninsula from naval and well as land-based military facilities in different part of the World.

The “denuclearization” of the Korean peninsula concept is being used by Washington to enforce the unilateral abandonment of the DPRK’s nuclear weapons program without any meaningful counterpart obligations by the US including the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea.

Will they succeed? The Koreans are skilful diplomats and tough negotiators when compared to their US counterparts.

The 1953 Armistice Agreement

The US is still at war with North Korea as well as South Korea which remains occupied by US troops. The armistice agreement signed in July 1953 –which legally constitutes a “temporary ceasefire” between the warring parties (US, North Korea and China’s Volunteer Army)– must be rescinded.

In the wake of the April 27 Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification, the solution for North and South would be to negotiate as a first step a workable bilateral peace agreement which essentially renders the Armistice agreement of July 1953, null and void.

As far as procedure is concerned, repeal of the 1953 armistice agreement (and the signing of a peace treaty) involving the DPRK, the US and China should take place after a bilateral ROK-DPRK agreement has been reached (see below).

The tripartite negotiations between US-DPRK and China would then become a formality once the bilateral procedure has been completed. Also it is important that the ROK and the DPRK should take a common position when negotiating with the US and China in relation to the 1953 armistice, i.e. the ROK should not be excluded from the peace treaty which repeals of the 1953 armistice process.

Towards a North-South Peace Agreement as a Preamble to the Annulment of the Armistice Agreement of 1953

The avenue to achieving a ROK-DPRK Peace Agreement as formulated in the April 27 declaration requires the prior annulment of OPCON (Operational Control) and the Repeal of the ROK-US Combined Forces Command (CFC) which puts all ROK military forces “in times of war” under the command of a U.S. Four Star General appointed by the Pentagon. This procedure is a preamble to the repeal of the 1953 armistice.

In 2014, the government of  (impeached) President Park Geun-hye was pressured by Washington to extend the OPCON (Operational Control) agreement “until the mid-2020s”. As a result of a decision by an impeached president who violated her oath of office, all ROK forces were to remain under the command of a US General rather than under that of the command of the ROK President and Commander in Chief. At present the US has more than 600,000 active South Korean Forces under its command. (i.e. the Commander of United States Forces Korea, (USFK) is also Commander of the ROK-U.S. CFC).

Why is the repeal of the Combined Forces Command (CFC) a prerequisite to establishing peace on the Korean peninsula?

A Peace Treaty cannot reasonably be implemented if the armed forces of the ROK are under the command of a foreign government. The annulment of the OPCON agreement as well as the repeal of the ROK – US Combined Forces Command (CFC) structure is a sine qua non condition to reaching a Peace Treaty.  

We are dealing with a diabolical military agenda formulated in Washington: The US seeks under the Combined Forces Command to mobilize the forces of South Korea against the Korean Nation. If a war were to be carried out by the US, all ROK forces under US command would be used against the Korean people. The annulment of the CDC is therefore crucial. A prerequisite to the implementation of the April 27 agreement is that the ROK government of president Moon Jae-in have full jurisdiction over its armed forces.

The legal formulation of this bilateral entente is crucial. The bilateral arrangement would in effect bypass Washington’s refusal. It would establish the basis of peace on the Korean peninsula, without foreign intervention, namely without Washington dictating its conditions. It would require as a second step (following the annulment of the Joint Forces command) the withdrawal of all US troops from the ROK.

Moreover, it should be noted that the militarization of  the ROK under the OPCOM agreement, including the development of new military bases, is also intent upon using the Korean peninsula as a military launchpad threatening both China and Russia. Under OPCON, “in the case of war”, the entire forces of the ROK could be mobilized under US command against China or Russia.

There is only one Korean Nation. Washington opposes reunification because a united Korean Nation would weaken US hegemony in East Asia.

Reunification would create a competing  Korean nation state and regional power (with advanced technological and scientific capabilities) which would assert its sovereignty, establish trade relations with neighbouring countries (including Russia and China) without the interference of Washington.

It is worth noting in this regard, that US foreign policy and military planners have already established their own scenario of  “reunification” predicated on maintaining US occupation troops in Korea. Similarly, what is envisaged by Washington is a framework which would enable “foreign investors” to penetrate and pillage the North Korean economy.

Washington’s objective is to hinder the process of reunification. Its Plan B would be for the US to impose the terms of Korea’s reunification. The NeoCons “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC) published in 2000 had intimated that in a “post unification scenario”, the number of US troops (currently at 28,500) would be increased and that US military presence would be extended to North Korea.

Washington’s intentions are crystal clear. They consist in sabotaging the peace process.

What has to be emphasized is that the US and the ROK cannot be “Allies” inasmuch as the US threatens to wage war on the Korean Nation.

The “real alliance” is that which unifies and reunites North and South Korea through dialogue and partnership against foreign intrusion and aggression.

The US is in a state of war against the entire Korean Nation. Under international  law (Nuremberg) it’s a war against peace.

Needless to say, the reunification of North and South Korea would weaken US hegemony in North East Asia.

It would also have significant implications with regard to trade and development in North East Asia. 

A united Korean Nation of 80 million people, integrating the scientific and technological capabilities of North and South would inevitably lead to the formation of a powerful, self-reliant and sovereign regional economic power and trading nation. 

A divided Korea serves the geopolitical and economic interests of the US.  

The Trump administration integrated by Mike Pompeo and John Bolton will do its utmost to sabotage the North-South dialogue, while maintaining the combined forces command intact.


 “The Globalization of War is undoubtedly one of the most important books on the contemporary global situation produced in recent years. 

In his latest masterpiece, Professor Michel Chossudovsky shows how the various conflicts we are witnessing today in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Palestine are in fact inter-linked and inter-locked through a single-minded agenda in pursuit of global hegemony helmed by the United States and buttressed by its allies in the West and in other regions of the world.”   Dr Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

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

Michel Chossudovsky

$14.00, Save 39%

The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity  can be ordered directly from Global Research Publishers. 

Video: Syrian Forces Accidentally Shot Down Russian IL-20

September 18th, 2018 by South Front

In the evening of September 17, the Syrian province of Latakia came under a large-scale aerial attack, which targeted a power station as well as two facilities belonging to the Syrian military. There were also reports on air strikes in other parts of the country but they were not confirmed.

The Syrian state media said that the missiles came from the sea adding that a high number of them was intercepted. However, according to photos and videos, unknown number of missiles hit their targets.  Pentagon spokesman Navy Cmdr. Sean Robertson officially denied the US involvement in the attack.

On September 18, the Russian Defense Ministry revealed that the attack was carried out by four Israeli F-16 warplanes. Furthermore, during the attack a Russian Il-20 surveillance plane with 14 servicemen on board disappeared over the Mediterranean Sea. The ministry said that “the plane was returning to the airbase of Khmeimim, 35 kilometers from the coast of Syria” when “the mark of IL-20 went off” from radars.

“At the same time, the Russian radars fixed missile launches from the French frigate Auvergne, which was in that area,” the defense ministry added.

Later, the Russian Defense Ministry added that the IL-20 plane was accidentally targeted by a Syrian S-200 missile. The incident was a result of the intentional actions by Israeli warplanes, which were hiding from the Syrian fire behind the IL-20.

A search and rescue operation is ongoing.

The IL-20 surveillance plane is an Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) platform, equipped with a wide range of antennas, infrared and optical sensors.

It’s interesting to note that September 17 strike on Syria came just a few hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan agreed to establish a “demilitarized zone” between militants and government troops in the Syrian province of Idlib.

“We’ve agreed to create a demilitarized zone between the government troops and militants before October 15. The zone will be 15-20 km deep, with full withdrawal of hardline militants from there, including the Jabhat Al-Nusra [now known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham],” Putin said following face-to-face talks with his Turkish counterpart.

All heavy weaponry, including battle tanks and artillery, should be withdrawn from the zone before October 10. The zone will be patrolled by Turkish and Russian forces. It’s expected that roads between Aleppo and Hama, and Aleppo and Latakia must be reopened for transit traffic before the end of the year. According to Putin, the agreement has a “general” support from the Damascus government.

However, it’s still unclear how it’s possible to demilitarize a 15-20 km deep zone mostly controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its allies without employing a military option to force these militant groups to obey.

*

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 of the latest developments suggest that Russia and “Israel” are backing away from the “crisis” that some in Alt-Media eagerly hoped would transpire between them as a result of the downing of a Russian Jet. 

The purpose of this brief observation is to update the reader on what the author wrote in his two pieces from earlier today:

Initial Reaction To The Russian-‘Israeli’ ‘Crisis’

Russian-‘Israeli’ Tensions Are In The Interests Of The US And Iran

The main points were that a pro-American “deep state” faction in “Israel” might be responsible for yesterday’s tragic occurrence, and that the US and Iran both have an interest (albeit for very separate reasons) in exacerbating the distrust between Moscow and Tel Aviv to the point of generating a full-fledged crisis.

That being the case, Russia and “Israel” appear to be signaling to one another that neither wants an escalation of tensions with the other, which also suggests that their leaderships are in constant communication over what transpired.

President Putin took the first step by releasing the following statement through his spokesman:

“The president offers sincere condolences to all relatives, friends and colleagues of the downed jet’s crew members.”

This noticeably omits any reference to the Russian Defense Minister’s earlier statement holding “Israel” fully responsible for what happened.

Aware of this, the “Israeli Defense Forces” reciprocated by releasing what might be their first-ever public expression of sympathy for ‘collateral damage’:

“Israel expresses sorrow for the death of the aircrew members of the Russian plane that was downed tonight due to Syrian anti-aircraft fire.”

The second part of that tweet predictably lays the blame on Syria, while subsequent messages expand the reach of culpability to include Iran and Hezbollah, too.

The point to focus on, however, is that “Israel” implicitly acknowledges that it didn’t intend for the situation to unfold as it did, which when taken together with President Putin’s statement, suggests that a climb-down is in effect between both parties and that the “crisis” that the US and Iran were hoping for might not materialize.

*

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 Eurasia Future.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel-Russia Relations and the Downing of Russian Aircraft over Syria

After the Syrians accidentally targeted a Russian surveillance aircraft over the Mediterranean and the Russians pinned the blame on Israel, the corporate propaganda media scrambled to spin the story. 

The Pentagon and State Department directed media insinuate the tragedy was the fault of the Russians, who got in the way of yet another—there are hundreds—illegal Israeli attack on Syria. The illegality of these persistent attacks on Syrian sovereignty is rarely if ever pointed out by the national security state’s scribes and teleprompter readers. 

Here is what these lackluster careerists in service to the state ignore: the Israelis used the Russian aircraft as cover. 

“The Israeli pilots used the Russian plane as cover and set it up to be targeted by the Syrian air defense forces. As a consequence, the Il-20, which has radar cross-section much larger than the F-16, was shot down by an S-200 system missile,” a spokesman for the Russian Ministry of Defense said in a statement. 

Russia said it reserves the right to take “commensurate measures” against Israel in response. However, Russia will do little beyond symbolic gestures. It knows these kind of provocations have the potential to start a real war—not another proxy war fought by fanatical Salafists—and the consequence of such an escalation will likely result in nuclear war and the end of life on planet Earth. 

If you do an internet search of the above Russian ministry quote, the results returned are either from Russian or alternative news websites, not the corporate media which has long been assigned the role of covering up—or if that’s not possible, ignoring entirely—the serial crimes of two of the world’s most notorious war criminal nations. 

The trickery and deception employed in the downing of the Russian aircraft is normal day-to-day behavior for Israel. It makes no excuse for trying to start larger wars in the Middle East, wantonly and freely murdering Palestinians (many locked up in the world’s largest open-air prison, Gaza), and manipulating Congress and the idiot savant Trump—he is proficient in one area: promotion of his own oversized ego—into moving to cancel the First Amendment and criminalizing all who criticize the Zionist settler state. 

If Israel and Saudi Arabia with its bounty of oil didn’t exist, the United States would be far less interested in the Middle East. Then again, the corporate and bankster empire is obsessive-compulsive when it comes to meddling in the affairs of foreign nations, kickstarting wars, and forcing neoliberal economic suicide upon other nations. 

Putin may parley with Netanyahu, but Israel’s participation in these handshake events amounts to little more than window-dressing, a cover for more deception. It is, after all, Mossad’s guiding principle, reflected in its motto: “By way of deception thou shalt do war,” which is taken from Proverbs 24:6 (the Proverbs of Solomon) in the Hebrew Bible, what the Christians call the Old Testament. 

The Hebrew Bible is an instruction manual for violence, murder, and genocide. Moses and Joshua wiped out the Canaanites and Saul annihilated the Amalekites. In Deuteronomy 20:16-18, the Jewish God tells the Israelites all the Canaanites must be murdered, otherwise they will “teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshipping their gods,” which is an unforgivable sin. 

The Hebrew God portrayed in the Old Testament detests all people who are not Jewish—the Chosen People—and this is made evident in Exodus 12:29–32. 

Christian scholars have tried to either explain away or support the pathological nature of the Old Testament God. Meanwhile, the Israeli state looks to the old book for spiritual guidance and instruction. 

Image result for Rabbi Yisrael Rosen

Recall Rabbi Yisrael Rosen during Israel’s last invasion of Lebanon. 

“All of the Palestinians must be killed; men, women, infants, and even their beasts,” he declared.

Rosen cited the Torah when he advocated genocide.

“Annihilate the Amalekites from the beginning to the end. Kill them and wrest them from their possessions. Show them no mercy. Kill continuously, one after the other. Leave no child, plant, or tree. Kill their beasts, from camels to donkeys.”

Rosen defined the Palestinians as the “Amalekites of this age.”

It is unclear what will now happen. Russia has complained numerous times about the murderous behavior of the Israeli state, and yet has not moved to do something about it. This is understandable. The Russians and the rest of the world do not want to die from radiation sickness or starve to death during a nuclear winter. 

Russian inaction is a big flashing green light for the Israelis. They have bombed Syria over 200 times without a significant response. They know if Russia or Iran retaliate for these attacks which undoubtedly killed an unknown number of civilians, they can count on the stupid Americans to fight to last battle, as portrayed in the final Chapter of the Jewish bible, the so-called Book of Zechariah, the Apocalypse. 

*

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: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Media Ignores Israeli Role in Downing of Russian Aircraft in Syria

The Anne Frank Test

September 18th, 2018 by Philip Giraldi

The week leading up to the funeral of Senator John McCain produced some of the most bizarre media effusions seen in this country since the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963. McCain, who never saw a war or regime change that he didn’t like, was apparently in reality a friend of democracy and freedom worldwide, a judgment that somehow ignores the hundreds of thousands of presumed foreign devils who have died as a consequence of the policies he enthusiastically promoted in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya.

McCain, who supported assassination of US citizens abroad and detention of them by military commissions back at home, was hardly the upright warrior for justice eulogized in much of the mainstream media. He was in fact for most of his life a corrupt cheerleader for the Establishment and Military Industrial Complex. McCain was one of five Senators who, in return for campaign contributions, improperly intervened in 1987 on behalf of Charles Keating, Chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, a target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). The FHLBB subsequently did not follow through with proposed action against Lincoln.

Lincoln Savings and Loan finally did collapse in 1989, at a cost of $3.4 billion to the federal government, which had insured the accounts, while an estimated 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded, many losing their life savings. When the Keating story broke in 1989, the Phoenix New Times newspaper called McCain the worst senator from any state in American history.

There was plenty of pushback on the McCain legacy coming from the alternative media, though nothing in the mainstream where politicians and pundits from both the left and the right of the political spectrum united in their songs of praise. Amidst all the eulogies one article did, however, strike me as particularly bizarre. It was written by Jeffrey Goldberg, Editor in Chief of The Atlantic, and is entitled “McCain would have passed the Anne Frank test” with the sub-heading “The senator spent decades demonstrating his willingness to fight powerful men who abused powerless people.”

Screengrab from The Atlantic

Goldberg, a leading neoconservative, casually reveals that he has had multiple discussions with McCain, including some in “war zones” like Iraq. He quotes the Senator as saying

“I hated Saddam. He ruled through murder. Didn’t we learn from Hitler that we can’t let that happen?”

Goldberg notes that McCain’s hatred “for all dictators burned hot” before hitting on a number of other themes, including that, per the senator, it was Donald Rumsfeld’s “arrogance and incompetence…that helped discredit the American invasion” of Iraq. Goldberg quotes McCain as saying “He [Rumsfeld] was the worst.”

Jeffrey Goldberg also claims a conversation with McCain in which he asserted that, even though an Iraq war supporter, he had become frustrated with the effort to “renovate a despotic Middle Eastern country.” As he put it, “theory of the American case was no match for the heartbreaking Middle East reality,” which is yet another defense of U.S. interventionism with the caveat that the Arabs might not be ready to make good use of the largesse. Elsewhere Goldberg, echoing McCain, has attributed the disaster in Iraq to the “incompetence of the Bush Administration,” not to the policy of regime change itself, presumably because the Pentagon was unsuccessful at killing enough Arabs quickly enough to suit the neoconservatives. McCain’s reported response to Goldberg’s equivocation about Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was “But genocide! Genocide!”

Given the title of the article, Goldberg inevitably turns to the holocaust with McCain:

“He said that, in the post holocaust world, all civilized people, and the governments of all civilized nations, should be intolerant of leaders who commit verified acts of genocide… I told him then that he would most definitely pass the Anne Frank test…[which] is actually a single question: ‘Which non-Jewish friends would risk their lives to hide us should the Nazis ever return?’”

After some additional blather Goldberg enthuses that he was “…pretty sure [McCain would] kill Nazis to defend Anne Frank.” McCain smiled and responded “It would be an honor and a privilege.”

It would be tough to figure out where to go from there, but Goldberg was steering a steady course. He saw two “sterling qualities’ in McCain. Number one was his “visceral antipathy for powerful men who abuse powerless people.” The second quality was “self-doubt,” how “in moments of great testing, it is possible for any human, including the bravest human, to fail.”

The second quality is a bit hard to discern in McCain, whose dogged pursuit of whole nations full of alleged enemies has left a trail of bodies spanning the globe, but it is the first virtue that is hardest to reconcile with the reality of a man who epitomized America’s reckless brutality in its overseas military ventures since 9/11. The tally runs Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya with ongoing adventures in Somalia and Syria. Iran, Russia, and China are pending, all of which were on McCain’s enemies list.

As many as three million Muslims have died as a direct result of the series of wars, endorsed by McCain and Goldberg, that began in late 2001 and have continued to this day. Remarkably, not a single one of the wars initiated over that time period has actually ended with either victory or some return to normalcy. Whole countries lie in ruins and millions of people have been driven from their homes, creating an unsustainable refugee crisis, while the United States wallows in unsustainable debt.

American born but Israeli by choice Goldberg, a leading Zionist voice who was once in the Israel Defense Force where he served as a prison guard, celebrates McCain in full knowledge that his tribe is not the one that is dying, hence the seal of approval granted to the senator by virtue of his successful completion of the Anne Frank Test. Goldberg’s body of work as a journalist frequently includes discussions of Israel, anti-Semitism and the threats posed by Israel’s numerous enemies. Glenn Greenwald has called Goldberg “one of the leading media cheerleaders for the attack on Iraq,” having “compiled a record of humiliating falsehood-dissemination in the run-up to the war that rivaled Judy Miller’s both in terms of recklessness and destructive impact.”

One might well object to Goldberg’s formulation of what constitutes decent human behavior, wrapped as it is around a perpetual victimhood holocaust metaphor that inevitably is used in extenso to justify every atrocity committed by the Jewish State. Goldberg should perhaps try examining his “test” in a number of different versions that would move him outside of his tribal comfort zone. He might ask if, in a hypothetical state run by those who believe the Talmud and Torah to be the true word of God, he would hide Christians fleeing from a government that considered it acceptable to kill non-Jews and that gentiles are little more than beasts, fit to serve as slaves for true believers. To reprise for Goldberg the question he posed to McCain, would he approve that the Jewish persecutors should be killed to protect the innocent?

Or maybe a better example, as it would fit in with Goldberg’s experience as a prison guard, might be the case of a teenage Palestinian fleeing, seeking refuge from a rampaging group of armed settlers inspired by mass murderer Baruch Goldstein or by members of a unit in the Israeli Army. Knowing that many Israelis regard someone throwing a stone or shouting at police as a terrorist and that the Jewish State’s government has an abominable record for killing, beating and imprisoning children, would he open his door? And what would McCain do if he were still around given that the ethnic cleansing being engaged in by Israel on the Palestinians may not be full scale genocide, but it is very close in principle, reflecting the Israeli government desire to make the Palestinians a non-people?

In short, Goldberg should ask himself whether his Anne Frank Test has universal applicability or is it something that is only for Jews. I rather suspect that the test is little more than a word game that empowered Jews like Goldberg use to underline their special status with the ambitious and gullible like Senator John McCain. That McCain enthusiastically became Goldberg’s patsy is at least one good reason that we should all be grateful that he never was elected president.

*

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.

Featured image is from the author.

Iran Hawks in Washington

September 18th, 2018 by Peter Koenig

No doubt, anti-Iran propaganda out of Washington abounds. There are numerous Zionist-run think-tanks (sic) that make US Foreign Policy – and are ratcheting up anti-Iran anger in the US, but targeting especially the Iranian population at home, in Iran. The notorious chief-villain of these agencies, by the way, highly subsidized by the US State Department, and perhaps even more important, by the powerful US military-security complex, is the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy (FDD). More than fifty years ago, then President Dwight Eisenhower already warned the world about the invasive, abusive and greed-driven powers of this ever-growing war industry.

Nobody really heeded his advice, least the United States with her world hegemonic aspirations. Today we have to live with it – and recognize the dangers emanating from this war complex, that controls more than 50% of the US GDP – all associated industries and services included. If peace was to break out tomorrow – the US economy would collapse. It is, therefore, the new normal that aggressions are flying out from Washington to all those proud countries that refuse to submit themselves to the dictate of the hegemon – like Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, Russia, China, Pakistan, Cuba —- and many more. The assaults on free and independent thinking nations come in the form of verbal insults, economic sanctions, tariffs, broken international and bilateral agreements – and foremost war threats and provocations. Beware from falling into the trap.

Iran is not alone. It means – moving on and living with this western imposed system – or else…

And else, means getting out of it. Unfortunately, it does little good accusing the devil overseas, like the FDD, NED (National Endowment for Democracy) and whatever else they are called. They will not go away; they just enjoy the anger they generate. And yes, there is a clear and present danger that through Netanyahu and Trump war provocations on Iran are being launched. And yes, as long as Iran is still linked to the western monetary system, and tries hard to stay linked to it, more sanctions will follow, disastrous sanctions – but disastrous only as long as Iran is tied to the western dollar-based economy. If you, Iran, move away from this massive western monetary fraud – and this will not happen over-night – you, Iran, will gradually regain your economic autonomy and political sovereignty. This is crucial.

Fighting and arguing against senseless and totally illegal sanctions and aggressions – or even begging the West to stick to the Nuclear Deal, against Washington’s reneging on the Nuclear Deal, is a waste of time. It will achieve nothing. They, the US of A, will not give in. The Israel and war industrial complex lobbies are too strong. Counting on Europe to stick to the “Deal” is not a good strategy. Even if – for their own selfish interests – the Europeans would want to maintain the 5+1 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), first, you never know whether and when they may cave in to Washington and Israel’s pressure, and second, even if they don’t, you are still linked to the western ponzy-economy through the euro and, thus vulnerable for sanctions.

Most important, however, rather than looking outside for a culprit – i.e. in Washington or Brussels, find the solution from within. There are two major obstacles to keep in mind. The first one Iran is in the process of overcoming, it’s called embarking on an “Economy of Resistance”; the second one is more complicated but not impossible – neutralizing the Fifth Column in Iran. 

Economy of Resistance – is a path to self-sufficiency, economic autonomy and political sovereignty. Iran, under the guidance of the Ayatollah, has already embarked on this de-globalizing route. President Putin said already several years ago, the sanctions were the best thing that happened to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It forced Russia to rehabilitate an rebuild her agricultural sector and modernize her industrial park. Today Russia is by far the largest wheat exporter in the world and has a cutting-edge industrial arsenal. This message, Mr. Putin, transmitted during his visit to Tehran last November face-to-face to the Ayatollah.

Following the principles of a Resistance Economy implies a gradual, but eventually radical separation from the western monetary system – and adherence to the eastern alliances, like the SCO – Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the BRICS and the Eurasia Economic Union (EEU). Iran is poised to become a member of the SCO within short. These alliances are no longer trading in UDS dollars, have their own international transfer systems – separated from the western, privately run SWIFT which is totally controlled by the US banking moguls – and therefore, SWIFT is a prime instrument to impose financial and economic sanctions, by withholding or blocking international payment transfers and blocking or confiscating assets abroad. 

These eastern alliances are trading in their local currencies and in the case of China and hydrocarbons, even in gold-convertible yuans. One or several new eastern monetary systems are under consideration, including by the BRICS. An important part of the eastern alliances is President Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – or the new Silk Road, a massive multi-trillion yuan infrastructure and transport investments plan – spanning the world from east to west with several connecting “roads”, including maritime routes. This BRI plan, recently incorporated in China’s constitution – is the vanguard for a new economic system, based on equality and benefitting all partners – a clear departure from the western “carrot and stick” approach, i.e. ‘do as I say – or else’ – sanctions will follow.

Second, and this is the real challenge – countries like Iran, Venezuela, Russia, China – and all those nations that resist the west’s attempts to conquer, command and subdue them – have a strong so-called “Fifth Column”, open and covert infiltrated western or local and western-trained and funded ‘assets’. These people are usually embedded in the financial sector, especially the central banks and in trade related activities. They are the ‘recipients’ of the messages from the Hawks from Washington – they propagate them in Iran, bring people to the streets often by paying them – to make believe that there is a strong opposition to the government. 

They control the local media, publish false economic information – unemployment, inflation – and seek tightening investment links with the west. The Fifth Columnists, or Atlantists, are helping manipulating currency exchange rates, devaluations of their country’s – Iran’s – money; they are exaggerating the impact of sanctions at home to create fear and hostility against the government – in brief, they are weaponizing public opinion against their own government. They are collaborators with Iran’s enemies.

The Fifth Columnists are a dangerous, criminal and non-transparent alliance of opponents working for foreign interests, in Iran, as well as in Russia, Venezuela, China – and where ever the Washington hegemon and its dark deep masters want to bring about regime change. Neutralizing them is a huge challenge, as their activities are deeply rooted in their countries financial system, private banking and international trade. 

The best way of annihilating their nefarious impact is by applying the rules of Resistance Economy – breaking loose from the western dollar system, de-globalizing the economy, finding back to political and economic sovereignty – local production for local markets with local money and local public banking for the development of the local economy; and by trading with friendly, culturally and ideologically aligned countries. If the link to the globalized west is broken, their power is gone. Iran is on the right path – the future is in the East. The greed-driven aggressive west is committing economic and moral suicide – the west has become a sinking ship.

*

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 Fars News in Farsi.

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 21st Century; 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.


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

WWIII Scenario

Tibet and the Hidden History of The Dalai Lama

September 18th, 2018 by Max Parry

This past week the 14th Dalai Lama, Tibet’s 83-year old self-declared spiritual leader in exile, made controversial remarks at a press conference in Malmö recognizing the 80th anniversary of the founding of Individual Humanitarian Aid, a Swedish development and philanthropic assistance program that took in Buddhist refugees after the Chinese annexed Tibet in 1959. His comments came as he addressed the European migrant crisis and his choice of words immediately sparked criticism because they seemed to express an attitude typically shared by the European Union’s far right. With the exception of his detractors, the views he expressed to most were unexpected coming from a monk known for preaching enlightenment and inner peace around the globe. “His Holiness”, AKA Tenzin Gyatso, stated:

“Recently large numbers of refugees, many from the Middle East, have fled to Europe in fear for their lives. They have been given shelter and support, but the long-term solution should include providing training and education, particularly for their children, so they can return to rebuild their own countries when peace has been restored.

I think Europe belongs to the Europeans. … Receive them, help them, educate them … but ultimately they should develop their own country.”

The comments occurred in Sweden on the heels of the country’s own shocking general election results which saw an impressive 18% performance made by the anti-immigrant and right-wing populist party, Sweden Democrats. Their third-place finish took place in the midst of a surge of far right nationalist political gains trending across the EU. Sweden itself has taken in tens of thousands of refugees during the influx of immigration in the last few years, a number which the Sweden Democrats have declared they want to halve and 60% of the public in polls wish to see lowered. Unlike far rightists in Eastern Europe or Greece’s Golden Dawn, the Sweden Democrats are part of a slick and optical re-branding of ultra nationalism that emphasizes Islamophobia over anti-Semitism, with other examples such as Ukip and France’s Front National. This pragmatic approach has not gone unpunished, however, as Viktor Orban of Hungary just saw his country slapped with sanctions by the European Parliament for enacting measures restricting immigration as the clash between anti-globalists and neo-liberal ‘inclusive capitalists’ appears to be escalating.

The remarks upset many of the Dalai Lama’s adoring fans as he knowingly or unwittingly appeared to be dog-whistling to their supporters. Still, this isn’t the first time the Tibetan leader has expressed such views. Along with singing praises for India’s Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in 2016 he stated that Germany had “too many refugees” during an interview with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

In addition to demonstrating an oblivious lack of understanding about the migrant crisis, the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize winner’s statements shocked many of his admirers, especially considering his own status as a refugee residing in India for more than 50 years. To his critics they served as further testimony to a hidden history largely unknown to his naive followers and a summation of his actual nationalist views —after all despite his refugee status, his entire political history has been based around returning to power in Tibet. In the West, he has been given the persona of a ‘simple Buddhist monk’ by the political establishment and Hollywood, cloaking his own past as a theocratic despot who speaks for a dominant class within Tibet that has collaborated with the interests of imperialism against China for more than fifty years.

The political author and critic Michael Parenti has written at length about the oppressive social system that existed in Tibet prior to the Chinese liberation in his 2003 essay Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth. The Dalai (“ocean” in Mongolian) Lamas are believed to be reincarnations of the Buddha of Compassion, or manifestations in a lineage of the Bodhisattva (“enlightenment being”).

It was the Mongol invasion of Tibet in the 13th century during the Yuan dynasty where Tibetan Buddhism first spread throughout Asia and for the next six centuries was the state religion of both the Ming and Qing dynasties. Following the disintegration of China’s last imperial dynasty, from 1912-1933 Tibet was an absolute monarchy under his predecessor the 13th Dalai Lama. During his brief tenure as the head of state until he was a mere 24 years old, the 14th Dalai Lama was not a democratically-elected leader but selected by a committee of elite lamas (priests of Tibetan Buddhism) following an extensive search guided by their religious beliefs just like those which preceded him. Under his brief but ultra-wealthy reign, Tibet was a remotely isolated and poor country for the vast majority of its population which mostly consisted of illiterate slaves and serfs who were treated like rental cars by overlords, resembling a Buddhist version of the Gulf State kingdoms more than any peaceful paradise. While presiding over a brutal caste system, the Dalai Lama lived in a 1000-room estate with a personal army at his disposal to hunt down deserters. Parenti writes:

“The theocracy’s religious teachings buttressed its class order. The poor and afflicted were taught that they had brought their troubles upon themselves because of their wicked ways in previous lives. Hence they had to accept the misery of their present existence as a karmic atonement and in anticipation that their lot would improve in their next lifetime. The rich and powerful treated their good fortune as a reward for, and tangible evidence of, virtue in past and present lives.

The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation — including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation — were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs.”

During the Cold War, interest in Tibetan Buddhism worldwide grew dramatically and so did a mainstream version of it in the West. This was supplied by an idealized and exoticized utopian portrayal of the Himalayas and the country akin to the imaginary ‘Shangri-La’ from the novel Lost Horizon, while Western media agencies promoted the ‘Free Tibet’ cause promoted by movie stars and popular musicians.
Buddhism’s appealing teachings have led to the perception by many that it is exempt from the ugly history attributed to other major religions, but as we can see with modern examples such as the persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar this is untrue— it has been used to justify various forms of oppression (including slavery) throughout its history just like other organized religions.
Western buddhism became popularized after the establishment of teaching centers during the New Age movement of the 1970s but most of what people in the West know about Tibet is through its depiction in Hollywood, where he has been courted in the silver screen community by everyone from Martin Scorsese to Richard Gere. At the same time, the source of where Hollywood has pulled its superficial understanding of Tibet is from the 1952 book Seven Years in Tibet authored by Austrian mountain climber Heinrich Harrer which aggrandized the feudal government.

Harrer as an SS officer (left) and later with the Dalai Lama (right).

It turns out that Harrer wasn’t just any mountaineer but a member of the Sturmabteilung Nazi paramilitary and an SS officer, even meeting with Adolf Hitler after his expedition team successfully climbed the Eiger North Face in the Swiss Alps.

In 1939, Harrer traveled in an expedition to the Himalayas to climb the Nanga Parbat peak, one of the world’s ten highest mountains but he was subsequently interned in India by British troops when the European theatre of WWII broke out. Harrer managed to escape to nearby Tibet where his knowledge of the native language led to a salaried employment in the Tibetan government and role as the Dalai Lama’s personal English tutor — in other words, Kundun’s introduction to the Western-world was through a member of Hitler’s Storm Detachment. After the communist Chinese took over, Harrer returned to Europe to write about his experiences and the book became an international best-seller. In 1997, Hollywood made a film version of his account starring Brad Pitt.

Heinrich Harrer with Hitler.

Harrer’s experiences weren’t the only instance of historical encounters between the Nazis and Tibet. During the 1930s, along with the occult European fascists had a bizarre fascination with Asian mysticism. They admired the Tibetan Kingdom with its feudal pecking order and wide-ranging use of torture, mutilation, and the death penalty. In 1938, the Germans led a scientific expedition headed by animal biologist and SS officer Ernst Schafer under the patronage of Heinrich Himmler’s Nazi think tank, the SS Ancestral Heritage Society, which promoted racist pseudo-scientific research. While the voyage happened under the pretext of strategic military purposes against the British, it was also intended to validate Himmler’s racial theory that Aryans of unmixed ancestry had previously settled in the Himalayas. During their investigation, the Germans conducted cranial measurements of human skulls and bones obtained from Tibetan graves with the intent to find evidence supporting Himmler’s ideas that they would be of German ancestry. The Nazi Party’s appropriation of the swastika, a symbol connected to the caste system of Ancient India, was also based on this false idea. Schafer returned with his ‘findings’ just a month prior to the German invasion of Poland in 1939.

Photo of Ernst Schafer’s expedition in Lhasa, Tibet from the German Federal Archives.

One of the Dalai Lama’s biggest talking points has been his supposed “commitment to non-violence.” This apparently does not apply to his own practices, where for years during the Cold War he participated in a covert program of the CIA which personally gave him an annual salary of $180,000 as it promoted the Tibetan independence movement, authorized by the same committee which green-lighted the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Not only did the CIA aid his escape to India, but the program also involved subsidizing a Tibetan guerilla movement based in Nepal waging a violent campaign against the Chinese.

The program only ended in 1972 when the Nixon administration opted for détente with China under the foreign policy direction of Henry Kissinger. The Dalai Lama regretfully admitted to this decision in his auto-biography Freedom in Exile, but claimed he didn’t initially know of the agreement made with the CIA that was approved by his brothers . However, he avoided mentioning his presence on the CIA payroll proven by declassified documents and his representatives have denied awareness of it since. The Chinese have long claimed that the Tibetan independence movement was a cause under the influence of foreign powers and it appears by his own admission this is true.

The Dalai Lama with CIA-sponsored Tibetan guerillas.

China’s so-called ‘occupation’ of Tibet, while certainly not free of flaws (especially during the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward), nevertheless ended a brutal feudal and theocratic system and began a process of industrialization that continues to this day.

Prior to 1959, much of Tibet did not even have running water or electricity, much less modern housing or healthcare. The introduction of non-religious education, reformation of the previous severe tax system, and abolishment of slavery and serfdom has lifted much of Tibet out of deep impoverishment and raised its standard of living. Even if one feels that the Chinese need to be more tolerant of its traditional culture or recognize its right to self-determination, the idea that this process should involve returning absolute authority to the Dalai Lama is self-appointed and not the wishes of most Tibetans.

The Chinese to their credit since have given greater autonomy to Tibetans after reforms in the 1970s and to this day Buddhism is still practiced widely by its people and tolerated by the authorities. In fact, each year on March 28 Tibetans widely celebrate a Serfs Emancipation Day holiday to commemorate their liberation from theocracy. Tibet had been unified with China for many centuries and was not an independent state for the majority of its history — not only did the PRC free a slave kingdom from social injustice but from its influence under colonial powers who had used it as a chess piece to undermine China.

The architect of the Cold War, the U.S. diplomat and historian George F. Kennan, exposed the orientalist goals of imperialism towards China in his infamous PPS23 Memo when addressing the Far East:

“We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.”

Coincidentally, the migrant crisis has occurred alongside the modern equivalent of Kennan’s theory of containment in Obama’s failed “pivot to East Asia” regional strategy. Foreign policy toward East Asia under Obama saw the U.S. accelerate its military presence with aircraft carriers in forward deployment, increased presence of combat troops and naval access surrounding China. The U.S. is desperately trying to halt the rise of China on the global stage with its booming economy — journalist and filmmaker John Pilger’s The Coming War on China is an excellent documentary and cinematic exploration of this topic in what appears to be an increasing drive towards WWIII with Beijing. Just as it did throughout the Cold War with Tibet, U.S. media is also stepping up its propaganda campaign by exaggerating the plight of the Uyghur Muslim Turkic minority by falsely claiming they are being interned in concentration camps by the Chinese government.

The Dalai Lama’s comments have provoked a predictable reaction from the very liberals who have championed his cause as an instance of betrayal of their shared cosmetic values. This is emblematic of the entire political climate since the 2008 financial crash which preceded the migrant crisis that the centrist political establishment has done everything within its power to downplay its inseparable connection. The financial collapse is what opened up political space for new, radical ideas and that included a surge of interest in both far left and far right political organizations which spoke directly to the working class, from Occupy Wall Street to the Tea Party. Liberals continue to express faux-outrage at developments of which their failed policies are responsible, while at the same time offering no alternative or solution except doubling-down on the same empty strategies.

While the Stop the War co-founder Jeremy Corbyn has become the leader of the UK’s Labour Party, democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the United States, and the disappointing SYRIZA coalition was elected in Greece, it is the far right which has made the greatest gains in response to the failures of capitalism. In 2016, it saw both the election of Donald Trump in the U.S. who campaigned pledging to build a wall on the Southern border and 17 million Brits voting to leave the European Union. Sadly, it is inevitable that their attempts to save capitalism from itself by restricting immigration and imposing tariffs will prove to be ineffectual as Keynesian economics. The real problem lies not with immigration or the demise of the nation state by globalism, but with increasing global inequality and the free market’s relentless drive to extract wealth and resources through imperial conquest of smaller nations, the actual cause of the migrant crisis.

The political establishment is now fighting for its life as it outright denies the interdependence of failing global markets with the crisis, all the while fear-mongering the public in its efforts to reform capitalism under the phony banner of ‘inclusivity’, even as its very policies fuel the increase in xenophobia scapegoating the immigrants it claims to want to protect. These policies not only include the implementation of economic austerity, but military intervention abroad with support for jihadist-dominated uprisings and its failed ‘War on Terror’ in the Middle East which destabilized the region and fueled the wave of migrants seeking asylum in the EU. Much has been written about the contribution of migration and endless war to the Roman Empire’s collapse — it seems the same cards are in the deck for the United States and its hegemony.

*

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

Max Parry is an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. His work has appeared in publications such as The Greanville Post, OffGuardian, Global Research, CounterPunch, Dissident Voice, Signs of the Times, and more. Read him on Medium. Max may be reached at [email protected]

All images in this article are from the author.

From inception, Russiagate was and remains a colossal scam, perhaps the most shameful political chapter in America’s history, McCarthyism on steroids.  

Robert Mueller never should have been appointed special counsel. His conflicts of interest alone should have disqualified him.

Anti-Trump fifth column Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed him to probe “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

Endless months of House, Senate, and Mueller probes found no evidence of Trump team/Russia collusion.  

Sacked Peter Strzok led special counsel Mueller’s witch-hunt Russiagate investigation for the FBI. Text messages between him and former senior agency lawyer Lisa Page showed anti-Trump sentiment.

According to the UK Daily Mail, the Hill, Fox News, and other media, Page admitted in earlier closed-door House Judiciary and Oversight Committees testimony that no evidence suggested Trump team/Russia collusion before Mueller’s appointment as special counsel — showing he never should have been appointed.

Daily Mail, September 17, 2018

In response to Rep. John Ratcliffe asking about text messages she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 before Mueller’s appointment, she admitted that months of FBI investigative work found no evidence of Trump team/Russian collusion or meddling.

“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” she said, adding “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump, his team, and Russia no matter what Mueller or other investigative work might try to prove otherwise.

Separately Page said:

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question.”

These remarks alone exposed the Russiagate scam. No justification existed to initiate the witch-hunt probe.

Page was the lead FBI lawyer involved in trying to prove a Trump team/Russia connection, beginning in summer 2016. She and Strzok transitioned the agency’s probe to Mueller’s involvement as special counsel, assuming his position on May 17, 2017.

After 16 months of trying to make a case against Trump and Russia, he found no evidence of collusion or Kremlin election meddling because none exists – no matter how long the deplorable witch-hunt continues.

In its weekend report, Fox News headlined “Lisa Page testimony: Collusion still unproven by time of Mueller’s special counsel appointment.”

The Hill headlined “Lisa Page bombshell: FBI couldn’t prove Trump-Russia collusion before Mueller appointment.”

The London Daily Mail headlined “Former FBI attorney Lisa Page admits the agency could NOT prove collusion between Trump and Russia before the appointment of Mueller as special counsel in bombshell testimony.”

The Washington Examiner headlined “Lisa Page testified investigators had no proof of collusion when Robert Mueller was appointed: Report.”

A transcript of Page’s earlier closed-door testimony obtained by Fox News quoted her saying, along with what was quoted above, the following:

“(I)n the scheme of the possible outcomes, the most serious one obviously being crimes serious enough to warrant impeachment; but on the other scale that, you know, maybe an unwitting person was, in fact, involved in the release of information, but it didn’t ultimately touch any senior, you know, people in the administration or on the campaign. And so the text just sort of reflects that spectrum.”

Separately, Rep. Ratcliffe told Fox News he “cannot provide the specifics of a confidential interview,” adding:

“But I can say that Lisa Page left me with the impression, based on her own words, that the lead investigator of the Russian collusion case, Peter Strzok, had found no evidence of collusion after nearly a year” of trying to uncover some.

On May 18, 2017, the day after Mueller’s appointment as special counsel, Strzok text-messaged Page saying: “(Y)ou and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

The FBI sacked Strzok — not because of unacceptable conduct, because his actions became a public embarrassment to the agency. He became damaged goods. Page resigned before being sacked.

In January, Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz issued a damning report on FBI and DOJ dysfunctional and unaccountable actions throughout the probe into Hillary’s private server use for official State Department business.

Horowitz said Strzok’s text messages and actions were “not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implie(d) a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects,” adding:

The Russiagate probe “potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.”

At the time, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said

“(t)he IG report has destroyed the credibility of the Department of Justice and the FBI.”

Exposure of their wrongdoing should have ended the Russiagate witch-hunt probe straightaway – what never should have been initiated in the first place, amounting to McCarthyism on steroids.

It continues with no end point in prospect, perhaps for the duration of Trump’s tenure.

It’s an endless campaign to delegitimize and smear him for the wrong reasons, not the right ones — along with waging political, economic, and propaganda war on Russia, heading toward things turning hot if dark forces in Washington push things too far.

*

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

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The Dutch Investigation into Flight MH17 and Kiev’s Veto

September 18th, 2018 by Prof. Kees van der Pijl

Towards Kiev’s Veto 

The Dutch government, soon to be given charge of the investigation, ruled out any dealings with the insurgency. After foreign secretary Timmermans at the UN called local volunteers ‘thugs’ on 21 July, falsely accused them of robbing the victims’ corpses, the option of negotiating with the insurgents was effectively closed. Although the Dutch government later apologised, contact was now only possible via the OSCE. A Dutch public prosecution team did fly to Ukraine, but it remained in Kiev to discuss matters with the coup government. Australian experts on the other hand arrived at the scene of the disaster without delay, as did a Malaysian team led by prime minister Najib Razak. As noted, it received the Boeing’s black boxes from the insurgents without any fuss and passed them on to the Netherlands on the 22nd of July. When the recorders were forwarded to London for analysis, Kiev, apparently concerned they would reveal damaging information, claimed that the insurgents had manipulated them, something that is practically impossible. 

Meanwhile the regime’s troops were advancing in spite of a truce for an area of 40 kilometres around the crash site announced by Poroshenko. As the Infonapalm website of the fiercely anti-Russian interior ministry spokesman and NSDC  [National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine] member, Anton Gerashchenko, later reported, they took Debaltsevo ‘shortly after the tragic shoot down of flight MH17 by a Muscovite Surface to Air Missile’, and by July 28, were pushing further along a corridor to the high ground of Saur Mohyla that effectively separates the two insurgent provinces. Also on the 28th, one day after plans for deploying 11 Air Mobile brigade had been shelved, Timmermans was in Kiev to discuss security, because the crash site was under fire from the Ukrainian side. This chain of events cannot fail to prompt the suspicion that Kiev had something to hide, certainly after the regime refused to call a halt to the fighting when asked to do so.  

Already on the 23rd of July, the Dutch Safety Board (DSB, Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid, OVV) had negotiated an institution-to-institution (rather than state-to-state) agreement with Ukraine’s National Bureau of Air Accidents Investigation of (NBAAI), giving the Dutch the leading role in the technical investigation of the disaster. The agreement crucially included a clause about keeping information received by the investigation secret. On this condition Dutch and Australian officials gained access to the crash site on 31 July. However, what unfolded upon their arrival the next day only raised more questions. While searching an area considered safe (i.e., under Ukrainian control), the inspectors came under mortar fire from government positions. On 4 August, Kiev forces reportedly advanced further; Dutch-Australian repatriation teams returning from the crash site passed military columns moving in the opposite direction.  On 6 August, the Dutch investigators, who had been at the crash site barely 20 hours and covered an area of 3.5 out of 60 km2, retrieving some large pieces of wreckage, withdrew again without having inspected the crucial cockpit section or taking top soil samples. When local officials showed them photos of the co-pilot found strapped in his seat, whose shirt ‘looked like a sieve’, they were not interested although this was obviously highly significant information. They also refused to accept DNA samples when asked to sign for receipt, apparently to avoid any official dealings with the insurgency.  

Meanwhile a political crisis had erupted in Kiev when parliament refused to accept a budget intended to meet stringent IMF criteria and Svoboda and Klitschko’s UDAR (which supported the government in parliament) left the coalition. With the second tranche of the IMF’s $17.5 billion credit line blocked as a result, Yatsenyuk tendered his resignation on 25 July, arguing that he would no longer be able to pursue the war without new money: that would merely risk the ‘demoralisation of the spirits of those tens of thousands of people who are sitting not in this hall, but in trenches under bullets.’ The vice-premier responsible for the MH17 portfolio, Volodymyr Groysman, took over as interim head of government. Elections were announced for October. Though parliament rejected Yatsensuk’s resignation on the 31st, frontline fighters, alarmed about the governmental deadlock amidst rumours of a Russian invasion, were not appeased. 

On the 6th of August, the day Dutch investigators withdrew from the Grabovo crash site, paramilitary battalions staged threatening demonstrations in Kiev, raising the prospect of a new coup. The next day, 7 August, Andriy Parubiy, a key figure in the seizure of power and the civil war, unexpectedly resigned from the National Security and Defence Council. Though according to Wikipedia, he declined to comment on his motives ‘in time of war’, others reported that his ‘move [was] mostly provoked by the fact he did not get an extended ethnic cleansing overdrive in Eastern Ukraine, and had to endure a ceasefire’. There was, in fact, no ceasefire; even Poroshenko’s order for a local truce after the downing of MH17 had been ignored. However, the extremists were rampant and reining them in was increasingly urgent. This was the situation in which NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen turned up in Kiev on the 7th of August. Was it to ensure that, with the crucial NATO summit in Wales less than a month away (4-5 September), the narrative of ‘Putin’ as the new threat to the alliance would not be spoiled by Ukrainian ultras? Certainly the official reason offered—that the trip was about the NATO trust fund for the purchase of communication equipment—was not credible; that matter had already been settled  in June. Ukraine’s representative at NATO headquarters was tight-lipped, saying only that the trip would be extremely brief, a few hours at most. When Rasmussen landed, tanks were patrolling the streets of Kiev; whether to ward off a new coup d’état or consolidate the situation after averting one, we do not know. 

Gordon Hahn, a seasoned observer of the post-Soviet space, ventures to suggest that Parubiy may have calculated he was better out of government should the militias attempt a seizure of power; this is not incompatible with another suggestion that he stepped down to ‘focus on his work supporting the volunteer militias’. These suggestions, if held out, would bring us a step closer to why Rasmussen flew to Kiev, viz., to reinforce Poroshenko’s position amid coup threats and removing extremists like Parubiy from overall control of the armed forces. As Rasmussen declared on receiving the inevitable medal from the president, ‘We stand by Ukraine and your struggle to uphold the fundamental principles on which we have built our free societies.’ Unless it was routine rhetoric, this may well have been intended as a NATO endorsement of a president disobeyed by his troops and directly threatened by the most militant units.

Of course, much of this is conjecture, however suggestive, but there is more. Still on the same day, 7 August, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Australia agreed with Kiev on the format of the criminal investigation of the MH17 disaster through the Joint Investigation Team, under the proviso that the publication of any findings would require the consent of the four parties. (Malaysia was added later given its overwhelming stakes in the matter). This effectively removed the other seven countries that lost citizens in the MH17 disaster and which had been part of the preliminary consultations on the JIT, from any role in determining its further course. It also removed the investigation from the auspices of an EU institution, Eurojust in The Hague, by which the JIT had been formed. The Dutch public prosecution service (Openbaar Ministerie, OM) was entrusted with the coordination of the criminal investigation. 

Though Ukraine is not a member of Eurojust and there were no Ukrainians on the plane, the 7 August agreement not only brought Ukraine on board but, through the consent provision, also gave the Kiev government ‘an effective veto over any investigation results that attributed blame to them, an astonishing situation and probably without precedent in modern air crash investigations’. Ukraine now enjoyed a double indemnity: having absolved it from the responsibility of investigating the disaster, the West now handed it entirely unwarranted rights over the outcome of the investigation. Was this part of a deal in which Kiev removed Parubiy in return for immunity from prosecution over the downing of MH17, also saving the NSDC secretary personally from implication? It may be pertinent here that the acting Ukrainian Air Force commander at the time the Boeing was shot down, Lt. Gen. Serhiy Drozdov, was transferred to the reserve not long afterwards, without official explanation—only to be promoted to air force commander again in July 2015. 

When the notoriously loose-lipped public prosecutor of the Kiev regime, Yu. Boychenko, leaked news of the veto on 8 August, Ukraine’s press agency, UNIAN, concluded that this effectively exculpated Russia and the insurgents from responsibility. Why otherwise would Kiev have insisted on the veto? The Dutch government, too, only acknowledged the unanimity agreement after a Freedom of Information request by the magazine, Elsevier. The fact that the very same day, 7 August, forensic evidence from the crash site was already confidentially shared with the Ukrainian military, certainly highlights how concerned the rulers in Kiev were.

*

Prof. Kees van der Pijl is fellow of the Centre for Global Political Economy and Emeritus Professor in the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex.


Flight MH17, Ukraine and the new Cold War

Title: Flight MH17, Ukraine and the New Cold War (Prism of disaster)

Author: Kees van der Pijl

ISBN: 978-1-5261-3109-6

Publisher: Manchester University Press

Pages: 208

Price: £18.99

Click here to order.

Palestinians Take #GazaToUN Through Social Media

September 18th, 2018 by Afro-Palestine Newswire Service

Frustrated by Israel’s 12-year blockade of the Gaza Strip, young Palestinians in the besieged coastal strip took to social media on Monday to communicate to the United Nations (UN) and the world the urgent need to lift the siege that has brought Gaza to the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe.

Using the hashtag  #GazaToUN, Palestinians in Gaza were joined by Twitter users from across the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), Jordan, Lebanon, the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand –  and even South Africa –  to highlight how the Israeli siege has strangled Gaza’s economy, destroyed the health-care system and imprisoned almost 2 million Palestinians.

“We want the world to know and understand what it’s like to live in a cage,” explained Rana Shubeir, the campaign’s spokesperson in an interview with the Afro-Palestine Newswire Service.

On Monday, young Palestinian activists handed a message to UN representative, Gernot Sauer, at the launch of a social media campaign to raise awareness about the Israeli siege of  the Gaza Strip. (Photo: Middle East Monitor)

Over 53% of Palestinians in Gaza are unemployed due to the hermetic sealing of the area. Poverty and unemployment has worsened due to 18-hour power-cuts ordered by Israel. Ninety percent of the water is undrinkable, and much of Gaza’s infrastructure has been destroyed due to Israeli bombardment. Reconstruction has ground to a halt because of Israeli restrictions on cement and construction materials. Gaza’s hospitals suffer a severe shortage of medicine and lack of fuel for emergency power generators. Israel has also denied patients with chronic and serious diseases permission to access treatment outside Gaza.

“We are not seeking luxuries. Palestinians simply want a decent life: milk for our children, water fit for human use, enough electricity, medicine for patients, free movement, construction materials to rebuild our homes — and, most importantly, dignity and freedom,” explained Shubeir.

At the campaign launch on Monday, young activists handed a message to UN representative, Gernot Sauer. Sauer assured them that he would pass the message on to the UN General Assembly, and hailed the creative youth campaign to raise global awareness of the dire humanitarian situation. The UN has predicted that Gaza would be unliveable in 2 years if the siege is not lifted.

The campaign comes at a time when aid to Palestinians has been slashed by United States president Donald Trump, and the peace process is being destroyed by Israel with the assistance of the Trump administration.

*

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 Korean People Alone Must Decide on Their Future

September 18th, 2018 by Adam Garrie

A substantial portion of the discussions surrounding the ongoing Korean peace process is centred around issues stemming from the positions of the United States, China, Russia and Japan towards both Korean states. But while the historic relations of Korea with the superpowers including its two superpower neighbours and other members of the wider north east Asian community are relevant to present matters, as a sovereign people, only the Koreans themselves can decide the ultimate course of the peace process. The two existing Korean states should not continue to be artificially separated due to foreign sanctions, threats or diktats and nor should anyone force economic harmonisation against the will of the Korean people, even though it would appear that such models are increasingly favoured in both Pyongyang and Seoul. Instead, any such decisions regarding a peaceful future for Korea must be voluntary on the part of Koreans themselves.

While such sentiments may appear to be self-evident, the history of Korea’s artificial division is demonstrative of the fact that these basic principles were discarded in the 1940s and 50s. After the long Japanese occupation of Korea ended in 1945, the country was split into zones of occupation between the USSR and USA, much as Germany and Austria were split into separate zones of occupation after the Second World War ended in Europe.

As time wore on, the Soviets and Americans could not agree on the best way to implement a Korea wide election that would have established a new post-war government. As a result, rather than continue negotiations between the two superpowers at the newly formed United Nations, UN officials under the heavy influence of Washington instead allowed for a unilateral election to be held only in the US occupied portion of Korea (the south).  What transpired was a deeply controversial election in 1948, one marred by violence where the far-right strongman Syngman Rhee literally attacked leftist activists, voters and organisers in an election described by multiple international observers as deeply unsatisfactory.

Throughout 1948 and 1949, violence continued to foment in the south as rebellions grew against Syngman Rhee’s authoritarian leadership. In 1950, forces of the DPRK which also proclaimed its statehood in 1948, crossed into the south to relieve the Korean freedom fighters of the south, thus beginning a three year long war in Korea during which 2.5 civilians were killed or wounded.

While the Armistice of 1953 solidified the re-divided Korean peninsula with the 38th parallel being the dividing line, in the following year the Geneva Conference was held in order to determine the future of both Korea and French Indochina (the modern states of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia). While the conference was unable to make any progress in respect of Korea, it ironically set the stage for the partition of Vietnam on the 17th parallel with Ho Chi Minh’s communist Vietminh forces controlling the north and the western backed State of  Vietnam led by Ngo Dinh Diem forming in the south after Diem refused to hold countrywide elections- opting only to hold controversial elections in the south, thus repeating the geographically (and ideologically) unilateral approach of Syngman Rhee.

But while Vietnam reunited after 1975, the Korean people remain divided to this day. This is why it is crucial that the failures of the Geneva Conference of 1954 are not repeated in the present day Korean peace process. Since the early 1950s, both Korea states have matured into sovereign nations but nevertheless, the legacy of the division of Korea and the war the followed has led to many international players and the US in particular to seemingly taking for granted the fact that foreigners somehow have a unique role in determining the future of a single Korean race.

The warm embrace shared today between Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in as the South Korean President’s plane landed at Pyongyang’s airport is a helpful reminder that a people divided by foreigners can only be united through discussions and agreements among Koreans from both sides of the border.

Koreans on both sides of the 38th parallel were cheated of their self-determination by the hand of neo-imperialism in the 1940s and it is high time that those who think they can dictate to either Korean state realise that a permanent peace is only possible through ever more frequent north-south dialogue, the kind of which transpired today in Pyongyang.

*

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

Adam Garrie is Director at Eurasia future. He is a geo-political expert who can be frequently seen on RT’s flagship debate show CrossTalk as well as Press-TV’s flagship programme ‘The Debate’. Garrie has also commented on geopolitical events on international television and radio in the United States, Lebanon, Russia, Pakistan, Germany, Britain and Ecuador. A global specialist with an emphasis on Eurasian integration, Garrie’s articles have been published in the Oriental Review, Asia Times, Geopolitica Russia, the Tasnim News Agency, Global Research, RT’s Op-Edge, Global Village Space and others.

I’m sitting at the splendid building of the Singapore National Library, in a semi-dark room, microfilm inserted into a high-tech machine. I’m watching and then filming and photographing several old Malaysian newspapers dating back from October 1965. 

These reports were published right after the horrible 1965 military coup in Indonesia, which basically overthrew the progressive President Sukarno and liquidated then the third largest Communist party on Earth, PKI (Partai Komunis Indonesia). More than one million Indonesian people lost their lives in some of the most horrifying massacres of the 20th century. From a socialist (and soon to be Communist) country, Indonesia descended into the present pits of turbo-capitalism, as well as religious and extreme right-wing gaga.

The United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Holland and several other Western nations, directly sponsored the coup, while directing both the pro-Western treasonous factions in the military, as well as the religious leaders who stood, from the start, at the forefront of the genocide.

All this information is, of course, widely available in the de-classified archives of both the CIA and U.S. State Department. It can be accessed, analyzed and reproduced. I personally made a film about the events, and so have several other directors.

But it isn’t part of the memory of humanity. In Southeast Asia, it is known only to a handful of intellectuals.

In Malaysia, Singapore or Thailand, the Indonesian post-1965 fascism is a taboo topic. It is simply not discussed. “Progressive” intellectuals here are, like in all other ‘client’ states of the West, paid to be preoccupied with their sex orientation, with gender issues and personal ‘freedoms’, but definitely not with the essential matters (Western imperialism, neo-colonialism, the savage and grotesque forms of capitalism, the plunder of local natural resources and environment, as well as disinformation, plus the forcefully injected ignorance that is accompanied by mass amnesia) that have been shaping so extremely and so negatively this part of the world. 

In Indonesia itself, the Communist Party is banned and the general public sees it as a culprit, not as a victim.

The West is laughing behind the back of its brainwashed victims. It is laughing all the way to the bank.

Lies are obviously paying off.

No other part of the world has suffered from Western imperialism as much after WWII, as Southeast Asia did, perhaps with two exceptions, those of Africa and the Middle East.

In so-called Indochina, the West murdered close to ten million people, during the indiscriminate bombing campaigns and other forms of terror – in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The abovementioned Indonesian coup took at least 1 million human lives. 30% of the population of East Timor was exterminated by the Indonesian occupation, which was fully supported by the West. The Thai regime, fully subservient to the West, killed indiscriminately its leftists in the north and in the capital. The entire region has been suffering from extreme religious implants, sponsored by the West itself, and by its allies from the Gulf.

But the West is admired here, with an almost religious zeal.

The U.S., British and French press agencies and ‘cultural centers’ are spreading disinformation through local media outlets owned by subservient ‘elites’. Local ‘education’ has been devotedly shaped by Western didactic concepts. In places like Malaysia, Indonesia, but also Thailand, the greatest achievement is to graduate from university in one of the countries that used to colonize this part of the world.

Victim countries, instead of seeking compensation in courts, are actually admiring and plagiarizing the West, while pursuing, even begging for funding from their past and present tormentors.

Southeast Asia, now obedient, submissive, phlegmatic and stripped off the former revolutionary left-wing ideologies, is where the Western indoctrination and propaganda scored unquestionable victory.

*

The same day, I turned on the television set in my hotel room, and watched the Western coverage of the situation in Idlib, the last stronghold of the Western-sponsored terrorists on Syrian territory.

Russia has called for an emergency UN Security Council meeting warning that the terrorists might stage a chemical attack, and then blame it, together with the West, on the forces of President Bashar al-Assad.

NATO battleships have been deployed to the region. There can be no doubt – it has been a ‘good old’ European/North American scenario at work, once again: ‘We hit you, kill your people, and then bomb you as a punishment’.

Imperialist gangsters then point accusative fingers at the victims (in this case Syria) and at those who are trying to protect them (Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, China). Just like in a kindergarten, or a primary school; remember? A boy hits someone from behind and then screams, pointing at someone else: “It was him, it was him!” Miraculously, until now, the West has always gotten away with this ‘strategy’, of course, at the cost of billions of victims, on all continents. 

That is how it used to be for centuries, and that is how it still works. That is how it will continue to be, until such terror and gangsterism is stopped.

*

For years and decades, we were told that the world is now increasingly inter-connected, that nothing of great importance could happen, without it being immediately spotted and reported by vigilant media lenses, and ‘civil society’.

Yet, thousands of things are happening and no one is noticing.

Just in the last two decades, entire countries have been singled-out by North America and Europe, then half-starved to death through embargos and sanctions, before being finally attacked and broken to pieces: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya to mention just a few. Governments of several left-wing nations have been overthrown either from outside, or through their own, local, servile elites and media; among them Brazil, Honduras and Paraguay. Countless Western companies and their local cohorts are committing the unbridled plunder of natural resources in such places as Borneo/Kalimantan or the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), totally ruining tropical forests while murdering hundreds of species. 

Are we, as a planet, really inter-connected? How much do people know about each other, or about what is done to their brothers and sisters on different continents?

I have worked in some 160 countries, and I can testify without the slightest hesitation: ‘Almost nothing’. And: ‘Less and much less!’

The Western empire and its lies, has managed to fragment the world to previously unknown extremes. It is all done ‘in the open’, in full view of the world, which is somehow unable to see and identify the most urgent threats to its survival. Mass media propaganda outlets are serving as vehicles of indoctrination, so do cultural and ‘educational’ institutions of the West or those local ones shaped by the Western concepts. That includes such diverse ‘tools’ as universities, Internet traffic manipulators, censors and self-censored individuals, social media, advertisement agencies and pop culture ‘artists’.

*

There is a clear pattern to Western colonialist and neo-colonialist barbarity and lies:

‘Indonesian President Sukarno and his closest ally the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) were trying to build a progressive and self-sufficient country. Therefore, they had to be stopped, government overthrown, party members massacred, PKI itself banned and the entire country privatized; sold to foreign interests. The overwhelming majority of Indonesians are so brainwashed by the local and Western propaganda that they still blame the Communists for the 1965 coup, no matter what the CIA archives say.’

Mossadegh of Iran was on the same, progressive course. And he ended up the same way as Sukarno. And the whole world was then charmed by the butcher, who was put to power by the West – the Shah and his lavish wife.

Chile in 1973, and thereafter, the same deadly pattern occurred, more evidence of how freedom-loving and democratic the West is.

Patrice Lumumba of Congo nationalized natural resources and tried to feed and educate his great nation. Result? Overthrown, killed. The price: some 8 million people massacred in the last two decades, or maybe many more than that (see my film: Rwanda Gambit). Nobody knows, or everyone pretends that they don’t know.

Syria! The biggest ‘crime’ of this country, at least in the eyes of the West, consisted of trying to provide its citizens with high quality of life, while promoting Pan-Arabism. The results we all know (or do we, really?): hundreds of thousands killed by West-sponsored murderous extremists, millions exiled and millions internally displaced. And the West, naturally, is blaming Syrian President, and is ready to ‘punish him’ if he wins the war.

Irrational? But can global-scale fascism ever be rational?

The lies that are being spread by the West are piling up. They overlap, often contradict one another. But the world public is not trained to search for the truth, anymore. Subconsciously it senses that it is being lied to, but the truth is so horrifying, that the great majority of people prefer to simply take selfies, analyze and parade its sexual orientation, stick earphones into its ears and listen to empty pop music, instead of fighting for the survival of humanity.

I wrote entire books on this topic, including the near 1,000-page : “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”.

This essay is just a series of thoughts that came to my mind, while I was sitting at a projector in a dark room of the Singapore National Library.

A rhetorical question kept materializing: “Can all this be happening?” “Can the West get away with all these crimes it has been committing for centuries, all over the world?”

The answer was clear: ‘But of course, as long as it is not stopped!”

And so, A luta continua!

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria or Southeast Asia: The West Lied, Lies, and Always Will

Hegemony Will No Longer Pay Off for the US

September 18th, 2018 by Global Times

The administration of US President Donald Trump will reportedly announce new tariffs on about $200 billion on Chinese imports. Meanwhile, Washington has invited Chinese officials to restart trade talks later this month.

While Washington extends a carrot to Beijing, it is also swinging a stick. It is nothing new for the US to try to escalate tensions so as to exploit more gains at the negotiating table. The unilateral and hegemonic moves by the US will meet firm countermeasures from China.

Against the backdrop of successive US offensives in the trade war, China will not just play defense. Nowadays economic and trade relations between China and the US are so closely connected that they will not be easily broken by unilateral hegemony. China will choose the most feasible means as countermeasures.

The trade war occurs at the 40th anniversary of China’s reform and opening-up. It is not only a challenge to the most important bilateral relationship in international politics of the past 40 years, but also a test for China to shape this relationship.

China has never taken this trade war as an interim one, but a protracted one. The trade war launched by Washington, which targets “made in China” products and the Chinese market, has had a big impact on the global production and supply chain. Global economic prospects dim under unilateral US actions.

China, as a main driving force of the global economy, is able to correct and push the global economy onto the right path. Domestically, China is undergoing steady and solid economic structural adjustments.

On the foreign front, it is accelerating its cooperation network by promoting the Belt and Road initiative. This will not only consolidate China’s ability to withstand the trade war, but also provide more choices for the future global economy.

After several rounds of trade war, China has realized that the US government intends to decrease trade and economic integration of the US and China. The US wants to reduce the challenges from potential rivals with its “make America great again” ambition. Meanwhile, it can adjust its China policy to gain an upper hand in areas such as politics and security.

The US still wants to shape Sino-US relations with its strength and consolidate its hegemony. However, today’s world will not be easily manipulated by hegemony. China will not passively be subject to the US maneuverings, nor will it allow any super power to achieve its end by peremptory means. It’s no longer the time when a country can achieve hegemonic dividends through coercion.

The trade war is in essence a conflict and rivalry between unilateralism and multilateralism. Internal contradictions in international relations have become sharper. The war will not only affect the trajectory of China-US trade relations, but also the existing global trading system rules and reforms. China will strengthen coordination and cooperation with all countries. China will explore ways to safeguard fairness and justice in the global economy, and will support free trade and the multilateral trading system.

*

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

Just after midnight, in the first hour of September 28th, 1994, the passenger ferry MS Estonia sank in the Baltic Sea. It was sailing its regular route, from Tallinn in Estonia to the Swedish capital Stockholm. The vessel capsized and sank in less than an hour, in the end settling sideways on the ocean floor at 80 meters deep. The weather was rough, but nothing extraordinary for the time of year, with winds of 25 meters/second and waves of 4 to 6 meters. Of the 989 passengers and crew, 852 died, making it the biggest European maritime disaster since WW2. 501 of the dead were Swedes.

Just hours after the sinking, Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt was quick to try to control the narrative of what had happened. In a statement to the public, he announced that the sinking happened because the bow visor (the front part protecting the bow of the ship, which can be lifted up to allow the car ramp to be extended), had fallen off due to being pounded by the waves.

The same afternoon Bildt called the Swedish minister responsible for maritime affairs, saying the same thing, ‘There are no other explanations’. And he called Hans Laidwa from the Estline shipping agency, the owner of MS Estonia, telling him ‘The accident must have been caused by a construction error’.

A Joint Accident Investigation Commission (JAIC) was created the day after. The investigation quickly came to a preliminary conclusion only 18 days later: The bow visor fell off due to high waves and faulty locks, water flooded the car deck, the ferry became unstable, capsized and sank. That was also the commission’s final conclusion three years later.

As basis for this conclusion, JAIC pointed to several things. The bow visor was found one sea mile from the wreck. The wreck was examined and filmed by a diving team, finding clues that supported this conclusion.

But this hypothesis, which was so heavily promoted by the PM, decided how the investigation progressed. Information that didn’t fit didn’t get collected. The investigation started with a curious lack of interest in exploring other possibilities. Questions were left unanswered, theories not explored. It also influenced the technical investigation: Only the front part of the vessel was filmed, while the back part was not examined.

The questioning of the survivors was haphazard and the team mostly asked questions that would support this theory. Important information was lost forever.

A political decision was made not to raise the ferry. Technically, a salvage is feasible, and is a fairly common procedure in maritime investigations. When the ferry MS Herald of Free Enterprise sank in the English Channel in 1987, it was refloated and the bodies removed. A thorough examination of the MS Estonia would have helped in construction of new ferries, where potential weaknesses would have been identified. In normal airplane investigations, every last bit of wreckage is collected. The reason given was that the salvage operation would be too expensive, several hundred million Swedish kronor.

Position of MS Estonia

New information continuously questions the commission’s conclusions. Even during the inquiry, conflicting witness statements were consistently disregarded. The JAIC working theory was that the reason for the capsizing was that the bow doors were fully opened. But this was not observed by the only two surviving witnesses who were monitoring the bow. Two crew members, who watched the car ramp on a TV-monitor when the ferry started to capsize and sink, stated that it was not wholly open, but that water came in along the edges. Loud bangs were heard by passengers. The commission declares that these sounds must have come from when the bow visor came off.

Another question left unanswered, was how water flowed from the car deck to the lower deck, which supposedly was sealed. If only the car deck was flooded, the ferry would probably, despite sloppy safety precautions, have been able to stay afloat.

Concrete sarcophagus

Prime Minister Bildt said Sweden would do everything possible to recover the bodies (and implied, not raising the ship). It was later known that this was on advice from Commander Emil Svensson. Both men have connections to the black op submarine hunt in the 1980ies, where supposed Soviet submarines over period of a decade continuously violated neutral Swedish territorial waters, leading to massive and well-publicized Swedish anti-submarine hunts. Bildt was a right wing MP fanning this hysteria. Cables released from WikiLeaks reveals that he in the 1970s gave confidential information from government negotiations to his contact in the US embassy. Svensson was the leader of the Swedish Naval Analysis Unit during the submarine hunts.

Several years later, high ranking US and NATO senior officials, like former British navy minister, Sir Keith Speed, and Caspar Weinberger, former US Secretary of Defense, admitted that submarines from NATO-countries were responsible for these violations. The whole thing was a psychological operation, in cooperation with a right wing clique in the Swedish military. The exercise was designed to push Sweden closer to the NATO-camp and embarrass Social Democratic Prime Minister Olof Palme’s attempts to create a detente between East and West in the Cold War.

The next (social democratic) government proposed burying the wreck in a sarcophagus, at a cost of several hundred million Swedish kronor. Entombed for all eternity, the wreck would be covered in gravel, then with concrete mats. It would seal the graves, but also make future investigations impossible. The project got cancelled after furious protest from relatives of the deceased, as an undignified solution, but only after part of the gravel had been put in place, at a cost of 200 million Swedish kronor.

The military and the intelligence services hinders insight

At the time, there were plenty of rumours of contraband smuggling. A survivor saw military personnel close off the Tallinn terminal and load on two trucks at the last minute before departure. This clue could have been investigated by the commission, by thoroughly checking the vehicles in the ferry. But this was not done. The divers did not even enter the car deck.

The 90s was a chaotic decade for Russia and the Baltic States. Everything was for sale, and everything was possible. The Soviet, now Russian, army was in the process of withdrawing from the Baltic, and a demoralized Russia was a bonanza for Western spies looking for military technology. During the Cold War, Sweden had often been used as a conduit between East and West, officially neutral, although heavily leaning towards the US/UK. The country has an influential military-industrial complex, often involved in shady deals to sell weapons around the world. Swedish intelligence cooperated closely with NATO in things such as code breaking, human intelligence and signal intelligence against the Soviet Union.

Later, it became known that MS Estonia had been used for sensitive military transports, in fact only weeks before the incident.  A whistleblower working in the Swedish customs later testified that several trucks were let through with no questions asked, on MS Estonia’s journeys the 14th  and 20th  of September, just one and two weeks before the incident.

People who might have had something to say, died. A former Estonian customs official, Igor Kristopovitsch, who now ran company dealing with sensitive transports, including on the MS Estonia, was shot on the October 22nd, four weeks after incident.

Later, an Estonian inquiry, found that the material smuggled on the 14th  and 20th of September was analyzed by Sweden’s Forsvarets Radioanstalt, their military signal intelligence unit, making it likely that the material was advanced Soviet materials, maybe connected to nuclear or satellite guidance.

Sören Lindman, Swedish consul in Riga at the time, and also formerly in military intelligence, gave his opinion, that «people in Swedish intelligence helped foreign intelligence get material from Russia via Sweden to a third country. If it is UK or US, I won’t speculate. » As a reward for helping the transit, Sweden got to have a peek at the goods.

Ingrid Sandquist, then leader of the customs department at Arlanda airport in Stockholm, later told of a mystery plane loading cartons just a few days after MS Estonia sank. Certain defense shipments can be left out of normal customs clearing if necessary, but she found the plane odd, even though her superior officers showed particular interest to make sure everything went smoothly. She chose to ask them about the plane, and they, on their own initiative, pointed out that it had nothing to do with MS Estonia, a statement that she found unusual.

Inquiries finding no fault

Several inquiries were later made. The Hirschfeld inquiry in 2005 was to investigate if the Swedish military was involved in smuggling of weapons on the MS Estonia. The result were as expected, Hirschfeld stated in his brief report that ‘nothing has been found that made him presume’ that anything was smuggled. But to be noted, he destroyed all his investigative material and papers, making future evaluations of his work impossible.

An inquiry was finished in 2008 to see if the conclusion from the original commission was correct. Using drawings of the ferry and data simulations – but not investigating the wreck itself – it came to the conclusion that the original commission was correct, and that there were no further holes in the hull.

Other possibilities

Did the clandestine cargo contribute directly to the accident? It would explain the secrecy, the disinterested commission and the haste to draw conclusions.  Several hypotheses are possible, from the relatively innocuous to the directly disconcerting.

Maybe the ferry did lose its bow, but the sensitive cargo made it important to hide certain facts. Or the cargo contained explosives which blew a hole in the hull. If that was the case, it would explain why the commission wasn’t particularly interested in looking for other holes in the ship. It would certainly also destroy careers and the country’s reputation if revealed.

At the time of the incident, conservative Prime Minster Bildt had just lost the election on September 18th and was still in the interim period before Social Democrat Ingvar Carlsson would take over a few weeks later. Bildt has a high interest and involvement in security and intelligence questions. Was the government hurrying to finish these transports before Carlson took over, and did Bildt have personal knowledge of the transports?

The veteran journalist Lars Borgnäs, in his book Nationens Interesse, tells of an even more sinister explanation. He got a call from a man who claimed he worked in military intelligence. The man didn’t want to identify himself, but Borgnäs finds the conversation interesting enough to include in his book. He had by mistake seen a classified report from Must, the Swedish military intelligence service. To sum up what he saw: The smuggling operation had to be aborted because they feared customs were waiting for them in Sweden. The smugglers tried to open the bow to drive the trucks out, but failed. A decision was made to instead sink MS Estonia with torpedoes. Noise transmitters were put out to hinder recording of what happened, but the Swedish navy recorded everything on their underwater microphones. The submarine in question would be from a NATO-country.

The wreck site is classified as a graveyard, and it is illegal to dive there. Nevertheless, a diving expedition led by Jutta Rabe took samples from the hull and had them chemically analyzed at several laboratories.

“The results show changes to the metal similar to those seen by high-detonation velocity,” one report concluded.

We will probably never know what really happened to MS Estonia. The cover-up has been successful. Even though one suspects that something is not right, the intelligence services and the military are generally good at keeping secrets. If something other than the official conclusion happened, the ones responsible will die in their beds as old and respected men, taking their story with them.

MS Estonia is not a unique case. Keep her in mind next time you see any official inquiry. If military or intelligence services (US, NATO, Swedish or any other) have a stake in the case, chances are you will not hear the truth.

*

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: Midt i fleisen.

Terje Maloy is an Australian/Norwegian translator and blogger.  The article is Creative Commons 4.0. The article relied in particular on the book Nationens Interesse by L. Borgnäs

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Sinking of MS Estonia: Still Doubts Over Official Story 24 Years After the Biggest Maritime Disaster in Europe Since World War II
  • Tags: ,

Remember the famous 1956 film Invasion of the Body Snatchers? It was produced to show the American public just how terrible Communism was. The movie’s ‘fear card’ was played by having the pods suck away knowledge, along with the very essence of one’s individualism… as the victim slept. Upon awakening they became apathetic, with no passion or rational thinking mechanisms… just automatons [a moving mechanical device made in imitation of a human being]. The main character in the film became almost insane with a frenetic drive to stay awake and escape his city filled with these creatures. At film’s end, he does escape the town, but, as he is telling his story to the authorities, we see trucks driving down the highway filled with more and more pods.

The pods in today’s Amerika have been replaced by the Kool-Aid that so many of our neighbors are drinking regularly. The schools falsely teach our young that Amerika’s so called democracy is predicated on a two party system that is divided on most, if not all, key issues and ideals. We have the Republican ‘right wing’ Kool-Aid and the Democratic ‘phony progressive’ Kool-Aid. Our mainstream media has been drinking it for decades! All we can receive thru the boob tube, regardless of what channel, is the dribble to make us think that ‘Column A’ is different from ‘Column B’. This writer engages friends and acquaintances with rhetorical questions like “What’s the difference between these two parties and their candidates?” The walking zombies repeat whatever clichés they have memorized from the pundits that they follow on air or in print. The right wing responses are tinged with inborn racism and America First arrogance. The phony progressive responses are always to ‘Feel the pain’ of the oppressed and support any ‘lesser of two evils’ to stop the right wing. And on and on it goes!

The Amerikan public has been ‘dumbed down’ for  a few successive generations. Anyone under 50 has been affected by this. The newspapers that we baby boomers used to read for hard news and balanced opinion have been taken over by what Paul Craig Roberts calls the Presstitutes. You won’t be able to read someone like Jimmy Breslin and Pete Hamill in a mainstream paper.

You get either right wing or phony progressive columnists who do the bidding of this Military Industrial Empire. On a channel like C-Span you get a preponderance of forums and panel discussions that for 99% of the time make the public believe that our empire is democratic and our system has proper ‘checks and balances’. When will you tune in and see Michel Chossudovsky, Patrice Greanville, Ray McGovern, Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Dr Michael Parenti, John Pilger or Ed Curtin (to name but a few) invited on these think tank forums? How many of our friends and neighbors even understand that, as Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein elaborated in the 2016 campaign, over 54% of our federal taxes goes for military spending? Tell that to the folks in Flint Michigan (home of Michael Moore, who now supports the ‘lesser of two evils’) as to why there are no federal funds to help them get safer drinking water and clean, toxic free pipes.

The empire’s pods have subjugated our populace into believing in this Amerikan Exceptionalism. This then allows it to get away with phony pre-emptive wars and occupations. It allows corporations to keep creating dead end jobs with bum paychecks, and union busting of whatever decent and secure work is still available. Worst of all, as mentioned above, the pods have turned many of us into either ‘Good Germans’ or an unaware and uncaring consumer culture. In the old days at the health club or gym, folks would engage in discourse and debate of current affairs issues etc. Now, most of the members of these clubs walk around with their ears plugged into some electronic gadget, oblivious to anyone there. Isn’t progress great? One could only imagine how George Orwell would comment if he were around today in Amerika. Just remember not to fall deep asleep at night.

*

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 A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn, NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his work posted on sites like Global Research, Greanville Post, Off Guardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected].

On September 14, thousands of people participated in Turkish-backed demonstrations across the militant-held parts of the provinces of Idlib, Lattakia and Aleppo in northwestern Syria to protest against a potential fully-fledged offensive by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies as well as to show its support to the Turkish policy in the region. These events, which took place in more than two dozen towns and villages, were widely covered by the mainstream media as a show-case of the democracy and the resistance to the bloody Assad dictatorship.

However, they accidentally forgot to mention that the largest demonstrations took place under flags of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda), al-Qaeda and other similar radical groups, included chanting of sectarian slogans and mostly consisted of members of Idlib militant groups and persons linked to them. Multiple masked and armed militants were presented. The demonstration in Idlib city de-facto turned into the march of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

Demonstrators used various banners slamming the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance and even threatening Russia with terrorist attacks. For example, in Kafr Jales, the democratic activists raised a large banner with Mevlüt Mert Altıntaş – a Turkish terrorist, who killed Russia’s ambassador to Turkey Andrei Karlov in 2016. With such people we will win … The Turks are our brothers,” the banner’s text said.

It is interesting to note that a day ahead of the demonstrations, on September 13, Huthaifa Azzam, a son of Al-Qaeda co-founder Abdullah Azzam, called on members of militant groups to avoid using radical flags because the international media may mention them in its coverage.

On September 15, the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) deployed six battle tanks, ten armoured vehicles and a command vehicle at its observation posts in Shir Maghar and Eshtabraq in the Idlib de-escalation zone. Previously, the TAF deployed battle tanks at its observation post in Murak.

Deployments of the TAF military equipment, the demonstrations, the angled coverage of the situation in the MSM and multiple claims by the US and its allies, that they will attack Syria if some chemical weapons incident is reported, are a part of the ongoing campaign aimed at preventing the SAA and its allies from delivering a final blow to the terrorists hiding in Idlib. In this very situation, Turkey and the US-led bloc share the goal to rescue Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and similar groups in order to keep alive the militarized opposition to the Damascus government in northwestern Syria.

On September 16, a spokesman for the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), officially announced that the YPG will not participate in the expected SAA operation in Idlib province. He added that the Kurdish group will continue carrying out attacks on Turkey-led forces in Afrin.

Reports about the possible YPG participate in the Idlib advance appeared earlier this year amid some rapprochement between the Kurdish political leadership and Damascus caused by a series of the YPG setbacks in the standoff against Turkey-led forces and repeated statements by US President Donald Trump that US forces will be withdrawn from Syria. Now, when it became clear that Trump’s statements are just statements, the YPG once again toughened its stance towards the Syrian government putting itself in a self-proclaimed vassal of the US in Syria.

On the other hand, Washington avoid declaring its open support to the YPG in the region in order to avoid further diplomatic escalation with Turkey. The US-led coalition prefers to use the brand of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an alleged alliance of various opposition groups, in fact dominated by the YPG, in reports on its ground operations in Syria.

Currently, the SDF is working to eliminate the ISIS-held pocket of Hajin on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. SDF units have captured a number of positions there, but a main part of the area remains in the hands of ISIS.

On September 16, fierce clashes appeared between the SAA and ISIS in the Deir Ezzor-Homs desert with the terrorist group attacking government positions in several points. Earlier, some pro-government sources claimed that the desert had been fully secured. These reports are untrue.

*

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


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order